United States Office of Ground Water EPA/816-R-99-014k
Environmental and Drinking Water (4601) September 1999
Protection Agency
The Class V Underground Injection
Control Study
Volume 11
Aquaculture Waste Disposal Wells
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1. Summary 1
2. Introduction 3
3. Prevalence of Wells 5
4. Wastewater Characteristics and Injection Practices 6
4.1 Injectate Characteristics 6
4.1.1 Injectate Data at Existing Wells 7
4.1.2 General Characteristics of Aquaculture Effluent 12
4.2 Well Characteristics 16
4.2.1 Design Features 16
4.2.2 Siting Considerations 17
4.3 Operational Practices 18
5. Potential and Documented Damage to USDWs 20
5.1 Injectate Constituent Properties 20
5.2 Observed Impacts 20
6. Best Management Practices 21
6.1 Reducing Pollutant Levels in Injectate 21
6.1.1 Improving Feeding Efficiency 21
6.1.2 Chemical Use Reduction 21
6.1.3 Technological Approaches 22
6.2 Reducing Injectate Volume 23
6.3 Closure; Use of Alternative Disposal Methods 23
7. Current Regulatory Requirements 23
7.1 Federal Programs 24
7.2 State and Local Programs 25
Attachment A: Drugs, Chemicals, and Biotics Used in Aquaculture 27
Attachment B: State and Local Program Descriptions 37
References 44
-------
AQUACULTURE WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted a study of Class V
underground injection wells to develop background information the Agency can use to evaluate the risk
that these wells pose to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and to determine whether
additional federal regulation is warranted. The final report for this study, which is called the Class V
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Study, consists of 23 volumes and five supporting appendices.
Volume 1 provides an overview of the study methods, the USEPA UIC Program, and general findings.
Volumes 2 through 23 present information summaries for each of the 23 categories of wells that were
studied (Volume 21 covers 2 well categories). This volume, which is Volume 11, covers Class V
aquaculture waste disposal wells.
1. SUMMARY
Methods employed for the controlled cultivation of aquatic organisms can vary substantially.
Some aquaculture facilities use pens suspended in open water bodies, while others use systems that
circulate water through tanks. Many aquaculture operations accumulate wastewater and sludge that
requires removal. At dozens of such facilities in Hawaii and in several other states, this effluent is
disposed via underground injection.
Injected aquaculture effluent includes fecal and other excretory wastes and uneaten aquaculture
food. The primary chemical and physical constituents of these wastewaters are therefore nitrogen- and
phosphorus-based nutrients and suspended and dissolved solids. The effluent may also contain bacteria
pathogenic to humans and chemicals, pesticides, and/or aquaculture additives. However, the incidence
and concentrations of human pathogenic bacteria, chemicals, pesticides, and additives in injectate is
unknown. Information on aquaculture wastewater quality industry-wide is very limited, and wastewater
properties are believed to vary greatly among different aquaculture operations. Available analytical
data for aquaculture injectate and aquaculture effluent suggest that the concentrations of most
parameters are generally below applicable standards. Contaminants that may exceed the standards
under some circumstances include turbidity and possibly nitrite and nitrate. The secondary maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for chloride is also exceeded in the wastewater from some seawater-based
operations, but as long as these wastes are injected to saline aquifers, they pose no threat to USDWs.
The injection zone for aquaculture wastewater is characterized by relatively high porosity, as
aquaculture wastewaters typically have significant suspended solids content. Seawater-based
aquaculture operations in Hawaii inject wastewater into brackish or saline aquifers that flow seaward.
Little information is available regarding other aquifers receiving aquaculture injectate.
No contamination incidents related to aquaculture wastewater disposal have been reported.
Information about the threat of contamination posed by these wells is also inconclusive. For example,
in Idaho, an aquaculture well is known to inject wastewater directly into an aquifer, but the quality of
the aquifer, its status as a USDW, and the resulting impacts, are unknown. The subsurface disposal
September 30, 1999
-------
system (i.e., a leaching field) known to be in use by an aquaculture operation in Maryland is situated
above a Type 1 (high quality) aquifer, but no impacts have been observed.
Aquaculture wells generally are not vulnerable to spills or illicit discharges. Most are located
within private facilities and are not accessible to the public for unsupervised waste disposal. However,
the potential exists for operators to dispose of harmful liquid wastes (e.g., waste aquaculture chemicals,
or spent tank water with higher concentrations of chemicals used for temporary treatment of cultivated
organisms) via aquaculture injection wells. No such cases have been reported.
According to the state and USEPA Regional survey conducted for this study, a total of 56
documented Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells exist in the U.S. The great majority occur in
Hawaii (51 wells, or 93 percent). The remaining documented wells are in Wyoming (2 wells), Idaho (1
well), New York (1 well), and Maryland (1 well). In addition to these documented wells, as many as
50 additional wells are estimated to exist in California. Thus, the true number of aquaculture waste
disposal wells in the U.S. is likely to approach 100. Given that the value of U.S. aquaculture
production has grown by 5 to 10 percent per year over the past decade, and that the aquaculture
industry remains the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture, there is some possibility that the
number of Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells will increase.
Programs to manage Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells vary between the states with
documented or estimated wells:
• In California, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program. In addition,
under the California Water Quality Control Act, nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards
coordinate and advance water quality in each region. These Boards may prescribe discharge
requirements for discharges into the waters of the state under regional water quality control
plans.
• In Hawaii, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program. In addition,
aquaculture waste disposal wells are authorized by individual permits issued by the state
Department of Health. Class V wells are subject to siting requirements, and prohibited from
operating in a manner that allows the movement of contaminants into a USDW.
• In Idaho, which is a Primacy State, wells greater than 18 feet deep are individually permitted,
while shallower wells are authorized by rule. The state has enacted an antidegradation policy to
maintain the existing uses of all ground water.
• Maryland is also a Primacy State. In addition to the state's UIC Class V program, the state's
pollution discharge elimination system can require permits for discharges into ground water.
Individual permits are required for any discharge of pollutants to ground water, for any
industrial discharge of wastewater to a well or septic system, for any septic system with 5,000
gpd or greater capacity, or for any well that injects fluid directly into a USDW. County health
September 30, 1999
-------
departments, as well as the state Department of the Environment, can oversee aquaculture
waste discharge wells.
In New "Vbrk, the Class V UIC program is directly implemented by USEPA Region 2. The
state also implements a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) to protect the
waters of the state, which include ground waters. Aquaculture waste disposal wells can be
required to obtain an SPDES permit for discharges into ground water.
Wyoming is a Primacy State and aquaculture wells are covered under a general permit under
the state's Class V UIC program. The permit covers a class of operators, all of whom inject
similar types of fluids for similar purposes, and requires somewhat less information to be
submitted by the applicant than is required by an individual permit. The well must satisfy
specific construction and operating requirements (e.g., pretreatment of wastewater).
INTRODUCTION
The term "aquaculture" has been defined in
many different ways. In addition to the international
definition used by the United Nations (see text box),
the term has taken a number of definitions in the
United States. According to the National Aquaculture
Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. 2801, the term "aquaculture"
means the propagation and rearing of aquatic species
in controlled or selected environments. USEPA
(1987) defines it simply as the active cultivation of
marine and freshwater aquatic organisms under
controlled conditions, while Buck (1999) defines the
term to include both the farming and the husbandry of
fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants.
What is Aquaculture?
According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations,
the term "aquaculture" is defined as "the
farming of aquatic organisms, including fish,
molluscs, crustaceans, and aquatic plants.
Farming implies some sort of intervention in
the rearing process to enhance production,
such as regular stocking, feeding, protection
from predators, etc. Farming also implies
individual or corporate ownership of the
stock being cultivated" (FAO, 1997).
These definitions encompass a broad range of
organisms and a wide variety of production systems and facilities. Aquaculture operations across the
U.S. produce more than 100 species of aquatic organisms at different life stages, although about 10
species of shellfish and finfish dominate the industry (Goldburg and Triplett, 1997). These operations
utilize salt, brackish, and/or fresh waters. As the purpose of the facility can also vary, this study
considers those facilities that propagate aquatic organisms for commercial purposes (e.g., for sale as
food) as well as those that rear aquatic organisms for research and/or educational purposes (e.g., public
display).
A common attribute of all aquaculture systems is the use of water as the medium for cultivation.
Aquaculture systems provide a constant supply of sufficiently clean and oxygenated water to support
the cultivated organisms, and also to carry away deoxygenated water and wastes. Systems that hold
organisms within open, natural water bodies (suspended cages, net pens, or racks) rely on natural
September 30, 1999
-------
water circulation or dispersion to accomplish this water "turnover." Wastes released from these
systems are not collected or managed, and this type of aquaculture operation is therefore beyond the
scope of this study. By comparison, pond culture, recirculating systems (i.e., closed systems where
some or all of the water is filtered and reused), and single-pass systems (i.e., channels or troughs with
water flowing from one end to the other) are required to manage the supply and condition of water in
the system, including the removal and management of wastes (largely consisting of wastewater). These
types of aquaculture systems are considered in this study Specifically, this study focuses on
aquaculture operations that manage at least a portion of their wastewater by releasing it into Class V
underground injection wells (see below), and more broadly on aquaculture operations that collect and
manage their wastewater, and therefore may consider underground injection as a means of wastewater
management.
Aquaculture wastewater parameters are as varied as the types of aquaculture systems in
operation. Wastewater effluent consist primarily of uneaten food and excretory wastes from cultivated
organisms. Aquaculture wastewater effluent can also include a variety of chemicals, pesticides, and/or
feed additives that are added to systems to condition the water, medicate the cultivated organisms,
control pests, or aid growth patterns.
Many aquaculture systems employ a constant through-flow of water. These systems typically
generate wastewater at a relatively high and constant rate, with relatively low contamination levels.
Systems that filter, re-oxygenate, and recycle water typically generate more concentrated wastewater
and sludges (from the filtration process), but at lower or intermittent rates. Most tank-based
aquaculture systems also often have intermittent discharges of concentrated wastewater during cleaning
and harvesting operations.
All of these wastewater types can be, and in some cases are, injected into Class V underground
injection wells. Available data indicate, however, that only a very few aquaculture operations (roughly
100 nationwide) currently dispose of wastewater by underground injection.
According to the existing underground injection control (UIC) regulations in 40 CFR
146.5(e)(12), "wells used to inject fluids that have undergone chemical alteration
during...aquaculture..." are classified as Class V injection wells. For purposes of this study aquaculture
waste disposal wells include wells that drain or inject waste fluids from aquacultural operations into the
subsurface. This includes wastewater drained directly from tanks or ponds, as well as wastewater from
filtration systems, sludge removal processes, and cleaning operations. As currently defined in the UIC
regulations (40 CFR 144.3), a "well means a bored, drilled or driven shaft, or a dug hole, whose depth
is greater than the largest surface dimension." Therefore, any hole that is deeper than it is wide or long
qualifies as a well. In the case of aquaculture waste disposal wells, this includes holes drilled and cased
with pipe, as well as "infiltration galleries" consisting of one or more vertical pipes leading to an array of
horizontal, perforated pipes laid below the ground surface, designed to release wastewater
underground. Each of the vertical pipes in such a system, individually or in a series, is considered an
injection well subject to UIC authorities (Elder and Lowrance, 1992).
September 30, 1999
-------
3. PREVALENCE OF WELLS
For this study, data on the number of Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells were collected
through a survey of state and USEPA Regional UIC Programs. The survey methods are summarized in
Section 4 of Volume 1 of the Class V Study. Table 1 lists the number of Class V aquaculture waste
disposal wells in each state, as determined from this survey. The table includes the documented number
and estimated number of wells in each state, along with the source and basis for any estimate, when
noted by the survey respondents. If a state is not listed in Table 1, it means that the UIC Program
responsible for that state indicated in its survey response that it did not have any Class V aquaculture
waste disposal wells.
As shown in Table 1, the available inventory information indicates that there are a total of 56
documented Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells in the U.S. Of these, 51 are in Hawaii, two are
in Wyoming, and Idaho, Maryland, and New "fork have one documented well each. In addition to
these documented wells, State of California and USEPA Region 9 officials estimate that there may be
as many as 50 aquaculture waste disposal wells in California. Therefore, the best estimate indicates
that fewer than 106 wells currently exist in the U.S.
Currently, Oregon has no registered Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells, but it is possible
that some may exist at federal- and/or state-operated facilities and at one coastal aquarium facility. It is
likely that the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality will register some Class V
aquaculture facilities in the future (Priest, 1999).
Aquaculture is the fastest-growing segment of U.S. agriculture (Holeck et al., 1998). The
National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that in 1997, the most recent year available, aquaculture
production totaled almost 934 million dollars (NMFS, 1999). The value of U.S. aquaculture
production has grown by roughly 5 percent to 10 percent per year over the past decade. As the
industry continues to grow, it is possible that additional aquaculture operations will consider
underground injection as a means of disposing at least a portion of their wastewater, although injection
wells have proven to be a relatively uncommon means of waste disposal in the aquaculture industry to
date. Several industry experts believe that it is unlikely that additional injection wells will be used in the
future due to high regulatory and construction costs and a loss of a potentially valuable income-
producing resource (i.e., nutrients from the effluent) (Castle, 1999; Jensen, 1999).
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Aquaculture Wells in the U.S.
State
Documented
Number of \\fells
Estimated Number of \\fells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology1
USEPA Region 1 - None
USEPA Region 2
NY
1
1
N/A
USEPA Region 3
MD
1
1
N/A
USEPA Region 4 - None
USEPA Region 5 - None
USEPA Region 6 - None
USEPA Region 7 - None
USEPA Region 8
WY
2
2
Best professional judgement.
USEPA Region 9
CA
HI
0
51
<50
51
Based on anecdotal information.
N/A
USEPA Region 10
ID
1
1
N/A
All USEPA Regions
All States
56
<106
Total estimated number counts the documented number
when the estimate is NR.
1 Unless otherwise noted, the best professional judgement is that of the state or USEPA Regional staff completing the survey
questionnaire.
N/A Not available.
4. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND INJECTION
PRACTICES
4.1 Injectate Characteristics
Wastewater and injectate characteristics from aquaculture operations can be examined from
two standpoints: (1) the known characteristics of injectate at the relatively few aquaculture operations
September 30, 1999 6
-------
now known to inject wastes into Class V wells; and (2) more general characteristics of aquaculture
wastewater, describing the types of wastewaters that could potentially be injected in Class V wells if
additional aquaculture operations elect this means of waste disposal as the domestic aquaculture
industry grows. However, as discussed earlier in Section 3, many industry experts believe that this
means of disposal will not become more widespread in the future.
The principal sources of contaminants in aquaculture effluent are unconsumed feed, excreta,
and possibly chemical additives. Therefore, the principal contaminants in aquaculture effluent are
nutrients from decomposing feed and excreta: nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, other nitrogen compounds, and
phosphate and other forms of phosphorous. Other key physical/chemical parameters of aquaculture
effluent include suspended and dissolved solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and low oxygen
levels. Aquaculture effluents have been shown to contain microbial contamination, including human
pathogens. Aquaculture operations also utilize antibiotics to control diseases; pesticides to control
parasites, algae, and other pests; hormones to induce spawning; anesthetics to immobilize fish during
transport and handling; and pigments, vitamins, and minerals to promote rapid growth and desired
qualities in the cultivated organisms (Goldburg and Triplett, 1997). However, while these chemicals,
pesticides, and feed additives may possibly be present in aquaculture effluent, little data exist on either
their presence or, if present, their concentrations. Moreover, little evidence has been found to indicate
problems from using approved compounds in their prescribed manner.
4.1.1 Injectate Data at Existing Wells
Data characterizing injectate at known Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells are limited.
As outlined in Section 3, the existence of documented wells is limited to five states (HI, MD, ID, WY,
NY) and wells are also believed to exist in an additional state (CA). Injectate data are available only
for wells in Hawaii, Idaho, and Maryland, and are summarized below
The Hawaii Aquaculture Effluent Discharge Program compiled a report in 1990 that describes
a survey conducted from December 1988 to June 1989 of eleven Hawaiian aquaculture facilities that
were injecting wastewater into Class V wells. Injectate quality parameters measured in the survey were
dissolved nutrients, total nutrients, pigments, and suspended solids. Data from this survey are
summarized in Table 2.
Injectate characteristics data provided to the Hawaii Department of Health by Sea Life Park in
Waimanalo, Ouahu, are listed in Table 3. Sea Life Park operates 19 of Hawaii's 51 documented Class
V aquaculture waste disposal wells (Uehara, 1999). This operation and other similar facilities fall within
the broad definition of aquaculture given earlier (see Section 2). In addition, Sea Life Park is
considered to be an aquaculture facility by the Hawaii Department of Health UIC Program, and since it
disposes of aquaculture wastewater via underground injection, it is included in this volume. Data in
Table 3 are for samples at four injection wells, analyzed in December 1998. According to the Hawaii
Department of Health UIC Program, chemicals are generally not used in aquaculture in Hawaii, except
that Sea Life Park uses small amounts of chlorine as a disinfectant for mammal tank wastewater
(Uehara, 1999).
September 30, 1999 1
-------
Table 2. Aquaculture Injectate Characteristics, Hawaii (mg/1 except where noted)
Parameter
Freshwater Fish
Farm
Freshwater Prawn
Farm
Marine Fish
Farm
Marine Shrimp
Farm
Dissolved Nutrients
Nitrate and Nitrite
Ammonia
Phosphate
0.001-0.83
0.0082-0.5
0.008-0.11
0.0043 - 0.52
0.0042 - 0.2
0.007-0.055
0.0035-0.98
0.007-0.7
0.014-0.32
0.0038-0.5
0.003-1.2
0.006-0.51
Total Nutrients
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
0.0047-1.5
0.062 - 2.2
0.33-1.82
0.14-1.0
0.0015-1.62
0.02-0.5
0.09-1.7
0.03-1.5
Pigments
Chlorophyll
Pheopigment
0.001-5.0
0.001-0.25
0.1-1.0
0.003-0.18
0.001 -0.18
0.001 - 0.04
0.003-1.1
0.002-0.16
Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
Total Filterable Solids
Ash-free Dry Weight
1-150
1.8-610
1 - 500,000
1.6-62
38 - 400
50 - 500
1-9.9
1.3-75
1-100
1.8-42
4.1 - 160
3-100
Source: Hawaii Aquaculture Effluent Discharge Program, 1990.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 3. Aquaculture Injectate Characteristics, Sea Life Park, Hawaii
Parameter
Ammonia (NH4+) (mg/1)
Nitrate & nitrite (mg/1)
Total nitrogen (mg/1)
Total phosphorus (mg/1)
Oil and grease (mg/1)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
pH
Temperature (°C)
Total coliform (colonies/100 ml)
BOD5 (mg/1)
Total residual chlorine (mg/1)
Total suspended solids (mg/1)
Total dissolved solids (mg/1)
Turbidity (NTU)
Chloride (mg/1)
Average1
0.22
1.46
2.45
0.22
<10.0
6.33
7.61
25.9
-
<1.0
None detected
3.35
38,150
0.28
18,475
Range1
0.09-0.45
1.31-1.75
1.45-3.48
0.18-0.31
All samples <10.0
6.14-6.48
7.59-7.65
25.9-26.0
12 - TNTC2
All samples < 1.0
None detected
2.86-4.28
36,450 - 38,950
0.21-0.33
18,400-18,500
1 Average and range for one sample at each of four wells.
2 Too numerous to count.
Source: Uehara, 1999.
The single documented aquaculture injection well in Idaho, the Ten Springs Fish Farm, injects
only a portion of its raceway1 effluent water, which is regulated by a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit, after it has been allowed to settle in a settling pond.
Characteristics of the settling pond effluent, as it was injected in a nine-month span from 1992-1993,
are presented in Table 4.
Information on the injectate at McGill Farms, the single aquaculture operation that injects
wastes into a Class V well in Maryland, was provided by state and county officials (Eisner, 1999, and
Browning, 1999, respectively). Effluents from the operation consist of wastewater and sludge from a
biofilter process as well as water and sludge from the tanks themselves. Characteristics of the biofilter
liquid effluent, as well as the sludge (fecal material), that is sent to the disposal system (similar in design
to a septic system with septic tanks and leaching fields) are presented in Table 5 below.
1 A series of chambers through which water flows continuously.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 4. Aquaculture Injectate Characteristics, Ten Springs Fish Farm, ID (mg/l)
Parameter
Total suspended solids
Nitrate N
Ammonia N
KjeldahlN
Total Phosphorus
Average1
-
0.91
0.23
0.58
0.08
Range1
none detected - 2.0
0.64-1.34
0.01-0.37
0.30-1.02
0.05 -0.14
Data from 9 samples taken monthly from 12/92 through 8/93. Nitrogen and
phosphorous parameters not analyzed in 2/93.
Source: Anderson, 1999.
Table 5. Characteristics of Effluent Sent to Disposal System, McGill Farms, MD (mg/l)
Parameter
Nitrate
Total KjeldahlN
Ammonia
Total phosphorus
Suspended solids
BOD
Orthophosphorus
Biofllter Effluent
1/10/98 Sample
—
22.4
-
-
355
169
-
2/3/98 Sample
—
-
-
-
510
285
-
Fecal Material
12/24/97 Sample
130
90.4
3.02
2.7
1,760
1,241
2.4
Source: Eisner, 1999.
It is apparent that the nutrient content of both biofilter effluent and solid wastes from McGill
Farms are considerably higher than that of effluents reported for aquaculture operations in Hawaii and
Idaho. However, at this Maryland operation, the wastes concentrated by the filtration process are
partially removed and broken down in the septic tanks and then the supernatant is injected
underground. The concentration of contaminants in the supernatant/ injectate from this system has not
been analyzed, but can be assumed to be considerably lower than the concentrations presented in
Table 5 (which shows the characteristics of the waste before it is sent to the septic system) because
nutrients would be at least partially contained in or adhered to solids in the sludge. The State of
Maryland authorities expressed concern that the McGill Farms injectate may contain bacteriological
contamination, but data on the bacteriological content of the operations wastes are not available
(Eisner, 1999). There were no plans to use chemical additives at McGill Farms at the time of
application for a state ground water permit (Eisner, 1999).
Table 6 presents a comparison of the known parameters in documented aquaculture injectate to
existing drinking water standards (MCLs) and health advisory levels (HALs). Many of the primary
September 30, 1999
10
-------
constituents of aquaculture effluent (phosphorous compounds, BOD, suspended solids) are not of
direct concern from the standpoint of human toxicity, and drinking water standards or HALs have not
been established for them.
Table 6. Comparison of Aquaculture Injectate Parameters to
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisory Levels
Constituent
Ammonia
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Nitrate and Nitrite (as
N)
Total dissolved solids
pH (pH units)
Turbidity (NTU)
Chloride
Total coliform
(colonies/100 ml)
Primary Drinking Water Standards
and Health Advisory Levels
Prim ary
MCL
(mg/1 except
where
noted)
10
1
10
0.5-1.0
repeated
detection1
Secondary
MCL
(mg/1 except
where noted)
500
6.5-8.5
250
HAL-
Noncancer
Lifetime
(mg/1)
30 (draft
advisory)
Nearest
Value
or
Exceedence
in Known
Injectate
(mg/1 except
where
noted)
1.2
1.34
-
1.75
39
7.59-7.65
150
18,500
12 - TNTC2
Operation
Marine Shrimp Farm,
HI
Ten Springs
Farm, ID
-
Sea Life Park, HI
Sea Life Park, HI
Sea Life Park, HI
Freshwater fish farm, HI
Sea Life Park, HI
Sea Life Park, HI
1 No more than 5.0 percent of samples collected during a month may be positive for coliform.
2 Too numerous to count.
Source for standards and advisories: USEPA, 1999.
Based on the data presented in this section and in Table 6 for known injectate, concentrations
of contaminants in unconcentrated aquaculture effluent are generally well within the established MCLs.
There are a few exceptions, however. Of the primary aquaculture effluent constituents for which
drinking water standards and advisories have been established (i.e., nitrogen compounds, total
dissolved solids, pH, turbidity, and chloride), the values for chloride, turbidity, and possibly nitrate and
nitrite (see explanation below) are exceeded according to current injectate data.
Chloride concentrations are well above the secondary MCL in the injectate from Sea Life Park
(HI). This is of no significance, however, with respect to threats to USDWs or human health. The Sea
Life Park operations use sea water, which naturally has very high chloride concentrations. Wastewater
September 30, 1999
11
-------
from Sea Life Park is injected into a saline aquifer that flows seaward, and is believed to pose no threat
to USDWs. Chloride would only be of concern for any future sea or brackish water-based
aquaculture operations that plan to inject their effluent in locations where they can affect USDWs. No
aquaculture operations are known to do so at present.
Table 6 indicates that the established performance standard for turbidity is exceeded by the
effluent from one aquaculture operation known to inject waste into Class V wells (i.e., the fresh water
fish farm monitored by the Hawaii Aquaculture Effluent Discharge Program in 1990; see Table 2).
While turbidity does not have direct human health effects, the primary MCL for turbidity has been
established because turbidity can interfere with disinfection and can provide a medium for microbial
growth.
The MCL for nitrate is exceeded in effluent from the McGill Farms (MD) operation (Table 5),
but as previously noted, this effluent passes through a septic tank, where settling and some digestion
and breakdown of contaminants typically occurs, prior to injection. Only the supernatant from the
septic tank is injected into the subsurface disposal well. The concentration of nitrate in the
supematant/injectate is unknown. It is probably well below the concentration found in the raw effluent
prior to entry into the septic tank (i.e., well below the concentrations shown in Table 5), but may
nevertheless exceed the nitrate MCL. All other nitrate concentrations reported for Class V aquaculture
injectate are below the MCL.
Although the data for aquaculture injectate presented in this section do not provide information
on nitrite concentrations, effluent data from other aquaculture operations (not injecting wastes into
wells) suggest that effluent from certain types of high-intensity operations (e.g., high-density shrimp
farms) can contain nitrite at levels approaching the established MCL (Samocha and Lawrence, 1995).
Thus nitrite concentrations are of possible concern for any future, high-intensity aquaculture operations
planning to dispose of effluent via underground injection.
4.1.2 General Characteristics of Aquaculture Effluent
As the foregoing data suggest, wastewaters from various aquaculture operations generally share
a common list of primary constituents: nitrogen- and phosphorous-based nutrients, and suspended and
dissolved solids. Effluent quality data for the industry as a whole are limited. Moreover, the
concentrations of these constituents in effluent probably vary greatly among different aquaculture
operations, depending on a number of factors such as: water management systems (i.e., flow-through or
recirculating); wastewater management systems (whether treatment or settling is applied to effluents);
whether low-intensity or high-intensity aquaculture is practiced; the type and size of organisms raised;
feeding efficiency; and other factors.
Bacteria are additional constituents of concern in aquaculture effluent. Fish wastes can contain
bacteria that are known human pathogens and thus it is possible that aquaculture injectate may contain
pathogenic bacteria. However, adequate data are not available to fully characterize the threat to
USDWs and humans. Table 7 lists pathogenic bacteria found in fish and wastewater at aquaculture
September 30, 1999 12
-------
operations. The likelihood of such bacteria being present in wastewater, and the particular bacterial
species likely to be present, varies depending on the type of aquacultural operation and species
cultivated.
Table 7. Human Pathogenic Bacteria Found in Fish and
Water at Aquaculture Operations
Pathogen
Salmonella sp.
Vibrio parahaemolyticuys
Campilobacterjejuni
Aeromonas hydrophila
Plesiomonas shigelloides
Edwardsiella tarda
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Pseudomonasfluorescens
Mycobacterium fortuitum
Mycobacterium marinum
Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae
Leptospira interrogans
Possible Effect
on Humans
Food poisoning
Food poisoning
Gastroenteritis
Diarrhea/septacaemia
Gastroenteritis
Diarrhea
Wound Infection
Wound Infection
Mycobacteriosis
Mycobacteriosis
Erysipeloid
Leptospirosis
Infection Route
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Dermal
Dermal
Dermal
Dermal
Dermal
Dermal
Source: Austin and Austin, 1989 (as cited in Smith etal., 1994).
A single set of data is available indicating microbial content in aquaculture injectate. All samples
of injectate at Sea Life Park (HI) had coliform bacteria present (see Tables 3 and 6). This does not
provide a useful indication of the possible presence of microbial pathogens in all types of aquaculture
injectate, however. Sea Life Park raises marine mammals (for display purposes), and the microbial
content in the effluent from this operation is probably very different from that of the great majority of
aquaculture operations that raise non-mammal species for food.
Similarly, the types of chemicals, pesticides, and additives used in aquaculture are well known,
but their incidence and concentrations in aquaculture effluents are not well quantified for the industry as
a whole. The use and rate of application of these materials varies significantly and depends on factors
such as the species raised, culture intensity (e.g., organism density), water quality, and operation type.
Thus, the incidence and concentration of these materials in wastewaters is expected to vary
considerably.
Three antibiotics are approved for use in U.S. aquaculture: oxytetracycline, sulfadimethoxine-
ormetoprim, and sulfamerazine. However, the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA) new drug-use
regulations allow other antibiotics and other drugs to be used under certain specified and controlled
September 30, 1999
13
-------
conditions (USFDA, 1996). FDA regulations include certification of proper drug usage and drug
residue testing (FDA also requires an environmental impact review prior to drug approval). The
approved drugs can be used only for certain fish species, and withdrawal times prior to harvest are
specified on drug labels (USFDA, 1998). These regulations reduce the likelihood that these drugs will
be present in aquaculture effluent at levels toxic to humans. However, as these regulations are focused
on concentrations of drugs in the edible product, they can not be relied upon to maintain the
concentration of drugs in wastewater within drinking water standards.
Fish hormones are sometimes used to induce maturation, spawning, and sex reversal for fish in
hatcheries. FDA-approved color additives, carotenoids (also found naturally in many vegetables), may
be fed to farmed salmon and trout to produce a pink/orange flesh that consumers prefer. Vitamins and
minerals may also be added to feed to fulfill fish nutrition requirements (Goldburg and Triplet, 1997).
Drugs approved by FDA for use in aquaculture, as well as drugs of low regulatory priority at FDA, are
listed in Attachment A of this volume.
USEPA regulations allow the use of numerous herbicides, algaecides, and fish toxins (not
necessarily common) in aquaculture systems where fish are raised for food. For example, fungicides
may be used to ensure the healthy development offish eggs. The USEPA-approved algaecides,
herbicides, and other pesticides are also listed in Attachment A of this volume.
Finally, veterinary biologies (e.g., vaccines) are used in aquaculture for the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of animal diseases. Preventive and therapeutic veterinary biologies act on or in
concert with the body's immune system to provide or enhance resistance to disease. Diagnostic
veterinary biologies are used to detect the presence of a disease organism or diseased cells as well as
to detect immunity in the fish against disease organisms. The use of biologies in aquaculture is regulated
by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Biologies approved by USD A for use in
aquaculture are also listed in Attachment A of this volume.
The FDA-, USDA-, and USEPA-regulated chemicals listed in Attachment A are not
necessarily present in aquaculture injectate. For example, some of the chemicals may not be used in
closed systems, or may be applied in a manner preventing them from being in wastewater (i.e., they
may degrade and break down before reaching the effluent). The herbicides listed in Attachment A that
are used for weed control are generally used in large water bodies supporting open aquaculture
operations that do not collect or manage wastes. These herbicides are therefore outside the scope of
concern for aquaculture waste disposal wells.
Drugs and pesticides regulated by FDA and USEPA that are likely to be present in the effluent
of some aquaculture operations, and could conceivably be present in current and future aquaculture
injectate, are summarized in Table 8 below.
September 30, 1999 14
-------
Table 8. Possible Chemical Contaminants in Aquaculture Effluent
FDA-Approved Drugs
Used as additives to tank water (likely to be in effluent in some operations):
Tricaine methanesulfonate
Formalin
Oxytetracycline
Sulfadimethoxine and ormetoprim
Sulfamerizine
Used as solutions into which fish are dipped briefly (may be disposed of via wastewater disposal system):
Acetic acid
Calcium oxide
Fuller's earth
Magnesium sulfate
Papain
Povidone iodine compounds
Sodium bicarbonate
Sodium sulfite
Urea
Tannic acid
Drugs of Low Regulatory Priority for FDA Used in Aquaculture
Generally used as additives to tank water (could be present in effluent in some operations):
Calcium chloride
Hydrogen Peroxide
Potassium chloride
Sodium chloride
USEPA-Registered Pesticides For Aquaculture
Algaecides, generally added to tank water (likely to be present in effluent of some operations, but in
instances of high BOD, copper compounds are likely to be complexed with suspended organics, and thus
may become biologically unavailable):
Chelated copper
Copper (inorganic compounds)
Elemental copper
Copper sulfate pentahydrate
Endothall
Herbicides, possibly used as additives to some tanks (may be present in the effluent from some operations):
Acid blue and acid yellow
Dichlobenil
Diquat dibromide
Glyphosate
Fish toxins, generally added to tank water (likely to be present periodically in effluent of some operations
but not likely in tank or raceway systems):
• Antimycin
• Rotenone
As is the case with bacteriological contamination, however, data adequate to quantify the
incidence and concentrations of the above materials in aquaculture effluent on an industry-wide basis
are not available. The presence and concentration of these chemicals and biologies is expected to vary
greatly from operation to operation, and from one period to another within individual operations. High
concentrations of some chemicals used in aquaculture may be toxic to humans. However, the use of
these materials is regulated to ensure safety of the aquaculture product, and this regulation may also
ensure that concentrations of these materials in aquaculture waters and effluents are safe.
September 30, 1999
15
-------
Primary drinking water standards have been established for four of the materials listed in Table
8, and a draft health advisory has been issued for one additional drug. These standards and the
advisory are presented in Table 9. These constituents, since they are approved for use in aquaculture,
could conceivably pose a threat to human health if introduced into USDWs in concentrations above
these thresholds. However, adequate data are not available to estimate the likelihood of such
contamination.
Table 9. Drinking Water Standards for Chemicals Used in Aquaculture
Chemicals/
Pesticides
Copper
Diquat
Endothall
Formaldehyde2
Glyphosate
Primary Standards
Regulatory
Status
Final
Final
Final
-
Final
MCL
(mg/1)
1.3
0.02
0.1
-
0.7
Health Advisory Levels For 70-kg Adult
Status
-
-
Final
Draft
Final
Noncancer
Lifetime
(mg/1)
-
0.02
0.1
1
0.7
mg/1 at 10 4
Cancer
Risk
-
-
-
-
-
Cancer
Group1
D
D
D
Bl3
E
1 The categorization of cancer group according to the carcinogenic potentials of chemicals:
Bl - probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in
animals.
D - inadequate or no human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity.
E - no evidence of carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in different species or in
adequate epidemiologic and animal studies.
2 The active drug used in aquaculture is formalin, an aqueous solution of formaldehyde.
3 Carcinogenicity based on inhalation exposure.
Source: USEPA, 1990.
4.2 Well Characteristics
4.2.1 Design Features
Specific design features of aquaculture waste disposal wells vary by site in order to account for
local hydrogeologic conditions. However, based on currently available inventory data, two well types
are most frequently used in the U.S.: vertical cased wells and shallow subsurface disposal systems.
Vertical cased wells are more numerous, and consist of a hollow casing installed vertically into
the ground. The well casing is impermeable down to a specified depth, below which the casing is
perforated to allow fluids to diffuse into the surrounding stratum or aquifer. The majority of case wells
in use are less than 100 feet in depth; these usually have a diameter of approximately 8 inches.
However, some are drilled to a depth of over 100 feet, and are typically 12 to 20 inches in diameter.
September 30, 1999
16
-------
The majority of the injection wells in Hawaii are shallow cased wells with concrete walls (for design
details, see USEPA, 1987). The injection well at Ten Springs Fish Farm in Idaho is a deep cased well
with a 12-inch diameter drill hole and a depth of 180 feet. It is cased with 5-mm steel and sealed at the
top with a Winch screen.
A shallow subsurface disposal system is in use at McGill Farms in Maryland. This system is
essentially a standard septic system with leaching field. Classified as a Class V injection well under the
ground water permit program of the Maryland Department of the Environment, this system consists of
two septic tanks, from which drain pipes run underground to perforated pipes lain in subsurface
trenches filled with gravel. The septic tanks are constructed of concrete and each has a capacity of
1,500 gallons.
Although no further information was available on the McGill Farms system, Hartford County
Health Department (HCHD) staff indicated that this system conforms in design to standard septic
systems in the county (Browning, 1999). According to HCHD regulations for such systems, the
wastewater from the septic tanks is distributed via a distribution box to a series of pipes buried in
trenches. The trenches surrounding the pipes are typically between 35 and 100 feet long, 2 feet wide,
and 10 feet deep. Each trench is filled with gravel to within 2 feet of the ground surface. Perforated
pipe is laid on top of this gravel, and is covered by several more inches of gravel. The trench is then
filled to the ground surface with original soil from the site. The perforated pipes that release effluent to
the leaching field are at least 6 inches but no more than 2 feet below the ground surface, and are
inclined at no more than 4 inches per 100 feet. The leaching field consists of several pipes in trenches
at least 8 feet apart. HCHD requires that septic systems be located at least 15 feet from any property
line, 75 to 100 feet from any ground water withdrawal wells, and 150 feet from wells that are below the
grade of the septic system.
A septic system is also used for aquaculture effluent disposal at the Oneida Fish Hatchery in
New York. Detailed information regarding the design of this leach field was not available for this
report. For information regarding the basic operational practices at this facility, see Section 4.3.
Information about the design of the aquaculture waste disposal wells in Wyoming and California
was not available for this report.
4.2.2 Siting Considerations
Hydrogeology is an important factor that influences both the likelihood that injectate from
aquaculture waste disposal wells will affect USDWs, and the performance of injection wells themselves
in disposing of wastewater. Permeable receiving formations comprise the most favorable injection
formation for aquaculture effluent, due to the high solids content of the effluent. Low-permeability
receiving formations can result in clogging and failure of aquaculture injection wells. However, these
same factors that contribute to good well performance also increase the mobility of injectate within the
receiving strata, and the likelihood that injectate will ultimately reach any nearby or underlying aquifer (if
no impermeable barriers exist between the injection point and the aquifer).
September 30, 1999 17
-------
Most of the injection wells in Hawaii, including aquaculture waste disposal wells, are located in
the coastal region (seaward of the saltwater intrusion boundary) and release injectate directly into
brackish or saline aquifers (Peterson and Oberdorfer, 1985). State officials believe that these wells
pose no threat to USDWs, as the flow of the receiving saline aquifers is seaward, carrying injectate
away from inland USDWs. The ground water table at these sites usually lies a few meters below the
ground surface, and water table fluctuations resulting from ocean tides, storms, and seasonal changes in
ground water recharge can significantly affect injection well performance (although USDWs remain
unthreatened).
The aquaculture waste disposal well in Idaho is located in highly fractured basalt and discharges
in such close proximity to the surface water discharge point that contaminants are adequately addressed
through the NPDES permit requirements (Tallman, 1999).
The aquaculture waste disposal well (leaching field) in Maryland is situated above an aquifer
classified as a "Type 1" aquifer, meaning that the quality of the water in the aquifer is excellent. The
upper boundary of this aquifer is approximately 48 feet below the ground surface, or 38 feet below the
bottom of the leaching trenches.2
Information regarding the hydrogeology at the aquaculture waste disposal wells in Wyoming,
New York, and California was not available for this report.
4.3 Operational Practices
Available data indicate that operational practices could vary significantly among aquaculture
waste disposal wells depending on various factors, including the hydrogeologic conditions at the well
site, the state where the well is located, type of well, the nature of aquaculture activity, and the
availability of other waste disposal options. This section describes operations at the systems for which
information is available.
In Hawaii, aquaculture injection wells are used as a primary means of waste disposal, with a
few wells used as standby wells or for backup drainage. Recorded pumping rates for individual wells
range from 0.5 to 6 million gallons per day (gpd) (Pruder, 1992). Uehara (1999) reports that at the
two Keahole Point facilities, effluent discharge rates of are 3,000 gpd and 5,760,000 gpd (for all wells
combined), respectively. Wells at the Oceanic Institute are permitted an aggregate flow of 80,000 gpd,
and those at Sea Life Park are permitted a flow of 18,008,000 gpd.
Unlike pressurized wastewater wells, aquaculture injection wells are usually gravity fed. The
main operational concern is clogging due to poor site selection and a lack of maintenance. Clogging
2 State data indicate 39 drinking water wells within 1A mile of the operation. Fourteen of these wells
range in depth from less than 100 feet to 150 feet, suggesting that they may tap the same shallow aquifer
that underlies the aquaculture waste disposal system. The remaining wells range from 150 to over 350
feet deep, and may or may not tap this same aquifer.
September 30, 1999 18
-------
can cause well overflow and possible ground water contamination from leaching of effluent that is
discharged onto the ground. Pruder (1992) notes that clogging has occurred at several facilities in
Hawaii. As experienced at the Kahuku Intensive Aquaculture Facility in Oahu, clogging of wells due to
selection of a geologically unfavorable site with non- or poorly permeable soils can force an eventual
abandonment of the wells. Aquaculture effluent at that location is now discharged into a ditch leading to
an adjacent open, swampy wildlife refuge. Similar problems were encountered at wells owned by
Marine Culture Enterprises at the same facility. In the first six months of operation there, one of the
wells became irreversibly clogged and capacity at other wells was severely reduced despite all
maintenance efforts. These injection wells are no longer in use.
In some other cases, improper handling and maintenance of the injection wells is found to cause
clogging. For example, when the Ocean Farms Incorporated injection wells located at Keahole Point,
Hawaii were first installed, settled materials were vacuumed from the bottom of the ponds and pressed
down the wells, resulting in clogging. After the practice was stopped, the wells began to function
properly (Pruder, 1992).
The deep injection well at Ten Springs Fish Farm, Idaho is not used as the primary means of
wastewater disposal. The function of this injection well is to generate compressed air to aerate the fish
pond, according to state officials and the operator (Anderson, 1999; Lemmon, 1999). Water from the
fish pond goes to a settling pond for pre-treatment. Only a small portion of the wastewater is diverted
from the settling pond to the well. The remainder of the effluent from the settling pond is discharged to
a nearby stream. Wastewater sent to the injection well generates compressed air (the incoming water
compresses the air already in the well), which is then returned to the fish pond through gravity force.
This system functions on a continuous basis. The typical injection volume of the well is 450 gallons per
minute (gpm); it has a capacity of 900 gpm.
The septic system in place at McGill Farms in Maryland is used for the disposal of wastes from
biofilters and fish tanks. This tilapia farming facility consists of twelve 10,000 gallon fish culture tanks.
Water from each of the tanks is re-circulated through a biofilter (also referred to as a "clarifier")-
Material filtered from the recirculating water is treated further in the subsurface wastewater disposal
system before being injected underground. The disposal system receives about 3,000 gpd from the
twelve biofilters, one for each tank. Accumulated solid wastes, including fish fecal materials, are also
discharged to the subsurface disposal system. In addition, approximately every two weeks (or during
fish harvest), one of the twelve 10,000 gallon aquaculture tanks is drained. Water from the drained
culture tanks is transferred to a holding tank, and gradually discharged into the subsurface disposal
system.
Two 1,500-gallon septic tanks act as settling tanks for the McGill Farms subsurface disposal
system; some (or possibly most) of the solids in the waste stream settle to the bottom of the tanks.
Sludge is periodically pumped from the bottom of the septic tanks and is hauled away for disposal
elsewhere. Only the supernatant from the septic tanks is injected to the underground leaching fields.
September 30, 1999 19
-------
The Oneida Fish Hatchery in New York also uses a leaching field to dispose of aquaculture
wastes. As described by Holeck et al. (1998), solids and wastewater from walleye rearing tanks are
sent to two large (5,700 liter) above-ground concrete tanks for settling. After the particulates settle, the
supernatant is removed and discharged underground via a leach field. The leach field has a maximum
capacity of 13,250 liters per day. Not all of the wastes produced as a result offish cultivation are
discharged via subsurface injection - the solids that accumulate in the settling tanks are applied to
agricultural fields, while the hatchery "overtopping water" is discharged directly into a creek.
As with any underground disposal well, gravity-fed and pressurized aquaculture waste disposal
wells are at risk to unauthorized discharges. Higher risks may be associated with gravity-fed wells if
their wellheads are unsecured. However, most aquaculture injection wells are located within private
facilities and are not accessible to the public for unsupervised waste disposal. The potential certainly
exists for operators to dispose of harmful liquid wastes (e.g., waste aquaculture chemicals, or spent
tank water with higher concentrations of chemicals used for temporary treatment of cultivated
organisms) via aquaculture injection wells. However, no such cases have been reported and
aquaculture wells generally are not vulnerable to spills or illicit discharges.
5. POTENTIAL AND DOCUMENTED DAMAGE TO USDWs
5.1 Injectate Constituent Properties
The primary constituent properties of concern when assessing the potential for Class V
aquaculture waste disposal wells to adversely affect USDWs are toxicity, persistence, and mobility.
The toxicity of a constituent is the potential of that contaminant to cause adverse health effects if
consumed by humans. Appendix D of the Class V Study provides information on the health effects
associated with contaminants found above drinking water MCLs or HALs in the injectate of
aquaculture waste disposal wells and other Class V wells. As discussed in Section 4.1, the
contaminants that have been observed above drinking water MCLs or HALs in aquaculture waste
disposal well injectate are chloride, turbidity, and possibly nitrate and nitrite.
Persistence is the ability of a chemical to remain unchanged in composition, chemical state, and
physical state over time. Appendix E of the Class V Study presents published half-lives of common
constituents in fluids released in aquaculture waste disposal wells and other Class V wells. All of the
values reported in Appendix E are for ground water. Caution is advised in interpreting these values
because ambient conditions have a significant impact on the persistence of both inorganic and organic
compounds. Appendix E also provides a discussion of mobility of certain constituents found in the
injectate of aquaculture waste disposal wells and other Class V wells.
5.2 Observed Impacts
To date, no documented cases of impacts on USDWs or other ground water resources caused
by aquaculture waste disposal wells have been observed.
September 30, 1999 20
-------
6. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Best management practices (BMPs) designed to minimize potential detrimental health and
environmental effects that may result from injection of aquaculture wastes into wells are primarily
focused on: reducing pollutant levels in effluent; reducing the volume of waste injected; or adopting
alternative waste disposal options. The following discussion is neither exhaustive nor represents a
USEPA preference for the stated BMPs. Each state or USEPA Region may require certain BMPs to
be installed and maintained based on that state's or USEPA Region's priorities and site-specific
considerations.
6.1 Reducing Pollutant Levels in Injectate
A variety of practices can be implemented to reduce pollutant levels in aquaculture effluent
injectate. Goldburg and Triplett (1997), Mres (1995), and Boardman et al. (1998) suggest a number
of "environmentally friendly" management practices for aquaculture wastes that can reduce pollutant
levels and potential for harmful effects. Although these practices were suggested as methods to reduce
pollutant levels in aquaculture effluent to surface water bodies, they are equally applicable for the
reduction of pollutant concentrations in injectate at operations utilizing injection wells.
6.1.1 Improving Feeding Efficiency
Several key practices aimed at reducing the levels of pollutants in aquaculture effluents focus on
reducing the amount of unconsumed feed, a primary source of nutrients and solids in these effluents.
Such practices include:
• Optimization of the amount and type of feed applied in relation to the culture biomass, to reduce
overfeeding;
Accurate and frequent monitoring of fish growth and feeding rates, in order to determine the
lowest amount of feed necessary to produce a given amount offish biomass (i.e., maximization
of the feed conversion ratio, or FCR); and
Improvements in feed quality through the use of more digestible ingredients or reformulation to
match fish needs. This can result in a higher FCR. However, one study found that high energy
feed reduced total suspended solids but also increased total Kjeldahl nitrogen in the effluent due
to greater nitrogen release from the fish receiving the high energy feed (Boardman et al., 1998).
6.1.2 Chemical Use Reduction
Although many types of biological compounds have become an integral part of modern
intensive aquaculture (Mires, 1995), minimizing the use of chemicals, such as pesticides and
Pharmaceuticals, can reduce levels of potentially harmful substances in the effluent and lessen the
potential for subsequent environmental impacts. For example, the application of pesticides in a
September 30, 1999 21
-------
calculated manner (e.g., certain amounts, types, time of year), rather than applying them liberally, would
act to prevent over-usage and potentially needless contamination.
6.1.3 Technological Approaches
Certain technologies can also reduce pollutant levels in aquaculture effluents prior to disposal.
Several are listed here:
Sedimentation ponds allow suspended solids to settle out of the waste stream before disposal
of the aqueous effluent. Nutrients and other pollutants are frequently adsorbed to the settled
particulates. The University of Stirling (1990) has reported that up to 90 percent of suspended
solids, 60 percent of biological oxygen demand, and 50 percent of total phosphorous loads can
be removed through the use of these ponds. Sedimentation ponds can also reduce well
clogging by removing solids.
• Retention ponds are similar to sedimentation ponds in that they allow solids to settle, but
retention ponds hold the wastewater longer, allowing algae and nitrifying and denitrifying
bacteria to transform, immobilize, and volatilize nitrogen. Phosphorus is mostly retained in the
bottom sediments (Mires, 1995).
• Mechanical filtration and sediment traps can also reduce sediment and particulate levels in
effluent. Several filtration systems exist, including low-head-swirl concentrators (rapidly
rotating cylindrical chambers that remove suspended solids via centrifugal force), fine mesh
filters, and sand and gravel filters (Goldburg and Triplet!, 1997). Regular cleaning and
maintenance of filtration systems will ensure efficient operation (Boardman et al., 1998).
• Biofilters utilize aerobic and anaerobic microbial filtration to remove organic matter and
nutrients from aquaculture waters. Bivalve and macro-algae filter beds have also been used at
marine aquaculture operations to accomplish the same results (Mires, 1995).
• Aeration and resuspension of solids can help to purify water by enhancing the aerobic
decomposition of wastes. Resuspension of solids encourages bacteria to flocculate (form
masses) around suspended particles; the bacteria can then be ingested or decomposed by fish
in some cases (Mires, 1995).
However, technologies such as filtration systems and settling ponds generate large amounts of
waste solids (i.e., sludge). Improper disposal of this sludge may introduce a separate set of health or
safety problems (Boardman et al., 1998). Aquaculture facility operators generally do consider these
factors when choosing an appropriate best management practice. However, by removing these solids
from injectate, operators can reduce any impact of injectate on USDWs. Concentrated waste sludges
are of considerably less volume than the original effluent, making them easier to manage by means other
than underground injection.
September 30, 1999 22
-------
In addition, the nutrient-rich sludge removed from effluent waters by the settling and filtration
processes discussed here can be used as a soil amending agent (e.g., compost) and/or can be applied
to agricultural crops as a fertilizer. It may also prove useful for some types of integrated farming.
Integrated farming — combining terrestrial agriculture and aquaculture — includes various types of
practices, including poly culture (i.e., the cultivation of more than one species of plant or animal in a
single place or system) and hydroponics (i.e., the cultivation of plants rooted in an aqueous nutrient
solution rather than in soil) (McLarney, 1984).
6.2 Reducing Injectate Volume
The rate of water use and disposal by aquaculture operations can be greatly reduced through
the use of water recirculating systems, as opposed to flow-through systems (Goldburg and Triplett,
1997). Recirculating systems allow water to be circulated through culture tanks several times. This
greatly reduces the demand for fresh intake water and the rate of wastewater production, and makes
them more desirable financially. Recirculated water is generally filtered and aerated in order to maintain
a suitable level of cleanliness and oxygenation. The filtration process results in the generation of
concentrated sludge wastes that require management and disposal, as noted above.
6.3 Closure; Use of Alternative Disposal Methods
In a study of Hawaiian aquaculture, Pruder (1992) considered several options for aquaculture
waste disposal in an effort to find an alternative to coastal water discharge and eliminate NPDES/ZOM
(Zones of Mixing) permit requirements. Several of the disposal options considered by Pruder (1992)
could also be considered as alternatives to waste injection wells, or could be used in conjunction with
injection wells to decrease the amount of waste requiring underground injection. Options (other than
well injection) considered by Pruder included: deep ocean outfall pipes, recycling systems, poly culture,
solids removal, trenches, and leaky ponds (earthen ponds that slowly leak effluent into the ground). All
of these represent potential alternatives to injection of wastes into Class V wells for the disposal or
aquaculture wastes. Although trenches and leaky ponds might provide more filtration as the
wastewater migrates through the unsaturated zone, it is questionable if such disposal would be
preferable to underground injection from the standpoint of aquifer protection. The cost and feasibility
of these alternatives would have to be examined on a case-specific basis to determine whether a
particular alternative is desirable.
7. CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Several federal, state, and local programs exist that either directly manage or regulate Class V
aquaculture waste disposal wells. On the federal level, management and regulation of these wells falls
primarily under the UIC program authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Some states
and localities have used these authorities, as well as their own authorities, to extend the controls in their
areas to address concerns associated with aquaculture waste disposal wells.
September 30, 1999 23
-------
7.1 Federal Programs
Class V wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of SDWA. Congress enacted the
SDWA to ensure protection of the quality of drinking water in the United States, and Part C specifically
mandates the regulation of underground injection of fluids through wells. USEPA has promulgated a
series of UIC regulations under this authority. USEPA directly implements these regulations for Class
V wells in 19 states or territories (Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New "Vbrk, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC). USEPA also directly implements all Class
V UIC programs on Tribal lands. In all other states, which are called Primacy States, state agencies
implement the Class V UIC program, with primary enforcement responsibility.
Aquaculture waste disposal wells currently are not subject to any specific regulations tailored
just for them, but rather are subject to the UIC regulations that exist for all Class V wells. Under 40
CFR 144.12(a), owners or operators of all injection wells, including aquaculture waste disposal wells,
are prohibited from engaging in any injection activity that allows the movement of fluids containing any
contaminant into USDWs, "if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary
drinking water regulation ... or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons."
Owners or operators of Class V wells are required to submit basic inventory information under
40 CFR 144.26. When the owner or operator submits inventory information and is operating the well
such that a USDW is not endangered, the operation of the Class V well is authorized by rule.
Moreover, under section 144.27, USEPA may require owners or operators of any Class V well, in
USEPA-administered programs, to submit additional information deemed necessary to protect
USDWs. Owners or operators who fail to submit the information required under sections 144.26 and
144.27 are prohibited from using their wells.
Sections 144.12(c) and (d) prescribe mandatory and discretionary actions to be taken by the
UIC Program Director if a Class V well is not in compliance with section 144.12(a). Specifically, the
Director must choose between requiring the injector to apply for an individual permit, ordering such
action as closure of the well to prevent endangerment, or taking an enforcement action. Because
aquaculture waste disposal wells (like other kinds of Class V wells) are authorized by rule, they do not
have to obtain a permit unless required to do so by the UIC Program Director under 40 CFR 144.25.
Authorization by rule terminates upon the effective date of a permit issued or upon proper closure of the
well.
Separate from the UIC program, the SDWA Amendments of 1996 establish a requirement for
source water assessments. USEPA published guidance describing how the states should carry out a
source water assessment program within the state's boundaries. The final guidance, entitled Source
Water Assessment and Programs Guidance (USEPA 816-R-97-009), was released in August
1997.
September 30, 1999 24
-------
State staff must conduct source water assessments that are comprised of three steps. First,
state staff must delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in the state from which one or more
public drinking water systems receive supplies of drinking water. In delineating these areas, state staff
must use "all reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the sources of the supply of drinking
water in the state and the water flow, recharge, and discharge and any other reliable information as the
state deems necessary to adequately determine such areas." Second, the state staff must identify
contaminants of concern, and for those contaminants, they must inventory significant potential sources
of contamination in delineated source water protection areas. Class V wells, including aquaculture
waste disposal wells, should be considered as part of this source inventory, if present in a given area.
Third, the state staff must "determine the susceptibility of the public water systems in the delineated area
to such contaminants." State staff should complete all of these steps by May 2003 according to the
final guidance.3
7.2 State and Local Programs
As discussed in Section 3 above, a total of 56 Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells are
documented to occur across the nation. Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, New York, and Wyoming have
documented aquaculture waste disposal wells, and wells are thought to exist in California. Attachment
B of this volume describes how aquaculture waste disposal wells are addressed in each of these states.
In brief:
USEPA directly implements the UIC Class V program in California, Hawaii, and New York.
In addition, California and New York also have state programs to protect ground water that can
address aquaculture waste disposal wells.
• In California, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program. In addition,
under the California Water Quality Control Act, nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards
coordinate and advance water quality in each region. These Boards may prescribe discharge
requirements for discharges into the waters of the state under regional water quality control
plans.
• In Hawaii, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program. In addition,
aquaculture waste disposal wells are authorized by individual permits issued by the state
Department of Health. Class V wells are subject to siting requirements, and prohibited from
operating in a manner that allows the movement of contaminants into a USDW.
• In New York, the Class V UIC program is directly implemented by USEPA Region 2. The
state also implements a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) to protect the
waters of the state, which include ground waters. Aquaculture waste disposal wells can be
required to obtain an SPDES permit for discharges into ground water. Permit conditions can
3 May 2003 is the deadline including an 18-month extension.
September 30, 1999 25
-------
include construction and operation requirements for septic systems used to dispose of industrial
waste.
In the three states that are Primacy States for the UIC Class V program, Idaho, Maryland, and
Wyoming, aquaculture waste disposal wells are either individually permitted or covered by a general
permit that includes conditions similar to those of an individual permit.
• In Idaho, wells greater than 18 feet deep are individually permitted, while shallower wells are
authorized by rule. The state has enacted an antidegradation policy to maintain the existing uses
of all ground water.
• In Maryland, in addition to the state's UIC Class V program, the state's pollution discharge
elimination system can require permits for discharges into ground water. Individual permits are
required for any discharge of pollutants to ground water, for any industrial discharge of
wastewater to a well or septic system, for any septic system with 5,000 gpd or greater
capacity, or for any well that injects fluid directly into a USDW. County health departments, as
well as the state Department of the Environment, can oversee aquaculture waste discharge
wells.
• In Wyoming, aquaculture wells are covered under a general permit under the state's Class V
UIC program. The permit covers a class of operators, all of whom inject similar types of fluids
for similar purposes, and requires somewhat less information to be submitted by the applicant
than is required by an individual permit. The well must satisfy specific construction and
operating requirements (e.g., pretreatment of wastewater).
September 30, 1999 26
-------
ATTACHMENT A
DRUGS, CHEMICALS, AND BIOTICS USED IN AQUACULTURE
Table Al. FDA-Approved Drugs Used in Aquaculture
Trade name
Finquel (MS-222)
Formalin-F
Paracide-F
Parasite-S
Romet 30
Sulfamerazine in Fish Grade
Terramycin For Fish
Active Drug
Tricaine methanesul-fonate
Formalin
Formalin
Formalin
Sulfadimethoxine and
ormetoprim
Sulfamerizine
Oxytetracycline
Species and Uses
Temporary immobilization (anesthetic) for Ictaluridae,
Salmonidae, Esocidae, and Percidae. For approved uses
for other poikilothermic animals, refer to the product label.
Control of external protozoa and monogenetic trematodes
in trout, salmon, catfish, large-mouth bass, and bluegill.
Control of fungi of the family Saprolegniacae on salmon,
trout, and esocid eggs.
Control of external protozoa, monogenetic trematodes, and
fungi in trout, salmon, catfish, large-mouth bass, and
bluegill. Control of fungi of the family Saprolegniacae on
salmon, trout, and esocid eggs.
Control of external protozoa and monogenetic trematodes
in all fish. Control of fungi of the family Saprolegniacae
on all fish eggs. Control of external protozoan parasites
on cultured penaeid shrimp.
Control of enteric septicemia in catfish. Control of
furunculosis in salmonids.
Control of furunculosis in rainbow trout, brook trout, and
brown trout. '
Control of bacterial hemorrhagic septicemia and control of
gaffkemia in lobsters. Control of ulcer disease,
furunculosis, bacterial hemorrhagic septicemia,
pseudomonas disease in salmonids. Marking of skeletal
tissue in Pacific salmon.
Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
September 30, 1999
27
-------
Table A2. Drugs of Low Regulatory Priority for FDA Used in Aquaculture
Name
Acetic acid
Calcium chloride
Calcium oxide
Carbon dioxide gas
Fuller's earth
Garlic (whole)
Hydrogen Peroxide
Ice
Magnesium sulfate
(Epsom salts)
Onion (whole)
Papain
Potassium chloride
Povidone iodine
compounds
Sodium bicarbonate
(baking soda)
Sodium chloride
(salt)
Sodium sulfite
Urea and tannic acid
Uses
Used as a dip at a concentration of 1,000-2,000 milligrams per liter (mg/1) for 1-10 minutes as a
parasiticide for fish.
Used to increase water calcium concentration to ensure proper egg hardening. Dosages used would
be those necessary to raise calcium concentration to 10-20 mg/1 calcium carbonate. Also used to
increase water hardness up to 150 mg/1 to aid in maintenance of osmotic balance in fish by preventing
electrolyte loss.
Used as an external protozoacide for fingerling to adult fish at a concentration of 2,000 mg/1 for 5
seconds.
Used for anesthetic purposes in cold, cool, and warm water fish.
Used to reduce the adhesiveness offish eggs in order to improve hatchability.
Used for control of helminth and sea lice infestations in marine salmonids at all life stages.
Used at 250-500 mg/1 to control fungi on all species and at all life stages of fish, including eggs.
Used to reduce metabolic rate of fish during transport.
Used to treat external monogenetic trematode infestations and external crustacean infestations in fish
at all life stages. Used in freshwater species. Fish are immersed in a solution 30,000 mg/1 magnesium
sulfate and 7,000 mg/1 sodium chloride for 5-10 minutes.
Permitted use: Used to treat external crustacean parasites and to deter sea lice from infesting external
surface of fish at all life stages.
Used as a 0.2% solution in removing the gelatinous matrix of fish egg masses in order to improve
hatchability and decrease the incidence of disease.
Used as an aid in osmoregulation to relieve stress and prevent shock. Dosages used would be those
necessary to increase chloride ion concentration to 10-2,000 mg/1.
Used as a fish egg disinfectant at rates of 50 mg/1 for 30 minutes during water hardening and 100 mg/1
solution for 10 minutes after water hardening.
Used at 142-642 mg/1 for 5 minutes as a means of introducing carbon dioxide into the water to
anesthetize fish.
Used as a 0.5-1% solution for an indefinite period as an osmoregulatory aid for the relief of stress
and prevention of shock. Used as a 3% solution for 10-30 minutes as a parasiticide.
Used as a 15% solution for 5-8 minutes to treat eggs in order to improve hatchability.
Used to denature the adhesive component offish eggs at concentrations of 15 g urea and 20 NaCl/5 1
of water for approximately 6 minutes, followed by a separate solution of 0.75 g tannic acid/5 1 water
for an additional 6 minutes. These amounts will treat approximately 400,000 eggs.
Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
September 30, 1999
28
-------
Table A3. USEPA-Registered Algaecides for Aquaculture/Aquatic Sites
Trade Name
USEPA
Reg. No.
Registrant
Indications For Use
Common name: Chelated Copper
Algae-Rhap CU-7 Liquid
Algimycin PLL
Algimycin PLL-C
Aquatrine Algaecide
Copper Control Granular
Cutrine Algaecide
Cutrine Granular Algaecide
Cutrine Plus Algaecide
/Herbicide
Cutrine Plus II Algaecide
Cutrine Plus Granular
Algaecide
Cutrine Plus granular
Algaecide
Komeen Aquatic Herbicide
K-Tea Algaecide
SCI-62 Algaecide/ Bactericide
Slow Release Algimycin PLL
Concentrate
55146-42
7364-10
7364-9
8959-33
47677-8
8959-1
8959-3
8959-10
8959-20
8959-12
8959-12
1812-312
1812-307
61943-1
7364-26
Agtrol Chemical Products
Great Lakes Biochemical
Co., Inc.
Great Lakes Biochemical
Co., Inc.
Applied Biochemists, Inc.
Argent Chemical
Laboratories, Inc
Applied Biochemists, Inc.
Applied Biochemists, Inc.
Applied Biochemists, Inc
Applied Biochemists, Inc.
Applied Biochemists, Inc.
Applied Biochemists, Inc
Griffin Corporation
Griffin Corporation
Chem-A-Co., Inc.
Great Lakes Biochemical
Co., Inc.
Broad-range algaecide for use in farm and fish
ponds, lakes, and fish hatcheries.
Algaecide for small, ornamental ponds and
pools.
Algaecide for pools, lakes, ponds, and similar
waters.
Algaecide for fish and shrimp aquaculture
facilities (e.g., ponds, tanks, and raceways).4
Algaecide for fish ponds and hatcheries.
Algaecide for fish ponds, lakes, and
hatcheries.5
Granular algaecide for control of Chara and
Nitella in fish ponds, lakes, and hatcheries. 5
Algaecide/herbicide for fish ponds, lakes, and
hatcheries.
Algaecide for fish ponds, lakes, and
hatcheries.5
Algaecide (especially for Chara and Nitella) in
fish ponds and hatcheries.
Algaecide (especially for Chara and Nitella) in
fish ponds and hatcheries.
Algaecide for freshwater lakes and fish
hatcheries.
Algaecide for freshwater lakes and fish
hatcheries.
Algaecide/bactericide for lakes and ponds.
Algaecide (especially for Chara and Nitella) in
ponds and lakes.
Common name: Copper
Alco Cutrine Algaecide RTU
5481-140
Amvac Chemical
Corporation
Algaecide for fish ponds, lakes, and
hatcheries.5
4 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.
September 30, 1999
29
-------
Table A3. USEPA-Registered Algaecides for Aquaculture/Aquatic Sites (cont'd)
Trade Name
USEPA
Reg. No.
Registrant
Indications For Use
Common name: Copper as elemental
Algon Algaecide
AV-70 Plus Algaecides
A & V-70 Granular Algaecide
11474-15
12014-10
12014-5
Sungro Chemicals, Inc.
A & Vine.
A & Vine.
Algaecide for use in lakes, fish ponds, and
fish hatcheries.
Algaecides for fish ponds, lakes, and
hatcheries.
Granular algaecide for lakes and ponds.5
Common name: Copper sulfate pentahydrate
Blue Viking Kocide Copper
Sulfate Star Glow Powder
Blue Viking Kocide Copper
Sulfate Star Shine Crystals
Calco Copper Sulfate
Copper Sulfate Crystals
Copper sulfate Large Crystal
Copper Sulfate Medium
Crystals
Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate
Algaecide/Herbicide
Copper Sulfate Superfine
Crystals
Copper Sulfate Powder
Dionne Root Eliminator
Granular Crystals Copper
Sulfate
Kocide Copper Sulfate
Pentahydrate Crystals
Root Killer RK-11
SA-50 Brand Copper Sulfate
Granular Crystals
Snow Crystals Copper
Sulfate
Triangle Brand Copper
Sulfate Crystals
1812-314
1812-313
39295-8
56576-1
1109-1
1109-19
35896-19
1109-32
1109-7
34797-39
1109-20
1812-304
8123-117
829-210
1109-21
1278-8
Griffin Corporation
Griffin Corporation
Calabrian International
Corporation
Chem One Corporation
Boliden Intertrade, Inc
Boliden Intertrade, Inc.
C.P. Chemicals
Boliden Intertrade, Inc.
Boliden Intertrade, Inc
Qualis, Inc.
Boliden Intertrade, Inc.
Griffin Corporation
Frank Miller & Sons, Inc.
Southern Agricultural
Insecticides, Inc.
Boliden Intertrade, Inc.
Phelps Dodge Refining
Corporation
Algaecide for freshwater lakes and ponds.
Algaecide for lakes, ponds, and impounded
water.
For algae control in impounded water, lakes,
and ponds.6
Algae control in impounded lakes and ponds.
For algae control in lakes and ponds.
For algae control in lakes and ponds.
Algaecide/herbicide for controlled-outflow
lakes and ponds.
For algae control in lakes and ponds.
For algae control in lakes and ponds.
For algae control in lakes and ponds.
For algae control in lakes and ponds.
Algaecide for lakes and ponds.6
For algae control in impounded waters (e.g.,
lakes, ponds).6
For algae control in ponds.
For algae control in lakes and ponds.
For algae control in impounded waters, lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs.
Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
5 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.
September 30, 1999
30
-------
Table A4. USEPA-Registered Fish Toxicants
Trade Name
USEPA
Registration
Number
Registrant
Comments and
Indications For Use
Common name: Antimycin
Fintrol Concentrate
39096-2
Aquabiotics Corporation
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Common name: Cube Resins/Rotenone
Chem-Sect Brand Chem Fish
Regular
Chem-Fish Synergized
Finely Ground Cube Powder
Fish-Tox-5
Martin's Rotenone Powder
Noxfish Fish Toxicant Liquid
Emulsifiable
Nusyn-Noxfish Fish Toxicant
Pearson's 5% Rotenone
Wettable Powder
Powdered Cube
Prentox Prenfish Toxicant
Prentox Rotenone Fish Toxicant
Powder
Prentox Synpren Fish Toxicant
Rotenone 5% Liquid
Emulsifiable
Rotenone 5% Fish Toxicant
Powder
1439-157
1439-159
6458-6
769-309
299-227
432-172
432-550
19713-316
769-414
655-422
655-691
655-421
47677-3
47677-4
Tifa Limited Cube
resins/rotenone
Tifa Limited
Foreign Domestic Chemicals
Corp
Sureco, Inc.
C.J. Martin Company
Roussel Uclaf Corporation
Roussel Uclaf Corporation
Drexel Chemical Company
Sureco, Inc.
Prentiss Incorporated
Prentiss Incorporated
Prentiss Incorporated
Argent Chemical
Laboratories, Inc.
Argent Chemical
Laboratories, Inc.
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Fish toxicant/ piscicide
Note: Restricted use products such as rotenone fish toxicants can be purchased only by a Certified Pesticide Applicator and
can be applied only by a Certified Pesticide Applicator or under a certified applicator's direct supervision.
Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
September 30, 1999
31
-------
Table A5. USEPA-Registered Herbicides
Trade Name
USEPA
Registration
Number
Registrant
Comments and Indications For Use
Common name: Acid blue and acid yellow
Aquashade
33068-1
Applied Biochemists, Inc.
Aquatic plant control through selective
light filtering; usable in controlled-outflow
natural and man- made lakes and ponds.
Common name: Dichlobenil
AcmeNorosac 10G
Casoron 10-G
2217-679
400-178
FBI/Gordon Corporation
Uniroyal Chemical
Company, Inc.
Aquatic weed control for lakes and
ponds.
Aquatic herbicide for submerged weeds in
non-flowing water.
Common name: Diquat dibromide
Aqua Clear
Aqua-Kil Plus
Aquaquat
Aquatic Weed Killer
Clean-Up
Conkill
Contact Vegetation
Controller
Diquat-L Weed Killer 1/5
Lb.
Formula 268 AquaQuat
Ind-Sol 435
Miller Liquid Vegetation
Control
No. 401 Water Plant Killer
Norkem 500
2155-63
37347-6
5080-4
10292-13
2155-64
10088-13
8123-102
34704-589
1685-64
10827-78
8123-37
11515-29
5197-37
I. Schneid, Inc.
Uni-Chem Corporation of
Florida
Aquacide Company
Venus Laboratories, Inc.
I. Schneid, Inc.
Athea Laboratories, Inc.
Frank Miller & Sons, Inc
Platte Chemical Co., Inc.
State Chemical
Manufacturing Company
Chemical Specialties, Inc.
Frank Miller & Sons, Inc
ABC Chemical Corporation
Systems General, Inc.
Contact, non-selective vegetation killer
for aquatic weeds.
Contact, non-selective vegetation killer to
control aquatic weeds and grasses.
Liquid weed killer for lakes and ponds
with controlled outflow.
For the elimination of aquatic weeds and
algae.6
Algaecide and non-selective weed killer.
Contact, non-selective herbicide for
aquatic weeds.
For the control of aquatic vegetation.
Aquatic weed killer for controlled-
outflow lakes and ponds.
Aquatic weed killer in lakes, ponds, and
impounded water.
Non- selective weed killer for controlled -
outflow lakes and ponds.
For the control of aquatic vegetation.
Contact, non-selective weed killer for
aquatic weeds.
Contact, non-selective weed killer for
controlled-outflow ponds and lakes.
6 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.
September 30, 1999
32
-------
Table A5. USEPA-Registered Herbicides (cont'd)
Trade Name
P.D.Q. Non-Selective Weed
Killer
Selig's Mister Trim No. 10
Watrol
Weedtrine D Aquatic
Herbicide
Yardman
USEPA
Registration
Number
2155-43
491-201
1769-174
8959-9
10663-11
Registrant
I. Schneid, Inc.
Selig Chemical Industries
NCH Corporation
Applied Biochemists, Inc.
Sentry Chemical Company
Comments and Indications For Use
Algaecide and non-selective weed killer.
Contact, non-selective killer for aquatic
weeds.
Herbicide for aquatic weeds.
Aquatic herbicide for still lakes and fish
ponds.
Nons-elective weed, algae, and aquatic
foliage killer.
Common name: Endothall
Aquathol Granular Aquatic
Herbicide
Aquathol K Aquatic
Herbicide
Hydrothol 191 Aquatic
Algaecide and Herbicide
Hydrothol 191 Granular
Aquatic Algaecide and
Herbicide
4581-201
4581-204
4581-174
4581-172
Elf Atochem North America,
Inc.
Elf Atochem North America,
Inc.
Elf Atochem North America,
Inc.
Elf Atohem North America,
Inc.
Aquatic herbicide in ponds and lakes.
Contact aquatic herbicide for lakes and
ponds.
Aquatic algaecide/ herbicide for lakes and
ponds.
Aquatic algaecide/ herbicide for lakes and
ponds.
Common name: Fluridone
Sonar A.S.
Sonar SRP
62719-124
62719-123
DowElanco
DowElanco
Herbicide for the management of aquatic
vegetation in freshwater ponds, lakes, and
drainage canals.
Herbicide for the management of aquatic
vegetation in freshwater ponds, lakes, and
drainage canals.
Common name: Glyphosate
Rodeo
524-343
The Agricultural Group of
Monsanto Company
Aquatic herbicide for freshwater and
brackish water applications.
Common name: 2,4-D
Weed-Rhap A-4D
Weed-Rhap A-6D Herbicide
5905-501
5905-503
Helena Chemical Company
Helena Chemical Company
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
Common name: Acetic Acid, 2,4
A C Aquacide Pellets
5080-2
Aquacide Company
Herbicide for submerged weeds in
recreational lakes and ponds.
Predominantly for broad-leafed plants.
September 30, 1999
33
-------
Table A5. USEPA-Registered Herbicides (cont'd)
Trade Name
USEPA
Registration
Number
Registrant
Comments and Indications For Use
Common name: 2,4-D and Butoxyethyl Ester
Aqua-Kleen
Navigate
264-109
264-109-8959
Rhone-Poulenc Agricultural
Co.
Applied Biochemists, Inc.
Granular aquatic herbicide for controlling
weeds.
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
Common name: Dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D
Clean Crop Amine 2,4-D
Granulese:
Clean Crop Amine 6 2,4-D
Herbicide
Rhodia 2,4-D Gran 20
Weedestroy AM-40 Amine
Salt
2,4-D Amine 4 Herbicide
2,4-D Amine 6 Herbicide
2,4-D380 Amine Weed
Killer
Weedar 64
34704-645
34704-646
42750-16
228-145
42750-19
42750-21
407-430
264-2
Platte Chemical Co., Inc
Platte Chemical Co., Inc.
Albaugh
Riverdale Chemical Company
Albaugh
Albaugh
Imperial, Inc.
Rhone-Poulenc Agricultural
Co.
Aquatic herbicide for immersed/
submerged weeds.7
Herbicide for lakes and ponds.
Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.8
For control of broadleaf weeds and
aquatic weeds in lakes and ponds.
Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
Aquatic herbicide for lakes and ponds.
Broadleaf herbicide; toxic to aquatic
invertebrates.
7 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.
September 30, 1999
34
-------
Table A5. USEPA-Registered Herbicides (cont'd)
Trade Name
USEPA
Registration
Number
Registrant
Comments and Indications For Use
Common name: Isooctyl ester of 2,4-D
Barrage (Weed-Rhap LV-5D
Herbicide)
Brush-Rhap Low Watile 4-
D Herbicide
2,4-D Granules
2,4-D L.Y 4 Ester
2,4-D L.Y 6 Ester
SEE 2,4-D Low Volatile
Ester Solventless Herbicide
2,4-D L.Y 4 Ester
2,4-D LV Ester 6
Visko-Rhap Low Volatile
Ester 2D
Weed-Rhap Low Volatile
Granular D Herbicide
Weed-Rhap LV-4D
Herbicide
Weed-Rhap LV-6D
5905-504
5905-498
228-61
228-139
228-95
42750-22
228-139
5905-93
42750-17
5905-507
5905-505
5905-508
Helena Chemical Company
Helena Chemical Company
Riverdale Chemical Company
Riverdale Chemical Company
Riverdale Chemical Company
Albaugh
Riverdale Chemical Company
Helena Chemical Company
Albaugh
Helena Chemical Company
Helena Chemical Company
Helena Chemical Company
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
For control of broadleaf and certain
aquatic weeds.
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.8
Selective aquatic herbicide.9
Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.9
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.
For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and
ponds.9
Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
8 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.
September 30, 1999
35
-------
Table A6. USDA-Licensed Biologies for Fish (Vaccines)
Product Name/Trade Name
Aeromonas Salmonicida Bacterin Biojec 1500
Aeromonas Salmonicida- Vibrio
Autogenous Bacterin Autogenous Bacterin
Vibrio Anguillarum-Ordalii Bacterin
Vibrio Anguillarum-Ordalii- Yersinia Ruckeri
Bacterin
Yersinia Ruckeri Bacterin
Vibrio Salmonicida Bacterin
Vibrio Anguillarum-Salmonicida Bacterin
Aeromonas Salmonicida Bacterin
Autogenous Bacterin
Edwardsiella Ictaluri Bacterin
Vibrio Anguillarum-Ordalii Bacterin
Vibrio Anguillarum-Ordalii Bacterin
Yersinia Ruckeri Bacterin
Licenses/
Permittee
BioMed, Inc
BioMed, Inc.
BioMed, Inc
BioMed, Inc.
BioMed, Inc.
Biomed, Inc
BioMed, Inc.
BioMed, Inc.
Jerry Zinn, Aqua
Health, Ltd.
Jerry Zinn, Aqua
Health, Ltd.
Jerry Zinn, Aqua
Health, Ltd.
Jerry Zinn, Aqua
Health, Ltd.
Jerry Zinn, Aqua
Health, Ltd.
Jerry Zinn, Aqua
Health, Ltd.
Species
Salmonids
Salmonids
Fish
Salmonids
Salmonids
Salmonids
Salmonids
Salmonids
Salmonids
Fish
Catfish
Salmonids
Salmonids
Salmonids
Disease
Furunculosis
Furunculosis, vibriosis
Bacterial diseases
Vibriosis
Vibriosis, yersiniosis
(enteric red- mouth
disease)
Yersiniosis (enteric red-
mouth disease)
Vibriosis
Vibriosis
Furunculosis
Bacterial diseases
Enteric septicemia
Vibriosis
Vibriosis
Yersiniosis (enteric red-
mouth disease)
Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
September 30, 1999
36
-------
ATTACHMENT B
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
In this attachment, summary information for state and local regulations and guidance pertaining
to aquaculture waste disposal wells is provided below for the six states known or believed to have such
wells.
California
USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program in California and the federal
UIC regulations apply to Class V wells in this state.
In addition, the California Water Quality Control Act (WQCA) establishes broad requirements
for the coordination and control of water quality in the State, sets up a State Water Quality Control
Board, and divides the State into nine regions, each with a Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) that is delegated responsibilities and authorities to coordinate and advance the water quality
of the region (Chapter 4 Article 2 WQCA). A RWQCB can prescribe requirements for discharges
into the waters of the State (13263 WQCA), and these waste discharge requirements can apply to
injection wells (13263.5 and 13264(b)(3) WQCA). Although the RWQCBs do not issue permits for
injection wells, the WQCA provides that any person operating, or proposing to operate, an injection
well (as defined in §13051 WQCA) must file a report of the discharge with the appropriate RWQCB
(13260(a)(3) WQCA). Furthermore, the RWQCB, after any necessary hearing, may prescribe
requirements concerning the nature of any proposed discharge, existing discharge, or material change in
an existing discharge to implement any relevant regional water quality control plans. However, a
RWQCB may waive the requirements in 13260(a) and 13253(a) for a specific discharge or a specific
type of discharge when the waiver is not against the public interest (13269(a) WQCA). No RWQCB
is known to have established discharge limits for aquaculture waste wells in the state.
Hawaii
USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program in Hawaii. In addition, the
Safe Drinking Water Branch within the Hawaii Department of Health administers a Class V UIC
Program. Chapter 23 of Title 11 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), effective July 6, 1984,
amended November 12, 1992, established this program.
Class V wells are grouped for purposes of permitting into 6 subclasses. Subclass B includes
wells that inject non-polluting fluids into any geohydrologic formation, including USDWs. Subclass
B(E) consists of wells used in aquaculture, if the water in the receiving formation has either (a) an equal
or greater chloride concentration as that of the injected fluid, or (b) a TDS concentration in excess of
5,000 mg/1 (ll-23-06(b)(3) HAR).
September 30, 1999 37
-------
Permitting
Underground injection through a Class V well is prohibited except as authorized by permit. A
permit for injection into USDWs will be based on evaluation of the contamination potential of the local
water quality by the injection fluids and the water development potential for public or private
consumption. Permits are issued not to exceed five years. Permit applications must include specified
information (11-23-12, 11-23-13, and 11-23-16 HAR).
Siting and Construction
Wells are required to be sited beyond an area that extends at least one-quarter mile from any
part of a drinking water source, including not only the surface expression of the water supply well,
tunnel, or spring, but also all portions of the subsurface collection system (the so-called "UIC line").
Special buffer zones are required if the well is located in a caprock formation that overlies a volcanic
USDW under artesian pressure (11-23-10 HAR).
No injection well may be constructed unless a permit application has been made and the
construction has been approved. Specific construction standards for each type of well are not
specified, due to the variety of injection wells and their uses. If large voids such as lava tubes or
solution cavities are encountered, special measures must be taken to prevent unacceptable migration of
the injected fluids (11-23-09 HAR).
Operating Requirements
A Class V well may not be operated in a manner that allows the movement of fluid containing a
contaminant into a USDW, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any national or
state primary drinking water rule or otherwise adversely affect the health of one or more persons. All
wells must be operated in such a manner that they do not violate any rules under Title 11 HAR
regulating water quality and pollution, including Chapter 11-20 (potable water systems), Chapter 11-62
(wastewater systems), and Chapter 11-55 (water pollution control). State staff may also impose other
limitations on the quantity and quality of injectate as deemed appropriate. An operator may be ordered
to take such actions as may be necessary, including cessation of operations, to prevent a violation of
primary drinking water standards (11-23-11 HAR). The rules pertaining to wastewater systems (Title
11 Chapter 62 HAR) specify wastewater effluent requirements applicable to treatment works (11-62-
26 HAR) for BOD and suspended solids, adopt by reference USEPA regulations in 40 CFR 125 and
40 CFR 133, and specify a chlorine residual for treatment works using a subsurface disposal system
other than soil absorption. They also specify peak flow and backup requirements for proposed
subsurface disposal systems (11-62-25 HAR).
Monitoring Requirements
Operating records will be required for aquaculture wells, including the type and quantity of
injected fluids and the method and rate of injection (11-23-12 HAR). In addition to the detection of
September 30, 1999 38
-------
potential environmental impacts, frequent well monitoring also acts to minimize chances for well
malfunction. To date, well failure has not been documented (Wong, 1999).
Plugging and Abandonment
An operator wishing to abandon a well must submit an application, and the well must be
plugged in a manner that will not allow detrimental movement of fluids between formations (11-23-19
HAR).
Idaho
Idaho is a Primacy State with respect to the Class V UIC program, and has promulgated
regulations covering all Class V wells. In addition the state's Ground Water Quality Protection Act
establishes an antidegradation policy.
Permitting
Under Idaho regulations, deep injection wells (• 18 feet below the land surface) require
permits. Shallow injection wells are authorized by rule, provided that wells do not threaten any
USDW, the injectate meets drinking water standards, and their operators provide inventory information
to state authorities. The regulations outline detailed specifications for the information that must be
supplied in a permit application (37.03.03.035 IDAPA). At least one injection well in the state
receives aquaculture effluent, and it is permitted as a deep injection well.
Operating Requirements
Standards for the quality of injected fluids and criteria for location and use are established for
rule-authorized wells, as well as for wells requiring permits. The rules are based on the premise that if
the injected fluids meet MCLs for drinking water for physical, chemical, and radiological contaminants
at the wellhead, and if ground water produced from adjacent points of diversion for beneficial use
meets the water quality standards found in Idaho's "Water Quality Standards and Wastewater
Treatment Requirements," 16.01.02 IDAPA, administered by the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare, the aquifer will be protected from unreasonable contamination. The State of Idaho may, when
it is deemed necessary, require specific injection wells to be constructed and operated in compliance
with additional requirements (37.03.03.050. 01 IDAPA (Rule 50)). Rule-authorized wells "shall
conform to the drinking water standards at the point of injection and not cause any water quality
standards to be violated at the point of beneficial use" (37.03.03.050.04.d IDAPA).
Monitoring, record keeping, and reporting may be required if state officials find that the well
may adversely affect a drinking water source or is injecting a contaminant that could have an
unacceptable effect upon the quality of the ground waters of the state (37.03.03.055 IDAPA (Rule
55)).
September 30, 1999 39
-------
Plugging and Abandonment
The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) has prepared "General Guidelines for
Abandonment of Injection Wells," which are not included in the regulatory requirements. IDWR
expects to approve the final abandonment procedure for each well. The General Guidelines
recommend the following:
• Pull casing, if possible. If casing is not pulled, cut casing a minimum of two feet below land
surface.
• The total depth of the well should be measured.
• If the casing is left in place, it should be perforated and neat cement with up to 5% bentonite
can be pressure-grouted to fill the hole. As an alternative, when the casing is not pulled, you
may use course bentonite chips or pellets. If the well extends into the aquifer, the chips or
pellets must be run over a screen to prevent any dust from entering the hole. No dust is
allowed to enter the bore hole because of the potential for bridging. Perforation of casing is not
required under this alternative.
• If the well extends into the aquifer, a clean pit-run gravel or road mix may be used to fill bore
up to ten feet below top of saturated zone or ten feet below the bottom of casing, whichever is
deeper, and cement grout or bentonite clay used to surface. The use of gravel may not be
allowed if the lithology is undetermined or unsuitable.
• A cement cap should be placed at the top of the casing if it is not pulled, with a minimum of two
feet of soil overlying the filled hole/cap.
• Abandonment of the well must be witnessed by an IDWR representative.
Financial Responsibility
No financial responsibility requirement exists for rule-authorized wells Permitted wells are
required by the permit rule to demonstrate financial responsibility through a performance bond or other
appropriate means to abandon the injection well according to the conditions of the permit
(37.03.03.35.03.6 IDAPA).
Maryland
Maryland is a Primacy State with respect to the Class V UIC program. Maryland has
incorporated the federal UIC regulations (42 CFR 124, 40 CFR 144, 40 CFR 145) by reference. In
addition, Maryland's Water Resources Law and regulations enacted under that law cover discharges to
ground water. Ground water discharge permits are required under section 28.08 of the Code of
Maryland Regulations.
September 30, 1999 40
-------
Permitting
Under Maryland regulations, permits are required for any discharge of pollutants to ground
water, for any industrial discharge of wastewater to a well or septic system, for any septic system with
5,000 gpd or greater capacity, and for any well that injects liquids directly into a USDW (28.08.02
CMR). Therefore, a permit is required for all aquaculture waste well discharges of one gallon or more
into the environment. In addition, if aquaculture waste is discharged into a septic system, county health
departments issue permits for such systems under delegated authority from the Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE). County health departments generally permit systems of less than 5,000 gpd
capacity. Larger systems are permitted directly by MDE. MDE has prepared "Guidelines for Large
On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems Pertaining to Onsite Community and Multiple Use Sewerage
Systems With Accumulative Flow Exceeding 5,000 Gallons per Day," (March 1996) as non-binding
guidance for permit applicants. The only known aquaculture waste discharge facility in the state is
covered by septic system permits issued by the Maryland Department of Environment and Hartford
County Health Department (Eisner, 1999; Browning, 1999).
Operating requirements
In addition to design and installation procedures, permit conditions can include monitoring and
reporting requirements and general management responsibilities (Eisner, 1999).
New \brk
USEPA Region 2 directly implements the Class V UIC program in New %rk. In addition, the
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) requires permits for all point-source discharges
into ground water. The SPDES requirement applies to all Class V wells, except septic systems of less
than 1,000 gpd capacity. The only known aquaculture waste facility in the state, which is a state-run
facility, has obtained a SPDES permit which covers the aquaculture discharge. Monitoring of
aquaculture effluent that is discharged underground is not a requirement under this permit (Kolakowski,
1999).
Wyoming
Wyoming is a Class V Primacy State, and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) Water Quality Division has promulgated regulations pertaining to its Class V UIC Program in
Chapter 16, Water Quality Rules and Regulations (WQRR). Rules on ground water pollution control
permits are promulgated in Chapter 9, WQRR, but Class V wells are specifically exempted from
coverage by Chapter 9 (Chapter 9 Section 3(a) WQRR). Chapter 11 of the WQRR establishes
design and construction standards for disposal systems.
September 30, 1999 41
-------
Permitting
Aquaculture return flow facilities (category 5E1) are covered by the General Permit provisions
of the State of Wyoming's Class V rules (Chapter 16 Section 7 WQRR). A general permit is a permit
issued to a class of operators, all of which inject similar types of fluids for similar purposes. General
permits require less information to be submitted by the applicant than individual permits, and do not
require public notice for a facility to be included under the authorization of a general permit (Chapter 16
Section 2 (1) WQRR). General permits specify the subclass of injection facility covered, the geographic
area covered, the general nature of the fluids discharged, and the location of the receiver where the
discharge will be allowed.
Siting and Construction
Class V facilities may not be located within 500 feet of any active public water supply well,
regardless of whether or not the well is completed in the same aquifer. This minimum distance may
increase or the existence of a Class V well may be prohibited within a wellhead protection area, source
water protection area, or water quality management area (Chapter 16 Section 10 (n) WQRR).
A separate permit to construct is not required under Chapter 3 of the WQRR for any Class V
facility. Construction requirements are included in the UIC permit issued under Chapter 16 (Chapter
16, Section 5 (v) WQRR). In order to be covered by a general permit, an operator must submit the
information required by Chapter 16, Section 6 (i), (ii), and (iii), which includes a brief description of the
nature of the business and activities to be conducted, information about the operator, and the location of
the facility. Additional information also may be required as a condition of the general permit. The rules
specify that certain construction and operating requirements must be included (see section below on
operating requirements; Chapter 16 Section 10 (d) WQRR).
A facility is covered by a general permit as soon as the DEQ has issued a general statement of
acceptance to allow the construction and operation of the facility (Chapter 16 Section 7 WQRR). The
facility must meet general Class V construction requirements in Chapter 16 Section 10 WQRR (e.g., it
must be constructed to permit the use of testing devices and allow monitoring of injected fluid quality),
must meet specific construction and design requirements for sewage disposal facilities (5E) in Chapter
16 Section 10 (j) WQRR (see below), submit notice of completion of construction to the DEQ, and
allow for inspection upon completion of construction prior to commencing any injection activity
(Chapter 16 Section 5 (c) (i)(u) WQRR).
Operating Requirements
The general permit conditions include a requirement that the permittee must properly operate
and maintain all facilities and systems, furnish information to the DEQ upon request, allow inspections,
establish a monitoring program and report monitoring results, give prior notice of physical alterations or
additions, and orally report confirmed noncompliance resulting in the migration of injected fluid into any
zone outside of the permitted receiving zone within 24 hours and follow up with a written report within
September 30, 1999 42
-------
5 days. A continuous monitoring program normally will not be required, but monitoring frequency will
depend on the "ability of the facility to cause adverse environmental damage or affect human health"
(Chapter 16 Section 7 (e)(v) WQRR).
The rules (Chapter 16 Section 10 (j) WQRR) also specify that all sewage disposal (5E)
facilities, including aquaculture return flow facilities (5E1), shall:
• Conform to all applicable construction standards found in Chapter 11, Part D WQRR (the
state's disposal system requirements, which include standards topics such as site suitability,
piping material and design); and
• Comply with applicable sections of Chapter 11, Parts B and C WQRR for all piping systems or
storage facilities feeding Class V facilities.
In addition, all aquaculture return flow (5E1) facilities are required to include pretreatment in a
lagoon, septic tank, or oxidation ditch sized for the strength and volume of the wastes to be disposed
(Chapter 16 Section 10 (k) WQRR).
Mechanical Integrity
Permittees are required to adopt measures to ensure the mechanical integrity of any well
designed to remain in service for more than 60 days. No specific regulatory requirements on
mechanical integrity testing have been enacted; the specific tests to be used will depend on the specific
well conditions.
Plugging and Abandonment
Wells may be abandoned in place if it is demonstrated to the DEQ that no hazardous waste or
radioactive waste has ever been discharged through the facility, all piping allowed for the discharge has
either been removed or the ends of the piping have been plugged in such a way that the plug is
permanent and will not allow for a discharge, and all accumulated sludges are removed from holding
tanks, lift stations, or other waste handling structures prior to abandonment (Chapter 16 Section 12 (a)
WQRR).
Financial Responsibility
Aquaculture waste disposal wells are not covered by the financial responsibility requirements in
Chapter 16 WQRR.
September 30, 1999 43
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, S. 1999. UIC Program, Idaho Department of Water Resources. Telephone conversations
with Jia Li, ICF Consulting. March 23-24, 1999.
Austin, B. and D. Austin. 1989. Methods for the microbiological examination of fish and shellfish. In
Laird, L.M. (ed.), Aquaculture and Fisheries Support. Ellis Horwood Ltd., and John Wiley Sons, New
York, NY
Boardman, G.D., V Maillard, J. Nyland, GJ. Flick, and G.S. Libey. 1998. Final Report: The
Characterization, Treatment and Improvement of Aquacultural Effluents. Submitted to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA. October 23, 1998.
Browning, G 1999. Harford County (Maryland) Health Department. Telephone conversation and
facsimile communication with Jia Li, ICF Consulting. March 29, 1999.
Buck, E.H. 1999. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. IB10010: Fishery,
Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation in the 106th Congress. Resources, Science, and
Industry Division, June 16, 1999. Distributed by the Committee for the National Institute for the
Environment, http://www.cnie.org/nle/mar-27.html (August 28, 1999).
Castle, R.A. 1999. Director, Aquaculture/Seafood Program, Maryland Department of Agriculture.
Comments on Draft Aquaculture Waste Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated May 3,
1999). Facsimile communication to Michael Eisner, Maryland Department of the Environment. June
10, 1999.
Eisner, M. 1999. Maryland Department of Environment, Water Management Administration,
Groundwater Permits Program. Telephone conversation and facsimile communication to Jia Li, ICF
Consulting. March 25, 1999.
Elder, J.R. and S.K. Lowrance. 1992. Directors, USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water and USEPA Office of Solid Waste (respectively). Classification of Infiltration Galleries Under
the UIC and RCRA Programs. Memorandum to USEPA Region 1-10 Water Management Division
Directors and Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1997. Aquaculture Development. FAO Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 5. FAO of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
Goldburg, R. and T Triplett. 1997. Murky Waters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the U.S.
The Environmental Defense Fund.
Hawaii Aquaculture Effluent Discharge Program. 1990. Water Quality Characteristics of Aquaculture
Effluents in Hawaii.
September 30, 1999 44
-------
Holeck, K., E.L. Mills, and R. Colesante. 1998. Managing Fish Hatchery Phosphorus Discharge
Through Facility Design and Waste Solids Management: A Field Assessment in Nearshore Oneida
Lake, New York. The Progressive Fish-Culturist. 60:263-271.
Jensen, G.L. 1999. National Program Leader for Aquaculture, Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Comments on Draft Aquaculture
Waste Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated May 3, 1999). Facsimile communication to
Amber Moreen, USEPA. June 3 0,1999.
Kolakowshi, P. 1999. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Telephone
conversation and facsimile communication to Matthew Preisser, ICF Consulting. September 2, 1999.
Lemmon, G. 1999. Operator, Ten Springs Fish Farm, Idaho. Telephone conversation with Jia Li,
ICF Consulting. March 24, 1999.
McLarney, W.O. 1984. The Freshwater Aquaculture Book: A Handbook for Small-Scale Fish
Culture in North America. Hartley and Marks, Inc. Point Roberts, WA
Mires, D. 1995. Aquaculture and the Aquatic Environment: Mutual Impact and Preventive
Management. The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh. 47:163-172.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Fisheries of the US 1998. Current Fishery
Statistics No. 9800, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, MD.
Peterson, F.L. and J.A. Oberdorfer. 1985. Uses and Abuses of Wastewater Injection Wells in
Hawaii. Pacific Science. 39:230-240.
Priest, B. 1999. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Comments on Draft
Aquaculture Waste Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated May 3, 1999). Communication
with Amber Moreen, USEPA. July 1, 1999.
Pruder, G.D. 1992. Aquaculture Alternatives to Coastal Water Discharge: Technical Review and
Cost Analysis. Completed under contract by The Oceanic Institute, for the Center for Tropical and
Subtropical Aquaculture, Year 3 Final Report (under USDA Grant No. 89-CSRS-0138563).
Samocha, T.M. and A.L. Lawrence. 1995. Shrimp Farms' Effluent Waters: Environmental Impact
and Potential Treatment Methods. In: Interactions Between Cultured Species and Naturally Occurring
Species in the Environment: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth U.S. - Japan Aquaculture Panel
Symposium. Corpus Christi, Texas. October 1995.
Smith P., M. Hiney, and O. Samuelsen. 1994. Bacterial Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents Used in
Fish Farming: a Critical Evaluation of Method and Meaning. Annual Review of Fish Disease. 4:273-
O 1 O
313.
September 30, 1999 45
-------
Tallman, J. 1999. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Comments on Draft Aquaculture Waste
Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated May 3, 1999). Facsimile communication to Anhar
Karimjee, USEPA. July 7, 1999.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1994. Guide to Drug, \&ccine, and Pesticide Use in
Aquaculture. Prepared by the Federal Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Working Group on Quality
Assurance in Aquaculture Production, in cooperation with the Extension Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. The Texas A&M University System, Publication No. B-5085. June 1994.
Uehara, N. 1999. Hawaii Department of Health, Underground Injection Control Program. Facsimile
communication to Jia Li, ICF Consulting. March 25, 1999.
University of Stirling (Institute of Aquaculture, Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Institute of
Terrestrial Ecology). 1990. Fish Farming and the Scottish Freshwater Environment. Nature
Conservancy Council, Edinburgh Scotland. As cited in: Goldburg and Triplett, 1997.
U.S. EPA. 1999. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. Office of Water. EPA-822-b-
96-002, October 1996. http://www.epa.gov/OST/Tools/dwstds.html (March 1999).
U.S. EPA. 1987. Report to Congress. Class V Injection Wells: Current Inventory, Effects on
Ground Water, Technical Recommendations.
U.S. FDA. 1998. Chapter 11. Aquaculture Drugs. In Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and
Control Guide. U.S. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
http://vm.cfsan.gov/~dms/haccp-2k.html (January, 1998).
U.S. FDA. 1996. Extralabel Drug Use in Animals: Final Rule. Federal Register 61:57731-
5746.
Wong, W. 1999. Hawaii Department of Health, Underground Injection Control Program.
Comments on Draft Aquaculture Waste Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated
May 3,1999). Communication with Anhar Karimjee, USEPA. June 18,1999.
1. Note: According to sponsor, this product is not presently being distributed.
September 30, 1999 46
------- |