United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-586)
Office of Science and
Technology
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-822-R-93-008
August 1993
Bioaccumulation
Factor Portions of
the Proposed Water
Quality Guidance for
the Great Lakes
System
-------
PREFACE
Bioaccumulation factors are being proposed to be used in the derivation of human
health and wildlife criteria specific for the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
(GLWQI). Adopting the use of bioaccumulation factors instead of bioconcentration
factors presents a significant change from current Agency guidance. Because there is
not an established procedure for determining bioaccumulation factors, national guidance
may be eventually modeled on the proposed GLWQI Guidance. This document was
produced to facilitate review of and comment on the proposed procedure for determining
bioaccumulation factors by persons who may not keep abreast of Federal Register
notices, including the larger scientific community.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will accept public comments on the
proposed GLWQI Guidance until September 13,1993 (see Appendix A for details). The
preamble to the proposed rule (Chapter 1 of this document) specifically invites comments
on the modifications of the procedure for determining bioaccumulation factors.
This document is composed of two chapters and one appendix. Chapter 1
describes the development of the proposed procedure for determining bioaccumulation
factors; Chapter 2 presents the proposed methodology for development of
bioaccumulation factors. Appendix A is introductory material form the Federal Register
notice and includes the address where comments should be sent. Chapter 1 is excerpted
from the Preamble to the GLWQI and Chapter 2 is Appendix B to the GLWQI proposed
rule.
There are two companion documents to this one entitled Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine
Bioaccumulation Factors and Comparison and Rank of Proposed Human Health
Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. The first document presents the
Technical Support Document for determining bioaccumulation factors. The second
document presents the actual values of the BAFs used in the human health and wildlife
criteria derivation. Chapter 1 of this document compares the BAFs derived for each
chemical using the proposed procedures and Chapter 2 ranks the chemicals in descending
order of their BAF values.
-------
AVAILABILITY NOTICE
Limited copies of this document, Bioaccwnulation Factor portions of the Proposed Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System, are available upon request from:
U.S. EPA
Water Resource Center (RC-4100)
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/260-7786
The contents of this document make up a portion of the document listed here: 40 CFR parts 122
et a!. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System and Correction; Proposed Rule. For
individuals interested in the entire Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, we suggest ordering the
document listed in this paragraph. This document is available for a fee upon written request or
telephone call to:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(800) 553-6847
(703) 487-4650
NTIS Document Numbers:
Diskette Set: PB-93-504-504
Paper Copy: PB-93-164-515
or
Education Resources Information Center/Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and
Environmental Education (ERIC/CSMEE)
1200 Chambers Road, Room 310
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 292-6717
ERIC Number:
Diskette Set: 526D
Paper Copy: 527D
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed by the Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of
Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and was published in the
Federal Register , Friday, April 16, 1993 as part of the “Water Quality Guidance for the Great
Lakes System and Correction; Proposed Rules.” Publication does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or of any
other organization or agency represented by the authors of, or contributors to, this document.
Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement of their use.
-------
Contents
We recognize there are inconsistencies in the outline format among the chapters in this
document. This is because we maintained the outlines used in the Federal Register to
facilitate comparisons between this document and the Federal Register notice.
CHAPTER 1
Section LV of Preamble to Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance: Bioaccumulation
Factors
A. Introduction
1
B. Bioaccumulation Factors
1
CHAPTER 2
Appendix B to Part 132— Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative
Methodology
for
Development of Bioaccumu lation Factors
I. Introduction
15
II. Definitions
15
III. Overview of Procedure
16
IV. Review and Selection of Data
16
V. Determination of BAFs For Inorganic Chemicals
18
VI. Determination of BAFs For Organic Chemicals
19
VII. Literature Cited
21
APPENDIX A
Introductory Material and Outline from Preamble to Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
Package
-------
CHAPTER 1
Section IV of Preamble to Great Lakes Water Quality
Guidance: Bioaccumulation Factors
A. Introduction
Aquatic organisms, exposed to certain types of chemicals, will accumulate those
chemicals in their bodies. Chemical uptake is due to exposure from th water the organisms
live in, the food they eat, and other sources of the chemical. This process is called
bioaccumulation. For certain chemicals, uptake through the food chain is the most important
route of exposure. As lower trophic level organisms are consumed by higher trophic level
organisms, the tissue concentrations of these chemicals may increase with each trophic level
so that residues in top carnivores may be many orders of magnitude greater than the
concentration of the chemical in the environment. While the exposure concentration in the
environment may be too low to affect the lowest level organisms, this biomagnification
process can result in severe health effects for the consumers of top trophic level aquatic
organisms.
For the purpose of the Great Lakes Guidance, bioaccumulation factors have been
developed to reflect the propensity of an organism to accumulate a chemical in its tissues,
when exposure to the chemical is from all sources including food and water.
Bioaccumulation factors serve several purposes in the Guidance.
First, in order to properly account for potential exposure to a chemical, both the
wildlife cnteria and the human health criteria have been developed to be a function of the
bioaccumulation factor. That is, for example, all else being equal, if two chemicals have
different bioaccumulation factors, the chemical with the higher bioaccumulation factor will
have the lower criterion. Thus, prior to deriving a human health or a wildlife criterion, a
bioaccumulation factor for the chemical must be established.
Secondly, within the Great Lakes System both wildlife and humans may be
susceptible to adverse health effects from chemicals which are highly bioaccumulative.
While not the only indicator of a chemical’s potential harm, the bioaccumulation factors are
believed to be an indication of which chemicals may be of greatest concern within the Great
Lakes System. Thus, the human health bioaccumulation factors have been used to identify a
list of chemicals which warrant increased attention, and more sthngent controls, within the
basin. In this Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLWQ1), these chemicals are called the
Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs). See Discussion of BCCs in section II.G
above.
B. Bloaccumulation Factors
The proposed Great Lakes Guidance methodology for developing bioaccumulation
factors (BAFs) is discussed below. The proposed Guidance on bioaccumulation is compared
to existing National guidance and practices, and differences are discussed. Throughout the
discussion, issues for which EPA specifically invites comment are highlighted.
-------
The procedure for developing the bioaccumulation factors is included in appendix B
of part 132 of the proposed Guidance. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical
Support Documents, which further discuss the basis for the proposed Guidance and which
provide the data and considerations upon which the BAFs are based, are identified below and
are available in the administrative record for this rulemaking. Copies are also available upon
written request to the person listed in section Xffl of this preamble.
Finally, EPA’s expectations for determining whether a State’s water quality standards
are consistent with the Guidance are set forth in § 132.6 of the proposed Guidance and
discussed in section II.! of this preamble.
1. Bioaccumulation and Bioconcentration Concepts
Bioaccumulation refers to the uptake and retention of a substance by an aquatic
organism from its surrounding medium and food. A bioaccumulation factor (BAF)
represents the ratio (in L/kg) of a substance’s concentration in tissue to its concentration in
the surrounding water in situations where both the organism and its food are exposed and the
ratio does not change substantially over time. Field measured BAFs are based on field data.
A steady-state bioconcentration factor (BCF) is the uptake and retention of a substance
by an aquatic organism from the surrounding water only, through gill membranes or other
external body surfaces. Laboratory measured BCFs are the result of laboratory experiments
using aquatic organisms. In this preamble, methodology, and Technical Support Document,
wherever the term BCF is used, steady state is implied.
2. Existing EPA Guidance
EPA, in developing criteria to protect humans and wildlife from the consumption of
contaminated aquatic organisms, has relied upon the BCF and occasionally BAF to relate
water concentrations to the amount of a contaminant that is ingested. The BAF is ideally the
best factor to use because it accounts for the uptake by aquatic organisms of a chemical from
all sources including diet, sediments, and the water itself. However, EPA has also
recognized the difficulties in deriving scientifically valid BAFs. BAFs are a scientific area
which is still evolving. This is exemplified by EPA’s past and current guidance. For
example, EPA’s 1985 “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses” (1985 National Guidelines), states:
although BCFs are not too difficult to determine, very few BAFs have been
measured acceptably, because it is necessary to make enough measurements of
the concentration of the material in the water to show that it was reasonably
constant over a long period of time, over the range of territory inhabited by
the organisms.
This document is available in the administrative record for this rulemaking. Copies
are also available upon written request to the person listed in section Xffl of this preamble.
2
-------
Because of the difficulty in deriving BAFs, most of the existing human health and
aquatic life National criteria are based upon BCFs. BAFs reported in the scientific literature
need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that they adhere to the criteria of acceptability
outlined in EPA’s 1985 National Guidelines methodology.
Bioconcentration factors are determined either by measuring bioconcentration in
laboratory tests (comparing fish tissue residues to chemical considerations in test waters), or
by predicting the BCF from a chemical’s octanol-water partition coefficient (K or P). The
log of the octanol-water partition coefficient (log K or log P) has been shown in the
scientific literature to be empirically related to the bioconcentration factors (e.g. Mackay,
1982; Connell, 1988; Veith et al., 1979).
In 1980, EPA issued its “Guidelines and Methodology Used in the Preparation of
Health Effects Assessment Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents” (45
FR 79341, November 28, 1980). These guidelines serve as the basis for nearly all of the
current National human health criteria. In these guidelines, the following equation (Equation
1) is used to predict BCFs for organic chemicals in the absence of laboratory measured BCFs
(Veith et al., 1979).
Equation 1:
log BCF = 0.85 log K. - 0.70
More recently, in 1991, EPA issued the final “Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control” (EPA 505/2-90-001) and a draft document entitled
“Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters” for notice
and comment (56 FR 13150), which are available in the administrative record for this
rulemaking. These documents, relying on additional research into the relationship between
BCF and log K , recommend that a slightly different equation (Equation 2) be used to
derive BCFs in the absence of laboratory measured BCFs (Veith and Kosian, 1983).
Equation 2:
log BCF = 0.79 log K - 0.40
This equation is used to estimate BCFs in EPA’s computerized Quantitative Structure
Activity Relationships (QSAR) database, and is also the equation proposed for use in the
proposed Guidance.
EPA’s 1991 National guidance documents, the Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control” and draft “Assessment and Control of
Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters”, recommend a methodology for
estimating the BAF where there is an absence of a field-measured BAF. This methodology
multiplies the BCF by a factor which accounts for the biomagnification of a pollutant through
trophic levels in a food chain. As larger predatory aquatic organisms, such as pike, consume
other fish and aquatic organisms, the amount of some contaminants in the consumed fish is
concentrated in the predator. The factor which accounts for this biomagnifleation through
the food chain is called the food chain multiplier (FCM) in these 1991 National guidance
3
-------
documents. EPA calculated the FCMs using a model of the step-wise increase in the
concentration of an organic chemical from phytoplankton (trophic level 1) through the top
predatory fish level of a food chain (Thomann, 1989).
The FCMs were determined by first running Thomann’s model to generate BCFs and
BAFs for trophic level 2, and BAFs for trophic levels 3 and 4. This was done for a range of
log K. values from 3.5 to 6.5, at intervals of a tenth of log K value. Second, the FCMs
for each log K value in this range were calculated using the following equations:
For trophic level 2 (zooplankton):
FCM = BAF2
BCF2
For trophic level 3 (small fish):
FCM = BAF3
BCF2
For trophic level 4 (top predator fish):
FCM = BAF4
BCF2
Where:
BCF2 is the BCF for trophic level 2 organisms, and BAF2, BAF3 and BAF4 are the
BAFs for trophic levels 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
The resulting FCMs for trophic levels 2, 3, and 4 are shown in Table B-i of
appendix B of part 132 for log K ,,. values ranging from four to 6.5.
Thomann (1989) compared predicted BAFs for trophic level 4 with measured BAFs
from the Great Lakes and concluded that, within an order of magnitude, the model-predicted
BAFs were a reasonable representation of the observed data for chemicals with log K
values in the range of 3.5 to 6.5.
At log K values of 6.5 and greater, the relationship between log K., and the FCM
is less certain, for reasons described in section IV.B.3.c of the preamble. Existing EPA
guidance recognizes that FCMs may range from 0.1 to 100 for such chemicals, and provides
that a FCM of 100 could be used as a conservative standard value in the absence of
chemical-specific BAF information.
EPA evaluated its own BAF prediction procedure using field studies, as reported in
appendix I of the draft “Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in
Surface Waters” guidance document. In these field studies, residues in receiving water
organisms were predicted using EPA’s BAF prediction procedure and were then compared to
the measured tissue residues. These studies demonstrated acceptable agreement between
measured and predicted tissue residues which, therefore, demonstrated that EPA’s BAF
4
-------
prediction procedure provides acceptable BAF values. The results of this EPA evaluation are
presented in detail in two EPA field studies (Burkhard et. al. 1991, 1992), which are
available in the administrative record for this rulemaking.
3. The Great Lakes Guidance for BAFs
The bioaccumulation concepts contained in the proposed Guidance, data supporting
these concepts, and additional details are also discussed in the GLWQI Bioaccumulation
Factors Technical Support Document, which is available in the administrative record for this
rulemaking. Proposed section 132.4(a)(3) requires the use of the BAF methodology in
appendix B of part 132 in the derivation of criteria for protecting humans and wildlife. EPA
believes that the BAF is the best predictor of the concentration of a chemical within fish
tissue in the Great Lakes because it includes consideration of the uptake of contaminants
from food, sediments, and the water itself; and is, therefore, the most appropriate factor for
the developing criteria. In the past, EPA has rarely used the BAF to develop criteria due to
the lack of reliable field data. However, EPA now believes that the BAF can be
approximated from BCF data and information concerning biomagnification through the food
chain.
a. Measured and Predicted BAFs. The proposed Guidance lists three methods to
derive BAFs for non-polar organics, listed below in order of preference: a BAF measured in
the field, preferably in fish collected from the Great Lakes which are at the top of the food
chain; a BAF predicted by multiplying a BCF measured in the laboratory, preferably (but not
required) on a fish species indigenous to the Great Lakes, by the food chain multiplier; and a
BAF predicted by multiplying a BCF calculated from the log K (using Equation 2) by the
food chain multiplier.
Measured BCFs for organics can be determined in several ways. These include
analytical measurements of tissue and water using gas chromatography (GC) or high pressure
liquid chromatography (HPLC). Another method for determining a laboratory-measured
BCF is to use radio labeled organic chemicals However, the radio labeled compound leaves
open a possibility of error in several areas. In radio labeling, the organism may metabolize a
metabolite of the parent compound thereby inflating the measured BCF. There is also a
possibility of contamination of the labeled compound.
For inorganic chemicals, either a measured BAF or BCF must be used. This is
because no method is available for reliably predicting BCFs or BAFs for inorganic
chemicals; BCFs and BAFs vary from one invertebrate to another, from one fish to another,
and from one tissue to another within a species. As reported in the “GLWQI
Bioaccumulation Factors Technical Support Document’ t , which is available in the
administrative record for this rulemaking, accumulation of inorganics varies significantly
between species and types of tissues.
EPA invites comment on: how to predict a BCF from log P; the acceptable methods
for measuring BCFs with radio labeled organic compounds which could inflate the measured
BCF, as opposed to BCFs more conventionally measured using gas chromatography or
5
-------
HPLC; whether a BCF is preferable to measured or predicted BAFs as proposed; the
derivation of BAFs for inorganic chemicals such as mercury and selenium; and the GLWQI
methods for developing a value for a BAF and the preferred order. In addition, in its
December 16, 1992 report, “Evaluation of the Guidance for the Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative,” EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) stated that:
Field BAFS must be interpreted very carefully, and it should be recognized that they
may contain substantial errors and variability due to the following reasons: (1) Analytical
methodologies generally determine total concentrations all of which may not be biologically
available; (2) There may be a loss of analyte by sorption or evaporation during sampling; (3)
Incomplete extractions may occur, especially if there is a high organic carbon content in the
water; (4) Temporal and spatial variability in water concentrations; (5) Variability in fish
concentrations due to size, age, sex, etc.
EPA agrees that these are valid considerations for selection of field-measured BAFs
and invites comment on whether appendix B of part 132 should provide more guidance on
the quality of acceptable data, and what additional factors should be reviewed for
acceptability of data.
b. Standard Lipid Values. Consistent with the existing National guidance, the
proposed Guidance relies on the fundamental assumption that an organism’s ability to
bioaccumulate organic chemicals is proportional to its lipid content. For example, an
organism with a two percent lipid content would accumulate twice the amount of a chemical
as an organism with a one percent lipid content, all else being equal.
In order to determine a BAF for organic chemicals, for use in deriving wildlife and
human health criteria, it is necessary to know the percent lipid content of the organisms
being consumed. The proposed Guidance proposes that standard lipid values higher than the
three percent recommended for human health in EPA’s 1991 “Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control” be used to represent the percent lipid content of the
fish and other aquatic organisms consumed by humans and wildlife in the Great Lakes basin.
Fish consumption patterns differ widely around the United States, and this is especially true
in the Great Lakes basin. Humans also typically eat fish fillets which generally have lower
lipid content than the whole fish generally consumed by wildlife. Therefore, standard lipid
values have been developed separately for humans (5.0 percent) and for wildlife (7.9
percent). The rationale behind the selection of these standard lipid values for humans and
wildlife is discussed below.
i. Standard Lipid Value for Human Health BAFs. The proposed Guidance proposes a
standard lipid value of 5.0 percent in edible tissue for use in determining human health BAFs
for organic chemicals. Percent lipid data for edible tissue (mostly skin-on fillets) were
gathered from the fish contaminant monitoring programs in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio,
Indiana, New York and Minnesota. These data are summarized in the BAF Technical
Support Document. Lipid values for skin-on fillets are likely to be higher than lipid values
for skinless fillets. Skin-on fillets typically include a layer of fatty tissue between the skin
and muscle. The skin-on fillet is the tissue sample used by most of the Great Lake States’
6
-------
fish consumption advisory programs, and, therefore, the bulk of available data are for skin-
on fillets. However, many anglers remove the skin and other fatty tissue when they prepare
their fish for cooking. Consumption advisories recommend this practice. Therefore, use of
skin-on data to determine the standard lipid values will provide an extra margin of safety to
the many anglers who remove the skin from the fillet.
In selecting the standard lipid value for human health BAFs, the Technical Work
Group considered lipid data for the following fish groups: lipid data for salmonids (trout and
salmon) only; lipid data for salmonids and non-salmonid game fish (perch, walleye, bass,
etc.); and lipid data for all fish (game and nongame species).
Mean lipid values and standard deviations for each of the options are: 6.73 ± 3.27
for salmonids; 5.02 ± 3.55 for all game fish; and 5.25 ± 3.68 for all fish. The Technical
Work Group proposed to use the value for all game fish of 5.02 because this option best
represented the range of species typically consumed by people in the Great Lakes basin.
The Technical Work Group also considered mean lipid values weighted by human
consumption patterns, and the typical weight of sport-caught game fish by species.
Consumption was addressed through creel survey data from the Great Lakes, and typical
species weights from the State contaminant programs. The resulting overall consumption
weighted mean for all game fish was 4.72 ± 2.42 percent lipid. Because these results were
not different statistically from the means of the unweighted data, the Initiative Work Group
proposed to use the unweighted mean value of 5.02 percent for the human health BAFs.
ii. Standard Lipid Value for Wildlife BAFs. The proposed Guidance proposes a
standard lipid value of 7.9 percent for wildlife BAFs, based on consumption of whole fish.
The standard lipid value for the wildlife BAFs was determined using whole fish lipid data
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program and
the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These data are summarized in appendix
B of the BAF Technical Support Document. The 7.9 percent lipid value is the mean of lipid
values for all fish, game and nongame, in all of the Great Lakes. Data for all fish were used
because wildlife typically are nondiscriminatory consumers of fish.
iii. Comments requested. EPA invites comments on the standard percent lipid values
proposed in the proposed Guidance. Specifically, comments should address whether the
trophic levels chosen to derive the human health and wildlife standard percent lipid values
are appropriate, or the consumption-weighted human health value of 4.7, should be used in
lieu of the 5.0 percent lipid value currently proposed. In addition, to the extent that the
currently proposed values of 5.0 and 7.9 percent lipid overestimate mean lipid values of fish
consumed by Great Lakes humans and wildlife, use of the values will provide a margin of
safety. EPA specifically solicits comment on whether such a margin of safety is necessary.
The data on which the mean percent lipid values are based were obtained by measuring
percent lipids using a variety of solvents. The value of percent lipid obtained will depend to
some extent on the solvent used. It has been shown that the analytical method used to
determine percent lipid can affect lipid values because different solvent systems extract
7
-------
different fractions of total lipids (Randall et a!. 1991). EPA invites comment on what solvent
should be used in the measurement of percent lipids.
c. Food Chain Multipliers. As discussed above, EPA proposes to use food chain
multipliers (FCM), based on a biomagnification model, to derive BAFs for organic chemicals
when field studies do not exist. Food chain multipliers derived from the model range from
less than one to 100. Under the proposed Guidance, FCMs greater than one would usually
apply to organic chemicals with log K values in the range of 4.0 to 6.5. The FCMs which
result from the Guidance proposed are listed in Table B-i of appendix B of part 132.
In the proposed Guidance, when BAFs for human health are derived from BCFs
through the application of a FCM, the appropriate FCM based on the chemical’s log K is
selected from the trophic level 4 column in Table B-i of appendix B of part 132. This
assumes that humans typically eat trophic level 4 (top carnivore) fish species. For wildlife
BAFs, FCMs from trophic levels 3 and 4 are used, and BAFs for invertebrates or aquatic
plants may be used on a case-by-case basis (see Methodologies for the Development of
Wildlife Criteria and Values in appendix D to part 132).
For chemicals with log K values greater than 6.5 (superlipophiic chemicals),
existing EPA guidance recommends FCMs in the range of 0. ito 100 due to the uncertainty
of predicting bioaccumulation for this group of chemicals (U.S. EPA 1991). For example, at
the low end of this range, FCMs of 0.1 may be appropriate for some chemicals such as
superlipophilic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These chemicals are metabolized rapidly
by many fish, and not only is uptake through the food chain negated as a result, but rapid
metabolism can result in bioaccumulation less than predicted using bioconcentration models
such as Equation 2 (Niimi and Dookran, 1989).
In contrast, at the high end of the range, use of a FCM (at 5.0 percent lipid) of 100
provides a reasonable estimate of a measured BAF for octachlorostyrene (log K = 7.94).
The mean of two measured BAFs (0.9 and 4.3 million) for this chemical is 1.9 million
(Oliver and Niimi, 1985; Oliver and Niimi, 1988). The predicted BAF based on measured
BCFs times a FCM of 100 is 6.6 million. The factor of 3.5 difference between measured
and predicted BAFs indicates a FCM of 100 for this chemical is reasonable. The BAF for
2,3,7,8-TCDD of 50,000 (5.0 percent lipid) is an example of a superlipophilic chemical (log
K = 7.36) with a FCM of about one.
From the above examples, it is clear that predicting the food chain biomagnification
of superlipophiic chemicals is difficult. For this reason, the proposed Guidance recommends
that chemical-specific data be used to determine the FCM for this group of chemicals.
However, if no chemical-specific data are available, the Steering Committee proposed a
FCM of one for superlipophilic chemicals as a standard value.
The EPA invites comment on: the basic premise that a BCF may overestimate or
underestimate a BAF; the appropriateness of FCMs based on the Thomann model; the
appropriateness of using a FCM of one when chemical-specific values for superlipophilic
8
-------
chemicals are not available; and possible alternatives to the Thomann model for predicting
BAFs from BCFs.
d. Effect of Metabolism on BAFs. Many organic chemicals that are taken up by
aquatic organisms are transformed to some extent by the organism’s metabolic processes, but
the rate of metabolism varies widely from one chemical to another. For most organic
chemicals, metabolism increases the depuration rate and reduces the BAF. However,
metabolism does not always result in a lower BAF. Because they are based on field
measurements, measured BAFs automatically take into account any metabolism that occurs.
Predicted BAFs that are obtained by multiplying a measured BCF by a FCM automatically
take into account the effect of metabolism on the BCF, but do not take into account the effect
of metabolism on the FCM. Predicted BAFs that are obtained by multiplying a predicted
BCF by a FCM make no allowance for metabolism.
Available information indicates that some organic chemicals, such as polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are metabolized by aquatic organisms, but that the extent of
that metabolism varies substantially from one PAH to another and from one species to
another. The available information, accordingly, is not amenable to a general prediction of
the effect of metabolism on the magnitude of the BCF, FCM, or BAF.
For these reasons, the BAF methodology being proposed for organic chemicals
includes a provision that:
Both human health and wildlife BAFs should be reviewed for consistency with
all available data concerning the bioaccumulation of the chemical. In
particular, information on metabolism, molecular size, or other
physicochemical properties which might enhance or inhibit bioaccumulation
should be considered. The BAFs may be modified if changes can be justified
by the data. (section V1.D.5 of appendix B of part 132)
EPA expects States and Tribes to follow this guidance on a site specific basis if
necessary in developing the BAFs used for developing human health and wildlife criteria and
values.
One approach that might be usefully applied to individual organic chemicals for which
a measured BAF is not available but for which a measured BCF is available is as follows. If
metabolism affects the BCF, the measured BCF will usually be lower than would be
predicted on the basis of log K . The relationship between log K and BCF for non-
metabolized chemicals can be used to back calculate an “effective log K ” from the
measured BCF. An “effective FCM” can then be based on the “effective log K .” A
predicted BAF that takes into account metabolism can then be obtained by multiplying the
measured BCF by the “effective FCM.” This approach would provide an allowance for
metabolism for organic chemicals for which a measured BCF is available but for which a
measured BAF is not available.
9
-------
EPA solicits comment on: suggested methods to adjust predicted BAFs for chemicals
that are metabolized; the types of chemicals or chemical groups for which the BAF might be
affected by metabolism, and the possible use of an “effective FCM”, as described above, to
account for metabolism when measured BAFs are not available, but measured BCFs are
available; and any other alternative methods not explicitly described above.
e. Bioavailabiliiy. The predicted human health and wildlife BAFs for organic
chemicals are based on the total concentration of the chemical in water. For highly lipophilic
chemicals, however, a substantial percentage of the total concentration can be associated with
particulate and dissolved organic matter in water and be unavailable for accumulation. Thus,
the bioavailability of the chemical in water might vary with the organic carbon content of the
water. Even in “clean” laboratory water, a substantial percentage of a chemical with a Log
P of seven can be associated with organic matter in the water. Application of BAFs to a site
might, therefore, be improved by adjusting for the difference in bioavailabiity between the
site water and the water on which the predicted BAFs were based. This might best be done
by deriving BAFs in terms of “freely dissolved” chemical, i.e., that which is dissolved and
not associated with other organic matter. The concentration of freely dissolved chemicals
will usually have to be predicted, but it might be measurable in some cases.
EPA invites comment on: the merit of the above approaches for refining the predicted
BAFs, in light of the fact that standard lipid values, FCMs and measured and predicted BAFs
do not take into account bioavailabiity and partitioning; and any additional recommendations
for dealing with bioavailability and partitioning of chemicals of concern.
f. Other Uses of BAFs. In the proposed Guidance, BAFs are used to identify
chemicals of greatest concern within the Great Lakes basin. Chemicals identified as
Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs) are those for which extra controls are
necessary as specified in the proposed implementation procedures and under the
antidegradation procedures in the proposed Guidance. See discussion of BCCs in section
II.G, above.
EPA invites comment on: other approaches which might be used to identify pollutants
of greatest concern to the Great Lakes (e.g., chemical release and production data plus
chemical toxicity and persistence); and the use of BAFs to identify these pollutants of
greatest concern.
4. SAB Comments
In its December 16, 1992 report, “Evaluation of the Guidance for the Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative,” EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the Initiative’s
draft BAF methodology prepared in December 1991. The SAB found that the BAF
procedure is more advanced and scientifically credible than existing BCF procedures, and
that the use of the BCF, FCM, and BAF approach appear to be fundamentally sound. The
SAB made a number of comments, suggestions, and recommendations, however, concerning
elements of the draft BAF methodology. One of the specific recommendations is discussed
above (section IV.B.3.a of this preamble). Other SAB comments concerned the following
10
-------
areas: use of the Thomann model or suggested alternatives, metabolism, superlipophilic
chemicals, the bioavailable form of a metal (mercury and selenium), and additional equations
relating BCF to log P. In preparing the BAF methodology and this section of the preamble
for the publication of the proposed Guidance, EPA has revised the methodology and clarified
the discussion of issues since the time of the SAB’s review to address many issues including
those raised in the SAB’s fmal report. In those revisions, EPA added additional information
and discussion of several issues. Many of the revisions were in response to informal
comments from the SAB, the draft SAB report, and the final SAB report. Nevertheless,
EPA invites comment on all of the issues raised by the SAB concerning the BAF
methodology, including comment on specific suggestions for improving the methodology.
5. Relationship of the Guidance to Current EPA Guidance.
Section 11 8(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act requires that the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative (GLWQI) Guidance be no less restrictive than the Clean Water Act and
National water quality criteria and guidance, and conform with the objectives and provisions
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (the “Agreement”). The GLWQI Guidance
proposes four essential differences from existing EPA guidance in the bioaccumulation area.
First, criteria are derived using field-measured or predicted BAFs rather than BCFs, as in
existing section 304(a) criteria guidance. This change will result in more stringent criteria
for most, if not all, chemicals in the Great Lakes and is consistent with EPA’s existing
guidance (“Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control” (EPA
505/2-90-001) and draft “Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in
Surface Waters” (56FR13150)). Second, the hierarchy of preferred methods to obtain a
BAF reverses the recommended order in the 1991 draft “Assessment and Control of
Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters”. EPA anticipates making a similar
change to its final “Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface
Waters.”
Third, the “Guidelines and Methodology Used in the Preparation of Health Effects
Assessment Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents” (45 FR 79341,
November 28, 1980), the 1991 “Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control”, and the draft “Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants
in Surface Waters” used three percent lipid for human health BAFs versus the 5.0 and 7.9
percent used for human health and wildlife BAFs in the GLWQI Guidance, respectively.
This change will result in more stringent criteria for organic chemicals in the Great Lakes,
and is justified in light of Great Lakes-specific data on fish lipid values.
The fourth issue relates to the lipid/BAF relationship for superlipophilic chemicals.
The ability to predict bioaccumulation is poor for organic chemicals whose log K is greater
than 6.5. Such chemicals are called superlipophilic because of their very strong affinity for
lipids. Certain factors, however, have been shown to inhibit the bioaccumulation of
superlipophiic chemicals. These include the chemicals’ very low solubility in water and the
inhibition of molecular transport due to the large size of the molecules. Because of this, use
11
-------
of a FCM to derive a BAF may result in an overestimation of the bioaccumulation of these
superlipophilic chemicals.
Current EPA guidance (“Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control”) states that the FCM for superlipophilic chemicals can vary between 0.1 and
100, and provides that a FCM of 100 may be used for the top predator trophic level in the
absence of chemical-specific information. The proposed Guidance recommends a FCM of 1
in the absence of chemical specific data. (In other words, the BAF equals the BCF unless
chemical specific data are available.) Current EPA guidance (“Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control”) recommends a range of values, and the proposed
Guidance, with additional data, recommends a specific default value of 1.
EPA is soliciting: bioaccumulation data on any superlipophilic chemical listed in
appendix A of part 132 of the GLWQI Technical Support Document; suggested techniques
for deriving a BAF for superlipophilic chemicals, in the absence of chemical-specific data;
and a recommended alternative FCM value (in lieu of the proposed value of one) for
superlipophilic chemicals to be used in the absence of chemical-specific data.
6. Adoption of Water Quality Standards Consistent with the Proposed Guidance.
The Great Lakes Guidance for deriving BAFs is included in appendix B of part 132.
Examples of BAFs derived using this methodology are also set forth in appendix B of part
132 of the proposed Guidance. The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Bioaccumulation
Factor Technical Support Document, which discusses the basis for the proposed methodology
and which sets forth the data and considerations upon which the individual BAFs are based,
is available in the administrative record for this rulemaking. Copies are also available upon
written request to the person listed in section XflI of this preamble.
Section 132.4 of the proposed Guidance requires that States and Tribes adopt
requirements into their water quality standards that are consistent with the BAF methodology
in appendix B of part 132. The State or Tribal regulations need not duplicate the
methodology in the proposed Guidance verbatim, but, when presented with a given data
base, the methodology adopted by the State or Tribe will be expected to demonstrate to
EPA’s satisfaction that the same BAF will be produced as would be produced using the final
methodology in the Great Lakes Guidance. To the extent that current State or Tribal
regulations or statutes already contain a BAF methodology which is at least as stringent as
the final Guidance, the State or Tribe need not reproduce that guidance separately for the
Great Lakes basin.
The States and Tribes may adopt a methodology which results in more stringent
(higher) BAPs than those which result from the final Great Lakes Guidance; however, this
more stringent methodology shall not be offset by less stringent, or compensating,
adjustments in the derivation of the wildlife or human health criteria, or in the
implementation procedures for those criteria.
12
-------
7. Literature Cited
Burkhard, L.P., B.R. Sheedy, N.A. Thomas. 1991. Field Evaluation of Residue Prediction
Procedures Used in EPA’s Guidance: “Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable
Contaminants in Surface Waters.” U.S. EPA National Effluent Toxicity Evaluation
Center, Rpt. #10-91.
Burkhard, L.P., B.A. Sheedy, N.A. Thomas. 1992. Field Evaluation of Residue Prediction
Procedures Used in EPA’s Guidance: “Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable
Contaminants in Surface Waters.” Louisiana Study. U.S. EPA National Effluent
Toxicity Assessment Center, Rpt. #1-92.
Connell, D.W. 1988. Bioaccumulation behavior of persistent organic chemicals with aquatic
organisms. Pages 117-159 In: Review of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, Volume 101.
Mackay, D. 1982. Correlation of bioconcentration factors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:274-
278
Niimi, A.J. and G.F. Dookhran. 1989. Dietary absorption efficiencies and elimination rates
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by rainbow trout (Salmo Gairdneri).
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8: 719-722.
Oliver, B.G. and A.J. Niimi 1985. Bioconcentration factors of some halogenatedorganics for
rainbow trout: limitations in their use for prediction of environmental residues.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 19: 842-849.
Oliver, B.G. and A.J. Niimi. 1988. Trophodynamic analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl
congeners and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in the lake Ontario ecosystem.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 22: 388-397.
Randall, R.C., H. Lee II, R.J. Ozretich, J.L. Lake and R.J. Pruell. 1991. Evaluation of
selected lipid methods for normalizing pollutant bioaccumulation. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 10: 1431-1436.
Thomann, R.V. 1989. Bioaccumulation Model of Organic Chemical Distribution in Aquatic
Food Chains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23: 699-707.
U.S. EPA, 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based toxics control.
EPA/505/2-90-001 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
Veith, G.D., D.L. DeFoe and B.V. Bergstedt. 1979. Measuring and estimating the
bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 36: 1040-
1048.
13
-------
Veith, G.D. and P. Kosian. 1983. Estimating Bioconcentration Potential from
Octanol/ Water Partition Coefficients. Chapter 15 in PCBs in the Great Lakes.
Mackay, D., R. Patterson, S. Eisenreich, and M. Simmons (eds.) Ann Arbor
Science.
14
-------
CHAPTER 2
Appendix B to Part 132--Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
Methodology for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors
I. introduction
The purpose of this methodology is to determine bioaccumulation factors to be used in
the calculation of Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (GLWQG) human health and wildlife
Tier I criteria and Tier TI values. The BAFs for human health criteria and values will also
be used to identify the Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs) to be considered
under the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) programs.
Bioaccumulation reflects uptake of a substance by aquatic organisms exposed to the
substance through all routes, as would occur in nature. Bioconcentration reflects uptake of a
substance by aquatic organisms exposed to the substance only from the surrounding water
medium. Both bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and bioconcentration factors (BCFs) are
proportionality constants, relating the concentration of a substance in aquatic organisms to its
concentration in the surrounding water. BAFs, rather than BCFs, will be used to calculate
Tier I criteria and Tier H values because BAFs represent the bibaccumulation that occurs in
natural aquatic systems. Measured BAFs will be used when possible; otherwise, predicted
BAFs will be calculated by multiplying a measured or predicted BCF by a food chain
multiplier (FCM).
II. Definitions
Bioaccumulation. The uptake and retention of a substance by an aquatic organism
from its surrounding medium and food.
Bioaccumulation factor (BAF). The ratio (in L/kg) of a substance’s concentration in
tissue to its concentration in the surrounding water in situations where both the organism and
its food are exposed and the ratio does not change substantially over time.
Bioconcentration. The uptake and retention of a substance by an aquatic organism
from the surrounding water only, through gill membranes or other external body surfaces.
Depuration. The loss of a substance from an aquatic organism.
Food Chain Multiplier (FCM). A factor by which a BCF is multiplied to obtain a
BAF; or, the ratio of the BAF to the BCF.
Octanol-water partition coefficient (K. ). The ratio of the concentration of a
substance in the octanol phase to its concentration in the aqueous phase in an equilibrated
two-phase octanol-water system.
15
-------
Steady-State Bioconcentration Factor (BCF). The ratio (L/kg) of a substance’s
concentration in tissue to its concentration in the surrounding water, in situations where the
organism is exposed through the water only, and the ratio does not change substantially over
time; that is, a steady-state BCF exists when uptake and depuration are equal. In this
methodology whenever the term BCF is used, steady state is implied.
Uptake. The sorption of a substance into or onto an aquatic organism.
ifi. Overview of Procedure
Bioaccumulation factors are derived in the three ways listed below from most
preferred to least preferred:
A. A measured BAF based on a field study, especially if the field study was
conducted on the Great Lakes with fish at or near the top of the aquatic food chain.
B. A predicted BAF that is the product of a measured BCF from a laboratory study
and a food chain multiplier (FCM).
C. A predicted BAF for organic chemicals which is the product of a BCF estimated
from a log K and a FCM, where log means logarithm to the base 10.
BAFs for a chemical should be calculated by as many of the three methods as
available data allow for comparative purposes. The BAF selected is based on the stated
preferences unless there is a valid reason for selecting an alternative BAF. For most
inorganic chemicals, arid many organic chemicals, the FCM will be 1.0; that is, /
bioaccumulation and bioconcentration are equal. The lipid content of the test fish “. iill be
used to normalize BAFs and BCFs for organic chemicals so that data from different tissues
and fish species can be integrated.
Fish are the dominant aquatic species consumed by humans in the Great Lakes basin.
Thus, BAFs for human health Tier I criteria and Tier H values will be based on fish.
Because Great Lakes basin wildlife include many piscivorous species, BAFs for wildlife
criteria and values will generally be based on fish data as well. On a case-specific basis,
wildlife BAFs may be weighted to reflect the proportion of plants, invertebrates, and fish in
the diet of the species to be protected.
IV. Review and Selection of Data
A. Data Sources. Measured BAFs and BCFs are assembled from available sources
including the following:
1. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria documents issued after January 1, 1980.
2. AQUIRE data base.
16
-------
3. Published scientific literature.
4. Reports issued by EPA or other reliable sources.
5. Unpublished data.
B. Data Review and Selection. Measured BCFs and, if applicable, measured BAFs
should meet the procedural and quality assurance requirements specified in the ASTM (1990)
“Standard Practice for Conducting Bioconcentration Tests with Fishes and Saltwater Bivalve
Molluscs”, and in the U.S. EPA guidance contained in Stephan et al. (1985) “Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses”. In particular, the following should be met:
1. The bioconcentration factor is steady-state, or steady-state BCF can be estimated.
2. The concentration of the substance did not have an adverse effect on the test
organisms.
3. The concentration of the substance in the water was measured and was relatively
constant during the steady-state time period. The concentration, should be averaged over the
period during which steady-state conditions were achieved. All average (mean) values are
geometric means unless specified otherwise.
4. For measured BCFs, the organisms were exposed to the substance using a
flow-through or renewal procedure.
5. For organic chemicals, the percent lipid was measured in, or can be reliably
determined for, the test organisms.
This methodology provides overall guidance for the derivation of BAFs, but it cannot
cover all the decisions that must be made in the review and selection of acceptable data.
Professional judgment is required throughout the process. A degree of uncertainty is
associated with the determination of any BAF or BCF. The amount of uncertainty involved
in deriving a BAF depends on both the quality of data available and the method used to
derive the BAF.
Field-measured BAFs should be based on fish species, preferably living in the Great
Lakes at or near the top of the aquatic food chain (trophic level 3 or 4). This is particularly
true for organic chemicals with log K values greater than four. The conditions of the field
study should not be so unique that the BAF is not applicable to other locations where the
criteria and values will apply.
Laboratory-measured BCFs also should be based on fish species, but BCFs for
molluscs and other invertebrates may be used with caution. For example, because
invertebrates metabolize some chemicals less efficiently than vertebrates, the BCF obtained
17
-------
with invertebrates for such chemicals will be higher than the BCF obtained with fish on a
lipid basis.
The percent lipid content of the test organisms and the analytical method used to
measure lipids should be reported as part of a BAF or BCF study on organic chemicals. An
average lipid value representative of tissue in the test organisms should be used. If percent
lipid is not reported for the test organisms in the original study, it may be obtained from the
author; or, in the case of a laboratory study, lipid data for the same laboratory population of
test organisms that were used in the original study may be used.
If measured BCFs for a substance vary with the test concentration of the substance in
a laboratory test, the BCF measured at the lowest test concentration that is above
concentrations that exist in the control water should be used; i.e., do not use the BCF from a
control treatment.
BAFs and BCFs should be used only if they are expressed on a wet weight basis.
BAFs and BCFs reported on a dry weight basis should be converted to wet weight only if a
conversion factor was determined for the test organisms or comparable organisms from the
same study.
Hereinafter in this methodology, the terms BAF and BCF refer to those BAFs and
BCFs that are consistent with the above provisions for data review and selection.
V. Determination of BAFs For Inorganic Chemicals
BAFs are assumed to be equal to BCFs for most inorganic substances. However, a
food chain multiplier may be applicable to some metals, for example, if an organometallic
form of the metal biomagnifies.
Concentrations of an inorganic substance in a BAF or BCF study should be greater
than normal background levels and greater than levels required for normal nutrition of the
test species if the substance is a micronutrient, while still below levels which adversely affect
the species. Bioaccumulation of inorganic substances may be inappropriately overestimated
if concentrations are at or below normal background levels due to, for example, nutritional
requirements of the test organisms.
A. BAF for Human Health Criteria and Values
1. BAFs and BCFs used to determine human health BAFs should be based on edible
tissue (e.g., muscle) of freshwater fish unless it can be demonstrated that whole body BAFs
or BCFs are similar to edible tissue BAFs or BCFs.
BCFs for non-fish species and non-edible tissues of fish are generally higher than for
muscle of fish. These other BCFs and BAFs should only be used to set upper limits on the
BCF or BAF for edible tissues. Plant BCFs and BAFs should not be used for human health
criteria and values.
18
-------
2. If one or more measured BAFs are available for an inorganic chemical, the
geometric mean of those BAFs will be used.
3. A predicted BAF used to derive human health criteria and values equals an
edible-portion BCF times a food chain multiplier. If more than one edible-portion BCF is
available, the geometric mean of those values will be used. The food chain multiplier will
be 1.0 unless chemical specific biomagnification data support using a multiplier other than
1.0.
B. BAF for Wildlife Criteria and Values
1. BAFs and BCFs used to determine wildlife criteria and values should be based on
whole-body fish data unless it can be demonstrated that BAFs or BCFs for edible tissue, are
similar to whole body BAFs or BCFs.
BCFs and BAFs for non-fish species and non-edible tissues of fish are generally
higher than for muscle of fish. The BCFs and BAFs for non-fish species and non-edible
tissues of fish should only be used to set lower limits on the desired BCF or BAF for whole
body.
2. If one or more measured BAFs are available, the geometric mean of those BAFs
will be used.
3. A predicted BAF used to derive wildlife criteria and values equals a whole-body
BCF times a food chain multiplier. If more than one whole-body BCF is available, the
geometric mean will be used. The food chain multiplier will be 1.0 unless chemical specific
biomagnification data support using a multiplier other than 1.0.
4. BAFs or BCFs, used to determine wildlife criteria and values, for whole-body
fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants may be considered on a case-by-case basis. If used,
they should be used in proportion to the percent-by-weight of invertebrate or plant material
consumed by the wildlife species to be protected.
VI. Determination of BAFs For Organic Chemicals
A. Lipid Normalization
For lipophilic organic chemicals, BAFs and BCFs are assumed to be directly
proportional to the percent lipid from one tissue to another and from one aquatic species to
another. Percent lipid data are used to convert reported BAFs and BCFs to BAFs and BCFs
appropriate for the fisheries of the Great Lakes basin. Percent lipid data are also used to
determine human health and wildlife BAFs from the same data.
The percent lipid of the test organism (whole body or edible tissue) should be
obtained from the BAF or BCF study. BAFs and BCFs are normalized to one percent lipid
by dividing the BAFs or BCFs by the mean percent lipid. Both whole body and edible tissue
19
-------
BAFs and BCFs are normalized using the respective whole body and edible tissue percent
lipid values. Unless comparability can be determined, the percent lipid should be determined
on the test organisms.
B. Food Chain Multiplier
In the absence of measured BAFs for organic chemicals, a food chain multiplier
(FCM) is used to predict the BAF. The appropriate FCM is selected from Table 1 based on
the chemical’s log K . A FCM greater than 1.0 is applicable to most lipophilic organic
chemicals with log K values of four or more. For human health BAFs, a FCM from Table
1 for trophic level 4 (top predator fish) is used. For wildlife BAFs, FCMs for trophic levels
3 (small fish) and 4 are used depending on the model bird or mammal being considered. For
superlipophilic chemicals, i.e., log K greater than 6.5, chemical-specific information should
be used to determine the appropriate FCM to use because the FCM may range from 0.1 and
100. In the absence of chemical-specific information, a FCM of one should be used.
C. Predicted BCFs Based on Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient
In the absence of acceptable measured BAFs and/or BCFs for lipophilic organic
chemicals, a BAF is calculated using the relationship between the BCF and the log of the
octanol-water partition coefficient. BCFs based on log K values will be multiplied by the
appropriate FCM to reflect bioaccumulation.
Professional judgment should be used to select an appropriate log K value on the
basis of the available measured and calculated values for the chemical of concern and
possibly its isomers and congeners.
A BCF is calculated from the chemical’s log K using equation 1 from Veith and
Kosian (1983).
log BCF = 0.79 log K , - 0.40. (1)
Where:
log K = the log of the octanol-water partition coefficient.
Equation 1 is likely to overestimate the true BCF as log K values increase above
6.5. For any chemical for which Equation 1 predicts a BCF of over 100,000, a BCF of
100,000 should be used.
D. BAF Calculation
I. A species mean normalized BAF or BCF is calculated if more than one measured
normalized BAF or BCF is available for a given species. For each chemical, the geometric
mean of one or more normalized species mean BAFs or BCFs is calculated.
2. The BAF for a chemical for which one or more field-measured BAFs are available
is calculated as follows:
20
-------
a. Human Health BAF = (mean normalized BAF)(5.0)
b. Wildlife BAF = (mean normalized BAF)(7.9)
Where:
5.0 and 7.9 are the standardized lipid values used to derive human health and
wildlife criteria and values, respectively, for the GLI.
3. The BAF for a chemical for which one or more laboratory-measured BCFs are
available is calculated as follows:
a. Human Health BAF = (mean normalized BCF)(5.0)(FCM)
b. Wildlife BAF = (mean normalized BCF)(7.9)(FCM)
Where:
5.0 and 7.9 are as described above, and FCM is the appropriate food chain multiplier
from Table B-i of this appendix.
4. A BAF for a chemical for which no measured BAF or BCF is available is
calculated as follows:
a. Human Health BAF = (predicted BCF)(5.0/7.6)(FCM)
b. Wildlife BAF = (predicted BCF)(7.9/7.6)(FCM)
Where:
predicted BCF is from Equation 1, not to exceed 100,000, 5.0 and 7.9 are as
described above, 7.6 is the average percent lipid of the organisms used to establish the
relationship between BCF and log K ,, and FCM is the appropriate food chain multiplier
from Table B-i of this appendix.
5. Both human health and wildlife BAFs should be reviewed for consistency with all
available data concerning the bioaccumulation of the chemical. In particular, information on
metabolism, molecular size, or other physicochemical properties which might enhance or
inhibit bioaccumulation should be considered. The BAFs may be modified if changes can be
justified by the data.
VII. Literature Cited
U.S. EPA guidance contained in Stephan et al. (1985) “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
Uses.” NTIS # PB85-227049. U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
21
-------
ASTM. 1990. Standard Practice for Conducting Bioconcentration Tests with Fishes and
Saltwater Bivalve Molluscs. Designation E 1022 - 84. Pages 606-622. In Annual
Book of ASTM Standards. Section 11, Water and Environmental Technology,
Volume 11.04. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1916 Race Street,
Phila., PA 19103.
Thomann, R.V. 1989. Bioaccumulation Model of Organic Chemical Distribution in Aquatic
Food Chains. Environ. Sd. Technol. 23: 699-707.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable
Contaminants in Surface Waters. Draft. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, [ Permits
Division, EN-336, 401 M Street SW, Washington D.C. 20480].
Veith, G.D. and P. Kosian. 1983. Estimating Bioconcentration Potential from
Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients. Chapter 15 in PCBs in the Great Lakes.
Mackay, D., R. Patterson, S. Eisenreich, and M. Simmons (eds.) Ann Arbor
Science, Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
22
-------
TABLES TO APPENDIX B OF PART 132
Table B-i
Aquatic Food Chain Multipliers
Trophic Levela
LogK 0 2 3 4
<3.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
4.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
4.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
4.2 1.1 1.1 1.1
4.3 1.1 1.1 1.1
4.4 1.2 1.1 1.1
4.5 1.2 1.2 1.2
4.6 1.2 1.3 1.3
4.7 1.3 1.4 1.4
4.8 1.4 1.5 1.6
4.9 1.5 1.8 2.0
5.0 1.6 2.1 2.6
5.1 1.7 2.5 3.2
5.2 1.9 3.0 4.3
5.3 2.2 3.7 5.8
5.4 2.4 4.6 8.0
5.5 2.8 5.9 11
5.6 3.3 7.5 16
5.7 3.9 9.8 23
5.8 4.6 13 33
5.9 5.6 17 47
6.0 6.8 21 67
6.1 8.2 25 75
6.2 10 29 84
6.3 13 34 92
6.4 15 39 98
6.5 19 45 100
>6.5 b b b
aTrophic level: 2 is zooplankton; 3 is small fish; 4 is
piscivorous fish including top predators
b For chemicals with log K values greater than 6.5 the
FCM can range from 0.1 to 100. Such chemicals should
be evaluated individually to determine the appropriate
FCM. In the absence of chemical-specific information,
a FCM of 1.0 should be used.222
23
-------
APPENDIX A:
INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
AND OUTLINE FROM PREANBLE
TO GREAT LAKES
WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE PACKAGE
in
58 Federal Register 20802—21047
Friday, April 16, 1993
40 CFR parts 122 et al.
-------
20802
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 72 / Friday. April 16. 1993 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122,123,131, end 132
(FRL 4205.41
R N 2040-ACO8
Proposed Water Quality Gutdance for
the Great Lakes System
AGENCY: U S. Environmental Protection.
Agency
ACTiON: Proposed rule
SUMMARY: This document provides
opportunity for comment on the
proposed Water Quality Guidance for
the Great Lakes System (“Guidance”)
developed under section 118(c)(2) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by
section 101 of the Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act of 1990 ((YA). This
Guidance, once finalized, will establish
minimum water quality standards,
antidegradation policies. and
implementation procedures for waters
within the Great L*ka System in the
States of New York. Pennsylvania. Ohio,
Indians. illinois, Minnesota, W1 nngfn ,
and Michigan, including the wate
within the urisdictjon of Indian fribes.
Todars proposal also Is Intended to
satisfy the requirements of section
118(c)(7)(C) of the Clean Water Act that
EPA publish Information concerning the
public health and environmental
consequences of contanilnants in Great
Lakes sediment and that the Information
include specific numerical limits to
protect health. aquatic life, and wildlife
from the bioeocumulatlon of ‘ a’dns .
The proposed Guidance specifies
numeric iterla for selected pollutants
to protect aquatic life. wildlife and
human health within the Great Lakes
System and methodologies to derive
numenc iteria for additional
poUutants discharged to these waters.
The proposed Guidance also contains
specific implementation procedures to
translate the proposed ambient water
quality criteria into enforceable contols
on diccharges of pollutants, anda
proposed antide adation policy for the
Great TAke , System.
The Great lakes States and Tribes
must adopt water quality standards,
antidegradatzon policies, and
implementation procedures for waters
within the Great Lakes System which
are consistent with the final Guidance.
U a Great Lakes State or Tribe fails to
adopt consistent provisions within two
years of EPA ’s publication of the final
Guidance. EPA will promulgate such
provisions within the same two-year
period.
DAres: EPA will accept public
comments on the proposed Guidance
until September 13. 1993. Comments
postmarked after this date may not be
considered
A public hearing on the proposea
Guidance will be held on August 4 and
5. 1993. in Chicago, Illinois, beginning
at 9 a m. on August 4. 1993. The hearing
officer reserves the right to limit oral
testimony to 10 minutes. if necessary
In addition. EPA and the States plan
to holds series of public informational
meetings a ’oss the Great Lakes Basin to
provide a general overview of the
various elements in the proposed
Guidance. Members of the public
should call the following numbers for
information on the dates and locations
of these meetings’ (1) In Illinois.
Indiana. Michigan, Minnesota. Ohio and
Wisconsin — o 1—8431; (2) in
Pennsy lvanla —215 —597..4 911; (3) in
New York—710-285-8842 .
The puoiic bearing on the proposed
Gu1dan , will be held In room 331,77
W. Jerksou Blvd., Chicago. flhlnois .
Materials in the public rlnrket will be
available for Inspection and copying at
the U.S. EPA Region V Records Center,
77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago , fllinols ,
by appointment only. Appointments
may be made by railing Wendy
Schumai ’har (telephone 312—888-0142).
A reasonable fee will be charged for
photocopies.
Selected documents supporting the
proposed Guldanre will also be
available for viewing by the public at
the following locations:
Ill inois: Lincoln Library. Lincoln Library
Reference Center, 326 South 7th Street.
Sprin eLd. illInois, 62701 (217—753—
4945).
Indiana: Indiana Depai ent of
Environmental Management. Office of
Water M n g .rn nt , 6th Floor. 105
Meridian Street. Indianapolis. inñi n ,
46208 (317—232—8671).
Michigan: Library of Michigan . Government
D wuments Service, 717 West Allegmn.
Laniing. MIchigan , 48909(517473—1300);
Detroit Public Library. Sociology and
Econrnn .ra Depir ent. 5201 Woodward
Avenue, Detroit. MichIgan 48902 (313-
833—1440).
Minnesota: Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. Library. 320 Lafayette. St. Paul.
Minnesota (612—2%—77 19)
New York. U.S. EPA Region II Libriry. room
402.28 Federal Plaza. New York. New
York. 10278(212—264—2881); U.S. EPA
Public Information Office. Carborundum
Center. Suite 530. 345 Third Street. Niagara
Falls. New York. 14303 (716—285—8842).
New York State Depar ent of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
room 310,50 Wolf Road. Alban New
York. 12333 (518—457—7463). N?SDEC
hegion 6. 7th Fioor. State Office Bunthng
317 Washington Street. Watertown. New
‘York. 13602 (315—785—2513). NYSDEC,
Region 7 615 Erie Boulevard West,
Syracuse. New York. 13204 (315—426—
7400). NYSDEC. Region 8.62 74 East
Avon.L,ima Road. New York. 14414 (716—
226—2466). NYSDEC. Region 9. 270
Michigan Avenue. Buffelo, New York.
14203 (716—851—7070)
Ohio Ohio Envuvumenial Protection Agency
Libraiy—Cenu al District Office. 1800
Watermark Road. Columbus, Ohio. 43215
(614—644—3024). U S EPA Eastern District
Office. 25809 Central Ridge Road.
WestJ . Ohio. 44145 (216—522—7260)
PennsyMin ia Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources. 1012 Water
Street. Meadville. Pennsylvania. 16335,
U S. EPA Region In Library. 8th Floor. 841
Qiasinut Building. Philadelphia.
PennsyLvania. 19107—4431 (215—597—
7904).
I* OfliLn: Water Resources Center.
University of Wisconsin.Madison. 2nd
Floor, 1975 Willow Drive. Madison,
WIs i (oo8—262o—3oeg.
Selected documents supporting the
peeposed Guidance are also available by
mall upon request for a fee (see section
aii of the preamble for additional
information).
CO TA T :
Kenneth A. Penner, Water Quality
Branch Chief (WQS.- lBfl, U.S. EPA
Region V.77W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago.
illinois. 60604 (Telephone: 312—353—
2079).
SUPPt.EMENTARY 94FCRMAT N:
Preamble Outline
I. 3ackground
A. Description of Resource
1. Genera] Statistics
2. PhysIcal Characteristics
3. History of Environmental Degradation
4. Environmental Problems in the Great
Lakes System
a. Nuthents
b. Toxic Substances
B. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
1. HIstory of the Great Lakes Water Qualuv
—t
a. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909
b. The 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
c. The 197$ Great Lakes Water Quality
—t
d. The 198? Amendments to the Great
Lakes Water,Qualitv Agreement
2. Major Provisions of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
3. Implementation of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
a. Tb. International Joint Commission
b. Provisions for Consolidation and Revie
AD0 SSES: An original and 4 copies of
all commente on the proposed Guirlanrs
should be addressed to Wendy
Schurnarhey, Water Quality Branch
(WQ$-i$fl, U.S. EPA. Region V, 77
West Jackson Blvd.. Chicago, illinois,
60604 ( te1e honet 312-888-0142) .
A-].
-------
Federal R.eVster / Vol. 58. No. 72 / Friday. Apnl 16. 1993 I Proposed Rules
20803
Starui of Ne!ouataons With Canada on
Revising toe Specific Ob ecuves
C Govruors Toxics A ee ent
D Great Ims Water Quality In1 ative
1 Foraacn of Great Lases Water Quality
Lfl iuZtve
2 Great La.ses Cr uca1 Proç i Act of 1990
3. Process After toe CPI%
E Ele n of the Gw ance
I W r Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Lf a
2 Water Quality Criteri.a for the Protection of
Human Health
3 W&i Qua.A ity Criteria for the Protection of
Wildiifa
4. Si .i u .ulItIOfl Facts
5. Anucernoation
6. l piemeutauon Procsdures
F. Scian Advisory Board Review
C Other Proçams to Protect and Raster, the
Great Lazes
1. Gies& Lakes Five leer S ats y
2. GreatL Prennz cnA on
Plan
3. Li ndi - . - Ua} I)
4.PAct nP Añ)
5. Cnnt c,mt.*m I $sd
6. A pkeric Depostti
7. Stcr Wa
. e O ( )
0. Diwh es of Oil and M doase PnIbi n 5
5ii l .w
10. Nosp nt So .-- of ____
I I. Gust Like. P k M, te1 .
12. L J l kL _ IL ..L 4
M n.nt tbs sof
13. Crag Lb.. Terdc R.d”*’ ’- kitiatt, .
Mui .d M—. --- -i
H. Ref eaoss
if ReyRequb . .
A. Scop. and Purpose
B. Defi” ”n ,
C Adoption of Qitesia, MsthedoLe les üd
D. AppH e4n i of M hawLi1 .ieJ.s Polides,
and Pz es
1. The Two.Thrsd Aer—— ‘
2. App1i t ne of Tier I U Ik iIi
3. Apph b’ i of Tier U 4stbedol iss
App” 14 ty of the Wst Qoility
tj uiGuos
1. Q* a ..d Vslses
a. Sd
b. Appucththty of the Pt ...d Guidance
C. Justifloshion far the Pi ,ed Approach
d. Other Options C” 4 ’ed
2. Lwp1 on Procedures
a. Anpucebility of the Proposed Guidance
b. Ju tifloatum for the Proposed Approach
L Wetwut r Point Lawos achseg
Ii. F th drd PoUu n2a
3 ta% %
F Excluded Pollutants
G PoLlutants of initial Focus for Criteria
Developroent. and Bioeccu uiauve
Chemiosis of Coonern
ft Adoption Procedures
I ln rpretauon of With”
Precedenual Eftect of Eleents of the
-Guidance
K. Endangered Species Act
1... Request C nxs
W Aquatic £4.
A. Inuoducuon and Purpose
B. Tier ICr it e r i a
1. Mk
2. Selection of Poliutanta for Appitoation of
Tier lC iaMstbodo logy
3. Ti.. 1 Ni tc Qiteria
4. Potental Chie i t National idelines
C. Tier II Vibes
D. Ci i I ,I ,lceto the Clean Wstar Act.
Crest Lakes W. Qeality Agr. n ii d
Great La Qnt P! e Act of 1900
1. TI.. I *qua c U l ie ..d
a. ‘Wlth the Clean Witer Act
Water Q aöty A. 1 .---n ’
2. Tier U Of 1. MM tWo y
S. ij .1m .i With the O Wet.. Act
W —
Iv. as—--- pu --
A. L1Uodn 1L
B. BL i. - - --- .i.4iio P .
2. _____
3. The Gnat Lakes far BA?.
S. and Pvr”’ d BAPs
b. St. d L*Ød Values
L Standard Lipid Vane fr Ht Health
SAPs
IL Standard Lipid Vale W13 1b BAPs
ill. Co nts Ri,ç i.J
c. Fond ofn u)tipIi.e
d. E ct of Metabob on BAYs
e. BIoa of thty
£ Other Uses of BAY.
4 j
5. Relaftonahap of the Gtthbnos to Qment
EPA G ’ ’-
w h the Propod
V. Mi a Health
A. lnUo4’ iien
B. Ottiria Msihodologies
I. Endootnu Addressed by the Hurean
Health MethodoIc ies
2. M aii . ui f Acbon Cancer and
No”ce r
S. Cane ”
b.
3. o’ of Risk Level
4. Aie es
S. RAD
b ADE
C. lS
5. Eqosure Azsumnuoos
a. Body Weigot
b Duration of Exoosure
C. Incidental Exposure
o. Drinking Wai*z Ccnsumpuoo
e. Fish Constonption
f. 5.iw-i .mn’ani Faciw (BAY)
g Relative Source Gcntiibuuan
h. General Considerations
6. Mu ”iit . ia Requ irenanurrler lend
Tier U
a. Carcinogens
b Non-oat negen.s
7. Qit.na Denvetion
8 Proposed Criteria and Values
C Relauonshao of the Great Lakes Initiative
Guidelines to National Guideline, Revisions
D. Coesparuon With the aan Water Act and
Great Likes Water Quality A?e ,nt
a. Tier I Huan Health Cr/Methodology
a. parnoa With lbs Osan Wa Act
b. Cn ,,w . With the Greet Likes
Wg Qes y A s
2. Tier II Cri ts A *uuIniW
I. u the — Wat Act
b. Cn frm.,ir . wtth the Great Likes Water
B. RewoftheQeatLakaGitd.n byth.
EPA S Advi.... , lewd (SAl)
P. LLteti . ‘ -
A. o ” ’- ’
B. Wl1dllfaQ4 ta M hndn
1.
2. to WI mi.I s WDAC
P — I ’s
3. The Grist Lakes Water Quality IniUa ve
WUdlifa Cr1 MdoIri
a. Pa.... .et . . of the Ilawd Ciinpo ..ont of
the GLW WiMitfa Qi in
L WAZL to NQAEL ExtiapcMdcms
IL Subchzoanc to ron1c Exuspoistions
ilL Specie. Sew dvtty Pact
Iv. lnlzup.ctis Verlakility
v. Alternative Fi ,vvnI . for Haewd
Co ponuit of____
b. Pera.. . of pcew, C ponint
of the GLW Wildlib Qitesla
L Uwd to Ssl Rejm ieUve
Sped. táitffta4 Protection
ii i. Fxp uu Rontes Considered
C. Add* 1 aas
1. Us. of IlumenHis Ith hrtdlgrn
2. MlnIin Deta s WIldli.fr Criteria
Denvetion
3. A ptabl . - ‘ .dj ” for Tosicity Studies
4. Use of an Aaaa to Careic Conversion
A—2
-------
20804
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 72 / Friday. April 16. 1993 / Proposed Rules
D Che j Selection for Wildlife Crnena
Denvation
F Comparison With the CWA and
Ralationshin to National Guidanc.
I Relationship to Existing National Guidance
2 Relationship to Current Efforts to Proviae
National Guidance for the yelopment
of WiJ dIjfe Criteria
G Comparison of Wildlife Criteria and
Method, to National Progre and to Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement
I “No Lass Restrictive” Than the CWA and
National Guidance
2 Confoonance With the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
H. Bibliography
Vfl Anbdegr’odo .tion
A General Discussion/Backgrcund
I Federal Antidegredation Policy and
H y
a. Hiatosy of the Federal Antidegradation
b. N t” I Antldegradation Policy
c. Great Lakes States Experience
d. Alternative Approeches to _____
LowerIng of Water Quality
E Gsnmnl Outhn. of GLWQI
M$4atmgTr 4 f.t4lvn Pru .
1. Nasratlvs Flow ait of Pr .
.2. P L -—’ ” I pMmentatlon of
44AWIdatfrnI djj
3. Steps Ft.o,dIng en nHd,giedathin
R w
a. R.Mhh k That the Aatlon May
Sig i4fily L Water Quality
b. the Receiving Wat
C. Activitim Cu’wed by the Crest Lakes
Antidegradition Gqalda
I. Dletl en Ditw lEa) Quality Waters.
Oiz,”” Na al Reeoi.i Wsters
sad O “ o(Wsteri
a. Rittithig Federal Policy
b. ( .WQI Guldurre
2. Sigi Iaa i. Lowerliig of Water Quality
3. Covers All Pollvtants Sources (Point sad
P4 iipfl”I )
S. Dtathsrges Of Fill Materiel In WsII i4j
D. Eidethtg B uant Quality
1. Baó cemd
2. Options Conitols
a. OptIon 1: l as Nu 4e Mass Lai.dIng
Rita ‘ - “‘
b. Option 2: L 11 .t1,, PznhlhiMqii Coupled
with Q N____
C. Supplement to Oiatoni I cr2:
Establishment of btecliggs Probibitloni
3. lenses
a. P 4h, i.nt p jf
b. Stitiatlal Procedures
c. Deta Aveilability and Riprea atatweneu
d. Applicebon to Municipalities
a. R.,thctlcns on Actions Versus
Limitations an Pollutants
L Statutcey AuthorIty
g. Ability to “ “ data a Return to
Lua esd Production lavels Under
Adsgradanoa.
I Bac ound
2 Detailed Desa iption of Do Minimis Test
a Specific Tests included in Do Minims
r,ecionsuntion
b Lns mples
i. Ei mpIeI
Ii Emniple 2
Lii. E mple 3
3 l isues
a Use of Assimilative Capacity in Do
Minarni . Decision
b. Fixing Assimilative Capacity at a Date
Certain and Choice of Date
c. Demons ation That No Ambient Change
O irs as a Result of increased Loading
d. Use of the Margin of Safety Specifledtn
the Implementation Procedures as a
Ceiling on Do Mint,nip Decisions
e Multiple Do Mtn4,, ia Lowering of Water
Quality by a Single Source
F Anudegridsuon Demonsuation
Cornpim*. .t ,
1. Bac und and Rationale
2. Hierarchy of Antldeçidauon
3. M.nHficetloa of Prudent sad F asth)e
PAflufion P ev tion Alternatives tq
or Reduce the SIgiiiør ns
Lew.lngofWstQuaftty
a. Substitution of B a with Non.
hL _ . . qJaft Non’tedc
b. AppJir.tttm of Water Conservation
a. Wa Source Reductions Within Fwc.i.e
d. Recyc R.ue, of Waste By-products.
Riih Liquid . Solid. or Gaseous
5 ‘unlag Pxn Operational
4. Al -.I . Riike,iir 1 i Trem$ i t
Ai nathw That Ri .s . the
$i .4 Lowering of Water Quality
5. Social or flt m iir Developmt
a. Ba.slm . Situation
b. ?M Pu.1tL , impact
c. Other Developments
6. Sp 4 l Remedial Action Provision
7. Imues
a. Other j rA I .4i4ap ,d
Du1 _ ...4n4 ig 11 Lowering of
Water Quality Is N .r —ry
b. Rr nm
c. Bust Aveilaliu. Technology
d. “ ‘ 4 y B p dltinus r Altematave
or Ths nt Tsthn*qu.s
no4Aagr iJat aii D 4.4’ Prsmonption
the Lowering of
Water Quality
P ttdscedatlon Ppocislons for
I. B&And
2.E ct
a. R&a44onshlp to Other Aatidagrsdauen
Raqutiemenu
L
b. Lake Superior Basin-Outstanding
National Resource Watirs
c. Lake Superior B vrumuiatin
Substances of Immediate
I incorpo tion into State V ater Quality
Standard,
Vfli. Genervi impiee’ten:czion Procedures
A Site-Specific Modiflca .ions to iteria
B Variances From Water Q .al.- Standarc:
for Point Sources
I Current EPA Policy
2. GLWQI Proposal (40 R part 132
Appendix F. Procedure 2
3 AppLionbthty
4 Maximum Timeframe
S. Conditions to Grant a Variance
6 Timeframe to Submit Appui uon
7 Public Notice of Preliminary Decisioo
8 Final Decision on Variance Request
9 Inourporaung State- or Tnbai-approved
Variance Into Permit
10. Renewal of Variance
11 EPA Ap 1 .i l
12. State or Thbsl Water Qualiti, Standards
13. Consistency With the CWA and
Conhamance With the GLWQA
a. Consistency With the Clean Water Act
With the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement
14. Options
15. Request b _____
C. Total ktmv4nnn,i Daily Loads
1. Background
2. N. aI Appr h
a. General Approach to ThWL
C. r 1h.4 *d ation
d. Pnllutant Tanspcrt
3. Danlc Of the Piupoi d Guidance
a. The Pinpniad Guldarra
b. Overview Of Option A and Option B
4. Cuneral Conditions of Appliration
a. Guruesi r .44Hn,i j
b. Guneml CondItion 2
C. General CondItion 3
d. Gu s1 r & 0
a. Ge .l ConditIon 5
L General Coadlthin 6
I General CondItion 7
b. General Condition 8
i. Gin_oral Condition 9
j. General Condition 10
k. Gun_mn_i r 4iH 11
5. SpecIal Previsions for B s
a. Reason Resthcting Discharge of B s
b. ith s4n’i 0 f Miidng for B s
C. Nsw Suw
d. Mi ng Z . During the Ten Year
Phase ( g
a. E pt1on to the Ten Year Phase Out of
M a Z
6. TMDL. i cr Open Waters of the Great Lakes
a. Point Source Mbdng Zones for Chronic
1 ls and Values
b. tsfr tl.tjng Load AUoc*tions
C. Prot.cti From Acute E cu
d. Procedures When High Background
are Prese
a. MarpnofSalety
L ( mmJc Gritersa and Values
IL Acute Qituna and Values
7. TP La Ea echargss to Tributaries
a. Steady State Mass B 1 ’ce Approace
to Both Options
E Tier I Wildlife Criteria and Tier 0 wildlife E Do Minimis Lowering of Water Quality
Values
h. Relationship of Q to Implementation H. O .ts
Procedure 8
A-3
-------
Federal Resister / Vol 58. No 72 / Friday. April 16. 1993 / Proposed Rules
20805
b Desi Fiows Cooimcn to Both Options
C Overview of Option A
i. Load Inventory
ii Load.ing Capacit
us Basin Margin of Safer
iv Load Reduction Targets
v Basin Allocations
vi Site .ipecific Cross-checks
vii Establish Final Allocations
viii Monitoring Provisions
d Overview of Option B
s. Sowte-specific TMDLs
ii. Muting Zone Capacity
iii Bac ound Loadings
iv Foroiuim Modification Based on Mixing
Zone Studies
v. Limitation of Use of Source-specifIc
TMDL Forula
e Pollutant Deçadation
8 Pollution Trading Opportunities
9. State Adoption
10. Su ”utry of Other Options Considered
Ii. Request for Comments
D Additivity
1. ntrodu ion
2 Appenscbes Considered
a. Aquatic Life
b. Human Health—Carcinogens
c. Human Health—Non-carcinogens
d. T s and BEFs for Chlorinated Dibeozo-
p .di ins ( Ds) and chlorinated
Dlbeneaforens ( Fs)
e. Wildlife
3. Request Cornnient@nAppsu.ch
ti 4.uid for Implenenting the States’
N. ali 7 . Qiterla
& Requsat Ca isnt on Alternative
Apprusch
5. R.quiat r .nti
K. P -hla Po UaI Exceeding
Numeric Water Quality Standards
1. ExIsting National Rules and Guidance
a. Excinston Above the Water Quality
Standard
b. P nable Potential Excwmon
Above the Water Quality Standard
c. No P asonable Potential for Excursions
Above the Water Quality Standards
d. Inadequate Information
2. Proposed Procedure 5
a. Developing Preliminary Effluent
Limit s t .
b. Dets lnlng Whether There is
R nronable potential to Exceed the
Preltmin. y Effluent LImitations
L DeterminIng Rsa,m.hL . Potential Where
Ten or More Effluent Date Points are
Available and the Effluent Flow Rate Is
Lees than the 7-day. 10-year Flow Rate
or the Discharge Is to Open Waters of the
Great La
IL Dr ’i4’thig
Where Tin or More Effluint Data Points
are Av.lla e and the Effluent Flow Rate
Is Equal te or Greater Than the 7-day. 10-
year Flow Rate
ilL DeI ii ta Rauim ble Potential
Where Ther. Is at Least One but Less
Than Ten Data Points Available
C. Determining th Need fc Water Quality.
based Effluent Uml’ ”on. In the
Aht i e of Effluent Monitoring Data for
A Specific Facility
d. Dat Lnation of P ’sr isable Potential
far P lh tarit , for Which Gr at Lakes Tier
U Value. see Not Anllable
e Consideration of Intake Water Polh.itants
Wnen Determining Reasonable Potentia.
1 bonduction
ii Current National Approach
(A) Net/Gross Credits for Technoio -oasec
Limits
(B) Consideration of Intake Water
Pollutants for Water Quaiitv-oased
L its
(1) T? LS
(2) Variances From Water Quality
Standards
(3) Modifications to Designated Uses
.14) Site.specific Modthcnuons to Criteria
(5) Additional Examples of Application of
Existing Mechanisms
iii Proposed Guidance
iv Alternative Options Considered
(A) Option I
(B) Option 2
(C) Option 3
CD) Option 4
v. Request for Public rrn ent
L Other Applicable Conditions
P Whole Effluent Toxicity
I ckgiound
2 Current National Guidance
a. Regulations
b. Existing Technical Guidance
3 Great Lakes Guidance
a. WET Basic Requirements
L Acute Toxicity Control
U. Chronic Toxicity Con ol
U I. Numeric sad Nwetiva Qitarla
b. WET Test Methods
C. Permit Conditions
L Data Indicates the Pu’mable Potential
for WET
IL lns” 50 ’ nt Data to Determine the
P srm.ble Potential WET
IlL Data inthr.tes No Reasonable Potential
for WET
d. P ssonable Potential Determinations
L Charsctertmng Acute and Chronic
Toxicity Values
II. Specific Conditions for Acute Toxicity
iii. Specific Conditions for Chronic
Toidcitv
a. State and Tribal Adoption of Guidance
C. Loading Lixiits
1. Expression of WQBELS as Concentration
and Mass Loading Rates
2. Procedures to Calculate Mass Ltiedjng
Limits
3. SpecIal Provisions Applicable to Wet-
weather Discharges
H. WQBELS Below the Level of
Quantification
1. Existing National Guidance
2. Great Lakes Guidance
. Requirements
L Cpliance Schedules
. Executive der 12291
A. Introduction sad Rationale for Estimating
Costa and Benefits for the Crest Lakes Water
Quality Guidance
B. Overview of Projected Costs Atutbutable
to the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
1. Introduction
2. MethodoLogy for Estimating Costa to Poir
Sources Attributable to the Great Lasts
Water Quality Guidance
3 Determination, of Costs
4 Estimated Facility Compliance Costs
a. Basic Conaiaerauons
b POTWCosu
c Monitoring Costs
S Extrapolation of Total CompIiance €os s
for Sample to the Great Lakes
Community of Point Sources
C. Limitations of tne Anaiysis
I Limitations in Scope
2 Impact of Teenn’r al Assumptions
D Findings
I General Observations
2 Specific Findings
E Provisions in the Proposed Guidance
Available for Use at States’ Disa etion to
Mitigate Comoliance Costs
1 Additional Time to Collect Data to Derive
a Numeric Tier! Criteria or a New Tier
II Value
2. Variances From Water Quality Standards
3. Muting Zones
4. Reasonable Potential to Exceed Water
Quality
S. Designated Use Modification
6. Site-specific Qitena
7. Total Maximum Daily Load (TN L)/Waste
Load Allocation LA)
8. Comp1 imnr Schedules
P. Sensitivity Analysis
1. Tier I aa. see Period Bbi ri .m . .I ting
2. Proposed Antidsçsdstice Requirements
a. Step 1—Pollution Pr v Uon
b. Step Z—Ak athe or PnKuw d
Ti ea ent
c. Step 3—SocIaI/Pr,w .nc’ilc Impact
di SflfflTVikPy
3. Future Detection of B s
4. ElimInation of Mixing Zones for BCXs
S. Prevalence of Tier II B . and Potential
6. Evaiuatlon of intake Pollutant Options
7. Suissina y
C. Future Analyses
. ost-effectiveness
1. Introduction
2. Pollutant Loadings Reductions
3 ToxIcity-Weighted Loadings Reductior.
4. Cost-effecsjve
5.Sensltlvfty Analysis
L Overview of Projected benefits Attributabie
to the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
1. Introduction
2. Qualitative ti’— .-iint of Benefits
Associated With the Great Lakes Water
Quality GnbI
a. Sensitivity and Unique Attributes of
Receivln Watery
b. Nature o Toxic P lhiwns Addressed by
the GLWQG and Implications for Risk
Redwi4nn
C. Overview of Exposed and Sensitive
Populations
4. Conclusions
3. i iitr C pts Applicable to the
Quantitative Benefits Analysis
a. Tb. 5 ic.nr i i - Concept of Benefits
b. Benefit Cazepories Applicable to the
GL.WQG
4. LImitation of the Benefits Analysis
a. Causality tit k,,ig the GLWQG to
Beneficial Outcemes
A-4
-------
20806 Federal Regieter / Vol. 58. No. 72 / Friday. April 16. 1993 I Proposed Rules
0 Temporal. Spatial and Tren.sfar luuss
The Tima Path to Eonsystem R.c very
Frvm Near-ier Reduaions in Toxic
i.. The Geoçaphic Scop. of ConLtmIv ahon
and of Benefit.genarsting Activities
Throughout the Great Lakes Watorihed
E.cvsvstezn
.i Exisune Data Sources
C. Baseiine and Beneüts Atthbution issues
d. Contingent Valu.rwin M d Issues
UsingCVMtoF uate1ase-
(R .eoreauonal) Beneflts
u. Using CVM to Measure Nocuse Values
5 Cost.effecuveness of the Propoied
Gwdance at Three Sites
6 Future Azalvsu
X Reg’uiotorv flexththzy Act
X l . Popeiwark Reductwa Act
. ludiciul Re,iew of Provisions Not
A.e anded
. SuppoitnzgDocuznents
Appe dax m the Preamble—Greet Lakes
Water Quahtv tniuauve Technical Support
Do im.nt for Wildlife Qiteria
A-S
------- |