Document 9Le6RqRxxgVXyzZmjoXyorKxq

'syyj0AJt j? auf Ur ^ ^rr }fa JU /yrt+j frtASi-s *4i ^ ^ #* &LM. ALLEN J. TOLMSOFF J /A A/ SL 105926 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT-IO^f AGENCY REGION VI DALLAS, TEXAS 7S202 P / QJ September 21, 1988 Mr. Dugan Sabins Water Pollution Control Division Department of Environmental Quality P.0. Box 44091 DALLAS, TEXAS 7S202 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-4091 Dear Mr. Sabins: Enclosed is some additional material regarding EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely vours. * L Enclosure cc: (w/out copy of enclosure) Maureen O'Neill Assistant Secratery, OWR, LDEQ Mike Schurtz Program Manager, WPCD, OWR, LDEQ SL 105927 Enclosed are some background information and accessing instructions for the U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) that you requested. The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) offers the IRIS data base on floppy disks at a price of $125.00 for the high density disks and $225.00 for the low density disks. The disks are updated quarterly and must be purchased quarterly for the most current information. If you wish to purchase the disks from NTIS, contact Stu Wiseman at 703/487-4763. If you wish to use IRIS on line, see the enclosed Dialcom information. If you have any questions, please feel free to call IRIS User Support at 513/569-7254. SL 105928 TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from Bill Farland IRIS Introduction IRIS Limitations Federal Register Notice IRIS Questions & Answers Chemicals on the Integrated Risk Information System IRIS Chemical File Structure Sample File from the Integrated Risk Information System IRIS Brochure Si 105929 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 APR 15 1533 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Dear Risk Assessor: I am very pleased to announce the availability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS is an on-line database of chemical-specific risk information on the relationship between chemical exposure and estimated human health effects. IRIS was developed for EPA staff and contractors to serve as a guide for EPA risk assessments, but because many other parties have indicated how useful IRIS information would be to them, EPA is making the database available outside the Agency. IRIS provides chemical-specific risk data that represents an EPA scientific consensus. The database presents a summary of information on chemical hazard identification and dose-response assessment, thus, IRIS is not an exhaustive toxicological database. IRIS translates chemical health effects data into a form which is useful in'taking action to protect public health. Thus, IRIS bridges a significant gap in the transmission of information needed to reduce risks to human health. The database provides quantitative risk values and necessary qualitative health effects information which can act as guidance for deciding what action is necessary to protect the public health. Without this combined quantitative and qualitative information, it is often difficult for a risk manager to make decisions on how to best protect human health. m The information in IRIS is an authoritative interpretation of chemical health effects data. The quantitative risk values and supporting explanation has been reviewed and agreed upon by scientists from across the Agency using available studies on a substance. Thus, the information in IRIS represents an expert Agency consensus. This Agency-wide agreement on risk information is one of the most valuable aspects of IRIS. SL 105930 2- - Currently, there are risk summaries in IRIS for 260 chemicals. IRIS is regularly updated -- new chemicals are added, and existing information on the chemicals is updated as new scientific data is reviewed. Additional risk information win be included on the chemicals to best meet the needs of EPA users. Thus, to ensure use of the most up-to-date chemical information, IRIS is only available on-line. There are several ways to establish on-line access to IRIS. An enclosure explains how to access the IRIS database and who to contact for IRIS training. We at EPA are encouraged by the demand for IRIS and hope that you find the database useful as you perform risk assessments. Sincerely, William H. Fariand, Ph.D. Acting Director Office of Health and Environmental Assessment SL 105931 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF IRIS The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), prepar -d and maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is an elt ctronlc data base containing health risk and EPA regulatory Information on sr edfic chemicals. IRIS was developed for EPA staff in response to a growing a mand for consistent risk information on chemical substances for use n decision-making and regulatory activities. Although IRIS is designed for EPA staff, it is also accessible to state and local environmental health agencies. IRIS is available to libraries, private citizens, and other organizations by means of Dialcom, Inc.'s Electronic Mail telecommunication:> system. The information in IRIS is Intended for EPA staff without extensi't training in toxicology, but with some knowledge of health sciences. The heart of the IRIS system is its collection of compu er files covering individual chemicals. These chemical files contain descrlptl e and quantitative information in the following categories: o Oral and inhalation reference doses (RfDs) for c' ironic noncardnogenic health effects o Oral and inhalation slope factors and unit risks for chronic exposures to carcinogens o Drinking water health advisories from EPA's Off ce of Drinking Water o EPA regulatory action summaries o Supplementary data on acute health hazards ai d physical/chemical properties To aid users in accessing and understanding the data in the IRIS chemical files, the following supportive documentation is pr vided: SL 105932 o Alphabetical list of the chemical files in IRIS and list of chemicals by CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service) number. o Background documents describing the rationales and methods used in arriving at the results shown in the chemical files. o A user's guide that represents step-by-step procedures for using IRIS to retrieve chemical Information. o An example exercise in which the use of IRIS is demonstrated. o Glossaries in which definitions are provided for the acronyms, abbreviations, and specialized risk assessment terms used in the chemical files and in the background documents. RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT The information in IRIS is intended for use in protecting public health through risk assessment and risk management These two processes are briefly explained below. Risk assessment has been defined as "the characterization of the potential adverse health effects of human exposures to environmental hazards (NRC, 1983, p. 18). In a risk assessment the extent to which a group of people has been or may be esmosed to a certain chemical is determined, ana the extent of exposure is then considered in relation to the kind and degree of hazard posed by the chemical, thereby permitting an estimate to be made of the present or potential health risk to the group of people involved. Risk assessment information is used in the risk management process in deciding how to protect public health. Examples of risk management actions include: deciding how much of a chemical a company may discharge into a river; determining which substances may be stored at a hazardous waste disposal facility; deciding to what extent a hazardous waste site must be cleaned up; setting permit levels for discharge, storage, or transport of hazardous waste; establishing levels for air emissions; and determining allowable levels of contamination in drinking water. Essentially, risk assessment provides information on the health risk, and risk management is the action taken based on that information. A complete risk assessment consists of the following four steps: 2 SJL 105933 1. Hazard identification, Z Dose-response assessment, a Exposure assessment and 4. Risk characterization, with risk characterization being the transitional step to risk management Hie following discussion of the four steps of risk assessment was excerpted from "Principles of Risk Assessment: A Nontechnical Review" fU.S. EFA, 1985). Hazard identification involves gathering and evaluating data on the types of health injury or disease that may be produced by a chemical and on the conditions of exposure under which Injury or disease is produced. It may also Involve chararacterlzatlon of the behavior of a chemical within the body and the interactions it undergoes with organs, cells, or even part of cells. Data of the latter types may be of value in answering the ultimate question of whether the forms of toxicity known to be produced by a substance in one population group or in experimental settings are also likely to be produced in humans. Hazard identificatlon is not risk assessment: we are simply determining whether it is scientifically correct to infer that toxic effects observed in one setting will occur in other settings (e.g., whether substances found to be carcinogenic or teratogenic in experimental animals are likely to have the same results in humans). Dose-response assessment involves describing the quantitative relationship between the amount of exposure to a substance and the extent of toxic Injury or disease. Data are derived from animal studies, or less frequently, from studies in exposed populations. There may be many different toxic effects under different conditions of exposure. The risks of a substance cannot be ascertained with any degree of confidence unless dose-response relationships are quantified, even if the substance is known to be toxic. Exposure assessment involves describing the nature and size of the population exposed to a substance and the magnitude and duration of their exposure. The evaluation could concern past or current exposures, or exposures anticipated in the future. Risk characterization generally involves the integration of the 3 SL 105934 assessment proce: 3 (hazard identification, dose-response assessment, and t cposure assessment) to determine the likelihood that hu lans will experience any of the various forms of toxicity assodai ,*d with a substance. (In cases where exposure data are lot available, hypothetical risk can be characterized by t e integration of nazard identification and dose-response ass ssment data alone.) A framework to define the significance of he risk is developed, and all of the assumptions, unc rtainties, and scientific Judgments of the preceding three st ps are presented. THE ROLE OF IRIS IN USK ASSESSMENT/RISK MANAGEMENT IRIS is a tool tha provides hazard identification and dose-response assessment informatio i, but does not provide situational information on instances of exposure. < ombined with specific exposure information, th data in IRIS can be use i for characterization of the public health risks of a given chemical in . given situation, which can then lead to a risk management decision esigned to protect public health* The information a ntained in Section I (Chronic Health Hazard Assessment for Noncarc logenic Effects) and Section n (Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Sxposure) of the IRIS chemical files represents a consensus Judgment of Spa's Reference Dose (RfD) Work Group or Carcinogen Risk Assessr lent Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) Work Group, respectively. These two Agency-wide work groups include high-level scientists from EPA's program offi< is (hazardous waste, air, pesticides) and the Office of Research and Developm nt. Individual EPA offices have conducted comprehensive scientific reviews of the literature available on the particular chemical, and have perfi rmed the first two steps of risk assessment: hazard evaluation and dose-res' onse assessment These assessments have been summarized for IRIS ani reviewed and revised by the appropriate work group. As new information becc nes available, these work groups will re-evaluate their work and revise IRIS file accordingly. For more information, contact IRIS User Support in EPA's E lvtronmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Cincinnati. OH (513/56 J-7254 or FTS 684-7254). REFERENCES NRC (National Research Council). 1983. The Nature of Risk Assessment. In: Risk Assessment in the : ederal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press. Washing :on, DC. p. 18. U. S. EPA 1985. Princ: lies of Risk Assessment: A nontechnical review. Prepared for a risk asset sment workshop. Easton, MD. March 17-18. 4 SL 105935 LIMITATIONS OF IRIS INFORMATION The information in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is most useful if applied in the larger context of risk assessment as outlined by the National Academy of Sciences. IRIS supports the first two steps of the risk assessment process (as summarized in Service Code (menu option) 4): namely, the hazard identification and dose-response assesssment steps. The prtmsuy qualitative and quantitative risk data in IRIS, the reference doses (RTDs) and carcinogen assessments, can serve as guides in evaluating potential health hazards and selecting a response to alleviate a potential risk to human health. The reference dose (R2D) can be used to estimate a level of environmental exposure at or below which no adverse effect is expected to occur. The RID is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a dally exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. RfDs are based on an assumption of lifetime exposure and may not be appropriately applied to less-than-lifetime exposure situations. RfDs are also derived for the noncareinogenic effects of chemicals that are carcinogenic. The carcinogen assessments in IRIS begin with a qualitative weight-of-evidence judgment in the form of a classification as to the likelihood that a chemical may be a carcinogen far humans. This judgment is made independent of consideration of the agent's potency. A quantitative assessment including slope factor and unit risk, is then presented The slope factor is an upper-bound estimate of the human cancer risk per mg of agent/kg body weight/day. The unit risk, which is calculated from the slope factor, is an estimate in terms of either risk per ug/L drinking water, or risk per ug/cu.m air concentration. In general, risk values, such as those in IRIS, cannot be validly used to predict the incidence of human disease or the type of effects that chemical exposures may have on humans. This is due to the numerous uncertainties involved in risk assessment, including those associated with extrapolations from armwai data to humans and from high experimental doses to lower environmental exposures. The organs affected and the type of adverse effect resulting from chemical exposure may differ between study animals and humans. In addition, many factors besides exposure to a chemical influence the occurrence and extent of human disease. Any change to an RfD, slope factor or unit risk as they appear in IRIS (for example, the use of more or fewer uncertainty factors than were applied to arrive at an RfD) invalidates and distorts their application in estimating the potential health risk posed by chemical exposure. Each reference dose and carcinogen assessment is derived by an interdisciplinary work group of EPA scientists using consistent chemical hazard identification and dose-response assessment methods. These methods are outlined in Background Documents 1 and 2 (Service Code 5). It is important to note that the risk information in IRIS will be revised by these work groups when additional health effects data become available and new developments in risk assessment methods arise. SL 105936 :oic Fadaral Regiatar Voi- S3. No. 1G6 / Thursday, fu&r 2. 19fl* Notices pursuant to section 311 0/ the Natural Gas Policy Act of 197* (NCPA). Tixii Eastern iutn that Tvm in' in May 2.19M motion for emergency danflcation of the order issued on April 2419M in Docket No. RFM-gl-dOO. failed to enlighten the Commisalon on the specific detaila of the truaportatton (iesirid by Tefss which Texas Ceatom determined did not qualify far implementation under section 311 of the NCPA. Taxaa Eastern rtatee that the Tajaa transportation request mu forth a tranaaction structure which. Taxaa Eaatara submits. haa sot bean directly addressed by tha Commission in prior CUM. Taxaa Eaatam state* that tha Commission haa previously dattnnined that a single panon or corporate entity can qualify aa both an intaratata and intnatata ptpalina for ptirpaaaa of saifimplementing transportation. Slmilahly Taxaa Eaatam submits that an entity which la qualified aa an iatnatatt pipeline in ana atnto (#. Taxaa) nay not aooMMfily ha acting In that intrastate pipeline capacity whan it condncta baiinaaa in another data (#. Louisiana). Taxaa Eaatam atataa that in tha factual drcaaatancse of tha Teiaa transaction. the intrastate pipeline entity la not acting in tta capacity as aa owner of an intraatata pipeline. Any person desiring to b# board or to protest said filial should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Coomissioa. 829 North Capital Street. NA. Washington. DC 20424 in aoccrtiaaca with Rules 04 and 211 of tha CoMtoiaeioa'a Rules of Practice and Proradur* (11CFR 3*4214 314211 (1M7)). Ail such motions or protast* should be filed on or before lone 4 IMA Ptotaau will be considered acnoK Notice of availability of frame* performance evaluation reports. SUMMAirr ERA'* front regulation* (40 GFR 3A190) require tha Agrocy to evaluate the performaace of agradas which recaive grant*. EPA's regulations for regional consistency (40 Oil 947) require that tha Agency notify tha public of tha availability of the report! of mch evaluations. EPA recently performed midyear evaluations of three Mats air pollution control programs (Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), and of one local program in Tennessee (Knox County Department of Air Pollution Control). TheM midyear audits were conducted to assess the agendas' performance under the grams made to them by EPA pursuant to Motion KM of tha dean Air Act tha audita wart also wwwj^fl mm part of tha National Air Audit System (NAAS) tatahliahad by EPA in an effort to assure nationwide coaeistaocyta the evaluation of state and local air poflntion programs. EPA Regfam IV haa prepared report! (or the four agsndM identified above and these NAAS/10# (Sparta an now available : Tha reports may be at the IPA's Ragton IV offies. 54* Courtiead Sheet NL Atlanta. GA in the Air. Paetiddee * Toxica Walt* Bishop at 404/J47-2M4 (FTS; tv-mti. Damm May 24 1M4 [ntOM.-taraeda-i-an*4s*m| access this health nr* information database. FMcnri bat* April IS. 1914 MM NMTMtol amOOMATlOM COMTACT QU3 User Support USEPA. Office of Research and Development Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. MS-114. Ondnaati. OH 45284 Telephone (813) 5*8-7254 or FTS 5547234 HUS is a primary source of EPA health hazard assessment and related information on chemicals of environmental concern. It is intended to Mrva as a guide for tha hazard and dot response assessment stape of EPA assessments. HUS waa aeated in reepooM to inquests for Agency risk information: its purpose is to provide a vehicle far tha communication of dwmlcal-rpadflc information necessary to develop EPA risk assessments. OUS it to make charnicat-epadflc risk jafarmatloe readily available to those who meet perform risk aseenmemi and also to toanean consistency to risk --TM|-- Aerietows. 1>A Waif end tiak Infarmetion far these cheminli in the DUS database. The iafatmatioo mntak--d in OUS is intended far users without adesahs tnhtiag in toxicology, bat with some imewtadgi of health tcianoa. Therafbra. HUS iaootsn axhauativa wtocelogical database, nor a tfah iMMsmant methodology reaource. QUSaroarnta only aummartea of hazard and bom rerponM innmeiu. but provides reference citations and EPA contacti far Anther information. The Ota database iadados tha faPow^Mca^JSarviCT Codas): appropriate action to be takaa bat will not am to make protoatants partial to tbs proceeding. Any paaoo wtohtag to bicotoe a party ant file a --tine to intervene. Co0ea of thto fife* an on Sa wtth the rimrtiadnn and era avadabte for pebtic taapantian. Ldaac^M. tamer. UA Farfronmantil Protoctii (1) Chemical filer which surname date (2) Alphabetical and CAS number Hdtop of cMmiceia to HUB (3) Urt ad rottidooa mode to moating (4) htfrorfactory overview of IRIS and BBUtor'iGdde anewcv; Environmental Protection Agency. wormier Tha legated tfah Infarmatiaa Sysmra (DIB) ban eiecBotoc cm he database of the US. Bmironeinoral Protection Agncy (IPA) that provides risk aanramaMt and regulatory tofiormatiaa on Aamical unetanoasi This notice dasaibro OUS and provides information on bow to (g) betimdooel cast atndy and sample () States of rhtirala scheduled for the IRIS review procam Each of the chemical file* contains a chronic health hazard assessment for noacardaoganic affects and/or for SL 105937 .tuucn caranoiBie rffacta as niavmt information on losa-thaw-iifottaia health hazard miaainanti --uhHiberl in Onakiny Want Health Addanria*. is included ta tba chMicd fitae. "Ok chemical Alee also invride miitH of EPA rayulatory rlarisiona such aa Wetar Quality Criteria. Gaan Air Act regulation*. Pesticide Raytatratiao Stendarda. tad Reportable Quaaddoa developed tar Suparfuad. Supplementary tafbrmatias. neb aa acuta tonaty lammariM and pbysical- cheraicai propartfaa data, art iacludad whan available. Apart from tba chemical file*. beckpound docamanta in tba databaaa deecribe tba basic concapts and Badtattaaa of DUS. aa wail aa tba riak aaaaaaaant ptunediina and tssumptiows tuad in developing tba OUS haaltb hazard databaaa aataa--ant information. Tha haaltb assessment information caatalaad ia OUS. except u specifically notad. haa ban viewed and agreed upon by tatar-diaaphnary review group* of SPA toawdata Thaw adawdats hatra Tbsa. the iafcrmatlcm in AS represents Aaeacy-wtda ajeanant aw riak ianxmadon ia om of tba moot valuable septets of IMS. Aa tba intar dlaripU--ry nviaw grouped EPAetaaolMecoatiaMts review and verify rtak anmmaMt infiamartM -ii at-- will ba addad ts OUS. If yoa aid to obtain information as tba states of tbia maw tar a pardctdar cbawnnal call OUS Uan Support at (SU) SM-7S4 or FTS0S4-72M. DUS ia available iactrasicaily tram tba foilowiM tfaraa tourcac fV DLALCOMInc DUS to an DIALCOM lac. * Osetnak Mail tba computar-baaad tiactraslc cominaalcaticn yvf to wfcid SPA . To obtain a tXALCQM be it. contact Mltra Mrfnaddta. (2BS ,or writs tot] 000 Maryland Avmm Waabtayfas DC JODM PfPubi ' no haaltb floppy dlafc mo of BB wdl ba provided by WITS tar a tan Writa ts: Stu Wisswn. kti& saas pan iuyi Howl. R32. Springfiaid, VA 22181. or odl (7tB| 417-4007. Than art tws hardwata-auflwara opdona antssainy OUS. Both apdosa uaa common hardwan and software. Tba first option rwpdroa a pweoeal computer (PC), aa standard 120B bead Bad 2UA softwares# CROSSTALK XVI Many odwr coonsotrtBitton auftwaro partagas may also ba oaad To dattoabw if ysnr cotomuaieattan aoftwaio ia oompstibie. coatact bdka * (202) ee- OSaq Tha aaoosd option isaahas an ASCII rnnnimirering dmb --rropu*** taiMnai a sandard 1200 bond Bail 212A compatible ar 2400 bsad esynchraooa* modest and a pboaa Una. Tba naeasiary eoswiwntaatlM settinga an; parity--NO: S bits. 1 stop bit tad At tbia time. BdSebMtooi filaa an only available aisi.wi naii.aUj. User* an Mo^^secantad ta dew print on* mast 1 The user on t pay only far tba eoat of aeeaadnsDUS Tm aaar wiB ba biOad byPMLCClfhc. garnet a onpi tao of] addMoo to tat aaasa I Than ia so SPA 1 rmtayOtfl a AS riel lastdl Poblia Health I saootari >dW id dak Tba wad to aadmata a lasai td nriresn^ttl axpoawa at or baiow which aa adsana rihaia --y...^ t 0Ctm` * -- SSTII4AH (wic of aapntoda) d a daily wcpaam^a'i htnoan popuiadns (iadodi^ teamti*. subpmpel that ia likaiy to be wuhou appreciable riak of datatsrious ffacu dull* a HfoOne. Tba RfDa m besod an aaamapdM d Statins arpowss u nay aot ba appropriately applied to ioaa-than-Wodna opsni araaoon* MDo an datlwd tar tbo nnnnrrisnfanir dtacta of sabatanew that nay alao ba ctryinoysnac. Tha CARdNOCSMCmr ASSESSMENTS as OUS beym wuh a qaalitattva waiykl nf rririanra judym) ia tha fora d a daeatficadno aa u thi Hkalikond that an aywt nay ba a eandaoyn tar Tbia judyman made Indapondant of Gonatdorauoa oj tba ayoaT* potwy. A anaadanva ittdBdbM mom ftftof ui antt riakn ia than pnaawwd Tha iop< taator ia Mappsa^bwndPTTMATT < a*aBtriSdTdaa!n!atad^nalllaM1 factor, is an BTMATX in not of ettfar riak pw ny/L d ddnUay anur. itak par py/Mjn d air oMSMawton. ta pnrtl riak salsaa. m thn tbaoaadtapndtettba tba type of 1 nay onrot .Ttasiadoantt J UNCBfTAffRIB involvad riak ananunt. tachaflny tboaa --odatad wOh anlmpnladani boa 1 to hnMn and from high itn lower .Tba oiyans 1 affac nay isod ma rhnairal laadaxiantof (aaiwwft IJoknaoo. (3) National Technical Information Strric* (ffTtS). Aitbonyk OtS account will not ba available tfawoyb NTT& a 1 ini hanrds and saiaefiny a npoMt t tOadata a potanttal riak to boon Tba RSFEMNCE DOSS (MD) 1 tte vn ippHsd tan WD) in aatbaad^ tba nadbya 1 ia an asdamd by SL 105938 c*m Ks*nuiu> to* nut Jtforaaaon ia BUS will be REVISED by tit*** work group* whoa additional health tStcta date become available sad naw development* ta riak m*rtU#t method* ana*. Th* IRIS Information Sabouaeinn Deak (addnaa provided atth* ad of due node*) will motive ail inform*tia nibmuatoe* regarding QUS. To fatelitate th* handling of this information, all aubmiaaioaa oust adfaor* to th* following format All itihmiiuora must include a cover lattar ad ism* pap*, aa wall a* any rnppurdug document*. Th* cover lanar should: Sut* that th* cowaapoodaoc* ia a QUS information aubmismon. If tha i*M* ratad is an information uhaluiw 1* not chamieal-apaeiflc. tUa ahoold h* ciaarly it*tad: Describe la gnani tana th* purpose of tha taforaatia aobmiaatan for *adt laaa abat DUS befog adriraaaari (if men tea OMinoai* befog raiead. *eh ahoold b* doaertbad); and ladoda tee naan, addran and phone nabm of tea iadtvfctaai tending th* fototmattan Mhnlaatea The iaau* page ahold: Identify th* chemical by aa-- aad CAS number State tha type of OUS information (tar example. oral lafuanc* doe*. inhalation eandnufIrity aaaaaawnnt. ate.) that ia bated addraaaad: State, ia appropriate dated, tha i*aoo bated eddreeee^fe Da*gtb* briefly tha information and/or supporting docmaats b*tef ppmOIS Explain how and wby tea infaf^wM -- * m- inn ooold cheap* what ia in RBi and Seat* any claim* tar oonfldatial traaaaat of pen or all of the auhmiaatart with appropriate justtfleation tar rath Haim* If aara tha aa chemical or type of QUS information ia batep addraaaad, propane a aopaiote tent* papa tar mA Parta mfatettttap haahh aflbete todtea tar aidattep ehnmtaataa IKS . -- __ ,.,.uauWI <M 'JJ ngmflcanca of tha irady raauit* to a potential Km caranopan inaiiaunt vatu*, etc. * Two coptea of all documat* (tferacod ihoald b* tndadod in the Document* (or taction* thereof) claimed to bo cnnfldandal abated b* to method. Any document* not markd may b* made available to th* public without further aotica to th* submitter. Any dtem to conSdatiteity ahoold b* explained on A* relevant issue page. SacaoM OUS ia rtaeigwrl to b* a publicly available database. any submitted studies or doeomota considered by EPA aad wad to revia* any port of IMS will bo aommartsad and cited in SB. TUa Information may b* made available ta a external poor review ponol and to the public open Any material that cannot bo made available to a pear rovtrw panel or to ta oo Drinktep Water Health wig not be ronteiiarid by tha USIPA Oflca of Drtekteg Water Hateth Adviaory. - -- aubottac* of Driahtep Watn Health Adriaortea dbeold be addWaand to ten I to OUS. oamaata a tea t of regulation* wtil not ha 1 by _ tha . OUS . Infa-rmlba#tten ratal ) Under th* federal Adviaory Committat Act. Pub. L BZ-M3. aotica :* hereby gva of moating* of tha Some* Advisory Board** Kadlatim Advisory Comnutte* aad two of its Subcommittee*. Th* Dow aad Riak Subcsnumtta will meet )uu 20.IBM. Th* Radiation Advisory Commute* will swot [uaa XT-M, UN. Th* Sourest and Transport Subcommittee will maat July ISIA, IBM. All thtw meeting* will tia held at tea U-S- Envuuamentai Protactiao Agency in th* Adatoistratar't Contaranc* Room uoa Woot Tower. The mooting* will begin at MO aja. a th* lint day andadfoura no later tea JOB pa. of tha last day. On fun* A. ISM th* Doe* and Riak Subcommittee will review risk aatimata* for ladiatia davteopati by tea Agency. Thaeatimams an tar different type* of a risk I I tarte in"CW tow-UT Risk Pahroary S, tOM aad "BA Rada Riek Estimates'* expected abortly. Bote docotonta an awaSahia from Dr. faroma Puakte at th* Office of Radiation fnikiataimital Proeactia Agwcy. tin M Street SW. Wetengtoo. DC *M0 (202/ Tha Radiation Adviaory Committee , IBM will have few i To hear tea report of tea Doa* , to hearth* Saboonmlttea. to dtocw* laaoaa relevant to tee Banna and TTanaport Soboonmltto* review. and to be briefed a other radiation related activities of airativo. tar oonaidaratidn by tha teterdladpHwary raaiaw goopa of EPA adontiat* ahoold todnda. tar aoch atndy [Pt Doe. m-usre ra*d vi-en m am) NWAPfottanol ewfeetaoa rtaadard far henulow air pottutaota) which tuiato to rufevant source of radiation u* its toamnt terwte tha ovimanatMoatofm* technical bania ia nt tarte ta ttodienueiidm: Btckfrouad I/tforaattoa Documatu for SL 105939 IRIS Questions & Answers HOW CAN I GET ACCESS TO IRIS? To obtain an IRIS account call Mike McLaughlin of DIALCOM, Inc. at (202) 488-0550 or write to: Mike McLaughlin DIALCOM, Inc. Federal Systems Division 600 Maryland Avenue SW Washington DC 20024 IRIS is also available through the Public Health Network (PHN) of the Public Health Foundation. Call Paul Johnson at (202) 898-5600 for more information. PHN is only available to local, state, and federal public health officials. HOW MUCH DOES IRIS COST? The user must pay only for the cost of accessing IRIS. Th user will be billed by DIALCOM, Inc. There is a $25.00 monthly minimum which is applied against a usage fee of $25.00 per hour. In addition to the usage fee, there is a $.05 charge per computer screen accessed. There is no EPA charge for using IRIS. Those eligible to access IRIS via the Public Health Network win be charged under a different set of fees. Contact the Public Health Foundation at (202) 898-5600 for more information. WHO DO I CALL IF I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT USING IRIS? Call IRIS User Support at (513) 569-7254 or FTS 684-7254. WHO DO I CALL IF I HAVE A SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL QUESTION ABOUT THE REFERENCE DOSES? Call the EPA Contact listed at the end of the reference dose section in the IRIS chemical file. WHO DO I CALL IF I HAVE A SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL QUESTION ABOUT THE CARCINOGEN (CANCER) ASSESSMENTS? Call the EPA contact listed at the end of the carcinogen assessment section in the IRIS chemical file. SL 105940 WHO DO I CALL IF I HAVE A SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL QUESTION ABOUT DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES? Call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. WHO DO I CALL IF I HAVE A POLICY OR GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT IRIS? Call Rick Picardi at (202) 382-7315 or FTS 382-7315. HOW CAN NY ORGANIZATION GET TRAINING IN IRIS? Call IRIS User Support at (513) 569-7254 or FTS 684-7254. WHEN WILL (CHEMICAL NAME) BE INCLUDED IN IRIS? WHEN WILL THE REFERENCE DOSE FOR (CHEMICAL NAME) BE ADDED TO IRIS? WHEN WILL THE CARCINOGEN ASSESSMENT FOR (CHEMICAL NAME) BE ADDED TO IRIS? Call IRIS User Support at (513) 569-7254 or FTS 684-7254. SL 105941 Chemicals on the Integrated Risk information System .' (April 15, 1988) sections Available: RfD = Chronic nonearcinogenic assessment (Reference Dose) CAR = Chronic carcinogenicity assessment HA = Drinking Water Health Advisories Acetone; 67-64-1 ....RfD Acetonitrile; 75-05-8 ....RfD Acrylic Acid; 79-10-7 ....RfD Acrylonitrile; 107-13-1 ....CAR Alachlor; 15972-60-8 ____ RfD, HA Aldicarb; 116-06-3 ____ RfD, HA Aldrin; 309-00-2 ____ RfD, CAR Allyl Alcohol; 107-18-6 ....RfD Aluminum Phosphide; 20859-73-8 ....RfD Amdro; 67485-29-4 ....RfD Ametryn; 834-12-8 ....RfD Ammonium Sulfamate; 7773-06-0 ....RfD Antimony; 7440-36-0 ....RfD Apollo; 74115-24-5 ------ RfD Arsenic, inorganic; 7440-38-2 ....CAR Atrazine; 1912-24-9 ....RfD Barium; 7440-39-3 ------ RfD Barium Cyanide; 542-62-1 ....RfD Baygon; 114-26-1 ....RfD Bayleton; 43121-43-3 ------ RfD Baythroid; 68359-37-5 ____ RfD Benefin; 1861-40-1 ....RfD Benomyl; 17804-35-2 ____ RfD Bentazon; 25057-89-0 ....RfD Benzene; 71-43-2 ....CAR, HA Benzidine; 92-87-5 ....CAR Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP); 50-32-8 .--CAR Beryllium; 7440-41-7 ....RfD Bidrin; 141-66-2 ....RfD 1,1-Biphenyl; 92-52-4 ....RfD Bis(2-ethyihexyi)phthalate (BEHP); 117-81-7 ....RfD Bis(chloroethyi)ether (BCEE); 111-44-4 ....CAR Bromodichioromethane; 75-27-4 ....RfD Bromoform; 75-25-2 ....RfD Bromomethane; 74-83-9 ....RfD Bromoxynil Octanoate; 1689-99-2 ....RfD 1,3-Butadiene; 106-99-0 ....CAR n-Butanol; 71-36-3 ....RfD Butylate; 2008-41-5 ....RfD Butylphthalyl Butylglycolate (BPBG); 85-70-1 ....RfD Cadmium; 7440-43-9 ....CAR Calcium Cyanide; 592-01-8 ....RfD SL 105942 Captafol; 2425-06-1 ------ RfD Captan; 133-06-2 ....RfD" Carbaryl; 63-25-2 ....RfD Carbofuran; 1563-66-2 ....RfD, HA Carbon Disulfide;- 75-15-0 ....RfD Carbon Tetrachloride; 56-23-5 ....RfD, CAR, HA Carbosulfan; 55285-14-8 ....RfD Carboxin; 5234-68-4 ....RfD Chloramben; 133-90-4 ....RfD Chlordane; 57-74-9 ____ RfD, CAR, HA Chlorine cyanide; 506-77-4 ....RfD Chloroform; 67-66-3 ....RfD Chioromethyl Methyl Ether (CMME); 107-30-2 ....CAR Chlorothalonil; 1897-45-6 ....RfD Chlorpyrifos; 2921-88-2 ....RfD Chlorsulfuron; 64902-72-3 ....RfD ChromiumtIII); 16065-83-1 ....RfD, HA Chromium(VI); 7440-47-3 ------ RfD, CAR, HA Copper Cyanide; 544-92-3 ....RfD Cyanazine; 21725-46-2 ....RfD Cyanide, free; 57-12-5 ....RfD, HA Cyanogen; 460-19-5 ....RfD Cyclohexanone; 108-94-1 ....RfD Cyromazine; 66215-27-8 ....RfD Dalapon; 75-99-0 ....RfD Danitol; 39515-41-8 ------ RfD Decabromodiphenyi Ether (DBDPE); 1163-19-5 ....RfD Demeton; 8065-48-3 ....RfD 1.4- Dibromobenzene; 106-37-6 ....RfD Dibromochloromethane; 124-48-1 ....RfD Dibutyl Phthalate; 84-74-2 ....RfD Dicamba; 1918-00-9 ....RfD Dichlorodifluoromethane; 75-71-8 ....RfD p,p*-Dichiorodiphenyltrichioroethane (DDT); 50-29-3 ....RfD 1.2- Dichloroethane; 107-06-2 ....CAR, HA 1.1- Dichloroethylene; 75-35-4 ....RfD, CAR Dichloromethane; 75-09-2 ....RfD, CAR, HA 2.4- Dichiorophenoi; 120-83-2 ....RfD 4-(2,4-Dichiorophenoxy)butyric acid (2,4-DB); 94-82-6 ....RfD 2.4- Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D); 94-75-7 -----RfD 1.3- Dichloropropene (Telone II); 542-75-6 ....RfD Dichlorvos; 62-73-7 ....RfD Diethyl Phthalate; 84-66-2 ....RfD Diflubenzuron; 35367-38-5 ....RfD Dimethipin; 55290-64-7 ....RfD Dimethoate; 60-51-5 ....RfD Dimethyl Terephthalate (DlfT); 120-61-6 ;...RfD N-N-Dimethylaniline; 121-69-7 ....RfD 2.4- Dinitrophenol; 51-28-5 ....RfD Dinoseb; 88-85-7 ....RfD Diphenamid; 957-51-7 ....RfD Diphenylamine; 122-39-4 ....RfD 1.2- Diphenylhydrazine; 122-66-7 ....CAR SL 105943 Diquat; 85-00-7 ....RfD Disulfoton; 298-04-4 Diuron; 330-54-1 ....RfD Dodine; 2439-10-3 ____ RfD Endosulfan; 115--29-7 ____ RfD Endothall; 145-73-3 ____ RfD Epichlorohydrin; 106-89-8 ------ RfD, CAR, HA Ethion; 563-12-2 ....RfD Ethyl Acetate; 141-78-6 ____ RfD S-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EFTC); 759-94-4 ....RfD Ethyl p-nitrophenyl phenylphosphorothioate (EFN); 2104-64-5 Ethylbenzene; 100-41-4 ....RfD, HA Ethylene Glycol; 107-21-1 ....RfD Ethylphthalyl Ethylglycolate (EPEG); 84-72-0 ....RfD ....RfD Fenamiphos; 22224-92-6 ....RfD Fluometuron; 2164-17-2 ....RfD Fluorine (soluble fluoride); 7782-41-4 Fluridone; 59756-60-4 ------ RfD Folpet; 133-07-3 ------ RfD Fonofos; 944-22-9 ____ RfD Formic Acid; 64-18-6 ....RfD Fosetyl-al; 39148-24-8 ------ RfD Furan; 110-00-9 ....RfD ....RfD Glufosinate-ammonium; 77182-82-2 ....RfD Glyphosate; 1071-83-6 ....RfD Heptachlor; 76-44-8 ....RfD, CAR, HA Heptachlor Epoxide; 1024-57-3 ....RfD, CAR, HA Hexabromobenzene; 87-82-1 ....RfD Hexachlorobutadiene; 87-68-3 ....RfD, CAR alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH); 319-84-6 ....CAR beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (beta-HCH); 319-85-7 ....CAR delta-Hexachiorocyclohexane (delta-HCH); 319-86-8 ....CAR epsilon-Hexachlorocyclohexane (epsilon-HC); 6108-10-7 ....CAR gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (gazma-HCH); 58-89-9 ....RfD, HA technical Hexachlorocycloftexane (t-HCH); 00-01-0 ....CAR Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCPD); 77-47-4 ....RfD Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, mixture (HxCDD); 19408-74-3 ....CAR Hexachloroethane; 67-72-1 ....RfD, CAR Hexazinone; 51235-04-2 ....RfD Hydrogen Cyanide; 74-90-8 ....RfD, HA Hydrogen Sulfide; 7783-06-4 ....RfD Imazali1; 35554-44-0 ____ RfD Imazaquin; 81335-37-7 ....RfD Isobutyl Alcohol; 78-83-1 ....RfD Isophorone; 78-59-1 ....RfD Isopropalin; 33820-53-0 ....RfD Lead; 7439-92-1 ____ RfD Linuron; 330-55-2 ____ RfD SL 105944 Londax; 83055-99-6 ....RfD Malathion; 121-75-5 ------ RfD Maleic Hydrazide; 123-33-1 .-..RfD Metalaxyl; 57837-19-1 ____ RfD Methamidophos; 10265-92-6 ....RfD Methomyl; 16752-77-5 ____ RfD Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MER); 78-93-3 ____ RfD Methyl isobutyl Ketone (MIBK); 108-10-1 ....RfD Methyl Mercury; 22967-92-6 ....RfD Methyl Parathion; 298-00-0 ....RfD 2-Methyi-4-chlorophenoxy acetic acid (MCPA); 94-74-6 ....RfD 2-(2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid (MCPP); 93-65-2 ....RfD Metolachlor; 51218-45-2 ....RfD Metribuzin; 21087-64-9 ------ RfD Mirex; 2385-85-5 ____ RfD Naled; 300-76-5 ____ RfD Nickel Carbonyl; 13463-39-3 ------ CAR Nickel Refinery Dust; 00-02-0 ....CAR Nickel Subsulfide; 12035-72-2 ....CAR Nickel, soluble salts; 7440-02-0 ....RfD Nitrapyrin; 1929-82-4 ....RfD Nitrate; 14797-55-8 ____ RfD, HA Nitric Oxide; 10102-43-9 ------ RfD Nitrite; 14797-65-0 ____ RfD, HA Nitrobenzene; 98-95-3 ....RfD Nitrogen Dioxide; 10102-44-0 ....RfD N-Nitroso-di-n-butyiamine; 924-16-3 ....CAR N-Nitroso-N-methyiethylamine; 10595-95-6 ....CAR N-Nitrosodi-N-propyiamine; 621-64-7 ....CAR N-Nitrosodiethanolamine; 1116-54-7 ....CAR N-Nitrosodiethyiamine; 55-18-5 ....CAR N-Nitrosodimethylamine; 62-75-9 ....CAR N-Nitrosodiphenyianine; 86-30-6 ....CAR N-Nitrosopyrrolidine; 930-55-2 ....CAR Norflurazon; 27314-13-2 ....RfD Octabromodiphenyl ether; 32536-52-0 Oryzalin; 19044-88-3 ....RfD Oxadiazon; 19666-30-9 ....RfD Oxajnyl; 23135-22-0-____ RfD, HA Oxyfluorfen; 42874-03-3 ....RfD ....RfD Paclobutrazol; 76738-62-0 ....RfD Paraquat; 1910-42-5 ....RfD Pentabromodiphenyl ether; 32534-81-9 ....RfD Pentachiorobenzene; 608-93-5 ....RfD Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB); 82-68-8 ....RfD Pentachlorophenol; 87-86-5 ....RfD, HA Permethrin; 52645-53-1 ....RfD Phenol; 108-95-2 ____ RfD m-Phenylenediamine; 108-45-2 ....RfD Phenylmercuric Acetate; 62-38-4 ....RfD SL 105945 Phosmet; 732-11-6 ....RfD Phosphine; 7803-51-2 ....RfD Picloram; 1918-02-1 .:..RfD Pirimiphos-methyl; 29232-93-7 ....RfD Potassium Cyanide; 151-50-8 ....RfD, HA Potassium Silver Cyanide; 506-61-6 ....RfD Prometon; 1610-18-0 ....RfD Prometryn; 7287-19-6 ....RfD Pronamide; 23950-58-5 ....RfD Propachlor; 1918-16-7 ------ RfD Propanil; 709-98-8 ....RfD Propazine; 139-40-2 ....RfD Propham; 122-42-9 ....RfD Pydrin; 51630-58-1 ------ RfD Pyridine; 110-86-1 ....RfD Quinalphos; 13593-03-8 ------ RfD Radon 222; 14859-67-7 ------ CAR Selenious Acid; 7783-00-8 ....RfD Selenourea; 630-10-4 ....RfD Sethoxydim; 74051-80-2 ....RfD Silver; 7440-22-4 ------ RfD Silver Cyanide; 506-64-9 ....RfD Simazine; 122-34-9 ....RfD Sodium Acifluorfen; 62476-59-9 ....RfD Sodium Azide; 26628-22-8 ....RfD Sodium Cyanide; 143-33-9 ....RfD, HA Sodium Diethyidithiocarbamate (Dithiocarb); Strychnine; 57-24-9 ....RfD Styrene; 100-42-5 ....RfD 148-18-5 ....RfD Tebuthiuron; 34014-18-1 ....RfD Terbacil; 5902-51-2 ____ RfD 1.2.4.5- Tetrachlorobenzene; 95-94-3 ....RfD 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane; 630-20-6 ....RfD 1 ,l ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane; 79-34-5 ....CAR Tetrachloroethylene; 127-18-4 ....RfD, HA 2.3.4.6- Tetrachloropbenol; 58-90-2 ....RfD Tetrachlorovinphos; 961-11-5 ....RfD Tetraethyl Lead; 7_8-00-2 ....RfD Thallic Oxide; 1314-32-5 ....RfD Thallium Acetate; 563-68-8 ....RfD Thallium Carbonate; 6533-73-9 ....RfD Thallium Chloride; 7791-12-0 ------ RfD Thallium Nitrate; 10102-45-1 ....RfD Thallium Selenite; 12039-52-0 ....RfD Thallium(I) Sulfate; 7446-18-6 ....RfD' Thiobencarb; 28249-77-6 ------ RfD Thiophanate-methyl; 23564-05-8 ....RfD Thiram; 137-26-8 ------ RfD Toluene; 108-88-3 ....RfD Triallate; 2303-17-5 ____ RfD SL 105946 1.2.4- Tribromobenzene; 615-54-3 ....RfD l,i,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113); 1.2.4- Trichlorobenzene; 120-82-1 ....RfD 1.1.1- Trichloroethane; 71-55-6 ....RfD 1.1.2- Trichloroethane; 79-00-5 ....RfD, CAR Trichloroethylene; 79-01-6 ....CAR Trichlorofluoromethane; 75-69-4 ....RfD 2.4.5- Trichiorophenol; 95-95-4 ....RfD 2.4.6- Trichlorophenol; 88-06-2 ....CAR 1.2.3- Trichloropropane; 96-18-4 ....RfD Tridiphane; 58138-08-2 ....RfD Trifluralin; 1582-09-8 ....RfD 76-13-1 ....RfD Uranium, natural; 7440-61-1 ....CAR Vanadium Pentoxide; 1314-62-1 ....RfD Vemam; 1929-77-7 . . . .RfD Vinclozolin; 50471-44-8 ....RfD Warfarin; 81-81-2 ....RfD Xylenes; 1330-20-7 ....RfD Zinc Cyanide; 557-21-1 ....RfD Zinc Phosphide; 1314-84-7 ....RfD Zineb; 12122-67-7 ------ RfD SL 105947 IRIS CHEMICAL FILE STRUCTURE I. CHRONIC HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS I.A. REFERENCE DOSE FOR CHRONIC ORAL EXPOSURE (RfD) ___ I.A.1. ORAL RfD SUMMARY ___I.A.2. PRINCIPAL AND SUPPORTING STUDIES (ORAL RfD) ___ I. A. 3 . UNCERTAINTY AND MODIFYING FACTORS (ORAL RfD) ___ I.A.4. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (ORAL RfD) ___ I.A.5. CONFIDENCE IN THE ORAL RfD ___ I.A.6. EPA DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW OF THE ORAL RfD I.A.7. EPA CONTACTS (ORAL RfD) _I.B. REFERENCE DOSE FOR CHRONIC INHALATION EXPOSURE (RfD) (structure not available at this time although will he very similar to the structure of the oral reference dose section) II. CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT FOR LIFETIME EXPOSURE _I I.A. EVIDENCE FOR CLASSIFICATION AS TO HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATION II.A.2. HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY DATA II.A.3. ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA _II.A.4. SUPPORTING DATA FOR CARCINOGENICITY II.B. QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATE OF CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM ORAL EXPOSURE II.B.1. SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES II.B.2. DOSE-RESPONSE DATA (CARCINOGENICITY, ORAL EXPOSURE) II.B.3. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (CARCINOGENICITY, ORAL EXPOSURE) II.B.4. DISCUSSION OF CONFIDENCE (CARCINOGENICITY, ORAL EXPOSURE) SL 105948 i--1 < MH II.c. QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATE OF CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM INHALATION EXPOSURE ___II.C.l. SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES __II.C.2. DOSE-RESPONSE DATA FOR CARCINOGENICITY, INHALATION EXPOSURE ___II.C.3. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (CARCINOGENICITY, INHALATION EXPOSURE) II.C.4. DISCUSSION OF CONFIDENCE (CARCINOGENICITY, INHALATION EXPOSURE) II.D. EPA DOCUMENTATION, REVIEW, AND CONTACTS (CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT II.D.1. EPA DOCUMENTATION II.D.2. REVIEW (CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT) ___ II.D.3. U.S. EPA CONTACTS (CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT) _III. HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENTS FOR VARIED EXPOSURE DURATIONS __HI .A. DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES ___ III.A.l. ONE-DAY HEALTH ADVISORY FOR A CHILD ___ III.A.2. TEN-DAY HEALTH ADVISORY FOR A CHILD ___III.A.3. LONGER-TERM HEALTH ADVISORY FOR A CHILD ___ III.A.4. LONGER-TERM HEALTH ADVISORY FOR AN ADULT III.A.5. DRINKING WATER EQUIVALENT LEVEL / LIFETIME HEALTH ADVISORY III.A.6. ORGANOLEPTIC PROPERTIES III.A.7. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR DETECTION IN DRINKING WATER III.A.8. WATER TREATMENT III.A.9. DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW OF HAS III.A.10. EPA CONTACTS SL 105949 i __III.B. OTHER ASSESSMENTS (content and structure to be determined) IV. U.S. EPA REGULATORY ACTIONS __IV.A. CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA) __IV.B. SATE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) _IV.C. CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) __ IV.D. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) __ IV.E. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA) __ IV.F. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) __ IV.G. SUPERFUND (CERCLA) _V. SUPPLEMENTARY DATAVI. __V .A. ACUTE HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION __V. B. PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES VI. REFERENCES SYNONYMS: SL 105950 Unitad Stma Envaonmanai Prowcoon Aganey Warn Offiea at Water ReguMone and Standards Watfmgm, DC 20460 EFA 440/S 39-002 v STATE ADOPTION/PROPOSAL OF NUMERIC CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AS OF AUGUST 1988 SL 105951 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Method .......................... 2 National Findings ............................................................................................................................ 3 Which options are States using to comply with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)? ............................ 3 For how many priority pollutants have the States adopted or proposed numeric criteria? ... 4 For which priority pollutants have the States adopted or proposed numeric criteria? ........... 6 Regional Factsheets .......................................................................................................................... 7 REGION I ....................................................................... 8 REGION II ..................................................................................................................................... 9 REGION III ................................................................................................................................ 10 REGION IV ................................................................................................................................ 11 REGION V ................................................................................................................................... 12 REGION VI ................................................................................................................................ 13 REGION VII ................................................................................................................................ 14 REGION VIII .............................................................................................................................. 15 REGION IX ................................................................................................................................ 16 REGION X ................................................................................ 1? Appendix A. List of 126 Priority Pollutants ............................................................................... 18 Table of Contents SL105952 jj List of Illustrations Figure 1. Distribution of States by Section 303(c)(2)(B) Option ............................................. 3 Figure 2. Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ............................................................4 Figure 3. Adoption/Proposal of Criteria by Designated Use .................................................. 5 Figure 4. Region 1 Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria .......................................... 8 Figure 5. Region II Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ......................................... 9 Figure 6. Region III Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ..................................... 10 Figure 7. Region IV Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ..................................... 11 Figure 8. Region V Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ....................................... 12 Figure 9. Region VI Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ..................................... 13 Figure 10. Region VII Adopted, Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ................................... 14 Figure 11. Region VIII Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ................................... 15 Figure 12. Region IX Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria ...................................... 16 Figure 13. Region X Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria......................................... 17 List of Illustrations SL 105953 ill List of Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1. Priority Pollutants Adopted/Proposed ................................................ 6 2. Region 1 Factshcet ....................................................................................................... 8 3. Region II Factshcet ..................................................................................................... 9 4. Region III Factsheet ................................................................................................... 10 5. Region IV Factsheet ................................................................................................... 11 6. Region V Factsheet ................................................................................................. 12 7. Region VI Factsheet ................................................................................................... 13 8. Region VII Factsheet ................................................................................................. 14 9. Region VIII Factshcet ..................................... 15 10. Region IX Factshcet ................................................................................................... 16 11. Region X Factsheet ................................... 17 List or Tables SL 105954 ^ Introduction One of the nation's most important water pollution control problems is the identification and control of toxic pollutants in surface waters. The Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended, attacks this problem by setting forth ambitious goals for the existing surface water toxics control program. The Act's requirements place emphasis on control of the CWA Section 307(a) toxic pollutants,1 and the States on an accelerated schedule for compliance. This report will present information pertaining to ongoing State efforts to address the CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirement to include priority pollutant numeric criteria, where appropriate, in State water quality standards (WQS). The information presented is current as of August, 1988. Since many States are still in the process of addressing this requirement, the information should be con* sidered a 'snap shot' of ongoing State activities. Where the report does not indicate any numeric criteria for a State, or for a designated use within a State, it should not be concluded that such cri teria are not needed. It may be that the State is planning to adopt criteria but has not yet issued the proposed standards, or that additional pollutants needing criteria may be identiiied from an analysis of 304(1) lists. EPA has completed final interim guidance which is intended to help States meet the CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirement. The guidance discusses three options available to the States for com plying with this requirement. The three options available are as follows: 1. Adopt Statewide numeric water quality standards for all EPA criteria for Section 307(a) toxic pollutants regardless of whether the pollutants are known to be present; 2. Adopt specific numeric water quality standards for Section 307(a) toxic pollutants as necessary to support designated uses where such pollutants are discharged or are present in the affected waters and could reasonably be expected to interfere with designated uses; 3. Adopt a procedure to be applied to a narrative water quality criterion. This procedure shall be used by the State in calculating derived numeric criteria, which shall be used for all purposes of water quality criteria under Section 303(c) of the CWA. Such criteria need to be developed for Section 307(a) toxic pollutants, as necessary to support designated uses, where these pollutants are discharged or present in the affected waters and could reasonably be expected to interfere with designated uses. EPA believes that the CWA requirement can be met by any of the above scientifically and techni cally sound ways (or some combination thereof)- For a more detailed discussion of the above options, refer to EPA's final guidance on implementing Section 303(c)(2)(B). Objectives As stated previously, this report will summarize information pertaining to ongoing State activities in response to CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements. The specific objectives are to: 1. Summarize on a national and Region*by-Region basis the option(s) - as described above the States are likely to use to comply with 303(c)(2)(B) requirements, and 2. Summarize on a national and Region-by-Region basis the number and purpose (i.e., the des ignated use supported) of the priority pollutant numeric criteria which have been adopted or proposed by the States. This report will not draw conclusions about whether States are in compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements. Such a determination would, in many cases, require knowledge of the priority pollutants which can reasonably be expected to be impairing designated uses. Although States are currently compiling such information pursuant to CWA Section 304(1) requirements, 1 The CWA Section 307(a) list contains 65 compounds and families of compounds, which potentially in clude thousands of specific compounds. EPA has identified 126 priority pollutants from this larger group which it is using to represent the Section 307(a) list for regulatory purposes. SL 105955 1 their final analyses are not due until February, 1989. Thus, this report will summarize information on the priority pollutant criteria which have been adopted or proposed, without addressing the important question of the additional criteria which are needed to comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B). It also will not address the issue of which criteria need to be revised/updated based on new or re vised EPA criteria guidance. Method This report was compiled based on information provided by EPA Regional Water Management Divisions. Guidance for compiling the needed information was developed, including readily available existing information, and distributed to the Regional water quality standards coordinators to ensure national consistency. The available information primarily consisted of a report on State toxics criteria originally compiled in 1986 from State standards published by the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA). More recent data from a project currently underway to update the 1986 compila tion were provided to the Regions to the extent available. The guidelines used in compiling the list of priority pollutant numeric criteria for each State are summarized below: Indicate which option or combination of options the State will use to comply with the re quirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). Refer to February draft guidance for description of the available options. Compile a list of the priority pollutants for which State numeric criteria have been adopted or proposed. Classify each pollutant based on whether it is an organic or non-organic pollutant. For each priority pollutant, indicate the uses supported (i.e., freshwater aquatic life, marine aquatic life, human health, other). For the purposes of this survey, 'proposed' criteria are defined as criteria which are included in a current draft WQS document. It is not necessary for the criteria to have been subjected to a public hearing. Focus on Section 307(a) priority pollutants. Numeric criteria for other toxic pollutants (e.g., chlorine, ammonia, etc.) should not be included. Include criteria which support uses other than aquatic life support or human health, (e.g., ag ricultural, industrial) in the 'other' category. Indicating the actual criterion limit (i.e., < 2 ug/1) is not necessary. Include criteria which have been adopted for a limited area (e.g., a single waterbody). The information supplied by the Regional Offices was compiled in a nationally consistent manner. Where a general class of pollutants was listed, the State was credited with addressing all of the pri ority pollutants from that class which are included on the list of 126 priority pollutants (e.g., where an endosulfan numeric criterion was listed as adopted, it was concluded that the criterion covers alpha endosulfan, beta endosulfan, and endosulfan sulfate). SL 105956 i National Findings Which options are States using to comply with CWA Section 303(c)(2XB)? Regional standards coordinators were asked to report the State option(s) which will be used or which are anticipated to comply with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). The findings are displayed in Figure 1. In general, most States are expected to use options 1 or 2. Of the fifty-seven States and Territories, 72% will use options l or 2, 23% will use a combination of options 1 or 2 with option 3, and 5% will use option 3 exclusively. Figure 1 Distribution of States by Section 303(c)(2)(B) Option Anticipated I Option 1 Opt i or. ^ m Option 3 Options 1 +3 Options 2-3 * 57 of 57 States and Territories Inducted. Figure 1. Distribution of States by Section 303(cX2XB) Option SL 105957 3 For how many priority pollutants have the States adopted or proposed numeric criteria? Summarizing the status of the States in adopting priority pollutant numeric criteria is complicated by the fact that the States and Territories use different systems for assigning numeric criteria to protect their designated uses. Some States assign a separate set of numeric criteria to protea each designated use, with the most stringent criterion for a given waterbody used as the standard, while others assign one set of numeric criteria to protea each waterbody class (which often includes var ious designated uses). For the purpose of providing a general (simplified) overview, Figure 2 ad dresses only the total number of priority pollutants for which one or more numeric criteria have been adopted or proposed. The percentage of State waters and number of designated uses sup ported by each 'priority pollutant numeric criterion' varies from State to State. It can be seen from Figure 2 that of the fifty-seven States and Territories, five have still not adopted or proposed to adopt a numeric criterion for a priority pollutant, while three have adopted/proposed between 1 and 10 priority pollutant numeric criteria, twenty-five have adopted/proposed between 10 and 50, and twenty-four have adopted/proposed more than 50 nu meric criteria for priority pollutants. Figure 2. Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria SL 1q5958 4 Figure 3 provides a more detailed status (i.e., by designated use). Of the fifty-seven States and Territories, a total of forty-nine have adopted/proposed at least one priority pollutant numeric cri terion to support freshwater aquatic life uses, twenty States have adopted/proposed at least one for marine aquatic life uses, forty-two States have adopted/proposed at least one to protect human health, and seven States have adopted/proposed at least one in support of other uses. Figure 3. Adoption/Proposal of Criteria by Designated Use SL 105959 5 For which priority pollutants have the States adopted or proposed numeric criteria? The 126 priority pollutants are listed in the Appendix; for each priority pollutant, the total number of States where one or more numeric criteria have been adopted or proposed is noted. Table 1 lists the 30 priority pollutants for which numeric criteria have been adopted/proposed in 35 or more States. Of the remaining 96 priority pollutants, there are a total of 81 for which numeric criteria have been adopted/proposed in more than 10 but less than 35 States, and 15 for which criteria have been adopted/proposed in less than 10 States. Numeric criteria have been adopted or proposed for all 126 priority pollutants in at least one State or Territory. PRIORITY POLLUTANT Aldrin Arsenic Cadmium Chlordane Chromium (Hex) Chromium (Tri) Copper Cyanide DDT Dieldrin Alpha Endosulfan Beta Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Endrin Heptachlor Hexachlorocyclohexane-gamma (lindane) Lead Mercury Nickel PCB's (7) Phenol Selenium Silver Toxaphene Zinc # OF STATES ADOPTED/PROPOSED 41 45 45 42 43 44 42 40 39 40 38 38 40 44 39 41 45 44 39 41 39 45 41 40 43 Table 1. Priority Pollutants Adopted/Proposed: Priority pollutants for which numeric criteria have been adopted or proposed in thirty-five or more States. SL 105960 6 Regional Factsheets Regional Factsheets SL 105961 REGION I STATE OP TION CT 3 ME 1 MA 1 NH 1 RI 1 VT 1 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other --*- 1--- ---- ---- 30 29 - - ---- 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other -- -- 34 31 109 - 36 36 - - 23 21 21 - -- -- -- -- Table 2. Region I Factsheet Figure 4. Region I Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factsheets SL 105962 8 REGION II STATE OP TION NJ 2 NY 2 PR 2 VI 2 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 19 19 8 - 49 33 41 13 12 20 8 - - - -- 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other - - 14 - - - -- * - -- - - -- Table 3. Region II Factsheet Region II Adoption/Proposal of Figure 5. Region II Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factshects SL 105963 9 REGION III STATE OP TION DE 2 DC 1 MD 2 PA 1/3 VA 2 wv 2 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 11- 116 - 107 13 - 13 8-5 35 35 16 25 - 24 1 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other --- *-* --- 98 - 110 --- 18 - 18 Table 4. Region III Factsheet Figure 6. Region III Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factsheets SL 105964 10 REGION IV STATE OP TION AL 1 FL 2 GA 1 + 3 KY 1 or 2 MS 1 NC 1 + 2 SC 1 or 2 TN 1 or 2 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other --*- 41 1 40 - 9- - - 23 - 8 - 1-9- 32 23 6 - -- - - 11 - - - 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other -- * -- - - - - - -- Table 5. Region IV Feetsheet Figure 7. Region IV Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factsheets St 1S9SS 11 REGION V STATE OP TION IL 1 + 3 IN 1 + 3 MI 3 MN 1 + 3 OH 1 + 3 WI 1 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 20 - - - ---- 23 - 24 2 5- 63 - 31 19 ---- 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic life Hu man Health Other 33 - 92 - 31 - 91 - -- -- 31 - 92 - - - 73 - 22 - 71 9 Table 6. Region V Factshect Figure 8. Region V Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factsheets SL 105966 12 REGION VI STATE OP TION AR 1 LA 1 NM 2 OK 1 TX 1 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 21 - - 16 16 24 - - 14 31 - 19 30 29 - 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other --- 45 41 52 -*- --- --- Table 7. Region VI Factsbeet Region VI Adoption/Propoaal of State or Territory Figure 9. Region VI Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factshects SL 105967 13 REGION VII STATE OP TION IA 2 KS 2 MO 1 or 2 NE 1 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 9 - 11 - 22 - - 8 39 - 56 7 - - 10 - 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 35 - 11 - -- -- - * -- 98 - 19 - Table 8. Region VI! Factsheet Region VII Adoption/Proposal of State or Territory Figure 10. Region VII Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factsheets SL 105968 14 REGION VIII STATE OP TION CO 2/3 MT 1/3 ND 2/3 SD 1/3 UT 2/3 WY 1/3 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 32 - 17 - 34 - 109 - 1 - 16 - 34 - 109 - 23 - 11 7 --- - 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 27 58 -* 16 - -- -- 29 - 74 Table 9. Region VIII Factsheet Region VIII Adoption/Proposal of State or Territory Figure II. Region VIII Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factsheets SL 105969 15 REGION IX STATE OP TION AZ l AS 1 CA 1 GU 1 HI 1 NV 1 CM 1 TT 1 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 26 - 26 - ---- 19 30 20 - 34 31 109 - ---- 24 - 22 - 28 28 - - 32 32 - * 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 126 - 126 34 31 109 34 31 109 --- 34 31 109 34 - 109 --- -- * Table 10. Region IX Factsheet Region IX Adoption/Proposal of State or Territory Figure 12. Region IX Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factshects SL 105970 16 REGION X STATE OP TION AK 1,3 ID 3 OR 1 WA 2 307(a) Criteria Adopted Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other 34 31 109 - * - 11 - 106 99 92 - 28 28 - - 307(a) Criteria Proposed Fresh Aquatic Life Ma rine Aquatic Life Hu man Health Other - - -- - - -- - - -- - * -- Table 11. Region X Factshect Figure 13. Region X Adopted/Proposed Priority Pollutant Criteria Regional Factsheet* SL 105971 17 Appendix A. List of 126 Priority Pollutants \ppcndix A. List of 126 Priority Pollutants SL 105972 18 PRIORITY POLLUTANT ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPTHYLENE (PAH) ACROLEIN ACRYLONITRILE ALDRIN ANTIMONY ANTHRACENE ARSENIC ASBESTOS 1,2 BENZANTHRACENE (PAH) BENZENE BENZIDINE BENZO (A) PYRENE (3,4-BENZOPYRENE) (PAH) 3,4 BENZOFLUORANTHENE (PAH) BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE (PAH) 1,12 BENZOPERYLENE (PAH) BERYLLIUM BROMOFORM (TRIBROMOMETHANE) BROMOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE) 4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER CADMIUM CARBON TETRACHLORIDE (TETRACHLOROMETHANE) CHLORDANE CHLOROBENZENE (MONOCHLOROBENZENE) CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE (HALOMETHANE) CHLOROETHANE (MONOCHLOROETHANE) CHLOROETHYL ETHER (BIS-2) I CHLOROETHOXY METHANE (BIS-2) 2 CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER 4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL CHLOROMETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE) CHLOROFORM (TRICHLOROMETHANE) 2 CHLOROPHENOL CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER (BIS-2) 2 CHLORONAPHTHALENE 4 CIILOROPIIENYL PHENYL ETIIER NO. OF STATES WHERE A NU MERIC PRIOR ITY POLLUTANT CRITERION IS ADOPTED OR PROPOSED IS 15 24 23 41 24 5 45 19 20 29 28 20 19 20 19 29 23 19 6 45 27 42 28 22 3 24 19 5 15 21 26 27 20 6 4 Appendix A. List of 126 Priority Pollutants SL 105973 19 CHROMIUM (HEX) CHROMIUM (TRI) CHYRSENE (PAH) COPPER CYANIDE 4,4 DDT 4,4 DDE 4,4 DDD DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE (PAH) 1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE 1,3 DICHLOROBENZENE 1,4 DICHLOROBENZENE 3,3 DICIILOROBENZIDINE DICHLOROETHANE 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE 1,2 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE l ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE (HALOMETHANES) DICHLOROMETHANE (HALOMETHANES) 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL DICHLOROPROPANE 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE 1,3 DIELDRIN DIMETHYLPHENOL 2,4 DIETHYLPHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHTHALATE DINITROTOLUENE 2,4 DINITROTOLUENE 2,6 2,4-DINITROPHENOL DIOXIN (2,3,7,8-TCDD) DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE 1,2 ALPHA ENDOSULFAN BETA ENDOSULFAN ENDOSULFAN SULFATE ENDRIN ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ETHYLBENZENE FLUORENE (PAH) FLUORANTHENE HEPATACHLOR IIEPATACIILOR F.POXIDE 43 44 15 42 40 39 21 21 19 25 25 25 21 3 30 28 6 22 22 16 17 16 40 15 27 27 19 4 21 22 22 38 38 40 44 16 25 18 23 39 16 Appendix A. List or 126 Priority Pollutants SL 105974 20 HEXACHLOROETHANE HEXACHLOROBENZENE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (LINDANE) HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (ALPHA) HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (BETA) HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE(DELTA) HEXACHLQROCYCIOPENTADIENE IDENO (L2,3-cd) PYRENE (PAH) ISOPHORONE LEAD MERCURY NAPHTHALENE NICKEL NITROBENZENE 2 NITROPHENOL 4 NITROPHENOL 4.6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE N NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE-N NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE-N PCB 1242 PCB 1254 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1248 PCB 1260 PCB 1016 PHENOL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PHENANTHRENE (PAH) BIS(2 ETHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE DI-N-OCTYL-PHTHALATE PYRENE (PAH) SELENIUM SILVER TETRACHLOROETHANE 1,1,2.2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM Appendix A. List or 126 Priority Pollutants 20 26 24 41 20 20 5 23 19 23 45 44 9 39 24 6 6 14 21 21 5 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 39 28 20 27 12 26 10 20 45 41 23 25 24 SL 105975 21 TOLUENE TOXAPHENE 1,2,4 TRICHLOROBENZENE TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VINYL CHLORIDE (CHLOROETHYLENE) ZINC 25 40 8 25 24 26 25 24 43 Appendix A. List of 126 Priority Pollutants SL 105976 22 DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM Xovember 8ih, 1988 L'.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Water Regulations and Standards 401 M Street. S.W. Washington, DC 20460 11-8-88 DRAFT SL 105977 !A t EWVTMWEWTAL THBTTCnwnEEHCV TUJTPftkHEUTgl 1t\ imfi\t'J 11-8-88 DH.4FT Preface 'Hie Framework for the Water Quality Standards Program describes a long-term plan for the water quality standards program It defines national program objectives (Section II) and specific activities (Section III) neces sary to support each objective. The objectives include those that build on the traditional elements of many State water quality standards and others that broaden the standards program into new types of criteria such as those designed to protect wildlife, those based on the resident biological community, and sediment quality cntena. I listorically, u e encourage States to adopt new methods for designing water quality standards as well as measures for judging attainment of those standards. This created some confusion in the multi-year process by which States assess problems, adopt standards, and write permits. In this long-term plan, we arc committing to an an nouncement a year before a tnenmum begins as to what our specific objectives will be in that trienruum. We are also committing to the availability of the necessary guidance material well in advance of each tnennium. We hope that this description of broad program priorities will improve the understanding of our mission by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State personnel as well as members of the public Understanding the mission will hopefully lead to additional support for our efforts, a sense of purpose among those working on the activities required to achieve these goals and ultimately success in achieving a solid federal;State partner ship in the water quality standards program. Additionally we hope that the organizations and individuals affected will share with us their views and suggestions on the nature and scojx on specific guidance that may be needed The objectives described in this document do not create any new directions or obligations for the Regions and National Programs (e g. Great Lakes) for the current fiscal year. These are set by The Agency Operating Guidance and are reflected in this document. This framework document will be used to develop Agency oper ating guidance for future fiscal years. The document also communicates program pnorities of the water quality standards program to ORD and will be used in the ORD budget planning process. The Office of Water and ORD recently signed (April 22, 19SS) a Technology Transfer Agreement that describes nine priority program areas for the Office of Water. The reader should note that this is a planning document and is therefore subject to change since we cannot clearly foresee our program needs far into the future. Therefore, the dates shown should be considered "targets rather than firm commitments. We plan to update this document periodically. Questions or comments re garding this document may be directed to me. Martha G Prothro, Director Office of Water Regulations and Standards U S Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street S. Washington, D. C. 20460 Preface SL 105978 TWTRflkWFWTir~BBr)TCf,r^rr,'i,^cu/'T 11-8-88 DRAFT Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................... Summary of Major Standards Related Activities ................... Overview .................................................................................... Framework Objectives By Triennia ....................................... FY 88-90 Tricnnium ................................................................. Objectives: ............................................................................... Support Activities ...................................................................... FY 91-93 Tricnnium ................................................................. Objectives: .... ..................... ......... Support Activities...................................................................... FY 94-96 Triennium ................ ................................................ Objectives .................................................................................. Support Activities ................................................................... Operating Guidance for Water Quality Standards - FY 1990 Headquarters ............................................................................. Regions States ........................................................................... Glossary ....................................................................................... TABLE I - Timetable of Related Program Activities ............ FY 88 ......................................................................................... FY 89: ......................................................................................... FY 90 ......................................................................................... TABLE 2 - Timetable for Completion of Supporting Activities FY 88 (completed by 9 30/88) ............................ .... FY 89 (completed by 9/30/89) ................................................. FY 90 (completed by 9/30/90)................................................. FY 91-93 (completed by 9/30/93) .......................................... I 3 4 4 h 8 s 11 13 16 17 18 18 IS 19 19 Table of Contents SL 105979 ENVIR0W4EWTAL PROTECTION ACEWCV IIS-8S DRAFT Introduction EPA is responsible for reviewing and approving State water quality standards. EPA also provides guidance and support aimed at encouraging States to adopt new methods for standards as they became technically feasible. This document is designed to assist in the multi-year process by which States assess problems, adopt standards, and write permits. By specifically describing EPA's objectives for the future of the water quality standards program, this document should help to minimize potential disagreements between EPA and the States concerning the timing of standards ini tiatives. In some States, the standards adoption process takes well over a year to complete. Because the Clean Water Act requires States to review their standards at least once every three years, this Frame work for the Water Quality Standards Program or ganizes the objectives of the standards program into three-vear intervals, trienrua. The current trienmum is FY 1988-1990 As identified in the FY 1989 Operating Guidance the goal of this tnenruum in the water quality standards program is to ensure that States: reflect the identifi cation of stream segments where the discharge or presence of a toxic pollutant is interfering or is likely to interfere with the attainment of the designated uses, reuse water quality standards to address toxic pollutants and toxicity, and develop and implement State antidegradation policies and procedures. EPA will assist States in these efforts by providing technical assistance and guidance, conducting seminars to help States and Tribal governments incorporate water quality criteria for all necessary pollutants, and toxicity and to review State water quality standards to ensure compliance with the CWA and the Water Quality Standards regulation. EPA will continue to develop information on toxics hazardous chemicals that constitute potentially significant hazards to surface water uses, with em phasis on bioaccumulative pollutants and other chemicals. EPA will improve regulatory controls to reduce toxics in sediment, and study ways to make the standards fully adequate to address nonpomt source pollution and the need for extension of the water quality criteria development effort to include impacts on wildlife. This document presents separate objectives for this tnennium (as identified in the Operating Guidance) and the next two trienrua and identifies the guidance materials to be available to States at least one year before a triennium begins. Each objective includes a short discussion of the information used to establish the objective as a program priority (Rationale) and a summary of existing documents available that relate to the objective (Pertinent Documents). In addition, Table 1 summarizes scheduled program activities that relate, either directly or indirectly, to the establishment of objectives for the standards program These activities provide additional background for the establishment of program objectives. They include scheduled activities for implementation of the Water Quality Act of 1987, development of regulations and guidance, and reports under development for Con gress. For each triennium a plan for the completion of pro gram activities necessary to meet the program objec tives is presented. It includes activities primarily lor the Criteria and Standards Division (O.)i and the Office of Research and Development (ORD). There are also activities that will involve the leadership and participation of the Regions and other Headquarters offices, e.g., Monitoring and Data Support Diwsion (MDSD), the Office of Water Enforcement and Per mits (OWEP) and the Office of Wetlands Protection (OWP). Activities are numbered according to the objective they support and specify the approximate date of completion and the responsible organization. Supporting organizations are listed parenthetically. The activities for OWRS(CSD) include those de signed to communicate information between Head quarters, the Regions and the States. These "outreach" activities will be used to monitor the progress of the Regions and the States in achiesing the objectives and to help Headquarters in providing timely and effective guidance and technical assistance The Regions and States will benefit from these out reach activities through technology transfer and inter action with other Regions and States. Table 2 summarizes all the activities by fiscal >ear Table 2 can be used to plan for the completion of the activities within each fiscal sear. The reader should note that there are relatively few activities for FY XX compared to FY 89 due to the few months remaining in the year The number of different activities for EY Introduction \m> SL 105980 II-8-8S DRAFT 89 reflects the broadening of the water quality stand* ards program. There are only a few activities identified beyond FY 89 due to the long time frame and the difficulty in identifying activities that are currently undergoing program development. Activities will be added in annual revisions to this document as research and re lated programs are developed. This will result in an accurate presentation of program activities. Full development of research and program guidance for the objectives in the FY 91-93 and FY 94-96 Triennia will require several years. However, consid erable research and program development has been completed that supports several of the objectives. It is important that interim guidance based on existing information be developed while research is underway to fully obtain the objectives. Therefore, some of the activities listed for future triennia include the devel opment of interim guidance over the next few years based on existing data and information. All of the objectives presented are priorities for the water quality standards program. The objectives are divided into three time frames. In general, objectives in the FY 88-90 Triennium are taken from the Agency Operating Guidance and do not require addi tional research. The objectives for the FY 91-93 Triennium require research and development and will be part of Agency Operating Guidance and will be completed within the next 2-4 years. The objectives for the FY 94-96 Triennium are also priorities for the program but will require research and program devel opment over the next 5-7 years and will also be part of developed Operating Guidance i The States and EPA do not have the resources to develop guidance and implement all these program activities at the same time, and some of these activities may not be a high priority for the national program. Therefore, priority must be given to certain activities so that the States are aware in advance of the national program direction, permitting the necessary research and program development to take place. The States are not limited to the development of programs to meet only the objectives within each time period. If a State has fully developed programs to meet the objectives for the current period, then the State should begin to develop programs to meet fu ture program objectives. Activities are presented for the attainment of certain future objectives based on existing data and information. Therefore, the activ ities described in this document can be used to accel erate the attainment of future program objectives Also, nothing in this document suggests or prohibits a State from implementing basic program activities such as revising stream uses, or changing water quality criteria to reflect the latest available scientific infor mation, for the State to achieve its own Standards program priorities. Activities within each time period include those nec essary to implement program objectives in current and future time periods. Activities are of two basic types; those that will be carried out by the program offices in Headquarters and the Regions and those that will be carried out by ORD. Most of the activ ities for Headquarters will be carried out by the CSD. Introduction SL 105981 eUUTB/VUFUTtl BBATTfrtMl U-8-88 DtLiFT Summary of Major Standards Related Activities Overview numeric criteria (aquatic life and human health); Section 303(c)(2)(B) antidegradation, policy and implementation pro cedures biological entena standards for wetlands; wildlife entena critena for marine/estuarine systems standards and criteria based on ecoregions toxjcity-based enteria (ambient whole effluent bioassays) implementation procedures for the narrative standards sediment entena for toxics entena for nonpoint sources (e g. biological cri tena) listing of waters and development of individual control strategies for toxics under Section 304(1). Framework Objectives By Triennia Objectives: FY 88-90 Triennium Alt Identify waters needing toxic criteria. A2: Adopt numeric enteria for pollutants, A3: Update State policies and develop implemen tation procedures for antidegradation A4: Adopt toxicity-based critena (ambient whole effluent bioassaVs), and develop implementa tion procedures. A5: Complete state toxic control program rev iew s and ensure development of state action plans. Objectives: FY 91-93 Triennium Bl: Establish permanent link between 304(1) listing requirements and triennial reviews. B2: Establish water quality standards for marine wetland and estuarine systems. B3: Adopt sediment criteria for toxics. B4: Adopt biological criteria (biocritena). B5: Integrate Standards and Nonpomt Source Control programs. Objectives: FY 94-96 Triennium Cl: States adopt criteria to protect wildlife C2: States adopt criteria to protect marine/estuanne ecosystems. Summary of Major Standards Related Activities SL 105982 ySfflZ} FWTROIHT*rPROTtC'TVJ i.TUCV 11-8-89 DRAFT FY 88-90 Triennium Objectives: This Section describes the basis for the program ob jectives identified for the current tnenwum (FY 88-90). The objectives for this jjeriod are taken di rectly from the Agency Operating Guidance. They do not require require additional research and devel opment to be fully implemented in state programs The basis for establishing these objectives as pnonties is primarily the Agency Operating Guidance for FY 88; The Guide to the Office of Water Accountability System and Mid-year Evaluations", dated May 1987 The activities pertinent to the water quality standards program are presented in two chapters within this document {Surface Water Toxic Control Initiatives and Water Quality Standards) and paraphrased below. SP\1S refers to Strategic Planning and Management System and OWAS refers to Office of Water Ac countability System- Objective A1: Identify waters to determine if toxic criteria are needed to protect uses. Rationale Agency Operating Guidance, FY 88. Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act establishes a requirement for the States to identify waters impaired due to toxic and other pollutants Sec tion 303(c)(2)(B) requires States to adopt nu meric criteria or criteria based on biological monitoring or assessment methods for Section 307(a) toxic pollutants. The technical basis for numeric criteria is presented under Objective A2. Pertinent Documents OWRS and the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) developed final guidance (dated March 1988) on the listing of State waters that is required by Section 304(1) This guidance is being used by the States to identify waters im paired by point (and nonpoint) source discharges of conventional and toxic pollutants and waters requiring numeric criteria under Section 303(c)(2)(B). Objective A2: Incorporate numeric criteria for toxics into State standards. Rationale 1. The Agency Operating Guidance, FY 88. 2. Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act re quires States to adopt numeric criteria for Section 307(a) toxic pollutants in their water quality standards. Where such numerical entena are not available, a State shall adopt criteria based on biological monitoring or assessment methods The water quality-based program traditionally foi u -ed on the development of numeric criteria for individual chemicals and the regulation of dischargers using these criteria; the so-called chemical-specific approach More recently, an approach was developed based on toxicity using either ambient or whole etTluent bioassays to determine the need for controls: the so called toxicity-based or whole effluent approach This alternative approach was developed because certain water quality problems could not be dealt with effec tively with the chemical-specific approach. The rationale for each of these approaches is defined in Chapter 1 of the Technical Support Document for Water Quality'based Toxics Control (TSD) and re lated policy: (49 FR 9018). EPA has identified that in some cases an integrated approach, including both chemical and biological techniques (effluent and am bient bioassay testing and biosurveys) could be used to assess water quality and control pollution sources A water quality-based program cannot rely solely on one approach. There are certain water quality prob lems that are best dealt with using the chemical specific approach and numeric criteria for individual chemicals. For example, as defined in the ISD where the toxicity of the discharge is due primarily to certain chemicals (e g., chlorine) for which EPA or the State has developed a criterion, permit require ments based on these criteria are preferred. The pro tection of human health is another example where controls are implemented using the chemical-specitic approach. On the other hand, biological technique- FY 88-90 Triennium -XT 11-8-88 DRAFT using ambient or whole effluent bioassays or biosurveys could be used where effluents are complex or where the combined effects of multiple discharges are of concern and aquatic life protection is the con cern. In certain cases, both approaches may be used. Where toxicitv-based limits exist in a permit, chemical-specific limitations are also needed for chemicals that can cause a cumulative impact on the designated uses if discharged from several sources. These pollutants include those that bioaccumulate through the food chain and cause unacceptable con centrations of contaminants in animal tissues, such as lipid soluble organics, chlordane and chemicals that may not readily bioaccumulate but persist in the aquatic environment, such as metals. The use of chrome criteria and the use of "quasi steady state' di lution models for stormwater will be given greater emphasis. For these reasons, and because of Section 303(c)(2)(B). a chemical-specific approach is a neces sary tool m the water quality-based program. There fore, States need to adopt numeric criteria for individual chemicals in their standards even if they have adopted toxicity-based critena or biocriteria. A ranking system has been developed by OWRS CSD that is used for prioritizing contam inants for entena advisory development. The system scores chemicals based on toxicity to humans and aquatic organisms as well as on persistence and po tential exposure Final selection of chemicals for en tena or advisory development is made from the prioritized list based on information not readily in corporated into the ranking, such as actions taking place in other programs or special interest from Re gions or States. Pertinent Documents 1. The Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) developed Guidance for Implementation of Water Quality Standards for CWA Section 303(cj(2)(B), dated September 2, 1988. 2. OWRS developed numeric criteria recommen dations for 23 toxic chemicals to protect aquatic life and 95 toxic chemicals to protect human health from exposure to contaminants in fish and shellfish. The basic source of criteria information are the individual criteria documents and Quality Criteria for Water, 1986. OWRS also issued a summary Listing of these criteria to the Regions; dated March 1988. 3. OWRS plans to issue guidance on the derivation of entena to protect human health early in FY 1989, Objective A3; Encourage implementation procedures for antidegradation to be incorporated in State standards. Rationale The Agency Operating Guidance, FY 88 Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act establishes the overall objective that the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters be restored and maintained This objective of main taining the existing quality of the Nations waters resulted in the development of a national policy which was continued in the 1983 water quality standards regulation. The focus of the water program after enactment of the CWA was to clean-up the most severe and obvious pollution problems. While much of the attention was placed on these clean-up activities, the goal of pro tecting existing high quality waters has always been a goal of the Clean Water Act. In its entirety, the antidegradation policy represents a three tiered ap proach to maintaining and protecting various levels of water quality and uses. At its base, all existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses must be maintained and protected. Section 303(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act states that per mits must be consistent with the antidegradation pol icy. Although water quality standards are useful in es tablishing a target for the improvement of waters impaired by pollution, they may not be sufficient to protect high quality waters; i.e. waters whose quality exceeds that necessary for fishable swimmable uses. An example would be a pristine stream with 8.0 mg 1 dissolved oxygen compared to a criterion of 6,0 mg 1 and the concentrations of metals and organics well below existing criteria. In the absence of an antidegradation policy and implementation proce dures, this stream's quality would be allowed to be lowered to the criteria with no evaluation of the eco logical, economic or social value of the waterbody and with no public involvement. Antidegradation policies are designed to ensure that the ecological value of high quality waters is fully evaluated, any economic growth that will lower water quality is necessary, all alterna tives to degradation have been exhausted, and the public has been given an opportunity to comment on actions that will degrade high quality waters. Outstanding water resource waters are waters of eco logical, recreational or ecological significance Many States specifically designate certain waters for special protection m their water quality standards. There are no criteria specifically designed to protect outstanding national resource waters or ecologicaly unique waters However, once such waters are designated, no degra dation is permitted FY 88-90 Triennium SL 105984 11-8-88 DRAFT Pertinent Documents 1. Questions and Answers on Antidegradalion August 1985. 2. The Federal policy on antidegradation contained in the water quality standards regulation (40 CFR 131,12 dated November 1983. 3. OWRS historical summary of the development of the 1983 Federal antidegradation policy, 4. Regional guidance on antidegradation imple mentation, Regions 1,5 and 9. 5. Memoranda to Regions issued in FY88 summa rizing results of national antidegradalion program assessment. Objective .44: Encourage implementation procedures to be developed on the use of the whole effluent approach to control toxics. Rationale The Agency Operating Guidance, FY 88. The water quality-based program has placed consid erable emphasis on the development of numeric cri teria for individual chemicals and the regulation of dischargers usmg these criteria. However, the use of whole effluent toxicity testing procedures is also a strong component of the water quality control pro gram and may be particularly applicable when dealing with mixtures of compounds or as procedure to deal with the general parameter of toxicity itself when dealing with unknown compounds. Whole effluent toxicity testing may also serve as a basis for estab lishing permit limits for toxics based on state narrative toxic standards. Pertinent Documents 1. The Technical Support Document and the Per mit Writer's Guide. 2. Regional implementation procedures. 3. EPA methods manuals (freshwater and marine) for conducting toxicity testing. Objective A5: Assess the adequacy of State toxic control programs. Rationale The Agency Operating Guidance, FY 88. The water quality-based program has been developed by the States to varying degrees. Some States fully developed the program while other States rely on the technology-based approach and are just now begin- ning to develop their capabilities to regulate dis charges usmg the water quality-based approach. Regardless of the sophistication of the State pro grams, all water quality-based programs can improve in certain areas. In addition, there are certain core elements that must be part of all State water qualitybased programs for there to be a consistent national program. This review process was developed to assist the States in the development of their water qualitybased programs through the identification of these core program elements. The result of these program reviews is the develop ment and implementation of State action plans. These plans establish pnority activities and com pletion schedules that are necessary to improve the State program and ensure a nationally consistent tox ics control program. The Regions are required to complete the reviews and negotiate State action plans by October 1988. All reviews were completed. All action plans not completed by the end of FY88 are expected to be completed by December 1988 t Pertinent Documents: State Toxic Control Program Review Guidance (dated December 1987) on how to conduct a review and develop state action plans. (OWRS/OWEP) Support Activities Objective A I: Identify waters needing toxic criteria. Activity A1-1: Evaluate state 304(1) lists (due 2 89) and ensure that states adopt numeric criteria for listed waters. 9/89 Regions (\lDSD/OWRS(CSD)) Activity A1-2: Prepare state 304(1) fists for states that do not submit lists bv 2 89. 6,89 Regions (MDSD/OWRS(CSD)) Objective A2: Adopt numeric criteria in state standards. Activity A2-1: Develop guidance on the implemen tation of Section 303 (c)(2)(B). 9,-88 0\'TIS(CSD) Activity A2-2: Develop guidance for criteria to pre vent human exposure to contaminants in fish and shellfish. 9/88 OWRS(CSD) Activity A2-3: Evaluate site-specific criteria modifi cations and revise national guidance as appropriate, 9/89 OWRS(CSD)/Regtons Activity A2-4: Conduct additional research for the development of numeric criteria (as identified b> the OWRS(CSD) ranking system) under Section 304(a) Ongoing ORD FV 88-90 Triennium SL 105985 curfr /M-JS DRAFT Activity A2-5: Conduct water quality standards workshops on the development of water quality cntena Ongoing 0\VRS(CSD) Activity A2-6: Encourage states to re-evaluate the use of fecal coliform as a indicator organism and to con sider the use of enterococci and E. cob as a substitute. Objective A3; Lpdate state policies and develop im plementation procedures for antidcgradation. Activity AJ-I: Complete regional antidegradation audits 7 88 OWRSfCSD) Activity AJ-2: Develop a summary of Regional and state implementation procedures approaches 5/89 OWRSfCSD) (Regions) Objective A4: Adopt toxicitv-based criteria and develop implementation procedures. Activity A4-I: Develop guidance on the adoption of toxicitv-based criteria in state standards 9 88 OWRSfCSD) Activity A4-2: Develop implementation guidance. 9 89 OWRSfCSD) (OWTP/MDSD) Activity A4-3: Assist in the development of guidance on the bioaccumulation potential of complex effluents 9 89 OWEP/ORD (OWEP) Activity A4-4: Develop procedures for the use of biological criteria in toxicity assessment activities. 8,89 OWRSfCSD) Objective AS; Complete state toxic control program reviews and ensure development of state action plans Activity AS-/: Track state program reviews and action plans. 9/88 OWRS(CSD)/OWEP (MDSD) Activity A5-2: Develop a summary of state toxic .control programs and action plans. 4 89 0\VRS(CSD)/MDSD/0\VEP 88-90 Triennfum SL 105986 TWTBOTEOTit FEETECTOTA5EHCY tl-SSS DRAFT FY 91-93 Triennium Objectives: This section describes the basis for the program ob jectives identified for the FY 91-93 Tnennium. The activities necessary to develop these program objec tives require additional research and program devel opment that can be completed within the next 2-4 years. While several years is required to fully develop these programs, some program development (e.g guidance) can take place in the interim using existing data and research. Objecthe Bl: Establish permanent link between 304(1) listing requirements and triennial standards reviews. Rationale Section 3U4(1) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 establishes requirements for the listing of state waters impaired by conventional and toxic pollutants This Section includes a logical link to Section 303(c) of the Act which requires the states to adopt numeric criteria in their water quality standards. This objective is designed to coordinate and formally link these requirements Pertinent Documents 1 The Monitoring and Data Support Division is developing a regulation to link the 304(1) listing requirements to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) re porting requirements to State standards under Section 303(c). A draft regulation is currently under development. 2. OWRS(CSD) issued draft guidance on the im plementation of Section 303(c)(2)(B). dated Sep tember 2, 1988. Amendments to the WQS regulation to formally address the new toxics re quirements will be proposed in FY89, Objecthe B2: Increased emphasis on the development of water quality standards for marine, wetlands, and estuarine systems and develop operating guidance to ensure those standards are part of regulators standards. Rationale Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires the issuance of permits by the .Army Corps ot 1 neneers, with review and approval of FP.\ tor dredge and fill activities affecting the Nation waters, including wetlands. Wetlands are partic ularly susceptible to these activities because they are flat and generally easily developed, and mans are located near population centers. Wetlands represent a unique and finite water resource that are impossible to reclaim once destroyed. Section 104 authorizes the Administrator to conduct and promote research into causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction and elimination of pollution, and to pubim relevant information. Section 104(niili a particular provides for study of the effects o pollution, including sedimentation, in estuaries on aquatic life. Section 304(a)(1) directs the Administrator to develop and publish "criteria for water qualm reflecting the latest scientific knowledge on inter alia, the kind and extent of effects on plankton, fish, shellfish, and wildlife which mas be expected from the presence of pollutants m any body of water, including ground water and on the effects of pollutants on biologK.il community diversity, productivity and stability Section 304(a)(2) directs the Administrator to develop and publish information on, inter alia the factors necessary for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish and wildlm lor classes and categories of receiving waters Section 303 authorizes the administrator t > provide for states to adopt state standards There are several States that do not specifically : _ ogrtize wetlands in their water quality standards In those States that recognize wetlands as waters ot :1 . State", few States have regulatory procedures tor protection of wetlands. Items that arc lacking mdsi. numeric or narrative criteria, wasteload ailos,:'o. FY 91-93 Tnennium SL 105987 EWTMWEMm PMTECTTflN IdlOCY 11-8-88 DR4FT procedures, procedures for permitting discharges to wetlands, and procedures for applying antidegradauon to wetlands. There is considerable public support for the pro tection of wetlands. Wetlands in the U S. have been reduced from more than 200 million acres 200 years ago to 95 million acres today. Wetlands provide habitat and are a productive food source for mam mals, reptiles and birds that cannot be provided by lakes or streams. On an absolute and per acre basis, they are some of the most productive ecosystems in the world. In some arid regions, wetlands are the primary source of water for wildlife. The lack of information from the States or CPA on the locations and ecological values of wetlands makes it difficult for the Corp of Engineers to properly assess the impact of develop- ment activities on wetlands. There is also a general lack of guidance from EPA on how to establish designated uses and criteria for wetlands. Pertinent Documents Aquatic life criteria developed under Section 304(a). Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines Quality Criteria for Water 1986 Objective B3: Adopt sediment criteria for toxics. Rationale Existing EPA criteria recommendations are fo cused on the water column. Certain contam inants, particularly organic and metal contaminants that bind to sediments and can impact designated uses. Impacts caused by con taminated sediments to designated uses is well documented. The available toxicity data is based on laboratory tests designed to determine the effect on aquatic life of various contaminants in the water column. The ex isting criteria documents and supporting data need to be evaluated to determine how they should be used in the development of sediment criteria. Data in volving the testing of animals usually associated with sediments will be particularly useful in the develop ment of sediment criteria. However, additional re search and guidance will likely be needed to supplement the available data and develop defensible criteria for toxics in sediments. A protocol for the development of sediment criteria has been under development for the last few years. Interim sediment criteria have been developed for 11 contaminants and are now being applied on a pilot basis at several Superfund sites around the country. While considerable research is needed to develop sediment criteria for all types of pollutants. States with sediments contaminated by organics should be able to adopt sediment criteria for selected contaminants over the next few years. Operating guidance will be developed for the incorporation of sediment criteria into regulatory frameworks. Pertinent Documents 1. Background and Review Document on the De velopment of Sediment Criteria 6.85 2. Sediment Quality Criteria Development Work shop 2/85 3. National Perspective on Sediment Quality 7 85 4. Protocol for Sediment Toxicity Testing Tor Nonpolar Organic Compounds 2 86 -5. Sediment Quality Criteria Validation: Calcu lation of Screening Level Concentrations from Field Data 7/86 Attachment' Recalculation of Screening Level Concentrations for Nonpolar Organic contaminants in Marine Sediments 12 87 6. Guidance for Sampling of and Analyzing for Or ganic Contaminants in Sediments 1 87 7. Regulators Applications of Sediment Criteria 6.87 8. Sediment Quality Criteria Methodology Vali dation: Uncertainty Analysis of Sediment Nor malization Theory for Nonpolar Organic Contaminants 1187 9. Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals. V Opti mization of Extraction Methods for Determining the Quantity of Sorbents and Adsorbed Metals in Sediments 12/87 10. Interim Sediment Criteria Values for Nonpolar Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants 5,88 Objective B4: Adopt biological criteria (biocrileria). Rationale EPA policy (49 FR 90/S) states that biological assessment methods are an integral part of a strong water quality-based program. The policy states that biological assessments can include bioassays and ambient monitoring or biosurveys Biocriteria are based on the measurement of the resi dent biota, usually fish and invertebrates. They can be numeric or narrative. Numeric biocntena can be one measurement (e.g biomass of fish) or a combi nation of measurements (eg. fish diversity, abun dance, habitat quality, etc.) They can also be narrative based on a genera] statement on biotic m- F\ 91-93 Triennium SL 105988 11-8-88 DRAFT tegrity supported by a variety of assessment methods. Approximately 5 States have developed biocriteria in their water quality standards. This interest at the State level attests to the value and feasibility of biocritena in the water quality standards program. In some cases there is uncertainty associated with control programs based on laboratory derived infor mation, i.e. chemical specific and whole effluent test ing The measurement of the resident biota provides a direct assessment of the "health* of the biological community. This type of information provides an assessment tool that in some cases can expand the ability of State water quality standards to address the many different types of water quality problems. The whole effluent approach was developed to ad dress these complex problems. However, neither this approach nor the chemical specific approach directly assesses the status of the resident biological commu nity; both use laboratory testing to simulate biological health. Direct measurement of the biological com munity can address problems that are more difficult to address using only laboratory-based information and criteria; 1 identifying previously unknown sources of impairment, 2 identifying where site-specific chemical critena are needed and 3. characterizing the ecological value of high quality waters under antidegradation. Biological assessment information and biocriteria provide an additional check on laboratory denved in formation and enteria. The use of ambient biological monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs is a basic element of the nonpoint source control policy; updated SAM-32, dated August 1987. The use of biological monitoring to evaluate nonpoint source control programs is part of certain State water quality standards; e g. Idaho. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service requires biological monitoring as part of some Forest Plans; e g. Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho. There is a lack of criteria to address the effect of habitat destruction on designated uses. Some biolog ical critena or indexes include factors that address habitat and some state biocriteria include separate critena for habitat. Biological criteria will likely re quire the assessment of both the biological commu nity and the physical habitat due to the effects of many nonpoint source pollutants (e g,, sediment) on habitat. Pertinent Documents 1 Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change - developed by MDSD; encourages th use of biological monitoring. 2. OWRS Rapid Bioassessment Protocol 3. Nonpoint Source Control Policy; updated SAM-32, dated August 1987. 4. Section 319 of the CWA of 1987 requires states to identify water impaired by nonpoint sources These list of waters will provide information on the types of nonpomt source enteria that are most needed. Objective B5: Integrate Standards and Nonpoint Source Con trol programs Review of entena for conventional and nonconventional pollutants (and their implementation) and allocation tools and biologic entena for develop ing more effective nonpoint source controls and to develop regulatory tools. Rationale Clean Water Act Section 319(a)(1)(A) and (B) require States to identify waters that without additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution, cannot rea sonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards. Also States are also required to identify categories and subcategones of nonpomt sources which add significant pollution in amounts which contribute to not meeting water quality stand ards. Beneficial uses have long since been established by the States. Similarly, Slates have antidegradation poli cies. However, when it comes to the assessment manage ment of NPS, the critena for protection of beneficial uses should be closely re-examined to be sure that they are adequate, based on potential differences in 1. Delivery and receiving systems of NPS pollutants, 2. The particular uses in the affected waters, and 3. The particular types of pollutants m, or likely to be in, the effected waters. The hydrology, uses and pollutant discharges of the subject affected waters must be checked against the actual, existing criteria to see how they fit or whether there are gaps, in which case additional entena may have to be developed. Western States with significant amounts of lands de voted to field, orchard, and grazing agricultural and silvicultural uses as well as wilderness and recreation purposes, are finding a need for establishment of cn- FY 91-93 Trienmum SL 105989 JM-SS DIUFT teria to support the ecosystem to take into account for NPS impacts. While the control of toxics and sediment are impor tant. such criteria should also include the usual DO, coliform. etc., as they affect the establishment and maintenance of healthy breeding habitat for aquatic and wildlife populations. Pertinent Documents 1 Organism Response to Tune Variable Pollutant Dosages" John Manciru - June 1987 2 "Development of Methods to Define Water Quality Effects of Lrban Run-otT, Mancini J L., EPA Cooperative Agreement No 806828 3 "Lrban Runoff and Water Quality Criteria'. Proceedings Lrban Run-off Qualnv. Engineering Foundation Conference, June 23-27. 1986 - pp, 133-149 4, "Results of National Lrban Run-off Program', Volume I, L S EPA, Washington, DC. Decem ber 1985. PP 5-10. 5-15 5 New Program to Control Nonpomt Sources of Water Pollution Added to the Clean Water Act by the Water Quality .Amendments of 1487"' Carl Myers. Hal Wise Western Wildlife. No vember. 1988 6 Draft NPS Monitoring and Evaluation Guide Support Activities Objective BL. Establish permanent link between 304(1), 303(c) and 305(b) listing requirements and triennial standards reviews. Activity Bl-I: Participate in the development of a regulation to link the 304/1) listing requirements to the review of water quality standards under Section 303(c) 9 89 OWRS - CSD/MDSD) Objective B2: Establish environmental standards for marine, wetland and estuarine systems. Activity B2-1: Develop a national policy on the inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the State" in State standards and the relationship to the Section 401 cer tification process 9 88 OWRS(CSD) (OWP) Activity B2-2: Develop guidance on the adoption of uses and entena in State standards. 9 89 OWRS<CSD) OWP Activity B2~3: Develop entena applicable to manne. wetland and estuarine systems. 9 89 ORD/OWT Activity B2-4: Develop guidance on the use of state antidegradation policies to protect aquatic s\ stems 5 89 OWPS(CSD) Activity B2-5: Conduct research on the identification, location and ecological assessment of wetlands FY 89,90.91 ORD /OWP Activity B2-6: Conduct research on the development of entena more applicable to a variety of aquatic sys tems. FA' 89,90.91 ORD Activity B2-7: Provide for states recognizing wetlands as waters of the stale and adopting appropnate standards. Objective B3: Adopt sediment criteria for toxics. Activity B3-I: Develop a protocol for polar organic compounds starting with tnbutvlttn, 2 54 OWRS(CSD) Activity B3-2: Develop guidelines on the denvation of site specific sediment entena for non-polar organic compounds. 6 89 OWRS(CSD) Activity B3~3: Develop and verify the protocol for the development of sediment entena for metal con taminants. 3 90 OWRS(CSD) Activity B3-4: Develop and pilot test interim sediment criteria values for metal contaminants at Superfund and other sites 4 9u OWRS(CSD) Activity B3~S: Publish final sediment entena lor non-polar organic contaminants and verity method ology for developing sediment entena for metal con taminants. 11,90 OWRS(CSD) Objective B4 Adopt biological criteria. Activity B4-I; Provide program guidance for devel oping biological entena 4 89 OWRSiCSD OWRS/CSD) (ORD) Activity B4~2: Evaluate approaches for development of biological critena based on existing State programs 9 89 OWRS(CSD)/Regions Activity B4~3: Provide preliminary technical guidance for developing and using biological entena. 9 S9 OWRS(CSD) Activity B4-4: Provide program and technical guid ance document for implementation of biological en tena 9 90 OWRS CSD FA 91-93 Trienmum SL 105990 US/ EWIROmeMTirPMTTCTTON AGENCY II-8S8 D/UFT Objective B5: Integrate Standards and Nonpoint Source Control programs Activity B5~l: Develop one or more technical refer ence manuals on NPS monitoring and evaluation techniques, including the role of ecological assess ments FYS9, reuse FY91. Activity B5-2: Issue guidance on applications of nar rative cntena, numeric cntena, and b"_ 1 --;~-- and site-specific criteria to NPS s m a water based approach. FY89, revise FY91, Activity B6~J: Conduct targeted monitoring efforts in selected MPS high priority watersheds to evaluate the utility of mew lake, biological, marine w etland and estuarine criteria for assessing impacts of \PS imple mentation activities FY89-91 FV 91-93 Triennium SL 105991 'EWTMUgHTil PBOTTCTTaU HdCMCV 11-8-88 DIUFT FY 94-96 Triennium Objectives I his section describes the program objectives identified for the FY 95-97 Tnennium. These objectives have been determined to be necessary for a fully operational standards program. The activities necessary to develop these program ob jectives require additional research and program development that can be completed within the next 5-5 years. While several years is required to fully develop these programs, some program de velopment (e g. guidance) can take place in the interim using existing data and research; see Sec tion 111 activities Objective Cl; States adopt criteria to protect wildlife. Rationale Ihc current water quality standards program is focused on the development of water quality cri teria for surface waters to protect aquatic life and human health. A variety of types of wildlife (waterfowl, other buds and other terrestrial ani mals) use surface waters and are not explicitly protected by existing criteria. The effect of selenium on waterfowl in the Kesterson Marsh, California and the effect of DDT on birds are well publicized examples of the effects on wildlife The effects on wildlife often involve chemicals that may not effect plants and aquatic life, but effect ani mals higher up in the food chain through bioconcentration. Many top predators, such as eagles, are terrestrial animals not protected by existing crite ria There is considerable uncertainty in the use of existing criteria to protect wildlife. Existing aquatic life criteria are not designed to protect wildlife. Wildlife species are not routinely tested for effects from various con taminants, and collection of such data are not in cluded in the development of aquatic life criteria. Existing human health criteria are based primarily on rodent test data. The extrapolation of these data to humans is necessary due to the lack of human expo sure data. While rodent test data could be extrapo lated to wildlife, such extrapolations would require safety factors due to differences m the physiological mechanism of many wildlife species, such as birds as compared to rodents. Considerable additional research through the testing of wildlife species is necessary to fully develop wildlife criteria. Therefore, this objective is included in the long term period (FY 94-96) Wildlife criteria can be developed in the short term penod based on existing data provided safety factors are applied. Pertinent Documents 1. Fish and Wildlife Service Contaminant Hazard Reviews, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland 2 OWRS criteria documents on selected contam inants. Objective C2: States adopt criteria that are more focused to ward the protection of marine and estuarine ecosystems. Rationale The marine, wetland and estuarine environ ments need to receive increased attention by the development of applicable water quality stand ards criteria and guidance This is partly due 10 the greater complexity of the the physical, chem ical and biological interactions of these environ ments and the greater difficulty in conducting bioassay testing in saltwater There are several areas where basic research o needed for the marine environment, for example development of saltwater dilution water lor bioassay testing, development of chemical- --pc cific criteria to protect marine organisms, and development of wasteload allocation procedures for large systems such as estuaries. While the development of marine criteria is an oneome OWRS(CSD) activity, the research neccssar, to fully develop marine criteria for certain parame ters, such as dissolved oxygen, and support me guidance will require 3-5 years FY 94-96 Triennium SL 105992 II V U-8-88 DRAFT Support Activities Objective C2: States adopt criteria that are more focused to ward the protection of marine, wetland and estuarine ecosystems. Activity C2~l 1, Revise the "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Pro- tection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses incorporate guidelines that are protective wildlife species 9 89 OWRS(CSD) ORD i Develop research protocol for toxicity testina in wildlife species. FY 89-90 OWRS(CSD) ORD 3. Conduct research for the development of nu meric criteria protective of wildlife. Ongoing ORD Activity C2-2: Conduct additional research on ma rine criteria. Ongoing ORD FY 94-96 Triennium SL 105993 EWTBOWEKTIL PMTEETlOfrSSEKT 1ISSS DRAFT Operating Guidance for Water Quality Standards - FY 1990 The FY 1990 goals of the water quality standards program are to complete those objectives for the 1988-1990 triennium that have not yet completed and to lay the groundwork with States for the objectives for the 1991-1993 tnennium. States submitting their standards review in FY 1991 should complete neces sary preparatory work in FY 1990, To complete the objectives of the 1988-1990 tnennium, States should ensure they have adopted numenc critena for toxic pollutants as specified in the EPA guidance, updated State policies and procedures for implementing antidegradation for point and non point sources, adopted toxicity based cntena (ambient,whole effluent bioassays), and completed any actions required by the State action plans devel oped from the State Toxic Control Program Reviews. States submitting their standards reviews in FY 1991 should complete necessary preparatory work in FY 1990 to ensure, their 1991 standards will recognize wetlands as "waters of the State", adopt biological cntena for waters needing protection beyond that provided by the current numeric and narrative stand ards (particular for protection where nonpoint sources are the dominant source of pollution), and adopt fine sediment critena for salmonid fisheries where pro tection is necessary Headquarters Headquarters will continue to develop: fresh marine water quality critena/advisories, sediment criteria, and toxicity testing methods to implement the water quality-based approach; new monitoring and analytic technologies; test,procedures methods for deriving sediment criteria; and will consider initiating devel opment of wildlife enteria. Headquarters will promulgate WQS in States that fail to establish WQs that meet the requirements of the WQA. (Ongoing) Regions! States States, as a part of their triennial reviews, will con tinue to revise water quality standards to incorporate numeric criteria for toxic pollutants and or a proce dure applied to the narrative criterion, which results in numeric enteria (specific toxic pollutants and whole effluent toxicity) to be used as the basis for denving TMDLs, WLAs, and NPDES permit limits. (Ongo ing) (SPY1S) Regions will continue to work with States to ensure that States have clearly documented policies and pro cedures for implementing antidegradation for both point and nonpoint sources. (Ongoing) Regions will work with States to revise existing water quality enteria for non-toxic pollutants to reflect latest available scientific information in c304(a) critena re commendation. (Ongoing) Regions will review State and Indian water quality standards and/or revisions, emphasizing 307(a) pollutants. (Ongoing) Operating Guidance for Hater Quality Standards - F\ 1990 SL X05994 i US-88 DRAFT Glossary numeric criteria: Criteria defined as a number or set of numbers, e.g., 2,0 mg/1 ammonia, narrative criteria: Criteria defined by a general state ment rather than by a number; e g., "waters shall be free from toxics in toxic amounts" or "the resident biological community shall be as it naturally occurs". biological criteria: Criteria, either numeric or narra tive. that address the quality of the resident biological community. Where there are numeric biological cri teria, the entena are defined by a particular biological assessment procedure or set of procedures; e.g., di versity indexes or index that includes measurement of the resident biota and the habitat, such as the one developed by Karr et.al.. Where there are narrative biological entena, the criteria are defined by a general statement that requires the protection of the resident biological community at a certain level (e.g., as na turally occurs). These narrative criteria are generally supported by a series of biological assessment proce dures that may be used by the State biologists to de termine whether a particular site meets or exceeds the narrative standard. ecoregion approach: A methodology for dividing the landscape into homogeneous areas based on vanous characteristics of the the physical, chemical and bi ological charactenstics of the land and the water. The Corvallis Oregon Environmental Research Labora tory has developed an ecoregion map for the United States that was developed based on mapped informa tion for soil types, land use, riparian vegetation, land surface form (slope) and climate. Other more sitespecific ecoregional maps have been developed based on this information and information on the resident biological community. Ecoregional boundaries allow an investigator to reduce natural variability in the bi ological community and extrapolate information over a large area. Ecoregional boundaries currently define the water quality standards use classifications in Ohio, Arkansas, and Oregon. toxicity-based criteria: Criteria based on the meas urement of the total toxicity of the ambient water or of an effluent. These criteria use bioassav testing of the receiving water, an effluent or a combination of both to determine whether there is toxicity to aquatic life. These bioassays use test organisms that include invertebrates (generally ceriodaphnta) or fish (gener ally fathead minnow). wildlife criteria: Criteria based on the testing of wildlife species such as mallard duck or mink. sediment criteria: Chemical-specific numeric entena that define the concentration of toxic contaminants in sediments that if exceeded will adversely impact aquatic life, human health and the attainment of re lated beneficial uses Glossary SL 105995 11-8-88 DR.4FT TABLE 1 - Timetable of Related Program Activities The following is a timetable of water quality standards related activities There are many activities that are underway or planned that directly or indirectly relate to the water quality standards program These activ ities provide additional background for the establish ment of program priorities. 12/88: 1/89-. 2/89: FY 88 4/89: Activity 1/88: 3/88: 4/88: 9/88: 9/88: FY88: Description "First" report to Congress on Sec tion 319 nonpoint source assess ments completed Draft guidance on implementation of Section 303(c)(2)(B) issued for public comment. Preliminary lists under Section 304(1) submitted from the States State toxics control program re views and State action plans com pleted. Draft Proposed WQS regulation (Indian Tribes) issued. States complete reviews of their water quality standards under Sec tion 303(c) per SPMS commit ments. 4/89: 9/89: 9/89: FY 90 Activity 1/90: 4/90: 9/90: FY 89: Activity 11/88: 11/88: 12/88: 10/89: Description Final Guidance on Section 303(c)(2)(B) issued. Proposed regulation on Section 304(1) listing issued. 305(b) Guidelines completed for the 1990 report to Congress. 9/90: FY90: Interim Final Regulation on grants to Indian tribes issued. 'Second" report to Congress on Section 319 completed Final 304(1; lists submitted by the Stales. Policy on ecological monitoring, including use of biosurvey infor mation and biocntena, completed. Proposed WQS regulation regard ing Indian Tribes published for re view and comment. MDSD bioconcentration study completed SARA 313 database becomes available. Description "Final" report to Congress on Sec tion 319 completed. 1990 305(b) reports to Congress received from States. End of construction grants, con version to state revolving fund completed . Publish final Water Quality Stand ards regulation for Indian Tnbcs Revision of the national guidelines for the derivation of aquatic life criteria completed. General program guidance on wa ter quality assessments and moni toring completed. TtBLE 1 - Timet able of Related Program Activities SL 105996 TO7TTOlJFTTTrr^5KVrr y\ \SSBJ IISSS DRAFT TABLE 2 - Timetable for Completion of Supporting Activities FY 88 (completed by 9/30/88) Headquarters (OWRS(CSD)/MDSD/OWEP/OWP) and Regions Activity Description AI -1: A1-2: A3-1: 44-1: AS-1: B2-I; Guidance for Section 303(c)(2)(B). Guidance on human health entena. .Antidegradation audit Guidance on toxicity-based entena. Track state program reviews and action plans. National policy on wetland standards Office of Research and Development Activity A1-4: C2-2: Description Research under Section 304(a). Research on marine criteria under Sec tion 304. FY 89 (completed by 9/30/89) Headquarters (0VVRS(CSD)/MDSD/0\VEP/0\\T) and Regions A ctivity A1-3: A1-5: A2-I: A2-2; A2-3: Description Site-specific enteria evaluations. Water quality standards workshop State 304(1) lists review EPA derived 304(1) list development 304(1) workshop. A3-2: A4-2: A4-3: AS-2: BI-I: BI-2: B2-2: B2-4: 83-1: B3-2: B4-I: B5-I: Cl-1: C2-1: Summary of State regional antidegradation approaches. Guidance on toxicity-based approach implementation. Guidance on bioaccumulation of com plex effluents. Summary of state toxics control pro grams and action plans. 304(1) regulation development. Standards guidance in support of the 304(1) regulation. Guidance on standards for uetlands Guidance on use of antidegradation u< protect wetlands. Sediment criteria protocol for polar or ganics. Guidelines for sediment entena for non-polar organics Fine sediment entena. Research plan for bioentena. Research plan for wildlife critcna Research plan for marine critena devel opment. Office of Research and Development Activity A1-4: B2- 3: B2-5: B2-6: B5-2: Description Research under Section 304 Criteria applicable to wetlands b.i'ed on existing data. Wetland value assessment research Wetlands criteria research. Biocriteria, based on existing data TABLE 1 - Timetable for Completion of Supporting Actisities SL 105997 EWTMWEHTiL PMTECT7W A5LKR1V 114-M DRAFT B5-4: C1-2: Cl-3: C2-2: Research on biocriteria. Wildlife criteria based on exi'tmp data, Research on wildlife critena. Research on marine entena under Sec tion 304. FY 90 (completed by 9/30/90) Headquarters (OWRS<CSD)/MDSD/OWEP/0\VP) and Regions Activity B3-3: B3-4: B3-5: Description Sediment entena protocol for metals. Pilot testing of metals entena. Final sediment entena for non-polar organics and metals Office of Research and Development A cthiry A 1-4: B2-5: B2-6: B5-3: BS-4. Cl-3: Description Research under Section 304. Wetland \ alue assessment research. Wetlands enteria research. Technical guidance on bioentena. Research on biocntena. Research on wildlife critena C2-2: Research on marine entena under Sec tion 304 FY 91-93 (completed by 9/30/93) Headquarters (0\\TIS<CSD)/>1DSD/0\VEP/0\VP) and Regions No specific activities identified at this time Office of Research and Development Activity A1-4: B2-5; B2-6: B5-4: Cl-3: C2 2: Description Research under Section 304, Wetland value assessment research Wetlands criteria research Research on bioentena. Research on wildlife entena. Research on marine criteria under Sec tion 304 TABLE 2 - Timetable for Completion of Supporting Activities SL 105998 ). t.NVIROHSfcNTiL PROTECTION AUfcNCi 1/89 DIOXIN: 2,3,7,8-TCDD CAS No.: 1746-01-6 CAS Preferred Nomenclature: Dibenzo[b,e][l,4]dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro Empirical Formula: C12H4C1402 Synonyms and Common Names: - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin - TCDD or TDD REGULATORY STATUS : 9X C12H4C,42- TCDD Standards and Criteria: EPA Water Quality Criteria (for fish consumption only) for a 10'6 cancer risk (ATSDR, 1987); 0.000014 ng/L EPA Drinking Water Health Advisories (U.S. EPA, 1988): Shm (10 Kg): 1-day exposure 1 ng/L; 10-day exposure - 0.1 ng/L; longer-term exposure > 0.01 ng/L idult (70 Kg): longer-term exposure - 0.04 ng/L EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria FDA (Food and Drug Administration (to protect aquatic organisms); Health Advisory for Fish None established at present (U.S. EPA, 1986a): <25 parts per trillion (ppt), no serious health concerns 25-50 ppt, restrict con sumption to 1 fish per week >50 ppt, no consumption recommended EPA Drinking Water Standard Maximum Contaminant Level: None established at present Center for Disease Control Level of Concern In Soil for residential areas (U.S. EPA, 1987)*. 1 ppb 1 SL 105999 Use Restrictions and Bans: Dioxin is an unwanted by-product generated during the manufacture of other organic compounds (e.g., PCBs; 2,4,5-triclrlorophenol; and formerly hexachlorophene). The herbicide 2,4,5-T is no longer produced In the U.S. and use of Silvex has been curtailed (ATSDR, 1987). EPA has required manufacturers to reduce concentrations of TCDD in chemical products; most chemicals now have less than 0.02 jtg/g (ATSDR, 1987). SOURCES OF DIOXIN Dioxin Formation: No commercial production or importation of dioxin In the U.S., but small quantities are produced for research purposes (NTIS, 1980). TCDD Is one of 75 types of dioxin formed as unwanted impurities during the manufacture of other organic compounds, particularly chlorinated phenols. Some of these dioxins have been studied, In particular 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD and two of the HxCDDs (1,2,3,6,7,8- and 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD). Dioxin can be generated as a by-product of paper and pulp mill bleaching processes which use chlorine. It can then be released to aquatic systems in various wastewater streams and sludges generated by these Industries (U.S. EPA, 1988; NCASI, 1987). Recent data have shown correlations between dioxin In streams and nearby petroleum refineries which use chlorine or chlorinated solvents In the catalytic reforming process. Uses of Dioxin: None except for research (ATSDR, 1987). Other Sources: Contaminant of other organic compounds (ATSDR, 1987). Examples are listed below: - Until 1960, 2,4,5-T had up to 100 pg/g TCDD, now < 0.1 ng/g - Agent Orange had 0.02 to 54 iig/g - Hexachlorophene had 0.2 to 0.5 ng/g - Pentachlorophenol has < 0.1 ng/g of other dioxin Isomers but no TCDD - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) also contain TCDD. Oil containing PCBs was formerly used in electrical transformers. Utilities are gradually replacing these old transformers. Incineration of municipal and industrial wastes at too low a temperature (< 800C) can produce dioxin. (Verschueren, 1983; ATSDR, 1987; U.S. EPA, 1987b). 2 SL 106000  Derivatives of pentachlorophenol and other woodtreating wastes (NCASI, 1987; U.S. EPA, 1987b). FATE OF DIOXIN IN ENVIRONMENT Partitioning: Based on its physical/chemical properties, dioxin is only slightly soluble in water (Aq. sol. - 0,000317) and strongly sorbs to soil (K^ 10,500,000). It has a high potential for bloaccumulation. Persistence: Because dioxin strongly sorbs to sediment, It persists in soils and aquatic systems. Photolysis can occur, aided by photosensitizers in surface water (halflife 1 to 1.5 years) or in the top few inches of soil (half-life 1 to 3 years) (U.S. EPA, 1985b and Freeman, et al., 1986). Hydrolysis is not thought to be important (Callahan, fiial., 1979). Biotransformation of dioxin in soils is slow (ATSDR, 1987). DIOXIN OBSERVED IN ENVIRONMENT (STORET. 19861 Detected Concentrations No. of Concentration Associated No. of Detected With Stated Percentile Maximum Samoles Values 25th 50th 75th JUlMS- Water (mg/L) No data available Sediment (mg/kg dry) 534 21 Tissue (mg/kg wet) 425 9 00 2xl0'6 0.0002 4.3 0.07 1,000 81 Tissue (ppt wet)* 636 212 1.6 3.0 5.3 85 National Dioxin Study data (U.S. EPA, 1987b). Other findings from the National Dioxin Study (U.S. EPA, 1987a) - < 10 percent of soils near production facilities for 2,4,5-T and other chemicals had >1 pg/kg TCDD - TCDD detected in 112 fish from 394 Tier 3-7 sites (most < 5 ng/kg) - TCDD detected at 21 percent of US6S monitoring sites 3 SL 106001 HEALTH EFFECTS Carcinogenicity: Oral exposure causes increased incidence of tumors in liver, tongue, hard palate and lungs in rats (Kociba fii al., 1978a,b) and in thyroid and adrenal glands in mice (NTP, 1982a,b). EPA classification Is B2, a probable human carcinogen (IRIS, 1987). IARC classification 2b (IARC, 1982). In combination with herbicides such as trichlorophenols, dioxin Is classified by the EPA as Bl, limited evidence of human carcinogenicity (IRIS, 1987). Mutagenic Activity: Mutagenicity tests have produced inconclusive results. Bacterial tests were negative as were most tests using rats and mice except when bone marrow cel 1s were used (Green al., 1977; Meyne al-, 1985). Early tests using yeast cells showed positive results (IARC, 1982). Reproductive Effects: Adverse reproductive effects are caused in a variety of animals: - fetotoxic in monkeys (U.S. EPA, 1985b) - embryotoxic and teratogenic in mice, rabbits, ferrets and rats (IARC, 1977; U.S. EPA, 1985b) - reduced fertility and spontaneous abortions in monkeys (ATSDR, 1987). - birth defects in mice (e.g., cleft palates and kidney abnormalities) (U.S. EPA, 1985b) Other Toxicological Effects: . Major observed toxic effect on humans is chloracne (U.S. EPA, 1985b). Human exposure through herbicides and other TCDD-contaminated chemicals can also cause altered liver function, porphyria, neurotoxicity, and hyperpigmentation (U.S. EPA, 1985b). Toxic effects to acutely exposed animals include extreme weight loss, liver and thymus damage, immunotoxicity and hepatotoxicity (IARC, 1977; U.S. EPA, 1985). Toxicological Effects Indices: Cancer potency factor (CPF): 1.56xl05 (mg/kg/day)*1. (U.S. EPA, 1986a). Reference Dose (RfD): lxlO'6 /xg/kg/day (ATSDR, 1987). Oral LD50 values for animals range from 0.6 /xg/kg in guinea pigs to 5,500 Mg/kg in hamsters (U.S. EPA 1985c). 4 Si 105QQ2 physical/chemical properties Value______ Reference Molecular Weight (g/mole): 321.97 Windholz, 1983 Physical State 0 20C: solid, colorless needles with no odor Windholz, 1983 Melting Point (C): Boiling Point (C): Density (g/mL): 305 412.2 1.827 (est.) Schroy fit fil-, 1985 Schroy fit fil-> 1985 Schroyfitll- 1985 Acid Dissociation Constant, PK.: Water Solubility, S (mg/L): N/A 1.93xl0'5 (22C) 3.17xl0'4 (25C) Marple fit fil., 1986 Schroy fit fil*. 1985 Vapor Pressure, P (mm Hg): 1,4xl0"9 (25C) Schroy fit fil- 1985 Henry's Law Constant, H 0 25C (atm m3/mol): 2. lxlO'6 Schroy fit fil., 1985 Log (Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient), log 6.15-7.28 U.S. EPA, 1985a Soil Adsorption Coefficient, log koc; Fish Bioconcentration Factor, BCF: 6.0-7.39 best estimate, 5000 7900-9300, fathead minnows U.S. EPA, 1985a U.S. EPA, 1986a U.S. EPA, 1985b 5 SL 16003 REFERENCES Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL). 1986. The Installation Restoration Program Toxicology Guide, Vol. 2. Aerospace Medical Division,' Air Force Systems Command, Contract #F33615-81-D-0508. , , ,ATSDR. 1987. Draft Toxicological Profile for 2 3 7 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin. U.S. Public Health Service, Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN. Callahan, M.A., M.W. Slimak, N.W. Gabel, I.P. May, C.F. Fowler, J.R. Freed, P. Jennings, R.L. Durfee, F.C. Whitmore, B. Maestri, W.R. Mabey, B.R. Holt, and C. Gould. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants. Office of Water Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PA-440/4-79-029a. Freeman, R.A., J.M. Schroy, F.D. Hileman, R.W. Noble. 1986. Environmental Mobility of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Comparison Chemicals in a Roadway Soil Matrix. In: Chlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Perspective. (C. Rappe, G. Choudhary, L.H. Keith, eds.) Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea. Green, S., Moreland, Sheu, C. 1977. Cytogenic Effect of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on Rat Bone Marrow Cells. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C. FDA By-Lines, $:292. (Cited in U.S. EPA 1985a). International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1977. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Vol. 15. IARC, Lyon, France. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1982. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Vol. 29. IARC, Geneva, World Health Organization. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1988. 2,3,7,8,-TCDD. U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Kociba, R.J., D.G. Keyes, J.E. Beyer, and R.M. Carreon. 1978a. Results of a Twoyear Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dloxin in Rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 46(21:279-303. Kociba, R.J., D.G. Keyes, J.E. Beyer, and R.M. Carreon. 1978b. Toxicologic Studies of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxln (TCDD) In Rats. Toxicol. Occup. Med. (De Toxicol. Environ. Sci.), 4:281-287. (Cited In U.S. EPA 1985a.) Marple, L., R. Brunck and L. Throop. 1986. Water Solubility of 2,3,7,8Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2fl:180-182. Meyne, J., D.C. Allison, K. Bose, S.W. Jordan, P.F. Ridolpho, and J. Smith. 1985. Hepatotoxic Doses of Dioxin do not Damage Mouse Bone Marrow Chromosomes. Mutat. Res. 157:63-69. NCASI. 1987. Dioxin: A Critical Review of its Distribution, Mechanism of Action, Impacts on Human Health and the Setting of Acceptable Exposure Limits. National 6 SL 106004 Council of the Paper Industry of Air and Stream Improvement. Technical Bulletin No. 254. New York, NY. NIOSH, 1984. Current Intelligence Bulletin 40: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodlbenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD, "dioxin"). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Publication No. 84-104. NTIS, 1980. Dioxins. Prepared for EPA Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory. Contract Numbers: 68*03-2577, 68-03-2659, 68-03-2579. NTP (National Toxicological Program). 1982a. Bioassay of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin for Possible Carcinogenicity (Gavage Study). DHHS Publ. No. (NIH) 82-1765. Bethesda, MD: Carcinogenesis Testing Program, NCI, NIH; Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program. NTP (National Toxicological Program). 1982b. Bioassay of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin for Possible Carcinogenicity (Dermal Study). DHHS Publ. No. (NIH) 82-1757. Bethesda, MD: Carcinogenesis Testing Program, NCI, NIH; Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program. Opperhuizen, A., VI.J. Wagenarr, F.W.M. van der Wielen, M. van den Berg, K. 01ie and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 1986. Uptake and Elmination of PCDD/PCDF Cogeners by Fish after Aqueous Exposure to a Fly-ash Extract from a Municipal Incinerator. Chemosphere 15:2049-2053. Podoll, R.J., H.M. Jaber and T. Mill. 1986. Tetrachlorodlbenzodioxin: Rates of Volatilization and Photolysis in the Environment. Environ. Scl. Technol. 25:490-492. Schroy, J.M., Hileman F.D., Cheng S.C. 1985. Physical/Chemical Properties of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Chemosphere; 14:877-880. U.S. EPA. 1985a. Drinking Water Criteria Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin. EPA Report No. 600/X-84-194-I. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. U.S. EPA. 1985b. Health Assessment Document for Polychlorinated Dlbenzo-pdioxins. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/8-84/014F. U.S. EPA. 1986a. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-86/060. U.S. EPA. 1986b. Health Assessment Document for Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (Review Draft). Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/8-86/018-A. U.S. EPA. 1986c. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins. Draft Health Advisory, Office of Drinking Water. Washington, D.C. 7 SL 10600S U.s. EPA. 1987a. The National Dioxin Study. Tiers 3,5,6 and 7. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. EPA 440/4-87-003. U.S. EPA. 1987b. National Dioxin Study. Washington, D.C. EPA 530-SW-87-025. U.S. EPA. 1988. U.S. EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Screening Study. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA-440/1-88-025. U.S. EPA. 1988a. Revised Health Advisory for Dioxin. Verschueren, K. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 8 SL 106006 ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP TO: (Nsms, ottics symbol, room numbsr, bulkt/ng, Agsncylptst) ? ? Data v Initijin Data 2. 9?28 p3: 3lJ 3. 4. l7T^3aj^rr 5. Action Approval Aa Raquaatad Clrculat* Commant Coordination REMARKS Fiia For Claaranca For Corraction For Your Information Invastigat* Juatify Not* and Ratum Par Convaraation Prapar* Raply SaaM* Signature o/<otrn 'r FM Co.lc.^f^'f/HO a riS k / / -fro A /0~` r< ' _ ^.<9 7 /?*' O /0 r> 7-- O> ^ 7.<? a/ DO NOT um this term it RECORD of approval*, concurrence*. dlapoaala, claaranca*, and aimilar action* FROM; (Nam*, org. symbol. Agsney/Posi) Room No.--Bldg. C,rl Vc Uji SMI-102 GPO : 1987 0 - 196-A09 OPTIONAL FOB* 41 (Kav. 7-76) PrtwiftBi by FPMft(41 6Fft)101>11.2M SL 106007 NSSP MANUAL - PAST I APPENDIX C Table 1. Action Levels, Taleraneee and ther Values far Poisaooui or Deleterioa StAstances in Seafood* Deleterious Substance Level Food Com modity^Hefereae Aldrin/Dieldrind 0.30 ppm Fish 8c Shellfish CPG 7120.23-A* Chlordane 0.30 ppm Fish only CPG 7120.23-C* . DDT, DDE, TDE 5.00 ppm Fish only CPG 7120.23-D Endrin 0.30 ppm Fish 8c Shellfish CPG 7120.23-F* Heptachlor/Heptachlor .Epoxide .____ 0.30 ppm _FIsh A Shellfish _______.CPG 7120.23-HC Kepone 0.30 ppm Fish 8c Shellfish CPG 7120.23-1* * 0.40 ppm Crabmeat CPG 7120.23-1* Mercury* 1.00 Fish 8c Shellfish CPG 7108.07* Mirex 0.10 ppm Fish only CPG 7120.23-K* Paralytic Shellfish Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBa) Ptychodiscus brevis toxin(s) Toxaphene 80 mg/lOOg of meat 2.00 Fresh, frozen 8c canned clams mussels 8c oysters Fish 8c Shellfish CDPT 7108.20* 21 CFB 109.30 20 mouse units/1 OQg meats 5.00 ppm Shellfish Fish only APHA Lab. Procedures (17) - CPG 7120.23-L *** r"* n * m --3 Is 0 [ !!':/ [c LfU MAPI C1 19- 0 Tel r;A TECH INC LAFAYETTE CALIP ft"AMI ? AUGUST 1916 r :dpaoeap<M 22; SL 106008 Footnotes for Table 1, Appendix C a) Levels far all deleterious substances listed except Ptychodiscus brevis toxin(s) are action levels are tolerances. The value listed for P.brevis toxinls) represents a level deemed by the NSSP to be potentially unsafe for human consumption. The P.brevis toxin(s) value is not an FDA action level or tolerance. b) Unless otherwise specified, the aciton levels, tolerances and other values listed apply to bothe the raw and processed food commodity. Procedures for sample collection and analyses are specified in Section 443 of the FDA Inspectors Operation Manual; 40 CFR 180.1 (j); FDA Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume I or II; .AOAC Official Methods of Analysis; or APHA Laboratory Procedures for tbe Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish, Fifth Edition, 1984. c) References designated as CPG represent tbe Compliance Policy Guides and all asociated numbers as they appear In appropriate chapters of FDA's Compliance Policy Guides ManuaL Copies of the Compliance Policy Guides (CPG) referenced* may be obtained from: FDA, Freedom of Information (HFI-35), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Phone (301)443-6310. d) The action level for aldrin and dieldrin are for residues of tbe pesticides Individually or In combination. However, in adding amounts of aldrin and dieldrin do not count aldrin or dieldrin found at the level below 0.3 ppm for flab. e) Recommendations for legal action must clearly Indicate tbe exact portion of tbe food used for analysis. The portion used for analysis must be prepared by the appropriate procedure outlined in the PAM, Vol 1, Sections 141.12 and 141*22. The level applies to methyl mercury expressed as mercury (Bg) in excess of 1 ppm (edible portion only). f) Tbe final rule for PCBs in fish and shellfish, 21 CFR 109, was published on May 22, 1984 and became effective 90 days after that date. The level published represents a tolerance rather than an action level. AUGUST 1986 PAGE APC-3 SL 106009 as EPA To arrange for training in IRIS, call the IRIS contact for the appropriate ERA Region. EPA REGION I EPA REGION II EPA REGION III EPA REGION IV EPA REGION V EPA REGION VI EPA REGION VII EPA REGION VIII EPA REGION IX EPA REGION X Boston/Tom D'Avanzo (617) 565-3222 FTS 835-3222 New York/Marian Olson (212) 264-5682 FTS 264-5682 Philadelphia/Roy Smith (215) 597-9857 FTS 597-9857 Atlanta/Gayle Alston (404) 347-4216 FTS 257-4216 Chicago/David Dolan (312) 886-9532 FTS 886-9532 Dallas/Fred Reitman (214) 655-2235 FTS 255-2235 Kansas City/Bob Fenemore (913) 236-2970 FTS 757-2970 Denver/Jim Baker (303) 293-1524 FTS 564-1524 San Francisco/Arnold Den (415) 974-0906 FTS 454-0906 Seattle/Dave Tetta (206) 442-2138 FTS 399-2138 Dana DaVoli (206) 442-2135 FTS 399-2135 imis--------------------- ' What is the Integrated ' Risk Information System? The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) electronic on-line database of summary health risk assessment and regulatory Information on chemical substances. The primary purpose of IRIS is to pro vide guidance risk values to EPA risk assessors and decision makers for use in EPA v risk assessments. IRIS provides a basis for greater consistency in EPA risk manage ment decisions. EPA staff and EPA contractors are expected to use the risk informa tion in IRIS for those chemicals in the database. The information contained in IRIS is intended for those without extensive training in toxicology, but with some knowledge of health science. IRIS is not an exhaustive toxicological database, but rather presents a summary of information on hazard and dose-response assessment. The database also includes reference citations and EPA contacts for further information. From Other Sources of Risk Assessment Information? The information contained in IRIS, except as specifically noted, has been reviewed and agreed upon by intra-Agency review groups comprised of EPA scientists with ex tensive experience in risk assessment. Thus, the information in IRIS represents an ex pert Agency consensus. This expert consensus is one of the most valuable aspects of IRIS. What Kind of information 7* is Included in IRIS? \ The IRIS database includes the following sections: 1) chemical files which summarize data on each chemical, 2) alphabetical and CAS number listings of chemicals in IRIS, 3) list of revisions made to existing chemical files, 4) introduction to IRIS, 5) background documents on risk assessment methodologies, 6) glossary of terms used in IRIS, 7) user's guide and instructional case study, and 8) status of chemicals scheduled for the IRIS review process. Each of the chemical files summarizes a hazard and dose-response assessment for noncarcinogenic effects and/or carcinogenic effects if an EPA consensus is available. The chemical files also provide summaries of Office of Drinking Water Health Advisories, EPA regulatory decisions (such as Water Quality Criteria, Clean Air Act regulations, Pesticide Registration Standards, and Reportable Quantities developed for Superfund), and supplementary information on acute toxicity data and physicalchemical properties data. Apart from the chemical files, background documents in the database describe the basic concepts and limitations of IRIS, as well as EPA's risk assessment procedures and assumptions used in developing this information. How Can I Get Access to IRIS? How Much Does IRIS Cost? To obtain an IRIS account call Mike McLaughlin of DIALCOM, Inc. at (202) 488-0550 or write to: Mike McLaughlin, DIALCOM, Inc., 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024. The user must pay DIALCOM, Inc. only for the cost of accessing IRIS. There is a $25.00 monthly minimum which is applied against a usage fee of $25.00 per hour, in addition to the usage fee, there is a $.05 charge per computer screen accessed. EPA does not charge for using IRIS. Contacts for More Information 1) Who do I call if I have a question about using IRIS or have a general question about the system? Call IRIS User Support at (513) 569-7254 or FTS 684-7254. 2) Who do I call if I have a scientific or technical question about the reference doses, carcinogen summaries, or drinking water health advisories? Call the EPA contact listed at the end of the chemical file section in question. 3) Who do I calm I have a policy question about IRIS? Call Rick Picardi at (202) 382-7315 or FTS 382-7315. 4) Who do I call to learn when a chemical, reference dose, or carcinogenicity section will be added to IRIS? Call IRIS User Support at (513) 569-7254. / SL 106011 if