EPA 

United States Office of Science and 

Environmental Protection Technology (WH-551) 

Agency Washington, DC 20460 

Water 

823-R-92-009 

December 1992 

Water Quality Standards for 

the 21st Century 

Proceedings of the Third National 

Conference 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

August 31-September 3, 1992 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

WATER 

Dear Colleague: 

I am pleased to be sending you the Proceedings of the 

Las Vegas Conference on Water Quality Standards for the 

21st Century. 

With such a large number of ideas and suggestions being 

raised in forums such as this along with the time it takes to 

implement changes in programs, it is sometimes difficult to judge 

how effective such conferences are. We believe such conferences 

are valuable and directly impact our work in both water quality 

criteria and standards. While we would like to be able to 

implement every suggestion and every new program, that is 

unrealistic. However, our programs are influenced by meetings 

such as this conference. 

As a result of the third conference, we'll make some changes 

in specific activities and in broad program priorities. This 

results from detailed suggestions and from responses to our 

Strategic Planning Survey. 

You can expect to see a greatly expanded effort in the 

coming year on the question of how to control metals in ambient 

water. Through a continuing series of meetings, we will focus on 

the scientific, technical, and policy issues, determine what near 

and long term actions can be taken, and move towards either a 

resolution of the issue or identify practical means for program 

implementation based on available information and procedures. 

The methodologies used to derive both human health and 

aquatic life criteria are being reviewed and revisions suggested. 

Subsequent to the conference, we have had meetings on both 

methodologies. The revisions, which will be made available for 

peer and public review and comment, will reflect suggestions made 

at the conference. 

You may also expect to see more attention to guidance, 

technical training, and assistance that focuses on the 

implementation of standards. This will be especially the case 

as the program solidifies its scientific basis for sediment 

criteria and biological criteria- areas of future priority for 

standards development. 
2 

Numerous improvements or clarifications in the water quality 

standards program operating regulation, suggested or based on 

ideas debated at the conference, will be presented to the public 

for consideration through preparation of an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. The result of that public review may lead 

to a major effort to revise the existing standards regulation. 

The meeting evaluation forms were overwhelmingly favorable 

on the substance and format of the conference. They also 

included valuable suggestions that we will consider for the newt 

National Conference in fiscal year 1994. 

We appreciate very much the contributions made by all the 

panel participants at the conference, and by the audience in the 

question and answer sessions. We hope the overall experience at 

the conference was satisfying and we look forward to continuing 

to work together to presence, protect, and enhance water quality 

in the United States. 

Sincerely yours, 

Tudor T. Davies, Director 

Office of Science and Technology 

Enclosure 
Prepared by Dynamac Corporation under Contract No. 68-CO-0070 for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and 

policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names 

or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

Project Manager: Michele A. Vuotto 

Editor: Karen Swetlow 

Production Manager: Diane R Kelly 

To obtain copies, contact: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water 

Office of Science and Technology 

Standards and Applied Science Division 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

ii 
CONTENTS 

Page 

WELCOME 

Welcome...................................................1 

Tudor Davies 

APPLYING EPA’S RISK-BASED APPROACH AND COMMITMENT 

TO SOUND SCIENCE TO WQC/WQS PRIORITY SETTING 

EPA’s Commitment to Sound Science and Water Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 

LaJuana S. Wilcher 

LIFE AFTER TOXICS: WHAT DIRECTION NOW? 

Life After Toxics: What Direction Now? National Consistency vs. Geographic 

Flexibility & the Role of Risk in Priority Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

William R. Diamond (Moderator) 

A State View on the Need for National Consistency: Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Lydia Taylor 

Life After Toxics. What Direction Now? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Roger Dolan 

BIOLOGICAL MEASURES: CAN AND SHOULD THEY BE 

IMPLEMENTED? 

Applications of Biomeasures to Basin Water Studies in Oregon 

and Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

Robert Baumgartner 

Concerns from the perspective of the Regulated Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 

Warren C. Harper 

Slide Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 

Evan Hornig 

iii 
CONTENTS (cont.) 

Page 

CSOs/WET WEATHER: ARE TODAY’S WQC RELEVANT? 

CSOs/Wet Weather: Are Today’s WQC Relevant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

Richard Kuhlman (Moderator) 

Combined Sewer Overflow Controls: The Michigan Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 

Paul D. Zugger 

Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control Combined Sewer 

Overflow Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 

Warren Kimball 

Applying Water to Combined Sewer Overflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 

Michele M. Pla 

Combined Sewer Overflows and the Clean Water Act: Promise Unfulfilled . . . . . . . . . 83 

David S. Bailey 

WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY 

Whole Effluent Toxicity: The Basis for EPA's Regulatory Control Program . . . . . . . . . 91 

Cynthia C. Dougherty (Moderator) 

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Effective Water Quality Regulatory Tool - 

The North Carolina Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 

Ken W. Eagleson and Larry W. Ausley 

Wet Control Square Pegs Do Not Fit in Round Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 

Mark T. Pifher, Esq. and James T. Egan, P.E. 

The Status of the Science Relative to the Use of Whole Effluent Toxicity 

Testing in Water Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 

Philip B. Dorn 

RE-EXAMINING INDEPENDENT APPLICABILITY 

Re-Examining Independent Applicability: Agency Policy and Current Issues . . . . . . . 135 

Susan Jackson (Moderator) 

iv 
CONTENTS (cont.) 

Page 

Re-Examining Independent Applicability: Regulatory Policy Should Reflect a 

Weight-of-Evidence Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 

Peter J. Ruffier 

Re-Examining Independent Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 

Donald R. Schregardus 

Water Quality Protection Requires Independent Application of Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . 157 

Wayne A. Schmidt 

HUMAN HEALTH RISK MANAGEMENT: WHO SHOULD WE PROTECT? 

Human Health Risk Management: Who Should We Protect? What is an 

Adequate Level of Protection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 

Clyde Houseknecht, Ph.D., MPH (Moderator) 

“Fish Consumption" and National Water Quality Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 

Daniel C. Picard 

SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY DECISIONS 

EPA'S Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 

Elizabeth Southerland (Moderator) 

Regulatory Uses of Sediment Quality Criteria in Washington State . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 

Keith Phillips 

Sediment Criteria Needs and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 

Glenda L. Daniel 

Approach to Managing Contaminated Sediments Without Sediment 

Quality Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 

William R. Gala, Ph.D. 

Effects-Based Testing and Sediment Quality Criteria Dredged Material . . . . . . . . 207 

Thomas D. Wright, Robert M. Engler, and Jan G. Miller 

v 
CONTENTS (cont) 

Page 

ADVOCATES FORUM 

Advocates Forum: Response to General Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 

Allan Stokes 

Advocates Forum Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 

Robert Berger 

Advocates Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 

Robert J. Overly 

Advocates Forum: Response to General Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 

Terry Williams 

Advocates Forum: Response to General Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 

Roberta (Robbi) Savage 

Advocates Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 

Peter L. deFur 

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 

Slide Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 

Spyros Pavlou 

Treatment of Uncertainty in Ecological Risk Assessment: Be Careful What 

You Wish For . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 

Joshua Lipton, Ph.D., and Hector Galbraith, Ph.D. 

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: REVIEWING EPA GUIDELINES 

Human Health Risk Assessment: Revising the EPA Guidelines Deriving 

Human Health Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 

Margaret Stasikowski (Moderator) 

Human Health Risk Assessment: Revising the EPA Guidelines for Deriving 

Human Health Criteria for Ambient Water. The Methodology is 

Overconservative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 

Paul Anderson 

vi 
CONTENTS (cont.) 

Page 

Opportunities for Updating the Methods for the Derivation of Health-Based 

Water Quality Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 

Rolf Hartung, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. 

Public Water Supply As An Intended Protected Use of Water Resources: 

Implications for Revising the EPA Guidelines for Deriving Human Health 

Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 

Tom Schaeffer 

Human Health Risk Assessment and Water Quality Criteria for Toxic 

Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 

Jeffery A. Foran, Ph.D. 

WQS FOR EPHEMERAL AND EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT STREAMS 

Water Quality Standards for Ephemeral and Effluent-Dependent Streams . . . . . . . . . 293 

Harry Seraydarian (Moderator) 

Special Water Quality Criteria and Standards Are Needed for Arid Areas . . . . . . . . . 297 

George A. Brinsko, P.E. DEE 

More Time is Needed to Appropriately Balance Water Quality Protection 

and Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 

Mary Jane Forster 

Zero Discharge, Anti-Degradation,, and Source Reduction: Replacing the 

Failed Assimilative Capacity Model With Effective Surface Water Quality 

Standards for the 21st Century and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 

Michael Gregory 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 

Ecological Risk Assessment Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 

Mary Ellen Harris 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Attendees List 

Appendix B: National Meeting Evaluation Summary 

vii 
Welcome 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2lst CENTURY: 1-6 

WELCOME 

Tudor Davies 

Director 

Office of Science and Technology 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water 

Washington, D.C. 

Good morning, my name is Tudor Davies, Director of the Office of Science and 

Technology, Office of Water, EPA. I am sure of this because it says so right here in my notes. 

Apparently my staff felt I would need this reminder after a night or two on the town. 

Welcome to Las Vegas and the Third National Conference on Water Quality Criteria and 

Standards. We selected Las Vegas as an optional means of financing water pollution control 

programs--we figured we had about as much chance at the slot machines as we had with 

Congress or OMB. 

We are pleased to see so many people representing all the regulated community. We 

have people here today from industry, environmental groups, academia, technical consultants, 

Native Americans, municipal governments, interregional organizations, other Federal agencies, 

and of course, the States. This is good. Protecting the quality of water and the public health 

requires all of our best efforts. As we share ideas, as we begin to understand the needs and 

views of all the different people and groups involved in this great challenge, we can implement 

better programs. 

The question is... why have we asked you to come? 

This is a good time to have a national discussion of the Criteria and Standards Program. 

We have essentially completed meeting the statutory requirements placed on us by Congress to 

adapt standards for toxic pollutants. We are on the verge of being ready with the scientific basis 

for the development of sediment criteria and biological criteria. Reauthorization of the Clean 

Water Act will be occupying the attention of Congress next year. A number of ideas will be 

discussed. One of these ideas is to change the fundamental basis of the program to place more 

specific limits or requirement on the States as to what standards they need to adopt need to adopt and within 

what time frame. The concepts embodied in the guidance implementing the Great Lakes Critical 

1 
T. DAVIES 

Programs Act could potentially be applied to the standards program nationally. Ideas are being 

formulated on how to implement antidegradation, how to derive criteria without a full database, 

concepts of developing and implementing criteria to protect wildlife. Very specific requirements 

are being proposed for granting variances, and for specifying uniform permit limits impacting 

a single water system. Are any of these appropriate for national application? 

Also, the Criteria and Standards Program continues to evolve into a much broader and 

different entity than what it dealt with in the early years. It's been a since long our time most 

serious debate was whether the dissolved oxygen criteria should be 4.5 or 5. Now we are 

dealing with toxic pollutants on the order of parts per quadrillion. There are new scientific 

advances in the form of new types of water quality criteria. Statutory requirements have 

changed--count decisions have affected the program. We understand the nature of water quality 

impairments better, and you, our customers, have increased and different demands. Most 

important of all, I believe, is that the public is demanding more from us in the way of protecting 

and enhancing water quality. 

Probably the most important reason we are glad you are here is that the States are usually 

the innovators in out programs. This is true in many areas, not just in water pollution control. 

We need your ideas, your suggestions, your expertise on where the program should be headed 

in the upcoming years. What have you been experimenting with in criteria development or in 

implementing standards? What have you learned? What seems to have worked? What failed? 

What are you doing that could be applied on a national or at least regional scale. 

It is impossible for us to do everything everybody would like, and you can’t do it either. 

So, what do we need to do the most? You will help us answer that question. 

The focus of this year’s national conference is to help us in EPA, specifically the Office 

of Science and Technology, in determining how best to meet these changing demands. 

My philosophy is straightforward--I want the Office of Science and Technology to do the 

right things, and I want to do them the right way. Unfortunately, not everybody agrees on what 

the right things are or how they should be done. But, if we have a focused effort among all of 

us involved in improving water quality, we can and will overcome very difficult challenges. 

Without a focused effort, we'll be lucky to make any real progress at all. 

Our central goal for the conference is to solicit a broad range of perspectives on each of 

the agenda topics and debate the merits of alternative approaches. If you would prefer to argue 

rather than debate, that is alright, too. I hope each session will bring into sharper focus the 

policy, legal, scientific, and program choices facing us. Each of us brings a bias to this 

conference based on our training and the job we now hold. For most of us, this means program 

decisions seem to be clear. The problem comes when people from other disciplines and having 

a different set of responsibilities get involved and mess things up. well, I hope we mess things 

2 
WATERQUALllYSTANDARJX3INTHE2lrtCENlVRY: 14 

upabitduringourdiscu&ons. Ibopcwecandiscusswhywbatappearstobegoodpolicy 

fouadensbecauscthereisnotlcgalor&cntifkbasisandviccvena. Totbetiormanagers 

PtBPA,thisisimpotCantbecrrusewerprely~~gdformltcadacisioabasadoaoaediscipline. 

Folicy, kgal, technical, axmomic, scknti& issues all become part of the decision making 

Pro=- 

Tbesediscussionsareimpoxtant. l%eywiubeusadinmakingfar-~dscisioason 

whatprogramanaswillbecomeourprioritiesfortbecoming~yearsandw~wecmbest 

expendourlimitedresources. l%csedeci&mswillthcndinctlyafEctwhatwewi.llexpectfrum 

thesEatesintheirFo1eastheprimaryimplementorsoftbecriteriaaadstandardsprosnm. 

What we bear at meetings such as this will also belp frame EPA’s position on Ckan Water Act 

Reauthorization pruposals. 

YOUR ROLE IN THE MEETING 

ImentioaedeariierthatyouaFegoingtobelpwdecidewbattbepFogramsboulddoin 

the future. Specifically, we are going to do this in three ways. 

Fint, tbe number of foti speakers has been reduced f&n previous years. With the 

belpofthemodcfaton, wehavepluuredthatatleastbalfoftheallottedtimeforeochpanelwill 

beavailablefor~participation. Wewanttohcarfromyouf6lkswbatyouridcasare. 

We mmge you to actively pa&ii. We know you have ideas and amcexns. Pkase get 

themontbctabk. TbepanelmembeffbavebeeadiFsdedtofocusonspacificrspectsofthe 

topictO-ragedebatefromthea. 

Sacond,youwill~,inyourregisbation~,aprioritiessurvey. Wewantyauto 

compkte these surveys. We will combine your vkws with similar auveys we ti at several 

criteriaands-worksbopsearli~this aummerasanothcxv&icktohelpwdct 

. . . . . national progmm priorities, h we v 

-tobe-. Readtbedirectionsforthissurveycadully. Youwillnotbeabktomake 

everytbiagrpriority--youwillhavetopkkudcboo#cuefully,just~we&rtBPA. Asyou 

rmLeyourchoices,thinlraboutwhat~~ibthelPrgestridt~orpFognm 

be&it. Iatheupcoming~,yougetfovoteonlyoace(~~tbat’stbewryit’sdo# 

in most placea). Our sumey allows you muSpk votes, but you have to hide what progun 

areastousetbemon. The~ltsoftbese8ufveysandtbediacusaioasrtthis~will 

beexpminadrloagwitbanystatutoryorjodicialraquir#nentsmMdrrtadfortbe~yfo 

establishfutureartioarlprogramprioritks. PkaecompkteaxKlfdumtbweavveysatthe 

. . mg&a&m table by noon tomorrow. 

3 
T. DAVE3 

THE AGENDA 

Iwanttospeadafewmhutes&scMngtbeagadaandsomeof$reundcrlying 

quedonswebopetodiscussoverthenext3days. 

The topics selected for discussion at this conference were chosen fium suggdons 

offered by cities, States, and athers in the regulated community. We believe they are the ones 

domiig most of the cumnt discussions on criteria and standad. 

Let’stakeabokattheagenda. 

We’vejustgonethrou,gham;opr~~fo~~criberirfortoxicpa~. What 

now? Webaveissuesofnationdcon&teqversusgaognphicaflexibility,ofthepotenMto 

chgetheroksofBpAmdtbeS~. Coagressseunstobemovingtowrrdbeingmore 

specificinitsdirectivesoncriterirand-. Doesttlisheip,ordoesthismakeitmore 

difficultforustosetrisk-basedprbitks? Dowencedfb~ ClBWgCSiathC~,Or 

shouMwenottamptrwithpnwisionstht~rttbecrmofthesrrhneabdhaveresulfadin 

dative SUCCCSS? 

Wewillbedisadnghumanbcalthrisk~ andlulmanbealthrisk-. 

lltequesthstobedebata!inchde: (1)Wbosbulflweprutect?(2)Wbatismdaluatekvel 

afpForection?(3)Isourmedrodotogyforderiviagbumrnberhhcriterirtoococrservrtive?(4) 

Should States be given more or less fkxiii in risk m and muragemeat decisions? 

Wbrt~wegoingtodorboottwooftbellrajorrrctivities~inprreviousnrtianrl 

meetings-thewlialtionofbiologicalalld-criteria? canandshlnlldtlIesetypesof 

tzrimiabeimp- hetbresouFcesavailabktoimplaneatthesetypesofcriteh? How 

antheybeusedinrregulatorycontext? Istheirscientificsupportsolid~ghtosupport 

quhoryprograms? Arewegoiagtobecrbletos4prioritieaforissumgsadiment-basedpermit 

limits? Ie%pect8lBwerst!otbesequedonsinthenext5minute8. 

EPAimsestabiishedrpoiicyofidpebntapp~ofchanicrl-bychemial 

cdteria,whok-eftluenttoxicitytesting,andbiiologicrlmerarres. Doesth8tpoucymakesease? 

SomeStatesfhtlyopposeit. Doweknowenoughrboutanyoftbese- toauowooeto 

ovemide8notk? Canweestablishabdanceamongthesediffereattools? 

4 
WATBRQUALlTYSTANDARDSINTHE2latCFNlURY: 14 

Someofourtimewillbespentonecologiatlrisk assessment. Can we actually make 

ecological risk assesmmts, and bow could we implement such afisesments in terms of 

regul-iy programs? 

Forty-tbme million people in tbe United States are served by 1,200 combii sewer 

systems,mostlyinthenortheestpartofthecountry. Thereareawholehostofissuestohe 

considered by the Criteria and Standa& Program, not the least of which are tbe relative risks 

ofwdwegther~~com~to~r~,~thecbaracteristicsofwetweather 

discharges that pose the grea&st risk to human health. In what area of the criteria-tostanda&- 

to-permit process should EPA focus its efforts? 

Whiletheeastenrersamonguscandebatethattopic,thepeoplefFomthearidwestwill 

be talking about bow to apply sta&rds to ephemeral- and effluent-dominated streams. The 

question raised by interested groups is whether some different interpretation and application of 

the Clean Water Act is more appropriate for the arid west. Alternatively, is there sufficient 

flexibility in the current program regulation and policies to cover such situations? 

In all of these arcas, an underlying question is do we need statutory or regulatory changes 

to accomplish the desired objective? 

As we identify tbe national program priorities for the coming years, I think it is important 

tomaintainafocusontbe~~ofgeccingthingsdone,alltbewayfromtbebasicscientific 

research through setting the enforceable water quality stand&s, having available implememation 

procedures, and beiig able to reflect the requirements in permits. 

LoGrsTrcs 

Asthefvstspealrer,IgettbeboaorofmrHnn~tbCmiscelLuraousMnoumxrnents 

requimdatthehegkmingofameeting. So,hentgoes. 

Outside this main meeting room, you will fmd copies of many BPA publications. We 

invite you to look them over and order those you feel can be useful to you. 

We also will be showing a number of vidsotapes on the Criteria and Standa& Program 

at the breaks. ‘Ibese tapes axe available free for your use. Order forms are available. 

Inaddition,pkaseuseyourtimeberetomeetwithtbeBPAstaff,gettokaow~ 

other, and share ideas. 

Iftht~isaaythingwecanhelpyouwithatthemeecing,plegsegotheregistrationdesk 

and we’ll help you out. 

5 
t. DAVIES 

6 
Applying EPA’s 

Risk-Based 

Approach and 

Commitment to 

Sound Science to 

WQC/WQS 

Priority Setting 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 7-13 

EPA’S COMMITMENT TO SOUND SCIENCE AND WATER 

QUALITY STANDARDS 

LaJuana S. Wilcher 

Assistant Administrator for Water 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water 

Washington, D.C. 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning. It’s a pleasure to join you at the Third National Meeting on Water 

Quality Standards for the 21st Century. Although it is mid-morning, this is probably pretty early 

for some of you--that field trip to the effluent-dominated stream yesterday must have been pretty 

exhausting. Either that, or some of you have made field trips to the casino floor. I know 

you’ve just gone to assess the risks, though, in the name of science. 

If you’ve found significant risks at the tables, you‘ll agree with the Greek philosopher, 

Petronius, who called gaming: 

that direst felon of the breast 

[which] Steals more than fortune from its wretched thrall, 

Spreads o’er the soul the inert devouring pest 

And gnaws, and rots, and taints, and ruins all. (Gaius Petronius, 66 A.D., 3,500 Good 

Quotes for Speakers) 

I mention that not only in sympathy to some, but also as a service to others who might 

have thought of playing “hooky” from today’s meetings. See how much better off you are in 

here! 

STATE ACHIEVEMENTS THROUGH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

Numbers take on extra importance in Las Vegas. Today, I like the number 42. Lucky 

42 is a winner because that is the number of States and territories which have 

7 
L S WILCHER 

adopted and received EPA approval for numeric criteria for toxic pollutants. These 42 

jurisdictions have met the objective that Congress established in 1987. 

Those of us in EPA’s Office of Water know that it wasn’t easy. Every one of those 

States had to face challenges to get the job done in a timely manner--challenges from many 

interest groups, from legislatures, and even from us at EPA. There have been challenges on the 

need for criteria, challenges on their scientific bases, and challenges on the costs of adopting 

them. Yet, 42 States and territories persevered, made the tough choices. and adopted clear 

standards which will form the basis for sound environmental control programs for years to come. 

All of that tough work has paid off. We‘ve been cleaning up the water. The most recent 

data compiled by the States indicate that 63 percent of assessed river miles. 44 percent of 

assessed lake acres, and 56 percent of estuarine square miles support their designated uses. 

In the Water Quality Standards Program, there are 57 different jurisdictions working to 

implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act. While all of their programs contain the 

same basic elements. there are many differences. Innovative States have taken the lead in 

implementing advanced concepts such as biological criteria, and ecoregional studies and controls. 

Sediment criteria have been examined for application to the Puget Sound. Multi-regional efforts 

to set common standards are under way for the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Gulf of 

Mexico. In a variety of ways, States are working to give real regulatory meaning to narrative 

standards so that permits can be written to meet standards. States are trying different ways of 

implementing antidegradation. State standards serve as benchmarks for effective pollution 

prevention programs. 

DELAYS MAY BRING MANDATES 

But not every State has adopted all the standards necessary to control toxic pollutants. 

The delays from some States have made their environmental problems worse, which reflects on 

all of us and keeps us from fully enjoying our successes. EPA is also behind now in 

promulgating toxic pollutant criteria for those 15 jurisdictions that did not fully comply with the 

congressional directive. Congress did not envision so much foot-dragging on this issue. 

It is unlikely that we will see reauthorization of the Clean Water Act before this Congress 

adjourns. But as the 103rd Congress takes up reauthorization next year, some members will be 

absolutely ready to mandate standards, such as those which the Great Lakes Critical Programs 

Act specifies, along with timetables for State and EPA action. All this year, EPA has been 

urging Congress not to change a law that is largely working well. But standards are the 

foundation of the Clean Water Act. and State failures to adopt them weakens our ability to 

intercede with Congress. 
WATBRQUAlJIYSTANDARDSMTHE2lrtCEbmJRY: 7-13 

ADVANCING SCIENCE 

During this co~eence, we will examine the future of our water environm~t, new forms 

of water quality standards, priorities based on risk assessment, and the continuous striving for 

the stmngest scientific basis possible for critcha and standa&. 

Itisahsciigagah. We~wthatthefutureofourwaterenvinmmentwilldepend 

uponsouadscience;upanourabilitytom~~eystemeffcasinthefieMaswell~ 

individualefTectsintbelaboratory. Tbekindofgoodsciaxewtneedisnolongerjusta 

scholarly convenience; it bas become absolutely I16ctss8cy to defend sound environmental 

regulation. 

Twoyearsago~month,BPA’sindepeaderrtScienceAdvisory~isaradalaadmark 

report calling for moreand betterdataof all kinds, especially relating to human bealtb risks; and 

better metbodologies for assessing and comparing risks. 

EPA’s Admhhtrator, Bill Reiiy, took tbat recommendation to beart. Just last Ivhcb, 

. Billacceptedtben#xrmmebdatwnw ofanexpertpaneltocbangetbewaytbeAgcncydoes 

mb and uses scientific information. One of its principal recommendations is to ensue: 

. . . that all relevant scientific information . . . [including that] from outside tbe 

zG isbsb~bt~~ decision-making pm. (&@gua&ng the Fwwr: 

at EPA, March i992) 

Dtxishs, The Expert Panel on tbe Role of Science 

Anotber important panel recommendation is that EPA “. . . improve communications 

with tbe sciahfic community . . . .” 

Bill Reilly is establishing a team of world-class scientists to advii bim and tbe Agency, 

d be is setting up a peer-review system. We want to be absolutely certain that tbe regulations 

we set are grounded in scientific fact. 

Good science fosters good public policy. ‘Ilk& bow far our science bas brought us! 

Origid basic water quality criterh such as dissolved oxygen bave become more precise, and 

we are able to measure and include many mom pollutants in State standards tban we could evu~ 

afewyearsago. WecannowrecognhdUTkrences in water chemistry and tbe city of 

aquatic life, and develop criteria to apply to a specific site. State water quality standards 

programs have been completely rmtmctud, and some are already making extensive use of 

biological criteria. 
LJ. WLcHm 

CRITERMMEASURBVALUE 

Tbewida~ollecosystuntpproeches8ndbiologialcriteririswefulbecalue 

~&~~~emsns~ serve” early warning signs ofproblwrs. when bumble 

mnwcqncwater8ninmlsbegintosuff~,weknowtbe 

. cnvn~~~issuffering,too. Weknowtbatadamagalen~lcadstobumanbealtb 

pfoblam. Weknowalaotb8trbaltbyewirarmantisemMialtolang-tmnaxmamkgrowth. 

Wiipl8lltSSUld~bllVCpiweathdr-V8blC8S- offbal8ndmedkine,alld 

assouFcesofv8bl8bk-specks. IIealtbywetlandspreveatfloodsaxi~water 

polbltion-yandwitblittkornocost. Thelistof-goesonandoIl. 

Undcrstadiq the need for healthy umy8tans, the nqort of tbc Science Adviisory Board 

. . lfIaMkdtwooftbebigbesten-risks~: 

0 Habii-and-,8lld 

0 Species exthtion and loss of biilogial diversity. 

EPAbuWitytodevebpandst3wUdlifecriterkisooatriabdin~304(8)oftbe 

CkanWaterM. Butbcuusewelackcdd8ta,webavcdel8yedin@tingtbo6ccriterh. Some 

oftbehtb*sGlKst- b8vep8idtbepriceoftlntdelay. TtlePIorichmis 

~notoolybyavinlciagbrbibt,butbymefalrycoatrmiartioaintbefood 

chain. IntbeGrcathkes,spu5docludingbrldcagks,co~, andotbersbolebirds 

carlyFcBsandotbertoxicpou~wbicb~~witbtbeirrrgtroduction. 

~ofw~fotuildlifctobacxwe~ordie,BpAwrrrtstopnwldeS~uith 

tbetadstbeymcdtoeval~waterwitbwi.ldWlmltbinmixxl. Wewantto&tcrmhetbc 

extadoftbeprobkm. Weanckvelqingauatiodme&odologytbatwill: 

0 IdcntQandevalu8tetbebest,mostshhfidlysoundmc4bodsfor&veloping 

WilfiUfbcriterk,d 

0 Illcolpor8te proven criteria into our regulntioas. 

10 
WAl’EE QUlunr Sl’ANtBARDS m -l-HE 21ti C-Y: 7-13 

But we don’t want this to be a top-down effort. We want to work in all phases as partners with 

s&Mists, the Department of the Interior, and States. 

‘Ilis past April, just such a group ofpaxtmzs convened in Charlottesvilk, Virginia, for 

anationalmeetingoawild.Mecr3eria. Oneapproacbtbegroupdiscussedistbeonetakenin 

the Great I&es Water Quality Initiative. The findhgs of the &erence will be published later 

this year. 

EPA and its partners are developing a database of all availabk mammal& avian, 

reptihn, and amphibian data to belp us develop sound, inclusive wildlife metbodologks and 

criteria. ‘i%e database, called Wildlife Assessment for Residues and Toxicity-WART for short-- 

will be incoxpoxated into the Agency’s database of ecotoxic&gical information, or BCOTOX, 

and will be available to all States and territories. 

We hope that States will see these efforts as a foundation on which they can build strong 

programs to protect wildlife from toxic pollutants. 

Biiogid criteria 

Biological criteria present an eva mom diffiilt challenge, but they are a tantalizing 

goal. Moxe than anything else, biological criteria will make it possible to directly measure tbe 

health of the ecosystem by measuring the structure and functions of aquatic communities. Since 

rexhknt plants and animals continually monitor environmental quality, they can help detect 

spills, dumping, tlleatment plant malfhtions, and nonpoint source pollution, which may not be 

bappenhg when we take samples. They can also help us measure sedimentation from 

stormwater nmoff, and habitat alterations from dredging, filling, or channelization. Biological 

criteria will make possible more holistic, integrated, and complete evaluations of water quality. 

States lent eager to integrate biological assessments and criteria into water quality 

managema Programs. More than 20 States use some form of SEandardizad biological 

assessments in their waters now. Several States, including Ohio, Florida, Maine, and North 

Carolina, use biological criteh in establishing aquatic life use classifications and in CnfoEing 

water quality standards. These States have an eye on the fbtwe. 

But biological assessments cannot few probkms, and they require difficult 

measurement and careful data interpretation. Biological criteria may never supplant chemical 

and toxicological methods, but they will complement other suxface water quality criteria. 

II 
LA. WllmIm 

Even where water column levels me& criteria, toxic m in lakes, rivers, wetlands, 

8DdcoMtalw8terskcepalivetbelxMe#&lforcolhlu@-degrrrdrtioa. studks 

sbowwtbrt~herltb,rqurticlife,ud~~wiMlifeulertridrfrom~~sedimests. 

Fkldstudialfllldtb8t-~billgfnna-overtimecallprobceflsbtllmors 

andfinrot,auddisaseswhicbcanwipeoutentireaquaticcommunith. Asyouknow,scveral 

States have closed water supplks and have put up safood wamings and swimming bans wbem 

. edmeats have become contaminated. 

InsomephceswbeFewrterfowlertfidrcoatuniarsadbytoxicsfnnnaedimeass,tbe 

waterfowl have problans bm, and their young do wt develop properly. Feopk who bunt 

ducksinpaltsofWii arewamcdbytheStatenottoeatthembecausetheducksconsume 

foodcoatpmiaptedbyGreathkessedima&. That’radangersignaltous,likcadyingcanaq 

inacoalmhe. Weneedsedhentqualitycritehatoassesscontamiartiobandtostopit. 

Various Fakml agencies worlr with contamhtcd se&me&s so we*Ic woxlcing on a 

combii solution, likely a tiered appro&cb that would quire &xe testing at heasing 

. aMammaN tbfesbolds or when toxics show synergistic, antago&ic, or additive effects. We 

have almdy held one workshop, including our parb~xs fixnn States, other agencies, 

en- groups, induay, EPA hbomtory, the Sciaux Adviiry Board, contractors, and 

universityscieMists. TbeyhaveidaHiedamodelthatm8ymeetaUofourneeds. hterthis 

year,wecxpa%toissueforpublic c0mmclls a criteria devew methodology for endfin, 

pbearnthr#res f--, =-mtb-, anddkldrin. Nextyear,wewtop=ttotbe 

Scii Advimry Board a mdbodology for developii sediment criteria for metal contaminants. 

HOLWI’IC MANAGEMENT AND WHOLE EF’FLUENT TOXIClTY 

Two woKh+-compkmentaq and holistic-point tbe way to our water quality stand&s 

future. Weseetbatwecannotamtrolw8tcrpoUutioowithcbemicahaloae. Studksfirwtbe 

ohioS~BpA~w~tbecbearicrl~forprotbaingaqurticlifefiibdinmorethra 

rthhJ(36perccnt)oftheir(43l)aites. Wemustdobetterthanthat. Todobctter,wenecd 

comptitary, holistic tools, which we find in Wbok Effluent Toxicii testing. These tests 

rllowusto~~tbetotoltoxic~~af;to~thFargba~~~,witbout 

idedyingspecifktoxicants. Itisthebestwaywehavefdto@katctheactual 

envimmenWexposunof~lifctoeflluenttoxicants. OneEPAstudysbowstbat89 

percent of the Whole Bfnuent Toxicity tests accurately predict toxicity effects. An i&pa&& 

analysis of several studies parallels our furdings, showing 90 percent accuracy in these tests. 

I2 
WA78R QUALITY ST’ANDARDS IN THE II@ CENTURY: 7-13 

TboseaFethekindsofresu~weaaedatatimewhea~ingscienceand~ic 

development keep moving cnvti talqualitygoalpostsfartberandfhtberaway. Aswerdr 

citizens to spend their tax dollars on increasingly complicated and expensive control measures, 

we are responsible for ensuring tbat tbey m buying tbe best, most comprehensive, and costeffhtive safeguards possible. We must see tbat tbcir money is spent on the bigbest risks first. 

HPA’sScienceMvisoryBoardhascalledonthc~yandtheN~todoabeEber 

job of setting envhunental risk priorities. The SAB report says: 

. . . there ale heavy costs involved if!#xiety fails to set enviKmmaHal prioritks 

based on risk. If finite resources are expended on lower priority problems at the 

expense of bigb priority risks, tben sockty will face nccdkssly high risk. 

EPA nxognim that we must pnMdc moxe guidance to States and otber Federal agencies 

on high-priority risks, and we a~ working to do that. 

CONCLUSION 

Itcllwayssaemstocomebackto~~inGlitcerCity. Weallwanttominimiiit 

andhOtcndupfeelinglikcpoor&troniusdid. Weintbisruombaveadutytominimizcrisk 

on behalf of the Americans wbo trust us. Wohing togetber, using good science, we can stack 

the deck in their tivor. Playwright Damon Runyan once said: 

Itmaybethattberaceis~alwaystotbeswiftnorthebattktotbestrong-but 

that’s the way to bet. (Damon Runyan, quoted in F&ndfy AAh, by Jon 

Winokur) 

In the race to improve cIIw quality using sound science and effective controls, 

EPAisbettingonyou. 

nlank you. 

I3 

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 15-19 

LIFE AFTER TOXICS: WHAT DIRECTION NOW? 

NATIONAL CONSISTENCY VS. GEOGRAPHIC FLEXIBILITY & 

THE ROLE OF RISK IN PRIORITY SETTING 

William R. Diamond (Moderator) 

Director 

Standards & Applied Science Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 

The first two speakers described the purpose of this Conference in terms of debating the 

future direction, priorities and pressing issues of the water quality standards program. This initial 

session focuses on two cross-cutting issues that are central to that debate: 

1. What approach should be taken to water quality criteria development and water 

quality standards State adoption and Federal approval-- 

Emphasizing national consistency, or 

Maximizing geographic flexibility? 

2. What is the appropriate role of risk in priority setting? 

The provisions of the Clean Water Act strike a balance between some degree of national 

consistency (i.e., national water quality criteria guidance under section 304; national policies and 

regulations; and EPA oversight, review, and approval of States standards) and permissible 

flexibility to adapt national guidance to local circumstances (i.e., State primacy, and site-specific 

criteria). This approach worked well for the initial development and adoption of simple water 

quality criteria and standards. However, recently a number of events have brought this balance 

under scrutiny, and there have been calls to alter this fundamental Clean Water Act principle. 

These events include the following: 

As States have adopted water quality standards for toxic pollutants, some have 

questioned the disparity among States in the risk levels and exposure assumptions 

relative to protection of human health. They have argued that at a minimum 

there should be consistency among the States in human health risk levels. 

15 
W R DIAMOND 

Others assert that advances in science allow more accurate tailoring of standards 

to local and regional conditions. They claim it runs counter to good science to 

establish nationally consistent water quality standards that are more stringent (and 

more expensive) than is necessary to protect the ecology. 

Some congressional actions, such as the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, 

indicate a preference for greater consistency in water quality standards and 

implementation practices across States and water bodies. 

Some recent EPA actions, such as the Watershed Initiative, are moving the 

Agency toward a water body focus and greater flexibility for criteria and 

standards. 

Major bills pending for Clean Water Act reauthorization (e.g., Senate 1081) 

include provisions that move strongly in the direction of uniformity in water 

quality criteria and standards. Proponents assert such provisions assure greater 

equity among dischargers in different States and speed the cleanup of distressed 

waters by avoiding the long delays that have become the norm in State adoption 

of water quality standards. 

Actions to address concerns about “environmental equity” could take the form of 

either greater national consistency (setting criteria and standards to protect highly 

exposed populations through stringent assumptions on risk levels and consumption 

parameters) or increased use of site-specific standards (based on local information 

on consumption patterns and highly exposed subpopulations). 

The CWA has traditionally included broad program mandates that leave EPA with 

flexibility to decide the specifics of implementation. However. the trend of recent amendments 

has been toward greater statutory specificity. This limits the ability to set priorities based upon 

risk at a time when there is increased ability to set risk-based priorities and more calls to rely 

on risk-based decision-making. 

These issues raise several questions for the future of the program. The fundamental ones 

are obvious: 

Should the water quality program be geared to greater national consistency or 

increased geographical flexibility and tailoring? 

Does the answer vary depending on the type of criteria (chemical-specific numeric 

vs. biological vs. whole effluent vs. wildlife)? 

16 
WATBRQUAU~YSTANDARDSM~WE~~~ICENTURY: IS-19 

0 What should be the rok of risk in setting program priorities? AR risk assessment 

and risk management suffickntly devebped to rely upon for this type of 

decisii-making? 

0 ArcsufRcientdataavai&bktodecidetheseissuesatthistime? 

Related i- can also influence decisions on this subject: 

Are &se issue3 impacted if them is a requirement to move aggressively toward 

the Clean water Act goal of ZeFo discharge? 

Should EPA alter its allocation of sckntific and research resources away from 

development of methodologks and criteria documents and toward assistance at the 

local kvel to speed tailoring of criteria and impkmentation? 

Given the relative success of the Clean Water Act programs, should we tamper 

with provisions that are at the core of the statute? 

accomplished in the short time allowed us in this session. However, today’s presentations will 

enhancethatdebatebypresentingtbepenpactivesofthr#spegkerswith~gexperienceand 

diverse backgrounds in this area. Each has recently given these issues extensive consideration 

through a variety of activities or forums. 

17 
W.R. DlAMOND 

Slide Presentation 

slide 2 

r 

sue3 slide4 

CWA Criteria 6 Standards 

Tlmlng Scheme I 

slide5 

CWA Scheme- 

“Consistency vs. Fkxiblllty” 

Clean Water Act 

Slide 6 

I 

1 

Consl~ncy vs. Fkxlbilfty 

Actual Impkmentatlon 

sml /\ = 

18 
WATgR QUW STANDARDS MTHE 21d CENTWRY: IS-19 

slide 7 Slide 8 

New Considerations In 

WQCMIQS Decision-Making 

Risk 

Slide 9 

19 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS MTIffi 2la CENTURY: 21-24 

A SI’ATE VIEW ON THE NEED FOR NATIONAL CONSISTENCY: 

DISCUSSION PAPER 

Lydia Taylor 

oqou Lkporanenl ofEnvinmmc ~euoury 

Podllnd, oregut 

The purpose of this paper is to bring up for discussion issues resulting from a lack of 

consistency in EPA-approved water quality standa& among States and territories, and to suggest 

alternatives for consideration. 

Many of the waters in the United States cross State boundaries or are, in fact, the borders 

between States. When there is no national consistency on standa&, it presents several 

problems. 

In Arkansas, a lawsuit was filed by a downriver State, Oklahoma, which felt “its” water 

quality standa& weren’t heiig met because of dischargers upriver in another State operating 

under a different water quality standand (See ArAaruas v. OkMomu article attached.) ‘Ihe 

Supreme Court held that EPA has the authority to require that point sources in upstream States 

not cause violation of water quality standards in downsbeam States. The Court declined, 

however, to decide whether the Clean Water Act tequired BPA to do so. The unfortunate point 

here is that one State has to sue another State, or EPA, expending resources, and &raining 

relotionshipsinana#emptto~appnwedwaterqualitystanduds. lhestanda&in 

OkkhomaandArkmsasarebothapprovedbyEPA. 

In many States, the environmental community holds up as “good” programs that have 

stringent numeric standa&, using those “good” States as examples to pressure other States to 

follow suit. Industry, on the other hand, uses the States that ate “msonabk” as examples to 

pressure other States that have tighter standa& and are therefore considered Mreaso&k.” 

They cite the need for a level playing field and “good” science. States ate amstamly played off 

oneagainsttheother. Theweaponof&on&encyextendstokgalactionsandformrl 

testimonyinboth~inistrativeaadcourtcaseJinitiatedbyborhindustryanden~ 

groups. States end up being the playing field upon which this battle is fought. 

Of the States and territories, 42 have adopted numeric standa& for toxics and 15 have 

not. EPA’s statutory deadline to adopt these criteria for States not having standards is long past, 

21 
L. TAYWR 

iUldllOOllCklUWSWhl%ltkfilldNkSWiu 

heissued. -Il&addstotheproblemsof 

mcxmmmcy. Byqortingthestatusofthe 

pulayofw*underscctioa3o5@)ofthe 

ckallwaterAct,stateswithstandadare 

. dwsdvantaged . BPAandthemediaarequick 

topointaltwhelewaterinoneStatedoalll’t 

meetsta&rdscomparedtoallotherStates, 

including those which don’t have numeric 

liiits. 

Statesdevoteagreatdealofmoney 

andusuallyagooddealofstre&blelTort, 

state by state, to develop and revkw 

sf5entmalldtec~infibimrtionandadopt 

stadads. Tllal they are incrcasmgly put in 

the position of legally or legislatively 

defhding those stamhis, State by State. 

In Oregon, we have a numeric 

. mshmm water quality standad for dioxin 

(2,3,7,&TCDD). llre States that share with 

oNgonthecohlmbiaRiver(seemap)are 

Wash@ton, which has a narrative shmdard 

00 to*, and Idaho (a non-delegated State) 

whichopemtcsunderEPAcriteG. Eachhasbleachalkraftpulpmillsdischargingtothc 

Cohunbia River or one of its major tributaries. 

Tbe~~afdioxinbeiagdiscbargedinbotbeColumbicr~ittobelistediabocb 

oNgonandwashingtonasnotmeetingwaterquality~. oregonandWashingtonasked 

EPA to develop a TMDL @tal Maximum Daily Load) for the Columbia River for dioxin, 

which EPA did. 

W~ww~~ysuadwhenitpbcadwlrstebd~rmm~iaprlp 

millpenaitsbrsadoa~TMDLladlosttbecrppcrl~itdidnotbrveanumeric~ 

onwhichtobaseitspermits. Wash@ton,inanattempttosc4tkthelawsuit,mightagrcctoa 

discharge compliamx number which in Oregon’s view will neither meet the quir#nents of the 

TMDL nor allow the Columbia River to meet Ozegon’s water quality standa& for dioxin. 

WhatshouldOregondo? Wedon’tknow. WiiEPAquireWashingtontoadopta 

numeric limit fortoxics? We don’t know. What ifWashington adopts a less stringent sta&rd 

fordioxininthenaufuture? WillEPAappxoveit? probably. ThcAgcncyhasapproveda 

22 
WATER QIJAUIY STANDARDS IN THE 2111 CEVURY: 21-24 

variety of dioxin stand&3 

across the country ranging 

from 0.013 ppq to 1.2 

pw- Then what will 

ONgon do about the 

Columbia River? Will we 

be put in the position of 

jeopardizing our excellent 

waking relationship with 

the State of Washington 

over the issue. Will we be 

put in the position of suing 

EPA? 

- WA 

The lack of 

consistency by EPA in 

either requiring that 

standds be adopted, or in approving State sta&rds at different levels, is causing major public 

policy problems. 

Industries are nat treated equally across the United States, and this is a valid concern on 

the part of business. Individual citizens perceive that they are not pmtecte4 at the same risk 

level from State to State. 

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? 

Standards could be developed on a regional basii, proving consistency on regional waters. 

Unless a formal mgional or interstate water pollution control author@ is formed, the burden of 

coo-g such an approach would invariably M to BPA. It isn’t likely, with EPA’s present 

staffing levels, that they should embrace such an effort. Standa& might be developed under 

this scheme which achieve the lowest common denominator in order to teach -I. Since 

most of the major rivers in the continental United States cross State boundaries, this approach 

could leave very little to each individual State’s discFetion. 

Another approach might be to develop some mechanism (a trigger) that would cause a 

coordinated standards development effort to occur. For example, when a river exceeds the water 

qualitystaadardofoneoftheS~oaaninterstatewaterbody,it~triggeracoordinate 

effort to establish a uniform standard for that river or river basin. This would mean that 

coo- efforts wouldn’t occur until waters didn’t meet standard, contmry to a pnference 

for preventing water from exceeding standa& It would have the benefit of limiting such 

efforts to areas where they were redly txxxsmy. 

23 
L. TAYWR 

Unif&mstamMsamddbedevelopaIandcdoptadatthemtiooalkvcl. T%issoluticm 

givesStatesg~ertpause. First,BPAtimdimtomeetstrMorygoalsaftenlagfarbehiad 

. errpecbhoas Statescouldwaitalongwhlktoseeneworrevlsedt#addsdedoped. 

%COlld,thCkOUtOfWCightgiValtOsptes’tCChlllC8lOr- conamsmlglxbe 

insu~indevebpii~. Ontheotherhand,thissohbtmwouldofkare&ctbn 

illamfliubctweenstatalon-waters. Itwouldalsomovethedebatebetweulstates, 

indushies,env-groups,andtheEPAtothenatbnalkvel. Thiswaddmultintk 

debate beii molved ooce, uniformly, rather than 57 times ilMm&mly. It would ala0 xelkvc 

pmssu~fromStatc~who~yfuxState~~~about 

whaher~uemore~~thnelsew~in~countryormore~thurthe 

EPA would require. It would provide a kvel playing fkld for industq acmss the country. 

Although none of the alternatives offered is compk4ely palatabk, maim&g the ammt 

statuswillbammeincfcasinglydifficultandWgious. Statcssbouldtakca8criouslookat 

uniform donal standa& being developed by EPA. 

24 
WATER QUMrrY STANDARD6 M THE 2lrC CENTURY: 2.Wl 

LIFE AFI’ER TOXIC& WHAT DIRECI’ION NOW? 

INTRODUCI’ION 

I appraziate having the opportunity to be with you today. Our topic covers natiod 

consistency versus geographical flexibility and the rok of risk in priority setting. My -ts 

will ti these two topic areas as they ate @acted by policy on toxicity, biological 

monitoring, and watershed maqement. In this context, I’ll also share some ideas on pollution 

prevention, nonpoint pollution, and CSOs. 

MANAGEMENT OF TOXIC POLLUTION 

Ithinlrthrrttbelegislptive/~lPtorytnin~chuggingdowna~traclrthat 

maybenefitfmmsomerethoughtand~. l%ecurrentamqtualtmckgocssomdhiq 

lilrethis: ForeoruplantondanlmallifccxtstcdinaMnvaldyMnicbalancc~‘~rltcfbras 

of natum, such as nut&w, moistw, sunlight, arygen, gmzing dprdztion. Tkn, man’s 

ingenuity pmduced indudai actiuftfcs Mich haw cmattd a new dediyjbctor--tddty. By 

contdling the impact of in&my, M&h is itduuued thmughout human activity, w can bring 

mici~ llndkr contml. 

Itisu&rstadbkthatthisconccptwouldfindacqtamq gival tk bng history of 

mur’saccidebtallygarentedpoi#nw,including~9ndm~ry,andtbe2ortrcensUrydvllKxs 

in the developmeat of poisonous organic chemids. 

What’s wmng with the concept? Well, it seems that as we have developed more and 

more p&se toxicity tests aimed at identifying the concentration at which toxic cfFects can be 

dhaxned in the most sensitive organism, we axe discovering that toxicity is everywhere. 

Samples of natural earth can’t pass the leachate toxicity tests. Ristine water samples don’t 

comply with EPAs toxicity criteria. l%cm (UIC two possible explanations. First, maybe the 

25 
R. DOLAN 

toxicitytestingpNtocolsneedsomeimpNvanult. secolld,maybeouroriginal~ 

model,bmaedonimbtrhltoxins,needssomerethinldag. IthinkbothexplaMionsatetrue. 

I’mbeginningtothinlrwek~somethingoutofthelistofnrturcllforcestbat~lthe 

balmceofnatuN-namely,geo~yandbiibgicauypNducedtoxills. olltbe~of 

wbrrwe~nowkyniag,wmrepaogkaFe~l~tbatoaespecies’micronutrient~rnotber 

species’toxlcmetal. Plantsandplantenter!3,bac&riaaDdmolds,~andprey,andplants 

abd~competingfor~ecologicrlnicheoftbeirownbaveevolvedtbep~~uae 

of organic toxins tbat provide than with competitive dvmsages. Similarly, oqanism8 have 

evolved mecha&ms to resist both biologically and geologic&y p&u& toxins. Under this 

. atwu~,tbedregmofato~-freeeav~beginstolodrqu~Illive. 

Withootbelaboringthispoiat,Isuspedthatwheaourundentrndingoftheacologyof 

to~iscICUIM,wewillbegintolooketwaterqualityobjectivessomewbatdi&natly. 

chanicrrl-specificcriterirsboulddiminisbinimporhace,tobeFep~byaaincnasad 

a@asisonecobgicalandhumanhealthcriteria. Ofcourse,wewiUhavetoamtddand 

mersunbletoxicitytoibdigenoussQacicsiatFoduoediaothenrturalr#xivingwrterua~lt 

of bman activity. We need to adju8t our think@, however, when we apply imputed ef%cts 

to the most sensitive, often non-native, specks caused by toxins that may be in nonqxe8e&&ive 

chemical states. 

Iderlly,tbewaterenvironmeatmuuPcmmtObjCaiYCSbOUIdbtfhtestablishmeatofa 

healthy, bdanced ecosystan. Ttle -, bdance,anddiversityofindigalousspecks 

should be our goal. Measurements of and criteria for @txeam toxicity, eutrophication, toxic 

tissueburden,andrepmddve~ migMbeexampksofmoresuitabkcri&athatneed 

tobedeveloped. Itisobviouslynotasimpktask. Whendeveloped,theseecobgicalcri@ria 

anlld,perhaps,beapplialnatbaauy. Inadditbntothaleecobgiallobjectives,thehealth 

~fadsoapaopkwbonuybt~to~~foodwcbwouldbcfh?~ofour 

mgdatoryappmach. Todothiscorre&y,weaIsoneedtoim~theappFoechweuseto 

. estuna&smallriskstohumanpogulatioas. Suchanappmachwouldappeartoprovideabetter 

fit with the naGonal goal of swimmabk and fishable waters. 

It~ottcaexcaediaglydifficulttobrveaewer,~~bdge~inchanged 

regu&ms. Iaawayboundto~my~ofthCmOQt~~l~~,~ 

wouldu8etheiIl-advisedknguageoftheanti-ba&MngclausetoplweJltfutu~permit 

. xeqwmem fiom dkcting improved knowledge. Nevexthekss, if we a~ abk to change in 

26 
WATER QUAlmY STANDARDS MTHE 2lrl CEWURY: 25-31 

BIOLOGICAL MO-RING 

Ithinkthattheroleforbiiasawaterquality management tool should grow. 

I think that biological indicators should play a primary role, both in measuring receiving water 

quaIityandinpIedktingtheeffectofamM&umt dischaqes. ‘Ibe biggest obstacle to having 

thishappeniscomplacencywiththecutmntstateofthetests. ‘Iheyarejustnotgoodenough. 

The Whole-Effluent Toxicity Test is represeated as a regulatory safety net, catching the 

subtleeffectsofsynergismandantagonism;among~inantsand,thus,ading~abetter 

predictor of the discharge’s effect on the receiving water biota. For this to be true, local specks 

should be used. For purposes of compliance monitoring, we will have to continue to use 

synthetic dilution water. But for overall watershed planning and management, itwould bc good 

to see protocols developed to determine the toxic effects of effluents bkndal with receiving 

water. 

ThestatisticalprocaduFesaeadtobeimpFovedtoweedouterraticresu~duetointerand intra-test variability (including species variability), and by doing so, to give a higher level 

ofdiintheNslllts. TheFQLMethodologycanbeadaptedfiomchemicalanalysisto 

assurea9Opercentor95pexcentam&kncetotheresults. 

Furthermore, we need better ways to kam what the lethal pollutant was that caused the 

mcasud effbct in the test ofganims. l%e my expensive TRE/TIEcanbehelpful,butoften 

servesasnomorethananeducatedguess. I’dliketoseeBPAfimdastudytopmduceatabk 

of predict&k histological effects that result from exposure to the IO or 12 most pmbabk toxins. 

If we wem bying to figute out what poison kilkd a person, we wouldn’t use a TIE procedure. 

We would look at muscleMlex ma&on, shin or eye color, or other presumptive indicators, 

which would be confirmed by autopsy. often, by the time you realize you have a toxic effect, 

theeffluentandthesamplehavecbanged.Theonlythingyoucantumtoisanaffsctedtest 

olgallism. 

WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

TheFederatiotrhasbeenencouragingourFederallegislatonto~irethatfuatnewUer 

quality smdards be determined through detailed water&xi-specific plans, and that local citizens 

haveasayinsettingprioritks. Atthispointourfeelingisthatthekgislatorsandtheirstaffs, 

asawhole,areunconvinced. ‘Ihespecterofaha@qMgeofstanda&andthepossiikloss 

ofcontmlofthestanda&settingptocessateu mkrsta&bly unsettling. 

Ithinkthattheir concems are not well founded. We have actually had watershed water 

quality management for years. There already is a hodgqodge of requirements for nutrient 

27 
R. DDLAN 

removal acxas the United States. ltuough decentnlizrtioa and distr&don of authority, the 

system works. As to the loss of control, welcome to the democratic pm. EPA is getting 

goodeJIperienceinma@ngpublicpmccsses intheirBaysandBsMIiesprogram. Atkastin 

CMibmia(Rcgion9),theyhavedoaeaFwpectablejob. BPAandtheStateshavegottoretain 

findauthority. Whetwean~forisnotlocrlcon$ol,butl~invol~indaciding 

whicblocrlwaterqualitypFoblenrstotacklefrrstmdbowmuchcanbeQ#intbe#uterm. 

These same legislators, who are not so sure the public should be brought in to water 

environment priority setting, bkssed us all with public involvementhrough NBPA and its Statekveladogues. Theselawsdidnot~publicpadc@&m-theyjustdemocratizedit, 

pr&ding the opportunity for idle public policy to the average citizen-nut just the rich 

andpowerfd. Thisbas,ofcourse,mnAr!NIMBYcOatrolamajorelenrentofmodenrprblic 

works maqenmt. But, at least, after the public has tbeii say, there is a greater understading 

whenthebiihavetobepaid. 

POLLUTION PREWNTION 

Like just about everyone I know, I am a stmng supporter of pollution prevention. We 

have applied this approach to many substrurces from DM’ to a&es&s to mercury and lead over 

thepasttwodezadeqandweneedtoextenditmorebdy. 

Myprincipolcorrcernwiththe~rhetoricoapollution~~istbrsIseasethat 

many believe we can achieve full control of toxins through poll& prevedon. I believe that 

thisisufmalih. TheFewillbeveryfew~~thatwecurban~tbebosrd,aswe 

. did with DIYT in 1972. Yet, we a~ still seeing DDT/DDB w intbeWclter 

eavironmerrt,compuobktolevelswhichw~~~tbt)PtC1970s. Weamseeingsomc 

rerlimprovemcntincopperandkadxedtingfromwatersystem cordanconbd. However, 

as long as copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead rem& in plumbii systans, ekvated kvels of these 

metals will continue to be found in treatment plant inflmts. Several soulkd toxic metals are 

valuedasmineralsinthefdweeat. Wheredoyouthinkthatstuffaxlsup? 

. The plant effluent B maynotacMllyhetoxictoindigerrousspeciesinthe 

receiving water, but chances are that the EPA chemical-specific criteria will not be met by a 

great many dischargers. 

Ibis is where our cufi#st optimism over pollution prevention am be a problan. If the 

chemical-specificriteria mnain unchanged, even with the maximum practkal kvel ofpollution 

prevention, we will be confiontal with increasal &&maM requiremen& I have seen littk 

cvidcnceofaffordabktreatment ~hnology,specificPllyPimedatt~o~,beingdevelopad. 

28 
WATER QUALlTY STANDARDS IN THE 2laI CENTURY: 2541 

TOXICS TREATMENT 

When we consider pmozsses for the removal of trace metals, we turn to reverse osmosis 

and lime precipitation, both of which must be questioned because of their resource demands and 

residuals disposal problems. 

We have to remember that toxics are toxic because of their biological reactivity. I would 

like to see researchers investigate biological processes for the removal of toxins, preferably by 

process improvements in existing plants. Biological processes already remove substantial 

amounts of toxins. What will it take to remove more? 

Of course, jacking up the toxics removal performance of existing plants does not touch 

urban and agricultural runoff, the major sources of toxins in the water environment. Here again, 

biological pmcesses may be used. But, I’d like to have us ftnd the right way to develop 

wetlands to ensure that after a couple of decades of accumulating toxics, we haven’t created tens 

or hundreds of thousands of acres of new RCRA sites. By the way, many natural wetlands have 

been receiving storm runoff for decades. I wonder if anyone has ever done a comprehensive 

survey of existing urban wetlands to confum that we am using the right approach. 

COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS 

CSOs am an inextricable part of the watershed management issue. We fvmly believe 

that best professional judgment must be relied upon to develop CSO solutions to meet water 

quality goals. National technology-basal controls are not only guaranteed not to fit all 

situations, but also will be a gigantic wet blanket to innovation and creativity. Allowing 

flexibility will permit some mistakes to be made, but mandating a confining national program 

is likely to force a second hest option on a large number of local agencies. Given that the cost 

of full and immediate CSO control is unaffordable, we should be doing everything possible to 

help stimulate creative solutions, and we also should be providing compliance time schedules that 

will soften the economic impact on the public. Ferhaps our regulatory people should throw 

some of their weight behind a program to develop a national infrastructure policy, including a 

sound funding base. If we do this, and add a training program for unskilled workers, we may 

have a tool to solve problems such as CSOs and to strengthen our economy at the same time. 

A brief aside on nonpoint source contamination--I would be cautious of the data you will 

be getting on storm and agricultural discharges. I suspecthat not enough care has gone into 

sampling techniques. Take it from one who has been dealing with the problems of getting a 

representative sample in wastewater for years; it is not easy. In open channel flow, it is best 

29 
1. DDLAN 

togatbertbe~rtapoiatoffr#fallw~thebadloadof~mdtbe~rfiwx 

accumulation are all mixed into the flow. Simply scooping a sampk out of a flowing stream 

won’t give you the right answer. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

I. BPA should udertake the developmat of ecobgical criteria which can be applkd 

artioarllyaadbywhichwec9nestablisbthebiological~~oftbew~ 

enviNmmlt . 

2. BPA should continue improving the methodology for setting human health 

CM. 

3. Ckdcal-spacificcderiashouldbemcogni&forwhattheyare,asurrogate 

indiator,andshouldhcofnlueonlyuntildiabkecologicalcrit&aare 

dewbped. After this occurs, the Gold Book will serve to help solve water 

qualitypuzdesbutwillnotsemeasanatiodstan&fd. 

4. EUmhate the anti-backsliding hnguage fmm the Clam Water Act, EPA 

fegulations, and anabgous state laws and regulations. 

5. -theBiomoni toring Protocols for further impxovanent. 

0 Bnxxkn the number of permitted species, and require that indigenous 

specksbeused. 

0 Develop protocols for measuring the toxicity in blends of effluent and 

receiving water. 

l Applythesame&ati8tMconceptuscdincbemical&e~onsto 

develop the pm&al quantitation limits. Set the co&knce limits at 90 

percent or 95 percent. 

0 Develop idormation on observabk symptoms of the toxic effects of a 

limitainumberofcommoneffl~toxinsinthemostcommontest 

organisms. 

6. ThenewCkanWaterActshouldestablManewbasisfornatiodwater 

awhnnmt~. l’ennitquiru~~~shouldbeestablishedbythe 

adoption of water&xl plans. ‘I%ese plans, which would be subject to public 

30 
WATERQUAUlYSTANDARD8lNlTIE2l#tCEMURY: 25-31 

involvement, would emluatc specific water quality needs and set priorities for 

CorNction. 

7. Continue to support the development of treatment technology for toxics, in 

Knws and industrial plants, and also for agricultural and urbl NIbOff. 

8. Bncomge innovation and the use of local discretion in the solution of Cso 

problems. Maxim& the exchange of knowledge bemeem regulators and 

professionals mgarding workable solutions to stimulate further creativity. 

9. ~iewtheU~NaOffsamplin~~rocedUneStobesU~thatthedata~oU~ 

ma&ing give an acuuate picture of the actual water quality impacts. 

31 
Biological 

Measures: Can 

and Should They 

Be Implemented? 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 33-43 

APPLICATION OF BIOMEASURES TO BASIN WATER QUALITY 

STUDIES IN OREGON AND IDAHO 

Robert Baumgartner 

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality 

Portland, Oregon 

INTRODUCTION 

The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, is to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s water (Public Law 100- 

4). Oregon’s monitoring efforts and water quality criteria have been, and are presently, centered 

on the chemical measurement of water quality. An example of the success of this approach is 

the Willamette River (Gleeson, 1972), where significant improvements have been made in what 

was once a seriously degraded stream. There is increasing concern, however, that reliance upon 

conventional pollutant standards alone may not fully protect instream beneficial uses (Karr, 

1991; U.S. EPA, 1990). 

An integrated approach to beneficial use protection should include biological as well 

as chemical and physical measurements. Biological measures may be more sensitive to changes 

in water quality and may provide a more direct indicator of beneficial use protection than 

conventional parameters. The question is not so much whether to use biological measures, but 

how best to utilize them. 

USE OF BIOMEASURES--CASE STUDIES IN OREGON AND IDAHO 

Narrative biocriteria are included in Oregon’s water quality standards but are not widely 

used for enforcement purposes. The principal use of biomeasures in Oregon has been as 

background information and as supportive evidence of water quality conditions. Biological 

measurements are also being used as tools to aid in developing pollution control strategies and 

in monitoring the effectiveness of those strategies. 

The following case studies discuss Oregon’s use of biological indicators in pollution 

control efforts on the Grande Ronde River and the Willamette River, and Idaho’s plans for the 

33 
R BAUMGARTNER 

Upper South Fork of the Salmon River. In all three cases, Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) are required for the water quality limited streams; the TMDL studies provide the basis 

for the pollution control strategies. 

The Salmon River TMDL provides an example of a phased approach to the use of 

biocriteria in setting regulatory goals. Oregon is using a similar phased approach to help define 

water quality management objectives for streams in the State. The phased approach allows goals 

and criteria to be set and reviewed as information is developed; biological trends can be used 

as a frame of reference for evaluating biocriteria and determining the effectiveness of Rest 

Management Practices. 

Case Study: Grande Ronde River, Oregon 

Background: The Grande Ronde River in northeastern Oregon has been identified as 

water quality limited due to violations of the pH standard resulting from periphyton growth; 

suspected sources include municipal and industrial discharges. The key problem, however, is 

a decline in the population of Spring Chinook salmon over the past several decades (Figure 1). 

Historical returns, or escapement, of Spring Chinook to the upper Grande Ronde River have 

been variously estimated at greater than 12,200 (Anderson et al., 1992) and at approximately 

20,000 (State Water Resources Board, 1960). Spring Chinook salmon adult populations have 

dropped to an estimated 24 fish in 1991 (Boehne, 1991). This decline has been attributed to 

passage problems at Columbia and Snake River dams (Anderson et al., 1992); however, habitat 

and water quality degradation also reduce the fisheries potential of the Grande Ronde. 

Although preliminary point source biomonitoring data from the summer of 1992 indicate 

that point source discharges are degrading water quality in the Grande Ronde, the impacts on 

fisheries are more directly related to nonpoint source activities. Several agencies have 

recognized that temperature problems and habitat degradation are critical factors contributing to 

impacts on beneficial uses: The State Water Resources Board (1960) noted concerns that poor 

land-use management was degrading the fisheries resource; several agencies have documented 

severe impairment of water quality due to sedimentation and thermal problems (Anderson et al., 

1992); and riparian habitat is in a moderate to severely degraded state throughout the watershed 

(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988). In the Grande Ronde, these problems 

have not been, and likely could not be, resolved using a conventional point-source pollution 

reduction effort. Nonpoint sources must be addressed to reduce the impacts on fisheries 

resources. 

Efforts to improve water quality and fisheries habitat in the Grande Ronde will affect 

both public and private lands. A local steering committee has been established and partially 

funded by the State to coordinate the efforts in the Grande Ronde. Effective coordinating efforts 

34 
WATBR QUAurY srANDARD6 IN llm 21* CEm-uRY: 3343 

betweuugcnciesandampemtivekadownera will be important for implanadng voluntary 

compliance efforts. 

. cufient: neu.s.FomtsarviceandtheoregonDepartmeatofBnvinnrmeacal 

Q+ity.@BQ), along with several other aga&s, ult curfently involved in water quality 

momtonng efbts in the Grade Rode. DEQ’s efforts focus on several areas: 

0 Collecting synoptic data for water chemistq ad continuously monitoring for 

river flow and tanperatum; the data will be used to suppoa conventional water 

quality models. 

0 condudihgintawivediunrrlscudiesoaselaaed~~tome9su~insirulevels 

of periphyton production and diurnal changes in p.H, dissolved oxygen, 

temperatufe, and nutrients. 

0 Biomonitoxing for abudnce of periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish at 

selected locations. 

0 Long-tern monitoring of macroinvertebrates and fish at selected locatkmsprior 

to, during, and after implementation of Rest Management Rxticcs (BMPs). 

Monitod BMPs on private lands ae implemented dnuugh voluntary efforts 

pattiaHysupportedbyagmntfknnEPA. 

for the Grade Rode River Basin TMDL is to integrate 

pamme&swithindiccsofbiologicalintegrity. Mxmatkmonthe 

lifehistoryoftbeSpringChinodr,theiroccun#lceintbetwsin,andtheirtbennal~~ 

willbeusedtohelpestablishwaterqualitygoak Methodsandstmtegiesforattaikngcriteria, 

such as ripakn protection or minimum stream flows, will be bused upon data developed 

specifically for the basin. l%e effectiva~21~ of v stmgieswiubeevaluatadusing 

both ammtional and biological mau~~m. ultimately, effectiveness will be detendd by the 

mponseofthe-moulrcc. 

case study: wiuamem River, Oqon 

@&&: TbeWikmetteRiverpnwidesanexampleofsig&amtimprovemaMin 

water quality multing fiml polhltion control efTolts foarsed on c4mvedional puruneters. 

However,limifadbiological~indicatatbat~to~uusesnuybcoccuningthrt 

arenotqqarentthFarghmoniMngofconvartioaalpoUutants. 

T%e Willamette River in western Ofegon receives wastewater from a large percdage 

of the State’s population. For nearly half a century, the WUmette River experienced sevexe 

35 
oxyga~~resuhhgfiw~hqcbu!soforga&dyricbmunicipdand~ 

walmwam(Hlnesdd., 19n). In194s,Dimmickandl@xryMdnotcdtbatpolhdioalmd 

crusaddamasesinprodudivityinportioasoftheriver,udtn~w~~ydegrpdad 

as-bylishmd-poprltioar. sincethab,thelevelofox~inthe 

. mamstanW~Riverhsimprwabaureatkvelsofdis8olvedoxy~areabove&5 

percentofsatwath. Bythe197Os,theWiiwa~rcu@zedasthehrgestriverwitb 

mtod water quality (Huff and Khgeman, 1976). 

Althoughdmm8ticimpfovauaUinw8tmqudityintbWiiRiverhavebeea 

ldiCVCdthIUUghthCUSCOfcoaventioollmoaitoring,bii~~ lmveshownthat 

waterqualitydegdathisstilloccurringintbcWiiBah. HughesandGammoa 

(1987)~asurveyin1983to~~tbe~ofimpFovedwrter~oa 

kmghdidwinfiah-b~intbe~WiiRiverandtoevaluatethe 

uscMnessoftwoindicesoffihssemblages. ‘It~xqxntamcludedthtthercbasbeenmarked 

improvanent in fish communities since 1945; fkb assembm sbowal a grdual and expected 

dbclinefnnn~uppertothelowerriver,withonlysmrll~nerv~pointaou~of 

pollution(Piire2.1). l%eanalysi8mtatadamrseinthemodifHindexofbiilogical 

integrity at two locations (river kikmekm 232 and 93), idating a lower quality biological 

community. memarkedincmse indiseaseandmorpho~-andthemarked 

dacrewein~atkilometen35md~(F~2.2)~iamrsadlevelsofsublerhl 

stress (Hughes and Gammon, 1987). A study cxmduad for DBQ (Curtis et al., 1991) found 

that indicators of biilogical stress @ROD and qtochme P450 1Al) WCE strongly induced 

infwhFnwntheportlandHarbor(riverkilometer11)bot~fromocherlocatioas. 

v: Monitoriagwasinitirbedinthe summuof1992forDRQ’scurnntstudy 

ofthemamstanWiiRiver. The8tudyisrmultiyear,coapedveef5orttbatwillbe 

inbegnbbdWith8UpCOhg U.S. Geobgical Suxvey (USGS) basin study. 

36 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2lrl CEWURY: 3343 

of a given reach, and that the communitks would reqond to dif%erent “stressors,” such as 

pollution souw, within these leaches. A singk biomonitoring effort will be conducted 

coincident with a conventknal synoptic sutvey. Although the data will tefkct d and longterm variation, it should provide an overvkw of the cx&ogical health of the mains&m. 

The relative costs of the convemional and biological monitoring efforts for the Willamette 

mainstem are summar&d in Table 1. However, conventional and biological costs may not be 

directly comparable because they provide different types of information, and each has Merent 

dVtUlhglX: 

0 Although synoptic data for both biomeasu m and conventional pammeters can be 

thought of as “snapshots,” biological indicators provide a more integrated picture 

over time and may be mote sensitive. 

0 Data generated through biological and ecological monitoring are of less certain 

utility than the conve pollutant data colkcted for model calibration, but 

many of the pollution problems associated with the conventional pollutants have 

&CUiyi-ICCfl~. 

0 The biological data will provide a measure of the effectiveness of existing 

pollution control stm&gks which were previously developed using conventional 

monitoring. 

0 Biimonitoring data will also provide guidance for dimcting future efforts in the 

basin, paticuiarly as programs shift to address toxics and nonpoint source 

pollution. 

case study: south Fork of tbel salmon River, Idaho 

w: Tbesoutbporkoftbe~nRiverincerrtralIdrbo~videscurexample 

of the use of biological criteria in the stream recovery (TMDL) process (U.S. EPA, 1992). ‘Ihe 

TMDLidentifksfinesedimeQtsasthepollucaatofamcern d~sprWning8SthCM 

bedkialuse. Highlyerodibksedimeatsulewrshadintotheriverud~tributnriesfFom 

nonpoint sources; the sedimaNs have contributed to the wn of spawning and rearing 

habitat for Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, whose numbers have declined in tecent years. 

The TMDL establishes goals, monitoring tquiJements, and review schedules. unaxtainty in 

predictions of the effectiveness of nonpoint source conttols and biological criterk is m 

through phased impkmentathm. 

s: TMDLprovisionsandawaterqualityassessment were developed 

jointly by the U.S. Forest Senke, EPA, and the State of Idaho. With the aid of computer 

37 
nxxkk,itwas&imatedthat8s~oftbesedimWykldfNxnthedninrgeksiawasduc 

to~~andlSper#ntwasduetoa&qogdccaum. Agoalof25perccnt 

ductioointhe~kmdsfromrndrropogeniccauseswasesEpblishsd,akmgwithplansfor 

fWWUCWllX.lrelrtsdW-yield-projedr. 

Thccffecti~ofthesedimdductioaeffortswiUbcmonitoredbymcasuring 

changesinsadimcatykld,habitat,d~wningtivity. AlO-yeartindamclmsbeen 

establishaltoimplcmenscWnds,eval~ef%cti~,andmo&xtrcnds. IfChinookand 

StCClhCadSpR*~dOCSnotincrerse, additional~ibcoveryprojectswiUbe 

quiredandtheattaidiityoftbedteriawiUberevkwed. Thisphasedapproachisbei.ng 

used because of the difficultks in addWing nonpoint souFcc pollution probkms. 

DISCUSSION 

AstheanpbrsisafwatCrqurlitypN&IWWdiftsfiWllpointsoUFcecx#stFolaSKl 

tZ4XW~po~tOW8fdaoapoiatSOU~ptroMemS8lld nonconv- pollutants, the 

compkxity and diversity of dikmmas f&zing 1#0urce mamgerswiugmw,alongwithdemands 

for increasad modxing of nonconventiod poll-. It will be incdgly important that 

themo§teffectivcand&lcia#metbalsareusulformersuringw8terquaUtyimpactsand 

protsctiagresouzccs. AsidiatedbytheOregooandIdahocasestudks,asingle~his 

IXH applicable to all pollutioaprobkms. It appears, however, that an degratd approach which 

mlizes both cotwe (chemkal and physical) and biilogical measures may prove to be an 

eff&tivetoolforasscdngand~manywaterqudityprubkms. 

Whiktheinhemtdqecofunmhtythatexistswithbiilogicalmewumandwith 

thetypesofassessments inwhicbtbtyrulewad,sucbasfor~~andfornoapointsources, 

mustberecog&d,somustthcirval~. Bioindiatorsandbiiritedaambcused: toindicate 

whetlecbangesinwrt#~~occurriagtbrtminbt~beevidensfnnnconvetrtiotrPl 

measurements aloq to eval~ the combii effects of numerous chcmii and physical 

poU~~time,toditbdlymoaitorimprctson~wes;rsrreferaKxfor 

establishing objective43; and as a rcdbacc for evaluating the eff&iveness of poUtion contd 

SbMCgkScladCOmp~With- nmnagmm&~ves. AphasedimpkmenMonthat 

8UOWSbOthtbCObjCCtiVCSrrnd aurrapcmcdllhWgkStObC-aSneWinformatioaiS 

gerreratsdisa~lPriywefirlapp~hforrrpQlicrtionafbiocriteriainaregulatory~. 

. . Adchtmdrcsauchiswarran&dfora&terudddingofbiilogiadmeasuxes. 

uleasumtomou~~~and 

RdCdaadSt8tC 

agencies, particuiarly the land-use management age&es such as the Forest Service and the 

BureauofLand Maqamnt, will be necesmy for establishing and achkving biilogical criteria. 

38 
WAm QUAIJW STANDARDS IN l’ME 2lti CEN’IVRY: 3343 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, additional research on the use of biological indicators should be a high 

priorityforbothStateandFedemlage&es. In conjunction with convemioaal pollutant 

measurements, the use of bioindicators should provide a useful tool for pmte&ng beneficial 

uses. Oxegon plans to continue to integrate the use of bioindicaton and biocriteria into its 

established pmgram for water quality pmtection. 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, J.W., and Upper Grande Ronde River Technical Work Group. 1992. Upper Grande 

Ronde River anadromous fish habitat pmtection, restoration and monitoring plan, WallowaWhitman National Forest. 

Bengtsson, B.B. 1988. Effects of pulp mill effluent on skeletel pammeters in fish--A progress 

report. Wat. Sci. Tech. 20:87-94. 

Boehne, P. 1991. F&sonal communication. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

Curtis, L.R., ML. Deinzer, D.B. Williams, and O.R. Hedstrom. 1991. Toxicity and 

longitudinal distribution of persistent organochlorines in the WipameUe River. Chegon 

DepartmentofRn vitocunentalQuauty,portlaad,ongon. 

Dimmick, R.H. and F. Mer@eild. 1945. The fishes of the Willamette River system in relation 

to pollution. Engineering Rxperiment Station, Gregon State College, Rulletin Series No. 20. 

Gleeson, G.W. 1972. The return of a river: ‘I%e Willamette River, Oregon. Water Resources 

Research Institute, Chegon State University, No. 13. 

Goedc, R.W. 1988. Fish health/m asstxsment procedures. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resowas, Fisheries Rxperimental Station. Logan, Utah. 28 pp. 

Hines, W.G., S.W. McKenzie, D.A. Rickert, and F.A. Rindella. 1977. Dissolved-oxygen 

regimen of the Willamette River, Gregon, under conditions of basinwide seco&ry tteatment. 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular No. 715-l. 

Hughes, R.M. and J.R. Gammon. 1987. Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water 

quality in the Willamette River, Gregon. Trans. Am. Pi. Sot. 116:196-209. 

39 
Huff, B.S. and P.C. Khgeman. 1976. Restoring the Wihmette Riverz Cost ti impacts of 

water quality am&d. J. wat. M.I. Coatrol FaI. 48:241M415. 

ICm,J.R. 1991. Biologicdinte@y: Aloqgnegktedaapedofwatermounxmaqamnt. 

EaA ApQlic. l(1). 

DW. 1992. olqon DcjmmaaofBnviraunentrlQuality. orqgoanonpoinssauxce 

monitoring protocols and stmm bhssessmcnt field manual for macroinvertebrates and habii 

assmumw. Draftmport. 

Oregon Dqmtmed of Environmenerl Quality. 1988. Water quality status assessment of 

nonpoht some3 of water pohtion. htland, Oxegon. 

Public Lnw 10-4. 1987. The Clean Water Ad as Anmded by the Water Quality Act of 1987. 

statew8ter- Bad. 1960. State of-. Grade Rode River Basin. 

U.S. EPA. 1990. U.S. Euvinnuaenenl Pmedion Agency, Office of Water Re@tiom and 

Studruds. Biilogialtxitch Natiomipmgram guidmceforsurfhccwateta. Wmhingtm, 

DC: U.S. EPA. 

U.S. EPA. 1992. U.S. Bmkmmml Pmtecth Agency, Of’fia of Water. TMDL case 

studks: Scwth Fob of the salmon River, Idaho. Drafk Report. Wash&too DC: U.S. EPA. 

40 
WATER QUM STANDARDS IN THE 21H CIENlURY: 3343 

Tabk 1. Edmated Monitoring Costs for Data Collection and Idoratory Analysis: 

Wii River Synoptic Surveys, 1992 

Monitoring Category I -m 

CONVENTIONAL QUALITY AND IDADS 

Ambient--Consultants 14 $38,000 Grab with sekcted diurnal pammeters 

@o, temperatuw PH) 

Ambient--DEQ 10 $3,000 Grab 

Point source-Local 10 SlO,OOO Multiple grab sampks tighout 

diumal sampling period 

Total: $51,000 Synoptic data set for conventional 

water quality model 

BIOIDGICAL MEASURES 

Invertebrates 33 $46,500 Kick-net and diment samples keyed 

to lowest pracdcal taxonomic level 

@BQ, 1gw 

Fish Community 19 Ekctfoshoclcing, identified to species, 

length-weight, and extemal anomalies. 

Fish Health 7 External anomalies, internal organs, 

and blood samples (Goede 1988) 

Skeletal Abnormalities 4 Seining to capture juveniles, fmed and 

(Bengtsson 1988) stained, obselvations madeon skeletal 

condition 

~iphyton 

dmce/Diversity 

Rziphyton Prodtivity 

46 $8,000 Abundance and dive&y as keyed to 

lowest pmctical taxonomic level 

8 In-situ and iaboratory respirometct 

used to deternine dissolved oxygen 

production 

Total: $54,500 Synoptic data set describiig community 

health 

41 
Figure 1 

Spting Chinook Ewapement 

Upper Grand8 Ron& Rivet, OR. 

Nunrb8r 

600 4t. 

600 - “‘y Data for 1964 - 1988 an 6 year rvwa@eo 

-. Data for 1889 - lB@l I8 a thrao yaar wara 

*. 

400- 

Data for 1991 i8 the I&at wtlmatod nturn 

*. 

*. 

aoo- ikir. *. *. *. 

-. 

POO- “.*...* # 

--.* *..* 

lOO= ““3lf~~* . ..*.** 

-... a... -0.. *... 

. . . . 

0 I I I I i 

1666 to?0 1976 1980 1986 

8oumo~ 

ODFW In Andwron 8t. al. lQQ2 

behn8 (l@@@) km. &~wI& 

42 
WATER QUALKY STANDARDS IN THE 21* C-Y: 33-43 

10 - 

888 100 100 88 4 

10 88 

0 

18 

0 

10 

4 

8 8 

0 0 

43 
WATERQUALlTYSTANDARDSMTHE2lrCCENlURY: 45 

CONCERNS FROM THE - OFTHEREGULATED 

COMMUNITY 

WarIen c. Harper 

U.S. DqJarmunt of AgricIl&Jar 

Fomst Scrvicx 

Wnshingtoa, D.C. 

Measurements of biological parameters hold some promise for evaluatiag the effects of 

various iand management activities on water quality and identified beneficial uses of water. It 

cannot be assumed, however, that such measurements will pr&de all the answers nectss~vy for 

development of effective land management programs, or the information necessary for an 

enforceable control program needed by wlatory agencies. In developing managanent 

programs to reduce sediment production fFom land management practices, it is important to 

consider changes in the physical characteristics of stream channels and stream systems. Such 

measurements are practical as a field-applied technology, will pvide information relative to 

changes over temporal and spatial scales, and can assist in cumulative effect analyses. 

45 
WATER QUALmY STANDARDS M 7Hfi 2laI CWllJRY: 41U 

SLIDE PRESENTATION 

Evan Hornig 

U.S. Ehvi-tuol Prorechn Agency 

&qion 6 

lkdlas. Tuar 

In lieu of a paper, the slide preentation is as follows: 

ITdi, Slide Presentation 

Slide 1 Slide 2 

47 
a. HoRNm 

slide4 

Slide 5 

sitespecificco8t8 

mbiell s 

CayJlw nlb2n lowm 1aMa 

4 2 

48M2m 4wbl88 2mam 

slide7 

Di8tribution of state Re8ource8 

AmbbntFlmd17 

Slide 6 

Slide 8 

48 
CSOs/VVet 

Weather: Are 

Today’s WQC 

Relevant? 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 49-53 

CSOs/WET WEATHER: ARE TODAY’S WQC RELEVANT? 

Richard Kuhlman (Moderator) 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance 

Washington, D.C. 

BACKGROUND 

Approximately 1,200 combined sewer systems in the United States serve a population of 

43 million. Almost 85 percent of the systems are located in 11 States in the Northeast and Great 

Lakes (Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio). Such systems are prevalent in smaller communities-- 

approximately 62 percent of combined sewer systems serve 10,000 people or fewer. Only 7 

percent of the systems serve populations greater than 100.000, but these systems account for 70 

percent of the people served by combined sewers. 

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) consist of untreated mixtures of sanitary sewage, 

industrial wastewater, and stormwater runoff. CSO discharges may contain high levels of 

suspended solids, bacteria, heavy metals, floatables, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic 

compounds, oil and grease, and other pollutants. Discharges of these pollutants in high volumes 

over a short time can cause exceedances of applicable State numeric and narrative water quality 

standards. Such exceedances may pose risks to human health, threaten aquatic life and their 

habitat, and impair the use and enjoyment of receiving waters. Stormwater and urban runoff 

can cause similar problems. In the 1990 National Water Quality Inventory, States identified 

urban runoff, stormwater runoff, and CSOs as the sources of impairment, where the sources 

were identified, for 13 percent of the river miles, 31 percent of lake acres, 14 percent of the 

Great Lakes shore miles, 38 percent of estuarine square miles, and 40 percent of ocean shore 

miles. 

PROGRAM STATUS 

On August IO, 1989, EPA issued the National Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy. The 

strategy reaffirmed that CSOs are point sources subject to National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, including both technology- and water quality49 
R KUHLMAN 

based requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The strategy recommended that all CSOs 

be identified and categories developed according to their status of compliance with the 

technology- and water quality-based requirements of the CWA. The strategy requested that 

States develop a statewide permitting strategy by January 15, 1990, for the development and 

implementation of measures to reduce pollutant discharges from CSOs. 

In August 1991, the Office of Water (OW) initiated an Expedited Plan to accelerate the 

implementation of the strategy. OW established work groups to: 

Evaluate how States can use their water quality standards development and 

implementation procedures to prepare permits for CSOs that meet water quality 

standards (standards-to-permits); and 

Develop permitting and enforcement policies to expedite compliance with the 

1989 National Strategy and CWA. 

STANDARDS-TO-PERMITS REVIEW 

The Office of Science and Technology (OST), in the Office of Water, is leading the 

effort to examine the appropriateness of the decision factors and assumptions used in the water 

quality criteria development, water quality standards adoption, waste load allocation, and 

permitting processes for wet weather discharges. The effort is intended to examine the 

contention that existing water quality criteria and standards development and implementation 

processes need to be modified to more accurately reflect the characteristics and environmental 

concerns of wet weather events. Where presently used assumptions are appropriate for wet 

weather discharges, their scientific defensibility will be affirmed. Where presently used 

assumptions are not appropriate, or where additional guidance is needed, recommendations will 

be made to enhance the applicability of the standards-to-permits processes to wet weather events. 

Analysis 

We are analyzing the following: 

The relative risks urban wet weather events pose to human health and the 

environment compared to other discharges to surface waters and the relative risk 

among categories of urban wet weather events--CSOs, urban runoff, stormwater 

discharges. 

50 
WAwl QUAUI-Y STANDARDS M THE 21rl CBWTURY: 4943 

0 The characteristics of wet weather discharges that pose the greatest risk to human 

health and aquatic life, e.g., toxic chemicals, floatables/solids, dissolved oxygen 

sags, physical flow. 

0 The c&nical, physical, hydrologic, and biological charac&ristics of wet weather 

events that affect the assumptions used in the water quality criteria development, 

water quality standa& adoption, total maximum daily load/waste load allocation, 

and permitting processes. 

Some of the decision factors within the star&&-to-permit processes under examination 

include the following: 

0 Use of fecal coliform, Erclrcrichicl cofi, or enterococci as indkator organisms for 

criteria; 

0 Procedure to correlate the bioavailable or toxic portion of a metal to the 

measurable portion; 

a Refmement of uses, designation of -partial uses; 

0 Variances for water bodies impacted by CSOs; 

l Modeling appmaches to demmine pollutant loading rates for CSOs; 

0 The TMDL allocation to point and nonpoint sources; 

0 FWbability bases for pennit limits; and 

0 Compliance schedules. 

The Office of Wastewater &forcement and Compliance (OWE) is coordinating the 

overall CSO effort, including leading the developmerrt of permitting and enforcement policies 

to expedite compliance with the 19%9 National Strategy and the CWA. 

51 
Cureat activities in developing the permitting policy include negothbg with 

npr49eoEltivtsfiom 14organdtionstodevelopa amsenws on how to establish NPDES permit 

aqmmmts for sewer systans with CSOs. 

Negdated Policy Diabgue Work Gv Members include the following: 

Association qf State & Interstate Water Pollution Control Administmtors; 

water Bnv- Federation; 

National League of Cities; 

American Public Works Association; 

Natural Resourrxs Defense Council; 

s-w- ltatment out of the F%rk (Atlanta, Georgia); 

EnviKmmental Defense Fund; 

Center for Marine Conservation; 

Lower James River Association (Richmond, Vii); 

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Age&i; and 

National Association of Fkod and Stormwater Management Agencies. 

Objective of the Work Group is as follows: 

0 DevelopconsensusonaconsistentsetofcriteriawithanadeQuatedegtrbeof 

specificii to be used in demmhing long-term cso amtrol pIograms 

implemented through NFDES permits. 

Work Group discussions include having CSO communities: 

0 Bxaminecomplete~~~,aadmonitor~cbaracterize~oftbe 

sewerage system to a range of events and the impacts on rexxiving waters and 

their desigmd uses; 

0 Identify natiod tarnets for limiting the number of overflows or establishing 

perrxntages of overflows to be captured by volume or pollutant mass; 

l Demonstrate compliance with water quality standad and protection of existing 

and potential uses, including monitoring requirements; 

0 Prohibit overflows into saktive use axeas; 

52 
WATER QUALnY STANDARDS m THE 21e CENTURY: 49-u 

0 Develop implementation pmcedures that allow limited exceedances of numeric 

WQC as long as existing and designated uses are protected; and 

0 Provide communities time to plan, design, and implement solutions, including 

phasing and consickation of previous efforts to comply, and financial conditions. 

EPA is currently developing a consolidated framework which, in EPA’s opinion, 

represents the concerns/opinions expressed by the work group. The framework will be used to 

further negotiate the outstanding issues pertaining to establishment of a consistent set of criteria 

for developing CSO permit requirements. The fd work group meeting is scheduled for 

September 8-9, 1992. 

Enforcement Policy 

Current activities in developing the enforcement policy include the following: 

0 Requirement that all communities nat in compliance with appropriate permit 

requirements be placed on enforceable schedules; 

l Establishment of compliance dates; 

0 Use of enforcement tools, administrative orders for schedules withii compliance 

dates, and civil referrals for extended schedules; and 

0 Use of penalties if schedules a~ not complied with. 

Development of the enforcement policy will be coordinated with the permitting policy 

to ensure efficient implementation of the CSO program. 

53 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS tN THE 2lrc CENTURY: 5540 

COMBINED SEWER 0 VERF’LOW CONTROLS: THE MICHIGAN 

APPROACH 

I’m1 D. Zugger 

Michigan Dqnmnm of Abaud Resaumes 

sl@Ge water @alily Lnvision 

liming, Michigan 

Under Michigan Act 245 of 1929, as amended, the Water Resources Commission Act, 

the discharge of raw sewage is prima facia evidence of a violation of the Act. That is, a 

showing of damage or injury, or excetdatIct of water quality standards, is not necessary. The 

very act of discharging raw sewage is a violation of Act 245. Michigan’s CSO program is based 

on this premise. 

In 1986, Michigan’s Water Quality Standa& wete awarded to protect waters for total 

body contact (bathing) recreation. ‘Ihe discharge of raw sewerage through combined sewer 

overflows had to be controlled for that use to be proteded. Discharge permits issued since 1987 

have been requiring CSO communities to address CSOs through a phased approach. Phase I 

rcquims the cumznt system to be properly operated and maintained (no dry weather bypasses, 

maximize in-system storage, monitoring, etc.). Phase I also requires communities to develop 

a fural combined sewer ovefflow control ptogram, including an implementation plan, which will 

nsult in the elimination or adequate treatment of combined sewer discharges containing raw 

sewage, to comply with water quality standards attimesofdischarge. Ihecontrolptogramshall 

evaluate financing mechanisms and contain fixed date m&stones that result in maximum 

progress feasible, taking into account site-specific economic and technical amstkms. ‘Ihe 

permittee shall actively involve the affected public in the development of the program and 

documentthestepstakeninthisregard. Thecontrolprogmmslmllbesubmittedtothe 

appropriate District OfTice of the Michigan &partmmt of Natural Resources by a date 

established in the permit. l%e appmved control program, including the milestone dates for 

completion, is subsequently adopted into the permit through permit modikation or at rekuance. 

The fvst permits issued with language requiring final CSO control programs to provide 

ukpate treatment were contested by the permittees on the grounds that the acquirements wets 

too vague. In response to that concern, the Agency defined a level of tteatment which the 

Agency would RCC@ as meding the permit reqbments for adequate treatment. This approach 

established a “default” deftition for adequate treatment, that is, a level of control which the 

55 
P.D. ZUOOBR 

State would axept, but which is not bii. ‘Ihis, or other demonstrated adequate Bt, 

would satisfy the statutory prohibition against raw sewage discharge. 

If a permittee prefers the permit not contain the default definition of adequate Weatment, 

it is not included. Otherwise, the permit would contain the following language: 

‘I%e following would constitute adequate treatment of combined sewage discharges 

to meet water quality standards at times of discharge: 

retention for transportation and treatment at the wastewater treatment plant, of 

combined sewage flows generated during storms up to the one-year, one-hour 

StOllll; 

primary treatment of combined sewage flows generated during storms up to the 

IO-year, one-hour storm (30 minutes detention or equivalent for settling, 

shimming and disinfection), and 

- treatment of combined sewage flows generated in storms in excess of the W-year, 

one-hour storm to the extent possible with facilities designed for lesser flows. 

‘Iheserainfilleverrtsw~selactbdbecausetherewrssomeexperiencewiththemand 

they had been historidly applied with reaso&ly good tesults. The one-year/one-hour storm 

hbdbanusedrsaretention~~~i~criterionforw~weatherretention~ilititsinthe 

1970s. ltk lO-year/~hour crberkn was sekcted because it was often used as the design 

carry@ capucity criterion for sepamte storm sewers and therefore would reflect the maximum 

flows that will be delivered to a storageJtreatment facility. 

The 30-minute detention for settling, shimming, and disinfection is a professional 

judgment value which Agency staff engineers believe would provide sufftcient solids removal 

to dlow effective disidztion without excessive chlorine dosage and also would assute removal 

of floating and set&&k solids. 

AkeyrrssumpioaintheMichi~rrpp~histhattheIndu~~tProgram 

would be the vehicle to addtess nondomestic poUutants that may impact the teceiving stream. 

These poulltallts are to be addnssed through a monitoring program to identify sign&ant 

. mdustd inputs to the sewer upstream of combii sewer overflows and to assess their impact. 

Potential water quality violations would be addressed through subsequent imposition of industrial 

pretreatment requirements at the source. 

Since 1987, Michigan has been reissuing combined sewer overflow permits based on the 

above appmh. To date, 64 of the 75 combii sewer overfiow communities in Michigan have 

qxhted permits. The approach allows permit requirements to be tailored to specific s&rations, 

56 
WATER QUAury SIXNDARDS M THE 2111 C-Y: S-60 

and a range of combined sewer overflow control programs is being pursued. A number of 

communities had already initiated the corrective programs. In those situations, the permit would 

establish deadlines for those ptograms and require a Gnal program be developed if w to 

achieve water quality standards. For communities that are not so far along, any feasible shortrange improvements would be required while the community develops and implements its longrange program. 

Many communities are choosing to separate their sewers to address their combined sewer 

ovefflow ptoblems. Since separation eliminates raw sewage discharges, it is an acaqtabk 

approach under the Michigan stmtegy. ‘Iltete are some good arguments to sepamte sewers. The 

most obvious is that the sewage and industrial wastes carried by sanitary sewers are completely 

nmoved from the storm water flows and delivered to the wastewater treatment plant for full 

treatment prior to discharge. Even during major storm events, no sewage is discharged to the 

receiving stream. ‘Ihe program is relatively simple in concept and not subject to subsequent 

reevaluation or retrofitting should combined sewer overllow treatment requirements change in 

the fbtule. It is certain and final. 

However, there are some serious drawbacks to sewer separation that are often not fully 

appreciated. The separate storm water discharges can represent a significant pollutant load. 

There is no fust-flush captun; everything in the storm sewer is discharged. The National Urban 

Runoff Program (NURP) study conducted between 1978 and 1984 found the pollutant loadings 

from separate storm sewers to be very sign&ant. A community may furd that it has spent 

millions of dollars to sepamte its sewers, yet the receiving stteam remains heavily impacted by 

wet weather discharges to the point where valuable beneficial uses are still prohibited. 

Accidental spills previously caught and treated through a combined sewer system now would 

flow to separate storm sewers and would be discharged dimctly untreated to the receiving 

waterway. 

Spate storm water discharges must be addmssed under the 1987 Amendments to the 

Clean Water Act. Although small communities were exempted until 1992 (and it is likely that 

date will be extended), all municipaUtks will probably have to eventually deal with separa& 

storm water discharges thtough the NPDBg permit ptogram. Hopefully, end-of-pipe treatment 

will not be needed in most cases, but it certainly is a major “unknown” that municipalities face, 

if they choose to separate their sewers. 

Sepmte storm sewecJ are also vulnerable to ilkgal discharges. If a community builds 

new sanitary sewers and leaves the existing combined sewers to serve as the sepamte storm 

sewer system, great care must be taken to assure all non-storm water inputs ate removed from 

the old combined sewer. Car washes, floor drains, industrial yard drainage, etc., previously 

discharged to combined sewers, must be rerouted to the new sanitary sewers. ‘Ihis is difficult 

to accomplish. 

57 
P.D. ZUOOBI 

Sepmthg sewers is genemlly more disruptive than storagelm projacts, since 

virtually the whole sewerage axea lms to be excavated and new sewers installed. Nevertheless, 

anumber~~~are~to~theirsewe~rotherthoacoastructretentioa 

trerQscatcqmbii. Frocnastraighscost~,itisoftenless~ivetoseparotesewersif 

aluga~afthecityis~yse9uoted,espscinllyiffirburecostsforstormwater~t 

axenOrf&ctomdin. Thefinalityofthesepmtion, i.e., “the community that sepmtes its sewers 

is no longer a combii sewer community,” is very attmctive. We should be cautious, however, 

in assuming tbat sqmmtion is the best env~~tal8ltemative. 

In some situations, separation is not feasible. Older cities or portions of cities that have 

compk4ely aHnbinedareu usually haveouly theoptionof storage and-. InMichigRn, 

thiswastheaseincc&ralGrandRapidsamlSaginaw. Also,mostoftbesoutheastMichigan 

axnbined sewer systems are likely to be corrected through storage and beatment. 

InthecaseofGrrnd~~,tbecitycoaanrdedaretentionbasintomeetthecri~ 

setforthabovc. Tbebwinwentonlinethisspriagand,todrte,bssfu~veryw~. 

~~~~experiencadaverywby~#,far,mdtbehndn~eithtrfuUycontaiaedthe 

stormflowsorproMedsuffkienttrearmeat suchthattbedischargewasofavisuallyhigher 

qualitythanthestorm--receiving-. Priortothebasingoingonline,anumber 

of advisories issued throughout the recnxtional season advised the public not to use the river for 

remahml purposes. No health advisories have been issued in the Grand Rapids area this year. 

Tbeaew~wsystanisacombiaationof~instbrtuesomewhatsmallerthanthe 

Grand Rapids design, but include addSmal treatmeat technology steps such as swirl 

-llndrapidmixchIo~. Also,theratioofsaginawRiverflowstothe 

combiobd#werflowsiscolwi~lylargerthaniartreGraad~i~~. TheSaginaw 

rd” NJ@ by mfr TV Fep=t adequate tmbnent, but the permit quizes an 

LcpMI1IIM1 period following const~ction. The basii structures were designed to be 

~ifa&Moaaldete&oncapacityisneedai. Otheroptionswouldincludeadditional 

sewer seprath, which would seduce the flow volumes to be stored. It is not anticipated that 

. 

=J=w=- will be llemmly, bowever. 

Athirdexrmpk~thepFojactrttheMilkRiverinWayaeCoonty,~~. TheMilk 

River pmject, being undertaka~ by the Wayne County/h&comb County Intercounty Draiqe 

Boanl, also involves a stomge/m tbasindesignedto&teriadifVerentthantheAgency 

58 
WATER QuALtN STANDARDS m lnE 218l CEmuRY: 55-a 

criteria. ‘Ik basii was sized &tough use of a wet weather water quality model, which ptedicted 

that teceiving stteam quality standards would be met. PostcotWuction monitoring will be 

conducted to verify the model predictions. 

probably Michigan’s biggest challenge is the Rouge River in m~litan Detroit. The 

gouge Basin is a large, relatively flat watershed consisting of a number of small tributaries 

flowing through urban and tutal areas. The basin has been subject to an intense planning 

process since 1985. Wayne County, Oakland County, and Detroit played leadership roles in 

working with the Department and the U.S. Environmental Rotection Agency in developing the 

remedial action plan (RAP) for the Rouge River. 

The RAP identifies CSOs as the primary source of pollution in the gouge, and calls for 

the elimination of raw sewage discharges and protection of public health over a 20-year period 

at an estimated cost of over $500 million. 

A national demonstration project grant of $46 million is bemg awarded to Wayne County 

to oversee commencement of work on the frrst phase of CSO retention basins. The basins are 

being constructed to provide a range of levels of retention and treatment. The performance will 

be assessed and the results utilized in the next round of design and construction. The fust group 

of basins will be completed in 1997 in accordance with requirements containad in the NPDES 

permits for these basins. Following a 2-year evaluation period, the temai&r of the basiis or 

other corrective actions wiU be taken such that the goals of the RAP are accomplished by 2005. 

Subsequently, another assessment will be made of the whole system to determine if further 

action is needed 

These examples demonstrate the wide range of corrective programs being pursued under 

the Michigan approach. The key to the Michigan ptogram is to assure that ade+ate controls 

are brought on line as quickly as possible, which will eliminate raw sewage discharges and 

accomplish water quality taandR& Rt times of discharge. 

In summary, Michigan uses a phased approach to address combined sewer overflows. 

Phase I will ensure the current system is pteperly operating and will develop the long-term 

control program. Under Phase II, the long-term program will be designed and constructed. The 

Michigan approach provides flexibility with guidance. The staff criteria for adequa& tmatment, 

based on historical design criteria used in Michigan, are aocepable but not mandated. Other 

levels of control are also acceptable, provided it can be demonstrated that water quality m 

will be met at times of discharges. Construction schedules for the long-term program must 

ensure maximum feasible ptogtess. The overall presumption of the program is that water quality 

standads will be met and the industrial pmtreatm ent program will address nondomestic 

pollutants. Subsequent assessments and evaluation will assute these assumptions ate valid. If 

subsequent controls are M, it is understood these will be required. 

59 
P.D. ZUCXXR 

~~~~pFoceadadtoco~combinedstweroverflowsandhasnotw~forthe 

establishmad of a mtional specifk uniform level of contd. In any natiod policy, it is 

extremely important that flexibiity be maintained to take into consideration site-specific concerns 

and to avoid retmfitting of adequate contrd facilities that have been or are now beiig 

ConstNcted. 

60 
WAWI QUALITY STANDARDS M THE 21a CEWURY: 61-6S 

MASSA- DIVISION OF WATER I’OLLUTION CONTROL 

coMBINEDsEwER OVEWLO w POLICY 

I’WITION 

1. Untreated overflows from CSOs violate the fishabk/swimmabk goal. Wbc~ 

CSOs are not eliminated, waters must be classified. 

2. Where the impairment to use is short term and infmpnt, a “partial use” 

desiguation is appropriate. 

3. Bliminationofreceivhgwaterimpactsisthegoalofabatcmeatac#ionsrather 

than llllsoml -neclu- B@lleeling targets ale useful, but 

ecommksandcommofl sense often &tate a “bubble amcept” where CSOs 

causing overlappii receiving water efkcts are considered a single source of 

pollution. 

LOGIC 

Comb&d Sewer (BnAows 

Uatreatadoverflows~CSoSvio~tbc fdabk/swimmabkgoal.Sinccthereisoo 

~limittotbemqgnitudemdduntiolrofap~~~evebt,mycoatrolscrategyforCSOs 

cmoalylowertheprot#bilityaf~ovemows,notelimiartethem~ly. ThexefoIB, 

tomeettbegotlatalltimes,CSOsmwtbee~bysewerseparatioa. Tbeimpactsonany 

partkular segment may be elimhtal by xekcating a CSO to another (less sensitive) segment. 

Alternatively, tbe Division’s qulaths allow for the dhgnatioo of a padd use 

subcatcgoryforwatersimpactedbyCSOs. Tbisisapprupriatewhenitisnotfeasibkto 

elimimte CSO discharges. To demonstrate that tbe sewer separation is not feasible, the 

61 
w. KMMLL 

srn~~-=Ot W’ 

. 

and 

WidlSpldacoaomic andsocialimpact. 

nismayamsistof-that 

tbecostsmeexml3Eive WhUlCOm~tO 

the bedits to be achieved. when 

(ktedbgthe-tobeachieved, 

plltenw ilktemdvdov~ pollution 

sou~slJchasdischargesfNmtbestoml 

dmin system after separah may be 

takenintoaccount. Onceithasbecn 

-totbesrtisfactionofthe 

Division that elimhba of CSO 

disc- is not feasible, the relodon 

ofcsos should be evaluated. Relocating 

~Jtematives must be exam&x! on a 

systemwide basii so that the maximum 

recovery of water uses is achieved, 

in&ding tbe plWztion of critical uses. 

Wbenitisnotfeasibktoelimiaatethe 

CSOs by scpadon or elimMe the 

impacts by relocation, the @wW 

segmentmaybeassignedapartialuse 

~J=@wY* 

The community sewer system 

Nspouseto~eventsandthe 

assimUativeapacityofwaterbodks 

thn@outtheStatearehighlyvariabkinnature. Ilnefore,varWonsinwaterqualitycaud 

by CSOs will vary greatly from segmeat to segment. However, it is appqriate that the 

DiVisioaset~ enginscringtorgcrfortheachievemeMof~~usestothe~umexteat 

ftibkinpdalusescgmems. TbcDivisknhas&ermmcdthatareasodktargctisto 

proradtbeuseduriagpracipitatioaeveotsthatoccurnomoFeoftenthnnoacein3months. This 

will~inuncnrtbdovemowsoamaverageoffourtimesayear. Ifthcavefagedumtioa 

ofr#xivingwater~isestimatadat4chys,tbtlltbt~ftslls~infoachievlingfuu 

usegfatertban%penxntoftbetime. Insomecases,fiutherpra&ctionmaybc~le. 

62 
WATER QUALITY STANDARD6 EN THE 2lr CENTURY: 6165 

target Where these same fston, as well as other economic and environmental factors, result 

in the permittee requesting less stringent control than the S-month storm technology, the 

permittee shall be responsible for providing document&m that compliance with the tatget will 

result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts. 

PARTIAL USE 

To designate a partial use subcategory the water quality standards must be amended. The 

pmcess starts when the petmittee pe&ions the Division for a change in regulations. The 

permittee must provide adequate documentation in its petition to prove that controls necessary 

to meet curtent water quality standa& would tesult in widespmad economic and social impacts 

(40 CFR 131.10 (g)(6)). The permittee must also provide a CSO facilities plan that shows 

compliance with the Division’s 3-month storm technology-based effluent limitation and that 

demonstrates that further controls are not cost e&ctive. 

When making partial use designations, certain uses may be deemed critical in that no 

untreated overflows are desimble. These include the following: 

1. Public Water Supply Intakes. In no case will the Division approve a new or 

adoc~ted CSO where the impacts an anticipated to encompass an intake for an 

existing or proposed Public Water Supply. The Division shall not appmve an 

existing CSO upstream of an existing or proposed intake, or water supply wells 

that RN hydraulically connected to the subject water My, without the written 

concurrwKx of the Department of Environmental Pmtection’s Divisii of Water 

Supply. 

2. shellfishHarvestwaters. csodischargestDshe~Rreasshllnotbe 

approvedwit!mutamsuhationwiththe~ofFubUcHatlthandthe 

COIKW- of the Department of Fisherks, wildlife and EnvimmMtM IAW 

Enforcement’s Divisii of Marine Fisherks. 

3. Public bathing beaches, other recrw&n areas, wildlife refuges, and areas of 

ecologicoraconomicconcemmavbe~~as~~thrwghtbe 

facilities planning and public patticipation process. In each case, the goal shall 

betoeliminatetheCS~intbesacu#sandw~~~isinf#sibk,bo~ 

their im-. 

When a partial use is designated, the receiving water criteria shall be sitaspa%c. 

To the maximum extent ferwibk, they shall conform to the criteria assigned to the 

Class. Where CSOs are the mson for the designation, criteria may depart from 

thecritcriaassignedtotheclassonlytothcextcntnecessarytoaccommodatethc 

63 
w. KMBAU 

tecbbgy-based-t-ofthecsodiscbsrge. Regaengother 

diSChptOtllCSC~,wthinghthiSpliC~ShOUldbC-rS~ 

~-PP~Y~y-hy,process,or~ mamgamtpncticethathasbeen 

demonstratbdtobe~kiathejudgmentoftheDivisiorraad~~twitb 

fully supporting the uses assigned to the Class. 

ABATEMENT MEASURES 

Almemnt plans may involve phased work plans with tbe moat cost eff&tive control, or 

controlplWidingthemo6tbcnefit,giventhehig~prkrity. Allaba&naH programs will 

proceed with a uniform analysis methodology and opportunity for public commerrt. 

Based on this policy’s allowabk freqlK%xy of unheated overflows, the most scvele 

hydrologic condition for which abatement measuxes must be pnwided will be dctem~incd. In 

annpkx situations the abatement plan will identify the sequez~ of efforts that should be 

folknwul to gain the most improvement in water quality. This may involve implementing a 

phased work plan. 

Bachplanwillberequiredinitiauyto minimizd&hugesfromCSOsandtheiiresultant 

impactsonwatcrqualitybyimprovedsystem~. Permittees will be required to 

develop and insthte a egular nhtamce program, including sewer inspection; sewer, catch 

bath, and regulator cm; sewer Feplacemcmt wheFe necessary; and disconnection of 

. ~~authori&bytheSewcrUseOr&ance. Thegoalswillbetomaintainsystem 

nhimize infihtion. Permittees will be required to regularly monitor the flow of 

Abamentnleasumwillbeimp~tedtomeetwaterquality~andsupport 

designateduses. CSOeffl~tlimMonswillbedeve@edundera”bubbkconcept.” This 

meansthatrllCSOswitboverlapping~dfadswillbccollsidercbdasasingkdischargc. 

Auindividualdischargesnacdaotbteliminatadortreatadtothes4medegreerslongasthetoral 

load of pollutants is reduced to meet water quality standards. This allows greater flexibility to 

p&uce alternatives and the possibility of more cost+ffcctive abWmentmeasuresbasedonan 

optimal mix of sbuctuml and on-stNctural solutions. 

Effluent lim&ations for specific discharges will be developed by the Division and 

delheated in the NPDES Permits. Compliance with stand&s will be determined through the 

use of mandatory monitoring by the applicant at the discharge site(s). Specific Fcporting and 

. . noaficrcloa~!eswillheincorporatedintoallCSop~aplmn/als. written 

. . ncdbtmm will be suppw by telephone notifiis where impacts to water supplies or 

skllfii glowing aras are predicted. 
WATER QUM STANDARDS IN THE 21~ CENl’URY: 6145 

PROBLEMS/CONCERNS 

The major problem with the policy lies in public perception. In many cases, the public 

willbeaskedtoexpendagreatdealofmoneytoimplezneatabatementmeasures,andatthe 

same time water quality standa& will be lowered. Public education is tbc only immediate 

answer. 
WATER QUALlTY STANDARDS IJU THE 21 ti CENTURY: 6742 

APPLYING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO COMBINED 

sEwERovERFLows 

INTRODUCTION 

Combined sewer overflows: CSOs. m is no doubt that unamtrolkd combined sewer 

ovedlows can cause water quality degn&kn. Tbe impact depends on the location, duration, 

and fieqmcy of occurrence. All unamtrolkd combined sewer overflows carry at least a high 

level of bacterial contamination. And, since most combined sewers are located in dense urban 

areas, they will also carry other comaminants such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic 

hyms (PAHs). However, not all utxontrolkd CSOs will have the same impacts or 

ptesent the same risks. 

In 1989, EPA published the National CSO Strategy. The Strategy established six 

minimum technology standa& to control CSOs. Under consideration now are three additional 

“technology” standah. With one exception, these standa& can be implemented in just a few 

years to reduce and control the impact of CSOs on a receiving water. But, the National CSO 

Strategy additionally states that the CSO discharges must also comply with “applicable water 

quality standards.” since 1972, section 301(b)(l)(C) of the clean water Act has tequired 

compliance with water quality standa&. In the past, however, most cities, States, and certainly 

the EPA have not focused attention on what these tequinxnents mean for urban runoff and CSO 

dischaxges. So the questions befote us today are “what does it mean to comply with applkabk 

water quality standards?” and “how do we measure compliance with water quality &uxla& for 

wet weather events such as CSO and storm water discharges?” 

As we have implemented the Clean Water Act over the past 20 years, those of us 

managing municipal discharges have generally focused on complying with technology-based 

controls. Our goal was to impkment the sea&try ~tstand&s,andweassumedthat 

compliance with water quality standards would be more or less automatic. In some cases, water 

quality needs required additional treatment such as nutrient control, but for the most part our 

goal was to meet the technology-based secondary standards. Compliance for technology-based 

67 
MM. PLA 

standad is relatively easy to determine. We measure the constituents in the pipe prior to 

NIn 1987, tbe emphasii began to shift away from technology-based stadads toward water 

quality. Biiy8mnowuaedmutinelytodarermiaedirectlythepodenttlimpactofa 

discharge on aquatic organisms. And, more significantly, under the Naticmal Toxics Rule, we 

aowhvetbtexpudadLisrofchaniccrlcriterinbemgimpkmentedbytheStrtes. ‘Itdsshiftin 

emphasis has abruptly changed our expemtions. Many municipalities IVC still struggling to 

impkmcnt our p-1987 goals of w heatma& These communities are now f&cl with 

new, mote difficult goals. Communities that have met tbe technology-based standds now face 

noncompliance and unexpectal additiod expenditures on wastewater fhcilitks. The new 

emphasii on water quality stadads will probably have the grea@3t imm on discharges of 

storm flows, whether from CSOs or from separa& systems. The availabk data suggest that all 

these dischaqps will have serious compliance probkms if measured against the new water 

quality criteria. 

How do we face this chrlknge? I p&&r to look at the glass as half full. Our post-1987 

expactrrtions~bpsad,orm0srcertpinly~ldbe~,~ridraadproredioaofbetlcficial 

uses. I believe that if we start with beneficial uses, and carefully dctednc the site-spccifrc 

risks from CSOs or storm water, we can arrive at an appwriate contd strategy. 

It is timely that this meeting focuses on the issues of the approp~ and 

impkmcntation of water quality standah We are at a critical juncture in our uhan areas. 

CSO control can be very expensive, and new standa&, new policies, and an urban economic 

crisis have all converged to make this exercise paxtkularly important. 

This paper will prese& several suggedons for impkmenting water quality stand&3 for 

stem flows. Pi, however, as a foundation, I will explain how San Francisco used water 

quality standad as the basis for planning CSO controls. l%e San Francisco program can also 

provide a useful guidepost to what is achievabk in controlling CSOs. 

SAN FRANCISCO’S WmWATER CONTROL FACUTIES 

In1996,afte~morethan2Oyearsofworkand$1.4billionddhrsincoasbNctiotra@s, 

San Francisco will complete its wastewater facility improvement pxogram. Tltis program 

impltmerrsstheWastewaterMastetPlanaadhwbaenmannPnlbytbeCity’sDeputmeatof 

Public Works. When compkded, the program will rep- an expedituxe of nauly $1,900 

for every ptrson in the City. This per capita expenditure for controlling water polluthm is 

among tbe highest of any city in the United States. 

68 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS M THE 2la CENTURY: 6742 

San Fmncisco has combii sewers for nearly 100 percent of the mice area. Figure 

I is a schematic drawing of the wastewater fMitics. Tbe long box-like structures are 

undergmund storagehnspo~ tunnels which ring the City like a moat. During rain storms, the 

storagedtransports hold combined sewer flows for later treatment. TwMhiKls of the 

storage/transprt capacity is now in placeand operational. l%e remakler is uoderamstn&on. 

‘Ibe Southeast secondary-level treatment plant has been operational since 1982. The North I%int 

wet weather plant (primary-level) is also operatkmal. This plant is not regulated as a publicly 

owned txeatment works (WIW) but instead must meet BATIBCT limits. The Oceans& 

secondary plant is under construction and will be completed in 1993. l%e cross-town tunnel 

shown on the figure is under study. l%is tunnel would move the cumznt bay discharge to tbe 

ocean outfall. 

i -nmd ‘, Qcoad : 

I ..:.‘. -1 

fgure 1. Permitted 

overtlows 

ShoFeune discharge flequellc~. 

allowed per zone annually. 

Figures indicate the number a 
MM. PLA 

l’ltemunbwsshownaroundthcpcriphyoftheCityMicatethcacccphbkCS0 

ovcmoW~asspecifiadinNPD~permlts. As-later,tbese~ieswere 

arrived at by d&rmhing the costcffebiv~ of attahing ba&kial w. 

M36tafthe4%pC%MBaf!hlBFlUChC0 spsogram,morMhan$1billioa,is~to 

~ocukdtoamtrolCSOs. Prkrtotheprognm,evanamiIdrainwouldovcrhdthe 

~udcourqthediscbvgeof~~md~wrterrt~City’s~. At 

~~~,~oftheaeovemow,w~bsaptursdbyths~~~ladrsceive 

@eatma& Fiirc2showsoneofthcseMlitksasfilkdbyamajorrain~. 

Althoughlimi&dsbor4inediachargestilloccura,tbescttkabkmaMalandfIoatabksule 

retaid in the storagdtmnsport along with most of the combii flows and held for later 

treatment at the was&water treatment plant. 

It is worth noting wbat will not be mplisbal by the contxol system wbell it is 

CompktaI. Wetweatberflowsandiacbargadrtthesborelineif~yexceadthecrrpacityofthe 

tn%mentplantsandalsoexccedtbcstoragccapacityofthesUagc/transpofts. Thcscxemainhg 

shoreline discage will have leceived flow-thmughtreatmeat within the storage/transports or, 

in the Northsbore area, primary-level treatmendattbcNoxthPointwetwcathcrplant. The 

flow-tlmugh tlament and the primary-level matmalt do not achkve pouutant removals 

cquivaknt to secaaduy-kvel m. Tlmedischargm would not comply if~#luired to mec4 

thenumcricalwaterqualitycrituia. T%ispotahl noncompliance dues not mean, however, that 

tbcsediscluugcsarenottrcatedorthattheydonathavecffIua&li&hms. TheNPDES 

pe~~thatgovernthe~~have~tbetthemajorityofthewetweathetcombinad 

sewer flows receive tfmbnenttosecondary-. misocumbecausethe 

~rage/~~w~berbktobold~ofthe~wforlnter~ at the secondary-level 

plants. As discussed later, the fhqucncy of the allowed discharges (overflows) is based on the 

beneficial uses includad in tbe water quality standards. 

Theshoreliae~constitute~t~percentoftbetotalw~w~flows. 

capturinsa nmrining34percetltandtreatingittotbesacondarylevelwouldbe~ltand 

expensive because this flow results from a few large and intense storms. 

SAN FRANCISCO’S PLAN FOR CONTROLLING COMBINED SEWER 

FLOWS 

The City bad three major options for hdling the wet weather flows: pxuvick immahte 

tmtment (i.e., build tFeatmentplantstohuvitc~wctwcgther~wwhcllitoocun),~the 

excess flows for later m (witblimitaladdhnalcapacity),orsepuatetbcscwm. ‘Ibe 

Citysekctedacombinationofadditioaal~ plant c+city and lrvge volume stoxagc. 

Sewer sparation was rejeacd because it was too costly and would not have solved the water 

m 
WATER QUALKY STANDARDS IN THE 2 I I( CEMURY: 67-82 

. . . . *: ShorelineDisc’- ‘..‘..‘..:: 

ngure 2. Storage/Transport cross-section. 

pollution problems caused by the storm water. In addition, to separak the sewers, the City 

would have had to excavate every sty& 

The decisions on the acceptable frequency of shoreline discharges were made during the 

planning phase in the 1970s. Cost-effective p-on of beneficial uses was the basis for tbe 

decision-making. At that time, it was m to determine to what lower fkqucncy the 

shoreline discharges could be economkally reduced. The City also had to determine how to 

treat the discharges that did occur. EPA guidance ptoposed a balancing of Mlity costs and 

water quality benefits. In Pmgnim Guidance Memomndum-61, EPA required as a condition of 

projact~Fovalthat”the~~~~sU~tialoOmpaFedtothemrvginal~ts.” 

TheSanFranciscoBayAreaBasmPlrurcontainstheStatewat~qualitystandards. ‘I%esc 

standad identify the potential beneficial uses around the periphery of the City. These beneficial 

uses range ti shellfish harvesting to maritime (shipping) uses. In 1975, the Basin Plan 

recommended the City complete cost-benefit analyses for each shoreline zone to determine the 

appropriate shoreline discharge frequency. Using State and EPA guidance, San Francisco 

comple4ed cost-be&It assessments for each zone, comparing shoreline discharge frequencies 

from 16 per year to one per year. As an example, Figure 3 summakes apartoftk 

cost-benefit analysis for the Westside area. Each bar in the figure shows the incremerrtal costs 

ofgoingtothenextlower&orelinedischaqe~y. Thecostsarebasedonbeachuserdays, which a~ considered the primary beneficial use of this zone. In other words, the 

incmental costs are divided by the number of beach usecrs and the number of additional days 

71 
MM. M 

50 

0 

I6 8 4 I 

slulreline ovemowr Per Year 

Figure 3. Westside cost-benefit analysis (shows incremental costs per additionalbenefkiary). 

they could use the beach. As shown in the figure, overflow reductions to less than eight per 

year are incrementally very expensive. 

TbeCal%omiaRegkmalwaterQualityContlolBoardprqlarGstheBasiiPlanand 

implements it by issuing NPDBS permits. The Board initially pqoscd tbat the City reduce 

CSO discharges to one per year. However, when faced with the cost, time to implement, and 

associated impacts of tbe o&year limit, the Board decided to evaluate tbe cost-effectiveness of 

thevariousdischargefrequencies. l%eBoaKldetemlinedthatthepotentialIiskstobeaefici 

uses did not necessitate a uniform one/year overflow limit, which would require massive and 

very expensive control facilities. 

On the basis of the cost-effectiveness analyses, the Board te&atively sekted the 

appFopriateshorel.inedischargefrequcncies. Dqe&ingonthezone,tksevariedfromoneper 

year to ten per year. Receiving waters with *lltisb beds have the fewest overflows. &ritime 

(shippii) anas have the highest. On the ocean side, the large Westside Stoq&Mnsport 

discharges storm flows direct to the 45mile-long ocean outfall an average of 26 times per year. 

The discharge or overflow frequencies were incorporated into NPDES permits. 

72 
WATW QUALm STANDARDS IN THE 2lr( CENTURY: 6742 

The pemits also required the City to design the storage&fanspotts to provide 

flow-through treatment for the remaining shoreline discharges and for the direct ocean outfall 

discharge. As mentioned earlier, flow-through tteatment consists of settling and skimming, and 

is equivalent to low-level primary. The removed solids are flushed to the treatment plant after 

the storm. 

Once the discharge frequencies wete set, the City was able to determine the size of the 

storagekansports and ptoceed with design and construction. 

Wet Weather System Performance 

Figure 4 shows the level of treatment planned for combined sewage flows City-wide. 

During rainy weather, approximately 66 percent of the flows will be held for secondary-level 

treatment at the Southeast and Ckeanside treatment plants. The remaining 34 percent will 

receive flow-through treatment within the storage&anspotts or primary treatment and 

disinfection at the North Poiit plant. 

@we 4. T-t for wet weather flows. 

Another way of lodging at program accomplishments is to compare the decrease in 

volume of shoreline discharges. When construction is complete in 1996, the City will have 

reduced the volume of shoreline discharges by 80 percent; and, unlike the previous combined 

73 
M.M. PLA 

sewer B these B will receive flow-through tEatmeat. Thesemnaining 

ovamowrwiuwtk:“nw”radwiUwtcarrytheuns~yfl~lesPssocintedwitbstorm 

waterandcsodlldqes. 

~~O~~alsobeassessedbycomparingSanFranciscowitbah~ 

“standad” city of the same size with a qarated sewer systan. (See Figure 5.) Bath provide 

ahighleveloftrertmeat totheirsewage. SanFrencisco, however, also provides signikant 

trWmenttotkstormwatcr(aspartofthecombiisewagcflow). InFigu~5(Figure 

missing), solids removal from the wastewater is used as a measure of pollutant control since 

toxicants and b&aeria ale generally associated with solids. 

Citks with sepmte sewer systems will soon be quid to have permits for tbeii storm 

waterdischarges. IfgPAintendstoimp~itsp~ogromsequ~ly,tbeperfonnamx IlXpired 

of combid sewer cities should also be quid of cities with squated sewer systems. 

AtatoCllcrpitalcoJtofS1.4billioathrough1996,tbeSanFranciscoprogramwill 

represent an eqenditure of nearly $1,900 per resident. (per capita costs are about $1,300 

through 1991.) ‘Iksc expenditures greatly exceed those of most other communities. Figure 

6compMX!3anFratdsco’ sperpersoncostswithothercalifonaioult#nareas. SanFrancisco’s 

expaditures are high because of the extra ev of controlling storm flows in a combined 

system. sacmmtohasalsobuiltstongeand tmtment fidities for the potion of its system 

served by comb&d sewers and thus also has higher costs. The other municipalities on the chart 

have sqmate sewer systems. 

For those who want to etdhate the costs for their own storm flow systems, San 

F~constnrctioa~~cu~yrbout$4~o$6perofstoragecapacity. 

APPLYING THE NEW WATER QUALITY SMNDARDS TO SAN 

FRANCISCO’S wm WEATHEZR FLOWS 

Inthe~,BpArrndtheS~~regulatndstonn~~(cSoSr#1~~~), 

difkdyfFomcontinuousdischarges. waterquauty~,andinputkukr,numericrl 

criteria,weremtgamaUyappUedtotbese-flows. Now,astheprWanscausal 

bythesediscbugesbecamemoreevidenS,wehavemearergingpdicyofwiagurdaqurlity 

sta&&asthethcofamtd. SanFnudsco hasmadeama*immtmmtinamtroUing 

74 
WAlFR QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21~ CENlURY: 6742 

io tab0 &Jo &lo ssio woo - tioo siocl 

Cost (S) Per Capita 

cOrrtbl@1001 

sowcc AhsAswvey,ct!bcmswlttlr(sada(1991) 

Qure 6. Constxuction costs per person for wastewater control, San Francisco companzd 

with other cities (costs through 1991). 

CSOs and it is useful to compare the City’s performance withthestanda&. (T%eSanFrancisco 

fhcUities were constructed to provide cost-effective attainment of the beneficial uses contaki 

iathestandardsbutw~notbasedoatbe~’snumeticalcriteriaas~~iado~uart 

limitations.) 

Bacteia stadads are exceakcl for 2 or 3 days fouowing a shoscline discharge. 

Cumntly, San Francisco posts the beaches when this occurs. San Francisco does ti chlorinate 

thedischargebecaUseOfthetechnical~ltyand~Ofthe~~affactsoamrrineLife 

fFom the chlorination. In addition, the overflows occur during winter months when shoreline 

use is limited. Regardless, immediately following the discharge, bacteria standa& are exceeded 

andthebeneficialusecannotbe~duringthisperiod. 

The che9nical criteria pnsetlt a more significant problem. If the numeric water quality 

criteria are translated into effluent limits and applied to the treated storm flows, San Francisco 

would not be able to comply. PAHs are the worst problem and exceed the criteria by several 

orders of magnitude. PAHs ate combustion byproducts, and the main source in the wastewater 

75 
WM. PLA 

SanFranciscoalsowouldhaveascrious problem with copper, lead, and zinc ifeffluaN 

. . . llnummswereapplkdtothetreatedovemowdischarges. mundilutedstormdisc~ 

exceeds these limii by a f&ctor of IO. Other beavy meds will occasionally exceed the 

limits but by lesser amaunts. These include cadmium, mercury, nickel, silver, and cyan& 

Ourshodinedischarges~Hperrceatstormwater. Tbejndlanconsti~rule 

emdially ti derived from street ~noff. Although we provide @eatmaH totbesedischarges 

which approaches primary kvel, we woukl still have a significant compliance prubkm if the 

water qudity criteria are applied directly to the disc-. 

It’s been suggested that best nuqpnmt pndices (BMFS) will solve the problem. 

BMPswillbelp,krtatthistimeweQaotbelievetbpt~willbringthesignificrns 

. tbductKnsriOpoU~lO6diBg~ toamplywithtbwaterquaUtycriterk. Allour 

stNetsaresweptatkastweeklyand increadgly, we are using vacuum sweepers. We 

impkmcnted a compdcnsivc BMP p80gram over a year ago. It includes a permaaent 

bousebold- waste colkction center and number of other measu-. The teal probkm 

is automobiks and, short of banning them, pnMnting their associated pouutJlnts does not appe!ar 

alH4LS)M!dC. 

How typical ale the pouutant concentratknsinSanFxan&co’sstorm~ 

compared with other CSOs? We believe San Francis& . 

s pollutant - are Possr’blY 

lowertbansimiiurbanareas&auseSanFmnciscohasonlyUmitedin&stryandbecause 

someheatme~isprovided. Theavailabkdataalsoindicatethataurwetweatherdischarges 

~simikrbo~rmsewer~fnnnurtranutlwwith~~systems. me 

poU~~gif~yafUllCtiOlloffhtvolULIICofv~kfnffiC~fbC8trviccarea,and 

~weexpactthrtinotherurbrnarwsof~deasity,botbCSOmdstonnsawerdisc~ 

will have similar or greater pollutant concentratkms cornpad to those io San Francisco. 

Ourcoaclusionistbrturyaimilarlydenseu~~witheidbetcombinadsewage 

overflows or stem water discbarge will have serious di&ulty complying with water quality 

slmdadsifthechemicalcriteria~imposedaseffiuentl.imitations. 

COSI’SFORCOMPLYINGwITHTHEWATERQU~STANDARD6 

NUMERICAL CRrmRIA 

As nuted pnviously, San Francisco hasspentmorethanS1bilUonforwetweather 

controls. whatwouldit~tocomplywith~uentlimitatiorwderivadfromthew~qurrlity 

76 
WATER QUM STANDARDS IN THE 2l1t CEWURY: 6742 

criteria? We have e&mated that to capture the Nmaining s&Mm flows (up to the l-year storm) 

and treat to secondary levels would cost at least $560 million (beyond the $1 billion), excluding 

the cost of land. And there would still be a water quality violation about once per year. 

What would be the costs nationwide? CSO control cost estimates have ranged ftom S40 

billion to $120 billion. Based on our experience, we think these costs are probably low and do 

not dkct pmviding full secondary treatment to all combined flows. Equity demands that if the 

standa& are applied to combined sewer communities, they also be applied to those communities 

with sepamte storm sewers. The control costs for the storm sewer systems will almost surely 

dwarf the costs for CSO controls. Recent estktes for comprehensive controls range from $90 

billion to S4OO biion. 

Pertrapstbese~~~apPearsmall~withthedefensebudger. Theydonotappear 

small to the cash-stmpped urban ateas that cannot pay for their most urgent needs. We must 

he this issue. Congtess and EPA cannot blithely impose tequirements for which there is not 

the slightest chance of compliance especially if the need is not clearly established. 

HOW SIGNIF’ICANT IS THE PROBLEM? 

Before EPA imposes standa& which could result in massive expenditures, it should 

establishthatarealneedexists. Byrealneed,wemeanadeterminationthathumanhealthor 

the environment is being harmed. San Fmncisco made this determination in the 1970s by 

assessing the risk to the site-specific beneficial uses. 

We should not necessarily apply numerical criteria developed for continuous discharges 

to intemtittent ones without malting apptupriate adjustments. We also need to catefully examine 

the relevance of the criteria for the beneficial uses we are p-g. 

F&u= 7 shows the fiquency of use of San Francisco’s wet weather faciies. As 

shown, shoreline discharge occurs only about 0.4 percent of the year. The expenditures we are 

talking about are inteded to prevent problems during this relatively limited time frame. 

Compated with the other human health and environmental risks which we face, is this rather 

limited period of shoreline discharge that signifkant? We can examine the potential threats 

posedbythisdischargetoassessitssignifii. ‘IhemainrisksfaUintothreecategories: 

health risk from pathogens in the discharge, toxicity to aquatic organisms, and human health risk 

from bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals. 

Wehavesomedatathatbelptoplacetbese~~~inpe~ve. Wehave 

completed more than 300 bioassays on our first flush CSO discharge. Just under half of the 96. 

hour static biiys showed no measurable toxicity. ks than 10 percent of the assays showed 

a toxic response at 56 percent co-on (nwghly one patt sea water to one part CSO). 

77 
MM. PLA 

Figure 7. Frequu~y of storage transpoti use. 

Conssqucntly, the potential for adverse impacts on marine organisms appears limited. As our 

BMP pqram further lowers pollutant levels, we expect co-g decreases in the risk to 

themviNmment. 

WeUwhataboutbacte&? Azen’tpeopkgettingsick? Pciortostartiqourcon&u&m 

progunwetriedtoesbblishtbe~~~humulhdlthoftbemorr:thaa50arrnualovemows. 

Sincetheoverflowsalloccur~ringthcwinter~,werssumedthtbeolth~~minht 

show some idaMiik trends. The San Francisco Department of Public Health did wt have 

aay~ofcS~~illoessesnordidtbe~o~~ofHealthServices. 

~thecuwesafminor~~~yesbblis&d,werlbquestadtheD~tooomplett 

as&s&al lBgleonanalysisalmparingrpinfau(andsu~overflows)withthemost 

likely enteric diseases to result from the &!&ion of CSocontaminated water. l%ey could find 

aoconelation. Nowthetourcontrolprogramisnearing~p~,wewtpactthattbebealth 

riskposedbyprtbogarsisev~kss. Weareassum&ofcousse,thatwewiUamtinuetopost 

thebeacbesrtterdischargesoccur. AswithanyCSOdischargcandmanystormwater 

~~,ekvrtadbederincoacaarotioas~p~tandthew~~~~etoenter. In 

effect, we are foregoing a benefxial use (body amtact rec&) for a limited period of time 

bwedoaadeterminationthatthoserdditionalysofusecouM~bePttainnlinacosteffbctive manner. 

WemuststiUcoas&rthehuman<hriskposalbybioaccum ulative substaaces. 

TheseareappardyourmostsigSkaMpmbkm. PAHsareasuspectedau&ogatandstorm 

~violateBPA’sc&eriabyscvemlordersofmag&ude. Butlet’slookmo~closely 

atthisrisk. Whatthesta&udspostuMeistbatPAHsint&stRetNnoffwiUenterthe 

xeceiviog waters, b lorrccwrulateinfi&,andwhencatenbyhumans,exposetbemtotbesc 

78 
WATER QUMJTY STAJUDARD6 IN THE 21a CENTURY: 67-U 

chemicals. Is this a signifkant route of human exposure? Does it warrant our urban 

communities shifting hundreds of milkms of dollars from other needs to solve this problem? 

Furthermo~, will our solution, wastew*r contd fa, reduce exposures to a safe level? 

‘Ike are critical questions for which we must have @ answers based on scientifk data. 

We are concerned that the answers to the questions above wiIl be pp. IARC (World 

Health organization) reports for benzo(a)pyrene (one of the primary PAHs) that: 

Human exposure occurs mainly through the smoking of tobacco, inhalation of 

polluted air, and by ingestion of water contaminated by combustion efnuents or 

ingestion of food contaminated by smoking, broiling or exposurre to combustion 

Pd. 

PAHs from vehicle exhaust are deposited on street surfaces and during wet 

weather can be washed into receiving waters. PAHs also enter wmays from 

other sources including aerial GIlout. Some aquatic organisms biouccumulate 

PAHs; however, most fish will metabolize them. Human exposure may occur 

as a result of runoff contaminating fish which are subsequently eaten, however, 

wehavenotseenasuggescionthat~isanwteofsignificante~~. Tothe 

contraty,itappearsthatifweateexpos4toPAHsasthetesultofeatingfish, 

it is as likely the result of cooking them on our charcool grill, as from 

bioaccumulation. Consequdy, unless more information is produced, it appears 

that a massive and expensive control program would at best decrease a minor 

route of PAH exposure. 

Insummary,at)eastinSanFrancisco,wedonotappavtohaveadequateevidenceof 

Fcalrisktotaketoourelectedo~cialsandcitizenstoconvincethemoftheneedtospend 

additional hundreds of millions of dollars. 

SUGGESTIONS 

BPAandtheStateshaveonlyermticallyaddresJad csosandstolmwaterdischargesin 

the past. There is a clear need for nationwide dire&m. Pirst, however, we must recog&e 

somebasicfacts. csosandstormwater~ltfromnaturalphalo~;theycannatbe 

‘eliminated.” Atbestwecanprovidesomeleveloftreatment badonan -tofthe 

envirorrmental and health risks presenkd by these discharges. Providing full seco&ry level 

tr#tmentappeanootofthe~n,~ghthisbthe~odwe~beingdrivenbythe 

newm~mericcriterh. Basedonour expieme in San Francisco, we off&r the following 

SUggCStiOflS. 

79 
Y.Y. CLA 

1. ImplamttheNatlanlCSOStrategy~prosrm). 

Thenincminimumta3mology(BMP)staxhdswillprovitksomekvclof 

cOtltdfor~CSOdiSChprges. 

csos should not calm balth pnaans or cause Wutc toxicii to aquatic 

organisms. IfrCSOdia&rgeexpoesrsignifhntnumbuofpaqkto 

ekv8tal~,tbeathccoatxolstntegymust~this~km. Iftk 

diS&UgCkillSflShOriSthC~Ofiacr#ssd-Of-S 

c-inmarinelife,usdetennlncdbyacn&alnleaswrmM 0fjlsh-e - 

co~ofthisp~kmshouldbcrgoal. IaotherwoFds,tbewatcrquality 

nccdsmustbeestablisbaionrsitc-specificbasisaodmustbc&monamWby 

actualmallu-. HypoOleaicrlpfoblansbmsaJon-w~qurlity 

critcrh8rcnotur~blsisforspendinghundraisofmiuionsofdollarsof 

limited public mollcys. 

3. IlstablishMtion8lgoalsbyidentifyickar~orm8ncestmdords. 

If~gorls=-f==Y, thcysbouldbebEucdoutormflowcoatfo1 

w-wff-~ i.e.,pcantageofsolidsnmovadfnxutbc8tonnwaterand 

rsduaion in fiBquaKy of overflows. Ideally, as discusacd above, the controlling 

criteria should be local water Quality needs. 

4. Bshblish ccmpabii bawcul cso -unities and sqamal sewer 

commuaitks. 

TotheexteatthatdemurdsarepLcadoaCSOs,tbensimilPrrsqu~should 

be placed on storm stwtfs. cso systems may have the ad&!d bunlm of 

com3ctingbnctc~pfobluns; howcver,thechatlicat~ofthe~ 

arc similar. If CSO communi~ m rapid, for exampk, to ranove 30 to 50 

~ofthe~~curiadbytbe~~waterco~t,tbea~storm 

sewer systans should attain the same removals. 

5. Recognbour-. 

~auyn4bepossibit,fromthe~ofprMicpollcy,tobrve~wrtas 

fhhabkandswimmabkatalltimcs. InSanFmncho, WCWill~~thur 

$1,900 per person for w- cxmtd. Altbol@webelkveth8twewill 

&Gcve 8ppmpriate amtrol kvels, it is ckar that our pqnm would W comply 

with the mncrical criteria EPA is considering nor with propoed kgishth 

80 
WA- QlMUl’Y STANDARIM lN THE ?I# CENTURY: 6752 

Additioaally,wewillnotbe~kto~allbeheficialusesrrtalltimes. Itisnot 

~ctoexpadtbe~mrjotityof~~,w~htravenotevenbegun 

to addles storm flow problems, to achieve San Francisco’s level of control. The 

moneyissimplynotthue. AlmosthalfofSanP IUlChlMSfUlldSCamefrr#n 

gmlts. lEegrantplogramshaveendcd. ItissafUoltaythattheFakral 

GoWrnmentisnotlikelytoreinstatethanatanythingrppForchingtllelevel 

nacesarvytomeettheproposalstrudards. Communitieswillhavetorelyontheir 

own resources for these construction costs at 8 time when cutbacks to schools, 

police and flru, and health care cteate much man significant threats to our health 

and welfare. 

6. Base facility planning for CSOs and stormwater controls, not on numerical 

criteria, but on cost-effective attahmm of buneficial tWs. 

Aa~~OfpotentirrlberldiCialwescatl~~US~~tberealnaedsand 

thepowialrisktotheecosystem. AcmetIkdv~studycanhclpauun 

that we get the most benefits for the funds expendal. For in&n&tent dischaqes 

such as CSOs and storm water, EPA’s water quality criteria appear to have only 

limited usefulness for identifying real risks to human health or the environment. 

The criteria should not be used as the basis for facility planning or for 

determining compliance. 

7. Reexamine our risk assessment pnxx!dures. 

Incmingly, we an2 making decisions for environmental impruvunaits on the 

basii of risk. This is appropriate and will hopefully introduce consistency across 

environmental media. A serious problem arises, however, when we multiply a 

hypothetical wont case risk times hypothetical worst case risk. Afler several 

iterationsofthispradice,weendupwithatheo~riskwhicbisnotavalid 

basis for committing limii public resoutces. This is especially true in an era 

of increasing illiteracy, hunger, and homelessness. (It is also possible that we are 

saddling the private sector with costs that yield only limited benefits.) If we are 

going to use risk as the basis for rmjor experulitures, we need a risk assessment 

procedure that strives to detemline the “ale real risk.” 

8. Let’s cooperate and communicate. 

Itisthegoa.lofallofustohaveoceansandriversascleanaswecanmakethan. 

Manyofusatthismaetinghave,in~,dedicatedourp~fessiorraltivestothis 

god. In San Francisco we believed that we were making major strides toward 

protectkg public health and the environment. Recently, however, we weft 

accused by several prominent environmental organizations of wantonly causing 

81 
MM. PLA 

skkness8llclFefwiagtoco~watcfpollutionpobl!una. sevefalgroupshave 

c.hdkqdoufoavuide~peJmitaDdaredemaadibgmorefacilities 

wlme coats will exceed $1/2 billian. Citywide, the demamkd faciitks would 

casilyexcceds1billion. TbaEco6tsurtinaddithtothe$1.4biiweaxe 

alrraatly~tospeadaaw88tcw8tcr~l. Thcscdaalhgu~not 

b8sedon&masMalprobhswithwatcrqu8lityorhnanhcalth. If,infact, 

sucbdskswefepment,theayes--amewouldncedtobecbm Wenccdmo~ 

will&mm to communicate by all parties involved in these disputes. 

CONCLUSION 

Intbecomingmocrths,BPAwill~~itsprognmforsolvingtbewaterquality 

pfobkanscauscdby8tormwatcr. AttbcsametimcCongrusisassaingmodificationstothe 

ckanw8tcfAa Thisismex~~toscnrcturethcpK)gmmsothatweadrfirws 

tbe~specificriskspr#eatadbywelweatberdischrgesmdassunthatourlimited~~ 

axe usal for the most pressing problans. 

82 
WATER QUW STAND- IN THfi 2la CEMlJRY: 0349 

COMBINED SEWER OVERF’LO WSANDTRECLEANWATERAm 

PROMISEIhwid S. Bailey 

seniur Atromey 

End-n&t D@nw Fad 

W&m*, D.C. 

‘Ibis year we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1256), 

one of the earliest and most ambhious environmental acts ever sdopted by the U.S. Congress. 

To the optimist, this anniversary represents the arlminatiorr of billions of dollars in water 

pollution & efforts and a marked improvement in the Nation’s general water quality whik 

still -odating 20 years of economic gmwtb and prosperity. To the pessimist, this 

anniversary is a bitter pill, with thousands oftbe Nation’s rivers, streams, and lakes closed to 

the taking of fish for human consumption, the battle for control of toxic pollution still 

floundering, and raw sewage a common occurru~~ in many U.S. cities. ResudlesJ of your 

viewpoint, most will agree that the task of returning all the Nation’s waters to the Act’s 

ob~ves of fishable and swimmabk will take considembly moru time. 

Perhaps one of the most visible tasks left undone under the Act is the control of 

combined sewer overflows (CSO). Through a combination of EPA fGlures, lack of money, 

cant decisions, and just plain recalcitrance, we still have over 1,100 cities and towns in the 

Uniti States that discharge raw sew8ge, along with untnzated or partMy bested industM 

waste, into our Nation’s waters virtuaUy evq time it rains (U.S. EPA, 1992). 

Itisnotthepufposeofthispapertoreviewt&ruasons for the fiilufe of CSO controls 

to date, although some of the reasons will undoubtedly impact our decision process in the future. 

Rather,thispaperistoe~~anenvironmentalistviewofwhatmustnowbeQnetoco~ 

the CSO problem, and how it can best be achkvod. 

There is an old Chinese proverb that says “unkss we change the dire&on in which we 

are headed, we will surely get there.” Thw,wesruttheanalysisoftheCSOpioblemwithr 

lallllltotbefil- objectiv~oftbeckrnwaterAct: thatthedischarge ofpollutants 

into tbe navigable waters be eliminated by 1985; and wherever atta&abk, that water quality 

which provides for the pro&&m and pqagation of fwb, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides 

for recreation in and on the water be achieved by 1983 133 U.S.C. 1251(a)(I)-(3)]. Somewhere 

83 
D.8. BAILEY 

Tkre is no questioll tlmt cso discbga cause pollution. The full impacts of cso 

~~ualurown,simxbothStatemdBpAmonitoringaad~fofCSOimpards 

are spodk and incompk (U.S. EPA, 1992). We do know that CSO discbarges have a 

signifkmimlmctoa-use- Nowhereisthismo~apparwtthaninsbellfish 

waters, where CSO discharges have advekly a&ted as much as 54 percent of the sldfisb 

waters in the Northeast (Leonad et al., 1989), and nearly 10 pamt of all harvest-limited areas 

nationwide (NOAA, 1991). 

csoilllpmlmwtlimitedto*hdlfidrwrters,howevef. meyalMlsorlMjorfirctor 

intheclMiogofbescbesandother-~-tlleunitalstates. Ag8in,w 

diabkmtiodstatibsafeav8il8bk,butrstudybytheN8tud Relwwws-cwncil 

~notedwwethon2,oooberchc~iaaucorsrrJstrtasia199l,wwtafwhicbw~ 

cluetocSOs8ndotherhum8nsewagc~oJL1Dc,1992). Itiswt uwommonfofmrpr 

CitiCStOhWC wmexwuscsoslloagside~prkMd~-areM,sincebotlltMd 

to follow stream xuutcs. Even bed closing idondon, when l vailabk, is not axqdensive. 

-Y--W simplypostw8m&s8kmgstnzambanks8ndlnveloqg8go 

givetluptryiagtoenforaudmrinbrin~wrtetclosuFesintbefiwxafhumrn 

danands for such resources. 
WAm QUALlTY STAND- M THE21a CENTURY: $349 

The elimination of CSOs into saktive amas would be achkved by either (1) tot8l 

. contamment, tmtment and discbarge at authorized points not impading sensitive waters; or (2) 

colleaionMdCOnVtYllMXtOOChCttr#tmentfac~~ortr#ltm~tmddischugert~tbrt 

are not located in sensitive waters. 

CSOs that discharge into all other waters should &ve tlcament according to 

pKinlulgatedbestpmcticaltWment technologygui&linesforCSOs,orthat -===Y 

tom#twatetquality~,jwClikerllotber~~ofpdl~undertheAd. At 

absreminimum,bestpmcticaltrWment for CSOs should consist of several stages: screening, 

solids removal, and disinfection (followed by reanoval of disiieaant chemkals) where 

appropriate. 

All CSOs should be subject to some form of scruening for removal of debris, floatable 

waste, and other inert solids. Many technologies are availabk to achieve this treatment. 

Screening will remove some of the most objectional visible and aest&ic pollutan& such as 

pemmal hygiene items, styrofoQm, and cans, as well as potentWy dangerous items such as 

nwdlesandmedicalwastes. TheAmericanpublicistiredofbeacheslittenxlwithcoudoms, 

tampons, syfinp, and all other maruxxofsewagedebris. Whilenotallsb#unorbeachlitter 

comes fhm CSOs, way CSO outfall makes a significant amtrihution, usually of the most 

undcsixabk and unhealthful items (New York City Council, 1990). ScrecGng is a fessibk and 

readily available technology that has been employed in standard sewage beatmeat for M. 

Solid organic wastes should be moved from all CSOs and treated. Solid wastes harbor 

bxteria and viruses that aru difIicult or impossible to disinfect without further treatment and 

extensive contact time with disinfection agents. These solids, which may be many times higher 

than-sacoadary- kvels, amtribute to dissolved oxygen consumption and 

ekvated bactekf counts in receiving waters (NRDC, 1990; Ellis, 1986). 

Excessive kvels of solids in CSO w astewa&falsomakeit extremely diEcult to fnee4 

waterquality&terialkvelsinreceivingwaters. Asapra&calmattef,itisdiffkulttodisinfect 

water with high solids content, and usually requires long disiufec&nt contact times, which 

tmnslate into large holding facilities for both disinfectiou arMi removal of disinfection chemials 

prior to discharge. 

New technologies ll~t being developed to enabk solids removal of high-volume wastes 

over short periods of time. In addition to the traditional holding basin, which is now in use at 

many cities, swirl amcamaors and vortex isqmators, which anploy principles of axurifugal 

force, are being applied to high-volume CSO wastewater (Rubin, 1990). Whik these devices 

am gamal.ly kss expensive than large holding basins, theii application may he limited. 

85 
DA BAIISY 

Fi,C!3Osmustbedi&f&edif~to~receivingwater~ 

st8nddl. GivaltlEtIemdws dibcbugesofC!8OwatersiMothep@UaIaFewofour 

lMjOfCitiU,ith8SbCUlWUl~ -~morescrialshealtbeffectshavenotbeul 

feportal. Itisverylikelyth8tmanyiM8ncesofbacterialMectionsuchasstomacbupset, 

dinrrhea,orskininfibctionshavegoneu~~bycitizw,whofailedto~medical 

assistance of did not asmciatc theif exposure to CSO wastewater with disatse incidence. 

Tbctimemrybelimihsd,bowever,~~rmajoroutb~of~lrllantbyCSOs 

acurs. The Amedmn ptqmkth has become Fly susc@bk to outbzeaks of 

. ~~(e.g.,cholcn)bacrusefewpaogkconbaretoF#xiveimmuniptioargainst 

serious-tlmtll8vediapgerredfromthecoatiaencltullitedstates. nleaedkasesstill 

exist worldwide, however, and cafliem ueapabkof~tithmughuntruual 

wastew8tefdidmges. AdditioMUy,higherwmbersofourcitizcasarcsufMngfMn 

~iathdrnrtunlimmuntsystems,crertingnewogportunitiesforold~auchrs 

tubercubsistorelpiarfootbddinthcgeneralpopulation. Astbedeauuwlforwater-related 

. . recrMtioMl~ inmass, a vulncmbk population is drawn ever closer to CSOcont8lniMtal meas. 

Tbeselmsktsquiranmts scxcuhg,solidsnmovll,disiinfaction(8ndranovalof 

. chem@swheFenec&aIy)fimnthecoeof”bestpmctM mabmlt” tdlnology 

for CSOs. Ruperly impkmented, with a grain of common sense~liedtothercceivingstream 

sitwtioa,~~ilitiesw~probablybeallthatisneadsdformany~. 

. lMmlces because of stream uses, lo&on, dilution, e&z., athiNMM of water 

quality bZGs will m&e a higher kvel of tfmmalt. Tllisisnodifferartthalltllesitu8th 

tod8yforalldMmrgcfs. At&mentofwaterqualitystan@dsasaminimumxequirementhes 

always bea a fbndmentalobjectiveand~oftheAd. Wesecno~toalterthat 

principknow. ToQotherwisetPkesusdowntbeslipperyslogeofaaiacreasing~yfor 

lilturegesmtbMoflost xtsamal, pollutkm,mddefclTedexpMses. 

Fn3te&mafsrreuauses,however,uponwhicllwrtetqMlity-arebMed,~ 

ammsmilyrsquirtfullsaooadaryork#terti#tmeat ofc!4owal3tmvaber,nofthc 

amtahment of every imagin&le overflow event. Basic water uses, such as swimming, fishing, 

86 
WArW QUALITY STANDARDS tN THE 2lrt CENTURY: U-89 

and boating, are not availabk, or s&e, durhrg floods. At some poiat, nonpoint source pollution 

fn#ngeneralrunoffduring~ldorm~willcwse~stoexceadbadtriological 

standatds. onot&rocusioM, laqerainfauevaltsoccufsoinFrequentlythatthc~on 

oftfcamem~~isnotpnrcticrl. 

Fii the right mix of conditions and tRatmmtrequ~tsforw8ter~ume 

attainment is the difficult task. The old axiom “the devil is the &ails’ is cutainly applicabk 

here. However, munkiitks that have seriously considered this probkm have come up with 

Rmarkably similar conclusions. No matter how it is measured-storm tvcllt3 per year, 

time/duration, or any m formula-the ~lt is about the same: Only a few untxmtdkd, or 

zuy, CSO discharges per year can be tokrated without scxious adverse impacts on 

. 

In general, the number of resulting overflows is abaut four per year, altho@ the number 

canvaryfromonetosixormoreinsomecircumstances. TfMbwnt levels also may vary, but 

most CSOs receive basic levels of treatment for solids removal and, if neccssq, disinfection. 

BxamplesofthisvatiabilityantabulatedbyBPAintheirFeviewofniaeSCrteprognunsin 

EPA’s evaluation of wet weather design standad for controlling pollution from CSOs (EPA, 

1992). In many 8lltgs of the country, coda&n b&w- one to four s&ml cvatts yearly and 

the abiity to enjoy expected stream uses is probably pretty good, slthough such datr have never 

beenspecificallycakulatedinthatfashion. Forthcsercasons,webelkvethatBPAsboulcllook 

atanovemowfrequencyoffour~perywrsageneralizadrpproscbhowaterqualityuse 

attainment (this excludes, as previously Wed, the ban on all didargu to sadive m). 

l%e degree of treatmcnt provided for these four overflow events, in&cd the m of 

trwtmentprovidadforennmo~~eveats,musl~ontbeF#xivingsseamusesand 

physical amditions. Extmme ovetfiows, such as major flood events, will pdably not receive 

much, if any, m. Most other events, however, can receive basic scfedng and solids 

lx!moval,andsolidsfanovedshouldberuutedto- tfmtmmt handung fhciities. 

Certainly,allCSOdiscbargesoccurringmoFethanfouftirnes~yeu~ldr#xivethisbrsic 

treatment. Wbctbcrthisbssiitr#tmeat involves extensive holding basins ar flow thfuugh 

qaratorswillprobablybc&tataibywatcrquditynceds. Insomecaseqcdysbcondary 

~of~mayplrevartwabrqualityvioktioas;basicprimuy~maybeaKlugh 

inother-. 

Flow volumes exceeding the maximum &Wment capacityofexistillgsystanscanbebeld 

inholdingbasinsandretWtedto~ f&ilitkswhcnflowvolumesckcI@Ue. Thereisno 

wason, given existing capacity, why these CSO wastewaters cannot receive a maWal level of 

semdary tmament. By using a cumbidoa of water ~OOWM&I, inflow/infi&&n 

elimination, basii system lqmif, holding basins, expansioQ of existing batmalt fmities, 

~~aolids~~Idevi~,md~,manyCSOevartsuptofouforlesatimespM 

year can receive basic @eatmu& orev~amdifkdkvelofsecoduy~. 

87 
D.8. BAILEY 

Itisrbsoluodycleutbrtthe~oEthecsopcob~nrtioawidew~raquirethe 

expditumofl8fgeamounts oflwaley. Webavewtcometowllereweur!tod8yillpollutiml 

alamlwithoutthe~afbillioMofdolkfsin~-grwts,loans,S~ 

8ndloalfunds,8lMlpriMteapihl. Ascoagnsanrn Nowakofl’kwYork,-ofthe 

H~SukxrmmittaeonWIter~~,noradrrtar#xntCSOcontrolhearing: “...CSO 

ax&o1 without same feasadk funding program to accompany it. . . will be an empty 

plUtliSC.‘ 

Tbe-~iswell8wuleofthisueedandfullysuppofhtlle 

. coa-meMof~firndrtos~~lvlogInrnprogunsto&lpfirndcSoworL. East 

. . . llmmbauoIlcso~ftwlsucllfunQshouldbe-,8ndstrtessllouldbe 

giVCJlthCfbxibilitytO~tillKlSiOthClDOSt~VCnunnCr. Itmwtdsobe~, 

however,tbrtcsowollr,~ythenhbilicltioarrd~ofcoar~~,is~ 

l paltofthekmg-tam-Mdopmtlonofsewersystems. Alltoo~y,tbente 

chUgalfotscwer8ndw8tcrsenices ~WtXCUntely-thCtnrecostOfpfOdiDglUK% 

senkes. Tbe~~~cosCsandrwsmustbec~topkcesuchsystems~r#luad 

OperatioMl b8sis. 

Rogramsmust8lsobcldi8tcdtoducesewerflowandthevolumeofCSOwa&watcx 

whik~uistingsew8ge . 

. trertmeatalmcity. RogruMtoiwre8sew8tefooaservrboa 

dtoelimiM?wwMasuy~to~sewerssuch~- stomldrains& 

stwriawtnbonmwtbc~vdyprrsuad. Modern#wrsetr#tmeat issimplytoocoatly 

tOtr#tSfXiIlgWatCUJld- runoff. Ilhcmaluseof~cwtrols,efoeioamd 

. ssdunengtioakws,mdothr#knduw~iwcmbeemployed~odivertrad~~ 

water. Moayc~nuyfiLdtbltoombining~#xatBpAstormwrter~witbcSO 

progmmsumybecost&dve. TanporaryhoklbgbyindusMd~~rsduringevents lll8y plevalt alany toxics fmn altering ovefflowillg systans. 

88 
WAlZRQUAUlYSTANDARwlNl’lfE21atCENllJRY: 8349 

CSOaba&mentwillheexpmsivesnditwilltaketimc. Butsuchtrwtmeat will lestore 

thousands of acres of skllfii beds and untold stream miles to beneficial uses for basters, 

swimmers, and fishing enthusiasts alike. Perhaps CvuI more important, we can lodr f0lwaN.l 

to the day when mw sewage no longer flows into our Nation’s waters. 

REFERENCES 

Ellis, J.B. 1986. MMionaf aspects of urban runoff at 20. IQ: Tomo, H.C. et al., eds. 

Urban Runoff Mlution. Springer-Verlsg. 

U.S. EPA. 1992. U.S. Bnv’ urmtneatal Fmtection Agency, Water policy Branch, CMice of 

Policy Analysis. Evaluation of We4 We&her Design Stands&s for Controlling Pollution from 

Combii Sewer Gverflows. Draft Final Report. 

Lmanl, D.L. et al. 1989. ‘Ibe Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the Esst Coast. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratiorr, p. 18. 

New York City Council. 1990. City Wide Floatablcs Study, Report to the New York City 

Council, Combined Sewer Overflows: Floatables and Bathing Beaches. New York: New York 

City Council; August. 

NOM. 1991. Natioml oceanic and Atmoqhcric Administration. The 1990 National Shellfish 

Register of Classikd Estuark Water, U.S. wt of Commerce, Koclklle, MD. 

NRDC. 1990. Natural l&sources D&nse Council. Testimony on combined sewer overflows 

by Jessica Landman, Esq., before the Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife ConseMon and 

theBnviroamentandOceanandGr#lt~,p,B;June20. 

NRDC. 1992. Natural Resounxs &f&we Council. Testing the Waters: A National 

perspactive on Beach Closings, p. 11. 

Rubii, D.K. et al. 1990. ‘Ihe return of an old nemesis: Combined sewer overflows, once 

ignor#l, am the focus of a new pollution battle. Engineering News Record, pp. 28-32; Sept. 

20. 

89 
Whole Effluent 

Toxicity 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 91-93 

WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY: THE BASIS FOR EPA’S 

REGULATORY CONTROL PROGRAM 

Cynthia C. Dougherty (Moderator) 

Director 

Permits Division 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 

With the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) started a long-term program aimed at restoring and maintaining the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Removing the discharge of toxic 

materials in toxic amounts to surface waters is one major element in this effort. The initial 

phases of this program used chemical-specific water quality standards and treatment technology 

principles to reduce discharges of toxic and conventional substances. EPA data from the early 

1980s suggested that further reductions were necessary to achieve the State water quality 

standards requirement of “no toxics in toxic amounts.” These data showed that approximately 

40 percent of NPDES facilities across the country discharge sufficient toxicity to cause water 

quality problems. 

On March 9, 1984, the U.S. EPA issued a policy designed to reduce or eliminate toxics 

discharge and to help achieve the objectives of the Act. The Policy for the Development of 

Water Quality-Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants (49 FR 9016), described EPA’s 

integrated toxics control program. The integrated program consisted of the application of both 

chemical-specific and biological methods to address the discharge of toxic pollutants. To support 

this policy, EPA issued the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics 

Control (TSD) guidance. EPA continued the development of the toxics control program by 

revising the TSD in 1991 and by including some aspects of the policy into NPDES regulations 

at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) in June 1989. 

NPDES permitting authorities in EPA Regional Offices and in States authorized to 

administer the NPDES program are now issuing permits to assess and control the discharge of 

whole-effluent toxicity. By 1990, States and EPA Regions issued about 2,500 permits with 

whole-effluent toxicity (WET) monitoring or limits. About 24 percent of these permits had 

91 
C C DOUGHERTY 

effluent limits for toxicity. The environmental response is also occurring. The Region 4 

program has seen a reduction in effluent toxicity from 75 percent of the facilities to 45 percent, 

a 40 percent reduction. 

EPA’S POSITION REGARDING TOXICITY 

EPA believes that whole-effluent toxicity controls are needed because chemical-specific 

controls cannot cover all potentially toxic pollutants present in an effluent. The SARA Title III 

Toxics Release Inventory database shows the release of many more pollutants than EPA’s 126 

priority pollutants. EPA’s report to Congress on the pretreatment program also shows that 

significant amounts of nonpriority pollutants enter municipal treatment systems. Chemicalspecific limitations alone cannot account for the interactions of toxicants in complex mixtures. 

EPA believes that whole-effluent toxicity controls can be applied in a manner similar to 

those used for controlling specific chemicals. Whole-effluent toxicity controls provide a direct 

and supportable way to protect aquatic life as shown in EPA’s Complex Effluent Toxicity 

Testing Program studies and in other studies conducted by the State of North Carolina, 

University of Kentucky, and University of North Texas. Whole-effluent toxicity tests, when 

properly conducted, are no more variable than chemical analytical methods that have been 

successfully used to develop and enforce NPDES permit limits. A proper toxicity testing 

program includes replicate and control exposures, rigorous QA/QC requirements. and 

standardized statistical data interpretation to minimize method and laboratory variability. EPA 

believes that the only significant difference between whole-effluent toxicity and chemical controls 

is that facilities need to conduct the additional step of determining which pollutants cause the 

toxicity before being able to develop a treatment or source reduction plan for removing the 

toxicity. 

MAJOR ISSUES OF TOXICITY CONTROLS 

Two principal issues arise regarding use of whole-effluent toxicity in regulatory 

programs. Since most regulatory applications of whole-effluent toxicity have been by effluent 

limits in NPDES permits, most of the issues pertain to permit liability. 

First, some members of the regulated community believe that no enforcement action can 

occur until a facility demonstrates a pattern of toxicity, that is, the toxicity occurs frequently. 

Besides concerns about permit liability, three factors contribute to this belief: EPA’s toxicity 

identification evaluation (TIE) methods for determining the causes of toxicity require a continued 

presence of toxicity for successful completion; EPA’s field studies that correlated the presence 

of effluent toxicity to actual ambient impairment of aquatic life were conducted in surface waters 

92 
WATERQUAlRYSlXNDARJX3Ml7iE2lrCENIURY: 91-93 

that experienced continual toxicity; and environmental engineers may have limited experience 

in designing wastewater plants that will meet a toxicity objective all the time. 

Second, some members of the regulated community believe that no enforcement action 

can occur if a facility is actively attempting to resolve the problem, that is, the facility is 

showing the appropriate diligence in trying to comply with the permit limit. Again, in additkn 

to concerns about permit liability, two factors contribute to this belief. In many instances, a 

facility will not know the pollutants that cause the effluent toxicity. In addition, some FUIWs 

may not know the mmes of these pollutants. Therefom, all facilities may not be readily abk 

to identify and remove the causes of effluent toxicity and do not believe they should be subject 

to dorcelllent action until they can identify the callsts and sources. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE PANEL DISCUSSION 

Most regulatory applications of whole efllue-nt toxicity have been through effluent limits 

in NPDEg permits. As a result, most of the big questions relating to toxicity have pertained to 

permit liability. However, this is a water quality standa& confemnce, and it’s only fair today 

to discuss quutio~ about interpretations of water quality standa&. I’d like each of the panel 

to give their perspectives on the following: 

l To what types of water does the acute criterion apply: all waters or only those 

with aquatic life uses? 

0 To what types of water does the chronic criterion apply: all fishable uses, or 

only those with high-quality fishable uses? 

0 Where does the acute criterion apply: end of pipe or edge of mixing zone? 

0 How are the frequency, duration, am! magnitude aspects of criteria inter-r&ted? 

Do the same ftequency (one event in 3 years) and duration (l-hour and 4-day 

averages) assun@ions used for chemical criteria apply? 

0 What type of organisms should be used in monitoring: indigenous, sensitive, or 

FepRMlt%tiVC? 

0 Will a 304(a) criterion document for toxicity provide any benefit? 

93 
WATERQUALlTYSTANDARDSM-ff%2ta cxLNnJRY: 95-101 

WHOLE EFFLUENITOXICITY TESTING: AN ElWKTWE WATER 

QUALITY RESULA’I’ORY TOOL - TEE NORTH CAROLINA 

ExPERmNcE 

ABsTRAcr 

Tbeweofwbok~uenttoxicity~~~avrlurblemethodfor~ 

oftoxicdiscbargetothesurfaccwrtenofNorthCaroii~. TheNorth-eJtperierrce 

demonstratesthatthistehiquecanbe8pplkdasaiimitalporameterinNmlBSpamitswitb 

qmtaicomplianceratescquivahtbthoaeofconventhalpollutrats. Northhdinaapph 

these limitations to protect iastmm chronic toxicity at the 7410 low stream flow stat&k. Afk 

a compkte 5-year permit cycle where time limitations have been hcluded in NPDES permits, 

compliance~~~tbeStateule89puccnt. Durhgthispcrmitcyck,allfUitieshving 

acomplcxwrate~ortbose~(w~mqPrdiacbarge(>l.OMGD)~~ 

pedtswithtbepxhouslyhcribedlimits. Bqhtmcehs demoartntadthntbothwuriciprl 

ud~w~~folltd~0beyfoxiccuIbt~intoxicityto~tbese 

hlitS,CVUlWhClltllCdiSC~iStOMCfflUMt-daminabbd-. 

NORTH CAROLINA HISFORY 

. . TndrtKnralmecbodsofTCgUlatingtbe~Oftoxic l3thmmstosurfbcew8tersuse 

cbemicalcritaiaorsmdadsto&atespecifkqm&ksoftbesesubstanastorspecifk 

waterbody. ThesedKMialcriaerir8redevelopedtoproradr~i’use’oftllel#xiving 

waten. l’%eusestypicallyinclu&supportofhcalthyaquaticcommunjtks.Aaumerical 

criteriorrtoprntactthisusecanbedevelopadusingurarrayoflaboratorye~redatato 

95 
KW. -4 L.W. Au8lsY 
WATERQUMJl't'SfANDARWMlWE21atCENlURY: 9S-101 

Bacauseofthcfrcquentocarrreoceof~~prediaadtoimpactoursurfacewa~, 

North Cadna began a prognun utiIizing WET limits in NPDES discharge permits. This 

program was begun in January 1987 and has been in pkce relatively unchanged since that time. 

Since 1987, all NPDES Facilities having 8 compkx waste stteam or who u a dischuge volume 

> -1.0 MGD received WEI’ limits b8sed on their instregm w8ste e (XWC). 

-waste ~trationsare~~~~tbepenxntageeffluentinthcr#xivingstl#m 

while the facility discharges at m8ximum permitted capacity during 8 kw stre8m flow event. 

North Carolina uses the 7410 8s its low flow stream stat&k. The 7410 value represeats the 

klWest Wddy 8Vet’8ge !J@alll fbW th8t has 8 $MO&bility Of EcllITing ollct every 10 yearS. 

These 8n the same statistics used when 8uoc8ting 8 chelnial-SpeciflK subst8nce for the 

pmtectiou of aquatic Life. Testing protocols wete based primarily upon the &it&@& 

chronic procedure published by the U.S. EPA (1985) and modified by the North culolina 

Environmental Sciences Branch (North Cuolina Division of Bnvirrmmerrtal Maargement, 1985). 

TheseproceduFeslirnitthefacilitytodischugingawrstestrcamthatwiUcauseneither 

significant survival nor reproductive reductions 8t the IWC. 

PROGRAM VALIDATION 

NorthcaFolino’searlyexperiencewiththewBTttstp~~hasimlicrtedtht~ 

experience of the personnel pcrfonning these analyses and rigid adherence to specified protocols 

~themostimportantfadoninbothsucassfulcompletionofthetestand~~ofthe 

analysis. To ensure that the laboratories performing tbc 8n8lyses 8re 8dequ8tely st8ffed ahd tlmt 

the hbOratorieS 8I’C fO&IWiIlg Specific qwlity control EXltI&lIents, 8 Labontory certification 

Program was established through the adopthm of q&ions in 1988. Through these 

regu&tions, any WBT d8t.8 submitted 8s part of 8n NPDES permit requirement must he 

performed by a laboratory certifkd by the State of North cprOlin8. 

NorthcarOlinaisextFwrtlycftrnfortrbkwiththeutilitymd~v~of~~ 

progr8m. Gut laboratory has performed more than 1,500 toxicity tests and h8s revkwed 8n 

additional 9,500 submitted as self-monitoring data. Chmall, the tests have been both rqmtabk 

8nd reflective of toxic impact in the receiving water body. Barly in our progr8tn we performed 

and published a series of validations where predkted kbomtory impacts were annp8red with 

8ctu8l insteam mcasuncs of envi Kmnlent8limp8cts. Inthisstudy,wefoundth8tthekhcu8tory 

tests went strong predictors of envinmment8l imp8cts (Eagleson et al., 1990). Simikr &lings 

are also found in the U.S. EPA Technical Support I&ument (U.S. HPA, 1991) lad by other 

authors (Dickson et al., 1992; Moud et al., 1992; Mount et al., 1985; Mount rrad No&ergKing, 1986; Norberg-King and Mount, 1986). 

RelWiity of 8qu8tic toxicity testing has been widely ev8llutrY1, 8nd numerous 

public8tions are available for review of the subjact. Precision of the analyses (the 8bility for 

multiple tests to derive similar results) have been shown to be equiwtknt to that of many 

97 
K.W. EAOL8WN d L.W. AUSLEY 

. chanrcrl-qsdficrarlyticrl~~intheNmlBs~(u.S.BpA,1991;Anderson 

8nd~-~,199l;DeGnavedrl.,1992). Weh8verevkwed88uiesof45splitwET 

amlysis. Wbok dfhcat toxicity amlysis, as rppliad in North Carolina, is dearly suitabk for 

mlltine8pptkdalntheNPDEspennitting~. -Itlisappliution,however,thalghmust 

be&xunpddbyrctive~rssunnce8lKldrtrreviewp~s. lhl8submiiththavc 

beenimpoperlyrarlyzadudtbrtbrV~‘tmet~quality~~~wt~~Ofa 

paLKplutocdbutntharofpoor8ppuaticmofth8tplrotocol. An8lytialprobkmswhich8rise 

in8puriarhrtCStdOlKitill@ywFeltbilitybUtrPthet~~ytO~~md~ 

ammrululltdlrectlyintocrch8n8lysis. T%cscpddansshldneitbcrbcovcrlooh!nor 

defined degree, the possibility that a %lsc positive” ndt is &clad. 

TheNorthCadinaWEI'plrognm,using~~-inNPDESpermitshasbcu~ 

inplacendy6years. Duriagthistime,wetuveinc~WBTWion~cvcry 

axnpkxwastedischge. Hlstoriully,buthreguhtory~rrrdtheFeguhtadcommunity 

br~~~~roWbetberWBTlimitstwadonChnmiccriteriaWouldMhhlishCritcrirtoo 

burderuwre fix ccmphwe. Our expekace &Janmmmth8tthisis~tbecrse. Atthc 

subm~drteofthismanuscript,NorthcuolinaMi.lauA539pennitstbatcolltrinwBT 

limits(27Otomuniciprlitiesand269privllteimlwcrirl). Figunldcpictscumphccr8tesfor 

theJefrcilitieswitbmovenllcolrypliraanteof89per#at(9Sper#ntform~rad83 

patent for iduhals). These fates are cquivalaht to those we experkncc for the conventhal 

pamm&rsofBOD,solids,adammonia(apgroximrbely85~). 

Tbeaehigbcomplirn#ntesforwBTrefkctsi~~ortUroxicity~~ 

t&pmtofNorthcuOlina~g-. ItisimportanttonatcthatveqcarlyinNorth 

Chrdh’sprogram, 1 in4dischargerswas~toxicax~laftcronly6yarsonly 1 in 1Ois 

When compwing the compliance rates for WBT limits with those of 

pamits8fkrthefaciiwere&signedandbuii. Evahso,complianccwithWETlimitswill 

soon signifhntly exceed compliance rates of the convdonal pollutants. 

Fordlw8tcrqu8lity-limited- (includingwETlimitsb8sedontheIwc), 

coQlpll8ncebecomesmorediffkult8stheperrxatrgc ofefflue4lt domii (WC!) incm. 

Inthe8ein&amxs, thcspecificchanicalLimit~closely~ximatesthcwatcrqualii 

98 
WA= QUrUnr STANDARDS tN -IliE 21~ CEJWURY: %I01 

st8ndmi, 8nd the WET limit fequires no 

impairmmt to the test org8nisms in 

essentially lOOpercent effluent. Adew of 

thedatase4&pictedinPigure1hutgmuped 

by IWC indicates, however, that the 

compliance rates are Feasonably cunsistent. 

The data may be viewed in Figure 2. A 

stmgtrendtow8Klnoncompli8llce8tthe 

higher IWCs does not exist. These results 

reflect cxmsiderable effort by the dischargers 

at addressing tbcii WET limitations. They 

also reflect the fact that when challenged, the 

facilities am able to address chronic toxicity 

within theii wastestream s even at the higher 

Iwcs. 

Figure 2 indicates that the lowest 

gmupingbetwe4?nOand25peNxntwastehas 

a compliance rate of 98 percent, while the 

most effluentdominated gruup (> =76 

pezcent) has a compliance rate of 76 pet#nt. 

These compare favorably with typical 

compliance rates for conventional 

p8mmc4ers. In many instances of 

noncofnpliance,thecausesorMnediesofthe 

toxic amdiion have been discovered iind 

actions have been taken that 811e pre&ted to 

+ 

Facility c~mpliance~ 

1 

resolve a noncompliit condition. Continued 

efforts on the pmt of our discharging 

Facility compliance vs. instream 

community will eventually move these 

compliance rates even higher. 

NATIONAL APPLICATION 

ItisfeltthattheNorth~~experieacevalidatestbeuseof-limitrtiorwbased 

on chmnic criteria allocated at low flow (North Cadina u= 7410). Even in fluent- 

. hamated streams, these limits have hecn found to be masonably achievabk. Waste aUucation 

to these effluent-duminated streams is frequdy encountered within North Carolina’s pcm&ing 

program as evidenced by the hi&gmm found in Figure 3. This i&rmatian depicts frequency 

of occufictlce of the IWCs for the same datasd found in Figures 1 and 2. Effluent-dominated 

streams constitute the majority of permits that must be addressed in North Carolina. In fact, 20 

99 
K.W. EAOIBDN d L.W. AU8l.EY 

N8th8l8@c8tkmoftthe~piogr8msbauldbeequiv8kz&to8pp~ofcbanicllspecifklimitswithreg8rdtoprWctbcriteri8andIllocrtioa. Chemicrl-spacificcritMiafor 

theprotsdioaofvqwriclife(outsidermixing~)~FbqUiFbd~fhtC~WItttMAcmud 

mtectb8g8instclutmiclmp8cts. wBTlimitsmustbesetequiv8kdy. Tbeymustbe 

pro@tedbychdcd+ecific~. Indt8nceswberea ncmccanpU8ntamditkn exists, 

North Camha has found m Orders (SOCs, JoCs) to be 8x1 extnmely ef%ctive amtrol 

method by 8llowing the facility and 

regUkt0~ rgenCy t0 WOlk tOW8fd 8 

Icsoluti!oa of the pddeul. I%ey provide 

utility when working either with chanhlspecific pmmeters or m limits. 

NtXthC8Nllh8hwfiDUdthrttilCUSC 

ofwErtcsting8sputofit8~ 

p~h88~ybsaeMsdsurF8ccw8ter 

Bofthest8te. Thepmgmmh8s 

bcm8@kdusingthes8me8ldministntive 

tecwpes 8s chemicrl-spscific stM8Kls. 

Toxkity prroblems have beu~ effectively 

resolved by the dis&rg@ facii, and Rgun 3. Iwc freqlmcy distriitiofl. 

coapbcer8tucontiauetoinc~. WET 

hitsinNPD~pedtsb8vebaenpnwarpr8ctid8odeffective8tcoatdhgtoxic8nt 

disdmge. Northculolirrrexpactsthatrbesesametesu~w~befbuadbyotherrgarciesrs 

they pursue applicatim of chronic WBT limits in their own NPDBS permitting pqmrns. 

REFZRENCES 

Andman, S.L. and T. Norberg-King. 1991. I’d&n of short-term chronic toxicity tests ia 

the red world. Letter to the Editor. Environ. Toxicol. Cban. 10:143-145. 

DeGmeve, G.M., J.D. Camey, B.H. Rthrsh, T.L. Mhck, d N.G. Rcichbd. 1%. 

V~iOthCpeff~ ofthe7d~~msurvivrlmd~lest: 

An intn- 8ad interLbontoy study. Environ. Toxicol. Ckm. 11:851-8&k 

100 
WATER QUALITY STANDARD6 M ‘TM6 tl@ CENTURY: %101 

Dickson, K.L., W.T. Walkr, J.H. Kennedy, and L.P. Ammann. 1992. Assessing the 

relationship be$wcen ambient toxicity and instmam biological response. Environ. Toxicol. 

Chem. 1 I: 1307-1322. 

Bagkson, K.W., D.L. Lenat, L. W. Ausley, and P.B. Winborw 1990. Comparison of 

measured instxan biological qnses with responses ptiictedusing the Ccriodaphnio ti 

toxicity test. Environ. Toxicol. Chan. 9(8):1019-1028. 

Eagkson, K.W., S.W. Tedder, and L.W. Ausky. 1986. Strategy for whok effluent toxicity 

evaluations in North Carolina. b: Poston, T.M. and R. P&y, eds. Aquatic Toxicology ti 

Environmental Fate, Vol. 9. ASTM STP 921. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing 

8nd hmerids. pp. 154-160. 

Mount, D.I. and T. Norberg-King. 1986. Validity of Ambient Toxicity Tests for pndiding 

Biological Impact, Ohio River, Near Wheeling, West Virginia. EP/V600/385/071. March. 

Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. 

Mount, D.I., A.B. Steen, and T. No&erg-King. 1985. Validity of Bfnuent and Ambient 

Toxicity Testing for indicting Biological Impact on Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama. 

HpA/600/8-851015. December. Bnvironmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnewta. 

Mount, D.I., N.A. Thomas, T.J. No&erg, M.T. Barbwr, T.H. Rash, and W.F. Bra&es. 

1984. Ef?lucnt and Ambient Toxicity Testing and Instream Community Response on the Ottawa 

River, Lima, Ohio. EPA-@O/3-84-080. August. Environmental Resauch Laboratory, Duluth, 

Norberg-King, T.J. and D.I. Mount. 1986. Validity of Effluent and Ambient Toxicity Tests 

for wig Biological Impact, Skeleton Creek, Enid Oklahoma. EP~600/886/002. March. 

Environmental Rewarch Labmatory, Duluth, MiMesoW 

North Cadina Division of Environmental Management. 1985. Revised Sept. 1989. North 

Cadina CcriodapAnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Pnxedure (Ccriodaphnio Mini-Chronic 

Pass/Fail Toxicity Test). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. Env’ mmmental Pro&&on Agency. Technical Support Document fm 

Water Quality Basal Toxics C-1. EPA/505/2--1. March. 

U.S. EPA. 1985. U.S. Rnv’ mnma~tal Pmtection Agency. Short-Term Methods for Estim&g 

the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Opnisms. 

EPA/600/485/014. 162 pp. 

101 
WA7BR QUAWI’Y STANDARDS IN THE 2h CENTURY: 103-121 

WET CONTROL: SQUARE PEGS DO NOT FIT IN ROUND HOLES 

Mark T. PWber, Bq. 

An&son, Jdnwn & &wuuio 

trbhnh Qdngs, cwod 

James T. Egan, P.E. 

Rqpbhuov Monogelnclu, Inc. 

Gdonadh *dngs, cdomda 

INTRODUCTION 

In 1988, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, after a lengthy and in-depth 

hearing process, adopted one of the first comprehensive biomonitoring programs in the country.’ 

‘Ihat original regulation, and the numerous redrafts developed since 1988, have become the 

cornerstone for two important lessons in regulatory management. First, when floundering in the 

arena of new, scientifically based regulatory undertakings with a Federal genesis, State agencies 

willoftenbebestservedby remining on the slow 1086 to heaven if not indefinitely parked in 

limbo. second, in cohting 8 F%derd bureaucr8cy with 18,000 staff and a $4.5 billion 

budget, those who CoILform are blessed, those who conflict are damned, and whether one is 

treated as St. Michael the Anzhangel or Mephistopheles depends in large measure on who is 

sitting on the right hand of God on a given day. 

To better understand the nature of this controversy and hopefully to kkntify some middle 

ground upon which sound futu= decisions can be made, this article will initiaUy describe the 

key provisions of the original Colorado biomonitoring regulation and disclose the current status 

of that cnactmtnt. This will be followed by 8 brief analysis of sign&ant legal and kchnical 

arguments. The article will conclude with a commentary upon the significant public policy 

issues which have fueled the debate, while identifyiig a possible legklative solution. Though 

the article will be presented from tk peqective of publicly owned treatment works (POlWs), 

many of the same amcems are shared by private dischargers. 

103 
M.-l'. -dJ.T. EON4 

THE COLORADO BIOMONITORING REGULATION 

InDecanber19%8,tbeW8terQu8lityConbolCommi&moftbeSt8teofMor8do 

dopted 8 biiring mguhth which unfortunately hnrmt known 8s the ‘di@axe 

tppoech’ to whok efflwa toxkity amtlD1. u&r the progmnl, “permit vioktioo 8nd 

eafoFcaacat[w~Jbraedoathediligenceaf~o~to~v~andeliminrte~~~~ 

&tectcd,‘r8tbuthanupuntheme~presa~~oftoxicity~ F8ihueofasingkqwterly~ 

aestWarld~~~~todetenniaeif8pptbernOftoxicityaxisbdd,orifoae~ 

simply~Witb8cMbtimcCp~. If8”prttenrOftOXkity”WCrCdetectsd,the~it& 

wouldbcgin8p!e&in8ryev8l~t.odetenninetbepossl%leaulse. Ifth8tinvcst@tkn 

pioval inconclwive, 8 tww toxicity rethtim ev8lu8tilm pluccss would be triggered, 

incl~ 8 Phase I toxicity fcdwtim evaluation m which would involve 8n ideatificrtioa 

mdChnderizraioaOftbesoUrrXOftoxicity,pndif~,8~~~WhidrWoUld 

involve 8 site-spacific phn to further invesig8te, 8xKl take steps to eliminrce, the toxicity. E8ch 

~intbepnnxsswastbesubjectof~~ttimeframesaadiderrtifradtestprocedures,~h 

of which was strictly enforc&k. An “enforce&k” toxicity incident would 8rise when there 

exiaedrpttc?nroftOxicityaadthepennittee~hyedahckofdiligeaceininvcstigatiagtbe 

c8use8dorinhtiog8ooatrol~. Afa3~toperformnnrtineor8ccekmtedtesting, 

8fiiluretomeet~ArvtlintsfOr~pkting8TRB,Or8failuretodevelopaadimplement 

plrns~~tbc~oaceitwrw~we~primeexampleaofa”kckof 

tlulgem.” Tbe”~‘ofthcpermittee,88- in 40 C.F.R. 0123.27(b) (1991), was 

notrekv8ntiftbedefinedstcpswerenatunde~ingoodtith. 
WATER QUurrV STANDARDS M THE 21~ CRNTURY: 103-121 

ngulatory =P~~,’ including EPA’s June 1989 changes to the discharge permit 

regulation~,~ and the cry of certain State pen&tees tht they could nut live with “dual” permits, 

especially if EPA could use the biomonitoring issue to mnegot& other unrelated permit 

conditions. 

The salient features of the current State regulation to which EPA still oh#cts include the 

following: 

l 

l 

0 

l 

l 

The regulation does not provide for the imposition of enformabk chronic limits, 

which EPA finds objectionable under @01(b)(l)(C) of the Act and 40 C.F.R. 

#12244(d)(l) (1991). 

The qtdation h curmtly provide for a finding of an enforcerbk vio&tion 

upon failure of a single quarterly biomonitoring test, but dpbf pQc consider 

additional test fhilures during the accelerated testing, IlE 8nd TRE, to be 

separately enforceable failurtzs, which EPA finds contrary to 0309 of the Act and 

40 C.F.R. #123.27(a)(3) (1991). 

The regulation states that acute toxicity limitations are maximum daily limitations, 

exceedewe of which are to be considered a “single day” of vieWon. BRA finds 

this contrary to the provisions of 40 C.F.R. #122.45(d) (1991) mandating average 

weekly 8nd avetage monthly limits unless impmcticable. 

The regulation provides that if a WEI’ test failure is due to 8 specifically 

regulated pollutmt, the numeric limit shall control, which HPA asserts is contrary 

to 40 C.F.R. 912244(d)(l)(v) (1991). 

The regulation provides for an “int8ke credit” without virtue of reference to the 

need for 8 TMDL 8Uocation. 

TberegulationstatesthrttbeDivisioawillomlinarilymakea~gthatthe 

di+mrge does not cause or have the potenti8l to c8use interference with the 

aEIIunmentofapplicablew~rqualityscandardsiftlre~is8dischugecoan 

otherwise dry stream bed and a biosurvey shows there is no 8qu8tic life, 8 

provision which EPA claims mry not adequattly impkment the State narrative 

toxic stmdard. 

‘Ibe mgulation defines ‘acute toxicity limi&tion” so 8s to bat a discharge which 

results in a statistically significant diffv in mortality for org8nisms berween 

thecontrolandanydfiueatconceartrationlessthanorequaftotheinstreamwastt 

amcenttation or, if no ms mixing is provided, mortatty (in a 

concentration of effluent) that exceeds 50 percent. RPA questions the adequacy 

105 
M.T. PIFHEK d J.T. ROAN 

of this provisii to impkmcnt the State Mve st8&ud w requi& by 

@301(b)(l)(C), 8s it m8y 8Uow 50 percent mortality in low flow streams. 

Thus, like 8 b8lknm squeezed in one’s hands, once the St8te Commission changes ccrt8in 

reguktory provisions in response to EPA oversight, other objections pop out from betweu~ its 

fingers. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS 

During the course of the Colorrdo conmversy, numerous dctaikd kgd analysis 

defending the State apprr#ch have been pe,’ including 8 point-by-point k#al refutatior to 

theopinionoftheBpAAdministretiveLnwJ~uplroldiagtbeAgencydbjaaiontothe 

biomonitoring provisions of the City of D&8, Colo&o, permit.’ For purposes of this 

discussion, 8 summary of the major points, in the form of 8 stq-by-step andysis, is adequate. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Section301@)(1)(C)oftbcCWA~ir#nn~m0lrt~limiEatiannecess~ry 

tomectwaterqualityst8nda&cstablishedpursuanttoSragtlaw. 

section 301(b)(l)(C) ti not require effhrent limii. 

Congress nude a distindion between “limii” under ~3Ol(b)(l)~ and 

“effluent limitations” under #3Ol(b)( l)m and a. 

Section 502(17) and 8509(b) of the CWA likewise distinguish between 

“limitatiotw” and “efIluent limitations,” 8s h8vc the an~rts.~ 

Seaion 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA, as adopted in 1987, specifically adorscs the 

use of “permit conditions” as a means to conM toxicity. 

Ibercscrictioasonthedischargeoftoxiceffiuent,asnfleaadiatbeori~ 

Colorado biomodtoring regulation, qualify as either ‘timWs” or “permit 

conditials.” 

Eveaif”dnuentlimi~were~,tbeyiredefinadbrosdlyundet 

9502(11) of the CWA and inch& any rcdctkm on qua&k, rates and 

amcentrations, including “sc~k of compliance.” Court cases and EPA itself 

(199ORcgion9Storm W8tcrOpii)h8vcconchKkxith8tcffluerrtlimit8tionsan 

m limited to numeric criteri8.‘” 

106 
9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

WATER QUAUW STANDARDS M THE 21a cEwuuY: 103421 

Ihe original Colorado biomonitoring xegulation qual&s as a schedule of 

tvmedhl measutrts. 

Any guidance developed by EPA pursuant to @304(a)(8) of the CWA clues nut 

rise to the level of edorccable criteria. I1 

‘IIuough its biomonitoring regulation, Colorado was implanmtiq its narratiw 

water quality st8nd8d for toxics. ” Tbmis~comparabkMmlstandd. 

Them is no evidence that the original Colorado biomonitoring regulation is IXH 

lldaptetomeetthest8te-. 

TIE provisions of 40 C.P.R. 9122,44(d) must be based on statutory auth~rity.~~ 

Even assuming such authority exists, the regulation merely nfereaccs ton&for 

“effluent limitions,” and does not preaibe single test pass/fail limits. The 

p~bkmustbecoasistentwitbtbelanguageoftbe~~itself.” 

Fin8lly,8swiUbenotedbeknv,t&reexistcert8incritkalquestions~the 

tahical &lbility of WET testing. IS TbeseobseMtioQsmiseadditionalkgal-ifthe 

biomonitoring results ark to be part of a single tat pasdfaiI dozemen t program.” Technical 

decisions must met% certain minimal standad of mtionality.17 There must be 80 a&qua& 

. IMDU&IQ for various f&tozq such as annlytical variability,ls and there must be madily 

diaccmiikandqcatabkstdardsofperfo-. I9 l%cfemustexistnoticcofwhatac&m 

will result in 8 vi0l8tion,~ and arguably some cod&dun given to whether 8 strurdard or limit 

can reasodly he met given 8v8ihbk tecbnokgy.” Finally, if the test is found to l&adequate 

rdi8bii, its use for purposes of violation prosedon especially in tbc crimid m, may 

bcquitelimited.~ AUoftbwejudicialcaveatsmu;tbe~~intothe~what 

fbhioning an appropriate biomonitoring program. 

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 

107 
Y.T. CLPWPI d J.T. SOAW 

TtMWhokelfnwatdoxidtychroaictoxkity~Qsrmt~ly~the~ 

or8b8atceofto%klty. Aswltil8lluvlng~,tlteihhsdmllmowmd~ 

tltif&UWlUarhurllyplpw8lKl~* ctla&a8yuhbflftybatwaae-.Bvut 

llbqmevu&8.llaevdof~blologk8lyuh#lityaa-fhbbbm~ 

fess. gPArax@zaltthandcs#abliddcutoffcrit&forcontrOt~-. At8 

minimum,amtdsmustdemonstrate 80 percent survival, minnows must weigh at kast 0.25 

g1ams,and~~~mustproduceatkast15offsp1ing. Iftbccontr0lsfailtomcctthcsc 

criteria, the teat must be ratartdn 

108 
WATBRQUAUrY~ANDARD6MntB2’~ CElmmY: m-12’ 

Table 1. 

No. of 

99% z 

No. d %T@U 

OrQairm cud Mrr iEiz2 tidd - A 

FafbdMhmou 

Maorliry 210 9.0% 10.6% MO% 10% 3 

Qrod 210 0.43 g 0.21 g 04.92 g 22% 95 

iisMO-w 191 11.4% 21.9 042% 11% a 

103 17.0 7.0 o-33 32% 6c 

Table 1 presats the avenge perform8ncc of organisms exposed solely to dilution watet. 

l%e8ver8gemort8lityr8teforf&tbeadminnowsis9penxnt;for&fd@n&zitis11.4pczcat. 

The 8ver8ge weight for f8thd minnows is 0.43 grams and the mean number of offspring for 

the chhkqhh is 17. &mver, the lvciagc teb ody half the story. when biologiad 

vuirbility(~deviation)is~nfadfor,itisc~thrtthe~isincrpabkof 

distinguiching tbe pfwencc orrbsenceoftoxicity. Ninety-ninepercatoftbetime,fdbe8d 

moftalityr8ngesbdweeazen,8nd3Opcrceat. F8theadweightccmr8ngebdwecaOrad0.92 

grams. tIM&ph& ctmality can mnge betweea 0 and 62 pexcent, whik xejmductim varies 

beween 08nd 33 offspling. 
MT. ?WlIR d 1.1. #MN 

xnan8ttanptto~ th8tthevuLbili~Of~tCStingwMessantirlly 

ccm&dHes dofumlysca, the EPA -8~~~ 

&duatkm (DMR-QA 11) in 1991. ‘Ihis xept kohd rd 

8a8l~~lntio%w~~m8t8ls,anl~polhlMc,-pouut8nts,and 

8cuteandch.nmkwETtaJtltuclng-8ndd8pbnl8. B8aahthlsrcgolt,cvsforv8rious 

analytidmethodswctrc~. Adownintbmmbai~,‘lkble2,-w 

--yMt.hehigbc8tcvs,laDgingfnnu2operrceatfortbeFithrul8alteLc5o 

pmcdumoSOpemutfbrdrpbnh~nsults. lbCVwa8ehmatedfbmheMperceat 

codidaaiDtcMlsforthc~,rrgatdad8swuniaglimitsintbc~~ 

MtitOhgRCptQUlUQACSWlCC @MR-QA)summrrvBeport. ‘-9Q--- 

intcndsp8ns~xim8tcly2-~oaeithcrsideofthemean,8ndtheaquatioa 

bebwwaswaitocsthatetbaCV. Withccx~d~-,oalyCBOD 

mdcymideCVcequrbdor-2Ow (DataaeladbdfnrmDMRQAStudyll, 

pmpuedbycltyofcoku8tlosprhlgsw- -4 
WATWQUAUlY~ANDAitD9MTHH2’~ camTJ8Y: ‘03-121 

Tabk 2. CoefEcieats of Varktioa (CVs) for various NPDES 8ndytkal methods were 

cmpmd uciqj the data ftm the DMR-QA performaace Evaluation, 

ccmxlad for EPA in 1991. 

AmENlc 

BWYLUUM 

CADMIUM 

cH8oMluM 

-T 

OLON 

MANoANmE 

-CllRy 

sVANADIUM 

PH 

Tn 

o&ANnNmATElwmooEN 

KJ8LDAmNcruooEN 

mAL PHcsPHoRus 

oRmoPHo6PHATE 

CDD 

mc 

um 

CYANID 

TmALPHENoL 

-Tsl 

FATHEAD, ACUTB ES0 

PAT?lEAD.lBlltALNOEC 

FATHEAD, CHRONIC Icu 

FAlWEAD.CHROMC~ 

FATHEAD, CHKONE NOEC 

DAPHNU.ACW’EI.CSO 

Da* lsmAl.NoEc 

DAPHNlA.CHRONICK!25 

DAPHNIA, CHRONIC lC50 

DAPHNU, CSSRONK! NOBC 

cvmt 

3 

4 

7 

7 

s 

3 

4 

3 

3 

2 

I4 

2 

8 

2 

2 

1 

4 

I1 

4 

4 

a 

4 

4 

20 

6 

3 

II 

39 

14 

6 

20 

25 

33 

23 

so 

32 

50 

so 

so 

30 

111 
Y.T. m8lmdJ.T. mm 

WbfE 

mm== UjlpUWUdllgLhit~ 

LWL = bnverWamingIimit 
WATBR CyJALlTY STANDARm CN Tm 21* cmwuRw 1@3-121 

Interp~oasof~~hacanalsobouttnmaly~lt,~, alld~le88. 

Porcxample, witboutachmstmd do8c-respoaserehti~,thetMtdataare~ 

An cfflualt may be teatal at 12.5 peRuIt, 25 percent, 62.5 m, md loo pa%4 

concentrations,andthe~vesu~~~hs~100pe~,90~,100~~ 

1oopcmlt,with~lsurviv8lof1oo~. I%e9o~tauvivalat2sparrxat~ 

i8-y8i~-gtothc8ppiicable~~. Yathi88lmdvalnte 

isabovetbeallowableamtm~morUyandhigbcrdfhmtcmmhdom 8howmtoxidtytkci8nodo8c-lrwpoaserefationsbip. Tbesete8trcalltsare~leaDdp8obably 

mcaninglcs8. Yet they will rc8ult in a permit violation. Is the violatim due to d toxicity or 

to flawed l3tatwd ilmptioo? 

EPA’scunwst~WETanalydsprotocois-cmlyincra-kboraaoryvu5lbility. 

Inter-laboratory variability is excludai. chanical data analysis cooddcm both. until toxic&y 

pmtocohmsidcrbotb,thcirrcsuitswiUbeoftenmiaeadiagor~.~ 

Additional Technid Considerstions 

Thehealthandwell-bcingofthctMt~sb~. Diaalxl~ 

factor8mustbc~to~falM~oftoxidtytbatafecawedbypoor~, 

poor&t,orthc awiroamentaliWdit&WillWhiChthC organhm~cu~aDdte8tal. In 

oocpubkizedcasc,appamttoxicitywasductodqhniaiut2danbyabacblnirrmlivingintbc 

almlnah 8ampkr tlhw 

113 
MT. -d J.T. EOAN 

F+Utber,tbeeffectsof F between OtkmiM -lnlb8tancMinPtYrw 

efuaatoreffIuW/razMngwaternuxtumscannotbepraMedorw8ilyidWifkd. POTW 

infhm8and-~coatinuallycbrngiaginthairlMkalp. De4embgtheauMtive 

~oftoxkityunMoucbciraunrbncc#mrybeimpo&bIewithcumzat~bgy. At& 

~lerrt,~boxiC~rn~~~YPresent-o#crahotAndthatWhicbnoloaget 

exists-and the oqportunity to nm multiple U%ts witbout faciig kbility for such investigative 

effort8 mu8t be available. 

Inadvocatiqadoptkm0fthcorigiarscolo~biiring~htioa,colorpdo 

FOTWs kkdfied a number of public policy amccrn8(incdditio6tothetwrlmifplconcun8) 

during the cautst of the debate. Time remain levant today, and include the followiDg: 

114 
WATERQuAurYsrANDARD8Mnos21~ CmmuuY: m-121 

It~multipkbianoaitoringtests,eachwith~~~,~otnck 

idedythecauseofthetoxicity. untilthecauseis-, FuIw8c8Mot 

takeactiontostapaWEI’violation,suchasadmcedpetr#tmsntmguhtioa. 

There must exist a positive incentive to run m tests. 

BPA’r use of enf- discdoninasingkteatpd~systanmaybe 

closely circumscribed due to the possibility of citizca suita.” 

A finding of violation could result in an inability to obtain bond financing, or at 

kastborKlsattbefatedesird. 

Aninitial”violrtion”couldbeutilizedinthe~~byBPAortbeStatcin 

assessing and calculating future penalties under EPA or State pedty policies. 

An enforrxment “policy” of leniency dative to initial violations may fun the risk 

of lnodific(Ltion due to political pressures, citizen COIKXIIU, changes in 

philosophy, or simple pefsorrnel shifts. 

BPA’r insistam in its pmmbk to tbc 1989 cbmgu to 40 C.P.R 0122.44 

(EM), ad in its biocriteria gdancc,” on “Mcpedad appWbUy” repeals the 

loagacceptednotioaofpermitasadrield,and~~stoaubstantial 

enforcement risk. 

Not emphasized in the above listing are the tremend~s costs assocdd with ensuring 

that the sensitive test species, generally Ckd*hniu &4&a and fithad minnows, survive at a 

115 
WT. n d J.T. m 

Simihrly,t&M~tobe8~toexpeodvastalm8toaMlxethebtppi#ss, 

inabbomtmyWfi8g,ofoftdmab~te8t~. Mr.EIliottwaslaterqwted 

inthcarticbu~: 

EvqbodyatEPA-, andevayoaewhoworlohthisthir 

-,tbrtyoucouldsavemanymoreIive8ifyoutookthesameamount 

ofmooey8nddevotedittos8y,infant mtrithnproenms,orawhobrangeof 

publicwe. 

116 
WATM QUALITY srANDARD6 lN lnE21a tIzmTuRY: 103421 

‘Ibs mticb tbm concludea: 

m8bove-lvvsr~~to ~,u=J--p-l 

ll8mcfbthe-d8t8te~cbwntothebddet8il,ntbbOth8n8nowi8gIbe,~ 

tolatpbtwQttbelrlmlntiveeoxla-,thnJugh~coacrolr,fnrrmmr#l~~y 

8ndefIbctivelyachbvuthe@oftheAct,andinam8naer WhiChir-WithEUCUtiW 

chtkr 12612 (Oil fbcbdbm) and Executive Or&r 12778 (on civil justice dbm). A 

“command-and-~” approach rKH only is tilMciauy expeasive but also lads to 

govemmental in-fighting, which breeds delay. 

I. 5 C.C,R 102-2, Se&m 6.9.7. 

2. TbeFOTWFWqWivc,IWud 

3. &L~,~5$jec&on to NPDES Rmnit No. CO-0039641, City of Delta, Cobdo, 

, 

. 

4. 40 C.P.R. #123.62(b) (1991). 
M.T. PCFHW d J.T. WAN 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

sgp,m, sai~818 301, 309 d 402 ofthe ckur Water Aa; 40 C.F.R ##122.4(8), 

122.45(d), 123.27(a), 123.27(b), 122.45(d) (1991). 

40 C.P.R #122.44(d). 

~,r;t,LqgalopinbstoMuthRuddph,culaael~w8tcrQu8lityControl 

. . 

- haMarkT.RfhcrdrtadNovember20,1990,andAuguat29, 1991; 

~itheCityofColocdoS~radrheCityof~forPublicHtrring 

UpontbaColoradoBiiReg&thasaSubata&alRogramRcvkion 

April19,1991;I.~pqioD~~AobjoaioDltocaS~oi~,Qlonao~ 

Pealnit, co-an9641, MawandumandBxhibitsinOpposiicmtoEPA0bjahn~ 

Jammy 17, 1990. 

ctmqakwfwmJame~Sc~,Ragbnal-,RegionVEIEPA,to 

Ibid EIolm, colondo water Quality Control Divbion, Janu8.ry 9,f991. 

a w v. BpB, 656 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. 1981); m 

m v. cQ&, 566 F.2d 446 (4th cir. Em). 

SOP--nut,CPPPOIPUL,QIDP;Cormrpandsacsfrom 

senydulm, -9 w8@r r4mgamtDivi8iou,Regb8Dc,EPA,to0 

MilbrJsMtnp,st8tewater- control Bmd, 1990. 

#g@w v. m, 534 Pa 1310 (5th Ck. 1977); &I. 

QL v. m, 430 U.S. 112 (1977). 

&g SEltG of m v. BpB, 557 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1977), (EPA must object to 

adoptionofstatestand&sascompasedtoimpkmaHathps0visii);~ 

. . 

w NPDES Appeal No. 88-5 (EM), o&r hying modification - 

request, May 26, 199i (Under 3Ol(b)( l)(C), Congress inended the states, not EPA, to 

&fine appropriate compliance deadlines and the stringency of limitations). 

Hoffman v. BpB, 1992 WL 78009 (7th cir. 1992); m v. BpB , 

935 F.2d 1303 (D-C. Cir. 1991). 

. ~Bowksv. 325 U.S. 410 (1945); a w 

, 884 F.2d lb1 (DC Cir. 1989). 

Sne N.R.D.C. v. EpB, 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (afA can cspess tcdmologybased or water-quality-based limits in terms of toxicity). 

118 
WA-lmtQuAurYsrANvAltWlNTHE2lrl c8NluRY: 103421 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. &Q me v. Ua, 293 F. 1013 (IX. Cir. 1923). 

23. Warren-Hicks, W. and Parkhurst, B.R. 1991. Mom Chamc@&b of Bfnuat 

Toxicity Tests: Variability and Its Impkations For Rcguiatory Fpiicy. Kiikcliy 

. Enwm t P.0. Box 31265, Raleigh, NC. 

24. 

25. 

. . Ss connactlatt for Bavuo.. v. ublohn 660 P.supp. 1397 (D. cam. 

1987) (Congw did nat intend for courts to de&mine ada#acy of rcieatiftc 

. lneMu~);~v.uplppoilof~ l , 813 F.2d 1480 (9tb Cir. 1987); 

. 

c. v. m 702 RSupp. 690 (D.C. 111. 1988) (tat metho& must be 

chalknged at time of pemlit iSAC@. 

. . @ , 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cit. 1981). 

m 870 F.2.d 177 (5th Cir. 1989); m &Q 

NPDCV. 863 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 198i). 

Spr Ic;ukadcr v. m, 461 U.S. 352 (1983); B v. BpB, 598 F.2d 91 

psg w&g 

. . . 

:ytgg) 

. . 

. (cannot challu~ge accuracy of DMR’s); m of&w Jq v. Yates 

. 33 ERC 1149 (D. NJ. 1991); v Groul, v. ATBtT , 61; 

F.Supp 1190 (D.C. N.J. 1985). 

. Sne:wv.oOf- 

’ 

408 U.S. 104 (1972); unitad v. HutdQD, 843 

F.2d 1232 (9th Cir. 1988). 

sne; 48 Fed. Reg. 51408 (1983) (40 C.F.R 131); 40 C.F.R 131.10 (1991); m 

u. 427 U.S. 246 (1976) (Clean Air Act); united v. Wa 

powtr, 460 F.&p. 1305 (1978); m united v. 

. %tth ,599F2d368 

(10th cir. 1979) (intent and gal fall arc irrckvant). 

DeGmeve, GM., et al. 1989. P&sioa of the EPA Seven-Day s 

Survival and Rqwiuction Test, Intra- and Intcriaboratory Study. EN-6469, Rcscasch 

p@ct 2368-2. Battclle Columbus Divisii, Columbus, Ghio. 

Dora, P.B. and Rodgers, J.H., Jr. 1989. Variabiiity Associated with bk&%ation of 

Toxia in NPDES Bfflueat Toxicity Tests. Bnvbnmaal Toxicology and Cbemishy, 

Vol. 8, pp. 893-902. 

119 
Y.T. m d J.T. BoAn 

26. Beluger, S.R,Fbris, J.L.,dChary,D.S. 1989, ~ofDkt,Water-, 

. 8DdPOpd8th~ODAM8~-coQperToxicityto~ 

. l Alcitkuof-CoaElrmntEioa and Toxiahgy. SpriqeVN, New York; 

Ioc. 

27. 

28. Cbdwick & Aswcbtw and Risk Sdatces, July, 1992. Santa Am River Use 

. AtmnbUity Analysis, Vol. 6, Whok Bf?‘haa Toxicity Tatlng Ra@maHs. 

29. Parkhum, B.R and Mount, D.I. 1991. WIlta Quality-Bad Approlch to Toxics 

Coutd:NarmwiqtbeOrpBuween~a~~IRegukdaa. WaterEn-& 

Tahmlogy, Dam&r, 1991. 

30. 

31. 

Fdhur&B.R,ud. 1990. IsEffhmtToxiclty COfdUCdWithECObgiC8l~? 

ACritiqueoftheUSBPA’sCompkx-ToxkltyTeetingm. Pmentalat 

the 1990 Water Mhtioa Contml Faimtbo Annual Cohmcc, Wadhgton, D.C. 

Marcus, M.D. and Madbald, L.L. 1991. lwdu8bgtb8-lButfor 

Recui~W~Impclctsto~udh~Toxicitka. AcceQcsd bY 

BnvhmedTowradCbanilby. 

32. --~mm-yw. Inc., June, 1992. Fid&portSmhAm 

River use Attahbiiity klalysis, Vol. 1. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

Dbliwal, B.S. and Dohn, R.J. 1991. Aquatic Toxicity Data IntcrprcMon and 

Applkation in Regulatory complii. caltfal contra Costa sanitary Distrkt, 

CdifOti. 

Bcrgcr, R and Ellgas, W.E. 1991. Determining the Biological Signifbmx of Toxicity 

Tcs Rcwits. pnsentsd at the 1991 water whltiom Ctmtml Fixkmtioa Annual 

-,T-,Oatario, Cada. 

pifberand~,BiomoaitoringmdToxicscoabrol:TbepoTwperspecrive,Natunl 

ResulrcesandBnv~ , Volume 4, No. I, Spring, 1989. 

Frcacb, R.D. and Humble, D.B. 1990. Falaa~ive Rcslllts May Plague 

Bioamitoring Tests. TheBa~%Shcd,WatcrPollutionContdFa-kmthand 

American Water Worics Association, Vol. 12, No. 2. 

120 
WATBa QUALITY STANDARD8 M THE 2ll( c-y: 103-121 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

California’s Jobs and Futun: Council on California Competitiveness, April 23, 1992, 

Peter v. Uebe~, chairman. 

&Sierra I 834 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987); m 

681 F.Supp. 609 (D. Minn. 1988). 

. . SPtm*Smrtbfield.*v. ,791 F.2d 304 (4th Cir. 

1986), vacated 108 S.Ct. 376 (1987). 

EPA Biological Criteria; National Program Guidance on Surface Waters, April, 1990; 

BPA: Pblicy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria ia the Water Quaiity 

Program: May, 1991; Fifher, “Biocriteria: Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go 

Back Into The Water,” BNA Bnvixmment Reporter, August 30,199f. 

Cormspondencc from LuJuana Wilcher, Assistant Administrator RPA, to Honomble Jon 

Kyl, House of Rqxcsentatives, March 5, 1991. 

rd. 

Report of Council on compedtivenes8, m 8t p8ge 33. 

“You Can’t Get Tbem From Hem,” m, July 6, 1992. 

&g H.R. 733, F0TW Biomonitoring Uw Act. 

121 
WATBR QUAl.WY STANDARDS IN THE 21a CENIURY: 123433 

THESTATUSOFTHESCIENCERELATlVETOTHEUSEOF 

WHOLEEZFLUENTTOXICXTYTESTING IN WATER QUAIsry 

SrANDm 

INTRODUCTION 

Whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing has been used for monitoring purposes since the 

early l!iWs, and has been utilized for compliance monitoring in California since the late 1960s. 

‘Ibe purpose of such monitoring was a nsxgnitioa that cbemkal monitoring aione couki sot 

pxdict or measuw biological ef&cts in receiving water bodies. Early test developaeat was 

targued toward short-teml exposures llmurhg k&ality,andwhencoupkdtoan&mateof 

the fkld expowre, could be used to assess receiving water cffkts. However, early use3 of 

toxicity testing welz targetd toward technow to control efflualt quality with littk 

consideration for receiving water exposure. Tbe adoption of water quality-based permitt@ in 

1984 by the U.S. Environmental Rutedon Agency (U.S. EPA, 1984) was a major step f&wad 

in intcgmthg chemical and biological monitkng to protec@ receiving water quality. 

Integmtingtheconcq#ofhazard ~whichcoupkdefK&tsancJ~allowedefflumt 

dischalgem to elhnate alvironmcntrrl cfkts of effluent quality (Bergman et al., 19ea). 

Water quality-bad permitting applid to National FoUutant Discharge Blimilrrtim 

Sy~OITPDBS)permitmoaitoring,aodcomplirace~mogpoidunityto~lad 

cofltml the dischafge of “toxic iubmces in toxic amounts.” However, am&k&k my 

~regard@thetechnicalbasisforimpkmedngtl&8pproecbad&ringthat~ly 

deemed toxicity test results coukl narlt in m&miUioa dc+, ay@dng dutiuaa for 

amectiveaction. T%ercalsocoMimzstobealackof~intbeapplkdmoftest 

methods or the results of WEI’ (Glickman, 1991). 

TheuseofWETfordevelopmentofwaterqualitystadadsmaybemadeonaStrta 

specific basis and may be either a numeric limit or narrative standad to pmtect rhe designated 

uses of the receiving system. EPA guidance has Itxonlmeoded that no receiving system should 

123 
?.B. DOBN 

lnw uaNe toxkity at any time, although a chronic toxicity standad pfutective of the meiving 

wateristpploprirte. TbedevebpamtofthatstdadshoukIincorporatethcbestavailabk 

sciencetopiodact~bio~popllrtioaiatbesystem,andshouldbesita~ifictoaccount 

for regiad diffemm in biilogical community ad water quality chonaeristicJ. 

Tbeprrposeofthisdiscwsionisto~thersChnicalp~rndelowurltbe 

~~~of~towPrdwrterquality~usdtooutliaesomeaftbeproblem$frcing 

imp-. ‘IbeexMngscknceofWETasitisbcingapptiaitoState8ndmgiod 

pfogmms will be di!mssd and highlighted: (1) the cxpemd vadion in test results and 

exposures dative to a discharger’s ability to meet a water quality standd; (2) sekctim of the 

rpproprhte teat qccim for tbc specific site; and (3) applicatioa of site-specific m methods 

for asses&g razeiving water impacts. 

EXPETED VARIATION INTESI’RESULTS 

. . . In- WETtestingforc4mpliancctoawatcrqualitystadard,sevedf&tm3 

rrbquirertbntioatoensu~ethrtleartts~wwith~to~~gthe~of 

receiving wata m. For illustmtive purpows, Figm 1 shows several cases whereby 

tbeniscoasidenbleuacerclintyin~wiagwbether~LimitsaFebeing~for 

mc&dagw8tcrbodypzumion. TlIisfigImin aR?alccaptuIBs8llofthem8jorissues 

surrcmdiq~testingforwater~~. Tbetop~ofdatashowswBTmults 

. foraatteandchmictoxicitysuchthattbemceivingwaterooncarbPbon isbelowthceffbct 

. 

amxammm . However,q&npomdoothe&~muleasofuacerclinty(drsbsdlines) 

thotdelinatcrboubdruitswbe~the~~~v~,udorreisnotcertain(orwithasmrll 

flow. Tbsindicrtadlinefortbe7-dayrvengelowflowduriaga10-ycuperiodCIQlO)Loften 

usalto~~~limits. Thechmaictoxicityd8taihstra&possibkrcsponmofthmspecks 

(Fwommadad in U.S. EPA, 1991) ad their span of sdtivity and fqucucy of dbcting 

changingefftualtconditbns. ltlediknunaofthesedataistbatonemay~beinannpliancc 

became of unmtaintks due to ted precision, exposure, and site-spacific miatiom TIE 

foolrowing discussiorr ihstr8tcs these concerns, as applied to specific dcrivatims of hffhmt 

toxicity and Cxpclw~. 

124 
EFFLUENT EXPOSURE vs. ToXlci~ 

UNcEm KAM’TY IN EXPOSURE AND l’OXlclTv 

I atfdc TolttcnY I 

125 
?.B. DOIW 

Few~toxicityteumund~ exaciwshawbaen- toUlMkfSt& 

pradion,butaMihble~ -tb8ttherebvMiatbnbuw~labomtorks. Inwme 

asu,tkeis~muchvdatimtbattbeabilityto~annplbncctoatoxicity 

. ~woddbcquc&mbb. NumennuWaWxeoqatudbdavdownthat~ 

toxiciryBssEs,mdtoxicity~,ingenarl,arrewithip”~vuhbility”Fektiveto 

clmnhlratlysismetbodstobeuwdinangrhtoy~. Iur&kstfewyars, 

-usingNPDEs~testmethodsfor 

;-&dmzy-- -piognms 

. l . . 

cogrncbonWithCfflUCllt 

testing. R&smmcetoxiausu8edinchde~dkhwmue,#yl;umchlo*,andwdium 

7. -tt8talh8vebaafnwadactlic~utuitbs(DeGfwveet 

al., 1992; 1988), pulp d paper milk @e&aeve et al., 1992), d%des (DeGneve et al., 

1988), cbanial pkts (GNlthc md Kim&, 198!& UKi driuing muds (Ray et al., 1989). 

Tabb 1. Illtdbomtoryvariabilityoffitherd minmwsandCcriodqphniaexposaJto 

rdruxcto~andeffl~. Meudt88rc7dnyIESOforlOUor8toW. 

!Wsland2Nqxeenttime~tedirrp~. ‘Ibecosciaitof 

. . v8nabon(cv)isshownin~8nddctivbda8--m(#llxlOO. 

I 

Ktcrp,wu 29.6 70.8 49.6 37.7 

Nel WL) 1.77 6.7 1.33 49.9 

NSCP 

126 
WATER QUAUT’Y mANDARD8 IN THE 2Im CENTURY: 123-N 

Table 2. Intra- and inter-laboratory vadtion in efbent toxicity tests conducted. Number 

of~~andeffluentsareindicatedfnnn~studiesuralyzed,toxicity~ntio 

of maximum/minimum valm measurad, and coefficients of va&ion (CV) afe 

shown as mean and range. (Adapted ti Parkhurst et al., 1992) 

Mean lauxhin 

swcier Toxicirv Acut@ 5 13 3.2 - I7 %F 

chldc 2 7 1.9 7 O-20 

Acwe 4 13 7.4 34 0166 

chmaic 2 7 2.9 34 

In studies to determine the interlaboratory variation of ccriodaphnia dubia test methods, 

10 laboratories participated and tested utility and paper mill effluents. Test variation (coeffkient 

of variation) ranged from 12 to 80 percent, and variation using reference toxicant ranged from 

6to7Opencent. SimilarresultswenobCainedinasecoadstudyuJingthefatbeadminnow 

(Table 1). In a summary of acute and chronic round robin data (Parkhurst et al., 1992), the 

mean coeffiient of variation was between 7 and 34 percent (Table 2). 

There is a need to conduct interlaboratory precision exe&es for other species utilized 

in NPDES WET testing before implementing compliance requkements for these species. Afk 

thorough testing, EPA should publish test methods according to Clean Water Act section 304 

(c) criteria. Although all species utilized in State NPDBS pnograms may not have been 

evaluated, some baseline species can be used. 

TOXICITY TESTING FOR PERMlT COlbWLIANCE 

For screening purposes, effluent toxicity testing is a valuable tool, and can enable a 

discharger to de&mine the need for additional treatment, process changes, point source control, 

e4c. However, effluent toxicity testing is routinely beii used for compliance with requkments 

such that the dedermioed toxicity, i.e., no observable efkcts concenti (NOEC) such as 

NOEC >9Ope~effluent,maybedifficulttoachieve. AlthoughtheinterMoratoryprecision 

of effluent toxicity testing has been shown to be approximately 30 percent Mation, the varktioa 

has been calculated on lethal concentration (LC50) or inhibiting -on (X50) point 

. estimates and not on specific variabiity in a3mplying with a specific B ,suchasthat 

the NOBC must be greater than a specific co-on. A summary of effluent performance 

characteristics and implications for qulatory testing wetrt evaluated (Parkhurst et al., 1992; 

127 
Fii2. chNl8icfithed miMowm~toxicitytest~lts~10latK)~oa 

conceacntioa-spec~pecifictotwoFefinery~ueats. nKdsrwidcnnge 

in~~sensitivitytoercboftbeaetwo~~,whichcouldresuLin 

tBncat& &cii for NPDES ccnnpm. lypii applicathl would use the 

. point cstimta for 8 “cfitial” B compmd to the contd for 

compli8ncc -. Qwlptad fmm wtlrmmicks Bnd parkhurst, 1992.) 

128 
WA’IXR Ql.lALJI’Y STANDARE IN THE 2lr CBMIJRY: 123-133 

A strong referencetoxicantprogram sbouldbenquised andconside~~I inanycompliance 

testing. Reference toxicant testing provide4 a baseline response to indicate to the laboratory and 

tbe client the quality of test organisms aad their response to known challenges. A time course 

analysis of data portrayed as a statktical process control chart will show tbe performance of tbe 

laboratory organisms over time. Refemce toxicants, in addition to WEI’ controls, should be 

used to evaluate the performance of valid tests. When unacqtable x&e- toxicant test 

xesults are identifii, WEI’ compliance tests should be discarded. 

SELECTIONOFTESTSPECIESAPP!ROPRIATETOTHERECEIVING 

ENVIRONMENT 

!Sekction of test species for effluent toxicity has been a subject of considerable debate. 

If the receiving water is to be pro&xted, species selection should be consistent with that 

environment. Test species and psUocols should also be carefully evaluated such that 

“interfemces” am eliminated. If the fluent possesses higher total dissolved solids (TDS), 

Mefent ionic composition, or salinity, test methods may have to be modified to incoqomte 

potential toxic effects fbm eflluent quality not associated with “toxics” (Dam and Rogeq 

1989). Measurement of “salinity” or “TDS” alone may not determine whc&er one species of 

another is a better choice for testing. IftheionicbalanceismarkedlydSetwrtthanthe 

envtiental tolerance of the organism, toxicity may result (Figure 3). In this figure, the 

effect of effluent salinity is compa& to effluent l toxicity,” and tbe resulting intexprHation is 

that tbe effiuent ionic balance caused tbe toxicity. In acbdity, the site is located in the arid 

West Texas entinment and contributes to an otbenvise ephemeral streain. The plant intake 

water contains the high ionic stmngtb solution, and little additional constituents were added by 

the plant pKxxss. 

If Ittcciving water tempexatum are lower than laboratory toxicity test comWons, such 

as15’cinthefieM~25’cintheIrboratory,andfiuentconcainingammonirwould~~~ 

in the laboratory teat and not in the field. Cautions for tbese Mm mustnotbe 

Underestimaad. 

Test conditions should provide a tolerable environment for tbe test oqanisms, so tbe 

“toxics”inthednuentmaybe~iadependentofothersouFcesofeffibd. EPAyiduKx 

recommends that control data be carefully evaluated by using positive and negative control data. 

‘IBe dilution water, as well as laboratory nference toxicity tests, should be used to determine 

ofganism health before da5sions on efflucat toxicity axe made. 

129 
P.B. DORN 

Fraction Plant Effluent in Synthetk Effluent 

Fsgure 3. I%eeffkCtofsalinityofJtbetoxiciioflefhlyemuent. The”theoHcal’line 

~theLx3so~wcwfoundwhenthes~c~~wrwp~by 

addingtbeexacttmmpositionofanionsandcationstodistiUadwatefand 

measuring toxicii. The two data points for January and December show the 

fesultsofmixtufesofdincryeffluentandsyntkticeffluent. Tbel.Opoint 

sbows that the refixmy toxicity duplicates the toxicity of the syntbctic effluent. 

-C WEI’ MIWHODS FOR ASSESING REXEMNG 

WATI&R QUALITY 

130 
WA= QUM $TANDARDS IN THE 2lrt CENTURY: 12M33 

cause and effect relationship between laboratory toxicity tests and receiving water community 

effects. State and regional programs have utilized different methods for WET compliance, such 

as weekly acute flow-through tests using rainbow tmut in San Francisco Bay, where the 90th 

percentileof 11 testsmustbe9Opet7zentorgreatef. DischargersintheBayalsomustnotbave 

survival in the lower 10th percentile less than 80 petcent. In EPA Region 6, dischargers may 

be required to meet chronic toxicity limits for ccriodaphnia and fathead minnows coto the critical low flow and one-half of the critical low flow for the receiving water body. 

Region 6 stipulates that a test failure for mortality will require three mtests in 45 days, and a 

failuru to meet requirements at that point results in a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) 

study. 

To eliminate diverse State and tegional testing and compliance programs, EPA should 

develop guidance for criteria for establishing patterns of toxicity that could lead to tuned&ion 

activities such as toxicity identiikation evaluations. 

In development of WET water quality standa&, site-specific faders must be included 

to assure that national approaches are compatible with specific sites. Thmugh the use of 

constmcted stream and pond enclosure mewxosm experiments, it has been demonstrated that 

laboratory toxicity test results are masonable estimates of field predictions when site-specific 

conditions are maintained in test environments (Pontasch et al., 1989; Dom et al., 1991; 

SETAC, 1992). Proczdures for WET site-specific criteria similar to those allowed in modifying 

water quality criteria should be included (U.S. EPA, 1983). 

SUMMARY 

The science of WET methods for establishing water quality-based receiving standa& is 

well developed, but has not beut appropriately addressed for implementation into State programs 

and NPDES compliance testing. 

WET methods have been well developed to pmsent few technical challenges for 

laboratories. However, EPA should conduct interlaboratory comparisons of those methods and 

initiate promulgation according to the Clean Water Act section 304 (c) procedures. 

Implementation of WET for water quality standa& must address variabiity and 

uncertainty associated with tbe receiving water exposure, and measurement (calculation) of 

toxicity endpoints. The pattern of toxicity should be established for appropriate test species 

relating to receiving water effects before temedMon activities are begun. 

131 
P.B. DORN 

Beqman,H.L.,RA.Kimeric,a#IA.W.Maki,eds. 1986. En~HazardAssessnrent 

ofmtlueal. Elmsfhl,NY: l%fgmmnpress. 

DeGracm, GM., J.D. Cooney, B.H. Mar&, T.L. Pdlack, and N.G. Reicbenbach. 1992. 

VhbilityilIthCpdhMlUX ofthe748y~~duMasutival8lKl~Nxkctkntest: 

An intra- and intdaboq study. Environ. Toxicol. Chan. 11(6):851-866. 

DeGmeve, GM., I.D. Cooney, T.L. Mlock, N.G. Rciihahacb, J.H. Dean, M.D. Marcus, 

and D.O. hdchtys. 1988. Fatbad minnow 7day test: inba- and interlaboratory study to 

detenninetbenproducibilityoftbeI#vebdry~minnowkrvrrl~urvivrlrurd~~lest. 

ReporttotheAmerkanJ%t.deumInstitute,Publkatioa4468,Washgton,DC. 

Dickson, KL., A.W. M&i, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1979. Analyzing the Hazard Evaluation 

pfcNXs8. BalKdB,MD: AmefianFtdreriessockty. 

Dom, P.B. ad J.H. Rodgers, Jr. 1989. VariMity asdated with ida@ification of toxics in 

National Rtllutw Dischqp J3bimkm System (NPDES) effluent toxicity tests. Envimn. 

Toxiad. Chem. 8:893-902. 

Dom, P.B., R Van Compemolk, C.L. Meyer, and N.O. Cmssland. 1991. Aquatic hazard 

amssmed of the toxic faction from the effluent of a petrochemical plant. Environ. Toxicol. 

chan. 10591-703. 

Glickman, A.H. 1991. Beyond Impkmcntation: challenges to complying with new water 

quauty-bmaJ lltmhhh. In: U.S. En- Flaason Ageacy, F9Tlcehgs: wotcr 

Qnanty atanbdffir the 21s! ckntauy, office of war, wasbingm, DC, pp. 207-210. 

Gmthe, D.R aad R.A. Kimerk. 1985. Inter- and Intra-laboratory variability in D@n& 

mtagnrr efhent toxicii test results. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4~189-192. 

Parkhurst, B.R., W. Warren-Hicks, ad L.E. Noel. 1992. performance -risticsof 

effl~~~toxiciioests: Summarhtionand evaluation of data. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:771- 

791. 

Rmtmch, K.W., B.R Niaderldrrm, and J. Caims, Jr. 1989. Compdons of singk spah, 

miclucosm, and field xwpomes to a compkx effluent. Environ. Toxic& Ghan. 8521432. 

132 
WATEB QlJAlJW STANDARD3 IN l7NB 211t CEIWURY: 123433 

Ray, J.P., K.W. Pucik, J.B. O’Rcilly, B.Y. Cbai, and L.R. Lamate. 1989. Ihilliq fluid 

toxicity test: Variability in U.S. commercial laboratories, pp. 731-747, IQ: Bngclha~&, P.R., 

J.P. Ray, and A.H. Gillam, Hds. Drill@ Wastes. New York: Else&r Appliai Sch. 

SETAC. 1992. Use of Simulated Aquatic Ecosystems in Risk hsasma~. Society of 

Environmental Toxicology and Chnistry Special Publication. Cbdsea, MI: Lewis Publishers. 

F Pr=l 

U.S. EPA. 1983. U.S. Environmcatal Pro&&m Agency, Office of Water Rq@ations and 

Standads. Water Quality Stadards Handbook. Wahiqton, DC: U.S. BPA. 

U.S. EPA. 1984. U.S. EnviFonmen tal Pmtection Agency. Development of water qualitybased permit limitations for toxic pollutants: National policy. Fed. Reg. 49(48):9016-9019; 

March 9. 

U.S. EPA. 1985. U.S. Environmental PFotedion Agency, OfIice of Water. Tahical Support 

Document for Water Quality-Bad Toxics Control. EPA-44048!5-032. Washgton, DC: 

U.S. EPA. 

U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. Envhmmad Prutahn Agency, OffIce of Water. Ta&nical Support 

Doarmcnt for Water Quality-Bad Toxics Control. EPA-505-2-90-01. Wahhgton, DC: 

U.S. EPA. 

U.S. EPA. 1985. U.S. Envhmmcntal Praaion Agency, Office of Water Rcgu&tions and 

Strmdrurds. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteda for the Protcdon 

of Aquatic organisms and Their Uses. Washhgton, DC: U.S. EPA. 

Warren-Hicks, W., B.R. Parkhurst. 1992. hrformancc chBfacteristics of dnuaat toxicity tests: 

Variability and its implhtions for mgulatory policy. Envhn. Toxicol. Cban. 11(6):793-804. 

133 
Re-examining 

Independent 

Applicability 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 135-13

RE-EXAMINING INDEPENDENT APPLICABILITY: AGENCY POLICY 

AND CURRENT ISSUES 

Susan Jackson (Moderator) 

Office of Science and Technology 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 

EPA’s Office of Water recommends the independent application of its full array of water 

quality measures (chemical-specific. whole-effluent, and bioassessment approaches) in State 

water quality programs. “Independent applicability” means that the validity of the results of any 

one of the approaches used to assess water quality does not depend on confirmation by one or 

both of the other methods. This policy is based on the unique attributes. limitations, and 

program applications of each of the three approaches. Each method alone provides valid and 

independently sufficient evidence of aquatic life use impairment. irrespective of any evidence. 

or lack of it. derived from the other two approaches. The failure of one method to confirm an 

impact identified by another method does not negate the results of the initial assessment. The 

policy, therefore, states appropriate action should be taken when any one of the three types of 

assessment determines that a standard is not attained. 

The policy of Independent Applicability is discussed in the Technical Support Document 

for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991a). which was widely peer reviewed. 

and in policy guidance to the Regional Offices on the use of biological assessments and criteria 

in water quality programs (U.S. EPA, 1991b). The current policy largely evolved from a work 

group chaired by EPA that included representatives from EPA Headquarters offices. research 

laboratories. all 10 Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service. New 

York and North Carolina provided technical assistance to the work group. Based on the 

recommendations from several areas within EPA’s national water program, EPA asked the work 

group to address how to integrate biological assessment and criteria approaches with traditional 

chemical and physical methods. To do so. the work group had to first consider the scientific 

base for the three approaches. 

Water chemistry methods art’ used to predict risks to human health. aquatic lift, and 

wildlife. and to diagnose, model. and regulate water quality problems. Chemical-specific water 

quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life art: toxicity-based and address the effects of 

single chemicals over a wide range of species. Whole-effluent toxicity tests measure the toxic 

135 
S JACKSON 

effects of effluent samples that may consist of unknown or complex mixtures of chemicals. 

Biological assessments and criteria directly measure the aquatic community’s response to any 

and all pollutants, including habitat degradation and loss. The distinct capabilities of each of 

these approaches to water quality assessment are the technical underpinnings of the policy on 

independent application. The work group concluded that a comprehensive picture of risk is 

possible from using all three together, and when used in a regulatory context, each measure also 

indicates risk and can be. and should be, applied independently. When one technique detects 

or predicts a water quality impairment. the results of another assessmentechnique should not 

be used to overrule that finding. 

The policy clearly has a regulatory purpose, and at first reading, its application to water 

quality programs appears straightforward. However, implementation of the policy has shown 

this not to be the case. Several States, municipalities, and industries question the policy and its 

application in water-quality based programs. including challenges to individual approaches. 

Examples include challenging the environmental significance of the chemical- specific water 

quality criteria or whole-effluent toxicity measures and giving precedence to biological 

assessments over those other two approaches. However, the central issue under discussion is: 

How are these different approaches, our basic program tools, most effectively applied in water 

quality and resource protection? 

Central to the debate is the uncertainty about what biological criteria are and how these 

criteria will be applied in pollution control and abatement programs. Some of the issues under 

consideration are: What constitutes a sufficiently comprehensive biological assessment that 

accurately reflects critical conditions ? How can biological assessments be used in evaluating 

cause-and-effect relationships? How will biological criteria derived from such information be 

used in regulatory programs? Some of the key policy issues surrounding independent application 

will be addressed as technical guidance on biological criteria is developed and implemented. 

The scientific foundation of biological criteria needs to be well established and tested in a wide 

range of situations before some aspects of policy implementation can be resolved. 

Aside from questions about policy application. the environmental benefits of 

independently applying the three assessmentools in detecting and remedying receiving water 

impacts are not yet evident to many States, municipalities, or dischargers. One viewpoint holds 

that since a biological assessment is a direct measure of the health of an ecosystem. a visibly 

healthy biological community should be the deciding factor for determining whether or not a 

water body is impaired or whether exceedances of a permit limit are environmentally significant. 

This viewpoint gives precedence to biological assessments and criteria over toxicity-based 

chemical measures. The Agency’s concern in using a hierarchical approach of biological 

assessments over chemical measures is based on the technical evaluation that each of these 

assessments measures different endpoints and each provides a valid assessment of nonattainment 

136 
WAfBR QUAIJT’Y SI’ANDARDS IN THE 2lti C-Y: 135138 

of standa&. For example, a short-term m of a biological community would fail to 

detect long-term chronic and subletbal tiects tbat would put tbe community at risk. In addition, 

the science supporting biological assessments and criteria, and indeed all methods, is evolving. 

A telatecl issue involves the use of long-term biological B mtbmtbantlE 

Agency’s lxtcommended toxicity-based methodology to establish cbankal-specifk water quality 

criteriatoprotectaquaticlife. SomewitbintbeAgencyfeeltbattbiscba&ngestbepolicyof 

. mdqeabt applicabii and could result in kss protective criteria because i&rmaW specifk 

to each apptoacb may not be considered. In fpd, mote stringent ctiteria could also be tbe result. 

Otbers argue that a thorough, long-term biological assessmaltistbemost~andrcaustic 

measurr:oftheJthtusofthc~~fhafwew(ulffop~. Tbisque&mbasarisenunder 

provisions of the water quality standa& regulation that authorizes States to develop water 

quality criteria based on “other sck&ically defwible methods.” lbe Agency bas not yet 

issued guidance on the use of a biological m in the develqnnent of chemical-specific 

water quality criteria, and tbis issue is beii addIes& on a case-by- basis witbout 

tbomugbly evaluating potential ramifications to other parts of the water quality ptogram. 

An altemative to strict application of tbe policy is tbe weigbt-ofcvidence apprum& Ibis 

approach entails the evaluation of all available information to make tbe most informed decision 

possibk,andcantakeintoaccounttbestrengtbsandwealaresses of each approach. Since 

sufficient uncertainty is associated with each of tbe three -tmetbods,an~ 

synthesis of all available information will malte for tbe most sound and cost- effective deciin 

malting. Some would argue that a weight-of-evidence approach is appropriate and pra&cal in 

allaspectsofawaterqualityprogram,fiom a8sesshgimpaimmtofawatcrbodytodcriving 

permit limits and conditions. The Agency is concerned tbat this approach would be difficult to 

implement to ptutect water quality and to avoid one measure undetmining another in a finding 

of IK)118tt8inment For example, if a short-term biological assessment is used to override a 

chemical-specific’permit limit violation, it may neitber take into account tbe potential long-term 

chronic impact of the toxkant discharged at nigher conclentrations nor measure if there is a 

reasonable pctenW for a water quality impaitment. However, the predictive chemical-spuzific 

and whole- effluent approaches will. 

Thediscussiononi&pe&Wapplicabilitybastwokeyaspects: tbetecbnicalformdation 

ofthepolicyandtbelogisticsofpolicyimplementation. First,fromtheAgency’spointofvkw, 

sound scientific teasons support tbe basic premise of tbe policy: that together, each oftbe tbme 

measures (chemical-specific, biological assessment, and wbole-eBluent) provide unique and 

complementary information about water quality and tbe health of an ecosystem. BasatWy, 

each approach tests a somewbat different bypotbesis. The Agency recognizes tbe need to b&ter 

articulatetbispoint,andweplantodothis. Variousaspectsoftbetecbnicalissuesbavebeen 

investigated. AdditionBl technical evalm of tbe complementary natule of tbe4k tbme 

measurements am beiig planned, including an examination of tbe strengths and wcahmpm of 

each approach and further explanations and interpretations of situations when discmpancies 

137 
8. JACKSON 

U.S. EPA. 19918. U.S. EnviioMlentll Rote&m Agency, Offm of Water. Technical 

Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Cootml. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

nPAm5l2-9o-ool. 

U.S. BPA. 199lb. U.S. Enthmmaml Pmecth Agay. ‘lhmimd of FinalPdicyon 

BiokgicdAssmmemandCriteria. ~fiom’MmT.Davies,Director,OfficeofScience 

and Technology, to Regioml Water Maarrgemeat Divisii Dimtom] 

138 
WATBR QUM STANDARD9 lN THE 211c CENTURY: 139-W 

RE--GIND-mAPPLICAB- REGULA’I’ORY 

POLICY SHOULD REFLECT A WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE APPROACH 

INTRODUCTION 

The protection of aquatic life is a basic mandate of our Nation’s water pollution control 

efforts. Thismandatehasbeenplrsuadovertbeyearsbya~ofregulatory~that 

have increased in sophistication and complexity to &lect the growth in understanding of tbe 

dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. Water pollution control programs have seque@My 

implemented these measure in a hiemhical progression: from tbe broad-brush alqn~& of 

teclmology-basedstanda&; adding the mo= na~0w focus on chemical-specific, numeric permit 

limitations; followed by whole effluent toxicity testing; and now beghning to incorporate 

bioassessment and biocriteria. 

Each successive regulatory -se for the protection of aquatic life is tnmslated into 

petit requhnents tbat are layened over the preceding ones, traditionally without reigard to any 

redundancy in their technical foundations and informational values. Ibe permit reqm 

am subsequently heated as Mqendent, autonomous limitations that are qarately evaluated for 

compliance and enf’hcunent under the strict liability statute of the Ckan Water Act (CWA). 

‘l%is appmb, endorsed by the U.S. Bnvironmental Rote&on Aga~y’s (EPA) policy 

of independent applicability, excluti much valuable informrtion from the deve@mer# of 

permit limitations and magGfks the liabilities associated with scientific unaMai&s in each of 

the control measures during compliance evaluations. The nxults of this policy may be 

. mad&ted in mbmdant and inefficient alhxations of resources for the pro&&m of aquatic life 

and contradictory conclusions from the multiple contFo1 measures about the bealth of the aquatic 

community. Independent applicability also perpenrates a rigid, mechanistic regulatory stmtegy 

that is inconsistent with the EPA’s advocacy of rG&-based envhnmental management. 

A better apptoacb to the p-on of aquatic life would use the weight of all evideacc 

provided by the various assessment techniques to determine appropriate water pollution control 

139 
PJ. ILfelphya. Tbewcight-of-~acknowladgesand-otsfoft.hesc~ 

~ofeacb-tecbnique,buiiupontlletec~~-~, 

empbahsthevalueofsite-specificdata,and~tbefkxibiiiatbcpnxxssnemsary 

tofMitatetbeincorporationofnewscknce(sucbassedhenttoxkity assemmt). usingtbe 

w~devide#xbbxhaically~~k,radiscoaaisaeatwith~~env~ 

-* 

BACKGROUND 

Early efforts to develop regulatory control mahsum protective of aquatic life were 

~~IyhmpeFbdbyalackofumletsEIbdingaboutthearviFonmentalfiitemdmodesoftoxic 

acthofwaterboroepollutants. Ibefifstattempttou8ewaterqualitysta&nisandwater 

quality-bwedpenniaingina~latoryfonnatfailedbacurseoftbe~inlinrcinPcause 

andeffec4,andbecauseoftbe tremeahsresoufceruJu-tbBtbadtobeBpplkdtoeacb 

particular permit evaluation. 

Initial mb efforts focused on dcfiining tbe toxic&y of iodividual chemicals tbrougb 

tbeuseofMoratoqtoxicitytestswitbmultipkquaticspecks. Tbesedatawereusedto 

geaezNenatknalwaterquality~~“~kvelsof~for4uaticlifeand 

pfovid@fbrtbecaku~ofchcmicrl-spacific, numericlimitsindischrgepermits. 

Deve~ofwbok&l~toxicity~ intbe!wamdpbaseof mb was driven 

byFbcognition~thcchemicrl-by~~bwrsveryslowmddidwtddFesscritical 

real-world exposure factors such as biivaiWlity and tbe possibk additive, synergistic, or 

. . amgomacefktsofmixturesoftoxicants. Wbokeffl~toxkitytesting,althougbmore 

usefulfotmerarringbiorvailability;Itodthe~toxicityofa~kxeffiuent,bstillan 

iadirea~ofLn~~~aadmustbee~~toth:~~comnmunityof 

iyligawaquaticorgBnisms. Tbis~isnowbeing anqKnuWforbyt.beuseof 

bwws#ssmens~tbrtcaadirealyrppiai#tbertnturofawrt#body’sbiologicll~ 

undertbedynamicsofactualexposu~. 

Ahbougbtbeforegoingisan oversimplisticbistoryoftbedev~ofaquatk 

toxidogy, it does mpsent cxmxptdy the continued inmae in complexity and refinement 

ofrrrluaticacoQysran asmsment techniques. Bach successive -tacbniqueincofporates 

the major ekments of tbe precahg one. T&&ore, wbok efhent toxicii testing also 

140 
WATER QUM STANDARDS IN THE 2la CENTURY: 139447 

messu~the~~ofindividualtoxicantJ,and~~t~pFovide~onthe 

mponse of aquatic communities to tbe aggrqa& toxicity of complex effluents. ‘Ibe m 

of chemical-specific to whole effluent toxicity testing to bit gTeat.ly incm tbe 

amount of Formation and knowkdge provided by each technique, but at a loss of focus and of 

the ability to resolve the causative f&ton3 of any effect. 

The intefn2lationsbip of aquatic toxicity asseasmentsbasbeenacknowkdgedinmgulatory policy. In the first detaikd expmsion of tbc National Policy for the DevelopmaM 

of Water Quality-Based permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants (U.S. F%kral RegisBr, 1984), 

tbeEPAstates: 

llmeisnowagareral f2omeaus that an evaluation of effluart toxicity, when 

rdequately related to instRam cxmditions, can provide a valid indkation of 

meiving system impacts. ms information can be useful in dcdopiq 

. . regulatory requirements to protect aquatic life, m 

. . . . . . . G. (empbrrsis 

Unfortunately, tbis aclmowledgment bas not carried over into the adual development of 

regulatofy requirements. Control measures have been implemented in a step-wise procedure 

dktingtheavaiWMyoftbe dve at4ammt techniques. In this manner, permit 

raquirements derived from each technique (i.e., chemical-sped& numeric limits, whole effluent 

toxicityrestrictions,andbiocriteria)~beingaddedontopof~b~rinanrpproacbtbat 

ignores the broad overlaps of the assessment techniques and prevents tbe cons&ration of 

valuable information generated by each assessment. 

ThepoUcyofindepeadentapplicatioareinforcesthis~bbyrequiriagthattbe~ 

“protective” result [empirically equivalent to tbe finding of most sigdfkant potedal adverse 

impact] from each assewuaentbeusedforeftluentcbaracteri2%ionwbilesupp~the 

comparison of data Strom other techniques whete the data m contradictory (U.S. EPA, 1991). 

DEPKIENCIESOFINDEPENDENTAPPLICABILITY 

Itmustbeaotedthatthereisno~~uinmentdrivingtbepolicyofiadependent 

applicabiity. This policy has developed because of tbe severe Umita&ms on resources essedal 

toassessfuUyegchspecific~~sihrationandtbeaacessityofoperotingurdertberigid 

formatoftbeNPDBSpqram. Itisbeingadmiiasaregrlatorye~,toallow 

waterpouution~l~~to~~withadvaacingsciaKxwitboutba~tomodify 

theexiscingpermltptogrammdwitbouttbenaedtojwtifyofFwolve~berweentbe 

aquatic~tecbniques. ldqE&ntapplicabiisimp~~theimpkmehtationofpermit 

141 
PJ. Rm 

mqhmaWfortbepmta&mofaquaticlifeby minimiljnntbeneedforbestpfom 

jUd&Wl2d~~intheproass,bUt8tthClOSSOf accuracyand~veaess. 

considerthefolbwing scedoasanill~ofthcproblernswithitdegendent 

applkabihy: A~pmnitisbeing&v&paifixasingkpointaourcedis&rgetoa 

fiesbwatefreceiving661aM. cbe&alanalysesoftbeeffluentdamoasrntc that all pollutants 

afebelowapplicabk~quality-~fofcopper,wbicb~tbecriterion 

. coatinwuscoacaatntioa~byl5petcentattheinstrarmwaste~ . SbOrt-term 

chrwictoxicity~afthewboktfnucatdoaotsbowany~~effecb. Instrmn 

biomessments of fish ad benthic macroinvedxates ix&ate the existetm of a healthy aquatic 

community. 

CkarIy,ummwedque&msmraisaIbytbis~. Wbyistbeteadisaqmcy 

betwem the cbanical-specific data, which predict an adverse impm m the discbarge, and the 

whok effluent toxic&y data and bii nsults, which do IMX show any such impact? 

Wlmtsite-specif%fdorscouklbemit@ingtheeffStsofcoppertoxicii? Isapemitlimit 

F#llywccssrrytoprotacttbeaquaticlifeoftber#xiving~,intig~oftheactual 

biiIlwuhs? underthepolicyofiadepeadeatapQlicabiithe$e~would 

narriau~errd,radpcrmitwriteffwouMbediscourPgedfnws~them. 

Aa~ofempirical~fmmtbedifferent~ tachniques-that 

canbeexpe&dasig&hntpmmtageoftbetime. Acompahmoftbeuse 

lmpammtoftherqurticcommunityfaradtbatthe 

two aaeamaa dimgrwd 53.6 peacat of the time (Yockr, 1991). Whok effluadmbht 

toxicity~havebeeaobservedtobein~aiontoibstnam(bi~ent) 

142 
WATgR QUALITY flANDARIX3 M THE 21rl C-Y: 139-147 

fi&ngsfrom1Oto19percentofthetime. [Tbesevaluesatederivedbyaddingthepercentages 

forthose~wheFeimpactwasp~butnototwerved,andwberr:impaadw9saot 

predkted but was observed, from a series of studies as reported in the Technical Support 

Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, Ml).] 

Such conttadictions between the aquatic life assessment techniques arise because the 

techniques am not perfect measunx of actual effects. Each technique has an inhemnt degme of 

uncetity and can produce ertoneou s or inapplicable information, The potadal for false 

conclusions was noted in an EPA study of environmental indicators in the surface water 

PrognunS : 

The utility of biological community monitoring derives from its direct nature. 

One is monitoring the feature of the envitonmem that water quality regulations 

seek to protect, so that one cannot be fooled into falsely believing the ecological 

pmtection goal of the CWA has been met, as can occur when physical and 

chemical measures are used (U.S. EPA, 1990). 

The relative strengths and weaknesm of each technique, and their comparative evaltins, are 

addresd in several publications (Courtemach, 1989; Rarkhurst et al., 1990; Parkhurst and 

Mount, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1991), and the reader is referred to these documents for futtkr 

dC!GlS. 

BENEFITS OF THE WEIGHT-OF4VlDENCE APPROACH 

In contrast to hdepednt applhbiity, the weight-of-evkkxe approach does not 

establish an u plod presumption about the validity of any information generated by the various 

assessment methods (Miner and Barton, 1991). ‘Ihis approach encourages the considemtion of 

all information relevant to the - 0fpotentMimpactsontheaquaticcommunity. In 

caseswherethedataare~ attemptsaremadetoresolvethe~by 

evaluating assumptions or simplifkatiok in the ai3mmmt methods, accounting for site-specific 

factors that would infknce the findings, and using best professional judgment in “weighing’ 

all of the evidence available to determine what, if any, control measure8 are needed to protect 

aquatic life. 

Weight of evidence acknowledges and accounts for the wealtbesses ineachofthe 

assessmeattechniques. Itallowstbe~~ofeacbmetbodtobeusadtooompkmentand 

support,notisolate,theathers. Thisappmachisbasedupontbescientific -Ofinquiry, 

inwhichahyposhesisisproposedaaddata~collectedandevaluatedtotesttbehypotbesis. 

pUrthermone,itpromotesrurdadvancestbeuseof~specificdataintbedevelopmentafcontnol 

stmegies. 

143 
PJ. RlJvplLll 

ofsite-specuicdata. withtBpecttothepmvious1ydescribedsceaario, the weight4 evidence 

appmach~theuseofdebikd~spccuicinf-ge#ntadduriagwholeeflIuent 

toxicitytestingand~tojudget&applicabiioftheIIILtjolll(waterquality 

. . ~~capgertothediscbrrge~,mdtodacideifs~~dj~afthe 

. . cntcnonarejudfiat. [SccBnmgsetal.(l992)adU.S.BPA(l992)foraspa5ficdisahon 

about the prablans of codating impacts predicted by water quality criteria for metals to adual 

in situ biivaikbil@ and ecological effects.] In this regard, the weight-of+klence approach 

is fully compdble with, ad can be consided an expansian of, the site-specific criteria 

development policies of the BPA (U.S. BPA, 1983). 

Usingtbeweightofevidcncewillalsoservetodriveaho~perspectivetothe 

evaluationofallktorsinflue&ngwaterqualityandaquaticlife. Intbepfoccssof 

inveJtigrtingcontradictoryfindiagsand~gtbevariousassessment techni~ratherthan 

etnployingtbempiecemerl,evrluatonwillbemotivrtbdto~~~~ofwrrterquality 

impacts, inchlding nonpoint sources. Weight of evidence will bdp to expand the focus of 

ngu~pognmsMdw~~ide~evalurtioas~~ledgeasadedtotarget~~e 

pmte&on programs for the greatest effective return. It will also help to nzalize the currently 

hollow promise of use atkinability analyses and site-sped% water quality criteria in practical 

and effktive elements of the process. 

Finally, this appmach pmnits new assessment techniques and advanciig sciedfic 

knowledgetobephasedintotbewaterpollutionamtrolpmgram. Newi&iativessuchas 

sedimaatoxicity- audeutili&topfoduceamofecompk4eevaluationof~ 

impactsofadiscbugeonaquaticlife,whileatthesametimefbttiW&thethepfocess 

forthenew assemmt technique by providing COmPglPtiVC site-specific data and an iaserpietive 

framework. ~caaberrccomplishedwitboutcurtomrrticrlyplscingtberesultsoftbenew 

~undertbestrictliobilit~ruleoftbeNpDBsprogram,simxtheinforrmtioaw~be 

~aspartofthewboleevaluatianand~asaniadepcadent~g. 

RECOIMMENDATIONS 

The EPA must disadnue the policy of Mepedmt applicabii, which is 

inconsistent with tbe weight-of-evidaxe approach. 

144 
WATER QUALIlY STANDARDS IN ‘THE 21~ CENTURY: IN-147 

Fennit writers must be adeqWely trained and supported with sufficient resources to 

effectively use their best profe&onal judgment with the data for aquatic Life pmtectk. They 

must be actively encouraged to collect and evaluate all site-specific informatioa Ild(xssIvy and 

appropriatetoassessthepotentialofadischargetobaveadvencimplrdsonrqurticlife. 

Permit writers should be discouraged from “layering” limitations with similar ardpoints 

(such as a chemical-specific aquatic toxicity number and a whole effluent toxicity limit) simply 

for regulatory convenience and without sound technical justification. 

Impkmentation of the p mvisions under 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l) et ~cq. relating to the 

determination of “reasonable potentW for a discharge to cause an Wream excursion of a water 

quality standard must emphasize the use of site-specific data under the weight-of- evkknce 

approach. Overly conservative assumptions and the use of multiple safety factors should be 

avoided in this determination unless adequa&ly justified by the preponderance of local data. 

The NPDES permit program, as established under section 402 of the CWA and in 

subsequent Federal regulations, must be modified to incorporate additional flexibiity in how 

permit limits are expressed and compliance with limits is assessed. Pmvisions must be included 

to allow for the consideration of all available data in the evaluation of whether the des@akd 

uses of the receiving water bodies ate beiig maintained in the presence of any particular 

discharge* 

The use of special permit conditions should be promoted and expanded to account for 

unique local water quality and aquatic life characteristics and interactions. Ihe NPDES 

enforcement stmtegy must be updated to enable consideration of all permit information to be 

inch&d in determinations of appropriate enforcement actions, rather than responding to each 

permit limitation as an autonomous, definitive, and irrefutable endpoiit. 

Criteria to de&mine Signifknt Noncompliance (SNC) and Violation Review Action 

Criteria(VRAC)shouldbe~isadtonefleaboththedegFbeofumxttaiatyina~~ 

assessment technique and the environmental significance of the compliance endpoii. [Note that 

donzement dkretion should not be used to cover for technical or m de&k&s in 

the assessment methods, but to resolve any site-specific anomaks that arise in their applkation. ] 

CONCLUSIONS 

T%epolicyofiadeperrdentapplicabilltysuffersfKnnsignificaatconcepCurlanddeficiencies. This policy e&nces a disjointed approach to aquatic ecosystem ammment, 

magnifies the uncertainties in the assessmentmethodsintheregulatorypmcess,andf~the 

development of extraneous permit limitations that in turn divert scatce tesoutces and atta&m 

from mote significant problems. Furthermore, the policy excludes valuable information about 

145 
PJ. RInooatnsr,tbeweigbt~-pluceasmakesmaximumuseofalldatagumtatin 

y-vasmamas. It~*specificinformrtioa,~resobltion 

~andmotivatespermitwriterstousetheirbest~j~ thing 

tbWei~Of-bUildSupoatb8~Ofthe lfarhus-mahods. It- 

. 

fbrtbeirwmhmamandhtegmkatheinfimdmtoarrrbleafull~~ The 

weight4~tpprorchisfullycansiaoeatwitlltJJepolicyofrirlt-bsedwaterqurlity 

~8ndpmvi&sapmccsstbatwilladvancctbccaasolidationofw~pollution~l 

withinwatedKds. 

REFERENCES 

Bnmgs, W.A., T.S. Hokiemm, adlU.T. sarthdtad. 1992. synopsisofwatcr--Ratios 

far Heavy Metals As Derived for Site-Specific Water Quality Critcfh. Wasbiqhm, DC: U.S. 

BPA, Health and Bcological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Tecbnohqy. 

C!omawh, D.L. 1989. hpkmemk of Biowitha in the Water Quality Standads 

Pmgmm. Ip: WaterQualityStdudsfortbe2lstCamry,PtrocaadiagsofaN~ 

coaferwce. U.S. BPA, Office of Water, Wadhgton, DC, March 1989, pp. 135-138. 

Mimr,R.mdD.Borton. 1991. Coasidentioasintbe~andImp~of 

Biaxitd. Ip: WatcrQudityStadudsfortbe2lstCeatuty,~ofaCorberawx. 

U.S. BPA, Office of Water, Wasbingm, DC, May 1991, pp. 115-119. 

Pahhurst, B.R, M.D. Marcus, ad L.B. Noel. 1990. Review of tbc Rawlts of EPA’s 

Complex Rffhmt Toxicity Testing Pmgmm. Utility Water Act Group. 

bkhurst, B.R and D.I. Mount. 1991. Watcr-Qmlity-Bad Appmcb to Toxics coatrol. 

Water Bnvinm. Tecbnol. 3(12):4547. 

U.S. BPA. 1983. U.S. BaviFonmenbl awatMigu “u ;&mAkguhths and 

-. waterQualitys--. . ( . . . . 

146 
WATERQUAltNsfANDARD8LNTHE2lrC CENIVRY: 139-147 

1990. U.S. Envimnmcntal Pmtecth Agency, Office of Water Regulations and 

Standads~ Of&e of policy, Planning and Evaluation. Feasibiity Report on Rdmnmental 

Indicators for Surface Water Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

1991. U.S. Envimnmental Protection Agency, Olke of Water. Tcdmical Support 

Documen; for Water Quality-Based Toxics Contd. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. EPN505/2- 

90-001. 

. 1992. U.S. Bnvimmnend Rxxdon Agency, Health and l3cological Criteria 

Division, Office of Science and Technology. Interim Guidance on InteIp~ and 

Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals. Washington, DC: U.S. RPA. 

U.S. Federal Register. 1984. Development of Water Quality-Based Limitations for Toxic 

Follutants; National policy. 49(48):9016. 

Yoder, C.O. 1991. Answering Some Concerns About Biological Criteria Based Upon 

Experiences in Ohio. b: Water Quality Standads for the 21st Century, Roceedhgs of a 

Conference. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC, May 1991, pp. 95-104. 

147 
WAlEit QlJAlnY STANDARDS M THE 21a CENTURY: M!Ll# 

RE-GIND-ENTAPPLICABILITY 

Donald R. Schrecprdus 

ln?mfor 

ado Enti- Pn#ec$im &WV 

cl?lm&u, Ohio 

BIOLOGICAL CRITERU ARE THE BESI’ MEASURE OF THE 

INTEGRITY OF A WATER BODY AND SHOULD CONTROL WHEN 

THERJHSACONFLICT 

Biological criteria have as their most promising attribute the abii to detect and quant@ 

awiderangeofeffectsupontheaquaticecosystem. Theeffectsofhabitatdisturbanccson 

stream communities constitute a form of pollution that is ofkn u r&ectable with chemical 

cderia and toxicity ~rements. I4dlution from traditional chemical pollutants is also 

accurately assessed because responses in the biological criteria reflect the fxequency and dumtion 

of stress caused by the pollutants. lEese factors make biological criteria the preferred method 

for judging use attainment, reporting impaired waters, and prioritizing watersheds for point and 

nonpoint cont.101 stmtegies. However, the user must m important limitations; for 

example, biological criteria will kt adequately address probkms related to bioaccumulative 

toxicant effects on wildlife and humans. 

Tbelroleofb~~criteriaintbepermittingand~~~hasbeenama~r 

amcem to egulators, industhes, municipalities, and environmental groups. How can biological 

criteria be efktively employed without upse&g the more established chemical-specific and 

whole-effluent toxicity methods? InitiaUy, we must fecog&c tbeexktenccofahierarchyof 

bi~entmetbodsthatvaryintbeirabiliticstobothassesswaterbodyconditionand 

contribute to the pedtting process. This paper will present examples of situations king water 

resource managers as we attempt to fit biological criteria into water body assess& tasks and 

permitting tasks. 

Finally, Ohio’s 13 years of- with biological monitoring will be drawn upon to 

address several of the technical questi~ posed by the organizers of the session. 

149 
D.R. 8CHRBOARDU8 

0 Is*- develogmemsoftkhemblcriteriasou~~veofthe 

mlworldtlmtweslmkl~tbclllwhereamfuctsalise? 

INTRODUCTION 

Iwanttoexpreasmyappn&thfbrtbeinvitatbntobelhcxetoday. BeamseOhiohui 

banrtrbeforefFoatindeveloQingud~biological~,Ifeelwecmsignificrntly 

coatn’butetOtlKttbel~ofthisisslJe. 

Yestetdry,webeard~r~~ideatifytheimportlnceofwiaggoodsciaKx~the 

necdtoinclu&alldatainde&ionmaking. El?Ahaseacoumgedcompamtiveriskp@ectsthat 

fbcusoathemostimpoltantissueswiththebottomlinebeing~tal~lts. 

What I’d like to do in the next few minutes is explore how Ohio is using biik@cal 

critaiatoachieveawimmedrcsults. We’llbokatacoupleofcaseexamples: oaein 

~,theotherin -and-. Inkeepiiwithourpanel’s 

d#ctive,wewillneedtoexamine whetberdataambestevaluatmiusingaweight-ofevideme 

approhorwheherEPAkpolicyofi&pa&atapp&athsbauklbeMowed. 

Finally,IwilltakejustaminuteortwotouseOhio’s~ toanswerthe~ 

posedby- orgahemofthlssession. 

SUMMARY OF OHIO’S BIOWGICAL MEI’EOm 

I will begin with a short overview of Ohio’s biibgical criteria. Between 1981 and 1984, 

the Obio EPA worked on a cooperative rcsaucb project with EPA’s Corvallis bb. Nathally, 

150 
wxmRQuAUrYsTANDARLSMTHE2la CEmuRY: 1494% 

thisw~someoftbeearlyworkoadefiningaquatic~~lad,inObio,ithasledtoa 

regional&erencesiteqnoacbforbiologicalcriteria. S-methodsweredevelogad 

for collection and m offishand macroinverteb~. Mote t&in 300 “least impaced” 

Feference sites in 5 ecoregions wem sampled in the 19809 to develop our biological community 

expectations for fish and macroinverteb&u. ThxeesepamtemultimetkMice8orcrituiaam 

employed: two using fish, one using macroinvertebrates. These indices have m to be very 

reliable in describing the health of aquatic communities. In 1990, these biological criteria 

became part of the State’s WQS rules. 

Oneverycrucialpointthatpolicymaker3mustrec@ze isthatthexeexistsa~ 

. ofbv whichvarylntheirabiitoamuatelymeasurebiological 

prf0ftlWXX. EPA has mdouraged the use of biological assessmentsofalltypesrangingfiwln 

volunteer monitoring through a series of Rapid Bioamessm entRotocolstomoredvrnced 

emregion-based ~emnce site methods such as those employed in Ohio. However, BpA’s 

policy on the use of biological aMemmentsandcriteriadoesnotaccountfortheverystNmg 

technical Menaces along this hierarchy of assessment methods. Ibis must change to pxwmote 

the greater use of biological criteria. 

Onthescteen,youcanseeour mcommendationforabettersystemthatwillprkmmtethe 

use of biological criteria. States with more advanced biological survey methods, and 

subsequently stronger biological criteria, should be given modest policy flexibility in certain 

program areas to use these powerful tools. I will provide some examples as I des&be Ohio’s 

Program- Bl ‘oassessment programs provide EPA, Congress, and the public with a much more 

accurate and complete assessment of the Nation’s water resource quality. Bimwrtaatlv, the 

environment benefli because problems are identikd and addressed. 

Our experience in Ohio offers clear evidence that the identification of pollution impacts 

andsoulrxscrnnotbedoaewitbcbemicaltestingondtoxicitytestiagprogramsalo#. Inmany 

~ions,thema~~to~~integritycomesfromperiodicdischrgeset~ 

sites, habitat de&u&on, nuttient enrichment, or flow diversions. 

Biocriteriaoffernewavenuestoaddresstheseproblems. Ifwewanttobegoodstwards 

of our total water msource, if we truly want to ptotect our water ecosystems, we must find ways 

toencourageallStatestoadoptandusebiologicalcriteria. 

OHIO’S USE OF BIOLOGICAL CIWXRIA 

“Ibe potenM use of biological criteria, espe&lly in the NPDBS permit ptogram, has 

become a controversial issue. An EPA newsletter discussed this conflict. 

151 
D.R. RCHRBOARDUR 

AcueexrmpkillusCntesbowwecanwethebiologicalcriteriainpennitting. Thisplot 

The data reveal that 

se4 for the 

des@aMusc. NosignScantimpactiscausedbytheDefiruKxWWTP. 

Tbmextchartaddsinf-regaNungtheammoaiaefflualtquality. -Itmpenbar 

depictsan~qualityof20mg/L. Thyiarkbarnprcseatsapmposaleffluentlimitof5 

m~derivedu~theammoclirWQscnterionandtheusurlstedy-scatemodel. Itisnat 

always appmprW to use the river’s present biibgical anxl&ms unckr an existing efflueat 

qurlitytoQlwconclwionsrbwttheexpechadbiologicrlconditioounderfuture~~. In 

thissibmthm however,itisqqniatebecauseitisnotanticiipatedtbattheexistingWWTP 

flowwillc~. OnlytbePispruposedtobereduced. Sincealnedbiilogical 

. . . coadttKmsmeetthecriteria,the~ltsserveasthecuetolrbexamibetbe~ behind 

. . . the- . The biological assessment criteria alone a not justification to 

WithhOldtlEunmoair limitinthiscase,buttheyalHutEcientleasonto~the 

chemical-wit cited and modeling assumptions before a permitting decision is made and 

=P-i= m upgmdes am ma&ted. In fact, EPA?3 criteria suppoe documents contain 

simiipmuu&Mry statemeats. 

Githisinformation,whatshouldbedonewiththeDef3uxepefmit? Ideally,the 

permit would wait until further study is done. In the prrweat system, however, m for 

major permit re-issuance seldom wait for good science to catch up. 

Hem is an oppoatunity for EPA to provide some policy fkxibii for State programs that 

use-biilogicalm methods. TheincultiveSforStatesaxldpeHnitholderscould 

. beassimpkasti tOlllCCttbCinitiallimitSWhik~ 

. m are performed. That is what we did with Deft. Another altezuative could 

be a short-tem extension of the previous permit. Iwanttostressthatsuchoptionsare 

appqr&eonlyinsituaGonswhereadvancedbiologicalasserumast -~aaployed~ 

muIts show littk risk to aquatic life. We believe such policy flexibility would accclcrate the 

USC of bU and biocriteria, encourage site-specific assessments, and promote the use 

ofgood science in decision making. 

Fiiy, was this an exampk of weight-of&dence or Mqe&ent applkation? To us, 

using biological critmia as a faedbaclr mechanism for triggering the next level of good science 

inapermittiag~isioa~simplyanexampleofiajegratiagtbe~~andw~ofeacb 

discipline as called for by EPA’s policy on independent application. 

152 
WATHR QUAUTY STANDARDS IN THE 21me CENTURY: 149456 

What about weight of evkktce? You’ve probably heard that Ohio operates using a 

weight-of-evkkaa apprwach. Well, this is true, but Q& in the w of wa&r body 

ursessment;thafis,tbeworkrequ~uadersaction303(b)aftheChnWu#Aa. The 

plrposeofthe3o5(b)rcQortistoprovidetbemostaccuratepicturtafthecoaditioar~tbe 

Nation’s waters. It serves to m where program attemkm or changes are needed, $Q 

. . . cofiea,andto~ onthestatekvel. on 

thesc~,yousee~oftheattributesthatmakebiologicalcriteriaastnwg~for~ 

aquatic life conditions in a water body. It is important to recogðatbiologicalamssma# 

does opt address bioaccumulative affw of some chemicals or wildlife and human health. 

Separate criteria and assessment methods am needed hete. 

Given this recognized strength of biological criteria, let’s examine some data from the 

Ohio River. Slide 9 depicts the biological performance oftheriverinl991. Asyoucansee, 

the Ohio River, once quite pollutad, is now supporting a full lvray of sport fish and nongame 

specks, and is rated in good to excclknt condition by our biilogists. Monthly monitoring for 

ChUllicalparametersiS co&c&d at several locatkms along the river. These results have 

indicatedafairlyconsistent~~ofthetotal~rcriteria. IfoneusestheEPA 

guide& mgardmg the frequency and magnkle of these exceedences, theentirelC#tgthofthlZ 

Ohio River is either partially at&i&g, or sot attaining, the “f~hable’ goal of the Clean Water 

Act. Furthermore, tbe policy of iadependent application states that the failure of one measure 

to detect a problem should not discredit another finding. 

In this example, independent application sets in motion a se&s of events aimed at 

identi@g and regulating copper inputs into the entire Ohio River system. This will be done 

with the putpose of achieving the copper stamkrd, but we know beforeband that these efTorts 

will a&kve Uttk aquatic Life imm. Greater environmental improvement would result 

if we had focused on control efforts where the biological criteria i&cated a problem exists. 

Tl3e IBCO~OII bm is to include some policy flexibii for States with advurcad 

biological m methods. States should be given the qtion of using a weight-ofcvidarce 

approach when assessing and prioritiziq water quality and water resource problems. States will 

get more done, and the environmeat will realize greater improvements in aquatic life protection, 

ifbiologicalcriteria~usedastheraeasunofaqurticLifeuseim~~tintbe30S(b)report 

process. Ohiohas~than3,OOOmi.lesofdegmdedstruunsegmemstoaddms. Weneed 

tomourlimited Iwourrxs where we will get envS results. Conversely, we 

shouldbeabletorankaslowtheriskposedbycopperviolationsalong450milesoftheOhio 

River if we know the river supports a baknccd aquatic life and attains the biological ctiteria. 

153 
D.R. SCIa~,bom8n8geforanhmmadnsults,wesbauldnatId”ihdependart” 

~~dimctourattedonto~issues. Biological- used with a wcigbtof ~bisverymucbacampantiveiidrprojeathatcan~UydiFedour 

CSfhtStOpKltCCtmd-~~~. 

e slide Prsentation 

Side1 Slide 2 

PRESENTAnON OBJECTIVES 

piiil 

!slide3 

-UW La malv . . . E8 . . . I II momn& im ; 

. : . . . 

. . . 

SUMMARY OF OHIO’S 

BIOASSESSMENT METHODS 

Slide 4 

154 
WATER QUlunr STANDARDS M THE 21aI CWJtURY: 149-l% 

Slide 5 

1 

Slide 7 

DEFIANCE SITUATION REQUIRES POLICY FLExl8lLrfY 

l ExTENDEDcovPuI@eE SCHEDULE 

l SMORTTERM ExTEwsmN ff Pmvlou8 PERNIT 

l BhDLoalcAL CRlTERUARCYttEPEEDMCK 

uEcHANmMTo -uexTLwuoF 

AWLYWE 

l YMlslNYEoRAnDnIs~ 

WlwDtpplDullt 

Slide 9 

1 

BIOLOGICAL OF CONDITIONS THE OHIO RIVER 

ii; 

0 mu 

Slide 6 

AMBIENT COPPER CRITERIA EXCEEDENCES OF 

- OHIO RIVER 

0 111111111 ooo 

155 
D.R. - 

a&k11 slide12 

INDEPENDENT APPLICATION 

comLum8~RlvuIluP~ 

SUMMARY 

156 
WATERQUAL.ITYl?ROTECTIONREQ~INDEPEND~ 

APPLICATION OF CRITERM 

‘Ilw National Wildlife F&&ion supports brudcr USC of biilogical criteria. It is an 

important step toward making our vision, which lives in tbc Clam Water Act: “to nstoIlt and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 

But we oppose allowing biological criteria to tnunp chanical criteria or whok dluent 

toxicity testing--the soulled weight~f-cvidcnce appxoach. Given our limited ecologiad 

unck~ and the predictive limits of biomonitoring, it is foolish to discard any assessment 

indicating potahal for impairment. I will focus on three mmcnts in suppoxt of our position. 

1. . . . Wee . No llsstssmcnt mdhxls have 

~~~iatbepasttopreveatoraccuratelypredictim~;~are 

evolving rapidly, including biomonitoxing. With so few States even using 

biological criteria, it is premature, at best, to consider discarding EPA’s 

integrated policy of in@aKknt application. 

2. . 

ancqing8cientificconserraw regard@ n+luctiveand*cl~2~ 

fbmtracckvelsofcertainalviNnmaltalcon-. wiieisbcii 

seriously a.fbcal, yet no Imtiod wildwe crimia exist and few states have 

adoptulthcirown. ufKkfthesec~sctoces,pN~diaatestbatthcmogt 

stringent water quality criterion availabk should govern. 

157 
WA. 3alumr 

lead us to this conclusion: . m of evidence 

If you need proof, look to the Great Lakes. Here, the best efforts to manage this 

ecosystem have falka short. 

Bioaronitoringmayshowanabscnccof~~damageintbevicinityofa 

discharge. But-, where the Great Ides provide a sink for the cumulation of their 

tributary loads, there’s unmisUabk cnvinnunental damage. Bald eagles and mink can’t 

suax&uUyqnuduccneartbecoast. Fiiaren’tsafetoeatforwildlifeorpeopk. 

Lasty~agroupof~~fnrm~theworid,whohavebaarlookingatsome 

of the more in&&us ef%cts of pollution, met at WiqqmTad Center in Racine, Wisconsin. 

‘Ibey synthuizad the body of evideace regarding widespz& dismption of endocrine systems in 

fish, wildlife, and humans fmm certain en+onmenM con&n&ants. ‘I%ese effects, including 

makaadfemaksex\uldyshmctioas,areinevidenceintbeGreat~ande~bm,dueto 

long-term contributions of pollutants to the en-. 

In tlleii ‘Wingsplead Coasarsus Statement” (Colbom and Ckment, 1992) the scientists 

noted wellaocumeabad impaimmts: 

Tae~inchrde~~ddysfirnctioaiabirdsmdfish;dacnrsadfertilityin 

b~,fisb,~~,aadmammals;dacreased~ar~inbirds,fish,and 

turtks; gross bii defoma&ies in bii, fish, and turtles; metabolic abnotmaMies 

inbirds,fish,mbmammals;behavioral~inbirds,dernasculinization 

and femi&a&n of mak fish, bii and mammals; defemMAon and 

maaculinilation of female fish and bii; and compromised immune systems in 

bidsandmammals. 

Most tmubling, the experts estimaW “with co13fidcMx” thatz 

unlustheen~loadofsynthetichormone~’isabatedand 

amtrolkd,krgescakdysfunctionattbepopulationkvelispossibk. ‘Ihescope 

and~hppvdfowildliftandhumaasanglrtpt~offbcprobabiljfy 

of repaUed and/or constant exposure to numerous synthetic chemkals that lllrc 

knowntobeendocrinedisNptors. 

bKm&toringcrMapN3dicteaQcrine~inthesecondgenentioaofeagks(sec 

Gii, Ml)? What additional revelations are in stem for us in the 21st century? 

158 
WATER QUAIJIT STANDARD6 M THE 2le CENTURY: 157464 

Ibis is one reason we shouldn’t pretend we can craft nature’s most efficient wastewater 

assimilation systems. New and improved dilution zones, mixing zones, and pmposals to discard 

indeuendent application suggest we can. 

We can’t and we shouldn’t. Our encompassing task is to maintain a cadence toward 

halting the toxic pollution to our Nation’s waters. This is the wisdom of the Clean Water Act 

(Hair, 1989). 

Recent initiatives in the Great Iakes can provide a national model and a valuable 

backdrop for this debate over i&per&m applicabii. 

TheGreat~WaterQuality~enttooktheClegnWaterAd’sgoalandturned 

it into a concmte mandate for the Gre& Lakes ecosystem-zero discharge of any persistentoxic 

substances. 

This 1978 agmement between the United States and Canada implicitly mcog&es the 

reality of the ecosystem it aims to restore. Contaminated sediments and atmospheric fallout will 

continue to impact the system; the&ore, w additional inputs from controllable sources of 

persistent toxic substanceshould be banned. 

I recommend to you the ftfth and sixth biennial reports to the U.S. and &radian 

governments in 1990 and 1992 by the Intema&nal Joint Commission (X)--the body charged 

with overseeing implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agmemmt. ‘&se reports 

anticipate issues that will frame the agenda for water quality management in the 21st Century. 

The UC encapsulated tbei moral and scieatific power of our environmental conundrum-- 

those stubborn issues mandating the goal of zero discharge. Its 1990 report singled out 

persistent chemicals widely found in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, including FCBs, dioxin, 

furan, tmachlo-, DDT, dieldrin, lead, and mercury. 

When available data on fish, birds, mptiles and small mammals are considered 

alongwith.. . human research, the Commission must conclude that them is a 

~tothehealthofourchildr#lemanatingFrwnourexposurr:toperrrisaent 

toxic sum, even at very low ambient levels. ‘IIre mounting evidence cannot 

bedded... These chemicals appear to be causing serious and fimdamental 

physiologicalandotherimpactswanimalpogu~orwintheG~egtLakesbasia, 

and undoubtedly elsewh. me dangers posed to the ecosystem, including 

humans, by the continuing use and release of persistent toxic contaminants are 

severe (International Joint Commission, 1990). 

159 
WA. acmavr 

incondathwitb~andothtra&aedinterests dcveloptimdabksto 

saJmettbeuaeofchkriuemdchloriaacoatriaingoo;npoundaasfaadgoclwcmdthrtthem~ofnducmgorelimiaating~rusesbeexaminad 

. (Memtmd Joint Commission, 1992). 

onemajor,albeitimperfect,stegtoimpimplemeasthismand8teofzen,diacbugeof 

penisteattoxicsubstamcstothcGrcatrlltmisundcrway~. In1990,Coqresspassedthe 

Gmat Lakes Critical Programs Act (P.L. 1014%). This llc~f littk law codifks the ecosystem 

“Gnat Lakes Water Qdity hitiative.” 

TbeInitirtive’s~~to~fromtbeneedsaftheaccwystem,theap~ 

criteria limits back upsbeam. Wiie criteria are incluckd. Mixing zones for bioaccumulative 

clxmiadswillbebrnnedatter2004. 

The Gmat I&es Initiative does not include biological criteria. Neverthekss, as its 

measurea are impkmad, we expect biological criterh to be an increasingly important 

component of trading pmgnss toward our ultimate god of healthy ecosystems. 

Butwearecauhusaboutrdhccoabiologiulcriteri8. Forexampk,theexperkncc 

inohioboftalcitedtodaMwstnte thatbiologicd~ fitquentYpiclrupmisdbychemidevhaion(U.S.EPA,1990). IhtisbadlyamfMing;Ohioisvkwd 

widelyrshvingthemostleaieatchanicalc~~cMoagthedghtG~laltMS~~ 

Depammt of EWhnmaltal Ianagamt, 1990; porur, 1991). 

Duringckbateontheissue0fiadepadcntrpplicrbilityatthisponfercllwx2~8go, 

oae~~foruseofjudgmanbasedontbe”wejgbt-of-t)-~”wheafrcedwitb 

. c4lmaaq clhauid, toxicological, ad biilogical B (Miuer and Borton, 1990). 

The~flnwinthislogic,it~tome,isthepresumptionofwbrtbe~ 

“irrefitabk in-stream data doaunart[ingl the pmence ofbealthy alKl ab!ldmt pop&ions...” 

and “copious unimpeachabk studks involving the most sensitive organisms in the water quality 

criteria databaa..” 
WAIBR QUAUW STANDARD6 IN ‘TUE tlm C-Y: 157-W 

How convincing is the use of soulled un@aimd FefetwKx sites, on which comparative 

scudies~based,p9lticulnrlyinaS~likeOhiothathistoricallybrwbeensubjectbdto 

wholesale la&cape modiication? 

In the Great I&es basin the injury has been so extensive and for such a long 

period of time, that most peopk, even trained biologists, barely know what 

happad nor what they are trying to restore (Gilbertson, 1992). 

AR biological assessments today capabk of demonstrating the absence of developmental 

and reproductive effects from any chemical? Which chemicals should we worry about? Are there 

interactive--additive or synergistic-efkcts occurring in the stream, or far downstream? 

The U.S. General Accounting office (1991) concluded last year tbat we don’t have good 

answers to these questions: 

Because therei is no accepted federal list of reproductive and developmental 

toxins, such as that generated by law for carcinogens, federal agencies have had 

no index of whether tbey have regulated the most important hazards to 

reproduction and development . . . The protection against rcprloductive and 

developmental toxicity afforded the public by current regulation is uncertain at 

best. 

CONCLUSIONS 

ELat,ourhistoryintheG~~~~itwOUMbtfoolbardyto~rtoy 

chemical, toxicological, or biological indicators of impairment from pollutants. Them is strength 

in each approach; even when results differ, we don’t know enough to assume contradictions 

exist. IndqKmwapplicabilityisgroundedinlawandcommoasense. 

TheN~WildlifeF~aadothereavitPnmentat~opposadOhio’snaceat 

proposal to allow biological criteria to tnrmp other criteria in its revision of State water quality 

standards. We would oppose any similar nationwide proposal. 

m, until zero discharge of persistentoxic substances iachieved, bowever imperfect 

the use of biological indicators, they are an essential tool in attempting to predict insidious 

effects of combinations of pollutants. 

161 
WA. ScHMlur 

RHkrtbananHinuetodebatctbee&abMedpolicyof~applicabii,EF’A 

neaist~~~~toaduptandusebiicriderir. LcadedpfnnnEPAHeadquprtcrs 

is~toesclbljsbams~yamongandwithinRegions. TlleddtGleatLakeswater 

Qmlity hitiative can be a national model for progressive guidance aud inter-state consistency. 

~,n&ooalwikUifecrit&amu8tbedevelqxdquickIy. TbeCkauWaterActcalls 

formoretbrrra~yhcrWyrqurtic~~;arlao~iresheahbof~species 

that ely on the aquatic food chain-eagkq terns, kingfi&rs, mink, peopk. 

Howeve%,waigbtofeviduuxdocUotuM%n~ofcriterirmost~tientto 

w. ItQesnotmaminaocensuntilprovenguilty. Itdocsmcanaconservative 

atwsmmt of all indiations of impairment, in context of our meagex ecological ken. It means 

comiagdowaoatbe~ofeavironmeatrlberltb,wbeatbeFe~~~iesamongdata. 

~,weseckrestomtiongoalssuperiortothestatusquo. Shouldwehavesetour 

sig~iathel~,forexample,oathebestwatercluality~Brieoritstributariesthenhad 

tooffet(lCszclinty,itwouldhavebaeabardtojustifythelm%Lpbosphonrslimitbasedon 

biological w in the vicinity of wastewater treatment plants, such as Detroit and 

CkveLnd. EU tb dreams were for restoring a Iake Brie capable of sustaining a world class 

fishery. Itisadnmmcomingtrue. 

Chuhopeamda@ra&msforwaterquality,whichwexe&aikdiuourown”A 

. . ~~HealthyG~wtUkes: ReportoftbePqramforZe~Discbargc”(National 

Wiipedartt#aandOnadianIMituteforBn~LawandM.icy, l9!Jl),afesct 

by-Bgoahx 

0 WlMher women can eat fish from the waters witbout affecting the development 

ottbrrirw, 

162 
WAlTa QuALtTY STANDARDS m -l-la2111 CENTURY: 157-w 

r&application of water quality criteria is just one tool m today to move us in 

. 

REFERENCES 

Colbom, T. and C. Clement, eds. 1992. Chemically-Inducal Alterations in Sexual and 

Functional Development: The WildlifdEIuman Connection. Rinceton, NJ: Princeton Sckntific 

Publishing Co. 

Foran, LA. 1991. The Contml of Discharges of Toxic Pollutants into the Gti Lakes and 

Theii Tributaries: Development of Benchmarks. Washington, DC, and Ottawa, Ontario: 

International Joint Commission. 

Gilbertson, M. 1991. The fomic approach to Great Lakes toxicology: Have we invented a 

new science for regulation of persistent toxic substamxs? &: Cause-Mad Q&ages II 

Symposium Abstracts. Kahmamo, Michigan: Michigan Audubon Society Publications. 

Gilbertson, M. 1992. Experimental versus empirical appmaches to setting water quality 

objectives. In: Fmccdings of the American Society for Testing & Materials Symposium, April 

26-29. In press. 

Hair, J.D. 1989. Water quality dandads for the 21st century. In: Water Quality Standads 

for the 2lst Century. U.S. Envinonmental Pmtection Agency, tih l-3, 1989, pp. 7-10. 

Indiana Department of EnviKmmcntd Ahagenmt. 1990. Comparison of Water Quality 

Standards and NPDBS kmit Limitations in Region 5 States. IDEM, OfEce of Water 

Management, Irhnapolis, IN. 

IJC. 1990. Intcmatkd Joint Commission. Fifth Biennial Report under the Great lnltM Water 

QualityAgFeementofl978totheooVernmen~oftbeUnitedStatesandcanadourdtbeState 

and Rovincial Govemments of the Gnegt Lakes Basin, Part II. UC, Washington, DC, and 

Ottawa, Ontario: UC, pp. 15-16. 

UC. 1992. International Joint Commisdon. Sixth Biennial Report Under the Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agrecmerrt of 1978 to the Govemments oftheunitedstatesadcanadaandthe 

State and Rovincial Governments of the Great Ides Basin. Washington, DC, and Ottawa, 

Ontario: UC, p. 30. 

163 
WA. - 

Mimr,RrdD.BorOoa. 1990. coaridtntioasinthtdeve~r#limp~of 

. . Mocnosrh. IO: w8mQu8lityStaladsforthc218tcaltury,u.s.Bwinnunentalprotecboa 

Aguocy. kc. 10-12, 1990, pp. 115-l 19. 

NatiomlWildlifcpedencioad~IngituteforEnvironmencll~wudFolicy. 1991. 

APrcacriptionforEialthyairat~ RqortofthcPmpamforZcroDischargc. NWF$ 

Ann Arbor, Mkhigan, ad CIRLAP, Tomto, Ontario. 

U.S.EPA. 1990. U.S.~~pFotbctionAgeacy,~ofW~.BiologicrlCriterir: 

National ploqrm Guidmce for Su&c Waters. Wash@tcm, DC: U.S. EPA. 

U.S. General Atzambg office. 1991. Reptive and Developmend Toxicants 

Regulatory Actions Pmvide Uaccrtain protsdioa. Washin@m, DC. GAO/PBMID-92-3. 

164 
Human 

Health Risk 

Management: 

Who Should 

We Protect? 

r 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 165-167 

HUMAN HEALTH RISK MANAGEMENT: WHO SHOULD WE 

PROTECT? WHAT IS AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION? 

Clyde Houseknecht, Ph.D., MPH (Moderator) 

Chief 

Fish Contamination Section 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 

EPA’s Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for Human Health are designed to protect against 

the risk of adverse health effects associated with the ambient concentration of a pollutant. The 

human health criteria are based primarily on two endpoints: (1) carcinogenicity, and (2) toxicity 

with the principal routes of exposure being the consumption of contaminated surface water and 

the ingestion of fish contaminated from polluted water. 

For many pollutants, human health criteria are limiting factors for the establishment of 

effluent discharge restrictions. But, although EPA issues criteria guidance documents, it is 

primarily the responsibility of the States to give these criteria regulatory force through the 

adoption of water quality standards (WQS). 

Human health criteria and water quality standards are derived using a calculation 

encompassing many exposure, risk assessment, and risk management parameters. For example, 

the existing EPA methodology assumes an average exposure scenario based upon a fish 

consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day (i.e., approximately one 7-ounce serving per month). 

Most States use this rate in setting their WQS. Also, most States adopt an incremental cancer 

risk level of 1 in 1 million, although a significant number of States have chosen a risk level of 

1 in 100,000. The combination of these factors has recently lead to questions being raised about 

exposure and risk management aspects of the criteria and standards, 

As States have adopted WQS for toxic pollutants, dischargers and other interested 

parties have challenged the fish consumption exposure and risk level assumptions 

underlying the standards. Issues relate to the adequacy of the data, the degree of 

conservativeness in the methodology, the appropriateness of the target population 

being protected, etc. 

165 
C HOUSEKNECKT 

During the process, many have questioned the statuary provisions and risk 

management policies that allow for diversity among States in the level of human 

health risk protection provided their citizens. 

In February 1992, EPA Deputy Administrator Henry Habicht issued Guidance on 

Risk Characterization. The document established principles to promote greater 

consistency and comparability in risk assessments and risk management decisions 

across Agency programs. Implementation of this policy should produce more 

realistic risk characterizations and encourage more accurate risk communication. 

Applying this policy to the Clean Water Act (CWA) WQS could result in 

important changes. 

Over the past few months, the issue of “environmental equity” has received 

increased public and EPA attention. The Agency has been petitioned by the 

Alabama Attorney General to address these equity issues. In the WQC/WQS 

program, this takes the form of issues concerning the adequacy of protection of 

populations that are more highly exposed to the risk of consumption of chemically 

contaminated fish. These exposure patterns may be based on economic status, 

religion, racial or ethnic background, or geography. Questions arise about what 

populations and individuals the WQC/WQS should protect, whether the State or 

EPA should make that decision, what constitutes sufficient data upon which to 

base these risk management decisions, etc. Others counter that the existing 

methodology provides adequate protection to even highly exposed populations 

because of the generally conservative nature of the methodology. 

EPA has initiated a review of its CWA risk assessment methodology for WQC and 

related risk management issues. A major aspect of this review will focus on exposure through 

the consumption of chemically contaminated fish. This triggers a number of specific questions 

on which EPA is seeking input. 

How should EPA achieve balance in its risk assessment methodology between 

being sufficiently protective given continuing scientific uncertainty and not so 

overprotective as to divert limited pollution control resources to address de 

minimis risk? 

Which exposure scenario for fish consumption should be reflected in EPA’s 

criteria development and approval or disapproval of State WQS actions? Should 

this parameter be dealt with in isolation from the other factors in the risk 

assessment methodology? 

166 
WATER QUAlAY STANDARDS IN THE 2lll CEIWURY: 165-167 

a Should States be given more or less flexibility in risk assessmentandrisk 

management decisions? Are the existing mechanisms for developing site specific 

criteria adequate to address concerns about protecthg highly exposal populations? 

0 Are the data for rates of fish consumption of suficient quality to justify changing 

the assumed rate of 6.5 grams per person per day? 

0 Is a statutory change MZQUIY or desirable, and if so, what form should it take? 

Your input is important. We look forward to a free-ranging exchange of ideas during 

the panel discussion and the question and comment period to follow. 

167 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2lrc CElVllJRY: M-173 

“FISH CONSUMPTI ON” AND NATIONAL WATER QUALITY 

Danlel c. PIad 

DJrccrOr 

Na Perce 7Hbe Waer Resomxs tuviidon 

h-4 kIah0 

“Bnvimnmental Equity”--a very appropriate term used by the Administrator of the U.S. 

Bmhnmental Prokztion Agency, William K. Reilly, to describe a work group convened by the 

EPA to assess evidence that racial minorities and low-income communities bear a substantially 

higher environmental risk burden than the general U.S. population. In terms of “environmental 

risk,” the general findings of the work grwp were of no real surprise to minority races, groups, 

and communities, but did well to raise this important issue in the eyes of both the general 

American public and the EPA itself. This work group intimated the idea that the Agency should 

indeed inmase the priority that it gives to the issue of “environmental equity.” 

The obvious question then becomes “Why should the EPA increase the priority it gives 

to environmental equity, and further, how would EPA accomplish this task?” ‘Ihe initial answer 

is also obvious: EPA has a responsibility, as the Nation’s environmental and environmentally 

xclated human health “protector,” to see that the Nation’s citizenry is thus protected adequately. 

This, of course, would also mean an “equal” protection for all citizens. A protection of the 

“majority” of the Nation’s citizens is not adequate, and in fact is not the mandate urxkr which 

the EPA operates. As outlined in countless volumes of statutory law, the EPA has, as its 

general purpose, the protection and enhancement of both the environment and human health. 

With this in mind then, let us move on to a more specific application of these ideas. For 

some time now, it has been argued that perhaps certain criteria by which the BPA attempts to 

~itsroleasthehuman~~p~r~notadequatewheaappti~to~ific 

populations. This, I would submit, holds especially true for the Native American tribes of the 

Northwest, with the Nez Ferce Tribe bemg no exception. 

As most are no doubt aware, the Agency bases its pollution effluent limitations on certain 

baseline assumptions, with the idea of prokcting human health. The EPA has developed this 

baseline human health criterion using a combination of exposure and risk management 

parameters. And, of course, most are no doubt aware that the baseline “fish consumption” rate 

169 
D.C. PICARD 

ispEsscatlyatana@imatd6.5gramspcrday,oranaverageof7oumxspermonth. Thisalso 

istbebweline”staadard”thatmostSbteshaveusedinthedevelopmeatoftheirindiv~water 

qualitystandad. llrefocusafmyreraulwistobringtoLightthatthisfishconsumption 

baselim assumption is not adapate in terms of proteding the Tribes of the Northwest; this may 

also hold true wham spaking of *r minority groups who may consume an above-average 

amwnt of pollution- contaminated fish. 

The Nez F@Rc, along with a number of Tribes in the Northwest (and more specifically, 

the Columbia River Basin), have for time immemorial accesd the fisheries of the Columbia 

River Basin, but in only mcent times have been sub- to thmats to their health for exe=ising 

this custom, fight, and subsii ueed. With the coming of the Burupean and cuntinual growth 

inscknceandteclmology,westandtodaywithindustqandvariws ather pollution sources on 

the banks of that same river system. ‘Ihe Nez Ikrx Tribe is highly dependent upon fishery 

~~,justwiatbepest,aadinfact,tbefwheryrwoutceisavitalcomponentofttibal 

sub&tenccadcuhuralpruBnMion. Thepfutectionandenhancemeat of the water quality 

tlmughout the Columbia Basin is, therefore, also of vital imporhncc to the Tribe. It is the 

Tribe’s position that the filmy resources within the Columbia Basin UIC in need of heightened 

plutedn. Thereis imeasing evidence of toxic contamination in the river system, which leads 

botbtohclltbeffadsonthefisbthemselvegandtoathreattothehealthofthetribalmembefs 

consuhg those commhad ftsh. 

To ascut&n whether BPA water quality criteria, and the underlying “frsb consumption” 

assumption numbers, actually protect human health from the possible effects of toxic chemicals 

in the Columbii system, the Nez Ferce Tribe, along with the der member tribes of the 

Columbia River Intutribal Fii Commission (Yakima, Umatilla, and Warm Springs), conducted 

a fish consumption survey. This survey detemkd the dietary rates, habits, and ptutmns of 

trii memh. The survey was f&led under a grant from the EPA and was completed under 

thediradionafadechnicalpanel~sistingof~~v~frwntheBPA,theSeattleIndian 

Health Service, ad the ctmers for Disease Control. 

The~si~findingoftheNezperCeportioaoftbatsurveywaaconfinnatioa 

that the curmt BPA water quality criteria do not adequately prutect tribal members consuming 

asigdiadyhigheraxnountoffishthPnthcgeaeralpublic. Incomprhm totheEPAwater 

quality fish commpbn assumption level of 6.5 grams per day, the suryey indiaud that the 

average Nez Rate txibal member consumes 79.7 grams per day, 2.35 fish mds per week, and 

an average of 8.37 omcu at each meal! Further, IO percent of the Nez Fercc interviewees 

iadiclrtedthotfisbisstiUrelieduponasaptimvysourceof~~~,mdthesemernbeft 

ingestfishatarateofl2.69mealsperweek,atanaverageof8.46ouncespermcal. Thisthen 

averages out to approximately 434.79 grams of fwh per day, a frightening 67 times the EPA 

assumption-! 

170 
WATER QUruJN STANDARDS IN THE 21a cEmuRY: 169-m 

‘Ibe Nez Ibce members involved in the survey were age 18 years or older, but by 

including questions regarding the rate of fish consumption by children within their households, 

the survey also garnered important information. The average weekly consumption for childmn 

identified as fish eaters was I. I8 meals per week, 4.12 ounces per meal, or 19.7 grams per day. 

Therefore, Nez Ferce children typically consume three times the BPA estima&! 

The risk of exposure to toxic chemicals by members of the Nez Ferce Ikibe is heightened 

even mom because the majority of the fsh consumed by Tribe members is obtained Finn the 

Columbia system, which today stands in a generally high degree of degr&tion, ‘Ilre threat of 

health etf&cts in Nez Perce children from dioxin and other toxic pollutants is again increased 

because a significant number of Nex Perce mothers breast feed, or have breast fed, their 

children. Nez I%ce children also were shown, at a rate of 30.3 percent, to begin eating fish 

by the age of 7 months while continuing to breast feed. They thus have a threat of double 

exposure! 

Finally, the threat is again heightened because Tribe members are exposed to the threats 

of toxic pollutants not only at home but also at nearly every tribal cultural or social function. 

Nearly every function that occurs on the Reservation generally includes the use and consumption 

of fish. 

The survey illustrates that, because fish consumption plays an essential role in tribal 

religion and culture as well as to subsistence and other uses, and because Tribe members are 

thus more highly exposed to toxic pollutants, the EPA criteria are obviously inadequate in terms 

of protecting the tribal “human health.” 

It is obvious, then, why this particular issue concernstheNezP&ceandotherTribesin 

the Northwest. It is also obvious why the Tribe would consider the present EPA criterion, with 

an assumption kvel at 6.5 grams of fish per day, &lequa&. The Tribe is especially concerned 

withtheamountsofdioxinthatmrry~thewatersy~s,asaFesultaf~faultystandard, 

on and surrounding the reservations and in places where the Tribe members may access the 

fisheries. The EPA water quality standard for dioxin also concerns the Tribe because the 

criterion controlling this pollutant not only is based upon a faulty fish consumption average but 

alsodoesnotaccountforotherhann~l~ofdioxin. Recentinfonnationonthehcalth 

effects of toxic pollution show that serious reproductive, hormonal, and other problems result 

from exposure to much lower levels of dioxin than the levels that may cause cancer (Colborn, 

1991; U.S. News and World Report, 1992). 

171 
D.C. PICARD 

Nor&w* Federal courts have expressly ramgnhd a duty of the Federal Government to 

plutectIndiansandtheiifrsberies,asdemoastratad in Rlnltus Recwon Met v. sunnyslde 

Vulley Idgudm D&&z, 763 F. 2d 1032 (9th Cir., 1985). This “trust ruponsibiity” is much 

~tburtbrtofrmordinaryrnwtaeia~tbegovenrmeatbasamorPlobligrrtiontoe~~ise 

tbehigbestdegr#offesponaibility,cue,mddrilliapforedihgtribaJ~~~andthebust 

property from loss or damage. [See suninolc mm v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) I, I7 

(1831).] By failing to protect tribal people and the fishery momm upon which they rely, in 

the Colwnbii Basin or otherwise, the limitations on toxic chemical discharges may thus violate 

Fbkraltfeatyrights. Fakralaj7pcks~obligatl?dtosafeguardthet.rcatytribalmembers,as 

wellasthesubjectmatterofthosebeaties. This”trust~bil.ity”alsoincludesactionstaken 

off raxvath by the Fe&ml Governmem, which may uniquely impact tribal members or their 

property, as demonstrated in Ahthem Ckyenne TWe v. Ha&l, 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065, 

3070-71 (D. Mont., 1985). It is thus argued that the BPA must, tluxefon, revise the limitations 

on toxic chemicals based upon faulty fish consumption information to adequately protect tribal 

treaty rights and to safeguard the health of Tribe members in tbe Columbia Basin. 

. Ttrefindingsand- of EPA’s Bnv’ wonmental Equity Work Group stated 

“thenisagarerallaclrofdataolrenvirorunetlcalhealth~~byraceandincome,“andIlso, 

“Native Americans are a unique racial group with a special relationship with the Federal 

Government and distinct environmental problems . . . EPA should establish and maintain 

information which provides an objective basii for assessing risks by income and race . . . . 

“Finally, the fibdings stated: “The Agency should incorporate considerations of env&unental 

equity into the risk iwsessmtnt process. It should revise its risk assessment procedures to 

ensure, where practical and relevant, better characterization of risk across populations, 

communities, or geographic areas. In some cases it may be important to know whether there 

a any population gmups at disproportiona@ly high risk” (U.S. BPA, 1992). 

ItwouldbetheopinionoftbeNezPerceTribetbatthe~mmadationsoutlinadby 

EPA’s Bmhnmed Equity Work Group should be implemented. The group also suggested 

that “the Agency should expand and improve its communications with racial minority and 

low-income communities and should increase efforts to involve tbem in environmental policy 

making.” The Nez Ferce emphatically agree. Especially with regarxl to Indian Tribes, who 

stand in a unique relationship with the Federal Government, BPA has an obligation to do just 

that. ‘I& Indian Tribes have long asked for such a coordmated effort, and although somewhat 

late in coming, it is with great optimism that they review the recommendations of EPA3 

Environmental Equity Work Group. 

In the spirit of those same us,, the Tribes of the Columbii River Intertribal 

Pi Commissii are hopeful that the data collected for their recently completal fish 

consumpiobsunreywillbeputtoapprogriateusebytbeAgency. ‘Ibedatacollectalillustrate 

that the tribes of the Columbii Basin (more specifically, the Nez Ferce, Yakima, Umatilla, and 

Warm Springs) are disproportionately affected with relationship to the limitations on dioxin and 

I72 
WATER QlJALtlY STANDARDS IN THE 21r( CENTURY: 169473 

other toxins, especially regarding fish consumption levels. Approximately 15 to 20 previous 

studies in the United States have addressed fish consumption rates of U.S. citizens. Few of 

these surveys have addressed fish consumption rates of ethnic groups, and none comprehensively 

reviewed the fish consumption habits of Native Americans. Therefore, the Columbia River 

Basin survey is unique because there is little or no other information focusing exclusively on 

subsistence and ceremonial use of fish by Native Americans. We now have that information, 

and we again would expect the Agency to use that information and take whatever actions are 

neasary to ensute the protection of this category of citizens. EPA has noted (as mentioned in 

the report of the EPA Environmental Equity Group), that there is a “general lack of data on 

environmental health effects by race and income.” The Tribes are optimistic that the recently 

completed fish consumption survey will help to lay the groundwork for a future of wotking 

together to ensure that human health is beiig adequately pmtected by the RPA, State 

environmental agencies and groups, and also tribal environmental protection entities. 

It is our hope, then, that when contemplating the change of water quality standards and 

regulations for dioxin and other toxic contaminants, the EPA would reu@ze their responsibility 

to ptotect the “human health” of all its citizens, and would further recognize their unique “trust 

responsibility” with regard to the pmtection of the Native American Tribes. Dioxin and other 

toxic pollutants seriously threaten almost every aspect of the lives of the Columbia River Basin 

Tribes, and we believe that water quality standa& should pay particular interest to those 

individuals who stand to be harmed most by the effects of water pollution. 

REFERENCES 

Colbom, T. 1991. Nontraditional evaluation of risk from fish contaminants. Conference 

Pmceedings, Symposium on Issues in Seafood Safety, National Academy of Sciences, 

Washington, DC, pp. 95,99, 103, 107, 111. 

U.S. BPA. 1992. U.S. Environmental Pro&&m Agency, Gfflce of Communications, 

Education, and Public Affairs. Findings and recommendations of EPA’s environmental equity 

workgroup. EPA J. 1 f&1):20-21. 

U.S. News and World Report. 1992. Puzzling over a poison, pp. 604; April 6. 

173 
Sediment 

Management 

Policy Decisions 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IS THE 21st CENTURY: 175-179 

EPA’S CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

Elizabeth Southerland 

Chief 

Risk Assessment and Management Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Standards and Applied Science Division 

Washington, D.C. 

In the 1980s, EPA documented the extent and severity of contaminated sediment 

problems at sites throughout the United States. Concerned with the mounting evidence of 

ecological and human health effects, EPA’s Office of Water organized a Sediment Steering 

Committee chaired by the Assistant Administrator of Water and composed of senior managers 

in all the EPA offices with authority to handle contaminated sediments and EPA’s 10 regional 

offices. 

Over the past 2 years, this committee has been preparing an Agency-wide Contaminated 

Sediment Management Strategy to coordinate and focus EPA’s resources on contaminated 

sediment problems. A draft outline of this strategy was released to the public this year to serve 

as a proposal for discussion in three national forums scheduled for April, May, and June. The 

draft strategy is designed around three major principles: 

1. In-place sediment should be protected from contamination to ensure that the 

beneficial uses of the Nation’s surface waters are maintained for future 

generations; 

2. Protection of in-place sediment should be achieved through pollution prevention 

and source controls; 

3. Natural recovery is the preferred remedial technique. In-place sediment 

remediation will be limited to high-risk sites where national recovery will not 

occur in an acceptable time period and where the cleanup process will not cause 

greater problems than leaving the site alone. 

175 
E. SOUTHERLAND 

The draft strategy includes several component strategies: assessment, prevention, remediation. 

dredged material management, research, and outreach. A brief summary of each of these 

elements follows. 

In the assessment strategy, EPA is committing to develop a national inventory of 

contaminated sediment sites and a pilot inventory of potential sources of sediment contamination. 

based on existing data. The two types of inventories will be complementary because the source 

database can be used to predict where sediments are contaminated in unsampled areas. The 

inventories will be designed so that EPA’s prevention and remediation programs can use them 

to focus their resources on cleaning up the top priority sites and sources. Another key clement 

of the assessment strategy is the commitment to develop a consistent, tiered testing strategy that 

will include a minimum set of sediment chemical criteria, bioassays, and bioaccumulation tests 

that all programs will agree to use in determining if sediments are contaminated. 

The prevention strategy includes a variety of pollution prevention measures and source 

controls. The scale of contamination will guide the choice of a particular set of these measures. 

If a sediment contaminant is causing harm or risk at numerous sites nationwide. it may be 

relatively inefficient to deal with the problem on a site-by-site basis. Instead, the strategy 

discusses nationally applicable responses, such as prohibitions or use restrictions under TSCA 

or FIFRA, technology-based effluent limitations for industrial dischargers, or a national initiative 

to revise water quality-based limits in NPDES permits. If atmospheric deposition appears to be 

a primary source of contamination, responses under the Clean Air Act will be considered. 

Where sediment contamination is a concern at particular sites, but not on a national scale. 

case-by-case assessments and response actions arc recommended. Based on narrative and 

chemical-specific criteria and standards, EPA or a State can develop NPDES permit limits for 

discharges from industrial sources. municipal sewage treatment plants, stormwater outfalls, and 

combined sewer overflows. States that have nonpoint source control programs can take actions 

to reduce the contributions of those sources to sediment contamination. 

EPA may remediate sediments under CERCLA, RCRA, CWA, and TSCA. The 

remediation programs will use the national inventory to assist in selecting sites for cleanup and 

the consistent tiered testing to assist in identifying contaminated areas and establishing cleanup 

goals. The remediation strategy emphasizes that sources of contamination should be controlled 

prior to remediation efforts unless the contaminated sediments pose a sufficiently great 

environmental hazard. In making remediation decisions, the strategy also points out that it is 

important to consider whether contaminated sediments at a situ can be transported to downstream 

or offshore areas if left in place, thereby increasing the size of the contaminated area and making 

future remediation efforts much more difficult. Other factors to consider include the timeframe 

for natural recovery, the potential for contaminant mobilization during remediation, and the 

feasibility and cost of various treatment and removal options. 

176 
WATER QlJAL4-Y STANDARDS IN THE 21a CENIURY: 17S-179 

Tbe maintenance of our Nation’s waterways for navigation requires the dredging and 

disposal of 250 to 450 million cubic yards of material each year. Dredged ma&al testing 

manuals prepared jointly by EPA and the Corps of Engineers recommend the &emical and 

biological tests that should be conducted to determine if the material is contaminated and must 

be disposed of using special procedures. The tests selected for the Agency-wide contaminated 

sediment strategy will be included in these dtedged material testing manuals. The strategy also 

outlines additional guidance that will be developed by EPA and the Corps to improve the 

management of these materials. 

The research strategy outlines all the work that EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) has planned on sediment chemical criteria, sediment bioassay and 

bioaccumulation tests, fate and transport models, and remedial techniques. ORD is establishing 

a Resource Center to provide EPA off%zes with centralized technical assistance in evaluating 

sediment contamination and will also sponsor workshops and training sessions throughout the 

country. 

‘Ihe outreach strategy describes how EPA will work with other Federal agencies and State 

agencies to coordinate EPA’s contaminated sediment activities with their efforts. EPA will 

strive to ensure that these agencies share sediment-related research findings and innovative 

technologies. In addition, EPA is proposing a two-way public awareness program that will 

disseminate contaminated sediment information to the public and also incorporate information 

from the public into EPA activities. 

The purpose of this panel is to debate key issues involved in the strategy. The 

fundamental question is whether the relative human health and environmental risks of 

contaminated sediments merit the increased attention and resources EPA is proposing to commit 

to this area. The second key issue is whether we need any statutory changes to address 

contaminated sediment problems more effectively. The current strategy is based on existing 

authorities and requires no new legislation. If it is decided we need to focus more attention on 

this problem, the next issue of importance is how EPA should prioritize its activities. Should 

the primary focus be on criteria development, policy guidance, data gathering, NPS controls, 

or developing remedial technologies? 

There are two key implementation issues which also must be debated. First, how should 

sediment quality criteria be used in the prevention, remediation, and dredged material 

management programs ? Second, do the States have the mourn and knowledge base to 

effectively implement the prevention, remediation, and dredged material management programs? 

I look forward to a lively discussion of all these issues and invite everyone to take part 

in our debate. 

177 
e Slide Presentation 

Slide1 

EPA’S 

CONTAMINATED 

SEDIMENT STRATEGY= 

A PROPOSAL FOR 

DISCUSSION 

Slide 2 

MAGNITUDE 

OF THE PROBLEM 

slide 4 

Slide 6 

GOALS (Cont.) 

178 
WA’TW QIJNJW Sl’ANDARDS M Il(h 21M C-Y: 175479 

Slide 7 

Slide 9 

Slide 8 

ELEMENTS (Cont.) 

179 
WATER QUAlAY STANDARM IN THE 21~ CENI’URY: 181-190 

REGULATORY USES OF SEDIMENT QUALl?Y CRITERIA 

IN WASHINGTON STATE 

Keith PbiUipa 

WarMngron Lkpartmmt of Ecology 

S&mu Management Unit 

O&ynpia, Washington 

0 Sediments with elevated 

concentrations of chemical 

contaminants. 

0 Adverse effects to laboratory test h&m 

&llUlS. 

0 Fewer animals living on and in 

contaminatsd sediments. I 

0 Bottomfsh fin rot, gill lesions, 

reproductive failure and liver tumors. 

0 Local he&h department fishery advisories warning against human consumption. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF 1 1 > 

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 

INSTITUTIONALCHALLENGESOF 

SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT 

0 Like water, sediments are an 

environmental medium and 811~ 

subject to aquatic protection laws. 

0 Unlike water, if sediments afe 

picked up, they are similar to any 

other solid waste material. 

181 
K. PHlLUPB 

0 . sedmam redt in ckanup liabiities to the disc-r, the 

waterfmnt developer, and tbe landowner. 

l Underlying instim challa~ge: Ensure tbat all government programs tbat 

8f&Hhequalityofsedimcm(mrce~l,dfedgingaxKlckanup)lllrc 

integmdandworktowafdtbesamequalitygoals. 

0 Sedhent maqeme~ requites an innovative blend of legal madates and 

procedures to effectively integrate water quality, dredging, ad cleanup programs. 

SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT 

SrANDARDs --l!i!iiWF 

Washingtonmcentlyackpteda l w ,,il.lmt 0 

newrukknownasthehiimcnt l - ApftlII,rm 

-s-S@- 

173-204 of tbe wadhgton 

z 

=r 

/- 

. . Admmstdve Code. -\ 

0 lIemleestablihdasetof zz 

narrative chemicd and biological 

cliteria as “anlirnmt quality !3tahnb.” 

0 l’%emkapplkssedimmtqualityshndadsinexistingsourceamtrolprograms 

designad to control the discharge of amhmhm& (e.g., discharge permits). 

0 ‘Ibe rule applks sedimed quality stanhds in a sediment cleanup decision process 

andaJSdlllWtCleanupstaadards. 

0 l%e rule was recently approved by EPA as part of the State’s “water quality 

stmduds’pursuanttosection3O3oftheClcanWaterAct. 

182 
WA= QUurn’ STANDARDS IN THE 21@ C@JWtJRy: 181-190 

SEDIMENT RULES IN’ 

WASHINGTONSTATE 

W--D- SdImontRuIn 

0 InrkzqometoenviNnmental 

pfobhs, iIhstiwooal cballakges, l 8.dlmw 

andkgalma&tesassociatedwith .Rdoptad~- 

sediments, the State of “v-vWash@tonhasbeenworCngon - adoptw81me? 

two new sediment rules. 

0 The frrst sediment rule is known 

astheSedimentManagemaltstandardsandwasadoptedin1991. 

0 TbeothersedimeatNkisknownaHbeDredgedDradgedMaterialManagemeMStandards 

ad is cummly schedukd to be drafted by 1993. 

SEDlMENI’QUALITY~ANDARDS: 

cHEMIcALTEsI‘s/- 

0 nle nrle lists 47 chemical-spacific 

concatdon crited for Fuget 

sound marine sediments. 

0 These criteria werrt developed 

l +gigElGs 

using the Appamt Bffa 

Threshold and Equilibrium .“ahudalmdam~” 

. . . mgmethodsbecausetbe 

combination was moFt reliabk in ~INXM@ adverse biilogiaU ef&ts. 

183 
K. FttlUQ8 

SEDIMENTQUAWI‘YSTAPJDARD6: 

BIOIUWZICAL TESI’S/CRlTERW 

0 TheNk@lishe8asdaf 

loutine biological tests for 

a!sse&gsedimeatquaIity. 

0 When biological testing is 

cxmcbed, a minimum of three 

tUtSiSNqUifCd--tWOtOt 

“i3CUtCCffCZtS’abdOllCtO~ 

“ChNtliC effbts.” 

0 To~‘~~,‘tberuk~insthrrtalO-day~mOrtalitytest 

and a 4% to 96-hour xdiment larval (oyster, mussel, or eddderm) test be 

umdud. 

0 To acJdn% “chronic eff&ts,” the Nk quires that a b@c&al biilumiaeaceace 

test, a polychaete worm growth test, or a field bedhic i&umd abudmce 

-be-. 

0 BiokgicaltestinWp&oncriteriaarecontaidinthemk. 

SEDIMENI’ TJZSI3NG MODEL 

0 The Sediment Management 

Standadsrelksonatkdtesting 

mockltoevaluatequality. 

-QJ-Y SWldWdR 

l Thefimtkrisl?edhea 

chemistry, where se&meat 

CbemiCRltCStrwUltS~~ 

to chanical criteria. If all 

chemicals of concern a below criteria, the sediment is assumed to not cause 

adverse biilogical effects. 

0 Ifanyofthechemidsofconcem areabovetbecha&alcriteria,thesediment 

is assumed to cause adverse biological e&c& pending results of biological 

testing. 
WATER QUALRY STANDARDS M ‘THE 21m CENIURY: 181-190 

0 If biological tests are performed, tbc biological test interpmn criteria will 

govern the final de&ion regading the quality of the sdments. 

0 Tllis technical appmach is used for all sediment quality decisions contained in the 

rule. 

REGULATORY APPLICATION 

MODEL 

l Sediment quality standards 

repwent a “no effkcts” goal. 

0 Exceeding the 8ediment quality 

standddoesnotmeante~inate 

discharge or start active cleanup. 

l “No effects” iltadad was 

established solely using scientific information--not engineering feasibility or cost 

factors that are part of regulatory decisions. 

0 A second sedinmt standad, the “minor adverse dieaS level,” acts as a upper 

bound or ding on regulatory decisions. 

0 Between these two standad, source control and cleanup decisions are made in 

consideration of net environmental effects and codfe9sibility tradeoffs. 

SEDIMENT DILUTION ZONES 

l The rule uses “sediment dilution 

zones” as the vehicle for 

autboking adverse c#Sxts over 

the”noeffects”!ledimentquality 

standards. 

l For ongoing discbarges, the State 

canauthorizeanaNaoutsidetlK! 

discbarge known as a “sediment 

impact zone” within 

sedimmtoiMiiZorrezr 

185 
K. HULl.tM 

0 Forhistorkcootuninrsiorrsub~tocleanup,thcStatecandefinccontamination 

abovethe”#,eflfibds”sbndardmdbelowtbe”miaoreffacts”sCandardthatdoes 

not need to be cleaned up-leaving a “sedimmt recovery zone.” 

CRWPROGRAM IMPLICATIONS 1 7bQhooryW’ 

0 Tnle8ame-ofqualityare 

established for all regulatory 

programs, ensuring that 

- prokuns affaaing 

slxhaltqualityworkinharmony. 

0 We do ncH want permitted 

(lklmge-impact- 8zs 

that will msub in illcmld - 

dispodcostsalKlliab~tonavigationdNdgers. 

l For cleanup pqrams, the upper standad is a cleanup trigger (“cleanup scnning 

level”) above which we will list a site for active cleanup, below which we will 

not list a site for active cleanup. 

l l%isurrnganensensurestbntwewiUnatbepedUingdiscbargesorcraUing 

dredged material disposd sites that will later become future cleanup sites. 

SEDIMENT SOURCE CONTROL 

PROCESS sadhmnt~concrd 

(law 

0 TheNledescribesthep~for A)---- 

controlling-qualityeffccts 

ofdischargestotheaquatic w m=- 

begihng with c) v*-v@-awBm 

potaM emcts 0) v-Y-mpriortodiduugepedttiq. ey)--rr0 Ifadvemeeffectsaxepossible,the 

Nk tllutka discharger information to be supplied with the pedt application. 

186 
WATER QuALrrY SrANDARDo IN TtiE21m CENWKY: Wl-190 

sedimeatimpact~~ultborizedonlyfordischargesthatareapplying~ 

federalandstatetechnologyrequiraaents. 

Discharge sediment efTeds are verified by empirical and modeling information. 

Rule prohibits a discharge from exceeding the upper SEandatd of “minor adverse 

efWts”--the sedhent impact xone maximum contamination (SIZmax) standard. 

(Sediment quality-based effluent limits can be xequk2d.) 

The Nle contains narrative criteria 

for locations where SIZs a~ to be 

avoided if possible. 

AuthorizedSIZsa~~tobcassmall 

as practicable, with the least 

degree of contamination possible, 

i.e., the SIZ may not be allowed 

to reach the upper standard of 

con-. 

Public and landowner review of the proposed SIZ is required prior to permit 

isNance. 

Key intat Rule ascribes acxxnudility to the discharger through the permit, 

including monitoring, mahtamw, and closure requ&n~ents forauthorized SIZs. 

Key policy: To eventually reduce and elimii all SIZs through the permit 

XenewalpIWess. 

EVALUATING POTENTIAL 

SEDIMENT EFFECTS OF A 

DISCHARGE 

0 unlikewatcr, sedimcntefkctscan 

build up over years of discharge. 

0 nleNleNquiresevaluationofthe 

discharge for a period of 10 years 

(about two 5-year pemlit cycles). 

sasmcorrtrdEvahJ8tlofl 

187 
K. PlULLW8 

0 mm “ambialt” - @Mftuy !l&malt quality, absent any 

otherongoingorhistoric-),thelowercumshowsthatthedischarge 

may eventually result in excedance of the sediment quality smdards--requiring 

aSIZauthorizatkmatthetimeofpermithsuance. 

0 SIZscanbeestablishedinareasthat~alreadycontaminatedabovetheSIZmax 

line, ad are more like permitted kutds than observable field conditions. 

0 Ckanup of historic contamination within an authorizd SIZ is also possible. 

DISCHARGE AND SEDIMENT 

LIABILITIEs 

0 unnxo1vedlegalisslKK wbctber 

aregulatorydiscbargcpermitthat 

Festrids, yet allows !sedhmt 

contaminationonsomeoneelse’s 

land constitutes an action subject 

to proprhq laws. 

l Landow net approval over 

regulatoxy permits could result in the landowner holding the discmr hostage. 

AndthereareIc%pIquestionsaboutBcologydelegatingregulatorypowerstotbe 

IiUldOWllW. 

l . . Imbdymg the landowner for cuntamination that Bcology permits to be placed 

ontheirlandwould~yNwritekgislatalliability-. 

0 Rule states that regulatory action does nat address any prqxietary requirements. 

0 Ruhl.ignsthescdhcntstaadardssotbatdischargesdonatc~newclalnup 

sites. 

188 
WATER QUALflV STANDARDS IN THE 21s CEMURY: 181-190 

0 Rule establishes accountability to the discharger for sediment effects. 

l State agencies are integrating regulatory and proprietary interests. 

SEDIMENT CLEANUP STANDARDS 

l Key Nle feature: Defines 

sediment cleanup standa&. 

l Cleanup standand is defined on a 

site-specific basis, as close as 

practicable to the sediment quality 

standards (the “cleanup 

objective”), not to exceed the 

“minimum cleanup level. ” 

SedImentcleanup- 

-Qwnuo- --m-w---- 

ii&zd 

I 

.EmowTkw 

.-w-wl cow 

,------meiiizzw~- 

0 In definiag practicability, net environmental effects, natural recovery rates, 

engineering feasibility, and cost are all factors that are considered when 

determining the site cleanup standards. 

DREDGED MATERIAL 

STANDARDS 

0 The State is developing a second 

sediment Nle addlessing dredging 

and disposal of sediments derived l Tmuport 

from navigation and cleanup .sileDeEign 

projects. l con8tNctkn/ 

J 

l 

Chapter 173-227 

WAC, wiil specify technical and procedural requirements for all dredging and 

dredged material disposal actions. 

0 Rule will codify key feature of existing federal/state program for unconfined, 

open-water disposal of dredged material (Fuget Sound Dredged Disposal 1 

Analysis). 

189 
K. PHILUH 

0 Rukwillprovi&‘minimumfuncthalstanda&”fofdispodofsedimcntsin 

upland difpsal sites. 

a Draft guidance mamud due by late 1992; dratt Nk scheduled for 1993. 

ONGOING DEVELOPMENT OF 

SEDIMENT0 Tbougb the adapted sedimeht 1 .--adh.ntIlhMgamtS~contain 

policies, pNceduNs, andnarrative 

criteria that aN applicable state 

wick, numerical chemical and 

biological criteria contained in the 

adopted version of tbe Nk are 

sokly applicable to Fuge4 Sound 

marine sediments. 

0 Bcobgy is continuing work to fill in tbe “reserved” portions of tie ruk. 

0 Human bealtb sediment criteria are being &ve1opcd jointly by Ecology and the 

Washington Department of Health, witb technical worir scbedukd for cQmpletion 

in 1993. Freshwater sedimeat criteria am also being developed by Ecology. 

0 Ecology will convene a meeting of beathic infauna experts to evaluate improved 

ways for interp~&&~ of hthic community data. 

0 Ecology has agfecd to include saiimd quality issues dluhg &velopmaIt of the 

antidcgdation impkmaMation plan for water quality standah. 

190 
WATmRQUAurYsrANDAKD6MTHE21~ cxrmJRY: 191-198 

SEDIMENrm NEEDsANDusEs 

Glt?ndaL,Dadf?l 

k?secIuive mecftw 

Lake Michipn Fe&h 

adarbo. minds 

Pi, I’d like to say that I’m sum I speak for thousands of environmentalists around the 

country when I say that I’m pleased that EPA has focused so much energy and attention over 

the past several years toward the development of sediment criteria and a national contaminated 

sediment management stlategy. 

WHY BE CONCERNED ABOUT SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION? 

IntbeGreathkes,we’reusedtobeingtbeminers’ amariesthatspotproblemsfirst, 

probgblybecawetheFe~sormuryofusoutthcrtw~hiDgalltbetime. Formoxetban6 

years,contaminatedsedimentinourGnatLakestributatiesand~rshasbeen~as 

OIR of tbe biggest contributors of per&tent, bioaccumulative contamhnts to our sport fish and 

fish eaters. Lack of agreement on safe disposal options for contamhted dredged material has 

also been & thorniest problem for keeping rrbcreational and commercial harbors operating at 

full capacity. 

Isu~lydoli’tneedtotellthisgrouptbntcoaEaminatedsedimeatisnow~~ttocome 

close to or to possibly WCQ equal the atmosphere as a source of persistent contaminants to the 

Great Lakes. It certainly exceeds (ctuready active) point source comibutions by a long shot, 

we don’t have good data on surface runoff. 

When we look, tbetione, at human and envhunental eSfects of toxic hmicals in the 

Great Lakes, at fisb tumors and other carcinomas, at reproductive failure and behavioral 

abnormalities of fish and of fish+ating birds and people, we are incx~~ingly confWat that 

sedhenthasbeeaamajorexposureroute. several specific caged-flsb i3tudh, notably in 

Daroit River sediment, have corx&mW tbis. sobasthef2orMin~p-ofpcBs 

infisb~,bacause~baveloagsiDccbaebbrnaedfromprodudioa,kgvingJadimentas 

tbe biggest source of these compounds. 

191 
O.L. DANmL 

Numrkai vs. mEffect+Based~ Criteria: What Are We Really Argubg 

Sedh2ntqualitycriteria,asour”&onal~sedimeatwofCnggroup”of 

. 

en- secstbem,are- oftbekvelsofcoatunurrsioain-tbatpose 

hsksofadverseeffectstobumanbeaitbortbeeavinmmcnt (Mau;oftbepointsIwill~ 

hcrctodryue~froma~augarpprcpucdhMuch,withRiccbCohn-~md 

J~~lrNtmurOftbeN~~~~DefeaaeCouncil~principalauthorsandcolLtors 

of our views.) We believe tbat scdhent criteria must: 

l Takeintoaccouottbefactthatmanyorganismrabsorb~ts~yffom 

sedhentradnottbrougbtbewatercolumn;alKi 

l Be designa to protec! against cMc, bioaccumulative tiects, dynamic cbangcs 

in bioavailability, food chain exposure--and reproductive and behavioral dfects 

as well as cancer. 

Some peopk bave expmssed concemtbatitwouldnotbcs&atificallypossiiktocome 

up witb one simple number (such as 1 &kg for cadmium) tbat defines wbat level of 

. . ~issafeor”ckan’inalllochoasorchumstances. Thisconcern iSbasedOnWhat 

wepeIteiveasanincompktcunderstandiagofEP~s~criterirp~. 

hrthmorc,sedhntqualitycritehaneednotbeonlya”number.” Sedhatquality 

crithaandstandahsbouldbeallowaltoconsistofanarrayoftests. BPAmaynotbeabk 

to~venumbmtbrtddinetbesrfe~ofachernicalinsedimentswithahigh 

degmeofctMdamformorr:tbanasmallsubsetofcbemicals. 

Insummary,tbeconcqtof~qualitycriterhisbroadeaoughtoenwqassa 

combhationofsiagk-cbemicalcriterh(sucbastbosedevelopedbytbeHquili$riumPPrtitioning 

rpgn#cbartheAppuleat~~ThF#bold),toxicity~ys,mdinsltumeosu~of 

bentbic health. Singk-cbemical numbers by tbemsehs will not meet the “sensitive specks” or 

“maqin of safety” criteria. Toxicity bioassays sbould be able to define chronic effects and 

192 
WATER QUm STANDARDS IN THE 21m CENl-URY: 191-191 

sublerhal endpoints. Owingtogapsintbeundersbmdingofsedimentcbanistlyand 

bioavailability, sediment quality criteria must incorporate this full suite of testing to be accurate 

and protective. 

We believe this approach will he motet protective and accurate than tbe “effects based” 

approach, which develops an action level in a specific location, based on toxicity of a cbanical 

in a single chemical dilution witbout m to synergistic or antagonistic effects, and without 

acknowledging the direct sediment to organism pathway for pollutants. 

How Do Sediment Quality Criteria Fit into the Federal/State Relationship? 

Sediment quality criteria, as I see it, are fully compatible with the existing Federal and 

state regulatory framewollt. 

Under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, States are required to adopt water quality 

standa& that “serve the purposes of the Act,” as spelled out in section 101(a). Such standa& 

must include criteria that protect water body uses such as fishing, swimming, and for fresh water 

bodies, drinking. 

Furthermore, Federal regulations provide tbat State standards must be based on FMeral 

criteria (EPA’s section 304(a) guidance), the EPA guidance modified to reflect site-specific 

conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods. 

Once EPA develops sediment quality criteria, this same principle would apply to State 

adoption. That is, Federal 304(a) guidance will form the basis for State standa&, unless tbe 

State develops site-specific standa& or uses some other scientifically defasibk method for 

deriving standards; the burden of demonstrating defensibility will rest with the State. 

Over tbe past decade, tbe States have been extmmely slow to adopt water column 

standad for toxic pollutants, despite a specific quirement in tbe 1987 Amendmeats to the 

CkanWaterActthattheydosowithin3years. Thisinactivityhasresultalinadelayin 

prouxting our waters. For this reason, a successful national sediment quality criteria program 

must include strong incentives for States to pnnnply adopt and implement standa&. If 

sadimentqualitycriteriaanedevelopadbytheBpA,theStatesshouldbegivea2y~toadopt 

tbeiiownstanda&. Ifrheydo~acbprstabdardsatlegstaspnotectiveasBpA’swithinthe 

deadline, EPA’s criteria should automatically become applicable State sb&ards. 

Inwatersw~~Statecriteriadonorapply,suchastbeopenoceaa,fedaallyadopted 

sediment quality criteria sbould be used. In interstate waters such as tbc Gnat Lakes or 

Chempcake Bay, a me&a&m, such as tbat currently being off&d tbrougb tbe Gxeat L&es 

Water Quality Initiative, is needed to ensure adoption of consistent, protective st&ards. If 

States wish to apply more stringent provisions, they should be provided autbority to do so. 

193 
There arc a number of obvious applicaths for sediment quality criteria. IHo= are sure 

tOemergeOllCCtheSCC*~~establisbad. 

NPDBS -g, L&&s tkhwion 

Ixldmksandsewefage -plantstbatdiscbargcefIluentintou.s.watersale 

required to have permits that establish limits on the quantity of pollutants tbey can release. 

Todry,thosclimitsaFtderivadtop~wrtcrqurlity,i.e.,thecbanicrl~ofthewrter 

column. Permit writers use State standa&, plus infonaation on effluent concentration, flow 

(the”dilutioa’ofthewastestreamthtwilloccuronceithitsthewtter),andpattenwofmixing 

to backsalculate tbe level of a pollutant tbat is permissible in tbe effluent (U.S. BPA, 199la). 

OnceMimcntquaUtystandadaxeavailabk,tbeyambeusedinamanner similar to 

water quality criteria to backsakulate tbe level of pollutant discharges tbat can safely be ma& 

witbaut exceeding sediment criteria (U.S. EPA, 1991b). Pennits limits then can be modifkd 

topWectbotbwatcranddimentquality. 

F43r many waters, multiple dischargers ofken exist for a toxic contaminant of concern. In 

such cases, singMWity discbarges cannot be analyzed in isolation. A Total Maximum Daily 

[~]Lx#d~L),ortbemaximumdrily~ofaoerCPinpoU~thrtthesediment 

bottomcansaf&lydve,mustbecalculated. OncctbelMDLforsedimeMisdetermined,tbat 

loadmustbe~amongaUdWWgemandpoU~saufces(botbpointandnonpo& 

soum). 1sayallwwiththecrrveAtthatca- do sot favor mlxlng zmes and 

diIutknauo- for the handfbl of pcrsistcat bioaammulative toxk ampouds that have 

pmducedckmradvw~~ecta. WealsoseeapproacbcssuchasXRfDIaaslntedm 

tactksonthewayto~~~forth~aamecempounds. 
WA-T’ER QUAUTY SfANDARDs IN THE 21~ CENI’URY: 191-198 

stormwater runoff from tuban, agricultural, and harvested forest areas. Some pollution 

prevention strategies include the eliminah of harmful chemicals from hduhal and 

commercial processes, and tbe w of naturally vcgchted “buffer zones” to xeduce tbe 

magnitude and contamination of runoff flows during rainfall. 

Rvtectbn of Risline Amas 

Cleansitesthatdoaoryetbaveconcaminatedsedimentsatsonaedtobeproseaed. To 

effectively protect sites that are cleaner tban the sediment standa& would require, tbe 

antideg&ation policy of tbe Clean Water Act, wbicb states tbat clean waters must trwnain 

uncontaminated should be amended so tbat it clarifies that sediment quality criteria, as well as 

water quality c&xia, can trigger its application. 

Every year, between 350 and 450 million cubic yards of materials, enougb to fill a 

football field-sized pit 6,000 miles deep, are dredged and disposed of to keep shipping channels 

andbarborsopenintbiscountry. Agrowingpercentageoftbesematerialsiscontamhtedby 

toxic substances. Sediment quality criteria and standa& will enable us to test these materials, 

to see which ones are “clean” and which may bave adverse e&cts on tbe envhunent. 

omXthedisriadioncaabemadebetweencleanandcontaminateddtbdgedmrterials,we 

can focus on beneficially reusing tbe clean mate&&. Tbe compfehsive pollution pnveatioa 

stmtegies we support will help by halting their continuing contamination. We also support 

eliminatioaoftheopenwaterdisposalofcoataminatedmaterials,apractioealregdyin~~ 

over most of tbe Great Lakes. Elsewhere, as we move toward achieving that elimhtion, mo~c 

~vesedimentcontrolandmanagementstrategiesrueneededtominimizedamagetotbe 

enviroament. 

TbeMarhepiotaction,~b,andSanctwhAct(MPRSA),orOceanDumping 

M,~Miacorporote~quPlityc~~aascreeningtoolto~thequrlity 

(i.e., clean, partially contamhted contaminated) of sediments at a site wbexe dRxlging is 

planned. SiaatheMPBSAfo~~theoceandumpingofdradgsdMterialsthatwould 

endanger human be&b, tbe aquatic ecosystem, or the economic potential of an area, sediments 

that fail tbe sedheat quality criteria should not be approved for ocean dumping. In ememy 

situations where there is no feasible alterative to ocean disposal, our gnnrp bas propcwed tbat a 

waiverrequestcouldbesubmittedtotbeEPA. IftbeAgencyd&zmhestbattbedumpingwiU 

aot~ltin”unacceprablycLdverseimpact”onawaterbody,awPiverwillbegrontadthat 

permits - dumping of contamhted material (33 USC Section 1413(d)). 

195 
O.L. DANIEL 

Sitemurr(taneatplanssbouldbedeve@edf6rdesignatedoceansitutbatreceivehoth 

ckan and co&mm&d dredge mateds. ‘Ike plans should include periodic monitoring using 

dimed quality criteria as a measurement tool and a plan for closing the site or modifying its 

use if impacts are discovered. 

Par many years, people have been debating the scope and degn~ of sediment 

contamination. A number of efforts have been made to evaluate the problem on a national basii, 

by such htitutions as the National Academy of Sciences. 

Thus far, all the evaluators have bad to develop tbeii own yar&ticks for 4xMamWA, 

which bas made it difficult to reach definitive answers. National sediment quality criteria (either 

EPA guidance adopted by the States or national criteria adopted by EFA for U.S. waters) will 

give us one yahtick that everyone can use. We will be far more able to set up monitoring 

p-s, both for still uncontaminated sites, to protect them, and for contaminated sites, to 

measun our progress in cleaning them up, once criteria are in place. 

Stank& for Site CZeannp/Restonation 

Forsedimerrtsthatare~y~inrrtad~naadtobeclernadup,amechanismb 

needed to de&mine what triggers a cleanup. Sediment quality standa& would serve as a 

criticrlcomponentofasetofcriteriausedtotriggerthecleanupandremadiationofa 

contaminated site. Little agmment or understand@ cun#ltly exists regax&g the extent to 

whichsedimcntsmustbeclameduptoconsiderasite”xemaMed” Ofcourse,cleanupcan 

mean many things. It can mean impkmentation of pollution ~en&n straQks to balt hrther 

contaminationandauow natural processes to take theii ctnmc-dtbougb this solution is unlikely 

to be applicable to Great I&es tributarks, wbicb regutrly, during stem evw, wash great 

quantities of contaminated sediments downstream to disperse beyond recovery in the lakes. In 

many cases, it will mean dredging a river bed or hot spots witbin it and treating tbe 

contaminated dredge spoils. Each site will need to be evalti individually. Used in 

conjunction with other factors or criteria, sediment standa& can me to trigger rwnedhtion. 

Does EPA Have Legal Autbority To Develop Sedimed Quality Criteria? 

Yes. EPA does bave authority to develop and impkment scdhcnt quality criteria. 

Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act establisbes a nathal objective of restoring and 

. nmdning the “cbeankal, physical and biological integrity” of our Nation’s waters. In 

addition, section 304(a)(l) dhts the Administrator to develop and publish criteria for water 

quality reflecting the latest scientific knowledge on (I) the kind and extent of a identifiable 

1% 
WATER QUALflT SfANDARDS IN THE 21~ CEIVWRY: 191-M 

effects on plankton, fish, shellfish, and wildlife that may be expected from the presence of 

pollutants in any body of water, including gtound water, and (2) the effects of pollutants on 

biological community diversity, productivity, and stability. 

Section 304(a)(2) directs the Administrator to develop and publish information on the 

factors necessary for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife for classes 

and categories of receiving waters. 

EPA has developed water m criteria pursuant to its authority under section 304(a). 

These numerical criteria are intended to protect the chemical integrity of the aquatic resource, 

but, standiig alone, are not adequate to protect physical and biological integrity as required by 

section 304(a). It is our view that it is in the context of recognizing this deficiency that EPA 

has begun developing both w criteria (criteria based on biological assessments of natural 

ecosystems) and m criteria to complement its water column criteria. Once water column, 

sediment, and biological criteria are in place, we will have a better mechanism for restoring and 

protecting our waters as mandated under sections 101(a) and 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. 

Why Do We Need Legislation? 

Since EPA already has authority to set sediment quality criteria if it wants, why is 

legislation needed? There are two main reasons: timing and applicability. 

While the law clearly allows, even requires, BPA to develop sediment quality criteria, 

the Agency’s job would be done more quickly if Congress provided more express authorization 

and clearer instructions to convey priority. Despite its existing mandate, in 20 years EPA has 

yet to promulgate a single sediment quality criterion (although four have now been presented for 

approval). The Clean Water Act should be amended to specify how q&l& EPA must move 

in developing sediment quality criteria; the law could also specify a priority for persistent, 

bioaccumulative compounds. 

. Sediment quality criteria will protect the environment only if&y are used as a w 

. . m . The Clean Water Act and Marine protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act should be amended to clarify that, once developed, these criteria will form the 

basis for decisions about permitting for the disposal of dredged materials (what may be dumped 

and where) and the discharge of pollutants. Further, we believe that the law should be amended 

to ensure that EPA’s sediment quality criteria are applicable in ocean and shared coastal waters. 

Ideally, the Clean Water Act should be amended to establish national sediment quality criteria 

as well as national water quality criteria. ‘These amendments would lay to rest once and for all 

197 
O.L. DANlEL 

llmnk you. 

(wtnbmofthe~ -&i-won#ng~upwhopatticipatedindewlo~g 

thepaddanrs- inth&pvlpuinc~De~%utnettof~Ame~mLittomlsoduy, 

T~HablettofSavwheBay,SamhCbrkoftheEnvi~ D@nseFwd,GIcndcrDaniel 

oft)ac~M~~F~,Bn#HuLrcyofthc~~Club,Jwsfaa~Mdwclr 

G&n-LeeoftheNbtwrrlRuowws D&se ciwndl, Boyce mome-Miller of F&d of the 

~,BctlrAdlUcnwuvrof~CorzstAIU?mcc,~MiUctofhkrdosrolAldubon~, 

Kilt&en vim velsorof~-, milip w&r of Gmatukes united, and cDM& Zpf 

ofCka?dceanA&. And#tw&ml 135 org48nlMms have entbrsd the geneml go& 

embded in this smmnent thmugh a CWcns C%anerjbr Gmtaminated Sdment, published in 

1937.) 

REFERENCES 

U.S. EPA. 1991a. U.S. Environm~ Rotection Agency, Office of Water. Technical 

Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

EPA 50512-90-001. 

U.S. EPA. 1991b. U.S. hhmmaml~ Agency, Officeof ScicnccandTcchnology. 

pn-Dnft~oatbeApplicatioaofsadimentQualityCriteriafortheproreaionof~ 

Life. Draft. Waskgton, DC: U.S. EPA. 

198 
WAfBR QUAUlY STANDARJM M ‘TlfK 21nt CEWURY: 199-206 

APPROACHES TO MANAGING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 

WITHOUTSEDIMENTQUALITYCRITERM 

WIlllam R. Gala, Ph.D. 

T&am Leader, Eiwtdcdo~ 

CkVWlRi?NRYhORdTCChndO~~ 

makmond. CrJubrrJo 

IIWRODUCTION 

Near many industrial centexs, the sediments in rivers, estwks, and harbors contain 

elevated concentrations of toxic chemicals relative to sediments from “pristine areas.” Tbe 

concentration of toxic cbemicals in many of tbese locations are m cM)ugh to have a 

reasonable potential to cause adverse effects to human bealtb and tbe environment. The 

Environmental Fmtection Agency @PA) is currently developing a mrrnagem-wm 

assess, control, pro&x& and remediate tbese conhmdd sediments (U.S. BPA, 1992). 

Tbtmaaagemeatofcoataminated~~beseparatedintotwomajorfunctiocw: 

(I) controlling and protecthg existing and future sediment quality, and (2) assess@ and 

mediating sediments contaminated from ongoing and historic discbarges. Recent RPA 

pnxntations before EPA’s Science Advisory Bead malre it chr tbat EPA plans to rely heavily 

on sedimetlt quality criteria (SQC) to provide tbe basis for their contd ad rwdation 

tsmtegia. In the draft contaminated sediment management stmtegy, EPA proposes to derive 

NPDES permit limits based on SQC to contd and protect dimeut quality (U.S. EPA, 1992). 

To~p~this~,BPAplaastoFeleaseadraAguidPocemanwlforderivingpannit~~ 

aadconditionstoprotadsedimentqualityiaPiscalY~l~(u.S.BpA,1~). Alsointbe 

droftscrategy,HPAproposestouseexistingCBRCLAaadRCRAreguktiolwtom9ru#tbe 

assessment and remediation of- idimem (U.S. EPA, 1992). SQC will potaddly 

bewedasapass/failtriggerto~wbdherannlimmtiscoatamioltedcradwillformtbe 

basii for determining cleanup levels m to m contamhted sa%ma~ts. 

However, EPA does not necesdly need to develop SQC to manage amtamhd 

sediments. Ratber tban dying on SQC, EPA can utilize existing water quality-based controls 

tocoatrolandprotedsadimeotquatityfnrmcunatdischPrgesaadwea~,effacts-brsad 

approacbtoassessandremed&e~frombistoricdMarges. Currentwater 

quality-based fxmtrols (e.g., water quality criteria, whole effluent toxicity limits) are likely 

199 
W.R. OALA 

prute&ve ofbotb water and sediment quality, thus elimiig tbe need for tbe development of 

anewcontrolrpgroachandtheconcomitantFesePrch,vlllidation,andregulatioasneadadtoprt 

tbe SQC appmacb into place. A tied, effects-w appmb similar to tbe one proposed by 

Adams et al. (1991; 1992) will mart accurately assess xdiment quality and provide a better 

basis for sekcthg between Merent m options tban SQC. 

CONTROLLINGANDPRCnZCTIN G SEDIMENT QUALlTY 

sourrxs of sediment contaminants need to be controlled before successful remediation of 

contaminated sediments can occur. otherwise, freshly xemed&d sedimaMs will become 

re-contaminated from the uncontrolled sources. Rather tban develop a new control stmtegy, 

EPA sbould first assess tbe integhve efkctiveness of existing water quality-based controls for 

protecthg sediment quality and conmlling sources of sediment contaminants. Ifexisting water 

quality-based regulations are adequate, tben EPA can proceed with impkmenhtion of tbeir 

remediationstmtegy. ‘I%edevelopmentofanynewcontrolstmtegy,sucbasSQC,wiUcertainly 

delay the -on of contaminated sedhal@ at many sites. 

Tbeperc@ontbattbepmsenccofcontaminatedsed&ntsmansthatwater 

quality-basedcontrolsue~pFotactiveof~qualityiswtnacesslrily~~. Inmany 

cases,severelycontuninatadsedimeatssitesw~~piiortotheimplemeatrtioaof 

NPDES regulations and even the most basic NPDBS discbarge limits (i.e., effluent guidelines 

and conventional pollution control). Contaminated sediment sites such as Los Angeks County 

Wastewater T-t Outfall, California (DDT, PCB), Hudson River, New York (FCB), 

Detroit River, Michigan (me&h), Duwamisb Watery, Wasbington (metals, PCB, PAH) were 

~inatadasansultof~hargesinthel960sandearlyl~~. Infhct,EPAbasconcluded 

tbat”Itisclearthatmanyoftheworstcasesofsedimetltcontaminationare~with 

sotmes that have cead discharge” (U.S. EPA, 1987). 

Itisalsoclearthotw~qurrlity-basad~~,andthewostewatertnatment ~hne!iY 

needaltomeetthem,aNreducingsadiment-fFosnpointsourcedischugesand, 

tbereby,protecthgsedimentquality. Inmanycontaminatedsedimentsites,tbedaeper~ 

am mom contaminated tban surficial sediments. EPA readily acknowkdges that in many 

locatkns the older polluted sediments have been covered by nant dq.~~&i of ckaner matehal 

(U.S. EPA, 1987). For example, in contaminated Detroit River sediments tbe maximum toxicity 

ispresentlyatdepths10-15cmbelowthesurface,whibetheaurfrcialsedimarts~nortoxic 

(Rosh et al., 1989). This improvemti in sedhent quality resulted from water quality-based 

contmls, not from any sediment quality criteria or muragement approaches. 

Currentwaterqualitycriteriaformanyannmonsc&nent~atescringeat 

cM)ugb to prevent sedhnt contamination. For exampk, tbe water quality criteria for protaction 

of human bcalth for DDT (0.59 ng/L), PAHs (2.8 ng/L), and PCBs (0.044 rig/L)) sbould 

200 
WATgR QUALllY STANDARDS M THE tlm CENTURY: 199-206 

pruclude sediment concentrations tbat 

could adversely affect bentbic 

organisms. Marine chronic criteria 

for metals, such as copper (2.9 

pg/L), nickel (8.3 &L) and mercury 

(0.025 &L), should also prevent 

sediment contamination. 

ThWf&dly, even equilibrium 

partitioning (EqP), the basis for 

EPA’s SQC, supports tbe contention 

that water quality criteria will likely 

be protective of sediment quality 

(Adams et al., 1991). For non-ionic 

compounds, EqP assumes that a 

chemical’s concentration in tbe r 

sediment will he in equilibrium with 

its concentration in tbe water. 

Because benthic organisms are not 

more sensitive than water column 

organisms (Di Tore et al., 1991), the 

EqP theory would predict tbat wben 

a non-ionic compound’s concentration 

is kss than its water quality criteria, 

tbat adverse effects should not occur 

in the water column and sediments 

tbat are in equilibrium. Water 

quality criteria should he fully 

protective of both the water column 

and hentbic communities, especially 

for non-ionic compounds, thereby 

eliminating tbe need for SQC developr 

EPA Water Quality Criteria I 

PAtIS =ngR 

PCBS 0.044 ngA 

DDT OSngR 

Dlddrln 0.14 nga 

-urY 12non 

Cadmium 1.1 pgt 

Equlllbrlum Partitioning Theory I 

mt specific to the protection of bentbic organisms. 

Itisnot~~thatSQc~nacessarybecawetbe~~manysadimeatcolrtuniaants 

for wbicb water quality criteria have not yti heen developed. Wastewater treatment technologies 

are not &en&al-specific; tbey remove classes of compounds. For example, activated sludge 

technology removes all types of biodegradable compounds, not just chemicals for which there 

are permit limits. Dischargers need tbe lldctssary wastewater treatment technology to meet u 

of their water quality-based and technology-based control limits. Thus, the treatment technology 

necessary to meet a phenanthrene water quality standard of 2.8 rig/L will certainly remove 

acenaphtbene and fluomnthene to similar levels even tbough tbeii water quality standa& would 

he much greater. Even wben water quality-based controls do not specifically regulate chemicals 

201 
V.I. OAIA 

tb8tUeCXl&kdl.Xl&Msadimeat~,tbeleveloftnrrment thatisNquiredshould 

bCSU~itOalsoNdUCCthCdiSChafgCOftheseCheariC8lS. 

Waterqualitycriteriaareonly 

onecompanentof waterquality-based WbOlOEflkUltTO*~- 

controls. The other major element, 

I 

whok effluent toxicii, will also 

pNtCCtsadimcstqlUlity.TheWhOk 

effluent toxicity approach was 

field-vrlidrtad by investigating the 

correlation between ambkat and 

effluent toxicity as pdicted by 

toxicity tests and biilogical impacts 

in the receiving water communities 

(U.S. EPA, 1991). Benthic 

invertebrate community measu~# 

were included in the bidogical 

idiCa!O~USCdtOvalidabetheWblC 

effluent toxicity control appncb in EPA’s Complex Bfhent Toxicity Testing Program 

(CEITP) (U.S. EPA, 1991). In addition, a study conducted by the North Carolina Division of 

Emhnmed Management indhted that whok effluent chronic toxicity tests using 

Ccriodophnicr &&a accurately pdicted receiving water impacts on the benthic 

macroinvertebrate community in freshwater sbeams (as cited in U.S. EPA, 1991). Similar 

xesults weFt observed in a comparative time serks study on tbe Trinity River in Texas (as cited 

in U.S. EPA, 1991). Wbok efhent toxicity limits are expadsd to be fully protective of both 

watercolumnandbenthiccommu~asevidetrt~mthertsultsoftheC~andother 

studies. 

202 
WATER QUAUT’Y STANDARDS IN THEIla CENTURY: 199-m 

ASSESSINGAND REMEDIATING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 

Even after all soutces of sedknt con@mWion have heen controlled, thete will still be 

aneedtoassessandpotentiaUyremediatesedimentscontambWedfrombistoricdMuuges. 

EPA’s potential use of SQC as a pass/fail trigger for determining wbetber a s&ment is 

contaminated ignores the wealth of experience tbat indicates that a tiered, effects-based wb 

(Adamsetal., 1991; 1992),similartboseusedtoassessthehazardsposedby~~~, 

pesticides, and otber toxic chemicals, will be mom cost effective and scientifkUy sound. 

Because tbe factors controlling the fate, concentration, and bioavailability of chemicals in 

sediments are only now beiig investigated and understood, the use of a single value, such as 

SQC, to assess sediment quality and derive cleanup levels is overly simplistic and bigbly 

questionable. However, a tiered, effects-based approach which integmtes biological, 

toxicological, and chemical data on a site-specific hasis to evaluate tbe sig&kance of sedknt 

contamination will allow contaminated sediment sites to be prioritized and remediation options 

to be selected based on the risk to human bealtb and tbe environment. 

In a tiered approach, tbe 

metbods increase in complexity and 

costastbeassessmentpm, 

and at each tier a decision is made to 

stop if adequate safety is 

demobstnrted or the hazard is weU 

characterized, or to continue to the 

next tier if significant uncertainties 

rembin. The metbods being proposed 

to develop SQC, such as PqP for 

non-ionic chemicals and acid volatile 

sulfide normalization for metals, 

could he incorporated into a tiered 

approach as sediment assessment 

values that would be used for 

L 

screening sediments to determine whetheraddwnal toxicological and cbemii investigations 

aNneeded(Adamsetal., 1991; 1992). Ifsedimentspassedtbisscreuungtier,tbeywouldbe 

considefed”notcQn~“andtbe assessmentwouldstop. Ifasediment~vabre 

was exceeded, the assessment would proceed to tbe next tier, which would it&de Momtory 

sediment toxicity tests to determine iftbe cbankals pnsent are bioavailable and present in toxic 

amounts (Adams et al., 1991; 1992). ‘Ibe last tier would involve con&ming tbe labomtory 

results by performing a detailed field investigation of tbe sediment site. lltis co&matory tier 

would include &r Jftu toxicity tests, bentbic invertebrate surveys, bioaccumulation tests (to 

investigate food-&in effects), and toxicity identification evaluations (Adams et al., 1991; 1992). 

203 
W.R. OALA 

BPAsbouldmtapptoachsedimartquality- any difhmtly tlm they have 

--- in der programs (CWA, FWRA, ‘ISCA, CBRCLA). These 

~~srrllutilizca~,effeds-bssad~bw~highettiersnpreseasincreasing 

degrees of vpkxity, resolution, costs, and predktive amfldam. EPAshouldabandmthe 

metbodologk8tbatwillbe 

UsefulinatieNd asmsumtapp~. Itisimportanttoremembertbattheobjectiveofany 

fiedbnt-stNtegyisto-if-onisaeceasarytoreducetherisksposed 

bytbecodamhUintbesedimaUtoanaccqtablekvel. Theuscofcbemical-speci%SQC 

will addma neither the integrative ef&cts from multiple contamhnts nor all of tbe complex 

f&ton which govern bioavailabii. Only by using a thud, effects-based approach can tbe 

public bave co&hncetbatsedimeatsiteswillberemediatedbasedontbeiractualrisksto 

buman bealtb and tbe environment. 

EPA’S NEXT SFEPS 

Tberisksposedbycontamhted&imentbavenotbeensufficiiycbamc&zdto 

justify EPA35 haste in developing a comprebahe contaminant saihent mrurrgemeat stmtegy. 

Although amUmMed sediment sites are found nationwide, tbe actual d extent of 

contaminatedsedimemisquitesmaU. CorpsofEngineersexperhcebassbowntbatabout 

0.75-3 percent of the sediments tbat BII: dredged from waterways typically require special 

handling or treatment because of potahl toxicity, even tbougb axeas that axe dredged typically 

ueneuLrgepoplktioncentersandhigbindustrialadivitylocrtioas(L#,1992). EJ’Asbould 

compikudmaintPiaanuptodotenationalcorrtam~~~V~~sotheYcan 

lccuntelyassesstheextetrt~severityofthecontaminatH1sedimeatproblcm. Tbemostrccent 

inventory (U.S. EPA, 1987) is not altqe&r compnbensive because few of tbe ide&fkd 

. tmbmmaW sediment sites were ai3ased to determine if the chemicals present wen actually 

causing adverse effects to human health or to tbe envimnmezht. 

EPA sbould assess tbe sifltcance of all potential existing sources of sediment 

. txnhmmU and structure its stmtegy accohgly. The beavy focus oo controlling point 

-~inthednft~trstegy~.S.BpA,1992)meynotbew~. Tbeimpactof 

wapoia#wr~of~coataminaatswillbedifficultto~,butitmustbecoruidend 

duringtidevelopmentoftbestmtegy. I3PAsbouklnotrelyonSQCtomanageamtamhted 

. sahmmts More continuing witb SQC developmti, EPA should assess tbe integrative 

effa%ive8kss of existing water quality-based contmls for controlling and pxWcthg m 

quality. EPA should continue its research into developing stlndrvdizad saliment quality 

asemmt methods which can then be incotporatcd into a tiered, eff&ts-based m 

appnwcb* 

204 
WATER QUruJrv STANDARDS IN THE21m CENTURY: 199-206 

Most States will have neither the expertise nor the tesources to implement new control 

and remedMon stmtegies to protect sediment quality. Rather than devekping strategies that the 

already overloaded States will be unable to implement, EPA should act as a technical 

clearinghouse and tesource to the States. EPA should focus on providing msearch, training, and 

assistance to the States so the States can develop sediment strategies that recogn& the prior&y 

that contaminated sediments pose locally and the resoutces they have availabk to ef&tively 

manage contaminated sediments. 

CONCLUSIONS 

It is likely that contaminated sediments will still be an issue far into the 21st century. 

The complexities in assessing, controlling; protecting, and remediating contaminated sediments 

will prevent any easy solutions to this problem. This assertation has been acknowledged by EPA 

when they stated in the draft strategy that “no action” (natural mmediation) will in many cases 

be the preferred sediment management option. EPA should utilize all available technical 

expertise within both the Federal Government and State govemments as well as in the private 

sector and academia, to continue their development of a comprehensive, scienti!?caIly sound 

contaminated sediment management strategy. 

REFERENCES 

Adams, W.J., R.A. Kimerle, and J. W. Ramett. 1992. Sediment quality and aquatic life 

assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26: 1864-l 875. 

Adams, W.J., R.A. Kimerle, and J.W. Ramett. 1991. Sediment assessment for the 21st 

Century: An integmted biological and chemical approach. In: Water Quality Standards for the 

21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S. E&ronmental Pro&&on Agency, OfGce of Water 

Regulations and Standards, pp. 5966. 

DiToro, D.M., C.S. Zatba, D.J.Hansen, W.J.Rerry, R.C. Swat@, C.B. Cowan, S.P. Pavku, 

H.B. Allen, N.A. Thomas, and P.R. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment 

quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals by using equilibrium partitioning. Environ. 

Toxicol. Chem. 10:1541-1583. 

Lee, C.R. 1992. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Dredging Program. Presented at: 

EPA Forum No. 1, The Rxtent and Severity of Contaminated Sediments. Chicago, IL, April 

21-22. 

205 
W.R. OALA 

Rodu, C.J., J.P. Giesy, and R.G. Krks. 1989. Toxicii ofsalimam in the Trenton Channel, 

DetmitRiver,Michigantocllrf- mans (Insecta: chirorromida). J. Great Iakcs Rcs. 

15:57&5&o. 

U.S. EPA. 1987. U.S. Eaw Pmwtioo Agency, OHice of wafer Rcgulatiorw and 

Staduds. An Overview of Sedhmt Quality in the Unital States. EPA-905/9-88-002. 

walwgton, DC: U.S. Ellvironmental protedion Agency. 

U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. Ewironm ental Pmtection Agency, Ollice of Water. Technical Support 

Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control. EPA-505/2-9M)ol. Washington, DC: U.S. 

BnviNmmental-OnAgency. 

U.S. EPA. 1992. U.S. Hmimmad Pmasion Apcy, Office of Water. Draft Outline 

EPA-S contaminated se&meat Myement Strategy: APmposal forDiscussion. Washington, 

DC: U.S. En- PlrDteawm Agency. 

206 
WATER QUAIJlY STANDARIH M TIfH 2lrc CENTURY: 207-216 

EFTEWS-BASEDTEST.INGANDSEDIMENTQUALITYtXUTERM 

FOR DREDGED MATERIAL 

‘I’bomas D. Wright 

U.S. Amy Ehgheer wormcrrryr izlpmhent istalim 

Wc-nq, M-H 

Jan A. MiJkr 

U.S. Amy Engbuer Lmdon, Nonh crnnol 

Qdmgo. /uino& 

INTRODUCTION 

Approximately 450 million cubic meters of material are dredged each year from 

navigable waterways. Where open-water disposal is pt0posed for the mate&l, the Corps of 

Engineers (CE) evaluates the material for suitability under the Clean Water Act (CWA, P.L. 

92-500, as amended) or the Marine PFotaccion, Research, and Sanduaries Act (MPRSA, P.L. 

92-532, as amended). If the material does not meet the CWA guidelines or the MPRSA criteria, 

theCBcanwtapproveunrwtrideddisposalofthemattrialinopenwater. ‘IbeCWAguidclibes 

and MPRSA criteria are pnomulgatal by the Environmental Rote&m Agency @PA) ad it 

exercises oversight on CB de&ions ngarding disposal. Further, CWA disposal requires State 

certification that it will not violate State water quality standad (Wright and Saunders, 1990). 

‘I%e CWA guidelines (40 CFR, Part 230) for the evaluation of ddged material wae t%st 

issued in 1975 and wised in 1980. These guidelines allow a comparison of contaminants in 

the dtedged material with those at the disposal site and allow open-water disposal where 

contaminants at the two sites are “substantially similar” or where it can be shown that 

unacceptable concentrations of contaminants will not be transported beyond the boundarks of 

the disposal site. In addition, tbe guidelines provide that where there is such a large number of 

contaminants as to p~ecludc ide&kation of all of them by chemical analyses, or w&e 

chemical-biological interactive effects may occur, effects-based tests which measure organism 

responses may be used in lieu of chemical teds. In response to these guidelines, the CB issued 

207 
T.D. WRlOm. R.M. BmnslL d J.A. LmLBI 

. impbnreatraoa manual (CE, 1976) wbicb de&bed tbe effects-based procedures. ‘Ihis 

The MPRSA cxiteria (40 CFR Parts 220-228) for the evaIuatioo of dredged mate&l were 

issuedin1973andmvimdin19?7. Tbeaecrimiaamckulyef%ctsba&. At4oCFR22’7.6, 

CCrtainconstiarents(orgmobalogencocnpwnds,-~mdmeFavyoompounds,~~8Dd 

whniumcompoubds,~oilofrurykindorinclayform)~~~fFomdisposalodrer 

tbanas’trwe-” NonumeriaUimitsaregivenfortbesecoataminaats. Ratber, 

tbeIlearltcofbiobgialtwtstocvlluatt~~,toxicity,mdbiorniLbilityuCto~Ussd 

~Owwbdberor~thep~~~~coastituentsruepresentin~thantrece~. 

Inrespoasetothe19ncriteria,tbeBPAandtheCBisaredajoiasimpknredotian~ 

(EPA/C& 1977), which described the bioassay procedures. A nwisionoftbi!!manualwas 

issued in 1991 (EPAKE, 1991). In general, the revision focmal m lefhnemoftbe1977 

procedures and mtained the effects-basal alqmacb (Wright, 1992). 

It is important to understand that dmJged material is a highly complex substance 

composbdofnahrralsoilconstituentsthat~yor~ywtbt~(Bngkretal., 

Mla,b). Both tbe MPRSA and tbe CWA make this dishtim and pmvide evaluatory 

prrocadur#fordndgadmaterirltbataFe~~fFwnthoseuJedforothermpterials. Intbe 

case of new dfedghg projects, tbe excavated amtmial is usually “virgin,” tbat is, it is sedhnt 

wbicbbasbecmexposedtofew,ifany,antbqoge&amtmhn& Materhlexcavatedasa 

. ~qmatioamrycomefromavarietyofsources,such~slittotaldrift,riverineinput, 

andsheeterosion adjacemt to tbe project. Such material may have beeu mmmhted at its 

~rceormrybecomecoataminabddduringrranaportordeposition1tbeprojad. Becausetbe 

initialsounxaftbematerialis~~orexisting~~,itwill~alloftheelemeatJin 

tbeperiodktabkaswellasbothnaturalandan&qqahcompounds. Insofarasmanyof 

theseuec~rs’~~,“vircurlly~dradged~couldbeconsi&~tobe 

. commmkd . Inactualpractice,tbemefepnWlce of a amtaminant or its concentration in 

dradgedmaterialcurrarelybeusadtopndidwhetheror~itw~haveadverse~~upon 

biota (Engkr, MO), and tbe etTects-based appmacb described below appears to be 

en-y consewative (Jones and Lee, 1988; Lee and Jones, 1987). 

EFFECISBASEDTESI’ING 

Eff~wtestiagwherebyorganism~~usedto-tbe~ 

S@tllSOfSdilWltiS~htorily maMhtedalKlbasbeeninuseformanyyeam Evihceof 

itseff&v~inenvhmenhlprotehmispmvi&dbytbeobsenMhtbatda@einrmdve 

. . momtoMgofmanydisQowlsites,tbefeisnodocumenCltioaofadversceffectsficnn 

. ambmmnBfFommrterirrlevrhutbdundertbese~. EtTWdad~isahoUstic 

rrpproachracognizingtbrtthereUe~~thOWKlSOf-ill-,mdtblU 

. amyoftbesearebiologhllyimocuousdespitetbeircoacebtratroa , whefcasotbersmaybe 

208 
WATER QUALIW SIXNDARDS M THE 2la CEWURY: 207-218 

biologically active at concentrations that cannot be measured with cunent analytical chemistry 

techniques. 

‘IBe current evaluatory approach used in determining the suitability of dredged material 

for open-water disposal uses acute biological toxicity, bioaccumulation, and water quality criteria 

or standards. The effects-based results do not distinguish which contaminant or coatbii of 

contaminants is responsible for an observed effect and, for regulatory purposes, this is not 

important. It does, however, take into account possible interactive effects and is a dii 

measure of the bioavailability of all of the contaminants present (Wright and Saunders, 1990). 

Further, the evaluation includes an -on for bioaccumulation of contaminants. The latter 

is not addressed by any proposed sediment quality criteria. 

SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 

Attempts to establish cause-and-effect relationships between the concentration of a 

particular contaminant and a biological &ect in natural sediments have proved futile (Lee and 

Jones, 1992). Results from regulatory testing of sediments proposed for open-water disposal and 

broad field studies during the past decade which have yielded vast databases, such as the Status 

and Trends Program, have ftied to demonstrate clear relationships between sediment 

contaminants and biological effects (O’Connor, 1990). 

Despite the lack of cause-and-effect relationships, sediment quality criteria have been 

developed and applied. Among tbe first were the so-called Jensen criteria promulgated by the 

EPA in 1971 for dredged material evaluations. These appear to have had little, if any, technical 

validity and, in some cases, the criteria were well below the average crustal abundance for 

several contaminants (Rngler, 1980) and did not take into account natural background 

concentrations (Wright, 1974). Naturally occurring levels of chemicals in sediments, 

patticularly metals, vary greatly with the physical and mineralogical character of soils in the 

watenhed. Within the Gnat Lakes, for example, background levels of lead, copper, and 

chromium in bottom sediments from Lake Superior (generally considered the *cleanest” of the 

Lakes), ate 2-6 ties those of the other four lakes (International Joint Com&&n, 1982). 

Mom tecently, criteria were developed for use in Fuget Sound (GE/State of Washington Natural 

Resource, 1988). These wete developed using an apptoacb known as the appu#11 effects 

due&old (AEI). Although originally applied to exclude or allow open-water disposal 

(sediments which were not clearly excluded or allowed would be biologically tested to d&ermine 

tbeii status for disposal), the cumt use of these criteria is as a screening tooI. When the 

criteria are exceeded, biological testing provides a possible override. Hence, &&ions on 

disposal of the material are made on the basii of the biological tests tatber than the criteria. 

In the development of sediment quality criteria, it is extremely important that the activity 

to which they will be applied is taken into account. In the case of navigation dredging, it is a 

209 
T.D. WRlOHf. R.W. ENOLW. ad J.A. U 

givaubattbe~wiuberemoved,andthequestioatobeaddmsed -potentiat . coabrmnrnt&&tsattbed&osalsite. Forr#ned&ion,dFbdgingconcemsaretbeef%ctsof 

in-place- thebe&itsofremoval,andpatentMeffectsatthed@osalsite. Several 

of tbe qpmcbes ‘m for tbe development of criteria, specifically tbe AKI’ (PTI, 1988) 

andthesedinmtquaUtytfiad(Ch8pman, 1986,1989)brvefaibdtomaketbisdi&&m. Tbe 

AETandtberrtdiacorpontebe&iccommunitystructufeattheexcavationsiteasa 

COIllpOIK!Ot,tbdtpb@SUiOUSquescioasngurdingtbeir~licabilitytO~VigatiOll~. 

TllebentbicclwnmunirystNctuN attbccxcavaticmsitciswtaputicuMyusefulindicatorof 

ssdimentebfibcrr,~thecommunityk~bjacttoavcvietyof~~otherthanthe 

sedbak lbae incbhdedredging, navigationtrafKc, degdatioaof w*rqualityfxom outMls, 

thermal discbarges, surhce runoff, the effects of dfa@ts and floods, and otber perturb&ons. 

The~andthetrLdmaybeusefultoolsinevaluptingtheoverallhealthofanaquatic 

aGnmmaM but sbould aat be used in tbe determination of tbe suitability of dredged material 

for open-water dispo&. Unfortunately, tbis seems to bave been overlooked in a I#xllt 

cotltrovenyovertherrpplicabilityofthethrtsholdandtriad(Spics, 1989;Chapmanetal., 1991). 

Most tiy, criteria have been developed using the equilibrium partiGoning w) 

~~b,wheFebyanoapolnro~~tisnormrrlizedtoorganic~. Tbis 

apptoacb uses chronic water quality criteria to derive sediment quality criteria. The approach 

has some merit in explaining why ceti sed&nt con- a~ not toxic or bioavailabk. 

However, it has very limited utility in predi&g wbetber or not a sediment will be toxic (Lee 

and Jones, 1992). Reviis of tbe various approaches used to derive sediient quality criteria 

art found in Brannon et al. (1990) and M~KXIS (1991). Tbe Bqp approach for sediment quality 

criteria is curmtly under review by tbe EPA Science Advisory Board. 

COMPARISON OF -BASED TESIING AND EqP SEDIMENT 

QUALITY CRITENA 

In an effort to evahate the dative effectivenus of tbe two testing apptoachcs, 

prelimii EqP c&e&a for acuu@&~, flue-, and phenantbNne (Hais, 1991, 

pe~~~)w~~to~-~~~toxicitytestsfiompugetsound, 

Wasbiagton. Of 152 samples, tbe cri&ria were exceeded and acute toxicity was obscned in 5; 

there was no toxicity nor were the criteria exceeded in 116. One criterion was sligbtly exceeded 

inonesampkbuttbe~wasnoacutetoxicii. Ofp&naryinte~istbattberewefe31sampks 

wbicbexbibitedacutetoxicitybutwbicbdidnotexcecdcfi&a. Theconclusions~tbatin31 

samplestbeorgurismsw~~~o~~otberthaathoseofthecriteria,andin 

five out of six samples acute toxicity and the criteria agnM. 

It is commonly stated tbat &sonic tests are moFt consenrative tban acute tests, tbat is, 

an~bmorelilrelytobeobservedwiththeformer. TbiswasclearlynottbecaseinFuget 

210 
soUadaadisprobablyre)atedtotbe~tbatthereisnofieldorlaboratoryvalidatioaforthe 

criteria nor is tbeze any validakn for tbe &tonic &ects of contamkted sediments. Ibis casts 

signifkant doubt as wbetber or not tbe EqP criteria evaluate chronic effects. 

From a pragmatic point of view, tbe only way to have de&ted tbe single margitU 

criterion excced81Kx would bave heen, as was done, to conduct sediment chemistry on aU 152 

samples. This is expensive and time-consuming, and one must question wbctber the 

environmental benefits of tbe detection of one marginal exceedance justifies the cost (Wright, 

1974). 

APPLICATION OF SEDIMEIW QUALITY CRITERW 

Witbin tbe extant regulatory framewok for dredged material tbere is no provision for 

sediment quality criteria or star&r&. Notwithstanding their underlying technical deficiencies, 

thisleadstothequestionofhowtheywillbeappliedintheeffeds-basedtestingprotocol. Will 

they be pas&U? Will tbey serve as a screen or trigger for effects-based testing? To date, no 

informationbasheenputforthtoaddressthisissue. Inaregulatoryenvironmenttbisisacmcial 

need. For example, if tbe Puget Sound data are representative (and tbene is no Te85on to believe 

that they are not), no additional envimmental protection would have been gained from tbe 

application of tbe EqP criteria. Additionally, a number of samples could not he evaluated by 

the criteria because organic cat&t was below the minimum required. 

In the Puge4 Sound comparison, we used 0.5 petcent organic carbon as tbe minimum 

level for which tbe criteria are valid. Tbis excluded 21 percent of the samples. However, in 

various EPA documents tegardiig BqP sediment quality criteria, one finds 0.5 percent, 0.2 

petcent, and 0.1 percent as lower limits for organic carbon. There is no technical 

documentation for values CO.5 percent. In a tecent national survey paper, Suede1 and Rodgers 

(1991) found that the median organic carbon was 0.57 percent and 0.24 percent in freshwater 

and rrmrihc sedhents, respe&vely. Ibis suggests tbat tbe HqP criteria cannot he used for many 

sediments because of organic carbon corMmints. 

An additional concern is tbat dredged material effects-based testing compares the test&s 

of otganism response to a reference sediment (EPA/C& 1991). This ptocedute is eminently 

logical because it answers the question, “How will the dredged material behave witb regatd to 

the dextmce?” l%ete are potdialcircumstancu wkn the xefetence might not meet tbe EqP 

criteria. Would tbis mean tbat the tietence might requite temediation? If the dredged sediment 

proposedfordisposalmeelsthecriteriaandtbe~e~doesnot,doesthiscoascitutelianse 

for disposal? It could he argued that dtedged material disposal would be a henefkial use under 

such citcumstances. 

211 
T.D. WRJCJHT. R.M. -. a08 J.A. MaLBll 

Apttiarlrulytborny~~tobe~iswbeChertoapplysadimentqualitycriteria 

macross the board.” This is an EPA pdkm. From an m-y proteche position, 

thereshouldbenodisthtbinapplication. IfaKliimcmt’f&ils,“theapplicabkstatute 

regulating the material should make no difference. ‘Ilis would apply to RCRA, Supefind, etc. 

Fnnn~pwspeaiveoftheS~,wbowillprearmrblyarbptthecriterirwstamfards,the 

pmbkm is even more vexing. Aspreviouslyn&ed,~theCWAandtbeMPRSAhave 

specific provisii concerning the proculum used to evaluate material dmiged for navigation 

purposea. At the very kast, the EPA sbould clearly ar~I publicly provide guidance on the 

appuabiuty of the proposed BqP criteria and how they relate to the current procedufes used 

iJH&OUSpiogramS. 

Tbeutilityofanysedhentqwlitycriterhtod&gedmaterMdhposaldecisionmakhg 

is CoaceQturlly possible if thee are numerical criteria for every possible contaminant and some 

lrindofmechnismorformuktoquantifLtbemPpnihulcof~veeffectsfor~possible 

combina&nsofamtamhU Withoutacompktesetofthesetools,sedim~qualitycriteria 

canonlyprovideinformationikdenMtoregulatory~g. Furtk,ifweacceptthat 

~~testingprmridesthemost~laborotoryihdicatioaofcontaminantmobilityand 

impact, it should remain the pnferred tool for regulatory decisionmaking iu dredged matehal 

disposalSUBSI’ANTIATINGRESEARCH 

Betweea1973and1978,theCEconducM a major $33 million pmgram on dredged 

matehal43ispod. Thispqr8mam&tedofover2SOindividualstudksand,incon@astto 

previarsb%elysitaspbcificprojadinvestigations,thestudiesw~~innatunso~to 

havcthewidestapplk&lity. AspecHicgoalwastodefinethebiologicalandwaterquality 

effbts of open-water, wetland, and upland dispod. A major finding was that no singk disposal 

optioakpFesumptivelysuitrbbeforagaographic~or~afprojects. Whatmaybe 

desiRbleforonepFojectmaybecompletelyunsuitablefaranother;caaaequeatly,~project 

mustbeevaluatcdonacase-by-casebasis(Sauckretal., 1978). Anadd&halhdingwastbat 

open-water dhposal resulted only in physical, rather than contaminant, effects on biota at tbe 

d$ml site, and that bii recovery was rapid following the cessation of disposal (Wright, 

. 

B (opefkwater, wetland, and upland). of tbe various new biological techniques 

examined to determine the suitability of material for open-water disposal, ouly a few &owed 

s@ifkmt potahl as evaluatory tools and these wee not suitabk for regulatory application 

withoutadditionalresearcbanddevelopm~t. Noneappea&topFedicttheeffectsofopen-water 

212 
WATER QUALIlT S’f’AblDARDS It’4 ‘IIt6 2l* CliMvIIY: 207-218 

d@osal better than the acute toxicity and bioaccumulation techniques which are stilJ in use; field 

investigations following the laboratory tests verifkd the predictive ability of the tests (Gentile 

d al., 1988). Upland disposal produad t& grea@st and most persistent effects, including the 

releaseofm~mdextremctoxicity,w~ogea-waterdi~sbowadFeLtivelyminormd 

nonpersistent effects; ef%cts from wetland disposal were intermediate between upland sod openwater disposal (Feddicord, 1988). In addition to these broad investigations, an et&ma&d $70 

millionhasbeenexpendedbytheCBoaotherstudiesoverthepasttwodecades. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The open-water disposal of dmdged material is curtently regulated under the CWA and 

MPRSA. The applicable tegulations provide for an effects-based evaluation. Various alternative 

procedutestoevakatethemate&lhavebeenproposed. Ofthese,itisfeltthatthesediment 

quality triad and the ART are inapptopriate for dredged material. Sediment quality criteria 

developed through equilibrium pattitioning suffer from a number of technical defects. Further, 

no information is available as to how the equilibrium partitioning criteria might be applied. 

Experknce with effbcts-based evaluations has clearly indicated that the approach is 

environmentally conservative. The imposition of sediment quality criteria will increase testing 

costs without a concomitant increase in environmental bone&s. As noted by Kagan (1991), this 

may well repment “administrative fhgmentation and adversarial legalism.” 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report summarizes investigations conducted under the Dredged Material %se!arcb 

Program, Long-Term Effects of Dtedging Program, Field Verification Program, Dredging 

Operations Technical Support Program, and field reimbursable work funded by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Permission to publish this mate&l was granted by the Chief of Engineers. 

REFERENCES 

Brannon, J.M., V.A. McFarland, T.D. Wright, and RM. Bngkr. 1990. Utility of sediment 

quality criteria (SQC) for the enviroanrental assessment and evaluation of dredg& and d@osal 

of v sediments. Coastal and Inland Water Quality Seminar mgs, No. 22, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Committee on Water Quality, Washington, DC, pp. 7-19. 

213 
T.D. WRJOW, R.M. B)IKHpI, ul J.A. waL811 

CR 1976. u.s.Almycorpeof~. EltxhgmB;;vrlurtioaofprogosadDiscb8rgcof 

DlmdgedorFii~illtoNavigabkwatm: IDteIimGlliiforImp~of 

~~~1)ofpuMic~w~-~~wIter~u~~lAct~of 

1972). Mi#xlhnaars Paper D-76-17, U.S. Army Bngimr watemays Ikpefhnt statioa, 

Vii,MissKppi. 

CRIStatieofWahiqtonDept.ofNaturalRemms. 1988. Pi Bnvinnsmastal Impact 

Stateumt-Uocofhed Open-Water Diqmsal Sites for Dredged Material, Phase 1 (Central Puget 

Sound). U.S. Army Eugineer District, Seattle, Washington. 

Chapman, P.M. 1989. Current approaches to developing scdimart quality criteria. Environ. 

Toxicol. Cbem. 8:589-599. 

1986. Sabmt quality from the scdimmt quality triad--An exampk. BnviFoa. 

Toxicol. C&n. 5:957-964. 

Chapman, P.M., RR Loag, RC. Swartz, T.H. DcWii, and R. Ihstorok. 1991. Sedimmt 

~oxicitytests,sadimentcbemiscryand~ecologyQplrovidtnewinsigbtsintothe 

!%igaamand v of mnhmhed sediments--A reply to Robert Spies. Environ. 

Toxicol. Clxn. 10:1-4. 

Engler, R.M. 1980. Pmlicth of pollution potential thugb geochunical and biological 

pmceduxm: Developamt of regulation guidelines and criteria for the discharge of dredged and 

fill materhl. IO: Baker, RA., ed. Contaminants and Sediments, Vol. 1. AM Arbor, 

Michigan: Ann Arbor Scii Publishers, Inc. pp. 143-169. 

Engkr, RM., LX Samders, and T.D. Wright. 1991a. ‘Ibe nattm of dtedged outterial. 

Emhn. Prof. 13:313-316. 

1991b. Emimmmtal efkts of aquatic dispoml of dredged material. Envimn. 

Plt-lf. 13:31+-325. 

EPA/CR 1991. BvaluationofDmigedMaterhlPmposedforOccanD@osal(Testing 

Manuai). U.S. Amy Engineer Waterways kperhmt Station, Viiksbufg, MissWppi. 

1977. &ologicalEvaluati~0f~Dischafge0fDredged~into 

Ocean Wa&: Imp- Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532 (Marine 

. Pro&bon, Resew&, and Sanctwm Act of 1972). U.S. Amy B@mr Waterways 

Expamlt statlon, Vicksburg, &. 

214 
WA= QUm mANDARM IN THE 2la CEIWUW: 207-218 

Gentile, J.H., G.G. peach, J. I&e, P.P. Yevicb, G. Zaruogh, P. Rogemon, J. Paul, W. 

Galloway, K. Scott, W. N&m, D. Johns, and W. Mums. 1988. Synthesis of Rasevlcb 

Results: Applicability and Field Verificatioa of Predktive Methodologies for Aqua& Ihud@ 

lUterid Disposd. Technical Report D-88-5, U.S. Army Engineer Wmyyr w 

Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Hais, A. 1992. Personal communication, EPA Hcaltb and Ecological Critezia Divisiaq 

washington, DC. 

Intexnational Joint Commission. 1982. Guidelines and Register for Evaluatioo of Grwt hkes 

Dredging Projects. Report of tbe Ihdging S&commit&e to tbe Water Quality Pqrams 

Committee of tbe Gnat Lalres Water Quality Board, Windsor, Ontario. 

Jones, R.A. and G.F. Lee. 1988. Toxicity of U.S. waterways witb particular refem to tbe 

New York Harbor m. Ip: L&&e&erg, J.J., F.A. Winter, C.I. We&r, and L. Franklin, eds. 

Chemical and Biological Charaaerizption of Sludges, Sediments, Drrbdge Spoils, and Drihg 

Muds. ASTM STP 976, Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Mabxhls, pp. 

40347. 

Kagan, R.A. 1991. Tbe dredging dilemma: Economic devew and CllViZOIllllCllCPl 

p-on in Oakland Harbor.” Coastal Manage. 19:313-341. 

be, G.F. and RA. Jones. 1992. Water quality effects of dredgiq and dredged mate&l 

disposd. b: Her&b, J.B., ed. Handbmk of Dredging Engineering. New York: McGrawHili, pp. 923-959. 

. 1987. Water quality significance of contaminants associated witb sediments: An 

overview. b: Fate and Effects of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. New Yorlr: 

Pergamon Press, pp. 3-34. 

lkIarcus, W.A. 1991. Managhg m se&menu in aquatic cn-: 

Identification, legulation, and tcmcdjbtioll. Eaviron. Law Report. 1-91, pp. 10020-10032. 

O’Connor, T.P. 1990. Coastal Enhmmenhl Quality in tbe United States, 1990, Cbanial 

insedhaltandTlssues. Rockvilk, Marylalld: N&.iOMloccrnic8Dd 

. E%ddmnl RK. 1988. Summary of the U.S. Army Coqx of m.S. EnPmech’Agency Fiild Verifhth Pqpam. Technical Repoti D-88-6, U.S. Army Eaghecr 

Waterways Experiment Station, Viiksburg, Mis&@pi. 

215 
T.D. WItJOn, R.M. BNOWR, d J.A. MlLLBI 

PII. 1988. ~~Ef?kctsTIuesb&. Briding~totbeU.S.Envhuneel 

-AgencyscialceAdvisoryBoald. PTIEn~servicts,Ralkvlu., 

Wdlhgto& 

Saucier, RT., Calbuun, C.C., Engler, RM., Path, T.P., and Smitb, H.K. 1978. Executive 

Overvkw and Detaikd Summary. Tdniad Report DS-78-22, U.S. Army Engineer Watemays 

Bxperiment Station, Viirg, Midkppi. 

Spies, R.B. 1989. Sdiment biiys, chemical amtamhmts and bcntbic ecology: New 

insigh or just muddy w8td Mar. Environ. Rcs. 27~73-75. 

Sue&l, B.C. and J.H. Rodgers. 1991. Variabii of bcrttom dimcnt hmcthth of the 

. m Unitai States.” Water Rcs. Bull. 27(1):101-109. 

Wright, T.D. 1992. Evaluaticm of dredged materid for -water diapod: Numcricd 

criterh or etkts hued? Ip: Herbicb, J.B., cd. HadbookofDred&gEngineerkg. New 

York: McGmw-Hill, pp. 959-967. 

Wright, T.D. and L.H. Saunders. 1990. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dndged mate&d 

testing procedures. Environ. Prof. 12:13-17. 

Wrigbt, T.D. 1978. AquaticDrcdgcdMatcrial Dispod Impacts: Syn@sis Report. Tahical 

Report DS-78-1, U.S. Army Enginer Waterways Bqhmcnt Station, Vi&burg, Mississii. 

Wrigbt, T.D. 1974. Is dredge spoil amfhuncnt always justifkd? Great Lakes Basin 

Commun. 4(12):5-8. 

216 
WATER QUrUnr STANDARD6 U’J THE 2la C-Y: 207-218 

e Slide Presentation 

Slide 1 Slide 2 

uaANMYcoRPsoFENaNEEm 

NEvwEwoFEmmcDoaJMOTRCWEALRAM800CUIC)ll 

0- 

0- 

0- 

0- 

07 

Slide 3 Slide 4 

Slide 5 Slide 6 

217 
T.D. VIIQM. RY. -. d J.A. MILLER 

sib7 slide8 

218 
. 

Advocates 

Foru 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 219-220 

ADVOCATES FORUM: RESPONSE TO GENERAL QUESTIONS 

Allan Stokes 

Panelist 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE? 

U.S. EPA should proceed as rapidly as possible, consistent with sound scientific 

principles, to develop additional water quality criteria. Criteria developed must include an 

implementation component that provides clear guidance for States to use in translating the 

criteria into State water quality standards and establishing appropriate permit limits. First, 

emphasis should be placed on developing criteria and guidance relative to nonpoint sources. 

WHAT SHOULD EPA INITIATE THAT IT HASN’T DONE IN THE 

PAST? 

U.S. EPA should initiate a formal, orderly, and routine process for reviewing, and 

updating or revising, water quality criteria and technology-based standards/guidance, including 

categorical and pretreatment standards, and better definition of what constitutes Best Available 

Treatment Economically Achievable. This should include an initial review fairly soon after 

adoption to evaluate implementation difficulties and problems, and regularly scheduled 

reevaluations on a periodic basis thereafter. The evaluative process should include the States, 

who are the primary agents for using and implementing these criteria and standards. 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DEFINITELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN? 

U.S. EPA should not get involved in water quantity issues of water use or water rights 

allocation. Water quality criteria- and/or technology-based standards development should not 

be used as a means to insert Federal involvement in water quantity and allocation decisions. 

219 
A STOKES 

WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD 

LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTHORIZATION? 

A realistic matching of resources to expectations relative to Clean Water Act 

implementation. Funding of U.S. EPA and State water quality programs must be increased to 

provide adequate resources to meet all of the expectations set forth in the Act. In the 

alternative, the Act could be amended to alter some of the expectations, eliminate duplicative 

and costly administrative requirements of little direct benefit to the environment. and provide 

greater flexibility for implementing creative solutions to water quality problems. 

220 
WAfaR QUAmY STANDARDS IN THE 2lr( C-Y: 219-220 

ADVOCATES FORUM= RESPONSE TO GENERAL QUESIIONS 

Allm stokes 

Panel&t 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE? 

U.S. EPA should procad as rapidly as possible, consistent with sound scientific 

principles, to develop additional water quality criteria. Criteria developed must include an 

implementation component that provides clear guidance for States to use in translating the 

criteria into state water quality Lsmdads and establishing appmpliate pclmit limits. Fi, 

emphasis should be placed on developing criteria and guidance relative to nonpoint sources. 

WHATSHOULDEPAINITIATETHATITHASN’TDONEINTHE 

PAST? 

U.S. EPA should initiate a formal, orderly, and routine process for reviewing, and 

updating or revising, water quality criteria and technology-based sta&h/guidancc, including 

CWCgOlicalandp rctrmtmcnt standad, and better definition of what constitutes Best Available 

Treatment Economically Achievable. This should include an initial review fairly soon after 

adoption to evaluate impkxncntation difficulties and problems, and regularly scheduled 

rtzevaluations on a periodic basis thereafter. Tbc evaluative pm sbould include tbc States, 

who are the primary agents for using and implancnting these criteria and standa&. 

WHAT SHOULD EPA D EFIMTELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN? 

U.S. EPA should not get involved in water quantity issues of water use or water rigbts 

allocation. Water quality criteria- and/or technology-based standa& development should not 

be used as a means to insert Federal involvancnt in water quantity and allocation decisions. 

219 
WHAT IS TEE SINGLE MOSI’ IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD 

LIKETOSEEINTHECWAREAUTHORI.ZATION? 

A w&& matching of resounzes to ee &tive to Clean Water Act 

imp-. PundingafU.S.BPAmdS~waterqualityprogrpmsmustbeiac~to 

pnwidedsqurteresou~tomeet~oftheexpactatiocrssetforthintheAct. Inthe 

alternative, the Act could be ameakxi to alter some of the expe&ths eliminate duplicative 

and costly adminbrative requiemaNt of little direct benefit to tbe envkmment, and provide 

greater fkxibiity for implementing creative solutions to water quality problems. 
WAl’EUQUALKYSMNDARDSMTHE2latCENTlJRY: ON-223 

ADVOCATES FORUM RESPONSES 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE? 

Criteria are the scientific basis for the Nation’s environmental quality. ‘Ihey help 

establish the specification or standard to which both regulatory agencies and regulated parties 

are held. Developing technically valid new criteria and routinely reevaluating existing criteria 

are critical EPA responsibilities in the third decade of water quality control programs. 

EPA’s future criteria development must be guided (and modikd) by the experience 

gained in implementing water quality standa&. After 20 years, almost 25 petcent of States 

have not adopted water quality standa& that are satisfactory to EPA. This &lay is attributable 

in part to a perception that EPA criteria are not always technically valid, nor ttzptesentative of 

the most up-to-date scientific information. For example, in July the Harvard School of Public 

Health Center for Risk Analysis recommended that EPA’s existing cancer classikation systems 

“should be abolished” because they are “too simplistic to convey meaningful information to 

scientists, risk managers and the public.” 

Regulated agencies feel that peer review has often been limited to in-house evaluations 

andpubliccommentperiodsthathavebeeatoosbortandthatbaveoccu~toolateinthe 

criteria development process. Additionally, the majority of water quality criteria developed by 

EPA are more than 10 years old and have not been modified to reflect new empirical data or the 

most curtent thinking of the scientific community. 

ItisbopedtbatBPAwilluseapeerFeviewpFocesssimilartothatusedindeveloping 

sludge tegulations to cteate future criteria for controlling water quality. Equally important, BPA 

must strive to routinely reevaluate existing criteria and modify them as m toensuretheir 

&?CtiVeaesS. 

221 
WHATSHOULDEPAINITIATETHATITHASN’TDONEINTHE 

PASI-? 

. 

dmz&- l formoErigonls-peerreviewofnewcriteria 

nxdfkaWof~~willburdarBPA’slimitedresources. 

Thisbuldmwillworsenwiththeincl#sad~forcriteriadevelopnent~ 

udertheCk~WaterActRaudoriza&m. ItbeboovesEPAtoidtiateaworkingputnership 

. withafktedpnrtkndsuchreserurcbo~astbeWaterBnvdunentR&ratma ‘S 

Fkmdatbtohelpdevelopnewcriteriaandreeval~existingcriteria. 

hhllJ4fthCll.lClUkrrgeaciesOfthC-OfMetropolitanSCWCf8gC~iCS 

(AM!3A)havetec~statrsandfinurcirl~ availabletoaidEPAinthiseff&t. AMSA 

lEog&estbe~ofw~devebpal~toguidewaterqualityamtroleff~,and 

haspmvidedEPAwithtechnicaleMhratioasandcomm~onavarietyofprogosadandexisting 

criteria. EPAisencouragcdtomakcgreateruscoftbetcchnicalruources,informationand 

expedenceofpermaedagencies. In*to’in-kind”support,permittedrlgenckmayalso 

help fbnd the aeevaluation of existing aiteria as a cost4dve altemtive to complying with 

pennit~bwadonwaterqualitycriterianot~sisterrtwithcurrartinformationor 

scmdrinlting. 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DEFINTEL Y NOT GET INVOLVED IN? 

I?m#siagly,waterqualityamtrolprogramsaresbif?&fkomindincttomoredircct 

pR4iicmofen~logialimpact. However,theuseofsuchdkt-ES 

~~implanenbcnmof~lprogrpmsthrtrdlact~orsitaspecificconditioas. 

Historically, States have impkmental BPA guidance and criteria with little if any nwdZ&on 

to~fortberegioaalcharacterofwater~undettheirrutbority. Itiscrit.icalthatEPA 

not get involved in implement@ contxd programs based on biiteria. 

BpAdevelopedb~riteriatoguideprognmsthtcontrolwrterqualitybyestablidring 

standdsfbrthe’biologialbgrity’ofaquaticcoaununities. Megrityismeasuxedbythe 

. . 

SpCkSCOmpOSitjOO,diV~,lad-~ of communities compared to 

“denccwatdtbatadeastimpaidbybumanactivitics. ‘I&co- fordetedn@ 

~~~by~rctivitiesisthesebaioaofsita~orecologicatly 

k dkence waters, ad dcvelapment of fkld sampling and biological B that are 

regiodly fdevant. 

222 
WAlmtQuAmYsTANDMD8MTm2lrt CEHIVRY: 221-223 

Although EPA should dired these efforts with general guidance, it must provide States 

the time, flexibiity, and clear dixection to use EPA guidance to develop programs that 

accommodate the varying geographic, climatic, geologic, and hydrologic umditks of the 

~giOfl. 

WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOSI’ IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD 

LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTEORIZATION? 

Incorporating a comprcbcnsive watershed management appmh to water quality control 

in the feautho~on of the Clean Water Act provicks the most effective water quality 

enhancement and protection. AMSA is developing a legislative praposal with this intent. 

Resent water quality control programs emphasize a command-and-control approach that 

focuses almost entidy on regulating permitted point source dischargers at the end-of-pipe. 

Water quality control based on comprehensive watershed management offers the following 

advantages: 

0 Risk-based prioritization of water quality control efforts reduces ineffa%ive use 

of limited nxources; 

0 Monitoring and regulation of all pertinent pollution sources, both point and 

nonpoint, thus providing true water quality-based toxics amtfol; 

0 Control program limits based on site-specific standards that provide Ieasodk 

rather than over- or underpr0tection of beneficial uses; and 

0 Increased USC and integdon of a variety of chemicd, biological, and ecological 

measures to guide water quality contd HoHs. 

223 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2lrr CEMURY: 225-228 

ADVOCATES FORUM 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE? 

The~are~primrrryaregsinwhichBpAcandomoreorimpnwe. Theseare 

management, mh, and cooperation: 

1. . . . 

--- 

m The are conside~le discrepancies in the way tbe 

10 Regions interpret and apply national policies. Hegdquarters should develop 

clear policies, within and between programs, and hold tbe @ens accountable for 

the application of these policies on a uniform timeline. To accomplish this, 

Headquarters needs to identify and prioritize environmental problems through a 

scientifk understanding of the relative risks to the environment and human health. 

‘Ibis will prevent misdkted efforts such as the Great Lakes Initiative. Tbe 

purpose of the initiative is to provide the Great Lakes States with uniform policies 

and pFocedures for developing and implemating water quality SEandards for 

toxics, even though sevm of the eight Staks akady have EPA- approved 

programs in place. The ix&tin focuses almost exclusively on point source 

discharge when convincing evidence shows that the problems which prompted this 

effort are occurring because of past prackcs (i.e., sedimeM -on) or 

nonpoint sources (i.e., atmosphexic dqxxition). If impkmented as proposed, the 

money spent on compliance, which ultimately comes f&m “society,” will have 

been wasted in the sense that no ml envirmmental benefit or reduction of risk 

isattahed. 

Pmviding this leadership will be a significant challenge. EPA will have to move 

away fFom the pnsent method of setting priori&s, which have largely been 

determined by political mandate and public perception. Basing policies on sound 

225 
RJ. 0-Y 

2. 

3. 

. . . RaBmrdB-- 

. . . . a BPAhasdwekpeda~anPgy 

. followlngsAB’s- tousearisk -framework. Thegoal 

isto-risk~wberetbeoppomnitksmthegnatea. Iwgmthg 

tbevariousprogfamof%es mustbcaccomplishcdtotakefUl~oftbis 

-w* --hislrmGAintbeansofeav- 

. . mon&mngand~tod@xminetbepotentMfor,orthemag&udcand 

cause of, eaviroamensol impact. Ibis tionnation will allow legulators to 

rmine whctber there are cost-ef%ctive 

Indoptingthis nxauchstmtegy,I3PAwillbcasscssingtheriskofcbemical 

sub6hncesusingfacts,staUkalmodels,andassumptioas. -scientific 

coosausislackingmodelsorassumptions,themngeofwcertaintyshouldbe 

ckarlydefinedtopolicymakersandtbepublic. Theassignmentofapriority 

shouldcleuly~~~the~~~Illldthtpoticy~~forthe 

Agency’sc4nxlusion. T%iswillident@thecommative biasesembeddalinrisk 

aseammt,whichimparta~~~of~ety. Marginsthatmay 

-Y hcrease health and safety risks by m.&nxtq prioritks. EPA should 

strivetoimpmveriskaaeessment by reduciqg co(wcNBtism and bias. 

II . ’ talYQl=s mw 

s$d, Historically, involvcmeat or input from 

outsi&theAgarcyhascomeatthetaildoftheprocesr,resultingin 

- Of F community. usingmeasureofits-en-m. Involvingmorestrrlrebdders 

w~~btlpdefiaeprobkmsrud~k~~~~~se9rlyintbe 

pmcess,fcdtinginimpFovadsettingofpriorities. Itwouldalsohavethe 

‘command control” mentalQ and develop a more coopen& approach. 

226 
WATER QUALITY STANDARD6 M 7liE 2118 CENTURY: 225-228 

WHATSHOULDEPAINITIATETHATlTHASN’TDONElXVI’HE 

PAS? 

Thisquestion~beatwwer#lwithanoutlook~ifictotbewaterqualitypirognun. 

Part of the existing problem stems from taking a compaxtmentali& app& towd 

environmentalprobkmsandnatonethatfully~ ecosystem dynamics. In trying to 

achieve its charge of prote&ng the Nation’s environmental assets, the efforts of di&rent 

program oRices have mrely been consistent or coor&ated. Even though these fractionated 

dTortshaveworkediathepast,theyw~notbeassuccessfulintbefutu~rstbemostobvious 

controls already have been applied to the most obvious prWems. EPA should Ctiate a &ion 

of environmental policies and break away from the traditional site-specific approach. 

. . . . 

s To accomplish f&u= impx~ements, EPA 

must develop &egra&l solutions by requiring the various program offices to work together to 

provide an ecosystem approach to solving environmental problems. There are not unlimited 

ttsoum to solve all envixonmental problems at one time. Identification of the source posing 

or imparting the gn3uest adverse effect will assist in focusing xesou~cts to provide the grWcst 

envimnmental benefit. It is not an eflicicnt or effective use of resources to be chasing 

picogmms of a substance in a point source disc- when it is raining kilograms into the same 

ecosystem. Focusing strictly on toxic s&tames while ignoring the effects of habitat loss, 

introduction of exotic species, or other impacts is not sound scientifically based cnviroamental 

p- policy. 

WHAT SHOULD EPA D EFRWTELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN? 

. . . . 1vH 

TheAgencyhasavoidcdthisinthepast,yctthc 

UnitedStatesbassosneofthec~wateriatheworld. Ithasbeenclearly-in 

Eastem Europeand Asiithatgovernmahtcoatrolled industries are irdkkntand tiprotective 

of the environment. EPA should continually renew its pledge to work & industry to improve 

ptwxsses,aml~thC~ implicitinthi&ingitknowsbetterbowtodoitthanthose 

who have been doing it succcs&lly for years. 

WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOSI’ IMPORTANI’ CHANGE YOU WOULD 

LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTHORIZATION? 

. . . totheC%‘Awouldbethe~ofthe~ 

. . . OnmtotoIf 

227 
RJ. 0-Y 

. lmpkmdd,thisacctionwouldprobebly ilumase~tban~risktotbeewironmeat. 

IttOtdljGglWESthCimpolcuwxOfSOCialaad~ amsidemtions. It also ignores any 

~~~envimmeWlorhumanlmlthrisbinotherams. l%isc4mxpthasno 

andshouldbedmppal~tbeIrtautboriz;atioa. 

Thissedioabasthe~toseverely~orcliminntcaccessPryrccyclingefforts 

intaxbdtosmnatdrwou~aadvaluabkkndfillg#cu. Tldistalrcadyincludm 

arbsrrnceswboee~~basbeehbaMedintheUnitedStatesforyears. Thepxoccdum 

ckscribedfora&liogsub8mm8 totbisli8thavethcpotahaltoincludesu~tbatposeao 

sigdbntweffdd. Inml.ity,itdoesnotconak&rbowasub3tancemovesthroughthe 

an4mmmtoritsultimatcf8te. I%emisagfcatlikelyboodthatattentioawillbefoarsedaway 

from f&r molt important enviroameatal risks or impacts unless this language is clekted. 

228 
WATER QUlunr STANDARDS M ‘tHR 21# CENlURY: 229-230 

ADVOCATES FORUM= REspoNsE TO GENERAL QUESTIONS 

Teny Williams 

Lntvuor 

Fisheries LkpartmeM 

niidipmbesofw~@3n 

MatyWt, Washingtan 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE? 

lwnoteEnvlroInnentalEqulty 

EPA has taken a positive fvst step toward addressing the issues of environmental equity 

by forming a work group (Environmental Equity), and producing a qort in which 

environmental equity issues are identified and deiined. EPA should now act swiftly to 

impkment the recommendations made by this work m. 

Revise Fisb Co-#ion Rates for Human Health Risk Criteria 

EPA should support tribal efforts to nxvalw the fish consumption levels. Recent 

studies indicate that the current EPA fish consumption rate is an inaccurate reflection of tribal 

fishconsumption. Therateof6.5gramsperdayisderivedfFomanoutdatadstudyaaddoes 

not account for the higher Gsh consumption levels associated with coastal Tribes. A recent 

Fuget Sound study found that the mc(timr fish consumption fate was 95 grams per day. 

Contribute to the Development of Water Quantity/Quality Dahbase 

EPA should provide greater support for the collection, access, and v of water 

Itsource data. Water withdrawals can impact the p&u&e capacity of f~& and wildlife 

cesourccs, groundwater supplies, potable water, and wate&ed ecosystems. The goals of the 

CleanWaterAd~jeopardized,andstondprdsaFeiplc~inglycompnnnisedbythe~of 

data on this subject. 
T. WILlJAm 

WHATSEOULDEPAlNlTIATETHATITHASN’TDONEINTHE 

PAST? 

ManagementofNutrie&LoadinginRiverSystems 

Despite EPA?3 regulatory efforts in the arena of surface water stanch&, it has s~to 

adequa&ly addxtxs the issue of nutrient loading in river systems. Mpnagenreat of nutrient 

loading in river systans should be integrated into EPA’s water quality programs. 

WHAT SHOULD EPA D- Y NOT GET INVOLVED IN? 

Mamu--- AllodhmDeeisionunllaterally 

Thep~bywhicbBPA~Faderal~rrxstoIadianTribesisflrrwedtothe 

extuNthatEPAmakestheseimportant&cisiinunihtmlly. Atriivoiceinthis~ 

would assist in tbe development of more appropriate and effective water quality protection 

activities. 

WHAT IS TEE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD 

LIKETOSEElNTHECWAREAUTHORUATION? 

AffirmLong-Temdoalof”‘habmntasaTribe” 

ForpllpsesofimpkmentingtheckanwaterAct, “‘keatmeatasaState”is~ 

as the short-term, but mmssary, vehicle by which legal, admiivc, and financii 

!tzpnsi%ilitksare- fiomtl~FederalGovemmentto’l’kii. IPAshouldnowbegin 

tOilUplenrartthC~~gO8.lOffCp~ ‘~asaState’with’~asa 

Tribe,” the latter phrase dkcting the sov&gn nation status and govemment-to-govemment 

reelptioashipbetweentlleFedcml GovenunensandIIXJhTrii. 

EPARea@tbofTribdJurisdidion 

WithoutEPAnxogn&moftnhmljuhdkth,the deve@mtof~lationsand 

. 

stabUy, which: undemhed by umesolved litigation. 

msemamm is stunted. To effectively operate, trii 7 need 

Umwolved jh&txnml issues w 

anundesirabkkgalandaxmomic climateforbusiiandindushy. Inturn,triigovermrxMs 

sufferfhnanunstabkanddiminM+taxbase. YetitisthistaxbasetbatallowsTriito 

~self-~,todeveloQanrnfrascNctuFeaadpFogramsthat~thehealthoftbeir 

en-and peopk. 

230 
WATERQU~STANDARDSMTHE2lrCENl’URY: 231-232 

ADVOCATES FORUM: RESPONSE TO GENERAL QUESTIONS 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE? 

Creak and implement more and better water quality criteria and guidelines. 

0 Update existing criteria and guidelioes. 

l Create and implement new criteria and guidelines. 

0 Bstablish an effbctive development process to include direct and continuing 

communication and consultation with the states. 

l Develop a workable implanentation stmtegy in consultation with the States. 

0 Fam on successful intqrah of numeric, biological, chemical, and narrative 

chriatobc!4tcrbalancetbeteclmologicalaadwaterquality-basedrrppn#ches. 

A suggestion would be tbc cxeatkm of a StatelEPA Water Quality Standank Ihvelopaent 

aadImplemartationAdvisoryBoeFdtoe~tbepFocessesfor(1)dcvelopnent;(2) 

implementation; and (3) tracking of water quality !stah& and effhent guidelhes. 

WHATSHOULDEPAINlTIATETHATlTHASNoTDONEINTHE 

PAST? 

l An effixtive CooMve pmcess with State and Lacal govenmmts. 

l A mechanism to ensure consultation and communication with a&c&d groups. 

231 
0 ApoCCdUfCtOaSSUFethCissuance of an (Lcccpablc number of guMines 

qKmdingtothcnecdsoftheprogramratherthaathoseoftllccoultsaIKl 

ea-groups. 

l As@ategytopromotcpollutioaprcvent.ioointhewater~sd~ 

eanbmmW media. 

0 Illcmdandeahpncad-onandcooperatioabetwecnFakralagencies 

(e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, went of Agriculture, w of tbe 

Interior, NOM). 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DEF’NTEL Y NOT GEI’ INVOLVED IN? 

l Thed.iscwhanddebateswertheuseofwater(qualityandquantity)shalld 

runain8ttbcs~level. 

0 ‘Ibestatepromul~ofwaterquality~. 

0 Ongoing public or legislative discusdons cm standaM at the State kvel. 

l llledcve~ofstatcgruluKlwatcrsEaadruds. 

0 xeucationofanathalgrantpfogramtofundpohtsounxpmjccts. 

WHAT IS TEE SINGLE MO6I’ IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD 

LIKETOSEEINTHECWAREAUTHORlZATION? 

Thec4mgWnaadstoputthewaterqualityprogmmoasoundtec~andfinancial 

footiugwitbinthenext5ycan. Todoso,tbe&qgruusmust: 

0 Authorize adeqwte lhds for developneat and implanenbhm of criteria, 

guidelines, and -, which should include ma&oring. 

232 
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS IN THE 21~ ClWlVRY: 233-234 

ADVOCATES FORUM 

WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE? 

Currently, thee are several major regulatory initiatives that EPA needs to complete 

quickly: completing the dioxin mment; setting sediment quality criteria; ftnishing the 

toxics stadaddcriteria for the hggarxl States; developing standa& for the Gteat Lakes under 

the Great Lakes Initiative; updating the effluent guidelines; and setting criteria for the protection 

of wildlife. Completing these would go a long way toward solving the problems with toxic 

chemicals. 

Much of the progtess made in cleaning up the Nation’s surface and ground waters 

resulted from applying the original provisions of the Clean Water Act. Ibe criteria and 

standa& promulgated under the CWA were an important tool in this effort. Indeed, recent 

reviews of national standa& and studies of three rivers document improvements in water 

quality. Installation of secondary treatment systems for industrial and municipal dischargers led 

to these improvements. These reviews suggest that considerable improvement would result from 

enforcing the existing statutes. 

Regulatory programs to ckan up the Nation’s waters depend on the quality and quantity 

of information available for use by EPA and State program staff. For that mason, EPA research 

facilities need to continue mseatch ptograms using ptofessiona &and highquality equipment. 

EPA must prevent any erosion of the abiity of the EPA laboratories to conduct research and 

provide high-quality technical support. 

WHATSHOULDEPAINITIATETEATITHASNOTDONEINTEE 

PAST? 

EPA needs to ptutect the most heavily afkted component of the population-usually a 

&population--from the total threats that exist in the real world. We tecommend refocusing 

efforts away from prokcting the “average individual” over a lifetime from cancer due to a single 

233 
P.L. &Pm 

cknicalinooemedium. BPA~toimprrovetbetacbnical~~to~mu~~e~ 

mdrnu~~ead-pointsingroupQ,~~~,andidearifiadagegnsups. EPAalsoneeds 

to bmab, expand, or begin etrorts to address dispersed multimedia con@mMion to include 

all souxces. Thus, there will have to be breakdown of the walls between the Offices of Water 

andofAir. 

A&xeptmovingtargetsinthesc~andtechnjcalwofld. Bathtken- 

~~mdthecitizenryhavebeudtbatBPAcanaotcEctuntiltbeuraly~bcompleteand 

“tbcanswer”hasbeenkkMed. Asaresult,nothinghqqaxkuntil”theanswer”isfollnd. 

Stop depadbg on the reseanhers to finish the experiments--well- desii expetients always 

exult in more mh. Science &QJ& always improve and we can always correct the numbers 

for the latest data. So, stop asking for the right answer for the lawyers to love and defend. 

WHAT SHOULD EPA D- Y NOT GEI’ INVOLVED IN? 

~Ashouklnotapply’riskass~~~P broadlyacrwrstbeboaudtoeveqactionusing 

tbepreaaHappruaches. Theafeaofrisk- isnewandchangingquitempidlytomeet 

thedanandsofspecifksites,cases,andissues. ‘I%esecasesinvolvepria&lyhumancancer, 

nthertbrnaroakofherhhead-points,subpopllatioas,tprgetcr,rurd~fads. ‘Ibus,thc 

methods developed to protect “avexagc” humans fkom lifetime cancer risks probably do not apply 

topopWkmsofbi.&,marincmammals, amphibians, endanger4 fkshwater mussels, or a 

conponentOf~eCOSystem. 

Fmtelaghumansfi!omamccr~assocktadwithchanjcplsindrinlcingwaterdDes 

wtprotscthumansfromtbesamechemicalwbenfoundinfish. Tbestanda&thatpFotad 

peopledonot~Qopllatioasof~~orbirdsfrwneitherrisk. 

WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD 

LIKETOSEEINTHECWAREAUTHORIZATION? 

~themnrpoiatsou~po~~progrcunafullyfuadadwcrtenhadrestorationaad 

pfcmakmprogramwithmechanismsto~tbe~ltsounxs. Thc319programqElates 

lilrea~prognmwitha~leveloffuadiagincom~totbewedradsizeofthe 

Stateprogmmbudgets. Ifthiswe~fu~yfumbdaadsraffedattheFadenlrmlScatekvels,it 

would identify sauitive amas before impacts occur, restore degmded habitaU such as we4lands, 

anddimct ~tothemostcriticalp~~Mems. Thisprogramoffersameansofcoofdinat@ 

end-of-the-pipe, runoff, storm water, and CSO efforts within a functioaal water unit-the 

waterskd. At the same time, the 319 program could bolster the wetland prote&m program by 

danoascnting the CriticaI fimctions that wetlands worm in watersheds. 

234 
Ecological Risk 

Assessment 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 235-238 

SLIDE PRESENTATION 

Spyros Pavlou 

Manager 

EBASCO Environmental 

Bellevue, Washington 

In lieu of a paper, the slide presentation is as follows: 

Slide Presentation 

Slide 1 Slide 2 

235 
S PAVLOU 

Slide 3 Slide 4 

Slide 5 

Slide 7 

Slide 6 

Slide 8 

236 
WATER QUM STANLMRJX IN THE 2lr CENI’URY: 23~238 

Slide 9 

Slide 11 

1 

Slide 13 

See Blowup of slide on next page 

Slide 10 

Slide 14 

237 
1 

Slide 13 Blowup 
WAfgR QUALtl’Y STANDARDS IN THE 21rl CENTURY: 239-2M 

TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY IN ECOLOGICALRISK 

ASSESSMENT= BECAREFULWHATYOUWISHFOR.. . 

JosJw Lipton, Ph.D. 

Manager, Senior sdmrlrr 

RCWHa&, A!kd&, Inc. 

Boukr, Gdod 

Hector Galbraith, Ph.D. 

smiorAm?dare 

RCW?ia&r, Rail&. Inc. 

l?on&r, cllbiilnl& 

INTRODUCTION 

The quantitative incoqmation of uncertainty into pddilktic assessments of ecological 

risks has attmted considerable attention recdly in buth academic and q&tory communiti~. 

A number of researchers have develaped sopikticated methods for prdxbiic risk estimation 

(e.g., Bartell d al., 1992, 1983; Lipton and Gilktt, 1991; Suter et al., 1983). In this paper, 

we address the following simple quest&m: Could (and would) these quantitative udty 

models be used by edronmental regulators? 

BACKGROUND 

l%Cp-kllOWll~““acolOgiCalridranacnrmcnt” (ERA)emergadasa”discipk”in 

the 1970s when amcernsbegrnglwingaboutthe~impactsof-onthe 

envilmmmt . Thef%stfl&atorymanifc3tationofthisdisciplineappeaFedinen-tal 

im~~~s)pnparadwdertheN~Bn~policyAct(NBpA). 

pUblicatioabytbeN~~yofsciences,in1983,of”RiskAsaessmentintbepedenl 

Govemment: Managing e Ijmcess” (NAS, 1983) provickl a formalid framework for 

cahhting pmbua6ihdc emmates of human h&h risks. This by-now familiar framework, 

co8uungofhazardidensification,dosa~ asseam-, exposure assessment, and risk 

charaderization, was~byerrviroameatal~~to~lytotbecalculationofacologiccll 

risks. 
Ecologwridr- play an @oftant de in aIviFo(IlIIcIIcal policy and 

fRqulah. porexrmple,~~,siteclerarps,ladpermit-w~~hveacologicrl 

. Ibevastmajorityofccobgicalrisk B gamate singlapoint 

oftbc”risk”po8aibya8inglcccMamhWtoasingkspecies. Often, 

tbseri8kesthtcstakctheformofasimple’~”: forcxample,anM 

“beacbmuk’ - (e.g., ambha water quality criterh) divklal by the rlhcmmd or 

althtal-oftbe-inthe- lftheexposunis less thao the crithl doaamponse badmark ctmmtdm’ (i.e., ratio is less than one), it 

iSgeaerrllyassUdth8t~iSnOsignificrntCCOlOgiCalridr. 

suchsimpli8ticdetenninistic~friltoconsidersoufccsofuncertaiatyinthe 

pKJcus. TtKscsounxsof~include: 

0 bORSiJl--OfSitCC-, 

l Natural whbil&y in site chrraaeristics, 

l latra- and inter-species variability, 

0 zar&y models cm which badma& 

, 

l umininter-spcciesextrapolaticms. 

Pmdlcted Value 

Low High 

Range of Possible Risk Values 

Figure 1. “ACtUal’RiSk~Withplradidedpoiatestimate. 

Point-ofrisk~mmaynottNly~the~riakpoaalby 

. coommamFi1). llds~toacc?untforuncerbiintymaylimittheabilityofpolicy 

makerstomakeinformddc&ioos,can~public codidaminlisk-lm8al- 

(Ruckelshaus, 1983), and may engeader opphticm witbin regulated communitiu. 

240 
WATER QUALrI’Y Sf’ANDARw IN THE 2lrt cmnuRY: 239as 

TREATMENTOFUNCERTAINTY 

Most commonly, uncertainties have been incorporated into the risk m p8occss 

in a qualitative h&ion by applying “safkty f&c&s.’ l%is often involves a&h&g a pot&al 

area of uncertainty (for example, the exposure &mate) by adjusting a point &mate by an 

arbitrary fador (ofh 10). The mom uncertainties that are identified, tbe greater the number 

ofsafetyfactorsused. Itisimportaattonmanbetthatthescfactotr,mrybavelittleorw, 

relevance to the a variability or unc&ainty asso&ed with a param&x. Since the 

uncertainties bave not been rigorously addres&, confidenceintbeactualfiSk~~y 

bemisplaced. Ontbeoaehaad,~actsthatw~u~o~bacawetheumxrtaintywrsaot 

addres&mayoccuroncecontaminantscntertheenvironment. 0ntbcotherhand,tbeuseof 

such assessment methodologies may result in overstringent stahrds or xeguhth While this 

might not bother tbe cautious e&ronmeutalist too much, strkht opposho will likely be 

eacoun~~frorangulatedindustriesthatmaybavetof~theb~forwaeaMuilystriagart 

mgulation. It could also lead to the d&editing of RRA as an exact scientific tool. Induxl, the 

ome of Management and Budget (OMB, 1990) noted the following: 

. . . risk aL%wsmat pxactkes . . . efTe%%ively intermingle important policy 

judgments within the scientifk assemmmt of risk. Policy makers must make 

decisionsbascdonrisk ai5mments in which scientific findings cannot be r#ldily 

. d&mthtd fkom embedded policy judgments. 

me formal incospotion of Wlcerrainty analysis into BRA using some fonu of simulatioo 

methodology, such as Monte Carlo analysis, offers at least a partial way out of this impasse 

(Lipton and Gilldt, 1992, 1991). At its most basic, this procedure involves quanwg the 

uncextainti~specifictotlletwomainvariablcsintheERA: thcexposureanddobe-v 

assessments. This is done by fitting or selecting stat&M distrilmhons for dcpahnt variables 

in risk models, randomIy selecting variabks sampled from these input disthhutious, and 

adculatingthemodcloutputmanytimes. TbisiterativeproccssyieldspxobabWk~tio0S 

oftbemodeloutpltratberthana~~pointestimate(Pigure2). 7kseoutputdistribution8 

~~tbep~~oftbeoccurr#lceoftbebyporbcticaliangeofexposu~ 

. B orreqoasuofthereceptoroqanisms. 7ksecurvescanthenbccombincdinto 

anhcgmtedlhbabilisticriskcurve(FigWe3). Tbislattcrcurvedc8cribestlheprobabWyof 

a cbosar endpoint (e.g., increased adult trout mortality) occurhng, givea the probable 

dMbutionofe~coacentrptioasand~~~. 

Such analytical teclmiques have a number of advantages over the single-point esthatc, 

-c !&tkm. Both the ran@ ofpo6sible outcome8, and t&irassocWd plobabii, 

canbeclshatd. Ifoutputdistri~uecomparedto-Wor~,~of 

“exceedencefrequeacies”caapnwidepolicy~withaaihdicatioaofthelikeliboodof 

“being wnmg” (i.e., oversboohg the chrion and injuring a resource). Additional be&its of 

such formalkd WEehnty tcclmiquaJ incluCk the following (Finkel, 1990): 

241 
Input Variables 

@a0 

, 

a 

lAm Sconrrio8 

Output Variable 

(E = a * b) 

b 

IL 

Expowlre [) 

0 Illqmhg~ofthc~lcst8tcsoflmtufctb8tmy~oa 

-,and 

0 prwidiagddcirrloa-makmwitbanundersctodingofthe”~“ofbeingwrwg. 

242 

r 

Prob. 
WATBII QUAUIY STANDARDB M THE 2lti CBHMY: 23*248 

Frequency 

Ecological Risk Value 

!igun3. E9eabmkdistri~t.ionofecologicalriskvalues. 

In add&ion, aswmmts tbat fail to consider una~rtainties may not be reproducible 

(Bogad, 19%8),mayappeartobe(orrruy~ybt)~,itrary,andmaybepoliticallyand 

technically unconvincing (OMB, 1990). 

DECISIONHAKlNG IMPLICATIONS 

TbedwhpmaMofapc&abilisticeoologicalfisk~ methaiologypnwidcsa 

morerigonne3me&odfor&rivingstdar&andmakingdccisioas. Aitboughthismaybaefit 

the~latorycommunity,cautionmustbe~ini~uw. llhismaybeacamtbat 

codorms to the maxb: Be cad111 what yau wish for bazausc you may get it! 

WhtQurrlyticllme(hodsarcbrsMonteCulouul~doforwintennsofridr-based 

. . D? In many decisiimaking cxmexts (e.g., pamit-writing), an aaqltable 

rrguktorysCtodaFdorcriferioa(e.g.,AWQC)aPbenbusadto~possiblerdveraeeffads. 

~staadudcaabesuperimpcwed(asavcrticrlli#)oaaprobabiliscicexposu~distributioa 

toasscsstbelik&oodofitsexccedan(FQure4). Ofcu~rse,thisbegstbequcstioo’What 

243 
Frequency 

Environment Exposure Concentration 

Rgum 4. Am~waterqualitycritbon(AWQC)superimposadoadistri~a 

. 

=P=Jm- . 
excccdtheacutcAWQC. Isthis5pcxcentlikelihuodoffishkiUsarfficientlyprdadiveoftbc 

ai-? bittoolow? 

Intheabsamofanycxm&aW theanswertothcquestkm”Howmuchridtis 

accqtable?” is that no level of risk is *le. However, we do not live in a world witbout 

con-. Thisisparticularlyevidcnttopolicymakers. EachemriroMlerrtrl&cisioowc 

make involves a series of trade-offs between dif%eraU policies and resource u8es. One coastmk 

that is impossible to avoid in standa&setting is cost. For example, absent a cost cons&a& it 

iseasytosaythatwewishtobavezen,riskofexcaedinganAWQCntberthnthe5~t 

value. However, what if that regulatory action results in industry incurring an &ditkal $1 

Risk Reduction (%) 

billioaof~eatc<wtsanda~~~~iafoodprices(Pigun5)! Wbathadsecmed 

like a reaso&le risk reduction now appears less palatable. In one study, Lipton (1992) &owed 

245 
I.-rlH.Otwrqrbborr’~‘~~“bvels(for&unanhnhh)doubledwllalcoat 

comtrd8wereincludulinadacisioapfoblan. l%cbottomlimisasfdlows: When 

. . -aleincludajfonarlly~ri8k~, ~invariablywillbcaskaito 

d8fd~rqgudias~~--88drccapcrMeridr--ykdtOtbC 

ilbchubdeooaolnics asangulatqcaddmth 3tkisbwlrmcemrilybm~I;itisputof 

makh#-tb8timdvcchoicarbetwcul~-. Howcvcr,thcccological 

ri8kcommunitymu8tbcawafeofthisaspa2oftWrw&. 

coNcLusIoNs 

Bydoptingmo~r&mnU3Mtoolswhichcddtwsuacercpintywearrenotaacessdrily 

alluingtbatecologialimpactsbaxnnebsslikelytbant.heyw~undertlJc-, 

!lingbfigurerisk-. Bather,tumdntyQcbaiquassimplyprovidcamcansof 

few many dcx%iakmaking tfadc4B. For exampk, the cxmsistcat use of 42oasndve 

pointy is cf%ctively a mamgamadecisimratktlmnasciaWicappro0ch. 

Tbisvicwwasc&oedfdtbubyOMB(199O)iua&a&matt qaldingfisk8Ddridrv: 

llmcprob~canbe- bypnwldiagdacisionllMkUSWitbthefUll 

mgeofinhmatha8theri8ksofasubeEIlwxoranactivity. Tl~~~,decish 

makmshouklbegivc8thelikelyrirloaswellas-of~andthe 

aJter~ofthepotaatklri8k. Th,ifmgulatory~makerswantto 

chooaeaveryautiousri8k~~,~cando8oandamargin 

dsalkycanbeapplicdexplk&lyi8thefilml~. Tlwppmdiscuperior 

tOOOCillWhiChthC~Il8k8IMluS-mulpinOfslfayUehiMm 

behindthCveilofa~ ofupper-bound-adoptaiatkeypointsin 

tbe&--process. 

246 
WAlBR QUAUTY 8mNDARm IN THE 2lrt C-Y: 23M48 

TlEdevc~ofnewmcthod8forccological~~ mu8tbecoordhtcdwitb 

the da%ion-making model8 ifthe a88c88maltpFooessi8tollaveanyappliabilityfor~oa 

(rather than Simply being an acaddc cxdac). For example, a hsk m approach 

8bouklbcde8igmdina maMcrtlmtwillge#mteinformatioathat~a8ilyintoall 

cxiating ckci8ioo-making model. similarly, dacisioa-making mockla 8lKnlM co&lam to the 

ctm8tmht8,8tMut0ry and aclmi&dvc, of policy analysis. Thus, a “top&wn” appr0d could 

bCdevisad~~~tOtbCfO~ingtiend8y&an: 

0 What are the regulatory (policy) alter7Iativc8 available to &ci8ioa makers? 

0 WlmtdecGoo-makiqmodclgenesrtesdc&.ion8tbata&xmtothcavailabk 

alternatives? 

0 Wbat risk a8rmmmt rppnwcb provides information rcquiral for the de&ionmaking model (i.e., all m mc!tldologkaanmt-yapp~ 

for all &cisino-making bra)? 

0 Whtdatanccdtobccolkctalto8upportsucharisk~appnch? 

Qurntibtivemodelsforuacartrintyuraly~~crrprbkofpnwidiagwefirlinformrtioa 

tom@atora. llGsMormathcanbcf&ctofedintoadaGhn-makingcalculu8thatinvoive8 

. am8haMnoftbc8aipc0fl?atcnM~ and their probabiitk8 of occuflwKx. 

Appkatioil of such appludes ultimately may aid in optimizing risk-ba8al regulation, thus 

ultimately reducing total dcological riaka. MoFbover, to tbc extent that application of unc&ahty 

adysi8 can prevaM tbc obhcation of valuabased or political &x&&m8 as “science,” 

. llomamlpolick8maybccomcmorc~veto8ocialgolals. Giventheexpabdedu8cs 

~inar~ngulption,webetievethatitlieswithinthescope 

of rqonsibk Agency behavior to begin viewing ecological risk a88~8ment8 within tbc 

fiamcwork of thi8 mo& of analysis. 

Bartell, SM., R.H. Gadner, andR.V. O’Neill. 1992. HcologialRi8k&timation. Cbckea, 

MI: Lewis Publisben, 252 pp. 

Bartell, SM., RH. Ganhcr, R.V. O’Neill, and J.M. Gidding8. 1983. Brrw analy8is of 

pltetedfateof- in a simulad pond. Envinm. Toxicol. Cbcm. 2:19-28. 

9%8. Risk analyaia under tmcmahy: Novel agpmacb. Rqxnt to U.S. 

plrotaction &CW)‘, OffiCC Of policy tiySi8, S&BCC &licy Brad, 

Wa8hgton, D.C. 
Fiokal#A. 1990. GOdUdl&U#xrcrintyiaRiSk~. Wadhgton, DC: Center for 

-W,- fortheFld.um, 68pp. 

Liptak,J.alKll.w.Gilku. 1992. uqiariakm: Bluxdam 

accqdkriak,andriak-baaal~making. 

Lipton, J. ad J.W. Gii. 1991. uncertaiaties in rbks froal ocean dumping: chanii 

. . B, coamucial flsb ladinga, ad seafood consumption. Environ. Toxicol. and 

Ghan. 10~967-976. 

NAS. 1983. Natiood~yof~,N~~Cauncil. RiskAaasmauin 

t&FUkfdGW-: Manag@ the -. Washington, DC: National Academy Rss, 

191 pp. 

OMB. 1990. offbof lh!hqpmalKl~. Rlypbryprognmofthcuniteds~ 

govenuneat. wa8lh#oQ,Dc: officeoflmmgama and Budget, pp.14-41. 

Ruck&bu, W.D. 1983. Vital Spcecba~ of tbc Day, 493612-615. 

Suter, G.W., II, D.S. Vaughan, and RH. Guther. 1983. Risk assawwa bpOdy8i8Of 

x3~ cmrz A deaKnrstntion for cffbcts ofpollubwts on fish. Em&a. Toxicol. Ghan. 

. 

. . 

248 
Human 

Health Risk 

Assessment: 

Reviewing EPA 

Guidelines 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 249-250 

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: REVISING THE EPA 

GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA 

Margaret Stasikowski (Moderator) 

Director 

Health and Ecological Critical Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 

The Clean Water Act of 1977 required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

develop ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health from toxic pollutants. 

EPA responded by publishing Guidelines for deriving these criteria in the Federal Register on 

November 28, 1980. Human health protective criteria for surface water for more than 100 toxic 

pollutants, including pesticides, heavy metals, synthetic organics, and dioxin were published by 

EPA using these Guidelines. 

The Clean Water Act also required EPA to review and revise these human health criteria 

when necessary so that they reflect the latest scientific knowledge. EPA is now in the process 

of doing this. The first and most important step is to ensure that the Guidelines used to derive 

the criteria do reflect the latest scientific knowledge. This session will discuss the basis of the 

current Guidelines and explore some of the major changes under consideration for revising the 

Guidelines. 

The panel members who will talk about the Guidelines today cover a wide range of 

opinions in their presentations: 

The Guideline methodology is over-conservative. 

The Guideline methodology is insufficiently protective. 

The Guideline methodology should be updated to reflect scientific advances. 

The Guideline methodology should reflect the intended protected use. 

We agree with all of these! The difficulty lies in figuring out what we need to change 

in the Guidelines to satisfy all these concerns. 

249 
M STASIKOWSKI 

For many pollutants, the EPA human health criteria form the basis for State water quality 

standards. In turn, these determine the pollutant limits in surface water discharge permits. The 

ambient water quality criteria are also utilized as limits in requiring cleanup at Superfund sites. 

The need to have scientifically supportable, protective criteria cannot be overemphasized! 

The Guidelines for deriving human health criteria have not been updated since their 

original publication in 1980. Since that time, there have been significant advances in our ability 

to characterize and quantify the risk to human health of pollutants in surface water. These 

advances should enable EPA to develop a more scientifically supportable set of Guidelines for 

calculating the human health criteria. 

The current version of the human health criteria Guidelines, which is under revision by 

EPA, was subjected to intensive public comment and peer review before its publication in 1980. 

A proposed methodology was published for public comment in the Federal Register, and the 

EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) conducted an extensive review of the Guidelines. 

EPA will initiate its formal revision of the 1980 Guidelines with a 3-day workshop later 

this month in Washington, D.C. The workshop will include about 75 invited participants from 

EPA, academia, environmental groups, industry, and other Federal agencies. We will examine 

all aspects of the Guidelines with separate working groups on cancer and noncancer risk 

assessment, microbiology, exposure, bioaccumulation, and minimum data requirements for 

developing criteria. After the workshop, we will go to the Science Advisory Board and the 

public for comment. 

The input that we receive at this Conference on Water Quality Standards will also be 

factored into the revision of the Guidelines. It is important that you express your concerns and 

comments so that we know where to focus our attention. 

The panel discussion that we are about to hear provides an excellent forum for 

presentation of diverse viewpoints on the current human health Guidelines. The only thing that 

the panel will probably agree on is that the Guidelines do need to be reviewed, updated, and 

revised to make them the best science that EPA can provide. With the help of all of you, we 

will be able to do that. 

250 
WATER QlJ4tLrl-Y STANDARD8 JN TH6 2lal c-y: 251-258 

HuMANHEALTERIsK- REVISINGTHEEPA 

GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING HUMANHEALTHCRITERIAMIR 

AMBIENTWATER. TEEMEI’HODOLOGYISOVERCONSERVATM3 

PJWI Ande!r8on 

EMR Clmdihg ondEngh&ng 

Auam, AfassachIuetrs 

I have bezn invital to p-t the view 

that the current methodology for deriving human 

health critexia is over-con8endve. Throughout 

thei majority of my presentation, I will p-t 

iafomat.ion indicating that the methodology i8 

over-corucndive in several of tbc (UIcBLs the 

invitation askal that I consider. Bdon getting to 

the konaendve nature” of 8pecitic elem~t8 of 

the methodology, I think it i8 important to 

consider what is meant by “conservative” and 

then, the am8ervatism of the mdodology, or 

lack of, in a broader public bcaltb context. 

Human Health Risk AzwwmtM Mahoddooy 

Position: It Is Too Conmmhm 

When public health risk a8scs8ment 

8pcciali8ts ncfer to an a88umption. methodology 

or criterion a8 “con8e~Gve,” generally tbat 8R 

mean8thatthepotcdalri8kstopublicbcalthwill WfWlSC&8OtWttVO? 

be ovc-. m8papcrdcflnca 

“~xvative” in the same way. The degree of 

bOWeVer, is my - 

quantiflalM;I,indeed,wiesfroma88umptionto 

assumption, mehxlology to mehodology, ad 

criterion to criterion. The public health 

vofthisubqwntifiadvariationin L 

m8crvILtism CaJl be aJomous and unintebdad 

Unintahd because the variation can lead to d&nhld prutccth of public bcalth-the exust 

opposite of what conservative methodologies are &signal to accompli8h. 

251 
Iftheonlypublichcalthriskstbatsociety 

hadkftto0withcouldbc~‘Felptivcly 

mioor,’ tbm tbc 

. . . . . 

c-=l-y of MY 

~ausedby-in 

. B would ab likdy be ‘ldat.ivcly 

minor.” llkis is not the case, bowever. Socii 

isfaadwitbavaricQofpublicbadthriskstht 

am better deacribal a8 “major.” These range 

hJmthepowialpubliclK!alth~0f 

ozuElaycrtbiMing,toAIDs,toaninfant 

moWitymtcintheunitals~ofaboutlin 

loo. In addika, society is also f&cd witb 

. e&mating ud mitigating other kinds of risks (other than strictly public health risks), including 

252 
TbepotartttUniateadad~Of 

. ~canbcavoidal,ataminimumfor 

variou8plblicl’hdt.b~,and~yforotbcr 

riaka aa well, by qwhfyhg the unccdn~ 

. a88axaWwitbcsthtc8ofridr. Whilcsucb 

quaJl-maybavebcul-axltimc 

consumingseveralyeana!go,todayitanbc 

done caaily using Monte Garb analysis aod 

readily avaihbk ad rchtivdy impsivc 

8OftWa PrOgnmS. Tbc notion of 

‘-MtiSJIl”CMbClrugelytaltenOUtOfthC 

i8k-p~,~thegoalOf,Md 

uxlnsultof,aMonteCadorhk~ i8tbcxdculrtioaofarangeofpoaeathlri8k8 

conqoodingtotbcrangeofactualri8k8. Ifariakaa8csmM 

ri8k8,tbeaiti8neitherum8enNivcoraa&oonservrtr .vc 

coaservativeaessofacriterionis~uponbowari;lr~westhe-ofralirtic 

riaka. Ifall~~~ptrokamsw~~kto~arrPngeof~,theatbe~ 

di8CU88Cduniateaded~Of~MdprioJi~OfsociecllCffOJtCOUklbC 

largclyavoidai. Tbati8notto8aythatpriorihwouklcbangc. Tbeymightranahthe8amc. 

Howcvcr,tl~~tbcprhitdWwouldbc-aadnot-. 

Tbcnmainderofthi8pqcraddnscsthe 

nationthattbccurreatmctbodologyi8wcr 

pmpectivei8thatari8ka88mmad 

alm~ld&ri~rcaUatktmtimntmofriak. Totbc 

extaktthatmanyofthedcmult8oftba~ 

lIdOdOlOgyWUC&8igDUltO~ 

actual riska, I 8uggcat ways to mrlre the 

ltldOdOlOgymO~r#listic,MdthU8lUS8 

ctmawtive. Note, bowever, that mme dameats 

ofthcexi8tingmcthodologymaylcadtoan 

u-ofactualfisks. Thcacal8oncedtobcmodifkd8ucbtlUtrdi8tic-ofri8k 

are &rived. 

253 
TEE-~oDo~YAssuMEs TEATTEECONSUMED 

FISHCOIWUN3PERCENTLIPlDANDTEATONLYTEEEDIBLE 

PORTION IS CONSUMED. WHAT NEEDS TO BE CEANGED IN TEE 

TEESEi ASSUWTIONS? 

Lipid content i8 a critical factor in 

tbtWbbgthC8lUOUUtOfOlM~-h 

fish. lldpid-offl8hvafk8a8Qesthe 

partbyfisbcorrarmptioa,sbouldlmbrsedupao 

alipidamtaMtbatisrqmsadvcoftbcfisb 

PaoQkcat. Inmo&cases,thtwillbcfmm3pmmt. Oacwaytoaccountforthisis 

tolmvewatcrqualitytTrimiatbatm~ 

uponthcpcrccntlipidcoutMtofcdibkportioas 

offisllintlmwatcrbodk8towbkhtbcz&ria 

willbcapplkd. Theaiibkportionlipidcontaushoddbedaivalusingam&odddgnalto 

esthmtca~lipiicoabeat,andnatmwcr-ore lBepropo6ddiamt 

qurlitycritat~thisappmehwbca~with~carbon’~of~. 

SHOULD CRITERU FOR HYDROPHOBIC CHEMICAM BE 

EDRESED AS FISH TISSUEl CONCENTRA TIONS INSIIEAD OF 

WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATIONS? 
WATBR QUM STANDARW IN ‘TliE 2la CENIURY: 2%258 

SHOULDTEEEPAD-Pm-THAN-“- 

FOR HUMAN HEALTH? HOW SHOULD THE HUMAN HEALTH 

IMPACTS OF SHORTJI’ERM EVEN’IS BE ASSESSED? 

The potential human bealtb impacts of 

short-term event8 should be a88emd using the R 

aamc appmacb as was proposed for long-term 

events, i.e., using a metbodology that predicts 

Conservatism of Specific Areas (Cont’d) 

realistic estimates of potentM risks. Tbe results 

l LOS8lhUlU&lM 

-ISdalammnlO 

of such an assessment would indicate whether -hywub-almlh 

there was a need for “kss than lifetime” criteria. l o8wExpoumGiven the conservative natue of tbe cumt 

methodology, it seems unlikely that “less than 

lifetime” criteria would be more stringent than 

existing lifetime criteria. However, if tbe ’ 

methodology for e&mating potential l&time 

riska is modified such that it predicts realis& risks, it would be pruht to also eshate less 

than lifetime risks and develop criteria for botb endpoints. Both metbodologks need to calculate 

realistic estimates of potential risk so that an accurate comparison of tbe two endpoints can be 

made. 

SHOULD OTHER EXFOSUU SOURCES BE CONSIDERED IN 

SEITING CRITERU? IF SO, WHAT CONIlUBUTION SHOULD BE 

ASSUMED? 

h With the OtbCr UC& the M8Wtr t0 this qUt?StiOll depends Ultid)’ UpOn WbCtbtX tbC 

methodologypredidsFealisticestimatesofpoLentialri~,orrdainsthe~~v-ofthe 

cumnt mdhodology. Iftbe m-logy remains conservative, then the need to account for 

otber sources of exposure is chinated. TIE consetive ekments in tbe cun#lt procedure 

mduce the criteria 8uffickntly to account for other sources of exposure. Iftbe mehodology is 

made nalistic, then for some compounds, it may be necessBty to modify criteria to account for 

otber sources. Once again, please note that the possibk need for an apportionment of cxposu~e 

assumes that the total allowable exposure bas been established using mli8tic e&mate8 of 

potential risk. &cause current EPA e&hates of allowable exposure (UIC designed to be 

conservative, tbey would need to be modifkd before use in an apportionment of exposure. 

Piy, the apportionment of exposure is likely to vary among chemicals, wg upon bow 

much exposure typically comes f&m ambient water vems other envhunental media. 
SHOULD BIOACCUMULA TIONBE CO- IN CAICULATING 

CRrImIA? THE EXWIING MEI’HODOLOGY ONLY ACCOUN’IY 

MIR BIOCONCENTRA TION. HOW WILL THESE FAtTORS BE 

DERIVED? 

‘of cour8e,’ i8 the short answer. 

. Bioco#xntntroa i8aWnatoryplmomum. R 

Bydefhith,it~~ofacbemicrl ~ofSQedficAfeas(~d) 

from water only. Such cod&n8 m not 

pcwsiinambiiwaterw~otber8ource8 

Will~bUtCtO,OrCVMdOmiMtC,tOtalUptSlkC. 

Thetditiodapplicrtionof~8,u8edby 

existing criteria, to total water column 

. ~ofacbemial,wbiktecbnically 

incorrect, axounta fortheuptaheofcbunid8 

from the aher expo8ure pathways bccauae it 

. ovensCmuawtbCccmadntioaOftheCbaaicrl 

actuallydi88olvuiinthcwater. (Thecorrecta#idonofaBCFi8toonlytbe&8olved 

porthofacbemicalintbewatercolumn.) 

Acavate~~of~sis~more~lt~~user-frieadlyabdwidely 

acmpted method i8 currmly availabk thnt dbW8 for UzWate prediction of a Iax@ of MI. 

~GrertLakc8hithtivecanaotbeu8aiforanumberofnrsarw, including it8 dependeace 

upOa~8,~of~~spacifictotbeat#t~ladtbushottnnsfenbletootbet 

wrtenaftbeunitbdstotes,mdits~~to~rahelypradict~ulatioainotherw~rs 

wella8formany8pa5e8intbeGmthke8.) Clurlybecau8eanaccuratee8thateof 

~ulrtioaiscriticlltodevebpmensafnrlisticcriteria,tbedevelopnentofa~that 

kad8tore&tice8hatcsofbioaccumulatjoubcrithland8houldbeaprhity. Intbeabsence 

of8ucham&bod,analtenntiveistou8eavailabkdatafFom viUiOU8WaterbOdk8tObioaccumulathintbeambharvironmeat Bventhi8need8tobecbnewitbcarebeuu~tbe 

variabk nature of envixonmed 8ampling &.I intduce biaser, into fkkl4rived e&mate8 of 

bhccumulation. 
WA7BR QLJAJ.tTY STANDARD8 IN THE 2lrt CEI’tfURY: 2%2S8 

WHATSHOULDTHElBALANCEOFSlRINGENTVS.NONSI’RINGENT 

P-BETOACHIEVE ABALANCEDRX’SKSHOULD SOME OF THE FACTORS IN OUR “RISK ASSESSMENT” 

METHODOLOGY MORE ACCURATELY BE CHARACTERUED AS 

RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS? 

‘Lbe acbiemment of a bahnced risk a88es8mentisanes8enhlandlaudablegoal. The 

ament methodology doe8 not achieve tbat goal. Iadeed, the only way to achieve a bahnccd risk 

aaaessment is to use maliatic assumptions, not a balance between 8tringent and non-stringent 

assumptions. Becaugc the cun#lt methodology contain8 mostly 8tringent and some non-stringent 

assumptions, it contain8 “risk managexneat” deci8ion8. This violate8 the fimdamental tenet of 

the National Academy of Science’s “Red Book,” which is tbat risk assessment and rhk 

management decisions need to be made explicit and hopefully be kept sepamte. Use of Monte 

Carlo analysis acbicve8 tbi8 end, because done correctly, it will provide a risk manager with a 

range of rcalhtic risk8 (or conversely, a mnge of potential criteria as8ociated with a particular 

level of protectiveness) from which tbe risk maaager will have to choose a criterion based upon 

the allowable level of risk, among otber fhctor8. 

Someoftbekeyfactor8thatareahtic 

methodology needs to account for include: a 

mge of fish consumption rates for tbe genexal 

population at a minimum and perbap8 also for 

sport and subsktence fishemm and their 

families; a range of bioaccumulation factors; a 

range of duration of residence times; and a range 

of cancer potency &mates and reference doses. 

Given tbese and otber inputs, a range of potential 

riaka aaaociated with a range of water 

conCentration8 can be calculated and provided to 

atimanager. Given this range, the risk 

manager can decide how pFotactive criterion sbould be. Tbe information provided tbe rhk 

manager would aho let him decide to px~&% various popdation8 at difkrent allowable risk 

levels. For exampk, tbe average (or some upper or lower bound) member of tbe U.S. general 

population at a 1 in 1 million cxces8 l&time cancer ri8k level; tbe average 8poH fi8berman (or 

some upper or lower bound) at a 1 in 100,ooO risk level; and the average 8ubhtence fisherman 

(or some upper or lower bound) at a 1 in 10,000 risk level. 

257 
P. ANDmmm 

Ttmdcganccofa nwW&bgytlntprwide8acomp~andFarlirticc~of 

potmidfiskistbrtthelisk~anukfm,andbeprwided,-oothcporeatLl 

ri8k8fbravarkyofadpoht8tlntmaybeofconcem. Sucham&odalsoavoidstb 

. 

-*-TV -WitbmCtbOdSthttpfOVidCestimrtes 

ofri8kwithoutaqmnt6%m -vetbeyaFe. 

258 
WAwl QUAl.tTY STANDARDS M THE 21at CENWRY: 259.267 

OppoRTuNITIEsMIRUPDATINGTHEMETEODSFORTHE 

DERIVATION OF HEILTE-BASElD WATER QUALITY CRHERIA 

Rolf Emtung, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. 

?9t+sw gEnti-d 72ukvlogy 

st9cd~PnMfcH~ 

lk Unive~ o/Michigun 

Ann A&or, Mkhignn 

EPA’s mision caera on the pnoteaioo of tbe edronment. Tbe protedoo of human 

healthfromeffadsduetocontaminantsthptbavefoundtheirwayintotheenvironmentbas 

become an important componaM of that mission. AmajortumingpointtbatcausedtbeAgency 

to~theimportanceofbumanhealtbissuesasakeycMponeatofenvironmeatPl 

protection was the ma&ted requirement to develop water quality criteria during the late 1970s. 

BACKGROUND 

Tbc basic amcepts incorporated into the mehxlology for tbe derivation of bealth-based 

water quality criteria have sb’OI@y influenced tbe Environmental PrNccth &CIbQ'*S abii to 

e8tabli8b IiJniting -tmtimS in ambient water and dhkhg Water. The mdbodologies for 

the derivation of such limiting values 81rc clearly part of the discipline of risk m, and 

involve many related apccialty areas. 

Itisaf;biriysimplecasktotracethedevelopnentofthe~~fortbedeiiMtion 

ofwaterqualitycriteriafortbep~ofaquaticlifefnrmtheireylybeginniagathrargbtbe 

encyclopedic OeatmaM by McKee and Wolf (1963), through tbe Gn#n Book (U.S. Departmept 

of tbe Interior, 1968), tbe Blue Book (NAS, 1972), to tbe pdsely ciraunscribed pdn# 

in U.S. EPA (1987). 

In contrast, development of mdbods for tbe derivation of bealtb-based criteria has a much 

more complex history, primarily because many groups bad ahady & active in the 

interpretation of toxicological and epiddological data f6r tbe pro&ha of human be&b during 

many yeara prior to creation of tbe U.S. =A. Before tbe U.S. BPA was establisbed, most of 

tbeLimitingvaluesw~esEablishadontbebasisafsc~judgmentandconseasw. Thus, 

259 
R. HAmuNa 

theWIostQwllty~farQinkin%~weFedeherminadinthismurrrctbytheU.S. 

FhbblicHealtb~(u.s.DaputmedofHealth,-afHlwelfpre, 1962). 

CkUl~,tbCAgCOCybOrfOWCdfi8k- COOlX@8fOrtbCdCJiVatiCHJOfW~qU8lity 

tzrimiafnnumMy-.The~tlmtw~formrliEsd a8paltoftllederivation 

afw~Qurlidycritcririaturnaxertad~iathrsaasoa~way8iawhicbotber 

. . . . . -am&ctedtlHJirri8k-. l%cgMcral- OftbCplDCC88WCfC 

. mxnamcd by NAS-NRC in 1983, after the basic methodologies for our prumt bealth-based 

-inlkF4?d@d 

chmlm?m MuJIug&lg the - ckuly disbpbd bctwmn liak a8m8mMtandli8k 

maqamlt (NRC, 1983). Tbe area of ri8k amemmaM wassubdividadintoanumberof 

subspecii,n8mely~i&a~,dose~ a88mm4st,andexpo8urc~, 

. . toarriveatariak~ . 

An early bead in BPA’8 risk - activities was a tbching ax@a8i8 on 

reliMcconcodiAsdprocedu~. l%eintrodudioaof 

Intum,rBcabtri8k-coaductsd by the Agatcy for Toxic Suw and 

Dkam R&try (A’ISDR), the Commcr ROdUCtS8fCQ~(CPSC),tbCFOOdMd 

DrugAdmi&dm(FDA),andtheNationdIndutcforocarprtwnrrl~udSaf’ 

(NIOSE)exbibitan&uabwticclhbinfh#wxfxutnthc~bgiesdavebgedmdmodifiadbythc 

U.S.BPA wiitbeU.S.BP&tbemetbodologk8baveitdbraaoedtbe~ofumiting 

. 

TmJP-- attambktotbe-risk- metboQlogy~ 

ckarlyavidaat, llmwby8lKJuld~beanyctrsdiMemdivatlDnforcbange? mereare 

1979,wbeatbecriterkwerek?jrU~ianspoasetoasuitbytbeNIhinl~ 

I3efbac council (NRDC). The WY’8 rqonae was infld by court-imposed clndlinn 

8ndtheufpcyto&vebpcritmi8foraspecifiadlistof~ c-y, the 

~fOCtb8dOftbCthaW88~iDin ~iaste,andtbeir 

dlmbpmatooktbepatbof~-,#,tbattbecrituiauleba8edupoa~ 

~~~ratlmtb~~~whicbmultin~antMereaccstbrt 

willbedi8cualbIp#tCtArhillaterintbi8paper. Attbi8timemomtbmadecadeluubeen 

eI8pd,whichb8sscca8igdicantadvancminthescienccofriskadysis. Yet,tberehave 

260 
WATER QuAuTY STANDARD8 IN lnB 21a CENTURY: 2s9-241 

I%otedve Versus Predictive Risk Assemmnb and Um 

Although tbc Agency’s achievB in limiting tbc l&!ases of contaminants into the 

adonumt have been admirable, tbcm are a number of basic conflicts in the pm f&k by 

whicbtbeAgencysadcstocoatroltbeadverseimpactsofhumanactiviti~upontheenvironment 

and upon luunans themselves. The basic probkms may have their foundations in generic 

smantic cxmcpts, such as “protection, safety, and ample margins of safety.” On a purely 

scientific basis, absolute s&y cannot be guaranteed, except when the sWssor that may 

compma safbty is completely absent. similarly, the concept of plOWion is often used 

inte~hanga&ly with safety. A strict adkencc tothescbasicconcepUwoulddanandastcady 

I#krction and eventual dilnimion of all UMamiUlts. These aWept! are simply stated, easily 

comprebeadad,andifexacutad,theywouldguaranteetbeprotection~srfetyfnnaray 

conceivable &f&t that might be produced by the contaminants tbat had bean selected for this 

action. Atthisstage,oneofthecomerstonesforthepFotectivesbategyistheseladioaof 

specific suW for action. This selection process has developed a class of substances referred 

to as “toxics,” which have been chosen to Ttaive special tr#rtmetlt, often witbout regard for tbc 

commtrdons in which tbcy occur. Aside ftrotn the f&t that the word “toxic” or “toxics” as a 

~nis~tobefouadintbedictiorr9ry,conflictsarisewbenmosttoxicologists~~ 

believersintbecoaapttbat~ysUbatamxCanbetoxic,andthattbedosc~tbe~C~. 

Altbough it is ckerty possible to cUminate many sum from tbc waste stn?am, and although 

itisckarlypossibbanddesirableto~tbeamountsofwrstep~,itisclearly 

impossible to construct a human civilkation that produces no waste at all. Tbc known physical 

aadnaturallaws~~goingtobeheldinabeyrurceinfavorofFaderalorSQtehws! 

Givcntbepublicmanda&s,theimmatu~statcoftbcscknceofrisk as8cssmcnt,andthc 

existingtimepnssulrw,BPA’sp~beahh-basadrislr~~an~bya 

selection or listing process, followed by the development of water quality cri@ria that am almost 

exclusively the product of pKHective risk assessmm. Forthistypeofriskwsessment,dataon 

theluunanbcalthertperieaaand/orexp&naWdata~laboratoryanimalsaxeevahWalto 

dderminethcirsigaificrwxandthequalltrdiveu--withthedata. Tk 

pn2sentme&odologyqmratcssubsUncesintoa&mgensand lloncaminogens. 1tisassumed 

thatrll~~exhibitao~~withrespedbotbedosethatisexpectedtopEodwxm 

cfkt,andtbattbtdose~rclationsbipislincuatlow~. l%emodifkdmuktagc 

risk ai3wmad model (Grump, 1982) ccrrmnonly applied in these situa&ns also koqom&s 

. . lumnxed confldcnce limits on doses given a specified risk. In practice, the model is applied 

261 
R. HARTUNO 

Inamtnst,rtthcpfulalttimepFbdictiverisk~ artusedprharilybythc 

illsumm illchmy. Idaklly, these plediuive risk assusm~afcbascduponpiorqerhcc 

oratuaridinfbmdm e.g., 1outof44Amhcansc8neJtpaatodicasarltofamator 

v&i& Iccibc13t (as a Liver or pwengcr,orasapaiesth). Tbcuncchnticsforthis 

~~~~fromyeutoyarIcdsitetositewLtioaspl~rayeffedsduetobry- 

. 

Ifooewcfctotakcthisappfoachwith subetuwxswbeEemostoftheinformatioais 

ixdimlyprwicbd,suchaa~~withlaborptoryanimals,tbalobviowlybaththc 

wwt~~ptrbdictioa,rsw~~~tbe,wouldbcmucbmoFe~to 

-ttrur~mlativclysimplecasecitalabove. Whaktheavailabletoxicologicalinf~ 

isdaivalthmugblrrbontorystudiesusingmodclsys&ans,tbaltllerisk~Decdto 

nzsolttoextrapolations. Thcaeextrapolationstreadto ahaqassthe~aodquurcitative 

. dlffbwsinthcawceptibilityofthotestanimalandthclulman. ltmxmpolationsnecdto 

addmutbediff- iDthCrrpseOf~VitiCSilltbebUm8lJpoprlrtrmWbeacomparedtO 

themn@inmdinthetestspecies. Humansarenotalwaystbemostmostvcspecica,ncithcr 

am.heyalwaysthcmostrc8isMspecies. FotaMly,pfedidiverisk~ can provide 

anopportunaytoexpl#stbe-annlndtllcpredided~andthedoscfatcat 

WhiChth@plCexpedbdtOOCUU. 

262 
WA7w QUALITY Sl.AJ’IDARDS IN THE 2lr CENTURY: 259-267 

ASSESSINGTHEEXPOWRE 

The Agency’s water quality pqram appears to be consbained by a compulsion, created 

by perceived kgislative ma&&s, to deal with probkms arising from contaminants in the aquatic 

environment by controlling the concentrations of those contaminants in water. Whik this 

approach has the advantage that it can address effluent discharges by considering various dilution 

scenarios, and the buildup of persistent organic chemicals in bii through bio-accumulation 

coefficients, it fails to address many envirxuunental pnXesses thtCk&llllinethCUltimatC 

exposures and therefore the ultimate risks. It is impossible to estimate human exposures related 

to discharge permits unless one considers ahronmental transport and fate in addition to the 

extent of dilution that may occur. It is therefore inappropriate to apply m-based discharge 

permitting schemes that are suitable for the Hudson, Columbia, or Mississippi Rivers to the 

Gnat Salt Lake or the GFegt Lakes System. It should be obvious that the byhlogy in these 

large lake systems, which are characterized by very long rwidence times, exerts a very strong 

influence on the concentrations of contaminants that are attributable to discharges into these 

systems. ‘llws, most of the perceived needs for a Great Lakes Initiative do not have theii 

foundations in any unusual sensitivity of the organisms living in the Great Lakes to persistent 

contaminants, but instead have their basis in a historical failure to reqnize the applicable 

concerns for the fate and transport of persistent chemicals in the Great Lakes. Another example 

of simplistic applications can be found in the attempts to link bio-accumulated chemicals to 

discharge permits through the application of a bio-accumulation Mcknt. Clearly, the 

concentration of persistent chemicals in fish is of paramount importance to fish-eating species, 

including humans. However, there m many intervening steps and pmcesses thatkadhmthe 

discharge of a substance to its accumulation in sediments and dhztly or indhctly into biota. 

Consequently, the ability to predict the corresponding concentrations of contaminants among 

water, biota, and sediients is fraught with major diffkulties. Obviously, if one wisbes to 

prwtect the consumers of aquatic life, then the most important parameter to control is the 

concentration of a substance in the aquatic life that is likely to be consumed. In other woxds, 

the limiting concentration should be se4 for tbe aquatic life. Ultimately, substances that are bii 

accumulated need to be controlled by limiting their inputs to watersheds or lake systems. 

However, it needs to be recognized that the conbol of bio-accumulating substances through tbe 

application of limiting concentrations in ambient waters or in discharges is increasingly remote 

from the locus of the problem, resulting in illcEasing uncertainties. These uncertainties are pm 

ofnzality. TheyneedtobeidcntifiedandassessedaspartoftheoverallpFocess. 

OPPOR- FOR IMPROVING HEALTH-BASED RISK 

ASSESMENTSFORCRlTERWDEVELOPMENT 

It is obviously futile to expect an immediate conversion from pfwtective to predictive risk 

assessment models. Nevertheless, a gradual amversion is desirable, largely because predictive 

263 
1. lUR?UIW 

Toapprod~tl~probkans,Iwillamsidcr~ aepavrtelYf= -* 

ThirfolbwStbC~liSk- tDC4bdOlOgyOftbCAgencyWbkb-tb8t8ll 

txlaogMexbiino~ld,andtb8tthetoxkityofnoacurcinogensis~bythe 

p#wasuofthrwbo~f~~8bove~dorelevd8. Tberiakurmrmmt 

mdo&&gyf&~iscburcterizadbytbcrpplicrtlarofa~mu~risk 

~mo&l,whiktberi8k~for ~nliesprimuilyupoatbe 

axwkd appliation ofuncertlinsy fiaaors (formerly calkd safety factors). 

NONCARCINOGENS 

Onccthcminimumdat8qhanaMsbavcbdCllnx#,,tbcmc4bodobgyfortbcdcdv8th 

ofwaterquditycritMiafor . B levolvcu 8found cxtm@dn m individual 

dif%-,~-sbort-eBrmto~~~,and~ 

amutabktotbequalityoftbedata~ Tba~titheformoflo-foldfhctomoravariabkmodifLiagfidor. Theusualundwlying~btb8tbum8ns8rc8t 

kastassensitive8stbe -individualsintbemost-speck8tested. Tllesesepu8te 

fXWW3pfUldyUSCd8S cxqmmtsofaproaactiveridr~ int.he&fivationof 

bcdwmmd~Qlality~,butitisalsopossibktobegintoaddfesstbeissues 

uakrlyingtkuaeoftbaefWor8inpdictiveri8k8scmmaU. 

IlMlOSt~,tb8--lOgySCkCtStbCN o-obmnw- Imel (NOEL), 

. occrsnnsrllytheN~Adversa~~~O~),inm%ly/drytbrtwrsobaerved, 

raddivides~dosenbebyaa~~rofloforindi~~udafurtber 

uncedntyf&ctorof1OfordifkuxebcWecnspcck Amajorproblanassoc&dwit.htbc 

rppr#cbLtbrtdreaxrrctQeelcvels~witbtbeNOBtortheNOABLuer~of 

tkdoaelcvclssdctalby~imes@toratthcb@mingofthecluWcorsubch& 

experhat. Fudermom, t&NOELorNOARLisnotinfldbycithcrthcqualityofthc 

. urpermserdortbcnumberofanimalsusalpcr&sckivel. Somcof~hues~~ 

bythc’badmarkdose”amccpt,whicbse&tosu~a calalmd-dosemtbe 

264 
WATER QUAlJlV M’ANDARD6 IN ll46 21at cxmlJuY: 2s9-267 

thrcsbold, at a low percdik respond, e.g., an ED,,, for the NOEL or NOAEL. However, 

whi)e~rrppn#ch~someaftbemacbanisticfrailtiesofthederivationoftheNOBL 

ortbeNOABL,itdoesaotddFesstbe~~~~yrelatedtoindividualandinterspecific cliffkw in sensitivity. More dhct mm of the extent of iodividual differences 

canbefoundintheslopeoftbedosaresponEcurve. Ift.berGspaWaxismeasurestlle 

proportionoftheexposediadividualsthatr#pobdataayonedoselevel,tbentheslopeofthis 

dose-xqonsecurveisadirectmeasureoftheextcntofindividualvarhbUy. Severalpddms 

associatalwitllthisapproacbstillneedtobc~lved. llEmostim~ooesare(1)towbat 

extent is the slope of the doserespoase curve a pmpczty of the variabilities in wnse found 

unongtheiadivi~,aadtowhrtextamtisitaQro9ertYoftheintendionsoftbechemicllwith 

the~~;(2)tow~exteat~tbevaripbilityunongindividurlsfoundinoaespacies 

fclate to the variabii in anather speciq (3) ase then unusually sensitive subgruups in the 

human populatioa; and (4) to what extent do they differ from the close-response pm@ctions for 

tbebullcofthepapulation. Itb~bktobeginuranaly~afmanyoftbese~,espacirlly 

by analyzing toxicological data on drugs, where there exists an extensive ddabase on ef%cts in 

laboratory animals with direct comparhms to bumans. 

whilethe~relatcdtointct-lfpccificm- inthedcrivatiouofbcalth-based 

wrtcrqurrlitycriteriabslvebeencommoalyderhwithby~awtberfrctorof10,~iderable 

found to date shongly to the o&end species difTefencc4 in wnse. Thus, physiologically 

based phamacokinctic (PB-PK) mockls have txm found to be very us&II in explaining many 

observedinter-specificdifZel#lces~andRozman, 1991). AhthercombinationofPBPK adds with a knowledge of molecular mechanisms of toxic action has grW potahal in 

impmving inter-specific extmpolatiom of toxicity. 

265 
B=kxCxt 

Where: 

8 =afixaleffcct. 

k = acomtant. 

C . = ~ordoeeratc. 

t =dumtionofexpoaule. 

Tbe8ppliabilityoftbcindiviclualunc&hty&torsinaprrotadiveriskassessmeatlms 

been akpatcly justifkl by Dourson and Starra (1983). However, tbc~ has been no logical 

justifWhofthcpre8entpolicyformultiplyingallidaNifMummtpihtyfWors. Inpractice, 

~humxrtriatywillbaveadistn’botioaafitsowa,urdtheu~willinterrrdwithone 

anderi&paukdy,orwithv8riausdcgFbtsofhdqahux . such relationships are more 

appmpriately dealt with using lmmte Carlo simulations or similar pl7xmss. 

CONCLUSIONS 

REFERENCES 

Crump,K. 1982. Animprodprocahddowdosectrcibogenicrisk~frOm 

animal data. J. Envimn. hthol. Toxicol. 5:339-34% 
WATER QUM SrANDARDS IN THE 2la CENTURY: 239-267 

Dourson, ML. and J. Starra. 1983. Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty 

(safety) factors. Reg. Toxicol. pharmacol. 3:224-238. 

Filov, V.A., A.A. Gobulev, B.I. Liublina, and N.A. Tolokontscn. 1979. Quantitative 

Toxicology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [Based on the 1973 edition of Koliclrutvrryrqy 

T&ikologiyu in Russian; translated by V.B. Tartachenko.] 

Khassen, C.D. and K. Rozman. 1991. Absorption, distribution, and excmtion of toxicants. 

In: Amdur, M.O., J. Doull, and C.D. Kkasscn, eds. Casamtt and Doull’s Toxicology, 4th Bd. 

New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 50-87. 

McKee, J.B. and H.W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria, 2nd Ed. Sacramento, CA: State 

Water Quality Control Board. Publication No. 3-A. 

McNamara, B.P. 1976. Concepts in he&b evaluation of commercial and industrial chemicals. 

IO: Mehlman, M.A., R.B. Shapii, and H. Blumenthal, eds. New Concepts in Safety 

Evaluation. Advances in Modem Toxicology, Vol. 1, Pt. 1. Washington, DC: Hemisphere 

Publishers, pp. 61-140. 

NAS. 1972. National Academy of Scii. Water Quality Criteria 1972. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Govemmult Printing Of&c. 

NRC. 1983. National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1962. Public Health Service, Drinking 

Water Standa& lRcv. 19621. PHS Pub. 956. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

of&!. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water I4&rtion Control Adminktmkm. 1968. Water 

Quality Criteria. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of&e. 

U.S. EPA. 1987. U.S. Envim~tal Pmtection Agency, Office of Water Re@ations and 

Standards. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 440/5-86401. 

267 
WATBR QUAlJl-Y STANDARD6 IN THE 2lrl CENMY: 2694% 

PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AS AN IIWENDED PR- USE OF 

WATER RESOURCES: IMPLICATIONS FOR REVISINGTHEEPA 

GUlDELINESFORDERMNGHUMANHEALTHCRlTeRIA 

TbeprotedioaofprblicwatersupQliesisoaeofthemainprrpo#sofmaintliningor 

m&wing the quality of the Nation’s waters. Recently, however, the U.S. BnvMtal 

Pmtecth Agency (EPA) has issued a proposed Natiod Toxics Rule (NIX), which would 

establish human b&h water quality criteria and stardad that differ significantly From safe 

DrinkingwaterActsbmduds. Tbedifbenm bring into focus whether the pruposed criteria 

fully consider the iota&d pn~a%ed use of water ttsou~lxs for public water supplies. 

EPA is presady rcvkwing and updating their guidelines for deriving human health water 

quality criteria and the underlying risk assessment methodology. From the perspective of water 

supply agencies, it is important that public water supply uses of water be fully consided in that 

leview. ThispaperdiscWc8inconsistenciesfoudintheNTR,andtbemainissuestbose 

inconsistads brought into focus for water supplkrs concerning tbe development of revisal 

guidelines. 

BACKGROUND 

Water ~RSOUXS have always been judged by their abundance and suitabiity for intadcd 

use. Historically,theaMilabilityofwaaerandtbeusesthat~ldbe~ofitbavedetenninad 

tbe~whe~paopklivedaadbowp~stbosearreas~ldeventuallybe. Ampkfresb 

water allows for amsumption by tbe residads of the anea, and irrigation, transportatioo, and 

c~lcrgyuses. Italso~~asourrxoffisbandsbellftsh,~wildlife,and~~s 

donal uses. However, when water nzsoum fail to meet theii intdal uses-thtrougb 

diversion, drought, overuse, pollution, or atber W cod&as as well as public 

healtbandwell-beingareputinjeopdy. Tbeinta&duse3ofwaterare,thefefofe,key 

elements to be considered in establishing standards for water quality. 

269 
0 pr@dionofpublicwatersupplks, 

0 pfutedm of secn%ional activities in and on the water, and 

l pfutection of use for mn@ation.2 

&eriaforwateraaxuadydkctingtbelatestsciedicknowla@(A)on 

thc’~~~of~~k~oahalthmdwelfulaincluding,but 

not limited to, plankton, fI!h, sbellfish, wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches, 

-,drecr#tioawhichmaybeexpectedffomthep- of pollutants 

inanybodyofwater.. . . 

Ckuly,BPAmust~~oa~~cwrtersuppliesindevelopingwaterquality 

CfitUh,d,thCNfON,hthCfCVkWOfhumaabUlthrisk assamcat me&o&logy. To 

coasi&rtbostimpacts,oaemwtunderstaadsomeofthe~ir#nentsofthekeypieceof 

kgislatioa affixthg water suppliers, the safe Drink@ Water Act (SDWA)? 

Topmtectdhkingwateramsumersfnxnchanicdandmicrobialcontpmiarats,tbe 

SDWAmadatesdrinkiqwaterstadadsamsistingofmaximumco&dumtkvclgoals 

(MCWs)andmutimum-kvcls(Mm). MCIBsareedablishedatrkvelwberr: 

noknowaora&ipatdadvanchumanhealtheffectsoccur,andinaqontetmaqinofsafety. 

MCLGsue~enfonxabkstdds. MCLsareeafonxlpbleandsdascIosctoMCLGsas 

fhsiblectm&Mng~sucbasavriLMe~~, tlement~,andamts. All 

MClXisue~br#doabumur~~,IrPd,togaherwitbM~,ur:arbjectad 

tothereg&oIypxQcessincluding~ftunityforpubliccommeat. -=Pf-u4!-4@~ 

watersupplharethenrespodbkformeetingMCLs. Tbosetbatdonotaresubjecttocivil 

pamltiu,publ.ic-,andcodveactions. ‘IhesesancthscanbeimposalbyH9A 

0rStateagencieqorasaaltofcitizeasuits. 

270 
WAT8R QlJm SI’ANDARD8 lN THE 21a CENFURY: X9-275 

Comctive actions may nquixe capital constwdon and/or incmmsed opmting costs. 

Most contaminants regulated under the SDWAdo not occur uatudly in sounze waters used for 

drinking water supplies. They are tbe ~z9ult of pollution discharge or land use practices of 

industries and others regulated in whole or in pad under ather statutes, including the CWA. 

NATIONAL TOXICS RULE 

‘Ibe National Toxics Ruk,’ proposal in November 1991 under the CWA, highlighted 

several amas of concern for water suppliers because of the contaminants involved and the 

standad pmposed. The rule proposed water quality criteria (WQC) for tbe priority toxic 

pollutantsinthoseStatestbathadaotadoptedcriteriaasFequ~bythecWA. Thecriteria 

inclu&d specific quantitative levels for pmtection of aquatic life in fresh and salt water, and for 

pmtection of human bealtb considering consumption of water and aquatic organisms, and 

organisms only. Forty-one of the priority toxic pollutants under the CWA are also regulated 

under the SDWA. Sixty-oae of the contaminants regulated under the SDWA corrcqond with 

those subject to xequired monitoring in National Pollution Discbarge Blimhth System 

(NPDES) permits. Water suppliers, tbexdore, expected levels proposed for the buman health 

water quality standad to be consistent with MCLs promulgated under the SDWA for 

contaminants egdatcd under both Acts. This expect&ion was not real&l in every case. 

Comparing the NTR and SDWA standad for noncarcinogenic pollutants Nvuls sevelal 

- where the human health water quality standad (WQS) for consumption of water and 

7s is less sbingent than the corqxmding drinking water standad, as shown in Table 

. 

Takingoneexampkfhmtbetabk: l,l,l-txichlomethanebasadrinkhgwaterMCLof 

2oOppb,‘whiletbepEoposedNTRwaterandorganismsstabdard~3,100~m<mthon15 

timuhlgher. Tllis-meanstbatpoint- ofpollutionamcontriihighkvels 

of l,l,l-tric~ to a public drinkhg water soutrca-levels that the SDWA qulaths do 

not consider to be pmtective of public badtb in drinking water. Public water supply cuStOmcrS 

willbeartbecoatsof~ovalofthecoacaminaattolevelstbatanpFotediveofplblicbeahb. 

These costs am more pmperly bome by the original sources of pollution. 

otllerNTRsctodardsweNalsopmposedatunexpectadlyhigllkvels. TlleNTRlists50 

ppbforlcadasthehumanbealtbWQSforwaterandorgandr. IndcvclopingtbeNathd 

PrimaryhinlringWaterRegulationfor~r*lrl(UdCo9Ptf,(~A~~~lilrhinpa~trce 

waterMcLforkadat5ppbasthe~lradaquatelypFotediveofplblicbeattb. Althoughthe 

MCLwasdmppalinfivorofatneatment teclmiqucappmach,tbefirmllesdandcopperrule 

rap&u States to utablisb enfdk maximum levels for lead leaving trutmaltfacilitiuwben 

those levels make a sigdfiamt contribution to lead levels at consumers’ taps. No exact level 

271 
T. acmE?Pm 

Tabkl.~ofSekctbdHumanHerltbWIter~StpndaFdsfortheConsumption 

ofW~mdOrganhsfromtbeRqxmalNationalToxicsRukandtbeConqoding 

Drink@ Water Maximum Contamin8ntLcvels (MCLs) 

Chemical Water Quality Drinking Water 

standard ocg/L) MCL 0 

-Y 

Nidtd 

Sehium 

Silver 

cyrnide 

WYTow 

l,l,l-Trichloroethme 

-=wr 

1,2,4-Trich 

14 

6:: 

100 

105 

3;: 

6 

5 

100 

50 

50 

200 

700 

1000 

200 

50 

70 

isspac~,butitrpgeustbrtBpA,~~p~bk~iatbefinnlnrkandguidance 

criteria, is guiding the States tad the 5-ppb level. 

It sbould also be noted tbat the ovenvbelming majority of surface water sources presently 

bavekadkvelsbelow5ppb. ScttingtheWQSfor consumptioaandorganismrat5oppbmay 

scndtbewNmgsignaltotbepublic,wbicbis~y amcemedabouttbebultbeffccts 

. ofkad,palticularlywbentbeamtinuous- criterion for aquatic organisms is 

pruposedat3.2ppb. AMtiodly,tbebigberstandaddoesnotappautobccxms~witbtbe 

Agabcy’s ovemll kad control stmtegy or tbe ongoing coosihation of further lead regulation 

under the Toxic SubetuKxs Contd Act. 

Cbnnnium piovicks another example of an unexpazudly bigb proposed level. Tbe NTR 

pfoposessqaratebumanbadtbWQSforwaterandorganismsforcbnMumIUandcbromium 

VI at 33,000 ppb and 170 ppb, rupcctively. In cmtrast, the drink@ water MCL for total 

chnwium (III and VI) is 100 ppb based on an exterrsive review of human be&h criteria. 

During devdopamt of tbe National Primary Ddking Water Regulatian, EPA nated tbat 

cbrwniwrmisrwdilyoxidizedtothe~~toxicchnrmiumVIbynonaaldrinldngwater 

disiiection.’ A bigb water and oxganisms standad for chromium III is not appropriate, 

thenfore, in drinkhg water sources because of tbe potedal for production of chromium VI in 

water tmabnult pKxXsses. 

272 
WATBR QUALITY STANDARW IN THE 2lm CENlURY: 269.275 

IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 

METHoDoLoGYREvIEw 

The pmblems found in reviewing the National Toxics Rule point to tbe challenges frrcad 

by EPA in coordinathg action on tbe various environmental statutes. The statutes often bavc 

significant overlap but specify divergent criteria and appmacbes. Internal coordinath of EPA 

programs, policies, and priorities witbin tbe framewoh of those statutes is d.ifRcult at best. Tbe 

lack of consistency in these activitiu, even in areas as closely related as drink@ water 

standa& and human be&b water quality criteria, stryes to bigblight the extent of these 

challenges. The quest for consistency bas served as one of the driving forces bebind tbe pre8ent 

review of guidelines for deriving human bealtb criteria under tbe CWA. Consistency between 

the two sets of standards should, he&o=, be a ma.jor factor in developing guidelines. 

Requiring such consistency will ensure tbat public water supply uses are considered as stand&s 

are utablisbed. 

‘I’& lack of consistency concerns water suppliers because tbey are responsible for 

pmtecting public bealtb, and are subject to enfoment and costly cormctivc actions for MCL 

violations. when MCLs are not md because tbe corresponding WQS (LFC less stringent, drinking 

water consumerS a~ subject to additional costs. As noted earlier, tbey @cctively subsidize 

industries and other point sources by paying for tbe 1~110va.l ofcontaminants that do not occur 

naturally in source waters. Human be&b WQS for water and organisms should generally be 

set below co-g dh&ing water standards to prevent tbis type of inequity. The level 

chosen for such standa& should contain an appmpriate safety factor so that slight variations in 

contaminant levels will not cause water systems to violate MCLs. 

The major implication of the pmblans found within tbe NTR is that a review of the 

human bealtb criteria for water quality criteria is appmpriate. ‘lluougbout this discussion, 

comparisonbasbeenmadebetweenMCLsandsucbstanda&. ‘IIisdoesnotimplytbattbe 

methodology used to develop buman health risk assessments for drinking water is any better or 

worse than that used in WQC development. Both methodologies can and sbould be impmved, 

and continue to evolve based on advances in scientific knowledge and capabiities. Tbe 

improvement and evolution of each should go band in band with tbe other because of their close 

relationship and the need for consistency. 

The NTR excluded organoleptic (taste and odor) criteria fhn amshation in 

esblblisbingwaterqualitystandrurds. TbefcasongivaGstbatorganol~c~ectsafenottoxic 

cffkcts, so their consideration is uv. me NTR (1991) noted, bowever, tbat 

organoleptic effects cause: 

273 
SUMMARY 

0 Humanlmlthwatcrquditystmdadsfbt consumptionofwrdetandorganisms 

sbouldgaKzallybemoNsbiageattb8n~drialtingwater-. 

0 -ItWiSk~avdvyhbpLnfCKbOtb~bCaltbW8tUqurlitycriterir 

anddrinldngwrttr~sbould~avlrmt-~and 

knowkdge. lbysba&ibecou&entwitbucbothet8ndevolvetogetbu. 

0 . cotm&&nof~kpticcriterk~beincludadinthcdcv~of 

bulMnbultbwaterqualitycriteriawbcrcrpplrogrirte. 

IuI#or~ofthueissucsfrllmoIcintbeuwofpolkyorrisk~tb8n 

riskasammak Frcunapmcticdpo&ofvkw,wk&rorpdtbyUltincMaiqa&ally 

intblmm8n~risk --bgyisnotcritial. Itiscriticcr),bowev~,tbattbey 

bcp8Itoft&ovmllguideliaesor~orkforderivingbumanbalthcfitaia. coodbth 

ofclmnwateranddrinldngwaterplogmms,policiu,crituia,and-is~sotbe 

illmdal-ofbotbprogramscanbe-. 

274 
WATER QUlunr STANDAllw M THE 2la CENTURY: 269-27s 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Fe&d Water Pd.lution Contml Act Anmdma~~ (Clean Water Act), P.L. 92-500, 

October 18, 1972. 

Water Quality Act (Clean Water Act), P.L. 100-4, February 4, 1987. 

Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 99-339, June 19, 1986. 

Anmdments to the Water Quality Critexia for Toxic Pbllutants Ncessary To Bring All 

States Into Compliance with Section 303(c)(2)(B) (National Toxics Ruk), Federal 

Rcgisbx, November 19, 1991 (56 FR 58420). 

National I’rimy Drhking Water Regulatb: Volatile Synthetic Organic chemicals; 

Fii Rule, Federal Register, July 8, 1987 (52 FR 23690). 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Lead and Copper, Final Rule, Federal 

Register, June 7, 1991 (56 FR 26460). 

NationalPrimaxyDrinkiqWaterRcgulation: SynthcticOrganicadInorganic 

. Cbamals; Final Ruk, Fakral Register, January 30, 1991 (56 FR 3526). 

275 
WATBR QUhun STANDARD@ IN THE II& CENTURY: 277-m 

HuMANHEALT)IRIsK- AND WATER QUALITY 

CRWERIA FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS 

Jefby A. Form, Ph.D. 

Assodote pt+sor and Dimctor 

E8lwi-~HcallhandPoiicyRv~ 

Dept. o~Hdth Con Sdences 

George W~n@n univvnfty 

W&ngton.D.C. 

INTRODUCTION 

Human bealtb criteria defuse the maximum concentration of individual toxicants in 

surface waters tbat should not result in adverse effects to individuals exposed to those toxicants 

tbrougb consumption of contaminated fish and otber aquatic organisms, and tbrougb consumption 

of contaminated drinking water. Criteria an developed for toxicants witb two types of response 

cutves--nonh%bold and threshold. Tbe nonh&old response is traditionally associated witb 

chemicals tbat are classified as carcinogens wbik tbe systemic effects of noncarcinogenic 

chemicals are considered to occur in a threshold manner. 

The Human Cancer Criterion (HCC) is derived for substances tbat are known, probabk, 

or possible carcinogens using tbe U.S. EPA’s sta&rd risk assessment techniques (Federal 

Register, 1986). Human Cancer Criteria m numbers used to define maximum xceptabk 

CoKxnttatjons in surface waters of nonthresbold acting toxicants. Tbe HCC is intaukd to 

protect humans from an unreasonable incremental risk of developing cancer mlting frrom 

contact with, or ingestion of, surface waters and from ingestion of aquatic organisms take0 fx0m 

surfw waters. 

The Human Threshold Criterion (HTC), sometimes called the Human Noucaxcinogar 

Criterion, is intended to pm humans hm adverse eRects resulting fhnn contact with 

noncarcinogenic substances through ingestion of surface waters and through ingestion of aquatic 

organisms from surface waters. The HTC is &rived for toxic substances for which a clear 

threshold dose or concentration is displayed. 

The basis for development of both Human Cancer and Human Tbnxhld Criteria is the 

potency of specific chemicals. Potency for carcinogens is &kc&d in the slope factor (e? and 

277 
J.A. PoIAls 

intheRe&cuxDose(RfD)forthfcsholdtoxicents( V). Dwivation and ust of 

the q,’ (NAS, 1983; Abrson et al., 1983) and the RfD (Barnes and Dourson, 1988) have been 

described cxtalsively in the literature. 

HumantK!althcriterir~notuseddirectlytocontrolthe~oftoxicsutosurfacewaters. Rathcr,tlKyarcutilizcdintbcdcv~ofeffiuentlimitsfortoxic 

polluMsthataredi8chargedfmalpointsou~. criteliaarealsou!wdtodctcrmiiwhcther 

asurfi#~sy~has~rpplicrbkWaterQualityStondards,andtoregulrrteother 

(e.g., mopoint) murcu of toxic pollutants to surface waters. In this paper, I discuss the 

risk-basal approach to development of human health criteria as well as the application of criteria 

in pnBgrams to qulate toxicants in sulfbce waters. 

RISK-ANDHUMANHEALTHMuch discussion and criticii of traditional risk -t-w,partiarlariy 

for ca~inogem+, has occumxi (see for example Ames and Gold, 1987; Ames and Gold, 1990; 

and Finked, 1990). At the center of the amtroversy for pru!icGng human risk and effects 

. attsmaW with exposure to toxic CM is the lack of human epidemiologic evidence for 

most cbicals. A human dosb~espoase reMonship is usually &rival, when cpidaniilogic 

dataada&ing,fiomlabontorystudies- at rdatlvely high doses on rodart species. 

Tbedose-~~~detenninadfnna~studiesisthcnusedtodevelopestimates 

ofpatabcyfor~inogcns(~~andfor noncarcinogens (RfD) at low human doses or exposures. 

Taeresuaoftheumxrcainty~withderivatioaofthee’andtheRfD~on 

aNOAELtop~humanriskmaybeerrorabouttheriskestima&ofoneormoreordersof 

nugnibd. However, whether this error uadeFestimates orovm hue risk is uncleat. 

Wbatisclearkthatcoasiderable~~ofthee~raboutthtdosaresponsecurves, 

particularly forauQiDoge4M, has occulled withaut cxmmmsuratc discus&m of the ather fbctors 

thatareuscdtocalculatehumanhcalthcriteria. ‘I%eranai&rofthissectionofthcpapcr 

disawsesthe~~,othcrthantboseaJsociatedwithchemical~y,thatareusedinthe 

derivation of human cancer and human -r criteria. 

Risk kds, Espomre Assumptions, and Other Factors Used To Derive 

H-HeabhCkiterh 

‘Ib U.S. EPA develops -cribria to prutcct adults who weigh app&matcly 70 kg, 

consumetwolifenofwrrterperdry,~consume6.5grpmsof~perItay. TheAgencydoes 

not,bowever,c~cm~~risLkvelto~~tbecancercriterionbutratherallows 

States to ubpt criteria associated with tbe risk level of their choice (Rderal Register, 1980). 

278 
WATER QW4Ul-Y STANDARDS IN THE 2lM CEMURY: 2%2% 

The choice of a cancer risk level in the development of the HCC is a purely nonscientific 

issue. ‘Ihe basis for the choice may be public opinion, economic impact, or political expediency 

butascientitic~canwtbeinvoltbdtosupportsuchacboice.Accegcabk:cuKxr~kvels 

genemllyrangebetween1x1a4to1x1~(Bailar,1990). StatesintheGIeatLakesBa!Jinhavt 

cbosea~~erisL~~e~thatrangefFomlxl0’tolxl06tocalarlatescrta~ifichumon 

cancer criteria (FJoran, 1990). The U.S. EPA takes regulatory action (e.g., for Sqerftmd 

ckanups)whencancerrisksaregreaterthan 1 x 1Vandusuallydoesnottakemgulatoryaction 

whencancerrisks~lessthan1x1o6(Travisetal.,1987). 

The choice of the cancer risk level has an important impact on &rived human cancer 

aiteria. Since cancer risk levels chosen to develop Water Quality Criteria may vary by one or 

mom orders of magnitude, criteria resulting from the use of Merent risk levels will also vary 

by at least one order of magnitude. Yet, the choice of a cancer risk level is only one of several 

considerations in the regulatory process that will affect the development of the HCC as well as 

the human threshold criterion. 

U.S. EPA’s Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA, 1991) states that mom than one 

fish consumption rate may be appropriate for use, dependins on the population to he pro&ted, 

in calculating human health criteria. However, the U.S. EPA uses a fish consumption mte of 

6.5 grams/day to esthate average consumption of fish and shellfish from esttkne and fresh 

waters by the entire U.S. population. It is this consumption rate that is utilized to derive 

national human health criteria. 

The choke of a 6.5 g/day fish consumption rate was based on a survey of average fish 

consumptioaintheU.S.popllatioainthe19709(Rupp~al., 1980). ThismteFepresentsaoaehalfpoundmealoffishonceeveryfiveweeks. Duringthe198Os,thepopularityoffishasan 

important, healthy source of protein incteased substantially. For example, the Institute of 

Medicine reports in its text seafood safctv (TOM, 1991) that the average individual consumption 

of fish and shellfish in the united states totaled nearly 20 g/day (one i/3-pound meal per week) 

in 1989. However, a new fish consumption mte for the U.S. population has not been adopted 

tordlecttbeinmasedpopllarityoffishandshellfisbandto~thepoteatial~ia 

exposm to toxicants contained in fish and shelltkh. 

The EPA does tecognd that some individuals may consume signifikantly greater 

quantities of fish than the general U.S. population. For example, rekknts of the Great Lakes 

Basin may consume several meals of fish weekly due to the availability of a vibram sport 

fishery. FewdataaFeavailableto~y~theguantitiesoffish~byGFeat 

Lakesresidents. SomeStatesiatbe~~Bosinhave~~mptionroteswhigh 

as3og/daytoderivehumanbealthcriteriatordladtbe~forinc~~mpcioaof 

Gnat Iakes sport fish (poran, MO), although many States still use 6.5 grams/day to develop 

human he&h criteria. 

279 
J.A. KJRAN 

Tbuw,olr~lrgbumrnw~mburterjrrh)ngf2Udlly~fbC~~Ofhumrn 

hdthcrltwhis&sigwdto~avemgeadultweightandw8tercoaswnptioa. Thus, 

cdteriauedwebpedtobepr@ectiveofadults. CXldfenalsoingestfishanddrinltiagwater 

~aurfacewatersysemsaMoughtbeU.S.BI’Adoesnotreun~~Icriterkdenlopneaa 

tbrs~exposuretochildrar. Wlmtheavmgeweightmdtheavemgewrtrtint8keule 

modifkdtorepreaastyoungerindividual8,~hantc&eri8areamside&lymortnstrktive. 

~~ofhumrnherhbcriterkrlsoincludesc~aftbswxwnuktioaof 

. toxiccbank&intissuesofaquaticbiota. IlmsecoacenbPboas maybe8everalofdcrsof 

nugaitdhigherthan~ofthetoxiantinsumnmdingsu~waters. For 

exunple,a~ber~~spaciesiatheOrert~~brve~~Qxicc~ 

intheirtissuestokvelstlnthavepromptedStatestumowhgtheGnrt~toissue 

. . &nsmesthatwaraindivi&lstoFbduceorelimiithecoaaunptionofsome 

highly commhaw species. 

ThenlrrtionsbipbetwcenlogBCFandlogK,(VeithandKosian, 1983)hasbeenused 

. bymostStateandFukralagaxkstoq@atetbeconceatntroas ofbiocoacensntrble pollutants 

insurfaewaters. However,pllswonofBcFfromlog~mayberelativelypoorwhenlog 

~~~~s.O..raercluaarhiqbawcalql[, 

clKnua&mt.is!nvubiiorupt8kethrougbthefoodchain. 

Biimayplayrco&denbkfokin~tbeconccasntioaofachaaical 

in tissues of aquatic biota. For example, @IhomaM and connolly (1984) suggested that maze 

than99pemntofthe~coacentntioaofFCB(Log~ = 6.4to6.8)iaI~1keMichigan 

laketroutresultaifnnexposurethroughthefMclchain. Useoftheoctanol-waterpartition 

. . . coefmmtto~laketIouttissue-- obsewed b by 

ahtorof4. Inthisca8e,ams&&onofonlybiocomxatntionincalculatinghumanhealth 

Critertwouklu~totaluxwnuhtionofachearicalintissuesofaquaticbioQ. 

‘Ib choice of fish coasumptioa rate, human weight, and bioaccumulatioa factor has a 

pmfouad~al ckwkpmtofthehuman~criteria. Fishconsumptionmtesmnging 

from 6.5 gmmdday to 180 gmmdday (smml meals per week) will change criteria by a f&ctor 

ofupto28wheaallotherf&%orsa1eheldc~nst&. Further,adaived~forchloFdure 

w=h?mO- f&r15-kgindividualingest@oae-halfliterofwaterperdayis4 

~marerwtridivethrnthecriterioacrlcuktadusiagtherdultw~~udw~~~ 

rate. Andthe~ofaBCPwitboutafoodchainmultiplier~ltsinW~QuPlityCritcrirthot 

280 
WA= QUAW STANDARDS IN THE tl* CENTURY: m-292 

may lx up to 100 times less stringent depending on chemical and food chain characteristics 

(U.S. EPA, 1991). 

nKchoiceofcombinationsofthesefactonhasaneffedorrtbe~WIterQuality 

Criterion that is much more profound than effects elicited by these factors individually. In the 

chlodane example, the choke of the least conservative risk levels and exposure ticton (weight, 

water inUke, and fish consumption) results in a criterion that is nearly four orders of magnitude 

gFleater than a criterion Fesulting from use of the most dctive rid kvels and exposure fiaola 

(Tabk 1). 

Table 1. Human health criteria for chlordane (in rcB/L). 

GRAMS 

FISH/DAY WHIGHT (KG) 

6.5 70 

15 

20.0 70 

15 

90.0 70 

15 

180.0 70 

15 

q*l = 1.3/mg/kg/day 

BcF=38Of4 

RISK LEVEL 

104 1oJ lob 

0.20 0.02 0.002 

0.05 0.005 0.0005 

0.07 0.007 0.0007 

0.015 0.0015 0.00015 

0.016 0.0016 0.00016 

0.003 O.C#O3 o.OoaI3 

0.008 0.0008 0.00008 

0.002 0.0002 0.00002 

Anotberimpottantcoasiderationiacriterioa~~~~~tocbemial~~ 

through~tesotberthanddnkingwaterandfisb consumption. Inmany~,drEnaIenot 

available to quantify human, nonsum water-dated exposures to toxic sub@anccu on a State 

or regional basis. However, two States in the Great Lakes Basin use d&ult values for 

nonsurface water-related exposures. Minaesota uses a default value of 0.2 (calkd a Relative 

Source Contribution - RSC) to adjust the HTC to account for nonsurface water exposures. 

Wisconsin uses an Exposure Adjustment Factor (HAP) of 0.8 to mod@ tbe HX to account for 

nonsurface water exposures; thus, Wisconsin assumes that 20 percent, and Mmnxota assumes 

281 
J.A. USAN 

that8o~~human~toindividualtoxicantsisderivedfnnnlKmsurfacewater 

~OUIB. BoolStrtes~theadjusrmentvlhresorrlywhendataarenotavrilrbkto~ 

actual, nonsurfice water exposures. 

Fin8lly,comuxat~tomofetlmnone~mustbeinanporatedinto 

. . cndenoadenlogment. Humanhealthcritedagumllyaddresshuman~onlyto 

indivk&aldramtrlr. Inmany,ifntmnost,cases,surface~andaquaticbiiamtaina 

multitdeoftdcpoUutants. Forexampk,tbeU.S.FishandWUdli&Servicchasidadfkd 

monthn400~c~inG~#t~s~ort~~~Smith,1987). 

Coaarrrcat~ntomoretbtno#~~~iFessomeconsiderotioaafthecumuLtive 

risk assoWed with exposure to multipk M. ‘Ibe U.S. RPA (1991) has sum 

that, for can5qqq risks should be amsi&ed to be additive, although this codkration is 

genemllynotincorpomtedintocriterkmderivation. 

. Use of the additivity concept in criterion development reduces allowabk B 

oflrrdividrulculcinogawinsu~wrterw~belowkvetsallouadwhcnc~~basadon 

risks or effects assoded with exposure to individual toxicants only. For exampk, a cancer 

criterion fdx each of two equally potent, tsxxxurring carcinogens would be half the HCC for 

eschofthedmicalsshau4itheyoccuralone. 

APPLICATION OF HUMANHEALTH- 

. Human health cdteria do sot, by themselves, define the mass or B of 

pou~tbrt~ybt~fnwiadustries,rrgriarltunl~~,u~~,andmany 

othersourcesoftoxicpoMaats. Rather,theamountofapollutantthatcanbedischaqedto 

awrterbodyiscrrlarktedsotbottbecoacentrationoftbepollutrntwillmeethumurbeahbaad 

derdteriaaftermixingwithtbefeceivingwater. Thequadityofapollutantthatcanbe 

~fromapoinf~lrxtoareceivingwuerbodyisdetenninedbythequuaityof 

polhrtrathrrcurbe~bytbewaterbodyasweUu,by~quantityofpoU~that 

8lnwlyexistsinthewaterbody. 

AmceivingwatefsataimiWve~ityisdefinedogentioarllybythetotalmaximum 

drilVkdCIMDL)orthe~afapolluQntwhichcurbediscbugsdintoasurfii#wrter 

withautexcedngambieatWaterQualityCriteriaorothedsevioktingWaterQuality 

282 
Standads; that is, by the ability of the surface water to dilute a toxicant to levels that meet 

WQC. The portion of the TMDL available for allocation among point sources is called the 

wasteload allocation (WLA). 

Water quality-based effluent limits (WQBEL) for toxic pollutants, incorporated in NPDEJ 

permits, are determined by the wasteload allocation. The goal of the WLA is-to prevent a 

poUutantdiscbugedfFomapointsou~fromlPgchingan~conceabrtioatbatwill 

exceed any numeric Water Quality Criterkn or otherwise violate a State’s Water Quality 

Sandads. The wasteload aUocation is developed based on the maximum concentrations of 

toxicants allowed in surface waters detetmined by numeric Water Quality Criteria, the amount 

of dilution provided by a receiving water, and other factors including analytical detection 

cap&U&s, the source of intake water, the co-occurrenceofothertoxicpollutantsinthe 

effluent, background concentrations of toxic pollutants, and variability of toxicant concentmtions 

in effluents. 

Analysis of wasteload allocation procedures utilized by the States in the Great Lakes 

Basin ideates that the quantitks (loads) of pollutants discharged from point sourcx3 vary 

dmma&aUybetweenstates(Figurel). Thisvariationisdueonlyinparttodiffetwkes between 

human health criteria. Diffemnces in the wasteload allocation pnxesses atrtdSOCIitiCdh 

determining how much of a pollutant can be discharged to a surface water system. For exampk, 

most of the States in the Great I&es Basin use relatively similar numeric WQC for kad (with 

the exception of Illinois - Figure 1). The result of use of a less stringent criterion to regulate 

point somxs of lead in Illinoii is, of course, substantially ekvated lead discharges (loads) to 

surface waters. However, subs&&al va&tion also exists between States with similar lead 

criteria due to the choice of dilution capacity utilized in the cakuktion of the WLA for lead. 

Use of different dilution flows in the WLA by States with similar criteria results in substantM 

~~intheallowable]oadsof~thatcaabedisc~fFomapoint~~tosurface 

Waters. 

The control of pollutants discharged ftom point sources can be affected further, without 

ClUUlgWh numeric criteria, when the water quality-based effluent limit for a toxkant is below 

themetboddetec&mlimitforthattoxicant. SomeStatepoliciestoaddxessthisproblemresult 

in the discharge of extmmely large loads of pollutants. For exampk, if the concem&on of 

PCBinmiadwtrialdiscbargehatorneartbe~levelusedforcompliancepl~by 

W~(O.6ccg/L),tbeloadafpcBdischsrgedbythisfibcilitywillbetpproximatey5otimes 

~(54Lglyeu)thanthePCBloaddischargadintbednuebtwithaPCBcobcenCratioathrrt 

meetstheWaterQuality-Basedl3fIluentLimit(1kg/year). llteK!BloadinthesameeRkent 

will be over 7,000 times greater than the PCB load discharged in an effluent where the 

amcentmtion meets the human health criterion at the point of discharge (0.007 kg/year, mk 

2). BvendiscbargesattbeddaceionleveZusediamostG~~S~,ori~thiS 

detection level, result in annual loads over 800 times and 400 times larger, respectively, than 

tbeload~]tiagfromaneffluentwithaPCB~tratioasetattheBPAWaterQuality 

283 
inthecakulationoftk%LA). NAMcatcsthataSta&docsnotlmveaWQCfbrthatsubstmm. 

f f 

ii 8 

284 
WATER QUALITY -ANDARDS M THE 211( CENTURY: 27l-2!J2 

Table 2. Imds of PCB resulting from an effluent limited by various analytical 

de&z&on levels used in the Great Lalres States. 

BFFLuJ3NT 

CONCBNTRATION UMD (KG/YEAR) 

0 

0.6 (LOQ used by WI) 

0.2 (LOD used by MN) 

0.1 (LODusedbyIL, 

IN, MI, OH, PA) 

0.065 (LOD used by NY) 

0.000079 (EPA WQC) 

53.6 118.2 

17.9 39.5 

8.9 19.6 

5.8 12.8 

0.007 0.02 

Criterion. These differences can occur even where States adopt and utilize identical human 

health criteria for PCBs. 

Background concentrations of a pollutant usually result in a F#luction in the load of 

pollutant that can be allocated to point sotuce disc-n. However, when backg~~nd 

concentrations (UIc above numeric Water Quality Criteria, States alter their discharge regulations 

and, in some cases, allow elevated loads of poUutants to be discharged to an aheady polluted 

receiving water. For example, the outcome of State policies on elevated ba@ound 

concentrations, expressed as the load of pollutant discharged from a hypo&etical industry, is 

shown for lead in Figure 2. For this analysis, the background amcent&on for lead was 

assumedtobetwotimesthe]eaststringentcriterionintheG~LaLesSEatts. 

The load discharged to the receiving stream from a point source, where the background 

concentration is zero, is calculated using the standard WLA derivation procedures and is 

~resentedbythehatchedbarsinFigure2. Tbenetloadtothereceivingstreamdischarged 

where the background concentration is two times greater than the criterion, and where the 

285 
J.A. #IRAN 

Flgure 2. Annudkmdofkaddischargalbyah~industrywithancffluadlow 

of1oocFSamlstmmbalckgmnd~setat2xthcleaststriagent 

State ctuohc criterion. Iaads (ut calculated by anploying ad State’s policy to 

addressbackgmundconamdminthedcrivaticmoftheWQBELforthrcc 

situatkms: (1)Bla&gmdcrracentntioa=o;(2)Backgnwndconceatrrrtioa> 

wQcandthe~~waterisdnwnfiomtherecdviagscnun-Rss,aad;(3) 

. Baam@ - > WQCandtheintakcwaterisdrawnfitnna 

non-receiving stream source - NRS. See Foran, 1992, for a till description of 

caladation procedures. 

LEAD 

m Background s WQC - NRS 

IL IN MI MN NY OH PA WI 

JURlSOlCl-lON 
WATER QUALfl’Y STANDARDS lN THE 2lrl CEm’tJltY: m-?o? 

to the receiving stream. That is, point sources may discharge only as much pollutant as they 

tal<einfFomthewatersource;thustheblackbars(ortheirabsence)indicatenondincr#lsein 

the load to the receiving stream. However, the load discharged by a point source to the 

receiving stream when the intake water is from a nonreceiving stream source (NRS), and where 

the background comxntmtion of the pollutant in the ruceiving stream is two times greater than 

the criterion, is indicated by the gray bars in Figure 2. In this case, the bars in&ate the 

increaseintheloadtothe~iving~aboveandbtyondthepoUutants~yinthe 

receiving stream. This example demonsfrates that the discharge of substantial pollutant loads 

to an already polluted surface water system can result from the choice of policy decisions 

associated with WLA development, without any interstate differences in human health criteria. 

DISCUSSION 

The adequacy of existing risk assessment techniques, particularly for carcinogens, has 

dominated discussions of how such substaxes should be regulated. Generation of a potency 

factor (q,? for carcinogens based on the linc&zd multistage model has caused considerable 

concern, particularly for substances that may act through some&ing other than a nonthreshold 

mechanism (Roberts, 1991). The method to assess and regulate the risks of exposure to 

threshold acting toxicants, through the development of a RfD, has also been criticized 

(Goldstein, 1990). 

The choice of risk level as well as the multitude of exposure factors used in the 

calculation of human health criteria can result in differences of nearly four orders of magnitude 

in derived criteria. Choices related to the bioconcentration factor (BCF) and use of a fdchain 

multiplier (FM), and concurrent exposure to more than one toxicant will influence the criteria 

further, perhaps by as much as three orders of magnitude. Criteria will be further reduced 

where regulatory agencies consider concufitnt exposure to more than one contaminant and 

nonsurface water exposure routes. 

A comprehensivevaluation of the impacts on human health of the regulatory process for 

. toxic pollutants requim an um notonlyofhowcriteriaaredeveloped,butofthe 

relationship between human ha&h criteria, the wasteload allocation and its many components, 

and other mechanisms that influence the control of pollutants that derive from point and nonpoint 

mrccs. For exampk, examination of human health criteria in the Gteat lllLM Basin 

demonstmtes the substantial variation that exists he&teen State criteria for pollutants such as 

TCDD (dioxin), ‘ICDF, FCB, mercury, and kad (Table 3). However, such a comparison does 

not provide any indication of the loads of pollutants that may be discharged fmm point sources 

to surface. 

287 
J.A. - 

TCDF NA 

FCBCTOT) NA 

Mezc?uy NA 

So.09 

STATE 

Miana Michipn Mimmata NewYodc Fbmylvmia 

1 APE-’ (HTJ NA NA Z.O”E-’ (HC) l.OW (HC) 

NA NA NA so.o- NA 

7.9@Ed (?IC) 2.O”E’ (HC) 1.4.E” 0 1 PE” (HC) SPE’ (Hc) 

0.14 (HT) 6PE”(HT) 6.9.E” (HT) 2.0 o@ 0.144 (H-r) 

5O.W 9,4OO(HT) NA =oo 50.0 (In) 

obio Wm 

14%’ . (I4c) 3.Ov(?fC 

NA NA 

7 . 9*Ed (WC) I.PE4(Hc 

1.2*E= (HT) 7.PE* (?I7 

50.0 (In)0 50.0 (H7) 

Tabk3. HumanherrlthcritcriausatbythcGnatLaLesStntes@g/L). 

288 
WATER QUAUTY STANDARD8 IN THE 2la ClWTURY: m-i-292 

A comparison of both numeric WQC and the pm used to apply numeric WQC in 

~~lrtionofpointsau~~ghtheWLAmustbeconductedtounderscrnd completely 

how regulatory actions control the discharge of toxic pollutants to surface waters. Such a 

comparison confirms that existing approaches to the regulation of point sources of toxic 

pollutants result, in many cases, in the discharge of extremely large loads of pem&urt 

pollutants, often to systems that are already polluted with these same toxicants. 

A call for better (more scientificaUy justifiable?) risk asesmem procedures, and 

incorporation of those procedures in the derivation of human health criteria, is laudable. 

However, such efforts will not necessarily result in a&qua& protection of human health, even 

where criteria are more stringent. The entire regulatory process from criterion developmento 

source control must be considered as a package. 

‘hditional emphasis on end-of-pipe regulation for point sources, via reliance on human 

health and other numeric criteria, has not eliminated discharges of toxic pollutants to surface 

waters, particularly for those that are persistent and bioaccumulative. Nor has the existing point 

source regulation process eliminated the impacts of persistent toxic pollutants in surface water 

ecosystems. The ability of the end-of-pipe control process to achieve zero dkharge is limited 

by analytical detection capabilities and treatment technology. Further, the existing regulatory 

process, which is based on human health and other criteria and on a recognition that receiving 

waters provide dilution for toxic wastes, does not force continuing reductions in the mass and 

concentrations of toxic substances in effluents. ‘That is, the process does not force continuing 

pwrogz 

1 

yro discharge--the goal of the Clean Water Act and of the Great Lakes Water 

en . 

Achievement of zero discharge of toxic substances ruquires a new approach to pollutant 

control. Such an appmh is beii developed, at least ConceQarally, and relies on control of 

pollutants at their source rather than at the point of discharge. Source mduction, source control, 

toxicant use reductions, or pollution prevention approaches have heen incorporated into a few 

State and Federal statutes including the Federal Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

Sections 13101 et seq.), the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989 (Chapter 265), 

and the New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act of 1991 (P.L. 1983, c. 315). A pollution 

prevention approach to water quality protection and to the regulation of toxic pollutants in 

surface waters has also been called for by the U.S. GAO (1991). 

The basis for pollution prevention and source reduction is a net reduction of toxic 

pollutants discharged to surface waters (and ultimately all media) through reduction of the use 

of the chemical. Use reductions may be accomplished through industrial process changes, which 

include more effkient chemical use, chemical substitutions, and recycling. Or reduction may 

be accomplished through chemical bans or phase-outs, product changes or bans, and behavior 

changes which affect product consumption or use. 
J.A. W 

Ames, B.N. and L.W. Gold. 1987. pesticides, risk, and applesauce. Scii. 244:755-757. 

Ames, B.N. and L.W. Goki. 1990. Too many rodent ca~~inogan: Mitogenesis Inca 

mm. Sciaxe. 249:97@971. 

Andemn, EL. and tbe U.S. EPA Carcii e Group. 1983. Quantitative 

approaches in use to assess canar risk. Risk Anal. 33277-295. 

Baihr, J.C. 1991. How daqerous is dioxin? N. Bng. J. Med. 324:260-262. 

Barnes, D.G. and M. Dourson. 1988. Reference Dose (RtD): Description and use in health 

risk assamas. Reg. Toxicol. -1. 8:471-486. 

Rdeml Register. 1980. 45,79318-79359. 

Fhkml Regiskr. 1986. 51,33992-34003. 

290 
WATER QUAIJIY STANDARM IN THE 2la CfWTt.JRY: m-292 

Finkel, A. 1990. Co&onting Uacertainty in Risk Management. Center for Risk Management, 

Resounxs for the Future, Washington, D.C. 

Fomn, J.A. 1990. Toxic substances in surface waterz Prote&ng human health. Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 24:60&608 

Foran, J.A. 1992. The Control of Discharges of Toxic Pollutants: Development of 

Benchmarks. U.S./Cana&n International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. 51 pp. 

Goldsteii, B.D. 1990. The problem with the margin of safety: Toward the concept of 

protection. Risk Anal. 10:7-10. 

IOM. 1991. Institute of Medicine. Seafood Safety. &: Ahmed, F.B., ed. Report of the 

Committee on Evaluation of the Safety of Fiiry Products. Food and Nutrition Board, IOM, 

National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

NAS. 1983. National Academy of Sciences. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

ManagingtlleProcess. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

P&no, D.M. and S.B. Smith. 1987. Acute bioassay and hazard evaluation of representative 

contaminants de&c&l in Great I&es fish. Rnviron. Toxicol. Chem. 6901-907. 

Roberts, L. 1991. EPA moves to reason+ the risk of dioxin. Science. 252:911. 

Rupp, B.M., F.L. Miller, and C.F. Baes. 1980. Some results of recent surveys of fish and 

shellfish consumption by age and region of U.S. residents. Health Phys. 39:165-175. 

llxmann, R.V. and J.P. Connolly. 1984. Model of ICB in the Lake Michigan lake trout food 

chain. Envimn. Sci. Tech&. 1865-71. 

Tmvis, C.C., S.A. Richter, B.A.C. Crouch, R. Wilson, and RD. Klema. 1987. Cancer risk 

management: A review of 132 Federal regulatory decisions. Rnviron. Sci. Tech&. 

21:415-420. 

U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. Environm ental Pmtection Agency. Technical Support Document for 

Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. RPA/505/2-9o-001. 145 pp. 

U.S. GAO. 1991. Water Pollution: Sttonger efforts needed by EPA to control toxic water 

pollution. Report to the Chairman, Environment, Rnergy, and Natural Resource Subcommittee, 

Commit&eon Govemment Operations, House of Representatives. Report #GAO/RCED-91-154. 

53pp. 

291 
J.A. #MAN 

W&h, O.D. md P. Kodm. 1983. Wmating biocoaoePbnSioa ptenthl fmn octmol/wam 

putlth -. b: Mackay, D., R Patenon, S. Bisamch, ad M. Simmoos, C&L 

hn Arbor, Micm: Ann Mm Sciaw Pubs. 

292 
WQS for 

Ephemeral and 

EuentDependent 

Streams 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 29

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EPHEMERAL AND 

EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT STREAMS 

Harry Seraydarian (Moderator) 

Director 

Water Management Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9 

San Francisco, California 

PROBLEM STATEMENT: HOW TO STRIKE THE BALANCE IN THE 

ARID WEST BETWEEN PROTECTION OF DESIGNATED USES, 

PRESERVATION OF AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN HABITATS, AND THE 

BENEFITS OF WATER RECLAMATION 

Appropriateness and Feasibility of Meeting Toxic Standards 

All States are required to adopt new toxic standards to comply with a 1987 CWA 

amendment 

Western states feel they face special challenges to meeting toxic standards because of low 

dilution and water-body types. 

Dischargers argue that EPA’s approach to water quality standards is costly. inappropriate 

when applied to effluent-dependent streams, and offers little environmental benefit to the 

waterbodies. 

Unintended Effects of Standards on Instream Flows and Wastewater 

Reclamation 

Adoption of water quality standards may have unintended environmental impacts such 

as drying up wetlands or riparian areas that are dependent upon municipal effluent 

discharges. If EPA requires strict standards to be met, municipalities may find it more 

economical to sell the treated effluent rather than upgrade sewage treatment plants. 

293 
H SERAYDARIAN 

High treatment costs may also discourage reclamation projects that require some 

discharge to the stream. In arid West, water reclamation is an effective way of 

augmenting the otherwise scarce water resources. 

Protection of Ecological Values and Instream Flows 

Many of West’s water bodies are ephemeral and support aquatic uses in the stream for 

only a few weeks of the year. 

In many cases in the arid West, the riparian habitats are more diverse and ecologically 

“valuable” than in-stream aquatic life. 

Environmental groups criticize EPA’s approach for failing to protect in-stream flows and 

other ecological values. Requested a need to broaden scope of water quality regulation 

to allow protection of valuable ecosystems and in-stream flows. 

DOES THE CLEAN WATER ACT DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH 

EFFLUENT DOMINATED, EPHEMERAL AND INTERMITTENT 

STREAMS? 

Current Regulations Offer Flexibility 

EPA’s general policy is that water quality should be adequate to support designated uses 

whenever there is water in the stream. 

Existing flexibility within current regulations including site-specific standards and 

use-attainability provisions addresses ephemeral/effluent-dependent streams: 

EPA’s metals guidance allows a “translator mechanism” for metals. 

States have option of tailoring standards to local water quality conditions using 

site-specific standards. Arizona recently adopted alternate standards for ephemeral 

streams based on resident species. 

High treatment costs can be addressed through the use attainability provision. If meeting 

standards will cause “widespread and substantial social and economic impact,” standards 

may be adjusted. 

294 
WATER QUM tTANDARD6 IN THE 2lr CENl’URY: 293-296 

EPA Region 9% Guidance Specifically Addresses Arid West Water Quality 

“Net Ecological Ben&t” ~#‘xgnizcs and considers standa& implications on instmam 

flow. 

Guidance identifies how social and environmental benefits of wastewatereclamation may 

be considered with standards. 

Identifies flexiiity in regulations in order to strumline the standad process. 

Bstablishes framework that allows states and local governmalts to make decisions about 

water quality standad, pSservin g valuable habitats, and water reclamation. 

States Should F’urtber Integrate Water Quality and Ecokqgkal Concerns 

Western water law does not protect riparian corridors 

Water quality and ecological conems should be in&grated into water appropriations 

systems. 

Flow stmdads, in-stmm appropriations, public trust, and water mark&ng axe tools that 

States can use to preserve in-stmam flows. 

Solutions to flow related environmental prdkms should be tailored to each state’s legal, 

institutional and political composition. 

EPA Should Assist States to Develop Methodology for Arid West 

BiologicalstudksofspcciespF#entinaridareas. 

BPA can offer technical support to r&cwMevelop tbe scientific m&hodology for arid 

ecosystem criteria. 

To better integrate water quality, economic, and ecological concerns, EPA can help 

implement a “watexxhed approach”. 
H. SEMYDAUAN 

AddithdItmM!stoconsider 

Need to assess the future rcsponsibiity of maintaining flow to support the rip&an 

habitats; particularly habitats that support &mtened and endangered specks. 

Need to consider the benefits of c-g a new r@ian habitat versus benefit of 

. . . mamtamqanexistingone. 

CASE SIllDIES OF EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT WATERS 

Phoenk ExisthgDis&arge 

0 Existing Dischaqe of 200 mgd to Salt Gila River, 

0 Supports 6 mile reach of riparian habitat including endangered species; 

l Pmpo>otalwaterrarse/mclpmntion; 

0 Bnvirkxunentalists concerned about habitat loss; 

0 Pollutants of concern are ammonia, -9 Phenol 

Eastern Municipl Water D&trick Pro@ D&barge 

0 Eixisting reclamation facility; pmposing new discharge of 15 mgd to accommodate 

urban growth; 

0 Santa Margarita River; free flowing river in Southem California; 

a R&&s valuabk riprim babii end supports erdrngerad species; 

l Santa Margarita River is primary groundwater recharge source for tbe basin; 

a pOUutants: TDS, nutrients, f&&water flow to estuary 

296 
WATER QUAW’Y STANDARDS IN THE 2la CENTURY: 297-305 

SPECIAL WATERQUALITY CmTERIAANDsTANDm 

ARENEIEDEDFORARIDAREAS 

George A. Brimko, P.E., DEE 

mncror 

FiMtJcoVnryW- r Managenunl Dqranmelu 

ritcstm, Arizona 

INTRODUCTION 

As director of a major municipal wastewater utility, much of my time and effort is spent 

in meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act.’ The Act dictates that upon discharge into 

the waters of the United States, effluent must meet the limits of our facities’ discharge permits, 

and that industrial discharges to the tmatment fkcilities must be regulated, all while generating 

sufficient financial resources to efficiently operate and maintain the sanitary sewer system. 

Additionally, operation and maintenance costs must be recovered through the assessment of user 

fees that are equitable and, according to my Board, affordable by the community. It is a 

formidable task anywhere, but in the arid west we face some particularly unique challenges in 

implementing the directives of the Act. 

CRITERU DOCUMENTS FOR DIVERSE ECOSYSTEMS 

TbeUnitedStateshasavarietyofaquaticandnonaquaticacosystems. Thecoastal 

regions have marine systems, the Great I&x area has its own unique aquatic ecosystem, and 

wetland ecosystans support a wide army of teneshial and aquatic species. Bach of these 

ecosystems has specifii criteria documents either established or in the pmcess of being 

developed. In 1986, water quality criteria for aquatic habitats and marine ecosystems were 

published by EPA.* ‘I&se are commonly known as the Gold Book criteria. In 1990, EPA 

published a guidance manual for wetlands.’ A joint State and Federal effort is now under way 

to develop water quality criteria for the Great Lakes region. 

Although there have been proposals to address ephemeral streams, which are typical of 

arid regions, there are no substantiated water quality criteria documents for such ecosystems. 

BPA Region 9, working with several western water and wastewater agencies, has developed an 

297 
O.A. mlu8m 

“interimfllml’gui&nccdoaunent formodQiDgwatcrqualitysUlKhJsaadpIotahgeffiuent- 

~~s.4Theguibceisawtabk~oxtata&hsingtbeuniqucwatcrquality 

an&honsfinmdinthearidwestandcouldbcbe&icMinmod@ingadcsignateduse, 

~TotrlMuimwnI)ailyLod~fora~latpennitlimit,ordeveloping 

altetmivecritsrirforrprtiarkr~~. n#Rq$oIl9c3ubncuprimuily~ 

oatbeuscattaMUypruccss. Thisproccssallowsthcstudyofoalyoncstnmorsmall 

ecosystem. Its~cannotbeapplied~yinthearidweEt. 

InJuw,tbeWestern~~~‘Associationprssada~l~supportiasthe 

development ofw8tm qudity critefh for qhemeral waterways and effluent-supported waters.’ 

Tbe~ttioa’spdicy~crllsfortbeestablishmentofwatM~criteriafortbewide 

variety of ecosystems that exist throughout the country. 

Thereis~onanationalkvelthatwaterqualitycriteriaspacifictounique 

mgional ecosystans am neakd. At its national meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, in May, the 

Association of hAetmpolitan Sewerage Agencii (AMA) adopted a position statement 

emphwizingtbe~fofwaterqualitycriterkforepbemenlurd~~~~s.6 

AMSArcq1~~MtlmtCongreudBPAamsiderthen4-ofefflucrrtdiachargeiatbe 

stmdads~pfocus,modifytheuse-ityandsite-~~pmcuses, 

escrblisbpeer~~~,rwlfitodrn~~~odevelq,wrterqrulity~orn~ 

forephemcraland~~strcamsandothcratypialwatcrbodks. 

TbeW~CoalitioaofAridStotas(WBSTCAS),agroupof~~w~~ 

rgeaciesin~,Arizonr,N~,radNewMexico,dogtada~~~SJJuIy 

matinginsmDiego.‘wBsTcAs~~thatwaterqullitystrndardsandc~~~ 

be based on sound scientific data and common sense practicu rather than on arbii 

dculations that now exist. WESTCAS also believes there must be an adapate amfida~~~ kvel 

inwaterquality~~areexpaaad~p~spaciesiadrearidwest. WESTCASwants 

water quality criteria developed for the arid west to provide realis& standa& for water and 

wastewatcraga&sinourxegion. 

TbcStatcaUblifomiawatcrQualityControlBoaKlbasalsoflnlndtbatthcsouad 

scba3forrpproprLtewatcrqualitycrbriaislacking. l%eboardhasquestala5-yearstudy 

periodinwhichtodevelopapgtogrttewaterqurlitystrndardsforthe~uaderits 

jurisdi6ion. 
WATER QiJAurYsrANDARD8 IN nlE21a cENruRY: 297-305 

Tbe Clean Watew Act 

mamtam the chemical, physical, and biological in&g&y of the nation’s waters. 

The goal of achieving technology-based standa& (secondary tIUtlWt)bastitbCmost 

part been successful. Most major citks in the country now provide secor&y Qeatmalt of 

municipal Dr. However, seun&y tlWWltiSlKitreqUiredillcertainmarineWaters 

thUallldemCHlstrarethatthCCCOSyStUDkprotaded. 

The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 introduced a new emphasii on water quality 

standad. States wm mquired to abpt numeric water quality standa& to limit priority 

pollutants in effluent by February 1992. 

Development of Water Quality standanls 

Bffluent discharges to waters of the United States a~ regulated by the National Pollutant 

Discharge Blimination System (NPDES) program. ‘Ibe basis for the discharge limits in NPDES 

pemiitsisStatewaterqualitystanda&. Inestablishingthesestanda&,tbeStatesusea 

combiioftwofactors: designatedusesandcriteriadata. Critcriadataaresupposedtobe 

used to calculate standad to protect the designated use. After a State has established acceptable 

designated uses, the next step is to apply appropriate criteria and calculate standards to proted 

each of the designated uses. The States are given ample flexibility in assigning designated uses 

to stream segments, but availability of apprupriate criteti is limited. 

If an existing designated use is questioned, EPA advises the application of the use 

attahbiity process to identify suitable designated uses. Many have expressed concem, 

howevet,tbatBPA’sp~ocessisdifficuhtoimplement;in~esporrse,BPARegioa9is~~ 

to develop a moxe worltable process. ButthepKMeJnsofthearidwestdonotlkinthe 

redassiication of designated stream uses, but rather in the lack of criteria to p~pted actual uses. 

Many States were underpm= to maet BPA’s February 1992 deadEne to develop water 

quality stoadards that included numeric limits. The lack of criteria documents for r@mal 

ecosystems fo& those States without adopted standards to *ly on Fedeml criteria documents 

that afe insensitive to unique ecosystems. States that missed EPA3 Andline will be required 

to use federally promulgated standards, which are based on national criteria mther than regional 

criteria protective of repmve ecosystems. 

DuringthetrkMialrcvkwprocessinAriz4ma,initialdmftsofthewaterquality 

standa&includedlimitsthatwe~basedontheprote&on ofaquaticspecksthatdidnotexist 

299 
O.A. mlN8Ko 

in&em. Thedr&standa&wetepmposedintheabsenceofs&atificresearchon 

~~ihrorartivetothosefoundinthestreunsofthe~west. Ajomteffortwas 

wdestrltenbymwricipllitiesMd~todevelogc~fotprioritypoUutantstopFotectthe 

dHerurtbareficirlusesthatdidexistinA&ona .%’ BPArcmghedtbeinapplicabiityofthe 

Gold Book miteri 8nd appmved the Arimna lIkpmmt of Bnvifonmental Quality’s use of 

these criteria in the State water quality standa&. EPA’s approval of that State’s star&u& is 

contingent m the folbwing: 

0 The~~oftbespecieslistforephelner91watentoverifythatthelistis 

comprehensive, to tesult--if tuxesmy-in the modiication of criteria for 

eplnmeral waters. 

0 An mhation of the mercury rish for wildlife on effluents and 

ephemeral waters to determine the effects of bioaccumulation. 

l The reevaluation of technical assumptions on bioconcentration and human 

exposure pathways for selected criteria for protection of human health. 

0 A review of incremental risk level for human health criteria for carcinogens. 

Currently, individual States must extrapolate standa& and NPDES limits from a limited 

wWrqu9litycriterirdptabgsethatfplilstorecognizeregioaaldifferwcesinbcosystemscrcrosJ 

the country. Another option is for a State to develop its own site-specific scientifk data for 

water quality criteria. This means arid States developii water quality &mdards either must 

utilize national criteria for their ecosystems, which will ultimately lead to inappropriate limits 

for discharge permits, or must invest theii limited furancial and scientific resources to develop 

site-specific data. 

Toxicity testing also remains a amtadous issw as IPA continues to include whokeffluent toxicity in many discharge permits. The questkn of which aquatic spe&s is appropriate 

toutilizeinthe~remeatof~uenttoxicityhasbaeaofcoacerniatbearidwest,especirlly 

when the effluaM is discharged into ephemeral streams. In addition, the testing methodology, 

which is unckr &bate across the country, needs better testing protocols, control parameters, and 

peer review. 

How is the Arid West Dif’feent? 

Whtrrmost~kthinlrof”fishableorswimmnhk’thCpiCb~~~~tOmiodis 

acoolmountainbabblingstreamwitha&xedGshemum ontbebanks,oralakesidemtreat 

with laughing children splashing water. However, a typical riverside setting in the arid west 

consistsofparcheddrysaadywasbes,tbeconstanthumminnofcicadrs,andtiretncksfFomtbe 

most recent all-terrain vehicle. During a summer monsoon evening, a typical western arroyo 

300 
WA’IW QUlunr STANDARDS IN TiiE 211I CEtfl’URy: m-3@ 

flowing with minfall runoff might also attmct croaking toads, a great horned owl, or a wily 

coyote stalking a tiny kangann, rat. 

Alushriparianacosystemcandeveiopalongnormallydrywasbesosa~ltofcontinuad 

effluentdischarges. YIbehabitatthenbecomesdqxz&ntontheeffluentastheoolyreliabk 

source of water, which attracts many wildlife specks and creates a diverse ferrescripl bii 

community. It then becomes important to protect the biotic community that has been established 

as a result of efTluent discharges. The development of water quality criteria documents would 

identify the species of plants and animals that need to be pro&ted, and would produce 

appmpriate water quality limits for effluent-dependebt habitats and streams. 

Bcosystems that rely on ephemeral streams support a different hind of habitat than 

perennial streams. Water quality criteria developed for full flowing, wet stteams are 

inappmpriate for ephemeral streams. 

Stem water in the arid west is o&n the only water that ever flows in an ephemeral 

stream. Storm water data from non-urban&d areas should form the basii for background water 

quality. The range of ecological habitats found in the basin, and the interaction of storm water 

flows and ground water quality, should be identified to establish the level of water quality 

protection required from urban storm water discharges. From these data, water quality criteria 

could be developed to protect the arid ecosystem from urban storm water flows. Currently, tbc 

da&base on ambient storm water quality for arid, ephemeral streams is ix&equate. Data on the 

impact of urban storm water on these habitats are also limited. 

Tbe development of water quality criteria to protect tbe arid ecosystem from urban storm 

water flows should consist of an in&grated env ironmental monitoring network. Such a network 

would characterize the water quality of storm water flows from both urban and non-urban areas. 

‘Ihe habitat that is depe&ent on these periodic storm water flows would be identified, and the 

impacts of these storm water bursts on representative specks could then be asses&. The 

existing database on ambient storm water quality for arid, ephemeral streams is inadequate. ‘Ibe 

range of ecological habitats found within a basin and the interaction of storm water flows and 

groundwater quality should be identified to establish the level of water quality protection 

required from storm water disc-. 

Inthearidwest, manmade systems of canals or water transportation systems are used to 

cunvey sub water for municipal, Must&l, or agricultural uses. These artificial water bodies 

arenotintendedtobefishableorswimmable. Waterqualitystanda&afeneededtoprotectthe 

iMended uses of water transported through manmade systems used for municipal, industrial, and 

agriculturalpurposes. Tbewaterqualitystamhu&toprotecttheseintendedusesshouldtakei.nto 

account water rights; protection of existing ephemeral, intermittent, and effluent-t water 

bodies; and protection of designated uses as determined by the States. 

301 
O.A. Bam8m 

Criteda Ob&ctivea for tbe Arid We& 

Ttheprhryobja%iveofwaterqualitycriteriaktopratectecosystema. When 

developing water quality criteria for the axid west, the following ta8ks must be performed: 

&scribe the existing biotic environment in ephemeral and effluent4epednt 

StreuaS. 

IdentiQwildlifeuscsofriphnhabii. 

Detendetheeffectsofeffluentonstream-side-plants. 

xle&dne what pollutants, if any, are moving through the food cllain. 

. Detemme what wildlife populations, if any, show evidemx of pollutant 

perform pollutant fate analysis for the biotic community found in epkned and 

efrhent~strums. 

Develop criteria for mve species. 

3m 
WAllPIQuAurY8TANDARD8MTHE218' CEImJaY: 297-30s 

Resmrcb Followup 

Animportaatkppectoftbewrterquelitycriteriaprocessistbedevelogmentofpaer 

revkwprotocols. Appn3vedpNxedurusafcneededfOrreceivinginputandc0mmex&ffomtbe 

scientific community on the analytical methodology used for criterh develm. This peer 

mkw process is vital. Otber areas quiring peer review include analysis of tbe policy 

implications and impacts of the new criteria. ‘l&is would involve EPA, State regulators, and tbe 

Ngulated community. 

onCewaterqualitycrire?ia~vebaendevelopedandaccepbed,tbeinformationgatbeFed 

mustbe~witb~htors,~l9tad~~,andotherssotbatcriteriacanbeappliedto 

ecosystems that support similar habitats. A final step in the development and implementation 

of water quality criteria is the publication of criteria documents. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Bnvinmmencpl pRUectioa is our common goal. Whether we are Egulated agencies, 

zegulators, or concerned citizens, we all have a duty and responsibii to protect tbe 

eaviNnment of tbe arid west. llhe 8rid west’s unique ecosystem, now depe&nt on emuent, 

mustbeproteckd. Pfote&mcannottakepl8ceuntilwaterqualitycriteriadevelopedspecificaUy 

for such ecosystems are implemeMai. These water quality criteria must be based on sound 

scientific data. Wbcn appropriate criteria m developed, the States will be able to develop 

appropriate water quality standards and effective tmatment options. 

Research mustbecohzted usingfull-demodelsthatreplicatethealidmvinnrment 

WorLshauldbe~~iaaloationthattrpifiestherridwedtwith~tolimitsdnirrfiljl 

andh.igheimplFtlanspixationrates. Tbesecobditioasmimportantto-amtro~Md 

~ofallhctorsinassessingpollut8ntimpncts. TheavGlabilityofMh&uctu 

land, and a am&tent fluent sours are also important consi&rations, as is tbe availability~~ 

~hudanslvt;crrlFesou~forJcientistsfrocnotberirwtitutionsrcrrrsstheWest. 

Tbeunique~ynrsaftbeuidwestulewbrtweuetryingtoprotad. Inmany 

. lmancu theseecosystansbavebancrertedby~discharguandaNdepebdehtontbe 

P===’ 0ftheefTIueot. Theecosystansheremsouniquethatw8terqualitycriteria 

documeats,notspecialusecclrssitlcrtioas,uleneeded. l%eobjectiveisnottoobtainkss 

303 
Theneedforwaterqualitycriteriaforfegiondecosystemsisacritiadc4mcemforwater 

andwastewateragencksnationwick. However,theimpactsarecurNntlymostacuteintbearid 

west. withoutwrtMqurlitycxitefiabasedonsoundscknce, high capital costs imposed cm 

trertmeat~will~hiaa”higher”~ofwaterthatdoesnothingto~tbearid 

ecosystem-or worse, in the dawaming of cksiik rip&an habii. 

1. P.L. 92400, The ckan w8ter Act 1972 and AfM&ea& 

2. U.S. BPA. 1986. U.S. En- Pmta#km Agaq, Office ofWa!er ReguMms 

and S-. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. BPA 440/5-86-001. Washington, DC. 

304 
WATBRQUAUlYSTANDARLX3mTHE2tr( CxmlJRY: 297-30s 

3. 1990. Water Quality Stadards for Wetlands--National Guidance. OfTice of 

Water R&ulations and Standa&, Offiw of Wetlands Pmtection, Washington, DC. 

4. 1992. Guidance for Modifying Water Quality Standards and Pmtecthg 

Bffluent:Deptndent Bcosystems. Interim Fii. Region 9. San Fra&sco, CA. 

5. Western Governors’ Associi. 1992. Resolution 92-Q: Reauthorization of the Clean 

Water Act. Jackson, WY; June 23. 

6. Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. 1992. Board of Dhctors. Position 

Statement No. 7: Water Quality Standa& for Ephemeral and EfIluent Dependent 

Streams. Annual Meeting, May 17-22, Cleveland, OH. 

7. Western Coalition of Arid States. 1992. Board of Dhctors. Resolution No. 1992-3; 

Water Quality Standads for Ephemeral Streams. Quaterly Meeting, July 24, San 

Diego, CA. 

8. Car&, D. and L. Tischler, BBASCO Environmental. 1990. Ruposed Human Health 

Ambient Water Quality Stawhrds for Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. 

9. Parkhurst, B. 1990. Numeric and Narrative Water Quality Stand&s for Arizona 

Aquatic and Wildlife Limited Waters. phoenix, AZ. 
WATER QUM STANDARDS M THE 21 It CENTURY: 307-3 I I 

MORETIMEISNEEDEDTOAPP’ROPRIATELY BALANCE WATER 

QUALITY PR -ON AND RECLAMATION 

Section 303 of the Ckan Water Act mquires development of standa& for toxic pollutants 

by&estates. cautionmustbeusedinthedeveloQmentofthesestaadardsforwatercoursesin 

the arid West, where sheam flows a~ low or non-existent for the majority of tbe year. 

Inappropriate standards can result in unjustified costs to dischargers, impede vital water 

reclamation projects, and actually impede implementation of programs that could improve water 

quality. Our ongoing experience in tbe San Diego hgion may, unfortunately, serve as an 

example of the problems that occur when an effort is made to put standa& in place 

prematurely. 

WatercourseswithinthebordersoftheSanDiegoRegioaalWaterQualitycontrolBoard 

(Regioual Board) are similar to those throughout most of the Southwest, being histofically 

ephemeral in most m. Dry season flows consist of a variety of “nuisance” waters that have 

akady been used at least once, including return irrigation flows, la&cape and agricultural 

irrigation runoff, swimming pool drahage, street and sidewalk wash-down water, and water 

from car washing. Although tbccllt data indicate these flows am of surprisingly good quality, 

volumes (LFe usually low and, as a result, support limited aquatic life. 

Many of tbe water cour3es in the San Diego Region xeceived dischaqes of wa&water 

inthepast,someasIateasthemid-1970s. Tbesediscbargeswereatbestdisinfectedseco&ry 

effluent witboutchloriuation. All were evay terminated because of waterqualityprobkma. 

l%e pmbkms were exacerbated because of tbe generally low kveh of m andthefactthat 

mostoftbestFeomsiatbeSan~Regiontermiaateinlaadlockedcoastallagoons,whicbule 

sauitive to nutrient and fhhwater inputs and serve to -tllttCpOllUcMtsdwiagthCdry 

seasons. l%e Regional Bowl is particularly sensitive to tbe water quality issues involved with 

discharges of wastewater to inland water courses because of this past experience. 

307 
M.J. muslm 

To imp- the ‘Live Sbeam” pxogmm, the Board a&ion& a p&ve role, 

includisg~awmbcrafspecificchagestoitsdoptedwrrterquality~lplnn(Basin 

Plan)to~dhchrgcrstoprocced. Toavoidrecurreuxofthcpastprobkms,tbeBoanl 

utablishcd coahhom for fegulatory approval of any prrojccts including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

1. NochangesinthewaterqulityobjadivesoftbeBasmplanfordisc~ 

upstrum of waters used for municii water supplies. 

2. M~tothewrterqurlity~v~ofthe~PiUlfor~~lv~ 

. solids- . ami- ofothcrmincral~torefkct 

. thccomammm ofthoseconstitucntsintbcavailabkwatcrsupply. 

3. wastcwam- atallt.imutodormtoallstatc~ofHcaltb 

tscwicd Titk 22 requirem~ for u- body amte. 

4. ModificrtioastothewrterqualityobjactivuoftheBaampIanforn~ 

(aitrogai * phosphorous) to dkct existing conammim coupled with but 

practbbk- of wastewater. 

5. ~progiamstocogewittrpotentialprroblemsthatmayatiserwa~L 

of Basin Plan &al&es. 

Asans;ltaftbt~sencarreganent,plrrnningbegrnforaaumberof~. One 

of these, for the upper Santa Margarb River, has advaned almost to the point of 

imp-. More cm this project later. 
WATER QIJALUY STANDARDS IN THE 2la CENTURY: W-31 I 

Agency (EPA). In adopting the Potter-Cologne Act, the enabling legislation for California’s 

water quality pmgmms, the Legislature, in Section 13300, found that a statewide program for 

water quality control could be most effectively administered w, within a framework of 

statewide coordination and policy. Thus the mgional boards were rightfully given wide latitude 

to make decisions impacting water quality within theii respe&ve mgions. 

You may not be aware of some fundamental conflicts between Califomia’s water quality 

planning process and that contained in the Clean Water Act. Clean Water Act section 303 

indicates that standards am to pmtect public health or weIf=, enhance the quality of water, and 

serve the pwposes of the Clean Water Act. The language in section 303 goes on to specify that 

standad are to take into consideration their use and value for ptotection of public water 

supplies; propagation of fish and wildlife; recteational, agricultural, industrial, and other 

purposes; and navigation. 

Section 13OtXI of the Potter-Cologne Act states the Legislative mandate that n@ations 

result in attaining the highest water quality m, considering d demands on waters and 

. VW mvolvgd, beneficial and dettimental, m and social, tangibk and intangible. 

Section 13241 of the Porter-Cologne Act states the factors to be considered in establishing 

water quality objectives. ‘Ikse f&tom am to include past, present and probable future 

beneficial uses of the waters involved; envimnmental characteristics of the hydrologic unit 

involved; water quality that could be w achkved with coordinated control of all factors 

. . afkcting water quality in the area; economic considerations: and &Q& for dcv- 

. m . These factors are to be considered by the State Board when adopting 

statewide policy and by the regional boards when adopting water quality control plans or taking 

other regulatory actions that impact waters within their tespe&ve regions. 

During the development of the Inland Surface Waters Plan, the EPA applied considerable 

pressure to have the so-ca&d Cold Rook standa& for toxic pollutants adopted. These standards 

are intended to apply to natural surface waters that have been minimally Hected by man’s 

activities. Them was considerable opposition to the blind adoption of these standa& ftom many 

segments of the qdated community and the “regulators” (the regional boa& in this instance). 

After considerable debate, the State Board adopted their Inland Surface Waters Plan, consistent 

with the Porter-cologne Act, and including provisions both pmtective of water quality and 

consistent with beneficial water reclamation projects. 

Specifically, the State Bead established Category (a), a special category of surface 

waters. Category (a) applies to water courses that ate not naturally peramU and that suppott, 

or will support by April 1997, aquatic habitat beneficial uses during the dry season as a result 

of the discharge of reclaimed water. In those cases, the stringent water quality objectives for 

toxic pollutants in the Inland Surface Waters Plan do not automaticaUy apply as they do to other 
M.J. Pcanm 

lJurkuwrQnin~statc. Instud,thwwaterqualityobjectivuwillbeconsidwdas 

“~gollr”fora6ycarpariodfh1thedatcofad@onoftbePlan. 

Durirylthirci-ycuperiod,w~~iwestigtioaswfobe~o~md,w~ 

. appmpme sitespacificobjectiverwtobedeveloped. Mm go0lsfequirethebest 

effortsoftLiiscbargerstomeettbcobjectives. Asafcsult,dischargerstothesebodicsof 

wrterwouldnotbe~~~~~wrstcr~~~~duringtht 

period in which buly app~~riatc, sitaspecifk objective45 are generatad. 

Tbe~Oftbtw~~Ob~v~fortOXiCPO~~M~o~ l!5-9 

fordiarlurrcsgfFdC~wIttrtO~(a)wrterbodies,w~o#~~toBPA’s 

dimppmdoftheInlandsurfacewatersPlan. An&erwastlNioclusionoftbesocalkddue 

diligence pmvisions for determining compliance witb the water quality objectives for toxicity. 

Under these provisii, dischargers exceeding effluent limits for acute or chmic toxicity arc 

~~to~ormtoxicityrsQctionevrl~(TRBs).O#xthe#lur#oftoxicitybosbeen 

identifidd,diac~uc~irsdto~~rersoaablesteps~~OFbducetoxicityto 

the~kvel. IfthesepN3visions uemet,thed&bugerisamsidemdtobaveimpkmeuted 

tbe objectivu for toxicity as rsquhd by the Inland Surf&cc Waters Plan. T’he “due diligence” 

provisioarww~lysupQortadbytheagerrcies~lrbclunationpFojactsbecauseof 

thepatc&llychillingcffectoffearsof noncompliance for -s beyond their contIO1. 

OnMayl8,l!B2,attbcirqularlys&edukdu~9cthg,theRegionrlBocurladopted 

NpDBs~~for~~M~~W~~~thtRulcbo~~W~ 

Dishictdhclmrgesof~laimedwatertotheSanta~River. Bothofthcsepermits 

impkmc4B@dtbeIulandsurfhcuwatcxsPlan,hludiugthe~ofwaterquality 

~v~rs~o~~andinclusioaofthe”duediligeaa”~~. Tbeyalso 

incluckd river monitoring and mamgwentprovisionsillacco~withtbe~BoaFd’s 

pnviously established conditions for imp- of live Scnun -14. On May 15, 

1992,theRe%ioaalBoardreceivadaletterfFomtbeBPAobjactingtothepermitsforavariety 

ofrcasoas, iacludingtbeinclusionoftharfo~pFovisiocwaftbeInlradSurfaceW~~ 

Plan. ~RegioarlBoardwillboldabeuing,tocoasidetactioasbo~inLigbtoftheHPA 

obje&ms,onAugust24,1992. xf,attbecofhclusioaloftbe~,theRegioMl~&es 

lrotmodifythepermitsto~~thcBPAobjactiolw,itklilrelytbrtBPAwillaszRlme 

juriadi&mandissuethepermits. l%eiinalchapteriuthissagalmsycttobcwritta~ 

310 
wArERQuAurYsTANDAuDalNniE2lm CEIWURY: 307-311 

Implanentatba of the Iahnd &tams Policy, togcbr with the Rcgiod Board’s Basin 

Plan,will~~onofwatc?qurlityinour~. Appfupriatebcaaficklwcswillbc 

ckarlyandspccificallyidentifiedladp~. Atthcsamctimc,8llowanccswillbcmadcfbr 

gaxmtion of site-specific water quality objectives, which am not tmoemdly Winga& wbm 

applupriate. However, the Regioml Board is collamd th8tNShhgtO~OVUly 

sbingent water quality objaztives, which may be inappmpriatc in many iaatmca, will have a 

ChillingCff!CCtOnvitolwaterIbclW8tiOOprojadsillthCSallDkgORCgiOOalld~thC 

SOUthWest. 

311 
WATBR QUALmY STANDARm IN THE 21H CEuruRY: 313-318 

ZERO DISCHARGE, ANTI-DEGRADATION, AND SOURCE 

REDUC’ITONz REPLACINGTHEFAILEDASSMILATIVE 

CAPACITY MODEL WITE - SURFACE WATER 

QUALITY STANDARD6 FOR THE 21st CENTURY AND BEYOND 

The slides you saw a few minutes ago give a pntty good picture of what some of 

Ariurna’sepbaneralril#lrianaregslooklike,butwbattheslidesdon’tsbowaretbe”DON’T 

BATTHBPISH”signspltupontheGilaRiverbythePisbandWildlifeServiceaadtbeState 

Game & Fish lkptmcnt 50 miles downstregm of the Phoenix wastewater tEatment plants. 

And the slides don’t show the mostly low-iacome people fishing next to those signs, or people 

catching turtles and frogs to cat, or people floating on those waters in inner tubes. 

The ERluent lkpdcnt Waters (EDW) problem is intemsting in several ways; it is 

rqmsmtative of our continuing fhilure 8&r ym to achieve the primary gods of the Clean 

Water Act. Obviously, if WC had been se&us about zero dischafgc, we wouldn’t have to be 

amccmed with BDWs now. 

pOrexample,inArizmatheAgencyisruutimlyacce@gdischafgel.imitsinNPD~ 

pemh that arc amkkably lower than aiteria levels. We’ve head that 42 States now bave 

313 
Y. OIBOOIY 

tha(r~~~byBpA,kdIwoadethownunyofthogtS~’~ult 

uackrrppsrl--u~s- tunong- Ieaaoas)theAgcncyllasallowcdthcst8tc 

tosettoxicskvclsfirbelowkvelstbeAgencyitselfhasi&dfied8suqn&ctive. 

l’bisrp9rorcb,bywbichour~icssQendmoetoftbcirtimcQiRiskandRiskMuqane&issimplywroogh&d. Itbeginsbyaskingthewrongquesths. We 

arc asking: How much can I dischuge? How much amt8mhtion an I get away with? 

Instead, we slmukl be asking: How much exposure can we prevent? 

Ingenenl,tbeplMicdoear’t~iftherirLiso#iarmillioaortwoinrmillioa, 

espcci8llywhcnwcknowthatrisk~ iNXlWhUY8~g8mCth8tktSyOUCC3me 

upwithanyfiguresyouwant. WlmttbepublicdoeswurtisforBpAtostoptryingtofigue 

outbowtiakofa~~it~~oldllwffrguFeoutbow~pFEventexposu~,to 

dimii tmmmsuy and avoid&k risk. 

Anditkrnocoliously-vew8ytoddFws -pfob~. cmccr,infict, 

m8ybetbekastofaurwonies. offar~cooccnl . intheloagnm8fc~ 

muhtionsandpotdalsyne@ticeff&cts,8ndalltbemillhswe~spdingonrisk 

~don’tgetclosetothoseissucz3. 

Instcadofpoucicstlmt CZMXMgCUStOpOllUtCuptOthCkVClOfoUr~,WhiCh 

iSWlMtquratitrtVCridtur-cuncnt doe&we!huldbeactively8pplyhgwll8thothaputsof 

theworldiscdkdtheRecauhqRinciik. IntheUnitedStateswegumllyt.rdatethis 

asFbllutionpIlevention rkss~b#msinccitistypicrlly-espacirlly,itaeems,inthe 

WatcrOffica-limiiir;pncaicetowute~lad~~~rislrmungemeat. But 

ifweu~~wbltwe~ymtra’irsarrce~,cuCtiagdowaoatoxicllrtthe 

front end of tbe system, bamling those !albshnces we really can contd, alKl substituting baligo 

314 
WATER QUAUW STANDARtH M llifi 2lti C8MURY: 313-318 

prtxcas, then it’s probably OK to call it Pollution Prevention. ‘Tltat term, at least, has the 

benefit of already being in our regulatory lexicon--even if it is misused and underemployed. 

As we’ve heard from several speakers during the confemnce, the preventive approach 

isal~ybeingtakenintheGFeatLalres,andaswehervdDr.Foranand~~yyerrerdoy, 

it is tbe operative principle behii the International Joint Commissii (UC) stmtegy for 

addmsiig the otbenvise intractable pollution problems there. I strongly recommend that the 

BPA take a mom active role in ti UC proceedings than they have. The UC model is far 

superiortotlleonetheAgencyhasbeenopemtingunder. 

If we’re serious about clean water, and we should be, then we have to dump tbe 

disproved theory of &i&&e C&&y and stop relying on end-of-the-pipe remedies. 

Instead, we need to move into the 21st century with water quality standards based on w 

and the polluter pays principle. 

The EDW problem in the Southwest is a good example of the failure of the Assimilative 

Capacity model and illustrates our need to push standards upstream to the source. 

As you know, Assiiilative Capacity is the belief that we can keep dumping our garbage 

into the env’ uomnait and the environment will clean it up. But however well that theory might 

have worked when applied to biological toxins, when it comes to toxics, and especially to 

persistent and bioaccumulative toxics, the model obviously doesn’t work and the policies based 

on it arc obviously bankrupt. As we know from bad examples like the Great Lakes, the New 

River, the Columbia, Boston Harbor, global warming, and the ozone layer (to name a few), 

allowing a little bit here and a little bit tltete adds up to a lot, and in effect, we’re 

nickel-and-dinting ourselves to death. 

We all live downstream--both in time and in space. As the Earth Summit has made us 

aware in focusing attention on the global environment, sustainability requires that we respect the 

tights of future generations to an environment in at least as good a shape as the one we’ve 

inherited--and hopefully better. We simply can’t afford to continue the incremental loading of 

toxic3 into our environment-into our streams. 

~otxlability, of course, is of major concern, but in our focus on site-specific costs, we 

tead to miss the bigger pictum. In fact, one of the biggest problems we have in attaining the 

goals of the Act is that we have allowed ourselves mom and more to let cost rather than 

envimnmcntal health drive the process-not only in setting permit limits, but (contrary to statute 

and common sense) in our standa&-setting process. 

By and large, the environmental community mcogn&s that we can’t ignore costs, and 

we’re not generally opposed to the Use A@inabiity process, but if we’re going to look at costs 

315 
I’mnotsayingthatthcm~arerich. It’sobviausthattheoewfe&alismof 

Reagrmwicsprt~bkburdensoaloccllcomm~witblittkfundiag.wltifwe’~goiag 

tOgCthtOp- like Region 9’s NBB, let’s be sure the cost!3 are real. 

accodngisespecMy@ortantinthuctimeswhamoxeandmoqeopkate 

being~tojobsvs.c&onme&argmw&+anutherformofthesamcbla&mail. It’s 

mtthatthedsn’tanymouey. T%drpkntyofmoney. Tbele’stdlioasintheRat8gon’s 

peacdmebudgetandwe*xespadingbillitmsonpolitkalsaber-radingintheMiddkBast. We 

an~milliorwoaS&LbailoutsmdtheliltesofMicbeel~andIvraBodryandmy 

friendKcrtingfromArizonr,wecurI#rymillioadollu~to~~y~ctodentertpiinera, 

but we can’t afhml ckan water? Nonsense. 

316 
WA= QuAurY mANDARn IN llm 21a CMY: 313-318 

The problem isn’t lack of money, but lack of political will, which is part of the phony 

accountinggamesoftrickle4own cmmmica (an especidy appmpriate tam for water politics) 

thathrwtraa~~~muchplblicmoneyintodaepprivatepoc~onttbepest12~tbat 

thetoplor2penxlrtofourpopllationnow~smo~ew~thatbe~80penxnt 

together. 

Partofthescamistbemislabeliagofsomecoats,aadplutistbefaihrretoideatifyother 

costsatall. What,forinSance isthecostofdryingupariver? Whatisthecostofcontinually 

loading a streambed with toxick? 

Another interesting point that came up in our discussions of standa& in Arizona was that 

although the incremental loading of toxics apparently had not yet caused violation of aquifer 

StlndaFds downstmm from major WWIPs, the downsCnam wells do show ekvated levels of 

toxics. nKFecanbelittledoubttbotifwekeepitup,iatimetbosewellswillbeconcamiaatal 

beyond standad. And what is the cost of ground water cleanup? The cost of providiq clean 

drinking water? And what are the savings to be had from teally implementing pOllution 

Pnvention? 

Again, in figuring the costs of polluting or drying up a stream, we typically think of 

aquatic organisms and wildlife only as rctsoum for humans to use. Our accounting is 

unbearably anthqocentric. But animals and ecosystems have rights whether or not they are 

of use to us. We have to have a biocentric--not just an antlqxxxntric-accounting. And I don’t 

mean just the warm cuddly creatures and the bright green ecosystems. We have to respect the 

in&g&y of cold slimy critters too, those that live below the surface of the streams, even when 

the water isn’t running. And we have to recogke the appropliam!ss of natural ecosystems, 

which may not display the features that urban populations, especially eastern urban populations, 

ted to value highly. In many western systems, year-mud lush vegetation and high biotic 

diversity are simply attiflcial, what one of my Fotest Service supetviso~ used to call “natural 

and park-like.” 

These questions point up another of the major problems with the way we do our 

accounting. Ttaditional accounting calls such problems -and tends to discount them, 

just as it discounts the fkttu~e. But we live in a closed biosystem: There am no extemalities and 

we~implycannorcontiauetodiscountthe~tu~~toplttbeburdenofcostsonourgrandchiklrea 

and their grandchildFen. 

Inste9d,ifwe’regoingtohavestaadardsthat~ymaintlinaadenhanceourwatersiato 

the 21st century and beyond, we have to ge4 serious abut tk o&inal goals of the Clean Water 

Act, dmp the contdiction of assimilative capacity and incremental loading, and insist on zero 

discharge, anti-on, and antibacksliding. 

317 
w. ORBour 

weIrrre,boprodad~wrtermdwildlifcud~yatems,mdwehrvetostog 

m8klqgtbe~ye?8fnlthe-~yforc~upw8terthatshDuldbeckanalup 

atthesaucebytl~polhden. WehavetoinsiitlmtmaximumMlutionPnzv~and 

~~srtainplr#~~wcu~intoenv~bhchnrilurd~y 

ecoaomicargumentsinthenameofNetEnvinmmenMBa&it. Andaswe’veheardinthepast 

few days, it doesn’t matter how good our standa& (ult if they’= not impkmented. We have 

toinsistoaimplanencrtioamdtbrtmeuwwehrvetohve~ediveenforcanetrt--atthe 

Fbdeml, St8tc, and local community levels. 

Andwhikwebrvetomrbeitcleuthatzerodischugeofpouu~urd~~ 

isoaebasksta&anl,thatdoes~me4mz#odischafgeofwater. Main&ingminimumflow, 

kecpiiwaterinthestmun,isawatcr~requir#neat. Whetherwecallitphysical, 

chernicrl,orbiologicrl,it’sobviowthrtthe~~ofastrwmisNinadifywQlrethew~ 

out. Tbe~to~~flowib,Ithinlt,veryckarintheM,andifit’snor,Itssun 

youthccnv ironmental community will be wo&ing to make it clear during reauthorization. 

318 
Appendix A: 

Attendees 

List 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 319-320 

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMMENTS 

Mary Ellen Harris 

Regulatory Compliance Division 

Eastern Municipal Water District 

San Jacinto, California 

Ecological risk assessment for the water quality program should in no way. shape, or 

form resemble that developed for the Super-fund program. There are several reasons for this. 

First of all, the division of areas in Superfund sites for study has little to do with natural 

divisions of these sites, such as habitats or ecosystems. Sites are divided into Operable Units, 

perhaps based on types of facilities such as landfills or storage tanks. Sites have to be redivided 

to conduct ecological studies. Often Operable Units are studied by completely different 

contractors using different methods. Coordination is not often achieved. 

Second, the organisms selected for study are not the most important or representative 

species. Rather, species for which there is the most toxicological and physiological information 

are chosen. A “big worm” might be selected (usually by an engineer and not a biologist) over 

a “little worm,” although the “big worm” is a completely different organism and not relevant 

to the ecosystem being studied. 

Third, ecological risk assessments, if carried out completely according to the Super-fund 

guidance, are very complicated and expensive studies. The money is available in the Superfund 

program for studies at the sites that require multiple models and risk calculations for several 

different chemical compounds and species. Dischargers or regional management agencies for 

water projects cannot afford these kinds of assessments. 

My recommendations for development of ecological risk assessment, therefore, are as 

follows: (I) before developing guidance, EPA should put money into getting a lot more 

physiological/toxicological information on a variety of species that are “out there” in the 

environment; and (2) ecological risk assessments should not even be considered at a “point 

source” or “water project” level; they should be done at a waterbody or watershed level such 

that several agencies or groups can coordinate methods and results, and contribute to funding. 

319 
M E HARRIS 

Two panel participants responded to my comments. Dr. Spyros Pavlou said that he felt 

the Rocky Mountain Arsenal studies were coordinated and used representative species. He 

agreed that the studies for this Superfund site were very sophisticated and expensive, well 

beyond what even a smaller Superfund site would require. Joshua Lipton said that the panelists 

had discussed funding options earlier that day and that these included the following: have the 

Office of Water fund it all. have municipalities or groups thinking about site-specific objectives 

pay for assessments, have the States pay. or have industries pay . . . or win in Vegas. 

320 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY 

Sponsored by the 

Office of Water 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

August 31 -September 3, 1992 Riviera Hotel Las Vegas, Nevada 

ATTENDEES LIST 

HARLAN AGNEW 

PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

CIVIL DIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT 

32 NORTH STONE, SUITE 1500 

TUCSON, AZ 85701-1412 

KEVIN AIELLO 

MIDDLESEX COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY 

CHEVALIER AVE 

SAYREVILLE, NJ 08872 

EUGENE AKAZAWA 

HAWAII STATE DEPT OF HEALTH 

CLEAN WATER BRANCH 

MONITORING SECTION 

5 WATERFRONT PLAZA, 250A 

500 ALA MONA BLVD 

HONOLULU, HI 96813 

ADELE ALDERSON 

NV DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION 

333 WEST NYE LANE 

(‘ARSON CITY, NV 89710 

RACHEL ALLEN 

GULF POWER COMPANY 

500 BAYFRONT PARKWAY 

P. O. BOX 1151 

PENSACOLA, FL 32520-0328 

WILLIAM ALSOP 

ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING 

35 NAGOG PARK 

ACTON, MA 01720 

DUANE ANDERSON 

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL 

AGENCY 

520 LAFAYETTE RD, NORTH 

ST. PAUL, MN 55105 

GORDON ANDERSON 

REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD #8 

2010 IOWA AVE, SUITE 100 

RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 

JERRY ANDERSON 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 7 

WATER MONITORING SECTION 

25 FUNSTON ROAD 

KANSAS CITY, KS 66115 

PAUL ANDERSON 

ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING 

35 NAGOG PARK 

ACTON, MA 01720 

RODGES ANKRAH 

U.S. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS, OPPE 

401 M ST, SW (PM-221) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

BOB APRIL 

U.S. EPA 

HQ, ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 

401 M ST, SW, (WH-586) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

A-1 
ATTENDEES LIST 

THOMAS ARMITAGE 

U.S. EPA 

HQ, STANDARDS/APPL SCIENCE DIV 

401 M ST, SW (WH-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

DAVID BAILEY 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

1875 CONNECTICUT AVE, NW, SUITE 1016 

WASHINGTON, DC 20009 

RODGER BAIRD 

COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LA 

COUNTY 

1965 SOUTH WORKMAN MILL RD 

WHITTIER, CA 90601 

BRUCE BAKER 

WISCONSIN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

1755 ROLLINGWOOD 

OREGON, WI 53575 

KENT BALLENTINE 

U.S. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS/SASD 

401 M ST, SW (WH-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

ALEX BARRON 

VIRGINIA WATER CONTROL BOARD 

4900 COX RD 

RICHMOND, VA 23230 

PHIL BASS 

MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL 

P. O. BOX 10385 

JACKSON, MS 39289-0385 

ROBERT BAUMGARTNER 

OREGON DEPARTMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

811 SW 6TH AVENUE 

PORTLAND, OR 97204 

CHARLES BAYER 

TEXAS WATER COMMISSION 

P. O. BOX l3087 

AUSTIN, TX 78711 

LAWRENCE BAZEL 

BEVERIDGE AND DIAMOND 

ONE SANSOME ST, SUITE 3400 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 

DANIEL BECKETT 

TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD 

PLANNING DIVISION 

P. O. BOX 13231, CAPITOL STATION 

AUSTIN, TX 78711-3231 

WILLIAM BECKWITH 

U.S. EPA 

WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

JFK FEDERAL BLDG (MAIL CODE WQP-425) 

BOSTON, MA 02203 

JOHN BENDER 

NEBRASKA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

P. O. BOX 98922 

LINCOLN, NE 68509-8922 

BOB BERGER 

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

P. O. BOX 24055 

OAKLAND, CA 94623 

GREGORY BIDDINGER 

EXXON BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES, INC. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION 

METTLERS ROAD, CN-2350 

EAST MILLSTONE, NJ 08875-2350 

JEFFREY BIGLER 

U.S. EPA 

HQ, OFFICE OF WATER 

401 M ST, SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

SHIRLEY BIROSIK 

CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD 

101 CENTRE PLAZA DR 

MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 

A-2 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21~1 CENTURY 

HIM BISWAS 

US. EPA 

HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY 

4OlMST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

VINCENT BLUBAUGH 

I=rN ASSOCIATES LTD 

13 INNWOOD CIRCLE, SUITE m, 

LITTLE ROCK AR 72211 

DEBRA BOLDING 

CITY OF LAS VEGAS 

6005 VEGAS VALLEY DRIVE 

IAS VEGAS, NV 89122 

ARLENEBos 

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMPLOYEE-EPA 

422 WEST WASHINGTON 

BOISE, ID 83702 

AIANBOYN’IDN 

JAMES RIVER CORPORATION 

100 TREDEGAR ST, P.O. BOX 2218 

RICHMOND, VA 23217 

D. KING BOYNTON 

U.S. EPA 

HQ, STANDARDS/APPL SCIENCE DIV 

401MST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

DONALD BRADY 

US. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS, OWOW, AWPD 

4OlMST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

ROD BRAUER 

CHW HILL, NEVADA 

2030 EAST FLAMINGO, SUITE 250 

LAS VEGAS, NV 89119 

EDWARD BREZINA 

PA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESOURCES 

P.O. BOX 2063, FULTON BUILDING 

HARRISBURG, PA 17105 

GAIL BRIGGS MCPHERSON 

CITY OF RIVERSIDE 

5950 ACORN ST 

RIVERSIDE CA 92504 

GEORGE BRINSKO 

PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 

DEPARTMENT 

201 NORTH STONE +800 

TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 

MELVIN BROWN 

LAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 

112 TOWNPARK DRIVE 

KENNESAW, GA 30144 

DALE BRYSON 

US. EPA 

REGION 5, WATER DIVISION 

77 WEST JACKSON BLVD 

CHICAGO, IL 6tMO4 

CARD BURCHFIELD 

COLUMBUS WATER WORKS 

P.O. BOX 1600 

COLUMBUS, GA 31993 

JERRY CAIN 

MISSISSIPPI OFFlCE OF POLLUTION CONTROL 

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER CONTROL 

BRANCH 

P.O. BOX 10385 

JACKSON, MS 392894385 

SEAN CALEY 

THE ADVENT GROUP 

192s NORTH LYNN ST, SUITE 702 

ROSSLYN, VA 22209 

VImRIAcARD 

COLORADO SPRINGS UTILDZS 

WASTEWATER DEPARTMm 

703EAsTIAsvEGAssT 

COLORADO SPRINGS, W 80903 

A-3 
ATTENDEES LIST 

CoNmEcAREY 

RI DEPTOF ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMEW 

DMSION OF WATER RESOURCES 

291 PROMENADE STREET 

PROVIDENCE, RI 929995767 

JANICE CARR 

NV DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION 

333wBsTNYEIANE 

CARSON CITY, NV 89710 

PATRICIA CAR’IER 

US. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

4401 NORTH FAIRFAX DR 

ARLINGTON, VA 22293 

CHEE CHANG 

DYNAMAC CORPORATION 

2275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUITE 500 

ROCKVILLE, MD 20850-m 

JAMES CHASE 

THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION 

555 MAIN ST, P.O. BOX 800 

HARTFORD, CT 06142a 

- (LIBBY) CHA’IFIELD 

WV STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD 

1615 WASHINGTON ST, EAST 

CHARLESTON, WV 25311-2124 

ALlCECliUPEK 

EKXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS 

us01 KATY FREEWAY 

HOUSTON, T?C 71039 

MARVINCHLAPEK 

EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS 

13501 KATY FREEWAY 

HOUSTON, TX 77979 

JIM ClitJDD 

KODAK 

WI.BRADO DIVISION 

9952EASTMANPARKDR 

WINDSON, W 80551-1310 

JOHN CICMANEC 

US. EPA 

ECAO, SYSTEMIC TOXICANTS 

ASSESSMTBRANCH 

26 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING DR (MS-HO) 

CINCINNATI, OH 45268 

DENNIS CIARK 

INDIANA DEFT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT 

5500 WEST BRADBURY 

INDIANAPOUS, IN 46241 

DAVlD CLARKE 

INSIDE EPA WEEKLY REPORT 

1225 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY 

ARLINGTON, VA 22292 

JAMES CLAWSGN 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 

AGRONOMY AND RANGE SCIENCE DEPT 

DAVIS, CA 95616-8515 

DAVID CUXJGH 

VERMONT DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSERVATION 

193SOUTHMAINST 

WATERBURY, VT 05671-0408 

DAVID COHEN 

CA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL 

BOARD 

9olPST 

SACRAMENTO, CA 95801 

JERRY COLLINS 

US. DEFT OF AGRICULTURE 

SCSjEPA 

2604ST.ALBANS 

CARROLLTON, TX 75007 

MIKE CONNOR 

100 FIRST AVE 

BOSTON, MA 

A-4 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY 

‘IXRENCE COOKE 

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 

500l2THST,suITE100 

OAKIAND, CA !24607-4014 

MARJORIE WOMBS 

U.S. EPA 

HO, SASD/OST/OW 

401 M ST, SW (WI+585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

JIM COOPER 

NV DIV OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

333 WEST NYE LANE 

CARSON CITY, NV 89710 

JOSEPH COUTURIER 

PUBLIC UTILlTIEs 

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FL 

1840 CEDAR BAY RD 

JACKSONVILLE, FL 32218 

JAMES COWAN 

COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICIS OF 

ORANGE COUNTY 

10844 ELLIS AVENUE 

FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92728 

JANICE COX 

TENNESSE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

WATER QUALITY DEPARTMENT 

HANEY BUILDING 2C-C 1101 MARKET ST 

cHATTANooGA, TN 37402-2801 

CLAYIQN CREAGER 

THE CADMUS GROUP 

17050 HIGHWAY 128 

CALISTOGA, CA 94515 

ELLEN CROCRER 

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNI’ING OFFICE 

ROOM 575, TEN CAUSEWAY STREET 

BOSTON, MA 02222 

RODNEY CRUZE 

CITY OF RIVERSIDE WQ CONTROL PLANT 

595OACORNST 

RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 

PATRICIA CUNNINGHAM 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE 

HOBBS BUILDING 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PK. NC 27XN 

GLENDA DANIEL 

LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION 

59 EAST VAN BUREN, SUITE 2215 

CHICAGO, IL 60605 

TUDOR DAVIES 

US. EPA 

HO, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY 

401 M ST, SW (WH-551) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

PETER DE FUR 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

1875 CONNECTICUT AVE, NW, SUITE 1016 

WASHINGTON, DC 2ooo9 

CHARLES DEWS 

U.S. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS 

401 M ST, SW (WH-586) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

NICHOLAS DI PASQUALE 

MISSOURI DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

DIV ENVIRON QUALITY/ 

WATER POLL CNTRL PRO 

205 JEFFERSON ST 

JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65102 

WILlAM DIAMOND 

U.S. EPA 

HO, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY 

401 M ST, SW (WH-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

KENNETH DICKSON 

NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY 

INSTRUE OF APPLIED SCIENCES 

P.O. BOX l307S 

DENTON, TX 76203 

A-S 
A=lTENDEESusT 

DAVE DMDN 

OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD 

600 NORTH HARVEY, P.O. BOX 150 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101-0150 

JOHN DISI’IN 

SQUIRE, SANDERS, AND DEMPSEY 

49oosocIETYcENIER,l27PuBLIcsQuARE 

CLEVELAND, OH UllCl304 

ROGER DOLAN 

WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 

5019 IMHOFF PLACE 

MARTINEZ CA 94553 

SEAN DDNAHOE 

TETRATM=H,INC. 

10306 EATON PLACE, SUITE 340 

FAIRFAX, VA 22030 

Plilur DoltN 

SHELL DEVEU)PMENl’ COMPANY 

P.O. BOX l380 

HOUSTON, TX ml-l380 

ELAINE DOltWARD-KING 

EBAsmENvmoNMENTAL 

1cmJNEtrrH 

BELLEVUE, WA!l8006 

CYMllUDWGHERN 

US. EPA 

HO, OW, OFF’ICE OF WASTEWATER 

ENFORCE/COMPUANCE 

401 M ST, SW (EN-336) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

R.T. DOXEY 

SALT LAKE CITY PUBUC - 

l53osouTHwEsTTEMPLE 

SALTLAKECITY,UT84ll5 

HEUNE DRAG0 

US. EPA 

REGION 3 

841 CHESIMIT BUILDING (3WMlO) 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 

MAURRRNDRISCOU 

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

10 CAUSEWAY ST, #5l5 

BOSTON,MAO2222 

SUZANNE DRUM 

ELWHAKLAUAMTRIBE 

1666 IDWER ELWHA ROAD 

PORT ANGELES, WA 98362~998 

DOUGLAS DRURY 

CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 

8555 ARCHIBAUD AVE 

CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 

RQLANDDUBOIS 

US. EPA 

HO, OFFICE OF GENERAL couNsEL 

401MST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20440 

RICHARD DUCHROW 

MISSOURI Dm OF CONSERVATION 

1110 SOUTH COLIXGE AVE 

COLUMBIA, MO 65203 

DANDUDLRY 

OHIO EPA 

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS i% ‘IOXIC 

SECTION 

P.O. BOX 1049 

COLUMBUS, OH 4-149 

C- DVORSKY 

TEXAS WATER COMMIS!3ON 

P.O. BOX no87 

AUSTIN, TX 78711 

KENNEEIIEAGIESON 

NC DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT 

WATER QUALlTY SECXION 

4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD 

RALEIGH, NC 276076445 

A-6 
F’RED eCHOHAwK 

CENTRALWLORADO WATER 

CONSERVANCY 

DISTRICT 

3mWEsT28THsT 

GREELEY, CO 80027 

GENEVEIVE EDMO 

SHOSHONE-BANNOCIC TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 306 

FORT HALL, ID 83203 

JIM RGAN 

REGULATORY MANAGEMENT INC. 

6190 LEHMAN DR, SUITE 106 

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 8091% 

MONA EU SHOULDER 

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE 

SOCIETY 

750 BURBANIC 

BROOMFIELD, CO 80220 

GREGGEUlOl’ 

SALT RIVER PROJECT 

P.O. BOX 52025 

PHOENIX, AZ 850722025 

MOHAMRDRLNABARAWY 

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY 

wtulAMETlE 

UTE MOUNTAIN UTE INDIAN TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 52 

TOWAOC, CO 81334 

JOHN PEDIUW 

U.S. DEFT OF AGRICULTURE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY/OBPA 

MTH AND INDEPENDENCE AVE, SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20250 

LYNN FUJIPAUSCH 

U.S. EPA 

HO, OFFTCE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLQGY 

4olMsT,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

UE FICKS, JR 

U.S. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS, WETLANDS DMSION 

401 M ST, SW (AdoIF) 

WASHINGTON, DC 2tMt93 

ROBBIN FINCH 

BOISE CITY PUBLIC WORJCS DEPARTMENT 

150 NORTH CAPITOL BLVD, P.O. BOX 500 

BOISE, ID 83701 

MORRIS FIEXNER 

3M ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER/POLLUTION 

CQNTROL 

P.O. BOX 33331, BLDG 21-2W-05 

ST. PAUL, MN 55l33-3331 

S’IEVENEISTEIN 

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

441 G ST, NW, TECH WORLD, SUITE 200 

WASHINGTON, DC 20548 

BOB ERICKSON 

US. EPA 

REGION 8 

9991mHsT,suITE5al 

DENVER, Co 802022466 

US. EPA 

REGION 4 

345 COURTIAND AVE, NE 

ATIAIVI’A, GA 30365 

JOHN PoLey 

MEI’ROPOLlTAN WATER DISTRICT 

275OOIAPAZRD 

LAGUANA NIGUEL, CA 9a656 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

DEFTOFHEALTHCARESCIENCE 

2150 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW, ROOM 2B422 

WASHINGTON, DC 20037 

A-7 
MARYJANEMUNICIPAL WATER DI!TllUCT OF ORANGE 

co 

1o5al ELLIS 

TAD FOSI’ER 

LAWFIRM 

104 SOUTH USUDBAvE,SUlTE2Q4 

comRADosPRIN~<3080903 

NORMAN PRANCINGUES 

WRP OF ENGlNEER!$ WES 

ENVIRO-AL -RATION BRANCH 

3909HALUFERRYRD 

VICKSBURG, MS 39180 

DAN FRASER 

MOlVI’ANA DEFT HEALTH/ENVIRONMENI’AL 

SCIENCE 

ROOM A206, COGSWELL BUILDING 

HELENA.MT59620 

JAMESFRASER 

DYNAMAC CORPORATION 

m5 RESEARCH BLVD. SUITE 500 

ROCK~MDZt&?@3268 

RONAU) FRENCH 

CAMPDRESSERANDMCKEE 

l33117THST,SUITE1200 

DENVER,COtUtXt 

wculAMGAlA 

CHEVRONRESEARCHANDTECHNOIDGY CO 

1003 WEST CUTI’ING BLVD 

RIcHMoND, CA 94m-olH 

MELYIN GEORGE 

UNIVERS~OFCAUt-QRNIA 

COOPERATIVEExzENslON 

AGRONOMY AND RANGE SCIENCE DEPI’ 

DAVIS, CA 956168515 

JOHN GIWORD 

EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 

2045 SOUTH SAN JACINO ST, P.O. BOX 8300 

SAN JACINTO, CA 925814300 

LAURAGMJANO 

CITYOFUSVEGAS 

6005EASI’VEGASVALLEYDR 

IA!SVEGA&W89122 

C-NGGFF 

HOOPA VAUEY TRIBAL COUNCIL 

TRIBAL PLANNING DEPARTMENIP.O. BOX 503 

HOOPA, CA 95546 

mANKGaTroMsKl 

U.S. EPA 

HO, SURFACE WATER HEALTH ASSESSMT 

401 M ST, SW (WH-586) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

KATHERINEGoultDxNE 

U.S. EPA 

HO, OW/OST/SASD 

401 M ST, SW (WI-i-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

JONAS GRANT 

UTEINDIANTRIBE 

P.O. BOX 190 

FORT DUCHESNE, UT 84026 

DAN GRANZ 

US. EPA 

REGION 1 

6owmTvIEwsr 

LEXINGTON, MA 02173 

SHARON GREEN 

LOS ANGELES COUNI’Y SANITATION 

DI!XRICIS 

1955 WORKMAN MILL RD. P.O. BOX 4998 

-==07 

A-8 
WATER QUALITY ST’ANDARDS FOR THE 2lst CENTURY 

MICHAEL GREGORY 

ARIZONA ToxlCS INPORMATION 

P.O. BOX 18% 

BISBEE, AZ 85603 

GUY GRIFFIN 

POTLAI’CH CORPORATION 

2A4 ULIFORNIA ST, SUITE 610 

SAN FRANCISW, CA 94111 

MRGINIA GRIFFING 

CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI 

TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 278 

PABLO, h4T 5!a355 

SIWWNIE GROGAN 

NATIONAL iWILDLIFE FEDERATION 

140016THsT,Nw 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2266 

GREGORY GROSS 

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 

520 IAFAYETTE ROAD 

ST. PAUL, MN 55155 

GEOFFREY GRURRS 

U.S. EPA 

HO, ASSESSMENIs/WAT’ERSHED PROT 

401 M ST, SW (WH-556) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

SAM HADEED 

ASSN OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE 

AGENCIES 

1000 CONNECI’ICUT AVE, NW, SUITE lOI% 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036 

DONALD HAGUE 

MAINEDEPTOFENVIRONMENI’AL 

PROTECTION 

STATE HOUSE STATION t17 

AUGU!3TA, ME 04333 

DAVID HAJRR 

WNFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI 

TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 278 

PABU), MT 5!%55 

JOHN HALL 

KILPATRICK AND CODY 

7ool3THsT,Nw 

WASHINGTON, DC 20005 

RONALD HALL 

OREGON HEALTH DMSION 

800 NE OREGON ST, 121, SUITE 608 

PORTLAND, OR 97232 

JAMES HANLON 

U.S. EPA 

HO, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY 

401 M ST, SW (WH-551) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

DAVID HANSEN 

U.S. EPA 

NARRAGANSETI LABORATORY 

27TARZWELLDRIVE 

NARRAGANSEIT, RI 02882 

WARRRNHARPRR 

USDA FORESI’ SERVICE 

20114TH sr, SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 2ow) 

MARYEUSNHARRJS 

~MUNICIPALWATER DISTRIm 

2045 SOUTH SAN JAUNT0 ST, P.O. BOX 8300 

SAN JACINTO, CA 92581-8300 

CIAIREHARRlSON 

EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIS’IRICI’ 

2045 SOUTH SAN JAUNT0 ST, P.O. BOX 830 

SAN JACINTO, CA !92581-8300 

JIM HARRISON 

US. EPA 

REGION 4 

345 COURTLAND sr 

ATLANTA, GA 30365 

A-9 
ATI’ENDEESUSl’ 

KATHI&RNNATlQNAL CA- ASSOCIATION 

PRIVATE LANDS, WATER AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

l301 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW, SUITE 300 

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1701 

KAYHARYUNG 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT XNDUHEALTH 

3125 FERNWOOD AVE 

ANN ARBOR, MI 48106-1!955 

ROLf HAR’IUNG 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

DEFT OF ENVIRONMENT/INDU!XRIAL 

HEALTH 

3125 FERNWOQD AVE 

ANN ARBOR, MI 48108-1955 

SUSAN HATFIELD 

US. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAwrHoRNE ST (w-3) 

SAN FRANcIsw, CA 94105 

WANDA HA-23 

US. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

8OOK!X,NW,TECHWORLDSUITE2OO 

WASHINGTON, DC 20001 

MAltGAltEIE HERER 

US. EPA 

HO, AMBIENT WATER QUALITY - 

4OlMST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 204&l 

BRUCE HRRBOLD 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAwrHoRNE !n 

SAN FRANcIsw, CA !34105 

MARION HERRING 

GENERAL ELECIRICWMPANY 

3I35EASTDNTURNPWEWIB 

FAIRpIEIl), CI’ 06$31 

MARK HICRS 

WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF EcouxiY 

WATER QUALITY PROGRAM 

P.O. Box 47aJ MAIL STOP PV-11 

OLYMPIA, WA 9BsM76oo 

CRAIG HIGGASON 

US. EPA 

REGION 4 

345 COURTLAND !n, NE 

ATlAIW~GA30365 

DAWN HILDREI’H 

CITY OF PORTLAND 

BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

ll2OSW5THAVE,ROOM400 

PORTLAND, OR 97204-1972 

PATRICIA HU 

AMERICAN PAPER INl250 WNNEcllCUT AVE, NW, SUITE 210 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036 

S’IEWARTHOLM 

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION 

SCIENCE POLICY 

1875 I ST, NW, SUITE n5 

WASHINGTON, DC XXI36 

RICHARD HOP?ERS 

U.S. EPA 

REGION a, WATER QUALITY BRANCH 

1401 ROSS AVE 

DALJAS, TX 75201 

EVAN HORNIG 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 6 

1445 ROSS AVE, MS GE-SA 

DALLAS, TX 75202 

ABRHORPEiThD 

MONI’ANA DEI7’ HEALTH/ENVIRONMENTAL 

SCIENCE 

WATER QUALITY BUREAU 

COGSWELL BUILDING 

mm= 

A-10 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY 

CLYDE HOUSEKNECHT 

U.S. EPA 

HEADOUARTERS 

401 M ST, SW (WH-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

GEORGE HOWLETI’, JR 

MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN 

P.O. BOX 680, FORESTRY CENTER 

KESHENA, WI 54135 

DUANE HUMBLE 

METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 

DISTRICT 

6450 YORK ST 

DENVER, CO 80229 

WILL HUMBLE 

ARIZONA DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES 

3008 NORTH 3RD ST 

PHOENIX, AZ 85012 

PAMELA HURT 

US. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS 

401 M ST, SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

JOHN JACKsON 

UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 

155 NORTH FIRST AVE, SUITE m, 

HILLSBORO, OR 97124 

SUSAN JACKSON 

U.S. EPA 

HO, HE4LTH/ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA DIV 

401MST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

KENT JOHNSON 

E’R QUALITY DIVISION 

23oEAsT5THsT 

ST. PAUL, MN 55101 

SCCYIT JOHNSON 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 

12000 VISTA DEL MAR 

PLAYA DEL REY, CA m 

DAVID JONES 

SAN FRANCISCO DEFT OF PUBLIC WORKS 

1680 MISSION ST, 4TH FLQOR 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 

CHARLESKANETSKY 

US. EPA 

REGION 3 

841 CHESTNUT BLDG 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 

TIM KMTEN 

US. EPA 

HO, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY 

401 M ST, SW (WH-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

KENNETHKAuFFMAN 

OREGON HEALTH DIVISION 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND 

CONSULTATION 

8lO NE OREGON ST, #21, SUITE 608 

PORTLAND, OR 97232-2109 

JOHN KENNEDY 

GREEN BAY METRO SEWERAGE DISTRICT 

P.O. BOX 19015 

GREEN BAY, WI 54307-9015 

BERNARD KERSEY 

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL 

WATER DEPT 

300 NORTH D ST, P.O. BOX 710 

SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402 

ANDREAKIESERMAN 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 3 

841 U-I- ST (3WMlO) 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 

A-11 
ATIENDEESLIST 

wmRENIuMRAu 

MASSACHUSEITS WATER POLLUTION 

WNrROL 

lWINTERST,8THFU)OR 

BOSTON. MA 02108 

RUSSELL KINERSON 

US. EPA 

HO, OW/Q=/SAUW401MST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

KARL KIJNGENSI’OR 

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL 

TRIBAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

P.O. Box 503 

HOOPA, CA 95546 

GREGORY KNAFP 

ASARCO INC. 

3422souTHmwEsT 

SALT IAKE CITY, UT 84119 

GERALD KRAUS 

JAMES RIVER CORPORATION 

1915 MARATHON AVE 

NEENAH, WI 54956 

CATHRRINRKUHLMAN 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAWTHORNE ST 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 

RIcIIARDIcuHLMAN 

U.S. EPA 

OFFICE WASTEWATER ENFORCEMENI’ 

COMPLIANCE 

401 M ST, SW (WH-547) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

ARNoLDKuzMAcIc 

US. EPA 

HO, OFFICE OF scIENcE~omY 

401 M ST, SW (WH-551) 

WASHINGTON, DC a[#60 

MARCIA LAGERWEF 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 10 

1200 6TH AVE, (WD-l39) 

SEAITLE, WA 98101 

GERALD lAVECK 

US. EPA 

HQ, WATERSHED MODELING SECI’ION 

401 M ST, SW (WI-I-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

NORMANlElRANC 

HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRI~ 

P.O. BOX 5ooo 

VIRGINlA BEACH, VA 23455 

FORREST LEAF 

CENTRAL COu)RADO WATER 

CONSERVANCY 

DISTRICT 

3209WEsT2mHsT 

GREELEY, CO 80027 

MARTINIEM) 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 

PYRAMID LAKE WATER QUALITY PROJECT 

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 

DAVIS, CA 95616 

FREDERICK U5UINRR 

US. EPA 

HQ, STANDARDS/APPL SCIENCE DIV 

401 M ST, SW (WI+585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

MICHARL Lewis 

US. EPA 

SABINE ISLAND 

GULF BREEZE, FL 32561 

UCE LIEBENSI’EIN 

WISCONSIN DEFT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

WATER QUALITY MONITORING UNIT 

P.O. BOX 7921,101 SOUTH WEBSTER 

MADISON, WI 53707 

A-12 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS M)R THE 2lst CENIWRY 

HOWARD LIENERT 

ImmNATIoNAL PAPER COMPANY 

64OOPOPURAVE,TOWERII,FIFTHFUMR 

MEMPHIS, TN 38119 

KEITHuNN 

NE OHIO SEWER DISTRICT 

4747 EAST 4!mi ST 

CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS, OH 44125 

MmrINuPscIluL’Iz 

CIT’YOFIASVEGAS 

6005 VEGAS VALLEY DRIVE 

lASVEGA!&W89l22 

JOSHUA LIPTON 

RCG/HAGLER, BAILLY 

1881NINTHST 

BOULDER,COFELIX LOCICRRO 

US. EPA 

REGION 2, TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECT 

26 FEDERAL PLAZA 

NEwY0RK,NY10278 

LINCOIJ’I =HR 

~EHRMAN,WHITE&MCAUUITE 

6100 COLUMBIA CEM’ER, 701 FIFTH AVE 

SEA’TTLE, WA %104-m 

cHARLesuK;uE 

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE 

DEFT OF PUBLlC UTMTIES 

2221 BUCKMAN ST 

JACKSONVILLE,FL322& 

RURY UBH-WARE 

MILLE LACS RESERVATION 

NATUML RESOURCE!%BIOKX3ICAL 

P.O. BOX 194, HCR 67 

ONAMIA, MN 

ABRAHAM LQUDERMUK, JR 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE DEPT 

4OOWESTSUMMITHIlLDR,WT8B-K 

KNO~TX37902 

JAMRSLUEY 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 8 

99918THSTREET. SUITE500 

DENVER,CO80202-2466 

SUZANNE LUSSIER 

U.S. EPA 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY 

27 TARZWELL DRIVE 

NARMGANSEIT, RI 02882 

MARY EAY LYNCH 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 4, WATER MANAGEMENT DIV 

345 COURTLAND ST 

ATIANTA, GA Xl365 

EVELYN MAC KNIGHT 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 3 

84lczHEmwTST 

PHIIADELPHIA, PA 19107 

CHARLIE MAC FlIERSON 

TmMTEcH 

10306 EATON PL, #340 

FAIRFAX, VA 22030 

LUCIA MACHADO 

AZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

Xl33 NORTH CENTRALAVENUE.3RDFLOOR 

PHOENIX, AZ 85012 

CHARLRS MACK 

ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE WATER RESOURCES 

P.O. BOX 430 

ROSEBUD, SD 575m 

RO6E MAIN 

FORT BELlCNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY 

RR l, P.O. BOX 61 

HARLEM, MT 59526 

A-13 
SUZANNEMARCV 

U.S. EPA 

HO, OFPKZ OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY 

4olMsT,sw(wH-585) 

WASI-IING~N, DC 20460 

SAUY MARQUIS 

US. EPA 

REGION 10 

tzoomAVE,(WD-W 

SEATIlE, WA 96101 

RlJmQNMARsHAu 

VIRGINIAPOWER 

WATER QU5000 DOMINION BLVD 

GLENALLEI’(VAPQ80 

wENDEuMccuuRY 

W DMSIQNOFENVIRONMENI’AL 

PRCYIECIlON 

333wmTNYELANE 

CXR!SONCl’lY,W89710 

CHEBYLMCGOVERN 

US. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAWTHORNE !a- (W-M) 

!3AN-~CA94105 

GREGMCMURRAY 

OREGON DEPTOFENVIRONMENTAL 

QUAIJTY 

WATER QUAIlTY DIVISION 

811SWSlXTHAVE 

I’ORTIAND, OR 9720) 

WluJAMMKLw 

US. EPA 

REGION 5 

77 WESI’ JACKSON, WQ&161 

CHICAGO, IL 6L#o) 

MICHAEL WENGE 

STATE OF ALASKA 

DIV OF ENVIRON QUAUIY, DEFT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL WNSERVATION 

410 WIIMXJGHBY AVE, SUITE 105 

JUNMU, AK 99ew1795 

JORR?H-R 

KANSASDmQFHEALTHAND 

ENVIR0m 

FORBES FlEm 

TopEKA,Ks66620 

RIcHAItDMEYERH#P 

AZDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENI’AL 

QUALITY 

3033NORTHCENIRAL AVENUE,3RDPU)OR 

PHom& AZ 85012 

GIU.UNMWlEWI’AEM’ 

TUIAUP TRIBES OF WASIUNG’ION 

6’Foo ‘IWI’EM BEACH ROAD 

MARYSVIUX, WA 98271 

DAVID MOON 

US. EPA 

REGION 8 

999lllTH STREET, SUITE 500 (8wMSP) 

DENVER,COi%EB%MtM 

DAUAXORGAN 

SHOGHONEBANNOCK TRIBES 

P.O. BOX XM 

FORTHAU,ID83203 

PA’ITI MORRIS 

US. EPA 

HEADOUARTERS, SASD 

4olMsTREET,sw(wH-585) 

WASHING’RIN, DC a0160 

JOHNMWSSEAU 

OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 320 

PINERIDGE,sD577m 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 2lst CENTURY 

JUAN MUNU 

CITY OF PORTLAND 

5001 NORTH COLUMBIA BLVD 

PORTLAND, OR 97293 

BRYAN MUNSON 

ARIZONA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

OFFICE OF WATER QUALITY 

3033 NORTH CENTRAL, 3RD FLQOR 

PHOENIX, AZ 85012 

DAYID NAGAMINE 

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU 

DIVISION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 

650 SOUTH KING ST 

HONOLULU, HI 96813 

MADONNA NARVAEZ 

US. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAWTHORNE ST 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 

ARISEN NAVARRET 

SAN FRANCISCO BUREAU/WATER 

POLLUTION CONTROL 

750 PHELPS ST 

SAN FRANc1sw, CA 94124 

DAVID NELSON 

US. EPA 

CERT 

1999 BROADWAY 

DENVER, CO SO202 

GEORGE NESERKE 

COORS BREWING CO 

BC110 

GOLDEN, CQ 80401 

INA NE2 PERCE 

FORT BELKNAP TRIBE 

WATER QUALITY PROGRAM 

RR II, P.O. BOX 66 

HARLEM, MT 595% 

CHERYL NIEMI 

WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY 

PRUDENTIAL BLDG. LACOY 

OLYMPIA, WA 98504 

TERESA NORRERGIUNG 

US. EPA 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY 

6201 CONGDON BLVD 

DULUTH, MN 55804 

ARACELI OAKES 

DYNAMAC CORPORATION 

2275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUITE 590 

ROCKVILLE, MD 2085&3%8 

EDWARDOHANIAN 

US. EPA 

HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT BRANCH 

4OlM!X,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

MELVIN OUtSON 

THE BOEING WMPANY 

P.O. BOX 3707, MS 7E-ER 

SEATTLE, WA 943~2207 

BOB OVERLY 

JAMES RIVER WRP 

500 DAY !3T, P.O. BOX 23799 

GREEN BAY, WI 54305-3790 

CHERYL OVERSTRREI’ 

US. EPA 

REGION 6 

1445 ROSS AVENUE (6W-QT) 

DALLAS, TX 752022733 

PATRICK PADIA 

WUNCIL OF ENERGY RESOURCE TRIBES 

1999 BROADWAY, SUITE ZOO 

DENVER, W 80202 

WIUIAMPAINIER 

US. EPA 

HO, OFFICE POLICY ANALYSES, OPA, OPPE 

401 M ST, SW (PM-221) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

A-15 
RAIUUVPALM=wII 

EIwINEERmGsQENcE,INc. 

78OO!iHQALCREEKDR,SUITE222W 

AU!iTIN, TX 78757 

KYUPAUUSR 

AZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONIUEM’AL 

QUAury 

3033NQRTHCENIRAL AVENUE,UU)FLOOR 

PHOENIX, Azsol2 

ADRlANPAlAMmNO 

US. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAwrHoRNE ST W-l1 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 

UWIS PAUL 

NE2 PERCETRIBE 

WATER RESOURCES 

P.O. BOX 365 

lAPwA&ID83540 

SPYROSPAVLOU 

EBAscoENwRoNMENrAL 

RISKASSESSMENT/RISKMANAGEMENT 

PROGRAMS 

109OONE8IXIsT 

BRIVUE, WAV 

STEVENPA-El 

AZDEPTOFENVIRONMENTALQUALITY 

3033 NORTH CENTRALAVE 

PHOENIX, AZ 85012 

DAVlD PRRlER 

WA DEFT OF ECOUXZY 

BASINPIANNINGANDSMNDARDS 

P.O. BOX 47ao 

OLYMPIA, WA 9t&O4-X00 

BIU ?ELTIER 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 4 

COLLEGE flATION RD 

ATHENS,GA3M5 

JAMES PENDERGASI’ 

US. EPA 

HO, OWEC, WQ & INDUslRlAL PERMlTs 

BRANCH 

4OlMST.SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

PAT PRRCOLA 

US. EPA 

REGION 2 

26 FEDERAL PLAZA (2WM) 

NEwY0RK,NY10278 

NANCY PERRY 

US. EPA 

HO, OFPICE OF SCIENCE~OLQGY 

401 M ST, (WI-I-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

!sAMDYNAMAC CORPORATION 

32275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUITE 500 

ROCKMILE,hdD20850-3268 

DAVID Pi’ElFRR 

US. EPA 

REGION 5 

n WEST JACKSON, WQS-16J 

CHICAGO, IL axM 

QUANG PHAM 

OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALrH 

WATER QUAUTY SERVIcEMo7 

loa,NEl~SIREET 

OKLAHOMA CTI’Y, OK 73117-1299 

DAM PHENMXE 

GEORGIA-PACIFlC WRPOMTION 

ENvtRoNMENrALREGUlAmRY AFFAIR!3 

l33PEKHmEEsT,NE 

ATLAW~GA30303 

KEmI PHMJm 

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 

SEDIMEIVI’MANAGEMENl’UIWf 

P.O. Box 47Rl3 

OLYMPlA, WA 985Ot7NI3 

A-16 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PDR THE 2lst CENIURY 

DANIELPICARD 

NEZPERCETRIBE 

P.O. BOX 365 

IAPwA&ID83540 

MARKPIFHER 

ANDERSON, JOHNSON AND GIANUNZO 

104 SOUTH tXSCADEAVE,SUlTEZD4 

WILmADo SPRINGS, w 80903 

MARJORIE PITIS 

US. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS 

401MST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

DAVID ?IVEITl 

HDR ENGINEERB% 

5175 HILJSDAlE CIRCLE 

ELDoRADoHILLs,u95672 

MICHEUS ?LA 

CITYOFSANFRANCISCQ/D~PUBLIC 

WORKS 

SAN FRANCISCO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM 

CITYOFSANFRAN~ 

SAN FRANcIsco, CA 94103 

JAMES= 

HAMlION ROAD!3 SANITATION DISTRICI’ 

1436AIRRAILAVE 

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23455 

RONALD KRTAIC 

NEW ENGLAND IIWEWSTATE 

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WMME%IQN 

85MERRIMACSTREET 

BOSTON, MA 02114 

GImuA~EY 

US. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS, ow/Io 

401 M Sr, SW (WI+556) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20160 

MARTHAPRoTHRO 

US. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS, OFFlCE OF WATER 

401 M ST, SW (WH-556) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20160 

JERRYRAISCH 

VRANESHANDRAISCH 

P.O. BOX 871 

BOULDER,Wl!MBf.X 

MARlAREA 

US. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAwTHoRNE!n 

SANv,CA94105 

LINDA RECK 

CITYOFLASVEGAS 

6005EASTVEGASVAIlEYDR 

LASVEGAS,W89122 

MICHAEL REICHERT 

UTAH DIVISION OF WATER QUALlTY 

288 NORTH, 1460 WEST, P.O. BOX 14483) 

SALTLAKECITY,UT84114-4870 

MARYREW 

US. EPA 

HO, OFFICE OF SCZENCE/TECHNQLQGY 

401 M Sr, SW (WH-586) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20160 

JOHN REUIER 

UNIVERSITY OF CAIlpoRNu-DAVIS 

~OFEcoI&GY 

DIVISION-ENVIRO-AL SIUDIES, UC 

DAVIS 

DAVIS, CA 95616 

DALE RISUNG 

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBALWUNUL 

P.O. Box 3x3 

HOOPA, CA 95546 

A-17 
A’ITENDEESLISI’ 

BAItBY ROYAU 

MI- DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALlTY 

P.O. Box mm 

JACKSON, MS 39289-0385 

FEIERRURIKR 

CITY OF EUGENE 

METROPO~AN SEWERAGE DISI’RICI’ 

410 RIVER AVE 

EUGENE, OR 97U34 

CABLRUIZ 

ALYESKA ~SERVICEW 

1835 SOUTH BRAGAN ST, MS 538 

ANCHORAGE, AK 99512 

ANNE RYAN 

US. EPA 

HO, OFFICE OF GENERAL WUNSBL 

4OlM!ZT,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 2(w60 

DAVlD !UBOCK 

US. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS 

401 M ST, SW (WH-585) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

CHARUE SANCHEZ, JR 

us. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

WMMMWAMS 

P.O. Box l306 

ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87lO3 

ROREM’A (ROBBI) SAVAGE 

ASSN OF SI’ATE AND BWERSI’AI’E WATER 

POLLUTION WNI’ROLADMINBTRA’IORS 

750FIR!sT!sT,NE,#910 

WASHINGTON, DC 20002 

BRENDASAYIES 

MICHIGAN DEPTOFNATURALRESOURCES 

SURFACE WATER QUALITY DMSION 

P.O. Box ma28 

lANSING,MI48909 

wIuIAMscHATz 

NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER 

DISIRIf3 

3826EUQlDAVENUE 

CLEVELAND, OH 44115 

PAUL SCIIEIMG 

NEVADA MINING ASSOCIATION 

REsouRcEANDENvIRoNxENrALAFFAIRs 

5250SOUTHVIRGINIAST,SUITE220 

RENo,w89502 

WAYNE SCHMIDT 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

GREAT LAKES NATIONAL RESOURCE 

802 MONROE STREEI’ 

ANNARBOR,MI48103 

DONALD SCHREGARDUS 

OHIO EPA 

P.O. BOX 1049,180O WATERMARK DRIVE 

WLUMBUS, OH 43246-014iJ 

DUANESC~ 

WI DEPTOFNA~RESOURCES 

P.O. BOX 7921 

MADISON, WI Srnn 

HMItYsERAYDAuAN 

US. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAwrHoRNE ST 

SAN FMNCISW, CA 94105 

RGRERTSEWARIll 

MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF PQLLUTION CONTROL 

P.O. BOX la385 

JACKSON, MS 34389Q385 

ROBERI’ SHANKS 

SACRAMENm RW WUWY SANIT’ATION 

DI!?I’RIC3 

966OECOKKiYlANE 

sA(xAMmvncA95827 

A-18 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FQR THE 2lst CENI’URY 

IAMY SHRPARD 

US. EPA 

REGION 7 

726 MINNESOTA AVE 

KANSAS CITY, KS 66101 

LESLIE SHOEMARER 

TmRATEcH 

lo306 EATON PLACE, SUITE 340 

FAIRFAX, VA 2203 

SHON SIMrSON 

OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD 

600 NORTH HARVEY, P.O. BOX 150 

OKIAHOMA CITY, OK 731014150 

TIMOTHY SINNCYIT 

NY DEPT OF ENVIRONMEKTAL 

CONSERVATION 

50 WOLF ROAD 

ALBANY, NY 122334756 

JON SJOBERG 

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 

4747 VEGAS DRIVE 

LASVEGAS, NV89108 

DEBBIE SMITH 

CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY WNTROL 

BOARD 

LOS ANGELES REGION 

101 CENTRE PLAZA DRIVE 

MONTEREY PARR, CA 91754-2156 

IVAN SMITH 

‘ID:dTO APACHE TRIBE 

119 TONTO APACHE RESERVATION 

PAISON, AZ 85541 

KATHRYN SMITH 

US. EPA 

HQ, OWEC, ENFORCEMENT DMSION 

4OlMST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

LW SMITH 

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TECHNICIAN 

WATER QUALITY PROGRAM 

P.O. BOX 73 

LANTRY, SD 57636 

SIWHEN SMITH 

MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 217,lST AND SPRUCE 

CASSLAKE,MN56633 

DAVID SNYDER 

L.A.CS.D. 

1955 WORKMAN MILL ROAD 

WHITTIERCA90607 

EUZABEIliSOUTHERIAND 

US. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS 

401MST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

THOMAS SPALDING 

METROPOLIT’AN SEWER DISTRICT 

LQUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY 

1825 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET 

UxJISvIuE, KY mo3-1603 

ROBERT SFBHAR 

US. EPA 

ENVIRONMENTALRESEARCHIAB 

6201 WNGDON BLVD 

DULUTH, MN 55804 

AuANsmREs 

IOWA DEFT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECIlON DMSION 

9OOEA!RGIWNDAVE 

DES MOINES, IA 50319 

BOB SUUIVAN 

LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 

37UOWEST~NBLVD 

LA!SVEGAS,W89153 

A-19 
mu SWAN 

RENO-SPARKSWWI’F 

8500 a&AN WATER WAY 

RI?No,Nvlmo2 

THoMAsswIHART 

FURIDA DEPTOFENVIRONMEMAL 

REGULATION 

2t3OBLAXRSKMJER.D 

TALLAHMSEE,FL323@%%NJ 

DAVID TAGtIE 

NEWMEXICOENVIRO~DEPARTMENr 

SURFACE WATER QUALITY BUREAU 

1190 ST. FRANCE5 DRIVE, P.O. BOX a6110 

!WWApE,NM87XG 

DON TANG 

U.S. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS, oRD/oEFiTD 

4olMsT*SW 

WASHINGTON, DC m 

DENICETAYUM 

ii%ikD AVE (MS 81) 

SEATILB, WA 98104 

LYDIATAYu)R 

OREGON DEPT OF ENVIRO-AL 

QUALITY 

WATER OUAIJTY DIVISION 

811 SW 6TI-I AVENUE 

PORTIAND, OR 97204 

SmvEmDDER 

NC DHPT OF ENVIRONMPM’AL 

MANAGBMEIW 

WATER OUAIJT’Y SECIlON 

512 NORTH SAIJSBURY ST 

RALEIGH,NC27604 

BARBARA- 

-0FARlulNA 

WAIER RESOURCB CBNTER 

3!50 NORTH CAMPBELL AVE 

TucsoN, Az8!5?21 

NEuoNTlmMA8 

US. EPA 

ENVIRO~ALRESEARCHMB-DULUTH 

6201 CONGDON BLVD 

DULUTEgMN55804 

fnEvENTHoMPsoN 

OKUHOMA DEPT OF POLLUTION CONTROL 

P.O. BOX 53so4 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73152 

GRwoRYmoRPE 

NC DIVISION OF ENVIRONMEMAL 

MANAGEMEHT 

WATER OUAIJTY SECI’ION 

512 NORTH SAIJSBURY ST 

RALEIGH, NC 27604 

wDoLPHTHuT 

wBYERHABusER co 

TBCHNOWGY CBNrER 

32901 WEYERHAEUSER WAY SOUTH 

FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 

ERICIK TOMR 

ITI’ RAYONlER INCORPORATED, RESEARCH 

409 EMT HARVARD 

SHELTON. WA B 

HEAlliERTRIM 

CA REGIONAL WQ awrROL BOARD 

IA REGION 

220422NDsT 

SANTAMomC&CA9040!5 

REBEccAmJDEN 

US. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAwIHoRNEsr 

SAN FRANcIsco, CA 9410s 

slEPHENmIIwEu. 

TEXAS WATER tXMMSSlON 

1700 NORTH CONGRE!SS 

AUm, TX 78711 

A-20 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 2ld CENTURY 

GARY ULlJNseEY 

CITY OF PHOENIX 

3319WESTEARLLDR 

PHOENIX, AZ 85017 

WILLARD UNDER BAGGAGE 

QGIAIA SIOUX TRIBE 

WATER POLLUTION CONTRL-WATER 

RESOURCE DEPARTMENT 

P.O. BOX 883 

PINERIDGE,SDS7770 

DEBoRAHvERREuI 

U.S. EPA 

ALASKA OPERATIONS OFP’ICE 

410 WEUX)UGHBY AVE, SUITE 100 

JUNEAU, AK 99801 

AWADE~ALI!J 

QGLALA SIOUX TRIBE 

WATER RESOURCE DEFT 

P.O. BOX 883 

PINE RIDGE, SD 57770 

DALBVODBHNAL 

US. EPA 

REGION 8 

99918THST,SUITE500 

DENVER, Co 80202-MO5 

CHING VOLPP 

NJ DEPT OF ENVIRON PRtYIECIION AND 

ENERGY 

401 EASTSTATEST 

TRENTQN, NJ 08625 

MICHELe vuulm 

DYNAMACCORPORATION 

2275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUTTE 500 

ROQMLLE,M.D-3268 

PRflz WAGENBR 

U.S. EPA 

REGION 4 

345 COURTLAND ST 

ATIANTA, GA 30365 

ANTHONY WAGNER 

CHEMICAL MANUFACI’URESASSQCIATION 

25OlMST,NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 2Xi37 

JOHN WAGNER 

STATE OF WYOMING 

DEFT OF ENV QUALITY-WATER QUAIJTY 

DIV 

HERSCHLER BLDG, 4 WEST 

cHEYENN&wY82002 

PAUL WAGNER 

PYRAMID IAKE FISHERIES 

STAR ROUTE 

SUTCLIFFE, NV 89510 

LARRYWALKER 

IARRY WALKER ASSQCIATES, INC. 

5094THsT 

DAVIS, CA 95616 

ROBERT WAILUS 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

1101 MARKET ST, HB2C-C 

CHATrANNooGA, TN 37402~ml 

GERALD WAL’IER 

GREAT IAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION 

COMMERCIALDEVEU)PMENT 

28OlKENTAVE 

WESTLAFAYEIT&IN479M 

CRAIG WALTON 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

BIUVIROI’JMI3WAL SERVICES/WATER 

OUAIlTY 

P.O. BOX 7640 

sANFIuwcIscQ*cA94120 

KIWINWANITAJA 

SALTRIVERPROJECT 

WATER AND WASTE DMSION/ENV SVCS 

P.O. BOX 52ms (PAB3.52) 

PHoEND&Az85u7smu 

A-21 
ATI’ENDEBSLIST 

JAM&SWSK%BYANDAUS’I’I.N 

ONE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA 

CHICAGO, IL ma3 

RUBY WARE 

MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

DNR/ENV 

HCR 67, P.O. BOX 194 

ONAM&MN56359 

THOMASWARE 

MRLB IACS BANDS OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

WATER QUALITY, DNR/ENV 

HCR 67, P.O. BOX 194 

ONAMI&MN56359 

ROBERT WEAVER 

SAUL, EWING, REMICK AND SAUL 

1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 24KIO4-2!%M 

MARY WELCH 

SAIC 

1228 NORTH TAyulR ST 

ARLINGTON, VA 22201 

MICHAEL WHEUIER 

PUGET SOUND WATER OUAUTY AUTHORITY 

P.O. BOX a!300 

OLYMPLA, WA m 

DIANA WHI’INEY 

CITY OF RIVERSIDE 

595oACQRNST 

RIvERsIDE,cA92504 

LINDAWILBUR 

U.S. EPA 

HEADOUARTERS 

401 M ST, SW (WH-551) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

KIRKTEXASDEPTOFHEALTH 

DIVISION OF SHeLLFIsH SANIT’ATION 

1100WEsT4YrHsr 

AUSTIN, TX 78753 

‘IBRRYWIUIAMS 

TuLALIPFIsHERIEsoFFIcE 

Ml5 TOTEM BEACH ROAD 

MARYVILLE, WA 98271 

EILEEN WISSER 

GEA 

ASTRO SPACE DIVISION 

230 GODDARD BLVD, VzlM 

KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 

PHIL WOODS 

US. EPA 

REGION 9 

75 HAWTHORNEST 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 

FoRREm wooDwIcK 

AZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENI’ 

3303 NORTH -3RDFLOOR 

PHOENIX, AZ 85012 

DAVID WORD 

GEORGIA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

ENVIRONMENTL PROT DIV. WATER PROT 

BRANCH 

205BUTLER,SE-STE10!58,E.FU)YDTOWERS 

ATLANTA, GA 303% 

JIM WRENJARVIS 

CLARK COUNTY SANITATION DKI’RICI’ 

5857EA!zFlAMINGoRD 

IAsvBGAs,Nv89l22 

THOMAS WRlGIfI’ 

US. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS 

EXPERIMENT STATION (-ES-R) 

3909HAllsFERRYROAD 

VICKSBURG, MS 39180-6199 

CHIEH wu 

US. EPA 

HEADQUARTERS 

4OlMST,SW 

WASHING’I’ON. DC 20460 

A-22 
WATER OUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY 

BUWUEKI’HEIE 

US. EPA 

REGION 8 

99918THsT,surlE500 

DENVER, Co 802024446 

ANDREW ZACHERLE 

TETRATECH 

10306 EATON PLACE, SUITE 340 

FAIRFAX, VA 22030 

CHRIS ZARBA 

US. EPA 

HEADOUARTERS 

401 MST,SW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

PAUL ZUCGER 

MICHIGAN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

SURFACE WATER OUALITY DMSION 

300 SOUTH WASHINGTON 

LANSING, MI 48917 

A-23 
1 L 

Appendix B: 

Evaluation 

Comments 
NATIONAL MEETING EVALUATION SUMMARY 

Sixty-two evaluation forms were received. The meeting received an average score of 7.5 on 

a scale of 1 to 10. The majority of attendees felt the objectives were clearly stated (47), and 

all but one felt the objectives were completely or partially met. The top three sessions listed 

as very useful were Independent Applicability, Biological Measures, and Effluent Dependent 

Streams, respectively. 

1. EPA RISK-BASED APPROACH/SOUND SCIENCE 

Comments: 

EPA needs to pay 

more attention to this 

policy throughout its 

organization. Both 

are necessary to 

establish and maintain program credibility. 

What is “sound science?” Is EPA really committed to such science? I don’t remember these 

issues being addressed. 

Need to quit having substitutes give speeches. 

Probably best possible approach to absence of main speaker. 

Not adequate, did not contain any practical information or potential methods. 

Although perhaps unavoidable, message in LaJuana’s absence not very positive (and strong to 

some!) 

Graphics and some “broad perspective” descriptions by Bill Diamond very relevant and 

helpful. 

I’m disappointed that this was omitted. 

Too general, but good as introduction. 

B-l 
2. LIFE AFTER TOXICS 

Comments: 

Not too much in the 

way of “what 

direction now?” 

Regional flexibility is 

essential to obtain “buy in” to nonpoint source program and to move to more stringent 

standards affecting point source dischargers. 

Toxics are not solved, major reexamination of the science and applicability are required. 

With 1/3 of the States and territories not adopting, it is clear that a national initiatives range 

of values for varying conditions is necessary to achieve a firm basis to regulate toxics. 

3. BIOLOGICAL MEASURES 

Comments: 

Valuable and useful 

tool; however, 

variability problem 

requires caution and 

discretionary judgment 

when applied to compliance and enforcement activities. 

Major emphasis on sewage systems and point source. Need more on NPS from agriculture 

sources. This is a very important area, but after attending several EPA WQ workshops, I 

have yet to see this area appropriately addressed. 

The competing uses, especially in the West, must be resolved addressed at the National 

policy level. The WQ Criteria contain an eastern bias. 

Harper speech was “slow.” 

Did not meet the stated purpose or include any detail on success. 

Overall session well presented, well run. Forest Service presentation seemed too elementary 

(but acknowledged), and too “party-line” regarding enforceable standards issues. 

More time and speakers should have been allowed. 

B-2 
Like it or not engineers, this tbc “wave” of the standah future! 

Needed mo= specific description of biological measures to be considered. 

4. csos/wET WEATHER 

Good presentations. 

Not clear of EPA’s 

position or where 

Congress may be 

headed. 

Very Useful Usefill Adequate Inadequate 1 

4 7 3 1 

Need moFc discussion on CSO control programs that have been or are being built. Less on 

CSO projects still in the early planning phase. San Fhncisco’s presentation was excellent. 

Focused only on technology-based approaches to CSO. Did not address relevancy of WQC 

to CSOs or wet events. 

5. WHOLE EIFTLUENT mxIcrIY 

comments: 

Throw theengineers 

out! 

Good lmckgmund for 

someone who needed 

it. 

\ / 

Very Useful Useful Inadequate 

13 20 2 

Good range of speakem, guod presentations, some “counter-point” or pcrspaztive from 

Regioml EPA would be helpful. 

I would have liked to have lo& more about EPA’s views. 

NC is a demonstrated state in this field. 

Old information. 

B-3 
6. INDEPENDENTAPPLIcABILITY 

czammaw 

Mter support for 

- 

applicabiity would 

havebahncedthe 

p-0 

. 

Very Useful Useful Inadequate 

31 22 2 1 \ 

Just opinions with no organ&ion which develops direction. 

Good badground for someone who needed it. 

Good to gcd EPA perspective and pcrqtion of concerned environmental groups. 

Weight of evidence is the only approach that makes good public policy. 

It did not really deal witb the difference between iadeQeadent applicability as a princiik for 

&y&&g criteha or as a principle for m criteria. The speakers and moderator talked 

too long, did not have enough time for questions. 

7. EUMANEKALTERISKMANAG~ 

HspacMY wVery Useful Usefill Adequate Iardaquw 

particiiof 5 25 4 2 

Tribes. HopeBPA \ 

was ustening. 

Idormative to home awaxe of problems that exist in specific gnus (e.g., Native 

. 

-1 

Nor useful, strictly posturing by speaken. 

Session needed mom focus. Would have been hem1 for modemtor to pnsent mo= detail 

onBPApodionmdhowitwasderived. 

Some speakers very good, particularly Wii qmsentative. 

B-4 
Very disappointed with the shallowness of the pFwentations. 

Good range, but lack of very clearly defined focus or any attempt to nzach mlution. 

8. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY 

commemts: 

Moderator did not 

leave enough time for 

questions. 

Very Useful Useful Inadequate 

4 9 4 

Chris zarba saved the 

discussion and did an excellent job of Fepxesenting EPA’s sediment activities. Yeah Chris! 

Serious questions as to validity and need for sediment criteria. EPA shategy needs to go to 

public comment. 

9. ADVOCATESFORUM 

c-: 

Too mwly focused. very Util Useful Adecluate Inadcollatc 

7 24 23 1 

Kind of unf&Med. 

Good selection of 

speakers, but failure to ef%ctively interact with whole group; not sure how to change. 

I had little expectaGons for this session, and they were met. 

May have helped to cover moFe issues. 

Noquesthnswerereadfimtbeaudshandedin. 

Totally useless - no one wants to have six peupk say what everybody knows and is old. 

Too much rhetoric and little substance. 

Well done! Congratulations to Dave Sabock and the whole panel. Do more of these. 

B-5 
10. ECOIAXXCAL RISK 

TbereWWdaquabe 

Very Useful Usefill Adaqurrte - 

time for qucdoos, but 1 17 13 2 

speakersstillcouldbe , 

briefer. ‘l’kre was 

notaloughaaentkn 

totheis!WofhowBaHi&- fitShtOCWA-sbladardsreguLdoyStIUdU~. 

Theonlyspcakerworthlistahgtowasonunatahty. Tbeotbcrsputmctoskcpwitb 

their garbage. 

Thebestsession. 

Way too t!mmtid. 

An emeqing “technology” with questionable crcdibii. 

Allpmamionswcmoocompkxtobcuscibl. Tbemlidnatsecmtobcmpch~ 

fiom2yearsago. 

Ec&gicdRisknotbeneficial;entirelytootbeo~. HumanHealthlX!4bIl~tlat 

belter (I moval!). 

Gamally poorpmaM&am. 

Again, good diversity. 

11. EUMANEEALTERISKASS~ 

ShCChdthClitfh very U8cful Usdill m I=Jwmayhaveanermof 3 7 5 

plus/minus lO’, why 

do they exist? 

B-6 
Professor Foran did an excellent job. 

Old arguments and issues being restated does not help either regulators or dischargers. 

Aspects of zero discharge discussed. This concept is fundamental to accomplishing the goals 

of the Clean Water Act. 

l2. EFFLUENTDEPENDENTSTREXMS 

commeats: \ 

Mr. Gregory stated in 

20 minutes what has 

concemed me in 

Missouri for 20 yrs. I 

support his views 

fully. 

Very Useful Useful Adequate Lnadaquate, 

20 15 15 2 

A bit too much rambling! 

The speakers were terrible and well below the quality of other panels. 

Good example of the polarization that prevents environmental protection, through combined 

efforts of all groups. Michael Gregory does not speak for all the public as he claims, and 

doubtfblly for the majority. 

Gther States besides western ones also have ephemeral stream dischargen--we have 

addressed that. What is so special about western arid States? Phosphorus detergent banshave they been considered by the States. 

Needs policy to bring wide range of issues into focus, i.e., what species should we protect 

and what conditions should we promote? Should causes be undone? 

Speakers did tend to ramble. 

This was absent the technical info that makes development, support, or opposition possible 

for these issues. 

The level (i.e., technical sophistication) of several speakers was almost insulting to some in 

the audience. Although appropriate to hear all perspectives, the speakers should be informed 

of potential audience level of sophistication. 

Liveliest session; good ending session. 

D-7 
‘Ibis should have been a breakaut, bd limited applkability. 

This was the best session/panel of the entire program! 

Lowonlybaxusedoesnothaveapplicationtomygeog@icazea. 

Potehlly the most important issue. Unfortunately the p~tations by Brinsko and Forster 

werenotwellfoarsedontheissucs. 

13. ASK EPA 

Mostly EPA asking vely u&l1 Usefill Adequrte Inadequate. 

BPA and political 18 20 4 2 

v-h= 

worthwhik to hear 

EPAgoalsd&ctionandimp~plans. 

Although I appreciate EPA’s intenxt in our opinions via “Opinion Poll on Priority Activitks” 

thelanguageusadianQortiagontbe~ltJindicatesthatBpAis~goingtonacessarily 

change the priorities-“Sulprisu$ ” “Interesting” that items which w being acted on ranked 

low. 

. . kiddamlcommeats: 

Increa&BpApm onpanelswouklhavebeenhelpfultoexplainanddefaxIseveral 

EPA pmgrams ad perspeaks and, hopefully, to discus at least obviis “d herrings.” 

oVenll,the~~orgaaizcrsaretobecoagrotulatedfortbe~~(andrangeof 

peqeaives)ofspeakem. Uafortuaptely,thesizeofthegnnrpdidwtallowthedegFbeof 

interaction with the larger group (not sure if, e.g., smaller breakout session would have 

worked). 

IworlrrtBPA,aoIdidn’t~mucb#w,butamaueitw~~~o. Should 

hvebearmoFe”socirlboun”to~k~kto”meetmdmix”moFe. Withsuchaiargc 

confeence, sending pwpk for meals on their own meant most being out with folks they 

ahdy know. 

B-8 
Overall, too much of an “inba-EPA” co&rem-suppotig each group’s programs and 

concep&; really needed to have more non-EPA -tation in audience and spend time on 

comments/questions--need smaller mtmdtable4ype sessions. 

Very much, very good information, I often wonder how much EPA listens to opposing 

viewpoints, however, given that policy bears little resemblance to other viewpoints. 

Tighten up the time for formal presentations. Leave more time for questions. We still need 

w audience participation. 

EPA’s effort to do this is to be commended. Need more agriculture nonpoint source activity. 

USDA-SCS initiated the National WQ Technology Development Staff (NWQTDS) based in 

Fort Worth, TX, in FY 89 to address Resident’s 5-year WQ Plan. This staff has been very 

focused and very productive in area of NPS agriculture activities. Unfortunately, SCS has 

axedthisstaffbyeadofpY~tosupporttheirpOrtcOllins,CO,boondoggle. Itappears 

they will be making very littk contribution to technology in this area after Fy 92. Does this 

concern EPA? Does anyone in the Gfflce of Water or Pesticides & Toxics cam to ask Chief 

Richards why they gave up this effort? Or what they intend to do (Fort Collins won’t 

SUffiCC). 

Generally Good Conference - Problem with entire conference is the representation, or lack 

ofit,frwnG~BasinStatetodiscu~WWQC/WQSissuesastheyrelatetoarid~. 

National Standads don’t apply in Nevada and other Great Basii States. 

Need list of participants early in meeting. Need opportunity for social interaction of EPA 

StafT. 

The format of the meeting this year is excellent; three different view points; regulator, 

regulated, and environmental groups, all are Feprrtsentcd in most of the panels. 

Three-fourths of the workshop is red&cussing things from the previous two workshops. Why 

do we keep going over p1p information - These workshops should be geared to future world 

and future ideas; not historic things that should have been implemented 

Las Vegas is a horrible choice for a setting (please include a “Poor” or “Un&&@ory . 

xating on your evaluation sheet). 

Mom topics in Workshop format with general session reports would be more bmeflcial. 

ThebasicfonaatoftbeB~Sessioaswasa~waytoshowthe~mofopiniolw 

on the various issues. Speakers were generally excellent and gave stmng support for their 

viewpoints. 

B-9 
Youshouldlimitque3tioasfiomtbeaudkncetooneperperson. Also,EPAshouldpqm 

ll%pomorpo6itknpapersonissuesraisedattlliscoafenace. 

Icannotbelievetheshallownessand&Jquacyofthismeeting. -this&m 

hashecnacompletewasteoftime. Itisnowoaderwe~havingsuchdifficultynatkmwide 

with WQ Rotcction. EPA can’t or won’t seriously address development of infotion and 

optionsnecds. 

Overall the conference was very succe&ul. Nons were informative, pnxnting 

difkentsi&sofeveryissue. I%econferencewaswellorgani&toallowcnoughtimefor 

pnseatrtions and qu&ons (comments). m. 

Overall very useful meeting, especially biocriteria-rehtad discussions. EPA should 

colKmmeeffoltsinrevkwingthecriteria-, thetoxicity~,andthePriority 

IWhntsl.ist. BPAsbouldalsobrvethe~~ofArPlinPwitbtbtpolicy~. 

Human health criteria should be EPA’s mponsibii. States should have more qxm&ility 

indevelopiithemoreprogxessive~thatcharcrcterizeRepionalconcerns suchasthe 

biocriteria development, &iment criteria, and the aquatic and wildl%e numbers for the 

dmrellt designated uses. 

Most panels we= pretty well bakccd. Would be nice to have EPA speakers on each panel; 

not just as moderators. 

Suggest that a puticipant list be provided in registration packet. P10vide box for colkting 

plastic badge holders for reuse. 

You should rest& speaken to “make presentations” and communicate with the audia; not 

mad papers. Many poor pnserrtations of generally good material. 

Very informative. I enjoyed it. 

Bffort to mate debate was very u&l. Additional meetings should try to create further 

debate. 

Overall, the cod- could have been improved by: (1) Modentorsaaedadtobcmucb 

moreconcise-Most(exceptHarrySenydarisur~Junes~)spdretoolonganddid 

~cleUlylayouttheproblcmtobeaddnxBd by the panel; (2) Better, clearer pnsentatiocw 

bymany~--ahadout(~ilattothatmPibdoutbyGao~SocietyofAmericr 

for Conferences) might have helped people to pnpare ckarer, moFt concise overheads and 

slides; (3) Modenton couldhavedoneabetterjobkadingoffexcu&e”comnmts” bythe 

. -i.e., Human Health Risk w; (4)Iappnx&dthewiderangeofpoints 

ofviewthatwexepr#easad. AlthoughIappnz&eBPA’sin&restinouropinkmsvia 

“opinioapollOapriorityAdiV~,“tbelurgurgeusedinFeportiagOatbensUbsindicrrtes 

B-10 
that EPA is m going to necessarily change the priorities--“Surprised,” “Interesting” that 

items which m being acted on ranked low. 

More emphasis on Human Health issues. 

Bxcellent conference. Suggest an annual event. Try to encourage “speakers” not to mad 

their talks. Speeches that are read are boring. Also encourage use of slides to bmak 

monotony of some talks. Include canal issues on next agenda. Good job of keeping speakers 

on time although there were some slipups. Sessions shouldn’t go beyond 4:30. Schedule an 

hour and 15 minutes for lunch. Las Vegas is a good location because it’s cheap and we can 

afford it on our chintzy State per diem. 

Good cotierence. Poor notice of logistics, e.g., rendezvous point for tour, last minute 

assignment of breakout session rooms, etc. Good substantive sessions, in particular, 

Mependent Applicability session. 

Meeting only provided opinions. No indication of where EPA is going on these issues. 

(1) Make name tags with fvst & u names in huge print. Some of us know names, but 

would like to be able to put faces to those names. The last names are so small one must get 

very close to someone to mad the name tag. In certain situations that could be very rude. (2) 

I appreciated the fact that the panels consisted of people with opposing views. This was 

especially good for EDS and Biological measures. 

I think I could have formulated better questions ( to ask presenters and EPA) if I had more 

advance information prior to the conference. Perhaps sending out abstracts before the 

meeting would serve this purpose. Also, I heard a lot about WQ problems that we face 

today, but I’m not sure I’m clear on what lies ahead in the area of criteria (more stringent or 

same?). 

Thanks for making this a “free, ” i.e., no registration fee, conference! Format good. 

Manageable number of topics. Appreciate the level of EPA management involvement. 

Please choose a better location next time (e.g., Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, etc.)! 

It would be useful to have regional-based meetings more frequently than the l&month 

national meeting--where specific topics can be defined. National and regional EPA staff 

could attend. Meetings should be set up without specific speakers, but with moderators. 

Breakouts should all be on the same topics, but limited to a round table discussion of 25-30 

people. Attendees should be prepared to discuss theii specifics related to each topic so that 

problems that EPA, States, dischargers, environmentalists face can be dealt with and regional 

solutions can begin to be proposed. Qnce WQ solutions are proposed, there must be 

interaction with solid waste and air quality groups before implementation. 

B-11