&EFtt
United States Permits Division CWEP 83-01
Environmantal Protection .EN-330. January 1983
Agency Washington DC 20460
Proceedings of the
Workshop on Biomonitoring
and Water Quality-Based
Limitation Derivation
Techniques
Atlanta, Georgia
November 30 - December 1, 1982
-------
OWEP 83-01
January 1983
PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON BIOMONITORING
AND WATER QUALITY-BASED LIMITATION DERIVATION
TECHNIQUES FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Atlanta, Georgia
November 30 - December 1, 1982
prepared by
William F. Brandes
Bruce J. Newton
NPDES Technical Support Branch
Permits Division (EN-336)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ni
Session I
Introduction 1
Historical Perspective 1
Legal Issues 2
Comments by Rebecca Hanmer 3
Regional Presentations 4
Observations by Dr. Mount 9
Probablistic Approach to Water 12
Quali ty
Evening Session 13
Session II
ORD Test Methods 16
HQ Presentations 16
Policy Questions 17
Summary 19
i i
-------
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Workshop
This document summarizes a workshop on effluent biomonitoring
attended by EPA headquarters and Regional water staff and ORD
scientists. The purpose of the worksnop was to discuss current
uses of biomonitoring by Regions and States and to discuss what
should be included in a national policy on biomon 1 ton ng.
General Observations
A notable difference between this meeting and similar meetings
of prior years is that there is now much greater use of bio-
monitoring in the States and Regions. Most of the industrial
states have biomonitoring programs and the meeting representatives
related many success stories. Another significant point is that
the science of effluent testing has advanced significantly.
Several new methods were reported as well as field studies which
showed very good correlation between effluent bioassay results
and actual instream effects.
Major Points from the Regional Presentations
1. Each Region's approach to using biomonitoring in NPDES
permitting is strongly influenced by the types of permit-
tees and the types of receiving waters in the Region.
2. Although each Region employs biomonitori ng differently,
the overall structure of testing is similar. Major
differences involve the degree of application, the use
of toxicity data, and the degree of importance placed on
bioaccumulation problems and the discharge of potential
carcinogens. Biomonitoring is used in conjunction with
chemical data and chemical specific criteria; not as a
sole data source to set permit conditions.
3. The main uses of toxicity data are to determine whether
existing treatment technology is adequately reducing
toxicity and to identify water quality problems and
trigger further analysis including in-stream biosurveys.
EPA does not generally use the data to set water quality-
based controls (e.g. toxicity-based permit limits).
However, some States have applied the data in setting
toxicity-based permit limits. This application has been
limited.
4. Studies on reducing toxicity are conducted by some States
and Regions. However, toxicity reduction evaluations are
ultimately the responsibility of dischargers and should
not rely on State or Federal resources. These evaluations
can include process evaluations, process substitutions,
in-plant toxicity testing, treatability studies, and best
management practices; in short, anything which identifies
and controls sources of toxicity in effluents.
-------
5.
Screening or identification of which permittees will
required to conduct biological testing is a complex
process involving different data sources.
be
6. When biomonitoring is used to assess impacts, in general,
each permittee is directly involved in a negotiating
process with the Region and State permitting authorities
regarding what tests to do, how the data is used, and
what control options are feasible.
Consensus on National Policy
All of the participants agreed that a national policy
is needed. The policy should address the need for biomonitoring
and how it will be used but not specify tests and criteria. The
participants also agreed that a technical paper separate from the
policy discussing the pros and cons of specific tests and the
details of their use is needed.
The biomonitoring policy should:
1. Institutionalize biomonitoring recognizing its current
use and instruct the Regions and States to use it rfhere
it is not in use or is used in a limited way ;
2. Address industry concerns about why testing is needed
and how the data will be used;
3. Provide flexibility for tailoring the testing and
its implementation to the individual situation;
4. Discuss the roles of the State and discharger in general
terms but not dictate specific procedural requirements;
and
5. Make clear that appropriate testing will depend on
the complexity of the discharge situation, the degree of
impact, and the degree of certainty desired; and that the
margin of safety for evaluating data and setting limits
is inversely proportional to the quantity and quality of
data.
The technical paper should:
1. Identify the available testing methods and their advantages/
disadvantages;
2. Provide a general framework for determining appropriate
testing programs;
3. Provide guidelines and advice on interpreting testing
resu Its.
IV
-------
Minutes of the Workshop on Biomonitoring
and Water Quality Limitation Derivation
Techniques for Toxic Pollutuants
Atlanta, Georgia
Session I, November 30, 1982
Introduction
Paul Traina, Director, Water Management Division, Region
IV, opened the meeting by describing the increasing importance of
biomonitoring in NPDES permit issuance. Region IV's experience
with dischargers of toxic pollutants has shown tnat, in many
cases, the only practical and implementable means for assessing
water quality impact by NPDES permittees is through the use of
whole effluent toxicity tests. Mr. Traina then turned the floor
over to Bill Jordan, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits.
Historical Perspective and Approaches to Water Quality
Permitting
Mr. Jordan began by explaining that Eric Eidsness, Assistant
Administrator for Water, had requested that a national policy on
the use of biomonitoring in NPDES permit issuance be drafted. A
uniform approach for the use of biomonitoring in NPDES permitting
would provide consistency and ensure that testing requirements
are technically valid and legal. The purpose of this workshop is
to obtain input from the Regions to serve as the basis for that
poll cy.
The history of bi onion 1 tori ng in NPDES permitting was
discussed briefly. Permits Division had drafted national
bi omom tori ng policies in May, 1978 and again in January, 1981.
Significant comment was received on these drafts from industry
and the States, However, disagreement over uses of the data
coupled with overly specific testing requirements resulted in the
policy statements remaining in draft form. Surveys by Permits
Division on the use of biomonitoring in permits show that only
a few hundred EPA-issued permits have toxicity testing requirements
and tnat uses of the data were varied. Several States have
much better developed programs than EPA.
Mr. Jordan then presented a flow chart (Attachment 1)
which outlined available approaches to water quality-based
permitting. The chart shows two methods for dealing with
identified water quality problems. The focus of this workshop
will be 1) identifying (screening) a water quality problem
(1st step), and 2) confirming impact and developing controls
under the water quality-based solution approach.
Finally, Mr. Jordan presented a list of questions (Attachment
2) to be discussed during the workshop.
-------
Legal Issues
Karen Wardzinski, Office of Legal and Enforcement Counsel,
next discussed the legal basis for biomomtori ng in NPDES permit-
ting. She addressed two questions. First, does the Clean Water
Act authorize EPA to collect information of this type? Second,
what can be done with the data 'once it is generated and can it be
used to set permit limits directly? In response to the first
question, Ms. Wardzinski said that the Clean Water Act, specific-
ally §308 , does authorize EPA to require the collection of a
broad range of data, specifically including b 1 onion 1 ton ng and
treatability data. The data can be considered necessary to
insure compliance with CWA requirements under §402. However,
there are limits to §308. A rule of reasonableness applies. Any
data requirement must be reasonable. As an example, Ms. Ward-
zinski pointed out that a Region or State could not require
detailed biomoni tori ng from every permittee. Some indication of
need must be present.
In response to the second question, Ms. Wardzinski responded
that the Act does provide the authority to set toxicity-based
limits for effluents based both on technology requirements and on
water quality standards. Where an effluent guideline doesn't
address a specific problem (an example might be PCB discharges on
the Fox River, Wisconsin) technology limits can be set based on
bi omom tori ng data, provided the factors specified in §304(b) of
the Act (definition of BAT) are addressed. Water quality
standards, both specific LC50 standards (one-tenth the LC50 at
the edge of a mixing zone) or the more general narrative standard
(no toxic discharge in toxic amounts) form the basis for water
quailty-based limits. Where an LC50 standard is specified,
the permit can be written to reflect the toxicity standard. Few
of these specific standards exist. Therefore, the more universal
narrative standard will be the legal basis for most toxicity
1 lmi ts.
Ms. Wardzinski pointed out that the major legal question
when issuing a permit containing biomomtori ng requirements would
involve how the permitting authority interprets what is meant by
the State's narrative "free from" water quality standard. EPA
nas entered into a litigation settlement which dissuades individual
permit writers from making this interpretation until the Agency
decides how to do it in a national policy. The settlement does
not in any way reduce EPA's authority to use biomoni tori ng or set
toxi ci ty-based limits. The reason for the settlement was industry's
concern that the technical basis for relating toxicity data to
water quality standards or BAT requirements and developing
permit limits was poorly understood. Thus, §125. 3(c) was deleted
from the Consolidated Permit Regulations. The workshop's goal is
to decide how to best use biomonitoring in permitting and address
this issue.
-------
-3-
Glenn Pratt, Region V, asked if EPA had the legal authority
to go "up-the-pipe" to establish in-plant biomoni tori ng require-
ments to be used in determining the source of toxic problems.
The response was yes, the legal authority exists although some
litigation on this subject is ongoing, Mr. Pratt then stated
that without this authority the toxicant limitation approach used
in Region V will be severely limited. Lee Tebo, Region IV,
suggested that this in-plant evaluation step is the permittee's
responsibility and that the permitting authority should be
concerned only with identifying receiving water impact. Mr.
Pratt pointed out that there are some situations where analysis
of the receiving water would miss some problems such as low
levels of bioaccumulative pollutants which shew up far downstream
or in a lake. In such an instance, up-the-pipe biomoni tori ng
analysis would be necessary to identify and correct the problem.
Region V's experience is that some permittees argue that
they don't have the capability to conduct such an evaluation and
that lE EPA didn't do it or outline the data needs it wouldn't
get done. However, without the legal authority to go up-the-pipe
to seek the source of water quality problem toxicants, Mr. Pratt
believed that the water quality approach to toxics control is
very weak.
Comments by Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water,
next spoke on the importance of the workshop. EPA can implement
a water quality based toxics permitting program. A uniform
approach is needed which answers questions on what tests to do
and where and when to do them. Eric Eidsness wishes bi omom tor i ng
to be used in an institutional context. The Continuing Planning
Process should be the vehicle for determining where to pursue water
quality-based permitting and for emphasizing coordination with the
States. The Regions and States should focus on planning activities
as the basis for setting priorities, particularly in the face of
diminishing resources. When determining the proper role of biomon-
ltoring, the emphasis should be on planning. This approach hope-
fully will lead to a lessening of adversarial actions which have,
in some cases, clouded the permit issuance process.
Later discussion on this point by the Regions led to
several conclusions. In most cases, biomonitoring requirements
are decided upon through a non-adversarial process. The
requirement is often a preliminary data generating tool used
prior to the development of any permit condition. Sometimes
a 308 letter is used to set the testing requirements for the
permittee; however, in most cases the permittees agree to perform
biomonitoring voluntarily. Further, some Regions pointed out
that even when biomonitoring data is generated voluntarily,
if it is not required in a permit, the permittees sometimes
refuse to give the data to the regulatory authority. Therefore,
most Regions felt that some vehicle (permit, administrative
order, or 308 letter) should be used to document the mutually
agreed upon biomonitoring requirements.
-------
-4-
Regional Presentations on Current Biomonitoring Procedures
Lee Tebo, Region IV, chaired this session. Each Region,
except Region VII, presented their Region's current approach to
biomonitoring in the NPDES permitting process.
Mr. Tebo began with some definitions of terms so that
all workshop participants were able to follow tne discussions:
1. Three ways to control toxics:
a. technology - BAT only
b. chemical-by-chemi cal - using State standards
c. total effluent - toxicity measurement of
actual discharge
2. Bioassay:
A toxicity test using living aquatic organisms.
Short term tests (24 to 96 hours) are acute bioassay s.
Longer term tests (life-cycle, growth, or embryo/larval)
are chronic bioassays.
Concentration of a chemical or an effluent which
is lethal to 50% of the test organisms. Both acute and
chronic bioassays can produce LC^q values.
4. Application Factor:
Ratio between the "no effect level" and the LC^q
NEL = A. F.
LC5 0
Region I
Mr. Tebo then introduced Alan Ikalainen, Region I. Mr.
Ikalamen provided a handout (Attachment 3) which detailed Region
I's uses of biomonitoring in four steps in the permitting process.
In Step 1, characterize wastes, Region I has been screening
specific dischargers using acute toxicity tests. Results of
these tests will be used to further analyze specific industrial
categories. To date, thirty permits in five categories have been
screened. The major problem has been batch dischargers where
toxicity results fluctuate. For Step 2, characterize receiving
waters, the Reyion is using data from many sources. Massachusetts
has begun a research project to compare effluent toxicity to
instream community response. In Step 3, defining limits in
toxics based on water quality, toxicity tests are used to evaluate
the effectiveness of treatment and for developing limits. In
Step 4, monitoring, Region I does not now require toxicity
monitoring in permits. Mr. Ikalainen also mentioned that the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Association (a funded
toxics control coordinating body) is interested in dedicating
their next meeting to biomonitoring.
-------
-5-
Glenn Pratt, Region V, asked Mr. Ikalainen whether long term
problems such as bioaccumulation or chronic toxicity were addressed
through biomonitoring techniques in Region I's strategy. To date
Region I has only used acute toxicity with application factors.
Region II
Mr. George Pavlou, Region II, next presented a synopsis of
their current approach to bi omom tori ng (Attachment 4). Beginning
in 1979, acute toxicity tests were required of certain industries
suspected of causing toxic impact to receiving waters. Twenty-five
of 75 permits were found to have acutely toxic effluents {defined
as LC50s less than 50%) in violation of standards. Once identified,
these permittees were required, through a negotiated agreement to
try to identify the source of the toxicity and possibly correct
it. No toxicity-based permit limits were set but monitoring
requirements involving bioassays were required. Mr. Pavlou was
asked if the companies involved asked what EPA was planning do
with the data. He answered yes, the companies were asking this
question and Region II's answer was that the toxicity must be
reduced. It is considered the permittee's responsonsibility to
determine how to do it. In response to a question on identifying
permits for biomonitoring, Mr. Pavlou said that Region II's
criteria for selecting candidates for toxicity testing is based
on three data sources:
1) Environmental Service Division bioassay data and
site specific chemical analyses.
2) Target Industries of known toxicity potential.
3) State water quality data.
The State of New Jersey has an effluent standard of no
effluent more toxic than a 96-hr. LC50 of 50% by volume and a
water quality standard of no exceedance of one-hundredth or one
twentieth (depending on persistence) that of the LCcq at the
edge of the mixing zone. The flow conditions for tnis requirement
are not specified. New Jersey has very concentrated groupings of
industrial dischargers and must set very stringent permit limits
at low dilutions to protect against multiple discharge impacts.
Region II also presented their suggestions for a national
biomonitoring policy statement:
1) Outline a framework for information gathering but
do not require specific tests.
2) Provide technical guidance on how to set a toxicity
limit.
3) Provide testing procedures for determining the presence
or absence of bioaccumulative pollutants.
-------
-6-
Region III
Mr. Larry Benning, Region III, pointed out that, since
West Virginia took over the NPDES program, Region III no longer
issues permits except four in Washington D. C. Mr. Benning pro-
vided a description of Region III NPDES State approaches (Attach-
ment 5). Twenty-three permits in West Virginia currently have
biomom tori ng requirements. GC/MS scans are also required to
identify components of the effluent. Sometimes treatment plans
are negotiated with industry. Pennsylvania concentrates on
chemical specific water quality permitting and does not require
toxicity testing. Delaware, Maryland and Virginia all use bio-
monitoring in their permitting programs. The specifics of these
programs were not discussed in detail by Mr. Benning because they
are described in Attachment 5.
(Region IV presentation scheduled later)
Region V
Mr. Pete Redmon, Region V, presented Region V's approach.
All states in the Region have a biomonitoring program including
ln-stream evaluations. The States in the Region have experience
in this area and most have been active in biomomtoring for
some time. Water quality problems have long been identified by
the States. Program planning agreements (§106 State-EPA agreements)
have been worked out by Region V with the States on which facilities
are of importance in water quality problem areas. Approaches to
using biomonitoring in acting on these problems vary with each
state program. (Several lengthy assessment protocols from Region
V were presented but are too long to be attached). Overall,
considerable acute toxicity testing, particularly by Michigan
(initially about 100 tests were conducted per year), has indicated
that acute toxicity from industrial sources, due to corrective
measures, is not a widespread problem.
In Region V, the focus is on long term chronic toxicity
problems including bioaccumulation. The States use chemical
specific water quality standards where available. However, for
more complicated water quality problems involving large dis-
chargers, the "free from" narrative criteria is employed both to
generate data and to set limits. Very few permits limit toxicity
directly, but many toxic discharges have been corrected using
water quality standards (both chemical specific and general
toxicity). Once monitoring data is generated the State or Region
(using a team of experts) analyzes the situation and recommends
action. If a toxics problem is identified, a negotiated toxicity
reduction plan is implemented. This plan or analysis is conducted
by the permittee with the input of the Region. Where needed, long
term monitoring requirements are put in the permit to analyze for
bioaccumulation problems. Already a number of long term bioac-
cumulation studies have been initiated. The Region is often asked
to write or assist in writing water quality permits o£ a partic-
ularly complex nature.
-------
-7-
Rebecca Hanmer asked if the Region had used basin planning
and set wasteload allocations (WLA) and TMDL's in any permitting
situations. Mr. Redmon responded that the States focus on
specific problems rather than entire basins. The Great Lakes are
the focus for many long range planning orgamz at ions. WLAs are
used but generally only for simpler pollutants such as ammonia,
BOD, and a few metals. Ms. Hanmer then asked what the relationship
was between the Regions and the States. Mr. Redmon answered that
the relationship was generally good and that some of the States
asked for assistance in the most complex permitting situations.
The Region works to assist in cases involving complex testing and
bioaccumulation. Each case is different and the States and
Region V employ a very site-specific, problem solving approach-
using various data and assessment techniques. Lee Tebo commented
that water quality permitting is of necessity a site-specific
procedure geared toward problem solving.
Mr. Redmon ended his presentation by saying he believed
modeling procedures for complex dischargers involving organic
pollutants are not sufficiently developed and our knowledge of
the fate and dynamics of these pollutants is too inadequate for
models to be a meaningful part of the permit program in the near
term.
Pollutant-by-Pollutant Fate Models
Scheduling required a change in the agenda. The Headquarters
presentation on the status of fate models was given at this
point. Tim Stuart, Chief, Monitoring Branch, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards introduced Mike Slimak and Charles
Delos of OMRS. Mr. Slimak explained that his section is developing
a document describing the use of models in performing wasteload
allocations for toxic pollutants. The document will proceed from
simple to more complex models. This should be available in draft
by March 1 983. Mr. Delos presented an overview of the various
types of models currently under development. The range of model
sophistication includes simple dilution, simple decay, steady
state water/sediment, and various dynamic multi-phase models.
Mr. Delos then described in detail the compartments and processes
involved in a simple steady state water/sediment model.
Region VI
Oscar Cabra presented Region VI's approach to Diomonitoring.
Mr. Cabra first described the specific permitting situation
existing in the Texas, Louisiana area. Most dischargers there
are organic chemical/plastics and synthetics plants clustered in
high density multiple use waters like the lower Mississippi River
and the Houston ship channel. Impairment of the designated uses
are known and are caused by toxic pollutants. However, actual
data on this situation is sketchy and very few standards are
available. Region VI employs a technology-based approach to
reduce toxicity in these areas. The permit is written using
technology to achieve permit limits for toxics and acute toxicity
-------
-8-
tests are required to monitor the effluent for the effectiveness
of the technology in reducing toxicity. The data is passed on to
the water quality people in the States and Region. The bioassays
are quarterly requirements set for two years. They are put into
permits as they are issued. Currently, the requirement is being
applied only to Region Vl's priority permits since these are the
ones being issued.
Region VIII
Bob Burm, Region VIII, presented his Region's approach to
biomonitoring. The water quality problems in the Region are
much more limited than in the eastern Regions. Ore mining
discharges to headwaters are of primary concern. Metals and
cyanides are primarily responsible for toxic problems. Bio-
momtoring is of lesser use where problems are simple and
identifiable. The states apply their water quality standards and
thus effluent standards equal water quality standards for these
permits. Region VII has required toxicity testing for one hard
rock mining facility. This data was used to establish a very
stringent effluent limit. The permittee is being required to put
in state-of-the-art treatment. In the future, bioassays may be
used to justify downgrading uses in situations where no more
treatment can be reasonably required but impact is still being
measured.
Region IX
Jerry Klug, Region IX, discussed California's use of biomon-
ltoring. The State has been requiring toxicity testing in permits
issued to industrial and municipal dischargers which potentially
contain toxic polluants. They also use toxicity permit limits
extensively. Bioassays are being used on drilling muds and for
301(h) determinations. California has very stringent standards
for metals and some organics (e.g. pesticides and PCBs). Toxicity
tests are used to assess impacts of organic-type effluents. The
narrative criteria form the basis for permit conditions. Calif-
ornia also uses tissue analyses to monitor for bioaccumu lat ion.
Mr. Klug said that once California has identified a problem they
have been able to negotiate a toxics reduction plan with the
affected permittees.
Region X
Ms. Marsha Lagerlof presented Region X's approach. The
Region has only used biomonitoring in three permits in Alaska
and Idaho. Oregon and Washington have more experience in the
application of biomonitoring in permit issuance. Both States
employ toxicity-based limits m NPDES permits based on both
technology (for Pulp and Paper) and water quality standards. The
Region also is planning to use bioassays to test the toxicity of
drilling muds. A status report on the current application of
biomonitoring is attached (Attachment 6).
-------
-9-
Region IV
John Marlar presented Region IV's approach to water quality-
based permitting. He passed out two flow charts (Attachments 7
and 8) showing the general procedures which are followed. Region
IV also uses a standard approach and permit language in those
permits requiring biomonitorlng (Attachment 9). The studies are
usually required of known potential toxic dischargers such as
organic chemical plants and are designed on a case-by-case basis.
Once a toxics problem is identified, a toxicity control plan is
negotiated with the permittee. Region IV has had much experience
in this area.
Lee Tebo had previously provided some statistics on Region
IV's biomonitoring program. Of a total of 598 facilities, 65%
exhibited acute toxicity. Of those, one-third had ^ q , s of
less than 20%. Once acute toxicity has been identified, confir-
matory monitoring is required. If unacceptable toxicity is still
present, a toxicity reduction plan as mentioned above is required.
Observations by Dr. Donald Mount, ERL-Duluth
Dr. Mount began his discussion by identifying four reasons
why biomonitonng should be an integral part of water quality
permitting.
1) The purpose of controlling water quality is biological.
The goal of the Clean Water Act is to maintain the
proper water quality for aquatic organisms and thus,
indirectly, human health.
2) Effluent toxicity testing is the only practical way to
assess the effects of complex mixtures. Chemical data
does not relate directly to water quality because the
right chemical forms are not measured and not all
pollutants can be assessed.
3) The efficacy of treatment systems in controlling
toxicity can be examined. It is the only method for
making this assessment.
4) Biomonitoring, including effluent toxicity tests,
can cheaply and quickly measure receiving water impact.
Dr. Mount divided his comments into the topics listed below:
o Effluent Toxicity Testing
Using bioassays to test the toxicity of effluents is
most cost effective where the complexity of the discharge
is great. When using effluent toxicity tests the
permitting authority must consider the persistence of
toxicity. We have methods to address this problem which
should be an integral part of any assessment protocol.
-------
-10-
Another factor in the application of effluent toxicity
testing is that these tests may not focus on equilibrium
conditions in the receiving waters and require very
careful analysis. He also stressed that biomonitoring
must be used intelligently. For example, the graph
shows a case where it might be concluded that toxicity
test results aren't representative of what is actually
happening in the receiving water.
high
toxicity
low
0% 100%
Effluent Concentration
This is an example of what pH differences between test
dilution water and receiving water would do to toxicity
data.
Two limitations were pointed out by Dr. Mount. First,
effluent toxicity tests do not measure carcinogenicity
or bioaccumulation. These effects must be handled in
other ways. Second, EPA has not established the relation-
ship between treatment systems and toxicity reduction.
Dr. Mount concluded that with effluent toxicity tests,
you get what you pay for. With quick, cheap tests you
get similar quality data. This brings up a problem in
dealing with smaller companies who may not be able to
afford to conduct proper testing.
o Screening/Recognizing Problems
The screening step involved in tiered testing should be
re-examined. Why do acute toxicity testing if it
probably doesn't exist? Rather than lock EPA into
tiered testing (progressively more accurate tests
required) we should move toward a problem-oriented
approach. Screening should answer the question is there
a strong potential for instream toxicity? This can be
answered relatively quickly and cheaply. For example,
if historical field survey data is availaole, the
question might be easily answered without screening
tests and better testing can be initiated.
o Policy Issues
EPA must develop a policy on the application of bio-
monitoring in permitting. A policy should not rigidly
require specific methods, or detail a rigid testing
-------
-11-
protocol. A policy should address these questions:
1) Should EPA recommend analyzing the assimilative
capacity of a water body?
2) How should mixing zones be handled?
3} Is zero toxicity a goal or should some degradation
be allowed?
4) Should the regulatory authority strive to protect
everything or concentrate on specific uses?
5) Can all dischargers be handled in a biomomtoring
program or should a poll cy/gu idar.ce apply only to
some subset of dischargers (e.g. all majors)?
6) How should we cover toxic conditions involving
carcinogenicity potential and bioaccumulation?
7) Will we truly use data which shows no impact to
let some plant off from treatment or should we
focus only on data showing definite impact which
leads the regulator to clamp down on permittees.
Based on his experience with industry groups, Dr. Mount also
listed points which he believes should be contained in an EPA
biomonitoring policy statement.
1) A policy must have procedural options to provide
flexibility to the permittee and the regulatory
authority. For example, if permittees want to
test a resident species, let them. (He suggested
they would be foolish to do so and would get more
stringent results).
2) EPA must be willing to accept conclusions of insigni-
ficant impact. There should be frequent rejection
plateaus. For example, where no acute toxicity is
detected or expected and a large dilution factor
exists 99% of the time, no further testing may be
necessary, particularly in cases where bioaccumulat ion
or carcinogencity is known to be no problem.
3) The use of the data must be clearly stated. Is it
to check technology or assess water quality? Will
toxicity reduction evaluations be required where
warranted ?
4) Let the complexity of analysis vary and make sure
that it is understood that the margin of saftey in
-------
-12-
evaluating data and setting permit conditions is
inversely proportional to the quantity and quality
of data available.
Dr. Mount stressed that, in any assessment of a water
quality problem, the procedures should be tailored to the
situation. If an effluent varies in composition and volume,
don't run complex and detailed toxicity tests on a single grab
sample. In such a case it would be much better and more scientifi-
cally valid to run simple toxicity tests on many grab samples.
The use of effluent toxicity testing to identify water
quality impact in both single and multiple discharge situations
is scientifically sound. The application of the procedures in
actual discharge situations has proven very valuable in analyzing
the impact or lack of impact to receiving waters by NPDES permittees.
In developing guidance on what testing to perform the permitting
authority should consider degradation/fate of effluent toxicity,
flow and mixing characteristics, and the representativeness of
effluent samples.
Finally, Dr. Mount stressed that any argument based on
a lack of effluent toxicity testing methods is invalid. The
methods to assess toxicity and water quality impact are available.
However, we must remember that these methods and the data they
generate are not ends in themselves. Rather, they are additional
tools to be used properly in the issuance of NPDES permits.
Probablistic Approach to Water Quality
Mark Morris next introduced Hiramay Biswas of his staff to
discuss their efforts in determining critical design flow, and
accounting for effluent and streamflow variability for performing
wasteload allocations. Mr. Biswas presented the approach being
developed and some preliminary results. Several Regions commented
that this effort will yield useful results but that there were
several assumptions that need to be tested using real data before
conclusions are made.
Session I was adjourned for dinner and participants were
invited to the hotel for an evening session. This session was a
discussion by Dr. Mount of actual sites analyzed by ERL-Duluth
through the Complex Effluent Testing Program. A synopsis of this
discussion follows.
-------
Evening Session. November 30, 1982
To supplement the more formal presentations of the workshop,
an informal evening session was held to discuss the practical
application of state-of-the-art biomonitoring techniques in
assessing water quality impact. The discussion centered on a
complex discharge situation located in Lima, Ohio. Dr. Don Mount
presented the results of this study which was part of the Complex
Effluent Testing Program being conducted by Permits Division and
ERL-Dulu th.
Discussion of Complex Effluent Testing Program
The overall goal of the Complex Effluent Testing Program is
to develop valid and practical biological assessment techniques
to be used in. the NPDES permits program. A comprehensive analysis
is conducted at each site to determine the type of biological
testing needed to accurately assess a site m a cost-effective,
implementable way. Field studies are a part of this analysis to
verity the toxicity data.
Lima, Ohio
The Ottawa River, flowing through the city of Lima, Ohio has
a long history of water use impairment. Currently designated a
limited warmwater fishery, the Ottawa is severely impacted from
river mile 37.7 (at Lima) to river mile 8 0 near Kalida, Ohio.
Three NPDES permittees discharge to the Ottawa directly below the
city between river mile 37.4 and river mile 36.3. These discharges
are the City of Lima Sewage Treatment Plant, a 16 mgd POTW with
significant industrial wasteload; SOHIO Corporation, a petroleum
refinery (SIC 2911); and VISTRON Company, a specialty chemicals
plant owned by SOHIO.
The EPA study at this site consisted of two parts. First,
a detailed in-stream biosurvey was conducted which included
ber.thic sampling, periphyton analysis, caged fish in-stream
toxicity and bioaccumulation analysis, and a fish population
survey. Also, a dye study and time of travel analysis on the
flow and mixing characteristics was performed. Second, acute and
chronic toxicity testing was performed on each effluent using a
water flea, Ceriodaphnia reticulata and a fish, Pimephales
promelas. Also, river water samples from 13 sampling stations
were tested for toxicity persistance.
Dr. Mount presented preliminary results of the toxicity
tests. The field data is not yet available. However, the
toxicity testing was very successful and certain conclusions can
-------
-14-
already be reached regarding the impact to the Ottawa River by
the dischargers. Below is a brief synopsis of some of these
findings:
o All three effluents were toxic at some concentration
to C enodaphma. The entire site is a complex mixing
of toxic effluents. A further complication occurred on
Day 5 when the tests picked up a slug of toxic materials
discharged from a source upstream of the three permittees
(now known to have come from an illegal discharger in
Lima).
o Although complex, the toxicity data is clearly lnterpret-
able and relative impact from the effluents can be
determined. The data can be used in making permitting
decisions to reduce toxicity and thus reduce the severe
impact to the Ottawa River.
o In-stream toxicity persistence tests showed a pattern
of declining toxicity downstream. This is expected to
correlate well to biosurvey results showing gradual in-
stream biological recovery. The toxic slug was followed
downstream during this procedure. This indicates that
in-stream toxicity testing can be easily used to
assess the persistence of effluent toxicity.
o The Lima STP is an exemplary plant and had been presumed
to produce a non-toxic effluent. However, the effluent
was very toxic to C eriodaphnia. Both chlorinated and
un-chlorinated effluent gave the same results. Toxicity
is probably due to some indirect discharge.
o The SOHIO effluent was much less toxic to C er iodaphnia
than the STP but more toxic to fathead minnow larval
stages. It is apparent that two species, an invertebrate
ahd a vertebrate should be used to perform a complete
toxicity analysis.
o The effluents were not acutely toxic. This suggests
that in other permitting situations, screening steps
must be carefully conducted so that false negative
screening results are limited. For Lima, dilution
analysis alone would point to the need for further
toxicity testing.
The preliminary results of the testing procedures conducted
at Lima were very positive. Dr. Mount concluded that the
-------
-15-
procedures employed are very useful in analyzing water quality
impacted discharge situations. Both single and multiple
discharge situations can be analyzed using these techniques.
Two ancillary benefits arose from the Lima site. First, an
illegal discharge was discovered which indicates that this type
of testing can serve many purposes. Second, the State of Ohio
enthusiastically participated in this study and learned a good
deal from the EPA toxicologists. At least three more sites in
other Regions are currently planned.
-------
-16-
Session II December 1, 1982
ORD-Test [Methods
The meeting resumed with Dr. Cornelius Weber of ORD discussing
the development of standard test methods. The chronology of
methods for effluent testing is as follows. (See Attachment
10)
1978 - Standard Acute Effluent Tests (EPA-600/4-78-012)
1981 - Daphnia/My s id screening procedure
(to support 1981 draft policy)
1982 - Revision of 1978 Manual
(currently m draft)
Future work will concentrate on chronic toxicity tests,
especially short and inexpensive tests. Three tests will be
standardized and evaluated: a 9-day embryo/larval Fathead minnow
test; a 7-day Ceriodaphnia test; and a 7-day larval Fathead test.
Dr. Weber handed out a few copies of the revised 1981 manual.
Several people complained that not having standard methods
approved under section 304(h) was a problem. Dr Weoer explained
that the ORD labs and the HQ enforcement office has beer, trying
to get test methods proposed for about 4 years. The ORD HQ office
has not acted. The discussion concluded with the need to develop
marine and estuarine tests.
Don Wruble from the Las Vegas lab then described some
of the work they have been doing in the metal criteria modification
area. He stressed the importance of local acclimation to toxicants
and that methods need to be developed for using local organisms.
However, Lee Tebo and other experienced biologists were quick to
point out the difficulties with trying to work with resident
organisms.
HQ Presentations
The next part of the Agenda called for presentations of
HQ activities. Tim Stuart opened the session with a short
description of the Pelston Conference on biomonitormy held this
summer in Cody, Wyoming. He called attention to a write up of
the meeting that had been handed out and said the proceedings
would be published as a book in the Spring. Tim Stuart then
introduced Jim Plafkin of his staff who discussed the Standing
Workgroup on Monitoring and Wasteload Allocations and the various
standing sub-workgroups. Jim described research they are supporting
on metaloth lemne, a protein that apparently functions to
sequester metal ions and protect the organism. He expressed
enthusiam about the new chronic tests and that the Complex
Effluent Testing Program has demonstrated that toxicity-based
wasteload allocations for multisource situations are feasible.
Jim also urged Dr. Weber to begin work on the development of
inexpensive chronic bioassays for marine organisms.
-------
-17-
Bi 11 Jordan next introduced Rick Brandes of his staff who
discussed the Complex Effluent Testing Program, a joint OWEP/ORD-
Duluth biomonitoring field studies project. The Lima, Ohio study
discussed in the evening session is part of this project.
Procedures worked out at this and other sites are expected to
serve as the basis for future procedural guidance on biomonitormg
in the NPDES permit program. Rick asked the Regions to nominate
additional candidate sites and discussed the requirements for a
good test site. At least three additional sites m three different
Regions will be investigated this fiscal year. Several Regions
immediately expressed willingness to participate.
Bill Jordan then introduced Bruce Newton of his staff who
discussed toxicity reduction evaluations (TRE) and the HQ and ORD
efforts to support their use. Permits Division prepared a draft
manual in 1980 on how to conduct a TRE (which was never issued m
final), has sponsored research, will oe documenting case histories,
and plans to conduct case studies in conjunction with the bio-
monitoring field studies under the Complex Effluent Testing
Program. ORD is conducting research on l r.dustry -specif ic toxicity
and toxicity treatability. The Leather and Textile industries
are done while Petroleum, Pulp and Paper, Organic Chemicals, and
Iron and Steel are still being studied. Bruce then briefly
described the status of the effluent toxicity data system (CETIS)
being developed. User data retrievals should be possible m early
1983.
Policy Questions
The next session concerned the policy HQ is drafting.
Bill Jordan presented several major questions (see Attachment 2)
in order to provide a context for the discussion. Because
discussion was far ranging and disjointed, the following summary
is organized by the questions Bill Jordan presented.
1. When to require biomonitorinq
There was little discussion on why testing is done
because there was immediate agreement that it is used to
assess use impairment and the effectiveness of tecnnology-
based limits.
Region VI emphasized that the policy should address
implementing the second round policy and not center on
the planning process. One Region said their planning
people don't know the first thing about the practical
applications of biomonitoring. Typically, the process
engineering and aquatic toxicology knowledge necessary
to deal with biomonitormg issues and toxicant control
is not found m the planning staffs at the State or
local levels.
Concern was expressed about a "State blessing" procedural
requirement being inferred in the policy.
-------
-18-
The policy should provide flexibility for using either
permits or 308 letters to require testing.
Virtually all the Regions said it would be inappropriate
for a policy to specify when and exactly how to use
biomomtoring. More appropriate would be why it needs
to be done, how, it will be used, under what circumstances
it might be required, etc.
2. Standard protocols vs case-by-case requirements
All Regions vigorously argued against incorporating
specific procedures into the policy. Flexibility was
stressed. Several Regions (1, II, VII) did say generalized
guidance on the type of testing available and recommended
for different needs with flexibility and options would
be useful.
Lee Tebo stressed that the development of an appropriate
testing requirement most logically should come from
structured negotiation between permit writer, industry,
and State. Region VI said their industries are reluctant
to negotiate any kind of study. Region V said they had
had considerable success in developing EPA/State/industry
negotiated studies.
Region X added that the policy should not specify
those aspects of a protocol which are the State's
respons lblity (e.g. , mixing zones). Region V said that
establishment of mixing zones, risk factors, etc. is
clearly a State responsibility which must be an integral
part of the toxicant control process.
3. Role of State
Several Regions said the role of the State should
not be defined in a policy on biomonitoring. The
consensus was that States should be involved as early
as possible and should take an active role m defining
their standards and determining testing requirements.
4. Role of Discharger
Region X noted that the reaction of a discharger depends
on whether they see benefits coming from data generation.
It is important to stress in the policy that biomomtoring
results could "clear" a discharger.
Several Regions supported Region IV1s permit language
(Attachment 9) which requires negotiations to develop
testing. However, Region I said that the role of the
discharger probably should be part of the policy.
-------
-19-
Region IV said the role of the discharger really can't
be defined m a policy.
5. General Comments
There is a pressing need for a national policy to counter
resistance to using biomomtonng.
A policy should legitimize biomonitoring and instruct
Regions to use it where appropriate. The policy should
not lock in specific protocols without any flexability
to tailor testing to the permitting situation.
A policy should respond to industry concerns about no
allowance for assimilative capacity, using information
to indicate no further treatment, flexibility m designing
programs, etc.
A policy should discuss the legal basis for requiring
biomomtonng and include a section which addresses the
litigation settlement.
Summary
Bill Jordan then summarized the comments or. how a national
policy should be structured and asked for volunteers to prepare
wording alternatives for two of the more difficult aspects of the
policy: how EPA will use biomonitoring data and when will it be
required. Representatives from Regions III, IV, v and VI will
send in their ideas. Martha Prothro also asked for comments on
the draft appendix that had been handed out. She asked if it was
appropriately flexible and contained the type of recommendations
that would be useful.
The workshop adjourned at 3:00 pm.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Approaches to Water Quality-Based Permitting^
Analysis of Water Quality Interpretation of Existing Setting Permit Limits
Impact Data or Conditions
Technology-based
Identification cf Water
Quality Problem
(where technology-based
controls are not sufficient
TO protect the use)
solution
-DATA NOT AVAILABLE
TO develop WQ-based
EFFLUENT LIMITS
Pollutant by
Pollutant
Water Quality-based
solution
-data available to
develop WQ-based
EFFLUENT LIMITS USING
WQ Standards
Biomonitoring
1/ The approaches outlined are steps involved in a water quality permitting
process. Since they cannot be mutually exclusive, for permitting situations,
a combination gf these approaches may be required.
2/ Biosurveys can be used to determine extent of WO Standard violation
(i.e. BIOLOGICAL irPACT assessment)
For problem pollutants, establish BPJ
LIMITS (use 30^ b) FACTORS)
- Continue to establish cooperative
MONITORING PROGRAMS WITH STATES
AND DISCHARGERS
- USE MONITORING REQUIRED NTS IN PERMIT TO
assure WQ Standard co/^liance
SET POLLUTANT-SPECIFIC LIMIT TO MEET
WQ Standards (i.e. protect designated
use) E.G. APPLY LIMIT AT EDGE OF MIXING
ZONE
- BlOASSAY^ -
llSE TO DEVELOP LIMIT WHERE EFFLUENT
TOXICITY CAN BE RELATED TO WQ STANEARD
VIOLATION (I.E. USE IMPAIRMENT)
* NPDES Settlement requires EPA establish
A UNIFORM POLICY FOR TOXICITY LIMITS
* Complex Effluent Testing Program
- Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
~ Use to reduce toxicity in order to
i-eet WQ Standards >
* Permits condition developed to control^
OR ftDDIFY SOURCES OF TOXICITY o
* Use BMPs, change or alter processes, f
OR ALTER TREATS NT TO REDUCE IMPACT o
3/ In some States toxicity-based LCrn limits are being used to fEET WO
Standards ^
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Questions to be resolved for biomonitoring policy
'¦¦'hen To Require Biomonitoring:
- Prior to Permit Reissuance (Prior to Final Limitation
Deri vat ion)
- In the Final Permit (i.e., Monitoring Requirement)
Standard Protocols vs Case-By-Case Requirements,
- Should Standard Protocols Be Developed?
Specific Tests/Procedures:
- For Screening/Assessing (e.g., water quality assessment,
technology assessment, priority setting, etc,).
- For Permit Limitation Derivation
Role of the State:
- Defining Biomonitoring Requirements
- Interpreting Standards
- Incorporate Biomonitoring Policy in Continuing Planning
Process
Role of the Discharger
- Conducting Biomonitoring Surveys/Studies
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
- I
. >*.> J I mc * ill »>*"«' n L* nl I AC Ion v") oj"i>r i»l
>i-0 £» t «• i.<* I i i r * - I ml I 4 I *'| v 1^1 r It
wnni' ChArrt«lrMiMJ.»i
\ch.o
. I.I
l> ki - ..i
M»i (mi <
IllK •
hi-lllfv
[v
L rkljtrl | !<>«»
I It ^ - it* (' i«jii >m *<* r 11 v > i l't i I i /«-*1
l. N.u.ti' ilMi.v-W'ii; it.lim
h. IJ'-\
¦ < ni | ( a ;itp Ifl pip 1 1 M;
l ~o t «
0»: 1 *cio t *-tJ ¦>« a
Cuno 1**m
iot ,ri'u n:
« or» M # {<»» •*
I ir
n k
: - fi)ruw». on
1 i I ca ' f «
.iM^ynis aIIi1!'
I| Vr*-'Pi I n t r- 4 | "^inent
V1 t_V| V0(?l (MUtlfcy
»t lei * i ** ¦» r«* <"J»1 *. t«*
Vrp-un' - llir-r (SJ «v*jor |«rlt>J»ry Utdanifleu oivly.
f. I>i it • .i»i, 1.1^ i/toitui r>ri |'i itt ili-i) atstion
Hi >1 > • Of I l*J
Vlrito 1*1
(_• »llty i»' rUnD
B C*r 4 il 1 r <• f • k - riA*»i' An fi \
III. Itave lo|»l ivi BAT Llrnltts (or lo«lc Siibr L*nci.f i foi cTk? ftren (n -KD'ol
2. E.»VI ll/hlvj II >i* l«I" Iota
Ef i 1 vi«• r\t A t|ikl«lr)liwo «, (>l VcoAi I I 11 f
ftp J j vo'.ero \bj«jk:I.m lilfturton. ui«f)
Wiier «/)Alliy crltcru voraoa In itUttn coiw: e nt t * t loiu»
J.«> iJlrtCha^K Cl»rc«4i I c*» hvettAn health
v» holer u*cI
Ac file v ability o: ivrede^1 ^"Xorcnefit - cocl, trchi^lo^jy
l». Peleyatrii Vt^lrw
Cor\irfy[Wui - Lf fluent 11 ® 11_** lorui u« w|>on
blot' a £ <5 u««iiMiit for k i»«1l y ld»«i
I ri0ii4 » fi I Cat aiior lf»
Venwnt - miiv>i toxica
n, C/MtiwC tacn»t
Vt»inrjiiL - i^k
II. 'Jat^r <'*'n t ti
TIL. l*2y * -Jt«
A I PA
U. 1( tjt - iVi!" MffJl'csl
jI pi i it
l v„ C>«veiopLfko wnltorlivj Krgulrr«L«ntc
A. EPA
r-
'lH'iuii ti
4.it*s <11 jiAisi ru ¦
i* il '!• \I'_* (^ i' 11 v • *»t *
ii-1 I L»C1 n» ..1 (TJ *l'r
. firo
i I l d. 'J ) I 1
iv«ilt«iica> io^k itv of 'Xiiinonct* in
Willi d', .12 r/uw
irrsciMii ptuco O'li^xnts
i»\ f I». nt hixn* Uv iq iji i. /rofun
(i«w "O ii n}/\ ¦ i: |. J >• .*1iim jii il \ ri r-y I
ccno-jitjati({vi-hJ'A xr» fMrtinj-
< 11*r -i t \ c\iL «Jr I q Uj ci"?w».*lc(> 'OVUo
f -uk! \r** lc_.iv l*.)C
I '> * t
i\>l tyijj.r <:f I ciu^ity
: ui tax* u*m *\s 1 millet uri*.
(f^JUu* A
<»vc. ibUy wn., 21 Iwmr VXjLi-rw of (1li u^'iys
olor,y DT^ roru I r r J, jiluk tioi'Je tyj»< fi. \OiJl ~ * Vi. r,"i |"WJ( nVuLl tC fo verify t/jxicuy
ii>hjiT.u"n ov^.i t_ua^
-------
a Attachment 4
R.ej-J-L * L,
SCREENING BIOASSAY
V\ HOUR STATIC
S&A DIVISION
LC50 < 50%
50% < LC50
LC50 > 80%
BSEJ
BIOMONITORING
REQUIREMENT IN
NPDES PERMIT
NO BIOMONITORING
REQUIREMENT IN
NPDES PERMIT
TOXIC UNITS > 3
TOXIC UNITS
TOXICITY REDUCTION
WARRANTED
NO TOXICITY
REDUCTION
WARRANTED
PROCESS EVALUATION
OR TREATABILITY
STUDIES REQUIRED
SET TOXICITY
LIMIT IN TOXIC
UNITS
COMPLIANCE MONITOR
24 OR 96 HOUR BIOASSAY
-------
Attachment 5
REGION III
I. Reaional and State Procedure Using the Pollutant by
Pollutant Approach for Toxics
A. Region in
1. A bioassay test has been required of selected
permittees. When these test have shown toxicity,
a GC/MS is then requested on the effluent stream
in an attempt to determine the toxic components
and possible treatment. We have had excellent
cooperation with these selected West Virginia
industries who discharge to the Kanawha River in
an around Charleston.
B. Delaware
Industrial dischargers in Delaware are required
to complete the consolidate application Form 2C.
IE there is a need the State Compliance
Monitoring Section of the DNREC will do
additional sampling on a case by case and
pollutant by pollutant basis.
The State develoos permit limitations for toxics
based on the following in order of preferance. I)
Water quality limitations, 2) Promulgated EPA
guidelines {whichever provides a lower
limitation). 3) Prooosed EPA guidelines, 4) EPA
development documents, 5) Other studies. Of
course limitations derived from the last three
notions are develooed utilizing BPJ (Best
Professional Judgement). Concerning water
auality limitations, there are seven (7) toxics
parameters regulated directly bv the State: they
are:
Pollutant
DDT
Toxaphene
End rin
PCB 's
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Total Residual Chlorine
rrter ia (non-tidal) Criter (tidal)
0. OOlmg/1.
0.013mg/l
0 .0 0 2 3m g /1
0.014mg/l
0 .01mg/l
0.03mg/l
0 .01mg/l
0.001mg/l
0. 7 mg/1
0 .0023m g/1
0. 030mg/l
0 .0040mg/l
0.03mg/l
0 .01m g/1
-------
- 2 -
There is also a general criteria in the State
water quality regulations. It states that "no
toxic substances shall be discharged in
concentrations harmful (synergistically or
otherwise) to humans, fish, wildlife, and aquatic
life. The Environmental Protection Agency's
Water Quality Criteria Series published in
October of 1980 shall be used as guidelines for
determing harmful concentration levels".
C. Maryland
I. In Maryland industries are required to submit the
EPA consolidated permit application and to do the
required testing for the application. The state
also uses inspections to gather data on potential
toxic dischargers.
The pollutants are regulated on a case by case
basis. There are, however, 5 toxics that are
restricted in the state's water quality
regulations. They are as follows: PCBs 0.001
microgram/liter, Endrin 0.004 micrograms/1 iter ,
Toxaphene 0.005 micrograms/liter, DDR 0.001
micrograms/1iter , Benzidine 0.1
micrograms/liter. These standards apply to all
waters in the state.
All other toxics are regulated by either EPA
guidelines or proposed guidelines, or by use of
development documents and other research data.
The limitations are developed using Best
Professional Judgement and the resulting permits
are generally of excellent quality.
Vi rgi nia
1. The Virginia State Water Control Board is
regulating toxics (to date) in 4 manners. These
are bioassays (to be discussed this afternoon),
water quality studies for specific pollutants,
direct limitation (as oromulgated in effluent
guidelines) and the use of indicator pollutants.
It is difficult to assess which approachs will be
incorporated by the SWCB since our data is based
on discussions with SWCB personnel and review of
BAT permits issued to date. At present less than
10% of the primary industrial maior permits have
been reissued at the BAT level.
-------
- 3 -
There are 3 water quality studies of toxics
ongoinq in Virginia at present:
1) mercury pollution of the north fork of the
Halston River
2) mercury pollution of the South River
3) kepone pollution of the James River
Direct limitation and the use of indicator
pollutants for control of toxics has been minimal
as the State Water Control Board has developed a
"wait and see" attitude towards the EPA (yet)
promulgated BAT effluent guidelines.
In one case (of the few BAT permits developed to
date) the SWCB develoned a toxic wasteload model
for the New River and then back calculated to
determine the toxics limits for a specific
discharqer .
It is anticipated that the SWCB will limit toxics
not covered by the promulgated effluent
guidelines by the use of periodic or continuous
bioassays .
E. Penrsylvania
Pennsylvania does not use biomonitoring. They
require that the permittee (require) perform
streams studies to show or demonstrate lack of
environmental harm.
F. West Virginia
1. No track record. Delegated NPDES program March,
1982.
II. Regional Approaches to Utilizing Biomonitorinq in Permits
A. Reqion III
Biomonitoring for general toxicitv has been included
in approximately 22 WVA NPDES permits written by
Region III.
This special condition may vary somewhat accordinq to
permit writer, type of treatment system and receiving
stream (see attached samples A&B).
ft porf-ccl
Bi omonitorinq data has at time6; shown
toxicitv. A GC/MS is then requested on the effluent
stream in an attempt to determine the toxic component
and possible treatment.
-------
Delaware
State regulations (Section 8.02(a)) provide tnat
effluent limitations may be determined through
biomonitoring techniques. The method is also
specified as that set forth in the latest edition of
Standard Methods utilizing indigenous species of
fish. Whole effluent static tests are utilized. Also
noted in State regulations are methods of determing
the NPDES limitation from the biomonitoring results.
For example, for non-cumulative or non-persistant
pollutants (those having a half life of 96 hours or
less), the limitation should be based on 1/20 LC50.
For persistant or cumulative pollutants (half life
greater than 96 hours) , the limitation should be based
on I LC50.
100
Some permittees in Delaware have already been doing
biomonitoring for ten (10) years. As permits come up
for renewal, if few or no problems have been found
with biomonitoring results, the State considers
discontinuance or a reduction in the frequency of
biomonitoing. Of course, as toxics are discovered in
effluents through Form 2C, the question of
biomonitoring requirements are again considered.
Maryland
To date Maryland has not placed a) lot of emphasis on
biomonitoring, but new permits with toxic potential
(identified by inspection or the application process)
will be required to do bio-testing as a permit
conditions.
The tests are "whole effluent" not restricted to a
sinqle compound in the plant's discharge and are
generally not instream but are static bench-type
bioassays. A flow through bioassay may also be
required to "fine tune" the results of the static
*-ests. An important difference between Maryland's
approach to bioassay testing and EPA's approach is the
use of "locaMv important species" rather than the
standard daphina to test for ranges of toxicity. A
list of the "locally important species" to be used in
testing is published in the state's water quality
regulations.
-------
As far as 1983 permit issuance plans are concerned,
the state plans to use biomonitoring more extensively
and to that end has recently published a manual for
use by industrial dischargers for biomonitoring
testing. Biomonitoring will be used as part of the
permit conditions where toxicity is suspected.
Currently there are two draft permits by the state
which contain biomonitoring requirements (Mineral
Pigments MD3425, and Tenneco Chem Co. MD 345).
Maryland expects to issue more permits in the coming
vears with biomonitoring requirements.
Virginia
It appears that the Virginia State Water Control Board
(SWCB) will rely extensively on biomonitoring to
control toxics not limited in the promulgated BAT
quidelines. To date, the SWCB has issued at least 5
permits which limit (control bioassays. In all the
cases noted to date the SWCB has utilized general
toxicity controls (whole effluent) as opposed to
in-stream biosurvey techniques.
The SWCB approach has been to allow the discharger to
conduct the bioassays on a periodic or continuous
basis. In the event the t«=»st organisms die, the
discharger is required to re-run the bioassay
immediately to determine if toxicity was the cause.
If the second bioassay proves toxic then the
discharqer must initiate immediate measures to
eliminate the disrharger of these toxics and
immediately notify the SWCB.
Durinq FY 83 it i^ projected that this bioassay
anproach will be used frequency as opposed to the SWCB
developing limitations for toxics will no national BAT
effluent limitations, ^he frequency of the bioassay
incorporation into Virginia permits will be determined
to a large extent by the adequacy and completeness of
the promulgated BAT guidelines.
Pennsylvania
No know program other than previously stated.
West Virginia
No track recored exist.
-------
Attachment 6
STATUS OF INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT BIQMONITORING IN REGION 10 (1982)
y.
State
No. of Discharge Permits with
Effluent Bioassay Requirements
No. of Major Industrial
Effluent Permits
Type of Bioassay
Requiremert
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
2
4?
1
2F
_9
27
Biomoni toring
Biomomtoring
Biomonitoring
Washington
26
Effluent Toxicity
Limitation3 With
Some Biomomtoring
3 Criterion: Fish (salmonid) survival not less
than 100% (old permits) or 80% (new permits)
in 65% effluent during 96-hr. static bioassay.
y K I ^ is
-------
II
ATTACHMENT 7
BIOf'DNITORING APPROACH fte&'ON t
Permittee to Submit
to EPA
Within 30 Days
/
Existing Toxicity & Bioassay
/
Hot Toxic
No Permit
Requirement
Within 60 Days
\
Plan of Study
\
f Ion-Toxic
Waste Discharged
in Toxic Amounts
Within 90 days
1
Submit Toxicity
Control Plan
No Permit
REQUIREMENT
Within 3® days
i
EPA Review Plan
1
Periodic Biological Monitoring
-------
Attachment 8
DEVELOEMEUT OF TOXIC LIMITATIONS
IN SPDES PERMITS
NO
¦JVES
/ Are N.
•^Other Toxic
Synergistic Effects
\ Suspected
???
/te]or\
^ Primary or^
Other Selected
S. Permits .
\ 77? /
—"would
^roxic Control ty\
Biarorutoring be More
^¦-^Appropriate
States
^ Standards Cover
All Priority Pollutants
v^hat are Present
^v^ischarge 1^^
Acutely
Toxic
No Toxicity
Indicated (
Chronically
TOxic
Coordinate with
Water Supply
Review permit Application
Human Health
Toxicity Indicated
BICM3HTOIUNG
REQUIRED
ISSUE PEROT WTIH
APPROPRIATE \MJUES
Apply Screening List
(Including Huran Health Criteria)
Develop Appropriate
Effluent Limitations
Fran Criteria Documents
(Using State ffaxative
water Quality
Standards as Basis)
Develop Effluent Limitations Based On
Applicable State Numeric Water Quality
Standards and Effluent Guideline
-------
Attachment 9
PROPOSED APPROACH FOR CONTROL OF TOXIC INDUSTRIAL/
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
BACKGROUND
As stated in Sec. 101(a)(3) of the Water Act, *it is the national
policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be
proh ibited."
The "in toxic amounts" clause would appear to indicate that
a control program should consider the toxicity of a waste in the
receiving waters.
There are several approaches to controlling waste toxicity,
including:
o Technology Approach - This industry-wide approach involves
applying best available technology toward treating or
controlling a relatively small number of toxic substances
specific to each industry type. Control has no relation-
ship to receiving water effects, thus this approach is
not consistent with policy enunciated in the Act.
This approach may not be cosb-effective for at least
two reasons. First, it may be unnecessary to require
all plants of the same industrial type to treat beyond
BPT to control toxics. Second, BAT may be ineffective
in controlling waste toxicity.
Development of effluent guidelines for this approach
is proving to be a costly and intractable task. This
should have been anticipated since development of effluent
guidelines for "conventionals" was resource intensive
but only involved a few well studied parameters. Toxics
control involves literally thousands of substances with
new ones developed as each day passes.
o Individual Chemical Approach
This is a site specific approach which provides limits
on the amounts of individual toxic chemicals discharged.
This requires a knowledge of the composition of waste
and the toxicity of each component.
For simple wastes, discharging one or two well studied
substances, this may be a cost-effective approach.
Monitoring of compliance is straight-foward and may or
may not be inexpensive (dependent on parameters and
frequency of sampling).
-------
o Whole Waste Approach
This is a site specif c approach which ideally involves
control of toxicity, or potential for toxicity, of the
whole waste stream in the receiving waters. It is a
tailored approach which integrates site specific variables
such as: interactions within the waste stream and between
the waste stream and receiving waters; waste variability;
waste complexity; persistence; bioaccumulation and bio-
magnification; size and character of receiving water.
The "technology approach" and the "individual chemical
approach" commit the permittee to a two step program —
"control" and "monitoring."' The whole waste approach
involves the permittee in a third step — "evaluation."
A whole waste approach is cost-effective because added
treatment or control beyond that required for conventional
pollutants is only required in cases where the discharge
i3 shown to be toxic in the receiving water, and if applied
on a site specific basis, the treatment can be tailored
to the specific problem(s) detected. It is environmentally
effective, and consistent with the Act, since the treat-
ment eliminates the discharge of "toxic amounts" of waste.
As mentioned previously, the whole" waste approach is a tailored,
site specific methodology involving three steps: "evaluation,"
¦control" and "monitoring."
Because toxicity is a biological phenomenon, the "evaluation"
step must involve a determination of the effect of the whole waste
on living organisms using site water as the diluent in all evaluations.
There are essentially three levels of biological testing (all with
acceptable methods) available for evaluating waste toxicity. These
include acute tests, chronic tests and receiving water studies.
Acute tests generally involve an evaluation of lethality and
calculation of an LC50 (percent concentration of waste lethal to
50% of test animals) over a time interval ranging from 24-96 hours.
These tests are relatively inexpensive ranging from $200-300 for
static jar tests to several thousand dollars for flow-through tests.
Because we are interested in controlling chronio toxicity, the LC50
data is only useful if the relationship between acute and chronic
toxicity is available. This acute/chronic relationship can be
established on a site specific basis, or standardized ratios (based
on studies of a wide range of chemical compounds) are available in
the literature. Once the relationship is established, the acute
test provides an inexpensive means of screening or monitoring toxicity.
-------
Chronic tests are designed to measure the long term effects
of continuous or intermittent exposure on growth, reproduction and
survival. These are life cycle tests (egg to egg) which require
from several weeks to several months to complete. There are presently
available some short term chronic tests (embryo-larval) which provide
a satisfactory measure of chronic toxicity at considerably lower
cost.
Receiving water studies may range from bxotic surveys aimed
at evaluating the quality and productivity of the biota to simple
chemical determinations to detect the uptake and concentration (bio-
accumulation) of pollutants in fish tissues and organ systems.
The need for bioaccumulation studies are highly site specific and
dependent on the constituents in the waste.
Although biotic surveys provide our best source of data for
trend monitoring of system quality, they are of little value for
evaluating the impact of toxicity from a point source. In the
simplest situations (small stream, one source), such studies may
provide a measure of gross changes. However, rapid recruitment
of both invertebrates and fish into and through even a simplified
system make the true impact of sublethal effects difficult to detect.
In larger rivers and open coastal systems, it is impossible to
sort out the impact of a single source from a multiplicity of natural
and man-induced perturbations affecting the biota. For example,
natural variations in year class strength of fish populations may
be greater than an order of magnitude.
The attached generic permit language is based on a site specific,
whole waste control approach. It is structured on the belief that
the individual industrial discharger has the fullest knowledge of
the character of his waste discharge and local receiving waters.
Thus, the discharger should initiate and fully participate in the
development of a program for evaluation, control and monitoring
of toxicity.
-------
P£M)T *.Admass
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with Sec. 101(a)(3) and pursuant to the authority of Sec- 308 of
the Clean Water Act, an evaluation of the toxicity of wastewaters discharged
fron Qjtfalla shall be conducted to determine if there is a need to
develop a toxicity control and monitoring program. The required evaluation
shall be accomplished by providing existing bioassay or toxicity data or
performing bioassay studies that provide information on the toxic and
hioaccurulation potential of the identified discharges.
1. As a minimum, any plan of study to evaluate waste toxicity nust develop
information c/i the chronic toxicity of the uhole waste expressed as an
LC50 value. Using vfriole waste frcm the discharge and site waters as a
diluent, this can be acocnplished with seme ocntoination of life cycle
tests *,^3 4 5#6j available short-term chronic (entoryo-larval)
tests and lethality tests 11,12 with an appropriate
application factor 13. The plan of study for evaluating toxicity should
also include an irrplenentaticn schedule; a consideration of waste
variability; an evaluation of waste dispersion and persistence in the
receiving water; an assessment of acanrulation and/or concentration of
toxic oonpenents in the receiving water body and the biota.
2. If the study results in a determination that wastes are discharged in
toxic amounts, the permittee will then be required to 6ubmit a toxicity
control plan (including an implementation schedule) within 90 days of the
determination. The control plan should include appropriate measures such
as in-plant controls, process and/or raw material/product changes, or
additional wastewater treatment to reduce the toxicity of wastewater
discharges to acceptable levels. Depending on the oonplexity of the
problem, the timing of the plan submitted and the implementation schedule
nay be negotiable.
3. Once the control program has been fully implemented, periodic biological
monitoring may be required to assure continued control of toxicity.
4. See the attached schedule.
-------
SCHEDULE FOR EVALUATION OF TOXICITY OF WOTSWTERS
The permittee shall submit any existing toxicity or bioassay data far
review ty the EPA within 30 days of the effective date of this permit.
If sud) data are uravailable, the permittee shall submit a plan of study
within 60 days of the effective date of this permit to evaluate waste
toxicity. The EPA will review the plan of study within 30 daya of its
receipt and ipon approval, the plan of atu
-------
FEFEREiJCES
1. Brungs, William A. 1969. Chronic Toxicity of Zinc to the Fiathead Minnow,
Pimephales pronelas F&finesque. In Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society, Vol. 98, So. 1969, pp. 272-279.
2. Mount, Cbnald I. and Charles E. Stephan. 1969. Chronic Toxicity of
Copper to the Fathead Minnow (Piinephales promelas) in Soft Vfater. Journal
of the Fisheries Research Boari of Canada. Voluoe 26, No. 9, pp. 2449-2457.
3. Weber, C. I. 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring
the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. EPA-670/4-73-001.
4. Geiger, J. G., A. L. Buikeraa, Jr. 1982. Hydrocarbon Depressed Growth and
Reproduction of Daphnia Pulex (Cladocera). Canadian Journ. Fish Aquatic
Science, Vol. 39, pp. 830-836.
5. Winner, W. R., M. P. Farrell. 1976. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Copper
to Fbur Species of Daphnia. Journ. of Fisheries Research Bd. of Canada,
Vol. 33 (8), pp. 1683-1691.
6. Biesinger, K. E., G. M. Christensen. 1972. Effects of Various Metals on
the Survival, Growth, Reproduction and Metabolism of Daphnia f-fagna.
Journ. of Fisheries Research S3, of Canada, Vol. 29, pp. 1691-1706.
7. Macek, K. K. and B. H. Sleight, III. 1976. Utility of toxicity tests
with embryos and fry of fish in evaluating hazards associated with chronic
toxicity of cheaic&ls to fishes. In Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Evaluation, AS7M STP 634, F. L. Mayer t J. L.
8. Binge, W. J., J. A. Black, J. E. H-xiscn and D. M. Bruser. 1979.
, Ibhryo-larval toxicity tests with organic compounds. ASTM, Spec. Tech.
Pub. 667, pp. 131-147.
9. Birge, W. J., J. E. Hudson, J. A. Black and A. G. Westerman. 1961.
Enfcryo-larval bioassays on organic coal elements and In altu bicmrai tori rig
of coal-waste effluents. In Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife Needs in the
Eastern U.S. Proc. of a Syu^posium, FWS/OBS-78/81, U. S. Dept. of Interior,
pp. 97-104.
10. Birge, W. J., J. A. Black. 1981. In-situ Acute/Chronic Toxica logical
Monitoring of Industrial Effluents for the Bioracnitoring Program Using
Fish and Amphibian Qnbryo Larval Stages as Test Organisms. CWUM32-001.
11. Peltier, William. 1978. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents to Aquatic Organisas. EPA-600/4-78-012, Revised July, 1978.
12. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Methods for Acute Toxicity Tests
with Fish, Macroinvertebrates, and Anqphibians. EPA-660/3-75-009.
13. National Academy of Science, 1973. Vfater Quality Criteria. 1972.
Ecological Research Series, EPA-R3-73-033.
-------
Attachment 10
12/1/82
STATUS OF EFFLUENT TOXICITY TEST METHODS*
OFFICE OF MONITORING SYSTEMS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, ORD
I. Acute Toxicity Tests for Fish and Invertebrates
A. Methods manuals now available
1. 1978 - Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity
of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms
EPA-600/4-78-012
2. 1981 - Effleunt Toxicity Screening Test Using
Daphnla and ftysid Shrimp
Bi Methods manual3 1n preparation
1. 1983 - Ravised version of 1978 manual (now 1n review)
II. Chronic Toxicity Tests for Fish and Invertebrates
A. Methods that will be available by end of FY-83
1. Fathead minnow (9 day) embryo/larval test
2. Cen'odaphnla (7 day) life cycle test
III. Additional Toxicity Tests
A. Mutagenicity test (Ames test) - now available
B. Maximal Ian (cell) toxicity test - 1n preparation
*For further Information, contact, Cornelius I. Weber, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory - Cincinnati 513-684-7337
%
-------
Attachment 11
ATTENDEES AT THE WORKSHOP ON
BIODNITCRING AND W\TER QIALITY LIMITATION
DERIVATION TECHNIQUES FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS
REGION IV, ATLAN1A, GEORGIA
NOVEMBER 30-DBCEMBER 1, 1982
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHDNE
1.
Rick Brandes
OJEP/Perrmts Div.
426-7010
2.
Lee Tebo
Region IV (Athens)
250-2294
3.
Oscar Cabra, Jr.
Reg. 6/Pernats Branch
729-2768
4.
Gerald R. Kiug
Reg. 9/Fermits Branch
494-7491
5.
Maurice O^ens
CWRS/CAE
382-5392
b.
Bob Burm
Reg. VIII/Permits
327-4901
7.
Ed btruzeski
NEIC - Denver
234-^656
8.
Don Wruble
EMSL - Las Vegas, ORD
545-2237
9.
Max Anderson
Reg. V/ESD
886-C228
10.
Ranald Preston
Reg. III/ESD(Wheeling W.\A.)
923-1050
11.
Loys Parrish
Reg. VIII, ESD
234-32G3
12.
Tudor T. Davis
ORD - Narragansett RI".
838-4843
13.
Con Mount
ORD - Duluth
783-9528
14.
Joe Curanins
Reg. 10/ESD
442-0370
15.
Niarcia Lagerloef
Reg. 10/Permits
399-7151
lb.
Bruce Nekton
Headquarters/Permits
426-7010
17.
Paul Frey
Reg. IV/Eco. Rev. Br.
540-2294
18.
Bob Schneider
NEIC - Denver
234-4656
19.
William Peltier
Reg. IV (Athens)
250-2294
20.
Mike McGhee
Reg. IV/Permits/WLA1 s
257-2913
21.
Jim Greenfield
Reg. rv/Permits/WLA's
257-2913
22.
Henry Strickland
Reg. IV/Permits/VJLA's
257-2156
23.
Bob Cantilli
CWEP/Permits Div.
426-7035
24.
Ernesto Perez
Reg. IV. W&ter Div.
257-3973
25.
Roosevelt Childress
Reg. IV/PermitsAJIA' s
257-2913
26.
Priscilla Oliver
Reg. IV/Conpliance
257-3973
27.
Jewell Grubbs
Peg. iv/Cortpliance
257-7428
28.
Lawrence Benning
Reg. Ill/Water Permits
597-3689
29.
riiraiinay Biswas
HQ/Mom boring, MDSD
382-7012
30.
Fritz Wagener
Reg. IV/Permits
257-2156
31.
Marshall Hyatt
Reg. IV/Permits
257-2156
32.
David Peacock
Reg. IV/Permits
257-2156
33.
Tticanas Fikslin
Reg. II/ESD
340-6711
34.
Jim Patrick
Reg. IV/Permits
257-3012
35.
John Alcnso
Reg. II/ESD
340-6791
36.
Pete isblan
Reg. I/Lexington
861-6700
37.
David Parrish
Reg. 6/ESD
729-9777
38.
David Neleigh
Reg. G/Water
729-2625
39.
uun Plafkin
Mom-coring & Data/CWRS
832-7005
40.
bob Leger
Reg. I/WD Branch
223-5031
41.
Allen Isalainen
Reg. i/WQ Brancli
223-5050
42.
Stephen Silva
Reg. i/WQ Branch
223-5020
43.
Billy' Fairless
Reg. VII
758-4461
44.
Charles Sterner
Reg. V/ESD
353-9070
-------
-2-
45.
Walter Rectacn
Reg. V/Permits
886-6110
46.
Glenn Pratt
Reg. V/Permits
886-6107
47.
John kirlar
Reg. IV/Water Div.
257-4793
4b.
Karen Wardzinski
OSC-HeacLjuarters
382-7700
49.
Martha Prothro
CVTcP-tleauquarters
755-2545
50.
Bill Jordan
OWE P-Hea dquart er s
426-7010
51.
Paul Traxiia
Reg. IV/Water Div.
257-4450
52.
Tim Stuart
CWRS
382-7074
53.
Ned Notzon
OWRS
382-7040
54.
Peter Wise
CWRS
382-5389
55.
Man; Morris
MDSD
382-7056
bu
Rebecca hkin.tr
OW/iieadquarters
382-5704
------- |