United States Environmental Protection Agency
CBP/TRS 25/88
December 1988
Chesapeake Bay Basin wide
Toxics Reduction Strategy
*«*'•/
Appendices
P»~~
Chesapeake
^_ Ba^
Program
-------
APPENDICES
to the
CHESPEAKE BAY BASINWIDE TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
An Agreement Commitment Report from the
Chesapeake Executive Council
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Toxics Requirements under the 1987 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act
Signatory Appendices:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Virginia
District of Columbia
State of Maryland
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Toxics Research
Plan
-------
APPENDIX A
Toxics Requirements Under the
1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act
-------
State and Federal Toxics Identification
and Control Actions Required Under the
1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act
A. Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy identifies the
presence of harmful levels of toxic pollutants as a significant problem in the
Chesapeake Bay. This appendix to the Strategy describes three major
statutory requirements of the Clean Water Act which support the need for a
long-term strategy to deal with the identification, assessment, and control of
toxics in the Bay. The role of the Act requirements within the larger
strategy framework will be described.
The Clean Water Act was amended in 1987 by adding two sections dealing
with toxic pollutants, Sections 304(1) and 303(c)(2)(B). Section 304(1)
specifies specific deadlines to accelerate State action in controlling
certain toxic discharges to surface water where water quality is now impaired.
Section 303 (c)(2)(B) adds specific requirements for adoption of standards
under certain conditions for toxic pollutants. The Act was also amended to
include Section 319 which sets out requirements for development of nonpoint
source management plans by the states.
B. Statutory Requirements for Identifying Impaired Haters and Controlling
Toxics
Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act requires States to develop lists of
impaired surface waters, identify point sources and amounts of pollutants they
discharge that cause toxic impacts, and individual control strategies for each
such point source. These individual control strategies are designed to
achieve applicable water quality standards no later than June 1992.
Applicable water quality standards are those State standards that exist on
February 4, 1989 including both numeric criteria for Section 307(a) toxic
pollutants and narrative 'free from" standards. The general effect of this
new section is to focus national surface water quality protection programs
immediately on addressing known water quality problems due entirely or
substantially to point source discharges of Section 307(a) toxic pollutants.
The term 307(a) toxic pollutants refers to the list of 126 "priority*
pollutants listed in connection with Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act.
EPA'a water pollution control program has historically concentrated on the 126
priority pollutants as a subset of the 65 classes of compounds formally
published as a list by BPA as required by Section 307(a). This list of 126
pollutants has been the focus of both the national water quality criteria and
the national effluent guidelines development processes. The original list of
65 classes of compounds included thousands of individual chemicals.
C. Clou Water Act Listing
The States are currently developing the three lists required by the Act:
(i) A list of waters the State does not expect to achieve numeric water
quality standards for Section 307(a) toxic pollutants after
-1-
-------
technology-based requirements have been met, due to either point or
nonpoint sources of pollution (the "long list");
(ii) a comprehensive list of waters impaired by point source discharges
of toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants (the
•short list"); and
(iii) a list of waters the State does not expect will achieve "applicable
standards" after technology-based requirements have been met, due
entirely or substantially to point source discharges of Section
307(a) pollutants (the "mini list").
For each stream segment or waterbody listed by the States in (iii), each
State is required to identify the specific point sources discharging any
Section 307(a) toxic pollutant and the amount of each such pollutant
discharged. All of the signatory states submitted draft lists to EPA in April
1988. The final lists are due to the Region III office by February 4, 1989.
EPA issued final guidance on executing this statutory requirement in March
1988.
D. Individual Control Strategies
For each stream segment or waterbody on list (iii) above (specifically
Section 304(1)(B) of the Clean Hater Act), the States are also required to
develop individual control strategies by February 4, 1589, to reduce the
discharge of toxic pollutants from each identified point source. Individual
control strategies are defined as NPDES permits with effluent limits and
schedules for meeting these limits that assure, in combination with existing
nonpoint source controls, the attainment and maintenance of applicable water
quality standards for toxic pollutants and toxicity. Applicable water quality
standards in existence on February 4, 1989, must be achieved in the listed
waters no later than June 4, 1992.
Section 304(1) requires that individual control strategies be established
in accordance with Section 402 of the Clean Hater Act. This is the provision
establishing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program. Because water quality impairment due to toxicity may be
present in stream segments or waterbodies other than those that must be listed
under Section 304(1)(B), EPA is requiring States to develop water quality-
based permit limits for any stream segment or waterbody that is not achieving
applicable water quality standards due to any pollutant that causes toxic
effects, not simply the Section 307(a) toxic pollutants.
B. EPA 1
EPA Region III must approve the lists of waters and individual control
strategies within 120 days after the February 4, 1989 deadline. If either are
disapproved by EPA, then EPA must develop the lists or controls within one
year, or by June 4, 1993. Within the 120 day review period, EPA should
provide the States and the public with the opportunity to respond to any
deficiencies which would cause a list of individual control strategy to be
disapproved. States should also provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on the lists before submittal to EPA.
-2-
-------
F. Relationship to Other Programs
A3 described in Appendix B of the Toxics Reduction Strategy, the
signatory states are actively undertaking the necessary actions mandated by
this new requirement. The amendments to the Act specifically address
pollutants listed under Section 307(a). Other existing statutes of the Clean
Hater Act require that all known toxics problems (due to any pollutant) be
controlled as soon as possible, giving the same priority to controls for non-
Section 307(a) pollutants as to controls where only Section 307(a) pollutants
are involved.
The Clean Hater Act provides broad statutory authorities in Sections 301,
303, 304, 306, 307, 401, and 402, which have long mandated that programs be
implemented to control the discharge of pollutants to surface waters. Under
these sections of the Act, the States and EPA are required to develop and
implement both technology-based and water quality-based controls of
conventional, non-conventional, and Section 307 (a) toxic pollutants for point
source dischargers. Through the use of technology-based effluent guidelines,
State water quality standards, and the NPDES permitting process, significant
reductions of pollutant loadings to the nation's receiving waters have been
achieved.
The time frame for achieving Section 304(1)requirements and the Toxics
Reduction Strategy's emphasis on near term control and reduction of toxics
requires the States and EPA to address problems identified through review of
existing and readily available data on toxics. However, as indicated
throughout the Toxic Reduction Strategy, States and EPA must continue to
collect new toxics data as an ongoing obligation to assure that changes in
water and sediment quality are identified and any important data gaps in
existing data are filled to provide a reasonable basis for identifying,
assessing/ and controlling other sources of toxics impacting the Chesapeake
Bay.
6. Clean latex Act Requirements for Toxics Standards Adoption
Within a rather broad framework established by EPA, States develop their
own system of use classifications and choose what pollutants and at what
levels are to be included in the State water quality standards rules. A
significant change in the optional nature of this program occurred with the
passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987. This Act amended the Clean Hater
Act by adding a new Section 303(c) (2) (B) which directed, for the first time,
States to adopt standards for certain pollutants listed as toxic under Section
307(a) of the Act. At this time there are 126 pollutants listed. EPA has
published criteria recommendations for 25 pollutants for the protection of
aquatic life and 109 for the protection of human health. Specifically, States
'...shall adopt criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to
section 307(a)(1) of this Act for which criteria have been published
under section 304(a), the discharge or presence of which in the
affected water could reasonably be expected to interfere with those
designated uses adopted by the State, as necessary to support such
designated uses. Such criteria shall be specific numerical criteria
for such toxic pollutants, where such numerical criteria are not
available, whenever a State reviews water quality standards... or
-3-
-------
revises or adopts new standards pursuant to this paragraph, such
State shall adopt criteria based on biological monitoring or
assessment methods consistent with information published pursuant
to section 304 (a) (8)."
To carry out these requirements, whenever a State revises its water
quality standards, it must review all available information and data to first
determine whether the discharge or the presence of a toxic pollutant is
interfering with the use. The state must then adopt a numeric limit for the
specific pollutant. A State may be unsure whether a toxic pollutant is
interfering with, or is not likely to interfere with the designated use and
therefore is unsure that control of the pollutant is necessary to support the
designated use. In these circumstances, the State should undertake the
necessary efforts to develop sufficient information upon which to make such a
determination. Presence of facilities that manufacture or use the Section
307 (a) toxic pollutants or other information indicating that such pollutants
are discharged strongly suggest that such pollutants could be interfering with
attaining uses. In order to determine whether waters are attaining designated
uses, and to develop total maximum daily loads, wasteload allocations, and
NPDES permits to meet applicable water quality standards, a State must also
consider pollution from nonpoint sources since both point and nonpoint sources
may contribute to exceedences of water quality standards. EPA issued final
guidance on executing this statutory requirement in December 1988.
Unlike some other requirements added to the Clean Hater Act by the
amendments of 1987, this directive to the States to adopt standards for
section 307 (a) toxic pollutants is a continuing requirement, not a one-time
effort. It ia also an indication of Congressional concern with the national
progress towards the identification, assessment and control of toxic
pollutants.
One major action required by the amendments of the Clean Hater t.^t in
1987 involves developing individual control strategies for point sources
identified aa causing exceedences of water quality standards. Developing such
control strategies ia done but once and then the requirements of the Act have
been net. However, the requirement to ascertain if toxics are interfering
with designated uaea and adoption of standards where necessary is continuous
and ia not fulfilled by one action on the part of a State.
Thia statutory requirement provides a strong base for the implementation
of the Toxics Reduction Strategy for the Chesapeake Bay basin. The Strategy
identifies certain base information for short term actions and details plans
and informational needs to deal with future toxics problems. As such, the
Toxics Redaction Strategy clearly supports the Act by incorporating statutory
requirements as the foundation for the strategy. Although the amendments to
the Act reference Section 307(a) toxic pollutants, the existing provisions of
the law allow the States to adopt standards for any pollutants the State deems
necessary, including other toxic pollutants not on the Section 307(a) list.
B. Section 319 State •onpolnt Sooxee Management Plans Requirements
State Monpoint Source Management Plans developed in compliance with
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, identify statewide management programs
designed to quantify, control and limit the effects of nonpoint source
-------
pollution on the attainment of water quality goals. These plans provide some
identification of annual reportable units with which progress towards the
achievement of identified goals can be measured. The Toxics Reduction
Strategy components focused on nonpoint source controls and the Toxics Loading
Inventory should incorporate information found in these plans and the programs
they reference.
I. Future Actions
The development of the lists is expected to be an ongoing activity as
States continually collect and analyze new information and additional toxics
problems for identification in the State 305(b) reports. The specific
requirement to develop individual control strategies is a one-time action.
In the future, the normal process of revising water quality standards and
issuing or revising NPDES permits will establish controls necessary to address
point source toxics problems.
Section 304(1) references water quality standards in existence on
February 4, 1989. EPA is interpreting the term applicable standards to mean
both numeric criteria for the Section 307(a) toxic pollutants and narrative
•free from toxicity" standards. While all the signatory States have the
narrative free from standard, the coverage of numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants varies significantly. A limited number of numeric toxics currently
in a State's standards likely will have several impacts. First, the initial
304(1)(B) list may be rather short. Second, the State will be required to
interpret its narrative 'free from tozicity" standard as to how that standard
is to be applied to NPDES permits and to decide if it is being violated in a
waterbody for purposes of the 304(1) listing requirements. For the longer
term, with the amendment of the Clean Water Act to include section
303(c)(2)(B) a State will need to adopt a formal procedure for translating
its narrative standard into numeric limits.
-5-
-------
APPENDIX B
Signatory Appendices:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Virginia
District of Columbia
State of Maryland
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
SUMMARY OP TOXICS PROGRAMS
IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN
-------
A. Toxic Problem Areas (Section 304(1) list)
Section 304(1)(1), Paragraph (A)(i) of the Clean Water Act (as amended, 1987) requires
a list of waters for which a State does not expect to achieve water quality standards
for Section 307(a) toxic pollutants after the requirements of applicable technology-
based standards have been met due to either point or nonpoint sources of pollution.
The following tables list the river and stream segments within the Chesapeake Bay
drainage reported as degraded by toxic pollutants. The lists were compiled utilizing
the Water Quality Assessment Summaries input to the computerized Assessment
Database. The lists only include identified problems reported for input to the
database. Other toxics problems may not have been reported and some segments with
toxics problems may not have been assessed as yet.
Entries from the Assessment Database were retrieved using all of the pollutant codes
for toxics. The codes used were:
CODES DEFINITION
METALS HEAVY METALS
METALS HWC* HUMAN HEALTH - METALS IN WATER COLUMN
METALS HFT** HUMAN HEALTH - METALS IN FISH TISSUE
PEST/HERB PESTICIDES OR HERBICIDES
PEST HWC* HUMAN HEALTH - PESTICIDES OR HERBICIDES
IN FISH TISSUE
OTHER ORG OTHER ORGANICS
ORG HWC* HUMAN HEALTH - ORGANICS IN WATER
COLUMN
ORG HFT** HUMAN HEALTH - ORGANICS IN FISH TISSUE
PH-METALS COMBINED PH-METALS PROBLEM
•Used when levels exceed Safe Drinking Water Act levels or otherwise may endanger public
health. This includes all streams including those without public water supply intakes.
**Used when levels in fish tissue exceed FDA Action Levels, when a fish consumption
advisory has been issued, or when levels may endanger public health.
-------
As can be seen from the pollutant codes, the assessments considered human health
impacts in addition to fish and aquatic life uses.
These lists do not fully comply with the Section 304(1) requirements because the lists
are not limited to segments which will not support uses after the implementation of
technology-based controls. The records from the Assessment Database are the result
of monitoring and are based on actual field data. These records do not take into
account technology-based limitations. For this reason, the lists in this section contain
the stream segments known (monitored) to be impacted by toxic pollutants. The issue
of technology-based versus water quality-based effluent limitations will be examined
on a case-by-case basis as these problems are addressed during the permitting process.
Tables 1 and 2 present the stream segments impacted by toxic pollutants within the
Chesapeake Bay drainage include the stream name, the segment location, the miles
affected, and the causes and pollutants responsible for the reported degradation. The
lists are tabulated on a watershed basis, that is, grouped by State Water Plan (SWP)
subbasin (Figure 1). It is possible that all toxics impacts have not been reported in the
form of Water Quality Assessment Summaries.
Two lists were prepared in order to separate the impacts of abandoned mine drainage
from toxics impacts due to other causes. Degradation due to abandoned mine drainage
is a major problem in the Commonwealth. Table 1 lists the stream segments affected
by heavy metals introduced by mine drainage. Table 2 presents the list of reported
toxics problems caused by other sources.
As part of its effort to comply with the Section 304(1) requirements, the Department is
conducting a series of Total Maximum Daily Load/Waste Load Allocation (TMDL/WLA)
screenings. The screenings are being conducted on a watershed basis, and are designed
tot
Inventory readily available information on the nature and extent of toxics
discharges from Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW's) and industrial
discharges;
-------
Evaluate the impact that these discharges are having or may have on the
receiving water body;
Determine the parameters of concern associated with each discharge that may
require Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBEL's); and
Determine where potential discharge interactions may require additional field
data collection and multiple discharge wasteload allocations.
The TMDL/WLA screening procedure used by DER is simple and straightforward. For
each watershed where a screening is conducted, readily available information on the
nature and extent of toxic discharges from industrial and municipal facilities is
collected from DER files. This information is supplemented by the collection of
additional toxics discharge information for selected discharges (mainly POTWs) where
existing information is not available or is believed to be incomplete. These data,
together with information on receiving stream design flow characteristics, is then used
in a conservative, steady state mass balance model to determine where potential
water quality violations may exist after the application of technology-based effluent
limitations.^) The results of the analysis are displayed in qualitative form, indicating
the water quality criteria that are or may be violated, the location and the number of
stream miles affected, and the discharge(s) that is contributing to the potential
violation.
There is potential concern for toxics in any waters with industrial, municipal,
nonmunicipal* or nonpoint source discharges. The only waters with less concern are
those designated for Special Protection (except those that may be misclassified). We
will not know which waters are a potential concern until we complete the screenings.
(l)por many toxic paramters, no minimum technology-based effluent limitations have been
established. In such cases, a base line of existing discharge concentration was used in the
analysis.
-------
FIGURE 1
STATE WATER PUN SUBBASINS
WHICH DRAIN INTO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
-------
TABLE 1
STREAM SEGMENTS REPORTED AS IMPACTED BY TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DUE TO MINE DRAINAGE
(Metals or pH-Metals Listed as the Pollutant)
(All but one are Monitored Segments)
SWP
Sub-
basin
4-A
4-A
4-C
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-D
5-E
S-E
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-C
6-C
7-D
7-0
8-A
8-A
8-A
8-8
8-8
8-8
8-B
8-8
8-B
8-C
8-C
8-C
8-C
8-C
Stream
Code
30990
31443
30337
6685
28343
28348
28352
28109
6685
27529
17556
17556
18489
16895
17208
9361
10079
24008
24508
25222
26623
26623
26657
27032
27100
25924
2S978
26030
26041
26082
26107
Stream Name
Tioga River
ohmon Creek
Schrader Creek
TOTAL
Susquehanna River
Newport Creek
Nanticoke Creek
Solomon Creek
Black Creek
Susquehanna River
Catawissa Creek
TOTAL
Mahanoy Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Shamokin Creek
Wiconisco Creek
Pine Creek
TOTAL
Swatara Creek
Good Spring Creek
TOTAL
Sinnemahoning Creek
Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek
West Creek
Montgomery Creek (UNT)
Montgomery Creek
Anderson Creek
Bear Run
Cush Creek
Alder Run
Deer Creek
Surveyor Run
Trout Run
Lick Run
dearfield Creek
River Mile
Location
Upstr.
56.0
3.4
23.5
197.0
4.8
3.6
1.8
14.3
181.9
18.0
53.5
26.1
34.7
27.0
12.7
73.1
6.0
16.0
44.0
16.0
1.7
3.8
13.0
8.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
4.0
13.8
6.0
70.9
Dnstr.
13.0
0.0
0.0
181.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
123.7
0.0
26.1
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
51.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miles
Degraded
36.2
3.4
6.5
46.1
6.6
4.8
36
1.5
2.8
8.0
18.0
45.3
9.6
26.1
34.7
21.0
12.7
104.1
21.5
6.0
27.5
16.0
35.0
3.0
1.7
1.9
10.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
70.9
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
STREAM SEGMENTS REPORTED AS IMPACTED BY TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DUE TO MINE DRAINAGE
(Metals or pH-Metals Listed as the Pollutant)
(All but one are Monitored Segments)
SWP
Sub-
basin
8-0
3-D
8-0
8-0
3-0
8-D
3-D
8-D
9-A
9-8
9-8
9-B
9-B
9-B
9-B
9-B
9-C
10-8
11-A
11-A
11-A
11-A
Stream
Code
18668
18668
25570
25626
25695
25703
25831
25853
21681
18668
23332
23620
23621
23625
23661
23988
22596
19804
16317
16416
16423
16428
Stream Name
West Branch Susquehanna River
West Branch Susquehanna River
Loop Run
Mosquito Creek
Moshannon Creek
Black Moshannon Creek
Cold Stream
Laurel Run
TOTAL
Babb Creek
West Branch Susquehanna River
Tangascootack Creek
Drury Run
Stony Run
Woodley Draft Run
Kettle Creek
Cooks Run
8e«ch Creek
TOTAL
Loyal sock Creek
TOTAL
Beaver Branch
Burgoon Run
Kittanning Run
Glenwhite Run
TOTAL
River Mile
Location
Upstr.
207.0
242.2
3.3
21.1
55.6
14.0
13.0
4.0
21.5
116.8
9.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
46.5
11.0
35.1
25.0
8.5
3.4
4.2
3.2
Dnstr.
176.4
208.3
o.o-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miles
Degraded
19.6
18.9
1.3
3.0
52.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
277.3
14.0
61.8
9.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
11.0
35.1
138.9
25.0
25.0
4.5
3.4
4.2
3.2
15.3
-------
TABLE 2
STREAM SEGMENTS REPORTED AS IMPACTED BY TOXIC POLLUTANTS
(Toxics Problems Caused by Mining are Excluded from this Table)
(All Are Monitored Segments)
SWP
Sub-
basin
5-E
7-B
7-D
7-E
7-E
7-G
7-H
7-H
9-B
9-C
13-C
Stream
Code
6685
10261
9691
63202
63203
7879
8032
8213
23626
22966
S9298
Stream Name
Susquehanna River
Letort Spring Run
Quittapahilla Creek
Cold Spring Run
Spruce Run
Shawnee Run
Codorus Creek
Oil Creek
Sandy Run
Spring Creek
Red Run
River Mile
Location
Upstr.
181.9
6.8
16.5
2.0
4.0
7.5
338
68
1.0
15.2
1.2
Dnstr.
123.7
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
Cause
Other NPS
Industrial
Industrial
Other NPS
Other NPS
Industrial
Industrial
Other NPS
Industrial
Undeterm
Industrial
Agric
Pollutant
Pest HFT
TOTAL
Org HWC
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Org HWC
Metals
Metals
TOTAL
Metals
Pest HFT
TOTAL
Pest/Herb
TOTAL
Miles
Degraded
2.0
2.0
0.2
3.8
1.0
2.0
0.7
20.3
4.0
0.5
32.5
0.5
15.2
15.7
1.1
1.1
-------
State Water Plan Subbasin Descriptions:
Subbasin 4 - Upper Susquehanna River
Heavy metais from abandoned anthracite coal mining areas were the only toxics reported in
the Upper Susquehanna River basin. These sources impacted 46.1 miles. The major reported
problem area was the Tioga River (36.2 miles).
Subbasin 5 - Upper Central Susquehanna River
Abandoned anthracite coal mining drainage was responsible for heavy metals loading which
degraded 45.3 stream miles in Subbasin 5. The largest reported problem was on the upper
18 miles of Catawissa Creek. A total of 14.6 miles of the Susquehanna River was also
impacted by abandoned mine drainage.
Two miles of the Susquehanna River near Hunlock Creek were reported as impacted due to
fish tissue contamination. PCB's in quillback carpsucker fillets equaled the FDA Action
Level of 2.0 ppm in a 1984 sample. White sucker fillets collected in 1985 as a folow-up
contained only 0.15 ppm.
Subbasin 6 - Lower Central Susquehanna River
Drainage from abandoned anthracite coal mining was reported as degrading 104.1 stream
miles in Subbasin 6. Heavy metals* usually in combination with low pH, impacted Mahanoy
Creek (35.7 miles), Shamokin Creek (34.7 miles), Wiconisco Creek (21 miles), and Pine Creek
(12.7 miles). No other toxics problems were reported.
Subbasin 7 - Lower Susquehanna River
A total of 60 miles were reported as impacted by toxics in the Lower Susquehanna River
basin. Of these, 27.5 miles in the upper Swatara Creek watershed were degraded by
abandoned anthracite mine drainage.
The remaining 32.5 stream miles were affected by other sources. The major toxics problems
were reported on Codorus Creek* York County. Chloroform and phenols exceeded drinking
water standards for 20 miles downstream from the Borough of Spring Grove. In addition,
-------
metals introduced through urban and industrial runoff were a problem in the city of York
(4 miles).
Two streams were reported as impacted by acid precipitation. Cold Spring Run and Spruce
Run are impacted by metals due to acid precipitation.
Subbasin 8 - Upper West Branch Susquehanna River
The toxics impacts in the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River subbasin were due to heavy
metals associated with abandoned anthracite mine drainage. Reports of degradation totaled
277.3 miles (1.3 miles were attributed to active mining). The major problems were:
Clearfield Creek (70.9 miles); Moshannon Creek (52 miles); the West Branch Susquehanna
River (38.5 miles); the Bennet Branch Sinnemahoning Creek (35 miles); Sinnemahoning Creek
(16 miles); Anderson Creek (10 miles); and Deer Creek (10 miles).
Subbasin 9 - Central West Branch Susquehanna River
A total of 1S4.6 stream miles were reported as affected by toxics in the Central West
Branch Susquehanna subbasin. Metals from abandoned anthracite mine drainage were cited
as the responsible pollutants in 138.9 miles (89.8%). The major problem areas were: the
West Branch Susquehanna (61.8 miles); Beech Creek (35.1 miles); Babb Creek (14 miles); and
Cooks Run (11 miles).
The other reported toxics problems included metals of undetermined origin on Sandy Run
(0.5 mile) and fish tissue contamination on Spring Creek (15.2 miles). A section of Spring
Creek is closed to the killing of fish due to kepone and mirex contamination.
Subbasin 10 - Lower West Branch Susquehanna River
Abandoned anthracite mine drainage was responsible for degrading 25 miles of stream in
Subbasin 10. This degradation was reported on the headwaters of Loyalsock Creek.
Subbasin 11 - Upper Juniata River
Metals from acid mine drainage was the only toxics problem reported in the Upper Juniata
River subbasin. A total of 15.3 miles were reported as impacted. The streams impacted
-------
were the Beaverdam Branch Juniata Rvier (4.5 miles), Burgeon Run (3.4 miles), Kittanning
Run (4.2 miles), and Glenwhite Run (3.2 miles).
Subbasin 12 - Potomac River
A 1.1 mile segment of Red Run has been affected by pesticide misapplication. A fish kill
and a severe impact on the benthic community resulted. The stream is expected to recover
with time.
Point Source Toxics Problems:
Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act also requires a list of toxics problems due to point
source discharges. Paragraph (B) requires a list of waters for which a state does not expect
applicable water quality standards to be achieved after the requirements of applicable
technology-based standards are met due entirely or substantially to the point source
discharge of Section 307(a) toxic pollutants.
Table 3 presents a listing of streams or stream segments reported as affected by toxic
pollutants introduced by point source discharges. As discussed previously, the list was
developed using the Assessment Database (AO). The AD cause codes used to delineate point
sources were Municipal, Industrial, and Other Point Sources. The list does not include toxics
due to abandoned mine drainage. These discharges, even if from a tunnel or borehole, were
considered to be nonpoint sources because of the lack of a responsible party and the inability
to control them through the permitting process. The constraints discussed in the preceding
sections also apply to the point source toxics list. The monitoring entries in the AD does not
include technology-based standards. For this reason, Table 3 can only be construed as a list
of problems reported as caused by point source discharges of toxic pollutants, and it does
not fully comply with the Section 304(1) requirements. This list is essentially a subset of the
one presented in Table 2.
-------
TABLE 3
STREAM SEGMENTS REPORTED AS IMPACTED BY POINT SOURCES OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
(Ail Are Monitored Segments)
SWP
Sub-
basin
7-8
7-0
7-G
7-H
7-H
9-C
Stream
Code
10261
9691
7879
8032
8213
22966
Stream Name
Letort Spring Run
Quittapahilla Creek
Shawnee Run
Codorus Creek
Oil Creek
Spring Creek
River Mile
Location
Upstr.
6.8
16.5
7.5
33.8
6.8
15.2
Dnstr.
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
Cause
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Pollutant
Org HWC
Metals
Metals
Org HWC
Metals
TOTAL
Pest HFT
TOTAL
Miles
Degraded
0.2
3.8
0.7
20.3
0.5
25.5
152
15.2
Subbasin Water Plan Subbasin Descriptions:
Subbasin 7 - Lower Susquehanna River
A total of 25.5 stream miles were reported as being affected by point source discharges of
toxic pollutants in the Lower Susquehanna River sub basin. The largest problem reported
affected 20.3 miles on Codorus Creek, from Spring Grove to the mouth. Chloroform and
phenols introduced by an industrial source adversely impact the entire reach. Levels of
these pollutants exceed public drinking water criteria.
Most of the other reported problems affect less than one mile of stream. One, however,
impacts a larger area. Residual oil and metals in the substrate of Quittapahilla Creek due
to past industrial discharges continue to impact uses in a 3.8 mile segment.
Subbasin 9 - Central West Branch Susquehanna River
A 13.2 mile segment of Spring Creek was reported as impacted by an industrial source. The
problem Is kepone and mirex contamination of fish tissue. A portion of the stream is closed
to the killing fish due to this contamination.
-------
B. Point Source Programs
Pennsylvania does not have a specific toxic strategy for the Chesapeake Bay basin.
However, the Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality
Management addresses toxics statewide through a variety of programs which are
discussed below. These programs can be used in the development of Individual Control
Strategies (ICS's).
The Bureau of Water Quality Management will be using a Water Quality Assessment
Process to develop Individual Control Strategies (ICS's) in response to Section 304(1) of
the Clean Water Act. The process starts with the selection and ranking of Priority
Water Bodies for program actions. The 304(1) lists are developed from the list of
Priority Water Bodies. A Total Maximum Daily Load/Waste Load Allocation
(TMDL/WLA) screening of the 304(1) point source list is conducted to identify specific
toxic parameters of concern and the scope of field data collection that is needed.
Based on these screenings, water body surveys are conducted for the substances of
concern. This information is used to perform a detailed analysis and water quality-
based multiple discharge waste load allocations. The waste load allocations are then
translated into effluent limitations for NPDES permits and the ICS's.
Toxics Management Through the NPDES Program (Pennsylvania's Toxics Management Program)
The control of toxic pollutants is mandated on the federal level by the Clean Water
Act of 1977 which states in the declaration of goals and policy, Section 101(A)(3) that
"...it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be
prohibited.."
...
On the state level, the control of toxics is mandated by the Pennsylvania Clean
Streams Law where in Section 1 pollution is defined as "...contamination of any waters
of the Commonwealth such as will create or is likely to create a nuisance or render
such waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health, safety, or welfare to
domestic* municipal commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other
legitimate beneficial uses...".
-------
The Department of Environmental Resources regulations toxics through Chapter 93
Water Quality Standards following sections:
25 PA Code Section 93.6 General Water Quality Criteria "(A) Water shall not
contain substances attributable to point or nonpoint source waste discharges in
concentrations or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses
to be protected or to human, animal, plant or aquatic life. (B) Specific
substances to be controlled shall include, but shall not be limited to, floating
debris, oil, grease, scum and other floating materials, toxic substances,
pesticides, chlorinated hydrocarbons, carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic
materials, and substances which produce color, tastes, odors, turbidity, or settle
to form deposits.
25 PA Code Section 93.7(C) lists specific toxic substances to be controlled and
the criteria for each toxic substance (aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper,
cyanide, lead, iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc).
Section 93.7(f) then forms the basis for the Bureau of Water Quality
Management's Toxics Management Strategy. The strategy is a water quality
oriented approach in controlling the priority toxics which were identified by EPA
in response to the 1976 consent decree between the National Resources Defense
Council and the U.S. EPA, and to control other toxic pollutants. (Originally,
there were 129 priority pollutants identified by EPA; 3 of them have since been
deleted, 126 remain.) The Toxics Management Strategy involves a
comprehensive step-by-step process for evaluating toxic pollutants and
developing appropriate effluent limitations for such. It also contains the
majority of the information which is needed to process permits and applications
which are included as appendices to the document. Specific material contained
in the appendices are:
Appendix A - Occurrence of Priority Pollutants Observed by EPA
During BAT Screening and Verification Surveys
Appendix B - Treatability Considerations for Toxics Substances
Appendix D - Analytical Methods and Detection Limits
-------
Appendix E - Guidelines for Conducting a Toxics Reduction Evaluation
Appendix F - Transport and Fate of Priority Pollutants
Appendix G - Procedures and Guidance for Obtaining Extensions of
Time to Achieve Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations
Appendix H - Short Term Discharges of Toxics
The steps which are followed in the application of the strategy are as
follows:
Step 1 - Preliminary review considerations
Step 2 - Determination of pollutants of further interest
Step 3 - Development of water quality based limits and selection
of toxics to be limited in the permit
Step 4 - Establishment of NPDES permit terms and conditions for
control of toxic pollutants
Step 5 - Follow-up evaluation after initial permit issuance
Step 6 - Establishment of final permit requirements
A brief discussion of actions required for each of these steps is included in the
following paragraphs.
Step 1 - Preliminary Review Considerations
The purpose of this step is to become familiar with the various aspects of the facilities
and associated wastewater discharges for which the NPDES permit application has
been submitted. (NPDES permits are required for all wastewater discharges). This
allows for cleaning up any discrepancies in the application data and for focusing on
-------
initial pollutants of interest. Pertinent historical data is reviewed including
compliance status of the applicant.
Step 2 - Determine Pollutants of Further Interest
The purpose of this step is to compile a complete list of toxic pollutants of interest
based on sufficient knowledge of actual or potential pollutant presence in the
discharges in question. Pollutants of further interest would be identified by the
following screening process:
1. Priority pollutants which have BAT requirement - If a pollutant is required to be
regulated by an applicable BAT guidelined for the industry, the BAT limit on the
corresponding water quality-based limit (whichever is more stringent), must be
placed in a permit regardless of its presence or absence.
2. Non-BAT priority pollutants which the discharger must sample and analyze -
These pollutants will also be designated as pollutants of\further interest pending
evaluation of water quality-based limits in Step 3.
3. Other toxics identified by the applicant as being present in the discharge - There
are several places on the industrial NPDES application form where the applicant
may indicate that various toxic pollutants are expected to be present in the
discharge. Where the applicant identifies such pollutants as being routinely
present in the discharge, they shall be identified as pollutants of further interest.
4. Other toxics known or suspected by the permit writer to be present - Based upon
a working knowledge of the type of discharger in question, and the toxic
pollutants normally associated with the discharge, the permit writer should
designate any other toxics which would seem to be appropriate as pollutants of
further interest.
StepS - Development of Water-Quality Based Limits and Selection of Tories to be
Addressed In the Permit
The purpose of this step is to determine which toxic pollutants should be addressed in
the NPDES permit and in what manner they **ould be addressed. The information for
-------
developing the limits are contained in Appendix C of the "Toxics Management
Strategy." This appendix contains information on both the adopted criteria from
Chapter 93 of the Department's Rules and Regulations, EPA's instream criteria and
threshold levels, and the Bureau of Water Quality Management's recommended
criteria. These criteria are used to develop appropriate effluent limitation for the
discharger's NPDES permit.
Step 4 - Establishment of NPDES Permit Terms and Conditions for Control of Toxic Pollutants
The purpose of this step is to establish appropriate effluent limitations, monitoring and
reporting requirements, and other special conditions to be incorporated into the
NPDES permit, based on the results of Steps 1 through 3 which were discussed
previously. One of the special conditions which are considered during this step is a
Toxics Reduction Evaluation (TRE). Toxics Reduction Evaluations are used where it
appears that the water quality based requirements may not be able to be met with
known technology. This provides the discharger an opportunity to (1) study the
characteristics of his waste discharge; (2) to verify the actual extent of the toxic
pollutants associated with the wastewater, (3) to determine sources of these toxic
pollutants and (4) to recommend control and/or treatment technologies which may
reduce or eliminate the toxic pollutants. The Department has developed extensive
guidelines for conducting TRE which is included in Appendix E of the Toxics
Management Strategy.
Another special condition is procedures for granting of extensions of time to achieve
water quality-based effluent limitations. At the request of the permittee, the
Department may grant an extension of time to achieve the water quality-based
effluent limitations provided the permittee meets all eligibility requirements
contained in Sections 95.4 of the Department's Rules and Regulations.
A third special condition is procedures for demonstration of alternative site-specific
bioassay based instream water quality criteria. Where the water quality-based
effluent limitations for the pollutants listed in the permit have been developed for
protection of fish and aquatic life, the permittee may request an opportunity to
demonstrate alternative site-specific bioassay-based instream safe concentration
values for those pollutants. These procedures must be carried out in accordance with
the Rules and Regulations of the Department contained in Sections 93.8(D-E).
-------
A fourth condition is procedures for demonstrating alternative method detection
limits. The permittee in these cases may request an opportunity to demonstrate
alternative facility specific minimum detection limits to account for interfering
factors associated with the wastewaters in questions.
Step 5 - PoIIow-Up Evaluation after Initial Permit Issuance
The purpose of this step is to evaluate information submitted by permittees in
response to initial permit special conditions concerning water quality-based effluent
limitations and other requirements for management of toxic pollutants.
This is where the Department evaluates the information discussed in Step 4 which may
have been submitted by the permittees in response to permit requirements concerning
the toxics reduction evaluations, requests for time extensions, requests for alternative
site specific bioassay-based effluent limitations, and request for alternative method
detection limit determinations.
Step 6 - Establishment of final permit requirements
The purpose of this step is to reflect the results of the follow-up evaluations carried
out as discussed in Step 5 in the NPDES permit and related enforcement documents.
Based on evaluation of the toxics reduction evaluation and any related demonstrations,
the NPDES permit will be reopened and either modified or revoked and reissued to
reflect appropriate changes resulting from the above evaluations.
As is apparent from the proceeding discussions* the current toxics management
program in Pennsylvania is strictly a chemical-by-chemical approach. Applicable
water quality criteria are based on protection of the most sensitive use (i.e., aquatic
life or human health). However, proposed revisions to Pennsylvania's Water Quality
Standards (Chapter 93, Section 93.8a) provides a comprehensive toxic management
regulation which includes provisions for effluent toxicity testing. This will take into
account effects due to synergisms or effects due to unreported or unidentified
pollutants which may have slipped through the screening process. The Department has
been working with USEPA in developing an effluent toxicity testing program. It must
be remembered, however, that effluent toxicity testing will not replace or alleviate
the need for chemical-by-chemical permitting and monitoring. Effluent toxicity
-------
testing is a supplement to a chemical-by-chemical regulatory approach and not an
alternative. Effluent toxicity testing does not address human health concerns. Human
health concerns are usually the most critical concern for most toxics.
Biomonitoring;
Pennsylvania's parameter specific approach to limiting toxics in wastewater discharges
has proceeded without much emphasis on biomonitoring as a measure of toxicity.
Although biomonitoring is viewed as an important aspect of toxics management, its
exact role in our strategy is not defined. We have been working with EPA Region III to
establish a meaningful role for biomonitoring in our program. Presently, we are
proceeding with several test cases to evaluate biomonitoring's usefulness in
establishing site specific whole effluent toxicity. Interpretation of the results of these
tests and how the information may be used in future permit and enforcement actions
are unclear at this time. A major concern is that biomonitoring will not be useful in
evaluating the human health aspects of wastewater toxics.
Prctreatment Program;
The purpose of the Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program is to control the discharge
of toxic and hazardous wastes to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) by
regulating non-domestic users of sewer systems. These pollutants or unusually strong
conventional wastes* when introduced to POTWs can interfere with treatment plant
operation, can pass-through the plant into the environment, can contaminate
treatment plant sludge thereby preventing its reuse or reclamation, or can be
hazardous to treatment plant workers.
Pennsylvania carries out a delegated NPDES program; therefore, in accordance with
federal requirements, we are also obliged to carry out the pretreatment program.
DER has developed a draft proposal for program delegation and a package of
regulations was published as final rulemaking in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on
February 27,1988. We anticipate receiving program delegation during 1989. Initial
statewide program costs are estimated to be $300,000 in FY 88-89 and could increase
to $1,000,000 per year In succeeding years.
-------
Until delegation is accomplished, DER will continue to assist EPA in implementing the
pretreatment program in Pennsylvania and will address the toxics discharge problem as
part of its ongoing toxics management strategy, toxic reduction evaluation, process,
and wasteload management program. Of the 91 municipalities in Pennsylvania that
have been required to develop and implement local pretreatment programs, 38 are in
the Chesapeake Bay drainage and of these, 37 have approved programs and one is in
the process of developing a program.
After delegation is approved, DER will take over pretreatment compliance monitoring
and enforcement duties from EPA for the 91 local programs and the estimated
500 categorical industrial users of POTWs not having approved local programs. Full
implementation of the pretreatment program will result in a significant reduction in
the discharge of toxics to the environment from POTWs.
State Regulations and Policies for Toxics;
Toxics are currently controlled through Chapter 93.6, General Water Quality Criteria
in the Department's Water Quality Standards regulations and the Bureau's Toxic
Management Strategy which is a water quality-based approach to managing toxics. A
new comprehensive toxics regulation is proposed as Chapter 93.8a. of the
Department's regulations. Public hearings have been held and a final rulemaking
recommendation has been prepared. The Environmental Quality Board adopted the
regulation as final rulemaking at the November 1988 meeting. The regulation will
become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in February 1989.
Water Quality Standards are the in-stream quality objectives which are translated into
NPDES water quality-based effluent limitations. Implementation methods under
development and the new toxics regulation will improve the technical basis of future
effluent limitations and strengthen the legal basis of Pennsylvania's program.
Toxic Aaaesament and Monitoring;
Cause-effect surveys are conducted on an on-going basis by the Bureau's Regional
Offices to determine the water quality impact of toxics as well as other wastewater
discharges. The surveys are conducted based on Regional Office priorities for
enforcement and permitting actions. The information along with other purpose
-------
surveys conducted by the Bureau as well as other agencies is used to prepare
assessment summaries for input to the Bureau's Assessment Database. The database is
used to prepare assessments of water quality on an area and statewide basis and to
select and rank Priority Water Bodies. Priority water body surveys are conducted by
central office as well as Regional office staff to determine the impact of toxics on
fish and aquatic life. These surveys are also designed to serve as the basis for more
detailed analysis of a watershed in order to develop wasteload allocations for multiple
discharge situations.
The Bureau's fixed station ambient monitoring Water Quality Network (WQN) system
contains 167 stations statewide (73 in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage basin) which is
designed to monitor the trends in water quality. The analysis includes heavy metals
and an annuual collection of fish tissue to determine whether contamination has
occurred from toxic substances.
C. Nonpoint Source Programs
Pennsylvania is concerned with nonpoint source pollution statewide, and particularly in
the Chesapeake Bay drainage. The Nutrient Control Strategy, which has already been
drafted for the overall Bay program addresses some control of toxics. Through the
control of erosion and sediment pollution, pesticides which adhere to the fine sediment
particles, are also controlled.
Pennsylvania does not have a special nonpoint source toxic control program
specifically for the Bay, however, the following statewide programs which address
toxics obviously apply to the bay drainage.
Agricultural Pesticides:
Agriculture comprises a major portion of Pennsylvania's economy. The fertile soils,
climate, and a readily available water supply make conditions ideal for various types
of agricultural activities. As with any anthropogenic activity, there is a potential for
environmental degradation. The primary nonpoint source concerns associated with the
agricultural category are soil loss through erosion which results in increased sediment
loads in surface waters, nutrient management which when not implemented can result
in increased nutrient loads and nitrate contamination of surface and ground waters,
-------
and use of pesticides which when not applied as directed or even if applied as directed
may contaminate both surface and ground waters. The Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture deals with the usage control of pesticides.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PA)
The Department of Agriculture's involvement in controlling agricultural nonpoint
source pollution is through the Pesticide Program which developed as a result of
amendments to the Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act adopted in 1987. The
program requires the licensing of ail pesticide applicators whether they be
commercial, private and public. Commercial and public applicators must be
licensed no matter what pesticide is used. Private applicators, such as farmers,
must only be licensed if they apply "restrictive use" pesticides. Approximately
25,000 private applicators, of which most are farmers, are now licensed.
Licensing is accomplished through a state examination. All prospective
candidates are given educational material supplied by Penn State University's
Cooperative Extension Service. The examination insures that the candidate has
the required knowledge for the proper use of pesticides in conformance with
label requirements. Once licensed, the applicant must comply with pesticide
label requirements, state law, and take updated training every 3 years as
mandated by the Department. Failure to meet any of these requirements may
result in the revocation of the license. Enforcement is carried out by PA field
staff through "spot checks" and complaint investigations.
PA is promoting an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program as part of its
administration of the Pesticide Act. The Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act
mandated IPM education to pesticide applicators. The program is designed to
encourage the development and implementation of Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) and nutrient management on farms in Pennsylvania. IPM is a program
which emphasizes pest prevention and offers possibilities for improving the
efficiency of pest control while reducing potential adverse environmental
impact. IPM techniques allow farmers to minimize the use of chemical
pesticides by substituting alternative techniques and technologies without having
to compromise on controlling pest levels and losses. Participating growers
benefit by achieving acceptable pest control at reduced chemical pesticide costs.
-------
IPM also will contain a nutrient component which will require the assessment of
need for additional nutrients to produce a specific crop before application of
that nutrient.
Plans for the development of the new IPM Program include providing financial
incentives for farmers to adopt practices that minimize the use of pesticides and
fertilizers, and to support the development of IPM technology required for
today's agricultural production.
Implementation of the program will be accelerated by working through groups
like Cooperative Extension, USDA, Penn State University, consulting firms,
private non-profit groups such as Crop Management Associations, and in sme
instances, directly with farmers.
PA is also working with several DER bureaus to develop an Agricultural
Chemical Ground Water Protection Program. This program is in the very
preliminary stages but is likely to involve vulnerability studies, usage surveys,
and development of strategies and control programs. The program is tied to the
U.S. EPA's draft strategy for controlling pesticide impacts on ground water. The
strategy proposes a program based on existing authorities of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOW A), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). The program would function primarily through use of
labeling restrictions, user registration, ground water monitoring, and
enforcement actions. The strategy calls for strong state involvement in
managing localized use and corrective action.
Runoffs
Pennsylvania's population continues to grow and with that growth comes new
construction of homes, businesses, shopping areas, and roads. Because of this, the
potential for surface water degradation from urban/suburban runoff is of significant
concern. The quality and content of urban runoff can vary significantly depending on
the type of land use. For example, runoff from residential housing developments, golf
course, and parks may contain high nutrient levels due to fertilization of grassy areas,
-------
pesticides, and herbicides, and fecal bacteria due to surface malfunctions from on-lot
sewage disposal systems. Runoff from paved areas and industrial sites may contain a
host of metals, inorganic and organic compounds, as well as petroleum products.
Results from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) indicate that metals and
inorganics from urban runoff pose the greatest potential for long-term impacts on
aquatic life.
Water quantity is also of concern. As the percentage of paved areas increases, a
higher volume of runoff will occur. Extreme fluctuations in surface water flow from
episodic storm events may occur causing localized flooding. In addition these
fluctuations increase erosion of unstable stream banks and stream bed scour resulting
in reduction of aquatic habitat.
The Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management administers Pennsylvania's storm
water management program mandated by the Storm Water Management Act, 32 P.S.
680.1 et seq. The Act requires counties to prepare watershed storm water
management plans for designated watersheds. The plans consider hydrologic and
hydraulic effects of changes in land use and their impacts on receiving streams both
quantitatively and qualitatively. Nonpoint source pollution identification is one of the
components required in a plan. The specific issues addressed are: a.) identification of
critical NFS sub-watersheds based on annual loadings; b.) estimation of annual
pollutant loadings under existing and future land use conditions; c.) application of
water quality modeling techniques to derive standards and criteria for use by
municipalities; d.) identification of Best Management Practies (BMPs) applicable to
the watershed, e.) evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs.
The counties are required to prepare watershed plans to derive standards and criteria
for the water quality controls associated with nonpoint source polluton. The
applicable BMPs are recommended within those plans which are unique to the
watersheds. These water quality issues and associated BMPs are generally addressed
when the counties identify specific needs. The standards and criteria are implemented
by local municipalities through adoption of codes and ordinances. If local governments
desire, they may undertake construction projects to minimize water quality
degradation of the receiving streams as recommended within the plan. BMPs
commonly used by local municipalities are those described in the 1987 publication by
the Washington* D.C. Council of Governments entitled "Controlling Urban Runoff."
-------
The Bureau administers a grant program in accordance with the Storm Water
Management Act, 32 P.S. 680.1 et se(j., for county preparation of Storm Water
Management Plans for designated watersheds. Pensylvania is divided into
353 watersheds, many of which overlap into the surrounding states of New York, Ohio,
West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The storm water management plans
emphasize the management of surface waters such that developments or activities in
municipalities within a watershed do not adversely affect the health, safety, and
property in that municipality or affect the health, safety, and property in other
municipalities or basins. The Bureau reviews and approves all watershed storm water
management plans and subsequent revisions.
Storm water management plans prepared by counties for developing watersheds may
involve water quality analysis based on concerns identified by the county or
Department. Such concerns may involve but are not limited to the eutrophication of
bodies of water, contamination of ground waters through recharge, and the protection
of aquatic life and habitat in high quality streams. Products of the water quality
analyses include the identification of nonpoint source water quality concerns and
recommended BMPs to reduce levels of pollution for various nonpoint source pollution
categories.
Hazardous Waste and Superfund Programs:
The identification of hazardous waste sites is one of Pennsylvania's top environmental
priorities. The Bureau of Waste Management requires permits for the land disposal
(landfilling) and land application of solid waste. The solid waste management
permitting program, authorized by Act 97, The Solid Waste Management Act of 1980,
is administered through the Bureau's six regional offices. The permitting program can
be separated into three major categories; municipal, hazardous and residual waste
management.
The municipal waste management regulations are identified in 25 Pa. Code,
Section 271.1 through 28S.222. The landfill permit application and design
requirements are detailed in Chapters 271 and 273, and the land application criteria
are identified in Chapters 271 and 275. The regulations specify that the operation of a
site may not cause or allow point or nonpoint source discharges of pollution from a
facility to the surface or ground waters of the Commonwealth. The landfill design and
-------
operational procedures are designed to facilitate this requirement. A double liner
system is required, with the exception of a single liner requirement for
construction/demolition waste landfills, and facility isolation distances from the
groundwater table and surface waters are specified in the regulations. The sites are
inspected prior to permit issuance, during facility construction, and during facility
operation. In addition, surface and groundwater monitored at all sites.
The municipal waste land application regulations specify surface and ground water
isolation distances, soil texture requirements, and conservative annual and lifetime
application rates. Erosion and sedimentation control plans are required for these
facilities as well as for all other solid waste management facilities.
The hazardous waste regulations are identified in 25 Pa. Code,
Sections 75.259 - 75.450 and parallel the municipal waste requirements, i.e., double
liner system, ground water monitoring, etc., to prevent nonpoint source discharges to
waters of the Commonwealth.
The residual waste regulations are identified in 25 Pa. Code, Section 75.1
through 75.38. The residual waste requirements allow for a single liner system or a
natural attenuation type system. Groundwater monitoring is required with either
design. The residual waste land application criteria are not identified but present
policy dictates the use of the municipal waste land application criteria until residual
waste land application regulations are developed. Revisions to the residual waste
regulations are presently being drafted and the revised requirements will likely
parallel those for municipal and hazardous waste.
All permit applications received by the Department are forwarded to the local
municipalities for review and comment. Any permit action taken by the Bureau is
published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Solid waste permits are not issued until such
time as adequate provisions for leachate management have been determined and all
necessary NPDES permits have been issued.
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
A. IDENTIFICATION OP KNOWN TOXIC PROBLEM AREA3
Through the various monitoring programs that are described later
in this Appendix the Commonwealth has identified a number of areas
within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have been impacted, or are
potentially impacted, by toxic pollutants. These areas are described
in extensive detail in reports prepared by Virginia's natural
resource agencies.
The major reporting responsibilities regarding toxics are
handled by the Water Control Board, the Department of Waste
Management and the State Health Department's Bureau of Toxic
Substances Information. The information on toxics available from
these agencies is described below.
Virginia Water Control Board - Every two years the Board submits
to EPA a Virginia Water Quality Assessment report, which is also
known as the 305(b) report. The most recent of these reports,
published in April 1988, also contains the draft 304(1) list of
toxic hot spots. This listing is considered an "open file",
subject to change as better information becomes available. A
review of this list indicates that problems associated with
toxics are generally localized in urban areas such as the
Elizabeth River or in close proximity to the source of toxics,
such as an industrial outfall. The Water Quality Assessment
report describes other locations where concern over toxics has
been identified, but which do not warrant inclusion on the
304(1) list at this time.
Department of Waste Management - The Department is responsible
for administering the solid waste, hazardous waste, and
Superfund programs in the Commonwealth. As in the case with
point source discharges of toxics, the waters impacted by these
waste disposal sites are usually limited to the immediate area.
State Department of Health; Bureau of Toxics Substances - The
Virginia General Assembly in its 1976 session passed the Toxic
Substances Information Act. It was an approach to augment
efforts in controlling toxic substances in Virginia in that it
created a single resource in State government to serve the needs
of various state agencies, regulatory and local authorities, and
the public in this area. The State Department of Health was
designated as the State Toxic Substance Information agency.
-------
The Act directed the State Board of Health to develop a list of
substances which are toxic and directed Virginia manufacturers
to periodically report in some detail the use or manufacture of
each listed toxic substance and emissions to workroom and
ambient air, to receiving lands and waters and to sewage
treatment systems. It also required the Board to collect,
evaluate, and disseminate information on toxic substances and
made provisions for the protection of confidential information
submitted by the manufacturers.
In 1977, the Act was amended to delete the reporting of
emissions data and the listing of reportable toxic substances,
substituting the reporting of all chemical substances
used/manufactured by Virginia manufacturers. The amendment
created Class 1 substances, those posing the greatest threat to
human health and the environment, to be designated by the Board
itself on the basis of toxicological and other scientific
evidence. Reporting by user/manufacturer of designated Class 1
substances was similar to requirements of the original 1976 Act,
and the scope of the chemical inventory was broadened by
inclusion of all chemicals used/manufactured. However,
inventory reporting was made easier for industry and it was
foreseen that fewer substances, those designated as Class 1,
would have to be reported upon in detail.
In 1979 and 1980, minor, non-germane amendments were passed by
the General Assembly. Later, the concept of Class 1 chemicals
was deleted from the Act.
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became effective
later in 1976. It is a regulatory statute, quite different from
Virginia's Toxic Substance Information Act. TSCA was designed
to identify only manufacturers or importers of chemical
substances and to define "old" chemicals. Virginia's law
requires the reporting of all, current and proposed, chemical
substances manufactured or used in manufacturing. Also,
Virginia's law requires the exact geographic location of every
establishment engaged in manufacturing where chemical substances
are produced or used. Most of the information gathered under
TSCA is not available to the States or citizens because it is
classified as confidential business information.
The Bureau of Toxic Substances Information has two major
objectives:
1. Collection, maintenance and utilization of the
geographical inventory of chemical substances
manufactured or used in manufacturing within the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
2.
-------
2. Providing toxicological data, health hazard
evaluations, and dissemination of information relating
to chemical substances posing a threat to human health
and the environment.
A geographic chemical inventory is maintained of Virginia
manufacturing establishments using chemical substances as raw
materials, catalysts, process solvents or final products.
Generally, small, as well as large, businesses must report all
chemicals that they manufacture or use in a manufacturing
process. Examples of firms required to report include chemical
manufacturers, asphalt and concrete batchers, cabinet and
furniture makers, metal fabricators and machinists, printers,
shipyards, cigarette manufacturers, packagers of animal feeds,
pesticides, fertilizers, etc. Mixtures are reportable. Some
out-of-state manufacturers have reported ingredients of their
trade name products. The chemical inventory information is made
available to State and local agencies, political subdivisions,
commercial establishments, and the public. Computerized reports
that contain all chemical inventory information are available
upon written request. Typical questions addressed in the report
are:
o What are the chemical substances reported by a
particular commercial establishment?
o Within a city or county, which commercial
establishments have reported and what are the
chemical substances listed?
o Within a particular river basin, which commercial
establishments have reported and what are the
chemical substances listed?
o Which commercial establishments are reporting a
particular chemical substance?
Toxicological data are retrieved and evaluated in response to
specific requests of State agencies, local governments, media,
and the public, thus affording a central resource for those
requiring such service. The range of these requests is broad.
They have included use of asbestos-concrete pipe for drinking
water, habitability of residences after contamination, effects
of spilled chemicals on humans, land animal and aquatic life,
acute and chronic effects from work-related exposures, use of
highly toxic substances in school science laboratories, art
classes, and vocational shops as well as analytical techniques
and methods of decontamination.
3.
-------
Similar evaluations are made for mass dissemination to affected
parties on newly reported toxic effects, on subjects of current
and/or popular concern, and when widespread misuse is apparent.
Online searches are available via computer and over 300
databases such as Hazardous Substances Data Bank, Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances Data Bank, Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, Chemical Abstracts,
Medline, Enviroline, and Pollution Abstracts can be accessed.
Questions often searched relate to human, mammalian, or aquatic
toxicity. Scientific literature, medical information,
references, and analytical methods can also be retrieved.
The future plans of the program include continuation of routine
operations, complementing the chemical inventory aspects of the
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and
providing toxicological evaluations of chemicals. Increasing
involvement in areas of risk assessment and on-site
investigations are also anticipated.
The remaining sections of the Virginia Toxics Reduction Strategy
describes programs dealing with both point and nonpoint sources of
toxics to the Chesapeake Bay. Existing activities and
accomplishments are described as well as future plans. Where
appropriate, milestones are included for specific actions that will
be taken by certain dates in order to further the reduction and
control of toxic pollutants within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
4.
-------
B. POINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
1. Water Quality Standards
Background - Water quality standards are the yardstick against
which water quality conditions in the surface waters and groundwater
of the Commonwealth are measured. Standards are an enforceable means
of preventing the deterioration of water quality in State waters.
These water quality standards are used in the administration of
several Board programs, particularly the issuance of discharge
permits and certification of 401 applications.
The State Water Control law mandates the protection of existing
high quality State waters and provides for the restoration of all
other State waters to such condition of quality that any such waters
will permit all reasonable public uses and will support the
propagation and growth of all aquatic life that might reasonably be
expected to inhabit them (Section 62.1-44.2). The adoption of water
quality standards under Section 62.1-44.15(3) of the Law is one of
the Board's methods of accomplishing the Law's purpose.
Purpose - Activities of this program provide accurate and
effective standards to maintain fishable and swimmable waters for the
use of the citizens of the Commonwealth and to protect aquatic life,
including economically valuable finfish and shellfish.
Water quality standards are intended to protect the beneficial
uses of State waters. Virginia's standards do not assign specific
uses to all streams, although they do specifically designate and
protect trout streams and public water supplies. The standards are
intended to protect all State waters for recreational use and for the
propagation and growth of a balanced population of fish and
wildlife. Through the protection of these two uses, which usually
require the most stringent standards and the highest degree of
protection, other usually less restrictive uses like industrial water
supply, irrigation and navigation are usually also protected. Should
additional standards be needed to protect other uses as dictated by
changing circumstances or improved knowledge, they can be formulated
and adopted.
Acconolishments - Specific actions taken to reduce toxics
include the adoption of water quality standards for the biocide
tributyltin for both saltwater and freshwater. This standard became
effective September 14, 1988 and will be implemented in applicable
NPDES permits subsequent to that date. Earlier in the decade the
Board adopted a water quality standard for mercury in freshwater
5.
-------
as well as chlorine standards for both saltwater and freshwater.
During the 1987 triennial review of water quality standards the Board
modified the chlorine standard to ban the discharge of chlorine and
other halogen compounds to waters containing natural trout or
endangered species.
In addition to the standards previously mentioned, the Board
also has guidance criteria for 34 toxic compounds (including Kepone)
which the Board intends to make mandatory enforceable standards at
the same time that standards are adopted for other toxics parameters
as mandated by the amendments to the Clean Water Act.
Future Plans - Before Virginia's next triennial review the Board
plans to adopt standards for toxic parameters as mandated by the
Clean Water Act amendments. This regulatory action was initiated
this fall by holding public meetings to present the Environmental
Protection Agency's guidance for state implementation of water
quality standards for Section 307(a) toxic priority pollutants.
Currently the Board has a freshwater standard for mercury but no
saltwater standard, so plans are to consider adoption of a saltwater
standard for mercury during this standards development process.
During the 1990 triennial review the Board will also consider
the need to adopt the recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Program
report on living resources which includes references to toxic
compounds.
As EPA develops additional criteria for toxic compounds the
Board will evaluate the need to adopt water quality standards for
these parameters.
Milestones
o Adopt in calendar year 1989 the necessary water
quality standards for toxics in accordance with the
CWA and EPA's regulations and guidance.
o During the 1990 triennial review consider the
recommendations contained in the Chesapeake Bay
Program report, Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake
Bav Living Resources, for those toxic pollutants which
have not previously been adopted as water quality
standards.
o Discuss with the District of Columbia and the State of
Maryland consistency in the definition of "freshwater"
and "saltwater" for application of water quality
standards.
6.
-------
2. NPDES Toxics Management Program
Background; At a planning session in October 1979, the Virginia
Water Control Board (VWCB) determined the need for some type of
toxics program and they instructed the staff to begin its
development. In June 1980, the staff sent out requests to industries
in Virginia for input on the type of toxics testing that would be
appropriate. The industrial submittals were received by October 1981
and the staff incorporated these comments into the Board's program.
The Board directed the staff to begin implementation of the Toxics
Management Program in June 1982. Since December 1982 special
conditions for toxics management have been drafted for inclusion into
NPDES permits. The program was extended to include publicly owned
treatment plants in May 1983.
Purposes The aim of the toxics management program is to involve
all industrial and municipal permit holders that may potentially
discharge toxic pollutants in a systematic program of biological and
chemical effluent monitoring. The monitoring requirements are
designed to identify sources of acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic
life and sources of toxic pollutants, whether listed as priority
pollutants or not. If the results of this monitoring program indicate
that there is a toxicity problem from the discharge, a toxicity
reduction evaluation is required. Best Management Practices (BMP's)
are also employed at certain sites for toxics control.
Status: There are currently about 200 NPDES permits in Virginia
containing toxics management special conditions. They include most
of the major industrial and municipal facilities and certain minor
facilities which the staff believes have the potential to discharge
toxic pollutants. The program will eventually expand to over 400
sites, which will be included as their permits are reissued. One
hundred, twenty-nine of the sites currently in the program are
located in the Chesapeake Bay drainage (See attached listing). Of
the 88 major facilities discharging into the Bay drainage, all of the
industrial and all but 18 of the municipal sites are involved in the
toxics management program. The remaining major municipal facilities
will be incorporated into the program as their permits are reissued
or modified. There are 18 sites currently involved in some form of
toxicity reduction work, 11 of which are in the Bay drainage (refer
to 304(1) list for the names of these dischargers).
Prior to and following the Board's adoption of the water quality
standard for chlorine, Virginia dischargers have installed
dechlorination or alternative disinfection facilities to eliminate
the toxic effects of chlorine on aquatic life. Of the 66 significant
municipal wastewater treatment plants within the Bay watershed it is
projected that only 5 will still discharge chlorinated effluent
7.
-------
following application of the water quality standard and completion of
the 22 projects that have received Virginia Chesapeake Bay Initiative
funding through FY'89. This represents over a 97% reduction in the
amount of chlorine discharged to the Bay and its tributaries. Of the
five remaining facilities three are eligible in future years for
grant funding under the Initiative. The other two are major federal
facilities.
Future Plans; The emphasis of this program will eventually
shift from screening effluents for toxicity to developing and
implementing toxicity reduction studies at those sites where the
monitoring indicates that a problem exists. Other aspects of toxics
control such as the evaluation of human health effects or
bioaccumulation potential will be included in the program as the
testing technology improves.
Milestones
o By July 1991 all major discharges will have chemical
and biological toxics monitoring programs in their
permits.
o By June 1992 all discharges identified on the 1989
304(1) list will be in compliance with the Individual
Control Strategies for toxics in their permits.
o By July 1996 all appropriate discharges will have
attained control of toxicity in their effluents
3. Virginia's Toxics Management Regulation
Background; Since toxics management program special conditions
first began to appear in NFDES permits in 1983, the Board's
regulatory authority to require such testing has been questioned.
Two generic questions commonly asked were: 1. Where are the
supporting regulations and/or policies that govern this program,
which are required by the Administrative Process Act? and, 2. Where
are the regulations and/or policies that allow the public to
participate in this process as required by the Administrative Process
Act? At its meeting in December 1985, the Board directed the staff
to develop a regulation which would provide the public with details
of the decision making process involved in the toxics management
program and provide for public input to this process. In September
1987, the Board authorized the staff to take a draft toxics
management regulation to public notice. Public hearings were held in
January 1988, the draft document was revised in response to the
comments and the Board adopted the Toxics Management Regulation in
8.
-------
March 1988. As a result of the review of this regulation by the
Governor's office, further public comments were taken during June and
July 1988 and the Board adopted the current version of the Toxics
Management Regulation on August 8, 1988. It became effective on
November 1, 1988.
Purpose: The stated purpose of this regulation is to control
the levels of toxic pollutants in surface waters discharged from all
sources holding NPDES permits issued pursuant to applicable State
Water Control Board regulations. The regulation is designed to
provide standards and procedures by which the permittee shall
minimize, correct, or prevent any discharge of toxic pollutants in
amounts which have a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting
human health or the environment. Thus, both the regulated community
and the general public are aware of the process by which the State
will address the discharge of toxic pollutants.
Content; The regulation contains the following sections:
Section 1: A general provisions section gives the reader a
basic outline of the toxics management process.
Section 2: Describes the types of discharges which are covered
by the regulation.
Section 3: Sets forth the requirements for biological and
chemical monitoring.
Section 4: Contains the criteria by which the results of the
toxics monitoring will bo judged.
Section 5: Describes a low intensity type of compliance
monitoring for those sites which pass the criteria in Section
4. Some sites that pass the criteria will be removed from the
program.
Section 6: Those sites which fail to meet the decision criteria
will be required to conduct a toxicity reduction evaluation as
described in this Section.
Section 7: Discusses the use of water quality based effluent
limitations in controlling toxics.
Section 8: Provides that any permit modifications which have to
do with the toxics management program will be subject to public
comment.
The Appendix to the regulation lists industrial categories to
9.
-------
which it applies, arranged by Standard Industrial Classification
codes.
The effluent toxicity decision criteria contained in Section 4
is the cornerstone of the regulation and will be used to judge the
future success of toxic control programs. These criteria are as
follows:
1. LC50 greater than or equal to 100 percent in six of
the total of eight acute toxicity tests, or in at
least 75% of the tests conducted if more than eight
tests are conducted.
2. No observed effect concentration (NOEC) greater than
or equal to Instream waste concentration (IWC) in six
of the total of eight chronic toxicity tests, or in at
least 75% of the tests conducted if more than eight
tests are conducted.
3. No instream exceedence of water quality standards or
criteria for protection of aquatic life or human
health, where applicable pursuant to the Virginia
Water Quality Standards (VR 680-21-00), based on any
of the samples required under Section 3.B.3.
Implementationt As this regulation was designed to support an
ongoing toxics management program, the implementation of the
regulation will be to carry on the current program and meet the
milestones listed under the NPDES Toxics Management Section. Toxics
management programs written for permits after the effective date will
follow the requirements of the regulation closely, as will the
decisions made on the results of the testing. As the toxics
management program expands into the areas of bioaccumulation and
human health protection, the regulation may have to be revised to
reflect this change.
4. Pretreatment Program
Historv/Baclccrround - In 1978, the EPA promulgated regulations
setting forth the requirements for development of a pretreatment
program by POTWs. This was done in fulfillment of the amendments to
the Clean Water Act which directed the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations for controlling indirect
dischargers to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
In 1976, the Virginia General Assembly amended the Water Control
Lav to require each owner of a sewerage system to conduct an
industrial waste survey to determine the physical, chemical and
10.
-------
biological properties of each discharge into the sewerage system or
treatment works. The amendment also authorized the Board to issue
permits to industrial users of the treatment works. In 1985, the
General Assembly appropriated $200,000 for the Virginia Water Control
Board to develop a statewide pretreatment program, and to seek
delegation for statewide program administration from the EPA.
Purpose - The purpose is to establish a statewide program that
will protect both the POTWs and the receiving streams from toxic,
hazardous and environmentally damaging substances. To accomplish
this the State had to establish the legal requirements for State
administration of the pretreatment program. It is the POTW which
must implement the pretreatment program, thus controlling pollutants
which pass through the treatment system, interfere with the treatment
processes, or which may contaminate sewage sludge.
Accomplishments - In 1976 the Virginia Water Control Board
adopted a regulation requiring POTWs with a design flow of 40,000
gallons per day (gpd) and greater to conduct an industrial waste
survey. Based on the industrial waste survey submittals, 35
facilities were targeted for the development of a pretreatment
program and NPDES permits were amended to require the development of
an approvable pretreatment program. All of the programs were
submitted to EPA and approved by 1985 and the NPDES Permits were
amended or reissued to require the implementation of the approved
programs. (See attached listing of pretreatment programs.)
Since 1985 the Virginia Water Control Board staff has developed
regulations, shepherded legislation through the General Assembly and
prepared the necessary program elements for program delegation by the
EPA. The Virginia program is now at the EPA for approval.
The staff identified 186 significant industrial users that
discharge to 26 POTWs located within the Chesapeake Bay drainage
area. The industrial users discharging to these POTWs include the
following National Categorical Standards industries; Aluminum
Forming, Coil Coating, Copper Forming, Electrical and Electronic
Components, Electroplating, Inorganic Chemical, Iron and Steel, Metal
Finishing, Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers,
Pharmaceuticals, Pulp and Paper, Textile, and Timber. Each has the
potential of discharging toxics into the POTWs.
Although the EPA is responsible for administering the
pretreatment program in Virginia, the VWCB staff has been
accompanying the EPA during their audits of the POTWs and inspections
of industrial users.
In addition, the Virginia Water Control Board staff has reviewed
11.
-------
the approved programs for deficiencies which need to be corrected,
conducted audits of the POTWs and accompanied the POTW staff on
industrial inspections. The VWCB staff has also included
requirements for industrial waste surveys in VPDES Permits issued to
POTWs not previously included in the pretreatment program.
Future Plans - The staff of the Virginia Water Control Board,
upon delegation of the pretreatment program, will administer the
program according to the Board-adopted regulations.
Milestones
o The POTWs will be audited yearly and all categorical
dischargers will be inspected yearly.
o Enforcement and follow-up action against non-complying
POTWs and industrial users will be taken.
o New candidate POTWs for pretreatment program
development will be investigated and included as
necessary.
o Sampling will be conducted at POTWs at least annually,
and at the significant dischargers when necessary.
5. Pilot Toxics Strategy
Background/History; During 1985-1987, effluent samples were
collected at 70 point source discharges to the Chesapeake Bay
drainage. These sources consisted of sewage treatment plants,
industries and federal facilities. In addition to effluent sampling,
sediment samples were collected at each site and tissue samples
(shellfish) were collected at 25 of the sites. These samples were
analyzed for volatile and extractable organics and metals. Also, a
computerized toxics database was developed to handle the generated
data. This database resides on the VIMS mainframe computer.
Purposet The purpose of the Pilot Toxics Strategy was to
provide a "chemical fingerprint1* of effluents discharging to the
Chesapeake Bay and to determine the impact of such discharges on
sediment and tissue contamination. Also a computerized database was
developed to catalog and track toxic compounds in the Bay environment
and to provide easy access to scientists and managers.
Accomplishmentst
1. It waa determined that at 32 of the 70 sites the sediment
was contaminated by chemicals present in the effluent. Of
12.
-------
the 25 tissue samples collected, 10 were contaminated by
chemicals found in the point source discharge.
2. It was determined that oil/water separators are a major
source of organic chemicals entering the Bay drainage,
especially the Elizabeth River. Also, it was determined
that oil and grease is an inappropriate permit parameter to
protect water quality from such discharges.
3. Identified a large number of discharges which failed
bioaccumulative screening tests.
4. Identified point source discharges where toxic chemicals
where present. As a result, the VWCB mobile bioassay
trailer is following up at identified sites.
5. Raised the issue that best management practices in shipyard
permits need to be enforced and violations result in a
significant loading of toxic compounds to the Elizabeth
River.
6. Identified a new class of toxic compounds in Chesapeake Bay
- polychlorinated terphenyls.
7. Findings resulted it two permittees being required to
develop toxicity reduction plans.
8. A computerized toxics database was developed that will
assist the VWCB in water quality standards development,
toxics monitoring, special toxics studies, and toxicity
reduction and permitting programs.
9. Identified a need for the VWCB to move towards regulating
bioaccumulative compounds in effluents.
10. Determined that sediment monitoring is an invaluable tool
in addressing toxic releases from point sources.
(See attached table which summarizes program findings.)
Future Plans; The "chemical fingerprinting" of effluent,
sediment and tissue samples will not be continued in FY189-90. The
toxics database will be expanded by uploading historical toxics data,
programming modifications will be made to include bioaccumulation and
biological testing end points.
13.
-------
Milestones
o Conduct "chemical fingerprinting" of effluent,
sediment and tissue samples at point source discharges
to the Bay on a 2 to 3 year frequency beginning in
1990.
o Develop an inventory of toxics data for Chesapeake Bay
and determine the format of available data.
o Establish a centralized database or databases for
toxics compounds in Chesapeake Bay. Make such a
database available to all interested users by 1990.
6. Toxicity Testing with Mobile Bioassay Lab
Backaround/Historv: Recognizing the need to conduct more
toxicity tests, the staff developed a 205(j) proposal in the summer
of 1983 that called for the development of a mobile laboratory
facility which could be set up at different industrial and municipal
facilities for assessing the impact of these outfalls. The funding
for this proposal was approved, and the mobile laboratory facility
was completed in the fall of 1984.
Purpose: The mobile laboratory improves the staff's ability to
gather information and data concerning effluents containing toxic or
potentially toxic compounds by providing the manpower and equipment
necessary to perform sampling for chemical analyses and on-site
bioassay toxicity testing. The benefits of the work include the
qualitative and quantitative identification of toxic compounds in
effluents, and the identification of sources of potential water
quality criteria violations. The chemical data are used to make
correlations with biological responses, to calculate instream waste
concentrations (IWCs) of toxic components of effluents, and to
compare the calculated IWCs, real IWCs, and effluent concentrations
with water quality criteria and permit limits. The data generated by
on-site toxicity testing are used to evaluate a facility's effluent
under the SWCB's Toxics Regulation.
Acconplishmenta; The Effluent Toxicity Testing Initiative was
designed to assess the biological and chemical toxicity of effluents
in the Bay drainage. In its first 18 months, the program has
addressed these concerns and expanded to investigate other permit
conditions, specifically the Best Management Practices at shipyards.
The program's staff was hired in February of 1987, and by April of
1987, testing had begun on freshwater discharges in the James River.
The staff was able to utilize existing cultures of freshwater
organisms, which enabled the program to get off to a fast start.
14.
-------
Between April and July 1987, extensive work was done in the
laboratory to culture and breed three marine organisms for toxicity
testing. By August 1987, through much trial and error, the program
was able to move to the marine environment of the Tidewater area.
Chemical and biological investigations have been conducted on sixteen
discharges, including:
3 - POTWs
4 - Processed Waste Discharges
5 - Oil/Water Separators
4 - Drydocks
Testing has shown that 9 of the 16 discharges were either
acutely or chronically toxic to aquatic organisms, and that permit
limits for chemicals were exceeded in some of the discharges. These
studies, combined with previous data, have resulted in the issuance
of a TRE for three discharges at one facility and the withdrawal of a
permit to discharge from oil/water separators at another site. (See
attached table which summarizes program findings.)
In conjunction with the effluent studies, the program also
addresses ambient water quality. Chemical sampling in freshwater
receiving streams has shown that instream levels of metals and
organics are below criteria., however one facility did show chronic
toxicity to organisms tested in water from the area of the
discharge. In the Elizabeth River, the ambient study is designed to
measure overall water quality, and is not related to a specific
discharge. Due to the number of discharges and the tidal nature of
the Elizabeth River, it is almost impossible to locate an exact
source for instream toxicity. The program has to this date tested 11
miles of the Elizabeth River.
The most prevalent problaa uncovered by this program is the
inability and refusal of shipyards to adhere to the Best Management
Practices in the permit. The number of uncontrolled discharges
emanating from drydocks, vetslips, and marine railways have the
potential for high toxicity. The program has investigated four ship
yards, and has recorded daily observations of violations/discharges.
These investigations have resulted in the issuance of 6 Notices of
Violation(NOVs) by the State Water Control Board. These NOVs have
prompted some shipyards to make an effort to change operational
procedures; however constant inspections are still necessary. The
documentation of BMP violations has prompted the VWCB to review the
language and increase the enforcement of this section of NPDES
permits.
Future Planst The abundance of problems and potential problems
that have been discovered by this program has raised concern over the
quality of water throughout the state. The addition of a second
15.
-------
mobile lab and staff will allow the Agency to address these concerns
without abandoning the Chesapeake Bay area.
A second mobile lab will be used to evaluate discharges outside
the Bay drainage. The existing mobile lab will continue to be used
in the Tidewater area. Data from these studies will be added to the
toxics data base, and recommendations will be made to the toxics
management program or the regional offices.
Milestones
o Study 10 sites/ mobile lab/ year, incorporating
toxicity and chemical data on the effluents tested
into the Toxics Database.
o Investigate and evaluate within 5 years the
feasibility of adding toxicity testing of the sediment
within the vicinity of an outfall.
7. Elizabeth River Initiative
The Elizabeth River, a sub-estuary of the James River is the
major deep water port of the Hampton Roads Harbor. The River Basin
drains over 700 km in Southeastern Virginia within the cities of
Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach.
The Elizabeth River has served as the focal point for military,
industrial, and commercial growth in the Hampton Roads area. The
proximity of the port to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean
and the vast resources of nearby inland regions have contributed to
make it an important maritime port.
The environmental awareness that developed in the late 1960's
and early 1970'a resulted in federal legislation which focused
national attention on restoring and preserving our natural
resources. Studies were initiated to determine the effects of over
200 years of nan's activities on the Elizabeth River. Unfortunately,
the price of prosperity was great. The River, once home to the many
diverse species of plants and animals which live and thrive in
estuarine environs, had serious water and sediment quality problems.
To insure that the Elizabeth River can continue as an economic
and industrial facet of the region, yet be restored to an
environmentally sound condition, it was realized that a comprehensive
plan was required. The SWCB, as the major entity involved in
developing the plan, is initiating the first major effort to restore
the River with its Elizabeth River Initiative. The Initiative will
16.
-------
serve to focus available resources on several issues of concern in
the Elizabeth River Basin.
The goal of the Elizabeth River Initiative, to improve the water
quality of the Elizabeth, represents an enormous task that requires
complex and often innovative approaches. To achieve this goal, a
concerted and coordinated effort by federal, state, and local
authorities, local governments, and from the citizens residing in the
Basin is necessary. The following projects represent the initial
efforts by the VWCB towards achieving this goal.
a. Elizabeth River - Permits and Inspections
The State Water Control Board is the delegated authority in the
Commonwealth of Virginia to administer the NPDES program (State Water
Control Law 62.1-44 et seq. as amended). Effective July 1, 1988,
the Permit Regulation (VR680-14-01) delineates the authority and
general procedures for issuance of Virginia Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (VPDES) and Virginia Pollution Abatement (VPA)
permits by the State Water Control Board. The Regulation prohibits
the discharge of any pollutant (except for those excluded in the
Regulation) "including sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes,
into, or adjacent to State waters or otherwise alter the physical,
chemical, or biological properties of State waters, except as
authorized pursuant to a VPDES or VPA permit." VPDES permits
authorize the discharge of pollutants from point sources, and the
management of pollutants that are not point source discharges to
surfaces waters may be authorized by a VPA permit.
Regional permit writers and inspectors are an integral part of
the VPDES/VPA permit program. Permit writers develop permits for
each facility with effluent limits designed to protect water
quality. Inspectors insure, through a variety of mechanisms, that
facilities are in compliance with their permits. The VWCB currently
permits 47 industrial, 10 municipal, and 4 federal facilities which
discharge in the Elizabeth River watershed. Host of this facilities
have multiple outfalls which discharge municipal and/or industrial
wastes. Most dischargers are required to monitor for one or more
conventional parameters and selected non-conventional or toxic
pollutants which are believed present in their effluent.
The NPDES program initially focused on the control of
conventional pollutants such as TSS, oil and grease, pH, and BOD.
However, an increasing emphasis has been placed on the regulation of
non-conventional (i.e. nutrients) and toxic pollutants. The VWCB
began including Toxics Management Programs (TMPs) in selected permits
in the early 1980's as a means to control these pollutants. TMPs
require facilities to perform chemical and biological tests to
17.
-------
determine the toxic nature of their effluents. Over twenty percent
of the facilities which discharge to the Elizabeth River have TMP
requirements and several more facilities are scheduled for TMPs.
In the past, as many as six regional staff members have spent
part of their time with permit development and inspections for
Elizabeth River facilities. These responsibilities have been shifted
to two new positions, an Elizabeth River permit writer and an
Elizabeth River inspector, in order to enhance development and
issuance of VPDES/VPA permits, provide quick and efficient responses
to permit violations, and insure future compliance with permit
requirements. In addition to their standard activities, the
Elizabeth River permit team will:
Develop a priority list for modification of permits.
Develop an inspection schedule with increased
frequency for all majors and selected minors.
Participate in a surveillance program to identify
unpermitted discharges (The appropriate permits will
be issued to identified discharges).
Develop recommendations and implementation strategies
to strengthen nonpoint source pollution control at
permitted facilities.
The Elizabeth River permit team will provide the continuity and
focus required to integrate the permit process with the diverse water
quality projects occurring in the Basin.
b. Elizabeth River - Toxicitv Assessments
In order to focus the VWCB's bioassay testing program on the
Elizabeth River discharges, the existing mobile bioassay laboratory
will ba assigned to the Elizabeth River watershed for several years.
The second mobile bioassay lab will cover dischargers in other areas
of the Commonwealth. The Elizabeth River mobile lab will provide the
opportunity for an in-depth investigation of the dischargers located
in the basin.
The VWCB has already completed toxicity evaluations at several
facilities which discharge into the Elizabeth River. Results from
these studies assist staff in reviewing the impacts of specific point
source discharges to the Elizabeth River, assists in permit
reissuance, and is instrumental in developing toxicity control
strategies.
18.
-------
c. Elizabeth River - Planning and Management
The Elizabeth River Initiative integrates a number of new and
existing water quality related projects into a comprehensive
program. Projects included in the initiative represent a range of
activities, including the enhancement of regulatory activities,
applied research, and planning and management functions.
Individual projects are implemented and managed through
appropriate Headquarters or Regional offices, with directors or
program managers of the primary offices involved in the Initiative
serving as members of the Initiative Steering Committee. An
essential component of the Initiative is the coordination of these
various VWCB projects, integration of VWCB projects with other State,
federal, and local water quality projects, and the compilation and
dissemination of information so that the Steering committee can make
timely and effective decisions regarding the direction of the
Elizabeth River Initiative programs.
The improvement of water quality in the Elizabeth River will
necessitate the use of complex and innovative approaches to pollution
abatement and a degree of coordination between state and local
government which has seldom been achieved. Because of this
complexity and the need for an enhanced degree of coordination of
Initiative activities, an individual skilled in project coordination
will track and consolidate the work performed by the various
participants. The coordinator will also work closely with the
Steering Committee to insure that program goals and objectives are
being meet and to recommend additional or alternate projects as
needed.
d. Elizabeth River - Comprehensive Monitoring Program
The Elizabeth River receives a wide variety of point and
nonpoint source discharges within its 300 square mile drainage area,
in which approximately one-half million people reside. Poor flushing
characteristics increases the amount of sediment and associated
pollutants trapped within the river system. Metals and organics that
are present in the water column and are bound to the sediment have
created serious environmental problems. In 1983, the Chesapeake Bay
Program identified the Elizabeth River system as one of the most
highly polluted bodies of water in the entire Bay watershed.
In order to assist in achieving the goal of water quality
improvement, a comprehensive long term monitoring program is being
developed. The program will have the following major objectives:
1. Characterization of the river's quality
2. Developing a trend analysis over time
19.
-------
3. Aid the VWCB's Water Quality Standards program by
identifying pollutants of concern, providing data for
standards development, and measuring compliance with
standards, and;
4. Conducting special studies of short term concern as
needed and as funding allows.
Meeting the objectives described above requires long term
monitoring of the a number of water quality parameters including
conventional pollutants, metals, and toxic organics. Analysis of
sediments for priority pollutants and toxicity tests are also being
considered for inclusion in the long term monitoring program.
Benthic surveys and shellfish and finfish studies are also on the
list for consideration in the long term monitoring program. A
Technical Advisory Group has been selected to assist in development
of the program which is scheduled to begin in January, 1989.
e. Elizabeth River - Special Studies
Special studies of identified problems in the Elizabeth River
represent an integral part of the comprehensive restoration program
developed for the Elizabeth River. These studies are intensive
short-term studies of sources with high contaminant concentrations or
toxicities, or have unusual characteristics which warrant special
studies. Special studies may also include periodic measurements of
toxicity or contaminants of concern (e.g. TBT, dioxins) when the need
has been identified by other programs or studies.
The initial focus of the Elizabeth River Initiative special
studies will be on pollution sources at area shipyards which have
demonstrated significant toxicity and discharge high levels of toxic
substances to the Elizabeth River. The sources of concern are
oil/water separators and floating drydocks. Special studies have
been funded by a 205(j) grant and the comprehensive toxics initiative
(Elizabeth River Restoration) to further evaluate these pollution
sources. These studies will provide the much needed information to
develop and implement effective pollution control strategies for
these sources of concern.
Oil/water Separators • During the 1984-1986 biennium the staff
collected samples at several discharges for pollutant analyses. Five
discharges originated from oil and water separators. These
separators were located at the Navy Craney Island Fuel Supply Center,
20.
-------
Virginia Power's Firefighting Center, Norfolk and Western Railway
Company, Seahorse Marine (now Marpol), and Norfolk Shipbuilding and
Drydock Company. The results of the analyses at these facilities
showed high concentrations of organic priority pollutants being
discharged. In addition some facilities had significant numbers of
non-priority pollutants present. Furthermore many of these
facilities had separate violations of oil and grease. In the most
recent biennium (86-88) the staff collected samples from six
additional oil and water separators. The conclusions have been the
same; oil and grease limits are exceeded, discharges are toxic, and
numerous organic pollutants are being discharged at significant
concentrations.
Based upon those findings a study will be conducted to evaluate
the control of organic pollutants and oil and grease in oil/water
separator discharges. The study will begin with an inventory of the
types of separators, their location, and the types of wastes
treated. The second phase will involve site inspections and
collection of operational parameters. The third phase involves the
analysis of samples for comparison and evaluation of different types
of treatment systems. At the close of this study the agency will be
able to identify effective treatment systems for controlling oil and
grease and organics.
Best Management Practices - As part of the effluent toxicity
testing program the staff collected several samples from floating and
graving docks for testing. The results of some of these tests showed
toxicity. During the time of sampling staff also observed that the
operating practices were inconsistent with the best management
practices included in the permits. Due to the magnitude of these
discrepancies the staff established an inspection procedure and began
noting deviations from the recommended best management program
(BMP).
Typical violations of the BMP program included lowering the
drydock before cleaning it, allowing paint spray to be washed into
the river or drift into the river, and allowing spent abrasive to be
washed into the river by leaking or ruptured water hoses. The staff
also recognizes that the optimum methods for controlling discharges,
paint spray, and spent abrasives from reaching the river may need to
be developed or used more routinely. The staff is interested in
identifying those BMP's that would result in significant improvement
to water quality by control of wastes in the drydock operation.
21.
-------
f. Elizabeth River - Toxics Search and Identification
Background - The Board's Office of Water Resource Management's
Toxics Search and Identification project is a 104(b)(3) federally
funded effort to identify and prioritize toxic compounds in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. The project will initially focus on the
Elizabeth River system and then be expanded throughout the watershed.
Objective - The major objective of the project is to identify
toxic substances from the existing databases and literature, which
show high potential of causing environmental degradation or human
health affects. This effort will provide the Office of Environmental
Research and Standards with a list of substances which are probable
candidates for adoption of statewide or area specific standards. For
those compounds which are suspected of causing degradation, but for
which insufficient data exits, specific monitoring recommendations
will be made.
Methodology - The study will begin its focus on VPDES facilities
judged to have the highest potential for discharge of toxic
substances. Chemical information from the VWCB Chesapeake Bay Toxics
Initiative Database residing on the VIMS Prime computer along with
data from DMR and TMP reports will be evaluated in terms of acute and
chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogencity, and
capacity for biomagnification. The frequency of occurrence and
concentration of each substance in the system will also be
considered. Later phases of the study will examine other available
databases and information sources to observe frequency of occurrence
of substances noted in previously analyzed dischargers and identify
additional substances.
Products
1. Problem substances will be identified quarterly; these
lists of candidates for adoption of water quality
standards will be updated as further information is
added; a final list of compounds identified will be
developed by the end of fiscal year 1990.
2. A catalog of potential databases and other information
sources for use in the project will be developed and
updated quarterly.
3. Specific recommendations will be made for monitoring
of substances suspected of needing regulation and/or
closing of Information gaps in the data set.
22.
-------
g. Elizabeth River - Water Quality Standards
Purpose - The goal of the Elizabeth River Initiative is to
improve the water quality of the Elizabeth River. To do this, toxics
standards must be developed so that legal enforcement actions can be
undertaken to reduce the discharge of toxics into the estuary. Some
of the standards will be developed for statewide enforcement and
others will be specific for the Elizabeth River. A successful
program will be measured by reduction or elimination of the discharge
of pollutants into the Elizabeth River, and hence, into the
Chesapeake Bay.
Accomplishrcents - Standards staff is assisting the Office of
Water Resources Management in a database search and identification of
toxic compounds found in the Elizabeth River by drafting a screening
criteria which determines which of the compounds should be
regulated. The screen includes a selection matrix which rates the
compounds according to their toxicity (for aquatic life and human
health), frequency of occurrence and bioaccumulation potential. This
matrix will also ensure standard development for the most toxic
compounds will begin first.
Future Plans - Future plans include providing the Chesapeake Bay
Office monitoring program with database inadequacies discovered
during the screening process described above so that unknown
compounds and compounds lacking in research can be identified and
prioritized for standards development. In 3 years the standards
development process for the toxic compounds selected from the
screening matrix will be completed. The standards development
process will include literature research to ensure adoption of a
protective enough standard and the Commonwealth's Administrative
Process Act which satisfies public participation requirements of
proposed regulatory changes.
h. Elizabeth River - Oilv Waste Management
Backaround/Historv - The Virginia Water Control Board has
identified the handling of slop oils, bilge waste, tank bottom
washings, etc. to have a serious impact on water quality in the
Elizabeth River. Such wastes are generated during ship repair and
are primarily treated by oil/water separators. Oil/water separators
are not designed to adequately treat light weight petroleum products
which predominate such wastes. Chemical and biological testing of
effluents from the oil/water separators on the Elizabeth River have
indicated extreme acute and chronic toxicity and concentrations of
organic chemicals and metals which exceed water quality criteria.
Other problems have been identified with the off loading of slop oils
and bilge waste from Naval vessels and the refueling of such vessels.
23.
-------
Purpose - There is a need to develop an oily waste management
plan for the Elizabeth River. The components of such a plan would
include the following: 1) identify all potential sources of oily
waste on the Elizabeth River both commercial and military; 2)
investigate practices used to handle and treat such waste which
includes not only the wastewater but solid wastes as well; 3)
investigate treatment technologies that can adequately treat such
waste; and, 4) develop a comprehensive management strategy for
regulating all activities concerned with this issue. A number of
state agencies would need to work together on this issue such as the
VWCB, Department of Waste Management and Virginia Port Authority in
addition to federal agencies such as the Coast Guard, EPA, etc.
Milestone
o By 1992 develop a management strategy for the
Elizabeth River to regulate activities concerned with
the handling and treatment of petroleum-contaminated
wastewater in order to improve water quality on the
Elizabeth River.
8. Bioaccumulation Project
Backaround/Historvr Living aquatic resources can be harmed by
chemicals present in effluent discharges. Such harm may be acute or
chronic toxicity and continual exposure to low levels of chemicals
might result in high tissue concentrations. The latter was the case
with Xepone and mercury contamination in Virginia. As a result the
Commonwealth of Virginia suffered serious economic losses and
environmental concern. Human consumption of fish, shellfish, and
blue crabs contaminated by chemical residues is an exposure route of
serious concern to both Virginia and EPA.
Purpose; During FY189-90, the VWCB will be conducting a
Bioaccumulation Initiative. The purpose of this project is to
screen, identify, and control bioaccumulative contaminants in
effluent discharges to State waters.
Accomplishmentst At the end of the two year study, 200 point
source discharges will be screened for bioaccumulative compounds.
From the 200, 40 will be selected for follow-up work to identify the
contaminants. Field studies will be conducted at 10 sites to
determine the distribution of identified contaminants in fish,
shellfish, blue crabs and sediments. As a final product, an
assessment approach will be outlined for including the issue of
bioaccumulation in the VWCB Toxics Management Regulation.
24.
-------
Milestone
o Include in the toxics regulation the control of
bioaccumulative compounds by 1993.
9. Hunan Health Project
Background; The water quality criteria adopted by the VWCB to
date have been based on a number to protect aquatic life. The
protection of human health has not been an issue in developing these
criteria. However, compounds that are known to be carcinogenic,
mutagenic, and teratogenic have been detected in effluents. In
addition, the EPA is expected to require Virginia to address the
topic of human health protection, and to investigate the
establishment of water quality criteria based on the protection of
human health.
Objectives:
o Identify the carcinogenic, mutagenic, and/or teratogenic
compounds in the state of Virginia that are not included in
section 307(a).
o Produce recommended approaches in prioritized fashion for
the VWCB to use in establishing water quality
criteria/standards for these compounds for the protection
of human health.
Taskst
Determine the potential presence in the state of
carcinogenic compounds that are not included in section
307(a).
a. Use databases (BTSI, CERA Title III, etc.) to
determine the non-307(a) chemicals used, stored, or
manufactured in the state.
b. Use databases such as the Carcinogen Assessment Group
(GAG) List, Chemical Information System (CIS),
National Library of Medicine, QSAR, and the Michigan
Critical Material Register to determine which of
these chemicals are carcinogenic, mutagenic, and/or
teratogenic.
c. Investigate actual sampling data (ETT, TMP, etc.) for
these compounds.
25.
-------
o Develop list of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and/or teratogenic
non-307(a) compounds in the state for which the VWCB needs
to develop standards, either on a state wide basis, or for
certain stream segments.
a. Compounds that already have water quality
criteria for the protection of human health that
have not been adopted by various states and/or
EPA.
b. Compounds that do not already have water quality
criteria for the protection of human health that
the VWCB can adopt.
c. Compounds above a certain frequency level in the
state, or above a certain concentration level.
d. Non-307(a) compounds that have been shown to be
carcinogenic, mutagenic, and/or teratogenic.
o Review the approaches used by other states in developing
water quality criteria for carcinogenic, mutagenic, and/or
teratogenic compounds. Identify the basis for these
approaches (Federal Register, state legislation, etc.), and
whether these approaches have encountered any enforcement
problems. Produce a list of approaches, such as mass
balance equations, lab tests, EPA numbers, etc., for the
VWCB to use in establishing water quality criteria for the
protection of human health for carcinogenic, mutagenic,
and/or teratogenic non-307(a) compounds.
Products;
o A list of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and/or teratogenic
non-307(a) compounds for which Virginia needs to
develop water quality criteria that will protect human
health.
o A report that presents and explains the approaches
that can be used in establishing water quality
criteria for these compounds for the protection of
human health.
Input from "Technical Committee** t
A committee may be formed at the completion of this initiative
that will interface with the VWCB's Standards section to determine
the best approach from the list produced to use in developing
criteria for the protection of human health for non-307(a) compounds.
Committee members nay Include employees from other states that have
worked on developing criteria for the protection of human health in
26.
-------
their state, and/or individuals who have been involved in-performing
or_evaluating human health assays. Risk levels (10~ , 10 ,
10~ , etc.) and associated concentrations for these compounds will
be determined by the Standards section at that time.
Milestones
o By the year 2000, incorporate standards that protect
human health into the Toxics Regulation and permit
limits.
o Within 5 years, evaluate whole effluent toxicity tests
for determining the effects of an effluent on human
health (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and
teratogenicity).
10. Biomonitoring and Core Monitoring Programs
Background
Environmental monitoring of toxic substances is an integral part
of a toxics reduction program. Only through monitoring can the
program be assessed as to ita effectiveness.
Beginning in 1979, Virginia's 40 Core monitoring stations have
been monitored for fish tissue contamination by toxics (see attached
Figure), sampled on a biennial, and more recently, on a triennial
basis. Of these stations, 13 are on tributaries of the Chesapeake
Bay oast of the fall line (circled in Figure), which have a more
direct influence on ambient Bay water. Since initiation of the
program electrofishing techriques have been refined, resulting in
more efficient capture and better composite sample replication.
The biological monitoring program began in 1978 and includes
approximately 150 stations sampled aemiannually. The program
utilizes qualitative benthic macroinvertebrate evaluations to
determine overall water quality conditions. Of the 150 stations,
roughly 40 are located east of the fall line.
Purpose
A number of Virginia's tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay are
sampled through the EPA core monitoring program (see attached
Table). This program is designed, in part, to monitor organic
(pesticides and herbicides) and metallic toxic substances present in
fish tissues. Two composite samples taken from each location are
edible filets of predator species of fishes which indicate human
health risks from fish consumption. In addition, one composite whole
fish sample is also taken from each location, of a bottom feeding
species of fish.
27.
-------
Tissue analysis of the bottom feeding species indicates the presence
or degree of ecosystem contamination.
The purpose of the biological monitoring is to assess long term
water quality trends at a large number of stations statewide.
Stations are selected to monitor water quality changes upstream and
downstream of major discharges, entire metropolitan areas, suspected
nonpoint pollution sources, or to document conditions in relatively
unaffected or pristine streams.
Accomplishments
Data from the core monitoring program (which also includes water
and sediment toxicant concentration data- collected by the individual
regional offices) is entered on the federal EPA STORET water quality
data base. Trends in metal and pesticide toxicant concentrations at
these stations can now be analyzed because of the long term data
base. Special studies can and have been initiated as a result of
fish tissue contamination findings. These special study follow-ups
are undertaken to identify and correct the source of the
contamination problem.
Since the inception of the biomonitoring program, station
locations have been fine tuned to provide the most accurate
information concerning water quality conditions statewide. In 1985
the qualitative analytical methods for the benthic macroinvertebrates
was improved to include identification to the family level of
taxonomy. This increased the accuracy of the program with very
little increase in staff time resources. The results of these
biomonitoring efforts have revealed numerous previously unknown water
quality problems and continue to measure the effectiveness of ongoing
pollution abatement programs.
Future Plans
Future plans for the EPA core program include increasing the
number of stations sampled to 45-55 sites statewide with each station
investigated on a triennial basis.
Although the biological monitoring program is designed around
long-term trend data gathering, station locations are continually
being evaluated for their effectiveness and are adjusted as new water
quality problems are encountered or existing problems are rectified.
Recently introduced computer software programs will enhance the
quality of the biological monitoring reports as veil as streamline
data transmittal time between the regional offices and headquarters.
28.
-------
TABLE - EPA CORE FISH STATIONS IN OR EAST OF FALL ZONE
RIVER
Little Hunting Creek
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Panunkey
Mattaponi
York
Apponattox
Janes
Pagan
Pagan
Janes
E. Branch of Elizabeth
S. Branch of Elizabeth
ROUTE (BRIDGE)
Geo. Washington Parkway
At 301
at 3
at 614
at 33
at 17
at 10
at 156
^
near 677
at 10
at 17/258
at 58/460 Alt.
Across fron Naval Base
RIVER MILE
LIF000.19
RPP080.19
RPP008.42
PMK082.34
MPN001.34
PRK005.93
APP001.53
JMS074.44
PGN008.42
PGN005.46
JMS013.92
EBE000.07
SBE001.53
-------
11. Comprehensive Review of Toxic Substance Sampling Data
Background/History - The Virginia Water Control Board has used
the EPA STORET computerized data base as a repository for water
quality data from the ambient monitoring and EPA CORE monitoring
programs for approximately 20 years. A comprehensive review of toxic
substances in this data base under a 205(j) grant was proposed in
1986. The project was begun in January, 1988 and is scheduled for
completion by May, 1989. Although this is a statewide effort much of
the data is in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Oblectives - The major objective of this grant is to examine
the Virginia STORET data base to identify areas with elevated or
comparatively high concentrations of toxic substances. Attempts will
be made to identify natural and anthropogenic sources of these
hotspots. Where point sources are deemed responsible, these problems
will be identified to permit writers for corrective action.
A secondary objective of the project is to evaluate the
effectiveness of the parameters monitored and the media (water,
sediment, tissue) analyzed. Specific recommendations concerning
future parameter coverage and effective targeting of ambient
monitoring resources will be made.
Methodology - From initial examination of the STORET data base,
a list of toxic substances was prioritized on the basis of potential
for environmental effects and size of data set. A complete
literature review covering toxicity, sources, standards and criteria,
and normal or "background" levels in other states will be written for
each substance.
STORET-to-SAS programs have been written to produce .
concentration frequency tables and descriptive statistics for each
parameter. Frequency distributions will be used along with standards
or criteria and available supporting literature references to define
what level will be considered elevated for each parameter. The data
sets will then be analyzed to determine the location and dates when
results above background levels were detected.
Computerized mapping of the values above the "elevated" level
will help identify patterns or clusters in the geographic
distribution. This will present a visual comparison of contamination
between basins, geographic provinces and urban vs. rural areas.
Mapping software being used for this project includes programs
available through the EPA-HCC mainframe computer and the CIS Arc-Info
System used by the U. S. Geological Survey.
29.
-------
Products - A final report will be generated by May, 1989
containing the following:
1) A determination of what a normally occurring "background"
level is for each examined parameter in the state of
Virginia.
2) A list and map of identified areas above the determined
elevated level for each parameter.
3) Where possible, a determination will be made as to a
probable source of each hotspot.
4) Recommendations for continuing or discontinuing monitoring
of parameters analyzed and identification of additional
parameters for the AQM program.
30.
-------
C. NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
1. Urban Stormvater
As a result of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Virginia is
committed to improving loading and load delivery estimates for
"developed land uses'* in the 1989 update. This is a specific
commitment to better characterize urban runoff quantity and quality
thus including toxics in general. In 1990, this information will be
further refined and in 1991 control costs must be developed.
Uncontrolled urban stormwater can lead to increased downstream
flooding and chemical pollution, diminished groundwater supplies,
increased erosion and sedimentation, extensive alteration of stream
channels and damage to aquatic wildlife. The quality of stormwater,
while highly variable, is roughly equivalent to that of secondarily
treated wastewater for many pollutants; stormwater may have higher
concentrations of some metals. Controlling stormwater quality
should be considered along with the control of stormwater quantity.
In developed areas, certain pollutants are more prevalent than
in undeveloped areas. Typically, these contaminants include
suspended solids, nutrients, bacteria, oil and grease, metals and
other toxicants. Atmospheric deposition onto these areas contains
particulates and associated contaminants from cars, factories and
wood stoves. Runoff from these developed areas is subsequently a
significant source of the contaminants and toxicants which move into
Virginia's watercourses.
The toxicants in urban runoff include oil and grease, chlorides
and heavy metals such as lead, zinc, bromium, arsenic, silver,
cadmium, mercury, chromium, nickel, copper and iron. Many of these
are washed into waterways from roads and streets and originate from
vehicles (tire wear, exhaust, lubrication losses and corrosion of
parts), pavement degradation, street marking paint and from
commercial and industrial developments. While industrial and
commercial developments yield substances such as phenols, cresols
and various pesticides, their concentrations in stormwater runoff
are usually well below relevant threshold levels. In addition,
there are exotic toxic chemicals that are infrequently found in
stootvater such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons and chlorides which
can be toxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms, including man.
Recant studies indicate that the normal levels of these substances
in runoff are not high enough to cause significant pollution due to
their inert nature (i.e., readily attach to soil/sediment particles)
and the diluting effect of the receiving waters. However, as
urbanization of the state continues, the contribution of these
31.
-------
toxicants to pollution of surface waters will become more
significant unless it is properly managed. The success of any
management program to deal with toxics will lie in its ability to
improve water quality at a minimal cost.
Current methods for identifying and prioritizing these toxics is
summarized in the technical information provided by the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) studies and the EPA priority pollutant
list. Methods for estimating pollutant (toxicant) export from urban
development sites can also be obtained from the NURP studies and the
EPA priority pollutant list.
Presently, the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation
has programs and guidelines in effect which work to decrease
toxicant export from developing areas during and after the
construction process. The establishment of "General Criteria #7" in
Chapter III of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook
(adopted by all state localities in 1982) regulates erosion,
downstream flooding and the associated toxicant movement caused by
increases in the volume, velocity and peak flow rate of stormwater.
The criterion requires adequate outfall channels and/or attenuation
of post•development flows to pro- developed levels. As of July 1,
1988, wording was added to the Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S)
Law which will allow for future modifications of our stormwater
criteria which involve water quality issues. Draft legislation is
currently being developed for presentation to the 1989 General
Assembly.
The division also carries out an erosion control inspection
program which covers all state agency projects which involve land
disturbance. Field Specialists located throughout the state make
inspections periodically to ensure that both temporary and permanent
measures are preventing erosion and subsequent sediment and pollutant
(possible toxicant) losses into adjacent drainage ways and water
courses. The program also extends into the private sector as erosion
control complaint response and local technical assistance are
performed routinely, primarily in response to requests. The Division
also provides administrative oversight over 171 local E&S programs.
This involves reviewing local ordinances for compliance with state
law, updating the lav and statewide regulations and generally
ensuring the consistent application of the law statewide.
Educational services are made available around the state by
virtue of the division's stormwater management and erosion control
courses. Consultants, inspectors, municipal officials contractors
and developers are able to learn strategies for reducing soil losses
during construction as veil as methods for preventing degradation of
drainagevays and watercourses by newly created post-construction
runoff.
32.
-------
Another form of education, the implementation of Best Management
Practice projects, also serves to promote water quality enhancement.
Through projects which involve urban marsh creation, porous pavement,
vegetated swales, bio-technical stabilization of drainage ways, level
spreaders and infiltration trenches, the division is advertising the
benefits of soil and stormwater conservation as well as accumulating
technical data on construction and performance of these practices.
In addition to the aforementioned changes in the E&S Law
relating to stormwater management, some other modifications were made
which should serve to further control urban nonpoint source
pollution. The deletion of exemptions for railroad (new)
construction and electric and telephone utility installation and the
addition of civil penalties for violations of the law were
incorporated on July 1, 1988.
The division's urban program for the future will emphasize the
establishment of guidelines which encouragae nonpoint source
pollutants reduction as a result of comprehensive planning. The
goals of this urban plan include the following:
1. Use of additional (recently authorized) division
personnel for more thorough inspections of state and
private construction projects, local erosion program
evaluations, increased technical assistance and local
feedback statewide, and additional training workshops
and associated certification programs.
2. Development of comprehensive stormwater management
legislation and regulations for the state that address
water quality impacts froa other urban nonpoint
source pollution and stormwater discharges.
3. Development of a method to estimate urban NFS loads
(including toxicant loadings), and to target high
priority areas/watersheds. This nay involve
modification and application of the previously
mentioned NURPs methods in a more comprehensive form.
In addition, upcoming E.P.A. guidelines concerning
the NUDES permitting for stormwater outfalls should
help guide our program in certain areas of the state.
4. Further investigation of BMP technologies, especially
those that provide control of nonpoint sources in
previously developed areas.
33.
-------
5. Revision of the Urban BMP Handbook as well as the Virginia
E&S Handbook to emphasize the following priority of
stormwater management techniques.
A. Infiltration or comprehensively planned retention
B. On-site retention
C. Detention
D. Outfall into adequate channel
6. Obtaining financial assistance for urban BMP implementation
in identified priority areas.
7. Promotion of the incorporation of BMP implementation
strategies into the land development regulation processes
of localities in identified urban priority areas.
Because most stormwater quality programs are just beginning, we
cannot accurately estimate the ultimate level of success in keeping
toxicants out of surface and groundwaters. The nature of the
stormwater management program requires cooperation from diverse
segments of the society - the development community, business and
individuals. The division along with the federal and local
governments will lead the way through guidelines, regulations,
education and enforcement; however, success in solving the problem
will be a function of society-wide efforts.
Milestones - Urban
1989
* Develop consistent methodologies for estimating loads
and/or load delivery calculations, for developed land uses.
1990
* Use the developed methodology to quantify and characterize
toxic loads into the Bay basin.
1991
* Identify control programs and associated costs
2. Agricultural Pesticides
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(VDACS) is responsible for several programs involving the use of
34.
-------
runoff will also assist in controlling the runoff of attached
chemical fractions of pesticides into our waters. At the same time
participation in the cost-share program allows DSWC and the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), who administer the program
locally for DSWC, an educational opportunity to visit the farmer and
provide proper pesticide use and management information.
Technical Assistance
DSWC provides technical assistance to SWCDs in the form of DSWC
personnel who assist the SWCDs in implementing the cost-share and
other programs locally, and in the form of funds which the SWCDs
utilize to hire their own personnel. These personnel, particularly
the district personnel, at this time provide technical assistance to
the farms on proper pesticide use and management. All of the SWCD
and DSWC field personnel are being required to obtain commercial
pesticide applicator certification so they will be better trained to
provide assistance.
Additional DSWC field personnel are being hired during the fall
of 1988. These personnel will be provided extensive technical
training which will include aspects of proper pesticide management
and use. These personnel will then provide additional technical
assistance and education to the farmers in the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Research Projects
Two major ongoing research projects in the Chesapeake Bay basin
involve the monitoring of two small watersheds over a ten year study
period to address the issue of the effects of BMP usage on downstream
water quality and groundwater quality. These effects include those
potential effects related to pesticide use and how they may be
affected by the implementation of best management practices. One
watershed, the Nomini Creek watershed in Westmoreland County, was
selected since it was representative of a watershed dominated by
cropland land use and the absence of point source discharges. A
second watershed, the Owl Run watershed in Fauquier County was chosen
because it contained a large percentage of livestock operations
representative of a watershed where livestock management BMPs were
needed. Water quality information from both ground and surface water
is being gathered pro-BMP and post-BMP implementation.
Continuing information being developed at our two demonstration
sites will better identify the fate of ag-related toxics (i.e.
pesticides) in both surface and groundwater. As needed, new or
expanded nonpoint monitoring will be proposed in 1990 and
recommendations for additional control programs (either regulatory or
voluntary) will be made in 1991.
37.
-------
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated pest management (IPM) is the use of a combination of
cultural, biological and chemical controls of insects, weeds and
diseases that effect agronomic crops. The Virginia Cooperative
Extension Service (VC2S) has been promoting the concepts of IPM for
many years in Virginia. Crops with extension implemented IPM
programs include alfalfa, soybeans, peanuts, small grain and fruit
production. Insect scouting to ensure proper timing and applications
of pesticide and other IPM techniques have been utilized in these
programs.
The VCES is currently developing farm system IPM strategies as a
part of strategies for low-input sustainable agriculture. In 1987
the Virginia Committee for Sustainable Agriculture was established to
research, develop and promote sustainable agriculture in Virginia.
In-service training for County extension agents is planned on
sustainable agriculture concepts to promote viable concepts to
growers. The development of an expert system data base is also
planned to assist growers and extension agents in developing farm
system strategies involving sustainable agriculture concepts which
will stress soil management concepts and not strict commodity related
concerns.
Agricultural Pesticide Milestones
1989
* Summarize and analyze the baseline demonstration watershed
data relative to pesticides.
1990
* Implement necessary new and/or expanded monitoring programs
for pesticides within the basin.
1991
* Identify additional control programs as necessary.
3. Air Deposition cf Toxics
Background - The Air Toxics Program in the Virginia Air
Pollution Control Board is charged with the maintenance and
improvement of Virginia's air quality, with special attention to
toxic air pollutants which are not regulated at the federal level.
38.
-------
Our authority comes from the Air Pollution Control Law of Virginia
(Title 10.1-1308 of the Code of Virginia) through 120- 04-0300 and
120-05-0300 (Rules 4-3 and 5-3) of the State Air Pollution Control
Board Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution.
These rules had an effective date of January 1, 1985 and enforcement
was initiated with a pilot-scale program.
The pilot program gave the Department the opportunity to become
more familiar with the evaluation and control of point sources of
toxic pollution. We have also taken our first steps towards
establishing a monitoring network for toxic air pollutants. Very
little information exists on typical ambient concentrations of toxic
pollution in our air. Our first monitoring goal is to survey as
broad a spectrum as possible and gather background information on
urban areas. Research on monitoring and analysis techniques is very
active and our initial efforts may be just as valuable for their
technical experimentation as for the direct information generated on
air quality.
With the completion of the pilot-scale program we now move into
full implementation. This involves evaluation of toxic pollution
from approximately 250 new and modified facilities per year,
resulting in permit limitations and testing requirements. Also, the
program begins to work its way through some 4000 to 5000 existing
sources of toxic air emissions. An evaluation of ambient air impact
and a compliance determination must be made for each of these
facilities and updated periodically. The monitoring program wilt
establish several permanent stations and develop capabilities for
special study/complaint response air monitoring of toxic substances.
The eventual product of this effort will be a toxic emission
inventory database for Virginia's air. This will enable us to better
evaluate and improve the air quality and protect the health and
welfare of Virginia's residents. Additionally, much of this
information will be essential in meeting one of the objectives of the
Bay Agreement's Water Quality Section:
Quantify the Impacts and identify the sources of atmospheric
inputs on the Bay system.
This is a very worthwhile objective, and to promote its
accomplishment our plan of action should include the following steps:
1. An inter-disciplinary effort to qualitatively analyze
toxic pollution of the sediment, microlayer and
atmosphere associated with the Bay and its
tributaries. This qualitative analysis should include
a correlation of those substances found in both the
atmosphere and Bay system to determine the potential
for transfers from one medium to the other.
\
39.
-------
2. Once substances with a potential for transference have been
identified, a quantitative evaluation of both air and water
concentrations should be conducted to determine their level
of impact.
3. The originating source of those substances, found to have a
significant impact, should be identified to the extent
possible. It is recognized that this kind of
fingerprinting of sources will be rare, but it may be
possible to identify an industry type or geographic area of
origin.
4. Take the appropriate action to achieve the required
reduction of toxic emissions.
These four steps are, by necessity, somewhat general and lacking
in detail. To provide the required detail, the following milestones
are proposed.
Air monitoring data which is available now or in the immediate
future consists of:
NFAN Particulate Analysis (Norfolk!
Arsenic Iron
Lead Beryllium
Barium Manganese
Cadmium Molybdenum
Chromium Nickel
Cobalt Vanadium
Copper Zinc
Toxics Canister Sampling of Volatile Organic Compounds (Norfolk and
Hampton)
dichloro difluoromethane
methyl chloride
1,2 dichloro 1,1,2,2, tetrafluoroethane
vinyl chloride
methyl bromide
ethyl chloride
trichlorofluoromethane
1,1 dichloroethane
dichloromethane
3 chloropropene
1,1,2 trichloro 1,2,2 trifluoroethane
40.
-------
1,1 dichloroethane
cis 1,2 dichloroethane
trichloromethane
1,2 dichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
1,2 dichloropropane
trichloroethene
cis 1,3 dichloropropene
trans 1,3 dichloropropene
1,1,2 trichloroethane
toluene
1,2 dibromoethane
tetrachloroethene
chlorobenzene
ethylbenzene
xylene
styrene
1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane
4 ethyl toluene
1,3,5 trimethyl benzene
1,2,4 trimethyl benzene
benzyl chloride
dichlorobenzene
1,2,4 trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
Acid Precipitation Monitoring (Hampton)
pH Bromine Iron
Ammonia Manganese Aluminum
Lead Calcium Molybdenum
Magnesium Nickel Manganese
Zinc Sodium Vanadium
Potassium Zinc
Short-Tern Milestones
o Make available any pertinent monitoring data to all
involved agencies; to better focus our monitoring efforts
on those toxic substances that are known to be present in
the Bay and the ambient air.
41.
-------
o Promote better intra-state agency cooperation and better
inter-state communication in order to provide a more
efficient implementation of the bay clean-up plan.
o Provide high level support from all parties to the
Agreement for a national research effort on atmospheric
deposition in the Chesapeake Bay.
Lonq-Term Milestones
o Continue to build toxic emissions inventories. When
sufficient emissions information exists, it will be
possible to generate multi-media dispersion models which
predict expected concentrations of pollutants and their
impact on the environment of the Bay.
o Take full advantage of innovative technologies which may
become available in the long-term. Such technologies might
include satellite measurement of pollutant concentrations
or improvements to the minimum detectable levels of
analysis equipment.
o Perform long-term, basic research into the mechanisms for
pollutant transference between air and water.
o Create and maintain permanent monitoring stations to
measure the long term trends in toxic pollutant
concentrations. Analysis of these trends will help to
measure the effectiveness of our efforts to reduce toxic
pollution.
o Promote basic research into the health effects of toxic
pollution on the plant and animal populations of the Bay
system.
4. Solid and Hazardous Waste
The Virginia Department of Waste Management is responsible for
the regulation of solid, hazardous, and radioactive waste, emergency
planning for hazardous materials (SARA Title III), and hazardous
materials transportation activities to protect public health and the
environment.
Most of the Department's activities are focused on the
management of solid and hazardous wastes in Virginia. "Solid waste"
consists of garbage, refuse, sludge, discarded appliances, and
debris, throw-aways, or disposed material, from commercial, mining,
agricultural, or community activities. "Solid waste" does not
42.
-------
include waste water discharges, however. In Virginia, the Department
regulates solid waste management facilities, including:
173 sanitary landfills (municipal waste)
72 inert material landfills (ash, block, brick, etc.) and
debris landfills (construction and land clearing)
52 industrial waste landfills (on-site, no-hazardous waste)
15 incinerators and resource recovery units (solid waste
converted to energy)
16 transfer stations (solid waste storage and transfer in a
regional system).
The 15-20,000 tons-per-day of solid waste that are generated
across Virginia demand that the Commonwealth plan how to manage the
problems of increasing flow of material, rising costs, and the siting
problem affecting groundwater contamination, public health, and
community well-being.
Hazardous waste presents a planning challenge for Virginia, as
well. "Hazardous waste1* is a term which describes either one of the
listed 400 chemicals to be thrown away or a material which has
ignitable, reactive, corrosive, or toxic properties. In Virginia, we
regulate:
81 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities (including
land-based facilities)
581 Generators
1,374 Small-quantity generators
319 Transporters (both in-state, and out-of-state).
Commercial and industrial facilities which generate, store,
treat, dispose of, or transport hazardous waste in Virginia are
subject to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Virginia has adopted the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations, which regulate hazardous waste, "cradle- to-grave1*.
Although it is difficult to set a precise figure on how much
hazardous waste is produced in Virginia —- because much of this
wasto is characterized in so many different ways — most of the
estimated 30 million tons of wastes is in the category of spent
solvents and acids or bases, and most are treated on-site, by
recycling and reuse, burning and recovering their fuel value, or by
neutralizing then.
43.
-------
Both solid and hazardous waste management represent significant
planning, regulatory and enforcement challenges to Virginia.
Foremost among these challenges is the need to move towards a waste
reduction approach.
There are four concentrated areas of activity which represent a
potential toxic threat to public health and the environment, and
which lie within the jurisdiction of waste management program
activities. Threats exist as a result of (1) the use of chemicals in
the production process, (2) the subsequent generation, treatment,
storage and disposal of hazardous wastes from such operations, (3)
the transportation of hazardous materials, both product and wastes,
and (4) the management of solid (non-hazardous) wastes which include
household hazardous and industrial wastes.
Within this group, the most significant area of concern is
related to the storage and final disposal of wastes generated.
Wastes disposed of in landfills represents a potential long term
liability and requires the greatest degree of attention. The
Department administers eight major program components which directly
support a basinwide toxics reduction strategy:
Hazardous Waste Minimization Program
State Waste Capacity Assurance Program
State Solid Waste Management Regulations
RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
State Site Certification for Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities
Federal "Superfund" and State Site Clean-up Program
Virginia Emergency Response Council (SARA Title III)
Litter Control and Recycling
Department Proonrama
Hazardous Waste Minimization
The Department has initiated a new waste minimization program
which is designed to assist Virginia industry and local governments
to implement strategies which will result in the reduction of the
amount of hazardous wastes generated. Technical assistance program
44.
-------
activities will include information exchange, non-toxic product
substitution recommendations and production process evaluation.
Milestones:
1. Target two chemical processes for technical assistance
and develop information exchange system by July 1989.
2. Establish operating program with statewide reduction
target by July 1990.
3. Host a waste minimization conference which addresses
cross-media impacts by December 1989.
4. Initiate a waste minimization workshop series by
November 1989.
5. Develop a method for evaluating and quantifying the
economic and environmental consequence of implementing
waste reduction programs, including cross-media
impacts by July, 1990.
6. Establish, by October 1989, an Award Program to
recognize industry, governmental, and community
leaders in solic and hazardous waste minimization.
7. Begin offering a program of in-plant waste audits by
July 1989.
8. By July 1989, develop a technical assistance program
and information clearinghouse for local governments
interested in instituting household hazardous waste
collection days.
Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance
Tha Department is developing the Commonwealth of Virginia's
Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance Program to assure capacity for all
hazardous wastes generated for the next twenty year period. This
assurance will assist in tha identification of additional strategies
for Virginia to provide facilities for activities to manage waste
generated.
Milestones:
1. Tha Department will meet the SARA 104(k) capacity assurance
certification by October, 1989.
2. Comply with assurance requirements by July 1992.
45.
-------
Solid Waste Management
Permitting and regulation of solid waste disposal activities.
Solid waste consists of garbage, refuse, sludge and other
discarded material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining,
agricultural and community services.
During its 1988 session the Virginia General Assembly approved a
resolution supporting a goal of achieving 25% recycling by 1995.
Milestones:
1. Promulgate new regulations by February, 1989 to improve
site location, engineering, design, construction and
operation of waste management facilities.
2. Implement upgraded enforcement program by July 1990.
Hazardous Waste Management
Permitting and regulation of hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal facilities and hazardous waste transportation.
Hazardous wastes are designated or listed wastes, or characteristic
wastes that may cause substantial present or potential hazard to
public health or to the environment when improperly managed.
Milestone:
1. Inspect 50 regulated facilities in Basin target area by
October 1989.
Site Certification of Off-Site Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.
Regulation of the siting of new or expanded hazardous waste
management facilities. Site certification is required in addition to
permits for the design and operation of hazardous waste management
facilities. Site certification evaluates off-site environmental
impacts.
Milestone:
1. By December 1989, reassess siting criteria and proposed
regulations for promulgation.
Federal Superfund and State Site Clean-up Programs
Provides state participation in clean-up efforts for existing or
abandoned sites where serious threats to health or environment arise
because of past disposal practices or continued releases from
non-permitted facilities.
46.
-------
Milestone:
1. Establish a program scneduie for State Clean-up efforts by
July 1989.
SARA Title III - Emergency Planning and Community Riaht-to-Know
Implements a state program in accordance with the federal
"Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986" to
prepare the Commonwealth and its local governments for emergencies
involving extremely hazardous substances. Assures the development of
local hazardous chemical emergency response plans and information
management systems to handle community right-to-know requests.
Coordinates program implementation with the Department of Emergency
Services.
Milestones:
1. Review all emergency plans submitted by local emergency
planning committees under SARA Title III by December 1988.
2. Begin data entry of hazardous chemical information
submitted by regulated facilities under SARA Title III by
January 1939.
Litter Control and Recycling
Promotes litter control and recycling programs as major
components of comprehensive waste management plans. Litter control
programs prevent the improper disposal of litter which poses threats
to public health and the environment. Recycling programs advance
beneficial uses of wastes and prevent or delay disposal of such
wastes.
Milestone:
1. Implement initial recycling program activities, including
household hazardous waste management recommendations, by
July 1989.
Waste Management Planning
Development of policies, programs and initiatives to address
major waste management issues in the Commonwealth. Promotes citizen
participation in development of plans and regulatory programs and
inform public of developing trends and activities in waste
management.
47.
-------
Milestone:
1. Staff will develop draft solid and hazardous waste
management plans by September 1989 including citizen
education.
2. By September 1989, review regional plans submitted by
Planning District Commissions receiving planning grants in
1988, incorporate the regional plans into the draft state
solid and hazardous waste management plans, and develop
recommendations on improving regional cooperation on
integrated waste management implementation.
48.
-------
D. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Results from studies of the Elizabeth River, James River, and
Chesapeake Bay show areas of highly contaminated sediments. A
description including history, purposes, accomplishments, and future
direction of these studies are described below.
JAMES RIVER
History
During the years of 1966-75, the production of kepone or
chlorodecone, a persistent organochlorine insecticide similar to
mirex resulted in the release of approximately 90,720 kg of the toxic
compound to the environment through atmospheric emissions, wastewater
discharges, and bulk-disposal of off-specification batches.
Estimates indicate there were 9,070 to 18,140 kg of kepone deposited
in the top 30 cm of the James River bed sediments. In late 1975, the
James River and its tidal tributaries were closed to commercial
fishing except for the taking of shad, herring, catfish, and the
harvesting of bluecrab. This closure was followed by a ban on taking
sport fish by order of Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr., which was
lifted in 1980. In 1981, the commercial fishing ban was lifted for
all shellfish species and all fish species except striped bass and
undepurated eel. In 1982, the commercial fishing ban was further
modified. Croaker were banned year round and spot, bluefish, and
gray trout were banned the last six months of each year.
Purpose
In December 1975, the Virginia Kepone Task Force was established
to develop a comprehensive kepone monitoring program with
responsibilities divided among the State Water Control Board (SWCB),
State Department of Health (SDH), and the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science (VIMS). In 1976, the State Water Control Board
initiated a monitoring program designed to assess the magnitude of
kepone contamination by focusing on contamination of surface water,
bed sediments, finfish, and groundwater.
Data generated from the sediment monitoring program have been a
valuable input into several aspects of the kepone contamination
problem. Collection of kepone sediment data allows for an evaluation
by state and federal agencies of the feasibility of removing or
stabilizing kepone contaminated sediments. In addition, these data
aid in federal/state 401 permit evaluations of dredging and disposal
activities in the Janes River. Finally, the sediment data provides
annual comparisons of kepone bed sediment to detect unexpected
moveaents. The attached graphs illustrate significant decline in the
average kepone concentrations from the year 1977 to 1987 at all
sediment depths.
49.
-------
Accomplishments and Future Direction
Due to the natural sedimentation processes in the river the
concentrations of kepone in fish tissue have steadily declined to a
level below the FDA action level of 0.3 ppm. Therefore, the
commercial fishing ban was allowed to expire in June 19S8. Several
thousand pounds of kepone remain in James river sediments, acting as
a reservoir for potential contamination of aquatic life in the
future. Therefore, intensive monitoring efforts will continue in
order to ensure that tissue concentrations are below the designated
action level.
ELIZABETH RIVER
History
Scientists have been aware for years that sediments in the
Elizabeth River are enriched with heavy metals. Recent studies
conducted by VIMS and ODU have also revealed the presence of elevated
levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs or PAHs) in the
Elizabeth River sediments. Petroleum spills, urban runoff, sewage
effluents, industrial processes, and combustion of fossil fuels are
the major sources of PNA's entering aquatic systems. The toxicities
of the majority of PNA's are unknown. However, many of the PNA's are
reported to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic to mammals.
Over 300 different organic compounds have been identified in the
Elizabeth River sediments.
In 1981, VIMS collected sediment samples at 27 stations in the
Elizabeth River system which were analyzed for organics. Highest
concentrations ir surface sediments, up to 100 ppm dry weight, were
found in the highly industrialized southern branch. PNA's were the
dominant group of compounds identified in the aromatic fraction.
Sediment toxicity tests conducted by ODU indicates significant lethal
effects to aquatic organisms exposed to PNA contaminated bed sediment
from sites in the southern branch.
A number of studies have documented water quality problems in
the Elizabeth River associated with contaminated sediments due to
creosote, heavy metals, and dispersal of PNA's, which led to
development of a comprehensive water quality management plan for the
Elizabeth River by the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency and the
State Hater Control Board. Through the efforts of this planning
program, the Norfolk Harbor Dredging Project was identified as a
significant issue for concern.
50.
-------
The Norfolk Harbor 40 foot channel dredging project includes
maintenance dredging over a ten year period. The channel begins in
the Elizabeth River at Lamberts Point and extends up river to the
Norfolk and Western Railway Bridge near Paradise Creek. The
authorized dimensions are 40 feet in depth, 375 to 750 feet in width,
over a length of six miles. Routine maintenance involves
periodically removing up to 250,000 cubic yards of predominantly clay
and silt from various shoals in the channel until December 31, 1995.
Initial disposal will be by direct pumpout to Craney Island Disposal
Area. Subsequent disposal will be the same or through use of the
Craney Island Rehandling Basin. As part of the 401 Certification
Requirements issued to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, special
conditions controlling dredging activities are part of the
compliance. These Special Conditions prohibit double-handling of
dredged material in the State waters and require that barges which
are to be used to transport dredged material to Craney Island
Rehandling can be filled to a point that no overflow occurs.
The Craney Island Rehandling Basin serves as an interim
discharge facility for materials scheduled for the Craney Island
Disposal area. Located on the western marginal flank of the Norfolk
Reach of the Elizabeth River, the Rehandling Basin comprises an area
of about 35 acres and when empty, a depth of 40 feet. Access
channels of 18 ft. depth are incised in the river margin platform of
about 10 ft. depths.
The SWCB has approved the proposed reinforcement of the existing
perimeter dikes around Craney Island Disposal area in Hampton Roads
Harbor at Portsmouth, Virginia. The proposed plan of dike
stabilization makes it possible to raise the perimeter dikes to an
elevation of 30 to 32 feet in four to eight years. This project
requires hydraulic placement of 3-5 million cubic yards of dredged
fill material around the perimeter of Craney Island. The fill
material will be placed about 10 feet deep adjacent to the dike and
will extend outwards into the waterway for approximately 1,000 feet
tapering on a grade of about 1:100 and encompassing an area of about
675 acres of the sub-aqueous bottom. Completion of this project is
expected to extend the useful life of Craney Island as a disposal
area for dredged materials in Hampton Roads for approximately 34
years.
Purpose
In order to continue the useful life of the Craney Island
Disposal area, projects designed to increase capacity of the facility
are necessary. A study conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (VIMS) on the physical and chemical properties of the Craney
Island Rehandling Basin indicate that the basin is acting as an
51.
-------
effective sediment trap under most conditions. Background
measurements of sediment sorbed PAH concentrations indicated levels
less than 10 ppm, and for the dissolved phase ranging between 3.4 and
29 ppb. Suspended solids background concentrations on February 1984
averaged 13.2 ppm. Plume monitoring results indicate that within two
hours after discharge, the suspended solids concentration had
approached background levels. Further investigations are needed to
evaluate worst case conditions.
In order to determine the potential ecological impacts of
dredging contaminated sediments from the Elizabeth river, the SWCB
performed two acute sediment toxicity tests in 1984. An infaunal
amphipod, Rheopoxynuis Abronius was used as the test organism for the
10 day static bioassay. Complete mortality occurred in sediments
located in heavily industrialized portions of the southern branch.
Immediately adjacent to the discharge from an active creosote
operation a definite mortality gradient was shown by percent
mortality increases moving down the southern branch and decreases
toward the upper reaches of the river. Results indicated higher
toxicity at bank sites closer to the source of contamination.
Accomplishments and Future Action
Results obtained through sediment analyses and sediment toxicity
tests have enabled the agency to identify point sources of pollution
and thus establish and investigate control measures. (Refer to the
description of the Elizabeth River Initiative in part B of this
Appendix) As part of the Elizabeth River Initiative, sediment "hot
spots" will be identified and sediment criteria will be developed.
Chesapeake Bay
History
In the late 1970s, the first comprehensive monitoring program
for toxic organic chemicals was undertaken in the mainstem of the
Chesapeake Bay. Funding froa Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay Program
allowed scientists to develop and use chemical analytical
methodologies to quantify and track hundreds of organic compounds in
the Bay sediments. The first set of samples was taken in the spring
of 1979. The second set was taken in the fall of the same year.
More samples were obtained in 1984 and 1985 with assistance from the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
52.
-------
Hundreds of compounds were detected and most were found in the
aromatic fraction. The most abundant toxic compounds found were
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. The spatial distribution reflects
both particle size distribution in the sediments and input from
rivers. Coarse-grained sediments found near the mouth of the Bay
contained low, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon levels. There are
too few stations for an area the size of the lower Bay to draw
conclusions from comparison of 1979 and 1984-85 sampling results,
although the 1984-85 samples show increases in overall toxics
concentrations when compared to 1979 samples.
More than 60% of the total input into the Bay of iron,
manganese, nickel, lead, and zinc is held in the bed sediments.
There is a direct correlation between the ability of sediment to bind
and store chemicals to the size of sediment particles since fine
grained sediments have a relatively higher surface area per unit mass
than coarse grained ones. Fine grained sands have higher
concentrations of metals.
Results from tributary monitoring in the Bay conducted by VIMS
in 1986 showed a variety of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. There
were few polar compounds detected in the tributaries. The aromatic
hydrocarbon content was found to decrease from up river to down river
supporting the theory that Chesapeake Bay tributaries carry and
transport small amounts of sediment to the mouths from up river.
Accomplishments and Future Action
The existing mainstem monitoring program in the Chesapeake Bay
will be expanded to include more stations as well as additional
parameters in order to assess the impact of toxics in the Chesapeake
Bay.
53.
-------
COUHONZ<H 0? VIRGINIA
POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES
WITH TOXIC MONITORING PROGRAMS
NPDESi
FACILITY
CLASS
RCVSTRM
RVRBSN
VA0077879
VA0004049
VA0025275
VA0024741
VA0057541
VA0079359
VA0005312
VA0005291
VA0058254
VA0005282
VA0005304
VA0002780
VA0003492
VA0004189
VA0004774
VA0003697
VA0003654
VA0058122
VA0020991
VA0004677
VA0025488
VA0002798
VA0003336
VA0074781
VA0053813
VA0073555
VA0027065
VA0025542
VA0057576
VA0004669
VA0024996
VA0021351
VA0054607
VA0004791
VA0002925
VA0063690
VA0003450
VA0004031
VA0079S02
VA0066630
GLOUCESTER LUMBER PRODUCTS INDMIN
HOLLY FARMS TEMPERANCEVILLB INDMIN
HRSD CHES-ELIZ MUNIMAJ
NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER FBDMIN
UNION CARBIDE LINDB INDMIN
VEPCO CHISMAN CREEK INDMIN
ALLIED CHEMICAL CHESTERFIELD INDMAJ
ALLIED CHEMICAL HOPEWBLL INDMAJ
ALLIED COLLOIDS INC INDMIN
ALLIED CORP. BENDIX ELECTRONIC INDMIN
ALLIED TECHNICAL CENTER INDMIN
AMERICAN TOBACCO HANMBR DIV IHDMAJ
AQUALON COMPANY
ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES
BABCOCX & WILCOX COMML NUC
BABCOCX « WILCOX NAVY NUC IHDMAJ
BASF CORP FIBERS DIV IHDMAJ
BLUB BIRD BAST INDMIN
BUENA VISTA POTW MUNIMAJ
BURLINGTON GLASGOW IHDMAJ
CAMBLOT POTW RT7ANNA WSA HUHIMIH
CBASB BAG CO INDMIN
CHEVRON CHESAPEAKE TERMINAL INDMIN
COGENTRIX PORTSMOUTH INDMIN
COLONNA'S SHIPYARD INDMIN
COMMONWEALTH WOOD PRESERVERS INDMIN
COOPER INDUSTRIES IHDMAJ
COVINGTON POTW MUNIMAJ
DOMINION TERMINAL ASSOCIATES INDMIN
DUPONT SPRUANCB IHDMAJ
FALLING CREEK POTW MUNIMAJ
FARMVILLB POTW MUNIMAJ
GENERAL ELECTRIC CHARLOTTBSVIL IHDMAJ
GEORGIA BONDED FIBERS INC INDMIN
GRIFFIN PIPE PRODUCTS INDMIN
HENRICO REGIONAL POTW MUNIMAJ
HERCULES COVINGTON • IHDMAJ
HOLLY FARMS GLEN ALLEN INDMIN
HOPEWBLL COGSHKRATION IHDMAJ
HOPEWBLL POTW MUNIMAJ
XTRIB FOXES CR
SANDY BOTTOM BR
CHESAPEAKE BAY
TABBS CR
WYTHB CR
CHISMAN CR
JAMBS R
JAMES R
NANSEMOND R
LUKAS CR
X-TRIB SWIFT CR
JAMBS R
CATTAIL CR
SO.BR.ELIZ.R
JAMBS R
JAMBS R
WOOD CR
MAURY R
MAURY R
MAURY R
H FK RIVANNA R
JAMBS R
SO.BR.ELIZ.R
BLIZ. R
B.BR.BLIZ.R
SALTBRS CR
XTRIB SF RIVANA
JACKSON R.
JAMBS R
JAMBS R
FALLING CR
APPOMATTOX R
HERRING BR
MAURY R
JAMBS R
JAMBS R
JACKSON R
XTRIB CHICK. R
GRAVELLY RUN
GRAVELLY RUN
CHES/ATL
CHES/ATL
CHBS/ATL
CHBS/ATL
CHES/ATL
CHES/ATL
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMES
JAKES
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
-------
NPDES*
FACILITY
CLASS
RCVSTRM
RVRBSN
VA0025208
VA0025283
VA0025241
VA002S259
VA0064459
VA0025267
VA0003077
VA0073300
VA0020567
VA0002984
VA0006262
VA0003310
VA0024970
VAOOS1268
VA0073091
VA0002771
VA002S518
VA0050962
VA0004804
VA0005215
VA0004383
VA0004405
VA0003026
VAOOOOOOO
VA0025437
VA0026557
VA0057142
VA0025003
7X0060194
_VA0003034
VA0002861
VA000552S
VA0063177
VA0059005
VA0003468
VA0053902
VA0025216
VA0004421
VA0005487
VA0004138
VA0004081
VA0004146
VA0004090
VA0003387
VA0006408
VA0003646
VA0076384
VA0025160
HRSD ARMY BASB MUNIMAJ
HRSD BOAT HARBOR MUNIMAJ
HRSD JAMES RIVER MUNIMAJ
HRSO LAMBERTS POINT MUNIMAJ
HRSD NANSEMOND MUNIMAJ
HRSD WILLIAMSBURG MUNIMAJ
ICI AMERICAS INDMAJ
JAMBS RIVER COGBNERATION CO INDMIN
LEXINGTON POTW MUNIMAJ
LYDALL INDMIN
LYNCHBURG FOUNDRY ARCHER Ot INDMIN
LYNCHBURG FOUNDRY LYNCHBURG INDMIN
LYNCHBURG POTW MUNIMAJ
MARPOL INC INDMIN
METRO MACHINE CORP INDMIN
MODINB MANUFACTURING CO INDMAJ
MOORBS CR. POTW RIVANNA WSA MUNIMAJ
NAROX INC INDMIN
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING INDMAJ
NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD FBDMAJ
NORSHIPCO BERKBLY INDMIN
NORSHIPCO BRAUBLBTON INDMIN
OWENS ILLINOIS INDMAJ
PANTASOTB INDMIN
PETERSBURG POTW MUNIMAJ
PHILIP MORRIS PARK 500 INDMAJ
PIER IX TERMINAL CO (UASSSY) INDMIN
PORTSMOUTH PINNERS PT POTW MUNIMAJ
PROCTORS Ot POTW MUNXMAJ
RBBVBS BROTHBRS TMHMTM
REYNOLDS METALS BBLLWOOO INDMIN
REYNOLDS METALS CORP OPTICS XHDMXN
RICHMOND POTW MUNIMAJ
SMITHFTBLD FOODS XNC TNPMAJ
SOLZTS CORP NEW CANTON
ST. JOB PAPER CO
U.S. ARMY FT. SUSTZS FBDMAJ
U.S. NAVY SEWBLLS PT COMPLBX FBDMAJ
U.S.NAVY CRANBY ISLAND FUEL DP FBDMAJ
VBPCO BREMO BLUFF INDMAJ
VBPCO CHBSAPBAKB ENERGY CENTER INDMAJ
VBPCO CHBSTSRFIBLD INDMAJ
VBPCO SURRY INDMAJ
VIRGINIA amrtrn.9 JNC INDMAJ
VIRGINIA FIBRE CORP INDMAJ
WBSTVACO INDMAJ
ABEX CORP XNDMXN
ALEXANDRIA POTW MUNIMAJ
ELIZ R
JAMES R
JAMES R
ELIZ R
JAMES R
JAMBS R
JAMES R
GRAVELLY RUN
MAURY R
JACKSON R
JAMBS R
JAMBS R
JAMBS R
BLIZ R
BLIZ R
INDIAN GAP RUN
MOORBS CR
SHAND CR
JAMBS R
BLIZ R
BLIZ R
BLIZ R
JAMBS R
JACKSON R
APPOMATTOX R
JAMBS R
JAMBS R
BLIZ R
JAMBS »
INDIAN GAP RUN
PROCTORS Ot
HORSBPEN BR
JAMBS R
PAGAN R
JAMBS R
XTRIB BLIZ R
SXXFFBS CR
JAMBS R
BLIZ R
JAMBS R
BLIZ R
JAMBS R
JAMBS R
BLIZ R
JAMBS R
JACKSON R
ABRAMS CR
HUNTING CR
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMBS
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
POTOMAC.
POTOMAC
-------
ffPDESJl
.FACILITY
CLASS
RCVSTRM
RVRBSN
VA0025143
VA0002208
VA0073245
VA0002160
VA0002402
VA0060640
VA0054453
VA0058726
VA0025372
VA0025364
VA0002178
VA0076104
VA0074951
VA0025101
VA0002534
VA0001767
VA0001902
VA0001791
VA0001961
VA0002011
VA0002437
VA0064793
VA0024988
VA0002071
VA0002313
VA0025151
VA0001356
VA0074480
VA0001364
VA0076338
VA0005398
VA0059145
VA0068110
VA0076392
VA0025658
VA0003018
VA0003115
VA0029521
VA0021105
VA0064238
VA0057011
VA0052451
VA0004103
ARLINGTON POTW MUNIMAJ
AVTEX FIBERS INC FRONT ROYAL INDMAJ
COORS. ADOLPH CO INDMIN
DUPONT WAYNESBORO INDMAJ
GENICOM CORP INDMAJ
HARRSBURG-ROCKINGHAM REG POTW MUNIMAJ
HOLLY FARMS NEW MARKET INDMIN
HOWELL METAL CO INDMIN
LITTLE HUNTING CHEEK POTW MUNIHAJ
LOWER POTOMAC POTW MUNIMAJ
MERCK & CO INDMAJ
MG INDUSTRIES INDMIN
MONOPILAMENTS INC INDMIN
MOONBY POTW PR WM COUNTY MUNIMAJ
O*SULLIVAN CORP INDMIN
REYNOLD? METALS GROTTOES INDMAJ
ROCCO FARM FOODS INDMIN
ROCCO fUKTHKR PROCESSING INDMIN
ROCKINGHAM POULTRY ALMA INDMIN
ROCKINGHAM POULTRY BROADWAY 'INDMIN
SNYDER GENERAL CORP INDMIN
STAUNTON POTW MUNIMAJ
UOSA POTW MUNIHAJ
VBPCO POSSUM POINT INDMAJ
WAMPLBR LONGACRS INC IHDMZN
WAYNBSBORO POTW MUNIMAJ
WAYNTEX INDMAJ
WINARICK A.R. INC TNDMTTf
AILEEN INC. INDMAJ
CHESAPEAKE CORP WOOD TRBATERS INDMAJ
CLARKE L.A. & SON INDMAJ
CULPBPSR WOOD PRESERVERS IHDUBf
PMC POTW SPOTSYLVANIA CO "MUNIMAJ
LITTLE FALLS RUN POTW MUNIMAJ
MASSAPOKAX REGIONAL POTW MUNIMAJ
AMOCO YORKTOWN INDMAJ
CHESAPEAKE CORP INDMAJ
DOSWBLL POTW MUNIMAJ
CORDOMSVILLg POTW MUNDCEN
BRSD YORK RIVER MUNIMAJ
RIDGIO KOLLMAN INDMAJ
VEPCO HORTH ANNA INDMAJ
VBPCO YORKTOWN INDMAJ
FOUR MILE RUN
SO.FK.SHEN.R
SF SHENANDOAH R
SOUTH R
SOUTH R
NORTH RIVER
SMITH CR
NF SHENANDOAH R
L.BUNTING CR
POBICK CR
SF SBBNANDOAH R
JONES HOLLOW
XTRIB SOUTH R
NBABSCO CR
ABRAMS CR
SOUTH R
STONY CR
NF SHENANDOAH R
SF SHENANDOAH R
NT SBBNANDOAH R
XTRIB MIDDLE R
MIDDLE R
ZTRIB BULL RUN
QUANTICO CR
WAR BRANCH
SOUTH R
SOUTH R
SCATZS BR
RICXMAN RUN
RUFFINS POND
MASSAPONAX CR
XTRIB JONAS RUN
RAPPABANNOCK R
RAPPABANNOCK R
RAPPABANNOCK R
YORK R
PAMUNKEY R
HORTH ANNA R
SO ANNA R
YORK R
POORHOUSE RUN
LAKE ANNA
YORK R
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
RAPP
RAPP
RAPP
RAPP
RAPP
RAPP
RAPP
YORK
YORK
YORK
YORK
YORK
YORK
YORK
YORK
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA - PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
Faci 1 ity
PTP VUCB Audit VPOES Par*it
sal of P»-ogr»« Condition
Total SIUi
(POC).(H). Pot
(flUT).
ing too
90
(SI >
. (SI)
2/1S/84
9/14/84
3/1/82
PTP
THP
Atlantic
(KPSO)
Savvic* Autn.
Boat Mart
(01wanna)
(AS).(AND).(LA) Moutn of 3/1/82
Potomac
(AS).(SI) Ja*a-» 3/1/92
1O/12/94
3/1/92
RappaKan. 3/24/93
3/12/94
4.13 11 plant* In
(Total) «u*ta«
22
0.1
24
3.0
9.0
(Dt»«ta<-* laid)
rwc 4.0
(Spotnvlwanla)
Cordons Ilia
(RapIdan SA)
(AS). (WO). (LA)
(AS)..(AO). It
(LA)
. (AWT).(LF)
RocfcingnaM
Haw I co
Regional
J«a»»
(HVSO)
O.63
9.0
30
SO
2O (AS>.(ANO)..
tNVSO)
Llttl* Mating
CTF).
(HKSO)
22
1.47
19
1O
3.0
19 ««>,
<9C>
4/18/88 PTP l*p|««M»n.
. TMP
6/23/88 PTP l*ola*OT.
TMP
6/23/88 PTP l*pla«an.
TMP
PTP Oavalop.
6/23/89 PTP I*.
3/17/99 PTP lap|«
6/23/88 PTP |*(
TMP
3/17/89 PTP Oaw«lop.
1/13/89 PTP lapl«
PTP Oawlop.
PTP 0*v«lop.
1/11/94
3/1/92
3/1/92
4/11/93
4/11/93
11/9/94
1O/12/94
3/1/92
9/1/94
1/14/99 PTP lap!
THP
6/23/99 PTP laplc
THP
6/23/99 PTP lapla
THP
PTP l*plaa«n.
THP
3/23/99 PTP lapla^n.
THP
PTP Oavwlop.
THP
3/17/99 PTP |apl«a«n.
THP
6/23/99 PTP !apla*an.
THP
PTP Oaualop.
THP
1/14/99 PTP lapla^n.
S/0
4/3
6/0
3/2
7/3
t/O.
6/4
3/2
O/O
l/l
8/6
6/1
3/0
3/0
13/4
O/O
19/O
19/2
9/3
4/O
10/0
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA - PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
Pol"!
(HPSO)
Pf-octor'« C/-U.
IS
14
70
0.29
8/8/84
3/12/84
11/8/84
9/1/86
11/9/83
3/1/92
3/1/92
6/23/88 PTP I•pi*
THP
1/13/88 PTP
9/3/88 PTP
THP
TUP
PTP
2/9/89 PTP |«p|.
THP
3/16/89 PTP I«p|.
THP
6/23/89 PTP
6/23/89 PTP
THP
9/0
3/t
24/O
2/0
6/4
4/O
4/0
AND: ^r^^rotete Ot9»%llor»
*Sl Meliv«t*d Sludg*
MJT: ««*w««e»d U*«tMMtw
LM: Land Application of
N:
only
HOC: Kot«iin9 Blologle«l
SC: Slud9» Coapoitlng
Sf: Slud9* Incineration
SIU: Significant |ndu*O-l«l
TT: Trickling filter
Tt«*: Toalc« Monitoring
-------
Results of Chemical Fingerprinting Program
Association between anthropogenic compounds detected in 42 point source
discharges to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries with sediment and
biota collected near the outfalls. A total of 70 point sources where
sampled during 1985-1988.
Geographical
Compounds Detected
in
5 Total number of samples
Percentage of the total number
Effluent Associated
Compounds Detected
Area
Elizabeth River
Upper James
Lower James
Potomac
York
Chesapeake Bay
Rappahannoc*
Effluent U2)
13
7
7
6
4
3
2
(31%)b
(17%)
(17%)
(14%)
(10%)
(7%)
(4%)
Sediment ( 3 2
10
8
3
4
2
3
2
(31%)
(25%)
(9%)
(13%)
(6%)
(9%)
(6%)
1 Biota nor
4
2
1
1
1
1
(40%)
(20%)
(10%)
(10%)
(10%)
(10%)
Results of On-3ite Toxicity Studies
Summary of results of effluent testing conducted in conjunction with the
mobile bioassay lab.
Facilities
Tented
POTWs (3)
Process waste (4)
affluent Toxicity
Acute Chronic
2 3
2 4
Xnstream
Effects
1
2
Oil/Water
separators (5)
Drydocks (4)
not
tasted
4
4
WQ Criteria
Exceedences
Cu
Cd, Cuf
Pb, Zn
Cu, Ag,
Phenols
Cu, Pb,
Zn
-------
-------
TABLE - EPA CORE FISH STATIONS IN OR EAST OF FALL ZONE
RIVER
Little Hunting Creek
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Pamunkey
Mattaponi
York
Appomattox
James
Pagan
Pagan
James
E. Branch of Elizabeth
S. Branch of Elizabeth
ROUTE (BRIDGE)
Geo. Washington Parkway
At 301
at 3
at 614
at 33
at 17
at 10
at 156
near 677
at 10
at 17/258
at 58/460 Alt.
across from Naval Base
RIVER MILE
LIF000.19
RPP080.19
RPPOOS.42
PMK082.34
MPN001.34
PRK005.93
APP001.53
JMS074.44
PGN008.42
PGN005.46
JMS013.92
EBE000.07
SBE001.53
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
November 1988
-------
District of Columbia
Toxics Reduction Strategy
A. Identification of Known Toxic Problem Areas
The District of Columbia's toxics problem is unique in a
number of ways. It is an entirely urban area with no
agriculture. It is primarily a government and service
economy with no heavy industry. And, it is located at or
near the head of tide for the Potomac and Anacostia.
Consequently, toxics from agriculture do not originate in
the District but may be carried down the river from upstream
activities and settle with' particles in the more sluggish
tidal water. Yet, it may well be that nonpoint source
generation of toxics on a per acre urban basis is much
higher than for agricultural areas due to pesticides and
heavy metals. Point source discharges of toxics in the
District are predominantly from water and wastewater
treatment systems. At present it is not possible to
quantify the exact amount of toxics originating in the
District; however, the following data give some indication
of the magnitude of the problem.
-------
Table 1
Toxics Loads
Pounds Per Year
Nonpoint Source
Pesticides
Commercial application (FY 80)
Government application
Individual application
8,000,000
ND
ND
Urban Runoff
Chromium
Iron
Zinc
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
665
ND*
48,110
1,156
18,059
6,863
Combined Sever Overflows
Chromium
Iron
Zinc
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
ND
ND
3,353
189
6,591
ND
* ND - No Data
-------
Point Sources
Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant
Chlorine (eliminated) (474,500)
Chromium 27,485
Iron 254,770
Zinc 57,816
Cadmium 190
Lead 15,914
Copper 11,388
Water Treatment Plant
Aluminum 2,800,000
Spills
Oil & Grease 18,750
-------
The 8,000,000 pounds per year of pesticides applied by
commercial companies is an estimate based upon an incomplete
and inconsistent data base and is not necessarily the amount
of active ingredient. How much of these materials reach a
water body is also unknown. However, if the application
rate was uniform it would represent 200 pounds per acre per
year not even including the unknown amount applied by
individual home owners and governmental agencies.
Urban runoff and combined sewer overflow (CSO) data is
available only for heavy metals and the loading calculations
are based upon an inadequate data set. Still, the annual
load is estimated to be 85,000 pounds. This is about 2
pounds per acre per year.
Point sources contribute about 3.5 million pounds of toxics
per year.
Two points that are immediately obvious are the lack of a
good data base to substantiate the loading estimates and the
"apples and oranges'* nature of toxics such that total
loading numbers are not useful.
Toxics problems in the waters of the District are generally
most severe in the Anacostia River. These problems are
evidenced by high concentrations of heavy metals in the
-------
sediment. The Anacostia River also suffers from anoxia and
high levels of suspended solids which make it difficult to
establish cause and effect relationships between the biota
and toxics. The Potomac to a lesser extent also has
elevated levels in the sediment which decrease downstream
from the metropolitan area. Chlordane and PCS
concentrations in fish are of concern and the subject of
additional study. Hickey Run, a small tributary to the
Anacostia has had chronic oil and grease discharges for
decades. This has led to severe contamination of the bottom
sediment to the extent that it continually releases oil into
the water column.
B. Point Source Programs
1. Water Quality Standards
In 1985, the District promulgated an extensive list of
toxics standards for District Waters. These are
contained in Table 2. Since that time additional
information has been developed and the District will
consider adopting additional toxics and more stringent
standards in the next triennial review. The Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources will
be used as a guide. The toxic of primary concern is
aluminum for which the District has no specific
standard.
-------
TABLE 2
Toxics Water Quality Standards
For
Aquatic Life
Chemicals (Maximum—mq/1)
Arsenic, total recoverable
Cadmium, total recoverable
Chlorine, total residual
Chromium hexavalent
Copper, total recoverable
Cynaide free
Iron, total
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
Antimony
Aldrin
Acrolein
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated benzenes
(except di)
Chlorinated ethanes
Chlorinated Naphthalene
0.09
*
0.01
0.01
*
Lead, total recoverable
Mercury, total
recoverable
NH3, un-ionized (as N)
Phenol
Selenium, total
0.003 recoverable
1.0
Toxics
Zinc, total recoverable
(Maximum-ua/ 1 i
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00012
02
1
04
05
50.0
700.0
60.0
0.4
10.0
1,000.0
250.0
150.0
1 000
0.0043
25.0
50.0
200.0
Chloronated Phenols
(except penta)
Chloroalkyl ethers
Chloroform
D D T & isomers
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes
Dieldrin
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
3.0
1,000.0
3,000.0
0.001
200.0
10.0
1,000.0
0.0019
33.0
30.0
0.01
0.0023
40.0
-------
Toxics (MaxJmum-uq/l)
Flouranthene
Haloethers
Haloraethanes
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocylopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines
Pentachlorophenol
Pbthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Continued
400.0
40.0
1,000.0
0.0038
10.0
0.5
1,000.0
600.0
100.0
1,00.0
20.0
600.0
7.0
100.0
0.01
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons
Silver (dissolved)
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
2 , 4-dimethylphenol
Dichloropropane
Dichloropropene
Hexachororcyclohexane
( Linda. le & isomers)
0.01
100.0
1.0
800.0
100.0
600.0
0.01
1,000.0
100.0
200.0
200.0
2000.0
400.0
0.03
NOTE: * denotes hardness based criteria
8
-------
2. NPDES Permits
The Environmental Protection Agency issues the NPDES
permits in the District; however, the District reviews
each permit and, if appropriate, issues water quality
certification that the standards will be achieved or
maintained. Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant and
some other permitees now have biomonitoring
requirements for toxics.
3. Pretreatment Program
The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant has
implemented a pretreatment permit program regulating
the discharge of toxics to the sanitary sewer system.
The program has been in effect for about two years and
effluent data suggests that it is reducing toxics
loads to the Potomac.
4. Dechlorination
One of the Mayor's original Chesapeake Bay Initiatives
was to implement dechlorination at Blue Plains WWTP.
The dechlorination facility is now on line and
effectively eliminates the discharge of half a million
pounds per year of total residual chlorine.
-------
C. Nonpoint Source Programs
1. Stormwater Management Program
The District has developed a regulatory program which
requires BMP's be installed for all new development and
redevelopment. There is also a requirement for the
developer to maintain the BMP's. Because many of the
toxics are associated with sediment in runoff, the
program will begin to deal with part of the problem at
the source. However, because the rate of development
is relatively low in the District, significant
improvements will not occur immediately.
2. Implementation/Demonstration Projects
Several demonstration projects are currently under
development for nutrient management purposes which
will result in a reduction of toxics loads from urban
runoff. In 1989, three stormwater outfalls will be
selected and controls will be constructed in 1990.
3. Combined Sewer Overflow
Phase I of the Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Program when completed will result in about a 55%
reduction in toxics (metals) from this source.
Additionally, dechlorination will be employed at the
swirl concentrator to control chlorine from the
disinfection process.
10
-------
Other Programs
Hazardous Waste Management Program
Hazardous waste is any discarded material that may be
harmful to human health or the environment when improperly
managed. In the District, dry cleaning establishments,
print, plating, paint and body shops, and laboratories
generate hazardous wastes. Household wastes, by statute,
are not considered hazardous.
Hazardous waste management activities in the District are
authorized by the D.C. Hazardous Waste Management Act of
1977 and its amendments, and the Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. These acts regulate the
generation, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal
of hazardous waste in the District. Disposal of hazardous
waste is prohibited in the District; wastes are transported
outside of the District for disposal.
Facilities which generate or store hazardous wastes prior to
disposal are inspected for compliance with regulations. The
facilities must maintain records including inspection and
personnel training records, shipping manifests, and
information about the composition, quantity, and location of
wastes. Wastes are sampled by the District and analyzed to
ensure the information recorded by the facilities about the
composition of the waste is correct. In case of a spill,
11
-------
information collected from the samplings is used to
facilitate clean-up operations. Clean-ups are coordinated
through the Mayor's Command Center.
Facilities which generate or store hazardous wastes in the
District must obtain an operating permit. The facilities
are inspected for compliance with District regulations for
employee training, accident response plans, and storage
methods.
Underground storage tanks will contaminate ground water if
their contents leak or spill. Because leaks and spills may
occur, the District has established an underground storage
tank (UST) program. The program requires that all non-
residential USTs containing gasoline or hazardous materials
be registered. This notifies the District government about
the location, contents, and condition of storage tanks. The
plan also requires any newly installed tanks to be non-
corrosive. All of these preventive measures will increase
the protection of groundwater resources in the District.
Pesticides Control Program
Pesticides are chemicals that control or kill weeds,
insects, fungi, rodents, and other undesirable organisms.
All pesticides are toxic to some degree and, if used or
disposed of improperly, may possibly harm humans and
12
-------
pollute the environment. The District regulates the use,
storage, sale, labeling, transportation, and disposal of
pesticides.
Pesticide control activities in the District of Columbia are
based on the D.C. Pesticide Operations Act of 1987 and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The
federal act authorizes the District to develop and
administer a pesticide management plan. Under this plan,
the District:
o Investigates consumer complaints of alleged misuse
of pesticides by professional pesticide
applicators and private citizens.
o Investigates indoor and outdoor pesticide spills,
and pesticide poisonings. Pesticide poisonings
are investigated in cooperation with local medical
facilities. Georgetown University Hospital
maintains a 24-hour emergency poison center which
handles pesticide poisonings.
o Licenses any person or business that applies
pesticides on the property of another person for
hire or compensation in the District of Columbia.
Companies are required to carry liability
insurance and to operate from commercial zones.
13
-------
Certified applicators are authorized to apply
pesticides and to supervise the use of pesticides
by other employees. To obtain certification, an
applicator must pass written and practical tests
for each category of pest control in which the
applicator works. Certifications must be renewed
every three years to ensure the applicator is
familiar with the characteristics of new
pesticides and new application methods.
Certificates may be renewed by examination or by
completing an approved refresher training course.
Inspects pest control businesses in the District
for compliance with licensing, record-keeping and
pesticide storage and disposal requirements.
Safety equipment, such as protective clothing, and
pesticide application equipment is also inspected.
Observes pesticides application activities
throughout the District to ensure pesticides are
used according to label directions.
Registers pesticides. Pesticide manufacturers or
distributors who sell their products in D.C. must
register the products. During the registration
process, the District reviews the product label
14
-------
to make certain it conforms with federal and
District labeling requirements.
o Performs marketplace inspections. District
representatives visit stores that sell pesticides.
Products are examined to check for compliance with
registration, packaging, and labeling
requirements. The District can require a store to
remove products from its shelves and to stop the
sale of products that do not comply with
regulations.
Ground Water
A ground water survey of the District will be initiated in
1989 to document groundwater quality and quantity. This
will be the first urban groundwater assessment in the
nation and should provide insight into the effects of
urbanization on ground water.
Air Pollution Control
The reduction in use of leaded gasoline has caused a 90%
decrease in airborne lead over the last decade. This has
undoubtedly resulted in a reduction of lead in urban runoff
however, data is not available to quantify the reduction.
The District has been very aggressive in controlling
volatile organic compounds for reducing ozone. This has
15
-------
secondary benefits in controlling toxic emissions from
facilities such as gas stations and dry cleaners. In
cooperation with EPA, the District will conduct a study to
define the extent of the air toxics problem. A strategy
will be developed for building a monitoring and control
program and legislation will be drafted to regulate toxic
emissions.
E. Specific Toxics Reduction Activities
The dechlorination of Blue Plains WWTP effluent has provided
a major reduction in toxics to the Potomac.
The pretreatment program is believed to be making reductions
in heavy metals in the effluent of Blue Plains WWTP;
however, more time and data is needed to determine the exact
magnitude of the reductions.
Phase I of the CSO Abatement Program will make about a 55%
reduction in heavy metals discharged to Rock Creek, the
Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. Preparation for evaluation of
the effectiveness of Phase I and need for Phase II has
begun. A model has been developed for the Anacostia and
additional data is being collected on overflows, sediment
fluxes and biota.
The aluminum discharge of 2,800,000 pounds per year from the
16
-------
Dalecalia Water Treatment Plant is of concern due to the
potential toxicity to striped bass larvae.
Two monitoring programs are underway to investigate the PCS
and chlordane contamination of fish. The first is a more
extensive collection of fish for analysis coordinated by
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. The
effort includes fish sampling by the State of Maryland and
Potomac River Fisheries Commission both above and below the
District. The second effort is a sediment sampling program
to determine if and where there are contaminated areas in
the rivers. The program will be expanded to investigate
potential sources if necessary.
In 1989 a storm water monitoring program will be implemented
to collect information on toxics and nutrients generated
from different urban land uses. The data will improve both
the toxics loading inventory and targeting of BMP's.
Biological gypsy moth control by the District government was
implemented in 1987. The lack of citizen complaints about
the program was notable when compared to jurisdictions using
chemical controls. Some what similarly, the Hydrilla
control program in the Potomac has avoided the use of
herbicides.
17
-------
Two potential sources of the oil spills to Hicky Run have
been eliminated and a plan will be developed to remove the
contaminated sediment and re establish a suitable aquatic
habitat.
18
-------
State of Maryland
Toxics Reduction Strategy
for the Chesapeake Bay
and its Tributaries
January 1989
Maryland Department of the Environment
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Toxics Commitment
On December 14, 1987, Governor Schaefer of Maryland together
with the Governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of
Washington, D.C. and the Administrator of EPA signed the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This Agreement contains the following
commitment specific to toxic substance control:
By December 1988, to develop, adopt and begin
implementation of a basinwide strategy to achieve a reduction of
toxics consistent with the Water Quality Act of 1987 which will
ensure protection of human health and living resources. The
strategy will cover both point and non point sources, monitoring
protocols, enforcement of pretreatment regulations and methods
for dealing with in-place toxic sediments where necessary.
Representatives of the signatories to the Bay Agreement,
working through a Water Quality Task Group to fulfill this
commitment, prepared a Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction
Strategy. The Baywide strategy is enhanced by individual state
strategies designed to address specific problems with toxic
substances within each state. This Toxics Reduction Strategy was
prepared by the Maryland Department of the Environment, working
with the Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources, to
describe Maryland's activities to meet this commitment.
This strategy represents the consolidation and refocusing of
existing efforts, together with some new initiatives targeted
toward continuing and enhancing Maryland's toxics control
programs. Maryland believes this strategy represents the
beginning of a significant new effort to further reduce the
impact of toxic substances on the State's waters. In recognition
of the emerging nature of toxic substance control efforts
nationwide, this strategy is organized to allow change and
refocusing as goals are accomplished and as our knowledge of
toxic substances expands.
The Maryland strategy is organized in five chapters. They
are:
1. Introduction
2. Toxics and the Bay
3. Assessing the toxics problem
4. Water Quality Standards and Living Resource Requirements
5. Towards a Comprehensive Approach to Toxics Reduction
Each of these chapters presents some general discussion of
issues followed by a listing of milestones and schedules for
specific actions to which Maryland's agencies are committed.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
In 1987, the Maryland General Assembly created the
Department of the Environment (MDE) to serve as the central focus
for environmental programs controlling land, air and water
pollution. MDE was formed through the consolidation of units
from the Maryland Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene and
Natural Resources. Historically, these units carried out a number
of programs to control the discharge of toxic substances. These
programs are continued in MDE, and include NPDES permit limits,
cleanup activities at superfund sites, toxic containment,
monitoring of effluents, air toxic regulations, and water quality
standards for toxic substances.
Within each element of this strategy, MDE will prioritize
its commitments to assure that the worst problems are addressed
first. The commitments within this strategy are dependent on the
availability of manpower and resources. The acquisition of
adequate resources will expedite completion of the commitments,
but funding is not assured.
Within MDE, responsibilities for toxics management are
distributed among the Water Management Administration; the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Administration; the Stormwater and
Sediment Administration; the Air Management Administration and
the Assistant Secretariat for Toxics, Environmental Science and
Health. The responsibilities of the respective agencies are
described in the Appendix.
The Departments of Agriculture (MDA) and Natural Resources
(DNR) are important partners with MDE in the effort to reduce and
control toxic substances in Maryland. MDA is responsible for
regulating the sale, use, storage and disposal of pesticides and
for the establishment of integrated pest management programs.
Together with the University of Maryland, MDA presents
educational and informational programs for pesticide users.
Cooperative programs among MDA, MDE and other State and federal
agencies are implemented to promote proper application of
pesticides to prevent groundwater contamination.
The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the
protection, management, and wise use of the natural resources of
the State. In its role as protector of natural resources, the
Department has established programs of monitoring and research
designed to detect and understand the impacts of toxic
contaminants on Chesapeake Bay living resources. The Department
will play an important role in the protection of these living
resources against the impacts of toxic substances by (1)
identifying aquatic species and habitats that are impacted by
toxics; (2) determining individual and cumulative effects of
toxic substances on natural populations of living resources; (3)
developing criteria adequate to protect selected commercially,
-------
recreationally and ecologically important species of living
resources; (4) monitoring the integrity of habitats and the
health and abundance of living resource populations; and (5)
supporting research into the source, fates and biological effects
of toxic substances on living resources.
CHAPTER 2: TOXICS AND THE BAY
Historically, clean-up efforts in the Chesapeake Bay have
focused primarily on the control of conventional pollutants and
nutrients. Water pollution programs were designed to control
oxygen demanding materials and suspended solids. This effort has
been successful with municipal point sources, since the majority
of dischargers achieved the final effluent limits by the July
1988 deadline of the National Municipal Policy.
In the early 1970's, nutrient enrichment and eutrophication
were identified as major causes of deteriorating water quality in
the Chesapeake Bay. To control discharges of phosphorus and
nitrogen, the Bay jurisdictions developed a Baywide Nutrient
Reduction Strategy. This strategy is expected to result in the
attainment of a 40% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus loads to
the Bay by the year 2000. The estimated cost of this effort for
the state of Maryland is $320 million.
The impacts of toxic substances on water quality are
difficult to assess, understand, and control. Unlike nutrient
enrichment, which is primarily caused by a relatively small
number of substances, impacts from toxic substances may be caused
by thousands of substances entering the Bay from point and non-
point sources. New potentially toxic compounds are being
developed every day. It is estimated that 65,000 are currently
in use. Over 97% of the 65,000 chemicals have not been
adequately tested for their human health and environmental
effects. Current federal and state efforts are directed primarily
toward the control of the 126 EPA "priority pollutants", leaving
the vast majority of toxic substances unaddressed. Concentrations
of concern for the priority pollutants have been established at
extremely low levels by EPA. For many of the priority
pollutants, levels of concern are at the parts per trillion or
parts per billion level.
Reliable methodologies for detection of toxic substances at
the low levels do not exist for the vast majority of the priority
substances. The methodologies that do exist involve complex
analytical procedures, requiring extensive quality assurance and
quality control programs to assure the reliability and accuracy
of the data. These chemical analyses are very expensive, with
costs approaching $1,500 not uncommon. Costs can quickly
escalate depending on the number of toxicants screened and the
detection levels used.
-------
The identification of biological impacts from toxic
substances is further complicated by the inability to detect
toxic effects in the environment. Detection of toxic effects
demonstrated in a laboratory setting is often extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to detect in the natural
environment. To compensate, laboratory results are often
extrapolated to the environment. The validity of this approach
is difficult to demonstrate.
The collection and laboratory analyses of ambient water
column samples is the most common form of water quality
monitoring. Because of the problems with the detection limits
and the extrapolation of laboratory results, the presence or
absence of measurable toxic substances is not necessarily an
indicator of an impact from toxic substances on the State's
resources. In addition, many toxic pollutants do not remain in
the water column and adsorb rapidly onto suspended particulates
and bottom sediments. Sediment sampling is more labor intensive,
and scientists have a poor understanding of the relationship
between the presence of toxic substances in sediment, and their
effect on the aquatic environment.
The limited readily available Bay data for toxic substances
has been synthesized into Baywide means and ranges. Values
reported at the same sites are not fully consistent within or
among studies. Adequate water quality monitoring programs for
toxic substances have not been fully implemented at this time;
therefore, any effort to characterize the status of Maryland
waters with respect to toxic pollutants must be qualified.
Information does exist, however, to identify localized "hot
spots" of toxic contamination.
MDE recognizes that its efforts to address the issue of
toxic substances and their impacts on the Bay is severely
hampered by the lack of an adequate data base. The commitment to
the necessary monitoring and research must be made to provide a
solid foundation for the rest of the strategy. In the meantime,
MDE will use the information available to implement regulatory
controls.
CHAPTER 3: ASSESSING THE TOXICS PROBLEM.
Toxics monitoring currently conducted by MDE and other state
and federal agencies provides an incomplete picture of the types
and amounts of toxic inputs to the Bay the toxicants present in
the Bay, and the impact toxic substances are having on the
resources of the Bay. Information available to MDE is generated
primarily through NPDES discharge permit applications, industrial
and municipal effluent monitoring, published scientific reports,
limited surveys by other agencies, pesticide usage data, and MDE
water quality monitoring efforts.
-------
A. Analytical Capabilities for Toxics
MDE recognizes that to appropriately assess the ambient
levels of toxic substances, and to measure progress in reducing
toxicity and toxic loadings, the appropriate analytical tools and
capabilities must be available. Toward that end MDE is striving
to upgrade available laboratory services.
Milestones
o By February 1989, sign a contract for additional laboratory
services for priority pollutant analysis with a private
laboratory.
o By August 1990, procure one new state-of-the-art gas
chromatograph/mass spectrophotometer selective detector
equipped with the NBS/EPA library, a data system and a
printer plotter. Replace two antiquated gas chromatographs
used in tissue analysis.
B. Chesapeake Bay Toxics Data, Management and Synthesis
Any effective toxics reduction strategy is dependent on an
informational data base which is available to formulate and
support management decisions and actions. Historically,
allocation of resources for this effort has been given a low
priority. With the increased concern over toxics in Maryland
waters, as well as the requirements of the 1987 Amendments to the
Federal Clean Water Act, quick access to toxics data has become a
necessity.
Of all the toxics data that have been collected in the past
from the State's point source programs, little is currently
stored in computer-readable format. However, several computer
systems are already in use for the conventional pollutants
monitored under NPDES permit requirements and, with slight
modification, will accommodate the toxics data. In the ambient
monitoring programs, computer systems have been developed for
tissue and sediment toxics data. The computer system for toxic
substances in ambient waters is currently undergoing renovation
by MDE. Existing computer systems will be adapted, as needed, to
accommodate storage of new parameters measured in effluents,
tissues and sediments. A computer system will be created for the
storage of effluent toxicity testing and chemical data.
The objective in management of "toxics" data is data storage
in an easily accessible, transferable and manipulatable form.
Such storage will greatly enhance data use and the working
relationships among State programs, as well as between State
programs and outside interests.
-------
Milestones
o Beginning in July of 1990, all new NPDES applications and
all quarterly NPDES reports will be stored in
computer-readable format.
o By July 1990, a new position will be created to complete the
assembly and to oversee management of a computer system for
the management of toxics data for ambient waters. An
additional position will be provided to assist with data
entry, simple programming and system interfacing.
o By December 1989, the data base and data management system
for the toxics loading inventory will be created and in
place.
C. Toxic Substance Monitoring
In order to develop the data necessary to establish a
baseline for the Bay, to identify the areas impacted by toxics,
to assure wise allocation of State resources, and to measure
progress, a long-term commitment to toxics monitoring and
research is necessary. Currently, detailed data concerning
impacts from toxic substances are limited to widely recognized
areas of historic abuse. Existing data from outside these areas
are fragmented, outdated, sparse and in most cases, non-existent.
Data concerning the associations between toxic levels in
discharges, the water column, sediments and biota do not exist.
1. Chesapeake Bay Monitoring
A component of MDE's current Chesapeake Bay Water Quality
Monitoring Program measures metal and organic toxicants in the
Bay's bottom sediments. The primary emphasis of this component
is to identify toxic "hot spots" for further evaluation. For
several reasons, this component of the Bay-wide monitoring
program is not as extensive as that devoted to the nutrient
enrichment problem. The foremost reason is that, toxic
substances have been shown to cause ecological damage only in
localized areas of the Bay i.e. existing historical "hot spots".
Secondly, because of the complex and often unique nature of toxic
problems, a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of potential
"hot spots" is a very costly venture. The high cost prohibits
conducting such evaluations on a Bay-wide basis. The objective
of identifying areas for future investigation is satisfied by
quantifying existing levels of metals and organic chemicals in
Bay sediments and tributary sediments. Major entry routes and
new "hot spots" as well as trends in the levels of toxic
substances in sediments are detected. Sediment data serve as a
first level screening tool at a reasonable cost. Finally, there
are other programs conducted by the State which address human
health issues through the monitoring of toxicant levels in edible
-------
fish and shellfish.
Identification of "hot spots" and the chemicals of concern
are achieved through the monitoring of organic and metal
contaminants in the recently-deposited surface layer of bottom
sediments. Analysis of these compounds in the surface sediments
is an indicator of the potential for regional or localized
toxicant problems in the sediments, the water column and the
resident organisms. The strategy to analyze sediments, rather
than the water column or the organisms, has several advantages.
One advantage is the fact that most toxic substances released
into the Bay become associated with particulate matter and tend
to settle to, and concentrate, in the bottom sediments.
Therefore, even low levels of toxic substances become detectable
over time. The detectability of low levels of toxic substances
is important since some compounds are biologically active in very
minute amounts. In addition, the source of toxic problems may
not be in close proximity to the sampling station, resulting in
dilution of the compounds. Therefore, sediment monitoring could
uncover a local or regional problem, even when water column
concentrations at a site are undetectable.
Twenty-two stations in the Bay's mainstream in Maryland were
sampled for selected toxic substances in 1984 and 1985. Analysis
of the data confirmed the distribution of toxic substances and
the "hot spots" identified previously the Chesapeake Bay Program
findings in 1983.
A total of 38 stations, distributed through the major Bay
tributaries in Maryland, was sampled for sediment analysis in
1987 and 1988. The laboratory analysis and reporting of the
organic compounds are not yet completed. The metals data for
1987 are analyzed and computerized, and an interpretative data
analysis is underway.
From the interpretive sediment data collected in the
tributaries, a determination will be made as to which
tributaries, if any, need further investigation. The need to
establish sediment sampling stations in freshwater reaches of
major tributaries will be evaluated. Methodologies available to
quantify the effects of contaminated sediments on aquatic
organisms will be investigated. These investigations may lead to
the identification of areas for consideration in a future
sediment toxicity abatement program.
Milestones
o By September 1989, complete the laboratory and
interpretative analysis of the sediment data collected from
the 38 tributary stations.
o In 1990 - 1991, implement in-depth monitoring networks in
7
-------
those tributaries identified as having high levels of toxic
substances in their sediments. Where possible, use the
distribution of toxic substances in sediments and the
available discharge data to pinpoint sources.
o By January 1991, evaluate the need to establish freshwater
sediment sampling stations in the headwaters of the Potomac,
Patuxent, Patapsco, Gunpowder, Choptank, Wicomico, Nanticoke
and Chester Rivers and, if needed, implement the network in
1992 and 1993.
o In 1994, resample the 22 Bay mainstream stations to
determine whether Bay conditions are changing.
o In 1995, resample the 38 tributary stations to determine if
tributary conditions are changing.
2. Biological Monitoring and CORE Networks
Since 1979, Maryland's 33 CORE monitoring stations have been
monitored for fish tissue contamination by toxic substances on an
annual basis. All stations are on tributaries of the Chesapeake
Bay.
The biological monitoring program began in 1979; it includes
approximately 116 stations sampled biennially. The program also
utilizes qualitative benthic macroinvertebrate evaluations to
determine overall water quality conditions at many stations.
Intensive, site-specific benthic investigations are made to
evaluate the possible impacts of specific discharges on water
quality and stream biota.
The oyster tissue monitoring network has been in place since
.1974. Oyster tissues are monitored at 86 locations on an annual
or biennial basis for heavy metals and selected organic
chemicals. Intensive fish tissue monitoring studies are
conducted on an intermittent basis in major tributaries of the
Bay to provide baseline tissue-contamination levels for resident
fish. Tissue analyses of fish and oysters indicate the presence
and degree of ecosystem contamination and the potential health
risks associated with fish consumption.
The biological monitoring program assesses long-term water
quality trends at a large number of stations statewide. Stations
are specifically selected to monitor water quality changes
upstream and downstream of major discharges, metropolitan areas
and suspected nonpoint pollution sources, or to document
conditions in relatively unaffected or pristine streams.
Data from the CORE monitoring program, the biological
monitoring program, the oyster-tissue monitoring and the
intensive fish surveys are entered into BIOFILE, MDE's
8
-------
computerized data base. This information is stored in a way that
can be integrated with EPA's Storet database.
Results of the fish tissue analysis from the CORE monitoring
program have been published in reports on an annual basis since
1979. Data from several different intensive fish studies have
Deen summarized in a series of interpretative reports available
from MDE. Results of intensive biological monitoring at site-
specific locations to document effluent impacts are summarized in
in-house reports.
The station locations in the CORE network and the biological
monitoring network will be evaluated and adjusted as identified
problems are corrected or as new areas need to be investigated.
Milestones
o By December 1989, complete the analyses of the oyster tissue
toxicant data from 1980 to 1987 and publish final report.
o By March 1989, evaluate the existing CORE fish tissue sample
network.
o By December 1988, in cooperation with the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, collect sufficient fish-tissue samples
to assess the levels of toxic contaminants in resident fish
from the tidal Potomac River.
o By March 1991, complete the data analysis and prepare a
report documenting contaminant levels in fish tissue from
the Potomac River.
3. Air Monitoring
The Air Management Administration (AMA) currently measures
toxic compounds in the ambient air under two projects. These
data can be used to assess toxic deposition from the ambient air
from general sources. In addition to indicating ambient air
quality, the air monitoring programs conducted near the Bay
provide a database to help evaluate deposition from the air as a
possible entry route for toxic compounds.
AMA uses total suspended particulate monitoring filters to
gather data at 10 sites throughout Maryland on the ambient air
concentrations of lead, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, sulfates,
nitrates and benzo-a-pyrene.
The non-methane organic hydrocarbon (NMOC) project measures
both total non-methane hydrocarbons and 10 specific toxic
compounds in the ambient summer air. Monitors are located at two
sites near the Baltimore Harbor, at Arlington and Richmond,
Virginia, and in Washington, D.C. The relationship between
-------
oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons is also being tracked. A
comparison of these measurements with measurements in other
industrialized areas such as Philadelphia have yielded results
similar in concentration ratios. The data collected during the
NMOC sampling increases our knowledge of pollutant ratios and
atmospheric processes. The capability to more accurately model
and forecast these processes will be enhanced. Inclusion of
products of incomplete combustion in the monitoring network is
being investigated.
AMA has a 10-year database of the ambient air concentrations
for lead, chromium, cadmium, sulfates, nitrates and benzo-a-
pyrene. Data for arsenic is available for the last two years.
Eight stations in a tri-state area of Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylva-nia were sampled for total hydrocarbons and 10 specific
compounds during the summers of 1987 and 1988. The 10 specific
compounds sampled were chloromethane, chloroethane, 1,1
dichloroethene, methylene chloride, chloroform, 1, 2
dichloroethane, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethene,
and tetrachloroethene. A report of these data was made to EPA
each year to enhance their research on toxic compounds and their
modelling capabilities.
Milestones
o During Summer 1989, run a time-specific study on the levels
of total hydrocarbons and 10 toxic organic compounds to
determine hours of peak concentration. The purpose is to
determine whether the hours of peak concentration are
related to traffic volumes.
o In 1990-1991, increase the toxic monitoring network to
include sites at different locations with different
atmospheric factors, size, scales, etc.
o Coordinate the use of existing air monitoring stations to
provide data for calculating deposition rates of toxic
pollutants on the Bay with other MDE agencies.
D. Baltimore Harbor Initiative
The Baltimore Harbor is located at the mouth of the Patapsco
River, a sub-estuary of the Chesapeake Bay. The Harbor is the
major deep water port in Maryland and receives drainage from the
extensively urbanized Baltimore area.
Within Maryland waters, the water quality problems
associated with Baltimore Harbor appear to be particularly acute
due to a long history of high loadings and a wide variety of
toxic substances. The complexity of the transport and the fate
of these materials, together with the uncertainty regarding the
sublethal biological effects, serve to heighten public concern
10
-------
about this water body. The few studies and available historical
information suggest that the Harbor has serious water and
sediment quality problems.
In order to properly assess the toxic problem in the Harbor,
a detailed environmental assessment and risk analysis are needed
to identify both point and non-point sources of toxic substances,
their relative contributions to toxic loading, and the
probability of adverse effects associated with the various
sources. This information provides a baseline for comparing and
setting priorities among toxic substance-related issues which
involve different pollutants, sources, and exposure pathways and
which may affect human health, ecosystems and resources. The
need for setting priorities is prompted by the realization that
the hundreds of toxic substances potentially present in the
Harbor pose some risk of causing adverse health effects.
Comparison of the risks will help set priorities to allow MDE to
focus the limited public resources in a manner that will achieve
the greatest public benefit to achieve the greatest reduction
in risk for a given cost of control.
MDE recognizes that the information generated by the
approach outlined above will take several years to develop.
During that time, MDE will emphasize the traditional approaches
of pollution control in the Baltimore Harbor and will strive to
ensure that the toxic requirements of the 1987 Water Quality Act
are implemented here first.
Milestones
o By February 1989, develop the Individual Control Strategies
(ICS) for all Baltimore Harbor dischargers.
o By February 1992, complete the implementation of ICSs for
all Baltimore Harbor dischargers.
o By July 1989, investigate the availability of obtaining
funds through sources such as Superfund to provide money for
an environmental assessment and risk analysis, and prepare
the request for proposals and the necessary contracts to
begin the environmental assessment and risk analyses for the
Harbor.
CHAPTER 4: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND LIVING RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS
Water quality standards and living resource habitat
objectives are important management tools for measuring progress.
Their use in management, however, differs in application. Water
quality standards serve as a means to secure regulatory actions
for a specific group of contaminants. Habitat objectives are
goals for the protection and restoration of specific habitats.
11
-------
Water quality standards are the yardstick against which
water quality conditions in the surface waters and groundwaters
of Maryland are measured. Enforcement of standards are one means
of preventing the deterioration of water quality in State waters.
The Maryland water quality standards (COMAR 26.08.02.01-07)
mandate the protection of existing high-quality State waters.
They also provide for the restoration of all other State waters
to a condition of quality that will permit all reasonable public
uses, and will support the propagation and growth of all aquatic
life that might reasonably be expected to inhabit them.
The State water quality standards provide a regulatory
mechanism to maintain "fishable and swimmable" waters for the use
of all citizens and to protect aquatic life, including
economically valuable finfish and shellfish. Water quality
standards are intended to protect the beneficial uses of State
waters. Maryland has assigned specific uses to all waters of the
State (COMAR 28.08.02.07). The basic use, for which all waters
are protected include recreational use and the propagation and
growth of a balanced population of fish and wildlife. These uses
require stringent standards and a high degree of protection.
Other, less restrictive uses, like industrial water supply,
irrigation and navigation, are also protected. The three more
restrictive classifications (shellfish harvesting waters, put and
take trout waters, and natural trout waters) impose additional
restrictive criteria.
In 1980, Maryland adopted water quality standards for 7
toxic substances (PCB, toxaphene, aldrin, dieldrin, benzidine,
endrin, and DDT). In April 1983, the Maryland General Assembly
adopted legislation prohibiting the discharge of chlorine or
chlorine compounds to natural trout waters. In 1986, this
legislation was amended to require dechlorination of any effluent
treated with chlorine. In 1989, MDE will adopt the regulations
implementing the dechlorination legislation.
In 1987, the Maryland General Assembly adopted legislation
regulating the release of tributyltin (TBT) contained in
antifouling paints. This legislation severely limits the use of
paints containing TBT and assigns the regulation of the use and
sale of the paints to Maryland Department of Agriculture. The
legislation requires the MDE to adopt water quality criteria for
TBT in all fresh and marine waters by December 1, 1988. A
proposed water quality standard is currently being promulgated.
In 1987 and 1988, the Department of Natural Resources distributed
public education materials concerning TBT to all registered
Maryland boaters. In addition, DNR maintains a list of TBT
paints registered with MDA and makes the list available to the
public on request.
In August and September, 1988, the MDE held a series of
public hearings to solicit public input concerning issues
12
-------
relating to the control of toxic substances which should be
addressed in the 1988 EPA required triennial review of state
water quality standards. This testimony is currently under
review in preparation for the formulation of State regulations
addressing the control of toxic substances.
The MDE will adopt standards for toxic substances as
mandated in the 1987 Water Quality Act. This regulatory action
will begin in January 1989 with the publication in the Maryland
Register of the criteria proposed for selected identified toxic
substances. As EPA develops additional criteria for toxic
compounds or as additional information becomes available from the
scientific community, MDE will evaluate the significance of these
substances in Maryland and the need to adopt water quality
criteria for additional toxic substances.
Milestones
o By July, 1989, Maryland will reach consensus with Virginia
and the District of Columbia regarding a consistent
definition for the application of "freshwater" and "marine"
criteria for toxic substances in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
o By May 1989, complete the 1988 triennial review of
Maryland's water quality standards and adopt the necessary
standards for toxic substances.
o As part of the triennial review:
(1) Redefine the basic water use designations to include a
new use designation, "Potable Water Supply".
(2) Establish a variance procedure for those waters where
natural ajnbient water quality exceeds standards for
toxic substances or where available technology is not
sufficient to reduce toxics to achieve water quality
standards.
(3) Establish the criteria and procedures to evaluate
results of the chemical and biological analyses of
effluents and to define how this information will be
used in discharge permit development.
(4) Revise existing requirements for mixing zones for
discharges of toxic substances.
o By December, 1989, have dechlorination facilities in use for
all chlorinated sewage effluents.
o By September, 1989, procure a full-time position to research
and develop water quality standards, and 0.5 man years of an
13
-------
aquatic toxicologist to provide technical expertise.
CHAPTER 5: TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO TOXICS REDUCTION
A. NPDES Permits and Biomonitoring
Facilities which discharge wastewaters to the waters of the
State must obtain discharge permits. EPA's National Pollution
Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) is a federal program to
regulate discharges nationally. Maryland received approval in
1974 to administer the NPDES Program through a State discharge
permit program which closely mirrors the federal program.
The goal of the Maryland NPDES permit program is to assure
that the State's water quality standards are not violated as the
result of a single discharge or a group of discharges to a
specific water body. This goal is accomplished through permit
limitations which establish the quality of the effluent by
limiting the levels of specific constituents in the effluents.
These constituents include toxic substances. As early as 1973,
Maryland was imposing permit limitations for some toxic
substances.
The NPDES toxics management program uses a systematic
procedure of biological and chemical effluent monitoring of all
industrial and municipal NPDES permit-holders that may
potentially discharge toxic pollutants. The monitoring
requirements are designed to identify sources of acute or chronic
toxicity to aquatic life. If the results of this monitoring
program indicate that effluent toxicity occurs, additional
testing and/or a toxicity reduction evaluation is required. Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are also required through NPDES
permits at certain sites for control of toxic substances that may
be transported by runoff.
Currently, there are about 195 industrial NPDES permits in
Maryland that contain special conditions for toxics management.
They include 49 major industrial facilities and 146 minor
facilities. The program will eventually expand to over 500
dischargers as permits are re-issued.
MDE has ambitious goals for its program to control point
sources of toxic substance discharge. Within the next 4 years,
MDE intends to eliminate acute toxicity from all industrial and
municipal discharges. Chronic toxicity will be reduced to
acceptable levels within seven years. These goals will be
accomplished through an aggressive toxicity testing program using
the State's Biomonitoring Laboratory at an approximate cost of
$2 million dollars and a follow up effort culminating in the
successful implementation of toxic reduction evaluation.
Prior to and following the State's passage of legislation
14
-------
addressing chlorine, dischargers have installed dechlorination or
alternative disinfection facilities to eliminate the toxic
effects of chlorine on aquatic life. One hundred seventy three
municipal wastewater treatment plants within the Bay watershed
have installed dechlorination equipment; all will have
dechlorination facilities installed within the next 2 years.
Fourteen industrial facilities have dechlorination facilities,
with a total of 30 expected by December, 1989. In addition,
ultraviolet disinfection has replaced chlorination facilities
discharging to natural trout waters in Maryland.
Through the examination of available information, MDE has
developed a list of Maryland waters impacted by toxic substances,
in compliance with the new requirements of the 1987 Water Quality
Act. This listing provides the nucleus for MDE's current
development of Individual Control Strategies (ICS) and for its
efforts to address toxic substances. As more information becomes
available, this list will be refined or expanded.
Milestones
o By February 1989, submit to EPA, in accordance with Section
304(1) of the Water Quality Act, its listing of waters
impacted by toxic substances.
o By February 1989, develop and submit to RPA its Individual
Control Strategies for those stream segments appearing on
the 304(1) list.
o By September 1989, hire 2 engineers to provide assistance to
the publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to assess
potential effluent toxicity problems.
o By September 1989, obtain the services of 0.5 man years of
an aquatic toxicologist to provide technical expertise in
the interpretation of bioassay results and chemical testing.
o By July 1, 1991, require chemical and biological toxics
monitoring programs for all appropriate NPDES dischargers.
o By December 1992, eliminate acute toxicity impacts from all
industrial and municipal dischargers.
o By December 1995, reduce chronic toxicity impacts from all
industrial and municipal discharges to acceptable levels.
o As part of NPDES permit issuance or renewal, all
EPA-identified major industrial dischargers may be asked to
submit with their 2-C application, the results of priority
pollutant testing of their intake water. Each major
industrial applicant will also be required to submit the
15
-------
actual test scan of their effluent, in addition to
tabulation of the numerical values.
o By February 1992, require that all discharges identified on
the 1989 304(1) list comply with their Individual Control
Strategies.
B. Pretreatraent Program
In 1976, amendments to the Clean Water Act created a
nationwide pretreatment program for the control of toxic
pollutants discharged by industrial users to POTWs. EPA was
authorized to develop regulations for the control of industrial
discharges to POTWs and to develop general pretreatment program
requirements. In January, 1981, EPA published 40CFR.403, General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources. National
pretreatment standards which require best available technology
(BAT) were also promulgated for certain industrial categories.
In June 1984, Health Environmental Articles 9-222, 9-319 and
9-332 were enacted as part of the Annotated Code of Maryland.
These articles authorized the creation of a State pretreatment
program at least as stringent as the EPA program. Final State
regulations were adopted August 26, 1985 to implement these laws.
Full delegation of pretreatment authority from EPA Region III was
received in September 1985.
Maryland is implementing the State's pretreatment program by
requiring development and enforcement of local pretreatment
programs for all POTWs with a capacity of 5 MGD or more and all
POTWs receiving wastes from industries that interfere with plant
operations, pass through or contaminate sludge. The SLate
oversees the implementation of local programs and monitors
compliance by reviewing POTW quarterly compliance reports,
conducting field investigations at industries, performing audits
and inspections of POTWs, and taking enforcement action where
necessary.
Currently, 15 Maryland jurisdictions administer pretreatment
programs involving 31 POTWs and approximately 500 significant
industrial discharges and numerous small industries. One
additional jurisdiction is applying for program delegation.
Eight small jurisdictions are implementing limited
pretreatment programs. In addition, several federal facilities
are subject to pretreatment requirements.
Milestones
o By February 1989, complete review of effluent testing for
priority pollutants and prepare the final 304(1) list for
dischargers.
16
-------
o By September 1989, require all POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs to have 95% or more of their
significant industrial users permitted and under regulation.
o By September 1989, require all POTWs needing local
pretreatment limits to adopt technology based standards.
C. Biomonitoring of Effluents
Biomonitoring is the use of aquatic organism impairment as a
measure of effluent toxicity. Maryland has implemented a two
part program for the biomonitoring of wastewater effluents. Part
one places in the permits of many major and some minor facilities
special conditions requiring acute and chronic bioassay tests.
The type and frequency of the testing is influenced by discharge
flow, receiving water flow and the potential to cause a toxic
impact.
For industrial facilities, biomonitoring test procedures are
divided into two categories.
The first category includes all major industrial facilities
and other industrial facilities with significant toxic potential.
This category is further subdivided, based on whether the
effluent flow is more or less than 10% of the receiving water low
flow. If the effluent is less than 10%, the stream is considered
to be stream-dominated, and MDE requires quarterly "acute"
testing for one year and one-time "chronic" testing. The other
subcategory, that in which effluent flow is greater than 10% of
receiving-water low flow, is handled in the opposite manner.
Under such effluent-dominated conditions, MDE requires quarterly
chronic testing for one year and one-time acute testing.
The second general category for industrial dischargers
contains those facilities with a somewhat lower potential for
toxicity. In this category, MDE requires acute testing twice,
three months apart. In all cases, if toxicity is observed, the
Department has the authority to require additional toxicity
testing and/or a toxicity-reduction evaluation.
All major municipal sewage facilities with approved
pretreatment programs are required to perform quarterly acute
testing, a one-time chronic testing and a "priority pollutant"
scan as part of their NPDES permit reissuance.
The second part of the biomonitoring program is testing at
the MDE Biomonitoring Laboratory of effluents from selected
facilities.
In 1985, money was appropriated through a Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Initiative to create a bioassay facility.
17
-------
Legislation established a permit fee for industrial dischargers;
the revenues were used to pay the laboratory costs. In 1986, MDE
established, through a contract with the University of Maryland
and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, a
facility for evaluating the toxic effects of actual point source
discharges using acute and chronic bioassays.
The MDE Biomonitoring Laboratory provides a mechanism to
gather information and data concerning the effects on organisms
from effluents containing toxic or potentially toxic substances.
The benefits include the identification of toxic effluents and
potential violations of water quality criteria, and the
verification of biotoxicity testing results submitted by
dischargers to meet NPDES permit requirements.
Between March 1987 and September 1988, 107 bioassays were
conducted with effluents from 92 Maryland dischargers. Twenty
seven percent of the effluent samples exhibited acute toxicity to
fathead minnows or Daphnia magna, the standard test species for
bioassay purposes.
The emphasis of the Maryland biotoxicity laboratory will
eventually shift from acute to chronic toxicity testing, as the
requirements of NPDES permit program change, and as the staff
gains additional experience with chronic testing. MDE needs to
work with the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene t;o enhance
the capability of the DI1MH laboratory, including equipment and
staffing, to provide neceasary chemical testing to complement the
biotoxicity testing.
Milestones
o By December 1988, increase the level of effever, at the
biotoxicity laboratory for chronic testing.
o By March 1989, all major POTWs will be tested at least once
for acute toxicity.
o By December 1990, all major POTWs will be tested at least
once for chronic toxicity.
o In FY 90, increase laboratory testing to include 70 acute
and 40 chronic tests. In FY 91 - 95, the level of testing
will average 100 acute and 75 chronic tests annually.
D. NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
Nonpoint sources of toxic pollutants are diffuse in nature
and difficult to identify and to quantify, in terms of impact and
environmental fate and control. Some evidence suggests that in
many areas the nonpoint source contributions of toxic substances,
particularly heavy metals and pesticides, may far outweigh the
18
-------
point source contributions. Major nonpoint source categories
include urban, suburban, industrial and agricultural runoff, and
atmospheric deposition.
A real need exists to better characterize the contribution
of toxic substances associated with runoff, particularly urban
runoff. In developed areas, certain pollutants are more
prevalent than in undeveloped areas. The toxic substances in
urban runoff include oil and grease, chlorides, bromides and
heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, arsenic, silver, cadmium,
mercury, chromium, nickel, copper and iron). Many of these are
washed into waterways from roads and streets and originate from
motor vehicles (tire wear, exhaust; lubrication losses and
corrosion of parts), pavement deterioration, street-marking paint
and from commercial and industrial developments. Specific
industrial and commercial properties yield substances such as
phenols, cresols and various pesticides. Atmospheric deposition
onto the landscape contains particulates and associated
contaminants emitted from cars, factories, wood stoves and other
sources. Runoff of atmospheric deposition from developed areas
is consequently a significant source of toxic contaminants.
Recent studies indicate that the average levels of toxic
substances in urban runoff are not high enough to cause
significant pollution in the water column, due to their ready
attachment to soil/sediment particles and the diluting effect of
the receiving waters. However, as urbanization of the State
continues, the contribution of. these toxic substances to
pollution of surface waters will become more significant, unless
properly managed. In addition, information is lacking concerning
the relative contribution of toxicants from non-point sources to
the bioaccumulation of such substances in aquatic organisms.
1. Stormwater Management and Sediment Control
Erosion and sedimentation from areas undergoing urban land
development, and permanent changes in the hydrologic equilibrium
of the land surface produce undesirable changes in fresh water,
marine and estuarine environments. Pollutants and nutrients
accumulate rapidly on impervious surfaces once a site is
stabilized, and are transported into water bodies with storm
runoff. Urban land development frequently occurs near streams,
rivers, estuaries and oceans. These waterbodies provide habitat
and nursery ground for many aquatic species and migratory
waterfowl. Large sediment influxes carrying toxic substances may
harm benthic species and the aquatic vegetation on which many
aquatic species depend.
Agricultural practices disturb the earth's surface, making
it vulnerable to erosion. Through the application of fertilizers
and pesticides, agricultural areas also become sources of
pollutants possibly releasing large quantities of sediments,
19
-------
nutrients and toxic chemicals to receiving waters during storm
runoff events.
The primary goals of the State's sediment and erosion
control and stormwater management programs are to maintain the
pre-development runoff characteristics after development and to
reduce stream channel erosion, local flooding, pollution,
siltation and sedimentation. Although most of the sediment and
stormwater control practices are not directly related to the
control of toxic substances, many provide indirect benefits.
Reduction in sediment transport and excessive surface water
runoff provides some control of soil-attached chemicals and heavy
metals. Infiltration practices (trench, basin, dry well, etc.)
and pond construction contribute to the interception and
confinement of heavy metals, priority pollutant organics,
pesticides, and oil and grease.
Milestone
o By January 1, 1990, implement regulation changes which will
provide design or performance standards for nutrients and
toxic substances.
2. Pesticides
Pesticides, (including fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
nematicides, and plant growth regulators) are used by homeowners,
gardeners, fanners, commercial application firms, public
agencies, and others to control or manage a large variety of
pests and diseases of plants, humans or animals. In Maryland,
the largest quantity of pesticides is used for agricultural
production, although significant amounts of pesticides are used
for lawn and ornamental plant pest control.
The presence, or level of occurrence, of pesticides in
surface water or ground water in Maryland is not well documented.
In 1986, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that
24 states had reported the presence in well water of at least one
of 19 pesticides. At least six pesticides have been detected in
groundwater in Maryland. Currently, the EPA is conducting a
nationwide pesticide survey of private and public water supplies
using groundwater; results should be available in 1990. Because
so little is known about the extent and nature of pesticide
occurrence in water resources, it is difficult to develop a
program to reduce the level of pesticides.
Determining the pathway by which a pesticide enters a water
source is often difficult. Pesticides can enter water sources
during their manufacture, transportation, distribution, storage,
use, handling, disposal of unwanted pesticides, or disposal of
containers. Point source contamination (leaks, spills, disposal)
is more easily recognized and dealt with than is nonpoint source
20
-------
contamination, resulting from the normal application or use of a
pesticide (runoff, leaching). Several federal or state laws
regulate possible point source contamination mechanisms, but
regulation of non-point source contamination is more complex.
In order to reduce the concentration of pesticides in water
sources, one or more of the following must occur: (1) reduce
overall use of pesticides; (2) increase use of integrated pest
management (IPM) techniques (use control methods that are less
chemical dependent); (3) improve methods and targeting of
pesticide application; (4) use a pesticide that has less leaching
potential, snorter half life or environmental persistence, or has
less risk to groundwater; (5) improve the timing of pesticide
application to reduce potential for runoff or leaching; or (6)
use farming practices that will reduce the contamination
potential. Research and demonstration of improved techniques,
followed by technical assistance and education for the user
public, is essential to bring about such changes to a significant
extent.
In Maryland, the Department of Agriculture (MDA) is the
agency responsible for regulating the sale, use, storage and
disposal of pesticides; the University of Maryland is the
institution responsible for education and information programs
for users of pesticides; and the Maryland Department of the
Environment is the agency responsible for regulating the presence
of contaminants, including pesticides, in water sources.
Cooperative programs involving these agencies and other State and
federal agencies are conducted to promote the proper application
of pesticides in an effort to prevent contamination of water
sources by pesticides.
Integrated pest management (IPM) is the term used for the
systematic selection and use of one or more pest control programs
that will ensure favorable economic, ecological and sociological
consequences. The IPM process provides a system whereby, when an
identified pest is causing sufficient damage to a plant or host,
a specific decision-making process is used to select one or more
pest control actions that will result in effective and economical
pest control.
The MDA is committed to and promotes the use of IPM
strategies for all pest control problems. The next logical step
involves the expansion of IPM policy to an integrated crop
management program (ICM). Benefits will be favorable economic,
ecological and sociological consequences, but of a larger
magnitude.
Effective March 1988, MDA implemented regulations to control
the sale, distribution, possession, and use of marine antifouling
paints containing tributyltin (TBT), a pesticide toxic to many
marine organisms. Only a limited number of TBT products meet the
21
-------
State's stringent requirements for release rate and are
registered with MDA for 1988.
In June 1988, MDA implemented regulations to cancel the
Maryland registration of any cyclodiene termiticide (chlordane,
heptachlor, aldrin), precluding its distribution or use in
Maryland. Water monitoring has detected quantities of chlordane
in samples from specific locations.
The MDA has developed and implemented integrated pest
management programs to deal with pests such as gypsy moth,
mosquitoes, thistles, Colorado potato beetle, Mexican bean
beetle, and yellow nutsedge.
An important issue that must be addressed is whether or not
pesticides are a problem in surface and groundwater and, if so,
to what extent. Data must be collected to establish baseline
levels of pesticides present in water. Once completed, MDE, in
cooperation with MDA, should continue to conduct monitoring
programs of groundwater and surface waters throughout the State.
A federal procedure or mechanism for determining "action levels"
must be developed, and solutions must be sought to eliminate or
control source problems.
Milestones
o By December 1989, MDA and MDE will identify the most
extensively used pesticides in Maryland and will select the
pesticides which are to be included in any monitoring
program.
o By December 1989, MDE will investigate the available
laboratory methodologies for testing for the presence of
these compounds in waters and tissue, and will determine the
manpower and resources needed to monitor for those
substances.
o Using the available information, MDE and MDA will design an
appropriate monitoring program to determine the extent of
surface and groundwater contamination throughout the state.
o By September 1989, MDA and the Cooperative Extension
Services will complete development of two video training
"films" under grants awarded by EPA.
(1) One video will address pesticide regulations, pesticide
use and safety for the purpose of training new
employees of public agencies and commercial
pest-control firms.
(2) The second video will be used to train private and
commercial pesticide applicators on integrated pest
22
-------
management techniques for corn and soybean production.
o By July 1989, MDA will complete a survey of farmers,
nurserymen, greenhouse operators, public agency applicators,
and commercial applicators to identify and evaluate the
extent of the current pesticide disposal problem. The
survey will gather information on the types of excess
(unwanted) pesticides that applicators have on hand because
the products are beyond their usable shelf life, have been
cancelled or banned, or are not being applied because better
alternatives are now available. Each pesticide will be
listed, and estimates of total amounts will be tabulated.
o By December 1989, MDA will complete a survey of private and
commercial pesticide applicators to provide information
concerning 1988 use levels. This survey will build upon the
1982 and 1985 MDA survey data.
o By October 1989, MDA will conduct a series of continuing
educational programs for homeowners on the safe use, storage
and disposal of pesticides and on the fundamental concepts
of integrated pest management.
o By October 1989, MDA will conduct a series of continuing
educational programs for pesticide dealers. This effort
will target establishments selling general-use pesticides to
the untrained public.
o By June 1990, MDA will develop an integrated pest management
program to manage certain thistles in Maryland. This IPM
program will involve one or more cultural, mechanical,
biological or chemical methods.
3. Agricultural Cost Share Program
Because agriculture has been identified as a major source of
pollutants (nutrients and sediments) to the Bay, implementation
of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) is an important
part of the Bay cleanup effort. To ensure the continued
application of BMPs on farms to achieve a timely reduction of
pollution from agricultural sources, the Maryland Agricultural
Water Quality Cost-Share Program (MACS) was created. Established
in 1982 and fully operational in 1983, MACS is a highly
successful effort. To date, the Maryland General Assembly has
appropriated a total of $32 million to support the MACS program,
mainly through the innovative use of MDE-administered State water
quality bond funds. The program provides grants to farmers for
the application of BMPs on farms where water pollution problems
have been identified, or where the potential for water quality
problems exists. The total amount of State funds that have been
appropriated for the program since 1982 is only 30% of the total
amount ($90 million) estimated to be needed to treat "critical"
23
-------
agricultural water pollution conditions throughout Maryland's
portion of the Bay drainage area. For each of the last three
years, $1 million of the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Implementation
Grant have been used for the Agricultural Cost-Share Programs.
Federal funding from this source is also expected to be available
for FY '88 and '89.
The agricultural water quality cost-share program is
designed to improve water quality in the State's streams, rivers
and the Chesapeake Bay by providing financial cost-share
assistance to farmers for the installation of agricultural BMPs.
While the cost-share practices are not directly related to
pesticide management, many provide indirect benefits. Most of
the agricultural BMPs are aimed at reducing sediment or nutrient
loss and transport into waters from excessive surface runoff and
the associated erosion. Control of sediment runoff will also
help to reduce the delivery of soil-attached pesticides into
Maryland waters. At the same time, participation in the
cost-share program allows MDA and the cooperative agencies an
educational opportunity to visit the farmer and provide proper
pesticide use and management information.
E. Other Programs Contributing to the Reduction of Toxic
Discharges to the Bay
1. Solid Haste Management
Landfills represent potential sources of toxic pollutants to
Maryland's ground and surface waters. In the past, solid waste
was not properly managed and in many instances resulted in
contamination of groundwater by leachate. Contaminated
groundwater may eventually migrate into surface streams which
find their way into the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland has issued
refuse disposal permits to landfills for many years. Recently,
MDE revised the State's solid waste regulations specifying state-
of-the-art requirements for the design, location, and operation
of landfills and other solid waste and toxics acceptance
facilities.
The Solid Waste Management Program assures that all
pollutants, including toxic substances derived from the use or
disposal of solid wastes, do not impact Maryland waters. This
objective is accomplished through issuance of Refuse Disposal
Permits to new facilities listing the new regulation requirements
and through the upgrading of existing facilities to meet the new
regulations. MDE also plans to install or require adequate
groundwater monitoring systems at all landfills. MDE will
properly close landfills that reach permitted capacity or which
are eliminated for some other reason.
24
-------
2. Sewage Sludge Management
Sewage sludge can be an aesthetically distasteful waste
product with expensive disposal options. On the other hand, it
has nutritive value for plants and can serve as a soil
supplement. Maryland has a strong program for managing sewage
sludge and encourages land application,. Sewage sludge permits
are required for generation, transportation, and disposal of
sewage sludge. The majority of all sewage sludge disposed in the
State is land applied.
Sewage sludge may contain various types and levels of toxic
substances depending on the inputs to the sewage treatment plant.
Since most of the sewage sludge in Maryland is land applied, MDE
is concerned with the release of toxic substances from the sludge
into the soil, the plants, or into the groundwater. Soil
contaminated with toxic materials from sludge disposal or the
sewage sludge itself can be washed into streams in stormwater
runoff. The ground water below the sludge disposal site can also
migrate into nearby streams. In both cases, toxic substances can
eventually find their way into the Chesapeake Bay.
The purpose of the sewage sludge management program is to
properly regulate the disposal of sewage sludge. For land
application, this objective is accomplished by establishing
application rates based on the concentration of toxic metals in
the sludge. Proper management practices such as plowing the
sludge into the soil and liming to keep pH at acceptable levels
are also required in the sewage sludge disposal permits. Heavily
contaminated sludge may be prohibited from land disposal.
3. Superfund (CERCLA) Program
Environmental laws and regulations were not always as
comprehensive as they are today. Past waste disposal practices
have left numerous waste dumps scattered around the State. These
sites frequently have caused ground water contamination. The
contaminated ground water migrates into nearby streams and
eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay. The Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) established the Superfund Program for investigation and
cleanup of hazardous waste dump sites. Maryland has also
initiated its own State Superfund program to further address
these concerns of environmental pollution resulting from illegal
disposal practices.
The Superfund Program protects the public and the
environment from environmental and health risks associated with
toxic and hazardous waste sites. This objective is accomplished
by investigating sites to determine their potential for
environmental harm. Sites with the greatest potential for harm
are systematically cleaned up, an expensive and time consuming
25
-------
task, but one which is important for protection of human health
and the environment.
4. UST/LUST Program
Oil and other petroleum products are frequently stored in
underground storage tanks. With time, nearly all tanks, valves,
or pipes corrode or otherwise fail, and the oil leaks into the
ground where it contaminates ground water. Improperly installed
tanks will leak sooner. Oil may contain toxic materials which
are carried by the migrating ground water into nearby streams and
then to the Chesapeake Bay.
The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program is designed to
protect ground water resources from storage tank releases through
a preventative program. This program emphasizes proper
installation, and corrosion and leak protection in storage tanks,
and ground water monitoring. Old or unsuitable underground
storage tanks are replaced by properly installed and designed
systems. The purpose of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Program is to remediate ground water where releases have
occurred. MDE has established a LUST Trust Fund to provide
funding for remediation efforts and has the authority to recover
costs from the responsible parties to reimburse the Trust Fund.
5. Hazardous Household Materials Program
Hazardous household materials constitute an emerging source
of toxic pollution within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These
toxic substances have the same characteristics as hazardous
wastes: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity.
Every household in the United States is believed to generate
approximately 160 pounds of hazardous household materials
annually. Although 160 pounds annually is a small amount when
considered on an individual household basis, when taken as a
combined source from all homes, this source may be the largest
single class generating hazardous wastes.
Because of the small amounts of hazardous materials
generated in each household, individual homeowners are exempt
from federal regulations on the disposal of hazardous materials.
Since most homeowners are not aware of the dangers associated
with hazardous household materials, homeowners do not always
store or dispose of these materials in a safe manner. Improper
storage and use of these materials can result in contamination of
ground water, surface waters and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries.
The Hazardous Household Materials Program seeks to educate
the public to the dangers associated with certain hazardous
household materials and the proper way to store, use and dispose
of these materials. Alternative solutions to their use are
26
-------
proposed. Future plans for this Program include a telephone
hotline for public information dissemination, and the provision
of guidance and assistance to municipalities which want to
establish collection programs for hazardous household materials.
6. Toxic Air Pollutant Control Program
Deposition of toxic air pollutants may be a significant
source of toxics entering the Bay. Dry deposition occurs when
air pollutants settle to earth as particulates, while wet
deposition occurs when air pollutants attach to rain or snow.
Toxic air pollutants can enter the Bay directly, or they may fall
to land and be washed into the Bay by rainstorms.
In September 1988, the Air Management Administration (AMA)
of the Maryland Department of the Environment promulgated
extensive Air Toxics Regulations controlling over 600 toxic air
pollutants from new and existing industrial point sources. About
150 new sources and 800 existing sources at 400 facilities are
regulated. Area sources like automobiles and gas stations are
not covered by the regulations. Toxic air pollutants regulated
include heavy metals such as chromium, cadmium, nickel, arsenic
and zinc, and polycyclic organic compounds such as benzo-a-
pyrene.
The primary goal of the air toxics control program is to
protect health by controlling emissions of toxic air pollutants
discharged into the air by industrial point sources. Another
important goal is to ensure that all new sources of air toxics
use the best possible controls to reduce emissions. An air
toxics emissions inventory is also being compiled.
There are three major requirements in the regulations
controlling toxic air pollutants. First, all sources must
quantify emissions of toxic air pollutants. Second, all new
sources, and any existing that cannot meet de minimus risk
screening levels must control emissions using Best Available
Control Technology for Toxics (T-BACT). Finally, all sources
must show that emissions, after control, do not cause
unacceptable off-property concentrations. The regulations
provide specific criteria on how to meet this last requirement.
An important issue that must be addressed in the future is
the contribution to air toxics risk from sources like cars and
woodstoves that are not covered by regulations. AMA has begun to
develop a program designed to look at these and other sources
that have the potential to contribute to high pollutant
concentration in densely populated urban areas like Baltimore.
This program called the Urban Air Toxics Initiative will involve
updating a preliminary computerized toxic emission inventory of
sources, expanding a software package that manipulates the
27
-------
emissions inventory data and refining a recently initiated air
toxic monitoring network.
Milestones
o By January 1, 1989, all sources must report emissions of
carcinogens and highly toxic non-carcinogens.
o By July 1, 1990, all sources of carcinogens and highly toxic
non-carcinogens must be in compliance with the regulations.
o By January 1, 1991, all sources must report emissions of
other non-carcinogens.
o By January 1, 1992, all sources must be in compliance with
the regulations.
28
-------
APPENDIX
Water Management Administration
The Water Management Administration (WMA) is responsible for
protection of surface and ground waters in the State. The
controlling objective is to restore, maintain and enhance the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of Maryland waters.
This objective is accomplished through a variety of State
programs, including: develop and promulgate water quality
standards to protect human health and aquatic life; regulate
through the NPDES program the discharge of pollutants, including
toxic substances, from municipal discharges; enforce
implementation and development of best management practices to
control sediment, stormwater, and agricultural nonpoint source
pollution; monitor effluents; sample ambient water quality and
fish tissues; and quantify loads from nutrients, sediments, and
toxics to the Bay system. The industrial pretreatment program
prevents industrial discharges from interfering with municipal
sewage treatment processes by prohibiting the passing of toxic
pollutants through the treatment plants.
As required by the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act,
this Administration is currently involved in an effort to
identify surface waters impaired by toxic pollutants and
significantly upgrade the State's water quality standards
covering toxic pollutants. The WMA also implements programs
required under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act to provide the
public with a safe supply of water.
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration
The goal of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Administration (HSWMA) is to protect the public and the
environment from toxic and hazardous waste. HSWMA manages the
handling, storage, collection, and disposal of solid wastes which
includes toxic substances. It also regulates industrial
wastewater discharges to both ground and surface waters of the
State, under the NPDES program and the State discharge permit
program, and inspects these facilities. HSWMA controls hazardous
waste disposal or reduction through implementation of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the State
Controlled Hazardous Substances (CHS) program.
HSWMA administers the federal Superfund Program to inspect,
identify, and clean up hazardous waste releases into the
environment. This program also places abandoned and uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites on a National Priority List (NPL), where
they are ranked by EPA for cleanup. To ensure that other sites
do not become Superfund sites or impose a risk to public health
and the environment, HSWMA permits and enforces proper treatment,
storage, and disposal of toxic hazardous substances through its
29
-------
Hazardous Waste Permitting and Enforcement programs. These
programs add support to the Industrial NPDES Discharge Permits
Program and Toxics in Solid Waste Management Program, which are
both entrusted, by policy, to protect the waters of Maryland from
the effects of toxic wastes. HSWMA also regulates sewage sludge
utilization to ensure that the material is effectively recycled
on land. Application rates and sludge quality are monitored to
assure protection of public health and the environment, as well
as future productive use of the land. Several other HSWMA
programs address other toxics issues within their jurisdiction.
Briefly, some of these involve inspections, management,
permitting, and enforcement of toxic wastes in sewage sludge
disposal, underground storage tanks, discharges to groundwater,
waste minimization, and application of aquatic herbicides and
biocides.
Air Management Administration
The Air Management Administration (AMA) manages a variety of
programs to protect air quality. The AMA develops and implements
regulations to control emissions from large industrial sources
and "area" sources, like cars and gas tanks. Most of AMA's
programs directly or indirectly reduce emissions of toxic
pollutants into the air. Recently, AMA has proposed
comprehensive regulations that specifically control certain toxic
air pollutants from most sources required to get air quality
permits. These regulations cover any carcinogenic or non-
carcinogenic toxic air pollutant discharged into the air.
Other AMA programs designed to significantly reduce
emissions of toxic air pollutants into the air include the
development of State Implementation Plans (SIP), to meet the
Federal standards for ozone and small particulate matter. These
programs, called the Ozone SIP and the PM10 SIP require emissions
controls at many sources. The Ozone SIP calls for sources to
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs
react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form
ozone. Almost all VOCs are considered toxic. The PM10 SIP will
require sources to control fine particulate matter, which can
cause toxic effects if inhaled deeply into the lungs. Another
important program under the AMA which controls toxic substances
is the Asbestos Program. This program ensures that demolition
projects involving asbestos are carried out in accordance with
regulations designed to protect the public health.
Stormwater and Sediment Control Administration
The Stormwater and Sediment Control Administration (SSCA)
was placed under MDE in 1987. It is responsible for reducing the
impact on State surface waters of toxic substances transported by
runoff from urban areas. The Administration accomplishes its
responsibilities by working with local governments and state
30
-------
agencies to minimize erosion, siltation, sedimentation, and
pollution through management of non-point source runoff while
maintaining pre-development runoff characteristics.
Toxics, Environmental Science and Health
Toxics, Environmental Science, and Health (TESH), an
assistant secretariat of MDE, provides a variety of support
services and management functions for toxic substances control.
The Toxics Operations Center within TESH administers programs
designed to prevent toxic substance releases through education
and enforcement efforts. It also provides technical support for
ecological assessment work relating to toxic materials in the
environment.
The Radiological Health Center is involved in the recently
identified problem involving the presence of radon gas in
dwellings. It is actively working to make Maryland citizens
aware of the associated health risks of radon gas and is acting
as a clearinghouse for information concerning corrective
procedures used to alleviate radon levels within buildings.
The Environmental Health Center provides risk analysis,
abatement, and education for hazards associated with asbestos and
lead. The programs are comprehensive and inclusive, forming a
complete management program.
All of the programs under TESH are supported by the
Technical Information Center, which serves as a resource for
technical publications. It is also responsible for providing
information to citizens concerning chemicals stored, disposed,
and manufactured within Maryland. This responsibility is
directed by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) Title III, Chemical Right-to-Know. Further work is being
conducted to determine the correlation of disease and adverse
health effects with environmental exposures.
31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
Appendix
1. IHTRODUCTTCH
The Chesapeake Bay Basin-wide Toxics Reduction Strategy was adopted by
the Chesapeake Executive Council in December 1988. The Strategy continues and
extends many toxic control activities undertaken since the 1970s under several
Federal laws, and programs pursued by the states with increasing intensity
during the 1980s. These programs form a complex composite of actions that are
intended to "eliminate the discharge of toxic substances from any source to
the Chesapeake Bay."
Activities to achieve this goal fall into five general categories:
o Reducing the discharge of toxics from point sources
o Reducing nonpoint discharges of toxics
o Defining the extent of toxic problems in the Bay from point and
nonpoint sources
o Reducing ambient toxicity
o Determining the potential impacts of toxics on the living resources of
the Bay and human health.
Specific activities within these categories include State and Federal
programs under the Clean Water Act and related media-specific pollution
control legislation and special initiatives under the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Controls on toxic discharges to the Bay include regulation of industrial point
sources under NPDES permits, pretreatment requirements applicable to
industrial discharges to municipal treatment plants, and special State and
Federal restrictions on the use of specific pesticides, most notably
tributyltin antifoulant paints.
The long-term goal of the Toxics Reduction Strategy is the elimination of
discharges of toxic substances to the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy also
includes a number of interim objectives and milestones which may be used to
assess progress toward the long-term goal or re-direct activities, if
necessary.
Intermediate goals, although not clearly stated within the Strategy,
include the phased elimination of acute and chronic toxic discharges from
major municipal and industrial point sources by 1996. The point source
toxics reduction goal will be achieved through the implementation of
Individual Control Strategies at specific discharges identified in 304(1)
list designated areaa of concern and through application of consistent
criteria for defining toxic discharges and setting requirements for initiation
of Toxicity Reduction Evaluations.
Reducing nonpoint discharges of toxics will initially emphasize defining
sources and loads of toxic substances. Regulation of stormwater discharges
will be used to reduce urban runoff of toxics. Additional educational and
-1-
-------
outreach efforts will concentrate on Baywide implementation of Integrated Peat
Management, a procedure that requires careful surveillance of pests and
selective use of pesticides and control programs to reduce reliance upon
chemicals. While this technique has been applied most commonly in
agriculture, there is now widespread interest in the program in urban areas
as well.
The first step toward setting toxic reduction objectives specifically
addressing habitat needs of the Bay's living resources will be to list the
toxics of concern in the Chesapeake Bay. With this list as a guide, studies
will be undertaken to define water quality and sediment criteria that should
be incorporated into State standards. This approach recognizes the fact that
too few toxic chemicals are reflected in existing state standards.
The activities of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (CBLO) in support
of the implementation of the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy are described
within this appendix. These technical and coordination activities will become
an integral component of the overall Chesapeake Bay Program work plan required
by the 1987 Bay Agreement.
2. ASSESSING THE TOXICS PROBLQ1
A. Research
Through continued support of the Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee and representation on the Research Planning Committee, CBLO will
promote and support research studies to better understand the impact of toxics
on the Bay system. These studies should provide information that can be used
effectively in risk assessment and in decision making to ensure that toxic
impacts are reduced and eventually eliminated.
The Comprehensive Research Plan established a structured approach to
define priority research needs and to secure adequate funding sources. The
Toxics Research Plan (Appendix C) defines toxics research priorities within a
risk assessment framework. CBLO will work to channel internal resources and
those of EPA and other Federal agencies through the established institutional
structure to ensure a long-tern commitment is made to achieving a better
understanding of the Bay's toxics problems.
B. Evaluation of Analytical Capabilities for Toxics
EPA and the States share a common concern about the capability of state,
federal, private and university laboratories in the Bay region to adequately
meet the analytical burden to be imposed through the implementation of the
Toxics Reduction Strategy. EPA'3 long involvement in analytical methods
development and establishment of a nationwide contract laboratory program can
bring significant expertise to bear on this issue. EPA's role will not be
limited to the design and conduct of the proposed survey, but will include
support for the implementation of resulting recommendations and actions.
-2-
-------
C. Chesapeake Bay Toxics Data Collection, Management and Synthesis
A critical logistical and technical support role of CBLO is to ensure the
fulfillment of commitments that are made for the collection, management and
Baywide synthesis of data required for decision making. Significant progress
already has been made through the Chesapeake Bay Program's Committee structure
toward establishing the structure for meeting these commitments.
The Monitoring Subcommittee, with staff support from CBLO, has developed
a Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring Program Atlas which includes descriptions of
ongoing, long-term toxics monitoring programs within the Bay basin. The
Subcommittee will use the monitoring atlas (and its periodic supplements and
updates) to help determine whether data collection needs are being addressed
effectively. The task of identifying these data needs, however, has not yet
been accomplished.
Through the Data Management Subcommittee and CBLO's in-house Chesapeake
Bay Program Computer Center contractor staff, data management support can be
found for the development and maintenance of a basin-wide toxics data base.
Plans for updating and revising guidelines for formatting and submitting all
forma of toxics data are outlined in the Data Management Subcommittee's 1989
workplan. CBLO plans to devote Computer Center staff resources towards
development of the toxics data base.
D. Toxica Loading Inventory
A key commitment in the Toxica Reduction Strategy is the development of a
Toxica Loading Inventory for the Chesapeake Bay basin. Sourcea of information
will be as diverse as the sources of toxics themselves. CBLO will play a
major role in coordinating data input from EPA and other Federal agencies and
ensuring a linkage between the submission of source information and its
incorporation into the computerized loading inventory.
o Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Under SARA Title III
Under SARA title III, section 313, EPA is required to establish an
inventory of toxic chemical emissions from certain facilities. Facilities
covered by this provision are required to report annually to EPA and
designated state officials releases of specified chemicals that occurred
during the preceding calendar year. The first annual report was due July 1,
1988; subsequent reports are to be submitted by the same date each year.
EPA may modify the list in the future on the basis of adverse
environmental effects due to such factors as toxicity, persistence, or a
tendency to bioaccumulate. Governors may petition the EPA Administrator to
add or delete a chemical based on these or other reasons. The Chesapeake Bay
drainage basin could comprise an appropriate geographical area for redefining
the list of chemicals, thresholds quantities or Standard Industrial
Classification Codes (SIC) categories subject to reporting.
-3-
-------
EPA must establish and maintain a national toxic chemical inventory based
on the data submitted by industry. The toxic chemical release reporting form
contains the following information:
- the name, location and type of business;
- whether the chemical is manufactured, processed or otherwise used and
the general categories of use of the chemical;
- an estimate (in ranges) of the maximum amounts for the toxic chemical
present at the facility and at any time during the preceding year;
- waste treatment/disposal methods and efficiency of methods for each
waste stream;
- quantity of the chemical entering each environmental medium annually;
and
- a certification by the senior official that the report is complete and
accurate.
Facilities using listed toxic chemicals in quantities exceeding 10,000
pounds in a calendar year are subject to the chemical release reporting
requirement. Reports also are required from facilities manufacturing or
processing any of these chemicals in amounts exceeding 75,000 pounds in 1987,
50,000 pounds in 1988, and 25,000 pounds in any year thereafter.
o Permit Compliance System
The Permit Compliance System (PCS), the national data base for the NPDES
program, is the primary source of point source information for EPA, the
States, Congress and the public. It provides basic administrative,
enforcement, and discharge information on all point sources with NPDES
permits/ including permit limits and concentrations of pollutants in
effluents. It has been used to develop input data for Chesapeake Bay water
quality models and to determine compliance with NPDES permit limits. It will
have direct application in developing the Toxics Loading Inventory.
o Pesticide Use Survey
EPA will work with the States and other Federal agencies to complete a
pesticide use survey including recent information on agricultural and urban
pesticide use in the Chesapeake Bay basin. The report will incorporate
information now becoming available from 1) the EPA groundwater survey, 2)
State Departments of Agriculture and the Cooperative Extensions (data on
acreage under IPM), 3) the NOAA-EPA Pesticides Loadings to Estuaries Survey,
and 4) other pertinent agencies.
B. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
CBLO will work with the States to develop the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of
Concern List and supporting matrix. The experience of other programs (e.g.,
Puget Sound, Great Lakes) in developing lists of toxics of concern to
specific estuarine/aquatic systems will be factored into the process here to
ensure a sound approach to development and application within the designated
time frame. CBLO will maintain the Toxics of Concern List and Matrix on the
Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Center data base to ensure accessibility and
to facilitate future updates.
-A-
-------
3. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND LIVING RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
A. Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards set forth the designated uses of a waterbody and
the water quality criteria necessary to protect those uses. States establish
the standards, following their own administrative and legal procedures. Water
quality standards serve two purposes: first, they establish the water quality
goals for a body of water and second, they serve as the regulatory basis for
the establishing water quality-based treatment controls and strategies that go
beyond technology-based levels of treatment. Section 303(c) of the Clean
Water Act which requires States to develop water quality standards and to
review and, if necessary, revise the standards at least once every three
years.
EPA will continue to provide guidance and review state water quality
standards up for adoption. In addition, there will be a renewed effort under
the Clean Water Act and the Toxics Reduction Strategy to encourage adoption
of additional water quality standards by the states. Given a common list of
toxics of concern, these efforts can focus on greater regional consistency and
innovation in the development of standards, including new approaches such as
Baywide promulgation.
Publication by EPA of water quality criteria documents delineating safe
levels of pollutants for aquatic life and human health is a major area of
technical assistance to the states. Criteria recommendations, made for both
fresh and marine waters, include acute and chronic values for the protection
of aquatic life, and chronic values for the protection of human health.
Recommendations in the criteria documents are offered as scientific guidance—
they are not standards and they are not regulatory in nature. Criteria
recommendations may form the basis for enforceable standards, however, if
they are adopted by the States. Because of the high cost of developing
criteria, states generally have chosen not to develop their own but to rely
on EPA's recommendations in developing their water quality standards.
Adopting section 304 (a) criteria recommendations published by EPA is the
simplest, fastest, and least costly way for a State to incorporate numerical
criteria in its water quality standards. EPA approval of such standards is
assured and, if necessary, EPA can provide technical expertise in support of
the recommendations at a State's public hearings. There is, however, a valid
toxicological basis for the contention that national criteria may be under
protective or over protective at specific sites. This may be the case when
(1) the species that comprise communities at a particular site may be more or
leas sensitive than those included in the national criteria data set; (2)
physical or chemical characteristics—or both—of water at a particular site
may alter the biological availability or toxicity of the substance; or (3)
differences in species sensitivity and water quality may combine to alter the
toxicity or availability of the substance.
Batinnal and Site Specific Criteria Development
The possible need for site-specific criteria coupled with the fact that
EPA criteria recoonendationa are for fresh or saltwater, rather than an
ostuarine environment, some have expressed the concern that EPA criteria may
-5-
-------
not be applicable to the Chesapeake Bay. In 1985, two EPA laboratories
collaborated on a study of site-specific criteria development for six bays on
the East and South coasts, including two sites on the Chesapeake. The study
used the simplest site-specific modification technique: the recalculation
procedure which permits acute toxicity data cited in the national criteria
document on species of organisms at a specific site to be used to recalculate
the criterion for that specific site. In other words, the species found at
the site are those that are used to determine the criteria. A central
conclusion of the study (O.S. EPA 1985) was "that the sensitivity of
communities at these large sites are not unique relative to sensitivities of
tested species." Further, the authors concluded "that national water quality
criteria are probably applicable to most marine sites even though the species
at the sites vary."
EPA believes the federal criteria recommendations are applicable to
estuarine systems for several reasons: (1) the minimum data base requirements
cover a broad range of species, including those that may be unique to
estuarine areas, (2) toxic impacts upon estuarine species tested by EPA are
little different from those upon fresh and marine species, and (3) the
boundary between estuarine and fresh/marine water often fluctuates. EPA will
continue to recommend that States either adopt the more stringent of fresh or
marine water quality criteria in their standards or, if a State is unsure the
criteria are applicable, derive its own site-specific criteria as the basis
for standards. The latter alternative, however, may result in significant
differences from the EPA national criteria that the species-substitution
approach appeared to support.
Two approaches for developing site-specific criteria are (1) using an
indicator species procedure which permits limited toxicity testing to
determine if the acute and chronic toxicity of the substance to resident or
nonresident species tested in site water differs significantly from toxicity
in laboratory water, and (2) a resident species procedure in which all minimum
data base requirements of the EPA national guidelines are met by testing
resident species in site water. Unless a State has data to indicate that the
water chemistry in a given water body differs significantly from the water
used in EPA testa, or that the toxicity of a pollutant to a species in a water
body differs significantly from that in species used by EPA, neither of the
site-specific calculation options is liJcely to result in a criterion much
different from EPA's national recommendation.
Establishing Toxics Standards for the Chesapeake Bay
In direct support of the commitment to adopt water quality standards for
toxics, EPA will consider the needs of Chesapeake Bay basin states in
determining which pollutants will be selected for water quality criteria and
advisory development over the next several years. CBLO will work with EPA's
Office of Hater, Criteria and Standards Division to ensure full consideration
of Chesapeake Bay Program's criteria development and standards application
guidance needs.
Once the toxics which warrant adoption of water quality standards are
identified (through the toxics of concern list), there are two ways Baywide
standards can be established.
-------
One, each State would follow its own administrative rules in adopting or
revising standards, then submit them to EPA for review. As part of its
review, EPA, as a party to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, would consider
whether the State-adopted standards are consistent with the Toxics Reduction
Strategy adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council. In using this
approach, standards would be established in a staggered manner as States
proceeded independently within the strategy framework. The schedule for a
State's triennial standards review as well as the priority each State gives to
Bay-related standards vis-a-vis those to be applied elsewhere also would
impact upon implementation of the strategy.
A second, more innovative approach for establishing water quality
standards for the Chesapeake Bay, would be for EPA to promulgate as Federal
standards applicable to all Bay States those which are developed and approved
by the Executive Council. Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act
authorizes the EPA Administrator to take such action whenever (1) standards
adopted by a State are not consistent with the requirements of the Act, or (2)
the Administrator determines that a new or revised standard is necessary to
meet the requirements of the Act.
This approach would offer these advantages: (1) it would ensure adoption
of a single set of standards applicable to the entire Bay (though there could
be variations for seasonal changes or application to different segments of the
Bay), (2) all State standards would be replaced by the Federal rule
simultaneously, effectively preventing inconsistencies that could permit
unfair competitive advantages, (3) only one round of public hearings and
review and consideration of public comments would be necessary, with the cost
borne by EPA (though EPA likely would invite representatives from each State
to attend the attend hearings and explain the proposal and the Executive
Council's rationale for its support), and (4) States could not unilaterally
revise standards applicable to the Bay if promulgated at the Federal level.
EPA could withdraw the Federal rule later if States adopt standards that meet
the requirements of the Act; i.e., standards accepted by the Executive
Council as consistent with Toxics Reduction Strategy.
Disadvantages include (1) this approach substitutes Federal authority for
that of the States (although in this case the substitution would occur only
with the approval of the Bay States), and (2) it contradicts EPA's own policy
which favors State action over the exercise of Federal authority.
Promulgation of a final rule, if the Executive Council requests Federal
action, would take about two years. Although unorthodox, this option warrants
serious consideration as a possible vehicle for establishing water quality
standards for the Chesapeake Bay. The information needed and the work
required to formulate a set of standards is about the same whether the States
act individually or EPA promulgates a rule to implement the Executive
Council's recommendations.
Current and Future Focua of the EPA Criteria and standards Program
EPA criteria development has focused recently on providing criteria
recommendations for toxic pollutants. Once water quality criteria are
published by EPA, revisions generally will not even be considered for at least
five years. Developing criteria for pollutants for which no guidelines
-7-
-------
currently exist is given higher priority by EPA than revising documents
published previously.
Because of the data base and time requirements related to development of
criteria documents, EPA is initiating the publication of water quality
advisories in order to provide information more quickly on a larger number of
pollutants. Advisories will be developed for pollutants in cases when the
minimum data base requirements of the EPA Guidelines for Deriving National
Water Quality Criteria cannot be met. This is not to say that a large amount
of data is not available, but only that the broad spectrum data base required
by the guidelines may be lacking. Since the amount of data used to develop an
advisory varies, EPA's confidence in the resulting recommendation also will
vary. An explanation of the level of confidence will be included in each
advisory. Once issued, advisories may be used in the same way as criteria.
EPA expects to produce about 30 advisories a year along with about three
criteria documents.
EPA Triennial Review Priorities 1988-1993
EPA's long-term plan for the national water quality standards program
defines national program objectives and the specific activities necessary to
support each objective. The objectives build on traditional state water
quality standards programs and focus on expanding these programs to address
sediment quality, protect wildlife and utilize resident biological
communities.
Objectives for the FY 1988-1990 Triennium are to:
1) Adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants
2) Identify waters needing toxic criteria
3) Update state policies and develop implementation procedures for
antidegradation
4) Adopt toxicity-based criteria (ambient/whole effluent bioassays) and
develop implementation procedures
5) Complete atate toxic program reviews and ensure development of state action
plans
Objectives for the FY 1991-1993 Triennium are to:
1) Establish permanent link between 304(1) listing requirements and triennial
reviews
2) Establish water quality standards for wetlands
3) Adopt sediment criteria for toxics
4) Adopt fine sediment criteria for salmonid fisheries
5) Adopt biological criteria (biocriteria)
Beyond 1993, the single objective identified thus far is the adoption of
criteria to protect wildlife.
EPA will work closely with the states to ensure that adequate guidance
for achieving the stated objectives is available in advance of each triennial
review. Because many of the objectives are components of the Toxics
Reduction Strategy, EPA and the States may work to implement some of the
objectives in the Bay basin before they are applied nationally.
-8-
-------
B. Living Resource Habitat Requirements
CBLO will continue to provide staff support to the Living Resources
Subcommittee in its efforts to update the Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake
Bay Living Resources adopted in January 1988 and to develop guidelines for the
use and application of habitat requirements within the Toxics Reduction
Strategy.
4. TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO TOXICS REDUCTIOH
A. Point Sources
Point sources are regulated under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination system (NPDES). Industrial and municipal dischargers must receive
an NPDES permit before discharging wastewater directly to surface waters.
With the exception of the District of Columbia, Bay States have been
delegated authority by EPA to administer the NPDES program. States use the
NPDES permit to set technology-based and water quality-based pollutant limits
to ensure that state water quality standards are not violated.
In 1983, EPA set forth a policy calling for increased use of
biomonitoring to detect toxicity that might be present in effluents despite
technology-based or other controls. The NPDES permit can be used to require
such biomonitoring and to trigger a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE). The
purpose of the TRE is to identify sources of toxicity and to evaluate
alternative ways to reduce it to acceptable levels.
Industrial dischargers that send their wastewater to municipal treatment
plants are subject to pretreatment requirements. These regulations are
intended to eliminate toxic concentrations that would disrupt the operation of
treatment systems, pass directly through those systems to adversely affect
waters receiving discharges, or contaminate sludge and render it unfit for
beneficial uses. Authority to administer pretreatment programs has been
delegated to Maryland, with Virginia and Pennsylvania anticipating delegation
in 1988.
Section 304 (e) of the Clean Hater Act amendments of 1987 adds a new
dimension to toxics control. It requires States and Regions to develop an
Individual Control Strategy (ICS) by February 4, 1989 for point sources
contributing to violations or exceedances of EPA water quality criteria or
state water quality standards for priority pollutants. Implementation of an
ICS is to scheduled to achieve compliance with applicable water quality
standards no later than 3 years after its approval by EPA. The ICS
requirement is met by an NPDES permit.
EPA is currently developing NPDES permit application requirements for
urban storm water. As mandated by section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act,
these requirements initially apply to discharges from municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving population of 250,000 or more and storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. Permit requirements are to be extended
to municipal separate storm sewer systems serving populations of 100,000 to
250,000 by February 1991 and to those serving populations of less than 100,000
by October, 1992. A key component to be emphasized in the regulations is the
-9-
-------
identification and effective prohibition of non-storm water discharges such as
illicit connections and illegal dumping to municipal separate storm sewers.
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program indicated that significant water quality
improvements could be achieved by eliminating these discharges.
In addition to addressing storm wster discharges from separate storm
water system, EPA is developing a permit strategy and guidance document for
controlling discharges from combined sewer overflows (CSOs). It is the
Agency's position that CSOs are point sources subject to regulation under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The objectives of the CSO strategy are to
provide maximum treatment of wet weather CSOs and to bring wet weather CSOs
into compliance with technology-based and water quality-based permit limits.
The CSO implementation plan calls for identifying CSOs, determining compliance
with permit requirements, and controlling non-permitted and insufficiently
permitted discharges. The guidance document will cover various permitting
technologies, control options, best management practices, and operation and
maintenance concerns.
EPA will track the progress of the states in meeting point source toxics
reduction goals. EPA remains committed to meeting earlier target dates and to
providing more specific goals statements and objectives to guide efforts at
the State and Federal levels. CBLO will be working with EPA Regional and
Headquarters staffs to provide sufficient guidance to ensure that the point
source strategy addresses the Bay as a continuous estuarine system. Efforts
will be made to promote the siting of pilot studies (e.g., bioaccumulation
protocol confirmation) within the Chesapeake Bay basin to facilitate
technology transfer among EPA Research Laboratories, EPA Region III, and the
States.
B. Urban Honpoint Sources
EPA will work with Federal, State and private nonpoint source groups to
form a work group to address nonpoint source toxic reduction issues and to
devise a management plan to reduce toxics loading from sources including, but
not limited to: 1) storm sewers and illegal hookups; 2) traffic-generated
exhaust products, heavy metals and tar residues; 3) rights-of-way and ice
control chemicals; 4) commercial and household waste products; 5) pesticides
and other chemicals for commercial, pre-construction, agricultural and home
and garden uses; 6) disposal of PCB transmitters, capacitors and fluids
containing PCB'a; and 7) chemical dumping areas, junkyards and landfills.
Certain non-agricultural storm water discharges, such as urban runoff,
have traditionally been considered nonpoint sources of pollution, but are
legally defined as point sources when discharged from conveyance such as
municipal separate storm sewers. Urban storm water discharges subject to
NPDES permit requirements as point sources were discussed previously.
C. PesticLdea
Through the Nonpoint Source Subcommittee and the institutional structure
designated to coordinate the long-term implementation of the Toxic Reduction
Strategy/ CBLO will be working to incorporate effective pesticide management
through existing State and Federal programs and new initiatives.
-10-
-------
National Standards for Pesticides Management
USDA'3 Extension Service and Soil Conservation Service are currently
developing National Standards and Specifications for both nutrient and
pesticide Best Management Practices (BMP). When completed, these state-of-
the-art BMP guidelines will become part of the USDA national program,
available for any State to use. The technical guidance for pesticides
management involves reduction of the pesticide load; substitution of less
toxic, mobile, persistent or more selective pesticides; and selection of BMPs
for reduction of surface and subsurface transport of pesticides. Many of
these concepts are already in use within the Chesapeake Bay basin, but have
not been combined and delivered as a complete BMP for pesticide management.
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an integral part of pesticide
management that has been an Extension Service effort primarily. However, some
private firms also have experience with IPM and are able to provide a range of
services. IPM attempts to make the most efficient use of the techniques
available to control pests. The basis of IPM is to take action to prevent
pest problems, suppress damage levels and use chemical pesticides only where
needed. Rather than seeking to eradicate all pests, IPM strives to prevent
their development or suppress population numbers below levels which would be
economically damaging. The heart of IMP is scouting to provide basic
monitoring of fields, sampling pests, and recording pest populations. These
data allow an IPM specialist to make recommendations to the urban homeowner
or fanner based on pre-determined pest thresholds. IPM has been proven to
decrease the use of pesticides and significantly reduce pest control or
production costs, while crop yields and profits actually have been shown to
increase.
The implementation of IPM in agricultural programs involves a combination
of activities. These include: increasing technical/instructional services and
scouting, providing for outreach to fanners, expanding IPM and providing for
fanner cost share incentives, and conducting research on weed and insect
controls needed to support IPM threshold recommendations. Reductions in
pesticide use because of IPM efforts in the Bay region range from 10 percent
to as high as 80 percent, depending on the type of crop treated and the
pesticide applied.
Integrated Pest Management is not limited to agricultural applications.
With increasing development in the basin, IPM is becoming more popular and
necessary in urban areas as well. In that portion of Maryland within the Bay
basin, more than 90 percent of the population lives in or near urban centers.
Urban acreage in this part of the State increased by 170 percent between 1970
and 1980. Maryland has more than 700,000 acres in urban land within the
basin, compared to 2,500,000 acres in crops and pasture. Virginia has more
than 1,500,000 acres of urban land in the Bay watershed, compared to 4,500,000
acres of farmland. Comparable figures for Pennsylvania are more than
2,000,000 acres of urban land and 4,000,000 acres in crops and pasture.
Basin-wide, urban acreage is roughly one-third to one-half of the total in
farmland. These acreages do not take into account other uses such as
forestland and highway rights-of-way where pesticides also are applied.
Studies by the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service indicate that 88 percent
-il-
-------
of homeowners in Maryland use herbicides, fungicides and insecticides in
quantities as great or greater per acre than those used by farmers.
In practice, the implementation of IPM in urban areas begins with pilot
programs, which then serve as models that can be replicated in other
communities. This process starts with identifying study areas, assessing
current pesticide practices, and reviewing information available on
alternative pest control packages compared to the traditional practice of
applying pesticides according to label directions without fully identifying
the type and extent of a pest problem. Reductions in pesticide use exceeding
90 percent have been achieved in some urban/suburban settings through IPM,
studies by the University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service have
indicated. These studies included a commercial arborists project involving
homeowners, nursery crop IPM projects, and indoor pest control for large
public facility projects. In other Bay States, IPM outreach has included
demonstration programs targeted to ornamentals used for landscaping and
programs geared toward nursery growers.
Pesticide Management for Chesapeake Bay
A nonpoint source pesticide management program for the entire Chesapeake
Bay will provide state-of-the-art control for those chemicals that are labeled
for use within the basin. The programs should be similar to the nutrient
management programs now being implemented by the States and should include IPM
and other USDA elements available. The first objective should be to include a
pesticide plan in each agreement with the farmer, to base that plan on the
recommendations of the Extension Service, and to integrate it with other BMPs
appropriate for the field. The next step should be to obtain scouting and
forecasting services for the most critical areas of the basin. Already
existing scouting services should be expanded to meet these needs where
possible. As the Soil Conservation Service's program becomes available within
the basin, the two programs should then be integrated.
Pesticide BMPs for the Chesapeake Bay basin could provide economic
benefits to users while reducing nonpoint source pesticides movement in the
basin. CBLO, therefore, proposes that State implementation grant applications
contain workplans for implementation of pilot IPM programs that would be the
basis for a pesticide management component in FY1990 Chesapeake Bay
Implementation Grants. EPA also will work with the States and other Federal
agencies to develop pesticide management alternatives. This process will
include carrying out Integrated Pest Management (IPM) pilot projects, both
agricultural and urban, in each of the Bay States. Results of the pilot
projects and data from the pesticide survey will be used to target areas
(e.g., counties in which IPM is relatively unknown or not being practiced)
needing alternative pesticide management programs.
Pesticides and Ground-Water Protection
The National Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water Pesticide Strategy
envisions national registration of pesticides with State- or county-wide
restrictions based on ground-water concerns. This will take place along with
an EPA effort to establish ground-water protection measures that will be
uniformly applicable across the country. State management plans will be
developed for the purpose of addressing area-specific management of pesticide
-12-
-------
use to protect ground-water resources. In some cases, the use of a pesticide
in a State will depend on the existence of and adequacy of a State management
plan. Under the management plan, the State will develop and implement
tailored prevention measures based on local differences in ground-water use,
value and vulnerability. Some of the items included on the State management
menu as methods for controlling pesticide use are:
o change in rates of application,
o change in timing of application,
o change in method of application,
o integrated pest management,
o best management practices,
o additional monitoring, and
o additional training and certification.
These pesticides management methods would also be appropriate for use in the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Chesapeake Bay basin may be an opportune location for taking a
holistic approach to protecting its water resources and to facilitate a
management program that realizes the important relationship between ground
water protection and surface water quality. State pesticide management
efforts developed in response to State ground water initiatives should be
fully coordinated with the Toxics Reduction Strategy components for protecting
surface water quality. This point was raised in the Proposed National Ground
Water Protection Agricultural Pesticides Strategy, December, 1987. Finally,
State strategies for protecting surface waters should also be consistent
throughout the basin.
D. Air Deposition
EPA will target national program initiatives to further understanding of
the magnitude of atmospheric deposition of toxics and intra- and
interregional sources. CBLO will work through the Monitoring Subcommittee and
the institutional structure designated for long-term implementation of the
Toxics Reduction Strategy to ensure the creation of a permanent Bay basin
atmospheric deposition monitoring network linked with other toxics monitoring
programs.
B. Solid and Hazardous Waste
Solid and Hazardous Waste are regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
The RCRA program regulates the disposal of municipal and industrial solid
waste. The program is roughly divided into three regulatory areas: 1) non-
hazardous solid waste (subtitle D); 2) hazardous waste (subtitle C); and 3)
underground storage tanks (subtitle I).
Subtitle D regulations define minimum technical design, construction,
and maintenance requirements for environmentally acceptable solid waste
management facilities. States may establish comparable or more stringent
standards for solid waste facilities.
-13-
-------
Disposal of non-hazardous solid waste, especially municipal solid waste,
has been drawing increasing national attention recently because of the rapid
depletion of landfill capacity in some areas, growing public concern over safe
siting and design of new disposal facilities, and the difficult choices
municipalities face in deciding what to do with the trash generated in their
communities.
The RCRA subtitle C program regulates hazardous wastes from "cradle to
grave." Facilities involved in the generation, transportation, treatment,
storage, and/or disposal of hazardous wastes (TSDFs) are subject to regulation
under subtitle C.
All TSDFs are required to obtain an RCRA permit. TSDFs that have
obtained a permit are subject to technical standards set forth in 40 CFR Part
264. TSDFs that have not yet obtained a permit (i.e., "interim status
facilities") are subject to the technical standards contained in 40 CFR Part
265. Regulations in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 are organized and define
acceptable management of hazardous waste in a similar way.
Subtitle I authorizes a regulatory program covering underground storage
tanks (USTs) for petroleum and other chemical products. Proposed UST
regulations require the installation of spill and overfill prevention
devices. Examples of appropriate devices include sensors to indicate when a
tank is 95 percent full, or spill catchment basins large enough to contain the
volume of the fill hose.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities
Act (CERCLA) established the Superfund program to respond to releases of
hazardous substances into the environment from uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites.
Upon discovery, potential Superfund sites are evaluated to determine
whether they pose a serious environmental hazard. Information for this
evaluation is collected during a Preliminary Assessment (PI) and a Site
Investigation (SI). Information from the PA/SI is used in a model known as
the Hazard Ranking System (MRS). The HRS assigns a numerical score to a site
describing its environmental hazard. The HRS assign three types of scores to
a potential Superfund site:
o A score that reflects the potential for harm to humans or the
environment from migration of a hazardous substance away from the
facility through ground water, surface water, or the air. It is a
composite of separate scores for each of the three migration routes.
o A score that reflects the potential for harm from substances that can
explode or cause fires.
o A score that reflects the potential for harm from direct contact with
hazardous substances at the facility (i.e., no migration need be
involved).
Sites with high scores for direct contact and/or fire and explosion
generally fall within the CERCLA removal (immediate response) program while
sites with high Migration route scores (surface water, ground water, and air
-14-
-------
pathways) are proposed for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Sites added to the NPL undergo a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). The RI/FS identifies alternative remedies for the environmental
problems documented during the MRS process. In the RI, data characterizing
the site and its wastes are collected, and treatability tests are conducted as
necessary to evaluate the performance and cost of possible treatment
technologies. In the FS, remedial alternatives are developed, screened, and
evaluated. CERCLA requires that Superfund remedial actions meet all Federal
or State standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate (commonly referred to as ARARs).
The Record of Decision (ROD) documents the remedy selected for a site
based on the RI/FS, the rationale for choosing that remedy, and a summary of
ARARs identified for a site. Then the remedial design and remedial action
progress according to the rationale set forth in the ROD.
EPA will continue to work with the states to prioritize, where possible,
regulatory activities related to solid and hazardous waste which have more
immediate impacts on Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. These efforts will
include transfer of technologies for waste minimization (household and
industrial) and landfill sitting targeted towards protection of the Bay's
resources.
F. Contaminated Sediments
The signatories have recognized that toxic contaminants in bottom
sediments of the Chesapeake Bay create the potential for continued
environmental degradation even where water column pollutant levels comply with
established state water quality standards. An accurate assessment of the
contaminated sediment problem is difficult in the absence of a defensible
sediment quality criteria. Enough is known, however, to create concern that
existing and projected sediment contaminant concentrations can have
significant adverse effects on aquatic life and human health. The application
of sediment criteria will make it possible to implement regulatory,
enforcement, and clean-up actions where necessary and to establish priorities
between programs and sites.
The principal goal of EPA's national sediment criteria development effort
is to focus on criteria that can be used in variety of ways to better address
contaminated sediment problems. The immediate short-term goal is to gain
acceptance of the procedure from the Agency's independent Science Advisory
Board. Acceptance by this Board will indicate that the science and logic used
in developing sediment quality criteria are suitable for regulatory purposes.
Regulatory options are currently being evaluated, and guidance for sampling
and analytical techniques are being developed. Once approval is obtained from
the Board, activities will focus on developing sediment criteria values (or
methodologies for site specific criteria development) for contaminants of
greatest concern, as indicated by monitoring information and the needs of
various EPA programs, implementing a regulatory framework, and reducing
uncertainty levels associated with developed criteria. EPA intends to give
priority in the FY91-93 triennial review cycle to establishing adoption of
sediment criteria by the States as part of their water quality standards.
-15-
-------
The first criteria values developed will be useful in identifying problem
and potential problem areas and, in some cases, the need for more specific
studies to determine the likelihood of adverse impacts. As developmental
studies progress and data supporting the criteria improve, their utility will
increase. Sediment criteria will be useful in implementing a number of laws,
primarily those involving siting, permitting, or monitoring of waste
disposal; identification or cleanup of contaminated areas, and preparation of
environmental impact statements.
EPA will work with the States in the following areas to help achieve
commitments within the Toxics Reduction Strategy related to contaminated
sediments:
o Dissemination of information on the status of EPA's efforts to develop
national sediment quality criteria;
o Development and State adoption of Chesapeake Bay sediment quality
evaluation protocols and criteria; and
o Transfer of technology on sediment bioassay protocols enhanced through
siting evaluations of estuarine sediment bioassay tests within the
Chesapeake Bay.
5. IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY AMD MEASURING PROGRESS
A. Implementing the Strategy
CBLO will provide staff support to the ad hoc Toxics Reduction Strategy
Action Plan Development Panel to ensure integration of toxics reduction
initiatives in the overall Chesapeake Bay Program workplan and coordination
with Federal facilities in the basin and Federal agencies participating in the
Chesapeake Bay Program. CBLO will work with the panel to establish a system
for tracking achievement of strategy commitments.
B. Public Education and InrolTeaent
As the lead agency for implementation of the Baywide Communications Plan
and in concert with the signatory jurisdictions, EPA will provide support
necessary for the active involvement of the public in the implementation of
the Toxics Reduction Strategy. There are several avenues for ensuring a role
for the public through the existing program structure.
o The Alliance for Chesapeake Bay will continue its lead role for public
participation in the Chesapeake Bay Program
o The Chesapeake Regional Information Service can help ensure wide
distribution of information and public review notices
o The Chesapeake Bay Information Network links information officers from a
wide variety of agencies and public interest groups
-16-
-------
o The Local Governments Advisory Committee, the Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee can promote the
distribution of information to and the participation of the peers they
represent.
CBLO will continue to coordinate the activities of Federal agencies and will
take the lead in addressing any legal requirements for public involvement.
C. Progress Reports and Revaluation
CBLO is committed to providing staff support for the development of
future progress reports on the implementation of the Toxics Reduction
Strategy and to coordinating the contributions of the Federal agencies
participating in the Chesapeake Bay Program.
-17-
-------
APPENDIX C
STAC Toxics Research Plan
-------
Appendix C
Toxics Research Strategy
(Prepared by the Toxics Subcommittee
of the .Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee)
INTRODUCTION
A goal of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to reduce and control point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to attain the water quality necessary to support the living
resources of the Bay. The Agreement states, "The improvement and maintenance of water
quality are the single most critical elements in the overall restoration and protection of the
Chesapeake Bay."
The issue of toxics in the Bay has not been clearly defined. However, declines in
populations of important species have been associated with reductions in water quality.
Except in a few cases, evidence is indirect. The example of other large aquatic systems,
such as the Great Lakes, emphasizes the vulnerability of ecosystems bounded by densely
populated regions and the important relationship between land use in the watershed area
and the health of the aquatic system.
A useful definition of "toxics" is given in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement:1
"Toxic substance' means a substance which can cause death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions or
physical deformities in any organism or its offspring, or which can become poisonous after
concentration in the food chain or in combination with other substances."
The Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy provides a framework for controlling and
monitoring substances thai fall within the existing regulatory and management structures.
It also calls for much information that must be developed through a program of directed
research. A Research Strategy must address management needs; however, it must also
look forward and extend our current knowledge base. The Research Strategy should
permit us to improve current capabilities for detecting, assessing, and managing toxics and
pollutants. It should also provide an understanding of the current significance of toxics in
the Bay and the potential risks associated with their presence. And it should provide an
understanding of the physical and chemical processes by which toxics may enter the
system, move, and become available to biota. Because adverse effects of present and
future toxic burdens must be minimized, predictive systems are needed. These can be
developed only if findings from biological, analytical, and environmental studies can be
successfully integrated.
1 Revised November 1987.
-------
The emphasis of this Research Strategy is on reducing risks to the Chesapeake Bay
associated with toxic substances. In order to do this, one must determine the magnitude of
existing or projected risks from the myriad of chemicals involved. Therefore the Strategy
focuses on risk assessments and the major components required for effective risk
determinations.
-------
I. RISK-ASSESSMENT RESEARCH
Risk assessments have been described as estimations of the probability of undesirable
events such as injury, death, or decrease in biomass (standing crop) or productivity of
living resources.2 Environmental risk assessments can further be defined as estimations of
the likelihood that adverse effects, such as mortality, acute and chronic toxicity,
reproductive changes, or changes in community/ecosystem level function and structure,
will occur, are occurring, or have occurred.^
Risk is a function of hazard and exposure; therefore, environmental risk is a function
of lexicological hazard and environmental exposure. Toxicological hazard is the intrinsic
capability of a contaminant to cause an adverse effect under a particular set of
circumstances. Data used to estimate lexicological hazard are usually derived from
laboratory bioassays.
Environmental exposure is a function of two components. The first is the estimated
amount of the contaminani lhai will be in ihe environment and its availability to living
resources of concern, and the second consists of estimates of the types, distribution,
abundance, and natural history of the resources being exposed. Both of these estimates
have associated errors and uncertainties.
The function and utility of risk assessment have been accurately described:
"Risk assessment consists of formal scientific techniques that (1) integrate
knowledge about a contemplated action and its possible effects (2) account for
uncertainties associated with that knowledge and (3) express resuks
probabilistically in order to account for both knowledge and uncertainty. Risk
assessment provides a sound lechnical basis for making rational management
decisions. Risk management is ihe process of making decisions about ihe
acceptability of risks and ihe need for risk reduction."4
The Research Strategy has been structured to provide for the development and
validation of source measurement protocols and designs, modeling of transport and fate
processes, and increased understandings of the mechanism and magnitude of effects.
Recommended research will provide lexicological hazard and exposure data contributing to
a definition of the impact of toxics on the Chesapeake Bay system. The resultant risk
assessment framework will eventually lead to structured risk reduction decision-making
through the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy.
Suter, G.W, D.S. Vaughan and R.H. Gardner. 1983. Risk Assessment by Analysis of Extrapolation
Error A Demonstration for Effects of Pollutants on Fish. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
1369-378.
Roderick, J.V. 2nd R.C Tardiff. 1982. Conceptual Basis for Risk Assessment. Presented at the Annual
American CV"«c?' Society Meeting. Kansas City, MO. Sept 14-16, 1982.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001, June 1985. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
Fava. JA, WJ. Adams, RX. Larson, G.L. Dixon, Ki. Dixon, and W.E. Bishop, Editors. 1988.
Research Priorities in Environmental Risk Assessment, Workshop Report, Society of Environmental
Toxicology aid Chemistry. Breckenridge, Colorado, Aug 1987.
-------
Findings and Recommendations:
I. la Finding:
Environmental risk assessments offer a rational and consistent framework by
which to evaluate the effects, existing or potential, of toxic substances entering
the Bay or those already in the system.
Mb Recommendation:
Research should be supported to examine and evaluate selected environmental
risk assessment protocols to develop an appropriate protocol to be used
throughout the Chesapeake Bay within the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
framework.
I.2a Finding:
Environmental risk assessments rely on the accuracy and precision of toxicity and
exposure estimates. In addition, a correct understanding of life histories and
trophic interactions of the organisms involved is necessary to guarantee
effectiveness of the predictions.
I.2b Recommendation:
Research should be focused on improving the effectiveness of the environmental
risk assessments developed through Recommendation I. Ib.
-------
II. SOURCES RESEARCH
A Research Strategy that is directed toward determining sources of toxic chemicals
must be formulated with several facts in mind. One is that although detection of toxics is
relatively simple for well-known compounds emanating from point sources, this is not the
case for unidentified or unregulated compounds, or those entering the Bay via atmospheric
deposition, groundwater, or urban runoff. For these compounds, chemical analyses must.
be capable of detecting as many compounds as possible. The problem of sampling is
particularly difficult For these reasons, most of the inventories of toxic loadings to the
Bay are less than ideal either because they ignored some routes of entry such as
groundwater or atmospheric deposition, or because the chemical analyses of the source
materials were minimal and incomplete.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. Yet, in the last effort
to determine the extent of toxic chemicals in the mainstem of the Bay (i.e. not including the
tributaries), fewer than 20 samples were collected. The probability of detecting "hot
spots", sources, or trends with so few samples is low. Although it is likely that toxic
impacts from point sources will be exhibited near the outfalls and hence not as much in the
mainstem of the Bay, this may not be the case for many nonpoint sources of toxics, such as
atmospheric deposition.
Most toxics regulatory programs now in existence are designed to control and limit
the sources and inputs of a selected set of substances. The compounds or elements on the
list(s) have been selected because it is believed that they have caused, or have the potential
to cause, damage to the environment. Once a substance has been selected it becomes the
focus of attention to determine analytical procedures to quantify its presence or biological
effects. It is generally accepted that substances on such lists are or have the potential to be
toxic. It is not, however, correct to assume that compounds not listed are harmless. For
example, neither Kepone nor tributyltin (TBT) is on the EPA Priority Pollutant List.
Discharge permit limits and prctreatment standards are issued for a very limited
number of known or regulated toxics in point-source effluents. As a result, the
concentration of the material in effluents, sediments, waters, or tissues may be measured.
In the process of determining the sought substance(s), hundreds of other substances are
often detected and quantified. Most, if not all, of this free toxics information is ignored and
discarded
No program can be effective in evaluating the risks of toxic chemicals to the
Chesapeake Bay if it relies solely on preselected lists of chemicals to formulate risk
assessments. Such an approach, while widespread locally and nationally, is no longer
necessary. Technology now exists to collect, store, and manipulate the many bits of
information generated by the analytical instruments. Instrument outputs can be normalized
to compensate for minute changes in analytical conditions. Data systems (i.e., computers)
can be directly linked between laboratories to allow direct access to the analytical signals.
C*ne such system, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) Fingerprint Method, has
already been demonstrated to be feasible on a local scale. With a minor amount of research,
this method or a similar one could be implemented basinwide. If implemented as part of
-------
the Chesapeake Bay Program, such a system would likely become the model for national
monitoring programs.5
The above mentioned difficulties in determining sources of toxics, plus the lack of
effort to correct the deficiencies, have resulted in a very inadequate toxics database for
management decisions relative to environmental risk assessments and risk management of
toxics in the Bay.
Questions:
• What are the appropriate sampling devices, sampling distributions, and sampling
frequencies for toxics in nonpoint sources?
• What are the relative magnitudes of the various sources of toxic substances to the
Bay?
• What can be done to reduce input to the Bay of toxic chemicals from agricultural
and urban lands, the atmosphere, and groundwater?
• How can analytical protocols be modified to maximize the utilization and storage
of quantitative and qualitative chemical data?
Findings and Recommendations:
II. la Finding:
Nonpoint sources of toxic chemicals to the Chesapeake Bay are poorly quantified
because appropriate sampling protocols and/or networks have not been
established to measure the amounts that enter by various pathways, e.g., from
atmospheric particulates or urban runoff.
II. 1 b Recommendation:
Research is necessary to determine the proper sampling techniques, sampling
distributions, and sampling frequencies, etc. for toxics in nonpoint sources.
Groundwater, atmospheric gases, atmospheric particulates, and urban and
agricultural runoff should be included. The objective of this research should be to
obtain sufficient information to design sampling protocols and networks to
accurately estimate the relative magnitude of toxics in the various nonpoint
sources entering the Bay.
II.2a Finding:
The spatial distribution, collection frequency, and type of samples from the
mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries have been inadequate to
determine the extent and origin of toxic chemicals now in the Bay. Therefore the
Science Advisory Board, U.S. EPA. 1987. Review of a framework for improving surface water
monitoring support for decision-making. Report of the Surface Water Monitoring, Environmental
Effects, Transport, and Fate Committee. SAB-EETFC-88-006.
Science Advisory Board, U.S.EPA. 1988. Future Risk: Research strategies for the 1990s. Appendix A
Strategies for Sources, Transport and Fate Research. SAB-EC-88-040A.
-------
relative importance of the various sources to the Bay, both point and nonpoint,
cannot be determined at this rime. Since the risk management options available to
regulatory agencies are usually much more limited, complex, time-consuming,
and expensive for nonpoint sources, knowledge of the relative magnitude and
biological significance of various types of sources is essential.
II.2b Recommendation:
Research is necessary to estimate the relative magnitude of inputs of toxic
chemicals to the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The
research efforts should focus upon the relative contribution and fluxes from
nonpoint sources. This should be a multidisciplinary program, taking into
account atmospheric transport, and using hydrologic models and all source
information available (e.g., automobile density and agricultural activity).
II.3a Finding:
A vast amount of valuable toxic chemical information is being generated by
existing regulatory and research programs but most is being ignored and
discarded.
II. 3b Recommendation:
Determine the appropriate analytical conditions, standards, columns, software,
etc., to allow coupling of analytical chemical data systems and exchange of data
among laboratories. Generate software, quality assurance, and quality control
plans to optimize the utility of the system. Develop statistical evaluation protocols
to allow for identification of spatial and temporal patterns and the evaluation of the
"information content" of individual compounds.
II.4a. Finding:
Techniques such as the use of biological disease-suppressing agents, integrated
pest management, best management practices, and the use of genotypes that are
tolerant or persistent to pests and diseases can reduce the need for chemicals that
can reach soil in agricultural and urban situations.
I1.4b. Recommendation:
Support research to develop techniques that minimize the need for chemicals used
on agricultural and urban land, so that nonpoint source pollution can be
diminished
Finding IV.4a and Recommendation IV.4b, which relate to the use of biomarkers, are
also appropriate to this section.
-------
III. FATE AND TRANSPORT RESEARCH
To understand the effects of a toxic substance on an organism, it is necessary to have
some measure of the exposure of the organism to the particular substance. As a first
approximation, the exposure can be assumed to be a function of the concentration of the
substance in the medium or compartment which the organism inhabits. This concentration
will be controlled by physical, chemical, and biological factors which influence the
partitioning of material among various compartments: soil, air, surface water,
groundwater, open water, surface layers, suspended and bottom sediment, biota, etc.
The concentration in a compartment is not only dependent on the physical and
chemical properties of the material but also on the rate of removal or degradation. The rate
of degradation will almost always be different in the different compartments. The
disappearance of the material from the system will therefore be a complex process that
depends on the rate at which it enters the ecosystem as well the rate of its re-distribution as
it is lost from one or more compartments. The disappearance of the parent material may
result in the appearance of daughter products of greater or less toxicity, which may
themselves become redistributed in a different pattern through the ecosystem.
It is thus evident that a complete understanding of the exposure of an organism to a
toxic chemical cannot be obtained on the basis of the total amount of the material in the
immediate habitat of the organism. A knowledge of the physical, chemical, and
biochemical factors controlling the overall distribution is therefore vital to the estimation
and interpretation of exposure.
A principal research need is to build a database and obtain an understanding of the
factors controlling the distribution of the toxic materials in the various compartments of the
Bay, together with measurements of the rate of disappearance by re-distribution or
degradation within the compartments and the flux of the chemicals among the
compartments. This will result in formulation of the necessary mathematical models to
predict concentrations and hence exposures.
Although the underlying theoretical principles that must be incorporated in such
models are well understood, no satisfactory model for this purpose currently exists, and the
development and evaluation of such models is a major research need. Not only is this
approach essential for an adequate understanding of the transport, distribution, and
exposure of organisms to toxic materials, but it will also permit major economies in our
research efforts, allowing us to identify those places where we may seek the highest
concentrations (and toxic levels) in the overall ecosystem. Where both data and
observations exist for a compound whose properties are similar to those of a new material
whose effects are initially unknown, the approach will also provide immediate insight into
the probable behavior of the new materiaL This technique can be extended to the
identification of chemical markers that should receive major attention in the monitoring and
sampling programs.
Questions:
• What are the physical, chemical, and biological processes that affect the
distribution of toxic chemicals in the Chesapeake Bay?
8
-------
• What are the processes and rates that affect the longevity of toxics in various
compartments of the Chesapeake Bay system?
• What physical, chemical, ar.d biological processes govern the
deposition/consolidation/resuspension of fine grained sediments in the
Chesapeake Bay?
Findings and Recommendations:
III. la Finding:
Sediments play an important role in concentrating and transporting toxic
substances and removing them from the water column. Mathematical models
formulated to predict sediment movement, and hence movement of toxics, are
usually ineffective because a basic scientific understanding of consolidation
and/or resuspension of cohesive sediments is not available.
Ill.lb Recommendation:
Initiate research to determine all the processes, including the influence of benthic
infauna and epifauna, controlling consolidation and resuspension of cohesive
sediments on the exchange of sediments between the bottom and the overlying
water.
m.2a Finding:
Benthic organisms mix and rework sediments as they burrow through the bottom.
Predators foraging in the sediments also may contribute to the bioturbation
process. In the process, toxic chemicals sorbed to the particles are mixed to
varying depths depending on the sediment type, season of the year, community
structure, etc. Predictions of the fate and transport of sorbed toxic substances
must consider these biological and physical processes. Our present
understanding of the role of biota in transporting toxic chemicals from the
surficial bottom sediments to greater depth and vice versa is limited.
III.2b Recommendation:
Support research efforts to determine the extent and rates of sediment mixing and
reworking by benthic organisms in the Chesapeake Bay. Particular attention
should be given to effects due to community composition, sediment type, and
season.
in.3a Finding:
Non-benthic aquatic organisms may also be very important in the uptake,
concentration, conversion, and transport of toxic chemicals. The bioavailability
of these chemicals may remain unchanged, be enhanced, or be inactivated as they
move through the food chain to other trophic levels of biota (including plants,
terrestrial wildlife, birds, and even human beings).
m.3b Recommendation:
Support research to determine the importance of non-benthic aquatic organisms in
the fate and transport of toxic chemicals in the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
III.4a Finding:
Complex processes are involved in the transfer of toxics from the atmosphere to
the aquatic system and their subsequent fate and transport to other compartments.
To develop adequate models of these phenomena, it is necessary to know the
physical properties of the toxic chemicals, their partitioning or distribution
coefficients among the compartments involved, and their kinetic transfer
coefficients.
III.4b Recommendation:
Support research to determine physical constants and kinetic transfer coefficients
of toxics among various compartments of the Chesapeake Bay system. Emphasis
should be placed on determining coefficient ranges for various chemical classes
and for toxics in various environmental phases. In addition, the influence of the
surface microlayer on the exchange of toxics between atmosphere and water
should be determined. This information should be used to develop appropriate
demonstration models for the transfer of toxics between the atmosphere and the
aquatic system.
III.5a Finding:
A number of chemical classes are detected frequently in environmental samples.
Some components may or may not be toxic. However, because they can be
readily detected and measured, and since transport and fate estimates may be
inferred from the behavior of materials of similar physical and chemical
properties, they may provide useful information on other components.
III.5b Recommendation:
Determine, if appropriate, chemical markers to be included in Bay monitoring and
sampling programs to provide information concerning transport and distribution.
III.6a. Finding:
Microorganisms can play a critical role in the transformation and mineralization of
toxic substances in soil, sediments, and groundwater. If accurate predictions are
to be made concerning the fate of toxics reaching the Chesapeake Bay and already
present in it, then biodegradation kinetic parameters must be obtained
III.6b. Recommendation:
Support research to determine aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation kinetic
parameters for toxic chemicals in soil sediments and groundwater.
10
-------
IV. EFFECTS RESEARCH
A wide variety of man-made and naturally occurring chemicals have entered and are
entering the Bay by many routes. Although many have not been identified, they can be
detected and foUowed. The ultimate goal of the toxics research program should be to
determine the existing or potential biological effects of these anthropogenic substances so
that their effects or risk can be managed in an appropriate manner.
Biological effects resulting from exposure to toxics can be measured at various levels
of organization, from the molecular or gene level through cellular, tissue, organ, organism,
and population levels both in the laboratory and the field. Assays have been developed to
detect toxic effects at each of these levels. Others now in the developmental stage may
soon prove useful. It is likely that a multiplicity of tests will be necessary to demonstrate
toxic impacts.
The major problem we face is determining whether contaminants found in the field or
within the tissues of the biota cause unacceptable biological effects. The research strategy
must bridge the gap between measurable quantities and biological impacts.
Laboratory tests are but one way to determine the magnitude and importance of toxic
chemicals. Another approach is to examine indigenous or feral organisms whose
physiological and biochemical systems indicate that they are being stressed by chemicals.
In many cases this is a much more sensitive and realistic approach because the animals
integrate the many environmental variables and respond to the total mixture or combination
of toxic chemicals to which they are exposed. For example, if a fish's DNA has been
damaged, it is clear that the causative material was biologically available at sufficient
concentrations to react with the animal, that an essential part of the organism has been
damaged, and, if damage is severe enough, that the organism may be irreparably harmed.
Historically, environmental scientists and regulators have used organisms in other
ways to determine the impacts of toxics on the environment. In laboratory bioassays
certain species were exposed to substances of interest and lethal concentrations were
determined. For certain "easy-to-work-with" species, the effect of the toxicant on such
parameters as growth or reproduction would be ascertained. More recently, bioassays have
moved from the laboratory to the environment through the use of mobile trailers and the
exposure of organisms to actual effluents, etc. This is a significant advancement but it is
still a test conducted under controlled conditions and is not necessarily indicative of the real
environment Utilizing animals already in the environment overcomes many of these
difficulties.
Questions:
• What are the availabilities and biological effects of anthropogenic compounds in
the Bay system?
• What are the most effective indicators for detecting, predicting, or assessing toxic
effects at various biological organizational levels (i.e., cell, organ, individual
population, etc.); what are the normal ranges of values of such indicators for a
11
-------
number of resident Bay species and how do they vary with environmental
conditions?
Can we recognize increased susceptibility to infectious and other diseases or other
potential effects in which toxics may act as synergists and vice versa?
Can we identify effects of toxics at the population, community, or ecosystem
level? How do we link conventional laboratory assessments of toxicity and
indicators of sublethal stress measured in the field with actual impacts on
communities and ecosystems?
Findings and Recommendations:
I V.I a Finding:
To date no critical compendium of scientific information relating to distribution
and effects of toxics in the Chesapeake Bay has been formulated. Without such
information, developing hypotheses concerning effects of toxic substances on
biota in the Chesapeake Bay is difficult if not impossible.
IV. lb Recommendation:
Prepare a critical summary of the knowledge concerning the presence and
implications of toxics in the Chesapeake Bay. This should include a summary of
literature and incorporate available data from monitoring programs within the Bay
area.
IV.2a Finding:
Toxicity tests conducted in the laboratory, whether single species, microcosm, or
mesocosm, may be faulty predictors of effects in the natural environment. It is
critical that the uncertainty boundaries of results derived from such tests be clearly
defined.
IV.2b Recommendation:
Research should be initiated to determine the effectiveness of various toxicity
testing alternatives (e.g. single species, microcosm, mesocosm, etc.) for
determining whether specific toxic chemicals could contribute to population,
community, and ecosystem effects. Substances with various physical, chemical,
and lexicological properties should be used, and results should be field-validated
whenever possible, using areas in the Bay with known toxic chemical problems.
The program should determine optimum and realistic conditions for such testing.
IV.3a Finding:
The evaluation of a compound's toxicity by a tiered system of testing may offer
substantial advantages over conventional toxicity testing protocols. Among these
advantages are significant reductions in manpower, cost, time, etc. However,
tiered testing systems cannot provide certainty, and the possibility exists for the
toxicity of some substances to be improperly assessed
12
-------
IV.3b Recommendation:
A research effort should be initiated to construct a tiered system which would be
appropriate to the needs of the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy decision-
making framework. Tests and species selected should be relevant to the
Chesapeake Bay.
FV.4a Finding:
Physiological and biochemical indications of toxic chemical stress (biomarkers)
offer an opportunity to determine, in the environment, the areas and species being
affected by toxic chemicals. Utilizing biomarkers, sources of toxic chemicals can
be discovered and, through continued testing, the effectiveness of remedial
actions can be determined.
IV.4b Recommendation:
Research should be initiated to evaluate the effectiveness of the various Biomarkcr
Assays in determining chemical stress. Assays to be considered include DNA
adducts, enzyme induction, immune suppression, and metabolic products.
Determination of the most sensitive assays for particular chemicals or classes of
chemicals as well as the optimum organisms and assay frequencies should be
among the goals of the program. The research should focus upon establishing
cause and effect relationships considering confounding factors. The technologies
should then be transferred to appropriate agencies for implementation in
Chesapeake Bay programs.
FV.5a Finding:
Organisms in the Bay are being exposed to a variety of toxicants but
environmental risk assessments of toxic chemicals usually consider only single
substances.
IV.5b Recommendation:
Support research to determine realistic toxicity exposure regimes and appropriate
species to be used. The focus should be to determine ways to estimate toxic
effects of a substance in the presence of other chemical stresses in the Chesapeake
Bay system.
13
-------
IMPLEMENTATION
Identification of research needs is only the first step in reaching our goal of providing
adequate information for a basinwide toxics reduction program. We must now ensure the
research is conducted and the results are translated for use in management programs.
Recommendations specific to this implementation process follow:
1. The type and extent of chemical analyses performed on environmental samples to
determine the presence and amount of toxic substances is often determined by
regulatory statutes or laws rather than by environmental significance. As a result, much
of the scientific instrumentation and personnel involved in toxics work in the Bay have
been assembled for these "set" or "routine" analyses. The necessary equipment and
expertise to perform state-of-the-art chemical analyses in the Bay region are at present
only minimally available and are not distributed equally throughout the region.
A panel of experts from around the nation should be established to review the
Basinwide Toxic Reduction Strategy's survey of existing toxics analytical capabilities
and provide recommendations on research needs. This guidar^e will be incorporated
into the survey report and will serve to encourage maximum utilization of existing and
new instrumentation and expertise.
2. As described in the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy, the Toxics Research Strategy should
be implemented in accordance with the 1988 Comprehensive Research Plan. This will entail
the following activities completed on an annual basis:
Step 1: The Water Quality Task Group and the STAC Toxics Subcommittee will review the
Toxics Research Strategy and produce an addendum containing recommendations
based on the previous years' research findings and results of reduction programs.
Step 2: The STAC Toxics Subcommittee will convene a group of environmental scientists,
not affiliated with the Chesapeake Bay Program, to review the Toxics Research
Strategy and the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Biennial Progress Report and
identify the priority toxics research needs. Consideration will be given to both short-
term management oriented research, and longer-term fundamental process oriented
research.
Step 3: The Water Quality Task Group and the STAC Toxics Subcommittee will outline
research projects to satisfy the priority needs and estimate required funding.
Step 4: The Water Quality Task Group will present the priority research needs, the
recommended research projects outlines, and the estimates for funding needs to the
Chesapeake Bay Program Research Planning Committee (RPC).
Step 5: The RPC will incorporate this material into the Bay Program research planning
process and produce a comprehensive list of research priorities, outlines for
recommended research projects, estimates of funding needs, and alternative financing
recommendations. This material will be submitted to the Implementation Committee
for consideration in the annual budget cycle. It will also be distributed to the
principal Chesapeake Bay research institutions and research funding agencies.
3. Management of all toxics research projects resulting from these efforts should
incorporate scientific peer-review at each step (i.e. development and distribution of
detailed "Requests for Proposals;" review of proposals and award of grant; oversight of
research progress; review of interim and final reports).
14
-------
4. The Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Research Plan includes several activities, such as
a research directory and periodic synthesis'of research findings, designed to enhance
communication between the management community and the research community.
These types of activities are encouraged for the toxics area.
5. Longterm, perhaps multi-source, funding of toxics research as described in this
strategy is encouraged.
6. The acquisition of data during research programs should be conducted in accordance
with acceptable quality assurance/quality control procedures where appropriate.
15
------- |