REPORT ON LAKE MICHIGAN
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD REQUIREMENTS
/ ^
• "7* >'•!•*,. Mi" ."'
—L, A
, *X«L_'
-H£^
- ^' -
t/S Environme/Jtal Prot Agency
Region V, Water Division
Chicago, Illinois
MAY 1 6
-------
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
BACKGROUND
In the summer of 1980, the beaches in Chicago were closed on numerous occasions
because of high fecal coliform counts. The problem was ultimately traced to a
breakdown in the Hammond Sanitary District's Robertsdale Pump Station. Although
the pump station was eventually repaired, Illinois Attorney General William Scott
brought suit against the parties which he felt were responsible for the pollution.
Scott's original arguments were discounted by the U.S. District Court for Northern
Illinois. On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals [1] redefined
USEPA responsibilities regarding development of total maximum daily loads (TMDL).
Briefly, the states must determine where TMDLs are required, develop the required
TMDLs and submit them to USEPA for approval and eventual incorporation in water
quality management plans. If a state fails over a long period of time to submit
proposed TMDLs, this prolonged failure may amount to the "constructive submission"
by the state of no TMDLs. USEPA must review and then approve or disapprove that
decision. If USEPA disapproves, it must then act within 30 days to establish a
TMDL for the waters in question.
On December 5, 1984, the U.S. District Court issued an order which required the
states bordering Lake Michigan to reach decisions on TMDLs by March 6, 1985.
Region V is to review and either approve or disapprove those decisions. For any
state decisions not to propose a TMDL where USEPA concludes that a TMDL is in fact
necessary, the Region is required to act within 30 days to establish the required
TMDLs.
PURPOSE AND USE
This analysis constitutes an independent (Region V) review of the water quality
conditions and needs of Lake Michigan within the context of the TMDL requirements
of the Act and each state's response to those needs. The study, therefore,
provides the basis for the Regional conclusions and the position described herein.
-------
SUMMARY
In response to an order by the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in
the matter of Scott vs. Hammond, et. al.,(7 C.C.A., Nos 81-2884 and 81-2885),
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin considered the need for total maximum
daily load (TMDL) calculations to protect the water quality of Lake Michigan,
and communicated their positions to Region V in early March 1985.
Region V in turn has reviewed those positions in light of current research,
available data, state water quality standards, agency guidance, and statutory
requirements. This report was developed to document the review process and
establish a basis for further initiatives. Essentially, the positions taken
by each state are defensible for the moment but not for all of the reasons
cited.
A number of substances are violating the established water quality standards
or are otherwise impacting a beneficial use of Lake Michigan. These substances
are identified in Section 5. Unfortunately, lack of data and the proper
technical conditions preclude development of TMDLs for many of those substances
at this time. However, Region V has recommended that the Water Quality Stan-
dards Work Group comprised of state and federal officials undertake the develop-
ment of a detailed program to address data deficiencies and arrive at firm
TMDL conclusions.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i BACKGROUND
i i SUMMARY
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv LIST OF TABLES
1 INTRODUCTION
2 DEFINITIONS
3 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) DISCUSSIONS
3.1 General TMDL Requirements and Water Quality Standards
3.2 TMDL Development Process
3.3 Open Lakes vs. Nearshore TMDLs
3.4 TMDL Relationship to Nonpoint Sources
4 STATE RESPONSES TO CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Historical Actions
4.2 Current Actions
5 USEPA EVALUATION OF STATE POSITIONS
5.1 Evaluation Methodology
5.2 Region V Analysis
6 REGION V CONCLUSIONS ON STATE RESPONSES
6.0 General Comments
6.1 Conclusions on Illinois Response
6.2 Conclusions on Indiana Response
6.3 Conclusions on Michigan Response
^OJ-QOJ^-V-''
6.4 Conclusions on Oh-i-o Response
7 REQUIRED ACTIONS BY REGION V
8 REFERENCES
-------
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Water Quality Criteria for Lake Michigan in ug/1
3.2 WQS Review Status Lake Michigan Waters
3.3 Parameters Exceeding Criteria Lake-Wide in Lake Michigan
4.0 Nearshore Area TMDLs in Wisconsin
5.1 Class "A" Areas of Concern in Lake Michigan
5.2 Lake Michigan Pollutant Problems and Recommended Action
IV
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the positions of the States of
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin with regard to the need for total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to control discharges into Lake Michigan. This
study was undertaken in response to the decision by the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals. Succinctly, in its decision dated August 16, 1984, in Scott vs.
Hammond, et.al.. (7C.C.A., Nos. 81-2884 and 81-2885), the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals concluded that a state's failure within the past four years
to promulgate and submit TMDLs to USEPA for approval or disapproval pursuant
to Section 303 may constitute a constructive decision by the state that no
TMDL is required for a particular waterway. This decision is reviewable by
USEPA under the provisions of Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Under the
Court's interpretation in this specific case, states bordering Lake Michigan
were required to submit an identification of waters requiring TMDLs on
June 26, 1979. The Court concluded that as no proposed TMDLs for Lake
Michigan had been submitted to USEPA, the possibility arose that the states
had made a specific decision that no TMDLs were required and USEPA in its
turn should review this decision. On December 5, 1984, the U.S. District
Court for northern Illinois issued an order which required the states
bordering Lake Michigan to reach decisions on proposed TMDLs by March 6, 1985.
This study provides the basis for the Region V review and recommendations for
follow on actions.
1.2 Scope
The scope of this analysis covers known or anticipated pollution problems in
Lake Michigan, distribution, sources and control approaches. Certain pollu-
tion problems and control approaches are not readily amenable to TMDL
calculation because the discharge of pollutants occurs on an event basis
rather than a daily basis or because there is no definable point source of
discharge. Event related loadings involve nonpoint sources such as agricul-
tural runoff, as well as selected point sources such as urban and combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) or storm sewer discharges. The events which stimulate
the discharge are storm events which may meet specific recurrence, duration
and intensity criteria. Nonpoint source (NPS) loadings are integrated within
a TMDL but are usually time scaled against annual loadings or a TMDL is set
equal to a design event. Under the proper technical and analytical conditions,
TMDLs can be calculated for nonpoint, diffuse, and storm loadings.
This analysis will evaluate:
(1) Individual state positions regarding the designation of water quality
limited segments of Lake Michigan, i.e., those segments that require
TMDL calculation.
(2) Individual State positions on the specific pollutants which may require
TMDL calculation.
1-1
-------
(3) The reasonableness of TMDL development schedules where TMDL
preparation is required.
(4) The identification of any appropriate actions required by USEPA.
This analysis will not develop actual TMDLs or allocate the loads to achieve
the TMDL. This analysis is of sufficient depth and scope to screen water-
bodies or portions of Lake Michigan for the purpose of identifying areas and
pollutants that require further analysis and possible TMDL preparation.
It addresses emerging problems only to the extent of available data and
analyses.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
DEFINITIONS
2.1 The Act
The Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et.seq.
2.2 Effluent Limited Segment
A waterbody where technology-based controls (secondary treatment, best
practicable treatment, best available treatment) are sufficient to meet WQS.
Such waterbodies do not require the development of TMDLs or wasteload alloca-
tions (WLAs).
2.3 Water Quality Limited Segment
Any segment where it is known that water quality does not meet applicable
WQS, and/or is not expected to meet applicable WQS, even after the applica-
tion of the technology-based effluent limitations required by Sections 301(b)
and 306 of the Act.
2.4 Load or Loading
An amount of matter or thermal energy that is introduced into a receiving
water; to introduce matter or thermal energy into a receiving water. Loading
may be either man-caused (pollutant loading) or natural (natural background
loading).
2.5 Loading Capacity
The greatest amount of loading that a water can receive without violating WQSs,
2.6 Load Allocation
The portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is attributed either
to one of its existing or future nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution or to
natural background sources. Load allocations are best estimates of the
loading, which may range from reasonably accurate estimates to gross allot-
ments, depending on the availability of data and appropriate techniques for
predicting the loading. Wherever possible, natural NPS loads should be
distinguished.
2.7 Wasteload Allocation (WLA)
The portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is allocated to one
of its existing or future point sources of pollution. WLAs constitute a type
of water quality-based effluent limitation.
2-1
-------
2.8 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
The sum of the individual WLAs for point sources and load allocations for NPS
and natural background. If a receiving water has only one point source
discharger, the TMDL is the sum of that point source WLA plus the load alloca-
tions for any NPS of pollution and natural background sources, tributaries,
or adjacent segments. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of either mass per
time, toxicity, or other appropriate measure. If best management practices
(BMPs) or other NPS pollution controls make more stringent load allocations
practicable, then WLAs can be made less stringent. Thus, the TMDL process
provides for NPS control tradeoffs.
2.9 Pollution
The man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological,
and radiological integrity of water.
2.10 Water Quality Standards
Provisions of state or federal law which consist of a designated use or uses
for the waters of the United States and water quality criteria for such waters
based upon such uses. WQS are to protect the public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Act.
2.11 Mixing Zones
A limited area or volume of water contiguous to a discharge where initial
mixing of the discharge and receiving water occurs. The WQSs applicable to
mixing zones are typical less stringent than those of the receiving waters.
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD DISCUSSION
3.1 General Water Quality Standards and Total Maximum Daily Load Requirements
3.1.1 Water Quality Standards
The review and adoption of WQS is the responsibility of each state as
specified by Section 303(e) of the Clean Water Act [2]. At least once
every three years the states are required to review and, where
appropriate, revise or adopt new WQS. As stated in the Act, standards
"shall be such as to protect public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purpose of the Act".
WQS serve a variety of functions. WQS:
(1) Provide the basic goals for water quality.
(2) Provide the regulatory basis for establishment of controls beyond
technology based. Such water quality-based controls are normally
derived through the process of calculating TMDLs and WLAs.
(3) Serve as a benchmark for progress in meeting water quality goals.
Standards are comprised of two principal features:
(1) The beneficial uses to be protected.
(2) The water quality criteria sufficient to protect the use.
Table 3.1 outlines the water quality criteria for Lake Michigan as
adopted by Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Table 3.1 also
lists criteria as recommended by USEPA [3], [4] and the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978 [5]. As is evident from the table,
practically all of the water quality criteria are expressed in terms
of concentration, or mass per unit volume, and are expressed as maximum
concentrations (maximum mass/volume).
In actual application, the state WQS serve as the basis for calculating
TMDLs/WLAs. USEPA and the 1978 Agreement criteria are advisory.
However, if a state's standards are clearly unprotective, USEPA is
required by the Clean Water Act, Section 303(c), to promulgate protec-
tive federal criteria.
The states bordering Lake Michigan have recently initiated or completed
a review of the WQS for Lake Michigan. Table 3.2 reflects the status «
these reviews. All of the bordering states require their waters to be
"free from" toxic substances in "toxic" amounts. However, none of the
states have translated these narrative criteria into numerical water
quality criteria. This impairs their ability to determine where TMDLs
are needed.
3-1
-------
Table 3.1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR LAKE MICHIGAN IN ug/1 [1]
t = eilligraes/liter
PARAMETER
•Aiionia-N (Total)
Ammonia (un-ionizied)
Antiaony
Arsenic (Trivalent-total)
Asbestos
Bariua (mg/1)
Berylliua
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Cadmium (Total)
Chroiiui (Hexavalent-total)
Chroiiui (Trivalent-total)
Chloride (ig/1)
Copper (Total)
Fecal Col if on (l/100il)
Iron (Total)
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Phosphorous
Selenium
Silver (Total)
Thalliui
Zinc (Total)
Mixing Zones
tl NOTES »t
US Environiental Prot Agency [2]
Aquatic Huian Health [31 US-Canadian
Life 10E-S 10E-6 Toxic Agreement
[4] 151
500
[11] 20
[12]
5.0
[13]
0.29
5.6
1000
[201
0.2
[14]
35
0.12
47
0.022
[19]
0.0022
[19]
50
t 1.0
Illinois
[61
20
50
t 1.0
Indiana
[7]
50
20
50
t 1.0
0.068 0.0068
200 _(smiting)
—
10
50
—
...
___
—
—
...
0.14
13.4
t 6.0
0.2
50
50
—
5
Free from
300
25
• 0.2
25
.901
10
_~
50
12
5
20
1000
50
0.2
—
t 7.0
10
50
—
15
—
20
• 150
50
0.05
—
10
50
10
0.1
7
10
30
30
[15]
30
10
50
[161
Michigan Wisconsin
[8] C9]
t 6.0 t 5.0
200
200
[17]
[18]
_1. All values are in micrograms/liter (ug/l) unless noted otherwise
~2. Source 'Hater Quality Criteria", FR 45 No 231, Nov 1980.
.3. Huian health values are related to incremental cancer risk levels and are based on ave fish and water consumption.
.4. Chronic protection levels are specified as a 24 hr average.
.5. Source 'Great Lakes Mater Quality Agreement of 1978' between the US and Canada.
.6. Source 'Chapter 3 IPCB Rules', Mater quality standards for L. Mich. Where toxic substance criteria are not listed,
state develops criterion by using l/10th of the 96hr TLi for native fish and fishfood organisms.
J. Source 330 IAC 2-1, Indiana HO Standards for Lake Michigan. Where toxic substance criteria are not listed,
state develops criteria based on site specific analysis.
J. Source R 323 Part 4 of the Michigan Administrative Code. Where toxic substances criteria are not listed,
state develops the criteria via the procedures under Rule 57.
.9. Source NR 102 Wisconsin Administrative Code. Where criteria for toxic substances are not listed, state
develops criteria on a case by case basis.
.10. IJC objective is based on 0.1 ug/g of tissue.
.11. USEPA guidance is 20 ug/1 cold»ater fishery and 50 ug/1 of un-ionized ammonia for »an»ater fisheries.
.12. Public water supply guidance is 1 mg/1.
.13. ug/1 cadmium = 2.718 Ed.05 [In hardnessl-8.53) as 24hr ave
~14. ug/l nickel = 2.718 E(0.76[)n hardness]*!.Oil as 24hr ave
.15. Nixing zone restricted to radius of 600 ft
.16. Nixing zone restricted to arc of 1000 ft
.17. Nixing zone determined on case by case basis.
.19. Asbestos concentrations for carcinogen risk levels of 10E-5, 10E-6 and 10E-7 are 300,000 - 30,000 - 3,000 fibers
per liter respectively.
.20. ug/l lead = 2.718 E(2.35Iln hardnessl-9.48) as 24hr ave
3-2
-------
Table 3.1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR LAKE MICHIGAN IN ug/1 [1]
PARAMETER
Acenaphthene (PAH)
Acenaphthylene (PAH)
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene (PAH)
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzotalanthracene (PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (PAH)
Bronofora (tribroaoaethane)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorinated Benzenes
Chlorobenzene
Oichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
l,2,4,5-Tetrachloroben2ene
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlorinated Ethanes
chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Chlorinated Ethylenes
Dichloroethylenes
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Ci s-1,2-Di chloroethylene
Trans-1,2-Di chloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorinated Propanes
Dichloropropanes
1,2-Dichloropropane
Chlorinated Propenes
Dichloropropenes
Ci s-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
US Environflental Prot Agency [2]
Aquatic Huaan Health C3] US-Canadian
Life 10E-5 10E-6 10E-7 Agreeaent
[4] [5]
.520
21
2600
50
763
21900
340
5700
244
0.58
0.058
0.006
6.6 0.66 0.066
0.0012 0.00012 0.00001
1.9
4
0.19
4
0.019
0.04
0.0072 0.00072 0.000072
20000
9400
2400
1100
540
9.4
6
1.7
—
19
0.94
0.6
0.17
...
1.9
0.094
0.06
0.017
.__
0.19
0.33
27
8
0.033 0.0033
2.7
0.8
0.27
0.08
Illinois Indiana Michigan Wisconsin
[61 [73 [8] [9]
3-3
-------
Table 3.1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR LAKE MICHIGAN IN ug/1 [11
US Environiental Prot Agency [2]
Aquatic Hunan Health [3] US-Canadian
PARAMETER Life 10E-5 10E-6 10E-7 Agreeoent Illinois Indiana Michigan Wisconsin
W [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Choroalkyl Ethers
Bis(Chloroaethyl) ether "--- 0.000038 0.0000038 0.0000003 — — —
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether — 0.3 0.03 0.003
Bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ethe
Bis-2-Ch1oroethoxyaethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Chlorofon 1240 1.9 0.19 0.019
Chlorinated Naphthalenes
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chrysene (PAH)
Cyanide 3.5 — — — — 25 10
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene (PAH)
Dichlorobenzidines — 0.103 0.0103 0.00103
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 230 1.1 0.11 0.011
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine — 0.422 0.042 0.004
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene (PAH)
Fluorene (PAH) — - -
Haloethers 122 — — — — — -- ~
4-Broaophenylphenyl ether
4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether
Haloiethanes
BroBonethane — 1.9 0.19 0.019
Chloronethane — 1.9 0.19 0.019
Dichloronethane — 1.9 0.19 0.019
Tribroaonethane (Broaofori) — 1.9 0.19 0.019
Bronodichloroaethane -
(Di-bronodichloroaethane) — 1.9 0.19 0.019
Dichlorodif1uorosenthane
Trichlorofluorooethane
Hexachlorobutadiene 9.3 4.47 0.45 0.045
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 5.2
Indeno-(l,2,3-cd)pyrene PAH
Isophorone
Naphthalene (PAH) 620
Nitrobenzene
Nitrosanines
N-Nitrosodiaethylaaine — 0.014 0.0014 0.00014
N-Nitrosodiethylanine — 0.008 0.0008 0.00008
N-Nitrosodiphenylaaine — 49 4.9 0.49
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylaaine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylaaine — 0.0i4 0.0064 0.00064
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine — 0.16 0.016 0.0016
Phenanthrene (PAH)
3-4
-------
Table 3.1 HATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR LAKE MICHIGAN IN uq/1 [1]
PARAMETER
US Environeental Prot Agency [2]
Aquatic Huaan Health [3] US-Canadian
Life 10E-5 10E-6 10E-7 Agreeient
[4] [51
Illinois Indiana Michigan Wisconsin
[fc] [71 [8] [9]
Phenols
Phenol
Chlorinated Phenols
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenol
2,3-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,5-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
3,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
3-Hethyl-4-Chlorophenol
3-Hethy1-6-Ch1orophenol
2,4-Dinethylphenol
Nitrophenols
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Dinitrophenol
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
(2,4-Dinitroo-cresol)
Phthalate Esters
Oinethylphthalate
Diethylphthaiate
Dibuthyl-phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
8is(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(Di-2-Ethylhexyl-phthalate
Pol/chlorinated Biphenyls
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Polynuclear Aroaatic
Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Pyrene (PAH)
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Kylenes
2560
2000
365
970
3.2
12
1.2
0.12
150
0.014 0.00079 0.000079 0.0000079
0.6
[10]
0.001
0.028 0.0028 0.00028
20
0.2
3-5
-------
Table 3.1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR LAKE MICHIGAN IN ug/1 [1]
PARAMETER
Aldrin
Chlordane
Dieldrin (Aldrim metabolite)
DOT and Metabolites
DDT
TDE
DDE
ODD
Endosulfan
EndosuHan I
EndosuHan II
EndosuHan suHate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
(Heptachlor metabolite)
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
(HCH, or BHC isoiers)
Alpha - HCH
Beta - HCH
Sana - HCH (Lindane)
Delta - HCH
Technical - HCH, or BHC isom
2,3,7,8 - TCDD (Dioxin)
Toxaphene
US Environmental Prot Agency [2]
Aquatic Human Health [3] US-Canadian
Life 10E-5 10E-6 10E-7 Agreeient Illinois Indiana Michigan Wisconsin
[4]
0.0043
0.0019
0.001
0.056
0.0023
0.0038
0.08
0.00001
0.013
0.74
4.6
0.71
2.78
92
163
186
123
.1.3 E-7
7.1
0.074
0.46
0.071
0.28
9.2
16.3
18.6
12.3
.1.3 E-8
0.71
0.0074
0.046
0.0071
0.24 0.024 0.0024
0.028
0.92
1.63
1.86
1.23
.1.3 E-9
0.07
[5]
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.02
0.001
0.001
0.01
0.08
[6J
[7]
[3]
1
3
1
50
0.2
0.1
0.1
[9]
.1. All values are in microgrjis/liter (ug/1) unless noted otherwise
~2. Source 'Hater Quality Criteria', FR 45 No 231, Nov 1980.
,3. Human health values are related to incremental cancer risk levels and are based on ave fish and water consumption.
_4. Chronic protection levels are specified as a 24 hr average.
,5. Source 'Great Lakes Hater Quality Agreement of 197B* between the US and Canada.
.6. Source 'Chapter 3 IPCB Rules', water quality standards for L. Mich. Where toxic substance criteria are not listed,
state develops criterion by usiog l/10th of the 96hr TLm for native fish and fishfood organisms.
_7. Source 330 IAC 2-1, Indiana HO Standards for Lake Michigan. Hhere toxic substance criteria are not listed,
state develops criteria based on site specific analysis.
.8. Source R 323 Part 4 of the Michigan Administrative Code. Hhere toxic substances criteria are not listed,
state develops the criteria via the procedures under Rule 57.
.9. Source NR 102 Hisconsin AdministrativYCode. Hhere criteria for toxic substances are not listed, state
develops criteria on a case by case basis.
.10. IJC objective is based on 0.1 ug/g of tissue.
.11. USEPA guidance is 20 ug/1 coldwater fishery and 50 ug/1 of un-ionized ammonia for warmwater fisheries.
.12. Public water supply guidance is 1 mg/1.
~13. ug/1 cadmium = 2.718 Ed.OS [In hardness}-8.53) as 24hr ave
J4. ug/1 nickel = 2.718 E(0.76[ln hardnessJ+1.06) as 24hr ave
_15. Nixing zone restricted to radius of 600 ft
.16. Nixing zone restricted to arc of 1000 ft
.17. Nixing zone determined on case by case basis.
.19. Asbestos concentrations for carcinogen risk levels of 10E-5, 10E-6 and 10E-7 are 300,000 - 30,000 - 3,000 fibers
per liter respectively.
20. ug/1 lead = 2.718 E(2.35Cln hardnessl-9.48) as 24hr ave
3-6
-------
TABLE 3.2
WQS REVIEW STATUS LAKE MICHIGAN WATERS
Parameter
Coverage
All
All
All
All
Date
Completed
December 1984
In Progress
February 1985
October 1984
Date
Approved
February 1985
March 1985
January 1985
3.1.2 Total Maximum Daily Load and Wasteload Allocation Requirements
The Clean Water Act [2] provides the basic requirements for the
development of TMDLs and WLAs. Section 303(d) specifically calls
for each state to:
(1) Identify those waters within the boundaries for which the
effluent limitations of Sections 301(b)(l)(A) and 301(b)(l)(B)
[technology based] are not stringent enough to implement
"... any water qualty standard applicable to such waters".
(2) Prioritize such waters.
(3) Identify these waters where the thermal requirements of
Section 301 are not stringent enough to "... assure the
protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife."
(4) Establish for the waters identified, and in accordance with
the priority ranking, the TMDL for pollutants suitable for
TMDL calculation. "Such load shall be established at a level
necessary to implement the applicable WQS with seasonal
variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any
lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent
limitations and water quality."
(5) Submit to the Administrator for his approval, the waters
identified and the TMDLs established. The Administrator then
approves or disapproves the TMDL within 30 days of submission.
If disapproval occurs, the Administrator must establish the
TMDL within 30 days of disapproval.
(6) Upon approval, incorporate the TMDLs into the
quality management plans required by Sections
state water
303(e) and 208.
3-7
-------
3.2 Total Maximum Daily Load Development Process
The process of identifying waters that may require a TMDL and the process of
establishing or developing a TMDL are quite similar except that the latter
process is more detailed and often based on more comprehensive data. The key
steps of either process include:
(1) Assess current water quality in the context of established WQSs and
available data.
(2) Isolate problem areas and pollutants of concern. Identify emerging
problems or marginal water quality situations.
(3) Identify and quantify major sources of the pollutant or pollutants of
concern.
(4) Estimate water quality under design conditions. The design conditions
should assume application of best management practices (BMPs) for non-
point sources (NPSs) and technology based controls [Sections 301(b)(l)(A)
and 301(b)(l)(B) of the Act] for point sources. If technology based
controls have not been defined for selected point source categories, the
analyst should substitute existing discharge limitations where available.
If, as a result of step 4, the water quality criteria will be attained,
then the waterbody under consideration is termed "effluent limited"
(see definitions in Section 2). For effluent limited segments or water-
bodies, a TMDL need not be calculated.
If step 4 indicates that the water quality criteria will not be attained,
i.e., the technology based effluent limitations are not stringent enough
or are not available, then the segment or waterbody should be designated
as "water quality limited" (see definitions in Section 2). Water quality
limited segments require the establishment of TMDLs "... at a level
necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards ..."
Figure 3.1 describes the key dynamics and variables in calculating annual
loadings to a lake or reservoir and the resultant in lake concentrations.
In this example:
P = In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration
PI = Inflow Phosphorus Concentration
QI = Rate of Water Inflow (Annual)
Lp = Phosphorus Load (Annual)
This is a rather simple description of the aspects which influence Lake
Michigan's water quality, but it demonstrates the basic integration of
pollutant concentration (PI), lake inflows (QI) and outflows (Q), load
(Lp), transformation rates (K), volume (V) and time (T). The time
component is based on the yearly cycle because diffuse loadings from
3-8
-------
A = AREA
QI = INFLOW
XI = CONCENTRATION
OF POLLUTANT
WATER
V
/////////v////
OUTFLOW = Q
3—>
SEDIMENTS
V = VOLUME
X = CONCENTRATION IN LAKE
For Example - Phosphorus, P = X
LOADING
Lp - QI • PI / A, mg/m2 year
MASS BALANCE
Assumptions:
Definitions
completely mixed, steady state, Q = QI, annual average
rates are constant
Mean depth, Z = V/A; hydraulic flushing or dilution
rate, D = Q/V; hydraulic loading, q = Q/A; M =
QI • PI; K = net rate of solid phasi removal and
release (proportional to P), typically negative when
averaged over the annual cycle.
Solving for P,
D • PI
P =
P =
M
Q
P = -=
Z (D * K)
(Mass Balance Form)
(Mass Inflow Form)
(Loading Form)
FIGURE 3-1 FORMULATIONS FOR EVALUATING MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
FOR POLLUTANTS IN LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
3-9
-------
NPS and atmospheric deposition are heavily affected by seasonal factors
such as greater load delivery from NPS in the Spring than in the Fall
when precipitation declines. The annual cycle allows for consideration
of the "seasonal variation" as mentioned in Section 303(d) of the Act.
Once annual loadings are defined in terms of rates and sources, control
strategies can be tested which provide for reduced loadings. Upon
selection of a control strategy that yields the required in-lake concen-
tration, P in the example, the annual maximum load is disaggregated
among its diffuse and point source components. The point source annual
WLA can then be divided by 365 to produce the point source TMDL.
3.3 Open Lake vs. Nearshore Total Maximum Daily Loads
While Lake Michigan exhibits many characteristics typical of lakes and
reservoirs, its immense size is certainly not typical of usual waterbodies
where TMDLs are considered. This has resulted in some issues on the
appropriateness of open lake vs. nearshore TMDLs.
For instance, the total volume of the lake is on the order of 1,180 cubic
miles [8]. The average retention time is about 100 years, which indicates
that waters in the lower depths probably require many more years before
exchange occurs. Practically speaking, this means that what is discharged to
the lake remains in the lake. Of course, this consideration is tempered by
transformation mechanisms which may cause a substance to decay to the basic
elements, volatilize, or otherwise leave the system. As an example, while
the half life of BOD is about three days, certain PCB Aroclors may have a half
life on the order of 15-20 years [9], DDT is another persistent molecule that
has been a historical problem in the Great Lakes.
As indicated in Appendix 1, none of the States bordering Lake Michigan support
the need for lake-wide or open lake TMDLs. Both Michigan and Wisconsin
support nearshore analyses to define TMDLs and mixing zones. They argue that
with proper control at river mouths or nearshore discharge locations, open
lake WQSs should be met.
The arguments which have been raised favoring nearshore analyses and "isolated1
TMDL calculations include:
(1) The entire lake is not available to assimilate wastes from distant
sources. As an example, if PCB has been identified as a problem in
Lower Green Bay, why consider any of the waters in the south end of Lake
Michigan as part of either the problem or the solution in Green Bay?
(2) Water quality criteria form the bases for enforceable NPDES permits. The
TMDL is a vehicle to translate the criteria into control requirements at
individual sources. If the criteria are met at the edge of the mixing
zone, outfall or river mouth, why extend the TMDL any further?
(3) The law only requires TMDL calculation where technology based controls
are insufficient to meet any "water quality standard applicable to such
waters". If the standard is being met in open waters, a load allocation
or TMDL is not required.
3-10
-------
The arguments which have been raised favoring lake-wide TMDL calculation
include:
(1) ' The open lake standards are not being met since the fish in the open
waters are contaminated by persistent toxic chemicals to the extent that
interstate shipment of commercial fish is restricted and fish consumption
advisories are routinely issued to help protect the public.
(2) Open lake standards are not being achieved as evidenced by periodic
violations of the fecal coliform, ammonia, and cyanide standards.
Selenium and silver are elevated and appear to be lake-wide problems.
(3) Open lake response is delayed because of the lake's tremendous reservoir
capacity. Problems may become detectable lake-wide after several years
from the initial discharge.
(4) Nearshore analyses do not consider the substantial load contribution to
Lake Michigan from atmospheric deposition. As such, nearshore analyses
cannot focus on the total problem.
In conclusion, there are arguments for and against lake-wide TMDLs. However,
the law is reasonably clear about where and when TMDLs are necessary.
Section 303(d)(l)(A) says that, "Each State shall identify those waters
within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by Section
301(b)(l)(A) and Section 301(b)(l)(B) are not stringent enough to implement
any water quality standard applicable to such waters." Section 303(d)(l)(C)
continues, "Each State shall establish for the waters identified in
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection ... the total maximum daily loads ... at
a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards ..."
In the case of Lake Michigan there are specific areas which routinely fail to
meet specific water quality criteria such as the fecal coliform and low
dissolved oxygen problems in lower Green Bay and similar problems in Milwaukee
Harbor. These types of problems can be addressed via nearshore analyses and
TMDLs. On the other hand, the quality of water for the entire lake, top to
bottom, is impacted so severely by selected pollutants that the lake's
immense assimilative capacity is already exceeded. Examples in this category
are PCBs, selenium and silver. Table 3.3 depicts the parameter, current
lake-wide concentrations, the water quality criteria recommended by USEPA and
the associated use impact.
3-11
-------
TABLE 3.3
PARAMETERS EXCEEDING CRITERIA LAKE-WIDE IN LAKE MICHIGAN
Parameter
PCBs
Selenium
Silver
Current
Quality
7-9 ng/1
5-10 ug/1
2-3 ug/1
Reference
[15]
[12]
[12]
USEPA
Recommended
Criteria [4]
0.079 ng/1
10 ug/1
0.12 ug/1
Use Impact
Human Health
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Parameter
PCBs
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Fish Tissue
Concentration
4-26 ppm
0.6 ppm
5 ppm
0.4 ppm
Reference
[15]
FDA
Action Level
2 ppm
0.3 ppm
5 ppm
0.3 ppm
Use Impact
Human Health
Human Health
Human Health
Human Health
*From Prepublished Report on "Contaminant Trends in Lake Trout from the Upper Great
Lakes" by Devault, Willfond and Hasselberg for Great Lakes National Program Office.
3-12
-------
3.4 Total Maximum Daily Loads Relationship to Wet Weather Loadings
Lake Michigan is currently impacted by wet weather induced loadings from
selected point and NPS. These impacts are sufficient to cause periodic
violations of the WQS.
Some examples of wet weather impacts include:
(1) Combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges to the inner harbor at
Milwaukee, with possible carryover to the outer harbor.
(2) CSO discharges in the vicinity of the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal.
(3) CSO Discharges from Michigan City, Indiana.
(4) Backflow of the Chicago River at the Chicago and Wilmette locks.
(5) Nutrient loadings from agriculture, primarily in the Green Bay and
Milwaukee Harbor areas.
(6) Chloride loadings from road salting operations in the lower portion
of Lake Michigan.
The above sources and related problems add to the complexity of the water
quality problems in the lake. The list could also include pollutant
loadings from air deposition. Because of the intermittent loading nature
of these sources and numerous factors which influence loading rates, such
problems are difficult to quantify and characterize. Nevertheless, under
the proper technical and analytic conditions, TMDLs can be developed for wet
weather loadings.
3-13
-------
SECTION 4
STATE RESPONSES TO THE CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Historical Actions
The recent actions concerning TMDLs on Lake Michigan as part of the Scott
Decision should not be interpreted as the only actions which have been
accomplished on the subject. All of the bordering states previously reviewed
the requirements and made explicit TMDL decisions in the 1973-1974 period.
These decisions are discussed below.
4.1.1 Illinois
Illinois originally designated all of the waterbody segments in the
state as water quality limited. This meant that at least a portion of
each segment required water quality based controls for point sources.
The Lake Michigan waters were incorporated in segments A-02, A-03,
A-04 and A-12.
With regard to these particular segments, the primary TMDL calculations
required pertained to the Chicago River, Cal-Sag Channel, North Shore
Channel and the Sanitary and Ship Canal. The WLA requirements were
originally accomplished by MSDGC and later verified by the Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission's "208" water quality management plan.
Control facilities are currently under construction. No particular
TMDL needs were identified for Illinois Lake Michigan waters because
state and local agencies have since the turn of the century, pursued a
policy of eliminating direct discharges to the lake. Remaining
discharges include a wet weather treatment facility near Waukegan,
Illinois and several separate storm sewer discharge locations.
There is also a permitted discharge from Outboard Marine Corporation
at Waukegan that contains PCBs in the effluent.
4.1.2 Indiana
Indiana designated four segments which included the shoreline portions
of Lake Michigan as water quality limited and requiring TMDLs. These
included segments 1W1, 2W1, 3W1 and 4W1.
As with Illinois, these segments were designated water quality limited
based on the incorporation of interior waters as part of the segments
rather than Lake Michigan. The TMDL for Grand Calumet River (1W1) has
been prepared in draft form and will be finished by September 1. The
TMDL for Deep River (2W1) was completed by the Northwestern Indiana
Regional Planning Commission in 1981 and included TMDLs for portions
of the Little Calcumet River (3W1). The final segment, Trail Creek
(4W1), has a TMDL that was completed by the state in 1984.
The TMDL for segment 1W1 includes the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal.
One of the principal controlling features of the TMDL is the need to
meet open Lake Michigan WQS at the harbor mouth.
4-1
-------
4.1.3 Michigan
Michigan updated its water quality segment list in 1979, at which time
19 segments were designated water quality limited. None of these
included Lake Michigan waters.
4.1.4 Wisconsin
Wisconsin originally designated Green Bay as the only Lake Michigan
segment being water quality limited. The Milwaukee River M.P.3 to
M.P.O was also water quality limited and has an impact on harbor
quality. TMDLs for both of these waters are in progress.
4.2 Current State Actions
On December 28, 1984, Region V forwarded a letter to each of the bordering
states requesting that they review the Scott vs. Hammond action and formally
state their position with regard to the need to prepare TMDLs for Lake
Michigan. Those responses were received on or about March 6 and are
summarized as follows. The original letters are reproduced in Appendix 1.
4.2.1 Illinois
The Illinois EPA stated that no TMDLs were required for any Illinois
discharges to Lake Michigan.
Illinois also stated that there were interstate water quality concerns
which USEPA should help to resolve. This point was not expanded to
identify particular waters or pollutants.
4.2.2 Indiana
Indiana indicated that the waters of Lake Michigan within Indiana's
border are meeting current WQS except for occasional violation of
"total phosphorus, phenolics, DO, cyanide and fecal coliform". These
violations were attributed to CSOs and dry weather bypasses. The
state concluded that no TMDLs were necessary for Indiana waters.
4.2.3 Michigan
Michigan DNR indicated that for conventional pollutants (BOD, suspended
solids, fecal coliform and pH), technology based controls are fully
adequate and TMDLs are not necessary. In terms of toxicants, Michigan
DNR underscored the need to perform analyses to define mixing zones and
otherwise assure the adequacy of technology based controls in meeting
Lake Michigan WQS. Michigan strongly opposed whole-lake TMDLs for
several reasons.
4.2.4 Wisconsin
Wisconsin stated that with the possible exception of phosphorus, the
state did not believe it feasible to establish TMDLs for the entirety
of Lake Michigan. The state does support TMDL development for specific
nearshore areas. Four such areas were identified and are listed in
Table 4.0 below.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4.0
NEARSHORE AREA TMDLs IN WISCONSIN
Area Pollutant Status Complete
Lower Green Bay BOD In Progress September 1985
Ammonia
Peshtigo River BOD In Progress September 1985
Oconto River BOD In Progress September 1986
Milwaukee Harbor BOD In Progress December 1985
Phosphorus
Although Wisconsin does not currently support lake-wide TMDLs, lake-wide impacts and
problems are used as arguments for control at specific discharge points. Wisconsin
shares several of the same reservations as Michigan regarding the feasibility of
establishing lake-wide TMDLs for many parameters because:
(1) The environmental fate and dynamics of many toxic pollutants are not
presently understood.
(2) Sources and loadings are not adequately documented.
(3) Transformation and ecosystem impacts are not presently understood.
4-3
-------
SECTION 5
USEPA EVALUATION OF STATE POSITIONS ON TMDLs
5.1 Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation of State positions on the need for TMDLs follows a two level
screening process. It should be understood that neither the states nor USEPA
have sufficient data and research to completely describe all of the
environmental problems of Lake Michigan, all pollutants of concern, all
environmental pathways, all environmental ramifications, nor all of the
solutions. The point is that the screening process may surface factors which
prevent the states or USEPA from making a final decision on the need for TMDLs
at this time.
The Court of Appeals had the wisdom to recognize this in a statement made on
page 8 of the decision [1].
"[T]he district court may order the EPA to proceed as if the
states had submitted proposals of no TMDL's unless the EPA
promptly comes forward with persuasive evidence indicating
that the states are, or will soon be, in the process of
submitting TMDL proposals or that some factor ... has made
TMDL submissions impracticable ". (Emphasis added.)
We add that for some pollutant problems controls focusing only on point
sources will be inadequate to solve the problem. These would include problems
with negligible point source contributions or those caused by diffuse sources
such as sediment loadings, air deposition, in place pollutants, agricultural
and urban runoff. Integrated management programs may be needed to control
diffuse sources. Such programs are available under Section 208 of the Clean
Water Act to address nonpoint sources, the Toxic Substance Control Act, the
Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The TMDL
approach can serve to focus these various sources and facilitate integrated
management.
The following subsections describe the process of screening Lake Michigan
water quality problems in support of USEPA's response to the district court.
That response may take one of five possible courses:
(1) TMDLs are required and are completed, underway or scheduled by the states.
(2) Data collection is necessary to characterize the problem and sources of
pollution.
(3) TMDLs are not necessary and the problem is appropriately addressed via
other environmental legislation.
(4) Basic research is necessary to develop mathematical models capable of
calculating a TMDL.
5-1
-------
(5) TMDLs are required, there are no factors which make "... TMDL submissions
impracticable". USEPA must undertake TMDL development.
5.1.1 First Level Screen Water Quality Assessment
(1) Assess current water quality in the context of established and
recommended water quality standards as well as available data,
literature and research.
(2) Isolate problem areas and pollutants of concern. Identify lake-
wide problems (problems or emerging problems that impact the
water or waters uses of at least two states).
(3) Compare the pollutant with completed, ongoing, or planned TMDL
activities by bordering states. If the problem is localized and
will be adequately addressed by a state TMDL, the pollutant and
problem will be eliminated from further screeing. All other
problems and pollutants of concern will be carried to a second
level screen.
5.1.2 Second Level Screen - TMDL Determination
(1) Identify known or probable sources of the pollutant and quantify
contribution to Lake Michigan by major source.
(2) If source identification and rough quantification cannot be made,
recommend a data collection program pursuant to Sections 106,
108, 208 and 308 of the CWA.
(3) For remaining problems and pollutants, determine whether adequate
large lake models are available to quantify sources, loadings and
control programs at higher resolution than afforded by a screening
process. If models are not available, recommend basic research
pursuant to Section 304 of the CWA.
(4) For remaining pollutant and problems needing TMDL development
but not identified by the States, recommend TMDL development
by USEPA1s Large Lakes Research Station in cooperation with
Region V's Water Division and Great Lakes National Program
Office.
5.2 Region V Analysis
5.2.1 General Discussion of Water Quality Issues
A discussion of the water quality of Lake Michigan should out of
necessity reference the most current data bases, studies and evalu-
ations of the lake's quality, characteristics, and problems. One of
the most complete reference documents consists of the annual report on
Great Lakes water quality as published by the Great Lakes Water Quality
Board for the U.S. - Canadian International Joint Commission (IJC).
5-2
-------
This report serves to partially satisfy the provision of the 1972
Water Quality Agreement between the United States and Canada that a
surveillance program be established"...to monitor the quality of
boundary waters to ensure that the objectives are being met."
The 1983 report published by the IJC is the latest annual report
available [11]. This report describes four Class "A" areas of concern
in Lake Michigan. Class "A" areas are those that display significant
environmental degradation and severe impairment of beneficial uses and
those areas are listed in Table 5.1.
TABLE 5.1
Water Body/Area
Fox River and Lower
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Milwaukee Estuary, Wisconsin
Waukegan Harbor, Illinois
Grand Calumet River, Indiana
Harbor and Ship Canal, Indiana
Environmental Problem
High phosphorus, BOD, ammonia,
heavy metals and PCB levels in
the water column and sediment.
Low dissolved oxygen, fish flesh
contamination by organic chemicals.
High phosphorus, nutrient BOD, PCB
and fecal coliform levels. Low
dissolved oxygen, fish flesh
contamination by organic chemicals.
Sediment, water and fish flesh
contaminates with PCBs.
High BOD, ammonia, fecal coliform,
heavy metals and organic chemicals.
High fish mortality, fish flesh
and sediment contamination by
organic chemicals.
Table 5.2 summarizes the water quality problems listed above as well
as others described in several current studies of Lake Michigan water
quality. The notes accompanying Table 5.2 contain important supple-
mental information as well as the basic reference which provided the
data.
It is important to understand that the pollutants which impact Lake
Michigan water quality stem from a variety of sources:
(1) point source discharges
(2) nonpoint sources
(3) air deposition
(4) sediment resuspension/exchange
(5) groundwater and seepage
5-3
-------
Table 5.2 LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTANT PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
PROBLEM POLLUTANTS USE IMPACTS
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND FISHERY
FECAL COLIFORM SHIMMING
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
AMMONIA FISHERY
PHOSPHOROUS MULTIPLE
RADIONUCLIDES MULTIPLE
TOXIC POLLUTANTS
BANNED ORGANIC TOXINS
ALDRIN/DIEL (PART BAN) FISH CONSUHP
CHLORDANE (PART BAN) FISH CONSUMP
DDT FISH CONSUMP
HEPTACHLOR (PART BAN) FISH CONSUMP
PCB (PART BAN) FISH CONSUMP
TOXAPHENE (PART BAN) FISH CONSUMP
OTHER ORGANIC TOXINS
CHLORINATED BENZENES FISHERY
HEXACHLOROBENZENE FISH CONSUMP
HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE FISH CONSUMP
POLYN AROMATIC HYDROCAR FISH CONSUMP
POLYCHLOR DIBENZOFURAN MULTIPLE
2,3,7,8 TCDD DIOXIN MULTIPLE
IMPACT
LOCATION
SEE NOTE (1)
SEE NOTE (2)
L GREEN BAY
LAKE-HIDE
HURON/ONTARIO
LAKE-HIDE
LAKE-HIDE
LAKE-HIDE
LAKE-HIDE
LAKE-HIDE
LAKE-HIDE
SEE NOTE (9)
SEE NOTE (8)
SEE NOTE (8)
LOADINGS
TMDL PERCT BY SOURCE SEE
STATUS SOURCE ID POINT DIFFUSE NOTE
IN PROGRESS IN PROGRESS TBA TBA (5)
IN PROGRESS IN PROGRESS > 90X < 10Z (4) (5)
IN PROGRESS IN PROGRESS TBA TBA (5)
COMPLETED (3) COMPLETED (3) (i)
COMPELTED(ll) (11)
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED COMPLETED(IO) (10)
NOT REQUIRED
MAY BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE < 40X > iOX (10)
NOT REQUIRED
MAY BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE
MAY BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE
MAY BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE
MAY BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE < 10X > 902 (9)
MAY BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE (8)
MAY BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE (3)
AVAIL RECOMMENDED
MODELS TMDL ACTION
YES DEVELOP TMDL
YES DEVELOP TMDL
YES DEVELOP TMDL
YES COMPLETED
NONE L MICH
NO TMDL NEEDED
NO TMDL NEEDED
YES NO TMDL NEEDED
NO TMDL NEEDED
YES ACQUIRE DATA
NO TMDL NEEDED
ACQUIRE DATA
ACQUIRE DATA
ACQUIRE DATA
ACQUIRE DATA
ACQUIRE DATA
ACQUIRE DATA
METALS & TRACE ELEMENTS
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
IRON
LEAD
MERCURY
SELENIUM
SILVER
NONE HQS
NONE HQS
NONE HQS
NONE HQS
NONE WQS
FISHERY
FISHERY
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
SEE
SEE
SEE
SEE
SEE
SEE
SEE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
MAY
MAY
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE
BE REQUIRED INCOMPLETE
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO TMDL
NO TMDL
NO TMDL
NO TMDL
NO TMDL
ACQUIRE
ACQUIRE
NEEDED
NEEDED
NEEDED
NEEDED
NEEDED
DATA
DATA
SEE SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
5-4
-------
TABLE 5.2
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
1. Lower Green Bay, Peshitigo River, Oconto River, Milwaukee River and Harbor.
See Appendix 1, this report.
2. Storm related fecal coliform violations reported in the vicinity of Hammond
and Michigan City, Indiana, Milwaukee Harbor, Chicago and Wilmette Harbors.
See Appendix 1, this report.
3. Point source phosphorous limited to 1 mg/1 for POTWs discharging 1 MGD or
more. Reference: Annex 3, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 [5].
4. Percent of point source contribution estimated. TMDLs not appropriate because
loadings originate from combined sewer overflows on an storm event rather
than daily basis. Fecal coliform is not a persistent pollutant. Effects are
localized.
5. See State responses to TMDL needs, appendix 1, this report.
6. See reference [5] Section 8, this report.
7. Toxaphene registration was withdrawn by USEPA for most uses in 1982.
Toxaphene has been found in fish filets at high levels. The pathways and
fate in the Great Lakes remain largely unknown, although the atmosphere is
a major source. The Great Lakes State Advisory Board recommended further
research on the substance. See reference [11] Section 8, this report.
8. The Surveillance Appendix of the 1983 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality [12],
reflected dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans as two
groups of aromatic compounds of emerging and increasing concern in the Great
Lakes. Although these highly toxic substances have been detected in fish at
several locations in the Great Lakes, the sources, pathways and fate remain
largely unknown.
9. The Surveillance appendix of the 1983 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality
identified polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) as an emerging toxicant issue.
PAHs result from incomplete combusion of organic materials, such as forest
fires, and are therefore, ubiquitous but concentrations rise as urbanization
increases. Air deposition its predominant source of PAH loading to it Great
Lakes [12].
10. The Surveillance Appendix of the 1983 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality
[12] stated that PCBs and DDT in Lake Michigan are the highest contaminant
levels of any of the Great Lakes. DDT is a historical problem which will
require many more years before acceptable levels are reached. Unlike DDT,
the ban on PCB production and most uses is much more recent and PCB is being
discharged by a number of sources.
5-5
-------
TABLE 5.2 (CONTINUED)
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
11. Radiological quality was reported as satisfactory in all locations except the
Serpent River and Port Hope Harbor in Lakes Huron and Ontario respectively.
Reference [13] appendix on Radioactivity to the 1983 report on Great Lakes
Water Quality.
12. Of numerous trace metals evaluated, Ronald Rossman [14] reported only selenium
and silver as exceeding IJC objectives in Lake Michigan.
5-6
-------
When viewing the problems of Lake Michigan, one must consider its
tremendous surface area at 22,300 square miles. Wet and dry air
deposition is not important in most TMDL analyses. However, for the
Great Lakes, air deposition is often the largest single source of
pollutant loadings. For some parameters, the key to clean water may
literally be clean air. Table 5.2 lumps sources (2) through (5) above
as diffuse sources of pollutant load.
Volume is also a major consideration because this huge reservoir of
fresh water requires on the order of 100 years to flush or provide a
complete exchange of water. Consequently, the effect of a new
conservative pollutant introduced will be delayed as the lake mixes
slowly. Conversely, the beneficial effects of removing a pollutant
load will also be delayed due to the long time frame necessary to
reach equilibrium with the new quality of inflow.
As such, some of the problems discussed are "historical" in that we
are dealing with the artifacts of a period when use and manufacture of
the pollutant was widespread and insufficiently controlled. DDT is a
substance which fits this description since it was banned entirely many
years ago but can still be found in fish tissue at unacceptable levels.
For most of the banned substances, point sources no longer contribute
significant loadings. PCB is a possible exception since point sources
still contribute a significant share of the total lake loading. PCBs
and other lake-wide problems are discussed more thoroughly below.
The following sections discuss problem pollutants by category and
summarize Region V findings with regard to one of the five possible
TMDL positions discussed in Section 5.1.
5.2.2 Conventional Pollutants
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and fecal coliform organisms are con-
ventional pollutants which are causing impacts in selected nearshore
areas (see Table 5.2). In responding to these problems, the bordering
States are instituting programs including TMDL preparation, necessary
to achieve the water quality criteria and eliminate use impacts. Lake
Michigan waters and/or tributaries with TMDLs for BOD prepared or in
progress include:
WATERS STATE STATUS
North Shore Channel Illinois Completed
Chicago River Illinois Completed
Cal-Sag Channel Illinois Completed
Indiana Harbor Indiana In Progress
Trail Creek Indiana Completed
5-7
-------
WATERS
STATE
STATUS
Mi Iwaukee Harbor
Lower Green Bay
Oconto River
Preshtigo River
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
In Progress
In Progress
In Progress
In Progress
The sources of fecal coliform contamination in selected nearshore areas
are caused almost exclusively by storm induced discharges and runoff.
Runoff from NPS is not subject to NPDES permit limitations. However,
discharges from combined sewers are subject to permit limitations. The
limitations ordinarily require sampling and development of water quality
based control programs keyed to a statistically recurring storm events
rather than daily limitations. As such, TMDLs can be developed but the
averaging period for compliance must be shifted from daily limits to
event average limits. Consequently, TMDLs are necessary to solve the
remaining fecal coliform problems in nearshore areas. Wisconsin is
developing TMDLs that will address fecal coliform. Illinois is imple-
menting the MSDGC TARP program to control Chicago discharges. Indiana
has completed preliminary studies for selected CSO problems and is in
the process of implementing a solution for Michigan City.
Conventional Pollutants Summary:
TMDL Aspect
WQS Violations
Pollutant Sources
Significant Point Sources
Locations
Technology Based Controls
TMDLs Required
Nearshore or Lake-Wide
Practicability of TMDL
TMDL Status
State TMDL Proposals
USEPA Required Actions
Comments: None
Region V Findings
Fecal Coliform and
Point and Nonpoint Sources
Documented
Mutiple - See Table 5.1
Inadequate to Meet WQS
Yes
Nearshore
Practicable
Scheduled, In Progress or
Completed
Satisfactory
Approve TMDL Proposals
5-8
-------
5.2.3 Nonconventional Pollutants
Nonconventional pollutants include ammonia, iron, phosphorous and
radionuclides. In terms of ammonia, the State responses identify
lower Green Bay as the only area significantly impacted by ammonia.
Ammonia did not surface as a problem in the Draft Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal TMDL for areas outside the harbor. Further reductions in ammonia
are expected at East Chicago and Michigan City, Indiana as control
programs progress.
Iron was discounted as a problem in a recent paper by Ronald Rossman,
1984 [14]. His data show compliance with the International Joint
Commission objectives for this metal in Lake Michigan waters.
Phosphorus is perhaps the most studied substance in the Great Lakes.
Annex 3 to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement limits the
discharge of total phosphorus from point sources 1 MGD to 1 mg/1
concentration. The United States and Canada feel this is sufficient
to achieve desired water quality in Lake Michigan. Consequently,
there is no need for a phosphorus TMDL.
A thorough discussion of radiological quality is included as an
Appendix on Radioactivity to the 1983 Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality [13]. The appendix cites only two areas of concern in Lake
Huron and Lake Ontario. Consequently, this family of substances will
not be addressed further, since there no documented problems in
Lake Michigan.
Nonconventional Pollutants Summary:
TMDL Aspect
WQS Violations
Pollutant Sources
Significant Point Sources
Locations
Technology Based Controls
TMDLs Required
Nearshore oft Lake-Wide
TMDL Status
State TMDL Proposals
USEPA Required Actions
Region V Findings
Ammonia and Phosphorus
Point and Nonpoint Sources
Documented
Nutrient Impacts -- Lake-wide
Ammonia -- Lower Green Bay
Inadequate
Yes
Ammonia -- Nearshore
In Progress
Satisfactory
Approve TMDL Proposals
5-9
-------
Comments: Annex 3 to the U.S. - Canadian Water Quality Agreement
provides adequate point source controls for phosphorus.
5.2.4 Toxic Pollutants
As a group, toxic substances constitute the greatest threat to the
water quality and beneficial uses of Lake Michigan, the following
sections discuss the toxic pollutant problems and are organized into
three groups: banned organic toxins, other organic toxins, and the
metals and trace elements.
5.2.4.1 Banned Organic Toxins
The persistency, toxicity, and bioaccumulative characteristics
of the banned toxins listed in Table 5.2 provide the basic
reasons for government actions taken to eliminate these sub-
stances from the environment. Collectively, these substances
have caused considerable damage to the fisheries of Lake
Michigan and numerous other waters. They have and will
continue for some years to create a threat to the public from
the consumption of contaminated fish flesh.
DDT levels in Lake Michigan fish have fallen dramatically
since the DDT ban went into effect. The ban on the other
substances are expected to be equally effective in the long
term. PCB may be an exception, at least in the short-term
since it is still in use for limited purposes and since there
is considerable recycling of the substance in materials such
as reprocessed waste paper. Consequently, limitations on
point sources are appropriate. Region V is not recommending
TMDL development at this time for total loading to Lake
Michigan because existing loads are not well defined and all
sources have not been identified and quantified. Reference
[12] indicates that atomospheric deposition may account for
over 60% of the total annual load to the lake.
In addition to defining sources and loads, other actions are
necessary before a final decision can be reached on the need
for a TMDL. One of those actions involves development of a
water quality standard for open lake water by Illinois,
Michigan and Wisconsin. Indiana is the only state that has
articulated a Lake Michigan PCB WQS at 1 nannogram/liter.
This is close to the USEPA 10~5 risk level value at 0.79
nannograms/1iter. Illinois has no specific procedure for
deriving WQ criteria for the protection of human health,
although IEPA is said to be developing one. Michigan has an
excellent procedure patterned after the USEPA guidance, but
there is no indication that the state applied that procedure
to derive a numerical criterion for PCB. Wisconsin references
USEPA guidance in its WQ standards and is also developing pro-
cedures of its own. Finally, it is also believed that large
5-10
-------
lake models which are available for PCB TMDL development require
refinements and enhancements to improve their reliability.
Consequently, there are several factors which make a decision on
PCBs impracticable at present.
Banned Organic Toxins Summary:
TMDL Aspect Region V Findings
WQS Violations PCB in Water Column
and Fish Flesh
Contamination
Pollutant Sources Partially Defined
Significant Point Sources Partially Defined
Locations Lake-Wide
Technology Based Controls Inadequate to Meet
WQS
TMDLs Required May be Required
Nearshore or Lake-Wide Lake-Wide
Practicability of TMDL Impracticable at
Present
State TMDL Proposals Satisfactory
USEPA Required Actions See Comments
Comments: Federal action under appropriate rules to fully or
partially ban the manufacture and use of the sub-
stances listed in Table 5.2 will eventually
eliminate these substances as problem pollutants.
PCB maybe an exception at least in the short term.
Several factors render a decision on the need for
a TMDL for PCBs impracticable at present. Section 7
of this report outlines actions which Region V will
take or recommend to remove those factors and reach
a TMDL decision.
5.2.4.2 Other Organic Toxins
The group of substances listed in Table 5.2 as "Other Organic
Toxins" share the distinction of being detected in fish flesh
in some locations of Lake Michigan, being highly toxic, and
generally lacking data concerning loadings, sources, distribu-
tion and environmental fate. The IJC refers to these
substances as emerging problems in the Great Lakes [12] which
require more surveillance and analysis.
5-11
-------
In addtion to this general lack of data, none of the states
bordering Lake Michigan have articulated specific numerical
criteria for these substances although USEPA has published
criteria guidance. Table 3.1 summarizes state water quality
criteria and USEPA guidance. The states need not adopt
specific numerical criteria if they have acceptable procedures
for generating criteria when the need arises. Michigan has
.such an approach although the balance of states bordering Lake
Michigan are only in the process of developing such procedures.
A final factor which influences the practicability of
developing TMDL concerns water quality models. Although such
models may be available, it is suggested that considerable
development and enhancement would be necessary to derive one
which would yield reasonable confidence in results for the
substances listed.
Collectively, these factors render a decision on the need for
a TMDL impracticable at present.
Other Organic Toxins Summary:
TMDL Aspect Region V Findings
WQS Violations Inadequate Data
Pollutant Sources Inadequate Data
Significant Point Sources Unknown
Locations Partially Defined
Technology Based Controls Probably Inadequate
TMDL Required May be Required
Nearshore or Lake-Wide Unknown
Practicability of TMDL Impracticable at
Present
State TMDL Responses Satisfactory
USEPA Regional Action See Comments
Comments: Section 7 of this report describes actions to be
undertaken or recommended by Region V to remove
the factors which make a decision or the need for
a TMDL impracticable present.
5.2.4.3 Metals and Trace Elements
Many of the metals in Table 5.2 were originally listed as
candidates for TMDL preparation. However, as part of the
screening process it was found that several of these metals
5-12
-------
are now in compliance with all applicable WQ standards as a
result of several years of declining lake concentrations.
This reflects favorably upon past pollution control efforts
as well as the lake's ability to respond to declining loads.
The remaining metals are discussed as follows:
Selenium
Ambient values do not currently violate state WQS or USEPA
recommended criteria at 10 ug/1. However, the selenium con-
centration trend is on the rise and the IJC objective for
this substances is only 1 ug/1. As such, a TMDL may be neces-
sary to prevent future violations of the existing standards.
The WQ standard should be reviewed to determine whether
10 ug/1 is sufficient to protect the beneficial uses or
whether the criteria should be lowered to match IJC objectives.
Silver
The ambient concentrations of silver are low at 2-3 ug/1 and
within current Illinois and Indiana WQ criteria at 30 and
50 ug/1 respectively. However, the ambient concentrations do
exceed the 0.1 ug/1 level recommended by USEPA and the IJC
for the protection of aquatic life. Michigan and Wisconsin
develop case-by-case toxic substance criteria, but have not
established one for silver in the lake waters. Consequently,
action is required by the bordering states to review the WQS
for this particular substance as well as others mentioned
above. At the conclusion of that process, the decision on the
need for a TMDL should be reviewed.
Metals and Trace Elements Summary:
TMDL Aspect Region V Findings
WQS Violations Potential, WQS Require
Review (Ag, Se)
Pollutant Sources Defined
Significant Point Sources Yes
Locations Partially Defined
Technology Based Controls May be inadequate
TMDLs Required May be required
Nearshore or Lake-Wide Potentially Lake-Wide
Practicability of TMDL Practicable
5-13
-------
TMDL Aspect Region V Findings
State TMDL Response See Comments
USEPA Required Action See Comments
Comments: The need for a TMDL for the metals listed is
largely contingent on the state review of WQ stan-
dards on the part of Illinois and Indiana and
development of numerical criteria on the part of
Michigan and Wisconsin. Section 7 outlines actions
which Region V will take or recommend to eliminate
questions concerning the need for TMDLs.
5-14
-------
SECTION 6
REGION V CONCLUSIONS ON STATE TMDL POSITIONS
6.0 General Comments
As discussed at the beginning of Section 5, Region V's response to the State's
TMDL proposals, or non-proposals, could take several courses depending on the
substance, the available data base and other factors. Where factors have
made a decision on the the need for a TMDL impracticable at the present,
these factors are identified and will be addressed.
6.1 Conclusions on Illinois
Region V finds that Illinois provided insufficient justification to defend
its position that there is no need to develop TMDLs for any Illinois dis-
charges. However, the independent review by Region V is sufficient to sustain
Illinois' position regarding conventional and nonconventional substances.
In terms of toxic pollutants, Region V has identified 9 substances which may
require lake-wide or nearshore TMDLs to achieve protective water quality
criteria. The lack of data on sources, distribution, fate and impact make a
decision on the need for TMDLs impracticable at present. Therefore,
Illinois' position on toxic substances is sustainable for the momemt but not
for the reasons cited. Illinois will be requested to review its water quality
criteria and to assist in the acquisition of necessary environmental data.
6.2 Conclusions on Indiana
Region V finds that Indiana provided insufficient justification to defend its
position that Indiana, Lake Michigan waters do not require TMDLs in order to
meet the water quality standards. However, the independent review by
Region V is sufficient to sustain Indiana's position regarding conventional
and nonconventional sustances. Indiana also neglected to mention the draft
WLA which it completed on the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal/Grand Calumet
River.
In terms of toxic substances, Region V has identified 9 pollutants which may
require lake-wide or nearshore TMDLs. As mentioned above, the lack of data
and other factors render a decision on the need for TMDLs impracticable at
the present. Therefore, Indiana's position on toxic substance TMDLs is
sustainable for the moment, but not for the reasons cited. Indiana will be
requested to review its water quality criteria and to assist in the acquistion
of environmental data.
6.3 Conclusions on Michigan
Region V finds that Michigan provided insufficient justification to defend
its position of no TMDLs required for conventional pollutants. However, the
independent review by Region V is sufficient to support Michigan's position.
6-1
-------
In terms of nonconventional and toxic pollutants, Michigan expressed the
opinion that technology based controls are "generally" sufficient to protect
the water quality of Lake Michigan. The State then expressed several basic
misunderstandings of the TMDL process by:
(1) Implying that the entire lake volume must be considered in developing a
TMDL.
(2) Establishing limits based on a "calculated volume of dilution water" and
failing to recognize that this is a customary aspect of the TMDL process.
(3) Stating that the TMDL process fails to address, diffuse and nonpoint
sources. Such loadings must be integrated with the point source loadings
to derive a point source TMDL that is meaningful in the contexts of all
loadings to a water body.
(4) Implying that the TMDL process does not support anti-degradation
provisions. On the contrary, anti-degradation could be a driving force
for controls beyond technology based limits.
Michigan pointed out that loadings from air transport and nonpoint sources
cannot be accurately predicted. Region V believes that these source loadings
can be predicted accurately enough to model and manage. However, sufficient
data is necessary to accomplish this. Regarding 9 toxic substances,
Region V finds insufficient data currently available to reach a decision on
the need for a TMDL.
^Ln-cxxnclusion, the Michigan response on proposed TMDLs is approvable for the
Cjnomemt''but not for all of the reasons cited. Michigan will be requested to
apply their Rule 57 and develop specific numeric criteria for the 9 substances
which may require TMDLs. Michigan will also be requested to acquire environ-
mental data concerning sources, quantities or distribution of the substances
listed as potential candidates for TMDLs.
6.4 Conclusions on Wisconsin
The Wisconsin position on TMDLs is very defensible and reflects the State's
experience in a wide variety of water quality based TMDLs and actions.
Region V applauds their efforts to load allocate the conventional and non-
conventional substances as identified.
In terms of toxic substances, the rationale for no TMDL proposals matches
that of Region V. The lack of key environmental data precludes a TMDL
decision at this time. Therefore, Wisconsin TMDL proposal is approvable for
the moment. Wisconsin, however, will be asked to develop specific numerical
water quality criteria for the 9 substances listed as candidates for TMDL
development, and will be asked to assist in acquiring key environmental data
necessary to remove the obstacles which render a TMDL decision impracticable
at the present time.
6-2
-------
SECTION 7
REQUIRED ACTIONS BY REGION V
Region V must complete several actions relative to the identification and establish-
ment of TMDLs to protect Lake Michigan water quality. In addition to reviewing
State TMDL proposals which is accomplished in this report, Region V must:
(1) Formally approve or disapprove the State identification of waters requiring
TMDLs.
(2) Remove those factors which render a TMDL decision impracticable at present.
(3) Review TMDL decisions periodically as new data is acquired and analyzed.
(4) Integrate management programs with other offices or agencies as necessary to
satisfy the water quality requirements of Lake Michigan.
(5) Prepare TMDLs for pollutants where the State decision not to prepare TMDLs is
indefensible.
Aside from the approval of State positions on TMDLs which will be based on
Section 6 of this report, the most immediate need is to address those factors
which restrict the ability to make sound TMDL decisions at present. Essentially,
those factors include:
(1) Establishment or confirmation of the Lake Michigan water quality criteria by
the bordering States. USEPA and the IJC should have a role in this process
in terms of selenium due to the stringency of the IJC objectives.
(2) Expansion of the data base on the 9 toxic substances listed in Table 5.2
where acquisition of data is recommended. Such data should include further
coverage of potential impact locations, characteristics source identification
and load quantification.
(3) Review of available large lake models to assure that modeling can be
accomplished for the substances in question at approximately the 80 percent
overall confidence level.
Upon completion of the above items, the States and Region V should be in position
to review TMDL decisions and update them as appropriate.
Inasmuch as the States bordering Lake Michigan have a common interest in protecting
the quality of the lake, and since a Region V Water Quality Standards Work Group
was recently organized for the purpose of exchanging information and addressing
common problems, it is proposed that the work group consider the needs identified
above and develop a detailed process for satisfying those needs with regard to
Lake Michigan. The Region V Water Division, in cooperation with Great Lakes
National Program Office will support the work group in its deliberations and in
implementing the program derived from that work.
7-1
-------
Given the critical nature of the work at hand and the potential to subordinate
that work to other priority needs, Region V finds it advisable to establish
maximum time frames for certain essential tasks as follows:
(1) Water Quality Criteria -- Where USEPA has published 304(a) criteria guidance,
the States should apply that guidance and recommend protective water quality
criteria by September 30, 1985. Where formal State adoption may be
appropriate, hearing should be in progress by November 30, 1985.
(2) Source Identification -- A program to acquire data on potential sources of
the 9 substances listed in Table 5.2 should be in place by November 30, 1985.
(3) Load Quantification -- A program to summarize available loading data and
develop new information should be in place by November 30, 1985.
(4) Update TMDL Decisions -- By March 30, 1986, each State should review the
water quality status of Lake Michigan and confirm or update its position with
respect to the need for TMDLs. Region V will review those positions and
provide a response to each State.
(5) Large Lake Models -- By March 30, 1986, Region V in cooperation with the
Large Lakes Research Station will report on the availability and reliability
of large lake models capable of assisting in a TMDL/WLA process.
7-2
-------
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
1. Scott vs. Hammond, et.al., (7 C.C.A., Nos. 81-2884 and 81-2885), Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, 1984.
2. Clean Water Act, Public Law 92-500, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Quality Criteria for Water.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1080. Water Quality Criteria Documents:
Availability. Federal Register, Volume 45, No. 231, November 28, 1980.
5. United States of America and Canada, 1978. Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978. November 22, 1978.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Water Quality Planning and
Management Regulation. 40 CFR Part 130, Federal Register, Volume 50,
No. 8, January 11, 1985.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Environmental Management Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois, May 1983.
8. Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975. Great Lakes Framework Study, Appendix 11.
Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975.
9. Fries, G.F. and Marrow, G.S., 1981. Chlorobiphenyl Movement from Soil to
Soybean Plants. J. Agriculture Food and Chemicals. 29:757-759.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Water Quality Assessment: A
Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants, Parts 1 and 2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA 600/6-82-004.
11. Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, 1983. Great Lakes Science Advisory Board
Report to the International Joint Commission. 1983 Annual Report.
Windsor, Ontario, 1983.
12. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1983. 1983 Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality. Windsor, Ontario, 1983.
13. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1983. 1983 Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality, Appendix on Radioactivity. Windsor, Ontario, 1983.
14. Rossman, Rudd, 1984. Trace Metal Concentrations in Offshore Waters of Lake
Erie and Lake Michigan. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984.
15. Rodger, P.W. and Swaine, W.R., 1983. Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PB)
Loading Trends in Lake Michigan: Great Lakes Res. 9(4):548-558.
-------
APPENDIX 1
STATE RESPONSES
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency • 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield. IL 62706
217/782-3362
March 6, 1985
Mr. Charles Sutfin
Director, Water Division
USEPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Sutfin:
In response to your letter of December 28, 1984, and subsequent communications
with your staff, the Agency has reviewed the court orders and other
documentation on the Scott vs. Hammond decision on Lake. Michigan TMDL's.
Your staff asked the Agency to provide opinion on the use of the TMDL process
to address issues raised in Scott vs. Hammond. We do not want to be placed in
the position of second guessing the courts as to whether TMDL's are
appropriate tools to resolve the problems that prompted the Scott vs. Hammond
action. We can, however, state that problems do exist that are creating
interstate water quality concerns and that USEPA should have a role in the
resolution of those problems.
As part of the original documentation of the action that ultimately resulted
in the Scott vs. Hammond decision, the probable source of the problems were
identified.None of the identified sources were in Illinois. One of
Illinois' prime concerns is the protection of Lake Michigan and the Chicago
area water supply. Our programs have been aimed at elimination of significant
sources of pollution to the Lake. We do not believe that there would be a
need to develop TMDL's for any Illinois discharges as a response to the
court's action.
A related issue is the apparent USEPA interpretation of Scott vs. Hammond.
WLA guidance documents imply that the court action established a national
precedent for USEPA to step in and develop TMDL's when, in USEPA's opinion,
the states were not proceeding in a timely manner. We do not believe that
such broad national precedent has been set by this case. The waters of Lake
Michigan are divided into the jurisdictions of four states. Any attempt by
our state to establish TMDL's for impacts outside of its jurisdiction are very
likely to conflict with those prepared by another state. In a situation where
TMDL's are likely to have interstate implications, it is entirely appropriate
for USEPA to take the lead or serve in a coordination role to assure program
consistency. We believe that this is what the courts are saying in Scott vs.
Hammond. The interpretation that USEPA should intervene in the TMDL process
on a national basis when only intrastate issues are involved, appears to be
far too broad to be supported by the opinions of the courts.
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency • 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield. IL 62706
Page 2
We trust that the above provides you with insight into Illinois' position in
the Scott vs. Hammond decision and responds to the questions raised by your
staff and those contained in your December 28, 1984 letter. If you have any
questions please advise.
Sincerely,
Eugene F. Seebald, P.E., Manager
Division of Water Pollution Control
EFS:JP:ds:0402E/18-19
cc: Roger Kanerva
Steve Ewart
Jim Park
-------
STATEr
INDIANA
STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 20, 1985
INDIANAPOLIS 46206-1964
1330 West Michigan Street
P. 0. Box 1964
Mr. Michael W. MacMullen, Chief
Water Quality Planning Section
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. MacMullen:
Re;
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
for Lake Michigan Waters
In response to your request concerning the assessment of the
need for determining the TMDL for Lake Michigan waters, we offer the
following comments.
The TMDL requirements in Regulations 40 CFR Part 130 seem to
be developed primarily for water bodies that cannot meet existing water
quality standards. The excellent water quality conditions that now
exist in the Indiana portion of Lake Michigan appear to exempt Indiana
from this requirement. The above assessment is based on our long-term
monitoring station records and an intensive lake sampling program
conducted by the Indiana State Board of Health in 1980-1981. No serious
violations of water quality standards were found during the past few
years. Occasionally, total phosphorus, phenolics, DO, cyanide, and
fecal colifonn would violate standards. This, however, was not the
trend, but an ephemeral occurrence usually located near harbor mouths.
We believe that those occasional violations were mainly caused by
municipal CSO and bypasses.
Since 1981, several major bypass and CSO correction works were
completed in the Calumet area. The City of Hammond has completed their
Robertsdale lift station correction project and the Hohman Avenue sewer
separation project. The City of East Chicago has corrected its
secondary bypass and the Jeorse Park overflow problems. These
correction works have reduced water quality standard violations in Lake
Michigan waters.. The impending municipal sludge lagoon controls and the
proposed additional advanced wastewater treatment for East Chicago and
Michigan City would further improve the Lake Michigan water quality.
In conclusion, we feel that there is no practical need for
developing TMDLs for Indiana portions of Lake Michigan waters.
Very truly yours,
Earl A. Bohner
Technical Secretary
TPC/JLW/jb
-------
STATE OF MICHIGAN
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
THOMAS j ANDERSON JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Governor
E. R CAROLLO
ST^NF. MONsZ' DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
JO. STEWART MYERS STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING
RAYMOND POUPORE BOX 30028
HARRY H. WHITELEY LANSING. Ml 48909
RONALD O. SKOOG. Director
March 6, 1985
Mr. Charles Sutfin, Director
Water Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Sutfin:
This is in response to your letter of December 28, 1984, regarding the
Scott decision, which sets forth a requirement for EPA and the states
to develop total maximum daily loadings to Lake Michigan.
For conventional pollutants, technology-based limitations dictate
sufficiently high effluent quality to protect the water quality of Lake
Michigan. Ambient water sampling of the open lake water has not
demonstrated any water quality concerns resulting from point source
discharges of conventional pollutants. Certain near-shore and river mouth
areas have been shown to be impacted by conventional pollutants, but the
sources of the discharges are either historical or nonpoint related.
Therefore, it is not necessary to develop total maximum daily loadings
for conventional pollutants.
For non-conventional pollutants, including toxic pollutants, technology-
based limitations would generally provide sufficiently stringent effluent
limitations to protect water quality. However, water quality assessments
may be necessary for certain pollutants. Such assessments should not be
based on total maximum daily loads to the Lake. Michigan water quality
standards require that acceptable water quality be met immediately after
mix with the receiving waters. Therefore, mixing zones are established
on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Michigan rules. Utilizing the
mixing zone and reasonable assumptions for mix characteristics, effluent
limits are established such that after mixing with the calculated volume
of dilution water, state water quality standards are met.
-------
Mr. Charles Sutfin
March 6, 1985
Page 2
The regulation of point source discharges through the use of total daily
maximum loadings on a whole-lake basis fails to address major inputs of
pollutants such as those resulting from air transport and nonpoint sources,
Further, these loadings cannot be accurately predicted. Michigan water
quality standards do not provide for a total maximum daily loading calcula-
tion on a whole-lake basis.
We strongly oppose such an approach. It is not consistent with state
regulations, and will not provide adequate protection to Lake Michigan.
If you would like to discuss this in further detail, please contact me.
Sine
Paul D. Zuc
Surface Water Quality Division
(517) 373-1949
PDZrckp
cc: Gary Guenther
-------
State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Carroll D. Besadny
Secretary
BOX 7921
MADISON. WISCONSIN 53707
March 5, 1985 IN REPLY REFER TO: 8250
Mr. Charles H. Sutfin, Director
Water Division
U.S. EPA-Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL, 60694
ft
Dear Mr. Su
V
In response to your letter of December 28, 1984, Dale Bryson's memo of
January 8, 1985 and intervening discussions and meetings, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources has developed its position with respect to the
Scott vs. Hammond, et. al. decision. This decision requires the states
bordering Lake Michigan to identify waters subject to water quality based
effluent limits and subsequently to establish total maximum daily loads for
such waters to achieve water quality standards.
The State of Wisconsin, as an active part of its water quality management
program, has pursued to the extent possible the issuance of water quality
based permits where necessary to meet water quality standards. However with
the possible exception of phosphorous, the Department does not believe it is
feasible at this point to establish TMDL's for specific pollutants as they
affect they entirety of Lake Michigan. Rather, specific areas of the lake are
candidates for TMDL's. These specific areas are located in the immediate
vicinity of point source dischargers or areas directly influenced by point
source dischargers. Some examples are on the attachment.
The requirement for phosphorous removal for treatment facilities discharging
to Lake Michigan is based upon reducing the loading of phosphorous to the
lake. The methodology for accomplishing this reduction is provided under tne
Great Lakes water quality agreement, Annex 3, in which target annual loadings
are specified. Although allocations to each jurisdiction or each discharger
is not given, the method for achieving that load is provided.
Even though it is not possible to develop TMDL's for the pollutant as they
affect the lakes as a whole, we envision using the impacts on the whole lake
as an argument to control substances which appear to have a whole lake
impact. For example, we use the fact that PCBs are a contaminant problem in
some fish throughout the lake as part of the rationale for initiating control
efforts at specific discharge points.
-------
Mr. Charles H. Sutfin - March 5, 1985
The parameters for which TMDL's are to be established should be determined on
a case-by-case basis. The determination should be based on the constituents
contained in the wastewater discharge from the specific point source.
As an indication of our efforts in establishing TMDL's and assuming Green Bay
is part of Lake Michigan, we are currently in the process of enacting TMDL's
for BOD for discharges into the Fox River based upon impacts to southern
Green Bay. The Department has established or is currently in the process of
establishing water quality base limits for municipal discharges covered by the
pretreatment program. Parameter coverage is primarily limited to certain
heavy metals and their acute toxicity effects. As we learn more about the
quality of these effluents and their localized effects, parameter coverage may
be expanded and chronic toxicity more directly addressed.
Bacterial effects on lake water quality are similarly "near-field" concerns
which, in our opinion do not extend lake wide. Therefore, measures taken to
control the discharge of bacterial-containing waste and thus limiting their
total load can be taken based on localized impacts.
Certainly it is easy to envision a process and a need to establish TMDL's for
pollutants entering the waters of Lake Michigan. However, it is important to
realize that for many parameters it may not now be possible to do so. The
establishment of TMDL's requires an understanding of the environmental fate
and dynamics of pollutants including their point of origin, how they are
transported, transformed and degraded, their bioavailability and
bioaccumulation, etc. At this point, it is not likely this type of analysis
will be possible for a substantial number of pollutants, especially those
which are toxic. As our information based on these pollutants increases and
our ability to conduct a noted assessment improves, we will be better able to
develop TMDL's as needed to meet necessary level of water quality.
Sincerely,
Division of Envirxfhmenjtal S/tandards
//
Lynurn F. Wibl'e
Administrator
LFW:cn
cc: Duane Schuettpelz'- WRM/2
Mike Llewelyn - WRM/2
Carl Blabaum - WWM/2
Dave Hildreth - Lake Michigan District
Tom DeWitt - Northwest District
Ron Kazmierczak - Southeast District
6488Y
-------
ATTACHMENT
TMDL's - NEAR-SHORE AREAS
Lower Green Bay - BOD
Ammonia
Peshtigo River - BOD
Oconto River - BOD
Milwaukee - BOD
Phosphorus
II.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[Great Lakes National Program Office
GLNPO Library
------- |