-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION 3
II METHOD 6
III NATIONAL FINDINGS 8
What Progress Has Been Achieved? 8
What is the Status of Compliance with CWA
Section 303(c)(2)(B)? 10
How Many Priority Pollutants? 12
Which Priority Pollutants? 14
What Risk Level? 15
What Exposure Assumptions? 16
What Option(s) Are States Choosing? 17
What States are Adopting an Option 3 Translator? 18
What is the Status of Criteria Adoption
for Marine Waters? 19
IV REGION-BY-REGION FINDINGS
Region I 21
Region II 23
Region III 25
Region IV 27
Region V 30
Region VI 33
Region VII 35
Region VIII 37
Region IX 40
Region X 42
V APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) 45
Appendix 2 - List of 126 Priority Pollutah^s 47
Appendix 3 - Status of Compliance with CWA
Section 303(c)(2)(B) 49
Appendix 4 - State Selected Risk Levels 53
Appendix 5 - Exposure Assumptions Used by States
in Setting Human Health Criteria 54
Appendix 6 - State Options (from 12/88 Guidance) 56
2
-------
I - INTRODUCTION
One of the nation's most serious environmental/public health
problems is the presence of toxic pollutants in surface waters.
Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) adopted in 1987
recognized this problem and set forth ambitious goals for
State/EPA control of toxic pollutants. The Act's requirement's
place emphasis on controlling the CWA Section 307(a) toxic
pollutants^".
The principal objective of this report is to characterize
State efforts to adopt numerical water quality criteria for CWA
2
Section 307(a) toxics . Such efforts are required by CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B) (see Appendix 1), which was added as part of the CWA
amendments of 1987. The information presented in this report is
current as of August, 1989. Since many States are still in the
process of adressing this requirement, the information should be
considered a "snap shot" of ongoing State activities. This
report updates and replaces the report "State Adoption/Proposal
of Numeric Criteria for Priority Pollutants as of August, 1988"
(EPA 440/5 89-002). In preparing this report, emphasis has been
placed on:
1. The CWA Section 307(a) list contains 65 compounds and
families of compounds. EPA has identified 126 priority
pollutants from this larger group which it is using to
represent the Section 307(a) list for regulatory purposes.
2. For purposes of this report, the terms "toxics," "priority
pollutants," and "307(a) pollutants" are used
interchangeably and mean the list of 126 priority pollutants
listed at 40 CFR 123.17.
3
-------
(1) assessing progress which has been achieved since 1986,
and
(2) characterizing State efforts to adopt criteria based on
human health concerns.
This report provides preliminary information about the
status of State compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
requirements. For most States, such compliance is required by
February 4, 1990. For States that were close to completing a
triennial review at the time the 1987 CWA amendments were passed,
such compliance may not be required until September 30, 1990.
In December 1988, EPA issued final guidance intended to help
States meet the Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements. The guidance
discusses three options available to States for complying with
this requirement. The three options available are as follows:
(1) Adopt Statewide numeric water quality standards for all
EPA criteria for Section 307(a) toxic pollutants
regardless of whether the pollutants are known to be
present;
(2) Adopt specific numeric water quality standards for
Section 307(a) toxic pollutants as necessary to support
designated uses where such pollutants are discharged or
are present in the affected waters and could reasonably
be expected to interfere with designated uses;
(3) Adopt a procedure to be applied to a narrative water
4
-------
quality criterion. This procedure shall be used by the
State in calculating derived numeric criteria, which
shall be used for all purposes of water quality
criteria under Section 303(c) of the CWA. Such
criteria need to'be developed for Section 307(a) toxic
pollutants, as necessary to support designated uses,
where these pollutants are discharged or present in the
affected waters and could reasonably be expected to
interfere with designated uses.
EPA believes that the CWA requirement can be met by any of
the above scientifically and technically sound ways (or some
combination thereof). For a more detailed discussion of the
above options, refer to EPA's final guidance on implementing CWA
Section 303(c)(2)(B). This report will present the status of
State efforts under all three of the above options.
5
-------
II - METHOD
In preparing this report, EPA compiled information on the
priority pollutants in each State for which numeric criteria are
adopted or expected. "Expected" criteria were defined as those
criteria which EPA believes will be adopted in the current round
of standards revisions (most are scheduled for completion in
FY 1990). In many cases, expected criteria have been included in
a preliminary draft State WQS proposal. In other cases, criteria
were judged by EPA to be expected (e.g., because the pollutant
has been identified on the State's 304(1) short list).
Information was compiled for each of four use categories:
Fresh water aquatic life.
Marine aquatic life.
Human health (water consumption or fish consumption or
both).
Other uses.
Names of pollutants and sequence of pollutants were taken
from the list published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see
40 CFR 423.17(d)(1) - Appendix A). Only the pollutants on the
list of 126 priority pollutants were included.
Other assumptions included the following:
o Where a generic pollutant name was used in a criterion
(e.g., DDT, endosulfan, PCBs), it was often assumed (where
the State standards were not clear) that the criterion was
6
-------
for a total measurement of all isomers and metabolites of
that pollutant, and the State was credited with establishing
criteria for all isomers and metabolites included on the
list of 126 priority pollutants. For example, where
"endosulfan" was listed, it was often assumed that the State
has adopted a criterion for a total measurement of
endosulfan including alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, and
endosulfan sulfate, each of which is a priority pollutant.
Therefore, the totals reflected in this report may not
accurately represent the number of criteria each State has
adopted, but do represent the total number of priority
pollutants covered with State criteria.
Pollutants for which criteria have been adopted/expected for
only a limited area were included.
Human health criteria were considered to include MCLs, EPA
304(a) recommendations, or other health-based criteria.
-------
Ill - NATIONAL FINDINGS
What Progress Has Been Achieved?
Freshwater Aquatic Life Uses
To measure progress, available data from April, 1986 on
State toxics criteria were compared to toxics criteria adopted as
of August, 1989. The data supported a comparison for freshwater
aquatic life protection uses only. The comparison showed
substantial progress in both the number of States and the number
of parameters with criteria adopted.
o The number of States
and Territories
that have adopted
toxics criteria
INCREASED from 33
(in 1986) to 43 (in
1989) - see Figure 1.
o The average number
of parameters with
criteria INCREASED
from 10 per State
(in 1986) to 27 per
State (in 1989) -
see Figure 2.
Figure 2
: 35-1
5>3°H
0C 25
Ql
CO20
y 15-
X
? KH
* 5H
u
> 0-
<
FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE
CRITERIA ADOPTED
27
10
Kb
I":
piit-5
-
11 p
:: •
F--:" m '
1986
1989
Figure 1
FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE USES
STATES WITH CRITERIA ADOPTED
33 States
1986
1989
8
-------
o The number of States
Figure 3
with criteria for
more than 20
ADOPTED FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA
parameters
CO
o
*
INCREASED from 10
o
1989) - see Figure 3.
(in 1986) to 33 (in
15
10
5
0
1986
1989
Human Health
States have also made substantial progress in adopting
toxics criteria for protection of human health. Prior to 1986,
human health criteria were adopted primarily for protection of
public water supplies. These criteria generally did not apply
in-stream, however, and the primary route of exposure considered
was consumption of water.
As of August 1989, 35 States have adopted toxics criteria
for protection of human health. Most of these criteria apply in-
stream and were derived assuming water consumption, fish
consumption, and (in a few States) incidental ingestion while
recreating as routes of exposure. "Fish consumption" criteria
generally apply on all reaches designated for aquatic life
protection, while "water and fish" consumption criteria generally
apply on reaches designa+rd as public water supplies.
9
-------
What is EPA's Preliminary Assessment of Compliance
with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)?
Aquatic Life Uses
As shown in Figure 4, 25 of the 57 States and Territories
are judged by EPA's Regional Offices to be in compliance with the
requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) for aquatic life uses.
An additional 15 States are expected to achieve compliance by the
February 4, 1990 deadline. EPA anticipates that most of the
States not in compliance by February, 1990 will achieve
compliance during FY 1990. For some of these States, however,
EPA promulgation of federal water quality standards may be
necessary to achieve compliance with the Act's requirements. See
Appendix 3 for a State-by-State breakdown of compliance status.
Figure 4
COMPLIANT
~ NOT COMPLIANT
AQUATIC LIFE COMPLIANCE
MOW FEB '90
25 States
10
-------
Human Health
As shown in Figure 5, 15 of the 57 States and Territories
are judged by EPA's Regional Offices to be in compliance with the
requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) for human health. An
additional 18 States are expected to achieve compliance by the
February 4, 1990 deadline. EPA anticipates that many of the
States not in compliance by February, 1990 will achieve
compliance during FY 1990. For some of these States, however,
EPA promulgation of federal water quality standards may be
necessary to achieve compliance with the Act's requirements. See
Appendix 3 for a State-by-State breakdown of compliance status.
Figure 5
C0MPLI,AN
HUMAN HEALTH COMPLIANCE
NOW FEB '90
li
-------
How Many Priority Pollutants Are
Covered With Adopted State Numeric Criteria?
Freshwater Aquatic Life Uses
As shown in Figure 6, 43 of 57 States and Territories have
adopted numerical toxics criteria for freshwater aquatic life
uses. Of the 43 States, 10 have adopted criteria covering 1 to
20 pollutants, 26 have adopted criteria covering 21 to 50
pollutants, and 7 have adopted criteria covering more than 50
pollutants. A total of 14 States and Territories have not yet
adopted numerical toxics criteria for freshwater aquatic life.
One of these States (i.e., Virgin Islands) has demonstrated that
no such criteria are required. Of the remaining thirteen, EPA
currently expects at least 10 States to adopt criteria during the
current review cycle. The remaining 3 States (i.e., Vermont, New
Mexico and Idaho) may soon propose to adopt toxics criteria or a
translator procedure.
Figure 6
FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE USES
30-,
25H
C0
^20
<
I
0D 15-
LL
o
10
5-
26
14
10
T
0 1 - 20 21 - 50 >50
NO. OF TOXICS W/CRiTERIA ADOPTED
12
-------
Human Health
As shown in Figure 7, 35 of 57 States and Territories have
adopted numerical toxics criteria for protection of human health.
Of the 35 States, 14 have adopted criteria covering 1 to 20
pollutants, 8 have adopted criteria covering 21 to 50 pollutants,
and 13 have adopted criteria covering more than 50 pollutants. A
total of 22 States and Territories have not yet adopted human
health numerical toxics criteria. One of these States (i.e.,
Virgin Islands) has demonstrated that no such criteria are
required. Another State (i.e., Michigan) has adopted a
translator procedure (which meets the technical requirements of
Option 3 of EPA's toxics guidance) with which human health
criteria may be derived. Of the remaining 20 States, EPA
currently expects at least 16 States to adopt numeric criteria or
a translator procedure during the current review cycle.
Figure 7
25-i
20-
CD
LU
I—
< 15-
I—
CO
LL
O 10-
o
2:
HUMAN HEALTH
22
14
13
8
T*
0 1- 20 21- 50 >50
NO. OF TOXICS W/CRITERIA ADOPTED
13
-------
Which Priority Pollutants Are Covered
With Adopted/Expected State Numeric Criteria?
The 126 priority pollutants are listed in Appendix 2. For
each pollutant, Appendix 2 identifies the total number of States
where numeric criteria have been adopted or are expected (for
protection of aquatic life or human health). Below, Table 1
lists the 21 priority pollutants for which numeric criteria are
adopted in 35 or more States.
Table 1
Priority Pollutant
# States w/Criterion Adopted
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
36
36
38
36
38
38
40
41
36
39
40
40
42
41
36
PCBs (7 priority pollutants)
Toxaphene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
14
-------
What Risk Level Are States Choosing
for Carcinogens?
As shown in Figure 8, 40 States and Territories have adopted
or are expected to adopt an increased cancer risk of 1 in
1,000,000 (i.e., 10~6) or 1 in 100,000 (i.e., 10~5). Seventy-
five percent of these 40 States have selected (or are expected to
— 6
select) a risk level of 10 . At present, EPA has no information
or expectations regarding the risk levels to be selected by the
remaining 17 States and Territories. See Appendix 4 for a
listing of State risk levels.
Figure 8
STATE SELECTED RISK LEVELS
FOR CARCINOGENS
30/
(17 States)
54/
(31 States)
16/
(9 States)
10—5 -D0PTED OR EXPECTED £2 10~- ADOPTED OR EXPECTED
NONE
NOTE: Some States have adopted criteria based on MCLs or
National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. These criteria, developed by EPA, were
developed using assumed risk levels. Such risk levels
are not included in this discussion because they are
15
-------
What Exposure Assumptions are States Making
in Setting Toxics Criteria for Human Health?
In setting human health criteria for toxic pollutants,
States must make assumptions regarding pathways of human
exposure. Three routes of.exposure have been used by States to
date (though not all States use all three): (1) exposure through
water consumption, (2) exposure through consumption of
contaminated aquatic organisms (i.e., fish flesh), and (3)
exposure through incidental ingestion of water while recreating.
For water consumption, all States which have adopted human health
criteria have assumed consumption of 2 liters per person per day.
For fish consumption, most States have assumed 6.5 grams per
person per day (those that did not are listed in Table 2). For
incidental ingestion, 1 State has assumed 89 ml per person per
day and 6 States have assumed 10 ml per person per day. Refer to
Appendix 5 for a detailed list of State human health criteria
exposure assumptions.
Table 2
State
Fish Consumption Rate (grams/day)
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
New York
Delaware
33 g/day.
5.2 g/day (freshwater)
37 g/day (saltwater)
20 g/day.
30 g/day.
Illinois
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Louisianna
Arizona
California
Hawaii
20 g/day.
20 g/day.
20 g/day.
23 g/day.
19.9 g/day
16
-------
What Optionf s) Are States Choosing?
For a full discussion/description of the options available
to States for complying with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B), see EPA's
December 1988 toxics guidance. Briefly, these options are:
(1) adopt numeric criteria for all pollutants for which EPA has
issued Section 304(a). criteria guidance,
(2) adopt numeric criteria for all pollutants for which EPA has
issued Section 304(a) criteria guidance and the pollutant
can reasonably be expected to interfere with uses, and
(3) adopt a translator procedure which can be used to derive
numeric criteria on an "as needed" basis.
As shown in Figure 9, most States are expected to use
options 1 and 2. Of the fifty-seven States and Territories, 79%
will use options 1 or 2, 19% will use a combination of options 1
or 2 with option 3, and 2% will use option 3 exclusively (see
Appendix 6 for a list of State options).
Figure 9
| Option 1
Option 2
O Option 3
Option 1 & 3
Q Option 2 & 3
STATE OPTIONS ANTICIPATED
17
-------
What States are Adopting Option _3
Translator Procedures?
A total of five States (i.e., Maine, Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan) have adopted translator
procedures for derivation of either aquatic life or human health
criteria. An additional seven States are expected to adopt
(i.e., Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Ohio and
Illinois) or will be encouraged to adopt (i.e., Connecticut,
Vermont) translator procedures during the current review cycle.
Note that Michigan is the only State relying solely on an Option
3 translator approach (see page 17 and especially Appendix 6).
Table 3
States with Translator Procedures Adopted/Expected
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
REGION
STATE
Aq. Life
Human Health
Aq. Life
Human Health
I
CT
X
ME
X
MA
X
NH
X
RI
X
VT
X
III
PA
X
X
IV
MS (1)
X
X
NC (2)
X
X
V
IL
X
X
MI
X
X
OH
X
(1) State is using mostly Option 1 - for pollutants where no
criteria are adopted, the State is expected to adopt a
translator procedure.
(2) State is using mostly Option 2 - for pollutants where no
criteria are adopted, the State has adopted a translator
procedure.
18
-------
What is the Status of Criteria Adoption for Marine Waters?
For marine waters, as shown in Figure 10, 19 of the 28
coastal States and Territories have adopted numerical toxics
criteria for protection of marine aquatic life. Many of these
States have also adopted human health criteria assuming
consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish. If expected
criteria are adopted, 27 of the 28 coastal States and Territori
would have numerical toxics criteria for protection of marine
aquatic life. The one Territory that would not have criteria
(the Virgin Islands) has demonstrated that criteria are not
required based on currently available information.
Figure 10
States w/Numeric Toxics ~ « States w/o Numeric Toxics
MARINE AQUATIC LIFE USES
August, 1989 If Expected Criteria are Adopted
• Pies Represent Total of
28 Coastal States
and Territories
19
-------
IV REGION-BY-REGION FINDINGS
20
-------
CT ME MA NH Rl
VT
No. of 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
0 34 0 0 29
0
MAR
0 34 0 0 29
0
HH
0 108 0 0 0
0
OTH
0 0 0 0 0
0
No. of 307(a) Pollutants
W/Critena ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
34 34 28 28 29
0
MAR
34 34 28 28 29
0
HH
108 108 108 108 0
0
OTH
0 0 0 0 0
0
• Al States also have translator procedures
adopted or expected
Region I
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
Region I
Human Health Criteria
120
CT ME MA NH Rl VT
-------
Region I Human Health Criteria Summary
Connecticut
No human health criteria adopted. It is expected that the State
will use EPA Section 304(a) criteria and methods, though no
preliminary decisions regarding risk level, exposure routes, or
consumption rates have been made.
Maine
The human health criteria^are adopted directly from Section
304(a) and applied at 10 risk level in permits. The criteria
are applicable to all waters assuming exposure through fish
consumption except in those limited cases where surface waters
are used as a drinking water supply. To date there has been no
modification of fish consumption rates but the Maine health
department is looking into local consumption rates.
Massachusetts
No human health criteria have been adopted. It is expected that
Section 304(a) criteria and methods will be used. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection has established a task
force looking into integrated risk management which may result in
changing fish consumption rates from the national average.
New Hampshire
The dragt WQS revision incorporates Section 304(a) criteria at
the 10 risk level applicable to all waters based on fish and
water consumption.
Rhode Island
No human health criteria.
Vermont
No human health criteria. Discussions have begun with Vermont
ANR suggesting that Vermont adopt EPA Section 304(a) criteria.
22
-------
NJ
NY
PR
VI
No of 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
19
48
12
0
MAR
19
33
20
0
HH
8
42
8
0
OTH
0
13
0
0
No. of 307(a) PoMants
W/Crrteria ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
23
49
12
0
MAR
26
34
20
0
HH
22
43
16
0
OTH
0
13
0
0
Region II
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
4ZZZZ&
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region II
Human Health Criteria
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
<*///<&< ^
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
-------
Region II Human Health Criteria Summary
New Jersey
Fresh water criteria for 7 priority pollutants are equal to USEPA
MCLs. The State's criterion for benzidene (a carcinogen) is also
reportedly human health based. The State is in the process of
developing human health based criteria for an additional 14
priority pollutants. These criteria are expected to be based on
drinking water ingestion, using USEPA MCL related information and
may also consider the consumption of contaminated aquatic
organisms. The State is in the process of developing a human
health based criteria development policy, which will address a
number of critical issues such as exposure assumptions and risk
levels.
New York
Water quality criteria in New York State always consider and are
often based on USEPA water quality criteria recommendations. The
State's procedures for deriving human health based water quality
criteria are specified in the New York State Water Quality
Standards Regulation. For carcinogens, the basis for the water
quality criterion is the dose corresponding to an excess lifetime
cancer risk of one in one million and an average 70 killogram
adult consuming 2 liters of water a day for 70 years. A water
quality criterion based on bioaccumulation and human consumption
of fish is determined using a consumption rate of 33 grams of
fish per day.
Puerto Rico
There is little documentation readily available on the basis for
adoption of human health based criteria for toxic substances.
Fresh water criteria for 8 priority pollutants are generally
equal to USEPA MCLs. Criteria for some pesticides specified in
the Water Quality Standards Regulation applicable to fresh and
marine waters are equally or more stringent than USEPA Clean
Water Act Section 304(a) criteria (at the 1 in 100,000 risk
level for carcinogens), although it appears that the criteria
were adopted based on the protection of aquatic life.
U.S. Virgin Islands
The U.S. Virgin Islands, through the Department of Planning and
Natural Resources, has neither adopted human health based numeric
criteria for priority pollutants to date, nor are any expected,
based on the information currently available. There are no
perennial streams or surface water impoundments, and relatively
few point source discharges. Information collected on levels of
toxic substances in the coastal waters failed to document any
priority pollutant at levels of concern.
24
-------
DE DC MD PA VA WV
No. of 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
0 121 13 95 36 67
MAR
0 0 13 0 36 0
HH
0 108 13 107 13 62
OTH
1 0 0 0 0 17
No of 307(a) PoManla
W/Critena ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
32 121 25 95 36 67
MAR
32 0 24 0 36 0
HH
84 108 24 107 13 62
OTH
6 0 0 0 0 17
« PA has also adopted a translator
procedure for Aq. me and Human Health
03
a3
-i—»
o
CO
o
X
o
%
Region III
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
DE DC MD PA VA WV
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
cC
CD
-4—'
O
cn
o
x
O
I—
Region III
Human Health Criteria
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
-------
Region III Human Health Criteria Summary
Delaware
Delaware is expected to adopt human health criteria based on EPA
304(a) criteria and methods, information in IRIS, and MCLs. The
State will use a risk level of 10 and assume exposure through
water and fish consumption. The fish consumption criteria will
be applicable Statewide, while the water and fish consumption
criteria will be applicable only on public water supplies. The
State will assume fish ingestion rates of 5.2 g/day for
freshwater and 37 g/day for saltwater.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia has adopted human health criteria based
on EPA Section 30g(a) criteria and methods. The District uses a
risk level of 10 and assumes exposure through water and fish
consumption. The criteria are applicable only on public water
supplies. The District is considering adoption of fish
consumption criteria District-wide. The District uses EPA fish
and water consumption rates.
Maryland
Maryland has adopted human health criteria and is expected to
make revisions based on MCLs. The State will assume exposure
through water consumption only. The criteria will be applicable
only to public water supplies. The State will use EPA water
consumption rates. (Statewide fish consumption criteria are
currently under consideration at 10 risk).
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has adopted human health criteria based on EPA
Section 304(a) criteria and methods, information_jn IRIS, and
MCLs. The State has selected a risk level of 10 and assumes
exposure through water and fish consumption. The criteria are
applicable statewide. Pennsylvania uses EPA fish and water
consumption rates.
Virginia
The State has adopted human health criteria and is expected to
make revisions. At this time, it is not known what the basis or
assumptions of the revised criteria will be.
West Virginia
West Virginia has adopted criteria based on EPA Section 304(a)
criteria and methods, informatiog in IRIS, and MCLs. The State
has selected a risk level of 10~ and assumes exposure through
water and fish consumption. The fish consumption criteria apply
to troutwater or warmwater aquatic life streams. The water
consumption criteria apply on public water supplies only.
26
-------
AL
FL GA KY MS NC
SC
TN
No ol 30/(3) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
0
43 33 21 1 27
0
9
MAR
0
35 29 0 0 25
0
0
HH
0
42 92 7 9 39
0
10
OTH
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
No. of 307(a) PoMants
W/Criteria ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
29
43 33 37 30 27
29
30
MAR
29
35 29 0 29 25
29
0
HH
103
42 92 100 30 39
3
50
OTH
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
• NC has adopted arid MS b expected to adopt
translator procedures tor aq Me and human health
Region IV
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
"1 1 i i t 1 1 r
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region IV
Human Health Criteria
~i i 1 1 r
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
-------
Region IV Human Health Criteria Summary
Alabama
Alabama is expected to adopt human health criteria based on EPA
304£a) criteria and methods. The State will use a risk level of
10 and assume exposure through fish consumption. The
fish consumption criteria will be applicable Statewide. The
State will use EPA's fish ingestion rate of 6.5 g/day.
Florida
With two exceptions (antimony and selenium), the criteria values
listed for the Potable Water Supply (PWS) classification are
equal to the criteria for the freshwater classification of
Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-
Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife. An antimony criterion
is not listed in the PWS class and the Selenium PWS criterion is
more stringent. Although some of the remaining PWS criteria are
based on aquatic life considerations, all have been counted as
human health criteria. No consistent risk level is recognized in
the State's standards. Water consumption is the only route of
exposure considered. The State uses EPA's water consumption rate
of 2 1/day.
Georgia
The State has adopted human health criteria based on EPA Section
304(a) criteria and methods and information in IRIS (as of July
14,^1989). The State selected a risk level for carcinogens of
10 and assumed exposure through fish consumption. The fish
consumption criteria are applicable Statewide. The State used
EPA's fish consumption rate of 6.5 g/day.
Kentucky
Kentucky has proposed human health criteria based on MCLs and EPA
Section 304(a) criteria and methods (1|80 criteria documents).
The State selected a risk level of 10 for carcinogens and
assumed exposure through water and fish consumption. The MCLs
and water-fish consumption criteria apply only to waters
classified as water supplies. The State's fish consumption
criteria apply to all other State waters. The State used EPA's
water and fish consumption rates.
28
-------
Mississippi
The State has adopted human health criteria based on MCLs and is
expected to adopt additional criteria based on MCLs, EPA Section
304(a) criteria and methods, and current IRIS information. The
State is expected to select a risk level of 10 for carcinogens
and assume exposure through water and fish consumption. The
expected fish consumption criteria will apply to all State
waters. The expected criteria based on water and fish
consumption or MCLs will apply only to waters classified as
drinking water supplies. The State is expected to use EPA's
water and fish consumption rates.
North Carolina
The State has adopted human health criteria based on EPA Section
304(a) criteria and methods and information in&IRIS (as of July,
1989). The State selected a risk level of 10 and assumed
exposure through water and fish consumption. The fish
consumption criteria apply to all State waters, while the water
and fish consumption criteria apply only to waters classified as
drinking water supplies. The State used EPA's water and fish
consumption rates.
South Carolina
The State is expected to adopt three human health criteria based
on MCLs. Risk level was not considered. The proposed criteria
will be applicable to all State waters. The route of exposure
was assumed to be water consumption, and the State used EPA's
water consumption rate of 2 1/day.
Tennessee
The State has adopted human health criteria (based on MCLs) and
is expected to adopt additional criteria based on MCLs, EPA's
Section 304(a) criteria and methods, and current IRIS
information. The State is expected to select a risk level of
10 . For the criteria based on MCLs, the State assumed exposure
through water consumption. For the criteria based on EPA Section
304(a) guidance, the State assumed exposure through fish
consumption. The MCL-based criteria apply only to drinking water
supplies, while the EPA Section 304(a) criteria apply to all
waters. The State is expected to use EPA's water and fish
consumption rates.
29
-------
IL
IN Ml MN OH
Wl
No of 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
11
0 29 4 63
23
MAR
0
0 0 0 0
0
HH
0
0 0 0 31
93
OTH
0
0 2 0 19
24
No. ot 307(a) Pohjt«nts
W/Crltena ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
11
32 29 32 63
23
MAR
0
0 0 0 0
0
HH
0
101 0 108 103
93
OTH
0
0 2 0 19
24
¦ M has adopted a translator procedure
L and OH are expected to adopt translators
Region V
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
120
100
80
60
Region V
Human Health Criteria
120
-------
Region V Human Health Criteria Summary
Illinois
The State has proposed adoption of a translator procedure to
augment existing numeric criteria for aquatic life protection.
The proposed package also includes translator procedures for
human health criteria for drinking water, recreational, and
consumption of fish exposure routes. Proposed rules contain a 20
g/day fish consumption and"a 10-5 risk level, and also include
proposed procedures to generate criteria for parameters which do
not meet the minimum database requirements. The comprehensive
package has been subject to review by U.S. EPA, a State Pollution
Control Board and the public, and is expected to be adopted by
the February, 1990 deadline.
Indiana
The State has proposed adoption of all 304(a) criteria consistent
with National recommendations, and a 10-5 incremental risk level,
for carcinogens. Considerable opposition has been encountered
from both Environmental Groups and discharge representatives;
however, the State expects to complete adoption by the February,
1990 deadline.
Michigan
Michigan has proposed adoption of current State guidelines
(originally adopted in 1985) implementing an Option 3 approach
into State rules in order to satisfy the scientific and
administrative requirements in National 303(c)(2)(b) guidance.
Because of the State schedule for triennial review which was
completed in August of 1987, the State has been granted an
extension of the deadline to August of 1990.
Minnesota
The State has proposed adoption of all 304(a) criteria
recalculated based upon for example, State specific fish
consumption rate (30 g/day), risk level (10-5), and recreational
exposure assumptions (10 ml/day). Although just initiating the
public review process, the State expects to complete adoption
by the February, 1990 deadline.
Ohio
The State has proposed adoption of criteria for 304(a) criteria
based upon a 10-5 risk level, and using a recreational exposure
assumption of 10 ml/day. The public participation process
continues through both formal and informal routes, and the State
expects to meet the February, 1990 deadline.
31
-------
Wisconsin
Wisconsin has adopted (and U.S. EPA has approved) criteria for
all 304(a) criteria using a 20 g/day consumption of fish and a 10
ml/day recreational exposure assumption. The one exception to
approval was a conditional approval of the aroclor-specific
approach to PCB criteria which the State has agreed to amend
within a year of final adoption.
All States
All States within the Region have included criteria or procedures
for all 304(a) criteria as well as procedures to implement
narratives with parameters which do not meet the minimum database
requirements for formal adoption of criteria. In addition,
several States have adopted or are considering criteria to
protect wildlife from exposure to toxics through the aquatic food
chain. All States within the Region have specific use
designations for both aquatic life and human uses of waterbodies,
and have derived criteria reflecting characteristics of these use
designations (e.g. fish lipid content and species composition,
human water consumption rates, etc.). Lastly, no State within
the Region has proposed solely the Option 2 approach to exclude
criteria (or procedures) for any parameters, choosing instead to
adopt protective criteria and make any decision on necessity for
the implementation phase.
32
-------
AR LA NM OK TX
No of 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
26 16 0 32 30
MAR
0 15 0 0 30
HH
0 17 7 21 0
OTH
0 0 0 14 0
No of 307(a) Poimants
W/Crileria ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
26 42 0 32 30
MAR
0 38 0 0 30
HH
0 44 7 21 0
OTH
0 0 0 14 0
co
&
+—
6
CO
o
X
O
H
03
q3
4—;
k
o
-d
$
CO
O
x
o
Region VI
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
Region VI
Human Health Criteria
-------
Region VI Human Health Criteria Summary
Arkansas
No human health criteria are adopted or expected at present.
Louisianna
A few of Louisianna's criteria are based on MCLs or taste and
odor considerations. The majority, however, are derived
considering fish consumption, incidential ingestion and, where
designated as a public water supply, water ingestion. The latest
RfDs and cancer potency slopes from IRIS were used where
available. Where not available, these values were extracted from
water quality criteria documents and applied to the equations
published in the November 1980 Federal Register notice.
Lousianna has selected a risk level of 10 for carcinogens.
Lousianna uses a two number approach for human health criteria:
(1) criteria for waters desginated fishable/swimmable (this is
essentially all State waters), and (2) criteria with the
additional designated use of public water supply. Lousianna
assumed exposure through fish consumption (20 g/day) and water
consumption (2 1/ water consumption, 89 ml/day incidental
ingestion).
New Mexico
New Mexico's human health criteria, only applicable to stream
segments designated as public water supply, were derived using
MCLs and apply to raw water. No state-selected risk level is
specified. The MCLs were derived using the assumption of 2 1/day
water ingestion.
Oklahoma
The criteria are MCLs or MCL-based and FDA action levels. No
risk level is specified in the WQS. The MCLs are applicable in
waterbodies designated as "Public and Private Water Supply." FDA
alert levels are applicable in "fishable" waterbodies. The
criteria are not exposure-based. MCLs are derived using the
assumption of 2 1/day water intake.
Texas
No human health criteria are adopted or expected at present. It
is anticipated that in FY 1990 Texas may adopt human health
criteria.
34
-------
IA
KS
MO
NE
No ol 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
10
22
40
106
MAR
0
0
0
0
HH
11
0
57
22
OTH
0
8
6
14
No. of 307(a) Polutants
W/Crftena ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
35
38
40
106
MAR
0
0
0
0
HH
19
12
57
22
OTH
0
10
6
0
03
q;
4—'
(J
(n
o
x
o
h-
%
Region VII
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
03
q3
¦4—'
-------
Region VII Human Health Criteria Summary
Iowa
Iowa's present human health criteria are generally based on
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
inorganics and MCLs for organics and apply to the entire reach of
designated water supply segments. Risk levels and exposure
assumptions are those selected by EPA. Iowa will conduct
additional revisions to develop human health criteria based on
exposure through fish consumption in FY 1990.
Kansas
Kansas's present numeric human health criteria which exists only
for non-304(l) parameters are based on National Interim Primary
and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations and apply at the point
of water supply diversion. However, Kansas's narrative criteria
state that carcinogenic substances are limited to levels that do
not exceed a 10 risk level and for bioaccumulative substances,
the FDA action levels shall be used as guidelines to protect
consumption. Therefore, for numeric criteria, water consumption
is the exposure route while for narrative, fish consumption is
the major exposure route. No special assumptions concerning
exposure were made by Kansas. Additional work on fish
consumption protection criteria is planned for FY 1990.
Missouri
Missouri's human health criteria generally follows EPA's 304(a)
criteria where such criteria exisg and MCLs where 304(a) criteria
do not exist. Risk levels of 10 are used for carcinogens.
Some of the criteria (VOCs) apply only at water supply withdrawal
points but the other human health criteria based on MCLs apply to
the entire water supply segments. Human health criteria based on
EPA 304(a) guidance apply to all aquatic life segments. Fish
consumption was the major exposure route for 304(a)-based
criteria and no special assumptions of rates of fish/water
consumption were made other than those inherent in EPA's MCL or
304(a) criteria.
Nebraska
Nebraska's human health criteria generally follow National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation values for inorganics
and for organics. Some organics are MCL-based where final MCLs
exist. No explicit risk level has been chosen other than those
utilized by EPA in the development of the drinking water numbers.
The criteria apply to all drinking water use segments. In
addition, Nebraska's narrative general criteria utilize FDA
action levels as determinants of standards violations for all
segments. Drinking water is the major source of exposrue for the
numeric criteria and fish consumption for the narrative criteria.
No special assumptions were made concerning exposure factors.
36
-------
CO MT ND SO UT
WY
No of 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
66 34 26 34 29
0
MAR
0 0 0 0 0
0
HH
58 108 3 108 10
0
OTH
9 0 0 0 6
0
No. orf 3Q7(«) Poluterto
W/CriteiM ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
66 34 26 34 29
30
MAR
0 0 0 0 0
0
HH
58 108 3 108 10
101
OTH
9 0 0 0 6
0
Region VIII
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
CO MT ND SD UT WY
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region VIII
Human Health Criteria
CO MT ND SD UT WY
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
-------
Region VIII Human Health Criteria Summary
Colorado
Colorado's current human health standards were adopted August 7,
1989, and have yet to be submitted for EPA review. Colorado has
two categories of human health criteria - carcinogens and non-
carcinogens. For carcinogens, standards are based on MCLs where
EPA has developed such limits^ Where there are no MCLs, values
are based on a calculated 10 risk level using information in
IRIS. For non-carcinogens, standards are based on MCLs where EPA
has adopted MCLs, or lifetime exposure levels derived from
reference dose information in IRIS or water health advisories.
The human health criteria apply to waters classified for water
supply uses. Since data for values other than MCLs were
calculated based on IRIS data, no special assumptions were made
about rates of water consumption.
Montana
Montana has adopted the Gold Book by reference. Although not
specifically spelled out in their standards, the hearing record
notes that the carcinogenic risk level adopted is 10 No
special assumptions/applications for routes/rates of exposure
were made. The Region wil require, at a minimum, a simple
implementation procedure which explains how these new standards
are applied on a case-by-case basis. Montana also references EPA
primary and secondary drinking water standards.
North Dakota
North Dakota currently has very few specific human health
standards. Their general use classifications include both water
supply and aquatic life uses. The State recently adopted
criteria for 25 substances for which EPA has aquatic life
criteria. Where a human health MCL was more stringent than the
aquatic life value, the State adopted the MCL (e.g., arsenic).
Thus, there are very few specific "human health" values, but the
aquatic life values adopted will also provide human health
protection for those substances (e.g., metals). Where there is a
specific human health value, it is a MCL. North Dakota is
planning to fulfill the remaining 303(c)(2)(B) requirements by
demonstrating that there are no other priority pollutants of
concern in North Dakota. Preliminary data seems to support that
argument. The Region, nevertheless, is attempting to make an
option 1 argument.
South Dakota
South Dakota adopted the Gold Book by reference. The Standards
do not specify a risk level for carcinogens, but State staff
intend to use 10~ in implementing the new standards. The Region
will require a written implementation plan that makes that clear.
38
-------
Utah
Utah has adopted a number of MCLs and drinking water-based
standards which apply to water supply segments (domestic source
1C). No special routes of exposure were assumed. They used EPA
MCLs where available. Utah did not address the 303(c)(2)(B)
human health requirements in their latest standards revision. To
meet the February 4, 1990 deadline, it is possible that Utah
might use an option 2 approach and limit the number of additional
standards, but that is not clear at present.
Wyoming
Wyoming currently has one helath-based criterion for a toxicant
(benzidene; no one remembers how that was selected or why it
specifically was adopted). The proposed standards will rectify
this situation. For health-based standards, Wyoming is proposing
Gold Book values with both water andgontaminated organism routes
of exposure. They propose to use 10 as the risk level for
carcinogens. This proposal has been through two levels of public
meeting with final rulemaking scheduled for mid-November.
39
-------
o
AZ
AS CA GU HI NV
CM
TT
No ol 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
26
0 18 34 0 35
31
37
MAR
0
0 30 34 0 0
31
37
HH
26
0 19 108 0 30
0
0
OTH
0
0 0 0 6 1
No ol 307(a) PoMarts
0
0
W/Criteria ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
126
34 34 34 75 41
37
42
MAR
0
34 39 34 61 0
37
42
HH
126
108 108 108 77 108
108
108
OTH
0
0 0 0 0 1
•
0
0
O
CO
o
X
o
%
CO
q3
O
£
cn
o
x
O
f-
Region IX
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
AZ AS CA GU HI NV CM TT
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region IX
Human Health Criteria
AZ AS CA GU HI NV CM TT
-------
Region IX Human Health Criteria Summary
Arizona
State staff proposes human health protection based on water and
fish ingestion for all of the priority pollutants for all waters
based on 304(a) criteriagsing modified fish consumption level of
20 g/day and IRIS and 10 risk level for carcinogens.
California
State staff proposes human health protection based on fish
consumption only for marine water and based on water and fish
ingestion for fresh waters using 304(a) criteria modified bylRIS
and a fish consumption level of 23 g/day. They propose a_10
ris|c level for ocean waters. They are expected to use 10 or
10 for fresh and estuarine waters.
Hawaii
State staff proposed human health protection based on fish
consumption only for all waters using 304(a) criteria modified
to a fish consumption level of 19.9 g/day and 10 risk level of
carcinogens. They supplement this protection for waters
designated for domestic water supply by discharge prohibition
provisions.
Nevada
State staff proposed human health protection based on water and
fish ingestion using 304(a) criteria directly for all waters
except approximately 15 reaches_got designated for contact
recreation. They utilized a 10 risk level.
American Samoa. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands,
and Trust Territories (Palau)
Staff proposes human health protection based on water and fish
ingestion in fresh waters and fish consumption only for marine
waters using 304(a) criteria and 10 risk level for carcinogens.
Guam
Guam adopted standards very similar to what the other Territories
have proposed.
41
-------
AK
10
OR
WA
No. of 307(a) Pollutants
With Criteria ADOPTED
FRSH
34
0
105
31
MAR
34
0
102
31
HH
108
15
100
0
OTH
0
0
0
0
No. of 307(e) Pol'utants
W/Crltein ADOPTED/EXPECTED
FRSH
107
0
105
31
MAR
104
0
102
31
HH
10E
16
100
31
OTH
0
0
0
0
CT5
&
(J
U)
O
X
O
I-
CO
CD
-I—'
I
O
CO
o
X
o
%
Region X
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
j
yA
£2§
X/
' v
' V
' V
W-
AK
i
ID
—i—
OR
r a
yk
r* j
120
100
f
80
60
40
20
0
W A
/ adopted/expected
ADOPTED
Region X
Human Health Criteria
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
-------
Region X Human Health Criteria Summary
Alaska
Alaska has adopted all EPA 304(a) water and fish consumption
criteria by reference. Such criteria are applicable to waters
designated for water supply, water recreation, and aquatic life
protection (all State waters). The human health criteria for
carcinogens are based on a risk level of 10~
Idaho
Idaho has adopted drinking water MCLs for selected parameters and
is expected to adopt dioxin criteria for the Clearwater/Snake
Rivers. The adopted criteria are applicable only to domestic
water supplies. The Snake/Clearwater River dioxin criteria are
expected to be based on EPA 304(a) guidance and a risk level of
10 °.
Oregon
Oregon has adopted most of the EPA 304(a) water and fish
consumption criteria, as well as drinking water MCLs. Such
criteria are applicable to all basins. The human health criteria
for carcinogens (which are bgsed on EPA 304(a) guidance) are
based on a risk level of 10
Washington
Washington has not yet adopted any human health based criteria
for priority pollutants, but is expected to adopt EPA 304(a)
water and fish consumption criteria for the same 31 pollutants
for which aquatic life criteria are adopted. The criteriafor
carcinogens are expected to be based on a risk level of 10
43
-------
APPENDICES
44
-------
Appendix 1
CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
"Whenever a State reviews water quality standards pursuant to
paragraph (1) of this subsection, or revises or adoptes new
standards pursuant to this paragraph, such State shall adopt
criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section
307(a)(1) of this Act for which criteria have been published
under section 304(a), the discharge or presence of which in the
affected waters could reasonably be expected to interfere with
those designated uses adopted by the State, as necessary to
support such designated uses. Such criteria shall be specific
numerical criteria for such toxic pollutants. Where such
numerical criteria are not available, whenever a State reviews
water quality standards pursuant to paragraph (1), or revises or
adopts new standards pursuant to this paragraph, such State shall
adopt criteria based on biological monitoring or assessment
methods consistent with information published pursuant to section
304(a)(8). Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit
or delay the use of effluent limitations or other permit
conditions based upon or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods or previously adopted numerical criteria."
45
-------
Appendix 2
List of 126 Priority Pollutants
Priority Pollutant
No. States^
w/Criteria
Adopted
No. States^
w/Criteria
Adopted/Expected
Acenapthene
13
27
Acrolein
15
32
Acrylonitrile
13
30
Benzene
18
41
Benzidene
19
35
Carbon Tetrachloride
16
37
Cholorbenzene
17
34
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
7
11
Hexachlorobenzene
16
33
1,2-dichloroethane
16
37
1,1,1-trichloroethane
15
38
Hexachlorethane
13
30
1,1-dichlorethane
2
3
1,1,2-trichlorethane
14
32
1,1,2,2-tetrachlorethane
15
32
chloroethane
1
2
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
13
30
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
5
7
2-chloronapthalene
4
6
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
16
32
Parachlorometa cresol
14
26
Chloroform
17
35
2-chlorophenol
18
32
1,2-dichlorobenzene
16
33
1,3-dichlorobenzene
15
32
1,4-dichlorobenzene
15
34
3,3-dichlorobenzidene
12
28
1,1-dichloroethylene
15
37
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
7
12
2,4-dichlorophenol
18
33
1,2-dichloropropane
6
10
1,2-dichloropropylene
12
29
2,4-dimethylphenol
11
25
2,4-dinitrotoluene
12
29
2,6-dinitrotoluene
5
8
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
12
29
Ethylbenzene
15
33
Fluoranthene
14
30
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
3
5
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
4
6
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
12
28
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
3
8
Methylene chloride
12
31
Methyl chloride
13
29
46
-------
Appendix 2
(continued)
List of 126 Priority Pollutants
No. States.. No. States^
w/Criteria w/Criteria
Priority Pollutant Adopted Adopted/Expected
Methyl bromide 12 27
Bromoform 15 32
Dichlorobromoraethane 14 32
Chlorodibromomethane 14 32
Hexachlorobutadiene 15 33
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 15 32
Isophorone 14 30
Napthalene 6 10
Nitrobenzene 15 31
2-nitrophenol 5 8
4-nitrophenol 5 8
2,4-dinitrophenol 14 31
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol 12 28
N-nitrosodimethylamine 12 29
N-nitrosodiphenylamine 12 28
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine 5 10
Pentachlorophenol 23 43
Phenol 28 39
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 20 34
Butyl benzyl phthalate 11 13
Di-n-butyl phthalate 19 33
Di-n-octyl phthalate 10 12
Diethyl phthalate 18 31
Dimethyl phthalate 19 32
I,2-benzanthracene 12 29
Benzo (a) pyrene 12 31
3,4-benzofluoranthene 12 29
II,12-benzofluoranthene 12 29
Chrysene 12 29
Acenaphthylene 12 28
Anthracene 12 28
1,12 benzopyrylene 12 29
Fluorene 12 29
Phenanthrene 12 29
1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene 12 30
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 12 29
Pyrene 12 29
Tetrachloroethylene 16 36
Toluene 17 37
Trichloroethylene 17 40
Vinyl chloride 13 35
Aldrin 36 50
47
-------
Appendix 2
(continued)
List of 126 Priority Pollutants
No. States^ No. States^
w/Criteria w/Criteria
Priority Pollutant Adopted Adopted/Expected
Dieldrin
36
50
Chlordane
34
49
4,4-DDT
34
49
4,4-DDE
16
29
4,4-DDD
16
29
Alpha-endosulfan
31
48
Beta-endosulfan
31
48
Endosulfan sulfate
24
38
Endrin
38
52
Endrin aldehyde
5
15
Heptachlor
33
49
Heptachlor epoxide
10
20
Alpha-BHC
14
32
Beta-BHC
14
32
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
33
50
Delta-BHC
7
12
PCB-1242
36
50
PCB-1254
36
50
PCB-1221
36
50
PCB-1232
36
50
PCB-1248
36
50
PCB-1260
36
50
PCB-1016
36
50
Toxaphene
38
52
Antimony
16
32
Arsenic
38
52
Asbestos
7
22
Beryllium
21
36
Cadmium
40
53
Chromium
41
54
Copper
36
50
Cyanide
39
51
Lead
40
53
Mercury
40
53
Nickel
31
49
Selenium
42
54
Silver
41
53
Thallium
16
32
Zinc
36
51
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
14
33
(1) State has numeric criteria for one or more uses.
48
-------
Appendix 3
Status of State Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
Region State
Compliance NOW with
Section 303(c)(2)(B)?
Aq. Life Hum Health
Compliance Expected
by Feb 4, 1990?
Aq. Life H Health
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
MAYBE
YES
YES
NO (1)
YES
MAYBE
MAYBE
YES
MAYBE
NO (1)
NO
MAYBE
II
NJ (2)
NY (2)
PR (2)
VI
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
III
DE
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO (3)
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO (3)
YES
IV
V
VI
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
(6)
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO (5)
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO (7)
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO (5)
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO (8)
49
-------
Appendix 3
Status of State Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
(continued)
Region
State
Compliance NOW with
Section 303(c)(2)(B)?
Aq. Life Hum Health
Compliance
by Feb 4,
Aq. Life
Expected
1990?
H Health
VII
IA
NO
NO
YES
NO (9)
KS
NO
NO
NO (9)
NO (9)
MO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NE
YES
NO
YES
NO (9)
VIII
CO
YES
NO (10)
YES
NO (10)
MT
(11)
YES
YES
YES
YES
ND
YES
NO
YES
MAYBE (:
SD
(11)
YES
YES
YES
YES
UT
YES
NO
YES
MAYBE (!
WY
NO
NO
YES
YES
IX
AZ
(13)
NO
NO
NO
NO
AS
NO
NO
YES
YES
CA
(13)
NO
NO
NO
NO
GU
YES
YES
YES
YES
HI
NO
NO
YES
YES
NV
NO
NO
YES
YES
CM
YES
NO
YES
YES
TT
YES
NO
YES
YES
X
AK
YES
YES
YES
YES
ID
NO
NO
NO
NO
OR
YES
YES
YES
YES
WA
NO
NO
NO
NO
KEY:
YES
REGIONAL
COORDINATOR
BELIEVES STATE
HAS OR WILL ACHIEVE
COMPLIANCE BY FEBRUARY 4, 1990
NO
REGIONAL COORDINATOR DOES NOT BELIEVE STATE HAS OR WILL
ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE BY FEBRUARY 4, 1990
MAYBE = REGIONAL COORDINATOR BELIEVES
COMPLIANCE BY FEBRUARY 4, 1990
STATE
MAY
ACHIEVE
50
-------
Appendix 3
Status of State Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
(continued)
NOTES:
(1) Adoption in New Hampshire is expected in March of 1990.
(2) New York, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico are expected to
achieve compliance for aquatic life and human health by the
end of FY 1990.
(3) Virginia will adopt final criteria in September of 1990.
1987 Triennial review fell close to the Act.
(4) Region IV States of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, South
Carolina, and Tennessee are expected to achieve compliance
during FY 1990 for aquatic life and human health. Florida
has already achieved compliance for aquatic life and is
expected to achieve compliance for human health during FY
1990.
(5) Michigan Rule 57 meets the technical requirements but not
administrative requirements. State has drafted changes but
at this time compliance is not expected by 2/90. The State
has been granted an extension to August, 1990 based upon
completion of the previous triennial review in August of
1987.
(6) Does not include metals.
(7) New Mexico is expected to adopt aquatic life criteria during
FY 1990, but no details are available.
(8) It is anticipated that Texas may adopt human health criteria
during FY 1990, but no details are available.
(9) Iowa and Kansas are expected to adopt needed criteria in the
3rd quarter of FY 1990. Nebraska is expected to adopt
needed criteria in late 2nd quarter or early 3rd quarter of
FY 1990.
(10) Colorado has adopted an extensive list of human health
values, but all are based on a drinking water route of
exposure. Although Region VIII has explained that this
effort is incomplete, it is unlikely that Colorado will
adopt additional standards by February 4, 1990. Th*'' have
hinted at an option 2 approach for the "contaminate
organism" exposure route, i.e., they intend to make some
demonstration that fish consumption (on a lifetime basis) is
not an important exposure route in Colorado.
51
-------
Appendix 3
Status of State Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
(continued)
(11) Montana and South Dakota have satisfied the requirement by
referencing the Gold Book as their standards; they have not
explained satisfactorily how the standards will be
implemented on a case by case basis.
(12) Region VIII will attempt to convince both North Dakota and
Utah to use an option 1 approach to satisfy the 303(c)(2)(B)
requirement. It is unclear at this point how successful
that might be. At present, these States are leaning toward
an option 2 approach which will likly mean few, if any, new
criteria for North Dakota and a few additional criteria for
Utah. If they both select option 2, Region VIII expects
completion of that process by February 4, 1990. If they
agree to an option 1 approach, that may take longer to
complete.
(13) Arizona and California are on schedule to adopt criteria by
April, 1990.
52
-------
Appendix 4
Risk Levels For Carcinogens Selected by States
Risk Risk
Level Level
Region State Adopted Expected
Risk Risk
Level Level
Region State Adopted Expected
I
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
10"6
10
10
II
NJ
NY
PR
VI
10"6
10
III
DE
DC
io-6
10
MD
PA
lo-6
10
VA
WV
io"6
IV
AL
FL
GA
KY
101
IO"6
10
MS
NC
IO"6
10
SC
TN
10
V
IL
10
IN
MI
10"5
10
MN
10'
OH
WI
10"5
10'
-6
-6
-5
-6
-5
-6
-6
5
-5
-5
-5
VI
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
IO"6
VII
IA
KS
MO
NE
IO"6
VIII
CO
MT
10~6
IO"6
(1)
ND
SD
IO'6
(2)
UT
WY
IO"6
IX
AZ
101
AS
CA
GU
HI
NV
CM
TT
IO"6
if
10 /10
101
10~6
10 6
10~6
X
AK
IO"6
ID
OR
WA
IO"6
10 6
IO"6
-6
NOTES:
(1) Although not specifically identified in the State WQS, the
hearing recordgnotes that the carcinogenic risk level
adopted is 10
(2) WQS-do not identify risk level; State staff intend to use
10"°.
53
-------
Appendix 5
Exposure Assumptions Used by States in Setting
Human Health Criteria
ARE WQS
WATER
ORGANISM
EXPECTED
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
Region
State
OR ADOPTED?
RATE
RATE
I
ME
ADOPTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
NH
EXPECTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
II
NJ
ADOPTED
2 1/day
NY
ADOPTED
2 1/day
33 g/day
PR
ADOPTED
2 1/day
III
DE
EXPECTED
2 1/day
Freshwater
= 5.2 g/day
Saltwater
=37 g/day
DC
ADOPTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
MD
EXPECTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
PA
ADOPTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
VA
EXPECTED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
WV
ADOPTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
IV
AL
EXPECTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
FL
ADOPTED
2 1/day
GA
ADOPTED
6.5 g/day
KY
EXPECTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
MS
EXPECTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
NC
ADOPTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
SC
ADOPTED
2 1/day
TN
EXPECTED
2 1/day
6.5 g/day
V
IL
EXPECTED
2.01 1/day2
20 g/day 1
IN
EXPECTED
2.01 1/day,
6.5 g/day..
MI
ADOPTED
2.01 1/day,
6.5 g/day
MN
EXPECTED
2.01 1/day,
30 g/day ..
OH
EXPECTED
2.01 1/day,
6.5 g/day
WI
ADOPTED
2.01 1/day
20 g/day
VI
LA
EXPECTED
2.089 1/day2
20 g/day
NM
ADOPTED
2 1/day
OK
ADOPTED
2 1/day
54
-------
Appendix 5
Exposure Assumptions Used by States in Setting
Human Health Criteria
(continued)
ARE WQS WATER ORGANISM
EXPECTED CONSUMPTION CONSUMPTION
Region State OR ADOPTED? RATE RATE
VII
IA
KS
MO
NE
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
VIII
CO
MT
SD
UT
WY
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
IX
AZ
AS
CA
GU
HI
NV
CM
TT
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
X
AK
ID
OR
WA
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
NOTES:
2
2
2
2
1/day-
1/day
1/day
1/day
6.5 g/day
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
1/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
20 g/day
6.5 g/day
23 g/day
6.5 g/day
19.9 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
(1) Region 5 has advised or will advise State that 6.5 g/day is
an inappropriately low assumption.
(2) State has assumed exposure via incidental consumption of
water resulting from recreational activities. For
Louisianna, this assumption was an additional 89 ml/day.
For Region 5 States, this assumption was an additional 10
ml/day.
(3) Kansas criteria are for non-307(a) pollutants.
55
-------
Appendix 6
State Selected Options"'" to Comply with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
Region State Option Region State Option
CT
1
&
3
VI
AR
2
ME
1
&
3
LA
2
MA
1
&
3
NM
2
NH
1
&
3
OK
2
RI
1
&
3
TX
2
VT
2
&
3
VII
IA
2
NJ
2
KS
2
NY
2
MO
2
PR
2
NE
2
VI
2
VIII
CO
2
DE
2
MT
1
DC
1
ND
2
MD
2
SD
1
PA
1
&
3
UT
2
VA
2
WY
1
WV
2
IX
AZ
1
AL
1
AS
1
FL
2
CA
1
GA
1
GU
1
KY
1
HI
1
MS
2
&
3
NV
1
NC
2
&
3
CM
1
SC
2
TT
1
TN
2
X
AK
1
IL
2
&
3
ID
2
IN
1
OR
1
MI
3
WA
2
MN
1
OH
2
&
3
WI
1
Notes:
(1) As described in December 1988 EPA Toxics Guidance
56
-------