United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection Washington, D r
Agency
STATE WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL
PROGRAM REVIEW GUIDANCE
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
December 1987
-------
STATE WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL
PROGRAM REVIEW GUIDANCE
I. INTRODUCTION I_l
Background j_j_
Purpose of State Toxics Program Reviews 1-2
Scope I_ 3
Pilot Reviews. . . I_3
The Checklist and Pact Sheet 1-4
It. THE REVIEW PROCESS ll-l
Review Team II-l
Review Preparation II-l
The Review 11-2
Pollow-Up II-3
III. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR THE CHECKLIST III-l
A. State Authority and Legal Mechanisms for Toxics
Control .lil-l
B. Water Quality Standards III-3
C. Identification of Waters in Need of
Toxics Controls III-9
D. Exposure Assessment and Wasteload Allocation
Procedures 111-14
E. Effluent Characterization and Permitting
Procedures II I-18
APPENDIX A: Fact Sheet
APPENDIX Bt Checklist
APPENDIX C* Sample State Summary, Action Items, and Letter
-------
Section I: Introduction
Background
Control of toxic pollutants (both Clean Water Act §307(a)
priority polluants and others) in surface waters is one of
the most pressing problems currently facing Federal and State
regulatory authorities. Solutions to surface water toxics
problems present long-term institutional and technical challenges
that require strong State program approaches in many different
areas. Various national guidance documents and policies have
addressed toxics control; particularly, the national policy
dated March 9, 1984 (49 FR 9016) and the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based Control of Toxics (September,
1985).
The Clean Water Act (CWA) and its most recent amendments,
the Water Quality Act of 1987, provide a strong statutory
basis and additional deadlines for activities to identify and
control toxic pollutants. For example, under §304(1) of the
CWA as amended, States are required to identify all waters
impaired as a result of point source discharges of toxic
pollutants and to develop "individual control strategies"
for controlling point sources of §307(a) toxics by February
4, 1989. Other provisions of the CWA require- States to
control all sources of toxicity. Since the §307(a) pollutants
are only some of the toxic pollutants of concern, as a matter
of policy EPA is asking States to develop controls for
waters with known toxicity problems due to any pollutant,
giving the same priority to these controls as for controls
where only §307(a) pollutants are involved. To be approved
by EPA, the strategies must require the implementation and
achievement of necessary toxics controls (i.e. compliance
with permit requirements limiting toxics and toxicity) within
three years of EPA approval (or by June 4, 1992. whichever
is earlier). Also, under §303(c)(2) States are to adopt
criteria for toxic pollutants, the discharge or presence of
which in the affected waters could reasonably be expected to
interfere with those designated uses adopted by the State.
EPA recognizes that the identification of waters impaired
by toxicants and the development of individual control strategies
will be a difficult challenge for most States, particularly
in light of the short time frames allowed by section 304(1)
of the CWA as amended. Therefore, EPA is expecting that
these requirements will be met in two phases. In the first
phase, all known or readily identifiable toxicity problems
from point sources will be addressed. Controls for section
307(a) pollutants must be developed by February 4, 1989
under section 304(1) of the CWA. As a matter of policy,
controls for other pollutants (including chlorine, ammonia,
and whole effluent toxicity) will be given the same priority
as for controls where only section 307(a) pollutants are involved,
1-1
-------
At the same time, States and Regions should continue to
collect new data where current data are inadequate, to identify
currently suspected or unknown problems. These new data
will then form the .basis of the second phase of toxics control.
The process of identifying waters and regulating toxics
discharges will therefore require a several year commitment
and strong State and EPA insititutional frameworks. Important
facets of this framework include State water quality monitoring
programs. State water quality standards, State and federal
permit regulations and technical guidance.
In order to insure that all States are equipped with
the necessary tools to make significant progress in controlling
toxics and to meet the requirements of the CWA and amendments,
EPA Regions will conduct broad, comprehensive reviews of State
programs for identifying and controlling toxic discharges.
Regional Offices will be tracked on their conduct of these
reviews (and development of Action Plans to address any needs)
in the EPA Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS)
in FY 1988. The Agency's objective in reviewing State toxics
control programs is to identify areas of needed improvement or
assistance, and to help ensure a degree of consistency among
State approaches, while at the same time allowing sufficient
room for innovative State approaches and flexibility in
dealing with specific local problems.
Based on discussions .during the review, Regions and
States will identify action items which need follow-up. After
the reviews are completed, Regions will work with States to
develop clear action plans which will include the steps that
States will take to equip their programs to identify and
control toxics problems related to point sources. The action
plans are meant to be development strategies and are subject
to review and modification as they are implemented. They do
not create any new legal obligations for the States. However,
individual action items in a plan may include corrections in
program deficiencies that are required by existing law or
regulation. Where this is the case, EPA may have the authority
to require these corrections.
Purpose of State Toxic Program Reviews
The purpose of this document is to provide technical
assistance to the Regions in conducting qualitative reviews
of State toxic control programs. The objective of the program
reviews is three-fold. One short-term objective is to strengthen
the institutional framework for State toxics control programs
to equip these programs to meet the new statutory requirements
and deadlines of S304(1) of the CWA and the Agency's policy
of assuring that controls for waters with known toxicity problems
due to any pollutant will be given the same priority as
controls where only section 307(a) pollutants are involved.
A second short-term objective is to determine the States'
progress in complying with these new statutory and program
requirements. A long-term objective is to support ongoing
1-2
-------
toxics control activities and to help ensure that States
develop fully effective programs for progressively addressing
toxic pollutants in surface waters.
This guidance Is intended to be used as the basis for the
State toxics program assessments to be conducted as a one-
time effort in FY 88. Following the conclusion of the effort,
EPA plans to discuss with States the value of the assessment
process and its success in meeting the objectives above.
Based on these discussions and on suggestions received as the
assessments are conducted, EPA and the States may again conduct
State toxics program assessments at some time in the future.
This document describes both the procedural (Section II)
and technical (Section III) aspects of program reviews. The
technical portion of this guidance does not establish any new
policy or guidance. Rather, it draws upon existing Agency
policy and guidance on the various activities that are part of
the "standards-to-permits" process. Program areas covered by
this document include: (a) legal mechanisms, (b) water quality
standards, (c) identification of waters, (d) wasteload allocations,
and (e) permitting. This guidance focuses almost exclusively
on control of point source discharges of toxics to surface
waters•
Knowledge of the water quality-based toxics control
program is assumed. The guidance is not designed to teach the
program. Familiarity with the Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-Based Toxics Control, September 1985 (TSD), and
t>e Permit Writers Guide to Water Quality-Based Permitting for
Toxic Pollutants, Spring 1987 (PWG), is essential to understanding
and using this guidance. The reader should also be thoroughly
familiar with the Guidance for Implementation of §304(1) of
the Clean Water Act as Amended [§308(a) of the Water Quality
Act of 1987] which describes in detail the specific steps
which States should take in complying with this section of the
CWA amendments.
Pilot Reviews
Thi« guidance was based in part on experience gained from
pilot reviews of four State toxics control programs. The
pilots revealed variations among the four States (Delaware,
Louisiana, Montana, and Michigan) in the levels of problem
assessment, levels of implementation of toxics controls, and
program strengths and weaknesses. Action plans which these
States have developed or will be developing in response to
the reviews will help strengthen the toxics control efforts
already underway. The assistance of the four States in
helping develop, test, and improve the review process is
greatly appreciated.
1-3
-------
The Checklist and Fact Sheet
The basic tools which have been developed for reviews of
State programs are the "fact sheet" and the "checklist." The
fact, sheet (Appendix A) addresses direct and indirect discharge
and provides the reviewer with information concerning the
number and type of point sources within the State and the types
of controls currently in place. The checklist (Appendix 3) is
designed to document the key ongoing elements of a toxics
control program in a logical progression through the standards-
to-permits process, including questions that refer to the
specific requirements of the CWA of 1997. Detailed guidance on
the use of the checklist is presented in Section III.
1-4
-------
Section II: The Review Process
Since Regiens will be assisting States to develop Action
Plans as soon as possible, but no later than the end of FY
1988, the Regions should plan to complete all State program
reviews by the start of the third quarter of FY 1988. Each
review should be conducted in accordance with this guidance
and should include the specific review of the State's progress
towards fulfilling the toxics control requirements of the
Water Quality Act. Each review should present findings
specific enough to provide an appropriate basis for specific
Action Plans.
This section describes the suggested process for conducting
a State review. Before conducting the review, a review team
should be assembled and background materials and information
collected to provide the EPA Regional staff with a foundation
for discussion of the State's toxics control program.
Review Team
The review team, consisting of Regional water quality
and NPDES permits staff, should have strong backgrounds and
expertise in their respective program areas. Additional EPA
personnel may be appropriate, for example, from the offices of
the Regional Counsel, Compliance, or Environmental Services.
A team leader who serves as EPA coordinator with the State is
responsible for preparation, conduct-of the review, and follow-
up. The team leader should arrange to meet with the State's
water quality planning and NPDES permits staff counterparts.
Review Preparation
The following is a list of suggested materials to be
gathered for the review:
o State statutes, regulations, policy and guidance
o Written State/Regional toxics strategies
o §305(b) report
o Projection of toxics problems from other data
sources, if available (The Monitoring and Data
Support Division in EPA headquarters is developing
computer software that will summarize and report
available data related to toxic pollutants as a tool
which States may use to help manage their toxics
control programs.)
o PCS (Permit Compliance System) summary information
o Permit program audit reports and permit quality reviews
o Other relevant information
The team should review and be thoroughly familiar with
as many of the above sources of information as are available
for the State. It is advantageous to collect documents
II-l
-------
which describe each of the program areas presented in the
checklist sections. If a State has developed a toxics
control strategy, this may be used as the focal point for the
review.
Checklist questions and fact sheet information can be
modified, as necessary, to accommodate unique and unusual State
approaches to toxic control.* To the extent possible, these
changes should be made prior to the review. Copies of the
checklist and fact sheet, this guidance, and any other
background materials should be provided to the team members.
Team members should be briefed on procedures, meeting schedules,
and the format of the review follow-up.
The team leader should notify the State in writing after
the review has been tentatively scheduled with the State
staff. At least three weeks notice should be given to the
State to allow time to gather relevant information and to
plan schedules for meeting attendance. The letter to the
State should discuss the purpose of the review and provide a
copy of the checklist and fact sheet. The letter should also
note that the review team will expect the State to have
completed the fact sheet, gathered documentation, and prepared
initial responses to the checklist before the review visit.
Preparation of the State staff on what to expect during
and following the review should be conducted before the
visit. This should consist of a brief introduction of purpose
and discussion of the expected products: the action plan and
revised toxics control program. This preparation may be
conducted through correspondence, telephone contact, or a
pre-visit.
The Review
o Who: Review Team, State staff (managers invited,
but attendance is optional)
o How Long: One to two days, depending upon the
depth of discussion necessary
Th« review begins with a fact sheet to obtain information
and background statistics on the State's program. (See
Appendix A.) The fact sheet is intended to document basic
information on program delegation, and the numbers and types
of dischargers, as well as to serve as an overview of toxicity
controls within the State's NPDES program. The questions are
straightforward and no guidance is necessary to complete the
fact sheet. Several of the statistics requested in the fact
* For example, some States are already in an enforcement mode
for water quality-based toxicity limits, and Regions may
wish to include questions on those States' compliance
monitoring and enforcement procedures.
II-2
-------
sheet may not be currently tracked by permitting authorities
and therefore may not be readily available. However, the
State should provide its best estimate for each response.
Next, the review should proceed through the checklist. The
checklist itself is divided into five subsections which ask
specific questions regarding the State's aporoach to toxics
controls (see Appendix B.) Review team members should oroceed
through the checklist, recording the answers to each of the
questions. Team members may alternate in asking the questions
in the various checklist sections according to their expertise.
In addition, team members should summarize agreements and
action items at the conclusion of each checklist section,
while the discussion is still fresh, rather than waiting
until the conclusion of the entire review. Guidance on the
use of the checklist is presented in Section III.
The review team should conduct a final exit-briefing at
the conclusion of the review visit lasting approximately one-
half hour. The purpose of the exit briefing is to provide an
overview of the state program as perceived by the review
team. This overview should include notable strong points as
well as areas in need of strengthening, and should include
confirmation of all agreements and action items. Finally,
the review team should explain the next steps in the review
process, including what both EPA and the state are expected
to do.
Follow-Op
After the review is completed, Regions will work with
the States to follow-up on the implementation of the action
items agreed upon during the review. To do so, Regions will
work with States to develop clear action plans. Each action
plan will include the steps which the State will take to
identify and control toxics problems related to point sources.
Each action item will also include the steps, if any, that
the State should undertake in order to ensure compliance
with the requirements of S304U) and S303(c) (2) (B) of the
CWA as amended. This includes compliance with the April 1,
1988, subnittal date in the S304(l) Guidance for the initial
listing of waters known or suspected of being impacted by
toxic pollutants and the statutory deadline of February 4,
1989, for the submission of final lists of waters requiring
controls for point source discharges and individual control
strategies.
Primary responsibilities of the various follow-up activities
may be summarized as follows:
EPA Review Team:
o Summary of State Toxics Control Program
o List of Action Items
o Letter to State agency (transmitting above)
II-3
-------
State Agencv.
o Action Plan.in response to list of Action Items
o Revised toxics control program based on Action Plan
o Program implementation
EPA Follow-up: Summary, Action Items & Letter
The EPA review team should first prepare a concise
summary of the findings of the review. The summary has
several purposes. It serves to document the results of the
checklist review and is therefore the basis for the list of
Action Items. It also serves as documentation for future
reference in understanding a State's program. Finally, when
this summary is transmitted to the State for review, the
State has the opportunity to confirm that the summary accurately
reflects the State program and that the conclusions drawn are
therefore appropriate.
The summary should clearly identify the action items
developed and discussed with State officials during the
review. These action items may be relatively general or they
may be specific, depending on the agreements reached during
the review visit and on the nature and scope of the State
actions. The review team may also need to consider supplemental
information following the review and to develop additional
action items if appropriate. The review team should be as
clear as possible in stating the action items because in
some cases these items will then be used as the basis for
the State action plan.
A letter to the State Agency should transmit the summary
of findings and the list of Action Items. It should also
contain a schedule for preparation and submittal of the
State Action Plan to the EPA Regional Office. An example of
the State program summary, list of action items and trans-
mittal letter appear in Appendix C.
State Follow-up: Action Plan and Revised Toxic Control Program
The Action Plan represents the State's response to the
Action It«M identified by EPA, and will serve as the State's
"blueprint" for revising its toxics control program. All
State Action Plans are to be completed by the end of FY 1988.
The Action Plan should clearly identify the following areas
corresponding to each of the Action Items:
o Explanation of the proposed activity and any special
considerations in completing it (e.g., resource con-
straints, public notice requirements, advertising for
contract assistance, contingencies based upon
grant funding, etc.)
o Final product to be derived from the activity (e.g.,
State regulation, State guidance document, new State
-------
criteria, memorandum of understanding, etc.)
o Proposed schedule for completing the activity.
The actions to be taken in accordance with the Action
Plan should be achieved through revision of the appropriate
sections of the State toxics control program and accompanying
documentation. The documentation need not be lengthy and may
incorporate specific program elements by reference. Because
the various elements of a State's toxics control program are
interdependent and mutually supportive, a significant change
in one element of a State program may require corresponding
adjustments in related areas of the program. For example,
promulgation of new additional numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants in the water quality standards program would
require corresponding adjustments in the wasteload allocation
and permitting programs.
II-5
-------
Section III. Technical Guidance for the Checklist
This section provides technical guidance on the use of
the checklist (Appendix B). Each of the checklist questions
is presented, and followed by a "USEPA Perspective", and
occasionally a "Discussion" section where the question needs
elaboration. "Bullet" points are aids to stimulate discussion
and do not necessarily reflect inclusive or mutually exclusive
answers.
"USEPA Perspective" and "Discussion" information is drawn
from current EPA policy and guidance and includes references
to specific documents as approoriate. Lack of State conformance
with an individual programmatic "USEPA Perspective" may be
appropriate in the context of an interdependent and mutually
supportive framework of water quality-based toxics control
program areas.
Section III is divided into five subsections which should
be reviewed in order: A) State Authority and Legal Mechanisms
for Toxics Controls, B) water Quality standards, C) Identification
of Waters in Need of Toxics Controls, D) Exposure Assessment
and Wasteload Allocation Procedures, and E) Effluent
Characterization and Permitting Procedures. Questions (6, 15
and 29) addressing the State's progress in comolying with the
specific requirements of the CWA, as amended in 1987, are
included.
A. State Authority and Legal Mechanisms for Toxics Control
The purpose of this subsection is to document and evaluate
the authority and institutional mechanisms used by the State
to control toxics, as well as their scope and coverage, and
potential or existing problems or conflicts.
QUESTION 1;
UNDER WHAT LEGAL MECHANISM(S) IS SURFACE WATER TOXICS CONTROL
INSTITOTIOIttLIZED?
- state Law
- state Regulation
- State/Regional Policy
- State/Regional Guidance
USEPA Perspective
The State should have clear and adequate legal
authority for establishing water quality-based toxics
controls. Policy or guidance should suoplement or
interpret the law or regulations, and should not be
relied upon as the sole mechanism for requiring toxics
III-l
-------
controls.
Discussion
Some States rely on broad laws with specific
interpretive guidance or policies, while other States
rely on more specific statutory authority. While many
States believe that less specific, less formal mechanisms
provide desirable flexibility, the most effective way
to ensure that toxics controls are legally binding and
will not be subjected to administrative and/or legal
challenge in permit proceedings is to formalize
programmatic authorities in law and/or regulation.
QUESTION 2;
DESCRIBE THE DEPTH AND COVERAGE OF THE STATE'S TOXICS CONTROL
AUTHORITY AND LEGAL MECHANISM(S).
- standards to permits process
- aquatic life and human health protection
USEPA Perspective
The control authority or mechanism should include
both authorities and procedures for a standards to
permits process. The authority should be protective of
aquatic life and human health. Where the NPDES program
has not been delegated to the State, State authorities
should cover all areas for which the State has responsi-
bility under the State/EPA agreement.
QUESTION 3;
WHAT INSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES EXIST WITHIN THE STATE'S
TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM? WHAT PLANS ARE THERE TO ADDRESS THE
DEFICIENCIES?
Discussion
An institutional deficiency could be a conflict be-
tween the missions or institutional control mechanisms
of different State agencies with separate responsibilities
for toxics control. For example, the State department
of health may be responsible for human health protection
while the department of natural resources is responsible
for aquatic life protection, and this may result in
confusion or gaps in water quality regulation. Other
deficiencies could include ambiguous or inadequate
statutory authorities, outdated permit regulations,
inefficient permit appeal processes, etc.
III-2
-------
B. Water Quality standards
This subsection reviews the State's water quality
standards program as it relates to toxic pollutants. The
questions address the coverage of the State's existing water
quality standards in the areas of aquatic life and human-
health, how numeric and narrative criteria are used, the
scope of the criteria (acute and chronic), and procedures for
criteria development.
Guidance on the review of State programs to meet the
additional requirements of Section 303(c)(2) of the CWA
regarding numeric criteria for toxic pollutants is contained
in Question 6.
QUESTION 4:
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE PROTECTED IN STATE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS?
- aquatic life
- human health
- terrestrial animals (wildlife and livestock)
- terrestrial plants (irrigation)
DSEPA Perspective
Water quality standards should be ambient standards
designed to be protective of aquatic life and human
health. Coverage of terrestrial animals and plants is
also desirable.
Discussion
The focus of most water quality standards is the
protection of aquatic life. State standards should also
include human health criteria for both threshold and
non-threshold chemicals to protect designated uses.
Non-threshold chemicals are cancer causing chemicals
with no known safe level. For these chemicals a risk
level (e.g. KT4, KT5, 1
-------
in State standards
- reference to Federal criteria [304(a)l in State standards
- none of the above.
USEPA Perspective
Existing numeric criteria for toxic pollutants
in State standards should be identified. Toxic oollutants
are those on the Section 307(a) list of priority oollutants
Criteria should also be adopted for any other pollutants
for which EPA (under Section 304(a)) or the State have
developed criteria (e.g., chlorine and ammonia). Mere
reference to EPA criteria guidance in State standards
is not an adequate substitute for numeric criteria,
since it usually is not clear whether the reference is
for screening purposes or as a basis to establish legally
enforceable requirements.
Discussion
Section 303(c)(2) of the CWA as amended in 1987,
includes specific requirements regarding criteria for
$307(a) toxics in State standards; see Question 6.
Question 5 does not presume that the requirements of
Section 303(c)(2) have been implemented by the State,
and is designed only to assist the reviewer in
characterizing the current status of state standards
regarding numeric criteria for toxics. This information
provides the basis for determining the need for additional
numeric criteria in Question 6.
QUESTION 6;
IN ACCORDANCE WITH S303(c)(2) AS AMENDED, HOW MANY NEW CRITERIA
[FOR 307 (a) TOXIC POLLUTANTS 1 DOES THE STATE PLAN TO ADOPT?
WHAT TIME FRAME WILL BE USED FOR THIS ACTIVITY?
- toxics criteria to be added
- demonstration that certain criteria are not needed
- schedule
Perspective
The-State should describe how it will determine
the additional numeric criteria needed to comply with
5303(c)(2), as amended, and indicate when the State
plans to adopt these new criteria in their water quality
standards. The State should also describe how it intends
to demonstrate that such criteria are not needed. (See
also Question 12).
Discussion
States should review all available data and other
III-4
-------
information to make the necessary pollutant and water
segment identifications. Such information and data should
include: (1)-ambient water monitoring data including
those for sediment and aquatic life (e.g., fish tissue
data); (2) NPDES oermit applications and permittee self-
monitoring reports; (3) effluent guidelines development
documents, many of which contain Section 307(a)(l)
priority pollutant scans; (4) oesticide and herbicide
application inventories; (5) public water supply source
monitoring data noting pollutants with Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs); and (6) any other relevant information on
toxic pollutants collected by Federal, State, or interstate
agencies, academic groups, or scientific organizations.
Where the State's review indicates that there is a
problem from the discharge or presence of toxic pollutants,
the State should identify the pollutants and relevant
segments. EPA realizes that these designations will be
reviewed in the future during each triennial water
quality standards review required by Section 303(c) of
the Act. Therefore, the Agency is not encouraging the
adoption of long lists of toxics with a concomitant
burden of monitoring. The initial efforts should be
focused on identifying problem areas and problem toxic
pollutants (see also Question 12).
The amendments stipulate that whenever a State reviews
water quality standards, it must adopt criteria for all
toxic pollutants listed pursuant to Section 307(a) for
which criteria have been published under Section 304(a)(l),
the discharge or presence of which in the affected waters
could reasonably be expected to interfere with those
designated uses adopted by the State, as necessary to
support such designated uses. Guidance or regulations
to govern the implementation of this provision of the
CWA is currently under development.
According to the November 17, 1987 draft guidance, the
requirements may be met in three ways: 1) by adopting
numeric water quality standards for all EPA criteria for
S307f«) toxics regardless of whether the toxics are present,
2) bf| adopting specific numeric water quality standards
for §307(a) toxics where they are present at harmful levels,
or 3) by adopting a narrative water quality criterion for
S307(a) toxic pollutants supported by a procedure applied
to the narrative standard to develop a "critical ambient
concentration" to be used as the basis for deriving
total maximum daily loads, wasteload allocations, and
subsequently NPDES permit limitations.
The above procedure is referred to in the draft
guidance as a "translator mechanism." The translator
mechanism relates to the derivation of numeric criteria
(referred to in the guidance as "critical ambient
concentrations") that are used to derive permit limits.
The mechanism does not oroduce criteria that become part
-------
of State water quality standards, nor does it include pro-
cedures necessary to translate the criteria into permit: limits.
QUESTIOH 7;
HOW IS THE NARRATIVE STATEMENT USED TO CONTROL TOXICITY?
- chemical specific approach
- whole effluent approach
- "translator mechanism" for deriving numeric criteria,
supported by a permit limit derivation procedure
USEPA Perspective
All States have narrative criteria (e.g., "free from
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts") in their standards. A
State toxic control program can implement controls for toxic
pollutants, either through a chemical-specific or whole
effluent approach, using the narrative criteria as the legal
basis for permit requirements. The review should document
how the State uses its narrative criteria to control toxics.
The State should have (1) a procedure for translation of
narrative criteria into numeric criteria (including specific
chemicals and whole effluent toxicity) and (2) a documented
procedure for writing permit limits based on the numeric
criteria (see Section ill-E). Documentation of these procedures
is required in the water quality standards regulation at 40
CPR 131.11.
The review should document whether these procedures exist
and include an overall assessment of their deficiencies, if any.
Discussion
With respect to Questions 5, 6, and 7, an effective water
quality standards program should include both the numeric
and narrative approaches. Chemical and biological indicators
should be analyzed in light of site-specific information and
fine-tuned to provide parallel protection. Flexible application
of both approaches will address the wide range of toxics
problem and ensure that all available methods are employed
to control toxicity.
Numeric criteria can be used to limit specific chemi-
cals where the cause of toxicity is known or for protection
against potential human health impacts. The narrative stan-
dard can be the basis for limiting toxicity where a specific
toxic pollutant can be identified as causing the toxicity,
but there is no numeric criterion in State standards. The
narrative standards can also be used to limit whole effluent
toxicity where it is not known which chemical or chemicals
are causing the toxicity.
Acute and chronic toxicity units (TUs) are a mechanism
for quantifying instream toxicity using the whole effluent
III-6
-------
approach; see Section 2 of the TSD. The State may also
use an ambient standard applied to the effluent to control
acute toxiciJty. For example, a State may employ a percentage
of the 96 hour LC50 bioassay to address acute toxicity.
The procedure to implement the narrative criteria using a
whole effluent approach should specify the testing procedure,
the duration of the tests (acute vs. chronic) and the test
organism(s), and the frequency of testing required.
QUESTION 8;
ARE SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA USED TO CONTROL TOXICS AND ARE
THEY FORMALLY PROMULGATED IN STATE STANDARDS?
USEPA Perspective
If site-specific criteria are used to control
toxicity, such criteria must be subjected to public
comment and EPA approval prior to their use in setting
permit requirements [CWA S303(c)]. The state should
briefly describe the process for development and
adoption of site-specific criteria.
QUESTION 9;
HOW DOES THE STATE USE ANTIDEGRADATION AND ANTIBACKSLIDING TO
CONTROL TOXICITY?
USEPA Perspective
States should have clearly documented policies and
procedures for implementing antidegradation and
antibacksliding that conform to the requirements of
the amendments to the CWA in Sections 303(d) and 402.
Discussion
State policies and procedures on antidegradation
and antibacksliding are important to an overall review
of the States toxics control program. Some States may
implement a stringent antidegradation policy as an integral
part of their toxics control programs which might require
detailed review. It is important, at a minimum, for
States to have a good understanding of federal.requirements
in this area, since EPA may have to veto State permits
that do not conform to the relevant rules and procedures.
Water quality standards, WLAs and permit limitations
must conform to existing requirements governing both
antidegradation and antibacksliding.
QUESTION 10;
DO STATE STANDARDS INCLUDE BOTH ACUTE AND CHRONIC CRITERIA FOR
TOXICS AND A MIXING ZONE POLICY? WHERE MUST CRITERIA BE MET?
-------
- mixing zone policy
- acute criteria applied at the end-of-oioe in the absence
of a high rate diffuser or other site-specific information
- chronic criteria applied after mixing
OSEPA Perspective
EPA's national criteria recommendations include values
for both acute and chronic aquatic life protection; only
chronic criteria recommendations have been established to
protect human health. Chronic aquatic life criteria should
be met at the edge of the mixing zone. The acute criteria
should be met (1) at the end-of-pipe if mixing is not
rapid and complete and a high rate diffuser is not present
or (2) in the mixing zone if mixing is rapid and complete
or a diffuser is present. See Section 5 of the TSD.
Discussion
EPA has not established a national policy specifying
the point of application in the receiving water that
should be used with human health criteria.
QUESTION 11;
DO STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SPECIFY DURATION AND EXCEEDENCE
FREQUENCY?
- acute criteria as a one-hour average
- chronic criteria as a 4-day average
- addressed through the critical design flow
- other (specify)
OSEPA Perspective
EPA recommends that criteria define duration and
frequency: acute criteria applied as a one-hour average,
and chronic criteria as a 4-day average, each not exceeded
more than once in 3 years on the average. See Section 2
and Appendix D of the TSD and EPA guidance on design flow
(Question 22). Longer averaging periods are recom-
mended for human health criteria since these criteria
assuac a lifetime exposure.
Discussion
Defining water quality criteria with an appropriate
duration (averaging period) and frequency of exceedence
helps to ensure that criteria are appropriately trans-
lated into permit requirements. Duration and frequency
may be defined in the design flow appropriate to the
criterion. However, in these cases, the State should
provide an evaluation that the selected design flow
approximates the recommended duration and frequency.
III-8
-------
C. Identification of waters in Need of Toxics Control
State water quality assessment programs are critical to
the success of a State toxics control program. States must
have a procedure for identifying which of their waters are in
need of toxics control. Follow-up monitoring to assess the
effectiveness of control is also necessary.
This subsection documents a State's ongoing procedures for
identifying and addressing waters needing toxics controls.
Guidance for the review of a State program to meet the
additional requirements relating to identification of waters
of Section 304(1) of the CWA as amended is contained in
Question 15.
QUESTION 12:
HOW DOES THE STATE IDENTIFY AND DOCUMENT WATERS IN NEED OF
TOXICS CONTROLS?
- assessment includes aquatic life and human health
- assessment includes data collection by states and permittees
- fixed stations versus intensive surveys
- screening versus data collection
USEPA Perspective
All States are required to assess all of their
waters and document water quality problems in §305(b)
reports. States are also required to identify specific
waters whose uses are adversely affected by toxic
pollutants in accordance with 5303(d) and 5304(1) as
amended. The State should have a comprehensive strategy
for identifying toxics problems related to aquatic life
and human health protection. States need to have or be
developing screening systems to determine which of
these factors requires greatest emphasis in particular
settings. While no specific strategy for identifying
and documenting waters in need of toxics controls is
suggested since a number of approaches are valid, the
review should document the state strategy and the state
strategy should take advantage of all reasonably available
sources of information.
Discussion
The review should assess the relative role of
ambient monitoring efforts (including fixed stations and
intensive surveys), screening activities, detailed
monitoring programs and monitoring activities conducted
by the State and permittees. While aquatic life impacts
are probably the most widespread and therefore require
greater coverage statewide, the State should also be
assessing human health impacts in particular settings.
III-9
-------
Many federal and State agencies, as well as some private
parties, such as universities, have information on water
quality, fishery trends, recreation, and other water uses.
These agencies should be consulted and 'their data evaluated
as part of the State's assessment process.
QUESTION 13;
WHAT ARE THE RELATIVE ROLES OP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM?
USEPA Perspective
States should have a comprehensive monitoring program
which includes both chemical and biological monitoring.
Discussion
Chemical monitoring is the primary source of infor-
mation used by States to identify toxics problems, chemical
monitoring is crucial in waters used as public water
supplies. Biological monitoring (both ambient'and effluent)
is a critical ingredient in the State's assessment of
waters needing toxics controls, particularly in waters of
high ecological value. EPA has found ambient toxicity
testing and biosurveys to be particularly useful for
identifying toxic impact areas; see Appendix C of the TSD.
QUESTION 14;
WHAT TYPE OF SYSTEM IS USED TO PLAN AND SCHEDULE WATER QUALITY
ASSESSMENTS FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS AND TOXICITY?
- permit issuance/reissuance requirements
- basinwide surveys
- converting from permit issuance basis to basinwide
approach
USEPA Perspective
The State should have a systematic procedure for
scheduling monitoring activities to identify toxics problems
and describe how existing data are used to identify problems
and schedule surveys. The review should describe how the
State selects and schedules the types of monitoring to be
performed at a particular site.
Discussion
From both cost-effectiveness and WLA perspectives,
basin-wide assessments are preferred to permit-by-permit
assessments.
-------
QUESTION 15:
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ALL THE STATE'S WATERS HAVE BEEN OR WILL 3E
ASSESSED TO DEVELOP THE LISTS OF WATERS REQUIRED BY §304(1)(1)(A)
and (B)? FOR SEGMENTS LISTED UNDER S304(1)(1)(B), HAS THE
STATE IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF TOXIC
POLLUTANTS? IP NOT, WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE FOR DOING SO?
- S304(l)(A)(i) list
- S304(l)(A)(ii) list
- S304(1)(B) list
- schedule for developing lists
USEPA Perspective
The State should be proceeding in accordance with
a schedule to develop three lists of waters as required
by S304(l)(l)(A) and (B) of the CWA. These lists should
be reported to EPA into the 305(b) Waterbody system
by April 1, 1988. For those waters on the 5304(1)(1)(B)
list, the state should also develop and submit by April
1, 1988, a list of point sources causing impacts which
are to be controlled through individual control strategies.
Discussion
The listing requirements under paragraph (A) form
the basis for a long-term program where waters are
regularly screened for toxics or nontoxics problems
which adversely impact water quality and prevent the
attaiment of standards and/or uses. All authorities
under the CWA are to be employed when developing controls
for sources on the two lists of waters required by
paragraph (A). CWA sections 301(b)(l)(C), 303(c),
303(d), 303(e), 401 and 402(a), as well as implementing
regulations, require listing of waters and control
measures for all pollutants (including chlorine, ammonia,
whole effluent toxicity, and other pollutants) to achieve
specific water quality objectives.
paragraph (B) of $304(1) requires states to focus
on developing a list of all waters for which the states
do not- expect applicable water quality standards to be
achieved after implementation of technology-based effluent
limits and pretreatment standards, due entirely or
substantially to the point source discharges of S307(a)
priority pollutants. This list identifies waterbodies
for which point sources and amounts of pollutants will
be identified and individual control strategies prepared.
III-ll
-------
QUESTION 16v
WHICH OP THE FOLLOWING ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE?
- atomic absorption
- gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer
- acute/chronic biological toxicity testing
- biosurveys
- Other
USEPA Perspective
The State should have in-house, be developing, or
be able to contract out the above analytical capabilities
in support of its assessment program.
QUESTION 17;
DOES THE STATE HAVE A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO TRACK THE STATUS
OP EACH WATERBODY ASSESSED? (BRIEFLY DESCRIBE.)
- EPA S305(b) Waterbody system
- other
USEPA Perspective
The State should have an adequate management system
to track the status of waterbodies. The system should
keep track of which waters have been assessed, the
results, and the corrective actions needed. The system
should be used for planning and program management and
for preparing the State's 305(b) report. The State
should indicate plans to coordinate its data management
with the 305(b) Waterbody System developed by EPA's Office
of Water Regulations and Standards.
QUESTION 18;
DOES THE STATE CONDUCT OR REQUIRE ASSESSMENTS TO EVALUATE
THE EFFECTIVENESS OP TOXICS CONTROLS?
USEPA Perspective
The State should conduct assessments after controls
to determine their effectiveness. There are several
approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of toxics
controls. The assessments may be part of a survey
program or part of the S305(b) process. In addition,
permittees may be required to perform them as part of
their permit requirements. Consideration of intermedia
pollutant transfer resulting from control of surface
water toxics is desirable.
111-12
-------
Discussion
State resources are generally limited for these
types of assessments. However, it is important to
recognize that there is a degree of uncertainty
associated with any control effort. It is advantageous
to perform these assessments on waterbodies where
significant control programs have been implemented.
The information is useful in documenting success stories
and identifying the need for modification to the State's
control program.
Ideally, assessments to evaluate the effectiveness
of controls should be based on data regarding changes in
beneficial uses as well as chemical indicators.
111-13
-------
D. Exposure Assessment and was.te.load Allocation Procedures
This subsection reviews the States wasteload allocation
(WLA) process. The wasteload allocation process provides a
quantitative link -between water quality standards and permits.
The WLA is a pollutant loading which permit writers seek to
achieve when writing a permit to limit pollutants to meet
water quality standards. Different approaches will be used
to prepare WLAs for different types of receiving waters, types
of pollutant and exposure pathways.
QUESTION 19;
HOW is THE STATE'S MIXING ZONE POLICY (IP AVAILABLE) USED IN
THE WLA TO CONTROL TOXICITY?
- prevention of acute toxicity within the mixing zone
- limitation on the dimensions of the mixing zone
gSEPA Perspective
The State mixing zone policy and WLA procedures
should include two basic elements applicable to toxic
discharges. First, lethal concentrations should be
prohibited within the mixing zone. Acute toxicity is
of particular concern because organisms passing through
the mixing zone can be exposed to lethal concentrations
of toxicants in a partially diluted effluent. Where
mixing is not rapid and complete, lethal concentrations
may be avoided by using a high rate diffuser or by
application of acute criteria at the end-of-pipe. (See
Question 10). Second, the physical dimensions of the
mixing zone should be limited to allow fish passage in
free-flowing streams and to ensure that a certain percentage
of a waterbody does not exceed acute and chronic criteria.
See Section 5 of the TSD and the 1983 Water Quality
Standards Handbook.
QUESTION 20;
HOW DOBS TH» STATE DETERMINE WHETHER A MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS
IS REQUIRE!* FOR A SPECIFIC WATERBODY? HOW ARE MIXING ZONE
DIMENSIONS ESTABLISHED?
- types of waterbodies requiring a mixing zone analysis
- types of analytical techniques used
USEPA Perspective
The State should define where a mixing zone analysis
is required and employ adequate and appropriate tools
for determining the dimensions of mixing zones. Analysis
of the mixing zone should be performed under critical
111-14
-------
conditions (usually low flow, or low tide for marine or
estuarine systems).
Discussion
A mixing zone analysis may be required for certain
WLAs, such as those involving large waterbodies; e.g.
lakes and estuaries. Tracer studies, predictive models
or desktop calculations can be used to estimate the
dimensions of the wastewater plume. These techniques
1) ensure that the discharge conforms to the State's
allowable mixing zone dimensions, 2) prevent the mixing
zone from extending into critical resource areas and 3)
provide boundary conditions for the completely mixed
WLA models.
QUESTION 21;
HOW MANY AND WHAT TYPE OP WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS ARE ROUTINELY
PREPARED FOR TOXICS?
- single WLA (chronic) for human health
- dual analysis (acute and chronic) for aquatic life
- chemical-specific versus whole-effluent approaches
USEPA Perspective
For steady state modeling of aquatic life, two
WLAs are required — one for acute toxicity and one for
chronic toxicity — and apply to both the chemical
specific or whole effluent approach. The most limiting
WLA is used as the basis for setting permit requirements.
A single WLA is only appropriate in cases where chronic
criteria are applied at the end-of-pipe.
Dynamic models, incorporating consideration of
daily variations in physical and chemical parameters,
are more accurate in reflecting or predicting exposure
provided adequate data exist. Few States currently have
fully developed capabilities to perform dynamic modeling.
However, the tools to do so are now more widely available
than i» the past. The Agency currently supports DYNTOX,
WASTOX, EXAMS and other probabilistic or simulation
models.. States may use these models where site-specific
complexities call for more accurate models than the
simplest steady state dilution model.
For human health, see Question 23.
-------
QUESTION 22;
WHAT DESIGN PLOW IS SPECIFIED IN STEADY STATE MODELING OF
RIVERS, OR PLOW INTO ESTUARIES AND BAYS FOR AQUATIC LIFE?
ARE SEASONAL PLOWS (AND WLAS) CONSIDERED?
- 1Q10 applied to acute criteria
- 7Q10 applied to chronic criteria
- Other
USEPA Perspective
States can use either a hydrologically-based (1Q10
and 7Q10 for acute and chronic criteria) or a biologically-
based design flow; see Technical Guidance Manual for
Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book VI: Design
Conditions, Chapter I - Stream Design Flow for Steady-
State Modeling, developed by the Office of Water Regulations
and Standards.
Discussion
If seasonal flows and WLAs are prepared, the State
should have some mechanism for ensuring that the seasonal
WLAs do not increase the frequency with which exceedances
are allowed; e.g. once in three years.
QUESTION 23;
WHAT DESIGN PLOW IS SPECIFIED IN STEADY-STATE MODELING OP
RIVERS FOR HUMAN HEALTH?
USEPA Perspective
The State should have a procedure for modeling
human health criteria and preparing WLAs, including the
selection of a design flow. Because a lifetime exposure
period is used for human health criteria, the design
flow used to protect human health should reflect longer
tern exposure periods than aquatic life.
Discussion
Human, health protection involves specific exposure
considerations which affect how WLAs are subsequently
calculated. There is currently no established procedure
for selecting a design flow and performing WLAs for
human health criteria. The TSD recommends that a 30Q5
design flow be used for human health criteria. However,
this design flow may result in overly stringent permit
requirements if the receiving water at the edge of the
mixing zone is not directly used as a public water
supply or as a source of fish for human consumption.
111-16
-------
QUESTION 24;
ARE POLLOTANT CONTRIBUTIONS PROM OTHER POINT SOURCES AND
NONPOINT SOURCES CONSIDERED IN MODELS FOR TOXICS?
- background loadings
- in-place pollutants (sediments)
- other point sources
USEPA Perspective
The State should consider other point sources and
nonpoint source loadings in developing WLAs for water
quality-based permits, in accordance with EPA regulations
[{40 CPR 130.2 (f) - (h)l. Therefore, models used to
develop WLAs should incorporate other point sources and
nonpoint sources where appropriate.
Discussion
Other point sources and nonpoint source loadings
generally need to be considered only to the extent that
they affect modeling under critical conditions. In-place
pollutants may be of particular significance in certain
settings and should be incorporated in WLA models where
necessary.
QUESTION 25:
DOES THE STATE PERFORM WLA MODELING USING WHOLE EFFLUENT
TOXICITY? WHAT PROCEDURES ARE USED IF DIFFERENT FROM THE
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPROACH?
USEPA Perspective
The State should treat whole effluent toxicity like
any other parameter. The review should document any
unique WLA procedures using the whole effluent approach.
Discussion
Models that incorporate fate and transport mechanisms
for WLA* involving whole effluent toxicity have not been
fully developed. Many States have been reluctant to
conduct modeling for whole effluent toxicity.
111-17
-------
E. Effluent Characterization and Permitting Procedures
Effluent characterization provides the data needed to
determine whether or not the discharge of toxic materials
will cause adverse impacts upon the receiving waters. Permit
writers should make use of all available data; however, limits
may still be derived in the absence of definitive effluent
characterization. Permit limitations should be developed which
are protective of both aquatic life and human health.
This subsection reviews the procedures for generating data on
effluent toxicity, water quality-based permit limit derivation
procedures, development of monitoring requirements, and use of
toxicity reduction evaluations. The section also contains a
question (29) regarding the State's progress in developing
individual control strategies (ICSs) involving permit modifi-
cations or reissuances pursuant to $304(1)(1)(D) of the CWA.
QUESTION 26;
WHAT TYPES OF INFORMATION ARE REQUIRED OF PERMITTEES AND USED
BY PERMIT WRITERS? SPECIFY WHETHER USED ROUTINELY OR CASE-
BY-CASE, AND WHETHER FOR INDUSTRIAL OR MUNICIPAL PERMITEES.
- chemical-specific data
- effluent toxicity data
- receiving stream data
- human health data
- aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity, etc.
OSEPA Perspective
The reviewer should determine which data are used
routinely and recommend the use of any important data
sources which are currently not being used. The TSD's
Section 3 should be used in establishing toxicity testing
requirements.
QUESTION 27;
ARE WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMIT DERIVATION PROCEDURES SPECIFICALLY
INCLUDED IH THE STATE'S TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM? IF SO, ARE
THEY INCLUDED DIRECTLY OR BY REFERENCE?
USEPA Perspective
The State should specifically include written water
quality-based permit derivation procedures in its toxics
control program to derive permit limits for toxic pollutants
from the WLAs. It is important that the State procedures
be entirely documented, including procedures for calculation
of values for protection of aquatic life and human health,
and use of the most stringent WLA to derive the permit
limitations. The PWG, Section 3, and the TSD, Section 6
-------
and Appendix E, contain recommended permit limit derivation
procedures.
QUESTION 28;
ARE PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO EXPRESS LIMITS BOTH IN TERMS OF
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AND WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
LIMITATIONS? DESCRIBE BRIEFLY WHAT THESE PROCEDURES INCLUDE..
- chemical-specific and whole effluent limitations procedures
- consideration of effluent variability
- methods for translation of WLA results into maximum
daily and average monthly values
- identification of the limiting WLA
USEPA Perspective
Procedures to express limits in terms of both specific
chemicals and whole effluent toxicity should be documented
and used by permit writers. Procedures should include:
1) considerations of effluent variability, 2) methods
for translation of WLA output into maximum daily and
average monthly values, and 3) evaluation of which WLA
(acute or chronic) is most limiting. The recommended
limit derivation procedure is described in the PWG, Section
3, Permitting Procedures, and Section 6 of the TSD.
Discussion
Experience to date has shown that neither a chemical-
specific or a whole effluent approach alone is fully
protective. Therefore, an integrated, chemical-specific
and whole effluent approach to limits is recommended.
For limitations on both specific chemicals and whole
effluent toxicity, limitations expressed as both maximum
daily and monthly average limits should be used.
QUESTION 29:
FOR SEGMENTS ASSESSED UNDER 5304(1)(1)(3), HOW MANY INDIVIDUAL
CONTROL STRATEGIES (ICSs) HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO DATE? WHAT
IS THE SCHEDULE FOR PREPARING STRATEGIES TO MEET THE 2/4/89
DEADLINE? WHAT PROGRESS IN ISSUING ICSS INVOLVING MODIFIED
CURRENT PERMITS OR REISSED EXPIRED PERMITS HAS BEEN MADE?
- ICSs needed
- schedule
USEPA Perspective
The State should be proceeding on a schedule to
develop ICSs for all point sources identified under
5304(1)(1)(C) by 2/4/89 in accordance with the following
discussion.
-------
Discussion
An individual control strategy (ICS) for a segment
should consist of NPDES permits for all point sources in
the segment under consideration and documentation that
such permits adequately consider the effects of the other
discharges to that segment. To the maximum extent possible,
the ICS submission should consist of final NPDES per.mit(s)
which incorporate the necessary limitations. This will
involve modifying and reopening permits which have not yet
expired in cases where additional controls are necessary.
QUESTION 30:
WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PARAMETERS LIMITED IN THE PERMIT?
DSEPA Perspective
The State should consider and adequately address the
factors listed in Section 7 of the TSD when establishing
requirements for frequency, type of sample, and testing,
and should also consider as many other factors as are
relevant. Further discussions of the suggested monitoring
requirements are in the PWG's Section 3.1.
QUESTION 31;
IS MONITORING FOR PARAMETERS NOT LIMITED IN PERMITS REQUIRED?
(E.G., INFORMATION GATHERING)? IF SO, DESCRIBE. IS SUCH
MONITORING REQUIRED ROUTINELY OR ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS?
USEPA Perspective
Where appropriate, monitoring without limits should be
required to gather information for developing future
permit limits. However, the Clean Water Act requires all
State standards to be met, and NPDES permits must be
written to achieve this requirement. Monitoring alone or
monitoring which emphasizes data generation to the exclusion
of eventual limit derivation is not acceptable. "Triggers"
for permit limit development based on monitoring data should
be clearly expressed: for example, approach or exceedance
of water quality standards and/or existence of ambient
toxicity.
Discussion
Permits may be issued with data generation requirements
which augment the limits imposed on other parameters.
Requirements to conduct biological assessments,
toxicity reduction evaluations, and in-plant monitoring
are all authorized under Section 308 of the Clean Water
Act, and corresponding State statutes.
-------
Permittees should be required to collect data when
the regulatory authority believes that data on effluent
toxicity or individual toxicants are necessary before
specific control requirements can be set and where such
data cannot be collected orior to permit limit development.
One example is where longer term data (e.g., for several
seasons) are needed. Whenever possible, State agencies
should collect data prior to permit issuance. The need for
gathering additional data through monitoring requirements
should be predicated on significant doubt regarding the
presence of a substance or effluent toxicity.
All types of toxics effects can be addressed. For
example, the permit writer may set monitoring requirements
for human health concerns and at the same time, place
limits for aquatic toxicity in the permit. The permit
containing the data gathering requirements should include
a statement that the permit will be modified or revoked
and reissued if the data indicate violation of State
water quality standards. See the TSD, Section 6, and the
PWG, section 3.1.
QUESTION 32;
ARE TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATIONS (TREs) REQUIRED FOR IDENTIFYING
AND ADDRESSING THE TOXIC COMPONENTS OF EFFLUENTS IN PERMITS?
USEPA Perspective
When specific chemical or toxicity tests show that
a permittee's discharge contains toxicity at unacceptable
levels, the Regional Office or the State agency with
responsibility for that permit should require the permittee
to reduce toxicity so that no harmful effects occur
instream. Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs) are
studies which use toxicity testing and physical and
chemical analysis of effluents to determine causative
toxicants or treatment methods which will afford compliance
with either toxicity or chemical-specific permit limits.
TREs should be required from permittees where either
toxicity-based permit limits are violated or effluent
toxicity is demonstrated.
TREs as special conditions alone have been used by
some permitting authorities. However, TRE requirements
are most effective when tied to permit limits because
limits are binding and enforceable and provide a target
for toxicity reduction efforts. The TSD's Section 6
and the PWG's Section 5 address TREs.
TTT-?1
-------
QUESTION 33;
WHAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO TREs?
- triggers
- schedules
- reporting requirements
- follow-up
OSEPA Perspective
Although case-by-case language is acceptable,
development of standard "boilerplate" language may
facilitate the use of TREs. The standard language
should specify what triggers the TRE, a schedule,
reporting requirements, and any requisite follow-up
activities. Triggers for intitiating a TRE may be
expressed as violations of established limits or as
specific patterns of toxicity that should be reduced.
Once the TRE is initiated, a schedule must be established
and should be included in a permit or adminstrative
order. Section 5 of the PWG addresses TREs.
Discussion
TREs can be required in a permit as an initial
response to a permit limit violation or through an
enforcement order as part of injunctive relief for a
pattern of noncompliance. The final milestone of all
TREs should be a specific date to attain compliance with
the applicable limits.
II1-22
-------
APPENDIX A: STATE WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM
FACT SHEET
1. State delegation:
Date of NPDES delegation:
Date of Pretreatment program delegation (if applicable):
Date of Federal facility program delegation (if applicable):
2. Number of direct industrial discharges by type; i.e., pulp and
paper, food processing, etc.
3. Numbers of permits/pretreatment programs
Major POTWs:
Minor POTWs:
Major non-POTWs:
Minor non-POTWs:
Total number of permits:
Approved pretreatment programs:
Pretreatment programs requiring approval:
Number of categorical users discharging to non-pretreatment
POTWs «5 mgd):
4. Status of the State's technology-based program
Percentage of all municipal dischargers >_ secondary treatment
Percentage of all industrial discharges _> BCT/BAT:
5. Number of major POTW permits reviewed for limits for toxics
that are primarily water quality-based; number of resultant
limits; specify by pollutant.
6. Number of major non-POTW permits reviewed for limits for
toxics that are primarily water quality-based; number of
resultant limits; specify by pollutant.
7. Number of permits with biological testing requirements;
number permit applications requiring biological testing.
Number
Type (acute/chronic, effluent/ambient)
Organism(s) used
8. Number of permits with TREs required:
Number of permits with completed TREs:
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B: STATE WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM
REVIEW CHECKLIST
State Authority and Legal Mechanisms for Toxics Control
1. Under what legal mechanism(s) is surface water toxics
control institutionalized?
- State Law
- State Regulation
- State/Regional Policy
- State/Regional Guidance
2. Describe the depth and converage of the State's
toxics control authority and legal mechanism(s).
- standards to permits process
- aquatic life and human health protection
3. What institutional deficiencies exist within the
State's toxics control program? What plans are there
to address the deficiencies?
Water Quality standards
4. Which of the following are protected in State water
quality standards?
- aquatic life
- human health
- terrestrial life (wildlife and livestock)
- terrestrial plants (irrigation)
5. What numeric criteria for toxics are formally adopted
in State standards?
- specific criteria numbers in State standards
- in the absence of State numeric criteria, a process
for deriving specific numeric criteria is promulgated
in State standards
- reference to Federal criteria [304(a)J in standards
- none of the above
6. In accordance with S303(c)(2) as amended, how many
new criteria [for 307(a) toxic pollutants] does the
State plan to adopt? What time frame will be used for
this activity?
- toxic criteria to be added
- demonstration that certain criteria are not needed
- schedule for list
B-l
-------
7. How is the narrative statement used to control
toxicity?
- chemical .specific approach
- whole effluent approach
- "translator mechanism" for deriving numeric criteria,
supported by a permit limit derivation procedure
8. Are site-specific criteria used to control toxics and
are they formally promulgated in state standards?
9. How does the State use antidegradation and
antibacksliding to control toxicity?
10. Do State standards include both acute and chronic
criteria for toxics and a mixing zone policy? Where
must criteria be met?
- mixing zone policy
- acute criteria applied at the end-of-pipe in the
absence of a high rate diffuser or other site-
specific information
- chronic criteria applied after mixing
11. Do State water quality standards specify duration
and exceedence .frequency?
- acute criteria as a one-hour average
- chronic criteria as a 4-day average
- addressed through the critical design flow
- other (specify)
Identification of Waters in Need of Toxic Control
12. How does the state identify and document waters in
need of toxics controls?
- assessment includes aquatic life and human health
- assessment includes data collection by states and
permittees
- fixed station versus intensive surveys
- screening versus data collection
13. What are the relative roles of chemical and biological
monitoring in the assessment program?
14. What type of system is used to plan and schedule
water quality assessments for toxic pollutants and
toxicity?
- permit issuance/reissuance requirements
- basinwide surveys
- converting from permit issuance basis to basinwide
approach
B-2
-------
15. What percentage of all the State's waters have been
or will be assessed to develop the lists of waters
required^by S304{1) ( 1) ( A) and" (3)? For segments
listed under 5304(1) (1) (B) has the State identified
specific point sources and amounts of toxic pollutants?
If not, what is the schedule for doing so?
- S304(l)(A)(i) list
- 5304(l)(A)(ii) list
- S304UHB) list
- schedule for developing lists
16. Which of the following analytical capabilities are
available?
- atomic absorption
- gas chromatograph/ mass spectrometer
- acute and chronic biological toxicity testing
- biosurveys
- other
17. Does the State have a management system to track
the status of each waterbody assessed? (Briefly
describe)
- EPA S305(b) Waterbody System
- other
18. Does the State conduct or require assessments to
evaluate the effectiveness of toxics controls?
Exposure Assessment and Wasteload Allocation Procedures
19. How is the State's mixing zone policy (if available)
used in the WLA to control toxicity?
- prevention of acute toxicity within the mixing zone
- limitation on the dimensions of the mixing zone
20. How does the State determine whether a mixing zone
analysis is required for a specific waterbody?
mixing zone dimensions established?
- types of waterbodies requiring a mixing zone analysis
- types of analytical techniques used
21. How many and what type of wasteload allocations are
routinely prepared for toxics?
- single WLA (chronic) for human health
- dual analysis (acute and chronic) for aquatic life
- chemical-soecif ic versus whole effluent approaches
-------
22. What design flow is specified in steady state modeling
of rivers, or flows into estuaries and bays, for aquatic
life? Are seasonal flows (and WLAs) considered?
- 1Q10 applied to acute criteria
- 7Q10 applied to chronic criteria
- other
23. What design flow is specified in steady state modeling
of rivers for human health?
24. Are pollutant contributions from nonpoint sources
considered in models for toxics?
- background loadings
- in-place pollutants (sediments)
- other point sources
25. Does the State perform WLA modeling using whole effluent
toxicity? What procedures are used if different from
the chemical-specific approach?
Effluent Characterization and Permitting Procedures
26. What types of information are required of permittees
and used by permit writers? Specify whether used
routinely or case-by-case, and whether for industrial
or municipal permittees.
- chemical-specific data
- effluent toxicity data
- receiving stream data
- human health data
- aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity, etc.
27. Are water quality-based permit development procedures
specifically included in the State's toxics control
program? If so, are they included directly or by reference?
28. Are procedures designed to express limits both in terms
of chemical-specific limitations and whole effluent
toxicity limitations? Describe briefly what these procedures
include.
- chemical-specific and whole effluent limitations
procedures
- consideration of effluent variability
- methods for translation of WLA results into maximum
daily and average monthly limits
- identification of the limiting WLA
-------
29. For segments listed under S304(l)(1)(3), how many
individual control strategies (ICSs) have been prepared
to date? What is the schedule for preparing strategies
to meet the 2/4/89 deadline? What progress in issuing
ICSs involving modified current permits or reissued
expired permits has been made?
- ICSs needed
• schedule
30. What factors are considered in establishing compliance
monitoring requirements for parameters limited in the
permit?
31. Is monitoring for parameters not limited in permits
required? (e.g.: information-gathering)? If so,
describe. Is such monitoring required routinely
or on a case-by-case basis?
32. Are Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs) required for
identifying and addressing the toxic components of
effluents in permits?
33. What specific requirements apply to TREs?
- triggers
- schedules
- reporting requirements
- follow-up
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C: Sample State Summary, Action Items and Letter
Sample Letter
Dear
Thank you for hosting the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and (state) review of the State's toxics control program
on (date). I understand that the discussion was constructive,
and that there was agreement on many of the items discussed.
Enclosed is a brief summary of the State's toxics control proaram
and a list of "action items" prepared by the EPA participants^
The list includes input from representatives from Headquarters,
the Regional Office and the (State) Office. This list represents
EPA's guidance to you for the preparation of your "action plan"
for improving the State's toxics control program.
The State program for controlling toxic pollutants has some
notable strong points. In particular, .
While the State has a program for monitoring and identifying
problems caused by toxic pollutants, further improvement; through
additional ambient and effluent monitoring, (including toxicity
testing) would strengthen this key element of your program.
I understand that (State) relies primarily on the narrative
provision of its standards regulation (i.e. "free from toxics in
toxic amounts") and a case-by-case assessment approach to control
toxicity. The new Clean water Act Amendments of 1987 require
more explicit documentation of toxic problems and control proce-
dures. The attached list of action items reflects areas where
our staffs have discussed the need for explicit procedures to
improve the State's ongoing orogram to meet the requirements of
the new CWA Amendments. Major recommendations covered by the
enclosed list include the following:
0 Procedures for documenting and controlling human
health and bioaccumulation problems.
0 Adoption of numeric criteria in state standards and
procedures for developing site-specific criteria.
0 Application of acute and chronic criteria in the
wasteload allocation (WLA) process.
0 Procedures for translating WLA results into permits.
0 Procedures for collecting and using toxicity testing
data to write water quality-based permits and perform
toxicity reduction evaluations.
The enclosed list of action items is organized by program
area. I would appreciate your specifying in your action plan
-------
Sample Summary of State Toxics Control Program with Action It^ms
Program Overview
In general, the (State) permit program for toxics is
primarily technology-based. All industrial permits except
one (ore production for metals) are technology-based and all
are at BCT/BAT. All municipal permits exceot three (two for
ammonia and one for chlorine) are technology-based and all
are secondary treatment. The few water quality based permits
are for aquatic life protection; there are no water quality-based
permits for human health protection.
Institutional Mechanisms
State law and regulation provide a broad mandate for water
pollution control activities in general, including control of
toxics. Documentation of the State's toxics control program is
currently in draft form and scheduled to be finalized by the fall
of 1987. Regional guidance is currently being drafted and
addresses three subject areas related to toxics control; antide-
gradation, revision of water quality standards, and biomonitoring*
There is some overlapping authority between the State
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences and the
Departments of Agriculture and State Lands. However, this
was not felt to be a problem, in summary, the State believes it
has adequate authority for regulation of toxics.
Action Item:
* Complete Toxics Implementation Document
water Quality Standards
The State has no numeric criteria in the water quality
standards. Although there are relatively few toxics problems,
it is clear that additional criteria will be needed to comply
with the CWA requirements to adopt criteria for S307(a) toxic
pollutants which are interfering with designated uses.
Generally, chronic criteria are applied at the 7Q10 design
flow; i.e. at the edge of the mixing zone. There is generally no
analysis of acute toxicity; although acute toxicity was evaluated
for two metal discharges.
Action Items;
* need numeric criteria for toxic pollutants in State
standards, in accordance with S303(c)(2) as amended
0 need two number criteria (acute/chronic) tied to mixing
zones,
* need whole effluent criteria (i.e. TUa/TUc),
0 need procedures for development of site-specific
-------
criteria where toxics are "naturally occurring", and
0 need to address human health and biocaccumulation in
standards program, including definition of risk levels.
Identification of Waters in Need of Toxics Control
The 305(b) process is the primary focus of monitoring
activities aimed at identifying water bodies in need of toxics
control. Information in the 305(b) report is also supplemented
by State assessment priorities including permit renewals, POTW
upgrades, and special priority water bodies. The state is plan-
ning to use the severity index system developed by the Region to
identify problems. Some special "before and after" assessments
have also'been performed. The State has developed an appropriate
schedule for assessing all waters in accordance with 5304(1) of
the CWA.
Action Item;
0 increase activities to identify toxics problems through
ambient and effluent chemical and biological monitoring
and incorporate the results of the activities into the
lists developed pursuant to $304(1).
Exposure Assessment and wasteload Allocations
Generally, WLA procedures are not well documented. The
State applies chronic criteria at the 7Q10, with nonpoint sources
addressed in the background levels used to imolement their non-
degradation policy. Acute toxicity is not addressed in WLA
procedures.
Action Items;
0 Need separate WLA and design flow for acute toxicity.
* Need WLA, including selection of design flow, for
human health criteria.
Effluent Characterization and Permitting Procedures
The State currently uses various sources of information to
identify toxics in point source discharges. The State primarily
supports chemical specific limits for toxics based upon applica-
tion information and information on specific chemicals mon-itored
in the receiving water. In-stream studies are sometimes required
of permittees. The State has been reluctant to require effluent
toxicity testing of its permittees.
There are no formally documented permit derivation procedures
except as noted in the draft implementation guidance. Derivation
of permit limits based upon wasteload allocations are transferred
directly into permit limits on a case-by-case basis. In general,
the chronic criteria is applied at 7Q10 and the State does not
currently require toxicity reduction evaluations.
-------
The State will write individual control strategies for
NPDES permittees discharging to waters impacted by point
source dischargers"of toxic wastewaters (the Paragraoh 3 list)
where those permittees have been shown to cause or contribute
to that impact. No significant problems in complying with the
2/4/89 deadline are projected.
Action Items;
0 Document procedures for translating WLAs into permits
that include consideration of acute and chronic
toxicity and effluent variability.
0 Expand data generation requirements into permits,
particularly effluent toxicity testing.
0 Develop standard permit language for TREs and require
TREs in permits, where appropriate.
-------
those new initiatives you will undertake and the projected
schedule for implementation of each item. The State's draft
"Implementation Guidance" may serve as the basis for resoonding
to these action items. Please provide your action plan to me
by (date).
We fully appreciate that the action plan items I am
suggesting will be an ambitious set of initiatives for your
State. Please feel free to call on me for clarification or
further discussion if you have any problems with these
suggestions.
Sincerely,
Director
Water Management Division
EPA, Region
Enclosure
------- |