ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               OFFICE OF  ENFORCEMENT
                     PROPOSED
        NATIONWIDE HEAVY METALS  POLLUTION
                 CONTROL PROGRAM
                     PREPARED BY
DIVISION OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - DENVER  CENTER
                 DENVER,COLORADO
                  AUGUST  1971

-------
Metals Pollution Control
Program

-------
        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

             OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
                   Proposed
       Nationwide Heavy Metals Pollution

                Control Program
                  Prepared by
Division of Field Investigations  - Denver Center
               Denver,  Colorado
                 August  1971

-------
Section
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S1J}U1AItY
THEPROBLEM
THE OCCURRENCE OF HEAVY METALS IN THE
ENVIRONNENT .
The Polluting Mechanism
Page
1
3
6
• . . . • . . 8
8
9
10
AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON HEAVY METALS POLLUTION
PROPOSED PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES . . . .
APPROACH AND PLAN OF PROGRAM
Screening Phase .
Effluent Evaluation Phase
Intensive Evaluation Phase
Abatement Actions Phase
Technical AssIstance and Follow—up Phase
ANALYTICAL SUPPORT
Limits of Detection
Availability of Instruction in EPA Facilities
Proposed Analytical Support
• • 10
• . 16
16
PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF
Arsenic (As)
Copper (Cu)
Cadmium (Cd)
Lead (Pb) . . .
Zinc (Zn)
Chromium (Cr) •
Mercury (Hg)
Other Metals
CONCERN
. I S S S
S I S •
I • S
S I S S S S S

AQUATIC
. S S I
I S I I I S
• S S S S S
•

• S S S S I
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
NaturalSources
Sources Attributable to Nan’s Activities
: :
• • . 18
• . . 18
22
• 23
24
24
• . . 25
• . . 26
• . 28
• . 28
1

-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
BUDGETANDSTAFFINC .30
STAFF REQUIREMENT — FIELD INVESTIGATION CENTERS . 30
STAFF REQUIREMENT - REGIONS . . . 30
BUDGET
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
1 AREAS FROM WHICH RUNOFF MAY
CONTAIN HEAVY METALS Follows Page 9
2 SCHEDIJLE OF PHASES
NATIONWIDE HEAVY METALS SURVEY Follows Page 32
LIST OF TABLES
Table No . Title
1 Classes of Industries and the Metals 11
WHich Nay Be Wasted
2 Comparison of Minimum Detection Limits 27
by Wet Chemistry, Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry and Atomic Fluor—
escence Spectrophotornetry
3 Staffing Requirements FY 72—7 31
Nationwide Heavy Metals Pollution
Control Program
11

-------
INTRODUCTION
The recent alarm created by discovery of hazardous concentrations
of mercury in the nation’s waterways, and the cleanup effort which
followed, served to illustrate the many ways in which heavy metals
and toxic substances can be introduced into man’s environment, the
insidious nature of such occurrences, and the utter lack of adequate
safeguards against the resultant ecological effects. The focus of
attention to the mercury scare, by all concerned with environmental
protection, eclipsed the threat posed by other heavy metals and toxic
substances. With the most apparent aspects of the mercury hazard now
documented and subjected to the corrective processes, it is necessary
that the Environmental Protection Agency turn its attention to the
toxic elements and compounds which pollute the environment. Additionally,
a more detailed follow—up examination of the mercury pollution situa-
tion is needed in order to identify and abate the less obvious sources.
This plan proposes an approach to the orderly documentation of the
pollution of the nation’s waters by heavy metals and toxic substances
and the means by which abatement would be attained.
The proposed program will be directed primarily toward the heavy
metals Cadmium (Cd), Copper (Cu), Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg),
and Zinc (Zn), and the element Arsenic (As). Arsenic is not a metal, but
the hazard to the environment, the biotic response, and the prevalence
in industrial discharges require that this element and its derivative
compounds be considered with the metals listed. The occurrence and

-------
2
magnitude of pollution by other metals such as aluminum, iron, silver,
• selenium, molybdenum, uranium, and vanadium will be investigated where
appropriatP.. For the sake of simplicity of presentation. in this proposal,
the terms “heavy metals” and ‘ heavy metals and their salts” include the
element arsenic and the derivatives of arsenic.

-------
‘3
SUMMARY
With appropriate actions to correct the mercury pollution problem
now under way, the Environmental Protection Agency must turn its atten-
tion to the equally great hazards associated with pollution by other
heavy metals and toxic substances, and to the sources of such pollu-
tion. The elements, referred to herein as “heavy metals”, which are
of primary concern are Cadmium (Cd), Copper (Cu), Chromium (Cr), Lead
(Pb), Zinc (Zn) and Arsenic (As). The proposed study will also include
analyses of all samples for Mercury (Hg). These elements are of
particular significance because of their prevalence in natural runoff
and industrial wastes, because of their toxic effect upon biota, and
because of their persistence once introduced to the aquatic environment.
A nationwide heavy metals pollution control program is proposed.
The objectives and their priorities are:
1. Identify the waters in the nation which are polluted by heavy
metals or for which there exists substantial threat of pollution.
2. Evaluate the actual and potential hazards associated with the
polluted waters identified.
3. Identify the sources of heavy metals pollution and initiate
their immediate abatement by the most expeditious means avail-
able.
4. Design and implement technical and admistrative programs
which will prevent recurrence of heavy metals pollution.
The proposed program would be carried out in five phases. The
phases are of equal priority in that they are mutually supportive. Ai.l

-------
4
phases are necessary to bring the program to a successful conclusion.
The magnitude of several of the phases could be reduced, but only at the
expense of adequate coverage.
Screening : A nationwide examination of heavy metals content in
municipal and commercial water systems, irrigation waters and fisheries.
The work will include review and updating of criteria for heavy metals
in water, a review of existing heavy metals data, studies of geologic
formations which yie].d heavy metals in runoff. From these findings,
areas requiring more intensive examination would be identified.
Effluent Evaluation: An examination of industrial waste discharges
to identify sources of heavy metals pollution.
Intensive Evaluation : Stream surveys in problem areas, as identified
by the Screening Phase, to thoroughly evaluate the extent and magnitude
of each problem area, to evaluate the effects on the receiving waters,
and to develop the basis for appropriate abatement actions.
Abatement: Prepare abatement cases under the Refuse Act, the
Water Quality Act, and new legislation, as appropriate.
Technical Assistance and Follo p: Assist EPA Regional Offices
in the establishment of monitoring and follow—up programs to insure
prevention of future heavy rietals pollution problems.
A nationwide program to be directed and supported by the Division
of Field Investigations — Denver and Cincinnati Centers, is proposed.
With new equipment now available, a viable program can be carried out
in three years with the assignment of 32 positions to each of the Field
Investigations Centers ai id 30 positions to the Regions. The three—year

-------
5
cost, not indluding the Research Phase, is estimated at $7,706,000.
The program, as proposed herein, is believed to be the minimum
commitment and the optimum approach to a rigorous examination and abate—
ment of heavy metals pollution of the nation’s waters.

-------
6
THE PROBLEM
PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF CONCERN
Seven “heavy metals” are of primary concern because of one or more
of the following properties:
Toxicity to. living cells
Tendency to accumulate in living tissues
Concentrating effect in various food chains
Solubility of metallic salts in water
• Persistence in water
• Synergisms
Widespread occurrence
The seven metals and their effects arc discussed briefly below. A
more detailed discussion of the water quality significance of these metals
is provided in Appendix A.
Arsenic (As) In elemental form, arsenic is insoluble in water, but
many of the arsenates are highly soluble. Arsenic occurs naturally in
waters of the western United States, and as a result of mining and indus
trial activities. Arsenic is directly toxic to humans and is believed to
be carcinogenic.
Copper (Cu) Metallic copper is insoluble in water, but many salts of
copper are highly soluble. Undesirable concentrati ns of cop .er are
usually the result of corrosion of copper pipes, industrial discharges,
and other activities of man. The primary significance áf copper is its
toxicity to aquatic organisms. Such toxicity isintensified by synergisms
with other metals.

-------
.7
Cadmium (Cd) The chloride, nitrate, and sulfate of this metal are
highly soluble. Cases of cadmium poisoning in humans are reported with
increasing frequency, particularly in highly industrialized areas.
Cadmium is concentrated in the liver, kidneys, pancreas, and thyroidóf
humans and other mammals.
Lead (Pb) Lead occurs as a result of natural and man—made conditions.
It is a cumulative poison and, in soft water, is very toxic to humans.
Zinc (Zn) Salts of zinc, which are highly soluble in water, are often
found in industrial wastes and in mine drainage. The significance of
zinc as a water pollutant lies principally in the aesthetic effect of
its milky appearance in water, in the taste imparted to drinking water,
and in its toxicity to fish and aquatic organisms.
Chromium (Cr) Many of the salts of chromium are soluble in water
and occur almost exclusively as a result of industrial discharges and
treatment of cooling water. The hexavalent salts cause adverse physio-
logical effects in humans and are cumulative in fish.
Mercury (Hg) Elemental mercury is insoluble in water, but is converted
to methyl mercury by industrial and biological processes. In the
methylated form, mercury is taken up by aquatic life and is concentrated
through tite food chain. The symptoms and effects of mercury poisoning
in humans are well kno n.
Other Metals Although emphasis is placed upon the criticality of the
seven “heavy metals” listed, others are believed to be of concern in
certain areas. These include selenium (Sc), molybdenum (Mo), vanadium
(V), uranium (U), silver (Ag), and iro i (Fe).

-------
8
THE OCCURRENCE OF HEAVY METALS IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
The Polluting Mechanism
Heavy metals are introduced to streams as a result of natural
processes, man’s activities, and combinations thereof. Most metals
occur, in nature, as suif ides which are oxidized when exposed. This
mechanism prevails both in the natural runoff situation and in mine
drainage. The products of oxidation are sulfuric acid and solutions
of metallic ions. The ions of some metals, such as lead and silver,
combine with chlorides in water to form relatively insoluble products.
Similarly, barium reacts with sulfate ions in water and precipitates.
Ferric iron adsorbs on silica, forming the characteristic “yellow
boy” stain on rocky stream beds. These precipitates can limit or
eliminate productivity in streams and are devastating to the.aesthetic
values of the affected waterway. These conditions are particularly
prevalent in the eastern U.S. Under favorable pH and temperature
conditions, other metals precipitate and become available for uptake
by benthic organisms, or are redissolved after conversion to other forms.
The other metals which remain in solution, in streams and impoundments,
are available for uptake by aquatic plants and animals and can be
concentrated through the food chain. Dissolved metals are also consumed
directly by humans and higher animals, and are thus a health hazard.
Mercury is the only metal known to be transported in elemental form by
water. Heavy metals are introduced to the nation’s waterways by a
wide variety of industrial process waste discharges.

-------
Natural Sources
Heavy metals are present, in trace quantities, in most of the
rocks which form the earths crust. Some areas or formations
contain greatly more concentrated deposits. Such areas are usually
associated with Tertiary or Recent volcanism. In the continental United
States, most of these areas are located west of the Mississippi River.
Exceptions include the Franklin Furnace area of New Jersey and the
Driftiess area of Wisconsin and Illinois. The latter contain base—
metal sulfide deposits.
The tn—state district of Oklahoma, lansas and Missouri is
characterized by lead—zinc sulfides in bedded limestone. Other major
metallic deposits are in the Basin and Range Province of Nevada,
along the Rocky Mountains, and in the Cascade Range of Oregon and
Washington. Locations of these areas are shown in Figure 1.
Areas in which streams are known to be polluted by runoff containing
heavy metals include: the Tn—State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri,
the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado, the Tenlingua district
of West Texas, the Coe ir d’Alenc district of Idaho, the Redding,
California area, the Virginia City area of Nevada and California, and
the Butte area of Montana. It is likely, even certain, that streams
in many other areas are similarly affected.
Many groundwater bodies contain excessive amounts of metallic
salts. Much work is needed to more clearly delineate such areas, and
the possibilities for control of groundwater pollution sources require
examination.

-------
0 F M E X I C 0
LEGEND
AREAS OF TERTIARY OR RECENT VOLCANISM
MINING AREAS
Figire 1. Areas From which Runoff ay Cutain Heavy Metals

-------
10
Sources Attributable to Man t s Activities
Nining of metallic ores invariably involves exposure of lower
grade materials containing metallic sulfides to air and/or water so
that the oxidation products become available for transport to streams.
Nining of other minerals similarly exposes metallic sulfides in
stripped areas and in waste piles. Recovery and refining processes
generate large volumes of waste liquors containing dissolved metals,
which frequently find their way into surface and subsurface waters.
Thus, the metals industries are frequently sources of heavy metals
pollution.
A wide variety of industries use heavy metals and their salts. as
raw products or as process additives in wayswhich result in the
generation of wastes containing the metals. Other industries remove
metals and their salts as impurities and must dispose of these wastes
in some way. Unfortunately, much of this material is ultimately
transported to the nation’s waters.
Classes of industries, and the metals which may be discharged
as wastes., are summar: zed in Table 1. The industries listed are found in
all parts of the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
Thus, the potential for heavy metals pollution is present throughout the
United States and its possessions.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON HEAVY 1 TALS POLLUTION
The body of knowledge regarding the occurrence of heavy metals
pollution is grossly inadequate for analysis of the problem. The
inadequacy of existing information is a function of limited recognition

-------
11
TABLE l.——Classes of Industries and the Metals Ihich may be Wasted
Industry
Metals
1. Electroplating
2. Iron and steel pickling
3. Motor vehicles and parts
4. Blast furnaces and steel mills
5. Industrial gases
6. Ceramic
7. Cement
8. Glass
Chlorine
Electrothermal
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Bromine
Fluorocarbons
Photographic products
Surface coating agents and
pigments
Leather, gelatin, adhesives
Agricultural chemicals
Fragrance, flavor and food
additives
Copper, zinc, nickel, chromium,
cadmium, lead, tin, aluminum,
magnesium
Iron
Chromium, iron, aluminum, zinc
Iron, chromium, zinc, tin
Chromium, iron, nickel, zinc
Iron, antimony, lead, aluminum,
chromium, titanium
Aluminum, iron
Lead, aluminum, arsenic, variety
of metallic oxides
Mercury
Iron
Iron
Iron, aluminum
Iron
Antimony
Silver
Cobalt, manganese, lead, zinc,
aluminum, chromium, titanium
Chromium
Copper, mercury, arsenic
Chromiuni, aluminum (catalys ts)
9.
•1o.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17
18.
19.

-------
12
Table 1 (Continued)
20. Oils, fats and waxes
21. Soaps and detergents, fatty
acids
22. Pulp and paper
23. Plastics
24. Man—made fibers and film
25. Rubber
26. Petroleum refining,
petrochemicals
27. Itermediates, dyes
Nickel
Aluminum, zinc, magnesium, calcium
Aluminum, titanium
Iron, lead, copper, aluminum
(powdered metals as fillers),
mercury, cobalt, silver
Iänganese, cobalt, titanium,
copper, palladium
Aluminum, copper, zinc, chromium
Lead, zinc, aluminum, cobalt,
nickel
Iron, aluminum, copper, chromium,
zinc, lead, sodium
Zinc, platinum, palladium, copper
28. Pharmaceutics

-------
13
of the importance of heavy metals in the aquatic environment, the
dynamics of the problem within any given reach of stream, and the lack
of accuracy and sensitivity (until recently) of data which have been
acquired.
The National Water Quality Network (PHS—DWSPC) which evolved
into the Water Pollution Surveillance System (FWPCA) gathered heavy
metals data from some ].30 stations throughout the nation. A summary
of metals concentrations for Water Years 1962 through 1967 was
recently published by the FWQA Division of Pollution Surveillance.
These analyses show that 177 samples exceeded criteria established by
the National Technical Advisory Committee for heavy metals. This
report is a sophisticated and authentic analysis of the data, but the
density of coverage of the nation’s waters was probably less than one
percent of that which is required for a rigorous evaluation of the
problem.
The U. S. Geological Survey recently completed a “Reconnaissance
of Selected H nor Elements in Surface Waters of the United States”.
The heavy metals content of “more than 720 water samples from urban
and’ rural locations in all 50 states. . .“ was compared to the mandatory
maximum limits prescribed by the Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards. The limiting concentrations were exceeded, for one or more
elements, in 45 samples. This reconnaissance provided useful, up—to—date
information, but fails greatly short of the density of coverage needed.
Moreover, samples were taken during low streamf low periods in order
to minimize in—stream dilution. This approach does’ not provide for
coveragc.of inputs from intermittent st :eams. The importance of

-------
14
metals contributions by intermittent streams and sources will be
discussed later.
Many random or short—term bits of, heavy metals pollution data have,
been acquired by various agencies. Some of these data are available
in published form and from. STORET, but the majority are of limited
value. Substantial strides have been made, in the very recent past,
in analytical methods for the metals of concern, most notably Cd, Cr,
Cu, Zn, and Hg. Much of the literature and stored data reflect earlier
metals data obtained by less sensitive and precise analyses than are
now available, and results are reported accordingly. Many ‘of the
present standards and criteria are based upon those questionable data.
Moreover, recent studies .sho that lower concentrations of heavy metals
are significant in terms of the aquatic environment.
The chemistry and dynamics of heavy metals in water are such that
minor changes ‘in temperature and alkalinity can cause precipitation,
ion exchange, or chemical combinations within relatively short reaches
of streams. This faét makes it’necessary that a comprehensive
evaluation of heavy metals pollution, within a given watershed, be
based upon a density of sampling locations which will insure coverage
of all sources as well as all important water uses. The literature
cited above falls far short of such coverage in all of the geographic
locations which must be surveyed. Although better examples doubtless
exist in the highly industrialized areas of the eastern and southern
United States, the following two areas in Colorado illustrate the point:
1. Headwaters streams of the Colorado River Basin such as
the Eagle River and Roaring Fork are known to contain

-------
15
concentrations of heavy metals which are hazardous to the
aquatic environment or to humans. Communities in Colorado
such as Minturn, Rifle, Red Cliff, DeBeque, and Eagle obtain
domestic water supplies from the headwaters streams and from
the Upper Colorado River. Numerous diversions for agricultural
use (irrigation and stock watering) are located throughout
the Basin.
The most upstream sampling point considered in the studies
cited above was at Fruita, which is located well downstream
from some of these points of use. The data,’ thus, shed no
light on the suitability of these streams for the uses to
which the waters ‘are subjected.
2. Clear Creek, which is known to be polluted by mine drainage
throughout most of its length, is the water supply for Thornton,
Westminster Silver Plume, Starkville, Golden, and Arvada,
as well as a major source for the Consolidated Mutual Water
Company of the Denver metropolitan area. There is no information
in the USGS or WPSS studies regarding the heavy metals content of
Clear Creek.
In summary, there is_virtually no information available which is of
suitable accuracy and density to form the basis for a nationwide
evaluation of the he . yy metals pollution situation. That which is
available will be carefully examined and, where appropriate, will be
incorporated into the studies proposed herein.

-------
16
PROPOSED PROGRAM
-The Field Investigations Centers — Denver and Cincinnati — are
charged with “. . . . emergency response on a nationwide basis concerning
pollution of the water environment”, and to “conduct . . . . complex
field investigations requiring specialized interdisciplinary cOmpeten-
cies . . . .“. The proposed program, thus, is clearly of the forim and
substance contemplated in the functional statements for the Centers.
The Denver Center laboratory is rapidly approaching operational
status and, by the target date for initiation of this proposed program,
will be capable of supporting the study in the western U. S. The Cincinnati
Center is partially equipped to supportthe program in the eastern U. S.
Purchase of some additional equipment will be necessary. With modest
augmentation of the engineering and specialty staffs, the Centers can
provide the -direction, -coordination, data processing and analysis, and
report production required. The Headquarters Research staff should be
assigned responsibility for a timely review of the applicable hea y
metals criteria and standards. It will be necessary to assign a full—
time heavy metals program coordinator in each Regional Office for the
duration of the program.
OBJECTIVES - -
- A many—faceted program is required to evaluate the extent and
magnitude of the heavy metals pollution problem, to update the criteria
especially in terms of domestic consumption; to abate the pollution
sources; and to provide the basis for prevention of heavy metals

-------
17
pollution in the future. The objectives are to:
1. Identify the waters in the nation which are polluted by heavy
metals or for which substantial threat of pollution by heavy
metals exists.
2. Evaluate the actual and potential hazards associated with the
polluted waters identified.
3. Identify the sources of heavy metals pollution and initate
their immediate abatement by the most expeditious means
available. 0 0
4. Assist Regional staffs with the design and implementation of
technical and administrative programs which will prevent
recurrence of heavy metals pollution.

-------
18
APPROACH AND PLAN OF PROGRAM
Screening Phase
The screening operation is designed to carry out the tasks which are
necessary to identify reaches of streams, impoundments, and ground water
bodies which are polluted by heavy metals. These tasks include the estab —
lishment of “sorting limits”, a review of existing heavy metals data, a
study of geologic formations to identify areas from which runoff could be
expected to contain heavy metals, and analysis of water samples from points
of significant* water use. These tasks are described below.
Standards and criteria for certain of the heavy metals are expressed
in narrative terms or in terms of bioassay results. These criteria vary
widely (see Appendix A) and require translation to numerical criteria for
use in the screening operation. The DFI staffs will review existiiig
criteria and recent research findings, and derive numerical criteria based,
where possible, upon solid technical evidence. In the absence of such
evidence “sorting limits” based upon the best information available will
be established. Such criteria leave much to be desired from a technical
and scientific standpoint. Their use in this rogratn will be limited to.
the flagging of those waters and effluents requiring further study in
the Intensive Evaluation Phase.
As indicated earlier, existing heavy metals data from all
appropriate sources will be utilized to the extent possible. In view
of recent advances in analytical technique and data reporting, highly
selective sorting of existing data will be required. Data, which by
virtue of analytical and reporting techniques employed are of suitable
* Points of significant water use are defined as municipal water systems,
commercial water systems s’ rving 101) or more persons, and major
irrigation diversions and fisheries.

-------
19
quality, will become input to the Screening Phase.
Primary sources of existing data will be the STORET system and
the state water pollution control agencies. State Fish and Game agencies
will be asked to furnish information regarding waters in which heavy metals
pollution affects fisheries. }Ieavy metals data in the STORET system
will be sorted against the numerical limits which are to he established
during the Research Phase. Data made available by state agencies will be
stored by the Denver and Cincinnati Centers and sorted similarly.
A review of the mineralogy of outcrops which affect surface water
quality, and of formations which determine the metals content of major
groundwater supplies, will be conducted to identify streams and water
supplies which should be sampled in the Screening Phase. This review
will also identify waters which can he expected to contain significant
concentrations of metals other then the seven principal elements for
which analyses are to be performed on all samples.
Both surface and groundwater domestic supplies are to be. evaluated
in the screening operation. Samples from water systems will be subjected
to: analysis for the seven principal elements Plus those indicated by
the mineralogic review as being significant in each case. In addition
to the seven principal elements, samples from the major irrigation
diversions will be analyzed for the metals which are critical in terms
of plant uptake, such as boron and molybdenum. Similarly, samples from
established fisheries will be analyzed for the metals which are critical
to fish and the food chain as wall as those which are concentrated in
fish flesh.

-------
20
The. Geological Survey measured.heavy metals concentrations during
low—stream flow periods, during the Reconnaissance of Minor Elements,
based upon the assumption that maximum metals concentrations would
occur when the least quantity of dilution water was present in streams.
This assumption is only partially correct. In semi—arid and arid
regions (which coincide, generally, with the areas of Tertiary and
Recent volcanism mentioned earlier) many headwaters streams are dry
at times during which main streams are at low—flow. These headwaters
streams are primary sources of naturally occurring heavy metals pollution.
Thus, contributions of metals may ‘be at a lower—than--average level or
non—existent during the low—flow period. A more extreme situation is
illustrated by the Bagdad Copper Mine in Arizona, and the Kennecott
Mine and Mill, Tyrone, New Mexico, in which metals—laden wastes are
discharged to intermittent streams. During much of the year, these
wastes percolate into the dry streambeds, such that they are subject to
leaching and flushing into higher order streams during runoff periods.
In uch areas sampling should be scheduled during low—flow periods
arid during ‘periods when tributaries are flowing. Another consideration
is that natural alkalinity, which promotes precipitation of some metals,
is usually at highest: J.evels during low flow. Additionally, “low—flown
is not a consideration in reaches downstream of impoundments in which
current patterns are such that mixing occurs, or if “plug flow” prevails.
Most reservoirs are characterized by one of these two possibilities.
In short, it will he necessary to study each’ basin carefully and schedule
sampling accordingly.

-------
21
There are some 20,000 water systems in the United States and
territories. It is estimated that upwards of one—fourth of these will
require sampling more than once during the Screening Phase. Adding
the supplementary sampling of irrigation diversions and fisheries, the
total number of samples to be generated by the Screening Phase may
reach 25,000.
The Regional Heavy Metals Program Coordinators would have as a
primary task during the Screening Phase, the coordination of sampling
by water system personnel, irrigation district personnel, and state
and local water pollution control staffs. Samples would be analyzed at
DPI laboratories. In view of the logistics and the many samples
involved, no attempt would be raade to provide the custody accorded samples
and data which are to be used in abatement proceedings. The data would
be evaluated to locate problem areas and sources. The Critical Evaluation
phase is designed to provide more intensive sampling, in the problem
areas. The sampling and associated analysis and data handling would be
carried out u ider appropriate custodial controls.
The Screening Phase can be completed in approximately 18 months
with the commitment of resources recommended in the Budget and Staffing
portion of this proposal. The water sampling program will be carried out
by state and local official , water and sewage treatment plant operators,
etc., under the guidance and supervision of the Regional Coordinators.
It is estimated that 24 man—months of effort will be required by the
Regional Coordinators to carry out the coordination of this phase.
The review of existing data, the mineralogy review, the establishment
of numerical criteria, the analyses of samnles, and evaluation of data

-------
22
will be conducted by the DPI staffs. The DPI manpower requirement for
completion of this phase is expected to be 680 man—months.
Effluent Evaluation Phase
A review of industrial waste inventories, indices such as Dunn. &
Bradstreet, will be carried out to identify industries of the types listed
in Table 1. Information obtained from the National Industrial Inventory
and Refuse Act permit applications will be integrated into the study.
Liquid effluents from industries identified will be analyzed for heavy
metals content. If discharge is to a municipal collection and treatment
system, the municipal waste will be sampled at the point of discharge and
will be similarly analyzed. Sampling of industries identified by the
review process can begin shortly after initiation of the review, and
should provide the basis for large numbers of Refuse Act cases.
It is anticipated that additional industrial sources will be
identified as a result of the screening operation. These will be
sampled as they become evident. Thus the Effluent Evaluation Phase
cannot be completed prior to completion of the Screening Phase. Effluent
samples from industries,so identified will be analyzed for the seven
principal elements, plus those of water pollution significance which
are associated with the particular industry. Full custodial control
of effluent samples will be maintained.
The review of industrial waste source information will be cariied
out jointly by the Regional Coordinators and the DPI staffs. Collection
and analysis of industrial waste samples will be conducted by the DPI
staffs.

-------
23
This phase is expected to generate about 10,000 samples and will
require commitment of 34 man-months by the Regional Program Coordinators
and 550 man—months by the DFI staffs.
Intensive Evaluation Phase
The Intensive Evaluation Phase is designed as the follow—up to
the Screening Phase. Streams, impoundments, and groundwater supplies
which are identified by the screening operation as having excessive
concentrations of metals will be examined closely to determine the
extent and magnitude of the problem, to identify the sources, and to
assess damage to the waters. This examination will include analysis
of aquatic organisms, fish, and sediment for heavy metals. In the
case of polluted groundwater supplies, the causes or sources of the
pollution will he identified by DFI specialists and appropriate control
measures will he recommended.
This activity may generate upwards of 10,000 water, effluent, fish,
benthos, and sediment samples. Full custodial control must be maintained
upon each sample aud the analytical data. Regional Coordinators and
staffs will be called upon to obtain and compile existing data, make
initial investigations, and carry out local coordination. DFI—Denver
and Cincinnati crews will cond.uct the stream surveys and effluent
evaluations. Work can begin on this phase shortly after initial results
from the screening and effluent sampling become available, but cannot
be considered complcte until the last samples from the other phases
have been analyzed. The manpower rcquircments can be expected to
amount to 30 man--mouths by the Regional. Coordinators and staffs and
738 man—months by the Denver and Cincinnati Field Investigations staffs.

-------
24
Abatement. Actions Phase
As indicated earlier, Refuse Act cases should be gene -rated almost
from the. initiation of the Effluent Evaluation Phase.- Information
developed by the effluent and intensive sampling can be expected- to
provide the basis for substantial numbers of ne’i or reconvened enforcement
conferences. It is impossible to predict actual numbers of abatement
actions which will grow out of the Heavy Metals Program, but the total
will probably be of such numbers that additional staff will be required
at the Headquarters level to provide timely handling of the cases.
The DFI staffs can be expected to devote approximately 272
man—months during this phase to the preparation of reports and sup— -
porting materials for the abatement, actions. The Regional Coordinators
will commit 30 man—months. This activity is expected to continue
indefinitely with commitment of 36 man—months per year by the Centers
and 12 man—months per year by the Regional Coordinators.
Technica]. Assistance and Follow—up Phase
The abatement actions resulting from the Heavy Metals program will
require a substantial follow—up effort. The primary activity in this
phase will be the resatupling and reevaluation of effluents and reaches
of streams to insure that abatement schedules are met. It will,
moreover, be necessary that the Regions utilize the findings of the
Heavy Metals Program to design new surveillance schemes and augment
existing systems such that recurrence of heavy metals pollution will
he discerned immediately.
This activity will. be carried out locally by the Regional Heavy Metals
Program Coordinators with technical and laboratory backup from the DFI -Centers.

-------
25
It is expected to require 5 man—months of effort by Coordinators,
and 60 man—months by DPI personnel. This activity is expected
to continue indefinitely and \7i11 require commitment of 36 man—months
per year by the Centers and 12 man—months per ‘year by the Regional.
Coordinators.
ANALYTICAL SU1’PORT
A variety of analytical methods are available for heavy metals
in water. Virtually all metals can be quantified by standard colorimetric
or “wet chemical’ 1 methods. Most of these procedures have been supplanted
by more accurate (and often faster) instrumental methods, but wetchemistry
is the best method, at this time, for arsenic, selenium, vanadium, and
boron. Arsenic can be determined most accurately by the Silver
Diethyldithio—carbamate Method. Selenium requires the Diaminobenzidine
Method. Vanadium can be analyzed by the Catalytic Oxidation Method.
Analysis for boron requires ti. e Dianthrimide method. All of these pro-
cedures are described in recent issues of Standard Methods.
Fortunately, most metals can be detected with relative ease by
atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AA). Samples of industrial
effluents and many natural waters may be aspirated directly into the
flame with satisfactory accur cy. Lower detection limits can be ob-
tained by chelation and extraction with methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
or by evaporation. .Maxiynum production capacity for cadmium, zinc,
copper, lead and chromium is about 40 samples per day.
Other methods which are available for trace metal analysis in-
clude emission spectrophotometry, s ar1ç, source mass spectrometry,

-------
26
atomic fluorescence, and neutron activation.
Emission spectrophotomctry can be used to detect many metals,
simultaneously, in a sample. Sensitivity depends upon the salt con-
centration in a sample and is often inferior to that Of the AA.
Furthermore, the instrumentation’ is expensive ($80 — $90,000). A
spark source mass spectrometer can measure all of the elements
simultaneously in a sample. Sensitivity is generally inferior to
other methods, and though a sample canbe analyzed in 20 minutes,
without computer, as much as an entire day of the analyst’s time may
be required to calculate the results. Price Of the instrument, without
computer, is about $100,000.
Atomic Fluorescence Spectrophotometry (APS) offers production
advantages in heavy metals analysis, but the instrument has not been
shown to be of sufficient accuracy for the work contemplated. An
automated unit costing approximately $42,000 is now being produced by
Technicon Instrument Company. This instrument is ‘capable of analyzing
up to 100 sarajües per hour, for six elements including copper, cadmium,
chromium, and zinc. It is expected that this capability will soon
include arsenic, lead, ‘and selenium. In the event accuracy and sensitivity
are improved to acceptable levels, consideration will he given to ‘the.
employment of AFS equipment.
Neutron activation can often produce highly accurate resu lts, but
is.of’ no value for production analyses of large numbers of samples.
Suitable production rates of mercury analysis can be attained
by automating the Coleman instruments now in use.

-------
27
TABLE 2
Minimum Detection Limits by
Wet Chemistry and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
Element Wet Chemistry (pgjl) Atomic Absorption (pg/i)
Direct Chelate Extraction
Aluminum (Al) 50
Arsenic (As) 1
Barium (Ba) 100
Beryllium (Be) 10
Boron (B) 20
Cadmium (Cd) 1 < 1
Chromium (Cr) 10 1
Cobalt (Co) 1
Copper (Cu) 5 1
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb) 10 1.0
Lithium (Li) 5
Manganese (Mc) 5 1
Molybdenum (Mo) 1
Nickel (Ni) 1
Selenium (Se) 1
Silver (Ag) 10 1
Strontium (Sr) 10
Vanadium (v) 0.1
Zinc (Zn) 5

-------
28
Limits of Detection
Minimum detection limits by wet chemistry and AA arc listed in Table 2.
The limits are considered to be satisfactory for the work proposed. There
is need, however, for an instrumental method for arsenic analyses. All
possible avenues leading toward an acceptable instrumental method will be
explored prior to and during the ileavy Metals program.
Availability of Instrumentation in EPA Facilities
Present capabilities for production analyses of heavy metals samples
are summarized below:
1. DFI—Cincinnati — Three AA’s are committed to mercury
analyses.
2. AQC, Cincinnati — One AA and one emission spectrograph,
which could provide limited support.
3. Kerr laboratory, Ada — Two AA s and one ommission spectro—
photometer, all of which are being used on technical support
projects in the South Central Region (Region VI); limited
manpower available.
4. Corvallis laboratory — Two AAts, one with computer printout,
working almost continuously on regional surveillance needs.
5. Southwest Region (Region IX), Alameda laboratory Two AA’s
doing surveillance work.
6. Southeast laboratory, Athens — Two AA’s primarily committed
to oil analyses. A spark source mass spectrometer without
computer printout has recently been obtained.
7. DFI—Denver Center — One AA which must be available for
other DFI—DC studies.
As in evident, an attempt to accomplish a viable heavy metals
survey with existing equipment would bring virtually all other
analytical support activities to a standstill.

-------
29
Proposed Analytical S j 1 p grt
Most of the considerations cited herein weigh heavily in favor of
production analyses using the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer and
automated mercury analysis units of the type now in use, at central
locations. This concept is most efficient in terms of laboratory
manpower and capital investment, and permits centralized data handling
and evaluation. The Instrumentation Laboratories (IL) Model 353 Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometer is a proven workhorse in many water quality
laboratories and will be utilized for most of the production analyses.
Two each with automated sampling equipment and digital printout will be
required by each laboratory. Specialized analyses will be carried out
using a Jarrel—Ash Quantometer. This instrument will provide the
capability of analyzing a wide variety of elements iii a single scan.
With this equipment the DFI laboratories, with staffs of twelve, will
be able to provide the production analyses required to support the
nationwide program.

-------
30
BUDGET AND STAFFING
STAFF REQUIRE NT — FIELD INVESTIGATION CENTERS
A technical, scientific, and clerical staff of 32 will be re-
quired for each Field Investigation Center. Position classifications
are listed in Table 3. The staffs will provide direction, technical
assistance, and laboratory support to the Nationwide Heavy Metals
Pollution Control Program. Additional specialty functions will be
performed, as required, by DPI personnel now assigned. Recruitment
of the staff should be initiated at once, with a target completion
date of January 1, 1972. Completion of the staff by that date will
permit accomplishment of the planning, reconnaissance, and training
which is necessary if field work is to begin in early 1972.
STAFF REQUIRE NT — REGIONS
A staff of 3 technical, and clerical personnel will be required
in each EPA Region to carry out the tasks outlined herein. Position
classifications are listed in Table 3. The distribution of positions
and classifications is based upon present knowledge of the nature and
magnitude of the heavy metals pollution problem and nay require
adjustment as the program proceeds. The main thrust of the Heavy
Metals Program should be completed by the end of FY 74. A one—man
staff should remain in each Region thereafter, as indicated in
Figure 2. Staff requirements for the Research Phase are to be
determined by the Office of Research and Monitoring and are not
included herein.

-------
31
TABLE 3
Staffin.g Requirements FY 72—74
Nationwide Heavy Metals Pollution Control Program
Division of Field Investigations — Denver Center ’
Program Director Physical’ Science
Administrator GS —14
Chemical, Sanitary or Industrial Engineer (5) GS—ll—12—l3
Mining or Geological Engineer (2) CS—12
Hydrologist (2) CS—l1—12—13
Programmer — Analyst GS—12
Chemist GS —12
Chemist (3)’ GS—ll
Chemist (4) GS—9
Aide’ (2) , , GS—5—7
Engineering Technician (6) , GS—5--7
Secretary—Steno (2) CS—5
Clerk—Typist (3) CS—4
Total — 32 positions
Division of Field Investigations — Cincinnati Center - ’
Program Director — Physical Science
Administrator CS—14
Chemical, Sanitary or Industrial Engineer (5) GS—ll—12—13
Mining or Geological Engineer (2) GS—12
Hydr logist (2) CS—Il—12 —13
Programmer Analyst ‘ CS—12
1/ Assumes availability of’ Atomic Fluorescence Spectrophotometry by
December 1, 1971
2/ Requirements listed are in Addition to staff presently assigned

-------
32
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Chemist GS—12
Chemist (3) CS —li
Chemist (4) GS9
Aide (2) GS—5 - -7
Engineering Technician (6) GS —5--7
Secretary—Steno (2) GS—5
Clerk—Typist (3) CS—4
Total — 32 positions
Each EPA gion ]. Office ________________
Survey Coordinator GS—14
Sanitary, Chemical or Industrial Engineer S GS—ll—13
Sec’y Stenb S CS—4—5
Total — 30 positions

-------
Figure 2
SCHEDULE OF PHASES
NATIONWIDE HEAVY METALS SURVEY
ENVIRONNENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Division of Field Investigations
Denver — Cincinnati
April 1971
Phase
FY - 72
FY
— 73
FY — 74
Beyond FY —
75
L________
Screening
Effluent Evaluation
Intensive Evaluation
.
500
180
:

.
14
10
90
10
230
f2
.
230
12.
140 j
8
258
8
.
•
340
14
Abatement Actions
38
100
138
36/yr
4
6
5
•
•
12/yr
Technical Assistance
and Follow-up
.
.
60
36/yr
5
12/yr
.
KEY man-months DFI
. man-months Regions
.
.

-------
33
BUDGET
Costs of the Heavy Metals Pollution Control Program are tabulated
below, by fiscal year and by organization. Personnel costs are based
upon Step 3 of each grade, 8 1/2 percent for benefits, anda 5 percent
cost of living increase annually and 10 percent for administrative
overhead.
FY72 FY73 FY74
DFI-DC ( $1000 ) j j O0O) 00OJ
Personnel 455 562 722
Travel 240 240 240
Equipment 98 12 12
Reagents & Supplies 4 4 4
YEARLY TOTALS 797 818 978
Total FY 72—74 = $2,593,000
FY72 FY73 FY74
DFI—CC ( $1000) ( $1000 ) $i0O0)
Personnel 455 562 722
Travel 240 240 240
Equipment 98 12 12
Reagents & Supplies
YEARLY TOTALS 797 818 978
Total FY 72—74 = $2,593,000

-------
34
FY72 FY73. FY74
Regions ( $10.00 ) ($1000) ( $1000 )
Personnel 54 67 86
Travel 10 10 10
Equipment & Supplies 5 5 5
Annual Budget — each Region 69 82 101
Total F? 72—74 $2,520,000
FY72 FY73 FY74
Estiuiatecl Total Costs $1000) ( $1000) ( $1000 )
Total Program Costs per year 2,284 2,456 2,966
Total —FY 72—74 = $7,706,000

-------
APPENDIX A
WATER QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIOUS HEAVY NETALS

-------
A-i
APPENDIX A
Introduction
The material presented in this appendix is taken from a technical
report (TR—2) entitled t IThe Impact of Various Metals on the Aquatic
Environment t , authored by Mr. Robert F. Schneider and published by
the Division of Field Investigations — Denver Center. Information on
inercu’ry was researched by Mr. Michael R. Helton. Messrs. Schneider and
Ilelton are respectively Chief, Biology Section and Staff Engineer,
DFI—DC.
WATER QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIOUS HEAVY METALS
Arsenic (As)
Water Quality——Arsenic is a normal constituent of most soils,
with concentrations ranging up to 500 mg/kg. In its elemental form,
arsenic is insoluble in water, but many of the arsenates are highly
soluble. Most, if not all, natural waters contain arsenic compounds.
Its natural oc urrence.is very common in the freshwater of the western
United States. Elsewhere (i.e., New Zealand) lethal doses of arsenic
(20 mg/animal lb.) have been recorded as occurring naturally in fresh-
water.
• Through domestic water supDlies, arsenic compounds are constantly
taken into the human body where they are cumulative. Human blood
normally contains 0.2 to 1.0 mg/l of arsenic.
In seawater, normal arsenic condentrations are recorded to he
0.003 mg/i. As mentioned above, arsenic compounds are cumulative
in living tissue. Thus, in the sea, marine plants (i.e., bro m algae)

-------
A-2
have been found to. contain concentrations up to 30 mg/k. Arsenic
is also commonly found in: marine animals. According to the work of
Vinogradov, it accumulates up to 0.3 mg/k in some molluscs, coelenterates,
and crustaceans. ?icKee and. Uolf report that shellfish may contain
over 100 mg/kg.
Biotic Resnonse——Arsenic is notorious for its toxicity to humans.
Ingestion of as little as 100 mg usually results in severe oisbning
and as little as 130 mg has proved fatal. Several incidents have
demonstrated that arsenic in water may be carcinogenic. Cancer of the
skin and possibly of the liver are att ibuted to arsenic in drinking
water.
Some bioassay work has been done with arsenic, but the results
are not based on standard testing methods such as the 96—hour TL
m
It is interesting to note that arsenic concentrations of 3—20 mg/I
have not harmed aquatic insects such as immature dragonflies, danself lies,
and mayflies. Rudolfs also reported that concentrations of 2—4 mg/i
of arsenic did not interfere in any way with the self—purification
of streams.
Standards——Governmental water quality codes often briefly define
hazardous metals and for abatement purposes the common code statement
is ‘ . . . no toxic materials (metals, often understood) in concentrations
tha will impair the usefulness of receiving waters as a source of
supply or interfere with other legitimate use of said water’. Limits
.for arsenic in water, as suggested by vaiious agencies, are summarized
in Table I which follows.

-------
A-3
TABLE 1.——Arsenic (As) Concentration (mg/i)
Arsenic
Organization & Date.
Concentration
of Recommendation - Comment
0.05 USPHS, 1942 ., Maximum permissible concentration
in drinking water.,
0.05 USPHS, 1946 ‘ Maximum permissible concentration
in drinking water.
0.2 W.B.0., 1958 Maximum allowable concentrations
for potable water.
0.2 W.1I.O. European, , Tolerance limit for drinking
1961 , water standards.
0.05 IJS?HS, 1962 Maximum allowable limit for
drinking water.
0.1 USPHS, 1962 Recommended limit for drinking
water.
0.05 State of California, Maximum limit for domestic water
1963 . supplies.
1.0 State of California, Maximum limit for irrigation
1963 water supplies.
.1.0 State of California, Maximum limit for stock and
1963 . wildlife watering.
1.0 State of California, Maximuffi limit for fish and other
1963 aquatic life waters.
0.05 , State of Texas, 1967 Maximum limit for inland waters.
1.0 , State of Texas, 1967 Maximum limit for tidal waters.
0.05 State ‘of Colorado Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) surface waters to be used for
public water supply — after
complete treatment.
0.05 State of Florida Maximum allowible limit for
(date unknown) surface waters in Florida.
0.05 ‘ . State of Illinois Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) surface waters used for public
supply — after complete treat-
ment.
0.05 State of Indiana Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) surface waters used for public
supply — after complete treat-
ment.
0.05 State of Iowa Maximum allowable limit for
- (date unknown) surface waters used for public
• - supply — after complete treat-
ment.

-------
A-4
TABLE 1.——Arseriic (As) Concentration (mg/1)——Continued
Arsenic
Organization & Date
Concentration
of Recommendation Comment
0.01 State of Minnesota Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) surface waters used for public
supply — aftercomplete treat-
ment.
0.05 State of Mississippi Maximum aliowab].e limit for
(date unknown) surface waters used for public
supply after complete treat-
ment.
0.05 State of Alaska Same as USPIIS, 1962, standards
(date unknown) for drinking water.
0.05 State of Connecticut Same as USPIIS, 1962, standards
• (date unknown) for drinking water.
0.05 State of Maine Same as USPHS, 1962., standards
(date unknown) for drinking water.
0.05 State of Michigan Same as USPF!S, 1962, standards
(date unknown) for drinking water.
0.05 State of Montana Same as USPHS, 1962, standards
(date unknown) for drinking water.
0.05 State of Nevada Same as USPHS, 1962, standards
(date unknown) for drinking water.
0.05 State of Ohio Maximum allowable limit far
(date unknown) surface waters used for public
supply — after complete treat—
merit.
0.05 State of Rhode Same as USPHS, 1962, standards
Island for drinking water.
(date unknown)
0.05 State of Vermont Same as USP}IS, 1962, standards
(date unknown) for drinking water.

-------
A-5
per (Cu )
Water Quail——Metallic copper is insoluble in water, hu.t many
copper salts are highly soluble as cupric or cuprous ions. High
concentrations of cupric ions are not likely to be found in natural
surface or groundwaters. This is because as they are introduced into
natural waters of p117 or above, these ions quickly precipitate and are
thereby removed by adsorption and/or sedimenta ion.
In natural freshwater, copper salts occur in trace amounts,
up to about 0.05 mg/i. In seawater, copper is found at a 1.evei of
0.003 mg/i. Therefore, the presence of greater amounts of copper
salts is generally the result of pollution, attributable to the
corrosive action of the water on copper pipes to industrial discharges,
or frequently to the use ‘of copper compounds for the control of
undesirable algae.
Copper is not considered to be a cumulative systemic poison, like
lead or mercury. In humans, most of the copper ingested is excreted
by the body and little is retained. In lower organisms there is some
record of accumulation Marine animals have been found to contain 4
to 50 mg/i and in some sponges accumulation has exceeded these values.
Biotic Response——In concentrations high enough to be. dangerous
‘to humans, copper renders a disagreeable taste to the water. Threshold
concentrations for taste have been reported in the range of 1.0 — 2.0
mg/1 of copper, while 5.0 — 7.5 mg/i makes the water completely undrink--
able. For this reason it is believed that copper is seldom a hazard
•to domestic supplies.

-------
A-6
Copper is present in trace amounts in all living organisms. It
is believed to be essential for nutrition.
The toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly
not only with the species, but also with the physical and chemical
characteristics of the water (e.g., temperature, hardness, turbidity,
and carbon dioxide content). Concentrations, toxic to a variety of
aquatic organisms, may vary from 0.015 to 3.0 mg/i depending upon
the water chemistry.
Copper acts synergistically with the sulfates of other metals such
as zinc and cadmium to produce a potent todc effect on fish.
Synergism also exists between copper and mercury.
Standards——Limits set for copper in water vary markedly. Table
2 summarizes recommendations established by various agencies.
Cadmium (Cd)
Water Quality——The elemental form of cadmium is insoluble in
water, although the chloride, nitrate, and sulfate of this metal are
highly soluble. In the literature reviewed, no “normal” level for
freshwater was recorded. Mention was made of ‘ no--ma1 ” levels for
seawater of < 0.08 mg/i.
Cadmium salts may he found in wastes from electroplating plants,
pigment works, texti e printing, lead mines, and certain chemical
industries. Lieber and Welsch reported groundwater contamination by
cadmium to the extent of 3.2 mg/i on Long Island, N.Y., as the result
of an electroplating industry’s waste discharge. High concentrations

-------
A-7
0.02 USPHS, 1925
3.0 USPHS, 1942
3.0 USPHS, 1946
3.0 State of Oklahoma,
1957
0.2 State. of Oklahoma,
1957
1.0 State of Oklahoma,
1957
1.0 W.fl.0., 1958
1.5 W.ll.O.,1958
3.0 W.H.O. European,
1961
1.0 USPIIS, 1962
1.0 State of California,
1963
0.1 State of Cal:Lfornia,
1963
0.02 State of California,
1963
0.05 State of California,
1963
1.0 State of Texas, 1967
FWPCA, 1968
Mandatory maximum limit for
• drinking water.
Recommended limit for drinking
water (not mandatory).
Recommended limit for drinking
water (not mandatory).
Limit for municipal water supply.
Limit for agricultural water use.
Limit for recreational waters.
Permissible limit for drinking
water.
Excessive limit for drinking water.
Limit after 16 hours contact with
new pipe, but distribution system
should have < 0.05 mg/i copper.
Recommended limit for drinking
water.
Threshold concentration in
domestic supr 1ies.
Threshold concentration in
irrigation supplies.
Threshold concentration for fresh-
water fish and aquatic life.
Threshold concentration for sea-
water fish and aquatic life.
Recommended limit for inland and
tidal waters.
Water Quality Criteria for aquatic
life. Maximum copper concentra-
tion any any time or place should
not be greater than 1/10 the
96—hour T1 value, nor should any
24—hour average concentration
exceed 1/30 of the 96—hour TLm
va lue.
Same as USPUS, 1962, Drinking
Water Standards.
TABLE 2.—--Copper (Cu.) Concentration (mg/l)
Copper
Organization & Date
.
Concentratipn
of_Recommendation
Comment
1.0 State of Alaska
(date unknown)

-------
A:- 8
TABLE 2.——Copper (Cu) Concentration (mg/1)—--Continued
Copper
Organization & Date
.
Concentration
of Recommendation
Comment
1.0 State of Connecticut Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.5 State of Florida Maximum allowable limits for
(date unknown) surface waters to be used for
drinking water shellfish, fish
and wildlife, and industrial
water supply.
1.0 State of Illinois Maximum allowab].e for drinking
(date unknown) water.
1.0 State of Maine Maximum allowable for drinking
(date unknown) water.
1.0 State of Michigan Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
(date unknown) Water Standards.
1.0 State of Minnesota Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.2 State of Minnesota Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) recreation water, fish propagation
and wildlife.
1.0 State of Montana Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
(date unknown) Water Standards.
1.0 State of Nevada Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
(date unknown) Water Standards.
1.0 State of Rhode Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
Island Water Standards.
(date unknown)
.1.0 State of Vermont Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
(date unknown) Water Standards.

-------
A-9
of cadmium have been reported in Missouri mine waters. One spring
in. the area had 1,000 mg/i of cadmium.
Biotic_Response——Cadmium is moderately toxic to all organisms
and it is a cumulative poison in mammals. It tends to concentrate
in the liver, kidneys, pancreas,.and thyroid of humans and other
mammals.
Common levels found in marine plants are approximately 0.4 mg/i,
while in marine animals a range of 0.15 to 3 mg/i has been recorded.
Few studies have been made of the toxicity of cadmium in the
aquatic environment. Medical reports are of little value because
the adverse effects of human ingestion vary appreciably from person
to person.
Aquatic organisms (i.e., Daphniamagna) are currently being
exposed to cadmium and other toxic metals via bioassay techniques at
the National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth, innesota, laboratories.
Preliminary results indicate Daphnia are very sensitive to cadmium;
the LD—50 (3 wk.) was 5 mg/l in Lake Superior water. Other unpublished
data reveal no effect to fathead minnows or bluegilis exposed to
37 jig/i through a complete generation. The tests also indicate that
following prolonged exposure there is a large accumulation of cadmium
in fish.
Cadmium acts synergistically with zinc to increase toxicity. Hublou,
Wood, and Jef fries found that cadmium concentrations of 0.03mg/i in
combination with 0.15 mg/i of zinc from galvanized screens caused
mortality of salmon fry.

-------
A-b
Standards——Standards and criteria for cadmium in water are summarized
in Table 3.
Lead (Pb)
Water Quality——Some natural waters contain lead in solution,
as much as 0.8 mg/i. These concentrations are most often found
in mountain streams flowing through mineralized areas. Surface
and groundwaters used for drinking supply in the United States often
have a trace of lead but it seldom exceeds 0.04 mg/i.
The lead concentration in seawater is about 0.00003 mg/l. It is
found in marine plants at a level of 8.4 mg/i. Residues in marine
animals reach a concentration in the range of 0.5 mg/k. Lead is highest
in calcareous tissue. Higher concentrations than listed above are
usually the result of pollution from mines or leaded gasolines.
Biotic Response
Lead tends to be deposited in bone as a cumulative poison. Sensi—
tivity to le d poisoning differs with individua].s, as concentrations
causing human sickiiess may vary from 0.042 to 1.0 mg/i. Lead has
an antagonistic effect with calcium. In soft water, lead may be
very toxic at concentrations of 0.1 mg/i. In hard water, these
concentrations are not toxic. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission reported that calcium in a concentration of 50 mg/i completely
destroyed the toxic effect of 1.0 mg/i of lead.
Standards—--Standards and criteria for lead content in water are
summarized in Table 4.

-------
A-il
TABLE 3.—--Cadmiuiu (Cd) Concentrations (mg/i)
•
Cadmium
Organization & Date
of Recommendation — Comment
Concentration
0.1 USSR, 1949 Mcxiniun permissible concentration
in domestic supplies of Russia.
0.0 State of Oklahoma, Suggested criteria for municipal,
1957 industrial, agricultural, recre-
ation, fish and wildlife water
use.
0.05 W.H.O. European, Maximum tolerance limit for
1961 drinking water.
0.01 USPHS, 1962 Maximum allowable limit for
drinking water.
0.02 State of Texas, 1967 Maximum limit for inland and
tidal waters.
FWPCA . The concentration of cadmium must
not exceed 1/30 of the .96—hour
TLm concentration at any time or
place and the maximum 4—hour
average concentration should not
exceed 1/500 of the 96—hour TLm
concentration.
0.01 State of Alaska Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.01 State of Colorado Maximum allowable limits for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.01 State of Connecticut Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
(date unknown) Water Standards.
0.01 State of Illinois Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.05 State of Illinois Maximum allowable limit for fish
(date unknown) propagation and wildlife waters.
0.01 State of Indiana Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.01 ‘State of Iowa Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.01 State of Maine Same as USPIIS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.01 State of Michigan Same as USPHA 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.01 State of Minnesota Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.

-------
A-i 2
TABLE 3.——Cadrnium (Cd) Concentrations (mg/1)——Continued
Cadmium
Organization &
Date
.
Concentrations
of Recommendation
Comment
0.01 State of Mississippi Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.01 State of Montana Same as USPI-IS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.01 State of Nevada Same as USPHS 1962 Drinldng
(date unknown) Standards.
0.01 State of Ohio Maximum allowable limit fdr
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.01 State of Rhode Same as USP}TS 1962 Drinking Water
Island Standards.
(date unkno m)
0.01 State of Vermont Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.

-------
A-13
TABLE 4.——Lead (Pb) Concentrations (mg/i)
—_______________________________
Lead••
Concentration
Organization & Date
of Recommendation Comment
0.1 IJSPHS, 1925 Maximum permissible concentration
in drinking water.
0.3 Germany, 1933 Temporary concentration in drink—
ing water that had been in pipes
for 24 hours.
0.1 USPHS, 1942 Maximum permissible concentration
in drinking water.
0.1 USPUS, 1946 Maximum permissible concentration
in drinking water.
0.02 Uruguay, 1951 Max.imum recommended limit in
potable water.
0.3 Netherlands, 1953 Temporary concentration in drink-
ing. water that had been in pipes
for 24 hours.
1.0 Mersey and Severn Working standards for all heavy
River Boards in metals in certain English streams.
England
(date unknown)
0.1 W.H.O. International, Maximum allowable limits for lead
1958 in drinking water.
0.1 International Water Maximum allowable limits for lead
Supply Association in drinking water.
(USA, Great Britain,
France, and
• Netherlands), 1958
0.1 W.H.0. European, Maximum tolerance limit for
1961 drinking water.
0.05 USPHS, 1962 Maximum allowable limit for
drinking water.
0.1 State of California, Maximum limit for surface waters
1963 used by fish or to be processed
for human consumption.
0.1 State of Texas, 1967 Maximum limit for inland waters.
0.5 State of Texas, 1967 Maximum limit for tidal waters.
0.05 FWQA , 1970 Physiologically safe in water for
lifetime.
2—4 FWQA, 1970 Physiologically safe in water for
period of a few weeks (borderline
health hazard thereafter).

-------
A-14
TABLE 4 . ——Lead (Pb) Concentrations (mg/].) ——Continued
Lead
Organization & Date
Concentration
of Recommendation Comment
8—10 FWQA, 1970 Toxic in water with exposure of
several weeks.
>15 FWQA, 1970 Lethal, unknown concentration
probably more than 15 mg/i for
a period of several weeks.
0.05 State of Alaska Same as USPUS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.05 State of Colorado Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.05 State of Connecticut Same as ‘USP}IS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.05 State of Florida Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water, industria]. supply,
agriculture, fish propagation and
wildlife, and recreation.
0.05 State of Illinois Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.1 State of Illinois Maximum allowahj.e limit for fish
(date unknown) propagation and wildlife waters.
0.05 State of Indiana Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.05 State of Iowa Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.05 State of 1’Jaine Same asUSPUS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.05 State of Minnesota Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.05 State of MississiDpi Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.05 State of Nevada Same as USPI1S 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) Standards.
0.05 State of Ohio Maximum allowable limit for
(date unknown) drinking water.
0.05 State of Rhode Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking Water
Island Standards.
0.05 State of Vermont Same as USP1IS 1962 Drinking Water
(date unknown) St ndards.

-------
A -15
Zinc (Zn)
\ ater Quality——Some zinc salts (e.g., zinc chloride and zinc
sulfate) are highly soluble in water. These salts are often found
in industrial wastewater from galvanizing industries, and manufacturers
of paint pigments, cosmetics, pharmaceutics, dyes. insecticides, and
numerous other products. I-n zinc—mining areas, this metal has been
found in natural waters in concentrations as high as 50 mg/i.
In most freshwater (surface and ground), zinc is present only in
trace amounts. Some evidence has been presented which indicates that
zinc ions are absorbed strongly and permanently on silt, with the
resultantinactivation of the metal.
In-seawater, the normal zinc concentration is about 0.01 mg/i.
Marine plants may contain up to 150 mg/i of zinc, while marine animals
contain ranges of 6 to 1,500 mg/l.
High concentrations of zinc in domestic water are undesirable
from an aesthetic standpoint as well as from a health hazard standpoint.
At a concentration of 30 mgf I, zinc gives water a milky appearance.
Concentrations as low as 5.0 mg/I cause a greasy film on boiling of
the water. The soluble salts of zinc impart an unpleasant,
astringent- taste to water and can be detected in concentrations as
low as 4 .3 mg/I.
Biotic_Response——Zinc has no known adverse physiological effects
upon man except at very high concentrations (i.e., 675—2,280 mg/i
causes vomiting). In fact, zinc is an essential and beneficial element
in human nutrition. Normal uttake by humans is 10—15 mg/day.

-------
A-16
Zinc exhibits its greatest toxicity toward fish and aquatic
organisms. In soft water, concentrations of zInc ranging from 0.1 to
1.0 mg/i have been reported to be lethal, but calcium is antagonistic
toward such toxicity.
Fish sensitivity to zinc varies with species, age and condition
of the fish, as well as the physical and chemical characteristics
of the water. Bioassay results are listed in detail by McKee and
Wolf.
There is some controversy as to a synergistic effect between
zinc and copper. Doudoroff and Katz believe a synergistic effect exists,
while the Water Pollution Research Board of England disagrees. The
key to this disagreement appears to be the hardness of the water, but
more study will be required before a definite statement can he made..
Standards—--Zinc “taste tests” have been partly instrumental in
changing the standards for potable supply. This is one reason for the
range in limits listedin Table 5.
Chromium_(Cr)
Water Quaiit ——The Chromic (trivalent) salts of chloride, nitrate,
and sulfate, and the hexavalent chromate and dichromate salts of
ammonia, potassium, and sodium are all water soluble. Other chromium
salts are insoluble. Concentrations of chromium range from 0 to 2.3
mg/i in surface waters, and chromium concentrations of about 1.5 mg/i
may impart color and taste to water.

-------
A-17
State of Illinois
(date unknown)
State of Illinois
(date unknown)
State of Maine
(date unknown)
State of Michigan
(date unknown)
State of Minnesota
(date unknown)
State of Montana
(date unknown)
Comment ____
Maximum permissible concentration
in drinking water.
Recommended limited concentration
in drinking water.
Recommended limited concentration
in drinking water.
Working standards in English
streams for all heavy metals
in’ combination with zinc.
Permissible limit in drinking
water.
Excessive limit in drinking
water.
Recommended limit for drinking
water.
Recommended limit for drinking
water.
Maximum limit for inland and
tidal waters.
Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
Water Standards.
Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
Water Standards.
Maximum allowable limit for
drinking water, industrial
supply, agriculture, fish and
wildlife, and recreation.
Maximum allowable limit for
drinking water.
Maximum allowable limit f or
fish and wildlife waters.
Same as USPUS 1.962 Drinking
Standards.
Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
Standards.
Maximum allowable limit in
.drinking water.
Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking Water
Standards.
TABLE 5.——Zinc (Zn) Concentrations (mg/i)
Organization & Date
of Recommendation
USPLIS, 1925
USPFIS, 1942
USPHS, 1946
Mersey and Severn
River Boards in
England, 1953
W.H.C). International,
1953
W.H.O. International,
1958
W.H.0. European,
1961
USPHS, 1962
State of Texas,
1967
State of Alaska
(date unknown)
State of Connecticut
(date unknown)
State of Florida
(date unknown)
Zinc
Concentrations
5.0
15.0
15.0
1.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1 .0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Water
Water

-------
TABLE 5.——Zinc (Zn) Concentrations (mg/1)——Continued
Zinc
Organization & Date
Concentration
of Recommendation Comment
5.0 State of Nevada Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
(date unknown) Water Standards.
5.0 State of Rhode Island Same as USPUS 1962 Drinking
(date unknown) Water Standards.
5.0 State of Vermont Same as USPHS 1962 Drinking
(date unknown) Water Standards.
A-18

-------
A- 19
Hexavalent chromium salts may be found in wastes discharged from
electroplating plants, tanneries, chromium treated cooling waters, arid
plants which manufacture paints, dyes, nxplosives, ceramics, paper, and
many other substances. Trivalent chromium salts are less w dely
used and are not considered toxic to man; these salts have not been
extensively considered in water quality studies.
BioticResponse—--Chromium is not an essential element in the
nutrition of humans or aquatic animals. Ingestion of large doses of
chromate by man may cause corrosion of the intestine and nephrites;
however, it appears that humans can safely drink water containing
5.0 mg/i of hexavalent chromium. Although hexavalent chromium is
rapidly eliminated from the human body, there is evidence of a pronounced
cumulative toxicity to salmon and rainbow trout exposed to sublethal
concentrations. The toxicity of chromium to aquatic life varies
widely, and is influenced by temparature. pH, the chromium valence,
synergism, arid antagonism (hardness is especially antagonistic),
dissolved oxygen concentration, and the species Involved.
Data presented by McKee and Wolf lead to the conclusion that
fish are relatively tolerant of chromium (most of the 96—hour TL
values ranging from about 100 to about 135 mg/i), while lower forms
of aquatic life are very sensitive to chromium. Daphnia magna
exhibited toxicity thresholds ranging from 0.016 to 0.7 mg/i. The
concentrations of chromium that inhibit algal growth have been reported
by FWPCA to range 0.032 to 6.4 mg/i; sublethal. concentrations sometimes
stimulate algal growth.

-------
A-20
On the basis of a large amount of information reviewed, Mc Kee
and Wolf suggeste4 that 1.0 mg/i chromium (trivalent or hexavaient)
would not interfere with fish life, and that 0.05 mg/i would not
interfere with other aquatic life.
Standards——The maximum concentration of 0.5 mg/I of chromium
recommended for water supplies by the U. S. Public Health Service itt
1946 (and consequently by many other water quality agencies) was
based on the minimum concentration of chromium detect-able at that time;
today, much lower concentrations are detectable. A limit of 0.05 mg/I
seems unnecessarily stringent for the protection of human health;
however, maximum-concentrations of 0.05 mg chromium per liter are
reasonable for the protection of aquatic life. -
A summary of limits for chromium concentrations in water, as
recommended by various agencies, is included in Table- 6, which follows.
Mercury (Hg ) -
teL ali x ——Elemental mercury is insoluble in water and has
heretofore heen presumed non—toxic to biota and of little concern
as anollutant. However, recent investigation has exposed a process
of mercury methylation in the environment by bacteria that causes a
transformation of the relatively nontoxic elemental mercury to toxic
methyl mercury, which is capable of concentration by living organisms.
Recently, the disasters of the 1953 Minamata Bay, Japan, mercury poi-
soning were brought to the attention of the United States public by
the poisoning of a NetS; Mexico family (in a way totally unrelated to the
process of the Minamata Bay event) by eating pork contaminated by

-------
A-21
Comment
No hexavalent Cr permissible in
drinking water.
Hexavalent; maximum permissible
in drinking water.
Working standard for all heavy
metals in combination (including
Cr).
Hexavalent; drinking water.
Hexavalent; drinking water.
Hexavalent; drinking water.
Either valency; drinking water.
Either valency; stock and wild-
life watering.
Either valency; fish propagation.
Either valency; protection of
other aquatic life.
“Water Quality Criteria” — urged
caution in discharge of chromium.
Hexavalent; drinking water.
“Standard 1—70,” hexavalent: or
shall not harm aquatic life to
a degreec of 1/20 96—hour TLth.
1-lexava lent; Ammunition Procurement
and Suoply Agency Regulation
No. 11-1l (subject to revision).
Chromium
Concentration
None
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
5.0
1.0
0.05
‘caution”
0.05
.0.05
TABLE 6.——Chromium (er) Concentrations (mg/i)
— Organization & Date
of_Recommendation
USPHS, 1942
USPI-1S, 1946
Severn and Mersey
River Boards,
England, 1953
W.H.0. International,
1958
T.H.O. European, 1961
USPHS, 1962
State of California,
1963
State of California,
1963
State of California,
1963
State of California,
1963
FWPCA, 1968
USPHS, 1969
ORSANCO, 1970
0.05 U.S. Army
(date unknown)

-------
A-22
being fed on a seed treated with an organic mercury compound.
In the aquatic environment, elemental mercury may be converted
to methyl mercury by the above—mentioned biological methylation pro-
cess, or the methyl mercury may be discharged by any one of a large
number of industrial processes using mercury, such a chior—alkali,
acetylene, polyvinylchloride, fungicide, batteries, papermaking and
paint manufacturing. Total domestic use of mercury for 1969 was
about 6 million pounds, with various amounts of the total reputed
lost to the environment; one value presented to the Senate subcommittee
investigating mercury pollution of the environment was 1,200,000 pounds
lost per year..
liercury is found naturally’ in sea water at a level of 0.00003 mg/i
and in sea plants at approximately 0.03 mg/i. Canadian pickerel taken
from the Great Lakes have contained concentrations of mercury as high
as 5 parts per million, while walleye pike have been found to contain
mercury in concentrations as high as 1.40 to 3.57 parts per million.
Abelson indicates that the concentration factor of mercury from water
is on the order of 3,000 or more, while Klein and Goldberg report that
mercury levels in coastal marine organisms are several orders of mag-
nitude greater than comparable volumes of sea water. Higher vo1ui ies
of mercury are found in sediments near sewer outfalls, as compared
to similar deposits further removed. While testifying before the
Senate Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources and the Ei vironment,
Klein further speculated that the concentration factor of methyl mercury
from water ‘to fish was at least I million.

-------
A-23
Biotic Response——Mercury ions are considered to-be toxic to various
forms of aquatic life. For the stickelback, the lethal concentration
has been pound to range in the area of 0.008 mg/i, while the effect on
phytoplankton of a concentration of 0.06 mg/i of ethyl mercury phosphate
was found to be lethal. Other researchers have reported that 0.5 mg/i
of mercury added as mercuric chloride resulted in a 50 percent inactiva-
tion of photosynthesis of the giant kelp. Corner and Sparrow report
that the toxic effects of.mercury salts are accentuated by the pre-
sence of trace amounts of copper.
Methyl mercury in humans is reported to penetrate the brain mem-
brane, causing wide disintegration of brain cells. The appearance of
symptoms of mercury poisoning may be delayed for as long as several
months. When the symptoms do appear, they may not he specific but
may include fatigue, numbness of the extremities, difficulty in swallow-
ing, deafness, blurring of vision, loss of muscular coordination,
slurring of speech and impairment of hearing. The symptoms are described
as the behavior of the Mad Hatter, a reference to the occupational dis-
ease of felt workers,, exposed to mercury used in shaping felt.
Standards—-At the time of the first public concern rega.r4ing mercury
contamination of environmental media in this country, no domestic
‘standards were in force that attempted to place a limit on the con-
centration of mercury in water. Additionally, the World Health Organ-
ization also had no available limits on mercury. An interim standard
for mercury was adopted from the U.S.S.R., where a value of 0.05 mg/i
had been imposed on water. Subsequently, the Food and Drug Adminis—

-------
A-24
tration placed a limit on the concentration of mercury in food shipped
in interstate commerce at 5 parts per million. The Severn and Mersey
River Boards in England have as a working standard, a limit of total
concentration of heavy metals, including mercury, of one (1.0) milli-
gram per liter.

-------
LITERATURE CITED
1. McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf, 1963. “Water Quality Criteria,” 2nd
ed. State Water Quality Control Board of California. Publica-
tion No. 3—A.
2. Grimmett, R. E. R. and I. G. McIntosh. 1939. ‘Occurrence of Arsenic
in Soils and Waters in the Waiotapu Valley and Its Relation to
Stock Health, N.Z . Jour. Sd. Tech . 21. 138 A (1939); Water
Pollution Abs. 13 (July 1940).
3. Browning, E., 1961. “Toxicity of Industrial Metals,” Butterworths,
London, England.
4. Lambou, V. and B. Lim, 1970 a• ‘ 1 Hazards of Arsenic in the Environ-
ment, with Particular Reference to the Aquatic Environment,’
FWQA, U.S.Dept. of Interior, August 1970 (mimeo.)
5. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968. “Water
Quality Criteria,’ Report of Nat. Tech. Advisory Comm.,
1)ept. of Interior, Washington, DC.
6. Vinogradov, A. P., 1953. The Elementary Chemical Composition of
Marine Organisms. Sears Foundation, New Haven, Conn.
7. Arguello, R. A., E. E. Tello, B. A. Nacola, and L. Manzano, 1960.
“Cutaneous Cancer in Chronic Endemic Regional. Arsenicism In
the Province of Cordoba, Argentine Republic,” Rev. Fac. Ciec.
Med. Univ. Cordoba 8, 409 (1950); Proc. Conf . onPhysiolo ica1
As cts of Water Quality , Public Heal.th Service.
8. Kathe, J., 1937. ‘Das Arsen Vordommen bei Reichenstein und die
Sogenannte Reichensteiner Krankheit.’ 110 Jahresbericht der
Schlesischen Cesellschaft fuer vaterlaendische Rultr.
Medizinisch — naturwissenshaftlichc Reihe, No. 3 Breslau
Ferdinand Wirt.
9. Tello, E. E. ‘Hidroarsenicismo Cronico Regional Endeinico (Hacre),”
Imprinta d C la Universidad Cordoba, Rep. Argentina, p. 1962.
10. Rudolf s, W., G. E. Barnes, C. P. Edwards, H. Heukelekian,
E. Hurwitz, C. E. Renn, S. Steinberg, and U. F. Vaughan,
1950. “Review of Literature on Toxic Materials Affecting
Sewage Treatment Processes, Streams arid BUD Deierminations,”
Sewage and Industrial Wastes 22, 1157.
11. Rudolfs, U. et.al., 1944. ‘Critical Review of the. Literature
of 1943,” Sewage Works Jour. 16, 222.

-------
12. Schneider, 17. C., 1931. “Copper and Health,” Jour. N.E .W.IT.A.
44, 485 (1930; Water Pollution Abs. 4) (Sept. 1931).
13. Anon., 1950, “Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission,
subcommittee on Toxicities Metal Finishing Industries Action
Committee,” Report No. 3.
14. Doudoroff, P., 1952. “Some Recent Developments in the Study of
Toxic Industrial Wastes,” Proc. 4th Ann. Pacific N.W. md.
Waste Conf. , State College (Pullman, Wash.) 21.
15. Tarzwell, C. H., 1958. “Disposal of Toxic Wastes,” md. Wastes
3:2, 48.
16. Corner. B. D. S. and B. W. Sparrow, 1956. “The Modes of Action
of Toxic Agents. 1. Observations on the Poisoning of Certain
Crustaceans by Copper and Mercur ,” Jour. Mar. Biol. Assoc .
V. K. 35,531.
17. Lieber, H. and W. F. Welsch, 1954. ‘Contamination of Ground Water
by Cadmium,” Jour. AWWA 46, 541.
18. Anon., 1955. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Comm. “Cadmium,”
Incomplete Interim Report, Kettering Lab., Univ. of
Cincinnati.
19. Biesinger, Christensen, and Sheihom, 1971, unpublished data.
20. Teasley, J. I., Assistant for Research Programs, EPA, UQO, Duluth,
Minn. (personal communication)’.
21. Hubiou, W. F., J. W. Wood and E. R. Jef fries, 1954. “The
Toxicity of Zinc or Cadmium for Chinook Salmon,” Oregon
Fish Comm., Briefs 5, 1.
22. Lamhou, V. and B. Lint. l970b. “Hazards of Lead in the Environ-
ment, With Particular Reference to the Aquatic Environment,”
FWQA, U. S. Dept. of Interior, August 1970 (mirneo.).
23. Ohio River Water Sanitation Commission, 1953. “Report on the
Recommended Physiologically Safe Limits for Continued Human
Consumption of Lead in Water,” O.P..W.S.C. The Kettering Lab,
Coil, Med., Univ. Cm., Cincinnati, Ohio.
24. Mason. li. P., 1908. Examination of Water (Chemical and Bactcrio
logical)”, John Wiley and Sons.

-------
25. Doudoroff, P. and H. Katz, 1953. “Critical Review of Literature
on the Toxicity of Industrial Wastes and Their Components
to Fish. II.The Metals, as Salts,” Sewage and Industrial
Wastes 25, 802.
26. American Water Works Assoc., 1950. “Water Quality and Treat-
ment,” 2nd ed., AT/WA.
27. Jacobs, II. L.,1953. “Rayon Waste Recovery and Treatment,”
Sewage and md . Wastes 25, 296.
28. Kehoe, R. A., 3. Cholak and E. 3. Largent, 1944. “The Hygienic
Significance of the Contamination of Water with Certain
Mineral Constituents,” Jour . AWWA 36, 645.
29. Howard, C. 0., 1923. “Zinc Contamination in Drinking Water,”
Jour. AWWA 10., 411.
0. Cohen, 3. N., L. J. Kamphake, F. K. Harris, and R. L. Woodward,
1960. “Taste Threshold Concentrations of Metals in Drinking
Water,’ Jour. AWWA 52, 660.
31. Rothstein, A., 1953. “Toxicology of the Minor Metals,” Univ.
Rochester, AEC Proj. UR—262, June 5, 1953.
32. Water Pollution Research Board of England, 1960. “Report of
the Water Pollution ResearchLaboratory for the Year 1959,”
Dept. Sci, and md. Res., H. N. Stationery Office, London.
33. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
(current edition), kPHA, AWWA, WPCF.
34. Anonymous. “Mercury Stirs More Pollution Concern; High Levels of
Mercury in Lake Erie Fish Prod Toxicity Studies of Heavy
• Metals”, Chemical Engineering News, 48(26): 36—7; 1970
35. Abelson, P. 1-1. Methy1 Mercury”, Science, 169(3942): 237; 1970.
• (2 references)
36. Anonymous. “flow Mercury Pollutes’ t , Chemical Engineerin2 News,
48(30): 18—0; 1970.
37. Storrs, B.; Thompson, J.; Nickey. L.; Barthel, W.; Spaulding, 3. E.
(Medical 5cr. 1)iv., New Mexico Health and Social Ser. Dept.,
N. Mex.). “Follow—up Organic Mercury Poisoning——New Mexico”,
Morbidity Mortality, 19(17): 169—70; 1970. (3 references)

-------
38. Dickerson, M. S.; Griggs, W.; Popejoy, L. T.; Dickerson, J.;
Barthel, W. A. (Communicable Disease Sect., Texas State Dept.
of 1-lealth, Tex.). “Mercury Intoxication——Jasper, Texas’ t ,
MorbidityHortality, 19(21); 206; 1970.
39. Grant, N. (Washington University School of Medicine), “Legacy of
the Mad Hatter.’ t , Environment 11(4): 18—23, 43—4; 1969
(28 references)
40. Klein, D. H., and E. S. Goldberg (Dept. of Chemistry, Hope College,
Holland, Mich.), “Mercury in the Marine Environment tt , Environ .
Sci. Technol. 4(1): 765—8; 1970. (17 references)
41. KLein, David H., Statement before hearings of Subconmiittee on Energy,
Natural Resources, and the Environment of the Committee on Com-
merce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C., May 8, 1970.
42. Shishko, Irwin, “Mercury”, Engineerin g and Mining Journal , March
1971.

-------