United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
vvEPA
Office of Science and Technology June 2000
Standards and Applied Science Division EPA-823-B-00-004
(4305)
WATER QUALITY
STAlsDARDS
ACADEMY
Basic'Course
REFERENCE
MANUAL
2000 Edition
Office of Water .
Office of Science and Technology
-------
BASIC COURSE REFERENCE MANUAL
CONTENTS
Reference
Number Title
Clean Water Act. Public Law 92-500, as amended. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
2. Water Quality Standards Regulation and Subsequent Amendments. Part 131.
Extracted from the Code of Federal Regulation through July 1, 1999. U.s.
Government Printing Office. 1999.
3. Introduction to Water Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. September 1994. EPA 823-B-95-004.
4. Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. August 1994. EPA-823-B-94-005a.
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation. 40 CFR 131; 48 Federal
Register 51405, November 8, 1983. Revised through July 1,
1991; amended at 56 FR 64893, December 12, 1991. 57 FR
60910, December 22, 1992.
Appendix B: Chronological Summary of Federal Water Quality Standards
Promulgation Actions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Science and Technology. January 1993.
Appendix C: Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water. April 1990. EPA 440/5-90-004.
Appendix D: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National Guidance.
July 1990. EPA 440/S-90-011.
Appendix E: An Approach for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality for
Wetlands Protection. July 1991.
Appendix F: Coordination between the Environmental Protection Agency,
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
Regarding Development of Water Quality Criteria and Water
Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act. July 1992.
111
-------
Appendix G: Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. August
1985.
Appendix H: Derivation of the 1985 Aquatic Life Criteria.
Appendix I: List of EPA Water Quality Criteria Documents.
Appendix J: Attachments to Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance
on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals
Criteria. October 1993.
Appendix K: Procedures for the Initiation of Narrative Biological Criteria.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water.
October 1992. EPA-822-B-92-002.
Appendix L: Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water Effect
Ratios for Metals. Office of Science and Technology. February
1994. EPA-823-B-94-0O1.
Appendix M: Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards—
Workbook. Office of Water. March 1995. EPA-823-B-95-002.
Appendix N: IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) Background Paper.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. February 1993.
Appendix P: List of 126 Section 307(a) Priority Toxic Pollutants.
Appendix Q: Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines
for States and Eligible Indian Tribes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. April 1989.
Appendix R: Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the
Water Quality Program. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. May 1991.
Appendix T: Use Attainability Analysis Case Studies.
Appendix U: List of EPA Regional Water Quality Standards of Coordinators.
Appendix V: Water Quality Standards Program Document Request Forms.
iv
-------
Appendix W: Update Request for Water Quality Standards Handbook
- Second Edition.
5. U.S. EPA, Environmental Appeals Board. NPDES Appeal 88-5. In the Matter
of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. Decided May 26, 1992.
6. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy; Notice. Federal Register vol.
59, No. 75. April 19, 1994
7. October 1993 Memo from Martha Prothro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Water, to Regional Water Management Division Directors, re: Office of Water
Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Metals Criteria.
8. Reference Guide to Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. January 1990. EPA
440/5-90-002.
9. Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Communications, Education, and
Public Affairs. December 1997.
10. Document Ordering Information.
11. Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality, April
2000. This directory is updated annually.
12. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-specific Water Quality Criteria
by Modi Vying National Criteria. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory,
Duluth, Minnesota. October 1984. EPA-600/3-84-099.
13. Derivation of Site-specific Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium and the St,
Louis River Basin, Duluth, Minnesota. R.S. Spehar and A.R. Carlson. in:
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. vol. 3. pp. 651-665. 1984.
14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress. Recovery Program:
Endangered and Threatened Species. 1994.
15. Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory Board on the Equilibrium
Partitioning Approach to Predicting Metal Bioavailability in Sediment and the
Derivation of Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals. EPA Office of Water and
Office of Research and Development. December 1994. EPA-822-D-94-002.
V
-------
16. Memo to Carol Browner from the Science Advisory Board: In regard to SAB
Review of Agency’s Approach for Development of Sediment Criteria for 5
Metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc). September 29, 1995.
EPA/SABIEPEC-95-002.
17. Memo from Carol Browner to the Science Advisory Board: In regard to SAB
Review of Agency’s Approach for Development of Sediment Criteria for 5
Metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc). February 2, 1996.
EPA/SABIEPEC-95-002.
vi
-------
Reference 1
-------
Sec. 102
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 4
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACr
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
AN ACR To p v fde for water pollution control activitlee In the Pubilc Health Serv-
ice of the Federal Security Agency and In the Federal Worka Agency, and for
other p.ca .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assemble4
TiTLE I —RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
DECLARATION OP GOALS AND POLICY
SEC. 101. (a) The objective of this Act Is to restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical, and b1olo ica1 Integrity of the Nation’s
waters. In order to achieve this objecüve it is hereby declared that,
consistent with the provisions of this Act—
(1) it Is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants
into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
(2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an in-
terim goal of water quality which provides for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;
(3) it Is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pol-
lutants in toxic amounts be prohibited;
(4) it Is the national policy that Federal financial assist-
ance be provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment
works;
(5) it is the national policy that areawide treatment man-
agement planning processes be developed and implemented to
assure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each State;
(6) it is the national policy that a major research and dem-
onstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants Into the navigable waters,
waters of the contiguous zone and the oceans; and
(7) it Is the national policy that programs for the control
of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and Implemented
In an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this Act
to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint
sources of pollution.
(b) It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and
protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent,
reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development end use
(Including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and
water resources, and to consult with the Administrator In the exer-
cise of his authority under this Act. It is the policy of Congress that
the States manage the construction grant program under this Act
and Implement the permit programs under eections 402 and 404 of
I
this Act. It i further the policy of the Congress to support and aid
research relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of
pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and financial
aid to State and interstate agencies and municipalities in connec-
tion with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.
(c) It is further the policy of Congress that the President, act-
ing through the Secretary ot State and such national and inter-
national organizations as he determines appropriate, shall take
such action as may be necessary to insure that to the fullest extent
possible all foreign countries shall take meaningful action for the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution in their waters
and in international waters and for the achievement of goals re-
garding the elimination of discharge of pollutants and the improve-
ment of water quality to at least the same extent as the United
States does under its laws.
(d) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in
this Act called “Administrator”) shall administer this Act.
(e) Public participation In the development, revision, and en-
forcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or
program established by the Administrator or any State under this
Act shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Adminis-
trator and the States. The Administrator, in cooperation with the
States, shall develop and publish regulations specifying minimum
guidelines for public participation in such processes.
(0 It is the national policy that to the maximum extent pos-
sible the procedures utilized for implementing this Act shall en-
courage the drastic minimization of paperwork and interagency de-
cision procedures, and the beet use of available manpower and
funds, so as to prevent needless duplication and unnecessary
delays at all levels of government.
(g) It is the policy of Congress that the authority of each State
to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be
superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this Act. It is the
further policy of Congress that nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water which
have been established by any State. Federal agencies shall co-oper-
ate with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive solu-
tions to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with
programs for managing water resources.
(33 USC. 1251)
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. 102. (a) The Administrator shall, after careful investiga-
tion, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State water
pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, and the municipali-
ties and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive pro-
grams for preventing, reducing, or eliminating the pollution of the
navipble waters and ground waters and improving the sanitary
- condition of surface-and underground waters. In the development
of such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the
improvements which are necessary to conserve such waters for the
protection and propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, rec-
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 102 Sec. 103
FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT 6
5
reational purposes, and the withdrawal of such waters for public
water supply, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes. For the
purpose of this section, the Administrator is authorized to make
joint investigations with any such agencies of the condition of any
waters in any State or States, and of the discharges of any sewage,
industrial wastes, or substance which may adversely affect such
waters.
(b)( 1) In the survey or planning of any reservoir by the Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agency, con-
sideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulation of
streamflow, except that any such storage and water releases shall
not be provided as a substitute for adequate treatment or other
methods of controlling waste at the source.
(2) The need for and the value of storage for regulation of
streamfiow (other than for water quality) including but not limited
to navigation, salt water intrusion, recreation, esthetics, and fish
and wildlife, shall be determined by the Corps of Engineers, Bu-
reau of Reclamation, or other Federal agencies.
(3) The need for, the value of, and the impact of, storage for
water quality control shall be detennined by the Administrator,
and his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or
presentation to Congress proposing authorization or construction of
any reservoir including such storage.
(4) The value of such storage shall be taken into account in de.
termining the economic value of the entire project of which it is a
part, and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of regulation of
streamfiow in a manner which Will insure that all project purposes,
share equitable in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
(5) Costa of regulation of streamfioW features incorporated in
any Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provisions
of this Act shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and
if the benefits are widespread or national in scope, the coats of such
features shall be nonreimbursable.
(6) No license granted by the Federal Power Commission for a
hydroelectric power project shall include storage for regulation of
streamfiow for the purpose of water quality control unless the Ad-
ministrator shall recommend its inclusion and such reservoir stor-
age capacity shall not exceed such proportion of the total storage
required for the water quality control plan as the drainage area of
such reservoir bears to the drainage area of the river basin or ba-
sins involved in such water quality control plan.
(cXl) The Administrator shall, at the request of the Governor
of a State, or a majority of the Governors when more than one
State is involved make a grant to pay not to exceed 50 per centuin
of the administrative expenses of a planning agency for a period
not to exceed three years. which period shall begin alter the date
of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972, if such agency provides for adequate representation
of appropriate State, interstate, local, or (when appropriate) inter-
national interests in the basin or portion thereof involved and is ca-
pable of developing an effective, comprehensive water quality con-
trol r’en for a baa ” or portion thereof.
(2) Each planning agency receiving a grant under this sub-
section shall develop a comprehensive pollution control plan for the
basin or portion thereof winch—
(A) is consistent with any applicable water quality stand-
ards, effluent and other limitations, and thermal discharge reg-
ulations established pursuant to current law within the basin;
(B) recommends such treatment works as will provide the
moat effective and economical means of collection, storage,
treatment, and elimination of pollutants and recommends
means to encourage both municipal and industrial use of such
works;
(C) recommends maintenance and improvement of water
quality within the basin or portion thereof and recommends
methods of adequately financing those facilities as may be nec-
essary to implement the plan; and
(D) as appropriate, is developed in cooperation with, and
is consistent with any comprehensive plan prepared by the
Water Resources Council, any areawide waste management
plans developed pursuant to section 208 of this Act, and any
State plan developed pursuant to section 303(e) of this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term “basin” in-
cludes, but is not limited to, rivers and their tributaries, streams,
coastal waters, sounds, estuaries, bays, lakes, -and portions thereof,
as well as the lands drained thereby.
(d) tRepealed by section 202 1(a) of Public Law 104—66 (109
Stat. 726).)
(33 U.S.C. 1252)
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 103. (a) The Administrator shall encourage cooperative
activities by the States for the prevention, reduction, and eliini-
nation of pollution, encourage the enactment of improved and, so
far as practicable, uniform State laws relating to the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of pollution; and encourage compacts be-
tween States for the prevention and control of pollution.
(b) The consent orthe Congress ia hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in
conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) coopera-
tive effort and mutuaFassistance for the prevention and control of
pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating
thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or other-
wise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agree-
ments and compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be bind-
ing or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until
it has been approved by the Congress.
(33 U.S.C. 1253)
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEc. 104. (a) The Administrator shall establish national pro-
grams for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution
and as part of such programs shall—
(1) in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local
agencies, conduct and promote the coordination and accelera-
-------
FEDERAL WATER POUUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 104
Sec. 104
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT I
7
tion of, research, investigations, experiments, training, dem-
onstratiOns, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention 1 reduction, and elimination of pollution;
(2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical serv-
ices to pollution control agencies and other appropriate public
or private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and indi-
viduals, including the general public, in the conduct of activi-
ties referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection;
(3) conduct, in cooperation with State water pollution con-
trol agencies and other interested agencies organizations and
persons, public investigations concerning the pollution of any
navigable waters, and report on the results of such investiga-
tions;
(4) establish advisory committees composed of recognized
experts in various aspects of pollution and representatives of
the public to assist in the examination and evaluation of re-
search progress and proposals and to avoid duplication of re-
search;
(5) in cooperation with the States, and their political sub-
divisions, and other Federal agencies establish, equip, and
maintain a water quality surveillance system for the purpose
of monitoring the quality of the navigable waters and ground
waters and the contiguous zone and the oceans and the Admin-
istrator shall, to the extent practicable, conduct such surveil-
lance by utilizing the resources of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, the Geological Survey, and the Coast
Guard, and shall report on such quality in the report required
under subsection (a) of section 516; and
(6) initiate and promote the coordination and acceleration
of research degi ned to develop the most effective practicable
tools and techmques for measuring the social and economic
costs and benefits of activities which are subject to regulations
under this Act; and shall transmit a report on the results of
such research to the Congress not later than January 1, 1974.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this sec-
tion the Administrator Is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and
other appropriate means, the results of and other information,
Including appropriate recommendations by him In connection
therewith, pertaining to such research and other activities re-
ferred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
(2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agen-
cies, State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies,
other public and private agencies, institutions, organizations
industries involved, and individuals, in the preparation aml
conduct of such research and other activities referred to in
paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
(3) make grants to State water pollution control agencies,
interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies,
institutions, organizations, and individuals, for purposes stated
in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section;
(4) contract with public or private agencies, Inatitution8.
organizations, and Individuals, without regard to sections 3648
and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5),
referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
(5) establish and maintain research fellowships at public
or nonprofit private educational institutions or reBearch organi-
zations;
(6) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with other Fed-
eral departments and agencies, and with other public or pri-
vate agencies, institutions, and organizations having related
responsibilities, basic data on chemical 1 physical, and biological
effects of varying water quality and other information pertain-
ing to pollution and the prevention, reduction, and elimination
thereof; and
(7) develop effective and practical processes, methods, and
prototype devices for the prevention, reduction, and elimi-
nation of’ pollution.
(c) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this sec-
tion the Administrator shall conduct research on, and survey the
results of other scientific studies on, the harmful effects on the
health or welfare of persons caused by pollutants. In order to avoid
duplication of’ effort, the Administrator shall, to the extent prac-
ticable, conduct such research in cooperation with and through the
facilities of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Adminis-
trator shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (in-
cluding conducting such basic and applied research, studies, and
experiments as may be necessary):
(1) Practicable means of’ treating municipal sewage, and
other waterborne wastes to implement the requirements of sec-
tion 201 of this Act;
(2) Improved methods and procedures to identify and
measure the effects of pollutants, including those pollutants
created by new technological developments; and
(3) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality of augmented streamfiowa to control pollution
not susceptible to other means of prevention, reduction, or
elimination.
(e) The Administrator shall establish, equip, and maintain field
laboratory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one
to be located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in
the Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the
midwestern area, one In the southwestern area, one in the Pacific
Northwest, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct of’ re-
search, investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and stud-
ies, and training relating to the prevention, reduction and elimi-
nation of pollution. Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall
be located near institutions of higher learning in which graduate
training in such research might be carried out. In conjunction with
the development of’ criteria under section 403 of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator shall construct the facilities authorized for the National
Marine Water Quality Laboratory established under this sub-
section.
(I) The Administrator shall conduct research and technical de-
velopment work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of
the waters of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the present
-------
B FEOERAL WATER POLWTION CONTROL ACT
Sac. 104 Sec. 104
FEIIERAL WATER POWIIION CONTROL ACT 10
and projected future water quality of the Great L ikis under vaiy-
lug conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of
the water quality needs of those to be served by such waters, an
evaluation of mumci a1, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and
disposal practices with respect to such waters, and a study of alter-
nate means of solving pollution problems (including additional
waste treatment measures) with respect to such waters.
(gXl) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of
trained personnel to operate and maintain existing and future
treatment works and related activities, and for the puipose of en-
hancing substantially the proficiency of those engaged in such ac-
tivities, the Administrator shall finnnce pilot programs, in coopera-
tion with State and interstate agencies, municip litiee, educational
institutions, and other organizations and individuals, of manpower
development and trainin ? and retraining of persons in, on entering
into, the field of operation and maintenance of treatment works
and related activities. Such program and any funds expended for
such a program shall supplement, not supplant, other manpower
and training programs and funds available for the purposes of this
paraçraph. ‘l’Iie A’lmrnictrator is authorized, under such terms and
conditions as he deems appropriate, to enter into agreements with
one or more States, acting 1 jointly or severally, or with other public
or private agencies or institutions for the development and Imple-
mentation of such a program.
(2) The Administrator is authorized to enter into agreements
with public and private agencies and institutions, and individuals
to develop and maintain an effective system for forecasting the sup-
ply of, and demand for, various professional and other occupational
categories needed for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of
pollution in each region, State, or area of the United States and,
from time to time, to publish the result. of such forecast..
(3) In furtherance of the purposes of this Act, the Adminis-
trator is authorized to—
(A) m re grant. to public or private agencies and institu-
tions and to individuals for training project., and provide for
the conduct of training by contract with public or private agen-
cies and institutions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
(B) establish and maintain research fellowship. in the En-
vironmental Protection Agency with such stipends and allow-
ances, including traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may
deem necessaxy to procure the assistance of the most promis-
ing research fellows; and
(C) provide, in addition to the program established under
paraçraph (1) of this subsection, training in technical matters
relating to the causes, prevention, reduction, and elimination
of pollution for personnel of public agencies and other persons
with suitable qnklifications.
(4) The Mministrator shall submit, through the President, a
report to the Congress not later than December 31 1973, summa-
rizing the actions taken under this subsection and the effectiveness
of such actions, and setting fbrth the number of persons trained,
the occupational categories r which imiing was provided, the of-
fectivenas. of 9 her Federal. State, and local triih 1 ng programs In
this field, together with estimates of future needs, recommenda-
tions on unprovin trJ ininf programs, and such other information
and recommendations, Including legislative .recomuwndations, as
he deems appropriate.
(h) The Mminiitrator is authorized to enter iuto contracts,
with, or make Fanta to, public or private agencies and organiza-
tions and individuals for (A) the purpose of developing and dem-
onstrating new or improved methods for the prevention, removal,
reduction, and elimination of pollution in lakes, including the unde-
sirable effects of nutrients and vegetation, and (B) the construction
of publicly owned research facilities for such purpose.
(i) The Administrator in cooperation with the Secretary of the
department in which the óoast Guard is operating, shall—
(1) engage in such research, studies, experiments, and
demonstrations as he deems appropriate, relative to the re-
moval of oil from any waters and to the prevention, control,
and elimination of oil and hazardous substances pollution;
(2) publish from time to time the results of such activities;
and
(3) from time to time, develop and publish in the Federal
Register specifications and other technical information on the
various chemical compounds used in the control of oil and haz-
ardous substance. spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Administrator may enter into
contracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and
organizations and individuals.
(j) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall engage in such research, studies, experiment.,
and demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative to equipment
which is to be installed on board a vessel and is designed to re-
ceive, retain, treat, or discharge human body wastes and the
wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or re-
tain body wastes with particular emphasis on equipment to be in-
stalled on small recreational vessels. The Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operating shall report to Con-
gress the results of such research, studies, experiments, and dem-
onstratiozw prior to the effective date of any regulations established
under section 312 of this Act. In carrying out this subsection the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
may enter into contract. with, or make grant. to, public or private
organizations and individuals.
(k) In carrying out the provisions of this section relating to the
conduct by the Administrator of’ demonstration projects and the de-
velopment of field laboratories and reaeach facilities, the Adininis-
trator may acquire land and interests therein by purchase, with ap-
propriated or donated funds, by donation, or by exchange for ac-
quired or public lands under his jurisdiction which he classifies as
suitable for disposition. The values of the properties so ip h nged
either shall be approximately equal, or if they are not approxi-
mately equal, the values shall be equalized by the payment of cash
to the grantor or to the Mmini trator as the circumstances re-
quire.
(1X1) The A lmini trator phs .11 after consultation with appro-
priate local, Stat., and Federal agencies, public and private orgazil-
-------
11 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 104 Sec. 104
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 12
zations, and interested individuals, as soon as practicable but not
later than January 1, 1973 develop and issue to the States for the
purpose of carryinç out thuis Act the latest scientific knowledge
available in indicating the kind and extent of effects on health and
welfare which may be expected from the presence of pesticides in
the water in varying quantities. He shall revise and add to such
Information whenever necessary to reflect developing scientific
knowledge.
(2) The President shall, in consultation with appropriate local
State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations, and
interested individuals, conduct studies and investigations of meth-
ods to control the release of pesticides into the environment which
study shall include evAmination of the persistency of pesticides in
the water environment and alternative thereto. The President shall
submit reports, from time to time on such investigations to Con-
gress together with his recommendations for any necessary legisla-
tion.
(niX 1) The Administrator shall, in an effort to prevent degrada-
tion of the environment from the disposal of waste oil, conduct a
study of (A) the generation of used engine, machine, cooling, and
similar waste oil, including quantities generated, the nature and
quality of such oil, present collecting methods and disposal prac-
tices, and alternate uses of such oil; (B) the long-term chronic bio-
logical effects of the disposal of such waste oil; and ( ( 5)the poten-
tial market for such oils, Including the economic and legal factors
relating to the sale of products made from such oils, the level of
subsidy, if any needed to encourage the purchase by public and
private noz pro t agencies of products from such oil, and the prac-
ticability of Federal procurement, on a priority basis, of products
made from such oil. In conducting such study, the Administrator
shall consult with affected Industries and other persons.
(2) The Pihninistrator shall report the preliminary results of
such study to Congress within six months after the date of enact-
ment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, and shall submit a final report to Congress within 18 months
after such date of enactment.
(nXl) The Administrator shall, in cooperation with the Sec-
retary of the Army, the Secretary of Açriculture, the Water Re-
sources Council, and with other a propnate Federal, State, inter-
state, or local public bodies and pnvate organizations, institutions,
and individuals, conduct and promote, encourage contributions to,
continuing comprehensive studies of the effects of pollution, includ-
ing sedimentation, in the estuaries and estuarine zones of the Unit-
ed States on fish and wildlife, on sport and commercial fishing, on
recreation, on water supply and water power, and on other bene-
ficial purposes. Such studies shall also consider the effect of demo-
graphic trends, the exploitation of mineral resources and fossil
fuels, land and industrial development, navigation, flood and ero-
sion control, and other uses of estuaries and estuanne zones upon
the pollution of the waters therein.
(2) In conducting such studies, the Administrator shall assem-
ble, coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on
the Nation’s estuaries and estuarine zones; carry out a program of
investigations and surveys to supplement existing information in
representative estuaries and estuarine zones; and identify the prob-
- lems and areas where further research and study are required.
(3) The Administrator shall submit to Congress, from time to
time, reports of the studies authorized by this subsection but at
- least one such report during any aix-year period. Copies of each
such report shall be made available to all interested parties, public
and private.
(4) For the purpose of this subsection, the term “eatuarine
zones” means an environmental system consisting of an estuary
and those transitional areas which are consistently influenced or
affected by water from an estuary such as, but not limited to, salt
marshes, coastal and intertidal areas, bays, harbors, lagoons,
inshore waters, and channels, and the term uestuar1 means all or
part of the mouth of a river or stream or other body of water hay-
mg unimpaired natural connection with open sea and within which
the sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from
land drainage.
(oX 1) The Administrator shall conduct research and investiga-
tions on devices, systems, incentives, pricing policy, and other
methods of reducing the total flow of sewage, including, but not
limited to, unnecessary water consumption in order to reduce the
requirements for, and the costs of, sewage and waste treatment
services. Such research and investigations shall be directed to de-
velop devices, systems, policies, and methods capable of achieving
the maximum reduction of unnecessary water consumption.
(2) The Administrator shall report the preliminary results of
such studies and investigations to the Congress within one year
after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, and annually thereafter in the report re-
quired under subsection (a) of section 516. Such report shall in-
clude recommendations for any legislation that may be required to
provide for the adoption and use of devices, systems, policies, or
other methods of reducing water consumption and reducing the
total flow of sewage. Such report shall include an estimate of the
benefits to be derived from adoption and use of such devices, sys-
tems, policies, or other methods and also shall reflect estimates of
any increase in private, ablic, or other cost that would be occa-
sioned thereby.
(p) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this sec-
tion the Administrator shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, other Federal agencies, and the States, carry out a
comprehensive study and research program to determine new and
improved methods and the better application of existing methods
of preventing, reducing, and eliminating pollution from agriculture,
including the legal, economic, and other implications of the use of
such methods.
(qXl) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive pro-
gram of research and investigation and pilot project implementa-
tion into new and improved methods of preventing, reducing, stor-
— tag, collecting, treating, or otherwise eliminating pollution from
sewage in rural and other areas where collection of sewage in con-
ventional, community-wide sewage collection systems is imprac-
tical, unecon,n ical , or otherwise infeasible, or where soil conditions
-------
FEDERAL WATER POUIJHON CONTROL ACT
Sec. 104 Sec. 105
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL *tT
13
or other factors preclude the use of septic tank and drith ge field
systems.
(2) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive program
of research and investigation and pilot project implementation into
new and improved methods for the collection and treatment of sew-
age and other liquid wastes combined with the treatment and dis-
posal of solid wastes.
(3) The Administrator shall establish, either within the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, or throuçh contract with an appro-
priate public or private non-profit organi ntion, a national clearing-
house which shall (A) receive reports and information resulting
from research, demonstrations, and other projects funded under
this Act related to paragraph (1) of this subsection and to sub-
section (eX2) of section 105; (B) coordinate and disseminate such
reports and information for use by Federal and State agenciea mu-
nicipalities. institutions, and persons in developing new and im-
proved methods pursuant to this subsection; and (C) provide for the
collection and dissemination of reports and information relevant to
this subsection from other Federal and State agencies, institutions,
universities, and persons.
(4) SMALL FLOWS section
205(d) of this Act, from amounts that are set aside for a fiscal
year under section 205(i) of this Act and are not obligated by
the end of the 24-month period of availability for such amounts
under section 205(d), the Administrator shall make available
$1,000,000 or such unobligated amount, whichever Is less, to
support a national clearinghouse within the Environmental
Protection Agency to collect and disseminate information on
small flows of sewage and Innovative or alternative wastewater
treatment processes and techi iquea, consistent with paragraph
(3). This paragraph shall apply with respect to amounts set
aside under section 205(1) for which the 24-month period of
availability referred to in the preceding sentence ends on or
after September 80, 1986.
(r) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to colleges
and universities to conduct basic research into the structure and
function of fresh water aquatic ecosystems . and to improve under-
standing of the ecological charactenstics necessaly to the mainte-
nance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of fresh-
water aquatic ecosystems.
(a) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to one or
more institutions of higher education (regionally located and to be
designated as TM River Study Centers) for the purpose of conducting
and reporting on interdisciplinary studies on the nature of river
systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, economics, the rela-
tionship between river uses and land uses, and the effects of devel-
opment within river basins on river systems and on the value of
water resources and water related activities. No such grant in any
fiscal year shall exceed $1,000 000.
(t) The Administrator shall, in cooperation with State and Fed-
eral agencies and public and private organi’ tion5 conduct con-
tinuing comprehensive studies of the effects and methods of control
of thermal discharges. In evaluating alternative methods of control
the studI e shall consl’ 1 ’ (1) such data as are available on the lat-
eat available technology, economic feasibility including cost-effec-
tiveness analysis, and (2) the total impact on the environment, con-
sidering not only water quality but also air quality, land use, and
effective utilization and conservation of fresh water and other natu-
ral resources. Such studies shall consider methods of minimizing
adverse effects and maximizing beneficial effects of thermal dis-
charges. The results of these studies shall be reported by the Ad-
ministrator as soon as practicable, but not later than 270 days
after enactment of this subsection, and shall be made available to
the public and the States, and considered as they become available
by the Administrator in carrying out section 316 of this Act and by
the State in proposing thermal water quality standards.
(u) There is authorized to be appropriated (1) not to exceed
$100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1975, not to exceed $14,039,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1980, not to exceed $20,697,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1981, not to exceed $22,770,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, such sums as may be nec-
essary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and not to exceed
$22,770,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through
1990, for carrying out the provisions of this section, other than sub-
sections (gXl) and (2), (p), (r), and (t), except that such authoriza-
tions are not for any research, development, or demonstration ac-
tivity pursuant to such provisions; (2) not to exceed $7,500,000 for
fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975. $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1977.
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1978, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1979,
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1980, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1981,
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $3,000,000 per fiscal year for
each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for carrying out the pro-
visions of subsection (gXl); (3) not to exceed $2,500,000 for fiscal
years 1973, 1974. and 1975, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1977,
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1978, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1979,
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1980. $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1981,
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $1500000 per fiscal year for
each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for carrying out the pro-
visions of subsection (?X2); (4) not to exceed $10,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June 30, 1974, and June
30, 1975, for carrying out the provisions of subsection (p); (5) not
to exceed $15,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out
the provisions of subsection (r); and (6) not to exceed $10,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June 30,
1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the provisions of sub-
section (t).
(33 U.S.C. 1254)
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 106. (a) The Mvnirnntrator is authorized to conduct in the
Environmental Protection Agency. and to iranta to any
-------
Sec. 105 Sec. 105
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 1$
- 15
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
State, municipality, or mtermunicipal or interstate agency for the
purpose of assisting in the development of—
(1) any project which will demonstrate a new or improved
method of preventing, reducing, and eliminating the discharge
into any waters of pollutants from sewers which carry storm
water or both storm water and pollutants; or
(2) any project which will demonstrate advanced waste
treatment and water purification methods (including the tern-
porary use of new or improved chemical additives which pro.
yule substantial Immediate Improvement to existing treatment
processes), or new or Improved methods of joiut treatment sys-
tems for municipal and industrial wastes;
and to include in such grants such amounts as are necessary for
the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith.
(b) The Administrator is authorized to make Fants to any
State or States or interstate agency to demonstrate, in river basins
or portions thereof, advanced treatment and environmental en-
hancement techniques to control pollution from all sources, within
such basins or portions thereof 1 including nonpoint sources, to-
gether with in stream water quality Improvement techniques.
(c) In order to carry out the purposes of section 301 of this Act,
the Administrator Is authorized to (1) conduct in the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, (2) make grants to persona, and (3)
enter into contracts with persons, for research and demonstration
projects for prevention of pollution of any waters by industry in-
cluding, but not limited to, the prevention, reduction and elimi-
nation of the discharge of pollutants. No grant shall f e made for
any project under this subsection unless the Administrator deter-
mines that such project will develop or demonstrate a new or im-
proved method of treating industrial wastes or otherwise prevent
pollution by Industry, which method shall have lnduBtrywide appli-
cation.
(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Adminis-
trator shall conduct, on a priority basis, an accelerated effort to de-
velop, refine, and achieve practical application of
(1) waste management methods applicable to point and
nonpoint sources of pollutants to eliminate the discharge of
pollutants, Including, but not limited to, elimination of runoff
of pollutants and the effects of pollutants from inpiace or accu-
mulated sources
(2) advanceã waste treatment methods applicable to point
and nonpoint sources, including luplace or accumulated sources
of pollutants, and methods for reclaiming and recycling water
and co v’ ”g pollutants so they will not migrate to cause
water or other environmental pollution; and
(3) Improved methods and procedures to identify and
measure the effects of pollutants on the chemical, physical, and
biological lntegri( ’ of water, Including those pollutants created
by new technological developments.
(eXi) The Administrator is authorized to (A) make, in consulta-
tion with the Secretary of Agriculture, grants to persona for re-
search arid demonstration projects with respect to new and Im-
proved methods of preventing, reducing. and elb ”ln4 i ng pollution
from agriculture, and (B) disseminate, in cooperation with the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, such information obtained under this sub-
section, section 10 4 (p), and section 304 as will encourage and en-
able the adoption of such methods in the agricultural industry.
(2) The Administrator is authorized, (A) in consultation with
other interested Federal agencies, to make grants for demonstra-
tion projects with respect to new and improved methods of prevent-
ing, reducing, storing, collecting, treating, or otherwise eliminating
pollution from sewage in rural and other areas where collection of
sewage in conventional, community-wide sewage collection systems
is impractical, uneconomical, or otherwise infeasible, or where soil
conditions or other factors preclude the use of septic tank and
drainage field systems, and (B) in cooperation with other interested
Federal and State agencies, to disseminate such information ob-
tained under this subsection as will encourage and enable the
adoption of new and improved methods developed pursuant to this
subsection.
(I) Federal grants under subsection (a) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
(1) No grant shall be made for any project unless such
project shall have been approved by the appropriate State
water pollution control agency or agencies and by the Adminis-
trator,
(2) No grant shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding 75 per centum of cost thereof as determined by the
Administrator; and
(3) No grant shall be made for any project unless the Ad-
ministrator determines that such project will serve as a useful
demonstration for the purpose set forth in clause (1) or (2) of
subsection (a).
(g) Federal grants under subsections (c) and (d) of this section
shall not exceed 75 per centum of the cost of the project.
(h) For the purpose of this section there is authorized to be ap-
propriated $75,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1975, and from such appropriations at least
10 per centum of the funds actually appropriated in each fiscal
year shall be available only for the purposes of subsection (e).
(1) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to a mu-
nicipality to assist in the costs of operating and mainthinilig a
project which received a grant under this section, section 104, or
section 113 of this Act prior to the date of enactment of this sub-
section so as to reduce the operation and maintenance costs borne
by the recipients of services from such project to costs comparable
to those for projects assisted under title II of this Act.
(j) The Administrator Is authorized to make a grant to any
grantee who received an increased grant pursuant to section
202(aX2) of this Act. Such grant may pay up to 100 per centum of
the costs of technical evaluation of the operation of the treatment
works, costs of trab ing of persons (other than employees of the
grantee), and costa of dissemi ting technical information on the
operation of the treatment works.
(U U.S.C. 1261)
-------
11 FEDERAL WATER POU.UTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 106 Sac. 101
FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT 18
GRANTE FOR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEc. 106. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
the following sums, to remain available until expended, to carry
out the purposes of this section—
(1) $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973;
and
(2) $76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,
and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, $100,000,000 per fla.
cal year for the fiscal years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980,
$75,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1981 and 1982,
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through
1985, and $75,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal
years 1986 through 1990;
for grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in ad.
ministering programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimi-
nation of pollution, including enforcement directly or through ap-
propriate State law enforcement officers or agencies.
(b) From the sumá appropriated in any fiscal year, the Admin-
istrator shall make allotments to the several States and interstate
agencies in accordance with regulations promulgated by him on the
basis of the extent of the pollution problem in the respective States.
(c) The Administrator is authorized to pay to each State and
interstate agency each fiscal year either—
(1) the allotment of such State or agency for such fiscal
- year under subsection (b), or
(2) the reasonable costs as determined by the Adminis-
trator of developing and carrying out a pollution program by
such State or agency during such fiscal year,
whichever amount is the lesser.
(d) No grant shall be made under this section to any State or
interstate agency for any fiscal year when the expenditure of non-
Federal funds by such State or interstate agency during such fiscal
year for the recurrent expenses of carrying out its pollution control
program are less than the expenditure by such State or interstate
agency of non-Federal funds for such recurrent program expenses
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
(e) Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not
make any grant under this section to any State which has not pro-
vided or is not carrying out as a part of its program—
(1) the establishment and operation of appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to
compile and analyze data on (including classification according
to eutrophic condition), the quality of navigable waters and to
the extent practicable, ground waters including biological mon-
itoring; and provision for annually updating such data and in-
cluding it in the report required under section 305 of this Act;
(2) authority comparable to that in section 504 of this Act
and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
(f) Grants shall be made under this section on condition that,—
(1) Such State (or interstate agency) filed with the Admin-
istrator within one hundred and twenty days after the date of
‘actment of this section:
(A) a summary report of the current status of the
State-pollution control program, including the criteria used
by the State in determining priority of treatment works;
and
(B) such additional information, data, and reports as
the Administrator may require..
(2) No federally assumed enforcement as defined in section
309(aX2) is in effect with respect to such State or interstate
agency.
(3) Such State (or interstate agency) submits within one
hundred and twenty days after the date of enactment of this
section and before July 1 of each year thereafter for the Ad-
ministrator’s approval of its program for the prevention, reduc-
tion, and elimination of pollution in accordance with purposes
and provisions of this Act in such form and content as the Ad-
ministrator may prescribe.
(g) Any sums allotted under subsection (b) in any fiscal year
which are not paid shall be reallotted by the Administrator in ac-
cordance with regulations promulgated by him.
(33 U.S.C. 1256)
MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DEMONSTRATIONS
SEC. 107. (a) The Administrator in cooperation with the Appa-
lachian Regional Commission and other Federal agencies is author-
ized to conduct, to make grants for, or to contract for, projects to
demonstrate comprehensive approaches to the elimination or con-
trol of acid or other mine water pollution resulting from active or
abandoned mining operations and other environmental pollution af-
fecting water quality within all or part of a watershed or river
basin, including siltation from surface mining. Such projects shall
demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and practical-
ity of various abatement techniques which will contribute substan-
tially to effective and practical methods of acid or other mine water
pollution elimination or control, and other pollution affecting water
quality, including techniques that demonstrate the engineering and
economic feasibility and practicality of using sewage sludge mate-
rials and other municipal wastes to diminish or prevent pollution
affecting water quality from acid, sedimentation, or other pollut-
ants and in such projects to restore affected lands to usefulness for
forestry, agriculture, recreation, or other beneficial purposes.
(b) Prior to undertaking any demonstration project under this
section in the Appalachian region (as defined in section 403 of the
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended), the
Appalachian Regional Commission Bhall determine that such dem-
onstration project is consistent with the objectives of the Appalach-
ian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended.
(c) The Administrator, in selecting watersheds for the purposes
of this section, shall be satisfied that the project area will not be
affected adversely by the influx of acid or other mine water pollu-
tion from nearby sources.
(d) Federal participation in such projects shall be subject to the
conditions—
-------
19 FEIIERAL WAlER POUUIION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 108 Sec. 109
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 20
(1) that the State shall acquire any land or interests there-
in necessary for sUch project; and
(2) that the State shall provide legal and practical protec-
tion to the project area to insure against any activities which
will cause future acid or other mine water pollution.
(e) There Is authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available
until expended.
(33 U.S.C. 1251)
POLLUTION CONTROL IN GREAT LA1 S
SEc. 108. (a) The Administrator, in cooperation with other Fed-
eral departments, agencies, and Instrumentalities is authorized to
enter into agreements with any State, political subdivision, inter-
state agency, or other public agency, or combination thereof, to
carly out one or more projects to demonstrate new methods and
techniques and to develop preliminary plans for the elimination or
control of pollution, within all or any part of the watersheds of the
Great Lakes. Such projects shall demonstrate the engineering and
economic feasibility and practicality of removal of pollutants and
prevention of any polluting matter from entering into the Great
Lakes in the future and other reduction and remedial techniques
which will contribute substantially to effective and practical meth-
ods of pollution prevention, reduction, or elimination.
(b) Federal participation in such projects shall be subject to the
condition that the State, political subdivision, interstate agency, or
other public agency or combination thereof, shall pay not less than
25 per centum of the actual pro ect costs, which payment may be
in any form, including, but not limited to, land or interests therein
that is needed for the project, and personal property or services the
value of which shall be determined by the Administrator.
(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, which
sum shall be available until expended.
(dXl) In recognition of the serious conditions which exist in
Lake Erie, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, Is directed to design and develop a demonstration waste
water management program for the rehabilitation and environ-
mental repair of Lake Erie. Prior to the initiation of detailed engi-
neering and design, the program, along with the specific rec-
ommendations of the Chief of Engineers and recommendations for
its financing, shall be submitted to the Congress for statutory ap-
proval. This authority is in addition to, and not in lieu of, other
waste water studies aimed at eliminating pollution emanating from
select sources around Lake Erie.
(2) This program is to be developed in cooperation with the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, other Interested departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal Government, and
the States and their political subdivisions. This program shall set
forth alternative systems for managing waste water on a regional
basis and shall provide local and State governments with a range
of choice as to the type of system to be used for the treatment of
waste water. These alternative systems shall include both ad-
vanced waste treatment technology and land disposal systems in-
cluding aerated treatment-spray irrigation technology and will also
include provisions for the disposal of solid wastes, including sludge.
Such program should include measures to control point sources of
pollution, area sources of pollution, including acid-mine draina e,
urban runoff and rural runoff, and in place sources of pollution, in-
cluding bottom loads, sludge banks, and polluted harbor dredgings.
(e) There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of subsection Cd) of this section, which sum shall
be available until expended.
(33 U.S.C. 1258)
TRAINING GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
SEC. 109. (a) The Administrator is authorized to make grants
to or contracts with institutions of higher education, or combina-
tions of such institutions, to assist them in planning, developing,
strengthening, improving, or carrying out programs or projects for
the preparation of undergraduate students to enter an occupation
which involves the design, operation, and maintenance of treat-
ment works, and other facilities whose purpose is water quality
control. Such grants or contracts may include payment of all or
part of the cost of programs or projects such as—
(A) planning for the development or expansion of programs
or projects for training persons in the operation and mainte-
nance of treatment works;
(B) training and retraining of faculty members;
(C) conduct of short-term or regular session institutes for
study by persons engaged in, or preparing to engage in, the
preparation of students preparing to enter an occupation in-
volving the operation and maintenance of treatment works;
CD) carrying out innovative and experimental programs of
cooperative education involving alternate periods of full-time or
part-time academic study at the institution and periods of full-
time or part-time employment involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works; and
(E) research into, and development of, methods of training
students or faculty, including the preparation of teaching mate-
rials and the planning of curriculum.
(bXl) The Administrator may pay 100 per centuxn of any addi-
tional cost of construction of treatment works required for a facility
to train and upgrade waste treatment works operation and mainte-
nance personnel and for the costs of other State treatment works
operator training programs, including mobile training units, class-
room rental, specialized instructors, and instructional material.
(2) The Administrator shall make no more than one grant for
such additional construction in any State (to serve a group of
States, where, in his judgment, efficient training programs require
multi-State programs), and shall make such grant after consulta-
tion with and approval by the State or State8 on the basis of (A)
the suitability of such facility for training operation and mainte-
nance personnel for treatment works throughout such State or
States; and (B) a commitment by the State agency or agencies to
carry out at such facility a program of tr ning approved by the Ad-
-------
21 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 110 Sec. 111
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 22
ministrator. In any case where a grant is made to serve two or
more States, the Administrator 1. authorized to make an additional
grant for a supplemental facility in each such State.
(3) The Administrator may make such grant out of the sums
allocated to a State under section 205 of this Act, except that in
no event shall the Federal coat of any such training facilities ex-
ceed $500,000.
(4) The Administrator may exempt a grant under this section
from any requirement under section 204(aX3) of this Act. Any
grantee who received a grant under this section prior to enactment
of the Clean Water Act of 1977 shall be eligible to have its grant
increased by funds made available under such Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1259)
APPLICATION FOR TRAINING GRANT OR CONTRACT; ALLOCATION OF
GRANTS OR CONTRACTS
SEC. 110. (1) A grant or contract authorized by section 109 may
be made only upon application to the Administrator at such time
or times and containing such information as he may prescribe, ex-
cept that no such application shall be approved unless it—
(A) sets forth programs, activities, research, or develop-
ment for which a grant is authorized under section 109 and de-
scribes the relation to any program set forth by the applicant
in an application, if any, submitted pursuant to section 111;
(B) provides such fiscal control and fund accounting proce-
dures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of
and accounting for Federal funds paid to the applicant under
this section; and
(C) provides for making such reports, in such form and
containing such information, as the Administrator may require
to carry out his functions under this section, and for keeping
such records and for affording such access thereto as the Ad-
ministrator may find necessary to assure the correctness and
verification of such reports.
(2) The Administrator shall allocate grants or contracts under
section 109 in such manner as will most nearly provide an equi-
table distribution of the grants or contracts throughout the United
States among institutions of higher education which show promise
of being able to use funds effectively for the purpose of this section.
(3XA) Payments under this section may be used in accordance
with regulations of the Administrator, and subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in an application approved under paragraph
(1), to pay part of the compensation of students employed in con-
nection with the operation and maintenance of treatment works,
other than as an employee in connection with the operation and
maintenance of treatment works or as an employee in any branch
of the Government of the United States, as part of a program for
which a grant has been approved pursuant to this section.
(B) Departments and agencies of the United States are encour-
aged, to the extent consistent with efficient Atlminiiitration, to
enter into arrangements with institutions of higher education for
the full-time, part-time, or temporary employment, whether in the
competitive or excepted service, of students enrolled in programs
set forth in applications approved under paragraph (1).
(33 U.S.C. 1260) -
AWARD OF SCHOLARSHIPS
SEC. 111. (1) The Administrator is authorized to award schol-
arships in accordance with the provisions of this section for under-
graduate study by persons who plan to enter an occupation involv-
ing the operation and maintenance of treatment works. Such schol-
arships shall be awarded for such periods as the Administrator
may determine but not to exceed four academic years.
(2) The Administrator shall allocate scholarships under this
section among institutions of higher education with programs ap-
proved under the provisions of this section for the use of individ-
uals accepted into such programs, in such manner and accordance
to such plan as will insofar as practicable—
(A) provide an equitable distribution of such scholarships
throughout the United States; and
(B) attract recent graduates of secondary schools to enter
an occupation involving the operation and maintenance of
treatment works.
(3) The Administrator shall approve a proçram of any institu-
tion of higher education for the purposes of this section only upon
application by the institution and only upon his finding—
(A) that such program has as a principal objective the edu-
cation and training of persona in the operation and mainte-
nance of treatment works;
(B) that such program is in effect and of high quality, or
can be readily put into effect and may reasonably be expected
to be of high quality;
(C) that the application describes the relation of such pro-
gram to any program, activity, research, or development set
forth by the applicant in an application, if any, submitted pur-
suant to section 110 of this Act; and
(D) that the application contains satisfactory assurances
that (i) the institution will recommend to the Administrator for
the award of scholarships under this section, for study in such
program, only persons who have demonstrated to the satisfac-
tion of the institution a serious intent, upon completing the
program, to enter an occupation involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works, and (ii) the institution will
make reasonable continuing efforts to encourage recipients of
scholarships under this section, enrolled in such program, to
enter occupations involving the operation and maintenance of
treatment works upon completing the program.
(4XA) The Administrator shall pay to persons awarded scholar-
ships under this section such stipends (including such allowances
for subsistence and other expenses for such persona and their de-
pendents) as he may determine to be consistent with prevailing
practices under comparable federally Bupported programs.
(B) The Administrator shall (in addition to the stipends paid
to persons under paragraph (1)) pay to the institution of higher
education at which such person is pursuing his course of study
-------
23 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 113 Sec. 113
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 24
such amount as be may determine to be consistent with prevailing
practices under comparable federally supported programs.
(5) A person awarded a scholarship under the provisions of this
section shall continue to receive the payments provided in this sec-
tion only during such periods as the Administrator finds that he is
maintaining satisfactory proficiency and devoting full time to study
or research in the field in which such scholarship was awarded in
an institution of higher education, and is not engaging in gainful
employment other than employment approved by the Administrator
by or pursuant to regulation.
(6) The Administrator shall by regulation provide that any per-
son awarded a scholarship under this section shall agree in writing
to enter and remain in an occupation involving the desi n, oper-
ation or maintenance of treatment works for such period after
comp’etion of his course of studies as the Administrator determine8
appropriate.
(33 U.S.C. 1261)
DEFINmoNs AND AUTHORIZATION8
SEc. 112. (a) As used in sections 109 through 112 of this Act—
(1) The term “institution of higher education” means an
educational institution described in the first sentence of section
1201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (other than an insti-
tution of any agency of the United States) which is accredited
by a nationally recopuzed accrediting agency or association ap-
proved by the Administrator for this purpose. For purposes of
this subsection, the Administrator shall publish a list of na-
tionally recognized accrediting agencies or associations which
he determines to be reliable authority as to the quality of
training offered.
(2) The term “academic yeaf means an academic year or
its eq ilvalent, as determined by the Administrator.
(b) The Administrator shall annually report his activities
under sections 109 through 112 of this Act, including recommenda-
tions for needed revisions in the provisions thereof.
(c) There are authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 per fis-
cal year fbr fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June 30, 1974, and
June 30, 1975, $6,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30.
1977, $7,000 000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978,
$7,000,000 I or the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979,
*7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980,
7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981,
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and
$7,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through
1990, to carry out sections 109 through 112 of this Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1262)
ALASKA VILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
SEc. 113. (a) The Administrator is authorized to enter into
agreements with the State of Alaska to carry out one or more
projects to demonstrate methods to provide for central community
facilities for safe water and .limi1 nt1On or control of pollution in
those native villages of Alaska without such facilities. Such project
shall include provisions for community safe water supply systems,
toilets, bathing and laundry facilities, sewage disposal facilities,
and other similar facilities,, and educational and informational fa-
cilities and programs relating to health and hygiene. Such dem-
onstration projects shall be for the further purpose of developing
preliminary plans for providing such Bafe water and such elimi-
nation or control of pollution for all native villages in such State.
(b) In carrying out this section the Administrator shall cooper-
ate with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for the
purpose of utilizing such of the personnel and facilities of that De-
partment as may be appropriate.
(c) The Administrator shall report to Congress not later than
July 1, 1973, the results of the demonstration projects authorized
by this section together with his recommendations, including and
necessary legislation, relating to the establishment of a statewide
program.
(d) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
$2,000,000 to carry out this section. In addition, there is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section not to exceed $200,000
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and $220,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1979.
(e) The Administrator is authorized to coordinate with the Sec-
retary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, the Secretary of
the Department of Agriculture, and the heads of any other depart-
ments or agencies he may deem appropriate to conduct a joint
study with representatives of the State of Alaska and the appro-
priate Native organizations (as defined in Public Law 92—203) to
develop a comprehensive program for achieving adequate sanita-
tion services in Alaska villages. This study shall be coordinated
with the programs and projects authorized by sections 104(q) and
105(eX2) of this Act. The Administrator shall submit a report of the
results of the study, together with appropriate supporting data and
such recommendations as he deems desirable, to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and to the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representa-
tives not later than December 31, 1979. The Administrator shall
also submit recommended administrative actions, procedures, and
any proposed legislation necessary to implement the recommenda-
tions of the study no later than June 30, 1980.
(I) The Administrator is authorized to provide technical, finan-
cial and management assistance for operation and maintenance of
the demonstration projects constructed under this section, until
such time as the recommendations of subsection (e) are imple-
mented.
(g) For the purpose of this section, the term uvillagen shall
mean an incorporated or unincorporated community with a popu-
lation of ten to six hundred people living within a two-mile radius.
The term “sanitation services” shall mean water supply, sewage
disposal, solid waste disposal and other services necessary to main-
-------
25 FEDERAl. WATER.. POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 116
tam generally accepted standards of personal hygiene and public
health. . -
(33 U.S.C. 1263)
LAKE TAHOE STUDY
SEc. 114. (a) The Administrator, in consultation with the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Secretary of Agriculture,
other Federal agencies, representatives of State and local govern-
ments, and members of the public, shall conduct a thorough and
complete atudy on the adequacy of and need for extending Federal
oversight and control in order to preserve the fragile ecology of
Lake Tahoe.
(b) Such study shall include an examination of the inter-
relationships and responsibilities of the various agencies of the
Federal Government and State and local governments with a view
to establishing the necessity for redefinition of legal and other ar-
rangements between these various governments, and making spe-
cific legislative recommendations to Congress. Such study shall
consider the effect of various actions in terms of their environ-
mental impact on the Tahoe Basin, treated as an ecosystem.
(c) The Administrator shall report on such study to Congress
not later than one year after the date of enactment of this sub-
section.
(d) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion not to exceed $500,000.
(33 U.S.C. 1254)
IN-PLACE TOXIC POLLutANTS
SEC. 115. The Administrator is directed to identify the location
of in-place pollutants with emphasis on tosic pollutants in harbors
and navigable waterways and Is authorized, acting through the
Secretary of the Army, to make contracts for the removal and ap-
propriate disposal of such materials from critical port and harbor
areas. There is authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available
until expended.
(33 U.S.C. 1265)
HUDSON RIVER PCH RECLAMATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECt
SEC. 116. (a) The Administrator is authorized to enter into con-
tracts and other agreements with the State of New York to carry
out a project to demonstrate methods for the selective removal of
polychiorinated biphenyls contaminating bottom sediments of the
Hudson River, treating such sediments as required, burying such
sediments in secure landfills, and Installing monitoring systems for
such landfills. Such demonstration project shall be for the purpose
of determining the feasibility of indefinite storage in secure land-
fills of toxic subatances and of ascertaining the improvement of the
rate of recovery of a toxic contaminated national waterway. No pol-
lutants removed pursuant to this paragraph shall be placed in any
landfill unless the Mmi ’ii trator first determines that disposal of
the pollutants in such landfill would provide a higher standard of
-‘rotection of the public health, safety, and welfare than disposal -
Sec. 117 FEDERAL WATER ‘OU.UTION CONTROL ACT
such pollutants by any other method including, but not limited to,
incineration or a chemical destruction process.
(b) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to the
State of New York to carry out this section from funds allotted to
such State under section 205(a) of this Act, except that the amount
of any such grant shall be equal to 75 per centum of the cost of
the project and such grant shall be made on condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of the cost of such project.
The authority of this section shall be available until September 30,
1983. Funds allotted to the State of New York under section 205(a)
shall be available under this subsection only to the extent that
funds are not available, as determined by the Administrator, to the
State of New York for the work authorized by this section under
section 115 or 311 of this Act or a comprehensive hazardous sub-
stance response and clean up fund. Any funds used under the au-
thority of this subsection shall be deducted from any estimate of
the needs of the State of New York prepared under section 616(b)
of this Act. The Administrator may not obligate or expend more
than $20,000,000 to carry out this section.
(33 U.S.C. 1266)
SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
(a) OFFICE.—The Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake
Bay Program and shall establish and maintain the Environmental
Protection Agency an office, division, or branch of Chesapeake Bay
Programs to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and
other appropriate means, information pertaining to the envi-
ronmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay (hereinafter in this
subsection referred to as the “Bay”);
(2) coordinate Federal and State efforts to improve the
water quality of the Bay;
(3) determine the impact of sediment deposition in the Bay
and identify the sources, rates, routes, and distribution pat-
terns of such sediment deposition; and
(4) determine the impact of natural and man-induced envi-
ronmental changes on the living resources of the Bay and the
relationships among such changes with particular emphasis
placed on the Impact of pollutant loadings of nutrients, chlo-
rine, acid precipitation, dissolved oxygen, and toxic pollutants,
including organic chemicals and heavy metals, and with special
attention given to the impact of such changes on striped bass.
(b) INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT Pi Ga .—
(1) ALrrHoiury.—The Administrator shall, at the request of
the Governor of a State affected by the interstate management
plan developed pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay Program
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the “plan”), make a
grant for the purpose of implementing the management mecha-
nisms contained in the plan if such State has, within 1 year
alter the date of the enactment of this section, approved and
committed to implement all or substantially all aspects of the
plan. Such grants shall be made subject to such terms and con-
ditions as the A.Imini*trator considers appropriate.
26
-------
27 — -- FEDERAL WAlER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. ITO Sec. 118
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 28
(2) SuBMISSIoN OF PROPOSAL—A State or combination of
States may elect to avail itself of the benefits of this subsection
by submitting to the Administrator a comprehensive proposal
to implement management mechanisms contained in the plan
which shall include (A) a description of proposed abatement ac-
tions which the State or combination of States commits to take
within a specified time period to reduce pollution in the Bay
and to meet applicable water quality standards, and (B) the es-
timated cost of the abatement actions proposed to be taken
during the next fiscal year. If the Administrator finds that
such proposal is consistent with the national policies set forth
in section 101(a) of this Act and will contribute to the achieve-
ment of the national goals set forth in such section, the Admin-
istrator shall approve such proposal and shall finance the coats
of implementing segments of such proposal.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE—Grants under this subsection shall
not exceed 50 percent of the costs of implementing the manage-
ment mechanisms contained in the plan in any fiscal year and
shall be made on condition that non-Federal sources provide
the remainder of the cost of implementing the management
mechanisms contained In the plan during such fiscal year.
(4) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Administrative coats in the
form of salaries, overhead, or indirect costs for services pro-
vided and charged against programs or projects supported by
funds made available under this subsection shall not exceed in
any one fiscal year 10 percent of the annual Federal grant
made to a State under this subsection.
(c) RxPowrs.—Any State or combination of States that receives
a grant under subsection (b) shall, within 18 months after the date
of receipt of such grant and biennially thereafter, report to the Ad-
ministrator on the progress made in implementing the interstate
management plan developed pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram. The Administrator shall transmit each such report along
with the comments of the Administrator on such report to Con-
gress.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are hereby au-
thorized to be appropriated the following sums, to remain available
until expended, to carry out the purposes of this section:
(I) $3,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years
1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, to carry out subsection (a); and
(2) $10,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years
1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, for grants to States under sub-
section (b).
(33 U.S.C. 1267)
SEC. 118. GREAT LA
(a) FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS.—
(1) FINDINCS.—The Congress finds that—
(A) the Great Lakes are a valuable national resource
continuously serving the people of the United States anJ
other nations as an important source of food, fresh water,
recreation, beauty, and enjoyment;
(B) the United States should seek to attain the goals
embodied in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978, as amended by the Water Quality Agreement of
1987 and any other agreements and amendments, with
particular emphasis on goals related to toxic pollutants;
and
(C) the Environmental Protection Agency should take
the lead in the effort to meet those goals, working with
other Federal agencies and State and local authorities.
(2) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section to achieve
the goals embodied in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment of 1978, as amended by the Water Quality Agreement of
1987 and any other agreements and amendments, through im-
proved organization and definition of mission on the part of the
Agency, funding of State grants for pollution control in the
Great Lakes area, and improved accountability for implemen-
tation of such agreement.
(3) DEFINITIONS.—Fot- purposes of this section, the trm—
(A) “Agency” means the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(B) “Great Lakes” means Lake Ontario, Lake Erie,
Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Michigan,
and Lake Superior, and the connecting channels (Saint
Mary’s River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara
River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian Border);
(C) “Great Lakes System” means all the streams, riv-
ers, lakes, and other bodies of water within the drainage
basin of the Great Lake
(D) “Program Office means the Great Lakes National
Program Office established by this section;
(E) “Research Office” means the Great Lakes Research
Office established by aubsection (d);
(F) “area of concern” means a geographic area located
within the Great Lakes, in which beneficial uses are im-
paired and which has been officially designated as such
under Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment;
(G) “Great Lakes States” means the States of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Penn-
sylvania, and Wisconsin;
(H) “Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement” means
the bilateral agreement, between the United States and
Canada which was signed in 1978 and amended by the
Protocol of 1987-
(I) “Lakewiie Management Plan” means a written dec.
wnent which embodies a systematic and comprehensive
ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting the bene-
ficial uses of the open waters of each of the Great Lakes,
in accordance with article VI and Annex 2 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement; and
(J) “Remedial Action Plan” means a written document
which embodies a systematic and comprehensive eco-
system approach to restoring and protecting the beneficial
uses of areas of concern, in accordance with article VI and
Annex 2 of the Great I. fr,s Water Quality Agreement.
-------
29 FEDERAL WATER POWIIION CONTROL ACT
Sc. 118 Sec. 118
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 30
(b) GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE.—The Great
Lakes National Program Office (previously established by the Ad-
ministrator) is hereby established within the Agency. The Program
Office shall be headed by a Director who, by reason of management
experience and technical expertise relating to the Great Lakes, is
highly qualified to direct the devel9pment of programs and plane
on a variety of Great LnIr i 5 issues. The Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office shall be located in a Great Lakes State.
(c) Ga&ir LAKES MANAGEMENT.—
(1) FUNCTIONS.—The Program Office shall—
(A) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State,
tribal, and international agencies, and in accordance with
section 10 1(e) of this Act, develop and implement pecific
action plans to cariy out the responsibilities of the United
States under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978, as amended by the Water Quality Agreement of
1987 and any other agreementa and amendments,;’
(B) establish a Great Lakes system-wide surveillance
network to monitor the water quality of the Great Lakes,
with specific emphitme on the monitoring of toxic pollut-
ants;
(C) serve as the liaison with, and provide information
to, the Canadian members of the International Joint Com-
mission and the Canadian counterpart to the Agency;
(D) coordinate actions of the Agency (including actions
by headquarters and regional offices thereof) aimed at im-
proving Great Lakes water quality; and
(E) coordinate actions of the Agency with the actions
of other Federal agencies and State and local authorities,
so as to ensure the input of those ajencies and authorities
in developing water quality strategies and obtain the su
port of those agencies and authorities in achieving the o
pectives of such agreement.
(2) Ga&ir LAKES WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE.—
(A) By June 30, 1991, the Administrator, after con-
sultation with the Program Office, shall publish in the
Federal Register for public notice and comment proposed
water quality guidance for the Great Lakes System. Such
guidance shall conform with the objectives and provisions
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, shall be no
less restrictive than the provisions of this Act and national
water quality criteria and guidance, shall specify numeri-
cal limits on pollutants in ambient Great Lakes waters to
protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife, and shall
provide guidance to the Great Lakes States on minimum
water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and im-
plementation procedures for the Great Lakes System.
(B) By June 30, 1992, the Administrator, in consulta-
tion with the Program Office, shall publish in the Federal
Register, pursuant to this section and the Administrator’s
authority under this chapter, final water quality guidance
for the Great LRLes System.
‘8.. P.1. 100483, .tins lOO&
(C) Within twojrears after such Great Lakes guidance
is published the Great Lakes States shall adopt water
quality standards, antidegradation policies, and implemen-
tation procedures for waters within the Great Lakes Sys-
tem which are consistent with such guidance. It a Great
Lakes State fails to adopt such standards, policies, and
procedures, the Administrator shall promulgate them not
later than the end of such two-year period. When review-
ing any Great Lakes State’s water quality plan, the agency
shall consider the extent to which the State has complied
with the Great Lakes guidance issued pursuant to this sec-
tion.
(3) REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS.—
(A) For each area of concern for which the United
States has agreed to draft a Remedial Action Plan, the
Program Office shall ensure that the Great Lakes State in
which such area of concern is located—
(i) submits a Remedial Action Plan to the Program
Office by June 30, 1991;
(ii) submits such Remedial Action Plan to the
International Joint Commission by January 1, 1992;
and
(iii) includes such Remedial Action Plans within
the State’s water quality plan by January 1, 1993.
(B) For each area of concern for which Canada has
agreed to draft a Remedial Action Plan, the Program Of-
fice shall, pursuant to subparagraph (cX IXC) of this sec-
tion, work with Canada to assure the submission of such
Remedial Action Plans to the International Joint Commis-
aion by June 30, 1991, and to finalize such Remedial Ac-
tion Plans by January 1, 1993.
(C) For any area of concern designated as such subse-
quent to the enactment of this Act, the Program Office
shall (i) if the United States baa agreed to draft the Reme-
dial Action Plan, ensure that the Great Lakes State in
which such area of concern is located submits such Plan to
the Program Office within two years of the area’s designa-
tion, submits it to the International Joint Commission no
later than six months after submitting it to the Program
Office, and includes such Plan in the State’s water quality
plan no later than one year after submitting it to the Com-
mission; and (ii) if Canada has agreed to draft the Reme-
dial Action Plan, work with Canada, pursuant to subpara-
graph (cX1XC) of this section, to ensure the submission of
such Plan to the International Joint Commission within
two years of the area’s designation and the finalization of
such Plan no later than eighteen months after submitting
it to such Commission.
CD) The Program Office shall compile formal comments
on individual Remedial Action Plane made by the Inter-
national Joint Commission pursuant to section 4(d) of
Annex 2 of the Great Liikee Water Quality Agreement and,
-upon request by a member of the public, shall make such
comments available for inspection and copying. Thu ‘
-------
21 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 118 Sec. 118
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 32
gram Office shall also make available 1 upon request, for-
mal comments made by the Environmental Protection
Agency on individual Remedial Action Plans.
(4) LANEWIDE MANAGEMENT pLANS.—The Administrator, in
consultation with the Program Office shall—
(A) by January 1, 1992, publish in the Federal Reg-
ister a proposed Lakewide Management Plan for Lake
Michigan and solicit public comments;
(B) by January 1, 1993, submit a proposed Lakewide
Mana&ement Plan for Lake Michigan to the International
Joint Commission for review; and
(C) by January 1, 1994, publish in the Federal Reg-
ister a final Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Michi-
and begin implementation.
Nothing in this subparagraph shall preclude the simultaneous de-
velopment of Lakewide Management Plans for the other Great
Lakes.
(5) SPILLS OF OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERLALS.—The Pro-
gram Office, in consultation with the Coast Guard, shalt iden-
tify areas within the Great Lakes which are likely to experi-
ence numerous or voluminous spills of oil or other hazardous
materials from land based facilities, vessels, or other sources
and, in consultation with the Great Lakes States, shall identify
weaknesses in Federal and State programs and systems to pre-
vent and respond to such spills. This information shall be in-
cluded on at least a biennial basis in the report required by
this section.
(6) 5-YEAR PLAN AND P. ROGRAM.—The Program Office shall
develop, in consultation with the States, a five-year plan and
program for reducing the amount of nutrients introduced into
the Great Lakes. Such program shall incorporate any manage-
ment program for reducing nutrient runoff from nonpoint
sources established under section 319 of this Act and shall in-
chide a program for monitoring nutrient runoff into, and ambi-
ent levels in, the Great Lakes.
(7) 5-YEAR STUDY AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.—(A) The
Program Office shall carry out a five-year study and dem-
onstration projects relating to the control and removal of toxic
pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis on the removal
of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. In selecting loca-
tions for conducting demonstration projects under this para-
graph, priority consideration shall be given to projects at the
following locations: Saginaw Bay, Michigan; Sheboygan Har-
bor, Wisconsin Grand Calumet River, Indiana; Aahtabula
River, Ohio; anâ Buffalo River, New York.
(B) The Program Office shall—
(i) by December 31, 1990, complete chemical,
physical, and biological assessments of the contami-
nated sediments at the locations selected for the study
and demonstration projects;
(ii) by December 31, 1990, announce the tech-
nologies that will be demonstrated at each location
and the numerical standard of protection intended to
be achieved at each location;
(iii) by December 31, 1992, complete full or pilot
scale demonstration projects on site at each location of
promising technologies to remedy contaminated sedi-
ments; and
(iv) by December 31, 1993, issue a final report to
Congress on its findings.
(C) The Administrator, after providing for public re-
view and comment, shall publish information concerning
the public health and environmental consequences of con-
taminants in Great Lakes sediment. Information published
pursuant to this subparagraph shall include specific nu-
merical limits to protect health, aquatic life, and wildlife
from the bioaccumulation of toxins. The Administrator
shall, at a minimum, publish information pursuant to this
subparagraph within 2 years of the date of the enactment
of this title.
(8) ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITY.—The Administrator
shall ensure that the Program Office enters into agreements
with the various organizational elements of the Agency in-
volved In Great Lakes activities and the appropriate State
agencies specifically delineating—
(A) the duties and responsibilities of each such ele-
ment in the Agency with respect to the Great Lakes;
(B) the time periods for carrying out such duties and
responsibilities; and
(C) the resources to be committed to such duties and
responsibilities.
(9) BuDGEr ITRM.—The Administrator shall, in the Agen-
cy’s annual budget submission to Congress, include a funding
request for the Program Office as a separate budget line item.
(10) COMPREHENSIVE REPORT.—Within 90 days after the
end of each fiscal year, the Administrator shall submit to Con-
gress a comprehensive report which—
(A) describes the achievements in the preceding fiscal
year in implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978 and shows by categories (including ju-
dicial enforcement, research, State cooperative efforts, and
general administration) the amounts expended on Great
Lakes water quality initiatives in such preceding fiscal
year;
(B) describes the progress made in such preceding fis-
cal year In Implementing the system of surveillance of the
water quality in the Great Lakes System, including the
monitoring of groundwater and sediment, with particular
reference to toxic pollutants;
(C) describes the long-term prospects for improving
the condition of the Great Lakes; and
(D) provides a comprehensive assessment of the
planned efforts to be pursued in the succeeding fiscal year
for implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment of 1978, which assessment shall—
(i) show by categories (including judicial enforce-
ment, research, State cooperative efforts, and general
administration) the amount anticipated to be ex-
-------
33 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Ssc. 118 Sec. 118
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 34
pended on Great Lakes water quality initiatives in the
fiscal 7 ear to which the assessment relates; and
(ii) Include a report of current programs adminis-
tered by other Federal agencies which make available
resources to the Great Lakes water quality manage-
ment efforts.
(11) C0NPINED DISPOSAL FAcILITIE8.—(A) The Adminis-
trator, in consultation with the Assistant Secretar , of the
Army for Civil Works, shall develop and implement, within one
year of the date of enactment of this paragraph, management
plans for every Great Lakes confined disposal facility.
(B)-The plan shall provide for monitoring of such facilities,
including—
(i) water quality at the site and in the area of the site;
(ii) sediment quality at the site and in the area of the
site;
(iii) the diversity, productivity, and stability of aquatic
organisms at the site and in the area of the site; and
(iv) such other conditions as the Administrator deems
appropriate.
(CiThe plan shall identify the anticipated use and man-
agement of the site over the following twenty-year period in-
cluding the expected termination of dumping at the site, the
anticipated need for site management, including pollution con-
trol, following the termination of the use of the site.
(D) The plan shall identify a schedule for review and revi-
sion of the plan which shall not be less frequent than five
years after adoption of the plan and every five years there-
after.
(d) Gs T LAKES RESEARCH.—
(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF RESEARCH OFFICE.—There is estab-
lished within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration the Great Lakes Research Office.
(2) IDENTWIcATI0N OF ISSUES—The Research Office shall
identif r issues relating to the Great Lakes resources on which
research is needed. The Research Office shall submit a report
to Congress on such issues before the end of each fiscal year
which shall identify any changes in the Great Lakes system
with respect to such issues.
(3) INvENTORY—The Research Office shall identify and in-
ventory, Federal, State, university, and tribal environmental
research programs (and, to the extent feasible, those of private
organizations and other nations) relating to the Great Lakes
system, and shall update that inventory every four years.
(4) RESEARCH EXCHANGE.—The Research Office shall es-
tablish a Great Lakes research exchange for the purpose of fa-
cilitatin? the rapid identification, acquisition, retrieval, dis-
semination, and use of information concerning research
projects which are ongoing or completed and which affect the
Great T .fres system.
(5) RESEARCH PROGRAM—The Research Office shall de-
velop, in cooperation with the Coordination Office, a com-
prehensive environmental research program and data base for
the Great L k 5 system. The data base shall include, but not
be limited to, data relating to water quality, fisheries, and
biota.
(6) M0NIT0mNG.—The Research Office shall conduct,
through the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
the National Sea Grant College program, other Federal labora-
tories, and the private sector, appropriate research and mon-
itoring activities which address priority issues and current
needs relating to the Great Lakes.
(7) LOCATION—The Research Office shall be located in a
Great Lakes State.
(e) RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT COORDINATION.—
(1) JOINT PI.AN.—Before October 1 of each year, the Pro-
gram Office and the Research Office shall prepare a joint re-
search plan for the fiscal year which begins in the following
calendar year.
(2) CONTENTS OF PLAN.—Each plan prepared under para-
graph (I) shall—
(A) identify all proposed research dedicated to activi-
ties conducted under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978;
(B) include the Agency’s assessment of priorities for
research needed to fulfill the terms of such Agreement,
and
(C) identify all proposed research that may be used to
develop a comprehensive environmental data base for the
Great Lakes system and establish priorities for develop-
ment of such data base.
(3) HEALTH RESEARCH REP0RT.—(A) Not later than Sep-
tember 30, 1994, the Program Office, in consultation with the
Research Office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, and Great Lakes States shall submit to the Congress
a report assessing the adverse effects of water pollutants in the
Great Lakes System on the health of persons in Great Lakes
States and the health of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the
Great Lakes System. In conducting research in support of this
report, the Administrator may, where appropriate, provide for
research to be conducted under cooperative agreements with
Great Lakes States.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Admims-
trator to carry out this section not to exceed $3,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994.
(I) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.—The head of each department,
agency, or other instrumentality of the Federal Government which
is engaged in, is concerned with, or has authority over programs
relating to research, monitoring, and planning to maintain, en-
hance, preserve, or rehabilitate the environmental quality and nat-
ural resources of the Great Lakes, including the Chief of Engineers
— of the Army, the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, the Com-
mandant of the Coast Guard, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, shall submit an annual report to the Ad-
ministrator with respect to the activities of that agency or office of-
fecting compliance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
of 1978.
-------
35 FEDERAl. WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 119 Sec. 119
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 3$
(g) RELATIONSHIP TO ExIsTING FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND
INTERNATIONAL TREATIFS.—Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to affect the jurisdiction 1 powers, or prerogatives of any de-
partment, agency, or officer of the Federal Government or of any
State government, or of any tribe, nor any powers, jurisdiction, or
prerogatives of any international body created by treaty with au-
thority relating to the Great Lakes.
(h) AImI0RIzATI0NS OF GREAT LAKES APPROPRIATIONS.—There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out
this section not to exceed $11,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal
years 1987, 1988, 1989. and 1990 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year
1991. Of the amounts appropnatecf each fiscalyear—
(1) 40 percent shall be used by the Great Lakes National
Program Office on demonstration projects on the feasibility of
controlling and removing toxic pollutants;
(2) 7 percent shall be used by the Great Lakes National
Program Office for the program of nutrient monitoring; and
(3) 30 percent or $3,300,000, whichever is the lesser, shall
be transferred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration for use by the Great Lakes Research Office.
(33 U.S.C. 1268) -
SEc. 119. LONG ISLAND SOUND.—(a) The Administrator shall
continue the Management Conference of the Long Island Sound
Study (hereinafter referred to as the “Conference”) as established
pursuant to section 320 of this Act, and shall establish an office
(hereinafter referred to as the “Office”) to be located on or near
Long Island Sound.
(b) ADMINISTRATION AND SlAPPING OF OrncE.—The Office
shall be headed by a Director, who shall be detailed by the Admin-
istrator, following consultation with the Administrators of EPA re-
Øons I and II, from among the employees of the Agency who are
in civil service. The Administrator shall delegate to the Director
such authority and detail such additional staff as may be necessary
to carry out the duties of the Director under this section.
(c) DuTIES O m OFrIcE.—The Office shall assist the Man-
agement Conference of the Long Island Sound Study in carrying
out Its goals. Specifically, the Office shall—
(1) assist and support the Implementation of the Com-
prehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Long Is-
land Sound developed pursuant to section 320 of this Act;
(2) conduct or commission studies deemed necessary for
strengthened implementation of the Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan Including, but not limited to—
(A) population growth and the adequacy of wastewater
treatment facilities
(B) the use of Lioiogicai methods for nutrient removal
in sewage treatment plants,
(C) contaminated sediments, and dredging activities,
• (D) nonpoint source pollution abatement and land use
activities in the Long Island Sound watershed,
(E) wetland protection and restoration,
(F) atmospheric deposition of acidic and other pollut-
ants into Long Island Sound,
(G) water quality requirements to sustain fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife populations, and the use of indicator spe-
cies to assess environmental quality.
(H) State water quality programs, for their adequacy
pursuant to implementation of the Comprehensive Con-
servation and Management Plan, and
(I) options for long-term financing of wastewater treat-
- mont projects and water pollution control programs.
(3) coordinate the grant, research and planning programs
authorized under this section;
(4) coordinate activities and implementation responsibil-
ities with other Federal agencies which have jurisdiction over
Long Island Sound and with national and regional marine
monitoring and research programs established pursuant to the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act;
(5) provide administrative and technical support to the
conference;
(6) collect and make available to the public publications,
and other forms of information the conference determines to be
appropriate, relating to the environmental quality of Long Is-
land Sound;
(7) not more than two years after the date of the issuance
of the final Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for Long Island Sound under section 320 of this Act, and
biennially thereafter, issue a report to the Congress which—
(A) summarizes the progress made by the States in
implementing the Comprehensive Conservation and Man-
agement Plan;
(B) summarizes any modifications to the Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management Plan in the twelve-
month period immediately preceding ouch report; and
(C) incorporates specific recommendations concerning
the implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan; and
(8) convene conferences and meetings for legislators from
State governments and political subdivisions thereof for the
purpose of making recommendations for coordinating legisla-
tive efforts to facilitate the environmental restoration of Long
Island Sound and the implementation of the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan.
(d) GRANrS.—(1) The Administrator is authorized to make
grants for projects and studies which will help implement the Long
Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
Special emphasis shall be given to implementation, research and
planning, enforcement, and citizen involvement and education.
(2) State, interstate, and regional water pollution control agen-
cies, and other public or nonprofit private agencies, inBtitutions,
and orpnizations held to be eligible for grants pursuant to this
subsection.
(3) Citizen involvement and citizen education grants under this
subsection shall not exceed 95 per centuin of the costs of such
work. All other grants under this subsection shall not exceed 50
per centum of the research, studies, or work. All grants shall be
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLlUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 120 Sec. 120
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 38
31
made on the condition that the non-Federal share of such costa are
provided from non-Federal sourcea.
(e) AUmORIZATIONS.—(1) There is authorized to be appro-
priated to the Administrator for the implementation of this section,
other than subsection (d), such sums as may be necessary for each
of the fiscal years 1991 through 2001.
(2) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator
for the implementation of subsection (d) not to exceed $3,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 1991 through 2001.
(33 U S.C. 1269)
LAKE CHAMPLAIN MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
SEC. 120. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a Lake
Champlain Management Conference to develop a comprehensive
pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan for Lake Cham-
plain. The Administrator shall convene the management conference
within ninety days of the date of enactment of this section.
(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Members of the Management Con-
• fereuce shall be comprised of—
(1) the Governors of the States of Vermont and New York;
(2) each interested Federal agency, not to exceed a total of
five members;
(3) the Vermont and New York Chairpersons of the Ver-
mont, New York, Quebec Citizens Advisory Committee for the
Environmental Management of Lake Champlain;
(4) four representatives of the State legislature of Ver-
mont;
(5) four representatives of the State legiBlature of New
York;
(6) six persons representing local ?overnmenta having ju-
risdiction over any land or water within the Lake Champlain
basin, as determined appropriate by the Governors; and
(7) eight persons representing affected industries, non-
governmental organizations, public and private educational in-
stitutions, and the general public, as determined appropriate
by the trigovernmental Citizens Advisory Committee for the
Environmental Management of Lake Champlain, but not to be
current members of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
(c) TECHNICAl.. ADvISORY C0MMrrrEE.—(1) The Management
Conference shall, not later than one hundred and twenty days aller
the date of enactment of this section, appoint a Technical Advisory
Committee.
(2) Such Technical Advisory Committee shall consist of officials
of: appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment; the State governments of New York and Vermont; and gov-
ernments of political subdivisions of such States; and public and
private research institutions.
(d) RESEARCH PROGRAM.—(1)’ The Management Conference
shall establish a multi-disciplinary environmental research pro-
gram for Lake Champlain. Such research program shall be planned
‘sw. 14, psrlgr.3b (2). 8.. P.1.. 101-696, 303, 104 Stat. 3008.
and conducted jointly with the Lake Champlain Research Consor-
Lium.
(e) POlLUTION PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND RESTORATION
PLaN.—(1) Not later than three years after the date of the enact-
ment of this section, the Management Conference shall publish a
pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan (hereafter in this
section referred to as the “Plan) for Lake Champlain.
(2) The Plan developed pursuant to this section shall—
(A) identify corrective actions and compliance schedules
addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollution necessary to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in-
tegrity of water quality, a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife, recreational, and economic activities
in and on the lake;
(B) incorporate environmental management concepts and
programs established in State and Federal plans and programs
in effect at the time of the development of such plan;
(C) clarify the duties of Federal and State agencies in pol-
lution prevention and control activities, and to the extent al-
lowable by law, suggest a timetable for adoption by the appro-
priate Federal and State agencies to accomplish such duties
within a reasonable period of time;
(D) describe the methods and schedules for funding of pro-
grams, activities, and projects identified in the Plan, including
the use of Federal funds and other sources of funds; and
(E) include a strategy for pollution prevention and control
that includes the promotion of pollution prevention and man-
agement practices to reduce the amount of pollution generated
in the Lake Champlain basin.
(3) The Administrator, in cooperation with the Management
Conference, shall provide for public review and comment on the
draft Plan. At a minimum, the Management Conference shall con-
duct one public meeting to hear comments on the draft plan in the
State of New York and one such meeting in the State of Vermont.
(4) Not less than one hundred and twenty days after the publi-
cation of the Plan required pursuant to this section, the Adminis-
trator shall approve such plan if the plan meets the requirements
of this section and the Governors of the States of New York and
Vermont concur.
(5) Upon approval of the plan, such plan shall be deemed to
be an approved management program for the purposes of section
319(h) of this Act and such plan shall be deemed to be an approved
comprehensive conservation and management plan pursuant to sec-
tion 320 of this Act.
(f) GRANT ASSISTANCE.—(1) The Administrator may, in con-
sultation with the Management Conference, make grants to State,
interstate, and regional water pollution control agencies, and public
or nonprofit agencies, institutions, and organizations.
(2) Grants under this subsection shall be made for assisting re-
search, surveys, studies, and modeling and technical and support-
ing work necessary for the development of the Plan and for retain-
ing expert consultants in support of litigation undertaken by the
State of New York and the State of Vermont to compel cleanup or
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec _2 01 Sec. 201
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 40
39
obtain cleanup damage costs from persofla responsible for pollution
of Lake Champlain.
(3) The amount of grants to any person under this subsection
for a fiscal year shall not exceed 75 per centum of the costs of such
research, survey, study and work and shall be made available on
the condition that non-Federal share of such costs are provided
from non-Federal sources.
(4) The Administrator may establish such requirements for the
administration of grants as he determines to be appropriate.
(g) DEFINITION.—FOr the pur,poses of this section, the term
“Lake Champlain drainage basin means all or part of Clinton.
Franklin. Warren, Essex, and Wa8hington counties in the State of
New York and all or part of Franklin, Grand Isle, Chittenden,
Addison, Rutland, Lamoille. Orange, Washington, Orleans. and
Caledonia counties in Vermont, that contain all of the streams, nv-
ers, lakes, and other bodies of water, including wetlands, that drain
into Lake Champlain.
(h) STATUTORY INIERpRETATION._NOthing in this section shall
be construed so as to affect the jurisdiction or powers of—
(1) any department or agency of the Federal Government
or any State government; or
(2) any international organization or entity related to Lake
Champlain created by treaty or memorandum to which the
United States is a signatory.
(i) AUTHOR IZATION. —There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out this section
$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991, 1992. 1993, 1994, and
1995.
(33 U.S.C. 1270)
TITLE Il—GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT
WORKS
PURPOSE
SEc. 201. (a) It is the purpose of this title to require and to as.
sist the development and Implementation of waste treatment man-
agement plans and practices which will achieve the goals of this
Act.
(b) Waste treatment management plans and practices shall
provide for the application of the best practicable waste treatment
technology before any discharge into receiving waters, including re-
claiming and recycling of water, and confined disposal of pollutants
so they will not migrate to cause water or other environmental pol-
lution and shall provide for consideration of advanced waste treat-
ment tei 4 niquea.
(c) To the extent practicable, waste treatment management
shall be on an areawide basis and provide control or treatment of
all point and nonpoint sources of pollution, Including in place or ac-
cumulated pollution sources..
(4) The Administrator shall encourage wiate treatment man-
agement which results in the construction of revenue producing fa-
cilitlea providing for—
(1) the recycling of potential sewage pollutants through the
production of agriculture, silviculture, or aquaculture products,
or any combination thereof;
(2) the confined and contained disposal of pollutants not
recycled;
(3) the reclamation of wastewater; and
(4) the ultimate disposal of sludge in a manner that will
not result in environmental hazards.
(e) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment man-
agement which results in integrating facilities for sewage treat-
ment and recycling with facilities to treat, dispose of, or utilize
other industrial and municipal wastes, including but not limited to
solid waste and waste heat and thermal discharges. Such inte-
grated facilities shall be designed and operated to produce revenues
in excess of capital and operation and maintenance costs and such
revenues shall be used by the desiçnated regional management
agency to aid in financing other environmental improvement pro-
grams.
(f) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment man-
agement which combines “open space” and recreational consider-
ations with such management.
(gXl) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
construction of publicly owned treatment works. On and after Octo-
ber 1, 1984, grants under this title shall be made only for projects
for secondary treatment or more stringent treatment, or any cost
effective alternative thereto, new interceptors and appurtenances,
and infiltration-inflow correction. Notwithstanding the preceding
sentences, the Administrator may make grants on and after Octo-
ber 1, 1984, for (A) any project within the definition set forth in
section 212(2) of this Act, other than for a project referred to in the
preceding sentence, and (B) any purpose for which a grant may be
made under sections’ 319 (h) and (i) of this Act (including any in-
novative and alternative approaches for the control of nonpoint
sources of pollution), except that not more than 20 per centum (as
determined by the Governor of the State) of the amount allotted to
a State under section 205 of this Act for any fiscal year shall be
obligated in such State under authority of this sentence.
(2) The Administrator shall not make grants from funds au-
thorized for any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1974, to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
erection, building, acquisition. alteration, remodeling, improve-
ment, or extension of treatment works unless the grant applicant
has satisfactorily demonstrated to the Administrator that—
(A) alternative waste management techniques have been
studiedand evaluated and the works proposed for grant assist-
ance will provide for the application of the best practicable
waste treatment technology over the life of the works consist-
ent with the purposes of this title; and
(B) as appropriate, the works proposed for grant assistance
will take into account and allow to the extent practicable the
application of technology at a later date which will provide for
‘So In oi4g*nal Probably .kould b. ..ction
-------
41 FEDERAL WATER POUUIION CONTROL ACT
Sec. zoi Sec. 201
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 42
the reclaiming or recycling of water or otherwise eliminate the
discharge of pollutants.
(3) The Administrator shall not approve any grant after July
1, 1973, for treatment works under this section unless the appli-
cant shows to the satisfaction of the Administrator that each sewer
collection system discharging into such treatment works is not sub-
ject to excessive infiltration.
(4) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to appli-
cants for treatment works grants under this section for such sewer
8ystem evaluation studies as may be necessary to carry out the re-
quirements of paragraph (3) of this subsection. Such grants shall
be made in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by
the Administrator. Initial rules and regulations shall be promul-
gated under this paragraph not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972.
(5) The Administrator shall not make grants from funds au-
thorized for any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1978, to
any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for
the erection, building acquisition, alteration, remodeling, Improve-
ment, or extension oi treatment works unless the grant applicant
has satisfactorily demonstrated to the Administrator that innova-
tive and alternative wastewater treatment processes and tech-
niques which provide for the reclaiming and reuse of water, other-
wise eliminate the discharge of pollutants, and utilize recycling
techniques, land treatment, new or improved methods of waste
treatment management for municipal and industrial waste (dis-
charged into municipal systems) and the confined disposal of p cI-
lutants, so that pollutants will not migrate to cause water or other
environmental pollution, have been fully studied and evaluated by
the applicant taking into account section 201(d) of this Act and tak-
in into account and allowing to the extent practicable the more ef-
ficient use of energy and resources.
(6) The Administrator shall not make grants from funds au-
thorized for any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1978, to
any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for
the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improve-
ment, or extension of treatment works unless the grant applicant
has satisfactorily demonstrated to the Administrator that the appli-
cant has analyzed the potential recreation and open space opportu-
nities in the planning of the proposed treatment works.
(h) A grant may be made under this section to construct a pri-
vately owned treatment works serving one or more principal resi-
dences or small commercial establishments constructed prior to,
and inhabited on the date of enactment of this subsection where
the Administrator finds that—
(1) a public body otherwise eligible for a grant under sub-
section (g) of this section has applied on behalf of a number of
such units and certified that public ownership of such works
is not feasible;
(2) such public body has entered into an agreement with
the Mminietrator which guarantees that such treatment
works will be properly operated and maintained and will com-
ply with all other requirements of section 204 of this Act anc
includes a system of charges to assure that each recipient of
waste treatment services under such a grant will pay its pro-
portionate share of the cost of operation and maintenance (in-
cluding replacement); and
(3) the total cost and environmental impact of providing
waste treatment services to such residences or commercial es-
tablishments will be less than the cost of providing a system
of collection and central treatment of such wastes.
(I) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment man-
agement methods, processes, and techniques which will reduce
total energy requirements.
(j) The Administrator is authorized to make a grant for any
treatment works utilizing processes and techniques meeting the
guidelines promulgated under section 304(d)(3) of this Act, if the
Administrator determines it is in the public interest and if in the
cost effectiveness study made of the construction grant application
for the purpose of evaluating alternative treatment works, the life
cycle cost of the treatment works for which the grant is to be made
does not exceed the life cycle cost of the most effective alternative
by more than 16 per centum.
(k) No grant made after November 15, 1981, for a publicly
owned treatment works, other than for facility planning and the
preparation of construction plans and specifications, shall be used
to treat, store, or convey the flow of any industrial user into such
treatment works in excess of a flow per day equivalent to llfty
thousand gallons per day of sanitary waste. This subsection shall
not apply to any project proposed by a grantee which is carrying
out an approved project to prepare construction plans and specifica-
tions for a facility to treat wastewater, which received its grant ap-
proval before May 15, 1980. This subsection shall not be in effect
after November 15, 1981.
(l)(1) After the date of enactment of this subsection, Federal
grants shall not be made for the purpose of providing assistance
solely for facility plans, or plans, specifications, and estimates for
any proposed project for the construction of treatment works. In
the event that the proposed project receives a grant under this sec-
tion for construction, the Administrator shall make an allowance in
such grant for non-Federal funds expended during the facility plan-
ning and advanced engineering and design phase at the prevailing
Federal share under section 202(a) of this Act, based on the per-
centage of total project costs which the Administrator determines
is the general experience for such projects.
(2XA) Each State shall use a portion of the funds allotted to
such State each fiscal year, but not to exceed 10 per centum of such
funds, to advance to potential grant applicants under this title the
costs of facility planning or the preparation of plans, specifications,
and estimates.
(B) Such an advance shall be limited to the allowance for such
costs which the Administrator establishes under paragraph (1) of
this subsection, and shall be provided only to a potential grant ap-
plicant which is a small community and which in the judgment of
the State would otherwise be unable to prepare a request for a
grant for construction costs under this section.
-------
FEDERAl. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 202 Sec. 202
FEDERAL WATER POWJTION CONTROL ACT 44
43
(C) In the event a grant for construction costa is made under
this section for a project for which an advance has been made
under this paragraph, the Administrator shall reduce the amount
of such grant by the allowance established under paragraph (1) of
this subsection. In the event no such grant is made, the State is
authorized to seek repayment of such advance on such terms and
conditions as it may determine.
(mXl) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, the
Administrator is authorized to make a grant from any funds other-
wise allotted to the State of California under section 205 of this Act
to the project (and in the amount) specified in Order WQG 81—1
of the California State Water Resources Control Board.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator shall make a grant from any funds otherwise allotted
to the State of California to the city of Eureka, California. in con-
nection with project numbered C-06—2772, for the purchase of one
hundred and thirty-nine acres of property as environmental mitiga-
tion for siting of the proposed treatment plant.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator shall make a grant from any funds otherwise allotted
to the State of California to the city of San Diego, California, in
connection with that city’s aquaculture sewage process (total re-
sources recovery system) as an innovative and alternative waste
treatment process.
(nXl) On and after October 1, 1984, upon the request of the
Governor of an affected State, the Administrator is authorized to
use funds available to such State under section 205 to address
water quality problems due to the impacts of discharges from coin-
bined storm water and sanitary sewer overflows, which are not oth-
erwise eligible under this subsection, where correction of such dis-
charges is a major priority for such State.
(2) Beginning fiscal year 1983, the Administrator shall have
available $200,000,000 per fiscal year in addition to those funds
authorized in section 207 of this Act to be utilized to address water
quality problems of marine bays and estuaries subject to lower lev-
els of water quality due to the impacts of discharges from combined
storm water and sanitary sewer overflows from adjacent urban
complexes, not otherwise eligible under this subsection. Such sums
may be used as deemed appropriate by the Administrator as pro-
vided In paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, upon the request
of and demonstration of water quality benefits by the Governor of
an affected State.
(o) The Administrator 8 hail encourage and assist applicants for
grant assistance under this title to develop and file with the Ad-
ministrator a capital financing plan which, at a minimum—
(1) projects the future requirements for waste treatment
services within the applicant’s jurisdiction for a period of no
less than ten years;
(2) projects the nature, extent, timing, and coats of future
expansion and reconstruction of treatment works which will be
necessary to satisfy the applicant’s projected future require-
ments for waste treatment services; and
(3) sets forth with specificity the manner in which the ap-
plicant intends to finance such future expansion and recon-
struction.
(p) TIME LIMIT ON RESOLVING CERTAIN DISPUTES—In any case
in which a dispute arises with respect to the awarding of a contract
for construction of treatment works by a grantee of funds under
this title and a party to such dispute files an appeal with the Ad-
ministrator under this title for resolution of such dispute, the Ad-
ministrator shall make a final decision on such appeal within 90
days of the filing of such appeal.
(33 U.S.C. 1281)
FEDERAL SHARE
Sac. 202. (a)( 1) The amount of any grant for treatment works
made under this Act from funds authorized for any fiscal year be-
ginning after June 30, 1971, and ending before October 1, 1984,
shall be 75 per centum of the cost of construction thereof (as ap-
proved by the Administrator), and for any fiscal year beginning on
or after October 1, 1984, shall be 55 per centum of the cost of con-
struction thereof (as approved by the Administrator), unless modi-
fied to a lower percentage rate uniform throughout a State by the
Governor of that State with the concurrence of the Administrator.
Within ninety days alter the enactment of this sentence the Admin-
istrator, shall issue guidelines for concurrence in any such modi-
fication, which shall provide for the consideration of the unobli-
gated balance of sums allocated to the State under section 205 of
this Act, the need for assistance under this title in such State, and
the availability of State grant assistance to replace the Federal
share reduced by Bush modification. The payment of any such re-
duced Federal share shall not constitute an obligation on the part
of the United States or a claim on the part of any State or grantee
to reimbursement for the portion of the Federal share reduced in
any such State. Any grant (other than for reimbursement) made
prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972 from any funds authorized for any
fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1971. shall, upon the request
of the applicant, be increased to the applicable percentage under
this section. Notwithstanding the first sentence of this paragraph,
in any case where a primary, secondary, or advanced waste treat-
ment facility or its related interceptors or a project for infiltration-
in-flow correction has received a grant for erection, building, acqui-
sition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, extension, or correc-
tion before October 1, 1984, all segments and phases of such facil-
ity, Interceptors, and project for infiltration-in-flow correction shall
be eligible for grants at 75 per centuin of the cost of construction
thereof for any grant made pursuant to a State obligation which
obligation occurred before October 1, 1990. Notwithstanding the
first sentence of this paragraph, in the case of a project for which
an application for a grant under this title has been made to the Ad-
ministrator before October 1, 1984, and which project is under judi-
cial injunction on such date prohibiting its construction, such
project shall be eligible for grants at 75 percent of the coat of con-
struction thereof. Notwithstanding the first sentence of this para-
-------
15 FEDERAL WATER POLIVUON CONTROL ACT
Sec. 202 Sec. 203
FEDERAL WATER POll 01 1CR CONTROL ACT 45
graph, in the case of the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority
project mandated by judicial order under a proceeding begun prior
to October 1, 1984, and a project for wastewater treatment for Al.
toona, PennsylvanIa such projects shall be eligible for grants at 75
percent of the cost of construction thereof.
(2) The amount of any grant made after September 30, 1978,
and before October 1, 1981, for any eligible treatment works or sig-
nificant portion thereof utilizing innovative or alternative
wastewater treatment proceIses and techniquea referred to in sec-
tion 201(gX5) shall be 85 per centum of the cost of construction
thereof, unless modified by the Governor of the State with the con-
currence of the Mminuafrator to a percentage rate no less than 15
per centum greater than the modified uniform percentage rate in
which the Administrator has concurred pursuant to paragraph (1)
of this subsection. The amount of any grant made after September
30, 1981, for any eligible treatment works or unit processes and
teehinques thereof utilizing innovative or alternative wastewater
treatment processes and techniques referred to in section 201(gX5)
shall be a percentage of the cost of construction thereof equal to 20
per centum greater than the percentage in effect under paragraph
(1) of this subsection for such works or unit processes and tech-
niques, but in no event greater than 85 per centum of the coat of
construction thereof. No grant shall be made under this paragraph
for construction of a treatment works in any State unless the pro-
portion of the State contribution to the non-Federal share of con-
struction costs for all treatment works in such State receiving a
grant under this paragraph is the same as or greater than the pro-
portion of the State contribution (if any) to the non-Federal share
of construction costs for all treatment works receiving grants in
such State under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) In addition to any grant made pursuant to paragraph (2)
of this subsection, the Administrator Is authorized to make a grant
to fund all of the coats of the modification or replacement of any
facilities constructed with a grant made pursuant to paragraph (2)
if the Administrator finds that such facilities have not met design
performance specifications unless such failure is attributable to
negligence on the part of any person and if such failure has signifi-
cantly increased capital or operatin and maintenance expendi-
tures. In addition, the Administrator is authorized to make a Fant
to fund all of the costs of the modification or replacement of biodisc
equipment (rotating biological contractors) in any publicly owned
treatment works if the Administrator finds that such equipment
has failed to meet design performance specifications, unless such
failure is attributable to negligence on the part of any person, and
if such failure has significantly increased capital or operating and
maintenance expenditures.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the term “el gible treat-
ment works” means those treatment works in each State which
meet the reQuirements of section 201(gX5) of this Act and which
can be fully funded from funds available for such purpose in such
State.
(b) The amount of the grant for any project approved by the
Administrator after January 1, 1971, and before July 1, 1971, for -
th- istructlon of treatment works, the actual erection, building
or acquisition of which waa not commenced prior to July 1, 1971,
shall, upon the request of the applicant, be increased to the appli-
cable percentage under subsection (a) of this section for grants for
treatment works from funds for fiscal years beginning after June
30, 1971, with respect to the coat of such actual erection, building,
or acquisition. Such increased amount shall be paid from any funds
allocated to the State in which the treatment works is located with-
out regard to the fiscal year for which such funds were authorized.
Such increased amount shall be paid for such project only if—
(1) a sewage collection system that is a part of the same
total waste treatment system as the treatment works for which
such grant was approved is under construction or is to be con-
structed for use in conjunction with such treatment works, and
if the cost of such sewage collection system exceeds the cost of
such treatment works, and
(2) the State water pollution control agency or other appro-
priate State authority certifies that the quantity of available
ground water will be insufficient, inadequate, or unsuitable for
public use, including the ecological preservation and rec-
reational use of surface water bodies, unless effluents from
publicly-owned treatment works after adequate treatment are
returned to the ground water consistent with acceptable tech-
nological standards.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, sums allotted
to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under section 205 of this Act
for fiscal year 1981 shall remain available for obligation for the fis-
cal year for which authorized and for the period of the next suc-
ceeding twenty-four months. Such sums and any unobligated funds
available to Puerto Rico from allotments for fiscal years ending
prior to October 1, 1981, shall be available for obligation by the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency only to fund
the following systems: Aguadilla, Arecibo, Mayaguez, Carolina, and
Camuy Hatillo. These funds may be used by the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico to fund the non-Federal share of the costs of such
projects. To the extent that these funds are used to pay the non-
Federal share, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall repay to the
Environmental Protection Agency such amounts on terms and con-
ditions developed and approved by the Administrator in consulta-
tion with the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Agreement on such terms and conditions including the payment of
interest to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall
be reached prior to the use of these funds for the Commonwealth’s
non-Federal share. No Federal funds awarded under this provision
shall be used to replace local governments funds previously ex-
pended on these projects.
(33 U.S.C. 1282) -
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, 5 TIMATES, AND PAYMENTS
SEC. 203. (aX 1) Each applicant for a grant shall submit to the
Administrator for his approval, plans, specifications, and estimates
for each proposed project for the construction of treatment works
for which a grant is applied for under section 201(gXl) from funds
allotted to the State under section 205 and which otherwise
-------
47 FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 203 Sec. 203
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 48
the requirements of this Act. The Administrator shall act upon
such plans, specifications, and estimates as soon as practicable
after the same have been submitted, and his approval of any such
plane, specifications, and estimates shall be deemed a contractual
obligation of the United States for the payment of its proportional
contribution to such project.
(2) AGREEMENT ON ELIGIBLE COSTS.—
(A) LIMITATION ON MODIFICATIONS.—Before taking
final action on any plans, specifications, and estimates
submitted under this subsection after the 60th day follow-
ing the date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of
1987, the Administrator shall enter into a written agree-
ment with the applicant which establishes and specifies
which items of the proposed project are eligible for Federal
payments under this section. The Administrator may not
later modify such eligibility determinations unless they are
found to have been made in violation of applicable Federal
statutes and regulations.
(B) LIMITATION ON EFFECT —Eligibility determinations
under this paragraph shall not preclude the Administrator
from auditing a project pursuant to section 501 of this Act.
or other authority, or from withholding or recovering Fed-
eral funds for coats which are found to be unreasonable,
unsupported by adequate documentation, or otherwise un-
allowable under applicable Federal coats principles, or
which are incurred on a project which fails to meet the de-
sign specifications or effluent limitations contained in the
grant agreement and permit pursuant to section 402 of
this Act for such project.
(3) In the case of a treatment works that has an estimated
total coat of $8,000,000 of less (as determined by the Adminis-
trator), and the population of the applicant municipality is twenty-
five thousand or less (according to the most recent United States
census), upon completion of an approved facility plan, a single
grant may be awarded for the combined Federal share of the cost
of preparing construction plans and specifications, and the building
and erection of the treatment works.
(b) The Administrator shall, from time to time as the work pro-
gresses, make payments to the recipient of a grant for coats of con-
struction incurred on a project. These payments shall at no time
exceed the Federal share of the cost of construction incurred to the
date of the voucher covering such payment plus the Federal share
of the value of the materials which have been stockpiled in the vi-
cinity of such construction in conformity to plans and specifications
for the project.
(c) After completion of a project and approval of the final
voucher by the Administrator he shall pay out of the appropriate
sums the unpaid balance of the Federal share payable on account
of such project.
(d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require, or to au-
thorize the Administrator to require, that grants under this Act for
construction of treatment works be made only for projects which
are operable units usable for sewage collection, transportation,
storage, waste treatment, or for similar purposes without addi-
tional construction.
(e) At the request of a grantee under this title, the Admiziis-
trator is authorized to provide technical and legal assistance in the
administration and enforcement of any contract in connection with
treatment works assisted under this title, and to intervene any
civil action involving the enforcement of such a contract.
(1) DESIGN/BUILD PROJECTS.—
(1) AGREEMEr rr.—Conajstent with State law, an applicant
who proposes to construct waste water treatment works may
enter into an agreement with the Administrator under this
subsection providing for the preparation of construction plans
and specifications and the erection of such treatment works, in
lieu of proceeding under the other provisions of this section.
(2) LIMITATION ON PRWECTS.—Agreementh under this sub-
section shall be limited to projects under an approved facility
plan which projects are—
(A) treatment works that have an estimated total cost
of $8,000,000 or less; and
(B) any of the following types of waste water treat-
ment systems: aerated lagoons, trickling filters, stabiliza-
tion ponds, land application systems, sand filters, and sub-
surface disposal systems.
(3) REQUIRED TERMS—An agreement entered into under
this subsection shall—
(A) set forth an amount agreed to as the maximum
Federal contribution to the project, based upon a competi-
tively bid document of basic design data and applicable
standard construction specifications and a determination
of the federally eligible coats of the project at the applica-
ble Federal share under section 202 of this Act;
(B) set forth dates for the start and completion of con-
struction of the treatment works by the applicant and a
schedule of payments of the Federal contribution to the
project;
(C) contain assurances by the applicant that (i) engi-
neering and management assistance will be provided to
manage the project; (ii) the proposed treatment works will
be an operable unit and will meet all the requirements of
this title; and (iii) not later than 1 year after the date spec-
ified as the date of completion of construction of the treat-
ment works, the treatment works will be operating so as
to meet the requirements of any applicable permit for such
treatment works under section 402 of this Act;
(D) require the applicant to obtain a bond from the
contractor in an amount determined necessary by the Ad-
ministrator to protect the Federal interest in the project;
and
(B) contain such other terms and conditions as are
necessary to assure compliance with this title (except as
provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection).
(4) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION_Subsections (a), (b), and
(c) of this section shall not apply to grants made pursuant to
this subsection.
-------
49 FEDERAL WATER POWJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 204 Sec. 204
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 50
(6) RESERVATION TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE—The Adminia- -
trator shall reserve a portion of the grant to assure contract
compliance until final project approval as defined by the Ad.
mimatrator. If the amount agreed to under paragraph (3XA)
exceeds the cost of designing and constructing the treatment
works, the Administrator shall reallot the amount of the excess
to the State in which such treatment works are located for the
fiscal year in which such audit is completed.
(6) LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS—The Administrator shall
not obligate more than 20 percent of the amount allotted to a
State for a fiscal year under section 205 of this Act for grants
pursuant to this subsection.
(7) ALLOWANCE—The Administrator shall determine an al-
lowance for facilities planning for projects constructed under
this subsection in accordance with section 20 1(1).
(8) LIMITATION ON FEDERAL c ONTRIBLJTiONs.—In no event
shall the Federal contribution for the cost of preparing con-
struction plans and specifications and the building and erec-
tion of treatment works pursuant to this subsection exceed the
amount agreed upon under paragraph (3).
(9) RECOVERY ACTION.—In any case in which the recipient
of a grant made pursuant to this subsection does not comply
with the terms of the agreement entered into under paragraph
(3), the Administrator is authorized to take such action as may
be necessary to recover the amount of the Federal contribution
to the project.
(10) PREVENTION OF DOUBLE BENEF ITS.—A recipient of a
grant made pursuant to this subsection shall not be eligible for
any other grants under this title for the same project.
(33 U.S.C 1283)
LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
SEC. 204. (a) Before approving grants for any project for any
treatment works under section 201(gXl) the Administrator shall
determine—
(1) that any required areawide waste treatment manage-
ment plan under section 208 of this Act (A) is being imple-
mented for such area and the proposed treatment works are in-
cluded in such plan, or (B) is being developed for such area and
reasonable progress is being made toward its implementation
and the proposed treatment works will be included in such
plan;
(2) that (A) the State in which the project is to be located
(I) is implementing any required plan under section 303(e) of
this Act and the proposed treatment works are in conformity
with such plan, or (ii) is developing such a plan and the pro-
posed treatment works will be in conformity with such plan,
and (B) such State is in compliance with section 305(b) of this
Act;
(3) that such works have been certified by the appropriate
State water pollution control agency as entitled-to priority over
iw}i other works-in the State in accordance with any applica-
state plan under section 303(e) of this Act, except that any
priority list develojied pulsuant to section 303(e)(3XH) may be
modified by such State in accordance with regulations promul-
gated by the Administrator to give higher priority for grants
for the Federal share of the cost of preparing construction
drawings and specifications for any treatment works utilizin
processes and techniques meeting the guidelines promulgate
under section 304(dX3) of this Act for grants for the combined
Federal share of the coat of preparing construction drawings
and specifications and the building and erection of any treat-
ment works meeting the requirements of the next to the last
sentence of section 203(a) of this Act which utilizes processes
and techniques meeting the guidelines promulgated under sec-
tion 304(dX3) of this Act. 1
(4) that the applicant proposing to construct such works
agrees to pay the non-Federal costs of such works and has
made adequate provisions satisfactory to the Administrator for
assuring proper and efficient operation, including the employ-
ment of trained management and operations personnel, and
the maintenance of such works in accordance with a plan of op-
eration approved by the state water pollution control agency
or, as appropriate, the interstate agency, after construction
thereof;
(5) that the size and capacity of such works relate directly
to the needs to be served by such works, including sufficient
reserve capacity. The amount of reserve capacity provided shall
be approved by the Administrator on the basis of a comparison
of the cost of constructjn Buch reserves as a part of the works
to be funded and the anticipated cost of providin? expanded ca-
pacity at a date when such capacity will be required, after tak-
ing into account, in accordance with regulations promulgated
by the Administrator, efforts to reduce total flow of sewage and
unnecessary water consumption. The amount of reserve capac-
ity eligible for a grant under this title shall be determined by
the Administrator takin? into account the projected population
and associated commercial and industrial establishments with-
in the jurisdiction of the applicant to be served by such treat-
ment works as identified in an approved facilities plan, an
areawide plan under section 208, or an applicable municipal
master plan of development. For the purpose of this paragraph,
section 208, and any such plan, projected population shall be
determined on the basis of the latest information available
from the United States Department of Commerce or from the
States as the Administrator, by regulation, determines appro-
priate. Beginning October 1, 1984, no Fants shall be made
under this title to construct that portion of any treatment
works providing reserve capacity in excess of existing needs
(including existing needs of residential, commercial, industrial,
and other users) on the date of approval of a grant for the erec-
tion, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improve-
ment, or extension of a project for secondary treatment or more
- stringent treatment - or new interceptors and appurtenances,
except that in no event shall reserve capacity 61 a faäility “d
‘So In law. lb. psi4od th.uld b..
-------
51 FEDERAL WATER POUJJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 204 Sec. 204
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 52
its related interceptors to which this subsection applies be in
excess of existing needs on October 1, 1990. In any case in
which an applicant proposes to provide reserve capacity great-
er than that eligible for Federal financial assistance under this
title the incremental costs of the additional reserve capacity
ehal be paid by the applicant;
(6) that no specification for bids in connection with such
works shall be written in such a manner as to contain propri-
etary, exclusionary, or discriminatory requirements other than
those based upon performance, unless such requirements are
necessary to test or demonstrate a specific thing or to provide
for necessary interchangeability of parts and equipment. When
in the judgment of the grantee, it is impractical or uneco-
nomical to make a clear and accurate description of the tech-
nical requirements, a “brand name or equal’ description may
be used as a means to define the performance or other salient
requirements of a procurement, and in doing so the grantee
need not, establish the existence of any source other than the
brand or source so named.
(bX 1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Ad-
ministrator shall not approve any grant for any treatment works
under section 201(gXl) after March 1, 1973, unless he shall first
have determined that the applicant (A) has adopted or will adopt
a system of charges to assure that each recipient of waste treat-
ment services within the applicant’s jurisdiction, as determined by
the Administrator, will pay its proportionate share (except as oth-
erwise provided in this paragraph) of the costs of operation and
maintenance (including replacement) of any waste treatment serv-
ices provided by the applicant; and (B) has legal, institutional,
managerial, and financial capability to insure adequate construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance of treatment works throughout
the applicant’s jurisdiction, as determined by the Administrator. In
any case where an applicant which, as of the date of enactment of
this sentence, uses a system of dedication ad valorem taxes and the
Administrator determines that the applicant has a system of
charges which results in the distribution of operation and mainte-
nance coats for treatment works within the applicant’s jurisdiction,
to each user class, in proportion to the contribution to the total cost
of operation and maintenance of such works by each user class
(taking into account total waste water loading of such works, the
constituent elements of the waste, and other appropriate factors),
and such applicant is otherwise in compliance with clause (A) of
this paragraph with respect to each industrial user, then such dedi-
cation ad valorern tax system shall be deemed to be the user charge
system meeting the requirements of clause (A) of this paragraph
for the residential user class and such small non-residential user
classes as defined by the Administrator. In defining small non-resi-
dential users, the Administrator shall consider the volume of
wastes discharged into the treatment works by such users and the
constituent elements of such wastes as well as such other factors
as he deems appropriate. A system of user charges which imposes
a lower charge for low-income residential users (as defined by the
Administrator) shall be deemed to be a user charge system meeting
the requirements of clause (A) of this paragraph if the Adminis-
trator determines that such system was adopted after public notice
and hearing.
(2) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty
days after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, and after constijtation with ap-
propriate State, interstate, municipal and intermumcipa] agencies,
issue guidelines applicable to payment of waste treatment costs by
industrial and nonindustrial receipts of waste treatment services
which shall eatablish (A) classes of users of such services, including
categories of industrial users; (B) criteria against which to deter.
mine the adequacy of charges imposed on classes and categories of
users reflecting all factors that influence the cost of waste treat-
ment, including strength, volume, and delivery flow rate character-
istics of waste; and (C) model systems and rates of user charges
typical of various treatment works serving municipal-industrial
communities. - -
(3) Approval by the Administrator of a grant to an interstate
agency established by interstate compact for any treatment works
shall satisfy any other requirement that such works be authorized
by Act of Congress.
(4) A system of charges which meets the requirement of clause
(A) of paragraph (1) of this subsection may be based on something
other than metering the sewage or water supply flow of residential
recipients of waste treatment services, including ad valorem taxes.
If the system of charges is based on something other than metering
the Administrator shall require (A) the applicant to establish a sys-
tern by which the necessary funds will be available for the proper
operation and maintenance of the treatment works; and (B) the ap-
plicant to establish a procedure under which the residential user
will be notified as to that portion of his total payment which will
be allocated to the costs of the waste treatment services.
(c) The next to the last sentence of paragraph (5) of subsection
(a) of this section shall not apply in any case where a primary, sec-
ondary, or advanced waste treatment facility or its related inter-
ceptors has received a grant for erection, building, acquisition, al-
teration, remodeling, improvement, or extension before October 1,
1984, and all segments and phases of such facility and interceptors
shall be funded based on a 20-year reserve capacity in the case of
such facility and a 20-year reserve capacity in the case of such
interceptors, except that, if a grant for such interceptors has been
approved prior to the date of enactment of the Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981,
such interceptors shall be funded based on the approved reserve Ca-
pacity not to exceed 40 years.
(dXl) A grant for the construction of treatment works under
this title shall provide that the engineer or engineering firm super-
vising construction or providing architect engineering services dur-
ing construction shall continue its relationship to the grant appli-
cant for a period of one year after the completion of construction
and initial operation of such treatment works. During such period
such engineer or engineering firm shall supervise operation of the
treatment works, train operating personnel, and prepare curricula
and trnln’ng material for operating personnel. Costs associated
-------
53 FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 205 Sec. 205
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 54
with the implementation of this parapaph phnII be eligible for Fed-
eral assistance in accordance with this title.
(2) On the date one year after the completion of construction
and initial operation of such treatment works, the owner and oper-
ator of such treatment works shall certify to the Administrator
whether or not such treatment works meet the design specifica-
tions and effluent limitations contained in the grant agreement and
permit pursuant to section 402 of the Act for such works. If the
owner and operator of such treatment works cannot certify that
such treatment works meet such design specifications and effluent
limitations, any failure to meet such design specifications and efflu-
ent limitations shall be corrected in a timely manner, to allow such
affirmative certification, at other than Federal expense.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a
grantee under this title from requiring more assurances, guaran-
tees, or indemnity or other contractual requirements from any
party to a contract pertaining to a project assisted under this title,
than those provided under this subsection.
(33 U S.C. 1284)
- ALLOTMENT
SEc. 205. (a) Sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 207 for each fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1972, be-
fore September 30, 1977, shall be allotted by the Administrator not
later than the January 1st immediately preceding the beginning of
the fiscal year for which authorized, except that the allotment for
fiscal year 1973 shall be made not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972. Such sums shall be allotted among the States by
the Administrator in accordance with regulations promulgated by
him, in the ratio that the estimated cost of constructing all needed
publicly owned treatment works in each State bears to the esti-
mated cost of construction of all needed publicly owned treatment
works in all of the States. For the fiscal years ending June 30,
1973, and June 30, 1974, such ratio shall be determined on the
basis of table III of House Public Works Committee Print No. 92—
50. For the fiscal year ending June 30 1976, such ratio shall be
determined one-half on the basis of table I of House Public Works
Committee Print Numbered 93—28 and one-half on the basis of
table II of such print, except that no State shall receive an allot-
ment less than that which it received for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, as set forth in table III of such print. Allotments
for fiscal years which begin after the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975 shall be made only in accordance with a revised cost estimate
made and submitted to Congress in accordance with section 516(b)
of this Act and only after such revised cost estimate shall have
been approved by law specifically enacted hereafter.
(b)(1) Any sums allotted to a State under subsection (a) shall
be available for obligation under section 203 on and alter the date
of such allotment. Such sums shall continue available for obligation
in such State for a period of one year after the close of the fiscal
year for which such sums are authorized. Any amounts so allotted
which. are not obligated by the end of such one-year period shall
be immediately reallotted by the Administrator, in accordance with
regulations promulgated by him, generally on the basis of the ratio
used in making the last allotment of sums under this section. Such
reallotted sums shall be added to the last allotments made to the
States. Any sum made available to a State by reallotment under
this subsection shall be in addition to any funds otherwise allotted
to such State for grants under this title during any fiscal year.
(2) Any sums which have been obligated under section 203 and
which are released by the payment of the final voucher for the
project shall be immediately credited to the State to which such
sums were last allotted. Such released sums shall be added to the
amounts last allotted to such State and shall be immediately avail-
able for obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as
such last allotment.
(cXl) Sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant to section
207 for the fiscal years during the period beginning October 1,
1977, and ending September 30, 1981, shall be allotted for each
such year by the Administrator not later than the tenth day which
begins alter the date of enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977.
Not-withstanding any other provision of law, sums authorized for
the fiscal years ending September 30, 1978. September 30, 1979,
September 30, 1980, and September 30, 1981. shall be allotted in
accordance with table 3 of Committee Print Numbered 95—30 of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant to section 207
for the fiscal years 1982, 1983. 1984. and 1985 shall be allotted for
each such year by the Administrator not later than the tenth day
which begins after the date of enactment of the Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, sums authorized for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, shall be allotted in ac-
cordance with table 3 of Committee Print Numbered 95—30 of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives. Sums authorized for the fiscal years ending Sep-
tember 30. 1983, September 30, 1984, September 30, 1985, and
September 30, 1986. shall be allotted in accordance with the
following table:
-------
55
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
States
Alabama
Alaska.
A r izona
Arkansas
Ca llfbrn Ia
Colorado
Sec. 205
Sec. 205 FEDERAL WATER POUUTION CONTROL ACT 5$
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illino is
Indiana
lows
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mauschusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missiuippi
Miuoun
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Meamo
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvan ia
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia.,
Wisconsin
: : : ::
Guam
Northern Marts
Puerto Rico
Pacific Trust T
Virgin Islands
st_n I9&3
through 1955’
011398
006101
006885
006688
072901
008154
012487
004965
004965
034407
017234
007895
004965
046101
024566
013796
009201
012973
013205
- .007788
024653
034608
043829
018735
009184
028257
. .004965
005214
004965
010186
041654
004965
113091
018396
004965
057383
008235
011516
040377
006760
010442
004965
014807
038726
006371
004965
017726
015890
027557
004965
000915
000662
000425
013295
001305
000531
.099996
date of the enactment of this paragraph. Sums authorized for
such fiscal years shall be allotted in accordance with the
following table:
States;
Alabama 011309
Alaska 006053
Arizona 006831
Arkansas 006616
California 072333
Colorado 008090
Connecticut 0 12390
Delaware 004965
District of Columbia 004965
Florida 034139
Georgia 017100
Hawaii .. .007833
Idaho 004965
Illinois 045741
Indiana 024374
Iowa 013688
Kansas 009129
Kentucky 012872
Louisiana 011118
Maine 007829
Maryland 024461
Massachusetts 034338
Michigan 043487
Minnesota 018589
Mississippi 009132
Missouri . . .028037
Montana 004965
Nebraska 005173
Nevada 004965
New Hampshire 010107
New Jersey 041329
New Mexico 004965
New York 111632
North C.yolina 018253
North Dakota 004965
Ohio 056936
Oklahoma 008171
Oregon 011426
Pennsylvania 040062
Rhode Island 006791
South Carolina 010361
South Dakota .. . .004965
Tennessee 014692
Texas 048226
Utah 005329
Vermont 004965
Virginia 020698
Washington .._. 017588
West Virginia 015766
Wisconsin 027342
Wyoming .. 004965
American Samoa 000908
Guam 000657
Northern Merlanas 000422
Puerto Rico 013191
Pacific Thist Temtories 001295
Virgin Islands 000527
(d) Sums allotted to the States for a fiscal year ohall remain
.availabl8 for obligation for the fiscal year for which authorized and
for the period of the next succeeding twelve months. The amount
of any allotment not obligated by the end of such twenty-four-
United States totals
‘So in cilginal. Prebably should be 1986.
(3) FISCAL YEARS 1987-1990.-—SU iflS authorized to be appro-
priated pursuant to section 207 for the fiscal years 1987 1988,
1989, and 1990 shall be allotted for each such year by ‘the Ad-
ministrator not later than the 10th day which begins after the
-------
51 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 205
month period shall be immediately reallotted by the Administrator
on the basis of the ame ratio as applicable to sums allotted for the
then current fiscal year, except that none of the funds reallotted by
the Administrator for fiscal year 1978 and for fiscal years there-
after shall be allotted to any State which failed to obligate any of
the funds being reallotted. Any sum made available to a State by
reallotment under this subsection shall be in addition to any funds
otherwise allotted to such State for grants under this title during
any fiscal year.
(e) For the fiscal years 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983,
1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, no State shall re-
ceive less than one-half of 1 per centum of the total allotment
under subsection (c) of this section, except that in the case of
Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Trust Territories
not more than thirty-three one-hundredths of 1 per centum in the
aggregate shall be allotted to all four for these jurisdictions. For
the purpose of carrying out this subsection there are authorized to
be appropriated, subject to such amounts as are provided in appro-
priation Acts, not to exceed $75,000,000 for each fiscal years 1978,
1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989,
and 1990. If for any fiscal year the amount appropriated under au-
thority of this subsection is less than the amount necessary to
carry out this subsection, the amount each State receives under
this subsection for such year shall be the same ratio for the amount
such State would have received under this subsection in such year
if the amount necessary to carry it out had been appropriated as
the amount appropriated for such year bears to the amount nec-
essary to carry out this subsection for such year.
0) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, sums
made available between January 1, 1975, and March 1, 1975, by
the Administrator for obligation shall be available for obligation
until September 30, 1978.
(gXl) The Administrator is authorized to reserve each fiscal
year not to exceed 2 per centuni of the amount authorized under
section 207 of this title for purposes of the allotment made to each
State under this section on or after October 1, 1977, except in the
case of any fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 1981, and
ending before October 1, 1994, in which case the percentage au-
thorized to be reserved shall not exceed 4 per centum. 1 or $400,000
whichever amount is the greater. Sums so reserved shall be avail-
able for making grants to such State under paragraph (2) of this
subsection for the same period as sums are available from such al-
lotment under subsection (d) of this section, and any such grant
shall be available for obligation only during such period. Any grant
made from stuns reserved under this subsection which has not been
obligated by the end of the period for which available shall be
added to the amount last allotted to such State under this section
and shall be immediately available for obligation in the same man-
ner and to the same extent as such last allotment. Sums author-
ized to be reserved by this paragraph shall be in addition to and
‘P L 97- 117 added ih s pbi.s. with a pszwd si lbs .nd pz bshb should b. a co
Sec. 205 FEDERAL WATER POWJTION CONTROL ACT
not in lieu of any other funds which may be authorized to carry out
this subsection.
(2) The Administrator is authorized to grant to any State from
amounts reserved to such State under this subsection, the reason-
able costs of administering any aspects of sections 201, 203, 204,
and 212 of this Act the responsibility for administration of which
the Administrator has delegated to such State. The Administrator
may increase such grant to take into account the reasonable costs
of administering an approved program under section 402 or 404,
administering a statewide waste treatment management planning
program under section 208(bX4), and managing waste treatment
construction grants for small communities.
(h) The Administrator shall set aside from funds authorized for
each fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 1978, a total (as
determined by the Governor of the State) of not less than 4 percent
nor more than 7V 2 percent of the sums allotted to any State with
a rural population of 25 per centum or more of the total pop ilation
of such State, as determined by the Bureau of the Census. The Ad-
ministrator may Bet aside no more than 7 V2 percent of the sums
allotted to any other State for which the Governor requests such
action. Such sums shall be available only for alternatives to con-
ventional sewage treatment works for municipalities having a pop-
ulation of three thousand five hundred or less, or for the highly dis-
persed sections of larger municipalities, a defined by the Adininia-
trator.
(i) Sgr-AsmE FOR INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS.—
Not less than Va of 1 percent of funds allotted to a State for each
of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1979, through September
30, 1990, under subsection (c) of this section shall be expended only
for increasing the Federal share of grants for construction of treat-
ment works utilizing innovative processes and techniques pursuant
to section 2 02(aX2) of this Act. Including the expenditures author-
ized by the preceding sentence, a total of 2 percent of the funds al-
lotted to a State for each of the fiscal years ending September 30
1979, and September 30 1980, and 3 percent of the funds allotted
to a State for the fiscaf year ending September 30, 1981, under
subsection Cc) of this section shall be expended only for increasing
grants for construction of treatment works pursuant to section
202(aX2) of this Act. Including the expenditures authorized by the
first sentence of this subsection, a total (as determined by the Gov-
ernor o( the State) of not less than 4 percent nor more than 7V2
percent of the funds allotted to such State under subsection (c) of
this section for each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1982,
throngh September 30, 1990, shall be expended only for increasing
the Federal share of grants for construction of treatment works
pursuant to section 202(a)(2) of this Act.
(jXl) The Administrator shall reserve each fiscal year not to
exceed 1 per centum of the sums allotted and available for obliga-
tion to each State under this section for each fiscal year beginning
on or after October 1, 1981, or $100,000, whichever amount is the
greater.
(2) Such sums shall be used by the Administrator to make
grants to the States to carry out water quality -management plan-
ning, Including, but not limited to—
58
-------
59 FEDERAL WATER POWJUON CONTROL ACT
Sec. 205 Sec. 205
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT GO
(A) ldentifyin most cost effective and locally acceptable fa-
cility and non-point measures to meet and maintain water
quality standards;
( ) developing an implementation plan to obtain State and
local financial and regulatory commitments to implement
measures developed under subparagraph (A);
(C) determining the nature, extent, and causes of water
quality problems in various areas of the State and interstate
region, and reporting on these annually; and
(D) determining those publicly owned treatment works
which should be constructed with assistance under this title, in
which areas and in what sequence, taking into account the rel-
ative degree of effluent reduction attained, the relative con-
tributions to water quality of other point or nonpoint sources
and the consideration of alternatives to such construction, and
implementing section 303(e) of this Act.
(3) In carrying out planning with grants made under para-
graph (2) of this subsection, a State shall develop jointly with local,
regional, and interstate entities, a plan for carrying out the pro-
gram and give funding priority to such entities and designated or
undesignated public comprehensive planning organizations to carry
out the purposes of this subsection. In giving such priority, the
State shall allocate at least 40 percent of the amount granted to
such State for a fiscal year under paragraph (2) of this subsection
to regional public comprehensive planning organizations in such
State and appropriate interstate organizations for the development
and implementation of the plan described in this paragraph. In any
fiscal year for which the Governor, in consultation with such orga-
nizations and with the approval of the Administrator, determines
that allocation of at least 40 percent of such amount to such orga-
nizations will not result in significant participation by such organi-
zations in water quality management planning and not signifi-
cantly assist in development and Implementation of the plan de-
scribed in this paragraph and achieving the goals of this Act, the
allocation to such organization may be less than 40 percent of such
amount.
(4) All activities undertaken under this subsection shall be in
coordination with other related provisions of this Act.
(5) N0NP0 IN’r SOURCE RESERVATION—In addition to the
sums reserved under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall re-
serve each fiscal year for each State 1 percent of the sums al
lotted and available for ob4ation to such State under this sec-
tion for each fiscal year beginning on or alter October 1, 1986,
or $100,000, whichever Is greater, for the purpose of carrying
out section 319 of this Act. Sums so reserved in a State in any
fiscal year for which such State does not request the use of
such sums, to the extent such sums exceed $100,000, may be
used by such State for other purposes under this title.
(k) The Administrator shall allot to the State of New York from
sums authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30, 1982, an amount necessary to pay the entire-cost of con-
veying sewage from the Convention Center of the City of New York
to the Newtown sewage treatment plant, Brooklyn-Queens area,
New York. The amount allotted under this subsection shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of any other amounts authorized to be
allotted to such State under this Act.
(I) MARINE ESTUARY RESERVATION.—
(1) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.—
(A) GENERAL RLJLE.—Pz-ior to making allotments
among the States under subsection (C) of this section, the
Administrator shall reserve funds from sums appropriated
pursuant to section 207 for each fiscal year beginning after
September 30, 1986.
(B) FISCAL YEARS 1987 AND 1988.—For each of fiscal
years 1987 and 1988 the reservation shall be 1 percent of
the sums appropriated pursuant to section 207 for such fis-
cal year.
(C) FISCAL YEARS 1989 AND 1990.—For each of fiscal
years 1989 and 1990 the reservation shall be 1 V2 percent
of the funds appropriated pursuant to section 207 for such
fiscal year.
(2) USE OF Fulws.—Of the sums reserved under this sub-
section, two-thirds shall be available to address water quality
problems of marine bays and estuaries subject to lower levels
of water quality due to the impacts of discharges from com-
bined storm water and sanitary sewer overflows from adjacent
urban complexes, and one-third shall be available for the im-
plementation of section 320 of this Act, relating to the national
estuary program.
(3) PERIOD OF AVAILABILFFY.—Sums reserved under this
subsection shall be subject to the period of availability for obli-
gatiori established by subsection (d) of this section.
(4) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN BODY OF WATER.—For purposes
of this section and section 20 1(n), Newark Bay, New Jersey,
and the portion of the Passaic River up to Little Falls, in the
vicinity of Beatties Dam, shall be treated as a marine bay and
estuary.
(m) DISCRETIONARY D€ osrrs IN’ro STATE WATER PoI.u.rr loN
C0IJmOL REvoLvING FUNDS.—
(1) FROM CONSTRUCTION GRANT ALLOTMENTS.—In addition
to any amounts deposited in a water pollution control revolving
fund established by a State under title VI, upon request of the
Governor of such State, the Administrator shall make available
to the State for deposit, as capitalization grants, in such fund
in any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1986, such
portion of the amounts allotted to such State under this section
for such fiscal year as the Governor considers appropriate; ex-
cept that (A) in fiscal year 1987 such deposit may not exceed
50 percent of the amounts allotted to such State under this
section for such fiscal year, and (B) in fiscal year 1988, such
deposit may not exceed 75 percent of the amounts allotted to
such State under this section for this ‘ fiscal year.
(2) NOTICE REQUIREMENT.—The Governor of a State may
make a request under paragraph (1) for a deposiIlhto the
water pollution control revolving fund of such State—
‘So hi oñgf nil. P ,obably ihoi Id be such.
-------
61 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sac. 20$ Sec. 206
FEDERAL WATER P3LLUTION CONTROL ACT 62
(A) in fiscal year 1987 only if no later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this subseCtion, and
(B) in each flBCal year thereafter only ff90 days before
the first day of such fiscal year,
the State provides notice of its intent to make such deposit.
(3) EXCEPTION—SUms reserved under section 205(j) of this
Act shall not be available for obligation under this subsection.
(33 U.S.C. 1286)
REIMBURSEMENT AND ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 206. (a) Any publicly owned treatment works in a State
on which construction was initiated after June 30, 1966, but before
July 1, 1973, which was approved by the appropriate State water
pollution control agency and which the Administrator finds meets
the requirements of section 8 of this Act in effect at the time of the
initiation of construction shall be reimbursed a total amount equal
to the difference between the amount of Federal financial assist-
ance, if any, received under such section 8 for such project and 50
per centum of the coat of such project, or 65 per centum of the
project cost where the Administrator also determines that such
treatment works was constructed in conformity with a comprehen-
sive metropolitan treatment plan as described in section 8(f) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as in effect immediately prior
to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. Nothing in this sub8ection shall result in any
such works receiving Federal grants from all sources in excess of
80 per centum of the cost of such project.
(b) Any publicly owned treatment works constructed with or el-
igible for Federal financial assistance under this Act in a State be-
tween June 30, 1956, and June 30, 1966, which was approved by
the State water pollution control agency and which the Adminis-
trator finds meets the requirements of section 8 of this Act prior
to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 but which was constructed without assistance
under such section 8 or which received such assistance in an
amount less than 30 per centum of the cost of such project shall
qualify for payments and reimbursement of State or local funds
used for such project from sums allocated to such State under this
section in an amount which shall not exceed the difference between
the amount of such assistance, if any, received for such project and
30 per centum of the cost of such project.
(c) No publicly owned treatment works shall receive any pay-
ment or reimbursement under subsection (a) or (b) of this section
unless an application for such assistance is filed with the Adminis-
trator within the one year period which begins on the date of enact-
ment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. Any application filed within such one year period may be re-
vised from time to time, as may be necessary.
(d) The Administrator shall allocate to each qualified project
under subsection (a) of this section each fiscal year for which funds
are appropriated- under subsection (e) of this section an amount
h bears the same ratio to the unpaid balance of the reimburse-
due such project as the total of such funds for such yea’
bears to the total unpaid balance of reimbursement due all such
approved projects on the date of enactment of such appropriation.
The Administrator shall allocate to each qualified project under
subsection (b) of this section each fiscal year for which funds are
appropriated under subsection (e) of this section an amount which
bears the same ratio to the unpaid balance of the reimbursement
due such project as the tOtal of such funds for such year bears to
the total unpaid balance of reimbursement due all such approved
projects on the date of enactment of such appropriation.
(e) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out sub-
section (a) of this section not to exceed $2,600,000,000 and, to carry
out subsection (b) of this section, not to exceed $750,000,000. The
authorizations contained in this subsection shall be the sole source
of funds for reimbursements authorized by this section.
(f)( 1) In any case where a substantial portion of the funds al-
lotted to a State for the current fiscal year under this title have
been obligated under section 201(g), or will be so obligated in a
timely manner (as determined by the Administrator), and there is
construction of any treatment work project without the aid of Fed-
eral funds and in accordance with all procedures and all require-
ments applicable to treatment works projects, except those proce-
dures and requirements which limit construction of projects to
those constructed with the aid of previously allotted Federal funds,
the Administrator, upon his approval of an application made under
this subsection therefore, is authorized to pay the Federal share of
the cost of construction of such project when additional funds are
allotted to the State under this title if prior to the construction of
the project the Administrator approves plans, specifications, and
estimates therefor in the same manner as other treatment works
projects. The Administrator may not approve an application under
this subsection unless an authorization is in effect for the first fis-
cal year in the period for which the application requests payment
and such requested payment for that fiscal year does not exceed
the State’s expected allotment from such authorization. The Ad-
ministrator shall not be required to make such requested payment
for any fiscal year—
(A) to the extent that such payment would exceed such
State’s allotment of the amount appropriated for such fiscal
year; and
(B) unless such payment is for a project which, on the
basis of an approved funding priority list of such State, is eligi-
ble to receive such payment based on the allotment and appro-
priation for such fiscal year.
To the extent that Iuflicient funds are not appropriated to pay the
full Federal share with respect to a project for which obligations
under the provisions of this subsection have been made, the Ad-
ministrator shall reduce the Federal share to such amount less
than 75 per centum as such appropriations do provide.
(2) In determining the allotment for any fiscal year under this
title, any treatment works project constructed in accordance with
this section and without the aid of Federal funds shall not be con-
sidered completed until an application under the provisioDR of this
subsection with respect to such project has been appro the
-------
63 FEDERAl WAlER POLluTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 206 Sec. 208
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 64
Administrator, or the availability of funds from which this project
is eligible for reimbursement has expired, whichever first occurs.
(33 U.S.C. 1286)
AUThORIZATION
SEc. 207. There is authonzed to be appropriated to carry out
this title, other than aectiOflS 206(e), 208 and 209, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973, not to exceed $5,000,000,000, for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, not to exceed $6,000,000,000, and
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, not to exceed
$7,000,000,000. and, subject to such amounts as are provided in ap-
propriation Acts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977,
$1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978,
$4,500,000,000 and for the fiscal years ending September 30, 1979,
September 30, 1980, not to exceed $5,000,000 000; for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1981, not to exceed 42,548,837,000; and
for the fiscal years ending September 30, 1982, September 30,
1983, September 30, 1984, and September 30, 1985, not to exceed
$2,400,000,000 per fiscal year; and for each of the fiscal years end-
ing September 30, 1986. September 30. 1987, and September 30,
1988, not to exceed $2,400,000,000; and for each of the fiscal years
ending September 30, 1989, and September 30, 1990, not to exceed
$1,200,000,000.
(33 USC 1287)
AI1EAWIDE WASTE TREAThENT MANAGEMENT
SEC. 208. (a) For the purpose of encouraging and facilitating
the development and implementation of areawide waste treatment
management plans—
(1) The Administrator, within ninety days after the date of
enactment of this Act and after consultation with appropriate
Federal, State, and local authorities, shall by regulation pub-
lish guidelines for the identification of those areas which, as a
result of urban-industrial concentrations or other factors, have
substantial water quality control problems.
(2) The Governor of each State, within sixty days after
publication of the guidelines issued pursuant to paragraph (1)
of this subsection, shall identify each area within the State
which, as a result of urban-industrial concentrations or other
factors, has substantial water quality control problems. Not
later than one hundred and twenty days following such identi-
fication and after consultation with appropriate elected and
other officials of local governments having jurisdiction in such
areas, the Governor shall designate (A) the boundaries of each
such area, and (B) a single representative organization, includ-
ing elected officials from local governments or their designees,
capable of developing effective areawide waste treatment man-
-- agement plans for such an area. The Governor may in the
same manner at any later time identify any additional area (or
modify an existing area) for which he determines areawide
waste treatment management to be appropriate, designate the
boundaries of such area, and designate an organization capable
of developing effective areawide waste treatment management
plans for such area.
(3) With respect to any area which, pursuant to the guide-
lines published under paragraph (1) of this subsection, is lo-
cated in two or more States, the Governors of the respective
States shall consult and cooperate in carrying out the provi-
sions of paragraph (2), with a view toward designating the
boundaries of the interstate area having common water quality
control problems and for which areawide waste treatment
management plans would be most effective, and toward des-
ignating, within one hundred and eighty days after publication
of guidelines issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of this sub-
section, of a single representative organization capable of de-
veloping effective areawide waste treatment management
plans for such area.
(4) If a Governor does not act, either by designating or de-
termining not to make a designation under paragraph (2) of
this subsection, within the time required by such paragraph, or
if, in the case of an interstate area, the Governors of the States
involved do not designate a planning organization within the
time required by paragraph (3) of this subsection, the chief
elected -officials of local governments within an area may by
agreement designate (A) the boundaries for such an area, and
(B) a single representative organization including elected ofli.
dale from such local governments, or their designees, capable
of developing an areawide waste treatment management plan
for such area.
(5) Existing regional agencies may be designated under
paragraphs (2). (3), and (4) of this subsection.
(6) The State shall act as a planning agency for all por-
tions of such State which are not designated under paragraphs
(2), (3), or (4) of this subsection.
(7) Designations under this subsection shall be subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
(bXIXA) Not later than one year after the date of designation
of any organization under subsection (a) of this 8ection such organi-
zation shall have in operation a continuing areawide waste treat-
ment management planning process consistent with section 201 of
this Act. Plans prepared in accordance with this process shall con-
tain alternatives for waste treatment management, and be applica-
ble to all wastes generated within the area involved. The initial
plan j,repared in accordance with such process shall be certified by
the Governor and submitted to the Administrator not later than
two years after the planning process is in operation.
(B) For any agency designated after 1975 under subsection (a)
of this section and for all portions of a State for which the State
is required to act as the planning agency in accordance with sub-
section (a)(6), the initial plan prepared in accordance with such
process shall be certified by the Governor and submitted to the Ad-
ministrator not later than three years after the receipt-of the initial
grant award authorized under subsection (f) of this section.
(2) Any plan prepared under such process shall include, but
not be limited to—
-------
65 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 208 Sec. 208
FEDERAL WATER POUIITION CONTROL ACT 66
(A) the identification of treatment works necessary to meet
the anticipated municipal and industrial waste treatment
needs of the area over a twenty-year period, annually updated
(including an analysis of alternative waste treatment systems),
including any requirements for the acquisition of land for
treatment pwposes; the necessary waste water collection and
urban storm water runoff systems; and a program to provide
the necessary financial arrangements for the development of
such treatment works, and an identification of open space and
recreation opportunities that can be expected to result from im-
proved water quality, including consideration of potential use
of lands associated with treatment works and increased access
to water-based recreation;
(B) the establishment of construction priorities for such
treatment works and time schedules for the initiation and com-
pletion of all treatment works;
(C) the establishment of a regulatory program to—
(i) implement the waste treatment management re-
quirements of section 20 1(c),
(ii) regulate the location, modification and construc-
tion of any facilities within such area which may result in
any discharge in such area, and
(iii) assure that any industrial or commercial waste
discharged into any treatment works in such area meet ap-
plicable pretreatment requirements;
(D) the identification of those a encies necessary to con-
struct, operate, and maintain all facilities required by the plan
and otherwise to carry out the plan;
(E) the identification of the measures necessary to carry
out the plan (including financing), the period of time necessary
to carry out the plan, the costs of carrying out the plan within
such time, and the economic, social, and environmental impact
of carrying out the plan within such time;
(F) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, agriculturally
and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution, includ-
ing return flows from irrigated agriculture and their cumu-
lative effects, runoff from manure disposal areas, and from
land used for livestock and crop production, and (ii) set forth
procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to
control to the extent feasible such sources;
(0) a process of (1) identify, if appropriate, mine-related
sources of pollution including new, current, and abandoned
surface and underground mine runoff, and (ii) set forth proce-
dures and methods (including land use requirements) to con-
trol to the extent feasible such sources;
(H) a process to (i) identify construction activity related
sources of pollution, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods
(including land use requirements) to control to the extent fea-
sible such sources;
(I) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, salt water intru-
sion into rivera, lakes, and estuaries resulting from reduction
of fresh water flow from any cause, including irrigation, ob-
struction. ground water extraction, and diversion, and (ii) set -
forth procedures and methods to control such intrusion to th
extent feasible where such procedures and methods are other-
wise part of the waste treatment management plair
(J) a process to control the disposition of all residual waste -
generated in such area which could affect water quality; and
(K) a process to control the disposal of pollutants on land
or in subsurface excavations within such area to protect
ground and surface water quality.
(3) Areawide waste treatment management plans shall be cer-
tified annually by the Governor or his designee (or Governors or
their designees, where more than one State is involved) as being
consistent with applicable basin plans and such areawide waste
treatment management plans shall be submitted to the Adminis-
trator for his approval.
(4XA) Whenever the Governor of any State determines (and no-
tifies the Administrator) that consistency with a statewide regu-
latory program under section 303 so requires, the requirements of
clauses (F) through (K) of paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be
developed and submitted by the Governor to the Administrator for
approval for application to a class or category of activity through-
out such State.
(B) Any program submitted under subparagraph -(A) of this
paragraph which, in whole or in part, is to control the discharge
or other placement of dredged or fill material into the navigable
waters shall include the following:
(1) A consultation process which includes the State agency
with primary jurisdiction over fish and wildlife resources.
(ii) A process to identify and manage the discharge or
other placement of dredged or fill material which adversely af-
fects navigable waters, which shall complement and be coordi-
nated with a State program under section 404 conducted pur-
suant to this Act.
(iii) A process to assure that any activity conducted pursu-
ant to a best management practice will comply with the guide-
lines established under section 404(bXl), and sections 307 and
403 of this Act.
(iv) A process to assure that any activity conducted pursu-
ant to a best management practice can be terminated or modi-
fied for cause including, but not limited to, the following:
(I) violation of any condition of the best management
practice;
(II) change in any activity that requires either a tem-
porary or permanent reduction or elimination of the dis-
charge pursuant to the best management practice.
(v) A process to assure continued coordination with Fed-
eral and Federal-State water-related planning and reviewing
processes. including the National Wetlands Inventory.
(C) If the Governor of a State obtains approval from the Ad-
ministrator of a statewide regulatory program which meets the re-
quirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph and if such State
is administering a permit program under section 404 of this Act,
no person shall be required to obtain an individual permit pursu-
ant to such section, or to comply with a general permit issued pur-
suant to such section, with respect to any appropriate activity with-
in such State for which a best management practice has been ap-
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLUJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 208 Sec. 208
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 58
87
proved by the Administrator wider the program approved by the
Administrator pursuant to this paragraph.
(DXi) Whenever the Administrator determines after public
hearing that a State is not administering a program approved
under this section in accordance with the requirements of this sec-
tion, the Administrator shall so notify the State and if appropriate
corrective action is not taken within a reaaona le time, not to ex-
ceed ninety day , the Administrator shall withdraw approval of
such program. The Administrator shall not withdraw approval of
any such program unless he shall first have notified the State, and
made public in writing, the reasons for such withdrawal.
(ii) In die case of a State with a program submitted and ap-
proved under this paragraph, the Administrator shall withdraw a -
proval of such program under this subparagraph only for a su
stantial failure of the State to administer ito program in accord-
ance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(cXl) The Governor of each State, in consultation with the
planning agency designated under subsection (a) of this section, at
the time a plan Is submitted to the Administrator, shall designate
one or more waste treatment management agencies (which may be
an existing or newly created local, regional or State agency or po-
tential subdivision) for each area designated under subsection (a)
of this section and submit such designations to the Administrator.
(2) The Administrator shall accept any such designation, un-
less, within 120 days of such designation, he finds that the des-
ignated management agency (or agencies) does not have adequate
authority—
(A) to carry out appropriate portions of an areawide waste
treatment management plan developed under subsection (b) of
this section;
(B) to manage effectively waste treatment works and relat-
ed facilities serving such area in conformance with any plan re-
quired by subsection (b) of this section;
(C) directly or by contract, to design and construct new
works, and to operate and maintain new and existing works as
required by any plan developed pursuant to subsection (b) of
this section;
(D) to accept and utilize grants, or other funds from any
source, for waste treatment management purposes;
(B) to raise revenues, including the assessment of waste
treatment charges;
(F) to incur short- and long-term indebtedness;
(0) to assure in implementation of an areawide waste
treatment management plan that each participating commu-
nity pays its proportionate share of treatment costs;
(H) to reibse to receive any wastes from any municipality
or subdivision thereof, which does not comply with any provi-
sions of an approved plan under this section applicable to such
area; and
(I) to accept for treatment industrial wastes.
(d) After a waste treatment management agency having the
authority required by subsection (c) has been designated under
such subsection for an area and a plan for such area has been ap-
proved under subsection (b) of this section, the Administrator shall
not make any grant for construction of a publicy owned treatment
works under section 201(gXl) within such area except to such des-
ignated agency and for works in conformity with such plan.
(e) No permit under section 402 of this Act shall be issued for
any point source which is in conflict with a plan approved pursuant
to subsection (b) of this section.
(I X 1) The Administrator shall make grants to any agency des-
ignated under subsection (a) of this section for payment of the rea-
sonable costs of developing and operating a continuing areawide
waste treatment management planning process under subsection
(b) of this section.
(2) For the two-year period beginning on the date of the first
Fant is made under paragraph (1) of this subsection to an agency,
if such first grant is made before October 1, 1977, the amount of
each such grant to such agency shall be 100 per centum of the costs
of developing and operating a continuing areawide waste treatment
management planning process under subsection (b) of this section,
and thereafter the amount granted to such agency shall not exceed
75 per centum of such costs in each succeeding one-year period. In
the case of any other grant made to an agency under such para-
graph (1) of this subsection, the amount of such grant shall not ex-
ceed 75 per centwn of the coats of developing and operating a con-
tinuing areawide waste treatment management planning process in
any year.
(3) Each applicant for a grant under this subsection shall sub-
mit to the Administrator for his approval each proposal for which
a grant is applied for under this subsection. The Administrator
shall act upon such proposal as soon as practicable after it has
been submitted, and his approval of that proposal shall be deemed
a contractual obligation of the United States for the payment of its
contribution to such proposal, subject to such amounts as are pro-
vided in appropriation Acts. There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this subsection not to exceed $50,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973, not to exceed $100,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, not to exceed $150,000,000 per fiscal
year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1975, September 30, 1977,
September 30, 1978, September 30, 1979, and September 30, 1980,
not to exceed $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years end-
ing September 30, 1981, and September 30, 1982, and such sums
as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1990.
(g) The Administrator is authorized, upon request of the Gov-
ernor or the designated planning agency, and without reimburse-
ment, to consult with, and provide technical assistance to, any
agency designated under subsection (a) of this section in the devel-
opment of areawide waste treatment management plans wider sub-
section (b) of this section.
(hXl) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, in cooperation with the Administrator is authorized and
directed, upon request of the Governor or the designated planning
orgsinwntion, to consult with, and provide technical assistance to,
any agency designed 1 under subsection (a) of this section in devel-
‘8 . In o ,4gtnaL PrcInbly .1 ,ouId In d .sIgnstad.
-------
69 FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec 208 Sec. 203
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT JO
oping and operating a continuing areawide waste treatment man-
agement plRnning process under subsection (b) of this section.
(2) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
the Army, to carry out this subsection, not to exceed $50,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, and June
30, 1974.
(iX 1) The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall, upon request
of the Governor of a State, and without reimbursement, provide
technical assistance to such State in developing a statewide pro-
gram for submission to the Administrator under subsection
(b)(4XB) of this section and in implementing such program after its
approval.
(2) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
the Interior $6,000,000 to complete the National Wetlands Inven-
tory of the United States, by December 31, 1981, and to provide in-
formation from such Inventory to States as it becomes available to
assist such States in the development and operation of programs
under this Act.
(jXl) The Secretary of Agriculture, with the concurrence of the
Administrator, and acting through the Soil Conservation Service
and such other agencies of the Department of Agriculture as the
Secretary may designate, is authorized and directed to establish
and administer a program to enter into contracts, subject to such
amounts as are provided in advance by appropriation acts, of not
less than five years nor more than ten years with owners and oper-
ators having control of rural land for the purpose of installing and
maintaining measures incorporating best management practices to
control nonpoint source pollution for improved water quality in
those States or areas for which the Administrator has approved a
plan under subsection (b) of thia section where the practices to
which the contracts apply are certified by the management agency
designated under subsection (eXi) of this section to be consistent
with such plans and will result in improved water quality. Such
contracts may be entered into during the period ending not later
than September 31, 1988. Under such contracts the land owners or
operator shall agree—
(i) to effectuate a plan approved by a soil conservation dis-
trict, where one exists, under this section for his farm, ranch,
or other land substantially in accordance with the schedule
outlined therein unless any requirement thereof is waived or
modified by the Secretary;
(ii) to forfeit all rights to further peyments or grants under
the contract and refund to the United States all payments and
grants received thereunder, with interest, upon his violation of
the contract at any stage durinç the time he has control of the
land if the Secretary, after considering the recommendations of
the soil conservation district, where one exists, and the Admin-
istrator, determines that such violation is of such a nature as
to warrant termination of the contract, or to make refunds or
accept such payment adjustments as the Secretary may deem
appropriate if he determines that the violation by the owner or
operator does not warrant terminAtion of the contract;
(iii) upon transfer of his right and interest in the farm,
ranch, or other land during the contract period to forfeit all
rights to further-payments or grants under the contract and re-
fund to the United States all payments or grants received
thereunder, with interest, unless the transferee of any such
land agrees with the Secretary to assume all obligations of the
contract;
(iv) not to adopt any practice specified by the Secretary on
the advice of the Administrator in the contract as a practice
which would tend to defeat the purposes of the contract;
(v) to such additional provisions as the Secretary deter-
mines are desirable and includes in the contract to effectuate
the purposes of the program or to facilitate the practical ad-
ministration of the program.
(2) In return for such agreement by the landowner or operator
the Secretary shall agree to provide technical assistance and share
the cost of carrying out those conservation practices and measures
set forth in the contract for which he determines that cost sharing
is appropriate and in the public interest and which are approved
for cost sharing by the agency designated to implement the plan
developed under subsection (b) of this section. The portion of such
cost (including labor) to be shared shall be that part which the Sec-
retary determines is necessary and appropriate to effectuate the in-
atallation of the water quality management practices and measures
under the contract, but not to exceed 50 per centum of the total
cost of the measures set forth in the contract; except the Secretary
may increase the matching coat share where he determines that (1)
the main benefits to be derived from the measures are related to
improving offeite water quality, and (2) the matching share re-
quirement would place a burden on the landowner which would
probably prevent him from participating in the program.
(3) The Secretary may terminate any contract with a land-
owner or operator by mutual agreement with the owner or operator
if the Secretary determines that such termination would be in the
- public interest, and may agree to such modification of contracts
previously entered into as he may determine to be desirable to
carry out the purposes of the program or facilitate the practical ad-
ministration thereof or to accomplish equitable treatment with re-
spect to other conservation, land use, or water quality programs.
(4) In providing assistance under this subsection the Secretary
will give priority to those areas and sources that have the most sig-
nificant effect upon water quality. Additional Investigations or
plans may be made, where necessary, to supplement approved
water quality management plans, in order to determine priorities.
(5) The Secretary shall, where practicable, enter into agree-
ments with soil conservation districts, State soil and water con-
servation agencies, or State water quality agencies to administer
all or part of the program established in this subsection under reg-
ulations developed by the Secretary. Such agreements ahall provide
for the submission of such reports as the Secretary deems nec-
essary, and for payment by the United States of such portion of the
costs incurred in -the administration of the program as the Sec-
retary may deem appropriate.
-------
it FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 210 Sec. 211
FEOERAI. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 72
(6) The contracts under this subsection shall be entered into
only in areas where the management agency designated under sub-
section (cXl) of this section assures an adequate level of participa-
tion by owners and operators having control of rural land in such
areas. Within such areas the local soil conservation district, where
one exists, together with the Secretary of Agriculture, will deter-
mine the priority of assistance among individual land owners and
operators to assure that the most critical water quality problems
are addressed.
(7) The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator and
subject to section 304(k) of this Act, shall, not later than September
30, 1978, promulgate regulations for carrying out this subsection
and for support and cooperation with other Federal and non-Fed-
eral agencies for implementation of this subsection.
(8) This program shall not be used to authorize or finance
projects that would otherwise be eligible for assistance under the
terms of Public Law 83—566.
(9) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Sec-
retary of Agriculture $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1979,
$400,000,000 for fiscal year 1980, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1981,
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 1982, and such sums as may be nec-
essary for fiscal years 1983 through 1990, to carry out this sub-
section. The program authorized under this subsection shall be in
addition to, and not in substitution of, other programs in such area
authorized by this or any other public law.
(33 U.S.C. 1288)
BASIN PLANNING
SEc. 209. (a) The President, acting through the Water Re-
sources Council, shall, as soon as practicable, prepare a Lavel B
plan under the Water Resource Planning Act for all basins in the
United States. All such plans shall be completed not later than
January 1, 1980, except that priority in the preparation of such
plans shall be given to those basins and portions thereof which are
within those areas designated under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of
subsection (a) of section 208 of this Act.
(b) The President, acting through the Water Resources Council,
shall report annually to Congress on progress being made in carry-
ing out this section. The first such report shall be submitted not
Later than January 31, 1973.
(c) There Is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion not to exceed $200,000,000.
(33 U.S.C. 1289)
ANNUAL SURVEY
SEc. 210. The Administrator shall annually make a survey to
determine the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treat-
meat works constructed with grants made under this Act, as com-
pared to the efficiency planned at the time the grant was made.
The result. of such annual survey shall be included in the report
required under section 516(a) of this Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1290)
SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
SEc. 211. (a) No grant shall be made for a sewage collection
system under this title unless such grant (1) is for replacement or
major rehabilitation of an existing collection system and is nec-
essary to the total integrity and performance of the waste treat-
ment works serving such community, or (2) is for a new collection
system in an existing community with sufficient existing or
planned capacity adequately to treat such collected sewage and is
consistent with section 201 of this Act.
(b) If the Administrator uses population density as a test for
determining the eligibility of a collector sewer for assistance it
shall be only for the purpose of evaluating alternatives and deter-
mining the needs for such system in relation to ground or surface
water quality impact.
(c) No grant shall be made under this title from funds author-
ized for any fiscal year during the period beginning October 1,
1977, and ending September 30, 1990, for treatment works for con-
trol of pollutant discharges from separate storm sewer systems.
(33 U.S.C. 1291)
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 212. As used in this title—
(1) The term “construction” means any one or more of the fol-
lowing preliminary planning to determine the feasibility of treat-
ment works, engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, or economic in-
vestigations or studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings,
specifications, procedures, field testing of innovative or alternative
waste water treatment processes and techniques meeting guide-
lines promulgated under section 304(dX3) of this Act, or other nec-
essary actions, erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodel-
ing, improvement, or extension of treatment works, or the inspec-
tion or supervision of any of the foregoing items.
(2XA) The term “treatment works” means any devices and sys-
tems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of
municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature to imple-
ment section 201 of this act, or necessary to recycle or reuse water
at the most economical cost over the estimated life of the works,
including intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection sys-
tems, pumping, power, and other equipment, and their appur-
tenances; extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and al-
terations thereof elements essential to provide a reliable recycled
supply such as standby treatment units and clear well facilities;
and any works, including site acquisition of the land that will be
an integral part of the treatment process (including land use for
the storage of treated wastewater in land treatment systems prior
to land application) or is used for ultimate disposal of residues re-
sulting from such treatment.
(B) In addition to the definition contained in 8ubparagraph (A)
- of this paragraph, “treatment works” means any other method or
system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separat-
ing, or disposing of municipal waste, including storm water nmofl,
or industrial waste, including waste in combined storm water and
sanitary sewer systems. Any application for construction grant.
-------
13 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 214 Sec. 214
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 74
which includes wholly or in part such methods or systems shall, in
accordance with guidelines published by the Administrator pursu-
ant to subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, contain adequate data
and analysis demonstrating such proposal to be, over the life of
such works, the most cost efficient alternative to comply with sec-
tions 301 or 302 of this Act, or the requirements of section 201 of
this Act.
(C) For the purposes of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph,
the Arhninifitrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days after
the date of enactment of this title, publish and thereafter revise no
less often than annually, guidelines for the evaluation of methods,
including cost-effective analysis, described in subparagraph (B) of
this paragraph.
(3) The term “replacement” as used in this title means those
expenditures for obtaining and installing equipment, accessories, or
appurtenances during the useful life of the treatment works nec-
essary to maintain the capacity and performance for which such
works are designed and constructed.
(33 U S.C. 1292)
LOAN GUARANTEES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS
SEc. 213. (a) Subject to the conditions of’ this section and to
such terms and conditions as the Administrator determines to be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this title, the Administrator
is authorized to guarantee, and to make commitments to guaran-
tee, the principal and interest (including interest accruing between
the date of default and the date of the payment in full of the guar-
antee) of any loan, obligation, or participation therein of any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency issued directly
and exclusively to the Federal Financing Bank to finance that part
of the cost of any grant-eligible project for the construction of pub-
licly owned treatment works not paid for with Federal financial as-
sistance under this title (other than this section), which project the
Administrator has determined to be eligible for such financial as-
sistance under this title, includin , but not limited to, projects eligi-
ble for reimbursement under section 206 of this title.
(b) No guarantee, or commitment to make a guarantee, may be
made pursuant to this section—
(1) unless the Administrator certifies that the issuing body
is unable to obtain on reasonable terms sufficient credit to fi-
nance its actual needs without such guarantee; and
(2) unless the Administrator determines that there is a
reasonable assurance or repayment of the loan, obligation, or
participation therein.
A determination of whether financing is available at reasonable
rates shall be made by the Secretary of the Treasury with relation-
ship to the current average yield on outstanding marketable obliga-
tions of municipalities of comparable maturity.
(C) The Administrator is authorized to charge reasonable fees
for the investigation of an application for a guarantee and for the
issuance of a commitment to make a guarantee.
(d) The Administrator, in determining whether there is a rea-
sonable assurance of-repayment, may require a commitment which
would apply to such repayment. Such commitment may include,
but not be limited to, any funds received by such grantee from the
amounts appropriated under section 206 of this Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1293)
PUBUC INFORMATION
SEC. 214. The Administrator shall develop and operate within
one year of the date of enactment of this section, a continuing pro-
gram of public information and education on recycling and reuse of
wastewater (including sludge), the use of land treatment, and
methods for the reduction of wastewater volume.
(33 U_S.c. 1294)
REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN MATERIA1 S
SEc. 215. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no grant
for which application is made after February 1, 1978, shall be
made under this title for any treatment works unless only such un-
manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been mined
or produced in the United States, and only such manufactured arti-
cles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the
United States, substantial!y all from articles, materials, or supplies
mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the Unit-
ed States will be used in such treatment works. This section shall
not apply in any case where the Administrator determines, based
upon those factors the Administrator deems relevant, including the
available resources of the agency, it to be inconsistent with the
public interest (including multilateral government procurement
agreements) or the cost to be unreasonable, or if articles, materials,
or supplies of the class or kind to be used or the articles, materials,
or supplies from which they are manufactured are not mined, pro-
duced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States
in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantifies and of
a satisfactory quality.
(33 U.S.C. 1295)
DETERMINATION OF PRIORITY
SEC. 216. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
determination of the priority to be given each category of projects
for construction of publicly owned treatment works within each
State shall be made solely by that State, except that if the Admin-
istrator, after a public hearing, determines that a specific project
will not result in compliance with the enforceable re,uirements of
this Act, such project shall be removed from the State a priority list
and such State shall submit a revised priority list. These categories
shall include, but not be limited to (A) secondary treatment, (B)
more stringent treatment, (C) infiltration-in-flow correction, (D)
major sewer system rehabilitation, (E) new collector sewers and ap-
purtenances, (F) new interceptors and appurtenances, and (G) cor-
rection of combined sewer overflows. Not less than 25 per centum
of funds allocated to a State in any fiscal year under this title for
construction of publicly owned treatment works in such State shall
be obligated for those types of projects referred to in clauses (D),
(E), (F), and (G) of this section, if such projects are on such State’s
-------
15 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 718 Sec. 219
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 76
priority list for that year and are otherwise eligible for funding in
that fiscal year. It is the policy of Coflgress that projects for
waatewater treatment and management undertaken with Federal
financial assistance under this Act by any State, municipality 1 or
intermurncipal or interstate agency shall be projects which, in the
estimation of the State, are designed to achieve optimum water
quality management, consistent with the public health and water
quality goals and requirements of the Act.
(33 U SC. 1296)
COST-EFFECTIVENESS GUIDELINES
SEC. 217. Any guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis pub-
lished by the Administrator under this title shall provide for the
identification and selection of coat effective alternatives to comply
with the objective and goals of this Act and sections 20 1(b), 201(d),
201(gX2XA), and 301(bX2XB) of this Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1297)
COST EFFECTWENESS
Sac. 218. (a) It is the policy of Congress that a project for
waste treatment and management undertaken with Federal finan-
cial assistance under this Act by any State, municipality, or inter-
municipal or interstate agency shall be considered as an overall
waste treatment system for waste treatment and management, and
shall be that system which constitutes the most economical and
cost-effective combination of devices and systems used in the stor-
age, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement section 201 of
this Act, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most eco-
nomical cost over the estimated life of the works, including inter-
cepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances; extension,
improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof; ele-
ments essential to provide a reliable recycled supply such as stand-
by treatment units and clear well facilities; and any works, includ-
ing site acquisition of the land that will be an integral part of the
treatment process (including land use for the storage of treated
wastewater in Land treatment systems pnor to land application) or
which is used for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such
treatment; water efficiency measures and devices; and any other
method or a ,stem for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treat-
ing, separating, or disposing of municipal waste, including storm
water runoff, or industrial waste, including waste in combined
storm water and sanitary sewer systems; to meet the requirements
of this Act.
(b) In accordance with the policy set forth in subsection (a) of
this section, before the Administrator approves any grant to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improve-
ment, or extension of any treatment works the Administrator shall
determine that the facilities plan of which such treatment works
are a part constitutes the most economical and coat-effective com-
bination of treatment works over the life of the project to meet the
requirements of this Act, including, but not limited to, consider-
ation of construction costs, operation, maintenance, and replace-
ment costs.
(C) In furtherance of the policy set forth in subsection (a) of this
section, the Administrator shall require value engineering review
in connection with any treatment works, prior to approval of any
Fant for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling.
improvement, or extension of such treatment works, in any case in
which the cost of such erection, building, acquisition, alteration, re-
modeling, improvement, or extension is projected to be in excess of
$10,000,000. For purposes of this subsection, the term “value engi-
neering review” means a specialized cost control technique which
uses a systematic and creative approach to identify and to focus on
unnecessarily high cost in a project in order to arrive at a cost sav-
ing without sacrificing the reliability or efficiency of the project.
(d) This section applies to projects for waste treatment and
management for which no treatment works including a facilities
plan for such project have received Federal financial assistance for
the preparation of construction plans and specification8 under this
Act before the date of enactment of this section.
(33 U.S.C. 1298)
STATE CERTIFICATION OF PROJECTS
Sac. 219. Whenever the Governor of a State which has been
delegated sufficient authority to administer the construction grant
program under this title in that State certifies to the Administrator
that a grant application meets applicable requirements of Federal
and State law for assistance under this title, the Administrator
shall approve or disapprove such application within 45 days of the
date of receipt of such application. If the Administrator does not
approve or disapprove such application within 45 days of receipt,
the application shall be deemed approved. If the Administrator dis-
approves such application the Administrator shall state in writin
the reasons for such disapproval. Any grant approved or deeme
approved under this section shall be subject to amounts provided
in appropriation Acts.
(33 U.S.C. 1299)
TITLE Ill—STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Sac. 301. (a) Except as in compliance with this section and sec-
tions 302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act, the discharge of
any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.
(b) In order to carry out the objective of this Act there shall
be achieved—
(1XA) not later than July 1, 1977, emuent limitations for
point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, (i)
which shall require the application of the best practicable con-
trol technology currently available, as defined by the Adminis-
trator pursuant to section 304(b) of this Act, or (ii) in the case
of a discharge into a publicly owned treatment works which
meets the requirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph,
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 301 Sec. 301
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 78
77
which shall require compliance with any applicable
pretreatment requirements and any requirements under sec-
tion 307 of this Act; and
(B) for publicly owned treatment works in existence on
July 1, 1977, or approved pursuant to section 203 of this Act
prior to June 30, 1974 (for which construction must be com-
pleted within four years of approval), effluent limitations based
upon secondary treatment as defined by the Administrator
pursuant to section 304(d)( 1) of this Act; or,
(C) not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limita-
tion, including those necessary to meet water quality stand-
ards, treatment standards, or schedule of compliance, estab-
lished pursuant to any State law or regulations, (under author-
ity preserved by section 510) or any other Federal law or regu-
lation, or required to implement any applicable water quality
standard established pursuant to this Act.
(2XA) for pollutants identified in subparagraphs (C), (D),
and (F) of this paragraph, effluent limitations for categories
and classes of point sources, other than publicly owned treat-
ment works, which (i) shall require application of the best
available technology economically achievable for such category
or class, which will result in reasonable further progress to-
ward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pol-
lutants, as determined in accordance with regulations issued
by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(bX2) of this Act,
which such effluent limitations shall require the elimination of
discharges of all pollutants if the Administrator finds, on the
basis of information available to him (including information de-
veloped pursuant to section 315), that such elimination is tech-
nologically and economically achievable for category or class of
point sources as determined in accordance with regulations is-
sued by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(bX2) of this
Act, or (ii) in the case of the introduction of a pollutant into
a publicly owned treatment works which meets the require-
ments of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, shall require
compliance with any applicable pretreatment requirements and
any other requirement under section 307 of this Act;
117 ((B) subparagraph (B) repealed by section 21(b) of P.L. 97—
(C) with respect to all toxic pollutants referred to in table
1 of Committee Print Numbered 95—30 of the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representa-
tives compliance with effluent limitations in accordance with
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph as expeditiously as prac.
ticable but in no case Later than three years after the date such
limitations are promulgated under section 304(b), and in no
case later than March 31, 1989;
(D) for all toxic pollutants listed under paragraph (1) of
subsection (a) of section 307 of this Act which are not referred
to in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph compliance with efflu-
ent limitation in accordance with subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later
than three years after the date such limitations are promul-
gated under section 304(b), and in no case later than March
31, 1989;
(E) as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later
than three years after the date such limitations are promul-
gated under section 304(b), and in no case later than March
31, 1989, compliance with effluent limitations for categories
and classes of point sources, other than publicly owned treat-
ment works, which in the case of pollutants identified pursuant
to section 304(a)(4) of this Act shall require applicauon of the
best conventional pollutant control technology as determined in
accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator pur-
suant to section 304(bX4) of this Act; and
(F) for all pollutants (other than those subject to subpara-
graphs (C), (D), or (E) of this paragraph) compliance with efflu-
ent limitations in accordance with subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later
than 3 years after the date such limitations are established,
and in no case later than March 31, 1989.
(3)(A) for effluent limitations under paragraph (IXAXi) of
this subsection promulgated after January 1, 1982. and requir-
ing a level of control substantially greater or based on fun-
damentally different control technology than under permits for
an industrial category issued before such date, compliance as
expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three
years after the date such limitations are promulgated under
section 304(b), and in no case later than March 31, 1989; and
(B) for any emuent limitation in accordance with para-
graph (1)(A)(i), (2XAXi), or (2)(E) of this subsection estabhshed
only on the basis of section 402(aX I) in a permit issued after
enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, compliance as ex-
peditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years
after the date such limitations are established, and in no case
later than March 31, 1989.
(c) The Administrator may modify the requirements of sub-
section (bX2XA) of this section with respect to any point source for
which a permit application is filed after July 1, 1977, upon a show-
ing by the owner or operator of such point source satisfactory to the
Administrator that such modified requirements (1) will represent
the maximum use of technology within the economic capability of
the owner or operator; and (2) will result in reasonable further
progress toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants.
(d) Any effluent limitation required by paragraph (2) of sub-
section (b) of this section shall be reviewed at least every five years
and, if appropriate, revised pursuant to the procedure established
under such paragraph.
(e) Effluent limitations established pursuant to this section or
section 302 of this Act shall be applied to all point sources of dis-
charge of pollutants in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(0 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act it shall be
unlawful to discharge any radiological, chemical, or biological war-
fare agent, any high-level radioactive waste, or any medical waste,
into the navigable waters.
(g) MODIFICATIONS FOR CurrAuN NoNco?1vEwrIoN POLLUT-
ANTS.-
-------
Sec. 301 Sec. 301
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 80
19
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
(1) GENERAL A1.rnloRrry.—The Administrator, with the
concurrence of the State, may modify the requirements of sub-
section (bX2XA) of this sectIofl with respect to the discharge
from any point source of ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and
total phenols (4AAP) (when determined by the Administrator
to be a pollutant covered by subsection (b)(2XF)) and any other
pollutant which the Administrator lists under paragraph (4) of
this subsection.
(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING MODIFICATIONS—A
modification under this subsection shall be granted only upon
a showing by the owner or operator of a point source satisfac-
tory to the Administrator that—
(A) such modified requirements will result at a mini-
mum in compliance with the requirements of subsection
(bX1XA) or (C) of this section, whichever is applicable;
(B) such modified requirements will not result in any
additional requirements on any other point or nonpoint
source; and
(C) such modification will not interfere with the at-
tainment or maintenance of that water quality which shall
assure protection of public water supplies, and the protec-
tion and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities, in and
on the water and such modification will not result in the
discharge of pollutants in quantities which may reasonably
be anticipated to pose an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment because of bioaccumulatiOn,
persistency in the environment, acute toxicity, chronic tox-
icity (including carcinogenicity, mutagelucity or
teratogenicity), or synergistic propensities.
(3) LIMITATION ON AUTHORiTY TO APPLY FOR SUBSECTION Cc)
MODIFICATION—If an owner or operator of a point source ap-
plies for a modification under this subsection with respect to
the discharge of any pollutant, such owner or operator shall be
eligible to apply for modification under subsection (c) of this
section with respect to such pollutant only during the same
time-period as he is eligible to apply for a modification under
this subsection.
(4) PitOCEDURES FOR LISTING ADDITIONAL ANN.—
(A) GENERAL A rn4omTY.—Upon petition of any per-
son, the Administrator may add any pollutant to the list
of pollutants for which modification under this section is
authorized (except for pollutants identified pursuant to
section 304(aX4) of this Act, toxic pollutants subject to sec-
tion 307(a) of this Act, and the thermal component of dis-
charges) in accordance with the provisions of this para-
graph.
(B) REQUIREMEN ’ro FOR LISTING.—
(i) SUFFICIENT INFORMATION—The person peti-
tioning for listing of an additional pollutant under this
subsection shall submit to the Administrator sufficient
information to make the determinations required by
this subparagraph.
(ii) Toxic CRITERIA DETERMINATION—The Admin-
istrator shall determine whether or not the pollutant
meets the criteria for listing as a toxic pollutant under
section 307(a) of this Act.
(iii) LISTING AS TOXIC POLLUTANT.— ’ 1 the Admin-
istrator determines that the pollutant meets the cri-
teria for listing as a toxic pollutant under section
307(a), the Administrator shall list the pollutant as a
toxic pollutant under section 307(a).
(iv) NONCONVENTI0N CRITERIA DEIERMINA-
TION.—lf the Administrator determines that the pol-
lutant does not meet the criteria for using as a toxic
pollutant under such section and determines that ade-
quate test methods and sufficient data are available to
make the determinations required by paragraph (2) of
this subsection with respect to the pollutant, the Ad-
ministrator shall add the pollutant to the list of pollut-
ants specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection for
which modifications are authorized under this sub-
section.
(C) REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING OF PETITIONS—A peti-
tion for lising of a pollutant under this paragraph—
(i) must be filed not later than 270 days after the
date of promulgation of an applicable effluent guide-
line under section 304;
(ii) may be filed before promulgation of such
guideline; and
(iii) may be filed with an application for a modi-
fication under paragraph (1) with respect to the dis-
charge of such pollutant.
(D) DEADLINE FOR APPROVAL OF PETITION—A decision
to add a pollutant to the list of pollutants for which modi-
fications under this subsection are authorized must be
made within 270 days after the date of promulgation of an
applicable effluent guideline under section 304.
CE) BURDEN OF PROOF—The burden of proof for mak-
ing the determinations under subparagraph (B) shall be on
the petitioner.
(5) REMOVAL OF POLLUTANTS —The Administrator may re-
move any pollutant from the list of pollutants for which modi-
fications are authorized under this subsection if the Adminis-
trator determines that adequate test methods and sufficient
data are no longer available for determining whether or not
modifications may be granted with respect to such pollutant
under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(h) The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, may
issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements
of subsection (bXl)(B) of this section with respect to the discharge
of any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment works into ma-
rine waters, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that—
(1) there is an applicable water quality standard specific to
the pollutant for which the modification is requested, which
has been identified under section 304(a)(6) of this Act;
-------
83 FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
S!C301 Sec. 301
FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT 84
(2XA) Where a point source (other than a publicly owned treat-
ment works) will not achieve the requirements of subsections
(b)( 1XA) and (b)( 1XC) of this section and—
(i) if a permit issued prior to July 1, 1977. to such point
source is based upon a discharge into a publicly owned treat-
ment works; or
(ii) if such point source (other than a publicly owned treat-
ment works) had before July 1, 1977, a contract (enforceable
against such point source) to discharge into a publicly owned
treatment works; or
(iii) if either an application made before July 1, 1977, for
a construction grant under this Act for a publicly owned treat-
ment works, or engineering or architectural plans or working
drawings made before July 1, 1977, for a publicly owned treat-
ment works, show that such point source was to discharge into
such publicly owned treatment works,
and such publicly owned treatment works is presently unable to ac-
cept such discharge without construction, and in the case of a dis-
charge to an existing publicly owned treatment works, such treat-
ment works has an extension pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection, the owner or operator of such point source may request
the Administrator (or if appropriate the State) to issue or modify
such a permit pursuant to such section 402 to extend such time for
compliance. Any such request shall be filed with the Administrator
(or if appropriate the State) within 180 days after the date of en-
actment of this subsection or the filing of a request by the appro-
priate publicly owned treatment works under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, whichever is later. If the Administrator (or if appro-
priate the State) finds that the owner or operator of such point
source has acted in good faith, he may grant such request and
issue or modify such a permit, which shall contain a schedule of
compliance for the point source to achieve the requirements of sub-
sections (bX1XA) and (C) of this section and shall contain such
other terms and conditions, including pretreatment and interim ef-
fluent limitations and water conservation requirements applicable
to that point source, as the Administrator determines are necessary
to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(B) No time modification granted by the Administrator (or if
appropriate the State) pursuant to paragraph (2XA) of this sub-
section shall extend beyond the earliest date practicable for compli-
ance or beyond the date of any extension granted to the appro-
priate publicly owned treatment works pursuant to paragraph (1)
of this subsection, but in no event shall it extend beyond July 1,
1988, and no such time modification shall be granted unless (i) the
publicly owned treatment works will be in operation and available
to the point source before July 1, 1988. and will meet the require-
ments to subsections (b)(1) (B) and (C) of this section after receiv-
ing the discharge from that point source; and (ii) the point source
and the publicly owned treatment works have entered into an en-
forceable contract requiring the point source to discharge into the
publicly owned treatment works, the owner or operator of such
point source to pay the costs required under section 204 of this Act,
and the publicly owned treatment works to accept the discharge
from the point source; and (iii) the permit for such point source re-
quires point source to meet all reçuirements under section 307 (a)
and (b) during the period of such time modification.
(j)( 1) Any application filed under this section for a modification
of the provisions of—
(A) subsection (b)( 1 )(B) under subsection (h) of this section
shall be filed not later that’ the 365th day which begins after
the date of enactment of the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grant Amendments of 1981, except that a pub-
licly owned treatment works which prior to December 31, 1982,
had a contractual arrangement to use a portion of the capacity
of an ocean outfall operated by another publicly owned treat-
ment works which has applied for or received modification
under subsection (h), may apply for a modification of sub.
section (h) in its own right not later than 30 days after the
date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, and
except as provided in paragraph (5);
(B) subsection (b)(2XA) as it applies to pollutants identified
in subsection (bX2XF) shall be filed not later than 270 days
after the date of promulgation of an applicable effluent guide-
line under section 304 or not later than 270 days after the date
of enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977, whichever is
later.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3) of this section, any application for
a modification filed under subsection (g) of this section shall not op-
erate to stay any requirement under this Act, unless in the judg-
ment of the Administrator such a stay or the modification sought
will not result in the discharge of pollutants in quantities which
may reasonably be anticipated to pose an unacceptable risk to
human health or the environment because of bioaccumulation, per-
sistency in the environment, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity (includ-
ing carcinogenicity, mutagenicity or teratogenicity), or synergistic
propensities, and that there is a substantial likelihood that the ap-
plicant will succeed on the merits of such application. In the case
of an application filed under subsection (g) of this section, the Ad-
ministrator may ondition any stay granted under this paragraph
on requiring the filing of a bond or other appropriate security to
assure timely compliance with the requirements from which a
modification is sought.
(3) COMPUANCE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SUBSECTION (g).—
(A) EFFECT OF FILING—An application for a modifica-
tion under subsection (g) and a petition for listing of a poi-
lutant as a pollutant for which modifications are author-
ized under such subsection shall not stay the requirement
that the person seeking such modification or listing comply
with effluent limitations under this Act for all pollutants
not the subject of such application or petition.
(B) EFFECT OF DISAPPROVAL—Disapproval of an appli-
cation for a modification under subsection (g) shall not
stay the requirement that the person seeking such modi-
fication comply with all applicable emuent limitations
under this Act.
‘So iii law PrcbabI uhould be tha&
-------
FEDERAL WAlER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 301 Sec. 301
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 86
85
(4) DEADLINE FOR SUBSECTION ( ) DECISION. A1 applies-
Uon for a modification with respect to a pollutant filed under
subsection (g) must be approved or disapproved not later than
365 days after the date of such filinr except that in any case
in which a petition for listing such pollutant as a pollutant for
which modifications are authorized under such subsection is
approved, such application must be approved or disapproved
not later than 365 days after the date of approval of such peti-
tion.
(5) ExTENSION OF APPUCATION DEADLINE.—
(A) IN GENERAL—In the 180-day period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the city of
San Diego, California, may apply for a modification pursu-
ant to subsectiofl (h) of the requirements of subsection
(bX1XB) with respect to biological oxygen demand and
total suspended solids In the effluent discharged into ma-
rine waters.
(B) APPLICATION—An application under this para-
graph shall Include a commitment by the applicant to im-
plement a waste water reclamation program that, at a
minimum, will—
(i) achieve a system capacity of 45,000,000 gallons
of reclaimed waste water per day by January 1, 2010;
and
(ii) result in a reduction in the quantity of sus-
pended solids discharged by the applicant into the ma-
rine environment during the period of the modifica-
tion.
(C) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.—ThO Administrator may
not grant a modification pursuant to an application sub-
mitted under this paragraph unless the Administrator de-
termines that such modification will result in removal of
not less than 58 percent of the biological oxygen demand
(on an annual average) and not less than 80 percent of
total suspended solids (on a monthly average) in the die-
charge to which the application applies.
(D) PRELIMINARY DECISION .DEADUNE.—The Adminis-
trator shall announce a preliminary decision on an applica-
tion submitted under this paragraph not later than 1 year
after the date the application is submitted.
(k) In the case of any facility subject to a permit under section
402 which proposes to comply with the requirements of subsection
(bX2XA) or (bX2XE) of this section by replacing existing production
capacity with an Innovative production process which will result In
an effluent reduction significantly greater than that required by
the limitation otherwise applicable to such facility and moves to-
ward the national pal of eliminating the discharge of all pollut-
ants, or with the installation of an innovative control technique
that has a substantial likelihood for enabling the facility to comply
with the applicablo effluent limitation by achieving a significantl
greater effluent reduction than that required by the applicable e -
fluent limitation and moves toward the national goal of eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants, or by achieving the required reduc-
tion with an innovative system that has the potential for signifi-
cantly lower costs than the systems which have been determined
by the Administrator to be economically achievable, the Adminis-
trator (or the State with an approved program under section 402,
in consultation with the Administrator) may establish a date for
compliance inder subsection (bX2XA) or (bX2)(E) of this section no
later than two years after the date for compliance with such efflu-
ent limitation which would otherwise be applicable under such sub-
section, if it is also determined that such innovative system has the
potential for industrywide application.
(I) Other than as provided in subsection (n) of this section, the
Administrator may not modify any requirement of this section as
it applies to any specific pollutant which is on the toxic pollutant
list under section 307(aX 1) of this Act.
(mXl) The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State,
may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the require-
ments of subsections (b)(1XA) and (bX2XE) of this section, and of
section 403, with respect to effluent limitations to the extent such
limitations relate to biochemical oxygen demand and p1-I from dis-
charges by an industrial discharger in such State into deep waters
of the territorial seas, if the applicant demonstrates and the Ad-
ministrator finds that—
(A) the facility for which modification is sought is covered
at the time of the enactment of this subsection by National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
CA0005894 or CA0005282;
(B) the energy and environmental costs of meeting such re-
quirements of subsections (bX1XA) and (bX2XE) and section
403 exceed by an unreasonable amount the benefits to be ob-
tained, including the objectives of this Act;
(C) the applicant has established a system for monitoring
the impact of such discharges on a representative sample of
aquatic biota;
(D) such modified requirements will not result in any addi-
tional requirements on any other point or nonpoint source;
(E) there Will be no new or substantially increased dis-
charges from the point source of the pollutant to which the
modification applies above that volume of discharge specified
in the permit;
(F) the discharge is into waters where there is strong tidal
movement and other hydrological and geological characteristics
which are necessary to allow compliance with this subsection
and section 101(aX2) of this Act;
(G) the applicant accepts as a condition to the permit a
contractural obligation to use funds in the amount required
(but not less than $250,000 per year for ten years) for research
and development of water pollution control technology, includ-
ing but not limited to closed cycle technology;
(H) the facts and circumstances present a unique situation
which, if relief is granted, will not establish a precedent or the
relaxation of the requirements of this Act applicable to simi-
larly situated discharges; and
(I) no owner or operator of a facility comparable to that of
the applicant situated in the United States has demonstrated
that it would be put at a competitive disadvantage to the appli-
-------
87 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 301 Sec. 301
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 80
cant (or the parent company or any subsidiary thereofl as a re-
sult of the issuance of a permit under this subsection.
(2) The effluent limitations established under a permit issued
under paragraph (1) shall be sufficient to implement the applicable
State water quality standards, to assure the protection of public
water supplies and protection and propagation of a balanced, indig-
enous population of shellfish, fish, fauna, wildlife, and other aquat-
Ic organisms, and to allow recreational activities in and on the
water. In setting such limitations, the Administrator shall take
into account any seasonal variations and the need for an adequate
margin of safety, considering the lack of essential knowledge con-
cerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water
quality and the lack of essential knowledge of the effects of dis-
charges on beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
(3) A permit under this subsection may be issued for a period
not to exceed five years, and such a permit may be renewed for one
additional period not to exceed five years upon a demonstration by
the applicant and a finding by the Administrator at the time of ap-
plication for any such renewal that the provisions of this subsection
are met.
(4) The Administrator may terminate a permit issued under
this subsection if the Administrator determines that there has been
a decline in ambient water quality of the receiving waters during
the period of the permit even if a direct cause and effect relation-
ship cannot be shown: Provided, That if the effluent from a source
with a permit issued under this subsection is contributing to a de-
cline in ambient water quality of the receiving waters, the Admin-
istrator shall terminate such permit.
(n) FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS.—
(1) GENERAL RULE.—The Administrator, with the
concurrance of the State, may establish an alternative require-
ment under subsection (bX2) or section 307(b) for a facility that
modifies the requirements of national effluent limitation guide-
lines or cate?orical pretreatment standards that would other-
wise be applicable to such facility, if the owner or operator of
such facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Adminis-
trator that—
(A) the facility is fundamentally different with respect
to the factors (other than coat) specified in section 304(b)
or 304(g) and considered by the Administrator in establish-
ing such national effluent limitation guidelines or categor-
ical pretreatment standards;
(B) the application—
(i) is based solely on information and supporting
data submitted to the Administrator during the rule
making for establishment of the applicable national ef-
fluent limitation guidelines or categorical
pretreatment standard specifically raising the factors
that are fundamentally different for such facility; or
(ii) is based on information and supporting data
referred to in clause (i) and information and support-
ing data the applicant did not have a reasonable op-
portuility to submit during such rulemaking;
(C) the alternative requirement is no less stringent
than justified by the fundamental difference; and
(D) the alternative requirement will not result in a
non-water quality environmental impact which is mark-
edly more adverse than the impact considered by the Ad-
ministrator in establishing such national affluent limita-
tionguideline or categorical pretreatment standard.
(2) TIME LIMIT FOR APPIJCATIONS.—An application for an
alternative requirement which modifies the requirements of an
effluent limitation or pretreatment standard under this sub-
section must be submitted to the Administrator within 180
days after the date on which such limitation or standard is es-
tablished or revised, as the case may be.
(3) TIME LIMIT FOR DECISION.—The Administrator shall ap-
prove or deny by final agency action an application submitted
under this subsection within 180 days after the date such ap-
plication is filed with the Administrator:
(4) SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION.—The Administrator may
allow an applicant under this subsection to submit information
and supporting data until the earlier of the date the applica-
tion is approved or denied or the last day that the Adminis-
trator has to approve or deny such application.
(5) TREATMENT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS—For the pur-
poses of this subsection, an application for an alternative re-
quirement based on fundamentally different factors which is
pending on the date of the enactment of this subsection shall
be treated as having been submitted to the Administrator on
the 180th day following such date of enactment The applicant
may amend the application to take into account the provisions
of this subsection.
(6) EFFECT OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION—An applica-
tion for an alternative requirement under this subsection shall
not stay the applicant’s obligation to comply with the emuent
limitation guideline or categorical pretreatment standard
which is the subject of the application.
(7) EFFECT OF DENIAL.—lf an application for an alternative
requirement which modifies the requirements of an effluent
limitation or pretreatment standard under this subsection is
denied by the Administrator, the applicant must comply with
such limitation or standard as established or revised, as the
case may be.
(8) REPORTS.—By January 1, 1997, and January 1 of every
odd-numbered year thereafter, the Administrator shall submit
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of Representatives a report on the status of applications
for alternative requirements which modify the requirements of
emuent limitations under section 301 or 304 of this Act or any
national categorical pretreatment standard under section
307(b) of this Act filed before, on, or after such date of enact-
ment.
(o) APPLICATION FEES.—The Administrator shall prescribe and
collect from each applicant fees reflecting the reasonable adminis-
trative coats incurred in reviewing and processing applications for
-------
Sec. 302
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTiON CONTROL ACT 90
88
FEDERAL WATER pOW ON CONTROL ACT
Sec. 301
modifications submitted to the Administrator pursuant to 8Ub-
sections (c), (g), (1), (k), (m), and (n) of section 301, section 304(dX4),
and section 316(a) of this Act. All amounts collected by the Admin-
istrator under this subsection shall be deposited into a special fund
of the Treasury entitled “Water Permits and Related Sernces”
which shall thereafter be available for appropriation to carry out
activities of the Environmental Protection Agency for which such
fees were collected.
(p) MODIFIED PERMIT FOR COAL REMININO OPERATIONS.—
(1) IN to paragraphS (2) through (4) of
this subsection, the Administrator, or the State in any case
which the State has an approved permit program under section
402(b), may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies
the requirements of subsection (bX2XA) of this section with re-
spect to the pH level of any pre-exiating discharge, and with
respect to preexisting discharges of iron and manganese from
the remined area of any coal remining operation or with re
sped to the pH level or level of iron or manganese in any pre
existing discharge affected by the remining operation. Such
modified requirements shall apply the best available tech-
nology economically achievable on a case-by-case basis, using
beat professional judgment, to set specific numerical effluent
limitations in each permit.
(2) UMITATIONS.The Administrator or the State may
only issue a permit pursuant to paragraph (1) if the applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator or the
State, as the case may be, that the coal remining operation will
result in the potential for improved water quality from the re-
mining operation but in no event shall such a permit allow the
pH level of any discharge, and in no event shall such a permit
allow the discharges of iron and manganese, to exceed the lev-
els being discharged from the remined area before the coal re-
mining operation begins. No discharge from, or affected by, the
ramming operation shall exceed State water quality standards
established under section 303 of this Act.
(3) DEPINTrIONS.—For purposes of this subsection—
(A) COAL REMINING OpERATI0N.—The term “coal re-
mIn ”g operation” means a coal mining operation which
begins after the date of the enactment of this subsection
at a site on which coal mining was conducted before the
effective date of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamna-
tion Act of 1977.
(B) REMINED AREA.—The term “rammed area” means
only that area of any coal ramming operation on which
coal mining was conducted before the effective date of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
(C) PRE-EXISTINO DISCHARGE—The term “pre exist1ng
discharge” means any discharge at the time of permit ap-
plication under this subsection.
(4) APPLICABIUTY OF STRIP MINING w5. —Nothing in this
subsection shall affect the application of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to any coal remiiflg op-
eration, including the application of such Act to suspended sol-
ids.
(33US.C 1311)
WATER QUALITY RELATED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
SEC. 302. (a) Whenever, in the judgment of the Administrator
or as identified under section 304(1), discharges of pollutants from
a point source or group of point sources, with the application of el-
fluent limitations required under section 301(bX2) of this Act,
would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of that water
quality in a specific portion of the navigable waters which shall as-
sure protection of public health, public water supplies, agricultural
and industrial uses, and the protection and propagation of a bal-
anced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow rec-
reational activities in and on the water, effluent limitations (includ-
ing alternative effluent control strategies) for such point source or
sources shall be established which can reasonably be expected to
contribute to the attainment or maintenance of such water quality.
(b) MoDiFIcATIONS OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.—
(1) NoTICE AND HEARING.—PrlOr to establishment of any
effluent limitation pursuant to subsection (a) of this section,
the Administrator shall publish such proposed limitation and
within 90 days of such publication hold a public hearing.
(2) PERMITS.—
(A) No REASONABLE R ELATIONsmp.—The Adminis-
trator, with the concurrence of the State. may issue a per-
mit which modifies the effluent limitations required by
subsection (a) of this section for pollutants other than toxic
pollutants if the applicant demonstrates at such hearing
that (whether or not technology or other alternative con-
trol strategies are available) there is no reasonable rela-
tionship between the economic and social costs and the
benefits to be obtained (including attainment of the objec-
tive of this Act) from achieving such limitation.
(B) REASONABLE pR0CRESS.—The Administrator, with
the concurrence of the State, may issue a permit which
modifies the effluent limitations required by subsection (a)
of this section for toxic pollutants for a single period not
to exceed 5 years if the applicant demonstrates to the sat-
isfaction of the Administrator that such modified require-
ments (i) will represent the maximum degree of control
within the economic capability of the owner and operator
of the source, and (ii) will result in reasonable further
progre8s beyond the requirements of section 301(b)(2) to-
ward the requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
(c) The establishment of effluent limitations under this section
shall not operate to delay the application of any effluent limitation
established under section 301 of this Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1312)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
SEC. 303. (aX 1) In order to carry out the purpose of this Act,
any water quality standard applicable to interstate waters which
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 303
Sec. 303
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 92
91 ___________________
was adopted by any State and submitted to, and approved by, or
is awaiting approval by, the Administrator pursuant to this Act as
in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, shall remain in
effect unless the Mmuiii4rator determined that such standard is
not consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in ef-
fect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. If the Adminis-
trator makes such a determination he shall, within three months
after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, notify the State and specify the changes
needed to meet such requirements. If such changes are not adopted
by the State within ninety days alter the date of such notification,
the Administrator shall promulgate such changes in accordance
with subsection (b) of this section.
(2) Any State which, before the date of enactment of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, has adopt-
ed, pursuant to its own law, water quality standards applicable to
intrastate waters shall submit such standards to the Administrator
within thirty days after the date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Each such standard
shall remain in effect, in the same manner and to the same extent
as any other water quality standard established under this Act un-
less the Administrator determines that such standard is inconsist-
ent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect imme-
diately pnor to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972. If the Administrator makes
such a determination he shall not later than the one hundred and
twentieth day after the date of submission of such standards, notify
the State and specify the changes needed to meet such require-
ments. If such changes are not adopted by the State within mnety
days after such notification, the Administrator shall promulgate
such changes in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.
(3XA) Any State which prior to the date of enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 has not
adopted pursuant to its own laws water quality standards applica-
ble to intrastate waters shall, not later than one hundred and
eighty days after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972, adopt and submit auch
standards to the Arlmin iRtrator.
(B) If the Administrator determines that any such standards
are consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in ef-
fect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, he shall approve
such standards.
(C) If the Administrator determines that any such standards
are not consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as
in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, he shall, not
later than the ninetieth day after the date of submission of such
standards, notify the State and specify the changes to meet such
re a frements. If such changes .are not adopted by the State within
days after the date of notification, the Mminiatrator shall
promulgate such standards pursuant to subsection (b) of this sec-
tion.
(bXl) The Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish
proposed regulations setting forth water quality standards for a
State in accordance with the applicable requirements of this Act as
in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, if—
(A) the State fails to submit water quality standards with-
in the times prescribed in subsection (a) of this section,
(B) a water quality standard submitted by such State
under subsection (a) of this section is determined by the Ad-
ministrator not to be consistent with the applicable require-
ments of subsection (a) of this section.
(2) The Administrator shall promulgate any water quality
standard published in a proposed regulation not later than one
hundred and ninety days after the date he publishes any such pro-
posed standard, unless prior to such promulgation, such State has
adopted a water quality standard which the Administrator deter-
mines to be in accordance with subsection (a) of this section.
(cXl) The Governor of a State or the State water pollution con
trol agency of such State shall from time to time (but at least once
each three year period beginning with the date of enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) hold
public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable water qual.
ity standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting stand-
ards. Results of such review shall be made available to the Admin-
istrator.
(2XA) Whenever the State revises or adopts a new standard,
such revised or new standard shall be submitted to the Adminis-
trator. Such revised or new water quality standard shall consist of
the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water
quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses. Such stand-
ards shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, en-
hance the quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act. Such
standards shall be established taking into consideration their use
and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wild-
life, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other
purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for
navigation.
(B) Whenever a State reviews water quality standards pursu-
ant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, or revises or adopts new
standards pursuant to this paragraph, such State shall adopt cri-
teria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of
this Act for which criteria have been published under section
304(a), the discharge or presence of which in the affected waters
could reasonably be expected to interfere with those designated
uses adopted by the State, as necessary to support such designated
uses. Such criteria shall be specific numerical criteria for such toxic
pollutants. Where such numerical criteria are not available, when-
ever a State reviews water quality standards pursuant to para-
graph (1), or revises or adopts new standards pursuant to this
paragraph, such State shall adopt criteria based on biological mon-
itoring or assessment methods consistent with information pub-
lished pursuant to section 304(aX8). Nothing in this section shall
-------
FEDERAL WAlER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 303 Sec. 303
FEDERAL. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 94
93
be construed to limit or delay the use of effluent limitations or
other permit conditions based on or involving biological monitoring
or assessment methods or previously adopted numerical criteria.
(3) If the Administrator, within sixty days after the date of
submission of the revised or new standard, determines that such
standard meets the requirements of this Act, such standard shall
thereafter be the water quality standard for the applicable waters
of that State. If the Administrator determines that any such re-
vised or new standard is not consistent with the applicable require-
ments of this Act, he shall not later than the ninetieth day after
the date of submission of such standard notify the State and speci-
fy the changes to meet such requirements. If such changes are not
adopted by the State within ninety days after the date of notifica-
tion, the AdministratOr shall promulgate such standard pursuant
to paragraph (4) of this subsection.
(4) The Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish pro-
posed regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality
standard for the navigable waters involved—
(A) if a revised or new water quality standard submitted
by such State under paragraph (3) of tins subsection for such
waters is determined by the Administrator not to be consistent
with the applicable requirements of this Act, or
(B) in any case where the Administrator determines that
a revised or new standard is necessary to meet the require-
ments of this Act.
The Administrator shall promulgate any revised or new standard
under this paragraph not later than ninety days after he publishes
such proposed standards, unless prior to such promulgation. such
State has adopted a revised or new water quality standard which
the Administrator determines to be in accordance with this Act.
(dX1XA) Each State shall Identify those waters within its
boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by section
301(bX1XA) and section 301(bX1XB) are not stringent enough to
implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters.
The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking
into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made
of such waters.
(B) Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof
within Its boundaries for which cont uls on thermal discharges
under section 301 aie not stringent enough to assure protection
and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife.
(C) Each State shall establish for the waters Identified in para-
graph (IXA) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority
ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which
the Administrator identifies under section 304(aX2) as suitable for
such calculation. Such load shall be established at a level necessary
to implement the applicable water quality standards wIth seasonal
variations and a margin of safety which takes Into account any
lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent lim-
itations and water quality.
(D) Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in para-
graph (1XD) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal
lOad required to assure protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife. Such estimates
shall take into account the normal water temperatures, flow rates,
seasonal variations, existing sources of heat input, and the dissipa-
tive capacity of the identified waters or parts thereof. Such esti-
mates shall include a calculation or the maximum heat input that
can be made into each such part and shall include a margin of safe-
ty which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the
development of thermal water quality criteria for such protection
and propagation in the identified waters or parts thereof.
(2) Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time to
time, with the first such submission not later than one hundred
and eighty days after the date of publication of the first identifica-
tion of pollutants under section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the
waters identified and the loads established under paragraphs
(1)(A), (l)(B), (1)(C), and (1XD) of this subsection. The Adminis-
trator shall either approve or disapprove such identification and
load not later than thirty days after the date of submission. If the
Administrator approves such identification and load, such State
shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of
this section. If the Administrator disapproves such identification
and load, he shall not later than thirty days after the date of such
disapproval identify such waters in such State and establish such
loads for such waters as he determines necessary to implement the
water quality standards applicable to such waters and upon such
identification and establishment the State shall incorporate them
into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section
(3) For the specific purpose of developing information, each
State shall identify all waters within its boundaries which it has
not identified under paragraph (1XA) and (1XB) of this subsection
and estimate for such waters the total maximum daily load with
seasonal variations and margins of safety, for those pollutants
which the Administrator identifies under section 304(aX2) as suit-
able for such calculation and for thermal discharges, at a level that
would assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of fish, shellfish and wildlife.
(4) LiMITATIONS ON REVISION OF CERTAIN EFFLUENT LIMITA-
TIONS.—
(A) STANDARD NOT ATTAINED.—FOT waters identified
under paragraph (1XA) where the applicable water quality
standard has not yet been attained, any effluent limitation
based on a total maximum daily load or other waste load
allocation established under this section may be revised
only if (i) the cumulative effect of all such revised effluent
limitations based on such total maximum daily load or
waste load allocation will assure the attainment of such
water quality standard, or (ii) the designated use which is
not being attained is removed in accordance with regula-
tions established under this section.
(B) STANDARD ATTAINED—For waters identified under
paragraph (1XA) where the quality of such waters equals
or exceeds levels necessary to protect the designated use
for such waters or otherwise required by applicable water
quality standard, any effluent limitation based on a total
maximum daily load or other waste load allocation estab-
-------
95 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 303 Sec. 304
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 96
lished under this section, or any water quality standard
established under this section, or any other permitting
standard may be revised only if such revision is subject to
and consistent with the antidegradation policy established
under this section.
(eXi) Each State shall have a continuing planning process ap-
proved under paragraph (2) of this subsection which is consistent
with this Act.
(2) Each State shall submit not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of the Water Pollution Control Amendments
of 1972 to the Administrator for his approval a proposed continuing
planning process which is consistent with this Act. Not later than
thirty days after the date of submission of such a process the Ad-
ministrator shall either approve or disapprove such process. The
Administrator shall from time to time review each State’s approved
planning process for the purpose of insuring that such planning
process is at all times consistent with this Act. The Administrator
shall not approve any State permit program under title IV of this
Act for any State which does not have an approved continuing
planning process under this section.
(3) The Administrator shall approve any continuing planning
process submitted to him under this section which will result in
plans for all navigable waters within such State, which include, but
are not limited to, the following:
(A) effluent limitations and schedules of compliance at
least as stringent as those required by section 30 1(bX 1), sec-
tion 301(bX2), section 306, and section 307, and at least as
stringent as any requirements contained in any applicable
water quality standard in effect under authority of this section;
(B) the incorporation of all elements of any applicable
areawide waste management plans under section 208, and ap.
plicable basin plans under section 209 of this Act;
(C) total maximum daily load for pollutants in accordance
with subsection Cd) of this section;
(D) procedures for revision;
(E) adequate authority for intergovernmental cooperation;
(F) adequate implementation, including schedules of com-
pliance, for revised or new water quality standards, under sub-
section (c) of this section;
(G) controls over the disposition of all residual waste from
any water treatment processing;
(H) an inventory and ranking, in order of priority, of needs
for construction of waste treatment works required to meet the
applicable requirements of sections 301 and 302.
(I) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any efflu-
ent limitation, or schedule of compliance required by any State to
be implemented prior to the dates set forth in sections 301(bXl)
and 301(bX2) nor to preclude any State from requiring compliance
with any effluent limitation or schedule of compliance at dates ear-
lier than such dates.
(g) Water quality standards relating to heat shall be consistent
- ‘ii. requirements of section 816 of this Act.
(h) For the purposes of this Act the term awater quality stand-
ards” includes thermal water quality standards.
(33 U.s.c. 1313)
iNFORMATION AND GUIDELINES
SEc. 304. (aX 1) The Administrator, after consultation with ap-
propriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons,
shall develop and publish, within one year after the date of enact-
ment of this title (and from time to time thereafter revise) criteria
for water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowl-
edge (A) on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health
and welfare including, but not limited to, plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches, esthetics, and recreation
which may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body
of water, including ground water; (B) on the concentration and dis-
persal of pollutants, or their byproducts, through biological, phys-
ical, and chemical processes; and (C) on the effects of pollutants on
biological community diversity, productivity, and stability, includ-
ing information on the factors affecting rates of eutrophication and
rates of organic and inorganic sedimentation for varying types of
receiving waters.
(2) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Fed-
eral and State agencies and other interested persona, shall develop
and publish, within one year after the date of enactment of this
title (and from time to time thereafter revise) information (A) on
the factors necessary to restore and maintain the chemical, phys-
ical, and biological integrity of all navigable waters, ground waters,
waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans; (B) on the factors
necessary for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife for classes and categories of receiving waters and to allow
recreational activities in and on the water; and (C) on the measure-
ment and classification of water quality; and (D) for the purpose of
section 303, on and the identification of pollutants suitable for
maximum daily load measurement correlated with the achievement
of water quality objectives.
(3) Such criteria and information and revisions thereof shall be
issued to the States and shall be published in the Federal Register
and otherwise made available to the public.
(4) The Administrator shall, within 90 days after the date of
enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977 and from time to time
thereafter, publish and revise as appropriate information identify-
ing conventional pollutants, including but not limited to, pollutants
classified as biological oxygen demanding, suspended solids, fecal
coliform, and pH. The thermal component of any discharge shall
not be identified as a conventional pollutant under this paragraph.
(5XA) The Administrator, to the extent practicable before con-
sideration of any request under section 301(g) of this Act and with-
in six months after the date of enactment of the Clean Water Act
of 1977, shall develop and publish information on the factors nec-
essary for the protection of public water supplies, and the protec-
tion and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife, and toallow recreational activities, in and on the water.
-------
Sec. 304
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 98
___- FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT Sec. 304
(B) The Administrator, to the extent practicable before consid-
eration of any application under section 30 1(h) of this Act and
within six months after the date of enactment of Clean Water Act
of 1977 shall develop and publish information on the factors nec-
essary i or the protection of public water supplies, and the protec-
tion and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shell-
fish, fish and wildlife, and to allow recreational activities, in and
on the water.
(6) The Administrator shall within three months after enact-
ment of the Clean Water Act of’ 1977 and annually thereafter, for
purposes of section 30 1(h) of this Act publish and revise as appro-
pilate information identifying each water quality standard in effect
under this Act of State law, the specific pollutants associated with
such water quality standard, and the particular waters to which
such water quality standard applies.
(7) GUIDANCE TO STATES—The Administrator, after con-
sultation with appropriate State agencies and on the basis of
criteria and information published under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of this subsection, shall develop and publish, within 9
months after the date of the enactment of the Water quality
Act of 1987, guidance to the States on performing the identi-
fication required by section 304(IX1) of this Act.
(8) hIF0RMATION ON WATER QUALITY CRITEIUA.—The Ad-
ministrator, after consultation with appropriate State agencies
and within 2 years after the date of the enactment of the
Water Quality Act of 1987, shall develop and publish informa-
tion on methods for establishing and measuring water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants on other bases than pollutant-by-
pollutant criteria, including biological monitoring and assess-
ment methods.
(b) For the purposes of adopting or revising effluent limitations
under this Act the Administrator shall, after consultation with ap-
propriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons.
publish within one year of enactment of this title, regulations, pro-
viding guidelines for effluent limitations, and, at least annually
thereafter, revise, if ’ appropriate, such regulations. Such regula-
tions shall—
(1XA) Identify, In terms of amounts of constituents and
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of’ pullutants.
the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the applica-
tion of the beet practicable control technology currently avail-
able for classes and categories to point sources (other than
publicly owned treatment works); and
(B) specify factors to be taken into account In determining
the control measures and practices to be applicable to ioint
sources (other than publicl y owned treatment works) within
such categories of classes. Factors relating to the assessment
of best practical control technology currently available to com-
ply with subsection (bXl) of section 301 of this Act shall in-
clude consideration of the total cost of application of technology
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved
from such application, and shall also take into account the age
of equipment and facilities involved, the procesa employed, the
engineering aspects of the application of various types of con-
trol techniques, process changes, non-water quality environ-
mental impact (including energy requirements). and such other
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate;
(2)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants,
the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the applica-
tion of the best control measures and practices achievable in-
cluding treatment techniques, process and procedure innova-
tions, operating methods, and other alternatives for classes
and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned
treatment works); and
(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining
the best measures and practices available to comply with sub-
section (bX2) of section 301 of this Act to be applicable to any
point source (other than publicly owned treatment works) with-
in such categories of classes. Factors relating to the assessment
of best available technology shall take into account the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the
engineering aspects of the application of various types of con-
trol techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such ef-
fluent reduction, non-water quality environmental impact (in-
cluding energy requirements), and such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate;
(3) identify control measures and practices available to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants from categories and class-
es of point sources, taldng into account the cost of achieving
such elimination of the discharge of pollutants; and
(4)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants,
the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollutant control technology (in-
cluding measures and practices) for classes and categories of
point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works);
and
(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining
the best conventional pollutant control technology measures
and practices to comply with section 301(b)(2XE) of this Act to
be applicable to any point source (other than publicly owned
treatment works) within such categories or classes. Factors re-
lating to the assessment of best conventional pollutant control
technology (including measures and practices) shall include
consideration of the reasonableness of the relationship between
the costs of attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent
reduction benefits derived, and the comparison of the cost and
level of reduction of such pollutants from the discharge from
publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduc-
tion of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial
sources, and shall take into account the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering as-
pects of the application of various types of control techniques.
process changes, non-water quality environmental impact (in-
cluding energy requirements). and such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate.
97
-------
99 FEDERAL WATER POU.UTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. !04 Sec. 304
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 100
(c) The Administrator, after consultation, with appropriate
Federal and State agóncies and other Interested persons, shall
issue to the States and appropriate water pollution control agencies
within 270 days alter enactment of this title (and from time to time
thereafter) information on the processes, procedures, or operating
methods which result in the elimln4ion or reduction of the dis-
charge of pollutants to implement standards of performance under
section 306 of this Act. Such information shall include technical
and other data, including costs, as are available on alternative
methods of elimination or reduction of the discharge of pollutants.
Such information, and revisions thereof, shall be published in the
Federal Register and otherwise shall be made available to the pub-
lic.
(dXl) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall pub-
lish within sixty days after enactment of this title (and from time
to time thereafter) information, in terms of amounts of constituents
and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants,
on the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the applica-
tion of secondary treatment.
(2) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Fed-
eral and State agencies and other interested persons, shall publish
within nine months after the date of enactment of this title (and
from time to time thereafter) information on alternative waste
treatment management techniques and systems available to imple-
ment section 201 of this Act.
(3) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Fed-
eral and State agencies and other interested persons, shall promul-
gate witin one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment
of this subsection guidelines for identifying and evaluating innova-
tive and alternative wastewater treatment process and techniques
referred to in section 201(gX5) of this Act.
(4) For the purposes of this subsection, such biological treat-
ment facilities as oxidation ponds, lagoons, and ditches and trick-
ling filters shall be deemed the equivalent of secondary treatment.
The Administrator shall provide guidance under paragraph (1) of
this subsection on design criteria for such facilities, taking into ac-
count pollutant removal efficiencies and, consistent with the objec-
tive of the Act, assuring that water quality will not be adversely
affected by deeming such facilities as the equivalent of secondary
treatment.
(e) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Fed-
eral and State agencies and other interested persons, may publish
regulations, supplemental to any effluent limitations specified
under subsections (b) and (c) of this section for a class or category
of point sources, for any specific pollutant which the Administrator
is charged with a duty to regulate as a toxic or hazardous pollutant
under section 307(aXl) or 311 of this Act, to control plant site run-
off, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from
raw material etora e which the Administrator determines are asso-
ciated with or ancillary to the industrial manufacturing or treat-
ment process within such class or category of point sources and
may contribute siçnificant amounts of such pollutants, to navigable
e. Any apphcable controls established under this subsection
shall be included as a requirement for the purposes of section 301,
302, 307, or 403, as the case may be, in any permit issued to a
point source pursuant to section 402 of this Act.
(I) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Fed-
eral and State agencies and other interested persona shall issue to
appropriate Federal agencies, the States, water pollution control
agencies, and agencies designated under section 208 of this Act,
within one year after the effective date of this subsection (and from
time to time thereafter) information including (1) guidelines for
identifying and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint
sources of pollutants, and (2) processes, procedures, and methods to
control pollution resulting from—
(A) agricultural and ailvicultural activities, including run-
off from fields and crop and forest lands;
(B) mining activities, including runoff and siltation from
new, currently operating, and abandoned surface and under-
ground mines;
(C) all construction activity, including runoff from the fa-
cilities resulting from such construction;
(D) the disposal of pollutants in wells or in subsurface ex-
cavations;
(B) salt water intrusion resulting from reductions of fresh
water flow from any cause, including extraction of ground
water, irrigation, obstruction, and diversion; and
(F) changes in the movement, flow, or circulation of any
navigable waters or ground waters, including changes caused
by the construction of dams, levees, channels, causeways, or
flow diversion facilities.
Such information and revisions thereof shall be published in the
Federal Register and otherwise made available to the public.
(gX 1) For the purpose of assisting States in carrying out pro-
grams under section 402 of this Act, the Administrator shall pub-
lish, within one hundred and twenty days after the date of enact-
ment of this title, and review at least annually thereafter and, if
appropriate, revise guidelines for pretreatment of pollutants which
he determines are not susceptible to treatment by publicly owned
treatment works. Guidelines under this subsection shall be estab-
lished to control and prevent the discharge into the navigable wa-
ters, the contiguous zone, or the ocean (either directly or through
publicly owned treatment works) of any pollutant which interferes
with, passes through, or otherwise is incompatible with such works.
(2) When publishing guidelines under this subsection, the Ad-
ministrator shall designate the category or categories of treatment
works to which the guidelines shall apply.
(h) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty
days from the date of enactment of this title, promulgate guidelines
establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants that shall
include the factors which must be provided in any certification pur-
suant to section 401 of this Act or permit application pursuant to
section 402 of this Act.
(i) The Administrator shall (1) within sixty days after the en-
actment of this title promulgate guidelines for the purpose of estab-
lishing uniform application forms and other minimum require-
ments for the acquisition of information from owners and operators
-------
101 FEOERAL WATER POWJIION CONTROL ACT
Sac. 304 Sac. 304
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 102
of point-sources of discharge subject to any State program under
section 402 of this Act, and (2) within sixty days from the date of
enactment of this title promulgate guidelines establishing the mini-
mum procedural and other elements of any State program under
section 402 of this Act which shall include:
(A) monitoring requirementa
(B) reporting requirements (including procedures to make
information available to the public)
(C) enforcement provisions; and
(D) funding personnel qualifications, and manpower re-
quirements (including a requirement that no board or body
which approves permit applications or portions thereof shall
include, as a member, any person who receives, or has during
the previous two years received, a significant portion of his in-
come directly or indirectly from permit holders or applicants
for a permit).
(j) LAKE RESIORATION GUIDANCE MANUAL—The Administrator
shall, within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 and biennially thereafter, publish and dissemi-
nate a lake restoration guidance manual describing methods, proce-
dures, and processes to guide State and local efforts to improve, re-
store, and enhance water quality in the Nation’s publicly owned
lakes.
(kXl) The Administrator shall enter into agreements with the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, and the Sec-
retary of the Interior, and the heads of such other departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States as the Admin-
istrator determines, to provide for the maximum utilization of other
Federal laws and programs for the purpose of achieving and main-
taining water quality through appropriate implementation of plans
approved under section 208 of this Act and nonpoint source pollu-
tion management programs approved under section 319 of this Act.
(2) The Administrator is authorized to transfer to the Secretary
of Agriculture the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the
Interior and tue heads of such other departments, agencies, and in-
strumentalities of the United States as the Administrator deter-
mines, any funds appropriated under paragraph (3) of this sub-
section to supplement funds otherwise appropriated to programs
authorized pursuant to any agreement under paragraph (1).
(3) There Is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the pro-
visions of this subsection, $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal
years 1979 through 1983 and such sums as may be necess*ry for
fiscal years 1984 Ibrough 1990.
(l INDIVIDUAL CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS.—
(1) STATE LI F OF NAVIGABLE WATERS AND DEVELOPMENT
or STRATEGIES.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, each State shall submit to the
Administrator for review, approval, and implementation under
this subsection—
(A) a list of those waters within the State which after
the application of effluent limitations required under sec-
tion 301(bX2) of this Act cannot reasonably be anticipated
to attain or maintain (I) water quality standards for such
waters reviewed, revised, or adopted in accordance with
section 303(cX2)(B) of this Act, due to toxic pollutants, or
(ii) that water quality which shall assure protection of pub-
lic health, public water supplies, agricultural and indus-
trial uses, and the protection and propagation of a bal-
anced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water;
(B) a list of all navigable waters in such State for
which the State does not expect the applicable standard
under section 303 of this Act will be achieved after the re-
quirements of sections 301(b), 306, and 307(b) are met, due
entirely or substantially to discharges from point sources
of any toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section 307(a);
(C) for each segment of the navigable waters included
on such lists, a determination of the specific point sources
discharging any such toxic pollutant which is believed to
be preventing or impairing such water quality and the
amount of each toxic pollutant discharged by each such
source; and
(D) for each such segment, an individual control strat-
egy which the State determines will produce a reduction in
the discharge of toxic pollutants from point sources identi-
fied by the State under this paragraph through the estab-
lishment of effluent limitations under section 402 of this
Act and water quality standards under section 303(cX2X B)
of this Act, which reduction is sufficient, in combination
with existing controls on point and nonpoint. sources of pol-
lution, to achieve the applicable water quality standard as
soon as possible, but not later than 3 years after the date
of the establishment of such strategy.
(2) APPROVAL OK DISAPPROVAL.—NOt later than 120 days
after the last day of the 2-year period referred to in paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall approve or disapprove the control
strategies submitted under paragraph (1) by any State.
(3) ADMINISTRATOR’S ACTION.—If a State fails to submit
control strategies in accordance with paragraph (1) or the Ad-
ministrator does not approve the control strategies submitted
by such State in accordance with paragraph (1), then, not later
than 1 year after the last day of the period referred to in para-
graph (2), the Administrator, in cooperation with such State
and after notice and opportunity for public comment, shall im-
plement the requirements of paragraph (1) in such State. In
the implementation of such requirements, the Administrator
shall, at a minimum, consider for listing under this subsection
any navigable waters for which any person submits a petition
to the Administrator for listing not later than 120 days after
such last day.
(m) SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW oF GUIDELINES.—
(1) PUBLICATION—Within 12 months after the date of the
enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, and biennially
thereafter, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Reg-
ister a plan which shall—
(A) establish a schedule for the annual review and ic-
vision of promulgated emuent guidelines, in accordance
with subsection (b) of this section;
-------
103 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 305
Sec. 308
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 104
(B) identi1 r categories of sources discharging toxic or
nonconventional pollutanth for which guidelines under sub-
section (bX2) of this section and section 306 have not pre-
viously been published; and
(C) establish a schedule for promulgation of effluent
guidelines for categories identified in subparagraph (B),
under which promulgation of such guidelines shall be no
later than 4 years after such date of enactment for cat-
egories identified in the first published plan or 3 years
after the publication of the plan for categories identified in
later published plans.
(2) PuBLIC REVIEw.—The Administrator shall provide for
public review and comment on the plan prior to final publica-
tion.
(33 U.S.C 1314)
WATER QUALITY INVENTORY
SEc. 305. (a) The Administrator, in cooperation with the States
and with the assistance of appropriate Federal agencies, shall pre-
pare a report to be submitted to the Congress on or before
January 1, 1974, which shall—
(1) describe the specific quality, during 1973, with
appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to
take into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, of all
navigable waters and the waters of the contiguous zone;
(2) include an inventory of all point sources of discharge
(based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of discharges)
of pollutants, into all navigable waters and the waters of the
contiguous zone; and
(3) identify specifically those navigable waters, the quality
of which—
(A) is adequate to provide for the protection and prop.
agation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife and allow recreational activities in and on the
water;
(B) can reasonably be expected to attain such level by
1977 or 1983; and
(C) can reasonably be expected to attain such level by
any later date.
(bXl) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Adminis-
trator by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976,
and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include—
(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable wa-
ters in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate
supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into ac-
count seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the
quality of water required by the objective of this Act (as identi-
fied by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published under
section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described in
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters
of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of
the discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which
provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced popu-
lation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational ac-
tivities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by
the requirements of this Act, together with recommendations
as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and
for what waters such additional action is necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the
economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of
this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of
such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such
achievement; and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint
sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs
which must be undertaken to control each category of such
sources, including an estimate of the coats of implementing
such_programs.
(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, to-
gether with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October
1, 1975, and October 1, 1976. and biennially thereafter.
(33U.SC 1315) -
NATIONAL STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
SEC. 306. (a) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “standard of performance” means a standard for
the control of the discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest
degree of emuent reduction which the Administrator determines to
be achievable through application of the best available dem-
onstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or
other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permit-
ting no discharge of pollutants.
(2) The term “new source” means any source, the construction
of which is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations
prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will
be applicable to such sources, if such standard is thereafter pro-
mulgated in accordance with this section.
(3) The term “source” means any building, structure, facility,
or installation from which there is or may be the discharge of pol-
lutants.
(4) The term “owner or operator means any person who owns,
leases, operates, controls, or su,pervises a source.
(5) The term “construction means any placement, assembly, or
installation of facilities or equipment (including contractual obliga-
tions to purchase such facilities or equipment) at the premises
where such equipment will be used, including preparation work at
ouch premises.
(bX1XA) The Administrator shall, within ninety days after the
date of enactment of this title publish (and from time to time there-
after shall revise) a list of categories of sources, which shall, at the
minimum, include: -.
-------
105 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 306 Sec. 307
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 106
pulp and paper mills;
paperboard, builders paper and board mills;
meat product and rendering processing;
day product processing;
grain mills
canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing;
canned and preserved seafood processing;
sugar processing;
textile mills;
cement manufacturing;
feedlota;
electroplating;
organic chemicals manufacturin
inorganic chemicals manufacturing;
plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing;
soap and detergent manufacturing
fertilizer manufacturing;
petroleum refining;
iron and steel manufacturing;
nonferrous metals manufacturing;
phosphate manufacturing;
steam electric powerplants;
ferrualloy manufacturing
leather tanning and finialiing
glass and asbestos manufacturing;
rubber processing; and
timber producta processing.
(B) As soon as practicable, but in no case more than one year,
after a category of sources is included in a list under subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph, the Administrator shall propose and publish
regulations establishing Federal standards of performance for new
sources within such category. The Administrator shall afford inter-
ested persons an opportunity for written comment on such pro-
posed regulations. Alter considering such comments, he shall pro-
mulgate, within one hundred and twenty days after publication of
such proposed regulations, such standards with such adjustments
as he deems appropriate. The Administrator shall, from time to
time, as technlogy and alternatives change, revise such standards
following the procedure required by this subsection for promulga-
tion of such standard& Standards of performance, or revisions
thereof, shall become effective upon promulgation. In establishing
or revising Federal standards of performance for new sources under
this section, the Administrator shall take into consideration the
coat of achieving such effluent reduction, and any non-water qual-
ity environmental impact and enerp requirements.
(2) The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes within categories of new sources for the purpose of estab-
lishing such standards and shall consider the type of process em-
ployed (Including whether batch or continuous).
(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to any new source
owned or operated by the United States.
(c) Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator a
procedure under State law for applying and enforcing standards of
performance for new sources located in such State. If the Adininis-
trator finds that the procedure and the law of any State require the
application and enforcement of standards of performance to at least
the same extent as required by this section, such State is author-
ized to apply and enforce such standards of performance (except
with respect to new sources owned or operated by the United
States).
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any point
source the construction of which is commenced after the date of en-
actment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 and which is so constructed as to meet all applicable stand-
ards of performance shall not be subject to any more stringent
standard of performance during a ten-year period beginning on the
date of completion of such construction or during the period of de-
preciation or amortization of such facility for the purposes of sec-
tion 167 or 169 (or both) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
whichever period ends first.
(e) After the effective date of standards of performance prom9l-
gated under this section, it shall be unlawful for any owner or oper-
ator of any new source to operate such source in violation of any
standard of performance applicable to such source.
(33 Usc. 1316)
TOXIC AND PRETREATMENT EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Snc. 307. (a)(1) On and after the date of enactment of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, the list of toxic pollutants or combination
of pollutants sub ject to this Act shall consist of those toxic
polliutants listed in table I of Committee Print Numbered 95—30
of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House
of Representatives, and the Administrator shall publish, not later
than the thirtieth day after the date of enactment of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, that list. From time to time thereafter, the Ad-
ministrator may revise such list and the Admimatrator is author-
ized to add to or remove from such list any pollutant. The Adminis-
trator in publishing any revised list, including the addition or re-
moval of any pollutant from such list, shall take into account the
toxicity of the pollutant, its persistence. degradability, the usual or
potential presence of the affected organisms in any waters, the im-
portance of the affected organisms, and the nature and extent of
the effect of the toxic pollutant on such organisms. A determination
of the Administrator under this paragraph shall be final except
that if, on judicial review, such determination was based on arbi-
trary and capricious action of the Administrator, the Administrator
shall make a redetermination.
(2) Each toxic pollutant listed in accordance with paragraph (1)
of this subsection shall be subject to emuent limitations resulting
from the application of the best available technology economically
achieveable for the applicable category or class of point sources es-
tablished in accordance with section 301(bX2XA) and 304(bX2) of
this Act. The Administrator, in his discretion. may publish in the
Federal Register a proposed effluent standard (which may include
a prohibition) establishing requirements for a toxic pollutant
which, if an effluent limitation is applicable to a class or category
of point sources, shall be applicable to such category or class only
-------
HI? FEDERAL WAlER POWJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 307 Soc. 307
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 108
if such standard imposes more stringent requirements. Such pub-
lished effluent standard (or prohibition) shall take into account the
toxicity of the pollutant, its persistence, degradability, the usual or
potential presence of the affected organisms in any waters, the im-
portance of the affected organisms and the nature and extent of the
effect of the toxic pollutant on such organisms, and the extent to
which effective control is being or may be achieved under other reg-
ulatory authority. The Administrator shall allow a period of not
less than sixty days following publication of any such proposed ef-
fluent standard (or prohibition) for written comment by interested
persons on such proposed standard. In addition, if within thirty
days of publication of any such proposed effluent standard (or pro-
hibition) ani interested person so requests, the Administrator shall
hold a public hearing in connection therewith. Such a public hear-
ing shall provide an opportunity for oral and written presentations,
such cross-examination as the Administrator determines is appro-
priate on disputed issues of material fact, and the transcription of
a verbatim record which shall be available to the public. After con-
sideration of such comments and any information and material pre-
sented at any public hearing held on such proposed standard or
prohibition, the Administrator shall promulgate such standards (or
prohibition) with such modifications as the Administrator finds are
justified. Such promulgation by the Administrator shall be made
within two hundred and seventy days after publication of proposed
standard (or prohibition). Such standard (or prohibition) shall be
final except that if, on judicial review, such standard was not based
on substantial evidence, the Administrator shall promul ate a re-
vised standard. Effluent limitations shall be established in accord-
ance with sections 301(bX2XA) and 304(b)(2) for every toxic pollut-
ant referred to in table I of Committee Print Numbered 95—30 of
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House
of Representatives as soon as practicable after the date of enact-
ment of the Clean Water Act of 1977, but no later than July 1.
1980. Such effluent limitations or effluent standards (or prohibi-
tions) shall be established for every other toxic pollutant listed
under paragraph (1) of this subsection as soon as practicable after
it is so listed.
(3) Each such effluent standard (or prohibition) shall be re-
viewed and, if appropriate, revised at least every three years.
(4) Any effluent standard promulgated under this section shall
be at that level which the Administrator determines provides an
ample margin of safety.
(5) When proposing or promulgating any effluent standard (or
prohibition) under this section, the Administrator shall designate
the category or categories of sources to which the effluent standard
(or prohibition) shall apply. Any disposal of dredged material may
be inCluded in such a category of sources after consultation with
the Secretary of the Army.
(6) Any effluent standard (or prohibition) established pursuant
to this section shall take effect on such date or dates as specified
in the order promulgating such standard, but in no case, more than
one year from the date of such promulgation. If the Administrator
determines that compliance within one year from the date of pro-
‘tion is technologically infeasible for a category of sources, the
Administrator may establish the effective date of the effluent
standard (or prohibition) for such category at the earliest date upon
which compliance can be feasibly attained by sources within such
category, but in no event more than three years after the date of
such promulgation.
(7) Prior to publishing any regulations pursuant to this section
the Administrator shall, to the maximum extent practicable within
the time provided, consult with appropriate advisory committees,
States, independent experts, and Federal departments and agen-
des.
(bXl) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty
days after the date of enactment of this title and from time to time
thereafter, publish proposed regulations establishing pretreatment
standards for introduction of pollutants into treatment works (as
defined in section 212 of this Act) which are publicly owned for
those pollutants which are determined not to be susceptible to
treatment by such treatment works or which would interfere with
the operation of such treatment works. Not later than ninety days
after such publication, and after opportunity for public hearing, the
Administrator shall promulgate such pretreatment standards.
Pretreatment standards under this subsection shall specify a time
for compliance not to exceed three years from the date of promulga-
tion and shall be established to prevent the discharge of any pollut-
ant through treatment works (as defined in section 212 of this Act)
which are publicly owned, which pollutant interfere with, passes
through, or otherwise is incompatible with such works. If, in the
case of any toxic pollutant under subsection (a) of this section in-
troduced by a source into a publicly owned treatment works, the
treatment by such works removes all or any part of such toxic pol-
lutant and the discharge from such works does not violate that ef-
fluent limitation or standard which would be applicable to such
toxic pollutant if it were discharged by such source other than
through a publicly owned treatment works, and does not prevent
sludge use or disposal by such works in accordance with section
405 of this Act, then the pretreatment requirements for the sources
actually discharging such toxic pollutant into such publicly owned
treatment works may be revised by the owner or operator of such
works to reflect the removal of such toxic pollutant by such works.
(2) The Administrator shall, from time to time, as control tech-
nology, processes operating methods, or other alternative change,
revise such stanJards following the procedures established by this
subsection for promulgation of such standards.
(3) When proposing or promulgating any pretreatment stand-
ard under this section, the Administrator shall designate the cat-
egory or categories of sources to which such standard shall apply.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any pretreatment re-
quirement established by any State or local law not in conflict with
any pretreatment standard established under this subsection.
(c) In order to ensure that any source introducing pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works, which source would be a
new source subject to section 306 if it were to discharge pollutants,
will not cause a violation of the effluent limitations established for
any such treatment works, the Administrator shall promulgate
pretreatment standards for the category of such sources eimulta-
-------
109 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 308 Sec. 308
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 110
neously with the promulgation of standards of performance under
section 306 for the equivalent category of new sources. Such
pretreatment standards shall prevent the discharge of any pollut-
ant into such treatment works, which pollutant may interfere with,
pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with such works.
(d) After the effective date of’ any effluent standard or prohibi-
tion or pretreatment standard promulgated under this section, it
shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of any source to oper-
ate any source in violation of any such effluent standard or prohibi-
tion or pretreatment standard.
(e) COMPLIANCE DATE Ex’rENSION FOR INNOVATIVE
PRETREAThIENT SYSTEMS.—In the case of any existing facility that
proposes to comply with the pretreatment standards of subsection
(b) of this section by applying an innovative system that meets the
requirements of section 301(k) of this Act, the owner or operator of
the publicly owned treatment works receiving the treated effluent
from such facility may extend the date for compliance with the ap-
plicable pretreatment standard established under this section for a
period not to exceed 2 years—
(1) if the Administrator determines that the innovative
system has the potential for industrywide application, and
(2) if the Administrator (or the State in consultation with
the Administrator, in any case in which the State has a
pretreatment program approved by the Administrator)—
(A) determines that the proposed extension will not
cause the publicly owned treatment works to be in viola-
tion of its permit under section 402 or of section 405 or to
contribute to such a violation, and
(B) concurs with the proposed extension.
(33 U.S.C 1317)
INSPECTIONS, MON ITORINO, AND ENTRY
SEC. 308. (a) Whenever required to carry out the objective of
this Act, including but not limited to (1). developing or assisting in
the development of any effluent limitation, or other limitation, pro-
hibition, or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard
of performance under this Act; (2) determining whether any person
is in violation of any such effluent limitation, or other limitation,
prohibition or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or stand-
ard of performance; (3) any requirement established under this sec-
tion; or (4) carrying out sections 305, 311, 402, 404 (relating to
State permit programs), 405, and 504 of this Act—
(A) the Administrator shall require the owner or operator
of any point source to (i) establish and maintain such records,
(ii) make such reports, (iii) install, use, and maintain such
monitoring equipment or methods (including where appro-
priate, biological monitoring methods), (iv) sample such
effluents (in accordance with such methods, at such locations,
at such intervals, and in such- manner as the Administrator
shall prescribe), and (v) provide such other information as he
may reasonably require; and
(B) the Administrator or his authorized representative (in-
cluding an authorized contractor acting as a representative of
the Administrator), upon presentation of his credentials—
(i) shall have a right of entry to. upon, or through an
premises in which an effluent source is located or in whic
any records required to be maintained under clause (A) of
this subsection are located, and
(ii) may at reasonable times have access to and copy
any records, inspect any monitoring equipment or method
required under clause (A), and sample any effluents which
the owner or operator of such source is required to sample
under such clause.
(b) Any records, reports, or information obtained under this
section (1) shall, in the case of effluent data, be related to any ap-
plicable effluent limitations, toxic, pretreatment, or new source per-
formance standards, and (2) shall be available to the public, except
that upon a Bhowing satisfactory to the Administrator by any per-
son that records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof
(other than emuent data), to which the Administrator has access
under this 8ection, if made public would divulge methods or proc-
esses entitled to protection as trade secrets of such person, the Ad-
ministrator shall consider such record, report, or information, or
particular portion thereof confldential in accordance with the pur-
poses of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code. Any au-
thorized representative of the Administrator (including an author-
ized contractor acting as a representative of the Administrator)
who knowingly or willfully publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes
known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any
information which is reQuired to be considered confidential under
this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned
not more than 1 year, or both. Nothing in this subsection shall pro-
hibit the Administrator or an authorized representative of’ the Ad-
ministrator (including any authorized contractor acting as a rep-
resentative of the Administrator) from disclosing records, reports,
or information to other officers, employees, or authorized represent-
atives of the United States concerned with carrying out this Act or
when relevant in any proceeding under this Act.
(c) Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator
procedures under State law for inspection, monitoring, and entry
with respect to point sources located in such State. If the Adminis-
trator finds that the procedures and the law of any State relating
to inspection, monitoring, and entry are applicable to at least the
same extent as those required by this section, such State is author-
ized to apply and enforce its procedures for inspection, monitoring,
and entry with respect to point sources located in such State (ex-
cept with respect to point sources owned or operated by the United
States).
(d) AccEss BY CONORESS.—Notwithstafldiflg any limitation
contained in this section or any other provision of law, all informa-
tion reported to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator (or any
representative of the Administrator) under this Act shall be made
available, upon written request of any duly authorized committee
of Congress, to such committee.
(33 U.S.C. 1318)
-------
Ill FEDERAL WATER POUIJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 309 Sec. 309
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 112
FEDERAL ENFORCEMEN’
SEc. 309. (aX 1) Whenever, on the basis of any information
available to him; the Administrator finds that any person is in “io-
lation of any condition or limitation which implements section 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of this Act in a permit issued by
a State under an approved permit program under section 402 or
404 of this Act, he shall proceed under his authority in paragraph
(3) of this subsection or he shall notify the person in alleged viola.
tion and such State of such finding. If beyond the thirtieth day
after the Administrator ’s notification the State has not commenced
appropriate enforcement action, the Administrator shall issue an
order requiring such person to comply with such condition or limi-
tation or shall bring a civil action in accordance with subsection (b)
of this section.
(2) Whenever, on the basis of information available to him, the
Administrator finds that violations of permit conditions or limita-
tions as set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection are so wide.
spread that such violations appear to result from a failure of the
State to enforce such permit conditions or limitations effectively, he
shall so notify the State. If the Administrator finds such failure ex-
tends beyond the thirtieth day after such notice, he shall give pub-
lic notice of such finding. During the period beginning with such
public notice and ending when such State satisfies the Adminis-
trator that it will enforce such conditions and limitations (hereafter
referred to in this section as the period of “federally assumed en-
forcement”), except where an extension has been granted under
paragraph (5XB) of this subsection, the Administrator shall enforce
any permit condition or limitation with respect to any person—
(A) by issuing an order to comply with such condition or
limitation, or
(B) by bringing a civil action under subsection (b) of this
section.
(3) Whenever on the basis of any information available to him
the Administrator finds that any person is in violation of section
301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of this Act, or is in violation
of any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sec-
tions in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act by him or
by a State or in a permit issued under section 404 of this Act by
a State, he shall issue an order requiring such person to comply
with such section or requirement, or be shall bnng a civil action
in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.
(4) A copy of any order issued under this subsection shall be
sent immediately by the Administrator to the State in which the
violation occurs and other affected States. In any case in which an
order under this subsection (or notice to a violator under paragraph
(1) of this subsection) is issued to a corporation, a copy of such
order (or notice) shall be served on any appropriate corporate offi-
cers. An order issued under this subsection relating to a violation
of section 308 of this Act shall not take effect until the person to
whom it is issued has had an opportunity to confer with the Ad-
ministrator concerninç the alleged violation.
(5XA) Any order issued under this subsection shall be by per-
sonal service, shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of
the violation, and shall specify a time for compliance not to exceed
thirty days In the case of a violation of an interim compliance
schedule or operation and maintenance requirement and not to ex-
ceed a time the Administrator determines to be reasonable in the
case of a violation of a final deadline, taking into account the seri-
ousness of the violation and any good faith efforts to comply with
applicable requirements.
(B) The Administrator may, if he determines (i) that any per-
son who is a violator of, or any person who is otherwise not in com-
pliance with, the time requirements under this Act or in any per-
mit issued under this Act, has acted in good faith, and has made
a commitment (in the form of contracts or other securities) of nec-
essary resources to achieve compliance by the earliest possible date
after July 1, 1977, but not later than April 1, 1979; (ii) that any
extension under this provision will not result in the imposition of
any additional controls on any other point or nonpoint source; (iii)
that an application for a permit under section 402 of this Act was
filed for such person prior to December 31, 1974; and (iv) that the
facilities necessary for compliance with such requirements are
under construction, grant an extension of the date referred to in
section 301(bX1XA) to a date which will achieve compliance at the
earliest time possible but not later than April 1, 1979.
(6) Whenever, on the basis of information available to him, the
Administrator finds (A) that any person is in violation of section
301(b)(1) (A) or (C) of this Act, (B) that such person cannot meet
the requirements for a time extension under section 301(iX2) of
this Act, and (C) that the most expeditious and appropriate means
of compliance with this Act by such person is to discharge into a
publicly owned treatment works, then, upon request of such person,
the Administrator may issue an order requiring such person to
comply with this Act at the earliest date practicable, but not later
than July 1, 1983, by discharging into a publicly owned treatment
works if such works concur with such order. Such order shall in-
clude a schedule of compliance.
(b) The Administrator is authorized to commence a civil action
for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunc-
tion, for any violation for which he is authorized to issue a compli-
ance order under subsection (a) of this section. Any action under
this subsection may be brought in the district court of the United
States for the district in which the defendant is located or resides
or is doing business, and such court shall have jurisdiction to re-
strain such violation and to require compliance. Notice of the com-
mencement of such action shall be given immediately to the appro-
priate State.
(c) CmMINAL PENALTIES—
(1) NEGLIGENT VIOLATJONS.—Any person who—
(A) negligently violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308,
311(bX3), 318, or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition
or limitation implementing any of such sections in a per-
mit issued under section 402 of this Act by the Adminis-
trator or by a State, or any requirement imposed in a
pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of this -Act or in a permit- issued under section
-------
113 FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 309 Sec. 309
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 114
404 of this Act by the Secretary of the Army or by a State;
or
(B) negligently introduces into a sewer system or into
a publicly owned treatment works any pollutant or hazard-
ous substance which such person knew or reasonably
should have known could cause personal injury or property
damage or, other than in compliance with all applicable
Federal, State, or local requirements or permits, which
causes such treatment works to violate any effluent limita-
tion or condition in any permit issued to the treatment
works under section 402 of this Act by the Administrator
or a State;
shall be punished by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more
than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for
a violation committed after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of not
more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of
not more than 2 years, or by both.
(2) KNOWING VIOL&TIONS.-..Any person who—
(A) knowingly violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308,
.311(bX3), 318, or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition
or limitation implementing any of such sections in a per-
mit issued under section 402 of this Act by the Adminis-
trator or by a State, or any requirement imposed in a
pretreatment program approved under section 402(aX3) or
402(bX8) of this Act or in a permit issued under section
404 of this Act by the Secretary of the Army or by a State;
or
(B) knowingly Introduces into a sewer system or into
a publicly owned treatment works any pollutant or hazard-
ous substance which such person knew or reasonably
should have known could cause personal injury or property
damage or, other than in compliance with all applicable
Federal, State, or local requirements or permits, which
causes such treatment works to violate any effluent limita-
tion or condition in a permit issued to the treatment works
under section 402 of this Act by the Adminiritrator or a
State;
shall be punished by a fine of not less that $5,000 nor more
than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 3 years, or by both. If a conviction of a person is
for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of not
more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of
not more than 6 years, or by both.
(3) KNOWING ENDANGERMENT.—
(A) GE?IE 1., RULE—Any person who knowingly vio-
lates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 311(bX3), 318, or 405
of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation imple-
menting any of such sections In a permit issued under sec-
tion 402 of this Act by the Administrator or by a State, or
in a permit Issued under section 404 of this Act by the Sec-
retary of’ the Army or by a State, and who knows at that
time that he thereby places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon convic-
tion, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or im-
prisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. A person
which is an organization shall, upon conviction of violating
this subparagraph, be subject to a fine of not more than
$1,000,000. If a conviction of a person is for a violation
committed after a first conviction of such person under
this paragraph, the maximum punishment shall be dou-
bled with respect to both fine and imprisonment.
(B) ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS—For the purpose of sub-
paragraph (A) of this paragraph—
(i) in determining whether a defendant who is an
individual knew that his conduct placed another per-
son in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in-
jury—
(I) the person is responsible only for actual
awareness or actual belief that he possessed; and
(H) knowledge possessed by a person other
than the defendant but not by the defendant him-
self may not be attributed to the defendant;
except that in proving the defendant’s possession of
actual knowledge, circumstantial evidence may be
used, including evidence that the defendant took af-
firmative steps to shield himself from relevant infor-
mation;
(ii) it is an affirmative defense to prosecution that
the conduct charged was consented to by the person
endangered and that the danger and conduct charged
were reasonably foreseeable hazards of’—
(I) an occupation, a business, or a profession;
or
(II) medical treatment or medical or scientific
experimentation conducted by professionally ap-
proved methods and such other person had been
made aware of the risks involved prior to giving
consent;
and such defense may be established under this sub-
paragraph by a preponderance of the evidence;
(iii) the term “organization” means a legal entity,
other than a government, established or organized for
any purpose, and such term includes a corporation,
company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock
company, foundation, institution, trust society, union,
or any other association of persons; anf
(iv) the term “serious bodily injury” means bodily
injury which involves a substantial risk of’ death, un-
consciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and
obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impair-
ment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or
mental faculty.
(4) FALSE STATEMENTS—Any person who knowingly makes
any false material statement, representation, or certification in
any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or
-------
115 FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 309 Sec. 309
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 116
required to be maintained under this Act or who knowingly fal-
sifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring de.
vice or method required to be maintained under this Act, shall
upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by
both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed
after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph,
punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 per
day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years,
or by both.
(5) TREATMENT OF SINGLE OPERATIONAL UPSET.—For pur-
poses of this subsection, a single operational upset which leads
to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant param-
eter shall be treated as a single violation.
(6) RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICER AS “PERSON”.—For
the purpose of this subsection, the term “person” means, in ad-
dition to the definition contained in section 502(6) of this Act,
any responsible corporate officer.
(7) HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE DEFINED.—For the purpose of
this subsection, the term “hazardous substance” means (A) any
substance designated pursuant to section 311(bX2XA) of this
Act, (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or sub-
stance designated pursuant to section 102 of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980, (C) any hazardous waste having the characteristics
identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (but not including any waste the regulation
of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act has been sus-
pended by Act of Congress), (D) any toxic pollutant listed
under section 307(a) of this Act, and (E) any imminently haz-
ardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which
the Administrator has taken action pursuant to section 7 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act.
(d) Any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308,
311(bX3), 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limita-
tion implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of this Act by the Administrator, or by a State, or in
a permit issued under section 404 of this Act by a State,,’ or any
requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under
section 402(aX3) or 402(bX8) of this Act, and any person who vio-
lates any order issued by the Administrator under subsection (a) of
this section, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000
per day for each violation. In determining the amount of a civil
penalty the court shall consider the seriousness of the violation or
violations, the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the viola-
tion, any history of such violations, any good-faith efforts to comply
with the applicable requirements, the economic impact of the pen-
alty on the violator, and such other matters as justice may require.
For purposes of this subsection, a single operational upset which
leads to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant param-
eter shall be treated as a single violation.
‘Solnlaw.SP.L 100-4..ee.313(aX I), iOlSt.L45.
(e) Whenever a municipality is a party to a civil action brought
by the United States under this section, the State in which such
municipality is located shall be joined as a party. Such State shall
be liable for payment of any judgment, or any expenses incurred
as a result of complying with any judgment entered against the
municipality in such action to the extent that the laws of that
State prevent the municipality from raising revenues needed to
comply with such judgment.
(1) Whenever, on the basis of an information available to him,
the Administrator finds that an owner or operator of an source is
introducing a pollutant into a treatment works in violation of sub-
section (d) of section 307, the Administrator may notify the owner
or operator of such treatment works and the State of such viola-
tion. If the owner or operator of the treatment works does not com-
mence appropriate enforcement action within 30 days of the date
of such notification, the Administrator may commence a civil action
for appropriate relief, including but not limited to, a permanent or
temporary injunction, against the owner or operator of such treat-
ment works. In any such civil action the Administrator shall join
the owner or operator of such source as a party to the action. Such
action shall be brought in the district court of the United States
in the district in which the treatment works is located. Such court
shall have jurisdiction to restrain such violation and to require the
owner or operator of the treatment works and the owner or opera-
tor of the source to take such action as may be necessary to come
into compliance with this Act. Notice of commencement of any such
action shall be given to the State. Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to limit or prohibit any other authority the Adminis-
trator may have under this Act.
(g) ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.—
(1) VIOLATIONS.—Whenever on the basis of any informa-
tion available—
(A) the Administrator finds that any person has vio-
lated section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of this
Act, or has violated any permit condition or limitation im-
plementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of this Act by the Administrator or by a State,
or in a permit issued under section 404 by a State, or
(B) the Secretary of the Army (hereinafter in this sub-
section referred to as the “Secretary”) finds that any per-
son has violated any permit condition or limitation in a
permit issued under section 404 of this Act by the Sec-
retary,
the Administrator or Secretary, as the case may be, may, after
consultation with the State in which the violation occurs, as-
sess a class I civil penalty or a class II civil penalty under this
subsection.
(2) CLASSES OF PENALTIES.—
(A) CLASS i—The amount of a class I civil penalty
under paragraph (1) may not exceed $10,000 per violation,
except that the maximum amount of any class I civil pen-
alty under this subparagraph shall not exceed $25,000. Be-
fore issuing an order assessing a civil penalty under this
- subparagraph, the Administrator or the Secretary, as the
-------
117 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 309 Sec. 309
FEDERAL WATER POWflION CONTROL ACT 118
case may be, shall give to the person to be assessed such
penalty written notice of the Administrator’s or Secretary’s
proposal to issue such order and the opportunity to re-
quest, within 30 days of the date the notice is received by
such person, a hearing on the proposed order. Such hear-
ing shall not be subject to section 564 or 566 of title 5,
United States Code, but shall provide a reasonable oppor-
tunity to be heard and to represent evidence.
(B) ClASS n—The amount of a class II civil penalty
under paragraph (1) may not exceed $10,000 per day for
each day during which the violation continues; except that
the maximum amount of any class I I civil penalty under
this subparagraph shall not exceed $125,000. Except as
otherwise provided in this subsection, a class II civil pen-
alty shall be assessed and collected in the same manner
and subject to the same provisions, as in the case of civil
penalties assessed and collected alter notice and oppor-
tunity for a hearing on the record in accordance with sec-
tion 554 of title 5, UnIted States Code. The Administrator
and the Secretary may Issue rules for discovery procedures
for hearings under this subparagraph.
(3) DETERMINiNG AMOUNT—In determining the amount of
any penalty assessed under this Bubsection the Administrator
or the Secretary, as the case may be, shall take into account
the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
or violations, and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay,
any prior history of such violations the degree of culpability,
economic benefit or savings (if anyS resulting from the viola-
tion, and such other matters as justice may require. For pur-
poses of this subsection, a single operational upset which leads
to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant param-
eter shall be treated as a single violation.
(4) Riowrs OF INTERESTED PERSONS.—
(A) Puauc NOTICE—Before issuing an order assessing
a civil penalty under this subsection the Administrator or
Secretary, as the case may be, shall provide public notice
of and reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed
issuance of such order.
(B) PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE—Any person who
comments on a proposed assessment of a penalty under
this subsection shall be given notice of any hearing held
under this subsection and of the order assessing such pen.
alty. In any hearing held under this subsection, such per-
son shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard and
to present evidence.
(C) RIGHTS OF INTERESTED PERSONS TO A HEARING.—
If no hearing is held under paragraph (2) before issuance
of an order assessing a penalty under this subsection, any
person who commented on the proposed assessment may
petition, within 30 days after the issuance of such order,
the Administrator or Secretary, as the case may be, to set
aside such order and to provide a hearing on the penalty.
If the evidence presented by the petitioner In support of
the petition is material and was not considered In the isau-
ance of the order, the Administrator or Secretary shall im-
mediately set aside such order and provide a hearing in ac-
cordance with paragraph (2XA) in the case of a class I civil
penalty and paragraph (2XB) in the case of a class II civil
penalty. If the Administrator or Secretary denies a hearing
under this subparagraph, the Administrator or Secretary
shall provide to the petitioner, and publish in the Federal
Register, notice of and the reasons for such denial.
(5) FiNALITY OF ORDER.—An order issued under this sub-
section shall become final 30 days after its issuance unless a
petition for judicial review is filed under paragraph (8) or a
hearing is requested under paragraph (4)(C). If such a hearing
is denied, such order shall become final 30 days after such de-
nial.
(6) EFFECT OF ORDER.—
(A) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS UNDER OTHER SECTIONS.—
Action taken by the Administrator or the Secretary, as the
case may be, under this subsection shall not affect or limit
the Administrator’s or Secretary’s authority to enforce any
provision of this Act; except that any violation—
(1) with respect to which the Administrator or the
Secretary has commenced and is diligently prosecuting
an action under this subsection,
(ii) with respect to which a State has commenced
and is diligently prosecuting an action under a State
law comparable to this subsection, or
(iii) for which the Administrator, the Secretary, or
the State has issued a final order not subject to fur-
ther judicial review and the violator has paid a pen-
alty assessed under this subsection, or such com-
parable State law, as the case may be,
shall not be the subject of a civil penalty action under sub-
section (d) of this section or section 3 11(b) or section 505
of this Act.
(B) APPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION WITH RESPECT TO
CITIZEN suirs.—The limitations contained in subparagraph
(A) on civil penalty actions under section 505 of this Act
shall not apply with respect to any violation for which—
(i) a civil action under section 505(aX 1) of this Act
has been filed prior to commencement of an action
under this subsection, or
(ii) notice of an alleged violation of section
505(aX 1) of this Act has been given in accordance with
section 505(bX 1XA) prior to commencement of an ac-
tion under this subsection and an action under section
505(aX 1) with respect to such alleged violation is filed
before the 120th day after the date on which such no-
tice is given.
(7) EFFEcT OF ACTION ON COMPLIANCE—NO action by the
Administrator or the Secretary under this subsection shall af-
fect any person’s obligation to comply with any section of this
Act or with the terms and conditions of any permit issued pur-
suant to section 402 or 404 of this Act.
-------
119 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 309 Sec. 310
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 120
(8) JuDIcIAL REVIEW.—Any person against whom a civil
penalty is assessed under this subsection or who commented
on the proposed assessment of such penalty in accordance with
paragraph (4) may obtain review of such assessment—
(A) in the case of assessment of a class I civil penalty,
in the United States District Court for the District of Co.’
lumbia or in the district in which the violation is alleged
to have occurred, or
(B) in the case of assessment of a class II civil penalty,
in United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co-
lumbia Circuit or for any other circuit in which such per-
son resides or transacts business,
by filing a notice of appeal in such court within the 30-day pe-
nod beginning on the date the civil penalty order is issued and
by simultaneously sending a copy of such notice by certified
mail to the Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,
and the Attorney General. The Administrator or the Secretary
shall promptly file in such court a certified copy of the record
on which the order was issued. Such court shall not set aside
or remand such order unless there is not substantial evidence
in the record, taken as a whole, to support the finding of a vio-
lation or unless the Administrator s or Secretary’s assessment
of the penalty constitutes an abuse of discretion and shall not
impose additional civil penalties for the same violation unless
the Administrator’s or Secretary’s assessment of the penalty
constitutes an abuse of discretion.
(9) C0LLEcTI0N.—If any person fails to pay an assessment
of a civil penalty—
(A) after the order making the assessment has become
final, or
(B) after a court in an action brought under paragraph
(8) has entered a final judgment in favor of the Adminis-
trator or the Secretary, as the case may be,
the Administrator or the Secretary shall request the Attorney
General to bring a civil action In an appropriate district court
to recover the amount assessed (plus interest at currently pre-
vailing rates from the date of the final order or the date of the
final judgment, as the case may be). In such an action, the va-
lidity, amount, and appropriateness of such penalty shall not
be subject to review. Any person who fails to pay on a timely
basis the amount of an assessment of a civil penalty as de-
scribed in the first sentence of this paraqraph shall be required
to pay, in addition to such amount and interest, attorneys fees
and costs for collection proceedings and a quarterly nonpay-
ment penalty for each quarter during which such failure to pay
persists. Such nonpayment penalty shall be in an amount
equal to 20 percent of the aggre ate amount of such person’s
penalties and nonpayment penalties which are unpaid as of the
beginning of such quarter.
(10) SUBPOENAS—The Administrator or Secretary, as the
case may be, may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testi-
mony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers,
books, or documents in connection with hearings under this
subsection. In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena
issued pursuant to this paragraph and served upon any person,
the district court of the United States for any district in which
such person is found, resides, or transacts business, upon ap-
plication by the United States and after notice to such person,
shall have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person
to appear and give testimony before the administrative law
judge or to appear and produce documents before the adminis-
trative law judge, or both, and any failure to obey such order
of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt
thereof.
(11) PROTECTION OF EXISTING PROCEDURES—Nothing in
this subsection shall change the procedures existing on the day
before the date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of
1987 under other subsections of this section for issuance and
enforcement of orders by the Administrator.
(33 U.S.C. 1319)
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT
SEc. 310. (a) Whenever the Administrator, upon receipts of re-
ports, surveys, or studies from any duly constituted international
agency, has reason to believe that pollution is occurring which en-
dangers the health or welfare of persons in a foreign country, and
the Secretary of State requests him to abate such pollution, he
shall give formal notification thereof to the State water pollution
control agency of the State or States in which such discharge or
discharges originate and to the appropriate interstate agency, if
any. He shall also promptly call such a hearing, if he believes that
such pollution is occurring in sufficient quantity to warrant such
action, and if such foreign country has given the United States es-
sentially the same rights with respect to the prevention and control
of pollution occurring in that country as is given that country by
this subsection. The Administrator, through the Secretary of State,
shall invite the foreign country which may be adversely affected by
the pollution to attend and participate in the hearing, and the rep-
resentative of such country shall, for the purpose of the hearing
and any further proceeding resulting from such hearing, have all
the rights of a State water pollution control agency. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to modify, amend, repeal, or other-
wise affect the provisions of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty be-
tween Canada and the United States or the WaLer Utilization
Treaty of 1944 between Mexico and the United States (59 Stat.
1219), relative to the control and abatement of pollution in waters
covered by those treaties.
(b) The calling of a hearing under this section shall not be con-
strued by the courts, the Administrator, or any person as limiting,
modifying, or otherwise affecting the functions and responsibilities
of the Administrator under this section to establish and enforce
water quality requirements under this Act.
(c) The Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a
notice of a public hearing before a hearing board of five or more
persons appointed by the Administrator. A majority of the mem-
bers of the board and the chairman who shall be designated by the
Administrator shall not be officers or employees of Federal. State,
-------
121 FEDERAL WATER POWJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 310 Sec. 311
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 127
or local governments. On the basis of the evidence presented at
such hearing, the board shall within sixty days after completion of
the hearing make findings of fact as to whether or not such pollu.
tion is occurring and shall thereupon by decision, incorporating its
findings therein, make such recommendations to abate the pollu-
tion as may be appropriate and shall transmit such decision and
the record of the hearings to the Administrator. All such decisions
shall be public. Upon receipt of such decision, the Administrator
shall promptly implement the board’s decision in accordance with
the provisions of this Act.
(d) In connection with any hearing called under this sub.
section, the board Is authorized to reqwre any persona whose al-
leged activities result in discharges causing or contributing to pol-
lution to file with It In such forms as it may prescribe, a report
based on existing data, furnishing such information as may reason-
ably be required as to the character, kind, and quantity of such dis-
charges and the use of facilities or other means to prevent or re-
duce such discharge. by the person filing such a report. Such re-
port shall be made under oath or otherwise, as the board may pro-
scribe, and shall be filed with the board within such reasonable pe-
riod as it may prescribe, unless additional time is granted by it.
Upon a showing satisfactory to the board by the person fihinLsuch
report that such report or portion thereof (other than effluent
data), to which the Adminsitrator has access under this section, if
made public would divulge trade secrets or secret processes of such
person, the board shall consider such report or portion thereof con-
fidential for the purpose. of section 1905 of title 18 of the United
States Code. If any person re 9 ulred to file any report under this
paragraph shall fail to do so within the time fixed by the board for
filing the same and such failure shall continue for thirty days after
notice of such Jefault, such person shall forfeit to the United States
the sum of $1 000 for each and every day of the continuance of
such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of
the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the
name of the United States in the district court of the United States
where such person has his principal office or in any district in
which he does business. The Administrator may upon application
therefor remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for under this
subsection.
(e) Board members, other than officers or employees of Federal,
State, or local government., shall be for each day (including travel-
time) during which they are performing board business, entitled to
receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Administrator but not
in excess of the maximum rate of pay for grade GS-18, as provided
in the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5 of the United
States Code, and shall, notwithstanding the limitation. of sections
5703 and 5704 of title 5 of the United States Code, be fully reim-
bursed for travel, subsistence, and related expenses.
(1) When any such recommendation adopted by the Adminis-
trator involves the institution of enforcement proceedings against
any person to obtain the abatement of pollution subject to such rec-
ommendation, the Administrator shall institute such proceedings if
he believes that the evidence warrants such proceedings. The dis-
trict court of the United States shall consider and determine de
novo all relevant issues, but shall receive in evidence the record of
the proceedinçs before the conference or hearing board. The court
shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment and orders enforcing
such judgment as it deems appropriate or to remand such proceed-
ings to the Administrator for such further action as it may direct.
(33 u.s.c 1320)
OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY
SEc. 311. (a) For the purpose of this section, the term—
(1) “oil” means oil of any kind or in any form, including,
but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and
oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil;
(2) “discharge” includes, but is not limited to, any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping, but
excludes (A) discharges in compliance with a permit under sec-
tion 402 of this Act, (B) discharges resulting from cir-
cumstances identified and reviewed and made a part of the
public record with respect to a permit issued or modified under
section 402 of this Act, and subject to a condition in such per-
mit, and (C) continuous or anticipated intermittent discharges
from a point source, identified in a permit or permit applica-
tion under section 402 of this Act, which are caused by events
occurring within the scope of relevant operating or treatment
systems;
(3) “vessel” means every description of watercraft or other
artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a
means of transportation on water other than a public vessel;
(4) “public vessel” means a vessel owned or bareboat-char-
tered and operated by the United States, or by a State or polit-
ical subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when
such vessel is engaged in commerce;
(5) “United States” means the States, the District of Co.
lumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands;
(6) “owner or operator” means (A) in the case of a vessel,
any person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, such
vessel, and (B) in the case of an onshore facility, and an off
shore facility, any person owning or operating such onshore fa-
cility or offshore facility, and (C) in the case of any abandoned
offshore facility, the person who owned or operated such facil-
ity immediately prior to such abandonment;
(7) “person” includes an individual, firm, corporation, asso-
ciation, and a partnership;
(8) “remove” or “removal” refers to containment and re-
moval of the oil or hazardous substances from the water and
shorelines or the taking of such other actions as may be nec-
essary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or
welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife,
and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches;
(9) “contiguous zone” means the entire zone established or
to be established by the United States under article 24 of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone;
-------
FEDERAL WATER pot.umea CONTROL ACT
Sec. 311 Sec. 311
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONIROL ACT 124
123
(10) “onshore facility” means any facility (including, but
not limited to, motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind lo-
cated in, on, or under, any land within the United States other
than submerged land;
(11) “offshore facility” means any facility of any kind lo-
cated in, on, or under, any of the navigable waters of the Unit-
ed States, and any facility of any kind which is subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and is located in, on, or under
any other waters, other than a vessel or a public vessel;
(12) “act of God” means an act occasioned by an unantici-
pated grave natural disaster, -
(13) “barrel” means 42 United States gallons at 60 degrees
Fahrenheit;
(14) “hazardous substance” means any substance des-
ignated pursuant to subsection (bX2) of this section;
(15) “inland oil barge” means a non-self-propelled vessel
carrying oil in bulk as cargo and certificated to operate only in
the inland waters of the United States, while operating in such
waters;
(16) “inland waters of the United States” means those wa-
ters of the United States lying inside the baseline from which
the territorial sea is measured and those water outside such
baseline which are a part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(17) “otherwise” subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States” means subject to the lunediction of the United States
by virtue of United States citizenship, United States vessel
documentation or numbering, or as provided for by inter-
national agreement to which the United States is a party;
(18) “Area Committee” means an Area Committee estab-
lished under 8ubsectlon (j);
(19) “Area Contingency Plan” means an Area Contingency
Plan prepared under subsection Ci);
(20) “Coast Guard District Response Group” means a
Coast Guard District Response Group established under sub-
section (j);
(21) “Federal On-Scene Coordinato? means a Federal On-
Scene Coordinator designated in the National Contingency
Plan
(22) “National Contingency Plan” means the National Con-
tingency Plan prepared and published under subsection (d);
(23) “National Response Unit” means the National Re-
sponse Unit established under subsection U); and
(24) “worst case discharge” means—
(A) in the case of a vessel, a discharge in adverse
weather conditions of its entire cargo; and
(B) in the case of an offshore facility or onshore facil-
ity, the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather
conditions.
(bX 1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the
United States that there should be no discharges of oil or hazard-
ous substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United -
States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the con-
tiguous zone or in connection with activities under the Outer Con-
“ t-”l She’f Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or
which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to,
or under the exclusive management authority of the United States
(including resources under the Fishery Conservation and Manage-
ment Act of 1976).
(2XA) The Administrator shall develop, promulgate, and revise
as may be appropriate, regulations designating as hazardous sub-
stances, other than oil as defined in this section, such elements and
compounds which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon
the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines
or the waters of the contiguous zone or in connection with activities
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater
Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural resources belonging
to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority
of the United States (including resources under the Fishery Con-
servation and Management Act of 1976), present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or welfare, including, but
not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches.
(B) The Administrator shall within 18 months after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, conduct a study and report to the
Congre s on methods, mechanisms, and procedures to create incen-
tives to achieve a higher standard of care in all aspects of the man-
agement and movement of hazardous substances on the part of
owners, operators, or persons in charge of onshore facilities, off-
shore facilities, or vessels. The Administrator shall include in such
study (1) limits of liability, (2) liability for third party damages, (3)
penalties and fees, (4) spill prevention plans. (5) current practices
in the insurance and banking industries, and (6) whether the pen-
alty enacted in subclauae (bb) of clause (iii) of subparagraph (B) of
subsection (bX2) of section 311 of Public Law 92—500 should be en-
acted.
(3) The discharge of oil or hazardous substances (I) into or
upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shore-
lines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or (ii) in
connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural
resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive
management authority of the United States (including resources
under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976). in
such quantities as may be harmful as determined by the President
under paragraph (4) of this subsection, is prohibited, except (A) in
the case of such discharges into the waters of the contiguous zone
or which may affect natural resources belongin to, appertainifl
to, or under the exclusive management authority of the Unite
States (including resources under the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976), where permitted under the Protocol of
1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution\frOm Ships, 1973, and (B) where permitted in quan-
tities and at, times and locations or under such circumstances or
conditions as\the President may, by regulation, determine not to be
harmful. Any\ egu1aLiOfl5 issued under this subsection shall be con-
sistent with n1 ritime safety and with marine and navigation laws
and regulations and applicable water quality standards.
(4) The President shall by regulation determine for the pur-
poses of this section those quantities of oil and any hazardous sub-
-------
125 FEDERAL WAlER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 311 Sec. 311
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 126
stances the discharge of which may be harmful to the public health
or welfare or the environment of the United States, including but
not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private prop-
erty, shorelines, and beaches.
(5) Any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore facility
or an offshore facility shall, as soon as he has knowledge of an
diachar?e of oil or a hazardous substance from such vessel or fad -
ity in violation of paragraph (3) of this subsection, immediately no-
tify the appropriate agency of the United States Government of
such discharge. The Federal agency shall immediately notify the
appropriate State agency of any State which is or may reasonably
be expected to be, affected by the discharge o oil or a hazardous
substance. Any such person (A) in charge of a vessel from which
oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of pragraph
(3Xi) of this subsection, or (B) in charge of a vessel from which oil
or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of paragraph
(3Xii) of this subsection and who is otherwise subject to the juris-
diction of the United States at the time of the discharge or (C) in
char e of an onshore facility or an offshore facility, who f ila to no-
tify immediately such agency of such discharge shall, upon convic-
tion, be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notification received
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used against any such nat-
ural person in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury
or for giving a false statement.
(6) ADMINIarRATJVE PENALTIES.—
(A) VIOLATIONS.—Any owner operator, or person in
charge of any vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility—
(i) from which oil or a hazardous substance is dis-
charged in violation of paragraph (3), or
(ii) who fails or refuses to comply with any regula-
tion issued under subsection U) to which that owner,
operator, or person in charge is subject,
may be assessed a class I or class II civil penalty by the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating or the Administrator.
(B) CLASSES or P NAi..TiEs.—
(i) ClAss i—The amount of a class I civil penalty
under subparagraph (A) may not exceed $10,000 per
violation, except that the maximum amount of any
class I civil penalty under this subparagraph shall not
exceed $25,000. Before assessing a civil penalty under
this clause, the Administrator or Secretary, as the
case may be, shall give to the person to be assessed
such penalty written notice of the Administrator’s or
Secretary’s proposal to assess the penalty and the op-
portunity to request, within 30 days of the date the
notice is received by such person, a hearing on the
proposed penalty. Such hearing shall not be subject to
section 554 or 556 of title 5, United States Code, but
shall provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard and
to present evidence.
(ii) CLASS 11.—The amount of a class II civil pen-
alty under subparagraph (A) may not exceed $10,000
per day for each day during which the violation contin-
ues; except that the maximum amount of any class II
civil penalty under this subparagraph shall not exceed
$125,000. Except as otherwise provided in this sub.
section, a class II -civil penalty 8hall be assessed and
collected in the same manner, and subject to the same
provisions, as in the case of civil penalties assessed
and collected after notice and opportunity for a hear-
ing on the record in accordance with section 554 of
title 5, United States Code. The Administrator and
Secretary may issue rules for discovery procedures for
hearings under this paragraph
(C) Ricwrs OF INTERESTED PERSONS.—
(1) PusuC NOTICE.—Before issuing an order as-
sessing a class II civil penalty under this paragraph
the Administrator or Secretary, as the case may be,
shall provide public notice of and reasonable oppor-
tunity to comment on the proposed issuance of such
order.
(ii) PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.—Any person who
comments on a proposed assessment of a class II civil
penalty under this paragraph shall be given notice of
any hearing held under this paragraph and of the
order assessing such penalty. In any hearing held
under this paragraph, such person shall have a rea-
sonable opportunity to be heard and to present evi-
dence.
(iii) Ricirrs OF INTERESTED PERSONS TO A HEAR-
INC.—lf no hearing is held under subparagraph (B) be-
fore issuance of an order assessing a class II civil pen-
alty under this paragraph, any person who commented
on the proposed assessment may petition, within 30
days after the issuance of such order, the Adminis-
trator or Secretary, as the case may be, to set aside
such order and to provide a hearing on the penalty. If
the evidence presented by the petitioner in support of
the petition is material and was not considered in the
issuance of the order, the Administrator or Secretary
shall immediately set aside such order and provide a
hearing in accordance with subparagraph (B)(ii). If the
Administrator or Secretary denies a hearing under
this clause, the Administrator or Secretary shall pro-
vide to the petitioner, and publish in the Federal Reg-
ister, notice of and the reasons for such denial.
(D) FINALITY OF ORDER.—An order assessing a class II
civil penalty under this paragraph shall become final 30
days after its issuance unless a petition for judicial review
is filed under subparagraph (G) or a hearing is requested
under subparagraph (CXiii). If such a hearing is denied,
such order shall become final 30 days after such denial.
(E) EFFECT OF ORDER—Action taken by the- Adminis-
trator or Secretary, as the case may be, under this para-
graph shall not affect or limit the Administrator’s or Sec-
-------
127 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec . . Sec. 311
FEDERAL WATER POUUTION CONTROL ACT 128
rotary’s authority to enforce any provision of this Act; ex-
cept that any violation—
(i) with respect to which the Administrator or Sec-
retary has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an
action to assess a class II civil penalty under this
paragraph, or
(ii) for which the Administrator or Secretary has
issued a final order assessing a class II civil penalty
not sub ect to further judicial review and the violator
has paid a penalty assessed under this paragraph.
shall not be the subject of a civil penalty action under sec-
tion 309(d), 309(g), or 505 of this Act or under paragraph
- (F) EFFECT OF ACTiON ON COMPUANCE.—NO action by
the Administrator or Secretary under this paragraph shall
affect any person’s obligation to comply with any section of
this Act.
(G) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—AflY person against whom a
civil penalty is assessed under this paragraph or who com-
mented on the proposed assessment of such penalty in ac-
cordance with subparagraph (C) may obtain review of such
assessment—
(i) in the case of assessment of a class I civil pen-
alty, in the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia or in the district in which the viola-
tion is alleged to have occurred, or
(ii) in the case of assessment of a class II civil
penalty, in United States Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit in
which such person resides or transacta business,
by filing a notice of appeal in such court within the 30-day
period beginning on the date the civil penalty order is is-
sued and by simultaneously sending a copy of such notice
by certified mail to the Administrator or Secretary, as the
case may be, and the Attorney General. The Administrator
or Secretary shall promptly tUe in such court a certified
copy of the record on which the order was issued. Such
court shall not set aside or remand such order unless there
is not substantial evidence in the record, taken as a whole,
to support the finding of a violation or unless the Adminis-
trator’s or Secretary’s assessment of the penalty con-
stitutes an abuse of discretion and shall not impose addi-
tional civil penalties for the same violation unless the Ad-
ministrator’s or Secretary’s assessment of the penalty con-
stitutes an abuse of discretion.
(1-I) COLLECTION.—lf any person fails to pay an assess-
ment of a civil penalty—
(i) after the assessment has become final, or
(ii) alter a court in an action brought under sub-
paragraph (G) has entered a final judgment in favor of
the Administrator or Secretary, as the case may be,
the Administrator or Secretary shall request the Attorney
General to bring a civil action in an appropriate district
court to recover the amount assessed (plus interest at cur-
rently prevailing rates from the date of the final order or
the date of the final judgment, as the case may be). In
such an action, the validity, amount, and appropriateness
of such penalty shall not be subject to review. Any person
who fails to pay on a timely basis the amount of an assess-
ment of a civil penalty as described in the first sentence
of this subparagraph shall be required to pay, in addition
to such amount and interest, attorneys fees and costs for
collection proceedings and a quarterly nonpayment penalty
for each quarter during which such failure to pay persists.
Such nonpayment penalty shall be in an amount equal to
20 percent of the aggregate amount of such person’s pen-
alties and nonpayment penalties which are unpaid as of
the beginning of such quarter.
(I) SIJBPOENAS.—The Administrator or Secretary, as
the case may be, may issue subpoenas for the attendance
and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant
papers, books, or documents in connection with hearings
under this paragraph. In case of contumacy or refusal to
obey a subpoena issued pursuant to this subparagraph and
served upon any person, the district court of the United
States for any district in which such person is found, re-
sides, or transects business, upon application by the Unit-
ed States and after notice to such person, shall have juris-
diction to issue an order requiring such person to appear
and give testimony before the administrative law judge or
to appear and produce documents before the administra-
tive law judge, or both, and any failure to obey such order
of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt
thereof.
(7) CIViL PENALTY ACTION.—
(A) DISCHARGE, GENERALLY—AnY person who is the
owner, operator, or person in charge of any vessel, onshore
facility, or offshore facility from which oil or a hazardous
substance is discharged in violation of paragraph (3), shall
be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to $25,000
per day of violation or an amount up to $1,000 per barrel
of oil or unit of reportable quantity of hazardous sub-
stances discharged.
(B) FAILURE TO REMOVE OR COMPLV.—AflY person de-
scribed in subparagraph (A) who, without aurncient
cause—
(i) fails to properly carry out removal of the dis-
charge under an order of the President pursuant to
subsection (c); or
(ii) fails to comply with an order pursuant to sub-
section (e)( 1)(B);
shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to
$25,000 per day of violation or an amount up to 3 times
the costs incurred by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund as
a result of such failure.
(C) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATION—Any per-
son who fails or refuses to comply with any regulation is-
-------
129 FEDERAL WATER PIIWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 311
_______ Sec. 311
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 130
sued under subsection (j) shall be subject to a civil penalty
in an amount up to $25,000 per day of violation.
(D) GROSS NEGLIGENCE—In any case in which a viola-
tion of paragraph (3) was the result of gross negligence or
willful misconduct of a person described in subparagraph
(A), the person shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less
than $100,000, and not more than $3,000 per barrel of oil
or unit of reportable quantity of hazardous substance dis-
charged.
(E) JUIUSDICTION.—An action to impose a civil penalty
under this paragraph may be brought in the district court
of the United States for the district in which the defendant
is located, resides, or is doing business, and such court
shall have jurisdiction to assess such penalty.
(F) LIMTrArIoN.—A person is not liable for a civil pen-
alty under this paragraph for a discharge if the person has
been assessed a civil penalty under paragraph (6) for the
discharge.
(8) DE’TERMINATION OF AMOUNT.—ln determining the
amount of a civil penalty under paragraphs (6) and (7), the Ad-
ministrator, Secretary, or the court, as the case may be, shall
consider the seriousness of the violation or violations, the eco-
nomic benefit to the violator, if any, resulting from the viola-
tion, the degree of culpability involved, any other penalty for
the same incident, any history of prior violations, the nature,
extent, and degree of success of any efforts of the violator to
minimize or mitigate the effects of the discharge, the economic
impact of the penalty on the violator, and any other matters
as justice may require.
(9) MITIGATION OF DAMAGE.—In addition to establishing a
penalty for the discharge of oil or a hazardous substance, the
Administrator or the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating may act to mitigate the damage to
the public health or welfare caused by such discharge. The cost
of such mitigation shall be deemed a cost incurred under sub-
section (c) of this section for the removal of such substance by
the United States Government.
(10) REcovERY OF REMOVAL cos’rs.—Any coats of removal
incurred in connection with a discharge excluded by subsection
(a)(2XC) of this section shall be recoverable from the owner or
operator of the source of the discharge in an action brought
under section 309(b) of this Act.
(11) LIMITATION.—CiviL penalties shall not be assessed
under both this section and section 309 for the same discharge.
(12)1 WITHHOLDING CLEARANCE—If any owner, operator, or
person in char?e of a vessel is liable for a civil penalty under this
subsection, or if reasonable cause exists to believe that the owner.
operator, or person in charge may be subject to a civil penalty
under this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the re-
quest of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
Ind.ni.thn loin law.
is operating or the Administrator, shall with respect to such vessel
refuse or revoke—
(A) the clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (46 U.S.C. App. 91);
(B) a pennit to proceed under section 4367 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (46 U.S.C. App. 313); and
(C) a permit to depart required under section 443 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1443);
as applicable. Clearance or a permit refused or revoked under this
paragraph may be granted upon the filing of a bond or other surety
satisfactory to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating or the Administrator.
(c) FEDERAL REMoVAL AUTHORITY.—
(1) GENERAL REMOVAL REQUIREMENT.—(A) The President
shall, in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and
any appropriate Area Contingency Plan, ensure effective and
immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or preven-
tion of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous
substance—
(i) into or on the navigable waters;
(ii) on the adjoining shorelines to the navigable wa-
ters;
(iii) into or on the waters of the exclusive economic
zone; or
(iv) that may affect natural resources belonging to, ap-
pertaining to, or under the exclusive management author-
ity of the United States.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may—
(i) remove or arrange for the removal of a discharge,
and mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a dis-
charge, at any time;
(ii) direct or monitor all Federal, State, and private ac-
tions to remove a discharge; and
(iii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel dis-
charging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means
are available.
(2) DIschARGE POSING SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO PUBLIC
HEALTH OR WELFARE.—(A) If a discharge, or a substantial
threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance from a
vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility is of such a size or
character as to be a substantial threat to the public health or
welfare of the United States (including but not limited to fish,
shellfish, wildlife, other natural resources, and the public and
private beaches and shorelines of the United States), the Presi-
dent shall direct all Federal, State, and private actions to re-
move the discharge or to mitigate or prevent the threat of the
discharge.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may,
without regard to any other provision of law governing con-
tracting procedures or employment of personnel by the Federal
Government—
(i) remove or arrange for the removal of the discharge,
or mitigate or prevent the substantial threat of the dis-
charge; and
-------
121 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONIROL ACT
Sec.311 Sec.3 11
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AC! 132
(ii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharg-
ing, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are
available.
(3) AcrioN8 IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL CONTINGENCY
pijuj.—(A) Each Federal agency, State owner or operator or
other person participating in efforts uniler this subsection siiall
act in accordance with the National Contingency Plan or as di.
rected by the President.
(B) An owner or operator participating in efforts under this
subsection shall act in accordance with the National Contin-
gency Plan and the applicable response plan required under
subsection Ci), or as directed by the President, except that the
owner or operator may deviate from the applicable response
plan if the President or the Federal On-Scene Coordinator de-
terinines that deviation from the response plan would provide
for a more expeditious or effective response to the api 1 i or miti-
gation of its environmental effects.
(4) EXEMPTION FROM UAB ILITY.—(A) A person is not liable
for removal costs or damages which result from actions taken
or omitted to be taken in the course of rendering care, assist-
ance, or advice consistent with the National Contingency Plan
or as otherwise directed by the President.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply—
(1) to a responsible party;
(ii) to a response under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.);
(iii) with respect to personal injury or wrongful death;
or
(iv) if the person is grossly negligent or engages in
willful misconduct.
(C) A responsible party is liable for any removal costs and
damages that another person is relieved of under subpara-
graph (A).
(5) OBLIGATION AND UABILITY OF OWNER OR OPERATOR NOT
AFFECTED.—NOthifl in this subsection affects—
(A) the obligation of an owner or operator to respond
immediately to a discharge, or the threat of a discharge,
of oil; or
(B) the liability of a responsible party under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990.
(6) RESPONSIBLE PARTY DEFINED.—FOr purposes of this
subsection, the term “responsible party” has the meaning given
that term under section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
(d) NATIONAL CONTiNGENCY PlAN.—
(1) PREPARATION BY PRESIDENT—The President shall pre-
pare and publish a National Contingency Plan for removal of
oil and hazardous substances pursuant to this section.
(2) CONTENTS.—The National Contingency Plan shall pro-
vide for efficient, coordinated, and effective action to minimize
damage from oil and hazardous substance discharges, includ-
ing containment, dispersal, and removal of oil and hazardous
substances, and shall include, but not be limited to, the follow-
ng
(A) Assignment of auties and responsibilities among
Federal departments and agencies in coordination with
State and local agencies and port authorities including,
but not limited to, water pollution control and conservation
and trusteeship of natural resources (including conserva-
tion of fish and wildlife).
(B) Identification, procurement, maintenance, and
storage of equipment and supplies.
(C) Establishment or designation of Coast Guard
strike teams, consisting of—
(i) personnel who shall be trained, prepared, and
available to provide necessary services to carry out the
National Contingency Plan;
(ii) adequate oil and hazardous substance pollu-
tion control equipment and material; and
(iii) a detailed oil and hazardous substance pollu-
tion and prevention plan, including measures to pro-
tect fisheries and wildlife.
(D) A system of surveillance and notice designed to
safeguard against as well as ensure earliest possible notice
of discharges of oil and hazardous substances and immi-
nent threats of such discharges to the appropriate State
and Federal agencies.
(E) Establishment of a national center to provide co-
ordination and direction for operations in carrying out the
Plan.
(F) Procedures and techniques to be employed in iden-
tifying, containing, dispersing, and removing oil and haz-
ardous substances.
(G) A schedule, prepared in cooperation with the
States, identifying—
(i) dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill
mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be
used in carrying out the Plan,
(ii) the waters in which such dispersants, other
chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and sub-
stances may be used, and
(iii) the quantities of such dispersant, other chemi-
cals, or other spill mitigating device or substance
which can be used safely in such waters,
which schedule shall provide in the case of any dispersant,
chemical, spill mitigating device or substance, or waters
not specifically identified in such schedule that the Presi-
dent. or his delegate, may, on a case-by-case basis, identify
the dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating
devices and substances which may be used, the waters in
which they may be used, and the quantities which can be
used safely in such waters.
(H) A system whereby the State or States affected by
a discharge of oil or hazardous substance may act where
necessary to remove such discharge and such State or
States may be reimbursed in accordance with the Oil Pol-
lution Act of 1990, in the case of any discharge of oil from
-------
133 FEDERAL WATER POWJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 311 Sec. 311
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 134
a vessel or facility, for the reasonable COStS incurred for
that removal, from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
(I) Establishment of criteria and procedures to ensure
immediate and effective Federal identification of, and re-
sponse to, a discharp or the threat of a discharge, that
results in a substantial threat to the public health or wel-
fare of the United States, as required under subsection
(cX2).
(J) Establishment of procedures and standards for re-
moving a worst case discharge of oil, and for mitigating or
preventing a substantial threat of such a discharge.
(K) Designation of the Federal official who shall be the
Federal On-Scene Coordinator for each area for which an
Area Contingency Plan is required to be prepared under
subsection (j).
(L) Establishment of procedures for the coordination of
activities of—
(1) Coast Guard strike teams established under
subparagraph (C);
(ii) Federal On-Scene Coordinators designated
under subparagraph (K);
(iii) Distnct Response Groups established under
subsection U); and
(iv) Area Committees established under subsection
(j).
(M) A fish and wildlife response p!an, developed in
consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration and other interested parties (including State fish
and wildlife conservation officials), for the immediate and
effective protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of, and the
minimization of risk of damage to, fish and wildlife re-
sources and their habitat that are harmed or that may be
jeopardized by a discharge.
(3) REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS—The President may,
from time to time, as the President deems advisable, revise or
otherwise amend the National Contingency Plan.
(4) ACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL CONTINGENCY
PLAN.—Alter publication of the National Contingency Plan, the
removal of oil and hazardous substances and actions to mini-
mize damage from oil and hazardous substance discharges
shall, to the greatest extent possible, be in accordance with the
National Contingency Plan.
(e) CIVIL ENFORCEMENT.—
(1) ORDERS PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH.—lfl addition to
any action taken by a State or local government, when the
President determines that there may be an imminent and sub-
stantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United
States, including fish, shellfish, and wildlife, public and private
property, shorelines, beaches, habitat, and other living and
nonliving natural resources under the jurisdiction or control of
the United States, because of an actual or threatened dis-
charge of oil or a hazardous substance from a vessel or facility
in violation of subsection (b), the President may—
(A) require the Attorney General to secure any relief
from any person, including the owner or operator of the
vessel or facility, as may be necessary to abate such
endangerment; or
(B) after notice to the affected State, take any other
action under this section, including issuing administrative
orders, that may be necessary to protect the public health
and welfare.
(2) JuRISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS.—The district courts
of the United States shall have jurisdiction to grant any relief
under this subsection that the public interest and the equities
of the case may require.
(f)(1) Except where an owner or operator canprove that a dis-
charge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war,
(C) negligence on the part of the United States Government, or (0)
an act or omission of a third party without regard to whether any
such act or omission was or was not negligent, or any combination
of the foregoing clauses, such owner or operator of any vessel from
which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of
subsection (bX3) of this section shall, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, be liable to the United States Government for the
actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for the removal of such
oil or substance by the United States Government in an amount
Snot to exceed, in the case of an inland oil barge $125 per gross ton
of such barge, or $125,000, whichever is greater, and in the case
of any other vessel, $150 per gross ton of such vessel (or, for a ves-
sel carrying oil or hazardous substances as cargo, $250,000), which-
ever is greater, except that where the United States can show that
such discharge was the result of willful negligence or willful mis-
conduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such owner
or operator shall be liable to the United States Government for the
full amount of such costs. Such costs shall constitute a maritime
lien on such vessel which may be recovered in an action in rem in
the district court of the United States for any district within which
any vessel may be found. The United States may also bring an ac
tion against the owner or operator of such vessel in any court of
competent jurisdiction to recover such costs.
(2) Except where an owner or operator of an onshore facility
can prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God,
(B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States
Government, or (D) an act or omission of a third party without re
gard to whether any such act or omission was or was not negligent,
or any combination of the foregoing clauses, such owner or operator
of any such facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is dis-
charged in violation of subsection (bX3) of this section shall be lia-
ble to the United States Government for the actual costs incurred
under subsection (c) for the removal of such oil or substance by the
United States Government in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000,
except that where the United States can show that such discharge
was the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct within the
privity and knowledge of the owner, such owner or operator shall
be liable to the United States Government for the full amount of
such costs. The United States may bring an action against the
owner or operator of such facility in any court of competent juris-
-------
135 FEDERAL WATER POWJI1ON CONTROL ACT
SBC. 311 Sec. 311
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 136
diction to recover such costs. The Administrator is authorized, by
regulation, after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and
the Small Business Administration, to establish reasonable and eq-
uitable classifications, of those onshore facilities having a total
fixed storage capacity of 1 000 barrels or less which he determines
because of size, type, and location do not present a substantial risk
of the discharge of oil or hazardous substance in violation of sub-
section (bX3) of this section, and apply with respect to such classi-
fications differing limits of liability which may be less than the
amount contained in this paragraph.
(3) Except where an owner or operator of an onshore facility
can prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God,
(B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States
Government, or (D) an act or omission of a third party without re-
gard to whether any such act or omission was or was not negligent,
or any combination of the foregoing clauses, such owner or operator
of any such facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is dis-
charged in violation of subsection (bX3) of this section shall, not-
withstanding any other provision of law, be liable to the United
States Government for the actual coats incurred under subsection
(c) for the removal of such oil or substance by the United States
Government in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000, except that
where the United States can show that such discharge was the re-
sult of willful negligence or willful misconduct withm the priviLy
and knowledge of the owner, such owner or operator shall be liable
to the United States Government for the full amount of such costs.
The United States may bring an action against the owner or opera
tor of such facility in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover
such coats.
(4) The costs of removal of oil or a hazardous substance for
which the owner or operator of a vessel or onshore or offshore facil-
ity is liable under subsection (f) of this section shall include any
costs or expenses incurred by the Federal Government or any State
government in the restoration or replacement of natural resources
damaged or destroyed as a result of a discharge of oil or a hazard-
ous substance in violation of subsection (b) of this section.
(5) The President, or the authorized representative of any
State, shall act on behalf of the public as trustee of the natural re-
sources to recover for the coats of replacing or restoring such re-
sources. Sums recovered shall be used to restore, rehabilitate, or
acquire the equivalent of such natural resources by the appropriate
agencies of the Federal Government, or the State government.
(g) Where the owner or operator of a vessel (other than an in-
land oil barge) carrying oil or hazardous substances as cargo or an
onshore or offshore facility which handles or stores oil or hazardous
substances in bulk, from which oil or a hazardous substance is dis-
charged in violation of subsection (b) of this section, alleges that
such discharge was caused solely by an act or omission of a third
party, such owner or operator shall pay to the United States Gov-
ernment the actual costa incurred under subsection (c) for removal
of such oil or substance and shall be entitled by subrogation to all
rights of the United States Government to recover such coats from
such third party under this subsection. In any case where an owner
c ‘ ‘ierator of a vessel, of an onshore facility, or of an offshore facil-
ity, from which oiL or a hazardous substance is discharged in viola-
tion of subsection (bX3) of this section, proves that such discharge
of -oil or hazardous substance was caused solely by an act or omis-
sion of a third party, or was caused solely by such an act or omis-
sion in combination with an act of God, an act of war, or negligence
on the part of the United States Government, such third party
shalL, not withstanding any other provision of law, be liable to the
United States Government for the actual costs incurred under sub-
section (c) for removal of such oil or substance by the United States
Government, except where such third party can prove that such
discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war,
(C) negligence on the part of the United States Government, or (D)
an act or omission of another party without regard to whether such
an act or omission was or was not negligent, or any combination
of the foregoing clauses. If such third party was the owner or oper-
ator of a vessel which caused the discharge of oil or a hazardous
substance in violation of subsection (bX3) of this section, the liabil-
ity of such third party under this subsection shall not exceed, in
the case of an inland oil barge $125 per gross ton of such barge,
$125,000, whichever is greater, and in the case of any other vessel,
$150 per gross ton of such vessel (or, for a vessel carrying oil or
hazardous substances as cargo, $250,000), whichever is greater. In
any other case the liability of such third party shall not exceed the
limitation which would have been appiicable to the owner or opera-
tor of the vessel or the onshore or offshore facility from which the
discharge actually occurred if such owner or operator were liable.
If the United States can show that the discharge of oil or a hazard-
ous substance in violation of subsection (bX3) of this section was
the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct within the
priviLy and knowledge of such third party, such third party shall
be liable to the United States Government for the full amount of
such removal costs. The United States may bring an action against
the third party in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover
such removal costs.
(h) The liabilities established by this section shall in no way
affect any rights which (1) the owner or operator of a vessel or of
an onshore facility or an offshore facility may have against any
third party whose acts may in any way have caused or contributed
to such discharge, or (2) The’ United States Government may have
against any third party whose actions may in any way have caused
or contributed to the discharge of oil or hazardous substance.
(1) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel or an
onshore facility or an offshore facility from which oil or a hazard-
OUS substance is discharged in violation of subsection (b)(3) of this
section acts to remove such oil or substance in accordance with reg-
ulations promulgated pursuant to this section, BuCh owner or oper-
ator shall be entitled to recover the reasonable costs incurred in
such removal upon establishing, in a suit which may be brought
against the United States Government in the United States Claims
Court, that such discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God.
(B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States
Government, or (D) an act or omission of a third party without re-
‘So In mw Should not be c.piializad.
-------
Sec. 311 Sec. 311
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 131
137
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
gard to whether such act or omission was or was not negligent, or
of any combination of the foregoing clauses.
(j) NATIONAL RESPONSE SYSTEM.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Conslstent with the National Contin-
gency Plan required by subsection (cX2) of this section, as soon
as practicable after the effective date of this section, and from
time to time thereafter, the President shall issue regulations
consistent with maritime safety and with marine and naviga-
tion laws (A) establishing methods and procedures for removal
of discharged oil and hazardous substances, (B) establishin
criteria for the development and implementation of local an
regional oil and hazardous substance removal contingency
plans, (C) establishing procedures, methods, and equipment
and other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of
oil and hazardous substances from vessels and from onshore
facilities and offshore facilities, and to contain such discharges,
and (D) governing the inspection of vessels carrying cargoes of
oil and hazardous substances and the inspection of such car-
goes in order to reduce the likelihood of discharges of oil from
vessels in violation of this section.
(2) NATIONAL RESPONSE w rr—The Secretary of the de-
partinent in which the Coast Guard Is operating shall establish
a National Response Unit at Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
The Secretary, acting through the National Response Unit—
(A) shall compile and maintain a comprehensive com-
puter list of spill removal resources, personnel, and equip-
ment that is available worldwide and within the areas des-
ignated by the President pursuant to paragraph (4), and of
information regarding previous spills, including data from
universities, research institutions, State governments, and
other nations, as appropriate, which shall be disseminated
as appropriate to response groups and area committees,
and which shall be available to Federal and State agencies
and the public;
(B) shall provide technical assistance eq ripment, and
other resources requested by a Federal on-Scene Coordi-
nator
(a) shall coordinate use of private and public person-
nel and equipment to remove a worst case discharge, and
to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a dis-
charge, from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility
operating In or near an area designated by the President
pursuant to paragraph (4);
(D) may provide technical assistance in the prepara-
tion of Area Contingency Plans required under paragraph
(4);
(B) shall administer Coast Guard strike teams estab-
lished under the National Contingency Plan;
(F) shall maintain on file all Area Contingency Plans
approved by the President under this subsection; and
(G) shall review each of those plans that affects its re-
sponsibilities under this subsection.
(3) CoAST GUARD DISTRICT RESPONSE o oups.—(A) The
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is oper-
ating shaU establish in each Coast Guard district a Coast
Guard District Response Group.
(B) Each Coast Guard District Response Group shall con-
sist of—
(i) the Coast Guard personnel and equipment, includ-
ing firefighting equipment, of each port within the district;
(ii) additional propositioned equipment; and
(iii) a district response advisory staff.
(C) Coast Guard district response groups—
(i) shall provide technical assistance, equipment, and
other resources when required by a Federal On-Scene Co-
ordinator;
(ii) shall maintain all Coast Guard response equip-
ment within its district;
(iii) may provide technical assistance in the prepara-
tion of Area ContingencY Plans required under paragraph
(4); and
(iv) shall review each of those plans that affect its area
of geographic responsibility.
(4) AREA COMMIITEES AND AREA CONTINGE1 4 C 1 ’ PL.ANS.—(A)
There is established for each area designated by the President
an Area Committee comprised of members appointed by the
President from qualified personnel of Federal, State, and local
agencies.
(B) Each Area Committee, under the direction of the Fed-
eral On-Scene Coordinator for its area, shall—
(i) prepare for its area the Area Contingency Plan re-
quired under subparagraph (C);
(ii) work with State and local officials to enhance the
contingency planning of those officials and to assure
preplanning of joint response efforts, including appropriate
procedures for mechanical recovery, dispersal. shoreline
cleanup, protection of sensitive environmental areas, and
protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of fisheries and wild-
life; and
(iii) work with State and local officials to expedite de-
cisions for the use of dispersanta and other mitigating sub-
stances and devices.
(C) Each Area Committee shall prepare and submit to the
President for approval an Area Contingency Plan for its area.
The Area Contingency Plan shall—
(i) when implemented in conjunction with the National
Contingency Plan, be adequate to remove a worst case dis-
charge, and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of
such a discharge, from a vessel, offshore facility, or on-
shore facility operating in or near the area;
(ii) describe the area covered by the plan, including
the areas of special economic or environmental importance
that might be damaged by a discharge;
(iii) describe in detail the responsibilities of an owner
or operator and of Federal, State, and local agencies in re-
moving a discharge, and in mitigating or preventing a sub-
stantial threat of a discharge;
-------
139 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec.311 Sec.311
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 14U
(iv) list the equipment (including firefighting equip.
ment), dispersants or other mitigating aubstancea and de-
vices, and personnel available to an owner or operator and
Federal, State, and local agencies, to ensure an effective
and immediate removal of a discharge and to ensure initi-
gation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge
(v) compile a list of local scientists, both inside anJ
outside Federal Government service, with expertise in the
environmental effects of spills of the types of oil typically
transported in the area, who may be contacted to provide
information or, where appropriate, participate in meetings
of the scientific support team convened m response to a
spill, and describe the procedures to be followed for obtain-
ing an expedited decision regarding the use of diapersanta;
(vi) describe in detail how the plan is integrated into
other Area Contingency Plans and vessel, offshore facility,
and onshore facility response .plans approved under this
subsection, and into operating procedures of the National
Response Unit;
(vii) include any other information the President re-
quires; and
(viii) be updated periodically by the Area Committee.
(D) The President shall—
(1) review and approve Area Contingency Plans under
this paragraph; and
(ii) periodically review Area Contingency Plans so ap-
proved.
(5) T*i1K VESSEL AND FACILITY RESPONSE pt s.—(A) The
President shall issue regulations which require an owner or op-
erator of a tank vessel or facility described in subparagraph (B)
to prepare and submit to the President a plan for responding,
to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge,
and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a haz-
ardous substance.
(B) The tank vessels and facilities referred to in subpara-
graph (A) are the following:
(1) A tank vessel, as defined under section 2101 of title
46, United States Code.
(ii) An offshore facility.
(iii) An onshore facility that, because of its location,
could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to
the environment by discharging into or on the navigable
waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic
zone.
(C) A response plan required under this paragraph shall—
(i) be consistent with the requirements of the National
Contingency Plan and Area Contingency Plans;
(ii) identify the qualified individual having full author-
ity to implement removal actions, and require immediate
communications between that individual and the appro-
priate Federal official and the persons providing personnel
and eSuipment pursuant to clause (iii);
(ii i) identify, and ensure by contract or other means
approved by the President the availability of, private per--
sonnel and equipment necessary to remove to the maxi-
mum extent practicable a worst case discharge (including
a discharge resulting from fire or explosion), and to miti-
gate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge;
(iv) describe the training, equipment testing, periodic
unannounced drills, and response actions of persons on the
vessel or at the facility, to be carried out under the plan
to ensure the safety of the vessel or facility and to mitigate
or prevent the discharge, or the substantial threat of a dis-
charge;
(v) be updated periodically; and
(vi) be resubmitted for approval of each significant
change.
(D) With respect to any response plan submitted under
this paragraph for an onshore facility that, because of its loca-
tion, could reasonably be expected to cause significant and sub-
stantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on the
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive eco-
nomic zone, and with respect to each response plan submitted
under this paragraph for a tank vessel or offshore facility, the
President shall—
(i) promptly review such response plan;
(ii) require amendments to any plan that does not
meet the requirements of this paragraph;
(iii) approve any plan that meets the requirements of
this paragraph; and
(iv) review each plan periodically thereafter.
(E) I A tank vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility re-
quired to prepare a response plan under this subsection may
not handle, store, or transport oil unless—
(i) in the case of a tank vessel, offshore facility, or on-
shore facility for which a response plan is reviewed by the
President under subparagraph (D), the plan has been ap-
proved by the President; and
(ii) the vessel or facility is operating in compliance
with the plan.
(F) Notwithstanding subparagraph (E), the President may
authorize a tank vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility to
operate without a response plan approved under this para-
graph, until not Later than 2 years after the date of the sub-
mission to the President of a plan for the tank vessel or facil-
ity, if the owner or operator certifies that the owner or opera-
tor has ensured by contract or other means approved by the
President the availability of private personnel and equipment
necessary to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a
worst case discharge or a substantial threat of such a dis-
charge.
(G) The owner or operator of a tank vessel, offshore facil-
ity, or onshore facility may not claim as a defense to liability
under title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that the owner
‘Subparagraph (E) of eaclion 3 1I(JX6) shall take effect 36 moj lha (August 18. 1993) iSle, the
date o( the enactment of Public Law 101-380 See P.L 101-380. eec 4202 (bX4XC), 104 Slat 632
-------
Sec. 311
FEDERAL WAlER POU.UTIOI( COR1ROL ACT 142
FEDERAL WATER POWØION CONTROL ACT Sec. 311
or operator was acting in accordance with an approved re
sponse plan.
(H) The Secretary shall maintain. In the Vessel Identifica
tiOfl System established under chapter 125 of title 46, United
States Code, the dates of’ approval and review of a response
plan under thiB paragraph for each tank vessel that is a vessel
of the United States.
(6) EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND INSPECTION._Not later
than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the
president shall require—
(A) periodic inspection of containment booms, skim’
mere, vessels, and other major equipment used to remove
discharges; and
(B) vessels operating on navigable waters and carrying
oil or a hazardous substance in bulk as cargo to carry a -
propriate removal equipment that employs the best tec -
nology economicallY feasible and that is compatible with
the safe operation of the vessel.
(7) AREA D1uu s.—The President shall periodicallY conduct
drills of removal capability, without prior notice, in areas for
which Area Contingency Plans are required under this sub-
section and under relevant tank vessel and facility response
plans. The drills may include participation by Federal, State.
and local agencies. the owners and operators of vessels and fa-
cilities in the area, and private industry. The President may
publish annual reports on these drills, including assessments
of’ the effectiveness of the plans and a list of amendments
made to improve plans.
(8) UNITED grATES GOVERNMENT NOT UABI2.The United
States Oovernlfleflt is not liable for any damages arising from
its actions or omissions relating to any reBpoflse plan required
by this section.
(SubseCtion (k) was repealed by sec. 2002(bX2) of P.L. 101-380.3
(I) The President is authorized to delegate the administration
of this section to the heads of those Federal departments. agencies.
and instrumentalities which he determines to be appropriate. Each
such depart1fleD agency. and instrumentality, in order to avoid
duplication of effort shall, whenever appropriate, utilize the per-
sonnel. services. anJ facilities of other Federal departments agen-
cies, and instrumentalities.
(in) ADMINISTRA PROVISIONS.—
(1) FoR vESSELS.__AflyOns authorized by the President to
enforce the provisions of this section with respect to any vessel
may, except as to public vessels—
(A) board and inspect any vessel upon the navigable
waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous
zone,
(B) with or without a warrant, arrest any person who
in the presence or view of the authorized person violates
the provisions of this section or any regulation issued
thereunder, and
(C) execute any warrant or other process issued by an
officer or court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) FoR FACILITIES.—
(A) RECORDKEEPING._Whenever required to carry out
the purposes of this section, the Administrator OT the Sec-
retary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is op-
erating shall require the owner or operator of a facility to
which this section applies to establish and maintain such
records, make such reports, install, use, and maintain such
monitoring equipment and methods, and provide such
other information as the Administrator or Secretary, as
the case may be, may require to carry out the objectives
of this section.
(B) ENTRY AND INSPECTION_Whenever required to
carry out the purposes of this section, the Administrator OT
the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard
is operating or an authorized representative of the Admin-
istrator or Secretary, upon presentation of appropriate cre-
dentials, may—
(i) enter and inspect any facility to which this sec-
tion applies, including any facility at which any
records are required to be maintained under subpara-
graph (A); and
(ii) at reasonable times, have access to and copy
any records, take samples, and inspect any monitoring
equipment or methods required under subparagraPh
(A).
(C) ARRESTS AND EXECUTION OF wARBAN’rs._ -Anyone
authorized by the Administrator or the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the Coast Guard is operating to enforce
the provisions of this section with respect to any facility
may—
(i) with or without a warrant, arrest any person
who violates the provisions of this section or any regu-
lation issued thereunder in the presence or view of the
person so authorized; and
(ii) execute any warrant or process issued by an
officer or court of competent jurisdiction.
(I)) PUBLIC ACCESS.—AItY records, reports. or informa-
tion obtained under this paragraph shall be subject to the
same public access and disclosure requirements which are
applicable to records, reports, and information obtained
pursuant to section 308.
(n) The several district courts of the United States are invested
with jurisdiction for any actions, other than actions pursuant to
subsection (IX 1), arising under this section. In the case of Guam
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, such actions may be
brought in the district court of Guam, and in the case of the Virgin
Islands such actions may be brought in the district court of’ the Vir-
gin Islands. In the case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands, such actions may be brought in the District
Court of the United States for the District of Hawaii and such
court shall have jurisdiction of such actions. In the case of the
Canal Zone, such actions may be brought in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 312 Sec. 312
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 144
143
(oX 1) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way
the obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, or of any
owner or operator of any onshore facility or offshore facility to any
person or agency under any provision of law for damages to any
publicly owned or privately owned property resulting from a dis-
charge of any oil or hazardous substance or from the removal of
any such oil or hazardous substance.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preempting
any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any re-
quirement or liability with respect to the discharge of oil or hazard-
ous substance into any waters within such State, or with respect
to any removal activites related to such discharge.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or
modifying any other existing authority of any Federal department
agency, or instrumentality, relative to onshore or offshore facilities
under this Act or any other provision of law, or to affect any State
or local law not in conflict with this section.
ISubsection (p) was repealed by eec. 2002(bX4) of Public Law
10 1-380, 104 Stat. 507.1
(q) The President is authorized to establish, with repect to any
class or category of onshore or offshore facilities, a maximum limit
of liability under subsections (0(2) and (3) of this section of less
than $50,000,0000, but not less than, $8,000,000.
(r) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose, or au-
thorize the imposition of any limitation on liability under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974.
(s) The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund established under section
9509 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509) shall
be available to carry out subsections (b), (C), (d), (j), and (I) as those
subsections apply to discharges, and substantial threats of dis-
charges, of oil. Any amounts received by the United States under
this section shall be deposited in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
(33 U.S.C. 1321)
MARINE SANITATION DEVICES
SEC. 312. (a) For the purpose of this section, the term—
(1) “new vessel” includes every description of watercraft or
other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as
a means of transportation on the navigable waters, the con-
struction of which is initiated after promulgation of standards
and regulations under this section;
(2) “existing vessel” includes every description of
watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of
being used, as a means of transportation on the navigable wa-
ters, the construction of which is initiated before promulgation
of standards and regulations under this section;
(3) “public vessel” means a vessel owned or bareboat char-
tered and operated by the United States, by a State or political
subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when such
vessel is engaged in commerce;
(4) “United States” includes the States, the District of Co-
lumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Canal Zone, and the Trust Tern-
tory of the Pacific Islands;
(5) “marine sanitation device” includes any equipment for
installation on board a vessel which is designed to receive, re-
tain, treat, or discharge sewage, and any process to treat such
sewage;
(6) “sewage” means human body wastes and the wastes
from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain
body wastes except that, with respect to commercial vessels on
the Great Lakes, such term shall include graywater;
(7) “manufacture” means any person engaged in the manu-
facturing, assembling, or importation of marine sanitation de-
vices or of vessels subject to standards and regulations promul-
gated under this section;
(8) ‘person” means an individual, partnership, firm, cor-
poration, association, or agency of the United States, but does
not include an individual on board a public vessel;
(9) ‘discharge” includes, but is not limited to, any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping;
(10) ‘commercial vessels” means those vessels used in the
business of transporting property for compensation or hire, or
in transporting property in the business of the owner, lessee,
or operator of the vessel;
(11) “graywater” means galley, bath, and shower water;
(12) ‘discharge incidental to the normal operation of a ves-
sel”—
(A) means a discharge, including—
(i) graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather
deck runoff, ballast water, oil water separator efiluent,
and any other pollutant discharge from the operation
of a marine propulsion system, shipboard maneuver-
ing system, crew habitability system, or installed
major equipment, such as an aircraft carrier elevator
or a catapult, or from a protective, preservative, or ab-
sorptive application to the hull of the vessel; and
(ii) a discharge in connection with the testing,
maintenance, and repair of a system described in
clause (i) whenever the vessel is waterborne; and
(B) does not include—
(i) a discharge of rubbish, trash, garbage, or other
such material discharged overboard;
(ii) an air emission resulting from the operation of
a vessel propulsion system, motor driven equipment,
or incinerator; or
(iii) a discharge that is not covered by part 122.3
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on
the date of the enactment of subsection (n));
(13) ‘marine pollution control device” means any equip-
ment or management practice, for installation or use on board
a vessel of the Armed Forces, that is—
(A) designed to receive, retain, treat, control, or dis-
charge a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel; and
-------
Sec. 312
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 146
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT Sec. 312
(B) determined by the Administrator and the Sac-.
retary of Defense to be the most effective equipment or
management practice to reduce the environmental impacts
of the discharge consistent with the considerations set
forth in subsection (nX2XB); and
(14) “vessel of the Armed Forces” means—
(A) any vessel owned or operated by the Department
of Defense, other than a time or voyage chartered vessel;
and
(B) any vessel owned or operated by the Department
of Transportation that is designated by the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating as
a vessel equivalent to a vessel described in subparagraph
(bX 1) As soon as possible, after the enactment of this section
and subject to the provisions of section 104(j) of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator, after consultation with the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard Is operating, after giving appro-
priate consideration to the economic costs Involved, and within the
limits of available technology, shall promulgate Federal standards
of performance for marine sanitation devices (hereinafter in this
section referred to as “standards”) which shall be designed topre-
vent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage
into or upon the navigable waters from new vessels and existing
vessels, except vessels not equipped with installed toilet facilities.
Such standards and standards established under subsection
(c)( fl(B) of this section shall be consistent with maritime safety and
the marine and navigation laws and regulations and shall be co-
ordinated with the regulations Issued under this subsection by the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is oper-
ating shall promulgate regulations, which are consistent with
standards promulgated under this subsection and subsection (c) of
this section and with maritime safety and the marine and naviga-
tion laws and regulations governing the design, construction, in-
stallation, and operation of any marine sanitation device on board
such vessels.
(2) Any existing vessel equipped with a marine sanitation de-
vice on the date of promulgation of’ initial standards and regula-
tions under this section, which device is in compliance with such
initial standards and regulations, shall be deemed in compliance
with this section untIl such time as the device is replaced or is
found not to be in compliance with such initial standards and regu-
lations.
(cX1XA) Initial standards and regulations under this section
shall become effective for new vessels two years after promulption;
and for existing vessels five years after promulgation. Revisions of
standards and regulations shall be effective upon promulgation, un-
less another effective date is specified, except that no revision shall
take effect before the effective date of the standard or regulation
being revised.
(B) The Administrator shall, with respect to commercial vessels
on the Great Lakes, establish standards which require at a mini-
mum the equivalent of secondary treatment as defined under sec-
tion 304(d) of this Act. Such standards and regulations shall take
effect for existing vessels after such time as the Administrator de-
termines to be reasonable for the upgrading of marine sanitation
devices to attain such standard.
(2) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating with regard to his regulatory authority established by
this section, after consultation with the Administrator, may distin-
guish among classes, types, and sizes of vessels as well as between
new and existing vessels, and may waive applicability of standards
and regulations as necessary or appropriate for such classes, types,
and sizes of vessels (including existing vessels equipped with ma-
rine sanitation devices on the date of promulgation of the initial
standards required by this section), and, upon application, for indi-
vidual vessels.
(d) The provisions of this section and the standards and regula-
tions promulgated hereunder apply to vessels owned and operated
by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that
compliance would not be in the interest of national security. With
respect to vessels owned and operated by the Department of Do-
fense, regulations under the last sentence of subsection (bX 1) of
this section and certifications under subsection (gX2) of this section
shall be promulgated and issued by the Secretary of Defense
(e) Before the standards and regulations under thiB section are
promulgated, the Administrator and the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the
Secretary of State; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Treasury; the
Secretary of Commerce; other interested Federal agencies; and the
States and industries interested; and otherwise comply with the re-
quirements of section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code.
(fX1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), after the ef-
fective date of the initial standards and regulations promulgated
under this section, no State or political subdivision thereof shall
adopt or enforce any statute or regulation of such State or political
subdivision with respect to the design, manufacture, or installation
or use of any marine sanitation device on any vessel subject to the
provisions of this section.
(B) A State may adopt and enforce a statute or regulation with
respect to the design, manufacture, or installation or use of any
marine sanitation device on a houseboat, if such statute or regula-
tion is more stringent than the standards and regulations promul-
gated under this section. For purposes of this paragraph, the term
“houseboat” means a vessel which, for a period of time determined
by the State in which the vessel is located, is used primarily as a
residence and is not used primarily as a means of transportation.
(2) If, after promulgation of the initial standards and regula-
tions and prior to their effective date, a vessel is equipped with a
marine sanitation device in compliance with such standards and
regulations and the installation and operation of such device is in
accordance with such standards and regulations, ouch standards
and regulations shall, for the purposes of paragraph (1) of this sub-
section, become effective with respect to such vessel on the date of
such compliance.
145
-------
141 FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 312 Sec. 312
FEDERAL WATER POLLUIION CONTROL ACT 148
(3) Alter the effective date of the initial standards and regula-
tions promulgated under this section, if any State determines that
the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the
waters within such State require greater environmental protection,
such State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels
of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters, except
that no such prohibition shall apply until the Administrator deter-
mines that adeQuate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal
and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available
for such water to which such prohibition would apply. Upon appli-
cation of the State, the Administrator shall make such determina-
tion within 90 days of the date of such application.
(4XA) If the Administrator determines upon application by a
State that the protection and enhancement of the quality of speci-
fied waters within such State requires such a prohibition, he shall
by regulation completely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of
any sewage (whether treated or not) into such waters.
(B) Upon application by a State, the Administrator shall, by
regulation, establish a drinking water intake zone in any waters
within such State and prohibit the discharge of sewage from ves-
sels within that zone.
(g)(1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall sell,
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate
commerce, or import into the United States for sale or resale any
marine sanitation device manufactured after the effective date of
the standards and regulations promulgated under this section un-
less such device is in all material respects substantially the same
as a test device certified under this subsection.
(2) Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall so certify
a marine sanitation device if he determines, in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph, that it meets the appr priate stand-
ards and regulations promulgated under this section. The Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall teat
or require such testing of the device in accordance with procedures
set forth by the Administrator as to standards of performance and
for such other purposes as may be appropriate. If the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating determines
that the device is satisfactory from the standpoint of safety and
any other requirements of maritime law or regulation, and after
consideration of the design, installation, operation, material, or
other appropriate factors, he shall certify the device. Any device
manufactured by such manufacturer which is in all material re-
spects substantially the same as the certified teat device shall be
deemed to be in conformity with the appropriate standards and
regulations established under this section.
(3) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such
records, make such reports, and provide such information as the
Administrator or the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating may reasonably require to enable him to
determine whether such manufacturer has acted or is acting in
compliance with this section and regulations issued thereunder and
shall, upon request of an officer r employee duly deaipated by the
AahniniRtrator or the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, permit such officer or employee at rea-
sonable times to have access to and copy such records. All informa-
tion reported to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator or the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
or their representatives pursuant to this subsection which contains
or relates to a trade secret or other matter referred in section 1905
of title 18 of the United States Code shall be considered confiden-
tial for the purpose of that section, except that such information
may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned with car-
rying out this section. This paragraph shall not apply in the case
of the construction of a vessel by an individuaLfor his own use.
(h) After the effective date of standards and regulations pro-
mulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
(1) for the manufacturer of any vessel subject to such
standards and regulations to manufacture for sale, to sell or
offer for sale, or to distribute for sale or resale any such vessel
unless it is equipped with a marine sanitation device which is
in all material respects substantially the same as the appro-
priate teat device certified pursuant to this section;
(2) for any person, prior to the sale or delivery of a vessel
subject to such standards and regulations to the ultimate pur-
chaser, wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any cer-
tified marine sanitation device or element of design of such de-
vice installed in such vessel;
(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or
copying of records or to fail to make reports or provide infor-
mation required under this section; and
(4) for a vessel subject to such standards and regulations
to operate on the navigable waters of the United States, if such
vessel is not equipped with an operable marine sanitation de-
vice certified pursuant to this section.
(i) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdic-
tions to restrain violations of subsection (gXl) of this section and
subsections (hX 1) through (3) of this section. Actions to restrain
such violations shall be brought by, and in, the name of the United
States. in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena served
upon any person under this subsection, the district court of the
United States for any district in which such person is found or re-
sides or transacts business, upon application by the United States
and after notice to such person, shall have jurisdiction to issue an
order requiring such person to appear and give testimony or to ap-
pear and produce documents, and any failure to obey such order of
the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.
(j) Any person who violates subsection (gXl), clause (1) or (2)
of subsection (h), or subsection (nX8) shall be liable to a civil pen-
alty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. Any person who
violates clause (4) of subsection (h) of this section or any regulation
issued pursuant to this section shall be liable to a civil penalty of
not more than $2,000 for each violation. Each violation shall be a
separate offense. The Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating may assess and compromise any such
penalty. No penalty shall be assessed until the person charged
shall have been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on
such charge. In determining the amount of the penalty, or the
-------
149 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT Sec. 312
amount agreed upon in comprO!fll 5 the gravity of the violation,
and the demonstrated good faith of the person charged in attempt’
ing to achieve rapid compliance, after notification of a violation,
shall be considered by said Secretary
(k) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Sec-
retary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
and he may utilize by agreement, with or without reimbursement,
law enforcement officers or other personnel and facilities of the Ad-
ministrator, other Federal gencieB, or the States to carry out the
provisions of this section. The provisions of this section may also
be enforced by a State.
(1) Anyone authorized by the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating to enforce the provisions of this
section may, except as to public vessels, (1) board and inspect any
vessel upon the navigable waters of the United States and (2) exe-
cute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of
competent jurisdictiOfi.
(in) In the case of Guam and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, actions arising under this section may be brought in the
district court of Guam, and in the case of the Virgin Islands such
actions may be brought in the district court of the Virgin Islands.
In the case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pa-
cific Islands, such actions may be brought in the District Court of
the United States for the District of Hawaii and such court shall
have jurisdictiOn of such actions. In the case of the Canal Zone,
such actions may be brought in the District Court for the District
of the Canal Zone.
(n) UNIFORM NATIONAL DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR VESSELS
OF THE ARMED FoRCES.—
(1) APPUCAB1h2T .Th35 subsectiOn shall apply to vessels
of the Armed Forces and discharges, other than sewage, inci-
dental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces,
unless the Secretaly of Defense finds that compliance with this
subsection would not be in the national security interests of
the United States.
(2) DETERMINATION OF DISCHARGES REQUIRED TO BE CON-
TROLLED BY MARINE POLLUTION CONTROL flEV1CES.
(A) IN GENERAL.’Th9 Administrator and the Sec-
retary of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. the
Secretary of Commerce, and interested States, shall jointly
determine the discharges incidental to the normal oper-
ation of a vessel of the Armed Forces for which It is rea-
sonable and practicable to require use of a marine pollu-
tion control device to mitigate adverse impacts on the ma-
rine environment 0 tWith8taflthng subsection (aX1) of sec-
tion 553 of title 5, United States Code, the Administrator
and the Secretary of Defense shall promulgate the deter-
minations in accordance with such section. The Secretary
of Defense shall req ure the use of a marine pollution con-
trol device on board a vessel of the Armed Forces in any
case in which it is determined that the use of such a device
is reasonable and practicable.
Sec. 312 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 150
(B) CONSIDERA ’flONS ” .th making a determination
under subparagraPh (A), the Administrator and the Sec-
retary of Defense shall take into consideratlon
(i) the nature of the discharge
(ii) the environmental effects of the discharge;
(iii) the practicabilitY of using the marine pollu-
tion control device;
(iv) the effect that installation or use of the ma-
rine pollution control device would have on the oper-
ation or operational capability of the vessel;
(v) applicable United States law;
(vi) applicable jnternatiOflal standards and
(vii) the economic costs of the installation and use
of the marine pollution control device.
(3) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MARINE POLLUTION CON-
TROL DEVICES.
(A) IN OENEEAL._F0T each discharge for which a ma-
rine pollution control device is determined to be required
under paragraph (2), the Administrator and the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the Coast Guard is operatiflg the Sec-
retary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, other inter-
ested Federal agencies. and interested States, shall jointly
promulgate Federal standards of performance for each ma
rifle pollution control device required with respect to the
discharge. 0 tWithstandi g subsection (a)( 1) of section 553
of title 5, United States Code, the Administrator and the
Secretary of Defense shall promulgate the standards in ac-
cordance with such section.
(B) CONSIDER T1ONS.— 1 ” promulgating standards
under this paragraph, the Administrator and the Secretary
of Defense shall take into consideration the matters set
forth in paragraph (2XB).
(C) CLASSES, TYPES, AND SIZES OF VESSELS.—Tbs
standards promulgated under this paragraph may—
(i) distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of
vessels
(ii) distinguish between new and existing vessels;
and
(iii) provide for a waiver of the applicability of the
standards as necessary or appropriate to a particular
class, type, age, or size of vessel.
(4) REGULATIONS FOR USE OF MARINE POLLUTION CONTROl.
DEvIcES.—The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with
the Administrator and the Secretary of the department ifl
which the Coast Guard is operating, shall promulgate such
regulations governing the design, construction, installation,
and use of marine pollution control devices on board vessels of
the Armed Forces as are necessary to achieve the standards
promulgated under paragraph (3).
(5) DEADLINES; EFFECTWE DATE.—
(A) DETERMINATIONS_The Administrator and the
Secretary of Defense shall—
-------
151 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 312 Sec. 312
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 152
(I) make the initial determinations under para-
graph (2) not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection; and
(ii) every 5 years.—
(I) review the determinations; and
(H) if necessary, revise the determinations
based on significant new information.
(B) STANDARDS—The Administrator and the Secretary
of Defense shall—
(1) promulgate standards of performance for a ma-
rine pollution control device under paragraph (3) not
later than 2 years after the date of a determination
under paragraph (2) that the marine pollution control
device is required; and
(ii) every 5 years—
(I) review the standards; and
(H) if necessary, revise the standards, consist-
ent with paragraph (3XB) and based on significant
new information.
(C) REGULATIONS—The Secretary of Defense shall
promulgate regulations with respect to a marine pollution
control device under paragraph (4) as soon as practicable
after the Administrator and the Secretary of Defense pro-
mulgate standards with respect to the device under para-
graph (3), but not later than 1 year after the Adminis-
trator and the Secretary of Defense promulgate the stand-
ards. The regulations promulgated by the Secretary of De-
fense under paragraph (4) shall become effective upon pro-
mulgation unless another effective date is specified in the
regulations.
(D) PETITION FOR REVIEW.—The Governor of any State
may submit a petition requesting that the Secretary of De-
fense and the Administrator review a determination under
paragraph (2) or a standard under paragraph (3), if there
is significant new information, not considered previously,
that could reasonably result in a change to the particular
determination or standard alter consideration of the mat-
ters set forth in paragraph (2XB). The petition shall be ac-
companied by the scientific and technical information on
which the petition is based. The Administrator and the
Secretary of Defense shall grant or deny the petition not
later than 2 years after the date of receipt of the petition.
(6) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—
(A) PROHIBITION ON REGULATION BY STATES OR POUTI-
CAL SUBDIVISIONS OF STATES—Beginning on the effective
date of—
(i) a determination under paragraph (2) that it is
not reasonable and practicable to require use of a ma-
rine pollution control device regarding a particular dis-
charge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
of the Armed Forces; or
(ii) regulations promulgated by the Secretary of
Defense under paragraph (4);
except as provided in paragraph (7), neither a State nor a
political subdivision of a State may adopt or enforce any
statute or regulation of the State or political subdivision
with respect to the discharge or the design, construction,
installation, or use of any marine pollution control device
required to control discharges from a vessel of the Armed
Forces.
(B) FEDERAL LAWS.—ThiS subsection shall not affect
the application of section 311 to discharges incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel.
(7) EsrARLISHMENT OP STATE NO-DISCHARGE ZONES.—
(A) STATE PROHIBITION.—
(i) IN GENERAL—After the effective date of—
(I) a determination under paragraph (2) that
it is not reasonable and practicable to require use
of a marine pollubon control device regarding a
particular discharge incidental to the normal oper-
ation of a vessel of the Armed Forces; or
(H) regulations promulgated by the Secretary
of Defense under paragraph (4);
if a State determines that the protection and enhance-
ment of the quality of some or all of the waters within
the State require greater environmental protection,
the State may prohibit 1 or more discharges incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel, whether treated or
not treated, into the waters. No prohibition shall apply
until the Administrator makes the determinations de-
scribed in subclauses (II) and (III) of subparagraph
(BX1).
(ii) DOCUMENTATION—TO the extent that a prohi-
bition under this paragraph would apply to vessels of
the Armed Forces and not to other types of vessels,
the State Bhall document the technical or environ-
mental basis for the distinction.
(B) PROHIBITION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.—
U) IN GENERAL—Upon application of a State, the
Administrator shall by regulation prohibit the dis-
charge from a vessel of 1 or more discharges incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel, whether treated or
not treated, into the waters covered by the application
if the Administrator determines that.—
(1) the protection and enhancement of the
quality of the specified waters within the State re-
quire a prohibition of the discharge into the wa-
ters;
(II) adequate facilities for the safe and sani-
tary removal of the discharge ,ihcidental to the
normal operation of a vessel a4e reasonably avail-
able for the waters to which th prohibition would
apply; and -,
( III) the prohibition will not have the effect of
discriminating against a vessel of the Armed
Forces by reason of the ownership or operation by
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 313 Sec. 313
FEDERAL. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 154
153 _____
the Federal Government, or the military function,
of the vessel.
(ii) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.—The Adminis-
trator shall approve or disapprove an application sUb-
mitted under clause (i) not later than 90 days after the
date on which the application is submitted to the Ad-
ministrator. Notwithstanding clause (iXil), the Admin-
istrator shall not disapprove an application for the
sole reason that there are not adequate facilities to re-
move any discharge incidental to the normal operation
of a vessel from vessels of the Armed Forces.
(C) APPLICABILITY TO FOREIGN FLAGGED VESSELS.—A
prohibition under this paragraph—
(1) shall not impose any design, construction, man-
ning, or equipment standard on a foreign flagged ves-
sel engaged in innocent passage unless the prohibition
implements a generally accepted international rule or
standard and
(ii) that relates to the prevention, reduction, and
control of pollution shall not apply to a foreign flag ed
vessel engaged in transit passage unless the prohibi-
tion implements an applicable international regulation
regarding the discharge of oil, oily waste, or any other
noxious substance into the waters.
(8) PROHIBITION RELATING TO VESSELS OF ThE ARMED
FORCFS.—AfteT the effective date of the regulations promul-
gated by the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (4), it shall
be unlawful for any vessel of the Armed Forces subject to the
regulations to—
(A) operate In the navigable waters of the United
States or the waters of the contiguous zone, if the vessel
is not equipped with any required marine pollution control
device meeting standards established under this sub-
section; or
(B) discharge overboard any discharge incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel In waters with respect to
which a prohibition on the discharge has been established
under paragraph (7).
(9) ENFORCEMENT.—Thls subsection shall be enforceable,
as provided in subsections (j) and (k) , against any agency of the
United States responsible for vessels of the Armed Forces not-
withstanding any immunity asserted by the agency.
(33 U.S.C. 1322)
FEDERAL FACILITIES POLU7FION CONTROL
Szc. 313. (a) Each department, agency, or instrumentality of
the executive, leçislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Gov-
ernment (1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or (2)
engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in the dis-
charge or runoff of pollutants, and each officer, agent, or employee
thereof in the performance of his official duties, shall be subject to,
and comply with, all Federal. State, interstate, and local require-
ments, administrative authority, and process and sanctions respect-
ing the control and abatement of water pollution in the same man-
ner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity includ-
ing the payment of reasonable service charges. The precedifl sen-
tence shall apply (A) to any requirement whether substantive or
procedural (including any recordkeeping or reporting requirement,
any requirement respecting permits and any other requirement,
whatsoever), (B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or local ad-
ministrative authority, and (C) to any process and sanction, wheth-
er enforced in Federal State, or local courts or in any other man-
ner. This subsection shall apply notwithstanding any immunity of
such agencies, officers, agents, or employees under any law or rule
of law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any
department, agency, or instrumentalitY of the Federal Government,
or any officer, agent, or employee thereof in the performance of his
official duties, from removing to the appropriate Federal district
court any proceeding to which the department, agency, or instru-
mentality or officer, agent, or employee thereof is subject pursuant
to this section, and any such proceeding may be removed in accord-
ance with 28 U.S.C. 1441 et seq. No officer, agent, or employee of
the United States shall be personally liable for any civil penalty
arising from the performance of his official duties, for which he is
not otherwise liable, and the United States shall be liable only for
those civil penalties arising under Federal law or imposed by a
State or local court to enforce an order or the process of such court.
The President may exempt any effluent source of any department,
agency, or instrumentalitY in the executive branch from compliance
with any such a requirement if he determines it to be in the para-
mount interest of the United States to do so; except that no exemp-
tion may be granted from the requirements of section 306 or 307
of this Act. No such exemptions shall be granted due to lack of ap-
propriation unless the President shall have specifically requested
such appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the Con-
gress shall have failed to make available such requested appropria-
tion. Any exemption shall be for a period not in excess of one year,
but additional exemptions may be granted for periods of not to ex-
ceed one year upon the President’s making a new determination.
The President shall report each January to the Congress all exemp-
tions from the requirements of this section granted during the pre-
ceding calendar year, together with his reason for granting such ex-
emption. In addition to any such exemption of a particular effluent
source, the President may, if he determines it to be in the para-
mount interest of the United States to do so, issue regulations ex-
empting from compliance with the requirements of this section any
weaponry, equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other classes or
categories of property, and access to such property, which are
owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United States (in-
cluding the Coast Guard) or by the National Guard of any State
and which are uniquely military in nature. The President shall re-
consider the need for such regulations at three-year intervals.
(b)( 1) The Administrator shall coordinate with the head of each
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government
having jurisdiction over any property or facility utilizing federally
owned wastewater facilities to develop a program of cooperation for
utilizing wastewater control systems utilizing those innovative
-------
155 FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 314 Sec. 314
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 156
treatment processes and techniques for which guidelines have been
promulgated under section 304(dX3). Such program shall include
an inventory of property and facilities which could utilize such
processea and techniques.
(2) Construction shall not be initiated for facilities for treat-
ment of wastewater at any Federal property or facility after Sep.
tember 30, 1979, if alternative methods for wastewater treatment
at such property or facility utilizing innovative treatment processes
and techniques, including but not limited to methods utilizing recy-
cle and reuse techniques and land treatment are not utilized, un-
less the life cycle cost of the alternative treatment works exceeds
the life cycle cost of the most cost effective alternative by more
than 15 per centum. The Administrator may waive the application
of this paragraph in any case where the Administrator determines
it to be in the public interest, or that compliance with this para-
graph would interfere with the orderly compliance with the condi-
tions of a permit issued pursuant to section 402 of this Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1323)
CLEAN LAKES
SEC. 314. (a) ESTABLISHMENT AND SCOPE or PRooa M.—
(I) STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS—Each State on a bien-
nial basis shall prepare and submit to the Administrator for
his approval—
(A) an identification and classification according to eu-
trophic condition of all publicly owned lakes in such State;
(B) a description of procedures, processes, and meth-
ods (including land use requirements), to control sources of
pollution of such lakes;
(C) a description of methods and procedures, in con-
junction with appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the
quality of such lakes;
(D) methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful
effects of high acidity, includin? innovative methods of
neutralizing and restoring bulTenng capacity of lakes and
methods of removin from lakes toxic metals and other
toxic substances mobilized by high acidity;
(E) a list and description of those publicily owned
lakes in such State for which uses are known to be im-
paired, including those lakes which are known not to meet
applicable water quality standards or which require imple-
mentation of control programs to maintain compliance
with applicable standards and those lakes in which water
quality has deteriorated as a result of high acidity that
may reasonably be due to acid deposition; and
(F) an assessment of the status and trends of water
quality in lakes in such State, including but not limited to,
the nature and extent of pollution loading from point and
nonpoint sources and the extent to which the use of lakes
is impaired as a result of such pollution, particularly with
respect to toxic pollution.
(2) SUBMISSION AS PART OF 305(bXl) REPORT.—The informa-
‘required under paragraph (1) shall be included In the re-
port required under section 305(bXl) of this Act, beginning
with the report required under such section by April 1, 1988.
(3) REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR—Not later than 180 days
alter receipt from the States of the biennial information re-
quired under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall submit to
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of water
quality in lakes in the United States, including the effective-
ness of the methods and procedures described in paragraph
(1XD).
(4) ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT—Beginning after April 1,
1988, a State must have submitted the information required
under paragraph (1) in order to receive grant assistance under
this section.
(b) The Administrator shall provide financial assistance to
States in order to carry out methods and procedures approved by
him under subsection (a) of this section. The Administrator shall
provide financial assistance to States to prepare the identification
and classification surveys required in subsection (aX 1) of this sec-
tion.
(cXl) The amount granted to any State for any fiscal year
under subsection (b) of this section shall not exceed 70 per centum
of the funds expended by such State in such year for carrying out
approved methods and procedures under subsection (a) of this sec-
tion.
(2) There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973; $100,000,000 for the fiscal year
1974; $150,000,000 for the fiscal year 1975, $50,000,000 for fiscal
year 1977, $60.000,000 for fiscal year 1978, $60,000,000 for fiscal
year 1979, $60,000,000 fore fiscal year 1980, $30,000,000 for fiscal
year 1981, $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $30,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990 for grants
to States under subsection (b) of this section which such sums shall
remain available until expended. The Administrator shall provide
for an equitable distribution of such sums to the States with ap-
proved methods and procedures under subsection (a) of this section.
(d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.—
(1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—The Administrator is au-
thorized and directed to establish and conduct at locations
throughout the Nation a lake water quality demonstration pro-
gram. The program shall, at a minimum—
(A) develop cost effective technologies for the control of
pollutants to preserve or enhance lake water quality while
optimizing multiple lakes uses;
(B) control nonpoint sources of pollution which are
contributing to the degradation of water quality in lakes;
(C) evaluate the feasibility of implementing regional
consolidated pollution control strategies;
(D) demonstrate environmentally preferred techniques
for the removal and disposal of contaminated lake sedi-
ments;
-------
Sec. 314 Sec. 315
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 158
151
FEDERAL WATER POWITION CONTROL ACT
(E) develop improved methods for the removal of silt,
stumps, aquatic growth, and other obstructions which im-
pair the quality of lakes;
(F) construct and evaluate gilt traps and other devices
or equipment to prevent or abate the deposit of sediment
in lakes; and
(G) demonstrate the costs and benefits of utilizing
dredged material from lakes in the reclamation of de-
spoiled land.
(2) GEOGRAPHICAL REQUUIEMENTS.—Dernonstration
pr jects authorized by this subsection shall be undertaken to
reflect a variety of geographical and environmental conditions.
As a priority, the Administrator shall undertake demonstration
projects at Lake Champlain, New York and Verznont Lake
Houston, Texas; Beaver Lake, Arkansas; Greenwood La ie and
Beicher Creek, New Jersey; Deal Lake, New Jersey; Alcyon
Lake, New Jersey; Gorton’s Pond, Rhode Island; Lake Wash-
inaton, Rhode laland Lake Bomoseen, Vermont; Sauk Lake,
Minnesota; and Lake Worth, Texas.
(3) Rxpowrs.—By January 1, 1997 and January 1 of every
odd-numbered year thereafter, the Acfzninistrator shall report
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate on work undertaken pursuant
to this subsection. Upon completion of the program authorized
by this subsection, the Administrator shall submit to such com-
mittees a final report on the results of such program, along
with recommendations for further measures to improve the
water quality of the Nation’s lakes.
(4) Aw1 10m7.*TION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
(A) IN GENERAL—There is authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out this subsection not to exceed
$40,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1986, to remain available until expended.
(B) SPECIAL AL7flIORIZATIONS.—
(i) AMOUNr.—There Is authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out subsection (b) with respect to sub-
section (aX1XD) not to exceed $15,000,000 for fiscal
years beghiniTig after September 30, 1986, to remain
available until expended.
(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF gurws.—The Administrator
shall provide for an equitable distribution of sums ap-
propriated pursuant to this subparagraph among
States carrying out approved methods and procedures.
Such distribution shall be based on the relative needs
of each such State for the mitigation of the harmful al-
fects on lakes and other surface waters of high acidity
that may reasonably be duo to acid deposition or acid
mine drainage.
(iii) GRANTS AS ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—The
amount of any grant to a State under this subpara-
graph shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any
other Federal financial assistance.
NATIONAL STUDY COMMISSION
SEC. 315. (a) There is established a National Study Comr 1 y
sion, which shall make a full and complete investigation and study
of all of the technological aspects of achieving, and all aspects of
the total economic, social, and environmental effects of achieving or
not achieving, the emuent limitations and goals set forth for 1983
in section 30 1(bX2) of this Act.
(b) Such Commission shall be composed of fifteen members, in.
cluding five members of the Senate. who are members of the Public
Works committee, appointed by the President of the Senate, five
members of the House, who are members of the Public Works com-
mittee, appointed by the Speaker of the House, and five members
of the public appointed by the President. The Chairman of such
Commission shall be elected from among its members.
(c) In the conduct of such study, the Commission is authorized
to contract with the National Academy of Sciences and the Na-
tional Academy of Engineering (acting through the National Re-
search Council), the National Institute of Ecology, Brookings Insti-
tution, and other nongoverTiiflefltal entities, for the investigation of
matters within their competence.
(d) The heads of the departments. agencies and instrumental-
ities of the executive branch of the Federal Government shall co-
operate with the Commission in carrying out the requirements of
this section, and shall furnish to the Commission such information
as the Commission deems necessary to carry out this section.
(e) A report shall be submitted to the Congress of the results
of such investigation and study, together with recommendations,
not later than three years after the date of enactment of this title.
(I) The members of the Commission who are not officers or em-
ployees of the United States, while attending conferences or meet-
ings of the Commission or while otherwise serving at the request
of the Chairman shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate
not in excess of the maximum rate of pay for grade GS.-18, as pro-
vided in the General Schedule under section 5332 of title V of the
United States Code, including traveltime and while away from
their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed trav-
el expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized
by law (5 U.S.C. 73b—2) for persons in the Government service em-
ployed intermittently.
(g) In addition to authority to appoint personnel subject to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments
in the competitive service, and to pay such personnel in accordance
with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay
rates, the Commission shall have authority to enter into contracts
with private or public organizations who shall furnish the Commis-
sion with such administrative and technical personnel as may be
necessary to carry out the purpose of this section. Personnel fur-
nished by such organizations under this subsection are not, and
shall not be considered to be, Federal employees for any purposes.
but in the performance of their duties shall be guided by the stand-
ards which apply to employees of the legislative branches under
(33 U.S.C. 1324)
-------
159 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 317 Sec. 318
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 180
rules 41 and 43 of the Senate and House of Representatives, re-
spectively.
(h) There is authorized to be appropriated, for use in carrying
out this section, not to exceed $17,250,000.
(33 U.S.C. 1325)
THERMAL DISCHARGES
SEC. 316. (a) With respect to any point source otherwise sub-
ject to the provisions of section 301 or section 306 of this Act,
whenever the owner or operator of any such source, after oppor-
tunity for public hearing, can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) that any emuent limi-
tation proposed for the control of the thermal component of any dis-
charge from such source will require effluent limitations more
stringent than necessary to assure the projection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
in and on the body of water into which the discharge is to be made,
the Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) may impose an ef
fluent limitation under such sections for such plant, with respect
to the thermal component of such discharge (taking into account
the interaction of such thermal component with other pollutants),
that will assure the projection and propagation of a balanced, in.
digenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on that
body of water.
(b) Any standard established pursuant to section 301 or section
306 of this Act and applicable to a point source shall require that
the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water in-
take structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing
adverse environmental impact.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any point
source of a discharge having a thermal component, the modification
of which point source is commenced after the date of enactment of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and
which, as modified, meets effluent limitations established under
section 301 or, if more stringent, effluent limitations established
under section 303 and which effluent limitations will assure protec-
tion and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shell-
fish, fish, and wildlife in or on the water into which the discharge
is made, shall not be subject to any more strin ent effluent limita-
tion with respect to the thermal component of its discharge during
a ten year period beginning on the date of completion of such modi-
fication or during the period of depreciation or amortization of such
facility for the purpose of section 167 or 169 (or both) of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever period ends first.
i33 u.s.c. 1326)
FINANCiNG STUDY
SEc. 317. (a) The Administrator shall continue to investigate
and study the feasibility of alternate methods of financing the cost
of preventing, controlling and abating pollution as directed in the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91—224), in-
chiding, but not limited to, the feasibility of establishing a pollution
abatement trust fund. The results of such investigation and study
shall be reported to the Congress not later than two years after en-
actment of this title, together with recommendations of the Admin-
istrator for financing the programs for preventing, controlling and
abating pollution for the fiscal years beginning after fiscal year
1976, including any necessary legislation.
(b) There is authorized to be appropriated for use in carrying
out this section, not to exceed $1,000,000.
(33 U.S.C. 1327)
AQUACULTURE
SEc. 318. (a) The Administrator is authorized, after public
hearings, to permit the discharge of a specific pollutant or pollut-
ants under controlled conditions associated with an approved aqua-
culture project under Federal or State supervision pursuant to sec-
tion 402 of this Act.
(b) The Administrator shall by regulation establish any proce-
dures and guidelines which the Administrator deems necessary to
carry out this section. Such regulations shall require the applica-
tion to such discharge of each criterion, factor, procedure, and re-
quirement applicable to a permit issued under section 402 of this
title, as the Administrator determines necessary to carry out the
objective of this Act.
Cc) Each State desiring to administer its own permit program
within its jurisdiction for discharge of a specific pollutant or pollut-
ants under controlled conditions associated with an approved aqua-
culture project may do so if upon Bubmission of such program the
Administrator determines such program is adequate to carry out
the objective of this Act.
(33 u.s_c. 1328)
SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) STATE ASSESSMENT REPORIS.—
(1) CONTENTS.—The Governor of each State shall, after no-
tice and opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit
to the Administrator for approval, a report which—
(A) identifies those navigable waters within the State
which, without additional action to control nonpoint
sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to at-
tain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the
goals and requirements of this Act;
(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of
nonpoint sources or, where appropriate, particular
nonpoint sources which add significant pollution to each
portion of the navigable waters identified under subpara-
graph (A) in amounts which contribute to such portion not
meeting such water quality standards or such goals and
requirements;
(C) describes the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for identifying l,°st
management practices and measures to control each flt-
egory and subcategory of nonpoint sources and, wher” ap-
propriate, particular nonpoint sources identified under
subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum e tont
-------
FEDERAL WATER POUU1IOII CONTROL ACT
Sec. 31! Sec. 319
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 162
hi
practicable, the level of pollution resulting from such cat-
egory aubcategory, or source; and
(L)) identifies and describes State and local programs
for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to,
and improving the quality of, each such portion of the nav-
igable waters, including but not limited to those programs
which are receiving Federal assistance under subsections
(h) and (I).
(2) INFORMATION USED IN PREPARATION—In developing the
report required by this section, the State (A) may rely upon in-
formation developed pursuant to sections 208, 303(e), 304(f),
305(b), and 314, and other information as appropriate, and (B)
may utilize appropriate elements of the waste treatment man-
agement plans developed pursuant to sections 208(b) and 303,
jo the extent such elements are consistent with and fulfill the
requirements of this section.
(b) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—
(1) IN GENERAL—The Governor of each State, for that
State or in combination with adjacent States, shall, after notice
and opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit to the -
Administrator for approval a management program which such
State proposes to implement in the first four fiscal years begin-
ning after the date of submission of such management program
for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to the
navigable waters within the State and improving the quality of
such waters.
(2) SPEcIFIC CONTENTS.—EaCh management program pro-
posed for implementation under this subsection shall include
each of the followinç
(A) An identification of the beet management practices
and measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollut-
ant loadings resulting from each category, eubcategory, or
particular nonpoint source designated under paragraph
(1XB), taking into account the impact of the practice on
ground water quality.
(B) An Identification of programs (including, as appro-
pilate, nonregulatory or regulatory proçrams for enforce-
ment, technical assistance financial assistance, education,
training, technology transFer, and demonstration projects)
to achieve Implementation of the best management prac-
tices by the categories, subcategories, and particular
nonpoint sources designated under subparagraph (A).
(C) A schedule containing annual milestones for (i) uti-
lization of the program implementation methods identified
in subparagraph (B), and (ii) Implementation of the beat
management practices Identified In subparagraph (A) by
the categories, subcategories, or particular nonpoint
sources designated under paragraph (1XB). Such schedule
shall provide for ntili’atiou of the beet management prac-
tices at the earliest practicable date.
(D) A certification of the attorney general of the State
or States (or the chief attorney of any State water pollu-
tion control agency which has Independent legal counsel)
that the laws of the State or States, as the case may be,
provide adequate authority to implement such manage-
ment program or, if there is not such adequate authority.
a list of such additional authorities as will be necessar! to
implement such management program. A schedule dnd
commitment by the State or States to seek such additional
authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
(E) Sources of Federal and other assistance and fund-
ing (other than assistance provided under subsections (h)
and (i)) which will be available in each of such fiscal years
for supporting implementation of such practices and meas-
ures and the purposes for which such assistance will be
used in each of such fiscal years.
(F) An identification of Federal financial assistance
programs and Federal development projects for which the
State will review individual assistance applications or de-
velopment projects for their effect on water quality pursu-
ant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372
as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine whether
such assistance applications or development projects would
be consistent with the program prepared under this sub-
section; for the purposes of this subparagraph, identifica-
tion shall not be limited to the assistance programs or de-
velopment projects subject to Executive Order 12372 but
may include any programs listed in the most recent Cata-
log of Federal Domestic Assistance which may have an ef-
fect on the purposes and objectives of the State’s nonpoint
source pollution management program.
(3) UTILIZATION OF LOCAL AND PRIVATE EXpEins.—In devel-
oping and implementing a management program under this
subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
involve local public and private agencies and organizations
which have expertise in control of nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion.
(4) DEVELOPMENT ON WATERSHED BAS1S.—A State shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a
management program under this subsection on a watershed-
by-watershed basis within such State.
(c) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—
(1) COOPERATION REQUIREMENT.AnY report required by
subsection (a) and any management program and report re-
quired by subsection (b) shall be developed in cooperation with
local, substate regional, and interstate entities which are ac-
tively planning for the implementation of nonpoint source pol-
lution controls and have either been certified by the Adminis-
trator in accordance with section 208, have worked jointly with
the State on water quality management planning under section
205(j), or have been designated by the State legislative body or
Governor as water quality management planning agencies for
their geographic areas.
(2) TIME PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS AND MANAGE-
MENT PROCRAMS.—Each report and management program shall
be submitted to the Administrator during the 18-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this section.
-------
163 FEDERAL WATER POU.UTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 319 Sec. 319
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 164
(d) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF REPORTS AND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS.—
(1) DEADLINE.—Subject to paragraph (2), not later than
180 days after the date of submission to the Administrator of
any report or management program under this section (other
than subsections (h), (i), and (k)), the Administrator shall ei-
ther approve or disapprove such report or management pro-
gram, as the case may be. The Administrator may approve a
portion of a management program under this subsection. If the
Administrator does not disapprove a report, management pro-
gram, or portion of a management program in such 180-day pe-
riod, such report, management programs or portion shall be
deemed approved for purposes of this section.
(2) PROCEDURE FOR DISAPPROVAL.—If, after notice and op-
portun4y for public comment and consultation with appro-
priate Federal and State agencies and other interested per-
sons, the Administrator determines that—
(A) the proposed management program or an r portion
thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection (bX2)
of this section or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or in
part, the goals and requirements of this Act;
(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate re-
sources are not available, to implement such program or
portion;
(C) the schedule for implementing such program or
portion is not sufficiently expeditious; or
(D) the practices and measures proposed in such pro-
gram or portion are not adequate to reduce the level of pol-
lution in navigable waters in the State resulting from
nonpoint sources and to improve the quality of navigable
waters in the State;
the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the
proposed program notify the State of any revisions or modifica-
tions necessary to obtain approval. The State shall thereupon
have an additional 3 months to submit its revised management
program and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove
such revised program within three months of receipt.
(3) F*n.uRE OF SFATE TO SUBMIT REPORT.—lf a Governor of
a State does not submit the report required by subsection (a)
within the period specified by subsection (cX2), the Adminis-
trator shall, within 30 months after the date of the enactment
of this section, prepare a report for such State which makes
the identifications required by paragraphs (1XA) and (1XB) of
subsection (a). Upon completion of the requirement of the pre-
ceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for comment,
the Administrator shall report to Congress on his actions pur-
suant to this section.
(e) LOCAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—
If a State fails to submit a management program under subsection
(b) or the Administrator does not approve such a management pro-
gram, a local public agency or organization which has expertise in,
and authority to, control water pollution resulting from nonpoint
sources in any area of such State which the Administrator deter-
mines is of sufficient geographic size may, with approval of such
State, request the Administrato’- to provide, and the Administrator
shall provide, technical assistance to such agency or organization
in developing for such area a management program which is de-
scribed in subsection (b) and can be approved pursuant to sub-
section (d). After development of such management program, such
agency or organization shall submit such management program to
the Administrator for approval. If the Administrator approves such
management program, such agency or organization shall be eligible
to receive financial assistance under subsection (h) for implementa-
tion of such management program as if such agency or organization
were a State for which a report submitted under subsection (a) and
a management program submitted under subsection (b) were a -
proved under this section. Such financial assistance shall be su -
ject to the same terms and conditions as assistance provided to a
State under subsection (h).
(fl TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE.—Upon request of a
State, the Administrator may provide technical assistance to such
State in developing a management program approved under sub-
section (b) for those portions of the navigable waters requested by
such State.
(g) INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.—
(1) CoNvENING OF CONFERENCE; NOTIFICATION; PURPOSE.—
If any portion of the navigable waters in any State which is
implementing a management program approved under this
section is not meeting applicable water quality standards or
the goals and requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or
in part, of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State,
such State may petition the Administrator to convene, and the
Administrator 8hall convene, a management conference of all
States which contribute significant pollution resulting from
nonpoint sources to such portion. If, on the basis of information
available, the Administrator determines that a State is not
meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and
requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of sig-
nificant pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, the
Administrator shall notify such States. The Administrator may
convene a management conference under this paragraph not
later than 180 days after giving such notification, whether or
not the State which is not meeting such standards requests
such conference. The purpose of such conference shall be to de-
velop an agreement among such States to reduce the level of
pollution in such portion resulting from nonpoint sources and
to improve the water quality of such portion. Nothing in such
agreement shall supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of
water which have been established by interstate water com-
pacts, Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws. This sub-
section shall not apply to any pollution which is subject to the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The requirement
that the Administrator convene a management conft.rence
shall not be subject to the provisions of section 505 of this Act.
(2) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENT—TO the
extent that the States reach agreement through such con-
ference, the management programs of the States whkh are
parties to such agreements and which contribute significant
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 319 Sec. 319
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 16$
pollution to the navigable watere or portions thereof not meet-
ing applicable water quality standards or goals and require-
ments of this Act will be revised to reflect such agreement.
Such management programs shall be consistent with Federal
and State law.
(h) Ga rrr PROGRAM.—
(1) Gwns FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT PRO-
GRAMS—Upon application of a State for which a report submit-
ted under subsection (a) and a management program submit-
ted under subsection (b) is approved under this section, the Ad-
ministrator shall make grants, subject to such terms and con-
ditions as the Administrator considers appropriate, under this
subsection to such State for the purpose of assisting the State
in implementing such management program. Funds reserved
pursuant to section 205(jX5) of this Act may be used to develop
and implement such management program.
(2) APPUCATIONS.—Afl application for a grant under this
subsection in any fiscal year shall be in such form and shall
contain such other information as the Administrator may re-
quire, including an identification and description of the best
manaçement practices and measures which the State proposes
to assist, encourage, or require In such year with the Federal
assistance to be provided under the grant.
(3) FEDERAL SHABE.—The Federal share of the cost of each
management program implemented with Federal assistance
under this subsection in any fiscal year shall not exceed 60
percent of the cost incurred by the State in implementing such
management program and shall be made on condition that the
non-Federal share Is provided from non-Federal sources.
(4) LIMITATION oN 0 l.r ouprrs._Notwithstanding any
other provision of this subsection, not more than 15 percent of
the amount appropriated to carry out this subsection may be
used to make pants to any one State, including any grants to
any local public agency or organization with authority to con-
trol pollution from nonpoint sources in any area of such State.
(5) PRIORITY FOR EFFECTIVE MECHANISMS.—FOr each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 1987, the Administrator
may give priority in mi’king grants under this subsection, and
shall give consideration in determining the Federal share of
any such pant, to States which have implemented or are pro-
posing to implement management programs which will—
(A) control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint
source pollution problems, Including, but not limited to,
problems resulting from mining activities;
(B) implement innovative methods or practices for con-
trolling nonpoint sources of pollution, including regulatory
programs where the Administrator deems appropriate;
(C) control interstate nonpoint source pollution prob-
lems; or
(D) carry out Found water quality protection activities
which the Administrator determines are part of a com-
prehensive nonpoint source pollution control program, in-
cluding research, planning, ground water assessments,
demonstration programs, .nlbrcement, technical assist-
ance, education, and training to protect ground wator qual-
ity from nonpoint sources of pollution.
(6) AvAILABILITY FOR OBLIGATION.—The funds granted to
each State pursuant to this subsection in a fiscal year shall re-
main available for obligation by Buch State for the fiscal year
for which appropriated. The amount of any such funds not obli-
gated by the end of such fiscal year shall be available to the
Administrator for granting to other States under this sub-
section in the next fiscal year.
(7) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.—States may use funds
from grants made pursuant to this section for financial assist-
ance to persons only to the extent that such assistance is relat-
ed to the costs of demonstration projects.
(B) SATISFACTORY PROGRESS.—NO grant may be made
under this subsection in any fiscal year to a State which in the
preceding fiscal year received a grant under this subsection un-
less the Administrator determines that such State made satis-
factory progress in such preceding fiscal year in meeting the
schedule specified by such State under subsection (b)(2).
(9) MMNTENANCE OF EFFORT—NO grant may be made to
a State under this subsection in any fiscal year unless such
State enters into such agreements with the Administrator as
the Administrator may require to ensure that such State will
maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for
programs for controlling pollution added to the navigable wa-
ters in such State from nonpoint sources and improving the
quality of such waters at or above the average level of such ex-
penditures in its two fiscal years preceding the date of enact-
ment of this subsection.
(10) REQuEST FOR INFORMATION—The Administrator may
request such information, data, and reports as he considers
necessary to make the determination of continuing eligibility
for grants under this section.
(11) REPORTING AND OTHER REQUIREMENra.—EaCh State
shall report to the Administrator on an annual basis concern-
ing (A) its progress in meeting the schedule of milestones sub-
mitted pursuant to subsection (bX2XC) of this section, and (B)
to the extent that appropriate information is available, reduc-
tions in nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements
in water quality for those navigable waters or watersheds
within the State which were identified pursuant to subsection
(aX1XA) of this section resulting from implementation of the
management program.
(12) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—FOr purposes
of this subsection, administrative costs in the form of salaries.
overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and charged
against activities and programs carried out with a grant under
this subsection shall not exceed in any fiscal year 10 percent
of the amount of the grant in such year, except that costs of
implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education,
training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and
technology transfer programs shall not be subject to this limi-
tation.
(i) GRANTS FOR PROTECTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY.—
-------
167 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 319 Sec. 319
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 168
(1) ELIGIBlE APPLICANTS D ACTIVITIES.—UpOn applica-
tion of a State for which a report submitted under subsection
(a) and a plan submitted under subsection (b) is approved
under this section, the Administrator shall make grants under
this subsection to such State for the purpose of assisting such
State in carrying out groundwater quality protection activities
which the Administrator determines will advance the State to-
ward implementation of a comprehensive nonpoint source pol-
lution control program. Such activities shall include, but not be
limited to, research, planning, groundwater assessment, dem-
onstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance, edu-
cation and training to protect the quality of groundwater and
to prevent contamination of groundwater from nonpoint
sources of pollution.
(2) APPLICATIONS—An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be in such form and shall contain such infor-
mation as the Administrator may require.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE; MAXIMUM AMOUNT—The Federal
share of the cost of assisting a State in carrying out ground-
water protection activities in any fiscal year under this sub-
section shall be 50 percent of the coats incurred by the State
in carrying out such activities, except that the maximum
amount of Federal assistance which any State may receive
under this subsection in any fiscal year shall not exceed
$150,000.
(4) REPORT.—The Administrator shall include in each re-
port transmitted under subsection (m) a report on the activites
and programs implemented under this subsection during the
preceding fiscal year.
(j) AUTHORIZATION OF AppROPIuAIIoNS.—There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out subsections (h) and (i) not to exceed
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 1988, $100,000,000 per fiscal year for
each of fiscaL years 1989 and 1990, and $130,000,000 for fiscal year
1991; except that for each of such fiscal years not to exceed
$7,500,000 may be made available to carry out subsection (i). Sums
appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available
until expended.
(k) CoNSISTENcY ø OTHER PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS WITH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—The Administrator shall transmit to the
Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Federal de-
partments and agencies a list of those assistance programs and de-
velopment projects identified by each State under subsection
(bX2XF) for which individual assistance applications and projects
will be reviewed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive
Order 12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983. Beginning not
later than sixty days alter receiving notification by the Adminis-
trator, each Federal department and agency shall modify existing
regulations to allow States to review individual development
projects and assistance applications under the identified Federal
assistance programs and shaU accommodate, according to the re-
quirements and definitions of Executive Order 12372, as in effect
on September 17, 1983, the concerns of the State regarding the
consistency of such applications or projects with the State nonpoint
---i pollution ‘nr’nngement program.
(1) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION—The Administrator shall col-
lect and make available, through publications and other appro-
priate means, information pertaining to management practices and
implementation methods, including, but not limited to, (1) informa-
tion concerning the coats and relative efficiencies of best manage-
ment practices for reducing nonpoint source pollution; and (2)
available data concerning the relationship between water quality
and implementation of various management practices to control
nonpoint sources of pollution.
(m) REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATOR.—
(1) ANNUAL REPORTS—Not later than January 1, 1988,
and each January 1 thereafter, the Administrator shall trans-
mit to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate, a report for the preced-
ing fiscal year on the activities and programs implemented
under this section and the progress made in reducing pollution
in the navigable waters resulting from nonpoint sources and
improving the quality of such waters.
(2) FINAL REPORT—Not later than January 1, 1990, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a final report on the
activities carried out under this section. Such report, at a mini-
mum, shall—
(A) describe the management programs being imple-
mented by the States by types and amount of affected nav-
igable waters, categories and subcategories of nonpoint
sources, and types of best management practices being im-
plemented;
(B) describe the experiences of the States in adhering
to schedule and implementing best management practices;
(C) describe the amount and purpose of grants award-
ed pursuant to subsections (h) and (i) of this section;
(D) identify, to the extent that information is avail-
able, the progress made in reducing pollutant loads and
improving water quality in the navigable waters;
(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken to
attain and maintain in those navigable waters (i) applica-
ble water quality standards, and (ii) the goals and require-
ments of this Act;
(F) include recommendations of the Administrator con-
cerning future programs (including enforcement programs)
for controlling pollution from nonpoint sources; and
(0) identify the activities and programs of depart-
ments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United
States which are inconsistent with the management pro-
grams submitted by the States and recommend modifica-
tions so that such activities and programs are consistent
with and assist the States in implementation of such man-
agement programs.
(n) SRT ASIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL.—NOL less than
5 percent of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (j) for
any fiscal year shall be available to the Administrator to maintain
-------
- FEDERAL WATER POUUTION COPITROL ACT Sec. 320
personnel levels at the Environmental Protection Agency at levels
which are adequate to carry out this section in such year.
(33 U.S.C. 1329)
SEC. 320. NATIONAL IIJARY PROGRAM.
(a) MANAGEMENT CON?ERENCE.—
(1) NOMINATION OF ESTUARIES—The Governor of any State
may nominate to the Administrator an estuary lying in whole
or in part within the State as an estuary of national signifi-
cance and request a management conference to develop a com-
prehensive management plan for the estuary. The nomination
shall document the need for the conference, the likelihood of
success, and information relating to the factors in paragraph
(2).
(2) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE.—
(A) IN GENERAL—In any case where the Administrator
determines, on his own initiative or upon nomination of a
State under paragraph (1), that the attainment or mainte-
nance of that water quality in an estuary which assures
protection of public water supplies and the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shell-
fish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities, in
and on the water, requires the control of point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement existing con-
trols of pollution in more than one State, the Adminis-
trator shall select such estuary and convene a manage-
ment conference.
(B) PRIORITY CONSIDERATION. —The Administrator
shall give priority consideration under this section to Long
Island Sound, New York and Connecticut; Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Massa-
chusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and
Boston Harbor);’ Puget Sound, Washington; New York-
New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey; Delaware
Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays,
Delaware, Albermarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota
Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay, California; Santa Monica
Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas; 2 Barataria-
Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana; Indian River
Lagoon, Florida; and Peconic Bay, New York.
(3) BoUNDARY DISPUTE EXCEFflON.—In any case in which
a boundary between two States passes through an estuary and
such boundary Is disputed and is the subject of an action in
any court, the MmimstratOr shall not convene a management
conference with respect to such estuary before a final adjudica-
tion has been made of such dispute.
(b) PURPOSES OF CONFERENCE.—The purposes of any manage-
ment conference convened with respect to an estuary under this
subsection shall be to—
‘Dub p. 1 . 100-4 53 and P1. 100-658 Inssi ad the sims MusachuSeUS ay ph ’ . .. sItar Bus-
taid . Bar that lbs shims seess” twIce.
‘P.L 160-688. asdIssi 2001(3) Inasetad lb. Liuklana. Thzlds, New Yo,k bays altar ‘0.3-
,sdsn TS aa which tutI” csidd ust be -
(1) assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and
uses of the estuary;
(2) collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutri-
ents, and natural resources within the estuarifle zone to iden-
tify the causes of environmental problems;
(3) develop the relationship between the inplace loads and
point and nonpoint loadings of pollutants to the estuarifle zone
and the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural
resources;
(4) develop a comprehensive conservation and management
plan that recommends priority corrective actions and compli-
ance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and bio-
logical integrity of the estuary, including restoration and main-
tenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities in the es-
tuary, and assure that the designated uses of the estuary are
protected;
(5) develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the
plan by the States as well as Federal and local agencies par-
ticipating in the conference
(6) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to
the plan; and
(7) review all Federal financial assistance programs and
Federal development projects in accordance with the require-
ments of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17.
1983, to determine whether such assistance program or project
would be consistent with and further the purposes and objec-
tives of the plan prepared under this section.
For purposes of paragraph (7), such programs and projects shall
not be limited to the assistance programs and development projects
subject to Executive Order 12372, but may include any programs
listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the
plan developed under this section.
(c) MEMBERS OF CONFERENCE_The members of a manage-
ment conference convened under this section shall include, at a
minimum, the Administrator and representatives of—
(1) each State and foreign nation located in whole or in
part in the estuarine zone of the estuary for which the con-
ference is convened;
(2) international, interstate, or regional agencies or enti-
ties having jurisdiction over all or a significant part of the es-
tuary;
(3) each interested Federal agency, as determined apprO-
priate by the Administrator;
(4) local governments having jurisdiction over any land or
water within the estuarifle zone, as determined appropriate by
the Administrator; and
(5) affected industries, public and private educational insti-
tutions, and the general public, as determined appropriate by
the Administrator.
(d) UTILIZATION OF EXISTING DATA.—Ifl developing a conserva-
tion and management plan under this section, the management
169
Sec. 320 FEDERAL WATER P0LLVT 0h( CONTROL ACT 170
-------
171
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 320
conference shall survey and utilize existing reports, data, and stud-
ies relating to the estuary that have been developed by or made
available to Federal, interstate, State, and local agencies.
(e) PERIOD OF CONFERENCE—A management conference con-
vened under this section shall be convened for a period not to ex-
ceed 5 years. Such conference may be extended by the Adminis-
trator, and if terminated after the initial period, may be recon-
vened by the Administrator at any time thereafter, as may be nec-
essary to meet the requirements of this section.
(I) APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS.—
(1) APpROVAL—NOt later than 120 days after the comple-
tion of a conservation and management plan and after provid-
ing for public review and comment, the Administrator shall ap-
prove such plan if the plan meets the requirements of this sec-
tion and the affected Governor or Governors concur.
(2) IMPLEMENTAT1ON.UPOfl approval of a conservation
and management plan under this section, such plan shall be
implemented. Funds authorized to be appropriated under titles
II and VI and section 319 of this Act may be used in accord-
ance with the applicable requirements of this Act to assist
States with the implementation of such plan.
(g) GRA) .—
(1) gEcIpIEms.—The Administrator is authorized to make
grants to State, interstate, and regional water pollution control
agencies and entities, State coastal zone management agencies.
interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies,
institutions, organizations, and individuals.
(2) PLJRPOSES.—Grants under this subsection shall be
made to pay for assisting research, surveys, studies, and mod-
eling and other technical work necessary for the development
of a conservation and management plan under this section.
(3) FEDERAL SHAI 1E.—The amount of grants to any person
(including a State, interstate, or regional agency or entity)
under this subsection for a fiscal year shall not exceed 75 per-
cent of the costs of such research, survey, studies, and work
and shall be made on condition that the non-Federal share of
such coats are provided from non-Federal sources.
(h) GRANT REPORTiNG—AnY person (including a State. inter-
state, or regional agency or entity) that receives a grant under But)-
section (g) shall report to the Administrator not later than 18
months after receipt of such grants and biennially there after on
the progress being made under this section.
(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROpRIAT I0NS. —There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator not to exceed $12,000,000
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and
1991 for—
(1) expenses related to the administration of management
conferences under this section, not to exceed 10 percent of the
amount appropriated under this subsection;
(2) making Fanta under subsection (g); and
(3) monitoring the implementation of a conservation and
management plan by the management conference or by the Ad-
ministrator, in any case in which the conference has been ter-
minated.
Sec. 320 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 112
The Administrator shall provide up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year of
the sums authorized to be appropriated under this subsection to
the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration to carry out subsection Ci).
(j) RESEARCH.—
(1) PROGRAMS—In order to determine the need to convene
a management conference under thiB section or at the request
of such a management conference, the Administrator shall co-
ordinate and implement. through the National Marine Pollu-
tion Program Office and the National Marine Fisheries Service
- of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as
appropriate, for one or more estuarine zones—
(A) a long-term program of trend assessment monitor-
ing measuring variations in pollutant concentrations, ma-
rine ecology, and other physical or biological environ-
mental paramenters which may affect estuanfle zones, to
provide the Administrator the capacity to determine the
potential and actual effects of alternative management
strategies and measures;
(B) a program of ecosystem assessment assisting in
the development of (i) baseline studies which determine
the state of estuarifle zones and the effects of natural and
anthropogeflic changes, and (ii) predictive models capable
of translating information on specific discharges or general
pollutant loadings within estuarine zones into a set of
probable effects on such zones;
(C) a comprehensive water quality sampling program
for the continuous monitoring of nutrients, chlorine, acid
precipitation dissolved oxygen, and potentiallY toxic poflut-
ants (including organic chemicals and metals) in estuarine
zones, after consultation with interested State, local, inter-
state, or international agencies and review and analysis of
all environmental sampling data presently collected from
estuarine zones; and
(D) a program of research to identify the movements
of nutrients, sediments and pollutants through estuarine
zones and the impact of nutrients, sediments, and pollut-
ants on water quality, the ecosystem. and designated or
potential uses of the estuarine zones.
(2) REPoRTS—The Administrator, in cooperation with the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, shall submit to the Congress no less often than
biennially a comprehensive report on the activities authorized
under this subsection including—
(A) a listing of priority monitoring and research needs;
(B) an assessment of the state and health of the Na-
tion’s estuarine zones, to the extent evaluated under this
Bubsectiofl
(C) a discussion of pollution problems and trends in
pollutant concentrations with a direct or indirect effect on
water quality, the ecosystem. and designated or potential
uses of each estuarine zone, to the extent evaluated under
this subsection; and
-------
Sec. 401
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 114
FEDERAL WAlER POLLUTION COIIIROL aci Sec. 401
(D) an evaluation of pollution abatement activities and
management measures so far implemented to determine
the degree of improvement toward the objectives expressed
in subsection (bX4) of this section.
(k) DEFuIrVIONS.—F0r purposes of this section, the terms “estu-
ary” and “estuarine zone” have the meanings such terms have in
section 104(nX4) of this Act, except that the term “eatuarine zone”
shall also indude associated aquatic ecosystems and those portions
of tributaries draining into the estuary up to the historic height of
migration of anadromous fish or the historic head of tidal influence,
whichever is higher.
(33 U.S.C. 1330)
TITLE IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES
CEKTIF ICATION
SEC. 401. (aX 1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit
to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construc-
tion or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge
into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting
agency a certification from the State in which the discharge origi-
nates or will originate, or,if appropriate 1 from the interstate water
pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable wa-
ters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate,
that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions
of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this Act. In the case of
any such activity for which there is not an applicable effluent limi-
tation or other limitation under sections 30 1(b) and 302, and there
is not an applicable standard under sectIons 306 and 307, the State
shall so certify, except that any such certification shall not be
deemed to satisfy section 6 11(c) of this Act. Such State or inter-
state agency shall establish procedures for public notice in the case
of all applications for certification by it and, to the extent it deems
appropriates procedures for public hearings in connection with spe-
cific applications. In any case where a State or interstate agency
has no authority to 0 ve such a certification, such certification shall
be from the Administrator. If the State. Interstate agency, or Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be, fails or refuses to act on a request
for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not
exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification re-
quirements of this subsection shall be waived with respect to such
Federal application. No license or permit shall be granted until the
certification required by this section has been obtained or has been
waived as provided in the preceding sentence. No license or permit
shall be granted if certification has been denied by the State, inter-
state agency, or the Administrator, as the case ma, be.
(2) Upon receipt of such application and certification the licens-
ing or permitting agency shaU immediately notify the Adminis-
trator of such application and certification. Whenever such a dis-
charge may affect, as determined by the Administrator, the quality
of the waters of any other State, the Administrator within thirty
days of the date of notice of application for such Federal license or
permit shall so notify such other State, the licensing or permitting
agency, and the apphcant. If within sixty days after receipt of such
notification, such other State determines that such discharge will
affect the quality of its waters so as to violate any water quality
requirement in such State, and within such sixty-day period noti-
fies the Administrator and the licensing or permitting agency in
writing of its objection to the issuance of such license or permit and
requests a public hearing on such objection, the licensing or permit-
ting agency shall hold such a hearing. The Administrator shall at
such hearing submit his evaluation and recommendations with re-
spect to any such objection to the licensing or permitting agency.
Such agency, based upon the recommendations of such State, the
Administrator, and upon any additional evidence, if any, presented
to the agency at the hearing, shall condition such license or permit
in such manner as may be necessary to insure compliance with ap-
plicable water quality requirements- If the imposition of conditions
cannot insure such compliance such agency shall not issue such li-
cense or permit.
(3) The certification obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection with respect to the construction of any facility shall ful-
fill the requirements of this subsection with respect to certification
in connection with any other Federal license or permit required for
the operation of such facility unless, after notice to the certifying
State, agency, or Administrator, as the case may be, which shall be
given by the Federal agency to whom application is made for such
operating license or permit, the State, or if appropriate, the inter-
state agency or the Administrator, notifies such agency within sixty
days after receipt of such notice that there is no longer reasonable
assurance that there will be compliance with the applicable provi.
sions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this Act because of
changes since the construction license or permit certification was
issued in (A) the construction or operation of the facility, (B) the
characteristics of the waters into which such discharge is made, (C)
the water quality criteria applicable to such waters or (D) applica-
ble emuent limitations or other requirements. This paragraph shall
be inapplicable in any case where the applicant for such operating
license or permit has failed to provide the certifying State, or, if ap-
propriate, the interstate agency or the Administrator, with notice
of any proposed changes in the construction or operation of the fa-
cility with respect to which a construction license or permit has
been granted, which changes may result in violation of section 301,
302, 303, 306, or 307 of this Act.
(4) Prior to the initial operation of any federally licensed or
permitted facility or activity which may result in any discharge
into the navigable waters and with respect to which a certification
has been obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection,
which facility or activity is not subject to a Federal operating li-
cense or permit, the licensee or permittee shall provide an oppor-
tunity for such certifying State, or, if appropriate, the interstate
agency or the Administrator to review the manner in which the fa-
cility or activity shall be operated or conducted for the purposes of
assuring that applicable effluent limitations or other limitations or
other applicable water quality requirements will not be violated.
Upon notification by the certifying State, or if appropriate, the
interstate agency or the Administrator that the operation of any
such federally licensed or permitted facility or activity will violate
173
-------
175 FEDERAL WATER POWJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 401 Sec. 402
FEDERAL WATER POU UTION CONTROL ACT 17$
applicable effluent limitations or other limitations or other water
quality requirements such Federal agency may, after public hear-
ing, suspend such license or permit. If Buch license or permit is
suspended, it shall remain suspended until notification is received
from the certifying State, agency, or Administrator, as the case
may be, that there is reasonable assurance that such facility or ac-
tivity will not violate the applicable provisions of section 301, 302,
303, 306, or 307 of this Act.
(5) Any Federal license or permit with respect to which a cer-
tification has been obtained under paragraph (1) of this subsection
may be suspended or revoked by the Federal agency issuing such
license or permit upon the entering of a judgment under this Act
that such facility or activity has been operated in violation of the
applicable previsions of section 301, 302, 303. 306, or 307 of this
Act.
(6) Except with respect to a permit issued under section 402
of this Act, in any case where actual construction of a facility has
been lawfully commenced prior to April 3, 1970, no certification
shall be required under this subsection for a license or permit is-
sued after April 3, 1970, to operate such facility, except that any
such license or permit issued without certification shall terminate
April 3, 1973, unless prior to such termination date the person hav-
ing such license or permit submits to the Federal agency which is-
sued such license or permit a certification and otherwise meets the
requirements of this section.
(b) Nothing In this section shall be construed to limit the au-
thority of any department or agency pursuant to any other provi-
sion of law to require compliance with any applicable water quality
requirements. The Administrator shall, upon the request of any
Federal department or agency, or State or interstate agency, or ap-
plicant, provide, for the purpose of this section, any relevant infor-
mation on applicable effluent limitations, or other limitations,
standards, regulations, or requirements, or water quality criteria,
and shall, when requested by any such department or agency or
State or interstate agency, or applicant, comment on any methods
to comply with such limitations, standards, regulations, require-
ments, or criteria.
(c) In order to Implement the provisions of this section, the
Secretary of the Army, acting throught the Chief of Engineers, is
authorized, if he deems it to be in the public interest, to permit the
use of spoil disposal areas under his jurisdiction by Federal li-
censes or permittaes, and to make an appropriate charge for such
use. Moneys received from such licensees or permittees shall be de-
posited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
(d) Any certification provided under this section shall set forth
any effluent limitations and other limitations, and monitoring re-
quirements necessary to assure that any applicant for a Federal li-
cense or permit will comply with any applicable emuent limitations
and other limitations, under section 301 or 302 of this Act, stand-
ard of performance under section 306 of this Act, or prohibition, ef-
nt standard, or pretreatment standard under section 307 of this.
and with any other appropriate requirement of State law se
forth in such certification, and shall become a condition on any
Federal license or permit subject to the provisions of this section.
(33 U.S.C. 1341)
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
SEc. 402. (aX 1) Except as provided in sections 318 and 404 of
this Act, the Administrator may, after opportunity for public hear-
ing, issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combina-
tion of pollutants, notwithstanding section 30 1(a), upon condition
that such discharge will meet either (A) all applicable requirements
under sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 of this Act, or (B)
prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating to all
such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator deter-
mines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) The Administrator shall prescribe conditions for such per-
mits to assure compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1)
of this subsection, including conditions on data and information col-
lection, reporting, and such other requirements as he deems appro-
priate.
(3) The permit program of the Administrator under paragraph
(1) of this subsection, and permits issued thereunder, shall be sub-
ject to the same terms, conditions, and requirements as apply to a
State permit program and permits issued thereunder under sub-
section (b) of this section.
(4) All permits for discharges into the navigable waters issued
pursuant to section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, shall be deemed
to be permits issued under this title, and permits issued under this
title shall be deemed to be permits issued under section 13 of the
Act of March 3, 1899, and shall continue in force and effect for
their term unless revoked, modified, or suspended in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.
(5) No permit for a discharge into the navigable waters shall
be issued under section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, after the
date of enactment of this title. Each application for a permit under
section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, pending on the date of en-
actment of this Act shall be deemed to be an application for a per-
mit under this section. The Administrator shall authorize a State,
which he determines has the capability of administering a permit
program which will carry out the objective of this Act, to issue per-
mits for discharges into the navigable waters within the jurisdic-
tion of such State. The Administrator may exercise the authority
granted him by the preceding sentence only during the period
which begins on the date of enactment of this Act and ends either
on the ninetieth day after the date of the first promulgation of
guidelines required by section 304(hX2) of this Act, or the date of
approval by the Administrator of a permit program for such State
under subsection (b) of this section, whichever date first occurs,
and no such authorization to a State shall extend beyond the last
day of such period. Each such permit shall be subject to such condi-
tions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out
the provisions of this Act. No such permit shall issue if the Admin-
istrator objects to such issuance.
-------
Sec. 402 Sec. 402
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 118
111
FEDERAL WATER POUUTION CONTROL ACT
(b) At any time after the promulgation of the guidelines re-
quired by subsection (hX2) of section 304 of this Act, the Governor
of each State desiring to administer its own permit program for
discharges into navigable waters within its jurisdiction may submit
to the Administrator a full and complete discription of the program
it proposes to establish and administer under State law or under
an interstate compact. In addition, such State shall submit a state-
ment from the attorney general (or the attorney for those State
water pollution control agencies which have independent legal
counsel), or from the chief legal officer in the case of an interstate
agency, that the Laws of such State, or the interstate compact, as
the case may be, p rovide adequate authority to carry out the de-
scribed program. The Administrator shall approve each such sub-
mitted program unless he determines that adequate authority does
not exist:
(1) To issue permits which—
(A) apply, and insure compliance with, any applicable re-
quirements of sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403;
(B) are for fixed terms not exceeding five years; and
(C) can be terminated or modified for cause including, but
not limited to, the following:
(i) violation of any condition of the permit;
(ii) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation, or failure
to disclose fully all relevant facts;
(iii) change in any condition that requires either a
temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the
permitted discharge;
(D) control the disposal of pollutants into wells;
(2XA) To issue permits which apply, and insure compliance
with, all applicable requirements of section 308 of this Act, or
(B) To inspect, monitor, enter, and require reports to at least
the same extent as required in section 308 of this Act;
(3) To insure that the public, and any other State the waters
of which may be affected, receive notice of each application for a
permit and to provide an opportunity for public hearing before a
ruling on each such application;
(4) To Insure that the Administrator receives notice of each ap-
plication (including a copy thereof) for a permit;
(5) To insure that any State (other than the permitting State),
whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a permit may sub-
mit written recommendations to the permitting State (and the Ad-
ministrator) with respect to any permit application and, if any part
of such written recommendations are not accepted by the permit.
ting State, that the permitting State will notify such affected State
(and the Administrator) in writing of its failure to so accept such
recommendations together with its reasons for so doing
(6) To insure that no permit will be issued if in tf ejudgment
of the Secretary of the Army acting through the C iiief of Engineers,
after consultation with the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating, anchoraçe and navigation of any of
the navigable waters would be substantially impaired thereby;
(7) To abate violations of the permit or the permit program, in-
cluding civil and criminal penalties and other way. and means of
enforcement;
(8) To insure that any permit for a discharge from a publicly
owned treatment works includes conditions to require the identi-
fication in terms of character and volwne of pollutants of any sig-
nificant source introducing pollutants subject to pretreatment
standards under section 307(b) of this Act into such works and a
program to assure compliance with such pretreatment standards by
each such source, in addition to adequate notice to the permitting
agency of (A) new introductions into such works of pollutants from
any source which would be a new source as defined in section 306
if such source were discharging pollutants, (B) new introductions of
pollutants into such works from a source which would be subject
to section 301 if it were discharging such pollutants, or (C) a sub-
stantial change in volume or character of pollutants being intro-
duced into such works by a source introducing pollutants into such
works at the time of issuance of the permit. Such notice shall in-
clude information on the quality and quantity of effluent to be in-
troduced into such treatment works and any anticipated impact of
such change in the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged
from such publicly owned treatment works; and
(9) To insure that any induBtrial user of any publicly owned
treatment works will comply with sections 204(b), 307, and 308.
(cXl) Not later than ninety days after the date on which a
State has submitted a program (or revision thereof) pursuant to
subsection (b) of this section, the Administrator shall suspend the
issuance of permits under subsection (a) of this section as to those
discharges subject to such program unless he determines that the
State permit program does not meet the requirements of subsection
(b) of this section or does not conform to the guidelines issued
under section 304(iX2) of this Act. If the Administrator so deter-
mines, he shall notify the State or any revisons or modifications
necessary to conform to such requirements or guidelines.
(2) Any State permit program under this section shall at all
times be in accordance with this section and guidelines promul-
gated pursuant to section 304(hX2) of this Act.
(3) Whenever the Administrator determines after public hear-
in that a State is not administering a program approved under
this section in accordance with requirements of this section, he
shall so notify the State and, if appropriate corrective action is not
taken within a reasonable time, not to exceed ninety days, the Ad-
ministrator shall withdraw approval of such program. The Admin-
istrator shall not withdraw approval of any such program unless he
shall first have notified the State, and made public, in writing, the
reasons for such withdrawal.
(4) LiMiTATIONS ON PARTIAL PERMIT PROGRAM R FURNS AND
WITHDRAWAlS—A State may return to the Administrator ad-
ministration, and the Administrator may withdraw under
paragraph (3) of this subsection approval, of—
(A) a State partial permit program approved under
subsection (n)(3) only if the entire permit program being
administered by the State department or agency at the
time is returned or withdrawn; and
(B) a State partial permit program approved under
subsection (nX4) only if an entire phased component of the
-------
179 FEDERAL WATER POUU11ON CONTROL ACT
Sec. 402 Sec. 402
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 180
permit program being administered by the State at the
time is returned or withdrawn.
(dXl) Each State shall transmit to the Administrator a copy of
each permit application received by such State and provide notice
to the Administrator of every action related to the consideration of
such permit pplication, including each permit proposed to be is-
sued by such State.
(2) No permit shall issue (A) if the Administrator within ninety
days of the date of his notification under subsection (bX5) of this
section objects in writing to the issuance of such permit, or (B) if
the Administrator within ninety days of the date of transmittal of
the proposed permit by the State objects in writing to the issuance
of such permit as being outside the guidelines and requirements of
this Act.. Whenever the Administrator objects to the issuance of a
permit under this paragraph such written objection shall contain a
statement of the reasons for such objection and the effluent limita-
tions and conditions which such permit would include if it were is.
sued by the Administrator.
(3) The Administrator may, as to any permit application 1 waive
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(4) In any case where, after the date of enactment of this para-
graph, the Administrator, pursuant to paragraph (2) of this sub-
section, objects to the issuance of a permit, on request of the State,
a public hearing shall be held by the Administrator on such objec-
tion. If the State does not resubmit such permit revised to meet
such objection within 30 days after completion of the hearing, or,
if no hearing is r 9 uested within 90 days after the date of such ob-
jection, the Administrator may issue the permit pursuant to sub-
section (a) of this section for such source in accordance with the
guidelines and requirements of this Act.
(e) In accordance with guidelines promulgated pursuant to sub-
section (hX2) of sectIon 304 of this Act, the Administrator is au-
thorized to waive the requirements of subsection (d) of this section
at the time he approves a program pursuant to subsection (b) of
this section for any category (including any class, type, or size
within such category) of point sources within the State submitting
such program.
(F) The Administrator shali promulgate regulations establish-
ing categories of point sources which he determines shall not be
subject to the requirements of’ subsection (d) of this section in any
State with a program approved pursuant to subsection (b) of this
section. The Administrator may distinguish among las ”e , types,
and sizes within any category of point sources.
(g) Any permit Issued under this section for the discharge of
pollutants Into the navigable waters from a vessel or other floating
craft shall be subject to any applicable regulations promulgated by
the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is oper.
atinç, establishing specifications for safe transportation, handling,
carnage, storage, and stowage of pollutants.
(h) In the event any condition of a permit for discharges from
a treatment works (as defined in section 212 of this Act) which is
publicly owned is violated, a State with a program approved under
subsection (b) of this section or the Administrator, where no State
n am Is approved or where the Administrator determines pursu-
ant to section 309(a) of this Act that a State with an approved pro-
gram has not commenced appropriate enforcement action with re-
spect to such permit, may proceed in a court of competent jurisdic-
tion to restrict or prohibit the introduction of any pollutant into
such treatment works by a source not utilizing such treatment
works prior to the finding that such condition was violated.
(i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the au-
thority of the Administrator to take action pursuant to section 309
of this Act.
(j) A copy of each permit application and each permit issued
under this section shall be available to the public. Such permit ap-
plication or permit, or portion thereof, shall further be available on
request for the purpose of reproduction.
(k) Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this section
shall be deemed compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and 505,
with sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403, except any standard im-
posed under section 307 for a toxic pollutant injurious to human
health. Until December 31 1974, in any case where a permit for
discharge has been applied for pursuant to this section, but final
administrative disposition of such application has not been made,
such discharge shall not be a violation of (1) section 301, 306, or
402 of this Act, or (2) section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, unless
the Administrator or other plaintiff proves that final administra-
tive disposition of such application has not been made because of
the failure of the applicant to furnish information reasonably re-
quired or requested in order to process the application For the
180-day period beginning on the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, in the case of
any point source discharging any pollutant or combination of pol-
lutants immediately prior to such date of enactment which source
is not subject to section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, the dis-
charge by such source shall not. be a violation of’ this Act if such
a source applies for a permit for discharge pursuant to this section
within such 180-day period.
(I) LIMITATION ON PERMIT REQUIREMENT.—
(1) AGRIcULTURAL RETURN FLOWS.—The Administrator
shall not require a permit under this section for discharges
composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture,
nor shall the Administrator directly or indirectly, require any
State to require such a permit.
(2) STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM OIL., GAS, AND MINING OPER-
ATIONS—The Administrator shall not require a permit under
this section, nor shall the Administrator directly or indirectly
require any State to require a permit, for discharges of
stormwater runoff from mining operations or oil and gas explo-
ration, production, processing, or treatment operations or
transmission facilities, composed entirely of flows which are
from conveyances or systems of conveyances (including but not
limited to pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels) used for col-
lecting and conveying precipitation runoff and which are not
contaminated by contact with, or do not come into contact with,
any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished
product, byproduct, or waste products located on the site of
such operations.
-------
181 FEDERAL WATER PI IWfflON COIITROL ACT
Sec. 40? Sec 402
FEDERAL WATER POLIUTIOII COWTRUL ACT - - - - - 182
(in) ADDITIONAL PRETREATMENT OP CONVENTIONAL Powir-
ANTS NOT REQUIRED.—To the extent a treatment works (as defined
in section 212 of this Act) which is publicly owned Is not meeting
the requirements of a permit issued under this section for such
treatment works as a result of inadequate design or operation of
such treatment works, the Administrator, in issuing a permit
under this section, shall not require pretreatment by a person in-
troducing conventional pollutants identified pursuant to a section
304(aX4) of this Act into such treatment works other than
pretreatment required to assure compliance with pretreatment
standards under subsection (bX8) of this section and section
307(bXl) of this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the Ad-
ministrator’s authority under sections 307 and 309 of this Act, af-
fect State and local authority wider sections 307(bX4) and 510 of
this Act, relieve such treatment works of its obligations to meet re-
quirements established under this Act, or otherwise preclude such
works from pursuing whatever feasible options are available to
meet its responsibility to comply with its permit under this section.
(n) PARTIAL Pawirr Paocassi.—
(1) S’r,in suasussIoN.—The Governor of a State may sub-
mit under subsection (b) of this section a permit program (or
a portion of the discharges into the navigable waters in such
State.
(2) MnUMuM COVERAGE—A partial permit program under
this subsection shall cover, at a minimum, administration of a
major category of the discharges into the navigable waters of
the State or a major component of the permit program required
by subsection (b).
(3) APPROVAL or MA.,oa CATEGORY pAJrrw. , PERMIT PRO-
GRAMS.—The Administrator may approve a partial permit pro-
gram covering administration of a major category of discharges
under this subsection if—
(A) such program represents a complete permit pro-
gram and covers all of the discharges under the jurisdic-
tion of a department or agency of the State; and
(B) the Administrator determines that the partial pro-
gram represents a significant and identifiable part of the
State program required by subsection (b).
(4) APPROVAL OP MAJOR COMPONENT PARrIAL PERMIT PRO-
CRAMS.—The Administrator may approve under this subsection
a partial and phased permit program covering administration
of a major component (including discharge categories) of a
State permit program required by subsection (b) if.—
(A) the Administrator determines that the partial pro-
gram represents a significant and identifiable part of the
State program required by subsection (b) and
(B) the State submits, and the Administrator ap-
proves, a plan for the State to assume administration by
phases of the remainder of the State program required by
subsection (b) by a specified date not more than 6 years
after submission of the partial program under this sub-
section and agrees to make all reasonable efforts to as-
sume such administration by such data.
(o) Aivri-B*cicsuou a.—
(1) GENERAL PROH 1RITION.—ln the case of effluent limita-
tions established on the basis of subsection (aX 1MB) of this sec-
tion, a permit may not be renewed, reissued, or modified on
the basis of emuent guidelines promulgated under section
304(b) subsequent to the original issuance of such permit, to
contain effluent limitations which are less stringent than the
comparable effluent limitations in the previous permit. In the
case of effluent limitations established on the basis of section
3OUbX1)(C) or section 303(d) or (e), a permit may not be re-
newed, reissued, or modified to contain effluent limitations
which are less stringent than the comparable effluent limita-
tions iii the previous permit except in compliance with section
303(d)(4).
(2) ExcEP’rIoNS.—A permit with respect to which para-
graph (1) applies may be renewed, reissued, or modified to con-
tain a less stringent effluent limitation applicable to a pollut-
ant if—
(A) material and substantial alterations or additions to
the permitted facility occurred after permit issuance which
justify the application of a less stringent emuent limita-
lion;
(BXi) information is available which was not available
at the time of permit issuance (other than revised regula-
tions, guidance, or teat methods) and which would have
justified the application of a less stringent effluent limita-
tion at the time of permit issuance; or
(ii) the Administrator determines that technical mis-
takes or mistaken interpretations of law were made in is-
suing the permit under subsection (aX 1MB);
(C) a less stringent effluent limitation is necessary be-
cause of events over which the permittee has no control
and for which there is no reasonably available remedy;
(D) the pennittee has received a permit modification
under section 301(c), 301(g), 301(h), 301(i), 301(k), 301(n).
or 3l6(a) or
(€) tke perrnittee has installed the treatment facilities
required to meet the effluent limitations in the previous
permit and has properly operated and maintained the fa-
cilities but has nevertheless been unable to achieve the
previous effluent limitations, in which case the limitations
in the reviewed, reissued, or modified permit may reflect
the level of pollutant control actually achieved (but shall
not be less stringent than required by effluent guidelines
in effect at the time of permit renewal, reissuance, or
modification).
Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any revIsed waste load al-
locations or any alternative grounds for translating water qual-
ity standards into effluent limitations, except where the cumu-
lative effect of such revised allocations results in a decrease in
the amount of pollutants discharged into the concerned waters 1
and such revised allocations are not the result of a discharger
eliminating or substantially reducing its discharge of pollut-
ants due to complying with the requirements of this Act or for
reasons otherwise unrelated to water quality.
-------
103 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 402 Sec. 402
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 104
(3) LIMFFATIONS.—10 no event may a permit with respect
to which paragraph (1) applies be renewed, reissued, or modi-
fied to contain an effluent limitation which is lees stringent
than required by effluent guidelines in effect at the time the
permit is renewed, reissued, or modified. In no event may such
a permit to discharge into waters be renewed, reissued, or
modified to contain a lees stringent effluent limitation if the
implementation of such limitation would result In a violation
of a water quality standard under section 303 applicable to
such waters.
(p) MUNICIPAL AND INDUSrRIAL ST0IU.IwATER DIscnaJiGES.—
(1) GENERAL rnn.. .—Prior to October 1, 1994, the Adminis-
trator or the State (in the case of a permit program approved
under section 402 of this Act) shall not require a permit under
this section for discharges composed entirely of storinwater.
(2) ExcgprgOns. —Paragraph (1) shall not apply with re-
spect to the following stormwater discharges:
(A) A discharge with respect to which a permit has
been issued under this section before the date of the enact-
ment of this subsection.
(B) A discharge associated with industrial activity.
(C) A discharge from a municipal separate storm
sewer system serving a population of 250 000 or more.
(D) A discharge from a municipa’ separate storm
sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more but
lees than 250,000.
(E) A discharge for which the Administrator or the
State, as the case may be, determines that the stormwater
discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality
standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to wa-
ters of the United States.
(3) PERMrT REQUIREMENTS
(A) INDUSTRiAL D,SCHARGES.—Permit8 for discharges
associated with industrial activity shall meet all applicable
provisions of this section and section 301.
(B) MuNICiPAL DISCHARGE.—Peflflita for discharges
from municipal storm sewers—
(i) may be issued on a system- or jurisdiction-wide
basis;
(ii) shall include a requirement to effectively pro-
hibit non-stormwater discharges into the storm sew-
ers; and
(iii) shall require controls to reduce the discharge
of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, in-
cluding management practices, control techniques and
system, design and engineering methods, and such
other provisions as the Administrator or the State de-
termines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.
(4) PEnMrr APPUCATION REQuiREMENTS.—
(A) INDUSTRiAL AND LARGE MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES.—
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of
this subsection, the Administrator shall establish regula-
tions setting forth the permit application requirements for
stormwater discharges described in paragraphs (2XB) an
(2XC). Applications for permits for such discharges shall be
filed no later than 3 years after such date of enactment.
Not later than 4 year after such date of enactment the Ad-
ministrator or the State, as the case may be, shall issue
or deny each such permit. Any such permit shall provide
for compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but in no
event later than 3 years after the date of issuance of such
permit.
(B) OTHER MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES—Not later than 4
years after the date of the enactment of this subsection,
the Administrator shall establish regulations setting forth
the permit application requirements for stormwater dis-
charges described in paragraph (2XD). Applications for
permits for such discharges shall be filed no later than 5
years after such date of enactment. Not later than 6 years
after such date of enactment, the Administrator or the
State, as the case may be, shall issue or deny each such
permit. Any such permit shall provide for compliance as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3
years after the date of issuance of such permit.
(5) STUDIES.—The Administrator, in consultation with the
States, shall conduct a study for the purposes of—
(A) identifying those atormwater discharges or classes
of storinwater discharges for which permits are not re-
quired pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this sub-
section;
(B) determining, to the maximum extent practicable.
the nature and extent of pollutants in such discharges; and
(C) establishing procedures and methods to control
stormwater discharges to the extent nec ry to mitigate
impacts on water quality.
Not later than October 1, 1988, the Administrator shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the study described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B). Not later than October 1, 1989, the
Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on the results
of the study described in subparagraph (C).
(6) REGULATIONS.—Not later than October 1, 1993, the Ad-
ministrator, in consultation with State and local officials, shall
issue regulations (based on the results of the studies conducted
under paragraph (5)) which designate stormwater discharges,
other than those discharges described in paragraph (2), to be
regulated to protect water quality and shall establish a com-
prehensive program to regulate such designated sources. The
program shall, at a minimum, (A) establish priorities, (B) es-
tablish requirements for State stormwater management pro-
grams, and (C) establish expeditious deadlines. The program
may include performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and
management practices and treatment requirements, as appro-
priate.
(33 U.S.C. 1342)
-------
185 FEDERAl. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 404 Sec. 404
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 186
OCEAN DISCHARGE CRITERIA
SEC. 403. (a) No permit under section 402 of this Act for a dis-
charge into the territorial sea, the waters of the contiguous zone,
or the oceans shall be issued, after promulgation of çuidelines es-
tablished under subsection (c) of this section, except in compliance
with such guidelines. Prior to the promulgation of such guidelines,
a permit may be issued under such section 402 if the Administrator
determines it to be in the public Interest.
(b) The requirements of subsection (d) of section 402 of this Act
may not be waived in the case of permits for discharges into the
territorial sea.
(cXl) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty
days after enactment of this Act (and from time to time thereafter),
promulgate guidelines for determining the degradation of the wa-
ters of the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the oceans,
which shall include:
(A) the effect of disposal of pollutants on human health or
welfare, including but not limited to plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, shorelines, and beaches;
(B) the effect of disposal of pollutants on marine life in-
cludin the transfer, concentration, and dispersal of pollutants
or their byproducts through biological, physical, and chemical
processes; changes in marine ecosystem diversity, productivity,
and stability; and species and community population changes;
(C) the effect of disposal, of pollutants on esthetic, recre-
ation, and economic values;
(D) the persistence and permanence of the effects of dis-
posal of pollutants;
(E) the effect of the disposal at varying rates, of particular
volumes and concentrations of pollutants
(F) other possible locations and methods of disposal or re-
cycling of pollutants including land-based alternatives; and
(0) the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as min-
eral exploitation and scientific study.
(2) In any event where inaulflcient information exists on any
proposed discharge to make a reasonable judgment on any of the
guidelines established pursuant to this subsection no permit shall
be issued under section 402 of this Act.
- (33 U.S.C. 1343)
PERMITS POE DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
SEC. 404. (a) The Secretary may issue permits, after notice and
opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites. Not
later than the fifteenth day after the date an applicant submits all
the information required to complete an application for a permit
under this subsection, the Secretary shall publish the notice re-
quired by this subsection.
(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, each such disposal
site shall be specified for each such permit by the Secretary (1)
through the application of guidelines developed by the Adminis-
trator, in cozijunction with the Secretary which guidelines shall be
based upon criteria comparable to the criteria applicable to the ter-
ritonal seas, the contiguous zone, and the ocean under section
403(c), and (2) in any case where such guidelines under clause (1)
alone would prohibit the specification of a site, through the applica-
tion additionally of the economic impact of the site on navigation
and anchorage.
(c) The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification
(including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as
a disposal site, and he is authorized to deny or restrict the use of
any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of spec-
ification) as a disposal site, whenever he determines, after notice
and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such ma-
terials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (includ-
ing spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.
Before making such determination, the Administrator shall consult
with the Secretary. The Administrator shall set forth in writing
and make public his findings and his reasons for making any deter-
mination under this subsection.
(d) The term “Secretary” as used in this section means the Sec-
retary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
(eXi) In carrying out his functions relating to the discharge of
dredged or fill material under this section, the Secretary may, alter
notice and opportunity for public hearing, issue general permits on
a State, reçional, or nationwide basis for any category of activities
involving discharges of dredged or fill material if the Secretary de-
termines that the activities in such category are similar in nature,
will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when per-
formed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse
effect on the environment. Any general permit issued under this
subsection shall (A) be based on the guidelines described in sub-
section (bXl) of this section, and (B) set forth the requirements and
standards which shall apply to any activity authorized by such gen-
eral permit.
(2) No general permit issued under this subsection shall be for
a period of more than five years after the date of its issuance and
such general permit may be revoked or modified by the Secretary
if, after opportunity for public hearing, the Secretary determines
that the activities authorized by such general permit have an ad-
verse impact on the environment or such activities are more appro-
priately authorized by individual permits. .).
(0(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsectjofl
the discharge of dredge or fill material— s 2 -
(A) from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activi-
ties such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, ,har -. - -
vesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest producta or
upland soil and water conservation practices;
(B) for the purpose of maintenance, including emergency
reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently service-
able structures such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap,
breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments or approaches,
and transportation structures;
(C) for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm
or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of
drainage ditches;
-------
Ill - FEDERAL WATER POWITIOII CONTROL ACT
Sec. 404 Sec. 404
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 188
(D) for the purpose of construction of temporary sedi-
mentation basins on a construction site which does not include
placement of fill material Into the navigable waters;
(E) for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm
roads or forest roads, or temporaiy roads for movinq mining
equipment, where such roads are constructed and maintained,
in accordance with beat management practices, to assure that
flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological char-
acteristics of the navigable waters are not impaired, that the
reach of the navigable water. is not reduced and that any ad-
verse effect on the aquatic environment will Lie otherwise mini-
mized;
(F) resulting from any activity with respect to which a
State has an a preved program under section 208(bX4) which
meets the requirementa of subparagraph. (B) and (C) of such
section,
is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this
section or section 301(a) or 402 of this Act (except for effluent
standards or prohibitions under section 307).
(2) Any discharge of dredçed or fill material into the navigable
waters inmdental to any activity having as its purpose bringing an
area of the navigable waters into a use to which it was not pre-
viously subject, where the flow or circulation of navigable waters
may be impaired or the reach of such waters be reduced, shall be
required to have a permit under this section.
( X1) The Governor of any State desiring to administer its own
individual and general permit program for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into the navigable waters (other than those waters
which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural
condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport
interstate or foreign commerce shoreward to their ordinaiy high
water mark, Including all waters which are subject to the ebb and
flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high water mark, or mean
higher high water mark on the west coast, mcluding wetlands adja-
cent thereto), within its jurisdiction may submit to the Adminis-
trator a full and complete description of the program it proposes to
establish and administer under State law or under an interstate
compact. In addition, such State shall submit a statement from the
attorney general (or the attorney for those State agencies which
have independent legal counsel), or from the chief legal officer in
the case of an Interstate agency, that the laws of such State, or the
interstate compact, as the case may be, provide adequate authority
to carry out the described program.
(2) Not later than the tenth day after the date of the receipt
of the program, and statement submitted by any State under para-
graph (1) of this subsection, the Administrator shall provide copies
of such program and statement to the Secretary and the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United State.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
(3) Not later than the ninetieth day after the date of the re-
ceipt by the Administrator of the program and statement submitted
by any State, under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Secretary
and the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Director of the
U I State, Fish and Wlldll?e Service, shall submit any com-
menta with respect to such program and statement to the Adminis-
trator in writing.
(hXl) Not later than the one-hundred-twentieth day after the
date of the receipt by the Administrator of a program and state-
ment submitted by any State under paragraph (I) of this sub-
section, the Administrator shall determine, taking into account any
comments submitted by the Secretary and the Secretary of the In-
terior, acting through the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, pursuant to subsection (g) of this section, whether
such State has the following authority with respect to the issuance
of permits pursuant to such program:
(A) To issue permits which—
(i) apply, and assure compliance with, any applicable
requirements of this section, including, but not limited to,
the guideline. established under subsection (bX 1) of this
section, and sections 307 and 403 of this Act;
(ii) are for fixed terms not exceeding five years; and
(iii) can be terminated or modified for cause including,
but not limited to, the following:
(I) violation of any condition of the permit;
(II) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation, or
failure to disclose fully all relevant facts;
(Ill) change in any condition that requires either
a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of
the permitted discharge.
(B) To issue permit. which apply, and assure compliance
with, all applicable requirements of section 308 of this Act, or
to inspect, monitor, enter, and requrie reports to at least the
same extent as required in section 308 of this Act.
(C) To assure that the public, and any other State the wa-
ters of which may be affected, receive notice of each application
for a permit and to provide an opportunity for public hearing
before a ruling on each such application.
(D) To assure that the Administrator receives notice of
each application (including a copy thereof) for a permit.
(E) To assure that any State (other than the permitting
State), whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a per-
mit may submit written recommendation to the permitting
State (and the Administrator) with respect to any permit appli-
cation and, if any part of such written recommendations are
not accepted by the permitting State, that the permitting State
will notify such affected State (and the Administrator) in writ-
ing of its failure to so accept such recommendations together
with its reasons for so doing.
(F) To assure that no permit will be issued if, in the judg-
ment of the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, anchor-
age and navigation of any of the navigable waters would be
substantially impaired thereby.
(G) To abate violations of the permit or the permit pro-
gram, including civil and criminal penalties and other ways
and means of enforcement.
(H) To assure continued coordination with Federal and
Federal-State water-related planning and review processes.
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLIflION CONTROL ACT SeC. 404
(2) If, with respect to a State program submitted under sub-
section (gXl) of this section, the Administrator determines that
such State—
(A) has the authority set forth in paragraph (1) of this sub-
section, the Administrator shall approve the program and so
notify (I) such State, and (ii) the Secretary, who upon subse-
quent notification from such State that it is administering such
program, shall suspend the issuance of permits under sub-
section (a) and (e) of this section for activities with respect to
which a permit may be issued pursuant to such State program;
or
Sec. 404 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 190
Administratol makes the determination described in clause (1) of
this subsection and such State again has an approved program.
(j) Each State which is 8 rninisteriflg a permit program pursu-
ant to this section shall transmit to the Administrator (1) a copy
of each permit application received by such State and provide no-
tice to the Administrator of every action related to the consider-
ation of such permit applications including each permit proposed to
be issued by such State, and (2) a copy of each proposed general
permit which such state intends to issue. Not later than the tenth
day after the date of the receipt of such permit application or such
proposed general permit. the Administrator shall provide copies of
such permit application or such proposed general permit to the Sec-
retary and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Direc-
tor of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If the Adminis-
trator intends to provide written comments to such State with re-
spect to such permit application or such proposed general permit,
he shall so notify such State not later than the thirtieth day after
the date of the receipt of such application or such proposed general
permit and provide such written comments to such State, after con-
sideration of any comments made in writing with respect to such
application or such proposed general permit by the SecretarY and
the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, not later than the nine-
tieth day after the date of such receipt. LI such State is so notified
by the Administratol, it shall not issue the proposed permit until
after the receipt of such comments from the Administrator, or after
such ninetieth day, whichever first occurs. Such State shall not
issue such proposed permit after such ninetieth day if it has re-
ceived such written comments in which the Administrator objects
(A) to the issuance of such proposed permit and such proposed per-
mit is one that has been submitted to the Administrator pursuant
to subsection (hX1ME), or (B) to the issuance of such proposed per-
mit as being outside the requirements of this section, including, but
not limited to, the guidelines developed under subsection (bX 1) of
this section unless it modifies such proposed permit in accordance
with such comments. Whenever the Administrator objects to the is-
suance of a permit under the preceding sentence such written ob-
jection shall contain a atatement of the reasons for such objection
and the conditions which such permit would include if it were is-
sued by the Administrat01 In any case where the Adininistratol
objects to the issuance of a permit, on request of the State, a public
bearing shall be held by the Administrator Ofl such objection. If the
State does not resubmit such permit revised to meet such objection
within 30 days after completion of the hearing or, if no hearing is
requested withifl 90 days after the date of such objection. the Sec-
retary may issue the permit pursuant to subsection (a) or (e) of this
section, as the case may be, for such source in accordance with the
guidelines and requirements of this Act.
(k) In accordance with guidelines promulgated pursuant to
subsectiOn (iX2) of section 304 of this Act, the Administrator is au-
thorized to waive the requirements of subsection (j) of this section
at the time of the approval of a program pursuant to subsection
(hX2XA) of this section for any category (including any class, type,
189
(B) does not have the authority set forth in paragraph (1)
of this subsection, the Administrator shall so notify such State,
which notification shall also describe the revisions or modifica-
tions necessary so that such State may resubmit such program
for a determination by the Administrator under this sub-
section.
(3) If the Administrator fails to make a determination with re-
spect to any pro am submitted by a State under subsection (gXl)
of this section within one-hundred-twentY days after the date or the
receipt of such program, such program shall be deemed approved
pursuant to paragraph (2XA) of this subsection and the Adminis-
trator shall so notify such State and the Secretary who, upon sub-
sequent notification from such State that it is administenng such
program, shall suspend the issuance of permits under subsection
(a) and (e) of this section for activities with respect to which a per-
mit may be issued by such State.
(4) After the Secretary receives notification from the Adminis-
trator under paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection that a State
permit program has been approved, the Secretary shall transfer
any applications for permits pending before the Secretary for activi-
ties with respect to which a permit may be issued pursuant to such
State program to such State for appropriate action.
(5) Upon notification from a State with a permit program ap-
proved under this subsection that such State intends to administer
and enforce the terms and conditions of a general permit issed by
the Secretary under subsection (e) of this section with respect to ac-
tivities in such State to which such general permit applies, the Sec-
retary shall suspend the administration and enforcement of such
general permit with respect to such activities.
(i) Whenever the Administrator determines after public hear-
ing that a State is not administering a program approved under
section (hX2XA) of this section, In accordance with this section, in-
cluding, but not limited to, the guidelines established under sub-
section (bXl) of this section, the Administrator shall so notify the
State, and, if ’ appropriate corrective action is not taken within a
reasonable time, not to exceed ninety days after the date of the re-
ceipt of such notification, the Administrator shall (1) withdraw ap-
proval of such program until the Administrator determines such
corrective action has been taken, and (2) notify the Secretary that
the Secretary shall resume the prog -wu for the issuance of permits
under subsections (a) and (e) of this section for activities with re-
spect to which the State was lasuin permits and that such author-
ity of the Secretary shall continue in effect until such time as the
-------
191 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
S .c. 404 Sec. 404
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTiON CONTROL ACT 192
or size within such category) of discharge within the State submit-
ting such program.
(I) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing
categories of discharges which he determines shall not be subject
to the requirements of subsection (j) of this section in any State
with a program approved pursuant to subsection (hX2XA) of this
section. The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes within any category of discharges.
(m) Not later than the ninetieth day after the date on which
the Secretary notifies the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service that (1)
an application for a permit under subsection (a) of this section has
been received by the Secretary or (2) the Secretary proposes to
issue a general permit under suisection (e) of this section, the Sec-
retary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall submit any comments with
respect to such application or such proposed genera) permit in writ,-
ing to the Secretary.
(a) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the au-
thority of the Administrator to take action pursuant to section 309
of this Act.
(o) A copy of each permit application and each permit issued
under this section shall be available to the public. Such permit ap-
plication or portion thereof, shall further be available on request
for the purpose of reproduction.
(p) Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this section,
including any activity carried out pursuant to a general permit is-
sued under this section, shall be deemed compliance, for purposes
of sections 309 and 505, with sections 301. 307, and 403.
(q) Not later than the one-hundred-eightieth day after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall enter into
agreements with the Administrator, the Secretaries of the Depart-
ments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation, and
the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies to minimize, to the
maximum extent practicable, duplication, needless paperwork, and
delays in the issuance of permits under this section. Such agree-
ments shall be developed to assure that, to the maximum extent
practicable, a decision with respect to an application for a permit
under subsection (a) of this section will be made not later than the
ninetieth day after the date the notice of such application is pub-
lished under subsection (a) of this section.
(r) The discharge of dredged or flU material as part of the con-
struction of a Federal project specifically authorized by Congress,
whether prior to or on or after the date of enactment of this sub-
section, is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation
under this section, or a State program approved under this section,
or section 301(a) or 402 of the Act (except for effluent standards or
prohibitions under section 307), if information on the effects of such
discharge, including consideration of the guidelines developed
under subsection (bXl) of this section, is included in an environ-
mental impact statement for such project pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and such environmental impact
statement has been submitted to Congress before the actual dis-
charge of dredged or fill material in connection with the construe-
tion of such project and prior to either authorization of such project
or an appropriation of funds for each construction.
(sXl) Whenever on the basis of any information available to
him the Secretary finds that any person is in violation of any con-
dition or limitation set forth in a permit issued by the Secretary
under this section, the Secretary shall issue an order reqwring
such persons to comply with such condition or limitation, or the
Secretary shall bring a civil action in accordance with paragraph
(3) of this subsection.
(2) A copy of any order issued under this subsection shall be
sent immediately by the Secretary to the State in which the viola-
tion occurs and other affected States. Any order issued under this
subsection shall be by personal service and shall state with reason-
able specificity the nature of the violation, specify a Lime for com-
pliance, not to exceed thirty days, which the Secretary determines
is reasonable, taking into account the seriousness of the violation
and any good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements.
In any case in which an order under this subsection is issued to
a corporation, a cqpy of such order shall be served on any appro-
priate corporate officers.
(3) The Secretary is authorized to commence a civil action for
appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction
for any violation for which he is authorized to issue a compliance
order under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Any action under this
paragraph may be brought in the district court of the United States
for the district in which the defendant is located or resides or is
doing business, and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain
such violation and to require compliance. Notice of the commence-
ment of such acton i shall be given immediately to the appropriate
State.
(4) Any person who violates any condition or limitation in a
permit issued by the Secretary under this section and any person
who violates any order issued by the Secretary unc er paragraph (1)
of this subsection, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$25,000 per day for each violation. In determining the amount of
a civil penalty the court shall consider the seriousness of the viola-
tion or violations, the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the
violaltion, any history of such violations, any good-faith efforts to
comply with the applicable requirements, the economic impact of
the penalty on the violator, and such other matters as justice may
require.
(t) Nothing in the section shall preclude or deny the right of
any State or interstate agency to control the discharge of dredged
or fill material in any portion of the navigable waters within the
jurisdiction of such State, including any activity of any Federal
agency, and each such agency shall comply with such State or
interstate requirements both substantive and procedural to control
the discharge of dredged or fill material to the same extent that
any person is subject to such requirements. This section shall not
be construed as affecting or impairing the authority of the Sec-
retary to maintain navigation.
(33 USC. 1344)
‘So In law. Probably should ho sction.
-------
193 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 405 Sec. 405
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 194
DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
SEC. 405. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act
or of any other law, in the case where the diaposal of sewage sludge
resulting from the operation of a treatment works as defined in sec-
tion 212 of this Act (including the removal of in-place sewage
sludge from one location and its deposit at another location) would
result in any pollutant from such sewage sludge entering the navi-
gable waters, such disposal is prohibited except in accordance with
a permit issued by the Administrator under section 402 of this Act.
(b) The Administrator shall issue regulations governing the is-
suance of permits for the disposal of sewage sludge subject to sub-
section (a) of this section and section 402 of this Act. Such regula-
tions shall require the application to such disposal of each cri-
terion, factor, procedure, and requirement applicable to a permit is-
sued under section 402 of this title.
(c) Each State desiring to administer its own permit program
for disposal of sewage sludge subject to subsection (a) of this sec-
tion within its jurisdiction may do so in accordance with section
402 of this Act.
(d) REGULATIONS.—
(1) REGULATIONS—The Administrator, after consultation
with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other inter-
ested persons, shall develop and publish, within one year after
the date of enactment of this subsection and from time to time
thereafter, regulations poroviding guidelines for the diaposal of
sludge and the utilization of sludge for various purposes. Such
regulations shall—
(A) identify uses for sludge, including disposal;
(B) specify factors to be taken into account in deter-
mining the measures and practice. applicable to each such
use or disposal (including publication of information on
coats);
(C) identify concentrations of pollutants which inter-
fere with each such use or disposal.
The Administrator is authorized to revise any regulation is-
sued under this subsection.
(2) IDENTIFICATION AND RECULATION OF TOXIC POLLUT-
ANTS-
(A) ON BASIS OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION.—
(1) PROPOSED RBGULATIONS.—Not later than No-
vember 30. 1986, the Administrator shall identify
those toxic pollutant. which, on the basis of available
information on their toxicity, persistence, concentra-
tion, mobility, or potential for exposure, may be
present in sewage sludge in concentrations which may
adversely affect public health or the environment, and
propose regulations specifying acceptable management
practices for sewage sludge containing each such toxic
pollutant and establishing numerical limitations for
each such pollutant for each use Identified under para-
graph (1XA).
(ii) FINAL REOULATIONS.—Not later than August
31, 1987, and after opportunity for public hearing, the
Administrator shall promulgate the regulations re-
quired by subparagraph (AXi).
(B) OTHERS.—
(1) PROPOSED REGULATION5.—NOt later than July
31 1987, the Administrator shall identify those toxic
pollutants not identified under subparagraph (AX1)
which may be present in sewage sludge in concentra-
tions which may adversely affect public health or the
environment, and propose regulations specifying ac-
ceptable management practices for sewage sludge con-
taining each such toxic pollutant and establishing nu-
merical limitations for each pollutant for each such
use identified under paragraph (1XA).
(ii) FINAL REGULATIONS—Not later than June 15,
1988, the Administrator shall promulate the regula-
tions required by subparagraph (BX1).
(C) REVIEW—From time to time, but not less often
than every 2 years, the Administrator shall review the reg-
ulations promulgated under this paragraph for the purpose
of identifying additional toxic pollutants and promulgating
regulations for such pollutants consistent with the require-
ment. of this paragraph.
(D) MINIMUM S ’rAND#JWS; COMPLIANCE DATE.—The
management practices and numerical criteria established
under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall be adequate to
protect public health and the environment from any rea-
sonably anticipated adverse effects of each pollutant. Such
regulations shall require compliance as expeditiously as
practicable but in no case later than 12 months after their
publication, unless such regulations require the construc-
tion of new pollution control facilities, in which case the
regulations shall require compliance as expeditiously as
practicable but in no case later than two years from the
date of their publication.
(3) ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS.—FOr purposes of this sub-
section, if, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not fea-
sible to prescribe or enforce a numerical limitation for a pollut-
ant identified under paragraph (2), the Administrator may in-
stead promulgate a design, equipment, management practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, which in the
Adminiatrator’a judgment is adequate to protect public health
and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse
effects of such pollutant. In the event the Administrator pro-
mul?ates a design or equipment standard under this sub-
section, the Administrator shall include as part of such stand-
ard ouch requirements as will assure the proper operation and
maintenance of any such element of design or equipment.
(4) CONDITIONS ON PERMITS.—Prior to the promulgation of
the regulations required by paragraph (2), the Administrator
shall impose conditions in permits issued to publicly owned
treatment works under section 402 of this Act or take such
other measures as the Admini8trator deems appropriate to pro-
tect public health and the environment from any adverse ef-
fects which may occur from toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
-------
Sec. 501
FEOERM. WAlER POlLUTION CONTROL ACT 196
FEDERAL WATER POWflION CONTROL ACT Sec. 405
(5) LmiiT TION ON &rA1t7IORY CONSr UCTION.—NOtliiUg II
this section Is Intended to waive move stringent requirements
established by this Act or any other law.
(e) MANNER OF SLUDGE DJSPOSAL.—The determination of the
manner of disposal or use of sludge is a local determination, except
that it shall be unlawful for any person to dispose of sludge from
a publicly owned treatment works or any other treatment works
treating domestic sewage for any use for which regulations have
been established pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, except
in accordance with such regulations.
(f) IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATIONS.—
(1) THROUGH SECTION 402 PERMITS.—Afly permit issued
under section 402 of this Act to a publicly owned treatment
works or any other treatment works treating domestic sewage
shall include requirements for the use and disposal of sludge
that implement the regulations established pursuant to sub.
section (d) of this section, unless such requirements have been
included in a permit issued under the appropriate provisions
of subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, part Cof the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, or the Clean Air Act, or under State
permit programs approved by the Administrator, where the
Administrator determines that such programs assure compli-
ance with any applicable requirements of this section. Not
later than December 15. 1986, the Administrator shall promul-
gate procedures for approval of State programs pursuant to
this paragraph.
(2) TuR0UCH OTHER PERMIIe.—ln the case of a treatment
works described in paragraph (1) that is not subject to section
402 of this Act and to which none of the other above listed per-
mit programs nor approved State permit authority apply, the
Adm*nistrator may issue a permit to such treatment works
solely to impose requirements for the use and disposal of
sludge that implement the regulations established pursuant to
subsection (d) of this section. The Administrator shall include
in the permit appropriate requirements to assure compliance
with the regulations established pursuant to subsection (d) of
this section. The Administrator shall establish procedures For
issuing permits pursuant to this paragraph.
(g) STUDIES AND PROJECTS.—
(1) GIIANT PROGRAM; INFORMATION OATHERINO.—The Ad-
ministrator is authorized to conduct or initiate scientific stud-
ies, demonstration projects, and public Information and edu-
cation projects which are designed to promote the safe and
beneficial management or use of sewage sludge for such pur-
poses as aiding the restoration of abandoned mine sites, condi-
tioning soil for parka and recreation areas, agricultural and
horticultural uses, and other beneficial purposes. For the pur-
poses of carrying out this subsection, the Administrator may
make grants to State water pollution control agencies, other
public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and in-
dividuals. In cooperation with other Federal departments and
agencies, other public and private agencies, institutions, and
rgazuzatfons, the Administrator is authorized to collect an’
TITLE V. ...GENERAL PROVISIONS
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 501. (a) The Administrator is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
Act.
(b) The Administrator, with the consent of the head of any
other agency of the United States may utilize such officers and
employees of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in
carrying..Out the purposes of this Act.
(c) Each recipient of financial assistance under this Act shall
keep such records as the Administrator shall prescribe, including
records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such re-
cipient of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the
project or undertaking in connection with which such assistance is
given or used and the amount of that portion of the cost of the
project or unjertaking supplied by other sources, and auch other
records as will facilitate an effective audit.
(d) The Administrator and the Comptroller General of the
United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives,
shall have access, for the purpose of audit and examination to any
books, documents, papers . and records of the recipients that are
pertinent to the ranta received under this Act. For the purpose of
carrying out audits and examinations with respect to recipients of
Federal assistance under this Act, the Administrator is authorized
to enter into noncompetitive procurement contracts with independ-
ent State audit organizations consistent with chapter 75 of title 31,
United States Code. Such contracts may only be entered into to the
extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance in ap-
propriation Acts.
(eXi) It is the purpose of this subsection to authorize a pro-
gram which will provide official recognition by the United States
Government to those industrial organizations and political subdivi-
sions of States which during the preceding year demonstrated an
outstanding technological achievement or an innovative process.
method, or device in their waste treatment and pollution abate-
ment programs. The Administrator shall, in consultation with the
appropriate State water pollution control agencies, establish regu-
lations under which such recognition may be applied for and grant-
ed, except that no applicant shall be eligible for an award under
this subsection if such applicant is not in total complianCe with all
applicable water quality requirements under this Act, or otherwise
does not have a satisfactory record with respect to eflvirpnmentsl
quality.
195
disseminate information pertaining to the safe and beneficial
use of sewage s1u lge.
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATI0N }’0T the purposes
of carrying out the scientific studies, demonstration projects,
and public information and education projects authorized in
this section, there is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 1986, not to exceed
$5,000,000.
(33 U.S.C. 1346) -
-------
FEI)ERAI. WATER POWIIION CONTROL ACT Sec. 51)2
(2) The Administrator shall award a certificate or plaque of
swtable design to each industrial organization or political subdivi-
‘ion which qualifies for such recognition under regulations estab-
lished under this subsection.
(3) The President of the United States, the Governor of the ap-
propriate State, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the President pro tempore of the Senate shall be notified of the
award by the Administrator and the awarding of such recognition
shall be published in the Federal Register.
(1) Upon the request of a State water pollution control agency,
personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency may be detailed
to such agency for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
Act.
(33U.SC. 1381)
GENERAL DEFINITIONS
SsC. 502. Except as otherwise specifically provided, when used
in this Act:
(1) The term “State water pollution control agency” means the
State agency designated by the Governor having responsibility for
enforcing State laws relating to the abatement of pollution.
(2) The term “interstate agency” means an agency of two or
more States established by or pursuant to an agreement or com-
pact approved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more
States, having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the con-
trol of pollution as determined and approved by the Adminstrator.
(3) The term “State” means a State, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(4) The term “municipality” means a city, town, borough, coun-
ty, parish, district, association, or other public body created by or
pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sew-
age, industrial wastes, or other wastes, or an Indian tribe or an au-
thorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved
management agency under section 208 of this Act.
(5) The term “person” means an individual, corporation, part-
nership, association, State, municipality, commission, or political
eubdivision of a State, or any interstate body.
(6) The term “pollutant” means dredged spoil, solid waste, in-
cinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat,
wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and indus-
trial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This
term does not mean (A) “sewage from vessels or a discharge inci-
dental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces”
within the meaning of section 312 of this Act; or (B) water, gas, or
other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production
of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas produc-
tion and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate
production or for disposal purpose is approved by authority of the
State in which the well is located, and if such State determines
uRINAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT — 198
that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of
ground or surface water resources.
(7) The term “navigable waters” means the waters of the Unit-
ed States, including the territorial seas.
(8) The term ‘territorial seas” means the belt of the seas meas-
ured from the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the
coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line
marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending sea-
ward a distance of three miles.
(9) The term “contiguous zone” means the entire zone estab-
lished or to be established by the United States under article 24
of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
(10) The term “ocean” means any portion of the high seas be-
yond the contiguous zone.
(11) The term “effluent limitation” means any restriction estab-
lished by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and
concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constitu-
ents which are discharged from point sources into navigable wa-
ters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean, including
schedules of compliance.
(12) The term “discharge of a pollutant” and the term “dis-
charge of pollutants” each means (A) any addition of any pollutant
to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any
pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from
any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.
(13) The term “toxic pollutant” means those pollutants, or com-
binations of pollutants, including disease-causing agents, which
after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion. inhalation or assimi-
lation into any organism, either directly from the environment or
indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of in.
formation available to the Administrator, cause death, disease, be-
havioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological
malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical
deformations, in such organisms or their offspring.
(14) The term “point source” means any discernible, confined
and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe,
ditch, channel tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or
other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be dis-
charged. This term doss not include agricultural stormwater dis-
charges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.
(15) The term “biological monitoring” shall mean the deter-
mination of the effects on aquatic life, including accumulation of
pollutants in tissue, in receiving waters due to the discharge of pol-
lutants (A) by techniques and procedures, including sampling of or-
ganisms representative of appropriate levels of the food chain ap-
propriate to the volume and the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the emuent, and (B) at appropriate frequencies
and locations.
(16) The term “discharge” when used without qualification in-
cludes a discharge of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants.
(17) The term “schedule of compliance” means a schedule of re-
medial measures including an enforceable sequence of actions or
197
Sec. 502
-------
FEDERAL WATER POWIIION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 503 Sec. 504
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 200
log
operations leadinç to compliance with an effluent limitation, other
limitation, prohibition, or standard.
(18) The term “industrial user” means those industries identi-
fied In the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Bureau of
the Budget, 1967, as amended and supplemented, under the cat-
e ory “Division D—Manufacturing” and ouch other classes of sig-
nificant waste producers as, by regulation, the Administrator
deems appropriate.
(19) The term “pollution” means the man-made or man-induced
alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological in-
tegrity of water.
(20) The term “medical waste” means isolation wastes; infec-
tious agents; human blood and blood products; pathological wastes;
sharps; body parts; contaminated bedding; surgical wastes and po-
tentially contaminated laboratory wastes; dialysis wastes; and ouch
additional medical items as the Administrator shall prescribe by
regulation.
(33 U.S.C. 1362)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. 503. (aX 1) There is hereby established in the Environ-
mental Protection Agency a Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board, composed of the Administrator or his designee, who shall be
Chairman, and nine members appointed by the President, none of
whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed mem-
bers, having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall be se-
lected from among representatives of various State, interstate, and
local governmental agencies, of public or private interests contrib-
uting to, affected by, or concerned with pollution, and of other pub-
lic and private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an
active interest in the field of pollution prevention and control, as
well as other individuals who are expert in this field.
(2XA) Each member appointed by the President shall hold of-
fice for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed
to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for
which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the re-
mainder of such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members
first taking office after June 30. 1956, shall expire as follows: three
at the end of one year after such date, three at the end of two years
after such date, and three at the end of three years after such date,
as designated by the President at the time of appointment, and (iii)
the term of any member under the preceding provisions shall be
extended until the date on which his successor’s appointment is ef-
fective. None of the members appointed by the President shall be
eligible for reappointment within one year after the end of his pre-
ceding term.
(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employ-
ees of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings
of the Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Ad-
ministrator, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to
be fixed by the Mmini trator, but not exceeding $100 per diem, in-
cluding traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular
pl Qe of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-
2) for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make rec-
ommendations to the Administrator on matters of policy relating to
the activities and functions of the Administrator under this Act.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary
to discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the per-
sonnel of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(33 U SC. 1363)
EMERGENCY POWERS
SEC. 504. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the Administrator upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source
or combination of sources is presenting an imminent and substan-
tial endangerment to the health of persons or to the welfare of per-
sons where such endangerment is to the livelihood of such persons,
such as inability to market shellfish, may bring suit on behalf of
the United States in the appropriate district court to immediately
restrain any person causing or contributing to the alleged pollution
to stop the discharge of pollutants causing or contributing to such
pollution or to take such other action as may be necessary.
(Subsection (b) repealed by §304(a) of P.L. 96—510, Dec. 11,
1980, 94 Stat. 28091
(33 U S.C. 1364)
CITIZEN SUITS
Sgc. 505. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this sec-
tion and section 309(gX6), any citizen may commence a civil action
on his own behalf—
(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and
(ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the
extent permitted by the eLeventh amendment to the Constitu-
tion) who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent stand-
ard or limitation under this Act or (B) an order issued by the
Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or
limitation, or
(2) against the Administrator where there is alleged a fail-
ure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this
Act which is not discretionary with the Administrator.
The district courts shall have )urisdiction without regard to the
amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce
such an effluent standard or limitation, or such an order, or to
order the Administrator to perform such act or duty, as the case
may be, and to apply any appropriate civil penalties under section
309(d) of this Act.
(b) No action may be commenced—
(1) under subsection (a)( 1) of this section—
(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given no-
tice of the alleged violation (i) to the Administrator, (ii) to
the State in which the alleged violation occurs, and (iii) to
any alleged violator of the standard, limitation, or order,
or —
-------
FEDER*I. WATER POUUUOII COIIIROL ACT
Sec. 505 Sec.
FE0ER L WATER POWJIISR CONTROL ACT 202
201
(B) if the Administrator or State has commenced and
Is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a
court of the United States, or a State to require compliance
with the standard, limitation, or order, but in any SUCh ac-
tion in a court of the United States any citizen may inter-
vene as a matter of right.
(2) under subsection (aX2) of this section prior to sixty
days after the plaintiff has given notice of such action to the
Administrator,
except that such action may be brought immediately after such no-
tification in the case of an action under this section respecting a
violation of sections 306 and 307(a) of this Act. Notice under this
subsection shall be given in ouch manner as the Administrator
shall prescribe by regulation.
(cXl) Any action respecting a violation by a discharge source
of an effluent standard or limitation or an order respecting such
standard or limitation may be brought under this section only in
the judicial district in which such source is located.
(2) In such action under this section, the Administrator, If not
a party, may intervene as a matter of right.
(3) PROTEC’IION OF INTERESTS OF UNITED STATES—When
ever any action is brought under this section in a court of the
United States, the plaintiff shall serve a copy of the complaint
on the Attorney General and the Administrator. No consent
judgment shall be entered in an action in which the United
States is not a party prior to 45 days Following the receipt of
a copy of the proposed consent judgment by the Attorney Gen-
eral and the Administrator.
(d) The court, In issuing any final order in any action brought
pursuant to this section, may award costs of litigation (including
reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing or
substantially prevailing party, whenever the court determines such
award is appropriate. The court may, If a temporary restraining
order or preliminary Injunction is sought, require the filing of a
bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any
person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common
law to seek enforcement of any effluent standard or limitation or
to seek any other relief (including relief against the Administrator
or a State agency).
(F) For purposes of this section, the term “effluent standard or
limitation under this Act” means (1) effective July 1, 1973, an un-
lawful act under subsection (a) of section 301 of this Act; (2) an ef-
fluent limitation or other limitation under section 301 or 302 of
this Act; (3) standard or performance under section 306 of this Act;
(4) prohibition, effluent standard or pretreatment standards under
section 307 of this Act (5) certification under section 401 of this
Act; (6) a permit or condition thereof issued under section 402 of
this Act, which is in effect under this Act (including a requirement
applicable by reason of section 313 of this Act); or (7) a regulat’ofl
under section 405(d) of this Act,.’
(g) For the purposes of this section the term “citizen” means
a person or persons having an interest which is or may be ad-
versely affected.
(h) A Governor of a State may commence a civil action under
subsection (a), without regard to the limitations of subsection (b) of
this section. against the Administrator where there is alleged a
failure of the Administrator to enforce an emuent standard or limi-
tation under this Act the violation of which is occurring in another
State and is causing an adverse effect on the public health or wel-
fare in his State, or is causing a violation of any water quality re-
quirement in his State.
(33 U.S.C. 1366)
APPEARANCE
SEc. 506. The Administrator shall request the Attorney Gen-
eral to appear and represent the United States in any civil or
criminal action instituted under this Act to which the Adminis-
trator is a party. Unless the Attorney General notifies the Adminis-
trator within a reasonable time, that he will appear in a civil ac-
tion. attorneys who are officers or employees of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall appear and represent the United States in
such action.
(33 USC 1366)
EMPLOYEE PROTECTION
SEc. 507. (a) No person shall fire, or in any other way discrimi-
nate against, or cause to be fired or discriminated against, any em-
ployee or any authorized representative or employees by reason of
the fact that such employee or representative has filed, instituted,
or caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding under this Act,
or has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding resulting
from the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this
Act.
(b) Any employee or a representative of employees who believes
that he has been fired or otherwise discriminated against by any
person in violation of subsection (a) of this section may, within thir-
ty days after such alleged violation oecurs, apply to the Secreta
of Labor for a review of such firing or alleged discrimination.
copy of the application shall be sent to such person who shall be
the respondent. Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary of
Labor shall cause such investigation to be made as he deems ap-
propriate. Such investigation shall provide n opportunity for a
public hearing at the request of any party to such review to enable
the parties to present information relating to such alleged viola-
tion. The parties shall be given written notice of the time and place
of the hearing at least five days prior to the hearing. Any such
hearing shall be of record and shall be subject to section 554 of title
5 of the United States Code. Upon receiving the report of such in-
vestigation, the Secretary of Labor shall make findings of fact. If
‘So In law So. P.L 700-4. . 406(4X2). 101 St.L 73
-------
203 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 501 Sec. 500
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 204
he finds that such violation did occur, he shall issue a decision, in-
corporating an order therein and his findings, requiring the party
committing such violation to take such affirmative action to abate
the violation as the Secretary of Labor deems appropriate, includ-
ing, but not limited to, the rehiring or reinstatement of the em-
ployee or representative of employees to his former position with
compensation. If he finds that there was no such violation, he shall
issue an order denying the application. Such order issued by the
Secretary of Labor under this subparagraph shall be subject to ju-
dicial review in the same manner as orders and decisions of the
Administrator are subject to judicial review under this Act.
(c) Whenever an order is issued under this section to abate
such violation, at the request of the applicant, a sum equal to the
aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including the attor-
ney’s fees), as determined by the Secretary of Labor, to have been
reasonably incurred by the applicant for, or in connection with, the
institution and prosecution of such proceedings, shall be assessed
against the person committing such violation.
(d) This section shall have no application to any employee who,
acting without direction from his employer (or his agent) delib-
erately violates any prohibition of effluent limitation or other limi-
tation under section 301 or 302 of this Act, standards of perform-
ance under section 306 of this Act, effluent standard, prohibition or
pretreatment standard under section 307 of this Act, or any other
prohibition or limitation established under this Act.
(e) The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of
potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the
issuance of any effluent limitation or order under this Act, includ-
ing, where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or
reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such limitation
or order. Any employee who is discharged or laid off, threatened
with discharge or lay-off or otherwise discriminated against by any
person because of the aheged results of any effluent limitation or
order issued under this Act, or any representative of such em-
ployee, may request the Administrator to conduct a full investiga-
tion of the matter. The Administrator shall thereupon investigate
the matter and, at the request of any party, shall hold public hear-
ings on not less than five days notice, and shall at such hearings
require the parties, including the employer involved, to present in-
formation relating to the actual or potential effect of such limita-
tion or order on employment and on any alleged discharge, lay-off,
or other discrimination and the detailed reasons or justification
therefor. Any such hearing shall be of record and shall be subject
to section 554 of title 5 of the United States Code. Upon receiving
the report of such investigation, the Administrator shall make find-
ings of fact as to the effect of such effluent limitation or order on
employment and on the alleged discharge, lay-off, or discrimination
and shall make such recommendations as he deems appropriate.
Such report, findings, and recommendations shall be available to
the public. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require
or authorize the Administrator to modify or withdraw any effluent
limitation or order issued under this Act.
‘J C. 1367)
FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
SEc. 508. (a) No Federal agency may enter into any contract
with any person, who has been convicted of any offense under sec-
tion 309(c) of this Act, for the procurement of goods, materials, and
services if such contract is to be performed at any facility at which
the violation which gave rise to such conviction occurred, and if
such facility is owned, leased, or supervised by such person. The
prohibition in the preceding sentence shall continue until the Ad-
ministrator certifies that the condition giving rise to such convic-
tion has been corrected.
(b) The Administrator halI establish procedures to provide all
Federal agencies with the notification necessary for the purposes of
subsection (a) of this section.
(c) In order to implement the purposes and policy of this Act
to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s water, the Presi-
dent shall not more than one hundred and eighty days after enact-
ment of th 8 Act, cause to be issued an order (1) requiring each
Federal agency authorized to enter into contracts and each Federal
agency which is empowered to extend Federal assistance by way of
grant, loan, or contract to effectuate the purpose and policy of this
Act in such contracting or assistance activities, and (2) setting forth
procedures, sanctions, penalties, and such other provisions, as the
President determines necessary to carry out such requirement.
(dl The President may exempt any contract, loan, or grant
from all or part of the provisions of this section where he deter-
mines such exemption is necessary in the paramount interest of
the United States and he shall notify the Congress of such exemp-
tion.
(e) The President shall annually report to the Congress on
measures taken in compliance with the purpose and intent of this
section, including, but not limited to, the progress and problems as-
sociated with such compliance.
(t)( 1) No certification by a contractor, and no contract clause,
may be required in the case of a contract for the acquisition of com-
mercial items in order to implement a prohibition or requirement
of this section or a prohibition or requirement issued in the imple-
mentation of this section.
(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘commercial item” has the
meaning given such term in section 4(12) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(12)).
(33 U.S.C. 1368)
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
SEC. 509. (aX 1) For purposes of obtaining information under
section 305 of this Act, or carrying out section 507(e) of this Act.
the Administrator may issue subpenas for the attendance and testi-
mony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books,
and documents and he may administer oaths. Except for emuent
data, upon a sf owing satisfactory to the Administrator that such
papers, books, documents, or information or particular part thereof,
if made public, would divulge trade secrets or secret processes, the
Administrator shall consider such record, report, or informati in or
particular portion thereof confidential in accordance with the puT-
-------
205 FROERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL &CT
Scs 509 Sec 510
FEO P.AL WAIRN POLLUTION CONTROL Ad 205
poses of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code, except
that such paper, book document, or information may be disclosed
to other officers, employees, or authorized representatives of the
United States concerned with carrying out this Act, or when rel-
evant in any proceeding under this Act. Witnesses summoned shall
be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the
courts of the United States. In case of contumacy or refusal to obey
a suhpena served upon any person under this subsection, the dis-
trict court of the United States for any district in which such per-
son is found or resides or transact. business, upon application by
the United States and after notice to such person, shall have juris-
diction to issue an order requiring such person to appear and give
testimony before the Administrator, to appear and produce papers.
books, and documents before the Administrator, or both, and any
failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such
court as a contempt thereof.
(2) The diatrict courts of the United States are authorized,
upon application by the Administrator, to issue subpenaa for at-
tendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant
papers, books, and documents, for purposes of obtaining inforina-
Lion under sections 304 (b) and (c) of this Act. Any papers, books,
documents, or other information or part thereof, obtained by reason
of such a subpena shall be subject to the same requirements as are
provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(bXI) Review of the Administrator’s action (A) in promulgating
any standard of performance under section 306, (B) in making any
determination pursuant to section 306(bX1XC), (C) in promulgating
any emuent standard, prohibition, or pretreatment standard under
section 307, (D) in making any determination as to a State permit
program submitted under section 402(b), (E) in approving or pro.
mulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under sections
301. 302, 306, or 4O5 (F) in issuing or denying any permit under
section 402, and (G) in promulgating any individual control strat-
egy under section 304(1), may be had by any intereated person in
the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the Federal
judicial district in which ouch person resides or transacta business
which is directly affected by such action upon application by such
person. Any such application shall be made within 120 days from
the date of such determination, approval, promulgation, issuance or
denial, or after such date only if such application is based solely
on grounds which arose after such 120th day.
(2) Action of the Administrator with respect to which review
could have been obtained under pararaph (1) of this subsection
shall not be subject to judicial review in any civil or criminal pro-
ceeding for enforcement.
(3) Aw 1w or rsis.—In any judicial proceeding under this
subsection, the court may award costa of litigation (including
reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing
or substantially prevailing party whenever it determines that
such award is appropriate.
(c) In any judimal proceeding brought under subsection (b) of
this section in which review is sought of a determination under this
Act required to be made on the record after notice and opportunity
for bearing, if any party applies to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that
such additional evidence is material and that there were reason-
able grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceed-
ing before the Administrator, the court may order such additional
evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereofl to be taken before the
Administrator, in such manner and upon such terms and comb-
tiona as the court may deem proper. The Administrator may modify
his findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the
additional evidence so taken and he shall file such modified or new
findings, and his recommendation, if any, for the modification or
setting aside of his original determination with the return of such
additional evidence.
(33 U.S.C. 1369)
STATE AUTHORITY
SEC. 510. Except as expressly provided in this Act, nothing in
this Act shall (1) preclude or deny the right of any State or political
subdivision thereof or interstate agency to adopt or enforce (A) any
standard or limitation respecting discharges of pollutants, or (B)
any requirement respecting control or abatement of pollution; ex-
cept that if an effluent limitation, or other limitation. emuent
standard, prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of per-
formance is in effect under this Act, such State or political subdivi-
sion or interstate agency may not adopt or enforce any emuent lim-
itation, or other limitation, effluent standard, prohibition,
pretreatment standard, or standard of performance which is less
stringent than the effluent limitation, or other limitation, effluent
standard prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of per-
formance under this Act; or (2) be construed as impairing or in any
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with re-
spect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
(33 U.S.C. 1370)
OTHER APFECTED AUTHORITY
SEC. 511. (a) This Act shall not be construed as (1) limiting the
authority or functions of any officer or agency of the United States
under any other law or regulation not inconsistent with this Act;
(2) affecting or impairing the authority of the Secretary of the
Army (A) to maintain navigation or (B) under the Act of March 3,
1899 (30 Stat. 1112); except that any permit issued under section
404 of this Act shall be conclusive as to the effect on water quality
of any discharge resulting from any activity subject to section 10
of the Act of March 3, 1899, or (3) affecting or impairing the provi-
sions of any treaty of the United SLates.
(b) Discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters subject
to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1910 (36 Stat. 593; 33 U.S.C. 421)
and the Supervisory Harbors, Act of 1888 (25 Stat. 209; 33 U.S.C.
441—451b) shall be regulated pursuant to this Act, and not subject
to such Act of 1910 and the Act of 1888 except as to effect on navi-
gation and anchorage.
(cX 1) Except for the provision of Federal financial assistance
for the purpose of assisting the construction of publicly owned
treatment works as authorized by section 201 of this Act, and the
-------
207 FEDERAL WAlER POWJTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 513 Sec. 514
FEDERAL WATER POUJITION CONTROL ACT 208
issuance of a permit under section 402 of this Act for the discharge
of any pollutant by a new source as defined in section 306 of this
Act, no action of the Administrator taken pursuant to this Act shall
be deemed a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment within the meaning of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852); and
(2) Nothing in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(83 Stat. 852) shall be deemed to—
(A) authorize any Federal agency authorized to license or
permit the conduct of any activity which may result in the dis-
charge of a pollutant into the navigable waters to review any
effluent limitation or other reqwrement established pursuant
to this Act or the adequacy of any certification under section
401 of ths Act; or
(B) authorize any such agency to impose, as a condition
precedent to the issuance of any license or permit, any effluent
limitation other than any such limitation established pursuant
to this Act.
(d) Notwithstanding this Act or any other provisions of law, the
Administrator (1) shall not require any State to consider in the de-
velopment of the ranking in order of priority of needs for the con-
struction of treatment works (as defined in title II of this Act), any
water pollution control agreement which may have been entered
into between the United States and any other nation, and (2) shall
not consider any such agreement in the approval of any such prior-
ity ranking.
(33 U.S.C. 1371)
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 512. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid,
the application of such provision to other persona or circumstances,
and the remainder of this Act shall not be affected thereby.
(33 U.S.C. 1251 not.)
LABOR STANDARDS
Sac. 513. The Mministrator shall take such action as may be
necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by
contractors or subcontractors on treatment works for which grants
are made under this Act shall be paid wages at rates not less than
those prevailing for the same type of work on similar construction
in the immediate locality, as determied by the Secretry of Labor,
in accordance with the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended, known
as the Davis-Bacon Act (46 Stat. 1494; 40 U.S_c., sec. 276a through
276a—6). The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the
labor standards specified in this subsection, the authority and func-
tions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15
F.1t 3176) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended
(48 Stat 948; 40 US.C. 276c).
‘‘ U.S.C. 1372)
PUBLIC HEALTh AGENCY COORDINATION
Sac. 514. The permitting agency under section 402 shall assist
the applicant for a permit under such section in coordinating the
requirements of this Act with those of the appropriate public health
agencies.
(33 U.S.C. 1373)
EFFLUENT STANDARDS AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION ADVISORY
COMMITIEE
Sac. 515. (aX 1) There is established on Effluent Standards and
Water Quality Information Advisory Committee, which shall be
composed of a Chairman and eight members who shall be ap-
pointed by the Administrator within sixty days after the date of en-
actment of this Act.
(2) All members of the Committee shall be selected from the
scientific community, qualified by education, training, and experi-
ence to provide assess, and evaluate scientific and technical infor-
mation on effluent standards and limitations.
(3) Members of the Committee shall serve for a term of four
years, and may be reappointed.
(bXl) No later than one hundred and eighty days prior to the
date on which the Administrator is required to publish any pro-
posed regulations required by section 304(b) of this Act, any pro-
posed standard of performance for new sources required by section
306 of this Act, or any proposed toxic effluent standard required by
section 307 of this Act, he shall transmit to the Committee a notice
of intent to propose such regulations. The Chairman of the Com-
mittee within ten days after receipt of such notice may publish a
notice of a public hearing by the Committee, to be held within thir-
ty days.
(2) No later than one hundred and twenty days after receipt
of such notice, the Committee shall transmit to the Administrator
such scientific and technical information as is in its possession, in-
cluding that presented at any public hearing, related to the subject
matter contained in such notice.
(3) Information so transmitted to the Administrator shall con-
stitute a part of the administrative record and comments on any
proposed regulations or standards as information to be considered
with other comments and information in making any final deter-
minations.
(4) In preparing information for transmittal, the Committee
shall avail itself of the technical and scientific services of any Fed-
eral agency, including the United States Geological Survey and any
national environmental laboratories which may be established.
(CX 1) The Committee shall appoint and prescribe the duties of
a Secretary, and such legal counsel as it deems necessary. The
Committee shall appoint such other employees as it deems nec-
essary to exercise and fulfill its powers and responsibilities. The
compensation of all employees appointed by the Committee shall be
fixed in accordance with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
53 of title V of the United States Code. —
(2) Members of the Committee shall be entitled to recei com-
pensation at a rate to be fixed by the President but not n excess
-------
209 FEDERAL. WATER PIIWITION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 51$ Sec. SIN
FEDERAL WATER POUDIIOM CONTROL ACT - 210
of the maximum rate of pay grade for GS—1B, as provided in the
General Schedule under section 6332 of tit1 V of the United States
Code.
(d) Five members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum,
and official actions of the Committee shalt be taken only on the af-
firmative vote of at least five members. A special panel composed
of one or more members upon order of the Committee shall conduct
any hearing authorized by this section and submit the transcript
of such hearing to the entire Committee for its action thereon.
Ce) The Committee La authorized to make such rules as are nec-
easary for the orderly transaction of its business.
(33 U.S C. 1374)
REPOR7S TO CONGRESS
Sac. 516. (a) Within ninety days following the convening of
each session of Congress, the Administrator shall submit to the
Congress a report, In addition to any other report required by this
Act, on measures taken toward implementing the objective of this
Act, including, but not limited to, (1) the progress and problems as-
sociated with developing comprehensive plans under section 102 of
this Act, areawide plans under section 208 of this Act, basin plans
under section 209 of this Act, and plans under section 303(e) of this
Act; (2) a summary of actions taken and results achieved in the
field of water pollution control research, experiments studies, and
related matters by the Administrator and other FeJera agencies
and by other persons and agencies under Federal grants or con-
tracts; (3) the pro reos and problems associated with the deveLop-
ment of emuent Limitations and recommended control techniques;
(4) the status of State programs, including a detailed summary of
the progress obtained as compared to that planned under the State
program plans Ibr development and enforcement of water quality
requirements; (5) the identification and status of enforcement Sc.
Lions pending or completed under such Act during the preceding
year, (6) the status of State, interstate, and local pollution control
programs established pursuant to, and assisted by, this Act; (7) a
summary of the results of the survey required to be taken under
section 210 of this Act; (8) his activities including recommendations
under sections 109 through 111 of this Act and (9) all reports and
recommendations made by the Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board,
(bXI) The Administrator, In cooperation with the States, in-
cluding water pollution control agencies and other water pollution
control planning agencies, shall make (A) a detailed estimate of the
coat of canytug out the provisions of this Act; (B) a detailed esti-
mate, biennially revised, of the cost of construction of all needed
publicly owned treatment works in all of the States and of the coat
of construction of all needed publicly owned treatment works in
each of the States; (C) a comprehensive study of the economic im-
pact on affected units of gevernment of the cost of installation of
treatment facilities; and (D) a comprehensive analysis of the na-
tional requirements for and the cost of treating municipal, indus-
trial, and other effluent to attain the water quality objectives as es-
tablished by this Act or applie -shle State law. The Administrator
shall submit such detailed estimate and such comprehensive arudy
of such cost to the Congress no later than February 10 of each odd-
numbered year. Whenever the Administrator, pursuant to this sub-
section. requests and receives an estimate of cost from a State, he
shall furnish copies of such estimate together with such detailed
estimate to Congress.
(2) Notwithstanding the second sentence of paragraph (1) of
this subsection, the Administrator shall make a preliminary de-
tailed estimate called for y ubparagraph (B) of such paragraph
and shall submit such preliminary detailed estimate to the Con.
gress no later than September 3, 1974. The Administrator shall re-
quire each State to prepare an estimate of cost for such State, and
shall utilize the survey form EPA—I, O.M.B. No. I58—R0017. pre-
pared for the 1973 detailed estimate, except that such estimate
shall include all costs of compliance with section 201(gX2XA) of this
Act and water quality standards established pursuant to section
303 of this Act, and all coats of treatment works as defined in sec-
tion 212(2), including all eligible coats of constructing sewage col-
lection systems and correcting excessive infiltration or inflow and
all eligible costa of correcting combined storm and sanitary sewer
problems and treating storm water flows. The survey form shall be
distributed by the Administrator to each State no later than Janu-
ary 31, 1974.
(c) The Administrator shalt submit to the Congress by October
1, 1978, a report on the status of combined sewer overflows in mu-
nicipal treatment works operations. The report shall include (1) the
status of any projects funded under this Act to address combined
sewer overflows, (2) a listing by State of combined sewer overflow
needs identified in the 1977 State priority listings, (3) an estimate
for each applicable municipality of the number of years necessary.
assuming an annual authorization and appropriation for the con-
struction grants program of $5,000,000,000 to correct combined
sewer overflow problems, (4) an analysis using representative mu-
nicipalities faced with major combined sewer overflow needs, of the
annual discharges of pollutants from overflows in comparison to
treated affluent discharges, (5) an analysis of the technological al-
ternatives available to municipalities to correct major combined
sewer overflow problems, and (6) any recommendations of the Ad-
ministrator for legislation to address the problem of combined
sewer overflows, including whether a separate authorization and
grant program should be established by the Congress to address
combined sewer overflows.
(d) The Mministrator, in cooperation with the States, includ-
ing water pollution control agencies, and other water pollution con-
trol planning agencies, and water supply and water resources agen-
cies of the States and the United States shall submit to Congress,
within two years of the date of enactment of this section, a report
with recommendations for legislation on a program to reqwre co-
ordination between water supply and wastewater control plans as
a condition to grants for construction of treatment works under this
Act. No such report shall be submitted except after opportunity for
public hearings on such proposed report.
(e) STATE REvoLVING Fwio RE1owr.
-------
211 FEDERAl. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 517 Sec. 510
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 717
(1) IN CENERAL —NOt later than February 10, 1990, the
Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on the (‘man-
cial status and operations of water pollution control revolving
funds established by the States under the title VI of this Act.
The Administrator shall prepare such report in cooperation
with the States, including water pollution control agencies and
other water pollution control planning and financing agencies.
(2) CONTEWIS.—The report under this subsection shall also
include the following:
(A) an inventory of the facilities that are In significant
noncompliance with the enforceable requirements of this
Act;
(B) an estimate of the coat of construction neceeBary to
bring such facilities into compliance with such require-
ments;
(C) an assessment of the availability of sources of
funds for financing such needed construction, including an
estimate of the amount of funds available for providing as-
sistance for such construction through September 30, 1999,
from the water pollution control revolving funds estab-
lished by the States under title VI of this Act;
(D) an assessment of the operations, loan portfolio,
and loan conditions of such revolving funds;
(E) an assessment of the effect on user charges of the
assistance provided by such revolving funds compared to
the assistance provided with funds appropriated pursuant
to section 207 of this Act; and
(F) an assessment of the efficiency of the operation
and maintenance of treatment works constructed with as-
sistance provided by such revolving funds compared to the
efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment
works constructed with assistance provided under section
201 of this Act.
(33 U.s C. 1376)
GENERAL AUTHORIZATION
SEc. 517. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this Act, other than sections 104, 105. 106(a), 107, 108, 112, 113,
114, 115, 206, 207, 208 (f) and (h), 209, 304, 311 (c), (d), (i), (I), and
(k), 314, 315, and 317, $250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1973, $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,
$350,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, $100,000,000
for the fl caI year ending September 30, 1977, $150,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, $150,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1979, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1980, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1981. $161,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30, 1982, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years
1983 through 1985, and $135,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the
fiscal years 1986 through 1990.
(33 US.C. 1378)
SEC. 518. INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) Poucy.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
the application of section 101(g) of this Act, and all of the provi-
sions of this section shall be carried out in accordance with the pro-
visions of such section 101(g). Indian tribes shall be treated as
States for purposes of such section 10 1(g).
(b) ASSESSMENT OF SEwAGE TREATMENT NEEDS; REPORT.—The
Administrator, in cooperation with the Director of the Indian
Health Service, shall assess the need for sewage treatment works
to serve Indian tribes the degree to which such needs will be met
through funds allotted to States under section 205 of this Act and
priority lists under section 216 of this Act, and any obstacles which
prevent such needs from being met. Not later than one year after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
submit a report to Congress on the assessment under this sub-
section, along with recommendations speci(ying (1) how the Admin-
istrator intends to provide assistance to Indian tribes to develop
waste treatment management plans and to construct treatment
works under this Act, and (2) methods by which the participation
in and administration of programs under this Act by Indian tribes
can be maximized.
(c) RESERVATION OF FUNDS—The Administrator shall reserve
each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1986, before allot-
ments to the States under section 205(e), one-half of one percent
of the sums appropriated under section 207. Sums reserved under
this subsection shall be available only for grants for the develoment
of waste treatment management plans and for the construction of
sewage treatment works to serve Indian tribes, as defined in sub-
section (h) and former Indian reservations in Oklahoma (as deter-
mined by the Secretary of the Interior) and Alaska Native Villages
as defined in Public Law 92-203.
(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS—In order to ensure the consist-
ent implementation of the requirements of this Act, an Indian tribe
and the State or States in which the lands of such tribe are located
may enter into a cooperative agreement, subject to the review and
approval of the Administrator, to jointly plan and administer the
requirements of this Act.
(e) TREATMENT AS STATes—The Administrator is authorized to
treat an Indian tribe as a State for purposes of title II and sections
104, 106, 303, 305, 308, 309, 314, 319, 401, 402, and 404 of this
Act to the degree necessary to carry out the objectives of this sec-
tion, but only if—
(1) the Indian tribe has a governing body carrying out sub-
stantial governmental duties and powers;
(2) the functions to be exercised by the Indian tribe pertain
to the management and protection of water resources which
are held by an Indian tribe, held by the United States in trust
for Indians, held by a member of an Iiidian tribe if such prop-
erty interest is subject to a trust restriction on alienation, or
otherwise within the borders of an Indian reservation; and
(3) the Indian tribe is reasonably expected to be capable,
in the Administrato?s judgment, of carrying out the fri rtions
to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and pur-
poses of this Act and of all applicable regulations.
-------
FEDERAL WATER POWJTIP! CONTROL ACT
Sac. SIR
Sec. 5l
FEDERAL WATER POllUTION CONTROL ACT 214
213 _____________
Such treatment as a State may include the direct provision of
funds reserved under subsection (c) to the governing bodies of In-
d ian tribes and the determination of priorities by Indian tribes,
where not ãetermined by the Administrator in cooperation with the
Director of the Indian Health Service. The Administrator, in co-
operation with the Director of the Indian Health Service, is author-
ized to make grants under title II of this Act in an amount not to
exceed 100 percent of the cost of a project. Not later than 18
months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Admin-
istrator shall, in consultation with Indian tribes, promulgate final
regulations which specify how Indian tribes shall be treated as
States for purposes of this Act. The Administrator shall, in Promul-
gating such regulations, consult affected States sharing common
water bodies and provide a mechanism for the resolution of any un-
reasonable consequences that may arise as a result of differing
water quality standard. that may be set by States and Indian
tribes located on common bodies of water. Such mechanism shall
provide for explicit consideration of relevant factors including, but
not limited to, the effect. of differing water quality permit require-
ments on upstream and downstream dischargers, economic im-
pacts, and present and historical uses and quality of the waters
subject to such standards. Such mechanism should provide for the
avoidance of such unreasonable consequences in a manner consist-
ent with the objective of this Act.
(I) GwrN FOR NONPOINT SOURCE Pgocw s.—The Adminis-
trator shall make grants to an Indian tribe under section 319 of
this Act as though such tribe was a State. Not more than one-third
of one percent el the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 319 may be used to make grants under this subsection. In
addition to the requirements of section 319, an Indian tribe shall
be required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
of subsection (d) of this section in order to receive such a pant.
(g) AIASICA NATIVE OaGANIzATI0N5 .—No provision of this Act
shall be construed to—
(1) grant, enlarge, or diminish, or in any way affect the
scope of the governmental authority, if any, of any Alaska Na-
tive organization, including any federally-recognized tribe, tra-
ditional Alaska Native council, or Native council organized
pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 987), over lands
or persons In latafr* ;
(2) create or validate any assertion by such organization or
any form of governmental authority over lands or persons in
Alaeka ; or
(3) in any way affect any assertion that Indian country, as
defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, exist.
or does not exist in Alaska.
(h) DEPINm0N&—For purposes of this section, the term—
(1) “Federal Indian reservation” means all land within the
limit. of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of
any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the
reservation; and
‘ri .b3r bgald b subascUas (d
(2) “Indian tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, group 1 or
community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior andex-
ercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reserva-
tion.
(33 U.S.C. 1377)
SHORT TITLE
SEc. 519. This Act may be cited as the “Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act” (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act).
(33 U.S.C. 1251 note)
TITLE Vl—STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
REVOLVING FUNDS
SEC. 601. GRANTS TO STAT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF REVOLVING
FUNDS.
(a) GENERAL ALmiORITY.—Subject to the provisions of this
title, the Administrator shall make capitalization grants to each
State for the purpose of establishing a water pollution control re-
volving fund for providing assistance (1) for construction of treat-
meni. works (as defined in section 212 of this Act) which are pub-
licly owned, (2) for implementing a management program under
section 319, and (3) for developing and implementing a conserva-
tion and management plan under section 320.
(b) SCHEDULE OF GIIANT PAYMENTS—The Administrator and
each State shall jointly establish a schedule of payments under
which the Administrator will pay to the State the amount of each
grant to be made to the State under this title. Such schedule shall
be based on the State’s intended use plan under section 606(c) of
this Act, except that—
(1) such payments shall be made in quarterly installments,
and
(2) such payments shall be made as expeditiously as pos-
sible, but in no event later than the earlier of—
(A) 8 quarters after the date such funds were obligated
by the State, or
(B) 12 quarters after the date such funds were allotted
to the State.
(33U.SC. 1381)
SEC. 608. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.
(a) GENERAL RuLE.—To receive a capitalization grant with
funds made available under this title and section 205(m) of this
Act, a State shall enter into an apeement with the Administrator
which shall include but not be limited to the specifications set forth
in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.—The Administrator shall enter
into an agreement under this section with a State only after the
State has established to the satisfaction of the Administrator
that —
(1) the State will accept grant payments with funds to be
made available under this title and section 205(m) of this Act
in accordance with a payment schedule established jointly by
the Administrator under section 601(b) of this Act and will de.
-------
215 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. 602 Sec. 603
FEDERAL WATER PO UJTI0N CONTROL ACT 216
posit all such payments in the water pollution control revolving
fund established by the State in accordance with this title;
(2) the State will deposit in the fund from State moneys
an amount equal to at least 20 percent of the total amount of
all capitalization grants which will be made to the State with
funds to be made available under this title and section 205(m)
of this Act on or before the date on which each quarterly grant
payment will be made to the State under this title;
(3) the State will enter into binding commitments to pro-
vide assistance in accordance with the requirements of this
title in an amount equal to 120 percent of the amount of each
such grant payment within 1 year after the receipt of such
grant payment;
(4) all funds in the fund will be expended in an expeditious
and timely manner;
(5) all funds in the fund as a result of capitalization grants
under this title and section 205(m) of this Act will first be used
to assure maintenance of progress, as determined by the Coy-
e nor of the State, toward complianc, with enforceable dead-
lines, goals, and requirements of this Act, including the munic-
ipal compliance deadline;
(6) treatment works eligible under section 603(cXl) of this
Act which will be constructed in whole or in part before fiscal
year 1995 with funds directly made available by capitalization
grants under thi. title and section 205(m) of this Act will meet
the requirements o1 or otherwise be treated (as determined by
the Governor of the State) under sections 201(b), 201(gX 1),
201(gX2), 201(gX3), 201(gX6), 201(gX6), 201(nXl), 201(o),
2 O4(aXl), 204(aX2), 204(bXl), 204(dX2), 211, 218, &11(cXl), and
513 of this Act in the same manner as treatment works con-
structed with assistance under title H of this Act;
(7) in addition to complying with the requirements of this
title, the State will commit or expend each quarterly grant
payment which it will receive under this title in accordance
with laws and procedures applicable to the commitment or ex-
penditure of revenues of the State;
(8) in carrying out the requirements of section 606 of this
Act, the State will use accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures
conforming to generally accepted government accounting
standards;
(9) the State will require as a condition of making a loan
or providing other assistance, as described In sectIon 603(d) of
this Act, from the fund that the recipient of such assisfance
will maintain project accounts in accordance with generally ac-
cepted government accounting standards; and
(10) the State will make annual report. to the Mminia-
trator on the actual use of’ funds in accordance with section
606(d) of this Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1382)
SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.’
(a) REQUIREMENTS FOR OBuGATI0N OF GaANr FuNDS—Before
a State may receive a capitalization grant with funds made avail-
able under this title and section 205(m) of this Act, the State shall
first establish a water pollution control revolving fund which com-
plies with the requirements of this section.
(b) ADMINISTRATOR—Each State water pollution control revolv-
ing fund shall be administered by an instrumentality of the State
with such powers and limitations as may be required to operate
such fund in accordance with the requirements and objectives of
this Act.
(c) PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE—The amounts of
funds available to each State water pollution control revolving fund
shall be used only for providing financial assistance (1) to any mu-
nicipality, intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency for construc-
tion of publicly owned treatment works (as defined in section 212
of this Act), (2) for the implementation of a management program
established under section 319 of this Act, and (3) for development
and implementation of a conservation and management plan under
section 320 of this Act. The fund shall be established, maintained,
and credited with repayments, and the fund balance shall be avail-
able in perpetuity for providing such financial assistance. 2
(d) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE—Except as otherwise limited by
State law, a water pollution control revolving fund of a State under
this section may be used only—
(1) to make loans, on the condition that,—
(A) such loans are made at or below market interest
rates, including interest free loans, at terms not to exceed
20 years;
(B) annual principal and interest payments will com-
mence not later than 1 year after completion of any project
and all loans will be fully amortized not later than 20
years after project completion;
(C) the recipient of a loan will establish a dedicated
source of revenue for repayment of loans; and
‘See section 104 5 of the Marine Protection Reeeaidl and Sanctuaries Mt or 1972 (33 USC
1414G) for sddltaonal amount. that are lob. epc.ited into. Stales fund and treatment of such
deposit.
‘Section *005 of the Ocean Dumping Ban Mt of 1988 (P L *00-688) ic sa follows.
SEC. lOSS. USE OF ATE WATER POW ON CONTROl. REVOLVING FUND
GRANTS FOR DEVELOPING ALIERNATIVE SYSTEM&
(a) Ogneari. Rs urnauewr —Notwithstanding the provision. of title Vi of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, each of the States of New York and New Jersey .k.I) use *0 percent ol
the amount of s grant payment made to such State under such title for each of the fiscal years
1990 and 1991 and 10 percent of the States contribution associated with such grant payment
in the 6.moiith period beginning on the date of receipt of such grant payment for making loan.
snd providing other assistance as described in section 603(d) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to any governmental entity in such Stats which ha. entered into a compliance
agreement or enforoement agreement wider .sctlon 1048 of Ui. Marine Protection, Research.
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Far identifying developing, and Implementing pursuant to such sec
tion alternative system. for msnagement of sewage aludge
(bi Luirra eow —Il’. alter the last day of the Smooth period beglnningon the dat . of receipt
of a grant payment by the Stat, of New Yoch or New Jersey under title VI of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act for each .f fIscal years 1990 and 1991. *0 percent of the amount of.sucli
grant payment and the State’s contribution —‘ Ied with such grant psyment has n.t been
used for providing auistancs ds.cnb.d In subsection (a) as a ,eault of ui.uflicient apç’l - .tiona
for such alsistenee from person . .ligibl. For such aislatance. the *0 peveant bmitabons foeth
In aubeection (a) shall not ha applicable with respect to such grant payment and associated Stat.
o snta lbutio
-------
217 IEDER L WATER POLLUTIWI COIITROL ACT
(D) the fund will be credited with aH payments of pnn-
cipal and interest on all loans;
(2) to buy or refinance the debt obligati n of munici:palities
and intermunicipal and interstate agencies within the State at
or below market rates, where such debt obligations were in-
curied alter March 7, 1985;
(3) to guarantee, or purchase insurance for, local obliga-
tions where such action would improve credit market access or
reduce interest rates;
(4) as a source of revenue or security for the payment of
principal and interest on revenue or general obligation bonds
issued by the State if the proceeds of the sale of such bonds
will be deposited in the fund;
(5) to provide loan guarantees for similar revolving funds
established by municipalities or intermunicipal agencies;
(6) to earn interest on fund accounts; and
(7) for the reasonable costs of administering the fund and
conducting activities under this title, except that such amounts
shall not exceed 4 percent of all grant awards to such fund
under this title.
(e) LIMITATION To Panvgt.ir Dou&.g BENEi ’rrs.—lf a State
makes, from its water pollution revolving fund, a loan which will
finance the cost of facility planning and the preparation of plans,
specifications, and estimates for construction of public! 7 owned
treatment works, the State shall ensure that if the recipient of
such loan receives a grant under section 20 1(g) of this Act for con-
struction of such treatment works and an allowance under section
201(lXl) of this Act for non-federal funds expended for such plan.
ning and preparation, such recipient will promptly repay such loan
to the extent of such allowance.
(I) CONSISTENCY Wim PLANNING REQUIREMENI8—A State
may provide financial assistance from its water pollution control
revolving fund only with respect to a project which Is consistent
with plans, if any, developed under sections 205( j), 208, 303(e), 319,
and 320 of this Act.
(0 Pmoiuty Lisr REQUIREMENT—The State may provide fi-
nancial assistance from Its water pollution control revolving fund
only with respect to a project for construction of a treatment works
described in subsection (cXl) If such project is on the State’s prior-
ity list under section 216 of this Act. Such assistance may be pro-
vided regardless of the rank of such project on such list.
(h) ELIGIBIUTY or NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF CONSTRUCTION
Gwn PR0.mcrs.—A State water pollution control revolving fund
may provide assistance (other than under subsection (d xl) of this
section) to a municipality or intermunicipal or interstate agency
with respect to the non-Federal share of the costs of a treatment
works project for which such municipality or agency is receiving as-
sistance from the Administrator under any other authority only if
such assistance Is necessary to allow such project to proceed.
(33 U.S.c. 1383)
SEC. 104. ALLOTMENT OP FUNDS.
(a) FORMuLA.—Sums authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section for each of fiscal years 1989 and 1990 shall be a!-
Sec. 605 FEDERAl. WATER POLLUTIOII COUTROL ACT
lotted by the Administrator in accordance with section 2&, c) of
this Act.
(b) RESERVATION OF FUNDS FOR PLANNING.—Each State shall
reserve each fiscal year 1 percent of the sums allotted to such State
under this section for such fiscal year, or $100,000. whichever
amount is greater, to carry out planning under sections 205 (j) and
303(e) of this Act.
(c) ALIAYrIbIENT PERIOD.—
(1) PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY FOR GRANT AWARD—Sums al-
lotted to a State under this section for a fiscal year shall be
available for obligation by the State during the fiscal year for
which sums are authorized and during the following fiscal
year.
(2) REALLOTMENT OF UNOBLIGATED FUNDS.—The amount of
any allotment not obligated by the State by the last day of the
2-year period of availability established by paragraph (1) shall
be immediately reallotted by the Administrator on the basis of
the same ratio as is applicable to sums allotted under title H
of this Act for the second fiscal year of such 2-year period.
None of the funds reallotted by the Administrator shall be real-
lotted to any State which has not obligated all sums allotted
to such State in the first fiscal year of such 2-year period.
(33 U.S C. 1384)
SEC. 606. CORRECTIVE ACTION.
(a) NOTIFICATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE.—If the Administrator
determines that a State has not complied with its agreement with
the Administrator under section 602 of this Act or any other re-
quirement of this title, the Administrator shall notify the State of
such noncompliance and the necessary corrective action.
(b) WITHHOLDING OF PAYMEPrrs.—lf a State does not take cor-
rective action within 60 days after the date a State receives notifi-
cation of such action under subsection (a), the Administrator shall
withhold additional payments to the State until the Administrator
is satisfied that the State has taken the necessary corrective action.
(C) REALLOTMENT OF WITHHELD PAYMEprrs.—lf the Adminis-
trator is not satisfied that adequate corrective actions have been
taken by the State within 12 months after the State is notified of
such actions under subsection (a), the payments withheld from the
State by the Administrator under subsection (b) shall be made
available for reallotment in accordance with the most recent for-
mula for allotment of funds under this title.
(33 U.S.C. 1386)
SEC. 606. AUDITS, REPORTS, AND FISCAL CONTROL2 INTENDED USE
(a) FISCAL CONTROL AND AUDITING PROCEDURES—Each State
electing to establish a water pollution control revolving fund under
this title shall establish fiscal controls and accounting procedures
sufficient to assure proper accounting during appropriate account-
ing periods for—
(1) payments received by the fund;
(2) disbursements made by the fund; and
(3) fund balances at the beginning and end of the account-
ing period.
Soc. 804
_ 218
-------
219 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Sec. ICR Sec. 601
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 220
(b) AJ uAi. FEDERAL AuDrrs.—The Administrator shall, at
least on an annual basis, conduct or require each State to have
independently conducted reviews and audit. as may be deemed
necessary or appropriate by the Administrator to carry out the ob-
jectives of this section. Audits of the use of funds deposited in the
water pollution revolving fund established by such State shall be
conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures of the Gen-
eral Accounting Office, including chapter 76 of tiLl. 31, United
States Code.
(c) INTENDED USE P1 &—After providing for public comment
and review, each State shall annually prepare a plan identifying
the intended uses of the amounts available to its water pollution
control revolving fund. Such intended use plan shall include, but
not be limited to—
(1) a list of those projects for construction of publicly
owned treatment works on the State’s priority list developed
pursuant to section 216 of this Act and a list of activities eligi-
ble for assistance under sections 319 and 320 of this Act;
(2) a description of the short- and long-term goals and ob-
- jectives of its water pollution control revolving fund;
(3) information on the activities to be supported, including
a description of project categories, discharge requirements
under titles III and N of this Act, terms of financial assist-
ance, and communities served;
(4) assurances and specific proposal. for meeting the re-
quirements of paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of section 602(b)
of this Act; and
(5) the criteria and method established for the distribution
of funds.
(d) ANNUAL R ioRr.—Beginning the first fiscal year after the
receipt of payments under this title, the State shall provide an an-
nual report to the Administrator describing how the State has met
the goals and objectives for the previous fiscal year as identified in
the plan prepared for the previous fiscal year pursuant to sub-
section (c), including identification of loan recipients, loan amounts,
and loan terms and similar details on other forms of financial as-
sistance provided from the water pollution control revolving fund.
(e) ANNUAL FEDERAL OVERSIGHT REVIEW—The Administrator
shall conduct an annual oversight review of each State plan pre-
pared under subsection (c), each State report prepared under sub-
section (d), and other such materials as are considered necessary
and appropriate In carrying out the purposes of this title. After rea-
sonable notice by the Administrator to the State or the recipient of
a loan from a water pollution control revolving fund, the State or
loan recipient shall make available to the Administrator such
records as the Administrator reasonably requires to review and de-
termine compI 1 ce with this title.
(I) APPUCABILITY OF TInE II PROVISIONS.—Except to the ex-
tent provided in this title, the provisions of title II shall not apply
to grants under thi. title.
(33 ‘386)
SEC. 607. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the pur-
poses of this title the following sums:
(1) $1,200,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal year
1989 and 1990;
(2) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 1991;
(3) $1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 1992;
(4) $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; and
(5) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 1994.
(33 U.S.C. 1387)
-------
Reference 2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.3
• PART 131—WATER QUALl Y
• ‘ STANDARDS
Subpart A—General Provisions
Soo.
131.1 Soopa,
l31 2 Purpose.
131.3 DefinItion ,,
131.4 State authority.
131.5 EPA authoLity,
131.6 MinImum reguirement s (or water
quality standards submission.
131.7 DIspute resolution mechanism
131.8 Roquirementa for Indian Triljos to ad-
minister a water quality standards iimo-
gram.
Subpart B—Establishment of Water Quality
Slandards
131.10 Designation of uses.
131.11 CriterIa,
131.12 Antidegradation policy.
131.13 General policies,
Subpart C—Procedures for Poview and
Revision of Wale, Quolily Standards
131.20 Stale review and revision of watot’
quality standard,
.131.21 EPA review and approval of water
quality standard,,
1131.22 EPA promulgation of water quality
standards.
Subpart D—Fedaraiiy Promulgated Waler
Quality Standards
131.31 Arisomia, -
131.32 Pennsylvania,
131 33 Idaho
131.34 . ffloservedj
131.35 Colville Confederated Tribes lndi n
Reservation.
131,35 Toxlc criteria for those states not
complying with Clean Water Act section
303(c)(2)(I3).
131 37 California,
AUTIIOIUTY: 33 U.S C 1251 ci seq
Sounca’ 48 FR 51405. Nov. 0, 1083, unies,
otherwise noted.
Subpart A—General Provisions
fl31.1 Scope.
‘r liis part, describes the roquire,nent.s
and prooedure , for dovoloping, review-
ing, revising, and approving water
quality standards try the States as an-
thorised by soctioji 303(c) of the Clean
Waler Act. Additional specific Proce-
dures for developing, reviewing, revis-
ing. and approving wator quality nta,id
ards for Great Lakes States or Great
Lakes Tribes (as defined in 10 CFIt
132.2) to conform to section 118 of the
Clean Water Act and 10 CFR part 132,
are provided In 40 CFR part 132.
(60 FR 16308, Mar. 23. 1905J
I 131.2 Purpose.
A water quality standard defines the
water quality goals of a water body, or
portion thereof, by designating the use
or uses to be made of the water and by
setting criteria necessary to protect
the Uses.. States adopt water quality
standards to protect public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of water
and serve the purposes of the Clean
Water Act (the Act). “Serve the pur-
poses of the Act” (as defined in see-
lions 101(a)(2) and 303(c) of the Act)
means that water quality standards
should, wherever attainable, pm ovide
water quality for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and wild-
life and for recreation In and on the
water and take into consideration their
use and value of pubilc water supplies,
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wild-
life. recreation in and on the water.
and agricultural, industrial, and other
purposes Includjng navigation.
Suoh standards serve the dual purposes
of establishing the water quality goals
for a specific water body and serve as
the regulatory basis for the establish-
mont of water-quality-based treatment
controls and strategies beyond time
technology-based levels of treatment
required by sections 301(b) and 306 of
the Aot.
1131.3 DefinItions.
(a) The Act means time Clean Water
Act (Pub. L. 92-600, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)).
(b) Criteria are elements of State
water quality standards, expressed as
constituent Concentrations, leveis. or
narrative st.atnmenls, representing
quality of water that, supports a par-
ticular use. When criteria are met.
water quality will generally protect
lime designated use.
(ci SectIon 304(a) criterIa are developed
by EPA under authority of section
301(a) of the Act based on the latest
scientific information on the relation-
ship that the effect of a constituent
concentration has on particular ailuat.-
Ic species and/or human health. This
information is issued periodically to
the States as guidance for use in devel-
oping criteria.
(d) Toxic pollutants are those pollut.-
ants listed by tile Administrator under
section 307(a) of tile Act
(e) Exisiinq uses are those uses actu-
ally attained in the water body on or
after November 28, 1975, whether or not
they are included in the water quality
standards.
( I) Designated uses are those uses
specified in water quality standards for
each water body or segment whether or
not they are being attained.
(g) Use attainability analysis is a
structured scientific assessment of the
factors affecting the attainment of the
use which may include physical, chem-
ical, biological, and economic factors
as described in 1131 10(g).
(h) lVater quality limited sepmenl
means any segment where it is known
that water quality does not meet appli-
cable water quality standards, and/or is
not expected to meet applicable water
quality standards, even after the appli-
cation of the technology-bases eltluent
limitations re’iuired by sections 301(b)
and 306 of the Act
(I) Water quality strindards are provi-
sions of State or Federal law which
consist of a designated use or uses (or
the waters of the United States and
water quality criteria for such waters
based upon such uece Water quality
standards ame to protect the public
health or welfare, enhance the quality
of water and serve the purposes of the
Act.
(J) Slates include The 50 States, the
District of Columbia. Guam. the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico. Virgin Is-
lands, American Samoa. the Trust Ter-
ritory of the Pacific Islands. the Corn.
monwealth of the Northern Mariana
938
939
-------
§ 131.4
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 Edition) Environmental Protection Agency
5131.7
Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA
determines to be eligible for purposes
of water quauty standards program.
(k) Federal Indian Reservation. Indian
Reservation, or Reservation means all
land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of
the United States Government. not-
withstanding the Issuance of any pat-
ent, and Including rights-of-way run-
ning through the reservation.”
(1) Indian Tribe or Tribe means any In-
dian Tribe, band, group, or community
recognized by the Secretary of the In-
terior and exercising governmental au-
thority over a Federal Indian reserva-
tion
(48 FR 53405. Nov 0, 1983. as amended at 56
FR 64893. Dec 12, 199l, 59 FR 64344. Dec 14.
1994]
131.4 State authority.
(a) States (as defined in §131 3) are re-
sponsible for reviewing, establishing.
and revising water quality standards
As recognized by section 510 of the
Clean Water Act, States may develop
water quality standards more stringent
than required by this regulation. Con-
sistent with section 101(g) and 518(a) of
the Clean Water Act, water quality
standards shall not be construed to su-
persede or abrogate rights to quan-
tities of water.
(b) States (as defined in §131.3) may
issue certifications pursuant to the re-
quirements of Clean Water Act section
401. RevisIons adopted by States shall
be applicable for use In issuing State
certifications consistent with the pro-
visions of § 131 21(c).
(C) Where EPA determines that a
Tribe is eligible to the same extent as
a State for purposes of water quality
standards, the Tribe likewise is eligible
to the same extent as a State for pur-
poses of certifications conducted under
Clean Water Act section 401
(56 FR 64893, Dec 12, 1991. as amended at 59
FR 64344, Dec Fl, 1994]
§ 131.5 EPA authority.
(a) Under section 303(c) of the Act,
EPA is to review and to approve or dis-
approve State-adopted water quality
standards The review involves a deter-
mination of’
(1) WJiether the State has adopted
water uses which are consistent with
the requirements of the Clean Water
Act;
(2) Whether the State has adopted
criteria that protect the designated
water uses,
(3) Whether the State has followed its
legal procedures for revising or adopt-
ing standards,
(4) Whether the State standards
which do not include the uses specified
in section 101(a)(2) of the Act are based
upon appropriate technical and sci-
entific data and analyses, and
(5) Whether the State submission
meets the requirements included In
§ 131 6 of this part and, for Great Lakes
States or Great Lakes Tribes (as de-
fined In 40 CFR. 132.2) to conform to
section 118 of the Act, the require-
ments of 40 CFR part 132.
(b) If EPA determines that the
State’s or Tribe’s water quality stand-
ards are consistent with the factors
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(5) of this section, EPA approves the
standards EPA must disapprove the
State’s or Tribe’s water quality stand-
ards and promulgate Federal standards
under section 303(c)(4), and for Great
Lakes States or Great Lakes Tribes
under section 118(c)(2)(C) of the Act, if
State or Tribal adopted standards are
not consistent with the factors listed
in paragraphs (a)(I) through (a)(5) of
this section. EPA may also promulgate
a new or revised standard when nec-
essary to meet the requirements of the
Act.
(c) Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
autilorizes EPA to issue certifications
pursuant to the requirements of sec-
tion 401 in any case where a State or
interstate agency has no authority for
issuing such certifications.
[ 48 FR 51405, Nov 8, 1983, as amended at 56
FR 64894, Dec 12. 1991. 60 FR 15387, Mar 23,
1995J
§ 131.6 MInimum requirements for
water quality standards ubmia-
sion.
The following elements must be In-
cluded in each State’s water quality
standards submitted to EPA for review:
(a) Use designations consistent with
the provisions oi. sections 101(a)(2) and
303(c)(2) of the Act.
(b) Methods used and analyses con-
ducted to support water quality stand-
ards revisions.
(c) Water quality criteria sufficient
to protect the designated uses
(d) An antidegradation policy con-
sletent with § 131.12.
(e) Certification by the State Attor-
ney General or other appropriate legal
authority within the State that the
water quality standards were duly
adopted pursuant to State law.
(f) General information which will
aid the Agency in determining the ade-
quacy of the scientific basis of the
standards which do not include the
uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the
Act as well as information on general
policies applicable to State standards
which may affect their application and
implementation.
§ 131.7 DIspute resolution mechanism.
(a) Where disputes between States
and Indian Tribes arise as a result of
differing water quality standards on
common bodies of water, the lead EPA
Regional Administrator, as determined
based upon 0MB circular A-105, shall
be responsible for acting In accordance
with the provisions of this section.
(b) The Regional Administi’ator shall
attempt to resolve such disputes
where
(1) The difference in water quality
standards results in unreasonable con-
Bequences;
(2) The dispute is between a State (as
defined in § 131.3(j) but exclusive of all
Indian Tribes) and a Tribe which EPA
haa determined is eligible to the same
extent as a State for purposes of water
quality standards;
(3) A reasonable effort to resolve the
dispute without EPA involvement has
been made;
(4) The requested relief is consistent
with the provisions of the Clean Water
Act and other relevant law,
(5) The differing State and Tribal
water quality standards have been
adopted pursuant to State and Tribal
law and approved by EPA; and
(6) A valid written request has been
submitted by either the Tribe or the
State.
Cc) Either a State or a Tribe may re-
quest EPA to resolve any dispute
which satisfies the criteria of pars-
graph (b) of this section. Written re-
quests for EPA Involvement should be
submitted to the lead Regional Admin-
istrator and must include:
(1) A concise statement of the unrea-
sonable consequences that are alleged
to have arisen because of differing
water quality standards;
(2) A concise description of the ac-
tions which have been taken to resolve
the dispute without EPA Involvement;
(3) A concise indication of the water
quality standards provision which has
resulted in the alleged unreasonable
consequences;
(4) Factual data to support the al-
leged unreasonable consequences; and
(5) A statement of the reiief sought
from the alleged unreasonable con-
sequences
(d) Where, in the Regional Adminis-
trator’s judgment, EPA involvement is
appropriate based on the factors of
paragraph (b) of this section, the Re-
gional Administrator shall, within 30
days, notify the parties in writing that
helshe is initiating an EPA dispute res-
olution action and solicit their written
response The Regional Administrator
shall also make reasonable efforts to
ensure that other interested individ-
uals or groups have notice of this ac-
tion. Such efforts’shall include but not
be limited to the following:
(1) Written notice to responsible
Tribal and State Agencies, and other
affected Federal agencies,
(2) Notice to the specific Individual
or entity that is alleging that an un-
reasonable consequence is resulting
from differing standards having been
adopted on a common body of water,
(3) Public notice in local newspapers,
radio, and television, as appropriate.
(4) Publication In trade journal news-
letters. and
(5) Other means as appropriate
(e) If in accordance with applicable
State and Tribal law an Indian Tribe
and State have entered into an agree-
ment that resolves the dispute or es-
tablishes a mechanism for resolving a
dispute, EPA shall defer to this agree-
ment where it is consistent with the
Clean Water Act and where It has been
approved by EPA
(1) EPA dispute resolution actions
shall be consistent with one or a com-
bination of the following options
940
941
-------
§1317
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 Edition) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.8
(1) Mediation The Regional Adminis-
trator may appoint a mediator to me-
diate the dispute Mediators shall be
EPA employees, employees from other
Federal agencies, or other individuals
with appropriate qualifications
(i) Where the State and Tribe agree
to participate in the dispute resolution
process, mediation with the intent to
establish Tribal-State agreements,
consistent with Clean Water Act sec-
tion 518(d), shall normally be pursued
as a first effort.
(ii) Mediators shall act as neutral
facilitators whose function is to en-
courage communication and negotia-
tion between all parties to the dispute.
(iii) Mediators may establish advi-
sory panels, to consist in part of rep-
resentatives from the affected parties,
to study the problem and recommend
an appropriate solution.
(iv) The procedure and schedule for
mediation of individual disputes shall
be determined by the mediator in con-
sultation with the parties
(v) If formal public hearings ai’e held
in connection with the actions taken
under this paragraph, Agency require-
ments at 40 CFR 25 5 shall be followed.
(2) Arbitration Where the parties to
the di8pute agree to participate in the
dispute resolution process, the Re-
gional Administrator may appoint an
arbitrator or arbitration panel to arbi-
trate the dispute Arbitrators and
panel members shall be EPA employ-
ees, employees from other Federal
agencies, or other individuals with ap-
propriate qualifications. The Regional
administrator shall select as arbitra-
tors and arbitration panel members in-
dividuals who are agreeable to all par-
ties, are knowledgeable concerning the
requirements of the water quality
standards program, have a basic under-
standing of the political and economic
interests of Tribes and States involved,
and are expected to fulfill the duties
fairly and impartially.
(i) The arbitrator or arbitration
panel shall conduct one or more pri-
vate or public meetings with the par-
ties and actively solicit information
pertaining to the effects of differing
water quality permit requirements on
upstream and downstream dischargers,
comparative risks to public health and
the environment, economic impacts.
present and historical water uses, the
quality of the waters subject to such
standards, and other factors relevant
to the dispute, such as whether pro-
posed water quality criteria are more
stringent than necessary to support
designated uses, more stringent than
natural background water quality or
whether designated uses are reasonable
given natural background water qual-
ity.
(ii) Following consideration of rel-
evant factors as defined in paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this section, the arbitrator
or arbitration panel shall have the au-
thority and responsibility to provide
all parties and the Regional Adminis-
trator with a written recommendation
for resolution of the dispute. Arbitra-
tion panel recommendations shall, In
general, be reached by majority vote
However, where the parties agree to
binding arbitration, or where required
by the Regional Administrator, rec-
ommendations of such arbitration pan-
els may be unanimous decisions Where
binding or non-binding arbitration pan-
els cannot reach a unanimous rec-
ommendation after a reasonable period
of time, the Regional Administrator
may dii’ect the panel to issue a non-
binding decision by majority vote
(iii) The arbitrator or arbitration
panel members may consult with
EPA’s Office of General Counsel on
legal issues, but otherwise shall have
no ex pane communications pertaining
to the dispute Federal employees who
are arbitrators or arbitration panel
members shall be neutral and shall not
be predisposed for or against the posi-
tion of any disputing party based on
any Federal Trust responsibilities
which their employers may have with
respect to the Tribe In addition, arbi-
trators or arbitration panel members
who are ‘ Federal employees shall act
independently from the normal hier-
archy within their agency.
(iv) The parties are not obligated to
abide by the arbitrator’s or arbitration
panel’s recommendation unless they
voluntarily entered into a binding
agreement to do so.
(v) If a party to the dispute believes
that the arbitrator or arbitration panel
has recommended an action contrary
to or inconsistent with the Clean
Watet Act, the party may appeal the
arbitrator’s recommendation to the
Regional Administrator. The request
for appeal must be In writing and must
include a description of the statutory
basis for altering the arbitrator’s rec-
ommendation.
(vi) The procedure and schedule for
arbitration of individual disputes shall
be determined by the arbitrator or ar-
bitration panel in consultation with
parties.
(vii) If formal public hearings are
held in connection with the actions
taken under this paragraph, Agency re-
quirements at 40 CFR 25 5 shall be fol-
lowed
(3) Dispute resolution default proce-
dure. Where one or more parties (as de-
fined in paragraph (g) of this section)
refuse to participate in either the me-
diation or arbitration dispute resolu-
tion proceBses, the Regional Adminis-
trator may appoint a single official or
panel to review available information
pertaining to the dispute and to issue a
written recommendation for resolving
the dispute. Review officials shall be
EPA employees, employees from other
Federal agencies, or other individuals
with appropriate qualifications Re-
view panels shall include appropriate
members to be selected by the Re-
gional Administrator in consultation
with the participating parties Rec-
ommendations of such review officials
or panels shall, to the extent possible
given the lack of participation by one
or more parties, be reached in a man-
ner identical to that for arbitration of
disputes specified In paragraphs (f)(2)(i)
through (f)(2)(vii) of this section
(g) Defsnhilons. For the purposes of
this section.
(1) Dispute Resolution Mechanism
means the EPA mechanism established
pursuant to the requirements of Clean
Water Act section 518(e) for resolving
unreasonable consequences that arise
as a result of differing water quality
standards that may be set by States
and Indian Tribes located on common
bodies of water.
(2) PartIes to a State-Tribal dispute
include the State and the Tribe and
may, at the discretion of the Regional
Administrator, include an NPDES per-
mittee. citizen, citizen group, or other
affected entity
156 FR 64594. Dcc 12. iD9i. as amended at. 59
FIt 64344, Dec 14, 1991)
131.8 Requirements for Indian Tribes
to administer a water quality stand-
ard progrsm.
(a) The Regional Administrator, as
determined based on 0MB Circular A—
105, may accept and approve a tribal
application for purposes of admin-
istering a water quality standards pro-
gram if the Tribe meets the following
criteria’
(1) The Indian Tribe is recognized by
the Secretary of the Interior and meets
the definitions in §131 3(k) and (I),
(2) The Indian Tribe has a governing
body carrying out substantial govern-
mental duties and powers.
(3) The water quality standards pro-
gram to be administered by the Indian
Tribe pertains to the management and
protection of water resources which are
within the borders of the indian res-
ervation and held by the Indian Tribe.
within the borders of the Indian res-
ervation and held by the United States
in trust for Indians. within the borders
of the Indian reservation and held by a
member of the Indian Tribe if such
property interest is subject to a trust
restriction on alienation, or otherwise
within the borders of the Indian res-
ervation, and
(4) The Indian Tribe is reasonably ex-
pected to be capable, in the Regional
Administrator’s judgment, of carrying
out the functions of an effective water
quality standards program in a manner
consistent with the terms and purposes
of the Act and applicable regulations.
(b) Requests by Indian Tribes for ad-
ministration of a water quality stand-
ards program should be submitted to
the lead EPA Regional Administrator
The application shall include the fol-
lowing Information:
(1) A statement that the Tribe is rec-
ognized by the Secretary of the inte-
rior.
(2) A descriptive statement dem-
onstrating that the Tribal governing
body is currently carrying out substan-
tial governmental duties and powers
over a defined area The statement
should
942
943
-------
§ 131.8
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EditIon) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.10
(I) Describe the form of the Tribal
government.
(ii) Describe the types of govern-
mental functions currently performed
by the Tribal governing body such as.
but not limited to. the exercise of po-
lice powers affecting (or relating to)
the health, safety, and welfare of the
affected population, taxation, and the
exercise of the power of eminent do-
main; and
(iii) Identify the source of the Tribal
government’s authority to carry out
the governmental functions currently
being performed.
(3) A descriptive statement of the
Indian Tribe’s authority to regulate
water quality. The statement should
include:
(I) A map or legal description of the
area over which the Indian Tribe as-
serts authority to regulate surface
water quality;
(ii) A statement by the Tribe’s legal
counsel (or equivalent official) which
describes the basis for the Tribes asser-
tion of authority and which may in-
clude a copy of documents such as
Tribal constitutions, by-laws, charters.
executive orders, codes, ordinances.
and/or resolutions which support the
Tribe’s assertion of authority; and
(iii) An identification of the surface
waters for which the Tribe proposes to
establish water quality standards.
(4) A narrative statement describing
the capability of the Indian Tribe to
administer an effective water quality
standards program The narrative
statement should Include:
(i) A description of the Indian Tribe’s
previous management experience
which may Include the administration
of programs and services authorized by
the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U S C 450
et seq). the Indian Mineral Develop-
ment Act (25 U.S.C 2101 et seq.). or the
Indian Sanitation Facility Construc-
tion Activity Act (42 U S C 2004a);
(ii) A list of existing environmental
or public health programs adminis-
tered by the Tribal governing body and
copies of related Tribal laws, policies,
and regulations,
(iii) A description of the entity (or
entities) which exercise the executive,
legislative, and judicial functions of
the Tribal government:
(iv) A description of the existing, or
proposed, agency of the Indian Tribe
which will assume primary responsi-
bility for establishing, reviewing, im-
plementing and revising water quality
standards.
(v) A description of the technical and
administrative capabilities of the staff
to administer and manage an effective
water quality standards program or a
plan which proposes how the Tribe will
acquire additional administrative and
technical expertise. The plan must ad-
dress how the Tribe will obtain the
funds to acquire the administrative
and technical expertise
(5) Additional documentation re-
quired by the R.egionai Administrator
which, in the Judgment of the Regional
Administrator, is necessary to support
a Tribal application
(6) Wheie the Tribe has previously
qualified for eligibility or “treatment
as a state” under a Clean Water Act or
Safe Drinking Water Act program, the
Tribe need only provide the required
information which has not been sub-
mitted in a previous application.
(C) Procedure for processing an In-
dian Tribe’s application.
(1) The Regional Administrator shall
process an application of an Indian
Tribe submitted pursuant to §131.8(b)
in a timely manner. lie shall promptly
notify the Indian Tribe of receipt of the
application
(2) Within 30 days after receipt of the
Indian Tribe’s application the Regional
Administrator shall provide appro-
priate notice Notice shall’
(i) Include information on the sub-
stance and basis of the Tribe’s asser-
tion of authority to regulate the qual-
ity of reservation waters, and
(ii) Be provided to all appropriate
governmental entities
(3) The Regional Administrator shall
provide 80 days for comments to be
submitted on the Tribal application
Comments shall be limited to the
Tribe’s assertion of authority.
(4) If a Tribe’s asserted authority Is
subject to a competing or conflicting
claim, the Regional Administrator,
after due consideration, and in consid-
eration of other comments received.
shall determine whether the Tribe has
adequately demonstrated that it meets
the requirements of § 133 8(a)(3)
(5) Where the Regional Administrator
determines that a Tribe meets the re-
quirements of this section, he shall
promptly provide written notification
to the Indian Tribe that the Tribe is
authorized to administer the Water
Quality Standards program.
(56 FR 64895. Dec 12. 1991, as amended at 59
Fit 64314. Dec 14. 19941
Subpart B—Establishment of Water
Quality Standards
§ 131.10 Designation of uses.
(a) Each State must specify appro-
priate water uses to be achieved and
protected The cle.ssification of the wa-
ters of the State must take into con-
sideration the use and value of water
for public water supplies, protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish and
wildlife, recreation in and on the
water, agricultural, industrial, and
other purposes including navigation In
no case shall a State adopt waste
transport or waste assimilation as a
designated use for any waters of the
United States.
(b) In designating uses of a water
body and the appropriate criteria for
those uses, the State shall take into
consideration the water quality stand-
ards of downstream waters and shall
ensure that its water q’jality standards
provide for the attainment and mainte-
nance of the water quality standards of
downstream waters.
(c) States may adopt sub-categories
of a use and set the appropriate cri-
teria to reflect varying needs of such
sub-categories of uses, for instance, to
differentiate between cold water and
warm water fisheries.
(d) At a minimum, uses ai’e deemed
attainable if they can be achieved by
the imposition of effluent limits re-
quired under sections 301(b) and 306 of
the Act and cost-effective and reason-
able best management practices for
nonpoint source control.
(e) Prior to adding or removing any
use, or estabLishing sub-categories of a
use, the State shall provide notice and
an opportunity for a public hearing
under § 131.20(b) of this regulation
(f) States may adopt seasonal uses as
an alternative to reclassifying a water
body or segment thereof to uses requir-
ing less stringent water quality cr1-
teria. If seasonal uses are adopted.
water quality criteria should be ad-
justed to reflect the seasonal uses.
however, such criteria shall not pre-
clude the attainment and maintenance
of a more protective use in another
season.
(g) States may remove a designated
use which is not an existing use, as de-
fined in § 131.3. or establish sub-cat-
egories of a use if the State can dem-
onstrate that attaining the designated
use is not feasible because
(1) Naturally occurring pollutant
concentrations prevent the attainment
of the use, or
(2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent
or low flow conditions or water levels
prevent the attainment of the use, un-
less these conditions may be com-
pensated for by the discharge of suffi-
cient volume of effluent discharges
without violating State water con-
servation requirements to enable uses
to be met, or
(3) Human caused conditions or
sources of pollution prevent the at-
tainment of the use and cannot be
remedied or would cause more en-
vironmental damage to correct than to
leave in place, or
(4) Dams, diversions or other types of
hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it Is not fea-
sible to restore the water body to its
original condition or to operate such
modification in a way that would re-
sult In the attainment of the use, or
(5) Physical conditions related to the
natural features of the water body.
such as the lack of a proper substrate.
cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and
the like, unrelated to water quality.
preclude attainment of aquatic life
protection uses, or
(6) Controls more stringent than
those required by sections 301(b) and
306 of the Act would result in substan-
tial and widespread economic and
social impact
(h) States may not remove designated
uses if
(1) They are existing uses, as defined
in §131 3, unless a use requiring more
stringent criteria is added: or
(2) Such uses will be attained by im-
plementing effluent limits required
under sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act
944
945
-------
§ 131.11
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 Edition) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.21
and by implementing cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices
for nonpoint source control.
(I) Where existing water quality
standards specify designated uses less
than those which are presently being
attained, the State shall revise its
standards to reflect the uses actually
being attained.
(J) A State must conduct a use at-
tainabilLty analysis as described in
5131.3(g) whenever
(1) The State designates or has des-
ignated uses that do not include the
uses specified in section 10I(a)(2) of the
Act, or
(2) The State wishes to remove a des-
ignated use that Is specified in section
1O1(a)(2) of the Act or to adopt
subcategories of uses specified In sec-
tion 1O1(a)(2) of the Act which require
less stringent criteria
(k) A State is not required to conduct
a use attainability analysis under this
regulation whenever designating uses
which include those specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act
§131.11 Criteria.
(a) Inclusion of pollutants (1) States
must adopt those water quality cr1-
teria that protect the designated use
Such criteria must be based on sound
scientific rationale and must contain
sufficient parameters or constituents
to protect the designated use. For wa-
ters with multiple use designations.
the criteria shall support the most sen-
sitive use.
(2) Toxic pollutants. States must re-
view water quality data and informa-
tion on discharges to identify specific
water bodies where toxic pollutants
may be adversely affecting water qual-
ity or the attainment of the designated
water use or where the levels of toxic
pollutants are at a level to warrant
concern and must adopt criteria for
such toxic pollutants applicable to the
water body sufficient to protect the
designated use. Where a State adopts
narrative criteria for toxic pollutants
to protect designated uses, the State
must provide information identifying
the method by which the State intends
to regulate point source discharges of
toxic pollutants on water quality lim-
ited segments based on such narrative
criteria. Such information may be in-
cludecl as part of the standards or may
be included in documents generated by
the State in response to the Water
Quality Planning and Management
Regulations (40 CFR part 35).
(b) Form of criteria: In establishing
criteria, States should:
(1) EstablIsh numerical values based
on:
(1) 304(a) Guidance; or
(ii) 304(a) Guidance modified to re-
flect site-specific conditions; or
(iii) Other scientifically defensible
methods,
(2) Establish narrative criteria or cri-
teria based upon biomonitoring metli-
ode where numerical criteria cannot be
established or to supplement numerical
criteria
§ 131.12 Antidegradation policy.
(a) The State shall develop and adopt
a statewide antidegradation policy and
Identify the methods for implementing
such policy pursuant to this subpart.
The antidegradation policy and imple-
mentation methods shall, at a min-
imum, be consistent with the fol-
lowing:
(1) Existing Instream water uses and
the level of water quality necessary to
protect the existing uses shall be main-
tained and protected.
(2) Where the quality of the waters
exceed levels necessary to support
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wild-
life and recreation in and on the water,
that quality shall be maintained and
protected unless the State finds, after
full satisfaction of the intergovern-
mental coordination and public partici-
pation provisions of the States con-
tinuing planning process, that allowing
lower water quality is necessary to ac-
commodate important economic or so-
cial development in the area in which
the waters are located. In allowing
such degradation or lower water qual-
ity, the State shall assure water qual-
ity adequate to protect existing uses
fully. Further, the State shall assure
that there shall be achieved the high-
est statutory and regulatory require-
ments for all new and existing point
sources and all cost-effective and rea-
sonable best management practices for
nonpoint source oiitrol.
(3) Where high quality waters con-
stitute an outstanding National re-
source, such as waters of National and
State parks and wildlife refuges and
waters of exceptional recreational or
ecological significance, that water
quality shall be maintained and pro-
tected.
(4) In those cases where potential
water quality impairment associated
with a thermal discharge is involved.
the antidegradatlon policy and lmple.
menting method shall be consistent
with section 316 of the Act
§ 131.13 General policies.
States may, at their discretion, in-
clude in their State standards, policies
generally affecting their application
and implementation, such as mixing
zones, low flows and variances Such
policies are subject to EPA review and
approval.
Subpart C—Procedures for Review
and Revision of Water Quality
Standards
§ 131.20 State review and revision of
water quality standards.
(a) State review The State shall from
time to tIme, but at least once every
three years, hold public hearings for
the purpose of reviewing applicable
water quality standards and, as appro-
priate, modifying and adopting stand-
ards Any water body segment with
water quality standards that do not in-
clude the uses specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act shall be re-exam-
ined every three years to determine if
any new information has become avail-
able If such new information indicates
that the uses specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act are attainable, the
State shall revise Its standards accord-
ingly Procedures States establish for
identifying and reviewing water bodies
for review should be incorporated into
their Continuing Planning Process.
(b) Public participation The State
shall hold a public hearing for the pur-
pose of reviewing water quality stand-
ards, in accordance with provisions of
State law, EPA’s water quality man-
agement regulation (40 CFR 130 3(b)(6))
and public participation regulation (40
CFR part 25). The proposed water qual-
ity standards revision and supporting
analyses shall be made available to the
public prior to the hearing.
(C) Submittal to EPA The State shall
submit the results of the review, any
supporting analysis for the use attain-
ability analysis, the methodologies
used for site-specific criteria develop-
ment, any general policies applicable
to water quality standards and any re-
visions of the standards to the Re-
gional Administrator for review and
approval, within 30 days of the final
State action to adopt and certify the
revised standard, or if no revisions are
made as a result of the review, within
30 days of the completion of the review.
§ 131.21 EPA review and approval of
water quality standards.
(a) After the State submits its offi-
cially adopted revisions, the Regional
Administrator shall either
(1) Notify the State within 60 days
that the revisions are approved, or
(2) Notify the State within 90 days
that the revisions are disapproved
Such notification of disapproval shall
specify the changes needed to assure
compliance with the requirements of
the Act and this regulation, and shall
explain why the State standard is not
in compliance with such requirements
Any new or revised State standard
must be accompanied by some type of
supporting analysis
(b) The Regional Administrator’s ap-
proval or disapproval of a State water
quality standard shall be based on the
requirements of the Act as described in
St 131 5 and 131 6, and, with respect to
Great Lakes States or Tribes (as de-
fined in 40 CFR 132 2), 40 CFR part 132.
(c) A State water quality standard
remains in effect, even though dis-
approved by EPA, until the State re-
vises It or EPA promulgates a rule that
supersedes the State water quality
standard
(d) EPA shall, at least annually, pub-
lish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice
of approvals under this section
(40 FR 51405. Nov 0. 1983, an amended at. 60
FR 15307. Mat 23. 1995)
946
947
-------
§ 131.22
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 Edition) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.33
*131.22 EPA promulgation of water
quality standards.
(a) If the State does not adopt the
changes specified by the Regional Ad-
ministrator within 90 days after notifi-
cation of the Regional Administrator’s
disapproval, the Administrator shall
promptly propose and promulgate such
standard.
(b) The Administrator may also pro-
pose and promulgate a regulation, ap-
plicable to one or more States, setting
forth a new or revised standard upon
determining such a standard is nec-
essary to meet the requirements of the
Act.
(c) In promulgating water quality
standards, the Administrator is subject
to the same policies, procedures, anal-
yses, and public participation require-
ments established for States in these
regulations.
Mean 90 pcI annual
value
Total Total nI-
phosphates bates as
as POrmgA N0 3 1n4
I Colorado River born Utah bor-
der to Willow Beach (main
stem)
2 Colorado River born Willow
Beachi to Pelter Dam (main
stem)
3 Colorado River from Pelter
Dam to Imperial Dam (main
stem)
4 Colorado River from Imperial
Dam to Morales Dam (main
stem)
5 Gte River lrcm New MexIco
bolder to Sart Canes Reservoir
(eschidng San Caries Ass-
arson)
.
Mean 90 PCI annual
value
Total
phosphates
as PO mgdl
lotil ft
hates ea
NO 3 nipt
8 Olle RIver from San Caries
Reservoir to Ashurst Hayden
Dam (Including San CarIes Res-
ervoIr)
7 Sin Pedro RIver
8 Verde RIver (except Orentle
Creek)
9 Salt RIver above Roosevell
Lake
10 Santa Cn n RIver from Inter-
national boundary near Nogales
to Sahuenla
11 LillIe Colorado River above
Lyman Reservoir
030-050
030-050
020-030
020-030
050-080
o 30-050
.
B The above standards are intended to
protect the beneficial uses of the named wa-
ters Because regulation of nitrates and
phosphates alone may not be adequate to
protect waters from eutrophication, no sub-
stance shall be added to any aurface water
which produces aquatic growth to the extent
that auch growths create a public nuisance
or interference with beneficial uses of the
water defined and designated In Rag 6-2-6
(2) P.eg 6-2-6.10 Subparts A and B
are amended to include Reg. 6-2-6.11 in
series with Regs. 6-2-6.6, 6-2-6.7 and 6—
2-68
(b) The following waters have, in ad-
dition to the uses designated by the
State, the designated use of fish con-
sumption as defined in R18—1I-101
(which is available from the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality Division, 3033 North
Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85012):
COLORADO MAIN STEM RIVER
BASIN:
Hualapai Wash
MIDDLE OLLA RIVER BASIN:
Agua Fria River (Camelback Road to
Avondale WWTP)
Galena Gulch
Gila River (Felix Road to the Salt
River)
Queen Creek (Headwaters to the Su-
perior WWTP)
Queen Creek (Below Potts Canyon)
5 SAN PEDRO RIVER BASIN:
Copper Creek
SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN:
Agua Caliente Wash
Nogales Wash
5-7 Sonoita Creek (Above the town of
Patagonia)
Tanque Verde Creek
Tinaja Wash
Davidson Canyon
UPPER GILA RIVER BASIN
Chase Creak
(c) To implement the requirements of
R18—1l—108.A.5 with respect to effects of
mercury on wildlife, EPA (or the State
with the approval of EPA) shall imple-
ment a monitoring program to assess
attainment of the water quality stand-
ard.
(8ec. 303, Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, 33 U S C 1313. 66 Stat 816
et seq. Pub L 92-500, Clean Water Act. Pub.
1. 92-500.asamended.33U8C I2Sletseq)
(41 FR 25000, June 22. 1916, 41 FR 48737, Nov
5, 1916 Redesignated and amended at 42 FR
56740. Oct 28. 1977 Further redesignated and
amended at 48 FR 51408, Nov 8. 1983, 61 FR
20693, May 7, 1996J
* 131.32 PennsylvanIa.
(a) Antldegradatfon poltcy. This
antidegradation policy shall be appli-
cable to all waters of the United States
within the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania, including wetlands
(1) Existing in-stream uses and the
level of water quality necessary to pro-
tect the existing uses shall be main-
tained and protected.
(2) Where the quality of the waters
exceeds levels necessary to support
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wild-
life and recreation in and on the water,
that quality shall be maintained and
protected unless the Commonwealth
finds, after full satisfaction of the
inter-governmental coordination and
public participation provisions of the
Commonwealth’s continuing planning
process, that allowing lower water
quality is necessary to accommodate
important economic or social develop-
ment in the area in which the waters
are located. In allowing such degrada-
tion or lower water quality, the Com-
monwealth shall assure water quality
adequate to protect existing uses fully.
Further, the Commonwealth shall as-
sure that there shall be achieved the
highest statutory and regulatory re-
quirements for all new and existing
point sources and all cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices
for nonpoirit sources.
(3) Where high quality waters are
identified as constituting an out-
standing National resource, such as
waters of National and State parks and
wildlife refuges and water of excep-
tional recreational and ecological sig-
nificance. that water quality shall be
maintained and protected
(b) (Reserved]
(61 FR 64822, Dec 9, 19961
O 131.33 Idaho.
(a) Temperature criteria for bull trout.
(1) Except for those streams or portions
of streams located in Indian country,
or as may be modified by the Regional
Administrator, EPA Region X, pursu-
ant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
a temperature criterion of 10 °C. ex-
pressed as an average of daily max-
imum temperatures over a seven-day
period, applies to the waterbodles iden-
tified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section
during the months of June, July, Au-
gust and September.
(2) The following waters are pro-
tected for bull trout spawning and
rearing.
(i) BOISE-MORE BASIN Devils
Creek, East Fork Sheep Creek, Sheep
Creek.
(ii) BROWNLEE RESERVOIR BASIN:
Crooked River, Indian Creek.
(iii) CLEARWATER BASIN: Big Can-
yon Creek, Cougar Creek, Feather
Creek, Laguna Creek, Lob Creek,
Orofino Creek, ‘Falapus Creek, West
Fork Potlatch’River
(iv) COEUR D’ALENE LAKE BASIN:
Cougar Creek, Fernan Creek, Kid
Creek, Mica Creek, South Fork Mica
Creek, Squaw Creek, Turner Creek.
(v) HELLS CANYON BASIN: Dry
Creek, East Fork Sheep Creek, Getta
Creek, Granite Creek, Kurry Creek.
Little Granite Creek, Sheep Creek.
(vi) LEMHI BASIN: Adams Creek.
Aider Creek. Basin Creek, Bear Valley
Creek, Big Eightmile Creek, Big
Springs Creek. Big Timber Creek, Bray
Creek, Bull Creek, Cabin Creek, Can-
yon Creek, Carol Creek, Chamberlain
Creek, Clear Creek. Climb Creek, Coo-
per Creek, Dairy Creek. Deer Creek.
Deer Park Creek, East Fork Hayden
Creek, Eighteenmile Creek, Falls
Creek, Ferry Creek. Ford Creek.
Geertson Creek, Grove Creek. Hawley
Creek, Hayden Creek, Kadletz Creek.
Kenney Creek, Kirtley Creek, Lake
Creek, Lee Creek, Lemhi River (above
Big Eightmile Creek). Little Eightmile
Creek, Little Mill Creek. Little Timber
949
Subpart D’—Federally Promulgated
Water Quality Standards
§ 131.31 Arizona.
(a) Article 6, part 2 is amended as fol-
lows
(1) Reg. 6—2-6.11 shall read:
Rag. 6-2-6 II Nutrient Standards A The
mean annual total phosphate and mean an-
nual total nitrate concentrations of the fol-
lowing waters shall not exceed the values
given below nor shall the total phosphate or
total nitrate concentrations of more than 10
percent of the samples In any year exceed
the 90 percent values given below Unless
otherwise specified, indicated values also
apply to tributaries to the named waters
004-008
006-010
008-012
010-010
050-080
948
-------
§ 131.33
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EdItion) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.33
Creek. Middle Fork Little Timber
Creek. Milk Creek. Mill Creek, Mogg
Creek. North Fork Kirtley Creek.
North Fork Little Timber Creek. Para-
dise Creek. Patterson Creek. Payne
Creek. Poison Creek. Prospect Creek.
Rocky Creek, Short Creek. Squaw
Creek. Squirrel Creek, Tobias Creek.
Trail Creek. West Fork Hayden Creek,
Wright Creek.
(vii) LITTLE LOST BASIN: Badger
Creek, Barney Creek. Bear Canyon,
Bear Creek. Bell Mountain Creek. Big
Creek, Bird Canyon. Black Creek, Buck
Canyon, Bull Creek. Cedar Run Creek.
Chicken Creek, Coal Creek, Corral
Creek, Deep Creek, Dry Creek, Dry
Creek Canal, Firbox Creek. Garfield
Creek. Hawley Canyon, Hawley Creek.
Horse Creek. Horse Lake Creek, Iron
Creek, Jackson Creek, Little Lost
River (above Badger Creek). Mahogany
Creek. Main Fork Sawmill Creek. Mas-
sacre Creek, Meadow Creek, Mill
Creek, Moffett Creek, Moonshine
Creek, Quigley Creek, Red Rock Creek,
Sands Creek. Sawmill Creek. Slide
Creek, Smithie Fork. Squaw Creek,
Summerhouse Canyon, Summit Creek,
Timber Creek, Warm Creek, Wet Creek,
Williams Creek
(viii) LITTLE SALMON BASIN:
Bascum Canyon, Boulder Creek. Brown
Creek, Campbell Ditch, Castle Creek,
Copper Creek, Granite Fork Lake Fork
Rapid River, Hard Creek, Hazard
Creek, Lake Fork Rapid River, Little
Salmon River (above Hazard Creek),
Paradise Creek. Pony Creek. Rapid
River, Squirrel Creek, Trail Creek,
West Fork Rapid River
(ix) LOCHSA BASIN. Apgar Creek.
Badger Creek, Bald Mountain Creek.
Beaver Creek, Big Flat Creek, Big Stew
Creek, Boulder Creek, Brushy Fork,
Cabin Creek, Castle Creek, Chain
Creek, Cliff Creek, Coolwater Creek,
Cooperation Creek, Crab Creek. Crook-
ed Fork Lochsa River. Dan Creek.
Deadman Creek, Doe Creek. Dutch
Creek, Eagle Creek, East Fork Papoose
Creek, East Fork Split Creek, East
Fork Squaw Creek, Eel Creek, Fern
Creek, Fire Creek, Fish Creek, Fish
Lake Creek, Fox Creek, Gaas Creek,
Gold Creek, Ham Creek, Handy Creek,
Hard Creek, Haskell Creek. Heather
Creek, Heilgate Creek, Holly Creek.
Hopeful Creek, Hungery Creek, Indian
Grave Creek, Jay Creek. Kerr Creek,
Kube Creek, Lochsa River, Lone Knob
Creek, Lottie Creek, Macaroni Creek,
Maud Creek, Middle Fork Clearwater
River, No-see-urn Creek. North Fork
Spruce Creek, North Fork Storm
Creek, Nut Creek. Otter Slide Creek,
Pack Creek, Papoose Creek, Parachute
Creek, Pass Creek, Pedro Creek, Fell
Creek, Pete King Creek, Placer Creek,
Polar Creek, Postoffice Creek, Queen
Creek. Robin Creek. Rock Creek, Rye
Patch Creek, Sardine Creek, Shoot
Creek, Shotgun Creek, Skookum
Creek. Snowshoe Creek. South Fork
Spruce Creek, South Fork Storm
Creek. Split Creek, Sponge Creek,
Spring Creek, Spruce Creek. Squaw
Creek, Storm Creek, Tick Creek, Tom-
cat Creek, Tumble Creek, Twin Creek,
Wag Creek, Walde Creek, Walton
Creek. Warm Springs Creek, Weir
Creek, Wendover Creek, West Fork
Boulder Creek, West Fork Papoose
Creek, West Fork Squaw Creek, West
Fork Wendover Creek, White Sands
Creek, Willow Creek
(x) LOWER CLARK FORK BASIN.
Cascade Creek, East Fork, East Fork
Creek. East Forkast Fork Creek, Gold
Creek, Johnson Creek, Lightning
Creek, Mosquito Creek, Porcupine
Creek, Rattle Creek, Spring Creek,
Twin Creek, Wellington Creek.
(xi) LOWER KOOTENAI BASIN’ Ball
Creek, Boundary Creek, Brush Creek,
Cabin Creek, Caribou Creek, Cascade
Creek, Cooks Creek, Cow Creek. Curiey
Creek, Deep Creek, Grass Creek, Jim
Creek, Lime Creek, Long Canyon
Creek, Mack Creek, Mission Creek,
Myrtle Creek, Peak Creek, Snow
Creek, Trout Creek.
(xii) LOWER MIDDLE FORK SALM-
ON BASIN Acorn Creek, Alpine Creek,
Anvil Creek, Arrastra Creek, Bar
Creek, Beagle Creek, Beaver Creek,
Belvidere Creek, Big Creek, Biidseye
Creek, Boulder Creek. Brush Creek,
Buck Creek. Bull Creek. Cabin Creek,
Camas Creek. Canyon Creek, Castle
Creek, Clark Creek, Coin Creek, Corner
Creek, Coxey Creek, Crooked Creek,
Doe Creek, Duck Creek, East Fork
Holy Terror Creek, Fawn Creek, Flume
Creek, Fly Creek. Forge Creek, Fur-
nace Creek, Garden Creek, Government
Creek, Grouse Creek, Hammer Creek,
Hand Creek, Holy Terror Creek, J Fell
Creek, Jacobs Ladder Creek, Lewis
Creek, Liberty Creek, Lick Creek,
Lime Creek, Little Jacket Creek. Lit-
tle Marble Creek, Little White Goat
Creek, Little Woodtick Creek, Logan
Creek, Lookout Creek. Loon Creek.
Martindale Creek. Meadow Creek, Mid-
dle Fork Smith Creek, Monumental
Creek, Moore Creek, Mulligan Creek.
North Fork Smith Creek. Norton
Creek, Placer Creek, Pole Creek, Rams
Creek, Range Creek, Routson Creek,
Rush Creek, Sawlog Creek, Sheep
Creek, Sheldon Creek. Shellrock Creek,
Ship Island Creek, Shovel Creek, Silver
Creek, Smith Creek, Snowslide Creek,
Soldier Creek, South Fork Camas
Creek, South Fork Chamberlain Creek,
South Fork Holy Terror Creek, South
Fork Norton Creek, South Fork Rush
Creek, South Fork Sheep Creek, Spider
Creek. Spletts Creek, Telephone Creek.
Trail Creek, Two Point Creek. West
Fork Beaver Creek, West Fork Camas
Creek, West Fork Monumental Creek,
West Fork Rush Creek, White Goat
Creek, Wilson Creek.
(xiii) LOWER NORTH FORK CLEAR-
WATER BASIN: Adair Creek, Badger
Creek, Bathtub Creek, Beaver Creek,
Black Creek, Brush Creek, Buck Creek.
Butte Creek. Canyon Creek, Caribou
Creek, Crimper Creek, Dip Creek. Dog
Creek. Elmer Creak. Falls Creek, Fern
Creek, Goat Creek, isabella Creek.
John Creek, Jug Creak. Jungle Creek.
Lightning Creek. Little Lost Lake
Creek, Little North Fork Clearwater
River, Lost Lake Creek, Lund Creek,
Montana Creek, Mowitch Creek. Pa-
poose Creek, Pitchfork Creek. Rocky
Run, Rutledge Creek. Spotted Louis
Creek, Triple Creek, Twin Creek, West
Fork Montana Creek. Willow Creek.
(xiv) LOWER SALMON BASIN: Bear
Gulch. Berg Creek, East Fork John
Day Creek, Elkhorn Creek, Fiddle
Creek, French Creek, Hurley Creek,
John Day Creek, Kelly Creek, Klip
Creek, Lake Creek, Little Slate Creek.
Little Van Buren Creek, No Business
Creek, North Creek, North Fork Slate
Creek, North Fork White Bird Creek,
Partridge Creek, Slate Creek, Slide
Creek, South Fork John Day Creek.
South Fork White Bird Creek, Warm
Springs Creek.
(xv) LOWER SELWAY BASIN: An-
derson Creek, Bailey Creek, Browns
Spring Creek. Buck Lake Creek. Butte
Creek, Butter Creek, Cabin Creek,
Cedar Creek. Chain Creek, Chute
Creek, Dent Creek, Disgrace Creek,
Double Creek. East Fork Meadow
Creek, East Fork Moose Creek, Elbow
Creek, Fivemlie Creek, Fourmile
Creek. Gate Creek, Gedney Creek. God-
dard Creek, Horse Creek. Indian Hill
Creek. Little Boulder Creek, Little
Schwar Creek. Matteson Creek. Mead-
ow Creek, Monument Creek, Moose
Creek, Moss Creek, Newsorne Creek.
North Fork Moose Creek. Rhoda Creek,
Saddle Creek, Schwar Creek, Shake
Creek, Spook Creek, Spur Creek. Tam-
arack Creek, West Fork Anderson
Creek. West Fork Gedney Creek, West
Moose Creek, Wounded Doe Creek
(xvi) MIDDLE FORK CLEARWATER
BASIN Baldy Creek, Big Cedar Creek,
Browns Spring Creek. Clear Creek.
Middle Fork Clear Creek, Pine Knob
Creek, South Fork Clear Creek.
(xvii) MIDDLE FORK PAYETTE
BASIN. Bull Creek, Middle Fork
Fayette River (above Fool Creek), Ox-
tail Creek, Silver Creek. Sixteen-to-
one Creek.
(xviii) MIDDLE SALMON-CHAM-
BERLAIN BASIN Arrow Creek,
Barganiin Creek, Bat Creek, Bay
Creek. Bear Creek. Bend Creek. Big
Elkhorn Creek. Big Harrington Creek.
Big Mallard Creek. Big Squaw Creek.
Bleak Creek, Bronco Creek, Broomtail
Creek. Brown Creek, Cayuse Creek,
Center Creek, Chamberlain Creek, Cliff
Creek, Colt Creek. Corn Creek. Crook-
ed Creek, Deer Creek, Dennis Creek.
Disappointment Creek, Dismal Creek.
Dog Creek, East Fork Fall Creek. East
Fork Horse Creek. East Fork Noble
Creek. Fall Creek, Filly Creek, Fish
Creek, Flossie Creek, Game Creek. flap
Creek. Ginger Creek. Green Creek,
Grouse Creek, Guard Creek. Hamilton
Creek, Horse Creek, Hot Springs Creek.
Hotzel Creek, Hungry Creek, Iodine
Creek, Jack Creek, Jersey Creek,
Kitchen Creek. Lake Creek. Little
Horse Creek, Little Lodgepole Creek.
Little Mallard Creek, Lodgepole Creek,
Mayflower Creek, McCalla Creek,
Meadow Creek, Moose Creek, Moose
Jaw Creek, Mule Creek, Mustang
Creek. No Name Creek. Owl Creek.
Poet Creek. Pole Creek. Porcupine
Creek, Prospector Creek, Pup Creek,
950
183.150 D-99-.31
951
-------
131.33
40 CFR Ch. 1(7—1—99 EditIon) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.33
Queen Creek. Rainey Creek. Ranch
Creek. Rattlesnake Creek, Red Top
Creek. Reynolds Creek, Rim Creek,
Ring Creek. Rock Creek, Root Creek,
Runaway Creek. Sabe Creek, Saddle
Creek, Salt Creek, Schissler Creek.
Sheep Creek, Short Creek. Shovel
Creek, Skull Creek, Slaughter Creek.
Slide Creek. South Fork Cottonwood
Creek, South Fork Chamberlain Creek.
South Fork Kitchen Creek, South Fork
Salmon River, Spread Creek, Spring
Creek, Starvation Creek, Steamboat
Creek, Steep Creek. Stud Creek, War-
ren Creek, Webfoot Creek, Vest Fork
Chamberlain Creek. West Fork Rattle-
snake Creek, West Horse Creek,
Whimetick Creek, Wind River, Woods
Fork Horse Creek.
(xix) MIDDLE SALMON-PANTHER
BASIN: Allen Creek, Arnett Creek,
Beaver Creek. Big Deer Creek, Black-
bird Creek, Boulder Creek. Cabin
Creek, Camp Creek, Carmen Creek,
Clear Creek, Colson Creek, Copper
Creek, Corral Creek, Cougar Creek.
Cow Creek, Deadhorse Creek, Deep
Creek, East Boulder Creek, Elkhorn
Creek, Fawn Creek, Fourth Of July
Creek. Freeman Creek, Hornet Creek.
Hughes Creek, Hull Creek, Indian
Creek, Iron Creek, Jackass Creek, Jef-
ferson Creek. Jesse Creek. Lake Creek,
Little Deep Creek, Little Hat Creek,
Little Sheep Creek, McConn Creek.
McKim Creek, Mink Creek, Moccasin
Creek. Moose Creek, Moyer Creek,
Musgrove Creek, Napias Creek, North
Fork Hughes Creek, North Fork Iron
Creek. North Fork Salmon River,
North Fork Williams Creek, Opal
Creek, Otter Creek, Owl Creek, Pan-
ther Creek, Park Creek, Phelan Creek,
Pine Creek, Pony Creek, Porphyry
Creek, Pruvan Creek. Rabbit Creek,
Rancherio Creek. Rapps Creek, Salt
Creek, Salzer Creek. Saw Pit Creek,
Sharkey Creek, Sheep Creek, South
Fork Cabin Creek, South Fork Iron
Creek, South Fork Moyer Creek. South
Fork Phelan Creek, South Fork Sheep
Creek. South Fork Williams Creek,
Spring Creek, Squaw Creek. Trail
Creek, Twelvemile Creek, Twin Creek,
Weasel Creek, West Fork Blackbird
Creek, West Fork Iron Creek, Williams
Creek, Woocltick Creek.
(xx) MOYIE BASIN: Brass Creek,
Bussard Creek, Copper Creek, Deer
Creek. Faro Creek, Keno Creek, Kreist
Creek, Line Creek, McDougal Creek,
Mill Creek. Moyie River (above Skin
Creek), Placer Creek, Rutledge Creek.
Skin Creek, Spruce Creek, West Branch
Deer Creek
(xxi) NORTH AND MIDDLE FORK
BOISE BASIN: Abby Creek, Arrastra
Creek, Bald Mountain Creek,
Ballentyne Creek, Banner Creek.
Bayhouse Creek, Bear Creek, Bear
River, Big Gulch, Big Silver Creek,
Billy Creek, Blackwarrior Creek, Bow
Creek, Browns Creek, Buck Creek,
Cabin Creek. Cahhah Creek, Camp
Gulch. China Fork, Coma Creek,
Corbus Creek. Cow Creek, Crooked
River, Cub Creek, Decker Creek, Dutch
Creek, Dutch Frank Creek, East Fork
Roaring River, East Fork Swanhoim
Creek, East Fork Yuba River, Flint
Creek, Flytrip Creek, Gotch Creek,
Graham Creek. Granite Creek, Grays
Creek, Greylock Creek, Grouse Creek,
Hot Creek, Hungarian Creek, Joe Daley
Creek, Johnson Creek, Kid Creek, King
Creek. La Mayne Creek, Leggit Creek.
Lightening Creek, Little Queens River,
Little Silver Creek. Louise Creek,
Lynx Creek, Mattingly Creek, McKay
Creek, MoLeod Creek, McPhearson
Creek, Middle Fork Boise River (above
Roaring River). Middle Fork Corbus
Creek. Middle Fork Roaring River, Mill
Creek, Misfire Creek, Montezuma
Creek, North Fork Boise River (above
Bear River), Phifer Creek, Pikes Fork.
Quartz Gulch, Queens River, Rabbit
Creek, Right Creek, Roaring River,
Robin Creek, Rock Creek, Rockey
Creek, Sawmill Creek. Scenic Creek,
Scotch Creek, Scott Creek, Shorip
Creek, Smith Creek, Snow Creek,
Snowelide Creek. South Fork Corbus
Creek, South Fork Cub Creek. Spout
Creek, Steamboat Creek. Steel Creek,
Steppe Creek, Swanholm Creek. Timpa
Creek, Trail Creek, Trapper Creek, Tri-
pod Creek, West Fork Creek. West War-
rior Creek, Willow Creek, Yuba River.
(xxii) NORTH FORK PAYETFE
BASIN Gold Fork River, North Fork
Gold Fork River, Pearsol Creek.
(xxiii) ARSIMEROL BASIN: Baby
Creek, Bear Creek. Big Creek, Big
Gulch, Burnt Creek. Christian Gulch.
Dead Cat Canyon. Ditch Creek. Donkey
Creek, Doublespring Creek, Dry Can-
yon. Dry Gulch, East Fork Burnt
Creek. East Fork Morgan Creek, East
Fork Pahsimeroi River, East Fork Pat-
terson Creek. Elkhorn Creek, Falls
Creek, Goldberg Creek. Hillside Creek,
Inyo Creek, Long Creek. Mahogany
Creek, Mill Creek, Morgan Creek.
Morse Creek, Mulkey Gulch. North
Fork Big Creek, North Fork Morgan
Creek, Pahsimeroi River (above Big
Creek), Patterson Creek. Rock Spring
Canyon. Short Creek, Snowelide Creek.
South Fork Big Creek. Spring Gulch,
Squaw Creek, Stinking Creek, Tater
Creek. West Fork Burnt Creek. West
Fork North Fork Big Creek.
(xxiv) PAYETTE BASIN. Squaw
Creek, Third Fork Squaw Creek.
(xxv) PEND OREILLE LAKE BASIN.
Branch North Gold Creek, Cheer Creek,
Chloride Gulch, Dry Gulch, Dyree
Creek. Flume Creek, Gold Creek, Gran-
ite Creek, Grouse Creek, Kick Bush
Gulch. North Fork Grouse Creek,
North Gold Creek, Plank Creek, Rapid
Lightning Creek, South Fork Grouse
Creek, Strong Creek, Thor Creek, Tres-
tle Creek, West Branch Pack River,
West Gold CreeL-. Wylie Creek. Zuni
Creek
(xxvi) PRIEST BASIN Abandon
Creek, Athol Creek, Bath Creek, Bear
Creek, Bench Creek. Blacktail Creek,
Bog Creek, Boulder Creek. Bugle
Creek, Canyon Creek, Caribou Creek.
Cedar Creek, Chicopee Creek, Deadman
Creek. East Fork Trapper Creek, East
River, Fedar Creek, Floss Creek, Gold
Creek, Granite Creek, Horton Creek,
Hughes Fork, Indian Creek, Jackson
Creek, Jost Creek. Kalispell Creek,
Kent Creek. Keokee Creek. Lime
Creek. Lion Creek, Lost Creek, Lucky
Creek. Malcom Creek, Middle Fork
East River, Muskegon Creek, North
Fork Granite Creek, North Fork Indian
Creek, Packer Creek, Rock Creek.
Ruby Creek, South Fork Granite
Creek, South Fork Indian Creek, South
Fork Lion Creek, Squaw Creek, Tango
Creek. Tarlac Creek, The Thorofare,
Trapper Creek, Two Mouth Creek,
Uleda Creek, Priest K. (above Priest
Lake). Zero Creek.
(xxvii) SOUTH FORK BOISE BASIN’
Badger Creek, Bear Creek, Bear Gulch,
Big Smoky Creek. Big Water Gulch.
Boardman Creek, Burnt Log Creek.
Cayuse Creek.. Corral Creek, Cow
Creek, Edna Creek, Elk Creek, Emma
Creek, Feather River, Fern Gulch,
Grape Creek, Gunsight Creek, Haypress
Creek. Heather Creek. Helen Creek,
Johneon Creek, Lincoln Creek, Little
Cayuse Creek. Little Rattlesnake
Creek, Little Skeleton Creek. Little
Smoky Creek, Loggy Creek, Mule
Creek. North Fork Ross Fork. Pinto
Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Ross Fork,
Russel Gulch, Salt Creek. Shake Creek.
Skeleton Creek, Slater Creek, Smokey
Dome Canyon, South Fork Ross Fork,
Three Forks Creek, Tipton Creek, Vi-
enna Creek. Weeks Gulch, West Fork
Big Smoky Creek, West Fork Salt
Creek, West Fork Skeleton Creek, Wil-
low Creek.
(xxviii) SOUTH FORK CLEAR-
WATER BASIN. American River,
Baker Gulch, Baldy Creek. Bear Creek.
Beaver Creek, Big Canyon Creek. Big
Elk Creek, Blanco Creek, Boundary
Creek. Box Sing Creek, Boyer Creek,
Cartwright Creek. Cole Creek. Crooked
River. Dawson Creek, Deer Creek,
Ditch Creek, East Fork American
River, East Fork Crooked River. Elk
Creek. Fivemile Creek. Flint Creek,
Fourrnile Creek, Fox Creek. French
Gulch, Galena Creek, Gospel Creek.
Hagen Creek, Hays Creek, Johns Creek,
Jungle Creek, Kirks Fork American
River, Little Elk Creek, Little Moose
Creek, Little Siegel Creek, Loon Creek.
Mackey Creek. Meadow Creek, Melton
Creek, Middle Fork Red River, Mill
Creek, Monroe Creek, Moores Creek,
Moores Lake Creek, Moose Butte
Creek. Morgan Creek. Mule Creek,
Newsome Creek, Nuggett Creek,
Otterson Creek, Pat Brennan Creek,
Pilot Creek. Quartz Creek, Queen
Creek, Rabbit Creek, Rainbow Gulch.
Red River, Relief Creek, Ryan Creek.
Sally Ann Creek, Sawmill Creek.
Schooner Creek, Schwartz Creek,
Sharmon Creek, Siegel Creek. Silver
Creek, Sixmile Creek, Sixtysix Creek,
Snooae Creek, Sourdough Creek. South
Fork Red River, Square Mountain
Creek, Swale Creek, Swift Creek, Tay-
lor Creek, Tenmile Creek, Trail Creek.
Trapper Creek. Trout Creek.
Twentymile Creek, Twin Lakes Creek.
Umatilla Creek. West Fork Big Elk
Creek, West Fork Crooked River. West
Fork Gospel Creek, West Fork
Newsome Creek. West Fork Red River.
West Fork Twentymile Creek, Whiskey
952
953
-------
§ 131.33
Creek, Wbitaker Creek, Williams
Creek
(xxix) SOUTH PORK PAYE E
BASIN Archie Creek. Ash Creek.
Baron Creek, Basin Creek. Bear Creek.
Beaver Creek, Big Spruce Creek. Bitter
Creek. Blacks Creek. Blue Jay Creek.
Burn Creek. Bush Creek. Camp Creek,
Canyon Creek, Canner Creek. Cat
Creek, Chapman Creek, Charters
Creek. Clear Creek, Coski Creek. Cup
Creek. Dead Man Creek. Deadwood
River. Deer Creek, East Fork Dead-
wood Creek, East Fork Warm Springs
Creek, Eby Creek, Elkhorn Creek,
Emma Creek, Fall Creek. Fence Creek,
Fern Creek. Fivemile Creek, Fox
Creek, Garney Creek, Gates Creek.
Goat Creek, Orandjem Creek, Grouse
Creek, Habit Creek, Helende Creek,
Horse Creek. Huckleberry Creek. Jack-
son Creek, Kettle Creek, Kirkham
Creek, Lake Creek, Lick Creek. Little
Tenmile Creek, Logging Gulch, Long
Creek, MacDonald Creek, Meadow
Creek, Middle Fork Warm Springs
Creek. Miller Creek, Monument Creek,
Moulding Creek, Ninemile Creek. No
Man Creek, No Name Creek, North
Fork Baron Creek, North Fork Canyon
Creek. North Fork Deer Creek, North
Fork Whitehawk Creek, O’Keefe Creek.
Packsaddle Creek, Park Creek, Pass
Creek. Pinchot Creek. Pine Creek.
Pitchfork Creek, Pole Creek. Richards
Creek. Road Fork Rock Creek. Rock
Creek. Rough Creek, Scott Creek, Sil-
ver Creek. Sixmile Creek, Smith Creek,
Smokey Creek, South Fork Beaver
Creek, South Fork Canyon Creek.
South Fork Clear Creek, South Fork
Payette River (above Rock Creek),
South Fork Scott Creek. South Fork
Warm Spring Creek, Spring Creek,
Steep Creek, Stratton Creek. Topnotch
Creek. Trail Creek, Wapiti Creek,
Warm Spring Creek, Warm Springs
Creek, Wbaugdoodle Creek, Wbitehawk
Creek, Wild Buck Creek, Wills Gulch,
Wilson Creek. Wolf Creek.
(xxx) SOUTH FORK SALMON
BASIN: Alex Creek, Back Creek, Bear
Creek. Bishop Creek. Blackmare Creek.
Blue Lake Creek, Buck Creek.
Buckhorn Bar Creek, Buckhorn Creek.
Burgdorf Creek, Burntlog Creek. Cabin
Creek. Calf Creek. Camp Creek, Cane
Creek. Caton Creek, Cinnabar Creek,
Cliff Creek. Cly Creek, Cougar Creek,
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 Edition)
Cow Creek. Cox Creek, Curtis Creek.
Deep Creek. Dollar Creek, Dutch
Creek. East Fork South Fork Salmon
River. East Fork Zena Creek, Elk
Creek, Enos Creek. Falls Creek. Fernan
Creek, Fiddle Creek, Fitsum Creek.
Flat Creek, Fourmile Creek, Goat
Creek. Grimmet Creek. Grouse Creek,
Halfway Creek, Hanson Creek, Hays
Creek. Holdover Creek. Hum Creek, In-
dian Creek, Jeanette Creek. Johnson
Creek, Josephine Creek. Jungle Creek.
Knee Creek, Kraasol Creek, Lake
Creek, Landmark Creek, Lick Creek.
Little Buckhorn Creek. Little Indian
Creek, Lodgepole Creek, Loon Creek.
Maverick Creek, Meadow Creek. Middle
Fork Elk Creek, Missouri Creek, Moose
Creek. Mormon Creek. Nasty Creek,
Nethker Creek. Nick Creek, No Mans
Creek. North Fork Bear Creek. North
Fork Buckhorn Creek, North Fork
Camp Creek. North Fork Dollar Creek,
North Fork Fitsum Creek, North Fork
Lake Fork. North Fork Lick Creek,
North Fork Riordan Creek, North Fork
Six-bit Creek. Oompaul Creek, Para-
dise Creek. Park Creek. Peanut Creek,
Pepper Creek, Phoebe Creek, Piah
Creek, Pid Creek, Pilot Creek, Pony
Creek, Porcupine Creek, Porphyry
Creek, Prince Creek. Profile Creek,
Quartz Creek, Reeves Creek, Rice
Creek. Riordan Creek. Roaring Creek,
Ruby Creek, Rustican Creek. Ryan
Creek. Salt Creek. Sand Creek, Secesh
River. Sheep Creek. Silver Creek, Sis-
ter Creek, Six-Bit Creek. South Fork
Bear Creek. South Fork Blackmare
Creek, South Fork Buckhorn Creek.
South Fork Cougar Creek, South Fork
Elk Creek. South Fork Fitaum Creek,
South Fork Fourmile Creek, South
Fork Salmon River, South Fork
Threemile Creek, Split Creek. Steep
Creek. Sugar Creek. Summit Creek,
Tamarack Creek, Teepee Creek,
Threemile Creek, Trail Creek. Trapper
Creek, Trout Creek, Tsum Creek. Two-
bit Creek, Tyndall Creek. Vein Creek.
Victor Creek, Wardenhoff Creek, Warm
Lake Creek, Warm Spring Creek, West
Fork Buckborn Creek, West Fork Elk
Creek, West Fork Enos Creek. West
Fork Zena Creek. Whangdoodle Creek,
Willow Basket Creek. ‘Willow Creek,
Zena Creek.
(xxxi) ST. JOE ft. BASIN: Bad Bear
Creek, Bean Creek, Bear Creek, Beaver
Environmentoi Protection Agency
Creek, Bedrock Creek, Berge Creek,
Bird Creek, Blue Grouse Creek, Boulder
Creek. Broadaxe Creek, Bruin Creek.
California Creek. Cherry Creek. Clear
Creek, Color Creek, Copper Creek,
Dolly Creek, Dump Creek, Eagle Creek.
East Fork Bluff Creek. East Fork Gold
Creek, Emerald Creek. Fishhook
Creek. Float Creek, Fly Creek, Fuzzy
Creek. Gold ‘Creek, Hailer Creek, In-
dian Creek, Kelley Creek, Maim Creek,
Marble Creek, Medicine Creek. Mica
Creek, Mill Creek, Mosquito Creek,
North Fork Bean Creek, North Fork
Saint Joe River. North Fork Simmons
Creek, Nugget Creek, Packsaddle
Creek, Periwinkle Creek, Prospector
Creek. Quartz Creek, Red Cross Creek.
Red Ives Creek; Ruby Creek. Saint Joe
River (above Siwash Creek), Setzer
Creek. Sherlock Creek, Simmons
Creek, Siwash Creek, Skookum Creek,
Thomas Creek, “ Thorn Creek, Three
Lakes Creek, Timber Creek, Tinear
Creek,’ Trout Creek, Tumbledown
Creek, Wahoo Creek. Washout Creek,
Wilson Creek. Yankee Bar Creek.
(xxxii) UPPER COEUR ‘ D’AJJENE
BASIN: i -Brown Creek, Falls Creek,
Graham Creek.
(xxxiii) UPPER KOOTENAI BASIN
Halverson Cr. North Callahan Creek.
South Callahan Creek. West Fork
Keeler Creek
(xxxiv) UPPER MIDDLE FORK
SALMON ‘BASIN: Asher Creek. Auto-
matic ‘ Creek. ‘Ayers Creek, Baldwin
Creek, Banner Creek, Bear Creek, Bear
Valley Creek, Bearskin Creek, Beaver
Creek, Bernard Creek, Big Chief Creek,
Big Cottonwood Creek, Birch Creek.
Blue Lake Creek. Blue Moon Creek.
Boundary Creek, Bridge Creek, Brown-
ing Creek, Buck Creek, Burn Creek,
Cabin Creek. Cache Creek, Camp
Creek, Canyon Creek, Cap Creek, Cape
Horn Creek, Canner Creek, Castle Fork,
Canto Creek, Cat Creek, Chokebore
Creek, Chuck Creek, Cliff Creek. Cold
Creek, Collie Creek, Colt Creek, Cook
Creek, Corley Creek, Cornish Creek.
Cottonwood Creek, Cougar Creek, Crys-
tal Creek, Cub Creek, Cultus Creek.
Dagger Creek, Deer Creek, Deer Horn
Creek, Doe Creek, Dry Creek, Duffield
Creek, Dynamite Creek, Eagle Creek,
East Fork Elk Creek. East Fork Indian
Creek, East Fork Mayfield Creek. Elk
Creek, Elkhorn Creek, Endoah Creek.
§131.33
Fall Creek. Fawn Creek, Feltham
Creek. Fir Creek, Fiat Creek, Float
Creek. Foresight Creek, Forty-five
Creek, Forty-four Creek, Fox Creek,
Full Moon Creek, Fuse Creek, Grays
Creek, Grenade Creek, Grouse Creek,
‘Gun Creek, Half Moon Creek, Hogback
Creek, Honeymoon Creek. Hot Creek,
Ibex Creek, Indian Creek, Jose Creek,
Kelly Creek, Kerr Creek, Knapp Creek,
Kwiskwia Creek, Lime Creek, Lincoln
Creek, Little Beaver Creek, Little Cot-
tonwood Creek, Little East Fork Elk
Creek, Little Indian Creek, Little Loon
Creek, Little Pistol Creek, Lola Creek,
Loon Creek, Lucinda Creek, Lucky
Creek, Luger Creek, Mace Creek, Mack
Creek, Marble Creek, Marlin Creek,
Marsh Creek. Mayfield Creek,
McHoney Creek, McKee Creek, Merino
Creek. Middle Fork Elkhorn Creek.
Middle Fork Indian Creek. Middle Fork
Salmon River (above Soldier Creek),
Mine Creek. Mink Creek. Moonshine
Creek. Mowitch Creek. Muskeg Creek.
Mystery Creek. Nelson Creek, New
Creek, No Name Creek. North Fork Elk
Creek, North Fork Elkhorn Creek.
North Fork Sheep Creek, North Fork
Sulphur Creek, Papoose Creek, Parker
Creek, Patrol Creek. Phillips Creek,
Pierson Creek, Pinyon Creek, Pioneer
Creek, Pistol Creek, Placer Creek,
Poker Creek, Pole Creek, Popgun
Creek, Porter Creek, Prospect Creek.
Rabbit Creek, Rams Horn Creek, Range
Creek, Rapid River, Rat Creek, Rem-
lngton Creek, Rock Creek. Rush Creek,
Sack Creek, Safety Creek. Salt Creek.
Savage Creek, Scratch Creek. Seafoam
Creek, Shady Creek, Shake Creek,
Sheep Creek, Sheep Trail Creek, Shell
Creek, Shrapnel Creek. Slab Creek, Sil-
ver Creek, Slide Creek, Snowshoe
Creek, Soldier Creek, South Fork Cot-
tonwood Creek, South Fork Sheep
Creek, Spike Creek. Springfield Creek,
Squaw Creek, Sulphur Creek, Sunny-
side Creek, Swamp Creek, Tennessee
Creek, Thatcher Creek, Thicket Creek,
Thirty-two Creek, Tomahawk Creek.
Trail Creek, Trapper Creek, Trigger
Creek, Twenty-two Creek, Vader
Creek, Vanity Creek, Velvet Creek.
Walker Creek, Wampum Creek. Warm
Spring Creek, West Fork Elk Creek,
West Fork Little Loon Creek. West
Fork Mayfield Creek, White Creek.
954
955
-------
§131.33
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EdItion) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.33
Wickiup Creek, Winchester Creek,
Winnemucca Creek. Wyoming Creek.
(xxxv) UPPER NORTH FORK
CLEARWATER BASIN: Adams Creek.
Avalanche Creek. Bacon Creek, Ball
Creek, Barn Creek, Barnard Creek,
Barren Creek. Bear Creek, Beaver Dam
Creek, Bedrock Creek, Bill Creek, Bos-
tonian Creek, Boundary Creek, Burn
Creek, Butter Creek, Camp George
Creek, Canyon Creek, Cayuse Creek.
Chamberlain Creek. Clayton, Creek.
Cliff Creek. Coffee Creek. Cold Springs
Creek, Collins Creek, Colt Creek, Cool
Creek. Copper Creek, Corral Creek,
Cougar Creek. Craig Creek. Crater
Creek, Cub Creek, Davlq creek. Dead-
wood Creek, Deer Creek, 1 Dill Creek,
Drift Creek. Elizabeth. Creek. Fall
Creek, Fire Creek, Fix Creek. Flame
Creek, Fly Creek. Fourth of July
Creek. Fro Creek. Frog Creek, Frost
Creek, Gilfillian Creek, Goose Creek,
Grass Creek, Gravey Creek, Grizzly
Creek, Hanson Creek. Heather Creek,
Henry Creek. Hidden Creek, Howard
Creek. Independence Creek. Jam Creek,
Japanese Creek, Johnagan Creek,
Johnny Creek, Junction Creek. Kelly
Creek. Kid Lake Creek. Kodiak Creek,
Lake Creek, Laundry Creek, Lightning
Creek, Little Moose Creek, Little
Weitas Creek, Liz Creek, Long Creek,
Marten Creek. Meadow Creek. Middle
Creek, Middle North Fork Kelly Creek,
Mill Creek, Mire Creek, Monroe Creek,
Moose Creek, Negro Creek, Nettle
Creek. Niagra Gulch, North Fork
Clearwater River (Fourth of July
Creek). Nub Creek, Osier Creek, Perry
Creek, Pete Ott Creek, Placer Creek,
Polar Creek, Post Creek, Potato Creek,
Quartz Creek, Rapid Creek, Rawhide
Creek. Roaring Creek, Rock Creek,
Rocky Ridge Creek. Ruby Creek. 8ad-
dIe Creek, Salix Creek, Scurry Creek.
Seat Creek, Short Creek, Shot Creek.
Siam Creek, Silver Creek, Skull Creek.
Slide Creek, Smith Creek, Snow Creek,
South Fork Kelly Creek. Spud Creek,
Spy Creek, Stolen Creek, Stove Creek,
Sugar Creek, Swamp Creek, Tinear
Creek. Tinkle Creek. Toboggan Creek,
Trail Creek. Vanderbilt Gulch, Wall
Creek, Weitas Creek. Williams Creek,
Windy Creek, Wolf Creek. Young
Creek.
(xxxvi) UPPER SALMON BASIN:
Alder Creek, Alpine Creek, Alta Creek.
Alturaa Lake Creek. Anderson Creek,
Aspen Creek, Basin Creek, Bayhorse
Creek, Bear Creek. Beaver Creek, Big
Boulder Creek, Block Creek, Blowfly
Creek, Blue Creek, Boundary Creek.
Bowery Creek, Broken Ridge Creek.
Bruno Creek. Buckskin Creek, Cabin
Creek, Camp Creek, Cash Creek.
Challis Creek, ‘Chamberlain Creek.
Champion Creek, Cherry Creek. Cinna-
bar Creek. Cleveland Creek, Coal
Creek, Crooked Creek, Darling Creek,
Deadwood. Creek. Decker Creek. Deer
Creek, Dry Creek, Daffy Creek. East
Basin Creek, East Fork Salmon River,
East Fork Valley Creek. East Pass
Creek, Eddy Creek, Eigbtmile Creek,
Elevenmile Creek, Elk Creek, Ellis
Creek. Estee Creek, First Creek, Fisher
Creek, Fishhook Creek, ‘Fivemile
Creek, Fourth of July Creek. French-
man Creek. Garden Creek, Germania
Creek, Goat Creek, Gold Creek, Goose-
berry Creek,’ Greylock ‘Creek, Hay
Creek. Hell Roaring Creek, Herd Creek,
Huckleberry Creek, Iron Creek, - Job
Creek. Jordan Creek, Juliette Creek,
Kelly Creek, ‘Kinnikinic Creek. Lick
Creek, Lightning Creek. Little Basin
Creek, Little Beaver Creek, Little
Boulder Creek. Little West Fork Mor-
gan Creek, Lodgepole Creek, Lone Pine
Creek, Lost Creek, MacRae Creek,
Martin Creek, McKay Creek. Meadow
Creek. Mill Creek, Morgan Creek,
Muley Creek, Ninemile Creek, Noho
Creek. Pack Creek, Park Creek, Pat
Hughes Creek, Pig Creek, Pole Creek,
Pork Creek, Prospect Creek, Rainbow
Creek, Redfish Lake Creek, Road
Creek, Rough Creek; Sage Creek, Sage-
brush Creek, Salmon River (Redflsh
Lake Creek), Sawmill Creek, Second
Creek, Sevenmile Creek, Sheep Creek,
Short Creek, Sixmlle Creek, ‘Slate
Creek. Smiley Creek. South Fork East
Fork Salmon River, - Squaw Creek,
Stanley Creek, Stephens Creek, Sum-
mit Creek, Sunday Creek, Swlmm
Creek. Taylor Creek, Tenmile Creek,
Tennel Creek. Thompson Creek, Three
Cabins Creek, Trail Creek, Trap Creek,
Trealor Creek, Twelvemile Creek, Twin
Creek. Valley Creek, Van Horn Creek,
Vat Creek, Warm Spring Creek, Warm
Springs Creek, Washington Creek, West
Beaver Creek. West Fork Creek. West
Fork East Fork Salmon River, West
Fork Herd Creek. West Fork Morgan
956
Creek. West Fork Yankee Fork. West
Pass Creek, Wickiup Creek, Williams
Creek, Willow Creak. Yankee Fork.
(xxxvii) UPPER SELWAY BASIN.
Basin Creek, Bear Creek, Burn Creek,
Camp Creek, ‘Canyon Creek, Cliff
Creek, Comb Creek. Cooper Creek, Cub
Creek, Deep Creek, Eagle Creek, Elk
Creek, Fall Creek, Fox Creek, Goat
Creek. Gold Pan Creek, Granite Creek.
Grass Gulch, Haystack Creek, Hells
Half Acre Creek, Indian Creek, Kim
Creek, Lake Creek, Langdon Gulch,
Little Clearwater River, Lodge Creek,
Lunch Creek, Mist Creek, Paloma
Creek, Paradise Creek, Peach Creek.
Pettibone Creek. Running Creek, Sad-
dle Gulch, Schofield Creek, Selway
River (above Pettibone Creek). South
Fork Running Creek, South Fork Sad-
dle Gulch. South Fork Surprise Creek.
Spruce ‘Creek. Squaw Creek, Stripe
Creek, Surprise Creek, Set Creek,
Tepee Creek, Thirteen Creek. Three
Lakes Creek. Triple Creek, Wahoo
Creek.’ White Cap Creek, Wilkerson
Creek. Witter Creek.
(xxxviii) WEISER BASIN: Anderson
Creek. Bull Corral Creek. Dewey Creek.
East Fork Weiser River, Little Weiner
River, above Anderson Creek, Sheep
Creek. Wolf Creek.
(3) Procedures for site specific modi-
fication of listed waterbodies or tem-
perature criteria for bull trout.
(i) The Regional Administrator may,
in his discretion, determine that the
temperature criteria in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section shall not apply to
a specific waterbody or portion thereof
listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this sec-
tion. Any such determination shall be
made consistent with §131.11 and shall
be based on a finding that bull trout
spawning and rearing is not an existing
use in such waterbody or portion there-
of
(ii) The Regional Administrator may.
in his discretion, raise the temperature
criteria in paragraph (a)(l) of this sec-
tion as they pertain to a specific
waterbody or portion thereof listed In
paragraph’ (a)(2) of this section. Any
such determination shall be made con-
sistent with § 131.11, and shall be based
on a finding that bull trout would be
fully supported at the higher tempera-
ture criteria
(iii) For any determination made
under paragraphs (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(li) of
this section, the Regional Adminis-
trator shall, prior to making such a de-
termination, provide for public notice
of and comment on a proposed deter-
mination. For any such proposed deter-
mination. the Regional Administrator
shall prepare and make available to
the public a technical support docu-
ment addressing each waterbody or
portion thereof that would be deleted
or modified and the Justification for
each proposed determination. This doc-
ument shall be made available to the
public not later than the date of public
notice
(iv) The Regional Administrator
shall maintain and make available to
the public an updated list of deter-
minations made pursuant to para-
graphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(iI) of this sec-
tion as well as the technical support
documents for each determination.
(v) Nothing in this paragraph (a)(3)
shall limit the Administrator’s author-
ity to modify the temperature criteria
In paragraph (a)(1) of this section or
the list of waterbodies In paragraph
(a)(2) of this section through rule-
making.
(b) Use designations for surface waters.
In addition to the State adoped use
designations, the following water body
segments in Idaho are designated for
cold water biota. Canyon Creek (PB
121)—below mining impact; South Fork
Coeur d’Alene River (PB 140S)—Daisy
Gulch to mouth; Shields Gulch (PB
148S)—below mining Impact, Blackfoot
River (USB 360)—Equalizing Dam to
mouth, except for any portion in In-
dian country; Soda Creek (BB 310)—
source to mouth.
(c) Excluded waters. Lakes, ponds.
pools, streams, and springs outside
public lands but located wholly and en-
tirely upon a person’s land are not pro-
tected specifically or generally for any
beneficial use, unless such waters are
designated In Idaho 16.01.02 110.
through 160.. or, although not so des-
ignated, are waters of the Unitod
States as defined at 40 CFR 1222.
Cd) Water quahty standard variances.
(1) The Regional Administrator. EPA
Region X, is authorized to grant
variances from the water quality
957
II
I’
II’
-------
§ 131.34
standards in paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion where the requirements of this
paragraph (d) are met. A water quality
standard variance applies only to the
permittee requesting the variance and
only to the pollutant or pollutants
specified In the variance; the under-
lying water quality standard otherwise
remains in effect
(2) A water quality standard variance
shall not be granted if:
(1) Standards will be attained by im-
plementing effluent limitations re-
quired under sections 301(b) and 306 of
the CWA and by the permittee Imple-
menting reasonable best management
practices for nonpoint source control;
or
(ii) The variance would likely jeop-
ardize the continued existence of any
threatened or endangered species listed
under section 4 of the Endangered Spe-
cies Act or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of such species’
critical habitat.
(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this
section. a water quality standards vari-
ance may be granted If the applicant
demonstrates to EPA that attaining
the water quality standard is not fea-
sible because:
(i) Naturally occurring pollutant con-
centrations prevent the attainment of
the use, or
(ii) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent
or low flow conditions or water levels
prevent the attainment of the use, un-
less these conditions may be com-
pensated for by the discharge of suffi-
cient volume of effluent discharges
without violating State water con-
servation requirements to enable uses
to be met; or
(iii) Human caused conditions or
sources of pollution prevent the attain-
ment of the use and cannot be rem-
edied or would cause more• environ-
mental damage to correct than to leave
in place; or
(iv) Dams, diversions or other types
of hydrologic modifications preclude
the attainment of the use, and it is not
feasible to restore the waterbody to its
original condition or to operate such
modification in a way which would re-
sult in the attainment of the use; or
(v) Physical conditions related to the
natural features of the waterbody, such
as the lack of a proper substrate, cover,
40 CFR Ch.l (7—1—99 Edition)
flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like
unrelated to water quality, preclude
attainment of aquatio life protection
uses; or
(vi) Controls more stringent than
those required by sections 301(b) and
306 of the CWA would result in substan-
tial and widespread economic’ and so-
cial impact.
(4) Procedures. An applicant for a
water quality standards variance shall
submit a request to the Regional Ad-
ministrator not later than the date the
applicant applies for an NPDES permit
which would implement the variance.
except that an application may be filed
later if the need for the variance arises
or the data supporting the variance be-
comes available after the NPDES per-
mit application is filed. The applica-
tion shall include all relevant informa-
tion showing that the requirements for
a variance have been satisfied. The bur-
den is on the applicant to demonstrate
to EPA’s satisfaction that the des-
ignated use is unattainable for one of
the reasons specified in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section. If the Regional
Administrator preliminarily deter-
mines that grounds exist for granting a
variance, he shall publish notice of the
proposed variance. Notice of a final de-
cision to grant a variance shall also be
published. EPA will incorporate into
the permittee’s NPDES permit all con-
ditions needed to implement the vari-
ance.
(5) A variance may not exceed 5 years
or the term of the NPDES permit,
whichever is less. A variance may be
renewed if the applicant reapplies and
demonstrates that the use in question
is still not attainable. Renewal Of the
variance may be denied if the applicant
did not comply with’the conditions of
the original variance.
[ 62 FIt 41163, July 31. 1997)
§ 131.34 [ Reserved)
§ 131.35 Colvllle Confederated Tribes
Indian Reservation.
The water quality standards applica-
ble to the waters within the Colville
Indian Reservation, located in the
State of Washington.
958
Environmental Protection Agency
(a) Background (1) It is the purpose
of these Federal water quality stand-
ards to prescribe minimum water qual-
ity requirements for the surface waters
located within the exterior boundaries
of the Colville Indian Reservation to
ensure compliance with section 303(c)
of the Clean Water Act
(2) The Colville Confederated Tribes
have a primary interest in the protec-
tion, control, conservation, and utiliza-
tion of the water resources of the
Colviile Indian Reservation. Water
quality standards have been enacted
into tribal law by the Colville Business
Councii of the Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Reservation, as the
Colville Water Quality Standards Act,
CTC Title 33 (Resolution No 1984—526
(August 6, 1984) as amended by Resolu-
tion No 1985—20 (January 18, 1985))
(b) Territory covered The provisions of
these water quality standards shall
apply to all surface waters within the
exterior boundaries of the Colville In-
dian Reservation.
(C) Applicability, Administration and
Amendment, (1) The water quality
standards in this section shall be used
by the Regional Administrator for es-
tablishing any water quality based Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit (NPDES) for point
sources on the Colville Confederated
Tribes Reservation.
(2) In conjunction with the issuance
of section 402 or section 404 permits,
the Regional Administrator may des-
ignate mixing zones in the waters of
the United States on the reservation
on a case-by-case basis. The size of
such mixing zones and the in-zone
water quality in such mixing zones
shall be consistent with the applicable
procedures and guidelines in EPA’s
Water Quality Standards Handbook
and the Technical Support Document
for Water Quality Based Toxics Con-
trol.
(3) Amendments to the section at the
request of the Tribe shall proceed in
the following manner.
(I) The requested amendment shall
first be duly approved by the Confed-
erated Tribes of the Coiville Reserva-
tion (and so certified by the Tribes
Legal Counsel) and submitted to the
Regional Administrator
§ 131.35
(ii) The requested amendment shall
be reviewed by EPA (anti by the State
of Washington. if the action would af-
fect a boundary water).
(iii) If deemed in compliance with the
Clean Water Act, EPA will propose and
promulgate an appropriate change to
this section
(4) Amendment of this section at
EPA’s initiative will follow consulta-
tion with the Tribe and other appro-
priate entitles Such amendments will
then follow normal EPA rulemaking
procedures
(5) All other applicable provisions of
this part 131 shall apply on the Colville
Confederated Tribes Reservation. Spe-
cial attention should be paid to § 131 6,
131.10, 131.11 and 131 20 for any amend-
ment to these standards to be initiated
by the Tribe
(6) All numeric criteria contained in
this section apply at all In-stream flow
rates greater than or equal to the flow
rate calculated as the minimum 7-con-
secutive day average flow with a recur-
rence frequency of once in ten years
(7Q10); narrative criteria ( 131 35(e)(3))
apply regardless of flow. The 7QlO low
flow shall be calculated using methods
recommended by the U S Geological
Survey.
(d) Definitions (1) Acute toxicity
means a deleterious response (e.g.,
mortality, disorientation, immobiliza-
tion) to a stimulus observed in 96 hours
or less.
(2) Background conditions means the
biological, chemical, and physical con-
ditions of a water body, upstream from
the point or non-point source discharge
under consideration. Background sam-
pling location in an enforcement ac-
tion will be upstream from the point of
discharge, but not upstream from other
inflows. If several discharges to any
water body exist, and an enforcement
action is being taken for possible viola-
tions to the standards, background
sampling will be undertaken imme-
diately upstream from each discharge.
(3) Ceremonial and fleligious watei- use
means activities involving traditional
Native American spiritual practices
which involve, among other things, pri-
mary (direct) contact with water.
(4) Chronic toxicity means the lowest
concentration of a constituent cau8ing
observable effects (i e , considering
959
I ,
-------
§ 131.35
40 CFR Cli. I (7—1-99 EditIon) I Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.35
lethality, growth, reduced reproduc-
tion. etc.) over a relatively long period
of time, usually a 28-day test period for
small fish test species.
(5) Council or Tribal Council means
the Colville Business Council of the
Colville Confederated Tribes.
(6) Geometric mean means the nth root
of a product of n factors
(7) Mean retention time means the
time obtained by dividing a reservoir’s
mean annual minimum total storage
by the non-zero 30-day, ten-year low-
flow from the reservoir
(8) Mixing zone or dilution zone means
a limited area or volume of water
where initial dilution of a discharge
takes place; and where numeric water
quality criteria can be exceeded but
acutely toxic conditions are prevented
from occurring.
(9) p11 means the negative logarithm
of the hydrogen Ion concentration.
(10) Primary contact recreation means
activities where a person would have
direct contact with water to the point
of complete submergence, including
but not limited to akin diving, swim-
ming. and water skiing.
(11) Regional Administrator means the
Administrator of EPA’s Region X.
(12) Reservation means all land within
the limits of the Colville Indian Res-
ervation, established on July 2, 1872 by
Executive Order, presently containing
1,389,000 acres more or less, and under
the jurisdiction of the United States
government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including
rights-of-way running through the res-
ei-vation.
(13) Secondary contact recreation
means activities where a person’s
water contact would be limited to the
extent that bacterial infections of eyes,
ears, respiratory, or digestive systems
or urogenital areas would normally be
avoided (such as wading or fishing).
(14) Surface water means all water
above the surface of the ground within
the exterior boundaries of the Colville
Indian Reservation including but not
limited to lakes, ponds, reservoirs, ar-
tificial impoundments, streams, rivers,
springs, seeps and wetlands.
(15) Temperature means water tem-
perature expressed in Centigrade de-
grees (C).
(16) Total dissolved solids (TDS) means
the total filterable residue that passes
through a standard glass fiber filter
disk and remains after evaporation and
drying to a constant weight at 180 de-
grees C. it is considered to be a meas-
ure of the dissolved salt content of the
water
(17) Toxicity means acute and/or
chronic toxicity
(18) Tribe or Tribes means the Colville
Confederated Tribes.
(19) TurbIdity means the clarity of
water expressed as nephelometric tur-
bidity units (NTU) and measured with
a calibrated turbidimeter.
(20) Wildlife habitat means the waters
and surrounding land areas of the Res-
ervation used by fish, other aquatic life
and wildlife at any stage of their life
history or activity.
(e) General considerations. The fol-
lowing general guidelines shall apply
to the water quality standards and
classifications set forth in the use des-
ignation Sections.
(1) Classification boundaries. At the
boundary between waters of different
classifications, the water quality
standards for the higher classification
shall prevail.
(2) Antidegradation policy This
antidegradation policy shall be appli-
cable to all surface waters of the Res-
ervation.
(i) Existing in-stream water uses and
the level of water quality necessary to
protect the existing uses shall be main-
tained and protected.
(ii) Where the quality of the waters
exceeds levels necessary to support
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wild-
life and recreation in and on the water,
that quality shall be maintained and
protected unless the Regional Adminis-
trator finds, after full satisfaction of
the inter-governmental coordination
and public participation provisions of
the Tribes’ continuing planning proc-
ess, that allowing lower water quality
is necessary to accommodate impor-
tant economic or social development in
the area in which the ‘waters are lo-
cated. In allowing such degradation or
lower water quality, the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall assure water quality
adequate to protect existing uses fully.
Further, the Regional Administrator
shall assure that there shall be
960
achieved the highest statutory and reg-
ulatory requirements for all new and
existing point sources and all coat-ef-
fective and reasonable best manage-
ment practices for nonpoint source
control.
(iii) Where high quality waters are
identified as constituting an out-
standing national or reservation re-
source, such as waters within areas
designated as unique water quality
management areas and waters other-
wise of exceptional recreational or eco-
logical significance, and are designated
as special resource waters, that water
quality shall be maintained and pro-
tected
(iv) In those cases where potential
water quality impairment associated
with a thermal discharge is involved,
this anttdegradation policy’s imple-
menting method shall be consistent
with section 316 of the Clean Water
Act.
(3) AesthetIc qualities. All waters with-
in the Reservation, including those
within mixing zones, shall be free from
substances, attributable to wastewater
discharges or other pollutant sources,
that’
(i) Settle to form objectionable de-
posits,
(ii) Float as debris, scum, oil, or
other matter forming nuisances,
(iii), Produce objectionable color,
odor, taste, or turbidity;
(iv) Cause Injury to. are toxic to, or
produce adverse physiological re-
sponses in humans, animals, or plants,
or
(v) produce undesirable or nuisance
aquatic life.
(4) AnalytIcal methods (i) The analyt-
ical testing methods used to measure
or otherwise evaluate compliance with
water quality standards shall to the ex-
tent practicable, be in accordance with
the “Guidelines Establishing Test Pro-
cedures for the Analysis of Pollutants”
(40 CFR part 136). When a testing meth-
od is not available for a particular sub-
stance. the most recent edition of
“Standard Methods for the Examina-
tion of- Water and Wastewater” (pub-
lished by the American Public Health
Association, American Water Works
Association. ‘and the Water Pollution
Control Federation) and other or super-
seding methods published and/or ap-
proved by EPA shall be used.
(f) General water use and criteria class-
es The following criteria shall apply to
the various classes of surface waters on
the Colville Indian Reservation,
(1) Class I (Extraordinary)—(i) Des-
ignated uses The designated uses in-
clude, but, are not limited to, the fol-
lowing:
(A) Water supply (domestic, indus-
trial, agricultural).
(B) Stock watering.
(C) Fish and shellfish’ Salmonid mi-
gration, rearing, spawning, and har-
vesting, other fish migration, rearing,
spawning, and harvesting.
(D) Wildlife habitat.
(E) Ceremonial and religious water
use.
(F) Recreation (primary contact
recreation, sport fishing, boating and
aesthetic enjoyment).
(0) Commerce and navigation.
(ii) Water quality cnteTia. (A) Bac-
teriological Criteria. The geometric
mean of the enterococci bacteria den-
sities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 8 per 100 milli-
liters, nor shall any single sample ex-
ceed an enterococci density of 35 per
100 milliliters. These limits are cal-
culated as the geometric mean of the
collected samples approximately equal-
ly spaced over a thirty day period
(B) Dissolved oxygen—.me dissolved
oxygen shall exceed 9 5 mg/I
(C) Total dissolved gas—concentra-
tions shall not exceed 110 percent of
the saturation value for gases at the
existing atmospheric and hydrostatic
pressures at any point of sample collec-
tion.
(D) Temperature—shall not exceed
16 0 degrees 0 due to human activities
Temperature increases shall not, at
any time, exceed t=23F(Ti-5)
(1) When natural conditions exceed
16.0 degrees C, no temperature increase
will be allowed which will raise the re-
ceiving water by greater than 0 3 de-
grees C
(2) For purposes hereof. “t” rep-
resents the permissive temperature
change across the dilution zone; and
“T” represents the highest existing
temperature in this water classifica-
tion outside of any dilution zone.
961
-------
§ 131.35
(3) Provided that temperature in-
crease resulting from nonpoint source
activities shall not exceed 2 8 degrees
C. and the maximum water tempera-
ture shall not exceed 10.3 degrees C.
(E) pH shall be within the range of 8.5
to 8 5 with a human-caused variation of
less than 0.2 units.
(F) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTh
over background turbidity when the
background turbidity is 50 NTU or lees.
or have more than a 10 percent increase
in turbidity when the background tur-
bidity is more than 50 NTU.
(0) Toxic, radioactive, nonconven-
tional, or deleterious material con-
centrations shall be less than those of
public health significance, or which
may cause acute or chronic toxic con-
ditions to the aquatic blota, or which
may adversely affect designated water
uses
(2) Class II (Excellent)—(i) Designated
uses. The designated uses include but
are not limited to, the following:
(A) Water supply (domestic, indus-
trial, agricultural).
(B) Stock watering.
(C) Fish and shellfish’ Salmonid mi-
gration. rearing, spawning, and har-
vesting. other fish migration, rearing,
spawning, and harvesting; crayfish
rearing, spawning, and harvesting
(D) Wildlife habitat.
(E) Ceremonial and religious water
use.
(F) Recreation (primary contact
recreation, sport fishing, boating and
aesthetic enjoyment)
(0) Commerce and navigation
(ii) Water quality criteria. (A) Bac-
teriological Criteria—The geometric
mean of the enterococci bacteria den-
sities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 16/100 ml, nor
shall any single sample exceed an
enterococci density of 75 per 100 milli-
liters These limits are calculated as
the geometric mean of the collected
samples approximately equally spaced
over a thirty day period.
(B) Dissolved oxygen—The dissolved
oxygen shall exceed 8.0 mgll.
(C) Total dissolved gas—concentra-
tions shall not exceed 110 percent of
the saturation value for gases at the
existing atmospheric and hydrostatic
pressures at any point of sample collec-
tion.
40 CER Ch. I (7—1—99 Edition)
(D) Temperature-shall not exceed 18 0
degrees C due to human activities
Temperature increases shall not, at
any time, exceed t=28/(Ti-7).
(I) When natural conditions exceed 18
degrees C no temperature increase will
be allowed which will raise the receiv-
ing water temperature by greater than
0.3 degrees C.
(2) For purposes hereof, “t” rep-
resents the permissive temperature
change across the dilution zone; and
“T” represents the highest existing
temperature in this water classifica-
tion outside of any dilution zone.
(3) Provided that temperature in-
crease resulting from non-point source
activities shall not exceed 2.8 degrees
C. and the maximum water tempera-
ture shall not exceed 18.3 degrees C.
(E) pH shall be within the range of 6.5
to 8 5 with a human-caused variation of
less than 0.5 units.
(F) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over background turbidity when the
background turbidity is 50 NTU or less,
or have more than a 10 percent increase
in turbidity when the background tur-
bidity is more than 50 NTU.
(0) Toxic, radioactive, nonconven-
tional, or deleterious material con-
centrations shall be less than those of
public health significance, or which
may cause acute or chronic toxic con-
ditions to the aquatic biota, or which
may adversely affect designated water
uses.
(3) Class 111 (Good)—(i) Designated
uses The designated uses include but
are not limited to, the following:
(A) Water supply (industrial, agricul-
tural).
(B) Stock watering.
(0) Fish and shellfish’ Salmonid mi-
gration, rearing, spawning, and har-
vesting; other fish migration, rearing,
spawning, and harvesting; crayfish
rearing, spawning, and harvesting.
(D) Wildlife habitat.
(E) Recreation (secondary contact
recreation, sport fishing, boating and
aesthetic enjoyment).
(F) Commerce and navigation.
(ii) Water quality criteria. (A) Bac-
teriological Criteria—The geometric
mean of the enterococci bacteria den-
sities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 33 100 ml, nor
shall any single sample exceed an
Environmental Protection Agency
enterococci density of 150 per 100 milli-
liters. These limits are calculated as
the geometric mean of the collected
samples approximately equally spaced
over a thirty day period.
(B) Dissolved oxygen.
.
,
Early life
stegea’
Other
ills
stages
7 day mean
tdaymlnimurn’
. . ..
. I
9 5 (65)
80(50)1
3 NA
85
‘These are waler column concentrations recommended to
achieve the required lntergrevel dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions shown In parentheses The 3 mg4. diilerentlal Is dis-
cussed In the dissolved oxygen criteria document (EPA 440!
5—85—003. AprIl 1986) For species thai have early life stages
exposed directly lo the water column, the figures fri paren-
theses apply
5 lncludes all embryonic and larval stages and at luvenif S
forms to 30-days iollowtng hatchIng
3 NA (not appilcable)
‘All mInim. Should be considered as instantaneous con.
cenlratlons to be eciileved 51 all timex
(C) Total dissolved gas concentra-
tions shall not exceed 110 percent of
the saturation value for gases at the
existing atmospheric and hydrostatic
pressures at a y point of sample collec-
tion. I
(0) Temperature shall not exceed 21.0
degrees C due to human activities.
Temperature increases shall not, at
any time, exceed t=34/(T+9).
• (1) When natural conditions exceed
21.0 degrees C no temperature increase
will be allowed which will raise the re-
ceiving water temperature by greater
than 0.3 degrees C.
(2) For purposes’ hereof, - “t” rep-
resents the psi-missive temperature
change across the dilution zone; and
“T” represents the highest existing
temperature in this water classifica-
tion outside of any dilution zone.
(3) Provided that temperature in-
crease resulting from nonpoint source
activities shall not exceed 2 8 degrees
C, and the maximum water tempera-
ture shall not exceed 21.3 degrees C.
(E) pH shall be within the range of 6 5
to 8.5 with a human-caused variation of
less than 0 5 units.
(F) Turbidity shall not exceed 10 NTU
over background turbidity when the
background turbidity is 50 NTU or less,
or have more than a 20 percent increase
in turbidity when the background tur-
bidity is more than 50 NTU.
(0) Toxic, radioactive, noncon-
ventional, or deleterious material con-
centrations shall be less than those of
public health significance, or which
9131.35
may cause acute or chronic toxic con-
ditions to the aquatic blota, or which
may adversely affect designated water
uses.
(4) Class IV (Fair)—(i) Designated uses.
The designated uses include but are not
limited to, the following:
(A) Water supply (industrial).
(B) Stock watering
(0) Fish (salmonid and other fish mi-
gration).
(D) Recreation (secondary contact
recreation, sport fishing, boating and
aesthetic enjoyment),
(E) Commerce and navigation.
(ii) Water quality criteria. (A) Dis-
solved oxygen
Du
aalmorrld
and other
fish nigra.
U s,
pedode
3odaymean
ldaymean
7 day mean min,mum
ldaynr lnirnum 5
65
‘NA
50
40
55
‘NA
40
30
‘NA (not appllcxble)
‘All minima should be considered as Instamaneois con-
cenUaticns lobe achieved at all times
(B) Total dissolved gas—concentra-
tions shall not exceed 110 percent of
the saturation value for gases at the
existing atmospheric and hydrostatic
pressures at any point of sample collec-
tion.
(C) Temperature shall not exceed 22.0
degrees C due to human activities
Temperature increases shall not, at
any time, exceed t=20/(T+2).
(I) When natural conditions exceed
22 0 degrees C, no temperature increase
will be allowed which will raise the re-
ceiving water temperature by greater
than 0.3 degrees C.
(2) For purposes hereof, “t” rep-
resents the permissive temperature
change across the dilution zone, and
‘T” represents the highest existing
temperature in this water classifica-
tion outside of any dilution zone.
(D) pH shall be within the range of 6 5
to 9.0 wIth a human-caused variation of
less than 0 5 units.
(E) Turbidity shall not exceed 10 NTU
over background turbidity when the
background turbidity is 50 NTU or less,
or have more than a 20 percent increase
in turbidity when the background tur-
bidity is more than 50 NTU.
962
963
-------
§ 131.35
(F) Toxic, radioactive, noncon-
ventional. or deleterious material con-
centrations shall be less than those of
public health significance, or which
may cause acute or chronic toxic con-
ditions to the aquatic biota, or which
may adversely affect designated water
uses.
(5) Lake Class—(i) Designated uses.
The designated uses include but are not
limited to, the following:
(A) Water supply (domestic, indus-
trial, agricultural).
(B) Stock watering.
(C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid mi-
gration, rearing, spawning, and har-
vesting; other fish migration, rearing.
spawning, and harvesting; crayfish
rearing, spawning, and harvesting.
(D) Wildlife habitat
(E) Ceremonial and religious water
use.
(F) Recreation (primary contact
recreation, sport fishing, boating and
aesthetic enjoyment).
(G) Commerce and navigation.
(ii) Water quality cnteria. (A) Bac-
teriological Criteria. The geometric
mean of the enterococci bacteria den-
sities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 33/100 ml, nor
shall any single sample exceed an
enterococci density of 150 per 100 milli-
liters. These limits are calculated as
the geometric mean of the collected
samples approximately equally spaced
over a thirty day period. ‘ I
(B) Dissolved oxygen—no measurable
decrease from natural conditions.
(C) Total dissolved gas concentra-
tions shall not exceed 110 percent of
the saturation value for gases at the
existing atmospheric and hydrostatic
pressures at any point of sample collec-
tion.
(D) Temperature—no measurable
change from natural conditions.
(E) pH—no measurable change from
natural conditions.
(F) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over natural conditions.
(0) Toxic, radioactive, noncon-
ventional, or deleterious material con-
centrations shall be less than those
which may affect public health, the
natural aquatic environment, or’ the
desirability of the water for any use.
(6) Special Resource Water Class
(SRW)—(i) General characteristics. These
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EditIon)
are freSh or saline waters which com-
prise a special and unique resource to
the Reservation. Water quality of this
class will be varied and unique as de-
termined by the Regional Adminis-
trator in cooperation with the Tribes.
(ii) Designated uses. The designated
uses include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(A)Wildlife habitat.
(B) Natural foodchain maintenance.
(iii) Water quality criteria.
(A) Enterococci bacteria densities
shall not exceed: natural conditions.
(B) Dissolved oxygen—shall not show
any measurable decrease from natural
conditions.
(C) Total dissolved gas shall not vary
from natural conditions.
(D) Temperature—shall not show any
meP.surable change from natural condi-
tions.
(E) pH shall not show any measurable
change from natural conditions.
(F) Settleable solids shall not show
any change from natural conditions.
(0) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over natural conditions.
(H) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious
material concentrations shall not ex-
ceed those found. under natural condi-
tions..
(g) General classifications. . General
classifications applying to various sur-
face waterbodies not specifically classi-
fied under §131.35(h) are as follows:
(1) All surface waters that are tribu-
taries to Class I waters are classified
Class I, unless otherwise classified.
(2) Except for those specifically clas-
sified otherwise, all lakes with existing
average concentrations lees than 2000
mgIL TDS and their feeder streams on
the Colviile Indian Reservation are
classified as Lake Class and Class I, re-
spectively.
(3) All lakes on the Colville Indian
Reservation with existing average con-
centrations of TDS equal to or exceed-
ing 2000 mg/L and their feeder streams
are classified as Lake Class and Class I
respectively unless specifically classi-
fied otherwise.
(4) All reservoirs with a mean deten-
tion time of greater than 15 days are
classified Lake Class.
Environmen aI Protection Agency
(5) All reservoirs with a mean deten-
tion time of 15 days or less are classi-
fied the same as the river section in
which they are located.
(6) All reservoirs established on pre-
existing lakes are classified as Lake
Class.
(7) All wetlands are assigned to the
Special Resource Water Class.
(8) All other waters not specifically
assigned to a classification of the res-
ervation are classified as Class H.
(h) Speciftc classifications Specific
classifications for surface waters of the
Colville Indian Reservation are as fol-
lows:
,l) Streams
Alice Creek Class Ill
Anderson Creek Class Ill
Amrstrong Creek Class Ill
Barnaby Creek Class II
sear Creek Class Ill
Beaver Dam Creek Class II
Bddge Creek Class II
Brush Creek Class Ill
Buckhom Creek Class Ill
Cache Creek Class Ill
Canteen Creek Class I
Capoose Creak Class lii
Cobbe Creek Class Ill
Columbia River irom Chief J 0 •
eeph Dam 10 Wefla Dam
Columbia River from northern
Reservation boundary to
Grand Caulee Dam (Roo-
sevelt Lake)
Columbia River from Grand
Coulee Dam to Chlel Joseph
Dam
Cook Creek Class I
Cooper Creek Class lii
Cornstalk Creek Class lit
Cougar Creek Class I
coyote Creek Class II
D.erttorn Creek Class Ill
Dick Creak Class Ill
Dry Creek Class I
Empire Creek Class ill
Faye Creek Class I
Forty Mile Creek Class Ill
Gfbson Creek Class I
Gold Creek Class II
Granite Creek Class II
Orinly Creek Class lii
Haley Creek Class Ill
Hell Crnek Class II
HaS Creek, West Fort, Class I
Iron Creek Class ill
Jack Creek Class ill
Jarred Creek Class I
Joe Moses Creek Class ill
John Tom Creek Class iii
Jones Creek Class I
Kailar Creek Class lit
Kincatd Creek Class Ill
King Creek Class Ill
IClondyke Creel, Class I
Lime Creek Class Ill
Little Jim Creek Class Ill
Little Neepetem Class Ii
Loule Creek Class Ill
Lynx Creek Class it
Manila Creel,
UcAllisior Creek
Meadow Creek
Mlii Creek
MissIon Creak
Neapelem River
Ne c Parce Creek
Nine Mile Creek
N,neleen Mile Creek
No Name Creek
North Nanamlrln C,eel,
North Star Creek
Okerrogan River horn fleserva-
lion north boundary to Colum
Ma River
Olds Creek
Omak Creek
Onion Creek
Pennenter Creek
Peel Creek
Peter Dan Creek
Rock Creek
San Poll River
Sanpoil, River Weal Fork
Seventeen Mile Creek
Silver Creek
Sildown Creek
Six MIle Creel,
South Nanamliln Creek
Spnng Creek
Slapaloop Creek
Slepstone Creel,
Slianger Creek
Strawbeny Creel,
Swimptkln Creek
Three Forks Creek
Three Mile Creek
Thirteen Mile Creek
Thirty Mile Creek
Trail Creek
Twenlyfive Mile Creek
Twontyone Mile Creek
Twentylhree Mile Creek
Wannacol Creek
Welts Creek
Whilelew Creek
Wilmoni Creek
(2) Lakes
Apex Lake
Big Goose Lake
Bourgeau Lake
Buffalo Lake
Cody Lake
Crawfish Lakes
Candle Lake
Elbow Lake
Fish Lake
Gold Lake
Greal Western Lake
Johnson Lake
LeFIeuv Lake
Utile Goose Lake
little Owhl Lake
McGinnis Lake
Nicholas Lake
Omak Lake
Owhl Lake
Penley Lake
Rebecca Lake
Round Lake
Simpson Lake
Soap Lake
Sugar Lake
Summit Lake
Twin Lakes
[ 51 FR 28525. July 6. 1989J
§ 131.35
Class Ill
Class Ill
Clese Ill
Class II
Class Ill
Class II
Clsee Ill
Class II
Class Ill
Class II
Class Ill
Class III
Claae II
Class I
Class II
Class Ii
Class Ill
Class ill
Class lii
Class I
Class I
Class II
Class lii
Class lii
Class Ill
Class III
Class Ill
Class Ill
Class Ill
Class Ill
Class II
Class Ill
Class Ill
Class I
Class Ill
Class II
Class II
Class Ill
Class Ill
Class Ill
Class Ill
Class Ill
Class I
Class iii
Class Ii
LC
LC
LC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
SRW
SRW
SAW
IC
IC
IC
LC
IC
IC
SRW
964
965
-------
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EdItion)
criteria’ for priority toxic pollutants
but is restricted to specific pollutants
In specific States.
(b)(1) EPA’S Section 304(a) CrIteria for
Priority Toxic Pollutants.
0
IUJIAI IOALIU
(10 rIsI for e . 4cInsII, )
06r C . 4 tI.4 of.
Wit., I
0(47
(l uLl ‘ ( . 5
Environmental Protection Agency
U
4010UW,., 05
Criterion Criterion
U .aI. Contim
C. 6 C d
(UUILP ( s#L l
ii 12
201 1Sf
§ 131,36
0
UU *U UEAITU
I (10 r163 fer r.rcI . 4w.p
I . , C.ao t ion •li
Wit., $
0.ii 0( .iy
I ( q#Ll (os /LI
I Si . 5
§ 131.36
§ 131.36 Toxlcs criteria for those states
not complying with Clean Water
Act section 308(c)(2)(B).
(a) Scope This section Is not a gen-
eral promulgation of the section 304(a)
a
(I) CONP0UUD
a
U C
P 0 101WI?IU IALTUATUU
C,it.,ion C,it.rion C,it.,(on Crit.rIon
Niti.,. ( . 1 1 1 4W .. 1111.. Contin m
(Al C . d C . 6 ( . . 6 Cons d
Ut r ( . 5 /LI ( 15/LI (.5/LI (IS/LI
•I 51 rI rI
(I) CONPOuUO
CA.
C
0* 1 TWit Ii
Criterion Critorion
Nail.. C li,uota
Cwu. d d
(IS/LI (si/LI
El El
I tntl . . ,y
F 0340 I
I
I 14 . 4300
Arsenic
74*0312 I
360 .
90. I
09 .
36. I 0 OIl sIc 0.14 sIc
3 SerytlI . .
7(40417 I
I
I is n
4 (.661 ,.
7(404391
3.7.
I 0. I
42.
93. I n ft
Ii 01,. (1111
16063111
ItO 0
I SO 0 I
I n
I CtrlIS ( VI I
10040 I
II .
I I. I
1100 .
30. I ti
6
7440900 I
17.
II • I
2.4 •
24. I
.0 54
7439921 I
63.
21 . I
lb.
UI. I ft ci
I Nimoy
7439976 I
3.1 —
0.012 l.p I
I I 5
0.020 l.pl 0 14 0 3
O 5140.1
7440030 I
1400 i
600 I
74 .
0.3 . I 610 a 4600 .
to k1.rci
7712492 I
36
3 . I
290
71 I i i ii
I
II tilt.,
7(49224 I
3.1 .
I
1.9
IS 73.11 1..
7440200 I
I
I 1.7 • 63 .
IS lit.
7440666 I
ItO U
100 0 I
90 U
II . I
II Cyonid.
37130 I
22
3 2 I
I
I I 100 a 110000 .j
II 4. otao
1332214 I
I
I 7.000.000 •lbersIL I
tG.0000000 13 s 0.000000014 .
I A 2,3.7 ,l-b ( A0 lDIaoin)
1746116 I
I
I? AcrsI.In
107121 I
I
I 310 7 00
IS AcrylonitrIl.
107131 I
I
I 0 0(9 ao 0 66 on
19 U..i.t
71432 I
I
I 1.2 is 71 on
20 lr f or.
75112 I
I
I
21 C.rbao b.t, i sIIorid.
36233 I
I
00 360 00
I 0 20 sc 4 4 00
U thlor.boniw..
101907 I
I
I 610 5 21000 ‘I
20 thlorodlbithon.
124411 I
I
I 0.41 on 30 on
24 thIOrontO00 .
73003 I
I
I
11 2-Ollor s .thylyinrt it S .,
110755 I
1
39
t ,S-SIcI .I.rssti ,a.,.
107162 I
I
I
0 38 00
90 00
30
1.1 Olshioro.thyiuns
75334 I
I
0.097 on
3 2 00
II
1,2 Olcktot99i’ .pao.
78873
l.I’0ishIore .i lsns
OtSytbenion.
1100 a
29000 l
02
33
142756 I
100114
I
1
10 5
3100 5
U
Nitbyl S,aoid.
74539 I
I
45 s
4000 a
33
Nothy( Chloride
74173 I
I
I
ft
n
06
N.thph.n. CIiI.,id.
75092 I
I
I
4.7 00
14.00 00
I.I. 2.l’l.tr.chI.,..titon,
Tslrsdulers .thylsni
11 00
0.51
37
31
79340 I
137104 I
I
I
1
I
0.17 00
Dl C
39
Toluon.
100063 I
136600 I
I
I
I
MOO .
200000 .
40
t,2-Trsc -DId isr.ethpi...
41
l ,1 .I’TridiIorosth .n.
71316
1
I
. 1
ci
12 on
II .
43
I.1.l’TrId,lore.thons
T ,IshIo ,..thpl.,.
79000 I
19016 I
I
I
I
I
0.60 00
3 7
44
Vinyl O.ior ( 4.
75014 I
I
I
2
330
41
2’ClitoroØaotot
93178 I
I
I
46
l,4’DicMor.Øianot
110532 I
I
I
93 .
790 .
L4-0ititr(th sI
2 Us thyt’4.6Diftltro 0 iisnoi
47
45
100679 I
134321 I
I
I
I
I
13 4
763
49
0,4’Dinit,t.n.l
11213 I
I
I
71 •
14000 •
00
l’Nhlrt.n.I
00730 I
I
I
31
4’Uitr .snsl
l 27 I
I
I
26
CAiersh.,.
176 43 I
I
I
27
OIehI.,63r.tben.
73274
I
I
2$
I,i’Otd llo,osIIc’.
75343 I
I
I i 79
1.7 iS
0 27 St
33
PsnI.cliloroçfcsn.l
87063 I I I
0.20 as
04
PiunsI
900902 I
I
I
11000 .
11
l ,46-TrIcIltor. ai.r.l
00062 I
I
I
2.1 as
16
lcs, .thu.n.
51329 I
I
I
17
Ac .ni ththy(.rm
215341 I
I
I
38
Antitron..
113127
470 00
23 00
U 2 asJ
MO0000 ii
6t
. 5 110000 0
966
967
-------
§ 131.36
A
(I) C0NPOUUO
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EditIon)
I I I IOWA TIN
CrIlailon CrIl.rlai
Nail... Cailln.im..
CAl C..0 d C .. d
N r 199 1L 1 ( .gIL)
- - --
Envifonmental Protection Agency
*
(I) 00 1POUUO
59
60
Al
62
N.n.ldl..
S. ..(e)Anlhrai. .
k, a1mlP aia
92015 I
56303 I
50320 I
Sail.(b3ll00raith...
205992 I
63
S.nuo (69 1)PIryl .*
190212
64
l.Ws(k)cll . .,.,tll . .
207069 I
65
66
l1fl2-COlor..th. .y)N.Ih. .
IIo(2-U1 10000011000.r
IIS(2- ll ,.IS99 99yt)Ithlr
111911 I
111144 I
67
100101
60
NIu(2 -Ithylh. .yIlPhl56I.0.
107017
69
l-1r.nyl fOaiyl L I I I .,
101053
70
NatyI56nayI MIth.I.l.
05657 I
161*0 filL TN
(10 ,l .I I ., c.rCI00gIai)
!or C.. llai ifs
Vol., 1
0 ,i.,l. 011y
(i l/L I 1 5 4 / 1 1
I I 02
0.99012 ai 0 00057. ii
0.0020 c 0.031
0.0520 C 0.031 c
0.0020 c 0.031
00020 C 0.031 C
0.031 ii I A ai
1400 a 170000.
lOse 59c
§ 131.36
i 11 1UVATIl
NAITW0111
1U1*N •ialTu
(IN ,l60 l .NI .)
CAl
Crlt.r 100
Nail...
I
CrIt.rl.
C.,Il,.ai.
C... I
Cr10 1 1100
01.1...
C... 0
C.ls,,l.n
CailIrulla
C d
111 Cuo (fai ils
04011 1 01 .f
I. r
O sJI I
• 5
(5411)
•‘
(ilL)
(991L)
99 (
(ilL) (00J 1. I
..
I I I IVA T NI
Cr111,100 Cr111,100
01.1... tint I,. . ...
CI.. d Cl .. I
(99111 (56/1 )
C I C l —
.1
J-
1
72
4-O lor .nyI P56nyt hOar
7005723
73
Osryuu
210019 I
74
Olb.nuo(. .h)*ii thracina
53193 I
75
12-Ofd .Io,ob.ni. . .
05501
£6
li -OldiIwck,g.n.
561731 I
77
I .4-OIcMor60Im . .
75
3 .3-OltJ,ls ,60aiuldln .
15
0l.lhyl 991011101
00
NI
Oltkyl Pfs14aIsIa
Ol-n-NaIyI 99056111 .
00020 c
2700 .
400
0 051 c
17000
2605
405
2600
0.06 .c
0.077 S6
23C00 .
120000
313000
2900000
2100 .
12000 .
0.11 a
9.1 a
1067.67 I
91941 I
131113 I
04142 I
121142 I
601202 1
111540 I
122667 I
206440 I
06737 I
110701 I
A Z 2.0 Olnhtr lteI I II.
*3 26-OInll,.I . 1s .
51 01-1-94071 9910.111.
03 l .2-0I 7 6 .n7 1 1 15*ailfll
06 FIairaiui.00
07 hI1..sI.
00 Nu.60I.rc6 iais
09
NlIad 5IO? 461Il 5I.
67603 I
I
I 0.64 ai
10 ai
0ai . s1..aiae1ai.dI. .,.
NsaacJiI .r ..Ikai.
l7099 NJ
•. ai
90
91
77474 I
67721 I
I
I
I 240 a
I I.’ ai
92
ls .(l .2 .3-CUPyv
193399 I
I
I 0 0 C
1.031 o
93
11.60...
70591 I
I
I •.
699..
94
U st56t . .
91203 I
I
I
95
96
NI (r . .ia. .
N-Nl1ra..dlulhI . 7 1I 1 1a
50953 I
62759 I
621667 I
I
I
I 17 a
I 0 00069 00
0099 •1
0 I 00
97
l-N 10r0 0 00I. .- 51999 1 1n.
IS
N-Nl0r.a.dl I.nyI00lI.
06306 I
I
I
0.0 ..
16 00
99
ffi . .. l 116. .
55015 I
I
I
101
l.2.4-TrlcfsIai -th.n,. .
129005 I
120521 I
I
I
I
940 a
11099 N
102
61*1.
309002 I
- 3 •
1.3 N
I
0 00013 00
0.09914 00
103
aI la-SIC
319046 I
I
I
0.0039 00
0.011 . .
004
560.-SIC 319037 I
I
I
0.004 00
0 005..
0.065 c
000
106
.-000
01110-000
15099 I
319961 I
2 .
0.05 .
I 0.16 a
I
I
I
0.019 a
107
CAI.r u
57719 I
2 7. •
0.0043 .
I 0 09 p
0 p
0 00037 . .
0.0 9 00
105
4-V-OCT -
10293
1.1 p
0 aOl .
I 0.13
0001 p I
0.00059 00
0.00059 00
109
4 .4 -00I
72519 I
I
I
0 00059 00
0.00059 00
110
III
44 -995
01.1*1.
72045 I
60371 I
2.5 p
0.0019
I
I 0.71 N
I
0 0019 • I
0.0 (003 00
000010 00
000000 00
009011 00
112
aI i.-Is ..stfan
059910 I
0.32 p
0 054 I
I 0.034
0.0017 I I
0 93 .
0 0 a
I I )
bSIa-0I luIfSl
33913009 I
OU I
0 056 0
I 0 014 5
0 0007 I I
0.95 I
2.0 a
114
I. s.uIf . . alT...
1031010 I
I
I
0 93 .
2.0
115
116
I.*t,
0 .*I . AId.0 d.
72200 I
7421934 I
0.15 o
0.0023 p I 0 037 p
- I
0.0023 p I
I
0 76 a
0 76 •
0.50 aJ
0.01 .J
II ?
76445
0.12
0.0050
0 0(0 .a
300 a
1300 .
0 00073 00
0.54 NC
370 .
14000
0.00077 ac
968
969
-------
§ 131.36
I
IC laWAti I
CrlI.rlw, C,It.rlw ,
Nail.. Caitlmaia
155 Cw. a c.. d
r 14011) ( qIL)
ii .
Footnotes’
a Criteria revised to reflect current agen-
cy q, or RID, as contained In the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) The fish
tissue bioconcentratlon factor (BCF) from
the 1980 crit,orla documents was retained In
all cases
b. The criteria refers to the inorganic form
only.
o Criteria in the matrix based on carcino-
genicity (10° risk) For a risk level of 10-s.
move the decimal point in the matrix value
one place to the right
d. Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC)
= the highest concentration of a pollutant to
which aquatic life can be exposed for a short
period of time (1-hour average) without dele-
terious effects Criteria Continuous Con.
centration (CCC) = the highest concentration
of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be
exposed for an extended period of time (4
days) without deleterious effects. ugIL , =
micrograms per liter
e. Freshwater aquatic life criteria for these
metals are expressed as a function of total
hardness (mg/L as CaC0 ). the pollutant’s
water effect ratio (WEE) as defined in
t131 36(c) and multiplied by an appropriate
dissolved conversion factor as defined in
§ 131 36(b)(2) For comparative purposes, the
values displayed in this matrix are shown as
cussolved metal and correspond to a total
hardness of 100 mg/I. and a water effect ratio
of 1 0
f. Freshwater aquatic life criteria for
pentachloropbenol are expressed as a func-
tion of pH, and are calculated an follows.
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EditIon)
I NUJIAU NIALIN
I (ID lISt lit
I.. C . ,.ptl .. iii
tS I
eve..l.. NaI’
0 1 5 11) ( 1511)
Os
Values displayed above in the matrix cor-
respond to a pH of? 8.
CMC exp(1 005(pH) — 4 830) CCC
exp(1 005(pH) — 5 290)
g. Aquatic life criteria for these com-
pounds were issued In 1980 utilizIng the 1980
Guidelines for criteria development The
acute values shown are final acute values
(FAV) which by the 1980 Guidelines are In-
stantaneous values as contrasted with a CMC
which Is a one-hour average
h These totals simply sum the criteria in
each column For aquatic life, there are 30
priority toxic pollutants with some type of
freshwater or saltwater, acute or chronic cri-
teria For human health, there are 91 pri-
orIty toxic pollutants with either “water +
fish” or”fish only” criteria. Note that these
totals count chromium as one pollutant even
though EPA has devel3ped criteria based on
two valence states. In the matrix, EPA ban
assigned numbers ba and 5b to the criteria
for chromium to reflect the fact that the list
of 128 priority toxic pollutants includes only
a single listing for chromium
i If the CCC for total mercury exceeds
0 012 ug(L more than once in a 3-year period
in the ambient water, the edible portion of
aquatic species of concern must be analyzed
to determine whether the concentration of
methyl mercury exceeds the FDA action
level (1 0 mglkg) If the FDA action level is
exceeded, the Stale must notify the appro-
priate EPA Regional Administrator, initiate
a revision of Its mercury criterion in its
Environmental Protection Agency
water quality standards so as to protect des-
ignated uses, and take other appropriate ac-
lion such as issuance of a fiah consumption
advisory for the affected area.
j No criteria for protection of human
health from consumption of aquatic orga-
nisms (excluding water) was presented In the
1900 criteria document or in the 1988 Quality
Criteria for Water Nevertheless, sufficient
information was presented in the 1980 docu-
ment to allow a calculation of a criterion,
even though the results of such a calculation
were not shown in the document
k. The criterion for asbestos is the MCI. (58
FR 3526. January 30, 1991)
i. (Reserved, this letter not used as a foot.
note]
m. Criteria for these metals are expressed
as a function of the water effect ratio, WEE.
as defined in 40 CFR 131.36(c).
CMC = column Bi or Cl value a WER
CCC column B2 or C2 value a WEE
n EPA is not promulgating human health
criteria for this contaminant However, per-
mit authorities should address this contami-
nant In NPDES permit actions using the
State’e existing narrative criteria for toxics
o (Reserved: This letter not used as a foot-
note]
p. Criterion expressed as total recoverable
General Notes
1. ThIs chart lists all of EPA’S priority
toxic pollutants whether or not criteria rec-
ommendations are available Blank spaces
indicate the absence of criteria recommenda-
tione Because of .,ariatlons in chemical no-
menclature systems, this listing of toxic pcI-
§ 131.36
iutant.s does not duplicate the listing in Ap-
pendix A of 40 CFR Part 423 EPA has added
the Chemical Abstract.s Service (CAS) reg-
istry numbers, which provide a unique iden-
tification for each chemical
2 The following chemicals have organ-
oleptic based criteria recommendations that
are not included on this chart (for reasons
which are discussed In the preamble) copper,
zinc, chlorobenzene, 2-chlorophenol, 2.4.
dichlorophenol, acenaphthene, 2,4-
dimethylphenoi. 3-methyl-4-chlorophenol,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
pentachiorophenol. phenol
3 For purposes of this rulemaking, fresh-
water criteria and saltwater criteria apply as
specified in 40 CFR 131 36(c).
Note to paragraph (b)(l) On April 14. 1995,
the Environmental Protection Agency issued
a stay of certain criteria in paragraph (bUll
of this section as follows the criteria in col-
umns B and C for arsenic, cadmium, chro-
mium (Vi), copper, lead, nickel, silver, and
zinc, the criteria in Bi and Cl for mercury;
the criteria in column B for chromium (111),
and the criteria in column C for selenium
The stay remains in effect until further no-
tice
(2) Factore for Calculating Hardness-
Dependent, Freshwater Metals Criteria
CMCWER exp ( mA(ln(hardnesa)]+bA}
x Acute Conversion Factor
CCC=WER exp ( mc(In(hardness)J+bc} x
Chronic Conversion Factor
Final CMC and CCC values should be
rounded to two sIgnificant figures.
C l) COMPOUND
SAL TWA TIN
1r 15 1e, C.It.. ’I.. ,
Unahaw I sn lhia , .
C . .. d C . .. d
(1511) 1,511)
-Ca
I II
Na,u. lar
1024475 I 0J2
a sass.
I 0.003
. 0.4034. i e.oeote a,
0.00011 a,
0 400049
us
as-I24
52410219 i
0.014 •
4.03 • I 0 000044 .
tie
-ll54
11407691 I
O S l O N
I
0.03 a 0.400044
0.000040
Ill
-1UI
11104752 I
0.014 5
I
0.03 e i 0 000044 a,
0.000045
172
lB
P 1 5-I l lS
P 1 5-I l l S
1114116 5
1l67 I
e,elI •
0.014 I
I
, 0.03 a I e.oeOeu a,
0.03. I 0.400044 a,
0.400040
e.woeis a,
124
as-Ilac
11096125 I
0.014 • I
803 • I 0.400044 a,
0.000045 a,
129
511. 1016
15674112 I
0.014 • I
0.03 a I
0.000044 a,
0.40004) a
126
hw51iuw
5001352 I
0.75
0.0005 I 0.21
0.0002 I
000073 a,
5.00055 a,
T.taI
IN. •f CriterIa 1k) •
24
29
03
27
91
00
Metal
m
b ,
m,
b
Freshwater usv.erslon
lectors
Anile
Ossr.c
Cadmium
Chromium (iii)
Copper ,
Lead
NIckel
Sliver
Zinc
1128
05190
09422
1273
08460
I 72
08473
—3828
3688
—$464
-I 460
33612
-652
08604
07852
08190
08545
1273
06480
114/A
06473
—3 490
1561
—1465
—4105
11045
‘NIA
07614
‘0944
0316
0960
‘0191
0998
055
0970
‘0909
0 860
0960
‘0791
0997
N /A
0986
Note to table The leon “sap” represents the base e exponential function
Footnotes 10 table
‘The Ireshweter converilon factors (CF) for cadmium and lead are hardneu’dependanl and can be calculated for any hard-
ness iaea Imitations In 8 131 36(c)(41 1 ualn the fc5owIn equations
Cadmium
Acute CF.t l36672—filn hardneu)(004I538)l
Chronic CF.t 10 1812—((ln hardneesXo 041538))
Lead (Acute and Chronic) CF I 48203—(Qn hardness)(0 145712)1
1 No Chronic culteds are available for silver
C
(c) AppllcabiH (y. (fl The criteria in criteria which are more stringent for a
paragraph (b) of this section apply to particular use in which case the State’s
the States’ designated uees cited in criteria will continue to apply.
paragraph (d) of thin aection and super- (2) The criteria established in this
sede any criteria adopted by the State. nection are subject to the State’s gen-
except when State regulations contain eral rules of applicability in the same
970
971
-------
§ 131.36
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EdItion) 1 EflVIfOflmefltal Protection Agency
§ 131.36
way and to the same extent as are the
other numeric toxics criteria when ap-
plied to the same use classifications In-
cluding mixing zones, and low flow val-
ues below which numeric standards can
be exceeded in flowing fresh waters
(I) For all waters with mixing zone
regulations or implementation proce-
dures, the criteria apply at the appro-
priate locations within or at the
boundary of the mixing zones, other-
wise the criteria apply throughout the
waterbody including at the end of any
discharge pipe, canal or other dis-
charge point
(ii) A State shall not use a iow flow
value below which numeric standards
can be exceeded that is less stringent
than the following for waters suitable
for the establishment of low flow re-
turn frequencies (ie, streams and riv-
ers):
AQUATIC LiFz
Acute criteria (CMC) I Q 10 or I B 3
Chronic criteria 7 Q 10 or 4 B 3
(CCC)
RUMAU HEALTH
Non-carcinogens 30 Q 5
Carcinogens Harmonic mean flow
Where
CMC—critei is maximum concentration—the
water quality criteria to protect against
acute effects in aquatic life and is the
highest instream concentration of a pri-
ority toxic pollutant consisting of a one-
hour average not to be exceeded more than
once every three years on the average.
CCC—.cri tens continuous concenti ation—the
water quality criteria to protect against
chronic effects in aquatic life is the high-
est instream concentration of a priority
toxic pollutant consisting of a 4-day aver-
age not to be exceeded more than once
every three years on the average.
I Q 10 Is the lowest one day flow with an av-
erage recurrence frequency of once in 10
years determined hydrologically,
I B 3 is biologicaliy based and indicates an
allowable exceedence of once every 3 years
It is determined by EPA’s computerized
method (DFLOW model).
7 Q 10 is the lowest average 7 consecutive day
low flow with an average recurrence fre-
quency of once in 10 years determined
hydrologically.
4 B 3 is biologically based and indicates an
allowable exceedence for 4 consecutive
days once every 3 years II Is determined
by EPA’S computerized method (DFLOW
model):
30 Q 5 is the lowest average 30 consecutive
day low flow wIth an average recurrence
frequency of once in 5 years determined
hydrologically, and the harmonic mean
flow is a long term mean flow value cal-
culated by dividing the number of daily
[ lowe analyzed by the sum of the recip-
rocals of those daily flows
(iii) If a State does not have such a
low flow value for numeric standards
compliance, then none shall apply and
the criteria included in paragraph (d)
of this section herein apply at all
flows.
(3) The aquatic life ctiteria in the
matrix in paragraph (b) of this section
apply as follows:
(I) For waters in which the salinity is
equal to or less than I part per thou-
sand 95% or more of the time, the ap-
plicable criteria are the freshwater cri-
teria in Column E;
(ii) For waters in which the salinity
Is equal to or greater than 10 parts per
thousand 95% or more of the time, the
applicable criteria are the saltwater
criteria In Column C; and
(iii) For waters in which the salinity
is between 1 and 10 parts per thousand
as defined in paragraphs (c)(3) (i) and
(Ii) of this section, the applicable cri-
teria are the more stringent of the
freshwater or saltwater criteria How-
ever, the Regional Administrator may
approve the use of the alternative
freshwater or saltwater criteria if sci-
entifically defensible information and
data demonstrate that on a site-spe-
cific basis the biology of the waterbody
is dominated by freshwater aquatic life
and that freshwater criteria are more
appropriate; or conversely, the biology
of the waterbody is dominated by salt-
water aquatic life and that saltwater
criteria are more appropriate
(4) ApplIcation of metals criteria. (i)
For purposes of calculating freshwater
aquatic life criteria for metals from
the equations in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section. the minimum hardness al-
lowed for use in those equations shall
not be less than 25 mg/i. as calcium
carbonate, even if the actual ambient
hardness is less than 25 mg /I as calcium
carbonate. The maximum hardness
value for use in those equations shall
not exceed 400 mg/I as calcium car-
bonate. even if the actual ambient
hardness is greater than 400 mg/I as
calcium carbonate. The’ same provi-
sions apply for calculating the metals
criteria for the comparisons provided
972
for in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this sec-
tion.
(ii) The hardness value8 used shall be
consistent with the design discharge
conditions established in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section for flows and mix-
ing zones.
(iii) Except where otherwise noted.
the criteria for metals (compounds #2.
#4—# 11, and #13, in paragraph (b) of this
section) are expressed as dissolved
metal For purposes of calculating
aquatic life criteria for metals from
the equations in footnote m in the cri-
teria matrix In paragraph (b)(l) of this
section and the equations in para-
graphs (b)(2) of this section, the water-
effect ratio is computed as a specific
pollutant’s acute or chronic toxicity
values measured in water from the site
covered by the standard, divided by the
respective acute or chronic toxicity
value in laboratory dilution water.
(d) Criteria for Specific Jurisdictions—
(1) Rhode Island, EPA Region I (i) All
waters assigned to the following use
classifications in the Water Quality
Regulations for Water Pollution Con-
trol adopted under Chapters 46—12. 42-
17 1, and 42-35 of the General Laws of
Rhode Island are subject to the criteria
in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
without exception:
6 21 Freshwater 6 22 Saltwater.
Class A Class SA
Class B Class SB
Class C Class SC
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Class A
Class B waters where
water supply use lB
designated
Class B waters where
water supply use is
not designated;
Class C,
Class SA.
Class SB,
Class SC
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the 10’ risk level, con-
sistent with the State policy To deter-
mine appropriate value for carcino-
gens. see footnote c in the criteria ma-
trix In paragraph (b)(1) of this section
(2) Vermont, EPA Region 1 (i) All wa-
ters assigned to the following use clas-
sifications in the Vermont Water Qual-
ity Standards adopted under the au-
thority of the Vermont Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (10 V.8 A, Chapter 47)
are subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(2)(ll) of this section, without excep-
tion:
Class A
Class B
Class C
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(2)(1) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
This classification is
assigned the cri-
teria in’
Column P1—all
Column B2—all
Column flu—all
These classifications
are assigned the
criteria in
Column Bi—all
Column B2—all
Column D2—ali
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed 10
risk level.
(3) New Jersey, EPA Region 2 U) All
waters assigned to the following use
classifications in the New Jersey Ad-
ministrative Code (N J A.C) 7 9—4.1 et
seq., Surface Water Quality Standards.
are subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(3)(ii) of this section, without excep-
tion.
N J A.C. 79—I 12(b) Class P1.
N.J A.C. 79—I 12(c) Class FW2
N.J A C 79-4 12(d) Class SEI
NJAC 79-412(e) ClassSE2
NJAC 79-412(f) ClassBEO
NJAC.79—1i2(gi CIassSC
N J A C 7 9-4 13(a) Delaware River Zones IC.
ID. and lB
973
Class A
Class B waters where
water supply use Is
designated
Class B waters where
water supply use is
not designated
Class C
These classifications
are assigned the
criteria in
Column DI—all
Each of these classi-
fications Is as-
signed the criteria
in’
Column D2—all
-------
§ 131.36
N J A C 7 9-1 13(b) Delaware River Zone 2
NJ A C 79-413(c) Delawate Rivei Zone 3
N J A C 79-4 13(d) Delawate River Zone 4
N J A.C 7 9-4 13(e) Delawni e River Zone 5
NJ AC 79-413(f) Delawate Rivei Zone 6
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this
section
Use classification Applicable criteria
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in Column 51—
all except #102. 105.
107. 108. 111. 112. 113.
115. II?, and 110
Column B2—all except
#105. 107. 108. 111, 112.
113. 115, 117. 110. 119.
120. 121. 122. 123. 124,
and 125
Column DI—all at a
10-6 rIsk level except
#23. 30. 37, 30. 42. 68.
89. 91. 93. 104. 105. #23.
30. 37. 38. 42. 68. 89. 91,
93. 104. 105. at a l0
risk level
Column D2—ail at a
10-6 risk level except
#23, 30. 37. 38. 42. 68.
89. 91. 93. 104. 105. #23.
30, 3’?, 38, 42, 68, 89. 91.
93, 104, 105, at a ID . -’
risk level
These clasaifications
are each assigned the
criteria in
Column Cl—all ex-
cept #102. 105, 107.
108. 111. 112. 113.
115. 117. and 118
Column C2—all ex-
cept #105. 101. 108.
111, 112, 113. 115,
117. 118. 119. 120.
121, 122. 123. 124.
and 125
Column D2—all at a
10—6 risk level ex-
cept #23, 30, 37, 38.
42. 68. 89. 91, 93,
104, 105. #23. 30, 37,
38. 42. 68. 89. 91.
93, 104. 105. at a
30—’ risk level
These classifications
are each assigned the
criteria in.
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EdItion)
Use classiflcation Applicable ci’itei is
Column Bl—all
Column B2—all
Column DI—all at a
10-6 risk level ex-
cept #23, 30. 37, 38,
42. 68. 89. 91. 93,
104. 105 #23. 30. 37.
38. 42. 68. 89. 91.
93, 101. 105, at a
10—’ risk level
Column D2—aIl at a
10—a risk level ex-
cept #23, 30. 37, 38.
42. 68. 89. 91. 93,
104. 105. #23. 30 37,
38. 42, 68. 89. 91.
93, 104. 105. at a
10—’ risk level
These classifications
are each assigned the
criteria in
Column Cl—all
Column C2—all
Column D2—all at a
10—6 risk level ex-
cept #23. 30, 37, 30.
42, 60, 89. 91. 93.
104. 105. #23. 30. 37.
38. 42. 68. 89. 91.
93, 104, 105. at a
10-’ risk level
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed 10-6
risk level for EPA rated Class A, B 1 .
and B 2 carcinogens; EPA rated Class C
carcinogens shall be applied at 10.-i
risk level. To determine appropriate
value for carcinogens, see footnote c. in
the matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(4) Puerto Rico, EPA Region 2 (1) All
waters assigned to the following use
classifications In the Puerto Rico
Water Quality Standards (promulgated
by Resolution Number R—83—5--2) are
subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(4)(ii) of this section, wIthout excep-
tion.
Article 2 2 2—Class SB
Article 2 2 3—Class SC
Article 2 2 4—Class SD
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this
section:
Environmental Protection Agency
Use classification Applicable criteria
Class SD This Cla#aification is
assigned critet Ia in
Column BI—all, ex-
cept: 10. 102, 105,
107, 108. 111, 112,
113. 115, 117. and
126
Column 52.—all, ex-
cept 105, 101, 108,
112. 113. 115, and
117.
Column D1—all. ex-
cept 0, 14. 105.
112. 113, and 115
Column D2—all, ex-
cept 14, 105, 112.
113. and 115
Class SB. Class SC These Classifications
are assigned criteria
in’
Column Cl—all, ex-
cept 4, 5b. 7. 8, 10.
11, 13. 102, 105, 107,
108, 111. 112. 113.
115, 117. and 126
Column CS—all, ex-
cept 4, Sb. 10, 13,
108. 112, 113. 115.
and 117
Column D2—all, ex-
cept 14, 105, 112,
113, and 115
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed 10-s
risk level. To determine appropriate
value for carcinogens, see footnote c, in
the criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
(5) District of Columbia, EPA RegIon 3.
(i) All waters assigned to the fol-
lowing use classifications in chapter 11
Title 21 DCMR, Water Quality Stand-
ards of the District of Columbia are
subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(6)(ii) of this section, without excep-
tion-
1101.2 Class C waters
(Ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classification
identified in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this
section:
Use classification ‘Applicable criteria
This classification is
assigned the addi-
tional criteria in’
Column B2—#10,
118. 126
975
§ 131,36
Use classification Applicable criteria
Column L )1—6l5, 16,
44. 67, 68, 79. 80,
81.68. 114. 116, 118
Column D2—all
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-adopted 10-6
risk level.
(6) Florida, EPA Region 4.
(i) All waters assigned to the fol-
lowing use classifications in Chapter
17—301 of the Florida Administrative
Code (i.e , identified in Section 17-
302 600) are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section,
without exception.
Class I
Class II
Class ill
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identi-
fied in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this sec-
tion.
Use classification Applicable criteria
This classification is
assigned the cr1-
teria in
Column Dl—#16
This classification is
assigned the cr1-
teria in
Column D2—41O
Thi# classification is
assigned the cri-
teria in
Column D2—a16
(iii) The human health criteria
shall be applied at the State-adopted
106 risk level
(7) Michigan, EPA Region 5
(i) All waters assigned to the fol-
lowing use classifications in the Michi-
gan Department of Natural Resources
Commission General Rules, R 323 1100
designated uses, as defined at R
323.1043, Definitions, A to N, (i.e., iden-
tified in Section (g) “Designated use”)
are subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(7)(ii) of this section, wIthout excep-
tion:
Agriculture
Navigation
Industrial Water Supply
Public Water Supply at the Point of Water
Intake
Warmwater Fish
Delawate River
zones 3, 4. and 5,
and Delaware
Bay zone 6
PL (Fieshwater
Pinelands), FW2
Pt.. (Saline Water
Pinelands). SEI.
SE2, SE3. SC
Delaware River
zones IC, ID, lE,
2.3,4. 5 and
Delaware Bay
zone 6
Class I
Class II
Class II! (marine)
Class I II (freshwater)
974
Class C
-------
§ 131.36
40 CFP Ch. I (7—1—99 EditIon) I Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.36
Other Indigenous Aquatic Life and Wildlife
Partial Body Contact Recreation
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(’l)(i) of this
section
Use classification Applicable criteria
Public Water sup-
ply
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in
Column B1—all,
Column B2—all,
Column D1—all
These classiFications
are assigned the cri-
teria in
Column 81—all.
Column 82—all.
and
Column D2—all
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-adopted 10 risk
level. To determine appropriate value
for carcinogens, see footnote c in the
criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section
(8) Arkansas, EPA Region 6
(I) All waters assigned to the fol-
lowing use classification in section 40
(Waterbody uses) identified In Arkan-
sas Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology’s Regulation No. 2 as
amended and entitled, “Regulation Es-
tablishing Water Quality Standards for
Surface Waters of the State of Arkan-
sas” are subject to the criteria in para-
graph (d)(8)(ii) of this section, without
exception:
Extraordinary Resource Waters
Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody
Natural and Scenic Waterways
Fisheries
(I) Trout
(2) Lakes and Reservoirs
(3) Streams
(a) Ozark Highlands Ecoregion
(b) Boston Mountains Ecoregion
(c) Arkansas River Valley Ecoregion
Cd) Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion
(e) Typical Gulf Coastal Ecoregion
Cr) Spring Water-influenced Gulf Coastal
Ecoregion
(g) l. eaat-altered Delta Ecoregion
(h) Channel-altered Delta Ecoregion
Domestic Water Supply
(ii) The following criteria from’ the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classification
identified in paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Extraordinary Re-
source Waters
Ecologically Sensitive
Waterbody
Natural and Scenic Wa-
terways
Fisheries
(I) Trout
(2) Lakes and Res-
ervoirs
(3) Streams
(a) Ozark Highlands
Ecoregion
(b) Boston Moun-
tains Ecoregion
(C) Arkansas River
Valley Ecoregion
(d) Ouachita Moun-
iamB Ecoregion
Ce) Typical Gulf
Coastal
Ecoregion
(I) Spring Water-In-
fluenced Gulf
Coastal
Ecoregion
(g) Least-altered
Delta Ecoregion
(h) Channel-altered
Delta Ecoregion
(9) Kansas, EPA Region 7.
(I) All waters assigned to the’ fol-
lowing use classification in the Kansas
Department of Health and Environ-
ment regulations, K.A R. 28—16—28b
through K.A R 28—16- .28f, are subject to
the criteria in paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of
this section, without exception.
Section 29—16—28d
Section (2)(A)—Special Aquatic Life Use
Waters
Section (2)(8)—Expected Aquatic Life Use
Waters
Section (2)(C)—Restricted Aquatic Life Use
Waters
Section (3)—Domestic Water Supply
Section (6)(c)—Consumptive Recreation
Use
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
These claseilication.
are each assigned all
criteria in:
Column Bi, all ex-
cept #9, 11, 13, 102.
105, 107. 108. 111—
113, 115, 117, and
128;
Column B2. all ex-
cept #9. 13. 105.
107. 108. 111—113.
115, 117, 119—125,
and 128, and
Column D2, all ex-
cept #9, 112, 113.
and 115
This classification is
assigned all criteria
in,
Column Dl. all ex-
cept #9, 12, 112,
113. and 115.
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed 10-6
risk level.
(10) California. EPA, Region 9.
(i) All waters assigned any aquatic
life or human health use classifications
in the Water Quality Control Plans for
the various Basins of the State (“Basin
Plans”), as amended, adopted by the
Water and use classification
California State Water Resources Con-
trol Board (“SWRCB”), except for
ocean waters covered by the Water
Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters
of California (“Ocean Plan”) adopted
by the SWRCB with resolution Number
90—27 on March . 1990, are subject to
the criteria in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of
this section, without exception. These
criteria amend the portions of the ex-
isting State standards contained in the
Basin Plans. More particularly these
criteria amend water quality criteria
contained in the Basin Plan Chapters
specifying water quality objectives
(the State equivalent of federal water
quality criteria) for the toxic pollut-
ants identified in paragraph (d)(l0)(iI)
of this section. Although the State has
adopted several use designations for
each of these waters, for purposes of
this action, the specific standards to be
applied in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this
section are based on the presence in all
waters of some aquatic life designation
and the presence or absence of the
MIJN use designation (Municipal and
domestic supply) (See Basin Plans for
more detailed use definitions)
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this sec-
tion apply to the water and use classi-
fications defined in paragraph (d)(l0)(i)
of this section and identified below.
All other designa-
tions
Sections (21(A),
(2)(B), (2) C),
(6)(C)
Section (3)
These uses are
each assigned the
criteria in—
Column Bl—SS4,
Ca, Sb, 8, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 13. II
Column 82—#4.
5a, 5b. 0, 7, 8,
9, 10, 13. 14
Applicable criteria
Waters of the State defined as bays or estuaries except the These waters are assigned the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay criteria in
Column BI—pollutanta Ca
and 14
Column 82—pollutants 5a
and 14
Column Cl—pollutant 14
Column Ca—pollutant Ii
Column D2—pollutanta 1.
12, 17, 18. 21, fl, 29, 30. 32.
33. 37. 38. 42—44. 48. 48. 49.
54. 59. 66. 81. 68. 78-82. 85.
89.90,91, 93. 95.96.98
Waters of the Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta and waters of These waters are assigned the
the State defined as inland Ci e • all surface waters of the criteria in’
State not bays or estuaries or ocean) that include a MUN Column Bl—pollutanta 5a
use designation and 14
Column B2—pollutanta Ca
and 14
Column DI—pollutants 1.
12. 15. 17, 18. 21. ?2. . 30.
32. 33. 37. 38, 42—48. 49. 59,
66. 67. 68. 78—82. 85. 89. 90.
91. 93. 95. 96. 98
I.
976
977
-------
§ 131.36
Vaters of the San Joaquin River from the mouth of the
Merced River to Vernalis
Waters of Salt Slough. Mud Slough (north) and the San Joa-
quin River. Sack Dam to the mouth of the Merced River
Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and Including
Sulaun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
All inland waters of the United States or encloaed bays and
estuaries that are waters of the United States that include
an MUN use designation and that the State has either ex-
cluded or partially excluded from coverage under its Water
Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of Cali-
fornia. Tables 1 and 2. or its Water Quality Control Plan
for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California. Tables I and
2. or bee deferred applicability of those tables (Category
(a). (b). and (C) waters described on page 6 of Water Quality
Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or
page 8 of Its Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays
and Estuaries of California)
All inland waters of the United States that do not include an
MUN use designation and that the State has either ex-
cluded or partially excluded from coverage under its Water
Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of Cali-
fornia. Tables I and 2. or has deferred applicability of these
tables (Category (a). (b), and (c) waters described on page 6
of Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of
California)
40 CFR Ch. 1(7—1—99 Edition)
Applicable criteria
These waters are assigned the
criteria for pollutants for
which the State does not
apply Table 1 or 2 stand-
ards These criteria are’
Column Bi—all pollutants
Column 82—all pollutants
Column D2—all pollutants
except #2
Environmental Protection Agency
(iii) The human health criteria Bhall
be applied at the State-adopted 10-6
risk level.
(11) Nevada. EPA Region 9 (I) All wa-
ters assigned the use classifications in
Chapter 445 of the Nevada Administra-
tive Code (NAC). Nevada Water Pollu-
tion Control Regulations, which are re-
ferred to in paragraph (d)(11)(ii) of this
section. are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(11)(ii) of this section.
without exception. These criteria
amend the existing State standards
Water and use classification
Waters that the State has included in NAC
445 1339 where Municipal or domestic supply
Is a designated use
Waters that the State has included In NAC
445 1339 whore Municipal or domestic supply
is not a designated use
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the 106 risk level, con-
sistent with State policy. To determine
appropriate value for carcinogens, see
footnote c in the criteria matrix In
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(12) Alaska. EPA Region 10.
(I) All waters assigned to the fol-
lowing use classifications In the Alaska
Administrative Code (AAC). Chapter 16
(i.e., identified in 18 AAC 70020) are
subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(12)(ii) of this section. without ex-
ception:
7C 020(1) (A) Fresh Water
§ 131.36
Applicable criteria
These waters are assigned the
criteria for pollutants for
which the State does not
apply Table 1 or 2 stand-
ards These criteria are
Column 81—all pollutants
Column 133—all pollutants
Column Cl—all pollutants
Column C2—all pollutants
Column D2—all pollutants
except #2
contained in the Nevada Water Pollu-
tion Control Regulations More par-
ticularly, these criteria amend or sup-
plement the table of numeric standards
In NAC 445 1339 for the toxic pollutants
identified in paragraph (d)(11)(li) of
this section.
(ii) The following criteria from ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the waters defined in para-
graph (d)(l1)(i) of this section and iden-
tified below:
Applicable criteria
These waters are assigned the criteria in
Column BI—pollutant #118
Column B2—pollutant #118
Column D1—pollutant,s #15. 16. 10, 19. 20.
21. 23. 28. 27. 29. 30, 34. 37. 38. 42. 43. 55.
58—82. 64, 68. 73. 74. 78. 82. 85, 81-89. 91. 92.
96. 98. 100. 103. 104. 105. 114. 118. 117. 118
These watere are assigned the criteria in
Column El—pollutant #110
Column B2—pollutant #118
Column D2—all pollutants except #2
70020 Cl) (A) Water Supply
(i) DrInking, culinary, and food processing.
(iii) Aquaculture,
70 020 (l)(B) Water Recreation
(i) Contact recreatIon.
(ii) Secondary recreation.
70.020(1) (C) Growth and propagation of
fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and
wildlife
70020 (2) (A) Marine Water
70 020 (2) (A) Water Supply
(i) Aquaculture.
70 020 (2) (8) Water Recreation
(i) contact recreation.
(ii) secondary recreation;
70 020 (2) (C) Growth and propagation or Fish.
shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife.
979
Water and use classification
Water and use classification
All enclosed bays and estuaries that are wateis of the United
States that do not include an MUN designation and that
the State has either excluded or partially excluded from
coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland
Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2. or Its Water
Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of
California, Tablee 1 and 2. or has deferred applicability of
those tables (Category (a), (b). and (c) waters described on
page 6 of Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface
Waters of California or page 6 of its Water Quality Control
Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California)
‘The fresh water selenium criteria are included for the San Francisco Bay estuary because
high levels of bioaccumulation of selenium in the estuary indicate that the salt, water cri-
teria are underprotective for San Francisco Bay
Waters of the State defined as inland without an MUN use These waters aie assigned the
designation criteria In
Column 131—pollutants S e
and 14
Column 82—pollutants 5a
and 14
Column D2—pollutants 1,
12. 17, 10. 21. 22. 29, 30. 32.
33. 37. 38. 42—44. 46. 48. 49.
54. 59. 66. 87. 68. 78—82. 85.
89, 90. 91. 93, 95, 98, 98
In addition to the criteria as-
signed to these waters else-
where in this rule, these wa-
ters are assigned the cri-
teria in
Column 132—pollutant 10
In addition to the criteria as-
signed to these waterS else-
where in this rule, these wa-
ters are assigned the cr1-
terla in
Column BI—pollutant 10
Column 132—pollutant 10
These waters are assigned the
criteria in’
Column 81—pollutants 5a,
10’ and 14
Column B2—pollutanta 5a,
10’ and 14
Column Cl—pollutant 14
Column C2—pollutant 14
Column D2—pollutante 1.
12. 17. 10. 21. 22. 29. 30. 32,
33, 3’?, 30, 42-44, 48, 48, 49,
54. 59. 68. 67, 68. 78-82, 85.
89. 90, 91. 93. 95. 96, 98
These waters are assigned the
criteria for pollutants for
wbioh the State does not
upply Table 1 or 2 stand-
ards. These criteria are
Column BI—all pollutants
Column 82—all pollutants
Column Di—all pollutants
except #2
978
II
-------
§ 131.36
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 Edition) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.37
70020 (2) (D) Harvesting for consumption 01
law mollusks oi othei law aquatic 1110.
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix In paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(12)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Column Bl—09. 10. 13.
53. and 126
Column 52—sb
Column DI
S’s 16. 18—21. 23. 26. 27.
29. 30. 32. 37. 38. 42—44.
53. 55. 59—62, 64. 66. 68.
73. 74. 78. 82. 85. 88. 89.
91—93. 96. 98. 102-105.
107—111. 117—126
Column Bl—09. 10. 13.
53, and 126
Column B2—#10
Column D2
E 14. 16. 18-21, 22. 23.
26. 27. 29. 30. 32. 37, 38.
42—44. 46. 53. 54. 55. 59—
62. 64. 66, 68. 73, 74, 78.
82. 85. 88—93. 95. 96. 98,
102—103. 107—111. 115—
126
Column Bl—#9, 10. 13.
53. and 126
Column BI—slO
Column D2
H’ 5 14, 16. 18—21, 22. 23.
26. 27. 29. 30, 32. 37. 38.
42—44. 46, 53. 54. 55. 59—
62. 64. 66. 68. 73. 74. 78.
52. 85. 88—93. 95. 96. 98.
102—105. 107—111. 115—
126
Column C1—4 19, 10. 12.
and 53
Column C2—l10
Column 1)2
Ii’s 14 16, 18—21. 22. 23,
26, 27. 29. 30, 32, 37, 38,
42—44, 46. 53. 54, 55. 59—
62, 64. 66. 68. 73, 74. 78.
82, 85, 88-93. 95. 96, 98.
102-105, 107—111, 115—
126
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed risk
level of 10 To determine appropriate
value for carcinogens, see footnote c In
the criteria matrix In paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
(13) idaho, EPA Region 10
(I) All waters assigned to the fol-
lowing use classifications in the Idaho
Administrative Procedures Act
(IDAPA). Chapter 16 (i.e.. identified in
IDAPA 16 01 2100.02—16 01 2100,07) are
subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(13)(Ii) of this section, without ex-
ceptIon
1601 2100 02 a Cold Water hots
16 01 2100.02 b Warm Water Biota
16 01 2100 02cc Salmonid Spawning
(Ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(i) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(13)(i) of this
section:
Use classi- Applicable ci iteria
These classifications are as-
signed the criteria in
Column BI—all
Column B2—all
(14) Washington, EPA Region 70
(i) All waters assigned to the fol-
lowing use classifications in the Wash-
ington Administrative Code (WAC),
Chapter 173—201 (i.e., identified in WAC
173—201—045) are subject to the criteria
in paragraph (d)(14)(il) of this section,
without exception:
173—201-045
Fish and Shellfish
Fish
Water Supply (domestic)
Recreation
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this sec-
tion apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(14)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in’
Column 02—6. 14
Column D2—all
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in
Column DI—all
This classification is
assigned the criterIa
in
Column D2—Marine
waters and
Ireahwaters not
protected for do-
mestic water sup-
ply
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State proposod risk
level of 10-”.
157 FR 60910. Dac 22, 1992, 68 FR 31177, June
1. 1993. ae amended at 68 FR 34499. June 25,
1993. 58 FR 36142. July 6. 1993. 60 FR 22229.
22235. May 4, 1995, 60 FR 44120. Aug 24. £995,
61 FR 60617, Nov. 29. 1998, 62 FR 52927, Oct 9.
1997: 82 FR 53214, Oct 10. 1997. 83 FR 10144.
Mar. 2, 19981
131.37 CalifornIa.
(a) Additional criteria The following
criteria are applicable to waters speci-
fied in the Water Quality Control Plan
for Salinity for the San Francisco Bay?
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estu-
ary, adopted by the California State
Water Resources Control Board in
State Board Resolution No 91-34 on
May 1, 1991
(1) Estuarine habitat criteria. (I) Gen-
eral rule (A) Salinity (measured at the
surface) shall not exceed 2640
micromhosicentimeter specific con-
ductance at 25 °C (measured as a 14-day
moving average) at the Confluence of
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Riv-
ers throughout the period each year
from February 1 through June 30, and
(B) The Roe Island criteria apply at
the salinity measuring station main-
tained by the U.S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion at Port Chicago (km 64). The
Chippe Island criteria apply at the Mal-
lard Slough Monitoring 8ite, Station
D-10 (SKI RSAC-075) maintained by
the California Department of Water
Resources. The Confluence criteria
apply at the CollinBville Continuous
Monitoring Station C-2 (SKI RSAC—
081) maIntained by the California De-
partment of Water Resources.
(Ii) Exception. The criteria at Roe Is-
land shall be required for any given
shall not exceed 2640 micromhos/centi-
meter speciric conductance at 25 C
(measured an a 11-day moving average
at the specific locations noted in Table
1 near Roe Island and Chipps Island for
the number of days each month in the
February 1 to June 30 period computed
by reference to the following formula.
Number of days required in Month X =
Total number of days in Month X a
— 1I(1+e )
where
K = A + (Bnat,ural logarithm of the previous
month’s 8-River Index).
A and B are determined by reference to
Table 1 for the Roe Island and Chipps Is-
land locations.
x is the calendar month in the February 1 to
June30 period.
and e is the base of the natural (or Napier.
ian) logarithm
Where the number of days computed in
this equation in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A)
of this section shall be rounded to the
nearest whole number of days. When
the previous month’s 8-River Index is
less than 500.000 acre-feet. the number
of days required for the current month
shall be zero.
month only if the 14-day moving aver-
age salinity at Roe Island falls below
2640 micromhos/centimeter specific
conductance on any of the last 14 days
of the previous month
(2) Fish migration criteria (i) General
rule.
(A) Sacramento River Measured Fish
Migration criteria values for the Sac-
ramento River shall be at least the fol-
lowing:
At temperatures less than below 61 F
SRFMC = 135
02 a
02 b
02cc
(1)(A) I
(l)(A) iii
(l)(B)i (1)(B) ii.
(I )(C)
(2)(Al i (2)111)1. and
(2)(B)iI. (2)(C).
(2)(D)
TABLE 1. CONSTANTS APPLICABLE TO EACH OF THE MONTHLY EQUATIONS TO DETERMINE MONTHLY
REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED
Fish and Shellfish,
Fish
Water Supply (do-
mestic)
Recreation
Month IC
Clrlpps Island
Roe Island (ii
A B
A
Inggered)
Feb
Mar
Apt
htay.
June
—, —,
—10518 .15943
—4717 .6441
—9493 .13 562
—1436
—2019
—2073
—5422
*2068
.2741
.3703
.8571
‘CoefficIents lot A end B are fbi provided at Chlpps Island for February. because lire 2640 mic,onlhos(crn specific conduct-
ance criteria must be maintained al cirlppa Island ilvoughoul February under all historical B-River Indea values for January
980
981
-------
§ 131.37
40 CFR Ch. I (7—1—99 EditIon) - Environmental Protection Agency
§ 131.37
At temperatures between 61 F and 72
F SRFMC = 6 96- 092 * Fahrenheit
temperature
At temperatures greater than 72 F.
SRFMC = 0 34
where SRFMC is the Sacramento River
Fish Migration criteria value Tem-
perature shall be the water tempera-
ture at release of tagged salmon smolts
into the Sacramento River at Miller
Park.
(B) San Joaquui River. Measured Fish
Migration criteria values on the San
Joaquin River shall be at least the fol-
lowing.
For years in which the SJVIndex is >
25. SJFMC = (—0.012) +
0.184*SJVIndex
In other years SJFMC = 0.205 +
0 0975*SJVIndex
where SJFMC is the San Joaquin River
Fish Migration criteria value, and
SJVIndex is the San Joaquin Valley
Index in million acre feet (MAF)
(ii) Computing fish migration criteria
values for Sacramento River. In order to
assess fish migration criteria values for
the Sacramento River. tagged fall-run
salmon smolts will be released into the
Sacramento River at Miller Park and
captured at Chipps Island, or alter-
natively released at Miller Park and
Port Chicago and recovered from the
ocean fishery, using the methodology
described in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
An alternative methodology for com-
puting fish migration criteria values
can be used so long as the revised
methodology is calibrated with the
methodology described in this para-
graph (a)(2)(ii) so as to maintain the
validity of the relative index values
Sufficient releases shall be made each
year to provide a statistically reliable
verification of compliance with the cri-
teria. These criteria will be considered
attained when the sum of the dif-
ferences between the measured experi-
mental value and the stated criteria
value (i e., measured value minus stat-
ed value) for each experimental release
conducted over a three year period (the
current year and the previous two
years) shall be greater than or equal to
zero. Fish for release are to be tagged
at the hatchery with coded-wire tags.
and fin clipped. Approximately 50,000 to
100.000 fish of smolt size (size greater
than 75 mm) are released for each sur-
vival index estimate, depending on ex-
pected mortality. As a control for the
ocean recovery survival index, one or
two groups per season are released at
Benecia or Pt Chicago From each up-
stream release of tagged fish, fish are
to be caught over a period of one to
two weeks at Chipps Island Daylight
sampling at Chipps Island with a 9.1 by
7 9 m, 3 2 mm cod end, midwater trawl
is begun 2 to 3 days after release. When
the first fish is caught, full-time trawl-
ing 7 days a week should begin Each
day’s trawling consists of ten 20
minute tows generally made against
the current, and distributed equally
across the channel
(A) The Chipps Island smolt survival
index is calculated as
SSI=R+MT(0.007692)
where
R=number of recaptures of tagged fish
M=number of marked (tagged) fish released
T=proportion of time sampled vs total time
tagged fish were passing the site (i.e. time
between first and last tagged fish recovery)
Where the value 0.007692 is the propor-
tion of the channei width fished by the
trawl, and is calculated as trawl width!
channel width.
(B) Recoveries of tagged fish from
the ocean salmon fishery two to four
years after release are also used to cal-
culate a survival index for each re-
lease Smolt survival indices from
ocean recoveries are calculated as’
OSI=R 1 /M+R 2 /M 2
where
R,=nurnber of tagged adults iecovered from
the upstream release
M 1 =number released upstream
R 2 =number of tagged adults iecovered from
the Port Chicago release
M =numher released at Port Chicago
(1) The number of tagged adults re-
covered from the ocean fishery is pro-
vided by the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission, which main-
tains a port sampling program -
(2) [ ReservedJ
(iii) Computing fish migration criteria
values for San Joaquin River In order to
assess annual fish migration criteria
values for the San Joaquin River,
tagged salmon smolts will be released
into the San Joaquin River at Mosadale
and captured at Chipps Island, or alter-
natively released at Moesdale and Port
Chicago and recovered from the ocean
fishery, using the methodology de-
scribed in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) An al-
ternative methodology for computing
fish migration criteria values can be
used so long as the revised method-
ology is calibrated with the method-
ology described below so as to main-
tain the validity of the relative index
values. Sufficient releases shall be
made each year to provide a statis-
tically reliable estimate of the SJFMC
for the year. These criteria will be con-
sidered attained when the sum of the
differences between the measured ex-
perimental value and the stated cri-
teria value (i.e., measured value minus
stated value) for each experimental re-
lease conducted over a three year pe-
riod (the current year and the previous
two years) shall be greater than or
equal to zero.
(A) Fish for release are to be tagged
at the hatchery with coded-wire tags.
and fin clipped. Approximately 50.000 to
100,000 fish of smolt size (size greater
than 75 mm) are released for each sur-
vival index estimate, depending on ex-
pected mortality. As a control for the
ocean recovery survival index, one or
two groups per season are released at
Benicia or Pt. Chicago. From each up-
stream release of tagged fish, fish are
to be caught over a period of one to
two weeks at Chipps Island. Daylight
sampling at Chipps Island with a 9.1 by
7.9 m, 3.2 mm cod end, midwater trawl
is begun 2 to 3 days after release. When
the first fish is caught, full-time trawl-
ing 7 days a week should begin Each
day’s trawling consists of ten 20
minute tows generally made against
the current, and distributed equally
across the channel
(B) The Chipps Island amolt survival
Index is calculated as:
BSI=R. MT(0.007692)
where
R=number of recaptures of tagged fish
M=number of marked (tagged) fish released
T=proportiofl of time sampled vs total time
tagged fish were passing the site (i e time
between first and last tagged 11th recovery)
Where the value 0 007692 is the propor-
tion of the channel width fished by the
trawl, and is calculated as trawl width!
channel width.
(C) Recoveries of tagged fish from the
ocean salmon fishery two to four years
after release are also used to calculate
a survival index for each release. Smolt
survival indices from ocean recoveries
are calculated as
OSI=R/M +
where
R 1 =number of tagged adults recovered from
the upstream release
M.=number released upstream
R 2 =number of tagged adults recovered from
the Port Chicago release
M 2 =number released at Port Chicago
(I) The number of tagged adults re-
covered from the ocean fishery is pro-
vided by the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission, which main-
tains a port sampling program
(2) (Reserved)
(3) Suisun marsh criteria. (I) Water
quality conditions sufficient to support
a natural gradient in species composi-
tion and wildlife habitat characteristic
of a brackish marsh throughout all ele-
vations of the tidal marshes bordering
Suisun Bay shall be maintained. Water
quality conditions shall be maintained
so that none of the following occurs:
Loss of diversity; conversion of brack-
ish marsh to salt marsh; for animals.
decreased population abundance of
those species vulnerable to increased
mortality and loss of habitat from in-
creased water salinity, or for plants,
significant reduction in stature or per-
cent cover from increased water or soil
salinity or other water quality param-
eters.
(ii) [ Reserved)
(b) Revised criteria The following cri-
teria are applicable to state waters
specified in Table 1—1, at Section (C)(3)
(“Striped Bass—Salinity ‘ 3 Prisoners
Point, —Spawning) of the Water Quality
Control Plan for Salinity for the San
Francisco Bay_SacramefltOlSafl Joa-
quin Delta Estuary, adopted by the
California State Water Resources Con-
trol Board in State Board Resolution
No. 91—34 on May 1, 1991:
982
183-150 D.99- ’32
983
-------
§ 131.37
40 CFR Ch.l(7—I—99 [ dillon)
Location
Parameter
Description
rides type
Dates
Values
San Joaquin
DISIRSANOIB.
Specific
14-day nm-
Not
River at
C4SiSANO32.
Conduct-
thrg av-
AppIl.
25 MAF
April ito
044 mIcro-
Jersey
D29IRSANO3S.
sf 05
of
May31
mhoi
Point. Sen
P8IRSANO5S.
0 25 C
ereg
mean
Andreas
.!RSAN
for
Landing.
C6IRSANO73.
the
Prisoners
C7IRSANOS7.
pa-
nod
Point.
CIOIRSANII2
more
Ouckley
than
Cove.
value
Rough
shown In
end
nvnl i oa
Ready Is-
land,
Brand l
Bridge
Mossdate,
and
Vemalis
San Joequin
DISIRSANQIB
Specific
14-day nun.
Not
River at
C4IRSANO32,
Conduct-
fling as-
Appil-
cable
S MAF
April Ito
044 mIcro-
Jersey
D29IRSANO38
eric.
erege of
May31
mho
Point. Sen
Andreas
mean
deity br
,
Landing
tha pa-
end Pus-
rind not
oners
more
Point
than
vahie
shown. In
mmhos
(C) Definitions. Terms used in para-
graphs (a) and (b) of this section, shall
be defined as follows:
(1) Water year A water year is the
twelve calendar months beginning Oc-
tober 1.
(2) 8-River Index. The flow determina-
tions are made and are published by
the California Department of Water
Resources in Bulletin 120. The 8-River
Index shall be computed as the sum of
flows at the following stations:
(I) Sacramento River at Band Bridge,
near Red Bluff;
(ii) Feather River, total inflow to
Oroville Reservoir;
(iii) Yuba River at Smartville;
(iv) American River. total inflow to
Folsom Reservoir.
(v) Stanislaua River, total inflow to
New Melones Reservoir;
(vi) Tuolumne River. total inflow to
Don Pedro Reservoir;
(vii) Merced River, total inflow to
Exchequer Reservoir; and
(viii) San Joaquin River, total inflow
to Millerton Lake.
(3) San Joaquin Valley Index. (I) The
San Joaquin Valley Index Is computed
according to the following formula:
I =0.6X+O.2y and 0.2Z
where
Li,=San Joaquin Valley Index
X=Curi-ent year’s April—July San Joaquin
Valley unimpaired runoff
Y=Current year’s October-March San Joa.
quin Valley unimpaired runoff
Z=Previoua year’s index in MAF. not to ex-
coed 09 MAP
(ii) Measuring San Joaquin Valley
unimpaired runoff. San Joaquin Valley
unimpaired runoff for the current
water year is a forecast of the sum of
the following locations: Stanislaus
River, total flow to New Melones Res-
ervoir; Tuolumne River, total inflow to
Don Pedro Reservoir; Merced River,
total flow to Exchequer Reservoir; San
Joaquin River, total inflow to
Mlllerton Lake.
(4) Salinity. Salinity is the total con-
centration of dissolved ions in water, It
shall be measured by specific conduct-
ance in accordance Ith the procedures
set forth in 40 CFR 136.3, Table 1B, Pa-
rameter 64.
(60 FR 4707, Jan. 24. 1995J
984
-------
Reference 3
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
E PA-823-B-95-004
September 1994
6EPA
Introduction to
Water Quality
Standards
w
pu ,
it
b • k
, ‘; .
-------
OVERViEW
In response to widespread public concern about the condition of our
Nation’s waters, the United States Congress enacted landmark
legislation in 1972. This statute, the Federal Water Pollution
ontrol Act Amendments of 1972 [ referred to as the C]ean Water
tcct ol 1972 (CWA) , expanded and built upon existing laws
designed to control arid prevent water pollution. Successive
amendments to the 1972 CWA (the Clean Water Act oF 1977 and
the Water Quality Act of 1987) have continued to strengthen the law
to better protect our Nation’s waters.
Water quality standards are the cornerstone of a State c water
quality management program. States and Indian Tribes set wate l-
quality standards for waters within their jurisdictions. Water quality
standards define a use I’or a waterbody and descrihe the specific
water quality criteria to achieve that use. The water quality
standards also contai i i autidegradation policies to protect cxi sting
water quality. These are the goals by which success is ultimately
gauged for a given waterbod or watershed 1
This publication provides general information about the water
quality standards program. It is intended to scrve as an introductory
document for the general public and for those unfamiliar with the
water quality standards program. This document also informs the
reader about where to obtain additional information about water
quality standards. The document also contains a Glossary of terms
sect in this publication as Appendix A. It also contains terms and
concepts commonly assoc iatecL with water quality standards. Terms
found in the Glossary are printed in boldface italic type at their
first use, as above.
We would appreciate knowing if this publication has been helpful to
yOU. P/ease ; :ke a frw ininiacs to cam p/etc and return the Reader
Response (aid iocatt’ / c i i the c u d o/ this docuincuut.
I
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview I
I)edication ii
I I i i ! ro t/u n ion I
I I Uses qt Waterbodv S
I II Water Quality Criteria 9
IV Antidegradation Policy /5
V YVater Quality Standards
on md /a u Lands 19
VI Adaption of Water Qualit ’
Standards 23
VII For More Intormation 29
Appendix A Glossary 32
Appendix B List f 307(a) Priority
Toxic Pollutants 37
Attach me in Reade i Response Card 39
Dedication
This publication is dedicated to David K. Sahock. Chief of the
Water Quality Standards Branch. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) from 1979-1995. Dave will retire at
the end of 1995 after more than 35 years of dedicated Federal
service. He has been the driving force and the guiding light
behind the water quality standards program at EPA and its
predecessor organizations. Dave has made significant
contributions to improvements in the Nation ’s water quality
during his long and illustrious career. He has been an
inspiration to and has guided the careers of many colleagues
during his tenure at EPA. We expect that his golden years will
he as vigorous and energetic as the last three and one-half
decades that he devoted to public service. We. his many
associates and friends, wish him well in his future endeavors.
11
-------
Section U introduction
Part A Definition and Purpose of Water Quality Standard,c
Water qLIaLlilY standards are laws or regulations that States and
Indian Tribes authorized to administer the program adopt to enhance
water quality and to protect public health and welfare, Water
quality standards provide the loLLndation for accomplishing two of
die principal goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 Icomrnonlv referred to as the Clean Water Act
(CWA) of l972 . Thai is to:
restore and maintain the chemical, phvs ca]. and
biological integrity of the Nation s waters; arid
• where attainable, to achieve water quality that
promotes protection and propagation of fish. shell fish.
and wildlife, and provides for recreation in and on the
water. This goal is commonly known by the
expression lishahle/swimniable -
States report to the U.S. Environmental Agency ( [ PA) and Congress
under a specific part of the CWA. known as Section 305 (b), on
whether these goals are being achieved. (Under Section 305(h),
States report to EPA once every two years on the condition of their
waters. EPA eompile.s the data and submits a report to Congress on
the statLis and condition of the Nation’s waters.)
A water quality standard consists of three elements: (1) the
designated beneficial use or uses of a waterbody or segment of a
wElterbody : (2) (he water quality criteria necessary to protect the use
or uses of that particular waterhody: and (3) an antidegradation
policy. (Each of these elements is discussed in this publication.)
Examples of designated uses are recreation and protection of aquatic
life. Water quality criteria describe the quality of water that will
support a designated Use.. Water quality criteria may he expressed
as either numeric limits or a narrative statenieilt. An
I
-------
antidegradation policy ensures that water quality improvenlents are
conserved, maintained, and protected.
Water quality standards apply to surface waters of (lie (lulled
States, m d uding wetlands. Surfitce waters include rivers, streams,
lakes, oceans, estauries, and wetlands; they do not include ground
water.
Part B: Statutory Authority for (lie Water Qualily Standards
Program
The water quality standards program is authorized under Section
303(c) of the CWA (33 U .S.C. 13 13(c)). The current regulations
implementing this section of the CWA were published initially in
the Federal Register (FR) on November 8, 1983 (48 FR 51400).
The specific language of the regulations can he found in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) in Chapter 40, Part 13].
(The Federal Register is a periodical published by the U.S.
Government. It includes all proposed and final regulations issued by
EPA and other federal agencies. The number preceding the letters
“FR 1 ’ in the citation refers to the volume of the Federal Register, and
the numbers after FR indicate the page number. The Code of
Federal Regulations contains all EPA and other regulations that have
received fjnal approval. This document is abbreviated as CFR. The
numbers in CFR citations refer to chapters and parts: each chapter
customarily includes all the regulations in a given policy area such
as water quality standards, while each part within a chapter is a
specific subject within that policy area.)
The water quality standards program was strengthened in two
significant ways with passage of the 1987 Water Quality Act
amendments to the CWA. First, Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA
requires States to adopt numeric criteria for specific toxic pollutants
that appear on a priority pollutant list [ Section 307(a) of the CWA].
(Priority pollutants are compounds and families that are among the
most persistent , prevalent, and toxic chemicals. A list of priority
2
-------
pollutants appears as Appendix B.) These toxic substances are thos.
for which EPA published Section 304(a) criteria recommendations.
These toxics, if discharged to a waterbody or are present in
sufficient concentrations in a waterhody, could compromise or
interfere with the waterbody’s designated use. On December 22,
1992, EPA imposed Federal chemical-specific, numeric criteria for
priority toxic pollutants on 14 States that failed to adopt their OWfl
criteria, as required by Section 303(e)(2)(B) of the CWA. This
action brought all States into compliance.
Second, Section 518 of the 1987 CWA gives EPA the authority to
approve Indian Tribes to administer the water quality standards
program on Reservation Lands. Section 5 1 8 also required EPA to
develop a mechanism for resolving disputes when an Indian Tribe
and a State adopt different water quality standards on a common
body of water. On December 12, 1991, EPA issued Amendments to
the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on
India , , Reservations (40 CFR I 3 1 .6 and 1 31 .7). The Amendments
establish qualification criteria for Indian Tribe administration and
describe a conilict resolution mechanism.
Part C: Establish ing Water Quality Standards
The 50 States, the District of Columbia, 13.5. Territories
(Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Pa lau, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands), and Indian Tribes authorized to administer the program
adopt water quality standards for each waterhody within the State,
territory, or tribal boundary. (Throughout this document, the term
Stare is used to mean any of the above jurisdictions.) EPA may also
establish water quality standards where a State fails to do so. A
single water quality standard need not be applied to the entire
waterhody (for example, for the entire length of a stream); different
water quality standards may be set on different segments of the
same waterhody.
3
-------
EPA reviews new or revised water quality standards that States
adopt to determine whether the standards meet (TWA requirements.
EPA also reviews the standards ot each State to ensure that they do
not interfere with attainment of standards in waters shared with
another State or waters located in another State downstream. if
EPA disapproves a State’s water qL lality standards, or determines
that a new or revised water qLIal ity standard is necessary to meet the
requirements of the Act, EPA may issue water quality standards to
which the State is hound. EPA provides technical guidance,
program grants, and assistance to the States to help them carry out
the requirements of the program.
4
-------
Section II: Uses of a Waterbody
Part A: Designa ted Uses and Existing Uses
The water quality standards program categorizes water uses in two
jways: designated uses and existing uses. A designated use is the
legally applicable use specified in a water quality standard for a
watershed. waterhody. or segment of a waterbody. A designated use
is a use that, presently. may or may not be met or ‘‘attained’’. All
P0 1 lution control activities are designed to attain the designated uses.
An existing use is the use that has been achieved for a waterhody on
or alier November 2K, 1975, and that requires the most stringent
criteria. (This is the date when the original water quality standards
regulation took effect.)
Understanding the distinction between existing and designated uses
is fundamental to understanding the standards program. An existing
use br a specific waterhody is one that has heen attained: that use
and the water quality necessary to continue supporting that use must
he protected and maintained. Designated uses, on the other hand.
may he changed upon finding that the use cannot be attained, hut
only abler conducting a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA), described
in Part C of this Section. Changing a designated use also results in a
change to the applicable water quality criteria.
Part B: Typical Uses of a Waterbody
Typical uses of waterhodies include public water supply,
propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture, industrial
processes, and navigation. EPA does not recognize waste transport
as an acceptable use. Designated or existing uses for wetlands may
include providing habitat for endangered species or mitigating the
effects of floodwaters.
A special designated use category is Outstanding National Resource
Waters (ONRWs). These waters are high quality or ecologically
unique waters such as those within the jurisdiction of National and
5
-------
State Parks and wildlife refuges. ONRWs are waters that are
ecologically important, unique, or sensitive (such as swamps or hot
springs), which the commonly applied use classifications and
supporting criteria do not always serve to protect. No new or
additional discharges can occur in ONRWs. Some States have a
special use category called State Resource Watci-s. which may allow
limited changes in water quality as long as the changes do not aflèct
the characteristics that support the use designation.
Part C: Establishing Designated Uses
States are responsible for establishing designated uses of a
waterbody. Categories of designated uses vary by State. Each State
develops its own use classification system based on the generic uses
cited in the CWA (see Section I, Part A). States may designate uses
such as cold water fisheries or particular species to be protected, for
example. trout or bass. States may also designate special uses to
protect sensitive or valuable aquatic life or habitat.
Figure 1 below illustrates an example of a use designation. In this
case, the waterbody depicted is a cok! water stream, and the
Figure 1
6
-------
designated use is aquatic habitat. The stream system is appropriate
for sustaining the brook trout depicted in the figure hecause it has
undercut banks, a gravel stream bed. and overhanging vegetation.
Uses may he revised during periodic State reviews of the water
quality standards, which, by law, are required at least once every
three years. The public niList have an opportunity to comment on
changes in uses and EPA must approve any changes.
When establishing a designated use that does not meet the
“fishable/swimniable” goal. States perForm a use attainability
analysis (UAA) to determine the achievable uses of a waterhody. A
UAA is a structured scientific assessiiieIit of tile physical, chemical,
biological, and economic factors that affect tile attainment ol a use.
Consisting of a waterhody survey and assessment and an economic
analysis, if appropriate the UAA enahies the States to answer the
following questions about the conditions of its waters:
• What is the existing use to be protected?
• To what extent does pollution (as opposed to physical
factors) contribute to impaired use?
• What level of point source control is required to
restore or enhance the use? (The term “point source”
refers to pollution resulting from discharges into
receiving waters from any discernible confined and
discrete conveyance such as a pipe, ditch, or sewer.)
What level of nonpoint source control is required to
restore or enhance the use? (The term ‘ 1 nonpoint
source” refers to pollution sources that are diffuse and
do not have a single point of origin. Run-off from
agriculture, forestry, and construction sites are
exalllples.)
While UAAs are the responsibility of the States, the actual studies
7
-------
may be performed by other entities (e.g., consultants hired by the
States pr Indian Tribes). States are encouraged to consult with EPA
before the analysis is initiated and frequently while it is being
conducted. EPA’s Regional Offices can provide additional
information about UAAs (Section VII of this document contains a
list of the Regional Offices and the States and Territories covered by
each region). A State may also elect, at its option, to conduct a
UAA even when designating fishable/swimmable uses, simply to
document the reasonableness of the designation and the attainability.
Part D: Changing Designated Uses
States may modify a designated use when its attainment is precluded
because of one or more of the following factors:
• naturally occurring pollutant concentrations;
• natural, intermittent or low-flow water levels;
anthropogenic conditions or sources of pollution that
cannot be corrected or for which corrective measures
would cause more deterioration of the environment than
would leaving the conditions or pollutants in place;
dams, diversions, or other hydrologic modifications;
physical conditions associated with the natural features of
the waterbody, unrelated to quality, that impede
protection of aquatic life; or
more stringent controls than those required by Sections
301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and 306 of the CWA would result
in substantial and widespread economic and social
impact.
8
-------
Section III: Water Quality Criteria
Part A: !)efinition of Waler Quality Criteria
The phrase “water quality criteria” has two definitions under the
CWA. First, under Section 304(a), EPA publishes water quality
criteria that reflect available scientific information on the
concentrations of specific chemicals in water that protect aquatic life
or human health. These criteria are intended to provide protection
br all surface waters on a national basis and may he used by the
States as a basis for developing enforceable water quality criteria as
purl of their standards. The general public sometimes mistakenly
views these criteria as the “standards. In a legal sense, a water
quality standard must also contain a designated use and an
antidegradation policy.
Second, water quality criteria are elements of water quality standards
adopted by a State under Section 303(c), which describe the quality
of water that will support a particular use. When properly selected
criteria are met, they are expected to protect the designated use. As
a practical matter, most States for most pollutants adopt EPA’s
Section 304(a) criteria recommendations as part of their legally
enforceable water quality standards.
Part B: Forms of Criteria
Water quality criteria are expressed in either numeric form or
narrative form. Numeric criteria are expressed as chemical
concentrations or conditions (such as pt - I or turbidity) in water
which should protect designated uses. Concentrations of chemicals
or other pollutants are typically expressed as a weight. measured 13cr
liter, such as pgIL (micrograms per liter) or mg/L (milligrams per
liter). Micrograms are much smaller than milligrams: one milligram
equals 1 000 micrograms. An example of a numeric criterion is
t/jssoli’ei/ OXV CFI 5.0 mg/L (stated in English, this narrative
criterion means that the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water
should he equal to or greater than 5 milligrams per liter).
9
-------
Section 303(c )(2)( B) 01 the (‘WA requires States to adopt numeric
cnteriLl for priority lox ic 1)01 lutants. The 1 26 individual priority
toxics are listed in Appendix B to this document.
Narrative criteria are expressed in cOncise statements, generally iii a
free from” format. EPA aesthetic narrative quality criteria, for
example. state that ‘all waters should he tree from sLIhst 1I1ces
attributable to wastewater or other discharges that: (1) settle to form
objectional deposits; (2) float as debris. scuni, oil, or other matter to
form nuisances: (3) produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or
turbidity; (4) injure. are toxic to . or produce adverse physiological
responses ill humans. ani nials. or plants: and (5) produce undesirable
or nuisance aquatic Ii lb.” Similarly. the phrase ‘‘free from toxic
poll utants in toxic itiiour1ts is den ved lroiii the national goal
statement iii Section 1 () I (a)( 3) of’ the CWA. An example of a
narrative, biological criterion is natural background conditions shall
be maintained.
Part C: Site-spec fic Criteria
Site—specific criteria are either numeric or narrative criteria adopted
for a particular site that reflect environmental conditions at that site.
The EPA Section 304(a) guidance on water quality criteria, which
are intended to provide protection for all sLlrt’ace waters on a
Ilittiona I basis, is broad. These broad criteria can be tailored to
rellect localized, site—specific conditions. Site—specific criteria are
sometimes justified because:
species inhabiting a given site may be more sensitive or
less sensitive than those used by EPA to develop Section
3 04(a) criteria;
water chemistry (e.g.. pH. hardness, temperature,
suspended solids) at the site may differ substantially from
the water used in the laboratory for developing Section
3 04(a) criteria, affecting toxicity of [ lie chemicals to the
Organisms in the water: or
/0
-------
EPA may not have a criteria recommendation for a
poll Want adversely alTecti rig the designated use at a
particular location.
Part I): !)eveloping Water Quality Criteria
EPA publishes, as guidance, Section 304(a) criteria which reflect the
flU)st Curreilt scieiitilic inl’orniation available regarding pollutant
ellects on human health and aquatic li l’e. The criteria, which have
fl() force of law, are published as guidance documents to assist the
States and I ndian Tribes in setting water quality standards. Human
Iie(iltIi criteria provide guidelines that specify the potential risk of
adverse effects to huii ans due to suhstances in water. Aquatic life
criteria are designed to protect all aquatic life, including plants and
animals.
The criteria guidance documents issued by EPA contain two niajor
types of information:
scientific data on the effects of pollutants on human
health (including recreation) and aquatic life: and
2. quantitative concentrations or qualitative assessments
of pollutants in water that will generally ensure water
quality adequate to support a particular use.
The document, Quail /v (, itcnu fri t4 1 aier 1986, contains summaries
of all contaminants and conditions for which EPA has developed
criteria reconuinendations. The current edition is known as the
‘Gold Book. ? rj hiis document ]iiii)/ he obtained for a fee from the
National Technical In formation Source (NTIS) or the Education
Resource In formation Center (ERIC) (complete ordering information
is contained in Section VII of this document).
EPA considers effective State water quality standards programs to
i tic I tide both i i u lueric approaches and narrative approaches. In the
case of’ toxic 1)01 Iut1iits, br example, numeric criteria for specific
I I
-------
chemicals are appropriate in circumstances where the cause of ’
toxicity is known, or when human health effects are associated with
a specific concentration ol’ the toxic pollutant. A narrative standard
may he suitable when a specific pollutant is identified as impairing
the quality of the waterbody (such as reducing fish populations), hut
a numeric criterion is not specified in State standards. Narrative
standards can also he used when the chemical(s) causing the toxicity
is unknown. As a specific standards prograni matures and more
definitive data become available, narrative criteria can he replaced
with numeric ones ,
Anyone may propose a site-specific criterion to a State. A
municipality or a private company may conduct the work to support
a site—specific criterion. The State must review the data and the
procedures used to collect and analyie the data. The State must
then make the determination whether to adopt site—specific criteria.
If adopted, the State must submit the site—specific criteria to EPA ffir
review and approval or disapproval. The Slate may use methods
that are less scienti f’ical ly rigorous than EPA’s, but the methods
must he defensible (as required by 4() CPR I 3 1. 11).
Guidance, developed by EPA. for deriving site-specific water quality
criteria starting with EPA’s Section 304(a) criteria can he obtained
from EPA’s F-Iealth and Ecological Criteria Division at the address
listed in Section VII. (hi/defines few I)euii’inç Niin,eruw/ Nutionol
V/utet’ Quit/its’ (‘i’iieu/u JO , ’ tile Pi’otei’!itni of A quo/h’ Lift’, published
iii October 1 9K4, is available from NTIS ( publication number P 1385—
227049). States are also urged to consult with the appropriate EPA
Regional Office (listed in Sect ion VII) before beginning to develop
site-specific criteria.
Part E: Water Qualily Criteria frr Protenion of human flea It/ i
Water quality criteria have been established to protect human health
from most toxic pollutants ingested by consuming aquatic organisms
(such as fish containing mercury). The criteria are based on the
assumption that humans consume 6.5 grams of contaminated aquatic
12
-------
organisms daily and that the average body weight of a hunian is 70
kg or about 1 50 pounds. These criteria use other standardized
factors for each p c)1 I utant, which are derived troni laboratory studies.
EPA is now revising its human health criteria, which will encourage
more Slate and local input on risk management decisions.
EPA ’s water quality criteria for fish consumption are distinct from
the limits developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and serve a different Function. The EPA criteria for protecting
human health are non—regulatory, scienti1 c recommendations for
ambient levels in water, which if iiot exceeded, will ensure that safe
levels are maintained in edible aquatic organisms. (“Ambient”
refers to the existing conditions in the waterhody.) The FDA action
levels are regulatory numbers used to prohibit the sale of edible
aquatic life when contaminant concentrations in the edible portions
of the organisms exceed the FDA limit.
Part F: Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life
The development of national numerical water quality criteria for the
protection of aquatic life is a complex process. After a decision is
made that a national criterion is needed For a particular material, all
available information concerning the impact of that material on
aquatic life is collected; this can include experimental and laboratory
testing data. There are two types of criteria which may be
established: “acute,” which cover short-term exposures such as
spills, and “chronic,” which cover long-term or permanent
exposures. One or both of the acute and chronic criteria may he
related to other water quality characteristics, such as p1-I ,
temperature, or hardness. Separate criteria are developed for fresh
and salt waters.
Part G: Other O-iteria---Preserving Biological Integrity
In addition to human health and aquatic life criteria, EPA is
developing biological and sediment criteria to further the CWA
13
-------
goal of protecting the chemical, physical. and biological integrity of
the Nation’s waters. Biological criteria are narrative or numeric
expressions that describe the desired biological condition ot aquatic
communities inhabiting particular types of waterbodies. Sediment
criteria address the toxicity of difft rent sediment types in different
environmental settings controlli rig sediment pollutant concentration
helps prevent harmful chemicals from accumulating in the tissues of
animals in the food chain.
While each type of water quality criterion has a different protective
k)cus. human health, aquatic life. biological, and sediment criteria
are complementary. No single criterion value or number will
guarantee protection of all forms of life. Collectively, these four
types of criteria provide a valuable tool for protecting the physical.
chemical. and biological—and ultimately the ecolugical—integrity of
the Nation’s waters.
Figure 2 below shows how use designation and criteria can be
applied to different waterbodies (in this case a stream, lake, and
wetland) within a watershed.
LAKE
Designated Uses
Criteria
Figure 2
14
-------
Section IV: Antidegradation Policy
Part A: Origin and Purpose of A ntidegradation Policies
EPA ’s water quality standards regulation requires States and Indian
Tribes to adopt a policy that conserves, maintains, and protects
existing uses and the water quality necessary to protect these uses.
This policy is known as the antidegraclation policy. Established by
the Secretary of Interior in February 1 968 before the creation of
EPA, the policy was incorporated into the water quality standards
regulation issued by EPA in November 1975. The policy was
clarifled and included in the water quality standards regulation
published in the Federal Register on November 8, 1983 (48 FR
5 1400): the specific code is contained in 40 CFR 13 I. 12. Section
303(d) of CWA establishes Congressional recognition and approval
of EPA’s antidegradation policy.
Part B: Federal An tide gradation Requ iremetits
The water quality standards regulation requires States and Indian
Tribes to adopt an antidegradation policy that
maintains existing uses of a waterhody or segment
and the level of quality necessary to protect the use
(known as Tier I waters):
protects high quality waters (unless certain conditions
are met). High quality water is that which exceeds
levels necessary to support propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife as well as recreation in and on
the water (these waters are also known as Tier 2
waters); and
provides special protection for Outstanding National
Resource Waters (ONRWs)(also known as Tier 3
waters).
/ 5
-------
Many States designate Outstanding State Waters instead of ON RW
to pro ide additional protect ion while a! lowiiig br Ii in tied
discharges.
Part C: State A ntidegradalion Policies
States and Indian Tribes are required to adopt an antidegradation
policy and methods for their i tiiplenientation. The policy need not
he loflual ly adopted into the State’ 5 water quality standards, hut it
must be speci bically referenced in the standards regulation so that its
relationship to the standards is clear.
EPA has the authority to review State and Tribal antidegradation
policies and to issue such policies it’ a State or Indian Tribe L ii Is to
adopt an antidegradation policy that is consistent with the CWA.
I mplementat ion plaii s may he (I isapproved hy EPA ii’ the plans
contain provisions that may result in violating the intent, spirit, and
requ i renients ol t he antidegradation policy.
Issu a nc e of a National Pollii ((lilt I)iseharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit by a State or an Indian Tribe serves as an example
of how EPA may disapprove the i mplementati on of an
antidegradation policy. Sect ion 402 of ’ the CWA, the National
Pollutant I)ischarge Elimination System, is the EPA program that
controls the disc/large ol pollution from point sources by requiring
that a person or organization discharging any type of waste into a
surface water obtain a NPI)ES permit from EPA, and limit their
discharges to the Ii mit contained within the permit. EPA has the
legal authority to delegate its permit granting role to the States and
Indian Tribes.) If a State or Indian Tribe, t r example, fails to apply
its antidegradation policy when it issues an NPDES permit, EPA
may object to the permit as not meeting the requirements of the Act.
The State or Indian Tribe may then he barred from issuing the
permit until steps are taken to comply with the antidegradation
policy. Citizens may also challenge any permit in State court on thc
grounds that it does not comply with the State’s or Indian Tribe’s
aritidegradation policy. Add itiorial ly. EPA may determi tie
16
-------
that the State’s or Indian ‘l’rihe’ 5 uitidegradation policy is, iii fact,
inconsistetit with EPA requirements (40 CER Section 1 3 1 . I 2). In
this casc, EPA would issue an antidegradation policy for waters iii
the State or Reservation I ,ands.
The ant idegradat ion policy has been developed so that it mi iii in i /es
adverse effects on economic growth and deve lopnient and at the
same time protects (‘WA goals. Federal regulations are not intended
to result iii standards that are so stringent that compliance would
cause severe econon lic impacts. The antidegradation policy (toes not
prohibit lowering of water quality. It does, however, establish a
public process for considering the relevant factors before doing so.
11(1 ,1 1): A n ude gradation Policy and Wetlands
States and Indian Tribes arc expected to l iii ly apply their
antidegradatioll policies to wetlands. Wetlands are defined in the
(‘WA as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
grotiiid water at a frequency and duration to support. and under
normal circumstances (10 sUpport, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to Ii l’e in saturated soil conditions. Wet lands
generally md UR Ic marshes, swamps, hogs. and similar areas.
The ant idegradatioll policies should pro ’ ide for the protection of
existing uses in wetlands and the level of’ water quality that is
necessary to protect those uses, similar to antidegradation policies in
other waters. In the case of using wetlands for disposing dredge
and fill material ( such as materials that might result f’ronì
development of I i ighways and LU rports, or from construction of’ dams
and levees). EPA follows a slightly different interpretation of
cx isti rig uses. E1 A recognizes that Congress intended f’or sonic fill
to occur in wetlands, as long as the discharged materials do not
result in significant degradation as defined in the section of’ the
(‘WA that concerns permits for dredge and f’i I I materials I Section
404( b)( I ) guidelines in 4() CFR Part 230)1. TI guidelines
establish a process to ensure that i nipacts to wetlands are avoided,
/7
-------
iriin iiiized and ii itigated. States may. ot cotirse, adopt stricter
reqLlirenlents for vet1and 1’ilIs in their antidegradation policies.
/1
-------
Section V: Water Quality Standards on Indian Lands
Part A: Requirements for Waler Quality Standards Programs on
India , , Lands
Before an Indian Tribe is granted authority to administer a water
quality standards program. the following criteria must be met:
The Indian Tribe must he recognized by the Secretary
of Interior.
The Tribe must have a governing body with
substantial duties and powers within a defined area
(including authority to conduct governmental
functions such as ensuring the health and welfare of
an affected population).
The water quality standards program must include
managing and protecting water resources within the
borders of the Indian Reservation.
• The indian Tribe must have the necessary
managenient and technical skills to implement an
effective water quality standards program or must
submit a plan to acquire those skills.
The Tribal application to administer the program must he submitted
to the EPA Regional Administrator, who informs all neighboring
governmental entities that the application has been received. The
Regional Administrator allows 30 days for comments on the Tribe’s
application. (Locations of EPA Regional OfFices and the States
covered by each are contained in Section VII.) States and other
Federal entities participating in the review cannot veto the
application. EPA independently evaluates the application and
promptly notifies the Tribe in writing whether it qualifies to
administer the program. No statutory requirement exists that
requires an Indian Tribe to apply for the water quality standards
19
-------
program. nor is there a deadline by which applications must he
submitted.
Part B: The issue JiLcpute Resolution Mechanism
The 1)eeemher 1 2. I 991 Amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Regulation That Pertain to Standards on Indian
Reservations (4() CFR I A I .6 and 1 3 1 .7 ) set forth procedures to
resolve unreasonable consequences that may arise when an Indian
Tribe and State adopt different water quality standards on a coninion
body of water. EPA has established mechani sins br resolving
disputes between Indian Frihes and States, bitt pref ers that Indian
Tribes and States resolve disputes without EPA involvement.
The ‘‘issue dispute resolution mechanism ‘‘ is a way for EPA to
resolve issues thai. arise as a result of’ States and Indian Tribes
setting different water quality standards on eonitiion bodies of water.
Dispute resol Lition actions involving water quality standards must he
consistent with one or more of the fbi lowing options:
a. Mediation. The EPA Regional Administrator may appoint a
mediator who can be an eniployee of EPA or some other Federal
agency. or another appropriately qualified individual. The
mediator, acting as a neutral fbcilitator, encourages
communication and negotiation among dispLiting parties, and
may establish advisory panels to study the problems and
recommend a sol Lition. The advisory Panel must consist of
members Irom the affected parties. The mediation procedure
and schedule is determined by the niediator in coiistiltation with
the parties to the dispute.
h. Arbitration. The EPA Regional Administrator may appoint an
arbitrator or arbitration panel (which disputing parties must
approve) to settle the dispute. Arbitrators and panel members
may be EPA employees, employees of other Federal agencies. or
other individuals with appropriate qualifications. Individuals
serving in this capacity who are Federal employees must act
20
-------
independently of their agencies. Arbitrators and panelists
must he versed in the water quality standards prograni and
Lulderstand the political and economic interests of the Indian
Tribes and States involved.
At least one private or public meeting must be held with the
parties. The arbitrator or panel must solicit inlormation on
how lull i 11mg the requirements Gr obtaining a permit affect
entities that discharge into a water body comparative risks to
public hea Rh and the environment, economic impacts. water
uses, water quality, and other factors relevant to the dispute.
Alier considering these firetors. the arbitrator or panel
pros’ ides a written recommendation for resolving the dispute
to the afiected parties and the EPA Regional Administrator.
l)isputing parties need not accept the recommendatioii unless
they voluntarily entered into a binding agreement to do so.
II a party to the dispute believes that the arbitrator or panel
has recommended an action that is inconsistent with the
CWA, the party may appeal the recommendation to the
Regional Administrator in writing. The appeal must include
the statutory basis f r altering the arbitrator s
recommendation.
l)is ,ni!e Resolulie ’ ! De/thilt Pro edure. A default procedure
is available when disputing parties refuse to participate in
either mediation or arbitration. In such an event, the EPA
Regional Administrator may appoint a single official or panel
to review inforniation related to the dispute and issue a
written recommendation for its resolution. Recommendations
issued by EPA resulting from this default procedure have no
force of law.
2/
-------
Part C: Options for Esta/.iliching Water Quality Standards
Indian Tribes have three options for establishing water quality
standards br waters under their jurisdiction:
They may negotiate a cooperative agreement with an
adjoining State to apply that State 1 s water quality
standards to the Reservation Lands. A cooperative
agreement can include any provision agreed upon by the
two parties; or
they may adopt the adjacent State s water quality
standards with or without ii odi Ilcations; or
they may develop and adopt their own standards to
account For unique Trihal uses and needs.
22
-------
Section VI: Adoption of Water Quality Standards
Part A: Processes For Establishing Water Quality Standards
The process for developing. reviewing, adopting, and implementing
water quality standards on land tinder the jurisdiction ol States and
Indian Tribes is the same. The overall requirements are speciFied in
the CWA and the water quality standards regulation issued on
November K, 19K3.
Each State and Tribe has its own legal and administrative
procedures For adopting water quality standards there are 110
standardized procedures. The CWA requires States and Indian
Tribes to hold one public hearing and to involve the public in
reviewing and revising water quality standards.
The governmental entity respoiisihle ffir adopting State or I ndi an
Tribal water quality standards varies from State to State and Tribe
to Tribe. In sonic States, water quality standards are adopted by
the State legislative body and signed into law by the Governor. In
others, standards are adopted through an administrative agency
rulemaking procedure which may he subject to legislative oversight.
For Indian Tribes, the governing Tribal body or authority is
responsible for adopting water quality standards on Reservation
Lands.
One approach to water quality protection considers the whole
aquatic system, including other resource management programs that
address land. air, and water to successfully manage problems for a
given aquatic resource. This approach—the watershed protection
approach—encourages States and Indian Tribes to work collectively
to manage high priority water quality concerns, to coordinate
among various interests, and to devise solutions for local
conditions. States and Tribes define the goals in the watershed, or
waterhody. of concern and can adopt these in their water quality
standards. Goal selection is driven by stakeholder involvement in
the process.
23
-------
Part B: Status of (lie Water Quality Standards Program
All 5() States, the District of Columbia. and the U .S. Territories
have developed water quality standards. Some Indian Tribes have
been authoriied to admiiii sEer the water quality standards program
and have approved water quality standards. ‘i’he nLIfflher of Trihe
that may eventually assume responsibility for the program is
u uk flown.
Part C: Reviewing, Revising, and Adopting New Standards
Section 303(e) of the CWA requires States to hold pLiblic hearings
at least once every three years to review applicable water quality
standards and, if appropriate, to adopt new standards. In
conjunction with EPA. States select waterhodies for which water
quality standards are to he reviewed in-depth. Selection is based on
the following sources of information:
a list of i npaired waters, Section 304(1). This list
comprises two types of waters: Iirst, those in which
water qLIal ity standards cannot he met because of the
presence of toxic pollutants: second, those in which the
following uses cannot he maintained or achieved. This
category includes pLiblic water supplies, agricultural and
industrial uses, the protection and propagation of a
balanced population ol shellfish, fish and wildlife, and
recreational activities in and on the water. The second
category also includes any waters that present a threat
public health.
reports on the condition of the waters within the
boundaries of each State (Section 305(b) Reports). These
reports, required biennially for each State, describe the
water quality of all navigable waters in the State, as well
as the nature and sources of pollution to the waters
during the preceding two years.
24
-------
waters identi fled as not meeting water quality
standards (Section 303(d) Lists). This section requires
States to list those waters br which (1) the
Ii lilitations Oil ellILielit discharges (or releases of
pollutants to a waterhody ) are not stringent enough to
implement water quality standards for the waters and
(2) the limitations on thermal discharges (eFfluent
with elevated temperatures) are not stringent enough
to ensure protection and propagation of a balanced
indigenous (native) population of shellfish. Fish, and
w i I dli k.
waterhody segments where major NPDES permits are
to he issued: and
priorities within a watershed.
Additionally, waterhodies with water quality standards that do not
meet the requirements of the CWA (i.e.. do not provide hr the
protection of aquatic life or recreation) must he reexamined every
three years. States must review their standards to determine ii new
scientific and technical data may he available which have a hearing
on their standards. Further, environmental changes and economic
development over time niay warrant the need for a review. Where
States have not adopted standards that provide for the protection ot
aquatic Ii Fe or recreation, the State must periodically review
standards to see if the “fishable/swimmable’ uses can he attained.
In addition, States may have adopted water quality standards
without sufficient data to determine whether the uses were
attainable. Finally, changes in the CWA or EPA’ s regulations may
necessitate State review of their standards to ensure continued
compliance with Federal requirements.
States niay use several ways to determine the appropriateness of a
water quality standard. Generally, States will review intensive
water quality survey and monitoring data, and any other information
for a waterhody, to determine if uses are impaired or if water
25
-------
quality criteria are exceeded. I I ’ uses are Impaired or criteria
exceeded, States will evaluate whether more stringent controls are
needed to attain the water quality standard or whether the water
quail ty standards are appropriate.
Part 1): EPA ‘s Role Following State or Tribal Adoption t!f
Standards
The Governor or Tribal Authority (or designee) submits the State’s
or Tribe’s officially adopted standards to the appropriate F1I A
Regional Administrator for review. The Regional Adrni nistrator
reviews the standards to determine compliance with the (‘WA and
implementing regulations. rçj Regional Admi i i istrator may
approve or disapprove (in whole or in part) State or Tribal water
quality standards based on the review. If the standards do not meet
CWA requirements. the Regional Admiiiistrator must inform the
State or rr rihe ol tile changes needed to bring the standards into
compliance. I I ’ the State or Tribe does not make the required
changes. EPA begins a process that results in the promulgation
(i.e., the issuance of a legally binding standard) of a Federal water
RtalitY standard for the affected waters. Mcanu’Iu/c, i/ic ciwu/cirt/s
(uIo/flc(/ hi the S/ale (Ii lithe remaIn in c/fret until I/ic prwiiiil gal /wi
process / 5 (oiii/)/ele 01 1/ic Slate adopts revised na /er £/u(1liIv
5/ali(lar(ls. Ihese requirements are listed in 4() (‘FR I 3 1 .6.
In addition, EPA is required under the Endangered Species Act to
consult with the Fish & Wi ldl lie Service (F&W5) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine i i adverse effects to
threatened or endangered species are likely. The F&WS is part oF
the U.S. I)epartment oF Interior, and the NM ES is part of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, rime
Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973. The ESA and
suhseq nei l ! amendments are intended to protect and preserve plaiits
and an i rllaIs whose popu lat ions have been threatened or impai red by
the actions of humans.
26
-------
EPA niay also Issue Federal regulations when the Adininistrawr
deterini ties that a new or revised standard is necessary to meet the
requirements of the CWA. Federal water quality standards are
withdrawn when States or Tribes adopt standards that nieet the
statutory and regulatory requirements. At the present time. Federal
actions ol this type remain in torce in Ariiona, the Colevi lie
Confederated Tribes Indian Reservation in Washington. the San
Francisco Bay/Delta. and in 1 4 jurisdictions in the National ToXics
Rule.
When issuing water quality standards that are binding on a State or
on Tribal Lands, EPA must adhere to the same substantive
requirements as the State or Tribe for adopting standards.
Additionally, EPA at a minimum must
• publish the proposed water quality standard in the
Federal Register.
• solicit public comments on the proposed standard,
hold a public hearing,
analyze and incorporate public comments, and
• publish the final water quality standard.
Part F: Enforcing Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards are not directly Federally entireeahle under
the (TWA, hut they provide a basis for establishing discharge limits
in NPDES permits and Section 404 permits (those permits that
at low br the disposal of dredge and fill material into surface
waters). The permits are legally enforceable. Failure to comply
with NPI)ES or dredge—and—fill permit limits can result in
enforcement action. States, however. do have the option. under
Section 5 It) of the CWA, to make water quality standards directly
entorceabte.
27
-------
Part F: The Role of the Public in Setting Water Quality Standards
rihe pLihi ic has a vested interest in our Nation’s water quality.
Open hearings cii water quality standards provide an opportLLllity br
the public to become involved in the water quality standards setting
process. Citizens may make recommendations on iiiipi’ovemeiits or
modifications in the standards during the public hearing process.
Public hearings are a powerlul vehicle through which citizens may
make their concerns known to public otlieials. States and Indian
Tribes are required by law to hold hearings at least once every three
years.
Part 6: Available Guidance and Assistance
In addition to publishing Section 304(a) criteria guidance. EPA
develops other inlormational materials to help the States and Indian
Tribes meet the requirements oF the water quality standards
pmg ni. Such inlorrnational materials include technical
puh l icat ions, newsletters, and videotapes. Guidance niateri als are
supplemented by train i iig programs. technical assistance,
workshops. meetings. and other Forums conducted by EPA
personnel. EPA personnel are also available For consultation. EPA
encourages a free exchange ci information in the Federal—State
efFort to clean—up and protect the Nation’s waters. ( Section V i i of
t his document tel Is you where additional information ahout water
quality standards and criteria can he obtained.)
2
-------
Section VII: For More Information
EPA ’s ten Regional Offices (listed on page 3 I ) can provide (letal led
in form at i o ci a bout t he proced tires by which an Indian Tribe may
— quality for water qtial ity standards program authorization. EPA is
t lso available to provide technical information as Indian Trihes
begin to develop water quality standards affecting Reservation
Lands.
Inlormatioci on the water quality standards of a given State may he
obtained from the State’s Water Pollution Control Agency or its
equivalent or directly from an Indian Tribe. I iiforniation may also
he obtained from the Water Quality Standards Coordinator in each
Regional Office identified on page 3 1
You may also contact EPA at the following address For iiiore
information ab out water quality standards, including schedules for
training programs and technical assistance workshops, documents
and videos.
Specific inf riiuuioii o/miit wa!cr qua/i!v standards may be obtaitied
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science & Technology
Standards & Applied Science Division
401 M Street, SW (4305)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1315
29
-------
.S’ 1 e ‘i/H i;;/ornia/ioii (11)011/ u’(IICJ q uality ‘i’ifr#7 i, j u n iuliuiç site—
.S/)eCi/f( ( ‘1’IICL’!(l, uii u he ohtniuu’il /‘mnn
Ii .5. EtliviFoll mental Protection Agency
( )fflce ol Water
Office c i Science & Feclinology
I IL’LLltll & [ colog ical Criteria 1)1 vision
401 M Street. SW (4304
Washington. L W 2046()
(202) 260-0658
In [ )uFcllase a c o p ol (juwulity ( ‘rjleu’ja for 1¼uiej’ I contai i ii ng
sum manes of’ at I comitam I nants and comidit ions Ioi’ which EPA has
developed criteria recoin mnendat ions, contact
National Technical I niormation Center
U.S. Depart nient ol’ Coni nierce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(800) 553-NTIS
Order Numher: PB87-226759
01’
Education Resource Inlormation ( 1 enter
1929 Kenny Road
Columbus, 011 432 I ()
(800) 276-0462
Order Number: l)-76()
. 3 ’ ,)
-------
EPA Regions
I
EPA Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators
Ri’eion I Water Divisiofl
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3539
(617) 565 4t)_U) (Lix)
(‘I. NIL, VT, MA. NH. RI
Region 2 Water Division
2 )() Broadway
New York, NY 10007
(212) 264-5685
(212) 637-3772 (lax)
NJ, NY, Puerto Rico,
Vir iii Islands
Region 3 Waler Division
4 I (‘hesinut Sir cci
Phi I;idelphia . PA 19107
2 15) 597-44 )I
(215) 597-3359 (fax)
DL DC, WV. MD,
VA
PA,
Region 4 Water Division
345 (‘ourtland Street. NI’,.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3555 x6633
(404 347-I799 (Lix)
AL. H.. GA. TN, KY, NC.
SC, MS
Region 5 Water Djvisi n
77 West Jackson
Boulevard
Chicago. IL 60604-3507
(312) 353-9024
(312) 886-7804 (fax)
IL, IN, Oft MI. MN. WI
Region 6 Water Division
1445 Ross Avenue
First Interstate Bank
Tower
Dallas. TX 75202
(214) 665 - 43
(214 665 S9 (fax)
AR. LA, NM. OK. I X
Region 7 Water
Compliance Branch
726 Minncs ta A enuc
Kansas (‘liv, KS 66101
(913) 551-7441
(913) 551-77(iS (ax)
IA, KS. MO, NF
Region 8 Water Division
999 18th Street
I )cnver. Co 80202-2405
(303) 293- 1586
303t 3’)i -6957 (fax)
CO. M ’I’, UT, ND. SD,
WY
Rcizion 9 Water Division
75 Hawthorne Street
Sari Francisco, CA 94 lO S
(415) 744-1997
(415) 744-1078 (fax)
AZ, CA. NV. HI. Pahw.
( na air, American Sari a
N. Matiajia Islands
Region 10 Water Division
(WS-I39)
12(X) Sixth Avenue
Seattle. W,\ 98101
(206) 553-0176
206) 553-0165 (lax)
AK. ID, OR, WA
0
31
-------
APPENI)IX A: (HA)SSARY
‘1 /ii gle ). \Vuiv I / U ‘/(I(I(’ V I C 17/IS I(.V(J I I , i/its 1/0 1 / 1 /I /C / lI uiiil /t/iiii )IIIl/ I I 17// S I/ I / /I i / Ic I IT(//1CI/II\’
/1. 5/ 1/ I I I i/it /LV,\ I01I , 0/ i i i/fir (/11(1//IS S I(lI1(/i1IJS.
‘Ilie Act——relers to the ( ‘Ic/In Water Act ( Puhlic La s s 92—5 00. as aIileIl1led 33 1 ‘S( 125
(41) (‘FR 131.31
acute 1clc1’s I l l sfiori-teriii exposures to Illultalits
Aulniiiiistiatoi’--iefta’, to the Adiiiiuistrator of’ the IS. LtniuuIiilent/tt Protection AeeIie\
/tiiil)ieIlt——rejers to L’.\i’- tiI1Li coiiditioiis hi a \saterl/o(ly
:IIutIli’jt!e liic——u!enelateth OF L’1 1115t’ul 1)5 lie .ictioip, of IlL/lU /ills
/tIltJ( lciJILn.l/tili)l1 J)Olicv——f)Ohic\ ieqtiiied 1 )5 l l \s V /itLI uju/lIht\’ st/lll(l/lI(l5 l’e!21ll/ltU)ll Il l/It
St/lies h url lIl(lIh1l1 I riFies 1 111151 l(.lO))t tO eo liset’\’e, li laijitain. 1 111sf protect c.\istille uses lI lt] Ilk’
water quality necessary to protect these uses; the policy was estahl isl ied bs lie Secretar of
interior in i’ehruary 196 5 before the crc ition of’ LPA ;tii] illUO1’)1OI’/lle(l 11th) the water
quality sI hr Inlaids re Jnlat toil iss ued Nv IPA in Novenihci 1975
aquatic life eiiteiia——ntiidehiiies cleslene(l to protect all aquatic life, including jilaiìts ans i
ai iiiiials
aIhitlatlIn l——/t dispute resoltitioti piocess i ii which an itidividital o l’ ) ti1el reeoiiinieuuls a
soluitioii hi a u issue arisiiiu heisseen two patties.] he solution reeoiuiiiieuideul Nv the
al’l)itIlItol’ can he l)iIlditlg on the p 1 11 1 es ii’ they choose to make it 51).
attaiii——aehieve or reach (as a ssater quahit) goaU
hackorotiti sl eotithitioiis — uiattirah eoiiulitioiis. conditions not aliected or iiif’htiejieed hy the
aelt dies of humans
hkdogical ititegritv——tlie eiiiahitioii of’ the aquatic coiiitiiun by inhahiting Ltiiiiflpaired wh Ite ]
bodies of a specified habitat as iiieasnred Nv eonlnlnnity structure and functio n
biological criteria——narrative or nnnierie expressions that describe the desired hiohorieal
coiii.hitioti of aqrialie coinninnities inhabiting Particular types of \valerl)odies
eliionie——u’ei’eu’s to long—term exposnres In pollutants
(‘ode of’ Federal Rer nlations——a puthlication of’ the IS, C ivei’ntiient Ili:ut contains all FPA
and other regulations alter they have mcci vet] final approval. Referred to as
32
-------
(iesr n1ated ase— —that use defined in water qual it) staii(Iards br cacti water hod or segnicrit
whet her r u t tt the use s bei tie at tai ned
age limits——any restriction tni quantities, rates, and concentrations of clienuiic:tl.
:aI. bioloiiical or oilier constituents which are dischan’eed trout point soiuu’ces
rtiscltarec——tlic addition of all) pollutant (s) to rnavieahle waters hunt any poilit source.
dretlee nuaterial——utaterial restnltine horn activities such as the \\ 1(leIiillL
or deepening oh cliartiiels. birildinie of canals. construct ton oh levees
ccolo”y t ecolocical f——the study ot the interrelationships oi organisms arid their eiivirorrnient
ellhtrerit——waste ritaterial disclrareetl tutu the en\:ironlnent, iuicludine waters oi the t 1 nited
States
existiuie use——the use that has been ;iclrieved for a waterhody on or alter November 25.
1975
Federal Reeistcr— —a publication of’ the IS. (joverutneut that includes all proposed and final
reculatiotis issued k lIPA. Referred to as FR.
till material——earth nse(l ha’ euihankunents or as backbIt
Food and I)rur Adriiinistrationr —the [ IS. (lovernnient ;weucv that estahlishes hauls used to
proltihit the sale oh’ edible aquatic life when the concentrations ot coirtanliriauits exceed
spec i ed levels
habitat——the environment occupied by individuals of’ a pariicnlar species, population. or
coini nun it V
health cruten’ma—--eu their tics that specify the potential risk of adverse effects to humans
snhstauces in the water
hydroloev ( hydrologic f——tI le science dealing with tIme propeni ies. distribution. antI circulation
of water both on the surface of’ and under the earth
unpaired \\atcrs——watcrs that tail to meet applicable atcu tlu ilit\ standards ot’ to protect
designated uses such as fishine or swi unmniug
Indian Iribe on Tribe-—any tutdiatt ‘l’rihc. band. ur’oup. couiuuiuniihv ccogniicd by the
Secretary oh the Interior and exercisinie coveruunnental aLutlioritv over a Federal tndiau
Reservat it at
-------
Indiaii Reservation ( Reservattoii. irib tI 1 ands)——a1l land within the limits ol ai y Indian
reservat ion under the jurisdiction of the t LS. (iovertinieiil, nots ithstaiidinig the issuance of
any patent. and including rights of way running through the reservat ion
indigenous——ex istitig. and liasi m i originaied naturally, in a particular regiOn or envirOilmnen 1 t
Issue Dispute Resolution Mechanism——the pmoceclrmre untamed in the (‘lean Water Act
resolving conflicts between States and I mitlian Tribes that adopt different water quality
standards ni a coin Il( ii body of water
mediation——a dispute resolution proeess in which a neutral or impartial individual attemiipts
to t tcil itate a solifi ion to a dispute arising hetween two parties by encouraging
eonuni nil ication and negotiation
National Pollutant Discharge ltlinìinatnon System——the EPA prograni that regulates point
source discharges thnmgh the i ssuaiiee of’ perni its to discharges and cii hucenietit of the
terms and conditions of those periii its
navigable waters——the waters of the United States. including tile territorial seas
nonpoint source pollution——pollution sources that are diffuse and do not have a single point
of origin: run—off from agriculture. forestry. and construction sites can he nomi—poimil source
pollution
organic suhstaiiee——earbon—contaiiii rig substances in Pla nt and animal matter: high
conccntrat ot is are often found iii iiiunieipai and i ildusirial wastewatcr and in surface flmiluf f
orgatiie chenlicals refers to a manufactured chemical used for cotitrol I ing weeds and insect
pests; many are considered to he carcinogenic
Outstanding National Resource Waters——the highest qtiality waters of the United States:
waters of exceptional ecological signi tieance that ale iniportant. uitique, or ecologically
sensitive
perniit——lcgal almthorit\ to ear ly out a regulated activity
point source pollution——pollution resultiilg from discharges into receiving waters f’roni
discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, or sewer
priority tox cs w pull nitants——those substances listed by the Adnii iii strator under Sect i on
3f)7ta) of the (‘lean Water Act
protiiulgate——to niake known or public tile terms of a proposed i-egnlation, or to put a
regulation into action or force
Regional Administrator——the senior official in an EPA Regional Office
rulentaking——the pi-ocess by which regulations or laws are enacted
34
-------
sediriient( s f— —transported or deposited particles derived frotil rocks. soils. or biological
r iiatet’ i a Is
sedi inent criteria——narrative or ittiriieric expressions that describe the desired condition of
‘,edi luc i us in particular types of w ttei1iodies; sedinuent criteria address the lox icily of
di lierent seW nient types in different enviroiiiuiental settings
—includes ilie 50 United States, I)istrict of (‘ofLilnbia, Guam. (‘oiiujuuonwealth of’
Puerto Rico. Virgin Islands. American Samoa, Trust Territory d the Pacific Islands. and
( oiiuiion wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian TI ] hes that EPA deterrn i rues
qual if)’ for treatment as States for the purpose of water quality standards
statute ( statutory )——a law (having legal lorce
surface waters——bodies of wtter on the surface of’ the earth, including lakes. rivers, streams.
wetlands. etc’.
toxic substance/pot lutant——suhstances (or pollutants) tha i. alier ci iseharge and upon e xposui’e.
iiugestion, inlu tlation. 01’ assimilation into any organism. either directly 11011) the
eiuv ironiuuent or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will, or on the basis of
iii format ion avai fable to the Adni iiuisti’atoi-, cause deat Ii. cli sease, hehavioral abnormalities.
cancer, genetic Imitations, physioloi ical malfunctions ( iiicludi rig malfunctions mu
reprodtict ion ) or physical defornuat ions, i mu such organ i snus or their offspring
1 Ise Attainahi lity Analysis——a sfm’ucttired scieiutil’ic assessment of’ the f’actors aff’ecting the
attainment of the use which iuuay i ruclude physical. chemical. biological, and economic
factors as described in Section 1 3 I I 0(g ((40 ( ‘FR I 3 I 3)
water qual it)’ standards——pros isions ol’ State or Federal law which consist of’ a designated
use or uses for the waters of’ the U i ii ted Sates, water quality criteria for such waters based
u 1)011 such uses, and an ant idegradation policy; water quality standards are intended to
protect public health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of’
the (‘lean Water Act
quality criteria——critcria published by EPA under Section 304 a) for specific
icals in water intended to provide protection for aquatic life and human health in all
sur ace waters o n a riatR)flal basis; elements of water quality standards adopted by States
under Section 303(c), which describe the quality of water that will support a particular use
waters of the United States-—rel’er to
1) all waters which are currently used, were used in the past. or may he susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tide;
(2) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands:
35
-------
(3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittentstreams),
mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds the use or degradation of which would affect or could affect interstate or
foreign commerce, including any such waters:
(i) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes;
(ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in
interstate or foreign commerce;
(iii) which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in
interstate commerce;
(4) all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States
under this definition;
(5) tributaries of waters in paragraphs (I) through (4) of this definition;
(6) the territorial sea; and
(7) wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
identified in paragraphs (I) through (6) of this definition. ‘Wetlands t are defined
as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include marshes, swamps, bogs, and similar areas.
Note: Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirements of the Act (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR
423.11(m) which also meet the criteria for this definition) are not waters of the
United States.
watershed--the region draining into a river, river system, or other waterbody
wetland--those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions;
wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas
36
-------
APPENDIX B
LiST OF SECTION 307(A) PRIORITY rfl) (: POLLUTANTS
:\cci lajTh1l ene ( )i1 rutunii l3ela 1 ndusnl1aii
/\ee l lap (h’clei lc (1rtclihu iniicl luiiie ) ltllck)stllIaIl ulI;itc
‘\cr dci ii 2 ( lllUrUI)I1L’IIUI ltli(lr [ 1i
/\eiv lniiitiile (‘hhnui uprnpyl l lIiel F iulriii :\ltlelivde
A kizi n (131 —2 ) F 1 1i I heiiietie
i\iiti iiiuti 2 ( likirointpliihaleiic IlLu )rel le
i\iiilii tceiic 4 ( hkniphenvl Ilienyl lltiuraniheiic
I tlie i I lc [ )l;ic1lIoi
Asbes lus ( ‘hunniuiii ( 11I’.X and IRI Hel)I;tehIUr kpu.\i(lc
I .2 I3cniaiithraeezie ( ‘Jiryserie Iiexaehluruethane
I3eniciie ( upper Lie \ aeli Ion )ben/.cIlc
I3cniiidiine (‘vari lde I Ic\;tchIunuh lniladien]e
i3eiiio (A I Pvictie (3 ,4 4,4 1)1)1 1 Iexaeh lul’ucyelohe\ane
I 3 eIuk ) ‘i relic) 4.4 1)1)1 (JJ iidzi lie)
3,4 l3cIi/.olitRffaIi)IieJIc 4,4 1)1)1) HexaLhIurueveIohcxzu lc
Bell/ u (K) Finuranitliene I )Iheniu (a.h I An illiraeeiie (Alpha)
I . I 2 14eniuper lene I .2 I )ielnluruheniene I IexacIiInloeveI{)liexal )e
I3ervllinini 1.3 I)icliluiuheiiiene (Be la)
I3iuinioluiiii 1 .4 I )Ichluroben,cne I Iexaeliloiueveluhexaiie
)irilil in l lu nnl(._’lIetlie) 3.3 I)Ielilnrdieni,it liiie (1)clla)
Iiruniiunneilnztne ( \lelIiyI 1.1 I)ielilnroethanc I IeYcileIlklnieveIupcliiadienc
I 3 1{1lill1Ie) .2 1)IeIiI{lroe)Ilane Idenu (I .2 ,3 ed) Pyrenc
4 l3runiniplienvl Ilienivl I .1 1 )IehloruetliyIene I PAl I
I’JIiL’I I .2 Iranis—I)iehlunuetliylenie lsupliuiinc
( ‘adnininini I)ieIilUlUI1I i)lflUlilethallc I eL i (I
(‘arliuni ‘I’e)iaeli lurit le (1 laluli lellialies) MCl’L’tllV
(I’elnnelilunuliiellianic ) I)ieliluroi iietliane N npIinIiaIenie
( ‘hlurdane I Ilalunnetlianes ) NieLel
( lion the Il/fIle 2.4 I )ieIi I uruphenuI NI truhell/cl 1e
\‘lunue}i lunohen/ene I I .2 1)ie Ii loruprupane 2 Nil ruphenol
h lol idihru liiullielharne 1 .3 I )iclilorupropvlenic 4 Nitruphenol
ilalunlell lalie) !)ieldriii 4.6 I)InIlru—2--Meilivlphellol
(‘hkn ietliane 2.4 1 )iniethylphenol N ilniisudiniietliv lallilne N
Muliucllluruenll;lne I I)ic llny ljitnnlia late Ni ili) udipliell) Ianiine—N
(‘Iiluruetliyl Ether U31s 2 l)I ni iel liy lplillia late Nitrusudl-N—Propy laiinlnc—N
I (Ii lurnet liuxy MetIi niie 2,4 1)1111110101 LICI 1C 1k ‘13 I 242
I t3Is 2 2,6 E)iniitrotoluenie lk’ 13 1254
2 (‘Iilurueihyl Vinnyl Ether 2,4 1)initruphenul FF13 1221
4 (‘hhuru-LMenhylphicnnul 1)iuxini 12.3.7.il(’l)l)) FF13 1232
( Iiluruninctli:nne ( Metliy I I .2 l)Iphenyhlivdra/.inle 1k ‘13 I 24S
(lilaride) Alpha IlnidusnIlall I i ‘13 I 261)
37
-------
P(’13 1016
Phenol
Petit ac hi on pherto 1
Phenanihrerie (PA 11)
H is (3 Ethyl Hexy!)
Plithalate
E3utyl l3eni.yi Phthalate
Di—N—l3ntyi Phthalate
Di - N - ( Dc tyl - Ph thai ate
Pyrene (PAIl)
Selenium
Silver
• I ,2,2 lctrachloroctliarie
T’etrach I oroet hylenc
‘Ehal ii uin
Ioiuene
To xaphene
I ,2.4 Trichlorohenzeiie
• I • I Trichloroethane
1,2 Trich loroetliane
Trichloroetliyiene
2 ,4,6 Trichlomphenol
Vinyl Chloride
((‘hioroethy I c tie)
25 tic
38
-------
READER RESPONSE CARD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency strives to be responsive to the needs of our
customers. We would appreciate knowing if this document has been helpful to you. Please
take a minute to complete and return this evaluation form to us so that we can better serve
you.
How helpful was the information contained in this publication?
Circle one number: 1 2 3 4 5
Somewhat Quite Very
2. Does the publication discuss the subject to your satisfaction? ( ) Yes ( ) No
3. Is the level of detail appropriate for your use? ( ) Yes ( ) No
4. How clearly is the publication written or the material presented?
Circle one number: 1 2 3 4 5
Unclear About Right Very
5. How effective are the illustrations?
Circle one number: 1 2 3 4 5
Ineffective Quite Very
6. What is your affflliation? Check one:
( ) Local government representative ( ) Attorney/legal representative
( ) State government representative ( ) Environmental group
( ) Federal government representative ( ) Private citizen
()Consultant ( ) Trade/industrial association
()Academia: Circle One: Student * Instructor ( ) Other _______________
Level: _____Elementary School ________________
____Junior High/Middle School
High School
University
Do you have any suggestions for improving this publication?
Please fold and either staple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the back and
mail it to us. Thanks for your assistance.
THIS RESPONSE CARD IS FOR EPA DOCUMENT NUMBER: EPA-823-B-95-004
39
-------
Reference 4
-------
Only “Appendix M” of the Water
Quality Standards Handbook is
currently included in this section
of the Reference Manual.
A copy of the handbook and all
its other appendices will be
mailed to you.
-------
2
Section 131.12--AntidegradatiOn
(a) (2) . . . allowing lower water quality is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social development in
the areas in which the waters are located...
Since publication of the water quality standards regulation
in 1983 we have produced extensive guidance on the interpretation
and application of the various regulatory requirements. None of
this guidance, however, dealt extensively with the economic
considerations.
This guidance workbook is intended to fill that gap. It is
anticipated that the guidance will”be revised from time to time
to reflect State and Regional experieuce in its application. For
example we intend to add case studies as appendices to the
guidance to reflect real-world experiences in its application.
In addition, the Agency is considering revising the water quality
regulation. If revisions to the regulation are made with respect
to economic considerations, the applicable guidance will be
revised accordingly. However, it is likely to be at least 3
years before any revisions to the regulation are finally
promulgated and no way of anticipating whether any changes will
be made in the economic provisions.
This guidance is presented to assist States and EPA Regional
Offices, along with other interested parties, in understanding
the economic factors that be considered, and the types of
tests that can be used to determine: (1) if a designated use
cannot be attained, (2) if a variance to an individual discharger
can be granted, or (3) if degradation of high-qua.].ity water is
warranted.
The regulatory requirement that must be met is that
attaining a designated use or obtaining a variance would result
in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts. The
regulatory requirement for antidegradation is that it must be
shown that lower water quality is necessary to accommodate
important social and economic development. This guidance provides
a framework for making these determinations.
The measures and tests suggested in this guidance are
standard economic analytical tools, but the States are free to
provide other kinds of analysis to support their position.
The guidance does provide information on the kinds and types of
analysis that are appropriate and how the information can be
assembled in order to make a decision. It is not an exhaustive
description of all appropriate economic analysis. Additional
information and tests may be necessary and/or desirable in
certain circumstances.
-------
3
The economic impacts to be considered are those that result
from treatment beyond that required by technology-based
regulations. All economic analyses of water quality standards
should address only the cost of improving the water to meet water
quality standards or the cost of maintaining water quality in
high-quality waters.
Although EPA is responsible for approving a State’s water
quality standards, the State is responsible for interpreting the
circumstances of each case and determining where there are
substantial and widespread economic and social impacts, or where
important economic and social development would be
inappropriately precluded;•
Various drafts of this guidance were reviewed by EPA
headquarters and regional offices, States, and other
organizations. State and Regional staff should feel free to
contact the Economic and Statistical Analysis Branch in the
Office of Science and Technology for advice and assistance
regarding this guidance or related concerns. We would appreciate
receiving feedback from the users of this guidance so that it can
be improved as necessary. As with all guidance related to the
water quality standards program, this document is considered to
be part of the Water quality Standards Handbook--Second Edition .
cc: Lee Schroer , OGC
Jim Pendergast, OWM
John Meagher, OWOW
William Painter, OPPE
Regional WQS Coordinators, Regions I - X
-------
1N ERIM ECONOMIC GUIDANCE
FOR WATER QUAL1 Y STANDARDS
WORKBOOK
Economics and Statistical Analysis Branch
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 1995
-------
ECONOMIC GUIDANCE FOR WAru QUALITY STANDARDS WORKBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Designated Uses, Vaiiances, and Antidegradation 1-3
1.2 Pollution Sources 1-5
1.3 Substantial Impacts 1-6
1.4 Widespread Impacts 14
1.5 Antidegradation 19
1.6 Organization of the Rest of the Workbook 1-10
2. EVALUATING SUBSTANTIAL IMPACf’S:
PUBLIC SECTOR ENTITIES 2-1
2.1 Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual Cost of the Pollution
ControiProject 25
2.2 Calculate Total Annn2liled Pollution Control Costs Per Household ... 2-10
2.3 Calculate and Evaluate the Municipal Preliminary Screener Value ... 2-14
2.4. Apply Secondary Test 2-15
2.5 Assess Where the Community Falls in the Substantial Impacts Mathx . 2-28
3. EVALUATING SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS: PRIVATE-SECTOR
ENTiTIES 3-1
3.1 Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual Cost of the Pollution
Control Project 3-4
3.1.b Calculate the Annual Costs of the Pollution Control Project 3-5
3.2 Financial Impact Analysis 36
3.3 InterpretingtheResults 332
4. DETERMINATION OF WIDESPREAD IMPACTS 4-1
4.1 Define Relevant Geographical Area 4-2
4.2 Determine Whether Impacts axe Widespread: Public-Sector Entities.... 4-2
4.3 Determine Whether Impacts axe Widespread: Private-Sector Entities ... 4-5
4.4 Estimate Multiplier Effect 411
4.5 Economic Benefits of Clean Water 4-12
4.6 5umm of biancial Capability and Determination of Whether
Impacts are Substantial and Widespread 4-13
-------
5. ANTIDEGRADATION: ROLE OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. 5-1
5.1 Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual Cost of the Pollution
Control I’roject 5—5
5.2 Financial Analysis to Determine if Lower Water Quality is
uNecessaryll 5—14
5.3 Determine if Economic and Social Development would
be lmportant 5-33
5.4 Suinniary 5.35
APPENDIX A: Data Resources andRefeeneeMaterjaj A-i
APPENDIX B:TabIeofAnnualj,atjonFgt .w.. B-i
APPENDIX C: Conceptual Measures of Ecenomie Bçneflts c-i
WORASREETS A through AB
-------
ECONOMIC GUIDANCE FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
WORKBOOK
1. INTRODUCTION
As presented in the Water Quality Standards
Regulation, economic factors are taken into consideration
at various points in the process of setting, enforcing, or
changing Water Quality Standards Thai guidance is
presented to assist States and applicants in understanding
the economic factors that may be considered, and the types
of tests that can be used to determine if a designated use
cannot be attained, if a variance can be granted, or if
degradation of high-quality water is warranted. In order to
remove a designated use or obtain a variance, the State or
discharger must demonstrate that attaining the designated
use would result in substantial and widespread economic
social impacts. Likewise, if a degradation in high-
quality water is proposed, it must be shown that lower
water quality is necessary to accommodate important social
and economic development.
This workbook provides guidance for those seeking to
document that uses meeting the fishable/swiITt1T%sble goals
of the Act are not attainable, obtain a variance based on
economic considerations, or to lower water quality in a
high-quality water. In addition, it provides guidance to
States and EPA regions responsible for reviewing requests
for variances, modifications to fishable/swim ble
designated uses, documentation that fishable/swifflmsble
uses arc not attsinable, and for approval of antidegradation
analyses. The guidance describes the types of information
and analyses that should be considered by applicants and
reviewers. The guidance, however, is not an exhaustive
description of appropriate economic impact analyses.
Additional information and tests may be necessary and/or
desirable in certain Circumstances.
The economic impacts considered aie those that result
from veamient beyond that required by technology-based
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards 1-1
-------
regulations. Since water quality cannot be lower than that
resulting from technology-based limits applied to direct and
indirect point source discharges, these are considered to be
the baseline. All economic impact analyses of water
quality standards should, therefore, address only the cost of
improving the water to meet flshable/swiiitTIiable uses or
the cost f maintaining water quality in high-quality waters.
Although EPA is responsible for approving a State’s
water quality standards, the State is responsible for
interpreting the circumstances of each case and determining
where there are substantial aâl widespread economic and
social impacts, or where important social and economic
development would be inappropriately precluded. Each
analysis of economic impacts must demonstrate:
• that the polluting entity, whether privately or pub-
licly owned, would face substantial finam ial
impacts due to the costs of the necessary pollution
controls (substantial impacts or would interfere with
development), and
• that the affected community will bear significant
adverse impacts if the entity is required to meet
existing or proposed water quality standards
(widespread impacts or important development).
This Workbook supplements the description contained
in the Water Quality &andards Handbook, which should be
read first as it contains many important definitions and
descriptions of the regulations. Specific attention should be
paid to Chapters 2 (Designation of Use) and 4
(AntidegradatiOn), which describe the context in which this
guidance is to be used. This Workbook is designed as a
series of worksheets and accompanying guidance to be used
when actually calculating the impacts of pollution control.
The intent of this workbook is to point States and
dischargers in the right direction. It does not give
definitive answers as to whether or not an entity has
demonstrated substantial, widespread, or important
Economic Guidance for Water Quality &andaid& 1-2
-------
economic and social impacts. If a State or discharger has
difficulty with any part of the analysis presented in this
workbook, they should consider seeking the assistance of
a financial expert. In addition, State and regional EPA
water quality staff should feel free to contact EPA
headquarters’ Economic and Statistical Analysis Branch in
the Office of Water for advice and assistance.
The remaining sections of Chapter 1 provide an
overview of the analysis aix! describe various factors aix!
concepts that generally apply to ana1yzin the economic
impacts of compliance with waler quality standards. The
following four chapters provide detailed guidance.
Throughout this Workbook, the term ‘fin ial
impacts” refers to impacts on the entity or party that will
pay for the pollution control, whereas the term
‘socioeconomic impacts’ refers to changes in the social
and/or economic conditions of the affected community.
For public-sector entities, such as a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), substantial impacts include
financial impacts on the community, taking into
consideration current socioeconomic conditions.
Widespread, on the other hand , refers to changes in the
community’s socioeconomic conditions. By contrast, for
private-sector entities, substantial impacts refer to finai ial
impacts and widespread impacts refer to socioeconomic
impacts on the surrounding community. In addition, the
term “applicant’ refers to whomever will actually complete
the economic impact analysis, whether it be the State, an
individual discharger, a consultant, or some other org2niza-
tion.
1.1 Designated Uses, Variances, and Antidegradatlon
Pursuant to the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
CFR 131), States must define statewide water quality goals
by: 1) designating water uses and 2) adopting water
quality criteria that protect the designated uses. When
designating uses, States must consider the use and value of
the waterbody for public water supplies, protection and
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards 1-3
-------
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and
on the water, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes
including navigation. The designated use may or may not
coincide with the existing use, but it cannot reflect lower
water quality than the existing use. As described in the
Water Qu 1ityS andardr Handbook, if the designated use
of a water body is also an existing use, the designated use
cannot be downgraded to one that requires less stringent
water quality criteria. If, however, the designated use is
not an existing use the States may, under certain
circumstanceS, remove the designated u , create new
subcategories of the use, or grant a water quality standard.
Before a designated use is removed a State or a
discharger must conduct and submit a use tt in bility
analysis to EPA. Briefly, a use att insbi1ity analysis is an
assessment of the physical, chemical, biological and, if
necessary, economic factors affecting the 2tt inm nt of a
use. If the analysis shows that, based on any one of these
factors, conditions exist which mal the use unsuitable or
impossible to achieve, then the State may remove the
designated use.
In many cases, a designated but una1t2i use for a
stream segment need not be removed. Instead, individu2l
discbargers may be granted variances from the water
quality standards for a limited lime with the expectation
that they will be able to comply with water quality
standards by the time their variance expires or that an
adjustment in the applicable standards is warranted. A
variance is preferablç to a removal of a designat’d use
since other dischargers, who are capable of meeting the
standards, must comply with the standards through their
permits. In cases where a discharger can meet water
quality based permit limits for some parameters, a variance
would not be granted for those parameters. The variance
procedure is designed to lead to the attainment of the water
quality goals of the Clean Water Act within a reasonable
timeframe.
States are also required to adopt an antidegradalion
policy to protect existing uses, high-quality waters, and
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards 1-4
-------
water quality in waters that are considered to be
outstanding national resources. The antidegradation policy
allows States to lower water quality in higbcr quality
waters (that are not ONRWs) only if it is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social development.
The use of the term “important” communicates a general
sense of the level of economic and social development.
Under no circumstances, may water quality fall below that
required to protect existing or designated uses.
For each of the circumstances descril d above, the
Water Quality Standards Regu lation allows the applicant to
take economic considerations into account. When applying
for a change in a designated use or for a variance, the
applicant must demonstrate that meeting the
fishable/swimmable goals of the Act will cause substantial
and widespread economic and social impacts. The antide-
gradation provision requires that the applicant demonstrate
that important economic or social development would be
prevented unless lower water quality is allowed. In all
three cases, the same general tests of impacts are used.
1.2 PollutIon Sources
The choice of methods used to evaluate the economic
impacts of meeting water quality standards depend, in part,
on whether pollution control is the responsibility of a
privately or a publicly owned entity. Since the polluting
entity or party may not be the one to pay for reductions,
the analyses focus on the party that pays for pollution
control. Some of the more common privately owned
entities include, but are not limited to: manufacturing
facilities, agricultural operations, shopping centers and
other commercial development, residential developments,
and recreational developments. Publicly owned entities
include: publicly owned sewage treatment works, roads,
and other municipal infrastnacture.
Economic Guidance for Woier Quality Standards 1-S
-------
determines not only who will pay for the necessai y
pollution control, but also the types of funding mechanisms
available. For example, in the case of a privately-owned
entity, the facility can raise the money through loans and
equity funds but may try to pass some or all of the cost on
to the consumer in the form of higher prices. In the case
of a publicly-owned entity, the community can float bonds
topay forthe capital costs, with the costofthebonds and
operating expenses covered by user fees and/or tax
revenues. The different impact measures are addressed in
two separate chapters. Chapter Two provides guidance on
public-sector entities and Chaptes Three pm tdes guidance
on private-sector entities.
Whether publicly or privately owned, polluting entities
can be point (direct discharge) or nonpoint (runoff and
erosion) sources of pollution. Attainment of water quality
standards is not limited to controls placed on point sources.
Water quality standards are applicable to nonpoint sources
of pollution despite the fact that there may be no direct
implementation mechanisms for nonpoint sources.
Although pollution control approaches used by nonpoint
sources may differ substantially from approaches typically
employed by point sources, analysis of the ensuing
economic impacts still depends upon whether the entity
providing the pollution control is privately or publicly
owned.
1.3 Substantial Impacts
A financial analysis of the discharger should be
conducted to determine if the capital and the operating and
maintenance costs of pollution control will have a
substantial impact. This analysis is typically performed by
the discharger and reviewed by the Stale, although there
may be cases where the State or some other group
completes the analysis on behaV of the discharger. The
first step is to estimate the capital and the operation and
maintenance costs of the necessary pollution control (see
Figure 1-1). The second step is to determine bow the
entity will finance the necessary reductions, If the entity
is publicly-owned (e.g. a municipal sewage treatment
&onomic Guidance for Water Quality Standartir 1-6
-------
Determining
Figure 1-1:
Steps in the Economic Impact Analysis
Whether Impacts Wifi Be Substantial and Widespread
Determine whether entity or group of entities is
publicly - or pnvacely - owned
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards
-------
plant), the households in the community will bear the cost
either through an increase in user fees, an increase in taxes
or a combination of both. The burden to households
resulting from total annual pollution control costs must be
estimated. In addition, the financial impact analysis must
consider the community’s ability to obtain financing and the
general economic health of the community.
If the entity is privatelyowned (e.g. a manufacturing
facility), the analysis should consider factors such as the
entity’s ability to secure financing and the dejiec to which
it will be able to pass the cost of pollution control on to its
customers in the form of higher prices. The financial
impact analysis of private-sector entities employs a vasiety
of financial ratios and tests. Soi e of these ratios and tests
include benchm2rk values to help in the analy is.
Demonstration of substantial financial impacts is not
sufficient reason to modify a use or grant a variance from
water quality standards. Rather, the applicant must also
demonstrate that compliance would create widespread
socioeconomic impacts on the affected community.
1.4 Widespread Impacts
States and dischargers will need to consider the
possibility that financial impacts could cause far reaching
and serious impacts to the community. An important factor
in deteimining the magnitude of these impacts is defining
the geographical area affected. The affected area might be
a town, city, region, county or some combination of these
geographical units.
Equally impoitant are the types of impacts that might
occur. There are no economic ratios or tests per se to
evaluate socioeconomic impacts. Instead, the relative
magnitude of a group of indicators should be taken into ac-
count. For public-sector entities, the applicant will need to
estimate the change in socioeconomic conditions that would
occur as a result of compliance. Of particular importance
are changes in factors such as median household income,
unemployment, and overall net debt as a percent of full
Economic Gulkmce for Woier Quality &andards 1-8
-------
market value of taxable property. For private-sector
entities, the assessment of widespread impacts should
consider many of the same socioeconomic conditions. The
analysis should also consider the effect of decreased tax
revenues if the private-sector entity were to go out of
business, income losses to the community if workers lose
their jobs, and indirect effects on other businesses.
In some instances, several entities potentially may suffer
substantial impacts. For example, this situation can arise
where several facilities are discharging to a stream segment
that is being considered for a.change in designated use.
While a separate financial analysis should be performed for
each facility, the impacts on all the facilities should be
considered jointly in the analysis of widespread impacts.
1.5 Antidegradation
As with removing a use or granting a variance, eco-
nomic impacts axe considered as pail of an antidegradation
review. While the terminology is different, the tests axe
basically the same. In the first case (discussed in Chapters
2, 3, and 4), a finding of substantial and widespread
economic impacts can be the basis for granting a variance
or changing a designated use. In the case of
antidegradation, the analysis must show that mainthining
high-quality watersu will preclude important economic and
social development. As such, the two cases can be thought
of as two sides of the same coin. Variances and
downgrades refer to situations where additional treatment
to meet standards may result in declining economic and
social conditions, while antidegradation refers to situations
where lowering water quality may result in improved social
and economic conditions.
When performing an antidegradation analysis, the first
question is whether the costs of the pollution controls
needed to maintain the high-quality water will interfere
with the development. If not, then lower water quality is
flQI necessary” for the development to take place. If, on
the other hand , the costs will interfere with the
development and lower water quality un swyu for the
Economic Guidance/or Water Quality Standardr 1-9
-------
development to take place, then the analysis must show that
the development would be an important economic and
social development. These two steps rely on the same test
as the determination of substantial and widespread
economic and social impacts.
1.6 Orpnlzation of the Rest of the Workbook
The remainder of this Workbook addresses the
measurement of economic impacts. In Chapter 2, guidance
is presented to assist applicants in evaluating financial
impacts on public-sector entities. Chapt 3 presents
guidance on evaluating financial impacts on private-sector
entities. Chapter 4 provides a discussion of how to assess
whether impacts are widespread as well as substantial. This
discussion includes both public-sector and private-sector
entities. Chapter 5 applies the concepts developed in
Chapters 2,3, and 4 to antidegradation.
Worksheets axe included in each chapter that will assist
the reader in calculating potential impacts. Chapters 2 and
3 include worksheets for. 1) estimation of annu’Ii’ed costs
of pollution control, and 2) evaluation of the financial
burden of pollution control. Chapter 4 includes worksheets
that can be used in the evaluation of whether the impacts
on the entity(ies) will result in widespread economic and
social impacts. Chapter 5 includes worksheets for
determining if impoitant social and economic development
might be lost.
In addition to presenting step by step guidance on how
to estimate impacts, several of the worksheets provide
benchmark comparisons that allow an assewnent of the
magnitude and relative importance of potential impacts.
These worksheets, however, should not be used in
isolation. Discussion of key sources of information,
important entity and community attributes, and
interpretation of results arc found only in the accompanying
text. Applicants, and State Water Quality staff charged
with reviewing the application, should be sure to read all
text accompanying the worksheets. While Chapter 2
addresses public-sector trea ent requirements, if a
Economic Guidance for Woier Quality Standards 1-10
-------
substantial portion of the costs of a public facility is borne
by a private entity (such as a manufacturing facility that
pays substantial user charge fees to a POTW), both
chapters 2 and 3 should be referred to.
In all cases, the determination of economic and social
impacts must be made on a case by case basis. This
determination, therefore, requires the application of good
judgement as well as use of the guidance provided in this
workbook. Additional information and tests may be
required in order to measure the size and extent of the
impacts. Applicants should be.aware tharihey will be
required to supply documentation to substantiate their claim
of substantial and widespread economic and social impacts.
In addition to background data, however, this documen-
teflon should include a brief written description of why the
applicant believes economic and social impacts will occur.
Economic Guidance/or Water Quality Standards 1-11
-------
2. EVALUATING SUBSTAN’llAL IMPACTS:
PUBLIC SECTOR ENTITIES
Public entities seeking relief from meeting water quality
standard requirements must demonstrate that the cost of
required water pollution control will result in substantial
impacts and that there will be “widespread” adverse social
and economic impacts if they axe required to meet these
standards. For the purposes of this workbook, a public
entity refers to any governmental unit that must comply
with pollution control requirements in order to meet water
quality standards. The most common example is a
municipality or sewage authority operating a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) that must be upgraded or
expanded. Municipalities, however, may also be required
to control other point sources or nonpoint sources of
pollution within their jurisdiction. The procedures outlined
in this chapter apply to all types of publicly financed
projects that may be required to meet water quality
standards. Throughout this chapter, the term
“State/discharger” refers to whoever will actually conduct
the financial and socioeconomic impact analysis for the
public entity, whether it be the State, the municipality, a
consultant or some other organization.
The remainder of this chapter details methodologies and
sources of information for determining the financial
viability of publicly financed projects. Several worksheets
are presented that will assist in demonstrating substantial
impacts. States/dischargers are referred to Chapter 4 for
guidance on demonstrating widespread impacts. Readers
should keep in mind that the guidance in this chapter is not
meant to be exhaustive. The State and/or EPA may require
additional information or tests in order to evaluate whether
substantial and widespread impacts will occur. In addition,
the State/discharger should feel free to include any
additional information they think is relevant.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the evaluation of substantial
impacts resulting from public entity compliance with water
quality standards includes two elements, 1) financial
Economic Guidance for Woier Quoiuy Standards
-------
impacts to the public entity and 2) current socioeconomic
conditions of the community. Governments have the
authority to levy taxes and distribute pollution control costs
among households and businesses according to the tax base.
Similarly, sewage authorities charge for services, and thus
can recover pollution control costs through users fees. In
both cases, a substantial impact will usually affect the
wider community. Whether or not the community faces
substantial impacts depends on both the cost of the
pollution control and the general financial and economic
health of the community.
If the public entity passes a significant portion of the
pollution control costs along to private facilities or finns,
then the review procedwes outlined in Chapter 3 of this
woitbook should also be consulted to determine the impact
on the private entities. Both public and private entities
should consult Chapter 4 for guidance on how to e m2tc
potential widepread impacts on the community.
This chapter focuses on ways to determine if the costs
of the proposed project will likely result in substantial
impacts. To m2ke this determination the Stateldischarger
will need to complete a five step analysis. As shown in
Figure 2-1 the first step in the process is to es in te the
cost of the pollution contml project and calculate the annual
cost of the proposed pollution control project. The second
step is to calculate the total annual pollution control cost
per household, which includes the cost of the project and
existing pollution control costs. In the third step, the
Municipal PreliminaTy Screener is ca1cI112t d, which
quickly identifies entities that clearly will not experience
substantial impacts due to the cost of the necessary
pollution control. If it is not clear whether there will be
substantial impacts, entities should proceed to the fourth
step, which is the calculation of the Secondary Test. In
this step public entities will need to provide financial and
socioeconomic information. For example, the ability of the
community to finance the project may depend on existing
financial conditions in the community such as debt per
capita and the community’s bond rating. The
socioeconomic health of the community prior to the
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Siandardr 2-2
-------
project’s constniction will also be an important indicator of
whether the pollution control would impose a substantial
impact on the community. The fifth and final step of
determining whether impacts are “substantial” is evaluating
where the community falls in the impacts matrix. This
matrix takes into consideration the Municipal Preliminary
Screener and the Secondary Test score. Later, in Chapter
4, estimated changes in socioeconomic health indicators
will be reviewed to evaluate the extent to which the impacts
can be considered widespread.
The remainder of this chapter is divined into five
sections that detail the essential steps of an evaluation of
substantial impacts for publicly financed projects. Figure
2-1 illustrates the steps and decision points in this process.
The five steps ale:
Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual
Cost of’ the Pollution Control Project - This
section discusses factors that should be considered
when selecting a pollution control project. It also
describes the type of general information about the
proposed project that should be provided. In
addition, it discusses how to annualize capital costs
of the project and calculate total annual costs of the
pollution control project.
• Calculate Total Annualized Pollution Control
Costs Per Household - This section outlines the
calculation of total annual pollution control costs
per household. The costs of the proposed project
and existing pollution control aie included.
• Calculate and Evaluate the Municipal
Prelimin2ry Screener Score - This section
explains the “screener” which identifies only those
communities that clearly will not face any
substantial impacts.
• Apply the Seonndary Test - This measurement
incorporates a chazacterization of the community’s
current financial and socioeconomic well-being.
Economic Guidance for Wwer Quality Standards 2-3
-------
Figure 2 -1:
Measuring Substantial Impacts
(Public Entities)
D w
mumcap.lity will iceur
ibsungial impla bed an
the cast of polluflan
seal the chaiictcflzation of
munidpslitys asrrent
financial and wck ww c
well-being
No S’ ’
—I—
hi U
Use guidance in ChIr.r 3 if
cen-.esidatäsl costs see
anticipated so be substantial
ResidentiaL thdusMal.
Commesuial, Others
Residovioh Cons
I-
liii clear that municipality
will ant face w 1
economic imp tI ?
— —
— —
Pranced to analysis of
widespread impacts in
a 4
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards
-------
• Assess where the community falls in The
Substantial Impacts Matrix - This matrix
evaluates whether or not communities are expected
to incur substantial economic impacts due to the
implementation of the pollution control costs. If the
applicant cannot demonstrate substantial impacts,
then they will be required to meet existing water
quality standards. If impacts are expected to be
substantial, then the applicant goes on to
demonstrate whether they are also expected to be
widespread.
2.1 Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual
Cost of the Pollution Control Project.
Before the impact analysis can be performed, the project
costs should be verified and then annual costs calculated.
2.1.a Verify Project Costs
The first step of an economic analysis of a publicly
financed project is an evaluation of the proposed project.
Public entities should consider a broad range of discharge
management options including pollution prevention, end-of-
pipe treatment, and upgrades or additions to existing
treatment. Specific types of pollution prevention activities
that should be considered are:
• Public Education;
• Change in Raw Materials;
• Substitution of Process Chemicals;
• Change in Process;
• Water Recycling and Reuse; and
• Pretreatment Requirements.
Many of these approaches are particularly relevant to
industrial indirect discharges to the public system.
Whatever the approach, the applicant must demonstrate that
the proposed project is the most appropriate means of
meeting water quality standards and must document project
cost estimates. If at least one of the treatment alternatives
Economic Guidance for Wwer Quality Standards 2-S
-------
that meets water quality standards will not have a
substantial financial impact, then the community should not
proceed with the analysis presented in the rest of this
workbook. General information regarding the proposed
pollution control project and other projects considered
should be supplied in Worksheet A.
The most cost-effective approach to meeting water
quality standards should be considered. Submissions
should include assumptions about excess capacity,
population growth, and consideration of alternative
technologies where appropriate. The most accurate
estimate of project costs may be available from the
discharger’s design engineers. If site-specific engineering
cost estimates are not av2il2hle, prelimin project cost
estimates can be derived from a comparable project in the
State or from the judgement of experienced water pollution
control engineers. (See Appendix A for sources of
engineering cost information.) Capital, operation and
maintenance (O&M), and other project costs can be
summarized using Worksheet B. For comparative
purposes, cost estimates (e.g. capital, O&M, other project
costs) for each alternative being considered should be
presented in the same units (typically annnali,ed costs,
SIyr) and for the same year. The next section explains
how to annH2lz project costs.
For illustrative purposes, the example of a local
government upgrading their existing wastewater treatment
facility in order to meet water quality standards is used
throughout this chapter. Details of this example may differ
significantly from other projects undertaken to meet water
quality objectives. Other types of public-sector water
pollution control, however, would be analyzed in a imiI r
fashion using the worksheets included in this chapter.
2.1.b Calculate the Annual Costs of the Pollution
Control Project
Since capital costs typically will be paid over several
years, annu2li7 costs aze used in the evaluation of
economic burden to the community. The capital portion of
F.cononzic Guidance for Wwer Quality Srandard.c 2-6
-------
Worksheet A
Pollution Control Project Summpry Information
Current Capacity of the Pollution Control System
Design Capacity of the Pollution Control System
Current Excess Capacity
Expected Excess Capacity after Completion of Project
Projected Groundbreaking Date
Projected Daze of Completion
%
%
Please describe the pollution control project being proposed below. (Attach additional page if necessary).
Please describe the other pollution control options considered, expliining wbyeach option was rejected.
(Attach additional page if necessary).
-------
Worksheet B
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Costs
A. Capita) Costs
Capital Cost of Project
Other One-Time Costs of Project (Please List, if any):
Total Capital Costs (Sum a,lumn)
Portion of Capital Costs to be Paid for with Grant Monies
Capital Costs to be Financed [ Calculate: (1) - (2) J
Type of finanring (e.g., GO. bond, revenue bond, bank loan)
Interest Rate for Financing (expressed as decimal)
Time Period of Financing (in years)
Annualization Factor — _______ • i (or see Appendix B)
(1+1)11 —
Aunu.li’ed Capital Cost [ Calculate: (3) x (4)]
B. Operatii and Maintan ice Costs
Annual Costs of Operation and Mainranance (including but not limited to: monitoring, inspection,
permitting fees, waste disposal charges, repair, adminit ation and replac inent.) (Please list below)
C. Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project [ (5) + (6) J
S
S
S
S
S
(6)
Is
$
S
.‘
S
S
.
S
(I)
S
•
(2)
S.
(3)
.•
c )
(n)
(4)
•
(5)
$
Total Annual 0 & M Costs (Sum column)
-------
project costs is typically financed over approximately 20
years, by issuing a municipal debt instrument such as a
general obligation bond or a revenue bond. Local
governments may also finance capital costs using bank
loans, state infrastructure loans (revolving, funds), or
federally subsidized loans (such as those offered by the
Farmers’ Home Administration).
It should be noted that interest tales used to annualize
cpsts are dependent on the type of debt instrument used as
well as the recipient’s credit standing. For example,
v venue bonds typically are financed at a fightly higher
interest rate because of their dependence on revenues from
services as opposed to being guaranteed by the full faith
*nd credit of the jurisdiction. Because interest rates affect
the interest payment and thus the annnali7ed capital cost of
the project, it is important that the interest rate used, on
Worksheet B reflects the debt instrument (i.e. municipal
bond, commercial bank loan, state revolving fund loan, or
other instrument) likely to be used by the municipality.
The calculation of total annualized cost of the project is
presented in Worksheet B. First, capital costs are summed
and the portion of costs to be paid for with grant monies
are deducted, as these costs will not need to be financed.
Next, the annuali tion factor is calculated using the
formula supplied on Worksheet B, or the annuali ation
factor is found in Appendix B. Annuali,!ed capital cost is
then calculated by multiplying the total capital costs to be
financed by the annualization factor.
Next, annual operating and maintenance costs are
summed, and the total is 2MM to the annualized capital
cost. These costs should include the costs of monitoring,
inspection, permitting fees, waste disposal cha ges, repair;
administration, replacement, and any other recurring costs.
All recurring costs should be stated in terms of dollars per
year. The sum of the ‘aflnnali7ed capital’ cost and total
annual operating and maintenance costs is the total annual
cost of the project. In the next section, the annualizrid
costs paid by households in the community are calculated.
&o omic Guidance for Woier Qualiry Standards 2-9
-------
2.2 Calculate Total Annualized Pollution Control
Costs Per Household
in order to assess the burden that total pollution control
costs are expected to have on households, an average
annualized pollution control cost per household should be
calculated for all households in the community that would
bear project costs. In order to evaluate substantial impacts,
therefore, the analysis must establish which households will
actually pay for pollution control as well as what
proportion of the costs will be borne by hcu holds. These
apportioned project costs are .then added to existing
pollution control costs paid by households.
It is important to first define the affected community.
The community’ is the governmental jurisdiction
responsible for paying compliance costs. In practice,
pollution control projects may serve several communities or
just portions of a community, In the case of a sewage
agency serving several communities, once project costs are
allocated to each community served, the economic analysis
is conducted on a community by community bask . In the
case of a community in which only a portion of the
community is served, the affected community is defined as
those who will pay the compliance costs. In such cases , it
may be difficult to obtain socioeconomic data for just part
of the community and data for the cuthe community may
be used instead. The area that is affected may not be the
same as the area that is paying, therefore it may be
appropriate to evaluate widespread impacts, described in
Chapter 4, over a community that is defined differently
than the paying community.
If project costs were estimated for some prior year,
these costs should be adjusted upward to reflect current
year prices using the average annual national Consumer
Price index (CPI) inflation rate for the period. The CN
inflation rate is available from the Bureau of Labor
St2tktics. An additional source i ,oning the CPI inflation
rate is the CPI Detailed Report, which is published monthly
by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards 2-10
-------
The ratio of the current CPI to the CPI for the year of
the cost estimates indicates how much costs have increased
over the period. This ratio can be applied to the cost
estimates to “bring them up to current year costs.”
Likewise, there are engineering cost indices that can be
used for this purpose.
If project costs are not distributed simply according to
wastewater flow or tax revenues, then consideration should
be given to separately analyzing the impacts on users who
pay a disproportionate share of the costs. This situation
can arise, for example, where industrial disithargers to a
sewer system are assessed pollutant surcharges to pay for
their share of the cost of advanced treatment necessitated
by the presence of their pollutants. Remaining costs would
then be split among households according to wastewater
flow or tax revenues, whichever is appropriate. The total
amount of the pollution control project to be recouped by
surcharges should, therefore, be removed from the total
project cost before costs are allocated according to
wastewater flow or tax revenues.
In calculating the total annual cost of pollution control
per household, current costs of pollution control must. be
considered along with the projected annual costs of the
proposed pollution control project. The existing cost per
household usually can be obtained from the most recent
municipal records. For example, it can be found in the
sewer enterprise fund accounts for communities that
maintain a separate enterprise fund. It is not necessary, in
such cases , to sum all the cost components. Instead, use
the most recent operating revenues, divided by the number
of households served. In cases where the community does
not maintain a separate enterprise fund for sewers, the cost
elements can be pimmed from the consolidated statement
for the community. If the portion of proposed project costs
that households are expected to pay is b’own or is expected
to remain unchanged, then use Worksheet C to calculate
the total annual cost of pollution contsol per household. If
the portion paid by households is based on flow, then
should refer to Worksheet C: Option A as well.
Economic Guidance for Woier Qualiry SsandartLc 2-11
-------
Worksheet C
S
$
Calculation of Total Annual Pollution Control Costs
Per Household
A. Current Pollution Control Costs:
Total Annual Cost of Existing Pollution Control
Amount of Existing Costs Paid By Households
Percent of Existing Costs Paid By Households
Number of Households
Annual Cost Per Household [ Calculate: (2)/(4) 1
Do not use number of hook-ups.
B. New Pollution Control Costs
(1)
(2)
%(3)
(4)
S (5)
Are households expected to provide rcvcnu for the new pollution control project in the same proportion
that they support existing pollution control? (Check a, b or c and continue as directed.)
percent.(6a)
percent.(6b)
o a) Yes (fill in percent from (3)]
o b) No. they arc expected to pay
o C) No, they are expected to pay based on flow. (Continue on Worksheet C, Option A)
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project [ Line (7), Worksheet B) $
Proportion of Costs Households Are Expected to Pay [ (6a) or (6b)]
Amount to Be Paid By Households [ Calculate: (7) a (8)]
Annual Cost per Household (Calculate: (9)1(4) 1
S
(7)
(8)
(9)
S (10)
C. Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Per Household (5) + (10) s
(ll)j
-------
Worksheet C: Option A
Calculation of Total Annual Pollution Control Costs Per Household
Based on Flow
A. Calculating Project Costs Incurred By Households Based on Flow
Expected Total Usage of Project (eg. MCD for Wastewater Treaunent) ( 1 )
Usage due to Household Use (MCD of Household Wastewater) ( 2 )
Percent of Usage due to Household Use lcalculate: (2) /(1)) %(3 )
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project
Industrial Surcharges, if any
Costs to be Allocated [ Calculate: (4) - (5) 1
Amount to Be Paid By Households [ Calculate: (3) x (6)]
Annuai Project Cost per Household [ Calculate: (7)/Worksheet C, (4)]
C. Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household
Annual Existing Costs Per Household [ Worksheet C, (5)]
S
(4)
S
(5)
S
(6)
S
(7)
5
(8)
S
(9)
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Per Household [ (8) + (9))
-------
The cost per household as a percent of median
household income is used in Section 2.3 as a screener to
quickly identify those communities that clearly will not face
substantial impacts due to pollution control. For guidance
in estimating impacts on non-household users (e.g.,
industrial, commercial), refer to Chapter 3.
2.3 Calculate and Evaluate The Municipal
Prelimin nj Screener Value
Whether or not the community is expected to incur
‘substantial” economic impacts-due to the pdtlution control
project is determined by jointly considering theresults of
two tests. The first test is a ‘screener’ to establish whether
the community can clearly pay for the project without
incurring any substantial impacts. The Municipal
PleliminMy Screener estimates the total annual pollution
control costs per household (existing costs plus those
attributable to the proposed project) as a percentage of
median household income. The screener is written as
follows:
Mumapasrreuminarv3creener
Average Total PollutE on ConirolCos:perHousehold
Median Household income
Median household income information for many
municipalities is available from the 1990 Census of
Population. If median household income is not av ilihle
for the current year, it should be estimated for the current
year by using the CPI inflation rate for the period between
the year that median household income is available and the
current year. To calculate the inflation rate over the
relevant period, use the ‘percent change from the previous
annual average’ (annual inflation rate) presented in the CPI
Detailed Report. For example, if the current year is 1993,
1990 is the most recent year that median household income
is available, and the percentage changes for the 1990,
1991, and 1992 annual averages respectively are: 5.2, 4.1
and 2.9, the adjustment factor equals:
Economic Guidance for Wwer Quality Standards
-------
Adjustment Factor = 1.052 1.041 * 1.029 = 1.13
Adjusted Median Household Income =
Median Household Income * Adjustment Factor
Depending on the results of the screener, the community
is expected to incur little, mid-range, or large economic
impacts due to the proposed project (see Workshe D).
If the total annual cost per household (existing annual cost
per household plus the incremental cost bted to the
proposed project) is less than .1.0 percent of median
household income, it is assumed that the project is not
expected to impose a substantial economic hardship on
households. The screener is therefore set at 1.0 percent of
median household income. Communities with screener
results of less than 1.0 but still fairly close to 1.0,
however, may still want to proceed to the Secondary Test.
Communities arc expected to incur mid-range impacts
when the ratio of total annual compliance costs to median
household income is between 1.0 and 2.0 percent. If the
average annual cost per household exceeds 2.0 percent of
median household income, then the project may place an
unreasonable financial burden on many of the households
within the community. In either usc, communities move
on to the Secondary affordability Test to demonstrate
substantial impacts. For example, assume that Community
XYZ has a screener of 2.3 percent. Although it appears
that the community faces large impacts, substantial impacts
have not necessarily been demonstrated and the community
must proceed to the next step and apply the Secondaiy
Test. Dischargers with screener values well below 1.0
percent are assumed to be able to pay for pollution control
without incurring any substantial economic impacts and aie
required to meet existing water quality standards. They do
not need to proceed to the Secondary Test (see Figure 2-1).
2.4. Apply Secendary Test
The Secondary Test is designed to build upon the
characterization of the financial burden identified in the
Economic Guidance for Wwer Quality Standards 2-li
-------
Worksheet D
Municipal Preliminary Screener
The Municipai Preliminary Screener indicates quickly whether a public entity will incur any
substantial economic impacts as a result of the proposed pollution control project. The formula is as
follows:
Total Annual Pollution Control Cost per Household
Median Household Income x 100
A. Calculation of The Municipal I 4 eliminary Screener
Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household [ Worksheet C, (11) or $
Worksheet C, Option A (10)]
Median Household Income
Municipal Preliminary Screener (Calculate: [ (1)1(2)] x 100)
B. Evaluation of The Municipal Preliminary Screener
If the Municipal Preliminary Screener is clearly less than 1.0%, then it is assumed that the cost will not
impose an undue financial burden. In this case, it is not necessary to continue with the Secondary Test.
Otherwise, it is necessary to continue.
Benchmark Comparison:
blue Impact
Less than 1.0%
Indication of no
substantial
economic impacts
Mid-Range Impact Lai e Imp f
1.0%-2.0% Greaxerthan2 .0%
Proceed to Secondary Test
(1).
S
(2)
I
1990 Census adjusted by CPI inflation rate if necessary.
-------
Municipal Preliminary Screener. The Secondary Test
indicates the community’s ability to obtain financing and
describes the socioeconomic health of the community.
Indicators describe precompliancedebt, socioeconomic, and
financial management conditions in the community. Using
these indicators and the scoring system described below,
the impact of the cost of pollution control is esiim d .
Specifically, applicants are required to present the
following six indicators for the community:
Debt Indicators
• Bond Rating (if available) - a measure of credit
worthiness of the community;
• Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value
of Taxable Property - a measure of debt burden on
residents within the community;
QnQ
• Unemployment Rate - a measure of the general
economic health of the community;
• Median Household Income - a measure of the
wealth of the community;
Financial M2n gement Indicators
• Property Tax Revenue as a Percent of Full Market
Value of Taxable Property - a m ure of the
funding capacity av2ilAhle to support debt based Qn
the wealth of the community; and
• Property Tax Collection Rate - a measure of how
well the local government is tlmiiiiiternd.
A more detailed description of the six mdicaton , as well
as alternative indicators for states with property tax
limitations, are presented below. Table 2-1 summarizes the
indicators and what is considered to be a strong, mid-
range, or weak rating.
&onomic Guidance for Wwer Qualiry Szandarth 2-17
-------
Debt Indicators
Bond Rating
Current ratings for the community summarize a bond
rating agency’s assessment of a community’s credit
capacity. The ratings generally reflect current financial
conditions. If security enhancements like bond insurance
have been used for the bond issue, however, the bond
rating on a particular issue may be higher than local
conditions justify. Only ratings for unin sumd bonds,
therefore, should be used.
Many small and medium sized communities have not
used debt financing for projects and, as a result, have no
bond rating. The absence of a bond rating does not
indicate strong or weak financial health. When a bond
rating is not available, this indicator should not be included
in the analysis of substantial impacts. When available, the
rating for the most recent general obligation bond should be
used. If a general obligation bond has not been issued
recently, the most recent raring for a sewer bond should be
used. Recent bond r tiiigs are included in municipal bond
reports from rating agencies (e.g., Macdy’s Bond Reco,d,
&anda,d and Pact’s Corporation).
Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Pull Market Value of
I ak 1
Overall Net Debt is debt repaid by prepeity taxes. It
excludes debt that is repaid by special user fees (e.g.
revenue debt). This indicator provides a re of debt
burden on residents within the community and measures the
ability of local government jurisdictions to issue additional
debt. It includes the debt issued directly by the local
jurisdiction and debt of overlapping entities, such as school
districts. It compares the level of debt owed by the
community with the full market value of real property used
to support that debt and serves as a measure of the
community’s wealth.
Economic Guidance for Water Quality &andwth 2-18
-------
Debt information is available from the financial
statement of each community. In most cases, recent
financial statements are on file with the State (e.g., State
Auditor’s Office). Overlapping debt may or may not be
provided in a community’s financial statements. The
property assessment data (assessment ratio) should be
readily available through the community or the State
Assessor’s Office. The boundary of the affected
community generally conforms to one or more community
boundaries. Therefore, prorating community data to reflect
specific service area boundaries is not normally necessary
for evaluating the general financial capability of the
affected community.
Socioeconomic indicators
Unemployment Rate
The unemployment late is defined as the percent of a
community’s labor force currently unemployed. If the
uüemployment raze in the service area is not available, the
encompassing county’s rate may be used as a substitute.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) maintains current
unemployment rare figures for municipalities and counties.
National unemployment data is also needed for comparison
purposes. This information can be obtained fiui the BLS
are available by request at (202) 606-6392. A community’s
unemployment rare is considered to be below the national
average if it is more than 1 % below the national average.
Similaily, a community’s unemployment rate is considered
to be above the national average if it is more than 1 %
above the national unemployment rate. If the community’s
employment rate is equal to the national avenge
unemployment rate, plus or minus 1%, then the
community’s unemployment rate is assessed as being equal
to the national rate.
Median Household Income
Median household income (MRI) is defined as the
median of the total income dollara received per household
during a calendar year in a given area. It serves as an
&onomic Guidance for Wwer Quality Standards 2-19
-------
overall indicator of community spending capacity. Median
household income, which was also used in the screener
process, is available from the 1990 Census or through state
data centers. The state value is also needed for comparison
purposes. If a community’s median household income is
more than 10% below the state’s median household
income, then it is considered to be below the state’s
median. If a community’s median household income is
more than 10% above the state’s median, then it is
considered to be above the state med!an value. If,
however, the community’s median household income is
equal to the state median, plus or minus 10%, then the
coinniumty’s median household income is assessed as being
equal to the state’s median household income.
F nanclal Management Indicators
Property Tax Revenues as a Percent of Full Market
Value of Taxable Property
This indicator can be referred to as the pwpelty tax
burdcn since it indicates the funding capacity to support
new expenditures, based on the wealth of the community.
Some states and local jurisdictions may have estab1ish d
legal limits on the amount of property taxes that can be
levied as a percent of full market or assessed value of seal
property. Property assessment data should be re ñily
av2ilahle through the community or the State Assessor’s
Office. Property tax revenues are available in
communities’ annual financial statements.
Property Tax Revenue Collection Rate
This rate is an indicator of the efficiency of the tax
collection system and a measure of how well the local
goveniment is administered. It compares the actual amount
collected from property taxes to the amount levied.
Property taxes levied can be computed by multiplying the
assessed value of real propert , by the property tax rate,
both of which axe available from a community’s financial
statements or the State Assessor’s Oftice.
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standardr 2-20
-------
Alternative Indicators for States with
Property Tax Limitations
Two of the indicators may not be appropriate
in states with statutory limits on property tax
collections and/or i Ies, or where data on full-
market value of taxable property are not
available.
The first of these indicators - The Overaji Net
Debt as Percent of Full MEket Value of
Taxable Property - can be replaced with:
Overall Nat Debt Per Capita
In calculating the Secondary Score, the
following istings for Overall Net Debt Per
Capita should be used:
Greater than $3,000 weak 1
$l,000-S3,000 = mid-range = 2
LessthanS l,000 iong = 3
The second of these indicators - Property Tax
Revenues as a Percent of Full-Market Value of
Taxable Property — has no appropriate
substitute in cases where property taxes are at
their limit OT where full-market value of
taxable property cannot be estimated . In such
cases, this indicator should be dropped and the
other five factors are assigned equal weights.
These six indicators are then used to form a composite
assessment of the community’s economic health and the
financial impact of the required project. Worlisheat E can
be used to record each indicator. For each of the six
indicators, the community is rated as weak, mid-range, or
strong, bas on the thresholds presented in Table 2-1.
Economic Guidance for Wwer Qualiry Swndards 2-21
-------
Worksheet E
Data Used in the Secondary Test
Please list the following values used in determining the Secondary Score. Potential sources of the data
are indicated.
Potential Source
Community Financial Statements
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
Community Financial St nients
Town, County or State Assesor’s Office $
Community Financial Statements
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
Standard and Poors or Moody’s
a
1990 Census of Population
Regional Data Centers
Bureau of Labor Statistics
(202) 606.6392
1990 Census of Population
1990 Census of Population
Community Financial St ments
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office —
Community Financial Statements
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office $
S
S
Value
(I)
(2)
A. Data Collection
Data
Direct Net Debt
Overlapping Debt
Market Value of Property
Bond Rating
Community Unemployment
Rate
National Unemployment
Rate
Community Median
Household Income
State Median Household
Income
Property Tax Collection
Rate
Property Tax Revenues
(3)
(4)
%(5)
%(6)
(ST)
(8)
% 9 )
(10)
-------
Worksheet E, Continued
B. Calculation of Indicators
1. Ov i1l Net Debt s a Plrupit of FUll Market Value of Taxable Prupely
Overall Net Debt (Calculate: (1) + (2)) $ (11)
Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of ‘taxable
Property (Calculate: [ (11)1(3)] x 100)
E
2. Propety Tax Rev ve, as a east of FUll Market Value of Taxable Propely
Property Tax Revenues a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable [ ]
Property (Calculate: ((10)1(3)] x 100)
-------
For example, if a community’s median household income
equals $15,000 and the state’s median household incomç
equals $17,000, the community would be considered weak’
on this measure. IS, however, the community’s median
household income were $19,000, jhen the. community
would be considered strong on this measure.
Next, a Secondary Score is calculated for the comiunity
by weighting each indicator equally and assigning a value
of I to each indicator judged to be weak, a 2 to each
indicator judged to be mid-range and a 3 tO each ‘stiong
indicator. A cumulative assessment score itarrived at by
summing the individual scores and dividing by the number
of factors used. Worksheet F, provided at the end of
Section 2.4, guides the applicant throughthis calculation..
The cumulative assessment score is evaluated as follows:
• less than 1.5 is considered weak
• between 1.5 and 2.5 is considered mid-range
• greater than 2.5 is considered strong
For example, consider a Community XYZ, which has:
• a weak ratio of overall net debt to full
market valueof taxableproperty = 1,
• aweakbondrating=1,
• a mid-range unemployment rate = 2,
• a mid-range median household income =2,
• a strong property tax collection rate = 3,
and
• a strong ratio of property tax revenues to
full market value of taxable property =3.
[ (1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 3)16] = 2
The Secondary Score for Community XYZ, equal to 2,
falls into the mid-range category.
If the applicant is not able to develop one or more of the
six indicators, they must provide an explanation as to why
the indicator is not appropriate or not available. Since the
point of the analysis is to measure the overall burden to the
Economic Guidance for Wwer Quality S:andardr 224
-------
Worksheet F
Calculating The Secondal7 Score
Please check the appropriate box in each row, end record the corresponding score in the final column. Then, Slim the SCO1 ! and Compute the average.
Rewendier , if one of the debt or socioeconomic indicators is not available, average the two financial management indicators and use this averaged value as
a single indicator with the iemiiiii g indicators.
Secondary Indicatone
j jc
Weak
Mid-Range”
Strong’”
Bond Rating
Worsk,beet 5, (4)
.
Below BBB (S&P)
Below Baa (Moody’.)
0
BBB (S&P)
Baa (Moody’.)
0
Above DBB (S&P) or
Baa (Moody’.)
0
Overall Net Debt UI t
of Full Market Value of
Taxable Property
Worksheet E,(l2)
Above 5%
0
2%-5%
0
Below 2%
0
.
Unemployment
WorktheetE,(S)&(6)
Above National Average
0
National Average
0
Below National Average
0
Median household Income
Workthee tE,(7)&(8)
Below State Median
0
State Median
0
Above State Median
0
Pru,eily Tax Revenues as a
of Full Market
ValueofTanb le l’iuparty
Worksheet 5, (13)
Above 4%
0
2%-4%
0
.
Below 2%
0
Pnly Tax Collection
Rate
WorksireetE, 9)
<94%
0
94%-9 8%
0
>98%
0
‘MId-Range lsascorèof2polnt
Strong is a score of 3 points
AVERAGE
‘
Score
Weakisascoreofl point
I
-------
community, the debt and socioeconomic indicators a e
assumed to be better measures of burden than the financial
management indicators. Consequently, if one of the debt
or socioeconomiC indicators is not available, the
State/discharger should average the two financial
management indicators and use this averaged value as a
single indicator with the remaining indicators. ‘Ibis
averaging is necessary so that undue weight is not given to
the financial management indicators.
Economic Guidance for Wwer Qualily S:andard.r
-------
Table 2 -1
Secondary Indicators
Secondary Indicators
Indicator
Weak
Mid-Range
Strong
Bond Rating
Below EBB (S&P)
Below Baa
(Moody’s)
EBB (S&P)
Baa (Moody’s)
Above EBB (S&P)
or Baa (Moody’s)
Overall Net Debt
asPercentofFull
Market Value of
Taxable Property
•.
Above5%
2%-5%
Below2%
Unemployment
More than 1 %
above National
Average
National Average
Moie than I %
below National
Average
Median Household
Income
Moie than 10%
below State Median
State Median
More than 10%
above State Median
Property Tax
Revenues as a
PercentofFull
Market Value Of
Taxable Property
Abóve4%
2%-4%
Below2%
Property Tax
CollectionRate
<94%
94%-98%
>98%
Economic Guidance for Woier Quality standards
2-27
-------
2.5 Assess Where the Community Falls in The
Substantial Impacts Matrix
The results of the two tests are considered jointly in
detennining whether the community is expected to incur
substantial impacts due to the proposed pollution control
project.
In the following matrix, the cumulative assessment score
for the community is combined with the estimated
household burden. The combination of factors establishes
whether impacts can be expected.to be substantial. In the
example of Community XYZ, their screener equaled 2.3
percent and their cumulative assessment score equaled 2.
They are, therefore, in the middle cell in the far right
column and thus have a rating of in the matrix
presented below (Table 2-2).
In the matrix, X’ indicit s that the impact is likely to
be substantial. The closer the community is to the uwer
right hand corner of the matrix, the greater the impact.
Similarly, P indicates that the impact is not likely to be
substantial. The closer to the lower left hand corner of the
matrix, the smaller the impact. Finally, the ‘ indicates
that the impact is unclear.
Economic Guidance for Wwer Qualir Standards 2-28
-------
Table 2-2
Assessment of Substantial Impacts Matrix
Less than 1.0 Percent
Between 1.0 and
2.0 Percent
Greater than
2.0 Percent
?
X
X
/
.
7
X•
For communities that fall into the ? category, if the
results of both the Secondaiy Test and the Municipal
Preliminary Screener are borderline, then the community
should move into the category closest to it. Take, for
example, a community that falls into the center box, with
a cumulative assessment score of between 1.5 and 2.5 and
a percent of median household income (M l ii) between 1.0
and 2.0. If the cumulative score was 1.6 and the percent
of Ml i i was 1.8, then the community should be considered
to fall into one of the adjacent ‘X’ categories. If results
are not borderline, other factors such as the impact on low
or fixed income households, the presence of a f2iling local
industry, and other projects the community would have to
forgo in order to comply with water quality standards
should be considered. Relevant additional information
might include information coliected from interviews with
municipal financial officers, special reports on industry
trends that may affect local employers, and specific
financial and economic indicators. The State/discharger
should provide any additional information they feel is
relevant. This additional information will be critical where
the matrix results are not conclusive.
EPA will interpret a ‘I rating to mean that the
community is not expected to incur substantial impacts as
Secondary
Score
Municipal Preliminary Screener
Less than 1.5
Between 1.5 and
2.5
Greater than 2.5
/
/
9
Economic Guidance/or Wwer Qualiry Standard,
2-29
-------
a result of the pollution control project. Communities
falling into this category not be able to justify water quality
standards providing for less protection than the
fishable/swimmable goals of the Act, and will not be able
to justify degradation of high quality waters. If the
applicant State/discharger disagrees with the results of the
Secondary Test, they may present additional information to
the Regional EPA Administrator documenting the unique
circumstances of the community. Since the impacts are not
substantial, there is no need to demonstrate widespread
impacts. EPA will interpret a UXR rating lb mean that the
community will incur substanti l impacts. Before a water
quality st2ndard is modified or changed or a high quality
water (other than an ONRW) degraded, however,
communities falling into this category must demonstrate
that impacts are also widespread. For those communities
rated ‘?“, EPA’s interpretation will rely on the additional
information presented by the State/discharger. It should be
noted that, in this case, there is no correct set of
Information. It will be up to the applicant to collect
whatever information they feel is relevant in describing the
unique Circumstances affecting their community. For
example, the matrix may suggest that the community’s
financial condition is strong. At the same time, however,
a local industry may be failing. In such a case, it is
important to determine the importance of that industry to
the local economy (as measured by its contribution to area
employment, payroll, and tax revenues) and whether the
industry itself would be affected by the project.
Communities falling into either the X• or the ‘?category
should proceed to Chapter 4 to determine whether the
impacts are also expected to be widespread.
Economic Guidance for Wwer Quality S:andard.r 2-30
-------
3. EVALUATING SUBSTANTIAL Th(PACTS:
PRIVATE-SECTOR EN’IlTIES
For facilities owned by the private sector, measuring
substantial impacts requires estimating the financial impacts
on the entities that will pay for the pollution controls. For
example, compliance with water quality standards may
require that a particular facility, perhaps a factory, install
additional wastewater treatment. After esthn2ting the cost
of the additional wastewater treatment, the next step is to
measure the ability of the factory to pay for the additional
treatment. If the analysis shows that the ahtrty will not
incur any substantial impacts due to the cost of.pollution
control (e.g., there will be no significant changes in the
factory’s level of operations nor profit), then the analysis
is completed. If, on the other hand, the analysis shows that
there will be substantial impacts on the entity, then the
resulting impacts on the surrounding community must be
considered (e.g. the impact of lost employment on the
community’s employment base, or the impact on the
overall economy of the community). Impacts to the
surrounding community, referred to as widespread impacts,
are addressed in Chapter 4.
The following sections describe the steps involved in
evaluating whether impacts will be substantial. These steps
are outlined in Figure 3-1. This.chapter expl rn how to
adapt each of the steps to a range of data sowees and
provides worksheets to assist the discharger in working
through each step. The analytic approach preserved here
can be used for a variety of private-sector entities,
including commercial, industrial, residential and
recreational land uses, and for point and nonpoint sources
of pollution. The guidance provided in this chapter,
however, is not meant to be exhaustive. The State andlor
EPA may require additional information or tests in order to
evaluate whether substantial and widespread impacts will
occur. In addition, the applicant should feel free to include
any additional information they feel is relevant. The steps
described in further detail in the zest of the chapter are:
Economic Guidance for Wow Qualii y StandanLv
-------
Figure 3 -1:
Measuring Substantial Impacts
(Private Entities)
4
I
-— - -
Detamine wbethcr pdvete
tity will lacur eubstaulal
ln s based on pn y
aid swndaly meawies of
b s a lth
No
5..hf II I
- -
S’ ’ 1 iuIrs t
- ‘C.aidNbstli.i
Capital Cost. Aaiai
O&M Cost
fr•
—
Amtual Cat of PTupoaed
Polletlon P ”i i
— ed
Piu aed to anaJ)iii of
widesptced impacta an
chapter 4
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards
-------
• Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual
Cost of the Pollution Control Project - This
section discusses factors that should be considered
when verifying that the proposed pollution control
project is the most appropriate solution to the
pollution problem. It also describes the type of
general information that should be provided about
the proposed project. In addition, it discusses how
to annuAlize capital costs of the project and
calculate total annual costs of the pollution control
project.
• }inanclal impact Analysis - This sectiondescribes
the types of financial rests that should be applied to
measure the impact on the applicant. The primary
measure is profitability. The secondary measures
include indicators of liquidity, solvency, and
leverage.
Most of this chapter is written in terms of evaluAting
whether there will be a substantial impact on a particular
discharger. This type of analysis is necessary whenever
there is a request for a variance. These same tests,
however, can be used to analyze the impact on a group of
dischargers, as might be the case in a use att2in2bility
analysis. For example, there may be several facilities that
would confront imikr uj ementj to improve their waste
waler discharges in order to meet a higher water quality
standard under consideration. The same primary and
secondary tests would be used to measure substantial
impacts in the discbargen. The difference would be,
however, when the analysis moved to measuring
widespread impacts. Here the impacts on the total group
of dischargers (or all dischargcrs in the relevant reach)
would be used to measure whether or not the impacts are
considered widespread.
&onomic Guidance for Wwer Quality Standards 3-3
-------
3.1 Verify Project Costs and Calculate The Annual
Cost of the Pollution Control Project
Before the impact analysis can be performed, the project
costs should be verified and the annual costs calculated.
3.1.a Verify Project Costs
The first step in the financial impact analysis is an
evaluation of the proposed pollution control project.
Private entities should consider a broad rad e of discharge
management options including pbllution prevention, end-of-
pipe treatment, and upgrades or additions to existing
treatment. Specific types of pollution prevention activities
to be considered include:
• Change in Raw Materials;
• Substitute Process Chemicals;
• Change in Process;
• Water Recycling and Reuse; and
• Pretreatment Reauirements.
Wbatever the approach, the discharger must demonstrate
that the proposed project is the most appropriate means of
meeting water quality standards and must document project
cost estimates. If at least one of the treatment alternatives
that allows the applicant to meet water quality standards
would not impose substantial impacts, then they are not
able to demonstrate substantial impacts and should not
proceed with the analysis presented in the remainder of this
workbook.
Since the most cost-effective approach to meeting the
fishable/swimmable goals of the Act and avoiding
degradation of high quality waters should be considered,
submissions should list their assumptions about excess
capacity, future facility expansion, and alternative
technologies. The most accurate estimate of project costs
may be available from the discharger’s design engineers.
These estimates can be compared to estimates available
from EPA.
Economic Guida, ce for Wojer Quality Standards I 3-4
-------
3.1.b Calculate the Annual Costs of the Pollution
Control Project
In order to perform the economic tests, the cost of the
pollution control needed to meet the fishable/swimmable
goals of the Act and avoid degrading high quality waters
must be calculated and converted to an annualized cost.
Initially, pollution control costs are expressed in two parts:
(I) the capital costs of purchasing and installing the
equipment and (2) the yearly operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Both the capital and O&! cost estimates
should be provided by the discharger requesting relief. To
assess whether the costs represent the most cost effective
ieans of meeting the water quality standards, they should
be compared to costs at comparable entities that meet the
same standards. For dischargers covered by effluent
guidelines, compliance costs have been calculated by the
Agency and are available for comparative purposes. (See
Appendix A.) Costs for nonpoint sources are less readily
available.
Instead of assuming that the total capital costs will be
paid in the first year of operation, these costs are usually
annualized. By assuming that costs are spread out over
several years, an imalization calculates the amount that will
be paid each year, including the financing costs. In order
to allow for comparisons across cases , the analysis should
assume that the applicant will borrow the capital for the
pollution control equipment and repay the loan in even
annual installments over a 10 year period. The assumption
of ten years is based on the likely life of the equipment.
The assumption of even annual installments is made for
convenience. The interest rate on the loan should be
equivalent to the rate the applicant pays when it borrows
money. If it borrows from the parent firm, the interest
charge should be equivalent to the interest charged by the
parent firm. If the parent firm would lend the entity
money without interest, then the interest payments should
be equivalent to the interest rate the applicant would pay to
borrow fromabankoronitslineofcledit. Ifitis
impossible to determii’ the appropriate interest rate, the
analysis should assume an interest rate equal to the prime
rate plus one percent.
Economic Guidance for Woier Quality Standards
-------
The financial tests discussed below compare the costs of
compliance to other costs and revenues of the applicant.
Compliance costs and other costs and revenues must,
therefore, be comparable. In other words, they should be
calculated for the sante year. If compliance costs are
estimated assuming construction several years in the future,
they should be deflated back to the year of the financial
data. This can be done by assuming that the inflation rate
over the last five years will continue into the future. See
discussion in Section 2.2, and Appendix A for references
to inflation/deflation indices. Likewise, If costs were
estimated for an earlier year, they should be inflated to
cunent year costs. The Annualized Cost of Pollution
Control can be calculated using Worksheet G.
3.2 FInancial Impact Analysis
The purpose of the financial impact analysis is to assess
the extent to which existing or planned activities and/or
employment will be reduced as a result of meeting the
water quality standards. The tests described in this
Workbook are not designed to determine the exact impact
of pollution control costs on an entity. They merely
provide indicators of whether pollution control costs would
result in a substantial impact.
Four general categories of financial tests are presented
in the following sections. As indicated below, the four
categories are divided into a primary measure of financial
impacts and three secondary measures of financial impacts:
Primary Measure
• Profit - bow much will profits decline due to
pollution control expenditures?
Secondary Measures
• Liquidity -- bow easily can an entity pay its short-
term bills?
• Solvency — bow easily can an entity pay its fixed
and long-term bills’
F.cononuc Guidance for Water Quality Standard, 34
-------
Worksheet 0
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Costs
Capital Costs to be financed (Supplied b applicant)
Interest Rate for Financing (Expressed as a decimal) 0 )
Time Period of Financing (Assume 10 years 1 )
Annualization Factor — _______ • I
(l.i)’° — I
Annualized Capital Cost (Calculate: (1) x (2)1
Annual Cost of Operation and Maintenance
(including but not limited to monitoring, inspection, permitting fees, waste
disposal charges, repair, administration and replac meln)
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Proj t ((3) + (4)1
years
.
(2)
S
(3)
S
(4)
• While actual payback schedules may differ across projects and companies, assume equal annual
paymei ts over a 10-year period for consistency in comparing projects.
Or see Appendix B for calculated annualization factors
For recurring costs that occur less frequently than once a year, pro rate the cost over the relevant
number of years (e.g., for pumps replaced once every three years, include one-third of the cost in
each year).
(1)
-------
• Leverage -- how much money can the entity
borrow?
Profit and solvency ratios axe calculated both with and
without the additional compliance costs (taking into
consideration the entity’s ability, if any, to increase its
prices to cover part or all of the costs). Comparing these
ratios to each other and to industry benchmarks provides a
measure of the impact on the entity.
For all of the tests, it is important to losk beyond the
individual test results and evaluate the total situation of the
entity. While each test addresses a single aspect of
financial health, the results of the four tests should be
considered jointly to obtain an overall picture of the
economic health of the applicant and the impact of the
water quality standards requirement on the applicant’s
health. The results should be compared with the ratios for
other entities in the same industry or activity. In addition,
the ratios and tests should be calculated for several years of
operations. This will allow long-term trends to be
differentiated from short-term conditions.
The structure, size, and financial health of the parent
firm should also be considered. An important factor,
which may not be reflected in the preceding measures, is
the value of an applicant’s product or operations to its
parent firm. For example, if, a facility produces an
important input used by other facilities owned by the firm,
the firm may be likely to support the facility even if it
appears to have only borderline profitability. The results
of these tests and other relevant factors, can be used to
make a judgement as to the likely actions of the applicant
(e.g. shut down entirely, close one or more product/service
lines, shift to other products/services, not proceed with an
expansion, continue operations at current levels) faced with
the pollution control investment.
Each type of rest measures a different aspect of a
discharger’s financial health. The primary measure
evaluates the extent to which an applicant’s profit rate will
change, and compares the profit level to typical profits in
&ononuc Guidance for Water Quailry Standards I 3-8
-------
that industiy. The secondary measures provide additional
information about specific impacts that the discharger
would bear if required to meet water quality standards. In
some cases, the tests might indicate that the discharger
would remain profitable (Profit) after investing in pollution
control, but would have trouble borrowing the needed
capital (Leverage). This situation would indicate a need to
work with the discharger in choosing the technology and
schedule used to meet the regulations. In other cases the
tests might show that the discharger has a short-term
problem with meeting the financial obligation imposed by
the standards, but could handle it in the long-i n (Liquidity
vs. Solvency). This is important information when
considering whether or not to grant a variance so as to
allow more time for compliance.
Since it is the discharger that will have to pay for the
wastewaler treatment, the financial tests presented in this
Workbook use data about the discharger’s operations. This
data, however, may not be r Ilily available for the
discharger itself, and if available, the discharger may
consider the information to be confidential. It is EPA
policy, however, that applications based on economic
considerations must be accompanied by data that
demonstrate the impacts.
If the infonnation is not available at the discharger
level, it can be estimatP4J from the balance sheets or income
sta’ ments of the firm that owns or controls the discharger.
Estiniat s can be m 4 in a variety of ways.. One
commonly used approach is to compare the discharger’s
sales or revenues to the firm’s sales or revenues and apply
this ratio to other financial factors. For example, if the
discharger is responsible for 20 percent of its firm’s
revenues, than it is assigned 20 percent of the firm’s
current assets and cursent liabilities. In some cases ,
particularly with manufacturing facilities, the discharger
may not sell its production directly, but may ship it to
another facility owned by the same firm. In this case, the
discharger’s share of sales should be calculated by
determining the market value of the goods produced by the
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Swndaids I 3-9
-------
discharger, using market prices for the year being
The primary and secondary measures are described
below, along with an example of specific tests to be used.
While there are several ratios that could be used for each
test, to simplify the presentation only one ratio per test is
described in detail . All four primary and secondary
measures, however, should be used in the analysis.
In most cases, interpreting the results requhes
comparisons with typical values for the industry, Among
the sources that provide comparative infonnation are:
Robert Morris Associates’ Annual Staeme’u SudIes,
Moody’s Industr ial Manual, Dun and Bradstrcet’s Dun’s
1nds rry Norms, and Standard & Poor’s Industry Suiwys.
The Annual Statemetu SmdMs, Dun’s Industry Norms , and
Standard & Poor’s Industry Sur,eys provide composite
statistics for finns grouped into various manufacturing and
service industries. The Moody’s Indusn al Manual
provides detailed financial information on individual firms
that can be used for comparison purposes. Although
benchmarks are available for most financial tests, EPA
cmph t’es that the discharger should consider these
benchmarks as indicators of financial health and not as
definitive measures.
3.2.a Primary Measure: Profitability
The Profit Test measures what will happen to the
discharger’s earnings if additional pollution control is
required. If the discharger is making a profit now but
would lose money with the pollution contz l , then the
possibility of a total shutdown or the closing of a
production line must be considered. Greatly reduced, but
still positive, profits are also of concern. Likewise in the
case of a proposed facility or proposed expansion; if
estimated profits would drop considerably with pollution
control, then the development might not take place.
Two pieces of information are nreded for the Profit
Test. The first piece is the total annual cost of the required
Economic Guidance for Water Qualsry Standards I 3-10
-------
pollution control from Worksbeet G. The second piece is
the earnings information from the entity’s income statement
(Worksheet H).
Profit Test - Earnings Before Taxes
Revenues
The Profit Test should be calculated with and without
the cost of pollution control. In the former case, the
annIi2li ed cost of pollution control (including O&M) is
subtracted from the discharger’4 earnings before taxes
(revenues minus costs excluding income taxes) for the most
recently completed fiscal year. Profits before pollution
control investments have been made should be examined to
determine whether the discharger was already in trouble
(either not profitable or profits far below industry norms)
before pollution control investments were matla . If the
discharger is already not profitable, it may not claim that
substantial impacts would occur due to compliance with
water quality standards.
The Profit Test can be calculated using Worksheets H,
and I. Earnings before taxes ( T) should be calculated
for at least the three previous fiscal years in order to
identify any trends or atypical years. Earnings with
pollution control costs should be calculated for the latest
year with complete financial information. Arguably, as
long as the applicant maint2in positive earnings, it can
afford to pay for the pollution control. Over the long rim,
however, the owner is likely to shift operations to more
profitable facilities, if possible. The workbook, th ore ,
guides the applicant through a more thorough analysis,
which compares the ET, with and without pollution
control, to total revenues to yield a profit rate and change
in the profit rate due to pollution control. (Use Worksheet
I.) These profit rates should be compared to those for
facilities in 5 imihr lines of business. As with other tests,
it may not be possible to compare the discharger’s rate
directly with the rates of aimihr facilities. In such cases
the discharger’s profit rate should be compared with that of
firms that concentrate in similar businesses, using data in
Economic Guidwice for Water Quality Standards I 3-il
-------
Worksheet H
Calculation of Earnings Before Taxes
With and Without Pollution Control Project Costs
Earnings Before Taxes •
Revenues
Cost of Goods Sold (including the cost of materials, direct labor, indirect
Labor, rent and heat)
Portion of Corporate Overhead Assigned to the Discharger (selling,
general,administrative, interest, R&D expenses, and depreciation on
common property)
Considerations: Have earnings before taxes changed over the three year period? If so, what would a
typical” year’s EDT be? Please explain below.
A. Earnings Without Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT = R-CGSCO
Where: EDT =
CGS=
Co=
R
CGS
CO
EBT [ (1)-(2)-(3))
19
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Yearo
S
19
$
19
$
S
S
S
S
S
S
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
-------
Worksheet H, Continued
B. Earnings With Pollution Control Project Costs
EWPR = EBT - ACPR
Where: EWPR = Earnings with Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT = Earnings Before Taxes44)
ACPR = Total Annual Costs of Pollution Control Project [ Worksheet C, (5)]
19
EBT(4) S (5 )
ACPR [ Worksheet C, (5)) 5
EWPR [ (5)-(6)]
The most recently completed fiscal year
Conaiderationa: Is the discharger expected to have positive earnings after paying the annual cost of
pollution control? 0 Yes 0 No
Additional Comments:
-------
Worksheet I
Calculation of Profit Rates
With and Without Pollution Control Project Costs
A. Profit Rate Without Project Costs
PRT=EBT—R
Three Most P ufly Completed Fiscal Yams
19
EBT [ Worksh etH,(4)] ___________ ___________ __________ (1)
R [ Workiheet H, (I)) _____________ ______________ (2)
PRT — Calculate: [ (1)1(2)]
(3)
a
How have profit rates eh nged over the three years?
lsthemtyeltypicalofthethreey ? DYes 0 No
(If not, you might want to use an earlier year or years for the analysis)
How do these profit razes compare with the profit rates for this line of busies?? Please discuss
below.
Where:
PRT —
EBT —
Profit Rate Before Taxes
Earnings Before Taxes
Revencus
-------
Worksheet I, Continued
B. Profit Rate With Pollution Control Costs
Where:
PRPR = EWPR ÷ R
PRPR = Profit Rate With Pollution Control Costs
EWPR = Before-Tax Earnings With Pollution Control Costs
R Reveneus
The Most Recently
Completed
Piscel Year
19_
EWPR [ Worksheet H, (7)]
R [ Worksheet H, (1)]
PRPR (Calculate: (4)1(5)]
S (4)
S (5)
E )
Considerations:
What is the percentage change in the profit rate due to pollution control costs? Calculate as follows:
(PRPR - PR)/PR x 100
How does the profit rate with pollution control compare to the profit rate of this line of business?
-------
Mooty ‘s lndustnal Manual, Dun & Bradsreet ‘s Industry
Noimc and Key Business Rados, Standard & Poor’s
Industry Surveys, or Robert Morris’s Annual Stweme?U
Studies. If the discharger’s ratio compareS favorably with
the median or upper quartile ratio for similar businesses,
the discharger is considered to be financially healthy. A
typical income statement, like those found in Moody’s
Industnal Manual, has been included in Exhibit 3-1. The
appropriate data have been underlined.
Although complicated, the analysis should consider
whether the discharger or finn would be a5lc to raise its
prices in order to cover some or all of the pollution control
costs. In such a case, revenues increase and earnings fall
by an amount less than the costs of pollution control. The
degree to which the discharger is able to raise prices is
difficult to predict, and depends on many factors.
Considerations should include the level of competition in
the industry, the likelihood of competitors’ facilities facing
similar project costs, and the willingness of consumers to
pay more for the product.
3.2.b Secondary Measures
The following secondary measures provide additional
important information about the financial health of the
discharger. All primary and secondary measures will be
included in the analysis. It is not sufficient to conclude
that the discharger will be unprofitable after pollution
control investments. In addition, the applicant should feel
free to include any additional information about the
discharger’s financial health that they feel is relevant.
Uquidity
Liquidity is a measure of how easily a discharger can
pay its short-tern’ bills. One measure of liquidity is the
Curient Ratio, which compares current assets with current
liabilities. Current assets include cash and other assets that
are or could reasonably be converted into cash during the
current year. The following items are considered to be
current assets:
Econonuc Guidance for Water Quality Standardr 3-16
-------
Exhibit 3-1
To6
b s dXYZb.gp*_t 10,
1N$ 1187,
. .a . ( àlh , 11s 1 d is ., I pu sd
10,INL1l —--
— .-,.
V. Lf I ._.._..._ wto . —.L
1 . ws —
- — •I— -
—. - - — __________
— ____ . ‘ _ -
- kby
_____ -.
V. k — — , . i . a “ - I
- —
r 0
30,191 11
j ,,,r
DELOWTI MA I$ I 1111.1
1 . -
XYZ, INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND
RETAINED EARNINGS
(DEFICIT)
FOR 771E )‘LIRS ENDED SEP7EWDER 30.1988,1987,1986
1
1987
1986
.
P N
Cod of sales
$C 3SUS7
88$ 962
26.405930
3U6$
24.972.115
(i’ni profit
6,408,594
6,889,032
5,738,583
Selliog, geeseal sad _thm’ ve sap...v.
. 3.987.771
3.576.206
3124.226
Iacoe fr o opu a o
2,450.823
3,012,826
1,934,357
..--- ( )
I I
441,191
347,613
362,295
Iaia m a j eese
(10,983)
(22,513)
(46,467)
Other iave od in ome ‘
134,690
M .
98.
p.
93.
Totol other income (Am .i ).
373.760
544.172
L LJ met me
3316P116
Provilon for ioco toiss
1.130.111
1.620.012
L150.949
Nd inoo,..c
1,797,677
1,766,574
1,327,580
R ”d earmags, bsgi ag of year
1,157.52$
1,726.292
1,983,007
Stock thvidead
(2,610,888)
(1,952,645)
(1,363,590)
Cath vidssd (8.11 per thus, 198$; S /A p.
these, 1987; 8.06 per there, 1986)
(891,988)
(800,693)
(218,798)
Co’u-”n dock accused sad ,iiit.4
p.501 1
82.O00
P ’— ’d s.rànp ( ‘ ‘), sad of year
$ 0.234
S 1.157.525
5 1.726.292
Welgbe”d avuage nu er of thu. oe a ng
3.637.798
Earning. per oo —- these
8.50
1.49
- 1.36
5..
INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS’
REPORT
-------
• Inventories -- futished products products in the
process of being manufactured, i w materials,
supplies, fuels, etc.;
• Prepaid expenses -- expenses paid in advance of
use such as prepaid rent;
• Short-term inveetmentS — savings accounts,
certificates of deposit;
• A unts receivable;
• Marketable securities; and
•C&sh.
Likewise, current liabilities are items that must be paid
within the current year. The following items are
considered to be current liabilities:
• Accounts payable — purvliases of goods for resale
and services received in the normal course of
business;
• Wages payable;
• Short-term notes payable - any debt initially
incurred and due in the cuu It year;
• Accrued expenses - expenses that have been
incurred but have not yet bear paid at the end of
the accounting period;
• Taxes; and
• Current portion of any long-term debt.
A more sthngent test is the Quick Ratio, also brown as the
Acid Test, which compares current assets without
inventories to current liabilities. It does not include
inventories since they may take time to convert to cash and
Economic Guidrrnce for Woier Qualiry Srandardr 3-18
-------
may be valued on the discharger’s books for more than
they could be sold.
The Current Ratio should be calculated for each of the
last three full fiscal years for which there are data.
Companng ratios for three years will identify any trends
that axe developing and will ensure that the most recent
year is not an unusual year that might distort the results of
the analysis.
The Current Ratio is calculated by diyiding current
assets by current liabilities.
Currera Ratio Cwwu Assets
Cwwu Liabilities
The Current Ratio can be calculated using Worksheet 1.
The general nile is that if the Current Ratio is greater than
2, the entity should be able to cover its short-term
obligations. Frequently, lenders require this level of
liquidity as a prerequisite for lending. While a Current
Ratio of greater than 2 indicates that the entity can
probably cover its short-term obligations, the impact of a
major capital investment such as the pollution control
project must be judged in conjunction with the other three
financial tests described in this guidance.
In addition, this nile (Current Ratio> 2) may not be
appropriate for all types of private entities covered by
Water Quality Standards. The Current Ratio of the
discharger in question should be compared with ratios for
other dischargers in the same line of business. It may not
be possible, however, to compare the discharger’s ratio
directly with other $inhihT discbargers because this
information frequently is unavailable at the facility level or
is considered confidential. In cases where a direct
comparison cannot be made , the discharger’s Current Ratio
should be compared with the ratio for firms that
concentrate in imi1 r businesses. If the discharger’s ratio
compares favorably with the median or upper quartile ratio
for similar businesses, it should be able to cover it’s short
Economic Guidance for Water Quality &anda,th 3-19
-------
Worksheet J
Calculation of The Current Ratio
CR = CA + CL
Where: CR = Current Ratio
CA = Current Assets (the sum of inventories, prepaid expenses, and accounts
receivable)
CL = Current Liabilities (the sum of accounts payable, accrued expenses, taxes, and
the current portion of long-term debt)
Three Most Reomily Completed Fiscal Years
19_ 19_ 19_
CA $ $ $ (1)
CL $ $ $ (2)
CR [ Calculate: (1)1(2)] 1 I I
Considerations:
Is the most recent yeartypicalofthethreeyears? DYes 0 No
(If not, you might want to use an earlier year or years for the analysis)
Is the Current Ratio (3) greater than 2.0? ‘0 Yes 0 No
How does the Current Ratio (3) compare with the Current Ratios for other firms in this line of business?
-------
term obligations. Among the sources that provide
comparison information axe: Robert Morris Associates’
Annual Statemera Studies, Moody ‘s Industrial Manual, and
Dun and Bradstreet’s Dun ‘s indusny Norms. The Annual
Swieme’u Studies and Dun ‘s indusny Norms provide
composite statistics for finns grouped by different
manufacturing and service industries. The Moody’s
Industrial Manual provides detailed financial information
on individual firms. Pages from both of these sources axe
displayed in Exhibits 3-2 and 3-3, with the appropriate data
indicated.
Solvency
Solvency is a measure of an entity’s ability to meet its
fixed and long-term obligations. These obligations are bills
and debts that are owed on a regular basis for periods
longer than one year. Solvency tests are commonly used
to predict financial problems that could lead to b nk uptcy
within the next few years. Since any single year of data
can easily be distorted by unusually high or low net income
or by the timing of debt, solvency tests must be considered
over at least three years of data in order to reveal long-
term trends.
As with liquidity, there axe several possible tests for
solvency. One commonly used solvency test (called Times
Interest Earned) compares income before interest and taxes
to interest expenses. Mother solvency test, the Beaver’s
Ratio, compares cash flow to total debt. This test has been
shown to be a good indicator of the likelihood of
banknxptcy.
Beaw.r”s Ratio Cash Flow
Total Debt
The Beaver’s Ratio can be calculated using Worksheet
K. C h Flow is a measure of the cash the entity has
available to it in a given year. Since depreciation is an
accounting cost — a cost that does not use any currently
Economic Guükznce for Water Quality Standards I 3-21
-------
Exhibit 3-2
Pi. _ tI _ .iai* S..i .flus
Typ. sf 6311511.00
c.II.
t_ I,’•
0e
4
I 3 7 10
3 I 3
2 I 2
17 1s 1 1 14 1)0 53 1
0.1 l. !rl $ .
S S
I,
MAt4UFACT • GAMU. TOY$ & CMI3 d$ VBICLU; C ’T DOt.LI & UCYCtEI. S OS
_____ Cim’SO Dii. 6usd bY 6u.s
CsnpSOvs H.gI4..s Dii.
IS
21
7
20
4 1S1
IrI 1112
AU
U
4,1110
3?3 I I I I
AU
47
I.
24
14
IS
4 )1112
V11 1 13
AU
71
4 11
2 I
1 3
I I
— — A 0V00
5 22
U 110l1113.3131 1 1$)
S.1
17
— -
71 IS 72
370 306 31 5
311 304 313
21 IS 17
001 721 711
171 117
42 37 31
I I 07 41
1000 1000 1000
—— JI_u ..
44417$
C4$AIIi#.11
f41sI u usViiI
A300Ci i’SO
T,SCIIW i
F 11 I
I . NI ’1. (
7.1 1
-— — ——
S S 5 5
74 133 15
241 330 3 10
474 310 35.3
S 3.2 37
71.1 751 727
I II 144 17.2
I I 2.3 14
23 4.4 47
1000 1000 1000
154 125 140
34 2.3 30
117 131 141
7 . S
I I SO Ill
403 3*0 433
132 134 122
1.2 5 4
2.3 6.3 3.1
424 42.5 40 5
1000 1000 100Q
u,a 00
P1,00 .S1.l.T11 ) 1i
Cui 4Jf4O
T. i is
b.51ST1.•
AS0* 1 .C rU
T. IICI .’ S O
i T.” ’
D . , iIT
SIOS1. Clt!U
sWs0l
h . 11U11110.lN11Wu”
13.4 2.3 III
. 41 30 7
141 120 U.S
6 1 7
II 0.6 11.4
US 21.2 417
III 54 1 . 3
I .6 .1
33 21 1.7
434 44.6 44.3
1000 1000 100.0
1000 1000 1000
316 372 350
211 21.3 303
55 7.3 IS
3.3 1.1 1.2
3 7 5.1 43
: :— DATA
S I.
s WI%
0.u.usL .a
*.0e(..— —— l
11iIl
1000 100.0 100.0
365 33.1 31.4
25.4 253 71.0
1.7 5 .3 7.2
I I .4 1.5
4.4 5.3
5 S
.
LI 3.5 3 . 6
s .7 ia
1 3 1.3
t
4.1 1.1
&$ ‘1.6 Il
6 1 13 1.2.
1.7 2.0 1$
14 17 14
5 1.1 .5
— .1 .7 .1
Ii 100 11 III 34 10.3
IS SI 4 5 74 U SI
Ii 43 3 * 4.3 31 43
. 1 5 10
.1 .5 .7
25.2 31 11.1 N 0.6
Sufl J
14
27 10.0 00 0.6 73 I I
75 47 4.1 p. 17
45 41 I I 54
Ii IS 55 I I 33 5.5
36 00 4.3 3.5
g 5 21 lIZ 2.4 14$ ii
CI s11w3*rV
75
1 2$ 75 47 U 43
00 2.2 145 . I I I I 3.1
11 303 13.6
3 ’ 170 21 177 15 201
IS 134 27 133 10 13.3
10 7.3 47 75 SI SO
C51 .IS1L.. IL -
10 3*1
37 13.3 3* 144 71 0.4
40 01 3* 11.0 31 II
30 3.3
31 34 3.3
7 5 52 1.3
171 10.1 13J
2.6
4.4 5.5 1.1
140 11.1 16.0
53 14.6
71 101 50
15.4 24 II I ) 34 511 35
10 15 IS
U 1Th51
1$
II I) 1.5 1141 4.5 II 4.3
5 1.3 2 .5
I 5 134) 13.3 24) 13.1
33 26 3.3 2.3
I 1.5 L2
500 P Ii . 6u.. 0 . ..
M,i31. D . 1 . 1 .&ITS
.1 .1 3
2 .2 1
• 4 I
S S 10
i l
.4 .3 .4
1.2 .7 10
.7 .1 7
5 J 10
20 I I 1.5 031 0i
30 33 II
1.1 II 1.7
3.0 1.1 2.0
42.3 37.3
34 1 121 215
.41 IS 2 1511 2$ I (70) 225
- II 70 45
% 51131 S ss T . .sIf.
N
513
5.2 1151 27.4 II 37$
—25 32 17.2
311 5. 5 14.2
117 201 170 % SiII5.111UT lT5l
I I lOS 75
-‘ 1.5 1.1
2.3 5.4 5.3
—. I.. 1.3
427 hA
201 s4.3 315
55 II I 171 5 5. 00 MUSO
SI 73 74
04.4
315 ,S.I 11.2
II 7.3 7.2
2.6 2.1
21 21 35
5 30 20
33 1.1 1.6
SI&TiiI 00
3.0 II IS
1.7 1.1 1.4
.5 IA
I I .5 7 .4
35 21 III ) 1 7 1511 II % Os’. Os. ftisi. III) .5 23 2.S
— 25 33 15 15 2.1 33
5 24 27 %00 1 1.0.UuS S.
12 4.3 23) 41 130) 41 OsSOG3* 5S 1.
II 75
557500 1100700 1117700 1I4$5625
1537111.1 lS 17M 1 0 I 100 SIs I I I
10S 11 11115100 T. , s’. IS)
3 273000
10400 117171’ 727100 500700 5740000
U • 1 100 .W MU — S
s I Srs Il II 3w Si SI34 S W
m..si M IPS & __ . __ 1003
-------
•XYZ, V4C.
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE
SHEETS
SEP7 MBER 30. j )S8AiVD 1987
ASSETS
Exhibit 3-3
LIAZILITIES AND
SHAREHOLDERS’
EQUITY
Currant Lleb es:
Curress posoco of loaj4ssm debt
Acceu s payable- uede
Accroed moome ze.
Acceved psyiell and ee 1ayes bmr
C— —
Other ssom
—
1988
1987
Current Auds:
Cub and cub equivalents
$ 2,944,964
S 1.459,475
Cub invesuneots
2,244,061
3,369,289
Trade receivables - less aUowu ice for doubdul
acccu : 1988, 585,352; 1987, 5135,353
5,025,964
4,171,421
Inventories
4,l09 ,264
3,335,251
prepaid 02p1e.S$ and other
‘1 1 ..icont sssa
725.964
15, .287
122.370
58 , 457 , 806
Property, Plant and Equipesent:
Land
356,217
296,217
BHI I6IIgI and Inçruv.r—’-’-
5,476,155
4,837,392
and equipeseet
2,160,671
1,546,476
Tran oe Oon eçi nt
.1.166.006
1,706,107
O ce furesnire and equipessat
463.750
483.769
Total
10,322,798
8,868,961
Less accu ”’ 1 dsprecia oa
4. .S10
4.207.598
- net
•
5,617,218
4,661,363
Other A
I . r.i gihlc ass - less .cv””d aesou on:
1988, $197,437; 1987, $239,281
226,721
252,884
Icoarance tsunt
1,122,796
1,066,964
Other
89.217
77.778
Total other asa
1,138.111
1.397,626
Total
818.516.795
$ 17,902
5,049,234
681,30
1
198.477
S 32,405
2,686,669
21,400
678,752
1,199,263
178.736
4.797325
-s
-
Losa-aerm debt
55,706
71,608
rnoom taxes
249,900
242,200
Sbareboldera’ Equby:
Cueie.”ii ntock - authoñzed 4,000,000 thares of 5.05
par value, lw ”: 1986. 3,592,673; 1987,
3,268,337
179, 14
163,417
Adth ooa1 paid-in capital
14,671,815
12,084,817
Rctain d ssrmngs (dobcit)
(50.234 1
1.157.528
Total sharabolders’ equity
14.101,285
13,405,762
Total
822.106.246
818.516.795
5 M _ ,.4 Ness to F—’ - ‘---- -
-------
available revenues -- it is added back to reported net
income after taxes to get cash flow - Total debt is equal to
the current debt for the current year plus the long term
debt, since current debt includes that part of long-term debt
that is due in the current year.
lithe Beaver’s Ratio is greater than 0.20 the discharger
is considered to be solvent (i.e., can pay its long-term
debts). If the ratio is less than 0.15 the discharger may be
insolvent (i.e., go banicrupt). If the ratio is between 0.15
and 0.20, then future solvency is uncertain. The
discharger’s Beaver’s Ratio should be comiTa ed with the
ratios of similar dischargers. However, as with other
ratios, it may not be possible to compare the discharger’s
ratio directly with other similar dischargers. In cases
where a direct comparison cannot be made , the
discharger’s Beaver’s Ratio should be compared with that
of firms that concentrate in similar businesses, using
information from income accounts and balance sheets in
Moody’s Industrial Manual. If the discharger’s ratio
compares favorably with similar businesses, it should be
able to meet its fixed and long term obligations. A typical
balance sheet and income statement have been included in
Exhibits 3-4 (for calculating total debt) and 3-5 (for
calculating cash flow). The appropriate data from them has
been underlined.
Leverage
Leverage tests measure the extent to which a firm
already has fixed financial obligations and thus indicate
how much more money a firm is capable of borrowing.
Finns that rely heavily on debt may find it difficult and
expensive to borrow additional funds. Most leverage tests
compare equity to some measure of debt or fixed assets .
The Debt to Equity Ratio is the most commonly used
method of measuring leverage. Unlike the ratios discussed
above, the debt to equity ratio cannot be easily calculated
for a single facility; it must be calculated for the fiim,
since it is usually the firm, not the facility, that borrows
money. The ratio measures how much the firm has
borrowed (debt) relative to the amount of capital which is
Economic Guidance for Wwer Qualiry Standards I 3-24
-------
Worksheet K
Calculation of Beaver’s Ratio
BR = CF TD
Where: BR = Beaver’s Ratio
CF Cash Flow
TD — Total Debt
Three Most P c nfly Completed FIscal Years
19_ 19_ 19_
Cosh Row:
NetlncomeAfterTaxes $ $ $ (1)
Depreciation $ $ $ (2)
CF [ Calculaze:(1)+(2)] $ $ $ (3)
Total Debt:
CurrentDebt $ $ $ (4)
Long-Term Debt $ $ $ (5)
TotalDebt $ $ $ (6)
Beaver’s Ratio:
BR [ (3)1(6)) ___________ E] d’)
Considerations:
Is the most recent year typical of the three years? 0 Yes 0 No
(If not, you might want to use an earlier year or years for the analysis)
Is the Beaver’s Ratio for this discharger greater than 0.2? 0 Yes 0 No
Is the Beaver’s Ratio for this discharger less than 0.15? 0 Yes 0 No
Is the Beaver’s Ratio for this discharger between 0.2 and 0.15? 0 Yes 0 No
How does this ratio compare with the Beaver’s Ratio for other firms in the , -‘ business?
-------
xyzI DIC.
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE
SHEETS
SEP7ZMBER 30. 1988 AND 1987
ASSETS
T I
Exhibit 3-4
In,
1917
LIAJILITIES AND
SHAREHOLDERS’
EQUITY
Ao ps - lade
Accnasd — sad — —fi’
C l — —
Other
Toad cmiv
2,686,669
21.400
678,752
1,199,263
171.736
4,797,225
Ciursat Lusts:
Cs sad ca oquiv.1
$ 2,944,964
$ 1,459,475
Cub inv ” ’
2,214,061
3,369,219
Trade iaccivsbles• less .flowaace for douWul
w ou : 1918, $85,352; 1987, $l33 53
3,025,964
4,171,421
lavessoiles
4,109,264
3,335,251
prqisid eipuw’ sad other
Toad cw, us
15,050,217
12,457,806
I’r .perly, P at sad Equipusat
isad
356,217
296,217
Buikbnp sad Inçrov
3,476,155
4,837,392
Macbiassy sad ç4me
2,169.671
1,546,476
Tr.a ortsboo iq r--
1 , 966,009
463.750
1,705,107
413.769
Othos *n sna sod .ii ” ’
Toad
10,322,706
8,868,961
Less scc””’ deprscis oo
4. .5I0
4,661,363
Pr . 1 ,uty -
5,617,211
Other A
I . N1 - k . hd ’:
1911, $197,437; 1987, *239,211
226,721
252,884
Iuaacs turn
i,iu,m
Other
Tobi other us
1,401,111
5,049,234
1,154 , 5Th
7,001,335
La . e s
s1w
1 ØS
Ddwsd tszes
219,900
242,200
Sbaraboldera’ Equky:
. aa orir.ed 4,000,000 ues of $05
per value, i i#I: 1911,3,592,673; 1917,
3,268,337
Rr ’ d sai ap (ds6 M)
Tcss1 cbarabcldsr.’ equity
.
175,634
14,671,115
60 . 2M b
14,101,215
163,417
12,084,817
1.157.528
13,405,762
Totsi
_ S1,.s16.
sss _,_ NessuP iI -
-------
Exhibit 3-5
_________ - 30,
1 5SI IW, . ct s
. . ( Is . .d I1 i f s d is ,uui pui 4
- ,‘—. -J0.l8 . T st - - ‘ Ss
i _ L _____ ___ -
— -
Wi — __ & _ 4 .l _
es..à,d. . 1 ..Aad . ,u t. vs p pufa,. __ -
— us ft. vJ
— M — —
____ ____ — ‘
: : p... .,L usi I’u by
N V N 05U1 f
Wi kbuvs
f’ J — p’u
,. NlalN.,.I$li, SF . . --- ‘ — I-’—.- -
30, 98$ 1W, of á c
I uf d .yiss p.iid .dmd ‘30, l9U
— a, —
DELO TT! IfA3 1 4S I 8ELL$
a— ia.
r- __ 3198$
xYz, INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND
RETAINED EARNINGS
(DEFICII
FOR 77ff YEARS ENDED SEPIEMBER 30. 1982. 1987. 1986
im
1937
1986
N sales
$42,389,957
$33,294,962
$30,730,763
Corn of a i i m .
33J$1J63
26.405.930
24.972.185
Gioss prufit
Selling, geacral sod . abve ç .iea
6,403,594
3J!7.771
6,889,032
3876.206
5,758,583
J.124 .226
lace.. fros operabos.
2450,123
3,012,826
1,934,357
Other ui ( Om.)
441,891
347,613
362,295
Irn eipe.e
00 , 9*5)
(22,513)
(46,467)
Other iaveu mo -
134,690
M
40.
93.
Tood other w”mr ( iaboai)-
373.760
544.172
Income bcfo 8$zes
2 , 934,795
3,336,586
2,473,529
Provimea for mcome zes
I .139 11!
1.620.012
IASO.949
Nrn
1. %&S74
* , 5V,S$0
R i”.4 earngi. bsgie.ag of year
1,157,338
1,726,292
1,933,007
Stock vadead
(2,410,888)
(1,952,445)
(1,365,590)
Cath ávidead (8.11 per there, 1936; 8.08 par
there, 1987; 1.06 per there, 1986)
(391,940)
P00,693)
(218,705)
Coiumou sock acçãsd and ranted
QA91 1
(82.0O0
ft i w 4 ear g, (ds6á), .sd of year
Weig t .i average NW*Ta of thee. es a ag
$ 1.157.528
3.630.652
$ 1.726.292
3.637.798
Earmag. per oo wwu there
1.50
8.49
8.36 —
3 Ne. N —
.
.
‘b’nr—sN
AUDITORS’
REPORT
to of XYZ, .:
-------
owned by its stockholders (equity). Since values for the
Debt to Equity Ratio vary widely by the type of enterprise,
the ratio should be compared with the ratio for firms in
similar li.ies of business. The ratio also should be
calculated with at least three years of data.
The Debt to Equity Ratio is equal to Long-Term
Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures, and
bank debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities like deferred
income taxes) divided by Owners’ Equity. Owner’s Equity
is the difference between total assets and total liabilities,
including contributed or paid in capital ‘thid retained
earnings. For publicly held firms, use Net Stockholders
Equity (which is the equivalent of Total Stockholder Equity
minus any Treasury Stock).
Dth:/F4wty Long-Term Liabilities
O ner 1 Equity
The Debt to Equity Ratio can be calculated using
Worksheet L. Since there are no generally accepted
Debt/Equity Ratio values that apply to all types of
economic activity, the ratio should be compared with the
ratio of firms in imihr businesses. If the entity’s ratio
compares favorably with the median or upper quartile ratio
for 5 imihr businesses, it should be able to borrow
additional funds. These ratios can be lcu1 ted using data
in Robert Morris Associates’ Annual Statement Studies,
Moody’s Indusr, wi Mwwal, and Dun & Bradstzeet’s Dun’s
Indusny Norms. Pages from these sources have been
included in Exhibits 3-6 and 3-7, with the appropriate data
indicated.
For entities with special sources of funding, leverage is
not an appropriate measure of their ability to raise capital.
Examples are agriculture and affordable housing, where
special loan programs may be available. In these cases , an
analysis of the probability that the project would receive
this money is appropriate.
Economic Guidance/or Water Quality Standards I 3-28
-------
Worksheet L
Considerations:
DER = DebtlEquity Ratio
LU = Long-Term Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures, and bank
debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities such as deferred income taxes)
OE = Owner Equity (the difference between total assets and total liabilities,
including conmbuted or paid Tn capital and retained earnings)
Is the most recent year typical of the three years? 0 Yes 0 No
(If not, you might want to use an earlier year or years for the analysis)
Debt to Equity Ratio
DER=LTL+OE
Where:
LU
OE
DER ((1)1(2))
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
19_
$
19_
S
19_
$
S
IF LI
S
IF
S
(1)
(2)
(3)
How does the Debt to Equity Ratio compare with the ratio for firms in the same business?
-------
4 1140
3I3I I
a,
4 1 1 13 1
3 1 )1 1 32
411132
3111133
ALL
‘I
ExhIbit 3-6
• P.i...L _ .. _ z 6 _ oft .
?yp. .1 St .aI, ..M
C., .pN
Y wvv
3
2
1 9
IS
21
24
a
14
17
20
IS
MANU AC1 • 3AMII . TOY$ a cNILD 1 VB4I LD: DOLL! & UCV D. 1309
Counp .Vv. II1.i.iL. Dill S W SS
3
09
4 4
3 7 10 2
S 3 I
I 2 I
17$lII . 11 0 0 1 32 ) N 11011403 1 1133)
O.1 1. uii I.1
I . I I I
II
I
2
S
lO- 2 & OWN
. 32
%
71 39 73
27 0 303 310
31.3 304 31.3
31 I I 17
NI 721 731
152 176 137
4.2 37 31
II 57 41
1000 1000 1000
MOlTS
T, j aI . t I
bws uiy
A 1 0 0wC .i,sl
T.s C ,rOW
P OilI
buN l i l)
Al00 N.iIC . 4,OW
T. l&
6. 6.
74 13.3 I a
246 32.0 300
47.4 31.0 23.3
I 2.2 3.7
73.0 796 72.7
I II 144 17.2
I, 22 1.4
2 .3 40 4.7
1000 1000 100.0
154 12 1 140
34 23 30
117 131 I II
7 .9 .4
SI SO III
403 350 43.2
i 4. 314
20 5.3 30
414 41! 30 2
i I
U S
N...P.4,N0131 1 .T.uII
Cr., M .S41Ti0
yp p .,_j_
fr TP3
330 Cr.a,vu
T Ciav. i
4303 Nn .Cr. ,wi
N Wei
T Uil .w . WuiSi
130 12.3 11.0
4.1 3.3
14.9 120 1 3 .5
.5 .1 .7
. IS 100 11.0
NJ 3 1 2 417
34 4 334
2.1 1.7
414 M I 443
133 l V
100.0 100.0 100.0
$1 37.2 35.9
295 29.3 333
SO 70 8 .5
3.3 I i 1.2
17 SI 42
— ‘ 1)’— DATA
Si.
.__
01—40. Si—
0 .Si O,
100.0 100.0 100.0
36.5 33.5
NJ 29.2 NO
1.7 1.3 7 2
1.1 .4 1.5
4.4 40 1.2
25 2.3 2 . 0
1.7 1.5 1.9
— 12 13 1 .3
14 1.7 1.4
.9 1.1 .5
— .3 .7 2
3 1 lOS 31 III $1 100
13 SI 45 74 N 5.1
SI 43 00 43 IS 4.3
5*1 100
Cui i.
4.5 2.3 2.0
2.3 . 9 10
1.6 1.3 11
Siil
1.7 2.0 1.9
.4 .5 1.0
.1 .5 .7
14 26.2 11 11.9 33 5 .8
37 10.0 II 5.5 72 1.1
79 4.7 33 41 00 3.7
S2 SO U I 5.5 40 50
l O S 3.1 33 4.3 33 3.5
45 2.1 152 2.4 141 2.5
C Si..jki,.U .iy
75 4.S 43 SI 00 54
133 2.0 2 1 47 IS 4.3
00 2.2 140 2.3 115 . 3.1
3 ’ 17.0 II 177 IS 201
19 124 27 13.3 00 12.3
60 73 47 79 II 5.9
C Si.%t -.
II 35.1 13 30.2 33 12.1
17 13.3 29 IS.4 00 5.4
40 SI 29 11.0 00 6.1
3 . 0 34 30
73 52 3.3
17.5 10.5 13.1
Si. JUl. C
2.5 • 2.0 3.3
4.4 SI 5.1
14.0 11.1 110
71 10.1 9.0
24 1551 3.4155) 3.5
10 16 1.5
TL ...__I
3.5 0.3 14.8
(131 1.0 (14) • 4.3 D l ) 4.3
.5 3 2.5
50 D I I 13.3 24) 13.1
23. 20 33 2.4
10 11
Sill . _
L13ui.M .Uf13
.
.3 3 .1
.5 .4 .1
• .4 10
Si l l
• .1 .2
.4 .3 . .3
1.2 7 1.0
.3 .4 là
20 II 1.9
3.0 3 3.3
Si t 3i
.7 .5 .7
1 .5 . 1.1 1. 7
3.0 5.1
34.5 52.3 33.9
.46. 15.2 (55) 251 (701 23.9
-11 70 41
I s T11.
II U r .
512 43.0 37.5
5.2 III) 17.4 DI) 37.9
—20 3.2 17.2
11 7 20.9 17.0
1.5 100 7.5
—.4 1.3 1.1
p,sr.5 .,TuulT
21.1 15.5 14.3
3.3 3 .
—J 1.1 30
301 44.3 31.3
SO 16.5 17.1
SI 7.3 7.1
5311411
33.3 43.7 21.4
NJ 15.1 11.3
I I 7.3 7.2
21 2.6 2.3
1.5 2.0 2.0
1.3 1.1 1.0
Si.lTi. u
20 2.4 . 2.1
3.0 1. 5 s
1.7 10 1.4
1.1 .s .7
351 2.1 (51) 1., 1511 1.5
— 5 33 3
. 5 24 3.7
112 4.3 23) 41 1501 4.9
5.7 5.5 70
4 .5 14
1111 .5 3.3 30
iS 2.5 3.2
%OMul. C..
.i• C.,slSd11
1 537 10 1N 1 3 3 3 1 37N 1 5—g a
I0S23 I 1 I
Ni S3 IS)
A IS)
N 2110312 152140 I 100740 1117740 ir ’
13340 137140 737 67M 525740 5741540
S 31i,N 1003
N v S01s • S11 1u 1
Si . I i. I I 11 . — D
-------
xYz. c.
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE
SHEETS
SEPIEMRER 30. 1988 AND 1987
ASSETS
Exhibit 3-7
Curw t UibI i ’:
Cwi pinuco of Iong .sarm d t
Acco”om payable - vade
Accmed me m saw
Accsv.d payroll and employm b ’ fi’
Co n dqoasa
Other wcroale
Tomi cerresa babihoes
S 32,403
2,686,669
21,400
678.752
1.199,263
178.736
4,797.25
I
1987
Cuirreet Aums:
S 2.944,964
S 1.459.475
Caab and caih eqwvalain
2.244,061
3 ,369.289
Cub inveauiulema
Trade receivables- eu allowance for dmatvthd
4.171,421
accouMI: 1988. 585.352: 1987. 5135.353
4,109,264
3,335.251
I,wsiecncs
psepaLd eipana and other
15,050,217
122170
12,457,806
Teul cuireso aescu .•
FroyuIy, Pliot and Equipment:
356,217
296,217
Land
5476,155
4,137.392
Buil gs and Iu,v w ’
2,160,671
1,546,476
M ” sy and squçmens
1,166,006
1,705,107
Traisipom000
463.730
413.769
0(6cc 6uromue and equipment
10,322,790
8.165.961
Tomi
4.207391
Less accum” d deprecianon
5,617,211
4.661,363
Pr . ., .uiy - net
Other MiMI:
Ii g4 amen- lam accu d aa. W :
126,721
252,854
1918, $197,437: 1987. $239,211
1,122,7%
1,066.964
Inwince nuet
77M8
Other
1,438,111
1,397,626
Total other amen
LIAIILITIES AND
SHAREHOLDERS’
EQUITY
$ 17,002
5,049,234
601,369
1,064,373
19 14fl
7,001.355
Lens-tame d t
55,1%
71,608
D f,rru4 income saw
249,900
242,200
Sbaráoldes’ Equky:
of 5.05
Coesm”n etock - authocized 4,000.000 thues
par value. tap’vk 1988, 3.392,673; 1917.
170,634
163.417
3.265.337
14,671,185
12,014.817
Adth cail paid-ui capital
(501341
1.157328
R m ’ esimegs (delIct’)
14JSI
13,606,702
TMI I abuah—’ e ’
— w F -’’ -
-------
3.3 Interpreting the Reaults
The financial analysis should be used to determine if
there will be a substantial adverse impact on the applicant.
As indicated above, the Profit Test should be considered
first. The Profit Test measures what will happen to the
discharger’s earnings if additional pollution control is
required. If the discharger is mal ing a profit now but
would lose money with the pollutiofl control, then the
possibility of a total shutdown or the closing of a
production line must be considered. Likewise in the case
of a proposed facility; if it would make mon without the
pollution control but would make much less or even lose
money with it, then the development might not take place.
In either case, there is the chance that employment will be
lost and local purchases by the discharger reduced.
Whether or not these impacts will be considered
widespread is addressed in Chapter 4.
There are several more complicated scenarios that all
involve making a judgement as to the likely impacts on the
discharger, including questions of the timing of
compliance. For example, the Profit Test may inilk f that
the applicant will continue to maintain profit levels typical
for its industry after compliance, but the Debt/Equity Ratio
may indicate that they will have trouble raising the icquired
capital through debt. This problem may be solved by
giving them more time to meet the regulations (a variance),
so that they can resinicture their debt and/or find
alternative sources of funds. In another case, the applicant
might argue that while they will still make moiiey and be
able to raise the needed capital, they would alternatively
spend those fund c on an expansion which would have
resulted in increased employment and income for the
community. This is a more difficult to analyze,
and will depend on judgments about the relative importance
of water pollution control versus economic growth. These
issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
Another possible scenario is that the discharger may
shift to an alternative economic activity (e.g., manufacture
another product or produce a different crop). While the
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards I 3-32
-------
applicant will not have gone out of business, this shift may
result in reduced profits, employment, and purchases in the
local community that must be considered. In each case, it
is important to take the entire picture presented by the four
ratios into account in judging whether or not the discharger
will incur subs nthl impacts due to the cost of the
necessary pollution reductions.
Using the guidance presented in this chapter, applicants
that feel they have demonstrated substantiai, impacts should
proceed to Chapter 4: DeterminatiOn of Widespread
Impacts. If dischargers are not able to demonstrate
substantial impacts, the entity must will not be able to
justify water quality standards providing for less protection
than the fishable/swimfllable goals of the Act, and will not
be able to justify degradation of high quality waters. If a
group of dischargers within the community will experience
the substantial impacts resulting from meeting the
fishable/swimmable goals of the Act and avoiding
degradation of high quality waters, these impacts should be
considered jointly when assessing whether or not the
impacts will be widespread.
Economic Guidance for Wojer Quality Standards I 3-33
-------
4. DETERMINATION OF WII)ESPREAD IMPACTS
The financial impacts of undertaking pollution controls
could potentially cause far-reaching and serious
socioeconomic impacts. If the financial tests outlined in
Chapter 2 and 3 suggest that a discharger (public or
private) or group of dischargers will have difficulty paying
for pollution controls, then an additional analysis must be
performed to demonstrate that there will be widespread
adverse impacts on the community or surrounding area.
There are no economic ratios per ic that evaluate
socioeconomic impacts. Instead , the ielative’!nagnitudes of
indicators such as increases in unemployment, losses to the
local economy, changes in household income, decreases in
tax revenues, indirect effects on other businesses, and
increases in sewer fees for rcm ining private entities should
be ? 2k.fl into account when deciding whether impacts could
be considered widespread. Since A does not have
standardized tests and benchmarks with which to m mIe
these impacts, the following guidance is provided as an
example of the types of information that should be
considered when reviewing impacts on the surrounding
conununity.
In certain circumstances, the information presented hero
may not adecpiat ly address all potential impacts. At a
minimum, however, the analysis must define the affected
community (the geographic area where project costs pass
through to the local economy), consider the bss”1in
economic health of the community, and finally evaluate
how the proposed project will affect the socioeconomic
well-being of the community. Applicants should feel free
to consider additional measures not mentioned here if they
judge them to be relevant, likewise, appli nt should not
view this guidance as a check list. In all cases ,
socioeconomic impacts should not be evaluated
incrementally, rather, their cumulative effect on the
community should be assessed. More detailed guidance on
the factors that should be considered when evalii ting the
socioeconomic impacts to communities of meeting water
quality standards is given below.
&onomic Guidance for Wwer Qualiry S:andardr
-------
4.1 Define Relevant Geographical Area
One important factor in determining the magnitude of
these impacts is defining the geographical area in which
they occur. In some cases, one community’s loss may be
another community’s gain, as in the case of a plant moving
to another community. In the case of municipal pollution
control projects, the affected community is most often the
immediate municipality. There are, however, exceptions
where the affected community includes individuals and
areas outside the immediate community. Far example, if
business activity in the region is concentrated in a nearby
community and not in the immediate community, then the
nearby community may also be affected by loss of income
in the immediate community and should be included in the
analysis. If business activity of the region is
in the immedi t community, then outlying communities
dependent upon the immediate municipality for
employment, goods, and services should also be included
in the analysis. Similarly, if a large number of workers
commute to an industrial facility that is significantly
affected by the costs, then the affected community should
include the home communities of commuters as well as the
immediate community.
The relevant geographic area for evaln tir g the
socioeconomic effects of compliance by private entities
vanes with each situation. For impacts hum actions by a
private entity, the area will typically be determined by.the
area in which the majority of its workers live and where
most of the businesses that depend on it are located . There
are no simple rules for defining the relevant area or
community; the decision is based on the judgement of the
discharger and state, subject to EPA review.
4.2 DetermIne Whether Impacts are Widespread:
Public-Sector Entitles
In demonstrating that impacts will be Iubst2ntial, the
applicant will have shown that compliance with water
quality standards would be burdensome to the communiry.
To demonstrate that impacts will also be widespread, the
..
Ecorsornic Guidance/or Wojer Quality Standanis
4-2
-------
applicant must examine the estimated change in
socioeconomic conditions that occur as a result of
compliance.
There are no explicit criteria by which to evaluate
widespread impacts. It is recommended, however, that
changes in the socioeconomic indicators listed below be
considered. For each indicator listed, the applicant should
estimate the potential change from precompliance
conditions if the community were to adopt pollution
controls.
• Median Household Income;
• Community Unemployment Rate;
• Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value
of Taxable Property;
• Percent of Households Below Poverty Line;
• Impact on Community Development Potential; and
• Impact on Property Values.
Precompliance estimates of the first three indicators were
considered in Chapter 2 in the Secondary Test. Estini d
changes should be described qualitatively in Worksheet M.
Depending on the size and type of impacts on industrial
and commercial discharges, these estimated changes may
be relatively large or an 1l• In addition to changes in
income, unemployment, and debt, affected communities
may be faced with impaired development opportunities if
pretreatment requirements or significantly higher user fees
are imposed by the POTW. 1 municipality should
therefore assess the potential for the loss of future jobs and
personal income to the community if businesses would
chose not to locate in the affected community. The
potential for impaired development opportunities can be
judged, in part, by comparing post-compliance costs to
costs in neighboring communities. The cost of pollution
control may also have an adverse effect on property values.
Where property taxes are used to finance th project,
properly values may fall in response to higher taxes.
Simil tly, if the project will be financed through user fees,
demand for property in the community may fall, thus
decreasing the value of property in the community.
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards I 4-3
-------
Worksheet M
Qualitative Description of Estimated h2nge
in Socioeconomic Indicators
due to Pollution Control Costs
Estimated change
in Median
Household
Income (M I II)
EsttmAt d change
in the
unemployment
rate
Estitn d change
in overall net debt
as a percent of
full market value
of taxable
property
Estim td change
in of
households below
the poverty line
Impact on
commercial
development
potential
Impact on
Property Values
-------
The extent to which estimated changes can be
interpreted as significant, however, will depend on the
health of the community before compliance. It is therefore
not possible to identify acceptable or unacceptable
estimated changes for each indicator. For example, if
Community XYZ were determined to be in a weak
condition before compliance. As defined in Chapter 2, but
the evaluation of widespread impacts suggests that all of the
indicators listed above will remain virtually unchanged,
then widespread impacts have not been demonstreled.
Alternatively, if Community XYZ were ver healthy, the
estimat d change in the indicators listed above would have
to be very large in order for widespread impacts to occur.
In addition, there may be secondary impacts (not
captured by the primaz r and secondary tests) to the
community. Secondary impacts might include depressed
economic activity in a community resulting from loss of
purchasing power by persons losing their jobs due to
increased user fees. The next section describes secondary
impacts in greater detaiL
43 DatermIne Whsther Impacts are Widespread:
Piivate.Sector Entities
If the financial tests suggest that a private ity or
group of entities will have difficulty paying for pollution
controls, then an additional analysis must be performed to
demonstrate that there will be widespread adverse impacts
on the community or surrounding area. The current
economic condition of the affected community and the role
of the affected entities within the community should first be
considered when determining whether the affected
community will be able to absorb the impacts of reduced
business activity or closures. Through pruperty taxes and
employment, the entity(ics) may be a key contributor to the
economic base of the affected community. In this
situation, reductions in employment caused by compliance
with the water quality standards could be widespread if
workers have no other employment opportunities nearby.
Impacts may also be significant where the entity(ies) is a
Economic Guidance for Wwer Quality Swndards 4-S
-------
primary producer of a particular product or service upon
which other nearby businesses or the affected community
depend. The impacts of reduced business activities or
closure will be far greater in this case than if the products
are sold elsewhere. These two examples illustrate how the
interdependence between the affected cntity(ies) and the
affected community is a major factor in demonstrating that
the unpacts are not only substantial, but also widespread.
As important as the extent of SOCIOCC0000IC impacts is
the type of impacts that might occur. A work heet has
been provided to assist applicants in their evaluation of
socioeconomic impacts. Worksheet N is designed as a list
of the factors applicants should consider in determining
whether impacts are not only substantial but also
widespread. The worksheet is orrT 1 ed to follow the text
below. To make the most efficient use of this worksheet,
applicants should read the remainder of Section 4.3 and
then collect the data suggested in the worksheet.
Applicants should feel free, however, to use anecd l
information to describe any current community
characteristics or anticipated impacts that are not listed in
the worksheet.
Potentially, one of the most serious impacts on the
affected community’s economy is the loss of employment
caused by a reduction in business activity or closure. The
size of this impact is dependent on the number of jobs lost
relative to the total number of jobs in the community, and
to the job opportunities avail&’le in the community.
Typically, a decline in employment l& to a decline in
personal income in the affected community. The total
amount of income lost by the affected community will
depend, in part, on the future job prospects of those losing
their jobs. If employees leave the area in search of
opportunities, all of their income will be lost to the affected
community. Workers who are unable to market the full
range of their kilI to a new employer will receive lower
wages in subsequent jobs. If employees stay in the area
and find lower paying jobs or receive unemployment
benefits, the loss of income to the affected community
would be equal to the difference between existing and
&ononuc Guidance for Wwer Quality Standards I 4 .6
-------
Worksheet N
Factors to Consider In Making a Determination of Widespread Sodal and Economic Impacts
Define the affected community in this case; what areas are included.
Current unemployment rate In affected community (ii available).
Current national unemployment rate.
Additional number of persons expected to collect unemployment in affected
community due to compliance with water quality standards.
Expected unemployment rate In the affected community after compliance with
water quality standards (Current I of persons collecting unemployment
in affected community + (4)/labor force in affected community.
Median household income in affected community:
Total number of households In affected community.
Percent of population below the poverty line In affected community.
Current expenditures on social services in affected community.
Expected expenditures on social services due to Job losses In the affected
community.
Current total tax revenues In the affected community.
Tax revenues paid by the private entity to the affected community.
t
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)•
(9)
(10)
(II)
(12)
-------
Worksheet N, continued
Tax revenues paid by the private entity as a percentage of the affected (13)
community’s total tax revenues.’ ______________________________________________
Current statewide unemployment rates. ________________________________________________ (14)
Additional number of persons expected to collect unemployment in the State (15)
due to compliance with water quality standards. ______________________________________________
Expected statewide unemployment rate, after compliance with water quality (16)
standards (Current S of persons collecting unemployment in State +
(15)/labor force in State. ____________________________________________
Current expenditures on social services in State. _________________________________ (17)
Expected statewide expenditures on social servicas due to job losses. __________________________________________ (18)
• In some cases, the affected community will include more than just the municipality in which Inc private entity is located. If so, the analysis
should consider the private entity’s tax revenues as a percentage of the tax revenues for only the municipality in which the entity is located.
-------
future income; the cost of unemployment benefits is
calculated as a government expense or an expense borne
someplace else, whichever is appropriate to the situation.
To assess the net impact on employment in the affected
community, the existing raze of unemployment should be
considered as an indicator of worker mobility between jobs.
When the unemployment raze is very high in an affected
community, workers will have a difficult time finding other
jobs in that community. Where possible, comparisons
should be made between industry employment levels in the
community and the nation as a whole. xlLernployment
levels in the industry as a whole are falling, the industry
may be in decline regardless of the burden placed on them
by water quality standards regulations. If it is clear that a
private-sector entity will go cut of business regardless of
water quality standards, the impact of the pollution controls
should not be viewed as substantial. If the entity is in a
marginal position, however, the effect that meeting water
quality standards will have on the entity and the community
should be considered. Applicants should also consider
whether the lack of alternative employment opportunities
may lead to an increased need for social services in the
affected community. If the costs of increased social
services will be borne by the affected community, they
should be included in the assessment of widespread and
substantial impacts.
Socioeconomic impacts may also include effects on the
local government(s) such as loss of property tax revenues.
If the financial tests in Chapter 3 suggest that an entity or
group of entities will close, then the assessed value of
property and tax revenues will fall. If the entities are a
major source of revenue for the affected community, this
loss in tax revenue may be significant. One example might
be wazer quality standards that affect fanning practices in
an agricultural region. Compliance with these standards
might lower the profitability of many farms, even to the
point of forcing them to cease operations. To assess the
impact, the loss in property tax revenues should be
compared to total property tax revenues in the affected
community to determine the relative size of the loss. In
Economic Guidance for Waer Quality S:andanir 4-9
-------
general, a drop of 1 percent in property tax revenues would
be considered significant.
If compliance is evaluated in the context of a public
investment for which the private entity is paying a share
(e.g., a factory’s share of the cost to upgrade a municipal
treatment plant), then the analysis of widespread impacts is
more complicated. If the financial analysis shows that the
entity or group of entities cannot pay their share of the
cost, then the socioeconomic and public entity analysis
should include this additional burden onv other users.
Likewise, if the entity or group of entities are significant
users of the local utilities, then a reduction in business
activity or closure may lead to a lowered demand and
possible decreased efficiency for local utilities. For
example, a waler supply system may be designed with a
large industrial user in mind. 11 much of the demand is
eIimin t l , the system may become exccwvely expensive
for the remaining users.
Affected communities may also be faced with impaired
development opportunities if the need to comply with water
quality standards discourages other businesses froth loeitiflg
in the area. In situations where the affected facility has not
been built, additional expenditures on water pollution
controls may delay or cancel the constnjction. The
applicant should, therefore, consider not only the loss of
potential jobs and personal income to the community if the
entity is not built, but the future losses in jobs, personal
income and tax revenues from other businesses that would
choose not to locate in the affected community.
There may be some cases in which the socioeconomiC
impacts of implementing pollution controls are large
enough that they are felt at the stale level. For example’
the State may lose tax revenues from lost production and
lost income if a business closes. This will be of particular
importance if the business is a major employer in the Stale
and/or the Stale is experiencing a period of high
unemployment and fiscal distress. At the same time, the
State may encounter increased expenditures for
unemployment compensation and social services. In
Economic Guidance for Water Qualiry Standcjrdr 4-10
-------
reviewing state level impacts, the applicant should consider
the degree to which decreases in employment and personal
income in one area of the Stale are offset by increases in
employment and peisonal income in other parts of the
State. In most cases, impacts at the state level will be
relatively minor. If not, then impacts are widespread.
4.4 Estimate Multiplier Effect
The effects of increased unemployment, decreased
personal income, and reductions in local expenditures by
the entity or group of entities (public and p!ivate) will be
compounded as money moves through the local economy.
Some portion of the lost income would have been spent in
the local economy for the purchase of other goods and
services and thus for the salaries of other local employees.
These local employees, in turn, would have spent some
portion of their income in the local economy. This
multiplier effect means that each dollar lost to an employee
results in the loss of more than one dollar to the local
economy.
The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) has developed several
multipliers to estimate the effect of reduced economic
activity on. output (sales), earnings, and employment.
These multipliers axe available by industry sector for 39 or
531 different industry claaaificafions, dq,e.ivliiig on the
level of detail required. Applicants that axe interested in
using these multipliers are advised to consult a copy of
RIMS H Regional Multipliers. A User Handbook of the
Regional Inpw-Owpw Modeling System, availahie ( ruin the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The N’ ITS
document number is #PB-86-230-216 and orders can be
placed by calling NTIS at (703) 487-4650. Mditional
information on using multipliers is avaihhle from the BEA
at (202)606-5343.
Economic Guidance for Wojer Quality Standards I 4-11
-------
4.5 Economic Benefits of Clean Water
Benefit-cost analysis is not required to demonstrate
substantial and widespread effects under the Federal
Water Quality Standards regulation.
In many cases, there may be economic benefits that
accrue to the affected community from cleaner water. For
example, in a rural community where the primary souree
of employment is agriculture, the reduction of fertilizer and
pesticide runoff from farms would reduc. the cost of
treating irrigation water to downstream users. Another
example might be an industrial facility discharging its
wastewater into a stream that otherwise could be used for
recreational cold-water fishing. Trealment or Climin2ti ofl
of the industrial wastewater would provide a benefit to
recreational fishermen by increasing the variety of fish in
the stream. In both cases , the economic benefit is the
dollar value associated with the increase in beneficial use
or potential use of the wateibody. The types of economic
benefits that might be realized will depend on both the
chamcteristics of the polluting entity and characteristics of
the affected community, and should be considered on a
case by case basis.
Since the assessment of benefits requires site-specific
information, it will be up to Slates to determine the extent
to which benefits can be considered in the economic impact
analysis. This determination should be coordinated with
the EPA Regional Office. A mole detailed description of
the types of benefits that might be considered is given in
Appendix C. This appendix is not intended to provide in-
depth guidance on how to estimate economic benefits;
rather, it is intended to give States an idea of the types of
benefits that might be relevant in a given situation.
Economic Guidance/or Water Quality Standards I 4-12
-------
4.6 Summary of Financial Capability and
petermin2tion of .Whethàr Iiñpacts are
Substantial and Widespread
Using the guidance described in this document, the
applicant must demonstrate that the pollution control
measures needed to meet the fishable/swimln2ble goals of
the Act arc not affordable. In addition, the applicant will
have to show that there will be widespread adverse impacts
to the community if it is required to meet standards. A
summary checklist of the steps required iii this process is
presented in Table 4-1. This checklist also presents the
type of data the applicant will need to collect to support
each step. Whether or not the applicant has successfully
demonstrated that subst2nti I and widespread economic and
social impacts would occur, however, will depend upon the
EPA Regional Administrator’s review of the application.
If the EPA Regional Administrator determines that
substantial and widespread economic and social impacts
have not been demonstrated, then the discharger must meet
the fishable/swimmable goals of the Act. Alternatively, if
subst2nthl and widespread economic and social impacts
have been demonstrated, then the discharger will not have
to meet the water quality standards. The discharger will,
however, be expected to undertake some additional
pollution control. The criteria outlined in Chapters 2 and
3 should be used to detcrmin the most protective pollution
control technique that would not impose a subs?2ntial
impact on the entity. In addition, the discharger should
check with EPA and the State regularly to detennine what
else will be required of them. It is then up to the State to
revise the standards in the water body to reflect the uses
that would be achieved if the discharger adopts the next
most protective pollution control technique. The State will
also have to revise its water quality criteria to protect the
newly att2in ble uses. The discharger’s NPDES permit
will then be revised to reflect the new limits associated
with revised criteria. Finally, federal regulations require
that water quality standards be reviewed every three years
to determine if there is any new information or technology
Economic Guidance for Water Qualiry Standa,tLc I 4-13
-------
that allows anauuneni of the goal uses of the Act without
causing substantial and widespread social and economic
impacts.
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards I 4-14
-------
T ‘4-1
Demonstration of & ntial and Widespread
Economic and Social Impacts of Attainment of Designated Uses
CHECKLIST
INFORMATION ThAT WILL BE REQUIRED FROM
STEPS APPLICANT
1. Demonstrate that designated use is a potential use and not an existing Data from State Water Quality Assessment Documents and water quality
use. standards regulations.
2. Demonstrate that entity will incur substantial economic impacts.
a. Identify all reasonable pollution reduction options, Information on end-of-pipe treatment, possible treatment upgrades
additions to existing treatment, and pollution prevention activities
including the following:
• change In raw matchals,
• substitution of process chemicals,
• change in process,
• water recycling, reuse and efficiency,
• pretreatment requirements, and
• public education.
b. Evaluate costs of all reasonable pollution reduction options, Assumptions about water demand, treatment capacity, expansion plans,
population growth, and effectiveness of control in reducing pollution for
each option. Estimate of project costs from design engineers, costs of
comparable projects in the State, or judgement of experienced water
pollution control engineers.
- c. Identifylowest cost pollution reduction-option that allows entity Information on-treatment efficiencies for-alternative pollution reduction
to meet water quality standards. techniques. Cost estimates for all alternatives.
-------
Table 4-1 CHECKLIST (Cont’d.)
STEPS INFORMATION THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FROM
APPLICANT
3. Evaluate entity’s financial health (Public Entitles Only):
a. determine method of financing, Information on user fec financing mechanisms such as Revenue Bonds.
Information on tax based financing mechanisms such as General
Obligation Bonds.
b. annualize pollution reduction project costs, Information on appropriate interest rates and period of financing.
c. allocate project costs, Information on user groups, wastewater flow by user group, and
surcharges on industrial users.
d. apply Municipal Preliminary Screener lest, Information on average total annual pollution control cost per household
and median household income.
e. Depending on the results of the Municipal Preliminary Screener Information on results of Milinicipal Preliminary Screener test, overall
test, apply Secondary Test. net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable property, median
household income, hond rating, community unemployment rate, property
tax collection rate, and property tax revenues as a percent of full market
value of taxable property.
4. Evaluate entity’s financial health (Private Entitles Only):
a. annualize pollution reduction project costs, Information on appropriate interest rates and period of financing.
b. Primary Measure:
profitability, Information that will allow evaluation of whether an entity will remain
profitable after incurring the cost of pollution reduction including:
• revenues,
• cost of goods sold,
-------
Table 4 -1 CP 1LIST (Cont’d.)
STEPS INFORMATION ThAT WILL BE REQUIRED FROM
APPLICANT
portion of corporate overhead assigned to the entity, and
c. Secondary measures: • total annualized pollution reduction project costs.
solvency, Information that will allow evaluation of the entity’s ability to meet its
fixed and long-term obligations including:
• long-term debt,
• current debt,
• net income after taxes, and
• depreciation.
liquidity, and Information that will allow evaluation of how easily an entity can pay its
short-term bills such as:
• current assets,
• current liabilities, and
• total annualized pollution reduction project costs.
leverage. . Information that will allow evaluation of the extent to which a firm
already has fixed financial obligations and therefore how much money
it will be able to borrow including, long-term liabilities and owner
equity.
5. Detennine whether impacts are widespread (Public Entitles Only):
a. Evaluate change in socioeconomic conditions that occur as a Information on changes in median household income, community
result of compliance. unemployment rate, overall net debt as a percent of full market value of
taxable property, percent of households below the poverty line, impact
on community development potential, and impact on community property
values resulting from compliance.
-------
Table 4-1 CHECKLIST (Cont’d.)
STEPS INFORMATION ThAT WILL BE REQUIRED FROM
APPLICANT
6. Determine whether impacts are widespread (Private Entitles Only):
a. Define community, Information on the geographical boundary of the area in which the
majority of the entity’s workers live and where most of businesses that
depend on the entity are located.
b. Evaluate effect on employment, Current unemployment, change in unemployment due to investment in
pollution reduction.
c. Evaluate effect on tax revenues, Information on the likely effect on assessed value of property tax
revenues if the entity must adopt pollution reductions.
d. Assess impairment of development opportunities, Information on the likelihood that the need to adopt pollution reductions
in the affected community would discourage other businesses from
locating in the area in the future.
e. Collect any relevant additional information that demonstrates Any additional information that suggests that there are unique conditions
widespread socioeconOmiC impacts. in the affected community that should also be considered.
7. Evaluate economic benefits of cleaner water. Information on potential benefits of cleaner water including enhanced
recreational opportunities, reduced treatment costs for downstream users
and increased property values.
8. Public comment and debate period. Be prepared to supply backup information on the application to modify
or change a designated use to the public.
-------
Table 4 - 1 CIV ‘(LIST (Cont’d.)
STEPS INFORMATION THAT WILL BE REQUIREI) FROM
APPLICANT
9. If substantial and widespread economic and social impacts are Information on the cost and efficiency of affordable pollution reduction
demonstrated, determine which pollution reduction option should be alternatives.
implemented.
10. Redesignate uses. Uses will be determined by the level of affordable” pollution reduction.
11. Standards will be adopted to protect new uses. Once uses are established, standards should be revised to protect those
uses.
12. Effluent limits and permits will be modified. Limits will be modified to reflect effluent concentrations associated with
the affoidable” pollution reduction technique.
13. Re-evaluate water quality standards in three years. Per federal regulations, water quality standards must be revised every•
three years to determine if there is any new information or technology
that allows attainment of he full designated uses without causing a
substantial and widesprvad economic and social impact.
-------
5. ANTIDEGRADATION: ROLE OF ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
Under the Water Quality Standards program, each State
must develop, adopt and retain a statewide antidegradation
policy and establish procedures for its implementation.
The antidegradation policy is intended to maintain existing
uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect
those uses. In only limited cases, economic grounds can be
used to allow for a lowering of water quality. In
particular, if the quality of the water ,çxcceds levels
necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and recreation in and on the water i.e. high-
quality watcr), then economic considerations can be taken
into account (unless the water has been designated an
ONRW.). Before any lowering of water quality in high-
quality waters, however, an anfidegradation review must
determine that the lowering is necessary in order to
accommodate important economic or social development in
the area in which the waters are located.
Antidegradation is not a no growthu rule and was
never designed nor intended to be one. It is a policy that
allows the public to make decisions about important
environmental actions. Where the State intends to provide
for development, it may decide that some lowering of
water quality in high-quality waters is necessary to
accommodate important economic. or social development.
Any such reduction in water quality, however, must protect
existing uses fully and must satisfy the requirements for
intergovernmental coordination and public participation.
While the terminology is different, the tests . to
determine substantial and widespread economic impacts
(used when removing a use or granting a variance) are
basically the same as those used to determine if there might
be interference with an important social and economic
development (antidegradation). As such, antidegradation
analysis is the mirror image of the analyses described in
Chapters 2, 3 and 4. Variances and downgrades refer to
situations where additional treatment needed to meet
standards may result in worsening economic conditions;
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards
-------
while antidegradation refers to situations where lowering
water quality may result in improved social and economic
conditions.
When performing an antidegradation review, the first
question is whether the pollution controls needed to
m rntain the high-quality water will interfere with the
proposed development. If not, then the lowering of water
quality is not warranted. If, on the other hind , the
pollution controls will interfere with develqpment. then the
review must show that the development would be an
important economic and social one. These two steps rely
on the same tests as the determination of subs ntial and
widespread impacts. It should be stressed at the outset that
substant i 1 economic impacts does not mean driving profits
to zero, nor precluding all other muniripal expenditures.
1 following sections describe the steps involved in
performing an economic impact analysis as part of an
antidegradation review. These steps are outlined in Figure
5-1. The analytic approach presented here can be used for
a variety of public-sector and private-sector entities,
ineludmg POTWs. commercial, industrial, residential and
recreational land uses, and for point and nonpoint sources
of pollution. The guidance provided in this chapter,
however, is not meant to be exhaustive. The State and/or
EPA may require additional information or tests. In
addition, the applichM should feel free to include any
additional information they feel is relevant. 1 steps
described in further detail in the rest of the chapter are:
• Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual
Cod of the POllution Control Project - This
section describes the factors considered when
verifying that the proposed pollution control project
is the most appropriate solution and the type of
information that should be provided about the
proposed project. It discusses how to ammkli c
capital costs of the project and calculate total anniul
costs of the pollution control project.
Economic Guidance for Water Qualiry Standards 5-2
-------
Figure 5-1:
Antldedgradation Review
• • h .
- -
chmc a ics of ’ —-----.ky
No
—
No
Nocq
Capii.i Cost. Amw&
M CostL
‘ ‘ Cat. M
No _
P Dsta
Yes
No Depad
Allowed
Quality of wets my be
vid deügn d vies fufly
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards
-------
• Determine If Requlrenients would Interfere with
Development (i.e., lower water quality is
“n 2ry”) - This section describes the types of
financial tests that should be used to determine if
majPt2ifling the high-quality water would interfere
with the development.
• Determine If Eonnomlc and Soda) Development
would be Important This section presents factors
to be consideled in deterniinmg whether the
development would be important fgu an economic
and social point of view.
These steps closely parallel the analytic techniques
presented in Chapters 2,3, and 4. These liayters should
be read for more detail .
Economic Gvidance for Woier QuaIlrj &wrdards 5-4
-------
5.1 Verify Project Costs and Calculate The Annual
Cost of the Pollution Control Project.
Before the impact analysis can be performed, the
project costs should be verified and the annual costs
calculated. Both private-sector and public-sector entities
should consider a broad range of discharge management
options including pollution prevention, end-of-pipe
treatment, and upgrades or additions to existing treatment.
Whatever approach, the discharger must demonstrate
that the proposed project is the most appzojiiate means of
meeting waler quality standards and must document project
cost estimates . If there is at least one of the treatment
alternatives that allows the applicant to maintain high-
quality waler without incurring substantial impacts, then
they have failed to show that the requirements would
interfere with the development. Cost information, and the
assumptions underlying the cost estimates , should be
s!rpplied on Worksheet 0.
The following two sections (5.1.a and 5.1.b) discuss
analyzing public-sector projects. Section 5.1 .c discusses
— sector projects.
S.1.a Public-Sector Developments: Calculate the
Annual Costs of the Pollution Control Pr Jed
Since capital costs typically will be paid over several
years, anniialiie4 costs are used in the evaluation of
economic burden to the community. The capital portion of
public-sector project costs is typically flnan ed over
approximately 20 years, by issuing a municipal debt
instrument such as a general oblig”ion bond or a revenue
bond.
The calculation of total ann” ”ed cost of the project is
presented in Worksheet P. First, capital costs are
and the portion of costs to be paid for with grant monies
axe deducted, as these costs will not reed to be financed .
Next, the annuaIi ation factor is calcu’ l uitng the
formula supplied on Worksheet F, or the anw”l ”On
&onomic Guidance jbr Water Quality Standards S-S
-------
factor is found in Appendix B. AnnUali7’4 capital cost is
then calculated by multiplying the totil capital costs to be
financed by the aflflll2 li2at on factor.
The interest rates used to annn ili e costs are dependent
on the type of debt nstrument used as well as the issuer’s
credit standing. Therefore, the interest rate used on
Worksheet P reflects the, debt instrument (i.e. municipal
bond, commercial bank loan, state revolving fund loan, or
other instrument) likely to be used by the municipality.
Next, annual operating and malntenance costs arc added
to the annualiied capital cost. O&M costs should include
the costs of monitoring, inspection, permitting fees, waste
disposal charges, repair, administration, replacement, and
any other recurring costs. All recurring costs should be
stated in terms of dollars per year. The sum of the
aflnnali7Pd capital cost and total annual operating and
maintenance costs is the total annual cost of the project.
5.1.b Public-Sector Developments: Calculate Total
Annualized Pollution Control Costs Por
Household
To assess the burden that total pollution control cods
are expected to have on households, an average annnali r d
pollution control cost per household should be calculated
for all households in the community that would bear project
costs. In order to evaluate substantial impacts, therefore,
the analysis must establish which households will actually
pay for pollution control and what pwpoition of the cods
will be borne by households. Then, these apportioned
project costs are skied to existing pollution control cods
paid by the households.
‘It is, important to define the affected community. The
community’ is the governmental jurisdiction or
jurisdictons responsible for paying compliance costs.
If project costs were eslimafed for some prior year,
these costs should be adjusted upward to reflect current
year prices using the average annual national Consumer
&onoraic Guidance for Wwer Qualiry Sandards I 3-6
-------
Price Index (CPI) inflation rate for the period. The CPI
inflation rate is available from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. An additional source reporting the CPI inflation
rate is the CPI Detailed Repori, which is published monthly
by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
In calculating the total annual cost of pollution comM
per household, current costs of pollution control must be
considered along with the projected annual costs of the
proposed pollution control project. The existing cost per
household usually can be obtained from tE most recent
municipal records. For example, use the most recent
operating revenues of the sewer enterprise fund, divided by
the number of households served. If the portion of
proposed project costs that households axe expected to pay
is known or is expected to rein in unchanged, then use
Workshest Q to calculate the total annual cost of pollution
control per household. If the portion paid by households
is based on flow, then should refer to Workshst Q:
Option A as well.
5.1.c Private-Sector Entities: Calculate the Annual
Costs of the llution Control Project
As with public-sector investments, the total Capital costs
axe usually spread out over several yean. Annu21i tion
calculates the amount that will be paid each year, including
the financing costs. In order to allow for comparisons
across vases , the analysis should assume that the applieant
will borrow the capital and repay the loan in even annual
installments over a 10 year period. The assumption of ten
yeax is based on the likely life of the ecpnpnient. 1
assumption of even annual installments is Tn2tIP for
convenience. The interest rate on the loan should be
equivalent to the rate the applicant pays when it bonuws
money.
The financial tests discussed below compare the costs of
compliance to other costs and revenues of the applicant.
Compliance costs and other costs and revenues must,
therefore, be calculated for the same year. See discussion
Economic Guidwzce for Water Quality &andard, I 5-7
-------
in Section 2.2, and Appendix A for references to
inflation/deflation indices. The Mnu 1i’ d Cost of
Pollution Control for a privaxe.sector entity can be
calculated using Worksheet R.
Economic Guidance/or Wo er Quality Stwsdwdt I 54
-------
Worksheet 0
Pollution Control Project
Sllrnmfiry Information
Design Capacity of the Pollution Control System
Expected Excess Capacity after Completion of Project
Projected Groundbreakiflg Daze
Projected Daze of Completion
Please describe the pollution control project being proposed. Include dcictiption of ill pollution
prevention activities included in the project. (Attach additional page if necessary).
Please describe the other pollution control options considered, including pollution prevention activities.
Explain why each option was rejected. (Attach additional page if necessary).
-------
Worksheet P
Public-Sector Pollution Control
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Cos
A. Capital Costs
Capital Cost of Project _______________
Other One-Time Costs of Project (Please List, if any):
Total Capital Costs (Sum column) ___________
Portion of Capital Costs to be Paid for with Grant Monies __________
Capital Costs to be Financed (Calculate: (1) - (2)] __________
Type of fhi*n’ ing (e.g., GO. bond, revenue bond, bank loan) __________
Interest Rate for Fin2neing (expressed as decimal) _____________
Time Pe iod of Fin i eing (in years) ____________
Annualization Factor — _______ . i (or see
(l.j)D — 1
Appendix B) ___________
Anu.- ’i’ed Capital Cost [ Calculate: (3) x (4)] __________
B. Operating and M Int nee Costs
A” ” 1 Costs of Operation and M*it. iic . (including but not limited to: monitoring, inspection,
permitting fees, waste disposal charges, repair, administration and replac 1n 111.) (Please list below)
$
S
S
$ (6)
$
S
S
S
S
(1)
S
(2)
S
(3)
(1)
(n)
(4)
•(5)
$
Total Annual 0 & M Costs (Sum column)
C. Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project ((5) + (6)]
-------
Worksheet Q
Calculation of Total Annual Pollution Control Costs
Per Household
A. Current Pollution Control Costs:
Total Annual Cost of Existing Pollution Control
Amount of Existing Costs Paid By Households
Percent of ExistIng Costs Paid By Households
Number of Households’
Annual Cost Per Household (CaLculate: (2)1(4)]
Do not use number of book-ups.
Are households expected to provide revenues for the new pollution control project in the same proportion
that they support existing pollution control? (Qteck a, b or c and continue as directed.)
Da)Yes(fiuinpe rcentfrom(3)] _______percent.(6a).
o b) No, they are expected to pay ________percezit.( )
o c) No, they are expected to pay based on flow. (Continue on Workabect Q, Option A)
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project (Line (7), Worksheet PJ $
Proportion of Costs Households Are Expected to Pay [ (6a) or (6b) J
Amount to Be Paid By Households (Calculate: (9) x (10)1
Annual Cost per Household [ CaLculate: (11)/(4)1
C. Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Per Household (5) + (10) F
$ (1)
S
(2)
%(3)
(4)
S
(5)
B. New Pollution Control Costs
(9)
S
S (10)
-------
Worksheet Q: Option A
Calculation of Total Annual Pollution Control Costs Per Household
Based on Flow
A. Calculating Project Costs Incurred By Households Based on FLow
Expected Total Usage of Project (eg. MGD for Wastewater Treatment)
Usage due to Household Use (MGD of Household Wa tewater) ___________
Percent of Usage due to Household Use [ Calculate: (2)/Cl)]
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project
Industrial Surcharges, if any
CosistobeAllocaled [ Calculate:(4)-(5)]
Amount to Be Paid By Households [ Calculate: (3) x (6)]
Annual Project Cost per Household [ Calculate: (7)/Worksheet Q, (4)]
C. Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household
Annual Existing Costs Per Household [ Worksheet Q, (5)]
(1)
(2)
%(3)
S
(5)
S
(6)
S
(7)
S
(8)
S
(9).
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Per Household [ (8) + (9)]
-------
Worksheet R
Private-Sector Development
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Costs
Capital Costs to be financed (Supplied by applicant) $
interest Rate for Financing (Expressed as a decimal) ( )
Time Period of Finini ing (Assume loyears)
Annualization Factor = ________ • I
(l.i) — 1
Annualized Capital Cost (Calculate: (1) x (2))
Annual Cost of Operation and Maintenance
(including but not limited to monitoring, inspection, permitting fees, waste
disposal charges, repair, administration and rplaceineifl)
10 years (n)
(2)
S
(3)
S
(4)
• While actual payback schedules may differ across projects and companies, assume equal annual
payments over a loyear period for consistency in comparing projects.
Or see Appendix B for calculated annualization factors
For recurring costs that occur less frequently than once a year, pro rate the cost over the relevant
number of years (e.g., for pumps replaced once every three years, include onc .diud of the cost in
each year).
(1)
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project ((3) + (4))
-------
5.2 } nandaI Analysis to Determine If Lwer Water
Quality is “Nec sai ’”
The purpose of the financial impact analysis is to assess
the extent to which planned development will be reduced as
a result of maintaining water quality. There are two sets
of tests presented in this section: one set for publicly
owned developments, such as POTWs, and another for
privately owned developments, such as new manufacturing
facilities. The tests are not designed to determine the exact
impact of pollution control costs on an entity. They merely
provide indicators of whether pollution cont l costs would
result in a substantial impact.
5.2.a Fublic-Sector Developments: Calamlate and
Evaluate the Municipal Prellmlnamy Screener
Value
Whether or not maintaining high.quality water is likely
to interfere with a development due to additional public-
sector costs is determined by jointly considering the results
of two tests. The first test is a scteenere to establish
whether the community can clearly pay for the project.
The Municipal P1e1iTnin 1y Screener estimates the total per
household annual pollution control costs to be borne by
households ( existing costs plus those attributable to the
pzvposed project) as a percentage of median household
income. The screener is written as follows:
MwdmInaiyScrwter
Average Total Pollution Control Cost perHousehold
Medi€z’i Household Income
Median household income information for many
municipalities is available from the 1990 Census of
Population. To estimate median household income for the
current year, use the CPI inflation sale for the period
between the year that median household income is available
and the current year.
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards 5-14
-------
Worksheet S
Municipal Preliminary Screener
The Municipal Preliminary Screener indicates quickly whether a public entity will incur any
substantial economic impacts as a result of the proposed pollution control project. The formula is as
follows:
Total Annual Pollution Control Cost per Household
Me’Iia’s Household Income.
A. Calculation of The Municipal Preliminary Screener
Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household (Worksheet C, (11) or $
Worksheet C, Option A (10)]
Median Household Income ’
B. Evaluation of The Municipal Preliminary Screener
If the Municipal Pre1 inrn ry Screener is clearly less than 1.0%, then it is assumed that the cost will not
impose an undue finineial burden. In this case, it is not necessary to con Iruie with the Secondary Teat.
Otherwise, it is necessary to continue.
Benchmark Comparison:
UWe —
Lass than 1.0%
Mld-Ra e Impsct
1.0% - 2.0%
Greater than 2.0%
Indication of no
substantial
economic —
Proceed to Secondary Test
(1)
Municipal Preliminary Screener (Calculate: ((1)1(2)] x 100)
S (2)
1990 Census adjusted by CPI inflation rate if necessary.
-------
Depending on the results of the screener, the
community is expected to incur small, mid-range, or large
economic impacts (see Worksheet S). If the total annual
cost per household (existing annual cost per household plus
the incremental cost related to the proposed project) is less
than 1.0 percent of median household income, then the
requirements are not expected to impose a substantial
economic hardship on households and would not interfere
with the development.
Communities are expected to incur mid ange impacts
when the ratio of total annual compliance costs..to median
household income is between 1.0 and 2.0 percent. If the
average annual cost per household excc,rds 2.0 percent of
median household income, then the project may place a
large financial burden on many of the households within
the community and the requirements may interfere with the
development. In either case, communities ni ve on to the
Secondary Test to demonstrate substantial impacts.
5.2.b Public-Sector Developments: Secondary Test
The Secondary Test is designed to build upon the
characterization of community identified in the Municipal
P eliminary Screener. The Secondary Test indicates the
community’s ability to obtain financing and describes the
socioeconomic health of the community. Indicators
describe precompliance debt, socioeconomic, and financial
management conditions in the community. Using these
indicators and the scoring system described below, the
impact of the cost of pollution control is estirnat d .
Specifically, applicants aie required to present the
following six indicators for the community:
Debt Indicators
• Bond Rating (if available) - a measure of credit
worthiness of the community;
• Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value
of Taxable Property - a measure of debt burden on
residents within the community;
Economic Guidance for Woier Quality StwldwdT 5-16
-------
Socioeconomic Indicators
• Unemployment Rate - a measure of the general
economic health of the community;
• Median Household Income - a measure of the
wealth of the community;
Financial Management Indicators
• PropertyTaxRevenueasaPercentofFullMarket
Value of Taxable Property • a measure of the
funding capacity available to support debt based on
the wealth of the community; and
• Property Tax Collection Rate - a measure of how
well the local government is administered.
A more detailed descri ion of the six indicators is
presented in Section 2.4, including a discussion of
alternative measures to usc in States with property tax caps
and limitations on assessed values. Worksbe T can be
used to estimate each, of the indicators . Table 5-1
summarizes the indicators and what is considered to be a
strong, mid-range, or weak rating .
The Secondary Score is caldul2ted for the community
by weighting each indicator equally and assigning a value
of 1 to each indicator judged to be weak, a 2 to each
indicator judged to be mid-range, and a 3 to each stroog
indicator . A cumulative assessment score is arrived at by
s l imming the individual scores and dividing by the number
of factors used . Workaheat U guides the resd thwiigh
this calculation. The cumulative uses ent score is
evaluated as follows:
• less than 1.5 is considered weak
• between 1.5 and 2.5 is considered mid-range
• greater than 2.5 is considered strong
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Siandwds I 5-17
-------
Worksheet T
Data Used in the Secondary Test
Please list the following values used in determining the Secondary Score. Potential sources of the data
are indicated.
A. Data Collection
Data Potential Source Value
Direct Net Debt Community Fma cial S’ ’nnts
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
$ (1 )
Overlapping Debt Comnuinity Fin cial Stit n 1t
Town, County or State Assesor’s Office $ (2 )
Market Value of Property Community Fin ial Stit nents.
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
$ (3 )
Bond Rating St Ivd and Poors or Moody’s
( 4 )
Community Unemployment 1990 Census of Population
Rate Regional Data Centers %(5 )
National Unemployment Bureau of Labor Statistics
Rate (202)606.6392 %(6 )
Community Median 1990 Census of Population
Household Income $ Cl )
State Median Household 1990 Census of Population
Income $ (8 )
Property Tax Collection Community Financial St I nts
Rate Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
Property Tax Revenues Community Financial StII.4n ntt
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office $ (19)
-------
Worksheet T, Continued
B. Calculation of Indicators
1. Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable Propeily
Overall Nez Debt (Calculate: (1) + (2)) $
(11)
Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of axable
Property (Calculate: ((11)1(3)] x 100)
2. Propaty Tax Reve.iuei as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable Property
Property Tax Revenues as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable
Property (Calculate: ((10)1(3)] x 100)
-------
Wr iieet U
Calculating The Secondary Score
Please check the appropriate box in each row, and record the corresponding score in the final column. Then. sum the scorn and compute the average.
Remember, if one of the debt or socioeconomic indicators is not available, average the two financial management indicators and use this averaged value as
a single indicator with the remaining indicators.
Secondary Indicators
Indicator
Weak’
Mid-R ange”
Strong”
Bond Rating
Worsksheet T, (4)
Below BBS (S&P)
Below Baa (Moody’s)
0
BBS (S&P)
Baa (Moody’.)
0
Above BBS (S&P) or
Baa (Moody’s)
tJ
Overall Net Debt as
of FUJI Market Value of
Taxable Property
Worksheet T, (12)
Above 5%
0
2%-S%
0
Below 2%
0
Unemployment
WorksbectT,(5)&(6)
Above National Average
0
National Average
0
Below National Average
0
Median Houithold Inooma
WoikaheetT,(7)&(R)
Below State Median
0
State Median
0
Above State Mehn
04
Prupeity Tax Revenues as a
PWznt of Full Market
ValueofTaxablePiupeitY
- Worksheet T,( 13)
Above 4%
0
2%-4%
0
Below 2%
0
Pr , 1 esty Tax Collection
Rate
WorkabeetT,(9)
<94%
0
94%-98%
0
>98%
0
Weak is a score of 1 point
SUM
°°Mid-Rangcisa scorn of2 points
Strong is a score of 3 points
AVERAGE
c::
Score
-------
TABLE 5-1
SECONDARY INDICATORS
Secondary Indienton
Indicator
Weak
Mld.Range
Strong
Bond Rating
Below BBB (S&P)
Below Baa (Moody’s)
BBB (S&P)
Baa (Moody’s)
Above BBB (S&P)
or Baa (Moody’s)
Overall Net Debt as
Percent of Full
Market Value of
Taxable Property
Above 5%
•
2%-5%’
Below 2%
Unemployment
More than 1% above
National Average
National Average
More than 1%
below National
Average
Median Household
Income
More than 10% below
State Median
Slate Median
More than 10%
above State Median
Property Tax
Revenues as a Percent
of Full Market Value
of Taxable Property
Above 4%
2%-4%
Below 2%
Property lax
CollectionRaze
<94%
94%-98%
>98%
Economic Guidance for W jer Quality Standa,dr 5-21
-------
If the applicant is not able to develop one or more of
the six indicators, they must provide an expl2n2tion as to
why the indicator is not appropriate or not available. Since
the point of the analysis is to measure the overall burden to
the community, the debt and socioeconomic indicators are
assumed’ to be better measures of burden than the financial
management indicators. Consequently, if one of the debt
or socioeconomic indicators is not available, the applicant
should average the two financial management indicators
and use this averaged value as a single indicator with the
ren1 ’ning indicators, This averaging is necessary so that
undue weight is not given to the financi .T management
indicators.
5.24 Public-Sector Developments: Aas s Wh h the
Requiriments Would Interfere With the
Development
The results of the two tests are considered jointly in
determining whether the community is expected to incur
substantial impacts that would interfere with the
development. As shown in Table 5-2, the cumulative
assessment score for the community is combined with the
estirn t cj household burden. The combination of factors
establishes whether impacts can be expected to be
substantial. -
In the matrix, ‘X’ indicates that the impact is likely to
interfere with the development. The closer the community
is to the upper right hand corner of the matrix, the greater
the likelihood. SimiI2rIy, ‘I ’ indicates that the impact is
not likely to interfere with development. The closer to the
lower left hand corner of the matrix, the n fler the
likelihood. Finally, the “ indir t c that the impact is
unclear.
Economic Guidance for Water Qualiry &andards 5-22
-------
TABLE 5-2
ASSESSMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL Thfl ACTS MATR
Secondary Score
Municipal Preliminary Scrinier
Les. than 1.0
Pecant
Betweon 1.0 and 2.0
P t
Greater than 2.0
P t
Lcssthanl.5
?
X
X
Betweenl.5and2.5
/
?
X
Grea&crthan2.5
Sf
If
?
5.2.e Private-sector vev lnnm ntc Financial Measures
Four general categories of financial tests are used to
determine if maint2ining high-quality water will interfere
with privately owned development. The four categories are
divided into a primary measure of financial impacts and
three secondary measures of financial impacts:
Primary Measure
• Profit - bow much would profits decline due to
pollution control expenditures?
Secondary Measures
• Liquidity - how easily can an eiitity pay its shod-
term bills?
• Solvency - how easily can an entity pay its fixed
and long-term bills?
• Leverage - bow much money can the entity
borrow?
Profit and solvency ratios are calculated both with and
without the additional compliance costs ( t ing into
conth1 ration the entity’s ability, if any, to increase its
prices to cover part or all of the costs). Comparing these
ratios to each other and to industry benchmarks provides a
measure of the impact on the enGty . Since antidegrai 1 tion
reviews involve new or expanded operations, the ratios
Economic G ddance for Woier Quality Sranda dc 5-23
-------
often will be calculated using estimated values from pm-
fonna income statements and balance sheets prepared for
the development.
For all of the tests, it is important to look beyond the
individual test results and evaluate the total situation of the
entity. While each test addresses a single aspect of
financial health, the results of the four tests should be
considered jointly to obtain an overall picture. The results
should be compared with the ratios for other entities in the
same industry or activity.
The primary and secondary measures are described
below, along with an example of specific tests to be used.
While there are several ratios that could be used for each
test, to simplify the presentation only one ratio per teat is
described. In most cases , interpreting the results requIres
comparisons with typical values for the industry. Among
the sources that provide comparative information are:
Robert Moms Associates’ Annual Statemeiu Snidies,
Moody’s IndiLirrial Manual, Dun and Bradstreet’s Dini’s
Indusny Norms, and Standard & Poor’s Inthssny Swveys.
The Annual Sjaieme,u Stu dies, Dun’s Indu.my Norms , and
Standard & Poor’s Industry Sur#e ys provide composite
statistics for firms grouped into various manufacturing arid
service industries. The Moody’: Indusnial Manual
provides detailed financial information on individual firms
that can be used for comparison purposes. Each of the
rests is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
5.2.f Private-Sector Developments: Primary Measure
Primary measure is the Profit Test, which measures the
development’s earnings if it is required to provide pollution
control necessary to maintain the high-quality waters and if
it is not required to do so. If maintnining high-quality
waxer would result in considerably lower profits, then the
development might not take place.
Two pieces of information are needed for the Profit
Test. The first piece is the total annual cost of the required
pollution control from Worksheet IL The second piece is
Economic Guidance for Wwer Qualiry Srandaidc 5-24
-------
the earnings information from the entity’s income statement
(Worksheet V).
Profit Test = Earnings Before Taxes
Revenues
The Profit Test should be calculated with and without
the cost of the pollution control. In the former case, the
annfl2Ii7P l cost of pollution control (including O&M) is
subtracted from the discharger’s estimated earnings before
taxes (revenues minus costs excluding income taxes). The
Profit Test can be calculated using Worksh ts V, and W.
These profit rates should be compared to those for facilities
in similar lines of business, using data in Moody’s
Industrial Manual, Dun & Brwirrreet ‘s Inthistry Norms wad
Key Business Rados, Standard & Poor’s Indusny Surveys,
or Robert Moms’s Annual StwesneiU Studies.
The degree to which the discharger is able to raise
prices is difficult topiedict, and depends on many factors.
Considerations should include the level of competition in
the industry, the likelihood of competitors’ facilities facing
imihr project costs, and the willingness of consumers to
pay more for the product.
5.2.g Private-Sector Developments: Secondary
Measures
The following secondary measures provide additional
important information about the financial health of the
development. All primary and secondary measures should
be included in the analysis.
Liquidity
Liquidity is a measure of how easily a discharger can
pay its short-term bills. One measure of liquidity is the
Current Ratio, which compares current assets with current
liabilities. Current assets include cash and other assets that
are or could reasonably be converted into cash clunng
current year. Likewise, current liabilities are items that
must be paid within the current year.
Economic Guidance for Wojer Qualiry Standards
-------
Worksheet V
Calculation of Earnings Before Taxes
A. Earnings Without Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT = RCGS-CO
B. Earnings With Pollution Control ProjectCosts
EWPR = EBT - ACPR
Where: EBT - Earnings Before Taxes
EWPR Earnings with Pollution Project Costs
R— Revenues
CGS — Cost of Goods Sold (including the cost of materials, direct labor, indirect
labor, rent and heat)
CO Portion of Corporate Overhead Assigned to the Discharger (selling,
general, administrative, interest, R&D expenses, and depreciation on
common property)
ACPR Total Annual Costa of Pollution Control Project (Worksheet R (5)]
R ___________________ (1)
CGS __________________ (2)
CO _________________ (3)
EBTU1)- )-(3)J (4)
ACPR [ WorksheetR(5) ] ________________ (5)
EWFRU4)-(5)] (6)
S
S
S
E’
r i
-------
Worksheet W
Calculation of Profit Rates
A. Profit Rate Without Project Costs
PRT=EBT+R
B. Profit Rate With Pollution Control Costs
EBT [ Worksheet V, (4)]
R [ Worksheet V, (1)]
PRPR = EWPR + R
Profit Rate Before Taxes
Profit Rate with Pollution Control Costs
Earnings Before Taxes
Before-Tax Earnings with Pollution Control Costs
PRT — Calculate: [ (1)1(2)]
EWPR [ Worksheet V, (6)]
R [ Worksheet V, (1)]
(3)
(4)
(5)
Where:
PRT=
PRPR
EBT—
EWPR —
R—
(1)
(2)
c
S
S
L
PRPR [ Cakiil.t : (4 ) 1( 5) ]
(6)
-------
The Current Ratio is calculated by dividing current
assets by current liabilities.
CurreiU Ri,jio Curretu Assets
Curreiu Liabilities
The Current Ratio can be calculated using Worksheet X.
The general nile is that if the Current Ratio is greater than
2, the entity should be able to cover its short-term
obligations. Frequently, lenders require”this level of
liquidity as a prerequisite for lending. This nil, (Current
Ratio> 2) may not, however, be appropriate for all types
of private entities. The Current Ratio of the discharger in
question should be compared with ratios for other
dischargers in the same line of business.
Solvency
Solvency is a measure of an entity’s ability to meet its
fixed and long-term obligations. These obligations are bills
and debts that are owed on a regular basis for periods
longer than one year. Solvency tests are commonly used
to predict financial problems that could lead to bankruptcy
within the next few years.
As with liquidity, there ait several possible tests for
solvency. One solvency test, the Beaver’s Ratio, compares
cash flow to total debt. This test has been shown to be a
good indicator of the likelihood of bankruptcy.
Beaver s Ratio = Cash Flow
Total Debt
The Beaver’s Ratio can be calculated using Worksheet
Y. Cash Flow is a measure of the cash the entity has
availahle to it in a given year. Since depreciation is an
accounting cost — a cost that does not use any currently
available revenues — it is ad4 d back to reported net
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards 5-28
-------
Worksheet X
Calculation of The Current Ratio
CR = CA ÷ CL
Where: CR — Current Ratio
CA — Current Assets (the sum of inventories, prepaid expenses, and accounts
receivable)
CL Current Liabilities (the sum of accounts payable, accrued expenses, taxes , and
the current portion of long-term debt)
CA $ (1)
CL $ (2)
CR (Calculate: (1)/(2)] f
-------
income after taxes to get cash flow. Total debt is equal to
the current debt for the current year plus the Long term
debt, since current debt includes that part of long-term debt
that is due in the current year.
If the Beaver’s Ratio is greater than 0.20 the
development is considered to be solvent (i.e., can pay its
long-term debts). If the ratio is less than 0.15 the
development may be insolvent (i.e., go banknipt). If the
ratio is between 0.15 and 0.20, then future solvency is
uncertain.
‘t.
Leverage
Leverage tests measure the extent to which a firm has
fixed financial obligations and thus indicates how much
more money a firm is cap2h le of borrowing. Firms that
rely heavily on debt may find it difficult and expensive to
borrow additional funds. One commonly used measure of
leverage is the Debt to Equity Ratio.
RatiO a Long - Term liabilities
Oiwiers 1 Equity
The Debt to Equity Ratio can be calculated using
Worksheet Z. Since there are no generally accepted
Debt/Equity Ratio values that apply to all types of
economic activity, the ratio should be compared with the
ratio of firms in imilir businesses. If the entity’s ratio
compares favorably with the median or upper quartile ratio
for dm1121 businesses, it should be able to borrow
additional funds. These ratios can be calculated u’ing da
in Robert Moms Associates’ Annual Statement Studies,
Moody’s IndassrrialMwuwl, and Dun & Bradstreet’s Dsar’s
Indusny Norms.
For entities with special sources of funding, leverage is
not an appropriate measure of their ability to raise capital.
Examples are agriculture and affordable housing, where
special loan programs may be available. In these cases , an
Economic Guidance/or Water Quality Siandaidr 5-30
-------
Worksheet Y
Calculation of Beaver’s Ratio
BR = CF — TD
Where: BR Beaver’s Ratio
CF Cash Flow
TD = Total Debt
Cash Flow:
Net Income After Taxes
Depreciation
CF (Calculate: (1) + (2)]
Total Debt:
Current Debt
Long-Term Debt
Total Debt
Benver’s Ratio:
BR ((3)1(6)]
$ (1)
S
S
S
S
S
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
-------
Worksheet Z
DER — Debt/Equity Ratio
LU = Long-Term Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures, and bank
debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities such as deferred income taxes)
OE Owner Equity (the difference between total assets and total liabilities,
including contributed or paid in capital and retained earnings)
LU ______________________ (1)
OE ___________________ (2)
(3)
Debt to Equity Ratio
DER=LTL-OE
Where:
S
S
DER [ (1)1(2))
-------
analysis of the probability that the project would receive
this money is appropriate.
5.2.g Private-Sector Developments: Assess Whether the
Requirements Will Interfere With the
Development: Interpreting the Results
The financial analysis should be used to determine if
there will be a substantial adverse impact such as to
interfere with the development. If the four tests taken
together indicate that the requirements would interfere with
the development, then proceed to Section 5 3 to determine
if the development would be considered important in social
and economic terms.
5.3 Determine If Economic and Social Development
Would Be Important
There aie no economic ratios per se that determine
whether a development would be considered important.
Instead, the relative magnitudes of indicators such as
increases in unemployment, losses to the local economy,
changes in household income, decreases in tax revenues,
indirect effects on other businesses , and increases in sewer
fees should be taken into account. The term important is
intended to convey a general concept regarding the level of
social and economic development used to justify a change
in high-quality waters.
5.3.a Define Relevant Geographical Area
One important factor is defining the geographical area
in which the impacts will occur. In the case of municipal
pollution control projects, the affected community is most
often the immediate municipality. The relevant geographic
area for evaluating the importance of a private -sector
development varies with each situation. The area will
typically be determined by the area in which the majority
of its workers live and where most of the businesces that
depend on it are located. In either case, the geographical
area considered must include N...the area in which the
waters are located. (40 CFR 131.12 (a)(2)) There axe no
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Swndaidr. 5-33
-------
simple rules for defining the relevant area or community;
the decision is based on the judgement of the applicant and
state, subject to EPA review.
5.3.b Public-Sector Developments: Determine Whether
Important
While there are no explicit criteria, it is recommended
that changes in the socioeconomic indicators listed below
be considered. For each indicator listed , the applicant
should estimate the potential change that would result horn
the development.
• Median Household Income;
• Community Unemployment Rate;
• Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value
of Taxable Property ;
• Percent of Households Below Poverty Line;
• Impact on Community Development Potential; and
• Impact on Property Values.
timpt.d changes should be provided, along with
supporting discussions, on Worksheet AA.
5.3.c Private-SectorDevelopments: Determine Whether
Important
DeterrninMion of whether or not a private-sector
development will be important to a community requires
exploring more factors than is the case with public-sector
developments. Worksheet AB has been provided to assist
applicants in their evaluation of socioeconomic impacts. It
is designed as a list of the factors applicants should
consider in determining whether the development is
important. Applicants should feel free, however, to add
anecdotal information to describe any current community
characteristics or anticipated impacts that are not listed in
the worksheet.
Potentially, one of the most important impacts on the
affected community’s economy is the employment to be
gained . The size of this impact is dependent on the
&onorrdc Guidance for Water Quality Standards 5.34
-------
number of new jobs relative to the total number of jobs in
the community, and to the other job opportunities available
in the community. Typically, an increase in employment
leads to an increase in personal income in the affected
community. The total amount of income gained by the
affected community will depend, in part, on the other job
prospects of those hired. To assess the net impact on
employment in the affected community, the existing rate of
unemployment should be considered as an indicator of
worker mobility between jobs.
The analysis should also consider whether the increase
in employment opportunities may lead to a decreased need
for social services in the affected community. If the cost
of savings for decreased social services will be borne by
the affected community, they should be included in the
assessment.
The effects of increased employment and personal
income will be compounded as the money moves through
the economy. This multiplier effect means that each dollar
gained to an employee results in the gain of more than a
dollar to the local economy. Multiplier effects are
discussed in more detail in Section 4.4.
Socioeconomic impacts may also include effects on the
local government(s) such as property tax revenues and the
demand for other public services. For example, if the
development would be paying a share of the cost to
upgrade a municipal treatment plant, then the analysis of
community impacts is more complicated. If the
development is Piimin2t.’d , the system may become
excessively expensive for the rem2ining users.
5.4 Snmm ry
Using the guidance described in this document, the
applicant must demonstrate that the pollution control
measures needed to maintain the high-quality waters will
interfere with the development. In addition, the applicant
will have to show that the development is important to the
community.
Economic G ddance for Wojer Qualiry SwndarSs 5-35
-------
The tests used to demonstrate interference and
importance are the same as those used to demonstrate
substantial and widespread. The difference is, however,
that an antidegiadation review considers situations that
would improve the economic condition.
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standardr 5-36
-------
Worksheet AA
Public-Sector Development
Qualitative Description of Estimated Change
In Socioeconomic Indicators
due to Pollution Control Costs
Estimated change
in Median
Household
Income (Mifi)
Estimated change
in the
unemployment
rate
Estimated change
in overall net debt
as a percent of
full market value
of taxable
property
Estimated change
in of
households below
the poverty line
Impact on
commercial
development
potential
Impact on
Property Values
-------
Worksheet AB
A .,.e-Sector Devdok,. ....
Factors to Consider In Making a Determination of Widespread Sodal and Economic Impacts
Define the affected community in this case; what areas are Included. _____________________________ (I)
Current unemployment rate in affected community (If available). ____________________________________ (2)
Current national unemployment rate. ________________________________ (3)
Additional number of persona expected to collect unemployment in affected (4)
community due to compliance with water quality standards. ____________________________
Expected unemployment rate in the affected community after compliance wIth (5)
water quality standards (Current I of persons collecting unemployment
in affected community + (4)flabor Ibrce In affected community. ____________________________
Median household Income in affected communIty. _________________________________________ (6)
Total number of households In affected community. _______________________________ (7)
Percent of population below the poverty line In affected community. ______________________________ (8)
Current expenditures on social services In affected community. ____________________________ (9)
Expected expenditures on social services due to job losses in the affected (10)
community.
Current total tax revenues in the affected community. ___________________________ (II)
Tax tevemies paid by the private entity to the affected community. ___________________________ (12)
-------
Worksheet AB, continued
Tax revenues paid by the private entity as a percentage of the affected (13)
community’s total tax revenues. __________________________________________
Current statewide unemnlovment rates. ________________________________________ (14)
Additional number of persoes expected to collect unemployment In the State (IS)
due to compliance with water quality standards. ______________________________
Expected statewide unemployment rate, after compliance with waler quality (16)
standards (Current I of persoas collecting unemployment In State +
(15)/labor force In State. ______________________________________
Current expenditures on social services In State. _________________________________ (17)
Expected statewide expenditures on social services due to job losses. _________________________________ (IS)
In some cases , the affected community will Include more than just the municipality In which the private entity is located. If so, the analysis
should conelder the private entity’s tax revenues as a percentage of the tax revenues for only the municipality In which the entity Is located.
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA RESOURCES AND REFERENCE
MATERIALS
-------
APPENDIX A
Cost Estimation Resources:
U.S. EPA, Construction Costs for Municipal Wauewazer 7)eatnw?u Platus: 1973-1978,
EPAJ43O/9-80-OO 3 , April, 1980.
U.S. EPA, Technical Report: Operation and Maintenance Costs for Municipal Wasreiv er
Facilities, EPA/43019-81-00 4 , September, 1981.
U.S. EPA, Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Convryance Systems: 1973-1979,
EPA143019 -81-0O 3 , ianuary, 1981.
U.S. EPA, Quarterly Indices of Direct Costs for Opration. Maintenance and Repair: (a) Waste
Pumping Stations, (b) Gravity Se rs, Office of Municipal Pollution Conu o1, Municipal
Facilities Division, Current.
Municipal Statistk Resources:
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commeive, County and aty Data Book, published
annually.
Financial and Ratio Analysis Resources:
Leopold A. Bernstein, The Analysis of Financial Statements, Dow Jones-Irwin, 1978.
Dun & Bradstreet, Dun’s Industry Nonns, annual.
3. Pied Weston and Eugene F. Brigham, Managerial Finance, The Dryden Press, several
editions.
Robert Morris Associates, Annual Statement Studies, annual.
Moody’s Financial Services, Moody’s industrial Manual, annual.
U.S. Depaitment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Stati5tics , CPI Detailed Repoñ.
U.S. EPA, EPA Financial Capability Guidebook, Office of Water Programs Operations, 1984.
U.S. EPA, The Municipal Sector Snuty: Impacts of EnWronme’Ual Regulations on
Municipalities, EPA 230-09-038, Office of Policy, Pl nmng and Evaluation, September
1988.
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLE OF ANNUALIZATION FACTORS
-------
k qdix B.Table of Annualization Factors
Year
Interest
Rate
0.05
0.055
0.06
0.005 0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
1.0450
1.0500
1.0550
1.0600
1
1.0050
1.0100
1.0150
1.0200
1.0250
1.03 ( X)
1.0350
1.0400
0.5340
0.5378
0.5416
0.5454
2
0.5038
0.5075
0.5113
0.5150
0.5188
0.5226
0.5264
0.3672
0.3707
0.3741
3
0.3367
0.3400
0.3434
0.3501
0.3535
0.3569
0.3603
0.2755
0.3638
0.2787 0.2820
0.2853
0.2886
4 0.2531
0.2563
0.2594 0.2626
0.2658
0.2690
0.2723
0.fl46
0.2278
0.2310
0.2342
0.2374
5
0.2030
0.2060 0.2091
0.2122
0.2152
0.2184
0.2215
0.1908
0.1939
0.1970
0.2002
0.2034
6
0.1696
0.1725
0.1755
0.1815
0.1846
0.1877
0.1666
0.1697
0.1728
0.1760
0.1791
7
0.1457
0.1486
0.1516
0.1545
0.1575
0.1605
0.1635
0.1485
0.1516
0.1547
0.1579
0.1610
8
0.1278
0.1307
0.1336
0.1365
0.1395
0.1425
0.1455
0.1345
0.1376
0.1407
0.1438
0.1470
9
0.1139
0.1167
0.1196
0.1225
0.1255
0.1284
0.1314
0.1233
0.1264
0.1295
0.1327
0.1359
10
0.1028
0.1056
0.1084
0.1172
0.1202
0.1141
0.1112
0.1204
0.1236
0.1268
ii
0.0937
0.0965
0.0993
0.10
0.1051
0.1081
0.1111
01097
0.1128
0.1160
0.1193
12
0.0861
0.0888 0.0917 0.0946
0.0975
0.1005
0.1035
0.0971
0. 1001
0. 1033
0.1065
0.1097
0.1130
13
0.07%
0.0824
0.0852
0.0881
0.0910
0.0940
0.0978
0.1010
0.1043
0.1076
14
0.0741
0.0769
0.0797
0.0826
0.0885
0.0916
0.0868
0.0947
0.0899
0.0931
0.0963
0.0996
0.1030
15
0.0694
0.0721
0.0749
0.0778 0.0808
0.0838
0.0858
0.0890
0.0923
0.0956 0.0990
16
0.06
0.0679
0.0708
0.0737 0.0766 0.0796 0.08Z
17
0.0615
0.0643
0.0671
0.0700
0.0729
0.0760
0.0790
0.0822
18
0.0582
0.0610
0.0638 0.0667
0.06
0.0727
0.0758
0.0799
0.0761 0.0794
0.0827
00862
- 19
0.0553
0.0581
0.0609 0.0638
0.066!
0.0698
0.07
0.0854
0.0887
0.0920
0.0736 0.0769
0.0954
0.0924
0.0896
0.0872
0.0802 0.0837
- 20 0.05 L 0.0554
0.0582 0.0612 0.0641 01)672 0.0iO
-------
Appendix B.Table of Annualization Factors
Year
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08 0.085 0.09
Interest Rate
3
0.3776
0.3811
0.095
0.3845
1
1.0650
1.0700
1.0750
1.0800
1.0850
1.0900
1.0950
1.1000
1.1050
1.1100
2
0.5493
0.5531
0.5569
0.5608
0.5646
0.5685
0.5723
0.5762
0.5801
0.5839
0.1
0.3880
0.105
0.39 15
0.11
0.395 1
0.3986
0.4021
0. 1 15_
1.1150
0.5878
0.4128
0.4057
0.12
1.1200
0.5917
0.4 163
0.4092
4
0.2919
0.2952
0.2986
0.3019
0.3053
0.3087
0.3121
0.3155
0.3189
0.3223
0.3258 0.3292
0.2740 0.2774
0.23980.2432
0.2191
0.1978 0i0 13
5
0.2406
0.2439
0.2472
0.2505
0.2538
0.2571
0.2604
0.2638
0.2672
0.2706
6
0.2066
0.2098
0.2130
0.2163
0.2196
0.2229
0.2263
0.2296
0.2330
0.2364
7
0.1823
0.1856
0.1888
0.1921
0.1954
0.1987
0.2020
0.2054
0.2088
0.2122
8
0.1642
0.1675
0.1707
0.1740
0.1807
0.1840
0.1874
0.1909
0.1943
9
0.1502
0.1535
0.1568
0.1601
0.1634
0.1668
0.1702
0.1736
0.1771
0.1806
0.1841
0.1877
10
0.1391
0.1424
0.1457
0.1490
0.1524
0.1558
0.1593
0.1627
0.1663
0.1698
0.1734
01770
11
0.1301
0.1334
0.1367
0.1401
0.1435
0.1469
0.1504
0.1540
0.1575
0.1611
0.1648
0.1684
12
0.1226
0.1259
0.1
0.1327
0.1362
0.1397
0.1432
0.1468
0.1504
0.1540
0.1577
0.1614
13
0.1163
0.1197
0.1231
0.1265
0.1300
0.1336
0.1372
0.1408
0.1444
0.1482
0.1519
0.1551
14
0.1109
0.1143
0.1178
0.1213
0.1248
0.1284
0.1321
0.1357
0.1395
0.1432
0.14700.1509
15
0.1098
0.1133
0.1168
0.1204
0.1241
0.1277
0.1315
0.1352
0.I391
0.1429
0.1468
16
0.1024
0.1059
0.1094
0.1130
0.1166
0.1203
0.1240
0.1278
0.1316
0.1355
0.1394
0.1434
17
0.0989
0.1024
0.1060
0.1096
0.1133
0.1170
0.1208
0.1247
0.1285
0.1325
0.1364
0.3405
l8
0.0994
0.1030
0.1067
0.1104
0.1142
0.1180
0.1219
0.1259
0.1298
0.1339
0.1379
19
0.0932
0.0968
0.1004
0.1041
0.1079
0.1117
0.1156
0.1195
0.1235
0.1276
0.1316
0.1358
2Q_0.09 8
0.0944
0.0981
0.3019
0.1057
0.1095
0.1135
0.1175
0.1215
0.1256
0.1297
0.1339
-------
APPENDIX C
CONCEPTUAL MEASURES
OF EcoNOMIC BENEFITS
-------
APPENDIX C
CONCEPTUAL MEASURES
OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS
In valuing benefits associated with an ecological
resource such as clean water, a basic distinction is made
between the intrinsic value of the existence of the resource
and its value in use by the human population. Use values
are further subdivided into direct or indirect uses. Other
valuation concepts arise from the uncertaint surrounding
future uses and availability of the resource. A
classification of these valuation concepts, along with
examples, is presented in Table C-i.
C.1 Use Benefits
Estimating the benefits of clean water will depend upon
several variables that describe the attributes of the resource
and its uses. A waterbody might be used for recreational
activities (such as fishing, boating, swimming, hunting,
bird watching), for commercial purposes (such as industrial
water supply, irrigation, municipal drinking water, and fish
harvesting), or for both. Where recreational activities arc
created or cnhanced due to water quality improvements, the
public will benefit in the form of increased recreational
opportunities. Similarly, the cost of treating irrigation and
drinking water to down stream users could be reduced if
pollutant discharges were reduced or limii ted in a
particular stretch of river.
Direct use includes both consumptive and non-
consumptive uses. Consumptive uses can be distingui had
from non-consumptive uses in that the former excludes
other uses of the same resource while the latter does not.
For example, water is consumed when it is diverted from
a waterbody for irrigation purposes. With non-
consumptive uses, however, the resource base re ’ ’ ’ in
the same state before and after use (e.g., swimming).
Human health benefits associated with cleaner water could
Econonuc Guidance/or Wwer Quality Sandardr
-------
TABLE C.1
CATEGORIES OF BENEFI’rS
Use Benefits
Direct
Consumptive:Mai*e: Benefits
Industrial Water Supply
Agricultural Water Supply
Municipal Watef Supply
Commercial Fishing
Non-Market Benefits
Recreational Fishing
Hunting
Industrial Water Supply
Agricultural Water Supply
Municipal Water Supply
Non-Consumptive:Swimming
Boating
Human Health
Indirect
Fishing Equipment Manufacturer
Piopeny Values
Aesthetics (scenic views, water enhanced m zeat on)
Option Value ( access to resource in future)
Existence Value (knowledge that services of resource exist)
Economic Guidance/or Wwer Qualisy &andards
-------
be consumptive (reduced illness from eating finfish or
shellfish) or non-consumptive (reduced exposure to
infectious diseases while recreating).
When estimating benefits, it is important to determine
whether or not the resource and its uses (in this case clean
water) can be considered market or non-market resources
and uses (i.e., does a market exist for the resource or its
use). For example, commercial fisheries have a market
value reflected by the financial value of landings of a
particular species. By contrast, no market exists to
describe the value individuals receive fN1t swimming.
Where market values are availahle, they should be used to
estimate beneits. In the case of water supply, there may
or may not be a market for clean water. Some water users
may be required to pay for that use as in the case of a
farmer paying a regional water board to divert water for
irrigation purposes. This will be particularly true in the
arid west. By contrast, a manufacturing facility using
water for cooling or process water may not pay anything
for the right to pump and use water from an adjacent river.
For resources with no market value, a number of
estimation techniques including the travel cost, estimition
from similar markets, and contingent valuation methods
have been developed.
While they are conceptually distinct attributes,
consumptive use is frequently associated with markets and
non-consumptive use is frequently associated with non-
market situations. Some resources that are considered
market resources, however, may be used non-
consumptively. The converse is also true. As an example
of the first, a fee may be charged (other than parking) to
gain entrance to a state park, however, while a swimmer’s
use of a lake in the park is not consuming any part of the
lake.
Commercial activities that are dependent on clean water
which is not directly owned are said to benefit fiulD
indirect use. Examples would be a fishing equipment
manufacturer’s on healthy fish stocks to induce
demand for, its products or the dependence. of property
r — i
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards C-3
-------
values on the pristine condition of an adjacent water body.
Indirect use is also characterized by the scenic views and
water enhanced recreational opponunities (camping,
picnicking, birdwatching) associated with the quality of
water in a water body. Indirect use benefits such as
enhanced property values can be estimated using the
hedonic price technique. Care should be taken, however,
to not double-count benefits. If property values reflect the
proximity to and thus use of water, then the value of the
use should not be included separately.
C.2 Intrinsic Benefits
Intrinsic benefits include all benefits associated with a
resource that are not directly related to the current use of
the resource. Intrinsic benefits are represented by the sum
of existiunce and option values. Existence value indicates
an individual’s (and society’s) willingness to pay to
maintain an ecological resource such as clean water for its
own sake, regardless of any perceived or potential
opportunity for that individual to use the water body now
or in the future. Contributions of money to save
endangered species such as the %n2il darter demonstrate a
willingness to pay for the existence of an environmental
amenity despite the fact that the contributors may never use
it or even experience it directly.
Option value is the willingness to pay for having a
future opportunity to use resources such as clean water hi
known or as yet unknown ways. In a sense it is a
combination of insurance and speculative value.
Individuals routinely pay to store or transport something
they are not sure they wifi use in the future because they
recognize it would be more costly to recreate the item than
to preserve it. In an ecological sense, pristine habitats and
wildlife refuges are often preserved under the assnmption
that plant or nim i species which may yield
pharmaceutical, genetic, or ecosystem benefits are yet to be
discovered. Option value takes on particular importance
when proposed development or environmental perturbations
are largely irreversible or pollutants are persistent.
Economic Guidance for Wwer Qualify S:wzdardi C-4
-------
Intrinsic benefits are difficult to measure due to the Level of
uncertainty associated with these benefits. The most
common approach to estimating intrinsic benefits, however,
is the contingent valuation method, which cannot be
described in detail within this short overview.
C.3 Summary
Total valuation of clean water benefits includes all use
and existence values as well as option value. The proper
framework for estimating the economic benefits associated
with clean water consists of 1) determininrWhefl damage
first occurs or would occur; 2) identifying and qpantfying
the potential physical/biolOgiCal damages relative to an
appropriate baseline; 3) identifying all affected individuals
both due to potential loss of direct or indirect services or
uses, and to potential losses attributable to existence values
(may include projections for growth in pazticipP tiofl rates);
4) estimating the value affected individuals place on clean
water prior to potential degradation; and 5) deteimimfig the
time horizon over which the waterbody would be degraded
or restored to some maximum reduced state of service (if
ever), and appropriately discounting the stream of potential
lost services. If evaluating an improvement in water
quality, the procedures a le the same except that benefits
gained aie measured.
Economic Guidance for Wo er Quality Siandards C-S
-------
WoRKsHEETS
-------
Worksheet A
Pollution Control Project Snmm ry Information
Current Capacity of the Pollution Control System
Design Capacity of the Pollution Control System
Current Excess Capacity
Expected Excess Capacity after Completion of Project
Projected Groundbreaking Date.
Projected Daze of Completion
%
%
Please describe the pollution control project being proposed below. (Attach additional page if necessary).
Please describe the other pollution control options considered, explpining why each option was rejected.
(Attach additional page if nrcf1 ry).
-------
Worksheet B
Calculation of Total Annn2li7ed Project Costs
A. Capital Costs
Capital Cost of Project
Other One-Time Costs of Project (Please List, if any):
Total Capital Costs (Sum column)
Portion of Capital Costs to be Paid for with Grant Monies
Capital Costs to be Financed [ Calculate: (I) - (2)]
Type of financing (e.g., GO. bond, revenue bond, bank loan)
Interest Rate for Financing (expressed as decimal)
Time Period of FinAni ing (in years)
Annualization Factor _______ • I (or see Appendix B)
(I. i) — I
Anmalized Capital Cost [ Calculate: (3) x (4)]
B. Opcrati end Maintenanos Costs
Annual Costs of Operation and Maintr ir e (including but not lmth d to: mnonitoring, inspection,
permitting fees, waste disposal charges, repair, administration and replacem t.) (Please list below)
S
S
S
S
$ (6)
$
S
S
S
S
(I)
S
(2)
S
(3)
(1)
(n)
(4)
(5)
$
Total Annual 0 & M Costs (Sum column)
C. Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project ((5) + (6)]
-------
Worksheet C
Calculation of Total Annual Pollution Control Costs
Per Household
A. Current Pollution Control Costs:
Total Annual Cost of Existing Pollution Control S (1 )
Amount of Existing Costs Paid By Households S (2 )
Percent of Existing Costs Paid By Households %(3 )
Number of Households’ ( 4 )
Annual Cost Per Household (Calculate: (2)/(4) 1 ( 5 )
• Do not use number of hook-ups.
B. New Pollution Control Costs
Are households expected to provide revenues for the new pollution control project in the same proportion
that they support existing pollution control? (Check a, b or C and continue as directed.)
o a) Yes (fill in percent from (3) J LI percent.(6a)
o b) No. they are expected to pay I j percent.(6b)
o C) No, they are expected to pay based on flow. (Continue on Worksheet C, Option A)
S
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project [ Line (7), Worksheet B]
Proportion of Costs Households Are Expected to Pay ((6a) or (6b)]
Amount to Be Paid By Households (Calculate: (7) a (8) 1
Annual Cost per Household [ Caiculale: (9)1(4)]
C. Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Per HousehOld (5) + (10)
S
S
(7)
(10)
-------
Worksheet C: Option A
Calculation of Total Annual Pollution Control Costs Per Household
Based on Flow
A. Calculating Project Costs Incurred By Households Based on Flow
Expected Total Usage of Project (eg. MCD for Wascewazer Treatment)
Usage due to Household Use (MCD of Household Wastewater)
Percent of Usage due to Household Use (Calculate: (2 i(l)]
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project
Industrial Surcharges. if any
Costs to be Allocated (Calculate: (4) - (5) J
Amount to Be Paid By Households (CalcuLate: (3) x (6) 1
Annual Project Cost per Household (Calculate: (7)/Worksheet C. (4) 1
C. Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household
Annual Existing Costs Per Household [ Worksheet C, (5)1
(1)
(2)
%(3)
S
(4)
S
(5)
S
(6)
S
(7)
S
(8)
S
(9
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Per Household ((8) + (9) J
-------
Worksheet D
Municipal Preliminary Screener
The Municipal Preliminary Screener indicates quickly whether a public entity will incur any
substantial economic impacts as a result of the proposed pollution control project. The formula is as
follows:
Total Annual Pollution Control Cost per Household
Median Household Incomes
A. Calculation of The Municipal Praliminary Screener
Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household [ Worksheet C, (11) or . $
Worksheet C, Option A (10)]
Median Household lncome
Municipal Praliminary Screener (Calculate: ((1)1(2)) x 100)
B. Evaluation of The Municipal Preliminary Screener
If the Municipal Preliminary Screener is clearly less than 1.0%, then it is assumed that the cost will not
impose an undue financial burden. In this case, it is not necessary to continue with the Secondary Test.
Otherwise, it is necessary to continue.
Benchmark Comparison:
Utile Impact
Less than 1.0%
I
Mid-Range Impaø
1.0% - 2.0%
I
LW e —
Greater than 2.0%
Indication of no
substantial
economic impacts
II
Proceed to Secondary Test
(1)
S (2)
1990 Census adjusted by CPI inflation rate if necessary.
-------
Worksheet E
Data Used in the Secondary Test
Please list the following values used in determining the Secondary Score. Potential sources of the data
are indicated.
Bond Piting
Community Unemployment
Raw
National Unemployment
Rate
Community Median
Household Income
State Median Household
Income
Property Tax Collection
Rate
Property Tax Revenues
Potential Source
‘I - .
Community Fin neial Stazeme ts
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
Community Financial Statements
Town, County or State Assesor’s Office $
Community Finincial St ments
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
$
S’ ”dard and Poors or Moody’s
1990 Census of Population
Regional Data Centers
Bureau of Labor Statistics
(202) 606-6392
1990 Census of Population
1990 Census of Population
Community Finineial Statements
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
Community Financial S’ ’ements
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office $
(4)
.
%(5)
%(6)
S.
(7)
S
(8)
•
%(9)
(10)
A. Data Collection
Data
Direct Net Debt
Overlapping Debt
Market Value of Property
Value
(I)
C l)
-------
Worksheet E, Continued
B. Calculation of indicators
1. Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable Property
Overall Net Debt (Calculate: (I) + (2)) S
Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable
Property (Calculate: ((11)1(3)1 x 100)
(11)
E
2. Property Tax Revenues as a Pdcent of Full Market Value of Taxable Property
Property Tax Revenues as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable
Property (Calculate: [ (10)/(3)] x 100) __________________________
—
-------
Wor’ 4 teet F
Calcutating Th. áecondary Score
Please check the appropriate box in each row, and record the corresponding score in (he final column. Then, sum the scores and compute the average.
Remember, if one of the debt or socioeconomic indicators is not available, average the two financial management indicators and use this averaged value as
a single indicator with the remaining indicators.
Secondary Indicators
Indicator
Weak
Mid-Range”
Strung’”
Bond Rating
Worsksheet E. (4)
Below BBS (S&P)
Below Baa (Moody’s)
0
BBS (S&P)
Baa (Moody’s)
0
Above BBS (S&P) or
Baa (Moody’s)
0
Overall Net Debt as Percent
of Full Market Valu, of
TaxabteProperty
Worksheet_E,_(12)
Above 5%
0
2%-5%
0
Below 2%
0
Unemployment
WorksheetE,Ø)&(6)
Above National Avenge
0
National Average
0
Below National Average
0
Median Household Income
WorkaheetE,(7)&(8)
Below Stale Median
0
State Median
0
Above State Median
0
Fr arty Tax Revenues as a
Percent of Full Market
Value of Taxable Property
Worksheet_B,_(13)
Above 4%
0
2%-4%
0
Below 2%
0
Property Tax Collection
Rate
Wo rkaheetE,(9)
<94%
0
94%-98%
0
>98%
0
SUM
AVERAGE
Score
Weak is a scorn of I point
Mid-Range is a score of 2 points
Strong is a score of 3 points
-------
Worksheet G
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Costs
Capital Costs to be financed (Supplied by applicant) $
Annualized Capital Cost (Calculate: (1) x (2))
Annual Cost of Operation and Mainten2ncc
(including but not limited to monitoring, inspection, permitsing fees, waste
disposal charges, repair, administration and replacement)w _________________
While actual payback schedules may differ across projects and companies, assume equal annual
payments over a lOyear period for consistency in comparing projects.
Or see Appendix B for calculated annualization factors
For recurring costs that occur less frequently than once a year, pro rate the cost over the relevant
number of years (e.g., for pumps replaced once every three years, include one-third of the cost in
each year).
Interest Rate for Financing (Expressed as a decimal) (i)
(1)
Time Period of Financing (Assume 10 years)
Annualization Factor I •
(l.i)’ 0 — I
10 years (n)
.
(2)
S
(3)
S
(4)
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Confrol Project ((3) + (4)]
-------
Worksheet H
Calculation of Earnings Before Taxcs
With and Without Pollution Control Project Costs
A. Earnin s Without Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT = RCGS-CO
Earnings Before Taxes
Revenues
Cost of Goods Sold (including the cost of materials, direct labor, indirect
labor, rent and heat)
Portion of Corporate Overhead Assigned to the Discharger (selling,
general, admiiuitrative, interest, R&D expenses, and depreciation on
common property)
R
CGS
Co
EBT [ (1)-(2)-(3)J
S
Is
19
19
S $
S
S
I Is I
19
(1)
(3)
(4)
Considerations: Have earnings beforC taxes changed over the three year period? If so, what would a
typicalw year’s ERT be? Please explain below.
Where:
EBT=
CGS=
Co=
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Yean
S
S
S
S
s
-------
Worksheet H. Continued
B. Earnings With Pollution Control Project Costs
EWPR = EBT - ACPR
Where: EWPR = Earnings with Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT = Earnings Before Taxes (4)
ACPR = Total Annual Costs of Pollution Control Project tWorksbeet G. (5))
10 •
I _______
EBT (4) S (5 )
ACPR [ Worksheet G, (5)) 5 (6 )
EWPR [ (5)-(6))
The most recently completed fiscal year
Consideratiotte: Is the discharger expected to have positive earnings after paying the . nwi i cost of
pollution control’ 0 Yes 0 No
Additional Comm its:
-------
Worksheet I
Calculation of Profit Rates
With and Without Pollution Control Project Costs
Three Most R iUy Completed Fiscal Years
19_ 19
EDT (Worksheet H, (4)] _____________ ______________ ____________ (1)
R (Worksheet H, (1)] _____ (2)
PRT Calculate: 1(1)1(2) ]
I
(3)
I
How have profit rates changed over the three years?
Is the most recent year typical of the three years? 0 Yes 0 No
(If not, you might want to use an earlier year or years for the analysis)
S
How do these profit rates compare with the profit rates for this line of business’? Please discuss
below.
A. Profit Rate Without Project Costs
PRT=EBT+R
Where:
PRT—
EDT.
Profit Rate Before Taxes
Earnings BefOre Taxes
Reveneus
19
-------
Worksheet I. Continued
Profit Rate With Pollution Control Costs
Before-Tax Earnings With Pollution Control Costs
Reveneus
The Most Rec itly
Completed
Fiscal Yeer
19
What is the percentage change in the profit rate due to pollution control costs? Calculate as follows:
(PRPR - PR)IPR x 100
B. Profit Rate With Pollution Control Costs
PRPR = EWPR ÷ R
PRPR
EWPR =
R=
Where:
Considerations:
EWPR (Worksheet H. (7)1
R (Worksheet H, (1))
PRPR [ Calculate: (4)1(5)1
$
(4)
S
(5)
I
(6)
How does the profit rate with pollution control compare to the profit rate of this line of lusiness?
-------
Worksheet J
Calculation of The Current Ratio
CR= CA-CL
Where:. CR = Current Ratio
CA = Current Assets (the sum of inventories. prepaid expenses. and accounts
receivable)
CL = Current Liabilities (the sum of accounts payable, accrued expenses. taxes, and
the current portion of long-term debt)
Three Most Recently Completed I Iscel Years
19_ 19....... 19_
CA $ $ S (1)
CL $ S S (2)
CR [ Calculate: (1)11.2)] [ I
Considerations:
Is the most recent year typical of the three years? 0 Yes 0 No
fnOt,Youmtwant iryeoryurthe Y )
CurrentRatio(3)greatetthan 2 .O? DYeS ONo
How does the Current Ratio (3) compare with the Current Ratios for other firms in this line of business?
-------
Worksheet K
Calculation of Beaver’s Ratio
BR=CF-TD
Where: BR = Beavers Ratio
CF = Cash Flow
ID = Total Debt
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Yeaii
19_ 19_ 19_
Cash Flow:
Net Income After Taxes $ $ $ (1)
Depreciation S S — S (2)
CF (Calculate: (1) + (2)] S S S (3)
Total Debt:
Current Debt S S
Long-Term Debt S
Total Debt S S
Beaver’s Ratio:
BR ((3) 1(6)]
[ 1
Ii
S
S
S
F
Consideration s
Is the most recent year typical of the three year ? 0 Yes 0 No
(If not, you might want to use an earlier year or years for the analysis)
Is the Beaver’s Ratio for this discharger greater than 0.2? 0 Yes 0 No
Is the Beaver’s Ratio for this discharger Less than 0.15, 0 Yes 0 No
Is the Beaver’s Ratio for this discharger between 0.2 and 0.15? 0 Yes 0 No
How does this ratio compare with the Beaver’s Ratio for other firms in the same business?
(4)
(5)
(6)
C l)
-------
Worksheet L
Considerations:
DER Debt/Equity Ratio
LTL = Long-Term Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures, and bank
debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities such as deferred income taxes)
OE Owner Equity (the differeDce between total assets and total liabilities,
including contributed or paid in capital and retained earnings)
Is the most recent year typical of the three years? 0 Yes 0 No
(If not, you might want to use an earlier year or years for the analysis)
Debt to Equity Ratio
DER=LTL-OE
Where:
LTL
OE
DER ((1)1(2)]
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Yesra
19 19__
S
$
S
S
S
F
S
I
(I)
(2)
(3)
How does the Debt to Equity Ratio compare with the ratio for firms in the seine business?
-------
Worksheet M
Qualitative Description of Estimated ch2nge
in Socioeconomic Indicators
due to Pollution Control Costs
Estimated change
in Median
Household
Income (MHI)
Estunazed change
in the
unemployment
rate
Estimated change
in overall net debt
as a percent of
full market value
of taxable
property
Estimated change
in of
households below
the poverty line
impact on
commercial
development
potential
impact on
Property Values
-------
Worksheet N
Factors to Consider In Making a Determination of Widespread Soda! and Economic Impacts
Define the affected community in this case; what areas are included. ______________________________________________ (I)
Current unemployment rate in affected community (if available). ______________________________________________ (2)
Current national unemployment rate. ______________________________________________ (3)
Additional number of persons expected to collect unemployment in affected (4)
community due to compliance with water quality standards. __________________________________________
Expected unemployment rate in the affected community after compliance with (5)
water quality standards (Current I of persons collecting unemployment
in affected community + (4)/labor force in affected community.
Median household income in affected community. ____________________________________________ (6)
Total number of households in affected community. ____________________________________________ (7)
Percent of population below the poverty line in affected community. ____________________________________________ (8)
Current expenditures on social services in affected community. . (9)
Expected expenditures on social services due to job losses in the affected (10)
community.
Current total tax revenues in the affected community. ____________________________________________ (II)
Tax revenues paid by the private entity to the affected community. _______________________________________ (12)
-------
Worksheet N, continued
Tax revenues paid by the private entity as a percentage of the affected (13)
community’s total tax revenues.
Current statewide unemployment rates. ________________________________________________ (14)
Additional number of persons expected to collect unemployment in the State (15)
due to compliance with water quality standards.
Expected statewide unemployment rate, after compliance with water quality (16)
standards (Current S of persons collecting unemployment in State +
(15)/labor force in State.
Current expenditures on social services in State. ______________________________________________ (17)
Expected statewide expenditures on social services due to job losses. ______________________________________________ (IS)
‘In some cases, the affected community will include more than just the municipality in which the private entity is located. If so. the analysis
should consider the private entity’s tax revenues as a percentage of the tax revenues for only the municipality in which the entity is located.
-------
Worksheet 0
Pollution Control Project
Summary Information
Design Capacity of the Pollution Control System
Expected Excess Capacity after Completion of Project
Projected Groundbreaking Date
Projected Date of Completion
Please describe the pollution control project being proposed. Include description of all pollution
prevention activities included in the project. (Attach additional page if necessary).
Please describe the other pollution control options considered, including pollution prevention activities.
Explain why each option was rejected. (Attach additional page if necessary).
-------
Worksheet P
Public-Sector Pollution Control
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Costs
A. Capital Costs
Capital Cost of Project
Other One-Time Costs of Project (Please List. if any):
Total Capital Costs (Sum celumn)
Portion of Capital Costs to be Paid for with Grant Monies ________________
Capital Costs to be Financed [ Calculate: (I) - (2) 1 _______________
Type of financing (e.g., GO. bond, revenue bond, bank loan) ________________
Interest Rate for Financing (expressed as decimal) _______________
Time Period of Financing (in years)
Annualization Factor = _________ + I (or see
(l.i) — I
Appendix B)
Annualized Capital Cost [ Calculate: (3) x (4) 1 _______________
B. Operating and Maintenance Costs
Annual Costs of Operation and Maintenance (including but not limited to: monitoring, inspection,
permitting fees, waste disposal charges, repair, administration and replacement.) (Please list below)
S
I
S
S
S
(6)
$
S
S
S
(I)
S
(2)
S
(3)
(I)
(a)
(4)
Total Annual 0 & M Costs (Sum column)
C. Total Annual Cost of PoUution Control Project
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project [ (5) + (6) 1
-------
Worksheet Q
Calculation of Total Annual Pollution Control Costs
Per Household
S (5)
Are households expected to provide revenues for the new pollution control project in the same proportion
that they support existing pollution control? (Check a, b or c and continue as directed.)
o a) Yes [ fill in percent from (3)]
o b) No, they are expected to pay
o c) No, they are expected to pay based on flow. (Continue on Worksheet Q, Option A)
percent. (6a)
percent. (6b)
C l)
(8)
(9)
(10)
S
S
C. Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Per Household (5) + (10)
A. Current Pollution Control Costs:
Total Annual Cost of Existing Pollution Control
Amount of Existing Costs Paid By Households
Percent of Existing Costs Paid By Households
Number of Households
Annual Cost Per Household [ Calculate: (2)/(4)]
$
$
(1)
(2)
%(3)
Do not use number of hook-ups.
B. New Pollution Control Costs
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project [ Line (7), Worksheet P]
Proportion of Costs Households Are Expected to Pay [ (6a) or (6b)]
Amount to Be Paid By Households [ Calculate: (9)x (10)]
Annual Cost per Household [ Calculate: (11)1(4)]
$
-------
Worksheet Q: Option A
Calculation of Total Annual Pollution Control Costs Per Household
Based on Flow
A. Calculating Project Costs Incurred By Households Based on Flow
Expected Total Usage of Project (eg. MCD for Wastewater Treatment)
Usage due to Household Use (MCD of Household Wastewater)
Percent of Usage due to Household Use (Calculale: (2 1O) I
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project
Industrial Surcharges, if any
Costs to be Allocated [ Calculate: (4) - (5)1
Amount to Be Paid By Households (Calculate: (3) x (6)1
Annual Project Cost per Household (Calculate: (7)FWorksheet Q, (4) 1
C. Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household
Annual Existing Costs Per Household [ Worksheet Q, (5)1
.
(2)
%(3)
S
(4)
S
.(5)
S
(6)
S
(7)
S
(8)
S
(9)
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Per Household ((8) + (9) 1
-------
Worksheet R
Private-Sector Development
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Costs
Annualization FactorU I
(1 ’i)’° — 1
Annualized Capital Cost (Calculate: (1) x (2)]
Annual Cost of Operation and Maintenance
(including but not limited to monitoring, inspection, permitting fees, waste
disposal charges, repair, administration and replacement) _____________
While actual payback schedules may differ across projects and companies, assume equal anru I
payments over a 10-year period for consistency in comparing projects.
Or see Appendix B for calculated annualization factors
For recurring costs that occur less frequently than once a year, pro rate the cost over the relevant
number of years (e.g., for pumps replaced once every three years, include one-third of the cost in
each year). -
Capital Costs to be financed (Supplied by applicant)
Interest Rate for Financing (Expressed as a decimal) ( i )
Time Period of Financing (Assume 10 years)
(1)
(2)
S
(3)
S
(4)
Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control Project [ (3) + (4)]
-------
Worksheet S
Municipal Preliminary Screener
The Municipal Preliminary Screener indicates quickly whether a public entity will incur any
substantiai economic impacts as a result of the proposed pollution control project. The formula is’ as
follows:
Total Annual Pollution Control Cost per Household
Median Household Income
A. Calculation of The Municipal Prelimin2ry Screener
Total Annual Pollution Control Cost Per Household [ Worksheet C, (11) or $
Worksheet C, Option A (10)1
Median Household Income
Municipal Prdllminary Screener (Calculate: [ (1)1(2)] x 100)
B. Evaluation of The Municipal Prc1imin rY Screener
If the Municipal Preliminary Screener is clearly less than 1.0%, then it is assumed that the cost will not
impose an undue financial burden. In this case, it is not necessary to continue with the Secondary Test.
Otherwise, it is neces’ary so continue.
Benchmark Comparison:
little Impact
Less than 1.0%
I’
MidRange Impact
1.0% .2.0%
II
Greater than 2.0%
indication of no
substantial
economic impacts
II
Proceed to Secondary Test
(1)
S (2)
I
1990 Census adjusted by CPI inflation rate if necessary.
-------
Worksheet T
Data Used in the Secondary Test
Please list the following values used in determining the Secondary Score. Potential sources of the data
are indicated.
Potent 1 ’ t Source
Community Financial Statements
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
Commilnity Fiwe ial Statements
Town, County or State Assesor’s Office S
Community Financial Sta1 ment
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
Standard and Poors or Moody’s
—
____ 1990 Census of Population
Regional Data Centers ___
Bureau of Labor Statistics
(202) 606.6392 —
1990 Census of Population
1990 Census of Population
Community Financial S,atmrn n
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office ___________________
Community Financial Stav!m ts
Town, County or State Assessor’s Office
Value
(2)
A. Data Collection
Dote
Direct Net Debt
Overlapping Debt
Market Value of Property
Bond Rating
Community Unemployment
Rate
National Unemployment
Rate
Community Median
Household Income
State Median Household
Income
Property Tax Collection
Rate
Property Tax Revenues
( 3)
( 4)
%(5)
%(6 )
(7)
(8)
(10)
S.
S
S
-------
B. Calculation of Indicators
Worksheet T, Continued
1. Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable Properly
Overall Net Debt (Calculate: (1) + (2)) $
(11)
‘I..
Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable
Property (Calculate: ((11)/(3)1 x 100)
O
2. Prop ly Tax Revenues as a P. eut of Full Market Value of Tawa’4e Properly
Property Tax Revenues as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable
Property (Calculate: ((10)/(3)J x 100)
I
-------
Wor’ 1 U
Calculating The Secondary Score
Please check the appropriate box in each row, and record the corresponding score in the final column. Then, sum the scores and compute the average.
Remember, if one of the debt or socioeconomic indicators is not available, average the two financial management indicators and use this averaged value as
a single indicator with the remaining indicators.
Secondhry Indicators
— Strong ”
Weak’
Mid-Range”
Above BBS (S&P) or
Rating Below BBB (S&P)
T, (4) Below Baa (Moody’s)
0
BBS (S&P)
Baa (Moody’s)
0
Baa (Moody’s)
0
Debt as Percent
Value of Above 5%
Propedy 0
T, (12)
.
2%-S%
C]
Below 2%
0
Below National Average
Unemployment Above National Average
Wo,ksheetT,(5)&( 6 )’ 0
National Average
0
0
Above State Median
Household Income Below Slate Median
T, (7) & (8) — 0
State
0
0
Revenues as a
Full Matkd Above 4%
Va1ueofTwblCP p Y 0
T,( 13)
2%-4%
0
Below 2%
0
Collection
Rate <94%
Wo,ksheetT,(9) . 0
94%-98%
0
>98%
0
‘Weak is a score of I point
SUM
Mid-Range is a scorn of 2 points
AVERAGE
cJ
Score
Strong is a score of 3 points
-------
Worksheet V
EWPR = EBT - ACPR
Earnings Before Taxes
Earnings with Pollution Project Costs
Revenues
Cost of Goods Sold (including the cost of materials, direct labor, indirect
labor, rent and heal)
CO = Portion of Corporate Overhead Assigned tO the Discharger (selling,
general, administrative, interest, R&D expenses. and depreciation on
common property)
ACPR = Total Annual Costs of Pollution Control Project [ Worksheet R (SB
S
i
$ (5)
I
$s
Calculation of Earnings Before Taxes
A. Earnings Without Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT = R -CGS-CO
B. Earnings With Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT
EWPR
CGS=
Where:
R
CGS
CO
S (1)
S
T ((1) . (2) -(3) 1
ACPR [ Worksheet R (5)]
II
(2)
(3)
(4)
(6)
EWPR [ (4). (5)]
-------
-. Worksheet W
Profit Rate Before Taxes
Profit Rate with Pollution Control costs
Earnings Before Taxes
Before-Tax Earnings with Pollution Control Coits
Revenues
EBT (Worksheet V, (4)] ___________________________ (1)
R (Worksheet V, (1)] ____________________________ (2)
PRT = Calculate: [ (1) 1(2) ] (3)
EWPR (Worksheet V, (6)] __________________________ (4)
R (Worksheet V, (1)] ___________________________ (5)
(6)
Calculation of Profit Rates
A. Profit Rate Without Project Costs
PRT=EBT—R
B. Profit Rate With Pollution Control Costs
PRPR = EWPR+ R
Where: PRT =
PRPR =
EBT=
EWPR =
R=
F
S
S
PRPR [ Calculate: (4)1(5)]
-------
Worksheet X
Calculation of The Current Ratio
CR= CA-CL
Where: CR Current Ratio
CA = Current Assets (the sum of inventories. prepaid expenses. and accounts
receivable)
CL = Current Liabilities (the sum of accounts payable. accrued expenses. taxes. and
the current portion of long-tenn debt)
CA $ (1)
CL $ (2)
CR ICalculate: (1)1(2)]
-------
Worksheet Y
Calculation of Beaver’s Ratio
BR = CF ÷ TD
BR = Beaver’s Ratio
CF Cash Flow
TD = Total Debt
Net Income After Taxes
Depreciation
CF [ Calculate: (I) + (2)]
Total Debt:
Current Debt
Long-Term Debt
Total Debt
Beaver’s Ratio:
BR ((3)1(6)]
Where:
Cash Flow:
S (1)
S
S
S
S
S
R
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
-------
Worksheet Z
DER = Debt/Equity Ratio
LTL Long-Term Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures, and bank
debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities such as deferred income taxes)
OE = Owner Equity (the differeflF ! between total assets and total liabilities,
including contributed or paid in capital and retained earnings)
LTL _______________________ (I)
OE ___________________ (2)
(3)
Debt to Equity Ratio
DER=LTL—OE
Where:
S
S
F
DER (0)1(2))
-------
Worksheet AA
Public-Sector Development
Qualitative Description of Estimated Change
in Socioeconomic Indicatoas
due to Pollution Control Costs
Estimated change
in Median __________________
Household ______________________________
income (MHI) —
.v-.
Estimated change
in the
unemployment
rate
Estimated change
in overall net debt
as a percent of
full market value
of ta hle
property
Estimated change
in of
households below
the poverty line
impact on
commercial
development
potential
Impact on
Property Values
-------
Worksheet AB
Private-Sector Development
Factors to Consider In Making a Determination of Widespread Social and Economic Impacts
Define the affected community in this case; what areas are included.
Current unemployment rate in affected community (if available).
Current national unemployment rate.
Additional number of persons expected to collect unemployment in affected
community due to compliance with water quality standards.
Expected unemployment rate In the iffected community after compliance with
water quality standards (Current S of persons collecting unemployment
in affected community + (4)/labor force in affected community.
Median household income In affected community.
Total number of households In affected community.
Percent of population below the poverty line in affected community.
Curwvnt expenditures on social services In affected community.
Expeâed expenditures on social services due to Job losses in the affected
community.
Current icial tax revenues in the affected community.
Tax revenues paid by the private entity to the affected community.
&
( I)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(II)
(I 2)
-------
Worksheet AS, continued
Tax revenues paid by the private entity as a percentage of the affected (I )
community’s total tax revenues.’
Current statewide unemployment rates. __________________________________________ (14)
Additional number of persons expected to collect unemployment in the State (15)
due to compliance with water quality standards.
Expected statewide unemployment rate, after compliance with water quality (16)
standards (Current S of persons collecting unemployment in State +
(15)/labor force in State.
Current expenditures on social sesvices In State. ________________________________ (17)
Expected statewide expenditures on social services due to Job losses. _____________________________ (18)
‘In some cases , the affected community will Include more than just the municipality in which the private entity is located. If so, the analysis
shoutd consider the private entity’s tax revenues as a percentage of the tax revenues for only the municipality in which the entity is located.
-------
Reference 5
-------
BEFORE THE ENVIRONM ITAL APPEALS BOARD
N rw STATES ENVIRONXThTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C
)
In the Katter of
)
)
Star-Kjst Caribe, Inc.
)
)
Permit Applicant
)
)
HPDES Permit Mo. PR0022012
)
NPDES Appeal No. 88-S
a
(Decided May 26, 1992]
ORDER DENYING MODIFICATION REQUEST
Before Znv.ironm•ntal Appeals Judges Ronald L. McCaZlum,
Edward E. RI.Lch, and Timothy J. Dowl.Lj g (Acting).
Opinion of th. Board by JUDGE MCCALWN:
This matter concerns a petition by EPA Region II for a
substantial modification to the Administrator’s April 16, 1990
decision in this matter. ‘ The Administrator’s decision denied
a request by the petitioner to overturn portions of an ea i.r
decision by the Agency’s Chief Judicial Officer (NCJO9. / By
separate order d&ted Sptember 4, 1990, the Administratdr’s
decision was stay.d pending a ruling on EPA Region II’s tttion.
For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and the stay
is lifted. —
In view of the nature of our ruling (a Lenial of a
modification request) and the fact that the Administrator’s
decision az the CJO’s dicision deal. comprehensively with the
subject of schedules of cemplianc. as pressnt.d in this
controversy, there will be no attempt here to provide a general
overvi.v of the subject or to explain how or why today’s ruling
has come up for consideration. Rather, matters will be addressed
as deemed necessary to dispose of the petition. Accordingly, the
See “Petition for Modification of Order on Petition for
Reconsideration,” dated August 13, 1990. The petition is signed
by representatives of the Agency’s Office of General Counsel and
EPA Rgion II.
2.1 “Order on Petition for Reconsideration,” dated April 16.
1990 (referred to either as “Administiator’s Decision” or
“Administrator’s decision”).
11 u “Order Denying Petiti:n f3r Review,” dated March 8, 1
(the “CJO’s decision”).
-------
2
reader is advised to consult th. petition and the previous
decisions for a complete understanding of the context of the—
startt ruling.
The Administrator’s decision holds, jnter Jj , that:
(T]he Clean Water Act does not authorize EPA to establish
schedules of compliance in the-permit that would sanction
pollutant discharges that do not meet applicable s*ste watsr
quality standards. In my opinion, the only instance in
which the permit say lawfully authorize a permittee to delay
compliance after July 1. 1977, pursuant to a schedule of
compliancs, is when the water quality standard itself (or
the Stats’s implementing regulations) can be fairly
construed as authorizing a schedule of compliance. The
Agency’s powers in this respect * * * are no greater than
the States’.
Crder on Petition for Reconsideration at 5. The chief objection
to this holding, as stated in the petition, is a single remark n
t e decision, where the Administrator said, “If a State does not
provide for compliance schedules in its water quality standards,
it nay be assumed that the emission was deliberate.”
Administrator’s Decision at 17. Petitioner’ argues that the
assumption is unwarranted, is unnecessary to ensure that States
are not forced to accept unwanted EPA-imposed schedules. of
compliance, afld leads to irrational results when cons drsd in
conjunction with section 304(1) of the Act (which provides for
individual control strategies (permits) for point sources located
on certain listed toxic—contaminated stream segments).
Pet .tioner suggests that the Administrator’s decision should :e
todified “so as not to require EPA to interpret a state’s
regulations’ silence on schedules of compliance as a dslib.rate
statement that non. are allov.d, unless there is soas.othsr’
indication of such state intent.” Petition at 6. The praCtica .
effect of granting the modification would be to allow EPA to
establish schedules of compliance as if the AdMnistr’atOT’s
decision had never existed. In other words, the modification
• ould nullify the decision.
Petitioner’s arguments in support of modification are nct
compelling. ‘ The remark in the Administrator’s decision that
Petitioner repeatedly refers to the Administrator’s holding
dicta, claiming that the Administrator “acknovledg(esj” in a
footnote that “the issue of post-197 7 standards is dicta’ (op r.
at 3, n.2.)* * *.“ An examination or the footnote fails to—’
support petitioner’s contentions; there is in fact no such
“acknowledgement” by the Administrator. Had petitioner inst
stated that the last sentence .n the footnote can be read as
(contin ue
-------
3
petitioner 4inds objectionable is a legal presumption, not a
factual obsrvation, and is drawn from a comprehensive analysis
of the entir. statutory scheme. Moreover as a factual
observation, the remark--despite petitioner’s original
assertions—-is amply justified: accordthg to petitiorter’s recent
status report, ‘ there are seven States with no explicit
authorization for schedules of compliance because, in
petitioner’s words, “this appears to reflect a State decision not
to allow uch schdu lea.” ‘ In other words, conaistsnt d 4, the
Administrator’s remark, there is factual as well as 1- ;aI
justification for interpreting a State’s silence on s. edulss of
compliance in the manner prescribed by the Administrator’s
decision. Also, petitioner’s status report reveals that.tMre
are 12 other States with no explicit authorization, since ‘there
is some urtoertair%ty as to the States’ intentiOns.” 1’ Combining
these 12 jurisdictions with the previous 7 produces a total of 19
jurisdictions in which it would be either wrong (7 jurisdiqtions)
or imprudent (12 jurisdictions) for £PA to make a unilatersI.
assumption that schedules of compliance are consistent witb .the
States’ wishes. -
To the extent the remark in the Administrator’s decision may
not accurately reflect an unwritten practice of a particular
Stats, the Stats is on notice to conform its practices to the
a
t’(...continued)
the Administrator agreed with petitioner that the pq st-L977
status of th. standards was not critical to his determination.
there might be some merit to the assertions. Even so, the
context of the decision as a whole makes it clear that the
sentence obviously was not crafted with that intsnt in mi ,
The wst quality standards at issue were promulgated by
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1983. But for petitioner’s
erroneous interpretation of the law--which has forced petitioner
to indulge in the unnecessary fiction of treating “virtuaUy
unchanged’ post—1977 standards as if they were really pre-1977
standards--there would be no occasion to question the post-197 7
status of the 1983 standards.
1’ Petitioner’s Status Report (filed April 3, 1992).
g. at 5.
: 1g. (Declaration of Gary W. Hurdiburgh, Jr. at 7).
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the jurisdiction that gave
birth tO the instant controversy, is in the process of amending
its standards or implementing regulations to make express
provision for schedules of cornpL .ance. g Petitioner’s Stat S
Report (Declaration of Gary W. Hurdiburgh, Jr. at 6).
-------
4
law. ‘ Thus, it will be necessary for the State to provide for
schedules of compliance in a suffjCj sflt lY prea .nent way to erase
the legal presu PtiOn that otherwise is legitimately drawn from
the Stats’s silence. The responsibilitY of States uidu th$ law
to maks specific prevision for schedules of coaplia C*s tathsr
than leaving it to the word-of-mouth policy of whoever may be in
charge of the State’s permit—issuing desk at any partioviar
moment, is unequivocal. As the decision notes, EPA’$,.ISqVl&ti ofll
provide that each Stats is to have a ‘continuing plam.èW
process’ in place that “must’ describe “(t]he process tsr
developing effluent limitations and schedules of comsli&nCS ” and
“for establishing and assuring adequate implementation of new or
revised water quality standards, including & Ia2iL.2L
CpSDliancs * * *.“ Administrator’s Decision at 17, n.17 (quotir.g
40 CFR S130.5(b)(1)&( 6 )). JJ.2 Clean Water Act
S303(e)(3)(A) (T). In view of the substantial contusion and
uncertainty that the lack of an easily ascertainable policy can
occasion, nothing short of adoptfng explicit provisiona in a
Stats’s regulations or water quality standards will. sutf ice to
overcome the pr.ssumptiofl raised by a States silence.
Petitioner’s second argument is based ors en practicality
than on law or policy. Petitioner argues that section 401 of the
Act enables States tO fend for themselves against EPA-issued
permits that might contain unwanted schedules of compli&flCe
i.e., sched l S which, in the opinion of the States, might
possibly undercut their water quality standards. p.t n.r
cites this section of the Act because it allows StatUtO
exercise an effective veto power over any EPA-issued prmit if
the permit contains a schedule of compliance that is inconSiSter.
with water quality standards. This argument also is not
compelling. Although petitioner is correct that eecti 401. ii
avaitabis for that purpos, it is veil to keep in tbat
thrce ew&ri i of St. iw-trenot the sole setters at s First.
there is a matter of adherence to the law as it is written, flat
According to petitioner’s Status Rep rt, 29 jurisdiattOns have
provisions in their laws (water quality standards or r1*ted
regulations, including permit regulations) that explicitly
authorize schedules of compliance in NPDES permits. at Status
Report (Declaration of Gary U. Hurdiburgh, Jr. at 5—6 (Vs 12 &
14)). Six (6) others have begun, but not completed. the steps
-ecessary to provide for such schedules. . (Declaration at
( 14)).
:n his decision, the Administrator specifically ackr .cwledge
the States’ right to exercise this power, but he observed that
“EPA’S longstanding practice of adding schedules of compliance—
under the aegis of the 1.978 legal opinion may have misled the
States into believing they lack this authority insofar as the
schedules are concerned.” Administrator’s Decision at 16, n.!
-------
5
as p.titiom .r sight wish it had been writtsfl. Second, the
interests of th. public are given important recognition in the
Clean Water Act. Sp. if C$]lY the Act and i mpleasnting
regulations require States to provid, for public participation in
setting vatsr quality standards. L Adlinistrator’s Decision at
20 (citing CWA S303(c); 40 CFR 5131.20). It is therefore
appropriate to ask whether any purpose is served by inviting the
general public tO particip&te in developing state water quality
standards without concurrently giving equivalent publicity to the
possibility of later allowing individual permit applicants to
bypass those standards, albeit temporarily, pursuant to relaxed
schedules of compliance. Petitioner does not address this
question- or , more important]?, ths concern underlying it.—
anywhere in its several submissions. LW We believe the open
process contemplated by the regulations, which calls for States
to make specific provisions for thei’ policies on schedules of
compliance, makes for a more vigilant and informed public and
thereby serves the greater interests-of the policies underlying
the Clean Water Act.
Petitioner’s last argument, that irrational results will
ensue from the Administrator’s decision in the contsxt of section
304(1) of the Act, is actually an effort to reargus and refine
points previously presented in earlier phases of this proceeding.
Those arguments were rejected then a’ and are rejected again now.
Section .304(1) was enacted on February 4, 1987, ‘ n.arly 15
years after enactment of the principal statutory provisiom*
I ’ Although the public may participate in proceedings for the
iSsuaflC$ of individual permits, and object to overly gen.. v4s
schedules of compliance, the absence of a vrittsn policy on
schedules of compliance may lull the public into believing that
there are no exceptions to immediate compliance, and therefore
littls reason to monitor individual permits. The same •ffect on
the public is produced. if the policy is vritten but can only be
found in unpublished internal memoranda. . Anthony, Robert A.
“Wall, You Want The Permit Don’t You? Agency Efforts to Make
Nonlegislative Documents Bind the Public, 44 Ad. Law ReV. 31, 33
(Winter 1992) (“If the (nonlegislatiVe) document is an internal
rnemo to staff that is not published, there is the additional
problem of secret law, whereurtd .r affected parties do not know
the principles by which their affairs are governed unless they
have back chanfle’ sources within the agency.”).
U I Administrator’s Decision at 6, n.S.
31’ Water Quality Act of 1987, PL 100 4, S308, 1.01 Stat. 7, 38
(February 4, 1987).
-------
6
construed in the Administrator’s decision. ‘ To argue in the
space of one short paragraph, as petitioner does, that this
s ..bsequently enacted statutory provision should somehow prevai_
over the entirety of the comprehensive statutory scheme
interpreted by the Administrator falls short of the tUg. In any
event, the simple truth is that no wirratiOflal resu1ts ez su.
from the Administrator’s decision, as an examination of
petitioner’s concerns quickly discloses.
According to petitioner, the AdministratOr’s decii c would
give rise to a situation where persons who discharge toxic waste
nto designated toxic hot spots would be allowed up to t4ree
years under section 304(1) to come into compliance vith.. ter
quality standards, but dischargsrs who are discharging into
streams no so designated--PrO sUmablY less heavily polluted
waters—-would be denied similar extensions. The short answer to
this chargs is that it is possible. in some instances, for the
States to modify their water qua1 ity standards (includ.t .
associated provisions, if any, for schedules of cospl’ .) for
the less heaviLy polluted streams in order to reduce some or all
of the disparity envisioned by petitioner. 2’ Even if
modification is not feasible or desirable, it must be kept in
mind that eliminating disparities that result from geogTaphy
should not be a paramount concern, particularly i.f the disparity
flows from the structure of the statutory scheme, as is often the
case. Examples of such disparities in the law of pollution
control are not un)cnovn despite the tact that relativ. oOmic
advantages or disadvantages may accrue to individual pofluters
depending on their location. The Clean Air Act , or example,
draws distinctions between areas close to certain national parks
and wilderness areas and those that are not. %. ith the result that
those close enough to have an effect on those areas are - subject
‘ The principal statutory provisions considered by the.
Administrator fl his decision are SS 1O1(a) and (b), 301(b) (1) (C),
303(e)(3)(A) and (F), 304(1), 403.(a)(l), 403(a)(3), 402(b)(l)(3).
402(k), 502(17), and 510. Except for 5304(1), all of thse
provisions were first enacted as part of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, Pub. LaW No. 92500, 86
Stat. 816. et seq. (October 18, 1972), and none has undergone arty
aterial change since that time.
- Petition at 5.
W y modification of water quality standards must be carried
cut in accordance with EPA regulations, including applicable
antidegradation policies. See generallY 40 CTR Part 131 (Water
çuality Standards). In addition, effluent limitations in any
permits issued pursuant to a modification would have tO be
consistent with ariti-backslidir.g requirements or an exception
thereto. See generally CWA S5402(O) & 303(d) (4).
-------
7
to mors rigorous requirements. AA S 165(d) (2) (C) (ii)
(protsctthg “air quality-related value.” of such areas in --.. —
addit2on to conventional “thcre ent”. protection); 42,. USCA
S7475(d) (2) (C) (ii). Finally, petitioner overlooks the fact that
flotvithstand inq these disparities so.. States might not vent to
relax compliance dates for their Less heavilypol,luted strss.
They sight vish instead to see higher standards of compliance
observed for those streams, thereby preserving their relative
purity ZiI Lzi* the toxic hot spots. In our opinion, therefore,
there is nothing irrational about the results of the
Administrator’s decision as construed and applied in the context
of section 304(1).
Accordingly, the petition of EPA Region II is denied and the
stay of the Administrator’s decision, entered on Septsmber 4,
] 99O, is hereby lifted.
So ordered.
-------
CU?!7I ?I 0? 8U tCI
I hereby certify that copies of the forgoing Order Denying
Modification Request in the matter of Star-Xi$t Caribe, Inc.,
NPDES Appal No. 8$—S. were sent to the following persons in t e
!ianner indicated:
First Class Hail. Warrsri H. Lievellylt
Postage Prspa .d: Regional Couns•1’s Office
L .S. EPA, Region II
20 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10271
Dan L. Vogus
John Ciko, Jr.
H. 3. Heinz Company
. p.O.8ox57
Pittsburgh, PA 5230—0057
By Hand-delivery: • . Susan C. tepee
Office of General Counsel
Room 509W LE-2.32W
. .
a s
Dated: 26
-------
BEPORI THE IVI O1 ITAL APP EALS BOARD
Z? STATES D(V AL pRoTICTIO AGDCY
WASHI$GTOt1, D.C.
)
In the Matter! of
.
)
)
Star -Kiat Caribe,
Inc.
Pst tiener
.
)
)
MPDES Par it Ho.
PR002201.2
NPDES Appeal tlO. 88-5
On Mar;h 12, 1992, Envir’enaental Appeals udg. Ronald 3.
McCallua ordered Petitioner (ERA RegiGn II) to subait a status
report en whether the circu st&flCes q Ving rise to the Septeaber
4, 1990 stay Ordet still exist and en the steps Petitioner and
the Office of Water have taken to address the issue.
Specifically, Petitioner was directed to submit by April 3. 1992
a. .
.
detailed status report on the gency’s efforts to develop
guidance for the States respecting implementation of the
AdministratOr’s Order, and on any subsequent changes in the
Laws, policies, and permit programs of the States that wou.d
affect their respective abilities to implement the Order.
A. Status of Aaancv cuidance
The Supplemental Information submitted on August 24. 1990,
described the progress in developing agency guidance through 3
date. Following that date, agency staff continued to work on :
draft guidance. However, the guidance has not yet been issued -
final form, for several reaSons.
-------
2
The plan of the Criteria and Standards Division (“CSD.” now
part of the Standards and Applied Science Division, Office of
Science and Technology) in the sumner of 1990 was to is e the
guidance (once its terms were tina1 as part of the pr.aa b1e to
proposed amendments to the water quality standards regulations.
Those amendments were then going through the clearafloS process
go into Red Border review. This procedure offered the advantages
of wide public dissemination of the guidance, an opportunity !::
public comment, and an emphasis on the relationship between
schedules of compliance for water quality-based effluent
limitations and State standards programs. Concurrently. CSD
staff were working with staff from the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (ROW Off Los of Wastswater Enforcement
•. . .
Compliance), to produce a stand-alone version of the guidance f r
easy distribution. -
However, before that proposed rulemaking or the stand-a: e
version could be finalized, work on them was temporarily
suspended to make staff available to work on other more press
matters pursuant to the 1987 mendments to the Clean Water Ace.
These included the Office of Water’s need to identify States
which had failed to promulgat. numerical criteria for tOXiCS 5
required under section 303(c)(2)(B) and to propose and pror :.
Federal criteria in their stead. This major undertaking res-.
in a proposal to promulgate water quality cri s _ or 22 £
on November 19, 1991. 56 Fed. Req. 58420. That rule is ex;4
to be promulgated in final for:’ .., approximately a month. :-
-------
3
addition, .tha Off ic. of Water has deveLoped application
regulations to implement the storm water program on November 16,
1990 (55 Fed. Req. 47990), as revised March 21, 1991 (56 Fed.
Req. 1209$), November 5, 1991 (56 Fed. Req. 56548) and April 2,
1992 (57 Fed. Req. 11394). The Office of Water has w diRMen
numerous activities to assist the States in implementation of the
storm water program, including s sumption of general permits
authority: In addition, the Offic. was responsible for
developing a complex regulation implementing the 1987 sta ory
amendments to the NPDES program, which is likely to be prsp ed
in the next on. to two months, as well as regulations governing
the treatment of Indian tribes as States (final water quality
standards regulation on December 12, 1991 (56 Fed. Req. 64876)
and proposed NPD S regulation on March 10, 1992 (57 Fed. a .
8522). As a result of these competing demands on staff, the
draft guidance remains unpublished.
Hovsver, the Of f ice of Water, as veil as the Office of
Gen.ral Couns.1 and the Regions, in their oversight capacity,
have worked with the States to make clear their intentions with
regard to schedules of compliance, and to modify their standards
or impleating regulations to make those intentions explicit.
where necessary. In addition, as part of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative, EPA has helped draft language which wilL-
ensure that a proper regulatory basis exists for schedules of
compliances for water quality based effluent limitations in the
-------
4
Great LaMe States. The results of those ef forts are d.scribed_
below, Stats by State.
9 ikflOCS in State layS. colicies and ar it sra aflI
As explained in the affidavit subuittod to the Administrator
on August 24, 1990, following issuance of the March S 1909, ma
April 16, 3.990, Orders in this case, the Office of Water, in
concert with the Regions. took steps to bring those orders to the
attsntion.of their Stats counterparts. Through their normal
NPDES and- water quality standard oversight efforts, the Regions
have continued to work with the States to ensure that the- States’
laws, regulations and standards reflect their intentions with
respect to schedules of compliance in NPDES permits for effluent
limitations based on post-July 1, 1977 water quality standards
C hereinafter referred to as ‘schedules of compliance fem post-
3.977 standards’). The following sets out our cur eflt
understanding of the status of each Stats in this regard.
Several States have incorporated provisions into their water
quality standards or related regulations which explicitly
authorize schedules of compliance for effluent limitations based
on post - July 1, 197.7 standards.’ These States are Arkansas,
Texas, Mew Mexico, Wisconsin, Mi5$is5 ppi’. Alabaaal/,
‘We were not able to reliably determine in all cases whether
these provisions were adopted in response to the £Li 1ia Orders
or were pre—existing. Therefore this Status Report lists states
according to their present status.
. For certain states which have explicitly authorized -
schedules of compliance for post-1977 standards, we have not teen
able to verity by the deadline for this Status Report which
regulation(s), NPDES or standards, sets forth the authoriZati
-------
5
FloridaV,. G.or’gia3/, South Carol inaZ/ • North Carol, mall,
Kentuckylj, Tsnnesseel/, Maryland’, West Virginia /, Colorado,
Wyoijflg J, Montana2/, North Dakótal./ • South Dakota l/, GuamV,
Missouri, Arizona, and California.
Several other States have .gun, but not yet completed, the
procsss for changing their standards or implementing r.gulations
to provide for schedules of compliance. These States include New
Jersey, Puerto Rico, Delaware, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Oregon
(Oregon is only in the preliminary stages of considering such a
change; it has not yet proposed èny regulatory change).
A number of States have provisions which, while set out in
their permit regulations programs, nonetheless express a State’s
intention to allow schedules of compliancs for post 1977
standards as well as for tachnology-based requirements. Such
provisions would appear to meet the April 16th Order, if permit
regulations are deemed to be implementing regulations. These
States include Mew York, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, and
Nebraska. (The $tate listed in the text at footnote 2 may -
actually belong here.)
Some States have no. explicit authorization for schedules of
compliance for post-1977 standards, and no plans to add such
authorization. In some cases, this appears to reflect a State
decision not to allow such schedules. States in this category
include Maine, Massachusetts, Hew Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode
‘ While Maryland and West Virginia believe that they havf
such provision, the Region has. raised questions about their
adequacy.
-------
6
Island. Vez’mont, and Illinois (Latter has statutory impediment)
In othef cases, there is seas uncertainty as to the State’s
intentions. Such States include the Virgin Islands, Vu ington
Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan. Minnesota, Ohio, Louisiana,
Mevada, Coaaonvea lth of the Morthén Marialta Islands, aid ths
— el ...
Pacific Trust Territories.
In sum, the States have made progres, in making th.ir
regulations and standards more explicit as to whether, and if so
under which circumstances, schedules of compliance are consistent
with their vater quality stsndaraâ. Zn the majority of cases, it
appears that S ates do intend to a 11ev them under at Least some
circumstances. However, a number of states still have pending
rulemakings or have not made their intenttens clear.
Respectfully submitted,
Ci • k1
Catherine A. Winer
Attorney ___
office of General Co”— 1
water Division
Dated: April 3, 1992
-------
BEPOR.,E TN! EN V I RONN lTAL APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
)
In the Matter of
)
StarXist Carib., Inc. ) NPDES App.al No. 88 5
)
Petitioner )
)
IPDES Permit No. PR0022012
D!CLAPATION OF GARY W. MtDIBURGR. JR .
1. I, Gary N. Rudiburgh, Jr., declare that the following
statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief and are based on my personal knowledge, or on information
contained in the records of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) or supplied to me by
current EPA employees within my area of oversight.
2. lam the Chief of the Regulatory Implementation
Section, NPDES Program Branch, in the Permits Division, Office of
Wastewater Enforc ent and Compliance (“OWEC”), a position I have
held since 1989. OWEC is one of four offices that report to the
Assistant Administrator for Water.
3. As part of my responsibilities, I oversee the issue
regarding the question of compliance schedules for water quald.:y-
based effluent limitations in permits issued under section 4C
the Clean Water Act.
4. The purpose of this declaration is describe the
information obtained for the Status Report requested by Judge
McCallum, and the process used to obtain such information.
-------
2
I. Process Used to Collect Information for Status Reoort
5. on March 19, 1992, a memorandum signed by Cynthia
Dougherty, Director of the Permits Division, and William R.
Diamond, Director of the Standards and Applied Scisnee Division,
was sent to each of EPA’s ten Regional Water Management Division
Directors, with copies to each of the R.gional Water Quality
Branch Chiefs and Regional Water Permit Branch Chiefs, requesting
information for the Status Report. Specifically, the memorandum
requested information on changes to laws, policies and permit
programs of each State which would affect their ability to comply
with the April 2.6, 2.990 Order, to be submitted to my
staff by March 27, 2992.
6. Regional staff responded to this request by sending
written or or 3 . information on a state by State basis. fly staff
made numerous phone calls to clarify the information provided and
to fill in gaps. In a number of instances, the information
appears to have been provided by the States without an
opportunity for independent review by EPA of the laws,
regulations, or policies involved. Therefore, th. following
State by State information, while representing the best
information available by April 3, 1992, has not been
irdependently verified.
I X. Information Gathered
A. Status of Agency G tdrnce
7. The Supplemental Infori tation submitted on AuguSt 24.
1990, described the progress .rt eveloping agency guidance
-------
3
through tbet data. Following that date, agency staff continued --
to work on the draft guidance. However, the guidance has net yet
been issued in final form, for several reasons.
8. rhe plan of the Criteria and Standards Division (CSD,
now part of the Standards and Applied Science flivision, )Cflce of
Science and Technology) in the summer of 1990 5 to issue the
guidance (oncs its terms were final) as part of the preambl . to
proposed amendments to the water quality standards regulations.
_ .
Those aaendsents were then going through the clearance process to
S.
go into Red Border reviev. ‘ftis procedure offered the advantages
of wide public dissemination of the guidance, an opportunity for
public comment, and an emphasis on the relationship between
schedules of compliance for water quality-based effluent
V S.
a.
limitations and State standards programs. Concurrently, D
staff were working with staff from the Offic. of Water
Enforcement ‘and Permits (now Office of Wastewatsr Enforcement and
Compliance), to produce a stand-alone version of the guidance for
easy distribution.
9. However, before that proposed rulemakinq or the stand-
alone version could be finalized, work on them was temporarily
suspended to make staff available to work on other more pressing
aatters pursuant to the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act.
These included the Office of Water’s need to identify States
which had failed to promulgate numerical criteria for toxics as
required under section 303(c) (2) (8) and to propose and promulg3: .
Federal criteria in their stead. This major undertaking resu1
-------
4
in a proposal to promulgate water quality criteria for 22 States
on November 19, 1991. 56 Fed. Req. 58420. That rule is expected
to be promulgated in final form in approximately a month. In
addition, the Off ice of Water has developed application
regulations to implement the storm water program on November 16,
1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 47990), as revised March 21, 1991 (56 Fed.
Req. 12098), November 5, 1991 (56 Fed. Req. 56548) and April 2,’
1992 (57 Fed. Req. 11394). The Office of Water has undertaken
numerous activities to assist the States in implementation of the
storm water program, including aisuaption of general permits
authority. Ifs addition, the Office was responsible for
developing a complex regulation implementing the 1987 statutory
amendments to the NPDES program, which is likely to be proposed
in the next DAe to two months, as well as regulations governing
the treatment of Indian tribes as States (final water quality
standards regulations on December 12,1991 (56 Fed. Req. 6487 )
and propOsed NPDEs regulations on March 10, 1992 (57 Fed. Reg.
8522)). ii a result of these competing demands on staff, the
draft guidanc, remains unpublished.
10. However, the Office of Water, as will as the Office of
General Counsel and the Regions, in their oversight capacity,
have worked with the States to make clear their intentions with
regard to schedules of compliance, and to modify their standards
or implementing regulations to make those intentions explicit.
where necessary. In addition, as part of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative, EPA has hei ed draft language which ill
-------
5
Sn SUZS that a proper regulatory basis exists for schedules of
coaplianc.s for water quality based effluent li itationa in the
Great Lakes States • The results of those efforts are das ibed
below, State by State.
B.. a g .JflStafjavjDo but and nermit
11. As explained in the affidavit .ubmitt.d to the
Administrator on August 24, 1990, following issuance of the March
8, 1989, and April 16, 1990, Orders in this case, the Offic. of
Water, in concert with the Regions, took steps to bring t e
orders to the attention of their State counterparts. Thromgh
their normal NPDtS and water quality standard oversight efforts,
the Regions have continued to work with the States to ensure that
the States’ laws, regulations and standards reflect their
intentions with respect to schedules of compliance in lIPOIP
permits for effluent limitations based on post-July 1., 1977 water
quality standards (hereinafter referred to as Nschedules of
compliance for post—1977 standarda ). The following sets 1 out our
current understanding of the status of each Stats in this regard.
22. Several States have incorporated provisions into their
water quality standards or related regulations which explicitly
authorize schedules of compliance for effluent limitations based
on post—July 1, 1977 standards.’ These States are Arkansas,
We were not able to reliably determine in all cases whether
these previsions were adopted in response to the $tuliit Orders
or were pre—existing. Therefore, this Status Report lists Stat•?
according to their present status.
-------
6
Texas, .11ev Mexico, Wisconsin, xissisaippi 3 , AlabamaV,
F1oridaV, Georgia j, South carolinali, North Carolinal/,
Xentucky2f, T.nneeseelJ. Maryland’, West Vir’ginia J, Colorado,
Wyo.ing , Montanal/, North Dakotal/, South Oakotal/. GUamZ/,
Missouri, Arizona, and California.
13. Several other States have begun, but not yet completed,
the process for changing their standards or implementing
regulations to provide for schedules of compliance. These
States include 11ev Jersey, Puerto Rico, Delaware, Virginia,
Oklahoma, and Oregon (Oregon is only in the preliminary stages of
considering such a change; it has not yet proposed any regulatory
change).
14. A number of States have provisions which, while set out
S S
in their permit regul at tons programs, nonsthsleu e eess
State’s intention to allow schedules of compliance for post-1977
standards as well as for technology-based requirements. Such
provisions would appear to meet the April 16th Order, if permit
regulations are deemed to be implementing regulations. These
States include .11ev York, Pennsylvania, Ravait, Iowa, Kansas, and
Nebraska. (The States listed in the text at footnote 2 may
actually belong here.)
‘. For certain states which have explicitly authorized
schedules of compliancs for post-1977 standards, we have not bee?
able to verify by t te deadline for this Status Report which
regulation(s), NPDES or standards, sets forth the authorization.
‘ While Maryland and West Virginia believe that they have
such provision, the Region has raised questions about their
adequacy.
-------
7
15. S Stat..s have no explicit authorization for schedules
of compliancs fOr post-197 7 standards, and no plans to add suc
authorization. In sop.. cases, this appears to reflect a State
decision not to ahoy such schedules. States in this category
include Maine, Massachusetts, Hey Mampuhire, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Illinois (latter has statutory impediment)
In other cases, there is some uncertainty as to the State’s
intentions.. Such States include the Virgin Islands, Washington.
0 •
Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Louisiana,
Nevada, Commonwealth of ths t4orthsrnMariana Islands, and the
Pacific Trust Territories.
Signed: ) L Iii
, Gary V. Mudiburgh, Jr.,
Chief, Rsgulator 4 y
Implementation Section
-------
p ’r!fleAT! 0 ? ERVIC !
on the 3rd of April, 1992. a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Status Report was sailed postage prepaid to:
John Ciko, Jr.
Dan I .. Vogue
11.3. Seine Cospany
P.O. lox 57
Pittsburgh. PA 15230—00S7
and delivered by hand to:
Judge Ronald I .. McCa llua
Environsental Appeals Board
401 11 Street, 8.U.
Roes 1145 Vest Tover
Washington. D.C. 20460
.
( ( 44i .L
-------
Reference 6
-------
Tuseday
April 10, 1994
Part VII
Environmental
Protection Agency
Combind Sewer Ovsrflow (CSO) Control
Policy; Notic.
S.
-------
lieu
F.dal Ra9a / VoL 59. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 I Notices
ENVI ON ITAL P? OTEC11ON
AGINCY
Com n.d - (ceo)
PoM y
LOBICT: Environmental Protecton
Agency (WA).
acme: Final policy.
9U*RY: A bee issued a national
policy statement entitled “Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy.”
This policy establish. a consistent
national approach for controlling
discharges from CSOs to the Nations
waters through the National Pollutant
Discharge F1buII! .tion System (NPDES)
permit pr em.
corn cuei €s siFOemATION CONTACfl
Jelboy Laps. 018c2 of Wutewater
Enforcement and Compliance. MC —
4201. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 2040. (202) 256-7381.
SIJP L ITARY PiP0 TI0N The main
piupoess of the CSO Control Policy are
to elaborate on the Environmental
Protection Agency. (EPA.) National
CSO Control Strata ’ puhI4a) ,d on
September 8. 1989. at 54 FR 37370. and
to expedite compILsi with the
requirements of the Clean Water A
(CWA). While implem t tian of the
1919 Strategy has resulted In
toward omuo Wag CSO. pI t
public health and water quality risks
This Policy providss gul- to
permuttees with CSO . NPDES
authorities end State water quality
standards authorities on coordinating
pl.nflt g seI ou. . and
imp amentation of CSO controls that
meet the requirements of the CWA and
allow for public unvolv t during the
d.eJaion.ma ng prc-
Contained in the Policy are previsions
for developing appropriate. site.p ,d&
NPDES permit requirements for .11
combined sewer systems (CSS) that
overflow as a result of wet weather
events. For exemple, the Policy lay. out
two alternative approechea—the
demonstrstion” and the
presureptaon apprnscbse—4hal
provide communiti . with targets for
CSO controls that achieve compII .1c,
with the Act particularly protection of
water quality and designated uses. The
Policy also includes enL. —---—‘t
initiatives to mquue the inmetftate
eIimtn Uon of overflows that ocour
during dry weather and to ensure that
the rs1’ 1ntng CWA requirements ate
complied with as soon as practicable.
The permitting provisions of the
Policy were developed as a result of
extensive input received from key
stakeholders during a negotiated policy
dialogue. Th. CSO stakabolders
included repimontauves b um Stats..
environmental groups. eruni pai
orgs’n Uons and others. The negotiated
dialogue was conducted during the
Summer of 1902 by the Offtco of Wat
and the O ce of Waters Management
Advisory Group. The enforcement
iniUitl Yes. including one which Is
underway to address CSO during dry
weather, were developed by EPA.
OMce of Water and Office of
Enforcement.
EPA Issued a Notice of Availability on
the draft CSO Control Policy on January
19. 1093. (58 FR 49941 and requested
comments on the draft Policy by March
22. 1993. Approximately forty.one sets
of written c’”ents were submitted by
a variety of interest groups including
cities and munlapal groups,
environmental groups. States.
professional orgr mI tions and others.
All comments were considered as EPA
prepared the Final Policy. The public
“ ente were largely supportive of
the draft Policy. EPA received broad
autdi r..m nt of and support for the key
prinsiples and provisions from most
‘ ‘entors. Thus, this final Policy
doss net Include 9nIR t changes to
the maJor previsions of the draft Policy.
but rather. It Includes clarification and
better expi —”on of the eI T 1* of the
Policy to address several of the
qv ions that were raised In the
iits. Pus...ue w4.h4,ig to obtain
copies of the public comments or EPA’s
summary analysts of the comm ts may
WTtte or call the EPA contact person.
The CSO Policy repreeents a
cowprh ve nat 4 I l.I stittugy to
ensure that munidp 4 .., permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities and the public en Ins
compr.han ve and coordinated
pis . iii g effort to achieve cost effectIve
CSO controls that ultln1e *ly most
appropriate health and environmental
obJectives. The Policy e1v%gnhIa the
slte-spmiflc nature of Os and their
impacts and provides the a _ ry
flexibility to tailor controls to Local
situations. MaJor elements of the Policy
ensure that CSO controls are cost
effective and meet the obJaulves and
requirements of the CWA.
The maJor provisions of the Policy are
as follow,.
CSO permattees should Immediately
undertake a piece. . to acourately
charecteflan their S and CSO
discharge.. demonstrate mpl” ”tsUon
of minimum technology-based controls
identified In the Policy. and develop
long-term CSO control plans which
evaluate alternatives for attaining
compltsiia with the cw .. tin
complisnr.wub water quality
standards and prote on of 1 —lgn d
uses. Once the long-term CSO control
plans are completed. permittees will be
responsible to implement the plans
rec mmndations as soon es
practicabLe.
State water quality standards
authorities will be involved In the Long.
term CSO control pkimi.tg effort as
well. The water quality standards
authorities will help statue that
development of the CSO psrmittees
long-term CSO control plans are
coordinated with th. review and
possible revision of water quality
standards on CSO.unpaoted waters.
NPT)ES authorities will lssu./rei.ma.
or modify permits. as appropriate. to
require comp t iwe with the tethn’1ogy-
based and water quality-bamd
requirements of the CWA. After
completion of the Long-term CSO
control plan. NPDES permute will be
reissued or modified to Incorporate the
add lti”nal requirements spe fiid In the
Policy. such as perfor.i ir standards
for the edected controls b...d on
a,.rsp design conditions, a porn .
construction water quality —-- ‘
proçsm. monitoring for conp tt ”—
with water quality standards, and a
i ,opei clause authorlaing the NPCE.
authority to reopen and modify the
permit If It Is determined that the O
controls fall to meet water quality
standards or protect destgnszad t
NPDES authorities should -‘--
enforcement actions ig peimittem
that have CWA violations due to O
discharges during dry weather. In
addition. NPDES authorities should
ensure the Implementation of the
iv.iithulum toc anology-based omtrols
and incorporate a schedule Into an
appropriate enforceable mechanlam.
with appropriate milestone dates. to.
Implement the required long-term CSO
control plan. Schedules for
implementation of th. long-term O
control plan may be phased “ rnd on
the relative importance of adverse
impacts upon water quality standards
and designated uses, and on a
permittee’s flnsnaal cspahility.
EPA is developing e enMve guldanr
to support the Policy and will anonu
the availability of the and
other outreach efforts through various
mn’ . as they bwume available For
example, EPA I. preparing uid. ii’. on
the nine “ “um controls.
characterization and monitoring of
CSC . development of long-usm CSt
control plans. and ftnin - 1 oap”llity.
Permittses will be expected to comply
with any misting CSO.,elated
requirements In NPDES psrmlts.
-------
Federal 1a I VoL 59. No. 75 I Tuesday, April 19. 19041 NotIces
coni it’ douses or court ardors tinl
revised to be co”.t—’t with this Policy.
Th. policy is orgmnr d as follow.:
I. introduction
A. Pwpo . . sad Principles
B. AppL of Policy
C. Effuct on Currant CSO Control E!ts
D. Sessli System Csid.n oas
S. lmp ts Ruspomibilitlee
F. Policy lop at
IL A Ob$sctive. Psrmlttsss
A. Ovurvww
B. kspienmtetton of the Nt is Minimum
Control.
C. Liin .T m CSO Control Plan
1 arectsrtxauoD. Monitoring, and
k m
Systen.
2. Public P dpsuon
3. Conaadsmtaon of Ssn.ltlve Areas
4. EvaIuan n of MIsrnstlvss
CosilPteIo’miecs Considsrstron
B. Opsreoonal Plan
7. M.,” ” 9 Treatment at the Existing
P0TH Trestresni Plant
a. ImpI ntsuoo Schedul.
9. Post.Comtruction Coesplisnos
Mastosing m
Ifl. Coordination With State Waver Quality
St a id&ds
A.
B. Water Quality Standards R.vt.ws
IV. Expsaanona Pirmaulog AuthorIties
A. O ,aw
B. NPV Permit Rsquizsnti
1. Ph... I P.rmate—Rsquliomsnte for
Osmoastretian of the Mime Minimum
Controls and D .v.lcp ’ of the Long-
Tsrm O Control Plan
2. Pbs.. U Permi U1 . .M .,.t5 fee
hnpl sntatlon of a Long-Term C
Control Plan
3. Phasing Cousidsretlona
V Enfor sot and Compilseos
A. Ovs.vinw
9. Eofommsat of O Dry We ’
Diachaigs Prohibition
C. Enfomeni of Wet Weather CSO
Rsquuements
l.Enforcemsnt for Ccmpliaom With Phase
I Pormits
2. Enforesessnl for Coinpilunes With Phase
II Perm ta
D. Penalties
List of Subjects in 40 ai Part 1
Water pollution control.
Au*bordy Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251
et req.
Dated. Apnl 6.1994.
Carol N. B...... .
AdnwustroiW.
ra. hj e Sewer Oveeflew (GO)
Control Policy
I. Introduction
A. Purpose and Principles
The main purposes of this Policy are
to elaborate on A’a National
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Control Strategy publ1.h d on
Ssptember 8.1919 St 54 FR 37370(1919
Strategy) and to .$p.dlte comp” ” e
with the requirements of the I2 en
Water Act (CWA). While
unplsmentatlonof the 1919 Strategy has
resulted In pwgre toward controlling
CS oiguA r*ut water çaallty risks
remain.
A combined sewer system (CSS) Is a
wastewater collection system owned by
a Slits or municipality (as defined by
section 502(41 of the CWA) which
conveys sanitary wastsw.tem (domestic.
commercial and Industrial wemswaters)
and storm water through a single-pip.
system to a Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) Treatm ” Plant (as’
defln.d In 40 ( R 403.3(p)). A CSO Is
th.dlschugefromaCSSatapo lntpr lor
to the P0TH Treatment Plant CSO . are
point sourosu subject to NPUES permit
requlrem.nts including both
technology-based and water quality-
based requirements of the CWA. CSOs
are not sublect to wniidary treatment
retuirements appli ’ 1 to l’Ws.
SOs consist of mMwes of donviutic
s.wap. Industrial and commercial
waitewaturs, and storm water runoff
CSOs often contain high lov ls of
suspended solids, pathogenic
miaoorganians. toxic pollutants.
floetabl— . nutrients. oxygen4 ”4Ini
organic compo1 . .w . oil and passe. ani
other pollutants. CSO can cause
eAoses 11riu of water quality utandards
(WQS). Such exosedanors may pose
risks to human health. threaten aquatic
life and its habitat, and Impais the use
and enjoyment of the Nation’s
waterways.
This Policy Is tM ,d to provide
guil 4 w. to permutes. with CS .
National Pothdant Discharge
cli . . .au.Uen System (NPDES) permitting
authorities. Slat, water quality
standards authorities and enfercument
authorities. Th. purpose of the Policy Is
to coordinate the pl i 4 ilg selection.
design and mplammutst1911 of CSO
management pr.c’ 4 r’. and controls to
meet the requirements of the CWA and
to involve the public fully during the
decision asking pr .u-
This Policy reiterates the objectives of
the 1989 Strategy
1. To ensure that if C 5Os oocur. they are
only as a result of wet westh .r
2. To bring all wet weather CSO
discharge points Into comphw with
the technoiogy-ba sd and water
quality-based requirements of the
CWA: and
3. To” 4 ” water quality, aquatic
blots, and b . .vu n health Imp s from
This CSO Control Policy . unts a
comprehensive national aiegy to
ensure that municioalld. owmltting
authorities, water quality standdo
authorities and th, public in a
comprehensive and coordinatea
pIa iui .ig effort to achieve coet.s v.
CSO controls that ulhi.m. miy meat
appropriate health and envl .-9Im 1
objectives and requirements. The Policy
____the site-specific nature of
CSOs and their impacts and provides
the nr’ary Omobility to tailor
controls to local situations. Four key
principles of the Policy ensure that O
controls are coet-iffsctlve and meet the
objectives of the CWA. The bay
principles are:
1. Providing clear levels of control that
would be presumed to meet
appprlate health and .nvironmental
objectives:
2. ProvIding sufficient flexibility to
municipalities, especially R . .. . .M IIy
dIsadv magu,d communities, to
consider the site-specific nature of
CSCo and to determin, the moat -
effectiv, means of reducing poll”” .
and meeting CWA objectives and
3. ‘ha.ed ap 1 suiikto
impinm itadon of CSO ilul$
considering a c”unity’s
capeblllty and
4. Review and revision. as
of water quality standards and thai,
Implementation procedures wb
developing CSO control plane to
reflect the site-specific wet w 1
impacts of C$Os.
This Policy is being Issued In support
of WA ’s regulations and policy
initiatives. This Policy is A,ency
guM. ’ only and does not establish or
affect Legal rights or obllgatkms- It does
not establish a binding norm and Is not
finally determinative of the Isr ’
addremsd. Agency decisions In soy
particular cass will be made by applying
the law and regulations on the b s of
specific fects when permits me listiat
The Administration has . .--“ ‘d
that the 1994 amendments to the CWA
endorse this final Policy.
B. Application of Policy
The permitting provisions of this
Policy apply to all CSS. that overflow
as a reeult of storm water flew.
inclu g mow melt runoff (40 R
122.21(b)(13fl. Discharges from CSSs
during dry weather are prohibited by
the CWA. Acoordingly. the p—-’ttln$
provisions of this Policy donot apply to
CS during dry west . Dry
(low Is the flow In a combined a.-... .
that remlts from domemic — -.-,- .
poundw.ter infiltration. vsi
and lndu laI wastswatsro. and any
other non-precipitation lated flows
(e.g,. tidal Infiltietion) in addition to
-------
1e.
F.d a1 Iag / VoL 59. No. 75 I Tueedey. April 19. 1994 I Noti e
the permit ng provisions, the
Enforonment and Complian’ ction of
this Policy desaibes an enforosment
initiative being developed for OverflOWs
that o ur during urv weather.
Consistent with the 1989 Strategy. 30
States that submitted CSO permitting
strat.gies have received EPA approval
or. in the case of one State. conditional
approval of its strategy States and EPA
Regional Offices mould review these
strategies and negotiate appropriate
revisions to them to implement this
Policy Permitting authonues are
encouraged to evaluate water pollution
control needs on a watershed
management basis and coordinate CSO
control efforts with other point and
rionpoint source control activities
C Effect on Current CSO Control Efforts
EPA recognizas that extensive work
nas been done ov many Regions. States
and mu.aiclpauties to abate CSOs. As
such, portions of this Policy may
afreaciv baile oem addreueo by
pernuttees previous efforts to control
CSOs. Therefore. portions of this Policy
may not app 1 y. as determined by the
permitting authority on a cue-by-cue
bans. ónder the following
circumstances
1 Mv pelmittee that, on the date of
publication of this final Policy. hu
completed or substantially completed
construction of CSO control facilities
that are designed to mist WQS and
protect designated uses, and wbsie it
has been determined that WQS are
being or will be attained. a not covered
by the initial planning and conimiction
provisions in this Policy; bow,vr. the
operational plan and post-construction
monitoring provisions continue to
apply. If. after monitoring, it Is
determined that WQS ar . not being
attained, the permittee should be
required to submits revised CSO
control plan that, once implemented.
will attain WQS.
2. Mv permittee that. on the dat. of
publication of this final Policy. has
substantially developed or is
implementing a CSO control program
pursuant to an emsting permit or
enforcement order, and such program is
considered by the NPDES permitting
authority to be adequate to meet WQS
and protect designated uses and is
reuonably equivalent to the treatment
ob ea.ives of this Policy, should
complete those facilities without further
pL.nittng activities otherwise expected
by this Policy Such programs. however.
should be reviewed and modified to be
consistent with the sensitive area.
financial capability, and post-
construction monitoring provisions of
his Policy.
3 Any psimittes that has previously
constructed CSO control facilities in an
effort tocotnply with WQS but has
failed to meet such applicable standards
or to protect designated uses due to
rem.Ini!ig CSOs may receive
consideration for such efforts in future
permits or enforceable orcers for long.
term CSO control plAnning, design and
implementation.
In the case of mv ongoing or
substantially completed CSO control
effort. the NPDES permit or other
eoforceaole mechanism. as appropriate.
chould be revised to include all
appropriate permit reqwrement
consistent with Section IV B. of this
Policy
D Small System Considerations
The scooe of the long-term CSO
control plan. including the
cnarecterizauon. monitoring and
modeling. anc evaiuauon ot alternatives
portions of this Policy may be difficult
or some small CSSs. At the discretion
of the NPDES Authority. unsdictions
with populations under 75.000 may net
need to complete each of the formal
steps outlined in Section LLC. of this
Policy, but should be required through
their permits or other enforceable
mechanisms to comply with th. nine
minimum controls (ILB), public
participation (ll.C.2). and sensitive areas
(U C.3) portions of this Policy. In
addition, the permittee may propose to
implement any of the criteria containsd
in this Policy for evaluation of
alternatives described in U C.4.
Following approvsl of the proposed
plan. such urisdlctlons should
construct he control pro ecti and
propose a monitoring program suffident
to determine whether WQS are attained
and designated uses are protected.
In developing long-term CSO control
plans based on the small system
considerations discussed in the
preceding paragraph. permittses are
encouraged to discuss the scop. of their
long-term CSC) control plan with the
WQS authority and the NPDES
auih rity The., discussions will enswe
that the plan includes suffident
information to enable the permitting
authority to identify the appropriate
CSO controls.
E Implementation itesponsibilitiss
NPDES authorities (authorl . .d Stat..
or EPA Rsglonal Offices. as appropriate)
are responsible for implementing this
Policy. It is their responsibility to assure
that CSO permittees dovelop long-term
CSO control plans and that NPDES
permits mess the requirement. of the
CWA. Further. they are responsibl, for
coordinating he review of th. long-term
CSO control plan and the d i elai” — ”
of the permit with the WQS authority to
determine ii revisions to the WQS are
appropriate, In addition, they should
determine the appropriate v 1 1 ’ (Li..
permit reiuuance. infor ‘ ‘ mqi
tinder CWA section 308 or State
equivalent or enforcement on ) to
ensure that compliance with the CWA Is
achieved as soon as practicable.
Permrnees are responsible for
documenting the implementation of the
rune minimum controls and developing
and implementing a long-term CSO
control plan. as described in this Policy.
EPA recognizes that finan”.I
considerations are a major factor
affecting the implementation of CSO
controls. For that reason. this Policy
allows consideration of a permittee’s
financial capability in co” ttlon with
the long-term CSO control plAnning
effort. WQS review, and negotiation of
enforceable schedules. However, each
permittee is ultimately responsible for
aggressively pursuing ftr n t.I
arrangements for the implementation of
its long-term CSO control plan. As part
of this effort, communities should apply
to their State Revolving Fund program.
or other assistance programs as
appropriate, for financial assistance .
EPA and the States will undertaka
action to assure that all permits.. with
CSSs are subject to a consistent review
in the permit development pro ,
have permit requirement. that achieve
compliance with the CWA. sad are
sub ct to enforceable schedules that
require the earliest practicable
compliance date considering physical
and financial feasibility
F. Policy Development
This Policy devotes a psrate esction
to each step involved in developing and
implementing CSO controls. This is not
to imply that each function osmia
separately. Rather. the entire proceu
surrounding CSO controls. unlty
plAnning. WQS and permit
developmentlrevision. enfor ’ enU
compliance actions and public
participation must be coordinated to
control CSOs effectively. Permiuees and
permitting authorities are encouraged to
consrdsr innovative and altemativ.
approaches and technoloçss that
achieve the objectives of this Policy and
the CWA.
In developing this Policy. A has
included information on what
responsible parties ais expected to
accomplish. Subsequent documents will
provide additional guidance on how the
ob$sctives of this Policy should be met.
These documents will provid, further
guidance on: CSO permit writing, the
nine mrnimum controls. long-term CSO
-------
F dsI 11 VoL 59, No 75 / Tuesday, April 19. 1994 / NeUcas
1SS 1
control plans, fiui.ii i.4. t car uty.
. I system ub I eri Ion and
— water — and
modeling, and application of WQS to
CSO.(mpa i.d wata. For most CSO
control efforts hoi.,.vur . su dsnt detail
has been Included In this Policy to
begin immediat. implementation of its
provisions.
II. EPA Ob .iectives for hnutrem
A. Overview
Permittees with CSS that have CSO
should immediately undeitake a procass
to accurately characterize their sewer
systems. to demonstrate implementation
of the nine ynimmum controls, and to
develop a long-term CSO control plan.
B. Implementation of the Nine
Minimum Controls
Permittees with CSO should submit
appropriate documentation
demonstrating implementation of the
rune mtnimum controls, including any
proposed schedules for completing
minor construction activities. The nine
minimum controls are:
1. Proper operation and regular ____
mintm11 ?i1 progisms for the e...’sr
system and the CSO:
2. Maximum use of the collection
system for stomp;
3. RevIew and modIft tion of
p.Lb.. t m iiiemint5 to
O Impacts are
4. MIJ’4 ” tiOn of flow to the l ’W
for tres ent
S. Prohibition of CSO during dry
6. Control of solid and flu ti1e
materials In CSOm
7. PollutIon prsvention
8. Public notification to ensure that the
public receives adequate not1flr Iton
of O occuirmom and O 1mpac’
and
9. MonItoring to effectively cbaracterim
CSO impacts and the . cecy of CSO
controls.
Selection and implasotadan of
actual control measures should be based
on site-specific considerations Including
the , pi.riRc CSS’s cbazactarl Cs
discemed under the sewer system
charecterizetion and monitoring
portions of this Policy. Docum’tation
of th. nine mifti ium controls may
include operation and maln’ ’
plans, revised sewer use os’ 14 ”” e for
industrial ussr ,, uwur system
inspection reports , inflltritio /1nflow
studIm, pollution prevention progiems.
public notification plans. and llty
plans for maidmlsing the capedtiea of
the sitisting coUe on. storage and
trea ent systems. as well U
and echedulee for minor conWu On
psogiams for improving the . idstlng
system’s operation. The p . 1mm..
should also submit any information or
data on the degree to which the nine
minimum controls achieve comp’ 4 ”
with water quality standards. These data
and Information should include results
made available through monitoring and
modeling activities done in conJunction
with the development of th. long-term
CSO control plan described in this
Policy.
This documentation should be
submitted as soon U practicable, but no
later than two years after the ,
requirement to submit such
documentation is included in an NPDES
permit or other enforosable me 4 nim % .
implementation of the nine minimum
controls with appropriate
documentation should be completed as
soon u practicable but no later than
January 1. 1997. These dates should be
included in an appropriate enforceable
Because the CWA requires lrnm.diate
compliance with technology-based
controls (section 301(b)). which on a
Best Professional Judgm et basis should
Include the nine mlmiimum controls, a
compllinra . schedule far imp lementing
h. nine minimum controls. If
nec. . . ’y. should be Included In an
appropriate .ufm eble m 4 ”4 .
C. Long-Term CSO Control Plan
Permittees with CSOn ar. responsible
for developing and Impl.m.nllng long.
term CSO control plans that will
ultimately result in Comp w . with the
requirements of the CWA. The long-
term plans should consider th. sit.-
spelifle nature of CSOs and evaluate the
cost effsctivenss. of a range of control
options/strataglee. The dav.lopm—” of
the long-term CSO control plan and Its
sub.squent impl.m..itatiq 1 should e is a
be coordinated with the Nl
authority and the State authority
responsible for reviewing and revising
the State’s WQSh The selected controls
should be designed to allow cost
effective expansion c i cost . ctlv.
retrofitting If addlt1 ” ’ ci&trols are
subsequently determined to be
ne mD .my to meet WQS, lncL” 44 ”g
dø1ag and dn g d uses.
This policy identifies GA’s major
objective, for the long-term CSO control
plan.. Permittees should develop and
submit this long-term CSO trol plan
as soon as prlct1 M , bitt g.iemlly
within two yeare after the date of the
NPDES permit provision. Semion 308
Information request. or enL,.------ t
action requiring the permittee to
develop the plan. NPDES authorities
may establish a longer timetable for
completion of the long-term CSO
control plan on a ce.by.com bode to
acoount for Mt...pesi*c festers which
may influence the comp’ ’Ity of the
pknn4ng priO..M Once agrs.d upon .
thss.datshouldbeinduded inan
appropriate enforceable
‘A ects each long-term O
control plan to utilize eppiopsiate
Information to address the following
minimum elements. The Plan should
also Include bath thud.date pi4êJ
ImplementatIon schedules (which may
be phased) and a financing plan to
dmign and construct the pru act as soon
as practicable. The minimum e 1 m ’ .
of the long-term CSO control plan are
described below.
1. CharacterizatIon. Monitoring, and
Modeling of the Combined Sawer
System
In order to design a CSO control plan
adequate to meet the requirements of
the CWA. a permittee should have a
thorough understanding of Its ...-..
system. the responu. of the system to
various precipitation events, the
characteristics of the overflows, and the
water quality impacts that remit from
CSO. . The ermines should adequately
characterize through monltmig,
modeling, and other “ enr es
appropriate, far a range of
the response of Its s. . 7 tt . to
weather events Including the “ ‘ .
location and frequency of CS
volume, a rntrmicn and mof
pollutants discharged and the Impa n
of the CSO5 on the recalving wuim . and
their uses. The p Uss
may need to consider Information on
the contribution and Impar e of
other pollution sources In order to
develop a final plan designed to
water quality standards. The puipoee of
the system tharactsrmulion. monitoring
and mn” 4lng progeam InItially Is to
assist the pemittee In developing
appropriate meseures to Implement the
min4m controls and. If
oeo . . ’y , to support d. eloj 1 of
the long-term CSO control pm. The
monitoring and mo .I’ g d also will
be used to evaluate the per* .
4 k 1ivsnse . of both the nIne minL... .
omitrols and. If ne’ ’y . the lcnp
CSO controls, to meet WQS
The major elements of a uwer system
charactesizedon are deemlbsd below .
a. pi .lnf .fl Pecords— ’The pum4ft .*
should m4im the complete . bif.ll
record for the geographic ares of Its
e, ’ 4 ting CSS using sound etat1it1’ 1
piomdwes and best availab data. The
pemittee should evaluate flow
variations In the receiving w.tW body to
omrelate between CSO. and xa I’tog
water conditions
-------
18892
Federal Ra.r / VoL 59. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notices
b. Combined Sewer System
ChallCIafl2 afloD—Tha pesmittes should
evaluate the nature and extent of its
sewer system through evaluation of
available sewer system records. field
inspections and other activities
nec— ’y to understand the number.
location and frequency of overflows and
their location relative to sensitive areas
and to pollution souztes in the
collection system. such as indirect
significant indusinal users.
c. CSO Monitoring--The perituttee
thould develop a comprehensive.
representative monitoring program that
measures the frequency. duration, flow
rate. volume and pollutant
concentration of CSO discharges and
assesses the impact of the CSOs on the
receiving waters. The monitoring
program should include neeeswy CSO
effluent and ambient in s ea
monitoring and. where sppropnate.
other monitoring protocols sucn as
biological assessment. toxi ty testing
and sediment sampling. Monitoring
parameters should include. for example.
oxygen demanding pollutants, nutrients.
toxic pollutants. sediment
con’ ” ts. pathogena.
b.ctenologv’ t Indicators (e.g..
Enterococcul. E. CoLII. and toxiaty A
representative sample of overflow
points can be selected that Is sufficient
to allow charactenzatiOn of CSO
discharges and their water quality
impacts and to fadlitato evaluation of
control plan alternatives.
d. Modeling—Modeling of. sewer
system is cogIU2.d as a valuable tool
for predicting sewer system response to
venous wet weather events and
assessing water quality Impacts when
evaluating different control strategies
and alternatives. EPA supponi ib.
proper sod effective use of models.
where appropriate, in th. evaluation of
he e minimum controls and the
development of the long-term CSO
control plan. liii also recognlzsd that
there are many modsls which may be
used to do this. These models range
from simple to complex. Having
decided to use i model, the peimmes
should base its choice of a model on the
characteristics of its sewer system. the
number and location of overflow points.
and ths sensit1v ty of the receiving
water body othe CSO discharges. Use
of models should include appropriate
cilibratlon and verification with field
measurements. The sophistication of the
model should relate to the complexity of
the system to be modeled and to the
information needs associated with
evaluation of CSO control options and
water quality impacts. EPA believes that
continuous simulation models, using
historical i.,nf*II data. may be the best
way to model sewer systems. CSOs. and
their impacts. Because of the iterative
nature of modeling sewer systems.
CSOs. and their impacts. monitoring
and modeling efforts are complementary
and should be coordinated.
2. Public Participation
In developing its long.tsrm C5O
control plan, the permutes will employ
a public partrclpauoc process that
actively involves the effected public in
the decision-making to select the long.
term CSO controls. The affected public
includes rate payers. industrial users of
the sewer system. persons who reside
downstream from the CSOs. persons
who use and enjoy these downstream
waters, and any other interested
persons.
3. Consideration of Sensitive Areas
EPA expects a perinittee’s long.terrn
CSO control plan to give the highest
priority to controlling overflows to
sensitive areas. Sensitive areas. as
deterinrnsd by the NPDES authority in
coor 4 ln fion with State and Federal
agencies, as appropriate, include
designated Outstanding National
Resource Waters. National Marine
Sanctuaries, waters with threatened or
endangered sped. , and their habitat.
waters with prtau ’ contact reusatlon.
public drinking water intakes or their
designated protection areas, and
shellfish beds. For such areas. th. long-
term CSO control plan should:
a. Prohibit new or , Igniftrntly
inormeed overflows:
b. I. or relocat, overflows
that discharge to sensitive areas
wherever physically possible end
economically schievabis. ewept where
eIi ii’ir don or relocation would provid.
less environmental protection than
additional or
ii. Where el 4 liktion or relocation is
not physicelly possible and
economically achievable, or would
provide lees envlronmanta.l protection
than additional treatm”. provide the
leiel of tres ent for tuui iiiiig
overflows deemed necessary to mess
WQS for full protsmion of . idsting and
designated irma. In any event, the level
of control should not he lees than those
described In Evaluation of Alternauv.s
below: sod
c. Where eI8viItT iAtioO or relocation has
been proven not to be physically
possible end economically achievable,
permitting authorities should require.
for ecb subsequent permit term. a
reassessment based on new or improved
techniques to .Ifmi!i*tS or relocate, or
on changed circumstances that
tofluenro economic achisvabillty.
4. Evaluation of Alternatives
EPA expects the long-term CSO
control plan to consider a
range of alternatives. Th. plan should.
for example. evaluate controls that
would be n ary to achieve o
overflow events per year. an average of
one to three. four to seven, and eight to
twelve overflow events per year.
Alternatively, the long-term plan could
evaluate controls that achieve 100%
capture. 90% capture. 83% capture.
80% capture. and 73% capture for
treatment. The long-term control plan
should also consider expansion of
POTW secondary and primary capacity
in the CSO abatement alternative
analysis. The analysis of alternatives
should be sufficient to make a
reasonable assessment of cost and
perforn nci as desaibed in Section
IIC.5. Because the final long-term CSO
control plan will become the basis for
NPDES permit limits and requirements.
the selected controls should be
suffidsot to meet CWA requirements.
In addition to considering sensitive
areas, the long-term CSO control pian
should adopt one of the following
appr’ i ech :
a. “Presumption” Approach
A program that meets any of the
iterla listsd below would be presumea
to provide an adequate level of control
to mess the water quallty-bd
requirements of the CWA. provtdsd the
pmltting authority determines that
such presumption Is r,sesti hle In light
of the data and analysis conducted In
the chsractersution. monitoring. sod
modeling of the system and the
consideration of sensitive erase
described shove. These criteria are
provided because data and modeling of
wet weather events often do not give a
choir picture of the level of CSO controls
na e ”y to protect WQS.
i. No more than an of four
overflow events per yesr. provided that
tb. permitting authority my allow up
to two additional overflow events per
year. For the purpose of this criterion.
an overflow event Is one or more
overflows from a CSS Uths resultqf a
precipitation event that dma not receive
the m ,iimum treatment specified
below: or
ii. Ths eIIm 4 tion or th. capture for
treatment of no less than 8 I by
volume of the combined sewage
coliseted In the CSS during
precipitation events on a systsin-wtd
annual average basis: or
iii. The .Iimin tiOfl or removal of no
lam than the mass of the poUutants.
identified as causing water quality
impairment through the sswer system
-------
Federal I Vol. 59 , No. 75 I Tuesday, April 19. 1994 I Notices
ISSSS
modeling effort, for th. volumes that
would be .Iimln ted or captured for
treatment under paragraph U. above.
Combined sewer flows l.iIt. Ing after
implementation of the wns 1 n l !11um
controls and wtihin the iteria
specified at ILC 4.a.i or ii. should
receive a mtf iVflum of
Primary claflftcetlon (Removal of
floatable. and settleable solids may be
achieved by any combination of
treatment tecbnolo e. or methods that
are shown to be equivalent to primary
clarification.);
• Solids and floatable. disposal; and
• Disinfection of effluent, if
nec.sury. to meet WQS, protect
designated uses and protect human
health. &ncluding removal of harmful
disinfection chemical residuals. where
necessary.
b. “Demonstration” Approach
A permute. may demonstrate that a
selected control program, though not
meeting the aitersa specified in ILC.4.a.
above us ad oats to meet th. water
quality- requirements of the CWA.
To be a successful demonstration, the
permittee should demonstrate each of
th. following:
I. The planned control program is
adequate to meet WQS and protect
designated uses, unless WQS or uses
cannot be met u a result of natural
background conditions or pollution
sources other than C5 ;
ii. The CSO discharge. i ’ g
after implementation of the pI.iin.d
control program will not preclud, the
at4inrn.nt of WQS os the receiving
waters’ designated uses or trtbuts to
their ImpairmeaL Where WQS and
designated uses are not met In pert
becaus, of natural background
conditions or pollution sources other
than CSO. a total m.T 4 u um daily load,
including a wasteload allocation and a
load allocation, or other means should
be used to apportion pollutant k 4s :
iii. The planned control program will
provide the m.vimum pollution
reduction benefits rsuonably atta4n4l.;
and
iv. The pLanned control program Is
designed to allow cost e sctiv,
expansion or cost e ctlve retrofitting if
additional controls are subsequently
determined to be neouuiy to meet
WQS otdesignated uses.
5. Cost/Performance
The purmittee should develop
appropriate cost/performance curves to
demonstrate the relationships among a
comprehensive set ofr iuebl . control
alternatives that c. to the
different ranges sp cift.d In Section
IIC.4. This should includ. an analysis
to determine whet, the inaement of
pollution reduction achieved in the
receiving water compared to
the Inaeased coats. This analysis. often
known as knee of the curve, should be
among the considerauons used to help
guide selection of controls.
6. Operitional Plan
After agreement between the
permittee and NPDES authority on the
necessary CSO controls to be
implemented under the long-term CSO
control plan, the permittee should
revise the operation and mint ’ ,
program developed as part of the nine
mIrn flum controls to include the
agreed-upon long-term CSO controls.
The revised operation and maant—’ ”ce
program should the removal
of pollutants during and after each
precipitation event using all available
facilities within th. collection and
treatment system. For any flows in
excess of the astsria specified at
11C4.e.l.. ii. or III and not receiving the
treatment specified In ILC.4.a. the
operational plan should ensure that
such flows receive trea r ” to the
greatest extent pr .ctlcabl..
7. M dmu ng Treatment at the Eidstlng
P0 N Treatment Plant
In som. communities. P0’P.V
treatment plants may have primary
treatment capacity In n a of their
secondary treatment capacity. On.
effective s*ra1s to .bat. pollution
resulting from CSOs Is to the
delivery of flows during wet weather to
the POTW treatment plant for treatment.
Delivering thee. flows can have two
significant water quality benefits: First.
Inoreased flows during wet weather to
the P01W betmri ’ plant may enable
the permittee to . ilm ,i.t , ________
overflows to sensitive areas; . .c d . this
would t! a 4ml the use of available
POIW facilities for wet weather flows
and would ensure that ctrliiTl,d a. . .
flows receive at least primary treatment
prior to discharge.
Under EPA regulations, the
intentional diversion of waste eams
from any portion of a treatment fecility,
including a dary tlu .twa lt . Is a
bypass. EPA bypass regulations at 40
‘R 122.41(m) allow for a fecility to
by ,aueomeorallthefl o w from Its
treatment pr . under specified
limited circumstances. Under the
regulation, the permiste. must show that
the bypass was unavoidable to pre ,ant
loss of lit.. personal injury or severe
property damage, that there was no
feasible alternative to the bypass end
that the permute. submitted the
required notices In addition .h.
regulation provides that a bypass may
be approved only after consideration of
advers, effects.
Normally. it Is the responsibility of
the permute, to document, on a case-by -
base basis, comphence with 40 aR
122.41(m) in order to bypass flows
legally. For some CSO-rsla,ed permits.
th, study of feasible alternatives In the
control plan may provide sufficient
support for the permit record andfw
approval of. CSO. related bypas. In the
permit Itself. and to define the ep—4Rc
parameters under which a bypass can
legally occur. For approval o(a CSO .
related bypass. the long-term C 0
control plan. at a mtntmum should
provide justification for the cut-off point
at which the flow will be diverted from
the secondary treatment portion of the
treatment plant, and provide a benefit-
cost analysis demonstrating that
conveyance of wet weather flow to the
POTW for primary treatment Is more
beneficial than other CSO abatement
alternatives such as storag, and pump
beck for s.c dary treatment, sower
separation, or satellite Snob a
permit must define und.r what specific
wet weather conditions a C O-relatsd
bypass Is allowed and also specify what
treetment or what monitoring. and
effluent limitations and requirements
apply to the bypass flow. The permit
should also provide that appenval
the CSO .related bypass wüf be reviewed
and may be modified or te natad If
there Is a substantial inusa.. , In the
volume or character of poUu a being
introduced to the P01W. The CSO-
related bypass provision In the permit
should also make it clear that all wet
weather flows passing the b.adwseka of
the P01W treatment plant will Use
at least primary clarification and solids
and floatable, removal and disposal.
and disinfection, where naJ _ &.y , and
any other treatrnlt that can nwoably
be provided.
Undm this approech, EPA would
allow a permit to authorim a CSO.
related bypass of the secondary
treatment portion of the P01W
V,”4iueflt plant for combined . ...es
flows In certain Identified
dZVtIffissaIe , This provision would
apply only to those situations whir . the
POT%V would ordinarily mset the
requirements of 40 Q ’R 122.41(m) U
evaluated on a case-by-case basis .
Therefore, there must be riM’ w data
In th. administrative , c (reflected in
the permit fact sheet or statement of
basis) supporting all the requirements In
40 G’R 122 .41(m)(4) for a 1 1 ..nl of an
anticipated bypass.
For the purposes of applying this
regulation to CS0 permittees. “ ...
-------
18694
F.der’sl g.al .r I Vol. 59. No. 75 I Tuesday. April 19. 1994 I Notices
situaflOOl where flows above a certain
level wash out the POTW’s ,.rmdiiy
treatment system. EPA fwther believes
that the feasible alternatives
reqwrement of the regulation can be met
if the record shows that the second’.rv
treatment system is properly operated
and mamlainea. that the system has
been designed to meet secondary limits
‘or flows greater than the peak dry
weather flow, plus an appropriate
quantity of wet weather flow, and that
ii is either technically or financially
infeasible to provide secondary
u’eatment at the e sung facilities for
eater amounts of wet weather flow
The feasible alternative analysis should
:nclude. for example. consideration of
enhanced primary treatment (e.g..
chemical addition and non.biological
secondary treatment. Other base.
supporting a finding of no feuible
aiternauve may aiso be available on a
case-ov-case oasis. As part of its
consideration of possible adverse effects
resulting from the bypass, the
permitting authority should also ensure
that the bypass will not cause
exceedances of WQS.
This Policy does not address the
appropriateness of approving
anticipated bypasses through NPDES
permits in advance outside the CSO
context.
8 Implementation Schedule
The permittee should Include all
pertinent information In th. long term
control plan necessary to develop the
construction and ftnsndng schedule for
implementation of CSO controls.
Schedules for implementation of the
CSO controls may be phased based on
the relative importance of adverse
impacts upon WQS and designated
uses, priority prolects identified In the
long.term plan. and on a psrmstt.e’s
financial capability.
Construction phasing should
consider
a. Eliminating overflows that
discharge to sensitive areas as the
highest prionty;
b. Use impairment;
c. The permittee’s finan,mI capability
including consideration of such factors
as:
i Median household income;
ii Total anrual wutewatsr and CSO
control costs per household isa percent
of median household Income:
iii. Overall net debt as a percent of
full market property value:
iv Property tax revenues as a peicent
of full market property value:
v Property tax collection rate;
vi. Unemployment; and
vu. Bond rating;
d Grant and loan availability:
e. Previous and cwrent residential.
commercial and Industrial sewer user
fees and rat. structures: and
f Other viable funding me ”sms
and sources of financing .
9. Post.Construction Compliance
Monitoring Program
The selected CSO controls should
include a post-construction water
qualitY monitoring program adequate to
verif compliance with water quality
standards and protection of designated
uses as well as to ascertain the
effectiveness of CSO controls. This
water quality compliance monitoring
program should include a plan to be
approved by the NPDES authority that
details the monitoring protocols to be
followed, including the necessary
effluent and ambient monitoring and.
where appropriate, other monitoring
protocols such as biological
assessments, whole effluent to city
testing. and sediment sampling.
Ill. Coordination With Stat. Water
Quality Standards
A. Overview
WQS aie State adopted. or Federally
promulgated rules which serve as the
goals for the water body and the legal
basis for the water quallty.bas.d NPDES
permit requirements unda , the CWA.
WQS consist of uses which States
desig at. for their water bodies. duets
to protect the uses. an anti-degradation
policy to protect th. water quality
improvements gained and other policies
affecting th. implementation of the
standards. A primary objective of the
long.term CSO control plan is to meet
WQS. Including the designated uses
through reducing risks to bn1 ai1 health
and the environment by .ilmt i.tlng.
relocating or controlling CSOs to the
affected waters.
State WQS authorities. NPDES
authorities. EPA regional of Ices.
permittesa. and the public should meet
early and frequently throughout the
long-term CSO control pi.nnlng
process. Development of the long-term
plan should be coordinated with the
review and appropriate revision of WQS
and unpissnentatlon procedures on
CSO-impacted waters to ensure that the
long-term controls will be su clsnt to
inset water quality standards. As part of
these meetings. participants should
agree on the data. information and
analyses needed to p th.
development of the long-term CSO
control plan and the review of
applicable WQS. and implementation
procedures, if appropriate. Agreemsuts
should be reached on the monitoring
protocols and models that will be used
to evaluate the water quality impects of
the overflows, to analyse the
at 4 hility of the WQS and to
determine the water quality-based
requirements for th. permit. Many
opportunities emit for permutes. and
States to share information as control
programs are developed and as WQS are
reviewed. Such information should
assist States in deter?’nntng the need for
revisions to WQS and implementation
procedures to better reflect the site-
specific wet weather impacts of CSO.
Coordinating the development of the
long-term CSO control plan and the
review of the WQS and impl tstion
procedures provides greater assurance
that the long-term control plan selected
and the limits and requirements
included in the NPDES permit wili be
sufficient to meet WQS and to comply I
with sections 301(b)(l)(C) and 402(a)(2)
of the CWA.
EPA encourages States and permittees
oudly to sponsor workshops for the
affected public in the development of
the long-term CSO control plan and
during th. development of ap 1 mqiiat
revisions to WQS for CSO-tmpscted
waters. Workshops provide a forum for
including the public in discussions of
the implications of the proposed long-
term CSO control plan on th. water
quality and uses for th. receiving water.
B. Water Quality Standards Reviews
The CWA requires States to
periodically, but at least once every
three years. hold public hseflnga for the
purpose of reviewing applicable water
quality standards and. as app rIate.
modlf 1ng and adopting standards.
States must provide the public an
opportunity to n eflt on any
proposed revision to water quality
standards and all revisions mud be
submitted to EPA for review and
approval. _____
£PA regulations and gul ” provide
States with the flexibility to adapt their
WQS. and implementation procedures
to reflect site-specific conditions
including those related to CSOS - For
example. a State may adopt sits-specific
diteria for a particular pollutant If the
Stat. determines that the site.spsctflc
aiteria fully protects the gnrt1id use
(40 G’R 131.11 1. In addition, the
regulations at 40 CFR 131.10( 5 ). (h). and
(I) specify when and how a de.lpated
use may be modified. A State may
remove a designated use from Its water
quality standards only if the designated
uss is ner an emating use. An existing
use is a use actually attained in the
water body on or after November 25.
1975. Furthermore. a State may not
remove a designated us. that will be
attained by implementing the
-------
F.daial Rgl / VoL 59. No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 1994 I NoU s
11
technology .bsaed effluent limits
required under secoons 301(b) end 306
of the CWA and by mplimantlng cost.
effective and reesonabls b
management practice. for nonpoint
sourm controls. Thus. ifs State base
reasonable basis to determine that the
current designated use could be attained
after implementation of the technology.
based controls of the CWA, then the use
could not be removed.
In determining whether a use is
attainable and prior to removing a
designated use. States must conduct and
submit to EPA a use attainability
analysis. A use attainability analysis is
a structured saenuflc .u nsnt of the
factors affecting the use, including the
physical, chemical. bloloçcal. and
economic factors desaibed in 40 CFR
131.10(g). As part of the siialysis. States
should evaluate whether the designated
use could be attained if CSO controls
were implemented. For example. States
should ev rn ne if sediment Loadings
from CSOs could be reduced so as not
to bury spawning beds. or if
biochemical oxygen demanding material
in the effluent or the toidcity of the
effluent could be corrected so as to
reduce the acute or chronic
physiological stress on or
bioa umulation potential of aquatic
organisms.
Tn reviewing the st*.in illity of their
WQS and the applicability of their
implementation procedures to CSO.
impacted waters. States am encouraged
to define more explicitly their
remreatloaal and aquatic life uses and
then, if appropriate, modify the atari.
accordingly to protect th. designated
uses.
Another option Is for States to adopt
partial uses by dfinlng when prlmaiy
contact recreation such as swimming
does not eidst, such as during certain
seasons of the ysar in northern 1411i t.s
or during a particular type of storm
event. In , n Iriiig such adju ents to
their uses, States must sumare that
downstream uses are protected, sod that
during other seasons or alter the storm
event has passed, the use Isibily
protected.
In addition to definin 5 s eatjonaj
uses with greater spstiflclty. State , am
also encouraged to defin, the aquatic
uses more precisely. Patha , than
aquatic life use protection.” States
should consider de ”1”g the type of
fishery to be protected such as a cold
water fishery (e.g., trout or salmon) ore
warm weather fishery (e.g.. bluegill or
lug. mouth base). Explicitly d.finhlg
the typ. of fi.hsry to be protected may
assist the peiminee in anliuting the
support of citi’-”. for a CSO control
plan.
A water quality standard variance
may be appropriate. in limited
dzcumstanoss on CSO4mpactsdwatm..
where the Stat, Is uncertain as to
whether a standard can be attained and
time is needed for the State to conduct
additional analyses on the attainability
of the standard. VarI .nr,, are shorwerm
modifications to water quality
standards. Subject to EPA approval.
States, with their own statutory
authority. may grant a variance to a
specific discharger for a specific
pollutant. The justification for a
variance is similar to that required for
a permanent change In the standgrd.
although the showings needed are Less
rigorous. Variances are also subject to
public participation requirements of the
water quality standards and permits
pro sws and are reviewabi. generally
every three years. A variance allows the
CSO permit to be written to meet the
rnodifled” water quality standard as
analyses are conducted and as progms .
is made to improve water quality.
Justifications for variances are the
same as those Idantified In 40 ‘R
131.10(g) for modIfit .ticns In uses.
States must providu an opportunity for
public review sod ‘ mment on all
variances. If States use th, permit as the
vehicle to gmnt the variance, notice of
the permit must clearly stat. that the
variance modifies th. State’s water
quality standard .. If the variance Is
approved, the State appends the
variance to the State’s standard. and
reviews the variance every three years.
IV . ExpectatIon, for ?brutitting
Authorities
A. Overview
CSOs are point sources subject to
NPDES permit requirements lncl”dlng
both ‘ethnology -based and water
quality-b .ed requirements of the CWA.
CSOs am not subject to i dary
tzse ent regulations appilcabi. to
publicly owned trss ent warha
(Montgomery Enviiwsmsutol Coalition
vs. Cosif . 646 F.2d 566 (D.C. Cl ,.
ta lo n.
All psemits for ( Oe should require
the nine nlinimem control. as a
best an ab), ‘ethnology
, iInl icefly achievable and beg
conventional technology (BAT/DC’ !’)
established on a beet piufi ’ . 1vnal
judgment (DPI) bests by the permitting
authority (40 R 125.3). Water quality-
based requirements ass to be established
based on applicabl. water quality
This policy establi .h.i. a uniform,
nationally consistent approech to
developing and Issuing NPDES permits
to permittess with CS . Permits for
CSOs should be developed and Issued
expeditiously. A single, syat.. 11 -wlde
permit generally should be lemsed all
discha,ges, including CSOs, buss a S
operated by a single authority. When
different parts of a single CSS are
operated by morn than on, authority,
permits Issued to each authority should
generally require joint preparation sad
implementation of the elements of this
Policy and should specifically define
the responsibilities and dud., of each
authority. Permittees should be required
to coordinate system.wid.
mplsmentation of the nine 1 ” 4 ”’um
controls and the development and
implementation of the long.tenn CSO
control plan.
The individual authorities ii.
responsible for their own discharges and
should cooperate with the permitise for
the POVW receiving the flows from the
CSS. When a CSO Is permitted
separately from the P01W. both permits
should be aoseref.r .nc.d for
informational puipoess.
EPA Regions and States should
revisw the CSO permitting prioritiss
established In the State CSO Parmlatng
Strategies developed In response to the
1969 Strategy. Regions and States sasy
elect to revise these previous priorities.
In setting permitting priorities, Regions
andStateeshouldnotjugfocuson
thou. permittues that have InI’4 d
monitoring prv sms. When unto 1
prIoritIes. Regions end Statue iM
consider, for example. the known or
potential Impact of CSO on sensitive
arues. and the tant of Up saW
Industrial user discharges to th, &
During the permittee’s development
of the long .tum CSO control plan, the
permit writer should promote
coordination between the permiese d
State WQS authority In ‘o’” ’ .ctbon with
possible WQ$ revisions. Once the
peimittee has completed development
of the long-term CSO control plan and
has coordinated with the permitting
authority the selection of the controls
mmt the requIrements of
the CWA. the permlt ng authority
should include In an appropriate
enfoicesbi. mechanism, requirements
for ImpI—n—tlet ion of the lcng.tm
CSO control plan. Including conditions
for water quality monitoring and
operation and .int.ui .iia ,
B. NPDES Permit Requirements
Following am the major elements of
NPDES permits to Implement this
Policy and ensure protection of water
quality.
-------
Ft m 1i / VoL 59. No. 75 I Tuesday. Apr Il 19. 1994 I Ncd
1. I base 1 Permlt. R.quII ts for
Deacn *tlon of tmplaru XlonOf the
Nine Minimum Controls end
Development of he Lon -Tar CSO
Control Plan
In the Phase I permit issued/modified
to reflect this Policy. the NPDES
authoritY should at least require
permittees to:
a. Immediately implement BAT/BCI.
which at a minimum includes the nine
minimum controls. as determined on a
BPJ basis by the permitting authority:
b Develop and submit a report
documenunfi the implementatIon of the
tune minimum controls within two
years of permit issuance/lnOdiflCatiOfl:
c. Comply with applicable WQS. no
later than the date allowed under the
States WQS. expressed in the form of a
narrative hinitation: and
d develop and submit. consistent
with this Policy and based on a
schedule in an appropriate enforceable
mecbaiusm.a long-term CSO control
plan as soon as practicable, but
generally within two years alter the
effective date of the permit lasuince!
modification. However. permitting
authorities may .stablish a longer
timetable for completion of the long-
term CSO control plan an acassby-ce
basis to a ount for site-spmi& factors
that may influence the comphodty of the
pl iuirng prOCe5*
The NPt)ES authority should Include
compliance dates on the far
practicable schedule for e of the nine
minimum contiols in an appropriate
enforceable mrh• Ismaid in
con)UOctlOft with the Phase I permit.
The use of enforceable aidats Is
ner1’I ’y unle Conpese emends the
CWA. All orders should require
compliance with the nine mlnir um
controls no later than January 1. 1907.
2. Phase U mite —Requla ta for
ImplementatiOn of aL.ntTSIm CSO
Control Plan
Once the permittee bm completed
development of the long-time CSO
control plan end the ss of the
controls neceeaalyto meet CWA
requirements has been coordinated with
he permitting and WQS authorities, the
permitting authority should Include, in
an appropriate enforceable
requirements for implemenlati’’ of the
long-term CSO control plan soon as
practicable. Where the permiu has
selected controls based on the
“presumption” approach discribed in
Section ILC.4. thu permitting authority
must have determined that the
presumption that such level of
ueatment will achiev, water quality
standards ii reasonable in tight of the
data and analysts cc ducted und this
Policy. The Phase U permit should
contaln
a. Rsquizementu to implement the
technoloV.based controls Including the
nine miit um controls determined on
a BPJ huts:
b. Narrative requirements which
insure that the selected CSO controls are
implemented. operated and maintained
as deeaibed in the long-term CSO
control plan:
c. Water quality-based effluent limits
under 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) and
122.44(k). requu’ing.*L a moimurn)
compliance with. no later than the date
allowed under the State’s WQS. the
numeric performance standards for the
selected CSO controls, based on average
design conditions specifying at least one
of the following:
t. A mutmum number of overflow
events per year for specified design
conditions consistent with U.C.4.a.a; or
ii. A minimum percentage capture of
combined sewage by volume for
treatment undsr specified design
conditions consistent with 11 C.4.a.il: or
UI. A “ i um removal of the mass
of pollutants discharged for specifld
design conditions c t with
II.C4.a.ili; or
iv. performance standards and
requirements that are cnne ent with
ll.C.4.b. of the Policy.
d. A requirement to imp L with
an established schedule, the approved
post -constri& Ofl water quality
ase ’ent program Including
requirements to monitor and collect
sufficient Information to demim.tate
complIaw with WQS and prii.—’ 4 o ” of
designated uses as well as to determine
the ,ff vsuii of CSO controls.
e. A requirement to r : overflows
to se sitlve areas in thee. cases what.
______ or relr”on of the
overflows Is net physically possible and
economically achievable. Th.
res ent should be ha.ed on
consideration of new or improved
tii’hn4ques to e’ ’ te or relocate
overflows or changed sircumatancee
that Infl” economic echievebility;
f. Conditions .stab’4 ”g
requirements for ma,’ 4 ’ g the
trss t of wet weather flows at the
P01W treatment plant. as appropriate.
consistent with Section U.C.7. of this
Policy:
g. A reopener clause autharising the
NPDES authority to reopen and iutaidify
the permit upon determination that the
CSO controls fail to meet WQS or
protect desIgnated uses. Upon such
determinatran. the NPDES authority
should promptly notify the permittee
and p . sdtO modify or resume the
permit. The p.rmlttee should be
required to develop, submit d
I mple m e nt. as soon as pz4th. 1
revised CSO control plan which
contains additional controls to meet
WQS and designated uses. If the Initial
CSO control plan was approved un
the demonstration provision of Section
flC.4.b.. the reviud plan, at a
should provide for coutrols
that satisfy one of the cisteria In Section
I1.C.4.a. unless the permittee
demonstrates that the revised plan Is
clearly adequate to meet WQS at a lower
cost and it is shown that the additional
controls resulting from the astirla in
Section U.C.4.a. will not result ins
greater overall improvement in water
quality.
Unless the permittee can comply with
all of the requirements olthe Phase U
permit. the NPDES authority should
include. in an enforceable mschan1E! .
compliance dates on the fastest
practicable schedule for those activities
directly related to meeting the
requirements of the CWA. For mayor
permittees. the compliance sii,duls
should be placed in a judIcial order.
Proper compllaw. with the schedule
for Implementing the controls
..c . tiv endod In the long-term CSO
control plan constitutes comp 14
with the elements of this Policy
concerning pI. II!th%g and
implementation of a long term CSO
remedy .
3. P” ”g Considerations
Implementation of CSO controls may
be phase ’ 4 based en th. relative
importance of and adverse Impacts
upon WQS and designated uses. as well
as the perm_Ittee’s flnanr4.I carwuty
and Its previous efforts to control CSO
The NPDES authority should evalusts
the proposed Implementation srhdule
and construction phasing dIr” Mt In
Section U.C.S. of this Policy. The permit
should require complian’4 with the
controls i#upoeed In the tong-term CSO
control p’lan no lat, than the applicable
deadline(s) under the CWA or Stats law.
If comp1len’ with the Phase II permit
is net possible. an enforceable sdi.dule.
consistent with the Worc.irn’ end
Conipl1an Section of this Policy.
shou’d be issued In conjunction with
the Phase II permit which specifies the
schedule and milestones for
implementation of the long-term CSO
control plan-
V. Enfrc.m.nl and Compliance
A. Overview
11 is important that permitties act
immediately to take the ne y steps
to comply with the CWA. The CSO
enforcement effort will commence with
-------
1a I Vol. 59. No. 15 I Tuesday, April 19, 1994 I Notices
is ..,
an initiative to addzeu CS that
discharge during dry westhu. foUowsd
by an enforcement effort in con!unctlOn
with permitting CSOs daicuesed earlier
in this Policy. Suocess of the
enforcement effort will depend In large
part upon expeditious a on by UPDES
authorities in issuing enforceable
permits that include requirements both
[ or the n e mliumum controls and for
compliance with all other requirements
of the CWA. Priority for enforcement
actions should be sit based on
environmental impacts or sensitive
areas affected by CSOs.
As a further inducement for
permittees to cooperate with this
process. EPA is pieparedto ezercise its
enforcement dlsaetion in determining
whether or not to seek civil penalties for
past CSO violations if pwmttees meet
the ob ecuves and schedules of this
Policy and do not have CSOs during dry
weather.
B. Enforcement of CSO Dry Weather
Discharge Prohibition
EPA intends to commence
unmediately an enforcement Initiative
against CSO permittees which have
CWA violations due to CSO during dry
weather. Discharges during dry weather
have always been prohibited by the
NPDES program. Such dietharges cen
eate serious public health and water
quality problems. EPA will use Its CWA
SectIon 308 monitoring. reporting. and
inspection authorities, together with
NPDES State authorities, to Locate these
violations, and to determine their
causes. Appropriate remedies and
penalties will be sought for CSOs during
dry weather. EPA will provide NPDES
authorities more specific gWdair on
ibis enforcement initiative separately.
C. Enforcement of Wet CSO
Requirements
Under the CWA. EPA can use several
enforcement ootions to address
pennittees with CSOs. Thee. options
directly applicable to this Policy ate
section 308 Information Requests.
section 309(a) A I’v’4ni atiVe Ordese.
section 309(g) Penalty
Orders. section 309 (b) and (d) Civil
Judicial Actions, and section 504
Emergency Powers. NPDES States
should use comparable
NPDES authorities should eel
priorities for enforcement based on
environmental impacts or emsitive
areas affected by CSOs. Permltteee that
have voluntarily Initiated monitoring
and are pro essing expeditiously
toward appropriate CSO controls should
be given due consideration for their
efforts.
1. Enfuament for CompI4ii .r. With
Phase I Permits
Enforcement for compll.nr, with
Phase I permits will focus on
requirements to implement at least the
nine ‘s”””um controls, and develop
the long.terrn CSO control plan leading
to complianc, with the requirements of
the CWA. Where immediate compliance
with the Phase I permit is infeasible. the
NPDES authority should issue an
enforceable schedule, in concert with
the Phase I permit. requiring
compliance with the CWA and
imposing compliance schedules with
dates for each of the nine
controls as soon as practicable. All
enforcement authorities should require
compliance with the nine
controls no later than January 1. 1997.
Where the NPDES authority Is issuing
an order with a compliance schedule for
the nine minimum controls, this order
should also include a schedule for
development of the long-term CSO
control plan.
If a CSO permutes fails to meet the
final compliance date of the schedule.
the WPDES authority should Initiate
appropriate judicial action.
2. Enforcement for Compliance With
Phase II Permits
The main focus for enforcing
compliance with Phase U permits will
be to incorporate the long-term CSO
control plan through a civil jwIb ’4A1
action. an s’I”i 4 ” .trstive order, or other
enforceable me1 4 w i111 requiring
compLian . with the CWA and
imposing a compl 4 ”ce schedule with
appropriate milestone date. n ’y to
implement the plan.
In general, a IuaH-4m 1 order Is the
appropriate ‘ “ for
Incorporating the above provisions for
Phase U. Administrative orders.
however. may be appropriate for
permittese whose long-term control
plans will take lees than fiv, yea’s to
complete. and foe m1n s that have
complied with the final date of the
enforceable order for compII with
their Phase I permit If nec— ’y . any of
the nine i,n mlem controls that bass
not been implemented by this ties.
should be included in the terms of the
judicial order.
D. Penalties
EPA Is prepared not to seek dvii
penalties for past CS0 violations, If
permittees have no discharges during
dry weather and meet the objectives and
schedules of this Policy.
Notwithstanding this, where a permittee
has other significant CWA vloIaIs. f
wbich A or the State Is t k4 . .g judkial
action, penalties may be sidued as
part of that action for the followlnr
1. CSOs during dry westhec
2. VIolations of CS0 -mlatsd
requirements In NPDES peres*t1
consent deasea or court orders which
predate this policy: or
3. Other CWA violations.
EPA will not seek penalties far past
CSO violations from permnteus that
fullycamplywith thePhaselperraltor
enforceable order requiring comp” ’i
with the Phase I permit. For psimirtess
that fail to comply. EPA will ezeidse its
enforcement disaretion in determining
whether to seek penalties for the time
period for which the compliw,
schedule was violated. If the milestone
dates of the enforceable schedule are not
achieved and penalties are sought.
penalties should be calculated from the
last milestone date that was met.
At the time of the ludicial settlement
imposing a compliance schedule
implementing the Phase II permit
requirements. EPA will notseek
penalties for past CSO violations from
permittese that fully comply with the
enforceable order requiring cmp” ’
with the Phase I permit and If the terms
of the judi 4 ’ order are expeditiously
agreed to on consent. However.
stipulated penalties for vioI .’ 4 ” of the
judicial order generally should be
includsd In th. order, consistent with
e ’dsIlng Agency policies. Additional
on stipulated p.nal ’ 4
concerning long-term CSO controls and
at’.i ’ ”entofWQS will be ismied. .
Paperwork Redection Act
The Information collection
requize ’ in this policy have been
approved by the Office of Manng ”’t
and Budget (0MB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501e1 q
and have been assigned 0MB control
num ’ 2040-0170.
This collection of Information has ma
estimated reporting burden avereelng
37$ hours per response and.n
estimated annual recordkeeping burden
aseieglng 25 howe per recozdkasper.
These estimates includ, time for
reviewing In uctlons. searobleg
extiting data sources. gathering and
maan’. ” 4 ’lg the data needed. and
completing and reviewing the 1 c’ 4 ”
of InformatIon,
Send regarding the burden
estimate oranyoths raspectof this
collection of information, Including
su st1ons for reducing this burden to
Chief. Information Policy Branch; EPA;
401 M Street SW. (Mall Code 2135);
Washington. DC 20450: and to the
Office of Information and Riplatory
A lrs, Office of Management and
-------
1 I Vol. 59. No. 75 / Tueediy, April. 19. 1994 / Notices
udgst. Wushi tes. DC 20503. usthed
Attundon: Dusk OMce f A.
IFR . 54.4255 Ph.d 4-15-04: 5:45 iml
oo —
-------
Reference 7
-------
, . to ra ..,
1. NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\‘EiI’ , WASHINGTON. D C 2O$
OCT I 9
ccccs cc
WATER
1F M0RAN M
SUWECT Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation arid
implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria
FROM: Martha 0. Prothro t ‘ .x—C
Actitg Assistant Administrator for Water
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Environmefltai Services Division Directors
Regions l-X
Introduction
The implementatiOn of metals criteria is complex due to the site-specifiC nature of
metals toxicity. We have undertaken a number of activities to develop guidance in this area,
notably the Interim Metals Guidance, published May 1992, and a public meeting of experts
held in Annapolis, MD, in january 1993. This memorandum transmits Office of Water
(OW) policy and guidance on the interpretation and impliii atatiOn of aquatic life criteria for
the management of metals and supplements my April 1, 1993, memorandUm on the wnc
subject. The issue covers a number of a.’ess including the expression of aquatic life criteria;
total maximum daily loads (ThfDU) , permits, effluent monitoring, and compliance; and
ambient monitoring. The memorandum covers each in turn. Attached to this policy
memorandum are three guidance documents with additional technical details. They are:
Guidance Document Ofl Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria as Dissolved Criteria
(Attachment #2), Guidance Document on Dynamic Modeling and Translators (Attachment
#3), and Guidance Document on Monitoring (AttaChment #4). These will be supplemented
as additional data become available. (See the schedule in Attachment #1.)
Since metals toxicity is significantly affected by site-specific factors, it presents a
number of programmatic challenges. Factors that must be considered in the management of
metals in the aquatic environment include: toxicity specific to effluent chemistry; toxicity
specific to ambient water chemistry; different patterns of toxicity for different metals;
evolution of the state o the science of metals toxicity, faze, and transport; resource
limitations for monitoring, analysis, implementatiofl and research functions; concerns
regarding some of the analytical data currently on record due to possible snpling and
analyucal contam%naUOfl and lack of standardized protocols for clean and ultraclean metals
analysis. The States have the key role in the risk management process of balancing these
factors in the management of water programs The site-specific nature of this issue could be
perceived as requiring a permit-by-permit approach to implementatiOn. However, we belie e
-------
2
that this guidance can be effecuvely implemented on a broader level, across any waters with
roughly the same physical and chemical characteristics, and recommend that we work with
the States with that perspective in mind.
xpression of Aguatic Life Cntena
o Dissolved vs. Total Recoverable Metal
A major issue is whether, and how, to use dissolved metal concentra ons (‘dissolved
metal) or total recoverable metal concentrations (‘total recoverable metal’) in setting State
water quality standards. In the past, States have used both approaches when applying the
same Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria numbers. Some older criteria
documents may have facilitated these different approaches to interpretation of the criteria
because the documents were somewhat equivocal with regards to analytical methods. The
May 1992 interim guidance continued the policy that either approach was ! tablc.
It is now the policy of the Office of Water that the use of dissolved metal to set and
measure compliance with water quality standards is the recommended approach, because
dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water
column than does total recoverable metal. This conclusion regarding metals bloavailabiity is
supported by a majority of the scientific community within and outside the Agency. One
reason is that a primary mechanism (or water column toxicity is adsorption at the gill surface
which r uires metals to be in the dissolved form.
The position that the diuolved metals approach is more accurate has been questioned
because it neglects the possible toxicity of particulate metal. It is tive that some studies have
indicated that particulate metals appear to contribute to the toxicity of metals, perhaps
because of (actors such as desorpUon of metals at the gill surface, but these same studies
indicate the toxicity of particulate metal is substantially less than that of dissolved metal.
Furthermore, any error incurred from excluding the cossthbution of particWa!! metal
will generally be compensated by other factors which ma criteria conservative. For
example, metals in toxicity tests are added as simple saks to relatively clean water. Due to
the likely pr nce of a significant concenoation of metals binding agents in many discharges
and ambient waters, metals in toxicity tests would generally be expe Ied to be more
bioavailabile than metals in discharges or in ambient waters.
If total recoverable metal is used for the purpose of waler quality standards,
compounding of (actors due to the lower bioavasiability of particulate metal and lower
bioavaalability of metals as they are discharged may result in a conservative water quality
standard. The use of dissolved metal in water quality standards gives a more accurate result.
However, the majority of the participants at the Annapolis meeting felt that total recoverable
measurements in ambient water had some value, and that exceedences of criteria on a total
recoverable basis were an indication that metal loadings could be a soess to the ecosystem,
particularly in locations other than the water column.
-------
3
The reasons for the potential consideration of total recoverable measurements include
nsk management considerations not covered by evaluation of water column tox.icity. The
ambient water quality criteria ate neither designed nor intended to protect sediments, or to
prevent effects due to food webs containing sediment dwelling organisms. A ns manager,
however, may consider sediments and food chain effects and may decide to take a
conservative approach for metals, considering that metals are very persistent chemicals. This
conservative approach could include the use of total recoverable metal in water quality
standards. However, since consideration of sediment impacts is not incorporated into the
criteria methodology, the degree of conserausm inherent in the total recoverable approach is
un iown. The uncertainty of metal impacts in sediments stem from the lack of sediment,
criteria and an imprecise understanding of the fate and tiansport of metals. EPA will.,
continue to pursue research and other activities to close these iowledge gaps.
Until the scientific uncertainties are better resolved, a range of different risk
management decisions can be justified. EPA recommends that Stare water quality standards
be based on dissolved metal. (See the paragraph below and the attached guidance for
technical details on developing dissolved criteria.) EPA will also approve a State risk
management decision to adopt standards based on total recoverable metal, if those standards
are otherwise approvable as a matter of law.
o Dissolved Criteria
In the toxicity tests used to develop EPA metals criteria for aquatic life, some fraction
of the metal is dissolved while some fraction is bound to particulate matter. The present
criteria were developed using total recoverable metal measurements or measures expected to
give equivalent results in toxicity tests, ana are articulated as total recoverable. Therefore,
in order to express the EPA criteria as dissolved, a total recoverable to dissolved correction
factor must be used. Attachment fi provides guidance for calculating EPA dissolved criteria
from the published total recoverable criteria. The data exprrw d as percentage metal
dissolved are presented as recommended values and ranges. However, the choice within
ranges is a State risk management decision. We have recently supplemented the data for
copper and are proceeding to further supplement the da for copper and other metals. As
testing is completed, we will make this information av2ibhle and this is expected to reduce
the magnitude of the ranges for some of the conversion factors provided. We also s ongly
encourage the application of dissolved criteria across a watershed or warerbody, as
technically sound and the best use of resources.
o Site-Specific Criteria Modificauo:is
While the above methods wW correct some site-specific factors affecting metals
toxicity, further refinements are poss.hle. EPA has issued guidance (Water Quality
Standards Handbook, 1983; Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water
Quality Criteria by Modifying National Cuena, EPA-600/3•H4-099, October 1984) for three
site-specific criteria development methodologies: recalcula on procedure, indicator species
procedure (also known as the water-effect ratio (WER)) and resident species procedure.
Only the first two of these have been widely used.
-------
4
In the National To ics Rule t5 7 FR 60848, December 22. 1992), EPA identified the
WER a.s an optional method for site-specific criteria development for certain metals. EPA
ommitted in the NTR preamble to provide guidance on determining the WER. A draft of
this gwdasice has been circulated to the States and Regions for review aria comment. As
justified by water characteristics and as recommended by the WER guidance. we strongly
encourage the application of the WER across a watershed or wateitody as opposed to
application on a discharger by discharger basis, as technically sound and an efficient use of
resources.
In order to meet current needs, but allow for changes suggested by prOtOCOl users
EPA will issue the guidance as ujntenm.u EPA will accept WERs developed using this
guidance. as well as by using other scientifically defensible protocols. OW expects the
interim WER guidance will be issued in the next two months.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs and National Pollutant Dischart Elimination System
[ jPDFS Permits
o Dynamic Water Quality Modeling
Although not specifically part of the reassessment of water quality criteria for metals.
dynamic or probabilistic models are another useful tool for implementing waler quality
criteria, especially for those criteria protecting aquatic life. These models provide another
way to incorporate site-specific data. The 1991 Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD) EPA 505/2-90.001) describes dynamic, as well as static
(steady-state) models. Dynamic models make the best use of the specified magnitude.
duration, and frequency of water quality criteria and, therefore, provide a more accurate
representation of the probability that a water quality standard exceedenco will occur. In
contrast, steady-state models make a number of simplifying, rst case assumptions which
makes them less complex and less accurate than dynamic models.
Dynamic models have received increased attention over the last few years as a result
of the widespread belief that steady-state modeling is er-conservative due to
environmentally conservative dilution assumptions. This belief has led to the misconception
that dynamic models will always lead to Less stringent regulatory controls (e.g., NPDES
effluent Limita) than steady-state models, which is not mm in every application of dynamic
models. EPA considers dynamic models to be a more accurate apprcach to implementing
water quality criteria and continues to recommend their use. Dynamic modeling does require
commitment of resources to develop appropriate data. (See Attachment #3 and the TSD for
details on the use of dynamic models.)
o Dissolved-TOtal Metal Translators
Expressing water quality critena as the dissolved form of a metal po a need to be
able to translate from dissolved metal to total recoverable metal for TMDLs and NPDES
permits. TMDLs for metals must be able to calculate: (1) dissoLved metal in order to
ascertain attainment of water quality standards, and (2) total recoverable metal in order to
achieve mass balance necessary for permitting purposes.
-------
5
EPAs MPDES regulations require that limits of metals in permits be stated as total
recoverable in most cases (see 40 CFR §122.45(c)) except when an effluent guideline
specifies the limitation in another form of the metal, the approved analytical methods
measure only dissolved metal, or the permit writer expresses a metals limit in another form
(e.g., dissolved, valent, or total) when required to carry out provisions of the Clean Water
Act. This is because the ciemical conditions in ambient waters frequently differ substantially
from those in the effluent, and there is no assurance that effluent particulate metal would not
dissolve after discharge. The NPDES rule does not require that State water quality standards
be expressed as total recoverable; rather, the rule requires permit writers so translate between
different metal forms in the calculation of the permit limit so that a total recove’able Limit
can be established. Both the TMDL and NPDES uses of water quality criteria require the
ability so translate between dissolved metal and total recoverable metal. Attachment 13
provides methods for this translation.
Guidance on Monitorina
o Use of Clean Sampling and Analytical Techniques
In assessing waterbodies to determine the potential for toxicity problems due to
metals, the quality of the data used is an important issue. Metals data are used to determine
attainment status for water quality standards, discern trends in water quality, estimate
background loads for TMDLS, calibrate fate and transport models, estimate effluent
concentrations (including effluent variability), aisess permit compliance, and conduct
research. The quality of trace level metal data, especially below 1 ppb, may be
compromised due to contamination of sanipies during collection, preparation, storage, and
analysis. Depending on the level of metal present, the use of ucl u and uultracleanu
techniques for sampling and analysis may be critical to accurate data for implementation of
aquatic life criteria for metals.
The magnitude of the contamination problem increases as the ambient and effluent
metal concentration decreases and, therefore, problems axe more likely in ambient
measurements. Clean’ techniques refer to those requirements (or practices for sample
collection and handling) necessary to produce reliable analyzi al data in the part per billion
(ppb) range. Uhmclean techniques refer to those requirements or practices necessary to
produce reliable analytical data in the part per trillion (ppi) range. Because typical
concentrations of metals in surface waters and effluents vax from one metal to another, the
effect of contamination on the quality of metals monitoring cata varies appreciably.
We plan to develop protocols on the use of clean and ultsa-clean techniques and are
coordinating with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) on this project, because USGS
has been doing work on these techniques for some time, especially the sampling procedures.
We anticipate that our draft protocols for clean techniques ‘viii be available in late calendar
year 1993. The development of comparable protocols for ultra-clean techniques is underway
and will be available in 1995. In developing these protocols, we will consider the costs of
these techniques and will give guidance as to the situations where their use is necessary
Appendix B to the WER guidance document provides sonic general guidance on the use of
-------
6
c!ean ai aJyucal techrnques (See Attachment #4 ) We recommend that this guidance be used
by States and Regions as an interim step, while the clean and ultra-clean protocols are being
developed
o Use of Historical Data
The concerns about metals sampling and analysis dISCUSSed above raise corresponding
concerns about the validity of historical data. Data on effluent and ambient metal
concentrations are collected by a variety of organintiOvis including Federal agencies (e.g..
EPA, USGS), State pollution control agencies and health departments, local government
agencies, municipalities, industrial dischargers, researchers, and others. The data are
collected for a variety of purposes as discussed above.
Concern about the reliability of the sample collection and analysis procedures is
greatest where they have been used to monitor very low level metal concentratiOnS.
Specifically, studies have shown data sets with contamination problems during sample
collection and Laboratory analysis. that have resulted in inaccurate measurements. For
example . in developing a TMDL for New York Harbor, some historical ambient data showed
extensive metals problems in the harbor, while other historical ambient data showed only
limited metals problems. Careful resarnpling and analysis in 1992/1993 showed the latter
view was correct. The key to producing accurate data is appropriate quality assurance (QA)
and quality control (QC) procedures. We believe that most historical da for metals,
collected and analyzed with appropriate QA and QC at levels of I ppb or higher, are
reliable. The data used in development of EPA criteria arc also considered reliable, both
because they meet the above test and because the toxicity test solutions are created by adding
known amounts of metals.
With respect to effluent monitoring reported by an NPDES permittee. the permittee is
responsible for collecting and reporting quality data on a Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR). P rmimng authorities should contanue to consider the information reported to be
true, accurate, and complete as certified by the petmittec. Where the permittee b meS
aware of new information ecific to the effluent discharge that questions the quality of
previously submitted DMR data, the permittec must prompdy submit that information to the
permitting authority. The permitting authority will consider all information submitted by the
permittec iii determining appropriate enforcement responses to momtoring/report lnI and
effluent violations. (See Attachment 14 for additional details.)
Summary
The management of metals in the aquatic environment is complex. The science
supporting our technical and regulatory programs Is continuing to evolve, here as in all
eas. The policy and guidance outlined above represent the position of OW and should be
incorporated into ongoing program operations. We do not expect that ongoing operations
would be delayed or deferred because of this guidance.
-------
7
If you have questions concerning this guidance. please contact Jim Hanlon, Acting
Director, Office of Science and Technology, at 202-260-5400. If you have questions on
specific details ft the guidance. please contact the appropriate OW Branch Chief. The
Branch Chiefs r sponsible for the various areas of the water quality program are: Bob April
(202-260-6322. water quality criteria), Elizabeth Fellows (202-260-7046, monitoring and data
issues), Russ Kinerson (202-260-1330, modeling and translators), Don Brady (202-260-7074,
Total Maximum Daily Loads), Sheila Frace (202-260-9537, permits), Dave Sabock
(202-260-1315. water quality standards), Bill Telliard (202-260-7134, analytical methods)
and Dave Lyons (202-260-8310. enforcement).
Attachments
-------
AflACHMENT s
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR METALS
Schedule of Upcoming Guidance
Water-effect Ratio Guidance September 1993
Draft Clean Analy cal Methods - Spring 1994
Dissolved Criteria - currently being done; as testing is completed, we will release the
updated percent dissolved data
Draft Sediment Criteria for Metals- 1994
Final Sediment Criteria for Metals- 1995
-------
AflACNMENT #2
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
ON DISSOLVED CRiTERIA
Expre iloa of Aquatic Life Criteria
October 1993
-------
10—1—93
Percent Dissolved i.n Aquatic Toxicity Tests on Metals
The attached table contains all the data that were found
concerning the percent of the total recoverable metal that was
dissolved in aquatic toxicity tests. This table is intended to
contain the availabls data that are relevant to the conversion of
EPA’s açuatiC life criteria for metals from a total recoverable
basis to a dissolved basis. (A factor of 1.0 is used to convert
aquatic life criteria for metals that are expressed on the basis
f the acid-soluble “easurement to criteria expressed on the
basis of the total recoverable measurement.) Reports by Grunwald
(1992) and Brungs et al. (1992) provided references to many of
the docu unts in which pertinent data were found. Each document
was obtained and examined to determine whether it contained
useful data.
“Dissolved” is defined as metal that passes through a 0.45—Mm
membrane filter. If otherwise acceptable, data that were
obtained using 0.3-wa glass fiber filters and 0.1-Mm membrane
filters were used, and are identified in the table; these data
did not seem to be outliers.
Data were used only if the metal was in a dissolved inorganic
form when it was added to the dilution water. In addition, data
were used only if they were generated in water that would have
been acceptable for use as a dilution water in tests used in the
derivatd.on of water quality criteria for aquatic life; in
particular, the pH had to be between 6.5 and 9.0, and the
concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) and total suspended
solids (TSS) had to be below 5 mg/L. Thus most data generated
using river water would not be used.
Some data were not used for other reasons. Data prssented by
Carroll et al. (1979) for cadmium were not used because 9 of the
36 values were above 150%. Data presented by Davies at al.
(1976) for lead and Holcombe and Andrew (1978) for zinc were not
used because “disso]ved” was defined on the basis of
polarogz’aphy, rather than filtration.
Beyond this, the data were not reviewed for quality. Horowitz at
al. (1992) reported that a number of aspects of the filtration
procedur, might affect the results. In addition, there might be
concern about use of “clean techniques” and adequate Qk/QC.
Each line in the table is intended to represent a separate piece
of information. All of the data in the table wer, determined in
fresh water, because no saltiater data were found. Data are
becoming available for copper in salt water from the New York
1
-------
Harbor study; based on the first set of tests, Hansen (1993)
suggested that the average percent of the copper that is
dissolved in sensitive saltwater tests is in the range of 76 to
82 percent.
A thorough investigation of the percent of total recoverable
metal that is dissolved in toxicity tests might attempt to
determine if the percentage is affected by test technique
(static, renewal, flow—through), feeding (were the test animals
fed and, if so, what food and how much), water quality
characteristics (hardness, alkalinity, pH, salinity), test
organisms (species, loading), etc.
The attached table also gives th. freshwater criteria
concentrations (cflC and CCC) because percentages for total
recoverable concentrations much (e.g., more than a factor of 3)
above or below the c xc and CCC are likely to be less relevant.
When a criterion is expressed as a hardness equation, the range
given extends from a hardness of 50 mg/L to a hardness of 200
mg / L.
The following is a summary of the available information for each•
metal:
Arsenic(ItIi
The data available indicate that the percent dissolved is about
100, but all the available data ar. for concentrations that are
much higher than the 4C and CCC.
Cadmium
Schuytema et al. (1984) reported that “there vers no real
differences” between measurements of total and dissolved cadaiu
at concentrations of 10 to 80 ug/L (pH — 6.7 to 7.8, hardness —
25 mg/L, and alkalinity — 33 mg/L); total and dissolved
concentrations were said to be “virtually equivalent”.
The C XC and CCC are dos, together and only range from 0.66 to
8.6 ug/L. The only available data that are known to be in the
range of the cxc and CCC were determined with a glass fiber
filter. The percentages that are probably most relevant are 75,
92, 89, 78, and 80.
Chromium(IIfl
The percent dissolved decreased as the total recoverable
concentration increased, even though the highest concentrations
reduced the pH substantially. The percentages that are probably
2
-------
most relevant to the CMC are 1 r,-75, wherea3 the per:entages that
are probably most relevant to t e CCC are 6 and 61.
Chroml.um(VI )
The data available indicate that the percent dissolved is about
100, but all the available data are for concentrations that are
much higher than the CMC and CCC.
Coooer
Howarth and Sprague 11.978) reported that th. total and dissolved
concentrations of copper were “little different” except when the
total copper concentration was above 500 ug/L at hardrtess — 360
mg/L and pH — 8 or 9. Chakoumakos St a]. (1979) found that the
percent dissolved depended more on alkalinity than on hardness,
pH, or the total recoverable concentration of copper.
Chapman (1993) and Lazorchak (1987) both found that the addition
f daphnid food affected the percent dissolved very little, even
though Chapman used yeast-trout chow-alfalfa whereas Lazorchak
used algae in most tests, but yeast-trout chow-alfalfa in some
tests. Chapman (1993) found a low percent dissolved with and
without food, whereas L.azorchak (1987) found a high percent
dissolved with and without food. All of Lazorchak’s values were
in high hardness water; Chapman’s one value in high hardness
water was much higher than his other values.
Chapman (1993) and Lazorchak (1987) both compared the effect of
food on the total recoverable LC50 with the effect of food on the
dissolved LCSO. Beth authors found that food raised both the
dissolved LCSO and the total recoverable LC5O in about the same
proportion, indicating that food did not raise the total
recoverable LCSO by sorbing metal onto food particles; possibly
the food raised both LC5OI by (a) decreasing the toxicity of
dissolved metal, (b) forming nentoxic dissolved complexes with
the metal, or (c) reducing uptake.
The CMC and CCC are close together and only range from 6.5 to 34
ug/L. The percentages that are probably most relevant are 74,
95, 95, 73, 57, 53, 52, 64, and 91.
Lead
The data presented in Spehar et a]. (1978) were from Ho1co be et
al. (1976). Both Chapman (1993) and Holcombe et a]. (1976) found
that the percent dissolved increased as the total recoverable
concentration increased. It would seem reasonable to expect more
precipitate at higher total recoverable concentrations and
3.
-------
therefore a lower percent dissolved at higher concentrations.
The increase in percent dissolved with increasing concentration
might be due to a lowering of the pH as more metal is added if
the stock solution was acidic.
The percentages that are probably most relevant to the cxc are 9,
18, 25, 10, 62, 68, 71, 75, 81, and 95, whereas the percentages
that are probably most relevant to the CCC are 9 and 20.
The only percentage that is available is 73, but it is for a
concentration that is much higher than the cxc.
Nickel
The percentages that an, probably most relevant to the cxc are
88, 93, 92,, and 100, whereas the only percentage that ii probably
relevant to the CCC is 76.
Selenium
No data are available.
There is a CXC, but not a CCC. The percentage dissolved seem. to
be greatly reduced by the food used to feed daphnids, but not by
the food used to feed fathead minnows. The percentag.. that are
probably most relevant to the CMC are 41, 79, 79, 73, 92, 90, and
q_3.
Zinc
The cxc and CCC are close together and only rang. from 59 to 210
ug/ L. The percentages that are probably most relevant are 31,
77, 77. 99, 94, 100, 103, and 96.
4
-------
Recommended Values (%)A and Ranges of Measured Percent Dissolved
Considered Most Relevant in Fresh Water
Metal
Recommended Recommended
Value (ZI fjanae %1 Value (%I fRanae % )
ArseniC(XII) 95 100—104’ 95 100-104’
Cadmium 85 75—92 85 75—92
Chromium(IIt) 85 50—75 85 61—86
Chromium(VI) 95 100 95 100’
copper 85 52-95 85 52—95
Lad 50 9—95 25 9—10
Mercury 85 73’ NA’ NA 1
Nickel 85 88—100 85 76
Selenium NA’ NAC NA 1
Silver 85 41—93 yyD
Zinc 85 31—103 85 31—103
A The rscoamsndsd values ar. based on current knowledge and are
subject to chang. as mor. data b.coms s available.
‘ All available data ar. for concsntrstions that ar. much higher
than the C.
C NA — No data are available.
° YY — A CCC is not available and therefore cannot be adjusted.
‘ NA — Bioaccumulativ. chemical and not appropriate to adjust to
percent dissolved.
S
-------
Percent
Dies. ’ j p Qi RE fQQg Hard; Alk . Ref .
ARSENICUIU
600—15000 104
12600 100
(Fr..hwater CCC —
5
3 FM
190 ug/L; cMC = 360 ug/L)
? ? 48 41
F No 44 43
7.6
7.4
CADMIUM (Freshwater: CCC — 0.66 to 2.0 ug/L; CMC = 1.8 to 8.6 ug/L)’
COflCfl.A
1 üalLl
0.16
0.28
0.4—4.0
13
15—21
42
10
35
51
6-80
3—232
450—6400
41
75
92°
89
96
84
78
77
59
80
90
70
7
3
B
4
7
7
7
8
S
5
DM
DM
CS
FM
FM
FM
DM
D I I
D I I
7
?
FM
R Yes
R Yes
F No
F No
S No
S No
$ No
S No
S No
S No
F
P No
Lima et al. 1984
Spehar and Fiandt 1986
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Finlayson and Verrue 1982
Spehar and Fiandt 1986
Spehar and Carison 1984
Spehar and Carison 1984
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Call et al. 1982
Spehar et. al. 1978
Pickering and Gast 1972
53
103
21
44
42
45
51
105
209
47
46
202
46
83
19
43
31
41
38
88
167
44
42
157
7.6
7.9
7.1
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
8.4
7.5
7.4
7.7
6
-------
CHROM1W4(III1 (Freshwater: CCC 120 to 370 ug/L; CXC = 980 to 3100 ug/L)’
5-13 94 ? SC F ? 25 24 7.3 Steu ns and CI.a 1 ,iadn i984
86 ? SG F ? 25 24 7.2 Stevens and Chapman 1984
>iioo 50-75 ? SG F No 25 24 7.0 Stevens and Chapman 1984
42 54 DX R Yes 206 166 8.2 Chapman 1993
114 61 DX R Yes 52 45 7.4 Chapman 1993
16840 26 7 DX S No <51 9 6.3’ Chapman 1993
26267 32 ? DX S No 110 9 6.7 Chapman 1993
27416 27 ? DX S No 96 10 6.0’ Chapman 1993
58665 23 ? DX S No 190 25 6.2’ Chapman 1993
jjjjoN1UN( V I I (Freshwater: CCC 11 uq/L.; CXC 16 ug/L)
• ,uoo 100 1 FM,GF F Yes 220 214 7.6 Adelman and Smith 1976
43,300 99.5 4 FX F No 44 43 7.4 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
COPPER (Freshwater: CCC 6.5 to 21 ug/L; CXC = 9.2 to 34 ug/L)’
10-30 74 c ’r F No 27 20 7.0 Chakoumakos et at. 1979
40-200 78 CT F No 154 20 6.8 Chakoumakos et at. 1979
30—100 79 CT F No 74 23 7.6 Chakoumakos et at. 1979
100-200 82 7 CT F No 192 72 7.0 Chakoumakos et at. 1979
20-200 86 CT F No 31 18 8.3 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
40-300 87 ? CT F No 83 70 7.4 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
10- 80 89 CT F No 25 169 8.5 Chakou.akos et at. 1979
7
-------
300-1)00 92 CT F No 195 160 7.0 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
100-400 94 CT F No 70 174 8.5 C iakoumakos et al. 1979
3-4’ 125—167 2 CD R Yes -31 38 7.2 Canaan et al. 1986a b
12—91’ 79—84 3 CD R Yes 31 38 7.2 Canison et al. 1986a,b
— 18—19 95 2 O k S No 52 55 7.7 Carlson et al. 1986b
20’ 95 1 0* R No 31 38 7.2 Canison at al. 1986b
50 96 2 FM S No 52 55 7.7 Canison et al. 1986b
175’ 91 2 FM P No 31 38 7.2 Canlson at al. 1986b
5-52 >82’ FM F Yes’ 47 43 8.0 lAnd et al. 1978
6-80 83° Cs F No 21 19 7.1 Finláyson and Verrue 1982
6.7 57 0 ) 4 $ No 49 37 7.7 Chapman 1993
35 43 0)4 S Yes 48 39 7.4 Chapman 1993
13 73 ON P Yes 211 169 8.1 Chapman 1993
57 0 ) 4 P Yes 51 44 7.6 Chapman 1993
51 39 0)4 P Ye 104 83 7.8 Chapman 1993
32 53 0K $ No 52 45 7.8 Chapman 1993
33 52 0)4 $ No 105 79 7.9 Chapman 1993
39 64 D I I $ No 106 82 8.1 Chapman 1993
25-84 96 14 FM,GN $ No 50 40 7.0 Hammermeister et al. 1983
17 91 6 DII $ No 52 43 7.3 Hammermeister et at. 1983
120 88 14 SG S No 48 47 7.3 Hammermeister at at. 1983
15—90 74 $ No 48 47 7.7 Call at al. 1982
12—162 7 D C F Yea’ 45 43 7-8 Denoit 1975
28 -58 85 6 DI I P No 168 117 8.0 L.asorchak 1987
26-59 79 7 DII y 8 N 168 117 8.0 Lsiorchak 1987
56,101 86 2 DI I R Yea” 168 117 8.0 Lazorchak 1987
S
-------
96 86 FM F No 44 43 7.4 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
160 94 1 FM s No 203 171 8.2 Geckler et,al. 1976
230-3000 >69->79 ? CR F No 17 13 7.6 Rice and Harrison 1983
LEAD (Freshwater: CCC 1.3 to 7.7-uq/L CMC = 34 to 200 ug/L)F
17 9 014 R Yes 52 47 7.6 ChapRan 1993
181 18 014 R Yes 102 86 7.8 Chapman 1993
193 25 p Yes 151 126 8.1 Chipaan 1 93
612 29 7 014 $ NO 50 -- —-- Chapsan 1993
952 33 014 S NO 100 -- --- chap.an 1993
1907 -38 ? D I I S NO 150 -- --- Chapaan 1993
7-29 10 7 EZ p No 22 -- --- JRB AssociateS 1983
34 62’ 7 BT F Yes 44 43 7.2 Holcoabe et al. 1916
58 68” 7 8? F Yes 44 43 7.2 Ho1co be et al. 1976
119 7 1” 81 ’ F Yes 44 43 7.2 Holcoabe et al. 1976
235 75” B? F Yes 44 43 7.2 Holcoabe et .1. 1976
474 81” 7 8? F Yes 44 43 7.2 Ho1co be et al. 1976
4100 82” B? F NO 44 43 7.2 Holcoabe et al. 1976
2100 79 7 F NO 44 43 7.4 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
220-2700 96 14 FB,G 14,DM S No 49 44 7.2 Hauer eister et al. 1983
580 95 14 SG S 1 40 51 48 7.2 Ha..erReister et al. 1983
.
pi ’icwixtxi (Freshwater: CMC — 2.4 ug/L)
172 73 1 FM F 1 40 44 43 7.4 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
9
-------
NICKEL (Freshwater: CCC — 88 to 280 ug/L; CMC 790 to 2500 ug/L)’
21 81 DPI R Yes 51 49 7.4 Chapman 1993
150 76 DPI R Yes 107 87 7.8 Chapman 1993
578 87 DN P Yes 205 161 8.1 Chapman 1993
645 88 DPI $ No 54 43 7.7 Chapman 1993
1809 93 ? DPI $ No 51 44 7.7 Chapman 1993
1940 92 ? DPI S No 104 84 8.2 Chapman 1993
2344 100 D l i S No 100 84 7.9 Chapman 1993
4000 90 7 PX R No 21 -- --- JRB Associates 1983
SELENIUM (FRESHWATER: CCC — 5 ug/L; CNC — 20 ug/L)
No data are available.
(Freshwater: CMC — 1.2 to 13 ug/L; a CCC is not available)
0.19 74 ? $ No 47 37 7.6 Chapman 1993
9.98 13 7 D I I S Yes 47 37 7.5 Chapman 1993
4.0 41 7 c ii S No 36 25 7.0 N.b.k.r St al. 1983
4.0 11 7 S Yes 36 25 7.0 N.bsker et al. 1983
3 79 7 S No 51 49 8.1 1NS1993
2—54 79 7. FM S Yes 0 49 49 7.9 WS 3993
2—32 73 7 S NO 50 49 8.1 l S1993
4—32 91 7 S No 48 49 8.1 UW51993
5-89 90 7 FM S No 120 49 8.2 INS 1993
6—401 93 7 FM S No 249 49 8.1 UWS 1993
10
-------
ZINC (Freshwater: CCC =
59 to 190 ug/L; CMC 65 to 210 ug/I.)
Tote 1 recoverable concentration. -
- Except as noted, a 0.45—pm membrane filter was used.
6-2
191
31
77
77
?
?
?
OH
OH
Dfl
R
R
R
Yes
Yes
Yes
211
104
52
169
83
47
8.2
11.8
7. 5
chapman 1993
chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
551
)41
‘
18-273’
167’
180
74
78
7•6
71-129
81—107
99
94
?
?
7
2
2
2
1
os
OH
DM
CD
CD
CD
CD
S
S
S
R
R
R
S
No.
NO
No
Yes
Yes
140
No
54
105
196
31
31
31
52
47
.85
13
38
38
.38
55
7.6
8.1
8.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.7
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Carlson..et:al.
Carison et al.
Car lson.etal.
Carison et al
1986b
1986b
1986b
1986b
188-393’
100
100
2
1
- FM
FM
R
S
No
No
31
52
38
55
7.2
7.7
Carison et al
Carison et al.
1986b
1986b
4o- oO
1940
5520
95°
100
83
7
?
?
Cs
AS
AS
F
F
F
No
No
No
21
20
20
19
12
12
7.1
7.1
7.9
Finlayson and
Sprague 1964
Sprague 1964
Verrue
1982
<4000
>4000
90
70
?
?
FM
FM
F
F
No
No
204
204
162
162
7.7
7.7
Mount 1966
Mount ‘1966
160-400
240
103
96
13
13
FM.GM,DM
SG
S
S
No
NO
52
49
43
46
7.5
7.2
-Hammermeister
Hammermeister
et al.
et al.
1983
1983
-LI.
-------
‘ Nw’iber of paired comparisons.
“ The abbreviations used are:
AS — Atlantic salmon ON Daphnia •agna
BT Brook trout EZ £1 c zonatum
CD ç jg ghniA dubia FM = Fathead minnow
CR Crayfish CF Goldfish
Cs Chinook salmon GM Gam arid
CT Cutthroat trout PK = £ A Qfl e kadiakenSiS
DA — Daphnids SC A Q gairdneri
Tha abbreviations used are:
S — static
R — renewal
F — flow-through
‘ The two numbers are f or hardnesses of 50 and 200 mqJL, respectively.
“ A 0.3-pm 19II Lik z filter was used.
“ A 0.10-pm membrane filter was used.
The pH was below 6.5.
‘ The dilution water was a clean river water with TSS and TOC below 5 mg/L.
K Only limited information is available concerning this value.
L j assumed that the solution that was filtered was from the test chambers that
contained fish and food.
The food was algae.
The food was yeast-trout chow-alfalfa.
o The food was frozen adult brine shrimp.
12
-------
References
Adelman, I.R., and L.L.. Smith, Jr. 1976. Standard Test Fish
Development. Part I. Fathead Minnows (2i 2.u fl Q J,jj) and
Goldfish L 2) as Standard Fish in Bioa..ays and
Their R3aCtiofl to Potential Reference Toxicants. EPA—600/3—76-
061.a. i4ational Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Page 24.
Benoit, D.A. 1975. Chronic tffecta of Copper on Survival,
Growth, and Reproduction of the Bluegill (LpomLs macrochiras).
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104:353—358.
Brungs, W.A., T.S. Holderman. snd M.T. South.rland. 1992.
Synopsis of Water-Effect Rati’s for Heavy Metals as Derived for
Site—Sp scific Water Quality Criteria.
Call, D.J., L.T. Brook., and D.D. Vaishnav. 1982. Aquatic
Pollutant Hazard Assessments and Development of a Hazard
Prediction Technoloqy by Quantitative Structure—Activity
Relationships. Fourth Quarterly Report. University of
Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI.
Carlson, A.R., H. Nelson, and D. Hasmsrmei!ter. 1986a.
Development and Validation of Site-Specific Water Quality
Criteri. for Copper. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:997-1012.
Carison, A.R., H. Nelson, and D. Hammerseister. 1986b.
Evaluation of Site—Speciti Cri .ria for Copper and Zinc: An
Integration of Metal Addition loxicity, Effluent and Receivir g
Water Toxicity, and Ecological Survey Data. EPAI600/$3—86—026.
Hationai. Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Carroll, J.J., S.J. Ellis, and W.S. Oliver. 1979. Influences of
Hardnes; Constituents on the Acute Toxicity of Cadmium to Brook
Trout (SaZv.linus fontinaL&s).
Chakousakos, C., R.C. Russo, and R.V. Thurston. 1979. Toxicity
of Copper to Cutthroat Trout (Salmo cLarki) under Different
Conditions of Alkalinity, pH, and Hardness. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 13:213—219.
Chapman, C.A. 1993. Memorandum to C. Stephan. June 4.
Davies, P.H., J.P. Goettl, Jr., J.R. Sinley, and N. ?. Smith.
1976. Acute and Chronic toxicity of Lead to Rainbow Trout Salmo
ga.Lrdneri, in Hard and Soft Water. Water Re .. 10:199—206.
Finlayson, B.J., and X.M Verrue. 1982. Toxiciti.. of Copper,
Zinc, and Cadmium Mixtures to Juvenile Chinook Salmon. Trans.
A. . Fish. Soc. 111:645—650.
13
-------
Geckler, J.R., W.B. Horning. T.M. Neiheisel , Q.H. Pickering, E.L.
Robinson, and C.E. Stephan. 1976. Validity of Laboratory Tests
for Predicting Copper Toxicity in Streams. EPA-600/3— 76116 .
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. Page
118.
Grunwald, D. 1992. Metal Toxicity Evaluation: Review, Result.,
and Data Base Documentation.
HammermeiSter, 0., C. Korthcott, L. Brooks, and 0. Call. 1983.
comparison of Copper, Lead and Zinc Toxicity to Four Animal
Species in Laboratory and ST. Louis River Water. University of
wisconsin-Superior superior, WI.
Hansen, D.J. 1993. MemorandUm to C.E. Stephan. April 15.
Molcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, E.N. Leonard, and 3.11. MaXim. 1976.
Long-Term Effects of Lead Exposure on Three Generations of Brook
Trout (Salv•.ZIZ3US tontinaliS). 3. Fish. Re.. Bd. Canada 33:1731-
1741.
Holcombe, G.W., and R.W. Andrew. 1978. The Acute Toxicity of
Zinc to Rainbow and Brook Trout. EPA-60O/3-78 O94. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Horowitz, A.3., X.A. Lirick, and M.R. Colborg. 1992. The Effect
of Membrane Filtration Artifacts on Dissolved Trace Element
Concentrations. Water Res. 26:753-763.
Howarth, R.S., and 3.8. Sprague. 1978. copper Lethality to
Rainbow Trout in Waters on Various Hardness and pM. Water Res.
12:455—462.
JRB Associates. 1983. Demonstration of the sits-specific
Criteria Modification Process: Selser’s Creek, Ponchatoula,
Louisiana.
Lazorchak, 7.11. 1987. The significance of Weight Loss of
Da hnia gg straus During Acute Toxicity Tests vith Copper.
Ph.D. Thesis.
Lima, A.R., C. Curtis, 0.!. Hammermsiiter, T.P. Markee, C.!.
Northcott, L.T. Brooks. 1984. Acute and Chronic Toxicities of
krsenic(III) to Fathead Minnows, Flagftsh, Daphnids, and an
Amphipod. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13:595-601.
Lind, 0., IC. Alto, nd S. ChattertOn. .&978. Regional Copper-
Nickel Study. Draft.
Mount, 0.1. 1966. The Effect of Total Hardness and pM en Acute
Toxicity of Zinc tO Fish. Air Water Pollut. mt. 7. 10:49-56.
14
-------
Nebeker, A.V.,, C.K. McAuliffe, R. Mshar, and D.G. Stevens. 1983.
Toxicity of Silver to Steelhead and 1 a2nbow Trout, Fathead
Minnows, and Daphiiia , agna. Environ. Toxicel. Chem. 2:95—104.
Pickering, Q.P., and M.H. Gast. 1972. Acute and Chronic
Toxicity of Cadmium to the Fathead Minnow (Pim.phal•s pzom•las).
3. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:1099-1106.
Rice, D.W., Jr., and F.L. Harrison. 1983. The Sensitivity of
Adult, Embryonic, and Larval Crayfish Procambazus clarkii to
Copper. NUREG/CR-3133 or UCRL-53048. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Schuytema, G.S., P.O. Nelson, X.W. Malu.g, A.V. Nsbsksr, D.F.
Krawczyk, A.K. Ratcliff, and J.K. Gakatatter. 1984. Toxicity of
Cadmium in Water and Sediment Slurries to Daphnia magna.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:293-308.
Spehar, R.L., R.L. Anderson, and J.T. Fiandt. 1978. Toxicity
and Bioaccumulation of Cadmium and Lead in Aquatic Invertebrates.
Environ. Pellut. 15:195—208.
Spehar, R.L, and AR. Carlson. 1984. Derivation of Sit.—
Specific Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium and the St. Louis
River Basin, Dtiluth, Minnesota. Environ. Toxjcol. Chem. 3:651—
665.
Spehar, R.L., and J.T. Fiandt. 1986. Acute and Chronic Effects
of Water Quality Criteria-Based Metal Mixtures on Three Aquatic
Species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:917-931.
Sprague, J.B. 1964. Lethal Concentration of Copper and Zinc for
Young Atlantic Salmon. J. Fish. R.s. Bd. Canada 21:17 9926.
Stevens, D.G., and G.A. Chapman. 1984. Toxicity of Trivalent
Chromium to Early Life Stages of Steelhead Trout. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 3:125—133.
University of Wisconsin-Superior. 1993. Preliminary data from
work assignment 1-10 for Contract No. 68-Cl-0034.
L5
-------
AT1 ACHMENT #3
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
ON DYNAMIC MODELING AND TRANSLATORS
August 1993
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs arid Permits
o Dynamic Water Qu’lity Modeling
Although not specifically part of the reassessment of water quality criteria for metals,
dynamic or probabilistic models are another useful tool for implementing water quality
criteria, especially those for protecting aquatic life. Dynamic models make best use of the
specified magnitude, duration, and frequency of water quality criteria and thereby provide a
more accurate calculation of discharge impacts on ambient water quality. In contrast, steady-
state modeling is based on various simplifying assumptions which makes it less complex and
less accurate than dynamic modeling. Building on accepted practices in water resource
engineering, ten years ago OW devised methods allowing the use of probability distributions
in place of worst-case conditions. The description of these models and their advantages and
disadvantages is found in the 1991 Technical Support Document for Waxer Quality-based
Toxic Control (TSD).
Dynamic models have received increased attention in the last few years as a result of
the perception that static modeling is over-conservative due to environmentally conservative
di1ut on assumptions. This has led to the misconception that dynamic models will always
justify less stringent regulatory controls (e.g. NPDES effluent limits) than static models. In
effluent dominated waters where the upstream concentrations are relatively constant,
however, a dynamic model will calculate a more sthngafl wasteload allocation than will a
steady state model. The reason is that the critical low flow required by many State water
quality standards in effluent dominated streams occurs more frequently than once every three
years. When other environmental factors (e.g. upstream pollutant concentrations) do not
vary appreciably, then the overall return frequency of the steady state model may be greater
than once ii three years. A dynamic modeling approach, on the other hand, would be more
stringent, allowing only a once in three year return frequency. As a result, EPA considers
dynamic models to be a more accurate rather than a less stringent approach to implementing
water quality criteria.
The 1991 TSD provides recommendations on the use of steady stale and dynamic
water quality models. The reliability of any modeling technique greatly depends on the
accuracy of the data used in the analysis. Therefore, the selection of a model also depends
upon he data. EPA recommends that steady state wasreload allocation analyses generally be
used where few or rio whole effluent toxicity or specific chemical measurements axe
available, or where daily receiving water flow records are not available. Also, if staff
resources are insufficient to use arid defend the use of dynamic models, then steady state
-------
models may be necessary If ad uace receiving waler flow and effluent concentration data
are available to est]rnate frequency diStnbu ns, EPA recommends thai one of the dynamic
wasieload allocation modeling techniques be uaed to denve wa.sseload allocations which will
more exactly maintain water quality standards. The minimum data required for input into
dynamic models include at least 30 years of nver flow data and one year of effluent and
ambient pollutant concentrations.
o Dissolved-Total Metal Translators
When water quality criteria are expressed as the dissolved form of a metal, there is a
need to translate TMDLs and NPDES permits to and from the ttiqolved form of a metal to
the total recoverable form. TMDLs for toxic metals muss L,e able so calculate 1) the
dissolved metal concentration in order to ascertain ;“‘ ‘iment of waler quality standards and
2) the total recoverable metal concentration in order to achieve mass balance. In meeting
these requirements, TMDLs consider metals to be conservative pollutants and quantified as
total recoverable to preserve conservation of mass. The TMDL calc”I ’es the dissolved or
ionic species of the metals based on factors such as total suspended solids (‘TSS) and ambient
pH. (These assumptions ignore the complicating factors of metals interactions with other
metals.) In addition, this approach assumes that ambient factors influencing meal
partitioning remain constant with distance down the river. This assumption probably is valid
under the low flow conditions typically used as design flows for permitting of meals (e.g.,
7Q10, 4B3, ete) because erosion, resuspension, and wet weather loadings are unlikely to be
significant and river chemistry is generally stable. In steady-sate dilution modeling, metals
rel ases may be assumed to remain fairly constant (concentrations exhibit low variability)
with time.
EPA’s NPDES regulations require that metals limits in permits be stated as total
recoverable in most a i (see 40 CFR *122.45(c)). Exceptions occur when an effluent
guideline specifies the limitation in another form of the metal or the approved analytical
methods measure only the diw lved form. Also, the permit writer may express a metals
limit in another form (e.g., ditt lved, valent, or total) when required, 1ii highly unusual
casis , to carry out the provisions of the CWA.
The prumble to the September 1984 National Pollutant Diackarge Elimination System
Permit Regulations states that the total recoverable method measures dissolved met it plus
that portion of solid metals that can easily dissolve under ambient conditions (see 49 Federal
Register 38028, September 26, 1984). This method is intended to measure metals in the
effluent that are or may easily become environmentally active, while not measuring metals
that are expected to settle out and remain inert.
The preamble cites, as an example, effluent from an electroplating facility that adds
lime and uses clanfiers. This effluent will be a combination of solids not removed by the
danflers and residual dissolved metals. When the effluent from the clarifiers, usually with a
-------
high pE level, mixes with receiving wat 1 .r having significantly lower pH level 1 these solids
instantly dissolve. Measuring dissolved metals in the effluent, in this case, would
undereSt ITtate the impact on the receiving water. Measuring with the total metals method, on
the other hand, would measure metals that would be expected to disperse or settle out and
remain mert or be covered over. Thus, measuring total recoverable metals in the effluent
best approximates the amount of metal likely to produce water quality impacts.
However, the NPDES nile does not require in any way that State water quality
standards be in the total recoverable form; rather, the rule requires permit writers to consider
the translation cietween differing metal forms in the calculation of the permit limit so that a
total recoverable limit can be established. Therefore, both the TMDL and NPDES uses of
water quality criteria require the ability to translate fmm the dissolved form and the total
recoverable form.
Many toxic substances, including metals, have a tendency to leave the dissolved phase
and attach to suspended solids. The pamuoning of coxics between solid and dissolved phases
can be determined as a function of a pollutant-specific partition coefficient and the
concentration of solids. This function is expressed by a Linear partitioning equation:
C
c ’ 77
1 .k 75S1O’
where,
C - dissolved phase metal conoen ation,
C 11 total metal concentration,
TSS = total suspenøed solids concentration, and
partition coefficient.
A key assumption of the linear parntioning equation is that the sorption reaction
reaches d:narnlc equilibrium at the point or application of the criteria; that is, after allowing
for initial mixing the partitioning of the pullutant between the adsorbed and dissolved forms
can be used at any location to predict the fraction of pollutant in each respective phase.
Suxessful application of the linear partitioning equation relies on the selection of the
partition coefficient. The use of a partition coefficient to n sent the degree to which
toxics ads rb to solids is most readily applied to organic pollutants; partition coefficients for
metals are more difficult to define. Metals typically exhibit more complex speciation and
complexauon reactions than organics and the degree of partitioning can vary greatly
depending upon site-specific water chemisuy. Estimated partiflon coefficients can be
determined for a number of metals, but waterbody or site-specific observations of dissolved
and adsorbed concenrauons are preferTed.
-------
EPA suggests three approaches for instances where a water quality criterion for a
metal is ezpr’ised in the dissolved form in a State’s water quality standards:
1 Using clean analytcal techniques and field sampling procedures with appropnate
QAIQC, collect receiving water samples and determine site specific values of K. for
each metal. Use these K. 1 values to translatg between total recoverable and
dissolved metals in receiving water. This approach is more difficult to apply because
it relies upon the availability of good quality m asurements of ambient metal
concentrations. This approach provides an accurate assessment of the dissolved metal
fraction providing sufficient samples am collected. EPA’s initial recommendation is
chat at least four pairs of total recoverable and dissolved ambient metal measurements
be made during low flow conditions or 20 pairs over all flow conditions. EPA
suggests that the average of data collected during Low flow or the 95th p roaitile
highest dissolved fraction for all flows be used. The low flow average provides a
representative picture of conditions dunng the rare low flow events. The 95th
percentile highest dissolved fraction for all flows provides a critical condition
approach analogous to the approach used to identify low flows and other critical
environmental conditions.
2. Calculate the total recoverable concernntion for the purpose of setting the permit
limit. Use a value of 1 unless the permictee has collected data (see tl above) to show
that a different ratio should be used. The value of 1 is conservative and will not err
on the side of violating standards. This approach is very simple to apply because it
places the entire burden of data collection and analysis solely upon permitted
facilities. In terms of technical merit, it has the same characteristics of the previous
approach. However, permitting authorities may be faced with difficulties in
negotiating with facilities on the amount of data ne r1sary to determine the ratio and
the necessary quality conmiL methods to assure that the ambient data ate reliable.
3. We the historical data on total suspended solids (TSS) in receiving waterbodies at
appropriate design flows and K. values presented in the Technical Guidance Manual
for Performing Waste L ” Allocations. Book II. Sueama and Rivers. EPA-440/4-
84420 (1984) to translale between (total recoverable) permits limits and dii’olved
metals in £ecel ng water. This approach is faitly simple to apply. However, these
K valves ate suspect due to possible quality auwance problems with the data used to
develop the values. EPA’s initial analysis of this approach and these values in one
site indicates that these K. values generally over.estimate the dissolved fraction of
metals in ambient waters (see Figures following). Therefore, although this approach
may not provide an accurate estimate of the dissolved fraction, the bias in the estimate
is Likely to be a conservative one.
EPA suggests that regulatory authonties use approaches #1 and 12 where States
express their water quality standards in the dissolved form. In those States where the
standards are in the total recoverable or acid c , b1e form, EPA recommends that rio
-------
translation be used until the ume that the State changes the standards to the dissolved form.
Approach #3 may be used as an intenm measure unul the data are collected to implement
approach #1.
-------
surs vs. odsl.d Dis.olvSd Copp•r Coac.ntrstions
I- I
.20 25
$
30
35
$ I
40 45
a Modeled
I’ Measuied
35
-j
p
is
2
15
1
05
0
11
L i
IL I I
gi gi
U
$ — $ ——-
0 5 10 15
-------
M.aIUZM vs. $od.1.d D1UO1V.d Csdaiua CoDc.ntrsttoDa
SampUng SL $on
7 ’.
40
45
• Modeled
H Measuied
0 16
o 14
o 12
01
0 OC
004
002
0
LI
t, (1
Is
-------
MUST 4 VS.
sd•1 i..o1v.4 L.sd C....strati.ss
/
4) (1
___--
35
40
45
• Mo eIed
I I Measu ed
16
14
12
oe
06
0.4
0.2
0
0
5 10 15
20 25
30
II
—
-------
v i. iSod.1.d Di..olV.d K.raury Conc.Dtratioii
45
II
S Modeled
I $ Measuied
o 12
0I
00$
-I
006
3
004
o 02
0
0
I— -
10 15
S 20 25 30 35
sampling StMlon
-------
vs. lod.1.4 Dts.olV.d Iick.1 CohoIstrations
a Uode$ed
tI Me sued
0 5
I0
15
20 25
s—s 1I
—f---- ——-—,- - —----1
30 35 40 45
7
S
S
4
3
a
2
I
0
• S
\,
S
-------
M.u t4 v . k.s14 DL..olvd SiRo Coac•atrstioB•
)fl a1I
I LI $
20 20
I1 1I
-. .4.
20
4$
• ModeOed
•‘ Measuied
30
2$
20
* 15
10
S
0
S 10
-------
sI
i... r.d vô. 1o4s1•d Dis.olV.d rssnio Conc.ntrations
______ f-———--+ - - -
20 25 30 35 40
1—
(I
0 5
45
• Modeled
‘I Uea uied
-J
3
25
2
Is
1
05
0
I0
-------
United States Communications, Education, EPA 175-B-97-001
Environmental Protection And Public Affairs December 1997
Agency (1704) www.epa.gov
EPA Terms Of Environment
Glossary, Abbreviations, and
Acronyms
(Revised December 1997)
-------
Introduction
Terms of Environment defines in non-technical language the more
commonly used environmental terms appearing in EPA publications, news
releases, and other Agency documents available to the general public,
students, the media, and Agency employees. The definitions do not
constitute the Agency’s official use of terms for regulatory purposes, and
nothing in this document should be constructed to alter or supplant any
other federal document. Official terminology may be found in the laws and
related regulations as published in such sources as the Congressional
Record, Federal Registers and elsewhere.
The terms selected for inclusion are derived from previously published
lists, internal glossaries produced by various programs and specific
suggestions made by personnel in many Agency offices. The chemicals and
pesticides selected for inclusion are limited to those most frequently
referred to in Agency publications or that are the subject of major
regulatory or program activities.
Definitions or information about substances or program activities not
included herein may be found in EPA libraries or scientific/technical
reference documents, or may be obtained from various program offices.
Those with suggestions for future editions should write to the Office of
Communications, Education, and Public Affairs, 1704, USEPA,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Also available on http : Ilwww .epa . gov/OCEPAterms.
Abbreviations and acronyms hst begins on page 51
-------
A
Abandoned Well: A well whose use has
been permanently discontinued or which
is in a state of such disrepair that it cannot
be used for its intended purpose.
Abatement Reducing the degree or
intensity of, or eliminating, pollution.
Abatement Debris: Waste from
remedjatjon activities.
Absorbed Dose: In exposure assessment,
the amount of a substance that penetrates
an exposed organism’s absorption barri-
ers (e.g.,, skin, lung tissue, gastrointesti-
nal tract) through physical or biological
processes. The term is synonymous with
internal dose.
Absorption: The uptake of water, other
fluids, or dissolved chemicals by a cell or
an organism (as tree roots absorb
dissolved nutrients in soil.)
Absorption Barrier: Any of the exchange
sites of the body that permit uptake of
various substances at different rates (e.g.,
skin, lung tissue, and gastrointestinal-
tract wall)
Accident Site:The location of an unexpect-
ed occurrence, failure or loss, either at a
plant or along a transportation route,
resulting in a release of hazardous
materials.
Acclimatization: The physiological and
behavioral adjustments of an organism to
changes in its environment.
Acid Aerosol: Acidic liquid or solid
particles small enough to become air-
borne. High concentrations can irritate the
lungs and have been associated with
respiratory diseases like asthma.
Acid Deposition: A complex chemical
and atmospheric phenomenon that occurs
when emissions of sulfur and nitrogen
compounds and other substances are
transformed by chemical processes in the
atmosphere, often far from the original
sources, and then deposited on earth in
either wet or dry form. The wet forms,
popularly called “acid rain,” can fall as
rain, Snow, or fog. The dry forms are
acidic gases or particulates.
Acid Mine Drainage: Drainage of water
from areas that have been mined for coal
or other mineral ores. The water has a low
pJ - 1 because of its contact with sulfur-
bearing material and is harmful to aquatic
organisms.
Acid Neutralizing Capacity: Measure of
ability of a base (e.g., water or soil) to
resist changes in pl-1.
Acid Rain: (See: acid deposition)
Acidic: The condition of water or soil that
contains a sufficient amount of acid
substances to lower the pH below 7.0.
Action Levels: 1. Regulatory levels
recommended by EPA for enforcement by
FDA and USDA when pesticide residues
occur in food or feed commodities for
reasons other than the direct application
of the pesticide. As opposed to “toler-
ances” which are established for residues
occurring as a direct result of proper
usage, action levels are set for inadvertent
residues resulting from previous legal use
or accidental contamination. 2. In the
Superfund program, the existence of a
contaminant concentration in the environ-
ment high enough to warrant action or
trigger a response under SARA and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan. The term is also used in
other regulatory programs. (See: toleranc-
es.)
Activated Carbon: A highly adsorbent
form of carbon used to remove odors and
toxic substances from liquid or gaseous
emissions. In waste treatment, it is used to
remove dissolved organic matter from
waste drinking water. It is also used in
motor vehicle evaporative control sys-
tems.
Activated Sludge: Product that results
when primary effluent is mixed with
bacteria-laden sludge and then agitated
and aerated to promote biological treat-
ment, speeding the breakdown of organic
matter in raw sewage undergoing second-
ary waste treatment.
Activator:A chemical added to a pesticide
to increase its activity.
Active Ingredient In any pesticide
product, the component that kills, or
otherwise controls, target pests. Pes-
ticides are regulated primarily on the
basis of active ingredients.
Activity Plans: Written procedures in a
school’s asbestos-management plan that
detail the steps a Local Education A gency
(LEA) will follow in performing the initial
and additional cleaning, operation and
maintenance-program tasks; periodic sur-
veillance; and reinspection required by
the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Re-
sponse Act (AHERA).
Acute Exposure: A single exposure to a
toxic substance which may result in severe
biological harm or death. Acute exposures
are usually characterized as lasting no
longer than a day, as compared to longer,
continuing exposure over a period of time.
Acute Toxicity: The ability of a substance
to cause severe biological harm or death
soon after a single exposure or dose. Also,
any poisonous effect resulting from a
single short-term exposure to a toxic
substance. (See: chronic toxicity, toxicity.)
Adaptation: Changes in an organism’s
physiological structure or function or
habits that allow it to survive in new
surroundings.
Add-on Control Device: An air pollution
control device such as carbon absorber or
incinerator that reduces the pollution in
an exhaust gas. The control device usually
does not affect the process being con-
trolled and thus is “add-on” technology,
as opposed to a scheme to control
pollution through altering the basic
process itself.
Adequately Wet Asbestos containing
material that is sufficiently mixed or
penetrated with liquid to prevent the
release of particulates.
Administered Dose: In exposure assess
ment, the amount of a substance given to a
test subject (human or animal) to
determine dose-response relationships.
Since exposure to chemicals is usually
inadvertent, this quantity is often called
potential dose.
Administrative Order: A legal document
signed by EPA directing an individual,
business, or other entity to take corrective
action or refrain from an activity. It
describes the violations and actions to be
taken, and can be enforced in court. Such
orders may be issued, for example, as a
result of an administrative complaint
whereby the respondent is ordered to pay
a penalty for violations of a statute.
Administrative Order On Consent: A
legal agreement signed by EPA and an
individual, business, or other entity
through which the violator agrees to pay
for correction of violations, take the
required corrective or cleanup actions, or
refrain from an activity. It describes the
actions to be taken, may be subject to a
comment period, applies to civil actions,
and can be enforced in court.
Administrative Procedures Act: A law
that spells out procedures and requir-
ements related to the promulgation of
regulations.
Administrative Record: All documents
which EPA considered or relied on in
selecting the response action at a Super-
fund site, culminating in the record of
decision for remedial action or, an action
memorandum for removal actions.
Adsorption: Removal of a pollutant from
air or water by collecting the pollutant on
the surface of a solid material; e.g., an
advanced method of treating waste in
which activated carbon removes organic
matter from waste-water.
Adulteran : Chemical impurities or
substances that by law do not belong in a
food, or pesticide.
Adulterated: 1. Any pesticide whose
strength or purity falls below the quality
stated on its label. 2. A food, feed, or
product that contains illegal pesticide
residues.
-------
Advanced Wastewater Treatment: Any
treatment of sewage that goes beyond the
secondary or biological water treatment
stage and includes the removal of
nutrients such as phosphorus and nitro-
gen and a high percentage of suspended
solids. (See primary, secondary treat-
ment.)
Adverse Effects Data: FIPRA requires a
pesticide registrant to submit data to EPA
on any studies or other information
regarding unreasonable adverse effects of
a pesticide at any time after its registra-
hon.
Advisoiy A non-regulatory document
that communicates risk information to
those who may have to make risk
management decisions.
Aerated Lagoon: A holding and/or
treatment pond that speeds up the natural
process of biological decomposition of
organic waste by stimulating the growth
and activity of bacteria that degrade
organic waste.
Aeration: A process which promotes
biological degradation of organic matter
in water. The process may be passive (as
when waste is exposed to air), or active (as
when a mixing or bubbling device
introduces the air).
Aeration Tank: A chamber used to inject
air into water.
Aerobic Life or processes that require, or
are not destroyed by, the presence of
oxygen. (See: anaerobic.)
Aerobic Treatment Process by which
microbes decompose complex organic
compounds in the presence of oxygen and
use the liberated energy for reproduction
and growth. (Such processes include
extended aeration, trickling filtration, and
rotating biological contactors.)
Aerosol: 1. Small droplets or particles
suspended in the atmosphere, typically
containing sulfur. They are usually
emitted naturally (e.g., in volcanic erup-
tions) and as the result of anthropogenic
(human) activities such as burning fossil
fuels. 2. The pressurized gas used to
propel substances out of a container.
Affected Landfill: Under the Clean Air
Act, landfills that meet criteria for
capacity, age, and emissions rates set by
the EPA. They are required to collect and
combust their gas emissions.
Affected Public: 1.The people who live
and/or work near a hazardous waste site.
2. The human population adversely
impacted following exposure to a toxic
pollutant in food, water, air, or soil.
Afterburner: In incinerator technology, a
burner located so that the combustion
gases are made to pass through its flame
in order to remove smoke and odors. It
may be attached to or be separated from
the incinerator proper.
Age Tank: A tank used to store a chemical
solution of known concentration for feed
to a chemical feeder. Also called a day
tank.
Agent: Any physical, chemical, or biologi-
cal entity that can be harmful to an
organism(synonymous with stressor).
Agent Orange: A toxic herbicide and
defoliant used in the Vietnam conflict,
contairiing 2,4,5-trichiorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,4,5-T) and 2-4 dichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid (2,4-D) with trace amounts of
dioxin.
Agricultural Pollution: Farming wastes,
including runoff and leaching of pes-
ticides and fertilizers; erosion and dust
from plowing; improper disposal of
animal manure and carcasses; crop
residues, and debris.
Agroecosystem: Land used for crops,
pasture, and livestock; the adjacent
uncultivated land that supports other
vegetation and wildlife; and the associ-
ated atmosphere, the underlying soils,
groundwater, and drainage networks.
AHERA Designated Person (ADP): A
person designated by a Local Education
Agency to ensure that the AHERA
requirements for asbestos management
and abatement are properly implement-
ed.
Air Binding: Situation where air enters
the filter media arid harms both the
filtration and backwash processes.
Air. Changes Per Hour (ACH): The
movement of a volume of air in a given
period of time; if a house has one air
change per hour, it means that the air in
the house will be replaced in a one-hour
period.
Air Cleaning: Indoor-air quality-control
strategy to remove various airborne
particulates and/or gases from the air.
Most common methods are particulate
filtration, electrostatic precipitation, and
gas sorption.
Air Contaminant: Any particulate matter,
gas, or combination thereof, other than
water vapor. (See: air pollutant.)
Air Curtain: A method of containing oil
spills. Air bubbling through a perforated
pipe causes an upward water flow that
slows the spread of oil. It can also be used
to stop fish from entering polluted water.
Air Exchange Rate: The rate at which
outside air replaces indoor air in a given
space.
Air Gap: Open vertical gap or empty
space that separates drinking water
supply to be protected from another water
system in a treatment plant or other
location. The open gap protects th
drinking water from contamination by
backflow or back siphonage.
Air Handling Unit: Equipment that
includes a fan or blower, heating and/or
cooling coils, regulator controls, conden-
sate drain pans, and air filters.
Air Mass: A large volume of air with
certain meteorological or polluted charac-
teristics--e.g., a heat inversion or smoggi-
ness--while in one location. The character-
istics can change as the air mass moves
away.
Air Monitoring: (See: monitoring)
Air/Oil Table: The surface between the
vadose zone and ambient oil; the pressure
of oil in the porous medium is equal to
atmospheric pressure.
Air Padding: Pumping dry air into a
container to assist with the withdrawal of
liquid or to force a liquefied gas such as
chlorine out of the container.
Air Permeability: Permeability of soil
with respect to air. Important to the design
of soil-gas surveys. Measured in darcys or
centimeters-per-second.
Air Plenum: Any space used to convey air
in a building, furnace, or structure. The
space above a suspended ceiling is often’
used as an air plenum.
Air Pollutant: Any substance in air that
could, in high enough concentration,
harm man, other animals, vegetation, or
material. Pollutants may include almost
any natural or artificial composition of
airborne matter capable of being airborne.
They may be in the form of solid particles
liquid droplets, gases, or in combination
thereof. Generally, they fall into two main
groups: (1) those emitted directly from
identifiable sources and (2) those pro-
duced in the air by interaction between
two or more primary pollutants, or by
reaction with normal atmospheric constitu.
ents, with or without photoactivation
Exclusive of pollen, fog, and dust, which
are of natural origin, about 100 contami-
nants have been identified. Air pollutants
are often grouped in categories for ease in
classification; some of he-categories are:
solids, sulfur compounds, volatile organic
chemicals, particulate matter, nitrogen
compounds, oxygen compounds, halogen
compounds, radioactive compound, and
odors.
Air Pollution: The presence of contami-
nants or pollutant substances in the air
that interfere with human health or
welfare, or produce other harmful envi-
ronmental effects.
Air Pollution Control Device: Mecha-
nism or equipment that cleans emissions
generated by a source (e.g., an incinerator,
industrial smokestack, or an automobile
exhaust system) by removing pollutants
-------
at would otherwise be released to the
Jmosphere.
Air Pollution Episode: A period of
abnormally high concentration of air
pollutants often due to low winds and
temperature inversion, that can cause
illness and death. (See: episode, pollu-
tion.)
Air Quality Control Region: Federally
designated area that is required to meet
and maintain federal ambient air quality
standards. May include nearest states that
share common air pollution problems.
Air Quality Standards: The level of
pollutants prescribed by regulations that
are not be exceeded during a given time in
a defined area.
Air Quality Criteria: The levels of
pollution and lengths of exposure above
which adverse health and welfare effects
may occur.
Air Sparging: injecting air or oxygen into
an aquifer to strip or flush volatile
contaminants as air bubbles up through
The ground water and is captured by a
vapor extraction system.
Air Stripping: A treatment system that
removes volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from contaminated ground water
or surface water by forcing an airstreaifl
through the water and causing the
compounds to evaporate.
Air Toxics: Any air pollutant for which a
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) does not exist (i.e., excluding
ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-10, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide) that may reason-
ably be anticipated to cause cancer;
respiratory, cardiovascular, or develop-
mental effects; reproductive dysfunctionS,
neurological disorders, heritable gene
mutations, or other serious or irreversible
chronic or acute health effects in humans.
Airborne Particulates Total suspended
particulate matter found in the atmo-
sphere as solid particles Or liquid droplets.
Chemical composition of particulateS
varies widely, depending on location and
time of year. Sources of airborne particu-
lates include: dust, emissions from
industrial processes combustion prod-
ucts from the burning of wood and coal,
combustion products associated with
motor vehicle or non-road engine ex-
hausts, and reactions to gases in the
atinosph e
Airborne Release: Release of any pollut-
‘int into the air.
Alachlor. A herbicide, marketed under
the trade name Lasso, used mainly to
control weeds in corn and soybean fields.
Alar: Trade name for daminozide, a
pesticide that makes apples redder,
firmer, and less likely to drop off trees
before growers are ready to pick them. It is
also used to a lesser extent on peanuts tart
cherries, concord grapes, and other fruits.
Aldicarb: An insecticide sold under the
trade name Temik. It is made from ethyl
isocyanate.
Algae: Simple rootless plants that grow in
sunlit waters in proportion to the amount
of available nutrients. They can affect
water quality adversely by lowering the
dissolved oxygen in the water. They are
food for fish and small aquatic animals.
Algal Blooms: Sudden spurts of algal
growth, which can affect water quality
adversely and indicate potentially hazard-
ous changes in local water chemistry.
Algicide: Substance or chemical used
specifically to kill or control algae.
Aliquot: A measured portion of a sample
taken for analysis. One or more aliquots
make up a sample. (See: duplicate.)
Alkaline: The condition of water or soil
which contains a sufficient amount of
alkali substance to raise the pH above 7.0.
Alkalinity The capacity of bases to
neutralize acids. An example is lime
added to lakes to decrease acidity.
Allergen: A substance that causes an
allergic reaction in individuals sensitive
to it.
Alluvial: Relating to and/or sand depos-
ited by flowing water.
Alternate Method: Any method of
sampling and analyzing for an air or
water pollutant that is not a reference or
equivalent method but that has been
demonstrated in specific cases-to EPA’s
satisfaction-to produce results adequate
for compliance monitoring.
Alternative Compliance: A policy that
allows facilities to choose among methods
for achieving emission-reduction or risk-
reduction instead of command-and con-
trol regulations that specify standards and
how to meet them. Use of a theoretical
emissions bubble over a facility to cap the
amount of pollution emitted while allow-
ing the company to choose where and
how (within the facility) it complies.(See:
bubble, emissions trading.)
Alternative Fuels: Substitutes for tradi-
tional liquid, oil-derived motor vehicle
fuels like gasoline and diesel. Includes
mixtures of alcohol-based fuels with
gasoline, methanol, ethanol, compressed
natural gas, and others.
Alternative Remedial Contract Strategy
Contractors: Government contractors who
provide project management and techni-
cal services to support remedial response
activities at National Priorities List sites.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined portion of
the atmosphere: open air, surrounding
air.
Ambient Air Quality Standards: (See:
Criteria Pollutants and National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.)
Ambient Measurement: A measurement
of the concentration of a substance or
pollutant within the immediate environs
of an organism; taken to relate it to the
amount of possible exposure.
Ambient Medium: Material surrounding
or contacting an organism (e.g., outdoor
air, indoor air, water, or soil, through
which chemicals or pollutants can reach
the organism. (See: biological medium,
environmental medium.)
Ambient Temperature: Temperature of
the surrounding air or other medium.
AmprometriC Titration: A way of mea-
suring concentrations of certain sub-
stances in water using an electric current
that flows during a chemical reaction.
Anaerobic: A life or process that occurs in,
or is not destroyed by, the absence of
oxygen.
Anaerobic Decomposition: Reduction of
the net energy level and change in
chemical composition of organic matter
caused by microorganisms in an oxygen-
free environment.
Animal Dandec Tiny scales of animal
skin, a common indoor air pollutant.
Animal Studies: Investigations using
animals as surrogates for humans with the
expectation that the results are pertinent
to humans.
Anisotropy: In hydrology, the conditions
under which one or more hydraulic
properties of an aquifer vary from a
reference point.
Annular Space, Annulus: The space
between two concentric tubes or casings,
or between the casing and the borehole
wall.
Antagonism: Interference or inhibition of
the effect of one chemical by the action of
another.
Antarctic “Ozone Hole”: gefers to the
seasonal depletion of ozone in the upper
atmosphere above a large area of
Antarctica. (See: Ozone Hole.)
Anti-Degradation Clause: Part of federal
air quality and water quality require-
ments prohibiting deterioration where
pollution levels are above the legal limit.
Anti-Microbial: An agent that kills
microbes.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs): Any state or
federal statute that pertains to protection
of human life and the environment in
addressing specific conditions or Use of a
particular cleanup technology at a Super
fund site,
3
-------
Applied Dose: In exposure assessment,
the amount of a substance in contact with
the primary absorption boundaries of an
organism (e.g., skin, lung tissue, gas-
trointestinal track) and available for
absorption
Aqueous Solubility: The maximum con-
centration of a chemical that will dissolve
in pure water at a reference temperature.
Aqueous .Solubility: The maximum con-
centration of a chemical that will dissolve
in pure water at a reference temperature.
Aqueous: Something made up of water.
Aquifer An underground geological
formation, or group of formations, con-
taining water. Are sources of groundwa-
ter for wells and springs.
Aquifer T t A test to determine
hydraulic properties of an aquifer.
Aquitard: Geological formation that may
contain groundwater but is not capable of
transmitting significant quantities of it
under normal hydraulic gradients. May
function as confining bed.
Architectural Coatings: Coverings such
as paint and roof tar that are used on
exteriors of buildings.
Area of Review: In the UIC program, the
area surrounding an injection well that is
reviewed during the permitting process to
determine if flow between aquifers will be
induced by the injection operation.
Area Source: Any source of air pollution
that is released over a relatively small area
but which cannot be classified as a point
source. Such sources may include vehicles
and other small engines, small businesses
and household activities, or biogenic
sources such as a forest that releases
hydrocarbons.
Aromatics: A type of hydrocarbon, such
as benzene or toluene, with a specific type
of ring structure. Aromatics are some-
times added to gasoline in order to
increase octane. Some aromatics are toxic.
Arsenicals: Pesticides containing arsenic.
Artesian (Aquifer or Well): Water held
under pressure in porous rock or soil
confined by impermeable geological for-
ma tions.
Asbestos: A mineral fiber that can pollute
air or water and cause cancer or asbestosis
when inhaled. EPA has banned or
severely restricted its use in manu-
facturing and construction.
Asbestos Abatement: Procedures to con-
trol fiber release from asbestos-containing
materials in a building or to remove them
entirely, including removal, encapsulation,
repair, enclosure, encasement, and opera-
tions and maintenance programs.
Asbestos Assessment: In the asbestps-in-
schools program, the evaluation of the
physical condition and potential for
damage of all friable asbestos containing
materials and thermal insulation systems.
Asbestos-Containing Waste Materials
(ACWM): Mill tailings or any waste that
contains commercial asbestos and is
generated by a source covered by the
Clean Air Act Asbestos NESHAPS.
Asbestos Program Manager: A building
owner or designated representative who
supervises all aspects of the facility
asbestos management and control pro-
gram.
Asbestosis: A disease associated with
inhalation of asbestos fibers. The disease
makes breathing progressively more
difficult and can be fatal.
Ash: The mineral content of a product
remaining after complete combustion.
Assay: A test for a specific chemical,
microbe, or effect.
Assessment Endpoint: In ecological risk
assessment, an explicit expression of the
environmental value to be protected;
includes both an ecological entity and
specific attributed thereof. entity (e.g.,
salmon are a valued ecological entity;
reproduction and population mainte-
nance--the attribute--form an assessment
endpoint.)
Assimilation: The ability of a body of
water to purify itself of pollutants.
Assimilative Capacity: The capacity of a
natural body of water to receive waste-
waters or toxic materials without deleteri-
ous effects and without damage to aquatic
life or humans who consume the water.
Association of Boards of Certification:
An international organization repre-
senting boards which certify the operators
of waterworks and wastewater facilities.
Attainment Area: An area considered to
have air quality as good as or better than
the national ambient air quality standards
as defined in the Clean Air Act. An area
may be an attainment area for one
pollutant and a non-attainment area for
others.
Attenuation: The process by which a
compound is reduced in concentration
over time, through absorption, adsorp-
tion, degradation, dilution, and/or
transformation. an also be the decrease
with distance of sight caused by attenua-
tion of light by particulate pollution.
Attractant: A chemical or agent that lures
insects or other pests by stimulating their
sense of smell.
Attrition: Wearing or grinding down of a
substance by friction. Dust from such
processes contributes to air pollution.
Availability Session: Informal meeting at
a public location where interested citizens
can talk with EPA and state officials on a
one-to-one basis.
Available Chlorine: A measure of the
amount of chlorine available in chlorinat-
ed lime, hypochlorite compounds, and
other materials used as a source of
chlorine when compared with that of
liquid or gaseous chlorines.
Avoided Cost: The cost a utility would
incur to generate the next increment of
electric capacity using its own resources;
many landfill gas projects’ buy back rates
are based on avoided costs.
A—Scale Sound Level: A measurement
of sound approximating the sensitivity of
the human ear, used to note the intensity
or annoyance level of sounds.
B
Back Pressure: A pressure that can cause
water to backflow into the water supply
when a user’s waste water system is at a
higher pressure than the public system.
Backflow/Back Siphonage: A reverse
flow condition created by a difference in
water pressures that causes water to flow
back into the distribution pipes of a
drinking water supply from any source
other than the intended one.
Background Level: 1. The concentration
of a substance in an environmental media
(air, water, or soil) that occurs naturally or
is not the result of human activities. 2. In
exposure assessment the concentration of
a substance in a defined control area,
during a fixed period of time before,
during, or after a data-gathering
operation..
Backwashing: Reversing the flow of
water back through the filter media to
remove entrapped solids.
Backyard Composting: Diversion of
organic food waste and yard trimmings
from the municipal waste stream by
composting hem in one’s yard through
controlled decomposition of organic mat-
ter by bacteria and fungi into a humus-like
product. It is considered source reduction,
not recycling, because the composted
materials never enter the municipal waste
stream.
Barrel Samplen Open-ended steel tube
used to collect soil samples.
BACT-Best Available Control Technolo-
gy: An emission limitation based on the
maximum degree of emission reduction
(considering energy, environmental, and
economic impacts) achievable through
application of production processes and
available methods, systems, and tech
niques. BACT does not permit emissions
in excess of those allowed under any
applicable Clean Air Act provisions. Use
of the BACT concept is allowable on a case
by case basis for major new or modified
4
-------
emissions sources in attainment areas and
applies to each regulated pollutant.
Bacteria: (Singular: bacterium) Micro-
scopic living organisms that can aid in
pollution control by metabolizing organic
matter in sewage, oil spills or other
pollutants. However, bacteria in soil,
water or air can also cause human, animal
and plant health problems.
Baffle: A flat board or plate, deflector,
guide, or similar device constructed or
placed in flowing water or slurry systems
to cause more uniform flow velocities to
absorb energy and to divert, guide, or
agitate liquids.
Baffle Chamben In incinerator design, a
chamber designed to promote the settling
of fly ash and coarse particulate matter by
changing the direction and/or reducing
the velocity of the gases produced by the
combustion of the refuse or sludge.
Baghouse Filter: Large fabric bag, usually
made of glass fibers, used to eliminate
intermediate and large (greater than 20
PM in diameter) particles. This device
operates like the bag of an electric vacuum
cleaner, passing the air and smaller
particles while entrapping the larger ones.
Bailer: A pipe with a valve at the lower
end, used to remove slurry from the
bottom or side of a well as it is being
drilled, or to collect ground-water samples
from wells or open boreholes. 2.A tube of
varying length
Baling: Compacting solid waste into
blocks to reduce volume and simplify
handling.
Ballistic Separator: A machine that sorts
organic from inorganic matter for compost-
ing.
Band Application: The spreading of
chemicals over, or next to, each row of
plants in a field.
Banking: A system for recording quali-
fied air emission reductions for later use in
bubble, offset, or netting transactions.
(See: emissions trading.)
Bar Screen: In wastewater treatment, a
device used to remove large solids.
Barrier Coating(s): A layer of a material
that obstructs or prevents passage of
something through a surface that is to be
protected; e.g., grout, caulk, or various
sealing compounds; sometimes used with
polyurethane membranes to prevent
corrosion or oxidation of metal surfaces,
chemical impacts on various materials, or,
for example, to prevent radon infiltration
through walls, cracks, or joints in a house.
Basal Application: In pesticides, the
application of a chemical on plant stems or
tree trunks just above the soil line.
Basalt: Consistent year-round energy use
of a facility; also refers to the minimum
amount of electricity supplied continually
to a facility.
Bean Sheet: Common term for a pesticide
data package record.
Bed Load: Sediment particles resting on
or near the channel bottom that are
pushed or rolled along by the flow of
water.
BEN: EPA’s computer model for analyz-
ing a violator’s economic gain from not
complying with the law.
Bench-scale Tests: Laboratory testing of
potential cleanup technologies (See: treat-
ability studies.)
Benefit-Cost Analysis: An economic
method for assessing the benefits and
costs of achieving alternative health-
based standards at given levels of health
protection.
Bentonite: A colloidal clay, expansible
when moist, commonly used to provide a
tight seal around a well casing.
Beryllium: An metal hazardous to human
health when inhaled as an airborne
pollutant. It is discharged by machine
shops, ceramic and propellant plants, and
foundries.
Best Available Control Measures
(BACM): A term used to refer to the most
effective measures (according to EPA
guidance) for controlling small or dis-
persed particulates and other emissions
from sources such as roadway dust, soot
and ash from woodstoves and open
burning of rush, timber, grasslands, or
trash.
Best Available Control Technology
(BACt): For any specific source, the
currently available technology producing
the greatest reduction of air pollutant
emissions, taking into account energy,
environmental, economic, and other costs.
Best Available Control Technology
(BACI’): The most stringent technology
available for controlling emissions; major
sources are required to use BACT, unless
it can be demonstrated that it is not
feasible for energy, environmental, or
economic reasons.
Best Demonstrated Available Technol-
ogy (BDAT): As identified by EPA, the
most effective commercially available
means of treating specific types of
hazardous waste. The BDATs may change
with advances in treatment technologies.
Best Management Practice (BMP): Meth-
ods that have been determined to be the
most effective, practical means of prevent-
ing or reducing pollution from non-point
sources.
Bimetal: Beverage containers with steel
bodies and aluminum tops; handled
differently from pure aluminum in
recycling.
Bioaccumulants: Substances that increase
in concentration in living organisms as
they take in contaminated air, water, or
food because the substances are very
slowly metabolized or excreted. (See:
biological magnification.)
Bioassay: A test to determine te relative
strength of a substance by comparing its
effect on a test organism with that of a
standard peparation.
Bioavailabiliity: Degree of ability to be
absorbed and ready to interact in
organism metabolism.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): A
measure of the amount of oxygen
consumed in the biological processes that
break down organic matter in water. The
greater the BOD, the greater the degree of
pollution.
Bioconcentration: The accumulation of a
chemical in tissues of a fish or other
organism to levels greater than in the
surrounding medium.
Biodegradable: Capable of decomposing
under natural conditions.
Biodiversity: Refers to the variety and
variability among living organisms and
the ecological complexes in which they
occur. Diversity can be defined as the
number of different items and their
relative frequencies. For biological
diversity, these items are organized at
many levels, ranging from complete
ecosystems to the biochemical structures
that are the molecular basis of heredity.
Thus, the term encompasses different
ecosystems, species, and genes.
Biological Contaminants: Living organ-
isms or derivates(e.g., viruses, bacteria,
fungi, and mammal and bird antigens)
that can cause harmful health effects when
inhaled, swallowed, or otherwise taken
into the body.
Biological Control: In pest control, the
use of animals and organisms that eat or
otherwise kill or out-compete pests.
Biological Integrity: The ability to sup-
port and maintain balanced, integrated,
functionality in the natural habitat of a
given region. Concept is applied prima-
rily in drinking Water management.
Biological Magnification: Refers to the
process whereby certain substances such
as pesticides or heavy metals move up the
food chain, work their way into rivers or
lakes, and are eaten by aquatic organisms
such as fish, which in turn are eaten by
large birds, animals or humans. The
substances become concentrated in tissues
or internal organs as they move up the
chain. (See: bioaccumulants.)
Biological Measurement: A measure-
ment taken in a biological medium, For
exposure assessment, it is related to the
-------
measurement is taken to related it to the
established internal dose of a compound.
Biological Medium: One of the major
component of an organism; e.g., blood,
fatty tissue, lymph nodes or breath, in
which chemicals can be stored or
transformed. (See: ambient medium,
environmental medium.)
Biological Oxidation: Decomposition of
complex organic materials by microor-
ganisms. Occurs in self-purification of
water bodies and in activated sludge
wastewater treatment.
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD): An
indirect measure of the concentration of
biologically degradable material present
in organic wastes. It usually reflects the
amount of oxygen consumed in five days
by biological processes breaking down
organic waste.
Biological Stressors: Organisms acci-
dently or intentionally dropped into
habitats in which they do not evolve
naturally; e.g. gypsy moths, Dutch elm
disease, certain types of algae, and
bacteria.
Biological Treatment: A treatment
technology that uses bacteria to consume
organic waste.
Biologically Effective Dose: The amount
of a deposited or absorbed compound
reaching the cells or target sites where
adverse effect occur, or where the
chemical interacts with a membrane.
Biologicals: Vaccines, cultures and other
preparations made from living organisms
and their products, intended for use in
diagnosing, immunizing, or treating
humans or animals, or in related research.
Biomass: All of the living material in a
given area; often refers to vegetation.
BictrE Entire community of living
organisms in a single major ecological
area. (See: biotic community.)
Biomonitoring 1. The use of living
organisms to test the suitability of
effluents for discharge into receiving
waters and to test the quality of such
waters downstream from the discharge. 2.
Analysis of blood, urine, tissues, etc., to
measure chemical exposure in humans.
Bioremediation: Use of living organisms
to clean up oil spills or remove other
pollutants from soil, water, or wastewa-
ter; use of organisms such as non-harmful
insects to remove agricultural pests or
counteract diseases of trees, plants, and
garden soil.
Biosensor: Analytical device comprising
a biological recognition element (e.g.,
enzyme, receptor, DNA, antibody, or
microorganism) in intimate contact with
an electrochemical, optical, thermal, or
acoustic signal transducer that together
permit analyses of chemical properties or
quantities. Shows potential development
in some areas, including environmental
monitoring.
Biosphere: The portion of Earth and its
atmosphere that can support life.
Biostabilizer: A machine that converts
solid waste into compost by grinding and
aeration.
Biota: The animal and plant life of a given
region.
Biotechnology: Techniques that use liv-
ing organisms or parts of organisms to
produce a variety of products (from
medicines to industrial enzymes) to
improve plants or animals or to develop
microorganisms to remove toxics from
bodies of water, or act as pesticides.
Biotic Community: A naturally occurring
assemblage of plants and animals that live
in the same environment and are
mutually sustaining and interdependent.
(See: biome.)
Biotransformation: Conversion of a sub-
stance into other compounds by organ-
isms; includes biodegredation.
Blackwaten Water that contains animal,
human, or food waste.
Blood Products: Any product derived
from human blood, including but not
limited to blood plasma, platelets, red or
white corpuscles, and derived licensed
products such as interferon.
Bloom: A proliferation of algae and/or
higher aquatic plants in a body of water;
often related to pollution, especially when
pollutants accelerate growth.
BOD5: The amount of dissolved oxygen
consumed in five days by biological
processes breaking down organic matter.
Body Burden: The amount of a chemical
stored in the body at a given time,
especially a potential toxin in the body as
the result of exposure.
Bog: A type of wetland that accumulates
appreciable peat deposits. Bogs depend
primarily on precipitation for their water
source, and are usually acidic and rich in
plant residue with a conspicuous mat of
living green moss.
Boiler. A vessel designed to transfer heat
produced by combustion or electric
resistance to water. Boilers may provide
hot water or steam.
Boom: 1. A floating device used to contain
oil on a body of water. 2. A piece of
equipment used to apply pesticides from a
tractor or truck.
Boz .hole Hole made with drilling
equipment.
Botanical Pesticide: A pesticide whose
active ingredient is a plant-produced
chemical such as nicotine or strychnine.
Also called a plant-derived pesticide.
Bottle Bill: Proposed or enacted leg-
islation which requires a returnable
deposit on beer or soda containers and
provides for retail store or other redemp-
tion. Such legislation is designed to
discourage use of throwaway containers.
Bottom Ash: The non-airborne combus-
tion residue from burning pulverized coal
in a boiler; the material which falls to the
bottom of the boiler and is removed
mechanically; a concentration of nofl
combustible materials, which may include
toxics.
Bottom Land Hardwoods: Forested fresh-
water wetlands adjacent to rivers in the
southeastern United States, especially
valuable for wildlife breeding, nesting
and habitat.
Bounding Estimate: An estimate of
exposure, dose, or risk that is higher than
that incurred by the person in the
population with the currently highest
exposure, dose, or risk. Bounding esti-
mates are useful in developing statements
that exposures, doses, or risks are “not
greater than” an estimated value.
Brackish: Mixed fresh and salt water.
Breakpoint Chlorination: Addition of
chrlorjne to water until the chlorine
demand has been satisfied.
Breakthrough: A crack or break in a filter
bed that allows the passage of floc or
particulate matter through a filter; will
cause an increase in filter effluent
turbidity.
Breathing Zone: Area of air in which an
organism inhales.
Brine Mud: Waste material, often asso-
ciated with well-drilling or• mining,
composed of mineral salts or other
inorganic compounds.
British Thermal Unit: Unit of heat energy
equal to the amount of heat required to
raise the temperature of one pound of
water by one degree Fahrenheit at sea
level.
Broadcast Application: The spreading of
pesticides over an entire area.
Brownfields: Abandoned, idled, or under
used industrial and commercial facilities!
sites where expansion or redevelopment
is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination. They can
be in urban, suburban, or rural areas.
EPA’s Brownfields initiative helps com-
munities mitigate potential health risks
and restore the economic viability of such
areas or properties.
Bubble: A system under which existing
emissions sources can propose alternate
means to comply with a set of emissions
6
-------
imitations; under the bubble concept,
. Ources can control more than required at
One emission point where control costs are
relatively LOW in return for a comparable
relaxation of controls at a second emission
point where costs are higher.
Bubble Policy: (See: emissions trading.)
Buffen A solution or liquid whose
chemical makeup is such that it minimizes
changes in pH when acids or bases are
added to it.
Buffer Strips: Strips of grass or other
erosionresistjng vegetation between or
below cultivated strips or fields.
Building Cooling Load: The hourly
amount of heat that must be removed
from a building to maintain indoor
comfort (measured in British thermal
units ( Btus).
Building Envelope: The exterior surface
of a building’s construction the walls,
Windows, floors, roof, and floor.
Also called building shell.
Building Related Illness: Diagnosable
illness whose cause and symptoms can be
directly attributed to a specific pollutant
Source within a building (e.g.,
Legionnaire’s disease, hyperSensitivitY
Pneumonitis.) (See: sick building syfl-
drome.)
Bulk Sample: A small portion (usually
thumbnail size)’of a suspect asbestos
Containing building material collected by
an asbestos inspector for laboratory
analysis to determine asbestos content.
Bulky Waste Large items of waste
materials, such as appliances furniture,
large auto parts, trees, stumps.
Burial Ground (Graveyard): A disposal
site for radioactive waste materials that
uses earth or water as a shield.
Buy-Back Center Facility where indi-
viduals or groups bring reyclables in
return for payment.
By-product Material, other than the
principal products generated as a conse-
quence of an industrial process or as a
breakdown product in a living system.
C
CadnLiUm (Cd): A heavy metal that
accumulates in the environment.
Cancellation: Refers to Section 6 (b) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Roden-
ticide Act (FIFRA) which authorizes
cancellation of a pesticide registration if
unreasonable adverse effects to the
environment and public health develop
when a product is used according to
widespread and commonly recognized
practice, or if its labeling or other material
required to be submitted does not comply
with FIFRA provisions.
Cap: A layer of clay, or other impermeable
material installed over the top of a closed
landfill to prevent entry of rainwater and
minimize leachate.
Capacity Assurance Plan: A statewide
plan which supports a state’s ability to
manage the hazardous waste generated
within its boundaries over a twenty year
period.
Capillary Action: Movement of water
through very small spaces due to
molecular forces called capillary forces.
Capillary Fringe: The zone above he
water table within which the porous
medium is saturated by water under less
than atmospheric pressure.
Capture EfficienCy The fraction of
organic vapors generated by a process
that are directed to an abatement or
recovery device.
Carbon Absorber An add-on control
device that uses activated carbon to
absorb volatile organic compounds from a
gas stream. (The VOCs are later recovered
from the carbon.)
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system
that removes contaminants from ground
water or surface water by forcing it
through tanks containing activated car-
bon treated to attract the contaminants.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless,
odorless, poisonous gas produced by
incomplete fossil fuel combustion.
Carbon Tetrachloride (CC14): Com-
pound consisting of one carbon atom ad
four chlorine atoms, once widely used as a
industrial raw material, as a solvent, and
in the production of CFCs. Use as a solvent
ended when it was discovered to be
carcinogenic.
Carboxyhemoglobin: Hemoglobin in
which the iron is bound to carbon
monoxide(CO) instead of oxygen.
Carcinogen: Any substance that can cause
or aggravate cancer.
Canier 1.The inert liquid or solid
material in a pesticide product that serves
as a delivery vehicle for the active
ingredient. Carriers do not have toxic
properties of their own. 2. Any material or
system that can facilitrate the movement
of a pollutant into the body or cells.
Carrying Capacity 1. In recreation
management, the amount of use a
recreation area can sustain without loss of
quality. 2. In wildlife management, the
maximum number of animals an area can
support during a given period.
CAS Registration Numbec A number
asigned by the Chemical Abstract Service
to identify a chemical.
Case Study: A brief fact sheet providing
risk, cost, and performance information
on alternative methods and other pollu-
tion prevention ideas, compliance initia-
tives, voluntary efforts, etc.
Casic A thick-walled container (usually
lead) used to transport radioactive materi-
al. Also called a coffin.
Catalyst A substance that changes the
speed or yield of a chemical reaction
without being consumed or chemically
changed by the chemical reaction.
Catalytic Converter: An air pollution
abatement device that removes pollutants
from motor vehicle exhaust, either by
oxidizing them into carbon dioxide and
water or reducing them to nitrogen.
Catalytic Incinerator: A control device
that oxidizes volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) by using a catalyst to promote the
combustion process. Catalytic incinera-
tors require lower temperatures than
conventional thermal incinerators, thus
saving fuel and other costs.
Categorical Exclusion: A class of actions
which either individually or cumulatively
would not have a significant effect on the
human environment and therefore would
not require preparation of an environ-
mental assessment or environmental
impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Categorical Pretreatment Standard: A
technology-based effluent limitation for
an industrial facility discharging into a
municipal sewer system. Analogous in
stringency to Best Availability Technol-
ogy (BAT) for direct dischargers.
Cathodic Protection: A technique to
prevent corrosion of a metal surface by
making it the cathode of an elec-
trochemical cell.
Cavitation: The formation and collapse of
gas pockets or bubbles on the blade of an
impeller or the gate of a valve; collapse of
these pockets or bubbles drives water with
such force that it can cause pitting of the
gate or valve surface.
Cells: 1. In solid waste disposal, holes
where waste is dumped, compacted, and
covered with layers of dirt on a daily
basis. 2. The smallest structural part of
living matter capable of functioning as an
independent unit.
Cementitious: Densely packed and non-
fibrous friable materials.
Central Collection Point: Location were a
generator of regulated medical waste
consolidates wastes originally generated
at various locations in his facility. The
wastes are gathered together for treat-
ment on-site or for transportation else-
where for treatment and/or disposal. This
term could also apply to community
-------
hazardous waste collections, industrial
and other waste management systems.
Centrifugal Collectori A mechanical
system using centrifugal force to remove
aerosols from a gas stream or to remove
water from sludge.
Channelization: Straightening and
deepening streams so water will move
faster, a marsh-drainage tactic that can
interfere with waste assimilation capacity,
disturb fish and wildlife habitats, and
aggravate flooding.
Characteristic: Any one of the four
categories used in defining hazardous
waste: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
and toxicity.
Characterization of Ecological Effects:
Part of ecological risk assessment that
evaluates ability of a stressor to cause
adverse effects under given circum-
stances.
Characterization of Exposure: Portion of
an ecological risk assessment that evalu-
ates interaction of a stressor with one or
more ecological entities.
Check-Valve Tubing Pump: Water sam-
pling tool also referred to as a water
Pump.
Chemical Case: For purposes of review
and regulation, the grouping of chemi-
cally similar pesticide active ingredients
(e.g., salts and esters of the same chemical)
into chemical cases.
Chemical Compound: A distinct and
pure substance formed by the Union or
two or more elements in definite propor-
tion by weight.
Chemical Element: A fundamental sub-
stance comprising one kind of atom; the
simplest form of matter.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): A
measure of the oxygen required to oxidize
all compounds, both organic and inor-
ganic, in water.
Chemical Stressors: Chemicals released
to the environment through industrial
waste, auto emissions, pesticides, and
other human activity that can cause
illnesses and even death in plants and
animals
Chemical Treatment: Any one of a variety
of technologies that use chemicals or a
variety of chemical processes to treat
waste.
Chemnet: Mutual aid network of chemi-
cal shippers and contractors that assigns a
contracted emergency response company
to provide technical support if a represen-
tative of the firm whose chemicals are
involved in an incident is not readily
available.
Chemosterilant: A chemical that controls
pests by preventing reproduction.
8
Chemtrec:The industry-sponsored Chem-
ical Transportation Emergency Center;
provides information and/or emergency
assistance to emergency responders.
Child Resistant Packaging (CRP): Pack-
aging that protects children or adults from
injury or illness resulting from accidental
contact with or ingestion of residential
pesticides that meet or exceed specific
toxicity levels. Required by FIFRA regula-
tions. Term is also used for protective
packaging of medicines.
Chiller: A device that generates a cold
liquid that is circulated through an air-
handling unit’s cooling coil to cool the air
supplied to the building.
Chilling Effect: The lowering of the
Earth’s temperature because of increased
particles in the air blocking the sun’s rays.
(See: greenhouse effect.)
Chisel Plowing: Preparing croplands by
using a special implement that avoids
complete inversion of the soil as in
conventional plowing. Chisel plowing
can leave a protective cover or crops
residues on the soil surface to help
prevent erosion and improve filtration.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: 1. Chemicals
containing only chlorine, carbon, and
hydrogen. These include a class of
persistent, broad-spectrum insecticides
that linger in the environment and
accumulate in the food chain. Among
them are DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, hep-
tachlor, chlordane, lindane, endrin, Mirex,
hexachloride, and toxaphene. Other ex-
amples include TCE, used as an industrial
solvent. 2. Any chlorinated organic
compounds including chlorinated sol-
vents such as dichloromethane,
trichloromethylene, chloroform.
Chlorinated Solvent: An organic solvent
containing chlorine atoms(e.g., methylene
chloride and 1,1,1 -trichloromethane). Uses
of chlorinated solvents are include aerosol
spray containers, in highway paint, and
dry cleaning fluids.
Chlorination: The application of chlorine
to drinking water, sewage, or industrial
waste to disinfect or to oxidize undesir-
able compounds.
Chlorinator: A device that adds chlorine,
in gas or liquid form, to water or sewage to
kill infectious bacteria.
Chlorine-Contact Chamber: That part of
a water treatment plant where effluent is
disinfected by chlorine.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): A family of
inert, nontoxic, and easily liquefied
chemicals used in refrigeration, air
conditioning, packaging, insulation, or as
solvents and aerosol propellants. Because
CFCs are not destroyed in the lower
atmosphere they drift into the upper
atmosphere where their chlorine com-
ponents destroy ozone. (See: fluorocar
bons.)
ChlorophenOxy: A class of herbicides that
may be found in domestic water supplies
and cause adverse health effects.
chiomsis: Discoloration of normally
green plant parts caused by disease, lack
of nutrients, or various air pollutants.
Cholinesterase: An enzyme found in
animals that regulates nerve impulses by
the inhibition of acetyicholine.. Cholin-
esterase inhibition is associated with a
variety of acute symptoms such as nausea,
vomiting, blurred vision, stomach cramps,
and rapid heart rate.
Chromium: (See: heavy metals.)
Chronic Effect: An adverse effect on a
human or animal in which symptoms
recur frequently or develop slowly over a
long period of time.
Chronic Exposure: Multiple exposures
occurring over an extended period of time
or over a significant fraction of an
animal’s or human’s lifetime (Usually
seven years to a lifetime.)
Chronic Toxicity: The capacity of a
substance to cause long-term poisonous
health effects in humans, animals, fish,
and other organisms.. (See: acute toxicity.)
Circle of Influence: The circular outer
edge of a depression produced in the
water table by the pumping of water from
a well . (See: cone of depression.)
Cistern: Small tank or storage facility
used to store water for a home or farm;
often used to store rain water.
Clarification: Clearing action that occurs
during wastewater treatment when solids
settle out. This is often aided by
centrifugal action and chemically induced
coagulation in wastewater.
Clarifier: A tank in which solids settle to
the bottom and are subsequently removed
as sludge.
Class I Area: Under the Clean Air Act. a
Class I area is one in which visibility is
protected more stringently than under
the national ambient air quality stan-
dards; includes national parks, wilder-
ness areas, monuments, and other areas of
special national and cultural significance.
Class I Substance: One of several groups
of chemicals with an ozone depletion
potential of 0.2 or higher, including CFCS,
Halons, Carbon Tetrachioride, and Me-
thyl Chloroform (listed in the Clean Air
Act), and HBFCs and Ethyl Bromide
(added by EPA regulations). (See: Global
warming potential.)
Class II Substance: A substance with an
ozone depletion potential of less than 0.2.
All HCFCs are currently included in this
-------
classification. (See: Global warming po-
tential.)
Clay Soil: Soil material containing more
than 40 percent clay, less than 45 percent
sand, and less than 40 percent silt.
Clean Coal Technology: Any technology
not in widespread use prior to the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. This Act
will achieve significant reductions in
pollutants associated with the burning of
coal.
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes As-
sessment: A document that systematically
evaluates the relative risk, performance,
and cost trade-offs of technological
alternatives; serves as a repository for all
the technical data (including methodol-
ogy and results) developed by a DfE or
other pollution prevention or education
project.
Clean Fuels: Blends or substitutes for
gasoline fuels, including compressed
natural gas, methanol, ethanol, and
liquified petroleum gas.
Cleanup: Actions taken to deal with a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance that could affect humans and!
or the environment. The term “cleanup” is
sometimes used interchangeably with the
terms remedial action, removal action,
response action, or corrective action.
Clear Cut: Harvesting all the trees in one
area at one time, a practice that can
encourage fast rainfall or snowmelt
runoff, erosion, sedimentation of streams
and lakes, and flooding, and destroys
vital habitat.
Clear Well: A reservoir for storing filtered
water of sufficient quantity to prevent the
need to vary the filtration rate with
variations in demand. Also used to
provide chlorine contact time for disinfec-
tion.
Cloning: In biotechnology, obtaining a
group of genetically identical cells from a
single cell; making identical copies of a
gene.
Closed-LOOP Recycling: Reclaiming or
reusing wastewater for non-potable pur-
poses in an enclosed process.
Closure: The procedure a landfill opera-
tor must follow when a landfill reaches its
legal capacity for solid waste: ceasing
acceptance of solid waste and placing a
cap on the landfill site.
Co-fire: Burning of two fuels in the same
combustion unit; e.g., coal and natural
gas, or oil and coal.
Coagulation: Clumping of particles in
wastewater to settle out impurities, often
induced by chemicals such as lime, alum,
and iron salts.
Coal Cleaning Technology: A precorn-
bustion process by which coal is physi-
cally or chemically treated to remove
some of its sulfur so as to reduce sulfur
dioxide emissions.
Coal Gasification: Conversion of coal to a
gaseous product by one of several
available technologies.
Coastal Zone: Lands and waters adjacent
to the coast that exert an influence on the
uses of the sea and its ecology, or whose
uses and ecology are affected by the sea.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
Document that codifies all rules of the
executive departments and agencies of the
federal government. It is divided into fifty
volumes, known as titles. Title 40 of the
CFR (referenced as 40 CFR) lists all
environmental regulations.
Coefficient of Haze (COH): A measure-
ment of visibility interference in the
atmosphere.
Cogeneration: The consecutive genera-
tion of useful thermal and electric energy
from the same fuel source.
Coke Oven: An industrial process which
converts coal into coke, one of the basic
materials used in blast furnaces for the
conversion of iron ore into iron.
Cold Temperature CO: A standard for
automobile emissions of carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions to be met at a low
temperature (i.e. 20 degrees Fahrenheit).
Conventional automobile catalytic conver-
ters are not efficient in cold weather until
they warm up.
Coliform Index: A rating of the purity of
water based on a count of fecal bacteria.
Coliform Organism: Microorganisms
found in the intestinal tract of humans and
animals. Their presence in water indicates
fecal pollution and potentially adverse
contamination by pathogens. Collector
Sewers: Pipes used to collect and carry
wastewater from individual sources to-an
interceptor sewer that will carry it to a
treatment facility.
Collector Public or private hauler that
collects nonhazardous waste and recy-
clable materials from residential, commer-
cial, institutional and industrial sources.
(See: hauler.)
Colloids Very small, finely divided
solids (that do not dissolve) that remain
dispersed in a liquid for a long time due to
their small size and electrical charge.
Combined Sewer Overflows: Discharge
of a mixture of storm water and domestic
waste when the flow capacity of a sewer
system is exceeded during rainstorms.
Combined Sewers: A sewer system that
carries both sewage and storm-water
runoff. Normally, its entire flow goes to a
waste treatment plant, but during a heavy
storm, the volume of water may be so
great as to cause overflows of untreated
mixtures of storm water and sewage into
receiving waters. Storm-water runoff may
also carry toxic chemicals from industrial
areas or streets into the sewer system.
Combustion: 1. Burning, or rapid oxida-
tion, accompanied by release of energy in
the form of heat and light. 2. Refers to
controlled burning of waste, in which heat
chemically alters organic compounds,
converting into stable irlorganics such as
carbon dioxide and water.
Combustion Chamber: The actual com-
partment where waste is burned in an
incinerator.
Combustion Product: Substance pro-
duced during the burning or oxidation of
a material.
Command Post: Facility located at a safe
distance upwind from an accident site,
where the on-scene coordinator, respond-
ers, and technical representatives make
response decisions, deploy manpower
and equipment, maintain liaison with
news media, and handle communications.
Command-and-Control Regulations:Spe-
cific requirements prescribing how to
comply with specific standards defining
acceptable levels of pollution.
Comment Period: Time provided for the
public to review and comment on a
proposed EPA action or rulemaking after
publication in the Federal Register.
Commercial Waste: All solid waste
emanating from business establishments
such as stores, markets, office buildings,
restaurants, shopping centers, and the-
aters.
Commercial Waste Management Facil-
ity A treatment, storage, disposal, or
transfer facility which accepts waste from
a variety of sources, as compared to a
private facility which normally manages a
limited waste stream generated by its own
operations.
Commingled Recyclables: Mixed recyc-
lables that are collected together.
Comminuter: A machine that shreds or
pulverizes solids to make waste treatment
easier.
Comminution: Mechanical shredding or
pulverizing of waste. Used in both solid
waste management and wastewater treat-
ment.
Common Sense Initiative: Voluntary
program to simplify environmental regu-
lation to achieve cleaner, cheaper, smarter
results, starting with six major industry
sectors. -
Community: In ecology, an assemblage
of populations of different specieis within
a specified location in space and time.
Sometimes, a particular subgrouping may
be specified, such as the fish community in
9
-------
a lake or the soil arthropod community in
a forest.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish two-way communication with
the public to create understanding of EPA
programs and related actions, to ensure
public input into decision-making pro-
cesses related to affected communities,
and to make certain that the Agency is
aware of and responsive to public
concerns. Specific community relations
activities are required in relation to
Superfund remedial actions.
Community Water System: A public
water system which serves at least 15
service connections used by year-round
residents or regularly serves at least 25
year-round residents.
Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL): Small
fluorescent lamps used as more efficient
alternatives to incandescent lighting. Also
called PL, CFL, Twin-Tube, or BIAX
lamps.
Compaction: Reduction of the bulk of
solid waste by rolling and tamping.
Comparative Risk Assessment: Process
that generally uses the judgement of
experts to predict effects and set priorities
among a wide range of environmental
problems.
Complete Treatment A method of
treating water that consists of the addition
of coagulant chemicals, flash mixing,
coagulation-flocculation, sedimentation,
and filtration. Also called conventional
filtration.
Compliance Coal: Any coal tht emits less
than 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per
milion Btu when burned. Also known as
low sulfur coal.
Compliance Coating: A coating whose
volatile organic compound content does
not exceed that allowed by regulation.
Compliance Cycle: The 9-year calendar
year cycle, beginning January 1, 1993,
during which public water systems must
monitor. Each cycle consists of three 3-
year compliance periods.
Compliance Monitoring: Collection and
evaluation of data, including self-monitor-
ing reports, and verification to show
whether pollutant concentrations and
loads contained in permitted discharges
are in compliance with the limits and
conditions specified in the permit.
Compliance Schedule: A negotiated
agreement between a pollution source
and a government agency that specifies
dates and procedures by which a source
will reduce emissions and, thereby,
comply with a regulation.
Composite Sample: A series of water
samples taken over a given period of time
and weighted by flow rate.
Compost The relatively stable humus
material that is produced from a compost-
ing process in which bacteria in soil mixed
with garbage and degradable trash break
down the mixture into organic fertilizer.
Composting Facilities: 1. An offsite
facility where the organic component of
municipal solid waste is decomposed
under controlled conditions; 2.an aerobic
process in which organic materials are
ground or shredded and then decom-
posed to humus in windrow piles or in
mechanical digesters, drums, or similar
enclosures.
Composting The controlled biological
decomposition of organic material in the
presence of air to form a humus-like
material. Controlled methods of compo-
sting include mechanical mixing and
aerating, ventilating the materials by
dropping them through a vertical series of
aerated chambers, or placing the compost
in piles out in the open air and mixing it or
turning it periodically.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): An
alternative fuel for motor vehicles; consid-
ered one of the cleanest because of low
hydrocarbon emissions and its vapors are
relatively non-ozone producing. How-
ever, vehiles fueled wih CNG do emit a
significant quanity of nitrogen oxides.
Concentration: The relative amount of a
substance mixed with another substance.
An example is five ppm of carbon
monoxide in air or 1 mg/I of iron in water.
Condensate: 1 .Liquid formed when warm
landfill gas cools as it travels through a
collection system. 2. Water created by
cooling steam or water vapor.
Condensate Return System: System that
returns the heated water condensing
within steam piping to the boiler and thus
saves energy.
Conditional Registration: Under special
circumstances, the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
permits registration of pesticide products
that is “conditional” upon the submission
of additional data. These special circum-
stances include a finding by the EPA
Administratorthat a new product or use of
an existing pesticide will not significantly
increase the risk of unreasonable adverse
effects, A product containing a new
(previously unregistered) active ingre-
dient may be conditionally registered
only if the Administrator finds that such
conditional registration is in the public
interest, that a reasonable time for
conducting the additional studies has not
elapsed, and the use of the pesticide for
the period of conditional registration will
not present an unreasonable risk.
Conditionally Exempt Generators (CE):
Persons or enterprises which produce less
than 220 pounds of hazardous waste per
month. Exempt from most regulation,
they are required merely to determine
whether their waste is hazardous, notify
appropriate state or local agencies, and
ship it by an authorized transporter to a
permitted facility for proper disposal.
(See small quantity generator.)
Conductance: A rapid method of estimat-
ing the dissolved solids content of water
supply by determining the capacity of a
water sample to carry an electrical
current. Conductivity is a measure of the
ability of a solution to carry and electrical
curerent.
Conductivity: A measure of the ability of
a solution to carry an electrical current.
Cone of Depression: A depression in the
water table that develops around a
pumped well.
Cone of Influence: The depression,
roughly conical in shape, produced in a
water table by the pumping of water from
a well.
Cone Penterometer Testing (CPF): A
direct push system used to measure
lithology based on soil penetration
resistance. Sensors in the tip of the cone of
the DP rod measure tip resistance and
side-wall friction, transmitting electrical
signals to digital processing equipment on
the ground surface. (See: direct push.)
Confidential Business Information (C B!):
Material that contains trade secrets or
commercial or financial information that
has been claimed as confidential by its
source (e.g., a pesticide or new chemical
formulation registrant). EPA has special
procedures for handling such informa-
tion.
Confidential Statement of Formula (C SF):
A list of the ingredients in a new pesticide
or chemical formulation. The list is
submitted at the time for application for
registration or change in formulation.
Confined Aquifer: An aquifer in which
ground water is confined under pressure
which is significantly greater than atmo-
spheric pressure.
Confluent Growth: A continuous bacte-
rial growth covering all or part of the
filtration area of a membrane filter in
which the bacteria colonies are not
discrete.
Consent Decree: A legal document,
approved by a judge, that formalizes an
agreement reached between EPA and
potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
through which PRPs will conduct all or
part of a cleanup action at a Superfund
site; cease or correct actions or processes
that are polluting the environment; or
otherwise comply with EPA initiated
regulatory enforcement actions to resolve
the contamination at the Superfund site
involved. The consent decree describes
-------
the actions PRPs will take and may be
subject to a public comment period.
Conservation: Preserving and renewing,
when possible, human and natural
resources. The use, protection, and
improvement of natural resources ac-
cording to principles that will ensure their
highest economic or social benefits.
Conservation Easement: Easement re-
stricting a landowner to land uses that
that are compatible with long-term
conservation and environmental values.
Constituent(s) of Concern: Specific chemi-
cals that are identified for evaluation in
the site assessment process
Construction and Demolition Waste:
Waste building materials, dredging materi-
als, tree stumps, and rubble resulting from
construction, remodeling, repair, and
demolition of homes, commercial build-
ings and other structures and pavements.
May contain lead, asbestos, or other
hazardous substances.
Construction Ban: If, under the Clean Air
Act, EPA disapproves an area’s planning
requirements for correcting
nonattainment, EPA can ban the construc-
tion or nmodification of any major
stationary source of the pollutant for
which the area is in nonattainment.
Consumptive Water Use: Water removed
from available supplies without return to
a water resources system, e.g., water used
in manufacturing, agriculture, and food
preparation.
Contact Pesticide: A chemical that kills
pests when it touches them, instead of by
ingestion. Also, soil that contains the
minute skeletons of certain algae that
scratch and dehydrate waxy-coated in-
sects.
Contaminant Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or
matter that has an adverse effect on air,
water, or soil.
Contamination: Introduction into water,
air, and soil of microorganisms, chemi-
cals, toxic substances, wastes, or wastewa-
ter in a concentration that makes the
medium unfit for its next intended use.
Also applies to surfaces of objects,
buildings, and various household and
agricultural use products.
Contamination Source Inventory: An
inventory of contaminant sources within
delineated State Water-Protection Areas.
Targets likely sources for further investi-
gation.
Contingency Plan: A document setting
out an organized, planned, and coordi-
nated course of action to be followed in
case of a fire, explosion, or other accident
that releases toxic chemicals, hazardous
waste, or radioactive materials that
threaten human health or the environ-
ment. (See: National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan.)
Continuous Discharge: A routine release
to the environment that occurs without
interruption, except for infrequent shut-
downs for maintenance, process changes,
etc.
Continuous Sample: A flow of water,
waste or other material from a particular
place in a plant to the location where
samples are collected for testing. May be
used to obtain grab or composite samples.
Contour Plowing: Soil tilling method that
follows the shape of the land to
discourage erosion.
Contour Strip Farmiong: A kind of
contour farming in which row crops are
planted in strips, between alternating
stripis of close-growing, erosion-resistant
forage crops.
Contract Labs: Laboratories under con-
tract to EPA, which analyze samples taken
from waste, soil, air, and water or carry
out research projects.
Control Technique Guidelines (CTG):
EPA documents designed to assist state
and local pollution authorities to achieve
and maintain air quality standareds for
certain sources (e.g. organic emissions
from solvent metal cleaning known as
degreasing) through reasonably available
control technologies (RACT).
Controlled Reaction: A chemical reaction
under temperature and pressure condi-
tions maintained within safe limits to
produce a desired product or process.
Conventional Filtration: (See: complete
treatment)
Conventional Pollutants:Statutorily listed
pollutants understood well by scientists.
These may be in the form of organic waste,
sediment, acid, bacteria, viruses, nutri-
ents, oil and grease, or heat.
Conventional Site Assessment Assess-
ment in which most of the sample analysis
and interpretation of data is completed
off-site; process usually requires repeated
mobilization of equipment and staff in
order to fully determine the extent of
contamination.
Conventional Systems: Systems that
have been traditionally used to collect
municipal wastewater in gravity sewers
and convey it to a central primary or
secondary treatment plant prior to dis-
charge to surface waters.
Conventional Tilling: Tillage operations
considered standard for a specific location
and crop and that tend to bury the crop
residues; usually considered as a base for
determining the cost effectiveness of
control practices.
Conveyance Loss: Water loss in pipes,
channels, conduits, ditches by leakage or
evaporation.
Cooling Electricity Use: Amount of
electricity used to meet the building
cooling load. (See: building cooling load.)
Cooling Towen Device which dissipates
the heat from water-cooled systems by
spraying the water through streams of
rapidly moving air.
Cooperative Agreement: An assistance
agreement whereby EPA transfers money,
property, services or anything of value to
a state, university, non-profit, or not-for-
profit organization for the accomplish-
ment of authorized activities or tasks.
Core: The uranium-containing heart of a
nuclear reactor, where energy is released.
Core Program Cooperative Agreement:
An assistance agreement whereby EPA
supports states or tribal governments
with funds to help defray the cost of non-
item-specific administrative and training
activities.
Corrective Action: EPA can require
treatment, storage and disposal (TSDF)
facilities handling hazardous waste to
undertake corrective actions to clean up
spills resulting from failure to follow
hazardous waste management proce-
dures or other mistakes. The process
includes cleanup procedures designed to
guide TSDFs toward in spills.
Corrosion: The dissolution and wearing
away of metal caused by a chemical
reaction such as between water and the
pipes, chemicals touching a metal surface,
or contact between two metals.
Corrosive: A chemical agent that reacts
with the surface of a material causing it to
deteriorate or wear away.
Cost/Benefit Analysis: A quantitative
evaluation of the costs which would bye
incurred by implementing an
environbmental regulation versus the
overall benefits to society of the proposed
action.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties who
contributed to contamination at a
Superfurid site can be required to
reimburse the Trust Fund for money spent
during any cleanup actions by the federal
government.
Cost Sharing: A publicly financed pro-
gram through which society, as a
beneficiary of environmental protection,
shares part of the cost of pollution control
with those who must actually install the
controls. In Superfund, for example, the
government may pay part of the cost of a
cleanup action with those responsible for
the pollution paying the major share.
11
-------
Cost-Effective Alternative: An alterna-
tive control or corrective method identi-
fied after analysis as being the best
available in terms of reliability, perfor-
mance, and cost. Although costs are one
important consideration, regulatory and
compliance analysis does not require EPA
to choose the least expensive alternative.
For example, when selecting or pproving
a method for cleaning up a Superfund site,
the Agency balances costs with the long-
term effectiveness of the methods pro-
posed and the potenetial danger posed by
the site.
Cover Crop A crop that provides
temporary protection for delicate seed-
lings and/or provides a cover canopy for
seasonal soil protection and irmprovement
between normal crop production periods.
Cover Material: Soil used to cover
compacted solid waste in a sanitary
landfill.
Cradle-to-Grave or Manifest System: A
procedure in which hazardous materials
are identified and followed as they are
produced, treated, transported, and dis-
posed of by a series of permanent,
linkable, descriptive documents (e.g.,
manifests). Commonly referred to as the
cradle-to-grave system.
Criteria: Descriptive factors taken into
account by EPA in setting standards for
various pollutants. These factors are used
to determine limits on allowable concentra-
tion levels, and to limit the number of
violations per year. When issued by EPA,
the criteria provide guidance to the states
on how to establish their standards.
Criteria Pollutants: The 1970 amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act required EPA
to set National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for certain pollutants known to
be hazardous to human health. EPA has
identified and set standards to protect
human health and welfare for six
pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, total
suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide,
lead, and nitrogen oxide. The term,
“criteria pollutants” derives from the
requirement that EPA must describe the
characteristics and potential health and
welfare effects of these pollutants. It is on
the basis of these criteria that standards
are set or revised.
Critical Effect: The•first adverse effect, or
its known precursor, that occurs as a dose
rate increases. Designation is based on
evaluation of overall database.
Crop Consumptive Use: The amount of
water transpired during plant growth
plus what evaporated from the soil
surface and foliage in the crop area.
Crop Rotation: Planting a succession of
different crops on the same land rea as
opposed to planting the same crop time
after time.
Cross-Connection: Any actual or poten-
tial connection between a drinking water
system and an unapproved water supply
or other source of contamination.
Cross Contamination: The movement of
underground contaminants from one
level or area to another due to invasive
subsurface activities.
Crumb Rubber Ground rubber frag-
ments the size of sand or silt used in
rubber or plastic products, or processed
further into reclaimed rubber or asphalt
products.
Cryptosporidium: A protozoan microbe
associated with the disease
cryptosporidiosis in man. The disease can
be transmitted through ingestion of
drinking water, person-to-person contact,
or other pathways, and can cause acute
diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting,
fever, and can be fatal as it was in the
Milwaukee episode.
Cubic Feet Per Minute (CFM): A measure
of the volume of a substance flowing
through air within a fixed period of time.
With regard to indoor air, refers to the
amount of air, in cubic feet, that is
exchanged with outdoor air in a minute’s
time; i.e., the air exchange rate.
Cullet: Crushed glass.
Cultural Eutrophication: Increasing rate
at which water bodies “die” by pollution
from human activities. Cultures and
Stocks: Infectious agents and associated
biologicals including: cultures from medi-
cal and pathological laboratories; cultures
and stocks of infectious agents from
research and industrial laboratories; waste
from the production of biologicals;
discarded live and attenuated vaccines;
and culture dishes and devices used to
transfer, inoculate, and mix cultures. (See:
regulated medical waste.)
Cultures and Stocks: Infectious agents
and associated biologicals including cul-
tures from medical and pathological
laboratories; cultures and stocks of
infectious agents from research and
industrial laboratories; waste from the
production of biologicals; discarded live
and attenuated vaccines; and culture
dishes and devices used to transfer,
inoculate, and mix cultures. (See: regu-
lated medical waste.)
Cumulative Ecological Risk Assessment:
Consideration of the total ecological risk
from multiple stressors to a given eco-
zone.
Cumulative Exposure The sum of
exposures of an organism to a pollutant
over a period of time.
Cumulative Working Level Months
(CWLM): The sum of lifetime exposure to
radon working levels expressed in total
working level months.
Curb Stop: A water service shutoff valve
located in a water service pipe near the
curb and between the water main and the
building.
Curbside Collection: Method of col-
lecting recyclable materials at homes,
community districts or businesses.
Cutie-Pie:An instrument used to measure
radiation levels.
Cuttings: Spoils left by conventional
drilling with hollow stem auger or rotary
drilling equipment.
Cyclone Collector A device that uses
centrifugal force to remove large particles
from polluted air.
D
Data Call-In: A part of the Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) process of
developing key required test data, espe-
cially on the long-term, chronic effects of
existing pesticides, in advance of sched-
uled Registration Standard reviews. Data
Call-In from manufacturers is an adjunct
of the Registration Standards program
intended to expedite re-registration.
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs): Quali-
tative and quantitative statements of the
overall level of uncertainty that a
decision-maker will accept in results or
decisions based on environmental data.
They provide the statistical framework for
planning and managing environmental
data operations consistent with user’s
needs.
Day Tank Anotrher name fr deaerating
tank. (See: age tank)
DDT: The first chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticide chemical name: Dichloro
Diphenyl-Trichioroethane). It has a half-
life of 15 years and can collect in fatty
tissues of certain animals. EPA banned
registration and interstate sale of DDT for
virtually all but emergency uses in the
United States in 1972 because of its
persistence in the environment and
accumulation in the food chain.
Dead End: The end of a water main which
is not connected to other parts of the
distribution system.
Deadmen: Anchors drilled or cemented
into the ground to provide additional
“reactive” mass for DP sampling rigs.
Decant To draw off the upper layer of
liquid after the heaviest material (a solid
or another liquid) has settled.
Decay Products: Degraded radioactive
materials, often referred to as “daughters”
or “progeny”; radon decay products of
most concern from a public health
standpoint are polortium- 2 l 4 and polofli-
um-218.
Dechlorination Removal of chlorine
from a substance.
12
-------
Decomposition: The breakdown of
matter by bacteria and fungi, changing the
chemical makeup and physical ap-
pearance of materials.
Decontamination: Removal of harmful
substances such as noxious chemicals,
harmful bacteria or other organisms, or
radioactive material from exposed individ-
uals, rooms and furnishings in buildings,
or the exterior environment.
Deep-Well Injection: Deposition of raw
or treated, filtered hazardous waste by
pumping it into deep wells, where it is
contained in the pores of permeable
subsurface rock.
Deflocculating Agent: A material added
to a suspension to prevent settling.
Defluoridatjon: The rmeoval of excess
flouride in drinking water to prevent the
staining of teeth.
Defoliant An herbicide that removes
leaves from trees and growing plants.
Degasification: A water treatment that
removes dissolved gases from the water.
Degree-Day: A rough measure used to
estimate the amount of heating required
in a given area; is defined as the difference
between the mean daily temperature and
65 degrees Fahrenheit. Degree-days are
also calculated to estimate cooling re-
quirements.
Delegated State: A state (or other
governmental entity such as a tribal
government) that has received authority
to administer an environmental regula-
tory program in lieu of a federal
counterpart. As used in connection with
NPDES, UIC, and PWS programs, the
term does not connote any transfer of
federal authority to a state.
Delist: Use of the petition process to have
a facility’s toxic designation rescinded.
Demand-side Waste Management: Prices
whereby consumers use purchasing deci-
sions to communicate to product manu-
facturers that they prefer environmentally
sound products packaged with the least
amount of waste, made from recycled or
recyclable materials, and containing no
hazardous substances.
DemineraliZatiOfl A treatment process
that removes dissolved minerals from
water.
Denitrification: The biological reduction
of nitrate to nitrogen gas by denitrifying
bacteria in soil.
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
(DNAPL): Non-aqueous phase liquids
such as chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents
or petroleum fractions with a specific
gravity greater than 1.0 that sink through
the water column until they reach a
confining layer. Because they are at the
bottom of aquifers instead of floating on
the water table, typical monitoring wells
do not indicate their presence.
Density A measure of how heavy a
specific volume of a solid, liquid, or gas is
in comparison to water.
Depletion Curve: In hydraulics, a graphi-
cal representation of water depletion from
storage-stream channels, surface soil, and
groundwater. A depletion curve can be
drawn for base flow, direct runoff, or total
flow.
Depressurization: A condition that oc-
curs when the air pressure inside a
structure is lower that the air pressure
outdoors. Depressurization can occur
when household appliances such as
fireplaces or furnaces, that consume or
exhaust house air, are not supplied with
enough makeup air. Radon may be drawn
into a house more rapidly under depres-
surized conditions.
Dermal Absorption/Penetration: Process
by which a chemical penetrates the skin
and enters the body as an internal dose.
Dermal Exposure: Contact between a
chemical and the skin.
Dermal Toxicity: The ability of a pesticide
or toxic chemical to poison people or
animals by contact with the skin. (See:
contact pesticide.)
DES: A synthetic estrogen, diethylstilbes-
trol is used as a growth stimulant in food
animals. Residues in meat are thought to
be carcinogenic.
Desalination: [ Desalinization] (1) Remov-
ing salts from ocean or brackish water by
using various technologies. (2) Removal
of salts from soil by artificial means,
usually leaching.
Desiccant: A chemical agent that absorbs
moisture; some desiccants are capable of
drying out plants or insects, causing
death.
Design Capacity: The average daily flow
that a treatment plant or other facility is
designed to accommodate.
Design Value: The monitored reading
used by EPA to determine an area’s air
quality status; e.g., for ozone, the fourth
highest reading measured over the most
recent three years is the design value.
Designated Pollutant: An air pollutant
which is neither a criteria nor hazardous
pollutant, as described in the Clean Air
Act, but for which new source perform-
ance standards exist. The Clean Air Act
does require states to control these
pollutants, which include acid mist, total
reduced sulfur (IRS), and fluorides.
Designated Uses: Those water uses
identified in state water quality standards
that must be achieved and maintained as
required under the Clean Water Act. Uses
can include cold water fisheries, public
water supply, and irrigation.
Designer Bugs: Popular term for mi-
crobes developed through biotechnology
that can degrade specific toxic chemicals
at their source in toxic waste dumps or in
ground water.
Destination Facility: The facility to which
regulated medical waste is shipped for
treatment and destruction, incineration,
and/or disposal.
Destratification: Vertical mixing within a
lake or reservoir to totally or partially
eliminate separate layers of temperature,
plant, or animal life.
Destroyed Medical Waste: Regulated
medical waste that has been ruined, torn
apart, or mutilated through thermal
treatment, melting, shredding, grinding,
tearing, or breaking, so that it is no longer
generally recognized as medical waste,
but has not yet been treated (excludes
compacted regulated medical waste).
Destruction and Removal Efficiency
(DRE): A percentage that represents the
number of molecules of a compound
removed or destroyed in an incinerator
relative to the number of molecules
entering the system (e.g., a ORE of 99.99
percent means that 9,999 molecules are
destroyed for every 10,000 that enter;
99.99 percent is known as “four nines.”
For some pollutants, the RCRA removal
requirement may be as stringent as “six
nines”).
Destruction Facility: A facility that
destroys regulated medical waste.
Desulfurization: Removal of sulfur from
fossil fuels to reduce pollution.
Detectable Leak Rate: The smallest leak
(from a storage tank), expressed in terms
of gallons- or liters-per-hour, that a test
can reliably discern with a certain
probability of detection or false alarm.
Detection Criterion: A predetermined
rule to ascertain whether a tank is leaking
or not. Most volumetric tests use a
threshold value as the detection criterion.
(See: volumetric tank tests.)
Detection Limit: The lowest concentra-
tion of a chemical that can reliably be
distinguished from a zero concentration.
Detention Time: 1. The theoretical
calculated time required for a small
amount of water to pass through a tank at
a given rate of flow. 2. The actual time that
a small amount of water is in a settling
basin, flocculating basin, or rapid-mix
chamber. 3. In storage reservoirs, the
length of time water will be held before
being used.
Detergent: Synthetic washing agent that
helps to remove dirt and oil. Some contain
13
-------
compounds which kill useful bacteria and
encourage algae growth when they are in
wastewater that reaches receiving waters.
Development Effects: Adverse effects
such as altered growth, structural abnor-
mality, functional deficiency, or death
observed in a developing organism.
Dewater: 1. Remove or separate a portion
of the water in a sludge or slurry to dry the
sludge so it can be handled and disposed
of. 2.Remove or drain the water from a
tank or trench.
Diatomaceous Earth (Diatomite):A chalk-
like material (fossilized diatoms) used to
filter out solid waste in wastewater
treatment plants; also used as an active
ingredient in some powdered pesticides.
Diazinon: An insecticide. In 1986, EPA
banned its use on open areas such as sod
farms and golf courses because it posed a
danger to migratory birds. The ban did
not apply to agricultural, home lawn or
commercial establishment uses.
Dibenzofurans: A group of organic
compounds, some of which are toxic.
Dicofol: A pesticide used on citrus fruits.
Diffused Aic A type of aeration that
forces oxygen into sewage by pumping air
through perforated pipes inside a holding
tank.
Diffusion: The movement of suspended
or dissolved particles (or molecules) from
a more concentrated to a less concentrated
area. The process tends to distribute the
particles or molecules more uniformly.
Digester In wastewater treatment, a
closed tank; in solid-waste conversion, a
unit in which bacterial action is induced
and accelerated in order to break down
organic matter and establish the proper
carbon to nitrogen ratio.
Digestion: The biochemical decomposi-
tion of organic matter, resulting in partial
gasification, liquefaction, and mineraliza-
tion of pollutants.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier
to prevent a spill from spreading.
Diluent: Any liquid or solid material used
to dilute or carry an active ingredient.
Dilution Ratio: The relationship between
the volume of water in a stream and the
volume of incoming water. It affects the
ability of the stream to assimilate waste.
Dimictic: Lakes and reservoirs that freeze
over and normally go through two
stratifications and two mixing cycles a
year.
Dinocap: A fungicide used primarily by
apple growers to control summer
diseases. EPA proposed restrictions on its
use in 1986 when laboratory tests found it
caused birth defects in rabbits.
Dinoseb: A herbicide that is also used as a
fungicide and insecticide. It was banned
by EPA in 1986 because it posed the risk of
birth defects and sterility.
Dioxin: Any of a family of compounds
known chemically as dibenzo-p-dioxins.
Concern about them arises from their
potential toxicity as contaminants in
commercial products. Tests on laboratory
animals indicate that it is one of the more
toxic anthropogenic (man-made) com-
pounds.
Direct Discharger: A municipal or indus-
trial facility which introduces pollution
through a defined conveyance or system
such as outlet pipes; a point source.
Direct Filtration: A method of treating
water which consists of the addition of
coagulent chemicals, flash mixing, coagu-
lation, minimal flocculation, and filtra-
tion. Sedimentation is not uses.
Direct Push: Technology used for per-
forming subsurface investigations by
driving, pushing, and/or vibrating small-
diameter hollow steel rods into the
ground/ Also known as direct drive,
drive point, or push technology.
Direct Runoff: Water that flows over the
ground surface or through the ground
directly into streams, rivers, and lakes.
Discharge: Flow of surface water in a
stream or canal or the outflow of ground
water from a flowing artesian well, ditch,
or spring, can also apply tp discharge of
liquid effluent from a facility or to
chemical emissions into the air through
designated venting mechanisms.
Disinfectant: A chemical or physical
process that kills pathogenic organisms in
water, air, or on surfaces. Chlorine is often
used to disinfect sewage treatment
effluent, water supplies, wells, and
swimming pools.
Disinfectant By-Product: A compound
formed by the reaction of a disinfenctarit
such as chlorine with organic material in
the water supply; a chemical byproduct of
the disinfection process.
Disinfectant Time: The time it takes
water to move from the point of
disinfectant application (or the previous
point of residual disinfectant measure-
ment) to a point before or at the point
where the residual disinfectant is mea-
sured. In pipelines, the time is calculated
by dividing the internal volume of the
pipe by he maximum hourly flow rate;
within mixing basins and storage resrvoirs
it is determined by tracer studies of an
equivalent demonstration.
Dispersant: A chemical agent used to
break up concentrations of organic
material such as spilled oil.
Displacement Savings: Saving realized
by displacing purchases of natural gas or
electricity from a local utility by using
landfill gas for power and heat.
Disposables: Consumer products, other
items, and packaging used once or a few
times and discarded.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction
of toxic, radioactive, or other wastes;
surplus or banned pesticides or other
chemicals; polluted soils; and drums
containing hazardous materials from
removal actions or accidental releases.
Disposal may be accomplished through
use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep-well
injection, ocean dumping, or incineration.
Disposal Facilities: Repositories for solid
waste, including landfills and combustors
intended for permanent containment or
destruction of waste materials. Excludes
transfer stations and composting facili-
ties.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The oxygen
freely available in water, vital to fish and
other aquatic life and for the prevention of
odors. DO levels are considered a most
important indicator of a water body’s
ability to support desirable aquatic life.
Secondary and advanced waste treatment
are generally designed to ensure adequate
DO in waste-receiving waters.
Dissolved Solids: Disintegrated organic
and inorganic material in water. Exces-
sive amounts make water unfit to drink or
use in industrial processes.
Distillation: The act of purifying liquids
through boiling, so that the steam or
gaseous vapors condense to a pure liquid.
Pollutants and contaminnts may remain
in a concentrated residue.
Disturbance:Any event or series of events
that disrupt ecosystem, community, or
population structure and alters the
physical environment.
Diversion: 1. Use of part of a stream flow
as water supply. 2. A channel with a
supporting ridge on the lower side
constructed across a slope to divert water
at a non-erosive velocity to sites where it
can be used and disposed of.
Diversion Rate: The percentage of waste
materials diverted from traditional dispos-
al such as landfilling or incineration to be
recycled, composted, or re-used.
DNA Hybridization: Use of a segment of
DNA, called a DNA probe, to identify its
complementary DNA; used to detect
specific genes.
Dobson Unit (DU): Units of ozone level
measurement. measurement of ozone
levels. If, for example, 100 DU of ozone
were brought to the earth’s surface they
would form a layer one millimeter thick.
Ozone levels vary geographicallY even in
the absence of ozone depletion.
-------
Domestic Application: Pesticide applica-
tion in and around houses, office
buildings, motels, and other living or
working areas.(See: residential use.)
Dosage/Dose: 1. The actual quantity of a
chemical administered to an organism or
to which it is exposed. 2. The amount of a
substance that reaches a specific tissue
(e.g., the liver). 3. The amount of a
substance available for interaction with
metaboic processes after crossing the
outer boundary of an organism. (See:
absorbed dose, administered dose, ap-
plied dose, potential dose.)
Dose Equivalent The product of the
absorbed dose from ionizing radiation
and such factors as account for biological
differences due to the type of radiation
and its distribution in the body in the
body.
Dose Rate: In exposure assessment, dose
per time unit (e.g., mg/day), sometimes
also called dosage.
Dose Response: Shifts in toxicological
responses of an individual (such as
alterations in severity) or populations
(such as alterations in incidence) that are
related to changes in the dose of any given
substance.
Dose-Response Assessment: 1. Estimat-
ing the potency of a chemical. 2. In
exposure assessment, the process of
determining the relationship between the
dose of a stressor and a specific biological
response. 3. Evaluating the quantitative
relationship between dose and toxicologi-
cal responses.
Dose Response Curve: Graphical repre-
sentation of the relationship between the
dose of a stressor and the biological
response thereto.
Dose-Response Relationship: The quan-
titative relationship between the amount
of exposure to a substance and the extent
of toxic injury or disease produced.
Dosuneten An instrument to measure
dosage; many so-called dosimeters actu-
ally measure exposure rather than dosage.
Dosimetry is the process or technology of
measuring and/or estimating dosage.
DOT Reportable Quantity: The quantity
of a substance specified in a U.S.
Department of Transportation regulation
that triggers labeling, packaging and
other requirements related to shipping
such substances.
Downgradient: The direction tht ground-
water flows; similar to “downstream” for
surface water.
Downstream Processors: Industries de-
pendent on crop production (e.g., canner-
ies and food processors).
DP Hole: Hole in the ground made with
DP equipment. (See: direct push.)
Draft: 1. The act of drawing or removing
water from a tank or reservoir. 2. The
water which is drawn or removed.
Draft Pemiit A preliminary permit
drafted and published by EPA; subject to
public review and comment before final
action on the application.
Drainage: Improving the productivity of
agricultural land by removing excess
water from the soil by such means as
ditches or subsurface drainage tiles.
Drainage Basin: The area of land that
drains water, sediment, and dissolved
materials to a common outlet at some
point along a stream channel.
Drainage Well: A well drilled to carry
excess water off agricultural fieleds.
Because they act as a funnel from the
surface to the groundwater below. Drain-
age wells can contribute to groundwater
pollution.
Drawdown: 1. The drop in the water table
or level of water in the ground when water
is being pumped from a well. 2. The
amount of water used from a tank or
reservoir. 3. The drop in the water level of
a tank or reservoir.
Diedging Removal of mud from the
bottom of water bodies. This can disturb
the ecosystem and causes silting that kills
aquatic life. Dredging of contaminated
muds can expose biota to heavy metals
and other toxics. Dredging activities may
be subject to regulation under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.
Drilling Fluid: Fluid used to lubricate the
bit and convey drill cuttings to the surface
with rotary drilling equipment. Usually
composed of bentonite slurry or muddy
water. Can become contaminated, leading
to cross contamination, and may require
special disposal. Not used with OP
methods
Drinking Water Equivalent Level: Pro-
tective level of exposure related to
potentially non-carcinogenc effects of
chemicals that are also known to cause
cancer.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund:
The Fund provides capitalization grants
to states to develop drinking water
revolving loan funds to help finance
system infrastructure improvements, as-
sure source-water protection, enhance
operation and management of drinking-
water systems, and otherwise promote
local water-system compliance and pro-
tection of public health.
Drive Casing: Heavy duty steel casing
driven along with the sampling tool in
cased DP systems. Keeps the hole open
between sampling runs and is not
removed until last sample has been
collected.
Drive Point Profiler: An exposed ground-
water DP system used to collect multiple
depth-discrete groundwater samples. Ports
in the tip of the probe connect to an
internal stainless steel or teflon tube that
extends to the surface. Samples are
collected via suction or airlift methods.
Deionized water is pumped down through
the ports to prevent plugging while
driving the tool to the next sampling
depth.
Drop-off: Recyclable materials collection
method in which individuals bring them
to a designated collection site.
Dual-Phase Extraction: Active with-
drawal of both liquid and gas phases from
a well usually involving the use of a
vacuum pump.
Dump: A site used to dispose of solid
waste without environmental controls.
Duplicate: A second aliquot or sample
that is treated the same as the original
sample in order to determine the precision
of the analytical method. (See: aliquot.)
Dustfall Jan An open container used to
collect large particles from the air for
measurement and analysis.
Dystrophic Lakes: Acidic, shallow bodies
of water that contain much humus and/or
other organic matter; contain many plants
but few fish.
E
Ecological Entity: In ecological risk
assessment, a general term referring to a
species, a group of species, an ecosystem
function or characteristic, or a specific
habitat or biome,
Ecological/Environmental Sustainability:
Maintenance of ecosystem components
and functions for future generations.
Ecological Exposure: Exposure of a non-
human organism to a stressor.
Ecological Impact The effect that a man-
caused or natural activity has on living
organisms and their non-living (abiotic)
environment.
Ecological Indicaton A characteristic of
an ecosystem that is related to, or derived
from, a measure of biotic or abiotic
variable, that can provide quantitative
information on ecological structure and
function. An indicator can contribute to a
measure of integrity and sustainability.
Ecological Integrity: A living system
exhibits integrity if, when subjected to
disturbance, it sustains and organizes
self-correcting ability to recover toward a
biomass end-state that is normal for that
system. End-states other than the pristine
or naturally whole may be accepted as
“normal and good.”
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment: The applica-
tion of a formal framework, analytical
process, or model to estimate the effects of
human actions(s) on a natural resource
and to interpret the significance of those
effects in light of the uncertainties
identified in each component of the
assessment process. Such analysis in-
cludes initial hazard identification, expo-
sure and dose-response assessments, and
risk characterization.
Ecology: The relationship of living things
to one another and their environment, or
the study of such relationships.
Economic Poisons: Chemicals used to
control pests and to defoliate cash crops
such as cotton.
Ecosphere: The “bio-bubble” that con-
tains life on earth, in surface waters, and
in the air. (See: biosphere.)
Ecosystem Structure:Attributes related to
the instantaneous physical state of an
ecosystem; examples include species
population density, species richness or
evenness, and standing crop biomass.
Ecosystem: The interacting system of a
biological community and its non-living
environmental surroundings.
E xitone A habitat created by the
juxtaposition of distinctly different habi-
tats; an edge habitat; or an ecological zone
or boundary where two or more ecosys-
tems meet.
Efflu it Wastewater—treated or un-
treated—that flows out of a treatment
plant, sewer, or industrial outfall.
Generally refers to wastes discharged into
surface waters.
Effluent Guidelines: Technical EPA docu-
ments which set effluent limitations for
given industries and pollutants.
Effluent Limitation: Restrictions estab-
lished by a state or EPA on quantities,
rates, and concentrations in wastewater
discharges.
Effluent Standard: (See effluent limita-
tion.)
Ejectoi- A device used to disperse a
chemical solution into water being treated.
Electrodialysis: A process that uses
electrical current applied to permeable
membranes to remove minerals from
water. Often used to desalinize salty or
brackish water.
Electromagnetic Geophysical Methods:
Ways to measure subsurface conductivity
via low-frequency electromagnetic induc-
tion.
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP): A device
that removes particles from a gas stream
(smoke) after combustion occurs. The ESP
imparts an electrical charge to the
particles, causing them to adhere to metal
plates Inside the precipitator. Rapping on
the plates causes the particles to fall into a
hopper for disposal.
Eligible Costs: The construction costs for
wastewater treatment works upon which
EPA grants are based.
EMAP Data: Environmental monitoring
data collected under the auspices of the
Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program. All EMAP data share the
common attribute of being of known
quality, having been collected in the
context of explicit data quality objectives
(DQOs) and a consistent quality assur-
ance program.
Emergency (Chemical): A situation creat-
ed by an accidental release or spill of
hazardous chemicals that poses a threat to
the safety of workers, residents, the
environment, or property.
Emergency Episode: (See: air pollution
episode.)
Emergency Exemption: Provision in
FIFRA under which EPA can grant
temporary exemption to a state or another
federal agency to allow the use of a
pesticide product not registered for that
particular use. Such actions involve
unanticipated and/or severe pest prob-
lems where there is not time or interest by
a manufacturer to register the product for
that use. (Registrants cannot apply for
such exemptions.)
Emergency Removal Action: 1. Steps take
to remove contaminated materials that
pose “imminent threats” to local residents
(e.g.,removal of leaking drums or the
excavation of explosive waste.) 2. The
state record of such removals.
Emergency Response Values: Concentra-
tions of chemicals, published by various
groups, defining acceptable levels for
short-term exposures in emergencies.
Emergency Suspension: Suspension of a
pesticide product registration due to an
imminent hazard. The action immediately
halts distribution, sale, and sometimes
actual use of the pesticide involved.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other
vents, and surface areas of commercial or
industrial facilities; from residential chim-
neys; and from motor vehicle, locomotive,
or aircraft exhausts.
Emission Cap:A limit designed to prevent
projected growth in emissions from
existing and future stationary souites
from eroding any mandated reductions.
Generally, such provisions require that
any emission growth from facilities under
the restrictions be offset by equivalent
reductions at other facilities under the
same cap. (See: emissions trading)
Emission Factoc The relationship be-
tween the amount of pollution produced
and the amount of raw material pro-
cessed. For example, an emission factor
for a blast furnace making iron would be
the number of pounds of particulates per
ton of raw materials.
Emission Inventory: A listing, by source,
of the amount of air pollutants discharged
into the atmosphere of a community; used
to establish emission standards.
Emission Standard: The maximum
amount of air polluting discharge legally
allowed from a single source, mobile or
stationary.
Emissions Tiading The creation of
surplus emission reductions at certain
stacks, vents or similar emissions sources
and the use of this surplus to meet or
redefine pollution requirements appli-
cable to other emissions sources. This
allows one source to increase emissions
when another source reduces them,
maintaining an overall constant emission
level. Facilities that reduce emissions
substantially may “bank” their “credits”
or sell them to other facilities or
industries.
Emulsifier. A chemical that aids in
suspending one liquid in another. Usually
an organic chemical in an aqueous
solution.
Encapsulation: The treatment of asbestos
containing material with a liquid that
covers the surface with a protective
coating or embeds fibers in an adhesive
matrix to prevent their release into the air.
Enclosure: Putting an airtight, imperme-
able, permanent barrier around asbestos-
containing materials to prevent the release
of asbestos fibers into the air.
End Usen Consumer of products for the
purpose of recycling. Excludes products
for re-use or combustion for energy
recovery.
End-of-the-pipe: Technologies such as
scrubbers on smokestacks and catalytic
convertors on automobile tailpipes that
reduce emissions of pollutants after they
have formed.
End-use Product: A pesticide formulation
for field or other end use. The label has
instructions for use or application to
control pests or regulate plant growth.
The term excludes products used to
formulate other pesticide products.
Endangered Species: Animals, birds, fish,
plants, or other living organisms threat-
ened with extinction by anthropogenic
(man-caused) or other natural changes in
their environment. Requirements for
declaring a species endangered are
contained in the Endangered Species Act.
Endangerment Assessment: A study to
determine the nature and extent of
contamination at a site on the National
16
-------
Priorities List and the risks posed to public
health or the environment. EPA or the
state conducts the study when a legal
action is to be taken to direct potentially
responsible parties to clean up a site or
pay for it. An endangerment assessment
supplements a remedial investigation.
Endnn A pesticide toxic to freshwater
and marine aquatic life that produces
adverse health effects in domestic water
supplies.
Energy Management System: A control
system capable of monitoring environ-
mental and system loads and adjusting
HVAC operations accordingly in order to
conserve energy while maintaining com-
fort.
Energy Management System: A control
system capable of monitoring environ-
mental and system loads and adjusting
HVAC operations accordingly in order to
conserve energy while maintaining corn-
fort.
Energy Recovery: Obtaining energy from
waste through a variety of processes (e.g.,
combustion).
Enforceable Requirements: Conditions
or limitations in permits issued under the
Clean Water Act Section 402 or 404 that, if
violated, could result in the issuance of a
compliance order or initiation of a civil or
criminal action under federal or applica-
ble state laws. If a permit has not been
issued, the term includes any requirement
which, in the Regional Administrator’s
judgement, would be included in the
permit when issued. Where no permit
applies, the term includes any require-
ment which the RA determines is
necessary for the best practical waste
treatment technology to meet applicable
criteria.
Enforcement EPA, state, or local legal
actions to obtain compliance with environ-
mental laws, rules, regulations, or agree-
ments and/or obtain penalties or criminal
sanctions for violations. Enforcement
procedures may vary depending on the
requirements of different environmental
laws and related implementing regula-
tions. Under CERCLA, for example, EPA
will seek to require potentially respon-
sible parties to clean up a Superfund site,
or pay for the cleanup, whereas under the
Clean Air Act the Agency may invoke
sanctions against cities failing to meet
ambient air quality standards that could
prevent certain types of construction or
federal funding. In other situations, if
investigations by EPA and state agencies
uncover willful violations, criminal trials
and penalties are sought.
Enforcement Decision Document (EDD):
A document that provides an explanation
to the public of EPA’s selection of the
cleanup alternative at enforcement sites
on the National Priorities List. Similar to a
Record of Decision.
Engineered Controls: Method of manag-
ing environmental and health risks by
placing a barrier between the contamina-
tion and the rest of the site, thus limiting
exposure pathways.
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance
( 18cM): An improved automobile inspec-
tion and maintenance program--aimed at
reducing automobile emissions---that con-
tains, at a minimum, more vehicle types
and model years, tighter inspection, and
better management practices. It may also
include annual computerized or central-
ized inspections, under-the-hood inspec-
tion—for signs of tampering with pollu-
tion control equipment—and increased
repair waiver cost.
Enrichment The addition of nutrients
(e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon com-
pounds) from sewage effluent or agricul-
tural runoff to surface water, greatly
increases the growth potential for algae
and other aquatic plants.
Entrain: To trap bubbles in water either
mechanically through turbulence or che-
mically through a reaction.
Environment The sum of all external
conditions affecting the life, development
and survival of an organism.
Environmental Assessment: An environ-
mental analysis prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act to
determine whether a federal action would
significantly affect the environment and
thus require a more detailed environmen-
tal impact statement.
Environmental Audit An independent
assessment of the current status of a
party’s compliance with applicable envi-
ronmental requirements or of a party’s
environmental compliance policies,
practices, and controls.
Environmental/Ecological Risk: The po-
tential for adverse effects on living
organisms associated with pollution of the
environment by effluents, emissions,
wastes, or accidental chemical releases;
energy use; or the depletion of natural
resources.
Environmental Equity/Justice: Equal pro-
tection from environmental hazards for
individuals, groups, or communities
regardless of race, ethnicity, or economic
status. This applies to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and
policies, and implies that no population of
people should be forced to shoulder a
disproportionate share of negative
environmental impacts of pollution or
environmental hazard due to a lack of
political or economic strength levels.
Environmental Exposure: Human expo-
sure to pollutants orginating from facility
emissions. Threshold levels are not
necessarily surpassed, but low-level chro-
nic pollutant exposure is one of the most
common forms of environmental ex-
posure (See: threshold level).
Environmental Fate: The destiny of a
chemical or biological pollutant after
release into the environment.
Environmental Fate Data: Data that
characterize a pesticide’s fate in the
ecosystem, considering factors that foster
its degradation (light, water, microbes),
pathways and resultant products.
Environmental Impact Statement A
document required of federal agencies by
the National Environmental Policy Act for
major projects or legislative proposals
significantly affecting the environment. A
tool for decision making, it describes the
positive and negative effects of the
undertaking and cites alternative actions.
Environmental Indicaton A measure-
ment, statistic or value that provides a
proximate gauge or evidence of the effects
of environmental management programs
or of the state or condition of the
environment.
Environmental Lien: A charge, security,
or encumbrance on a property’s title to
secure payment of cost or debt arising
from response actions, cleanup, or other
remediation of hazardous substances or
petroleum products.
Environmental Medium: A major envi-
ronmental category that surrounds or
contacts humans, animals, plants, and
other organisms (e.g., surface water,
ground water, soil or air) and through
which chemicals or pollutants move. (See:
ambient medium, biological medium.)
Environmental Monitoring for Public
Access and Community Tracking: Joint
EPA, NOAA, and USGS program to
provide timely and effective communica-
tion of environmental data and informa-
tion through improved and updated
technology solutions that support timely
environmental monitoring reporting,
interpeting, and use of the information for
the benefit of the public. (See: real time
monitoring.)
Environmental Response T u EPA
experts located in Edison, N.J., and
Cincinnati, OH, who can provide around-
the-clock technical assistance to EPA
regional offices and states during all types
of hazardous waste site emergencies and
spills of hazardous substances.
Environmental Site Assessment The
process of determining whether contami-
nation is present on a parcel of real
property.
17
-------
Environmental Sustainability: Long-term
maintenance of ecosystem components
and functions for future generations.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Mixture
of smoke from the burning end of a
cigarette, pipe, or cigar and smoke
exhaled by the smoker. (See; passive
smoking! secondhand smoke.)
Epidemiology: Study of the distribution
of disease, or other health-related states
and events in human populations, as
related to age, sex, occupation, ethnicity,
and economic status in order to identify
and alleviate health problems and pro-
mote better health.
Epilimnion: Upper waters of a thermally
stratified lake subject to wind action.
Episode (Pollution): An air pollution
incident in a given area caused by a
concentration of atmospheric pollutants
under meteorological conditions that may
result in a significant increase in illnesses
or deaths. May also describe water
pollution events or hazardous material
spills.
Equilibrium: In relation to radiation, the
state at which the radioactivity of
consecutive elements within a radioactive
series is neither increasing nor decreasing.
Equivalent Method: Any method of
sampling and analyzing for air pollution
which has been demonstrated to the EPA
Administrator’s satisfaction to be, under
specific conditions, an acceptable alterna-
tive to normally used reference methods.
Emsion The wearing away of land
surface by wind or water, intensified by
land-clearing practices related to farming,
residential or industrial development,
road building, or logging.
Established Treatment Technologies:
Technologies for which cost and perfor-
mance data are readily available. (See:
Innovative treatment technologies.)
Estimated Environmental Concentra-
tion: The estimated pesticide concentra-
tion in an ecosystem.
Estuary: Region of interaction between
rivers and near-shore ocean waters, where
tidal action and river flow mix fresh and
salt water. Such areas include bays,
mouths of rivers, salt marshes, and
lagoons. These brackish water ecosystems
shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife. (See: wetlands.)
Ethanol: An alternativce automotive fuel
derived from grain and corn; usually
blended with gasoline to form gasohol.
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB): A chemical
used as an agricultural fumigant and in
certain industrial processes. Extremely
toxic and found to be a carcinogen in
laboratory animals, EDB has been banned
for most agricultural uses in the United
States.
Eutrophic Lakes: Shallow, murky bodies
of water with concentrations of plant
nutrients causing excessive production of
algae. (See: dystrophic lakes.)
Eutrophication: The slow aging process
during which a lake, estuary, or bay
evolves into a bog or marsh and
eventually disappears. During the later
stages of eutrophication the water body is
choked by abundant plant life due to
higher levels of nutritive compounds such
as nitrogen and phosphorus. Human
activities can accelerate the process.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge is dumped and dried.
Evapotranspiration: The loss of water
from the soil both by evaporation and by
transpiration from the plants growing in
the soil.
Exceedance: Violation of the pollutant
levels permitted by environmental pro-
tection standards.
Exclusion: In the asbestos program, one of
several situations that permit a Local
Education Agency (LEA) to delete one or
more of the items required by the Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHER-
A); e.g., records of previous asbestos
sample collection and analysis may be
used by the accredited inspector in lieu of
AHERA bulk sampling.
Exclusionary Ordinance: Zoning that
excludes classes of persons or businesses
from a particular neighborhood or area.
Exempt Solvent: Specific organic com-
pounds not subject to requirements of
regulation because they are deemed by
EPA to be of negligible photochemical
reactivity.
Exempted Aquifec Underground bodies
of water defined in the Underground
Injection Control program as aquifers that
are potential sources of drinking water
though not being used as such, and thus
exempted from regulations barring under-
ground injection activities.
Exemption: A state (with primacy) may
exempt a public water system from a
requirement involving a Maximum Con-
taminant Level (MCL), treatment tech-
nique, or both, if the system cannot
comply due to compelling economic or
other factors, or because the system was in
operation before the requirement or MCL
was instituted; and the exemption will not
create a public health risk. (See: variance.)
Exotic Species: A species that is not
indigenous to a region.
Experimental Use Permit: Obtained by
manufacturers for testing new pesticides
or uses thereof whenever they conduct
experimental field studies to support
registration on 10 acres or more of land or
one acre or more of water.
Explosive Limits: The amounts of vapor
in the air that form explosive mixtures;
limits are expressed as lower and upper
limits and give the range of vapor
concentrations in air that will explode if
an ignition source is present.
Exports: In solid waste program, munici-
pal solid waste and recyclables trans-
ported outside the state or locality where
they originated.
Exposure: The amount of radiation or
pollutant present in a given environment
that represents a potential health threat to
living organisms.
Exposure Assessment: Identifying the
pathways by which toxicants may reach
individuals, estimating how much of a
chemical an individual is likely to be
exposed to, and estimating the number
likely to be exposed.
Exposure Concentration: The concentra-
tion of a chemical or other pollutant
representing a health threat in a given
environment.
Exposure Indicator A characteristic of
the environment measured to provide
evidence of the occurrence or magnitude
of a response indicator’s exposure to a
chemical or biological stress.
Exposure Level: The amount (concentra-
tion) of a chemical at the absorptive
surfaces of an organism.
Exposure Pathway: The path from sources
of pollutants via, soil, water, or food to
man and other species or settings.
Exposure Route: The way a chemical or
pollutant enters an organism after contact;
i.e., by ingestion, inhalation, or dermal
absorption.
Exposure-Response Relationship: The
relationship between exposure level and
the incidence of adverse effects.
Extraction Procedure (EP Toxic): Deter-
mining toxicity by a procedure which
simulates leaching; if a certain concentra-
tion of a toxic substance can be leached
from a waste, that waste is considered
hazardous, i.e., “EP Toxic.”
Extraction Well: A discharge well used to
remove groundwater or air.
Extremely Hazardous Substances: Any
of 406 chemicals identified by EPA as
toxic, and listed under SARA Title III. The
list is subject to periodic revision.
18
-------
F
Fabric Filter: A cloth device that catches
dust particles from industrial emissions.
Facilities Plans: Plans and studies related
to the construction of treatment works
necessary to comply with the Clean Water
Act or RCRA. A facilities plan investigates
needs and provides information on the
cost-effectiveness of alternatives, a recom-
mended plan, an environmental assess-
ment of the recommendations, and
descriptions of the treatment works, costs,
and a completion schedule.
Facility Emergency Coordinator: Repre-
sentative of a facility covered by environ-
mental law (e.g, a chemical plant) who
participates in the emergency reporting
process with the Local Emergency Plan-
ning Committee (LEPC).
Facultative Bacteria: Bacteria that can live
under aerobic or anaerobic conditions.
Feasibility Study: 1 Analysis of the
practicability of a proposal; e.g., a
description and analysis of potential
cleanup alternatives for a site such as one
on the National Priorities List. The
feasibility study usually recommends
selection of a cost-effective alternative. It
usually starts as soon as the remedial
investigation is underway; together, they
are commonly referred to as the “RI/FS”.
2. A small-scale investigation of a problem
to ascertain whether a proposed research
approach is likely to provide useful data.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria: Bacteria found
in the intestinal tracts of mammals. Their
presence in water or sludge is an indicator
of pollution and possible contamination
by pathogens.
Federal Implementation Plan: Under
current law, a federally implemented plan
to achieve attainment of air quality
standards, used when a state is unable to
develop an adequate plan.
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program:
All federal actions aimed at controlling
pollution from motor vehicles by such
efforts as establishing and enforcing
tailpipe and evaporative emission stan-
dards for new vehicles, testing methods
development, and guidance to states
operating inspection and maintenance
programs.
FeedlOt A confined area for the controlled
feeding of animals. Tends to concentrate
large amounts of animal waste that cannot
be absorbed by the soil and, hence, may be
carried to nearby streams or lakes by
rainfall runoff.
Fen: A type of wetland that accumulates
peat deposits. Fens are less acidic than
bogs, deriving most of their water from
groundwater rich in calcium and magne-
sium. (See: wetlands.)
Ferrous Metals: Magnetic metals derived
from iron or steel; products made from
ferrous metals include appliances, furni-
ture, containers, and packaging like steel
drums and barrels. Recycled products
include processing tin/steel cans, strap-
ping, and metals from appliances into
new products.
FIFRA Pesticide Ingredient: An ingre-
dierit of a pesticide that must be registered
with EPA under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Products
making pesticide claims must register
under FIFRA and may be subject to
labeling and use requirements.
Fill: Man-made deposits of natural soils or
rock products and waste materials.
Filling: Depositing dirt, mud or other
materials into aquatic areas to create more
dry land, usually for agricultural or
commercial development purposes, often
with ruinous ecological consequences.
Filter Strip: Strip or area of vegetation
used for removing sediment, organic
matter, and other pollutants from runoff
and wastewater.
Filtration: A treatment process, under the
control of qualified operators, for re-
moving solid (particulate) matter from
water by means of porous media such as
sand or a man-made filter; often used to
remove particles that contain pathogens.
Financial Assurance for Closure: Docu-
mentation or proof that an owner or
operator of a facility such as a landfill or
other waste repository is capable of
paying the projected costs of closing the
facility and monitoring it afterwards as
provided in RCRA regulations.
Finding of No Significant Impact: A
document prepared by a federal agency
showing why a proposed action would
not, have a significant impact on the
environment and thus would not require
preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement. An FNSI is based on the results
of an environmental assessment.
Finished Water: Water is “finished” when
it has passed through all the processes in a
water treatment plant and is ready to be
delivered to consumers.
First Draw: The water that comes out
when a tap is first opened, likely to have
the highest level of lead contamination
from plumbing materials.
Fix a Sample: A sample is “fixed” in the
field by adding chemicals that prevent
water quality indicators of interest in the
sample from changing before laboratory
measurements are made.
Fixed-Location Monitoring: Sampling of
an environmental or ambient medium for
pollutant concentration at one location
continuously or repeatedly.
Flammable: Any material that ignites
easily and will burn rapidly.
Flare: A control device that burns
hazardous materials to prevent their
release into the environment; may operate
continuously or intermittently, usually on
top of a stack.
Flash Point: The lowest temperature at
which evaporation of a substance pro-
duces sufficient vapor to form an ignitable
mixture with air.
Floc: A clump of solids formed in sewage
by biological or chemical action.
Flocculation: Process by which clumps of
solids in water or sewage aggregate
through biological or chemical action so
they can be separated from water or
sew age.
Floodplain: The flat or nearly flat land
along a river or stream or in a tidal area
that is covered by water during a flood.
Floor Sweep: Capture of heavier-than-air
gases that collect at floor level.
Flow Rate: The rate, expressed in gallons -
or liters-per-hour, at which a fluid escapes
from a hole or fissure in a tank. Such
measurements are also made of liquid
waste, effluent, and surface water move-
ment.
Flowable: Pesticide and other formula-
tions in which the active ingredients are
finely ground insoluble solids suspended
in a liquid. They are mixed with water for
application.
flowmeter A gauge indicating the
velocity of wastewater moving through a
treatment plant or of any liquid moving
through various industrial processes.
Flue Gas: The air coming out of a chimney
after combustion in the burner it is
venting. It can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles and many chemical pollutants.
Flue Gas Desulfurization: A technology
that employs a sorbent, usually lime or
limestone, to remove sulfur dioxide from
the gases produced by burning fossil
fuels. Flue gas desulfurization is current
state-of-the art technology for major S02
emitters, like power plants.
Fluid ized: A mass of solid particles that is
made to flow like a liquid by injection of
water or gas is said to have been fluidized.
In water treatment, a bed of filter media is
fluidized by backwashing water through
the filter.
Fluidized Bed Incinerator: An incinerator
that uses a bed of hot sand or other
granular material to transfer heat directly
to waste. Used mainly for destroying
municipal sludge.
Flume: A natural or man-made channel
that diverts water.
-------
Fluoridation: The addition of a chemical
to increase the concentration of fluoride
ions in drinking water to reduce the
incidence of tooth decay.
Fluorides: Gaseous, solid, or dissolved
compounds containing fluorine that re-
sult from industrial processes. Excessive
amounts in food can lead to fluorosis.
Fluorocarbons (FCs): Any of a number of
organic compounds analogous to hydro-
carbons in which one or more hydrogen
atoms are replaced by fluorine. Once used
in the United States as a propellant for
domestic aerosols, they are now found
mainly in coolants and some industrial
processes. FCs containing chlorine are
called chiorofluorocarbons (CFCs). They
are believed to be modifying the ozone
layer in the stratosphere, thereby allowing
more harmful solar radiation to reach the
Earth’s surface.
Flush: 1. To open a cold-water tap to clear
out all the water which may have been
sitting for a long time in the pipes. In new
homes, to flush a system means to send
large volumes of water gushing through
the unused pipes to remove loose particles
of solder and flux. 2. To force large
amounts of water through a system to
clean out piping or tubing, and storage or
process tanks.
Flux: 1. A flowing or flow. 2. A substance
used to help metals fuse together.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residual parti-
cles expelled by flue gas.
Fogging: Applying a pesticide by rapidly
heating the liquid chemical so that it forms
very fine droplets that resemble smoke or
fog. Used to destroy mosquitoes, black
flies, and similar pests.
Food Chain: A sequence of organisms,
each of which uses the next, lower
member of the sequence as a food source.
Food Processing Waste: Food residues
produced during agricultural and indus-
trial operations.
Food Waste Uneaten food and food
preparation wastes from residences and
commercial establishments such as gro-
cery stores, restaurants, and produce
stands, institutional cafeterias and kitch-
ens, and industrial sources like employee
lunchrooms.
Food Web: The feeding relationships by
which energy and nutrients are trans-
ferred from one species to another.
Formaldehyde: A colorless, pungent, and
irritating gas, CH20, used chiefly as a
disinfectant and preservative and in
synthesizing other compounds like resins.
Formulation: The substances comprising
all active and inert ingredients in a
pesticide.
Fossil Fuel: Fuel drived from ancient
organic remains; e.g., peat, coal, crude oil,
and natural gas.
Fracture: A break in a rock formation due
to structural stresses; e.g., faults, shears,
joints, and planes of fracture cleavage.
Free Product: A petroleum hydrocarbon
in the liquid free” or non aqueous phase.
(See: non-aqueous phase liquid.)
Freeboard: 1. Vertical distance from the
normal water surface to the top of a
confining wall. 2. Vertical distance from
the sand surface to the underside of a
trough in a sand filter.
Fresh Waten Water that generally con-
tains less than 1,000 milligrams-per-liter
of dissolved solids.
Friable Capable of being crumbled,
pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand
pressure.
Friable Asbestos: Any material con-
taining more than one-percent asbestos,
and that can be crumbled or reduced to
powder by hand pressure. (May include
previously non-friable material which
becomes broken or damaged by mechani-
cal force.)
Fuel Economy Standard: The Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standard (CAFE)
effective in 1978, It enhanced the national
fuel conservation effort imposing a miles-
per-gallon floor for motor vehicles.
Fuel Efficiency: The proportion of energy
released by fuel combustion that is
converted into useful energy.
Fuel Switching: 1. A precombustion
process whereby a low-sulfur coal is used
in place of a higher sulfur coal in a power
plant to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.
2. Illegally using leaded gasoline in a
motor vehicle designed to use only
unleaded.
Fugitive Emissions: Emissions not caught
by a capture system.
Fume: Tiny particles trapped in vapor in a
gas stream.
Fumigant: A pesticide vaporized to kill
pests. Used in buildings and green-
houses.
Functional Equivalent: Term used to
describe EPA’s decision-making process
and its relationship to the environmental
review conducted under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA A
review is considered functionally equiva-
lent when it addresses the substantive
components of a NEPA review.
Fungicide: Pesticides which are used to
control, deter, or destroy fungi. Fungistat:
A chemical that keeps fungi from
‘growing.
Fungus (Fungi): Molds, mildews, yeasts,
mushrooms, and puffballs, a group of
organisms lacking in chlorophyll (i.e., are
not photosynthetic) and which are usually
non-mobile, filamentous, and multicellu-
lar. Some grow in soil, others attach
themselves to decaying trees and other
plants whence they obtain nutrients.
Some are pathogens, others stabilize
sewage and digest composted waste.
Furrow Irrigation: Irrigation method in
which water travels through the field by
means of small channels between each
groups of rows.
Future Liability: Refers to potentially
responsible parties’ obligations to pay for
additional response activities beyond
those specified in the Record of Decision
or Consent Decree.
G
Game Fish: Species like trout, salmon, or
bass, caught for sport. Many of them show
more sensitivity to environmental change
than “rough” fish.
Garbage: Animal and vegetable waste
resulting from the handling, storage, sale,
preparation, cooking, and serving of
foods.
Gas ChromatographlMass Spectrometer:
Instrument that identifies the molecular
composition and concentrations of vari-
ous chemicals in water and soil samples.
Gasahol: Mixture of gasoline and ethanol
derived from fermented agricultural
products containing at least nine percent
ethanol. Gasohol emissions contain less
carbon monoxide than those from gaso-
line.
Gasification: Conversion of solid mate-
rial such as coal into a gas for use as a fuel.
Gasoline Volatility: The property of
gasoline whereby it evaporates into a
vapor. Gasoline vapor is a mixture of
volatile organic compounds.
General Permit: A permit applicable to a
class or category of dischargers.
General Reporting Facility: A facility
having one or more hazardous chemicals
above the 10,000 pound threshold for
planning quantities. Such facilities must
file MSDS and emergency inventory
information with the SERC, LEPC, and
local fire departments.
Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS):
Designation by the FDA that a chemical or
substance (including certain pesticides)
added to food is considered safe by
experts, and so is exempted from the usual
FFDCA food additive tolerance require-
ments.
-------
Generaton 1. A facility or mobile source
that emits pollutants into the ‘air or
releases hazardous waste into water or
soil. 2. Any person, by site, whose act or
process produces regulated medical waste
or whose act first causes such waste to
become subject to regulation. Where more
than one person (e.g., doctors with
separate medical practices) are located in
the same building, each business entity is
a separate generator.
Genetic Engineering: A process of insert-
ing new genetic information into existing
cells in order to modify a specific
organism for the purpose of changing one
of its characteristics.
Geographic Information System (GIS):
A computer system designed for storing,
manipulating, analyzing, and displaying
data in a geographic context.
Geological Log: A detailed description of
all underground features (depth, thick-
ness, type of formation) discovered
during the drilling of a well.
Geothermal/Ground Source Heat Pump:
These heat pumps are underground coils
to transfer heat from the ground to the
inside of a building. (See: heat pump;
water source heat pump,)
Germicide Any compound that kills
disease-causing microorganisms.
Giardia Lantblja: Protozoan in the feces of
humans and animals that can cause severe
gastrointestinal ailments. It is a common
contaminant of surface waters.
Glass Containers: For recycling purposes,
containers like bottles and jars for drinks,
food, cosmetics and other products. When
being recycled, container glass is gener-
ally separated into color categories for
conversion into new containers, construc-
tion materials or fiberglass insulation.
Global Warming Potential: The ratio of
the warming caused by a substance to the
warming caused by a similar mass of
carbon dioxide. CFC-12, for example, has
a GWP of 8,500, while water has a GWP of
zero. (See: Class I Substance and Class II
Substance.)
Glovebag: A polyethylene or polyvinyl
chloride bag-like enclosure affixed around
an asbestos-containing source (most often
thermal system insulation) permitting the
material to be removed while minimizing
release of airborne fibers to the surround-
ing atmosphere.
Gooseneck: A portion of a water service
connection between the distribution sys-
tem water main and a meter. Sometimes
called a pigtail.
Grab Sample:Asingle sample collected at
a particular time and place that represents
the composition of the water, air, or soil
only at that time and place.
Grain Loading The rate at which
particles are emitted from a pollution
source. Measurement is made by the
number of grains per cubic foot of gas
emitted.
Granular Activated Carbon Treatment: A
filtering system often used in small water
systems and individual homes to remove
organics. Also used by municipal water
treatment plantsd. GAC can be highly
effective in lowerin elevated levels of
radon in water.
Grasscycling: Soune reduction activities
in which grass clippings are left on the
lawn after mowing.
Grassed Wateiway Natural or con-
structed watercourse or outlet that is
shaped or graded and established in
suitable vegetation for the disposal of
runoff water without erosion.
Gray Water. Domestic wastewater com-
posed of wash water from kitchen,
bathroom, and laundry sinks, tubs, and
washers.
Greenhouse Effect The warming of the
Earth’s atmosphere attributed to a buildup
of carbon dioxide or other gases; some
scientists think that this build-up allows
the sun’s rays to heat the Earth, while
making the infra-red radiation atmo-
sphere opaque to infra-red radiation,
thereby preventing a counterbalancing
loss of heat.
Greenhouse Gas: A gas, such as carbon
dioxide or methane, which contributes to
potential climate change.
Grinder Pump: A mechanical device that
shreds solids and raises sewage to a
higher elevation through pressure sewers.
Gross Alpha/Beta Particle Activity: The
total radioactivity due to alpha or beta
particle emissions as inferred from
measurements on a dry sample.
Gross Power-Generation Potential: The
installed power generation capacity that
landfill gas can support.
Ground Cover: Plants grown to keep soil
from eroding.
Ground-Penetrating Radan A geophysi-
cal method that uses high frequency
electromagnetic waves to obtain subsur-
face information.
Ground Waten The supply of fresh water
found beneath the Earth’s surface, usually
in aquifers, which supply wells and
springs. Because ground water is a major
source of drinking water, there is growing
concern over contamination from leach-
ing agricultural or industrial pollutants or
leaking underground storage tanks.
Ground Water Under the Direct In-
fluence (UDI) of Surface Water Any
water beneath the surface of the ground
with: 1. significant occurence of insects or
other microorganims, algae, or large-
diameter pathogens; 2. significant and
relatively rapid shifts in water
characteristcs such as turbidity, tempera-
ture, conductivity, or pH which closely
correlate to climatolôgical or surface
water conditions. Direct influence is
determined for individual sources in
accordance with criteria established by a
state.
Ground-Water Discharge: Ground water
entering near coastal waters which has
been contaminated by landfill leachate,
deep well injection of hazardous wastes,
septic tanks, etc.
Ground-Water Disinfection Rule: A 1996
amendment of the Safe Drinking Water
Act requiring EPA to promulgate national
primary drinking water regulations re-
quiring disinfection as for all public water
systems, including surface waters and
ground water systems.
Gully Erosion: Severe erosion in which
trenches are cut to a depth greater than 30
centimeters (a foot). Generally, ditches
deep enough to cross with farm equip-
ment are considered gullies.
H
Habitat Indicaton A physical attribute of
the environment measured to characterize
conditions necessary to support an
organism, population, or community in
the absence of pollutants; e.g., salinity of
estuarine waters or substrate type in
streams or lakes.
Habitat The place where a population
(e.g., human, animal, plant, microorgan-
ism) lives and its surroundings, both
living and non-living.
Half-Life: 1. The time required for a
pollutant to lose one-half of its original
concentraton. For example, the biochemi-
cal half-life of DDT in the environment is
15 years. 2. The time required for half of
the atoms of a radioactive element to
undergo self-transmutation or decay
(half-life of radium is 1620 years). 3. The
time required for the elimination of half a
total dose from the body.
Halogen: A type of incandescent lamp
with higher energy-efficiency that stan-
dard ones.
Halore Bromine-containing compounds
with long atmospheric lifetimes whose
breakdown in the stratosphere causes
depletion of ozone. Halons are used in
firefighting.
Hammer Mill: A high-speed machine that
uses hammers and cutters to crush, grind,
chip, or shred solid waste.
Hard Water Alkaline water containing
dissolved salts that interfere with some
-------
industrial processes and prevent soap
from sudsing.
Hauler: Garbage collection company that
offers complete refuse removal service;
many will also collect recyclables.
Hazazd 1. Potential for radiation, a
chemical or other pollutant to cause
human illness or injury. 2. In the pesticide
program, the inherent toxicity of a
compound. Hazard identification of a
given substances is an informed judgment
based on verifiable toxicity data from
animal models or human studies.
Hazard Assessment: Evaluating the ef-
fects of a stressor or determining a margin
of safety for an organism by comparing
the concentration which causes toxic
effects with an estimate of exposure to the
organism.
Hazard Communication Standard: An
OSHA regulation that requires chemical
manufacturers, suppliers, and importers
to assess the hazards of the chemicals that
they make, supply, or import, and to
inform employers, customers, and work-
ers of these hazards through MSDS
information.
Hazard Evaluation: A component of risk
evaluation that involves gathering and
evaluating data on the types of health
injuries or diseases that may be produced
by a chemical and on the conditions of
exposure under which such health effects
are produced.
Hazard Identification: Determining if a
chemical or a microbe can cause adverse
health effects in humans and what those
effects might be.
Hazard Quotient: The ratio of estimated
site-specific exposure to a single chemical
from a site over a specified period to the
estimated daily exposure level, at which
no adverse health effects are likely to
occur.
Hazard Ratio: A term used to compare an
animal’s daily dietary intake of a pesticide
to its LD5O value. A ratio greater than 1.0
indicates that the animal is likely to
consume an a dose amount which would
kill 50 percent of animals of the same
species. (See: LD5O/Lethal Dose.)
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Air pollutants
which are not covered by ambient air
quality standards but which, as defined in
the Clean Air Act, may present a threat of
adverse human health effects or adverse
envirorunental effects. Such pollutants
include asbestos, beryllium, mercury,
benzerte, coke oven emissions, radionu-
clides, and vinyl chloride.
Hazardous Chemical: An EPA designa-
tion for any hazardous material requiring
an MSDS under OSHA’s Hazard
Communication Standard. Such sub-
stances are capable of producing fires and
explosions or adverse health effects like
cancer and dermatitis. Hazardous chem-
icals are distinct from hazardous
waste.(See: Hazardous Waste.)
Hazardous Ranking System: The princi-
pal screening tool used by EPA to evaluate
risks to public health and the environment
associated with abandoned or uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential
of hazardous substances spreading from
the site through the air, surface water, or
ground water, and on other factors such
as density and proximity of human
population. This score is the primary
factor in deciding if the site should be on
the National Priorities List and, if so, what
ranking it should have compared to other
sites on the list.
Hazardous Substance: 1 Any material
that poses a threat to human health and /
or the environment. Typical hazardous
substances are toxic, corrosive, ignitable,
explosive, or chemically reactive. 2. Any
substance designated by EPA to be
reported if a designated quantity of the
substance is spilled in the waters of the
United States or is otherwise released into
the environment.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial or potential
hazard to human health or the environ-
ment when improperly managed. Pos-
sesses at least one of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity), or appears on special EPA lists.
Hazardous Waste Landfill: Art excavated
or engineered site where hazardous waste
is deposited and covered.
Hazardous Waste Minimization: Reduc-
ing the amount of toxicity or waste
produced by a facility via source reduction
or environmentally sound recycling.
Hazards Analysis: Procedures used to (1)
identify potential sources of release of
hazardous materials from fixed facilities
or transportation accidents; (2) determine
the vulnerability of a geographical area to
a release of hazardous materials; and (3)
compare hazards to determine which
present greater or lesser risks to a
community.
Hazards Identification: Providing infor-
mation on which facilities have extremely
hazardous substances, what those chemi-
cals are, how much there is at each facility,
how the chemicals are stored, and
whether they are used at high tempera-
tures.
Headapace: The vapor mixture trapped
above a solid or liquid in a sealed vessel.
Health Advisory Level: A non-regulatory
health-based reference level of chemical
traces (usually in ppm) in drinking water
at which there are no adverse health risks
when ingested over various periods of
time. Such levels are established for one
day, 10 days, long-term and life-time
exposure periods. They contain a wide
margin of safety.
Health Assessment An evaluation of
available data on existing or potential
risks to human health posed by a
Superfund site. The Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
of the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) is required to perform
such an assessment at every site on the
National Priorities List.
Heat Island Effect: A “dome” of elevated
temperatures over an urban area caused
by structural and pavement heat fluxes,
and pollutant emissions.
Heat Pump: An electric device with both
heating and cooling capabilities. It ex-
tracts heat from one medium at a lower
(the heat source) temperature and trans-
fers it to another at a higher temperature
(the heat sink), thereby cooling the first
and warming the second. (See: geother-
mal, water source heat pump.)
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with
high atomic weights; (e.g., mercury,
chromium, cadmium, arsenic, and lead);
can damage living things at low con-
centrations and tend to accumulate in the
food chain.
Heptachion An insecticide that was
banned on some food products in 1975
and in all of them 1978. It was allowed for
use in seed treatment until 1983. More
recently it was found in milk and other
dairy products in Arkansas and Missouri
where dairy cattle were illegally fed
treated seed.
Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed
to control or destroy plants, weeds, or
grasses.
Herbivore: An animal that feeds on
plants.
Heterotrophic Organisms: Species that
are dependent on organic matter for food.
High End Exposure (dose) Estimate: An
estimate of exposure, or dose level
received anyone in a defined population
that is greater than the 90th percentile of
all individuals in that population, but less
than the exposure at the highest percentile
in that population. A high end risk
descriptor is an estimate of the risk level
for such individuals. Note that risk is
based on a combination of exposure and
susceptibility to the stressor.
High Intensity Discharge: A generic term
for mercury vapor, thetal halide, and high
pressure sodium lamps and fixtures.
High-Density Polyethylene: A material
used to make plastic bottles and other
products that produces toxic fumes when
burned.
72
-------
High-Level Nuclear Waste Facility: Plant
designed to handle disposal of used
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste,
and plutonium waste.
High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLRW):
Waste generated in core fuel of a nuclear
reactor, found at nuclear reactors or by
nuclear fuel reprocessing; is a serious
threat to anyone who comes near the
waste without shielding. (See: low-level
radioactive waste.)
High-Line Jumpers: Pipes or hoses
connected to fire hydrants and laid on top
of the ground to provide emergency water
service for an isolated portion of a
distribution system.
High-Risk Community: A community
located within the vicinity of numernus
sites of facilities or other potential sources
of environrnmental exposure/health haz-
ards which may result in high levels of
exposure to contaminants or pollutants.
High-to-Low-Dose Extrapolation: The
process of prediction of low exposure risk
to humans and animals from the mea-
sured high-exposure-high-risk data in-
volving laboratory animals.
Highest Dose Tested: The highest dose of
a chemical or substance tested in a study.
Holding Pond: A pond or reservoir,
usually made of earth, built to store
polluted runoff.
Holding Time: The thaximum amount of
time a sample may be stored before
analysis.
Hollow Stem Auger Drilling: Conven-
tional drilling method that uses augurs to
penetrate the soil. As the augers are
rotated, soil cuttings are conveyed to the
groundsurf ace via augur spirals. DP tools
can be used inside the hollow augers.
Homeowner Water System: Any water
system which supplies piped water to a
single residence.
Homogeneous Area: In accordance with
Asbestos Hazard and Emergency Re-
sponse Act (AHERA) definitions, an area
of surfacing materials, thermal surface
insulation, or miscellaneous material that
is uniform in color and texture.
Hood Capture Efficiency: Ratio of the
emissions captured by a hood and
directed into a control or disposal device,
expressed as a percent of all emissions.
Host: 1. In• genetics, the organism,
typically a bacterium, into which a gene
from another organism is transplanted. 2.
In medicine, an animal infected or
parasitized by another organism.
Household Hazardous Waste: Hazardous
products used and disposed of by
residential as opposed to industrial
consumers. Includes - paints, stains, var-
nishes, solvents, pesticides, and other
materials or products containing volatile
chemicals that can catch fire, react or
explode, or that are corrosive or toxic.
Household Waste (Domestic Waste):
Solid waste, composed of garbage and
rubbish, which normally originates in a
private home-or apartment house. Do-
mestic waste may contain a significant
amount of toxic or hazardous waste.
Human Equivalent Dose: A dose which,
when administered to humans, pthduces
an effect equal to that produced by a dose
in animals.
Human Exposure Evaluation: Describing
the nature and size of the population exposed
to a substance and the mangnitude and
duration of their exposure.
Human Health Risk: The likelihood that a
given exposure or series of exposures may
have damaged or will damage the health
of individuals.
Hydraulic Conductivity: The rate at
which water can move through a
permeable medium. (i.e., the coefficient of
permeability.)
Hydraulic Gradient In general, the
direction of groundwater flow due to
changes in the depth of the water table.
Hydrocarbons (HC): Chemical com-
pounds that consist entirely of carbon and
hydrogen.
Hydrogen Sulfide (H 2 Gas emitted
during organic decomposition. Also a by-
product of oil refining and burning.
Smells like rotten eggs and, in heavy
concentration, can kill or cause illness.
Hydrogeological Cycle: The natural
process recycling water from the atmo-
sphere down to (and through) the earth
and back to the atmosphere again.
Hydrogeology: The geology of ground
water, with particular emphasis on the
chemistry and movement of water.
Hydrologic Cyde: Movement or ex-
change of water between the atmosphere
and earth.
Hydrology: The science dealing with the
properties, distribution, and circulation of
water.
Hydrolysis: The decomposition of or-
ganic compounds by interaction with
water.
Hydromc A ventilation system using
heated or cooled water pumped through a
building.
Hydrophilic: Having a strong affinity for
water.
Hydrophobic: Having a strong aversion
for water.
Hydropneumatic: A water system, usu-
ally small, in which a water pump is
automatically controlled by the pressure
in a compressed air tank.
Hypersensitivity Diseases:Diseases char-
acterized by allergic responses to pollut-
ants; diseases most clearly associated with
indoor air quality are asthma, rhinitis, and
pneumonic hypersensitivity.
Hypolimnion: Bottom waters of a thermal-
ly stratified lake. The hypolimnion of a
eutrophic lake is usually low or lacking in
oxygen.
Hypoxia/Hypoxic Waters: Waters with
dissolved oxygen concentrations of less
than 2 ppm, the level generally accepted
as the minimum required for most marine
life to survive and reproduce.
I
Identification Code or EPA I.D. Number:
The unique code assigned to each
generator, transporter, and treatment,
storage, or disposal facility by regulating
agencies to facilitate identification and
tracking of chemicals or hazardous waste.
Ignitable: Capable of burning or causing
a fire.
1M240: A high-tech, transient dynamom-
eter automobile emissions test that takes
up to 240 seconds.
Imhoff Co lE A clear, cone-shaped
container used to measure the volume of
settleable solids in a specific volume of
water.
Immediately Dangerous to Life and
Health (IDLH): The maximum level to
which a healthy individual can be
exposed to a chemical for 30 minutes and
escape without suffering irreversible
health effects or impairing symptoms.
Used as a “level of concern.” (See: level of
concern.)
Imminent Hazard: One that would likely
result in unreasonable adverse effects on
humans or the environment or risk
unreasonable hazard to an endangered
species during the time required for a
pesticide registration cancellation pro-
ceeding.
Imminent Threat: A high probability that
exposure is occurring.
Immiscibiity The inability of two or
more substances or liquids to readily
dissolve into one another, such as soil and
water.
Impermeable: Not easily penetrated. The
property of a material or soil that does not
allow, or allows only with great difficulty,
the movement or passage of water.
Impods Municipal solid waste and
recyclables that have been transported to a
state or locality for processing or final
disposition (but that did not originate in
that state or locality).
23
-------
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or
other barrier.
In Situ: In its original place; unmoved
unexcavated; remaining at the site or in
the subsurface.
In-Line Filtration: Pre-treatment method
in which chemicals are mixed by the
flowing water; commonly used in prvs-
sure filtration installations. Eliminates
need for flocculation and sedimentation.
In-Situ Flushing: Introduction of large
volumes of water, at times supplemented
with cleaning compounds, into soil,
waste, or ground water to flush hazardous
contaminants from a site.
In-Situ Oxidation: Technology that oxi-
dizes contaminants dissolved in ground
water, converting them into insoluble
compounds.
In-Situ Stripping: Treatment system that
removes or “strips” volatile organic
compounds from contaminated ground or
surface water by forcing an airstream
through the water and causing the
compounds to evaporate.
In-Situ Vitrification: Technology that
treats contaminated soil in place at
extremely high temperatures, at or more
than 3000 degrees Fahrenheit.
In Vitro: Testing or action outside an
organism (e.g., inside a test tube or
culture dish.)
In Vivo: Testing or action inside an
organism
Incident Command Post: A facility
located at a safe distance from an
emergency site, where the incident
commander, key staff, and technical
representatives can make decisions and
deploy emergency manpower and equip-
ment.
Incident Command System (ICS): The
organizational arrangement wherein one
person, normally the Fire Chief of the
impacted district, is in charge of an
integrated, comprehensive emergency
response organization and the emergency
incident site, backed by an Emergency
Operations Center staff with resources,
information, and advice.
Incineration: A treatment technology
involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures; e.g.,
burning sludge to remove the water and
reduce the remaining residues to a safe,
non-burnable ash that can be disposed of
safely on land, in some waters, or in
undergi ound locations.
Incineration at Sea: Disposal of waste by
burning at sea on specially-designed
incinerator ships.
Incinerator: A furnace for burning waste
under controlled conditions.
Incompatible Waste: A waste unsuitable
for mixing with another waste or material
because it may react to form a hazard.
Indemnification: In the pesticide pro-
gram, legal requirement that EPA pay
certain end-users, dealers, and distribu-
tors for the cost of stock on hand at the
time a pesticide registration is suspended.
Indicator: In biology, any biological entity
or processies, or community whose
characteristics show the presence of
specific environmental conditions. 2. In
chemistry, a substance that shows a
visible change, usually of color, at a
desired point in a chemical reaction. 3.A
device that indicates the result of a
measurement; e.g., a pressure guage or a
moveable scale.
Indirect Discharge: Introduction of pollut-
ants from a non-domestic source into a
publicly owned waste-treatment system.
Indirect dischargers can be commercial or
industrial facilities whose wastes enter
local sewers.
Indirect Source: Any facility or building,
property, road or parking area tthat
attracts motor vehicle traffic and, indi-
rectly, causes pollution.
Indcor Air. The breathable air inside a
habitable structure or conveyance.
Indoor Air Pollution: Chemical, physical,
or biological contaminants in indoor air.
Indoor Climate: Temperature, humidity,
lighting, air flow and noise levels in a
habitable structure or conveyance. Indoor
climate can affect indoor air pollution.
Industrial Pollution Prevention: Combi-
nation of industrial source reduction and
toxic chemical use substitution.
Industrial Process Waste: Residues pro-
duced during manufacturing operations.
Industrial Sludge: Semi-liquid residue or
slurry remaining from treatment of
industrial water and wastewater.
Industrial Source Reduction: Practices
that reduce the amount of any hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant
entering any waste stream or otherwise
released into the envinxin t Also
reduces the threat to public health and the
environment associated with such re-
leases. Term includes equipment or
technology modifications, substitution of
raw materials, and improvements in
housekeeping, maintenance, training or
inventory control.
Industrial Waste Unwanted materials
from an industrial operation; may be
liquid, sludge, solid, or hazardous waste.
Inert Ingredient: Pesticide components
such as solvents, carriers, dispersants, and
surfactants that are not active against
target pests. Not all inert ingredients are
innocuous.
Inertial Separator: A device that uses
centrifugal force to separate waste parti-
cles.
Infectious Agent: Any organism, such as
a pathogenic virus, parasite, or or
bacterium, that is capable of invading
body tissues, multiplying, and causing
disease.
Infectious Waste: Hazardous waste ca-
pable of causing infections in humans,
including: contaminated animal waste;
human blood and blood products; isola-
tion waste, pathological waste; and
discarded sharps (needles, scalpels or
broken medical instruments).
Infiltration: 1. The penetration of water
through the ground surface into sub-
surface soil or the penetration of water
from the soil into sewer or other pipes
through defective joints, connections, or
manhole walls. 2. The technique of
applying large volumes of waste water to
land to penetrate the surface and percolate
through the underlying soil. (See: percola-
tion.)
Infiltration Gallery:Asub-surfaceground
water collection system, typically shallow
in depth, constructed with open-jointed or
perforated pipes that discharge collected
water into a watertight chamber from
which the water is pumped to treatment
facilities and into the distribution system.
Usually located close to streams or ponds.
Infiltration Rate: The quantity of water
that can enter the soil in a specified time
interval.
Inflow: Entry of extraneous rain water
into a sewer system from sources other
than infiltration, such as basement drains,
manholes, storm drains, and street
washing.
Influent Water, wastewater, or other
liquid flowing into a reservoir, basin, or
treatment plant.
Information Collection Request (ICR): A
description of information to be gathered
in connection with rules, proposed rules,
surveys, and guidance documents that
contain information-gathering require-
ments. The ICR describes what informa-
tion is needed, why it is needed, how it
will be collected, and how much collecting
it will cost. The ICR is submitted by the
EPA to the Office of Management and
Budget (0MB) for approval.
Information File: In the Superfund
program, a file that contains accurate, up-
to-date documents on a Superfund site.
The file is usually located in a public
building (school, library, or city hall)
convenient for local residents.
Inhalable Particles: All dust capable of
entering the human respiratory tract.
Initial Compliance Period (Water): The
first full three-year compliance period
24
-------
which begins at least 18 months after
promulgation.
Injection Well: A well into which fluids
are injected for purposes such as waste
disposal, improving the recovery of crude
oil, or solution mining.
Injection Zone: A geological formation
receiving fluids through a well.
Innovative Technologies: New or inven-
tive methods to treat effectively hazard-
ous waste and reduce risks to human
health and the environment.
Inoculum: 1. Bacteria or fungi injected
into compost to start biological action. 2.A
medium containing organisms, usually
bacteria or a virus, that is introduced into
cultures or living organisms.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical sub-
stances of mineral origin, not of basically
carbon structure.
Insecticide: A pesticide compound specifi-
cally used to kill or prevent the growth of
insects.
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M): 1.
Activities to ensure that vehicles’ emission
controls work properly. 2. Also applies to
wastewater treatment plants and other
anti-pollution facilities and processes.
Institutional Waste: Waste generated at
institutions such as schools, libraries,
hospitals, prisons, etc.
Instream Use: Water use taking place
within a stream channel; e.g., hydro-
electric power generation, navigation,
water quality improvement, fish propaga-
tion, recreation.
Integrated Exposure Assessment: Cumu-
lative summation (over time) of the
magnitude of exposure to a toxic chemical
in all media.
Integrated Pest Management (1PM): A
mixture of chemical and other, non-
pesticide, methods to control pests.
Integrated Waste Management: Using a
variety of practices to handle municipal
solid waste; can include source reduction,
recycling, incineration, and landfilling.
Interceptor Sewers: Large sewer lines
that, in a combined system, control the
flow of sewage to the treatment plant. In
a storm, they allow some of the sewage to
flow directly into a receiving stream, thus
keeping it from overflowing onto the
streets. Also used in separate systems to
collect the flows from main and trunk
sewers and carry them to treatment
points.
Interface: The common boundary be-
tween two substances such as a water and
a solid, water and a gas, or two liquids
such as water and oil.
Interfacial Tension: The strength of the
film separating two immiscible fluids
(e.g., oil and water) measured in dynes
per, or rnillidynes per centimeter.
Interim (Permit) Status: Period during
which treatment, storage and disposal
facilities coming under RCRA in 1980 are
temporarily permitted to operate while
awaiting a permanent permit. Permits
issued under these circumstances are
usually called “Part A” or “Part B”
permits.
Internal Dose: In exposure assessment,
the amount of a substance penetrating the
absorption barriers (e.g., skin,, lung
tissue, gastrointestinal tract) of an organ-
ism through either physical or biological
processes. (See: absorbed dose)
Interstate Carrier Water Supply: A source
of water for drinking and sanitary use on
planes, buses, trains, and ships operating
in more than one state. These sources are
federally regulated.
Interstate Commerce Clause: A clause of
the U.S. Constitution which reserves to the
federal government the right to regulate
the conduct of business across state lines.
Under this clause, for example, the U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled that states may
not inequitably restrict the disposal of
out-of-state wastes in their jurisdictions.
Interstate Waters: Waters that flow across
or form part of state or international
boundaries; e.g., the Great Lakes, the
Mississippi River, or coastal waters.
Interstitial Monitoring: The continuous
surveillance of the space between the
walls of an underground storage tank.
Intrastate Product Pesticide products
once registered by states for sale and use
only in the state. All intrastate products
have been converted to full federal
registration or canceled.
Inventoty (TSCA): Inventory of chemi-
cals produced pursuant to Section 8 (b) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Inveision: A layer of warm air that
prevents the rise of cooling air and traps
pollutants beneath it; can cause an air
pollution episode.
Ion: An electrically charged atom or group
of atoms.
Ion Exchange Tieahuent A common
water-softening method often found on a
large scale at water purification plants
that remove some organics and radium by
adding calcium oxide or calcium hydrox-
ide to increase the pH to a level where the
metals will precipitate out.
Ionization Chamber. A device that
measures the intensity of ionizing radia-
tion.
Ionizing Radiation: Radiation that can
strip electrons from atoms; e.g., alpha,
beta, and gamma radiation.
IRIS: EPA’s Integrated Risk Information
System, an electronic data base containing
the Agency’s latest descriptive and
quantitative regulatory information on
chemical constituents.
Irradiated Food: Food subject to brief
radioactivity, usually gamma rays, to kill
insects, bacteria, and mold, and to permit
storage without refrigeration.
Irradiation Exposure to radiation of
wavelengths shorter than those of visible
light (gamma, x-ray, or ultraviolet), for
medical purposes, to sterilize milk or
other foodstuffs, or to induce polymer-
ization of monomers or vulcanization of
rubber.
Irreversible Effect Effect characterized
by the inability of the body to partially oor
fully repair injury caused by a toxic agent.
Irrigation: Applying water or wastewater
to land areas to supply the water and
nutrient needs of plants.
Irrigation Effidency The amount of
water stored in the crop root zone
compared to the amount of irrigation
water applied.
Irrigation Return Flow: Surface and
subsurface water which leaves the field
following application of irrigation water.
Irritant A substance that can cause
irritation of the skin, eyes, or respiratory
system. Effects may be acute from a single
high level exposure, or chronic from
repeated low-level exposures to such
compounds as chlorine, nitrogen dioxide,
and nitric acid.
Isoconcentration: More than one sample
point exhibiting the same isolate concen-
tration.
Isopleth: The line or area represented by
an isoconcentration.
Isotope: A variation of an element that has
the same atomic number of protons but a
different weight because of the number of
neutrons. Various isotopes of the same
element may have different radioactive
behaviors, some are highly unstable.
Isotropy: The condition in which the
hydraulic or other properties of an aquifer
are the same in all directions.
J
Jar T t A laboratory procedure that
simulates a water treatment plant’s
coagulation/flocculation units with dif-
fering chemical doses, mix speeds, and
settling times to estimate the minimum or
ideal coagulant dose required to achieve
certain water quality goals.
Joint and Several Liability: Under
CERCLA, this legal concept relates to the
liability for Superfund site cleanup and
25
-------
other costs on the part of more than one
potentially responsible party (i.e., if there
were several owners or users of a site that
became contaminated over the years, they
could all be considered potentially liable
for cleaning up the site.)
Karst A geologic formation of irregular
limestone deposits with sinks, under-
ground streams, and caverns.
Kinetic Energy: Energy possessed by a
moving object or water body.
Kinetic Rate Coefficient: A number that
describes the rate at which a water
constituent such as a biochemical oxygen
demand or dissolved oxygen rises or falls,
or at whuch an air pollutant reacts.
Laboratory Animal Studies: Investiga-
tions using animals as surrogates for
humans.
lagoon: 1 A shallow pond where
sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen
work to purify wastewater; also used for
storage of wastewater or spent nuclear
fuel rods. 2. Shallow body of water, often
separated from the sea by coral reefs or
sandbars.
Land Application: Discharge of wastewa-
ter onto the ground for treatment or reuse.
(See: irrigation.)
Land Ban: Phasing out of land disposal of
most untreated hazardous wastes, as
mandated by the 1984 RCRA amend-
ments.
Land Disposal Restrictions: Rules that
require hazardous wastes to be treated
before disposal on land to destroy or
immobilize hazardous constituents that
might migrate into soil and ground water.
Land Farming (of Waste): A disposal
process in which hazardous waste de-
posited on or in the soil is degraded
naturally by microbes.
Landfills: 1. Sanitary landfills are dispos-
al sites for non-hazardous solid wastes
spread in layers, compacted to the
smallest practical volume, and covered by
material applied at the end of each
operating day. 2. Secure chemical landfills
are disposal sites for hazardous waste,
selected and designed to minimize the
chance of release of hazardous substances
into the environment.
Landscape: The traits, patterns, and
structure of a specific geographic area,
including its biological composition, its
physical environment, and its anthropo-
genic or social patterns. An area where
interacting ecosystems are grouped and
repeated in similar form.
Landscape Characterization: Documenta-
tion of the traits and patterns of the
essential elements of the landscape.
Landscape Ecology: The study of the
distribution patterns of communities and
ecosystems, the ecological processes that
affect those patterns, and changes in
pattern and process over time.
Landscape Indicator: A measurement of
the landscape, calculated from mapped or
remotely sensed data, used to describe
spatial patterns of land use and land
cover across a geographic area. Land-
scape indicators may be useful as
measures of certain kinds of environrnen-
tal degradation such as forest frag-
mentation.
Langelier Index (LI): An index reflecting
the equilibrium pH of a water with
respect to calcium and alkalinity; used in
stabilizing water to control both corrosion
and scale deposition.
Large Quantity Generator Person or
facility generating more than 2200 pounds
of hazardous waste per month. Such
generators produce about 90 percent of
the nation’s hazardous waste, and are
subject to all RCRA requirements.
Large Water System: A water system that
services more than 50,000 customers.
Laser Induced Fluorescence: A method
for measuring the relative amount of soil
and/or groundwater with an in situ
sensor.
Latency: Time from the first exposure of a
chemical until the appearance of a toxic
effect.
Lateral Sewers: Pipes that run under city
streets and receive the sewage from homes
and businesses, as opposed to domestic
feeders and main trunk lines.
Laundering We Sedimention basin
overflow weir.
LC 5OfLethal Concentration: Median
level concentration, a standard measure
of toxicity. It tells how much of a substance
is needed to kill half of a group of
experimental organisms in a given time.
LC 50/Lethal Dose: The dose of a toxicant
or microbe that will kill 50 percent of the
test organisms within a designated
period. The lower the LD5O, the more toxic
the compound.
Ldlo: Lethal dose low; the lowest dose in
an animal study at which lethality occurs.
Leachate Water that collects contami-
nants as it trickles through wastes,
pesticides or fertilizers. Leaching may
occur in farming areas, feedlots, and
landfills, and may result in hazardous
substances entering surface water, ground
water, or soil.
Leachate Collection System: A system
that gathers leachate and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Leaching: The process by which soluble
constituents are dissolved and filtered
through the soil by a percolating fluid.
(See: leachate.)
Lead (Pb): A heavy metal that is
hazardous to health if breathed or
swallowed. Its use in gasoline, paints, and
plumbing compounds has been sharply
restricted or eliminated by federal laws
and regulations. (See: heavy metals.)
Lead Service Line: A service line made of
lead which connects the water to the
building inlet and any lead fitting
connected to it.
Legionella: A genus of bacteria, some
species of which have caused a type of
pneumonia called Legionaires Disease.
Level of Concern (LOC): The concentra-
tion in air of an extremely hazardous
substance above which there may be
serious immediate health effects to
anyone exposed to it for short periods.
Life Cycle of a Product: All stages of a
product’s development, from extraction of
fuel for power to production, marketing,
use, and disposal.
Lifetime Average Daily Dose: Figure for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risk.
Lifetime Exposure: Total amount of
exposure to a substance that a human
would receive in a lifetime (usually
assumed to be 70 years).
Lift In a sanitary landfill, a compacted
layer of solid waste and the top layer of
cover material.
Lifting Station: (See: pumping station.)
Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
(LNAPL): A non-aqueous phase liquid
with a specific gravity less than 1.0.
Because the specific gravity of water is 1.0,
most LNAPLs float on top of the water
table. Most common petroleum hydrocar-
bon fuels and lubricating oils are LNAPLs.
Light-Emitting Diode: A long-lasting
illumination technology used for exit
signs which requires very little power.
Limestone Scrubbing: Use of a limestone
and water solution to remove gaseous
stack-pipe sulfur before lt reaches the
atmosphere.
Limit of Detection (LOD): The minimum
concentration of a substance being ana-
lyzed test that has a 99 pei ent probability
of being identified.
Limited Degradation: An environmental
policy permitting some degradation of
natural systems but terminating at a level
-------
well beneath an established health stan-
dard.
Limiting Factoc A condition whose
absence or excessive concentration, is
incompatible with the needs or tolerance
of a species or population and which may
have a negative influence on their ability
to thrive.
Limnology: The study of the physical,
chemical, hydrological, and biological
aspects of fresh water bodies.
Lindane; A pesticide that causes adverse
health effects in domestic water supplies
and is toxic to freshwater fish and aquatic
life.
Liner: 1. A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to keep leachate inside a landfill.
Liner materials include plastic and dense
clay. 2. An insert or sleeve for sewer pipes
to prevent leakage or infiltration.
Lipid Solubility: The maximum concen-
tration of a chemical that will dissolve in
fatty substances. Lipid soluble substances
are insoluble in water. They will very
selectively disperse through the environ-
ment via uptake in living tissue.
Liquefaction: Changing a solid into a
liquid.
Liquid Injection Incineratoc Commonly
used system that relies on high pressure to
prepare liquid wastes for incineration by
breaking them up into tiny droplets to
allow easier combustion.
List Shorthand term for EPA list of
violating facilities or firms debarred from
obtaining government contracts because
they violated certain sections of the Clean
Air or Clean Wa Acts. The list is
maintained by The Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring.
Listed Waste: Wastes listed as hazardous
under RCRA but which have not been
subjected to the Toxic Characteristics
Listing Process because the dangers they
present are considered self-evident.
Lithology: Mineralogy, grain size, texture,
and other physical properties of granular
soil, sediment, or rock.
Littec 1. The highly visible portion of
solid waste carelessly discarded outside
the regular garbage and trash collection
and disposal system. 2. leaves and twigs
fallen from forest trees.
Littoral Zone: 1. That portion of a body of
fresh water extending from the shoreline
lakeward to the limit of occupancy of
rooted plants. 2. A strip of land along the
shoreline between the high and low water
levels.
Local Education Agency (LEA): In the
asbestos program, an educational agency
at the local level that exists primarily to
operate schools or to contract for educa-
tional services, including primary and
secondary public and private schools. A
single, uriaffiliated school can be consid-
ered an LEA for AHERA purposes.
Local Emergency Planning Committee
(LEPC): A committee appointed by the
state emergency response commission, as
required by SARA Title III, to formulate a
comprehensive emergency plan for its
jurisdiction.
Low Density Polyethylene (LOPE): Plas-
tic material used for both rigid containers
and plastic film applications.
Low Emissivity (low-E) Windows: New
window technology that lowers the
amount of energy loss through windows
by inhibiting the transmission of radiant
heat while still allowing sufficient light to
pass through.
Low NO Bumem One of several
combustion technologies used to reduce
emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOr.)
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW):
Wastes less hazardous than most of those
associated with a nuclear reactor; gener-
ated by hospitals, research laboratories,
and certain industries. The Department of
Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and EPA share responsibilities for manag-
ing them. (See: high-level radioactive
wastes.)
Lower Detection Limit: The smallest
signal above background
noise an instrument can reliably detect.
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL): The con-
centration of a compound in air below
which the mixture will not catch on fire.
Lowest Acceptable Daily Dose: The
largest quantity of a chemical that will not
cause a toxic effect, as determined by
animal studies.
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate: Un-
der the Clean Ai Act, the rate of
emissions that reflects (1) the most
stringent emission limitation in the
implementation plan of any state for such
source unless the owner or operator
demonstrates such limitations are not
achievable; or (2) the most stringent
emissions limitation achieved in practice,
whichever is more stringent. A proposed
new or modified source may not emit
pollutants in excess of existing new source
standards.
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
(LOAEL): The lowest level of a stressor
that causes statistically and biologically
significant differences in test samples as
compared to other samples subjected to no
stressor.
M
Macropores: Secondary soil features such
as root holes or desiccation cracks that can
create significant conduits for movement
of NAPL and dissolved contaminants, or
vapor-phase contaminants.
Magnetic Separation: Use of magnets to
separate ferrous materials from mixed
municipal waste stream.
Major Modification: This term is used to
define modifications of major stationary
sources of emissions with respect to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and New Source Review under the Clean
Air Act.
Major Stationary Sources: Term used to
determine the applicability of Prevention
of Significant Deterioration and new
source regulations. In a nonattainment
area, any stationary pollutant source with
potential to emit more than 100 tons per
year is considered a major stationary
source. In PSD areas the cutoff level may
be either 100 or 250 tons, depending upon
the source.
Majors: Larger publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) with flows equal to at
least one million gallons per day (mgd) or
servicing a population equivalent to
10,000 persons; certain other POTWs
having significant water quality impacts.
(See: minors.)
Man-Made (Anthropogenic) Beta Par-
ticle and Photon Emitters: All radio-
nuclides emitting beta particles and/or
photons listed in Maximum Permissible
Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible
Concentrations of Radonuclides un Air
and Water for Occupational Exposure.
Management Plan: Under the Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHER-
A), a document that each Local Education
Agency is required to prepare, describing
all activities planned and undertaken by a
school to comply with AHERA regu-
lations, including building inspections to
identify asbestos-containing materials,
response actions, and operations and
maintenance programs to minimize the
risk of exposure.
Managerial Controls: Methods of
nonpoint source pollution control based
on decisions about managing agricultural
wastes or application times or rates for
agrochemicals.
Mandatory Recycling: Programs which
by law require consumers to separate
trash so that some or all recyclable
materials are recovered for recycling
rather than going to landfills.
Manifest A one-page form used by
haulers transporting waste that lists EPA
identification numbers, type and quantity
of waste, the generator it originated from,
the transporter that shipped it, and the
27
-------
storage or disposal facility to which it is
being shipped. It includes copies for all
participants in the shipping process.
Manifest System: Tracking of hazardous
waste from “cradle-to-grave” (generation
through disposal) with accompanying
documents known as manifests.(See:
cradle-to-grave.)
Manual Separation: Hand separation of
compostable or recyclable material from
waste.
Manufacturer’s Formulation: A list of
substances or component parts as de-
scribed by the maker of a coating,
pesticide, or other product containing
chemicals or other substances.
Manufacturing Use Product: Any prod-
uct intended (labeled) for formulation or
repackaging into other pesticide products.
Margin of Safety: Maximum amount of
exposure producing no measurable effect
in animals (or studied humans) divided
by the actual amount of human exposure
in a population.
Margin of Exposure (MOE): The ratio of
the no-observed adverse-effect-level to
the estimated exposure dose.
Marine Sanitation Device: Any equip-
ment or process installed on board a vessel
to receive, retain, treat, or discharge
sew age.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
accumulate appreciable peat deposits and
is dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
Marshes may be either fresh or saltwater,
tidal or non-tidal. (See: wetlands.)
Material Category: In the asbestos pro-
gram, broad classification of materials
into thermal surfacing insulation, surfac-
ing material, and miscellaneous material.
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS): A
compilation of information required un-
der the OSHA Communication Standard
on the identity of hazardous chemicals,
health, and physical hazards, exposure
limits, and precautions. Section 311 of
SARA requires facilities to submit MSDSs
under certain circumstances.
Material Type: Classification of suspect
material by its specific use or application;
e.g., pipe insulation, firepiuofing, and
floor tile.
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF): A
facility that processes residentially col-
lected mixed recyclables into new prod-
ucts available for market.
Maximally (or Most) Exposed mdi-
viduab The person with the highest
exposure in a given population.
Maximum Acceptable Toxic Concentra-
tion: For a given ecological effects test, the
range (or geometric mean) between the
No Observable Adverse Effect Level and
the Lowest Observable Adverse Effects
Level.
Maximum Available Control Technology
MACfl The emission standard for
sources of air pollution requiring the
maximum reduction of hazardous emis-
sions, taking cost and feasibility into
account. Under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, the MACT must not
be less than the average emission level
achieved by controls on the best perform-
ing 12 percent of existing sources, by
category of industrial and utility sources.
Maximum Contaminant Level: The maxi-
mum permissible level of a contaminant
in water delivered to any user of a public
system. MCLs are enforceable standards.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
(MCLG): Under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, a non-enforceable concentration of a
drinking water contaminant, set at the
level at which no known or anticipated
adverse effects on human health occur
and which allows an adequate safety
margin. The MCLG is usually the starting
point for determining the regulated
Maximum Contaminant Level. (See; maxi-
mum contaminantlevel.)
Maximum Exposure Range: Estimate of
exposure or dose level received by an
individual in a defined population that is
greater than the 98th percentile dose for all
individuals in that population, but less
than the exposure level received by the
person receiving the highest exposure
level.
Maximum Residue Level: Comparable to
a U.S. tolerance level, the Maximum
Residue Level the enforceable limit on
food pesticide levels in some countries.
Levels are set by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, a United Nations agency
managed and funded jointly by the World
Health Organization and the Food and
Agriculture Organization.
Maximum Tolerated Dose: The maxi-
mum dose that an animal species can
tolerate for a major portion of its lifetime
without significant impairment or toxic
effect other than carcinogenicity.
Measure of Effect/Measurement End-
point A measurable characteristic of
ecological entity that can be related to an
assessment endpoint; e.g., a labi ratory
test for eight species meeting certain
requirements may serve as a measure of
effect for an assessment endpoint, such as
survival of fish, aquatic, invertebrate or
algal species under acute exposure.
Measure of Exposure: A measurable
characteristic of a stressor (such as the
specific amount of mercury in a body of
water) used to help quantify the exposure
of an ecological entity or individual
organism.
Mechanical Aeration: Use of mechanical
energy to inject air into water to cause a
waste stream to absorb oxygen.
Mechanical Separation: Using mechani-
cal means to separate waste into various
components.
Mechanical Turbulence: Random irregu-
larities of fluid motion in air caused by
buildings or other nonthermal, processes.
Media: Specific environments—air, water,
soil—which are the subject of regulatory
concern and activities.
Medical Surveillance:Aperiodic compre-
hensive review of a worker’s health
status; acceptable elements of such
surveillance program are listed in the
Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
istration standards for asbestos.
Medical Waste: Any solid waste gener-
ated in the diagnosis, treatment, or
immunization of human beings or ani-
mals, in research pertaining thereto, or in
the production or testing of biologicals,
excluding hazardous waste identified or
listed under 40 CFR Part 261 or any
household waste as defined in 40 CFR
Sub-section 261.4 (b)(1).
Medium-size Water System: A water
system that serves 3,300 to 50,000
customers.
Meniscus: The curved top of a column of
liquid in a small tube.
Mercury (Hg): Heavy metal that can
accumulate in the environment and is
highly toxic if breathed or swallowed.
(See: heavy metals.)
Mesotrophic: Reservoirs and lakes which
contain moderate quantities of nutrients
and are moderately productive in terms of
aquatic animal and plant life.:
Metabolites: Any substances produced
by biological processes, such as those from
pesticides.
Metalimnion: The middle layer of a
thermally stratified lake or reservoir. In
this layer there is a rapid decrease in
temperature with depth. Also called
thermocline.
Methane A colorless, nonpoisonous,
flammable gas created by anaerobic
decomposition of organic compounds. A
major component of natural gas used in
the home.
Methanol: An alcohol that can be used as
an alternative fuel or as a gasoline
additive. It is less volatile than gasoline;
when blended with gasoline it lowers the
carbon monoxide emissions but increases
hydrocarbon emissions. Used as pure fuel,
its emissions are less ozone-forming than
those from gasoline. Poisonous to
humans and animals if ingested.
-------
Method 18: An EPA test method which
uses gas chromatographic techniques to
measure the concentration of volatile
organic compounds in a gas stream.
Method 24: An EPA reference method to
determine density, water content and total
volatile content (water and VOC) of
coatings.
Method 25: An EPA reference method to
determine the VOC concentration in a gas
stream.
Method Detection Limit (MDL):See limit
of detection.
Methoxychlor: Pesticide that causes ad-
verse health effects in doemstic water
supplies and is toxic to freshwater and
marine aquatic life.
Methyl Orange Alkalinity: A measure of
the total alkalinity in a water sample in
which the color of methyl orange reflects
the change in level.
Microbial Growth: The amplification or
multiplication of microorganisms such as
bacteria, algae, diatoms, plankton, and
fungi.
Microbial Pesticide: A microorganism
that is used to kill a pest, but is of
minimum toxicity to humans.
Microclimate: 1. Localized climate condi-
tions within an urban area or neighbor-
hood. 2. The climate around a tree or shrub
or a stand of trees.
Microenvironmental Method: A method
for sequentially assessing exposure for a
series of microertvirOflments that can be
approximated by constant concentrations
of a stressor.
MicroenvironinefltS: Well-defined s u r-
roundings such as the home, office, or
kitchen that can be treated as uniform in
terms of stressor concentration.
Million-Gallons Per Day (MGD): A
measure of water flow.
Minimization: A comprehensive program
to minimize or eliminate wastes, usually
applied to wastes at their point of origin.
(See: waste minimization.)
Mining of an Aquifer: Withdrawal over a
period of time of ground water that
exceeds the rate of recharge of the aquifer.
Mining Waste: Residues resulting from
the extraction of raw materials from the
earth.
Minor Source: New emissions sources or
modifications to existing emissions sources
that do not exceed NAAQS emission
levels.
Minors: Publicly owned treatment works
with flows less than 1 million gallons per
day. (See: majors.)
Miscellaneous ACM: Interior asbestos-
containing building material or structural
components, members or fixtures, such as
floor and ceiling tiles; does not include
surfacing materials or thermal system
insulation.
Miscellaneous Materials: Interior build-
ing materials on structural components,
such as floor or ceiling tiles.
Miscible Liquids: Two or more liquids
that can be mixed and will remain mixed
under normal conditions.
Missed Detection: The situation that
occurs when a test indicates that a tank is
“tight” when in fact it is leaking.
Mist: Liquid particles measuring 40 to 500
micrometers (pm), are formed by
condensation of vapor. By comparison,
fog particles are smaller than 40 rnicrome-
ters (pm).
Mitigation: Measures taken to reduce
adverse impacts on the environment.
Mixed Funding: Settlements in which
potentially responsible parties and EPA
share the cost of a response action.
Mixed Glass: Recovered container glass
not sorted into categories (e.g., color,
grade).
Mixed Liquon A mixture of activated
sludge and water containing organic
matter undergoing activated sludge treat-
ment in an aeration tank.
Mixed Metals: Recovered metals not
sorted into categories such as aluminum,
tin, or steel cans or ferrous or non-ferrous
metals.
Mixed Municipal Waste: Solid waste that
has not been sorted into specific categories
such as plastic, glass, yard trimmings, etc.)
Mixed Paper: Recovered paper not sorted
into categories such as old magazines, old
newspapers, old corrugated boxes, etc.
Mixed Plastic: Recovered plastic unsorted
by category.
Mobile Incinerator Systems: Hazardous
waste incinerators that can be transported
from one site to another.
Mobile Source: Any non-stationary source
of air pollution such as cars, trucks,
motorcycles, buses, airplanes, and loco-
motives.
Model Plant: A hypothetical plant design
used for developing economic, environ-
mental, and energy impact analyses as
support for regulations or regulatory
guidelines; first step in exploring the
economic impact of a potential NSPS.
Modified Bin Method: Way of calculating
the required heating or cooling for a
building based on determining how much
energy the system would use if outdoor
temperatures were within a certain
temperature interval and then multiply-
ing the energy use by the time the
temperature interval typically occurs.
Modified Source: The enlargement of a
major stationary pollutant sources is often
referred to as modification, implying that
more emissions will occur.
Moisture Content: 1 .The amount of water
lost from soil upon drying to a constant
weight. expressed as the weight per unit
of dry soil or as the volume of water per
unit bulk volume of the soil. For a fully
saturated medium, moisture content
indicates the porosity. 2. Water equivalent
of snow on the ground; an indicator of
snowmelt flood potential.
Molecule: The smallest division of a
compound that still retains or exhibits all
the properties of the substance.
Molten Salt Reactor: A thermal treatment
unit that rapidly heats waste in a heat-
conducting fluid bath of carbonate salt.
Monitoring: Periodic or continuous sur-
veillance or testing to determine the level
of compliance with statutory require-
ments and/or pollutant levels in various
media or in humans, plants, and animals.
Monitoring Well: 1.Awell used to obtain
water quality samples or measure ground-
water levels. 2. A well drilled at a
hazardous waste management facility or
Superfund site to collect ground-water
samples for the purpose of physical,
chemical, or biological analysis to deter-
mine the amounts, types, and distribution
of contaminants in the groundwater
beneath the site.
Monoclonal Antibodies (Also called
MABs and MCAs): 1. Man-made
(anthropogenic) clones of a molecule,
produced in quantity for medical or
research purposes. 2. Molecules of living
organisms that selectively find and attach
to other molecules to which their structure
conforms exactly. This could also apply to
equivalent activity by chemical molecules.
Monomictic: Lakes and reservoirs which
are relatively deep, do not freeze over
during winter, and undergo a single
stratification and mixing cycle during the
year (usually in the fall).
Montreal Protocol: Treaty, signed in 1987,
governs stratospheric ozone protection
and research, and the production and use
of ozone-depleting substances. It provides
for the end of production of ozone-
depleting substances such as CFCS. Under
the Protocol, various research groups
continue to assess the ozone layer. The
Multilateral Fund provides resources to
developing nations to promote the transi-
tion to ozone-safe technologies.
Moratorium During the negotiation
process, a period of 60 to 90 days during
which EPA and potentially responsible
29
-------
parties may reach settlement but no site
response activities can be conducted.
Morbidity: Rate of disease incidence.
Mortality: Death rate.
Most Probable Number: An estimate of
microbial density per uit volume of water
sample, based on probability theory.
Muck Soils; Earth made from decaying
plant materials.
Mudballs: Round material that forms in
filters and gradually increases in size
when not removed by backwashing.
Mulch: A layer of material (wood chips,
straw, leaves, etc.) placed around plants to
hold moisture, prevent weed growth, and
enrich or sterilize the soil.
Multi-Media Approach: Joint approach to
several environmental media, such as air,
water, and land.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A diag-
nostic label for people who suffer multi-
system illnesses as a result of contact with,
or proximity to, a variety of airborne
agents and other substances.
Multiple Use: Use of land for more than
one purpose; e.g., grazing of livestock,
watershed and wildlife protection, recre-
ation, and timber production. Also
applies to use of bodies of water for
recreational purposes, fishing, and water
supply.
Multistage Remote Sensing: A strategy
for landscape characterization that in-
volves gathering and analyzing informa-
tion at several geographic scales, ranging
from generalized levels of detail at the
national level through high levels of detail
at the local scale.
Municipal Discharge: Discharge of efflu-
ent from waste water treatment plants
which receive waste water from house-
holds, commercial establishments, and
industries in the coastal drainage basin.
Combined sewer/separate storm over-
flows are included in this category.
Municipal Sewage: Wastes (mostly liq-
uid) orginating from a community; may
be composed of domestic wastewaters
and/or industrial discharges.
Municipal Sludge: Semi-liquid residue
remaining from the treatment of munici-
pal water and wastewater.
Municipal Solid Waste: Common gar-
bage or trash generated by industries,
businesses, institutions, and homes.
MutageniMutagenicity: An agent that
causes a permanent genetic change in a
cell other than that which occurs during
normal growth. Mutagenicity is the•
capacity of a chemical or physical agent to
cause such permanent changes.
N
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS): Standards established by EPA
that apply for outdoor air throughout the
country. (See: criteria pollutants, state
implementation plans, emissions trad-
ing.)
National Emissions Standards for Haz-
ardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS): Emis-
sions standards set by EPA for an air
pollutant not covered by NAAQS that
may cause an increase in fatalities or in
serious, irreversible, or incapacitating
illness. Primary standards are designed to
protect human health, secondary stan-
dards to protect public welfare (e.g.,
building facades, visibility crops, and
domestic animals).
National Environmental Performance
Partnership Agreements; System that
allows states to assume greater responsi-
bility for environmental programs based
on their relative ability to execute them.
National Estuary Program: A program
established under the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1987 to develop and
implement conservation and manage-
ment plans for protecting estuaries and
restoring and maintaining their chemical,
physical, and biological integrity, as well
as controlling point and rionpoint pollu-
tion sources.
National Municipal Plan: A policy
created in 1984 by EPA and the states in
1984 to bring all publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) into compliance with
Clean Water Act requirements.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NOHSCPINCP): The
federal regulation that guides determina-
tion of the sites to be corrected under both
the Superfund program and the program
to prevent or control spills into surface
waters or elsewhere.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES): A provision of the
Clean Water Act which prohibits dis-
charge of pollutants into waters of the
United States unless a special permit is
issued by EPA, a state, or, where
delegated, a tribal government on an
Indian reservation.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA’s list
of the most serious, uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites identi-
fied for possible long-term remedial
action under Superfund. The list is based
primarily on the score a site receives from
the Hazard Ranking System. EPA is
required to update the NFL at least once a
year. A site must be on the NFL to receive
money from the Trust Fund for remedial
action.
National Response Center: The federal
operations center that receives notifica-
tions of all releases of oil and hazardous
substances into the environment; open 24
hours a day, is operated by the U.S. Coast
Guard, which evaluates all reports and
notifies the appropriate agency.
National Response Team (NRT): Repre-
sentatives of 13 federal agencies that, as a
team, coordinate federal responses to
nationally significant incidents of pollu-
tion—an oil spill, a major chemical
release, or a Superfund response action—
and provide advice and technical assis-
tance to the responding agency(ies) before
and during a response action.
National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations: Commonly referred to as
NSDWRs.
Navigable Waters: Traditionally, waters
sufficiently deep and wide for navigation
by all, or specified vessels; such waters in
the United States come under federal
jurisdiction and are protected by certain
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Necrosis: Death of plant or animal cells or
tissues. In plants, necrosis can discolor
stems or leaves or kill a plant entirely.
Negotiations (Under Superfund): After
potentially responsible parties are identi-
fied for a site, EPA coordinates with them
to reach a settlement that will result in the
PRP paying for or conducting the cleanup
under EPA supervision. If negotiations
fail, EPA can order the PRP to conduct the
cleanup or EPA can pay for the cleanup
using Superfund monies and then sue to
recover the costs.
Nematocide: A chemical agent which is
destructive to nematodes.
Nephelometric: Method of of measuring
turbidity in a water sample by passing
light through the sample and measuring
the amount of the light that is deflected.
Netting: A concept in which all emissions
sources in the same area that owned or
controlled by a single company are treated
as one large source, thereby allowing
flexibility in controlling individual sources
in order to meet a single emissions
standard. (See: bubble)
Neutralization: Decreasing the acidity or
alkalinity of a substance by adding
alkaline or acidic materials, respectively.
New Source: Any stationary source built
or modified after publication of final or
proposed regulations that prescribe a
given standard of performance.
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS): Uniform national EPA air emis-
sion and water effluent standards which
limit the amount of pollution allowed
from new sources or from modified
existing sources.
New Source Review (NSR): A Clean Air
Act requirement that State Implementa-
-------
tion Plans must include a permit review
that applies to the construction and
operation of new and modified stationary
sources in nonattainment areas to ensure
attainment of national ambient air quality
standards.
Nitrate: A compound containing nitrogen
that can exist in the atmosphere or as a
dissolved gas in water and which can
have harmful effects on humans and
animals. Nitrates in water can cause
severe illness in infants and domestic
animals. A plant nutrient and inorganic
fertilizer, nitrate is found in septic
systems, animal feed lots, agricultural
fertilizers, manure, industrial waste wa-
ters, sanitary landfills, and garbage
dumps.
Nitric Oxide (NO): A gas formed by
c?mbustion under high temperature and
high pressure in an internal combustion
engine; it is converted by sunlight and
photochemical processes in ambient air to
nitrogen oxide. NO is a precursor of
ground-level ozone pollution, or smog.
Nitrification:The process whereby ammo-
nia in wastewater is oxidized to nitrite
and then to nitrate by bacterial or chemical
reactions.
Nitrilotriacetic Acid (NTA): A compound
now replacing phosphates in detergents.
Nitrite: 1. An intermediate in the process
of nitrification. 2. Nitrous oxide salts used
in food preservation.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO ): The result of
nitric oxide combining wit 2 h oxygen in the
atmosphere; major component of photo-
chemical smog.
Nitrogen Oxide (NO): The result of
photochemical reactions’ f nitric oxide in
ambient air; major component of photo-
chemical smog. Product of combustion
from transportation and stationary sources
and a major contributor to the formation
of ozone in the troposphere and to acid
deposition.
Nitrogenous Wastes: Animal or vegetable
residues that contain significant amounts
of nitrogen..
Nitrophenols: Synthetic organopesticides
containing carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,
and oxygen.
No Further Remedial Action Planned:
Determination made by EPA following a
preliminary assessment that a site does
not pose a significant risk and so requires
no further activity under CERCLA.
No Observable Adverse Effect Level
(NOAEL): An exposure level at which
thee are no statistically or biologically
significant increases in the frequency or
severity of adverse effects between the
exposed population and its appropriate
control; some effects may be produced at
this level, but they are not considered as
adverse, or as precurors to adverse effects.
In an experiment with several NOAELs,
the regulatory focus is primarily on the
highest one, leading to the common usage
of th4e term NOAEL as the highest
exposure without adverse effective.
No TilL Planting crops without prior
seedbed preparation, into an existing
cover crop, sod, or crop residues, and
eliminating subsequent tillage operations.
No-Observed-Effect-Level (NOEL): Ex-
posure level at which there are no
statistically or biological significant differ-
ences in the frequency or severity of any
effect in the exposed or control popula-
tions.
Noble Metal: Chemically inactive metal
such as gold; does not corrode easily.
Noise: Product-level or product-volume
changes occurring during a test that are
not related to a leak but may be mistaken
for one.
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL):
Contaminants that remain undiluted as
the original bulk liquid in the subsurface,
e.g., spilled oil. (See: fee product.)
Non-Attainment Area: Area that does not
meet one or more of the NationalAmbient
Air Quality Standards for the criteria
pollutants designated in the Clean AirAct.
Non-Binding Allocations of Responsi-
bility (NBAR): A process for EPA to
propose a way for potentially responsible
parties to allocate costs among them-
selves.
Non-Community Water System: A public
water system that is not a community
water system; e.g., the water supply at a
camp site or national park.
Non-Compliance Coal: Any coal that
emits greater than 3.0 pounds of sulfur
dioxide per million BTU when burned.
Also known as high-sulfur coal.
Non-Contact Cooling Water: Water used
for cooling which does not come into
direct contact with any raw material,
product, byproduct, or waste.
Non-Conventional Pollutant: Any poi-
lutant not statutorily listed or which is
poorly understood by the scientific
community.
Non-Degradation:An environmental poli-
cy which disallows any lowering of
naturally occurring quality regardless of
preestablished health standards.
Non-Ferrous Metals: Nonmagnetic met-
als such as aluminum, lead, and copper.
Products made all or in part from such
metals include containers ,packaging,
appliances, furniture, electronic equip-
ment and aluminum foil.
Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Radia-
tion: 1. Radiation that does not change the
structure of atoms but does heat tissue and
may cause harmful biological effects. 2.
Microwaves, radio waves, and low-
frequency electromagnetic fields from
high-voltage transmission lines.
Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC):
The sum of all hydrocarbon air pollutants
except methane; significant precursors to
ozone formation.
Non-Methane Organic Gases (NMOG):
The sum of all organic air pollutants.
Excluding methane; they account for
aldehydes, ketones, alcohols, and other
pollutants that are not hydrocarbons but
are precursors of ozone.
Non-Point Sources: Diffuse pollution
sources (i.e., without a single point of
origin or not introduced into a receiving
stream from a specific outlet). The
pollutants are generally carried off the
land by storm water. Common non-point
sources are agriculture, forestry, urban,
mining, construction, dams, channels,
land disposal, saltwater intrusion, and
city streets.
Non-potable: Water that is unsafe or
unpalatable to drink because it contains
pollutants, contaminants, minerals, or
infective agents.
Non-Road Emissions: Pollutants emitted
by combustion engines on farm and
construction equipment, gasoline-pow-
ered lawn and garden equipment, and
power boats and outboard motors.
Non-Transient Non-Community Water
System A public water system that
regularly serves at least 25 of the same
non-resident persons per day for more
than six months per year.
Nondischarging Treatment Plant: A treat-
ment plant that does not discharge treated
wastewater into any stream or river. Most
are pond systems that dispose of the total
flow they receive by means of evaporation
or percolation to groundwater, or facilities
that dispose of their effluent by recycling
or reuse (e.g., spray irrigation or ground-
water discharge).
Nonfriable Asbestos-Containing Materi-
als: Any material containing more than
one percent asbestos (as determined by
Polarized Light Microscopy) that, when
dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or
reduced to powder by hand pressure.
Nonhazardous Industrial Waste: Indus-
trial process waste in wastewater not
considered municipal solid waste or
hazardous waste under RARA.
Notice of Deficiency: An EPA request to a
facility owner or operator requesting
additional information before a prelimi-
nary decision on a permit application can
be made.
-------
Notice of Intent to Cancel: Notification
sent to registrants when EPA decides to
cancel registration of a product containing
a pesticide.
Notice of Intent to Deny: Notification by
EPA of its preliminary intent to deny a
permit application.
Notice of Intent to Suspend: Notification
sent to a pesticide registrant when EPA
decides to suspend product sale and
distribution because of failure to submit
requested data in a timely and/or
acceptable manner, or because of immi-
nent hazard. (See: emergency suspen-
sion.)
Nuclear Reactors and Support Facilities:
Uranium mills, commercial power re-
actors, fuel reprocessing plants, and
uranium enrichment facilities.
Nuclear Wint Prediction by some
scientists that smoke and debris rising
from massive fires of a nuclear war could
block sunlight for weeks or months,
cooling the earth’s surface and producing
climate changes that could, for example,
negatively affect world agricultural and
weather patterns.
Nuclide: An atom characterized by the
number of protons, neturons, and energy
in the nucleus.
Nutrient: Any substance assimilated by
living things that promotes growth. The
term is generally applied to nitrogen and
phosphorus in wastewater, but is also
applied to other essential and trace
elements.
Nutrient Pollution: Contamination of
water resources by excessive inputs of
nutrients. In surface waters, excess algal
production is a major concern.
0
Ocean Discharge Waiver:A variance from
Clean Water Act requirements for dis-
charges into marine waters.
Odor Threshold: The minimum odor of a
water or air sample that can just be
detected after successive dilutions with
odorless water. Also called threshold odor.
OECD Guidelines: Testing guidelines
prepared by the Organization of Eco-
nomic and Cooperative Development of
the United Nations. They assist in
preparation of protocols for studies of
toxicology, environmental fate, etc.
Off-Site Facility: A hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal area that is
located away from the generating site.
Office Paper: High grade papers such as
copier paper, computer printout, and
stationary almost entirely made of un-
coated chemical pulp, although some
ground wood is used. Such waste is also
generated in homes, schools, and else-
where.
Offsets: A concept whereby emissions
from proposed new or modified station-
ary sources are balanced by reductions
from existing sources to stabilize total
emissions. (See: bubble, emissions trad-
ing, netting)
Offstream Use: Water withdrawn from
surface or groundwater sources for use at
another place.
Oil and Gas Waste: Gas and oil drilling
muds, oil production brines, and other
waste associated with exploration for,
development and production of crude oil
or natural gas.
Oil Desulfurization: Widely used pre-
combustion method for reducing sulfur
dioxide emissions from oil-burning power
plants. The oil is treated with hydrogen,
which removes some of the sulfur by
forming hydrogen sulfide gas.
Oil Fingerprinting: A method that identi-
fies sources of oil and allows spills to be
traced to their source.
Oil Spill: An accidental or intentional
discharge of oil which reaches bodies of
water. Can be controlled by chemical
dispersion, combustion, mechanical con-
tainment, and/or adsorption. Spills from
tanks and pipelines can also occur away
from water bodies, contaminating the soil,
getting into sewer systems and threat-
ening underground water sources.
Oligotrophic Lakes: Deep clear lakes
with few nutrients, little organic matter
and a high dissolved-oxygen level.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The pre-
designated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates
and directs Superfund removal actions or
Clean Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill
response actions.
On-Site Facility: A hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal area that is
located on the generating site.
Onboard Controls: Devices placed on
vehicles to capture gasoline vapor during
refueling and route it to the engines when
the vehicle is starting so that it can be
efficiently burned.
Onconogenicity: The capacity to induce
cancer.
One-hit Model: A mathematical model
based on the biological theory that a single
“hit” of some minimum critical amount of
a carcinogen at a cellular target such as
DNA can start an irreversible series events
leading to a tumor.
Opacity: The amount of light obscured by
particulate pollution in the air; clear
window glass has zero opacity, a brick
wall is 100 percent opaque. Opacity is an
indicator of changes in performance of
particulate control systems.
Open Burning: Uncontrolled fires in an
open dump.
Open Dump: An uncovered site used for
disposal of waste without environmental
controls, (See: dump.)
Operable Unit: Term for each of a number
of separate activities undertaken as part of
a Superfund site cleanup. A typical
operable unit would be removal of drums
and tanks from the surface of a site.
Operating Conditions: Conditions speci-
fied in a RCRA permit that dictate how an
incinerator must operate as it burns
different waste types. A trial burn is used
to identify operating conditions needed to
meet specified performance standards.
Operation and Maintenance: 1. Activities
conducted after a Superfund site action is
completed to ensure that the action is
effective. 2. Actions taken after construc-
•tion to ensure that facilities constructed to
treat waste water will be properly
operated and maintained to achieve
normative efficiency levels and prescribed
effluent limitations in an optimum man-
ner. 3. On-going asbestos management
plan in a school or other public building,
including regular inspections, various
methods of maintaining asbestos in place,
and removal when necessary.
Operator Certification: Certification of
operators of community and nontransient
noncommunity water systems, asbestos
specialists, pesticide applicators, hazard-
ous waste transporter, and other such
specialists as required by the EPA or a state
agency implementing an EPA-approved
environmental regulatory program.
Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment:
An erosion control treatment that minimi-
zes the lead and copper concentrations at
users’ taps while also ensuring that the
treatment does not cause the water system
to violate any national primary drinking
water regulations.
Oral Toxicity: Ability of a pesticide to
cause injury when ingested.
Organic: 1. Referring to or derived from
living organisms. 2. In chemistry, any
compound containing carbon.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Natu-
rally occuring (animal or plant-produced
or synthetic) substances containing mainly
carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen.
Organic Matter Carbonaceous waste
contained in plant or animal matter and
originating from domestic or industrial
sources.
Organism: Any form of animal or plant
life.
32
-------
;anophosphates: Pesticides that con-
t phosphorus; short-lived, but some
- r be toxic when first applied.
Organophyllic: A substance that easily
Combines with organic compounds.
Orgarkotins: Chemical compounds used
in anti-foulant paints to protect the hulls
of boats and ships, buoys, and pilings
from marine organisms such as barnacles.
Original AHERA Inspection/Original
Irtspection/Inspection: Examination of
school buildings arranged by Local
Education Agencies to identify asbestos-
containing-materials, evaluate their con-
dition, and take samples of materials
suspected to contain asbestos; performed
by EPA-accredited inspectors.
Original Generation Point: Where regu-
lated medical or other material first
becomes waste.
Osmosis: The passage of a liquid from a
weak solution to a more concentrated
Solution across a semipermeable mem-
brane that allows passage of the solvent
(Water) but not the dissolved solids.
Other Ferrous Metals: Recyclable metals
from strapping, furniture, and metal
found in tires and consumer electronics
t does not include metals found in
ostruction materials or cars, locomo-
tives, and ships. (See: ferrous metals.)
Other Glass: Recyclable glass from
furniture, appliances, and consumer elec-
tronics. Does not include glass from
transportation products (cars trucks or
shipping containers) and construction or
demolition debris (See: glass.)
Other Nonferrous Metals: Recyclable
nonferrous metals such as lead, copper,
and zinc from appliances, consumer
electronics, and nonpackaging aluminum
products. Does not include nonferrous
metals from industrial applications and
construction and demolition debris. (See:
nonferrous metals.)
Other Papen For Recyclable paper from
books, third-class mail, commercial print-
ing, paper towels, plates and cups; and
other nonpackaging paper such as post-
ers, photographic papers, cards and
games, milk cartons, folding boxes, bags,
wrapping paper, and paperboard. Does
not include wrapping paper or shipptng
cartons.
Other Plastics: Recyclable plastic from
anpliaflc s eating utensils, plates, con-
. ‘rters, toys, and various kinds of
iipment. Does not include heavy-duty
,astics such as yielding materials.
Other Solid Waste: Recyclable nonhaz-
ardous solid wastes, other than municipal
solid waste, covered under Subtitle D of
RAR.A. (See: solid waste.)
Other Wood: Recyclable wood from
furniture, consumer electronics cabinets,
and other nonpackaging wood products.
Does not include lumber and tree stumps
recovered from construction and demoli-
tion activities, and industrial process
waste such as shavings and sawdust.
Outdoor Air Supply: Air brought into a
building from outside.
Outfall: The place where effluent is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overburden: Rock and soil cleared away
before mining.
Overdraft: The pumping of water from a
groundwater basin or aquifer in excess of
the supply flowing into the basin; results
in a depletion or “mining” of the
groundwater in the basin. (See: ground-
water mining)
Overfire Air: Air forced into the top of an
incinerator or boiler to fan the flames.
Overflow Rate: One of the guidelines for
design of the settling tanks and clarifers in
a treatment plant; used by plant operators
to determine if tanks and clarifiers are
over or under-used.
Overland flow: A land application
technique that cleanses waste water by
allowing it to flow over a sloped surface.
As the water flows over the surface,
contaminants are absorbed and the water
is collected at the bottom of the slope for
reuse.
Oversized Regulated Medical Waste:
Medical waste that is too large for plastic
bags or standard containers.
Overturn: One complete cycle of top to
bottom mixing o previously stratified
water masses. This phenomenon may
occur in spring or fall, or after storms, and
results in uniformity of chemical and
physical properties of water at all depths.
Oxidant: A collective term for some of the
primary constituents of photochemical
smog.
O,ddatiore The chemical addition of
oxygen to break down pollutants or
orgariizac waste; e.g., destruction of
chemicals such as cyanides, phenols, and
organic sulfur compounds in sewage by
bacterial and chemical means.
Oxidation Pond: A man-made (anthropo-
genic) body of water in which waste is
consumed by bacteria, used most fre-
quently with other waste-treatment pro-
cesses; a sewage lagoon.
Oxidation-Reduction Potential: The elec-
tric potential required to transfer electrons
from one compound or elemept (the
oxidant) to another compound (the
reductant); used as a qualitative measure
of the state of oxidation in water treatment
systems.
Oxygenated Fuels: Gasoline which has
been blended with alcohols or ethers that
contain oxygen in order to reduce carbon
monoxide and other emissions.
Oxygenated Solvent: An organic solvent
containing oxygen as part of the mo-
lecular structure. Alcohols and ketones are
oxygenated compc&inds often used as
paint solvents.
Ozonation/Ozonator. Application of
ozone to water for disinfection or for taste
and odor control. The ozonator is the
device that does this.
Ozone (03): Found in two layers of the
atmosphere, the stratosphere and the
troposphere. In the stratosphere (the
atmospheric layer 7 to 10 miles or more
above the earth’s surface) ozone is a
natural form of oxygen that provides a
protective layer shielding the earth from
ultraviolet radiation.In the troposphere
(the layer extending up 7 to 10 miles from
the earth’s surface), ozone is a chemical
oxidant and major component of
photochemical smog. It can seriously
impair the respiratory system and is one
of the most widespread of all the criteria
pollutants for which the Clean Air Act
required EPA to set standards. Ozone in
the troposphere is produced through
complex chemical reactions of nitrogen
oxides, which are among the primary
pollutants emitted by combustion sources;
hydrocarbons, released into the atmo-
sphere through the combustion, handling
and processing of petroleum products;
and sunlight.
Ozone Depletion: Destruction of the
stratospheric ozone layer which shields
the earth from ultraviolet radiation
harmful to life. This destruction of ozone
is caused by the breakdown of certain
chlorine and/or bromine containing com-
pounds (chlorofluorocarbonS or halons),
which break down when they reach the
stratosphere and then catalytically de-
stroy ozone molecules.
Ozone Hole: A thinning break in the
stratospheric ozone layer. Designation of
amount of such depletion as an “ozone
hole” is made when the detected amount
of depletion exceeds fifty percent. Sea-
sonal ozone holes have been observed
over both the Antarctic and Arctic regions,
part of Canada, and the extreme northeast-
ern United States.
Ozone Layer. The protective layer in the
atmosphere, about 15 miles above the
ground, that absorbs some of the sun’s
ultraviolet rays, thereby reducing the
amount of potentially harmful radiation
that reaches the earth’s surface.
33
-------
P
Packaging: The assembly of one or more
containers and any other components
necessary to ensure minimum compliance
with a program’s storage and shipment
packaging requirements.Also, the contain-
ers, etc., involved.
Packed Bed Scrubber: An air pollution
control device in which emissions pass
through alkaline water to neutralize
hydrogen chloride gas.
Packed Tower: A pollution control device
that forces dirty air through a tower
packed with crushed rock or wood chips
while liquid is sprayed over the packing
material. The pollutants in the air stream
either dissolve or chemically react with
the liquid.
Packer. An inflatable gland, or balloon,
used to create a temporary seal in a
borehole, probe hole, well, or drive casing.
It is made of rubber or non-reactive
materials.
Palatable Water Water, at a desirable
temperature, that is free from objection-
able tastes, odors, colors, and turbidity.
Pandemic A widespread epidemic
throughout an area, nation or the world.
Paper: In the recycling business, refers to
products and materials, including news-
papers, magazines, office papers, corru-
gated containers, bags and some paper-
board packaging that can be recycled into
new paper products.
Paper Processor/Plastics Processor: Inter-
mediate facility where recovered paper or
plastic products and materials are sorted,
decontaminated, and prepared for final
recycling.
Paiameter A variable, measurable
property whose value is a determinant of
the characteristics of a system; e.g.,
temperature, pressure, and density are
parameters of the atmosphere.
Paraquat: A standani herbicide used to
kill various types of crops, including
marijuana. Causes lung damage if smoke
from the crop is inhaled.
Parshall Flume: Device used to measure
the flow of water in an open channel.
Part A Permit, Part B Permit: (See: Interim
Permit Status.)
Participation Rate: Portion of population
participating in a recycling program.
Particle Count: Results of a microscopic
examination of treated water with a
special “particle counter” that classifies
suspended particles by number and size.
Particulate Loading: The mass of part-
iculates per unit volume of air or water.
Particulates: 1. Fine liquid or solid
particles such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes,
or smog, found in air or emissions. 2. Very
small solids suspended in water; they can
vary in size, shape, density and electrical
charge arid can be gathered together by
coagulation and flocculation.
Partition Coefficient Measure of the
sorption phenomenon, whereby a pesti-
cide is divided between the soil and water
phase; also referred to as adsorption
partition coefficient.
Parts Per Billion (ppb)/Parts Per Million
(ppm): Units commonly used to express
contamination ratios, as in establishing
the maximum permissible amount of a
contaminant in water, land, or air.
Passive Smoking/Secondhand Smoke:
Inhalation of others’ tobacco smoke.
Passive Treatment Walls: Technology in
which a chemical reaction takes place
when contaminated ground water comes
in contact with a barrier such as limestone
or a wall containing iron filings.
Pathogens: Microorganisms (.g., bacteria,
viruses, or parasites) that can cause
disease in humans, animals and plants.
Pathway: The physical course a chemical
or pollutant takes from its source to the
exposed organism.
Pay-As-You-Throw/Unit-Based Pricing:
Systems under which residents pay for
municipal waste management and dis-
posal services by weight or volume
collected, not a fixed fee.
Peak Electricity Demand: The maximum
electricity used to meet the cooling load of
a building or buildings in a given area.
Peak Levels: Levels of airborne pollutant
contaminants much higher than average
or occurring for short periods of time in
response to sudden releases.
Percent Saturation: The amount of a
substance that is dissolved in a solution
compared to the amount that could be
dissolved in it.
Perched Watec Zone of unpressurized
water held above the water table by
impermeable rock or sediment.
Percolating Watei Water that passes
through rocks or soil under the force of
gravity.
Percolation: 1. The movement of water
downward and radially through subur-
face soil layers, usually continuing
downward to ground water. Can also
involve upward movement of water. 2.
Slow seepage of water through a filter.
Performance Bond: Cash or securities
deposited before a landfill operating
permit is issued, which are held to ensure
that all requirements for operating ad
subsequently closing the landfill are
faithful performed. The money is returned
to the owner after proper closure of t
landfill is completed. If contamination’
other problems appear at any time during-
operations or Upon closure, and are not
addressed, the Owner must forfeit all or
part of the bond which is then used to
cover clean-up costs.
Performance Data (For Incinerators):
Information Collected, during a trial burn,
on concentrations of designated organic
compounds and pollutants found in
incinerator emissions. Data analysis must
show that the incinerator meets perfor-
mance standards under operating condi-
tions specified in the RCRA permit. (See:
trial burn; performance standards.)
Performance Standards: I. Regulatory
requirements limiting the concentrations
of designated organic compounds, par-
ticulate matter, and hydrogen chloride in
emissions from incinerators. 2. Operating
standards established by EPA for various
permitted pollution control systems,
asbestos inspections, and various pro-
gram operations and maintenance re-
quirements.
Periphytoit Microscopic underwater
plants and animals that are firmly
attached to solid surfaces such as rocks,
logs, and pilings.
Permeability: The rate at which liqui -
pass through soil or other materials in a
specified direction.
Permissible Dose: The dose of a chemical
that may be received by an individual
without the expectation of a sinificantly
harmful result.
Pemiit An authorization, license, or
equivalent control document issued by
EPA or an approved state agency to
implement the requirements of an envi-
ronmental regulation; e.g., a permit to
operate a wastewater treatment plant or to
operate a facility that may generate
harmful emissions.
Persistence: Refers to the length of time a
compound stays in the environment, once
introduced. A compound may persist for
less than a second or indefinitely.
Persistent Pesticides: Pesticides that do
not break down chemically or break
down very slowly and remain in the
environment after a growing season.
Personal Air Samples: Air samples taken
with a pump that is directly attached to
the worker with the collecting filter and
cassette placed in the worker’s breathir’
zone (required under OSHA asbest
standards and EPA worker protectiofl-.
rule).
Personal Measurement: A measurement
collected from an individual’s immediate
environment.
34
-------
sonal Protective Equipment: Clothing
I equipment Worn by pesticide mixers,
iers and applicators and re-entry
workers, hazrnat emergency responders,
workers cleaning up Superfund sites, et a!,
which is worn to reduce their exposure to
potentially hazardous chemicals and
other pollutants.
Pest: An insect, mdent, nematode, fungus,
weed or other form of terrestrial or aquatic
plant or animal life that is injurious to
health or the environment.
Pest Control Operator: Person or com-
pany that applies pesticides as a business
(e.g., exterminator); usually describes
household services, not agricultural ap-
plications.
Pesticide: Substances or mixture there of
intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling, or mitigating any pest. Also,
any substance or mixture intended for use
as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desic-
cant.
Pesticide Regulation Notice: Formal
notice to pesticide registrants about
important changes in regulatory policy,
procedures, regulations.
Pesticide Tolemnce The amount of
5ticide residue allowed by law to
nain in or on a harvested crop. EPA sets
se levels well below the point where
the compounds might be harmful to
consumers.
PETE (Polyethylene Terepthalate): Ther-
moplastic material used in plastic soft
drink and rigid containers.
Petmleuni Crude oil or any fraction
thereof that is liquid under normal
conditions of temperature and pressure.
The term includes petroleum-based sub-
stances comprising a complex blend of
hydrocarbons derived from crude oil
through the process of separation, conver-
sion, upgrading, and finishing, such as
motor fuel, jet oil, lubricants, petroleum
solvents, and used oil.
Petroleum Derivatives:Chemicals formed
when gasoline breaks down in contact
with ground water.
pH: An expression of the intensity of the
basic or acid condition of a liquid; may
range from 0 to 14, where 0 is the most acid
ana 7 is neutral. Natural waters usually
have a pH between 6.5 and 8.5.
Pharmacokinetics: The study of the way
that drugs move through the body after
they are swallowed or injected.
nolphthalein Alkalinity: The alkalin-
sty in a water sample measured by the
amount of standard acid needed to lower
thge pH to a level of 8.3 as indicated by the
change of color of the phenolphthalein
from pink to clear.
plienois: Organic compounds that are
byproducts of petroleum refining, tan-
ning, and textile, dye, and resin manufac-
turing. Low concentrations cause taste
and odor problems in water; higher
concentrations can kill aquatic life and
humans.
Phosphates:Certain chemical compounds
containing phosphorus.
Phosphogypsum Piles (Stacks): Principal
byproduct generated in production of
phosphoric acid from phosphate rock.
These piles may generate radioactive
radon gas.
Phosphorus: An essential chemical food
element that can contribute to the
eutrophication of lakes and other water
bodies. Increased phosphorus levels re-
sult from discharge of phosphorus-
containing materials into surface waters.
Phosphorus Plants: Facilities using elec-
tric furnaces to produce elemental phos-
phorous for commercial use, such as high
grade phosphoric acid, phosphate-based
detergent, and organic chemicals use.
Photochemical Oxidants: Air pollutants
formed by the action of sunlight on oxides
of nitrogen and hydrocarbons.
Photochemical Smog:Air pollution caused
by chemical reactions of various pollut-
ants emitted from different sources. (See:
photochemical oxidants.)
Photosynthesis: The manufacture by
plants of carbohydrates and oxygen from
carbon dioxide mediated by chlorophyll
in the presence of sunlight.
Physical and Chemical Treatment: Pro-
cesses generally used in large-scale
wastewater treatment facilities. Physical
processes may include air-stripping or
filtration. Chemical treatment includes
coagulation, chlorination, or ozonation.
The term can also refer to treatment of
toxic materials in surface and ground
waters, oil spills, and some methods of
dealing with hazardous materials on or in
the ground.
Phytoplanktore That portion of the
plankton community comprised of tiny
plants; e.g., algae, diatoms.
Phytoremediation: Low-cost remediation
option for sites with widely dispersed
contamination at low concentrations.
Phytoremediation: Low-cost remediation
option for sites with widely dispersed
contamination at low concentrations.
Phytotoxic: Harmful to plants.
Phytotreatinent: The cultivation of spe-
cialized plants that absorb specific con-
taminants from the soil through their roots
or foliage. This reduces the concentration
of contaminants in the soil, but incorpo-
rates them into biomasses that may be
released back into the environment when
the plant dies or is harvested.
Picocuries Per Liter pCiIL): A unit of
measure for levels of radon gas; becquerels
per cubic meter is metric equivalent.
Piezometer: A nonpumping well, gener-
ally of small diameter, for measuring the
elevation of a water table.
Pilot Tests: Testing a cleanup technology
under actual site conditions to identify
potential problems prior to full-scale
implementation.
Plankton: Tiny plants and animals that
live in water.
Plasma-Arc Reactor: An incinerator that
operates at extremely high temperatures;
treats highly toxic wastes that do not burn
easily.
Plasmid: A circular piece of DNA that
exists apart from the chromosome and
replicates independently of it. Bacterial
plasmids carry information that renders
the bacteria resistant to antibiotics.
Plasmids are often used in genetic
engineering to carry desired genes into
organisms.
Plastics:Non-metallic chemoreactive com-
pounds molded into rigid or pliable
construction materials, fabrics, etc.
Plate Tower Scrubber: An air pollution
control device that neutralizes hydrogen
chloride gas by bubbling alkaline water
through holes in a series of metal plates.
Plug Flow: Type of flow tht occurs in
tanks, basins, or eeactors when a slug of
water moves through without ever
dispersing or mixing with the rest of the
water flowing trough.
Plugging: Act or process of stopping the
flow of water, oil, or gas into or out of a
formation through a borehole or well
penetrating that formation.
Plume 1 A visible or measurable
discharge of a contaminant from a given
point of origin. Can be visible or thermal
in water, or visible in the air as, for
example, a plume of smoke. 2 The area of
radiation leaking from a damaged reactor.
3. Area downwind within which a release
could be dangerous for those exposed to
leaking fumes.
Plutonium: A radioactive metallic ele-
ment chemically similar to uranium.
PM-1O/PM-2.5: PM 10 is measure of
particles in the atmosphere with a
diameter of less than ten or equal to a
nominal 10 micron eters. PM-2.5 is a
measure of smaller particles in the air. PM-
10 has been the pollutant particulate level
standard against which EPA has been
measuring Clean Air Act compliance. On
the basis of newer sceientific findings, the
Agency is considering regulations that
will make PM-2.5 the new “standard”.
Pneumoconiosis: Health conditions char-
ácterized by permanent deposition of
35
-------
substantial amounts of particulate matter
in the lungs and by the tissue reaction to
its presence; can range from relatively
harmless forms of sclerosis to the
destructive fibrotic effect of silicosis.
Point Source: A stationary location or
fixed facility from which pollutants are
discharged; any single identifiable source
of pollution; e.g., a pipe, ditch, ship, ore
pit, factory smokestack.
Point-of-Contact Measurement of Expo-
sure: Estimating exposure by measuring
concentrations over time (while the
exposure is taking place) at or near the
place where it is occurring.
Point-of-Disinfectant Application: The
point where disinfectant is applied and
water downstream of that point is not
subject to recontamination by surface
water runoff.
Point-of-Entry Treatment Device: A treat-
ment device applied to the drinking water
entering a house or building to reduce the
contaminants in the water distributed
throughout the house or building.
Point-of-Use Treatment Device: Treat-
ment device applied to a single tap to
reduce contaminants in the drinking
water at the one faucet
Pollen: The fertilizing element of flower-
ing plants; background air pollutant.
Pollutant: Generally, any substance intro-
duced into the environment that ad-
versely affects the usefulness of a resource
or the health of humans, animals, or
ecosystems..
Pollutant Pathways: Avenues for distri-
bution of pollutants, in most buildings, for
example, HVAC systems are the primary
pathways although all building compo-
nents can interact to affect how air
movement distributes pollutants.
Pollutant Standard Index (PSI): Indica-
tor of one or more pollutants that may be
used to inform the public about the
potential for adverse health effects from
air pollution in major cities.
Pollution: Generally, the presence of a
substance in the environment that because
of its chemical composition or quantity
prevents the functioning of natural
processes and produces undesirable envi-
ronmental and health effects. Under the
Clean Water Act, for example, the term has
been defined as the man-made or man-
induced alteration of the physical, biologi-
cal, chemical, and radiological integrity of
water and other media.
Pollution Prevention: 1. identifying ar-
eas, processes, and activities which create
excessive waste products or pollutants in
order to reduce or prevent them through,
alteration, or eliminating a process. Such
activities, consistent with the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990, are conducted
across all EPA programs and can involve
cooperative efforts with such agencies as
the Departments of Agriculture and
Enei y. 2. EPA has initiated a number of
voluntary programs in which industrial,
or commercial or “partners” join with EPA
in promoting activities that conserve
energy, conserve and protect water
supply, reduce emissions or find ways of
utilizing them as enei y resources, and
reduce the waste stream.Among these are:
Agstar, to reduce methane emissions
through manure management. Climate
Wise, to lower industrial greenhouse-gas
emissions and energy costs. Coalbed
Methane Outreach, to boost methane
recovery at coal mines. Design for the
Environment, to foster including environ-
mental considerations in product design
and processes.
Energy Star programs, to promote energy
efficiency in commercial and residential
buildings, office equipment, transform-
ers, computers, office equipment, and
home appliances. Environn ntaJ Ac-
counting, to help businesses identify
environmental costs and factor them into
management decision making.
Green Chemistry, to promote and recog-
nize cost-effective breakthroughs in chem-
istry that prevent pollution. Green Lights,
to spread the use of energy-efficient
lighting technologies. Indoor Environ-
ments, to reduce risks from indoor-air
pollution. Landfill Methane Outreach, to
develop landfill gas-to-energy projects.
Natural Gas Star, to reduce methane
emissions from the natural gas industry
Ruminant Livestock Methane, to reduce
methane emissions from ruminant live-
stock. Transportation Partners, to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions from the trans-
portation sector.
Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partner-
ship, to reduce perfluorocarbon emissions
from the primary aluminum industry.
WAVE, to promote efficient water use in
the lodging industry.
Wastewi$e, to reduce business-generated
solid waste through prevention, reuse,
and recycling. (See: Common Sense
Initiative and Project XL.)
Portal-of-Entry Effect A local effect
produced in the tissue or organ of first
contact between a toxicant and the
biological system.
Polonium: A radioactive element that
occurs in pitchblende and other uranium-
Containing ores.
Polyelectrolytes: Synthetic chemicals that
help solids to clump during sewage
treatment.
Polymer: A natural or synthetic chemical
structure where two or more like mol-
ecules are joined to form a more complex
molecular structure (e.g., polyethylene in
plastic).
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A bug
environmentally indestructible plastic tii
releases hydrochloric acid when burnea.
Population: A group of interbreeding
organisms occupying a particular space;
the number of humans or other living
creatures in a designated area.
Population at Risk: A population sub-
group that is more likely to be exposed to
a chemical, or is more sensitive to the
chemical, than is the general population
Porosity: Degree to which soil, gravel,
sediment, or rock is permeated with pores
or cavities through which water or air can
move.
Post Chlorinatjon: Addition of chlorine
to plant effluent for disinfectant purposes
after the effluent has been treated.
Post-Closure: The time period following
the shutdown of a waste management or
manufacturing facility; for monitoring
purposes often considered to be 30 years.
Post-Consumer Materials/Waste: Recov-
ered materials that are diverted from
municipal solid waste for the purpose of
collection, recycling, and disposition.
Post-Consumer Recycling: Use of materi..
als generated from residential and cot’-
sunier waste for new or similar purpose
e.g. converting wastepaper from office
into corrugated boxes or newsprint.
Potable Water Water that is safe for
drinking and cooking.
Potential Dose: The amount of a com-
pound contained in material swallowed,
breathed, or applied to the skin.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP):
Any individual or company_including
owners, Operators, transporters or genera-
tors—’-potentially responsible for, or Con-
tributing to a spill or other contamination
at a Superfund site. Whenever possible,
through administrative and legal actions,
EPA requires PRPs to clean up hazardous
sites they have contaminated.
Potentiation: The ability of one chemical
to increase the effect of another chemical.
Potentiometrjc Surface: The surface to
which water in an aquifer can rise by
hydrostatic pressure.
Precautionary Principle: When informa-
tion about potential risks is incomplete,
basing decisions about the best ways to
manage or red uce risks on a preference for
avoiding unnecessary health risks instead
of on unnecessary economic expen
tures.
Pre-Consumer Materjals/% ’yaste Materi-
als generated in manufacturing and
converting processes such as manufactur
ing scrap and trimmings and cuttings.
Includes print overruns, overissue publi-
cations, arid obsolete inventories.
36
-------
.Harvest Interval: The time between
last pesticide application and harvest
of the treated crops.
Prechlorinatjon: The addition of chlorine
at the headworks of a treatment plant
prior to other treatment processes. Done
mainly for disinfection and control of
tastes, odors, and aquatic growths, and to
aid in coagulation and settling,
Precipitate: A substance separated from a
solution or suspension by chemical or
physical change.
Precipitation: Removal of hazardous
solids from liquid waste to permit safe
disposal; removal of particles from
airborne emissions as in rain (e.g., acid
precipitation).
Precipitator: Pollution control device that
collects particles from an air stream.
Precurson In photochemistry, a com-
pound antecedent to a pollutant. For
example, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and nitric oxides of nitrogen react
in sunlight to form ozone or other
photochemical oxidarits. As such, VOCs
and oxides of nitrogen are precursors.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
-‘liecting and reviewing available
formation about a known or suspected
ste site or release.
Prescnptive: Water rights which are
acquired by diverting water and putting it
to use in accordance with specified
procedures; e.g., filing a request with a
state agency to use unused water in a
stream, river, or lake.
Pressed Wood Products: Materials used in
building and furniture construction that
are made from wood veneers, particles, or
fibers bonded together with an adhesive
under heat and pressure.
Pressure, Total: In flowing air, the sum of
the static and velocity pressures.
Pressure Sewers: A system of pipes in
which water, wastewater, or other liquid is
pumped to a higher elevation.
Pressure, Static: In flowing air, the total
pressure minus velocity pressure, push-
ing equally in all directions.
Pressure, Velocity: In flowing air, the
pressure due to velocity and density of air.
Pretreatment: Processes used to reduce,
eliminate, or alter the nature of wast-
ewater pollutants from non-domestic
-urces before they are discharged into
iblicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
evaleflt Level Samples: Air samples
taken under normal conditions (also
known as ambient background samples).
Prevalent Levels: Levels of airborne
contaminant occurring under normal
conditions.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD): EPA program in which state and!
or federal permits are required in order to
restrict emissions from new or modified
sources in places where air quality already
meets or exceeds primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards.
Primacy: Having the primary responsibil-
ity for administering and enforcing
regulations.
Primary Drinking Water Regulation:
Applies to public water systems and
specifies a contaminant level, which, in
the judgment of the EPA Administrator,
will not adversely affect human health.
Primary Effect: An effect where the
stressor acts directly on the ecological
component of interest, not on other parts
of the ecosystem. (See: secondary effect.)
Primary Standards: National ambient air
quality startddards designed to protect
human health with an adequate margin
for safety. (See National Anibient Air
Quality Standards, secondary standards)
Primary Waste Treatment: First steps in
wastewater treatment; screens and sedi-
mentation tanks are used to remove most
materials that float or will settle. Primary
treatment removes about 30 percent of
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen de-
mand from domestic sewage.
Principal Organic Hazardous Constitu-
ents (POHCs): Hazardous compounds
monitored during an incinerator’s trial
burn, selected for high concentration in
the waste feed and difficulty of com-
bustion.
Prior Appropriation: A doctrine of watr
law that allocates the rights to use water
on a first-come, first-served basis.
Probability of Detection: The likelihood,
expressed as a percentage, that a test
method will correctly identify a leaking
tank.
Process Variable: A physical or chemical
quantity which is usually measured and
controlled in the operation of a water
treatment plant or industrial plant.
Process Verification: Verifying that pro-
cess raw materials, water usage, Waste
treatment processes, production rate and
other facts relative to quantity and quality
of pollutants contained in discharges are
substantially described in the permit
application and the issued permit.
Process Wastewaten Any water that
comes into contact with any raw material,
product, byproduct, or waste.
Process Weight: Total weight of all
materials, including fuel, used in a
manufacturing process; used to calculate
the allowable particulate emission rate.
Producers: Plants that perform photosyn-
thesis and provide food to consumers.
Product Level: The level of a product in a
storage tank.
Product Water Water that has passed
throuigh a water treatment plant and is
ready to be delivered to consumers.
Products of Incomplete Combustion
(PICs): Organic compounds formed by
combustion. Usually generated in small
amounts and sometimes toxic, PICs are
heat-altered ver ions of the original
material fed into the incinerator (e.g.,
charcoal is a P.L.C. from burning wood).
Project XL: An EPA initiative to give states
and the regulated community the flexibil-
ity to develop comprehensive strategies as
alternatives to multiple current regulatory
requirements in order to exceed compli-
ance and increase overall environmental
benefits.
Propellant: Liquid in a self-pressurized
pesticide product that expels the active
ingredient from its container.
Proportionate Mortality Ratio (PMR):
The number of deaths from a specific
cause in a specific period of time per 100
deaths from all causes in the same time
period.
Proposed Plan: A plan for a site cleanup
that is available to the public for comment.
Proteins: Complex nitrogenous organic
compounds of high molecular weight
made of amino acids; essential for growth
and repair of animal tissue. Many, but not
all, proteins are enzymes.
Protocol: A series of formal steps for
conducting a test.
Protoplast: A membrane-bound cell from
which the outer wall has been partially or
completely removed. The term often is
applied to plant cells.
Protozoa: One-celled animals that are
larger and more complex than bacteria.
May cause disease.
Public Comment Period: The time
allowed for the public to express its views
and concerns regarding an action by EPA
(e.g., a Federal Register Notice of
proposed rule-making, a public notice of a
draft permit, or a Notice of Intent to
Deny).
Public Health Approach: Regulatory and
voluntary focus on effective and feasible
risk management actions at the national
arid community level to reduce human
exposures and risks, with priority given to
reducing exposures with the biggest
impacts in terms of the number affected
and severity of effect.
Public Health Context: The incidence,
prevalence, and severity of diseases in
communities or populations and the
factors that account for them, including
infections, exposure to pollutants, and
other exposures or activities.
37
-------
Public Hearing: A formal meeting whe-
rein EPA officials hear the public’s views
and concerns about an EPA action or
proposal. EPA is required to consider such
comments when evaluating its actions.
Public hearings must be held upon
request during the public comment
period.
Public Notice: 1. Notification by EPA
informing the public of Agency actions
such as the issuance of a draft permit or
scheduling of a hearing. EPA is required to
ensure proper public notice, including
publication in newspapers and broadcast
over radio and television stations. 2. In the
safe drinking water program, water
suppliers are required to publish and
broadcast notices when pollution prob-
lems are discovered.
Public Water System: A system that
provides piped water for human con-
sumption to at least 15 service connections
or regularly serves 25 individuals.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs):A waste-treatment works owned
by a state, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe, usually designed to treat
domestic wastewaters.
Pump Test: A procedure used for
determining the gas-generation rate of a
landfill; drilling test wells and installing
pressure probes.
Pumping Station: Mechanical device
installed in sewer or water system or other
liquid-carrying pipelines to move the
liquids to a higher level.
Pumping Test: A test conducted to
determine aquifer or well characteristics.
Purging: Removing stagnant air or water
from sampling zone or equipment prior to
sample collection.
Putrefaction: Biological decomposition of
organic matter; associated with anaerobic
conditions.
Putrescible: Able to rot quickly enough to
cause odors and attract flies.
Pyrolysis: Decomposition of a chemical
by extreme heat.
Q
Qualitative Use Assessment: Report
summarizing the major uses of a pesticide
including percentage of crop treated, and
amount of pesticide used on a site.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control: A
system of procedures, checks, audits, and
corrective actions to ensure that all EPA
research design and performance, envi-
ronmental monitoring and sampling, and
other technical and reporting activities are
of the highest achievable quality.
Quench Tank: A water-filled tank used to
cool incinerator residues or hot materials
during industrial processes.
R
Radiation: Transmission of energy though
space or any medium. Also known as
radiant energy.
Radiation Standards: Regulations that set
maximum exposure limits for protection
of the public from radioactive materials.
Radio Frequency Radiation: (See non-
ionizing electromagnetic radiation.)
Radioactive Decay: Spontaneous change
in an atom by emission of of charged
particles and/or gamma rays; also known
as radioactive disintegration and radioac-
tivi ty.
Radioactive Substances: Substances that
emit ionizing radiation.
Radioisotopes: Chemical variants of
radioactive elements with potentially
oncogenic, teratogenic, and rnutagenic
effects on the human body.
Radionuclide: Radioactive particle, man-
made (anthropogenic) or natural, with a
distinct atomic weight number. Can have
a long life as soil or water pollutant.
Radius of Vulnerability Zone: The
maximum distance from the point of
release of a hazardous substance in which
the airborne concentration could reach the
level of concern under specified weather
conditions.
Radius of Influence: 1. The radial
distance from the center of a weilbore to
the point where there is no lowering of the
water table or potentiometric surface (the
edge of the cone of depression); 2. the
radial distance from an extraction well
that has adequate air flow for effective
removal of contaminants when a vacuum
is applied to the extraction well.
Radon: A colorless naturally occurring,
radioactive, inert gas formed by radioac-
tive decay of radium atoms in soil or
rocks.
Radon Daughters/Radon Progeny: Short-
lived radioactive decay products of radon
that decay into longer-lived lead isotopes
that can attach themselves to airborne
dust and other particles and, if inhaled,
danage the linings of the lungs.
Radon Decay Products: A term used to
refer collectively to the immediate prod-
ucts of the radon decay chain. These
include Po-218, Pb-214, Bi-214, and Po-
214, which have an average combined
half-life of about 30 minutes.
Rainbow Repoft Comprehensive docu-
merit giving the status of all pesticides
now or ever in registration or special
reviews. Known as the “rainbow report”
because chapters are printed on differ’
colors of paper.
Rasp: A machine that grinds waste into a
manageable material and helps prevent
odor.
Raw Agricultural Commodity: An un-
processed human food or animal feed
crop (e.g., raw carrots, apples, corn, or
eggs.)
Raw Sewage: Untreated wastewater and
its contents.
Raw Watec Intake water prior to any
treatment or use.
Re-entry: (In indoor air program) Refers
to air exhausted from a building that is
immediately brought back into the system
through the air intake and other openings.
Reaeration: Introduction of air into the
lower layers of a resrvoir. As the air
bubbles form and rise through the water,
the oxygen dissolves into the water and
replenishes the dissolved oxygen. The
rising bubbles also cause the lower waters
to rise to the surface where they take on
oxygen from the atmosphere.
Real-Time Monitoring: Monitoring and
measuring environmental developments
with technology and communicatio:
systems that provide time-relevant info
mation to the public in an esily under-
stood format people can use in day-to-day
decision-making about their health and
the environment.
Reasonable Further Progress: Annual
incremental reductions in air pollutant
emissions as reflected in a State Imple-
mentation Plan that EPA deems sufficient
to provide for the attainment of the
applicable national ambient air quality
standards by the statutory deadline.
Reasonable Maximum Exposure: The
maximum exposure reasonably expected
to occur in a population.
Reasonable Worst Case: An estimate of
the individual dose, exposure, or risk level
received by an individual in a defined
population that is greater than the 90th
percentile but less than that received by
anyone in the 98th percentile in the same
population.
Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM): A broadly defined term refer-
ring to technological and other measures
for pollution control.
Reasonably Available Control Technolo-
gy (RACT): Control technology that
reasonably available, and both technolo
cally and economically feasible. UsualIy
applied to existing sources in nonattairi-
merit areas; in most cases is less stringent
than new source performance standards.
Recarbonizatiofl: Process in which carbon
dioxide is bubbled into water being
treated to lower the pH.
38
-------
iving Waters: A river, lake, ocean,
urn or other watercourse into which
wastewater or treated effluent is dis-
charged.
Receptor: Ecological entity exposed to a
stressor.
Recharge: The process by which water is
added to a zone of saturation, usually by
percolation from the soil surface; e.g., the
recharge of an aquifer.
Recharge Area: A land area in which
water reaches the zone of saturation from
surface infiltration, e.g., where rainwater
soaks through the earth to reach an
aquifer.
Recharge Rate: The quantity of water per
unit of time that replenishes or refills an
aquifer.
Reclamation: (In recycling) Restoration of
materials found in the waste stream to a
beneficial use which may be for purposes
other than the original use.
Recombinant Bacteria: A microorganism
whose genetic makeup has been altered
by deliberate introduction of new genetic
elements. The offspring of these altered
bacteria also contain these new genetic
elements; i.e. they “breed true,”
ombinant DNA: The new DNA that is
med by combining pieces of DNA from
different organisms or cells.
Recommended Maximum Contaminant
Level (RMCL): The maximum level of a
contaminant in drinking water at which
no known or anticipated adverse effect on
human health would occur, and that
includes an adequate margin of safety.
Recommended levels are nonenforceable
health goals. (See: maximum contaminant
level.)
Reconstructed Source: Facility in which
components are replaced to such an extent
that the fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the
capital cost of constructing a comparable
brand-new facility. New-source perfor-
mance standards may be applied to
sources reconstructed after the proposal
of the standard if it is technologically and
economically feasible to meet the stan-
dards.
Reconstruction of Dose: Estimating expo-
sure after it has occurred by using
evidence within an organism such as
chemical levels in tissue or fluids.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public
— roment that explains which cleanup
rnative(s) will be used at National
‘ iriorities List sites where, under CERCLA,
Trust Funds pay for the cleanup.
Recoveiy Rate: Percentage of usable
recycled materials that have been re-
moved from the total amount of municipal
solid waste generated in a specific area or
by a specific business.
Recycle/Reuse: Minimizing waste gen-
eration by recovering and reprocessing
usable products that might otherwise
become waste (.i.e. recycling of aluminum
cans, paper, and bottles, etc.).
Recycling and Reuse Business Assis-
tance Centers: Located in state solid-
waste or economic-development agen-
cies, these centers provide recycling
businesses with customized and targeted
assistance.
Recycling Economic Development Ad-
vocates: Individuals hired by state or
tribal economic development offices to
focus financial, marketing, and permit-
ting resources on creating recycling
businesses.
Recycling Mill: Facility where recovered
materials are remanufactured into new
products.
Recycling Technical Assistance Partnez’
ship National Network: A national
information-sharing resource designed to
help businesses and manufacturers in-
crease their use of recovered materials.
Red Bag Waste: (See: infectious waste.)
Red Borden Art EPA document under-
going review before being submitted for
final management decision-making.
Red Tide A proliferation of a marine
plankton toxic and often fatal to fish,
perhaps stimulated by the addition of
nutrients. A tide can be red, green, or
brown, depending on the coloration of the
plankton.
Redemption Program: Program in which
consumers are monetarily compensated
for the collection of recyclable materials,
generally through prepaid deposits or
taxes on beverage containers. In some
states or localities legislation has enacted
redemption programs to help prevent
roadside litter. (See: bottle bill.)
Reduction: The addition of hydrogen,
removal of oxygen, or addition of elect-
rons to an element or compound.
Reentry Interval: The period of time
immediately following the application of
a pesticide during which unprotected
workers should not enter a field.
Reference Dose (RfD): The concentration
of a chemical known to cause health
problems; also referred to as the AD!, or
acceptable daily intake. Also defined as an
estimate (with uncertainty spanning
perhaps an order of magnitude) of the
daily exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is
likely to be without risk of deleterious
effects during a lifetime.
Reformulated Gasoline: Gasoline with a
different composition from conventional
gasoline (e.g., lower aromatics content)
that cuts air pollutants.
Refueling Emissions: Emissions released
during vehicle re-fueling.
Refuse: (See: solid waste.)
Refuse Reclamation: Conversion of solid
waste into useful products; e.g., compost-
ing organic wastes to make soil condition-
ers or separating aluminum and other
metals for recycling.
Regeneration: Manipulation of cells to
cause them to develop into whole plants.
Regional Response Team (RRT): Repre-
sentatives of federal, local, and state
agencies who may assist in coordination
of activities at the request of the On-Scene
Coordinator before and during a signifi-
cant pollution incident such as an oil spill,
major chemical release, or Superfund
response.
Registrant: Any manufacturer or formula-
tor who obtains registration for a pesticide
active ingredient or product.
Registration: Formal listing with EPA of a
new pesticide before it can be sold or
distributed. Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, EPA is
responsible for registration (pre-market
licensing) of pesticides on the basis of data
demonstrating no unreasonable adverse
effects on human health or the environ-
ment when applied according to ap-
proved label directions.
Registration Standards: Published docu-
ments which include summary reviews of
the data available on a pesticide’s active
ingredient, data gaps, and the Agency’s
existing regulatory position on the pesti-
cide.
Regulated Asbestos-Containing Mate-
rial (RACM): Friable asbestos material or
nonfriable ACM that will be or has been
subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or
abrading or has crumbled, or been
pulverized or reduced to powder in the
course of demolition or renovation
operations.
Regulated Medical W te Under the
Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988, any
solid waste generated in the diagnosis,
treatment, or immunization of human
beings or animals, in research pertaining
thereto, or in the production or testing of
biologicals. Included are cultures and
stocks of infectious agents; human blood
and blood products; human pathological
body wastes from surgery and autopsy;
contaminated animal carcasses from medi-
cal research; waste from patients with
communicable diseases; and all used
sharp implements, such as needles and
scalpels, and certain unused sharps. (See:
treated medical waste; untreated medical
waste; destroyed medical waste.)
Relative Ecological Sustainability: Abil-
ity of an ecosystem to maintain relative
ecological integrity indefinitely.
39
-------
Relative Permeability: The permeability
of a rock to gas, NAIL, or water, when any
two or more are present.
Relative Risk Assessment: Estimating the
risks associated with different stressors or
management actions.
Release: Any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying, discharg-
ing, injecting, escaping, leaching, dump-
ing, or disposing into the envimnment of a
hazardous or toxic chemical or extremely
hazardous substance.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual con-
struction or implementation phase of a
Superfund site cleanup that follows
remedial design.
Remedial Design: A phase of remedial
action that follows the remedial investiga-
tion/feasibility study and includes devel-
opment of engineering drawings and
specifications for a site cleanup.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth
study designed to gather data needed to
determine the nature and extent of
contamination at a Superfund site; estab-
lish site cleanup criteria; identify
preliminary alternatives for remedial
action; and support technical and cost
analyses of alternatives. The remedial
investigation is usually done with the
feasibility study. Together they are usually
referred to as the “Rl/FS”.
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or state official responsible for
overseeing on-site remedial action.
Remedial Response: Long-term action
that stops or substantially reduces a
release or threat of a release of hazardous
substances that is serious but not an
immediate threat to public health.
Remediation: 1. Cleanup or other meth-
ods used to remove or contain a toxic spill
or hazardous materials from a Superfund
site; 2. for the Asbestos Hazard Emer-
gency Response program, abatement
methods including evaluation, repair,
enclosure, encapsulation, or removal of
greater than 3 linear feet or square feet of
asbestos-containing materials from a
building.
Remote Sensing: The collection and
interpretation of information about an
object without physical contact with the
object; e.g., satellite imaging, aerial
photography, and open path measure-
ments.
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of
hazardous substances that require expe-
dited response. (See: cleanup.)
Renewable Energy Production Incentive
(REPD: Incentive established by the
EnergyPolicy Act available to renewable
energy power projects owned by a state or
local government or nonprofit electric
cooperative.
Repeat Compliance Period: Any subse-
quent compliance period after the initial
one.
Reportable Quantity (RQ): Quantity of a
hazardous substance that triggers reports
under CERCLA. If a substance exceeds its
RQ, the release must be reported to the
National Response Center, the SERC, and
community emergency coordinators for
areas likely to be affected.
Repowering: Rebuilding and replacing
major components of a power plant
instead of building a new one.
Representative Sample: A portion of
material or water that is as nearly
identifical in content and consistency as
possible to that in the larger body of
material or water being sampled
Reregistration: The reevaluation and
relicerising of existing pesticides origi-
nally registered prior to current scientific
and regulatory standards. EPA reregisters
pesticides through its Registration Stan-
dards Program.
Reserve Capacity: Extra treatment capac-
ity built into solid waste and wastewater
treatment plants and interceptor sewers to
accommodate flow increases due to future
population growth.
Reservoin Any natural or artificial
holding area used to store, regulate, or
control water.
Residential Use: Pesticide application in
and around houses, office buildings,
apartment buildings, motels, and other
living or working areas.
Residential Waste: Waste generated in
single and multi-family homes, including
newspapers, clothing, disposable table-
ware, food packaging, cans, bottles, food
scraps, and yard trimmings other than
those that are diverted to backyard
composting. (See: Household hazardous
waste.)
Residual: Amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place; e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wast-
ewater treatment, or particulates remain-
ing in air after it passes threugh a
scrubbing or other process.
Residual Risk: The extent of health risk
from air pollutants remaining after
application of the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT).
Residttal Saturation: Saturation level
below which fluid drainage will not occur.
Residue: The dry solids remaining after
the evaporation of a sample of water or
sludge.
Resistance: For plants and animals,
ability to withstand poor environme
conditions or attacks by chemicals
disease. May be inborn or acquired.
Resource Recovery: The process of
obtaining matter or energy from materials
formerly discarded.
Response Action: 1. Generic term for
actions taken in response to actual or
potential health-threatening environmen-
tal events such as spills, sudden releases,
and asbestos abatement/management
problems. 2. A CERCLA-authorized ac-
tion involving either a short-term removal
action or a long-term removal response.
This may include but is not limited to:
removing hazardous materials from a site
to an EPA-approved hazardous waste
facility for treatment, containment or
treating the waste on-site, identifying and
removing the sources of ground-water
contamination and halting further migra-
tion of contaminants. 3. Any of the
following actions taken in school build-
ings in response to AHERA to reduce the
risk of exposure to asbestos: removal,
encapsulation, enclosure, repair, and
operations and maintenance. (See:
cleanup.)
Responsiveness Summary: A summ
of oral and/or written public comm
received by EPA during a comment pem .. -
on key EPA documents, and EPA’ 5
response to those comments.
Restoration: Measures taken to return a
site to pre-violation conditions.
Restricted Entry Interval: The time after a
pesticide application during which entry
into the treated area is restricted.
Restricted Use: A pesticide may be
classified (under FIFRA regulations) for
restricted use if it requires special
handling because of its toxicity, and, if so,
it may be applied only by trained, certified
applicators or those under their direct
supervision.
Restriction Enzymes:Enzymes that recog-
nize specific regions of a long DNA
molecule and cut it at those points.
Retrofit: Additioin of a pollution control
device on an existing facility without
making major changes to the generating
plant. Also called backfit.
Reuse: Using a product or component o
municipal solid waste in its original form
more than once; e.g., refilling a glass bottle
that has been returned or using a coffee
can to hold nuts and bolts.
Reverse Osmosis; A treatment procr.a ,
used in water systems by adding pressure
to force water through a semi-permeable
membrane. Reverse osmosis removes
most drinking water contaminants. Also
used in wasteWater treatment. Large.sc
reverse osmosiS plants are being devel-
oped.
40
-------
ersible Effect: An effect which is not
nanent; especially adverse effects
wzuch diminish when exposure to a toxic
chemical stops.
Ribonucleic Acid (RNA):A molecule that
carries the genetic message from DNA to a
cellular protein-producing mechanism.
Rill: A small channel eroded into the soil
by surface runoff; can be easily smoothed
out or oblitrated by normal tillage.
Ringlemann Chart: A series of shaded
illustrations used to measure the opacity
of air pollution emissions, ranging from
light grey through black; used to set and
enfoite emissions standards.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams with a differiing density,
diversity, and productivity of plant and
animal species relative to nearby uplands.
Riparian Rights: Entitlement of a land
owner to certain uses of water on or
bordering the property, including the
right to prevent diversion or misuse of
upstream waters. Generally a matter of
state law.
Risk A measure of the probability that
damage to life, health, property, and/or
the environment will occur as a result of a
n hazard.
(Adverse) for Endangered Species:
Risk to aquatic species if anticipated
pesticide residue levels equal one-fifth of
LD1O or one-tenth of LC5O; risk to
terrestrial species if anticipated pesticide
residue levels equal one-fifth of LC1O or
one-tenth of LC5O.
Risk Assessment: Qualitative and quanti-
tative evaluation of the risk posed to
human health and/or the environment by
the actual or potential presence and/or
use of specific pollutants.
Risk Characterization: The last phase of
the risk assessment process that estimates
the potential for adverse health or
ecological effects to occur from exposure
to a stressor and evaluates the uncertainty
involved.
Risk Communication: The exchange of
information about health or environmen-
tal risks among risk assessors and
managers, the general public, news
media, interest groups, etc.
Risk Estimate: A description of the
probability that organisms exposed to a
specific dose of a chemical or other
Dollutant will develop an adverse re-
se, e.g., cancer.
ei Factoc Characteristics (e.g., race,
age, obes- ity) or variables (e.g.,
smoking, occupational exposure level)
associated with increased probability of a
toxic effect.
Risk for Non-Endangered Species: Risk
to species if anticipated pesticide residue
levels are equal to or greater than LC5O.
Risk Management: The process of evaluat-
ing and selecting alternative regulatory
and non-regulatory responses to risk. The
selection process necessarily requires the
consideration of legal, economic, and
behavioral factors.
Risk-based Targeting: The direction of
resources to those areas that have been
identified as having the highest potential
or actual adverse effectg on human health
and/or the environment.
Risk-Specific Dose: The dose associated
with a specified risk level.
River Basin: The land area drained by a
river and its tributaries.
Rodenticide: A chemical or agent used to
destroy rats or other rodent pests, or to
prevent them from damaging food, crops,
etc.
Rotary Kiln Incinerator: An incinerator
with a rotating combustion chamber that
keeps waste moving, thereby allowing it
to vaporize for easier burning.
Rough Fish: Fish not prized for sport or
eating, such as gar and suckers. Most are
more tolerant of changing environmental
conditions than are game or foood species.
Route of Exposure: The avenue by which
a chemical comes into contact with an
organism, e.g., inhalation, ingestion,
dermal contact, injection.
Rubbish: Solid waste, excluding food
waste and ashes, from homes, institutions;
and workplaces.
Run-Off: That part of precipitation, snow
melt, or irrigation water that runs off the
land into streams or other surface-water. It
can carry pollutants from the air and land
into receiving waters.
Running Losses: Evaporation of motor
vehicle fuel from the fuel tank while the
vehicle is in use.
S
Sacrifical Anode: An easily corroded
material deliberately installed in a pipe or
intake to give it up (sacrifice it) to
corrosion while the rest of the water
supply facility remains relatively corro-
sion-free.
Safe: Condition of exposure under which
there is a practical certrainty that no harm
will result to exposed indiviuals.
Safe Waten Water that does not contain
harmful bacteria, toxic materials, or
chemicals, and is considered safe for
drinking even if it may have taste, odor,
color, and certain mineral problems.
Safe Yield: The annual amount of water
that can be taken from a source of supply
over a period of years without depleting
that source beyond its ability to be
replenished naturally in “wet years.”
Safener: A chemical added to a pesticide
to keep it from injuring plants.
Salinity: The percentage of salt in water.
Salt Water Intrusion: The invasion of
fresh surface or ground water by salt
water. If it comes from the ocean it may be
called sea water intrusion.
Salts: Minerals that water picks up as it
passes through the air, over and under the
ground, or from households and industry.
Salvage: The utilization of waste materi-
als.
Sampling Frequency: The interval be-
tween the collection of successive samples.
Sanctions: Actions taken by the federal
government for failure to provide or
implement a State Implementation Plan
(SIP). Such action may include withhold-
ing of highway funds and a ban on
construction of new sources of potential
pollution.
Sand Filters: Devices that remove some
suspended solids from sewage. Air and
bacteria decompose additional wastes
filtering through the sand so that cleaner
water drains from the bed.
Sanitary Landfill: (See: landfills.)
Sanitary Sewers: Underground pipes that
carry off only domestic or industrial
waste, not storm water.
Sanitary Survey: An on-site review of the
water sources, facilities, equipment, opera-
tion and maintenance of a public water
system to evaluate the adequacy of those
elements for producing and distributing
safe drinking water.
Sanitary Water (Also known as gray
wate&. Water discharged from sinks,
showers, kitchens, or other nonindustrial
operations, but not from commodes.
Sanitation: Control of physical factors in
the human environment that could harm
development, health, or survival.
Saprolite: A soft, clay-rich, thoroughly
decomposed rock formed in place by
chemical weathering of igneous or meta-
morphic rock. Forms in humid, tropical,
or subtropical climates.
Saprophytes: Organisms living on dead
or decaying organic matter that help
natural decomposition of organic matter
in water.
Saturated Zone: The area below the water
table where all open spaces are filled with
water under pressure equal to or greater
than that of the atmosphere.
Saturation: The condition of a liquid
when it has taken into solution the
maximum possible quantity of a given
41
-------
Secure Chemical Landfill: (See: landfills.)
substance at a given temp-erature and
pressure.
Science Advisory Board (SAB): A group
of external scientists who advise EPA on
science and policy.
Scrap: Materials discarded from manufac-
turing operations that may be suitable for
reprocessing.
Scrap Metal Processor Intermediate
operating facility where recovered metal
is sorted, cleaned of contaminants, and
prepared for recycling.
Screening: Use of screens to remove
coarse floating and suspended solids from
sewage.
Screening Risk Assessment A risk
assessment performed with few data and
many assumptions to identify exposures
that should be evaluated more carefully
for potential risk.
Scrubber An air pollution device that
uses a spray of water or reactant or a dry
process to trap pollutants in emissions.
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations:
Non-enforceable regulations applying to
public water systems and specifying the
maximum contamination levels that, in
the judgment of EPA, are required to
protect the public welfare. These regu-
lations apply to any contaminants that
may adversely affect the odor or ap-
pearance of such water and consequently
may cause people served by the system to
discontinue its use.
Secondary Effect: Action of a stressor on
supporting components of the ecosystem,
which in turn impact the ecological
component of concern. (See: primary
effect.)
Secondary Materials: Materials that have
been manufactured and used at least once
and are to be used again.
Secondary Standards: National ambient
air quality standards designed to protect
welfare, including effects on soils, water,
crops, vegetation, man-made (anthropo-
genic) materials, animals, wildlife,
weather, visibility, and climate; damage to
property; transportation hazards; eco-
nomic values, and personal comfort and
well-being.
Secondary Treatment: The second step in
most publicly owned waste treatment
systems in which bacteria consume the
organic parts of the waste. It is accom-
plished by bringing together waste,
bacteria, and oxygen in trickling filters or
in the activated sludge process. This
treatment removes floating and settleable
solids and about 90 percent of the oxygem
demanding substances and suspended
solids. Disinfection is the final stage of
secondary treatment. (See: primary, ter-
tiary treatment.)
Secure Maximum Contaminant Level:
Maximum permissible level of a contami-
nant in water delivered to the free flowing
outlet of the ultimate user, or of
contamination resulting from corrosion of
piping and plumbing caused by water
quality.
Sedimeht Yield: The quantity of sediment
arriving at a specific location.
Sedimentation: Letting solids settle out of
wastewater by gravity during treatment.
Sedimentation Tanks: Wastewater tanks
in which floating wastes are skimmed off
and settled solids are removed for
disposal.
Sediments: Soil, sand, and minerals
washed from land into water, usually after
rain. They pile up in reservoirs, rivers and
harbors, destroying fish and wildlife
habitat, and clouding the water so that
sunlight cannot reach aquatic plants.
Careless farming, mining, and building
activities will expose sediment materials,
allowing them to wash off the land after
rainfall.
Seed Protectant A chemical applied
before planting to protect seeds and
seedlings from disease or insects.
Seepage: Percolation of water through the
soil from unlined canals, ditches, laterals,
watercourses, or water storage facilities.
Selective Pesticide: A chemical designed
to affect only certain types of pests,
leaving other plants and animals un-
harmed.
Semi-Confined Aquifer An aquifer
partially confined by soil layers of low
permeability through which recharge and
discharge can still occur.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds: Or-
ganic compounds that volatilize slowly at
standard temperature (20 degrees C and 1
atm pressure).
Senescence: The aging process. Some-
times used to describe lakes or other
bodies of water in advanced stages of
eutrophication. Also used to describe
plants and, animals.
Septic System: An on-site system de-
signed to treat and dispose of domestic
sewage. A typical septic system consists of
tank that receives waste from a residence
or business amd a system of tile lines or a
pit for disposal of the liquid effluent
(sludge) that remains after decomposition
of the solidis by bacteria in the tank and
must be pumped out periodically.
Septic Tank An underground storage
tank for wastes from homes not connected
to a sewer line. Waste goes directly from
the home to the tank. (See: septic system.)
Service Connector: The pipe that car-
tap water from a public water main
building.
Service Line Sample: A one-liter sample
of water that has been stnding for at least
6 hours in a service pipeline and is
collected according to federal regulations.
Service Pipe: The pipeline extending from
trhe water main to the building served or
to the consumer’s system.
Set-Back: Setting a thermometer to a
lower temperature when the building is
unoccupied to reduce consumption of
heating energy. Also refers to setting the
thermometer to a higher temperature
during unoccupied periods in the cooling
season.
Settleable Solids: Material heavy enough
to sink to the bottom of a wastewater
treatment tank.
Settling Chamber. A series of screens
placed in the way of flue gases to slow the
stream of air, thus helping gravity to pull
particles into a collection device.
Settling Taic A holding area for
wastewater, where heavier particles sink
to the bottom for removal and disposal.
7Q10: Seven-day, consecutive low flu
with a ten year return frequency;
lowest stream flow for seven consecutii
days that would be expected to occur once
in ten years.
Sewage The waste and wastewater
produced by residential and commercial
sources and discharged into sewers.
Sewage Lagoon: (See: lagoon.)
Sewage Sludge: Sludge produced at a
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, the
disposal of which is regulated under the
Clean Water Act.
Sewer A channel or conduit that carries
wastewater and storm-water runoff from
the source to a treatment plant or receiving
stream. “Sanitary” sewers carry house-
hold, industrial, and commercial waste.
“Storm” sewers carry runoff from rain or
snow. “Combined” sewers handle both.
Sewerage: The entire system of sewage
collection, treatment, and disposal.
Shading Coefficient: The amount of the
sun’s heat transmitted through a given
window compared with that of a standard
1/8- inch-thick single pane of glass under
the same conditions.
Sharps: Hypodermic needles, syrin
(with or without the attached need
Pasteur pipettes, scalpel blades, blou
vials, needles with attached tubing, and
culture dishes used in animal or human
patient care or treatment, or in medical,
research or industrial laboratories. Also
included are other types of broken or
unbroken glasswa.re that were in contact
42
-------
th infectious agents, such as used slides
d cover slips, and unused hypodermic
nd suture needles, syringes, and scalpel
blades.
Shock Load: The arrival at a water
treatment plant of raw water containing
unusual amounts of algae, colloidal
matter. color, suspended solids, turbidity,
or other pollutants.
Short-Circuiting: When some of the water
in tanks or basins flows faster than the
rest; may result in shorter contact,
reaction, or settling times than calculated
or presumed.
Sick Building Syndrome: Building whose
occupants experience acute health and/or
comfort effects that appear to be linked to
time spent therein, but where no specific
illness or cause can be identified.
Complaints may be localized in a
particular room or zone, or may spread
throughout the building. (See: building-
related illness.)
Signal: The volume or product-level
change produced by a leak in a tank.
Signal Words: The words used on a
pesticide label--Danger, Warning, Cau-
tion--to indicate level of toxicity.
gnificant Deterioration: Pollution
sulting from a new source in previously
‘clean” areas. (See: prevention of signifi-
cant deterioration.)
Significant Municipal Facilities: Those
publicly owned sewage treatment plants
that discharge a million gallons per day or
more and are therefore considered by
states to have the potential to substantially
affect the quality of receiving waters.
Significant Non-Compliance: (See signifi-
cant violations.)
Significant Potential Source of Contami-
nation: A facility or activity that stores,
uses, or produces compounds with
potential for significant contaminating
impact if released into the source water of
a public water supply.
Significant Violations: Violations by
point source dischargers of sufficient
magnitude or duration to be a regulatory
priority.
Silt: Sedimentary materials composed of
fine or intermediate-sized mineral parti-
cles.
Silviculture: Management of forest land
for timber.
ngle-Breath Canister Small one-liter
nister designed to capture a single
Dreath, Used in air pollutant ingestion
research.
Sink: Place in the environment where a
compound or material collects.
Sinking: Controlling oil spills by using an
agent to trap the oil and sink it to the
bottom of the body of water where the
agent and the oil are biodegraded.
SIP Call: EPA action requiring a state to
resubmit all or part of its State Imp lemen-
tation Plan to demonstrate attainment of
the require national ambient air quality
standards within the statutory deadline.A
SIP Revision is a revision of a SIP altered at
the request of EPA or on a state’s initiative.
(See: State Implementation Plan.)
Site: An area or place within the
jurisdiction of the EPA and/or a state.
Site Assessment Program: A means of
evaluating hazardous waste sites through
preliminary assessments and site inspec-
tions to develop a Hazard Ranking System
score.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a Superfund site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed
by the site. It follows and is more extensive
than a preliminary assessment. The
purpose is to gather information neces-
sary to score the site, using the Hazard
Ranking System, and to determine if it
presents an immediate threat requiring
prompt removal.
Site Safety Plan: A crucial element in all
removal actions, it includes information
on equipment being used, precautions to
be taken, and steps to take in the event of
an on-site emergency.
Siting: The process of choosing a location
for a facility.
Skimming: Using a machine to remove oil
or scum from the surface of the water.
Slow Sand Filtration: Passage of raw
water through a bed of sand at low
velocity, resulting in substantial removal
of chemical and biological contaminants.
Sludge: A semi-solid residue from any of a
number of air or water treatment
processes; can be a hazardous waste.
Sludge Digester: Tank in which complex
organic substances like sewage sludges
are biologically dredged. During these
reactions, energy is released and much of
the sewage is converted to methane,
carbon dioxide, and water.
Sluny A watery mixture of insoluble
matter resulting from some pollution
control techniques.
Small Quantity Generator (SQG-someti-
mes referred to as “Squeegee”): Persons
or enterprises that produce 220-2200
pounds per month of hazardous waste;
they are required to keep more records
than conditionally exempt generators.
The largest category of hazardous waste
generators, SQGs, include automotive
shops, dry cleaners, photographic de-
velopers, and many other small busi-
nesses. (See: conditionally exempt genera-
tors.)
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical
change, to separate its metal content.
Emissions cause pollution. “Smelting” is
the process involved.
Smog: Air pollution typically associated
with oxidants. (See: photochemical smog.)
Smoke: Particles suspended in air after
incomplete combustion.
Soft Detergents: Cleaning agents that
break down in nature.
Soft Water Any water that does not
contain a significant amount of dissolved
minerals such as salts of calcium or
magnesium.
Soil Adsorption Field: A sub-surface area
containing a trench or bed with clean
stones and a system of piping through
which treated sewage may seep into the
surrounding soil for further treatment and
disposal.
Soil and Water Conservation Practices:
Control measures consisting of manage-
rial, vegetative, and structural practices to
reduce the loss of soil and water.
Soil Conditionec An organic material
like humus or compost that helps soil
absorb water, build a bacterial community,
and take up mineral nutrients.
Soil Erodibility: An indicator of a soil’s
susceptibility to raindrop impact, runoff,
and other erosive processes.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and com-
pounds in the small spaces between
particles of the earth and soil. Such gases
can be moved or driven out under
pressure.
Soil Moisture: The water contained in the
pore space of the unsaturated zone.
Soil Sterilant A chemical that tempo-
rarily or permanently prevents the growth
of all plants and animals,
Solder Metallic compound used to seal
joints between pipes. Until recently, most
solder contained 50 percent lead. Use of
solder containing more than 0.2 percent
lead in pipes carrying drinking water is
now prohibited.
Sole-Source Aquifec An aquifer that
supplies 50-percent or more of the
drinking water of an area.
Solid Waste: Non-liquid, non-soluble
materials ranging from municipal gar-
bage to industrial wastes that contain
complex and sometimes hazardous sub-
stances. Solid wastes also include sewage
sludge, agricultural refuse, demolition
wastes, and mining residues. Technically,
solid waste also refers to liquids and gases
in containers.
Solid Waste Disposal: The final place-
ment of refuse that is not salvaged or
recycled.
43
-------
Solid Waste Management: Supervised
handling of waste materials from their
source through recovery processes to
disposal.
Solidification and Stabilization: Re-
moval of wastewater from a waste or
changing it chemically to make it less
permeable and susceptible to transport by
water.
Solubility: The amount of mass of a
compound that will dissolve in a unit
volume of solution. Aqueous Solubility is
the maximum concentration of a chemical
that will dissolve in pure water at a
reference temperature.
Soot: Carbon dust formed by incomplete
combustion.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or
attracting substances; process used in
many pollution control systems.
Source Area: The location of liquid
hydrocarbons or the zone of highest soil or
groundwater concentrations, or both, of
the chemical of concern.
Source Characterization Measurements:
Measurements made to estimate the rate
of release of pollutants into the environ-
ment from a source such as an incinerator,
landfill, etc.
Source Reduction: Reducing the amount
of materials entering the waste stream
from a specific source by redesigning
products or patterns of production or
consumption (e.g., using returnable bev-
erage containers). Synonymous with
waste reduction.
Source Separation: Segregating various
wastes at the point of generation (e.g.,
separation of paper, metal and glass from
other wastes to make recycling simpler
and more efficient).
Source-Water Protection Area: The area
delineated by a state for a Public Water
Supply or including numerous such
suppliers, whether the source is ground
water or surface water or both.
Sparge or Sparging: Injection of air below
the water table to strip dissolved volatile
organic compounds and/or oxygenate
ground water to facilitate aerobic biodeg-
radation of organic compounds.
Special Local-Needs Registration: Regis-
tration of a pesticide product by a state
agency for a specific use that is not
federally registered. However, the active
ingredient must be federally registered for
other uses. The special use is specific to
that state and is often minor, thus may not
warrant the additional cost of a full
federal registration process. SLN registra-
tion cannot be issued for new active
ingredients, food-use . active ingredients
without tolerances, or for a canceled
registration. The products cannot be
shipped across state lines.
Special Review: Formerly known as
Rebuttable Presumption Against Registra-
tion (RPAR), this is the regulatory process
through which existing pesticides suspect-
ed of posing unreasonable risks to human
health, non-target organisms, or the
environment are referred for review by
EPA. Such review requires an intensive
risk/benefit analysis with opportunity for
public comment. If risk is found to
outweigh social and economic benefits,
regulatory actions can be initiated, rang-
ing from label revisions and use-restric-
tion to cancellation or suspended registra-
tion.
Special Waste: Items such as household
hazardous waste, bulky wastes (refrigera-
tors, pieces of furniture, etc.) tires, and
used oil.
Species: 1. A reproductively isolated
aggregate of interbreeding organisms
having common attributes and usually
designated by a common name. 2. An
organism belonging to belonging to such a
category.
Specific Conductance: Rapid method of
estimating the dissolved solid content of
a water supply by testing its capacity to
carry an electrical current.
Specific Yield: The amount of water a unit
volume of saturated permeable rock will
yield when drained by gravity.
Spill Prevention, Containment, and
Countermeasures Plan (SPCP): Plan
covering the release of hazardous sub-
stances as defined in the Clean Water Act.
Spoil: Dirt or rock removed from its
original location--destroying the compo-
sition of the soil in the process--as in strip-
mining, dredging, or construction.
Sprawl: Unplanned development of open
land.
Spray Tower Scrubben A device that
sprays alkaline water into a chamber
where acid gases are present to aid in
neutralizing the gas.
Spring: Ground water seeping out of the
earth where the water table intersects the
ground surface.
Spring Melt/Thaw: The process whereby
warm temperatures melt winter snow and
ice. Because various forms of acid
deposition may have been stored in the
frozen water, the melt can result in
abnormally large amounts of acidity
entering streams and rivers, sometimes
causing fish kills.
Stabilization: Conversion of the active
organic matter in sludge into inert,
harmless material.
Stabilization Ponds: (See: lagoon.)
Stable Air: A motionless mass of air that
holds, instead of dispersing, pollutants.
Stack: A chimney, smokestack, or verti
pipe that discharges used air.
Stack Effect Flow of air resulting from
warm air rising, creating a positive
pressure area at the top of a building and
negative pressure area at the bottom. This
effect can overpower the mechanical
system and disrupt building ventilation
and air circulation.
Stack Gas: (See: flue gas.)
Stage II Controls: Systems placed on
service station gasoline pumps to control
and capture gasoline vapors during
refuelling.
Stagnation: Lack of motion in a mass of
air or water that holds pollutants in place.
Stakeholden Any organization, govern-
mental entity, or individual that has a
stake in or may be impacted by a given
approach to environmental regulation,
pollution prevention, energy conserva-
tion, etc.
Standard Sample: The part of finished
drinking water that is examined for the
presence of coliform bacteria.
Standards: Norms that impose limits on
the amount of pollutants or emissions
produced. EPA establishes minimi
standards, but states are allowed to
stricter.
Start of a Response Action: The point in
time when there is a guarantee or set-aside
of funding by EPA, other federal agencies,
states or Principal Responsible Parties in
order to begin response actions at a
Superfund site.
State Emergency Response Commission
(SERC): Commission appointed by each
state governor according to the require-
ments of SARA Title III. The SERCs
designate emergency planning districts,
appoint local emergency planning commit-
tees, and supervise and coordinate their
activities.
State Environmental Goals and Indica-
tion Project Program to assist state
environmental agencies by providing
technical and financial assistance in the
development of environmental goals and
indicators.
State Implementation Plans (SIP): EPA
approved state plans for the establish-
ment, regulation, and enforcement of air
pollution standards.
State Management Plan: Under FIFRA, a
state management plan required by EPA
allow states, tribes, and U.S. territories r
flexibility to design and implement way
to protect ground water from the use of
certain pesticides.
Static Water Depth: The vertical distance
from the centerline of the pump discharge
down to the surface level of the free pool
44
-------
.e no water is being drawn from the
or water table.
Static Water Level: 1. Elevation or level of
the water table in a well when the pump is
not operating. 2. The level or elevation to
which water would rise in a tube
connected to an artesian aquifer or basin
in a conduit under pressure.
Stationary Source: A fixed-site producer
of pollution, mainly power plants and
other facilities using industrial combus-
tion processes. (See: point source.)
Sterilization: The removal or destruction
of all microorganisms, including patho-
genic and other bacteria, vegetative forms,
and spores.
Sterilizer: One of three groups of anti-
microbials registered by EPA for public
health uses. EPA considers an antimicro-
bial to be a sterilizer when it destroys or
eliminates all forms of bacteria, viruses,
and fungi and their spores. Because spores
are considered the most difficult form of
microorganism to destroy, EPA considers
the term sporicide to be synonymous with
sterilizer.
Storage Temporary holding of waste
pending treatment or disposal, as in
nfainers, tanks, waste piles, and surface
)undments.
STorm Sewer: A system of pipes (separate
from sanitary sewers) that carries water
runoff from buildings and land surfaces.
Stratification: Separating into layers.
Stratigraphy: Study of the formation,
composition, and sequence of sediments,
whether consolidated or not.
Stratosphere: The portion of the atmo-
sphere 10-to-25 miles above the earth’s
surface.
Stressors: Physical, chemical, or biologi-
cal entities that can induce adverse effects
on ecosystems or human health.
Stiip-Cropping Growing crops in a
systematic arrangement of strips or bands
that serve as barriers to wind and water
erosion.
Strip-Mining: A process that uses ma-
chines to scrape soil or rock away from
mineral deposits just under the earth’s
surface.
Structural Deformation: Distortion in
walls of a tank after liquid has been added
or removed.
ihchmpjc: Of intermediate duration,
illy used to describe studies or periods
- ‘xposure lasting between 5 and 90 days
ubchronic Exposure: Multiple or con-
tinuous exposures lasting for approxi-
mately ten percent of an experimental
species lifetime, usually over a three-
month period.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: Vegeta-
tion that lives at or below the water
surface; an important habitat for young
fish and othr aquatic organisms.
Subwatershed: Topographic perimeter of
the catchment area of a stream tributary.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ): A pungent, color-
less, gas formed primarily by the
combustion of fossil fuels; becomes a
pollutant when present in large amounts.
Sump: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superchlorination: Chlorination with
doses that are deliberately selected to
produce water free of combined residuals
so large as to require dechlorination.
Supercritical Waten A type of thermal
treatment using moderate temperatures
and high pressures to enhance the ability
of water to break down large organic
molecules into smaller, less toxic ones.
Oxygen injected during this process
combines with simple organic com-
pounds to form carbon dioxide and water.
Superfund: The program operated under
the legislative authority of C RCLA and
SARA that funds and carries out EPA solid
waste emergency and long-term removal
and remedial activities. These activities
include establishing the National Priori-
ties List, investigating sites for inclusion
on the list, determining their priority, and
conducting and/or supervising cleanup
and other remedial actions.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation (SITE) Program: EPA program to
promote development and use of innova-
tive treatment and site charachterization
technologies in Superfund site cleanups.
Supplemental Registration: An arrange-
ment whereby a registrant licenses
another company to market its pesticide
product under the second company’s
registration.
Supplier of Water: Any person who owns
or operates a public water supply.
Surface Impoundment: Treatment, stor-
age, or disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes in ponds.
Surface Runoff: Precipitation, snow melt,
or irrigation water in excess of what can
infiltrate the soil surface and be stored in
small surface depressions; a major trans-
porter of non-point source pollutants in
rivers, streams, and lakes.
Surface Uranium Mines: Strip mining
operations for removal of uranium-
bearing ore.
Surface Water: All water naturally open to
the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
ponds, streams, impoundments, seas,
estuaries, etc.)
Surface-Water Treatment Rule: Rule that
specifies maximum contaminant level
goals for Giardia lamblia, viruses, and
Legionella and promulgates filtration and
disinfection requirements for public water
systems using surface-water or ground-
water sources under the direct influence of
surface water. The regulations also specify
water quality, treatment, and watershed
protection criteria under which filtration
may be avoided.
Surfacing ACM:Asbestos-containing ma-
terial that is sprayed or troweled on or
otherwise applied to surfaces, such as
acoustical plaster on ceilings and fire-
proofing materials on structural members.
Surfacing Material: Material sprayed or
troweled onto structural members (beams,
columns, or decking) for fire protection; or
on ceilings or walls for fireproofing,
acoustical or decorative purposes. In-
cludes textured plaster, and other textured
wall and ceiling surfaces.
Surfactant: A detergent compound that
promotes lathering.
Surrogate Data: Data from studies of test
organisms or a test substance that are used
to estimate the characteristics or effects on
another organism or substance.
Surveillance System: A series of monitor-
ing devices designed to check on environ-
mental conditions,
Susceptibility Analysis: An analysis to
determine whether a Public Water Supply
is subject to significant pollution from
known potential sources.
Susceptibility Analysis: An analysis to
determine whether a Public Water Supply
is subject to significant pollution from
known potential sources.
Suspect Material: Building material sus-
pected of containing asbestos; e.g., surfac-
ing material, floor tile, ceiling tile, thermal
system insulation.
Suspended Loads: Specific sediment
particles maintained in the water column
by turbulence and carried with the flow of
water,
Suspended Solids: Small particles of
solid pollutants that float on the surface
of, or are suspended in, sewage or other
liquids. They resist removal by conven-
tional means.
Suspension: Suspending the use of a
pesticide when EPA deems it necessary to
prevent an imminent hazard resulting
from its continued use. An emergency
suspension takes effect immediately;
under an ordinary suspension a registrant
can request a hearing before the suspen-
sion goes into effect. Such a hearing
process might take six months.
Suspension Culture: Cells growing in a
liquid nutrient medium.
45
-------
Swamp: A type of wetland dominated by
woody vegetation but without appre-
ciable peat deposits. Swamps may be fresh
or salt water and tidal or non-tidal. (See:
wetlands.)
Synergism: An interaction of two or more
chemicals that results in an effect greater
than the sum of their separate effects.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs):
Man-made (anthropogenic) organic chemi-
cals. Some SOCs are volatile; others tend
to stay dissolved in water instead of
evaporating.
System With a Single Service Connec-
lioit A system that supplies drinking
water to consumers via a single service
line.
Systemic Pesticide: A chemical absorbed
by an organism that interacts with the
organism and makes the organism toxic to
pests.
T
Tail Water: The runoff of irrigation water
from the lower end of an irrigated field.
Tailings: Residue of raw material or waste
separated out during the processing of
crops or mineral ores.
Tailpipe Standards: Emissions limita-
tions applicable to mobile source engine
exhausts.
Tampering: Adjusting, negating, or re-
moving pollution control equipment on a
motor vehicle.
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG): As
part of the Superfund program, Technical
Assistance Grants of up to $50,000 are
provided to citizens’ groups to obtain
assistance in interpreting information
related to cleanups at Superfund sites or
those proposed for the National Priorities
List. Grants are used by such groups to
hire technical advisors to help them
understand the site-related technical
information for the duration of response
activities.
Technical-Grade Active Ingredient
(TGA): A pesticide chemical in pure form
as it is manufactured prior to being
formulated into an end-use product (e.g.,
wettable powders, granules, emulsifiable
concentrates). Registered manufactured
products composed of such chemicals are
known as Technical Grade Products.
Technology-Based Limitations: Indus-
try-specific effluent limitations based on
best available preventive technology
applied to a discharge when it will not
cause a violation of water quality
standards at low stream flows. Usually
applied to discharges into large rivers.
Technology-Based Standards: Irtdustry
specific effluent limitations applicable to
direct and indirect sources which are
developed on a category-by-category
basis using statutory factors, not includ-
ing water-quality effects.
Teratogenesis: The introduction of nonhe-
reditary birth defects in a developing fetus
by exogenous factors such as physical or
chemical agents acting in the womb to
interfere with normal embryonic develop-
ment.
Terracing: Dikes built along the contour of
sloping farm land that hold runoff and
sediment to reduce erosion.
Tertiary Treatment: Advanced cleaning of
wastewater that goes beyond the second-
ary or biological stage, removing nutri-
ents such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and
most BOD and suspended solids. (See
Primary Treatment: Secondary Treatment)
Theoretical Maximum Residue Contri-
bution: The theoretical maximum amount
of a pesticide in the daily diet of an
average person. It assumes that the diet is
composed of all food items for which there
are tolerance-level residues of the pesti-
cide. The TMRC is expressed as milli-
grams of pesticide/kilograms of body
weight / day.
Therapeutic Index: The ratio of the dose
required to produce toxic or lethal effects
to the dose required to produce nonadverse
or therapeutic response.
Thermal Pollution: Discharge of heated
water from industrial processes that can
kill or injure aquatic organisms.
Thermal Stratification: The formation of
layers of different temperatures in a lake
or reservoir.
Thermal System Insulation (TSI): Asbes-
tos-containing material applied to pipes,
fittings, boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts, or
other interior structural components to
prevent heat loss or gain or water
condensation.
Thermal Treatment: Use of elevated
temperatures to treat hazardous wastes.
(See: incineration; pyrolysis.)
Thermocline: The middle layer of a
thermally stratified lake or reservoir. In
this layer, there is a rapid decrease in
temperatures in a lake or reservoir.
Threshold: The lowest dose of a chemical
at which a specified measurable effect is
observed and below which it is not
observed.
Threshold Level: Time-weighted average
pollutant concentration values, exposure
beyond which is likely to adversely affect
human health. (See: environmental expo-
sure).
Threshold Limit Value (TLM The
concentration of an airborne substance to
which an average person can be re-
peatedly exposed without adverse effects.
TLVs may be expressed in three way
TLV-T WA—Time weighted average, b
on an allowable exposure averaged ovel’ a
normal 8-hour workday or 40 -hour
workweek; (2) TLV-STEL_Short term
exposure limit or maximum concentratjo
for a brief specified period of time,
depending on a specific chemical (TWA
must still be met); and (3) TLV-C_._Ceiling
Exposure Limit or maximum exposure
concentration not to be exceeded under
any circumstances. (TWA must still be
met.)
Threshold Odor: (See: Odor threshold)
Threshold Planning Quantity: A quan-
tity designated for each chemical On the
list of extremely hazardous substances
that triggers notification by facilities to the
State Emergency Response Commission
that such facilities are subject to emer-
gency planning requirements under SARA
Title Ill.
Thropic Levels: Afunctional classification
of species that is based on feeding
relationships (e.g., generally aquatic and
terrestrial green plants comprise the first
thropic level, and herbivores comprise the
second.)
Tidal MaisK Low, flat marshlan jc
traversed by channels and tidal holk
subject to tidal inundation; normally,
only vegetation present is salt-tolera t
bushes and grasses. (See: wetlands.)
Tilage: Plowing, seedbed preparation,
and cultivation practices.
Time-weighted Average (TWA) In air
sampling, the average air concentration of
contaminants during a given period.
Tire Processor Intermediate operating
facility where recovered tires are pro-
cessed in preparation for recycling.
Tires: As used in recycling, passenger car
and truck tires (excludes airplane, bus,
motorcycle and special service military
agricultural, off-the-road and-slow speed
industrial tires). Car and truck tires are
recycled into rubber products such as
trash cans, storage containers, rubberized
asphalt or used whole for playground and
reef construction.
Tolerance Petition: A formal request to
establish a new tolerance or modify art
existing one.
Tolerances: Permissible residue levels for
pesticides in raw agricultural produce
and processed foods. Whenever a pesti-
cide is registered for use on a food o
feed crop, a tolerance (or exemption fi
the tolerance requirement) must
established. EPA establishes the tolerance
levels, which are enforced by the Food and
Drug Administration and the Department
of Agriculture.
Tonnage: The amount of waste that a
landfill accepts, usually expressed in to 5
46
-------
month. The rate at which a landfill
epts waste is limited by the landfill’s
permit.
Topography: The physical features of a
surface area including relative elevations
and the position of natural and man-made
(anthropogenic) features.
Total Dissolved Phosphorous: The total
phosphorous content of all material that
will pass through a filter, which is
determined as orthophosphate without
prior digestion or hydrolysis. Also called
soluble P. or ortho P.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): All mate-
rial that passes the standard glass river
filter; now called total filtrable residue.
Term is used to reflect salinity.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH):
Measure of the concentration or mass of
petroleum hydrocarbon constituents
present in a given amount of soil or water.
The word “total” is a misnomer—few, if
any, of the procedures for quantifying
hydrocarbons can measure all of them in a
given sample. Volatile ones are usually
lost in the process and not quantified and
non-petroleum hydrocarbons sometimes
appear in the analysis.
al Recovered Petroleum Hydrocar-
i: A method for measuring petroleum
hydrocarbons in samples of soil or water.
Total Suspended Particles (TSP): A
method of monitoring airborne par-
ticulate matter by total weight.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS): A measure
of the suspended solids in wastewater,
effluent, or water bodies, determined by
tests for “total suspended non-filterable
solids.” (See: suspended solids.)
Toxaphene: Chemical that causes adverse
health effects in domestic water supplies
and is toxic to fresh water and marine
aquatic life.
Toxic Chemical: Any chemical listed in
EPA rules as “Toxic Chemicals Subject to
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986.”
Toxic Chemical Release Form: Informa-
tion form required of facilities that
manufacture, process, or use (in quantities
above a specific amount) chemicals listed
under SARA Title Ill.
Toxic Chemical Use Substitution: Replac-
ing toxic chemicals with less harmful
hemicals in industrial processes.
xic Cloud: Airborne plume of gases,
pors, fumes, or aerosols containing
toxic materials.
Toxic Concentration:The concentration at
which a substance produces a toxic effect.
Toxic Dose: The dose level at which a
substance produces a toxic effect.
Toxic Pollutants: Materials that cause
death, disease, or birth defects in
organisms that ingest or absorb them. The
quantities and exposures necessary to
cause these effects can vary widely.
Toxic Release Inventory: Database of
toxic releases in the United States
compiled from SARA Title III Section 313
reports.
Toxic Substance: A chemical or mixture
that may present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment.
Toxic Waste: A waste that can produce
injury if inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed
through the skin.
Toxicant A harmful substance or agent
that may injure an exposed organism.
Toxicity: The degree to which a substance
or mixture of substances can harm
humans or animals. Acute toxicity involves
harmful effects in an organism through a
single or short-term exposure Chronic
toxicity is the ability of a substance or
mixture of substances to cause harmful
effects over an extended period, usually
upon repeated or continuous exposure
sometimes lasting for the entire life of the
exposed organism. Subchronic toxicity is
the ability of the substance to cause effects
for more than one year but less than the
lifetime of the exposed organism.
Toxicity Assessment: Characterization of
the toxicological properties and effects of
a chemical, with special emphasis on
establishment of dose-response character-
istics.
Toxicity Testing: Biological testing (usual-
ly with an invertebrate, fish, or small
mammal) to determine the adverse effects
of a compound or effluent.
Toxicological Profile: An examination,
summary, and interpretation of a hazard-
ous substance to determine levels of
exposure and associated health effects.
Transboundary Pollutants: Air pollution
that travels from one jurisdiction to
another, often crossing state or interna-
tional boundaries. Also applies to water
pollution.
Transfer Station: Facility where solid
waste is transferred from collection
vehicles to larger trucks or rail cars for
longer distance transport.
Transient Water System: A non-commu-
nity water system that does not serve 25 of
the same nonresidents per day for more
than six months per year.
Transmission Lines: Pipelines that trans-
port raw water from its source to a water
treatment plant, then to the distribution
grid system.
Transmissivity: The ability of an aquifer
to transmit water.
Transpiration: The process by which
water vapor is lost to the atmosphere from
living plants. The term can also be applied
to the quantity of water thus dissipated.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs):
Steps taken by a locality to reduce
vehicular emission and improve air
quality by reducing or changing the flow
of traffic; e.g., bus and HOV lanes,
carpooling and other forms of ride-
shairing, public transit, bicycle lanes.
Transporter: Hauling firm that picks up
properly packaged and labeled hazardous
waste from generators and transports it to
designated facilities for treatment, stor-
age, or disposal. Transporters are subject
to EPA and DOT hazardous waste
regulations.
Trash: Material considered worthless or
offensive that is thrown away. Generally
defined as dry waste material, but in
common usage it is a synonym for
garbage, rubbish, or refuse.
Trash-to-Energy Plan: Burning trash to
produce energy.
Treatability Studies: Tests of potential
cleanup technologies conducted in a
laboratory (See: bench-scale tests.)
Treated Regulated Medical Waste: Medi-
cal waste treated to substantially reduce or
eliminate its pathogenicity, but that has
not yet been destroyed.
Treated Wastewater: Wastewater that hs
been subjected to one or more physical,
chemical, and biological processes to
reduce its potential of being a health
hazard.
Treatment: (1) Any method, technique, or
process designed to remove solids and/or
pollutants from solid waste, waste-
streams, effluents, and air emissions. (2)
Methods used to change the biological
character or composition of any regulated
medical waste so as to substantially
reduce or eliminate its potential for
causing disease.
Treatment Plant: A structure built to treat
wastewater before discharging it into the
environment.
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facil-
ity: Site where a hazardous substance is
treated, stored, or disposed of. TSD
facilities are regulated by EPA nd states
under RCRA.
Tremie: Device used to place concrete or
grout under water.
Trial Bum: An incinerator test in which
emissions are monitored for the presence
of specific organic compounds, particula-
tes, and hydrogen chloride.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) A Stable, low
boiling-point colorless liquid, toxic if
inhaled. Used as a solvent or metal
47
-------
degreasing agent, and in other industrial
applications.
Trickle Irrigation: Method in which water
drips to the soil from perforated tubes or
emitters.
Trickling Filter. A coarse treatment
system in which wastewater is trickled
over a bed of stones or other material
covered with bacteria that break down the
organic waste and produce clean water.
Trihalomethane (THM): One of a family
of organic compounds named as deriva-
tive of methane. THMs are generally by-
products of chlorination of drinking water
that contains organic material.
Troposhpere: The layer of the atmosphere
closest to the earth’s surface.
Trust Fund (CERCLA): A fund set up
under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) to help pay for cleanup of
hazardous waste sites and for legal action
to force those responsible for the sites to
clean them up.
Tube Settler Device using bundles of
tubes to let solids in water settle to the
bottom for removal by conventional
sludge collection means; sometimes used
in sedimentation basins and clarifiers to
improve particle removal.
Tuberculation: Development or forma-
tion of small mounds of corrosion
products on the inside of iron pipe. These
tubercules roughen the inside of the pipe,
increasing its resistance to water flow.
Tundrz A type of treeless ecosystem
dominated by lichens, mosses, grasses,
and woody plants. Tundra is found at
high latitudes (arctic tundra) and high
altitudes (alpine tundra). Arctic tundra is
underlain by permafrost and is usually
water saturated. (See: wetlands.)
Turbidimeter: A device that measures the
cloudiness of suspended solids in a liquid;
a measure of the quantity of suspended
solids,
Turbidity: 1. Haziness in air caused by the
presence of particles and pollutants. 2. A
cloudy condition in water due to suspend-
ed silt or organic matter.
U
Ultra Clean Coal (UCC): Coal that is
washed, ground into fine particles 1 then
chemically treated to remove sulfur, ash,
silicone, and other substances; usually
briquetted and coated with a sealant made
from coal.
Ultraviolet Rays: Radiation from the sun
that can be useful or potentially harmful.
UV rays from one part of the spectrum
(UV-A) enhance plant life. UV rays from
;:T. ’ r parts of the spectrum (UV-B) can
cause skin cancer or other tissue damage.
The ozone layer in the atmosphere partly
shields us from ultraviolet rays reaching
the earth’s surface.
Uncertainty Factor: One of several factors
used in calculating the reference dose
from experimental data. UFs are intended
to account for (1) the variation in
sensitivity among humans; (2) the uncer-
tainty in extrapolating animal data to
humans; (3) the uncertainty in extrapolat-
ing data obtained in a study that covers
less than the full life of the exposed animal
or human; and (4) the uncertainty in using
LOAEL data rather than NOAEL data.
Unconfined Aquifer: An aquifer contain-
ing water that is not under pressure; the
water level in a well is the same as the
water table outside the well.
Underground Injection Control (UIC):
The program under the Safe Drinking
WaterAct that regulates the use of wells to
pump fluids into the ground.
Underground Injection Wells: Steel- and
concrete-encased shafts into which haz-
ardous waste is deposited by force and
under pressure.
Underground Sources of Drinking Wa-
ter. Aquifers currently being used as a
source of drinking water or those capable
of supplying a public water system. They
have a total dissolved solids content of
10,000 milligrams per liter or less, and are
not “exempted aquifers.” (See: exempted
aquifer.)
Underground Storage Tank (UST):A tank
located at least partially underground and
designed to hold gasoline or other
petroleum products or chemicals.
Unreasonable Risk: Under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), “unreasonable adverse ef-
fects” means any unreasonable risk to
man or the environment, taking into
account the medical, economic, social, and
environmental costs and benefits of any
pesticide.
Unsaturated Zone: The area above the
water table where soil pores are not fully
saturated, although some water may be
present. (See: vadose zone)
Upper Detection Limit: The largest
concentration that an instrument can
reliably detect.
Uranium Mill Tailings Piles: Former
uranium ore processing sites that contain
leftover radioactive materials (wastes),
including radium and unrecovered urani-
um.
Uranium Mill-Tailings Waste Piles: Li-
censed active mills with tailings piles and
evaporation ponds created by acid or
alkaline leaching processes.
Urban Runoff Storm water from c
streets and adjacent domestic or comn
cial properties that carries pollutants
various kinds into the sewer Systems and
receiving waters.
Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insulation: A
material once used to conserve energy by
sealing crawl spaces, attics, etc.; no longer
used because emissions were found to be a
health hazard.
Use Cluster:Aset of competing chemicals,
processes, and/or technologies that can
substitute for one another in performing a
particular function.
Used Oil: Spent motor oil from passenger
cars and trucks collected at specified
locations for recycling (not included in the
category of municipal solid waste).
User Fee: Fee collected from only those
persons who use a particular service, as
compared to one collected from the public
in general.
Utility Load: The total electricity demand
for a utility district.
V
Vadose Zone: The zone between lai
surface and the water table within wF
the moisture content is less than satui
tion (except in the capillary fringe) and
pressure is less than atmospheric. Soil
pore space also typically contains air or
other gases. The capillary fringe is
included in the vadose zone. (See:
Unsaturated Zone.)
Valued Environmental Attributes/Corn..
ponents: Those aspects (components /
processes / functions) of ecosystems, hu-
man health, and environmental welfare
considered to be important and potert..
tially at risk from human activity or
natural hazards. Similar to the terrrt
“valued envirortment l components” USecj
in environmental impact assessment.
Vapor Capture System: Any combination
of hoods and ventilation system that
captures or contains organic vapors so
they may be directed to an abatement or
recovery device.
Vapor Dispersion: The movement of
vapor clouds in air due to wind, thermal
action, gravity spreading, and mixing.
Vapor Plumes: Flue gases visible because
they contain water droplets.
Vapor Pressure:A measure of a substanc ”
propensity to evaporate, vapor pressur
the force per unit area exerted by vapo
an equilibrium state with surroundings at
a given pressure. It increases expone ..
tially with an increase in temperature. A
relative measure of chemical volatility
vapor pressure is used to calculate water
partition coefficients and volatilization
rate constants.
-------
riance: Government permission for a
ay or exception in the application of a
given law, ordinance, or regulation.
Vector: 1. An organism, often an insect or
rodent, that carries disease. 2. Plasmids,
viruses, or bacteria used to transport
genes into a host cell. A gene is placed in
the vector; the vector then “infects” the
bacterium.
Vegetative Controls: Non-point source
pollution control practices that involve
vegetative cover to reduce erosion and
minimize loss of pollutants.
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT): A mea-
sure of the extent of motor vehicle
operation; the total number of vehicle
miles travelled within a specific geo-
graphic area over a given period of time.
Ventilation Rate:The rate at which indoor
air enters and leaves a building. Ex-
pressed as the number of changes of
outdoor air per unit of time (air changes
per hour (ACH), or the rate at which a
volume of outdoor air enters in cubic feet
per minute (CFM).
Ventilation/Suction: The act of admitting
fresh air into a space in order to replace
stale or contaminated air; achieved by
wing air into the space. Similarly,
ction represents the admission of fresh
ir into an interior space by lowering the
pressure outside of the space, thereby
drawing the contaminated air outward.
Venturi Scrubbers: Air pollution control
devices that use water to remove particu-
late matter from emissions.
Vinyl Chloride: A chemical compound,
used in producing some plastics, that is
believed to be oncogenic.
Virgin Materials: Resources extracted
from nature in their raw form, such as
timber or metal ore.
Viscosity: The molecular friction within a
fluid that produces flow resistance.
Volatile: Any substance that evaporates
readily.
Volatile Liquids: Liquids which easily
vaporize or evaporate at room tempera-
ture.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC): Any
organic compound that participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions ex-
cept those designated by EPA as having
negligible photochemical reactivity.
Volatile Solids: Those solids in water or
tr liquids that are lost on ignition of the
y solids at 550° centigrade.
Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals:
Chemicals that tend to volatilize or
evaporate.
Volume Reduction Processing waste
materials to decrease the amount of space
they occupy, usually by compacting,
shredding, incineration, or composting.
Volumetric Tank Test: One of several tests
to determine the physical integrity of a
storage tank; the volume of fluid in the
tank is measured directly or calculated
from product-level changes. A marked
drop in volume indicates a leak.
Vulnerability Analysis: Assessment of
elements in the community that are
susceptible to damage if hazardous
materials are released.
Vulnerable Zone: An area over which the
airborne concentration of a chemical
accidentally released could reach the level
of concern.
w
Waste: 1. Unwanted materials left over
from a manufacturing process. 2. Refuse
from places of human or animal habita-
tion.
Waste Characterization: Identification of
chemical and microbiological constituents
of a waste material.
Waste Exchange: Arrangement in which
companies exchange their wastes for the
benefit of both parties.
Waste Feed: The continuous or intermit-
tent flow of wastes into an incinerator.
Waste Generation: The weight or volume
of materials and products that enter the
waste stream before recycling, composting,
landfilling, or combustion takes place.
Also can represent the amount of waste
generated by a given source or category of
sources.
Waste Load Allocation: 1. The maximum
load of pollutants each discharger of
waste is allowed to release into a
particular waterway. Discharge limits are
usually required for each specific water
quality criterion being, or expected to be,
violated. 2. The portion of a stream’s total
assimilative capacity assigned to an
individual discharge.
Waste Minimization: Measures or tech-
niques that reduce the amount of wastes
generated during industrial production
processes; term is also applied to recycling
and other efforts to reduce the amount of
waste going into the waste stream.
Waste Piles: Non-containerized, lined or
unlined accumulations of solid,
nonflowing waste.
Waste Reduction: Using source reduction,
recycling, or composting to prevent or
reduce waste generation.
Waste Stream: The total flow of solid
waste from homes, businesses, institu-
tions, and manufacturing plants that is
recycled, burned, or disposed of in
landfills, or segments thereof such as the
“residential waste stream” or the “recy-
clable waste stream.”
Waste Treatment Lagoon: Impoundment
made by excavation or earth fill for
biological treatment of wastewater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility contain-
ing a series of tanks, screens, filters and
other processes by which pollutants are
removed from water.
Waste Treatment Stream: The continuous
movement of waste from generator to
treater and disposer.
Waste-Fteat Recovery: Recovering heat
discharged as a byproduct of one process
to provide heat needed by a second
process.
Waste-to-Energy Facility/Municipal-
Waste Combuston Facility where recov-
ered municipal solid waste is converted
into a usable form of energy, usually via
combustion.
Wastewater:The spent or used water from
a home, community, farm, or industry that
contains dissolved or suspended
matter.Water Pollution: The presence in
water of enough harmful or objectionable
material to damage the water’s quality.
Wastewater Infrastructure: The plan or
network for the collection, treatment, and
disposal of sewage in a community. The
level of treatment will depend on the size
of the community, the type of discharge,
and/or the designated use of the receiving
water.
Wastewater Operations and Mainte-
nance: Actions taken after construction to
ensure that facilities constructed to treat
wastewater will be operated, maintained,
and managed to reach prescribed effluent
levels in an optimum manner.
Water Purveyor: A public utility, mutual
water company, county water district, or
municipality that delivers drinking water
to customers.
Water Quality Criteria: Levels of water
quality expected to render a body of water
suitable for its designated use. Criteria are
based on specific levels of pollutants that
would make the water harmful if used for
drinking, swimming, farming, fish produc-
tion, or industrial processes.
Water Quality Standards: State-adopted
and EPA-approved ambient standards for
water bodies. The standards prescribe the
use of the water body and establish the
water quality criteria that must be met to
protect designated uses.
Water Quality-Based Limitations: Efflu-
ent limitations applied to disc.J ai ers
when mere technology-based limitations
would cause violations of water quality
standards. Usually applied to discharges
into small streams.
49
-------
Water Quality-Based Permit: A permit
with an effluent limit more stringent than
one based cm technology performance.
Such limits may be necessary to protect
the designated use of receiving waters
(e.g., recreation, irrigation, industry or
water supply).
Water Solubility: The maximum possible
concentration of a chemical compound
dissolved in water. If a substance is water
soluble it can very readily disperse
through the environment.
Water Storage Pond: An impound for
liquid wastes designed to accomplish
some degree of biochemical treatment.
Water Suppliec One who owns or
operates a public water system.
Water Supply System: The collection,
treatment, storage, and distribution of
potable water from source to consumer.
Water Table: The level of groundwater.
Water Treatment Lagoon: An impound
for liquid wastes designed to accomplish
some degree of biochemical treatment.
Water WelL An excavation where the
intended use is for location, acquisition,
development, or artificiial recharge of
ground water.
Water-Soluble Packaging: Packaging that
dissolves in water; used to reduce
exposure risks to pesticide mixers and
loaders.
Water-Source Heat Pump: Heat pump
that uses wells or heat exchangers to
transfer heat from water to the inside of a
building. Most such units use ground
water. (See: ground-source heat pump;
heat pump.)
Waterborne Disease Outbreak: The sig-
nificant occurence of acute illness associ-
ated with drinking water from a public
water system that is deficient in treatment,
as determined by appropriate local or
state agencies.
Watershed: The land area that drains into
a stream; the watershed for a major river
may encompass a nummber of smaller
watersheds that ultimately combine at a
common point.
Watershed Approach: A coordinated
framework for environmental manage-
ment that focuses public and private
efforts on the highest priority problems
within hydrologically-defined geographic
areas taking into consideration both
ground and surface water flow.
Watershed Area: A topographic area
within a line drawn connecting the
highest points uphill of a drinking water-
intake into which overland flow drains.
Weight of Scientific Evidence: Consider-
ations in assessing the interpretation of
published information about toxicity
quality of testing methods, size and power
of study design, consistency of results
across studies, and biological plausibility
of exposure-response relationships and
statistical associations.
Weir: 1. A wall or plate placed in an open
channel to measure the flow of water. 2. A
wall or obstruction used to control flow
from settling tanks and clarifiers to ensure
a uniform flow rate and avoid short-
circuiting. (See: short-circuiting.)
Well: A bored, drilled, or driven shaft, or a
dug hole whose depth is greater than the
largest surface dimension and whose
purpose is to reach underground water
supplies or oil, or to store or bury fluids
below ground.
Well Field: Area containing one or more
wells that produce usable amounts of
water or oil.
Well Injection: The subsurface emplace-
ment of fluids into a well.
Well Monitoring: Measurement by on-
site instruments or laboratory methods of
well water quality.
Well Plug: A watertight, gastight seal
installed in a bore hole or well to prevent
movement of fluids.
Well Point: A hollow vertical tube, rod, or
pipe terminating in a perforated pointed
shoe and fitted with a fine-mesh screen.
Wellhead Protection Area: A protected
surface and subsurface zone surrounding
a well or well field supplying a public
water system to keep contaminants from
reaching the well water.
Wetlands: Art area that is saturated by
surface or ground water with vegetation
adapted for life under those soil condi-
tions, as swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and
estuaries.
Wettability: The relative degree to which
a fluid will apread into or coat a solid
surface in the presence of other immiscible
fluids.
Wettable Powden Dry formulation that
must be mixed with water or other liquid
before it is applied.
Wheeling: The transmission of electricity
owned by one entity through the facilities
owned by another (usually a utility).
Whole-Effluent-Toxicity Tests: Tests to
determine the toxicity levels of the total
effluent from a single source as opposed to
a series of tests for individual contami-
nants.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for
the protection of wild animals, within
which hunting and fishing are either
prohibited or strictly controlled.
Wire-to-Wire Efficiency: The efficiency of
a pump and motor together.
Wood Packaging: Wood products suck
pallets, crates, and barrels.
Wood Treatment Facility: An industrial
facility that treats lumber and other wood
products for outdoor use. The process
employs chromated copper arsenate,
which is regulated as a hazardous
material.
Wood-Burning-Stove Pollution:Air pollu-
tion caused by emissions of particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, total suspended
particulates, and polycyclic organic mat-
ter from wood-burning stoves.
Working Level (WL): A unit of measure
for documenting exposure to radon decay
products, the so-called “daughters.” One
working level is equal to approximately
200 picocuries per liter.
Working Level Month (WLM): A Unit of
measure used to determine cumulative
exposure to radon.
x
Xenobiota: Any biotum displaced from its
normal habitat; a chemical foreign to a
biological system.
Y
Yard Waste The part of solid waste
composed of grass clippings, leaves,
twigs, branches, and other garden refuse.
Yellow-Boy: Iron oxide flocculant (clumps
of solids in waste or water); usually
observed as orange-yellow deposits ir
surface streams with excess iron content.
(See: floc, flocculation.)
Yield: The quantity of water (expressed as
a rate of flow or total quantity per year)
that can be collected for a given use from
surface or groundwater sources.
z
Zero Am Atmospheric air purified to
contain less than 0.1 ppm total hydrocar
bons.
50
-------
Alternative and Innovative
(Wastewater Treatment System)
AA: Accountable Area; Adverse Action;
Advices of Allowance; Assistant Admin-
istrator; Associate Administrator; Atomic
Absorption
AAEE: American Academy of Environ-
mental Engineers
AANWR: Alaskan Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
AAP: Asbestos Action Program
AAPCO: American Association of
Pesticide Control Officials
AARC: Alliance for Acid Rain Control
ABEL: EPA’s computer model for
analyzing a violator’s ability to pay a
civil penalty.
ABES: Alliance for Balanced Environ-
mental Solutions
AC: Actual Commitment. Advisory
Circular
A&C: Abatement and Control
ACA: American Conservation Associa-
tion
M: Asbestos-Containing Building
- . riaI
ACE: Alliance for Clean Energy
ACE: Any Credible Evidence
ACEEF: American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy
ACFM: Actual Cubic Feet Per Minute
ACL: Alternate Concentration Limit.
Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
ACM: Asbestos-Containing Material
ACP: Agriculture Control Program
(Water Quality Management); AC!’: Air
Carcinogen Policy
ACQUIRE: Aquatic Information Re-
trieval
ACQR: Air Quality Control Region
ACS: American Chemical Society
ACT: Action
ACTS: Asbestos Contractor Tracking
System
ACWA: American Clean Water Associa-
tion
ACWM: Asbestos-Containing Waste
rial
BA: Acceptable Data Base
ADB: Applications Data Base
ADI: Acceptable Daily Intake
AD?: AHERA Designated Person;
Automated Data Processing
ADQ: Audits of Data Quality
ADR: Alternate Dispute Resolution
ADSS: Air Data Screening System
ADT: Average Daily Traffic
AEA: Atomic Energy Act
AEC: Associate Enforcement Counsels
AEE: Alliance for Environmental
Education
AEERL: Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory
AEM: Acoustic Emission Monitoring
AERE: Association of Environmental
and Resource Economists
AES: Auger Electron Spectrometry
AFA: American Forestry Association
AFCA: Area Fuel Consumption Alloca-
tion
AFCEE: Air Force Center for Environ-
mental Excellence
AFS: AIRS Facility Subsystem
AFUG: AIRS Facility Users Group
AH: Allowance Holders
AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act
AHU: Air Handling Unit
Al: Active Ingredient
AIC: Active to Inert Conversion
AICUZ: Air Installation Compatible Use
Zones
AID: Agency for International Develop-
ment
AIHC: American Industrial Health
Council
A!?: Auto Ignition Point
AIRMON: Atmospheric Integrated
Research Monitoring Network
AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval
System
AL: Acceptable Level
ALA: Delta-Aminolevulinic Acid
ALA-O: Delta-Aminolevulinic Acid
Dehydrates
ALAPO: Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officers
ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achiev-
able
ALC: Application Limiting Constituent
AU: Administrative Law Judge
ALMS: Atomic Line Molecular Spectros-
copy
ALR: Action Leakage Rate
AMBIENS: Atmospheric Mass Balance
of Industrially Emitted and Natural
Sulfur
AMOS: Air Management Oversight
System
AMPS: Automatic Mapping and
Planning System
AMSA: Association of Metropolitan
Sewer Agencies
ANC: Acid Neutralizing Capacity
ANPR: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
ANRHRD: Air, Noise, & Radiation
Health Research Division/ORD
ANSS: American Nature Study Society
AOAC: Association of Official Analytical
Chemists
AOC: Abnormal Operating Conditions
AOD: Argon-Oxygen Decarbonization
AOML: Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory
AP: Accounting Point
APA: Administrative Procedures Act
APCA: Air Pollution Control Association
APCD: Air Pollution Control District
APDS: Automated Procurement Docu-
mentation System
APHA: American Public Health Associa-
tion
APRAC: Urban Diffusion Model for
Carbon Monoxide from Motor Vehicle
Traffic
APTI: Air Pollution Training Institute
APWA: American Public Works Associa-
tion
AQ-7: Non-reactive Pollutant Modelling
AQCCT: Air-Quality Criteria and
Control Techniques
AQCP: Air Quality Control Program
AQCR: Air-Quality Control Region
AQD: Air-Quality Digest
AQDHS: Air-Quality Data Handling
System
AQDM: Air-Quality Display Model
AQMA: Air-Quality Maintenance Area
AQMD: Air Quality Management
District
AQMP: Air-Quality Maintenance Plan.
AQSM: Air-Quality Simulation Model
AQTAD: Air-Quality Technical Assis-
tance Demonstration
AR: Administrative Record
51
-------
A&R: Air and Radiation
ARA: Assistant Regional Administrator;
Associate Regional Administrator
ARAC: Acid Rain Advisory Committee
ARAR: Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Standards, Limitations,
Criteria, and Requirements
ARB: Air Resources Board
ARC: Agency Ranking Committee
ARCC: American Rivers Conservation
Council
ARCS: Alternative Remedial Contract
Strategy
ARG: American Resources Group
ARIP: Accidental Release Information
Program
ARL: Air Resources Laboratory
ARM: Air Resources Management
ARNEWS: Acid Rain National Early
Warning Systems
ARO: Alternate Regulatory Option
ARRP: Acid Rain Research Program
ARRPA: Air Resources Regional
Pollution Assessment Model
ARS: Agricultural Research Service
ARZ: Auto Restricted Zone
AS: Area Source
ASC: Area Source Category
ASDWA: Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators
ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard
Abatement Act
ASHRAE: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers
ASIWCPA: Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators
ASMDHS: Airshed Model Data Han-
dling System
ASRL: Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory
AST: Advanced Secondary (Wastewater)
Treatment
ASTHO: Association of State and
Territorial Health Officers
ASTM: American Society for Testing and
Materials
ASTSWMO: Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials
AT: Advanced Treatment. Alpha Track
Detection
ATERIS: Air Toxics Exposure and Risk
Information System
ATS: Action Tracking System; Allow-
ance Tracking System
ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
ATTF: Air Toxics Task Force
AUSM: Advanced Utility Simulation
Model
AJWPR: Air/Water Pollution Report
AWRA: American Water Resources
Association
AWT: Advanced Wastewater Treatment
AWWA: American Water Works
Association
AWWARF: American Water Works
Association Research Foundation.
B
BAA: Board of Assistance Appeals
BAC: Bioremediation Action Committee;
Biotechnology Advisory Committee
BACM: Best Available Control Measures
BACT: Best Available Control Technol-
ogy
BADT: Best Available Demonstrated
Technology
BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor
BaP: Benzo(a)Pyrene
BAP: Benefits Analysis Program
BART: Best Available Retrofit Technol-
ogy
BASIS: Battelle’s Automated Search
Information System
BAT: Best Available Technology
BATEA: Best Available Treatment
Economically Achievable
BCT: Best Control Technology
BCPCT: Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology
BDAT: Best Demonstrated Achievable
Technology
BDCT: Best Demonstrated Control
Technology
BDT: Best Demonstrated Technology
BEJ: Best Engineering Judgement. Best
Expert Judgment
BF: Bonafide Notice of Intent to
Manufacture or Import (IMD/OTS)
BID: Background Information Docu-
ment. Buoyancy Induced Dispersion
BIOPLUME: Model to Predict the
Maximum Extent of Existing Plumes
BMP: Best Management Practice(s)
BMR: Baseline Monitoring Report
BO: Budget Obligations
BOA: Basic Ordering Agreement
(Contracts)
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand.
Biological Oxygen Demand
BOF: Basic Oxygen Furnace
BOP: Basic Oxygen Process
BOPF: Basic Oxygen Process Furnace
BOYSNC: Beginning of Year Significant
Non-Compliers
BP: Boiling Point
BPJ: Best Professional Judgment
BPT: Best Practicable Technology. Pest
Practicable Treatment
BPWTT: Best Practical Wastewater
Treatment Technology
BRI: Building-Related Illness
BRS: Bibliographic Retrieval Service
BSI: British Standards Institute
BSO: Benzene Soluble Organics
BTZ: Below the Treatment Zone
BUN: Blood Urea Nitrogen
C
CA: Citizen Act. Competition Advocate.
Cooperative Agreements. Corrective
Action
CAA: Clean Air Act; Compliance
Assurance Agreement
CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments
CAER: Community Awareness and
Emergency Response
CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAFO: Concentrated Animal Feedlot;
Consent Agreement/Final Order
CAG: Carcinogenic Assessment Group
CAIR: Comprehensive Assessment of
Information Rule
CALINE: California Line Source Model
CAM: Compliance Assurance Monitor-
ing rule; Compliance Assurance Moni-
toring
CAMP: Continuous Air Monitoring
Program
CAN: Common Account Number
CAO: Corrective Action Order
CAP: Corrective Action Plan. Cost
Allocation Procedure. Criteria Air
Pollutant
CAFMoN: Canadian Air and
Precipitatiion Monitoring Network
CAR: Corrective Action Report
52
-------
3: Center for Automotive Safety;
rnical Abstract Service
CASAC: Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee
CASLP: Conference on Alternative State
and Local Practices
CASTNet: Clean Air Status and Trends
Network
CATS: Corrective Action Tracking
System
CAU: Carbon Adsorption Unit; Com-
mand Arithmetic Unit
CB: Continuous Bubbler
CBA: Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Cost
Benefit Analysis
CBD: Central Business District
CBEP: Community Based Environmental
Project
C$I: Compliance Biomortitoring Inspec-
tion; Confidential Business Information
CBOD: Carbonaceous Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
CBP: Chesapeake Bay Program; County
Business Patterns
: Competition in Contracting Act
etA: Canadian Clean Air Act
CCAP: Center for Clean Air Policy;
Climate Change Action Plan
CCEA: Conventional Combustion
Environmental Assessment
CCHW: Citizens Clearinghouse for
Hazardous Wastes
CCID: Confidential Chemicals Identifi-
cation System
CCMS/NATO: Committee on Chal-
lenges of a Modern Society!
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
CCP: Composite Correction Plan
CC/RTS: Chemical Collection! Request
Tracking System
CCTP: Clean Coal Technology Program
CD: Climatological Data
CDB: Consolidated Data Base
CDBA: Central Data Base Administrator
CDBG: Community Development Block
Grant
CDI): Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
CI)F: Chlorinated dibenzofuran
)HS:ComPrehensive Data Handling
,,stem
CDI: Case Development Inspection
CDM: Climatological Dispersion Model;
Comprehensive Data Management
CDMQC: Climatological Dispersion
Model with Calibration and Source
Contribution
CDNS: Climatological Data National
Summary
CDP: Census Designated Places
CDS: Compliance Data System
CE: Categorical Exclusion. Conditionally
Exempt Generator
CEA: Cooperative Enforcement Agree-
ment; Cost and Economic Assessment
CEAT: Contractor Evidence Audit Team
CEARC: Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council
CEB: Chemical Element Balance
CEC: Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
CECATS: CSB Existing Chemicals
Assessment Tracking System
CEE: Center for Environmental Educa-
tion
CEEM: Center for Energy and Environ-
mental Management
CEI: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
CELRF: Canadian Environmental Law
Research Foundation
CEM: Continuous Emission Monitoring
CEMS: Continuous Emission Monitoring
System
CEPA: Canadian Environmental Protec-
tion Act
CEPP: Chemical Emergency Prepared-
ness Plan
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (1980)
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensations and
Liability Information System
CERT: Certificate of Eligibility
CESQG: Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generator
CEST: Community Environmental
Service Teams
CF: Conservation Foundation
CFC: Chlorofluorocarbons
CFM: Chiorofluoromethanes
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CHABA: Committee on Hearing and
Bio-Acoustics
CHAMP: Community Health Air
Monitoring Program
CHEMNET: Chemical Industry Emer-
gency Mutual Aid Network
CHESS: Community Health and
Environmental Surveillance System
CHIP: Chemical Hazard Information
Profiles
CI: Compression Ignition. Confidence
Interval
CIAQ: Council on Indoor Air Quality
CIBL: Convective Internal Boundary
Layer
CICA: Competition in Contracting Act
CICIS: Chemicals in Commerce Informa-
tion System
CIDRS: Cascade Impactor Data Reduc-
tion System
CIMI: Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement
CIS: Chemical Information System.
Contracts Information System
CKD: Cement Kiln Dust
CKRC: Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
CLC: Capacity Limiting Constituents
CLEANS: Clinical Laboratory for
Evaluation and Assessment of
Toxic Substances
CLEVER: Clinical Laboratory for
Evaluation and Validation of Epidemio-
logic Research
CLF: Conservation Law Foundation
CLI: ConsumerLabelling Initiative
CLIPS: Chemical List Index and Process-
ing System
CLP: Contract Laboratory Program
CM: Corrective Measure
CMA: Chemical Manufacturers Associa-
tion
CMB: Chemical Mass Balance
CME: Comprehensive Monitoring
Evaluation
CMEL: Comprehensive Monitoring
Evaluation Log
CMEP: Critical Mass Energy Project
CNG: Compresed Natural Gas
COCO: Contractor-Owned/ Contractor-
Operated
COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand
COH: Coefficient Of Haze
CPDA: Chemical Producers and Dis-
tributor Association
CPF: Carcinogenic Potency Factor
CPO: Certified Project Officer
CQA: Construction Quality Assurance
CR: Continuous Radon Monitoring
CROP: Consolidated Rules of Practice
53
-------
CRP: Child-Resistant Packaging;
Conservation Reserve Program
CRR: Center for Renewable Resources
CRSTER: Single Source Dispersion
Model
CSCT: Committee for Site Characteriza-
tion
CSGWPP: Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Program
CSI: Common Sense Initiative; Compli-
ance Sampling Inspection
C SIN: Chemical Substances Information
Network
CSMA: Chemical Specialties Manufac-
turers Association
CSO: Combined Sewer Overflow
CSPA: Council of State Planning
Agencies
CSRL: Center for the Study of Respon-
sive Law
CTARC: Chemical Testing and Assess-
ment Research Commission
CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines
CTSA: Cleaner Technologies Subsitutes
Assessment
CV: Chemical Vocabulary
CVS: Constant Volume Sampler
CW: Continuous working-level monitor-
ing
CWA: Clean Water Act (aka FWPCA)
CWAP: Clean Water Action Project
CWTC: Chemical Waste Transportation
Council
CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act
CZARA: Coastal Zone Management Act
Reauthorization Amendments
D
DAPSS: Document and Personnel
Security System (IMD)
DBP: Disinfection By-Product
DCI: Data Call-In
DCO: Delayed Compliance Order
DCO: Document Control Officer
DDT: DichioroDiphenylTrichioroethane
DERs: Data Evaluation Records
DES: Diethylstilbesterol
DfE: Design for the Environment
DI: Dia nostic Inspection
DMR: Discharge Monitoring Report
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid
DNAPL: Dense Non-Aqueous Phase
Liquid
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
DOW: Defenders Of Wildlife
DPA: Deepwater Ports Act
DPD: Method of Measuring Chlorine
Residual in Water
DQO: Data Quality Objective
DRE: Destruction and Removal Effi-
ciency
DRES: Dietary Risk Evaluation System
DRMS: Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Service
DRR: Data Review Record
DS: Dichotomous Sampler
DSAP: Data Self Auditing Program
DSCF: Dry Standard Cubic Feet
DSCM: Dry Standard Cubic Meter
DSS: Decision Support System; Domestic
Sewage Study
DT: Detectors (radon) damaged or lost;
Detention Time
DU: Decision Unit. Ducks Unlimited;
Dobson Unit
DUC: Decision Unit Coordinator
DWEL: Drinking Water Equivalent Level
DWS: Drinking Water Standard
DWSRF: Drinking Water State Revolv-
ing Fund
E
EA: Endangerment Assessment; Enforce-
ment Agreement; Environmental Action;
Environmental Assessment;. Environ-
mental Audit
EAF: Electric Arc Furnaces
EAG: Exposure Assessment Group
EAP: Environmental Action Plan
EAR: Environmental Auditing
Roundtable
EASI: Environmentl Alliance for Senior
Involvement
EB: Emissions Balancing
EC: Emulsifiable Concentrate; Environ-
ment Canada; Effective Concentration
ECA: Economic Community for Africa
ECAP: Employee Counselling and
Assistance Program
ECD: Electron Capture Detector
ECHH: Electro-Catalytic Hyper-Heaters
ECL: Environmental Chemical Labora-
tory
ECOS: Environmental Council of the
States
ECK: Enforcement Case Review
ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility
Act
ED: Effective Dose
EDA; Emergency Declaration Area
EDB: Ethylene Dibromide
EDC: Ethylene Dichloride
EDD: Enforcement Decision Document
EDF: Environmental Defense Fund
EDRS: Enforcement Document Retrieval
System
EDS: Electronic Data System; Energy
Data System
EDTA: Ethylene Diamine Triacetic Acid
EDX: Electronic Data Exchange
EDZ: Emission Density Zoning
EEA: Energy and Environmental
Analysis
EECs: Estimated Environmental
Concentrations
EER: Excess Emission Report
EERL: Eastern Environmental Radiatic
Laboratory
EERU: Environmental Emergency
Response Unit
EESI: Environment and Energy Study
Institute
EESL: Environmental Ecological and
Support Laboratory
EETFC: Environmental Effects, Trans-
port, and Fate Committee
EF: Emission Factor
EFO: Equivalent Field Office
EFTC: European Fluorocarbon Technical
Committee
EGR: Exhaust Gas Recirculation
EH: Redox Potential
EHC: Environmental Health Committee
EHS: Extremely Hazardous Substance
El: Emissions Inventory
EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment.
Economic Impact Assessment
EIL: Environmental Impairment Liability
EIR: Endangerment Information Reporf
Environmental Impact Report
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement;
Environmental Inventory System
EIS/AS: Emissions Inventory Systern/
Area Source
EISIPS: Emissions Inventory System/
Point Source
54
-------
A: Empirical Kinetic Modeling
oach
Et:Exposure Level
ELI: Environmental Law Institute
ELR: Environmental Law Reporter
EM: Electromagnetic Conductivity
EMAP: Enviornmental Mapping and
Assessment Program
EMAS: Enforcement Management and
Accountability System
EMR: Environmental Management
Report
EMS: Enforcement Management System
EMSL: Environmental Monitoring
Support Systems Laboratory
EMTS: Environmental Monitoring
Testing Site; Exposure Monitoring Test
Site
EnPA: Environmental Performance
Agreement
EO: Ethylene Oxide
EOC: Ei nergency Operating Center
EOF: Emergency Operations Facility
(RTP)
End Of Pipe
‘iT: Emergency Operations Team
EP: Earth Protectors; Environmental
Profile; End-use Product; Experimental
Product; Extraction Procedure
EPAA: Environmental Programs
Assistance Act
EPAAR: EPA Acquisition Regulations
EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation
Act
EPACASR: EPA Chemical Activities
Status Report
EPACT: Environmental Policy Act
EPCRA: Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act
EPD: Emergency Planning District
EPI: Environmental Policy Institute
EPIC: Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center
EPNL: Effective Perceived Noise Level
EPRI: Electric Power Research Institute
EPTC: Extraction Procedure Toxicity
Characteristic
‘:Environmental Quality Incentives
am
ER: Ecosystem Restoration; Electrical
Resistivity
ERA: Economic Regulatory Agency
ERAMS: Environmental Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System
ERC: Emergency Response Commission.
Emissions Reduction Credit, Environ-
mental Research Center
ERCS: Emergency Response Cleanup
Services
ERDA: Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration
ERD&DAA: Environmental Research,
Development and Demonstration
Authorization Act
ERL: Environmental Research Labora-
tory
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification
System
ERP: Enforcement Response Policy
ERT: Emergency Response Team
ERTAQ: ERT Air Quality Model
ES: Enforcement Strategy
ESA: Endangered Species Act. Environ-
mentally Sensitive Area
ESC: Endangered Species Committee
ESCA: Electron Spectroscopy for
Chemical Analysis
ESCAP: Economic and Social Commis-
sion for Asia and the Pacific
ESECA: Energy Supply and Environ-
mental Coordination Act
ESH: Environmental Safety and Health
ESP: Electrostatic Precipitators
ET: Emissions Trading
ETI: Environmental Technology Initia-
tive
ETP: Emissions Trading Policy
ETS: Emissions Tracking System;
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
ETV: Environmental Technology
Verification Program
EUP: End-Use Product; Experimental
Use Permit
EWCC: Environmental Workforce
Coordinating Committee
EXAMS: Exposure Analysis Modeling
System
ExEx: Expected Exceedance
F
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act
FAN: Fixed Account Number
FATES: FIFRA and TSCA Enforcement
System
FBC: Fluidized Bed Combustion
FCC: Fluid Catalytic Converter
FCCC: Framework Convention on
Climate Change
FCCU: Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
FCO: Federal Coordinating Officer (in
disaster areas); Forms Control Officer
FDF: Fundamentally Different Factors
FDL: Final Determination Letter
FDO: Fee Determination Official
FE: Fugitive Emissions
FEDS: Federal Energy Data System
FEFx: Forced Expiratory Flow
FEIS: Fugitive Emissions Information
System
FEL: Frank Effect Level
FEPCA: Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act; enacted as amendments to
FIFRA.
FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
FES: Factor Evaluation System
FEV: Forced Expiratory Volume
FEVI: Forced Expiratory Volume—one
second; Front End Volatility Index
FF: Federal Facilities
FFAR: Fuel and Fuel Additive Registra-
tion
FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act
FFF: Firm Financial Facility
FFFSG: Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Genera-
tor
FFIS: Federal Facilities Information
System
FFP: Firm Fixed Price
FGD: Flue-Gas Desulfurization
FID: Flame Ionization Detector
FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act
FIM: Friable Insulation Material
FINDS: Facility Index System
FIP: Final Implementation Plan
FIPS: Federal Information Procedures
System
FIT: Field Investigation Team
FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center
FLM: Federal Land Manager
FLP: Flash Point
FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and
Management Act
FIM: Food to Microorganism Ratio
FMAP: Financial Management Assis-
tance Project
FML: Flexible Membrane Liner
55
-------
FMP: Facility Management Plan;
Financial Management Plan
FMS: Financial Management System
FMVCP: Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program
FOE: Friends Of the Earth
FOIA: Freedom Of Information Act
FOISD: Fiber Optic Isolated Spherical
Dipole Antenna
FONSI: Finding Of No Significant
Impact
FORAST: Forest Response to Anthropo-
genic Stress
FP: Fine Particulate
FPA: Federal Pesticide Act
FPAS: Foreign Purchase Acknowledge-
ment Statements
FPD: Flame Photometric Detector
FPEIS: Fine Particulate Emissions
Information System
FPM: Federal Personnel Manual
FPPA: Federal Pollution Prevention Act
FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation
FPRS: Federal Program Resources
Statement; Formal Planning and Sup-
porting System
FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act
FR: Federal Register. Final Rulemaking
ERA: Federal Register Act
FREDS: Flexible Regional Emissions
Data System
FRES: Forest Range Environmental
Study
FRM: Federal Reference Methods
FRN: Federal Register Notice. Final
Rulemaking Notice
FRS: Formal Reporting System
FS: Feasibility Study
FSA: Food Security Act
FSS: Facility Status Sheet; Federal
Supply Schedule
FTP: Federal Test Procedure (for motor
vehicles)
FTS: File Transfer Service
FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System
FUA: Fuel Use Act
FURS: Federal Underground Injection
Control Reporting System
FVMP: Federal Visibility Monitoring
Program
FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act
FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and
Control Act (aka CWA): Federal Water
Pollution and Control Administration
G
GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles
GAC: Granular Activated Carbon
GACT: Granular Activated Carbon
Treatment
GAW: Global Atmospheric Watch
GCC: Global Climate Convention
GC/MS: Gas Chromatograph/ Mass
Spectograph
GCVTC: Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission
GCWR: Gross Combination Weight
Rating
GDE: Generic Data Exemption
GE!: Geographic Enforcement Initiative
GEM!: Global Environmental Manage-
ment Initiative
GEMS: Global Environmental Monitor-
ing System; Graphical Exposure Model-
ing System
GEP: Good Engineering Practice
GFF: Glass Fiber Filter
GFO: Grant Funding Order
GFP: Government-Furnished Property
GICS: Grant Information and Control
System
GIS: Geographic Information Systems;
Global Indexing System
GLC: Gas Liquid Chromatography
GLERL: Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory
GLNPO: Great Lakes National Program
Office
GLP: Good Laboratory Practices
GLWQA: Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
GMCC: Global Monitoring for Climatic
Change
C/MI: Grams per mile
G OCO: Government-Owned / Contrac-
tor-Operated
GOGO: Government-Owned! Govern-
ment-Operated
GOP: General Operating Procedures
GOPO: Government-Owned / Privately-
Operated
GPAD: Gallons-per-acre per-day
GPG: Grams-per-Gallon
GPR: Ground-Penetrating Radar
GPS: Groundwater Protection Strate
GR: Grab Radon Sampling
GRAS: Generally Recognized as Safe
GRCDA: Government Refuse Collection
and Disposal Association
GRGL: Groundwater Residue Guidance
Level
GT: Gas Turbine
GTN: Global Trend Network
GTR: Government Transportation
Request
GVP: Gasoline Vapor Pressure
GVW: Gross Vehicle Weight
GVWR: Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GW: Grab Working-Level Sampling.
Groundwater
GWDR: Ground Water Disinfedtion
Rule
GWM: Groundwater Monitoring
GWP: Global Warming Potential
GWPC: Ground Water Protetion Council
GWPS: Groundwater Protection Stan-
dard; Groundwater Protection Strateg!’
H
HA: Health Advisory
HAD: Health Assessment Document
HAP: Hazardous Air Pollutant
HAPEMS: Hazardous Air Pollutant
Enforcement Management System
HAPPS: Hazardous Air Pollutant
Prioritization System
HATREMS: Hazardous and Trace
Emissions System
HAZMAT: Hazardous Materials
HAZOP: Hazard and Operability Study
HBFC: Hydrobromofluorocarbon
HC: Hazardous Constituents; Hydrocar.
bon
HCCPD: Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
HCFC: Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HCP: Hypothermal Coal Process
HDD: Heavy-Duty Diesel
HDDT: Heavy-duty Diesel Truck
HDDV: Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle
HDE: Heavy-Duty Engine
HDG: Heavy-Duty Gasoline-Powered
Vehicle
HDGT: Heavy-Duty Gasoline Truck
HDGV: Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle
HDPE: High Density Polyethylene
56
-------
Irni ’: Highest Dose Tested in a study
VY Duty Truck
t . ӖV: Heavy-Duty Vehicle
HEAL: Human Exposure Assessment
Location
HECC: House Energy and Commerce
COmmittee
HEI: Health Effects Institute
HEM: Human Exposure Modeling
HEPA: Highly Efficient Particulate Air
Filter
HERS: Hyperion Energy Recovery
System
HFC: Hydrofluorocarbon
HHDDV: Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicle
HHE: Human Health and the Environ-
ment
HHV: Higher Heating Value
HI: Hazard Index
HIVOL: High-Volume Sampler
HIWAY: A Line Source Model for
Gaseous Pollutants
9LRW : High Level Radioactive Waste
T S: Hazardous Materials Information
y tem
HMS: Highway Mobile Source
HMTA: Hazardous Materials Transpor-
tation Act
HMTR: Hazardous Materials Transpor-
tation Regulations
HOC: Halogenated Organic Carbons
HON: Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HOV: High-Occupancy Vehicle
HP: Horse Power
HPLC: High-Performance Liquid
Chromatography
HPMS: Highway Performance Monitor-
ing System
HPV: High Priority Violator
HQCDO: Headquarters Case Develop-
ment Officer
HRS: Hazardous Ranking System
HRUP: High-Risk Urban Problem
FISDB: Hazardous Substance Data Base
HSL: Hazardous Substance List
VA: Hazardous and Solid Waste
ndmentS
HF: Hyp0theTma iY Treated
HTP: High Temperature and Pressure
HVAC: Heating, Ventilation, and Air-
Conditioning system
HVIO: High Volume Industrial Organics
HW: Hazardous Waste
HWDMS: Hazardous Waste Data
Management System
HWGTF: Hazardous Waste Groundwa-
ter Task Force; Hazardous Waste
Groundwater Test Facility
HWIR: Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule
HWLT: Hazardous Waste Land Treat-
ment
HWM: Hazardous Waste Management
HWRTF: Hazardous Waste Restrictions
Task Force
HWTC: Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council
I
hA: Innovative/Alternative
IA: Interagency Agreement
IAAC: Interagency Assessment Advisory
Committee
IADN: Integrated Atmospheric Deposi-
tion Network
LAG: Interagency Agreement
LAP: Incentive Awards Program. Indoor
Air Pollution
IAQ: Indoor Air Quality
IARC: International Agency for Research
on Cancer
IATDB: Interim Air Toxics Data Base
IBSIN: Innovations in Building Sustain-
able Industries
IBT: Industrial Biotest Laboratory
IC: Internal Combustion
ICAIR: interdisciplinary Planning and
Information Research
ICAP: Inductively Coupled Argon
Plasma
ICB: Information Collection Budget
ICBN: International Commission on the
Biological Effects of Noise
ICCP: International Climate Change
Partnership
ICE: Industrial Combustion Emissions
Model. Internal Combustion Engine
ICP: Inductively Coupled Plasma
ICR: Information Collection Request
ICRE: Ignitability , Corrosivity, Reactiv-
ity, Extraction
ICRP: International Commission on
Radiological Protection
ICRU: International Commission of
Radiological Units and Measurements
ICS: Incident Command System.
Institute for Chemical Studies;
Intermittent Control Strategies.; Intermit-
tent Control System
ICWM: Institute for Chemical Waste
Management
IDLH: Immediately Dangerous to Life
and Health
IEB: International Environment Bureau
IEMP: Integrated Environmental
Management Project
IES: Institute for Environmental Studies
IFB: Invitation for Bid
IFCAM: Industrial Fuel Choice Analysis
Model
IFCS: International Forum on Chemical
Safety
IFIS: Industry File Information System
IFMS: Integrated Financial Management
System
IFPP: industrial Fugitive Process
Particulate
IGCC: Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle
IGCI: Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute
hIS: Inflationary Impact Statement
HNERT: In-Place Inactivation and
Natural Restoration Technologies
IJC: International Joint Commission (on
Great Lakes)
hIM: Inspection / Maintenance
1MM: Intersection Midblock Model
IMPACT: Integrated Model of Plumes
and Atmosphere in Complex Terrain
IMPROVE: Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environment
INPUFF: Gaussian Puff Dispersion
Model
INT: Intermittent
lOB: Iron Ore Beneficiation
IOU: Input/Output Unit
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
IPCS: International Program on Chemi-
cal Safety
IP: Inhalable Particles
1PM: Inhalable Particulate Matter.
Integrated Pest Management
IPP: Implementation Planning Program.
Integrated Plotting Package; Inter-media
Priority Pollutant (document); Indepen-
dent Power Producer
IRG: Interagency Review Group
57
-------
IRLG: Interagency Regulatory Liaison
Group (Composed of EPA, CPSC, FDA,
and OSHA)
IRIS: Instructional Resources Informa-
tion System. Integrated Risk Information
System
IRM: Intermediate Remedial Measures
1RMC: Inter-Regulatory Risk Manage-
ment Council
1RP: Installation Restoration Program
IRPTC: International Register of Poten-
tially Toxic Chemicals
IRR: Institute of Resource Recovery
IRS: International Referral Systems
IS: Interim Status
ISAM: Indexed Sequential File Access
Method
ISC: Industrial Source Complex
ISCL: interim Status Compliance Letter
ISCLT: Industrial Source Complex Long
Term Model
ISCST: Industrial Source Complex Short
Term Model
ISD: Interim Status Document
ISE: Ion-specific electrode
ISMAP: Indirect Source Model for Air
Pollution
ISO: International Organization for
Standardization
ISPF: (IBM) Interactive System
Productivity Facility
ISS: Interim Status Standards
ITC: Inovative Technology Council;
Interagency Testing Committee
ITRC: Interstate Technology Regulatory
Coordination
ITRD: Innovative Treatment
Remediation Demostration
IUP: Intended Use Plan
IUR: Inventory Update Rule
IWC: In-Stream Waste Concentration
IWS: Ionizing Wet Scrubber
JAPCA: Journal of Air Pollution Control
Association
JCL: Job Control Language
JEC: Joint Economic Committee
JECFA: Joint Expert Committee of Food
Additives
JEIOG: Joint Emissions Inventory
Oversight Group
JLC: Justification for Limited Competi-
tion
JMPR: Joint Meeting on Pesticide
Residues
JNCP: Justification for Non-Competitive
Procurement
JOFOC: Justification for Other Than Full
and Open Competition
JPA: Joint Permitting Agreement
JSD: Jackson Structured Design
JSP: Jackson Structured Programming
JTU: Jackson Turbidity Unit
L
LAA: Lead Agency Attorney
LADD: Lifetime Average Daily Dose;
Lowest Acceptable Daily Dose
LAER: Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
LA!: Laboratory Audit Inspection
LAMP: Lake Acidification Mitigation
Project
LC: Lethal Concentration. Liquid
Chromatography
LCA: Life Cycle Aassessment
LCD: Local Climatological Data
LCL: Lower Control Limit
LCM: Life Cycle Management
LCRS: Leachate Collection and Removal
System
LD: Land Disposal. Light Duty
LD LO: The lowest dosage of a toxic
substance that kills test organisms.
LDC: London Dumping Convention
LDCRS: Leachate Detection, Collection,
and Removal System
LDD: Light-Duty Diesel
LDDT: Light-Duty Diesel Truck
LDDV: Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle
LDGT: Light-Duty Gasoline Truck
LD!P: Laboratory Data Integrity Pro-
gram
LDR: Land Disposal Restrictions
LDRTF: Land Disposal Restrictions Task
Force
LDS: Leak Detection System
LDT: Lowest Dose Tested. Light-Duty
Truck
LDV: Light-Duty Vehicle
LEL: Lowest Effect Level. Lower Explo-
sive Limit
LEP: Laboratory Evaluation Program
LEPC: Local Emergency Planning
Committee
LERC: Local Emergency Response
Committee
LEV: Low Emissions Vehicle
LFG: Landfill Gas
LFL: Lower Flammability Limit
LGR: Local Governments Reimburse-
ment Program
LHDDV: Light Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicle
LI: Langelier Index
LIDAR: Light Detection and Ranging
LIMB: Limestone-Injection Multi-Stage
Burner
LLRW: Low Level Radioactive Waste
LMFBR: Liquid Metal Fast Breeder
Reactor
LMOP: Landfill Methane Outreach
Program
LNAPL: Light Non-Aqueous Phase
Liquid
LOAEL: Lowest-Observed-Adverse-
Effect-Level
LOD: Limit of Detection
LQER: Lesser Quantity Emission Rates
LQG: Large Quantity Generator
LRTAP: Long Range Transboundary Air
Pollution
LUIS: Label Use Information System
M
MAC: Mobile Air Conditioner
MAPSIM: Mesoscale Air Pollution
Simulation Model
MATC: Maximum Acceptable Toxic
Concentration
MBAS: Methylene-Blue-Active Sub-
stances
MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level
Goal
MDL: Method Detection Limit
MEC: Model Energy Code
MEl: Maximally (or most) Exposed
Individual
MEP: Multiple Extraction Procedure
MHDDV: Medium Heavy-Duty Diese
Vehicle
MOBILE5A: Mobile Source Emission
Factor Model
MOE: Margin Of Exposure
-------
Margin of Safety
i Manufacturing-use Product;
Melting Point
MPCA: Microbial Pest Control Agent
MPI: Maximum Permitted Intake
MPN: Maximum Possible Number
MPWC: Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
MRF: Materials Recovery Facility
MRID: Master Record Identification
number
MRL: Maximum-Residue Limit (Pesti-
cide Tolerance)
MSW: Municipal Solid Waste
MTD: Maximum Tolerated Dose
MUP: Manufacturing-Use Product
MUTA: Mutagenicity
MWC: Nachine Wet Cleaning
NAA: Nonattainment Area
NAAEC: North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation
QS: National Ambient Air Quality
- lards
NACA: National Agricultural Chemicals
Association
NACEPT: National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
NADP/NTN: National Atmospheric
Deposition Program/National Trends
Network
NAMS: National Air Monitoring
Stations
NAPAP: National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program
NAPL: Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NAPS: National Air Pollution Surveil-
lance
NARA: National Agrichemical Retailers
Association
NARSTO: North American Research
Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone
NAS: National Academy of Sciences
NASDA: National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture
NfAMP: National Coalition Against the
;e of Pesticides
LNLEI’I: National Center for Environ-
mental Publications and Information
NCWS: Non-Community Water System
NEDS: National Emissions Data System
NEPI: National Environmental Policy
Institute
NEPPS: National Environmental
Performance Partnership System
NESHAP: National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NIEHS: National Institute for Environ-
mental Health Sciences
NETA: National Environmental Training
Association
NFRAP: No Further Remedial Action
Planned
NICT: National Incident Coordination
Team
NIOSH: National Institute of Occupa-
tional Safety and Health
NIPDWR: National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
NISAC: National Industrial Security
Advisory Committee
NMHC: Nonmethane Hydrocarbons
NMOC: Non-Methane Organic Compo-
nent
NMVOC: Non-methane Volatile Organic
Chemicals
NO: Nitric Oxide
NOA: Notice of Arrival
NOAA: National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Agency
NOAC: Nature of Action Code
NOAEL: No Observable Adverse Effect
Level
NOEL: No Observ b1e Effect Level
NOIC: Notice of Intent to Cancel
NOIS: Notice of Intent to Suspend
N 2 0: Nitrous Oxide
NON: Nitrogen Oxides
NORM: Naturally Occurring Radioac-
tive Material
NPCA: National Pest Control Associa-
tion
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPHAP: National Pesticide Hazard
Assessment Program
NPIRS: National Pesticide Information
Retrieval System
NPTN: National Pesticide Telecommuni-
cations Network
NRD: Naural Resource Damage
NRDC: Natural Resources Defense
Council
NSDWR: National Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations
NSEC: National System for Emergency
Coordination
NSEP: National System for Emergency
Preparedness
NSPS: New Source Performance
Standards
NSR: New Source Review
NTI: National Toxics Inventory
NTIS: National Technical Information
Service
NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Commu-
nity Water System
NTP: National Toxicology Program
NTU: Nephlometric Turbidity Unit
0
03: Ozone
OCD: Offshore and Coastal Dispersion
ODP: Ozone-Depleting Potential
ODS: Ozone-Depleting Substances
OECD: Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development
OF: Optional Form
OLTS: On Line Tracking System
O&M: Operations and Maintenance
ORM: Other Regulated Material
ORP: Oxidation-Reduction Potential
OTAG: Ozone Transport Assessment
Group
OTC: Ozone Transport Commission
OTR: Ozone Transport Region
P
P2: Pollution Prevention
FAG: Pesticide Assignment Guidelines
PAH: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocar-
bons
PAl: Performance Audit Inspection
(CWA); Pure Active Ingredient com-
pound
PAM: Pesticide Analytical Manual
PAMS: Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Stations
PAT: Permit Assistance Team (RCRA)
PATS: Pesticide Action Tracking System;
Pesticides Analytical Transport Solution
Pb: Lead
PBA: Preliminary Benefit Analysis
(BEAD)
PCA: Principle Component Analysis
PCB: Polychiorinated Biphenyl
PCE: Perchloroethylene
PCM: Phase Contrast Microscopy
59
-------
PSD: Prevention of Significant Detei
PCN: Policy Criteria Notice
PCO: Pest Control Operator
PCSD: President s Council on Sustain-
able Development
PDCI: Product Data Call-In
PFC: Perfluorated Carbon
PFCRA: Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act
PHC: Principal Hazardous Constituent
PHI: Pre-Harvest Interval
PHSA: Public Health Service Act
N: Preliminary Injunction. Program
Information
P lC: Products of Incomplete Combustion
PIGS: Pesticides in Groundwater
Strategy
PIMS: Pesticide Incident Monitoring
System
PIN: Pesticide Information Network;
Procurement Information Notice
PIP: Public Involvement Program
PIPQUIC: Program Integration Project
Queries Used in Interactive Command
PIRG: Public Interest Research Group
PIRT: Pretreatment Implementation
Review Task Force
PIT: Permit Improvement Team
PITS: Project Information Tracking
System
PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance
and Risk Retention Act
PLM: Polarized Light Microscopy
PLUVUE: Plume Visibility Model
PM: Particulate Matter
PMAS: Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Stations
PM2.5: Particulate Matter Smaller than
2.5 Micrometers in Diameter
PM1O: Particulate Matter (nominally
lOm and less)
PM15: Particulate Matter (nominally
5m and less)
PMEL: Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory
PMN: Premanufacture Notification
PMNF: Premanufacture Notification
Form
PMR: Pollutant Mass Rate;
Proportionate Mortality Ratio
PMRS: Performance Management and
Recognition System
PMS: Program Management System
PNA: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocar-
bons
60
P0: Project Officer
POC: Point Of Compliance
POE: Point Of Exposure
POGO: Privately-Owned! Government-
Operated
POHC: Principal Organic Hazardous
Constituent
P0!: Point Of Interception
POLREP: Pollution Report
POM: Particulate Organic Matter.
Polycyclic Organic Matter
POP: Persistent Organic Pollutant
POR: Program of Requirements
POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment
Works
POV: Privately Owned Vehicle
PP: Program Planning
PPA: Planned Program Accomplishment
PPB: Parts Per Billion
PPE: Personal Protective Equipment
PPG: Performance Partnership Grant
PPIC: Pesticide Programs Information
Center
pPIS: Pesticide Product Information
System; Pollution Prevention Incentives
for States
pPMAP: Power Planning Modeling
Application Procedure
PPM/PPB: Parts per n illion/ parts per
billion
PPSP: Power Plant Siting Program
ppT: Parts Per Trillion
PPTH: Parts Per Thousand
PQUA: Preliminary Quantitative Usage
Analysis
PR: Pesticide Regulation Notice; Pre-
liminary Review
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act; Planned
Regulatory Action
PRATS: Pesticides Regulatory Action
Tracking System
pgC: Planning Research Corporation
PR !: Periodic Reinvestigation
PRM: Prevention Reference Manuals
PRN: Pesticide Registration Notice
PRP: Potentially Responsible Party
PRZM: Pesticide Root Zone Model
PS: Point Source
PSAM: Point Source Ambient Monitor-
ing
PSC: Program Site Coordinator
tion
PSES: Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
PSI: Pollutant Standards Index; Pounds
Per Square Inch; Pressure Per Square
Inch
PSIG: Pressure Per Square Inch Gauge
PSM: Point Source Monitoring
PSNS: Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
PSU: Primary Sampling Unit
PTDIS: Single Stack Meteorological
Model in EPA UNAMAP Series
PTE: Potential to Emit
PTFE: Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon)
PTMAX: Single Stack Meteorological
Model in EPA UNAMAP series
PTPLU: Point Source Gaussian Diffusion
Model
PUC: Public Utility Commission
PV: Project Verification
PVC: Polyvinyl Chloride
PWB: Printed Wiring Board
PWS: Public Water Supply
PWSS: Public Water Supply System
Q
QAC: Quality Assurance Coordinator
QA/QC: Quality Assistance/ Quality
Control
QAMIS: Quality Assurance Manageme
and Information System
QAO: Quality Assurance Officer
QAPP: Quality Assurance Program (or
Project) Plan
QAT: Quality Action Team
QBTU: Quadrillion British Thermal
Units
QC: Quality Control
QCA: Quiet Communities Act
QCI: Quality Control Index
QCP: Quiet Community Program
QL: Quantification Limit
QNCR: Quarterly Noncompliance
Report
QUA: Qualitative Use Assessment
QUIPE: Quarterly Update for Inspector
in Pesticide Enforcement
-------
Reasonable Alternative; Regional
Administrator; Regulatory Alternatives;
Regulatory Analysis; Remedial Action;
Resource Allocation; Risk Analysis; Risk
Assessment
RAATS: RCRA Aaministrate Action
Tracking System
RAC: Radiation Advisory Committee.
Raw Agricultural Commodity; Regional
Asbestos Coordinator. Response Action
Coordinator
RACM: Reasonably Available Control
Measures
RACT: Reasonably Available Control
Technology
RAI3: Radiation Adsorbed Dose (unit of
measurement of radiation absorbed by
humans)
RADM: Random Walk Advection and
Dispersion Model; Regional Acid
Deposition Model
RAM: Urban Air Quality Model for
Point and Area Source in EPA UNAMAP
Series
RAMP: Rural Abandoned Mine Program
\4S: Regional Air Monitoring System
i AP: Radon Action Program; Registra-
tion Assessment Panel; Remedial
Accomplishment Plan; Response Action
Plan
RAPS: Regional Air Pollution Study
RARG: Regulatory Analysis Review
Group
RAS: Routine Analytical Service
RAT: Relative Accuracy Test
RB: Request for Bid
RBAC: Re-use Business Assistance
Center
RBC: Red Blood Cell
RC: Responsibility Center
RCC: Radiation Coordinating Council
RCDO: Regional Case Development
Officer
RCO: Regional Compliance Officer
RCP: Research Centers Program
RCRA: Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RIS: Resource Conservation and
overy Information System
gr /RA: Remedial Design! Remedial
Action
R&D: Research and Development
RD&D: Research, Development and
Demonstration
RDF: Refuse-Derived Fuel
rDNA: Recombinant DNA
RDU: Regional Decision Units
RDV: Reference Dose Values
RE: Reasonable Efforts; Reportable Event
REAP: Regional Enforcement Activities
Plan
RECLAIM: Regional Clean Air Initia-
tives Marker
RED: Reregistration Eligibility Decision
Document
REDA: Recycling Economic Develop-
ment Advocate
REE: Rare Earth Elements
REEP: Review of Environmental Effects
of Pollutants
ReFIT: Reinvention for Innovative
Technlogies
REI: Restricted Entry Interval
REM (Roentgen Equivalent Man)
REM/FIT: Remedial/Field Investigation
Team
REMS: RCRA Enforcement Management
System
REP: Reasonable Efforts Program
REPS: Regional Emissions Projection
System
RESOLVE: Center for Environmental
Conflict Resolution
RF: Response Factor
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFB: Request for Bid
RfC: Reference Concentration
RFD: Reference Dose Values
RFI: Remedial Field Investigation
RFP: Reasonable Further Programs.
Request for Proposal
RHRS: Revised Hazard Ranking System
RI: Reconnaissance Inspection
RI: Remedial Investigation
RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis;
Regulatory Impact Assessment
RIC: Radon Information Center
RICC: Retirement Information and
Counseling Center
RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act
RI/FS: Remedial Information! Feasibility
Study
RIM: Regulatory Interpretation Memo-
randum
RIN: Regulatory Identifier Number
RIP: RCRA Implementation Plan
RISC: Regulatory Information Service
Center
RJE: Remote Job Entry
RLL: Rapid and Large Leakage (Rate)
RMCL: Recommended Maximum
Contaminant Level (this phrase being
discontinued in favor of MCLG)
RMDHS: Regional Model Data Han-
dling System
RMIS: Resources Management Informa-
tion System
RNA: Ribonucleic Acid
ROADCHEM: Roadway Version that
Includes Chemical Reactions of BI, NO.,,
and 03
ROADWAY: A Model to Predict
Pollutant Concentrations Near a Road-
way
ROC: Record Of Communication
RODS: Records Of Decision System
ROG: Reactive Organic Gases
ROLLBACK: A Proportional Reduction
Model
ROM: Regional Oxidant Model
ROMCOE: Rocky Mountain Center an
Environment
ROP: Rate of Progress; Regional Over-
sight Policy
ROPA: Record Of Procurement Action
ROSA: Regional Ozone Study Area
RP: Radon Progeny Integrated Sampling.
Respirable Particulates. Responsible
Party
RPAR: Rebuttable Presumption Against
Registration
RPM: Reactive Plume Model. Remedial
Project Manager
RQ: Reportable Quantities
RRC: Regional Response Center
RRT: Regional Response Team; Requi-
site Remedial Technology
RS: Registration Standard
RSCC: Regional Sample Control Center
RSD: Risk-Specific Dose
RSE: Removal Site Evaluation
RTCM: Reasonable Transportation
Control Measure
RTDF: Remediation Technologies
Development Forum
RTDM: Rough Terrain Diffusion Model
RTECS: Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances
-------
RTM: Regional Transport Model
RTP: Research Triangle Park
RUP: Restricted Use Pesticide
RVP: Reid Vapor Pressure
RWC: Residential Wood Combustion
S
S&A: Sampling and Analysis. Surveil-
lance and Analysis
SAB: Science Advisory Board
SAC: Suspended and Cancelled Pesti-
cides
SAEWG: Standing Air Emissions Work
Group
SAIC: Special-Agents-In-Charge
SAIP: Systems Acquisition and Imple-
mentation Program
SAM!: Southern Appalachian Mountains
Initiative
SAMWG: Standing Air Monitoring
Work Group
SANE: Sulfur and Nitrogen Emissions
SANSS: Structure and Nomenclature
Search System
SAP: Scientific Advisory Panel
SAR: Start Action Request. Structural
Activity Relationship (of a qualitative
assessment)
SARA: Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
SAROAD: Storage and Retrieval Of
Aerometric Data
SAS: Special Analytical Service. Statisti-
cal Analysis System
SASS: Source Assessment Sampling
System
SAV: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SBC: Single Breath Cannister
SBS: Sick Building Syndrome
SC: Sierra Club
SCAP: Superfund Consolidated Accom-
plishments Plan
SCBA: Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus
SCC: Source Classification Code
SCD/SWDC: Soil or Soil and Water
Conservation District
SCFM: Standard Cubic Feet Per Minute
SCLDF: Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
SCR: Selective Catalytic Reduction
SCRAM: State Consolidated RCRA
Authorization Manual
SCRC: Superfund Community Relations
Coordinator
SCS: Supplementary Control Strategy/
System
SCSA: Soil Conservation Society of
America
SCSP: Storm and Combined Sewer
Program
SCW: Supercritical Water Oxidation
SDC: Systems Decision Plan
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS: Safe Driking Water Information
System
SEA: State Enforcement Agreement
SEA: State/EPA Agreement
SEAM: Surface, Environment, and
Mining
SEAS: Strategic Environmental Assess-
ment System
SEDS: State Energy Data System
SEGIP: State Environmental Goals and
Improvement Project
SEIA: Socioeconomic Impact Analysis
SEM: Standard Error of the Means
SEP: Standard Evaluation Procedures
SEP: Supplementary Environmental
Project
SEPWC: Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee
SERC: State Emergency Planning
Commission
SES: Secondary Emissions Standard
SETAC: Society for Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry
SETS: Site Enforcement Tracking System
SF: Standard Form. Superfund
SFA: Spectral Flame Analyzers
SFDS: Sanitary Facility Data System
SFFAS: Superfund Financial Assessment
System
SFIREG: State FIFRA Issues Research
and Evaluation Group
SFS: State Funding Study
SHORTZ: Short Term Terrain Model
SHWL: Seasonal High Water Level
SI: International System of Units. Site
Inspection. Surveillan e Index. Spark
Ignition
SIC: Standard Industrial Classification
SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance
Extension Act
SIMS: Secondary Ion-Mass Spectrometry
SIP: State Implementation Plan
SITE: Superfund Innovative Technoli
Evaluation
SLAMS: State / Local Air Monitoring
Station
SLN: Special Local Need
SLSM: Simple Line Source Model
SMART: Simple Maintenance of ARTS
SMCL: Secondary Maximum Contami-
nant Level
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act
SME: Subject Matter Expert
SMO: Sample Management Office
SMOA: Superfund Memorandum of
Agreement
SMP: State Management Plan
SMR: Standardized Mortality Ratio
SMSA: Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area
SNA: System Network Architecture
SNAAQS: Secondary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
SNAP: Significant New Alternatives
Project; Significant Noncompliance
Action Program
SNARL: Suggested No Adverse Re-
sponse Level
SNC: Significant Noncompliers
SNUR: Significant New Use Rule
SO 2 : Sulfur Dioxide
SOC: Synthetic Organic Chemicals
SOCMI: Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry
SOFC: Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
SOTDAT: Source Test Data
SOW: Scope Of Work
SPAR: Status of Permit Application
Report
SPCC: Spill Prevention, Containment,
and Countermeasure
SPE: Secondary Particulate Emissions
SPF: Structured Programming Facility
SPI: Strategic Planning Initiative
SPLMD: Soil-pore Liquid Monitoring
Device
SPMS: Strategic Planning and ManagE
mertt System; Special Purpose Moni-
toring Stations
SPOC: Single Point Of Contact
SPS: State Permit System
SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences
62
-------
R: Software Package for Unique
ts
SQBE: Small Quantity Burner Exemp-
tion
SQG: Small Quantity Generator;
Sediment Quality Guidelines
SR: Special Review
SRAP: Superfund Remedial Accomplish-
ment Plan
SRC: Solvent-Refined Coal
SRF: State Revolving Fund
SRM: Standard Reference Method
SRP: Special Review Procedure
SRR: Second Round Review. Submission
Review Record
SRTS: Service Request Tracking System
SS: Settleable Solids. Superfund Sur-
charge. Suspended Solids
SSA: Sole Source Aquifer
SSAC: Soil Site Assimilated Capacity.
SSC: State Superfund Contracts
SSD: Standards Support Document
S. FIS: Standard Support and Environ-
tal Impact Statementt; Stationary
rce Emissions and Inventory System.
SSI: Size Select ive Inlet
SSMS: Spark Source Mass Spectrometry
SSO: Sanitary Sewer Overflow; Source
Selection Official
SSRP: Source Reduction Review Project
SSTS: Section Seven Tracking System
SSURO: Stop Sale, Use and Removal
Order
STALAPCO: State and Local Air-
Pollution Control Officials
STAPPA: State and Territorial Air
Pollution
STAR: Stability Wind Rose. State Acid
Rain Projects
STARS: Strategic Targeted Activities for
Results System
STEL: Short Term Exposure Limit
STEM: Scanning Transmission-Electron
Microscope
STN: Scientific and Technical Informa-
tion Network
RET: Storage and Retrieval of
dr-Related Data
SIP: Sewage Treatment Plant. Standard
Temperature and Pressure
STTF: Small Town Task Force (EPA)
SUP: Standard Unit of Processing
SURE: Sulfate Regional Experiment
Program
SV: Sampling Visit; Significant Violater
SW: Slow Wave
SWAP: Source Water Assesment
Program
SWARF: Waste from Metal Grinding
Process
SWC: Settlement With Conditions
SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act
SWIE: Southern Waste Information
Exchange
SWMU: Solid Waste Management Unit
SWPA: Source Water Protection Area
SWQPPP: Source Water Quality Protec-
tion Partnership Petitions
SWTR: Surface Water Treatment Rule
SYSOP: Systems Operator
T
TAD: Technical Asssistance Document
TAG: Technical Assistance Grant
TALMS: Tunable Atomic Line Molecular
Spectroscopy
TAMS: Toxic Air Monitoring System
TAMTAC: Toxic Air Monitoring System
Advisory Committee
TAP: Technical Assistance Program
TAPDS: Toxic Air Pollutant Data System
TAS: Tolerance Assessment System
TBT: Tributyltin
TC: Target Concentration. Technjcal
Center. Toxicity Characteristics. Toxic
Concentration:
TCDD: Dioxin (Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin)
TCDF: Tetrachlorodi-benzofurans
TCE: Trichloroethylene
TCF: Total Chlorine Free
TCLP: Total Concentrate Leachate
Procedure. Toxicity Characteristic
Leachate Procedure
TCM: Transportation Control Measure
TCP: Transportation Control Plan;
Trichioropropane;
TCRI: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
TD: Toxic Dose
TDS: Total Dissolved Solids
TEAM: Total Exposure Assessment
Model
TEC: Technical Evaluation Committee
TED: Turtle Excluder Devices
TEG: Tetraethylene Glycol
TEGD: Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document
TEL: Tetraethyl Lead
TEM: Texas Episodic Model
TEP: Typical End-use Product. Technical
Evaluation Panel
TERA: TSCA Environmental Release
Application
TES: Technical Enforcement Support
TEXIN: Texas Intersection Air Quality
Model
TGO: Total Gross Output
TGAI: Technical Grade of the Active
Ingredient
TGP: Technical Grade Product
THC: Total Hydrocarbons
THM: Trihalomethane
TI: Temporary Intermittent; Therapeutic
Index
TIBL: Thermal Internal Boundary Layer
TIC: Technical Information Coordinator.
Tentatively Identified Compounds
TIM: Technical Information Manager
TIP: Technical Information Package;
Transportation Improvement Program
TIS: Tolerance Index System
TISE: Take It Somewhere Else
TITC: Toxic Substance Control Act
Interagency Testing Committee
TLV: Threshold Limit Value
TLV-C: TLV-Ceiling
TLV-STEL: TLV-Short Term Exposure
Limit
TLV-TWA: TLV-Time Weighted Aver-
age
TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Limit;
Total Maximum Daily Load
TMRC: Theoretical Maximum Residue
Contribution
TNCWS: Transient Non-Community
Water System
TNT: Trinitrotoluene
TO: Task Order
TOA: Trace Organic Analysis
TOC: Total Organic Carbon! Compound
TOX: Tetradichioroxylene
TP: Technical Product; Total Particulates
TPC: Testing Priorities Committee
TPJ: Technical Proposal Instructions
TPQ: Threshold Planning Quantity
-------
TPSLS: Transportation Planning Support
Information System
TPTH: Triphenyltinhydroxide
TPY: Tons Per Year
TQM: Total Quality Management
T-R: Transformer-Rectifier
TRC: Technical Review Committee
TRD: Technical Review Document
TRI: Toxic Release Inventory
TRIP: Toxic Release Inventory Program
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
System
TRLN: Triangle Research Library
Network
TRO: Temporary Restraining Order
TSA: Technical Systems Audit
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
TSCATS: TSCA Test Submissions
Database
TSCC: Toxic Substances Coordinating
Committee
TSD: Technical Support Document
TSDF: Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facility
TSDG: Toxic Substances Dialogue
Group
IS!: Thermal System Insulation
TSM: Transportation System Manage-
ment
TSO: Time Sharing Option
TSP: Total Suspended Particulates
TSS: Total Suspended (non-filterable)
Solids
ITFA: Target Transformation Factor
Analysis
TTHM: Total Trihalomethane
TTN: Technology Transfer Network
ITO: Total Toxic Organics
TTY: Teletypewriter
TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority
TVOC: Total Volatile Organic Com-
pounds
TWA: Time Weighted Average
TWS: Transient Water System
TZ: Treatment Zone
U
UAC: User Advisory Committee
UAM: Urban Airshed Model
UAO: Unilateral Administrative Order
UAPSP: Utility Acid Precipitation Study
Program
UAQIi Uniform Air Quality Index
UARG: Utility Air Regulatory Group
UCC : Ultra Clean Coal
UCCI; Urea-Formaldehyde Foam
Insulation
UCL: Upper Control Limit
UDMH: Unsymmetrical Dimethyl
Hydrazine
UEL: Upper Explosive Limit
UF: Uncertainty Factor
UFL: Upper Flammability Limit
uglm3: Microgrms Per Cubic Meter
UIC: Underground Injection Control
ULEV: Ultra Low Emission Vehicles
UMTRCA: Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act
UNAMAP: Users’ Network for Applied
Modeling of Air Pollution
UNECE: United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe
UNEP: United Nations Environment
Program
USC: Unified Soil Classification
USDA: United States Department of
Agriculture
USDW: Underground Sources of
Drinking Water
USFS: United States Forest Service
FS:
UST: Underground Storage Tank
UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator
UT?: Urban Transportation Planning
UV: Ultraviolet
UVA, UVB, UVC: Ultraviolet Radiation
Bands
UZM: Unsaturated Zone Monitoring
V
VALLEY: Meteorological Model to
Calculate Concentrations on Elevated
Terrain
VCM: Vinyl Chloride Monomer
VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program
YE: Visual Emissions
VEO: Visible Emission Observation
VHS: Vertical and Horizontal Spread
Model
VHT: Vehicle-Hours of Travel
VJSTTA: Visibility Impairment fron
Sulfur Transformation and Transpo
the Atmosphere
VKT: Vehicle Kilometers Traveled
VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds
VOS: Vehicle Operating Survey
yOST: Volatile Organic Sampling Train
VP: Vapor Pressure
VSD: Virtually Safe Dose
VSI: Visual Site Inspection
VSS: Volatile Suspended Solids
w
WA: Work Assignment
WADTF: Western Atmospheric Deposi-
tion Task Force
WAP: Waste Analysis Plan
WAVE: Water Alliances for Environmen
tal Efficiency
WB: Wet Bulb
WCED: World Commission on Environ..
ment and Development —
WDROP: Distribution Register of
Organic Pollutants in Water
WENDB: Water Enforcement National
Data Base
WERL: Water Engineering Research
Laboratory
WET: Whole Effluent Toxicity test
WHO: World Health Organization
WHP: Wellhead Protection Program
WHPA: Wellhead Protection Area
WHWT: Water and Hazardous Waste
Team
WICEM: World Industry Conference o
Environmental Management
WL: Warning Letter; Working Level
(radon measurement)
WLA/TMDL: Wasteload Allocation/
Total Maximum Daily Load
WLM: Working Level Months
WMO: World Meteorological Organize.
tion
WP: Wettable Powder
WPCF: Water Pollution Control Fed
tion
WQS: Water Quality Standard
WRC: Water Resources Council
WRDA: Water Resources Development
Act
WRI: World Resources Institute
64
-------
Nork Status
Water Soluble Fraction
WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
WSTB: Water Sciences and Technology
Board
WSTP: Wastewater Sewage Treatment
Plant
WWEMA: Waste and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association
WWF: World Wildlife Fund
WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTU: Wastewater Treatment Unit
ZEV: Zero Emissions Vehicle
ZHE: Zero Headspace Extractor
ZOl: Zone Of Incorporation
ZRL: Zero Risk Level
65
*U.L Govup MEp(r PRINTING 4154Q3/ I l2
-------
ATrACHI,IENTI4
GUIDANCE DOCU W’4T
ON CLEAN ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND MONITORING
October 1993
Guidance on Monitoring
a Use of Clean Sampling and Analytical Techniques
Appendix B to the WER guidance document (arteched) provides some general guidance
on the use of clean techniques. The Office of Water recommends that this guidance be used
by States and Regions as an interim step while the Office of Water prepares more deviled
guidance.
o Use of Histoncal DMR Data
With respect to effluent or ambient monitoring data reported by anNPDES permrnce
on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), the certification requirements place the burden on
the permittee for collecting and reporting quality data. The certification regulation at 40
CFR 122.22(d) requires permittees. when submitting information, to state: 1 certify under
penalty of law that this document arid all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel pn pezIy
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my 1nquu7 of the person or persons
who manage the sy rn, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the informanon.
the information submi d is, to d beat of my biowledge and belief, sue, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there axe significant penalties for submimag false informauon,
inc1udiit possibility of fine and imprisonment for biowing violaticns.
‘
Permiedag authorities should continue to consider the information rqIQUed in D s
to be ave. accurate, and complete as certified by the mittee. Under 40 CFR 122.4 l(1X$).
however, as soon as the peruiittee becomes aware of new information spsci& to the effliit
discharge that cells into question the accuracy of the DMR data , the peruii s must submit
such information to the permitting authority. Examples of such information include a new
finding that the reagents u d in the laboratory analysis axe contaminated with ance levels of
ietals, or a new study that the sampling equipment imparts vacs m l contamination. T’iss
information must be specific to the discharge and based an actual measurements rather than
extrapolations from reports from other facihues. Where a pumittee submits inforrnauo’
-------
supporing the contention that the previous data are questionable and the permitting authority
agrees Aith the findings of the information. EPA expects that permitting authorities will
consider such information in determining appropriate enforcement responses.
In addition to submitting the information described above, the permittee also must
develop procedures to assure the collection and analysis of quality data that are true,
accurate. and complete. For example. the permitcee may submit a revised quality assurance
plan that describes the specific procedures to be undertaken to reduce or eliminate trace
metal contamination.
-------
10—1—93
AppendiX B. Guidanc. concerning the Vs. of “Clean Techniqu.s” and
QA/QC in the Measurement of Trace *.tals
Recent information (Shiller and Boyle 1987; Windom St al. 1991)
has raised questions concerning th. quality of rsport.d
concentrations of trace metals in both fresh and salt (estuarine
and marine) surface waters. A lack of awareness of true ambient
concentrations of metals in saltwater and tr•shwater systems can
be both a caus. and a result of the problem. The ranges of
dissolved metals that are typical in surface waters of the United
States away from the immediate influence of discharges (Bruland
1983; Shiller and Boyle 1985,1987; Trefry et al. 1986; Windom St
al. 1991) are:
Metal Salt water Fresh water
( ua/L ( uaJLI
Cadmium 0.01 to 0.2 0.002 to 0.08
Copper 0.1 to 3. 0.4 to 4.
Lead 0.01 to 1. 0.01 to 0.19
Nickel 0.3 to 5. 1. to 2.
Silver 0.005 to 0.2
Zinc 0.1 to 15. 0.03 to 5.
The U.S. EPA (1983,1991) has published analytical methods for
monitoring metals in waters and wastewaters, but these methods
are inadequate for determination of ambient concentrations of
some metals in some surface waters. Accurate and precise
measurement of these low concentrations requires appropriate
attention to seven areas:
1. Use of “clean techniques” during collecting, handling,
storing, preparing, and analyzing samples to avoid
contamination.
2. Use of analytical methods that have sufficiently low detection
limits.
3. Avoidance of interference in the quantification (instrumental
analysis) step.
4. Use of blanks to assess contamination.
5. Us. of matrix spikes (sample spikes) and certified reference
materials (CR11 .) to assess interference and contamination.
6. Use of replicates to assess precision.
7. Use of certified standards.
In a strict sense, the term “clean techniques” refers to
techniques that reduce contamination and enable the accurate and
precise measurement of trace metals in fresh and salt surface
waters. In a broader sense, the ter. also refers to related
issues concerning detection limits, quality control, and quality
assurance. Documenting data quality demonstrates the amount of
confidence that can be placed in the data, whereas increasing the
sensitivity of tuethods reduce the problem of deciding how to
1
-------
interpret results that are reprted to be below detection limits.
This p pendIx is written for those analytical laboratories thkt
want guidance concernina ways to lower detection limiti. increase
grec siOfl- and/or increase accurac The ways to achieve these
goals are to increase the sensitivity of ths analytical methods,
decrease contamination, and decrease interference. Ideally,
validation of a procedure for measuring concentrations of metals
in surface water requires demonstration that agreement can be
obtained using completely different procedures beginning with the
sampling step and continuing through the quantification step
(Bruland et al. 1979), but few laboratories hays the resourcsi to
compare two different procedures. Laboratories can, howevsr, (a)
use techniq’ es that others have found useful for improving
detection limits, accuracy, and precision, and (b) document data
q ’ality through use of blanks, spikes, CR s, replicates, and
standards.
tn general, in order to achieve accurate and precise measurement
of a particular concentration, both the detection limit and the
blanks should be less than one-tenth of that concentration.
Therefore, the term “metal-free” can be interpreted to mean that
the total amount of contamination that occurs during sample
collection and processing (e.g., from gloves, sample containers,
labware, sampling apparatus, cleaning solutions, air, reagents,
etc.) is sufficiently low that blanks are less than one—tenth of
the lowest concentration that needs to be measured.
Atmospheric particulatee can be a major source of contamination
(Moody 1982; Adeloju and Bond 1985). The term “clau—lOO’ refers
to a specification concerning the amount of particulates in air
(Moody 1982); although the specification say. nothing about the
composition of the particulates, gen.ric control of particulates
can greatly reduce trace-metal blanks. Except during collection
of samples and initial cleaning of equipment, all handling of
samples sample containers, labware, and sampling apparatus
should be performed in a class-100 bench, room, or glove box.
Nothina contained or not contained in this a .ndix adde to or
subtracts from any r.aulatorv r.auiremantl set forth in other EPA
documente concernina metal analyses. The word “m ast is used in
this appendix merely to indicate items that are considered very
important by analytical chemists who have worked to increase
accuracy and precision and Lower detection limits in trace—metal
analysis. Some items are considered important because they have
been found to have received inadequate attention in some
laboratories performing trace-metal analyses.
Two topics that are not addressed in this appendix are:
1. The “ultraclsan techniques” that are likely to be necessary
when trace analyses of mercury are performed.
2. Safety in analytical laboratories.
2
-------
ct - . r C e tS should be consulted if these topi cs are of
concern.
Avoidina contamination by use of “clean techniaues ”
Measurem°nt of trace metals in receiving waters must take into
account the potential for contamination during each step in the
process. Regardless of the specific procedures used for
collection, handling, storaçe, preparation (digestion,
filtration, and/or extractiQn), and quantification (instrumental
analysis), the general principle, of contamination control must
be applied. Some specific recommendations are:
a. Won’-talc latex or class-lOO poly.thylen. gloves must be worn
during all steps fz m sample collection to analysis. (Talc
seems to be a particular problem with zinc; gloves mad. with
talc cannot be decontaminated sufficiently.) Gloves should
only contact surfaces that are metal—free; gloves should be
changed if even suspected of contamination.
b. The acid used to acidify samples for preservation and
digestion and to acidify water for final cleaning of labvare,
sampling apparatus, and sample containers must be metal-free.
The quality of the acid used should be better than reagent—
grade. Each lot of acid must be analyzed for the metal(s) of
interest before use.
c. The water used to prepare acidic cleaning solutions and to
rinse labware, sample containers, and sampling apparatus may
be prepared by distillation, deionization, or reverse osmosis,
and must be demonstrated to be metal-free.
d. The work area, including bench tops and hoods, should be
cleaned (e.g., washed and wiped dry with lint-free, class-lOO
wipes) frequently to remove contaminaton.
e. All handling of samples in the laboratory, including filtering
and analysis, must be performed in a class—lOO clean bench or
a glove box fed by particle-free air or nitrog.n; ideally the
clean bench or glov, box should be located within a class-lOO
clean room.
f. Labwars, reagent., sampling apparatus, and sample containers
must never be left open to the atmosphere; they should be
stored in a class—lOO bench, covered with plastic wrap, stored
in a plastic box, or turned upside down on a clean surface.
Minimizing the time between cleaning and using will help
minimiz, contamination.
g. Separate sets of sample containers, labuare, and sampling
apparatus should be dedicated for different kinds of samples,
e.g., receiving water samples, effluent samples, etc.
h. To avoid contamination of clean rocmm, samples that contain
very high concentrations of metals and do not require use of
“clean techniques” should not be brought into clean rooms.
. Acid-cleaned plastic, such as high-d. sity polyethylene
(MDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), or a fluoroplastic,
must be the only material that ever contacts a sample, except
possibly during digestion for the total recoverable
3
-------
measurement. (Total recoverable samples can be digested in
some plastic containers.) Even HDPC and LDPE might not be
acceptable for mercury, however.
. All labware, sample containers, and sampling apparatus must be
acid-cleaned before use or reuse.
i. Sample containers, sampling apparatus, tubing, membrane
filters, filter assemblies, and other labvars must be
soaked in acid until metal-free. The amount of cleaning
necessary might depend on the amount of contamination and
the length of tim. the item will be in contact vith
samples. For example, if an acidified sample viii be
stored in a sample container for three weeks, ideally the
container should have been soaked in an acidified m.tal-
free solution for at least thxes weeks.
2. It might be desirable to perform initial cleaning, for
which reagent-grade acid may be used, before the items are
allowed into a clean room. For most metals, items should
be either (a) soaked in 10 percent concentrated nitric acid
at 50C for at Least one hour, or (b) soaked in 50 percent
concentrated nitric acid at room temperature for at least
two days; for arsenic and mercury, soaking for up to two
weeks at 50•C in 10 percent concentrated nitric acid might
be required. For plastics that might be damaged by strong
nitric acid, such as polycarbonats and possibly HDPE and
LDPE, soaking in 10 percent concentrated hydrochloric acid,
either in place of or before soaking in a nitric acid
solution, might be desirable.
3. Chromic acid must net be used to clean items that will be
used in analysis of metals.
4. Final soaking and cleaning of sample containers. labvare,
and sampling apparatus s ist be performed in a class—l0O
clean room using metal-free acid and water. The solution
in an acid bath must be analyzed periodically to
demonstrate that it is metal—free.
5. After ]abwars and sampling apparatus are cleaned, they may
be stored in a clean room in a weak acid bath prepared
using metal-free acid and water. Before use, the items
should be rinsed at least three times with metal—free
water. After the final rinse, the items should be moved
immediately, with the open end pointed down, to a class-l00
clean bench. Item. may be dried on a class—lOO clean
bench; items must not be dried in an oven or with
laboratory towels. Th. sampling apparatus should be
assembled in a class-100 clean room or bench and double-
bagged in metal-fr.. polyethylene zip—type bags fox
transport to the field; new bag. are usually metal-fr...
6. After sampl. containers are cleaned, they should be filled
with metal-free water that ha. been acidified to a p11 of 2
with metal-free nitric acid (about 0.5 ml. per liter) for
storage until use. At the tim. of sample coll•ction, the
sample containers should be emptied and rinsed at least
twice with the solution being sampled before the actual
4
-------
sample is placed in the cample container.
k. Field samples must be collec ed n a manner that eliminates
the potential for contamination from the sampling platform,
probes, etc. Exhaust from boats and the direction of wind and
water currents should be taken into account. The people who
collect the samples must be specifically trained on how to
collect field samples. After collection, all handling of
samples in the field that will expose the sampl. to air must
be performed in a portable class-lOO clean bench or glove box.
1. Samples must be acidified (after filtration if dissolved metal
is to be measured) to a pM of less than 2, except that the pH
must be less than 1 for mercury. Acidification should be done
in a clean room or bench, and so it might be desirable to wait
and acidify samples in a laboratory rather than in the field.
If samples are acidified in the field, metal-frbe acid can be
transported in plastic bottles and poured into a plastic
container from which acid can be removed and added to samples
using plastic pipettes. Alternatively, plastic automatic
dispensers can be used.
a. Such things as probes and thermomsters must net be put in
samples that are to be analyzed for metals. In particular, pM
electrodes and mercury-in-glass thermometers must not be used
if mercuty is to be measured. If pH is measured, it must be
done on a separate aliquot.
n. Sample handling should be minimized. For example instead of
pouring a sample into a graduated cylinder to measure the
volume, the sample can be weighed aft.r being poured into a
tarsd container; alternatively, the container from which the
sample is poured can be weighed. (For saltwater samples, the
salinity or density should be taken into account when weight
is converted to volume.)
o. Each reagsnt used must be verified to be metal—free. If
metal-free reagents are not commercially available, removal of
metals will probably be necessary.
p. For the total recoverable measursment, samples should be
digested in a class-LOO bench, not in a metallic hood. If
feasible, digestion should be done in the sample contair.er by
acidification and heating.
q. The longer the time between collection and analysis of
samples, the greater the chance f contamination, lose, etc.
r. Samples must be stored in the dark, preferably between 0 and
4°C with no air space in the sample container.
Achieving low detection limits
a. Extraction of the metal from th. sample can be extremely
useful if it simultaneously concentrates the metal and
eliminates potential matrix interferences. For example,
am onium 1-pyrrolidinedithiocarbamats and/or di.thylaamonlu2
diethyldithiocarbamate can extract cad iu .m, copper, lead,
5
-------
nickel 1 and zinc (Bruland et al.. 1979; Nriagu at al. 1993)
b. The detection limit should be Less than ten percent of the
lowest concentration that s to be measured.
AvQJ diflQ interferences
a. Potential interferences must be assessed for the specific
instrumental analysis technique used and each metal to be
measured.
b. If direct analysis is used, the salt present in high—salinity
saltwater samples is likely to caus. interference in most
instrumental techniques.
c. As stated above, extraction of the metal from the sample is
particularly useful because it simultaneously concentrates the
metal and eliminates potential matrix interf.rsncel.
Usina blanks to assess cant& in&tiofl
a. A laboratory (procedural. method) blank consists of filling a
sample container with analyzed metal-free water and processing
(filtering, acidifying, etc.) the water through the laboratory
procedure in exactly the same way as a sample. A laboratory
blank must be included in each set of ten or fewer samples to
check for contamination in the laboratory, and must contain
less than ten percent of the lowest concentration that is to
be measured. Separate laboratory blanks must be processed for
the total recoverable and dissolved measurements, if both
measurements ar. performed.
b. A field (trip) blank consists of filling a sample container
with analyzed metal-free wa’er in the laboratory, taking the
container to the site, processing the water through tubing,
filter. etc., collecting the water in a sample container, and
acidifying the water the same as a field sample. A field
blank must be processed for each sampling trip. Separate
field blanks suit be processed for the total recoverable
measurement and for the dissolved measurement, if filtration.
are performed at the site. rield blanks suet be processed in
the laboratory the same as Laboratory blanks.
Assessirla accuracy
a. A calibration curve must be determined for each analytical run
and the calibration should be checked about every tenth
sample. Calibration solutions must be traceable beck to a
certified standard from the U.S. EPA or the National Institute
of Science and Technology (MIST).
b. A blind standard or a blind calibration solution must be
included in each group of about twenty samples.
6
-------
c. At least one of the follow .ng must e included in each group
of about twenty samples:
i. A matrix spike (spiked sample; the method of known
additions).
2. A CRX, if one is available in a matrix that closely
approximates that of the samples. Values obtained for the
CM must be within the published values.
The concentrations in blind standards and solutions, spikes, and
CRIIS must met be more than 5 times the median concentration
expected to be present in the samples.
Assessina orecision
a. A sampling replicate must be included with each set of samples
collected at each sampling location.
b. If the volume of the sample is large enough, replicate
analysis of at least one sample must be performed along with
each group of about ten samples.
SDecial considerations concernira the dissolved measurement
Whereas the total recoverable measurement is especially subject
to contamination during the digestion step, the dissolved
measurement is subject to both loss and contamination during the
filtration step.
a. Filtrations must be performed using acid-cleaTtd plastic
f titer holders and acid-cleaned membrane filters. Samples
must not be filtered through glass fiber filter., even if the
filters have been cleaned with acid. If positive—pressure
filtration is used, the air or gas must be passed through a
0.2-um in-line filter; if vacuum filtration is used, it must
be performed on a class-lOO bench.
b. Plastic filter holders must be rinsed and/or dipped between
filtration., but they do not have to be soaked between
filtrations if all the samples contain about the same
concentrations of metal. It is best to filter samples from
low to high concentrations. A membrane filter must not be
used for more than on. filtration. After each filtration, the
membrane filter must be removed and discardsd, and th. filter
holder must be either rinsed with metal-free water or dilute
acid and dipped in a metal-free acid bath or rinsed at least
twice with metal-free dilute acid; finally, the filter holder
must be rinsed at least twice with metal-free water.
c. For each sample to be filtered, the filter holder and membrane
filter must be conditioned with the sampis, is. an initial
portion of the sample must be filtered and discarded.
The accuracy and precision of the dissolved measurement should be
7
-------
assessed periodically. A large volume of a buffered solution
(such as aerated 0.05 N sodium bicarbonate) should be spiked so
that the concentration of the metal of interest is in the range
of the low Concentrations that are to be measured. The total
recoverable concentration and the dissolved concentration of the
metal .n the spiked buffered solution should be measured
alternately until each measurement ha. been performed at least
ten times. The means and standard deviations for the two
measurements should be the same. All values deleted as outliers
must be acknowledged.
Reøortina results
To indicate the quality of the data, reports of results of
measurements of the concentrations of metals must include a
description of the blanks, spikes, CR!!s, replicates, and
standards that were run, the number run, and the results
obtained. All values deleted as outliers must be acknowlsdgsd.
Additional information
The items presented above are some of the important asp.cts of
“clean techniques”; some aspects of quality assurance and.quality
control are also presented. This is not a definitive treatment
of these topics; additional information that might be aseful is
available in such publications as Patterson and Settle (1976),
Zief and Mitchell (1976), Bru and et al. (1979), Moody and Beary
(1982), Moody (1982), Bruland (1983), Adeloju and Bond (1985),
Berman and Yeats (1985), Byrd and Andreas (1986), Taylor (1987),
Sakamoto-Arnold (1987), Tramontano St al. (1987), Puls and
Barcelona (1989), Windom et al. (1991), U.s. EPA (1992), Norovitz
et aX. (1992), and t4riagu et al. (1993).
Adeloju, S.B.. and A.M. Bond. 1985. Influence of Laboratory
Environment on the Precision and Accuracy of Trace Element
Analysis. Anal. Chem. 57:3728—1733.
Berman, S.S., and P.A. Yeats. 1985. sampling of Seawater for
Trace Metals. CRC Reviews in Analytical Chemistry 16:1—14.
Bruland, X.W., R.P. Franks, G.A. Knau:r, and 3.M. Martin. 3979.
Sampling and Analytical Methods for the Determination of Copper,
Cadmium, Zinc, and Nickel at the Nanogram per Liter Level in Sea
Water. Anal. Chim. Acta 105:233—245.
8
-------
Bruland, K.W. 1983. Trace Elements in Sea-water. In: Chemical
oceanography, Vol.. 8. J.P. Riley and R. Chester, ads. Academic
Press, New York, NY. pp. 157-220.
Byrd. J.T., and P4.0. Andreae. 1986. DissolVed and Particulate
Tin in North Atlantic Seawater. Marine Chemistry 19:193—200.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg. 1992. The Effect
of Membrane Filtration Artifacts on Dissolved Trace Element
Concentrations. Water Res. 26:753-763.
Moody, J.P.. 1982. NBS Clean Laboratories for Trace Element
Analysis. Anal. Chem. 54:1358A—1376A.
Moody, J.R., and E.S. Beary. 1982. Purified Reagents for Trace
Metal Analysis. Talanta 29:1003_lOltO.
Nriagu, 7.0., C. Lawson, H.K.T. Wong, and 3.M. Azcu.. 1993. A
Protocol for Minimizing Contamination in the Analysis of Trace
Metals in Great Lakes Waters. ‘J. Great Lakes Ras. 19:175-182.
Patterson, C.C., and D.M. Settle. 1976. The Reduction in Orderi
of Magnitude Errors in Lead Analysis of Biological Materials and
Natural Waters by. Evaluating and Controlling the Extent and
Sources of Industrial Lead Contamination Introduced during Sample
collection and Processing. In: Accuracy in Trace Analysis:
Sampling, Sample Handling, Analysis. P.D. LaFleur, ed. National
Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 422, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Puls, R.W., and M.J. Barcelona. 1989. Ground Water Sampling for
Metals Analyses. EPA/540/4-891001. National Technical
Information service, springrield, VA.
Sakamoto-Arnold, C.M., AK. Hanson, Yr., D.L. Huizenga, and D.R.
Kester. 1987. Spatial and Temporal Variability of Cadmium in
Gulf Stream Warm-core Rings and Associated Waters. 3. Mar. Rae.
45: 201—230.
Shiller, A.M., and E. Boyle. 1985. Dissolved Zinc in Rivers.
Nature 317:49—52.
Shiller, A.$., and E.A. Boyle. 1987. Variability of Dissolved
Trace Metals in the Mississippi River. Geechia. Cosmochim. Acta
51: 3273—3277.
Taylor, 3.K. 1987. Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements.
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Tramontano, J.M., J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church. 1987. A
Method for the Collection, Hand1 ng, and Analysis of Trace Metals
in Precipitation. Environ. SCI. Technol. 21:749—753.
9
-------
Trefry, J.H., T.A. Nelsen, R.P. Trocine, S. Metz., and T.W.
Vetter. 1986. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. COnS. mt. Explor. Her.
1.86:277—288.
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Method. for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79—020.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Sections 4.1.1. 4.1.3, and 4.1.4
17.5. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Methods for the
Determination of Metals in Environmental. Samples. EPA-600/4-91-
010. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Evaluation of
Trace—Metal Levels in Ambient Waters and Tributarie, to Jew
York/New Jersey Harbor for Waste Load Allocation. Prepared by
Battelle Ocean Sciences under Contract No. 68-C8—0105.
Windom, H.L., J.T. Byrd, R.G. Smith, and F. Huan. 1991.
Inadequacy of MASQAN Data for Assessing Metals Trend. in the
Nation’s Rivers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1137—1142. (Also see
Comment and Response, Vol. 25, p. 1940.)
Zief, N., and J.W. Mitchell. 1976. Contamination Control in
Trace Element Analysis. Chemical Analysis Series, Vol. 47.
Wiley, New York, NY.
1.0
-------
Reference 8
-------
(I,
- . —
:‘3 :‘:
.r •
EPA
Reference Guide to
Water Quality Standards
for Indian Tribes
(° 81q
W W W
-------
Preface
The purpose of thas booklet is to provide Indian Tribes with an overview of the waler quality standards
pro ajn requirements and with a guide to existing EPA reference materials on the pro am. The reference
materials include applicable regulations, policies, gwdanee documents, and technical support documents and
manuals.
The booklet is desi sed primarily for Indian Tribes that wish to qualify as States for the water quality
standards pro am. Therefore, the text is written Indian T-’bcs’• . The compIet term should read 1 ’States
arid Indian Tribes qualifying as States for the water quail> tandards pro ’am . Because Indian Tribes
quald rng for treatment as States for the water quality standards pro am and States must meet the same statu-
tory and regulatory requirements, State and interstate agencies involved in essabh hing standards may find this
booklet useful.
The booklet is divided into several chapters with each chapter containing a brief overview of the topic and
lists of the appropnaie references to consult for further information. The number following the reference refers
to the number of the reference listed in Appendix A where the reader can obtain information on the full citation
for the reference and on its availability. Chapter us an introduction to the water quality standards propam with
an overview of the statutory and regulatory requirements. chapters I I and II I discuss Tribal participation in tue
pro am, providing back ound information as well as a summary of the amendments to the water quality
standards regulation that pertain to standards on Indian r sations. Chapters IV through VIII take the reader
sicp-bs -step through the development, adoption, and approval of waler quality standards.
Includcd in the booklet are several appendices. App.ndix A briefly describes the contents of available ref-
erence materials on the water quality standards pro am. Appendix B provides a list of contacts in EPA Re.
ona1 Offices and Headquarters who can answer questions on water quality standards. Appendix C is a map
of the gco aphacaJ boundaries for the EPA Re onal Oflices. Appendix D contains a copy of Section 518 of
the Clean Water Act.
We hope Indian Tribes will find this booklet useful for identifying and obtaining informEion needed to es-
tablish water quality standards for reservation waters.
William R. Diamond, Director
Cruena and Standards Division
Preface
-------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction a
A. Cican %Vaier Act
B. Water Quality Standards 1
C. EPA Authority a
D •n Authorny 1
II. BackgroundtolribalPanidpationintheWaterQsial ltySeandardsProgi.m ....................3
A. EPAs Indian Policy 3
B. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 3
III. Proposed Amendments to the Water QuaIlt Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
Roservatimis .4
A. Qualifying for Tr atrnent as a State ii - -
B. Stateinbal Dispute Resolution Mechanism S
IV. Developing WaterQua lityStandards
Introduction
A. Waters Requiring Water Quality Standards
B. Determining Desigaated Uses
ç. Adopting Water Quality Criteria
D. Antide adation Policy and Implementation Methods
E. Additional Policies
VII. Implcmentationof%VateQualitySeaadards . 17
VIII. ReviewandRe ielonofEzisdngWaterQualutyStd . 1$
A. Requu ments IS
C. Submattal to EPA 19
Appendix A. List of EPA References for Further Information
Appendix B. EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters Contacts
ppendit C. Map t1 Geographical Boundaries for EPA Regional omens
Appendix D. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act
V. Adoption of Water Quality Standards and Submittal to EPA
A. Public Participation
B. Certification by a Legal Authority
C. Submittal of Standards Package to EPA
VI. EPA Review and Ap fDioapprnvai of Standards
A. Review Process
B. Approval
C. Disapproval
D. Conditional Approval
E. EPA Promulgation
. 6
6
6
6
S
U
U
13
13
13
13
IS
15
Is
35
15
is
T.bI. ..t r.........
-------
I. Introduction
A. Clean Water Act
In response to public concern about the status of
our Nations waters, Con ess enactcd the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Collectively these amendments are known as the
Clean %Vater Act (CWA). The objective of the CWA
is 1o restore and maintain the cherrucal, physical, and
biolo cal inte ity of the Nations waters. One in-
terim goal of the CWA is that wherever attainable,
water quality should provide for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide
for recreation in and on the water. In 1987, Con css
amended the CWA by authorizing EPA to treat an
Indian Tribe as a State for the purposes of the Act if
the Tribe meets certain criteria.
B. Water Quality Standards
Section 303 of the CWA authorizes the water
quality standards pro am. Water quality standards
are rules or laws that are adopted to protect the public
health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and
serve the purposes of the CWA by providing, wher-
ever attainable, for the protection and propagation of
fish, sheWish, and wildjite, and for recreation in and
on the water. These uses arc commonly referred to
as the flshable/swimmable goals of the Act.
In establishing water quality standards. Tribes de-
fine the water quality goals for their waters by desig-
nating uses for the water bodies and adopting water
qualit> criteria to protect the desigoated uses. Stand-
ards arc set talung into consideration the use and
value of the water body for public water supply,
propagation of fish. sheWish, and wildlife, and for
recreational, a icultural, industrial and navigational
purposes. Water quality standards also contain an
anude adation policy. At a minimum, the
antide adation policy ensures the maintenance and
protection of existing uses and water quality necessary
to protect those uses, provides for the protection of
high quality waters, and maintains ‘water quality in
waters that are outstanding national resources.
Water qualit) standards pla) a critical roli in th
Nations water quality improvement pro azns. By
establishing the goals for a water body, water quality
standards provide the regulatory and Legal basis for
point source and nonpoiin source water quality-based
controls beyond those required by the technological
requirements of the CWA (i.e., best available tech-
nolo r, pretreatment and new source performance
standards). Water quality standards are enforced
through the national pollutant discharge elimination
systems (NPDES) water quality-based permits and
through norapoint source control progams.
C EPA Authority
EPA develops regulations, policies, and guidance
to facilitate the implementation of the water quality
standards pro ’ain. In addition, EPA is responsible
for reviewing and approving or disapproving water
quality standards. EPA also promulgates Federal
water quality standards under certain conditions.
D. Tribal Authority
Indian Tribes qualifying for treatment as States
are responsible for establishing water quality stand.
aids and for reviewing and revising these standards at
least once every three y s.
REFERENCES
• All Tribes interested in developing water quality
standards initially should obtain EPA’s Water
Quality Standards Regulation 40 CFR Part 131
(48 FR 51400, November 8. 1983). The regu.
lation describes the requirements and procedures
for developing, reviewing, revising, and approv-
ing water quality standards. (I)
• A useful reference for those new to the water
quality standards pro ’azn is Introduction to
Water Quality Standards. (1988). (4)
I I nirnil,’,
-------
• Fo kcp up-io•Jate on n3tlun.&I deulopmcnts Vewzlcuer. Cnt na uid SuntLrd Di iirn.
and activ%tles of EPAs waler quality standaids lice of Water Regulations and Standards (5’)
pro am Tribes may sub cnbc to the
-------
II. Background to Tribal Participation in the Water
Quality Standards Program
There are two important developments leading to
a eatcr involvement by Indian Tribes in the water
quality standards provasn .- EPAs Indian Policy and
Scction 518 of the 1987 Amendments to the C%VA.
A. EPA’s Indian Policy
On January 24. 1983, the Federal government es-
tablished a Federal Indian Policy to treat Tribal gov-
ernmcnts on a governmcnt-to-governrncnt basis and
to support the principle of self-determination and Lo-
c i i decision making by Indian Tribes. EPA subse-
quently adopted its own Indian Policy and
Implementation Guidance in November, 1984.
EPAs Indian Policy directs the Agency to give
special consideration to Tribal interests in making
Agency policy and to ensure the close involvement
of Tnbal governments in making decisions and man-
aging the environmental progams affecting reserva-
tion lands. In implementing this policy, EPA works
directly vith Tribal governments as independent au-
thorities for reservation alTaira, and not as political
subdivisions of States.
REFERENCE
• More detailed information on EPAs Indikn
Policy and Implementation Guidance can be
found in Ew.froaimeawJ 4cthides on indian Rn-
er.aeloas: FY81, (1989). (31)
B. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1987
The 1987 An’rendments to the CWA added Sec-
tion 518. This section authorizes EPA to treat
Federally recognized Indian Tribes as States for cer-
tain provisions of the Act. including the water quality
standards pro am. Section 518 requires EPA to
promulgate regulations specii ing how Indian Tribes
can qualify for treatment as States based on three
broad criteria contained in Section 5 18(e). In addi-
tion, Section 518 requires EPA to establish a mach-
to resolve unreasonable consequences that may
arise from an Indian Tribe and a State adopting dtf-
ferent water quality standards on common bodies of
water.
REFERENCE
• ScctionS l8oftheClanWatcrActiscontaincd
in Appendix D.
II Nark.,ni, ,i I ,n Tpik I P.4..’ui. , iN h. %t ,. ...
-------
Ill. Proposed Amendments to the Water Quality Standards
Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian Reservations
The lust step for an Indian Tribe that wishcs to
se water quality standards on its. reservation is to
qualify for treatment as a State for the water quality
standards propam.
EP. proposed a nile (54 FR 39098) on September
22. 1989, to define how an Indian Trsbc can qualify
fog treatment as a State for the Section 303 water
quality standards and Section 401 ceridication pro-
rams The proposal also establishes a dispute resol-
unon mechanism for situations where there are
unreasonable consequences resulting from a State and
Tribe adopting different water quality standards for
common water bodies.
A. Qualifying for Treatment as a State
The proposed rule adds a new section to the Code
of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 131.8. that includes
the criteria a Tribe will be required to meet to be
treated as a State. the spccdic information the Tribe
would be required to provide in its application to
EPA. and the procedure EPA will use to process the
1 rtbal application
I. Criteria Tribe are Required to Meet
judgernent. of carrying out the functions of
an effective water quality standards pro ani.
The CWA authorizes the use of existing Tribal
regulatory authority for managesg EPA pro arns ft
does not vant additional authority to Tribes.
REFERENCE
• Detailed information on requirements for quali-
fying as a State are in section 131.8(a) of the
proposed rule (54 FR 39098, September 22.
1989). A discussion of these requirements is in
the preamble to the proposed rule (54 FR 39101.
September 22. 1989). (2)
2. InformatIon Required in an Application
A request by an Indian Tribe for treatment as a
State for the water quality standards pro zm should
be submitted to the appropriate EPA Re onal Ad-
ministrator. Application materials include statements
and documentation addressing the required criteria for
treatment as a State (see l.a.- id. above). The Re-
onal Administrator also may require additional
documentation.
An Indian Tribe may qualify for treatment as a
State for the purposes of the water quality standards
pro am if the Tribe meets the following criteria:
a. The Tribe is reco tized by the Department
of the Interior and meets the definitions
found in Section 518 of the Clean Water
Act,
b The Tribe has a governing body carrying out
substantial duties and powers;
c The Tnbe possesses and can adequately
demonstrate authority to manage and pro-
tect water resources within the borders of the
reservation, and
d The Tribe is reasonably expected to be ca-
p blc. in the Rc onal Admirustrato; s
If a Tribe qualifies for treatment as a State under
other CWA or Safe Drinking Water Act progams.
then the Tribe needs only to provide the information
specific to the water quality standards progam that
has not been submitted in their previous
application(s).
REFEPL’ CE
• Detailed information on the required application
materials to qualify for treatment as a State is in
section 131.8(b) of the proposed rule (54 FR
39098, September 22, 1989). A discussion of
these requirements is in the preamble to
proposed rule (54 FR 39101 - 39102. Septei
22. 1989). (2)
Ill. Priajiw .d Amendmern. iii ih .tiiwr Qvi.lih SI*nddrd k.....I.’. . . ’ 1 ’’ • -, ‘ -
-------
3. Procedure lot Proci sing an . pplication
Several steps are involved in EPAs pro cssrng of
a Tnbc s application for treatment as a State First,
EPA will notify the Tnbc. promptly that the Agency
recei%ed the application. Then. withan 30 dabs of re-
ceipi of the application, the Agency will notify ap-
propnate go%cmmeflt&l entities (rieighbonng Tnbes
and States) of the application and the substance and
basis for the Tnbcs assertion of authorny over tescr-
ation atcrs. Thcsc governmental cntiucs will have
30 ds for ri w of and commint on thc rnbcs
a rtion of authorit .
If a I’ribe•s asserted authority it challenged by
another governmental entity, EPA will consult with
the Tnbc. the chalien ng entity. and the Secretary of
the Interior, and independently determine whether the
Tribe has demonstrated its authority to regulate water
quality on the rncrvation. If EPA determines that
the Tribe has not adequately demonstrated its au-
thority on a disputed area, then Tribal assumption of
the standards pro arn would be restricted tc non-
disputed areas.
EPA will promptly notify the Tribe when the
Agency determines that the Tribe has qualified for
treatment as a State for the water quality standards
progain. If EPA determines that the Tribe does not
meet the requirements to qualify for treatment as a
State. the Tribe can resubmit the application at a fu-
ture date. If the Tribal application is deficient or in-
complete. EPA will specify the necessary changes.
REFERE.’CE
• The procedure for processing a Tribes applica-
tion is in section 131.8(c) of the proposed rule
(54 FR 39098 September 22. 1989). A dis•
cussion of these requirements is in the preamble
to the proposed nile (54 FR 39102, September
22. 1989). (2)
B. State-Tribal Dispute Resolution
Mechanism
Section 518 of the CWA requires that EPA Cs.
tablish a mechanism to resolve any unreasonable
i t.r as a result different .it r
quakty standai4s that ma be set b States and Indian
Tnbe for a common body of water.
EPA is proposing that State-Tribal disputes be
resolved by mediation or non-binding arbitration.
The proposed rule emphasizes the use of mediation
because such an approach is consistent with .the es-
tablishment of Staie-Tnbal cooperative a vcments in
Section 518(d) of the CWA. A third technique. vol-
untary binding arbitration, is an option onl hcrc
all parties consent In addition. EP. ha prop is d a
dispute resolution dctault procedure to be used vih r,
one or more parties refuse to participate in mediation
or arbitration. Mediators and arbitmtârs will be EPA
employees, employees of other Federal agencies or
other individuals with appropriate qualifications.
Either a State or Tribe may request EPA to re-
solve a dispute. The proposed rule lists the require-
ments for written requests for EPA involvement.
In determining whether to approve water quality
standards. EPA will disapprove water quality stand-
ards that aie less stringent than necessary to comply
with the CWA. Based on Section 510 of the C VA.
EPA must approve water quality standards that are
more stringent than those required by the Act. EPA
does not have the authority to disapprove State or
Tribal water quality standards that EPA considers
more stringent than necessary to comply with the
CWA.
REFERENCE
S Detailed information on State-Tribal dispute re-
solution mechanisms, including the conditions
and reqwred procedures, is in section 131.7 of the
proposed nile (54 FR 39098. September 22,
1989). A discussion of this dispute resolution
mechanism is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (54 FR 39099- 39101, September 22, 1989).
(2)
The remainder of this booklet describes the proc-
ess of developing, adopting. and reviewing water
quality standards.
I I I. Proposcd Amcndments to the W&icr OuaIut’. Stanilink R .,sl.thui •hs Ppr .ia IlII ?d’ l,uI;ii.. .,:, ,.
-------
IV. Developing Water Quality Standards
Introduction
After quahf) utg for irvatmcnt as a State, a Tribe
has sevcral options for establishing water quality
standards on its reservation. These options include:
I. Negotiation of a cooperative a eemcnt with an
adjoining State to apply the States standards to
the Indian lands;
2. Incorporation of the standards from an adjacent
State as the Tnbess own, with or without re-
vision; or
3. Independent Tribal development and adoption
of water quality standards that may account for
unique site-specific conditions and water body
uses.
The options represent a range of resource com-
mitments. The lust two options would be the quick-
est and least costly ways of establishing Tnbal water
quality standards Option 3 requires more time and
resources to implement because it requires the Tribe
to create an entire set of water quality standards ‘from
scratch.’
The development of Tribal water quality stand-
ards is a continual process. At least once every three
years a Tribe must review and, if appropriate, revise
its water quality standards. The Tribe may change its
approach for establishing standards in subsequent
tnennial reviews. For example. Tribal standards may
evolve from the adoption of existing State standards
to a rule entirely of Tribal orion.
Several steps are involved in developing water
quality standards for reservation waters. A Tribe
must (A) identtfy all surface waters requiring stand-
ards. (B) desi ate uses for each water body or por-
tion of a water body, (C) set criteria to protect
desi iated uses, (D) adopt an antide adation policy
and implementation methods, and (E) as appropriate.
adopt additional policies affecting the application and
implementation of standards. These steps arc de-
scnbed below.
R [ ItRL’ICE
• A detailed discussion of the options available for
establishing water quality standards on Indian
lands is in the preamble to the proposed nile (54
FR 39102 - 39103, September 22, 1989). (2)
A. Waters Requiring Water Quality
Standards
Vata’ quality standards arc adopted for ‘waters
of the United States’. including all riven, streams, in-
termittent streams, lakes, natural ponds. wetlands. and
marine waters such as estuaries and near-shore coastal
waters. Water bodies may be scçnented such t
where appropriate, different standards may appi
different segments of the same water body. ‘Wai .
of the United States’ does not include geoundwater.
Mificially-clealed waters, such as irrigation
ditches and canals, may be defined as ‘waters of the
United States.’ The need to develop water quality
standards for artificially-created waters is determined
by EPA and the Tribe on a ca c-by-ca c basis.
REFERENCE
• The regulatory definition of ‘waters of the United
States’ can be found in the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Regulation (40
CFR 122.2) and the Section 404 Regulation (40
CFR 230.3).
B. Determining Designated Uses
1. Use clasalfucation System
Each Indian Tribe develops a use classification
system that describes the uses of water bodies to be
protected. At a minimum, water quality standards
must provide for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in
on the water. In addition, uses may include pu
water supply, waxer supply for s icultura1. industrial.
and commercial uses, and navigation.
,‘. , .. —,—_•_— ,I.... ‘ ‘ ,
-------
3. Dcsignated 1s s
The CWA also alloys a Tribe to adopt use cale-
gones for other purposes, as long as those uses and
assouated criteria enhance the quality of the ater
and SCt%C the purposes of the Act. %Vas te transport
and y.aite assimilation axe not acceptable uses.
Tribes ma adopt subcategories of a use and set
criteria to reficci the different needs of these subcate-
iionu . One cxamplc is di iding recreation into the
ub t .nione of recreation in the satcr (s unnuflg)
.rnJ rxr ti Jn ori the jt r (bozitiflg) . nothcr cx-
anipk is di iding protection of fi hcncs into cold a-
icr and warns uaicr fisheries.
REFERENCES
• For EPA guidance on use classification systems
see Chapter 3 of the Water Quality Standards
Handboo*, (1983). Appendix A of Chapter 3
contains a sample use classification system. (6)
• A summary of State use classifications can be
found in the document Designated lses, one
of the Water Quality Standards Cntena Sum-
maries: .4 Compilation of State/Federal Crnena,
(1988). (19)
• For a sample of a use classification system for
Tribal water quality standards see the water
quality standards for the Colville Indian Reset-
aiion (54 FR 28627- 28629. July 6. 1989). (3)
2. Existing Uses
Existing uses are those uses actually attained in a
water body on or after November 28, 1975. Novem-
ber 28, 1975 is the date on which EPA promulgated
its first water quality standards regulation. Because
an existing use has been attained, it cannot be modi-
fied or changed unless uses ate added that require
more stringent criteria. When identifying existing
uses, the Tribe should specify uses consistent with the
uses in their use classification system.
REFERENCES
• The regulatory definition of existing uses is in
EPAs Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
CFR 131.3(e)). (I)
• Guidance on the interpretation of the term an
existing use’ is in Questions and Answers on
4ntidegradggjon, (1985). (7)
Each Tribe has the primary responibdit) for de-
lemwung the uses it ou1d like to make of a ter
body and incorporate these uses into its standards.
Cnless the Tribe can demonstrate that the
fishabLe swimmab1e uses can not be attained (i e the
Section lOl(a)(2) goals of the CWA that provide for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wjldljle. and recreation in and on the wateri, the Tribe
must desiiinate. at a minimum. .i tbh.ible imm bk
u c for each .itcr hod in .&ddition to other th.it
are to be made of the at r body.
When designating uses of a water body and the
appropriate criteria for those uses, the Tribe must take
into consideration the water quality standards of the
downstream watera. The Tribe must ensure that the
water quality standards it sets for reservation waters
provide for and do not interfere with the attamment
and maintenance of the water quality standards of
downstream waters.
In some areas, uses are only practical dwing cer-
tain seasons. If appropriate, a TribC should adopt a
seasonal use as a way of providing for the protection
of fish, shellfish, arid wildlife and recreation in and on
the water.
Tribes estabLishing water quality standards for the
first tãne should carefully consider the water-body
uses that ate appropriate. Removing such uses. hde
not impossible, requires a substantial demonstration
that attaining the use is not feasible.
REFERENCES
• Information on the requirements for designating
uses is in EPA ’s Water Quality Standards Regu-
lation (40 CFR 131.10). A discussion on desig-
nated uses is in the preamble (48 FR 51400-
51401, November 8, 1983).(l)
• General information on designating uses can be
found in Section II of Introduction to Water
Quality Standards, (1988). (4)
• For EPA guidance on designated uses see Chap-
ter 1 of the Water Quality Standards Handbook,
(1983). (6)
4. Uae Attainability Aaalysse
A use attainability analysis is a scientific assess-
ment of the physical, chemical, bio1o cal, and eco-
nomic factors that affect the attainment of’ a use. A
use attainability analysis assists in determining what
uses are possible. It also can assist in determining the
-------
point .&nd flOflNiflt source controls necc Jt to pro.
(ect a u e : UC attautabtht) anahsis consists of (a)
a water both sur e> arid as es ment , (b) a va te1oad
allocation, and (C) if appropriate, an economic analy•
sis
A rnbe is required to conduct a isse attainability
analysis when it dcsi ates a use that does not include
the protection .ind propa a1ton of fish, shellfish, and
%ildlile. anid r”crejtion in and on the water Ilowe cr.
u. c . itainjt’,liI l> .me not required when des.
‘en.aicd ti . ar con i tent ith fi’ hjhli immable
u e
(sc attainability analyses ase the resgorisibility of
each Fribe. but the actual studies may be performed
b) others ,Ul data, however, must be made available
to the public
REFERE ,CES
• General information on use attainability analyses
can be found in Section V of Introduction to
Water Quality Standards, (1988). (4)
• Guidance on conducting use attainability ann-
l ses is in Chapter 3 of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook. (1983). (6)
• \lore detailed information can be found in three
tcchnacal support manuals
I Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sm-
veys and A ssessnhents for Conductir g Use
Attainability Analyses. (1983). This manual
contains general infomsanon and technical
guidance specific to riven. ($0)
2 Technical Support . IanuaL Waterbody Sur’.
veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
A uainability Analyses, Volume II: EJtuDJiM
Systems. (1983). ( I I)
3 Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sir.
veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
A trainability Analyses, Volume Ill: Lake
Systems, (1984) ($2)
C. Adopting Vater Quality Criteria
Water quality criteria are limits on a particurar
pollutant or on a condition of a water body so as to
protect and support a use. When criteria are properly
selected and met, it is expected that the water quality
will protect the desi sated use.
Each Tribe is rcquired to adopt. ,b p.mrt of ii
ter quality standards, water qualit, csuena to protect
the most scnsiU e desi iated use of a water bod)
These criteria must be based on a sound scicntillc ra-
tionule.
When setting appropriate water qualit) criteria
sufficient to protect desi iated uses. Tribes may:
1. Adopt the cntcria .PA publishes under Section
304(a) of the .%ct;
2. Modify thc Section 304(a) uidan v to
sitc.spccsfic conditions; or
3. Use other scientifically defensible methods.
Tribes are encouraged to work with EPA to de-
temunc the approach to be used in setting criteria, to
assess the availability of monitoring data, and to
evaluate appropriate methods for any analyses.
REFEWCES
• For general infonstation on water quality criteria.
see Section III in Introduction ro Water Quality
Sganda,ds. ($988). (4)
• Information on the requirements for uidct1
criteria is in EPA ’s Water Quality Stan. £
Regulation (40 CFR 131.11). (I)
• Guidance on the methodology used by EPA in
developing aquatic life criteria is in Guideliries
for Deriving National Water Quality Criteria for
the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
Uscs (45 FR 79341. November 28, 1980. as
amended at 50 FR 30784, July 29, 1985). (13)
• Guidance on the methodology used by EPA in
developing human health criteria is in Guide-
lines and Methodology Used in the Preparation
of Health Effect Assessment Chapters of the
Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents (45
FR 79318. November 28, 1980. ($4)
I. EPA Published Criteria
EPA publishes water quality criteria under Sec-
tion 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. These criteria are
called Section 304(a) criteria and are based on the
Latest scientific information available on the effect of
a pollutant on aquatic life and human health Section
304(a) criteria are published from ttme.to-time as
guidance documents to assist in setting water q’
standards and have no force of law. Section 3..
criteria guidance documents contain two importanl
types of inforrnalion: (a) scientific data on the effects
‘I
: flr..rIi n. it,,.. n,.,;.. c—... . .I .
-------
of pollut .intS On .aqu itie life, human hc.dth. and or
recreation. a nd (b) the chemical concentration in wa-
ler that dl generally ensure ater quality adcquate
to support a particular “ater use.
Both human health and aquatic life criteria are
needed for the protection. propagation, and con-
sumptiori of fish and shellfish and for public water
supply. Inbes must adopt aquatic life and or human
he.ilth enteru for pollutants where data indicate that
the’ . rollutants rntertcre ith attaining the des-
iiijtd u
REFERE’ CI3
• The most important references for Section 304(a)
criteria ate the individual criteria guidance docu-
merits. A last of these documents is in Appendix
A.( 15)
• Mother source of infomiation on Section 304(a)
criteria is Qagglhy C,iiena for Water. (1986). also
known as the Gold Book. This reference con-
taint a summary of the individual Section 304(a)
criteria documents. (16)
• For information on the relationship of Section
304(a) criteria to desi iated water uses ice
Chapter 2 of the Ware, Quality Standards
Handbook (L983). (6)
2. Narrative and Numeric Criteria
Criteria can be either narrative or numeric. Nat-
Tati e criteria are expressed in concise statements,
generally in a free frorn format, for example iree
from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Numeric
criteria are expressed as concentrations of chemicals
or poUuiants in water. Concentrations of chemicals
are usually expressed in micrograms per liter (ugil).
Numeric criteria sie often called chemical-specific
criteria.
EPA believes that an effective water quality
standards program should include both narrative end
numeric criteria. Narrative criteria are used to limit
the toxicity of an effluent when the specific chemicals
in the effluent cannot be identified. In addition, nar-
rative criteria can be used to limit the toxicity of the
water when a specific chemical is identified as the
cause of the toxicity, but no numeric criterion is
available.
Chemical-specific numeric criteria aae important.
particularly where the cause of toxicity is known and
limits are placed on the discharge of the pollutant
through permits. or where nonpoint sources are ident
tafied as the source of the problem. Such criteria
pro ide a iron r h.L3i on hi h to pruw t .iqujcu.
life and human health.
Narrative Criteria
Narrative criteria are used to protect the aesthetic
qualities of water and ensure its natural beauty.
rative criteria also are used to protect against toxic
effects. EPA guidance includes five narrative criteria
or iree froms. These free froms apply to all iaters
and to both point courccs and nonpoint ourc
pollution. %Vhcn a 1 ribe adi pt n nati i nt ru I ir
toxic pollutants. it must pro%ide inforimation on ihe
method that will be used to regulate point source
discharges based on the narrative criteria.
Numeric Criteria
Specific numeric criteria establish limits, as neces-
sary, for a wide variety of pollutants in or conditions
of water bodies. For example. a Tribe needs to adopt
numeric criteria for dissolved oxygen and ammonia.
as well as for toxic pollutants such as lead, mercury,
polychiorinated biphenols (PCBs), etc. to protect the
aquatic life of the water body and human health.
Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA requires the
adoption of numeric criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed in Section 307(a)(1) of the CWA 11(I) the dis-,
charge or presence of the pollutant may adversely
impact designated uses and (2) EPA has published a
criterion for the pollutant. Section 307(a) toxic
pollutants include 126 individual toxic pollutants.
These 126 pollutants are called priority pollutants
and ate among the most persistent, prevalent, and
toxic of the chemicals known to man.
A Tribe has three options airailable for adopting
numeric criteria for priority pollutants. In
these options are:
I. Adopt numeric criteria for all pollutants for
which EPA has issued Section 304(a) criteria
gtiidan’ e ;
2. Adopt numeric criteria for all pollutants for
which EPA has issued Section 304(a) criteria
guidance when the pollutant can reasonably be
expected to interfere with uses; and
3. Adopt a translator procedure that can be used to
derive numeric criteria on an as needed basis.
If Section 304(a) criteria are not available, and the
presence or discharge of the pollutant may adversely
impact a designated use, a Tribe must adopt criteria
based on bio1o cal monitoring or assessment meth-
ods. To meet this requirement. at a minimum, a
Tribe must require that all point source dischargers
thought to be discharging priority toxic pollutants
conduct whole effluent toxicity tests.
-------
RI.l I.RI\CF.S
• Guid ricc on thc applic.ition of riarlali%c and
numencal cniena IS in Chapter 2 of the I1’arer
Quality Standtlrdj Handbook. (1983). (6)
• CsuId.Lnce on specific narative and numeric c ii-
tcna for particulu poUutants can be found in the
Lndi%ldu.i1 Section 3(M(a) criteria documents A
list of th c Jo umcnts i in .tppcndi A (15)
• . nothcr ourcc of specific narrative and numeric
criteria fur paruculas pollutants is Quelity Ci’ue-
na for If’aier, (1986), also known as the Gold
Book. This rvfcrcncc is a summasy of the mdi-
vidual 304(a) critcna documents. (16)
• The Scctmon 30 7 (a) priority toaic pollutants are
codified at 40 CFR 401 IS and found in Section
VI I of Introduction to Water Quality Standards.
(1988) (4)
• Spccdic guidance on the implementation of nu-
menc cniena for the Section 307(a) priont> tozac
poUutants. including a full discusssonidescription
of the options available, is in Guidance for State
lmpkmentotion of Water Quality Standards for
CII’,i Section 303(c)(2)(B), (1988). (Il)
• For a compilation of State activities implement.
irtu the Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements see
Status Report: Stare Numerical Criteria for
Tories aj of sl ugust 1989, (1989). (II)
• Compiled State summaries of individual
poUutant criteria can be found in Water Quality
Standards Criteria Summaries: A Compilation .f
State/Federal Criteria, (1988). (19)
• For technical guidance on conducting whole
effluent toxicity tests see the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based Tozics Con-
trol. (1985) (28)
3. Site-specific Criteria
Site-specific criteria aie water quality criteria dc’
veloped for a specific site and reflect local environ-
mental conditions EPA’s criteria are laboratory
derived and may not always accurately reflect the ef-
fect of a pollutant in all waters. Site-specific criteria
ma) be appropriate where:
a Spcuc tnhabimin .i cn utC u’ m .n
less sensitive than those used in de cloptng
she Section 304(a) critena, or
b Water chemistry. such as p11, hardness,
temperature, and color, appears to differ
sigoificantly from the laboratory iiatcr used
in developing the Section 304(a) criteria.
Tribes may develop site-specific criteria Dcvcl-
opinu site-specific cntcria iniohc taking lo .j.l condi’
tion into account co that .nt rij Jqu.ii l rrnt: t
the dcsi atcd uw ithout beutg murc or lc Inii-
gem than needed
REFERE .’ICE
• EPA guidance on sciemifically acceptable proce-
dures for deriving site-specific criteria is in
Chapter 4 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook. (1983). (6)
4. Criteria Leder Derdopmens
Chemical criteria alone are inadequate to fully
characterize the physical and btolo cai mnIe&ity f
our waters or the reductions in risk necessary to a
the goals of the CWA. Therefore. EPA is dcv eloi...
biolopcal and sediment quality criteria to comple-
ment chemical-specific criteria.
Biolo cal criteria may include indices or state-
ments of species richness, abundance, diversity.
trophic composition andior biomass. These measures
can be used to establish appropriate goals for water
bodies. Initially. Tribes arc to adopt narrative bi ’
olo cal criteria. Narrative criteria may be general
statements of the biolo cal condition of the i ater
body or attainable uses. Although similar to the ‘free
&omn chemical water quality criteria, narrative bi-
olo ca1 criteria establish a positive statement about
what should occur, such as Aquatic We shall be as it
naturally occurs. Such criteria will assist Tribes in
better characterizing the aquatic life uses appropriate
for the surface water to be protected.
EPA is developing sediment quality criteria on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Such criteria will assist
Tribes in defining where sediment consairnination is
a problem in order to wges areas for regulatory.
enforcement, and cLean-up actions.
REFERENCES
o Information on biolo cal criteria will be fo
in the Propam Guidance Document for Biolog-
ical Criteria, (available April. 1990) (20)
I fl.,. I . .. . U d ’ - - C._J .J
-------
• 1 h technical cujjoj,ce Documcnr fur Biulo ical
Criteria % l1l Supplement the progeam guidance
document (available alter April, 1990) (2 1)
• Information on sediment quality critena is in
Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisor,
Board on the Equilibrium Parririon,ng Approach
to Generating Sediment Quality Criteria, (April.
l989 (22)
• . t h t of addition.d cdimcnt qu3lit% critina doc-
umcrn c in be found in . pNndI% . 23
D. Antidegradation Policy and
Implementation Methods
Each Tribe adopts a ,escrvation-wide
anIidc adation policy and implemenianon methods
for this policy. Art antidc ’adation policy providcs for
the maintenance and protection of existing uses,
higher quality waters, and outstanding national ie-
source atcrs. EPA ’s water quality standards regu-
lanon sets minimum requirements for the
antidc ’adation policy.
A Tribe may want to designate some of its waters
as outstanding national resource waters. These waters
may be high quality waters or ecologically unique
waters such as those within national parks or wildlife
refuges or waters of exceptional recreational or eco-
1o cal signiflcance. Each Tribe establishes its own
critena for designating and protecting outstanding
national resource waters.
Antide adation implementation procedures ad-
dress how a Tribe will review water quality-based
permits and control pro arns to ensure that they are
designed to meet water quality standards and
antide&adation requircrnerns. Ai a minimum, when-
ever a discharge is determined to eliminate a use or
lower the quality of high quality waters, the Tribe
must conduct an antidegradation policy review
REFERENCES
• General information on antide ’adatjon is in
Section VI of inrroductiois to Water Quality
Standards, (1988). (4)
• Detailed information on the requirements for an
antide ’adation policy is in EPA’s Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.12). A dis-
cussion on the antide ’adation policy is in the
preamble of the Water Quality Standards Regu.
lanon (48 FR 51402 - 51403, November 8, 1983).
(I)
• lmplcmcntation guidan c on ,
in Chapter 2 of the Plater Quality Standard,,
ffandboo*, (1983). (6)
• Additional guidance can be found in Questions
and 4 nswers on Antidegradatiog, (1985). (7)
• A summary of State antidcp’adation policies can
be found in the document
of the ll’ater Quality Standards Crih ’ria Sum.
manes; A compilation of’ State/Federal Cnitcria,
( 1988).( 19)
E. Additional Policies
Each Tribe, at its discretion, may include in its
water quality standards, policies affecting the applica-
tion and implementation of waist’ quality standards.
Such policies include variances, mixing zones, and
low-flow exemptions. These policies must be is-
viewed and approved by EPA.
I. Va,janem
In a situation where waters do not meet their wa-
ter quality standards, a Tribe may rant a variance to
a discharger as an alternative to downgeading the
standard to a use tequiring less stringent criteria.
Variances would be used where the Tribe believes chat
the standard can ultimately be attained. By estab-
lishing a standard with uses isquiring improvements
in water quality rather than allowing continued lower
water quality, the Tribe will assure that further
process is made in attaining the goals of the CWA
and improving water quality.
A variance may be granted to an individual
discharger for a specific pollutant or poUuiants. This
variance controls the permit Limits for the discharger
that receives the variance. EPA reviews individual
variances, in addition to the review and approval of
the Tribal variance policy.
REFERENCES
• Additional information on variances is in the
preamble to EPA’s Water Quality Standards
Regulation (48 FR 51403, November 8, 1983).
(I)
• Guidance on variances is contained in Varjances
in Water Quality Standards. (1985). (8)
1%’. De eloping ‘aeer Qualit St,ndir4i
-------
2. li ini Zun
A nu .ing zone ser es as a zone of uuiial dilution
in the unmediate area of a point source discharge.
The Trib I v ater quality standards should describe
the mcthodology for dctcrrnuung the location, size,
shape. outfall enguicering desi , and in-zone water
quality of mi’ung zoncs. The methodology should
be precise enough to support regulatory actions.
Carctul conuidcration must be gwen to the appropri-
.LtcnC s of u he ,.one where the ubstancc dis-
LIlJr d i NT%lst nt in the enurunment. accumulates
in aquatic life, or c iuscs cancer.
R F.FER E\CFS
• Guithncc on mixing zones is in Chapter 2 of the
Water Quality Standards Handbook. (1983) (6)
• Technical information on mixing zones is in
Chapter 5 of the Techniesi Support Document for
lVa ’, Qualicy-based Toxics Control, (1985). (28)
• A summaty of State mixing zone policies can be
found in the document Mixing Zoncs, one of
the Water Quality Sianderdi Criteria Summa-
ritz: A Compilation of StatelFederol Criteria.
(1988). (19)
3. Low-Now Exemptions
Water quality stand srd sht’uld protect u - c cn
an low-flow itu itluns. 1 nbe rna di at a cntic.tl
low-flow volume below which numerical criteria Jo.
not apply. however, even in lo%i-flow satuattons.
narrative criteria, including the free frorir toxacs cr1-
lena, must be applied.
REFERENCE
• EPA ’s policy on low-flow exemptions is de-
scribed in Chapter 2 of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, (1983). (6)
I . ‘ater OuaIii St ndard
-------
V. Adoption of Water Quality Standards and Submittal to
EPA
Subsequent to the development of water quality
standards. a Tnbc must take several steps before sub.
muting the standards to EPA. First, a Tribe must
hold a public hearing for she review of the water
quality standards. ? ezt, the Tribe adopts the water
quality standards according to its own legal and ad-
ministrative procedures. Then, the appropriate legal
authority within the Tribe certifies that the water
quality standards were adopted according to Tribal
law. M cr these steps arc completed. the Tribe sub-
mits a complete standards package to the appropriate
EPA Rc onal Administrator for review.
A. Public Participation
An important part. perhaps even the most im-
portant part. of establishing water quality standards
is the participation of those affected by standards de-
cisions. At a minimum, a Tribe is required by Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to hold a
public hearing for reviewing the proposed water
quality standards. This public hearing must be held
in accordance with the provisions of Tribal law,
EPAs Water Quality Management Regulation (40
CFR 130.3(b)(6)), and EPAs Public Participation
Regulation (40 CFR Part 23). Prior to the hearing.
the Tribe must make available to the public proposed
water quality standards and supporting analyses.
EPA urges Tribes to actively involve Tribal
members in the review process. Public hearings or
workshops are an effective means of involving Tribal
members in setting the goals for their reservation wa-
ten, identifying e,usting uses of the water body, and
developing support for the proposed standards.
REFERENCES
• The public participation requirement for the wa-
ter quality standards propam is in EPAs Water
Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.20(b)). (1)
• Implementation guidance on public participation
for the water quality standards propam is in
Chapter 2 of the Water Quality Ssaadmrds
Hai,Abcok, (1983). (6)
B. Certification by a Legal Authority
The Tribal ‘Attorney Gencral or other appropri-
ate legal authority within the Tribe must certify that
she water quality standards were adopted according to
Tribal law.
C. Submittal of Standards Package to
EPA
The foUowing elements must be included in each
Tribes water quality standards package that it sub-
mits to EPA:
I. Use designations consistent with the pro isions
of Sections lOl(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the CLean
Water Act.
2. Water quality criteria sufficient ao protect she
designated uses.
3. Methods used and analyses conducted to support
the water quality standards.
4. Antidepadation policy and implementation
methods consistent with Section 131.12 of EPA’s
Water Quality Standards Regulation.
S. Certification by the appropriate legal authority
within the Tribe that the water quality standards
were adopted in accordance with Tribal law.
6. Information for EPA to use in determining the
adequacy of she iciensific basis of the standards
that do not include the uses specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act.
-------
lnfinm tion on policics that ma affect the p.
plic t ion and implementation of she water quil
ti stand.asds.
Tribcs should adopt and submit water quality
standards to EPA for re icw itIwt 180 days of qual.
If)Ing for treatment as a State for she water quality
standards pro axn and iüun 30 days of Tnbal
adoption and ccrtdkation of standards. The ISO day
timc framc is thc .imc time frame prosided so States
un kr th 1Q72 I cdcr i Wjtcr Pollution Control . ct.
I hc I.I’ R t un I . Jmini tratcsr m a uit n •
tension of the I SO-dis) lime limit if the Tnbc pro
a reasonable written e pLuiation for an e lens on.
REFERE. CE
o Infomsation on EPA requirements for water
quality standards adoption and submission is in
E PA’s Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
CFR 131.6 and 131 20j. (U
V. t4option of trr Oualits Stand3rd ,,ut f,.h,vi,s’ii ri
-------
omc. of Water
(4303)
EPA423-8-e5-002
Mirth 1a95
0
interim Economic Guidance
for Water Quality Standards
Workbook
‘... to restore and maintain the cherTical, physical.
and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.
Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act
Appendix M to the
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
T)
‘ ‘ac7
Un*.d Stat..
EnvWonm.ntal P, te on
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
.r. 2 7 . EPA—823-B-95-002
OFFCE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Economic Guidance for Water Quali S ard - -Workbook
FROM: Tudor T. Davies, Directoz .
Office of Science and Technology
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit the Interim
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook for use by.
the States and Regions in considering economics at various points
in the process of setting or revising water quality standards.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
We recommend the subject guidance. including the various
screening levels and measures presented. be implemented as
reference points and used as guides by the States and Regions.
The measures outlined in the guidance are not intended to be
applied as absolute decision points. States may use other
economically defensible approache& in lieu of those suggested in
this interim guidance.
This guidance is designed for use in the water quality
standards program and does not represent Agency guidance outside
of that program.
BACKGROUND :
Economic factors may be considered at several different
points in the water quality standards program. The water quality
standards regulation provides for such consideration in the
following areas:
Section 131.10--Designation of Uses (also applies to
variances)
(g) (6) Controls more stringent than those required by
Sections 301(b),, and 306 of this Act would result in
substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
Rscyc R.cyc .
Q P 1Id SoyCw’ s
-------
VI. EPA Review and Approval/Disapproval of Standards
A. Reiiew Process
EPrVS review of Tribal water quality standards
involves a review, at the Rc onal Office. with a con-
current review and commcnt by the Criteria and
Standards Division at I Ieadquatters. EPA reviews the
water quality standards to ensure compliance with the -
requirements of the CWA and EPA ’s Water Quality
Standards Regulation. EPA’s review also determines
hether the analyses performed to establish water
quality standards are adequate. In addition, the
Agency evaluates whether the desigisated uses and
criteria are compatible throughout the water body and
hether the downstream water quality standards are
protected. A review to determine compliance with
downstream standards is most likely to involve water
bodies on or crossing Reservation or State bounda•
nes.
In determining whether to approve, disapprove
or conditionally approve Tribal water quality stand-
ards, EPA v ill use the same statutory and regulatory
requirements. policies, and criteria as it uses in re-
viewing State water quality standards.
B. Approval
Tribal water quality standards thai meet the re-
quirements of the CWA and EPA ’s Water Quality
Standards Regulation are approved by the appropriate
EPA Regional AdriwustratOt within 60 days of re-
ceipt. The Regional Administrator notifies the Tribal
Chairman by letter of the approval and forwards a
copy of the letter to the Tribal agency responsible for
administering the water quality standards pro am.
The approval letter contains information on the scop
of the approval action. If only a portion of the sub-
mitted standards meet the requirements. the Re onal
Administrator approves only that portion and identi-
fies the portions that should be revised.
C. Disapproval
If the Tribal water quality standards are not con-
sistent with or do not meet the requirements of the
CWA or EPA’s Water Quality Standards Regulation.
the EPA Regional Administrator disapproves the
standards with a written notice to the Tribal Chair-
man within 90 days of receipt. The letter states why
the standards are not consistent with the CWA or the
Water Quality Standards Regulation and describes the
necessary revisions for full approval. L I the Tribe fails
to adopt and submit the necessary revisions within 90
days after notification, the EPA Administrator initi-
ates promulgation of Federal water quality standards.
D. Conditional Approval
The Regional Administrator may giant condi-
tional approval for Tribal water quality standards.
This is an EPA approval conditioned on the per-
formance of specified actions on the part of a Tribe
in a timely manner (generally 90 days or less). Con-
ditional approvals may be used when there are minor
deficiencies in Tribal standards but only if the Tribe
provides assurance that it will submit corrections on
a specified. written schedule. Failure to satisfy the
identified conditions will nullify the approval and lead
to Federal promuiplion action.
E. EPA Promulgation
EPA may promulgate Federal water quality
standards in situations where the Administrator de-
termines that the new or revised water quality stand-
ard is not consistent with the applicable requirements
of the CWA or where the Administrator determines
that a standard is necessary to meet the requirements
of the Act.
In promulgating water quality standards, the EPA
Administrator must follow the same policies. piece-
dures, analyses, and public participation requ4eeients
established for the Tribe. If the Tribe corrects the
deficiencies in its water quality standards prior to
‘ ‘ rr o i...
-------
prumuI atiufl. the .\JminbtrJtor i1l stup the • Information on the red r.d r quir m tiI:
ruismaking procccdtn s and the Rc ona1. Adnwus• EPA promulgation is in EPAs Vatcr Qua1 i
traw, wiU approve the revised standards. After EPA Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.22). (I)
has promulgated standards, the 1ribc may subm&t re - • Guidance on the EPA review roccss and
used atcr quality standards and the Federal stand, promulgation is us Chapter 2 the hater
ards will be vbithdrawf% once Tribal standards are Qualiry &andards HaadbooA. (1983). (6)
approved.
• Use of Federal promulgation of water quality
standards for Indian Tribes is discus cd in the
REFERI:NcI:S preamble to the pmposcd rule (54 FR 3 1iii 1
S Infoimaiton üfl thi I tdir il requirements hit
• A summary of EP. -promulgiitcd w.atcr qu ilit
LI’ and approval diiappro a1 of water standards is in Sumniar of Federally
quality standards is in CP,Vs Water Quality P,omuJ ated Water Quality Standards .Icrionz.
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.21). (I) (1989). (26)
4
i Di D . _a s
-------
VII. Implementation of Water Quality Standards
I nbcs imrlcmcnt .&t r qualit) iandards through
limits placcd on thc amount of pollutants discharged
by point sources and through controls dc iloped for
nonpoint sources of pollution. Each point source
discharger is required to obtain a pcrmit limiting the
pollutants that arc discharged and specifying the
morutonng and reporting requirements. These per-
mits arc pan of the National Pollutant Discharge
I hmination System (M DES) progi zn established
by the C VA to control the poUutant levels in
dischargers effluent. The effluent limits contained in
N DES permits are either tcchnolo -bascd or waler
quality-based.
When technology•baaed limits are insufficient for
water to attain water quality standards. Section
30 1(b(l(C) of the C VA requires the development
of more stringent limitations to attain or maintain the
water quality standards. EPA (or the Tribe if it has
been delegated authority for the NPDES progism)
must thcn dctermine the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) for the water body. The TMDL is the
amount of a pollutant that may be discharged into a
ater body and still maintain water quality standards.
Loading above this amount may result in waters cx-
cecduig the standards.
The allowable TMDL is the sum of the waste
load aiiocation (WLA) and load allocation (LA). in•
cluding a margin of safety. The WLA is the portion
of the pollutant load from point sources. The LA is
the portion from nonpoint sources and backçound
sources. This WLA/LA,TMDL process involves
identifying the pollutant sources and loadings, apply.
ing mathematical modeb to predict the amount of
load reduction necessary to achieve water quality
standards, and allocating this load reduction among
the pollutant sources. Water quality criteria are used
in the WLA,LA,TMDL process, and include one or
more of the following:
1. Chern*cal.specific numeric criteria or a whole
effluent toxicity standard adopted by a Tribe;
2 EPA Scction 304(a) criteria if the Tribe has not
adopted a numeric criterion for a particular
pollutant; or
3 Other appropnatc criteria.
In order to attain the waler quality standinh. the
necessary load reduction from point source
dischargers is regulated by water quality-based
NPDES permits.. The load reduction from nonpoint
sources is coniroUed through Tribal or State nonpoint
source control progiams. Nonpoint source control
proparns may be either voluntary or regulatory.
REFERENCES
• As a start, for technical information on the WLA
process and effluent limits in peruuts see Chap-
ters $ and 6 of the Technical Support Document
for aier Quality-based Tonics Control, (l985j
(2S)
• Tribes may want to obtain a copy of 4 Primer
on th Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
and Its Programs. (1989) (30) and the Permit
Writers Gwde to Water Quality-based Tonics
Control. (29)
• Guidance on the relationship between nonpoint
source controls and water quality standards is in
.Vo*poou Source Controls and Water Quality
Standards, (1987). (9)
• Tribes also may want to obtain a copy of the
Noapoint Sowee Guidance, (1987). (27)
• For mote information on the WLA!LAITMDL
process, NPDES permits, and nonpoint source
control progiarns please contact your Regional
Water Quality Standards Coordinator who can
put you in touch with the WLA/LA,TMDL,
permits, and nonpoint source contact persons in
your Region.
‘4 II. IlsqIkIiwssIdlIun s d Vs diet Qu.aiii’. signd.ard
-------
VIII. Review and Revision of Existing Water Quality
Standards
Watcr quality standards arc continually reviewed
and revised, if ncccssary. Tribal review and revision
of i atcr qual.ii) standards follows the same statutory
and regulatory rcquiremcnts as State review and re-
vision
A. Requirements
I. Thrcc- ear Rciiew Requirement and Public
Participation
• The CWA requires that a Tnbe, from tune ’to-
time, but at least once every three years. shall hold
public heanngs for the purpose of revie mg applaca’
ble watcr quality standards. These public hearings are
held. a cre public hearings held on the initial
adoption of a Tribe s water quality standards, in ac-
cordance ith the provisions of Tribal law. EPA ’s
Water Quality Management Regulation (40 CFR
130 3(b;(6 )), and EPA’s Public Participation Regu-
lation (40 CFR Part 25). Prior to the hearing, the
proposed re!.lsions to the water quality standards and
anal scs supporting the revisions must be made
a ailable to the public.
2. Rc icw and Upgrading Requirement
A part of the review and revision process involves
a mandatory review and up ading requirement.
Water body segnients with water quality standards
that do not include the uses specified in Section
lOl(a)(2) of the CWA (1 e. the protection and propa-
gation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and/or recreation
in and on the water) must be re-examined every three
years to determine if any new information, technol-
o i. etc. has become available that would warrant
addin! these uses. If new information indicates that
the uses specified in Section lOl(aX2) of the CWA are
attainable, the Tribe must revise its standards accord-
ingly In addition, where existing water quality
s:andards specify designated uses less than those
presently being attauied. a Tribe must revise its
standards to reflect the uses actually being attained.
Also. J the Tribe has ‘anted a variance to a water
quality standard, the Tribe must review the appropri-’
ateness of the variance and determine if a new vari-
ance should be issued.
3. In.dcpth Review of Spcciric Watcr Bodies
EPAs Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
each Tribe to establish its own procedures for select-
ing specific water bodies for an in-depth review. A
review could include an examination of the uses, ex-
isting water quality csitena, and the need for rvviscd
or additional criteria on sewnents where the standards
arc not projected to be attained with the technology-
based requirements of the CWA. Tribes also may
want to consider areas where major water qu’
based permits are scheduled for issuance or rei
or areas where toxic poUutants have been identuied
or aze suspected of preventing the attainment of the
standards.
During the water quality standards review. if a
Tribe determines that a designated use has not been
attained, it can take several counes of action. A Tnbe
may impose more stringent treatment requirements
on dischargers. In addition, a Tribe may establish
sub-categories of a use or a seasonal use in order to
retain the use. Only if the Tribe can demonstrate that
attaining the designated use is not feasible due to one
or more of six conditions listed in 40 CFR 131.10(g)
of EPA’s Water Quality Standards Regulation. may
the Tribe remove the designated but not attained use.
Tribes may not remove designated uses if they are
existing uses or if such uses will be attained by im-
plementing required technology-based effluent limits
and costcffeciive best management practices for
nonpoint source control.
4. Other
In each three year water quality standards review
cycle, the Tribe should review the general provisions
of the standards to see if new statutes, regulat’ ’c.
guidance, or legal decisions affecting standards
been adequately taken into consideration.
‘UI. RL%.I .iiisj SiIUfl tif Ft i liuiv mhr OuaIui . Siiiiidaish
Is
-------
REII:RI: CLS
• Detailed information on the rcquircrncrns for rc•
view and revision of atcr quality standards is in
EPAs Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
CFR 131.20). A di cussaon of these require.
menu are in the preamble of this regulation (48
FR 51403. 51404. November 8. 1983). (I)
• Guidance on the standards review and revision
FI)CI I. includinir an I c u’cd in n ie ifl
)Iand.&rd’ Ufl 4I T quaIIt% limited w ncrns. is in
Ch ipt r I of the Dater Q ali:y Standards
handbook. (1983). (6)
• Guidance on the role and requirements of public
participauiors is in Chapter 2 of the I Voter Quality
Standards Handbook, (1983). (6)
• Detailed information on the requirements for
hearings and public participation is in EPAs
• Vjuer Qu.tht) 1an ement RccuLit ion rw Cl R
I 3O3(b)(6 ) and EPA a Public Participation
Regulation (40 CFR Pass 25).
• Detailed information on the allowable conditions
for removing a dcsi sated use is in EPAs Water
Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR l3I.I0 (g
and 131.10(h)). (I)
• Chapter 2 oF the ‘later Quality Standards
HaadbooL. (l9 13 , cont.uns uiJ.usce i,n ktr-
mining substantial and widespread economic and
social impact. one of the ala conditions allowing
for the removal of a dcsiguatcd use. (6)
C. Submittal to EPA
Tribes submit to EPA the revisions in their water
quality standards and the analyses supporting she it-
visions u they did their initial water quality standards.
. I II. Reue nd Kiuwn et £uatiIig W. t, Qu ti Si 4 ,u . rJs
-------
Appendix C. Map of Geographical Boundaries for EPA
Regional Offices
4 — AlaDama
0 —Alaska
9 — Arizona
6 — Arkansu
9 —California
8 —Colorado
I — Conn.cticut
3 — Delaware
3—D.C.
4 — FIori a
4 —Georgia
9 — •lawaii
0 — aano
5 —illinois
7 —owa
7 —Kansas
4 —Kentucivy
6 —LOuisiana
I —Maine
3 —Maryland
1 —Massachusetts
5 —MIchigan
5 —MInnesota
4 — M 15$s$ SiQQi
7 —MissOuri
8 — Montana
7 — Nsøras*a
9 —Nevada
1 — New lamosrlire
2 — New Jersey
6 —New “ ‘.o
2 —New YorK
4 —North Carolina
8 — North DaKota
5 —OhIo
6 —Oklahoma
10 —Oregon
3 —Pennsylvania
1 — Rhoce Island
4 — South Carolina
8 — South DaKota
4 —Tennessee
6 —Texas
8 —utah
1 —Vermont
3 —VIrginia
10 —Washington
3 —West Virginia
5 —Wisconsin
8 —Wyoming
9 — American Samoa
9 —Guam
2 — Puerto Rico
2 .—Vlrgin Islands
Regèons Regions
R.gions
C—’
ppend z C. \lap of Geographicsi Boundaries for EPA Reeio,i.l fl’!
-------
.tppendix D. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act
SEC. Sit INDIAN TPJBX&
(a) POLICY.—NOthiT.g in th . section Shall be cun.tnued to affect
the application of section 101(g) of this Act, and all of the provi .
sions of this section shall be carried out in accordance with the pro.
visions of such section 101(g Indian tribes shall 6. treated as
States for purpc es of such section 101(g).
(b) ASESASjtE OP St WAGE TWTMINT NsrDs Rt onr.—The
Administrator, in cooperation with the Director of the Indian
Health &rvice shall owea the need br sewage treatment works to
serve Indian tribá, the degree to which such need . will be met
through funds allotted to States under section 205 of this Act and
priority lists under section 216 of this Act, and any obstacles which
prevent such need. from being met. Not later than one r after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
submit a report to Congrw on the aeseament under this subsection,
along with recommendations sp.cif/ rtg (1) how the Administrator
intends to provide ausstance to Indian tri to develop waste treats
rnent management plans and to construct treatment works under
this Act, and (9) method . by which the participation in and admin.
istration of program . under this Act by Indian tribes can be maxi•
“sizeS
(C) RWRVATZON a, F ii ros.—The Administrator shall rearve
each fiscal year beginning after September 10, 198 before allot.
mints to the Stales under section SOW .). one.half of one perwst of
the sums appropriated under section SO?. Sums reserved under this
subsection shall be availabl, only for grants for the development of
waste treatment management plans and for else construction of
sewage treatment works to wve Indian tubes
(d) Coo wrzvz AoP.w41NTs.—In order to ensure the consistent
implementation of the requirements of this Act, an Indian tribe and
the State or States in which the lands of such tribe are located may
enter into a cooperative agreement, subject to the review and approv.
al of the Admini.trato ’ to join ny plan and administer the require.
menta of this Act.
-------
(e) ThL4TMEN7 AS STATES—The Admini,s:rator t.s authorized to
treat an Indian tribe as a State for purposes of title II and sections
104, 106, 103, 305, 308, 309. 3.14, 319. 401. 402, and 404 of this Act to
the degree necessary to carry out the objectives of this section, but
only if—
(1) the Indian tribe has a governing body carrying out sub.
stan tic! governmental duties and powers;
(2) the functions to be exercised by the Indian tribe pertain to
the management and protection of water resources which are
held by an Indian tribe, held by the United States in trust for
Indians, held by a member of an Indian tribe if such property
interest is subject to a trust restriction on alienation, or other-
wise within the borders of an Indian reservat;on , and
(3) the Indian tribe is reasonably ‘expected to be capable, in
the Administriitor’s judgment, of carrying out the functions to
- be uerc’sed in a manner consistent with the terms and pur-
poses of this Act and of all applicable regulations.
Such treatment as a State may include the direct provision of funds
reserved under subsection (c) to th. governing bodies of Indian
tri , and the determination of priorities by Indian tribes, where
not determined by the Administrator in cooperation with the Direc-
tor of the Indian Health Service The Administrator, in cooperation
with the Director of the Indian Health ServEce is authorized to
make grants under title 1! of this Act in an amount not to exceed
JX percent of th. cost of a project. Not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shalL
in consultation with Indian tribes, promulgate final regulations
which specq how Indian tribes shall be treated as States for pur-
poses of this Act. The Administrator shal4 in promulgating such
regulations, consult affected States sharing common water bodies
arid provide a mechanism for the resolution of any unreasonable
consequences that may arise as a result of differing water quality
standards that may be set by States and Indian tribe, located on
common bodies of water. Such mechanism shall provide for explicit
consideration of relevant factors including, but not limited to, the
effects of differing water quality permit requirements on upstream
and downstream dischargers. economic impacts, and present and
historical uses and quality of the waters subject to such standards.
Such mechanism should provide for the avoidance of such unrea-.
sonable consequences in a manner consistent with the objective of
this Act.
(I) Gwns FOR N0NP0WT SouRcE PROGRAMS. —The Adr’ i’tistra•
br shall make grants to an Indian tribe under section .119 of this
Act as though such tribe was a State. Not more than one-third of
one percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 319 may be used to make grants under this subsection. In
addition to th. requirements of section 319. an Indian tribe shall be
required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (L , ( . arid (3) of
subsection (d) of this section in order to receive such a grant.
D—2
-------
(g) Asux4 Na7zvg ORGAJ4!L4TIONS.—NO provision of this Act
shall be construed to—
(1) cant, enlarge, 01. dimuush, or in any way affect the scope
of the governmental authority, if any, of any Alaska Native or
ganization, including any federally .recognised tribe, traditional
Alaska Native council, or Native council organized pursuant to
the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 987), over lands or persons in
Alaska;
(2) create or validate any assertion by such organization or
any form of governmental authority over lands or persons iii
Alaska; or
in any way affect any assertion that Indian count?,’, as de-
fined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, exist, or
does not exist in Alaska.
(is) DWNII’JON& —For purpases of this section, the term—
(1) “Fed ,al Indian reservation” mewus all land within the
limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government, notwithstanding the iwsance of any
paton6 and including rights.of-way running through the riser .
uation, and
(I) “Indian tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, grau _or
community rec pized by the Secretary of the Interior and exer .
cuing governmental authority over a Federal\Indiasi s rva.
D—3
-------
Reference 9
-------
Rthnsce 10
-------
Document Ordering Information
Documents issued by the U.S. EPA may be ordered from EPA’s National Service Center
for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at the following:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/publications.html
or
by calling 1-800-490-9198
NSCEP is a central repository for all EPA documents, with over 5,500 titles in paper and/or
electronic format. These documents are available for free distribution.
The Office of Science and Technology also issues on an annual basis a Catalog of
Publications, 1999 Edition. A hard copy of that document may be obtained from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
P0 Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Phone: 1-800-490-9198
FAX: 513-489-8695
Local and Government Employees: 513-489-8190
International: Follow your local international dialing procedures then 513-489-8190
email: ncepi.mail epamail.epa.gov
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom
The document order number is EPA-820-B-99-001
-------
Reference 11
-------
Directory of Stale and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Waler Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annual!y)
Alabama: Department of Environmental Management
Water Division - Water Quality Branch
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
(334) 271-7826
ATTN: James Mclndoe
Alaska: Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Air & Water Quality
Suite 105
410 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5302
ATTN: Katy McKerney
Arizona: Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4536
ATTN: Sam Rector
Steve Pawlowski
Arkansas: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
Water Division
8001 National Drive
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501) 682-0660
ATTN: Bob Keith
California: Surface Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
(916)657-1029
ATTN: Dr. Gerald Bowes
%Vater Quality Standards Academy 1 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of Stale and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Colorado: Department of Public Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division - B2
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South
Denver, CO 80246-1530
(303) 692-3571
ATTN: Bob McConnell
Connecticut: Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Management
Planning and Standards Division
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(860) 424-3704
ATTN: Robert Smith
Delaware: Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
820 Silver Lake Blvd. Suite 220
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19904-2464
(302) 739-4590
ATTN: Richard W. Greene
Florida: Water Standards and Evaluations
Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road - MS 3575
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(850) 921-9428
ATTN: Nancy Turner
Georgia: Watershed Planning and Monitoring Program
Water Protection Branch
Environmental Protection Division
4220 International Parkway - Suite 101
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 675-6236
ATTN: Mark Winn, III
Vater Quality Standards Academy 2 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of Stale and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Hawaii: Department of Health
Environmental Management Division
919 Ala Moana Boulevard, 3 rd floor
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
ATTN: June F. Harrigan
Idaho: Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 769-1422
ATTN: Don Essig
Illinois: Environmental Protection Agency
Standards and Monitoring Support Unit
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield , IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-3362
ATTN: Bob Mosher
Indiana: Department of Environmental Management
Office of Water Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, iN 46206-615
(317) 233-2482
ATTN: Dennis Clark
Iowa: Water Resources Section
Department of Natural Resources
Henry A. Wallace Building
502 East 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 503 19-0034
(515) 281-7025
ATTN: Ralph Turkle
Water Quality Standards Academy 3 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of Slate and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Kansas: Science and Standards Section
Office of Science and Support
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 283
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
(785) 296-8027
ATTN: Bob Angelo
Kentucky: Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
Division of Water
Water Quality Branch
Frankfort Office Park
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410
ATTN: Terry Anderson
Louisiana: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-22 15
(225) 765-0634
ATTN: Dugan Sabins
Maine: Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Land and Water Quality
Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies
#17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-3901
ATTN: David Courtemanch
Maryland: Department of Environment
Water Management Division
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3906
ATTN: Richard Efkin
Vater Quality Standards Academy 4 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of Slate and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Massachusetts: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Drinking Water Program
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5770
ATTN: David Y. Terry
Michigan: Department of Environmental Quality
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-1949
ATTN: David Hamilton
Minnesota: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
Assessment and Planning Section
520 Lafayette Road
Saint Paul, MN 55 155-4194
(651) 296-7213
ATTN: John Hensel
Mississippi: Water Quality Management Section
Department of Natural Resources
100 W. Capitol Street, Suite 1321
Jackson, MS 39269
(601) 965-4339 x37
ATTN: Lon Stromg
Missouri: Planning Section
Water Pollution Control Program
Division of Environmental Quality
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(573) 751-7428
ATTN: John Madras
Waler Quality Standards Academy 5 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and TribalAgencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Montana: Department of Environmental Quality
Planning, Prevention and Assistance Division
Resource Protection Planning Bureay
1520 East 6 th Avenue
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
(406) 444-2459
ATTN: Abe Horpestad
Nebraska: Surface Water Section
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 98922
1200 N Street, The Atrium, Suite 400
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-4227
ATTN: Steve Valker
Nevada: Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
333 West Nye Lane - Suite 138
Carson City, NV 89706-0851
(775) 687-4670
ATTN: Tom Porta
New Hampshire: Watershed Management
Department of Environmental Services
6 Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03 302-0095
(603) 271-2471
ATTN: Bob Baczynski
New Jersey: Department of Environmental protection
Office of Environmental Planning
401 East State Street
P.O. Box 418
Trenton, NJ 08625-0418
(609) 633-7020
ATTN: Steve Lubow
Vater Quality Standards Academy 6 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
New Mexico: New Mexico Environmental Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
1190 Saint Francis Drive
P.O. Box 26110
Sante Fe, NM 87502
(505) 827-2800
ATTN: Steve Pierce
New York: Department of Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Water Assessment and Research
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3502
(518) 485-5824
ATTN: Scott Stoner
North Carolina: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Planing Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
(919) 733-5083
ATTN: Gregory Thorpe
North Dakota: Department of Health
Division of Water Quality
1200 Missouri Avenue
Room 203
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58506-5520
(701) 328-5237
ATTN: Mike Sauer
Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Surface Water
P.O. Box 1049
Lazarus Government Center
122 South Front Street
Columbus, OH 43216-1049
(614) 644-3075
ATTN: Bob Heitzman
Water Quality Standards Academy 7 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Oklahoma: Water Resources Board
Water Quality Division
3800 North Classen Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
(405) 530-8800
ATTN: Derek Smithee
Oregon: Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Devision
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5279
ATTN: Greg McMurray
Pennsylvania: Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Watershed Conservation
P.O. Box 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
(717) 787-9637
ATTN: Carol A. Young
Rhode Island: Department of Environmental Management
Office of Water Resources
235 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908-5767
(401) 222-4700
ATTN: Alicia Good
South Carolina: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Bureau of Water
Division of Water Quality
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 898-4300
ATTN: Sally Knowles
Vater Quality Standards Academy 8 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
South Dakota: Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Services
Joe Foss Building
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3351
ATTN: Bill Baer
Tennessee: Department of Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street, 6 th Floor, LNC Annex
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615) 532-0625
ATTN: Greg Denton
Texas: Texas Natural Resources/Conservation Commission
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station MC-l50
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 239-1000
ATTN: Jim Davenport
Utah: Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6146
ATTN: Bill Moelimer
Vermont: Vermont Water Resources Board
National Life Record Center Building
National Life Drive - Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-3201
(802) 828-3355
ATTN: William Bartlett
Water Quality Standards Academy 9 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Virginia: Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Assessment and Planning
629 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 698-4471
ATTN: Ron Gregory (Surface Water Quality and Assessment)
Jean W. Gregory (Scientific Research Unit - Water Quality
Standards) (804) 698-4113
Washington: Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6405
ATTN: Megan White
West Virginia: Environmental Quality Board
1615 E. Washington Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304) 558-4002
ATTN: Libby Chatfield
Wisconsin: Bureau of Watershed Management WT/2
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
101 South Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707-7921
(608) 267-7694
ATTN: Al Shea
Wyoming: Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street, 4 th Floor
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7781
ATTN: Gary Beach
Water Quality Standards Academy 10 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
District of Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Columbia: Environmental Control Division
Water Resources Management
2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, S.E., Suite 203
Washington, DC 20020
(202) 645-6601 x3040
ATTN: James Collier
U.S. Virgin Islands: Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Wheatley Shipping Center II
Saint Thomas, VI 00802
(304) 777-4577
ATTN: Leonard Reed
Puerto Rico: Environmental Quality Board
Water Quality Area
Banco National #431
Ponce Dc Leon Avenue
Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00917
(P.O. Box 11488 Santurce, PR 00910)
(787) 767-8073
ATTN: Robert Ayala
Guam: Guam EPA
P.O. Box 22439-GMF
Calibration Lap Building
15-6 101 Mariner Avenue
Barngada, Guam 96921
(671) 475-1658
ATTN: Jesus Salas
Palau: Palau Environmental Quality Protection Board
P.O. Box 100
Koror, Republic of Palau 96940
(680) 488-1639
ATTN: Gilbert Bemel
Vater Quality Standards Academy 11 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
American Samoa: American Samoa EPA
Office of the Governor
American Samoa Government
Pago Pago, American Samoa
(684) 633-2304
ATTN: Sheila Wiegman
Water Quality Standards Academy 12 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
India , , Tribes With An Approved Water Quality Standards Program
Pueblo of Isleta
P.O. Box 1270
Isleta, NM 87022
(505) 869-5748
ATTN: Jim Piatt
Water Quality Control Officer (Acting)
Pueblo of Sandia
Water Quality Office
P.O. Box 6008
Bemalillo, NM 87004
(505) 867-4533
AT1’N: Beth Jariello
Pueblo of San Juan
Office of Environmental Affairs
P.O. Box 717
San Juan Pueblo, NM 87566
(505) 852-4212
ATTN: Charlie Lujan
Director of the Environmental Office
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
2002 East 28 th Street
Tacoma, WA 98404
(253) 597-6200 x 7851
ATTN: Char Nalor
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
P.O. Box 278
Pablo, MT 59855
(406) 675-2700
ATTN: Paula Webster
Bill Swaney
Confederated Tribe of the Chehalis
Reservation
420 Howanut Road
P.O. Box 536
Oakville, WA 98568
(360) 273-59 1 1
ATTN: C.F. Sodhi
Pueblo of Santa Clara
Water Quality and Wetlands Coordinator
P.O. Box 580
Espinola, NM 87532
(505) 753-7326
(505) 753-8998 fax
ATTN: Joseph Chavarria
Pueblo of Picuris
P.O. Box 127
Penasco, NM 87553
(505) 587-2519
ATTN: Louie Hena
Mole Lake Band of the Lake Superior Tribe
of Chippewa Indians, Sokaogon Chippewa
Community
Rural Route 1
P.O. Box 625
Crandon, WI 54520
(715) 478-7504
ATTN: Pete McGeshick
Charles Fox (715) 478-7585
Water Quality Standards Academy
13
Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Pueblo of Nambe
Route I
P .O. Box 117
BB Santa Fe, NM 87501
(505) 445-2036
ATTN: Steve Romero
Pojoaque Pueblo
Route 11
P.O. Box 208
Sante Fe, NM 87501
(505) 455-3383
ATTN: Alan Martinez
Pueblo of Tesuque
Route 5, Box 630-T
Santa Fe, NM 87501
(505) 983-2667
ATTN: Tony Dorame
Seminole Tribe of Florida
6300 Stirling Road
Hollywood, FL 33024
(954) 967-3402
ATTN: Craig Tepper
Colville Confederated Tribes
Environmental Trust Department
P.O. Box 150
Nespelem, WA 99155
(509) 634-8844
ATTN: Gary Passmore
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
P .O. Box 440021
Tamiami Station
Miami, FL 33144
(305) 223-8380
ATTN: Gene Duncan
Vater Quality Standards Academy 14 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of Stale and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Wafer Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Indian Tribes Applying For 303 Authorizatio,i To Administer The Waler Quality Standards
Program (A utizorization Pending)
Mule Lacs Band of Chippewa
43408 Odena Drive
Onamia, MN 56359
(320) 532-4181 x 7446
ATTN: Perry Bunting
Leech Lake of Band Chippewa
Department of Natural Resources
Route 3, Box 100
Cass lake, MN 56633
(218) 335-8241
ATTN: Rich Robinson
Bois Forte Band of Chippewa
P.O. Box 16
Nett Lake, MN 55772
(218) 757-3261
ATTN: Chris HoIm
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
107 Beartown Road
Baraga, MI 49908
(906) 353-6623 x103
ATTN: Trisia Grimes
Red Lake Band of Chippewa
P.O. Box 279
Red Lake, MN 56671
(218) 679-3959
ATTN: Joel Rohde
Southern Ute
P.O. Box 737
lgnacio, CO 81137
(970) 563-0135
ATTN: Fran King Brown (Acting)
Three Affiliated Tribes
Environmental Division
HC3Box2
New Town, ND 58763
(701) 627-4569
ATTN: Heather Husband
Coyote Valley Tnbal Council
7751 N. State
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470-0039
(707) 485-8723
(707) 485-1247 fax
ATTN: Mary Korte
Campo Band of Kumeaay Indians
36190 Church Road, Suite #4
Campo, CA 91906
(619) 478-9369
(619) 478-5818 fax
ATTN: Ralph Goff
Lumni Nation
2616 Kwina Road
Bellingham, WA 98226-9298
(36) 384-2319
ATTN: Andy Ross
Yakama Indian Nation
Water Quality Specialist
Environmental Protection Programs
P.O. Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948
(509) 865-5121
ATTN: Scott Ladd
Vater Quality Standards Academy
15
Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of State and Tribal Agencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Natural Resources Department
Water and Soil Division
P.O. BoxC
Warm Springs, OR 97761
(541) 553-3463
ATTN: Deepak Sehgal
Spokane Tribe of Indians
Water Resources
P.O. Box 100
Weilpinit, WA 99040
(509) 258-9217
ATTN: Rudy Peone
Vater Quality Standards Academy 16 Update- 2 2000
-------
Directory of Slate and TribalAgencies Responsible for Water Quality
February 2000 (Updated Annually)
Indian Tribes With Section 303 Authorization To conduct The Waler Quality Standards
Program On Reservation Lands
Tulalip Tribes
6700 Totem Beach Road
Marysville, WA 98271
(360) 651-4000
ATTN: Gillian Mittelstaed
Fond du lac Band of Chippewa
1720 Big Lake Road
Cloquet, MN 55720
(218) 879-8427
ATTN: Christine Berini
Hoopa Valley
P.O. Box 1348
Hoopa, Ca 95545
(916) 625-4594 fax
ATTN: Ken Norton
Grand Portage Band of Chippewa
P.O. Box 428
83 Stevens Road
Grand Portage, MN 55605
(218) 475-0194
AT1’N: June Evans
Fort Peck Tribes
P.O. Box 1027
Poplar, MT 59255
(406) 768-5155 x399
ATTN: Deb Madison
White Mountain Apache Tnbe
P.O. Box 700
Whiteriver, AZ 85941
(520) 338-4346
(520) 338-1514 fax
ATTN: Keith Jones (Environmental Planner)
Vater Quality Standards Academy 17 Update- 2 2000
-------
Reference 12
-------
EPA—600/ 3—84—099
October 1984
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site—Specific
Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria
by
Anthorky R. Carlsona, William A. Erungsb, Gary A. chapmanC, and
David J. Ransend
a u•s• EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota
b U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island
C U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon
d U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida
ENVIR0K 1ENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DULUTh, MN 55804
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
,egd IIizIPlwnonz o ihe rewse before cmpIet i g)
2.
. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO.
5 1 2 11 0 1
Numerical Aquatic Site—Specific
Modifying National Criteria
5. REPORT DATE
t0bet 1984
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
•
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
A. Brungs, Gary A. Chapman.
ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
Agency
Laboratory—Duluth
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
ADDRESS
Development
Laboratory
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Agency
EPA—600/03
16 Ag i., . ..CT
A major goal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to directly link
regulatory decision—ma1 .ing regarding priority water bodies to the capacity of those
water bodies to receive wastewater discharges and still maintain acceptable water
quality. To assist states in achieving this goal in a consistent, cost—effective
manner, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has developed a new approach to.
water quality criteria derivation with the report “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
Aquatic Site—Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifyii g National Critexia.”
These guidelines provide a series of protocols for modifying national water quality
criteria to reflect local environmental conditions. The national criteria, because
they are to protect the biological integrity of all water bodies, serve as benchmarks
and may require adjustments for site—specific applications. The new protocols take
into account site—specific variations in species composition. physical factors, and
chemical water quality variables. Consideration of local conditions assures that
criteria for a given water body are tailored specifically to its aquatic life and
uses.
I,. EY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
I DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIEISIOPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI FICIdIG!cup
18 DISTRI8uYso . STATEMENT
Release to public
IL SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES -
42
20 SECURITY CLASS (This psgc
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA F,,ii 2220.1 IR. .. 4. .773 P tv.OuI COTOW Is 0 5101.1 ‘S
-------
NO1 ICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Envirofl efltal Protection AgencY policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or coercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recoendatiofl for use.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Relationship to the National Guidelines
These Guidelines for Deriving N snerical Aquatic Site—Specific Water
Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria (hereinafter referred to as
the Site—Specific Guidelines) are the next steps evolving from the Guidelines
for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Life and Its Uses (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983) (here-
inafter referred to as the National Guidelines).
In that the Site—Specific Guidelines follow from the National
Guidelines, an understanding of the National Guidelines and the national
criteria document for the material of interest is a prerequisite for
understanding and use of the Site—Specific Guidelines. The derivation of a
site—specific criterion for freshwater or saltwater aquatic life will
generally evolve from national criteria that are available for a limited
number of chemicals (Appendix 1). Site—specific criteria derived by these
guidelines may be the same as, or higher or lower than national criteria.
In the absence of a national criterion, additional data may be generated
so that the minimum data set requirements of the National Guidelines are met
and a national or site—specific criterion may be calculated.
The national water quality criteria have been developed using guideline
procedures that have undergone extensive scientific review regarding their
general applicability. States may choose to apply these criteria directly or
to modify them according to site-specific criteria guidelines. Whenever
decisions are sought regarding modification of these criteria, the assistance
of those biologists, chemists, hydrologists, and toxicologists most
knowledgeable bf the local species and conditions is essential to the proper
evaluation of exposure assessment and population at risk.
1
-------
Rationale for the Site—Specific Guidelines
National criteria may be underprotective or overprotective because: (1)
The species at the site are more or less sensitive than those included in the
national criteria data set. (2) The physical and/or chemical characteristics
of the water at the site alters the biological availability and/or toxicity
of the material. Therefore, it is appropriate that the individual
Site—Specific Guidelines procedures address each of these conditions
separately, as well as the combination of the two.
Site—specific criterion derivation may be justified because species at
the site may be ‘sore or less sensitive than those in the national criterion
document. For example, the national criteria data set contains data for
trout, salmon, or penaeid shrimp, aquatic species that have been shown to be
especially sensitive to some materials. Because these or other sensitive
species ‘say not occur at a particular site, they may not be representative of
those species that do occur there. Conversely, there may exist at a site
untested sensitive species that are ecologically or economically important
and would need to be protected. Secondly, differences in physical and
che’nical characteristics of water have been demonstrated to emeliorate or
enhance the biological availability and/or toxicity of chemicals in
freshwater and saltwater environments. Alkalinity, hardness, pH, suspended
solids and/or salinity influence the concentration(s) of the toxic form(s) of
some heavy metals, ammonia and other chemicals. For some materials, hardness
or pH—dependent national criteria are available for fresh water. No
salinitydependent criteria have been derived because most of the saltwater
data for heavy metals has been developed in high salinity waters. However,
in some estuarine sites where salinity may vary significantly, the
2
-------
developuent of salinity—dependent site—specific criteria for metals of local
interest may be appropriate.
The effect of seasonality on the physical and chemical characteristics
of water and subsequent effects on biological availability and/or toxicity of
a material, may also justify seasonally dependent site—specific criteria.
The najor implication of seasonally dependent criteria is whether or not the
“most sensitive” time of the year coincides with that time for which the flow
is the basis for waste treatment facilities design or NPDES permits. That
is, if the physical and chemical characteristics of the water during low flow
seasons increases the biological availability and/or toxicity of the chemical
of concerfl, the permit limitations may be more restrictive than if the
converse relationship were to apply.
Definition of Site
Since the rationales for the Site—Specific Guidelines are usually based
on potential differences in species sensitivity, physical and chemical
characteristics of the water, or a combination of the two, the concept of
site must be consistent with this rationale.
A site may be a single point source discharge or quite large. If water
quality effects on toxicity are not a consideration, the site will be as
large as a generally consistent biogeographic zone permits. In this case,
for example, large portions of the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Michigan, or the Ohio
River may each be considered as one site because their respective aquatic
communities do not vary substantially. Unique populations or less sensitive
use within sites may justify a designation as a distinct site (site within a
site). When sites are large, the necesSary data generation can be more
economically supportable.
3
-------
If the selected species of a site are toxicologically comparable to
those in the national criteria data set for a material of interest, and
physical and/or chemical water characteristics are the only factors
supporting modification of the national criteria, then the site would be
defined on the basis of expected changes in the material’s biological
availability and/or toxicity due to physical and chemical variability of the
site water.
Two additional considerations in defining a site are: 1) viable
communities must occur, or be historically doc nented, in order to select
resident species for use in deriving site—specific criteria, and 2) the site
must contain acceptable quality dilution water if site water will be required
for testing (to be discussed later in these Guidelines).
For the purpose of the Site—Specific Guidelines, the term “selected
resident species” is defined as those species that commonly occur in a site
including those that occur only seasonally (migration) or intermittently
(periodically returns or extends its range into the site). It is not
intended to include species that were once present in that site and cannot
return due to physical habitat alterations.
Selection of a resident species should be designed to account for
differences between the sensitivities of the selected resident species and
those in the national data set. There are several possible reasons for this
potential difference. The principal reason is that the resident communities
in a site may represent a more or less narrow mix of species due to a limited
range of natural environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, salinity,
habitat, or other factors affecting the spatial distribution of aquatic
species). The nt! 1ber of resident species will generally decrease as the size
of the site decreases.
4
-------
,A. second potential reason for a real difference in sensitivity could be
the absence of most of the species or groups of species (e.g., families) that
are traditionallY considered to be sensitive to certain, but not al],
materials (e.g., trout, salmon, saltwater penaeid shrimp, and Daphnia
Predictive relative species sensitivity does not apply to all materials, and
the assumption that sensitive species are unique rather than representative
of equally sensitive untested species is tenuous. A final reason could be
that the resident species may have evolved a genetically based greater
resistance to high concentrations of a material, but no data have been
presented to demonstrate such a genetic difference. A few instances of
increased resistance have been suggested but they may be due to an
acclimation of individual organisms to a stress. However, such an
acclimation, should it occur, would be transitory.
Assumptions
There are numerous assumptions associated with the Site—Specific
Guidelines, most of which also apply to and have been discussed in the
National Guidelines. A few need to be emphasised. The principal assumption
is that the species sensitivity ranking and toxicological effect endpoints
(e.g., death, growth, or reproduction), derived from appropriate laboratory
tests will be similar to those in site situations. Another assumption is
that protection of all of the site species all of the time is not necessary
because aquatic life can tolerate some stress and occasional adverse
effects.
It is assumed that the Site-Specific Guidelines are an attempt to
protect more correctly the various uses of aquatic life by accounting for
toxicological differences in species sensitivity or the biological
S
-------
availability, and/or toxicity of a material at specific sites. Modification
of the data set must always be scientifically justifiable and consistent with
the ass ptions, rationale, and spirit of the National Guidelines.
Site—specific criteria are designed to be used by the States to develop
water quality standards, mixing zone standards, or toxicity based effluent
standards. The development of such standards should take into account
additional factors such as the use of the site, and social, legal, and
economic considerations as they impact the site, the envirot ental and
analytical chemistry of the material, the extrapolation from laboratory data
to site situations, and the relationship between the species for which data
are available and the species in the body of water which is to be protected.
Heavy Metal Speciation
The national criteria for metals are established primarily using
laboratory data in which reported effect concentrations have been analyzed
primarily as total, total recoverable, or acid extractable metal
concentrations. Consequently, the national criteria are expressed as total
recoverable metal. Metals exist in a variety of chemical forms in water.
Available toxicological data have demonstrated that some forms are much more
toxic than others. ‘bst of the toxicity appears to reside in the soluble
fraction and, potentially, in the easily labile, nonsoluble fraction. The
national criteria values may be unnecessarily stringent if applied to total
metal measurements in waters where total metal concentrations include a
preponderance of metal forms which are highly insoluble or strongly
complexed. Derivation of criteria based on metal forms is not possible at
this time because adequate laboratory or field data bases do not exist in
which metal toxicity is partitioned among the various metal forms. Analysis
6
-------
of total and soluble metal concentrations when soluble metal is added to site
water may indicate that the metal is rapidly converted to insoluble forms or
to other forms with presumed low biological availability. Under these
circumstances, derivation of a site—specific criterion based on sitr’water
effect in either the indicator or resident species procedures will probably
result in less stringent criteria values.
Use of the indicator species or resident species procedures is
encouraged for derivation of site—specific criteria for those metals whose
biological availability and/or toxicity is significantly affected by
variation in physical and/or chemical characteristics of water. l4easureinent
of both total recoverable and soluble metal concentrations during toxicity
testing is recommended.
Plant and Other Data
In the published criteria documents, no national criterion is based on
plant data or “Other Data” (e.g. flavor impairment, behavioral, etc.). For
some materials, observed effects on plants occurred at concentrations near
the criterion. The following procedures do not contain techniques for
handling such data, but if a less stringent site—specific criterion is
derived, those data may need to be considered.
PROCEDURES
There are three procedures in these Site-Specific Guidelines for
modifying the national criterion which is composed of both a maximum
concentration and a 3O day average concentration. These procedures are:
A. The recalculation procedure for the derivation of a site—specific
criterion to account for differences in resident species sensitivity to a
material.
7
-------
B. The indicator species procedure for the derivation of a site—specific
criterion for a material to account for differences in biological
availability and/or toxicity of a material caused by physical and/or
chemical characteristics of a site water.
C. The resident pecies procedure for the derivation of a site—specific
criterion to account for differences in resident species sensitivity and
differences in the biological availability and/or toxicity of a material
due to physical and/or chemical characteristics of a site water.
The following is the sequence of decisions to be made before any of the
above procedures are initiated:
• Define the site boundaries.
• Determine from the national criterion doc nent and other sources if
physical and/or chemical characteristics are known to affect the
biological availability and/or toxicity of a material of interest.
• If data in the national criterion doctsnent and/or from other sources
indicate that the range of sensitivity of the selected resident
species to the material of interest is different from that range for
the species in the national criterion doci. ent and variation in
physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site water is not
expected to be a factor, use the recalculation procedure (A).
• If data in the national criterion doc ent and/or from other sources
indicate that physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site
water may affect the biological availability and/or toxicity of the
material of interest, and the selected resident species range of
sensitivity is similar to that for the species in the national
criterion doc nent, use the indicator species procedure (B).
8
-------
• If data in the national criterion doc nent and/or from other sources
indicated that physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site
water may affect the biological availability and/or toxicity of the
material of interest, and the selected resident species range of
sensitivity is different from that for the species in the national
criterion doc ent, use the resident species procedure .
The following Figures 1 and 2 are generalized flow charts for these
Guidelines.
A. ! ecalculatiofl procedure for the derivation of a site—specific criterion
to account for differences between selected resident species and other
species.
1. Summary: This recalculation procedure allows modifications in the
national data set on the basis of eliminating data for species that
are not resident at that site. When the recalculation procedure for
the site—specific Final Acute Value results in a reduction in the
national data base below the minimum data set requirements,
additional resident species testing in laboratory water is
necessary.
2. Rationale: This procedure is designed to account for any real
difference between the sensitivity range of species represented in
the national data set and species found at a site.
3. ConditiOflS
• If acute toxicity data for resident species are insufficient to
meet the minimi data set requirements of the National Guide-
lines, additional acute toxicity data in laboratory water for
untested resident species would be needed before a calculation of
the site—specific criterion could be made.
9
-------
,,suRc I
Ienuali ed ?lov Chart cOt’ D.rlvln9 Nuneriosi Site-Sp.oiclo C,it.ria
Co t ’ tli• Prot.otion of Aquatlo LI I. and Its U.. ..
- This Is an Illuatratlon .1 proeodur•s that ean bo sisod to
d.rlv. th. ffaa’Iau. C.n.ontreil.n 01 a two—part oritorlon
Dorivation •I th. Il—day Rv.ra 9 . Conoontr.tIon S.
liiustrat.d In F,gur. !.
Rooaloutats 1
Rout. V.luo
Coispl•t. NIni.uo I
1 II N.o.ssary
p.o,.a_
•a%l.itg
Data S.t s.lth
C.r.no.s
Rosidont Spool.. in I
Laboratory Vat.rS j
T.st Indiostor 1 _______________ _______________
Sp..l.s In lit, and I lIto—Bp.ol?io I I
NAN 1 1 511 5
Finsi Rout.
______________ ___________________ Laboratory
labors to Cot a I VaSu, CONCCNTRRTION I
Jr. Nudity L Uat•, 9lat r CCI.ot R,tI.1
Charastoristis Uud to NodS Iqj
- Nasa I sus
F.n000tr.tisll “ I DlII,r,ne,s National Valu. j
cvi v I
I NODIFICATIO1I I r—i—-———————-——-—i L
J ACIIIONI FOR I—
i ift.sldsnt l .ol.. in
Chsraot.r Patio
DiIf.rono.s
IT. Nedily
____ 10 — Day
S.. Ylqur. S
Avorag.
1 Csno.ntr.t I
-------
FICURE S
C.n.ral lied Flou Chart Per D.rivinq Nuaer$oai Blt.—Ipeoltla CrSt.rl.
Per th. Protection or Aqustlo LIP. and Its Us...
This is in Illustration or procedure. th.t •.n be used to
derive th. 3 -deV Av. ep. C.nc.nlrat Ion oP a tao-part
criterion. D.rtv.tIon oP the lanisu. Coneentration Is
Illustrated In Figure I.
U National Finsi
Plant Value Drives
Si — Ds Average
Cono.ntration —
Conduct Plant Testis)
in Bite Water
For Lipid Soluble
Nat.rl.l. Adjust
National Final
R..idue Value P.r
X lisnisu. Lipids
Sn Sit. Specie. —
Calculat, a
Residue Value
ror Non-lipid Soluble
Naterials l..g.NiPOUPVI
Conduct T.at. with
Resident Spool.. in
Sit. Water and
Calculate a Rosidu•
Vs Sue
Accept Nstlon•i
Aaute-Chro l o Rat 10
and Vivid. Into
Slt.—$p .oIPS
I
in Sit.
Waters to get a Vater
E(P.ot RatIo — use to
IlodiPu NatIo
Lowest Iuportant or
Biological ig
SigniPIo.nt Value Per
Resident Spool..
Se• Figure I
-------
• Certain families or organisms have been specified to be
represented in the National Guidelines acute toxicity minimum
data set (e.g., Saluionidae in fresh water and Penaeidae or
Mysidae in salt water). If this or any other requirement cannot
be met because the family or other group (e.g., insect or benthic
crustacean in fresh water) is not represented by resident
species, select a substitute(s) from a sensitive family
represented by one or more resident species and meet the 8 family
minimum data set requirement. If all the families at the site
have been tested and the minimum ata set requirements have not
been met use the most sensitive resident family mean acute value
as the site—specific Final Acute Value.
• Due to the emphasis this procedure places on resident species
testing when the minimum data set has not been met, there may be
difficulty in selecting resident species compatible to laboratory
testing. So’ne culture and/or handling techniques may need to be
developed.
• No chronic testing is required by this procedure since the
national acute—chronic ratio will be used with the site-specific
Final Acute Value to obtain the site-specific Final Chronic
Value.
• For the lipid soluble chemicals ibose national Final Residue
Values are based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action
levels, adjustments in those values based on the percent lipid
content of resident aquatic species Is appropriate for the
derivation of site—specific Final Residue Values.
12
-------
• For lipid—soluble materials, the national Final Residue Value is
based on an average 11 percent lipid content for edible, portions
for the freshwater chinook salmon and lake trout and an average
of 10 percent lipids for the edible portion for saltwater
Atlantic herring. Resident species of concern may have higher
(e.g., Lake Superior siscovet, a race of lake trout) or lower
(e.g., many sport fish) percent lipid content than used for the
national Final Residue Value.
• For some lipid—soluble materials such as polychiorinated
biphenyls (PCB) and DDT, the national Final Residue Value is
based on wildlife consumers of fish and aquatic invertebrate
species rather than an FDA action level because the former
provides a more stringent residue level (see National Guid,elines
for details). Since the data base on the effects of ingested
aquatic organisms on wildlife species is extremely limited, it
would be inappropriate to base a site-specific Final Residue
Value on resident wildlife species. Consequently, site—specific
modification for those materials is based on percent lipid
content of resident species consumed by humans.
For the lipid—soluble materials whose national Final Residue
Values are based on wildlife effects, the limiting wildlife
species (mink for PCB and brown pelican for DDT) are considered
acceptable surrogates for resident avian and mammalian species
(e.g., herons, gulls, terns, otter, etc.). Conservatism is
appropriate for those two chemicals, and no less restrictive
modification of the national Final Residue Value is appropriate.
13
-------
The site—specific Final Residue Value would be the same as the
national value.
4. Details of Procedure:
• If the minimum data set requirements are met as defined in the
National Guidelines or through substitution of one or more sensi-
tive resident family(ies) for non—resident family(ies) or
group( s) required in the National Guidelines, calculate a site—
specific Final Acute Value using all available resident species
data in the national document and/or from other sources. If all
the families at the site have been tested and the minimum data
set requirements have not been met use the most sensitive resident
family mean acute value as the site-specific Final Acute value.
• If the mininum data set requirements are not met, satisfy those
requirements with additional testing of resident species in
laboratory water.
• If all species in a family at the site have been tested, then
their Species Mean Acute Values should be used to calculate the
site-specific Family Mean Acute Value and data for non-resident
species in that family should be deleted from that calculation.
If all resident species in that family have not been tested, the
site-specific Family Mean Acute Value would be the same as the
national Family Mean Acute Value.
• To derive the site-specific maximum concentration divide the
site-specific Final Acute Value by 2.
• Divide the site-specific Final Acute Value by the national Final
Acute—Chronic Ratio to obtain the site-specific Final Chronic
Value.
14
-------
• When a site—specific Final Residue Value can be derived for lipid
soluble materials controlled by FDA action levels, the following
recalculation equation would be used:
site—specific Final Residue Value —
FDA action level
( mean normalized BCF from criterion document) (appropriate Z lipids )
where the appropriate percent lipid content is based on consumed
resident species. A recommended method to determine the lipid
content of tissues is given in AppendiX 2.
• For PCB and DDT whose national Final Residue Values are based on
wildlife consumers of aquatic organisms, no site-specific
modification procedure is appropriate.
• In the case of mercury (a non—lipid—soluble material), a
site—specific Final Residue Value can be derived by conducting
acceptable bioconcentratiOn tests with edible aquatic resident
species using accepted test methods (Appendix 2) or the national
value can be accepted as the site-specific value. For a
saltwater residue value, use a bivalve species (the oyster is
preferred), and for a freshwater value, use a fish species.
These taxa yield the highest known bioconcentration factors for
metals. The following recalculation equation would be used:
site—specific Final Residue Value FDA action level
jite—specific BCF
• The lower of the site-specific Final Chronic Value and the
site—specific Final Residue Value becomes the site-specific
30—day average concentration unless plant or other data indicate
a lower value is appropriate. If a problem is identified,
15
-------
judgment should be used in establishing the site—specific
cr1 ter ion.
5. LimitationS:
• Whatever the results of this recalculation procedure may be, a
decision should be made as to whether the rn erical differences,
if any, are sufficient to warrant changes in the criterion.
• The n ber of families used to calculate any Final Acute Value
significantly affects that value. Even though the four lowest
Family Mean Acute Values (most sensitive families) are most
important in that calculation, the smaller N is, the lower the
Final Acute Value. Consequently, if none of the four most
sensitive families are changed or deleted, any reduction in N
will result in a lower Final Acute Value. Changes in or
deletions of any of the four lowest values, regardless of whether
N is changed, may result in a higher or lower Final Acute Value.
• Site-specific or national Final Residue Values based on FDA
action levels may not precisely protect that use since the FDA
action levels are adverse (i.e., loss of marketabilitY).
• 3ioaccumUlatiOtt , except in field studies, does not add to the
laboratorrderiVed bioconceutratiOn factors because the
laboratory procedures preclude food chain uptake. Consequently,
some residue levels obtained by laboratory studies of
bioconcentratiOn (direct uptake of the material from water) may
underestimate potential effects encountered at a site. The
magnitude of site-specific bioconcentratiOn factors obtained in
the laboratory, therefore, may be insufficient to protect the
public from the effects of the ingested material of concern.
16
-------
B. Indicator species procedure for the derivation of a site—specific
criterion for a material to account for differences in the biological
availability and/or toxicity of a material due to physical and/or
chemical characteristics of a site water.
I. Summary: This procedure is based on the assumption that physical
and/or chemical characteristics of water at an individual site may
influence biological availability and/or toxicity of a material.
Acute toxicity in site water and laboratory water is determined using
species resident in the site, or acceptable nonresident species, as
indicators or surrogates for species found at the site. The
difference in toxicity values, expressed as a water effect ratio, is
used to convert the national maximum concentration for a material to
a site—specific maximum concentration from which a site—specific
‘inal Acute Value is derived.
This procedure also provides three ways to obtain a site—specific
Final Chronic Value. It may be (I.) calculated (no testing required)
if an applicable Final Acute-Chronic Ratio for a given material is
available in the national criteria docianent. This ratio is simply
divided into the site—specific Final Acute Value to obtain the
site—specific Final Chronic Value; (2) obtained by performing two
acute and chronic toxicity tests which include both a fish and
invertebrate species (resident or non—resident) in site water.
Acute—chronic ratios are calculated for each species, and the
geometric mean of these ratios is then divided into the site—specific
Final Acute Value to obtain the site-specific Final Chronic Value;
and (3) obtained by performing chronic toxicity tests with at least
one fish and one invertebrate (resident or non—resident) in both
17
-------
laboratory water and site water and calculating a geometric mean
chronic water effect ratio which is used to modify the national Final
Chronic Value.
2. Rationale: This procedure is designed to compensate for site water
which may markedly affect the biological availabilitY and/or toxicity
of a material. Major factors affecting aquatic toxicity values of
many materials, especially the heavy metals, have been identified.
For example, the carbonate system of natural waters (pH, hardness,
alkalinity, and carbon dioxide relationships) has been the most
studied and quantified with respect to effects on heavy metal
biological availability and/or toxicity in freshwater; however, the
literature indicates that in natural systems organic so].utes,
inorganic and organic colloids, salinity and suspended particles also
play an important but less quantifiable role in the biological
availabilitY and/or toxicity of heavy metals to aquatic life.
This procedure provides a means of obtaining a site—specific Final.
Chronic Value for a material when the acute—chronic ratios in the
national criteria doctm eflt are thought to be inapplicable to
site—specific situations.
3. Conditions
• There is no reason to suspect that the resident species
sensitivity is different from those species in the national data
set.
• The toxic response seen in the tests used in the developneflt of
the national water quality criterion would be essentially the
same if laboratory test water required in this procedure had been
used instead.
18
-------
• Differences in the toxicity values of a specific material
• determined in laboratory water and site water may be attributed
to chemical (e.g., complexing ligands) and/or physical (e.g.,
• adsorption) factors that alter the biological availability and/or
toxicity of the material.
• Selected indicator species directly integrate differences in the
biological availability and/or toxicity of a material. They
• provide a direct measure of the capacity of a site water to
increase or decrease toxicity values relative to values obtained
in laboratory water.
• National Final Acute—Chronic Ratios for certain materials can be
used to establish site—specific Final Chronic Values.
• A site—specific acute—chronic ratio, obtained in site water
testing, reflects the integrated effects of the physical and/or
chemical characteristics of water on toxicity values.
• The water effect ratio concept used in this procedure for
modifying national Final Acute Values to site-specific situations
is also applicable to modifying national Final Chronic Values to
site—specific situations.
4. Details of Procedure:
• Test at least t indicator species, a fish and an invertebrate,
using laboratory dilution water and site dilution water according
to acute toxicity test procedures recommended in Appendix 2. For
each species, use organisms from the same population and conduct
the tests at the same time and, most importantly (except for the
water source) under similar conditions (e.g., temperature,
lighting, etc.). Measure the concentration of the material in
19
-------
the acute toxicity tests; the concentration must be within the
solubility limits of the material. To avoid solubility problems,
species selected for testing should be among the most sensitive
to the material of interest (screening tests may be necessary).
Compare the laboratory and site water LC5O values for each
indicator species to determine if they are different (P
-------
The site—specific maximum concentration is multiplied by 2 to
obtain the site—specific Final Acute Value which is used to
calculate the site—specific Final Chronic Value.
• If the national Final Acute—Chronic Ratio for the material of
interest was used to establish a national Final Chronic Value,
the site-specific Final Chronic Value may be calculated using the
acute—chronic ratio in the following equation:
Site-Specific Chronic Value Site—Specific Acute Value
Final Acute—Chronic Ratio
• If the national Final Acute—Chronic Ratio was not used to
establish a national Final Chronic Value, the national Final
Chronic Value may be used as the site-specific Final Chronic
Value, or it may be measured by performing 2 acute and 2 chronic
tests, (Appendix 2) using site water. Test at least one fish and
one invertebrate species, and conduct an acute test using site
water of similar quality. These data are used to calculate an
acute—chronic ratio for each species. If these ratios are within
a factor of 10, the geometric mean of the 2 acute-chronic ratios
(the site—specific Final Acute—Chronic Ratio) is used to
calculate the site-specific Final Chronic Value using the
following equation:
Site—Specific Final Chronic Value —
Site-Specific Final Acute Value
Site—Specific Final Acute—Chronic Ratio
After an acute/chronic ratio is determined for one species and if
that ratio is within the range of the values used to establish
the national acute—chronic ratio, it is reco ended that the
21
-------
site—specific ratio be used in recalculating the national ratio.
This recalculated ratio would then be used as the site-specific
Final Acute—Chronic Ratio in the above equation.
A site—specific Final Chronic Value can be obtained by testing
indicator species for chronic toxicity. Test at least two
indicator species, a fish and an invertebrate, using laboratory
dilution water and site dilution water according to chronic
toxicity test procedures recommended in Appendix 2. For each
species, use organisms from the same population, and conduct
tests at the same time and most importantly (except for the water
source) under similar conditions (e.g., temperature, lighting).
The concentration of the material in the toxicity tests must be
within the solubility limits of the matei ial. To avoid
solubility problems, species selected for testing should be among
the most sensitive to the material of interest (screening tests
may be necessary).
Compare the laboratory and site water chronic values for each of
the indicator species to determine if they are reasonably
different (limits of chronic values do not overlap).
If for a species the chronic values are not different, the water
effect ratio 1.0.
If the chronic values are different, calculate the water effect
ratio for each species according to the following equation:
Chronic Water Effect Ratio —
Chronic Value in Site Water,
Chronic Value in Laboratory Water
22
-------
Calculate the geometric mean of the water effect ratios for the
species tested.
If the mean water effect ratio is not different from 1.0, the
national Final Chronic Value is the site—specific Final Chronic
Value.
If the mean water effect ratio is different from 1.0, the
site—specific Final Chronic Value can be calculated by using the
following equation: site—specific Final Chronic Value Chronic
Water Effect Ratio x the national Final Chronic Value (or the
national Final Chronic Value adjusted to a water quality
characteristic of the laboratory water when appropriate).
The site-specific Final Chronic Value is used in the
determination of the site—specific 30—day average concentration.
• The lower of the site—specific Final Chronic Value and the
recalculated site-specific Final Residue Value (as described in
the recalculation procedure) becomes the site—specific 30—day
average concentration unless plant or other data (including data
obtained from the site-specific tests) indicates a lower value is
appropriate. If a problem is identified, judgment should be used
in establishing the site—specific criterion.
5. Li.uttations:
• If filter feeding organisms are determined to be among the most
sensitive to the material of interest from the national criteria
doc nent and/or other sources, and members of the same group are
important components of the site food web, a member of that
group, oreferably a resident species, should be tested in order
to discern differences in the biological availability and/or
23
-------
toxicity of the material of interest due to ingested
particulates.
• Site water for testing purposes should be obtained under typical
conditions and can be obtained at any time of the day or season.
Storm or flood impacted water is unacceptable as test water in
the acute tests used to calculate water effect ratios and
acute/chronic ratios but is acceptable test water for short
periods of time in long—term chronic tests used to calculate
these ratios. There are some special cases when storm impacted
water is acceptable in acute toxicity testing for use in criteria
development. For example 1 an effluent discharge may be allowed
only during high water periods, or a non—point source of a
chemical pesticide may be of most concern during storm—related
runoff events.
• Site water must not be influenced by effluents containing the
material of interest or effuents that may impact the material’s
bioavailabilitY and/or toxicity. The site water should be used
as soon as possible after collection in order to avoid signifi-
cant changes in its physical and chemical characteristics. If
diurnal cycles in water characteristics (e.g., carbonate systems,
salinity, dissolved oxygen) are known to affect a material’s
biological availability and/or toxicity markedly, use of on—site
flow—through testing is suggested; otherwise transport of water
to off—site locations is acceptable. During transport and
storage, care should be taken to maintain the quality of the
water; however, certain conditions of the water such as pH and
dissolved oxygen concentration may change and the degree of these
changes should be measured and reported.
24
-------
• Seasonal site—specific criteria can be derived if monitoring data
are available to delineate seasonal periods corresponding to
significant differences in water characteristics (e.g., carbonate
systems, salinity, turbidity).
• The frequency of testing (e.g., the need for seasonal testing)
will be related to the variability of the physical and chemical
characteristics of site water as it is expected to affect the
biological availability and/or toxicity of the material of
interest. As the variability increases, the frequency of testing
will increase.
• With the exception that storm or flood impacted water may be used
inèhronic toxicity tests, the limitations on the use of
indicator species to derive a site—specific Final Chronic Value
are the sa’ne as those for site—specific modification of a
national Final Acute Value.
C. Resident species procedure for the derivation of a site—specific
criterion to account for differences in resident species sensitivity and
differences in biological availability and/or toxicity of a material due to
variability in physical and chemical characteristics of a site water.
1. Stary: Derivation of the site-specific maximtufl concentration and
site-specific 30—day average concentration would be accomplished
after the complete acute toxicity minim mi data set requirements have
been met by conducting tests with resident species in site water.
Chrot ic tests may also be necessary.
2. Rationale: This procedure is designed to compensate concurrently for
any real differences between the sensitivity range of species
represented in the national data set and for site water which may
25
-------
markedly affect the biological availability and/pr toxicity of the
material of interest.
3. Conditions:
• Develop the complete acute toxicity minimum data set using site
water and resident species.
4. Details of Procedure:
• Complete the acute toxicity minimum data set test requirements
using site water and derive a site—specific Final Acute Value.
• The guidance for site water testing has been discussed in the
indicator species procedure (B).
• Certain families of organisms have been specified in the National
Guidelines acute toxicity minimum data set (e.g., Salmonidae in
fresh water and Penaeldae or Ilysidae in salt water); if this or
any other requirement cannot be met because the family or other
group (e.g. insect or benthic crustacean) in fresh water is not
represented by resident species, select a substitute(s) from a
sensitive family represented by one or more resident species and
meet the 8 family minimum data set requirement. If all the
families at the site have been tested and the minimum data set
requirements have not been met use the most sensitive resident
family mean acute value as the site—specific Final Acute Value.
• To derive the site-specific maximum concentration divide the
site-specific Final Acute Value by two.
• The sitespecific Final Chronic Value can be obtained as
described in the indicator species procedure (B). An exception
is that a chronic water effect ratio should not be used to
calculate a Final Chronic Value.
26
-------
• The lower of the site—specific Final Chronic Value and the
recalculated site—specific Final Residue Value (as described in
the recalculation procedure) becomes the site—specific 30—day
average concentration unless plant or other data (including data
obtained from the site—specific tests) indicates a lower value is
appropriate. If a problem is identified, judgment should be used
in establishing the site—specific criterion.
5. Limitations:
• The frequency of testing (e.g., the need for seasonal testing) will
be related to the variability of the physical and chemical charac-
teristics of site water as it is expected to affect the biological
availability and/or toxicity of the material of interest. As the
variability increases, the frequency of testing will increase.
• Many of the limitations discussed for the previous two procedures
would also apply to this procedure.
This draft of the Site—Specific Guidelines was written by Anthony R.
Carison, William A. Brungs, Gary A. Chapman, and David J. Hansen under the
direction of the Site—Specific Criteria Cot ittee of George S. Baughman,
William A. Brungs, Anthony R. Carison, Ronald C. Carton, David 3. Hansen,
Douglas A. Lipka, Alan B. Rubin, and Rosemarie C. Russo. John H. Gentile,
Robert L. Spehar, and Charles E. Stephan provided review and comments. These
efforts were supported by the U.S. Environmental Protectin Agency’s
Environmental Research Laboratories in Athens, Georgia; Corvallis, Oregon;
Duluth, Minnesota; Gulf Breeze, Florida; and Narragansett, Rhode Island. The
Office of Water Regulations and Standards’ Criteria and Standards Division
and the Office of Research and Development’s Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research also supported these efforts.
27
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Guidelines for deriving numer-
ical national vater quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life
and its uses. Draft July 5, 1983. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research
Laboratories at Duluth, MN; Gulf Breeze, FL; Narragansett, RI; and
Corvallis, OR.
28
-------
APPENDIX I
FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER NATIONAL CRITERIA LIST
(x criteria are available)
Chemical ‘ Freshwater Saltwater
Aidrin x x
Ammonia x
Dieldrin x
Chiordane x x
DDT & Iletabolites x x
Endosulfan x x
Endrin x x
Heptachior x x
Lindane x x
Toxaphene x x
Arsenic(IIt) x
Cadmium x x
Chlorine x x
Chrotnium(VI) x x
Chroinium(III) x
Copper x
‘Cyanide x
Lead x
Mercury x x
Nickel x x
Selenium(IV) x x
Silver x x
Zinc x x
29
-------
APPENDIX 2
TEST METHODS
The following procedures are recommended for conducting tests with aquatic
organisms, including fishes, invertebrates, and plants. These procedures are
the state—of—the—art based on currently available information.
Because all details are not covered in the following procedures,
experience in aquatic toxicology, as well as familiarity with the pertinent
references listed, is needed for conducting these tests satisfactorily.
Requirements concerning tests to determine the toxicity and bioconcentra—
tion of a material in aquatic organisms are given in the National Guidelines.
A. ACUTE TESTS:
American Public Health Association, Amerir an Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 15th ed. American Public Heath
Association, Washington, D.C. 1134 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1980. Standard practice for
conducting acute toxicity tests with fishes, macroinvertebrates, and
amphibians. Standard £ 729—80, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. 25 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1980. Standard practice for
conducting static acute toxicity tests with larvae of four species of
bivalve molluscs. Standard E 724—80, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. 17 p.
30
-------
8. CHRONIC TESTS:
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastevater. 15th ed. American Public Health
Association, Washington, D.C. 1134 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice for
conducting toxicity tests with early life stages of fishes. S. C.
Schimmel (Task Group Chairman). American Society for Testing and
Materials 1 Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft).
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice for
conducting Daphnia renewal chronic toxicity tests. R. M.
Comotto (Task Group Chairman). American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft).
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice for
conducting Daphnia magna chronic toxicity tests in a flow—through
system. ‘I. 3. Adams (Task Group Co—chairman). American Society for
Testing and Materials Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft.)
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice for
conducting life cycle toxicity tests with saltwater mysid shrimp.
Susa; Gentile and Charles MeKenny (Task Group Co—chairman). American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest
draft.)
Benoit, D. A. 1982. User’s guide for conducting life—cycle chronic
toxicity tests with fathead minnows ( P inephales promelas) .
EPA—600/881O 11 , U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth,
Tltnn.
31
-------
C. FISH LIPID ANALYSIS PROCEDURE:
Approximately 10 g tissue is homogenized with 40 g anhydrous sodium
sulfate in a Waring blender. The mixture is transferred to a Soxhiet
extraction thimble and extracted with a 1:1. mixture of hexane and uiethylene
chloride for 3—4 hours. The extract volume is reduced to approximately 50
ml and washed into a tared beaker, being careful not to transfer any
particles of sodium sulfate which may be present in the extract. The
solvent is removed in an air stream and the sample is heated to 1000 C for
15 minutes before weighing the sample.
The lipid content is calculated as follows:
% lipid = total residue — tare weight x 100
tissue weight
U.S. Enviroiv enta1 Protection Agency, Enviromental Research 4
Laboratory—Duluth, Duluth, MN 55804.
D. BIOCONCENTRATION FACTOR (BCF) TEST:
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice for
conducting bioconcentration tests with fishes and saltwater bivalve
molluscs. J. L. Hamelink and 3. G. Eaton (Task Group Co—chairmen).
American Society for Testing. and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn.
(latest draft.)
Veith, C. D., D. L. DeFoe, and B. V. Bergstedt. 1979. Measuring and
estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish. 3. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 36: 1040—1048.
32
-------
E. PLANT TESTS:
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 15th ed. American Public Health
Association, Washington, D.C. 1134 p.
Lockhart, W. L. and A. P. Blouw. 1979. Phytotoxicity tests using the
duckweed Lemna minor . pp. 112—118, IN: Toxicity tests for freshwater
organisms. E. Scherer (ed.), Can. Spec. PubI. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44.
(Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada,
Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 059.)
Joubert, C. 1980. A bioassay application for quantitative toxicity
measure’ ents, using the green algae Selenastrum capricornutum . Water
Res. 14: 1759—1763.
Miller, W. E., J. C. Greene, and T. Shiroyaina. 1978. The Selenastrum
capricornutum Printz algal assay bottle test — Experimental design,
application, and data interpretation protocol. EPA—600/9—78—018,
Environmental Research Laboratory—Corvallis, Corvallis, Oreg. 125 p.
Steele, R. L., and G. B. Thursby. A toxicity test using life stages of
Chacipia parvula [ Rhodophyta). Presented at the Sixth Symposium on
Aquatic Toxicology. Sponsored by the American Society for Testing and
Materials Committee E—47 on Biological Effects and Environmetal Fate.
13—14 October 1981. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Penn.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Marine algal assay procedure;
bottle test. Eutrophication and Lake Restoration Branch, National
Environmental Research Center, Corvallis, OR. 43 p.
33
-------
APPENDIX 3
The following problems are addressed and examples are given:
(1) how to determine if two LC5O values are statistically significantly
different, and
(2) how to determine if the difference between two pairs of LC5O;values is
statistically significant.
To determine if two LCSO values are statistically different (at p< .05):
(a) Obtain the 95% confidence limits for both LCSO values.
(b) If the confidence intervals do not overlap the two values are different.
(c) If one confidence interval encompasses the other the values are not
different.
(d) If the confidence intervals partly overlap the values may be different.
To ascertain if they are different further statistical analysis must be
done.
If the above procedure does not indicate whether or not the LC50 values
are statistically significantly different, examine the confidence interval of
either the ratio or the difference of the two values. If the confidence
interval of the ratio brackets one, the two LCSO values are not statistically
significantly different; if the confidence interval does not bracket one, then
there is a statistical difference. The difference between two LC5O values is
not statistically significant if the confidence interval of the difference
includes zero; if the confidence interval does not cover zero, then the
difference is statistically non—zero.
The following example demonstrates how the ratio of the LC5O values can be
compared when the estimated LCSO values are obtained by the Tried
34
-------
Spearman—Karber Method. (See Hamilton et al. 1977 for a discussion of the
Trimmed Spearman—Karber Method, including calculation of the variance.) The
example presents a difference between laboratory and site LC5O values that is
statistically significant.
Table la gives the estimated LC5O values with 95% confidence intervals for
both the lab and site measurements. The LC5O values are obtained by using the
Trimmed Spearman—Karber Method on the natural logarithm of the concentrations.
To determine if there is a statistically significant difference it is
essential to work with the metric in which the analysis was performed. In the
example the metric is the natural logarithm of the concentration. The LC5O
values in Table la were obtained from the results in Table lb, which gives
loge LC5O values and variances.
The calculations for the ratio and its 95% confidence interval are given
in Table ic. Since the confidence interval does not cover one, the laboratory
and stte LC50 values are statistically significantly different.
To compare two pairs of LC5O values several different procedures are
possible. The procedure that follows shows one way to compare the ratios of
the LC5O values. Specifically, the variable that is examined is the difference
of the ratio of LC5O values:
loge T 50 site 1 — loge 50 site 2
loge LC5O] 5 b 1 loge LC5O 15 b 2.
(As stated before, it is necessary to work in the metric in which the analysis
was performed. Since the Trimmed Spearman—Karber estimate is usually obtained
from an analysis of the logarithm of the dose, the ratio above should be of the
logarithms of the LC5O values.)
The following four steps may indicate whether or not the difference is
significant (at p < .05) without calculating the confidence interval of the
difference:
35
-------
(1) Obtain the 95% confidence limits for both LC5O ’valtles.
(2) If the confidence intervals do not overlap the two valuers are different.
(3) If one confidence interval encompasses the other the V alues ‘are not
different.
(4) If the confidence intervals partly overlap the values maybe different.
To ascertain if they are different further statistical analysis must be
done.
If the above four steps do not indicate whether or not the difference of
the ratios is statistically significant, the confidence interval of the
difference should be examined. If the confidence interval of the ifference
brackets, zero, the difference is not statistically signtficant;if the
confidence interval does not cover zero, the difference isstatisttèally
significant.
An example is given in Tables 2a—2c. Table 2á gi’ es the esti atedLC5O ’
values with 95% confidence intervals for two sets of site and lab iueasür nënts.
These results were obtained from Table 2bvbich gives the results in hatural
log units based on the Trimmed Spearman—Karber Method of esti atLon.
Table 2c demonstrates how to determine if the’differeflce is’statistica]iy
significant. In this example, the difference is not significant. Note that
this result means that there is no evidence that “there is a-difference; it does
not mean that two ratios are necessarily identical.
References :
Hamilton, M. A., R. C. Russo, and R. V. Thurston. 1977. - Triinmed
Spearma’v ’Karber Method for Estimating Median Lethal Concentrations in
Toxicity BioasSaYS”. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11(7): 714—719. Correction
12(4): 417 (1978).
36
-------
Ku, H. H. 1966. “Notes on the Use of Propagation of Error Torulas”. .1. of
Research of the National Bureau of Standards — C. Engineering and
Instrimient 70C: 331—263——341—273.
Tables la—c Analysis of Lab and Site LCSO Values
Table la LC5O Values
Source Estimated LC5O 952 Confidence Interval
Lab 75 (55,104)
Site 130 (100,169)
Table lb toga LC5O Value
Source LC5O Variance
Lab 4.32 .0256
Site 4.87 .0169
Table ic Calculation of Ratio of Site to Laboratory LC5O Va].ues* and 952
Confidence intervals
(i) Ratio — loge LC50 site/1og LC50 lab — 4.87/4.32 — 1.13
(ii) Variance of ratio =
I lOSe LC5Osjte\ 2 fvariance loge LC50 5 j + variance lo LCSO
loge LCSO] 8 b / I ( 1 °8e T C50site) 2 (loge LCSO1ab)
— f4.87\2 ( . 0169 + . 0256
I 4.32j ( (4.87)2 (4.32)2
— .0026
37
-------
(iii) Confidence limit 2 x (variance of differeflCe) ’ 2
2 x (.0026)1/2 .10
(iv) Confidence interval = ratio + confidence limit
= 1.13 + .10 (1.03, 1.23?
(v) Since the confidence interval does not bracket one, the ratio of
- site to l aboratory LC5O values is statistically significant at
a(.05.
* Note that in this example the ratios are of loge LCSO values since the
Trimmed SpearmanKarber Method of estimating LCSO values was used. This
method estimates the LC5O based on the logarithm of the concentration, so
the logarithm of the LC5O should be used here.
Tables 2a—c Analysis of the Lab and Site LC5O Values for Two Species
Table 2a LC5O Values
Source Estimated LCSO 95 Confidence Interval
Species 1 Lab 75 (55,104)
Site 130 (100,169)
Species 2 Lab 60 (48, 75)
Site 90 (67,122)
Table 2b Loge LC50 Values
Source LC5O Variance
Species 1 Lab 4.32 .0256
Site 4.87 .0169
Species 2 Lab 4.10 .0121
Site 4.50 .0225
38
-------
Table 2c Calculation of Difference of Ratios Between Field and Site LCSO
Values* and 95% Confidence Intervals
(i) Difference
loge LCSOsite 1 — loge LC5O 5 j 2
loge LC5O1 8 b 1 loge LCSO1ab 2
4.87 4.50
= 4.32 — 4.10 1.13 — 1.10 — .03
(ii) Variance of difference
flog LC5O flog LC5O
variancei e i + variance e 2
( log LC 5 Olab i ) ] .og LC Qlab 2
(where variance fl 8e LC50 \ is found as
loge LC 5 Olab J
in Table le (ii)).
= .0026 + .0022 = .0049
(iii) Confidence limit = 2 x (variance of difference) ’ 2
2 x (.0049)1/2 .14
(iv) Confidence interval difference ± confidence limit
= .03 + .14 (—.11, .17)
(v) Since the confidence interval does bracket zero, there is not enough
evidence to reject the hypothesis that the ratios are different.
* Note that in this example the ratios are of loge LC5O values since the
Trimmed Spearman-Karber Method of estimating LC5O values was used. This
method estimates the LC5O based on the logarithu of the concentration, so
the logarithm of the LC5O should be used here.
39
-------
Reference 13
-------
Enumirnw’mii Toiicoior. andC!wm& ,:’ ‘ oI 3 Pt ’ tSi 65S ‘184
Printeo in the L.S Pcrpainon PTCw Lid
Hazard Assessment
O73O’ 6B’84 53 00.
i9 1 SET ( ’
DERIVATION OF SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR CADMIUM AND THE ST. LOUIS RIVER BASIN.
DULUTH. MINNESOTA
R. 1. SPEH*R and A. R. CARt ,soN
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory—Duluth
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
(Received S December 1983. Accepted 9 April 19841
Abstract — Several freshwater aquatic species were exposed to cadmium in site and laboratory
water to evaluate a protocol recommended by the U.S Environmental Protection Agenc) for
deriving site specific water quality cnteria The recalculation. indirator species and resident species
procedures of this protocol were used to modify the national cadmium criteria These procedures
were used to account for differences in species sensitivity and in the biological availability and/or
toxicity of cadmium due to physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site water
The site specific maximum concentration derived from the recalculation procedure was slightl
lower 113 as compared with 22 pgILl than the national cncerion The maximum concentration
derived from the indicator species procedure was 7 0 Mg/I and was calculated by using a water effect
ratio from tests conducted in both site and laboratory water Acute tests with several species
demonstrated that cadmium was less toxic in site water than in laboratory water The siie’specific
maximum concentration derived from the resident species procedure Ifrom eight species exposed to
cadmium in site waterl was I 9 pgIL The 30.d average concentrations were the same as the
maximum concentrations in the procedures in which the national acute/chronic ratio was used in
the calculation These concentrations were much lower when the site’specific acute/chronic ratio
was applied
Acute tests conducted monthly in site water showed that cadmium toxicity varied by more than
a factor of 3 over the year This indicates the need for considering seasonal changes in physical and
chemical characteristics of the site water when denying criteria to protect aquatic life
Keywords — Water quality cntcna Toxicity Cadmium Freshwater aquatic
organisms
INTWODUCflON
Under t e Clean Water Act of 1977
(Section 304(afl 1)1, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is required to re•
view and publish criteria for water quality
necessary to protect public water supplies
and the propagation of shellfish, fish and
wildlife. The criteria present scientific data
and guidance on the environmental effects
of pollutants which can be useful to derive
water quality ’based regulatory require’
ments such as effluent limitations, water
quality standards or toxic pollutant effluent
standards (1).
National water quality criteria have been
derived by applying a set of guidelines (21 to
data for certain pollutants designated as
toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 pursuant to an agree•
merit in the case of Natural Resources
Defense Council et al. v. Train, 1976. These
guidelines specify that criteria should be
based on an array of data from species, both
•To whom correspondence may be addressed.
651
-------
652
R L SPEHAR i NDA R CARL .SON
plant and animal occupying various trophic
levels Based on these data, criteria can be
derived that should adequately protect the
types of speciec necessary to support an
aquatic community Although the criteria
represent a reasonable estimate of pollutant
concentrations consistent with the mainte-
nance of designated uses, each state may
modify these values to reflect local
conditions
Since national criteria may be either un-
derprotective or overprotective, the U.S
EPA has developed guidelines 131 for modi-
fying national water quality criteria to local
conditions. i.e., site-specific criteria. Nation’
al criteria are based on information obtained
from toxicity and bioconccntraliofl tests
conducted in the laboratory. However, toxi-
cological information obtained for laborato-
ry-tested aquatic species may not be
applicable to species in specific water bodies
because (a) the species at a particular site
may be more or less sensitive than those
included in the national criteria database or
(b) the physical and/or chemical characteris
ties of the water at the site may alter the
biological availability and/or toxicity of the
material.
The main purpose of this research was to
test the recommended procedures for deriv-
ing site-specific water quality criteria 131-
The specific objective of the study was to
conduct tests to evaluate these procedures
utilizing toxicity tests with several species of
aquatic organisms in Site and laboratory
waler. The type of tests and/or exercises that
were performed in this study were designed
to correlate with the site-specific guidelines
as they are now written. This study was
designed to help identify problems that
might be encountered when the guidelines
areused and to provide an example for a site-
specific cnteria derivation for a chemical at
an actual site.
Tests were conducted with cadmium be-
cause this chemical is highly toxic to aquatic
organisms 141, is commonly found in the
environment due to its presence in treated
municipal wastes 151 and its chemistry in
water is such that it may be influenced by
changes in waler quality 16—81, which would
be a major consideration in modifying the
present national criteria.
The St. Louis River system near Duluth,
MN. was chosen asthe sitç for study be-
cause water quality monitoring data and hy-
drodynamic and water quality models were
available 191. because it contained clean
water upstream of municipal and industrial
discharges and because resident aquatic spe-
cies for this river system were already
known 1101.
TERMiNOLOGY
The following is an abbreviated list of
definitions of terms that will be helpful in
understanding the present procedures for
deriving site-specific criteria for cadmium.
A more complete list can be found in the
national and site-specific guidelines for
deriving water quality criteria (2.31.
.4 cure value. A 48- to 96-h LC 50 or EC 50 ,
depending on species.
Chronic value. Geometric mean of lower
chronic limit (highest tested concentration
in an acceptable chronic test that did not
cause significant decreases from the control)
and upper chronic limit (lowest tested con-
centration in an acceptable chronic test that
caused significant decreases from the
control).
Acute/chronic ratio. Ratio of an acute value
for a species to a comparable chronic value
for that species tested in the same water.
Final Acute Value (FAV), An estimate of
the concentration of a material áori-espond .
ing to a cumulative probability of 0.05 in the
acute toxicity values for the families with
which acute tests have been conducted for
that material. (For anexception and the ef
fects of water quality haracteristics on this
value, see ref. 2.)
Final Acute/Chronic Ratio. Geometric
mean of all the species mean acute/chronic
ratios available for both freshwater and
saltwater species. (For variations in the
calculation of this value, see ref. 2.)
-------
Siie pecific waler qu’ãiiiy criteria for Cd
65)
Final Chronic Value(FCV) An estimate of
the concentration of a material correspond-
ing ioa cumulative probability of 0.05 in the
chronic toxicity values for families with
which chronic tests have been conducted for
that material, usually obtained by dividing
the FAV by the Final Acute/Chronic Ratio.
iFor an exception and the effects of water
qualit) characteristics Ott this value, see
rd 2i
&,ierIOfl Maumum C oncentratson FAV
divided by 2
(rut’riofl 130-di A t-erage Concentration.
The lowest of the criterion maximum con-
centration. FCV, Final Plant Value and
Final Residue Value. unlessother data from
tests in which the concentrations of the test
material were measured show that a lower
value should be used (For the effects of
water quality characteristics on this value.
seeref. 2.)
National criteria. To protect aquatic life and
its uses. in each 30 consecutive days. the
average concentration of a material should
not exceed the Criterion Average Concen-
tration: the maximum concentration should
not exceed the Criterion Maximum Con-
centration: and the concentration may be
between the Criterion Average Concentra-
tion and the Criterion Maximum Concen-
tration for up to 96-h
PROCEDURES AND TEST METHODS
Procedures for calculating criteria
The three procedures from the site-specific
guidelines 131 were used in this study to mod-
ify the national Criterion Maximum and
30-d Average Concentration for cadmium.
They were used for illustrative purposes on-
ly. because all three procedures would not
necessarily be used in an actual site modifi-
cation. The three procedures used to calcu-
late the site-specific criteria for cadmium in
the St. Louis River were as follows: (a) The
recakulation procedure was used to ac-
count for differences in cadmium sensitivity
between species resident in theSt. Louis
River and those species contained in the na-
tional cadmium criteria document (llj. (b)
The indicator species procedure was used to
account for differences in the biological
availability and/or toxicity of cadmium due
to physical andior chemical characteristics
of the St Louis River water and laboratory
water by deriving a water effect ratio (toxici-
ty in site water divided by the toxicity in
laboratory water) (C) The recidvisi speciec
procedure was used to account simultane-
ously for differences in both resident species
sensitivity and differences that may be at-
tributed to water quality.
In addition to the above procedures.
acute tests were conducted on I -d-old fat-
head minnows monthly to determine if sea-
sonal changes in water quality affected the
toxicity of cadmium in the St. Louis River.
Procedures to determine a Final Residue
Value or a Final Plant Value (which are
required in the national guidelines for deriv-
ing water quality criteria) (2) were not in-
cluded in this study because cadmium is not
a lipid-soluble material and plants have not
been shown to be as sensitive to cadmium as
are aquatic animals. Thus, the site-specific
FCV for cadmium was the same as the site
specific 30-d average concentration for all
procedures conducted in this study
A detailed description of how to define a
site, the rationale, assumptions and limita-
tions of the site-specific procedures and their
relationship to those used for deriving na-
tional water quality criteria are included in
the recommended site-specific guidelines
(31-
Water characteristics
The site chosen on the St. Louis River for
the source of dilution water in this study was
located approximately 34 miles upstream
from the mouth of the Duluth—Superior es-
wary on the State Highway 33 crossing in
the city of Cloquet, MN. Water samples
were taken from the north channel to repre-
sent the river’s quality immediately before
the influence of the Cloquet area. This site
on the river was considered to have the best
-------
654
R I SPEHARAI,DA R C* i.so’
water quality closest to the impacted
Duluth-Superior estuary (J. Stepun. person.
al communicationj Water at this site was
also judged to be of high quality because
seseral species of aquatic organisms were
able to survive, grow and reproduce in it
under laboratory conditions with no appar.
ent adverse effects. No industrial point dis-
charges existed upstream of this site. Both
reconstituted and Lake Superior water were
used as laboratory dilution water in compar-
alive toxicity tests. Reconstituted water was
made according to procedures described by
the American Society for Testing and
Materials 1121 for soft water. Unfiltered
Lake Superior water was obtained directly
from the lake. All waters were heated (if
necessary) to the appropriate temperature
for each test.
Chemical characteristics of the site water
were determined after each coUection by the
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District 10-
cated in Duluth, MN. In addition, chemical
characienstics for all dilution waters were
measured just prior to or dunng all toxicity
tests at the Environmental Research Labo-
ratory in Duluth, and were conducted ac-
cording to procedures of the American
Public Health Association 1131. Values for
these measurements for tests conducted
monthly with fathead minnows in each of
the dilution waters are shown in Table I.
Water quality values for tests conducted
with other species were within the range of
the values shown.
Exposure systems
Static tests with larval fish were con-
ducted in 600-mi glass beakers containing
500 ml of solution. Glass beakers containing
200 ml of solution were used for static tests
with invertebrates. Wide-mouth glass jars
containing 5to 10 liters of test solution were
used for static tests with juvenile fish. Dupli-
cate test chambers were used in all tests for
each of five toxicant concentrations and a
control. All test chambers used for these
tests were contained in a water bath for tem-
perature control. Fluorescent light bulbs
provided a light intensity of 80 to 100 lux
during a 16-h photoperiod.
Flow.through acute and chronic expo-
sures with fish were conducted using a dilu-
ter system 1141 that delivered five toxucant
concentrations and a control to four repli-
cate chambers per treatment. Glass test
chambers measured 7 cm wide x 19 cm
long x 9cm high, with a water depth of 4.5
cm.Theflowtoeachchamberwas 12.5 ± 1
mi/mm. Fluorescent bulbs provided a light
intensity of 200 to 500 lux at the water sur-
face during a 16-h photoperiod.
Toucan: solution
Stock solutions for static tests were
prepared by dissolving reagent-grade cadmi-
um chloride (CdCl 2 ) in distilled water.
Water samples were analyzed with a Perkin-
Elmer atomic absorption spectrophotome-
ter equipped with either an HGA 500graph-
ftc furnace or an automatic burner control.
The limits of detection for these procedures
were approximately 0.25 and approximate-
ly 35 pgIL, respectively. All measurements
are expressed as cadmium, not as cadmium
chloride. To verify the accuracy of the
methoçl of analysis, known amounts of the
metal were added to control water to obtain
percentage recoveries. Percentage recov-
eries ranged from 91(0 110% for 76 spiked
samples. In addition, one set of sample was
periodically filtered through a 0.45 pm Mil-
lipore filter to characterize the proportion of
dissolved metal. The mean percentages,
standard deviation and number of samples
of dissolved cadmium for individual tests
(including five cadmium concentrations per
test) were 84 ± 1.0 (n = 8), 84 ± 1.0 (n = 4)
and 96 ± 2.0 In = 9) for St. Louis River,
Lake Superior and reconstituted water,
respectively.
Biological procedures
Test species exposed to cadmium in this
study are shown in Table 2. The sources of
these species were provided in a more de-
tailed description of this study 1101. Tests to
-------
Table I. Monthly averages in water quality parameters (or cadmium tests with (athead minnows conducted in St. I ouis River. reconstituted and lake Superior water
measurement made.
hrc = Total carbon.
t TIC = Total inorganic carbort
= Disso lved inorganic carbon.
floc = Total organic carbon.
IrVV’ fWfl.!fl •
Parameter
April
May
June
July
August
Sept
Oct
Nov
D c c
St. Lows River water
Hardness
63.0
55.0
59.0
66.0
65.0
14,0
79.0
620
60.0
Acidity
2.9
2.6
4.0
2.3
4.2
3.6
2.0
2.9
3.7
Alkalin ity
54.0
41.0
50.0
55.0
52.0
65.0
420
460
490
pH
7.6
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.8
‘7.6
7.3
7 4
Conductivity
I C
(46
—‘
104
24.0
134
31.7
13$
33.2
155
34,7
165
28.7
ItS
31.7
129
28.2
132
2*9
TIC
—
7.5
121
11.1
1 1.7
14.2
10.3
10.1.
9 ,9
DIC
—
—
12.5
11.0
6.6
14.3
9.2
10.3
.
TOC
—
16.5
19.0
22.2
23.0
14.6
21.4
18.1
19.0
DOC’ .
—
—
18.8
22.6
24.4
14.0
22.8
18.6
—
Turb ity
3.0
2.0
6.0
20.0
10.0
3.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
Color iCUp
(20
(50
(90
230
2 (0
1 St )
280
195
120
Cl
6.5
5.0
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
5.0
5.0
so’
ii.o
10.0
9.0
10.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
ISO
130
Susp.Solids
6.8
2.8
9.2
27.0
14.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.2
Diss.Solids
97
104
104
142
147
144
1 14
136
125
Reconstituted water
Hardness
40.0
‘
480
41.0
42.0
41.0
39.0
—
—
—
Alkalinity
30.0
42.0
29.0
30.0
29.0
26.0
-
—
Acidity
—
2.1
2.3
1.9
5.7
4. !
—
pH
7.5
7.9
7.4
7.3
1.0
7.7
—
—
—
Conductivity
36
155
167
(65
136
(60
—
—
—
Lake Superior water
.
Hardness
—
45.0
—
.—
.—
—
—
47.0
44.0
Alkalinity
—
40.0
— .
—
—
—
—.
42.0
4 ,9
Acidity
—
2.1
‘
—.
.
—
—
—
—
2.2
pH
—
7.4
—
—
—
—
—
7.4
74
Conductivity
—
I O U
—
—
—
—
—
950
93.0
a ’
I — h
t,.
-------
656
R L. SnHAR M DA K. CAILs0N
Table 2 Acute values iLC . ,aJL) for juvenile a uaiic spceies exposed to cadmium in Si. Louis River anc’
reconstituted water
Orpnism
Age dl
or
weight
Test
temp
1°C)
Endpoint
Exposu
is water
St Louis River
Reconstituted
Cladoceran
p inoa wgna I
-------
Sue specific waler quality crilena for Cd
657
Siatisiwal a,ialt sis
A computerized version of the modified.
trimmed Spearman-Karber method de-
scribed b Hamilton et al (l7J was used to
determine 48- and 96-h IC 50 values Daily
mortalit data of replicate exposure tanks
s ere combined before IC 50 values were
calculated
For chronic tests, survival and embryo
hatchability data were transformed to arc-
sin% 1181 for variance stabilization. Individ-
ual weights from fish in replicate chambers
were pooled before the data were subjected
to a one-way analysis of variance (p = 0.051
and to Dunnetts one-sided comparison
of treatment means to control means
(P = 0.05 1 1191-
RESULTS AND DiSCUSSiON
No particular trend was observed for any
water quality parameter measured for
seasonality tests in St. Louis River. reconsti
tuted and Lake Superior water. Most values
were relatively constant 1<25% relative
standard deviation (RSD)j Values for mr
bidity and suspended solids, however, were
highly variable (100 and 129% RSD.
- respectively)
Monthly LC 50 values for tests with 14
old fathead minnows exposed to cadmium
in St Louis River and reconstituted water
- are shown in Figure I. Tests were not con-
tinued with reconstituted water during the
months of November and December be-
cause of unexplained mortality of animals
cultured in this water during October Lake
Superior water was used to replace reconsti-
tuted water as’ representative laboratory
water. The mean acute value for cadmium
obtained from tests in Lake Superior in
November and December was 42 pglL.
Acute values calculated from exposures in
river water varied by a factor of 3 and in-
• creased.with increased suspended solids, to-
tal organic carbon, turbidity and dissolved
solids concentration. Linear regression cor-
relation coefficients for acute toxicity and
these parameters were 0.58, 0.60. 0.68
and 0 77. respectively. The IC 50 values for
tests conducted in reconstituted and Lake
Superior water varied by less than a factor of
2. The larger variation in values obtained
from tests conducted in site water was at-
tributed to high and low stream flows,
which influenced water qualit , factors
throughout the year The large degree of
binding or complexing of cadmium that oc-
curred during times when concentrations of
particulates in this water were highest was
the apparent cause of reduced cadmium tox-
icity. Although this effect on toxicity was
not large in the present tests, larger varia-
tions in toxicity may occur in streams where
particulate loads change significantly dur-
ing different times of the year. The frequen-
c of testing needed to determine seasonal
toxicity differences will depend on this vari-
ability. The frequency will have to coincide
with the waste treatment facilities design
flow or with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits
issuance
Tests to determine seasonal differences
(Fig I l showed that the average acute val-
ues for larval fathead minnows in St Louis
River water were approximately five and
two times higher than those obtained in re-
constituted and Lake Superior water, re-
spectively. A similar toxicity difference was
observed for four of five juvenile species ex-
posed to these waters (Table 2). These find-
ings indicate that physical and/or chemical
characteristics’of the St. Louis River water
reduced the - biological availability and/or
toxicity of cadmium from that observed in
laboratory wa ter. This result confirms the
basic assumption underlying the indicator
species approach for criteria modification,
which this study was designed to verify in a
field situation. Although certain factors
such as pH. hardness, alkalinity and carbon
dioxide have been the most studied and
quantified with respect to their effects on
heavy metal toxicity, the literature indicates
that organic solutes, inorganic and organic
colloids and suspended particulates play a
major role in affecting the toxicity of heavy
-------
658
R L SPEH RA! iDA R.CARLSo’
8Cr
60 ’
iod-
-J
0
U
-J
Fig I Monthly LC . values i±95% confidence limitsi for tests with Id-old fathead minnows cxposcd tu
cadmium in St. Louis River and reconstituted water
A M .) J
metals to aquatic life (W. Spoor. unpub
lished manuscript). Recent work by D. A.
Benoit (unpublished manuscript) has shown
that hardness alone has relatively little ef
fect on cadmium toxicity in Lake Superior
water, but that suspended solids (clay) and
dissolved solids (humic acid) greatly reduce
cadmium toxicity to fathead minnows.
Results of 32•d early life stage tests with
fathead minnows exposed to cadmium in
St. Louis River water showed that survival
was significantly reduced at 26.7 Mg/L but
not at lower concentrations by the end of
the test. Growth was not decreased at any of
the concentrations where fish survived.
Based on these results, the upper chronic
limit (lowest tested concentration that
caused significant decreases from the con-
trol) for cadmium in St. Louis River water
was 26.7 g/L and the lower chronic limit
(the highest tested concentrations that did
not cause significant decreases from the con
trol) was 13.4 gJL. The chronic value lgeo
metric mean of the chronic limits) (21 for this
species was 18.9 M8IL. Chronic effects of
cadmium on cladocerans (Ceriodaphnia
reticulata) exposed in St. Louis River water
indicated that survival was significantly re
duced at 15.2 g1L. By the end of the test.
the next lower concentration of 7.2 JLg/L
reduced the mean number of young pro-
duced. Concentrations below 7.2 g/L
caused no significant adverse effect on this
species after the 9.d test. The chronic value
for this species based on the chronic limits of
3.4 to 7.2 g/L calculated from these results
was 4.9 giL. The chronic values estimated
for both species exposed to cadmium in site
water were similar to the values of 13 and
5.2 g/L found for these species. respective-
ly, by other investigators (D. A. Benoit and
D. 1. Mount. unpublished manuscripts) us-
ing laboratory (Lake Superior) water.
:
20
•_.S’ L .i’s Piv r ier
•_ _— -.Recors’tu’e wOter
T
• T
—— — -r
A S
MONT H
-------
Site specific waler qualli) critena for Cd
659
CRITERI CALCI LAT 1ON
Based on the results of the tests described
above, site-specific water quality criteria for
cadmium in the St Louis River were derived
using the following procedures 131
Recaku/atson procedure
This procedure allows for modification of
the national maximum concentration for
cadmium (ill by eliminating data for non
resident species from the national database
The data set for resident species in the St
Louis River was sufficient to meet the mini-
mum data set requirements of the national
guidelines 121 (Table 3). Thus, no additional
acute tests in laboratory water were needed
to calculate a si te-specif ic criterion using this
procedure. The site-specific FAV for this
procedure and cadmium was calculated to
be 2.4 palL for the data set using the proce-
dure described in the national guidelines 121.
The site-specific maximum concentration
was derived by the following equation:
site-specific maximum concentration =
site-specific FAVs’2
The value obtained from this equation is
1.2 ,zg/L. However, because the toxicity of
cadmium has been related to the hardness of
the water, this relationship was taken into
account using the method described by the
national guidelines to adjust for hardness
before the site-specific maximum concentra-
tion was calculated (Table 3). The site-
specific maximum concentration for cadmi-
um from the above equation, adjusted for
the hardness of the St. Louis River 1— 55
mg/L as CaCO 3 (the lowest hardness mea-
sured in this water over a year’s time)J was
1.3 pg/L using the recalculation procedure.
The recalculation procedure does not re-
quire testing to determine a site-specific 30-d
average concentration. A site-specific FCV
can be derived from this procedure by divid-
ing the site-specific FAV by the national
acute/chronic ratio. Since the national Final
Acute/Chronic Ratio for cadmium is 2.0
1111, the site-specific FCV for cadmium is
the same as the site-specific maximum con-
centration, or 1.3 1 zg/L. Since a site-specific
Final Residue Value or a Final Plant Value
was not available, the site-specific 30-d aver
age concentration for cadmium in St Louis
River. using the recalculation procedure.
was l.3pglL.
Indicawr specses procedure
This procedure is based on the determina-
tion of a water effect ratio to account for the
differences in the toxicity of cadmium in St.
Louis River and laboratory water due to
physical and/or chemical characteristics of
these waters. Although tests with only one
fish and one invertebrate species were re-
quired for this procedure, a cladoceran (S.
serrulazus). rainbow trout and fathead min-
nows were selected as indicator species to
provide additional information for this exer-
cise. Tests for each species were conducted
in each water, at the same time and under
similar test conditions. A water effect ratio
was calculated as- water effect ratio = site
water LC’ 0 llab water LC 0
Measured LC 50 values for a toxicant
must be significantly different 131 in the two
waters for this procedure to be valid (If the
values are not different. then the national
maximum concentration is the site-specific
maximum concentration.) The 96-h LC 50
values for cladocerans, rainbow trout and
fathead minnows were statistically different
in both site and laboratory water (Table 4)
and their water effect ratios were similar 131-
This allowed them to be used for the calcula-
tion of a site-specific, maximum concentra-
tion in the following equation: site-specific
maximum concentration (7.0 pg/U =
geometric mean water effect ratio (3.9) x
national maximum concentration (1.8
pg/U.
The national maximum concentration
was adjusted for the hardness of the labora-
tory water (45 mglL as CaCO 3 ) before the
site-specific maximum concentration was
calculated. The site-specific maximum con-
centration for cadmium for the St. Louis
-------
R I SpEHARA 1 DA R CARI-SO
da set for cadmium from the national cntenon document for
Table 3 RecolCUIatb0?l 1 ,jmm and families in the St LouiS River
FamilY mean Species mean
acule value acute value
- 1 /L i Organism
10 Bit Y lAmnscola spi
Cefl lrarCh u 3.114 Bluegill 4775
LepomLs mac,ocharusl
Pumpkinseed 1.343
tLepomLs gabbosusl
g Ephcm cre ll ldat 2.319 Mayfly 2.319
iEphenwrello sp)
Cypnrndae 1.743 Goldfish 8.397
iCarassws auralus)
Common carp 2 IS
fCvp IflW carpiO)
Fathead minnow 2.080
(P mephaIeS promelas)
6 Chironomidae 1.200 M* 1.200
iChuono’nus SP I
5 Anguill ldae 734 Amencan eel’ 734
4ngwila rosirata)
4 Physidac. ISO Snail ISO
iPhysasp l
3 Gammaridat 70 Scud 10
tGammanss sp I
2 Daphrndae 218 Cladoesran 404
l p1lnSO pulexI
Cladoceran 623
5,m epIiaIus se,ndatusl
Salmonidae SI Chinook salmon 49
(McirwhynCIIVi :s iawyncha)
Rausbow trout 39
(SaIrno gtzlrdneri)
nccmmcli spesim
Site-specific final acute value - 2.4 MIlL Icalculated for a hardness of SO m IL from site-specific family mean acute
values)
Sitespectfic entenon maxi umOIlcentratlOIt -124 ,&IlL )12 - 12 jLglL (for a hardness of SO mglL).
In (SiteSpeCifiC cnlenOfl maximum intercept) — In ii .2) — Islope x In 150)1
— 0.182 — 4.538 — —4356
site-specific cntenon maximum cuncentration - J 1.16 tIn hardnessl -43561
- l3JustedforahardnesSof SSmllL
River was 7.0 j&gIL using the indicator the national acute!chronic ratio and apply-
species procedure. ing it to the site-specific FAV; (b) by perform
The site-specific 30-4 average concentra- ing two acute and two chronic tests, which
lion for the indicator species procedure can include tests with both a fish and an inverts
he derived using three optional methods 131: brats species conducted in site water and by
Is) by calculation Ino testing requIred) using applying the resulting acute!chroniC ratio to
-------
Site specific water quality criteria for Cd
661
Table 4 Indicator spec:es procedure acute values uLC, p for indicator species esposed to cadmium in St Louis
River and reconstituted water
Organism
St Louis
River water
I gIL.l
Reconstituted
water
I g/LI
Water effect’
ratio
(ladoceran iS,moeepholus ie’,rii!atu%i
Rainbo trout tSa!mogasrdnerñ
Fathead minno’ iPimephales piomelasi
123
102
3.390
24 5
23
L280
5 0
44
2 6
aGcometrlc mean water effect ratio = 3 9
the site specific FAV. (C) by conducting
chronic tests with both a fish and an inverte-
brate species in both site and laboratory
water and by applying the chronic water
effect ratio to the national FCV.
The site-specific 30-d average concentra-
tion from the indicator species procedure
using the national acute/chronic ratio
(method (a)I was the same as the site-specific
maximum concentration of 7.0 ,tg/L. The
following equation was used for the cal-
culation: site-specific FCV = site-specific
FAV/(National Final Acute/Chronic Ratio).
The site-specific 30-d average concentra-
tion using the site-specific acute/chronic
ratio (method (bfl was calculateçl to be 0.3
,cg/L, based on a geometric mean
acute/chronic ratio of 50 (from present tests
performed in the St. Louis River water: Ta-
ble 5) and the following equation: site-spe-
cific FCV = site-specific FAV/(site-specific
final acute/chronic ratio).
The site-specific chronic value was ob-
tained for both of these methods using a site-
specific FAV of 14 (twice the site-specific
maximum concentration obtained from the
indicator species procedure).
The site-specific 30-d average concen-
tration using the chronic water effect ratio
(method (c)1 from studies for two species (fat-
head minnows and cladocerans) was deter-
mined to be I 0 because the chronic values
obtained from tests in site and laboratory
water were not significantly different (the
chronic limits overlapped) (3J (Table 6).
Since the mean chronic, water effect ratio
was not different from 1.0. the site-specific
FCV is the same as the national FCV ad-
justed for the hardness of the St. Louis Riv-
er, or 2.2 g/L using this mcthod. (Although
tests were not conducted specifically to ob-
tain a site-specific chronic value using this
third method, due to th time constraints of
this study, comparisons were made between
present chronic tests in St. Louis River
water and recent tests conducted with the
same species in Lake Superior water at
the Environmental Research Laboratory—
Duluth for use as an example of a chronic
water effect ratio for this method. Accord-
ing to the site-specific guidelines 131. tests in
both waters should be run at the same time,
with organisms from the same population
and under the same test conditions.)
Resident species procedure
This procedure allowed for modification
of the cadmium national criteria on the basis
of tests conducted in site water with a set of
resident species of the St. Louis River (Table
Table S Acute iLC , and chronic values for a
quatic organisms cx
posed to cadmium in St
Louis River water
Organism
Acute
value
Ipg/LI
Chronic
value
lpg /L i
Acutelchronic
ra li&
Fathead minnow tPxmepholes promelasi
1.830
189
97
Ciadoccran lCenodaphnia reuculawl
129
5.0
26
‘Geometric mean acute/chronic ratio = SO
-------
662
R L SpFH R .DA R CaKi.So”
7) Because the minimum data set require
merns for resident species were mel at the
St Louis River site. substitute families were
not needed for testing under this procedure.
Furthermore. a family in a phylum other
than arthropoda or chordata u.e.. Rotifera
Annehda, Molluska. c cc i was not included
in this data set because it was not a require-
ment of the national guidelines at the time
these tests were conducted. The site-specific
FAV calculated using the prescribed method
for deriving an FAV (21 for resident species
was 38 pg/I The site-specific maximum
concentration was calculated as site-specif-
ic maximum concentration = site-specific
FAVI2.
The resulting site-specific maximum con-
centration for cadmium using the resident
species procedure was 1.9 g/L.
The 30-d ayerage concentrations for the
resident species procedure were obtained by
the same methods ( Ia) and (bli described ear-
her under the indicator species procedure
using 38 pg/I as the site-specific FAV The
site-specific FCVs for these methods were
1.9 and 0 I pg/L respectively The third
method should not be used to calculate a
site-specific FCV using the resident species
procedure (31-
Cadmium water quality criteria derived
from the above site-specific procedures and
from the national cadmium criterion
document are provided in Table 8 for
comparison.
Summon of criteria calculation
Comparison of cadmium water qualiiiy
criteria derived from the national and site-
specific procedures tTable 81 showed chat
criteria values varied depending upon
the procedure used Site-specific criteria de-
rived from the recalculation procedure were
slightly lower than chose of the national cri-
teria The lower recalculated criteria were
attributed to the smaller number of families
(N used to calculate the site-specific FAVs
Table t Chronic tOXiCii% .aiuec
i o species
C hronic value i g!Li
I
Superior
Chronic
waler died
ratio’
St
Louis Riser
waler
water
Organism
IY
i 0
Fathead minnn
iKQ
il - 2tii
i’)- i8 1
iP,mephuI? Pfl)fltVIiI I
5 2 ”
i 0
( ljdi erjn
I)
I 4 - ‘ i i
b - 7 5 1
iCe,sodaphnsa rvfli ulatai
‘Chronic atcr effect ratios are i I I since ‘..iluis in site and laturators ater are not dilfereni ichronic limos
oscriapi
( hroni limits
Data from F) Benoit iunpubiishcd m.tnuv.ripii
Data from D 1 Mount iunpuhiishcd manuwripu
Table 7 Restdeni s vciesp,ocedure minimum data set of resident aquatic species esposcd to cadmium in Si Louis
Riser water’
Organism
l g!Li
Rank
mocroch:rusi
8 800
8
7
6
S
4
3
2
i
‘Site specific final
Bluegili iL.epornis
Channei catfish ilcialu,us puncio:u3 1
Fathead minnow ipimepholespromelasl
Mayfly iParalepiophleb:a proepedttoi
Amphipod iHsolella o:,ecai
Ciadoceran iS,mocepholus se,ru!alusI
Amphipod tGamma rus pseudohmnoeusl
Rainbow trout iSolmo gazrdnersl
acute value For this resident species data set 38
•
7.900
3J90
-1-19
285
I 23
541
i02
-------
664
R. L. Sp i R ,io A R. CARLSO
tu was the
modification. If species sensi ivi,
xample w crc
important factor. iOt e more’or less sensi-
at a particular site are
h n those used to derive the natiofla
live i a dure
criteria, then the recalculation proce
would be the recommended approach be-
cause it would require no testing When
water quality at a Site may mitigate the tox-
icity of a chemical and the resident species
are similar to those used to calculate the
national criteria, the indicator species proce-
dure would be appropriate. This is especially
true for metals like cadmium, for which bio-
logical availability and/or toxicity are sign if-
icantly effected by variations in water
quality characteristics of the site water
When both species sensitivity and water
quality are important considerations for a
particular site, the resident species proce-
dure would be the best approach because it
is designed to account for differences due to
both of these factors.
For the St. Louis River Basin, the indica-
tor species procedure would be the recom-
mended approach for deriving site-specific
criteria for cadmium. The present study
showed that cadmium was less toxic in site
water than in laboratory. water, which re-
sulted in a water effect ratio. This ratio
was designed to account for water quality
effects, and its use with the national maxi-
mum criterion concentration should pro-
vidc a site-specific maximum criterion
concentration that would adequately pro-
tect the resident aquatic species at this site.
The recalculation procedure would not be
appropriate in this case because there was
no real difference between the sensitivity
range of species represented in the national
data set and species found at this site This
rationale would also apply to the resident
species procedure, which in part accounts
for species sensitivity. The resident species
procedure could be used for this site but
additional testing in site water would be
required.
The site-specific 30-cl average concentra-
tion can be obtained using three optional
methods, descnbed under the indicator spe-
cies procedure above. However, the first
method, which uses the national final
acute!chronic ratio, may not be used at this
particular site if professional judgment de-
termined that certain sensitive species may
not be protected by this site-specific criteri-
on. For example, cadmium is a special case,
in which the national 30-cl average concen-
tration was based on a small acute/chronic -
ratio from tests with salmon ids. This criteri-
on was derived to protect these organisms
because they are sensitive to cadmium and
are economically important species. How-
ever. daphnids were found to be even more
sensitive to this chemical on a chronic basis.
Because the first method uses the national
acute/chronic ratio in this calculation, the
site-specific 30-d average concentration of
7.0 , g/L (Table 8) may be too high to protect
daphnids. which are numerous in the lower
St. Louis River. The second method resulted
in a much lower site-specific 30-cl average
concentration, based on actual testing with
daphnids in site water, and would provide
daphnid protection. The third method re-
sulted in a criterion that was lower than the
first but higher than the second. Although
this is a valid method, the actual criterion
value obtained for this site would not be
used because tests were not done strictly in
accordance with the site-specific guidelmes
and this method was only included to pro-
vide an example for this exercise.
The above procedures were designed for
the derivation of site-specific water quality
criteria by allowing substantial flexibility
with respect to the method used. This
should permit regulatory agencies to choose
the most appropriate and efficient means of
obtaining the information needed to modify
national criteria for each particular site.
Site-specific water quality criteria for cadmi-
um and the St. Louis River obtained from
the site-specific guidelines appear to be logi-
cal, as they take into account the national
cadmium criteria and physical, chemical
and biological characteristics of this site
water. The use of these procedures to derive
-------
Site specific water quality criteria (or Cd
665
sitespecific water quality critena for toxic
materials at different sites should provide
additional input for the development of
effeCtive site specific guidelines.
.1( AnoiIledgenwnt — Wc wish to thank J E Poldoski.
W Renoos and F A Puglisi (or conducting analyti.
ji measurements of cadmium and I J Nelson and M
k Ege (or routine analyses We also wish to sincerely
thank J J Stepun and his laboratory staff at the West
em Lake Superior Sanitary District plant in Duluth for
providing water quality monitoring data. extensive
analysesol waler samples of the St. Louis River. and for
iheir valuable assistance with water sampling through•
out this study
R(FERE!4CfS
I U.S Eii*onsuial Prvtaclloe Agency. 1980
Water quality criteria documents abailabillty Fed
Reg 4579318-79379
2 U.S. Eusboemsetal Protection Agency 1983
Guidelines for deriving numerical national water
quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life
and iii uaes. Draft July 5. 1983 U.S. EPA. Envi.
ronmental Research Laboratonesat Duluth. MN;
Gulf Bzeea. FL Narragansett. RI. and Corvallis.
OR
3 U.S. Euikoumsetal Pressed.. Agency 1983.
Water Quality Standards Hgndboo*. Guidelines
for deriving site specific water quality cntena.
Office of Water Regulations and Standarde.
Washington. DC
4 NatIonal Academy ol Sda. i au i Nedseal
Academy of EngI .s.thg 1973 Water isty
Criteria 1973 U S Environmental Protection
Agency. U S. Government Printing Office. Wash.
ington. DC.
S U.S. Earkoaaeesd Protecdo. Agency 1980.
Trca:ability MaiwaL VoL II Industrial descrip
tion Center of Environmental Research Informa
non. Cincinnati. 014.
6 Giss .J.P.Jr.GJ. L.a. .u and DL Wi .s
1977 Effecisof naturallyoocurnngaquatic organ
ic fractions on cadmium toxicity to Sln ncepha his
se,ridetw iDuphrndaei and Gambwia afJino
iPoeciliidaei Water Res. 11101 3-1020
7 Cala.art D.. L Marcksttf and G. Vailid 1980.
Influence of water hardness on cadmium toxicity
to Salmo gasrdrieri Rich i. Water Rex. 14-
1421-1426
8. ReId, J.D. and B. MeDuMe 1981 Sorption of
trace cadmium on clay minerals and flyer sedi.
merits EffecisofpH and Cdilliconccncrations in a
synthetic river water Water .4ir Soil Pollut IS
375-386
9 DeVote. P.W. 1983 An annotated bibliography
of environmental research conducted within the
St Louis River Estuary 1903 1982 National
Technical Information Service Spnngfield. VA
Order No PB83 261 693 IEPA.600 53.83 0921
10 Sekar. LL and A.L Carlson. 1983 Derivation
of site specific water quality criteria for cadmium
and the St Lows River Basin. Duluth. Minnesota.
National Technical Information Service. Spring.
field. VA Order No PB84-l53l96.
II. U.S E s smectal Protection Ageticy 1983 Re-
vised section 8 of Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Cadmium. Draft August 19. 1983 U S EPA.
Environmental Research Laboratories at Duluth.
MN. and Narragansett. RI.
12. AmerkuSodsIyIo,TestIugaad MaterIals. 1980.
Standard Practice for Conducting Acute Toxicity
Tests with Fishes. MacnJ4nverrebrares. and
Amphibians E729.80. Philadelphia. PA.
13. Ameriosa PubIc Heskb Americas
Water WM *w ’datlon and Water Pollution
Coeseol Fedemdss. 1980. Standard Methods for
the F.xaminaucw, q Water and Waste Water. 15th
ed. Washington. DC.
14 Benols ,D.A.,V.LMattsouandD.LOhoe. 1982
A continuous flow mini diluter system (or tos icily
testing. Water Rex. 14-457-464.
IS AmsmaSodssyforTestlagssdMitertab 1983
Proposed standard practice for conducting toxicity
tests with the early life stages of fishes E.47 01
Draft No 5. February l9 3. Steven C. Schimmel.
U.S. EPA. Narragansett. RI.
16 Mduat, DL and TJ. Nwb.rg. 1984. A sevenday
hfe.cyclc cladoceran toxicity test. Env:nrn. Tox
kol Chem. 3.425-434.
Ii Hemiko.. MA., B.C. Russo and LV. flurarna.
1977. Tnmmed SpeamsanKasber method for esii
mated median lethal concentrations in toxicity bio.
assays Eni’.ron. ScL Technol 7714-719.
ICormection 12:41711978)1
II DIxo..WJ.andFJ.Mssy.Jr. l9S7.het,oduc
non to5iatatkalAr aIysix. 2nded. McGrawI1ili.
New York. NY
19 Steel, LG.D. and J.H. Torn.. 1960. Principles
and Plocedurrs qf Statswcs with Special Refer
vice io the Biological &ie,ices McGraw Hill.
New York. NY
-------
Reference 14
-------
Report to Congress
ftc±cuvcnv L u i’aLa
Endangered and Threatened Species + 1994
U.S. Department of the Interior + U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service + Washington, D.C. 20240
-------
Front as d ack Cover PhOtO Credits
Species: Gr e pildsfr.pla7U
Iü 1 4 44s:Endangered
Pop Stahulmjwoñng
cws ,cTC
Species: z ciavfith
LW.d,4s:Endini iered
Popuinffon Stotus:. ab e
CN SM?W
Species: RwJuuq
LiskdAs:Enthingered
P opulelionStciirs!mpronng
mI5 IUCASH
Spedes Oreg o n sihvirq oibuiterJi v
IJd44 5 ThrxUemd
Pepurw:tA hnmg
P* O El
“It
Species: Kirtlandsuarbier
I, dfdAs: Ernksngered
PepuiesioriStasus:Improrvig
‘WS P Tl
-------
Report to Congress
Recuv v LLL ti ULLL
Endangered and Threatened Species + 1994
Prepared by
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, DC. 20240
For further information contact the Division of Endangered Species (703) 358.2171 or
Internet: R9FWE..DES.BIM @ mail.fws.gov or http://www.fws.gov
-------
I.,, gIi t’ Iht % (o. crnrnsm Pnnlunr (Ifti r
i x _liii:
ISBN O-1o-O48 O3 Q
-------
Tbe Roa 1 to Recove’y, full-color poster, depicts some of the progress being made
in the effort to restore vulnerable wildlife. It features six threatened or endangered
animals and plants—from the bald eagle to the western prairie fringed orchid—that
are now stable or even Improving in status. Illustrations for the pcsterwete produced
by artist Dorothy Michele Novick, who passed away in 1994. They were her last work.
Through this poster and other illustrations she produced forthe Service, Ms. Novick
made lasting contributions to the conservation of our nation’s wildlife resources.
V
Ths
m Ss I d c S
tKmt ,i I. 4.i .
,uu., i (ha$kt 11 £ *S.e I
p4 ,SS — a Wøi I$ y
dy. I a , ,vss•mS I..dS,j$ ia w tIsfla4—
IwSS p .flSIIS
a C SS
— l’. —- $ UIS. ThSV —
—v — —
w. rips M
S• SS 10*.a ss 4
i_,
r , •
UrS•S .us *uss.
.o.
-------
Species: Omrhb g-*zr*ibai
Li a4s:En àn eyed
?bp ien m abk
-------
CONTENTS
IXECUTIVIUMMARY u
IIITRODIJCT ON is... .
— • .
R.ecovery . . .....
R.ecovery Policy . is
Recovers, Implementation 16
Examples of Recovery . . .......... .. i.e
Cooperation with Otl ers . .... ... is
Ecosystem Approach to Recovery 20
Relationship of Recovery to Other Sections of the Act 20
Section 6 (Cooperation with the States) 20
Section 7 (Interagency Cooperation)
Section 1O(aX1XB) (Habitat Conservation Plans) 23
Recovery Successes 24
Examples of Recovery Successes 24
Monitoring Recovered Species 26
Dehistings and Reclassifications 27
RECOVERY PROGRAM ANALYSES AND
$TATU$OFUSTEDSPECIES 29
Recovery Program Analyses 29
Endangered Species Recovery Appropriations 29
Summary of the Status of Listed Species 3o
Species-by-Species Status Summary 34
SUMMARY
-------
LIST OF MAPS
Map I. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office
Boundaries
Map 2. Listed Species by State/Territory as of
September 30, 1994
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Distribution of Listed Species by
Taxonomic Group
Figure 2. Sununary Analysis of the Status of
Listed Species
LIST OF TAILES
Table 1. Summary of Current Population
Trends of Listed Species Based on
Time of Listing
Table 2. Species Under Consideration for
Delisting or Reclassification
Table 3. Recovery Program Directives for
FY l993andFY 1994
Status of Listed Species Under Fish and Wildlife
Service Jurisdiction
Sps:Alamosa4rmgsnail
LS edAs:En ingered
PopuZ.i onSs s:/mprovrng
Lit•ratur. citations should r.ad as follows:
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 1995. Reporl to Congress:
EndanRered and Threatened Species Recovery Program.
U.S. Department of the Intenor, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. 6 . pp.
-------
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
FOREWORD
American landscape has undergone dramatic
changes over the past 300 years The cowering forests
md ‘.mst prairies that characterized the landscape found
Lw the first European settlers are now crisscrossed by
highways and are fragmented by a patchwork of cities
and towns, farms and subdivisions. With the growing
population, the demands for increased agriculture,
industry, and other pursuits accelerate the changes.
During the middle years of the present century, it
became increasingly clear that many of our native species
of plants and animals were being stressed by such
activities, some had been driven to extinction.
Recognizing these trends, Congress cook action in 1973
by passing the Endangered Species Act, making the
conservation of endangered and threatened species and
the ecosystems that sustain them a National priority and
instituting public policy to work for their recovery.
Over the two-century period preceding the passage of
the Endangered Species Act, scientists estimate that over
500 species slipped to extinction in the Unites States,
most due to habitat loss. In the 21 years since the
passage of the Endangered Species Act, 909 species have
been determined to be either endangered or threatened,
and, for all but 7. their extinction has been prevented.
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service has been tasked to first
stabilize and then recover these species by securing their
populations, reversing their declines, and bringing them
back to a point where the protections of the Act are no
longer needed.
This 1994 report to Congress chronicles the success of
the Service’s efforts to recover these species. A good case
study, representing the success of the Service’s recovery
efforts Is the conservation of the bald eagle, our national
symbol. Based on historical information available, these
birds nested throughout the United States. In 1967, bald
eagle numbers in the lower 48 States had dropped to
approximately 417 nesting pairs. Population declines
were attributed to habitat loss, illegal shooting, and the
effects of DDT (a widely used insecticide) on
reproductive success. In 26 years, the eagle rebounded to
more than 4,000 nesting pairs in 1993. Additionally,
scientists estimate that 5,000 to 6,000 juvenile bald eagles
dwell in the lower 48 States. This success was due to
reintroductions, the banmng of DDT, public awareness
campaigns, aggressive law enforcement, and other actions
involving the Service, States, private organizations, and
the cooperation of the American public. As a result, on
July 12, 1994, the Service proposed to reclassify the bald
eagle from endangered to threatened in all of the lower
48 States.
-------
Species:!oux P1e ctocene snail
LissedAs: Endangered
Population Status: Uncertam
FWS PHOTO
Sp* ná b wn&r
Li As:Endanger J
Population Stati s t Jinmg
C KEPETh4 0000. .P
Species: Hauai an hawk thick Speciv : Milcbdh yrbu#erfiy
ListedAs: Endangered LW edAs: Threatened
Population Status: Stable Population Status: (Mcertam
CUPT GRI iN
FWS PHOTO
10
-------
- a ——-- -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE
On October 7, 1988. President Reagan signed into law a
bill amending the Endangered Species Act and authonzing
increased appropriations to implement the Act through
fiscal year 1992 (Public Law 100-478/SO CFR 1533(0(3))
One of the major amendments made more specific the
general requirement that the Secretaries of the Interior
and Commerce develop and implement recovery plans
The amendment further directs the Secretaries to report
every 2 years on the status of efforts to develop and
implement recovery plans for all listed species and on the
status of all species for which recovery plans have been
developed This report is required by section 4(0(3) of
the Act and it is the third Report to Congress on the status
of the recovery program for federally listed endangered
and threatened species under the Secretary of the
Interior’s jurisdiction.
The Endangered Species Act, passed by Congress in
1973, established a strong leadership role for the Federal
government in the conservation of species at risk of
extinction Congress envisioned a network of
international, national, State, and private organizations
working together toward common goals It was made
clear that the people of the United States were to act
together as a team to conserve not only individual
species, but their habitats as well
BACKGROUND
Recovery is the cornerstone and ultimate purpose of
the endangered species program. Recovery is the
process by which the decline of an endangered or
threatened species is arrested or reversed, and threats to
its survival are neutralized, so that its long-term survival in
nature can be ensured The goal of this process is to
restore listed species to a point where they are secure,
self-sustaining components of their ecosystem so as to
allow delisting The Secretary of the Interior has
delegated responsibility for endangered species recovery
to the Fish and Wildlife Service
Recovery of threatened and endangered species is a
tremendous challenge, but it can be done and the
successes are much celebrated by the American public
Recovery must reverse decline that has occurred over the
past two centuries The habitat base for species at the
time listing under the Act becomes necessary is usually
very limited Reversing long-term declines and finding
innovative solutions, which conserve the habitat of listed
species, while also accommodating society’s other goals is
another challenge. Many success stories already exist for
many species that are on the road to recovery. Our
success are the results of many years of research,
restoration, protection, and active management, but most
importantly, the key ingredient is almost always many
partners working together to achieve common goals
The primary objectives of the Service’s recovery
program, while working in close cooperation with our
partners, are to: (1) complete development of recovery
plans within 2.5 years, to the maximum extent possible,
(2) determine tasks necessary to reduce or eliminate the
threats to the highest priority species, (3) apply available
resources to the highest priority recovery tasks, and
(4) reclassify and delist species as appropriate. Recovery
activities include defining threats through research on
biological requirements, managing threats through habitat
protection and restoration, and achieving a stable or
upward population trend for an endangered species All
of these activities and associated efforts must allow time
for an endangered species to respond biologically to
protective efforts implemented on its behalf
The Service recognizes that preventing the extinction of
individual species is impractical when other
interdependent species that are members of the same
ecosystem continue to decline. The Service is directing
increased attention to producing multi-species or
ecosystem recovery plans that address the needs of other
species that are not primary targets of the plan, and will
continue to emphasize conservation of species through a
multi-species or ecosystem approach.
Although the endangered species recovery program is
relatively new with respect to the considerable time
required to reverse a species’ decline, the program has
produced many successes, Including reclassifications from
endangered to threatened, delistings, and achieving
significant objectives on the path to recovery. Highlights
of these successes are included In this report.
11
-------
- Rasults-
EXECLTflVE SUMMARY
RESULTS
The extraordinary success of the recovery program is
demonstrated by the fact that even with a substantial
increase in the number of species listed over the past
decade, over 41 percent of the 909 species listed as of
September 30, 1994, have been stablized or are
improving. This success is attributed to the efforts of the
Service, other Federal agencies, States, tribal
governments, and private organizations and individuals.
As of September 30, 1994, 893 of the 909 listed species
in the United States were under the jurisdiction of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. The remaining 16 species were
administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Two hundred and eighty-two of the 893 had been listed
for less than 3 years. Additionally, species that had been
listed in the 3 years prior to that date did not yet have
approved recovery plans. Many, however, had plans In
some stage of development.
Of the 893 species, 484(54 pei.ent ) had final approved
recovery plans as of September 30, 1994, while 185 (21
percent) had a plan that was in draft (i.e., Technical or
Agency Draft plans). Of the remaining 224 species
without recovery plans, 159 had been listed for less than
3 years but had recovery plans under development, and
14 species (2 percent) were exempted from plan
development for reasons indicated in this report. The
remaining 51 species were listed longer than 3 years and
did not have approved recovery plans or plans being
developed. The Service has implemented a plan to
eliminate this backlog by the end of FY 1997.
Table 1 summarizes the population status and trends of
776 species federally listed as of 1993 based on 5 year
intervals. This table shows the percent of species that are
known to be stable or improving, declining, or for which
the population trend is uncertain. Stable or improving
species are those for which the trend toward extinction
has been halted or reversed, in the wild. Overall, the data
on stable or increasing species illustrates that recovery of
endangered species takes time. Just as the threats to
these species accumulated through time to result in the
precarious status seen for many species today, recovery
will also require time.
Of all the species listed between 1968 and 1993, only 7,
or less than 1 percent, have been officially recognized as
extinct and subsequently delisted. Preventing the
extinction of the remaIning 99 percent, which is a major
portion of our Nation’s heritage, is perhaps the biggest
success story of the Act. The Act has also turned the tide
from declining to stable or increasing for many species.
Fifty-eight percent of the 108 species listed between
1968 and 1973 are currently known to be stable or
improving in their native habitats. Of the 294 species
listed between 1989 and 1993, only 22 percent have
recovered to the point that they are stable or increasing.
The fact that almost all listed species remain extant and
that many species are on their way to reaching recovery
goals speaks to the success of the Act as a mechanism for
conserving our Nation’s natural heritage.
For the species in decline or where population trends are
uncertain, the Service and its partners in recovery are
collecting biological Information, developing recovery
strategies, and implementing management activities that
will stabilize, halt, pr reverse the trends toward extinction.
Table 1: Sim iIIry of Ojirent P c latl i1 Trends of listed Species Based on Time of listing
Year Listed
(5 Year Intervals)
1968-1973
1974-1978
1979-1983
1984-1988
1989-1993
P nt of Spede
Stable c c Im ’ vIrrg
58%
42%
44%
45%
22%
P .ii Ut of Spedes
30%
41%
27%
39%
34%
Percent of Species
with Uncertain
Population Trends
12%
17%
29%
16%
44%
12
-------
INTRODUCTION
Eiidan ered Species Act nt 193 16 U SC. I 31 et
I i iie )t the Tilost ornprehensive pieces of
environment .il legi’ Litinn ever enacted by Congress.
l:,ç jl year I FYI l99 was the 20-year anniversar\’ of the
Act. and coincided with protound Congressional and
puhtic inrere t in the Acts reauthorization as well as wide-
ranging debate over its purposes. effects, and
.ieconiplishments The Act calls for the conservation of
threatened and endangered species, and more
importantly, the ecosystems upon which they depend.
The Act established the Federal government as the
national leader in the conservation of species at risk of
extinction To accomplish the objectives of the Act,
Congress envisioned a network of international. national,
Federal, State, and private organizations working together
toward common goals.
In passing this landmark legislation, Congress specifically
intended to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems
upon which endangered and threatened species depend
and to provide a program for the conservation of these
species. The Act defines conserve ’ as the use of ‘all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring
any endangered species or threatened species to the
point at hiJi the measures provided pursuant to this Act
are no longer necessary The Act further declared that
the policy of’ Congress is that all Federal departments and
agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and
threatened species, and use their own authorities to
further the purposes of the Act. This policy, in
conjunction with the statutory definition of “conserve.”
makes clear that Congress intended all Federal agencies
to promote the recovery of listed species. The Fish and
Wildlife Service’s(Service) responsibilities under the Act
include consultation, listing, recovery planning and
implementation, permitting, and prelisting.
This Report to Congress represents an accounting of the
recovery progress for all federally listed endangered and
threatened species under the jurisdiction of the Service
occurring in the United States and Trust Territories as of
September 30, 1994. While some of the species covered
in this report are found in both the United States and
foreign countries, the Service has no authority to
implement recovery programs for species outside United
States jurisdiction and the status of foreign populations is
not discussed in this report. Specifically, this report
contains information on the status of recovery plan
development and overall population status for all listed
species in the United States and a summary of the
success of the recovery program to date.
Species: U orxLr1ork DaviD
ListedAs: En4in e7ed
Population Status: /mpror:ng
& . SA ’OPTi
13
-------
p i: Mmn 4a froul Wy
IA.U 4s.Ená sg.r*i
PopuLm o.s s LFnce 1am
/
1
14
-------
PROGRAM STATUS
Recovery
PROGRAM STATUS
R.covery Overview
Recovery, the ultimate purpose of the endangered
species program, is the process by which the decline of
an endangered or threatened species is arrested or
reversed, or threats to its survival neutralized so that its
long-term survival in nature can be ensured. The Act calls
for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and the ecosystems upon which they depend
and, ultimately, the recovery of listed species to levels
where protection under the Act is no longer necessary
The Secretary of the Intenor has delegated responsibility
for endangered and threatened species recovery to the
Service. The pnmaiy objectives of the Service’s recovery
program, while working in close cooperation with our
partners, are to: (1) complete development of recovery
plans within 25 years, to the maximum extent possible,
(2) determine tasks necessary to reduce or eliminate the
threats to the highest priority species,(3) apply available
resources to the highest priority recovery tasks, and (4)
reclassify and deliac species as appropriate.
Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the development and
implementation of recovery plans for species listed as
endangered or threatened unless such plans would nor
contribute to their conservation. Recovery plans serve as
blueprints for private, Federal, and State cooperation in
the conservation of threatened and endangered species
and the ecosystems on which they depend. As such, the
plans must identify precise, measurable criteria to
determine objectively when recovery has been achieved.
Recovery planning may be done by the Service or may
utilize the expertise of individuals from other Federal
agencies Scale personnel, or private contractors. The
Service reviews outside work and may modifythe draft
plan as necessary to ensure consistency among plans,
resolve disputes among recovery team members, and
determine task priorities. Recovery plans must identify,
to the extent possible, management tasks, recommended
research needs, and other actions necessary to reach
recovery plan goals. Recovery plans are reviewed
penodically to determine whether revIsion of the plan is
warranted. Strategies buthned in recovery plans may be
modified when needed to incorporate new information
and ensure that the species remains on the most
effective path to recovery.
Coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies,
conservation organizations, appropriate experts, and
major land users is a key ingredient for effectively
implementing a recovery program. The recovery
planning process is designed to allow potentially affected
segments of the public to participate in planning and
provide comments to facilitate coordination and plan
acceptance Importantly, such coordination allows the
special local knowledge of affected communities to be
fully considered. This understanding can serve to reduce
or eliminate human use conflicts with listed species and
their habitats. The Service recognizes that public support
is vital to long-term survival and recovery of threatened
and endangered species and the public is invited to
provide comments on draft recovery plans. All comments
are reviewed, to the extent possible, and addressed in the
final plans.
Not all species have recovery plans. Some, such as the
Little Kern golden trout, have recovery objectives
outlined in State management plans that substitute as a
recovery plan. Other species, such as Bachman’s warbler
and Scioto madtom, have nor been sighted in several
years and may be extinct. Recovery plan preparation is
deferred for these species until individuals are found in
the wild.
Recovery Policy
In July 1994, the Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service issued six point policies regarding
implementation of the Act (59 FR 34269-34275), four of
which address some aspect of the recovery process. Of
these four policies, the b&y on Recoverj Plan
Pamqpafton and Implernentahon Under the
Endangered Speci Act reiterates the requirement that
plans be completed wIthin 2.5 years of the species’ listing
date It further requires that diverse expertise is
represented on recovery teams; representatives of
affected groups and stalceholdeis have the opportunity to
participate in the planning process; social and economic
impacts of implementing recovery actions be minimized;
and multiple species plans be developed when possibk.
The second policy, POlicy Regarding the Role of Sr ate
4genci In Endangered Specl Act Activrti , requires
the Service to solicit State agency expertise and
participation in both the recovery planning and
implementation processes. ft also requires chat the
expertise and authority of State agencies be used in
developing monitonng programs for recovered and
delisted species.
15
-------
Recot’erv Implemenlation
PROGRAM STATUS
The third pOlty Pili’ /or the Ecosvste’n Approach to
the !:pitI:ipi’rtrI .\fk’ci&” .kt. addresses the need to take a
cooperJtl\ e .lrrrn I. h 1 .i ing Ofl groups of species
dependent n he i ie e \ stern It directs the service
to nuke r’ p I tnc dL . ‘ n where possible and to
(level p ifl l rnpk’ntent rec cry pLin for multiple listed
,tnd ir i lid tte pc e Ihe p licv l ’ o emphasizes the
imp )11 .tnLe 1 nii .:r.i I e (ler i I. 1 nba I. itate. and
private cit in perative mul(i-speues etfo s under
the Act
Th ’- List p ii icy Pt hey ft ir Peer Rt’i :e’u in Endan ered
Specw .-liJ tdi, ituv’. directs the Service to ensure that alt
a:tions t.iken tinder the Act are based on the best
avail..ihle ienttti. nt mniation \) ith regard to recovety.
the poIic dire t that draft rewvery plans be submitted
for independent peer review to obtain all available
scientific and commercial information, and to review
scientific data relating to selection or implementation of
specialized tasks in draft recovery plans.
Recovery Implementation
The Director of the Service has delegated responsibility
for recovery o listed species to the Services seven
Regional Directors across the nation. Each listed species is
the responsibilir of at least one Region. When the
distribution of a species crosses regional boundaries, the
lead Region coordinates decisions regarding the species
among other appropriate Regions. Regional Directors
detenmne whether recovery plans are needed, ensure
that recovery plans are developed, appoint recovery
team members, and direct recovery plan implementation
The boundaries of Service’s Regions and the location of
Regional Offices are illustrated on Map 1.
Species: Gra bat
ListedAs: EncJan ,ertd
PopuLation Status: Impr r 1714
Sp:Mmil wJ
Listed 4s Thr& ten&I
Population Status: (iec1mm
jOuP i* QM P
16
-------
PROGRAM STATUS
Rt’’)I ‘r Irnpleme ’n t i1tOfl
—‘-.
Regional Boundaries
Map 1: The Fish and Wildlife Service is comprised of seven Regions and a headquarters in WashAngton D.C. When the range
of .i species crosses Regional boundaries, a lead Region is designated to coordinate rangewide conservation activities.
0
/
7
2
‘17
-------
Recovety Activities
PROGRAM STATUS
Exampi.. of R.cov.ry Activitias
The tools available for recovery of Iised species are
numerous and may include reintroduction of species into
formerly occupied habitat, land acquisition. captive
propagation, habitat restoration and protection,
population assessments, research, and technical assistance
for landowners and public education All of these activities
and associated efforts must allow time for an endangered
species to respond biologically to protective efforts
implemented on its behalf Recovery activities conducted
by the Service and its partners include defining threats
through research on biological requirements, managing
threats through habitat protection and restoration, and
achieving a stable or upward population trend for an
endangered species
The following examples illustrate the variety of recovery
efforts conducted by the Service and recovery partners:
the Aleutian Canada goose has benefitted from both
habitat restoration and reintroduction into formerly
occupied habitat;
translocauon of young bald eagles into formerly
occupied habitat is one factor contributing
significantly to bald eagle recovery;
captive propagation has increased the numbers of the
California condor and the red wolf,
research on Peters Mountain mallow, which revealed
that the seeds require fire to germinate, has resulted
in controlled burns that have dramatically increased
the species’ numbers.
+ education efforts on behalf of the furbish lousewort
have resulted in an enhanced conservation ethic, and
conservation easements are being pursued for its
habitat; and
+ land acquisition and cooperation among the Service,
National Aeronautics Space Administration the
National Park Service, private conservation
foundations, and the State of Flonda has made a
major contribution to the recovery of the Florida
scrub jay.
Coop.ratIon with 0th.,.
Although Congress envisioned the Service as the leader in
recovery of listed species, it recognized the role other
Federal agencies, States, and private citizens should play.
Recent examples of enhanced cooperation among
Federal agencies include the January 1994 Memorandum
of Understanding signed by the Service, Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, Forest Service, and
National Maaine Fisheries Service on behalf of candidates
for listing as threatened or endangered under the Act.
Candidate species conservation may reduce threats so
that listing is no longer necessary, or reduce time and
resources needed to achieve recovery once a species is
listed. In September 1994, the Service and 13 other
Federal agencies signed a second Memorandum of
Understanding pledging cooperation toward the common
goal of conserving listed species by protecting and
managing their populations and the ecosystems upon
which they depend.
The Federal Native PLant Conservation Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) (established May 25, 1994) has
Spec es:Akiasan Canada g ce
ListidAs: ThrvaJened
PopuLation Stat us: Improv ing
G O ( Gil
Sp les R&iurI/pups
LSriadAs Endangered
Population States: Improving
TW SIMO 6
18
-------
PROGRAM STATUS
Cooperation with Others
been signed by nine agencies in three Federal
departments (Department of Defense, Bureau ot Land
Management, Fish and ‘Xildhte Service, National Biological
Service, National Park Service, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Agricultural Research
Service. Forest Service, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service). The MOUs purpose is to ensure
that native plant species and communities are maintained,
enhanced, restored, or established on public lands, and
that such activities are promoted on private lands. The
\lO1’ established the Federal Native Plant Conservation
Committee to identify priority conservation needs for
native plants and their habitats and coordinate
implementation of programs for addressing those needs.
Currently, 47 non-federal organizations have signed on as
Cooperators to the Committee.
The MOU notes that plants constitute over half of the
listed species in the United States, and that over 200
listed plants occur on Federal lands. As stated in the MOU,
“Careful management of these lands can help maintain
our Nation’s plant heritage. Federal agencies also have
the expertise to assist non-Federal land managers in plant
conservation and protection efforts. Innovative
partnerships are needed among public and private
sectors.. to conserve native plants and their habitats
The 56 member and Cooperator agencies and
organizations on the Committee form an ideal national
partnership to promote plant recovery efforts.
This Committee is building partnerships, developing a
strategic plan, coordinating regional and national working
groups to address conservation actions, developing
databases and information exchange networks, and
coordinating education and public outreach opportunities.
The overall goal is to mobilize agencies and organizations
across the Nation into a cohesive force to support local
and national habitat conservation efforts for plants, much
as the Partners in Flight program is doing for neotropical
migratory birds. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(on behalf of the Committee) has awarded the Bureau of
Land Management a $100,000 challenge grant to fund
urgent conservation projects to benefit at-risk plant
species and communities. These projects demonstrate the
ability of the partner-ships to deliver on-the-ground
results, including recovery of listed plant species.
The Partners in Flight program, which includes about 90
signatories from Federal and State agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and industry, focusses
attention on high priority species and ecosystems that can
benefit both listed and candidate bird species. Partners in
Flight has directed several projects towards restoring and
managing western riparian habitats. Restoring the habitat
not only benefits the Southwestern willow flycatcher, but
numerous other threatened species as well. Alliances like
these can minimize the need to list species under the Act,
since the threats to their continued existence can be
alleviated before the species status becomes critical.
The Service actively pursues partnerships with other
Federal and State agencies, private organizations, and
individuals. Examples include:
G Cheat Mountain salamander: Three quarters of the
populations identified as necessary for recovery of
the Cheat Mountain salamander are protected and
managed through the cooperative efforts of the State
of West Virginia, the Service, and the Forest Service.
+ Mexican wolf: By the mid-1900s, the Mexican wolf
had been completely eliminated from a portion of its
historic range, the Southeast quadrant of Arizona. In
the 1970s, the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in
Tucson received four animals and launched a captive
breeding program. By 1994, there were 92 animals,
comprising 78 in 16 different United States facilities
and 14 in 5 Mexican facilities.
+ Pahrump poolfish: The Pahrump poolfish was listed
as endangered in 1967. The primary threat has been
the loss of springs due to a decline in underground
water table levels. While poolfish no longer only
occur in their historic location, Manse Spring, recovery
efforts by Federal agencies, Nevada’s State agencies,
and university biologists have established secure
populations in three.other Nevada springs.
Species: Cheat Mountain saLvnander
L iAs. Threwt,ied
Pep alation S1atv /mpronng
19
-------
Ecosystem Approach so Recovery
PROGRAM STATUS
rnaII whorled pogorua Residential and commercial
development has been the primary threat to the
rnall whorled pogonia. But since the plant listing,
State . 10(1 municipal conservation efforts and
.i niticint pri ate Lindowner contributions have
afforded pernuncnt protection for the largest known
p ptil .iii n ot lti plant Recovery successes have
.ilh t ed it to bc ret, Lissihed as threatened,
\ ‘e tern prairie fringed orchid Site protection through
voluntary landowner agreements and other State
efforts to protect and restore this species on State
.nd private lands have helped to arrest the decline of
this flower and stabilize its populations.
Ecosyst.m Approach to R.cov.ry
Recognizing that listed species that share common
geographic locations may face similar threats, the Service
investigates opportunities to combine conservation
strategies for several listed, proposed, and candidate
species into one recovery plan A “multi-species” or
ecosystem approach can improve the rate, fiscal
efficiency, and effectiveness of recovery actions for listed
spec ies. and may eliminate the need to list candidate
species Examples of recovery plans that address multiple
ls ted species recovery needs include
Maui - 1olokai Forest Birds Plan—’ birds in Hawaii.
A h Meadows Re ()verv Plan—4 fishes, 1 insect, and
- plants on the border of Nevada and California.
California Channel Island Species Plan—i plants. 2
birds, and 1 reptile in Calitornia;
Pine-rockland Ecosystem Plan—5 plants in south
Florida; and
San Marcos River Ecosystem Plan—2 fishes, I
amphibian, and 1 plant in Texas.
Taking ecosystem integrity into consideration when
planning preliscing, listing, and recovery activities is of
utmost importance in conserving biological diversity.
R.iationship of R.cov.ry to Oth•r $.ctions
of ths Act
Coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies,
academic researchers, conservauon organizations, private
individuals, and mayor land users is an essential ingredient
in developing and implementing an effective recovery
program. A summary of sections 6, 7, and 10 of the Act
follows. These sections of the Act play an important role
in the recovery of listed species.
$.ction 6 (Coop.ration with th. $tat.s)
Section 6 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with States that establish and
maintain an adequate and active program for the
conservation of endangered species. Those States are
provided with financial assistance to support the
development of programs for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species and to monitor the
status of candidate and recovered species. Up to 5
percent of the combined annual amounts of the Federal
Aid in Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration accounts can be
appropriated annually to the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund and allocated to the States in
accordance with subsection 6(d) of the Act. The total
appropriations for FY 1993 and FY 1994 for activities
conducted under section 6 was $6 565 and $9.0 million
respectively. The maioriry of recent grants have been
used for implementation of’ recovery actions
Species: t esIer?Jpra:rzeJrzngeIJorCbvJ
WiedAs: Threatened
Population Statu.s:SIable
,i
20
-------
PROGRAM STATUS
Section 6
All iO States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands. and Guam
are under cooperative agreements for animals. All but 11
of these entities are also under cooperative agreements
for plants States assist the recovery of endangered and
threatened species and in monitoring the status of
recovered species. Reimbursement can be up to 90
percent when two or more States have a common
interest in conservation o one or more species.
These grants provide States wih resources to participate
in a wide array of recovery activities that include
population assessments, habitat restoration, propagation,
and reintroductions of listed species. States may also use
section 6 grants to initiate conservation actions before a
species is listed. Stabilization of candidate species and
their habitats can often be accomplished in a more cost
effective manner than through the process of listing,
recovery planning and recovery implementation. A few
examples of these grants are:
In Massachusetts, section 6 funds were used by the
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to support nest
protection and monitoring for the Plymouth redbelly
turtle. These funds were also used to track survival of
released turtles in the wild. The Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife monitors population
Species: Pf iiouihrwibeIJyturt1e
Lit As:Enda rger I
Populeilon Status: Impro v ing
status and trends, searches for new occurrences,
evaluates limiting factors, locates and protects nests,
coordinates the headstarting program, reestablishes
new populations, and conducts public information
and education programs. Several of these tasks have
been conducted in conjunction with researchers at
the Worcester State College and the University of
Massachusetts, as well as the private sector. Through
this cooperation, the population appears to be stable.
+ Section 6 funds were provided to Wyoming, Montana,
and South Dakota for their participation and
involvement in the release of black-footed ferrets.
The releases in South Dakota and Montana have
been carefully monitored since release. In Montana
there are five or six adults and two litters had at least
four kits. In South Dakota there are three or four
adults and two litters had a total of five kits. Releases
in Wyoming are not planned because the release
area was exposed to plague and the prey base has
vartually disappeared.
+ In Hawaii, section 6 funds were used to prevent the
extinction of the Hawaiian crow through captive
propagation and nest enhancement in the wild.
Captive propagation was used to enhance the
existing stocks and to increase the inhabited range of
the Hawaiian crow through the release of additional
captive-reared birds. A captive bird propagation
facility has been completed on the island of Hawaii
and although initially focusing on the Hawaiian crow,
this facility will eventually assist with the recovery
efforts for up to 17 endangered Hawaiian forest birds.
Sp.cies:Black-frxlmiferret
Li AsEvvhsnge rd
PepuIatlouStats s :Improvmg
F*S PHOTO
21
-------
Section 7
PROGRAM STATUS
S.ction 7 (Int.rag.ncy Coop.ratien)
•r zrc p ed pcc Li i respt)n ihiiitie Ofl iU l (lt. r Ll
.. ‘nt. ie - itt en ’ irc thu the Federul werflment vouki
i. titril ‘ itt . t ht.’ c xlernu nil i )n 1 “f)eCie i ’Ct It )fl
I ‘1 he t I’.irl itlt. ’t tIit. the m i t ’ Federal
i .,t i i. it” l.i\ fl it , t’I\ intl direct .. thirn Ii
‘ 1 I I 1t .1(1 h iii it.’ it pr )t1)f )it.’ I ht’ I.. )fl” 't. fl .itI( )fl it I
peL ic’ l•i’. cxi Iing ,I til h rulic’ include the \ul u mu
I ’ ‘re ’ I Lin_tgemt ’ ft Act of I 0Th I I ( ‘ I S C : 161)1.i (m 141.
P - 1 “c ned \‘iekl A i I 1( t S C A i2) .i31 I
I ‘tiler.il \X’itt•r )iiU I( )l (:ontrol Act Amendments of
i the Clean Water AcU 122 1 ‘SC. 12i1 ci ..cq I.
md tht ’ Federal Lind Policy and Management
Act k3 I C IThI ci seq.I.
Responsibilities under section 7 o the Act fall into two
gorics (‘nder section 7(a)( 1), Federal agencies are
directed to use existing authorities to promote the
. ‘ )ns . 1\ at ion of listed species l’nder section ( .i( 2),
I ‘ederil .igencies are precluded from authorizing, funding,
.irrving out ictivities that are likely to jeopardize the
.)ntImIeLl existence of a listed species or destroy or
,ijverselv modih’ its critical habitat. Through consultation
ith the Service before initiating projects. the agencies
review their ictions to determine whether they could
id er . .t’Iv itfeci listed species or habitat.
“‘ .ecti )fl 2) consultation may be either “informal’ or
• f rn .iI ‘ lnh mrm,il consultation provides an assessment of
. 1 proposed project to determine if formal consultation is
required or it protect modifications could be implemented
that reduce or remove adverse impacts to the listed
species If an agency finds an action “may adversely
affect” a listed species or designated critical habitat,
formal consultation is required. Formal consultation results
in a biological opinion outlining the Service’s assessment
of tlw proposed activity and its likely impact on the listed
..pecie ’. The Action agency may proceed with the action
is pt’ pc ised, provided flO incidental take is anticipated. If
intit.k’nt.il Like i anticipated, the agency or the applicant
fliU’ ’t comply with the reasonable and prudent measures
and implementing terms and conditions in the Service’s
incidental take statement to avoid liability from taking
tinder the Act
A i ener:il : cotil1Iing Office studs’ of the Act and the
implementation imf . .et ,’iion found that over a i-ear
peru)d 19w- 1991 the Service conducted 7) i( )
informal LOflSUIh,,iOfl with Federal agencies ii,ussess ihe
p miential for impacts on listed species and critical habitat.
)t these. 2.1)00 (or 2 percent) required formal
C, )flsUltJtiOfl. and (,ni ’ 3i() (or I). percent) of those
(OiK’lii(led that the Federal action would be likei ’ to
teoparduze listed species or adversely rnoditv critical
Iiibit t In .iIl hut 2 ’ cases, the Service and Federal action
agencies were able to develop alternatives that allowed
the actions to go forward while adequately protecting
listed species or designated critical habitats. The 23
i tiOfls that were not undenaken due (in whole or in
purl) to listed species conflicts, represent less than U 1)3
percent ‘‘I all ,ictions it-’ ucwccl Thu.., over 90 ty’ percent
if ihe projects vert ,’ not ‘hi mckcd’ due to such conflicts
‘l’hi.. success was largeR due iu informal cooperation
htt veen the Service and the Federal action agencies
early in ihe planning process. allowing relatively minor
adjustments to projects that decrease or remove any
adverse impacts they may othet ’ise have on listed
species The cooperative spirit exhibited by many
Federal agencies has contributed greatly to this record
of success.
In addition to the determination of “jeopardy” or “no-
jeopardy,” the formal consultation process also provides a
‘ehicle for recommending additional, discretionary
conservation measures to Federal action agencies. Often
drawing on tasks outlined in the implementation
schedules of recovery plans, conservation actions
appropriate to the Federal agency and the specific
Federal action under review can be recommended in
biological opinions. While not required, these actions
provide a means whereby all Federal agencies can fulfill
their section 7(aX 1) obligations to go beyond just
ensuring that their actions do not jeopardize threatened or
endangered species.
There are numerous instances where section 7
consultation has resulted in conservation benefits to listed
and candidate species. For example:
+ Through the consultation process, the Georgia
Department of Transportation and the Coast Guard
found methods to avoid injury and death of manatees
by implementing protection measures on numerous
bridge replacement projects along the coast.
Species: Weslindian manatee
LLskdAs:Enckn ered
Population Status: Dedznzi
!Y
22
-------
PROGRAM STATUS
Section 1O(’a)(l)(B)
‘c” Consultation with the Florida (,js Tr 1flSffljS 5i()fl
Company re ’ tilted in in agreement upon
construction time-frames that will allow for beuer
prote tion for , lctive h,ild eagle nests. scrub lays, gulf
sturgeon. and gopher t()1toise’
Through consultation, the only known habitat for the
Warton’s cave spider will be protected in central
Texas Protective measures include: gating the
entrance of the cave; restricting the use of pesticides
and fertilizers: and using native vegetation for
landscaping near the cave.
All Federal agencies play a vital role in the conservation
of listed and candidate species, and the Service makes a
consistent effort to educate other Federal agencies and
emphasizes the importance of the role they play in the
conservation of the Nation’s diverse natural resources.
S.ction 1O(a)(1)(B)
(Habitat Cons.rvat ion Plans)
Section 10(a)( I )(B) allows the Service to issue pernhtis for
the “take” of federally listed species if the taking will be
incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful
activity Congress intended that the section 10(a)( 1 . B)
process be used to reduce conflicts between listed
species and private development and to provide a
framework that would encourage “creative partnerships”
between the private sector and local, State, and Federal
agencies in the interests of listed species and their habitat
To obtain an “incidental take permit,” an applicant must
submit a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that describes
how the applicant will minimize and mitigate the impacts
of the taking and how HCP implementation will be
funded, An HCP allows development activities that
impact threatened or endangered species in return for a
conservation program implemented by the permiuee that
offsets those impacts or benefits the species HCPs vary
greatly in size and complexity, covering anywhere from a
few acres to statewide efforts
Recovery of listed speciec is not a direct requirement of
the HCP process but is indirectly involved through the
“no jeopardy” standard required by section (a)( 2) of
the Act and by the permit issuance criteria found at
section 1O(a)(2)(B). Under both these mandates, the
Service must ensure that issuance of an incidental take
permit does not “reduce appreciably the likelihood of the
survival and recover)’ of the species in the wild” In other
words, an HCP must not preclude or significant l v reduce
the recovery prospects of affected species Nevertheless,
though not a statutory requirement, many HCPs have a
net positive affect on species recovery, and some
substantially contribute to meeting recovery goals This is
especially ti-tie of t-ICPs that are range-wide or regional in
scope because they provide long-term assurances of
conservation actions and protection across large habitat
areas. Recovery plans are often used to guide the crafting
of HCPs. Thus, recovery is inherently an important
consideration in any HCP. HCPs can significantly advance
or even achieve recovery objectives.
The Service’s role in the habitat conservation planning
process is to provide technical assistance to the applicant
during the HCP development phase, review the permit
application and HCP, and issue the permit if all
requirements have been satisfied. Examples of recently
completed HCPs include the Simpson Timber Company
HO’ for the northern spotted owl in northern California
(1992), the International Paper I-ICP for the Red Hills
salamander in Alabama (1993), and the Metropolitan
Bakersfield HCP for the San Joaquin kit fox and other
species in California (1994). Each of these HCPs involves
relatively large planning areas (30000 to 380,000 acres)
and allows economic activities (e.g., timber harvest or
residential development) to proceed in endangered
species habitat. However, each plan also requires that
sufficient habitat be protected, through set-aside or
acquisition, to offset project effects on listed species.
Species: Floriki scrubjay
List edAs: Threatened
Population Staus: Ek’clmmg
REED BCW 4AN
23
-------
Reco! ‘en Successes
PROGRAM STATUS
HCPs currently under development include the Brevard
County HCP in Florida (10,000 acres), HCPs for timber
har ’est activities in (corgia (1.000.000 acres). South
..ii olin i ,(ft)t 1.0(11) acres), NorTh Carolin.i , 0( ) )(X)
.i [ CS). lis is ippi S( )0.0 )t) acres), ‘Washington
( , .U00.0O() acres), and Oreizon i , i)0,O0() .icre ).
Washington County UCP in Utah (135,000 acres)
Balcones Canyonland.s HCP in Travis County, Texas
U,33,000 acres). Kern Count ’v HCP in California’s San
Joaquin Valley (1,920,000 acres), several HCPs in
southern California being developed jointiy with the
State’s Natural Communities Conservation Planning
(NCCP) Program; and the Clark County HCP in Nevada
(22,500 acres).
Recovery Successes
Exampiss of Escovary $uccsss•s
There have been many successes of the recovery
program; reclassifications, delisungs, and significant steps
toward achieving species recovery objectives. Highlights
of’ a few of these successes are summarized below,
Said sagi•
This species formerly nested throughout North America.
Population declines were atthbuted to habitat loss, illegal
shooting, and the effects of DDT on reproductive
success. In addition to the DDT ban, the eagle benefitted
from nest site protection, aggressive habitat management.
and reintroductions. Many States have successfully
reestablished nesting populations by translocating young
birds from areas with healthy populations into suitable,
unoccupied habitat. Public awareness campaigns and
vigorous law enforcement have helped to reduce illegal
shooting of eagles. Bald eagle numbers in the lower 48
States have increased from approximately 417 nesting
pairs in 1963 to more that 4,000 pairs in 1993. In
addition, there are an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 juvenile
bald eagles in this part of the range. As a result of the
significant progress toward recovery, on July 12, 1994,
the Service proposed to reclassify the bald eagle from
endangered to threatened in all but four States
Subsequent action reclassified the species as threatened
in all of the lower 48 states.
Biack.footsd forr•t
A long history of prairie dog control programs reduced
populations of the black-footed ferret by reducing the
ferrets’ preferred prey. Once thought to be extinct, black-
footed ferrets were rediscovered in 1981 near Meeteetse.
Wyoming. Canine distemper devastated that population
in the late 1980s. A captive propagation program.
Species: BaWeagle chzcb s
UstedAs: Threale??ed
PopunStaU S:ImPrOt1flX
•Y
I
Species: Black.fookdfe’rrel
ListedAs; En ingei e4
Population Staiu s:ImprorrnR
.ipp
24
-------
PROGRAM STATUS
RecoverjSuccus*s
founded by the 18 survivors of this population has been
extremely successful, resulting in a population of over
400 by mid-1992. In the fall of 1991, 49 juvenile ferrets
were released in the Shirley Basin area of southeast
Wyoming as part of a nonessential experimental
population. The release was the result of considerable
landowner cooperation. About 55 percent of the
management area where the ferrets were released is in
private ownership. A similar release was conducted in
north-central Montana and the Conata Basin/Badlands area
of South Dakota in 1994. Releases continue at the Shirley
Basin site in Wyoming, where the Service has confirmed
at least 10 surviving ferrets and 6 young born in the wild
resulting from the release. Releases of captive bred
ferrets will continue in other States as new sites are
identified and releases are coordinated with involved
agencies and landowners.
Or..nback cutthroat trout
Originally listed as endangered in 1967, the greenback
cutthroat trout was reclassified as threatened in 1978. This
native trout declined due to the introduction of nonnative
rainbow, brook, and brown trout that out competed or
hybridized with the greenback cutthroat trout in its native
streams. At the time of its original listing, only two small
historic populations were known to exist. Since then, the
Service has restored the species in over 40 lakes and
streams in and around Rocky Mountain National Park and
other areas in Colorado. There is catch and release fishing
for the species in 15 lakes, and a new captive broodstock
is being established by the Colorado Division of Wildlife
for future stocking. The species is nearing its recovery
goals and, with continued reintroduction of the greenback
cutthroat trout into its native streams and continued
control of nonnative trout, the species may be delisted by
the year 2000.
K&.akala $Hv.r.word
The Haleakala silversword is found only in a 250-acre
area in the crater and on the outer slopes of Haleakala,
Maui’s Largest volcano. Population declines were
attributed to habitat disturbances, detrimental effects from
introduced species, and vandalism. The Maui Chamber of
Commerce felt so strongly about the declining
populations that it petitioned Congress to intervene with
efforts to save the species. As a result, the Haleakala
National Park was established. Although the establishment
of the park eliminated some of the threats, others
continued and the silversword was listed in 1991. Now,
the most dangerous threat to the plant is the loss of the
localized, endemic pollinators. These pollinators are being
threatened by the Argentine ant, a non-native species
that preys on native insects. Biologists are currently
working on an effective control for the ants, but have not
L4 At Thr *
L A Th s
- . cm D
25
-------
Mon itoring Recovered Species
PROGRAM STATUS
been uccesstul A collaborative ettort by the \ational
Park Semce and the Ser ice has saved the Ilaleakala
silverc vnrd from extinction
Whooping Cran.
The vh ping i.ine is not believed to have been
ntinieri)ii pri r in the kvelnpment the western
‘nited i.iIes and (;anada I lowever, hunting. the
cOfl\ er ion ot the prairies to agriculture, and other human
dbturhance” greatly reduced their numbers More modern
.ictiviIie’ . such a dam and powerline construction along
the.. principal migration route, and dredging in their
principal wintering area, continue to result in deaths of
individual whooping cranes or degrade their essential
habitats The Service. through whooping crane recover)’
partnerships with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the
Irnernational Crane Foundation began the recovery
process Through the Partners for Wildlife program, the
Service has helped restore whooping crane roosting
habitat on the Platte River. This area serves as habitat for
migrating whooping cranes, which prefer to roost in wide
channels free of vegetation and other obstructions
Agreements have also been signed with the National
Audubon Society and individual private landowners to
clear trees and other vegetation from the channels.
providing open habitat not only for the endangered
whooping crane, but for sandhill cranes, shorebirds, and
other migrating waterfowl as well. A captive propagation
program has also been developed to reintroduce birds to
the wild and now there are now more than 200 birds,
which includes 122 held in captivity. Through these
efforts, the whooping crane population continues to
increase in North America. Several goals of the recovery
plan have been implemented through these cooperative
ventures, and the whooping cranes are closer to being
recovered as a result.
Am•rican p.r.grln. falcon
This widespread species occurs throughout much of
North America. Population declines were attributed to
habitat loss, illegal shooting, and the effects of DDT on
reproductive success. The falcon has benefitted greatly
from cooperative recovery efforts, such as the ban on
pesticides (which caused thinning of falcon eggshells and
adult mortality) and from the broad-based public
involvement in the raising of thousands of falcons in
captivity for their eventual reintroduction to the wild
Populations of the American peregrine falcon in
southwestern Canada, the northern Rocky Mountain
States, and the Pacific coast States were greatly depressed
or extirpated. Over 3400 young American peregrine
falcons were released to promote the species’ recovery.
These releases and many other recovery activities have
helped to stabilize the falcon’s population. The Service
intends to propose removal of the American peregrine
falcon from the list of threatened and endangered wildlife.
These, and many other species, have clearly benefiued
from protection under the Act. With persistence and time,
it is possible to make a u-turn on the road to extinction
Monitoring Pcovr.d $p.ci.s
A species is considered “recovered” when the threats that
initially led to a species’ listing are corrected, when
specified recovery goals (in terms of numbers,
distribution, etc.) have been met, and when protection
under the Act is no longer needed. Reaching recovery
requires concerted efforts on the part of Federal and State
authorities, as well as private parties.
•-‘ .-“ _‘;‘ “
Species: oqnn crane
ListedAs: En n ’rt d
Population Statu.s:Impr’nrnA
. ‘,‘ ‘ub ”’
26
-------
De1isting7Recia s.szficatkms
PROGRAM STATUS
—
The 1988 amendments to the Act recognized a potential
conflict involving removal of lust recovered species from
the protective oversight of the Act If a newly recovered
species were no longer protected under the Act, the
threats that led to its listing might resume and once again
endanger the species Section e of the Act was amended
by adding .i requirement that recovered species he
monitored for at least . years after delisting. The Service
cooperates with State agencies and other partners to
accomplish monitoring for those species within State
jurisdiction except in cases where the species are wide-
ranging or migratory beyond State lines. In the event of a
“significant risk to the well being” of any delisted species,
the Secretary must use his emergency authority under
section 4tb)(7) to relist the species.
D.Iistings and R•cla.siflcations
Delisting (removing species from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants) can occur for one of
three reasons: (1) species extinction, (2) species
recovery, or (3) more accurate scientific or commercial
data becomes available Delisting, resulting from
successful recovery, is the culmination of a process
involving planning recovery objectives, implementation
of objectives, and evaluation and monitoring to ensure
that all objectives have been met.
Reclassification from endangered to threatened is an
intermediate step in the recovery process and signals
significant success in art endangered species’ recovery.
The 1994 reclassification of the bald eagle represented
over 20 years of coordinated efforts to reverse population
declines, preserve habitat, and address pesticide
contamination problems in the environment.
The Service is considering the species listed in table 2 for
delisting or reclassification. In some cases, status surveys
are underway to determine the appropriateness of these
actions, in other cases, the Service has already determined
appropriateness and is preparing proposals to carry out
delisting or reclassification. While most of these
reclassifications and delistings are a result of recovery
having being achieved, some of these delistings and
reclassifications are a result of taxonornic changes in the
species’ classification (e.g., cuneate bidens, Lloyd’s
hedgehog cactus) or discovery of additional secure
populations (e.g., Maguire daisy). Others are a result of
effective protection measures afforded to the species
under the Act through the recovery process.
Table 2: Species Under Consideratiôri fdt Delisting
or Reclassification.
American Peregrine Falcon - western
Cui-ui
Eureka Valley plants
hawaiian hawk
Loch Lomond coyote-thistle
MacFarlane’s four-o’clock
Pahrump poolfish
Truckee barberry
Bald eagle
Cape Sable seaside sparrow
Inflated heelsphitter
Magazine Mountain shagreen
Slackwater darter
Robbins cinquefoil
Eskimo curlew
Sp Amerrirnperegnnefaban
L4s. Enizksngered
PepuktionS Au.s:Inzprc ng
FWS PHOTO
27
-------
B h1x.cadw
Ikt.dAEE* sn
28
-------
Analys s and Status’
of Listed Speties:
R•cov•ry Program Analysos
Endang.v.d $p.cI.. Rscov.ry
ApproprIatIOfl
Congressional funding authorizations to support the
Services recovery program have increased since the
1988 amendments In FY 1993 and FY 1994, recovery
represented approximately 31 percent of the Service’s
total endangered species budget. Species with specific
recovery activities funded as a result of Congressional
directives, or activities funded’ as a Service directive, are
presented in Table 3. These directives represented 55
percent and 35 percent of the total recovery
appropriation in FY 1993 and FY 1994, respectively.
Directives represent a substantial portion of the money
available for implementing recovery and Limit the money
remaining for recovery actions benefitting other species.
Fiscal Year 1993
$ 77,000
$ 450,000
8 377,000
$ 848,000
$ 265,000
$ 339,000
$ 681,000
$ 805,000
$ 680,000
$ 144,000
$ 340,000
$ 280,000
$ 74,000
$ 435,000
$ 395,000
$ 132,000
$ 2,685,000
$ 286,000
$ 665,000
$ 624,000
$ 297,000
$ 91,000
8 296,000
$ 147,000
8 154,000
$ 297,000
$ 30,000
$11,894,000
820,065,000
FIscal Year 1994
$ 100,000
$ 200,000
$ 400,000
$ 600,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 500,000
$ 600,000
8 400,000
$ 300,000
$ 100,000
8 500,000
8 400,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 300,000
$ 600,000
8 624,000
8 300,000
$ 400,000
8 218,000
8 100,000
8 450,000
8 200,000
$ 350,000
8 150,000
$10,392,000
$ 29,550,000
Grizzly bear
Peregrine falcon
California condor
Sea turtles
Southern sea otter
Hawaiian buds
Rocky Mountain woLf
(Animal Damage Control included)
Whooping crane
Black-footed ferret
Florida panther
West Indian manatee
Aleutian Canada goose
Northern spotted owl
Desert tortoise
Red wolf
Upper Colorado River fishes
Pacific Islands
Mexican grey wolf
SIelleYs/Spectacled eider
Piping plover
Freshwater molluscs
San Juan
Mexican spotted owl
Edward’s aquifer
Table 3: Recovery Program Directives for
FY 1993 and 1994
Kirdand’s warbler
Grizzly bear
Peregrine falcon
California condor
Sea turtles
Southern sea otter
Hawaiian birds
Rocky Mountain wolf
(Animal Damage Control included)
Puerto Rican parrot
Cui-ui
Whooping crane
Black-footed ferret
Florida panther
West Indian manatee
Aleutian Canada goose
Bruneau hot springsnail
Northern spotted owl
Desert tortoise
Red wolf
Upper Colorado River fishes
Hawaiian species
Central Valley
Piping Plover
San Juan
Mexican grey wolf
PacifIc Islands
Southeast fishes
TOTAL DIREC’flVES
TOTAL FY 1993 RECOVERY
APPROPRIATION
TOTAL DIRECTIVES
TOTAL FY 1994 RECOVERY
APPROPRIATION
29
-------
Summar AnalyS4S
RECOVERY PROGRAM ANALYSES and STATUS
Summary of th. Statu. of Llst.d Sp cIss
Figure 1 shows the percentage of listed species
represented in the major taxonornic groups as of
Septernbcr 3(. 199 Map 2 shows the number of listed
species in each State and Trust 1 emtory as of
September 3t’. 1994
Figure 2 summari7es the status of 76 speciec listed as of
1993 through an analysis of the status and trends based
on 5 year intervals This figure shows the percent of
species, divided according to time of listing in 5 year
intervals, that are known to be stable or improving.
declining, or for which the population trend is uncertain.
Stable or improving species are those for which the trend
toward extinction has been halted or reversed in the wild.
Overall, the data on stable or increasing species illustrates
that while recovery of listed species takes time it can be
achieved Just as the threats to these species accumulated
through time to result in the precarious status seen for
many species today, recovery also takes time.
Figure 1. Distribution of Listed Species by Taxonomic Group
Listed Species
Plants
54%
As of September 30, 1994
Animals
46%
Animal Groups
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Fishes
Amphibians
Invertebrates
L
-------
RECOVERY F DGRAM ANALYSES and STATUS
SummaryAna
Listed Spfcies by State/Territory
As of September 30,1994
(Omits 1 similarity of appearance and some extirpated species)
Virgin
islands 14
Map 2: Species listed under “similarity of appearance” and extAnct species are not included in the totals identified.
-
1117
i 3
—16
—14
islands 206
Hawaiian
Other Pacific islands 20
“D.C.3
Puerto
Rico 66
31
-------
SummaryA nalyses
RECOVERY PROGRAM ANALYSES and STATUS
The following definitions of population trend categones
are usetul in interpreting the data presented in figure 2:
Improving: species known to be increasing in numbers
and or whose threats to their continued existence are
lessening in the wild
Stabk: ‘ pe ies known to have stable numbers over the
recent past and whose threats have remained relatively
constant or diminished in the wild
Declining: species known to be decreasing in numbers
an i 1 or whose threats to their continued existence are
increasing in the wild
Uncertain: species where additional survey work is
required to determine the trend in their status.
Of the 108 species listed between 1968 and 1973, 58
percent are currentiy known to be stable or improving in
their native habitats Of the 294 species listed between
1989 and 1993, only 22 percent have recovered to the
point that they are stable or increasing. For the species in
decline or where population trends are uncertain, the
Service and its partners in recovery are collecting
biological Lnforrnation, developing recovery strategies,
and implementing management activities that will
stabilize the species and halt or reverse the trend toward
extinction for many of these species.
The extraordinary success of the recovery program is
demonstrated by the fact that even with a substantial
increase in the number of species listed over the past
decade, over 41 percent of the 909 species listed as of
September 30, 1994, have stablized or are improving.
This success is attributed to the efforts of the Service,
other Federal agencies, States, tribal governments, and
private individuals and organizations. Their efforts have
similarly managed to hold those species with declining
population trends to an overall average of 35 percent of
total listed species. For some of these species, severely
depressed populations may take a very long time to rum
the corner toward recovery. For others, populations may
have become so depressed or habitat so limited, that full
recovery is not likely. Of all the species listed between
1968 and 1993, only 7, or less than 1 percent, have been
officially recognized as extinct, and subsequently delisted.
Several other species (e.g., Scioto madtom, Bachman’s
warbler) have not been located in a number of years and
may also be extinct. These species will be delisted when
supporting evidence is relatively conclusive. Though
extinct species represent an irreplaceable loss to the
biodiversity of our natural flora and fauna, the fact that
almost 99 percent of listed species remain extant speaks
to the success of the Act as a mechanism for conseivauon
of species at risk of extinction. The percent of species for
which the population trend is uncertain is indicated in the
figure and, overall, there is an average of only 23 percent
of listed species for which the population trend continues
to be uncertain.
Figure 2 shows that the percent species increased
noticeably within the past 10 years. The population trend
of a species can remain uncertain for several reasons In
many cases, these species have not been listed for a
sufficient period of time, and consequently their
populations not monitored long enough, to establish clear
information on population trend. Other species, including
some that have been listed for many years, may have
uncertain status as a result of their rarity, remoteness and/
or inaccessibility of habitat, or significant, unmanageable
threats to the species throughout its entire range. Rare
Hawaiian rainforest birds, oceanic sea turtles, and
subterranean salamanders are examples of species where
inaccessibility of habitat may result in uncertain
population trends. The status of the Houston toad
remains uncertain as a result of its occurrence primarily on
private lands where the Service lacks access to conduct
population surveys. Still other species do not fit clearly
into the population trend categories arid their trend is
listed as uncertain by default. As funding permits, the
Service is conducting status surveys to determine the
population trend for species where the trend is uncertain.
Species: Hou on k id
Listei4i:Endangered
Populaiwn Staiw: Uncertain
ROB(fl “- ‘CiMAS
32
-------
RECOVERY PROGRAM A\ALY SES and STAT1JS
Sum,nari .4nalise’s
Summary of the Current Population Trends of Listed
Species According to Time of Listing
N=106 N=86
N=66
N=224 N=294
1,
45%
84.88
22%
89-93
Time of Listing in 5 Year Interval
Percent of species stable or improving
_______ Percent of species declining
Percent of species with an uncertain
population trend
N = Number of species in the 5 year interval
Figure 2
100
p.
80
60
40
20
0
68.73 74.78
79.83
33
-------
Species-by-Species Stau.s Summary
RECOVERY F DGRAM ANALYSES and STATUS
Sp.oi.s.by.$p.cI.s Status Summary
The status of all listed species under the Services
lurisdiction (United States and Trust Terntones) as of
September 30, 1994, has been summarized in the
Appendix. As of September 30, 1994, 909 species werc
listed as endangered or threatened in the United States
and Trust Territories. Of the 909, 893 are under the
jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Of these 893
species, 484 (54 percent) had final approved recovery
plan.s as of September 30, 1994, and another 185 (21
percent) have approved draft recovery plans. Two
hundred eighty two of these species have been Listed for
less than 3 years. For the most part, species listed less
than 3 years do no yet have approved recovery plans.
Most do, however, have plans in some stage of
development. There are 14 species for which the Service
has determined that a recovery plan is not needed.
Species: Knowlton cadu
Listed As: Endang ed
Pop ulation Statiu: Stable
P GG JL* LL
Species: Gr n funk
LUSedM:Endangers d
Population SLatus:Improvrng
BLA M’fl*P 4G’O.
Specie s: ) ui ch .h
Listed 1 c: Lnd v ered
Population Status: &4hL
WS ‘ ‘ C
34
-------
RECOVERY PROGRAM ANALYSES and STATUS
Species-by-SpeciesStatusSummarj
S S.s: Rdkitriilium
I4 SdAs:Er4angert4
?bpulaa’ion S L Jtnrng
35
-------
/1 1
SpKin:PQmgPk3fe
Listed As: En&rngeed
Population $tatw: L 1mmg
7 — ’
C
0
C
36
-------
SUMMARY
Recoveiy of threatened and endangered species is
among the most important tasks delegated to the Fish
and Wildlife Service; it is also one of the most challenging.
The decline of many of these plants and animals that are
at the brink of extinction is usually the result of a long
history of decreasing habitat quality and quantity. By the
time many species are listed, they are critically close to
being lost forever. Rarely, stabilizing the population and!
or the remaining habitat is the most that can be done. In
other instances, the Service and its partners in
conservation are able to arrest and reverse the decline of
species and re-establish them as functional components
of their ecosystems. Recovery is achieved because of the
protections and conservation mechanisms provided by
the Act, and these successes are much celebrated by the
American people. Through the continuation of these
cooperative efforts, many more success stories will be
realized, resulting in continued conservation of our
Nation’s natural heritage.
The greatest challenge is reversing long-term declines
while finding innovative conservation and management
actions that serve to both benefit the species and
accommodate society s other goals, including economic
growth. Fortunately, the Service and its partners have
been largely successful in balancing these two challenges.
In many cases the goals are directly linked, and it is being
learned that achieving one facilitates the other. Sustaining
economic growth in areas suffenng chronic environmental
declines is frequently impossible, and we recognize that
Specie: Blacksidedace
LisSadAs. 7breate,ied
Pripuimtlon Status: Stable
without a strong economy, a healthy environment and
the benefits it provides will be lost.
While there are many successes detailed in this report,
much work remains to be done. Ultimately, recovery of
listed species must be coordinated through partnerships
aimed at conservation of the ecosystems upon which
they depend, and such management actions must be
carried out in the context of ongoing and anticipated
human use.
Although it is sometimes pragmatic and necessary to
address specific threats affecting individual species, we
strive to avoid managing our lands and resources with a
focus on one species only. To maintain a single species
focus is to invite an endless progression of extinction
crises. Rather, by managing at the ecosystem level, broad
environmental gains can be secured and all species
sharing those ecosystems will be beneflued.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies in the
Department of the Interior are exploring ways that
existing authorities may be used to prevent the
degradation of ecosystems, which ultimately leads to
endangered species listings and “last resort” recovery
planning. The Department Is committed to increasing its
emphasis on ecosystem management, and will be making
greater efforts to promote the partnerships essential for
accomplishment of the important challenges facing us all.
37
-------
Thrratened
PopuS&ioø Status: Stable
38
-------
APPENDIX
L ata presented for each listed species includes. (1) the
species listing status, (2) lead Region, (3) population
status. (4) whether or not the species has an approved
recovery plan and, if not, whether one will be prepared;
(5) the stage of the recovery plan, and (6) the
percentage of the species’ recovery objective(s) that
have been met. The following information will be useful
when interpreting the data in table 4.
(1) Species’ Listing
The listing status is identified as threatened (T) or
endangered (E). If critical habitat (CH) is designated,
it is also listed in the table with the species status.
(2) Lead Region
This indicates which Service Region has the lead
responsibility for the species.
(3) Population Status (Pop. Status)
The status of each species is identified as Improving
(I), Stable (5), Declining (D), or Uncertain (U) as
defined above. Extinct (E) species are those that are
believed to be extinct in the wild.
(4) Recovery Plan (Rec. Plan)
This column indicate whether a recovery plan has
been developed: Y for yes; N for flO; and NA for
non-applicable.
(5) Plan Stage
The status of recovery plan development is reported
as indicated below.
F = Final-Approved
R = Revision-Approved (a numeral indicates the
times revised)
D = Draft - published in the Federal Register
U = Under Development, planned or a draft not yet
in Federal Reg&ster
RD = Revision-Under Development (a number
indicates times revised)
NA = Not Applicable-Exempt
(6) Recovery Achieved
The percentage of species recovery objective(s)
achieved is indicated with a value of 1 to 4 as
defined below
1 = 0-25 percent achieved
2 = 26-50 percent achieved
3 = 5 1-75 percent achieved
4 = 76-100 percent achieved
Recovery Priority as assigned according to species
recovery priority system.
A species is assigned a recovery priority from 1 to 18
according to the degree of threats, recovery potential and
taxonomic distinctness. In addition, a species’ rank may
be elevated by adding a C designation to its numerical
rank to indicate that there is some degree of conflict
between the species’ conservation efforts and economic
development associated with its recovery. Species with a
high priority rank (1, 1C, 2, 2C) are those of most concern
with highest potential for recovery. Species with a low
rank (16, 17, 18) are of lowest concern or have low
recovery potentials.
Specks: Bos4der darters
Lid As:Endangtied
Population Slatus:Stabk
39
-------
Mammals
Spedes Status Summary APPENDIX
S p.cies. Contho utaier snake
L A Thr wd
PbpuMt on Stmu :S abie
-------
Mammals
APPENDIX Species Status Summary
Listed Species
Listed; I d’ ’ Pop.
As Region Status
Rec.
Plan
Plan
Stage
Rec.
Adi.
Rec.
Prior.
Mammals
Bat.gray . . . .. . E
3
1
Y
F
3
8
Bit. Hawaiian hoar ’ . . ... E
1
U
N
U
1
9
Bat. Indiana ... . E.CH
3
D
Y
RD
2
8
Bat. lesser(=Sanborn ’S) long-nosed . ... E
2
U
Y
D
1
8
Bat, little Mariana fruit . . E
1
E
Y
F
1
5
Bat. Manana fruit . . E
1
D
Y
F
1
3
Bat. Mexican long-nosed . . E
2
U
Y
F
1
5
Bat. Ozark big-eared .. E
2
S
Y
F
1
3
flat. Virginia big-eared E,CH
5
1
Y
RD(l)
3
9
Bear. gnzzly or brown T
6
S
Y
R(1)
Bear. Louisiana black T
4
1
N
D
1
9
Beaver. Point Arena mountain E
1
U
N
U
3
Caribou,woodland . . . E
1
D
Y
R(3)
2
3C
18
Cougar. eastern E
5
E
NA
F
Deer, Columb ianwh ite-tailed E
1
1
Y
R(1)
4
15
6C
Deer, Key E
4
D
Y
R(1)
1
Ferret, black-footed E
6
1
Y
R(1)
1
2
Fox, San joaquin kit E
1
D
Y
RD
1
3C
6
Jaguan.indi . E
2
U
Y
F
Manatee, West Indian (=Florida) E,CH
4
D
Y
R(2)
1
SC
Mouse, Alabamabeach E,CH
4
1
Y
F
2
3C
Mouse, Anastasia Island beach E
4
S
Y
F
1
Mouse, Choctawahatchee beach E,CH
4
U
Y
F
1
3C
Mouse, Key Largo cotton E
4
S
Y
D
3C
Mouse, Pacific pocket E
1
U
N
U
1
3C
Mouse, Perdido Key beach E,CH
4
D
Y
F
2
3C
Mouse, salt marsh harvest E
1
D
Y
RD
1
Mouse, southeastern beach T
4
D
Y
F
1
9C
5
ocelot E
2
D
Y
F
Otter, southern sea T
1
I
Y
RD
1
9C
6C
Panther, Florida E
4
S
Y
R(1)
14
Prairie dog, Utah T
6
S
Y
F
2
1
3
Pronghom. Sonoran E
2
U
Y
F
F
1
6C
Rabbit, Lower Keys marsh E
4
D
Y
Rat, Fresno kangaroo E,CH
I
D
N
U
I
2
2C
Rat, giant kangaroo E
I
D
N
U
6C
Rat, Mono Bay kangaroo E,CH
1
D
Y
Rat, rice (=silver rice) E,CH
4
U
Y
U
1
9C
2C
Rat, Stephens’ kangaroo E
1
S
N
U
Rat, Tipton kangaroo E
I
D
N
U
1
Shrew, Dismal Swamp southeastern T
S
I
Y
F
2
2
9
6C
Squirrel, Carolina noithern flying E
4
S Y
41
-------
Species Status Summary APPENDIX
qutrrel. Delm na Perun uLi tox
‘ quure) Mount (;r.thain red
Il%iirTel . ir ini.i ni rthern flying
\4 le AmJrgo.J
‘ ck Hualap.n le ucan
Vn)e. Honda silt rnirsh
Wolf. gri% (tV 0 popuLations hsted)
Wolf. Mexican gray
Wolf. > orthern Rock Mountain gray
Wolf. red
Woodrat. Key Largo
Gnatcatcher, coastal California
E
E.CH
E
E.CH
F
F
• .. E .T.CH
F
• .. F
F
F
T
Listed Species Listed
I. d
Pop;-
*ec.
As
Region
Status
Plan
Rec.
Ach.
1
3
4
I
3
Rec.
Prior.
9
9C
9
6
3
6
1 4C
3C
3C
SC
3C
Plan
Stage
5 1 R(2)
2 D Y F
5 1 V F
D V D
2 U V F
4 U N Exempt
3 1 Y RU)
2 I Y F
6 1 Y F
4 I Y R(2)
4 S V D
1 S V F
1 D Y F
1 U V F
1 S V F
4 S V F
2 I V RD(2)
1 F Y F
4 S V F
S V RD
S V RD
4 1 Y R(3)
2 I V R(2)
1 S Y F
D V F
1 U N U
1 1 Y F
1 D Y F
4 U N NA
7 U N U
1 D V R(1)
I D V F
3 1 V RD
2 S V F
7 0 N U
I V RD
7 1 V F
2 U V F
I S V F
I S V F
Birds
Akepa. Ha aii honeycreeper) . £
Akepa, Maui (honeycreeper) F
Akialoa. Kauai (honeycreeper) . E
Akiapola au (honeycreeper) . •. . F
Blackbird. yellow-shouldered E.CH
Bobwhite, masked(quail) . ... F
Broadbill, Guam E
Caracara. Audubon ’s crested T
Condor. California . . E,CH
Coot. Hawaiian (=alae-keokeo) £
Crane,Mississippi sandhill . . ECH
Crane, whooping E,CH
Creeper, Hawaii . .. F
Creeper. Molokat (=Kakawahie) F
Creeper. Oahu (honeycreeper) •.. . £
Crow. Hawaiian (=alala) ... £
Crow, Manana £
Crow. white-necked . F
Curlew. Eskimo . . . .. . £
Duck, Hawaiian (=koloa) . . F
Duck. Laysan £
Eagle. bald (two separate listings) E.T
Eagle. bald(souihwest) F
Eider. spectacled ... T
Falcon. American peregrine (western) . E
Falcon. Arctic peregnne .. T
Falcon. northern aplomado E
Finch. Lavsan (honeycreeper) E
Finch. N.hoa(honeycreeper E
2 9
1 6
1 5
2 2
I 2C
2 6
1 5
1 12
2 4C
3 15
6C
2 2C
2 8
1 5
1 5
1 2
1 2
1 17
1 5
3 2
3 8
4 14C
3 6C
1 5
3 9
4 9
1 3
3 8
3 8
I D N U I 3C
42
-------
APPENDIX Species Status Summary
Birds
B Plan
Plan Stage
Y R(2) 3 9
Y F 2 2
Y F 4 14
N U 1 6
N U 1 3
Y F 2 7
Y F 1 3C
Y F 1 3
Y R(4) I 3C
NA NA 1 5
N U 1 8
Y F 3 9
NA NA 4 14
Y R(1) 3 9
Y F 1 9
N U 1 3
Y F 2 5C
Y F 1 5
Y F 1 4
Y F 1 4
N U 1 9C
Y D 1 9C
Y R(1) 3 1
Y R(1) 1 2
Y F I I
Y F 4 9
Y F 2 3
Y F 1 3C
Y RD 1 5C
Y RD(1) 3 2C
N U 1 3C
Y F 1 4
Y R(1) 1 3
Y RD 1 3C
Y F 1 2
Y D 1 2
Y F 3 6
Y F 2 8
Y F 1 9
Y F 2 12C
Y F 1 9
Y F 2 9
1 9
Listed Speacs
As
...T
Re Re
Adi. Prior.
lad
i j J ’
Pdp
Ri glon__Status
Goose, Aleutian Canada
7
1-
Goose, Hawaiian (=nene) E
1
D
Hawk, Hawaiian (=10) £
1
S
Hawk, Puerto Rican broad-winged E
4
D
Hawk, Puerto Rican sharp-shinned E
4
D
Honeycreeper. crested (=akohekohe) E
I
S
Jay, Florida scrub T
4
D
Kingfisher, Guam Micronesian E
1
S
Kite, Evergiade snail E,CH
4
S
t a i l ard,Mari ana E
1
E
Megapode, Micronesian (=LaPerouse’s) £
I
U
Mi llerbird,Nihoa(Oldworldwarbler) E
1
S
Monarch, Tinian (Old Worldflycaccher) T
I
S
Moorhen (=gallinule), Hawaiian common E
1
S
Moorhen (=gallinule), Mariana common E
1
S
Murrelet, mazbled T
1
D
Nightjar (=whip-poor-will), Puerto Rico E
4
S
Nukupu’u (honeycreeper) E
1
D
Oo, Kauaa (=‘o’o a’aXhoneyeater) E
1
D
Ou (honeycreeper) E
1
D
Owl, Mexican spotted T
2
U
Owl, northern spotted T,CH
I
D
Pahia (honeycreeper) E,CH
1
S
Parrot, Puerto Rican .. . E
4
S
Panotbili, Maui (honeycreeper) E
I
S
Pelican, brown E
1
1
Petrel, Hawaiian dark-rumped E
1
S
Pigeon, Puerto Rican plain £
4
S
Plover, piping (3 populations) E,T
3
D
Plover, piping (Atlantic coast) T
5
1
Plover, Western snowy (Pacific coast) T
I
S
Po’ouli (honeycreeper) E
I
D
Prairie-chicken, Attwate?s greater £
2
D
Rail, California clapper E
1
D
Rail,Guam E
1
S
Rail, light-footedclapper E
1
S
Rail, Yuma clapper E
2
S
Shearwater, Newell’s Townsend’s (=Manx,=ao) T
1
S
Shrike, San Clemente loggerhead E
1
D
Sparrow, Cape Sable seaside E,CH
4
S
Sparrow, Florida grasshopper E
4
D
Sparrow, San Clemente sage T
1
D
Stilt, Hawaiian (=ae’o)
1
S Y R( 1)
43
-------
4 1 Y
1 S Y
1 I Y
3 I Y
5 S Y
1 D V
1 D V
1 S
1 S N
2 D V
1 Y
4 U NA
2 D Y
3 1 Y
1 S N
1 E Y
4 E NA
4 D V
F
F
RD
F
F
F
F
F
U
F
U
Exempt
F
R(1)
U
F
Exempt
R(1)
3 6C
1 9
2 3C
I 3C
1 3
1 5
1 6
1 5
1 9C
1 2C
2 3C
1 5
1 2C
3 2C
1 9
1 6
1 18
1 BC
Listed Species Usi d
‘ d
Pop -
aec.
Plan
Rec.
Rec.
As
Region
Status
Plan
Stage
Adi.
Prior.
. ..
Stork, wood
cwiftlet. Mananagr y(=Vanikor0) . E
Ti rn. California k ’ t ... E
Tern, least . E
Tern. roseate E.T
Thrush. large K.iu.u E
Thrush. Molokai (=oloma’o) . . E
Thrush. small Kauai .... ... .. E
Towhee. lnyoCalifomia(=brown) . . . .. T,CH
Vireo, black-capped E
Vireo, least Bell’s E,CH
Warbler(wood), Bachman’s E
Warbler(wocd), golden-cheeked E
Warbler (wood), Kirtland’s E
Warbler (Old World), nightingale reed E
White-eye, bridled E
Woodpecker, ivory-billed E
Woodpecker, red-cockaded E
Reptiles
Alligator, American
Anole. Culebra Island giant
Boa. Muna
Boa, Puerto Rican
T
E,a1
T,CH
E
Boa, Virgin Islands tree
Crocodile. American
Crocodile, saltwater (=estuanrie) ... .
Gecko, Moruto
Iguana. Mona ground. .. .
Lizard, blunt-nosed leopard.. . .
Lizard. Coachella Valley fringe-toed
Lizard, Island night . .. ..
Lizard, St Croix ground
Rattlesnake, New Mexican ridge-nosed
Slunk, bluetail (=blue-tailed) mole
Slunk, sand
Snake. Atlantic salt marsh .
Snake, Concho water .
Snake. easiern indigo..
Snake, giant garter
Snake. San Francisco garter
Tortoise, desert
Tortoise, gopher
4
4
4
4
4
4
I
4
4
1
1
1
4
2
4
4
4
2
4
1
1
1
4
E,cH
E,cH
T,CH
T,CH
E,cH
T,CH
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
T,CH
T
U Y F
U Y F
S Y F
U Y F
S Y R(1)
U V D
U V F
S V F
D Y RD
D Y F
I Y F
U V F
Y F
D Y F
D Y F
D Y F
S Y F
D Y F
U N U
D Y F
D V F
D Y F
Recovered
1
1
1
1
2
I
I
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
5
3
14
3C
2C
2C
5
3
2C
2C
8
2C
3
9
7
12
9C
I 2C
2C
3C
BC
9
44
-------
APPENDIX Species Status Snn 1n2i ’y
• T,CH
Cu r-u i .E
Y F
V F
Y R(1)
V RD(1
Y R(1)
Y R(1)
V R(1)
V R(2)
Y• F
Y F
1 5
1 14
1 1C
I IC
1 2C
1 7
1 7C
2 9
2 14
1 14
1 5C
3 8
1 8
1 7
1 2C
1 3
1 8
1 5
1 5C
1 2C
1 3
1 1 Y R(2) 2 2C
-----C-
Listed Species Listed
As
Rec. Plan Rec. Rec.
Plan Stage Acl Prior.
- . •
Lead
Region
4
2
2
2
2
2
5
4
4
Pop.
Status
U
S
U
I
U
U
I
S
S
Turtle. Alabama red-bellied E
Turtle. flattened musk . . T
Tunic, green sea (2 populatiOns) . E.T
Turtle. h.ii’ ksbill sea (=carey) E,CH
Turtle. Kemp’s (=Atlanuc) ridley sea E
Turtle, leatherback sea E,CH
Turtle, loggerhead sea T
Turtle, Plymouth redbelly (=red-beilied) E,CH
Turtle, ringed map (=sawback) T
Turtle, yellow-blotched map (=sawback) T
Amphibians
Coqui, golden T.CH
Salamander, Cheat Mountain T
Salamander, desert slender E
Salamander, Red Hills T
Salamander, San Marcos
Salamander. Santa Cruz long-toed
Salamander, Shenandoah .. . . . . . .. E
Salamander, Texas blind .... . . . . . E
Toad, Houston E,CH
Toad, Puerto Rican crested T
Toad, Wyoming
Fishes
Catfish, Yaqui T,CH
Cavefish, Alabama E,CH
Cavefish, Ozark T
Chub, bonytail E,CH
Chub, Borax Lake E,CH
Chub, Chihuahua T
Chub, humpback E,CH
Chub, Hutton tui T
Chub, Mohave tui E
Chub, Oregon E
Chub, Owens tut E,CH
Chub, Pahranagat roundtail (=bonytail) E
Chub, slender T,CH
Chub, Sonora T,CH
Chub, spothn (=turquoise shiner) T,CH
Chub, Virgin River E
Chub, Yaqul E,CH
4 D V F
5 1 Y F
1 U Y F
4 S Y F
2 U Y RD(1)
1 S Y R(I)
5 D V F
2 U Y D
2 U V RD(1)
4 U V F
6 D V F
2 D Y D
4 S Y R(2)
4 I Y R(1)
6 D Y R(1)
1 S V F
2 D V F
6 S V R(2)
U N U
I D V F
1 U N U
I S V RD
I S Y RD
4 D V F
2 S Y F
4 U V F
6 D Y D
2 S Y D
1 8
1 1
2 8
I SC
2 5
1 2
1 2C
2 9
1 6C
1 2
1 6C
1 3
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 3C
1 8
45
-------
Fishes
Speaes Status Summar’,r APPENDIX
-Listed Spedes Llstd
‘ tl
Pop.
Rec.
Plan
Rec.
Rec.
As
Region
Status
Plan
Stage
Adi.
Prior.
. . E.CH
Dice. A h Meadows speckled
3
S
Y
F
2
9
Dice hlack ade . T
4
S
Y
F
1
11
I)ace (:k)’er\.llle %peLkkd E
I
U
N
U
1
9C
I).i e dL’en T.CH
I
S
N
U
1
7C
lJ.i .’ F”4 eu p xkIed . T
1
C
N
U
2
9
l).i e lndepend nce Valley sp ckkd . E
1
1’
N
U
1
6C
Dice KendalI’ armSpnngs . . . . E
6
S
Y
F
3
12
Dice Moapa ... .. . E
I
S
‘V
RD
2
1
Darter, amber ... ECH
4
S
Y
F
1
5
Darter, bayou .. .. T
4
S
‘V
R(1)
1
8C
Darter. bluemask (= ewel) E
4
S
N
U
1
5
Darter. bou lder(=Elk River) E
4
S
Y
F
1
5
Darter. duskvtail E
4
D
Y
F
1
5
Darter, founLain ECH
2
U
‘V
RD(1)
1
2C
Darter. goldline .. T
4
D
N
D
1
8
Darter, leopard ... T,CH
2
S
V
RD(1)
2
1IC
Darter. Maryland ... E,CH
5
E
Y
R(1)
1
5
Darter. Niangua T.CH
3
U
V
F
1
8
Darter. Okaloosa E
4
D
V
F
1
11
Darter, relict . . E
4
S
N
D
1
5
Darter. slackwater . . T,CH
4
U
V
F
1
8
Darter, snail . .. 1
4
U
V
R(1)
1
11
Darter, watercress . . .. T
4
S
V
R(2)
1
2
Gambusia Big Bend . E
2
S
V
F
2
2
Gambusia ClearCreek . . E
2
S
Y
F
2
2
Gambusia. Pecos E
2
S
Y
F
2
2
Gambusia,SanMarcos ECH
2
F
Y
F
1
2C
Goby. tidewater .. F
I
D
N
U
I
7C
Logperch.Conasauga E,CH
4
S
Y
F
1
5
Logperch. Roanoke E
5
S
Y
F
1
5C
Madtom, Neosho T
6
D
Y
F
1
I1C
Madrom, pygmy F
4
U
Y
F
1
5
Madtom, Scioto . .. F
3
U
NA
Exempt
1
5
1adtom smoky . E . H
4
S
V
F
1
5
Madrom, yellowfin ... . ... T,CH
4
U
Y
F
1
11
Minnow, bach ... . T,CH
2
S
Y
F
1
4C
Minnow. RioGrande Silvery . E
2
U
N
U
I
2C
Poolfish=kilhfish). Pahiump F
1
S
Y
F
4
8
Pupf lsh.AshMeadowsAmargosa . .. E.CH
1
S
Y
F
2
9
Pupfash.ComancheSpnngs . ... . E
2
D
Y
F
1
2
Puptish. desert .. . E,CH
2
S
Y
F
1
5
Pupfush. Devil’s Hole . E
1
S
V
R(1)
2
8
Pupfish. Leon Spnngs . .. . E,CH
2
S
V
F
2
2
46
-------
APPENDIX Species Status Sumiflaly
Snails
Snails
Ambersnail,Kanab. E
Limpet. Banbury Spnngs . E
Riversnail. Anthony’s E
Shagreen. Magazine Mountain T
6 b
1 S
4 S
4 S
N U 1 6C
Y D 1 8
N U 1 5
Y F 1 8
Listed Species istd Ii f
‘Pop
Rec. Plan Rec. Rec.
As Region
Status
Plan
E
A
Puplish. . ..
Pupfish. Warm Springs E
.
i’ —
S
Y
RD
1
1
S
Y
R(1)
2
9
Sculpin pygmy T
4
S
Y
F
1
8
Shmcr. bc.iuutul T,Cl1
2
D
Y
D
1
2
Shiner. hlue . . 1
4
D
Y
D
1
8
Shiner, Cahaba .. . E
4
D
Y
F
1
2
Shiner, Cape Fear . . . E,CH
4
S
Y
F
1
5
Shiner, Palezone . ... . . . ... . E
4
S
N
U
1
5
Shiner, Pecos bluntnose T,CH
2
U
Y
F
1
3
Sdverside, Waccamaw T,CH
4
S
Y
F
1
8
Smelt, delta .. T
1
D
N
U
1
2C
Spikedace T,CH
2
S
Y
F
1
4C
pinedace.BigSpnng T,CH
1
U
Y
F
1
12
Spinedace, Little Colorado T,CH
2
D
Y
D
1
2
Spinedace, White River .... E,CH
1
D
Y
F
1
2C
Spnngfish, Hako White River E,CH
1
S
N
U
1
3C
Springfish, Railroad Valley T,CH
1
S
N
D
1
2C
Springfish, White River E,CH
1
S
N
U
1
3C
Squawfish,Coloiado. ... . . E, H
6
S
Y
R(1)
1
2C
Suckleback,unarmoredthreesplne .. .. . E
1
S
Y
R(1)
1
3
Sturgeon. Gulf . . T
4
U
Y
D
1
12
Sturgeon. pallid . . . . E
6
D
Y
F
1
2C
Sucker,June . . E,CH
6
D
N
U
1
5C
Sucker, Lost River .. . . £
1
D
Y
F
1
1C
Sucker, Modoc E,Q1
1
D
NA
NA
1
5
Sucker, razorback E,CH
6
D
N
U
1
5C
Sucker, shortnose E
1
D
Y
F
1
2C
Sucker, Warner E,Q4
1
D
Y
D
1
2C
Topmrnnow, Gila E
2
D
Y
F
2
2
Topzninnow, Yaqul E
2
D
Y
RD(1)
2
2
Trout, Apache (=Arizona) T
2
S
Y
RD(2)
2
8
Trout, Gila E
2
S
Y
R(2)
2
2
Trout, greenback cutthroat .... T
6
1
Y
RD(2)
3
15
Trout, Lahontan cutthroat T
1
D
Y
D
1
9
Trout, Little Kern golden T,CH
1
S
NA
NA
2
9
Trout, Paiute cutthroat T
1
D
Y
F
1
9
Woundfin E
6
D
Y
RD(2)
1
1C
47
-------
Qan&s
Spedes S tua Snmm ry APPENDIX
aams
Acomshell, southern . E
Clubsheli . E
Clubshell, black (=Cumis’ mussel) E
Clubshetl, ovate E
ClubsheU, southern E
Combshell, southern (=penatent mussel) £
Combshell, upland £
Fanshell £
Fatmucket, Arkansas T
Heelsplitter, Carolina £
Heelsplitter, inflated T
Kidneyshell, triangular E
Moccasinsheli, Alabama T
Moccasinshell, Coosa E
Mucket, orange-nacre T
Mussel, dwarf wedge E
Mussel, ring pink (=golf stick pearly) £
Mussel, winged mapleleaf £
Pearlshell, Louisiana T
Pearly mussel, Alabama Lamp E
Pearly mussel, Appalachian monkeyface E
Pearly mussel, birdwing £
Pearly mussel, cracking E
Pearly mussel, Cumberiand bean E
Pearly mussel, Cumberland monkeyface E
Pearly mussel, Cuths’ E
4 D
5 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 U
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
5 D
4 D
3 U
4 U
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
4 D
3 D
N D 1 5
Y F 1 11
Y F I SC
N D 1 5
N D 1 5
Y F 1 2C
N D 1 5
Y F 1 5
Y F 1 8
N D 1 5
Y F 1 8C
N D 1 5
N D 1 8
N D 1 5
N D 1 8
Y F 1 5
Y F 1 5
Y D 1 2C
Y F 2 8
Y F 1 5
Y F 1 5
Y F 1 4C
Y F 1 4
Y F 1 SC
y F 1 SC
Y F 1 6
listed Speaes Ii rd
As
‘
Region
Pop.
S tus
Rec.
Plan
Plan
Sb4e
Eec.
Adi.
Rec.
Prior.
SnaiLBlissRapids T
1
D
Y
D
1
8
Snail, Ch inenangoovateamber T
5
D
Y
RD(1)
1
5
Snail. flat-cpired three-toothed (land) . .. . . T
S
S
Y
F
2
5
Snail. Iowa Pleistocene E
3
U
Y
F
2
14
Snail noonday T
4
S
Y
F
1
9
Snail, painted snake coiled forest T
4
U
Y
F
1
8
Snail, royal(=obese) £
4
S
Y
D
1
5
Snail, Snake River physa E
1
D
Y
D
1
5
Snail, Stock Islandiree T
4
D
Y
F
1
3
Snail, tulotoma (=Alabama live-bearing) E
4
S
N
D
1
5
Snail, Utahvalvata E
1
S
Y
D
1
5
Snail, Virginia fringed mountain E
5
S
Y
F
1
4
Snails, Oahu tree E
I
D
Y
F
1
2
Springsna il,Alamosa E
2
1
Y
F
1
14
Springsnail, Idaho E
1
D
Y
D
1
S
Spnngsnail, Socorro E
2
S
Y
F
1
14
48
-------
APPENDIX Species Status Summary
Crustaceans
Crustaceans
Amphipod, Hay’s Spring .
Crayfish, cave (=Cambarus aculabrumXNCN)
Crayfish, cave (NCN)
Crayfish, Nashville
Crayfish, Shasta (=placid)
Isopod, Lee County Cave
Isopod, Madison Cave
Isopod. Socorro .. .
Shrimp, Alabama cave
Shrimp. California freshwater
Shrimp, Conservancy fairy
5 S NA Exempt
4 U N U
4 S Y F
E 4 U Y R(1)
E I U N U
5 S N NA
T 5 .S N NA
2 S Y F
4 D N U
E 1 U N U
1 U N U
3 5
1 5
1 5
I I1C
1 5
1 8
2 4
4 2
1 5
1 8C
1 8
Listed Species Listed
Plan
Rec.
Status
Plan
Stage
Ach.
L d
Region
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
Rec.
Prior.
Pearlymussel.dromedary
E
D
Y
F
1
4C
Pearly mussel. green-blossom
E
D
Y
F
1
6
Pearls’ mussd Higgins’ eye
E
U
Y
F
2
2C
Pearlymussel.hUle-Wing . .
E
D
Y
F
1
4
Pearly mussel, orange-footed (=pimple back). .
E
D
Y
F
1
5
Pearlymussel.palelilliput ... .
E
D
Y
F
1
5
Pearly mussel. pink mucket .
E
D
Y
,
F
1
5
Pearly mussel. purple cat’s paw .. . .
E
D
Y
F
1
6
pearlymusseLtubercied-blossom . . .
E
E
Y
F
1
6
Pearls’ mussel, turkid-blossom
E
E
Y
F
1
5
Pearly mussel, white cat’s paw .
E
.
Y
F
1
6C
Pearly mussel, whitewartyback
E
D
Y
F
1
5
Pearly mussel, yellow-blossom
E
E
Y
F
1
6
Pigtoe, flat (=Marshall’s mussel)
E
D
Y
F
1
5
Pigtoe. heavy (=Judge Tail’s mussel) .
. E
D
Y
F
I
SC
Pigtoe, Cumberland .
D
Y
F
1
5
Pigtoe, dark .. .
4
D
N
D
1
5
Pigtoe, fine-rayed .
4
D
Y
F
1
5
Pigtoe, rough .
. E
4
D
Y
F
1
5
Pigtoe, shiny . .. .
4
D
Y
F
1
5
Pigtoe, southern
E
4
D
N
D
1
5
Pocketbook, fat .
. E
4
1
Y
R(1)
2
2C
Pocketbook, fine-lined . .
T
4
D
N
D
1
8
Pocketbook, speckled . . .
E
4
U
Y
F
1
5
Riffleshell, northern .
E
5
D
Y
F
1
12
Riffleshell, un . . .. ..
E
4
D
Y
F
1
5
Rock-pocketbook, Ouachita
(=Wheeler’s pearly mussel) .
E
2
D
Y
D
1
4C
Spinymussel,JamesRiver(=VirgirUa) .. .
E
5
D
Y
F
1
5
Spinymussel, Tar River . . ...
. E
4
D
Y
R(1)
1
5
Sumipshell
E
4
D
Y
F
1
5
49
-------
Clams
Species Status Summary APPENDIX
•‘l,iiii . i ur l I ilullUli.?%
I1eik delta green ground
1k etle I Itingertord . crawling water
Becik norihe.i tcrn beach tiger
Beetle Puritan tiger
l1ei. tk. Tnnth Cave ground
Ikeik .tlley elderberry longhorn
Butterfly, bay checkerspot
Butterfly. El Segundo blue
Butterfly. Karner blue
liuiterth. Lange’s metalmark
I3uitedlv lc)tIs blue
lutiei fly. iflis%lOfl blue
Butterfly. \litchell s . i lvr
Btitt it1v. Myrtle c ulverspot
BLitleith Oregon sal%erspol
l1uutert1 PJln% Verde blue
lkitierflv S., mt I ’ r.incms satyr
l3uttert1 ‘san l3ntno elfin
l5uut ’rt1v i. han ’. ‘ .wallowiaal
lkmttLrth Smith’s blue
Buttert1 . I ncompahgre inullary
liv I )i.’llu ‘ .mnd’. flower—loving
Ioth. k’:rtt pr,mro ’ .e cphmnx
\mii )rud : ‘ .h \le.mduwc
‘ kupper. nec montanc
T
E
E
• . .. T,CH
• ...E
T
E
T,CH
E
E
E
E
E
T.CH
E,CH
E
E
E
E
E
T
T.CH
T
D NA Exempt
D
1 D U U
5 S Y F
2 U V F
1 U Y F
3 S N U
S S Y F
5 S Y F
2 U Y F
1 U V F
1 D N U
1 I Y F
3 D N U
1 S Y R(1)
1 U V F
1 S V F
3 U S U
1 U N U
1 D Y RD
1 S V F
4 D N U
1 S Y F
4 D Y F
1 D V F
6 S V F
U N U
1 U Y F
1 D V F
6 S N U
1 SC
1 2C
1 8
1 5
1 6
1 5
1 2C
9
1 3C
2 12
1 5
1 9
1 3
2 9
1 3
1 9
2 3C
1 6
1 3
2 9
1 3C
1 9
1 SC
1 6C
1 2
1 2
1 9C
Arachnids
I l.mr e’.im.in, l I ce Creek Cave
I Lir e ’ .tman, Hone I =IIee Creek) Cave
‘..t orpuon. ‘It x ih ( .u e
pider. I t )th c:.i •
E
E
E
£
2 U V F 1 2C
2 U V F 1 2C
2 U Y F 1 2C
2 U V F 1 2C
Listed Species Lided
“hi mn p Kcntiu i Ca’ c
‘. 111 mnip I • ‘u li ‘rn t.m,r ’
“hi :ii ’ Ui ,., ‘mtI ’ t.mur
As
Rec.
Plan
Region
4
E.CH
E
Pop.
Status
U
U
U
Rec.
Rec.
Ach.
Prior.
Plan
Stage
V F
U
N 1 ’
I .i e ‘l l •uu I.m .i cP
‘iltimmup t’rn.ilpiiolt.iirs
‘iI rinip Vcrui.ml 1 tadpole
Insects
1k . ‘ik rnen .in burying ( =guant canon)
Ikeik (A,ttin i =Kre lchmar’s) Cave mold
1 5
1 8
1 ( C
1 SC
1 2C
1 2C
50
-------
Ae. . . . . E
Abuulon eremitopetalum (NCN) .. .. E
Abuulonsandwacense(NCN) . . . E
Adiantum vivesu (NCN) E
Agave, Arizonica E
‘Aiakeakua, popolo. .. . . E
Aiea(Nothocestrumbreviflorum) .. . . E
Alea (Nothocesuum peltatum) E
Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroades var kaenana). .. E
Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) . . ... E
Akoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) . .. . . . E
Alani (Melicope haupuensis). . . ... E
Alani (Mehcope knudsenu) E
Alani (Melicope lydgatei) . . . E
Alani (Mehcope mucronulaca) E
Alani(Melicopepallida) E
Alani(Mehcopequadrangularis) .. E
Alani (Melicope reflexa) E
Alsinidendronobovatum(NCN) .. E
Alsinidendrontrinerve(NCN) E
Alulu(=Bnghamia, Rocks) E
Amaranth, seabeach T
Ambrosia, south Texas E
Amphianthus, little . T
A nsuda chaseae . . . E
Arrowhead, bunched . . E
Aster, decurrent false.. T
Aster, Florida golden E
Aster, Ruth’s golden £
Auerodendronpauciflorum(NCN) £
Aupaka (Isodendnon hosakae) E
Avens, spreading E
Awikiwiki E
Awiwi(Centauriumsebaeoides) E
Awiwi(Hedyotiscookiana) E
Ayenia, Texas E
Barberry, Tnickee E
Banaco(=guayabacon) E
Beaked-rush, Knieskern’s T
Bear-poppy, dwaif £
Beardtongue, Penland E
Beargrass, Bnnon’s E
1 U N U 1 2
1 U Y D I 2
I S N U 1 8
4 D Y D 1 5
2 U N U 1 5
1 U N U 1 5
1 U N U I 5
1 U N U 1 5
1 S N U 1 9
1 U N U 1 2
1 U N U 1 2
1 U Y D 1 5
1 U Y D 1 5
1 U N U 1 5
1 U N U 1 5
U Y D 1 2
1 U Y D 1 5
1 U N U 1 8
1 D Y D 1 2
I I Y D 1 2
1 U N U 1 2
4 D N U 1 8C
2 U N U 1 8
4 S Y F 1 13
4 D Y D 1 SC
4 D Y F 1 2C
3 1 Y F 1 SC
4 1 Y F 1 5
4 D Y F 1 SC
4 D N U 1 5
1 U Y F 1 5
4 D Y F 1 2
1 U N U 1 2
1 U Y D 1 9
1 D Y D 1 2
2 U N U 1 5
1 S Y F 4 2C
4 $ Y F 1 11
5 1 Y F 3 14
6 D Y F 1 5C
6 S Y F 2 14
4 D N U 1 8
AP!EN1)IX Species Status Swnmazy
Listed Species
Listed -
As . Region
P p.
Status
Rec . .
Plan
Plan
Stage
Rec.
Adi.
Rec.
Prior.
..
Plants
- -
.
Plants
51
-------
Plants
Species Status Summary APPENDIX
Listed Species Listed
Les.d
Pop.
Rec.
Plan
Rec.
Rec.
As
Region
Status
Plan
Stage
Adi.
Prior.
Beaurv Harper s E
4
I
V
F
1
7
l3elItk,wer. Brookc lk(=Robin s) E
4
U
V
F
1
8
liidem ti.inc.lte E
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rirch.Vurginuround-kal E
5
I
Y
R(2)
3
8
Bird c-beak palmaie bracied E
1
1
N
U
1
2C
Bird’s-beak, salt marsh E
1
S
V
F
1
6
Birds-in -a-ne i white . T
4
U
V
F
1
8
1 iuercre s. small-anthered . - - E
4
D
V
F
1
5
BLidderpod. Dudley Bluffs . . T
6
S
V
F
1
14
Bladderpod. kodachrome E
6
S
N
Ii
1
14
L3ladderpod, lyrate . . . . T
4
S
N
U
1
8
Bl dderpod. Missoun . . E
3
1
Y
F
3
8
BLidderpod, San Bernardino Mountains . . .. . E
I
S
N
U
1
9
Bladderpod. white . . E
2
D
Y
F
1
8
Blazing-star, Ash Meadows. . . T.CH
1
U
Y
F
2
8
Blazing-suit. Heller ’s . .. T
4
I
Y
F
2
8
Blazing-star. scrub ..
4
D
V
F
2
2
Blue-star. Kearneys
2
U
V
F
1
2
Bluegrass. Hawaiian ... . . . E
I
U
Y
D
1
2
Bluet. Roan Mountain . E
4
D
Y
D
1
6
Bonamia, Flonda
4
1
Y
F
3
8
Boxwood, Vahi s .. .
4
D
Y
F
1
5
Broom. San Clemente Island . E
I
I
Y
F
4
9
Buckwheat clay-loving wild. . . .. . E.CH
6
U
Y
F
1
5
Buckwheat. Cushenbury . E
1
S
N
U
1
9
Buckwheat, gypsum wild. .. . ..T,CH
2
U
Y
F
1
8
Buckwheat, scrub . . . T
4
D
N
U
1
15
Buckwheat, steamboat E
I
D
N
U
1
3
Bulrush, northeastern(=barbedbrisde) E
5
1
Y
F
3
2C
Bush-clover. praine T
3
1
Y
F
2
8
Bush-mallow, San Clemente island E
1
1
Y
F
3
8
Buttercup, autumn E
6
D
Y
F
1
6
Bunerwon, Godfrey’s T
4
S
Y
D
1
14
Button, Mohr’s Barbara E
4
1
Y
F
1
14
Button-celery, San Diego E
1
U
N
U
1
3C
Cactus. Arizona hedgehog E
2
U
Y
D
1
3
Cactus, Bakersfield E
I
D
N
U
1
2
Cactus, black lace . E
2
D
V
F
1
3
Cactus, Brady pincushion . E
2
U
Y
F
1
2
Lactus. bunched cory .. . . .. T
2
D
V
F
1
8
Cactus. Chis s Mountain hedgehog . T
2
D
V
F
1
9
Cicms Lochise pincushion T
2
U
Y
F
1
8
Cactus Davis’ green pitaya . E
2
D
Y
F
1
3
52
-------
Planis
APPENDIX Species Status Summary
-
Listed Species
Listed
As
Lcid Pop.
Region Status
Sec.
Plan
Plan
Stage
Sec.
Ad*.
Sec.
Prior.
Cactus, Key tree . E 4 S Y F 3 5C
Cactus, Knowlton . E 2 S Y F 2 2
Cactus. Kuenzler hedgehog E 2 S Y F 1 3
Cactus, Lee pincushion T 2 S Y F 2 3
Cactus, Lloyd’s hedgehog E 2 U NA Exempt 1 8
Cactus, Uoyd’s Manposa T 2 D ‘. Y F 1 2
Cactus, Mesa Verde T 2 S Y F 1 8C
Cactus, Nellie coiy E 2 D Y F 1 2
Cactus, Nichol’s Turk’s head E 2 U Y F 1 3
Cactus, Peebles Navajo E 2 U Y F 1 3
Cactus, Pima pineapple E 2 U N U 1 3
Cactus, SanRafael E 6 D N U 1 SC
Cactus, Siler pincushion T 2 U Y F 2 8
Cactus, Sneed pincushion E 2 D Y F 2 9
Cactus, star E 2 U N U 1 2
Cactus, Tobusch fishhook E 2 D Y F 1 2
Cactus, Uinta Basin hookiess T 6 S Y F 3 8
Cactus, Wnght fishhook E 6 S Y F 3 8
Calyptranthes thomasiana (NCN) E 4 D N U 1 11
Campion, fnnged E 4 D N U 1 8
Capa, Rosa (=pendula cunarrona) E 4 D Y D 1 11
Cat’s-eye. Terlangua Creek E 2 U Y F 1 SC
Catchfly, Perlrnan’s E 1 U Y D 1 2
Cenlauly, spring-loving T,CH 1 S Y F 2 8
Chaff-flower, round-leaved E 1 D Y D 1 3
Chaffseed, American E 5 S N D 1 7
Chamaecrista glandulosa var. mirabilis CNCN) E 4 D Y F 1 2
Chamaesyce halemanui (NCN) E 1 U Y D 1 2
Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. kalaeloana (NCN) E 1 $ Y D 1 9
Checker-maUow, Nelson’s T 1 D N U 1 8C
Checker-mallow. pedate E 1 D N U I SC
Chumbo, higo T 4 S NA NA 1 14
Cinquefoil, Robbins’ E ,04 5 S Y F 4 2
Cladonia, Florida perforate E 4 $ N U 1 2
cliff-rose, Anzona E 2 U D 1 2
Clover, running buffalo E 3 Y F 2 2
Cobana,Negra T 4 S N U 1 5
Coneflower, smooth E 4 D Y D 1 5
Coneflower, Tennessee purple E 4 S Y R(1) 2 8
Coyote-thistle, Loch Lomond E 1 S NA NA 4 14
Cranichis ricarth (NCN) E 4 D NA NA 1 5
Cress, toad-flax (=shsubby reed-mustard) E 6 D Y F 1 1OC
53
-------
Plants
Spedes S tvs Summary APPENDIX
Listed Speaes Listed
As
t 4
Region
Pop.
Stetus
Eec.
Plan
Plan
Stege
Rec.
Ada.
Rec.
Prior.
Cvcladerua.Jones . ... . T
6
S
N
U
1
9
C press. Sani Cruz E
1
S
N
U
1
2
Diasv. Ijkc’.ide T
3
S
Y
F
2
6C
I)jisv. M.iguire E
6
S
Y
D
4
6
L)aisv. Parish’s . T
1
D
N
U
1
8
Daphnopsishelkrana(NCN) . . .. E
4
D
Y
F
1
5
Dawn -flower(=bitte,weed), Texas praine . .. E
2
D
Y
F
1
8C
Dehssea rhytidosperma (NCN) .. E
1
U
Y
D
1
2
Desert-parsley(=lomauum), Bradshaw’s E
1
1
Y
F
1
8
Diablo, pelos del E
4
D
Y
F
1
5C
Diellia falcaca (NCN) £
1
U
Y
D
1
11
Dielhapalhda(NCN) £
I
U
Y
D
1
2
Diellia urusora (NCN) E
1
U
Y
D
1
8
Dogweed. ashy E
2
D
Y
F
1
5
Dropwori. Cathy’s E
4
5
Y
F
2
5
Elaphoglossum serpens (NCN) E
4
D
Y
D
1
5
Enibia . E
4
D
Y
F
1
2C
Eugerua woodburyana (NCN) E
4
D
N
U
1
5
Even i ng-primrose, Ancioch Dunes E,CH
1
S
V
R(1)
2
9
Evening-primrose, Eureka Valley.
1
I
Y
F
2
9
Evening- pnmrose, San Benico T
1
U
Y
D
1
5C
Fern, Alabama screak-sorus T
4
S
N
U
1
9
Fern, Aleutian shield £
7
S
V
F
1
8
Fern, American han’s-tongue T
4
D
Y
F
1
9
Fern,Elf in cree E
4
D
V
F
1
5
Faddleneck, large-flowered E,CH
1
D
V
D
2
5
Fleabarce. Zuni (=rhizome) T
2
S
V
F
2
8
Four-o’clock, MacFarlane’s E
1
1
Y
F
2
2
Frankerua,Johnscon’s E
2
1
V
F
1
5
Fringe-tree, pygmy E
4
1
Y
F
2
2
Gahnia lanaiensis (NCN) E
1
U
Y
D
1
5
Gardenia, Hawaiian (=na’u) E
1
S
V
11(1)
1
2
Geocarpon minimum (NCN) T
4
S
V
F
1
13
Gerardia, sandplain E
5
S
V
RD(1)
I
SC
Gtha, Monterey E
1
U
N
U
1
3C
Goeczea, beautiful (macabuey) E
4
D
V
F
1
5
Goldenrod, Blue Ridge T
4
U
Y
F
1
8
Goldenrod, Houg .hcon’s T
3
S
Y
D
1
8
Goldenrod, Short’s £
4
S
V
F
2
8
Goldenrod, white-haired T
4
S
Y
F
1
8
Goldfields, Burke’s E
1
U
N
U
1
2C
Gooseberry, Miccosukee T
4
S
NA
Exempt
1
14
Gouanja, Hillebrand’s E,QI
1
S
Y
F
1
8
54
-------
APPENDIX Speaes Status $nmln2ry Piano
:‘ lee. Plan lee. Bee.
As legion Status Plan Stage Adi. Prior.
Gouania meyerui (NCN) . £ - -. - 1 U D 1 8
Gouania vicifolia E I U Y D 1 5
Gourd. Okeechobee E 4 S N U 1 3
Grass, California Orcuct E 1 U N U 1 5C
Grass, Eureka dune E 1 1 Y F 3 7
G tass,Solano E 1 D Y F 1 2
Grass, Tennessee yellow-eyed E 4 1 Y . F 1 8
Ground-plum, Guthrie’s E 4 U N U 1 2
Groundsel, San Francisco Peaks T,CH 2 U Y F 2 8
Gumplant, Ash Meadows T,CH 1 S Y F 2 8
Ha’iwale (Cyrtandra crenata) E 1 U N U 1 5
Haiwale(Cynandragiffardü) T 1 U N U 1 2
Haiwale(Cyrrandialimahuliensis) E I U Y D 1 14
Ha’iwale (Cyrtandra munrof) E 1 U Y D 1 5
Haiwale(Cyr tandrapo lyantha) E 1 U N U 1 5
Haiwale(Cy r tandzatintinnabula) £ 1 U N U 1 5
Haha (Cyanea asarifolia) E 1 U Y D 1 5
Haha(Cyaneacopelandlissp.copelandii) E 1 U N U 1 5
Haha (Cyanea grimesiana sap. cbatae) E 1 D N U 1 2
Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora up. r1sonii) E 1 U N U 1 5
Haha (Cyanea lobata) E 1 U N U 1 5
Haha (Cyanea macrostegia sap. gibsonil) E 1 U Y D 1 6
Haha (Cyanea mannil) £ I U . N U 1 2
Haha (Cyanea mceldowneyi) E I U N U 1 2
Haha (Cyanea pinnanfida) E I U Y D 1 5
Haha (Cyanea procera) E 1 U N U 1 5
H aha (Cyanea shiprnanli) E I D N U 1 2
Haha (Cyanea stictophylla) E 1 U N U 1 5
Haha (Cyanea supeiba) E 1 U Y D 1 5
Haha (Cyanea vuncata) E 1 D N U 1 5
Haha(Cyaneaundulata) E I U Y D 1 11
Haploscachys, narrow-leaved £ 1 U Y D 1 2
Harebells, Avon Park £ 4 S N U 1 2C
Haiperella E 5 S Y F 1 8
Hau kuahiwi, Kauai E I D y D 1 2
Heartleaf, dwarf-flowered T 4 S N U 1 14
Heather, mountain golden T,CH 4 D Y F 2 8
Heau £ 1 U Y D 1 2
Hedyocis degenen (NCN) £ 1 U N U 1 5
Hedyotis parvula (NCN) E I U Y D 1 5
Hedyotis at. -johnil (NCN) E I U Y D 1 11
Hesperomanniaazborescens(NcN) £ 1 U N U 1 5
Hesperomanniaarbuscula(NCN) E I U Y D 1 . 5
55
-------
Plants
Species Status Summary APPENDIX
I k pcr )rnann l.% lvdg ici ( \C\’i
I liI)i’q . ti . (.Li
I Iigui. rs p di. u rr.I
Ilt)II. l
IluIl (.is k
I Io ’ dli.i.
1k pericurn highL inds scrub
Ihi ihi (M r iIea villosj)
lkx cinteflisli I
IIi.iii LkVJit
Ipon opci link (hosi
Ins. dwart lake
Iriseue. vhite
lsch enwm. hilo
R esia, Ash Meadows
J cquemontia. beach
Jewelfiower. California
Joirn-vetch. sensitive
Kamakahala
K . ut1a
Kaulu
Kulu i
Ladies ’-trecses. Nava ota
Ladies -tresses. Lie
Larkspur. S.in Ckrnente Island
Laukahu ktiahu a
Lwia, Ieach =Tidy lips. beach)
Lead-plant. crenulate
Leather-flower Alabama
Leather-tiower %lorefield ’s
Lep.anihes elinroen ’ uc (NCN)
Li. plocercus granhianus(NCN)
Laliwai
Lily Minnesota dwart trout
L aI . ‘ e tern I Liliurn occidentale)
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
£
T
E
E
T,CH
E
E
£
E
E
E
E
ECH
U V D 1 11
1 U Y D I 2
4 S V F 1 5
1 U N U 1 5
4 D V F 1 5
6 U N U 1 7
4 1 Y F 3 2
1 I Y D 1 8
4 D V D 1 11
1 U V D 1 5
2 U N U 1 5
3 S N U 1 8
4 D V D 1 8
U N U 1 8
1 S Y F 2 8
4 S N U 1 2
1 S N U 1 2
5 S N D 1 2
1 U Y D 1 11
1 D N U 1 5
U Y D 1 5
1 U N U 1 2
1 U N U 1 9
1 U N U 1 2
I I V D I 2C
1 D V F 1 5
-
Listed Species
Listed
Lead
Pop.
Rec.
Plan
Rec.
Rec.
As
Region
Status
Plan
Stage
Ach.
Prior.
E
E
E
KaoeIeU-Ied otis coriacea)
lu oko okm Buderm rnicrantha ssp kalealaha)
Kooko oLiu (Bidens wuebkei)
Ko okoa ula(=Al,ululon. Menzses)
Koku o(=hju-hek tila)
Koki o ke oken (Hibiscus arnOttianus
ssp immaculatus)
Kokio. Cookes
.E
1
U
N
U
1
3
E
1
S
N
NA
1
5
.E
I
U
Y
D
1
8
E
2
D
V
F
1
2
.T
6
D
N
U
I
2C
.E
1
I
Y
F
3
8
E
1
U
N
U
1
5
.E
1
U
N
U
1
2
E
4
S
V
F
2
5C
E
4
S
Y
F
1
2
E
4
D
V
F
1
5
E
4
U
NA
NA
1
5
E
4
D
Y
D
1
SC
.
E
1
U
N
U
1
5
E
3
U
V
F
2
SC
E
D
N
U
1
2
56
-------
APPENDIX Species Status Summary Plants
Listed Species listed
As
‘ d
Reglan
Pop.
3=
icc.
Plan
Plan_Stage_A _P or.
icc.
icc.
Live-forever, Santa Barbara Island E
1
S
Y
F
1
SC
Lobelia ru ihauens*s(NCN) . E
1
U
N
U
1
11
Lobelia oahuensis (NCN) .. . . ... . E
1
U
N
U
1
5
Locoweed. Fassetis T
3
I
Y
F
1
9
Loosestrife, rough .leaved E
4
U
Y
D
1
8
Loulu (Pntchardia affinis) ... E
1
LI
N
U
1
5
Loulu (Pncchardia munroi) E
1
S
N
U
1
2
Lousewort, Furbish E
5
S
Y
R( 1)
3
14
Lupine, clover (=Lupine. Point Reyes) E
1
U
N
U
1
8
Lupine. scrub. E
4
D
Y
F
2
2C
Lyonia truncata var. proctoni (NCN) E
4
D
Y
D
I
6C
Lysimactua fihfolia (NCN) E
I
U
Y
D
1
5
Lysimachialydgatei(NCN) E
I
U
N
U
1
2
Mahoe(Alectryonmacrococcus) E
1
D
N
U
1
5
Makou T
I
U
Y
D
1
8
Mallow,Kem E
1
S
N
U
1
2
Mallow, Peters Mountain F
5
I
Y
F
3
5
Manioc, WaIker s F
2
U
Y
F
1
5
Manzanita, Presidio(=Raven’s) F
I
S
Y
F
2
12
Manscus faunea (NCN) F
1
U
N
U
1
14
Maua (Xylosma crenatum) F
1
U
Y
D
1
5
Meadowfoam, Butte County E
I
D
N
U
1
2C
Meadowfoam, Sebastopol E
I
D
N
U
1
2C
Meadowrue, Cooley s F
4
S
Y
F
2
2
Milk-vetch, Applegate’s E
1
D
N
U
1
5
Milk-vetch, Ash Meadows T,CH
1
S
Y
F
2
8
Milk-vetch, Cushenbury F
I
D
N
U
1
8
Milk-vetch, Heliotrope T,CH
6
U
N
U
1
17
Milk-ve tchjesup ’s F
5
S
Y
F
1
7C
Milk-vetch, Mancos E
2
D
Y
F
1
5C
Millc-vetch, Osterhout F
6
D
Y
F
2
2
Milk-vetch, senny F
2
D
Y
D
1
3
Milkpea, Small’s E
4
D
Y
F
1
SC
Milkweed, Mead’s T
3
D
N
U
1
8
Milkweed, Welsh’s T,CH
6
1)
Y
F
1
SC
Mint, Garrett’s (=scmb) F
4
D
Y
F
1
2C
Mint, Lakela’s F
4
S
Y
F
2
2C
Mint, longspurred F
4
D
Y
F
1
2C
Mint, San Diego mesa E
1
D
N
U
1
5
Mint, Otay Mesa E
1
U
N
U
1
2C
Mint,scnib F
4
D
Y
F
1
2
Mitrscarpus maxwellidae (NCN) F
4
D
N
U
1
5
Mitracarpuspolycladus(NCN) F
4
D
N
U
1
5
57
-------
Plants
Spede. Status Summaiy APPEM)
Listed Speaes Listed
I aI
p
As
Region
Status
Plan Ste
ge Adi. Prior.
Monkey-flower. Michigan . E 3 S y I ) 1 9C
Monkshood.northemwuld T 3 U Y RD(1) 2 8
Munroidendronracemosum(NCN) . . E I U Y D 1 2
Mustard. Caner’s . .. E 4 D Y F 1 2
Mustard. Penlandalpine len T 6 U N U 1 11C
Mustard, slender-petaled .... E 1 D N U 1 5C
Myrcia paganu (NCN) . . .. .. . . E 4 U N U 1 8
Naupaka, dwaif E 1 S N U 1 2
Naena’e (Dubauua herbstobatae) E 1 U Y D 1 2
Naena ’e(Dubauualac ifolia) E 1 U Y D 1 5
Na ’enie(Dubauuapauciflon ila) E I U Y D 1 8
Nehe(L ipochaecafaunei) E 1 U Y D 1 2
Nehe(LipochaeLakamolensis) E 1 U N U 1 2
Nehe (Lipochaeta lobata var leptophylla) . . .. E 1 U Y D 1 6
Nehe (Lapochaeta rnicrantha) F 1 U Y D 1 2
Nehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) E 1 U Y D 1 8
Nehe (Lipochaeta venosa) F 1 U Y D 1 5
Nehe (Lapcchaeta waimeaens is) E 1 U Y D 1 2
Neraudaaangulata(NCN) F 1 U Y D 1 5
io i 1 U N U 1 5
Niteiwoft, Amargosa E,01 1 S Y F 2 8
Nohoanu(GeraruumathOieUm) E 1 U N U 1 2
Nohoanu (Geranium mulufiorum) F 1 U N U 1 8
Oak. Hinckley’s 1 2 D Y F 1 8
Oha wai (Clermonua lindseyana) F 1 U N U 1 2
Oha wat (Clerinonna oblongifolia up. btevtpes) F 1 U N U 1 6
Oha wat (Clermonua oblongifolia up. maulensis) F I U N U 1 6
Oha wai (Clermonua peleana) F I U N U 1 5
Oha wat (Clermonua pyrulana) F 1 U N U 1 2
Oheohe F 1 U N U 1 5
Olulu F 1 D Y D 1 2
Opuhe F 1 U Y D 1 5
Orchid, eastern prairie fringed 1 3 U Y D 1 8
Orchid, western prairie fringed T 3 S Y D 1 8
Oxytheca,Cushenbuty E 1 S N U 1 9
Paintbrush, San Clemente Island Indian E 1 I Y F 1 8
Palma de, Manaca (=manac palm) 1 4 D Y F 2 8
Palocolorado . . F 4 $ Y D 1 11
Palo de iazmin F 4 U Y D 1 5
Palo de nigua.. F 4 D Y F 1 5
Palo de Ramon ... .. F 4 D Y F 1 5
Palo de Rosa .. . . . F 4 S Y F 1 8
Pamakani 1 U Y D 1 3
58
-------
APPENDIX Species Status Summary Pksnts
listed Species Listed lp ’4 Pop. Rec. Plan Rec. Rec.
As Region Status Plan Stage Adi. Prior.
Panicgrass, Carter’s E.CH I . S . Y D 1 9
Pawpaw,beauuful . .. E 4 D Y F 1 2
Pawpaw. four-petal E 4 S Y F 2 11
Piwp.iw. RtigcI . . E 4 D Y F 1 2
Pennyroyal. Todsen’s .. . . .. . E.CH 2 1 Y F 1 8
Penstemon,blowout . . E 6 S Y F 2 1IC
Peperomia. Wheelers .. E 4 S Y F 1 5
Phaceia, clay E 6 D Y F 1 5
Phaceka, North Park E 6 U Y F 2 5
Phlox, Texas uaahng E 2 U Y D 1 3
Phyllostegiaglabravar lanaiensis(NCN) E 1 U Y D 1 3
Phyllostegia manna (NCN) E 1 U N U 1 2
Phyllostegia molhs (NCN) E 1 U Y D 1 8
Phyllostegia waameae (NCN) E 1 U Y D 1 5
Pilo (Hedyotis mannu) E 1 U U U 1 5
Pink, swamp T 5 S Y F 1 7C
Pinkroot, genuan E 4 D N U 1 2
Pitaya, Davis’ green E 2 D Y F 1 3
Pitcher-plant, Alabama canebrake E 4 D Y F 1 6
Pitcher-plant, green.. . . E 4 I Y RD(2) 2 8
Pitcher-plant, mountain sweet E 4 S Y F 2 3
Plum, scrub £ 4 D Y F 2 2
Poa siphonoglossa (NCN) E 1 D Y D 1 2
Po’e (Portulaca scierocarpa) E 1 U N U 1 2
Pogonia, small-whorled E 5 1 Y R( 1) 3 14
Polygala, Lewton’s E 4 D N U 1 8
Polygala, tiny E 4 S Y F 2 5C
Polysuchum calderonense (NCN) E 4 D Y D 1 5
Pondberry E 4 S Y F 1 8
Pondweed, Little Agupa Creek E 2 D Y F 1 5
Poppy-mallow, Texas E 2 D Y F 1 2
Poppy, Sacramento prickly E 2 U Y F 1 3
Potato-bean, Price’s T 4 S Y F 1 8
Prairie-clover, leafy E 4 D Y F 1 5
Prickly-apple, fragrant E 4 D Y F 1 3
Pncldy-ash, St. Thomas £ 4 D Y F 1 2C
Primrose, Maguire T 6 D Y F 2 5C
Quiliwort, black-spored E 4 S Y F 1 5
Quiliwori. Louisiana E 4 S N U 1 8
Quillworr, mat-forming E 4 S Y F 1 8
Rattleweed, hairy (=wild indigo) E 4 D Y F 1 8
Reed-mustard, Bameby E 6 U Y F 1 5
Reed-mustard, clay T 6 U Y F 1 14
59
-------
Species Status Summary APPENDIX
Kenwa kjujiensis (C )
.E
X -mvi ( \(: E
Rcni .i n ’ ntgi n er’ i I \C ) E
Rh k leiidr n ch.ipnuns £
Ridge-i rc ( =pepper-creSs). Bimeby . E
Rock-cre ’ ’i. McDonalds . . . . E
Roi k-cress. ‘thale barren . . . £
K. ‘I Lindi.i cri pa I ‘CN) . . ... £
Rosemary. Apalachicola ... E
Rosemary. Cumberland . T
Rosemary. Etonia E
Rosemary, short-leaved £
Roseroot. Leedvs T
Rush-pea. slender E
Sand-verbena. large4tthted E
sandalwood. Lanai (=daahi) E
Sandlace £
Sandwort, Cumberland - £
Sandwort. marsh £
Sanicula mariversa (NCN) - - . E
Schiedea .ipokremnos (NCN) £
Schiedea, Diamond Head E
schiedea hakakalen5 ls (NCN) . - E
Schiedea kaalae (NCN) E
Schiedea Iydgatei (NCN) E
Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda (NCN) E
Schiedea spergulina var spergulina (NCN) T
Schoepfiaarenana(NCN) T
Sedge. Navaio T,CH
Senanthus nelsonhi IHyun lagu (Guam),
Trokon guah (Rota)) E
Silene alexandri (NCN) E
Silene hawaitensis (NCN) T
Silene lanceolaca (NCN) E
Silversword, Haleakala (=ahmahina) T
Silversword. Ka’u E
Silversword. Mauna Kea (=‘ahmahma E
Skullcap. Flonda T
Skullcap, large-flowered £
Snakeroot. scrub-celery E
Snowbells. Texas - £
Spineflower. Ben Lomond E
Spineflower. Howell’s £
1
U
Y
D
1
11
I
U
N
U
I
S
I
U
Y
D
1
S
4
D
Y
F
I
8C
6
D
Y
F
1
5C
1
S
Y
F
3
2
5
S
Y
F
2
11
1
U
N
U
1
5
4
1
Y
F
1
8
4
U
N
U
1
8.
4
S
Y
F
I
2C
4
S
N
U
I
8C
3
S
Y
D
1
9
2
D
Y
F
1
2
2
D
Y
F
1
2
1
S
Y
D
1
3
4
D
N
U
2
8
4
U
Y
D
1
8
I
D
N
U
I
5C
I
U
Y
D
1
5
1
U
Y
D
1
8
1
S
Y
F
1
2
1
U
N
U
1
2
1
U
Y
D
1
2
1
U
N
U
1
8
I
U
Y
D
1
5
1
U
Y
D
1
8
4
D
Y
F
I
5C
1 D Y F 1 5
1 U N U 1 2
I U N U 1 8
1 U N U 1 2
1 S Y D 1 9
I U Y D 1 5
1 D Y F 1 6
4 S Y F 1 2
4 S Y D 1 8
4 D Y F 2 2
2 1 Y F 1 2
1 U N U I 2C
1 D N U 1 2
Plants
Listed Species
listed
Aa
lea’ 4
Region
Pop.
Status
Rec.
Plan
Plan
Stage
Rec.
Ach.
Rec.
Prior.
60
-------
APPENDIX Species Status Summary pjgtgc
Listed Species Listed lad Pop. Rn. Plan Rec Rn.
As Region Status Plan Stage A ct. Prior.
Spanef lower, Monterey . T I S N U I 9C
Spineflower. robust . F I D N U 1 9C
Spaneflower. slender-homed . F 1 U N U 1 i C
Spineflower.Sonoma F 1 D N U 1 :2
Spiraea,Virgznia T S S Y F 1 8
Spurge. deltoid E 4 D Y F 2 6C
Spurge,Garber’s T 4 S Y F 2 8
Spurge. telephus T 4 S Y F 1 2
Stenogyne bthda (NCN) F 1 U N U 1 2
Stenogyne campanulata (NCN) E 1 U Y D 1 2
Stenogyne, kanehoana F I U Y D 1 2
Stenogyne. narrow-leaved F 1 S Y D 1 2
Sumac,Michaux’s F 4 D Y F 1 2
Sunflower, Schweanitz’s F 4 D Y F 1 5
Sunny, Ash Meadows T,CH 1 S Y F 2 9
Sunshine, Sonoma(=Stickyseed, Bakers) F I D N U 1 SC
Tectanaestremerana(NCN) E 4 U Y D 1 8
Temstroemiasubsessahs F 4 5 D 1 1 1
Tetnmolopiumarenanum(NCN) F 1 D N U 1 5
Tetramolopium lihforme(NCN) F 1 U N U 1 2
Tetramolopaum lepidotum ssp lepadotum (NCN) .. F I U Y D 1 2
Tetramolopium remyl (NCN) F I U V D 1 5
Tetramolopaum rockia (NCN) T I U N U 1 14
Thelyptens inabonensis (NCN) E 4 U Y D 1 5
Thelypteris verecunda (NCN) F 4 U Y D 1 5
Thelypteris yaucoensis (NCN) F 4 D V D 1 5
Thistle,Pitche?s T 3 D V D 1 Sc
Thistle. SacramentoMountains T 2 S V F 1 2
Thornznsnt,SanMateo F I D N U 1 6 c
Torreya.Floñda E 4 D Y F I S
Townsendia.LastChance T 6 U V F I S c
Trillium,persastent F 4 S Y F 2 8
Trillium,rehct F 4 D V F 1 8
Twanpod,DudleyBluffs T 6 S V F 2 14
F I D V D I S
Vemonaaproctorii(NCN) E 4 D V D I SC
Vetch.Hawaiaan E I S V F I 2C
V golahelenae(NCN) E I U V D 1 8
Violalanaaensas(NCN) E 1 U V D 1 2
Wahine noho kula (Isodendrion pyrifolium) E 1 U N U 1 2
Wallflower,BenLomond F I U N U I 2C
Wallflower,ContraCosta I S V El) 2 6
Wallflower,Menzies’ E I D N U I 2C
61
-------
Plants
Species Status Summary APPENDIX
Listed Species
Warea. la p ing =v dc-teaM
‘ ater-r 1nLufl hrat
‘Xjrer- v llo Coolev
‘ uIe :reS . (.jirnbel
.ie ole Huperz ia ‘p dium nutans)
ol e Huperzia =1 c’podiun nunnii
Whitiow-wori. papery
Wild-rice Texas
Wings pigeon
Wire-l truce, \lalheur
‘Xireweed (=Polvgonella ba irarrua
‘ C( v-sLar. Hoover
W- oI1v-star, Santa Ana River
‘Xcv Iv-threads. San oaquin
Ziz.iphus. Honda
Listed
Lead
Pop.
Rec.
Plan
Rec.
Rec.
As
Region
Status
Plan
Stage
Ach.
Prim-.
E -e D Y F 1 2C
-4 Y F 1 SC
-3 U Y F 1 8
D N U 1 2C
1 1. N U 1 5
U N U 1
4 D Y F 3 8
2 D Y F 1 2C
-3 U N V 1 14
1 U Y F 2 2
4 D Y F 3 2
1 1 N U 1 2
1 D N U 1 3C
D N U 1 2
-1 S Y F 2 5
T
E
E
E
E
T
ECH
T
ECH
E
T
E
F
E
Species: ChLSCAS Mounla:n bedgeho cactus
Listed,$j: Threatened
Populahon Staiuj: DecI:run
‘- - -
Species:MacFariane sfour-o clxk
LisieiA.s:Endangered
Population Stati : Improiin
P&U_A BaOOKS
62
D S GOV!RNWZJ’T Pft T G or,icz. 1995 - 404—991 - 814/46012
-------
APPEND LX Species Status Summary
Plants
Species: Oha ua:
Listed As: Endangered
Population Status: Uncertatn
OB RO PEP
Species: Tooth Cat ükr
LLstedAs: Endangered
Population Status: Uncertam
fYMAN IP4ZER
Species: &svthecker o1bu#erfly
ListedAs: Threatened
Population Status: Dehnmg
PALl. OP’ EP
1 Ek
Sp i.s: Ouacbita mck-pxkeebook
LütedAs: Endangered
Population Status: (techning
PAT I*J4)IOP
Species: Kentucky Cat shrtmp
ListedAs: Endangered
Population Status: Lncerkan
Species: Gray u f
ListedAs: Endangered
Population Stat us: Improv ing
DAVE IA(CH
-------
Report to Congress
L c’ . v LLi L iiLL
Endangered and Threatened Species 1994
0
-------
Reference 15
-------
EPA 822—D—94—O 2
BRIEFING REPORT
to the
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
on the
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING APPROACH
TO PREDICTING METAL BIOAVAILABILITY
IN SEDIMENTS AND THE DERIVATION OF
SEDIMENT QUALiTY CRITERIA FOR METALS
December 1994
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER AND
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
-------
PRINCIPAL AUTHORS
In Alphabetical Order
Gary’ T. Ankley
U.S. Enviromefltal Protection Agency Laboratory. Duluth, Minnesota 55804
Walter J. Berry
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory. Narragensett, Rhode Island 02592
Laurie D. De Rosa
HydroQual. Inc., 1 Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
Dominic M. Di Toro
Env 1 ,onmental Engineering and Science Program. Manhattan College, Bronx, New York 10471
HydroQual, Inc., 1 Lethbridge Plaza. Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
David J. Hansen
U4. Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02592
Mary Reiley
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science & Technology
Washington. D.C. 20460
CONTRIBUTORS
In Alphabetical Order
Herbert E. Allen
Department of Civil Engineering. University of Delaware, Newark. Delaware 19716
J. Jackson Ellington
U.S. EPA. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens. Georgia 30605-2700
A. Wayne Garrison
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia 30605-2700
Robert A. Hoke
Science Application International Corporation. Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
John D. Mahony
Chemistry Department. ManhattarrCollege, Bronx. New York 10471
Richard C. Swartz
U.S. EPA. Enviromental Research Laboratory, Newport. Oregon 97365
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document is a compilation of data and analyses from scientific investigations
into the bioavailability of metals in sediments to benthic organisms with the intent of
proposing an approach to assessing metals contamination of sediments for the protection
of benthic organisms.
This document does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations. It does not
establish a binding norm and is not finally determinative of the issues addressed. Agency
decisions in any particular case will be made applying the law and regulations on the basis
of specific facts when permits are issued or regulations promulgated.
The mention of trade names or specific products does not constitute endorsement.
-------
Chaoter
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . .
Overview .
Legal Basis . . .
Definition of Sediment Criteria (aquatic life) .
MethodologySelection
Application of Sediment Criteria . .
Document Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING
Bioavailabihty . . . . . . .. .
Pore Water Normalization . . . . . . . .
Sorption of Nonionic Organic Chemicals
EffectsConcentration
Paoe
3 METAL TOXICITY IN WATER AND SEDIMENT EXPOSURES .. . . 3-1
Toxicity Correlates to Metal Activity . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—2
Interstitial WaterAnd MetalToxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e....... . . . . . 3-4
4 METALPART IT ION ING.. ..........
Metal Sorption Phases
TitrationExperiments ....
AmorphousFeS ...
Sediments
Correlation to Sediment AVS
Solubility Relationships and Displacement
Application to Mixtures of Metals
• . S S • S • • S
S..
• S S • S 5555
S.S......
Reactions
4—1
• •5 S 4—1
4—2
• . . .
4.4
• . S • •IS•S•S• • I • 4 5
• . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 4—7
4—10
5 LABORATORY SPIKING EXPERIMENTS
Results • . . . . . . . . . .
SaltwaterAmphipodTests ....•
Water-OnlyTests
Spiked Sedimenttests
Sediment Chemistry -
DayOvs Day 10 Chemistry Values-
Interstitial Water Metal Versus SEM/AVS . . • . . . . . .
Sediment Toxicity . . . .
Discussion . . — . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • .
.
• • . . . . • 5—2
• . . . . • . • . . . . . . 5—2
• 5—3
• . . — . . . . • . . . . . 5—4
. • — . . . . . . . • . . . 5—4
• . . • . . . . . . . • . . 5—4
•.••..•...•••. 5—4
5.12
• . . . . . . . • . . • . 5—20
6 FIELD COLLECTED SAMPI_.ES • • . • . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . . . • . . . 6•1
Saltwater Field Sites . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • • . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . • . 6—2
Description of Field Sites and Toxicity Test Results 6-2
Freshwater Field Sites . • . • • . . . . . . • . . • . 6—10
S... S S
•5•555 •ISSSSI •SSSS
• 55555555•55 S S •SS•
• S 555 .555555555555
••.. •SSS•SSSSS S 555
1-1
1—1.
1-1
1-2
1-2
•1-3
1-6
55515555555555
•SSSS•SS
•..S..S...... S
• S 1555
• • . • 2—i
• . • • 2—i -
. • . . 2 5
• • . • 2e9 •
.. 2-13
-------
Description of Field Sites and Toxicity Test Results
Discussion
SaltwaterFieldSiteS
Saltwater and Freshwater Field Sites
Field Sites and Spiked Sediments
.. 7-1
.. 7-2
.. 7-2
.. 7-8
• 7-14
8 BIOACCUMULATION OF METALS
Laboratory Spiking Experiments-Freshwater
Laboratory Spiking-Marine
Field Sediments-Freshwater
Field Sediments-Marine
Field Spiking-Freshwater
Summary and Conclusions
9 AVS AND OTHER BINDING PHASES
Vertical and Seasonal AVS Distributions . . . . . .
The Correlation of AVS to Sediment Organic Carbon
Oxidation of Metal SuIf ides
FeS(s) and CdS(s) Oxidation Kinetics -.
ediment Metals Oxidation Model
Conclusions
Organic Carbon Binding . . -
Analysis Framework
Sorption Isotherm Results
Least Sorptive Phase
Pore Water and AVS/SEM Sampling
Pore Water Sampling
AVS/SEM Sampling
SEDIMENTS
Interstitial Water
Acid Volatile Sulfide and SEM
11 PROPOSED SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
Introduction
Single Metal Sediment Quality Criteria
A VS Criteria •
Interstitial Water Criteria
• — . — . S • • S I S
S •SSISSSS S
I S S
912
9-16
9-28
9-28
9-29
9-31
9-44
9-47
9-47
9-50
$ummary
. _.
6-10
6-17
6-17
6-23
6-30
7 COLONIZATION EXPERIMENTS
Results
Exposure
6—32
S • S
I SI
.
Effects • • • .
Discussion • • . • . • • . .
•..•....•• — • . S. I —
• . S S • I
SI ll.. 5 555 — S S S • S
• I • • • •SI•SSS
• S S • — — S
• • S — • S S
•S5SS — I
• S • • • S S
S 115511
8-1
8-3
8-5
8-9
8-13
8-14
8-17
S S SI
• S I S
• 555
•.SS
•ISI
• S •5
• — • S S •
• — S S S S
— . — S •S
• •S••S
• S
• .
•.. 9-1
... 9-1
.5. 9-9
.. 9-11
S S S S •S
— S S S SI S I
— — •515• S
—
•SSS 555
—
S S
S. — S S I — I S
• 55I
• S • I
• •S —
S •SS
• S S I
10 CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING METAL BIOAVAILABILITY IN
S S S
I 555—
S
S. — S S — S 5.11S11l —
• S I I — • 155511 — — — S
10-1
10-1
10-2
11—1
11-1
11-3
11-3
11-4
I•
I I
-------
AVSandOrganicCarbOflCriteria . 11-6
AVSandMinimumPartitiOfliflgCriteria ... . 11-7
MultipleMetaisCriteria .... 11-8
AVS Criteria 1 1.8
Interstitial Water Criteria . . . 11-9
AVSandOrgan lcCarbOflCriteria..... . 11-10
AVS and Minimum Partition Coefficient Criteria . 11.13
Criteria Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1•13
SedimentQuahtyCr,teriaUflCertaiflty . . •..... . . . . . . . . 11-14
Research Recommendations . . . . 11-17
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.18
I II
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
This briefing document for the Science Advisory Board (SAB) describes the
methodology that the EPA is proposing to use to establish a national sediment quality
criteria for metals. It is based on the Equilibrium Partitioning (EQP) method. EqP was
originally developed and adopted to derive national sediment criteria for non-ionic organic
chemicals. This document presents the methodology and supporting information for
deriving sediment criteria f or cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc.
Legal Basis
Responding to environmental problems with corrective action frequently requires
proving that something negative has occurred. Innocent until proven guilty. the standard
of the American judicial system, works well for many legal activities; but applying this
logic to environmental protection efforts (an activity is environmentally acceptable until it
can be proven unacceptable), presents a unique set of strengths and limitations.
Regulatory agencies frequently are called upon to prove environmental or human health
degradation has or could occur prior to taking any corrective or preventive action.
Scientifically sound and legally defensible measures that demonstrate potential or actual
impacts are imperative. Fundamental to any effort to ensure environmental protection is
to define the party upon whom the burden of proof lies. Chemiéal specific criteria are one
tool developed by regulatory and non-regulatory agencies that Is frequently used to meet
the burden of proof requirements. Criteria define when a release of a substance into the
environment is acceptable and when the release is causing or has potential to cause
adverse impacts to aquatic life, wildlife. or human health. EPA initiated efforts to develop
national sediment quality criteria under the authority of the Clean Water Act to protect the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the country’s water resources, aquatic life,
and water dependent resources. The sediment criteria are intended to be used to prevent
-------
1-2
clean sediments from becoming contaminated and to assist in making regulatory and
remediation decisions on sediments that are already contaminated.
Definition of Sediment Criteria (aquatic life)
Sediment Quality Criteria U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s best
tecommendation concentration gJ substance ki sediment that iii
unacceptably affect benthic organisms .
Methodology Selection
A detailed methodology has been developed to derive sediment quality criteria for
metals. This document presents the supporting logic and specifies the numerical
procedures to be used to calculate the criteria values.
The use of total sediment metal concentration as a measure of bioavailable - or even
potentially bioavailable - concentration is not supported by the available data.
Experimental results indicate that different sediments can differ in toxicity significantly f or
the same total metal concentration. Without accounting for this difference one cannot set
a national sediment quality criteria that depends only on the total sediment metal
concentration. Therefore, the variation in the bioavailability of metals in various sediments
must be explicitly considered in the establishment of defensible sediment quality criteria.
This is a significant obstacle; since without some quantitative estimate of the bioavailable
metal concentration in a sediment, it is impossible to predict a sediment’s toxicity based
on chemical measurements. This is true regardless of the methodology used to assess
biological impact - be it laboratory toxicity experiments or field data sets comprising
benthic biological and chemical sampling.
The EqP approach was selected to establish sediment quality criteria because it
incorporates the most useful technical aspects of a variety of approaches. Specific
reasons for selecting the approach are as follows:
-------
1-3
(1) it was likely that the EqP approach would yield sediment criteria that were
predictive of biological effects in the field and would be defensible when
used in a regulatory context. These criteria would directly address the issue
of bioavailabiiity and for the most part are based on the extensive biological
effects data base used to establish national water quality criteria.
(2) Sediment criteria could be readily Incorporated into existing regulatory
operations since a unique numerical sediment specific criteria can be
established for a chemical and compared to field measurements to assess
* the likelihood of significant adverse effects.
(3) Sediment criteria could provide a simple and cost effective means of
assessing sediment measurements to Identify areas of concern and could
quickly provide regulators with information on potential incremental impacts
on benthic organisms as a function of the extent of criteria excedences.
(4) The method takes advantage of the large amount of data and expertise that
went into the development of the National Water Quality Criteria.
(5) The methodology could be used as a regulatory predictive tool to link
sources to sediment sinks to ensure uncontaminated sites would be
protected from attaining unacceptable levels of contamination.
Application of Sediment Criteria
Persistent contaminants discharged into the surface waters of the U.S. end up
primarily in the water column and in sediments. Technology based controls, whole
effluent toxicity tests, and chemical specific water quality- criteria provide the basis for
controlling water column contamination. For sediment contamination a similar approach
is being adopted. Technology based controls, sediment biological tests, and sediment
criteria are intended to control, prevent, and manage sediment contamination.
-------
1-4
Over the past two years EPA has been preparing a draft Agency wide sediment
management strategy to coordinate and focus EPA’s resources on contaminated sediment
problems. An outline of this draft strategy haIbeen released to the public for review and
a final draft was announced in the Federal Register this past summer as available for
ormal public comment. The draft strategy is designed around three major principals:
1) In-place sediment should be protected from contamination to ensure that the
beneficial uses of the nation’s surface waters are maintained for future
generations;
2) Protection of in-place sediment should be achieved through pollution
prevention and source controls;
3) Natural recovery is often the preferred remedial technique. In-place sediment
remediation will be limited to high risk sites where natural recovery will not
occur in an acceptable time period and where the cleanup process will not
àause greater problems than leaving the site alone.
The draft strategy has six components: assessment, prevention. remediation,
dredged material management, research, and outreach. Sediment quality criteria are
integrated into this strategy. However, their specific role will be outlined in a User’s
Guidea currently under development. The Guide will be based on the comments received
on the criteria and strategy and will incorporate the management strategies of a variety of
program offices on a program specific basis.
Even though the specific applications of sediment criteria are under development.
in general the primary use of sediment criteria will be to prevent sediment contamination
and assess risks associated with contaminant levels in sediments. Various EPA programs
oncerned with contaminated sediment have different regulatory mandates and thus, have
different needs and areas for potential application of sediment criteria. Because each
-------
1-5
regulatory need is program specific, sediment criteria have to be implemented in a variety
of ways to meet the needs of diverse of fices and programs.
A likely application of EqP sediment criteria would be in a tiered approach. n such
an application, when contaminants In sediments exceed the sediment quality criteria, the
sediments would be considered to be causing unacceptable impacts. Further testing may
or may not be required depending on site specific conditions and the degree to which a
criteria has been violated. (At locations where contamination significantly exceeds a
criterion, no additional testing would be required. Where sediment contaminant levels are
close to a criteria, additional testing may be necessary). Contaminants in a sediment at
concentrations less than the sediment criteria would not be of concern. However, the
sediment could not necessarily be considered acceptable for benthic organisms because
they may contain other contaminants above safe levels for which no sediment criteria
exist. In addition the synergistic, antagonistic. or additive effects of several contaminants
in the sediments may be of concern. Sediment criteria can provide a basis for determining
whether contaminants are accumulating in sediments to the extent that an unacceptable
contaminanrtevel is being approached or has been exceeded. By monitoring sediment
contaminants in the vicinity of a discharge, contaminant levels can be compared to
sediment criteria to assess the likelihood of impact.
Sediment criteria will be particularly valuable In site monitoring applications where
sediment contaminant concentrations are gradually approaching a criteria over time.
Comparison of field measurements to sediment criteria will be a reliable method for
providing early warning of a potential problem. Such an early warning would provide an
opportunity to take corrective action before adverse impacts occur.
The safe ren oval and treatment or disposal of contaminated sediments can be
difficult, expensive, and in some case not the environmentally preferred option (e.g.,
resuspension of contaminated sediments may cause greater harm than leaving them where
they are). Leaving sediments in place and allowing source controls and natural processes
to reduce or remove the contamination has proven to be an effective option in some cases.
-------
1-6
In some situations, the high cost of clean-up activities has eliminated clean-up as an
9ption. In other situations the spatial extent of the site and site-specific conditions may
warrant remediation beyond identified clean-up levels, an additional margin of safety can
be provided at little or no extra cost. For these reasons it is not anticipated that
mandatory clean-up to a nationally designated level is appropriate in most situations.
Document Outline
This document contains ten additional chapters in which are presented the
experimental data and the methods to be employed in deriving sediment quality criteria.
Chapter 2 reviews the Equilibrium Partitioning methodology which is used to
understand the relationships between sediment and interstitial water concentrations and
observed biological effects.
Chapter 3 examines metal toxicity and bioavailability first in water only exposures
and then as a function of interstitial water concentrations. This chapter presents the data
that suggest that metal toxicity is best correlated to metal activity in water only
exposures. It also presents the correlations of organism response to interstitial water
concentrations in sediment exposures.
Chapter 4 reviews the state of the art for predicting metal partitioning in sediments.
This is important because it connects the solid phase sediment chemistry to the resulting
interstitial water concentrations - both of which set the metal activity of the sediment -
interstitial water system. The importance of the cold acid extractable sulfide in sediments,
• which for historical reasons is called acid volatile sulfide (AVS), is demonstrated. An
equilibrium model is analyzed to establish the relationship between metal activity in the
sediment - interstitial water system, the extractable solid phase metal concentration -
whicn is called the SEM for reasons discussed below- and the ratio of the metal to iron
sulfide solubility constants.
-------
1-7
Chapter 5 presents the data’ from laboratory sediment spiking experiments.
Uncontaminated sediments are spiked with varying metal concentrations, and the resulting
toxicity is measured using sediment-dwelling animals. The results are analyzed using the
SEM and AVS method and the interstitial water concentrations.
Chapter 6 presents a similar set of results but these sediments are from field sites
with metal contamination. These experiments address the question: can the SEM, AVS,
and interstitial water methods explain the toxicity observed in field collected samples.
Chapter 7 presents the results of colonization experiments. These are designed to
mimic the field setting as closely as possible while still retaining a measure of laboratory
control over the exposures. A series of sediments are spiked with various concentrations
of metals. These are exposed either to raw flowing seawater or are placed on lake
bottoms for a period of time. The biological response that is monitored is the quality and
quantity of the benthic animals that colonize the sediments.
Chapter 8 examines the extent of metal bioaccumulation from sediment exposures.
The biological response in this case is different than that of the previous experiments. The
results are analyzed using the same methods based on SEM, AVS, and interstitial water
concentrations.
Chapter 9 presents information on a number of topics that influence the variation
of AVS, temporally, spatially, an.d with respect to organic c&bon in sediments. The
oxidation kinetics of iron sulfide and, more importantly, cadmium and zinc sulfide are
examined in order to answer the question: what is the importance of seasonal variations
and how do they affect criteria. The experimental information related to organic carbon
binding and the resulting partition coefficients are presented.
Chapter 10 presents the strengths and limitations of the various methods that have
been discussed in the previous chapters. Recommendations are included for situations
where more study is required.
-------
1-8
Chapter 11 presents a proposed sediment quality criteria for the five metals: Cd,
Cu. Ni. Pb. and Zn. Single metal criteria are not technically supportable since the binding
of each of these metals interact with each other, thus affecting their mutual toxicity. A
discussion of the limitations of these criteria and their proposed utility is also included.
-------
CHAPTER 2
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING
The development and application of the Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) method for
deriving SQC for nonionic organic chemicals has previously been presented to the EPA
Science Advisory Board and has been published in the Federal Register for public
comment. A full discussion of this work is presented elsewhere (121 as well as the
derivation of SOC for five nonionic organic chemicals (3,71. The development of sediment
quality criteria for metals also utilizes the EqP method. This chapter presents a summary
of the technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic
chemicals using EqP. Cadmium data is also presented. The purpose of presenting this
summary for nonionic organic chemicals is to briefly define the EqP method and to
demonstrate its utility in determining thebioavailability of sediment chemicals.
Bioavailability
Establishing a SOC requires a determination of the extent of the bioavailability of
sediment associated chemicals. It has frequently been observed that similar
concentrations of a chemical, in units of mass of chemical per mass of sediment dry
weight (e.g. micrograms chemical per gram sediment), can exhibit a range in toxicity in
• different sediments. An example is presented in Figure 2-1. These are the results of two
sediment toxicity tests of cadmium using amphipods of similar sensitivity [ 8,91. One
sediment is from Central Long Island Sound and the other is from Yaquina Bay, Oregon. -
The LC5O for cadmium for these two sediments differ by approximately two orders of
magnitude. Because the purpose of SQC is to establish chemical concentrations that apply
• to sediments of differing types. ft is essential that the reasons for this varying
bioavailability be understood and be explicitly included in the criteria. Otherwise the criteria
cannot be presumed to be applicable across sediments of differing properties.
The importance of this issue cannot be overemphasized. For example if 20 pglg
of cadmium is the LC5O for an organism in one sediment and 1,500 pg/g is the LC5Oin
-------
Dry Weight Normalization
Cadmium - Ampelisca
Cadmium - Rhepoxynius
100
80
60
40
20
0
200
io 2
io
10
Dry Weight
Concentration
( gIg)
Figure 2-1. Comparison of percent mortality of Amoelisca abdita and Rheooxvnius
abranius to concentrations of cadmium in bulk sediment.
10C
‘S
.‘
S
0
101 io2
Dry Weight Concentration (p gIg)
‘S
.‘
a
0
I I I I I I I I ••IIH
_.__l_ I tIJ In I I
-------
2-3
another sediment (Figure 2-1). then unless the cause of this difference can be associated
with some explicit sediment properties it is not possible to decide what would be the LC5O
of a third sediment. The results of toxicity testi used to establish the toxicity of chemicals
in sediments would not be generalizable to other sediments. Imagine the situation if the
results of toxicity tests in water depended strongly on the particular water source- for
example, water from Lake Superior versus well water. Until the source of the differences
was understood, it would be fruitless to attempt to establish water quality criteria, It is
for this reason that understanding bioavailability is a principal focus in establishing
sediment quality criteria.
The observations that provided the key insight to the problem of quantifying the
bioavailability of chemicals in sediments were that the concentration-response curve for
the biological effect of concern could be correlated not to the total sediment chemical
concentration (micrograms chemical per gram sediment), but to the interstitial water (i.e..
pore water) concentration (micrograms chemical per liter pore water). The results of
- toxicity tests of kepone using Chironomus tentans in three sediments is shown in Figure
2-2a. The sediments have quite different LC5Os on a sediment dry weight basis: from
approximately 1 ug/g to approximately 35 uglg. However if the mortality is examined as
a function of the concentration of kepone in the interstitial or pore water of the sediment.
Figure 2-2b, then the mortality-concentration responses are similar f or the three sediments.
In addition, the LC5Os on a porewater basis are the same as the LC5O obtained from a
water only exposure toxicity test. Thus the water only LC5O can be used to predict the
toxicity of these sediments using their porewater concentrations.
Organism mortality, growth rate, and bioaccumulation data are used to demonstrate
this correlation, which is a crjtical part of the logic behind the EqP approach to developing
SQC. For nonionic organic chemicals, it is shown, subsequently, that the concentration
- response curves correlate equally well with the sediment chemical concentration on a
sedimen.t organic carbon basis. Figure 2-2c presents the same mortality data as a function
of the organic carbon normalized sediment kepone concentration (ug kepone/gm sediment
organic carbon). The responses f or the two sediments with the higher organic carbon
-------
Acute Toxicity of Kepone
100
SO
60
40
20
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Dry Weight Conc.ntr.tlon (ug/g)
100
SO
60
40
20
0
100
So
So
40
20
0
4 WATER 0t&Y LCSO
0.0 S
:;:
10 100 1000
Por• Water Coacsntratlon (ug/L)
C
10 100 1000 10000 -
Organic Crbo Normsflz.d (ug/g oc)
Figure 2-2. Comparison of percent mortality of Chironomus tentans to kepone
cOncentration in bulk sediment (top), pore water (center) and bulk sediment using organic
Carbon normalization (bottom) for three sediments with varying organic carbon
ft M,atitii (Qi
‘S
=
S
0
‘S
D
a
—
S
I
• o.oa
•i.i
• 12
I’
I
17’
S
.
-— I—..
-------
2-5
fractions display the same response. The sandy sediment (with low organic carbon)
has a larger LC5O, probably because the f 0 for this sediment is too small for organic
carbon to be the only sorption phase. The range of f values for which carbon
normalization is appropriate has been examined in more detail (11.
These observations ( Figures 2-2b and 2-2c) can be rationalized by assuming that
the pore water and sediment carbon are in equilibrium and that the concentrations are
related by a partition coefficient. K . as shown’ in Figure 2-3 (right). The name
Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) describes this assumption of partitioning equilibrium
between sediment carbon and pore water. The rationalization for the equality of
water-only and sediment-exposure effects concentrations on a pore water basis is that the
sediment - pore water equilibrium system (Figure 2-3. right) provides the same exposure
as a water-only exposure (Figure 2-3, left). The reason is that the chemical activity is the
same in each system at equilibrium. These results do not imply that pore water or
sediment organic carbon is the primary route of exposure because all exposure pathways
are at equal chemical activity in an equilibrium experiment and the route of exposure
cannot be determined.
It should be pointed out that the EqP assumptions are only approximately true and,
therefore, the predictions from the model have an inherent uncertainty. A discussion and
quantification of uncertainty is found in the EPA SQC Technical basis document 12).
Pore Water NormalizatIon
A substantial amount of data has been assembled that addresses the relationship
between toxicity and pore water concentration (1.21. The data presented below examines
the use of the water-only LC5O to predict the pore water LC5O. Figure 2-4 presents
mortality data for various chemicals and sediments compared to pore water concentrations
when normalized on a toxic unit basis. Three different sediments are tested for each
chemical as indicated. Predicted pore water toxic units are the ratio of the measured pore
water concentration to the 1C50 obtained from an independent water only toxicity test.
-------
Water Only Sediment - Pore Water
Exposure Exposure
Biota Biota
w t Sediment _________ Pore
a er Carbon Water
Equilibrium Partitioning
Figure 2-3. Diagram of the organism exposure routes for a water-only exposure (left) and a sediment exposure (right .
Equ,1,7.wium partitioning refers to the assumption that an equilibrium exists between the chemical sorbed to the particulate
sediment organic carbon and the porfi water. The partition coefficient is K, .
-------
Pdre Water Normalization
1 1 IRTIUII U U 1111111 I 1 1111111 I I I 11111
100 . *
80 I
O••Kepon.
> 60 o 0 u u Phenanthrene
O••Endr ln
40 V o•* Fluoranthene
0 vvvAcenaphthene
•oáQy
20
4 ’ CADMIUM
I I Illilli I I I 111111 I I I I 11 111 I I I 11111
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 10000
Predicted Pore Water Toxic Units
Figure 2-4. Mortality versus predicted pore water toxic units for seven chemicals and up to three organic carbon content
sediments per chemical. Sediment types are indicated by the single hatching (lowest organic carbon content), cross hatching
(intermediate organic carbon content) and filled symbols (highest organic carbon content). See 121 for more detailed
descriptions of these data sets. Predicted pore water toxic units are the ratio of the pore water concentration to the waters-
only LC (Eqn. 2-1).
-------
2-8
The EqP model predicts that the pore water LC5O will equal the water only LC5O. Define:
predicted pore water toxic unit ( pore water concentration ) (21)
(water only LC5O)
A toxic unit of one occurs when the pore water concentration equals the water-only LC5O,
at which point it would be predicted that 50 percent mortality would be observed. In
addition, normalization of these data to pore water toxic units allows all chemical-to-
chemical differences tobe removed so that all data from these tests with these seven
chemicals can be coplotted. The correlation of observed mortality to predicted pore water
toxic units in Figure 2-4 demonstrates (a) the efficacy of using pore water concentrations
to remove sediment to sediment differences and (b) the applicability of the water-only
effects concentration and, by implication, the validity of the EqP model. By contrast, it
has been shown [ 1,21, that the mortality versus sediment chemical concentration on a dry
weight basis varies dramatically from sediment to sediment.
The equality of the effects concentration on a pore water basis suggests that the
route of exposure is via pore water. However, the equality of the effects concentration
on a sediment organic carbon basis, which will be presented in Figure 2-5, suggests that
the ingestion of sediment organic carbon is the primary route of exposure. Neither of
these references can be supported by the data presented in Figures 2-4 and .2-5
subsequently. It is important to realize that if the sediment and pore water are in
equilibrium, then the effective exposure concentration is the same regardless of exposure
route. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the primary route of expbsure from
equilibrated experiments.
Whatever the route of exposure, the correlation of toxicity to pore water suggests
that if it were possible to either measure the pore water chemical concentration, or predict
it from the total sediment chemical concentration and the relevant sediment properties
such as the sediment organic carbon concentration, then that concentration could be used
to quantify the exposure concentr tion for an organism. Thus, understanding the
-------
2-9
partitioning of chemicals between the solid and the liquid phase in a sediment becomes a
necessary component for establishing SQC for a v substance, including metals.
Sorption of Nonionlc Organic ChemIcals
For nonionic hydrophobic organic chemicals sorbing to natural soils and sediment
particles, a number of empirical models have been suggested 1103. The chemical propàrty
that indexes hydrophobicity is the octanol/water partition coefficient, K . The important
particle property is the weight fraction of organic carbon, 0 • Another important
environmental variable appears to be the particle concentration itself (111. A detailed
discussion of the particle concentration effect has been presented 11,23.
A number of explanations have been offered for the particle concentiation effect.
However it is not necessary to decide which of these mechanisms is responsible for the
effect if all the possible interpretations yield the same result for sediment/pore water
partitioning. Each suggest that the proper partition coefficient to be used in order to relate
the free dissolved chemical concentration to the sediment concentration is the partition
coefficient to sediment organic carbon, K 0 , which is approximately equal to the octanol-
water partition coefficient Kr,,, that is, K 0 K 0 by the following equation 1121.
Log 10 = 0.00028 • 0.983 Log 10 I( (2-2)
The unifying parameter that permits the development of SOC for nonionic
hydrophobic organic chemicals that are ipplicable to a broad range of sediment types is
the organic carbon content of the sediments. This can bi shown as follows. The
sediment/pore water partition coefficient. Kd, is given by
f K 0 (2-3)
and the solid phase concentration is given by
-------
2-10
Cs K 0 Cd (2-4)
where C 5 is the concentration on sediment pa ’rticles. An important observation can be
made that leads to the idea of organic carbon normalization. Equation 2-3 indicates that
the partition coefficient for any nonionic organic chemical is linear in the organic carbon
fraction. 0 • Data have presented 11,2.121 to support the linearity of partitioning above
a value of = 0.2 percent. This result and the toxicity experiments 11.21 suggest that
for f 0 0.2 percent. organic carbon normalization is valid.
As a consequence of the linear relationship of C 5 and f , the relationship between
sediment concentration, C 5 . and free dissolved concentration, Cd. can be expressed as
= Cd (2-5)
If we define
c 5 • 0 = (2-6)
as the organic carbon normalized sedir ent concentration (ug chemical/g organic carbon).
then from Equation (2-5):
— K 0 Cd (2-7)
Therefore, for a specific chemical with a specific K 0 . the organic carbon normalized total
sediment concentration, C 50 , is proportional to the dissolved free concentration. Cd. I or
any sediment with 0.2 percent. This latter qualification is judged to be necessary
because at <0.2 percent the other factors that influence partitioning (e.g., particle size
and sorption to nonorganic mineral fractions) become relatively more important (83. Using
the proportional relationship given by Equation 2-7, the concentration of free dissolved
chemical can be predicted from the normalized sediment concentration and The free
concentration is of concern as it is the form that is bioavailable.
-------
2-11
As discussed above, hydrophobic chemicals also tend to partition to colloidal-sized
organic carbon particles that are commonly referred to as dissolved organic carbon, or
DOC. Although DOC affects the apparent pore water concentrations of highly hydrophobic
chemicals, the DOC-bound fraction of the chemical appears not to be bioavailable (11.
Therefore, we expect that toxicity in sediment can be predicted from the water-only
effects concentration and the K , of the chemical. The utility of these ideas can be tested
with the same mortality data as these in Figure 2-4 but restricted to nonionic organic
chemicals for which organic carbon normalization applies. The concept of sediment toxic
units is useful in this regard. These are computed as the ratio of the organic
carbon-normalized sediment concentrations. C 1 If . and the predicted sediment LC5O using
K and the water-only LC5O. That is:
C If 0
predicted sediment toxic unit • - (2-8)
K (water only LC5O)
Figure 2-5 presents the percent mortality versus predicted sediment toxic units.
The correlation is similar to that obtained using the pore water concentrations in Figure 2-
4. The predicted sediment toxic units for each chemical follow a similar concentration-
response curve independent of sediment type. The data demonstrate that 50 percent
mortality occurs at about one sediment toxic unit, independent of chemical, organism or
sediment type, as expected if the EqP assumptions are correct. If we know the
appropriate normalizing phase then the same can be done for metals.
If the assumptions of EqP were exactly true and there were no experimental
variability or measurement error, then the data in Figures 2-4 and 2-5 should all predict 50
percent mortality at one toxic unit. There is an uncertainty of approximately a factor of
two in the results. This uncertainty associated with sediment quality criteria was obtained
from a quantitative estimate of the degree to which the data in Figure 2-5 support the
assumptions of EqP (21. This variation reflects inherent variability in these experiments as
-------
Organic Carbon
A A Dieldrln
o ,• Kepone
o n . Phenanthrene
O • Endrin
oo• Fluoranthene
v v v Acenaphthene
DDT
Predicted Sediment Toxic Units
Ftgtire 2-5. Mortality versus predicted sediment toxic units for seven chemicals and up to three organic carbon contents
sediments per chemical. Sediment types are indicated by the single hatching (lowest organic carbon content), cross hatching
(intermediate organic carbon content) and filled symbols (highest organic carbon content). See 121 for more detailed
descriptions of these data sets. Predicted sediment toxic units are the ratio of the organic carbon-normalized sediment
chemical concentration to the predicted sediment LC 50 (Eqn. 2-8). K values are computed from K 0 and Equation 2-2.
K for endrin (4.84), fluoranthene (5.00), dieldrin (5.25), phenanthrene (4.46), and acenaphthene (3.76) were measured
by the U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia. Methods are presented elsewhere (21. K for DDT
(5.84) is the log average of the reported values in the LOG P database (131. The kepone K is the log mean of the ratio ot
organic carbon-normalized kepone concentration to pore water-kepone concentrition from the toxicity data set.
rmalizatjon
100
80
60
40
20
\0
>1
0
A
I t 1 1 1 • I I I I I I I 1 1 I I U U 1 1 I 1 I I I U U1
d° ’
N
‘ N
A
•, 0
& .1.11 I I I iiiiil I I I 11111
1.00 10.00 100.00
0
0.01 0.10
I I I I liii
-------
2-13
well as phenomena that have not been accounted for in the EqP model. This appears to
be the limit of the accuracy and precision to be expected.
Effects Concentration
The development of SOC requires an effects concentration for benthic organisms.
Since many of the organisms used to establish the water quality criteria (WQC) are
benthic, perhaps the WQC are adequate estimates of the effects concentrations for benthic
organisms. To examine this possibility, the acute toxicity data base, which is used to
establish the WQC was segregated into benthic and water column species, and the relative
sensitivities of each group was compared. The data are from the 40 freshwater and 30
saltwate r U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria documents. If it were true
that benthic organisms are as sensitive as water column organisms, then SOC could be
established using the final chronic value (FCV) from these WQC documents as the effects
concentration for benthic organisms. The apparent equality between the effects
concentration as measured in pore water and in water-only exposures (Figure 2-4) or as
predicted from organic carbon normalization (Figure 2-5) supports using an effects
concentration derived from water only exposures.
This use of WQC assumes that (a) the sensitivities of benthic species and species
tested to derive WOC predominantly water column species, are similar and (b) the levels
of protection afforded by WOC are appropriate for benthic organisms. The assumption of
similarity of sensitivity using a comparative toxicological examination of the acute
sensitivities of benthic and water column species was presented 11.23. A comparison of
the FCVs and the chronic sensitivities of benthic saltwater species in a series of sediment
colonization experiments was done (1.23. Although there is considerable scatter, these
results, a more detailed analysis of all the acute toxicity data, and the results of benthic
colonization experiments support the contention of equal sensitivity 123.
The final validation of SOC will come from field studies that are designed to
evaluate the extent to which biological effects can be predicted from SOC. Sediment
-------
2-14
quality criteria for nonioniC organic chemicals can possibility be validated more easily than
WQC because determining the organism exposure is more straightforward. The benthic
population exposure is quantified by the organic carbon normalized sediment
concentration.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Di Toro. D.M., Zarba, C., Hansen, D.J.. Swartz, R.C.. Cowan, C.E.,;Allen, H.E.,
Thomas. N.A., Paquin, P.R.. and Berry, W.J 1991: Technical basis for
establishing sediment quality criteria for non-ionic organic chemicals using
equilibrium partitioning. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1541-1583.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1 993a. Technical basis for.. deriving
sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic contaminants f or the protection of
benthic organisms by using equilibrium partitioning. EPA 822-R-93-O11. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
3. U.s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1 993b. Sediment quality criteria for thë
protection of benthic organisms: ACENAPHTHENE. EPA 822-R93-O1 3. u.s.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Washington. D.C.
4. U.s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993c. Sediment quality criteria f or the
protec*ion of benthic organisms: DIELDRIN. EPA 822-R-93-01 5. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Washington. D.C.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1 993d. Sediment quality criteria for the
protection of benthic organisms: ENDRIN. EPA 822R-93-01 6. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Water. Washington. D.C.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993e. Sediment quality criteria for the
protection of benthic organisms: FLUORANTHENE. EPA 822-R-93-01 2. U.s.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1 993f. Sediment quality criteria for the
protection of benthic organisms: PHENANTHRENE. EPA 822-R-93-01 4. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington. D.C.
-------
8. Swartz. R.C.. Ditsworth, G.R.. Schults, D.W. and Lamberson. J.O. 1985.
Sediment toxicity to a marine infaunal amphipod: Cadmium and its interaction with
sewage sludge. Mar. Environ. Res. 18:133-153.
9. Di Toro, D.M.. Mahony, J.J., Hansen, D.J. Scott, K.J., Hinks, MB.. Mayr. S.M. and
Redmond. M.S. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid volatile
sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
10. Karickhoff, SW. 1984. Organic pollutant sorption in aquatic systems. J. Hydraul.
Div. ASCE 110:707-735.
11. O ’Connor. D.J. and Connolly. J. 1980. The effect of concentration of adsorbing
solids on the partition coefficient. Water Resour. 14:1517-1523.
12. Di Toro, D.M. 1985. A particle interaction model of reversible organic chemical
sorption. Chemosphere 14:1503-1538.
13 . Abernethy, S. and Mackay, D. 1987. A discussion of correlations for narcosis in
aquatic species. In K.L. Kaiser. d. OSAR in Environmental Toxicology II. D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 1-16.
14. Leo, A. and Hansch, C. eds. 1986. Log (P) Database and Related Parameters.
Pomona College, Clarmont, California.
-------
CHAPTER 3
METAL TOXICITY IN WATER AND SEDIMENT EXPOSURES
The equilibrium partitioning methodology for establishing sediment quality criteria
requires that the chemical concentration be measured in the bioavailable phase and that
the chemical potential of the chemical be determined. In this chapter. two questions are
addressed. The first concerns the forms of metals that are bioavailable. The question is
addressed using water only exposures. The second concerns the observation that the
biological response is the same for water only exposures and for sediment exposures using
the pore water concentrations. This equality was demonstrated for non-ionic organic
chemicals and it is a fundamental tenent of the Equilibrium Partitioning model.
The data presented below demonstrate that biological effects correlate to the metal
activity, and that water only exposures and sediment exposures are equivalent. Therefore
I or both metals and nonionic chemicals this EqP requirement is satisfied.
A direct approach to establishing sediment quality criteria for metals would be to
apply the water quality criteria to measured pore water concentrations. The validity of this
approach depends on the degree to which pore water concentration and represents free
metal activity and can be accurately measured in both systems. For most metals, free
metal activity can not be measured at water quality criteria concentrations and present
water quality criteria are not based on activity. Metals readily bind to dissolved (actually
colloidal) organic carbon (DOC). and DOC complexes do not appear to be bioavailable.
Hence the direct use of pore water concentration is precluded for metals with significant
DOC comptexing.
By implication this difficulty extends to any complexing ligand that is present in
sufficient quantity. The decay of sediment organic matter can cause substantial Changes
in interstitial water chemistry. In particular bicarbonate increases due to sulfate reduction.
This increases the importance of the metalcarbonate complexes and further complicates
the question of the bioavailable specie.
-------
3-2
The sampling of sediment interstitial water is not a routine procedure. The least
invasive technique employs a diffusion sampler which has cavities covered with a filter
membrane 12.3,4,51. The sampler is inserted into the sediment and the concentrations on
either side of the membrane equilibrate. When the sampler is removed the cavities contain
filtered pore water samples. The time required for equilibration depends on the pore size
of the membrane and the geometry of the cavity and usually exceeds one day.
An alternate technique is to obtain a sediment core, slice it, and filter or centrifuge
the slice to separate the pore water. For anaerobic sediments this must be done in a
nitrogen atmosphere to prevent the precipitation of iron hydroxide which would scavenge
the metals and yield artificially low dissolved concentrations 15,6].
Although either of these techniques are suitable for research investigations they
require more than the normally available sampling capabilities. If solid phase chemical
measurements were available from which pore water metal activity could be deduced it
would obviate the need for pore water sampling and analysis and it would circumvent the
need to deal with complexing ligands.
Toxicity Correlates to Metal Activity
A substantial number of water only exposure experiments disscussed below point
to the fact that biological effects can be correlated to the divalent metal activity (M 2 ).
The claim is not that the only bioavailable form is M 2 ’ - for example MOH 4 may also be
bioavailable - but that the DOC and certain other ligand complexed fractions are not
bioavailable.
The acute toxicity of cadmium to grass shrimp ( Pataemonetes ) has been determined
at various concentrations of chloride and NTA, both of which form cadmium complexes
171. The resutts are shown in Figure 3-1. The top panels are concentration response•
curves as a function of total cadmium. The response is quite different at different
concentrations of chloride, indexed by salinity, and NTA. However if the concentration
-------
ACUTE TOXICITY OF CADMIUM TO
GRASS SHRIMP (Paloemonetes )
EFFECT OF NTA COMPLEX AT ION
(AFTER W.G. SUNDA et ol., 1978)
ACUTE TOXICI7t F CADMIUM TO
GRASS SHRIMP (Paloemonetes )
- EFFECTOFSALINITY
(AFTER W.G.sut4DAstoI., 1978)
casMsvN activity (.(Cd’4))
4
S
3
2
U
S
4
S
3
2
U
S
a.
I SO
ma
£
/ ,// T /’
U */
a
1’
.-.r’ --i
-
TOTaL CADUSUM (-LOS Cd ,)
I— ( ‘U
. a
£4. . —
us..
‘Ia_s
•IS. ,U
I
I
UI
Ia
I
1.
. .1
ACTIVITY
7..
Figure 3-1. Acute toxicity to paI emonetes of total cadmium (top) and cadmium activity (bottom) with different,
concentrations of the complexing z qents NTA (left) and chloride as salinity (right).
100
4
S
3
2
U
a
a
a—a m.s9.m
•—-420. Ot sJ
•—-• 2i.,!O.e
Totai. CaDW1UM (-LOS Cd ,)
I SO
SO
‘4
‘C,
20
4
S
3
2
S
U
a
a
. a S
II/7 r 7
eta )
a,
5 1 5W 5
• 221st
•I * it’
— I
-------
- 3-4
response is evaluated with respect to Cd 2 activity in the solution, then the curves all
collapse into the same single curve (bottom panels). Comparable results have been
reported for copper-EDTA complexes 181 for which concentration response correlates to
2+ activity (Figure 3-2, left top and bottom).
Chronic toxicity of zinc, with phytoplankton growth as the endpoint, has also been
examined. The results of an experiment in which the metal concentration is held constant
and the complexing ligand is varied are shown in Figure 3-2, right top and bottom (91. As
NTA is added the toxicIty of zinc to Microcystis decreases. The cell density increases
rather than decreases in time and reaches control levels at the highest NTA concentration
(left top and bottom panel). The data can all be correlated to free zinc activity as shown
(right top and bottom panel). Similar results for diatoms exposed to copper and the
complexing ligand Iris are shown in Figure 33 (top) 1101. Variations in Tris concentrations
and pH produce markedly different growth rates (left top and bottom) which can all be
correlated to the Cu 2 + activity (right). A similar set of results have been obtained by
Sunda and Lewis 1113 with DOC from river water as the complexing ligand. Figure 3-3
(right top and bottom).
Metal bioavailability as measured by organism uptake can also be examined 1121.
Uptake of copper by oysters is correlated not to total copper concentration (Figure 3-4 top)
but to copper activity (bottom). -
The implication to be drawn from these experiments is that the partitioning model
required for establishing sediment quality criteria should predict (M 2 ) in the pore water.
The following section examines the utility of this idea.
Interstitial Water And Metal Toxicity
This section presents some early data that first indicated the equivalence of pore
water concentrations and water only exposures. Much more data of this sort are
presented subsequently in Chapters 5 and 6. Swartz (131 tested the acute toxicity of
-------
ACUTE TOXICITY
TO A DINOFLL
-
(FROIl £NOERSON AND MOREL, 197$)
• ZiNC
3INOSA
(FROM ALLEN, t .Ol., 198O)
0
0
.
*
I
S 10 20 3.0 4.0 6.0
Fe.. Zinc (mol.sFIll .i a1O )
Figure 3-2. Acute toxicity to a dinoflageilate (left) of total copper (top) and copper activity
(bottom), with and without EDTA. Chronic toxicity of zinc to Microcvstis aeruginosa
(right) showing growth as cells/mi versus time with different levels of EDTA and NTA (top)
and number of cells at five days as a function of free zinc concentration (bottom).
CHRONIC TO
ON MiCROCYS’
W
We
I
-I
U
‘I
-i
I-
0
3
I-
z
U
g
I
I
£&P’tI1M . Iota %tM
•.
• •
•. •.as.Is N
-.
• • •
•• •.%J.W’
TOTAL COPPER (-LOGICu,))
WI
• 13 IS IS
DAtS
I
-j
U
‘Os
10’
ii ’
10’
-a
-I
“a
U
-a
0-
0
3
0-
z
K’ $1
o - LOTA
• -NTA
I .ODS
o-CMOS
• -Builds’
• -Contro$
pH 7.0
13.4$
7.64
6.31
6.3$
4.3$
U
0
6
0
‘10 II 12 1$
COPPER ACTIVITY (pCu)
-------
CHRONIC TOXICITY OF COPPER
TO A DIATOM
CHRONIC )‘ICITY OF COPPER
10 M0P ’ RvSIS LUTHER!
(FROM SUN ‘ ‘PJO LEWIS. jgle)
(FROM SUNDA AND GUILIARD . 1976)
COPPER ACTIVITY (pCu)
It
2
w
4)..
0
I- U)
zz
00
a
( U)
U>
1-4 I- I
I I. 0
1 -I
I - ,
w
a -
lfl
2
1 -4
t&I
a4
‘-U ’
0
a
I, Il)
1-4
U>
1-41-4
U. 0
1-4
U
w
a.
U -,
2.00 —
100
0.00 —
4.00
2.00 —
1.00.
0.00 —
6.00
• 101 RIVIR
• 02IRtVIR
A 201 øIVtl
TOTAL. COPPER (-log CUT)
WATER
WA,t R
RATER
A
— .-
I —
7.1 ?’
6.00 7.00
7
s/u
e.oo
corp : ACTIVITY (DCu)
Figure 3-3. Specific growth rate of a diatom (left) and Mpnochrvs s j theri (right) versus total copper (top) and coppe
activity (bottom) for a range ‘ concentrations of the complexing ligands Tris and natural DOC.
H 81-82
•
010
A 20
• 30
o
U ‘ 101r4S
o s0ø .M ès
p 4S7
• Cs .MRN,
t*i )-
-40
U,
2
00
U
‘a
a.
U,
0
• i Oi m:vtm vaT
• 1 R vtR WAT( .
£ 0* RTYtR WATER
TOTAL COPPER (-LOG C. )
a.
2C
w
_5 .OC
‘a
I-
x
0
I,
U
II .
U
‘a
a.
‘1,
4 +*rrt
9. 0
-------
UPT - .
S Y OYSTE .
I
0
0
6
0
.
*
100-
50 -
0
I 0— I’ ___
0 1 1.0
TOTAL COPPER CONC. (pM)
0I
o.
20C
180 -
180-
140 -
120 -
100
80
so.
40-
20-
0
8- 9 10 11
COPPER ACTIVITY (p Cu)
AFTER D. ZANUDA AND W.G. SUNDA
USING (Crassostrea vlrginca), 1982
Figure 3-4. Body burden of copper in oysters versus total copper (top) and copper activity
A
z
14J).
0
‘Ju
a -t
0%..
U
I
H
V
I
10.0
TOTAL PITA Cull)
Wkitsr
£ 1.0
o 10.0
Bummsr
402
& 1.0
• 8.1
• 10.0
- f-— i
(bottom) with different levels of the complexing Ilgand NTA.
-------
3-8
cadmium to the marine amphipod , Rheooxvnius abronius in sediment and seawater. An
objective of the study was to determine the contributions of interstitial and particle-bound
cadmium to toxicity. Figure 3-5 presents mean survival versus dissolved cadmium
concentration for 4-day toxicity tests in seawater and interstitial water. A comparison of
the 4-day LC5O of cadmium in interstitial water (1.42 mg/L) with the 4-day LC5O of
cadmium in seawater without sediment (1.61 mgIL) resulted in no significant difference
between the two.
Experiments were performed to determine the role of acid volatile sulfides in
cadmium spiked sediments using the amphipods Amoetisca abdita and Rheooxvnius
hudsoni (141. Three sediments were used, a Long Island Sound sediment with high AVS,
Ninigret Pond sediment with low AVS concentration and a 50/50 mixture of the two
sediments. Figure 3-6 presents a comparison of the observed mortality to the observed
interstitial water cadmium activity, measured with a specific ion electrode, for the three
sediments. Four-day water only and 10-day exposure sediment toxicity tests were
performed. The water-only response data for Ampelisca and Rhepoxynius are included for
comparison although they represent a shorter duration exposure.
An elegant experimental design was employed by Kemp and Swartz 1151 to examine
the relative acute toxicity of particule bound and dissolved interstitial cadmium. They
circulated water of the same cadmium concentration through different sediments. This
result in differing bulk sediment concentrations but the same interstitial water
concentrations. They found no statistically significant difference in organisim response for
the different sediments. Since the interstitial water concentrations were the same in each
treatment - the circulating water concentrations established the interstitial water
concentrations - these experiments confirmed the equal concentration hypothesis.
A series of 10-day toxicity tests using the amphipod Hvalella azteca were performed
to evaluate the bioavaitability of copper in sediments from two sites highly contaminated
with this metal: Steilacoom Lake, Washington, and Keweenaw Watershed, Michigan (161.
A water-only, 10-day copper toxicity test was also conducted with the same organism.
-------
COMPARISON OF WATER AND
SEDIMENT EXPOSURE
(AFTER R.C.SWARTZ et c i, $985)
20
• • SEAWATER
•• ____
o _________ INTERSTITIAL
Z J- r L WATER
t:4 tO
-
4
>
U) I .
z
4 $0
U) - t
—
z
- S
o 5
0.
w
I t I •
w I I I
O I 2 3 4 5
DISSOLVED CADMIUM CONC. (mg/I)
Figure 3-5. Rheooxvnius abronius mean survival versus dissolved cadmium for 4-day
toxicity tests in seawater (symbols) and interstitial water at time 0 and 4 days (bars).
-------
100
80
60
40
20
0
-5.00
MORTALITY
vs INTERSTITIAL WATER CADMIUM
* AMPEUSCA
1.00
3.00
LOGIO
Cd+2 ACTIVITY (mg/L)
Figure 3-6. Mortality versus interst’ii t water cadmium activity for three sediments. Water only exposure data for AmDelisca
and RheDoxvnius . The line is a u both water only data sets.
.
LI SOUND
MIXTURE
0
0
NINIGRET
POND
>.
I-
.0
.
.
.
S
WATER ONLY EXPOSURE
L RHEPOXYNIUS
-3.00 -1.00
1 LESS ThAN DETECTION UNIT
-------
3-1 1
Figure 3-7 presents a comparison of the resulting mortality from the water-only test and
interstitial water from the sediment tests. The LC5Os for the water-only and the average
of day 0 and day 10 pore-water concentration were 31 and 28 ug/L respectively showing
strong agreement in predicting toxicity.
The data presented in this chapter demonstrate that in water-only exposures metal
activity and concentration can be used to predict toxicity. The results of four experiments
demonstrate that mortality data from water-only exposures can be used to predict
sediment toxicity using pore water concentrations. The metal activity or concentration in
interstitial water therefore would be an Important component of a partitioning model that
is needed to establish sediment quality criteria. The following chapters present the current
developments in determining partitionIng and hence bioavailability for sediment metals.
-------
100
80
t b
?4o
0
20
0
Figure 3-7. Toxicity of copper to HvaIlela versus metal concentrations in a water-only exposure (open symbqls) an4
versus porewater copper concentratinis in sediments from Keweihaw Waterway (closed symbols).
Copper (ug/L)
-------
REFERENCES
1. Berner, R.A. 1980. Early Diagenesis. Theoretical Aooroach . Princeton Univ.
Press 1 Princeton, N.J.
2. Hesslein, RH. 1976. An in situ sampler f or close interval pore water studies.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 21 :912-914.
3. Carignan, R. 1984. Interstitial water sampling by dialysis: Methodological notes.
Limnol. Oceanogr . 29(3):667-670.
4. Carignan, R., Rapin, F. and Tessier. A. 1985. Sediment porewater sampling for
metal analysis: a comparison of techniques. Geochimica et Cosmochem. Acta
49:2493-2497.
5. Allen, H.E.. Fuj, G.. Deng, Baolin. 1993. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) and
simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) for the estimation of potential toxicity in
aquatic sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:001-013.
6. Troup. B.N. 1974. The Interaction of Iron with Phosphate, Carbonatq. and Sulfide
in Chesapeake Bay Interstitial Waters: A Thermodynamic lnterpretationPh .D Thesis.
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 1-1 14.
7. Sunda, W.G., Engel, D.W. and Thuotte, R.M. 1978. Effect of chemical speciation
of toxicity of cadmium to grass shrimp, ! a ouaio : Importance to free
cadmium ion. Environ. Sci. Tech. 12:409-413.
8. Anderson, D.M. and Morel, F.M.M. 1978. Copper sensitivity of Gonvaulax
Limnol. Oceanogr. 23:283-295.
9. Allen, H.E., Hall, R.H. and Brisbin. T.D. 1980. Metal speciation. effects on aquatic
toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol 14:441- 443.
-------
10. Sunda, W. and Guillard, R.R.L. 1976. The relationship between cupric ion activity
and the toxicity of copper to phytoplankton. J Mar. Res. 34:511-529.
11. Sunda. W.G. and Lewis. J.M. 1978. Effect of complexation by natural organic
ligands on the toxicity of copper to a unicellular alga. Monochrvsis lutheri . Umnol.
Oceanogr. 23:870-876.
12. Zamuda. C.D. and Sunda, W.G. 1982. Bioavailability of dissolved copper to the
American oyster viroinica . Importance of chemical speciation . Marine
Biology 66:77-82.
13. Swartz. R.C., Ditsworth, G.R., Schults, D.W. and Lamberson, J.O. 1985.
Sediment toxicity to a marine infaunal amphipod: Cadmium and its interaction with
sewage sludge. Mar. Environ. Res. 18:133-153.
14. Di Toro. D.M.. Mahony. J.D., Hansen, D.J. Scott, K.J.. Hinks, M.B.. Mayr, S.M.
and Redmond. M.S. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid
volatile sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
15. Kemp. P.F.. and Swartz. R.C. 1986. Acute toxicity of interstitial and particle-
bound cadmium to a marine infaunal amphipod. Mar. Environ. Res. 26:135-153.
16. Anktey, G.T.. Mattson. V.R.. Leonard, EN.. West, C.W.. and Bennett. J.L. 1993.
Predicting the acute toxicity of copper in freshwater sediments: Evaluation of the
role of acid-volatile sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:315-320.
-------
CHAPTER 4
METAL PARTrnON ING
The state of the art of modeling metal sorption to oxides in laboratory Systems is
well developed and detailed models are available for cation and anion sorption (see the
articles in Stumm, (ii and Dzombak and Morel, (21 for recent summariesi. The models
consider surface complexation reactions as well as electrical interactions via models of the
double layer. Models for natural soil and sediment particles are less well developed.
However, recent studies suggest that similar models can be applied to soil systems
(3,4,5.6,7.8,91. Since the ability to predict partition coefficients is required if pore water
metal concentration is to be inferred from the total concentration, some practical model
is required. This chapter presents the theoretical development of metals partitioning in
sediments.
Metal Sorption Phases
The initial difficulty that one confronts in selecting an applicable sorption model is
that the available models are quite complex and many of the parameter estimates may be
specific to individual soils or sediments. However the success of organic carbon based
flOn ioniC chemical sorption models suggests that some model of intermediate complexity
that is based on an identification of the sorption phases may be more generally applicable.
A start in this direction was made during a recent conference (101. A more formal
presentation is available (113. The basic idea was that instead of considering only one
Sorption phase as is assumed for non-ionic hydrophobic chemical sorption, multiple
sorption phases were considered. The conventional view of metals speciation in aerobic
soils and sediments is that metals are associated with the exchangable, carbonate, and Fe
and Mn oxide forms, as well as that associated with the organic matter and stable metal
sulfides, and a residual phase. In oxic soils and freshwater sediments sorption phases
have been identified as particulate organic carbon (POC) and the oxides of iron and
manganese 112,13.14,151. These phases are important because they have a large
-------
4-2
sorptive capacity. Further they appear as coatings on the particles and occlude the other
mineral components. It was thought that they provided the primary sites for sorption of
metals. These ideas have been applied tomet l speciation in sediments. However, they
ignore the critical importance of labile metal sulfide interactionS which dominate the
speciation in the anaerobic layers of the sediment.
Titration Experiments
The importance of sulfide in the control of metal concentrations in the interstitial
water of marine sediments is well documented (16,17,18,191. Metal suit ides are very
insoluble and the equilibrium interstitial water metal concentrations in the presence of
suif ides are small. if the interstitial water sulfide concentration in sediments is large, then
as metal is added to the sediment, metal sulfide would precipitate following the reaction:
M 2 + S 2 MS(s) (4-1)
This appeared to be happening during a spiked cadmium sediment toxicity test (201 since
a visible bright yellow cadmium sulfide precipitate formed as cadmium was added to the
sediment. However, interstitial water sulfide activity, (S 2 ), measured with a sulfide
electrode indicated that there was little or no free sulfide in the unspiked sediment. This
was, at the time, a most puzzling result.
The lack of significant quantity of dissolved sulfide in the interstitial water and the -
evident formation of solid phase cadmium sulfide suggested the following possibility. The
majority of the sulfide in sediments is in the form of solid phase iron sulfides. Perhaps the
source of the sulfide is this solid phase sulfide initially present. As cadmium is added to
the sediment it causes the solid phase iron sulfide to dissolve releasing sulfide which is
available for the formation of cadmium sulfide. The reaction is:
-------
4.3
+ FeS(s) CdS(s) • Fe 2 (4-2)
Cadmium titrationS with amorphous FeS and with sediments were performed to examine
this possibility.
Amorphous FeS
A direct test of the extent to which this reaction takes place was performed 1201.
A quantity of freshly precipitated iron sulfide was titrated by adding dissolved cadmium.
The resulting aqueous cadmium activity, measured with the cadmium electrode versus the
ratio of cadmium added, (CdIA, to the amount of FeS initially present, (FeS(s)1 . is shown
in Figure 4-1. The plot of dissolved cadmium versus cadmium added illustrates the
increase in dissolved cadmium that occurs near ICd le, / IFeS(sH 1 = 1. A similar experiment
has been performed for amorphous MnS with comparable results. It is interesting to note
that these displacement reactions among metal sulfides have been observed by other
investigators f21 1. The reaction was also postulated by Pankow 1221 to explain an
experimental result involving copper and synthetic FeS.
These experiments plainly demonstrate that solid phase amorphous iron and
manganese sulfide can readily be displaced by adding cadmium. As a consequence it is
a source of available sulfide which must be taken into account in evaluating the
relationship between solid phase and aqueous phase cadmium in sediments. A direct
confirmation that the removal of cadmium was via the displacement of iron sulfide is
shown in Figure 4-2. The supernatant from a titration of FeS by Cd 2 ’ was analyzed for
both cadmium and iron. The solid lines are the theoretical expectation based on the
stoichiometry of the reaction (Equation 4-2).
Sediments
A similar titration procedure has been used to evaluate the behavior of sediments
taken from four quite different marine environments: the Long Island Sound and Ninigret
-------
CADMIUM TITRATION OF IRON SULFIDE
-j
E
0
LU
U,
(I)
a
CADMIUM ADDED (umol Cd/umot FeS)
Figure 4-1. Cadmium titrations of amorphous FeS. Abscissa is cadmium added normalized
by FeS initially present. Ordinate is total dissolved cadmium. The lines connecting the
data points are an aid to visualizing the data.
0.0
1.0
o.e
0.S
0.4
0.2
0.0
05 1.0 15
2.0
-------
Results ofFes + Cd** = CdS + Fe**
Concentration of Fe**
Analysis of Filtrate
Concentration of Cd**
Analysis of Filtrate
—Th.oy
1.14 M 1.15
°
i-ia
*
l .I9,wlBufiar
Figure 4-2.
Cd 2 ’.
S
.
S
I
.Cd’/F.S Molar R. o
I
0.6 01 1 1.2
Cd’/F.S Molar Ratio
Concentrations of Fe 2 + and Cd 2 + in supernatent from titration of FeS by
-------
46
Pond sediments used in the toxicity tests; and ‘sediments from Black Rock Harbor and the
Hudson River. The binding capacity for cadmium is estimated by extrapolating a straight
line fit to the dissolved cadmium data. The eq iation is:
lECd(aqfl max(O,mUCdJA — ICdIB))
(4-3).
where (!Cd(aq)) is the total dissolved cadmium, (CdIA is the cadmium added, (Cd1 8 is the
bound cadmium, and m is the slope of the straight line. The sediments exhibit quite
different binding capacities for cadmium, listed in Table 4-1, ranging from approximately
1 pmol/gm to more than 100 pmollg. The question is whether this binding capacity is
explained by the solid phase sulfide present in the samples.
Correlation to Sediment AVS
The majority of sulfide in sediments is in the form of iron monosuif ides (mackinawite
and greigite) and iron bisulfide (pyrite) of which the former are the most reactive. These
sediment suif ides can be classified into three broad classes which reflect the techniques
used for quantification 119,23.241. The most labile fraction, acid volatile sulfide (AVS),
CAPACITY AND AVS OF SEDIMENTS
Final AVS Cd Binding Capacityfe)
(pmol/g) 1 (pmol/g)
114(12.1)
8.58 (2.95)
4.57 (2.52)
TABLE 4-1. CADMIUM BINDING
Initial AVS
(pmol/g)
1 75.(41.)
12.6(2.8) -
15.9 (3.3) 13.9 (6.43)
5.45 (-) __3.23 (1.18)
2.34(0.73) 0.28(0.12) 1.12 (0.42)
Deviation) AVS of repeated measurements of the
Sediment
Black Rock Harbor
Hudson River
LI SoundOe(c)
Mixture
Ninigret Pond ,
(a)Average (Standard
stock
(b)Average (Standard Deviation) AVS after the sediment toxicity
experiment
(c)From original cadmium experiment 1201
(d) 50150 . mixture of LI Sound and Ninigret Pond
(e)F,om Equation (4-3)
-------
4.7 I
is associated with the more soluble iron and manganese monosulfides. The more resistant
sulfide mineral phase, iron pyrite, is not soluble in the cold acid extraction used to measure
AVS. Neither is the third compartment. organic sulfide associated with the organic matter
in sediments (251.
The possibility that acid volatile sulfide is a direct measure of the solid phase sulfide
that reacts with cadmium is examined in Table 4-1 which lists the sediment binding
capacity f or cadmium and the measured AVS for each sediment and in Figure 4-3 which
indicates the initial AVS concentration. The sediment cadmium binding capacity appears
to be somewhat less than the initial AVS for the sediments tested. However a comparison
between the initial AVS of the sediments and that remaining after the cadmium titration
is completed Table 4-1 • suggests that some AVS is lost during titration experiment. In
any case the covariation of sediment binding capacity and AVS is clear in the data in Table
4-land Figure 4-3. This suggests that AVS is the proper quantification of the solid phase
sulf ides that can be dissolved by cadmium. The chemical basis for this is examined below.
Solubility Relationships and Displacement Reactions
Iron monosulfide, FeS(sl. is in equilibrium with aqueous phase sulfide and iron
concentration via the reaction:
FeS(s) Fe 2 s 2 (4.4)
If cadmium is added to the aqueous phase, the result is:
Cd 2 • FeS(s) Cd 2 • Fe 2 • S (45)
As the cadmium concentration increases. (Cd 2 11S 2 1 will exceed the solubility product of
cadmium sulfide and CdS(s) will start to form. Since cadmium sulfide is more insoluble
than iron monosulfide. FeS(s) should start to dissolve in response to the lowered sulfide
concentration in the interstitial water. The overall reaction is:
-------
CADMIUM TITRATION OF SEDIMENTS
dry wt)
1000.0
Figure 4-3. Cadmium titration of sediments as indicated in figure legend. Cadmium added per unit dry weight of sediment
AVS AVS AVS
1
0
C .)
0
lii
0
Co
C l)
6
1.0
0.8
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
1.0 10.0 100.0
CADMIUM ADDED (umol Cdlgm
versus total dissolved cadmium.
-------
4-9 1
Cd 2 • FeS(s) CdS(s) • Fe 2
The iron in FeS(s) is displaced by cadmium to form soluble iron and solid cadmium sulfide.
CdS(s). The consequence of this replacement reaction can be seen using an analysis of
the M(ll)•Fe(ll)-S(-lI) system with both MS(s) and FeS(s) present in Appendix 4A. Mill)
represents any divalent metal that forms a sulfide that is more insoluble than FeS. If the
added metal, (MIA, is less than the AVS present in the sediment then the ratio of metal
activity to total metal in the sediment-interstitial water system is less than the ratio of the
MS to FeS solubility products:
(M 2 )/IMIA < Kp ,4 fl( s
This is a general result that is independent of the details of the interstitial water chemistry.
In particular it is independent of the Fe 2 activity. Of course the actual value of the ratio
fM 2 + )/IMJA depends on aqueous speciation . as indicated by Equation 4-6. However, the
ratio is still tess than the ratio of the sulfide solubility products.
This i an important finding since the data presented in Chapter 3 indicates that
toxicity is related to metal activity, (M 2 ‘}. This inequality guarantees that the metal
activity - in contrast to the total dissolved metal concentration - is regulated by the iron
sulfide - metal sulfide system.
The sulfide solubility products and the ratios ire listed in Table 4-2. The ratio of
cadmium activity to total cadmium is less than 10 10.5• For nickel the ratio is less than
10.56. By inference this reduction in metal activity will occur for any other metal that
forms a sulfide that is significantly more insoluble than iron monosulfide. The ratios for
the other metals in Table 42, Zn, Cd, Pb, and Cu, indicate that metal activity for these
metals will be very small in the presence of excess AVS.
-------
4-10
TABLE 4-2. METAL SULFIDE SOWBILITY PRODUCTS’
Metal Sulfide log log Log
K , , MS FsS
FeS .3.64 -22.39
NiS -9.23 -27.98 -5.59
ZnS •9.64 -28.39 -6.00
CdS -14.10 -32.85 -10.46
PbS -14.67 -33.42 -11.03
CuS -22.19 -40.94 -18.55
Solubility products. K. ,. for the reaction M 24 + H’ — MS(s) + H for CdS (greenockite) . FeS
(mackinawite). and NiS 1 ñfllerite) from ref 27. Solubility pro ucts for CuS (covellite). PbS (galen 9 ), and nS
(wurtzitel. and plC, — 18.57 for the reaction HS H + S from 1281. K , for the reaction M + S - _
MS(s) is computed from log K , , and pK 2 .
Application to Mixtures of Metals
A conjecture based on the sulfide solubility products for the metals listed in Table
4-2 is that the AVS normalized toxicity of metals is additive. Since all these divalent
metals have lower sulfide solubility parameters than FeS, they would all exist as metal
sulf ides if their molar sum is less than the AVS. For this case
! fMTJ < 1 (4-8)
IAVSI
no metal toxicity would be expected where (M 1 J is the total cold acid extractable ith metal
concentration in the sediment. On the other hand if their molar sum is greater than the
AVS concentration, then a portion of the metals with the largest sulfide solubility
parameters would exist as free metal and potentially cause toxicity. For this case the
following would be true:
> 1 (4-9)
(AVSJ
These two equations are precisely the formulas that one would employ to determine the
extent of metal toxicity in sediments assuming additive behavior and neglecting the effect
of partitioning to other sediment phases. Whether the normalized sum is less than or
greater than one discriminates between non toxic and potentially toxic sediments. The
-------
4-11
additivity does not come from the nature of the mechanism that causes toxicity. Rather
it results from the equal ability of the metals to form metal sutfides with the same
stoichiometric ratio of M and S.
The appropriate quantity of metals to use in the metals/AVS ratio is referred to as
simultaneously extracted metai or SEM. This is the metal which is extracted in the cold
acid used in the AVS procedure. This Is the appropriate quantity to use because some
metals form sulf ides which are not labile in the AVS extraction (e.g., nickel). If a more
rigorous extraction were used to increase the fraction of metal extracted which did not
also capture the additional sulfide extracted, then the sulfide associated with the additional
metal release would not be quantified. This would result in an erroneously high metal to
AVS ratio (261.
The above discussion is predicated on the assumption that all the metal sulf ides
behave similarly to cadmium sulfide. Results of sediment spiking experiments will be
presented in Chapter 5 for cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and metals mixtures which
demonstrate the similar behavior of these metals. Further it has been assumed that only
acid soluble metals are reactive enough to affect the free metal activity. That is, the
proper metal concentration to be used is the SEM. Both of these hypotheses can be tested
directly using sediment toxicity tests. These are discussed in the next chapters.
-------
Appendix 4A
Solubility Relationships for Metal Sulfides. Consider the following situation: a
quantity of FeS is titrated with a metal that forms a more insoluble sulfide. We analyze
the result using an equilibrium model of the M-W)-Fe(ll)-S(-ll) system. The mass action
laws for the metal and iron suif ides are
VM21M 2 h’S21 53 (A-i)
VFe 24Fe 2 1V 5 2 (S 2 1 • KFeS (A-2)
where (M 2 i, (Fe 2 1 and (S 2 ) are the molar concentrations; VM 2 YFe 2 and y Z are the
activity coefficients; and KMS and KFeS are the sulfide solubility products. The mass
balance equations for total M(ll). Fe(ll), and S(-Il) are
0M241M 3 • (MS(s)i • IMIA (A-3)
• IFeS(sH • IFeS(sH 1 (A-4)
c’.a tS21 • (MS(sH + (FeS(sH • IFeS(s)1 (A-5)
where
0 M 2. = (M 2 i/ (!M(aq)1 (A6)
CFe 2 (Fe 2 i/LZFe(aq)1 (A7)
C 5 2 • (S 2 1/(!S(aq)I (A-B)
are the ratios of the divalent species concentrations to the total dissolved MCII) , FeCli), and
S(-Il) concentrations, (ZM(aq)I. tZFe(aq)J, and (ES(aq)1. respectively. (MS(s)I and WeSCs)1
are the concentrations of solid-phase metal and iron suIt ides at equilibrium. (FeS(s)I is the
-------
4A-2
initial iron sulfide concentration in the sediment, and (MIA is the concentration of added
metal.
The solution of these five equations can be obtained as follows, the mass balance
Equations A-3 and A-4 for M(lI) and Fe(ll) can be solved for (MS(s)J and (FeS(s)J and
substituted in the mass balance Equation A-5 for S(ll):
‘0 s2-1S 2 _J • 0 •2.fFe 2 ’J + 0M2jM 2 1 (MJA (A-9)
The mass action Equations A-i and A-2 can be used to substitute for IFe 2 ”I and (M 2 ’I.
which results in a quadratic equation for LS 2 ”j:
1 Oc.2sKFeS • 0M2.KMs (MJA
YS2 ’1S 2 1 VFe2 VM 2 (A-b)
The positive root can be accurately approximated by
—1 —1 —I
1 = 0 F.2 FeS • 0 M2 MS IMJA’ (A-i 1)
YS2 ”1S 2 3 VM2VS2 ”
which results from ignoring the leading term in Equation A-1O. This is legitimate because
the term in parentheses in Equation A- 10 is small relative to IMIA due to the presence .of
the sulfide solubility products. As a results. (S 2 ’j is also small since it is in the
denominator. Hence, the leading term in Equation A-i 0 must be small relative to (MJA and
can safely be ignored.
The metal activity can now be found from the solubility equilibrium Equation A-i:
-------
4A-3
(M 2 } VM2htM 2 I KMS 1 • K _________ _________
y 5 2-1S 2 1 MS [ C’F.2•KFeS C M MS 1 -I
VFe2 VM2• J
so that
IMIA (A-12)
( M 2 ) KMS (A•13)
(MIA PFe2 4 FeS
where
PFe2 11 (0ie2VFe2 4 (A14)
and
lI(CM2•yM2.) (A-15)
Equation A- 13 can be expressed as
( M 2 } K
IM3A KFeS (A-i 6)
The magnitude of the term in parentheses can be estimated as follows. The first term in
the denominator is always greater than or equal to i4 1. I, because it is the reciprocal
of two terms both of which are less than or equal to 1. Equation A- 14. They are
I • which is the ratio of the divalent to total aqueous concentration, and VFe 3 1, which
is an activity coefficient. The second term in the denominator cannot be negative.
PM2 MS/KFeS > 0, since all of its terms are positive, thus, the denominator of the
expression in parentheses is always greater than 1, PF.’ + PM’KMSIKIC.s > 1.
Therefore, the expression in parentheses is always less than 1. Hence, the magnitude of
the ratio of metal activity to total added metal is bounded from above by ratio of the
sulfide solubility products:
-------
4A4
(Me 2 )/IMJA < Kp,j /K (A17)
This results applies if (FeSI, > lMi so that excess IFeS(sH is present.
If sufficient metal is added to exhaust the initial quantity of iron sulfide, then
(FeS(s)] = 0. Hence, the iron sulfide mass action equation (A-2) is invalid and the above
equation no longer applies. Instead, the only solid-phase sulfide is metal sulfide and
LMSJ tFeSJ , (A-18)
so that, from the metal mass balance equation
(M 2 } VM2OM21MIA — (FeS(s),) (A-19)
this completes the derivation of Equations 4-8 and 4-9.
-------
4A-5
Glossary
IAVSJ acid volatile sulfide concentration (pmollg)
(Fe 2 } activity of Fe 2 + (mol/L)
24j concentration of Fe 2 + (mol/L)
(FeS(s)I concentration of iron sulfide (mol/L)
(FeS(s)J 1 initial iron sulfide concentration in the sediment (mol!L)
KFCS solubility product for FeS(s) ((mollL) 2 3
KMS sotubility product for MS(s) Umol/L) 2 1
(M 2 + } divalent metal activity (mot/L)
[ M 2 1 concentration of M 2 (molIL)
[ MIA concentration of added metal (mol/L)
(MS(s)j concentration of solid-phase metal sulfide (mol/L)
(S 2 } activity of S 2 (mol/L)
(S 2 J concentration of S 2 (moliL)
• (SEMI simultaneously extracted metal concentration (pmollg)
(SEMICd simultaneously extracted Cd concentration (umol/g)
LSEMIcu simultaneously extracted Cu concentration (pmol/g)
(SEMJN simultaneously extracted Ni concentration pmol/g)
ISEMIPb simultaneously extracted Pb concentration (pmollg)
[ SEMI 2 1 , simultaneously extracted Zn concentration (pmollg)
0 Fez. (Fe 2 + }I(!Fe(aq)]
(M 2 ’)I(Em(aq)J
Cs 2 (S 2 }/t!S(aq)J
Fe2 VFe24)
(oM2 VM2.}l
VFe 2 activity coefficient of Fe 2 +
rM’ activity coefficient of M 2 +
activity coefficient of S 2
(!Fe(aq)J concentration of total dissolved Fe(ll) (moliL)
-------
IZM(aq)1 concentration of total dissolved M(Il) (mol/L)
IIS(aqfl concentration of total dissolved S(ll) (mol/L)
4A-6
-------
REFERENCES
1. Stumm. W. 1987. Aquatic Surface Chemistry. Chemical Processes ax Particle-
Water lnterf ace . John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2. Dzombak, D.A. and Morel, F.M.M. 1990. Surface Comolexation Modeling.
Hydrous Ferric Oxide . New York. NY, John Wiley & Sons.
3. Goldberg. S. and Sposito. G. 1984. A chemical model of phosphate adsorption by
soils. II. Noncalcareous soils. Soil Sci. Cos. Am. J. 48:779-783.
4. Barrow. N.J. 1986. Testing a mechanistic model. I. The effects of time and
temperature on the reaction of fluride and molybdate with a soil. J. of Soil Science
37:267-277.
5. Barrow. N.J. 1986. Testing a Mechanistic Model. I I. The effects of time and
temperature on the reaction of zinc with a soil. J. of Soil Science 37:287-295.
6. Barrow. NJ. and Ellis. A.S. 1986. Testing a mechanistic model. Ill. The effects
of pH on fluoride retention by a soil. J. of Soil Science 37:287-295.
7. Barrow, N.J. and Ellis, A.S. 1986. Testing a mechanistic model. IV. Describing
the effects of pH on zinc retention by a soil. J. of Soil Science 37:295-302.
8. Barrow, N.J. and Ellis, A.S. 1986. Testing a mechanistic model. V. The points
of zero salt effect for phosphate retention and for acid/alkali titration of a soil. J.
of Soil Science 37:303-310.
I
9. Sposito, G. de Wit, J.C.M., and Neal, R.H. 1988. Selenite adsorptiOn on alluvial
soils: Ill. Chemical modeling. Soil Sd. Soc. Am. J. 52:947-950.
-------
10. Di Toro, D.M., Harrison, F., Jenne, E., Karickhoff, S., and Lick, W. 1987.
Synopsis of discussion session 2: Evironmental fate and compartmentalizatjon. In:
Fate Effects j Sediment.Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems . 136-147.
Editors: K.L. Dickson, A.W. Maki and W.A. Brungs. Pergamon Press, New York.
11. Jenne, E.A., Di Toro, D.M., Allen, H.E., and Zarba, CS. 1986. An activity-based
model for developing sediment criteria for metals: A new approach. Chemicals in
the environment. International Conference, Lisbon, Portugal.
12. Jenne, E.A. 1968. Controls on Mn, Fe, Co. Ni, Cu, and Zn concentrations in soils
and water -- the significant role of hydrous Mn and Fe oxides. In: Advances 10
Chemistry . 337-387. Editor: American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
13. Jenne, E.A. 1977. Trace element sorption by sediments and soil -. sites and
processes. In: Symposium Molybdenum Environment . Vol. 2. pp. 425.
553. Editors: W. Chappell and K. Petersen. M. Dekker, Inc., New York.
14. Luome, S.N. and Bryan, W. 1981. A statistical assessment of the form of trace
metals in oxidized sediments employing chemical extractants. flj j f Total
Environment 17:165-1.96.
15. Oakley, S.M., Williamson, K.J., and Nelson, P.O. 1980. The geochemical
partitioning and bioavailability of trace metals in marine sediments. Water Res.
Inst., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon. 1 -84.
16. Boulegue, J., Lord HI, C.J. and Church, T.M. 1982. Sulfur speciation and
associated trace metals (Fe, Cu) in the pore waters of Great Marsh, Delaware.
Geochim.. Cosmochim.. Acta. 46:453-464.
-------
17. Emerson. S.. Jacobs. L. and Tebo. B. 1983. The behavior of trace metals in marine
anoxic waters: Solubilities at the oxygen-hydrogen sulfide interface.. In: Trace
Metals in Water . pp. 579-608. Editors: CS. Wong. E. Boyle. K.W. Bruland and
J.D. Burton. Plenum Press, New York.’
18. Davies-Cofley. R.J.. Nelson. P.O. and Williamson, K.J. 1985. Sulfide control of
cadmium and copper concentrations in anaerobic estuarine sediments; Marine
Chemistry 16:173-186.
19. Morse, J.W., Millero, F.J.. Cornwetl. J.C. and Rickard, D. 1987. The chemistry
of the hydrogen sulfide and iron sulfide systems in natural waters. Earth Science
Reviews 24:1-42.
20. Di Toro, D.M., Mahony. J.J.. Hansen. D.J. Scott. K.J. , Hinks. MB., Mayr. S.M. and
Redmond, M.S. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid volatile
sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
21. Phillips, H.O. and Kraus, K.A. 1965. Adsorption on inorganic materials VI. Reaction
of insoluble suit ides with metal ions in aqueous media. J. Chromatog 17:549-557.
22. Pankow. J.F. 1979. The dissolution rates and mechanisms of tetragonal ferrous
sulfide (Mackinawite) in’ anoxic aqueous systems. Ph.D thesis. California Inst. of
Technology. Pasadena. Calif. 1-146.
23. Berner. R.A. 1967. Thermodynamic stability of sedimentary iron sulfides. Am. J.
Sci. 265:773-785.
24. Goidhaber, M.B. and Kaplan, l.R. 1974. The sulfur cycle. In: The Sea. Vol. 5.
Marine Chemistry. 569-655. Editor: E.D. Goldberg. J. Wiley & Sons. New York.
-------
25. Landers, A.H., David, M.B., Mitchel, M.J. 1983. Analysis of organic and inorganic
sulfur constituents in sediments, soils, and water. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem.
14:245-256.
26. Di Toro. D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott. A.R. Carison and G.T.
Ankley. 1992. Acid volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and
nickel in sediments. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 26:96-101.
27. Schoonen, M.A.A. and Barnes, Hi. 1988. An approximation of the second
dissociation constant for H 2 S. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 52:649-654.
28. Byrne. RH.. Kump, L.R. and Carnrell, K.J. 1988. The influence of temperature and
pH on trace metal speciation in seawater. Marine Chemistry 25:163-181.
-------
CHAPTER 5
LABORATORY SPIKING EXPERIMENTS
The discussion in the previous chapter has highlighted the importance of metal
suif ides. Suit ides of Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn all have lower sulfide solubility product
constants than the sulfides of iron and manganese, which are formed naturally in
sediments as a product of the bacterial oxidation of organic matter 113. As a result, these
metals will displace manganese and iron whenever they are present together with
manganese and iron monosulfides 12). Because the solubility product constants of these
suit ides are so small, sediments with an excess of AVS will have very low metal activity
in the interstitial water, and no toxicity due to these metals should be observed in the
sediments. If the metals are present in excess of the suit ides (SEM/AVS > 1 .0) and there
are no other sediment phases capable of binding the metals (e.g., DOC or TOC) metal will
be present in the interstitial water and the sediment may be toxic. The validity of this
theory can be demonstrated through experimentation. Results of acute toxicity testing
with sediments spiked with metals in the laboratory are presented in this chapter.
Predictions of the toxicity of metaiscontaminated field sediments using interstitial water
concentration of metals and AVS normalization are presented in Chapter 6. Results of
chronic toxicity tests using sediment colonization experiments are presented in Chapter 7.
In this chapter results from a series of acute toxicity tests using saltwater sediments
spiked with cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, or zinc, and an equimolar mixture of cadmium,
copper, nickel, and zinc will be examined in detail. The methodology for these tests is
presented in Appendix 5A. These tests will be highlighted because they serve as an
example from a single laboratory (Narragansett EPA Research Laboratory) of the methods
used in the sediment spiking experiments with metals and represent a series of tests which
followed a consistent methodology, performed with a relatively sensitive species unable
to avoid the sediment ( Amoelisca abdita , the amphipod). . abdita is an estuarine, tube-
building, infaunal amphipod commonly used in sediment toxicity testing. Published results
from tests using polychaetes 14,51 and copepods 161 in saltwater sediments, and
oligochaetes and snails 171 in freshwater sediments, will be combined with the A. abdita
-------
5-2’
results. Data from spiked sediment tests in which neither AVS nor interstitial water were
measured (8.91 or which used non-standard methods 1101 will not be included.
Results: Saltwater Amphipod Tests
The data handling techniques used in this chapter are discussed below. Detection
limits were calculated for alt chemical analyses based on instrument detection limits and
sample size. In those instances where a mean concentration is a summation of measured
data and data below the limit of detection. 1/2 the detection limit was used for those
values below the limit of detection. Means for which there were no measured values
ab9ve the detection limit are indicated as n.d. in the appropriate tables and graphs. Only
detectable interstitial water metal was included In the calculation of interstitial water toxic
units. -
Sediments which caused greater than 24 percent mortality were considered toxic.
Mearns et at. (81 found that sediments which caused greater than 24 percent mortality in
tests with the amphipod Rheooxvnius abronius were not consistently classified as
significantly toxic. This criterion is similar to the U80 percent of control survival criterion
used in the EMAP program 1131.
Many of the interstitial and overlying water concentrations discussed herein are
expressed as toxic units. A toxic unit is the measured water concentration divided by the
water-only LC5O concentration for that particular compound for the test organism. For
example a sediment with an interstitial water concentration equal to the water-only LC5O
concentration for the test organism would have one interstitial water toxic unit (IWTU).
When mote than one toxic metal is present, IWTUs are calculated as the sum of the toxic
units of the individual metals; e.g., IWTUCd+Nj = (interstitial water conc Cd/LC5Ocd) +
(interstitial water conc Ni/LC5ON). Thus, if interstitial water is the principa! source of
metals toxicity, and availability of metals is the same in water of water-only tests and
interstitial water in sediment tests, 50 percent mortality would be expected in sediments
having 1 .0 IWTUs. In this document we use < 0.5 IWTUs to indicate sediments unlikely
-------
5-3
to cause significant mortality because on the average water-only LCO and LC5O values
differ by approximately a factor of two (141 and because data in our experiments supports
this value as a break-point between nontoxic md toxic sediments.
Dashed lines are used on all figures to indicate predicted break points in mortality
and chemical concentration. The dashed lines at SEM/AVS = 1.0 indicate the predicted
boundaries between nontoxiC sediments and sediments which may be toxic. The dashed
line at 24 percent mortality indicates the demarcation between toxic and nontoxic
sediments, and the dashed lines at 50 percent mortality and IWTU = 1.0 indicates the
theoretical mortality at 1.0 IWTU.
Water-Only Tests
Ten-day static renewal tests were conducted with . abdita to determine water-only
LC5Osfor Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn in seawater. The 10-day LC5O values for the water-only
tests were calculated using the trimmed Spearman-Karber method 1111. The LC5O values
from the water-only tests are summarized in Table 5-1. There is no 10-day LC5O value
for cadmium available for RheooxvniuS hudsoni so the 10-day LC5O value for Amoelisca
abdita (36 pglL) was used for the calculation of toxic units for this species. This
assumption is reasonable because these amphipods have similar sensitivities; i.e., the 4-
day LC5O’s f or fi. hudsoni (640 pg/I) and . abdita (340 pg/I) differed by less than a factor
of two (121. We assume that the ten-day LC5Os for both species will also be similar.
TABLE 5-1. 10-DAY WATER-ONLY LC5O FOR
AMPELISCA ABDITA
Metal LC5O (pgIL) 95 % Confidence Limits
Cadmium 36.0 Not reliable
Copper 20.5 16.5 - 25.5
Lead 3,020 1,980 - 4,610
NIckel 2.400 2,050 - 2,820
Zinc 343 291 - 405
-------
5-4
Spiked sediment tests
Amphipods were exposed to control and metal-spiked sediments in 1 0-day tests
with continuous renewal of overlying water. In all experiments two sediments of different
AVS concentrationswereused: Ninigret Pond (AVS = 1.18-2.25pmoI/g) and Long Island
Sound (AVS = 9.72-19.9 pmollg). In the cadmium test a mixture of these two sediments
was also used (AVS = 4.34 pmol/g). The nominal treatments used in most experiments.
expressed as the molar ratio of metal to AVS were 0.0 (control). 0.1 • 0.3. 1. 3, 10. and
30 (Table 5-2). There were four replicates per treatment in each test: two ubiologicala
replicates were used to assess mortality, and two chemical replicates were used for
metal and AVS analyses of the sediment at test initiation and termination. Twenty (30
in the cadmium test) amphipods were added to each biological” and the day 10
chemicar replicate at the start of the test. Interstitial water samples were collected in
diffusion samplers (peepers) from each of these three replicates at the termination of the
experiments.
Sediment Chemistry -
Day 0 Versus Day 10 Chemistry Values -
AVS. SEM. and dry weight sediment chemistry measurements varied somewhat
from day 010 day 10. but the variation was generally within 20 percent and did not show
a definite time, concentration, or metal-dependent pattern. Therefore, all AVS, SEM, and
dry weight sediment chemistry data will be reported as means of day 0 and day 10 values.
Interstitial Water Metal Versus SEM/AVS
In all the individual and mixed metals experiments the interstitial water metal
concentrations were usually below the limit of detection in sediments with SEM/AVS ratios
below 1.0 (Table 5-2. Figure 5-1). In ihe cadmium and mixed metals experiments the
values for interstitial water appear high because of the high detection limits in these
-------
TABLE 5.2. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS. METAL CONCENTRATIONS. AND AMPHIPOD MORTAUTY IN SIX SPIKED SEDIMENT EXPERIMENTS.
Spiked
Metel
Sediment
Nominal Percent
Concentration TOC
P.rcent
SiIIICtay
Dry
Weight of Metal
Cu gig)
Sum
Dry Wt
(inrdlg)
Sum
SEM”
lumol/U)
AVS
Cumollq)
14.9
SEM/
AVS
0.00
Percent
IWTU Mo,telIty
ND 1.65
..U
—
r u
u
‘
&fl
N
Cadmium
US
CONT
0.88
94.4
58’
35.89’
ND”
156.29’
27.07’
ND 8.35
Cadmium
LIS
O.IX
0.89
94.4
58’
35.89
175.53
156.29’
27.07’
5.50
1.56
14.9
14.9
0.33
N0 16.7
Cadmium
US
O.3X
0.88
94.4
58’
35.89’
544.77
156.29’
27.07’
27.07’
20.59
4.85
16.66
14.9
1.12
ND 10
Cadmium
LIS
IX
088
94.4
58
35.89•
1872.22
156.29’
14.9
3.47
2405.56 100
Cadmium
LIS
3X
0.88
94.4
58’
35.89’
5810.51
156.29’
27.07’
55.63
51.69
11.92
13444.44 88.4
Cadmium
LIS
lOX
088
94.4
58’
35.89’
19969.10
156.29’
27.07’
181.60
177.66
1.3
0.00
ND 5
Cadmium
NIN
CONY
0.15
0.0
ND’
NO’
NO
2.87’
NO’
0.06
1.3
0.12
ND 12.5
Cadmium
NIN
0. IX
0.15
0.0
ND’
ND’
17.20
2.87’
ND’
0.21
Cadmium
NIN
0.3K
0.15
0.0
ND’
ND’
71.79
2.87’
ND’
0.70
0.64
2.55
1.3
1.3
0.49
1.95
NO
ND 40
Cadmium
NIN
lx
0.15
0.0
ND’
ND’
287.15
2.87’
ND’
ND’
2.61
5.74
5.68
1.3
4.33
263.89 95
Cadmium
NIN
3K
0.15
0.0
ND’
ND’
638.19
1.3
18.53
81.11 100
Cadmium
NIN
lox
0.15
0.0
NO’
NO’
2727.93
287’
ND’
24.33
4.3
0.00
ND 16.7
Cadmium
MIX
CONY
0.57
47.2
29.04’
18.28’
ND
77.56’
14’
1.97
0.06
ND 11.7
Cadmium
MIX
0.1K
0.57
47.2
29.04’
18.28’
31.08
77.56’
14’
2.26
0.28
4.3
0.40
ND 23.4
Cadmium
MIX
0.3K
0.57
47.2
29.04’
18.28’
196.49
77.56’
14’
3.72
4.3
2.22
ND 46.7
Cadmium
MIX
IX
0.57
47.2
29.04’
18.28’
1082.71
77.56’
14’
11.60
4.3
4.77
966.67 100
Cadmium
MIX
3K
0.57
47.2
29.04’
18.29’
2325.82
77.56’
14’
22.66
85
Cadmium
MIX
lox
0.57
47.2
29.04’
18.28’
5443.61
77.56’
14’
27.07
50.40
3.94
48.43
0.27
4.3
13.3
11.16
0.02
0.07 12.5
Copp.r
LIS
CONY
0.68
94.4
58.00
35.89
0.21
156.29
5.84
0.99
12.2
0.08
0.09 7.5
Copper
LIS
0.1K
0.88
94.4
177.12
36.55
0.21
157.46
27.07
9.50
1.54
4.4
0.35
0.13 17.5
Copper
US
0.3K
0.88
94.4
408.41
36.15
0.24
159.37
27.06
22.47
11.46
1.2
9.43
0.87 100
Copper
US
IX
0.88
94.4
1234.76
35.91
0.23
157.41
26.56
55.22
46.23
1.9
2389
264.00 100
Copper
US
3X
0.85
94.4
3323.07
35.08
0.18
151.37
178.59
173.23
1.7
103.73
1319.53 100
Copper
US
lox
0.88
94.4
11165.07
35.74
0.17
150.08
23.12
300.87
1.8
163.07
19768.63 100
Copper
US
30X
0.88
94.4
23369.54
23.15
ND
148.01
9.96
0.00
1.2
0.00
0.06 22.5
Copper
NIN
CONY
0.16
0.0
ND
NO
ND
2.87
ND
1.4
0.04
0.291 5
Copper
Copper
MN
• MN
0.1K
0.3X
0.15
0.15
0.0
0.0
4.60
11.09
ND
ND
ND
NO
2.38
2.27
ND
ND
0.12
0.22
0.08
1.1
0.6
0.08
0.67
0.14 15
0.39 30
Copper
NIN
IX
0.15
0.0
71.68
ND
ND
2.34
ND
1.18
3.41
2.05
0.3
6.36
2.08 100
Copper
MN
aX
0.15
0.0
213.31
ND
ND
2.41
ND
6.79
5.32
0.3
15.41
415.16
100
Copper
MN
lox
0.15
0.0
428.00
ND
ND
2.38
ND
ND
11.46
10.28
0.6
16.31
-
7920.93 100
Copper
MN
30K
0.18
0.0
724.98
ND
ND
3.95
0.23
19.9
6.01
ND 10
Lead
US
CONY
0.99
94.4
50.32
43.52
ND
165.69
4.97
1.25
18.6
0.07
ND 5
Lead
US
0.IX
0.99
94.4
52.96
202.94
ND
176.71
24.55
6.64
4.16
12.8
0.33
ND 12.5
Lead
US
0.SX
0.99
94.4
92.57
595.01
ND
165.17
24.50
14.88
16.4
0.89
0.16 7.5
Lead
US
IX
0.99
94.4
52.16
2297.99
ND
169.50
24.50
48.14
28.49
14.9
1.92
0.26 22.5
Lead
US
3K
0.99
94.4
49.56
8803.36
ND
161.58
23.50
68.26
15.5
4.41
1.09 42.5
Lead
US
lox
0.99
94.4
42.73
23108.45
ND
184.43
17.13
115.31
78.81
14.2
5.52
18.44 100
Lead
US
30K
0.99
94.4
41.49
90441.39
ND
148.43
18.07
-------
TABLE 5.2. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS. METAL CONCENTRATIONS. AND AMPHIPOD MORTALITY UN SIX SPIKED SEDIMENT EXPERIMENTS.
(continued)
Spiked Nominal Percent Percent Dry Weight of Metal (uglg ) Sum Sum AVS SEMI Percent
Metal SedIment Concentration TOC Silt/Clay Dry W i. SEM’ • (umoUg) AVS IWTU Modality
Cu Pb Cd Zr. N,
Lead NUN CONT 0.15 0.0 ND 7.53 ND 8.56 ND 0.18 0.02 1.2 0.02 ND 10
Lead NUN O.1X 0.15 0.0 ND 27.70 ND 6.36 ND 0.24 0.17 1.9 0.09 0.02 17.5
Lead NUN 0.3X 0.15 0.0 0.43 100.46 ND 9.46 ND 0.65 0.59 2.2 0.26 ND 15
Lead NUN 1X 0.15 0.0 0.67 353.51 ND 9.38 ND 1.87 1.87 3.1 0.60 0.03 5
Load NUN 3X 0.15 0.0 0.35 1218.28 ND 3.25 ND 5.94 7.14 58 1.24 0.21 17.5
Lead NUN lox (1.15 0.0 2.44 11448.69 ND 1.32 ND 55.32 1073 4.1 4.10 2.48 55
Load NUN 30X 0.15 0.0 ND 9519.39 ND 1.51 ND 45.98 20.27 3.4 6.01 43.26 92.5
Nickel LUS CONT 0.88 94.4 54.26 35.17 0.28 144.47 25.39 3.67 0.66 12.6 0.05 ND 0
Nickel LUS 0.1X 0.88 94.4 54.67 35.13 0.30 143.66 84.48 4.67 1.12 12.0 0.09 ND 7.5
Nickel LUS 0.3X 0.88 94.4 55.19 36.37 0.27 146.93 209.13 6.86 2.90 10.7 0.27 ND 2.5
Nickel LIS 1X 0.88 94.4 55.73 36.35 0.29 149.45 636.29 14.18 9.82 6.2 1.59 ND 10
NickeU LUS 3X 0.88 94.4 54.73 36.04 0.28 151.94 1638.94 31.28 26.47 3.9 6.81 9.44 95
Nickel LUS lox 0 88 94.4 54.61 36.00 0.34 156.97 4254.09 75.90 70.93 4.0 17.70 163.98 100
NuckoU LIS 30X 0.88 94.4 55.00 36.30 0.41 168.67 9565.33 166.55 268.04 2.7 99.27 843.73 100
NuckoU LUS 100X 0.88 94.4 53.65 37.25 0.65 205.85 25169.49 432.89 574.22 1.9 303.26 2979.15 100
Nickel NUN CONT 0.15 0.0 ND 1.47 ND 2.48 1.39 0.07 0.17 1.9 0.09 0.04 5
Nickel NUN O.1X 0.15 00 ND ND ND 2.16 5.89 0.14 0.35 1.9 0.18 ND 7.5
NickoU NUN 0.3k 0.15 0.0 ND NO ND 2.47 20.45 0.39 0.25 1.8 0.13 ND 2.5
NickeU NUN 1X 0.15 0.0 ND ND ND 2.46 50.20 0.90 0.54 1.0 0.53 0.06 7.5
Nickel NUN 3K 0.15 0.0 NO ND ND 2.44 94.20 1.65 1.21 0.6 2.02 1.47 2.5
NickeU NUN lOX 0.15 0.0 ND ND ND 2.82 162.23 2.81 2.63 0.7 4.03 55.23 97.5
Nickel NUN 30X 0.15 0.0 ND ND ND 3.36 473.75 8.13 7.64 0.9 8.74 271.94 100
Nickol NUN 100X 0.15 0.0 ND . ND ND 6 07 1399.45 23.93 22.95 0.5 49.35 762.81 97.5
Zinc LUS Cont 0.88 94.4 61.34 36.37 0.25 15673 29.20 4.04 1.20 11.3 0.11 0.12 15
Zinc LUS O.1X 0.88 94.4 61.73 36.63 0.26 284.10 29.22 5.99 2.82 11.7 0.24 0.08 7.5
Zinc LUS 0.3K 0.88 94.4 62.46 38.62 0.29 529.70 29.06 9.77 5.60 13.4 0.42 0.07 17.5
Zinc LUS IX 0.88 94.4 60.38 37.44 0.28 1369.89 28.67 22.58 20.71 15.1 1.37 0.02 15
Zinc LUS 3X 0.88 94.4 60.97 38.16 0.27 3404.96 28.97 53.73 75.77 18.2 4.17 10.18 77.5
zinc LUS lox 0.88 94 4 87.49 51.60 3 87 6877.02 32.29 107.41 158.43 15.0 10 53 344.62 100
Zinc uS 30X 0.88 94 4 84.30 48.74 3 32 13319.66 30.79 205.87 142.29 14.0 10.16 8283.21 100
Zinc NUN Cont 0 15 00 0 35 1.24 0.02 2 56 ND 0.06 0.01 2.3 0.00 ND 5
Zinc NUN 0.1K 015 00 NO 1.28 ND 17.04 ND 0.28 0.27 2.5 0.11 ND 125
Zinc NUN 0.3X 0.15 0.0 ND 1.39 ND 4205 ND 0.66 0.71 3.0 0.24 ND 12.5
Zinc NUN 1X 0 15 0.0 ND 1.28 ND 96 49 NO 1.49 1.51 • 2.7 0.55 0.03 5
Zinc NUN 3K 0.15 00 ND 1.16 ND 178.69 ND 2.75 2.02 1.8 1.11 23.27 35
Zinc NUN lox a 15 0.0 0.32 1.35 NO 256.79 ND 3.95 4.21 1.3 3.21 754.56 95
Zinc NUN 30X 0.15 0.0 ND 1.30 NO 542.44 ND 8 32 8.99 1.9 4.63 2909.37 100
Cd. Cu. Ni. Zn LUS Corn 0.99 94.4 43.31 ND 0.47 121.50 18.82 2.86 3.21 9.7 0 33 ND 5
-------
TABLE S 2. SUMMARY OP SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS. METAL CONCENTRATIONS. AND AMPHIPOD MORTAUTY IN SIX SPIKED SEDIMENT EXPERIMENTS.
(cofltinusd)
Cd, Cu. Ni. Zn US
Cd. Cu. Ni. Zn US
Cd. Cu. Ni. Zn US
Cd, Cu. Ni. Zn US
Cd, Cu. NI, Z US
Cd. Cu. Ni, ZIi NIN
Cd. Cu, Ni. Zn NIN
Cd. Cu, NI, n NIN
Cd. Cu. NI. Zn NIN
Cd. Cu. Ni. Zn NIN
Cd. Cu. NI. Zn Not
0.1X 0.99 - 94.4 70.58
0.3X 0.99 94.4 120.02
IX 0.99 94.4 287.87
3X 0.99 94.4 927.79
lox 0.99 94.4 2797.89
Cent 0.15 0.0 0.39
0. IX 0.15 0.0 1.14
0.3X 0.15 0.0 3.27
IX - 0.15 0.0 6.64
3X 0.18 0.0 26.43
lox 0.15 0.0 203.18
11.3 0.39 ND 2.5
8.9 1.25 ND 2.5
3.4 5.83 1.91 15
1.7 31.26 142.45 100
0.2 536.60 16154.85 100
2.0 0.04 NO S
1.3 0.15 ND 17.5
1.4 0.19 NO 5
0.6 1.12 S%53 22.5
0.9 2.83 23.66 30
ND 32.93 2011.72 i0O
Splksd . Nomind Percent Percent
Metal Sediment Concentration TOC - SiltiCtay Cu
Div Wel ht td M.td hanfnl
- - - Sum Sum A SEW Percent
Div Wt SEM’ • (umollgl AVS IWTU Mortality
Pb Cd Zn N
ND 45.40 150.17 41.19 4.51 4.38
ND 128.65 199.90 81.55 7.48 8.68
ND 427.89 367.06 203.79 17.42 19.56
ND 1457.76 982.64 580.10 81.15 83.67
ND 2034.90 1970.39 1322.42 114.80 115.37
ND 0.26 2.33 ND 0.05 0.08
ND 1.68 3.15 1.21 0.10 0.20
ND 8.29 5.19 3.83 0.24 0.28
ND 14.98 13.90 10.11 0.62 0.62
ND 94.03 39.17 17.53 2.15 2.45
ND 108.72 48.24 18.78 6.22 2.88
Vdu.s not av ls for INs t••t. Values from eiv ai central sediments were su siItutsd.
“ND — Not d.Iect I..
• $EM was measured for only the metals spiced Inth. esperiment. SEN was not avuisbie for the cadmium experiment. Bulk vakaes hay. base substituted .
-------
1000000 1000000 b
iooooo 100000
10000 : A iooco • A
moo : moo
0) . A
100 • 100
10
1 .
0.1 : 0.1 • A
_____________ • Al
0.01 0.01
0.001 0.01 01 1 10 100 1000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
SEM/AVS:Cu
SEM/AVS:Cd
1000000 1000000 d
ioooo : A 100000
SA
10 O A 10000
1000 : •A 1000 :
100 : 100 I
io : 10 : I
• ‘ 1
A A 0.1 A• A :
0.01 0.01 I
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100 1000
SEM / AVS: Ni SEM / AVS: Pb
1000000 . 100000
e f
10OOOO : A - , 10000 : A
•
1000 ‘A
• 100
100 ‘A
10
10 •
a, I •—AA
O .l D ‘A 0.1
••
0.01 0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
SEM/AVS:Zn SEM/AVS:Cd+Cu+Nj+Zn
[ A LIS • NIN •Mix
Figure 51. Interstitial water metals (1W) concentration (pM/I) as a function of SEM/AVS
ratto in three sediments: Long Island Sound (LIS), Ninigret Pond (NIN), and a 50/50 mixture
of these two sediments (Mix). Each panel represents data from a separate experiment.
Data from the mixed metals experiment represents the molar sum of cadmium, copper,
nickel, and zinc. Data below the 1W detection limit are plotted at one half the detection
limit, indicated by arrows. All 1W data in the copper experiment were above the limit of
detection. Data below the SEM detection limit are plotted at SEM/AVS = 0.001.
-------
5-9
experiments. In the cadmium experiment one-half the detection limit of the cadmium
electrode used to measure cadmium ion concentrations was 1.33 pmol/L. For the mixed
metals experiment the sum of one-half of the detection limits of the four metals spiked in
this test was 1 .54 pmol/L. Above an SEM/AVS ratio of 1.0 the interstitial water
concentration increased up to five orders of magnitude with increasing SEM/AVS ratio.
In each experiment there were usually one or more sediments with SEM/AVS ratios of only
slightly greater than 1 .0 having interstitial water concentrations below or near detection
limits. This indicates that there are other binding phases in the sediment. In some
sediments spiked with copper, nickel:, and a mixture of metals, AVS decreased with
increasing metals concentration (Table 5-2), presumably due to the formation of copper
and nickel suit ides not soluble in the AVS extraction. This underscores the importance of
using SEM rather than total metal in the calculation of metals/AVS ratios.
When the results of all the experiments are plotted together (Figure 5-2) the
relationship between interstitial water concentration and SEM/AVS is confirmed. In most
cases interstitial water concentrations were below the detection limit in sediments with
SEM/AVS < 1.0, increasing with increasing SEM/AVS ratio at SEM/AVS ratios > 1.0.
The relationship between interstitial water concentration and SEMIAVS ratio in the
mixed metals experiment was similar to that in the individual metal experiments when the
molar concentrations of all of the metals are summed (Figures 5-if and 5-2). Further
insight into the partitioning of the metals in the interstitial water from the mixed metals
experiment can be gained by plotting the interstitial water concentrations for each
individual metal (Figure 5-3). In the LIS sediment all four metals were below the limit of
detection in treatments with SEM/AVS ratios of 1.25 or lower (Figure 5-3). As the
SEM/AVS ratio of the treatments increased, detectable concentrations of metal began to
appear. The most soluble sulfide (nickel) appeared first and at the highest interstitial
water concentration. As SEMIAVS ratios increased the other metals appeared in order
of their sulfide solubility product constants. The metal with the least soluble sulfide
(copper) appeared last and at the lowest concentration. The relationship between
interstitial water concentration and SEM/AVS ratio in the NIN sediments was similar to that
-------
1000000
100000 : *
U **
10000 A +
- * A+
4 c? 1000 +
100 •*+ 1 AA A
10
-ö and Mix + .‘.i+ di
F
A
• A
“A A URA
O 01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
SEM / AVS
• Cd A Cu * Ni • Pb Zn + Mix]
Figure 5-2. Interstitial water metals (1W) concentration (jiM/I) as a function of SEM/AVS ratio. Data from the mixed metals
experiment represents the molar sum of cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc. All experiments combined. Data below the 1W
detection limit are plotted at one half the detection limit and indicated by arrows. All data in the copper experiment wer&
above the limit of detection. Data below the SEM detection limit are plotted at SEM/AVS = 0.001.
-------
1W Metal vs SEM/AVS: SW Mixed Metals US
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
-J
0
E
a
U)
0
4—
I-
G)
1
10000
1Q00
100
10
0
1
0
C
0.01 —
0.01
Ni —
Cu —
Zr
Cd
0.1
1W Metal vs SEM/AVS: SW Mixed Metals• NIN
1000
0.01 — I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
SEM/AVS
Figure 5-3. Individual interstitial water metals (uMfl) concentration in the mixed metals
experiment as a function of SEM/AVS ratio. The top panel represents data from the LIS
sediment, the bottom pane! data from the NIN sediment. Data below the 1W detection
limit are plotted at one half the detection limit, indicated by arrows.
LOG
ksp
L4. NI •27.98
-2839
-32.65
-A-- Cu .4 94
N
C’.—
Cd - ,
1
SEM/AVS
100
-------
5-12
in the LIS sediments (Figure 5-3). In the sediment treatments with SEM/AVS ratios of less
than 1 .0 there was no detectable metal in the interstitial water. In one sediment with an
SEM/AVS ratio slightly greater than 1.0 (1.1 2)’ there was measurable zinc and cadmium,
but only in low concentrations. In the sediment treatment with the next higher ratio there
was measurable nickel, zinc, and cadmium, with the concentrations decreasing in the that
order. Only in the sediment with the highest SEMIAVS ratio was measurable copper found
in the interstitial water.
Sediment Toxicity
The mortality of amphipods as a function of dry weight metals concentrations
followed a similar pattern in each of the five individual metals and the mixed metals
toxicity tests. Mortality appeared sediment-dependent when plotted on a metals basis
(Figure 5.4). Mortality increased with increasing metals concentration (ug/g dry wt.) for
each sediment, but in each experiment there were treatments in low AVS sediments
(Ninigret Pond) which caused 100 percent mortality at dry weight concentrations which
did not cause appreciable mortality in treatments from the high AVS sediment (Long Island
Sound). Thus, although mortality is concentration dependent f or both sediments, the
concentration-response curves do not overlap. Therefore it is not possible to predict
sediment toxicity on the basis of dry weight metals concentration alone (Figure 5-4. Figure
5-5a). Mortality did not appear to be metal-specific when plotted on a molar dry weight
metal basis (Figure 5-5a), indicating that some factor in the sediment was affecting the
toxicity of all five metals similarly. Within one sediment the results from all five metals
were very similar (Figure 5-5b).
Mortality in the individual and mixed metals experiments was sediment independent
when plotted on an SEM/AVS basis (Figure 5-6). Sediments with an SEM/AVS ratio 1.0
did not cause mortality significantly different from the control; i.e.. greater than 24
percent. In sediments with SEM/AVS > 1.0, mortality increased with increasing
SEM/AVS ratio, although in each experiment there were usually one or two sediments with
SEM/AVS ratios slightly greater than 1 .0 (and in one instance 5.8; Table 5-2) which did
-------
100
80
60
40
— 0—
1000 0.01
40
d
10 100 1000 0.01
A’
A
0:1 100 1000
Dry Wt. Metal (pmol/g): Cu
0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Dry Wt. Metal (pmol/g): Zn Dry Wt. Metal (j mol/g): Cd + Cu + NI + Zn
[ Aus SNIN •Mixl
Figure 5-4. Percentage mortality of Amoelisca abdita as a function of the sum of the
concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc in pM divalent metal per gram
dry weight sediment in three sediments: Long Island Sound (LIS), Ninigret Pond (NIN), and
a 50/50 mixture of these two sediments (Mix). Each panel represents data from a
separate experiment.
100
a
A
f
A
b
80
6O
40
20
0—
0.01
.iA.
A
0:1 - 10 100
Dry Wt. Metal (pmol/g): Cd
0
0
0
0
0
100
80
60
A
0.01 0.1 1
A
Dry Wt. Metal Qimol/g):
e
A’
1 100
80
Dry Wt. Metal (pmol/g): Pb
LA
60
40
20
4
0
0.01
A.
£
-------
100 ° +A*A
*
.
I
I
80
U
o0
.
0
S
40 S
U
£ +
20 •g•’ ’
0 .k+Ar+* ___
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Dry Wt. Metal (pmol/g)
S Cd A Cu * Ni • Pb U Zn + Mix
100 b .PO 0
‘00 “S
0
.
80
60
0 0
40 0
0
0.0..-.
20 0 0
O
0
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Dry Wt. Metal (pmol/g)
L us --a-- NlNj
Figure 5-5. Percentage mortality of Ampelisca pbdita as a function of the sum of the
concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc in pM divalent metal per gram
dry weight sediment. All experiments combined. Upper panel plots data by metal, lower
panel plots data by sediment: Long Island Sound (LIS) and Ninigret Pond (NIN).
-------
1000
80 80
:.
40 a 40
S
SEM/AVS:Cd SEM/AVS:Cu
C A A d A
80 : 80
£fl
I w I
:. I.
A ’A 1 I
SEM / AVS: NI SEM I AVS: Pb
iooe loof : a £
80 A 80
40 40
20 Aj
o • A. . 0• . S S4
a. i ooi o.i o oi 01 1 10 100
SEM/AVS:Zn SEM/AVS:Cd+Cu+NI+Zn
IAUS S NIN . M j
Figure 5-6. Percentage mortality of the amphipod, Amoelisca abdita as a function of the
ratio of the sum of the molar concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc
simultaneously extracted (SEM) with acid volatile sulfide (AVS) to the molar concentration
of AVS (SEM/AVS) in three sediments: Long Island Sound (LIS) , Ninigret Pond (NIN). and
a 50/50 mixture of these two sediments (Mix). Each panel represents data from a
separate experiment. Data below the SEM detection limit are plotted at SEM/AVS
0.001.
-------
5-16
not cause significant mortality. This indicates that there are other binding phases in the
sediment. Thus, it is possible to predict with accuracy which sediments will not be toxic,
and, with less accuracy, which sediments will be toxic. When the results of all of the
experiments are plotted together the mortality of amphipods as a function of SEM/AVS
appears metal and sediment independent for the five individual metals, and for a mixture
of metals (Figure 5-7).
Mortality was not sediment specific when it was plotted against interstitial water
toxic units (IWTU). Sediments with IWTUs of less than 0.5 were not toxic (Figure 5-8).
Sediments with IWTUs of greater than 0.5 were increasingly toxic with increasing IWTU
value. As was the case when mortality is plotted against SEM/AVS and ratios exceeded
1.0, there were usually sediments with IWTU values greater than 0.5 which did not cause
mortality. This was especially true in the range of IWTU values greater than 0.5 but less
than 10.0 (Table 5-2). This indicates that not all of the interstitial water metal is
bioavailable. Thus for both SEM/AVS ratios arid IWTUs, sediments likely to be non-toxic
can be predicted with near certainty, but predicting which sediments are likely to be toxic
is less accurate.
As was the case with SEMIAVS ratios, the generality of the relationship between
mortality and IWTIJ can be seen when the results from all of the experiments are coplotted
(Figure 5-9). This relationship was not metal-specific. Thus the sum of the IWTUs can
be used to make predictions about the toxicity (or lack thereof) of any combination of the
metals tested in these experiments.
When the results of the individual metals and the mixed metals test are taken
together, 98 percent of the 43 sediments with SEM/AVS ratios 1 .0 were not toxic (i.e.,
caused mortality less than 24 percent). Of the 45 sediments with SEM/AVS ratios >1.0.
80 percent were toxic. Ninety-four percent of the 52 sediments with IWTU < 0.5 were
not toxic, while 92 percent of the 37 sediments with IWTU 0.5 were toxic. When both
SEM/AVS ratio and IWTU are combined the predictive ability is improved. Ninety-eight
percent of 43 sediments with SEM/AVS ratios < 1.0 and IWTU < 0.5 were not toxic.
-------
100 :
80
o Afl
•
o
• .
I •
qu
20 :.+. t +
.S ••
+ *
o 9 oi o.di 1 10 100 1000
SEM / AVS
• Cd A Cu * Ni • Pt) Zr) + Mix]
Figure 5-7. Percentage mortality of AmDelisca abdita as a function of the ratio of the sum of the molar concentrations of
cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc simultaneously extracted (SEM) with acid volatile sulfide (AVS) to the molar
concentration of AVS (SEM/AVS). All experiments combined. Data below the SEM detection limit are plotted at SEM/AVS
= 0.001.
-------
100 .a • •A oo b A’ A’A ‘A
80 . 80
60,
0 . . .
40 40
TI’ 0 TI
001 01 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 100000
IWTU:Cd IWTU:Cu
100 C ‘ •À’àÁ lood A
80 80
: s.• 20 t’:
001 0 1 I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.01 01 1 10 100 1000
IWrU:Ni . IWTIJ:Pb
iooe ioof A a A
80 ‘A 80
40 40
20 : 20
1 1 1 l I 01. i I i I I
001 0.1 1 10 100 1000 100000 001 01 I 10 100 1000 i 0 100000
IWTU:Zn IWTU:Cd+Cu+NI+Zn
[ A LIS a NIN • Mix
Figure 58. Percentage mortality of Ampelisca pbdita as a function of interstitial water toxic units in
three sediments: Long Island Sound (LIS), Ninigret Pond (NIN), and a 50/50 mixture of these two
sediments (Mix). In the individual metal experiments IWTU equals the 1W concentrat’on of the
individual metal/A. a .bdita LC5O for that metal. Interstitial water toxic unit (IWTU) for the mixed metals
experiment is the sum of the 1W Cd concentratjonfCd LC5O for & abdila + 1W Cu concentration/Cu
LC5O + 1W Ni concentration/Ni LC5O + 1W Zn concentration/zn LC50. Each panel represents data
from a separate experiment.
-------
100 A’ A • ‘ *UA , A4’* a K
* . . U
80 ‘
oo
> . , .
a
1:4 .
A’ +
° 20
:+
**s.
o A
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Interstitial Water Toxic Untts
T’ Cd Cu * NI • Pb • Zn + Mix
Figure 5-9. Percentage mortality of Amoelisca abdita as a function of interstitial water toxic units. In the individual metal
experiments IWTU equals the 1W concentration of the individual metal/s. abdita LC5O for that metal. Interstitial water toxic
unit (tWill) for the mixed metals experiment is the sum of the 1W Cd concentration/Cd LC5O for abdita + 1W Cu
concentration/Cu 1C50 + 1W Ni concentration/Ni LC5O + 1W Zn concentration/Zn LC5O. All experiments combined. Data’
below the detection limit are plotted at IWTU = 0.01.
-------
5.20
while 94 percent of 36 sediments with SEM/AVS ratios > 1.0 and IWTU . 0.5 were
toxic (Table 5-3).
TABLE 5-3. ACCURACY OF PREDICTIONS OF THE TOXICITY OF
SEDIMENTS FROM A. ABDITA SPIKED-SEDIMENT TESTS AND
COMBINED FRESHWATER AND SAL1WATER SPIKED-SEDIMENT TESTS
AS A FUNCTION OF SEM/AVS RATIOS, INTERSTITIAL WATER TOXIC
UNITS (IWTUs) AND BOTH SEM/AVS AND IWTUs.
% of Sediment
Study Type Parameter Value n Nontoxic 1 Toxic’
A. abdita SEM/AVS 1.0 43 97.7 2.3
> 1.0 45 20.0 80.0
IWTU <0.5 52 94.2 3.8
37 8.1 91.9
SEM/AVS.IWTU 1.0. <0.5 43 97.9 2.1
> 1.0. 0.5 36 5.6 94.4
Lab-Spike, SEM/AVS 1.0 92 95.7 4.3
(FW&SW) > 1.0 83 26.5 73.5
IWTU <0.5 107 93.5 6.5
0.5 77 22.1 77.9
SEM/AVS.IWTU 1.0, <0.5 85 96.5 3.5
> 1.0, 0.5 65 12.3 87.7
1 Nontoxic sediments <24 percent mortality. Toxic sediments >24
percent mortality.
Discussion -
The results of the amphipod toxicity tests with sediments spiked with metals
indicate that it is not possible to causally predict the toxicity of a sediment using.the
concentration of metal on a dry weight basis because the relationship between mortality
and dry weight metals concentration in our tests was sediment specific. In contrast, the
relationships between mortality and SEM/AVS ratio and mortality and interstitial water
concentration or toxicants were d!monstrated to be sediment independent. This suggests
that they are the most useful expressions of bioavailable metal for causally predicting
organism response.
-------
5-21
Most of the sediments either caused little or no mortality, or nearly complete
mortality (Figures 59 nd 5-10). This is a result of the dynamics of metals and AVS in
the sediment, leading to a sharp increase in interstitial water metals concentration when
SEM/AVS ratio exceeds 1.0 and sulfide no longer is a significant binding phase (Figures
5-1 and 5-2). When sufficient sulfide is present in the sediment to bind the metal, little
or no metal is present in the interstitial water 1151. The divalent metals should appear in
the interstitial water in reverse order of the solubilities of their sulfides 1123. Thus we
observed that nickel appeared first in the Interstitial water in sediments with SEMIAVS
ratios slightly greater than one, followed by zinc, cadmium, lead, and copper as the
concentration of metals increases relative to that of AVS. When the binding capacity of
the sulfide is exhausted the interstitial water concentrations of metal Increase sharply
enough that nearly 100 percent mortality results in most of our test sediments. The effect
is similar to the throwing of a switch at SEM/AVS = 1.0. This overwhelming increase
in the interstitial water concentration explains why the chemistry of the anaerobic
sediments controls the toxicity of metals to organisms living in aerobic sediment
microhabitats (e.g.. the amphipods living in their burrows in our experiments). It also
• explains why the toxicity of different metals in sediments is the same on an SEM/AVS
basis (Figure 5-7) even though their toxicities differs markedly in water-only toxicity tests
(Table 5-1). This sharp increase in interstitial water concentration with increasing
sediment concentration is in contrast to the situation with nonionic organic contaminants,
which are released from the sediment more gradually, primarily as a function, of the Koc
of the compound 1161.
When our data are combined with the data available from spiked sediment
experiments in the literature, all data demonstrate that SEM/AVS ratios and interstitial
IWTU’s can be used to predict toxicity. Datafrom freshwater tests using oligochaetes and
snails exposed to sediments spiked with cadmium 171; and saltwater tests using
polychaetes exposed to sediments spiked with cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, or zinc 141,
using polychaetes exposed to sediments spiked with cadmium or nickel 151. and copepods
exposed to sediments spiked with cadmium 161 all follow the same patterns as our
amphipod results when mortality is plotted against SEM/AVS ratio (Figure 5-10). These
-------
1::
60
o . .
• *
.
o .
40
I
A: +
-S -
A
LU • +
I •• .t. •*
o •fi L
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
SEM/AVS
• CdAa A CuAa * NIAO • PbAa . ZnAa + MixAc CdLv
o CdNa A CuCc * NINa . PbCc . ZnCc ® CdHs
Figure 5-10. Percentage mortality of saltwater and freshwater benthic species including oligochaetes (Lv), polychaetes (Cc,
Lv, Na), amphipods (Aa) and snails (Hs) exposed to sediments spiked with cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and/or zinc as a
function of the SEM/AVS ratio. Data below the SEM detection limit are plotted at SEM/AVS = 0.001.
-------
5-23
combined data describe tests with six freshwater and saltwater species and sediments
from seven sites having AVS concentrations ranging from 1.9 to 65.7 iimollg dry wt and
bC ranging from 0.15 to 10.6 percent. Mortality in the individual and mixed metals
experiments was sediment independent when plotted on an SEM/AVS basis. Sediments
with an SEM/AVS ratio of less than 1.0 were not toxic. In sediments with SEM/AVS
greater than 1.0, mortality increased with increasing SEM/AVS ratio, but not all sediments
with SEM/AVS ratios of > 1.0 were toxic. This is due, in part, to the presence of other
binding factors.
In addition, organism behavior in a toxicity test can control exposure and limit the
impact of metals in sediments. Many of the sediments which had SEM/AVS ratios> 1.0
but were not toxic were from experiments using the polychaete. Neanthes
praneç 1 eodent tp, exposed to sediments spiked with cadmium or nickel 151. This is
especially true of the nontoxic sediments with the highest SEM/AVS ratios. The
polychaetes did not burrow in most of these sediments, and presumably were not fully.
exposed to the metals in the sediment (Figure 5-1 1) and therefore survived in sediments
that would likely otherwise have been toxic (Figure 5-10).
The combined data from all available freshwater and saltwater tests also follow the
same pattern as our saltwater amphipod data when plotted on an IWTU basis (Figure 5-
12). Mortality was not sediment specific when it was plotted against IWTU. Sediments
with IWTUs of less than 0.5 were generally not toxic. Sediments with IWTUs of greater
than 0.5 were increasingly toxic with increasing IWTU value. Here again, as with
SEM/AVS ratios> 1.0 vs mortality, many of the sediments having IWTUs > 0.5 which
were not toxic are likely the result of interstitial water ligands which may reduce the
bioavailabitity and toxicity of dissolved metals. Polychaete avoidance of otherwise toxic
sediments is also a factor.
With the combined data 96 percent of the 92 of sediments with SEM/AVS ratios
1.0 were not toxic, while 74 percent of the 83 sediments with SEM/AYS ratios> 1.0
were toxic. Ninety-four percent of the 107 sediments with, IWTU < 0.5 were not toxic,
-------
BURROWING ACTIViTY OF NEA?fl’HES
IN NICKEL -SPIKED US SEDIMEN1’S
(P)
C
0
0.
0
0
•1
0
V I
A
0
t?1
•Cl)
C l )
0
©tT
Figure 5-1 1. Burrowing patterns of I4eanthes arenaceodentata in Ni-spiked sediments. Two replicates (A and B) are shown
Treatments were 1) control; 2) SEM/AVS = 0.1; 3) SEM/AVS 0.28; 4) SEM/AVS = 1.3; 5) SEM/AVS = 4.9; 6) SEM/AVS
= 16.9;7)SEM/AVS 125. From(51
0
VI
B
-------
0
0
100
80
60
4O
Figure 5-12. Percentage mortality of saltwater and freshwater benthic species including oligochaetes (Lv), polychaetes (Cc,
Lv, Na), amphipods (Aa) and snails (Hs) exposed to sediments spiked with cadmium, copper, lead, nickel; and/or zinc as a
function of interstitial water toxic units. Data below the detection limit are plotted at IWTU = 0.01.
OL
0.001
.
.
:41&
cD
0
0.0 0.1 1 10
100 1000
Interstitial Water Toxic Units
KOJ O O
-------
5-26
while 78 percent of the 77 sediments with IWTU . 0.5 were toxic. When both SEM/AVS
ratio and IWTU are combined predictive ability is improved. Ninety-six percent of the 85
sediments with SEMIAVS ratios . . 1.0 and IWTU < 0.5 were not toxic, while 88 percent
of the 65 sediments with SEM/AVS ratios > 1.0 and lWTU 0.5 were toxic (Table 5-3).
More IWTU data are available than SEMIAVS data because Green et al. 161 did not
measure AVS in the 10 sediments which they tested. The predictions would be even more
accurate (especially in the elimination of ‘false positives’ (non-toxic sediments with
SEM/AVS > 1.0 and IWTU > 0.5) if data from exposures in which polychaetes avoided
the sediment were not considered (51. This close relationship between IWTU and sediment
toxicity has been found in an earlier study with cadmium in field sediments (17) as well
as studies with nonionic organic chemicals both in the field (18,191 and in the laboratory
(20,161.
One limitation to the data cited above is that all tests were acute exposures and
these results may not be applicable to chronic exposures. Also metals bioaccumulation
was not measured, except in one case (73. The applicability of AVS and interstitial water
normalizations to chronic exposures and bioaccumulation in benthic organisms are
discussed elsewhere in this document. Another important limitation to the use of AVS is
that it is only a factor in anaerobic sediments. It did, however, seem to be a controlling
factor in our experiments, with organisms living in aerobic microenvironments. This
anaerobic limitation does not apply to IWTU. of course. The advantages and
disadvantages of each of these prediction methods will be discussed in detail in Chapter
10.
Our results also show that although SEM/AVS and IWTU are useful predictors of
toxicity, there are other important factors as well. The fact that a significant number of
sediments (20 percent) had SEM/AVS ratios of greater than 1.0 but were not toxic
indicates that other binding phases in anaerobic sediments, in addition to AVS, are also
controlling bioavailability. Organic carbon appears to be one of these (211. While the
SEM/AVS model of bioavailability accurately predicts which sediments will not be toxic,
-------
5-27
a model which utilizes SEM/AVS ratios but incorporates these other variables might more
accurately predict which sediments will be toxic 116).
Similarly, a significant number of sediments with greater than 0.5 IWTUs were not
toxic. Ankley et al. 1221 suggested that differences between the hardness of the
interstitial water and that of the water in the water-only tests might effect the accuracy
of prediction of sediment toxicity using IWTUs in fresh water, unless the IWI Us are
hardness-corrected. Further. Green et at. (61 and Ankley et al. 1221 hypothesized that
increased DOC in the interstitial water reduced the bioavadability of cadmium In their
sediment exposures, relative to the water-only exposures. Green et at. (6) found that the
LC5O vatue for cadmium in a water-only exposure was less than 1/2 that of a pore-water-
only exposure, and less than 1/3 that in pore-water associated with sediments. A
significant improvement in the accuracy of toxicity predictions using IWTUs might be
achieved if DOC binding in the interstitial water is taken into account.
-------
APPENDIX 5A
MATERIALS AND METHODS: AMPHIPOD TESTS
Organism collection and acclimation -
Amoelisca abdita were collected from tidal flats in the Pettaquamscutt (Narrow)
River. a small estuary flowing into Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Surface sediment
containing the amphipods was either sieved in the field or transferred to the laboratory
within one half hour and then sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh screen. In the laboratory,
amphipods and amphipod tubes were vigorously sieved in a tub of seawater, then the
sieve was quickly lowered into the water and the amphipods were collected from the
water surface. The amphipods were maintained f or three to seven days in the laboratory
in presieved uncontaminated collection site sediment and flowing filtered seawater in 4-
liter glass jars, and acclimated to the test temperature at the rate of 2 to 4°C per day.
During acclimation, amphipods were fed the laboratory-cultured diatom, Phaeodaetvlum
tricornutum , libitum .
One sediment, Ninigret Pond in the cadmium experiment, was tested using the
amphipod Rheooxvnius hudsoni . fi. hudsoni was collected at Ninigret Pond. Rhode Island,
using collection and acclimation methods similar to those f or . amoelisca , except that B.
hudsoni was washed directly from the sieve into sorting dishes after collection.
Water-only tests -
Ten-day static renewal tests were conducted with . abdita to determine their
water-only LC5Os for Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn in seawater. Animals were exposed, unfed,
to five concentrations of metal and a control, with two replicates per concentration.
Amphipods were exposed in 900 ml glass canning jars that contained 800 mL of
water. Acclimated amphipods were sieved from the holding jars, sequentially distributed
to 100 mL plastic cups (10 amphipods per cup). then randomly added to the exposure
chambers. Seventy.five to 100 percent of the water in each replicate was renewed every
-------
5A-2
other day, depending on the experiment. Water was sampled at least once during the test
(usually twice, once near the beginning and once near the end of the test) to determine the
concentration of metal. In some experiments aliquots from the two replicates were pooled
prior to analysis. Exposure chambers were covered with black plastic. The exposure
chambers were checked daily and amphipods which appeared dead were removed and
examined under a dissecting microscope. Live animals were returned to the test and dead
animals were recorded and discarded.
Spiked sediment tests•
Amphipods were exposed to control and metal-spiked sediments in 10-day tests
with continuous renewal of overlying water. In all experiments two sedimentsof different
AVS concentrations were used: Ninigret Pond (AVS = 1.18 to 2.25 pMIg) and Long
Island Sound (AVS = 9.72 to 19.9 pMIg). In the cadmium test a mixture of these two
sediments was also used (AVS = 4.34 pM/g). The nominal treatments used in most
experiments, expressed as the molar ratio of metal to AVS were 0.0 (control). 0.1, 0.3,
1, 3, 10, and 30 (Table 1). There were four replicates per treatment in each test: two
“biological replicates were used to assess mortality, and two chemical’ replicates were
used f or metal and AVS analyses of the sediment at test initiation and termination.
Twenty (30 in the cadmium test) amphipods were added to each biological and the day
10 m chemical replicate at the start of the test. Interstitial water samples were collected
in diffusion samplers (peepers) from each of these three replicates at the termination of the
experiments.
The Long Island Sound (LIS) sediment was collected from an uncontaminated site
in central Long Island Sound (40°7.95’N and 72°52.7W) with a Smith-Mcintyre grab
sampler, returned to the laboratory, press sieved wet through a 2 mm mesh stainless steel
screen, homogenized and stored at 4°C. There were two separate collections of US (US1
and LIS2) sediment. The percent total organic carbon for US1 was 0.88, for LIS2 it was
0.99. The grain size composition of LIS1 was 5 percent sand, 71 percent silt, and 24
percent clay. Grain size data are not available for LIS2, but it was of similar composition.
-------
5A-3
Sediment was also collected in Ninigret Pond (NIN), Charlestown, Rhode Island.
The upper few inches of sediment were collected with a shovel, returned to the laboratory,
sieved wet through a 2 mm stainless steel screen, rinsed several times to remove high-
organic fine particles, homogenized and stored at 4°C. There were two collections made
in Ninigret Pond, from two different sites (NIN1 and NIN2). Both sediments had TOC
values of 0.15 percent and were 100 percent sand (Table 1). NIN2 was made up of
slightly finer sand, most of which would pass through a 0.5 mm sieve. Most of the NIN1
sediment was retained on a 0.5 mm sieve.
•Sediments were spiked with metal chloride or nitrate salts in glass, 1 gallon jars.
Methods differed slightly from experiment to experiment but typically we added 1200 mL
of wet sediment to 2000 mL of 20°C seawater that contained the desired weight of metal
ãhloride. The spiked sediments were stirred with a nylon stirrer attached to an electric drill
until homogeneous, then the overlying air in each jar was replaced with nitrogen and the
jars were capped and rolled for 1 hour. Jars of sediment were held at 20°C for 8 to 10
days before the start of the test. We siphoned the water and any precipitate of f the
sediment surface and rehomogenized the sediment before adding it to the exposure
chambers.
The exposure chambers were 900 mL glass canning jars, each with a 1.3 cm
diameter overflow hole (covered with 400-micron Nitex mesh) 11.7 cm from the bottom
of the jar. Each jar contained 200 mL of sediment and held about 600 mL of sea water
over the sediment. Each jar was covered with a 8 cm diameter glass Carolina dish with
a 17 mm diameter hole for the seawater delivery tube and air line consisting of a 2 mL
glass pipette. We positioned the water delivery and air lines so that the sediment was not
disturbed.
Diffusion samplers (23,24J peepers, were constructed from polyethylene vials (21
mm high, 20 mm diameter, 5mL capacity). A 1.6 cm hole was cut in the cap,
polycarbeiate membrane (1 micron) was placed over the open end of the vial and the cap
replaced under water so that the sampler was filled with 20°C, 30 ppt salinity water at
-------
5A-4
the start of the test. A 21.5 cm long nylon strap was attached to the vial to serve as a
handle to facilitate handling and removal of the diffusion sampler from the exposure
chamber. For the mixed metals experiment each diffusion sampler consisted of two vials
attached back-to-back to double the volume of interstitial water collected. (The peeper
design used in the cadmium experiment was different and is described in Di Toro et aL
1121.
Sand-filtered Narragansett Bay water, heated to 20°C ± 1°C. with a mean salinity
of 30 ppt (28 to 34 ppt) was used in the experiments. Seawater floWed intO eich
exposure chamber from a distribution system consisting of chambers with self-priming
siphons and splitter chambers. Flow rate for each exposure chamber was approximately
28 to 35 volume additions per day (except in the cadmium experiment in which it was
approximately 10 volume additions per day). Exposure chambers were placed in 20°C
water baths to maintain temperature. The exposure chambers were kept under constant
light to help keep the amphipods burrowed into the sediment.
The test was started by placing a diffusion sampler in ea h exposure chamber end
adding 200 mL of sediment, to just cover the diffusion sampler. Seawater was allowed
to flow through the chambers for 1 day. Amphipods were removed from the holding
containers as described above, distributed sequentially to 100 mL plastic cups until there
were 20 amphipods per cup (30 in the cadmium experiment), then one cup of amphipods
was added randomly to each exposure chamber. The seawater delivery system was
turned off for 1 hour and any amphipods that had not burrowed into the sediment in that
time were replaced, except in those replicates where there wai an obvious dose response
(i.e. where there were a greater than average number of unburrowed individuals in both
replicates). Samples of sediment were taken from the day zero chemistry replicates for
metals and AVS analyses. All but about 1 cm of overlyiflg water was removed from each
• day zero chemistry replicate with a vacuum pump and pipette tip. The sediment and a
small amount of remaining seawater was homogenized with a stainless steel spatula.
Approximately half the sediment was placed in an acid-stripped polyethylene jar for acid-
extractable metals analysis, while the remainder was poured into a 100 mL polyethylene
-------
5A-5
specimen cup for AVS and SEM analysis. Each jar was capped and the samples held in
the dark at 4°C until analysis.
The experimental chambers were checked daily and amphipods which appeared
dead were removed and examined under a dissecting microscope. Live animals were
returned to the test, dead animals were recorded and discarded. The volume of water
delivered to each exposure container was measured before each test and the total flow
rate to the system was measured and adjusted daily. Temperature of the water bath and
salinity of the incoming seawater was measured daily. The overlying water in each
biological replicate was sampled for metal concentration at least once near the beginning
and near the end of each test. In some tests the samples from the two replicates were
pooled. Each overlying water sample was placed in an acid-stripped 7 mL polyethylene
vial and acidified with 50 p1 of concentrated nitric acid (pH 1).
At the end of the test the diffusion samplers were carefully removed from each
replicate. Any sediment remaining on the cap or membrane portion of the sampler was
rinsed off using clean seawater. The membrane was then punctured with an acid-stripped
5 mL disposable pipette tip and the contents of the sampler removed by pipette. The
interstitial water collected from each diffusion sampler was added to an acid-stripped 7 mL
polyethylene vial, acidified with 50 p1 of concentrated nitric acid (pH j) and stored for
metals analysis. The sediment from the chemical replicates was sampled for metals and
AVS content as described for the day zero chemistry replicates. The contents of each
amphipod biologicar replicate were sieved through a 0.5 mm screen. Material retained
on the sieve was examined immediately or preserved with Rose Bengal stain for later
sorting. Amphipods were counted and any missing animals were assumed to have died
and decomposed. Any replicates in which 10 percent or more amphipods were not found
were recounted by another investigator as a QA check.
-------
5A-6
Chemical analyses -
Sediment samples were analyzed for AVS by a cold-acid pUrge- and-trap technique
described by Di Toro et al. 112,21. SEM analyses for the copper, nickel and zinc
experiments were performed using the graphite furnace AA. SEM analyses for the lead
and the mixed metals experiments were performed using inductively coupled plasma
emission spectrometry (ICP). SEM was not measured in the cadmium experiment because
the import nce of SEM vs total metal was not understood at that time. However,
cadmium does not form sulfides which are Insoluble in the AVS procedure 121 so acid-
extractable and SEM cadmium concentrations are interchangeable. SEM for only the metal
under study was measured in the individual chemical experiments. However, the sum of
the SEM for all of the catlonic metals is only 3.2 pM/g for US. and 0.081 pMIg for NIN
and thus of little importance In the SEM/AVS ratio for the level of metal spiking used.
To allow for comparisons with other metals toxicity studies, acid-extractable metals
analyses were also performed. For’this analysis, metals were extracted from freeze-dried
sediments by ultrasonic agitation with 2 M cold nitric acid (50 mL to 5 g wet sediment)
and the extracted metals separated from the sediment residue by centrifugation. The
resultant solution was analyzed by ICP.
The acidified interstitial and overlying waters were analyzed for trace metals by ICP.
The interstitial water samples from the mixed metals experiment were diluted fivefold with
2 M HNO 3 in order to provide sufficient solution for analysis. The interstitial water
samples from the copper experiment were also analyzed using the graphite furnace. The
interstitial waters from the cadmium experiment were analyzed using a cadmium ion-
specific electrode. Total cadmium was estimated by multiplying the Cd 2 measured by
the electrode by 20 (Di Toro et al., 1990). which is the ratio of total Cd to Cd 2 In
seawater.
-------
1. Goldhaber, M. B. and Kaplan. l.R. 1974. The sulfur cycle. In E.D. Goldberg. ed. ,
The Sea, Vol. 5- Marine Chemistry. Joh’n Wiley and Sons. New York, NY, pp. 569-
655.
2. Di Toro. D.M.. Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott. K.J.. Carison. A.R., and Ankley,
G.T. 1992. Acid volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel
in sediments. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 26:96-101.
3. Scott. K.J. and Redmond, M.S. 1989. The effects of a contaminated dredged
material on laboratory populations of the tubiculous amphipod, Amoelisca abdita .
In U.M. Cowgill and L.R. Williams, eds., Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment : Twelfth Symposium. American Society of Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 289-303.
4. Casas, A.M., and Crecelius, E.A. 1994. Relationship between acid volatile sulfide
and the toxicity of zinc, lead and copper in marine sediments. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 13:529-536.
5. Pesch, C.E., Hansen, D.J., Boothman, W.S. Berry, W.J., and Mahony, J.D. The
role of acid-volatile sulfide and interstitial water metal concentrations in determining
bioavailability of cadmium and nickel from contaminated sediments to the marine
polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodentata . Environ. Toxicol. Chem. In press.
6. Green, AS., Chandler, CT., and Blood, G.T. 1993. Aqueous-, pore-water-, and
sediment-phase cadmium: toxicity relationships f or a meiobenthic copepod. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 12:1497-1506.
7. Carlson, A.R., Phipps, G.L., Mattson, V.R., Kosian, P.A., and Cotter, A.M. 1991.
The role of acidvolatile sulfide in determining cadmium bioavailabitty and toxicity
in freshwater sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1309-13 19.
-------
8. Mearns. A.J.. Swartz. A.M.. Cufflmins, J.M.. Dinnet. P.A.. Plesha. P. and Chapman
P.M. 1986. Inter-laboratory comparison of a sediment toxicity test using the
marine amphipod, Rheooxvnius abronius . Mar. Environ. Res. 19:13-37.
9. Hickey, C.W. and Roper. D.S. 1992. Acute toxicity of cadmium to two species
of infaunal marine amphipods (tube-dwelling and burrowing) from New Zealand.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 49:165-170.
10. Kemp. P.F.. and Swartz. R.C. 1988. Acute toxicity of interstitial and particle-
bound cadmium to a marine infaunal amphipod. Mar. Environ. Res. 26:135-153.
11. Hamilton. M.A., Russo. R.C.. and Thurston R.V. 1977. Trimmed Spearman-Karber
method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 11:714-719; correction 1978. 12:414.
12. Di Toro. D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen. D.J.. Scott. K.J.. Hicks, M.B.. Mays S.M..
and Redmond, M.S. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid
volatile sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1489-1504.
S
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Statistical summary. EMAP-
Estuaries. Virginian Province- 1991. Office of Research and Development.
Washington. DC. EPA/620/R-94/005. March. 1994. 77 pp.
14. Stephan. C.E.. Mount, D.I., Hansen, D.J.. Gentile. J.H.. Chapman, G.A.. and
Brungs. W.A. 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality
criteria f or the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. PB85-227049.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield. VA. 98pp.
15. Gonzales. A.M.. Mahony, J.D.. and Di Toro. D.M. 1992 The role of organic carbon
in the toxicity of anoxic sediments contaminated with copper and other metals: An
experimental study. Abstract. 13th Annual Meeting. Soc. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
p. 162.
-------
16. Di Toro, D.M.. Zarba. C.S.. Hansen, D.J., Berry. W.J., Swartz, R.C.. Cowen, C.E..
Pavlou, S.P., Allen, H.E.. Thomas, N.A.. and Paquin, P.R. 1991. Technical basis
for establishing sediment quality criteria for non-ionic organic chemicals using
equilibrium partitioning. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10: 1541-1583.
17. Swartz. R.C., Dittsworth. G.R., Schults, D.W.. and Lamberson, JO. 1985.
Sediment toxicity to a marine infaunal amphipod: Cadmium and its interaction with
sewage sludge. Mar. Environ. Res. 18:133-153.
18. Hoke, R.A., Ankley. G.T., Cotter, A.M., Goldstein, T.. Kosian, P.A., Phipps. G.L.,
and VanderMeiden, F. 1994. Evaluation of equilibrium partitioning theory for
predicting acute toxicity of field-collected sediments contaminated with DDT, DDE,
and DOD to the amphipod. Hvalella Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13:157-166.
19. Swartz, R.C., Cole, F.A.. Lamberson, J.0., Ferraro. S.P.. Schults. D.W.. DeBen,
W.A., Henry Lee H, and Ozretich, R.J. 1994. Sediment toxicity, contamination and
amphipod abundance at a DDT- and dieldrin-contaminated site in San Francisco Bay.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13:949-962.
20. Adams, W.J., Kimerle. R.A.. and Mosher, R.G. 1985. Aquatic safety assessment
of chemicals sorbed to sediments. In R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy and R.C. Bahner, eds.,
Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium. STP 854.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. PA. pp. 429-453.
21. Mahony. J.D. Di Toro. D.M.. Gonzalez. AM.. Berry,W.J.. and Ankley, G.T. 1991.
A sediment component in addition to acid volatile sulfide that may further control
toxicity of metals. 12th Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. p. 91.
-------
22. Ankley, G.T., Phipps. G.L.. Leonard. E.N., Benoit, D.A.. Mattson, V.R., Kosian,
P.A., Cotter, A.M.. Dierkes, J.R.. Hansen. D. J. and J.D. Mahony. 1991. Acid-
volatile sulfide as a factor mediating cadmium and nickel bloavailability in
contaminated sediments. Environ. Toxiéol. Chem. 10:1299-1307.
23. Carignan, R., Rapin, F., and Tessier. A. 1985. Sediment porewater sampling for
metal analysis: A comparison of techniques. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 19:2493-
2497.
24. Hesslein, R.H. 1976. An in situ sampler for close Interval pore water studies.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 21:912-914.
-------
CHAPTER 6
FIELD COLLECTED SAMPLES
The objective of this chapter is to further demonstrate the utility of interstitial water
concentrations of metals and sediment concentrations normalized based on SEM/AVS
ratios to explain the bioavailability of sediment-associated metals to benthic organisms.
The sediments examined in this chapter are all field collected from locations with high
metals concentrations. The first part of this chapter presents previously unpublished data
on the relationship between total metal concentrations, interstitial metal concentrations
and SEMFAVS ratios, and toxicity to the saltwater amphipod ( Amoelisca abdita ) exposed
to sediments from five marine sites located in Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; New
Brunswick. Canada and Liaoning Province. China together with previously published results
using New York sediments with a saltwater polychaete ( Neanthes arenaceodentata ) 11).
Next, data are presented on these relationships with a freshwater amphipod ( Hvalella
azteca ) and an oligochete ( Lumbriculus variepatus ) exposed to sediments from four field
locations. Data from locations in New York. Michigan. and Washington have been
published previously 12,31 while those from Missouri are new. All are herein analyzed
collectively. Finally, this chapter combines results from all experiments using field-
collected saltwater and freshwater sediments with those from all available laboratory
spiked-sediment tests using a variety of saltwater and freshwater species 14).
Methods for sediment collection, storage and handling, chemical analyses, and
toxicity testing for the saltwater amphopod ( . abdita ) exposed to five saltwater sediments
can be found in Appendix 6A. Methods used to collect, store, and handle freshwater
sediments and test sediments with the amphipod. ff have been described for
samples from Steilacoom Lake. Washington, and Keweenaw Waterway, Michigan. by
Ankley et al. (51 and for . and the oligochaete worm, L varieaatus , with
sediments from Foundry Cove, New York by Ankley et al. 121. These same procedures
were also used with sediments from Turkey Creek, Missouri. General biological and
chemica procedures, as well as the conceptual experimental design, were essentially the
same for saltwater and freshwater tests, except that f or freshwater tests bulk metals
-------
6-2
analyses were not performed and interstitial water was extracted by centrifugation instead
of diffusional samplers.
Results Saltwater Field Sites
Description of Field Sites and Toxicity Test Results
Jinzhou Bay is located in the northeastern quadrant of the Bohai Sea. China (Figure
6-1). It has an area of about 150 km 2 . including 62 km 2 of tideflats. with an average
depth of 3.5m 16). A zinc smelter located near the mouth of the Wuli River is the largest
source of metals to the bay, although other industrial discharges are contributors.
Sediments for this study were collected from seven locations along 830 km transect from
the river to the northeastern portion of the bay. Total concentrations of divalent metals
in sediments collected ranged from 261 to 36.200 pglg dry weight (Table 6-1). Zinc
constituted between 78.5 and 86.5 percent of the total. Sediments also contained low
concentrations of PAHs (< 12 pgtg for individual PAHs). PCBs (< 0.03 pglg for individual
congeners) and chlorinated pesticides (< 0.03 pglg for any individual pesticide).
Concentrations of TOC ranged from 0.11 to 11.5 percent. AVS 3.0 to 126 pmol/g. SEM
2.9 to 374 pmol/g and SEM/AVS ratios from 0.51 to 8.36. The sum of the interstitial
water toxic units (IWTU) for the five divalent metals ranged from no metal detected
(<0.01) to 0.58. The four sediments with the highest metals concentrations were toxic
(> 24 percent mortality) to abdita . However, only the most contaminated sediment
contained greater than 0.5 IWTU and had an SEM/AVS ratio> 1.0. which suggests that
metals may not be principal cause of the toxicity observed in the other three sediments
(Figures 6-2 and 6-3).
BelIed une Harbor 1 which receives outf ails from a lead smelter and fertilizer plant, is
located in the southwestern portion of Chaleur Bay. New Brunswick. Canada (Figure 6-1).
Harbor sediments are particularly enriched, relative to adjacent areas, in concentrations of
cadmium, lead, and zi c; other metals are somewhat elevated (7). The closure of. the
lobster fishery due to the elevation of cadmium concentrations in algae. snails, mussels,
-------
Salt Marsh. MA
4
5 6
1
lb 17
16 Figure 6-1. Location of field sites and
stations sampled in Jinzhou Bay, China;
16 Belledune Harbor, New Brunswick,
Canada; Bear Creek, Maryland; Foundry
Cove, New York and a salt marsh in
22 23 Massachusetts.
lOOm
t 2
-------
TABLE 0.1. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARAC’TERISflCS. METAL CONCEN1RAflONS AND AUPHIPOD MORTALITY R4 SEDIMENTS FROM JINZHOU
BAY. CHINA. BELLEDUNE HARBOR. NEW BRUNSWICK. CANAD& FOUNDRY COVE. NEW YORK; BEAR CREEK. MARYLAND; A SALT MARSH W I
MASSACHUSETTS
P.scsnt PiIcsl%! Bulk D vilsi t Must. ( i 1g1 SEM AVS SEMI P ,csnt
StatIon TOC sit/asy $flOIlS jNuiSIIq AVS tWI ll Usitilley
t u Buy. Dulis
NJAU’ • ‘ 0.10 13.0 2.30 32.0 67.0 1.40 1.42 12.2 0.11 ND 2.0
1 11.6 “ 203 2010 31.0 5410 20400 486 374 44.7 0.36 0.68 100
2 2.00 “ 161 296 24.2 lOS 4440 50.6 63.6 126 0.01 ND 60.0
$ 0.37 “ 9.13 10.4 10.2 113 737 01.1 10.0 17.0 0.61 ND 37.6
4 0.60 ‘ 41.4 480 17.4 142 1320 04.2 10.6 36.6 0.61 0.17 30.0
6 0.26 “ 3.00 0.40 0.60 22.2 221 04.7 2.99 3.02 0.89 0.03 2.6
6 0.11 “ 8.40 11.8 0.40 17.0 56.5 385 5.42 0.71 ND 7.6
7 0.17 “ 4.00 13.0 7.40 17.6 239 04.0 2.92 3.68 0.02 ND 2.6
Buk4ii Hsibor. NJ.
LIS’ 0.20 94 0.00 459 30.0 31.7 122 3.00 2.70 10.0 0.16 ND 10.0
I 0.90 ‘ 9.68 50.0 33.2 400 401 90.6 6.06 27.2 0.24 0.04 7.5
2 1.29 •‘ 11.6 101 38.0 955 784 92.1 17.3 80.3 0.22 0.06 12.6
3 1.08 “ 15.0 104 30.7 1140.0 697 92.0 10.2 102 0.18 0.18 12.6
4 1.02 ‘ 12.7 05.6 38.0 121 574 925 16.3 96.6 0.17 0.07 12.5
5 1.20 “ 8.01 57.6 37.3 639 581 81.6 11.1 47.4 0.23 0.02 16.0
6 1.12 “ 676 49.3 31.7 463 503 91.7 10.2 36.5 0.26 0.06 12.6
7 1.10 “ 7.37 616 31.2 689 943 93.6 16.9 56.1 0.30 0.62 12.6
O 0.73 “ 1.22 15.5 26.6 94.6 137 93.7 1.96 5.54 0.35 ND 7.5
9 0.97 “ 1.94 19.6 27.7 131 170 863 3.16 167 0.19 0.05 17.6
10 0.92 ‘ 2.04 21.9 33.3 149 192 74.7 1.07 11.3 0.17 ND 5.0
Fo a q Cow. NY
US’ 0.08 94 0.40 58.3 26.5 361 180 3.95 0.24 12.0 0.02 ND 10.0
1 10.2 “ 38900 143 31500.0 194 403 805 770 5.60 138 435 92.5
2 6.20 “ 5920 87.3 5180.0 157 297 148 93.4 10.0 6.17 9.21 32.6
3 13.1 “ 5950 51.4 4100.0 92.1 278 128 105 12.2 9.65 3.33 52.5
4 t3 “ 9520 106 3700.0 135 313 154 136 26.9 6.10 2.16 20.0
6 9.37 “ 13100 1 16 7870.0 156 356 254 166 64.6 2.59 1.01 90.0
6 5.03 “ 6600 101 2340.0 357 303 663 52.2 12.6 4.19 1.07 35.0
7 0.79 “ 66.1 30.4 60.6 10.0 79.6 3.32 0.67 0.44 1.65 0.42 17.6
• 13.6 “ 622 66.9 388 90.3 211 16.0 0.64 20.2 0.43 0.46 17.5
9 5.82 “ 6320 74.3 3600.0 113 348 120 964 24.7 3.60 1.48 15.0
10 10.9 “ 15.6 31.3 38.6 27.2 101 2.99 1.27 2.62 0.45 0.30 7.5
11 0.56 “ 36.2 15.1 45.4 6.2 65.4 2.31 0.42 0.41 1.03 0.30 17.5
12 16.4 ‘‘ 163 57.6 137 57.7 231 8.62 1.91 0.40 4.03 1.42 12.6
13 14.6 “ 80.5 44.5 92.1 47.9 142 6.44 1.94 0.61 2.80 0.44 16.0
14 7.19 “ 363 104 227 127 317 14.1 5.36 37.1 0.14 1.11 13.6
15 4.76 “ 20.6 92.7 29.9 177 234 6.57 0.66 13.1 0.04 1.60 17.5
10 1.46 “ 10.1 26.2 17.8 40.2 124 2.93 0.20 1.30 0.15 ND 20.0
O ..’ Dw . MD
LIS’ 3.89 07 0.77 52.6 37.6 12.9 141 3.62 2.82 9.75 0.29 0.03 0.0
1 7.10 99 8.79 208 63.7 105 1500 29.3 30.3 361 0.11 0.03 52.5
2 7.38 97 10.0 228 02.8 212 1700 31.7 30.6 304 0.10 0.03 85.0
3 6.76 97 6.38 266 60.0 209 1140 23.7 20.2 78.1 0.27 0.03 05.0
4 6.47 96 4.04 307 66.7 176 968 19.7 17.4 70.1 0.36 0.03 06.0
6 6.15 80 3.45 III 38.5 162 587 12.5 17.1 46.3 0.38 0.03 67.6
6 3.32 58 4.82 I II 49.9 173 1000 30.0 10.6 48.8 0.36 0.03 40.0
7 0.13 7 0.00 310 2.01 3.0 35.9 0.64 0.63 0.40 1.56 0.04 6.0
• 5.19 97 6.62 254 45.9 250 1110 23.1 32.9 147 0.16 0.02 92.5
• 4.40 03 4.19 241 52.0 274 970 21.0 19.1 61.3 0.21 0.03 12.6
10 0.17 6 0.17 9.40 457 9.4 60.3 1.34 1.25 0.46 2.79 0.03 6.0
11 4.61 95 2.61 140 50.7 102 617 13.3 11.8 50.0 0.24 0.03 3.5
12 0.16 4 0.17 41.4 2.84 7.4 42.7 1.36 0.74 0.40 156 0.02 6.0
13 4.19 94 1.71 139 48.7 128 469 106 8.94 7.20 1.37 0.03 17.5
14 3.14 91 1.3$ 96.9 29.0 88.5 348 7.90 671 0.40 16.8 0.03 3.5
Silt Us&i. MA
US’ 0.99 94 0.00 55.7 25.2 35.1 142 3.83 3.62 15.6 0.18 ND 6.0
-------
TABLE 6.1. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS. METAL CONCENTRATIONS AND AMPHIPOD
MORTALITY IN SEDIMENTS FROM JINZHOU BAY. CHINA; BELLEDUNE HARBOR. NEW BRuNSwICK,
CANADA; FOUNDRY COVE. NEW YORK; BEAR CREEK. MARYLAND; A SALT MARSH IN MASSACHUSmS
(continu.d)
Psicint Psic.n* Sulk Divaisni M.t.Is Ip ) OEM AVS OEM! P,rc,n
Station TOC SiWOsy Pb a inoVg inoVg AVS IWTU Mortality
LIS 099 94 0.00 61.5 27.6 36.6 16$ 4.12 2.62 10.1 0.16 ND 0.0
REP 1.24 17 0.43 0.63 4.49 9.5 28.1 0.71 0.41 130 0.03 ND 125
REF’ 1.24 17 0.31 6.62 3.11 6.8 32.1 0.54 0.38 11.0 0.03 0.06 7.6
REP’ 1.47 I I 0.46 15.2 3.99 5.3 20.4 0.79 0.50 4.00 0.13 ND 2.5
I 3.23 17 3.07 147 25.0 410 517 12.8 8.39 56.4 0.10 0.30 12.5
2 1.68 4 0.18 144 45.6 68.9 398 0.10 6.38 1.42 4.49 1.00 400
3 0.36 2 0.00 131 0.11 67.6 65.6 3.19 1.30 0.44 3.00 0.14 12.1
4 0.48 3 0.00 32.4 5.94 21.1 32.6 1.25 0.95 0.59 1.60 0.22 7.5
5 2.00 62 2.02 300 36.6 95.7 463 12.6 9.00 419 0.02 ND 17.5
8 2.38 21 5.77 165 108 61.0 1100 21.4 17.9 12.4 1.44 0.19 0.0
7 2.49 24 1.10 923 113 143 930 29.8 25.0 18.6 1.51 ND 10.0
8 2.55 49 1.03 1420 72.1 304 1490 47.6 31.7 89 1 0.45 NO 22.5
9 0.61 4 0.05 152 12.0 634 236 6.11 3.00 0.50 6.00 0.12 5.0
10 1.91 9 044 359 29.0 137 455 13.7 7.05 11.5 0.61 ND 15.0
ii 3.54 61 7.74 951 31.1 120 2310 49.9 230 14.1 1.63 0.64 7.5
12 2 0.00 III 14.9 65.6 239 6.97 1.41 1.32 1.01 0.10 5.0
13 15 1.87 123 43.2 III 546 10.0 11.4 95.5 0.13 0.09 17.5
14 4.39 26 2.34 572 42.9 192 629 20.3 13.9 19.1 0.73 0.35 10.0
15 1.13 11 0.68 236 20.0 92.6 272 1.52 6.08 19.6 0.33 0.11 5.0
18 2.74 33 000 639 29.0 226 665 22.1 11.2 2.35 6.90 0.11 7.6
17 2.45 12 2.59 309 25.1 97.5 410 12.7 7.20 21.9 0.33 0.10 5.0
18 0.51 5 0.60 194 11.9 30.7 172 5.91 4.57 6.88 0.9 0.07 12.6
I V 1.18 13 0.91 179 12.5 52.4 188 6.16 3.72 38.9 0.10 ND 10.0
20 3.13 28 0.37 47.5 11.5 20.4 66.0 2.39 1.71 11.7 0.16 ND 7.6
21 0.63 5 047 93.2 7.79 19.9 103 3.27 2.09 10.0 0.12 ND 5.0
22 203 17 054 897 951 29.4 152 4.03 2.52 18.0 0.14 ND 2.5
23 0.13 2 0.26 29.9 4.26 8.2 41.9 1.21 0.73 3.24 0.23 0.07 2.6
• R.f.r.nc. s.dum.n%. l,om tong Island Sorind ILlS). wsr Nsiv.gsn.sfl Bay INJAM ) or a chin .iti nssibv (REP).
ND — No dst.ctabl. instil
-------
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
FOUNDRY COVE ( A a .J
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
BEAR CREEK ( A a , )
40
20
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.01
BELLEDUNE (AA)
FOUNDRY COVE ( Pt )
- SALT MARSH ( &a. )
1 10 100 1000
SEM/AVS
SEM/AVS
Figure 62. - Percent mortality of the amphipod ( Amoelisca abdi , j) and polycheete
( Nepnth tenaceoden , NJ.) as a function of SEM/AVS ratios in sediments from
Jinzhou Bay, China; Belledune Harbor, New Brunswick, Canada; Foundry Cove, New York;
JINZHOU ( &IA )
100
80
60
t
0
0
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
A
A
.A.
A
A
A
A
A
100
80
60
0.1 1 10 100 1000
A
A
A
40
A
20
.1..
A
0
A
0.1
Bear Creek, Maryland and a salt marsh in Massachusetts.
-------
JINZHOU ( A 1 a. )
100
80
•
.
80
è
2
60
40;
20
A
A
:
‘
‘
60
40
20
I
FOUNDRY COVE ( A.a
10 100 0.01 0.1
BELLEDUNE (&a 11 )
1 10 100
FOUNDRY COVE ( ftp. )
:
100
80
A
A
80
:
60
40
-
60
40
:
20
0
0.01
A
jA
.
20;
A
OUA AAA
100 0.01 0.1
.
.A
0.1
1
10
1
10
BEAR CREEK ( &a 4 )
40
20
0
1 10 100 0.01
SALT MARSH (&&)
0.1
interstitial Water Toxic Units
Interstital Water Toxic Units
Figure 6-3. - Percent mortality of the amphipod ( Amoelisca abdita , and polychaete
( Neanthes arenpcepdentptp , as a function of interstitial water toxic units (IWTU) of
cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc in sediments from Jinzhou Bay, China; Belledune
Harbor, New Brunswick, Canada; Foundry Cove, New York; Bear Creek, Maryland and a
salt marsh in Massachusetts.
0.1
0.01
100
A:
t
0
I
4
4
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1
100 -
80
60
A
k
A
1 10 100
-------
6-8
scallops, barnacles, crabs, and lobsters has been of particular concern 18.91. Sediments
for our study were collected by Ponar grab from 10 stations; 7 inside and 3 outside the
harbor. Total concentrations of divalent metal in these sediments ranged from 277 to
2,200 pg/g dry weight, with 74.7 to 93.5 percent of the total consisting of lead and zinc
(Table 6-1). Concentrations of TOC ranged from 0.73 to 1.62 percent, AVS 5.5 to 102
pmo l/g, and SEM 1.9 to 18.2 pmol/g with SEM/AVS ratios of 0.17 to 0.35. The sum of
the interstitial water toxic units ranged from <0.01 to 0.62. None of the sediments were
toxic ( 24 percent mortality) to abdita as would be predicted based upon SEM/AVS
ratios and IWTUs (Figures 6-2 and 6-3).
Foundry Cove, New York is located on the upper tidal reach (salinities 0 to 6 mg/kg)
of the Hudson River immediately south of Cold Spring, New York (Figure 6-1). A battery
plant was the principal source of the approximately equimolar concentrations of cadmium
and nickel in the sediments; smaller amounts of cobalt were also discharged 1101.
Sediments f or our study were collected by shovel or Ponar grab from 16 stations in East
Foundry Cove. Total concentrations of divalent metal in our sediments ranged from 170
to 71,200 pg/g dry weight with cadmium plus nickel accounting for up to 99.0 percent
of the metal measured in the most contaminated sediments (Table 6-1). Concentrations
of TOC ranged from 0.55 to 16.4 percent, with many sediments consisting principally of
partially decayed marsh vegetation. Concentrations of AVS ranged from 0.40 to 64.6
pmoWg, SEM 0.20 to 778 pmol/g and SEM/AVS ratios 0.04 to 139. The sum of the
interstitial water toxic units (IWTU) f or cadmium and nickel ranged from <0.01 to 43.4.
Molar concentrations of cadmium and nickel in the interstitial water were similar. However,
cadmium contributed over 95 percent to the sum of the toxic units because the 1 0-day
LC5O for nickel to abdita (2400 pgIL) is 67 times that of cadmium (36.0 pgIL).
Sediments with the highest dry weight metals concentrations (8.600 to 71 . 20 0pg/g) were
generally toxic (> 24 percent mortality) to abdita . In contrast, others with similar
concentrations (. . 1 3 .BOOpg/g) were not toxic ( . 24 percent mortality). Sediments with
SEM/AVS ratios . . 1.0 were always nontoxic, whereas only 5 of 11 sediments with
SEM!AVS ratios > 1.0 were toxic (Figure 6-2). Sediments with . 0.50 IWTUs were
always nontoxic. those with > 2.2 IWTIJs were always toxic and two of seven sediments
-------
6-9
with intermediate IWTUs ( . 0.5 to . . 2.2) were toxic (Figure C3). Data on chemical
concentrations and polychaete (NL, arenaceodentata ) mortality in tests with Foundry Cove
sediments are not included in Table 6-1 because they have been presented elsewhere by
Pesch et at. 111. Six of 17 sediments tested with this polychaete had SEM/AVS ratios
<1.0, 16 of 17 sediments had interstitial water toxic units <1.0 and none of the 17
sediments were toxic (Figures 6-2 and 6-3).
Bear Creek is a tributary of the Patapsco River just east of Baltimore, Maryland
(Figure 6-1). Sediments from this portion of Baltimore Harbor are known to be toxic and
contain high concentrations of metals, PAHs. PCBs. and other ‘substances 111,121 from
many municipal and industrial sources. Sediments used in our study were collected from
14.stations using a modified Van Veen grab. Total concentrations of divalent metalsin
sediments ranged from 43.8 to 2210 pglg dry weight, with zinc accounting for
approximately 75 percent of the total concentration (Table 6-1). Concentrations of TOC
ranged from 0.13 to 7.38 percent, silt and clay 4 to 99 percent, AVS 0.40 to 304 pmol/g .
SEM 0.63 to 30.6 pmot/g, and SEM/AVS ratios 0.10 to 16.8. Seven of the 14 sediments
from Bear Creek were toxic to abdita these included 7 of the 9 sediments with the
highest dry weight metals concentrations (11.8 to 30.6 pmol/g). Sediments that were
nontoxic contained metals concentrations from 0.6 to 21.0 pmollg. Both toxic and
nontoxic sediments had . 0.03 interstitial water toxic units of metal (Figure 6-3). Given
the absence of interstitial water metal it is not surprising that SEM/AVS ratios for
sediments from Bear Creek were not related to sediment toxicity; ie.. five sediments
having SEM/AVS ratios > 1.0 were not toxic and seven of the sediments having
SEM/AVS ratios < 1.0 were toxic (Figure 6-2). Most toxic sediments released visible oil
sheens when stirred suggesting that PAHs may ultimately prove to be a source of the
observed sediment toxicity. These observations support thi conclusion that toxicity
observed in Bear Creek sediments was not metal-associated.
The salt marsh containing a small tidal creek less than 500 m long (Figure 6-1) is
near Fairhaven, Massachusetts on the western side of Buzzards Bay. The creek is divided
by a hurricane barrier into an upper section of low salinity and a lower section with higher
-------
- 6-10
salinity. A metal products manufacturer was the principal source for metals in the
sediments. Sediments were collected by plastic scoops from 23 locations; 10 from the
upper side of the hurricane barrier and 13 from the lower section. Total concentrations
of divalent metals in these sediments ranged from 82.6 to 3320 pg/g dry weight (Table
6-1). Zinc and copper were the principal metals on a dry weight basis in these sediments:
Concentrations of TOC ranged from 0.13 to 4.39 percent, silt and clay 1.5 to 61.5
percent, AVS 0.44 to 419 pmol/g. SEM 0.73 to 31.7 pmol/g. and SEMFAVS ratios 0.10
to 6.90. Only 1 of 23 sediments from the salt marsh was toxic to . abdita (Figures 6-2
and 6-3). The SEM/AVS ratio for the toxic sediment was 4.49 and IWTUs were 1.00. All
other sediments were nontoxic, had SEM/AVS ratios from 0.03 to 6.90 and IWTUs from
0.03 to 0.64 (21 of 22 contained <0.3 IWTUs).
Freshwater Field Sites
Description of Field Sites and Toxicity Test Results
High concentrations of copper in sediments from Steilacoom Lake. Washington
originated principally from attempts to control aquatic vegetation using copper sulfate.
Copper SEM concentrations in sediments from eleven locations tested ranged from 0.60
to 3.91 pmol/g (38 to 248 pglg). AVS from < 0.02 to 5.65 pmol/g. and SEM/AVS ratios
from 0.23 to 67.5 (Table 6:2) (51. Eight of the 11 sediments tested had SEM/AVS ratios
> 1.0. No copper was detected in interstitial water (IWTU < 0.22) and no sediments
were toxic to (Figures 6-4 and 6-5). Absence of toxicity in sediments having
SEMIAVS ratios > 1.0 (Figure 6-5) and the lack of detectable copper in the interstitial
water is likely a consequence of the presence of other sediment binding phases (5).
In contrast. 10 of 11 sediments from Keweenaw Watershed, Michigan. were lethal
to H. azteca (51. Mining-derived copper concentrations in sediments ranged from 0.36 to
174 pmol/g (22.9 to 11.000 pgFg) . AVS < 0.006 to 11.6 pmotlg, and SEM/AVS ratios
0.4 to> 17.500 (Table 6-2). The one sediment not toxic to amphipods had 0.41 toxic
units of copper in interstitial water and en SEM/AVS ratio of 0.40 (Figures 6-4 and 6-5).
-------
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERISflCS. METAL CONCENTRATIONS AND AMPHIPOD
( HYALELLA AZTECA — li.M OR OLIGOCHAETE ( LUMBRICULuS VARIEGATLJS — L. .) MORTALITY IN
FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS FROM STEILACOOM LAKE. WASHINGTON; KEWEENAW WATERSHED,
MiCHIGAN, TURKEY CREEK, MISSOURI AND FOUNDRY COVE, NEW YORK .
SEM. umoIIg 1 AVS , umoilg Average IWTU t2 ’ Percent Mortality
Station Day 0/10 Day 0/10 SEM/AVS U.i. ft 1 . .) H.a. (L. .)
Steilacoom Lake. Washinamn
1 0.8911.36 4.0115.65 0.23 <0.22 0
2 3.0512.00 2.8911.02 1.51 <0.22 5
3 1.9311.85 0.301<0.02 >49.5 <0.22 0
4 2.8413.78 1.9410.92 2.79 <0.22 10
5 1.25/3.56 2.0610.29 6.45 <0.22 5
6 0.60/2.02 4.161081 1.32 <0.22 15
7 0.66/1.11 1.4811.44 0.61 <022 0
B 1.33/2.68 1.601<0.05 >27.2 <0.22 0
9 1.95/3.91 0.391<0.03 >67.5 <0.22 10
10 1.27/2.01 2.17/1.60 0.93 <0.22 5
11 2.90/2.05 0.65/0.41 4.11 <0.22 0
0
Kewaenaw Waterahed. Michiaan
1 -/4.68 -111.6 0.40 0.41 20
2 -/26.4 -/<0.006 >4440 1.19 55
3 -/62.6 -/0.03 2.090 9.97 100
4 -/15.1 -/0.08 189 4.52 100
5 -/19.6 -10.06 332 2.81 85
6 -/5.65 -/0.01 565 1.71 75
7 -/8.49 -/0.12 70.7 5.45 95
8 -/0.74 -/0.01 17.500 19.6 100
9 -/28.1 -/0.46 61.1 3.19 95-
10 -/0.36 -/0.09 4.0 0.52 35
11 -/10.8 -/0.02 674 3.10 90
- 10
Turkey Creek. MissourI
1 -/67.2 -/28.1 2.39 0.73 20
2 -/51.5 -/52.2 0.99 0.44 15
3 -/85.4 -/30.1 2.84 1.11 45
4 -/47.6 -/48.4 0.98 0.38 0
5 -/50.1 -/44.2 1.13 1.83 5
6 -/82.1 -138.2 2.15 1.31 20
7 -/94.5 -/78.2 1.21 0.49 45
. 5
-------
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS, METAL CONCENTRATIONS ANE
AMPHIPOD ( HYAtELLA AZTECA = H. .) OR OLIGOCHAETE ( LUMBRICULUS VARIEGATUS
L. .) MORTALITY IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS FROM STEILACOOM LAKE, WASHINGTON;
KEWEENAW WATERSHED, MICHIGAN, TURKEY CREEK, MISSOURI AND FOUNDRY COVE. NEW
YORK.
(continued)
SEM, umoI1g 11 AVS. umol!g Average IWTU Percent Mortality
Station Day 0/10 Day 0/10 SEM/AVS . (j.. .) Ha. (J .)
Foundry Cove. New York
1 789/703 3.12/5.65 189 18.8 (0.50) 100 (87)
2 66.4/115 9.39/13.8 7.69 11.5 (1.54) 100 (0)
3 43.81915 15.3(13.6 4.78 94.8 (2.44) 100 (0)
4 92.2/106 10.4/19.0 7.24 7.29 (0.61) 100 (0)
5 50.1 174.8 7.59/9.83 7.11 4.58 (0.18) 80 (0)
6 176/210 46.9/31.2 5.25 11.93 (0.55) 100(0)
7 0.29/0.50 0.09/0.10 4.11 -(3.291) 100(0)
8 9.23/14.0 5.12/5.20 2.25 77.3 (6.49) 40 (0)
9 92.9/58.5 6.73/14.7 8.90 3.16 (1.53) 100 (24)
10 0.31/0.31 0.92/1.17 0.32 2.43 (0.27) 0 (0)
11 0.38/0.52 0.39/0.16 2.11 - (0.54) 100 (0)
12 3.02/2.20 1.92/6.15 0.97 32.7 (1.35) 60 C-)
13 2.02/1.79 1.18/0.64 2.25 110 (1.13) 80 (0)
14 3.34/7.86 20.0/10.9 -- 0.31 2.03 (3.02) 20 (0)
15 1.78/0.44 9.07/9.92 0.12 0.40 (0.32) 0(0)
16 0.00/0.05 0.94/0.49 0.05 • (0.38) 0 (0)
Reference sediments were frém uncontaminated West Bearskin Lake. Minnesota
SimuItaneousIy extracted metal (SEM) Is SEM copper for Steilecoom Lake and Keweenaw
Watershed, SEM zinc for Turkey Creek and SEM cadmium plus nickel for Foundry Cove.
12 Interstitiat Water Toxic Units (IWTU) are calculated using 1 0-day water only LC5Os for Hvallella
azteca of 2.8 pg/I for cadmium, 31 pg/L for copper, 780 pg/I for nickel and 436 pg/I (hardness
330 mg/I) for zinc and for Lumbriculus varieoatus 158 pg/I for cadmium and 12,200 pgel. for
nickel.
-------
100
00
* 00
80 1 0 0
0
60 0
0
2 ’
‘ 40 . 0
20 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Interstitial Water Toxic Units
0
Foundry,
C)
Steilacoom, a. Turkey, .
[
*
Foundry, L
0
Keweenaw,
Figure 6-4. Percent mortality of the amphipod Hvalefla azteca (Jj J, and the oligochaete,
Lumbriculus ypriepp as a function of interstitial water toxic units (IWTU) of
metals in sediments from four freshwater field locations. The lower horizontal dashed line
at 24 percent indicatesthe boundary between toxic and nontoxic sediments. The higher
horizontal dashed line at 50 percent mortality and the vertical dashed line at 1 .0 IWTU
indicate the hypothetical boundary between sediments expected to be toxic to less than
50 percent of the organisms (IWTU < 1 .0) and those expected to be toxic to greater than
50 percent (IWTU> 1.0). Interstitial water concentrations with nondetectable metal are
plotted at 0.01 IWTU.
-------
100
*0 •
80 0 D
0
60
.
40 0
0.
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
SEM/AVS
1 Foundry, g.
o
Stellaceom, a. Turkey. th&
L Found 1
•
K eenaw,
Figure 6-5. Percent mortality of the amphipod, fly elIa az t&. .a ( fttJ and the oligochaete.
Lumbriculus varieaatus (ks.). in sediments from four freshwater locations as a function
of the SEM/AVS ratio. The horizontal dashed line at 24 percent mortality indicates the
boundary between toxic and nontoxic sediments. The vertical dashed line at SEM/AVS
1.0 indicates the boundary between sulfide bound unavailable metal and potentially
available metal.
-------
6-15
Toxic sediments had 0.52 to 19.6 IWTUs of copper and SEM/AVS ratios . . 4.0. AVS
concentrations in the 10 toxic sediments were extremely low (< 0.01 to 0.46 pmollg)
with comparatively high copper concentrations (0.36 to 1.74 pmol/g); nine SEM/AVS
ratios were> 61. Amphipod mortality in response to copper concentrations in water-only
tests (Figure 6-6) was almost identical to amphipod mortality as a function of interstitial
water copper concentration in sediment tests (Figure 6-3) 151. The 10 day LC5O for
amphipods exposed to copper in water-only tests did not differ from the LC5O based on
interstitial dissolved copper concentrations and amphipod mortality from tests with
Keweenaw sediments. 3 1(28 to 35)pg/L versus 28(2 1 to 38)pg/L.
Sediments from Turkey Creek, Missouri contained high and relatively uniform
càncentrations of zinc (47.6 to 94.5 pmol/g; 3.1 lOto 6.l8OpgFg) and AVS (28.1 to 78.2
pmol/g; Table 6-2) originating from strip mine tailings. Therefore, SEM/AVS ratios (0.98
to 2.84) and IWTUs (0.44 to 1.83) varied little in the seven sediments tested. The two
sediments having SEM/AVS ratios . . 1.0 were nontoxic and had . 0.44 interstitial water
toxic units of zinc (Figures 6-4 and 6-5) SEM/AVS ratios of the five remaining sediments
ranged from 1.13 to 2.84. IWTUs from 0.49 to 1.83. Two of these sediments were toxic.
Sediments from Foundry Cove, New York tested with saltwater . abdita and ,,
arenaceodentata were also tested using the freshwater amphipod ft. azteca and the
oligochaete L varieaatus by Ankley et al. 121. Sediments contained approximately
equimolar concentrations of cadmium and nickel with the sum of the SEM concentrations
of these metals from freshwater tests ranging from < 0.01 to 789 pmol/g, AVS 0.39 to
31.2 pmol/g, and SEM/AVS ratios from 0.05 to 189 (Table 6-2). Four of five sediments
with SEM/AVS ratios . . 1.0 were not toxic to amphipods while all sediments having
SEM/AVS ratios> 1.0 were toxic (Figures 6-4 and 6-5). Only the 2 sediments with the
highest SEM/AVS ratios (8.90 and 189) were toxic to the oligochaete; 140116 sediments
were not toxic. Sediments with interstitial water toxic units . . 3.16 were toxic to
amphipods; when 0.40 to 2.43 toxic units were present, no toxicity was observed.
Interstitial molar concentrations of nickel almost always exceeded those of cadmium by
one to three orders of magnitude (5). However, cadmium was most likely the cause of
-------
100
O0•
.
80 °
I
6O
.
0 • I I I I pill I I S I S liii I
1 10 - 100 1,000
Copper (ug/L)
Figure 6-6. Toxicity of copper to Hva lefla versus copper concentrations in a water-
only exposure (open symbols) and interstitial water in sediment exposures using
Keweenaw Waterway sediments (closed symbols) (Ankley et al., 1993).
-------
6-17
both amphipod and oligochaete mortalities because cadmium is over 250 times more toxic
than nickel to if,, 10 day water-only LC5O for cadmium 2.8 pgIL, and nickel 780
pgIL. Similarly, cadmium is about 80 times more toxic to L varieoatus than nickel; 10 day
water-only LC5O 158 pgIL for cadmium and 12,200 pgIL for nickel. Cadmium contributed
from 88.6 to 99.9 percent of the total interstitial toxic units of metals.
DiscussIon
Saltwater Field Sites
Bulk metals concentrations in saltwater sediments can not be used to causally relate
metal concentrations to the acute response of amphipods and polychaetes (Figure 6-7).
Mortality of amphipods in 70 sediments from five saltwater locations, or polychaetes in
16 sediments from Foundry Cove. was not related to the sum of the molar concentrations
of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc on a dry weight of sediment basis. Sediments
having dry weight metals concentrations from 9.50 to 885 pmol/g from 17 stations in
Jinzhou Bay, Bear Creek. Foundry Cove, and the marsh in Massachusetts were toxic
(mortality> 24 percent). In contrast dry weight metals concentrations from 0.20 to 885
pmollg were nontoxic (mortality . . 24 percent); an overlap of 2 to 3 orders of magnitude
in metals concentration.
Normalizing metals concentrations in these sediments using SEM/AVS ratios,
without insight into mortality caused by co-occurring toxic substances, also does not
permit accurate causal predictions of metal toxicity in sediments from the field (Figure 6-
8). Of the 59 sediments with SEMIAVS ratios . 1.0 (Table 6-1), 49 (83 percent) were
not toxic and 10 (17 percent) were toxic. These 10 toxic sediments were from Jinzhou
Bay and Bear Creek. Of the 37 sediments with SEM/AVS ratios> 1.0. only 7 were toxic.
Absence of toxicity when SEM/AVS ratios are > 1.0 has commonly been observed.
However, when SEM/AVS ratios are 1.0, toxc y has been observed in only 4 of 92
sediments spiked with metals 141 and 1 of 15 sediments from freshwater field sites (2,51
(Table 6-3). For all five of these sediments, the true SEM/AVS ratios may have been >
-------
Bulk Metal (pmoVg dry wt)
£ Salt Marsh,
• Bear. &&
• Betledune, j 1
+ Jinzhou.Aa,
I Foundry, A &
* Foundry, tL&
Figure 6-7. Percent mortality of the amphipod , Amoetisca abdita (A.i), and the
polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodentata (fia.), in sediments from five saltwater locations
in the United States, Canada, and China as a function of the sum of the concentrations of
cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc in pmoles divalent metal per gram dry weight
sediment. The dashed horizontal line at 24 percent mortality indicates the boundary
between toxic and nontoxic sediments.
100
80
60
40
2: ’
0
20
0
1 10 100
—
1000
-------
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01
A
Salt Marsh, Aa
•
Belledune, Aa
•
Foundry, As
•
Bear Creek, Aa
+
Jinzhou, As
*
Foundry, Na
Figure 6-8. Percent mortality of the amphipod, Amoelisca abdita (A. .). and the
polychaete, Neanth arenacepdentptp (Jj. .), in sediments from five saltwater field
locations as a function of the ratio of the sum of the molar concentrations of cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc simultaneously extracted (SEM) with acid volatile sulfide
(AVS) to the molar concentration of AVS (SEM/AVS ratio). The horizontal dashed line at
24 percent mortality indicates the boundary between toxic and nontoxic sediments. The
vertical dashed line at SEM/AVS = 1.0 indicates the boundary between sulfide-bound
unavailable metal and potentially available metal.
0.1 1 10 100
SEM/AVS
1000
-------
TABLE 6-3. ACCURACY OF PREDICTION OF THE TOXICITY OF SEDIMENTS
FROM SALTWATER (SW) AND FRESHWATER (FW) FIELD LOCATIONS.
SPIKED-SEDIMENT TESTS AND COMBINED FIELD AND SPIKED-SEDIMENT
TESTS AS A FUNCTION OF SEM/AVS RATIOS, INTERSTITIAL WATER TOXIC
UNITS (IWTUs) AND BOTH SEM/AVS AND IWTUs.
% of Sediments
Study Type Parameter Value n Nontoxic 1 Toxic 1
SW Field SEM/AVS 2 1.0 42 100.0 0.0
>1.0 31 80.6 19.4
IWTU <0.5 59 100.0 0.0
0.5 15 53.3 46.7
SEM/AVS. IWTU 1.0. <0.5 39 100.0 0.0
>1.0. 0.5 11 45.5 54.5
FW Field SEM!AVS 1.0 15 93.3 6.7
>1.0 48 47.9 52.1
IWTU <0.5 20 95.0 5.0
0.5 38 42.1 57.9
SEM/AVS. IWTU 1.0. <0.5. 10 100.0 0.0
>1.0. O.5 34 29.4 70.6
Lab-Spike, SEM/AVS 1.0 92 95.7 4.3
(FW&SW) >1.0 83 26.5 73.5
IWTU <0.5 107 93.5 6.5
0.5 77 22.1 77.9
SEM,AVS, IWTU sl.0, <0.5. 85 96.5 3.5
- >1.0, 0.5 65 12.3 87.7
All SEM/AVS 2 sl.0 • 149 96.6 3.4
>1.0 162 43.2 56.8
IWTU <0.5 187 95.7 4.3
0.5 129 31.0 69.0
SEM,AVS. IWTU 1.0, <0.5. 134 97.8 2.2
>1.0, O.5 110 20.9 79.1
1 Nontoxic sediments <24 percent mortality. Toxic sediments >24 percent
mortality.
2 Excludes sediments from Bear Creek, Maryland and Jinzhou Bay, China whose
toxicity was not metals-related.
-------
6-21
1 .0 as concentrations were within the precision expected in AVS and SEM analyses and
three had > 0.5 IWTIJ of metal. Given the fact that field sediments from highly
industrialized locations contain many substances other than metals and are often toxic,
non-metals associated toxicity should always be suspected. If toxic sediments have
SEM/AVS ratios . . 1.0. we might suspect the cause to not be metals; with SEM/AVS >
1 .0. toxicity may be related to metals.
Metals concentrations, when expressed on a sum of the interstitial water toxic unit
(IWTU) basis (Figure 6-9). can provide insight that in part may explain apparent anomalies
between SEM/AVS ratios and the observed toxicity. of these sediments. In spite of the
presence of very high dry weight metals concentrations. 56 of 70 sediments had c 0.5
IWTU of metal. Of the 10 toxic sediments having SEM/AVS ratios < 1.0. none had> 0.5
IWTU of metal. This suggests that metals are unlikely the cause of the toxicity. Three of
these sediments were from Jinzhou Bay and seven from Bear Creek (most of which
released oil when agitated). The absence of toxicity in many sediments having SEM/AVS
ratios > 1.0 is understandable because most (66.7 percent; 12 of 18) of these nontoxic
sediments had < 0.5 IWTUs of metal. Of the seven toxic sediments having SEM/AVS
ratios > 1.0 (one each from Jinzhou Bay and the salt marsh and five from Foundry Cove)
all had > 0.5 IWTIJ of metals. Further, interstitial metal concentrations are likely to
overestimate the concentration of available metal because of differences in metal form,
greater binding to dissolved organic carbon or ligands in interstitial water (131, release of
bound metal in sampling or analytical procedures (141 or organism avoidance of metal
exposure (11.
We believe that is inappropriate to further include in this chapter data from locations
having sediments whose toxicity is almost certainly not due to metals. This decision is
additionally justified because in experiments with metal-spiked sediments (41, only 3 of 85
sediments having lW U < 0.5 and SEM/AVS ratios < 1.0 were toxic. Therefore, data
from Bear Creek, Maryland and Jinzhou Bay, China are not included in the text, figures,
and tables that follow. These data were included above to demonstrate the value of both
SEMe’AVS ratios and IWTUs to discriminate between metals-associated and nonmetals-
-------
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01
Interstitial Water Toxic Unit
Figure 6-9. Percent mortality of amphipod, AmDelisca abdita ( .g.), and the polychaete,
Nearithes arenaceodentptp as a function of interstitial water toxic units (IWTUs) of
metals in sediments from five saltwater field locations. IWTUs are the sum of metal-
specific interstitial water concentrations/b-day LC5O for cadmium, copper, lead, nickel,
and zinc. The lower horizontal dashed line at 24 percent indicates the boundary between
toxic and nontoxic sediments. The higher horizontal dashed line at 50 percent mortality
and the vertical dashed line at 1.0 IWlU indicate the hypothetical boundary between
sediments expected to be toxic to less than 50 percent of the organisms (IWTU < 1.0)
and those expected to be toxic to greater than 50 percent (IWTU> 1.0). Interstitial water
concentrations with nondetectable metal are plotted at 0.01 IWTU.
0.1 1 10
100
-------
6-23
associated toxicity in sediments. For the data from saltwater field locations in Belledune
Harbor, the salt marsh and Foundry Cove, all 42 sediments with SEM/AVS ratios . . 1.0
were not toxic (Figure 6.10; Table 63). Of ttce 31 sediments that had SEMIAVS ratios
> 1.0. only six sediments (from Foundry Cove and the salt marsh) were toxic and all had
> 0.50 IWTUs (Table 6-3). Of the 25 nontoxic sediments with SEM/AVS ratios> 1.0,
71.4 percent (10 of 14) of the sediments tested with amphipods and 90.9 percent (10 of
11) of the sediments tested with polychaetes had <0.5 IWTUs, thus in part explaining
the absence of toxicity.
Saltwater and Freshwater Field Sites Combined
Metals concentrations in sediment Interstitial water from all freshwater sites
suggests that metals contributed to the observed mortalities of amphipods and
oligoohaetes (Figure 6-4). Therefore, all available freshwater data are included in Figure
6-5 and 6-1 1 to 6-15. For sediments with IWTUs . 0.5, 57.9 percent of 38 sediments
were toxic; 20 of 26 for amphipods and 2 of 12 for oligochaetes (Table 6-3).
The pattern of organism response to metals normalized on an SEM/AVS basis is
similar for saltwater (Figure 6-10) and freshwater (Figure 6-5) sediments. Therefore, data
in both figures were pooled (Figure 6-11) to illustrate the overall utility of the SEM/AVS
normalization to explain metals availability In field sediments. The absence of toxicity in
all but one sediment having SEM/AVS ratios . 1.0 from all field sediments is important
given that total divalent metals concentrations (or SEM) for these sediments ranged from
43.8 to 13.800 pglg for tests with saltwater or freshwater amphipods. 170 to 71.200
pglg for polychaetes, and 170 to 76,800 for oligochaetes (Tables 6-1 end 6-2). Fifty-six
of 57 (98.2 percent) of these freshwater and saltwater sediments having SEM/AVS ratios
1.0 were not toxic to sensitive organisms. In the toxic sediment with SEM/AVS < 1.0,
the SEM/AVS ratio was 0.97 (Table 6-3; Figure 6.11). For field sediments having
SEM/AVS ratios> 1.0, 31 of 79 (39.2 percent) were tOxic (Table 6-3). Therefore, we
believe that SEM/AVS ratios of . . 1.0. can accurately predict field sediments likely to not
be acutely toxic due to metals. Use of an SEM/AVS ratio of > 1.0 alone to predict
-------
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01
t
0
Figure 6-10. Percent mortality of the emphipod, Amoelisca abdita (Ajj, and the
polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodentptp (nj.), in sediments from three saltwater field
locations as a function of the SEM/AVS ratio. The horizontal dashed line at 24 percent
mortality indicates the boundary between toxic and nontoxic sediments. The vertical
dashed line at SEM/AVS 1.0 indicates the boundary between sulfide bound unavailable
metal and potentially available metal.
—
A
Salt Marsh, &g. • Belledune, L I Foundry, .
*
Foundry, tLa.
0.1 1 10 100
SEMIAVS
1000
-------
100
.
*1
80 0 U
I
• 40 D.A
20 u U
£* *A 1 •
* A r *
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
SEM/AVS
A Salt Marsh, La. * Foundry, j ja ( Steilacoom, a.
• Belledune, La. o Foundry, H • Keweenaw,
• Foundry, La. * Foundry, £ Turkey, .
Figure 6-11. Percent mortality of amphipods Amoelisca ebdita ( j.) and Hvalella alteca
( fJJ, oligochaetes Lumbricui varieoatus (I.. ) and polychaetes Neanthes
arenaceodentptpffj ,j.) exposed to sediments from three saltwater (solid symbols) and four
freshwater (open symbols) field locations as a function of the SEM/AVS ratio. The
horizontal dashed line at 24 percent mortality indicates the boundary between toxic and
nontoxic sediments. The vertical dashed line at SEM/AVS 1 .0 indicates the boundary
between sulfide-bound unavailable metal and potentially available metal.
-------
I
>‘
I—
0
Total Metal or SEM (pmollg)
Figure 6-12. Percent mortality as a function of total dry weight metals concentrations including oligochaetes t.umbriculus
variegatus (Lv.). polychaetes Caoitella aDitata (C .c .j and Neanthes arenaceodentptp harpacticoids AmDhipscus
tenuiremis (&t.) t amphipods Amoelisca a th ( A.a. ) and Hvalella azteca ( H.p. ) and snails Helispmp (H,s .) exposed to
sediments from saltwater field locations, freshwater field locations and sediments spiked with individual metals or
mixtures.The dashed horizontal line at 24 percent mortality indicates the boundary between toxic and nontoxic sediments.
..
1000
•SS•S ••
.
.
• _ .. .
• .
• e
•
— —
•
.
S
•
.
S •
S
.
I
.
S
.
I
.
I
S
S
I
— 3—.
I
• S
•I• •
I_, •
I
• S..
S
I
0.01
.
— _. —
S. S
S S
.
S
0.1
1
I
I
10
100
-------
100
Interstitial Water Toxic Unit
A
Satt Marsh, .
Turkey, a.
0
Pb.
•
Belledune, A 1 a.
o
Cd, Aa
•
Zfl
a
Foundr
•
Cu. g.
0
Cd, L&
*
FOUfldfY,N &
0
NL,A &
0
Nijj .
0
FOUndry,
0
Pb, &
+
Cd.&t.
*
FOUndry, l. .L
•
Zn,
Cd, Ii&
G
Steilacoom, Ii&
•
M ,
Cd.
.
Keweenaw, 1i
•
Cu, Q
Figure 6-13. Percent mortality as a function of interstitial water toxic units of metals for
saltwater and freshwater benthic species including oligochaetes Lumbriculus varieaatus
(j , .), polychaetes Caoitella caoitata ( g.), and Neanthes arenaceodentata (N i.)
h rpacticoids AmDhiascus tenuiremis (A .). amphipods Amoelisca abdita (As.) and
Hvalefla azteca ih$A.). and snails Helisoma ( H.so. ) exposed to sediments from saltwater
field locations (solid symbols), freshwater field locations (open symbols) and sediments
spiked with individual metals or mixtures (closed circles with internal symbol saltwater,
or open circles with internal number freshwater). Field locations, metal spiked and
species tested are indicated. The lower horizontal dashed line at 24 percent indicates the
boundary between toxic and nontoxic sediments. The higher horizontal dashed line at 50
percent mortality and the vertical dashed line at 1 .0 IWTU indicate the hypothetical
boundary between sediments expected to be toxic to less than 50 percent of the
organisms (IWTU < 1 .0) and those expected to be toxic to greater than 50 percent (IWTU
> 1.0). Interstitial water concentrations with nondetectabte metal are plotted at 0.01
I
80
60
40
20
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
10000
IWTU.
-------
SEM/AVS
Figure 6-14. Percent mortality as a function of SEM/AVS ratio for saltwater and
freshwater benthic species including oligochaetes LMfnbriculus varieaatus (L .).
polychaetes CaDitella caDitata and Neanthes jenaceodentata ( N.e.) , amphipods
ArnDelssca abdita (A a.) and Hvalella azteca (ftj.), and snails Helisoma Qja.) exposed
tosedimentsfrom saltwater field locations (solid symbolS), freshwaterfield locations (open
symbols) and sediments spiked with individual metals or mixtures (closed circles with
internal symbols = saltwater, or open circles with internal symbol = freshwater). Field
locations, metal spiked and species tested are indicated. The horizontal dashed line at 24
percent mortality indicates the boundary between toxic and nontoxic sediments. The
vertical dashed line at SEM/AVS 1.0 indicates the boundary between sulfide-bound
unavailable metal and potentially available metal.
w
0
2’
t
0
ou
D
-
0
a
0
100
80
60
40
2O
0 — —
0.01
S
0
0.1
1
100
1000
10000
A
Salt Marsh, g .
Turkey, a 1
0
Pb,
•
Belledune. A &
0
Cd, L
•
Zn, C.c
a
*
0
*
(
Foundry, &a.
FOUndry. LL
Foundry. &
Foundry. LL
Steilacoom, E&
•
•
0
•
Cu, A 1 a
NI, .
Pb, .a
Zn,
Mix,
•
0
Cd, a.
NI, N .&
Cd, L
Cd, I.
0
KeWeenaW,
•
Cu, Q
-------
100
80
60
40
20
0
-100
SEM-AVS (umovg drywt)
A Salt Marsh, . * Foundry, a. 0 Steilacoom, g.
• Belledune, &a D Foundry, Keweenaw, th&
• Foundry, A.& Foundry, j , y. • Turkey, Ij
1000
Figure 6-15. -Percent mortality of amphipods AmDelisca abdita ( j.) and Hvalella azteca
( Li.) oligochaetes Lumbriculus variegatus (j .) and polychaetes Caoitella caDitata ( &.)
and Neanthes arenaceodentata (. j.) exposed to sediments from three saltwater and four
freshwater field locations as a function of the sum of the molar concentratons of SEM
minus the molar concentration of AVS (SEM-AVS). The dashed horizontal line at 24
percent mortality indicates the boundary between toxic and nontoxic sediments. The
vertical dashed line at SEM-AVS 0.0 indicates the boundary between sulfide-bound
unavailable metal and potentially available metal.
0
.10 —1
1 10 100
-------
6-30
sediment toxicity is useful but less accurate than predicting absence of toxicity (Table 6-3)
as would be expected based on partitioning theory and organism-sediment interactions.
In both oxic and anoxic transition zones occupied by organisms. other sediment binding
phases, metal form, and avoidance behavior of organisms can limit metal availability,
exposure, and toxicity.
Field Sites and Spiked Sediments Combined
The utility of metils concentrations normalized by dry weight, interstitial water toxic
units (IWTUs). or SEM/AVS ratios to explain the bioavailability of divalent metals and
permit prediction of sediment toxicity Is summarized in Figures 6-12, 6-13. 6-14, and
Table 6-3. The figures and table are compilations of all available data from 1 0-day lethality
tests where mortality, IWTUs and SEM/AVS ratios are known from experiments with
sediments most certainly toxic only because of metals. They Include sediments from
saltwater field sites, freshwater field sites, or sediments spiked with individual metals or
metal mixtures. The relationship between benthic organism mortality in 1 0-day sediment
lethality tests and bulk metals concentrations in spiked and field sediments is not useful
to causally relate metal concentrations to organism response (Figure 6-12). The overlap
among bulk metals concentrations which cause no toxicity and those which are 100
percent lethal is almost four orders of magnitude. Sediments having less than 0.01 pmol
of metal/g dry weight are all reference oi control sediments.
The toxicities observed when sediment concentrations are normalized on an IWTU
basis are typically consistent with the toxic unit concept; that is if IWTUs are 1.0
sediments should be lethal to . 50 percent of the organisms exposed; significant mortality
probably should be absent at < 0.5 IWTU (Figure 8- 13). The exceptions to the
expectation that sediments with IWTUs c 0.5 should not be toxic are the two cadmium-
spiked freshwater sediments where pore water sampling procedures were a likely problem.
Of the spiked and field sediments evaluated which had IWTUs < 0.5. 95.7 percent of 187
sediments were nontoxic (Table 6-3). For all sediments having IWTU8 > 0.5, 69.0
percent of 129 sediments were toxic (Table 6-3). Given the effect on toxicity or
-------
631
bioavailability of the presence of DOC or ligand-associated metal in interstitial water, water
quality (hardness or salinity), and organism behavior, it is not surprising that many
sediments having IWTUs > 0.5 are not toxic.
Organism response in sediments whose concentrations are normalized on an
SEM/AVS basis is consistent with metal-sulfide binding on a mole to mole basis as first
described by Di Toro et al. 1151. and recommendations for assessing the bioavailabitity of
metals proposed by Ankley et al. 1161. Sediments spiked with metals and field sediments
from saltwater and freshwater locations with SEM/AVS ratios . . 1.0 were uniformly (96.6
percent of 149 sediments) nontoxic (Figure 6-14; Table 6-3). The majority (56.8 percent)
of 162 sediments having SEM/AVS ratios > 1.0 were toxic. Use of both IWTUs and
SEM/AVS ratios did not improve the accuracy of predictions of sediment that were
nontoxic (97.8 percent; Table 6-3). However, it is noteworthy that toxic sediments were
predicted with 79.1 percent accuracy in 110 sediments when both SEM/AVS > 1.0 and
IWTUs 0.5 were used jointly as decision parameters (Table 6-3). This approach is,
therefore, very useful in identifying sediments of concern.
Because AVS can bind divalent metals and presumably some other metals on a mole
to mole basis, normalizing metals concentrations In sediments from the field as the
difference of SEM•AVS, instead of the conventional SEM/AVS ratio, can provide important
insight into the extent of available additional sulfide binding capacity, or the extent to
which AVS binding has been exceeded (Figure 6-15). Further, absence of organism
response when AVS binding is exceeded can indicate the potential magnitude of
importance that other binding phases may have in controlling bloavailability. This insight
into additional binding capacity of AVS and other sediment phases and the magnitude of
exceedance of binding are important advantages f or normalization of the concentration of
metals in sediments on an AVS basis over that of interstitial water concentration. For
most noritoxic saltwater and freshwater field sediments we have tested, 1 to 100 pmoles
of additional metal would be required to exceed the sulfide binding capacity; I.e.. SEM-AVS
= -1 to -100 pmol/g. In contrast, most toxic field sediments contained 1.0 to 1,000
pmo les of metal beyond the binding capacity of sulfide alone. Data on nontoxic field
-------
6-32
sediments whose sulfide binding capacity is exceeded (SEM-AVS is > 0.0 pmoles/g)
provides the best indication of magnitude and importance of non-sulfidic binding phases.
This is particularly true for some sediments from locations such as Steilacoom Lake and
the Keweenaw Watershed where AVS concentrations were low resulting in high SEM/ &VS
ratios with little difference between SEM concentrations and sulfide binding potentials
(SEM-AVS is numerically low, whereas SEMFAVS ratios are high). The field sediments we
tested frequently contain 1.0 to 1.000 pmoles of metal over that bound by sulfide yet they
remain nontoxic. This indicates that the role of other sediment phases in metal
bioavailability has great significance. Therefore, further refinement on the prediction of
sediments likely to cause toxicity will require estimates of partition coefficients and binding
strengths of these sediment phases.
Summary
We believe that results from tests using sediments spiked with metals and
sediments from the field in locations where toxicity is metals-associated demonstrate the
value of normalizing sediment concentrations by’SEM/AVS ratio and IWTUs, instead of dry
weight metals concentrations, in expressing biological availability of metals. Importantly.
data from spiked sediment tests strongly indicate that metals are not the cause of the
toxicity observed in field sediments when both SEM/AVS ratios are < 1.0 and IWTU are
c 0.5. Concentrations of metals in sediments on an SEMAVS basis provides important
insight into available additional binding capacity by suIt ides and other phases of sediments
and the extent to which sulfide binding has been exceeded. Predictions of sediments not
likely to be toxic because of metals based on SEM/AVS ratios and IWTUs for all data from
spiked and field sediment tests are extremely accurate ( .. 95.7 to 97.8 percent) using
either or both parameters. While predictions of sediments likely to be toxic are less
accurate (56.8 to 79.1 percent), this approach is extremely useful in Identifying sediments
of potential concern. Several sources of uncertainty related to sediment geochemistry, the
kinetics of binding and release, and organism-sediment Interaction need further research.
-------
APPENDIX 6A
METHODS
Saltwater Field Sites
Sediment Collection, Storage and Handling-
Sediments were collected by plastic scoop, shovel. Ponar grab. or modified Van
Veen grab from Jinzhou Bay, China (September, 1992); Belledune Harbor. New Brunswick,
Canada (August, 1990); Bear Creek, Maryland (February. 1992); a tidal marsh near
Fairhaven, MassachusettS (March 1991) and Foundry Cove, New York (August 1989)
(Figure 6-1). Samples consisting of approximately 5 to 10 cm of surf icial sediment were
homogenized and aliguots removed for total metal, total organic carbon and grain size
analyses. Sediments were transported under Ice and stored at 4°C in sealed glass jars
with limited headspace containing nitrogen until use. Prior to conducting toxicity tests.
sediments were rehomogeflized, taking care to limit oxidation of metal suif ides.
At all stations at the salt marsh In Massachusetts, Interstitial water diffusion
samplers (peepers) were placed immediately below the sediment surface 13 days prior to
sediment collection to permit comparisons betweenIn iIM interstitial metals concentrations
and interstitial metals concentrations quantifiOd during toxicity tests. Peepers consisted
of 5 ml polyethylene vials (21 mm high, 20 mm diameter), covered with a 1 micron
polycarbonate membrane and filled with 30 mglkg salinity water 141. A plastic strap
around the peeper extended above the sediment to facilitate recovery. Immediately prior
to sediment sampling. peepers were removed and rinsed to remove sediments. The water
contained within the peepers was removed by pipette and placed in a 7 ml polyethylene
vial and acidified with 50 p1 of concentrated (pH 1.0) nitric acid.
• Toxicity Tests-
The 1 0-day lethality tests with the amphipod. p oelisca abdita , generally followed
methodologies described by ASTM 1173. Di Toro St al. 1151 and Berry et at. (43. Those
-------
6A-2
with the polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata are described by Pesch et al. Li i.
Amphipod exposure chambers consisted of 900 ml glass canning jars, with a 1.3 cm
diameter overflow hole covered with 400 micr n Nitexe mesh. Each chamber contained
200 ml of sediment and 600 ml of seawater. Polychaete chambers consisted of 600 ml
beakers containing 200 ml of sediment. One day before the start of the test, sediment
from each station was placed into each of four (two chemistry (day 0 and 10), and two
biologyl replicate exposure chambers. For each experiment with sediments from the five
saltwater locations, one or more treatments consisted of four replicate chambers
containing sediment from an uncontaminated reference station in central Long Island
Sound, Narragansett Bay or an uncontaminated sediment from a location near the study
site. Sediments from all stations at Foundry Cove and stations 1 to 10 at the
Massachusetts salt marsh site had interstitial salinities less than those tolerated by
Amoe isca or Neanthes , therefore, sediments were mixed with brine to obtain 26 to 32
mg/kg interstitial salinities prior to testing. Peepers were placed in both biology replicates
and the day 10 chemistry replicate. To provide continuous renewal of overlying water,
filtered seawater (20°C; 28 to 34 mg/kg salinity) flowed through each replicate chamber
at approximately 30 volume additions per day.
Each exposure began with random placement of 20 amphipods or 15 polychaetes
in the day 10 chemistry replicate and in the two biology replicates for each treatment.
Sediment from the day 0 chemistry replicate was homogenized, and aliquots removed and
frozen f or AVS, SEM, and bulk metal analyses. Experimental chambers were checked daily
I or dead animals and water flow. Overlying water was sampled at the beginning of every
test and at least once thereafter, with samples acidified and stored in vials as described
above. On day 10, peepers were removed from each sediment and the water sample
acidified and stored. Sediment from the day 10 chemistry replicate was homogenized, and
aliquots removed for AVS and SEM analyses. Sediments from the biology replicates were
sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh screen to quantify dead and surviving organisms. Samples
with more than 10 percent of the amphipods missing were recounted by a second person.
Missing amphipods were assumed to be dead. For illustrative purposes, sediments were
classified as toxic if mortality was greater than 24 percent as proposed by Mearns et al.
-------
6A-3
1181 from results of sediment tests with the amphipod Rheooxvnius abronius . Sediments
having less than or equal to 24 percent mortality were considered as nontoxic.
Chemical Analyses -
Sediment samples were analyzed for AVS by the cold-acid purge and trap technique
described by Allen et al. (14), Cornwell and Morse 1191 and Boothman end Helmstetter
(203. SEM and bulk metals analyses were performed using Inductively coupled plasma
emission spectrometry (ICP). For analyses of bulk (dry weight) metals, the metals were
extracted from freeze-dried sediments by ultrasonic agitation with 2 M cold nitric acid (50
mlI5 g wet sediment) at 60°C overnight followed by centrifugation. Results of sample
blanks and recoveries of known metal additions demonstrated 85 to 100 percent
recoveries from sediments. 85 to 115 percent recoveries from sample extracts and an
absence of contamination in our analytical procedures. The SEM concentration reported
is the sum of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc on a micromole per gram dry
sediment basis. Concentrations of all metals in sediments exceeded analytical detection
limits.
Interstitial water from peepers and overlying water were analyzed using ICP or
graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy. Detection limits varied as a function of
sample size and methods of analysis. Concentrations in water are reported as the sum of
the interstitial water toxic units (IWTU) of detectable metal. IWTUs are the sum of pg
metallL in interstitial water • 10 day LC5O in water-only tests in pgIL for all five metals,
where the 10 day LC5O for . abdita is 36.0 pg CdIL, 20.5 pg CulL, 3020 pg Pb!L, 2400
pg Ni/I, and 343 pg Zn/I 141 and for . .r ap odentata is 3.670 pg Cd/I and 16,090 pg
Ni/L (11. Thus, if interstitial water is the principal source of metals toxicity, and availability
of metals is the same in water of water-only tests and Interstitial water in sediment tests,
50 percent mortality would be expected with sediments having 1.0 IWTUs. In this
section, we use 0.5 IWTUs to indicate sediments unlikely to cause significant mortality
because on the average water-only LCO and LC5O values differ approximately by a factor
of two. This factor is reasonable because mortality was always absent in spiked-sediment
-------
8A .4
saltwater tests at 0.5 IWTU 141. For Illustration, a concentration of 0.01 IWTU is used to
indicate interstitial water samples that contain no detectable metal.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Pesch. C.E.. Hansen, D.J.. Boothman. W.S.. Berry, W.J., and Mahony, J.D. The
role of acid-volatile sulfide and lnterstitialwater metal concentrations in determining
bioavailability of cadmium and nickel from contaminated sediments to the
polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodenjata. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. In Press.
2. Ankley, G.T.. Phipps, G.L.. Leonard. E.N.. Benoit, D.A., Mattson, V.R., Kosian,
PA., Cotter, A.M., Dierkes, J.R. Hansen, D.J., and Mahony, J.D. 1991. Acid
volatile sulfide as a factor mediating cadmium and nickel bioavailability in
contaminated sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1299-1307.
3. Di Toro, D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Carison, AR.. and Arikley,
G.T. 1992. Acid volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel
In sediments. Environ. Sd. Technol. 26:96-101.
4. Berry, W.J., Robson, D., Hansen, D.J., Boothman, W.S., Mahony, J.D. 1994.
Predicting the toxicity of metals-spiked laboratory sediments using acid volatile
sulfide and interstitial water normalizations. Manuscript.
5. Arikley, G.T. , Mattson, V.R.. Leonard, E.N., West, C.W., and Bennett, J.L. 1993.
Predicting the acute toxicity of copper in freshwater sediments: Evaluation of the
role of acid volatile sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:315-320.
6. Ma, D. and Zhang, F. 1988. Lead, zinc and cadmium distributions in different
geochemical phases of surface sediments from Jinzhou Bay. Acta Scientiae
Circumstantiee. 8:49-55.
7. Samant, H.S., Doe, KG., and Vaidya, O.C. 1990. An Integrated chemical and
biological study of the bioavai labi lity of metals in sediments from two contaminated
harbors in New Brunswick. Canada Sci. Total Environ. 96:253-268.
-------
8. Uthe, J.F., Chou, C.L., and Robinson, D. 1980. Cadmium pollution of Belledune
Harbor; New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences. No. 963. J.F. Uthe and V. Zitko, Eds. pp. 65-71.
e
9. Ray, S., McLeese, D.W., Metcalfe, C.D., Burridge. L.E., and Waiwood. B.A. 1980.
Cadmium Pollution of Belledune Harbor, New Brunswick. Canada. Canadian
Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. No. 963. J.F. Lithe and V.
Zitko Eds. pp. 11-34.
10. Bower, P.M., Simpson, H.C., Williams, H.C., and U, Y.H.. 1978. Heavy metals in
the sediments of Foundry Cove, Cold Spring, NY. Environ. Sd. Technol. 12:683-
687.
11. Bieri, R., Bricker, 0., Byrne, R., Diaz, R., Helz, G., Hill, J., Huggett, R., Kerkin, R.,
Nichols, M., Reunharz, E., Shaffner, L., Wilding, D., and Strobel, C.. 1982. Toxic
substances. In: Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G.
Macalaster, D.A. Barker and M. Kasper (Eds.). U.S. EPA, Washington D.C. pp.
263-375.
12. Pinkney, A.E., Gowda, G., and Rzemien, E. 1991. Sediment toxicity testing of the
Baltimore Harbor and C & D Canal approach channels with the amphipod,
Leotocheirus olumulosus . Versar Inc. report to Dr. Peter Dunbar, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. MD. October 1991. 17 pp.
13. Green, A.S., Chandler, G.T., and Blood. E.R. 1993. Aqueous-, pore-water . and
sediment-phase cadmium: Toxicity relationships for a meiobenthic copepod.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:1497.1506.
14. Allen, H.E.. Gongmin, F., and Deng, B. 1993. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide
(AVS) and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) for estimation of potential
toxIcity in aquatic sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:1441-1453.
-------
15. Di Toro, D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Hicks, M.B., Mays, S.M.
and Redmond, M.S.. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The rote of acid
volatile sutfides. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487.1502.
p
16. Ankley, G.T., Thomas, N.A., Di Toro, D.M., Hansen, D.J., Mahony, J.D., Berry.
W.J., Swartz, R.C., Hoke, R.A.. 1994. Assessing potential bioavailabitity of metals
in sediments: A proposed approach. Environ. Mgt. 18:331-337.
17. ASTM. 1993. Standard guide for conducting 10-day static sediment toxicity tests
with marine and estuarine amphipods. 1993 Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Chapter 11, Water and Environmental Technology. American Society for Testing
and Materials. 11.04:1139-1163.
18.’ Mearns, A.J., Swartz, R.C., Cummins, J.M., Dinnet, P.A., Plesha, P., and Chapman,
P.M. 1986. Inter-laboratory comparison of a sediment toxicity test using the
marine amphipod, RheDoxvnius abronius . Marine Environ. Res. 19:13-37.
19. Cornwell, J.C. and Morse, J.W. 1987. The characterization of iron sulfide minerals
• in recent anoxic marine sediments. Mar. Chem. 22:55-69.
20. Boothman. W.S. and Helmstetter, A. Vertical and seasonal variability of acid
volatile sulf ides in marine sediments. Manuscript.
-------
CHAPTER 7
COLONIZATION EXPERIMENTS
All experiments presented thus far demonstrating that AVS is important in
controlling the toxicity of sediment-associated metal have relied on 1 0-day laboratory
lethality tests using individual benthic species exposed to homogenized sediments from
field sites or sediments spiked with divalent metals 11.2). Chronic exposures of individual
species or benthic communities have not only recently been completed using sediments
whose metal and AVS concentrations have been measured and have varied with depth as
is normal in the field 13.4,5).
The benthic colonization test 161 is particularly useful in evaluating the effects of
substances on developing benthic communities in the laboratory and field. In this test, the
most sensitive early life stages of benthic organisms found in unfiltered seawater are
chronically exposed to chemicals as they settle and grow in replicated control and treated
sediment-filled aquaria. Resultant communities are diverse, consisting of thousands of
individuals, r presented by 40 or more species and several phyla. Results from early
colonization experiments where chemicals were continuously added to incoming seawater
revealed test sensitivities predicted by water quality criteria (WQC); i.e., generally.
observed effect concentrations were greater than WQC end no observed effect
concentrations were less than WQC 171. More recently, organic chemicals have been
spiked into sediments 18,91 and comparisons between results of these tests and chemical-
specific sediment quality criteria indicate SQC are protective 17).
This chapter presents the results of a 118 day benthic colonization experiment in
which sediments were spiked with cadmium to obtain nominal SEM/AVS ratios of 0.0
(control).0..1, 0.8. and 3.0. Numbers and kinds of organisms that colonized the sediment
are compared to total cadmium, interstitial water cadmium, and SEM/AVS ratios as
exposure conditions changed temporally and spatially as a function of sediment depth to
evaluate if these measurements can be used to determine sediments which are not
chronically toxic to benthic organisms. The methods used are presented In Appendix 7A.
-------
7-2
Results
Exposure
At the beginning of the experiment the average AVS concentration of. the sediments
fqr the four treatments was 1 7.2pmollg dry weight and measured SEM/AVS ratios, 0.00.
0.10. 0.60. and 2.63. approximated nominal values; control, 0.1, 0.8, and 3.0.
respectively (Table 7-1). The average.AVS concentration in all samples of homogenized
sediment analyzed throughout the experiment was 17.2 pmol/g (range 12.2 to 22.7
pmol/g). a concentration the same as that at test initiation. The average SEM/AVS ratios
in cadmium-spiked sediments over the length of the experiment also differed little from
that at test initiation for nominal SEM/AVS = 0.1(0.09 for day 0 versus 0.10 overall) and
SEM/AVS = 0.08 (0.66 for day 0 versus 0.60 overall). The apparent 25.3 percent
decrease in SEM/AVS ratio in the 3.0 SEMIAVS treatment (3.52 for day 0 versus 2.63
overall) probably results from an unusually low analysis of AVS of 13.0 pmol/g at test
initiation. If the mean AVS I or all treatments on day 0 is more representative of the true
value in this treatment, then a more accurate SEM/AVS ratio would be 2.66 for day 0 and
2.57 overall. Therefore, chemical analyses of homogenized sediments indicate that the
exposure was constant throughout the experiment.
However, chemical analysis of horizons from sediment cores demonstrate that SEM
and AVS concentrations and SEM/AVS ratios varied with sediment depth. Data from two
cores sampled on day 14 from a control treatment show AVS concentrations <1 .Opmollg
in the surface 1.0 cm, from about 1.0 to 8.0 pmol/g at 1.0 to 3.0 cm depth, and greater
than 1 5.Opmollg below 3.0cm depth (Figure 7-1). At day 28, AVS concentrations in the
surface 3.0 cm of sediment in the control, 0.1 and 0.8 SEM/AVS treatments were lower,
with those in the surf icial 0.6 cm being 20 percent of those on day 0 (Figures 7-1 and 7-
2). By contrast. AVS concentrations below 3.0 cm in depth remained similar to those at
-------
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
I
I
•1
g
.E
a)
AVS tmoVg
Figure 7-1. Comparison between the AVS concentrations by sediment depth in the
cadmium colonization experiment on day 14 (July 17, 1991), day 28 (July 31, 1991). and
in Pettaquamscutt River, Rhode Island (July 18, 1991).
8
I
0
A
Control day 14 (7/17191)
Control day 28 (7/3]191)
3.0 SEWAVS day 14
(7/17191)
.4. ‘ .
Pettaquamacutt River
(7/1 91)
,
—I
7
,
/
/
I
I
I
I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-------
T — 117 da
U
C
- ‘I
It E
so
100
0
1 1
60
0
so
iool 100
0 tO 20 30 SO 0 50 0
Cd & AVS (vmol/g) Cd & AVS (vmol/g) Cd & AVS (umol/g)
Figure 7-2. Vertical distribution of SEM cadmium AVS and SEM/AVS ratios on days of 28,
57, and 11 7 of the cadmium colonization experiment. The four treatments are control and
nominal SEM/AVS ratios of 0.1, 0.8, and 3.0. Measured SEM cadmium concentrations
in pmol/g are plotted as a thin line, AVS concentrations in pmolfg as a cross hatched area
and SEM/AVS ratios as a thick line. The striped area indicates where SEM exceeds AVS.
20
40
20
40
40
10_b 30
40
10 20 30 40 50
-------
7.5
test initiation. Vertical distribution of AVS In the 0.1 and 0.8 SEMFAVS treatments were
generafly similar to the control on days 24, 56, and 117. Loss of AVS in surficial
sediments in these treatments was due to oxidation, most likely of principally iron sulfide.
TABLE 71. MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OF ACID VOLATILE SULFIDE (AVS.
pMOLIG), CADMIUM SIMULTANEOUSLY EXTRACTED WITH AVS (SEM, pMOLIG)
AND SEMIAVS RATIOS IN HOMOGENIZED SEDIMENTS FROM DAY 010 117 OF
THE BENTH 1C COLONIZATION TEST.
Day of Measurement
Nominal
Cd/AVS Measure 0 14 28 56 117 Mean
Control SEM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
AVS 20.4 13.7 15.8 12.2 21.6 16.7
SEMFAVS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 SEM 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5
AVS 16.1 13.6 12.4 19.0 13.6 14.9
SEM/AVS 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.10
.8 SEM 12.9 12.9 11.5 11.6 11.8 12.1
AVS 19.5 22.3 17.2 21.1 20.5 20.1
SEM/AVS 0.66 0.58 0.67 0.55 0.58 0.60
3.0 SEM 45.8 38.3 -- 49.1 47.2 40.5 44.2
AVS 13.0 13.5 19.6 22.7 15.4 16.8
SEM/AVS 3.52 2.84 2.50 2.08 2.63 2.63
Mean AVS 172 15.8 16.2 18.8 17.8 17.2
However, in the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment from day 14 throughout the experiment,
profiles of AVS concentration with depth were different from profiles in lower treatments.
On day 14, concentrations of AVS in sediments from the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment were
essentially constant at all depths (Figure 7-1). In this sediment, concentration of AVS
ranged from 13.8 to 16.2 pmollg (mean — 15.1 pmoUg) In Individual horizons in the
surface 2.4 cm, and from 10.7 to 21.7 pmol/g (mean — 17.5 pmo l/g) below 2.4 cm. At
later sampling days, AVS was only slightly oxidized In the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment
compared to the other treatments (Figure 7-2). Lesser oxidation in this treatment was
likely due to lower oxidation rates of cadmium sulfide (101. Lithe oxidation of AVS below
-------
7-6
2.4 cm is evident during the experiment in the control. 0.1 and 0.8 SEM/AVS treatments
and below 1.2 cm in the 3.0 SEMIAVS treatment.
Vertical profiles of AVS in sediments from the cadmium colonization experiment on
day 14 (July 17. 1991) and day 28 (July 31. 1991) were qualitatively and, to a lesser
extent, quantitatively similar to those observed in sediment cores from the nearby
Pettaquamscutt River. Rhode Island (July 18. 1991) 1111 (Figure 7-1). Relative to AVS
concentrations with depth in the experiment. AVS concentrations in Pettaquamscutt River
sediment were only slightly higher from the surface tä about 5.0 cm, proportional increase
in concentrations from the surface to about 2.5 cm were similar and AVS concentrations
were stable in both the field and our laboratory sediments from about 2.5 to 5.0 cm.
Sediments from Pettaquamscutt River consisted of approximately 39.5 percent sand, 58.0
percent silt. 2.5 percent clay, and 1.3 percent bC. The granulometry of sediments used
in our experiment was markedly different; 5.6 percent sand, 70.7 percent silt, 23.7
percent clay, and 1.0 percent TOC.
Loss at cadmium from spiked sediments was essentially confined to the surface 1.2
cm (Figure 7-2). Decreases of cadmium in surface sediments were less than decreases in
AVS in the control, 0.1 and 0.8 SEM/AVS treatments. Decreases in cadmium with depth
were similar for all three cadmium-spiked treatments. In the surface 0.6 cm, cadmium
concentrations for all treatments averaged 65.4. 67.0, and 22.7 percent of those below
3.0 cm on day 28, 56, and 117. respectively. Cadmium concentrations in the 0.6 to 1.2
cm horizon were 95.4. 86.8, and 79.0 percent of those below 3.0 cm on day 28, 56. and
117, respectively. Cadmium concentrations below 1.2 cm remained unchanged
throughout the experiment.
Vertical profiles of measured SEM/AVS ratios were consistent with the observed
oxidation of AVS in surf icial sediments as tempered by losses of cadmium (Figure 7-2).
At sediment depths greater than about 2.4 cm, there was little or no oxidation of AVS. no
loss of cadmium and SEMIAVS ratios remained stable near the nominal values. In surf icial
sediments, losses of AVS exceeded those of cadmium causing SEM/AVS ratios to increase
-------
7.7
dramatically, which could potentially release previously bound metal to affect benthic
organisms. While SEM/AVS ratios increased to as much as 0.75 in individual 0.6 cm
horizons in the nominal 0.1 SEM/AVS treatment, the molar concentration of AVS was
always In excess of that for cadmium, therefore, metals toxicity was unlikely. In the
nominal 0.8 SEM/AVS treatment, loss of AVS exceeded that of cadmium and measured
SEM/AVS ratios exceeded 1.0 In from one to all five (22 of the 40 samples) 0.6cm
sediment horizons down to 3.0 cm in all cores sampled on days 28, 56. and 117.
SEMIAVS ratios in the surface 1.8cm of sediment averaged 1.45 on day 28. 1.01 on day
56, and 1.94 on day 117. Measured SEM/AVS ratios in individual horizons from the
nominal 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment always exceeded a ratio of 1.0. hence, were always
potentially toxic.
Concentrations of cadmium measured in interstitial water collected by peepers were
consistent with sulfide binding (Table 7-2). Cadmium concentrations in interstitial water
were below the limit of analytical detection (‘c 3 pgFL) in 70.8 percent of 24 samples from
control replicates and 50 percent of 24 sample from the 0.1 SEM/AVS treatment. In the
0.1 SEM/AVS treatment, average concentrations in surface (6.4 pg/L) and bottom (3.6
pgIL) peepers were less than the saltwater acute (42 pg/L) and chronic (9.3 pg/L) water
quality criteria (121. Therefore, neither acute lethality nor chronic effects would be
expected in sediments where the nominal SEM/AVS ratio was 0.1. Interstitial water
concentrations in the nominal 0.8 SEM/AVS treatment are elevated over that in the control
as might be expected given that measured SEM/AVS ratios frequently exceeded 1.0.
Cadmium concentrations in interstitial water in the 0.8 SEM/AVS treatment averaged 58
pgIL in surface peepers and 48 pgIL in bottom peepers. These average concentrations
were sufficiently high to be acutely toxic to the most sensitive saltwater species and
chronically toxic to many sensitive arthropods and polychaete species (121. Interstitial
concentrations in the 3.0 SEM!AVS treatment always exceeded acute and chronic water
quality criteria concentrations and were sufficiently great to result in acute lethality for
most saltwater species tested in water-onlytests (121. Therefore, both SEM/AVS ratios
and interstitial water concentrations indicate effects on benthic taxa should occur in this
-------
7-8
treatment. Given the above exposure conditions and speculation on organism response,
the following section describes observed organism responses.
TABLE 7-2. MEAN CADMIUM CONCENTRATION IpGIL) IN INTERSTITIAL
WATER COLLECTED IN THREE DIFFUSION SAMPLERS (PEEPERS) PLACED
IMMEDIATELY BELOW THE SEDIMENT SURFACE AND THREE PEEPERS 2.0 CM
ABOVE THE BOTTOM OF TEST AQUARIA. TREATMENTS WERE CONTROL AND
NOMINAL MOLAR RATIOS OF CADMIUM TO ACID VOLATILE SULFIDE (AVS)
OF 0.1.0.8, and 3.0
Nominal Peeper Day of Measurement Treatment
Cd/AVS Loáation 14 28 56 117 Mean
Control Surface NDa ND ND ND ND
Bottom 4 7 ND ND 3.5
0.1 Surface 8 8 8 ND 6.4
Bottom ND ND 10 ND 3.6
0.8 Surface 28 48 157 ND 58
Bottom 38 85 48 20 48
3.0 Surface 138,000 76.000 66.000 28,000 77,000
Bottom 174,000 135,000 154.000 88,000 138.000
NDa = Less than detection limit 3.0 pg!L. Mean concentrations derived using
one-half the detection limit for samples below the detection limit .
Effects
Sediment-associated cadmium had an effect on both the timing of organism
appearance on and in the sediment and the abundance and species composition of
organisms found in each treatment. In the control, 0.1 and 0.8 SEM/AVS treatment, a
reddish brown microfloral layer appeared on the sediment surface after about week three;
however, this layer did not appear until after about week 9 in the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment.
Animals including snails, polychaetes and tonicities began to appear in the control. 0.1 and
0.8 SEM/AVS treatments shortly after the appearance of diatoms at about week three,
whereas in the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment they did not appear until after about 9 to 11
weeks.
-------
7.9
The microfloral layer, sampled on day 80 contained the pennate diatoms
Entomonies, Nitzschia. PlaaiotroDis. Bacillaria, Amohora, Thalassipsira, Npyjculp.
Rhzicoshoenia, Licmpohora, IJthodesmium, Cvclotella, Rhabdonema, Skeletonema,
Dioloneis . and Chaetoceros , in approximate order of decreasing abundance. The density.
of pennate diatoms measured on day 80 corroborated visual observations of periphyton
abundance on the sediment surface (Table 7-3). The mean diatom density in control
aquaria. 1.92 x 106 cells/cm 2 of sediment surtace, was not different from the 1.32 x 106
cells/cm 2 in the 0.1 SEM/AVS aquaria or the 1.00 x 1 cells/cm 2 in the 0.8 SEM/AVS
aquaria. Diatom densities were significantly lower (0.16 x 106 cells/cm 2 of sediment
surface) in the 3.0 SEM/AVS aquaria. The density of diatoms in five of eight aquaria for
this treatment were less than the lowest density (0.17 x 106 cells/cm 2 ) in any aquarium
from other treatments.
TABLE 7-3. NUMBER OF DIATOMS x10 6 PER SQUARE
CENTIMETER OF SEDIMENT SURFACE IN REPLICATE AQUARIA
Treatment: Nominal CdIAVS Ratio
Replicates Control 0.1 0.8 3.0
1 3.52 0.53 0.64 0.03
2 1.95 1.41 1.17 0.02
3 1.56 1.23 2.33 0.22
4 4.37 2.26 3.94 3.53
5 5.64 3.76 0.83 0.03
6 0.59 2.14 0.45 0.43
7 0.58 2.97 0.17 0.00
8 2.05 0.19 2.39 0.06
Geo. Mean 1.92 1.32 1.00 0.1 6 a
a = Significantly different from control; a 0.05
A total of 14,347 individual macrobenthic benthic organisms, representing 54
species from 8 phyla, was collected from sediments sieved from all aquaria: eight control
aquaria and eight aquaria for each of the three treatments that contained sediments spiked
-------
710
at 0.1, 0.8. and 3.0 SEM/AVS (Tables 7-4 and 7-5). Annelids, arthropods, and chordates
were most abundant; over half (27 of 52) of the species were polychaetes. Most
individuals of all species were subadult; onl Nereis succinea, Polvdora socialis and
Molouta rnanhattensis had significant numbers of adults. Individuals of all feeding types,
suspension feeders, deposit feeders, selective deposit feeders, omnivores, and carnivores,
were collected.
TABLE 7-4. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES AND
INDIVIDUALS (IN PARENTHESES).
Treatment: Nominal Cd/AVS
PHYLUM CONTROL 0.1 0.8 3.0
thnelida 18(347) 19(330) 21 ( 265 a) 8 a( 159 a)
Mollusca 2(4) 1(4) 5(7) 3(4)
Gastropoda
Bivalvia 4(6) 2(3) 1(5) 0(0)
I rthropoda 7(3640) 5(2078) 8(4228) 6(1 294a)
Nematoda 7(563) 7(432) ?(254) ?( 128)
Sipuncula 1(1) 1(2) 1(1) 0(0)
nidaria 0(0) 1(1) 0(0) 1(4)
Rhynocoela 1(1) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)
Chordata 4(197) 4(59) 3(102) 3 ( 469 a)
TOTAL 37(4196) 33(2909) 39(4862) 19’(2058)
‘ Significantly different from controls; a = 0.05
Species richness and abundance decreased with increasing concentration of
cadmium in the sediment (Tables 7-4 and 7-5). In the nominal 0.1 SEM/AVS treatment,
no effect on either number of species or individuals, relative to the control, was detected
in the colonized benthic communities. In the nominal 0.8 SEM/AVS treatment, no
significant effects were detected in the overall total number of individuals or species.
However, there were significantly fewer polychaetes ( Mediomastus ambiseta, Streblosoio
-------
tAIL! 74. N 11IS13 OP 113 1140U*I,I OP SINThIC UPE13II ThAT COLONIUD SS)IM INT$ U I hINT CCSIVIOI .
AOUMA A?ID hINt AOU AA COIITMIINO UIDIMDITI V4TII C*OMIUM 1314.10 AT NOMINAl. 14013* 03110$ OP
CADMII .14 TO ACID IA1lL1 s%LODI OP 0.1.0.1.0*3.0. NIU4SS) OP AOUMIA COIITDiNINO ThAT 1 3 IC IU IN
P3*1341141111.
CdIAV$
0.1 0. 5 1.0
131 51 154131 1 1 1 5) 111111
&jW1 7713) 411$) 47171 21171
M. .o, aNIq . _ ..E.. _ 41(71 32 ( 71 3 3 ’Sl l ’lII
_____ 12131 • Sill 4121 11(71
gai Sill 714) 13131 l ii i
C1 il a i. ulW 1214) 1111 4131 0131
p 13 b.. .. cE 1 1 (7) I I I) I’ll) 0 ’ i lI
____________ 11 51 13 ( 1) 1(11 0 ’ 1 3 1
_______ 1(3) 0131 3131 013 )
_________ 2111 4 (3) 3(21 0 1 3 )
101. 3131 3(2) I II ) 0131
$111 I I I ) I I I ) 0131
1111 0 1 01 I n) I ll)
OW) I I I ) 1111 1 11 1
Oi l) l iii l i ii liii
______ 1111 013) 2111 0131
P,4UJUJN 0131 1111 2121 0131
_____ tIll 1111 0131 0131
______ OS) II I ) 1111 0131
Oc*(a(,vv . ..‘.Avwa 0131 eel 013)
____ 3 (3) 013) 0131 0131
______ IS) I I I ) 013) 11311
? Vt ’I 0 1 0) 0131 1111 0131
___________ eel iiii 013) 0131
_____ 1(1) 0131 0131 0131
Ni. _ ,p 1111 eel 0131 0131
OWl 013) 3121 013)
M aca
0MI .
______________ SIll 4(3) 3 1 1) 3(1)
_____ 1111 013) III ) 013)
Aiwr#,, bf,,aiiv OWl OWl 2121 013)
__________ 0 1 3) OWl I I I ) 0 5 1
. 0131 010) 1(11 OW)
ro.uu g OWl 0 1 3) OW) till
0131 0131 0 1 0 1 I I I )
______________ 2101 I II ) 1 131 OWl
—r. III ) Ill ) OW) OWl
ft 1111 OW) OWl OW)
— 3131 OWl OWl OW)
C -.
Hwic ljesda 3.40013) 3.03113) 4.011131 IllS’S)
______ 040) 1141 31(1) 3131
______ 34( 5) 11141 30141 OWl
Gin.,,.
____ OW) 0131 OWl I n)
1713) 17(2) SIN) 1151
______ 7111 013) 2 1 3) 211)
______ 010) 013) till till
_____ 2 ( 21 0131 I II ) OW)
______ I lU 212) $ 13) OWl
N.n 1 4d.
503 5) 4325) 254’S) 121’S)
_______ I II ) 3(21 II I ) 013)
______ Oil) tIll 013) 4111
I I I ) OW) OW) OW)
*bNi .i JN* 24 1 ( 71 54(4) 113 51 127’S)
mi,.w. Sa 4(2) 7131 351 3131
_____ 15) 051 $ 13) 114 1
OW) 101 010) 013)
T b wm D OW) II I ) 013) 013)
4.315 2. 117 4.141 2.331
•$*naI.c )y diN .t frs sii* .• .0.01 -
-------
7-12
benedicti and Podarke obscura ) and unidentified melofaunal nematodes in this treatment
(Table 7-4). Sediments containing a nominal SEM/AVS ratio of 3.0 were colonized by
fewer macrobenthic species (19) than controls (37), but the total number of individuals
was not significantly affected (Table 7-4 and 7-5). This was principally because the
number of polychaete species and their total abundance was significantly diminished.
There were significantly fewer individuals of the polychaete species M. ambiseta , .
benedicti , f. obscura and the unidentified harpacticoid copepod species. Bivalve molluscs
were absent in this highest treatment. The number of chordates, principally the tunicate
M. manhattensis , was significantly greater in the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment (Table 7-5).
Numbers of these tunicates would have been even higher if myriads of small (< 1 mm
diameter) tunicates, attached to large individuals but having no direct contact with
sediment as well as those contacting sediments, had been counted.
The length-frequency distributions for the polychaete Nereis succinea in control. 0.1
and 0.8 SEM/AVS treatments indicates recruitment was continuous with no effect on
abundance or growth (Figure 7-3a). In the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment, there were no worms
over 45mm in length; whereas 8.5 percent of the worms in other treatments exceeded this
length (Figure 7-3b). Only 15.3 percent of the worms in the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment were
over 15mm in length, whereas 45.8 percent exceeded this length in other treatments.
Extremely small (0 to 5mm) worms predominated (37.8 percent) in the 3.0 SEM/AVS
treatment compared to 11.6 percent for other treatments. The absence of large (>
45mm) worms, markedly reduced occurrence of worms of intermediate lengths.
preponderance of very small worms and absence of visible colonizers of any macrobenthic
species for the first half of this study suggests that the sediments in the highest treatment
were initially lethal but could later be tolerated by resistant species. Therefore, polychaete
length-frequency distributions may indicate delayed recruitment, not decreased growth.
The response of these communities to cadmium-spiked sediments can be assessed
by evaluating changes in abundance of individual species and phyla as was done above,
or by summarizing organism abundance in the entire assemblage using an index. Cluster
analyses that compare the species present or absent in each replicate with those in other
-------
I
5 10 15 ) 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 110
LENGTH (MM)
A
B
Figure 7-3. (A) Frequency distribution of length of the polychaete Nereis succi g that
colonized control aquaria containing clean sediments or aquaria containing cadmium-spiked
sediment with nominal SEM/AVS ratios of 0.1 or 0.8. (B) Frequency distribution of length
of the polychaete Nereis succi from control and 0.1 and 0.8 SEM/AVS treatments
pooled vs. the 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment.
5 10 15 25 30 35 40
LENGTH (MM)
455055110
-------
7-14
replicates from the same or different treatments, indicate that three clusters may exist.
Although all treatments have many species in common, the kinds of species in the control
treatment are most similar to those In the 0.1 SEM/AVS treatment. Species present or
absent from replicate aquaria in these treatments are different from those in the 0.8 and
3.0 SEMIAVS treatments (Figure 7-4). Further, the clusters of presence-absence data for
the species in aquaria in the 0.8 and 3.0 SEM/AVS treatments indicate differences in
species composition between these highest treatments. Numbers of species in the control.
0.1, 0.8, and 3.0 SEM!AVS treatments were 37. 33. 39. and 19 respectively, based on
raw counts (Table 7-4) and 51, 46, 57, and 34 respectIvely, based on Jackknife estimates
of maximum species richness 113). Because numbers of species in the control, and 0.1
and 0.8 SEM/AVS treatments are similar, shifts In community structure detected in the 0.8
SEM/AVS treatment compared to these two lower treatments probably occurred because
of changing species composition and not the number of species present. In the 3.0
SEM/AVS treatment, there was a change in both species abundance and composition.
Discussion
Concentrations of AVS in marine sediments vary with depth as a function of
seasonal processes 1141. Iron sulfide is formed by the anaerobic diagenesis of organic
matter. As a result of bacterial sulfate reduction, concentrations of AVS increase in
surf ida! sediments during warm months of greatest productivity and sediment oxygen
— demand. AVS is readily oxidized in cold months when productivity is minor and oxidizing
conditions greatest. Therefore, In winter AVS concentrations In the surf icial sediments
decrease. For example, in the Pettaquamscutt River. Rhode Island AVS concentrations in
the upper 3 cm of sediment may vary 15 to 25 fold between summer and winter 1113.
Maximum concentrations occur in surface sediments between 2 and 5 cm depth and
concentrations below these depths down to 15 cm decrease only marginally with season.
Vertical profiles of AVS in the cadmium colonization experiment in week 2 (July 17.
1991) and week 4 (July 31, 1991) were qualitatively and, to a lesser extent, quantitatively
similar to those measured in the Pettaquamscutt River, Rhode Island by Boothman and
-------
0.48
0.64 0.80
0.96
Figure 7-4. Cluster analysis of presence-absence data for species from sediments from
control and nominal 0.1. 0.8, and 3.0 SEM/AVS treatments.
-------
7-16
Helmstetter (1 1) at the same time as our experiment. Oxidation of AVS in surficial
ediments in our experiment proceeded rapidly, with most occurring within two to four
weeks of test initiation. The oxidation of sediments observed initially must be associated
with passive oxygen diffusion and not be biotically driven as organisms large enough to
bioturbate the sediments were not present during the first few weeks of the experiment.
Their presence later apparently did little to change existing AVS profiles. Lesser oxidation
of AVS early and throughout the experiment in the 3.0 SEMFAVS treatment, and the loss
of cadmium from only the surficiat 1.2 cm compared to 2.4 cm for AVS, agrees with
laboratory sediment suspension experiments that demonstrate rapid (100 percent in 60 to
90 minutes) oxidation of iron sulfide versus slow (10 percent in 300 hours) oxidation rates
f or cadmium sulfide 110]. Further oxidation of sediments should result in release of only
a portion of sulfide-associated cadmium to interstitial water because sedimentary Fe and
Mn are transformed into their oxyhydroxides which, along with organic carbon, can bind
released cadmium in oxic sediments (153. In this and other laboratory experiments (1 6J
AVS gradients and the complex microhabits associated with sediment geochemical
processes and organism burrowing developed rapidly. These observations indicate that
the opinion that bioasseys are simplistic because they do not have the vertical gradients
and microhabits that occur as part of naturally occurring geochemistry and biological
processes 1171 may not apply to all laboratory exposures.
The bioavailability and toxicity of divatent metals in field sediments can not be
predicted using metals concentrations on a sediment dry weight basis (18). However, Di
Toro at at. 1193 in laboratory studies using spiked sediments, observed that acute toxicity
and interstitial waterconcentretions of cadmium were related to sediment concentrations
on a pmot cadmium per .prnol acid volatile sulfide basis. They hypothesized that this
normalization should apply to other divalent metals in both freshwater and marine anoxic
sediments, where the metals concentrations are expressed as the ratio of the sum of the
molar concentrations of all divalent metals to the molar concentration of AVS, with the
mital-sutfide solubility products providing insights into the likely metal of concern in a
mixture. These obse ations were further extended to apply to copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc, as well as metal mixtures, in acute lethality tests with spiked sediments and
-------
7-17
saltwater a mphipods and polychaetes 11 ,16,20,21 3 and freshwater oligochaetes and snails
(22,23]. Studies revealed the requirement that metals concentrations be expressed as the
molar concentration of metal simultaneously extracted with AVS, not total metal. Acute
lethality tests with homogenized sediments from freshwater and marine locations
consistently demonstrated an absence of toxicity when SEM/AVS ratios were 1.0 and
that sediments having a ratio > 1 .0 were sometimes toxic, but frequently were nontoxic
[ 2,20,2224,251. Absence of toxicologically significant concentrations of metal in
interstitial water in nontoxic sediments and the presence of interstitial metals
concentrations of concern in toxic sediments highlighted the utility of the toxic unit
concept as applied to interstitial metal in predicting sediment toxicity when SEM/AVS is
> 1.0. Absence of toxicity when SEM/AVS is > 1 .0 suggested the presence of other
binding phases in these sediments. Ankley et al. 1261 summarized much of the above
information and proposed methodologies for assessing the potential bioavailability of
metals in sediments. The studies above have involved exposures of 10 days or less and
homogenized sediments, therefore, extrapolations using SEM/AVS ratios or interstitial
water concentrations to chronic responses of benthic organisms in laboratory or field
sediments with vertical gradients and microenvironments should be done with caution.
Because of these limitations, this colonization experiment and those of Hare et al. (33 and
Liber et al. 141 were conducted.
Biological effects of cadmium-spiked sediments observed in our colonization
experiment are consistent with the previous interpretation of SEM/AVS ratios, when
vertical gradients are considered, and with interstitial water cadmium concentrations and
the relative sensitivities of benthic taxa in water-only aquatic toxicity tests (Table 7-6;
Figure 7-5). In the nominal 0.1 SEM/AVS treatment, molar concentrations of AVS in
vertical profiles of sediment were always in excess of those of cadmium; interstitial
cadmium concentrations CND to 10 pgIL) were either below detection limits, or less than
known concentrations of toxicological significance in water-only tests 1121; and no
significant effects were observed on sediment colonization by benthic species. In the
nominal 0.8 SEM/AVS treatment, measured SEM/AVS ratios averaged 0.60 in
homogenized sediments. However in surf icial sediments, molar concentrations of cadmium
-------
TABLE 7-B. SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS OBSERVED IN THE CADMUM COLONIZATION EXPERIMENT RELATIVE TO POTENTIAL EFFECTS GIVEN
OBSERVED INTERSTiTiAL CAOMUM CONCENTRATIONS AND KNOWN SENSITIVITIES OF RENTHIC ORGANISME 1t4 WATER-ONLY TESTS.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ rr w Potential EfIscia
hilsrotldd Cadcuum
Noodnal Measured SEMFAVS Iniotadilel C.dniiwn’ M.ev d . t . .t.br.tsi v.,.. w.t. ,-o Dot.t
Cd!AVS
O-9.Oo .n 0-1. 1cm
Central 0.00 0.00 ND (ND-? pgIL) 7 Phyls. 37 ,pooIe . 1.92 a i ’ Dlet.mslcm 1
4.259 kidMducis
0.? 0.10(0.07-0.1 21 0.3S 10.22-0.S8l 4p5IUND-10 pgiL) No £ff.ct.: No Effects: Acul. or dwwdo .ff.ct.
7 Phyla. 33 sp.cI.s 1.32 a 10 Dlstomslcrn’ t wBk.Iy
29 I7 lndIv lducis
0.8 0.1010.55-0. 17) 1.47(1.0t-1.94) 33pqiU24-1S7 pgAJ F.w.r p& cMct.s Mor. .phereld Amili leth ly uv isly.
( Medloinastuc. StrsbSsaslo . fora*,dfers Ctwoalo I.thdlty or
f ) and anatodie. .i I.thal .fftct. po. ,*I.
Speds. prcesncaf ..ncs fo .e.nsltiuc pclych.sts.
altered. or cnret.c..ns.
3.0 2.83(2.01 3.52) 2.29 11.18-2.53 1 94.00 rgfl. Fewer cped.e polychasts. Reduced distom dsooIty Acute lethality for moot
12L000- 174.000 pgalJl ( Mediomectue. Strebleaslo . . 10.16 8.tomaIcm 3 ) n.crokwertebr.t. sped..
Poda’Ii. ) n.mstodes and Including polychseta ..
hs.p.cthcold copepods. blvalv* mcBu.cs. vials
Bivalves ebsent. More srthrcpode. and
escidlan, ( Molaids) . Length scldnodsnn,. Algal
frequency distribution growth inhibition.
( N,n.. ) altered. Specie.
•r.s.ne.Ieb..ne. altered.
‘Moan of Interstidal water con ontratione dvfved ucing one-half the detection md l (ND - 3.OpglLl fo, sample. where Cadothan con .ntredon. wars not detsct.bIe.
bF,om Anil 1ant Wale, Ovality Criteria for C.dnthjm 1984 (U.S. EPA. 19851: Ctvoric onIon, concentration, 9.3 p5-’L. acut. 42 pglL.
-------
100000
10000
1000
100
10
I
C
0
C
(1)
0
C
0
0
E
E
Cu
0
Figure 7-5. Comparison of genus mean acute values (GMAV) and predicted genus mean chronic values (GMCV) from water-only toxicity tests
as a function of the percent rank sensitivity of the genus and ranges of interstitial water concentrations in sediments from control and nominal
0.1, 0.8, and 3.0 Cd/AVS treatments; measured SEM/AVS ratios were 0.0, 0.1. 1.5. and 2.3, respectIvely. GMAV’s are geometric means
of 1C50 values for water-only tests with species within any genus as reported in Table 3 of the cadmium water quality criteria (WOC)
document (U.S. EPA. 1985). PredIcted GMCV’s are derived as the GMAV divided by the final acute-chronic ratio of 9.1 from the cadmium
WOC document. Values for arthropod genera are indicated by open diamonds, molluscs solid diamonds, polychaetes circles, other
invertebrates squares, and fishes triangles. Ranges of interstitial cadmium concentrations for each SEM/AVS treatment are indicated by
horizontal shaded zones. The WQC criteria maximun concentration (CMC — acute criterion) of 85 pg/I and criteria continuous concentration
(CCC — chronic criterion) of 9.3 pg/I are indicated by horizontal lines. To interpret thi’s figure, if the sensitivities of various genera in water-
only s are indicative of sensitivities to interstitial cadmium concentrations In sediment tests, taxa potentially at risk in the sediment
treatments in our experiment are those wh GMAVs and GMCVs are within and below the ranges in interstitial cadmium.
0
20 40 60
Percent Rank
100
SEM/AVS = 2.3
•0
A
•00
GMAV •
0 0A
Predicted
0000 GMCV 0
..00
0 A 0
•0
A
000•0 A
0 A
.0
0000
r cc
80
-------
7-20
frequently exceeded those for sulfide and cadmium concentrations in interstitial water (ND
to 157 pgIL) often exceeded those that in water-only tests are known to be acutely toxic
to sensitive species. Chronic effects may be projected to occur to many sensitive
arthropods and polychaetes if acute toxicity and acute-chronic ratios are used to estimate
chronically toxic concentrations (Figure 7-5). Significant reductions in the abundance of
polychaetes and nematodes. but not arthropods. and alterations in species composition
were observed. In the nominal 3.0 SEM/AVS treatment, molar concentrations of cadmium
always exceeded those of sulfide in both homogenized sediments and in sediment profiles.
and interstitial water concentrations of cadmium were of sufficient magnitude (28.000 to
174,000 pg/I) to pose significant acute and chronic risks to almost all algal and
macrobenthic saltwater organisms for which data are reported in the water quality criteria
docum2nt (12). Biological effects observed in our study were severe, with numbers of
species reduced by about one-half. Significant reductions occurred in total polychaete
species, abundance and size of certain polychaete species and abundance of nematodes
and harpacticoid copepods. Bivalve molluscs were absent and diatom density was reduced
10-fold. Interestingly, the total number of individuals of berithic organisms was similar to
that of contrOts. This suggests that tolerant benthic species that could avoid exposure by
their epibenthic habits replaced more sensitive species. For example, the tunicate Molaula ,
known to be resistant to many substances in this test 161 rests on sediments utilizing
water from above the sediment surface and was particularly abundant in 3.0 SEM/AVS.
Alternatively, organisms may seek micro-environments known to occur in the surface 1
to 2 cm of sediments (14). as was observed in the polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata
exposed to cadmium or nickel-spiked sediment 1161.
We conclude that the present theories used to predict the acute biological
consequences of divalent metals in sediments may be applicable to chronically exposed
benthic organisms. Predictions of the toxicological significance of metals in laboratory and
field sediments must consider vertical profiles of SEM and AVS relative to biologically
active sediment strata, interstitial water metal concentrations and the potential for release
of nonavailable metal as a result of oxidation of AVS (including both iron and cadmium and
-------
7-21
other toxic metal sulf ides) as a part of the normal seasonal sulfide cycles and sediment
bioturbation.
In addition to the marine colonization study described in this chapter, there have
been two colonization experiments with freshwater sediments that have examined the role
of AVS in determining metal bioavailability 13.41. Because these experiments only recently
have been completed. they are not described in detail herein; however, the studies will be
presented in full at the SAB meeting. For the sake of completeness, below we briefly
describe the freshwater colonization experiments, including major results and conclusions.
Hare et al. 13] conducted an experiment in which cadmium was spiked into clean
field-collected sediments, which were then placed in trays and put in the Precambrian
shield lake from which the sediments were initially collected. Nominal SEM:AVS ratios in.
the samples were 0.05 (control), 0.1, 0.5, 2. and 10. SEM:AVS ratios and pore water
cadmium concentration were measured in 3 cm horizons of the sediment over the course
of slightly greater than one year, after which macroinvertebrate samples were collected
to evaluate benthic community structure and cadmium bioaccumulation by the benthos,
The results of the bioaccumulation study are addressed in Chapter 8. Except for the
sample with a nominal SEM:AVS ratio of 10, water overlying the sediments (collected with
peepers) contained non-detectable levels of cadmium. At all the test concentrations,
oxidation of AVS in surficial sediments resulted in greater SEM:AVS ratios in the
shallowest horizon than in deeper portions of the core. Pore water cadmium
concentrations in the control and 0.1 treatment were consistently tow. However, in the
0.5 treatment, pore water cadmium concentration were elevated, particularly In the
shallowest sediment horizons, presumably due to surficial oxidation of AVS. In the
samples with nominal SEM:AVS ratios of 2 and 10, pore water cadmium concentrations
were consistently elevated; however, there appeared to be little if any impact of the
cadmium on organism abundance (Figure 7-6). One of the explanations suggested by the
authors for the seeming lack of impact was that SEM:AVS ratios actually can be quite
misleading. Although samples with very small AVS concentrations (such as those in their
study,.ca;. 0.2 umol AVS/g) might exceed an SEM:AVS ratio of 1 • the actual amount of
-------
600
400
0
75
50
25
0
•00
200
0
200
100
0
2000
1000
0
75
50
25
0
0.01
Abundance Accumulation
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
C)
0
1
0.1
10
I
1
0.1
10
1
10
0.1
Figure 7-6. Comparison of SEM (cadmium):AVS to abundance of. and bioaccumulatjon
of cadmium by six taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates from a field study.
/
200
I
I
0.1
1
1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Cd/AVS
-------
7-23
total free metal could be quite small. This led the authors to conclude that it may be more
appropriate to use the absolute difference between SEM and AVS to predict the presence
of bioavailable metal 131.
Liber et al. (43 conducted a colonization experiment with zinc spiked into clean
sediments from a small mesotrophic pond new Duluth. Minnesota. The spiked sediments
were replaced in the pond in trays, and sampled periodically over the course of about 14
months for determination of SEM:AVS ratios and zinc pore water concentrations, and
benthic community structure. Five zinc concentrations, ranging from 0.8 to 12 umol/g
were tested in order to cover the expected seasonal range in AVS concentrations.
However, the zinc-sulfide complex proved to be exceptionally stable to oxidation relative
to iron monsulfide, (see Chapter 9), in that there was a concentration-dependent increase
in sediment AVS content with increasing zinc concentration (Figure 7-7). The not result
of this was that SEM:AVS ratios at the four lowest treatments never exceeded one, and
only slightly exceeded one in the highest zinc spiking regime. This exceedence occurred
only in surficial (0 to 2 cm) sediments; similar to the study of Hare at al. (3). AVS
concentrations in the shallowest horizons, irrespective of the zinc treatment, were smaller
than those in deeper sediments (Figure 7-7). Regardless of the measured SEM:AVS ratio,
zinc was rarely detected in the pore water, and never at biologically significant
concentrations. Sediment cores, collected during each sampling period, were not toxic to
Chironomus tentans or Hvaleila in laboratory bioassays. nor was there any
discernable impact on diversity of abundance of benthic communities in the zinc-spiked
samples (Figure 7-8). Results form the study confirmed that when molar :Avs
concentrations exceed those of SEM. little or no free metal Is present in pore water, and
toxicity to benthic organisms does not occur.
-------
July 22, 1993 (day 21)
October 1 • 1993 (day 92)
TREATMENT
-6an
-4an
15
12
9
6
.3
0
August 23, 1993 (day 53)
/
/ /
/// I-
1 r 4_4cm
)-2 an
CUCMZI Z2 Z3Z4 Z5
TREATMENT
May 13, 1994 (day 327)
cm
Figure 7-7. Average AVS concentrations at various depths in test sediments (controls and zinc-spiked) on four of the five
• rnple dates.
-C
0 )
a)
V
0)
0
E
z
CUCMZI Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5
TREATMENT
15
12
.9
6
3
0
15
12
9
6
3
0
/
/
15
12
9
6
3
0 CU CM ZI
TREATMENT
2-4 cm
cm
Z5
-------
..
CHIRONOMIDAU
-
V
V
V
V
!
‘
‘
I
!
‘U
a.
(I) ‘°
4150
C D
150
0
U. so
0
‘ U
11
CU CM 21 22 23 24 25
aIN.wA
V
I ‘
•.
V
‘
V
•‘
V
I
I
CU CM 21 U 23 24 .25
MOILU$CA
* ! I
CU CM 11 22 23 24 *5
TREATMENT
2350
“so
1050
a.
U) °
4
CD
0
U.
0
M i
400
z
210
I SO
1 0 0
I0
C
CIIRNOMIDAI - V
1111 :i
CU CM 21 22 23 24 Th
CU CM *1 *2 23 24 25
TREATMENT
r_ ,lre 7-8. Benthic macroinvertebrate abundance (x n sediment trays on two of the five sampling dates
MACROIN VERTEBRATE A UNDANCE PER TRAY’
(AUGUST 23, 1993) (0 OBER 1. 1993)
M UMCA
-------
APPENDIX 7A
METHODS
Effects of cadmium spiked into sediment on macrobenthic organisms that colonized
sediments was tested in a 118-day (July 4 to October 21, 1991) experiment using a
control and three cadmium-spiked sediment treatments, with nominal SEM/AVS ratios of
0.1, 0.8, and 3.0. There were 12 replicate, B biological and 4 chemical, aquaria (13.3 x
30 x 15 cm high) for each treatment (Figure 7A-1). A stratified random placement
strategy was used for location of treatments and replicates among the four test
apparatuses was used. Approximately four liters of sediment from central Long Island
Sound south of Milford, Connecticut (5.6 percent sand, 70.7 percent silt, 23.7 percent
clay and 1.0 percent TOC). defaunated by freezing, were added to a depth of 8 cm to each
aquarium. A splitter box delivered unfiltered saltwater, (29 to 32ppt salinity; 16 to
23.5°C) from the West Passage of Narragansett Bay to one end of each aquarium at 200
mI/mm (about 300 volume additions per day). This unfiltered saltwater contained
planktonic larvae and other lifestages of benthic organisms. A drain hole at the opposite
end maintained water depth over the sediment at 2 cm.
Sediment from central Long Island Sound (mean 17.2 pmol AVS/g dry weight) was
spiked with cadmium chloride dissolved in seawater, homogenized, and stored at 20°C for
26 days prior to test initiation. Treatments were nominal pmol SEM cadmium/pmol AVS
ratios of 0.0 (control), 0.1, 0.8, and 3.0. The Long Island Sound sediment has low levels
of metals (about O. 4 pglg cadmium, 4Opg/g copper, 6Opg/g lead, 1 5pg/g nickel, and 130
pg g zinc) that contribute 3.17 pmol/g to the total SEM and 0.18 to the total divalent
metal SEM/AVS ratio. Hereafter, SEM/AVS ratio used will be pmol SEM cadmium/pmol
AVS. Sediments from this location have proven biologically acceptable as control or
reference sediment in a great number of tests conducted previously at U.S. EPA.
Narragansett, Rhode Island. The experiment began after addition of sediments to aquaria
and initiation of water flow.
Replicate chemical aquaria were sampled on days 14, 28. 56, and 117. Each
chemical replicate contained six interstitial water diffusion samplers (peepers), three
-------
Seawater
13.3 x 30 x 15cm hIgh
per each of 12 boxes
Head
Figure lA-i. Ohe of four identical apparatuses each Consisting of twelve aquaria used to test the effects of cadmium in
sediment on colonization by benthic organisms. The splitter box supplied unfiltered seawater to the four apparatuses. Each
apparatus contained two biology and one chemistry replicate for the control, 0.1, 0.8 and 3.0 SEMFAVS tieatments. Each
chemistry replicate contained three interstitial water diffusion samplers (peepers) near the sediment surface and three peepers
2 cm from the bottom of the sediment.
Splitter
Box
Stand Pipe
(200m 1/min)
-------
7A-3
immediately below the s.duaent surface and three 2 cm above the bottom of the test
aquaria (Figure 7A-1). Peepers were polyethylene vials containing 6.3 ml of filtered
seawater with 1-micron pore size polycarbonate mesh across the top. On each sampling
day, three core tubes, 6.5-cm ID, were first inserted into the sediment in the front, middle
and end of the chemistry replicate for each treatment and the top capped. Next, peepers
were withdrawn, rinsed with seawater to remove adhering sediment, the membrane
punctured with a disposable pipette tip, the water withdrawn, acidified, and stored for
analysis. Cores were removed, the bottom capped, and frozen. Remaining sediments
were homogenized and an aliquot frozen. Before chemical analysis, sediment cores from
days 28, 56, and 117 were extruded from core tubes and sliced into five 0.6 cm horizons
in the first 3.0 cm of sediment and in 2.0 cm horizons for the remainder of the core.
Cores from day 14 were sliced at a variety of depth horizons. Each horizon from each core
was homogenized before chemical analyses. Homogenized remaining sediments and cores
were analyzed for SEM cadmium, AVS, and interstitial water metal by AA or ICP using the
methods of Boothman and Heimsletter (11, Allen et a!. (27J and U.S. EPA 128L
All biological replicates were sampled on day 80 to obtain periphyton samples and
on day 118 to remove the macrobenthos. Periphyton were pipetted from two 8-mm
circles of surfical sediment from each aquarium at the midline and one-third the distance
from each end. The volume of each these two samples was increased to 3.0 ml and the
samples refrigerated. Diatoms in three aliquots containing 0.0636 p1 from each sample
were counted within 24 hours using a Palmer-Maloney cell. Counts were adjusted to
cells/cm 2 . Sediments were sieved through stacked 2.5,0.5, and 0.3-mm sieves to remove
macrobenthic organisms. The organisms were relaxed in magnesium sulfate and preserved
in 10 percent buffered formaldehyde with rose bengal stain. Organisms were identified to
species except for a few small or damaged specimens. Relaxed polychaetes, Nereis
succinea , were measured for length prior to preservation. For tunicates, only individuals
immediately in contact with sediment were counted; myriads of extremely small tunicates
attached to larger tunicateshence not in contact with sediment and present only in one
control and five 3.0 SEM/AVS replicates-were not counted.
-------
7A-4
Analysis of variance was used to detect differences in the abundance of periphyton
and individual macrobenthic animal species and phyla. Cluster analyses were performed
to compare the kinds of macrobenthic species present or absent in each replicate or
treatment using the simple matching coefficient (291.
jk a+d
a+b+c+d
where, a = number of species present in both replicates,
b = number of species present in replicate k only,
c = number of species present in replicate j only,
d = number of species absent in both the replicate j and replicate k but
that occur in at least one other replicate in the experiment, and
(a + b + c + d) = the total number of species found in the experiment.
Numbers calculated by this measure range from 0 (dissimilar) to 1 (similar).
-------
REFERENCES
1. Berry, W.J., Hansen, D.J., Mahony, J.D.. Di Toro. D.M., Robson. D.L.. and
Boothman, W.S. 1994. Predicting the toxicity of metals-spiked laboratory
sediments using acid volatile sulfide and interstitial water normalizations.
Manuscript.
2. Hansen. D.J., Berry. W.J., Mahony, J.D.. Boothman, W.S., Robson. DL., Ankley,
G.T., Ma, D., Van, 0., and Pesch, C.E. 1994. Predicting the toxicity of metals-
contaminated field sediments using interstitial water and acid volatile sulfide
normalizations. Manuscript.
3. Hare, L.. Carignan. R.. and Huerta-Diaz, M.A. 1994. A field experimental test of
the hypothesis that acid volatile sulfide (AVS) concentrations improve the prediction
of metal toxicity and accumulation by benthic inverebrates. Limnol. Ocean. Vol.
39.
4. Liber, K., Ankley. G., Call, D.. Markee, T., and Schmude, K. 1994. Seasonal
relationships between acid volatile sulfide concentrations and toxicity of zinc to
benthic macroinvertebrates. Manuscript In Preparation.
5. DeWitt, T.. and Swartz, R. 1994. Personal communication.
6. Hansen, D.J.. and Tagatz, M.E. 1980. A laboratory test for assessing impacts of
substances on developing communities of benthic estuarine organisms. American
Society of Testing and Materials. Special Technical Publication 707. pp. 40-57.
7. Hansen, D. J. and Flemer, D.A. 1993. Extrapolation of single species tests to
water and sediment quality criteria: A comparison with field and laboratory
saltwater benthic colonization experiments. Abstract. 14th Annual Meeting. Soc.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. p.49
-------
8. Tagatz, M.E.. Plaia, G.R., and Deans, C.H. 1985. Effects of 1 ,2,4-trichloroben i e
on estuarine macrobenthic communities exposed via water and sediment.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 10:351-360.
9. Flemer, D.A., Stanley. R.S.. Ruth. B.F., Bundrick. C.M., Moody. P.H.. and Moore,
J.C. 1994. Recolonization of estuarine organisms: Effects of microcosm size and
pesticides. Hydrobiologia. In press.
10. Mahony, J.D. , Di Toro, D.M., Koch, R.. Berry. W. and Hansen, D. 1993. Vertical
distribution of AVS and SEM in bedded sediments, biological implications and the
role of metal sulfide oxidation kinetics. Abstract. 14th Annual Meeting. Soc.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. p.46.
11. Boothman, W.S. and Helmstetter, A. Vertical and seasonal variability of acid
-volatile sulf ides in marine sediments. Manuscript.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Cadmium. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. EPA 440/5-84-032.
127pp.
13. Heltshe, J. and Forrester, N. 1983. Estimating species richness using the jacknife
procedure. Biometrics. 39:1-11.
14. Jergensen. B.B. 1977. The sulfur cycle of a coastal marine sediment (Limfjorden,
Denmark). Limnology and Oceanography. 22:814-832.
15. Zhuang, V.. Allen, H.E., and Fu, G. 1994. Effect of aeration of sediment on
cadmium binding. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13:717-724.
-------
9T . fl ’Pesch. C.E., Han . en , D.J.. Boothmafl. W.S., Berry. W.J., and Mahony, J.D. The
role of acid-volatile sulfide and interstitial water metal concentrations in determining
the bioavaitability of cadmium and nickel from contaminated sediments to the
marine polychaete Neanthes arenaceodéntata . Environ. Toxicol. Chem. In press.
17. Luoma. S.N. and Carter, J.L. 1993. Understanding the toxicity of contaminants in
sediments: Beyond the bioassay-based paradigm. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:793-
796.
18. Luoma, S.N. 1989. Can we determine the biological availability of sediment-bound
trace elements? Hydrobiologia 176/177:379-396.
19. Di Toro, D.M., Mahony. J.D.. Hansen. D.J., Scott, K.J., Hicks, M.B., Mays, SM.,
and Redmond, MS. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid
volatile sulfides. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
20. Di Toro, D.M.. Mahony. J.D., Hansen, D.J. , Scott, K.J., Carison, A.R.. and Ankley,
G.T. 1992. Acid volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel
in sediments. Environ. Sci. Tech. 26:96-101.
21. Casas. AM. and Crecelius, E.A. 1994. The relationship between acid volatile
sulfide and the toxicity of zinc, lead and copper in marine sediments. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 13:529-536.
22. Ankley, G.T., Phipps, G.L. Leonard, E.N., Benoit, D.A., Mattson, V.R., Kosian, P.A.,
Cotter, A.M., Dierkes JR., Hansen, D.J., and Mahony, J.D. 1991. Acid volatile
sulfide as a factor mediating cadmium and nickel bioavailability in contaminated
sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1299-1307.
23. Carlson, A.R.. Phipps, G.L., Mattson, V.R., Kosian, P.A., and Cotter, A.M. 1991.
The role of acid volatile sulfide in determining cadmium bioavailability and toxicity
in freshwater sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1309-13 19.
-------
24. Ankley. G.T., Mattson, V.R., Leonard. E.N., West, C.W., and Bennett, J.L. 1993.
Predicting the acute toxicity of copper in freshwater sediments: Evaluation of the
role of acid-volatile sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:315-320.
25. Burgess, R.M. and Morrison, G.E. 1994. A short-exposure sublethal sediment
toxicity test using the bivalve Mulinia lateralis : Statistical design and comparitive
sensitivity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. In press.
26. Ankley, G.T., Di Toro, D.M., Hansen, D.J.. Mahony, J.C.. Swartz, R.C., Hoke, R.A.,
Thomas. N.A., Garrison, A.W., Allen, H.E.. and Zarba, C.S. 1994. Assessing the
potential bioavailabi lity of metals in sediments: A proposed approach. Environ. Mgt.
18:331-337.
27. Allen, H.S., Fu, G., and Deng, B. 1993. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) and
simultaneously extracted metal (SEM) for the estimation of potential toxicity in
aquatic sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:1441.1453.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Draft analytical method for
determination of acid volatile sediment in sediments. Office of Water, Office of
Science and Technology. August, 1991. 17 pp.
29. Smith, E.P., Pontasch, K.W., and Cairns, Jr., J. 1990. Community similarity and
the analysis of multispecies environmental data: A unified statistical approach.
Water Res. 24:507-514.
-------
CHAPTER 8
BIOACCUMULATION OF METALS
Although the presence and/or absence of toxicity can, to some extent, be inferred
as a barometer of contaminant bioavailability. in many instances a more accurate endpoint
for assessing bioavailability is bioaccumulation. Even If a chemical is bioavailable, if the
test species of concern is not particularly sensitive and/or the length of the test is too
short, toxicity may not be manifested. Therefore, bloaccumulation also should be
considered when assessing whether a particular model is appropriate f or predicting metal
bioavailability in sediments. This issue is of particular relevance to the bioavailability
paradigm presented in previous Chapters of this document. Basically, if interstitial water
concentrations of metals are small or non-detectable and/or (divalent) metal:AVS ratios
measured in appropriate sediment horizons are less than one, significant accumulation of
metals by macrobenthos should not occur. If significant bioaccumulation does occur this
would suggest that, regardless of the results of toxicity studies, the bioavailability model
which has been advanced for metals in sediments is not completely accurate.
Because bioaccumulation is a convenient endpoint for biomonitoring. the literature
is replete with observations of metal bioaccumulation by vertebrate and invertebrate
species associated with metal-contaminated sediments. In many instances, researchers
have attempted to correlate concentrations of metals in field-collected animals with some
measure of sediment metal concentrations. However, as is true for toxicity, total
extractable metal concentrations in sediments are relatively poor indicators of that fraction
of metal which apparently is available for bioaccumulation (for reviews see Tessier and
Campbell, Ill; Luoma, 121; Hare, 131). Differential extraction techniques in conjunction
with speciation models sometimes have improved correlations between concentrations of
metals in animals and sediments, however, in most instances these types of models tend
to be empirical and somewhat site-specific.
Definition of the-true bioavailable fraction of metals is only part of the difficulty in
quantitatively linking metal bioaccumu lation by organisms to metals in sediments, either
-------
8-2
in the laboratory or field. Although assessing bioaccumulation of metals from sediments
theoretically should be a relatively straight-forward process, if not adequately controlled.
a number of key variables can bias interpretation of observed results. One issue which is
particularly problematic in field studies is the separation of exposure to sediment-
associated metals (either from pore water or particulates) from exposure to metals in the
water column. In the majority of systems contaminated by metals, both the sediments and
overlying water have elevated metal concentrations. Because most benthic organisms
have the potential for exposure via both media, it is difficult to separate the relative
contribution of the two routes. This is compounded by the fact that while relatively
accurate sediment chemistry can be obtained with single samples, it is very difficult to
collect meaningful overlying water quality data temporally. This is not to say that from a
holi tic standpoint metals bioaccumulated by organisms from overlying water are not
important; in fact, an overall model for assessing the impacts of metals on benthic
organisms should incorporate exposure both from sediment and overlying water (4,53.
However, to develop a mechanistic understanding of factors mediating metal bioavailabi lity
in sediments, the contribution from overlying water must be monitored or controlled.
A number of biological/physiological factors also can complicate the interpretation
of sediment bioaccumulation studies with benthic organisms. For example, species which
ingest sediment must have their gut contents physically removed, or purged (e.g., by
holding in clean water or sediment) in ordir to effectively separate metal that actually has
— been bioaccumulated from that associated with sediments in the gut (6,73. Another
potential bias in metal bioaccumulation studies with some species is that a sizable
percentage of the metals measured on a total body basis may actually only be adsorbed
to the outer integument (81. A final problem with metal bioaccumulation as an endpoint
for assessing bioavailability is that many invertebrate species are capable of regulating
• body burdens of essential trace metals (e.g., zinc, copper) to some extent (e.g.,
Timmermans et al., (91). Hence, the lack of bioaccumulation does not always necessarily
indicate a lack of bioavailability.
-------
8-3
A number of studies have been conducted which permit the critical evaluation of
metal bioaccumutation by macroinvertebrates relative to sediment pore water metal
concentrations and SEM:AVS ratios. These studies include short-term laboratory
experiments with cadmium- or nickel-spiked marine and freshwater sediments, short- and
long-term laboratory experiments with field-collected marine and freshwater sediments
variously contaminated with cadmium, nickel, copper, lead, and zinc, and a long-term field
study with cadmium-spiked freshwater sediments. Species assessed included molluscs,
oligochaetes, potychaetes, amphipods, and chironomids. In these experiments, the
potential confounding variables described above, in particular clearance of gut contents,
were controlled to varying degrees, which in some instances causes ambiguity in the
interpretation of the study results.
Laboratory Spiking Experiments-Freshwater
Carlson et al. 1101 exposed oligochaetes ( Lumbriculus varieaatus ) and snails
( Helisoma g) to freshwater sediments, containing three different AVS concentrations,
which each had been spiked to achieve nominal cadmium:AVS ratios of 0, 0.1, 0.3, 1.0,
3.0, and 10. Assays were conducted for 10 d in a system which provided approximately
11.5 turnovers of clean Lake Superior water/d. At test conclusion, mortality of the two
organisms was assessed and tissue samples were collected for residue analysis. As
discussed elsewhere in this document (Chapter 5), significant mortality of the two test
species only occurred at cadmium:AVS ratios greater than one. However, even at
cadmium:AVS ratios less than one, dissolved concentrations of cadmium in pore water
from the spiked sediments were often greater than in unspiked sediments. Cadmium
concentrations in surviving oligochaetes and snails were below those tissue concentrations
expected to result in toxicity based upon comparison to concurrent water-only cadmium
tests with the two species. However, cadmium residues in both species appeared to
increase in a concentration-dependent manner at cadmium A VS ratios less than one for all
three test sediments (Figure 8-1). Comparison of the actual magnitude of these increases
in worms and snails from the cadmium-spiked sediments is complicated by the fact that
a complete set of cadmium concentrations in organisms from unspiked (control) samples
-------
700
600
500
7400
100
S
West Bearskin Worm
.
200
100
0
0.01
Cadmium: AVS Ratio
Figure 8-1. Comparison of cadmium:AVS ratios in three (spiked) freshwater sediments to bioaccumulation of cadmium by
Lumbriculus variepatus and Helisoma g.
0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10
/
/
/
I
Pequaywan Snail
/
I
I
Pequaywan Worm
— _
/
/
East River Snail
• 4
/
/
/
I
/
East River Worm
• — — A— — —
/
/
I
— — — —
/
/
S
S
S
S
S
West Bearskin Snail
/
I
-I
0
N
-------
8-5
are available for only or of the three test sediments. However, if concentrations of
cadmium in organisms from this one sediment, which were on the order of 0.5 to 5 ug/g
dry weight, are taken to be indicative of those in all the sediments, then cadmium
concentrations were as much as two orders of magnitude greater than background in
surviving test organisms from sediments with SEM:AVS ratios less than one.
An important shortcoming in the study by Carlson et at. 1101 was that cadmium
residues measured in the oligochaetes and snails included all gut contents, i.e., the
organisms were removed directly from the sediment without allowance for gut purging.
Data are not available with which to evaluate the potential contribution of gut contents to
the total body weight of the snails; however, recent studies by Brooks et al. 1111 indicate
that in j, variepatus which have not been gut purged, approximately 10 percent of the dry
weight of the worms may be sediment. Using this estimate, if it is assumed that the
cadmium concentration in sediment in the gut of the oligochaete was similar to the
cadmium concentration in the surrounding sediment, depending upon the test sediment,
as little as 2 percent or as much as 50 percent of the total cadmium body burden in the
oligochaetes could have been due to gut contents. It should be noted that the assumption
that sediment in the gut is equivalent to that outside the organism becomes increasingly
tenuous as the selectivity of feeding increases.
Laboratory Splklng.Marlne
Pesch et at. 1121 conducted experiments In which the toxicity and bioaccumulation
of cadmium or nickel spiked into marine sediments were evaluated using the potychaete
Neanthes arenaceoderitptp . Two different sediments, with relatively low and high AVS
concentrations, were spiked so as to achieve final SEM (cadmium or nickel) :A VS ratios of
0, 0.1, 0.3, 1.0. 3.0, 10, 30, and 100. Exposures were conducted for 10 d in a system
which provided 30 to 50 turnovers of clean sea water/d. At the end of the exposure,
surviving organisms were removed from the test sediments, and placed in clean sea water
for 4 h. At this time, visual inspection suggested that the polycheetes had completely
purged their gut contents. As discussed elsewhere (Chapter 5). no significant mortality
-------
8-6
occurred at SEM:AVS ratios less u 3ter than one and when
interstitial water toxic, units (TU) also were greater than one, the polychaetes either died
or avoided burrowing in the cadmium- or nickelspiked sediments. At SEM:AVS ratios less
than one, dissolved cOncentrations of adt iiumand-nickelin pore water from the two
sediments were comparable to values from unspiked sediments. Bioaccumulatjon of
cadmium and nickel was most pronounced in sediments with SEM:AVS ratiosgreater than
one; cadmium concentrations in polychaetes from sediments with ratios greater than one
typically were more than an order of magnitude greater than concentrations in worms from
sediments with ratios less than one (Figure 8-2). Nickel concentrations in animals from
sediments with SEM:AVS ratios greater than one were approximately two- to 1 0-fold
greater than nickel concentrations in polychaetes from sediments with ratios less than one
(Figure 8-3).
Although bioaccumulation of both cadmium and nickel was most pronounced at
SEM:AVS ratios greater than one, there also was a concentration-dependent increase in
tissue metal concentrations in the polychaetes at SEM:AVS ratios less than one (Figures
8-2 and 8-3). There are a number of possible explanations f or this. Metal residues in
polychaetes from sediments with the lower SEM:AVS ratios could have been derived via
ingestion and digestion of contaminated particulate matter. Alternatively, uptake of the
two metals could have been directly from interstitial water; the burrowing activity of the
animals could have served to effectively oxidize metal-sulfide complexes thereby releasing
metal to the immediate environs of the polychaetes. Because this phenomenon would
occur only in the microenvironment of the organisms, the release of metals may not have
been manifested in measurements of cadmium and nickel concentrations in the pore water
collected via peepers.’ One other possible explanation for the observation of apparent
metal bioaccumulation by the worms in samples with SEM:AVS ratios less than one, and
pore water metal concentrations similar to control values. may be that the metals were
adsorbed to the chitinous sheath of the polychaetes, and were not actually in the
organism. This type of phenomenon has been documented f or freshwater invertebrates
such as chironomids (81. but to our knowledge, has not been investigated for
arenaceodentptp .
-------
1,000- 0
0 0
Long Island Sound
0
Ninigret
0
100
0 )
0
1 0
E 10
0
D
U)
I —
1- 0
0.1 — I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Nominal SEM (Cd): AVS Ratio
Figure 8-2. Comparison of SEM(cadmium):AVS ratios in two (spiked) marine sediments to bioaccumulation of cadmium by
ithes arenaceodentata .
-------
1,000
Long Island Sound
0
Ninigret
0
0
0 0
0
0 )
.2. a
Q)
ioo
z
w
C ,)
0
0
10 —
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
SEM (Ni): AVS Ratio
Figure 8-3. Comparison of SEM(nickel):AVS ratios in two (spiked) marine sediments to bioaccumulation of nickel by Neanthec
iceodentata .
-------
89
Field Sediments-Freshwater
Ankley et al. (131 evaluated bioaccumulation of cadmium and nickel byL varieaatus
from 17 sediment samples from the upper (freshwater) end of a marine tidal estuary
contaminated by a battery plant. Exposures were conducted for 10 d in a system which
provided 1 2 turnovers of clean Lake Superior water/d. At test completion, the surviving
oligochaetes were removed from the test sediments and placed in clean water for 24 h
before residue analysis. Brooke et a!. (111 have shown that this sampling regime should
result in >90 percent clearance of gut contents of variegatus . As described elsewhere
(Chapter 6), toxicity of the 17 sediments to the oligochaete was minimal; although 13 of
the 17 samples had SEM (cadmium plus nickel):AVS ratios greater than one, only at the
two highest ratios was significant mortality observed, which was consistent with pore
water metal TU calculations for the worm. Bioaccumuiation of metals (cadmium plus
nickel) from the test sediments by L varieoatus was not predictable based upon total
sediment metal concentrations (Figure 8-4a). however. bioaccumulation of metals by the
worm did appear to be related to the sediment SEM:AVS ratios (Figure 8-4b). Metal
concentrations in oligochaetes from sediments with ratios less than one were consistently
small; significant bioaccumulation only occurred in those sediments where SEM:AVS ratios
were greater than one. However, marked bioaccumulation of cadmium and nickel by 1,.
variepatus was not observed in all samples with ratios greater than one, suggesting
perhaps the presence of additional binding phases in excess of AVS for the metals in some
o the test sediments.
Ankley et al. 1141 also conducted a series of longer term sediment bioaccumulation
tests with j, yprieaatus . In these experiments, three sediments from the lower Fox River,
Wisconsin were tested; based upon typical background concentrations of metals in
freshwater sediments, the three samples had greatly elevated concentrations of cadmium,
copper, zinc, nickel, and lead. However, the sediments also had very high concentrations
of AVS f or fresh water sediments (ca., 20 umol/g), with the net result being that
SEM:AVS ratios were the range of approximately 0.4 to 0.6. Based upon this. Ankley
et al (14) hypothesized that (a) pore water concentrations of the metals should be low or
-------
S
(a)
0
3
.
:.
001 01 I *0 1.000
umol metaJIg sediment
e
-- .
(b)
0
0
3
.
04
0
E .
0
E
3 .
2
.
.1
0 I _____
001 01 *0 100 *000
sediment metallAVS ratio
Figure 8-4. Comparison of metal (cadmium plus nickel) bioaccumulation by t.umbriculus
variepatus to (a) total sediment metal (cadmium plus nickel) concentrations and (b)
SEM(cadmium plus nickel):AVS ratios in 17 field-collected sediments.
-------
8-1 1
non-detectable, and - laboratory exposures, oligochaetes should not accumulate
significant concentrations of the five cationic metals. Tests were conducted for 30 d with
eight renewals of clean overlying (Lake Superior) waterld. The control for the experiment
consisted of worms held in Lake Superior water only. At conclusion of the test, the
o!igochaetes were held for 24 h in clean water to purge gut contents. Sediment SEM:AVS
ratios were relatively constant over the 30 d test; all ratios remained less than one. Pore
water concentrations of dissolved cadmium, lead and nickel were non-detectable
throughout the test; however, concentrations of both zinc and copper were consistently
detectable, and higher than background (Lake Superior water) concentrations. The
explanation for the elevated dissolved copper and zinc concentrations in pore water, in the
presence of excess concentrations of AVS in the sediments, is uncertain. However, at
completion of the 30 d exposure, concentrations of the five metals in tissues of the
oligochaetes were similar to or smaller than control values, i.e., no apparent
bioaccumulation of any of the metals occurred (Figure 8-5). This suggests that if copper
and zinc in the pore water truly were bioavailable and not simply complexed, for example
with DOC, then L variepatus must possess some mechanism for effectively regulating
tissue concentrations of these two metals.
Ingersoll et al. (151 conducted a long-term bioaccumulation test with six sediments
from the Clark Fork River. MT using the amphipod Hvalella SEM:AVS ratios in the
six samples ranged from 0.07 to 960 (Table 8-1), with copper and zinc comprising >97
percent of the SEM. Exposures were conducted for 28 d in a system which provided 1.25
renewals of clean overlying reconstituted water/d. Gut contents of the amphipods were
not purged at test completion. In sediments with SEM:AVS ratios of one or greater,
dissolved pore water concentrations of both copper and zinc were consistently elevated,
while pore water concentrations of the two metals were comparable to control values in
the sediment with the lowest SEM:AVS ratio (Table 8-1). However, as was the case in
the study by Ankley et al. (143, concentrations of both metals also were increased over
control values in two sediments (CF2, CF5) with SEM:AVS ratios slightly less than one.
Concentrations of both copper and zinc were significantly increased in the amphipods from
the three sediment samples with SEM:AVS ratios of one or greater (Table 8-1). Tissue
-------
40
30
20
E
-J
0
‘a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
I
I
S
S
I
I
I
S
S
S
I
S
S
I
I
S
I
I
I
I
S
S
S
I
I
S
S
I
I
S
I
S
I
I
2
—S
1.5
0)
C l)
a,
1(l)
0
I
1
Copper
1I •
Cadmium Zinc Lead Nickel
Site 1
Chromium
Site2
Figure 8-5. Comparison of tissue of concentrations of five metals in Lumbriculus varieaatus held in three sediments from
the lower Fox River, Wisconsin versus concentrations in worms held in clean water. Asterisks indicate significant difference
from control.
Site 6
-------
8-13
concentrations of zinc, but not copper, were significantly higher than control values in
from a sediment with an SEM:AVS ratio of 0.85, while the converse was seen in
sediment with a ratio of 0.75. Neither metal was bioaccumulated in amphipods exposed
to a sediment with a SEM:AVS ratio of 0.07. Because the amphipods were not purged
at test completion, the slight increases in copper or zinc concentrations observed in
organisms from the two sediments with SEM:AVS ratios less than one could have been
due largely to gut contents.
TABLE 8-1. SUMMARY OF CHEMISTRY AND TOXICITY DATA FOR SIX
SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM THE CLARK FORK RIVER (CF) , AND A
CONTROL.
SEM 1 :AVS Pore Water Wa/l) Tissue lua/g
Site (SEM, AVS, pmollg) Copper Zinc Copper Zinc
Control — 4.3 3.9 80 57
CF1 960 (250, 0.26) 79 2603 249’ 259’
CF2 0.85 (16.2, 19.1) 36 166 87 106’
CFT 2.15 (11.1, 5.16) 16 40 124’ 80’
CF4 0.99 (12.9, 13.0) 8.7 28 127’ 79’
CF5 0.75 (5.88, 7.84) 8.7 19 124’ 74
CF6 0.07 (0.47. 6.66) 1.5 2.0 84 56
1 Copper plus zinc.
‘Differed significantly from control.
Field Sediments-Marine
Only one Study has been conducted using field-collected sediments to evaluate
bioaccumulation of metals by marine invertebrates relative to sediment SEM:AVS ratios
or pore water metal concentrations. Pesch et al. (121 tested . arenaceodentata with the
same set of samples evaluated by Ankley et al. (131. Test conditions were essentially the
same as those described above for the polychaete. Results of the study by Pesch et at.
(12J were remarkedly similar to those of Ankley et al. (133; at SEM (cadmium plus
-------
8-14
nickel) :AVS ratios less than one, tissue concentrations of cadmium and nickel were low
and comparable to control values (Figure 8-6). At SEM:AVS ratios greater than one, tissue
concentrations of both metals increased marke fly. Comparison of the bioaccumulation of
cadmium and nickel by the polychaete also showed a reasonable correspondence with pore
water concentrations of the two metals.
Field Spiking-Freshwater
Hare et al. 141 conducted an experiment in which cadmium was spiked into clean
field-collected sediments, which were subsequently replaced in the field to evaluate trends
in colonization by benthos , as well as bioaccumulation of the cadmium by select taxonomic
groups. The study was conducted in a Precambrian shield lake near Quebec City. Quebec.
Sediments were spiked to achieve nominal SEM:AVS ratios of 0.05 (control), 0.1, 0.5, 2,
and 10. SEM:AVS ratios and pore water cadmium concentrations were measured in 3 cm
horizons of the sediment over the course of slightly more than 1 year, at the end of which
macroinvertebrate samples were collected to evaluate benthic community structure and
cadmium bioaccumulation. Except for the sample with a SEM:AVS ratio of 10. water
overlying the sediments (Ca., 1 cm) had non-detectable dissolved cadmium concentrations.
At all the test concentrations, oxidation of AVS in surf icial sediments resulted in slightly
greater SEM:AVS ratios in the shallowest horizon than in deeper sections of core samples.
Pore water concentrations of dissolved cadmium in the control sediment and the sediment
with a ratio of 0.1 were consistently low. Cadmium concentrations in pore water from the
sediment with the SEM:AVS ratio of 0.5 were slightly elevated, particularly in the shallow
sediment horizons, likely due to the surface oxidation of AVS. In the two samples with
SEM:AVS ratios greater than one, pore water cadmium concentrations in all horizons were
consistently elevated. particularly in the sample with the ratio of 10. Results of the
colonization portion of the study are briefly presented in Chapter 7, and described in detail
by Hare et al. (4). There was little impact of the spiked cadmium on organism abundance,
however, there was a significant bioaccumulation of cadmium by several different taxa at
SEM:AVS ratios greater than one (Figure 8-7). ‘The source of these metals was not gut
contents, as the animals were purged in clèân water for 2 to 5 d .before preservation. The
-------
4- 0
a
3-
z
+
•0
E 2 .
D 0 00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
SEM (Cd + Ni): AVS Ratio
Figure 8-6. Comparison of metal (cadmium plus nickel) bioaccumutation by Neanthes arenaceodentata to SEM (cadmium plus
nickel):AVS ratios in 16 field-collected sediments.
-------
Abundance
Accumulation
)
0
01
•(cD
10
9
0.1
10
10
Figure 8-7. Comparison of SEM(cadmium):AVS to abundance of. and bioaccumulation of
cadmium by six taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates from a field study.
600
400
200
0
75
50
25
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
( J
I
0.0
10
1
0
400
200
0
200
100
0
2000
1000
0
75
50
25
0
0.01
1
0.1
I
1 10 0.01 0.1
0.1
1 10
Cd/AVS
-------
8-17
two taxa which did not appear to bioaccumulate cadmium ( Chaoborus.. Polvcentroous ) are
both predatory and have limited contact with sediments, while the three taxa which
showed significant cadmium bioaccumu lation were all burrowing midges. There also
appeared to be an increase in tissue residues of cadmium in Seraentia from the sediment
with a SEM:AVS ratio of 0.5, which was consistent with the slight increases in pore water
cadmium observed at this ratio. Interestingly, the majority of cadmium accumulated by
this species was associated with gut tissue.
Summary and Conclusions
In an effort to summarize bioaccumulation data from the above studies in a uglobalu
framework, two different approaches were used. In the first, metal bioaccumulation data
from the various laboratory studies were compared to SEM:AVS ratios in the test
sediments. To normalize for differences in the concentration of metals in control
organisms from the different tests, bioaccumulation data were expressed as the ratio of
the concentration in organisms from test sediments to that in control animals from the
same experiment. Hence, if AVS were critical in controlling metal bioaccumulation by the
various benthic invertebrates tested, this bioaccumulation ratio should be near one at
SEM:AVS ratios less than one, while at SEM:AVS ratios greater than one, bioaccumulation
may be expected to increase. Due to uncertainties about control values and the lack of
gut clearance of the test organisms, data from the study by Carison et al. (103 were
- excluded from this and subsequent analyses.
The bioaccumulation of lead, zinc and copper appears to be explained reasonably
well by a model based on AVS binding, i.e., at SEM:AVS ratios less than one, differences
between control and experimental organisms are minimal, while at ratios between one and
10 bioaccumulation increases (Table 8-2). However, the total dataset for these three
metals, in particular lead, is quite small. By far the most data are available for nickel and
cadmium. The uptake of both of these metals clearly increases with increasing SEM:AVS
ratios; however, the amount of metal bioaccumulated at ratios less than one is higher than
controls (Table 8-2). Interestingly, if data only from field-collected sediments are
-------
TABLE 8-2. SUMMARY OF BIOACCUMULATION RATIOS (EXPERIMENTAL/CONTROL) AT VARIOUS SEM:AVS RATIOS IN
LABORATORY EXPOSURES WITH METAL-CONTAMINATED SPIKED AND FIELD COLLECTED SEDIMENTS.
Nickel Cadmium
SEM/AVS Lead Zinc Copper All 2 FC 3 AU FC
<1 0.3jO.06(1) 1.1±0.4(7) 0.9±0.6(7) 2.4±2.6(16) 1.2±0.45(12) 4.2±7.4(16) 1.5±1.8(12)
1-10 3.0±2.2(2) 2.4±1.1(2) 7.6±7.0(24) 6.2±6.4(20) 73.5±158(24) 34.0±73.1(20)
>10 22.2±17.2(9) 21.9±20.7(6) 342j303(8) 72±133(4)
1 1 ±SD(n)
2 Ra a from sU laboratory exposures
3 Ratlos from laboratory exposures with just field-collected
-------
8-19
considered, the relationship etween metal bioaccumulation and SEM:AVS ratios appears
much more consistent, i.e., little if any bioaccumulation of nickel or cadmium is observed
at SEM:AVS ratios less than one (Table 8-2). It is worth noting that the absolute
concentrations of nickel and cadmium used in the spiking experiments by Pesch et al. (12)
were extremely high; even at SEM:AVS ratios less one, concentrations of the two metals
were as great as approximately 200 and 700 ug!g (dry wt), respectively. Given these test
concentrations, it is possible that even minimal contributions from residual gut contents
and/or surface adsorption could contribute significantly to the total body burden of nickel
or cadmium measured in the polychaete.
Bioaccumulation of the five metals also was compared to measured pore water
concentrations for the various laboratory studies. In this analysis, the use of
bioaccumulation ratios serves not only to correct for different control values for a given
metal, but also to normalize for differences in the propensity for absolute concentrations
of essential trace metals (e.g., zinc) to be naturally higher than those for non-essential
trace metals. Non-detectable pore water concentrations were set at study-specific
detection limits. Regression of the logio bioaccumulation ratios for the five metals versus
the log pore water metal concentrations resulted in a significant linear model which
explained approximately 45 percent of the variability in the data (Figure 8-8). The fact that
this model is not more robust could be related to a number of sources of among-study
variation including differences in pore water sampling methodology, differences in
analytical detection limits (particularly between freshwater and marine studies), and
among-species differences in ability to regulate trace metal concentrations.
Although relationships between SEM:AVS ratios and/or pore water metal
concentrations are not as conclusive as for the toxicity data described in Chapter 6. it
appears that trends in the bioaccumulation of divalent cationic metals by benthic
macroinvertebrates in laboratory exposures are clearly related to these two measures of
bioavailability. The one field study that has been conducted to test this hypothesis also
suggests that the longierm bioaccumulation of metals by different taxa can be related to
pore water metal concentrations, which in turn, appear to be controlled by metal-sulfide
-------
10,000 ___________
o Cadmium
o Nickel
1,000
Zinc
0 0 0 00 0
o •Copper 0
00
100 uLead 0
c 0 a
0
0
0 0 0 o
- 10 0 DdJ°000° o
0
cg 1 gp °
E od
o _
1 . o f o° 8 0
0
.2 0 oo
lo 0
0.1
0
0
0
I )
0.01 — I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Metal (umol/L)
Figure 8-8. BioaccumulatiOfl of metals versus pore water metal concentrations.
-------
8-21
interactions. However, even though this.analysis broadly supports the metal bioavailability
model described elsewhere in this document, there are enough inconsistencies in the
various studies described above to warrant future research in this area. In particular, more
studies need to be conducted with fieldcollected sediments, and in the field. These
st jdies need to be done with attention to details such as (a).defining appropriate sediment
horizons for sampling pore water metals, and SEM:AVS concentrations, to better
approximate exposure of organisms to metals in aerobic zones of sediments, and
(b)determining the contribution of adsorbed and/or ingested material to the total body
burden of metals in test organisms.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Tessier A. and Campbell P.G.C. 1987. Partitioning of trace metals in sediments:
relationships with bioavailability. Hydrdbiologia 149:43-52.
2. Luoma S. 1989. Can we determine the biological availability of sediment-bound
trace elements? Hydrobiologia 176/177:379-396.
3. Hare L. 1992. Aquatic insects and trace metals: bloavailability, bioaccumulation,
and toxicity. Crlf Rev. Toxicol. 22:327-369.
4. Hare L.. Carignan R. and Hverta-Diza M.A. 1994. A field experimental test of the
hypothesis that acid volatile sulfide (AVS) concentrations improve the prediction of
metal toxicity and accumulation by benthic invertebrates. Limnol. Ocean. Vol. 39.
5. Tessier A., Couillard T., Campbell P.G.C. and Auclair J.C. 1993. Modeling
cadmium partitioning in oxic lake sediments and cadmium concentrations in the
freshwater bivalue Anodonta grandis (Mollusca, Pelecypods). Limnol. Ocean. In
press.
6. Chapman P.M., Churchiand L.M.. Thomson P.A. and Michnowsky E. 1980. Heavy
metal studies with oligochaetes. j : Aquatic O!igochaete Biology (R.O. Brinkhurst
and D.G. Cook. Eds.). Plenum Publishing Corp.. New York, NY. 477-502.
7. Hare L.. Campbell P.G.C. , Tessier A. and Belzile N. 1989. Gut sediments in a
burrowing mayfly (Ephemeroptera, Hexagenia limbata): their contribution to animal
trace element burdens, their removal, and the efficacy of a correction for their
presence. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sc!. 46:45 1-456.
8. Krantzberg G. and Stokes P.M. 1988. The importance of surface adsorption and
pH in metal accumulation by chironomids Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7:653-670.
-------
9. Timmermans K.t.. , Peeters W. and Tonkes M. 1992. Cadmium, zinc, lead and
copper in Chironomus riparius (Meigen) larvae (Diptera, Chironomidae): uptake and
effects. Hydrobiotogia 241:119-134.
10. Carlson AR. 1 Phipps G.L.. Mattson V.R., Kosian P.A. end Cotter A.M. 1991. The
role of. acid volatile sulfide in determining cadmium bioavailabikty in freshwatei
sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1309-1319.
11. Brooke L.T., Call D.J., !oirier S.H., McGovern S.L., Ankley G.T. and Cook P.M.
1993. Gut content weight and content clearance for three species of freshwater
invertebrates. Draft manuscript.
12. Pesch C.E., Hansen D.J.. Boothman W., Berry W. and Mahony J.D. 1993. The
role of acid volatile sulfide in determining bloavailability of cadmium and nickel from
contaminated sediments: experiments with Neanthes arenaceodentata (Polychaeta:
Nereidae). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. In press.
13. Ankley-G.T., Phipps G.L. , Leonard E.N., Benoit D.A., Mattson V.R. Kosian P.A..
Cotter A.M., Dierkes J.R., Hansen D.J., and Mahony J.D. 1991. Acid volatile
sulfide as a factor mediating cadmium and nickel bioavailability in contaminated
sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1299.1307.
14. Ankley CT.. Leonard EN. and Mattson V.R. 1993. Prediction of bioaccumulation
of metals from contaminated sediments by the o ligochaete, Lumbriculus varieaatus .
Water Res. 28:1071-1076.
15. Ingersoll C.G.. Brumbaugh W.G, Dwyer, F.J., Kemble, N.E. and Woodward D.F.
1994. Bioaccumulation of metals by Hvalella az.t exposed to contaminated
sediments from the Upper Clark FOrk River, Montana. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
13:2013-2020.
-------
16. Phipps G.L. Mattson V.R. and Ankley G.T. 1994. Relative.sensitivity of three
freshwater macroinvertebrates to five metats and five pesticides Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. In press.
-------
CHAPTER 9
AVS AND OTHER BINDING PHASES
The previous chapters have addressed the theoretical and experimental evidence in
support of establishing sediment quality criteria for metals using Equilibrium Partitioning.
It was shown that both sediment AVS and interstitial water concentrations are important
in assessing sediment toxicity. Determinations of AVS levels in sediments and interstitial
water concentrations will play an important role in the application of SQC for metals.
This chapter addresses some additional considerations pertaining to characteristics
of AVS sediment distributions and other factors that are important in the application of
SOC for metals. These issues include the seasonal and depth variability of AVS, and the
correlation of AVS to sediment organic carbon. Oxidation kinetics of iron sulfide and metal
sulfide are presented. Experiments and their results pertaining to organic carbon binding
for copper, cadmium, and lead are discussed. Experimental results for metals in low
organic carbon sediments are presented to define a minimum partition coefficient. Lastly.
pore water and SEM and AVS sampling are discussed.
Vertical and Seasonal AVS Distributions
Several factors contribute to variability in AVS distributions. The amounts of
organic matter, sulfate, iron, and oxygen in sediments affects the potential amount of AVS
that can be formed. An example of this is the difference in AVS concentrations in
freshwater versus saltwater systems. Sulfate is present at higher levels in saltwater
systems and the AVS concentrations can be expected to be higher in these sediments.
A literature review by Leonard et al. (11. found that concentrations of AVS in unpolluted
freshwater sediments were in the range of about 4 to 13 umol Sig. while AVS
concentrations in coastal marine sediments have been reported in the range of about 0.1
to 100 pmol/g (21. AVS also varies with depth and season. AVS concentrations tend to
increase with depth up to about 20 cm and then decrease with depth. The following
chapter summarizes three studies that have explored both seasonal and vertical
-------
distributions of AVS. Two studies were done in freshwate yst ms and one study was
done in a marine system.
Leonard et al. 113 measured seasonal and depth dependent AVS variations in three
freshwater lakes in northeastern Minnesota; Caribou Lake, Fish Lake, and Pike Lake. The
lakes were sampled approximately monthly from May 1990 to September 1991 for a total
of 16 months. Sediment cores were sectioned into three 15 cm sections to represent the
0 to 15 cm depth, 15 to 30 cm depth and 30 to 45 cm depth. Particle size, total organic
carbon and pore water pH and ammonia were measured for each 15 cm section.
Overlying water was sampled for pH, alkalinity, hardness, conductivity, dissolved oxygen
and primary productivity.
Temporal profiles of overlying water temperature and AVS at the three depths for
each of the three lakes are presented in Figure 9-1. Average AVS concentrations in the
0 to 15 cm segments were <0.1 to 9.8 umol S/g in Caribou Lake, 0.1 to 6.0 umol S/g in
Fish Lake, and 1.3 to 36.2 umol SI g in Pike Lake. Variability in AVS concentrations was
most dramatic in the top 0 to 15 cm with less variability in the 15 to 30 cm and 30 to 45
cm segments in each of the lakes.
Leonard et al. (11 found that AVS in the upper two segments of Fish and Pike lakes
was correlated to overlying water temperature and though not statistically significant, AVS
did vary with overlying water temperature in Caribou Lake as well. During periods of ice
cover overlying water temperatures were 0.2 to 1.5°C as shown in Figure 9-1 and AVS
was at lowest levels (0.1 to 2.0 umol Sig). AVS increased to maximum concentrations
as overlying water temperature increased to 20 to 25°C. Generally, when overlying water
temperatures were at highest levels in June through August so were the AVS levels. AVS
decreased with the onset of ice cover. Leonard at al. 113 note that the generation of AVS
in the summer can be expected as sulfate reducing bacteria have an optimal temperature
for growth in the 15 to 20°C range and a minimal temperature for growth at 0°C 131.
Figure 9-1 shows that AVS concentrations in the 15 to 30 cm depths were less influenced
by temperature and almost no changes were seen in the 30 to 45 cm depths.
-------
20
30.
S
,,— b
0
I ’
20 ..:•:•:•:•.•.
10 7• ‘ / •‘%%% —;.
0
0 -15 15-30 30-45 TempC
p
Figure 9-1. Seasonal AVS and temperature profiles for Caribou Lake. Fish Lake, and Pike
Lake, Minnesota at 0 to 15 cm, 15 to 30 cm, and 30 to 45 cm. Periods of ice cover are
indicated. Note that sampling dates (x axis) are not to scale. Source: 111.
Caribou Lake
(3
151
1.6
0
15
S
10
6
0
20
15
S
10
6
0
40
Fish Lake
-I
15
I
Pike Lake - -
0
•
•
(3
1.5
-------
9-4
Boothman and Helmstetter 143 studied the vertical and seasonal variability of AVS
in uncontaminated marine sediments. Sediment cores were collected in the
Pettaquamscutt Cove in Narragansett. Rhode Island five times between July 1990 and
May 1991 and biweekly in June. July. and August 1991. The top 15cm were collected
and sliced into sections of 1 cm. Sections of 1 cm were analyzed for the top 5 cm as well
as the 9 to 10cm and 14 to 15cm sections.
AVS distributions are presented In Figure 9-2. Replicate cores for 5 of the 11
sampling dates are represented by dashed lines. A general trend in depth variability is seen
for each of the sampling periods. AVS is always lowest in the top 1 cm slice which may
indicate the oxic sediment layer. Then AVS increases generally to the 10 cm slice and
remains fairly constant from the 10 cm section to 15 cm section. Most of the variability
isseeninthetop0to5cm.
The profiles in Figure 9-2 indicate a seasonal variability in AVS levels. AVS
concentrations in the top 5 cm Increased from June to August with concentrations of 15
to 35 umol/g. The winter cores (top row) show lower AVS concentrations (10 to 25
umol/g) except for one measurement in the January 1991 core of about 30 umol/g.
Boothman and Helmstetter 14) also found a strong correlation of AVS levels with overlying
water temperature. They attribute vertical and seasonal variability of AVS in an
uncontaminated marine sediment to two competing processes: microbial diagenetic sulfate
— reduction and oxidation of sulfides. In oxic water bodies diffusion of oxygen into the
sediment from overlying water results in sulfide oxidation. Sulfide oxidation occurs in both
the colder and warmer periods but rates of microbial activity and the production of sulfides
are much greater. so that AVS levels increase in the summer months 11). Sulfide oxidation
is dependent on the presence of oxygen, diffusion rates, bioturbation, and the oxidation
potential of the metal sulfides. A discussion of the oxidation of metal sulfides will be
presented subsequently.
An AVS spatial and seasonal study was done using three freshwater lakes having
seasonally anoxic hypolimnia and varying periods Of. stratification; Crosso Lake.
-------
umc1AVS/g
1 uz
I-
I I -
S
I)
‘I
‘I
‘I
‘I
‘I
I
3j’
V
S
5
Ji
Figure 9-2. Vertical profiles of AVS in Pettaquamscutt Cove horizontal lines represent
standard deviations for individual samples and dashed lines are results for replicate cores.
Source: (41.
V
S
V
I
V
5
V
S
V
0
E
0
C
V
S
S
5
-------
9-6
Gullfeather Lake, and Jake Lake, in Ontario [ 51. For the spatial comparison sediments in
all three lakes were sampled for AVS at various water column depths from the littoral zone
to the main depositional basin of each lake during periods of anoxia. Crosson and Jake
Lakes were also sampled during periods of no stratification. AVS results were reported
as the mean of three replicates from the top 15 cm of sediment. Figure 9-3 presents AVS
concentrations at various water column depths for the three lakes and comparisons of the
anoxic (September) and oxygenated (May or August) periods at various water column
depths for Crosson and Jake Lakes. Figure 9-3 indicates that AVS concentrations increase
at greater overlying water depth in all three lakes during both anoxic and oxygenated
periods. AVS concentrations were greatest during periods of anoxia.
For the AVS seasonal analysis, Jake Lake was sampled for AVS bimonthly from
mid-April 1991 to mid-May 1992 at a lake depth of 21m. Figure 9-4 presents a temporal
distribution of AVS. Turnover events and periods of anoxia as measured at the
sediment/water interface are indicated. AVS was highest during periods of anoxia and
began decreasing to a minimum following lake turnover. This is expected since as oxygen
in the overlying water is depleted oxygen diffusion into the sediment ceases and sulfate
reduces to sulfide thereby increasing the AVS. The key point here is that as the sediment
becomes anaerobic and in the presence of sulfate and sulfate reducing bacteria AVS will
form. This study did not report overlying water temperature. However the lowest AVS
levels occur in May 1991 and December-January 1992 which is in agreement with other
seasonal studies (1,41.
A 40 cm core was taken in Jake Lake on August 12, 1992 wheft the lake had just
become anoxic to establish a profile of AVS concentration with sediment depth. Figure
9-5 presents this profile. The AVS sample at the sediment/water Interface was less than
1.0 umol SIg wet sediment then Increased to a high of 7.1 umol S/g wet sediment at
about 8 cm. AVS concentrations showed less variability below 15 cm.
These three stuaies Indicate the variability tha- an be expected in vertical md
seasonal AVS concentrations. The studies indicate that AVS is low in the top 1 cm of
-------
1.00
D,pth at Sampling Sit. (at)
August Sill
• $.pt 30191
D.pth at Sampling 54,• (.)
S• t l719
May 12192
Figure 9-3. Spatial profiles of the top 0 to 15 cm of sediment AVS from the littoral zone
to the main depositional basin in Crosson Lake (top panes), Guilfeather Lake (center panel),
and Williams Bay, Jake Lake (bottom panel), Peterborough, Ontario. Samples for Crosson
Lake were taken on August 8, 1991, before the hypolimnion went anoxic, end September
30, 1991, during the anoxic period. Samples for Gullfeather Lake were taken on August
8, 1991, when the hypolimnion was anoxic. Samples f or Williams Bay were taken on
September 17, 1991 during the anoxic period, and May 12, 1992 just after spring
turnover. Error bars represent one standard deviation. Source: 151.
>
0.10
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 $ 10 1* 20 25
1.00
0.90
0. 50
0.70
a
0.60
0.50
u’ 0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 3 S
D.pffi at Sampling Sii• (m). AugusT 1191
12 is
a
S
0
E
$
>
10
I
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
-------
10
$
I , ’
6
0
E
U)
>
2
0
1991 Sampling Date 1992
Figure 9-4. Seasonal variation in AVS in Williams Bay, Jake Lake at water depth of 21 m.
Periods of anoxia at the sediment water interface are indicated by A and turnover events
are indicated by T. Bars indicate one standard deviation. Source: (5).
AVS umol sullidi I g w.s.
0 i S
0
•6
E
U
— .16
£
0
C
S.
.24
V
.
(1)
.32
.40
AMJJASONDJFMAM
2 3 4
Figure 9-5. Vertical profile of AVS in Jack Lake at water depth of 21 m. Source: (51.
-------
9-9
sediment. Presumably, oxygen at the sediment/water interface oxidizes the sulf ides. The
highest AVS levels are seen in the top I to 10 cm but then decrease and show less
variability below 10 to 15 cm. In oxic water bodies AVS generally correlates to overlying
water temperature. Microbial degradation of organic matter to produce sulfate and the
reduction of sulfate to sulfide increases with increasing overlying water temperature and’
decreases as overlying water temperature decreases. As a result AVS can be expected
to increase with increased water temperature and decrease as temperature decreases.
Sulfide oxidation, which is dependent on the diffusion of oxygen into the sediment and the
oxidation potential of the metal sulfides, also plays a role in vertical and seasonal AVS
variability. In water bodies that have periods of anoxia AVS seems to correlate to
overlying oxygen levels. Overlying water temperatures seem to affect AVS concentrations
in the anoxic system presented.
The Correlation of AVS to Sediment OrganIc Carbon
Data from the US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP)121 were summarized to examine possible relationships between total organic
carbon (TOC) and AVS in marine sediments. Data are from the Gulf of Mexico (Louisiana
Province) and from the Mid-Atlantic Coast (Virginian Province). The EMAP data was
collected in the last week of July through the first week of September from 1990 through
1992. The data represent the top 2.0 cm.
In the EMAP data set TOC ranges from 0.1 to approximately 10 percent. The
medién bC is approximately 1 percent. AVS ranges from approximately 0.1 to 100
umol/dry weight sediment with a median of approximately 3 umol/g. TOC and AVS
measurements from the Virginian Province and the Loulsianan Province had similar
distributions.
AVS showed a positive correlation with TOC for the EMAP data. A linear regression
of the log transformed AVS and TOC is shown on Figure 9-6 (solid line). The equation that
relates TOC to AVS derived from this data set is:
-------
1000
1 11111111 I I titilli
I I I III
100
10 -
1
0.1_
0.01 ____
0.01
Tota:1 Organic Carbon
(%)
10
10
Tota’ Orgarric Carbon (%)
Figure 9-6. AVS versus percent TOC using EMAP (21 data, last week of July to first week
of September 1990 to 1992. Data have been plotted by intervals having equal number
of values. Horizontal bars represent TOC standard deviation and vertical bars represent
AVS standard deviation. Line represents linear regression of log transformed AVS and %
TOC.
V
V
V
L
L
LL
VL
V
I I I I 11111
1 -n
a)
v - I ,-I
(D
v-I
0
>
. 1 -I
U
U,
a)
I .-
v-I
(rJ -
v-i —
(D
f - I
0
>..
U
0.1 1
I I I 111111 I I I III !
I
0.01 0.1 1
-------
9-11
Log AVS • 0.447 • 0.865 Log TOC (9-1)
The individual data from the Louisiana CL) and Virginia CV) Provinces are shown in Figure
9-6A. The data grouped into 10 intervals with an equal number of values and averaged
is shown in Figure 9-6B. Although there is a roughly linear relationship between AVS and
TOC (log slope = 0.87 which is almost 1.0), there is an enormous scatter. The lines in
Figure 9-6 are a factor of 10 and 0.1 of the regression line as a visual aid to illustrate the
variability in the data. Therefore, a prediction of AVS based on sediment TOC is highly
uncertain. These data are in agreement with the results of Ankley et al. (6) who found no
significant correlation between AVS and TOC in 17 sediment samples from an estuarine
system contaminated with cadmium and nickel.
The basis of this analysis is that organic matter contributes to the formation of
sulfides. Organic carbon exists in sediments in refractory and reactive forms. It is the
reactive organic matter present in sediments that contributes to the formation of AVS. It,
in turn, is the net result of the input of TOC by primary production plus terrestrial sources
of TOC less pbrticulate organic carbon (POC) loss by burial. Thus, the residual POC is a
good index of the average concentration of reactive organic carbon but not the seasonal
variation. The result in Figure 9-6A is not surprising considering the variability of AVS that
has been shown in the previous discussion. By contrast, organic carbon concentrations
are quite constant with respect to time 171. The reason is that most of the organic carbon
in sediments is very refractory with only a small percentage that is reactive (8).
OxIdation of Metal Sulfide.
The oxidation of metal sulfides is an important component in the analysis of the
ultimate fate and toxicity of metals in sediments. The oxidation of iron sulfide (FeS)
controls the amount that is available to complex newly deposited metals. Also the
seasonal cycle of AVS in natural sediments is controlled by a balance between the
formation of AVS via the oxidation of organic carbon with sulfate as the electron acceptor.
and the oxidation of AVS with oxygen as the oxidant. Thus a knowledge of the oxidation
-------
9-12
kinetics and their interaction with other mass transport mechanisms in sediments is
important to a proper use of sediment quality criteria based on AVS.
FeS(s) and CdS(s) Oxidation Kinetics
The rates of oxidation of iron and cadmium sulf ides have been studied extensively
at low pHs in the mining literature 191. However, the oxidation of FeS in more natural
settings has not received much attention with one notable exception. Nelson 110) studied
the oxidation of synthetic FeS under a wide variety of conditions. Variations in pH, oxygen
concentration, ionic strength, temperature, and the presence of catalytic metals were
examined. His focus was on the initial rate of reaction. He proposed a surface
complexation model which fit his experimental results quite successfully.
The entire time course of the reaction for synthetic FeS using Nelson’s data and for
AVS in sediments from other experiments, has recently been completed and a model for
the kinetics of the oxidation has been proposed 1111. The model is based on the surface
oxidation of FeS, as proposed by Nelson. The particles are assumed to have various
particle size distributions. In particular a uniform and an exponential distribution of surface
areas are considered. The equations and the solutions are listed in Table 9-1.
The results of fitting the model to synthetic FeS and sediment AVS are shown in
Figure 9-7. The two model parameters are the zero order surface reaction rate, K, and the
coefficient of variation of the particle size distribution. The symbols represent initial
concentrations of FeS and AVS. The results indicate that the reaction rate is virtually the
same for sediments and synthetic FeS at the same pH (Figures 9-7A. C. D). This suggests
that all of the experimental information that has been generated for the pH, temperature,
and 02 dependence of the oxidation rate (Figure 9-8). is applicable to sediment AVS. In
particular, the cadmium and iron oxidation kinetics used below assume that the oxidation
rate is linear with respect to oxygen. The data in Figure 9-8B verify that assumption for
synthetic FeS. —
-------
TABLE 9.1. FeS OXIDATION MODEL
Population balance equation:
an , 8n ØA • o
where n(A,t) = number of particles with surface area in the interval A and A + dA. at
time t. For a zero order rate of surface oxidation:
the particle balance equation becomes:
8ii - k • 0
For an initial particle size distribution: n 0 (A ), the solution is:
n(At) — n 0 (A • kt)
the concentration at any time t is found using the surface area concentration - surface area
relationship:
J n 0 (A
c(t) • c 0 °
J n (A)A
where y is the volume to surface area exponent. For a uniform number density:
‘no
n 0 (A)- A 1 AA 2
2 I
= 0 elsewhere
The result is:
— k’t)’ 1 — p(A 1 ktP’ ’
A —
where p(A). the positive function, is the positive portion of its argument A. Using the
• mean. p. and coefficient of variation. v, of the uniform density yields:
c(t) • 0 pci • ‘5v—kt)’ — p(i —
(1 • i4Y’1 — (1
where k = k ’ Ii.’. The parameters are y. the volume to surface area exponent; v , the
coefficient of variation of the number density; and k. the decay rate.
-------
Synthetic FeS
pH 7
Time (hr)
Jamaica Bay (pH=7)
Time (hr)
C
I
Time (hi)
Van Cortlandt Pond (pH7)
Time (hi)
Figure 9-7. FeS oxidation polydisperse particle distribution model fitting synthetic FeS and
sediment AVS. The zero order surface reaction rate, K and the coefficient of variation of
the particle size distribution, v are shown for synthetic FeS at pH 6 and 7 and AVS for two
sediments; Jamaica Bay and Van Cortlandt Pond.
pH = 9
0
1 2 3 4
0
I
C
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3
4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
01
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Sediment AVS
C
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
-------
FeS Oxidation Rate
pH Effect
pH
Synthetic CdS
Time (hi)
0
‘U
50
40
30
20
10
0
CdS Oxidation
0
> .
V)
‘C
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
15 0 1 2 3
Figure 9-8. The effect of pH (panel A) and dissolved oxygen (panel B) on the FeS
oxidation rate. Oxidation results of metal-sulfide oxidation experiments using synthetic
CdS (panel C) and cadmium spiked sediments.
100
Dissolved Oxygen Effect
6 7 8 9 10 11
0 10 20 30 40 50
°2 (mg/L)
Cd Spiked Sediments
K = 0.01 /d
I
E
V)
‘C
20
15
10
S
0
0
Cd/AVS
• 1.2
* 0.5
• 0.0
5 10
Time (hi)
-------
9-16
The initial results from a series of metal-sulfide oxidation experiments using
synthetic CdS are presented in Figure 9-8C. The reaction rate is much slower than the
rates found for FeS (Figure 9-7A). Cadmium spiked sediments show the same slow
oxidation rate (Figure 9-3D). For Cd/AVS = 0. the AVS is all FeS and the oxidation is
rapid. When a fraction (Cd/AVS 0.5) or all (Cd/AVS 1.2) of the FeS is converted to
CdS by adding cadmium to the sediment, that fraction of the AVS does not oxidize in the
time scale of this experiment. Also, Zhuang at al. 1121 conducted a series of laboratory
aeration experiments in batch reactors to investigate the effects of aeration of sediment
on the sulfide content of sediment and on the partitioning of cadmium to the sediment.
Aeration of the sediment resulted in a rapid decrease in AVS. Concentations of dissolved
cadmium increased while concentrations of cadmium associated with AVS and with pyrite
decreased.
Sediment Metal Oxidation Model
The rate at which cadmium sulfide oxidizes in sediments depends not only on the
rate it oxidizes in an aerobic environment but also the rate at which FeS oxidizes, which
controls the depth of the aerobic layer. This is the mechanism that can cause the
cadmium-AVS molar ratio in the surface layer of the sediment to change from a value of
less than one to a value of greater than one, with the possible concomitant increase in
toxicity.
The oxidation kinetics of FeS and CdS are a necessary part of a model of the
oxidation and release of metals from sediments. Work has been proceeding to develop
such a comprehensive model. The model is based on a sediment flux model that has been
developed f or oxygen and nutrients (6). The formulation for the cadmium flux model is
illustrated in Figure 9-9. The sediment is idealized as having two layers: (1) an aerobic
layer (1) where the oxygen concentration is greater then zero; and (2) an anaerobic layer
where the oxygen is zero. Sulfate reduction in this layer produces sulfide which interacts
with the iron present to form iron monosulfide (FeS).
-------
PRECIPITATION:
c 2 + + FeS(s)
Figure 9-9. Cadmium flux model. The sediment ‘s represented by an aerobic layer and an
anaerobic layer.
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE MASS TRANSFER:
KLOI
PARTrnONING:
dI4 Cd—SS
OXIDATION:
CdS(s)
kCdS
PARTICLE MIXING
w
uJ
U,
W I 2
DIFFUSION
KLI2
pARTm0NING:
Cd-SS
0
c 1
kCdS,2
SEDIMENTATION
CdS(s) + Fe
-------
9-18
Cadmium enters the sediment either by surface mass transfer from the overlying
water, KLO1, or as particles settling to the sediment. The reactions in the aerobic layer are
the partitioning of cadmium to the sediment solids. Particles and dissolved cadrniurp re
biotically and abiotically, transported to the anaerobic layer where cadmium sulfide is
formed. Cds transport to the aerobic layer is either by particle mixing, w 12 , or by diffusion
of dissolved cadmium, K 112 . Cadmium sulfide oxidation produces Cd 2 ’ which, after
partitioning, escapes from the sediment as a flux to the overlying water via surface mass
transfer.
A one dimensional model for cadmium and iron sulfide, oxygen, and dissolved +
sorbed cadmium is based on the mass balance equations listed in Table 9-2. The
mechanisms for cadmium transport and kinetics are shown in Figure 9-9. Models of this
sort have been employed before 1131. The novelty here is the inclusion of the sulfide
reactions. The kinetics of oxidation of both iron and cadmium sulfide are first order in
oxygen and sulfide concentration. The data used to justify these kinetics are shown in
Figures 9-7 and 9-8. Cadmium sulfide oxidizes at a rate: kcds(O 2 IICdSI (Table 9-1;
Equation 9-1T onsuming oxygen (Equation 9-3) and liberating cadmium to the interstitial
water and therefore becoming a source to the dissolved + sorbed cadmium (Equation 9-4).
The fraction that is dissolved is determined by the partitioning expression (Equation 9-7)
which affects the magnitude of the diffusion coefficient of total sorbed + dissolved
cadmium. Iron sulfide oxidizes at a rate: k, 5 1O 2 llFeS1 (Equation 9-2) and consumes
oxygen (Equation 9-3). The formulation for particle mixing by bioturbation is conventional
(141 - particle diffusion that exponentially decays in depth with characteristic mixing depth
ZB (Equation 9-5). A source of FeS, J 02 from organic matter diagenesis, is added (Equation
9-2) to account for the generation of AVS during the experiment.
The solutions to the equations in Table 9-2 are obtained using an implicit finite
difference formulation with the nonlinear terms lagged by one time step. The model
vertical resolution is 1 mm. The parameters of the model are the oxidation rates: k 5 and
kFeSs and the mixing parameters for particles, D and z 8 , and interstitial water, Dd, and the
AVS source, J 02 .
-------
TABLE 9-2. MODEL OF CADMIUM AND AVS DISTRIBUTION
Mass balance equations for cadmium sulfide. CdS(z.t) , iron sulfide, FeS(z.t) dissolve4
oxygen, 0 2 (z.t) and dissolved + sorbed cadmium, Cr:
atcsi — . !.D OI S) CdS(O2I(C l (1)
Of FeSI — . Dp 01 51 kFesfO 2 lIFeSJ . (2)
8102 ) • Dd 81 0 0 2 1 CdS 10 2 11 kFeS(O2I IFSSI (3)
_____ — a 0 81Cd 1 ) • dS1O2llCdSI (4)
where kcds and kFeS are the oxidation rates of CdS and FeS, J 02 , is the source of FeS from
organic matter diagenesis, H is the depth of the sediment, and:
Dp Dp 0 SZB
is the particle mixing diffusion coefficient. ZB is the characteristic depth of bioturbation,
Dd is the diffusion coefficient in porewater, and:
Dpi p +Ddfd (6)
is the weighted diffusion coefficient for dissolved + sorbed cadmium. The dissolved, d ’
and particulate, f , fractions are:
1 1 fp (7)
1 • mn
with m = solids concentration and iT = dissolved cadmium partition coefficient.
-------
9-20
A set of data from the colonization experiment (Chapter 7) designed to test the
toxicity of the sediment can be used for an initial evaluation of the model (153. Raw
seawater is allowed to flow over sediments that have been spiked uniformly with various
concentrations of cadmium so that the initial concentrations of AVS and cadmium are
constant with depth. The larval forms of benthic organisms settle and colonize the
sediment. The experiment was carried out for 118 days. The vertical distribution of AVS
and cadmium were measured in 6 mm slices, the smallest practical Interval. Four
concentrations of cadmium were dosed into the sediment: 0, 0.1, 0.8. and 3.0 times the
moles of AVS in the sediment. The vertical profiles were measured at day 28 57, and
118.
The observations and model computations are shown in Figure 9-10 for AVS, Figure
9-1 1 for cadmium, and Figure 9-12 for SEM to AVS ratio. The columns correspond to
each of the three sampling days. The rows correspond to progressively increasing
cadmium concentrations. The vertical distributions of AVS and cadmium are reproduced
reasonably well by the model except for the bottom row where the Cd/AVS = 3 and the
sediment was toxic to benthic biota. Presumably in this treatment the rate of bioturbation
decreased and less oxidation occurred than predicted. The computed vertical distribution
of dissolved oxygen Is also shown as a dashed line in the AVS plot (Figure 9-10). The
critical result is that in order to reproduce the vertical distribution of AVS it is necessary
to mix the particles. Presumably this is the result of bioturbation by the organisms that
colonized the sediment. The presence of significant impacts on many benthic organisms
(Chapter 7) and lack of model fit for Cd/AVS = 3 supports this hypothesis. The model
also reproduces the trend of increasing SEM/AVS ratio that occurs In the top 1 to 2 cm
of the sediment, although the magnitudes of the calculated increases are not as large as
is observed in the topmost 6 mm in the 0.8x treatment and larger than observed in the
0.lx treatment.
The parameters used in this simulation are listed in Table 9-3. In particular the rate
of FeS oxidation is consistent with the kinetics obtained from synthetic and sediment AVS
-------
20
40
60
$0
I000
Cd/A VS—0 21 days
Cd/A VS-3.O
20
40
60
$0
I000
I
I
a
$
5
a
Cd/AVS.0.1
boo—
0
20
40
30 1000
57 days
10 20 30
Cd/AVS.0.$ 57 days
*
*
**
*
10 20 30
Cd/AVS.3.0 57 days
I
a
I
J
a
I
I
a
I
S
I
Cd/A VS—0 111 days
AVI (umo1/ ) AVS (J bl/g) AVS (u oI/g)
Figure 9-10. Vertical distributions of AVS for the field colonization experiment at days 28,
57, and 118 f or nominal treatments of 0., 0.1, 0.8, and 3.0 Cd/AVS ratios (symbols) and
cadmium flux model results (solid line). The dashed line is the computed vertical
distribution of dissolved oxygen.
0
I
I
a
I
S
a
I
I
a
.•
S
I
a
0
20
40
a
$0
0
0
2$ days
10 20
-------
Cd/AVS-0 21 days Cd/AVS.’O 57 days Cd/AVSsO 1 1$ days
0
20
40
60
1 2 3 4 5
Cd/AVS-0.I 2$ days
*
*
20 *
*
40 *
60 *
$0 *
100
0
20
40
60
$0
100
20
40
60
$0
•I00
1 2 3 4
Cd/A VS—Cl 2$
day.
w
•
0 10 20 30
1 2 34
Cd/AVV-O.1 57 days
7
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 9 -1 1. Vertical distributions of cadmium SEM for the field colonization experiment
at days 28, 57, and 118 for nominal treatments of 0., 0.1, 0.8, and 3.0 Cd/AVS ratios
(symbols) and cadmium flux model results (solid line).
0
20
40
60
$0
2
Cd/AVS-0.1
3
4
11$ days
E
a
ft
I
I
£
ft
V
E
E
£
ft
V
0
I
I
a
ft
1
J
a
I
a
I
I
a
20
I
40
160
10
1 00 •
0.
20
40
a
10
S
0
20
40
16 0
$0
100
I
I
a
ft
Cd/A VS—3.O
0
2$ days
1
S
a
Cd (umo l/g) Cd (umol/g)
Cd (v o1/j)
-------
SEM/AVS—0 — 28 days
0
20
E
E 40
‘
I0%1
E 40
l0% 1:0
0 SEM/AVS-0.$ — 2$ day;
20
E
E 40
a
60
$0
10% 10.0
SEM/AVS-3.0 — 2$ days
0
20 *
*
40 *
1.0
S!MAVS (umol/umol)
10.0
1.0
10.0
SEM/AVS.0.1 — 28 days
10.0
I
I
a
I
I
a
..
ft
I
I
a
ft
I
I
a
ft
SEM/AVS—0 — 57 days
0
20
40
0
$0
I0%t 1.0 10.0
SEM/AVS.0.1 — 57 days
10% 10 10.0
SEM/AVS—0.* — 57 days
0
20
40
60
$0
10%i i:o io.o
SEM/AVS-3.0 — 57 days
0
*
20 *
40 *
60 1
$0 *
10% 10.0
1.0
SEMAVS (umol/umol)
1
I
a
I
I
a
I
I
a
1
J
a
SEM/AVS—0 11* days
0
20
40
60
$0
10 %i .o ioo
SEM/AVS—0.I 11$ days
1.0
10.0
10.0
Figure 9-12. Vertical distributions of SEM/AVS ratios for the field colonization experiment
at days 28, 57, and 118 for nominal treatments of 0., 0.1, 0.8, and 3.0 Cd/AVS ratios
(symbols) and cadmium flux model results (solid line).
SEM/AVS-O.$ 11$ days
1.0
1.0
IEMAYS (umol/uraol)
-------
9-24
oxidation experiments reported above. The oxidation rate of cadmium sulfide is not
inconsistent with the results of the initial experiments.
A preliminary application of this model to data from a year long field colonization
experiment with zinc contaminated sediments was performed 116). The purpose of the
field colonization experiment was to investigate the seasonal realtionships between AVS
and the toxicity of zinc to benthic organisms. The FeS oxidation rate and particule mixing
parameters applied in the calibration were similar to those used in the cadmium
colonization model calibration (Table 9-3). The zinc oxidation rate was then calibrated to
the data. Data (symbols) from the sampling after 92 days (Figure 9-13) and near the end
of the experiment (327 days, Figure 9-14) illustrate the fit of the model (solid line) to the
data. A very low zinc oxidation rate (Table 9-3 which is indistinguishable from zero)
provided the best model fit. The results indicate that very little zinc sulfide has oxidized.
TABLE 9-3. SEDIMENT MODEL
Cd (Colonization Cd (Effect of oligochaetes Zinc (Colonization
Experimeni)( 15) experiment) (17) Experiment)( 16]
Dd (cm 2 /d) 1.0 1.0 0.1
D (cm 2 /d) 0.1 .01 0.1
Z 8 (cm) 5.0 5.0 5.0
k FSS (1/mg 0 2 -d) 3.4 3.8 3.4
kMs (L/mg 0 2 -d) 0.01 0.01 1 x iO
— CL/kg) 300 300 300
J,. (gmlm 2 d) 0.2 0 0.2
An initial experiment which was designed to emphasize the effect of bioturbation
has been performed using oligochaetes 1171. It is well known that these organisms can
rework the surface sediment which causes an increase in AVS oxidation. Initial results
from these experiments are shown in Figure 9-15 which presents the vertical profiles of
AVS and cadmium with and without oligochaetes added to the surface of the sediment.
The lines are computed using the same coefficients as before (Table 9-3) with the
exception of particle mixing. For the case without oligochaetes it is zero. For the case
with oligochaetes it is a factor of 10 lower than the colonization experiment, reflecting the
-------
0
n
‘‘
0 5 10 15 20
J I I I
5 10 15 20
2
I
6
a
In
2
4
6
a
10
0
A
2
4
6
B
4 , ’
•\\
0 5 10 15 20
0
O 5 10 15 20
0
2\
10 ‘ii ‘
0 5 10 15 20
0
2
4
6
8
In
0 5 10 15 20
AVS (umole/g)
2
4
6
8
5 10 15 20
5 10 15 20
2
4
6
B
0
0
2
I
6
8.
10
0 5 10 15 20
A
0 5 10 15 20
2
4
6
a
10
2
4
6
8
‘A
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
ZINC SEM (umole/g)
10
•1
114111
..L4 M1
0.01 0.1 1
0
II 4rI ,,i
ml-
rTT
2
4
6
B
4 , ’
0.01 0.1 1
A
i ,,w
2
.
7III_
.
4
.
6
.
B
10
t
ii
.
0.01 0.1
A
2
If
.
.
4
.
.
6
.
.
B
1 0
.
i 1I-I —
,
...&JJJM
.10
- &.01 0.1 1
A
— • II I VI •—rvvui
2
6
8.
10 •“ —
0.01 0.1 1
:“ ‘‘“i T
I 1IU • 1kl-
2
4
6
8
10
0.01 0.1
SEP .i/AVS
Figure 9-13. Vertical distributions of AVS, zinc SEM and SEM/AVS ratios at day 92 of the
zinc field experiment for the control and five treatments.
I U I U I U T
I I U I I I I
10
10
I
C
I
w2
C
I
C
I
C
I
0
I
I I-
0
10
U I I I I I
10
VU III
I I I\\
10
-------
0
2\
I I p p p
o 5 10 15 20
2\ ”
6
8
10 __i . i
0 5 10 15
n
I I I I I
4.\
6.
8 ,
10
i a p p
0 5 10 15
0
2
. • I I I
4.
6,
8.
10
0 5 10 15 20
0
I I
2.\
4,
5
.
8 .
IO_L_L
0 5 10 15 20
0
21 T .1 ‘ ‘
.\
4 t .\ ]
8’
I I I I
0 5 10 15 20
AVS (umole/g)
20
20
I I I 1- J----’
2’
4
6
8
10 ___ i I I I ___ 1 ___
0 5 10 15 20
I I I I I I
2
4
6
8.
10 ________________________
0 5 10 15 20
I I I 1 1
2.
4.
6.
8.
10 _ 111111
0 5 10 15 20
1 L7 .
o 5 10 15 20
— ‘ 1 I I T
2.
r
6.
8.
10 ___ 1 _ ‘‘III .
o 5 10 15 20
ZINC SEM (umo]e/g)
A
rrT
10 —i-i iiiid LLUII
A
10
P 7
T
10 ‘1 III
0.01 0.1 1
!
10 ‘‘‘ .— ‘‘
0.01 0.1 1 10
0 r- u_ irma yy ii
2.
4,
,
6
,
8
10 1IIIP
rriu 5 ui
I I P I I I I
2
a
6
8
In -
0.01 0.1
SEM/AvS
10
Figure 9-14. Vertical distributions of AVS, zinc SEM and SEM/AVS ratios at day 327 of
the zinc field experiment for the control and five treatments.
10
0 5 10 15 20
0.01 0.1 1
I
0
0
I
Q.
a
I
‘I- —
0
I
C
I
0
I
C-
0
-------
SEM/AVS - 0.5 - 75 DAYS
Without 01 igochaetes
Figure 9-15. Vertical distributions of AVS (top panels) and cadmium (bottom panels) for
with (left panels) and without (right panels) ollgochaetes for cadmium oxidation experiment
and benthic mixing model. Data are plotted as means (symbols) and ranges (vertical and.
horizontal bars) for plotting intervals, The model results a represented by the solid line.
With Oligochaetes
‘a
SI
0
I
C
‘I
AVS (umol/g) AVS (umol/g)
Cadmium (umol/g) Cadmium (umol/g)
-------
9-28
lower benthic biomass. The model is in reasonable agreement with the observations. The
result points out the need for an independent tracer for particle mixing so that the particle
diffussion coefficient can be determined separ tely.
Conclusions
The oxidation of the metal sulf ides is a critical mechanism that can liberate the
metals from the anaerobic layer and cause the SEM/AVS ratio to exceed one and thereby
possibly cause toxicity. The loss of FeS and the liberation of free metal from its metal
sulfide both contribute to this phenomena. The kinetics of FeS oxidation are well
understood. Application of the laboratory measured rates in models of the vertical
distribution of sediments reproduce the observed decline in AVS.
The equivalent definitive laboratory data for the oxidation of the other metal suit ides
of interest are not yet available. Initial results for cadmium suggest that the rate is much
slower than for FeS but still large enough to liberate an amount of cadmium sufficient to
change the SEM/AVS from less than to greater than one in the top layers of the sediment
which would increase interstitial cadmium to amounts of toxicological significance and
result in impacts in benthic biota (see Chapter 7). However a similar experiment for zinc
failed to produce such a result, suggesting that the oxidation rate of zinc sulfide is much
slower than cadmium sulfide.
Organic Carbon Binding
The binding of metals to other phases in sediments also can be important in
determining toxicity when SEM exceeds AVS. This can be seen by considering the data
presented previously (Chapters 5 through 7). If the SEM/AVS ratio is greater than one
then, 56.8 percent of the sediments were toxic. if both SEM/AVS> 1 and the porewater
metals toxic unit concentrations >0.5 then 79.1 percent of the sediments were toxic.
Thus even if the SEM/AVS ratio is greater than one, implying that all the binding capacity
of the AVS has been exhausted, there may be another sediment component that is
-------
9-29
providing binding capacity for the metal and reducing its activity and, therefore, its toxicity
(see Figure 6-15). If the binding capacity is sufficient, the pore water toxic unit
concentration should be insignificant toxicologically. It, however, all the strong binding
components are exhausted, then the sediment pore water toxic unit concentrations will
exceed one and the sediment could be toxic. The data presented previously shows that
this is indeed the case where 79.1 of the sediments tested were toxic when SEM/AVS >
1.0 and IWTU 70.5 (see Table 6-3). For the remaining 20.9 percent it is likely that
dissolved ligands (probably dissolved organic carbon) and dissolved sulfide are providing
additional binding capacity.
An experimental method has been developed to investigate the sediment chemistry
associated with metal sorption under anaerobic conditions at equilibrium. It is named the
Anoxic Sequential Batch Titration (ASBT) method (see Appendix 9A f or a description).
Sediment properties other than AVS were correlated to metals binding capacities in excess
of AVS binding capacity (i.e., non-AVS sorptive capacity), and equivalently to metals
porewater activity for copper, cadmium and lead at varying pHs. The results of
partitioning behavior of these three metals to several freshwater sediments under
anaerobic conditions are presented below.
Analysis Framework
The experimental protocol developed in this study was designed to investigate the
sorption of copper, cadmium, or lead under anaerobic conditions at equilibrium. The
experimental procedure allows (a) sediment samples to be contaminated with varying metal
concentrations under anaerobic conditions. (b) direct measurement of aqueous metals
activity, and (c) simultaneous sediment AVS determination on unspiked sediment samples
from the same homogenates.
The pH of the solution phase was controlled using various buffers. Metal
complexation by the buffer matrix was eliminated by using Goode buffers (18 through 201.
These buffers are designed to be non-reactive with metal species. The dissolved oxygen
-------
9-30
in the system was eliminated by stripping with nitrogen, and confirmed by direct
measurement. By controlling these two parameters, the water in the ASBT system
provides a chemical environment that is similar to that found in anaerobic sediments. The
exception to this is the dilution of porewater dissolved species.
The ASBT experimental procedure was evaluated with respect to several important
factors impacting sorption processes and anaerobic sediment chemistry. The four
parameters evaluated were (a) deoxygenation efficiency, (b) maintenance of a reducing
chemical environment, (c) sorption kinetics, and Cd) particle induced desorption
mechanisms. The results of these evaluations are briefly summarized below and presented
in more detail elsewhere (211.
The primary requirement that sediment AVS not be oxidized was confirmed during
the sorption experiment. The kinetics of copper sorption onto various sediments was
investigated to determine a time to equilibrium. The results of several experiments all
confirmed a time to equilibrium of 1 to 2 hours. Lastly, the solids concentration was
evaluated for its effects on copper partitioning. Sediment samples were spiked and stirred
f or one hour. representing a worse case with respect to particle interactions. Sediment
sorption isotherms were obtained at two or three different solids concentrations for three
different sediments. The sorption isotherms were not significantly different at solids
concentrations differing by an order of magnitude, suggesting that partitioning of copper
to anaerobic sediments is not dependent on solids concentration.
The metal in the ASBT system was in the form of (1) free metal, (2) hydrolysis
products of metal, (3) metal complexed with dissolved organic carbon (DOC) released from
the sediment sample and other ligands. and (4) sorbed metal partitioned onto sediment
particles. Loss of metal by sorption onto glass surfaces and by complexation to buffer
matrix was shown to be insignificant [ 171. Thus metals sorbed onto the sediment particle
(C 5 ) can be calculated by difference between the added metal (CT) and the total aqueous
metal (C ): —
-------
9-31
c C 1 - C,,, (9-2)
Total sediment-bound metal can be divided into that precipitated as metal sulfide by AVS
(C$Avs), and that bound to other sediment components (C$NOA.Avs):
C 5 C$.AVS • C .Nofl Avs (93)
Measurement of sediment AVS on an experiment-by-experiment basis provides the first
term in this equation. Thus the magniwde of the Non-AVS sorbed metal fraction can be
calculated by difference:
C 5 NOflAVS - C 3 - C 5 .Avs
This fraction of the sediment bound metal is analyzed below.
Sorption Isotherm Results
The data analysis procedure for the sorption data is illustrated using the copper data
at pH = 7 (Figure 9-1 6). The results from the various sediments re distinguished by the
various letters used as plotting symbols. The top figure presents the conventional
isotherm: the relationship of the total sorbed metal (C 3 ) to the metal activity in the solution
phase as measured using a specific ion electrode (Cf). The middle plot presents the non-
AVS sorbed metal concentration (C$N Avs) versus metal activity. The bottom plot
presents the non-AVS sorbed metal concentration normalized by the organic carbon
fraction of the sediment:
— C$NOfl_AvsIf
versus the aqueous metal activity of the sediment where f is the weight fraction of
organic carbon in the sediment. The extent to which the isotherms for the various carbon
normalized sediments plot over each other is the extent to which the most important
binding component of the sediment is organic carbon. The line fitted to the data is a
Langmuir isotherm model which is discussed below.
-------
10
101
io’ io io2 io’ 100 101
1O
I 11111111
I
11111111
I 11111111 •I I 1111111
I I uII
-
k
k
r
-
-
•
S
•
C
t
I
1—
‘ :
r
:
:
a
ia
•i
øb
1 b
—
,
:
:
2
10
t
b
S
.1
!
.
101 1
io
I IItllhl
II ittitil
I I 1111111
1 I itinil
i I 111111
io
io 2
io
to°
io io 102 10 _ I to°
C ACTIVITY (mg/L).
Figure 9-16. Copper activity versus total sorbed metal (top panel), non-AVS sorbed metal
(center panel) and organic carbon normalized non-AVS sorbed metal (bottom panel) for pH
[ 111111111 I 11111111 I I IfilIll I I IIlUIj I I ‘!
k
r S httf )c c
d
-
r ‘b 1t Ii
—
— 1
r I
i i iiititl , ilitinI i ititiut I I vitnil II 11111
-J
w
z
-J
I -
0
I-
-J
I—
LU
z
0
D C I
WE
W
>
z
0
z
I
I
I I
S
I
I
106
10
-J
I—
LU
x
D L )
wo
O I
Cfl
Cs
WE
>
z
102
101
7.
-------
9-33
Logarithmic isotherm plots revealed non-linear relationships between sorbed metal
and metal activity. Logarithmic isotherm plots of all sediment systems at each pH are
shown in the top panels of Figures 9-17 through 9-19. The sorbed metal concentrations
represent total bound metal (as calculated by Equation 9-2) on a dry sediment weight
basis. When the measured AVS component of the total sorbed concentration is subtracted
out (Equation 9-4), the resulting isotherms at each pH are shown in the center panels.
From these data it is clear that there is binding capacity for the three metals in these
sediments in excess of AVS. More importantly, this excess binding capacity is not related
to the dry sediment weight. The isotherms cover over a 10-fold range in partition
coefficients.
When the non-AVS binding capacities (Equation 9-5) are normalized to sediment
organic carbon fractions the isotherms represented in bottom panels of Figures 9-17
through 9-19 result. The isotherms collapse into a single isotherm with residual scatter (a
factor of 2 to 3) with one exception due to binding to other sediment components and
experimental error. The effect of sediment organic normalization is most dramatic at pH
7 although the normalization reduces the scatter at pH 6 also. At pH 8, however, the
precipitation of metal hydroxides is present in addition to the sorption process and this
complicates the analysis. The pH in sediments is typically 6.5 to 8.0. In support of
organic carbon normalization, Allen et al. 122,231 showed that upon oxidation of sediments
residual metal binding remained and that only a single phase was needed to explain this.
In a later paper (243 he showed that the binding of Cd to such sediments was identical in
nature to the binding by humic material extracted from the sediments.
The sorption isotherms can be fit using a number of models. The approximately
straight line behavior for some of the data (e.g., cadmium at pH= 6, Figure 9-18) suggests
a Freundlich isotherm might be appropriate. However, the curvature that exists at higher
concentration suggests that a limiting sorption capacity exists. The simplest model that
includes an upper limit is the Langmuir isotherm. The Langmuir isotherm equation is:
where:
-------
PH6 PH7 PHB
• . • •_‘ • • • ._•1 • •-I • • -i
I II I I III I Ii I III I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I
V
IIII iii . i tii III
I
io2 10_I
100
101
102 io 3
io io2 io’
100
io 1
io2 1o
io io2 10
100
101
2
C ACTIVITY
(mg/L)
C ACTIVITY
(mg/L)
C ACTIVITY
(mg/L)
Figure 9-17. Copper activity versus total sorbed metal (top panels), non-AVS sorbed metal
(center panels) and organic carbon normalized non-AVS sorbed metal (bottom panels) for
pH 6, 7, and 8.
I
I IIL I III IkLL.d i i ii i ii
-J
w
I
cE ’
0
-J
I-
U i
I
0
—•
E
U)
>
z
0
z
102
101
101
102
10
10
p
e
I IIl I I I I I IR9 I I I I I I I I I II
I I I• J I I I I • I
1 III I IJI I III I III I TU1
r
r
-J
1<
I-
Ui
00
wo
o
.flE
>
1<
z
0
I
101
9
C
I
I- . . ,
1
1
I
S.
10
2
_III •IiI IIt IIII 4III III
f
I
I
-------
PH6
TT11 I IIt I IJ1 I I1I 1 IIV I IH
(c
t %C
b/ac
H
I tIJ. I I IL I I II I I II I I I II
1TI1 I I fl I I II 1 1 I1U I 111 11 I1
r
•
I
a
a
a
C
a
I III I IIi I I& I IJ a
102
I
jo 2 jo_I 100 101 io 2 io 3
C ACTIVITY (mg/U
C
Pt-i 7
I I I I I I I I I I -
9
b
Pi d
C
I II I II I II I tI I II
io2 io io0 101 io2
C ACTIVITY (mg/L)
PHO
t b
f
f U3 a cC
1 b. h C
b • h a
a
I I 11.4 I I II . 4 t i i i a
I I I1 I I lI I IiI I I II I I II I I I
ff
I b
tbb e
gb £alCf
ca I
a
I
I in . 4 t t i iit . 4 a i a a
io3io 2 io’ 100 101 io2
C ACTIVITY (mg/L)
Figure 9i 8. Cadmium activity versus total sorbed metal (top panels), nonAVS sorbed
metal (center panels) and organic carbon normalized non AVS sorbed metal (bottom
panels) for pH 6, 7, and 8.
I IIT 1 1IT I II1U 1 II1 I lII
I’
I
‘I
I
I a I
r I
• I I I If . 4 i • i ii
I
I
I I 111.4 • aii . 4 i aaa . 4 11111
10’
102
10
10’
io2
10
10
10’
1 1I1 I I II I II I I I II
w
I-
w
r
—I
‘ -I
w
I
D C-,
wo
WE
>
z
0
z
I
9
I lII
1
a
‘ d
• .• . 4 • a• . 4 i a •
I I I I I I I I II I I lI I I I
P1
h r 1
hB,t 1$
1 a
r •
-------
106
10’
io2
106
10
10
102
106
10’
PH6
i o 2 I III
io2 io 100 101
C ACTIVITY
1 1 1
I i
c @CC
r I
r
I U
I tI I IL I It I II I II I 11
io2 io 100 101 io 2
C ACTIVITY (mg/L)
Figure 9-19. Lead activity versus total sorbed metal (top panels), non-AVS sorbed metal
(center panels) and organic carbon normalized non-AVS sorbed metal (bottom panels) for
pH 6 and 7.
PH7
. JUn1 I 1 1U5 I I UII I IIII JIIII
hh6, 1
s
e 1
• ...•.J • I•I • III I III
I III I III I II • III U T UI
ff V
V 1
f bf T l
hb j 1
•1
h
1
I II I tII I II I III I ItI I 1I1
-j
I-
U i
cx
-J
0
I—
-J
w
0
“I
‘ E
U,—
>
z
0
z
-j
U i
01
LAiD
(flE
>
z
0
z
• i . . ..j I-J-1-u -T--J-U1 I IIU I 11111
S C ) 5 C
0
C.
1
I IIII I III I III I III I III
I III I III I III I II1 • JII
r 0 fttl
VI
I
1 ti I
- I kI _ILI I II I IJI I
• u I I I I I I I I I I UI J U l 1
i o2i o3
(mg/L)
-------
9-37
c Kdoc C 1 (9-6)
sOC p
C 5 y + Kd.OC Cf
C 0 non-AVS sorbed metal per weight of sediment carbon (mg M/kg
organic carbon) — C,. non-AVS (Equation 9-5)
Cf = aqueous metal activity (mg fM 2 + }/L). and
— partition coefficient (L/kg organic carbon)
c.oc = sorption capacity (mg MIkg organic carbon).
The properties of the Langmuir isotherm are shown in Figure 9-20A. The isotherm is linear
(slope = 1) on a log-log scale and approaches a constant as the concentration exceeds
C .OCIKd .
If organic carbon is the only significant sorption phase, then one would expect that
the total sorption capacity of this phase is independent of pH within the narrow range
tested. On the other hand. the partition coefficient for metal sorption to natural and
synthetic particles is expected to vary with pH over a wider range. It arises because metal
sorption is a competition between the metal Ion end the hydrogen ion. As the pH is
increases the concentration of hydrogen Ion decreases. towering the competition for
sorption sites, so that the quantity of metals sorbing increases. The isotherms that result
from this type of model are shown in Figure 9-20B. The increasing partition coefficient
as pH increases results in an Increased particulate concentration for a fixed metal activity.
The Langmuir parameters Kdc c for each pH. and the binding capacity (C.OC) can
be obtained using a non-linear regression of the log-transformed sorption data for each
metal. The resulting capacity and partition coefficients are listed in Table 9-4. Figures
9-21 through 9-23 present the Langmuir model and the data for copper, cadmium and lead
at the various pH’s. For each pH. the data are summarized and plotted in the following
way. The sediment concentrations are sorted from low to high and divided into seven
groups with an approximately equal number of concentrations in each group. Then the log
mean of both the sediment concentration and aqueous activity are found. These mean
-------
The Langmuir Isotherm :
Cs,oc
Model :
r O v
s ,oc”d,oc ’f
C ,oc + Kd,ocCf
106
U
0
.
E
IO
101
C-
io2
Cf
-. Kd,ocCf Cf
I
I IJII I IIIIMI I 1111111 ITIHUI I Ililul 11111!
A
•
I
E
I
‘ —-i
!
E
!
,“
/
!
r 0 /K 0
— I I I fl 11111111 I I IIII11 _ [ J
11111 11111111 I 111111
(“0
< ‘ .#s,oc
Kd,oc
Independent of pH
Kd,OC Depends on pH
U
0
0 1
C l
£
C-
C ACTIVITY
Figure 9-20.
Properties of the Langmuir isotherm (top panel, A) and resulting isotherms
Co
> s,0c
Kd,oc
io io 2 io’ 100 io’ 102 1o
C ACTIVITY (mg/L)
106
101
io 2
(mg/L)
at varying pHs (bottom panel, B).
-------
106
-J
C
w
I
00
WO
0
ao’
Ox
(fl%%
a
WE
>
i (
2
0
2
-J
C
I-
U i
I
00
WO
0
Ox
a
WE
>
C
2
0
2
-J
U i
00
WO
0
C a ’
Ox
D l
WE
>
C
2
0
2
10
10
10
10
Figure 9-21. Copper sorption isotherms for pH 6, 7,
represented by symbols (mean) and bars (standard
model is represented by the solid line.
and 8. Data for plotting intervals is
deviation). The Langmuir isotherm
10
01
I
10_I 1o2 10 _I to 2
C ACTIVITY (mg/L)
106
10
101
102
io 2 1o ’
C ACTIVITY
too
(mg/L)
-------
-J
LU
I
DL)
O.)C
WE
>
z
0
z
—J
I-
LU
I
DL )
LU0
(n
WE
>
z
0
z
102
106
-J
I —
LU 10
I ____
DL )
LLJO
101
Cfl
WE
>
z
0
2
102
,o so-2 10 100 so’
C ACTIVIII (mg/L)
Figure 9-22. Cadmium sorption isotherms for pH 6, 7, and 8. Data for plotting intervals
is represented by symbols (mean) and bars (standard deviation). The Langmuir isotherm
model is represented by the solid line.
10
102
,o2 so’ io° so’ so 2
10
101
,o2 10’ 100 so’ ao 2
I I 1111111
I I I 111111 I I I 111111
PH8
I I 1111111
I I 111119
I
I _
,
I I 1111111 I 111111
111111111 1 _ tililId iiii,nd s mmii
-------
-j
w
I
o 3
UJO
a)
ac
(flE
>
z
0
z
-J
U i
I
00
wo
a)
(n
tflE
>
z
0
2
Figure 9-23. Lead sorption isotherms for pH 6 and 7. Data for plotting intervals is
represented by symbols (mean) and bars (standard deviation). The Langmuir isotherm
model is represented by the solid line.
10’
10
10
10’
l0
101
i
10_I
100 101 102
C ACTIVITY (mg/L)
C ACTIVITY (mg/L)
-------
9-42
concentrations are plotted as the filled symbol. The standard deviation of the data in each
group is indicated by the lines in both the x and y axis directions. The model fits the data
for each metal surprisingly well, especially at the low metals activity where the isothems
will be used for setting Sediment Quality Criteria.
TABLE 9-4. ORGANIC CARBON BINDING CAPACITY AND
PARTITION COEFFICIENTS FOR COPPER, CADMIUM, AND LEAD.
ICd(L1kOOC)
Capacity
(mWkgOC) pH6 pH7 pH8
Copper 117,500 390,400 2,731.000 2,003.000
Cadmium 54.450 20,740 250.700 914,400
Lead 339.400 248,700 346.400
The sorption capacities f or copper, cadmium and lead are shown in the top panel
of Figure 9-24. The capacities for copper and lead are similar whereas the capacity for
cadmium is lower. The partition coefficients as a function of pH are shown in the bottom
panel of Figure 9-24. They are almost equal for copper and lead but are an order of
magnitude lower for cadmium. A line with slope 1 is included in the figure for
comparison. The relationship between log and pH is essentially slope one between
pH 6 and 7. This corresponds to a replacement of a single hydrogen ion with each metal
ion sorbed, presumably as the metal hydroxide, MOH 4 .
These results are used in deriving sediment quality criteria in Chapter 11. However,
a simple case is examined in this chapter in order to assess the importance of sediment
organic carbon binding. The sediment quality criteria for a single metal is:
SOC AVS • Kd CFc ,
where K, is the partition coefficient and CFCV is the final chronic value for that metal. It
should be pointed out that this equation is valid for a given metal only if the concentrations
of other metals is small relative to the AVS. The partition coefficient can be expressed in
-------
U
0
0)
P. ’
0
E
C.,
0
9
U
0
a)
-J
U
0
0
0 )
0
Figure 9-24. Calculated capacity (top panel) and organic carbon normalized partition
coefficients (bottom panel) for cadmium, copper, and lead.
o2
Cd Cu Pb
pH
-------
9-44
terms of the organic carbon partition coefficient and the fraction organic carbon in the
sediment:
SQC = AVS . Kd,ocfoc CFCV (9-8)
The importance of organic carbon binding can be assessed by comparing the
magnitude of the term in the above Equation (9-8) that corresponds to organic carbon
binding:
Kd,oc 1 oc CFCV
with typical AVS concentrations found in sediments. This is demonstrated in Figure 9-25
using the fresh water final chronic values (at hardness = 100 mg/L) and Kdoc for pH 7
for copper 1 cadmium and lead. The dashed horizontal lines show the typical range of AVS
and the dashed vertical lines give a typical range of 0 • As and AVS increase so does
the allowable sediment metals concentration. Even with no AVS binding, sediment metals
levels of up to 100 umol/g may be acceptable depending on the organic carbon content.
Least Sorptive Phase
The extent of partitioning between sediments and interstitial water is a critical
component in establishing SOCs. Equation 9-8 points out the importance of the partition
coefficient, Kd. In the absence of AVS and significant organic carbon in a sediment, the
partitioning would be established between the mineralogical phases and the intersitital
water.
A series of experiments have been initiated to determine the partition coefficients
f or metals using cleans sediments which contain no AVS and no appreciable organic
carbon. The idea is to measure partition coefficients that can be used as minimum values
to determine the extent of partitioning. These partition coefficients would be used to
compute lower bounds of the SQC. For sediments with metal concentrations below these
values, the sediments would be judged to have satisfied the SOC.
-------
io2
10
100
10- I
10_I
100
PH7
a,
0
E
>
C-)
Li.
U
C-)
0
C-)
0
Figure 9-25. Magnitude of organic carbon binding (V axis) as (x axis) varies for
cadmium, copper and lead, pH 7. Typical ranges of and AVS are represented by
dashed lines. The freshwater FCVs at hardness of 100 mgFl are 1.1 ugh for cadmium.
12.0 ugh for copper and 3.2 ugh for lead.
10
oc ( )
io2 1O
I 11111111 I 11111111
—I
1 (1111111 11111111 U 11111111 I 11111111 I II III
ICu
— —
Pb -
-Cd
i U I 1111111 I I I II
. . • 11111111
—-1
I II 1 11111 I I 111111! I
i
10’
-------
9-46
Determinations of the partiton coefficeint, Kd. for cadmium, copper, nickel, lead,
and zinc were done using two adsorbents with very low organic carbon content. The
analyses were done at the U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia
(25). The adsorbents were a commercially obtained washed sea sand and a sample of
natural sand from Ona Beach, Oregon. The washed sea sand was used as provided. Most
of the aqueous phase was removed from the Ona Beach sand samples. Remaining water
content was 16.7 percent. Total organic c3rbon content was 0.006 percent, for the
washed sea sand, and 0.019 percent for the Ona Beach sand.
About 5 g of sediment and 30 ml of a serial dilution of the five mixed metals were
mixed and allowed to equlibrate. The samples were then centrifuged and the supernatants
were analyzed for pH and remaining metals using the graphite furnace atomic adsorption
spectrophotometer (GFAAS) (253. The adsorbed amounts of each of the metals, on a
gram weight basis were computed from the difference between the initial metals
concentration and the remaining metals concentration in the supernatant divided by the
initial volume of 30 ml. The amounts absorbed (gram) were then divided by the amount
of sediment added (gram) to compute the adsorbed solid phase concentration, C . The
partition coefficient, Kd was then computed as follows:
Kd = . .! (9-10)
where C is the remaining metals concentration in the supernatant. Table 9-5 presents
the mean Kd and statndard error for each of the metals.
These initial results suggest that the partition coefficients are varying somewhat,
but not by orders of magnitudes. Therefore, it is probable that minimum partition
coefficients can be established which would provide a lower bound for the Sediment
Quality Criteria on an SEM basis. The details of this formulation are discussed in Chapter
11.
-------
9-47
TABLE 9.5. PARTITION COEFFICIENT, Kd. FOR LOW ORGANIC CARBON
CONTENT SEDIMENTS
Kd(L/Kg)
Copper Nickel Cadmium Zinc Lead
Sea Sand 163.05 21.17 48.36 1,847.67 273.65
( 6 97 , 5 )a (4.15.5) (7.34,5) (137.95.6) (24.1,5)
Ona Beach Sand 265.08 34.58 71.09 2,183.70 579.10
(16.1,6) (1.87.6) (5.44.7) (260.53.5) (33.5,4)
Standard error, number of values
Pore Water and SEM/AVS Sampling
The sampling methods used for AVS and interstitial water have been studied and
recommendations are available that appear to be the optimal choices at present.
Pore Water Sampling
Buff lap and Allen (26) reviewed the four commonly used methods for collection of
pore water and potential artifacts from their use, particularly in the preparation of samples
for trace metal analysis. Two of the methods, centrifugation and squeezing. are ax-situ,
requiring the removal of sediment from the natural environment. The other two, dialysis
and suction filtration, are used in-situ. Their work has been included in Volume II of this
submission. In addition to each method having its own advantages and disadvantages,
there are several general sources of error that can alter pore water chemical
concentrations. A summary of their findings is presented below.
Several sources of error in sampling can lead to erroneuos porewater
measurements. A primary source of error is the oxidation of anoxic pore waters. If a
sample is allowed to oxidize the speciation of iron and other trace metals will be altered.
Anoxic sediments should be handled in a glove box or glove bag when extracting pore
water. Another source of error that can occur during sampling is pore water oxidation as
-------
9-48
a result of the mixing of oxic and anoxic sediments during sampling. Also metal
contamination should be avoided when sampling by avoiding contact with metal parts of
the sampling device that may contaminate the sample. Some studies indicate that sample
extractions at temperatures higher than in-situ may change the composition of the pore
water however there is no direct evidence that extraction temperature plays a significant
role in trace metal concentrations in pore water 1261. Pore water samples should be
filtered during or after extraction to remove residual particles that can interfere with both
analytical procedures or alter trace metal concentrations due to adsorbtion/desorbtion of
the metal to the residual particles. Buf flap and Allen [ 261 discuss the three most common
sampling techniques; dredging, grab sampling and coring, and give recommendations to
minimize sampling errors.
The primary concern with analyzing sediment pore water is finding an extraction
technique that will produce samples that best represent the natural environment. To
accomplish this goal, the technique that is used should have the lowest potential for
producing sampling artifacts. The ex-situ techniques. centrifugation and squeezing, require
the removal of sediment samples from the natural environment. The squeezer method
employs various apparatus to pressurize a sediment sample which forces the pore water
through an exit port. The squeezer apparatus are known as core section or whole core
squeezers. Core section squeezers employ either gas pressure or a mechanical means of
pressurizing the sediment sample and forcing the pore water through an exit port. Core
section squeezers are an inexpensive and simple means of extracting sediment pore water.
They also offer immediate filtration of the water samples, thus eliminating a handling step
which may introduce contamination to the samples. The disadvantage of core section
squeezers is that their use requires handling the sediment which may introduce artifacts
resulting from oxidation or temperature differences.
Whole core squeezers may help to remove the possibility of artifacts that may result
when using the core section squeezers because the sediment remains in the core liner with
which it was removed from the natural environment. These squeezers apply pressure to
-------
9-49
the sediment by the use of plungers. A problem with the whole core squeezers is that
solid phase pore water interactions may alter pore water concentrations during squeezing.
Centrifuging is another widely used ex-situ simple technique to obtain pore water.
Centrifuging can be conducted at in-situ temperatures and handling the sediment samples
can be done in an inert atmosphere to avoid artifacts that may change pore water
concentrations. One problem with centrifuging is that some fine particulates may still
remain in pore water. Fine particulates can be removed either by using a built-in filter at
the top of the centrifuge cup or by displacement of the pore water in the sediment by an
inert solvent placed in the centrifuge tube. The dense solvent replaces the pore water in
the sediment forcing the less dense pore water to the top. Of the two existing techniques,
squeezing has the lower potential for artifacts because all handling steps can be conducted
in an inert atmosphere contained in a glove bag in order to avoid oxidation artifacts. In
addition, pore water filtration can be conducted in-line, thus eliminating a handling step
that is required in centrifugation. and lowering the potential for artifacts.
Squeezing and centrifuging are discussed by Bufflap and Allen (261 in more detail.
In-situ techniques, such as dialysis and suction filtration, have less potential for producing
sampling artifacts than ex-situ techniques because pore water samples are extracted
directly from the natural environment. The general principle of dialysis sampling involves
allowing a volume of deionized, distilled water to come to equilibrium with the sediment
pore water in order to determine chemical concentrations. One problem with dialysis
samplers is that the chamber water must be deaerated before insertion into anoxic
sediemnts to avoid oxidation of the sample. Dialysis has limitations because equilibration
times can last several weeks. In addition, the Volume of sample is limited by the size of
the sample chambers, not by the physical features of the sediment. Lastly dialysis
samplers generally require placement and retrieval by SCUBA divers, thus increasing study
costs.
Because there ai different techniques available for extracting sediment pore water.
it is often difficult to compare data from different laboratories. What is needed to limit
-------
9-50
these discrepancies is to compare the existing techniques and to develop a sampling
methodology that will produce pore water samples that best resemble the in-situ conditons
and can be easily utilized by all researches. Studies done to compare the existing
techniques are discussed by Bufflap and Allen (261. However, more research is needed
in this area.
AVS/SEM Sampling
A draft analytical method for the determination of AVS and SEM in sediment has
been proposed (27,28]. This method describes procedures for the determination of acid
volatile sulfides (AVS) and for metals that are solubilized during the acidification step
(SEM). The conditions used have been reported to measure amorphous or moderately
crystalline monosulfides. Because the relative amounts of AVS and SEM are important in
the prediction of potential metal bioavailability. it is important to use the SEM procedure
for sample preparation for metal analysis. This uses the same conditions for release of
both sulfide and metal from the sediment and thus provides the most predictive means of
assessing the amount of metal associated with sulfide. The method is included in Volume
II and a summary is provided below.
The AVS in the sample is first converted to hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) by acidification
with hydrochloric acid at room temperature. The H 2 S is then purged from the sample and
trapped. The amount of sulfide that has been trapped is then determined. The SEM are
metals liberated from the sediment during the acidification. These are determined after
filtration of the supernatant from the acidification step.
Two types of apparatus for sample purging and trapping of H 2 S are described. One
uses a series of Erlenmeyer flasks while the other uses flasks and traps with ground glass
stoppers. The former is less costly. The latter is less prone to leakage that causes low
recovery of AVS. The latter is recommended when higher degrees of precision are desired
and for samples containing low levels of AVS (— 0.1 pmol/g).
-------
9-51
Three means of quantifying the H 2 S released by acidifying the sample are provided.
In the gravimetric procedure. the H 2 S is trapped in silver nitrate. The silver sulfide that is
formed is determined by weighing. This procedure is recommended f or samples with
moderate or high AVS concentrations. In an alternative procedure the H 2 S is trapped in
an antioxidant buffer before using an ion-selective electrode. After release of the H 2 S, the
acidified sediment sample is membrane filtered before determination of the SEM by atomic
absorption or inductive coupled plasma spectrometric methods. In the colorimetric
method, the H 2 S is trapped in sodium hydroxide. The sulfide is converted to methylene
blue that is measured. This procedure is recommended for samples that have low to
moderate AVS concentrations.
Using the apparatus described by Allen et al. 1271, the colorimetric method of
analysis is capable of detecting AVS at concentrations normally encountered with a
recovery of sulfide of at least 90 percent. High precision is possible if the Allen et al. (271
apparatus is used with a limit of detection of approximately 0.01 pmot/g dry sediment.
-------
APPENDIX BA
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Sediment samples with overlying wafer were collected in one gallon plastic
containers from various locations, transported under Ice, and stored at 4°C throughout the
study period. Subsampling procedures attempted to minimize exposure times to air and
elevated temperatures.
Sorption isotherm data were obtained by titrating sediment with either copper,
cadmium or lead in batch mode (Figure 9A-1). The Anoxic Sequential Batch Titration
(ASBT) method consists of a series of 250ml, Florence flasks (typically 10) stoppered gas-
tight with two-hole rubber stoppers fitted with glass tubing. The entire train of flasks is
connected to a source of purified nitrogen gas (Matheson, Prepurified, 99.998 percent
minimum) which is bubbled through a vanadate/HCI/amalgamated- zinc oxygen-stripping
solution as a polishing de-oxygenation step. Into each flask1 a wet sediment sample is
introduced, a known volume of stock metal solution is added, and a known volume of
deaerated buffer solution is added. Each flask is similarly prepared and sequentially
attached to the flask train. An Acid Volatile Sulfide (AVS) determining apparatus is
attached to the sorption flask train to measure the sediment AVS simultaneously. The
sediment is then titrated by varying the copper, cadmium, or lead stock solution volume
added to each flask and thereby obtaining a range of sediment-bound and aqueous copper,
cadmium, or lead concentrations.
Total aqueous metal concentrations were determined by Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy (AAS; Perkin Elmer model PE-3030) In samples of the overlying water of the
ASBT system which were filtered through glass fiber filter discs and acidified to 1 percent
HNO 3 by volume. Metal concentrations below 1 mg/L required the use of AAS in Graphite
furnace mode (model HGA-400). Concentrations greater than 1 mgFL were analyzed by
AAS in Flame mode (air-acetylene flame; Perkin-Elmer lamps).
Metal activity in the overlying water of the ASBT system was measured directly by
an ion-selective electrode (Orion. #90-29) in conjunction with a ref erence electrode (Orion,
-------
Anoxic Sequential Batch
1, Gas inlet & outlet
Titration
3: AgNO 3 Sulfide Trap
4: AgNO 3 Sulfide Trap
‘ : 250 mL Glass Flask
q: Buffer Matrix + Metal Spike
4: Sediment Sample
Figure 9A- 1. Anoxic sequential batch titration (ABST) experimental set-up: Purified nitrogen gas is used to remove and
exclude oxygen from the reaction flasks. Typically 10 flasks are used to expose sediment samples to pH buffer matrix and
r l contamination, as shown in the enlargement. A 4-fl AVS measurement apparatus is included to determine
s ent AVS of an unspiked sediment homogenate simult usly.
Sorption Experiment Reaction Vessels
1
2
AVS Measurement Vessels
1: Reaction Vessel
2: pH4 Buffer Trap
-------
9A-3
#90-02) and a voltage meter (Orion SA•720). Daily metal activity standard curves
generated at the appropriate pH were used to calculate a regression line on the linear
portion of the curves. It was assumed that metal activity was linearly related to electrode
response at all activities. This allowed a given day’s standard curve regression equation
to be used to calculate the metal activity of that day’s ASBT overlying water samples,
even though the millivolt reading of some samples fell below the lowest standard. Copper,
cadmium or lead activities calculated in this way over-estimated the metal activity of
samples below 0.01 mg (Me 2 + }IL. The ionic strength of both samples and standards was
adjusted to 0.005M NaNO 3 prior to determining metal activity.
The pertinent sediment characteristics relating to metal partitioning were determined
as follows. Sediment dry solids were determined by weighing a sediment sample before
and after drying at 103°C overnight. Sediment carbon (total, organic, and inorganic) was
measured using a LECO model CHN-800 Carbon-Hydrogen-Nitrogen analyzer. Sediment
dried at 103°C was analyzed f or particulate total carbon (PTC). A subsample of this
material was acidified with 0.05M HCI for one hour and dried at 103°C. This treated
sediment was analyzed for particulate organic carbon (POC), and the difference between
PTC and POC was attributed to particulate inorganic carbon (PlC; i.e., carbonates).
The pH of the overlying water was measured using a Beckman (ALTEX) 60 pH
meter with a Fisher Standard Polymer-Body Gel-filled combination pH electrode (#13-640-
108). The pH of the ASBT systems were buffered using Goode buffers (0.005 to 0.O1M
solutions adjusted to desired pH with NaOH). At pH 6. MES (2-(n-
morpholinojethanesulfonic acid, sodium salt; PKa = 6.1; Sigma M-3885) was used, at pH
7. MOPS (3-tMorpholinojpropanesulfonic acid, sodium salt; PKa = 7.2; SIGMA M-9381)
was used, and at pH 8, HEPES (N-(2-Hydroxyethyl)piperazine-N’-(2-ethanesulfonic acid,
Sodium salt; PKa = 7.5; SIGMA H-2393) was used. These buffers are designed to be non-
reactive with metal species (17,18,191.
-------
1. Leonard, E.N.. Mattson, V.R.. Benoit, D.A.. Hoke. R.A., and Ankley, G.T. 1993.
Seasonal variation of acid volatile suifidein sediment cores from three northeastern
Minnesota lakes. Hydrobiologia. 271:87-95.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Research Laboratory,
Narragansett. Rhode Island. EMAP-Estuaries Virginian Province data. Unpublished.
3. Morita, R.Y. 1975. Psychrophlic bacteria. Bacteriological Rev. 39:144-167.
4. Boothman, W.S. and Heimstetter, A. Vertical and seasonal variability of acid
volatile suit ides in marine sediments. Manuscript.
5. Howard. D.E. and Evans, R.D. 1993. Acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) in a seasonally
anoxic mesotrophic lake: Seasonal and spatial changes in sediment AVS. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 12:1051-1057.
6. Ankley. G.T., Phipps, G.L.. Leonard. EN., Benoit, D.A., Mattson, V.R., Kosian,
P.A.. Cotter, A.M.. Dierkes, J.R., Hansen, D. J. and J.D. Mahony. 1991. Acid-
volatile sulfide as a factor mediating cadmium and nickel bioavailability in
contaminated sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1299-1307.
7. Di Toro, D.M. and Fitzpatrick, J.F. 1993. Chesapeake bay sediment flux model.
HydroQual, Inc. Mahwah, NJ. Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station. Report EL-93-2
8. Berner. R.A. 1980. A rate model for organic matter decomposition during bacterial
sulfate reduction in marine sediments. Biooeochemistrv j organic matter
sediment-water interface . France. Comm.’ NatI. Recherche Scientific. 35-44.
-------
9. Forssberg. K. S. 1985. Flotation .t Sulohide Minerals . New York. NY: Elsevier
Scienc Publishing Co. Inc.
10. Nelson, M. B. 1978. Kinetics and mechanisms of the oxidation of ferrous sulfide
Ph.D Thesis. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
11. Di Toro, D.M., Mahony. J.D., and Gonzalez, A.M. Particle oxidation model of
synthetic FeS and sediment AVS. Environ. Tox. Chem., 1994. Submitted.
12. Zhuang, Y., Allen, HE., Fu, G. 1994. Effect of aeration of sediment on cadmium
binding. Enivon. Toxicol. Chem. 13:717-724.
13. Nyffeler, U. P., Santschi, P. H., & Li. Y.-H. 1986. The relevance of scavenging
kinetics to modeling of sediment-water interactions in natural waters. Limnol.
Oceanogr., 31:277-292.
14. Boudreau, B. P. 1986. Mathematics of tracer mixing in sediments: I.
Spatially-dependent diffusive mixing. Am. J. Sci., 286:161-198.
15. Hansen, D.J., Mahony, J.D., Berry, W.J., Benyi, S.. Corbin, J., Praft, S.D.. Able,
M.B. Chronic effect of cadmium in sediments on colonization by benthic marine
organisms: An evaluation of the role of interstitial cadmium and acid volatile sulfide
in biological availability. Manuscript.
16. Liber, K., Ankley, G., Call, D., Markee, T., and Schmude, K. 1994. Seasonal
relationships between acid volatile sulfide concentrations and toxicity of zinc to
benthic macroinvertebrates. Manuscript In Preparation.
17. Mahony, J.D. 1993. Personal communication on oligochaet experiments.
18. Goode. N.E., et.al., 1966, Biochemistry, 5, 467.
-------
19. Goode. N.E. and S. Izawa, 1972 Methods Enzymot , 24(Part B). 53.
20. Ferguson. W.J. and Goode, N.E. 1980. Analytical Biochem.. 104. 300.
21. Gonzalez. AM.. 1992. An Experimental Study of Sediment Organic Carbon as a
metal-binding phase under anoxic conditions, Master’s Thesis: Manhattan College,
Riverdale, N.Y.
22. Fu, G., Allen, H.E., and Cowan. C.A. 1991. Adsorption of cadmium and copper
by manganese oxide. Soil Science. 152:72-81.
23. Fu. G.. and Allen, H.E. 1992. Cadmium adsorption by oxic sediments. Water
Research. 26:225-233.
24. fu. G., Allen. H.E., and Cao, V. 1992. The importance of humic acids to proton
and cadmium binding in sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:1363-1372.
25. Garrison, W. 1994. Personel communication on metal sorption on low sorbitivity
phases.
26. Bufflap, S.E. and Allen. H.E. 1994. Sediment pore water collection methods: A
review. Water Research. In press.
27. AlIen, H.E., Fuj, G., Deng, Baolin. 1993. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) and
simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) for the estimation of potential toxicity in
aquatic sediments. Environ. Toxicot. Chem. 12:1441-1453.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Draft analytical method for
determination of acid volatile sulfide in sediment. Office of Science and
Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Div., Washington. D.C. 20460.
-------
CHAPTER 10
CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING METAL BIOAVAILABILITY IN SEDIMENTS
Based on the studies described in the preceding chapters, it is apparent that
evaluation of pore water metal concentrations and/or SEM:AVS ratios can provide
significant insights concerning metal bioavailability in sediments. We feel that the two
techniques are complementary and should be used in conjunction with one another
as an approach to providing assessments of the potential ecological impacts of metals
in sediments. However, when using these measures of metal bloavailability, it is
important to recognize the limits of applicability of the techniques. These are
discussed below.
Interstitial Water
Comparison of metal concentrations in pore water to water-only toxicity data
can be used to predict not only the presence, but also the extent of, metal toxicity in
sediments. The ability to actually quantify bioavailable metals in sediments is
attractive for a number of reasons. For example, quantification of bioavailable metal
facilitates the evaluation of differences in relative species sensitivity and thus, enables
the identification of species at risk. This is not yet possible with SEM and AVS.
When SEM and AVS, due to other possible binding phases, it is not yet possible to
predict actual pore water concentrations of metals. Another advantage to monitoring
pore water metal concentrations is that they should be useful for predicting the
toxicity of metals, such as chromium, which do not form insoluble sulfides. Finally,
because AVS is readily oxidized, it is not an important binding phase for metals in
completely aerobic sediments, however, the bloavailable fraction of metals should still
be approximated by using the pore water concentrations.
There also are disadvantages to solely using pore water concentrations to
quantify metal bioavailablity. First, because pore water is operationally defined (i.e.,
-------
10-2
there is no standard method for isolation although we recommend a procedure in
Chapter 9), there is a valid concern that laboratory variations in preparation may result
in significant differences in metal concentrations found in pore water. A second
disadvantage to using pore water metal concentrations to predict toxicity is that, if
one accepts the paradigm that pore water is indeed a major route of contaminant
exposure for epibenthic and benthic invertebrates, it may be difficult to account for
the effects of the pore water matrix (e.g.. dissolved organic carbon, hardness, salinity)
on metal complexation and bioavailability. This is, of course, also an issue of on-going
concern in the area of WQC issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency. A
final potential complication is that for species-specific assessments, it is necessary to
have a water-only effects data base for comparative purposes for the metal and the
species of concern. However, for the purpose of SQC derivation for metals in
sediments, target values for pore water metals could be obtained from appropriate
WQC documents in a fashion similar to that for nonionic organic chemicals.
Acid Volatile Sulfide and SEM
The studies described in previous chapters have clearly demonstrated that AVS
can be a key factor influencing interstitial water concentrations and bioavailability of
metals in sediments. In virtually no instance have we seen metal toxicity when SEM
is less than AVS and SEM greater than AVS often has been predictive of the presence
(but not extent) of metal toxicity. The use of SEM and AVS concentrations alleviates
the need for water-only effects data in an assessment since no bioavailability is
expected at SEM less than AVS. A further advantage to measuring sediment SEM
and AVS in sediments is that it gives an indication as to the relative size of the pool
of both components. This is not possible through monitoring pore water metal
concentrations. Pore water metal concentrations should be low in sediments with
SEM very much less than AVS to, theoretically, Sem equals AVS. Yet, sediments
with SEM close to AVS would be of more potential concern than those with SEM < <
AVS. In the absence of other metal binding phases, slight increases in SEM or
-------
10-3
decreases in AVS could cause the SEM to exceed the AVS and thereby result in
toxicity.
There are a number of limitations Inherent in using either pore water or SEM
and AVS to predict bioavailability. First, because AVS varies seasonally in a system-
specific manner, it is desirable that SEM and AVS and pore water metals be measured
over time, or at least when AVS Is expected to be minimal (e.g., late winter In our
studies). A single sampling is only a snap-shot of what occurs through the course of
the year.
At present, investigations are ongoing to assess the role of AVS in deeper
sediments relative to metal partitioning at the sediment surface, where most biological
acitvity and exposure occurs. This Is significant because the AVS pool in deeper
sediments appears to remain relatively constant, as opposed to AVS in surficial
sediments. It may be, for example, that as surficial sediments are depleted of AVS,
metals will subsequently bind to AVS In deeper sediments. Alternatively, as AVS
concentrations are depleted in surface sediments, other binding phases for metals may
become important in determining bioavailability. In any instance, It is important that
pore water metal and SEM and AVS measurements be made at all relevant points over
the vertical gradient of the sediment cores; for example, if concern is only for
— exposure of current benthic communities, the measurements can be made in the
surficial sediment horizon. On the other hand, If the assessment is focused on
possible impacts of deeper sediments (e.g., for dredging), appropriate measurements
should be made throughout the core.
Neither pore water metal concentrations nor SEM and AVS can be used to
assess potential metal bioavailability in situations where sediments are expected to
be altered and become aerobic through physical disturbance (e.g., storms, boat
traffic). In fact, in these cases, it may be possible in a worst case evaluation to
“exhaust” sediment AVS (e.g., by aerating the sample) before attempting to determine
-------
10-4
the presence of bioavailable metals, possibly through evaluation of pore water metal
concentrations.
Field validation of sediment quality criteria is an important component of the
establishing their validity. To date, the most exhaustive studies have been conducted
using spiked sediments in the laboratory and field which focus on changes in benthic
community structures and the bioaccumulation of metals by benthos (Chapters 7 and
8). These studies have been consistent with predictions based on SEM and AVS
ratios, and br a pore water exposure model [ 1,2). However, further work in this area
is needed, in particular with in situ sediments contaminated by point or nonpoint
source anthropogenic inputs of metals.
Based on the technical considerations described above, we present the
following recommendations/caveats for assessing the potential bioavailability of
metals in sediments.
1. Both SEM and AVS and pore water metal concentrations should be measured
in sediment assessments focused on defining bioavailability. A standard
method for the extraction and measurement of SEM and AVS has been
described [ 3]. For the studies described above, pore water was isolated using
either of two different techniques: dialysis chambers (peepers) or
centrifugation. Other pore water isolation techniques also may be useful;
however, we have had little experience with them.
2. If AVS is used as a normalization phase, it should be used only for cadmium,
nickel, lead, zinc, and copper, and only for these metals when simultaneously
extracted with the AVS. Molar concentrations of the metals then can be
summed to generate SEM and compared to AVS ratios. Theoretically,
however, it is possible to utilize pore water measurements of metals, other than
the five listed above, to evaluate their potential bioavailability.
-------
10-5
3. It is strongly recommended that cadmiumnickel, copper, lead and zinc all be
measured when evaluating SEM and AVS and pore water metal concentrations,
at least in initial test samples. This is because although all five of these metals
have a higher affinity than iron for sulfide In monosulfide complexes,
individually they also have varying aftinities (solubility products) for the sulfide.
Thus, for example, cadmium will displace nickel from sulfide, and if excess
sulfide is not available, nickel will be released to the pore water. If only pore
water metals were measured, or only nickel was measured in the solid phase,
the analyst would erroneously conclude that nickel was the only problem in the
sediments, when in fact, elevated concentrations of cadmium also were
present. In order to have a complete understanding as to why a specific metal
is present at elevated concentrations in pore water, it is necessary to know the
molar concentrations of all the SEM. This is particularly true when considering
the fact that metal concentrations often covary In contaminated aquatic
sediments, that is, rarely is only one metal of concern.
4. In fully aerobic sediments (e.g., sand), AVS concentrations should not be used
to attempt to predict the bioavailability of metals in sediments. Theoretically,
however, it should be possible to infer bloavailability based on pore water metal
concentrations. Moreover, as described in Chapter 9, significant progress is
being made in identifying alternative normalization phases, such as carbon, for
metals in aerobic sediments. -
5. Only a limited amount of research has been conducted to assess the utility of
SEM and AVS or pore water concentrations for predicting metal bioavailability
in long-term exposures. Given the uncertainties in kinetics of metal and AVS
interactions in temporal cycles, and the lack of information on the importance
of other metal binding phases relative to these cycles, extrapolations of the
exposure model to long-term situations should be made with care. Further
information also is needed concerning the nature of the microhabitat of
-------
10-6
invertebrates relative to long-term changes in metal bioavailability in sediments.
In any case, it is important that pore water metal concentrations and SEM and
AVS be measured in sediment horizons appropriate for defining exposure to
species of concern. Based on our research, it appears that exposure of benthic
organisms to surf icial sediments can be defined, reasonably well by
measurement in the 0-2 cm horizon.
6. As with any chemical-specific monitoring method, the analyst should be aware
that: (a) not all chemicals of possible toxicological concern can be measured in
environmental samples; and (b) in most instances, it is difficult to account for
possible toxicological interactions among measured toxicants. For these
reasons, we strongly recommend toxicity tests as en integral part of any
assessment concerned with the effects of sediment contaminants.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hare, L., Carignan. R., and Huerta-Diaz, M.A. 1994. A field experimental test
of the hypothesis that acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) concentrations improve the
prediction of metal toxicity and accumulation by benthic invertebrates. Limnol.
Oceanog. In Press.
2. Liber, K., Call, M., Markee, T., Schmude, K., and Ankley, G. 1994. Seasonal
relationships between acid volatile-sulfide concentrations and toxicity of zinc
to benthic inveriebrates. Draft Manuscript.
3. Allen, H.E., Fu, G., and Deng, B. 1993. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide (AVS)
and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) for the estimation of potential
toxicity in aquatic sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:1441-1453.
-------
CHAPTER 11
PROPOSED SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
Introduction
Sediment quality criteria are intended to be the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s best recommendation of the concentration of a metal in a sediment that will
be protective of benthic organisms. The sediment quality criteria for the five metals:
cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc, will be based on the Equilibrium Partitioning
model of bioavailability. EqP asserts that the bioavailability of a chemical is related
to the chemical activity of the sediment - interstitial water system. For these metals
it has been shown that biological effects correlate with free metal activity in either
water only exposures or in sediment- interstitial water exposures. Thus the SOC for
these metals are based on insuring that the free metal activity is below levels that can
cause undesirable biological effects.
SQC’s for the five metals being considered can be derived using four
procedures:
(1) By comparing the molar concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc to the molar concentration of AVS in sediments;
(2) By comparing the measured interstitial water concentrations of metals to the
water quality criteria final chronic values (FCVs) for the metals;
(3) By using organic carbon based partition coefficients in addition to the AVS to
compute the interstitial water concentrations and compare them to the water
quality criteria FCVs;
-------
11-2
(4) By using minimum partition coefficients and AVS to compute lower bound
sediment concentrations that are unlikely to cause toxicity.
These procedures are described in more detail below. No citations to the
literature are included in the chapter since these have been provided in the previous
chapters. We believe that the technical basis for implementing procedures (1) and (2)
are presently supportable. Initial data for implementing procedures (3) and (4) have
also been presented. However, additional research is required to complete the
required data sets, as discussed below.
In the following sections we discuss the application of these methods to
deriving an SQC for a single metal. Then we continue with the more common
situation where appreciable concentrations of all the metals are present. The
application of these principles to the derivation of a sediment quality criteria for a
single metal is included for illustrative purposes only. It is instructive to present the
logic for this case as a prelude to the derivation of the multiple metal criteria.
However, as will become clear subsequently, single metal criteria are not usually
applicable to field situations since there is always a significant quantity of more than
one metal to be considered. in fact it is misleading to think of the criteria one metal
at a time. As we shall see, single metal criteria are inherently underprotective because
of the additive nature of AVS binding. Nevertheless the following sections are
included because of their instructional value.
One final point should be made with respect to nomenclature. When we use
the terms non-toxic or having no effect, we mean only with respect to the five metals
considered in this document. The toxicity of field collected sediments can be caused
by other chemicals. Therefore not violating the SOC for metals does not guarantee
that the sediments are non-toxic, only that the five metals being considered will not
have an undesirable biological effect.
-------
11-3
Single Metal Sediment Quality Criteria
Sediment quality criteria for metals will be expressed in molar units. These are
the natural units because of the one to one molar stoichiometry of metal binding to
AVS. Thus solid phase constituents: AVS and simultaneously extracted metal, SEM,
are in pmol/g units. The interstitial water concentrations are in pmol/L units as are the
metal activities. To be consistent with the usual chemical notation, metal activities
are denoted by curly brackets (} and metal concentrations are denoted by square
brackets El. The partition coefficients have units Lig consistent with the above solid
and aqueous phase concentration units. Table 11-1 summarizes these conventions:
TABLE 11-1.
Species Phase Notation Units
AVS Solid (AVS) pmol/g
SEM Solid (SEMI pmol/g
Metal activity Aqueous (M 2 +} pmol/L
Dissolved Metal conc. Aqueous (M dl . pmol/L
Total Metal conc. Solid + Aqueous (SEM 1 ] pmol/L(bulk )
The subscripted notation, Md l is used to distinguish aqueous phase molar
concentrations from solid phase molar concentrations with no subscript. For the total
concentration, ESEMTI, the units are the moles of metal per volume of solid + liquid
phase. Since metal activity is used below only relative to the aqueous phase no
subscript is needed.
AVS Criteria
It has been demonstrated that if the SEM of a sediment is less than the AVS:
-------
11-4
[ SEMIs [ AVSI (11-1)
then no toxicity effects are seen. This is consistent with the results of a chemical
equilibrium model for the sediment - interstitial water system. The resulting metal
activity fM 2 ’) can be related to the total SEM of the sediment and water, and the
metal sulfide (KMS) and iron sulfide (KF.s) solubility products. In particular it is true
that if [ SEMI < IAVS] then:
iia2.% K.
m ‘ - (11-2)
[ SEMTI FeS
Since the ratio of metal sulfide to iron sulfide solubility products (KMS/KFeS) is very
small (< 1 O ) even for the most soluble of the sulfides (Table 4-2, Chapter 4), the
metal activity of the sediment is at least five orders of magnitude smaller than the
SEM. This guarantees that no biological effects would be seen If this sediment were
tested. Therefore the condition (SEMI < LAVSI is a no effect sediment quality
criteria.
The reason we use the term “no effect” criteria is that for the condition (SEMI
< (AVSJ we expect no biological impacts. For [ SEMI> [ AVSI, which would normally
be considered a criteria violation, there are cases where we would expect no biological
— impacts, for example, where significant organic carbon partitioning is occurring. The
most dramatic examples are for sediments with low AVS concentrations (Fig.6-5).
Interstitial Water Criteria
The condition (SEMI < (AVS) guarantees that the metal activity of the
sediment - interstitial water system is very low and therefore, below any effect level
of concern. Another way of guaranteeing this is to place a condition on the interstitial
water activity directly. Let us suppose that we knew the metal activity, denoted by
-------
11-5
{FCV), that corresponded to the Final Chronic Value of the Water Quality Criteria:
(FCV]. Then the SQC corresponding to this effect leve! is,:,
(M 2 }(FCV} (11-3)
It is quite difficult to measure and/or calculate the metal activity in a solution phase,
fM 2 ’ ), at the low concentrations required since It depends on the identities,
concentrations and thermodynamic affinities of other chemically reactive species that
are present. Also the WQC on an activity basis, fFCV), is not known.
An approximation to this condition is:
IMdJ FCVdI (11-4)
That is, we require that the total dissolved metal concentration in the interstitial water
(M d i be less than the Final Chronic Value from the WQC applied as a dissolved
criteria. Although this requirement ignores the effect of chemical speciation on both
sides of the equation - compare Equation (11-4) to (11-3) - it is the approximation that
is currently being suggested by the EPA for the WQC for metals. That is, the WQC
should be applied to the total dissolved- rather than the total acid recoverable - metal
concentration. Hence, if this second condition is satisfied it is consistent with the
level of protection afforded by the water quality criteria.
In situations where the SEM exceeds the AVS ((SEMI > (AVS]) but the
interstitial water total dissolved metal is less than the final chronic value ( [ Md l <
(FCVdJ), this sediment does not violate the criteria. These cases occur when
significant binding is occurring to other phases. It should be noted that using the final
chronic value for metals requires that the hardness of the interstitial water be known
since the criteria vary as hardness varies.
-------
11-6
AVS and Organic Carbon Criteria
For sediments with an appreciable AVS concentration relative to SEM, the SQC
requirement that [ SEMI < (AVSI is a useful result. However if the AVS of the
sediment is small, then the condition is of little value. The reason is that other
sorption phases are present that affect the activity of the system. Similarly, even in
situations where significant AVS occurs In sediments, other sorption phases may
significantly limit the metal activity even If the SEM exceeds the AVS.
Consider the organic carbon in the sediment. It is demonstrated in Chapter 9
that a relationship exists between the SEM that is in excess of the AVS and the
interstitial water metal activity {M 2 ’}:
ISEMHAVSI=K’do cfo c(M 2 } (11-5)
where Kdoc is the partition coefficient between the organic carbon of the sediment
and is the weight fraction of organic carbon of the sediment. If we require that
the metal activity be at the FCV metal activity, then the SQC for SEM would be:
ISEM1 = [ AVSI+K d f (FCV) (11-6)
If the activity is replaced with the WQC total dissolved FCV, then the criteria
becomes:
CSEMI x1AVS]+ p f dFCVdJ (11-7)
where Kd,oc is the partition coefficient between organic carbon and total dissolved
interstitial water metal concentration. Note that the organic carbon based partition
coefficients vary with respect to pH so that the pH of the interstitial water must be
either measured or estimated. In addition, the FCV for the five metals is hardness
dependent in freshwater so that the hardness is also required.
-------
11-7
This is the third condition from which a sediment quality criteria can be derived.
For sediments where organic carbon provides all the excess binding capacity, it is a
criteria in the ordinary sense. That is, exceeding the criteria would imply that
unacceptable biological impacts would occur. Since the analysis of sediment binding
data and the estimation of the Koc’s in Chapter 9 attributes all the binding to organic
carbon thereby indexing the binding to organic carbon, using these constants would
imply that the criteria (Equation 11-8) is the boundary between no effects and effects.
There are situations, hpwever, for which the assumption that organic carbon is the
only important phase may not be correct. In these cases, the criteria becomes a no
effect criteria. Of course, using this as an effect criteria also assumes that applying
the FCV as a total dissolved criteria is appropriate. If, in fact, a significant fraction
of the interstitial water metal is not bioavailable, then again this criteria would be a
no effect criteria.
AVS and Minimum Partitioning Criteria
It would be useful to have a solid phase criteria that would effectively screen
sediments for which the metals concentrations are low enough so that no problem is
anticipated. The idea is to examine sediments for which the partition coefficients are
likely to be quite low. From these sediments it would be possible to establish
minimum partition coefficients (Kdmfl) which could be applied to any sediment. Then
the no effect SOC would be:
LSEMh c=K EFCVI (11-8)
This would also ba a no effect criteria since it is established using a minimum partition
coefficient. No AVS term is included unlike Equation (11-7), because it is assumed
that these sediments have no appreciable AVS. If there was a significant AVS
concentration, then the AVS criteria (Equation 11-1) would apply.
-------
11-8
These single metal Criteria are derived only for Illustrative purposes. Single
metal criteria are misleading and should not be applied. Only criteria based on the five
metals taken together are valid. They reduce to the single metal criteria in the unlikely
situation where only one metal is present to any significant degree.
Multiple Metals Criteria
The previous section presents the derivation of criteria if only one metal is
present in significant quantities In a sediment. In the usual case, however, it is
insufficient and inappropriate to consider each metal separately. This is of particular
concern for the AVS criteria.
AVS Criteria
The results of calculations using equilibrium chemical models indicate that
metals act in an additive fashion when binding to AVS. That is, each of the five
metals: Cu, Pb, Cd, Zn, and Ni will bind to the AVS and be converted to CuS, PbS,
CdS, ZnS, and NiS in this sequence; i.e., In the order of Increasing solubility. The
mixed metals experiment (Figure 5-3) and the Foundry Cove data (Chapter 6) confirm
this behavior. Therefore, the five metals must be considered together. There cannot
be a criteria for Just nickel, for example, since all the other metals may be present as
metal sulfides arid, therefore, to some extent as AVS. if these other metals are not
measured as SEM, then the SEM will be misleadingly small, and It may appear that
(SEMJ < [ AVSJ when in fact that Is not true If all the metals are considered together.
We restrict the discussion below to the five metals listed above. In special situations
where other sulfide forming metals (e.g., Co. Hg, Ag) are in high concentrations they
also must be considered.
-------
11-9
The equilibrium model prediction of the metals activity if a mixture of the metals
are present is similar to the single metals case. If the sum of the SEM’s for the five
metals is less than the AVS; i.e.:
LISEMJ4AVSI (11-9)
then:
( M 1 } K, 1 , (11-10)
(SEM yj K,.
where [ SEM TJ is the total SEM (pmol/L(bulk)) for the ith metal. Thus the activity of
each metal, {M). is unaffected by the presence of the other sulfides. This can be
understood as follows. Imagine that the chemical system starts initially as iron and
metal sulfide solids and that the system proceeds to equilibrium by each solid
dissolving to some extent. The iron sulfide dissolves until the solubility product of
FeS is satisfied. This sets the sulfide activity. Then each metal sulfide dissolves until
it reaches its solubility. Since so little of each dissolve relative to the FeS, the
interstitial water chemistry is not appreciably changed. Hence the sulfide activity
remains the same and the metal activity adjusts to meet each solubility requirement.
Therefore, each metal sulfide behaves independently of each other. The fact that they
are only slightly soluble relative to FeS is the cause of this behavior. Hence the AVS
criteria is easily extended to the case of multiple metals. It Is only necessary to sum
the molar concentration of each metal SEM and compare it to the AVS (Equation 11-
9).
Interstitial Water Criteria
The application of the interstitial water criteria to multiple metals Is complicated
not by the interactions of the metals chemistry of the sediment - interstitial water
system as in the cise with the AVS criteria, but rather their possible toxic
interactions. Even if the individual concentrations do not exceed the FCV of each
-------
11-10
metal (FCV 1 ), their additive effect might be toxic. Therefore, to address this additivity,
the interstitial water metal concentrations are converted to toxic units and these are
summed. Since the effects concentration to be used are the final chronic values from
the water quality criteria, we call these toxic units the Interstitial Water Criteria Toxic
Units (IWCTU). For freshwater sediments, the FCV’s are hardness dependent for all
of the metals being considered and they need to be adjusted to the hardness of the
interstitial water from the sediment being considered. For the ith metal with total
dissolved concentration IMI.dl the IWCTU for the metal is:
lWCTU 1 1 (11-11)
The sediment quality criteria requires that the sum of the Interstitial water criteria
toxic unit concentration is less than one:
r CMIAJ 1 (11-12)
[ FCV
Hence the multiple metals criteria is quite similar to the single metal case (Equation
11-4) except that the criteria is expressed as toxic units and summed.
AVS and Organic Carbon Criteria
The case for which the sediment organic carbon needs to be considered in
addition to AVS is more complicated. Consider, first, a single metal. The relationship
between interstitial water concentrations and sediment concentration for the 1 th metal
is given by the equation:
(11-13)
where Kdoc, is the metal specific partition coefficient between sediment organic
carbon and interstitial water, and rM ,dJ is the total dissolved interstitial water metal
concentration. For this case the interstitial water concentration is predicted using the
-------
11—11
SEM in excess of the AVS and the partition coefficient between the excess SEM and
the interstitial water:
( SEMJ IAVS]CM (11.14)
I,
In order to apply this equation to the case Of multiple metals, it is first
necessary to identify and quantify the metals which are flotentirely present as metal
suif ides. The best way to do this is to establish which metals are present as the metal
sulfides and in what quantity. The procedure is to assign the AVS to the metals in
the sequence of their solubility products from the lowest to the highest: SEMcu,
SEMPb, SEMCd, SEMzn. and SEMNI. That is. the AVS complexed metals would be Cu,
followed by Pb, followed by Cd, etc. until the AVS is exhausted. The remaining SEMs
are present in excess of the AVS.
To be specific, let iSEM 1 I be the excess SEM for each of the th metals. The
least soluble metal sulfide (of the five metals being considered in this document) is
copper sulfide (CuS). Thus if the copper SEM is less than the AVS ((SEMcu) <
(AVSfl, then all of the copper SEM must be present as copper sulfide (CuS) and no
additional SEM is present so that [ SEMcuJ = 0. The remaining AVS is (AVSJ =
IAVSJ - (SEMcu3.
This computation is repeated next for lead because lead sulfide (PbS) is the next
least soluble sulfide. Suppose, unlike copper, the lead SEM is not less than the
remaining AVS (ISEMz 3 > A [ AVS]). Hence only a portion of the lead SEM is present
as PbS and the remaining SEM. which is denoted as ESEMp J, is the difference
between the remaining AVS, 6 [ AVS] and the lead SEM: (SEMpbJ = [ SEMPbJ
(AVSJ. Thus a portion of the lead is present as lead sulfide, and a portion is excess
SEM.
-------
11-12
Since the AVS has been exhausted by the lead SEM, the remaining metals are
all present as excess SEM so that: ISEMJcd = ISEMCdI; ó1SEMznI (SEM 2 J; and
ISEMNjJ [ SEM J.
For each of these metals, the Interstitial water concentrations can be
determined from the appropriate partition coefficients:
(11-15)
This equation is analogous to Equation (11-13) for the single metal case. Note that
if A [ SEM 1 ) = 0 then so also is the interstitial water metal concentration. The
interstitial water criteria toxic units are computed using this equation for the interstitial
water concentrations. That Is:
L ( M 4 J ISEMJ (11-16)
LFCVwI f tFCV J
where Equation (11-14) is used to compute the interstitial water concentrations. Note
that the organic carbon based partition coefficients vary with respect to pH so that
the pH of the interstitial water must be either measured or estimated together with
the hardness if necessary.
The sediment quality criteria requires that the computed total interstitial water
criteria toxic unit concentration is less than one:
AfSEMJ (11-17)
)c t FcV J
This criteria is simply the interstitial water toxic unit criteria, Equation (11-12), with
the interstitial water concentrations calculated from the excess SEM for each metal
and the appropriate partition coefficients.
-------
11-13
AVS and Minimum Partition Coefficient Criteria
The no effect criteria that use the minimum partition cqefficients (KdMjflj) is
analogous to that using the organic carbon based coefficients:
[ SEMJ (11-18)
“ K FCV J
Since the minimum partition coefficients are being used, this would correspond to the
upper bound estimate of the Interstitial water criteria toxic units.
Criteria Summary
The proposed Sediment Quality Criteria is as follows. The sediment passes the
SOC if any one of these conditions is satisfied:
(1) AVS Criteria:
L ISEMJ4AVS] (1 1-19)
(2) Interstitial Water Criteria:
(11-20)
-------
11-14
(3) AVS and Organic Carbon Criteria:
L SEMJ (11-21)
(4) AVS and Minimum Partition Coefficient Criteria:
E AfSEMJ (11-22)
f any one of these criteria are violated, this does not mean that the sediment is toxic.
For example, if the AVS In a sediment is virtually zero, then Condition (1) will be
violated. However, If there Is sufficient organic carbon sorption so that either
Condition (3) or Condition (4) is satisfied then the sediment is non-toxic.
If all - not any but all- of these conditions are violated then there Is reason to
think that the sediment may be unacceptably contaminated by these metals. Further
testing and evaluations are therefore required In order to assess the actual level of
toxicity and its causal relationship to the five metals. These may include acute and
chronic tests on species that are sensitive to the metals suspected to be in excess of
the AVS and causing the toxicity. Also in situ community assessments and seasonal
characterizations of the SEM’s, AVS, and interstitial water concentrations would be
appropriate.
Sediment Quality Criteria Uncertainty
The methodology for obtaining sediment quality criteria relies on certain
simplifications and, for conditions 3-4, empiricarpartitioning models to insure that the
metal activity of the sediment - interstitial water system is below effects levels. As
-------
11-15
a consequence. there are uncertainties associated with their use. It is anticipated that
when final SQC are generated. confidence limits will be generate das well. This was
the case for the non-ionic organic chemical SQCs. It is anticipated that the derivation
of the uncertainty limits will be derived in 1 the same way, namely by quantifying the
predictive power of the methods.
For the condition (1) criteria relating total. SEM and AVS , and for the condition
(2) using measured interstitial water concentrations, sufficient data currently exists
to derive the confidence limits. Since these are both no effect criteria, the confidence
limits are set so that the predictive power of no effect has a high probability of being
the case. That is the criteria requirement would be:
LESEMsH V 1SEMIsoc,g 6 (11-23)
where (SEM)soc, 95 is computed so that 95 percent of the tested sediments are
correctly classified as non toxic. Based on the results in chapters 5-7, ISEMI 50 c, 95
— 0, the theoretical value based on one to one stoichiometric binding of the divalent
metals by AVS.
A similar analysis will be applied to the measured interstitial water toxic unit
condition. The condition: .
L dWC7TJ , - (11-24)
where IWCTUSOc.es is set so that 95 percent of the cases are correctly predicted.
Since we have no chronic data that would show effects at the criteria level, the acute
data base would be analyzed instead:
-------
11-16
£ (1 1-25)
twso,, 1
using the water only LC5O’s. The criteria IWCTUsQc.95 that predicted correctly with
95 percent confidence that less then 50 percent mortality was observed would be the
criteria that would be applied to the FCV criteria, Equation (11-24).
For condition 3, the criteria depends additionally on partition coefficients which
are also uncertain to some extent. We would derive the uncertainty bounds based on
the predictive ability of the criteria. That is, the acute data base would be analyzed,
not from the point of view of predicting no effect, but rather from the point of view
of predicting the LC5Os observed in the sediment tests. That is, the equations to be
analyzed are:
L A(SEPvf
-------
11-17
The experimental data is available to compute the confidence limits for the no
effect conditions (1) and (2). However, the experiments required to compare
predicted and observed LC5O’s are not available. The spiked experiments presented
in Chapters 5 to 7 were all dosed with too wide a spacing of concentrations (0.1 • 0.3,
1.0, 3.0, and 10.0 multiples of the AVS) to permit calculating a reliable LC5O.
Therefore, a selected number of sediments, with widely varying carbon
concentrations, would need to be tested with a much more narrow range of
concentrations. And the spacing would be computed using the predicted LC5O from
the AVS and the organic carbon concentration.
For condition (4), more sandy low carbon sediments need to be evaluated and
the metal partition coefficients measured, from which a probability distribution
analysis could be made. From the small amount of data already available, it is
interesting to note that even these low carbon sediments have Kd that are in the
same order of magnitude as found in the high carbon sediments.
Research Recommendations
There are a number of unfinished areas of research that need to be completed.
1. The organic carbon partition coefficients have been developed for three metals
in freshwater: Cu, Cd, and Pb. The remaining metals need to be completed.
A similar set of experiments are needed for saltwater.
2. Additional experiments need to be conducted, as outlined above, for the
uncertainty analysis of condition 3. These are analogous to the set of
experiments performed for the non-ionic organic chemicals.
3. Additional partition coefficients are needed for the low carbon sediments.
-------
11-18
4. An explicit procedure Is needed to handle the cases for which the no effect
criteria are exceeded. Both field and laboratory testing methods need to be
elaborated into a staged investigation.
There are the other metals for which criteria a needed. These include
chromium, arsenic, and selenium. Some initial work has been done for chromium and
arsenic. It appears that AVS can reduce Cr(VI) to Cr011), and it may be able to do the
same for the other redox sensitive metals. Further work is necessary to identify the
controlling phases for these metals.
Conclusions
A proposal for establishing sediment quality criteria for cadmium, copper, nickel,
lead, and zinc has been presented. It is based on the Equilibrium Partitioning Model.
The criteria are based on keeping the activity of the sediment - Interstitial water
equilibrium system below effects levels. The criteria presented In this report are all
lower bound criteria. That is, if the criteria are satisfied then no effects are expected.
If the criteria are exceeded then further study Is required. The difficulties are related
to the presence of multiple binding species in both the solid phase and in the
interstitial water.
The initial solid phase criteria is based on the strongest binding phase, namely
the AVS. if sufficient AVS is present then no effects are expected. If the
simultaneously extractable metal exceeds the AVS, then other binding phases become
important. The next most important phase Is organic carbon. A partitioning model
has been suggested that can be used to develop criteria. It Is analogous to the
organic carbon normalized model used for the non-ionic organic chemical SOCs. It is
uncertain at present whether any other solid phases need to be considered.
-------
11-19
The interstitial water criteria are based on total dissolved Interstitial water
metals concentrations. Therefore, they are analogous to the water quality criteria.
They do not take explicit account of metal speciation and so they are not regulating
the metal activity. Therefore, these are also lower bound criteria. An exceedence of.
the water quality criteria in the interstitial water may or may not signal a toxicity
problem. However, If the concentrations are below the WQC then no effects are
expected.
It must be stressed that the sediment quality criteria are aquatic life criteria that
apply only to benthic organisms. They do not address the water column
consequences of contaminated sediments. Water column concentrations are
determined by the transport of metals from the sediment to the overlying water. The
resulting concentrations would be compared to the water quality criteria for metals.
This Is a separate evaluation that needs to be made If water column effects are
suspected.
-------
Reference 16
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
September 29. 1995 SCENCEADVISORYBOARO
EPA.SAB-EPEC-95-020
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street. SW
Washington. DC 20460
RE: Science Advisory Board (SAB) Review of the Agenc s Approach for Developing
Sediment Criteria for Five Metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc)
Dear Ms Browner:
Contaminated sediments are of major concern to the Agency, because in some instances,
such as parts of the Great Lakes or New Bedford Harbor, fish accumulate chemicals from the
sediments and, in turn, they may be eaten by humans. A fundamental problem in evaluating the
toxic effects of chemicals in sediments is deriving a meaningfW estimate of the amount of the
chemical in sediment that is available to cause toxic effects (often referred to as the biologically
available portion) In the past. the Agency has applied the theory of Equilibrium Partitioning to
predict biological availability of organic cheinicals In this review, the SAB is evaluating the
Agency’s approach for assessing the toxic effects of metals in sediments. As you are aware, the
assessment of these toxic efi cts is a key consideration in the management of contaminated
sediments in regulations affecting wetlands, surface water discharges, drinking water supplies.
and solid wastes
The Sediment Quality Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (EPEC) of the Science Advisory Board met in Washington, D C on January 4-6,
1995 to review research and data developed to support the use of the Equilibrium Partitioning
(EqP) approach to predict availability of five metals in sediments. In this Agency approach, the
five metals are separated from sediments by the “simultaneously extracted metal” procedure
(SEM) The amount of the five metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) that is
presumably biologically available to organisms that live and feed in the sediments is the
difference between the SEM and the Acid Volatile Sulfide (AVS), a binding factor for metals in
sediment. The attached report discusses the findings and recommendations of the
Subcommittee
Q ? WdiISd i p WPl
as
-------
The Office of Water asked the SAB to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed
methodology for establishing sediment quality criteria for the five metals In particular. OW
asked the SAB to
a) Consider the adequacy of an existing method (bulk chemical analysis) and each of
four new methods proposed by the agency to establish a plausible cause and effect
relationship between metals concentrations and organism responses.
b) Determine whether data from lab, field, and colonization experiments
demonstrate a plausible cause and effect link between the simultaneously
extracted metal to acid volatile sulfide ratio (SEM/AVS) and/or interstitial water
metals concentration (the concentration of metals in water between the sediment
particles) and organism response
c) Judge whether the four approaches to derive sediment quality criteria for the five
metals are svfficiently sound to proceed with criteria development
d) Identi& any further documentation and research that is needed to develop
sediment criteria.
Based on its review and knowledge of the literature, the Subcommittee feels that the
SEM/AVS is the best technology developed to date for assessing the significance of the five
metals in sediments The proposed methodology will help to identif ’ sediments that are likely to
cause adverse effects and other sediments that are unlikely to cause such effects due to metals.
The SEM/AVS approach may significantly reduce the variability currently associated with
predictions based on the analysis of bulk sediment samples. Moreover, in its effort to produce
sediment quality criteria that are supported by a strong theoretical foundation, the Agency has
engaged in thoughtfully targeted research and has provided much useful information with
potential wide applicability outside the Agency.
I he proposed SEMIAVS methodology is based on sound theory and has been verified by
considerable experimental evidence The Agency has provided strong experimental evidence to
support a plausible cause and effect link between SEM/AVS and acute toxicity.
We wish to point out, however, significant limitations to its application currently exist:
a) Considerable uncertainty remains, however, regarding the levels of’ SE WA VS
that cause no adverse chronic effects.
b) Substantial effort is needed to improve the predictive model for bioaccumulation.
2
-------
c) In addition, before the techniques are ready to use as criteria, information is
needed to guide the collection of biologically representative samples and samples
that represent the spatial variability of AVS in a variety of environmental
situations.
Once standardized protocols for determining criteria are developed, the Subcommittee
recommends that the Agency produce a consolidated user’s manual for use by the EPA and State
regulators; industrial, municipal, and federal parties responsible for managing sediments; and by
concerned scientists and citizens. The guidance manual should provide estimates of the cost of
this analysis and describe the appropriate use of the criteria (various other screening levels) in a
variety of environments as well as in a variety of regulatory contexts. In this regard, we
recommend that the proposed SEM/AVS approach be used as part of a tiered assessment system
(Please refer to Figure 1 on page 6 in this report as an example). We also suggest the guidance
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of the methods, techniques for collecting
representative samples, quality assurance, and quality control procedures (including estimates of
interlaboratory variability)
A guidance manual is needed to assure the best use of these and other methods for
assessing sediment quality. Such a manual should describe the context in which peer reviewed
methods could be used (including any tiered approach). Guidance should also discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of the methods, quality assurance and quality control procedures for
sediment sampling and analyses. The manual should also receive technical review.
Again, the Subcommittee commends the achievements of the research team supported by
the Office of Water While there are still important research questions to be answered, the
studies which have been completed are of exceptionally high quality and the foundation is very
good. We look forward to reviewing fliture results from this research program, its
implementation guidance. and to receiving the Agency responses to our recommendations and
comments
Sincerely.
c2V
Dr Genevieve Matanoski, Chair
Executive Committee
Science Advisory Board
k.
Dr. Frederick Pfaender, Chair
Sediment Quality Criteria Subcommittee
Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee
,4. / L
D Mark Harwell. Chair
Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee
Dr. ny o ,Co r
Sed me Qu 1. y C ten Subcommittee
Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee
: 3
-------
Unded States Science Advisory Board EPA.SAB.EPEC.95.020
Envuonmer ital 1400 September 1995
Protection Agency Washington. DC
6EPA AN SAB REPORT: REVIEW
OF THE AGENCY’,S
APPROACH FOR
DEVELOPING SEDIMENT
CRITERIA FOR FIVE
METALS
PREPARED BY THE SEDIMENT
QUALITY CRITERIA
SUBCOMMITTEE OF.THE
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND
EFFECTS COMMITTEE
-------
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS COMMITTEE
SEDIMENT CRITERIA SUBCOMMITTEE
CHAIRS
DR. FREDERIC K. PFAENDER, Director, Institute of Environmental Studies, Dept. of
Environ. Sciences &Engineering, University North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
[ MEMBER]
DR. TERRY F. YOUNG, Environmental Defense Fui d, Oakland, CA [ MEMBER]
MEMBERS. CONSULTANTS. and FEDERAL EXPERTS
DR. WILLIAM J. ADAMS, ABC Laboratories, Columbia, MO [ MEMBER]
DR. PETER CHAPMAN, EVS Consultants, Vancouver, British Columbia. Canada
[ CONSULTANT]
DR. ROLF HARTUNG. Professor, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, M l [ CONSULTANT]
DR. CHRISTOPHER G. INGERSOLL, Midwest Research Center. National Biological
Survey, Columba. MO [ FEDERAL EXPERT]
DR. EDWARD R. LONG. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle.
WA (FEDERAL EXPERT]
DR. SAMUEL N. LUOMA. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA
[ FEDERAL EXPERT]
DR. HERBERT WINDOM, Acting Director, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Savannah.
GA [ CONSULTANT]
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
DR. EDWARD S. BENDER. Designated Federal Official, US EPA. Science Advisory Board,
401 M Street, SW (1 400F), Washington, DC 20460
MRS. CONNiE VALENTINE, Subcommittee Secretary, US EPA, Science Advisory Board,
401 M Street, SW (1400F), Washington, DC 20460
1
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of the Science Advisory Board, a
public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and ‘advice to the
Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is
structured to provide a balanced expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems
facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency; and hence,
the contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency or other agencies in Federal government. Mention of trade
names or comméráial products does not.constitute a recommendation for use.
I I
-------
ABSTRACT
This report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S Environmental
Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board regarding the Agency’s proposed use of the
simultaneously extracted metal to acid volatile sulfide ratio (SEM/AVS) to develop sediment
criteria for five metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) The review was held January
4-6, 1995 in Arlington. VA by the Sediment Quality Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee of the SAB.
The Subcommittee commends the Agency for its high-quality research and for
developing a valuable new tool for assessing sediment quality. Use of SEM/AVS to predict the
absence of acute toxicity due to the presence of the five metals in sediments is supported by
experimental evidence and scientific theory. The Subcommittee cautions, however, that
significant limitations to the application of SEMJAVS currently exist. For example, considerable
uncertainty remains regarding the levels of SEM/AVS that cause no adverse chronic effects
Similarly, a substantial effort is needed to improve the predictive model for bioaccumulation In
addition, before the techniques are ready to apply as criteria, information is needed to guide the
collection of biologically representative samples and samplesthat represent the spatial variability
of AVS in a variety of environmental situations.
The Subcommittee flirther recommends that SEM/AVS be used as part of a tiered system
of sediment quality assessments and that a guidance manual be developed to describe the context
in which this and other assessment tools should be used. The manual should discuss the strengths
and weaknesses of the methods as well as the quality assurance and quality control procedures
for sediment sampling and analyses The report also provides a list of research priorities,
including the investigation of other naturally-occurring binding factors.
KEY WORDS AVS, Sediment Quality Criteria, Metals, Uncertainty, Binding factors
Ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2 INTRODUCTION . 3
2.1 Statement of the Charge 3
2 2 Subcommittee Review Procedures 4
3 COMMENTS ON THE APPROACH 5
31 Proposed Uses of the SEM/AVS method 5
3.2 Sample Tiered Screening System 5
4. SEMIAVS THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 8
4 1 SEM/AVS Theory
4 2 Limitations. 8
5. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. LABORATORY AND FIELD VALIDATION
5. 1 Acute Studies
5.2 Chronic Tests ..
53 Bioaccumulation Tests
5.4 Field Verification
6. METHODOLOGICAL REFINEMENTS
6. 1 Metal Sulfide Oxidation Kinetics
6.2 Large- and Small-Scale Spatial Variability
6 3 Applicability . .
6 4 Standardized Methodology .. .
6 5 Additional Methodological Refinements
16
16
16
18
18
19
7 SEM/AVS SUMMARY
20
8. SEDIMENT INTERSTITIAL WATER CRITERIA THEORY. LABORATORY AND
FIELD VERIFICATION 22
9 OTHER BINDING PHASES
23
10 USE OF DRY WEIGHT METALS MEASUREMENTS N CRITERIA 24
II. RESEARCH NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
REFERENCES
25
R-I
APPENDIX A SPECIFIC COMMENTS..
A-I
10
10
‘I
11
13
iv
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sediment Quality Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) met in Washington. DC on January 4-6, 1995
to review research and data developed to support the use of the Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP)
approach to predict metal availability in sediments. In the Agency approach, metals are
separated from sediments by the “simultaneously extracted metal” procedure (SEM). The
amount of metal that is presumed biologically available is the difference, on a molar basis,
between the SEM and the Acid Volatile Sulfide (AVS), a binding factor for metal, in the
sediment This method is currently restricted to evaluating five metals, cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc.
The Office of Water asked the SAB to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed
methodology for establishing sediment quality criteria for the five metals. Specifically. OW
asked the SAB to evaluate the capabilities of each of four related methods to predict adverse
effects (acute, chronic and bioaccumulation) based on data from lab, field, and colonization
experiments; to judge whether any of the four approaches to derive sediment quality criteria for
the five metals were sufficiently sound to proceed with criteria development; and to identify any
documentation and research needed to develop sediment criteria
The Subcommittee commends the Agency for the outstanding work that has been
accomplished to date in its effort to produce sediment quality criteria that are supported by a
strong theoretical foundation, the Agency has engaged in thoughtfiilly targeted research and has
provided much useful information with wide applicability outside the Agency. The proposed
methodologies will be an important component of the ultimate system for identifying sediments
that are likely to cause adverse effects and other sediments that are unlikely to cause such effects
due to metals
The criteria are being developed for two uses. (a) assessing the safety of in-place
sediments contaminated with particular metals, and (b) predicting how much metal can be added
to a sediment without causing adverse environmental effects Several empirical approaches for
assessing toxicity of in-place metals are currently available. Although many of these approaches
appear to be usefUl, they all lack a strong theoretical basis, which impairs their potential
predictive ability One of the strong points of the SEMJAVS approach is that it is based on a
solid theoretical foundation, using equilibrium partitioning and metal activity to predict when
metals are effectively sequestered and not bioavailable. As a result, the SEMIAVS approach
promises ultimately to provide a more reliable and predictive tool than those currently available.
As currently conceived, the SEM/AVS approach would be used as a “no-effect” criterion
to identify sediments not expected to cause adverse effects due to the presence of the five metals.
In view of this limitation, the Subcommittees concurs with the Agency’s intent to use the
SEM/AVS method as part of a part of a tiered testing approach, and a general scheme is offered
in the report
1
-------
The basis for deriving sediment criteria is strongest for “no effects levels” for acute
toxicity in marine and fresh waters Accordingly, the Subcommittee supports the conclusion of
Agency scientists that the absence of acute toxicity could be predicted using SEMIAVS data
However, more research is needed •- of the quality presented by this research team -- to
establish a chronic toxicity threshold, to determine why bioaccumulation occurs below the
putative “no-effect level”, and to establish appropriate thresholds for bloaccumulation.
Moreover, before the SEMJAVS approach is ready for use as a criterion, additional research is
required to guide the collection of biologically representative samples and samples that represent
the spatial variability of AVS in a variety of environmental situations. Recommendations
regarding field verification, investigation of oxidation kinetics, development of a standardized
protocol. and additional testing of sensitive life stages of benthic organisms, fish, and plankton
are also provided in the report. Should the Agency wish to extend the SEM/AVS paradigm to
other binding phases, the Subcommittee recommends that clay minerals, metal oxides,
carbonates, and related phases be considered in addition to organic carbon.
The Subcommittee also recommends that a guidance manual be developed to assure the
best use of these and other methods for assessing sediment quality. Such a manual should
describe the context in which peer reviewed methods could be used (including any tiered
approach) Guidance should also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the methods, quality
assurance and quality control procedures for sediment sampling and analyses. The manual
should also receive technical review.
2
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
Since 1988. the Office of Water has served as the technical manager and focal point for
an in-depth research program to develop methods for evaluating the quality of sediments.
During this time, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) has reviewed the Apparent Effects
Threshold Method (SAB, 1988), the Equilibrium Partitioning method (SAB, 1990a), the
Sediment Methods Compendium (SAB, 1990b), and the application of the Equilibrium
Partitioning method to the derivation of criteria for non-ionic organic contaminants (SAB, 1992).
More recently, the Agency has attempted to extend the application of Equilibrium
Partitioning theory to estimating effects of biologically available metals in sediments. In this
review, the SAB evaluated two methodologies that have been investigated by the Agency: the
Simultaneous Extraction of Metals/Acid Volatile Sulfide method (SEMIAVS), and the closely-
related Interstitial Water method. The SEM/AVS method recognized that many metal sulfldes
are not biologically available and that the amount of naturally-occurring sulfide therefore
governs the amount of metal that is effectively sequestered. In theory, therefore, if the AVS
concentration exceeds the SEM concentration, no adverse effects should occur.
2.1 Statement of the Charge
The Office of Water asked the SAB to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed
methodology for establishing sediment quality criteria for the five metals (cadmium, copper,
lead, nickel, and zinc). After. discussion with the Sediment Criteria Subcommittee, the following
specific questions were developed to help focus the review:
a) Can metals concentrations on a dry weight basis be used to establish a plausible cause
and effect relationship between metals concentrations and organism responses’
b) Are the data presented from lab, field, and colonization experiments sufficient to
demonstrate a plausible cause and effect link between the “simultaneously extracted
metal” to acid volatile sulfide ratio (SEM/AVS) and/or interstitial water metals
concentration and organism response?
c) Does the Subcommittee believe that the basis for each of the following four approaches
to derive sediment quality criteria for the five metals (presented in Chapter 1 J, EPA
I 994a,b) is sufficiently sound to proceed with criteria development?
1) AVS Criteria (No Effect Criteria)
2) Interstitial Water Criteria (No Effect Criteria)
3) AVS and Organic Carbon Criteria (Effect Criteria)
3
-------
4) AVS and Minimum Partition Coefficient Criteria (No Effect Criteria)
d) For any that are not sufficient to proceed with criteria development, what type of’ research
or analysis needs to be conducted to fully support criteria development, or what other
direction needs to be pursued?
e) Are there any major shortcomings associated with the approach?
1) Are there chemical or physical characteristics other than organic carbon that
should be considered in order to derive sediment criteria that address both no
effect and effect organism responses
2) Are there biological or ecological factors that should be considered in order to
derive sediment criteria that address both no effect and effect organism
responses)
2.2 Subcommittee Review Procedures
The Sediment Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
of the Science Advisory Board met on January 4-6, 1995 to review research and data developed
by the Agency to support the use of the equilibrium partitioning approach to predict metal
bioavailability in sediments, as applied to cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The
Subcommittee was composed of members of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee.
Consultants, and Federal Experts all of whom had specialized knowledge and experience with
evaluating metals in sediments The Federal Experts served as scientists who offered comments
based on their professional knowledge and judgeinent Prior to the review, each Subcommittee
member received copies of the two volume briefing document (EPA, 1994a,b). During the
meeting, the Subcommittee received public comments, including comments from industry and
from Corps of Engineers scientists who represented the position of the Corps.
•The Subcommittee received biielings on the results of field and laboratory research
conducted in freshwater and marine environments Experiments included data on
bioaccumulation, colonization and studies of the correlation between AVS and sediment organic
carbon, the oxidation of metal sulfides and pore water sampling Finally, the Agency staff
discussed proposed sediment quality criteria for several metals
DLlring the meeting, the Subcommittee developed an outline of this report and discussed
its preliminary findings with the Agency in public session A draft document was compiled by
the Co-Chairs and reviewed by the Subcommittee plior to its release to the Agency and the
public This final report reflects reactions of the Subcommittee to oral and written comments
from the public and from a review of the draft document by the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee and the Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board.
4
-------
3. COMMENTS ON THE APPROACH
We compliment the EPA’s study team on the extent and quality of the work they have
conducted to develop the Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) and SEMIAVS approaches In an effort
to produce sediment quality standards that are supported by a strong theoretical foundation, the
Agency has engaged in original and thoughtfully targeted research, has produced numerous peer-
reviewed publications, and has provided much useful information with potential wide
applicability outside the Agency. We commend the team for laying the groundwork to
ensure that regulatory decisions are based on sound science.
As a result of this research, the Agency has identified a potentially usefl.il new
methodology which complements the relatively few tools currently available for sediment
assessment. The Subcommittee supports the Agency’s continued efforts to develop this
methodology However, we also want to point out its limitations and indicate where additional
research is needed to improve the technical basis of the approach.
3.1 Proposed Uses of the SEM/AVS method
The criteria are being developed for two uses (a) assessing the safety of in-place
sediments contaminated with particular metals, and (b) predicting how much metal can be added
to a sediment without causing adverse environmental effects. Three types of adverse effects are
considered acute effects, chronic efFects, and bloaccumulation. Several empirical approaches for
assessing toxicity of in .place metals are currently available Although many of these approaches
appear to be useful, they all lack a strong theoretical basis, and therefore have limited predictive
ability One of the strong points of the SEMIAVS approach is that it is based on a solid
theoretical foundation, using equilibrium partitioning and metal activity to predict when metals
are effectively sequestered and not bioavailable As a result, the SEM/AVS approach promises
ultimately to provide a more reliable predictive tool than those currently available, and one
which may allow more informed environmental management decisions.
In its present state of development, the SEM/AVS approach, would provide a “no effect’
criterion for acute and chronic toxicity (but not necessarily for bioaccumulation). In other
words, the method would be used to identi& sediments that are n expected to cause acute
toxicity due to the presence of the five metals if physical and chemical conditions in the
sediment do not change The method cannot at present predict when metals would be toxic or
bioavailable in sediment moreover, because other binding phases may also limit the
bioavai!ability of metals in sediment Research on additional binding phases might allow this
methodology to be used to predict when sediments are likely to cause adverse effects.
3.2 Sample Tiered Screening System
As the Agency notes in its briefing document (EPA, I 994a, page 1-5): “A likely
application of EqP sediment criteria would be in a tiered approach.” We strongly concur, both
because the currently proposed methodology provides a no-effect criterion (and only for five
5
-------
metals) and because other screening methods should be used in combination with EqP-denved
chemical criteria to provide an overall approach that is both streamlined and defensible.
In Figure 1 we suggest a possible tiered testing approach for toxicity. This is a
conceptual approach. and is intended only to provide the context for the comments that follow.
However, this approach is consistent with that provided in the manual entitled”Evaluation of
Dredged Materials for Proposed Ocean Disposal-Testing Manual” (commonly referred to as the
“Green Book”) (EPA and USACE, 1991) and the Inland Testing Manual for disposal of dredged
material in waters of the U S. (EPA and USACE, 1994).
Tier I
Tierl!
Tier III
Defined by Research
by Research
(Only applies to Cd,
Figure 1-A Possible Tiered Testing Approach for Toxicity
Tier I.takes advantage of readily-available screening tools to identify “safe” sediments.
Possible screening tools include existing effects-based empirical approaches (e.g., Long et. al,
1995), and to some extent, using data on the co-occurrence of organisms and contaminants
(whose predictability improves if data are normalized to account for naturally-occurring metals,
Cu, Ni, Pb,Zn}
6
-------
such as aluminum in bulk sedinien samples), and/or comparisons with reference areas and
comparisons with cores from pre-anthropogemc times.
Tier II includes chemical screens, such as those derived from EqP methodologies.
The biological effects testing for in-place sediments at Tier m may take different forms
depending on the site and circumstances, but must involve appropriately sensitive organisms.
Biological effects testing should not be restricted to laboratory toxicity testing with benthic
organisms, because other biological effects measures (e.g.. benthic community structure) or
bloaccumulation may also be appropriate in some instances, and because sediment metals may
have adverse effects on other aquatic organisms (e.g., fish). Note that the box: labelled
“PrioritizefOther Analyses” is purposefliUy not specified, nor are the arrows leading from that
box qualified. This box represents research that should be done, to determine when biological
effects testing or bioaccumulation testing are necessary, and the form of such testing.
7
-------
4. SEM/AVS THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
4.1 SEM/AVS Theory
One of the most attractive attributes of the SEM/AVS method is its strong theoretical
underpinning The theory not only explains experimentally-determined toxicity in a satisfying
way, but also may eventually provide the capability to predict adverse effects.
The equilibrium partitioning conceptual model is a basic element of the proposed
SEM/AVS (and SEM-AVS and interstitial water) protocol. The model assumes that metal (i.e.,
Cd, Cu, Ni. Pb. and Zn) activity controls metal bioavailability, that metal activity in all reactive
or biologically available phases is equilibrated, and that overall metal activity can be predicted
from pore water metal concentrations In its application to SEM/AVS protocols, the theory also
assumes that metal activity is controlled by the most unreactive phase, which is assumed to be
the metal sulfide (although the theory, in principle, allows for consideration of other phases).
It is often assumed that pore water is the only route of exposure considered by
equilibrium partitioning method In fact, the method assumes that the pore water and the
sediment are in equilibrium. theretbre it does not matter whether the chemical is taken up rapidly
via the gut and slowly via the water or vice versa In short, the theory implies that the toxicity of
metals to organisms is the same regardless of whether metal exposure is from pore water or
particles (u e , due to ingestion)
4.2 Limitations
An alternative possibility discussed by several critics of equilibrium partitioning is that
metal activity may differ in different exposure phases If so, the logic continues, then complete
exposure to metals can only be predicted from a sum of the contributions from the different
routes Ram and Gilleti (1993) point out that the importance of the diet in total uptake of
chlorinated organics varies significantly based on different additive models The authors
reviewed three possible models describing the uptake of chlorinated organics from sediments by
benthic-dweliing organisms a) sediment pore water via the body surface and in particular
oxygen exchange surfaces, b) sediment ingestion, and c) the sum of pore water and sediment
ingestion They concluded that uptake from overlying water and ingested sediment is the most
likely model and that “It is inadvisable to apply the equilibrium partitioning approach to
sediment quality criteria if the aim is to predict possible concentrations in benthic organisms”
These and other experiments have demonstrated that for some chemicals (i.e. those with high
Log P) or for some organisms (e g, clams and oligochaetes) the diet may actually contribute
more to body burden than uptake across respiratory membranes None of the referenced
experiments have shown that toxicity is increased as a result of considering the diet separate
from the water exposure route. Mackay and co-workers have recently modelled total body
burden, irrespective of the route of uptake, as a key parameter in predicting toxicity. In short,
studies that use only pore water as a basis for estimating free metal activity may underestimate
total exposures
8
-------
The issue of whether the equilibrium partitioning model or the additive model controls
bioavailability remains scientifically controversial. The literature indicates that the diet is an
important route of exposure but there is a good deal of controversy as to how this route of
exposure should be integrated into the overall equilibrium model. In addition, the passage of
sediment through the gut may in fact change equilibrium partitioning and metal binding to
sulfides by changing the pH, redox potential, and forming metal-organo ligands (Woodward et
at., 1993).
9
-------
5. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE: LABORATORY AND FIELD
VALIDATION
5.1 Acute Studies
Ten-day lethality tests were conducted with both field-collected and laboratory-spiked
sediments using a variety of freshwater and marine organisms. Table 6-3 of the briefing
document (EPA.. 1994a) summarizes the accuracy of prediction of the toxicity of sediments as a
function of SE 4/AVS and Interstitial Water Toxic Units (1WTUs). Predictions of sediment not
likely to be toxic because of metals based on SEMIAVS < 1 or IWTUs <0.5, were extremely
accurate (96 to 98%) However, predictions of sediments likely to be toxic based on SEMJAVS
> 1 or IWTUs >0.5 were less accurate (57 to 79%)
The Subcommittee supports the conclusion of Agency scientists that the absence of acute
toxicity could be predicted using SEM/AVS and IWTU data. However, the accuracy of these
predictions may have been overestimated by using a critical value of 24% mortality as the basis
for differentiating between “toxic’ and “nontoxic” categories. This critical value was published
by Mearns et al (1986) following an interlaboratory comparison of the performance of a
particular test with one species of amphipod It was not based upon power analyses of the data
from each of the species to which the value now has been applied by the Agency. The apparent
concordance between predicted and actual toxicity may change if critical values are used that are
specific to each of the tests The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency reevaluate these
predictions using a more conservative estimate of toxicity. For example. results from the EPA
(1994a.b) round-robin testing with Hj,alelia azteca and Chironomus tentans indicate about 15%
mortality may be a more appropriate value for these two species. Twenty percent mortality
would be appropriate for Amoelisca abdita ’
Notwithstanding this recon ,mended adjustment to the Agency’s data presentation. we
agree with the briefing document’s conclusion (EPA. 1994a, p 6-23) that “SEM/AVS ratios of
I 0 can accurately.predict field sediments not likely to be acutely toxic” to benthic
invertebrates as a result of Cd. Cu. Ni. Pb. and/or Zn contamination. However, the
Subcommittee would like to point out that the no-effects level for SEM/AVS<1 has not yet
been determined
Pcnoiia Convmin ,ciI ,on with Dr Gknui Thiir. by. EPA. Narag n cIt
10
-------
5.2 Chronic Tests 2
The utility o SEMiAVS and 1WTUs was also evaluated in a chronic laboratory test that
exposed the estuarine atnphipod Leptocheirus plumosus to cadmium-spiked sediments In this
test, toxic effects on survival, growth, and reproduction were not observed at Cd SEM/AVS <2
or Cd IWTUs < 1. These data also support the conclusion that sediment is not likely to be toxic
due to contamination by the five metals at SEM/AVS < 1 or IWTUs <0.5; however, insufficient
data were available to determine if sediments would be consistently toxic at higher SEM/AVS or
IWTUs. Indeed, no chronic responses were recorded because mortality occurred.
The Subcommittee believe that there is a need for additional chronic toxicity studies with
exposure periods of at least 28 days. Longer exposure periods are needed to insure that the test
organism tissues have come to steady state with sediment-metal concentrations. In the briefing
document, several studies demonstrated the occurrence of bioaccumulation in circumstances
where acute toxicity was not observed (see below). Hence, longer exposure to the same
sediment might result in sublethal or lethal effects
5.3 Bioaccumulation Tests
Chapter 8 of the briefing document (EPA, 1994a) describes results of bioaccumulation
studies for both field-collected and laboratory-spiked sediments with a variety of freshwater and
marine organisms. According to EqP theory, metals should not be bioavailable if pore-water
concentrations of metals are low or if SEM/AVS ratios are < 1. However, several of the
bioaccumulation studies raised the possibility that metals may be bioavailable even when
SEMJAVS
-------
Similarly, numerous samples at SEMIAVS> I or IWTUs > 0 5 were not toxic in
laboratory exposures,S yet bioaccumulatiOfl was consistently elevated at SEM/AVS> 1.6 The
lack of toxicity at the higher concentrations was explained by the binding of metals by sources
other than sulfide (i e , organic carbon) These data suggest, however, that the lack of observed
toxic eflects may still be accompanied by exposure to metals through either pore water or whole
sediment A key factor that is missing is the ability to relate body residue levels with observed
efrects The question arises when elevated tissue levels are observed at SEM/AVS either greater
or less than I 0, whether or not the body burden is approaching the point where effects might be
seen
These results are significant for two reasons First, bioaccumulatiOn is a sensitive
indicator of exposureS to bioavailable metal from all sources (pore water, ingestion, surface
binding) The observation of dose-response relationships below the purported SEMJAVS I
“switch” indicates that determining how and why bioaccumulatiOfl occurs at these concentrations
is critical to defining the mechanistic underpinnings of the SEMJAVS theory This mechanism
should be defined for both invertebrates and sensitive vertebrates for all routes of exposure.
Second, although bioaccumulatiOfl does not necessarily indicate an adverse effect on the
test organism, it does expose consumers of the organism to elevated doses of metals that may
become bioavailable For example, potentially bioavailable metals ingested by fish may include
metals in the gut and tissues of invertebrates (Woodward et al., l993 Farag et al , 1994)
Research should investigate the significance of such exposures to the consumer and its predators
Sublethal whole organism toxicity tests, longer term studies of population dynamics (for
example with amphipods). or expansion of the colonization studies are examples of sensitive
tests that might be employed to further understand the significance of the bioaccumulatiOfl
response indicated to date Such studies can be elaborate, expensive and/or time consuming.
Therefore, they would be best considered after the completion of a series of detailed
bioaccumulation studies to benefit from generalizations that may result from a less elaborate
bioaccumulation approach While the results of the acute and chronic toxicity studies tend to
substantiate the SEMIAVS inethod, the occurrence of bioaccurnulatiOfl at SEM/AVS
-------
a) Defining appropriate sediment horizons for sampling pore-water metals and
SEMJAVS to better define appropriate exposures of organisms to metals in
aerobic zones of sediment Laboratory tests of the bioaccumulation and toxicity
of the five metals necessarily caused some oxidation of sulfides. However, the
degree and effects of oxidation upon test results were not quantified, leading to
some degree of uncertainty.
b) Determining contributions of adsorbed or digested materials to the total body
burden of metals in test organisms. The role that kinetics play in the uptake of
metals across the gut walls of benthic invertebrates needs to be investigated.
Equilibrium theory indicates that when sediment metal concentrations are at
equilibrium with the interstitial water, the route of uptake is not of major
importance. However, if the thermodynamic potential is altered in the gut of the
organism such that uptake from sediment is favored over that from interstitial
water, there is a potential for the equilibrium approach to underestimate the
potential for bioaccumulation.
c) Further evaluation of the potential effects of dietary metals on aquatic organisms.
5.4 Field Verification
The field verification experiments performed thus far consist of colonization experiments
at two freshwater sites and a colonization experiment with marine sediments using natUral
unfiltered sea water in a laboratory environment. These experiments represent a good first effort
to determine whether the SEMIAVS method accounts for the bioavailability of elevated
concentrations of the five metals on a chronic basis in natural sediments. The evidence is
consistent with laboratory toxicity studies which indicate that sulfide-metal binding is an
important process and may be a dominant factor controlling the bioavailability of select metals in
freshwater and marine sediments.
The Subcommittee believes that additional field verification would provide greater
confidence in various aspects of the overall approach. The areas of concern include the
following:
a) The sensitivity and accuracy of the overall method needs flnther evaluation.
b) There has been insufficient field testing of sensitive early life stages of benthic
invertebrates and of fish with benthic life stages. Greater emphasis on chronic
testing is needed
c) The applicability of the method to different sediment types in both saltwater and
freshwater environments requires additional clarification.
d) The proposed SEMJAVS method may not adequately explain the lack of chronic
13
-------
toxicity in highly contaminated sediments The ability to explain and/or
understand the lack of toxicity to organisms for sediments with very high
concentrations of metals is key to establishing the credibility of the approach
Further field verification of the SEM/AVS approach should make it possible to address
many of the concerns raised above Two approaches are recommended although we recognize
that other options exist The first approach we recommend is a suite of additional experiments
For example. the studies of bioaccumulation and toxicity in spiked sediments transplanted into
inland ponds provided useful information under controlled conditions with the advantage of
environmental realism attained in a field setting It would be worthwhile for the Agency to
conduct similar studies in saltwater to verify bioaccurnulation and toxicity Additional
experiments might include site specific colonization experiments (chronic evaluation) at sites
where the SEMJAVS ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0 and at sites where the SEM/AVS ratio
may be less than 1.0, but the site is known to contain uhigh levels of metals.
Second. additional field data sets can be used to evaluate the sensitivity and accuracy of
the SEM/AVS method Because the proposed SEM/AVS approach and several empirical
approaches used to derive numerical guidelines differ considerably in methodology, it is
important to compare their relative predictability, reliability, and accuracy in field verification
studies In addition, a large number of state, provincial and federal agencies have prepared or
are preparing sediment quality guidelines for total concentrations of metal in bulk sediments
The differences in proposed no-effect levels obtained from the SEM/AVS and empirical
approaches could be quantified for similar field data sets with a view towards explaining the
differences, comparing the accuracy of the predictions, and establishing the conditions under
which each can be reliably used
Existing EMAP data sets also can be further evaluated The Agency’s recent efforts to
evaluate SEMIAVS ratios and species abundance data using the EMAP data set discussed at the
meeting provided insights that were not presented in the briefing document The Agency’s intent
was to demonstrate adverse impacts at the population level, which is admirable Comparisons of
measuies of benthic community stiucture with SEM/AVS concentrations would be powerful
confirmation of the impacts of excess SEM However, the data trends that one would expect on
the basis of SEMJAVS normalization of the data were not consistently observed. We
recommend further evaluation of the data, especially for those sites where the SEMJAVS ratio is
greater than or equal to 1 0 and where toxicity tests indicate the sediments are toxic A
sediment toxicity identification evaluation may be needed to confirm that the toxicity isdue to
metals At sites where the SEMIAVS ratio may be less than 1 0, but no toxicity is observed, the
The subcornuninee cautions however thai use ..t ji, c. , % ,s1ung data i.ct — even those iii ’ cxcciicnl quality suih ci EMAP — requires con idcrabIe
atlenhioli to detail As ihc Agcnc) rccopuz , ib pr..Iinainary attempt to corvelate population impacts w,Lh SEMIAVS using EMAP data collected from
,iiin ,erous dufferc,ih e’1 ,iancs for thu. purpo ’e was flawed The EMAP-E dala id Is composed of one to cvevai samples collected ci rnndoiniy chosen
station.’ within many dui)erenl cstiiaruS in the iwvtliea.a and Cituifregioin The data wat net collected along a single pollution gpduent ii , which cii
.hher variable’ were 5 clngaiIt Ajuiiougli the data .uggc4 1 ccirrcspottdence between the SEMIAVS rtihies and species nchneci. lhis apparent
relatioiishuip iiuay sseli tic a fuflilidil of c, var,anse ss utli hluiinelou , . natural factor ti ,cii is salsmty. depth. flow velocity, slope. wain size, and predatory
pre aurc that arc kjiown tu have major impa t. ’ iipiiii pcCieS riduiess
14
-------
site should be evaluated in light of’ species abundance measures, sensitive toxicity tests and
bioaccumulation measurements. Additionally, EMAP data from other locations, especially in
the Southeastern United States, and freshwater systems, should be evaluated in light of the
benefit of SEM/AVS normalization of the data.
I5
-------
6. METHODOLOGICAL REFINEMENTS
The above discussion addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the research to date, and
suggests additional work that may be undertaken to further validate the SEM/AVS method. In
this section, we suggest additional work that the Agency should consider in order to refine the
method and make it usable, and to address other issues related to criteria and standards designed
to protect against metal toxicity
6.1 Metal Sulfide Oxidation Kinetics
The long-term potential for sediment bound Cu, Cd, Ni, Pb, and Zn to exert toxicity to
benthic and epibenthic species depends on more than metal association with sulfide (AVS)
phases. Even if, for a given sediment at a given time, AVS represents the major binding phase,
attention must be paid to the fate of these metals upon oxidation of their sulfides. Seasonal
variations in oxidation conditions at the sediment-water interface is the rule, so that metal
sequestered during one season may be released during another. Likewise environmental
remediation of contaminated water bodies typically includes improvements in DO which implies
that associated contaminated sediments would be expected to become more oxic. potentially
releasing sulfide-bound metals In addition, benthic infaunal deposit feeders typically create
micro-oxidized environments as they migrate through sediments This again may liberate metals
from the sulfide phase
Sediment oxidation has not been significantly addressed by the program, nor has the
operational distinction between oxic and anoxic sediments been clearly defined. Some of the
presentations clearly demonstrated that metals are apparently released from sulfide phases during
long term experiments but the rates of release have not been investigated. Rates of oxidation of
the metal sulfide phase would be expected to vary. Some metals may be systematically released
(or become more available) relative to others during periodic (e g, seasonal) oxidation events.
Such information is necessary to evaluate the long-range biological significance of metal
contaminated sediments.’
6.2 Large- and Small-Scale Spatial Variability
Eventual field application of the SEMIAVS technique will require a systematic resolution
of questions about SEM and AVS profiles in natural sediments. A crucial question is how to
collect samples Studies to date show that, in general. AVS follows the depth profile expected
from the principles of diagenetics However, it is also expected that such profiles could vary
with sediment type, water chemistry, physical and biological processes. They also vary
seasonally and could vary on small spatial scales A defensible strategy for maximizing
geographic consistency in implementation of the SEMIAVS tool requires an understanding of
EPA ilinuld udeni.I’y s du,iuenI iiupiung pr . ’i cturc ihat IIlIIliunIZc ilic rcIca .c of AVS from iampics during ccII.ct.oø. pacLaging and aliipnieid.
16
-------
such variability. Field studies are necessary to systematically demonstrate differences in SEM
and AVS profiles, for example among sediments of different pore size, in different flow regimes,
and in environments with different sulfate concentrations. The effects of re-suspension on
profiles, as well as other processes that might change seasonally, could be studied by comparing
different field sites Comparisons of profiles between different types of rivers, in lakes, in
estuaries and in coastal (intertidal and subtidal) environments will eventually be necessary.
The scale of variability is a critical question in developing a standardized approach for
investigating biologically effective AVS. Currently recommended methods homogenize
sediments from a consistent depth (2 cm). Data show that the gradient of AVS is steep within
the 0-2 cm layer in the few sediments carefUlly studied. Thus criteria for determining the depth
of sampling must be carefUlly detailed, especially if a site-specific method is recommended. A
very difficult question that requires additional study is evaluation of the bioavailability of metals
from oxidized microzones created by organisms burrowing in sediment. Specific studies might
consider the difference between availability from the microzone and availability from a
homogenized sediment around the microzone.
In addition to vertical profiles, horizontal variation in SEM and AVS should also be
discussed. For example, Brumbaugh et al. (1994) reported that SEM/AVS ratios for individuals
cores within a 10 by 10 meter station varied by almost 100 fold.’ However, although variability
between cores was quite high, the authors also reported the average SEM or AVS in composite
samples was similar to the average SEM or AVS in individual cores. Similar investigations
should address the possibility of under- or over-estimating exposure in the field as a result of
compositing sediment samples.
See also Besser e ol in press
17
-------
6.3 Applicability
The above-mentioned concerns regarding oxidation conditions and other factors that
result in spatial and temporal variability are a subset of the broader issue of applicability where
and when will the SEM/AVS method be usefiul
Some additional effort will be required to evaluate the range of sediment types to which
the method is applicable Field validation of the method in different sediment types (including
more sandy sediments, recently disturbed sediments, and sediments recently deposited from a
dredge) in a broader range of locations would help to define the appropriate conditions for
applying (or not) the SEMJAVS method We note that most of the field verification data used
thus far were collected in the northeastern USA or in the Midwest; a range of sediment types
should be used in the various follow-up studies to better represent the southeast, the Gulf coast.
the Pacific coast, Hawaii, and Alaska In this way, the Agency can also begin to assess the
geographic extent of sediments that are contaminated with excess SEM and verify that these
sediments represent toxicological problems
Another issue relating to applicability of the method is its optimum use as one among a
suite of tools for assessing mixtures of contaminants within sediments of various types One of
the difficulties in evaluating the data presented, particularly the field studies, is that multiple
contaminants and sorptive phases may have been present It is clear that metals do sorb to
organic material (and other phases) in addition to AVS, although AVS binding is theoretically
strong and therefore should be the dominant mechanism The presence of other toxic
compounds, i e organic contaminants such as pesticides and aromatic hydrocarbons, in some of
the samples would create toxicity not predicted or accounted for by the SEMIAVS equilibrium
partitioning measurements Since it is often not known or not clear what contaminants are
present. the conditions under which this methodology can be appropriately used or not used need
to be carefully defined The Agency must remind those who would use this method that
SEMIAVS is intended to determine when metals present on sediments are not toxic.
6.4 Standardized Methodology
Standardized analytical methods and QA/QC techniques are needed for sampling and
measuring SEM and AVS In addition, if the Agency intends to propose that interstitial water
metals concentrations be measured simultaneously. in order to increase the reliability of the
SEM/AVS methodology, standard protocols must be developed for extraction and analysis of
pore waters Such methods should improve the exclusion of microparticulates and account for
the effects of precipitation and dissolution of metals that may occur with changes in pH or redox
Although the briefing document i ecornmends centrifugation under nitrogen or carefully-
controlled use of a peeper. the Agency recognizes that current pore water extraction methods are
controversial, that some or all may selectively exclude toxicants (including metals), and that
rigorous testing will be required to develop a reliable method. Adding to this challenge, the
preferred method must also be practical for widespread use (see, for example, the briefing
18
-------
document’s description (EPA. 1994a. p 9-47) of the potential difficulties of using a glove box to
extract pore water)
Once standardized protocols are developed, and issues with regard to spatial
variability, temporal variability, and applicability of the method to various sediment types
have been examined, the Subcommittee recommends that the Agency develop a
consolidated user’s manual.
6.5 Additional Methodological Refinements
The Subcommittee concurs with the Agency’s suggestion to investigate using SEM-AVS
calculations (differences) as opposed to SEM/AVS calculations (ratios), because of the
information that is lost in the latter conversion Re-assessing the results of past experiments
using differences appears useful.
We also note that organism behavior affects toxicity. This was clearly shown in the
briefing document and presentations. and has been shown by other authors (e.g.. Landrum et at
1994) as a factor which can result in EqP overestimating toxicity. The consequences of
organism behavior need to be included in uncertainty analyses.
19
-------
7. SEM/AVS: SUMMARY
The SEMJAVS method determines the amount of cadmium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc
in the sedinient that is potentially Qj bioavailable It is therefore a threshold test, contamination
lower than the threshold amount should not cause adverse effects and contamination higher than
the threshold amount may cause adverse effects (unless the metal is not bioavailable for some
other physical or chemical reason) In short, the logical use of SEMIAVS is as a “no-efi’ect”
criterion, as the Agency has proposed The Subcommittee is not yet entirely satisfied, however,
that the experimental evidence warrants the assumption that there are no effects below a ratio of
10
The most convincing experimental evidence presented in support of the SEMIAVS
method is the relationship between acute toxicity and SEM/AVS (or pore water metal activity).
It appears that the method can be used to predict the lack of acute toxicity in sediments at
SEM1AVS ratios
-------
that the SEM/AVS methodology is a promising tool in sediment quality assessment and that
targeted research should proceed to further develop the method. For example, the SEM/AVS
method provides a basis for concluding that when SEM is less than AVS. observed toxicity may
be due to materials other than metals It also seems clear that in situations where the AVS
concentrations are high, the metal concentrations low, and other contaminants are not present,
that SEM/AVS provides a strong indication of no probable acute toxic effect
21
-------
8. SEDIMENT INTERSTITIAL WATER CRITERIA: THEORY,
LABORATORY AND FIELD VERIFICATION
The use of sediment interstiiial water metal concentrations as a predictor of acute and
chronic metal toxicity provides a useful approach to predict when sediment metal concentrations
may be toxic to aquatic life This approach allows for a direct comparison with toxicity values
obtained from traditional water exposure toxicity tests and allows for the use of water quality
criteria Use of interstitial water toxicity estimates in combination with SEMJAVS estimates of
free metal concentration appears to provide a potentially useflul tool that will be more robust than
either approach alone for predicting when sediments will not be toxic to aquatic organisms.
There are four major drawbacks to the interstitial water approach for performing
sediment quality assessments or deriving criteria The first drawback is that the interstitial
metal-water concentration must be measured. Current approaches for measuring sediment
interstitial water concentrations have not been standardized and a variety of approaches are being
used This is an area that needs additional research, as mentioned earlier (Bufflap and Allen,
1995) The second drawback is that sophisticated non-routine techniques are required in order to
accurately measure low concentrations (a few ugh) of metals in interstitial water It is also
difficult to account for the effects of DOC. hardness, and salinity on the pore water matrix, as
pointed out in the briefing document The third drawback is that multiple chemicals are present
at any one tune in sediment interstitial water and an additive model is used to sum the toxicity
units This approximation is correct most, but not all of the time There are only limited chronic
toxicity data to support the additive model The fourth drawback is that there are some non-
equilibnum circumstances where interstitial water does not predict all routes of uptake
Additional field verification of the interstitial approach is needed Such measurements
could be built into a larger sediment research program aimed at evaluating the EMAP sediment
data or field colonization studies An important part of this field verification is collecting
matching data ft r SEM/AVS, inteistitial water-metals concentrations, and chronic toxicity
measurements with planktonic early life stages of benthic invertebrates and fish. An additional
important aspect of field verification is the need for bioaccumulation measurements when the
interstitial water toxic units are greater than or equal to I 0 and SEM/AVS is less than or equal to
10
22
-------
9. OTHER BINDING PHASES
To date, the Agency’s program has emphasized AVS as the major binding phase which
controls the bioavailability of metals (Cu, Ni, Cd, Pb, Zn) in sediments To extend the paradigm.
the Agency is tentatively considering investigation of binding by organic carbon as its next
research priority. While binding by organic carbon is undoubtedly significant — indeed, Fu et al.
(1992) make the case that “humic substances are the major absorbent for cadmium, and perhaps
other metals, in oxic sediments” -- other phases in sediments also play a significant role in
binding metals, especially under aerobic conditions.’° The presence of other metal binding
phases is mentioned in the Briefing DocumentU and referenced in relevant studies by the
principal investigators (e.g.. Ankley et al., 1993). In particular, metal oxides (e.g.. Fe, Mn, Al)
are important in binding metals (Jenne. 1968); cadmium and other metals are bound by Fe and
Mn oxyhydroxides in oxic sediments; interactions with hydrous metal oxides and carbonates are
also important in some geographic regions.
The suite of sediment assessment tools envisioned by the Agency will ultimately include
methods that address lack of bioavailability due to these other binding phases. The
Subcommittee recommends that the role of the array of additional binding phases such as
clay minerals, oxides and carbonates be investigated before settling on organic carbon as
the next research priority.’ 2 Initial, theoretical sensitivity analyses comparing the potential
control by other phases could be carried out assuming the necessary chemical thermodynamic
data are available
“In tl is regard. we n .’tc that the correlation bct cen SEM and ce juuc carbon might be equally si nflcant if clay nimcrnls (using Ai as a proxy) e iaid ed U
additional binding plaa.e.
“See lineB.pagc5.9 line 1.pagc ‘-l6.lines2O.22.page6•lO fat-examples.
“ Such ctud,e% could be conduoted in the conte’a of establidiing minimum partitioning coefl cient by using cnd ineniber sediment (i.e. sediments dominated by.
composed solely of. iwe solid phase) rather Ihait L i v IiHng i.and (quartz is not an important binding phase)
23
-------
10. USE OF DRY WEIGHT METALS MEASUREMENTS IN CRITERIA
The Subcommittee believes that in-place bed sedimentsshould be assessed with
multiple tools, including the SEM/AVS criterion for the.five metals where appropriate.
There is evidence that the envisioned SEMJAVS approach correctly identifies non-toxic samples
in many cases. However, since this approach is applicable thus far to only five metals, EPA
should recognize that other tools are useful in assessing and estimating the potential hazard of
already-contaminated sediments.
Background concentrations of total metals normalized to dry weight can be used with
SEM/AVS as a complementary screening tool Currently, normalized background valuesare
available for the same five metals addressed by the SEM/AVS criterion, plus a number of other
metals. Background concentrations have been determined from relatively clean areas, from pie-
anthropogenic sedimentary strata as metal/aluminum ratios, and as effects-based guidelines
calculated from empirical observations of toxicity. Often they are conservative and frequently
they correctly predict non-toxicity in sediments (For example, a similar percentage of samples
is correctly classified as toxic or not toxic in Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8 of the briefing document
if 10-100 ;irnol/g dry weight or if an SEMIAVS ratio of 1, respectively, are used to predict
toxicity) Since background concentrations often are lower than SEM concentrations in AVS,
they can be used as an initial screen in assessments of bed sediments. SEM/AVS analyses would
not be warranted if trace metals failed to equal or exceed background levels.
24
-------
I I. RESEARCH NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
In the previous sectiotis of this review, the Subcommittee has provided numerous
suggestions regarding additional research that would provide a stronger foundation for sediment
quality criteria based on the SEMIAVS method. These reconi.mendations are summarized in
priority order in Table 1 below. We strongly recommend that the Agency begin to pursue
research required to complete the rest ol a tiered sediment assessment system.
For example, the currently-proposed use of the SEM/AVS method is to predict sediments
that are not likely to be toxic Methods are also required that can be used to predict toxic
sediments The SEMJAVS method correctly predicted toxicity in acute tests in only 7 of 26
(27%) samples in which SEM>AVS in saltwater studies. Many samples expected to be toxic
when SEM>AVS were not toxic, possibly due to the binding of metals by other phases.
Moreover, SEMJAVS theory predicts that toxicity will occur only when excess SEM occurs and
metals are found in the pore water It would be usefid if EPA confirmed that when SEM>AVS
metals dissolved in the pore water actually were toxic Toxicity tests with sensitive taxa such as
daphnids and sea urchin gametes should be performed on fresh and saline pore waters,
respectively, to confirm their toxicity.
Similarly, tools that can be used in low AVS and oxic sediments are required. Finally,
many toxic metals (such as mercury, silver, chromium, and selenium) are not addressed by the
SEMJAVS method, yet they merit substantial environmental concern.
TABLE I SUMMARY OF RESEARCH NEEDS
(Listed in Decreasing Order of Priority and Urgency)
A. General Needs for Sediment Criteria
I. Procedures for obtaining a representative sample of contaminated sediment
2. Conceptual framework for integrating the SEM methods into a Tiered Approach.
B. Specific Needs for the SEM/AVS Methodology
I Improving the pore water preparation to account for method-induced changes in
biologically available metals
2. Establishing (confirming) a toxicity threshold in terms of SEM/AVS (or SEM-AVS).
3 Establishing a bioaccumulation threshold in leTms of SEM/AVS (or SEM-AVS)
and the route of exposure
25
-------
4 Evaluating spatial and temporal variability in AVS and SEM
S Evaluating if factors other than AVS and organic carbon control metals
bioavailability
6 Field verification of the criteria, especially with sensitive life stages of
benthic organisms, benthic fish, and algae.
7. Field data to evaluate the sensitivity and accuracy of SEM/AVS method.
8 Cumulative effects measures of contaminants on toxicity and bioaccumulation.
26
-------
REFERENCES
Ankley, G. T, V R Mattson, E N. Leonard, C W West and J. L. Bennett. 1993. Predicting the
acute toxicity of copper in freshwater sediments. evaluation of the role of acid volatile
sulfide Environ Toxicol. Chem 12. 3 15-320.
Besser, 3 M., iA. Kubitz, CO. Ingersoll, E Braselton, and J.P. Geisy. Influences on copper
bioaccuinulation, growth, and survival of the midge, Chironomus tentans , in metal-
contaminated sediments. 3 Aquatic Ecosystem Health: In press
Besser, J.M , C.G Ingersoll, and J.P. Geisy. Spatial and temporal variability of metal bioavailability
in sediments from the Clark Fork River, Montana: Evaluation of the influence of acid-
volatile sulfide Environ Toxicol. Chem In review.
Bufflap, S K. And H E Allen. 1995. Sediment pore water collection methods for trace analysis: A
Review Water Res. 29.165-177.
Brumbaugh, W 0, C.G Ingersoll, N.E Kemble, T W. May, and I L. Zajicek. 1994. Chemical
characterization of sediments and pore water from the upper Clark Fork River and Milltown
Reservoir, Montana. Environ Toxicol Chem. 13:1971-1983.
Carlson, A R. G I Phipps, and V R Mattson. 1991 The role of Acid-volatile sulfide in
determining cadmium bioavailability and toxicity in freshwater sediments. Environ.
Toxicol Chem. 10 1309-1319.
EPA 1994a. Volume I Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory Board Equilibrium
Partitioning Approach to Predicting Metal Availability in Sediments and the Derivation of
Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals December, 1994 Office of Water and Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC
EPA. 1994b. Volume 11 Supporting Documents to accompany the Briefing Report to the EPA
Science Advisory Board Equilibrium Partitioning Approach to Predicting Metal Availability
in Sediments and the Derivation of Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals. December, 1994.
Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA and USACE 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing
Manual EPA 503/8-91/001 Prepared by the Office of Science and Technology. Office of
Water, EPA. and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington,
DC
EPA and USACE 1994 Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the
U S - Testing Manual (Draft) (Inland Testing Manual) EPA 823-F-94-002 Prepared by the
Office of Science and Technology. Office of Water, EPA. and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, DC
R-l
-------
Farag. A M. C Boese. D F Woodward. and H L Bergman 1994 Physiological changes and
tissue metal accumulation in rainbow trout exposed to food borne and waterborne metals
Environ Toxicol Chem 13 2021-2029
Fu. G. H E Allen and Y Cao 1992 The importance of humic acids to proton and cadmium
binding in sediments Environ Toxicol Chem. 11:1363-1372
Hare. L , R Carignan, and M A Huerta-Diaz 1994 A field experimental study of metal toxicity
and accumulation of benthic invertebrates, implications for the acid volatile sulfide (AVS)
model Limnol Oceanogr 39 1653-1668
Jenne. E A 1968 Controls on Mn, Fe. Co. Ni, Cu, and Zn concentrations in soil and water: the
significant role of hydrous Mn and Fe oxides Adv Chem 73 33 7-387.
Ingersoll, C G . W.G Brimbaugh, F J Dwyer, and N E Kemble 1994 Bioaccumulation of metals
by Hyalella azteca exposed to contaminated sediments from the upper Clark Fork River,
Montana Environ Toxicol Chern 13 2013-2020
Kemble. N E. W G Brumbaugh, E L Brunson, F J Dwyer. C.G Ingersoll, D.P. Monda, and D.F.
Wood ward. 1994 Toxicity of inetal-contarninated sediments from the upper Clark Fork
river, MT to aquatic invertebrates and fish in Laboratory exposures Environ. Toxicol.
Chern 13 1985-1997
Landrum, P F, W S Dupuis and J Kukkonen 1994. Toxicokinetics and toxicity of sediment-
associated pyrene and phenanthrene in Dipore:a spp. examination of equilibrium-
partitioning theory and residue-based effects for assessing hazard. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
13 1769-1780
Long. E R . D D MacDonald. S L Smith. and F D Calder 1995 Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments
Environ Management 19(1) 81-97
Mearris, A i, P. C Swartz, J M Cummins, P A Dinnel, P Plesha, and P.M Chapman 1986.
Inter-laboratory comparison of a sediment toxicity test using the marine amphipod,
Rheopoxvnius abronius Marine Environ Res 19 13-37
Pescli, C’ E. D J Hansen. and W S Boothman 1995 The role of acid-volatile sulfide and
interstitial water metal concentrations in determining bioavailability of cadmium and nickel
from contaminated sediments to the marine polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodentata . Environ
Tox coI Chem 14.129-141
Ram. R H and J W Gilleit 1993 Comparison of alternative models for predicting the uptake of
chlorinated hydrocarbons by oligochaetes Exotoxicol. Environ Safety. 26: 166-180.
R-2
-------
SAB 1988 A Review of the Apparent Effects Threshold Method for Evaluating Sediment Quality.
Prepared by the Sediment Quality Subcommittee of the Environmental Effects, Fate and
Transport Committee Science Advisory Board Washington, DC. EPA-SAB-EEFTC-89-
027.
SAB. 1990a. A Review of the Equilibrium Partitioning Method Prepared by the Sediment Quality
Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. Science Advisory Board.
Washington, DC. EPA -SAB -EPEC-90-006.
SAB. 1990b. A Review of the Sediment Methods Compendium. Prepared by the Sediment Quality
Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. Science Advisory Board.
Washington, DC. EPA -SAB-EPEC-90-0 18.
SAB. 1992 Review of Sediment Criteria Development for Non-Ionic Organic Contaminants
Prepared by the Sediment Quality Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee Science Advisory Board Washington, DC EPA -SAB-EPEC-93-002.
Woodward, D.F., W.G. Brumbaugh, A J. DeLonay, E.E. Little, and C.E Smith. 1993. Effects on
rainbow trout fry of a metals-contaminated diet of benthic invertebrates from the Clark Fork
River. Montana. Trans. Am Fish Soc 123:51-63.
R-3
-------
APPENDIX A. SPECIFIC COMMENTS
The term “dialysis” should be replaced by “passive diffusion” when referring to pore water sampling
because dialysis is generally reserved for membranes with much smaller pore sizes. “Peepers”
should be described as diffusion samplers not dialysis samplers.
In the briefing document. Chapters 1, 10 and 11 should state at SEMIAVS ratios < 1 toxicity is
seldom observed, however, bioaccumulation may still occur. The qualifier at the en4 of Chapter 8
(page 8-21) regarding the limitations of AVS to predicted metal bioaccumulation from sediment
should also be included in Chapters 1, 10, and 11 (e.g., top of page 11-1 and bottom of page 11-2).
The document needs to more clearly differentiate between bioavailability as measured by toxicity
vs bioavailability as measured by bioaccumulation
Figure 4-I. What do the three lines represent?
Page 5-3. Why discuss Rheporyiuns hudsoni? Are not only data for Ampelisca presented in this
chapter? Is this in reference to the statement on page 5A1, 2nd paragraph? If R. hudsoni data are
presented in this chapter, then relabel the figure legends.
Page 5-4. 2nd paragraph The statement is made that AVS, SEM, and dry weight concentrations
varied but were typically within 20% Was there any consistent trend? Ankley et al. [ 5] report a
fairly sizable drop in AVS over 10 days (> 20%, Table 6.2) Note: Kemble et al (1994) reported
consistent SEM and AVS in 28-day tests with amphipods.
Figure 5-I (and others). Define “ND”.
Figure 5-8 Any ideas why there was high mortality at low Cd IWTUS?
Page 5-27. 2nd paragraph Ankley et al [ 22] is not listed in the references Did this study evaluate
Cd or Cu”
Page 6-I 5, 3rd paragraph. IWTUs are discussed for amphipods What about for oligochaetes?
Page 6A-2. 1st paragraph, last sentence Why were 30 volume additions/day used? Could this not
reduce AVS or overlying water
Table 7-6 The statement is made that chronic lethality or sublethal effects are possible at
SEM/AVS ratios < I This point should also be made in Chapters 1, 10, and 11.
Could some of the temporal variability discussed in Chapters 7 and 9 (e.g., page 7-2, last paragraph)
have resulted from horizontal variation in AVS?
Page 9-1 2 The description of sulfide oxidation rates should include additional detail. How were
A-I
-------
the sediments placed into the test chambers 7 Are these rates for very thin layers of sediment without
overlying wa er’ The rate of oxidation would probably depend on depth and overlying water
amount
Page 9-46 and page 9-47 Suggesting minimum partition coefficients based on sorption of metals
to sand is questionable Would not the presence of organisms alter this partitioning, themselves
being organic? Partitioning is not as absolute as AVS binding.
Page 9-51, top The ion-electrode procedure is only glossed over. A recommendation can be made
for widely ranging AVS concentrations with this detection method.
Page 10-3, top “Pore water and SEM/AVS should be considered a snapshot measure” — However,
the SEMIAVS would be a greater time interval, perhaps weeks unless a turnover or major
precipitation event occurs.
Page 10-6, last sentence Bioaccurnulation tests should be recommended in addition to toxicity tests.
Page 11-6, last sentence, page 3-I, 3rd paragraph, last sentence; page 5- 1, 1st paragraph: page 5-27,
last paragraph Dissolved organic carbon is suggested as an important binding phase for metals.
Yet, equation I 1-7 only accounts for TOC, hardness, and pH.
Page I 1-8 Should SEM Co. Hg. and Ag be included in the sum molar SEM concentration 9 Are
there data to support this approach 9 Further discussion of Hg, Ag, Co are needed, especially because
Hg and Ag are the least soluble sulfides Are these metals considered less reliable or is it assumed
that they will be much lower in concentration and therefore insignificant?
Page 11-10 Are the FCVs for metals protective of benthos?
Page I I - 19, I st paragraph WQC are established to protect 95 % of the species, WQC are not
intended to protect for “no effects” However, the statement on page 1-2. 2nd paragraph is
consistent with the used of criteria (to prevent “unacceptably affects” on benthic organisms).
A discussion of “reactive” versus “refractory” organic carbon as it relates to AVS formation begs
for further discussion How does one measure these two forms? Is metal sorption different? Are
there examples of each type of organic carbon?
Page 3-I I, 2nd paragraph. Comparisons are made in this chapter between pore-water and
water-only exposLires regarding toxicity Have these comparisons been made for bioaccumulation 9
Citation #1 5 at the end of Chapter 1 5 should be cited as: Ingersoll. C.G., W.G. Brumbaugh. F.J.
Dwyer, and N E Kemble Bioaccumulation of metals by 1-lyalella azteca exposed to contaminated
sediments from the upper Clark Fork River. Montana. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 13:2113-2020.
A-2
-------
Page 6-30. 3rd paragraph The statement is made that sampling problems occurred with the spiking
of Cd in freshwater sediments Please explain
Page 6-3 I, 2nd paragraph How accurately could IWTU alone predict toxicity? What if IWTU were
normalized to hardness, pH, and DOC?
Deletion of samples from the evaluation of metal toxicity because of the potential for effects of
organic contaminant should be more quantitative that the approach described in Chapter 6. For
example, on Page 6-9 of the briefing document, the statement is made that organic contaminants
contributed to the toxicity of Bear Creek sediments. However, insufficient data are presented to
support this conclusion Were these or other samples analyzed for organics?
TOC measurements are critical and require QA/QC to ensure their reliability. Also, note that not
all TOC is the same How is this factored into the calculations?
A-3
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
AA Office of Water
Director, Office of Science and Technology
Director, Office of Watersheds, Oceans, and Wetlands
AA Office of Research and Development
Director, Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research
Director, Office of Science Policy
Director, National Center for Environmental Risk Assessment
Great Lakes National Program Office
Regional Administrators
EPA Headquarters Library
EPA Regional Libraries
Library of Congress
National Technical Information Service
-------
Reference 17
-------
J 41
:.‘ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
tS IJ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
1101 tG’
FEB 21996
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Chair, Executive Committee
Science Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401. 14 Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
RE: EPA—SAB-EPEC-95-020: Science Advisory Board (SAB) Review of
the Agency’s Approach for Assessing Metals Contaminated
Sediments and Developing Sediment Criteria for Five Metals
(Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc)
Dear Dr. Matanoski:
I would like to thank the Science Advisory Board (SAB) for
their very thorough review of the Agency’s approach for assessing
metals contaminated sediments and development of sediment
criteria. The report we received demonstrated how carefully the
3ed. .i ent Quality Criteria Subcommittee reviewed the research and
data presented to them, as well as the scientific soundness of
the theoretical foundation of the equilibrium partitioning
approach as it applies to metals.
Metals contaminated sediments pose a threat to aquatic
system integrity and potentially to human health in many parts of
this country. Understanding the factors that control
bioavailability of metals to aquatic organisms is essential to
understanding the overall fate, transport, and effects of metals
in aquatic systems. Until we accomplish this, how best to
prevent sediment contamination and remediate already contaminated
sediments will continue to be an issue of contentious debate.
I am pleased that the SAB found such strong merit in both
the theoretical basis and scientific research that support the
equilibrium partitioning approach for sediment metals assessment
and criteria development. With this endorsement the Agency can
move forward in the development of proposed sediment criteria for
the five metals and the technical assistance necessary to support
their appropriate implementation.
1 xy RscyclsdlRscycl.bI.
con Ins it n , 50% IscyclId fibs?
-------
2
Enclosed are responses to the SAB’s specific recon endatiOflS
and co inentS. If the SAB has any questions regarding the
responses, please contact Mary Reiley, the Sediment Criteria
Program Coordinator in the Office of Water, at 202-260-9456.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner
Enclosure
cc: Office of Water
Office of Research and Development
-------
Enclosure
Responses to Table 1 — Research Needs
A. General Needs for Sediment Criteria
1. Procedures for obtaining a representative sample of
contaminated sediment.
The Agency agrees that these procedures need to be
standardized.
2. Conceptual framework for integrating the SEM methods
into a Tiered Approach.
The Agency acknowledges that the specifics of the
application of the SEM/AVS approach in a variety of
programs need to be documented and made available to
the user community.
B. Specific Needs for the SEM/AVS Methodology
1. Improving the pore water preparation to account for
method-induced changes in biologically available
metals.
The Agency agrees and has been supporting the research
Cf team members in the area of evaluating porewater
sampling techniques. Dr. Herb Allen, University of
Delaware, has published two papers (Buff lap, S.E. and
H.E. Allen, “Sediment Pore Water Collection Methods for
Trace Metal Analysis: A Review”, Water Research, 1995,
29:1, 165—3.77. and Bufflap, S.E. and H.E. Allen,
“Comparison of Pore Water Sampling Techniques for Trace
Metals”, Water Research, 1995, 29:9, 2051—2054.]
evaluating porewater extraction techniques and goes a
long way towards addressing these concerns. Additional
research and standardization is needed in this area.
2. Establishing (confirming) a toxicity threshold in terms
of SEM/AVS (or SEM-AVS).
We believe that EPA has sufficiently demonstrated that
SEM/AVS (or SEM-AVS) relationships and interstitial
water concentrations of metals can be used to predict
the toxicity thresholds for either acute or chronic
toxicity and that the SAB recommendation that
additional chronic toxicity studies with exposure
periods of at least 28 days is unnecessary. Results of
the following tests presented to the SAB (#2 and #4
were not presented) all support this conclusion: (1)
life cycle toxicity test with the saltwater amphipod
LeDtochejrus pluinuipsus exposed to cadmium spiked
sediments for 28 days; (2) life cycle toxicity test
-------
with the freshwater znidge ChironoTnUS tentans exposed to
zinc-spiked sediments for 56 days; (3) saltwater
colonization experiment in which benthic organisms
representing 54 species from 8 phyla colonized cadmium—
spiked sediment in a 118—day laboratory test; (4)
saltwater colonization experiment in which benthic
organisms represer’tiflg 103 species from 11 phyla
colonized sediments in the field that were spiked with
a mixture of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc in
a 127-day test; (5) freshwater field colonization
experiment in which 15 insect species and other taxa
colonized cadmium-Spiked sediments in the field in a 14
month test; and (6) freshwater colonization experiment
in which benthic organisms representing 27 taxa from 5
phyla colonized zinc-spiked sediment in the field in a
14—month test.
3. Establishing a bioaccUlT%UlàtiOfl threshold in terms of
SEM/AVS (or SEM—AVS) and the route of exposure.
The Agency agrees that there continues to be some
ambiguity around a threshold for bioaccumulatiOfl of
metals in benthic organisms even if toxic effects are
not seen in the bertthiC organisms themselves. This is
an area that would benefit from additional
investi at .OTt.
4. Eva].uatiflg spatial and temporal variability in AVS and
S E 4.
The Agency agrees that understanding these
characteristics of sediments will add significantly to
the theoretical foundation and practical application of
tne methodolcgy. Investigations into this area were
initiated last winter (1995).
5. Evaluating if factors other than AVS and organic carbon
control metals bioavailability.
The Agency acknowledges that there may be a variety of
sediment components that impact the bioavailability of
metals to benthiC organisms. Investigations began last
winter (1995) into several of these including organic
carbon and micro-habitat.
6. Field verification of the criteria, especially with
sensitive life stages of benthic organisms, benthic
fish, and algae.
Field validation has been and will continue to be an
integral part of the research effort.
7. Field data to evaluate the sensitivity and accuracy of
SEMfAVS method.
-------
Dr. Herb Allen at the University of Delaware and a
member of the research team has performed these
analysis and published them under:
Allen, H.E., G. Fu, W. Boothman, D.M. DiToro, and J.D.
Mahony, “Determination of Acid Volatile Sulfide and
Selected Simultaneously Extractable Metals in
Sediment”, Draft EPA Analytical Method, Office of
Science and Technology, 1991.
8. Cumulative effects measures of contaminants on toxicity
and bioaccuinulation.
We believe a significant and possibly adequate amount
of research has been conducted on the SEM/AVS approach
to judging whether or not sediments are acceptable (See
#2 above). We do agree with the SAB’s concerns
relative to the apparent incompatibility of AVS theory
with tissue accumulation of metals in benthic
organisms. Research is ongoing to better quantify and
evaluate the significance of tissue metal
concentrations when SEM>AVS. Chronic tests conducted
when SEM
-------
Responses to Appendix A. - Specific Comments
1. The term “dialysis” should be replaced by “passive
diffusion” when referring to pore water sampling because
dialysis is generally reserved for membranes with much
smaller pore sizes. “Peepers” should be described as
diffusion samplers not dialysis samples.
Comment noted and the Briefing Document will be revised.
2. In the briefing document, Chapters 1,10 and 11. should state
that at SEM/AVS ratios < i, toxicity is seldom observed;
however, bioaccuinulatiOfl may still occur. The qualifier at
the end of Chapter 8 (page 8—21) regarding the limitation of
AVS to predicted metal bioaccuntuiatiOfl from sediment should
also be included in Chapter 1, 10 and 11 (e.g., top of page
11-1 and bottom of page 11—2). The document needs to more
clearly differentiate between bioavailabilitY as measu ad y
toxicity vs bioavailabilitY as measured by bioaccumulatiOfl.
Comment noted and the Briefing Document will be revised.
3. Figure 4-1. What do the three lines represent?
The three lines connect thr?e replicate experitents. See
Volume II, Paper 1, Fig. 4 fcr a cre coinp.ete explanation.
4. Page 5-3. Why discuss P e oxVfliUS hudsoni ? Ars not o .y
data for Ampelisca presented in this chapter? Is this in
reference to the statement on page 5A1, 2nd paragraph? If
P. hudsoni data are presented in this chapter, then relabel
the figure legends.
RhepoxvfliUs hudsoni was used in the testing of one of the
sediments in the cadmium experiment. The table and figure
legends will be changed to reflect that fact, where
appropriate.
5. Page 5-4, 2nd paragraph. The statement is made that AVS,
SEM, and dry weight concentration varied but were typically
within 20%. Was there any consistent trend? Ankley et al.
(5] report a fairly sizable drop in AVS over 10 days (.20%;
Table 6.2). Note Kernble et al. (1994) reported consistent
SEM and AVS in 28-day tests with antphipods.
There was no consistent trend over the course of the 10 day
tests. Sometimes the AVS was higher at the end of these,
sometimes it was lower.
6. Figure 5-2. (and others), Define “ND”.
ND = non detectable. This will be indicated on the
appropriate figures.
-------
7. Figure 5-8. Any ideas why there was high mortality at low
Cd IWTUs?
In the Carison et al. (1991) study the interstitial water
concentration decreased by more than an order of magnitude
in scme treatnents during the course of the test. The
mortality observed during the experiment may have been a
result of the high concentration during the first few days
of the test. If o].igochaete mortality is plotted against
the IWTUs present at the beginning of the experiment (which
is what the authors did in the original article) instead of
using the mean, those points are plotted on the right side
of the line. The plot and/or discUssion of these data in
the briefing document will be changed to illustrate this
fact.
8. Page 5-27, 2nd paragraph. Ankely et al. (22] is not listed
in the references. Did this study evaluate Cd or Cu?
Ankley et al. (22] is listed in the references. This study
evaluated cadmium and nickel toxicity.
9. Page 6—15, 3rd paragraph. IWTUs are discussed for
amphipods. What about for oligochaetes?
The interstitial watar toxic units frcin toxicity tests using
Lumbriculus expcsed to sediment from Foundry Cove are shown
in Figure -4. Cr page 6-17, the text exp1ai s that nickel
: r3’ in
isti iaI “acer. £owever, cadn .um i more toxic in
water-only experiments, therefore, it probably was the cause
of the sediment toxicities observed. The paper from which
these data were taken (Ankley et al., 1991) explains the
relationships between pore water and mortalities in both
amphipods and oligochaetes. This paper is in Vol. II of the
briefing document. The paper says that pore water toxic
units for Luxabriculus were quite low. Only two exceeded 3.0
IWTUs which was consistent with the observed low sensitivity
of these worms.
10. Page 6A-2, 1st paragraph, last sentence. Why were 30 volume
additions/day used? Could this not reduce AVS or overlying
water concentrations?
The rapid turnover of overlying water was intentional
because we wanted to insure that overlying water metals
concentration would not equilibrate with pore water
concentrations. We wanted organisms to respond to metal in
sediment and associated pore water. AVS could and, based on
observations from the cadmium colonization experiment,
probably did oxidize in surf icia]. sediments. However,
differences between AVS and day 0 and 10 chemistry samples
was small suggesting little oxidation in this test.
-------
11. Table 7-6. The statement is made that chronic lethality or
sublethal effects are possible at SEM/AVS ratios < I.. This
point should also be made in Chapters 1, 10, and 11.
This comment is in error and needs correction by the SAB.
Sediments spiked with a nominal cadmium/AVS concentration of
0.8 were in fact toxic. The important point is that the
measured SEM for Cd/AVS concentration is surf icial sediments
averages 1.2 and measured interstitial metal concentration
were sufficient to explain organism responses. Based on
these data the sulfide binding theory is absolutely correct,
it’s exactly like the field in the AVS changed temporally
and vertically, This must be considered in metals SQC use.
12. Could some of the temporal variability discussed in Chapters
7 and 9 (e.g., page 7-2, last paragraph) have resulted from
horizontal variation in AVS?
In the saltwater cadmium experiment AVS concentrations
decreased in surf icial sediments and the decreases became
larger over time. Therefore, there is a link between
vertical changes and temporal changes in this experiment.
13. Page 9-12. The description of sulfide oxidation rates
should include additional detail. How were the sediment
placed into the test chambers? Are these rates for very
thin layers of sediment without overlying water? The rate
cf oxidaticn ou1d probably depend on depth and overlying
water amount.
The sulfide oxidation experiments analyzed in this section
are for well mixed suspensions. The oxidation of sulf ides
in sediment cores is addressed in the following section.
This is a very abbreviated version of a paper which will be
published soon. That paper contains the experimental
details.
14. Page 9-46 and page 9-47. suggesting minimum partitioning
coefficients based on sorption of metals to sand is
questionable. Would not the presence of organisms alter
this partitioning, themselves being organic. Partitioning
is not absolute as AVS binding.
The use of sand for the determination of minimum
partitioning presupposes that any organic carbon, whether
from organisms or not, would increase the partitioning. The
idea is to find sediments that would have very weak
partitioning and use these to set the lower bound for the
• partition coefficient.
15. Page 9—51, top. The ion-electrode procedure is only glossed
over. A recommendation can be made for widely ranging AVS
concentrations with this detection method.
-------
A statement relat’ing to the applicable range of utility of
the electrode method will be added.
16. Page 10-3, top. “Pore water and SEM/AVS should be considered
a snapshot measure” - - However, the S 1/AS would be a
greater time interval, perhaps weeks unless a turnover or
major precipitation event occurs.
EPA agrees that in many instances prediction of
bioavailability based upon SEN/AVS measurements could be
valid for a considerable amount of time (i.e., in the
absence of events such as turnover, flooding, etc), and not
just a snapshot of a current situation. Further, given the
comparative stability of some metal—sulfide complexes (e.g.,
zinc), systets may even prove to be more stable than
previously suspected. However, we do feel that it is
important to point out that AVS, as opposed to organic
carbon, for example, can oe somewhat labile. Thus, we think
or original wording represents an appropriate “warning”
here.
17. Page 10—6, last sentence. Bioaccumulation test should be
recommended in addition to toxicity tests.
EPA agrees with the recommendation that bcth toxicity and
bioaccumulation tests are desirable for a comprehensive
assessment of the potential impacts of sediment-associated
contaminants.
18. Page 11—6, last sentence; page 3—1, 3r4 paragraph, last
sentence; page 5-1, 1st paragraph; page 5—27, last
paragraph. Dissolved organic carbon is suggested as an
important binding phase for metals. Yet, equation 11-7 only
accounts for TOC, hardness, and pH.
It is true that dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is a
important binding phase for metals. However, it is assumed
that the presence of DOC does not affect the partitioning
between free metal and sediment particulate organic carbon
(PQC). The reason is that the sediment is a large reservoir
of excess metal .if SEM > AVS. The additional metal that
partitions to DOC does not affect the equilibrium between
sediment SEM and free metal activity (M2+} because the
sediment SEM concentration does not change appreciably. the
mass of metal in the sediment is so large relative to the
mass in pore water that no significant change in sediment
SEM occurs. Thus the presence of DOC, while increasing the
concentration of “dissolved” free + DOC complexed metal,
does not affect the concentration of free metal. A more
detailed analysis of this situation is contained in the
Technical Basis report for sediment quality criteria for
non-ionic organic chemicals.
-------
19. Page 11-8. Should SEll Co, Hg, and Ag be included in the sum
molar SEM concentration? Are there data to support this
approach? Further discussion of Hg, Ag, Co are needed,
especially because Hg and Ag are the least soluble sulfides.
Are these metals considered less reliable or is it assumed
that they will be much lower in concentration and therefore
insignificant?
Yes, all the metals that form insoluble suif ides should be
i clude in the SEN. However, we assume that the
concentrations of the other metals are small in comparison
to the five considered. In fact, what actually are
important are metals whose metal suif ides would dissolve in
the AVS extraction. We know that Ag does not and suspect
that Hg would be the same. If Co is present in large enough
quantities, it should be considered.
20. Page 11—10. Are the FCVs for metals protective of berithos?
Metals FCVs are protective of benthic organisms and water
column organisms. DiToro et al. (1991) provides insight
into the relative sensitivities of benthic and water column
species. They conclude that water column and benthic
(infauna + epibenthic) species have similar sensitivities.
Therefore, WQC are appropriate for protecting benthic
organisms and can be used as Interstitial Water Criteria
Units. A further analysis that we conducted compared WAC
FAVs and FAVs calculated using only G .AVs for benthic
species, Again, no systernatic differences were evident in
the sensitivities of benthic organisms.
21. Page 11—19, 1st paragraph. WQC are established to protect
95% of the species; WQC are not intended to protect for “no
effects”. However, the statement on page 1—2, 2nd paragraph
is consistent with the use of criteria (to prevent
“unacceptable affects” on benthic organisms.
The common belief is that WQC are intended to protect 95% of
the species. This originates from the procedure used to
derive FAVs where the 95th percentile GMAV, based on the
distribution of available GMAV5, is calculated for a
substance. The intent is to consistently derive FAVs and to
protect most of the species most of the time, not to protect
95% of the species in nature. The stated goal of WQC is to
prevent unacceptable effects on aquatic organisms. The
sentence on page 11-19 of the briefing document needs to be
revised to reflect this goal.
22. A discussion of “reactive” versus “refractory” organic
carbon as it relates to AVS formation begs for further
discussion. How does one measure these two forms? Is metal
sorption different? Are there examples of each type of
organic carbon?
-------
A more detailed discussion of the sources of AVS and its
relationship to organic carbon digenesis is part of the
question of seasonal distribution of YeS and metal suif ides.
This will be expanded in the published version of this work.
23. Page 3-11, 2nd paragraph. Comparisons are made in this
chapter between pore—water and water-only exposures
regarding toxicity. Have these comparisons been made for
bioaccumu].atiOfl?
Figure 8-8 represents a comparison of bioacctliflulatiOfl of
metals by a number of species with pore water metal
concentrations. Comparable data generated from water—only
bioaccUinUlatiofl tests with these same
species/metals/eXPOSUre conditions• (e.g., test length)
currently are not available. However, it should be noted
that WQC and proposed SQC are not intended to prevent
bioaccumulatiOfl, but to minimize toxicological impacts to
the target organisms. Ir the analysis presented in Chapter
8 of the briefing document, bioaccUuflhlatiOfl is used only as
an indicator of potential exposure, not as an effect
endpoint.
24. Citation #15 at the end of Chapter 15 should be cited as :
Ingersoll, C.G., W.G. Brumbaugh, F.J. Dwyer, and N.E.
Kemble. Bioaccumulatiofl of metals by Hvalella azteca
exposed to contaminated sediments from the upper Clark Fork
River, Montana. Environ. ToxicOl. Chem, . 13:2113—2020.
Comment noted and the correction will be made.
25. Page 6—30, 3rd paragraph. The statement is made that
sampling problems occurred with the spiking of C th
freshwater sediments. Please explain.
See the response for the comment on Figure 5—8.
26. Page 6-31, 2nd paragraph. How accurately could IWTtJ alone
predict toxicity? What if IWTU were normalized to hardness,
pH, and DOC?
The accuracy of predictions of the presence or absence of
sediment toxicity using interstitial water alone for
sediment where metals alone cause the toxicity is summarized
in Table 6-3. When an IWTU < 0.5 is used to predict the
absence of toxicity for saltwater field, freshwater field,
spike, or all sediment the accuracy is 100, 95, 93.5, 95.7
percent, respectively. Importantly, for sediments that are
toxic because of substances other than metals, IWTU’s for
metals would predict no toxicity. When IWTU’s exceeded 0.5
a total or 46.7, 57.9, 77.9 and 69.0 percent of these
sediments respectively, were toxic.
-------
Both IWTUs and SEM/AVS ratios when used individually have
similar powers to predict which sediments will or will not
be toxic. Importantly, when used together predictions of
sediments likely to be toxic are improved. Further, IWTUs
do not provide insight into the potential for further
binding that occurs when SEI1-AVS is known.
IWTUs used in this report were normalized for hardness using
the WQC regression or were derived from tests conducted at
pore water hardness values. Procedures are not available to
adjust for pH or DOC. The principal cause of the lack or
precision in IWTU-based predicticnS is likely the presence
of other metal binding phases in pore water and not these
water quality factors.
27. Deletion of samples from the evaluation of metal toxicity
because of potential for effects of organic contaminant
should be more quantitative than the approach described in
Chapter 6. For example, n Page 6—9 of the briefing
document, the statement is made that organic contaminants
contributed to the toxicity of Bear Creek sediments.
However, insufficient data are presented to support this
conclusion. Were these or other samples analyzed for
organics?
Studies using Bear Creek sediments were conducted prior to
development of saltwater TIE methods that might have.
confirmed, in addition to the documentation below, that the
observed toxicity was not metals—related. We believe that a
significant body cf quantitative data was used to justify
deletion of data from Bear Creek and Jinzhou Bay from the
analyses of field data relative to the AVS and IWTU—based
EqP predictions. The correlation of organism response to
interstitial water concentrations has been broadly
summarized by DiToro et al., (1991). Further, Berry et al.
(Chapter 5) showed that for metals spiked-sediments only one
(30% mortality at 0.4 IWTUs) of 105 sediments was toxic when
IWTUs were <0.5. (This excludes sediments spiked with
cadmium where detection limits were inappropriately high.)
The toxic sediments from these sites not only lacked
interstitial metal sufficient to explain the toxicity
observed, but sulfide was always i T t excess of metal
concentration. These observations are highly quantitative
and are supported by the science theories that are
fundamental basis of the EqP theory. Therefore, we believe
the exclusion of data from these two locations in an
analysis of metals partitioning and organisms response is
highly justified on a quantitative basis.
28. TOC measurements are critical and require QA/QC to ensure
their reliability. Also, note that not all TOC is the same.
How is this factored into the calculations?
-------
We agree that all TOC is not the same. However, it is
extremely useful as a normalization factor for metal
sorption constants since it reduces the variability found
among the various sediments tested. If it were (1) all the
same, and (2) the only sorption site, then there would be no
variability in carbon normalized partition coefficients.
------- |