"
Water
Quality
Standards;
Establishment
of
Numeric
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants;
States'
Compliances
Federal
Register,
Volume:
57
,
Issue:
246
,
Page:
60848
(
57
FR
60848)
,
Tuesday,
December
22,
1992
Agency:
Environmental
Protection
Agency­­(
EPA)
Document
Type:
Rules
and
Regulations
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR):
40
CFR
Part
131
Numbers:
No.
WH­
FRL­
4543­
9
Dates:
Effective:
19930205
Contact
Information:
David
K.
Sabock,
or;
R.
Kent
Ballentine,
202­
260­
1315
Action:
Final
rule
Internal
Data:
(
FR
Doc.
92­
30611
Filed
12­
21­
92;
8:
45
am)

SUMMARY:
This
rule
promulgates
for
14
States,
the
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
necessary
to
bring
all
States
into
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
States
determined
by
EPA
to
fully
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
are
not
affected
by
this
rule.
Th
rule
addresses
two
situations.
For
a
few
States,
EPA
is
promulgating
a
limited
number
of
criteria
which
were
previously
identified
as
necessary
in
disapproval
letters
to
such
States,
and
which
the
State
has
failed
to
address.
For
other
States,
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
issued
section
304(
a)
water
quality
criteria
guidance
and
that
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
When
these
standards
take
effect,
they
will
be
the
legally
enforceable
standards
in
the
named
States
for
all
purposes
and
programs
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
including
planning,
monitoring,
NPDES
permitting,
enforcement
an
compliance.
EPA
is
also
withdrawing
today
the
human
health
criteria
published
in
the
1980
Ambient
Water
Quality
Criteria
documents
f
r:
Beryllium,
Cadmium,
Chromium,
Lead,
Methyl
Chloride,
Selenium,
Silver,
nd
1,1,1
Trichloroethane.
A
summary
of
the
criteria
recommendation
and
he
notice
of
availability
of
each
criteria
document
were
published
at
45
FR
79318,
November
28,
1980.

­­­­­­­­­­

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
131
(
WH­
FRL­
4543­
9)

Water
Quality
Standards;
Establishment
of
Numeric
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants;
States'
Compliance
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

ACTION:
Final
rule.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
SUMMARY:
This
rule
promulgates
for
14
States,
the
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
necessary
to
bring
all
States
into
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
States
determined
by
EPA
to
fully
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
are
not
affected
by
this
rule.

The
rule
addresses
two
situations.
For
a
few
States,
EPA
is
promulgating
a
limited
number
of
criteria
which
were
previously
identified
as
necessary
in
disapproval
letters
to
such
States,
and
which
the
State
has
failed
to
address.
For
other
States,
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
issued
section
304(
a)
water
quality
criteria
guidance
and
that
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.

When
these
standards
take
effect,
they
will
be
the
legally
enforceable
standards
in
the
named
States
for
all
purposes
and
programs
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
including
planning,
monitoring,
NPDES
permitting,
enforcement
and
compliance.

EPA
is
also
withdrawing
today
the
human
health
criteria
published
in
the
1980
Ambient
Water
Quality
Criteria
documents
for:
Beryllium,
Cadmium,
Chromium,
Lead,
Methyl
Chloride,
Selenium,
Silver,
and
1,1,1
Trichloroethane.
A
summary
of
the
criteria
recommendation
and
the
notice
of
availability
of
each
criteria
document
were
published
at
45
FR
79318,
November
28,
1980.

EFFECTIVE
DATE:
This
rule
shall
be
effective
February
5,
1993.

ADDRESSES:
The
public
may
inspect
the
administrative
record
for
this
rulemaking,
including
documentation
supporting
the
aquatic
life
and
human
health
criteria,
and
all
public
comments
received
on
the
proposed
rule
at
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Standards
and
Applied
Science
Division,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology,
room
919
East
Tower,
Waterside
Mall,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
(
Telephone:
202­
260­
1315)
on
weekdays
during
the
Agency's
normal
business
hours
of
8
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.
A
reasonable
fee
will
be
charged
for
photocopies.
Inquiries
can
be
made
by
calling
202­
260­
1315.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
David
K.
Sabock
or
R.
Kent
Ballentine,
Telephone
202­
260­
1315.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

This
preamble
is
organized
according
to
the
following
outline:
A.
Introduction
and
Overview
1.
Introduction
2.
Overview
B.
Statutory
and
Regulatory
Background
1.
Pre­
Water
Quality
Act
Amendments
of
1987
(
Pub.
L.
100­
4)
2.
The
Water
Quality
Act
Amendments
of
1987
(
Pub.
L.
100­
4)
a.
Description
of
the
New
Requirements
b.
EPA's
Initial
Implementing
Actions
for
sections
303(
c)
and
304(
l)
3.
EPA's
Program
Guidance
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
C.
State
Actions
Pursuant
to
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
D.
Determining
State
Compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
1.
EPA's
Review
of
State
Water
Quality
Standards
for
Toxics
2.
Determining
Current
Compliance
Status
E.
Rationale
and
Approach
For
Developing
the
Final
Rule
1.
Legal
Basis
2.
Approach
for
Developing
the
Final
Rule
3.
Approach
for
States
that
Fully
Comply
Subsequent
to
Issuance
of
this
Final
Rule
F.
Derivation
of
Criteria
1.
Section
304(
a)
Criteria
Process
2.
Aquatic
Life
Criteria
3.
Criteria
for
Human
Health
4.
Section
304(
a)
Human
Health
Criteria
Excluded
5.
Cancer
Risk
Level
6.
Applying
EPA's
Nationally
Derived
Criteria
to
State
Waters
7.
Application
of
Metals
Criteria
G.
Description
of
the
Final
Rule
and
Changes
from
Proposal
1.
Changes
from
Proposal
2.
Scope
3.
EPA
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants
4.
Applicability
H.
(
Reserved)
I.
Response
to
Public
Comments
1.
Legal
Authority
2.
Science
3.
Economics
4.
Implementation
5.
Timing
and
Process
6.
State
Issues
J.
Executive
Order
12291
K.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
L.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
A.
Introduction
and
Overview
1.
Introduction
This
section
of
the
Preamble
introduces
the
topics
which
are
addressed
subsequently
and
provides
a
brief
overview
of
EPA's
basis
and
rationale
for
promulgating
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Section
B
of
this
Preamble
presents
a
description
of
the
evolution
of
the
Federal
Government's
efforts
to
control
toxic
pollutants
beginning
with
a
discussion
of
the
authorities
in
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
of
1972.
Also
described
in
some
detail
is
the
development
of
the
water
quality
standards
review
and
revision
process
which
provides
for
establishing
both
narrative
goals
and
enforceable
numeric
requirements
for
controlling
toxic
pollutants.
This
discussion
includes
the
changes
enacted
in
the
1987
Clean
Water
Act
Amendments
which
are
the
basis
for
this
rule.
Section
C
summarizes
State
efforts
since
1987
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Section
D
describes
EPA's
procedure
for
determining
whether
a
State
has
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Section
E
sets
out
the
rationale
and
approach
for
developing
the
final
rule,
including
a
discussion
of
EPA's
legal
basis.
Section
F
describes
the
development
of
the
criteria
included
in
this
rule.
Section
G
summarizes
the
provisions
of
the
final
rule.
(
Section
H
is
reserved.)
Section
I
contains
the
response
to
major
public
comments
received
on
the
proposal.
Sections
J,
K,
and
L
address
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
12291,
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act,
and
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
respectively.
Section
M
provides
a
list
of
subjects
covered
in
this
rule.

A
public
hearing
on
the
proposed
rule
was
held
on
December
19,
1991,
in
Washington,
DC.
A
total
of
26
non­
EPA
people
registered
at
the
hearing.
The
public
comment
period
closed
on
December
19,
1991.
EPA
received
a
total
of
153
written
comments
on
the
proposed
rule.

2.
Overview
This
rule,
which
establishes
Federal
criteria
for
certain
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
a
number
of
States,
is
important
for
several
environmental,
programmatic
and
legal
reasons.

First,
control
of
toxic
pollutants
in
surface
waters
is
an
important
priority
to
achieve
the
Clean
Water
Act's
goals
and
objectives.
The
most
recent
National
Water
Quality
Inventory
indicates
that
one­
third
of
monitored
river
miles,
lake
acres,
and
coastal
waters
have
elevated
levels
of
toxics.
Forty­
seven
States
and
Territories
have
reported
elevated
levels
of
toxic
pollutants
in
fish
tissues.
States
have
issued
a
total
of
586
fishing
advisories
and
135
bans,
attributed
mostly
to
industrial
discharges
and
land
disposal.

The
absence
of
State
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants
undermines
State
and
EPA
toxic
control
efforts
to
address
these
problems.
Without
clearly
established
water
quality
goals,
the
effectiveness
of
many
of
EPA's
water
programs
is
jeopardized.
Permitting,
enforcement,
coastal
water
quality
improvement,
fish
tissue
quality
protection,
certain
nonpoint
source
controls,
drinking
water
quality
protection,
and
ecological
protection
all
depend
to
a
significant
extent
on
complete
and
adequate
water
quality
standards.
Numeric
criteria
for
toxics
are
essential
to
the
process
of
controlling
toxics
because
they
allow
States
and
EPA
to
evaluate
the
adequacy
of
existing
and
potential
control
measures
to
protect
aquatic
ecosystems
and
human
health.
Formally
adopted
standards
are
the
legal
basis
for
including
water
quality­
based
effluent
limitations
in
NPDES
permits
to
control
toxic
pollutant
discharges.
The
critical
importance
of
controlling
toxic
pollutants
has
been
recognized
by
Congress
and
is
reflected,
in
part,
by
the
addition
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
to
the
Act.
Congressional
impatience
with
the
pace
of
State
toxics
control
programs
is
well
documented
in
the
legislative
history
of
the
1987
CWA
amendments.
In
order
to
protect
human
health,
aquatic
ecosystems,
and
successfully
implement
toxics
controls,
EPA
believes
that
all
actions
which
are
available
to
the
Agency
must
be
taken
to
ensure
that
all
necessary
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
established
in
a
timely
manner.

Second,
as
States
and
EPA
continue
the
transition
from
an
era
of
primarily
technology­
based
controls
to
an
era
in
which
technology­
based
controls
are
integrated
with
water
quality­
based
controls,
it
is
important
that
EPA
ensures
timely
compliance
with
CWA
requirements.
An
active
Federal
role
is
essential
to
assist
States
in
getting
in
place
complete
toxics
criteria
as
part
of
their
pollution
control
programs.
While
most
States
recognize
the
need
for
enforceable
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants,
their
recent
adoption
efforts
have
often
been
stymied
by
a
variety
of
factors
including
limited
resources,
competing
environmental
priorities,
and
difficult
scientific,
policy
and
legal
challenges.
Most
water
quality
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
have
been
available
since
1980.
Section
303
of
the
CWA
requires
States
to
review,
revise,
and
adopt
updated
water
quality
standards
every
three
years
as
part
of
a
continuing
triennial
review
process.
The
water
quality
standards
regulation
has
required
State
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
since
1983
(
see
40
CFR
131.11).
Despite
the
availability
of
scientific
guidance
documents
and
clear
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements,
a
preliminary
assessment
of
the
water
quality
standards
for
all
States
in
February
of
1990
showed
that
only
six
States
had
established
fully
acceptable
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
This
rate
of
toxics
criteria
adoption
is
contrary
to
the
CWA
requirements
and
is
a
reflection
of
the
difficulties
faced
by
States.
In
such
circumstances,
it
is
EPA's
responsibility
to
exercise
its
CWA
authorities
to
move
forward
the
toxic
control
program
in
concert
with
the
statutory
scheme.

EPA's
action
will
also
help
restore
equity
among
the
States.
The
CWA
is
designed
to
ensure
all
waters
are
sufficiently
clean
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
The
CWA
allows
some
flexibility
and
differences
among
States
in
their
adopted
and
approved
water
quality
standards,
but
it
was
not
designed
to
reward
inaction
and
inability
to
meet
statutory
requirements.

Although
most
States
have
made
important
progress
toward
satisfying
CWA
requirements,
some
have
still
failed
to
fully
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
CWA
authorizes
EPA
to
promulgate
standards
where
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act.
Where
States
have
not
satisfied
the
CWA
requirement
to
adopt
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants,
which
was
reemphasized
by
Congress
in
1987,
it
is
imperative
that
EPA
take
action.

EPA's
ability
to
oversee
State
standards­
setting
activities
and
to
correct
deficiencies
in
State
water
quality
standards
is
critical
to
the
effective
implementation
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
This
rule
is
a
necessary
and
important
component
of
EPA's
implementation
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
as
well
as
EPA's
overall
efforts
to
control
toxic
pollutants
in
surface
waters.

On
February
26,
1992,
EPA's
Deputy
Administrator
issued
"
Guidance
on
Risk
Characterization
for
Risk
Managers
and
Risk
Assessors"
which
addresses
a
problem
that
affects
public
perception
regarding
the
reliability
of
EPA's
scientific
assessments
and
related
regulatory
decisions.
The
guidance
noted
that
"
when
risk
information
is
presented
to
the
*
*
*
public,
the
results
have
been
boiled
down
to
a
point
estimate
of
risk
*
*
*
which
do
not
fully
convey
the
range
of
information
considered
and
used
in
developing
the
assessment."
The
guidance
lays
out
principles
and
implementation
procedures
to
address
risk
assessments
in
future
EPA
presentations,
reports
and
decision
packages.
The
guidance
specifically
notes,
"
However,
we
do
not
expect
risk
assessment
documents
that
are
close
to
completion
to
be
rewritten."
The
proposal
for
this
final
rule
was
published
in
November,
1991,
three
months
prior
to
the
risk
assessment
guidance
being
issued.
Since
the
Agency
was
striving
to
meet
a
mid­
February
statutory
deadline
for
final
publication,
when
the
risk
guidance
was
issued
the
rulemaking
package
was
essentially
complete.
The
specifics
of
the
aquatic
life
and
human
health
guidelines
are
discussed
in
the
preamble
and
in
the
response
to
public
comments.
The
actual
methodology
and
criteria
documents
describe
in
detail
the
risk
assessment
process
involved
in
deriving
a
water
quality
criteria
and
the
water
quality
standards
contained
in
this
rule
and
the
resulting
risk
characterization.
The
water
quality
criteria
methodology
and
individual
criteria
documents
are
part
of
the
record
for
this
rule.
Therefore,
while
all
the
specifics
of
the
new
risk
characterization
guidance
were
not
followed
in
this
preamble,
the
spirit
of
the
guidance
is
reflected.

Moreover,
EPA
has
initiated
a
review
and
update
of
these
criteria
methodologies.
These
updates
will
be
conducted
in
conformance
with
the
risk
characterization
guidance
and
include
public
involvement
and
review.

B.
Statutory
and
Regulatory
Background
1.
Pre­
Water
Quality
Act
Amendments
of
1987
(
Pub.
L.
100­
4)

Section
303(
c)
of
the
1972
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
(
FWPCA)
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1313(
c))
established
the
statutory
basis
for
the
current
water
quality
standards
program.
It
completed
the
transition
from
the
previously
established
program
of
water
quality
standards
for
interstate
waters
to
one
requiring
standards
for
all
surface
waters
of
the
United
States.

Although
the
major
innovation
of
the
1972
FWPCA
was
technology­
based
controls,
Congress
maintained
the
concept
of
water
quality
standards
both
as
a
mechanism
to
establish
goals
for
the
Nation's
waters
and
as
a
regulatory
requirement
when
standardized
technology
controls
for
point
source
discharges
and/
or
nonpoint
source
controls
were
inadequate.
In
recent
years,
these
so­
called
water
quality­
based
controls
have
received
new
emphasis
by
Congress
and
EPA
in
the
continuing
quest
to
enhance
and
maintain
water
quality
to
protect
the
public
health
and
welfare.

Briefly
stated,
the
key
elements
of
section
303(
c)
are:
(
a)
A
water
quality
standard
is
defined
as
the
designated
beneficial
uses
of
a
water
segment
and
the
water
quality
criteria
necessary
to
support
those
uses;
(
b)
The
minimum
beneficial
uses
to
be
considered
by
States
in
establishing
water
quality
standards
are
specified
as
public
water
supplies,
propagation
of
fish
and
wildlife,
recreation,
agricultural
uses,
industrial
uses
and
navigation;
(
c)
A
requirement
that
State
standards
must
protect
public
health
or
welfare,
enhance
the
quality
of
water
and
serve
the
purposes
of
the
Clean
Water
Act;
(
d)
A
requirement
that
States
must
review
their
standards
at
least
once
each
three
year
period
using
a
process
that
includes
public
participation;
(
e)
The
process
for
EPA
review
of
State
standards
which
may
ultimately
result
in
the
promulgation
of
a
superseding
Federal
rule
in
cases
where
a
State's
standards
are
not
consistent
with
the
applicable
requirements
of
the
CWA,
or
in
situations
where
the
Agency
determines
Federal
standards
are
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act.

Another
major
innovation
in
the
1972
FWPCA
was
the
establishment
of
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
which
requires
point
source
discharges
to
obtain
a
permit
before
legally
discharging
to
the
waters
of
the
United
States.
In
addition
to
the
permit
limits
established
on
the
basis
of
technology
(
e.
g.
effluent
limitations
guidelines),
the
Act
requires
discharges
to
meet
instream
water
quality
standards.
(
See
section
301(
b)(
1)(
C),
33
U.
S.
C.
1311(
b)(
1)(
C)).

The
water
quality
standards
serve
a
dual
function
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
regulatory
scheme.
Standards
establish
narrative
and
numeric
definitions
and
quantification
of
the
Act's
goals
and
policies
(
see
section
101,
33
U.
S.
C.
1251)
which
provide
a
basis
for
identifying
impaired
waters.
Water
quality
standards
also
establish
regulatory
requirements
which
are
translated
into
specific
discharge
requirements.
In
order
to
fulfill
this
critical
function,
adopted
State
criteria
must
contain
sufficient
parametric
coverage
to
protect
both
human
health
and
aquatic
life.

In
its
initial
efforts
to
control
toxic
pollutants,
the
FWPCA,
pursuant
to
section
307,
required
EPA
to
designate
a
list
of
toxic
pollutants
and
to
establish
toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
based
on
a
formal
rulemaking
record.
Such
rulemaking
required
formal
hearings,
including
cross­
examination
of
witnesses.
EPA
struggled
with
this
unwieldy
process
and
ultimately
promulgated
effluent
standards
for
six
toxic
pollutants,
pollutant
families
or
mixtures.
(
See
40
CFR
part
129.)
Congress
amended
section
307
in
the
1977
Clean
Water
Act
Amendments
by
endorsing
the
Agency's
alternative
procedure
of
regulating
toxic
pollutants
by
use
of
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
by
amending
the
procedure
for
establishing
toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
to
provide
for
more
flexibility
in
the
hearing
process
for
establishing
a
record,
and
by
directing
the
Agency
to
include
sixty­
five
specific
pollutants
or
classes
of
pollutants
on
the
toxic
pollutant
list.
EPA
published
the
required
list
on
January
31,
1978
(
43
FR
4109).
This
toxic
pollutant
list
was
the
basis
on
which
EPA's
efforts
on
criteria
development
for
toxics
was
focused.

During
planning
efforts
to
develop
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
water
quality
criteria,
the
list
of
sixty­
five
toxic
pollutants
was
judged
too
broad
as
some
of
the
pollutants
were,
in
fact,
general
families
or
classes
of
organic
compounds
consisting
of
many
individual
chemicals.
EPA
selected
key
chemicals
of
concern
within
the
65
families
of
pollutants
and
identified
a
more
specific
list
of
129
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Two
volatile
chemicals
and
one
water
unstable
chemical
were
removed
from
the
list
(
see
46
FR
2266,
January
8,
1981;
46
FR
10723,
February
4,
1981)
so
that
at
present
there
are
126
priority
toxic
pollutants.
This
list
is
published
as
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
423.

Another
critical
section
of
the
1972
FWPCA
was
section
304(
a)
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1314(
a)).
Section
304(
a)(
1)
provides,
in
pertinent
part,
that
EPA
*
*
*
shall
develop
and
publish
*
*
*
criteria
for
water
quality
accurately
reflecting
the
latest
scientific
knowledge
(
A)
on
the
kind
and
extent
of
all
identifiable
effects
on
health
and
welfare
including,
but
not
limited
to,
plankton,
fish,
shellfish,
wildlife,
plant
life,
shorelines,
beaches,
esthetics,
and
recreation
which
may
be
expected
from
the
presence
of
pollutants
in
any
body
of
water,
*
*
*
and
(
C)
on
the
effects
of
pollutants
on
biological
community
diversity,
productivity,
and
stability,
*
*
*

In
order
to
avoid
confusion,
it
must
be
recognized
that
the
Clean
Water
Act
uses
the
term
"
criteria"
in
two
separate
ways.
In
section
303(
c),
which
is
discussed
above,
the
term
is
part
of
the
definition
of
a
water
quality
standard.
That
is,
a
water
quality
standard
is
comprised
of
designated
uses
and
the
criteria
necessary
to
protect
those
uses.
Thus,
States
are
required
to
adopt
regulations
or
statutes
which
contain
legally
achievable
criteria.
However,
in
section
304(
a),
the
term
criteria
is
used
in
a
scientific
sense
and
EPA
develops
recommendations
which
States
consider
in
adopting
regulatory
criteria.

In
response
to
this
legislative
mandate
and
an
earlier
similar
statutory
requirement,
EPA
and
a
predecessor
agency
have
produced
a
series
of
scientific
water
quality
criteria
guidance
documents.
Early
Federal
efforts
were
Water
Quality
Criteria
(
1968
"
Green
Book")
and
Quality
Criteria
for
Water
(
1976
"
Red
Book").
EPA
also
sponsored
a
contract
effort
with
the
National
Academy
of
Science­­
National
Academy
of
Engineering
which
resulted
in
Water
Quality
Criteria,
1972
(
1973
"
Blue
Book").
These
early
efforts
were
premised
on
the
use
of
literature
reviews
and
the
collective
scientific
judgment
of
Agency
and
advisory
panels.
However,
when
faced
with
the
list
of
65
toxic
pollutants
and
the
need
to
develop
criteria
for
human
health
as
well
as
aquatic
life,
the
Agency
determined
that
new
procedures
were
necessary.
Continued
reliance
solely
on
existing
scientific
literature
was
deemed
inadequate,
since
for
many
pollutants
essential
information
was
not
available.
EPA
scientists
developed
formal
methodologies
for
establishing
scientifically
defensible
criteria.
These
were
subjected
to
review
by
the
Agency's
Science
Advisory
Board
of
outside
experts
and
the
public.
This
effort
culminated
on
November
28,
1980,
when
the
Agency
published
criteria
development
guidelines
for
aquatic
life
and
for
human
health,
along
with
criteria
for
64
toxic
pollutants.
(
See
45
FR
79318.)
Since
that
initial
publication,
the
aquatic
life
methodology
was
slightly
amended
(
50
FR
30784,
July
29,
1985)
and
additional
criteria
was
proposed
for
public
comment
and
finalized
as
Agency
criteria
guidance.
EPA
summarized
the
available
criteria
information
in
Quality
Criteria
for
Water
1986
(
1986
"
Gold
Book")
which
is
updated
from
time­
to­
time.
However,
the
individual
criteria
documents,
as
updated,
are
the
official
guidance
documents.
EPA's
criteria
documents
provide
a
comprehensive
toxicological
evaluation
of
each
chemical.
For
toxic
pollutants,
the
documents
tabulate
the
relevant
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
information
for
aquatic
life
and
derive
the
criteria
maximum
concentrations
(
acute
criteria)
and
criteria
continuous
concentrations
(
chronic
criteria)
which
the
Agency
recommends
to
protect
aquatic
life
resources.
For
human
health
criteria,
the
document
provides
the
appropriate
reference
doses,
and
if
appropriate,
the
carcinogenic
slope
factors,
and
derives
recommend
criteria.
The
details
of
this
process
are
described
more
fully
in
a
later
part
of
this
Preamble.

Programmatically,
EPA's
initial
efforts
were
aimed
at
converting
a
program
focused
on
interstate
waters
into
one
addressing
all
interstate
and
intrastate
surface
waters
of
the
United
States.
Guidance
was
aimed
at
the
inclusion
of
traditional
water
quality
parameters
to
protect
aquatic
life
(
e.
g.,
pH,
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen
and
a
narrative
"
free
from
toxicity"
provision),
recreation
(
e.
g.,
bacteriological
criteria)
and
general
aesthetics
(
e.
g.,
narrative
"
free
from
nuisance"
provisions).
EPA
also
required
State
adoption
of
an
antidegradation
policy
to
maintain
existing
high
quality
or
ecologically
unique
waters
as
well
as
maintain
improvements
in
water
quality
as
they
occur.

The
initial
water
quality
standards
regulation
was
actually
a
part
of
EPA's
water
quality
management
regulations
implementing
section
303(
e)
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1313(
e))
of
the
Act.
It
was
not
comprehensive
and
did
not
address
toxics
or
any
other
criteria
specifically.
Rather,
it
simply
required
States
to
adopt
appropriate
water
quality
criteria
necessary
to
support
designated
uses.
(
See
40
CFR
130.17
as
promulgated
in
40
FR
55334,
November
28,
1975).

After
several
years
of
effort
and
faced
with
increasing
public
and
Congressional
concerns
about
toxic
pollutants,
EPA
realized
that
proceeding
under
section
307
of
the
Act
would
not
comprehensively
address
in
a
timely
manner
the
control
of
toxics
through
either
toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
or
effluent
limitations
guidelines
because
these
controls
are
only
applicable
to
specific
types
of
discharges.
EPA
sought
a
broader,
more
generally
applicable
mechanism
and
decided
to
vigorously
pursue
the
alternative
approach
of
EPA
issuance
of
scientific
water
quality
criteria
documents
which
States
could
use
to
adopt
enforceable
water
quality
standards.
These
in
turn
could
be
used
as
the
basis
for
establishing
State
and
EPA
permit
discharge
limits
pursuant
to
section
301(
b)(
1)(
C)
which
requires
NPDES
permits
to
contain
*
*
*
any
more
stringent
limitation,
including
those
necessary
to
meet
water
quality
standards
*
*
*,
or
required
to
implement
any
applicable
water
quality
standard
established
pursuant
to
this
Act.

Thus,
the
adoption
by
States
of
appropriate
toxics
criteria
applicable
to
their
surface
waters,
such
as
those
recommended
by
EPA
in
its
criteria
documents,
would
be
translated
by
regulatory
agencies
into
point
source
permit
limits.
Through
the
use
of
water
quality
standards,
all
discharges
of
toxics
are
subject
to
permit
limits
and
not
just
those
discharged
by
particular
industrial
categories.
In
order
to
facilitate
this
process,
the
Agency
amended
the
water
quality
standards
regulation
to
explicitly
address
toxic
criteria
requirements
in
State
standards.
The
culmination
of
this
effort
was
the
promulgation
of
the
present
water
quality
standards
regulation
on
November
8,
1983
(
40
CFR
part
131,
48
FR
51400).

The
current
water
quality
standards
regulation
(
40
CFR
part
131)
is
much
more
comprehensive
than
its
predecessor.
The
regulation
addresses
in
detail
both
the
beneficial
use
component
and
the
criteria
component
of
a
water
quality
standard.
Section
131.11
of
the
regulation
requires
States
to
review
available
information
and,

*
*
*
to
identify
specific
water
bodies
where
toxic
pollutants
may
be
adversely
affecting
water
quality
or
the
attainment
of
the
designated
water
use
or
where
the
levels
of
toxic
pollutants
are
at
a
level
to
warrant
concern
and
must
adopt
criteria
for
such
toxic
pollutants
applicable
to
the
water
body
sufficient
to
protect
the
designated
use.
The
regulation
provided
that
either
or
both
numeric
and
narrative
criteria
may
be
appropriately
used
in
water
quality
standards.

EPA's
water
quality
standards
emphasis
since
the
early
1980'
s
reflected
the
increasing
importance
placed
on
controlling
toxic
pollutants.
States
were
strongly
encouraged
to
adopt
criteria
in
their
standards
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants,
especially
where
EPA
had
published
criteria
guidance
under
section
304(
a)
of
the
Act.

Under
the
statutory
scheme,
during
the
3­
year
triennial
review
period
following
EPA's
1980
publication
of
water
quality
criteria
for
the
protection
of
human
health
and
aquatic
life,
States
should
have
reviewed
those
criteria
and
adopted
standards
for
many
priority
toxic
pollutants.
In
fact,
State
response
to
EPA's
criteria
publication
and
toxics
initiative
was
disappointing.
A
few
States
adopted
large
numbers
of
numeric
toxics
criteria,
although
primarily
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life.
Most
other
States
adopted
few
or
no
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Some
relied
on
a
narrative
"
free
from
toxicity"
criterion,
and
so­
called
"
action
levels"
for
toxic
pollutants
or
occasionally
calculated
site­
specific
criteria.
Few
States
addressed
the
protection
of
human
health
by
adopting
numeric
human
health
criteria.

In
support
of
the
November,
1983,
water
quality
standards
rulemaking,
EPA
issued
program
guidance
entitled,
Water
Quality
Standards
Handbook
(
December
1983)
simultaneously
with
the
publication
of
the
final
rule.
The
foreword
to
that
guidance
noted
EPA's
two­
fold
water
quality
based
approach
to
controlling
toxics:
chemical
specific
numeric
criteria
and
biological
testing
in
whole
effluent
or
ambient
waters
to
comply
with
narrative
"
no
toxics
in
toxic
amounts"
standards.
More
detailed
programmatic
guidance
on
the
application
of
biological
testing
was
provided
in
the
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality
Based
Toxics
Control
(
TSD)
(
EPA
440/
4­
85­
032,
September
1985).
This
document
provided
the
needed
information
to
convert
chemical
specific
and
biologically
based
criteria
into
water
quality
standards
for
ambient
receiving
waters
and
permit
limits
for
discharges
to
those
waters.
The
TSD
focused
on
the
use
of
bioassay
testing
of
effluent
(
so­
called
whole
effluent
testing
or
WET
methods)
to
develop
effluent
limitations
within
discharge
permits.
Such
effluent
limits
were
designed
to
implement
the
"
free
from
toxicity"
narrative
standards
in
State
water
quality
standards.
The
TSD
also
focused
on
water
quality
standards.
Procedures
and
policy
were
presented
for
appropriate
design
flows
for
EPA's
section
304(
a)
acute
and
chronic
criteria.
In
1991,
EPA
revised
and
expanded
the
TSD.
(
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
based
Toxics
Control,
EPA
505/
2­
90­
001,
March
1991.)
A
Notice
of
Availability
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
April
4,
1991
(
56
FR
13827).
All
references
in
this
Preamble
are
to
the
revised
TSD.

The
Water
Quality
Standards
Handbook
and
the
TSD
are
examples
of
EPA's
efforts
and
assistance
that
were
intended
to
help,
encourage
and
support
the
States
in
adopting
appropriate
water
quality
standards
for
the
protection
of
their
waters
against
the
deleterious
effects
of
toxic
pollutants.
In
some
States,
more
and
more
numeric
criteria
for
toxics
were
being
adopted
as
well
as
more
aggressive
use
of
the
"
free
from
toxics"
narratives
in
setting
protective
NPDES
permit
limits.
However,
by
the
time
of
Congressional
consideration
and
action
on
the
CWA
reauthorization,
most
States
had
adopted
few,
if
any,
water
quality
standards
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

State
practices
of
developing
case­
by­
case
effluent
limits
using
procedures
that
were
not
standardized
in
State
regulations
made
it
difficult
to
ascertain
whether
such
procedures
were
consistently
applied.
The
use
of
approaches
to
control
toxicity
that
did
not
rely
on
the
statewide
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
generated
frustration
in
Congress.
Senator
Robert
T.
Stafford,
first
chairman
and
then
ranking
minority
member
of
the
authorizing
committee,
noted
during
the
Senate
debate:

An
important
problem
in
this
regard
is
that
few
States
have
numeric
ambient
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
The
lack
of
ambient
criteria
(
for
toxic
pollutants)
make
it
impossible
to
calculate
additional
discharge
limitations
for
toxics
*
*
*.
It
is
vitally
important
that
the
water
quality
standards
program
operate
in
such
a
way
that
it
supports
the
objectives
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
to
restore
and
maintain
the
integrity
of
the
Nation's
Waters.
(
bracketed
material
added).
A
Legislative
History
of
the
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987
(
Pub.
L.
100­
4),
Senate
Print
100­
144,
USGPO,
November
1988
at
page
1324.

Other
comments
in
the
legislative
history
similarly
note
the
Congressional
perception
that
the
States
were
failing
to
aggressively
address
toxics
and
that
EPA
was
not
using
its
oversight
role
to
push
the
States
to
move
more
quickly
and
comprehensively.
Thus
Congress
developed
the
water
quality
standards
amendments
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
for
reasons
similar
to
those
strongly
stated
during
the
Senate
debate
by
a
chief
sponsor,
Senator
John
H.
Chafee,

A
cornerstone
of
the
bill's
new
toxic
pollution
control
requirements
is
the
so
called
beyond­
BAT
program
*
*
*.
Adopting
the
beyond
BAT
provisions
will
assure
that
EPA
continues
to
move
forward
rapidly
on
the
program
*
*
*.
If
we
are
going
to
repair
the
damage
to
those
water
bodies
that
have
become
highly
degraded
as
a
result
of
toxic
substances,
we
are
going
to
have
to
move
forward
expeditiously
on
this
beyond­
BAT
program.
The
Nation
cannot
tolerate
endless
delays
and
negotiations
between
EPA
and
States
on
this
program.
Both
entities
must
move
aggressively
in
taking
the
necessary
steps
to
make
this
program
work
within
the
time
frame
established
by
this
Bill
*
*
*.
Ibid,
at
page
1309.

This
Congressional
impatience
with
the
pace
of
State
and
EPA
progress
and
an
appreciation
that
the
lack
of
State
standards
for
toxics
undermined
the
effectiveness
of
the
entire
CWA­
based
scheme,
resulted
in
the
1987
adoption
of
stringent
new
water
quality
standard
provisions
in
the
Water
Quality
Act
amendments.

2.
The
Water
Quality
Act
Amendments
of
1987
(
Pub.
L.
100­
4)

a.
Description
of
the
New
Requirements
The
1987
Amendments
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
added
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
provides:

Whenever
a
State
reviews
water
quality
standards
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection,
or
revises
or
adopts
new
standards
pursuant
to
this
paragraph,
such
State
shall
adopt
criteria
for
all
toxic
pollutants
listed
pursuant
to
section
307(
a)(
1)
of
this
Act
for
which
criteria
have
been
published
under
section
304(
a),
the
discharge
or
presence
of
which
in
the
affected
waters
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
those
designated
uses
adopted
by
the
State,
as
necessary
to
support
such
designated
uses.
Such
criteria
shall
be
specific
numerical
criteria
for
such
toxic
pollutants.
Where
such
numerical
criteria
are
not
available,
whenever
a
State
reviews
water
quality
standards
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1),
or
revises
or
adopts
new
standards
pursuant
to
this
paragraph,
such
State
shall
adopt
criteria
based
on
biological
monitoring
or
assessment
methods
consistent
with
information
published
pursuant
to
section
304(
a)(
8).
Nothing
in
this
section
shall
be
construed
to
limit
or
delay
the
use
of
effluent
limitations
or
other
permit
conditions
based
on
or
involving
biological
monitoring
or
assessment
methods
or
previously
adopted
numerical
criteria.

b.
EPA's
Initial
Implementing
Actions
for
Sections
303(
c)
and
304(
l)

The
addition
of
this
new
requirement
to
the
existing
water
quality
standards
review
and
revision
process
of
section
303(
c)
did
not
change
the
existing
procedural
or
timing
provisions.
For
example,
section
303(
c)(
1)
still
requires
that
States
review
their
water
quality
standards
at
least
once
each
3
year
period
and
transmit
the
results
to
EPA
for
review.
EPA's
oversight
and
promulgation
authorities
and
statutory
schedules
in
section
303(
c)(
4)
were
likewise
unchanged.
Rather,
the
provision
required
the
States
to
place
heavy
emphasis
on
adopting
numeric
chemical­
specific
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
(
i.
e.,
rather
than
just
narrative
approaches)
during
the
next
triennial
review
cycle.
As
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
Congress
was
frustrated
that
States
were
not
using
the
numerous
section
304(
a)
criteria
that
EPA
had
developed,
and
was
continuing
to
develop,
to
assist
States
in
controlling
the
discharge
of
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
for
the
first
time
in
the
history
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Congress
took
the
unusual
action
of
explicitly
mandating
that
States
adopt
numeric
criteria
for
specific
toxic
pollutants.

In
response
to
this
new
Congressional
mandate,
EPA
redoubled
its
efforts
to
promote
and
assist
State
adoption
of
water
quality
standards
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
EPA's
efforts
included
the
development
and
issuance
of
guidance
to
the
States
on
acceptable
implementation
procedures
for
several
new
sections
of
the
Act,
including
sections
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
and
304(
l).

The
1987
CWA
Amendments
added
to,
or
amended,
other
CWA
Sections
related
to
toxics
control.
Section
304(
l)
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1314(
l))
was
an
important
corollary
amendment
because
it
required
States
to
take
actions
to
identify
waters
adversely
affected
by
toxic
pollutants,
particularly
those
waters
entirely
or
substantially
impaired
by
point
sources.
Section
304(
l)
entitled
"
Individual
Control
Strategies
for
Toxic
Pollutants,"
requires
in
part,
that
States
identify
and
list
waterbodies
where
the
designated
uses
specified
in
the
applicable
water
quality
standards
cannot
reasonably
be
expected
to
be
achieved
because
of
point
source
discharge
of
toxic
pollutants.
For
each
segment
so
identified,
the
State
is
required
to
develop
individual
control
strategies
to
reduce
the
discharge
of
toxics
from
point
sources
so
that
in
conjunction
with
existing
controls
on
point
and
nonpoint
sources,
water
quality
standards
will
be
attained.
To
assist
the
States
in
identifying
waters
under
section
304(
l),
EPA's
guidance
listed
a
number
of
potential
sources
of
available
data
for
States
to
review.
States
generally
assembled
data
for
a
broad
spectrum
of
pollutants,
including
the
priority
toxic
pollutants,
which
could
be
useful
in
complying
with
sections
304(
l)
and
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
In
fact,
between
February
1988
and
October
1988,
EPA
assembled
pollutant
candidate
lists
for
section
304(
l)
which
were
then
transmitted
to
each
jurisdiction.
Thus,
each
State
had
a
preliminary
list
of
pollutants
that
had
been
identified
as
present
in,
or
discharged
to,
surface
waters.
Such
lists
were
limited
by
the
quantity
and
distribution
of
available
effluent
and
ambient
monitoring
data
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
This
listing
exercise
further
emphasized
the
need
for
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants.
Lack
of
standards
increased
the
difficulty
of
identifying
impaired
waters.
On
the
positive
side,
the
data
gathered
in
support
of
the
304(
l)
activity
proved
helpful
in
identifying
those
pollutants
most
obviously
in
need
of
water
quality
standards.

EPA,
in
devising
guidance
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
attempted
to
provide
States
the
maximum
flexibility
that
complied
with
the
express
statutory
language
but
also
with
the
overriding
congressional
objective:
Prompt
adoption
and
implementation
of
numeric
toxics
criteria.
EPA
believed
that
flexibility
was
important
so
that
each
State
could
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
and
to
the
extent
possible,
accommodate
its
existing
water
quality
standards
regulatory
approach.
The
options
EPA
identified
are
described
in
the
next
Section
of
this
Preamble.
EPA's
program
guidance
was
issued
in
final
form
on
December
12,
1988
but
was
not
substantially
different
from
earlier
drafts
available
for
review
by
the
States.
The
availability
of
the
guidance
was
published
in
a
Federal
Register
Notice
on
January
5,
1989
(
54
FR
346).

3.
EPA's
Program
Guidance
for
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)

EPA's
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
program
guidance
identified
three
options
that
could
be
used
by
a
State
to
meet
the
requirement
that
the
State
adopt
toxic
pollutant
criteria
"*
*
*
the
discharge
or
presence
of
which
in
the
affected
waters
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
those
designated
uses
adopted
by
the
State,
as
necessary
to
support
such
designated
uses."
Option
1.
Adopt
statewide
numeric
criteria
in
State
Water
Quality
Standards
for
all
section
307(
a)
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
developed
criteria
guidance,
regardless
of
whether
the
pollutants
are
known
to
be
present.

This
option
is
the
most
comprehensive
approach
to
satisfy
the
statutory
requirements
because
it
would
include
all
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
prepared
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance
for
either
or
both
aquatic
life
protection
and
human
health
protection.
In
addition
to
a
simple
adoption
of
EPA's
section
304(
a)
guidance
as
standards,
a
State
must
select
a
risk
level
for
those
toxic
pollutants
which
are
carcinogens
(
i.
e.,
that
cause,
or
may
cause
cancer
in
humans).

Many
States
found
this
Option
attractive
because
it
ensured
comprehensive
coverage
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
scientifically
defensible
criteria
without
the
need
to
conduct
a
resource­
intensive
evaluation
of
the
particular
segments
and
pollutants
requiring
criteria.
This
option
would
also
not
be
more
costly
to
dischargers
than
other
options
because
permit
limits
would
only
be
based
on
the
regulation
of
the
particular
toxic
pollutants
in
their
discharges
and
not
on
the
total
listing
in
the
water
quality
standards.
Thus,
actual
permit
limits
should
be
the
same
under
any
of
the
options.

Option
2.
Adopt
chemical­
specific
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
that
are
the
subject
of
EPA
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance,
where
the
State
determines
based
on
available
information
that
the
pollutants
are
present
or
discharged
and
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses.

This
option
results
in
the
adoption
of
numeric
water
quality
standards
for
some
subset
of
those
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
issued
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance
based
on
a
review
of
current
information.
To
satisfy
this
Option,
the
guidance
recommended
that
States
use
the
data
gathered
during
the
section
304(
l)
water
quality
assessments
as
a
starting
point
to
identify
those
water
segments
that
need
water
quality
standards
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
That
data
would
be
supplemented
by
a
State
and
public
review
of
other
data
sources
to
ensure
sufficient
breadth
of
coverage
to
meet
the
statutory
objective.
Among
the
data
available
to
be
reviewed
were:
(
1)
Ambient
water
monitoring
information,
including
those
for
the
water
column,
sediment,
and
aquatic
life
(
e.
g.,
fish
tissue
data);
(
2)
NPDES
permit
applications
and
permittee
self­
monitoring
reports;
(
3)
effluent
guideline
development
documents,
many
of
which
contain
priority
toxic
pollutant
scans;
(
4)
pesticide
and
herbicide
application
information
and
other
records
of
pesticide
or
herbicide
inventories;
(
5)
public
water
supply
source
monitoring
data
noting
pollutants
with
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs);
and
(
6)
any
other
relevant
information
on
toxic
pollutants
collected
by
Federal,
State,
industry,
agencies,
academic
groups,
or
scientific
organizations.
EPA
also
recommended
that
States
selecting
this
option
adopt
a
translator
provision
similar
to
that
described
in
Option
3
but
applicable
to
all
chemicals
causing
toxicity,
and
not
just
priority
toxic
pollutants.

This
Option
2
review
resulted
in
a
State
proposing
new
or
revised
water
quality
standards
and
providing
an
opportunity
for
public
review
and
comment
on
the
pollutants,
criteria,
and
water
bodies
included.
Throughout
this
process,
EPA's
Regional
Offices
were
available
to
assist
States
by
providing
additional
guidance
and
technical
assistance
on
applying
EPA's
recommended
criteria
to
particular
situations
in
the
States."
*******************************************************************************************************************
Here
is
the
second
one.
(
56
FR
58420).
If
you
would
like,
I
can
talk
you
through
the
process
of
obtaining
it
yourself.

Amendments
to
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
To
Establish
the
Numeric
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants
Necessary
to
Bring
All
States
Into
Compliance
With
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
Federal
Register,
Volume:
56
,
Issue:
223
,
Page:
58420
(
56
FR
58420)
,
Tuesday,
November
19,
1991
Agency:
Environmental
Protection
Agency­­(
EPA)
Document
Type:
Proposed
Rules
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR):
40
CFR
Part
131
Numbers:
WH­
FRL­
4029­
2
Dates:
Comment
by:
19911219;
Hearing:
19911219
Contact
Information:
William
R.
Diamond,
202­
260­
1315,;
or;
David
K.
Sabock,
202­
260­
1315,;
or;
R.
Kent
Ballentine,
202­
260­
1315
Action:
Proposed
rule
Internal
Data:
(
FR
Doc.
91­
27270
Filed
11­
18­
91;
8:
45
am)

SUMMARY:
This
proposed
rulemaking
would
promulgate
the
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
necessary
to
bring
all
States
into
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
States
which
have
been
determined
by
EPA
to
fully
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
would
not
be
affected
by
today's
proposed
rulemaking.
The
proposed
rulemaking
addresses
several
situations.
For
a
few
States
EPA
would
promulgate
only
a
limited
number
of
criteria
because
the
Agency
previously
identified,
in
disapproval
letters
to
such
States,
the
specific
priority
toxic
pollutants
that
require
new
or
revised
criteria.
For
these
States,
EPA
would
promulgate
Federal
criteria
only
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
require
new
or
revised
criteria.
In
the
vast
majority
of
States,
EPA
would
promulgate,
at
a
minimum,
broadly
applicable
Federal
criteria
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
issued
section
304(
a)
water
quality
criteria
guidance
and
that
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
For
those
priority
toxic
pollutants
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
where
the
section
304(
a)
criteria
recommendation
is
based
on
carcinogenicity,
the
proposed
criteria
are
based
on
an
incremental
one
in
one
million
cancer
risk
level
(
i.
e.,
10­
6).
The
primary
focus
of
this
rule
is
the
inclusion
of
the
water
quality
criteria
for
pollutant(
s)
in
State
standards
as
necessary
to
support
water
quality­
based
control
programs.
The
Agency
is
accepting
comment
on
the
criteria
proposed
in
today's
rule.
However,
Congress
has
established
a
very
ambitious
schedule
for
the
promulgation
of
the
final
criteria.
The
statutory
deadline
in
section
303(
c)(
4)
clearly
indicates
that
Congress
intended
the
Agency
to
move
very
expeditiously
when
Federal
action
is
warranted.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
limited
time
available
for
promulgation
of
the
regulation
can
be
used
most
efficiently
and
effectively
by
addressing
those
issues
that
have
not
already
come
before
the
Agency.

­­­­­­­­­­

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
131
(
WH­
FRL­
4029­
2)

Amendments
to
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
To
Establish
the
Numeric
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants
Necessary
to
Bring
All
States
Into
Compliance
With
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)

AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

SUMMARY:
This
proposed
rulemaking
would
promulgate
the
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
necessary
to
bring
all
States
into
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
States
which
have
been
determined
by
EPA
to
fully
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
would
not
be
affected
by
today's
proposed
rulemaking.

The
proposed
rulemaking
addresses
several
situations.
For
a
few
States
EPA
would
promulgate
only
a
limited
number
of
criteria
because
the
Agency
previously
identified,
in
disapproval
letters
to
such
States,
the
specific
priority
toxic
pollutants
that
require
new
or
revised
criteria.
For
these
States,
EPA
would
promulgate
Federal
criteria
only
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
require
new
or
revised
criteria.
In
the
vast
majority
of
States,
EPA
would
promulgate,
at
a
minimum,
broadly
applicable
Federal
criteria
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
issued
section
304(
a)
water
quality
criteria
guidance
and
that
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.

For
those
priority
toxic
pollutants
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
where
the
section
304(
a)
criteria
recommendation
is
based
on
carcinogenicity,
the
proposed
criteria
are
based
on
an
incremental
one
in
one
million
cancer
risk
level
(
i.
e.,
10­
6).

The
primary
focus
of
this
rule
is
the
inclusion
of
the
water
quality
criteria
for
pollutant(
s)
in
State
standards
as
necessary
to
support
water
quality­
based
control
programs.
The
Agency
is
accepting
comment
on
the
criteria
proposed
in
today's
rule.
However,
Congress
has
established
a
very
ambitious
schedule
for
the
promulgation
of
the
final
criteria.
The
statutory
deadline
in
section
303(
c)(
4)
clearly
indicates
that
Congress
intended
the
Agency
to
move
very
expeditiously
when
Federal
action
is
warranted.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
limited
time
available
for
promulgation
of
the
regulation
can
be
used
most
efficiently
and
effectively
by
addressing
those
issues
that
have
not
already
come
before
the
Agency.

DATES:
All
written
comments
received
on
or
before
December
19,
1991,
will
be
considered
in
the
preparation
of
any
final
rulemaking.

A
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
December
19,
1991,
in
Washington,
DC,
beginning
at
9
a.
m.
The
hearing
officer
reserves
the
right
to
limit
oral
testimony
to
10
minutes,
if
necessary.

ADDRESSES:
Comments,
in
quadruplicate,
on
this
proposed
rule
should
be
addressed
to
William
R.
Diamond,
Director,
Standards
and
Applied
Science
Division
(
WH­
585),
Office
of
Science
and
Technology,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
(
Telephone:
202­
260­
1315).
The
public
may
inspect
the
administrative
record
for
this
rulemaking,
including
documentation
supporting
the
aquatic
life
and
human
health
criteria,
and
all
comments
received
on
this
proposed
rule
at
EPA's
Public
Information
Reference
Unit,
EPA
Library,
room
2904,
Waterside
Mall,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
(
Telephone:
202­
260­
5926)
on
weekdays
during
the
Agency's
normal
business
hours
of
8
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.
Each
of
EPA's
ten
Regional
offices
will
also
have
copies
for
public
inspection
and
copying
of
the
administrative
records
for
the
States
in
that
Region.
These
records
will
be
available
in
the
Water
Management
Divisions
of
each
respective
Regional
office.
A
reasonable
fee
will
be
charged
for
photocopies.

The
public
hearing
will
be
held
in
the
EPA
auditorium,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
David
K.
Sabock
or
R.
Kent
Ballentine,
Telephone
202­
260­
1315.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
preamble
is
organized
according
to
the
following
outline:
A.
Introduction
and
Overview
1.
Introduction
2.
Overview
B.
Statutory
and
Regulatory
Background
1.
Pre­
Water
Quality
Act
Amendments
of
1987
(
P.
L.
100­
4)
2.
The
Water
Quality
Act
Amendments
of
1987
(
P.
L.
100­
4)
a.
Description
of
the
New
Requirements
b.
EPA's
Initial
Implementing
Actions
for
Sections
303(
c)
and
304(
l)
3.
EPA's
Program
Guidance
for
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
4.
Revisions
to
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
to
Incorporate
the
Requirements
of
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
C.
State
Actions
Pursuant
to
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
D.
Determining
State
Compliance
With
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
1.
EPA's
Review
of
State
Water
Quality
Standards
for
Toxics
2.
Determining
Current
Compliance
Status
E.
Rationale
and
Approach
for
Developing
Today's
Proposed
Rulemaking
1.
Legal
Basis
2.
Approach
for
Developing
Today's
Proposed
Rulemaking
3.
Approach
for
States
That
Fully
Comply
Subsequent
to
Issuance
of
Today's
Proposed
Rulemaking
F.
Derivation
of
Proposed
Criteria
1.
Section
304(
a)
Criteria
Process
2.
Aquatic
Life
Criteria
3.
Criteria
for
Human
Health
4.
Section
304(
a)
Human
Health
Criteria
Excluded
5.
Cancer
Risk
Level
Proposed
6.
Applying
EPA's
Nationally
Derived
Criteria
to
State
Waters
G.
Description
of
the
Proposed
Rule
1.
Scope
2.
EPA
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants
3.
Applicability
H.
Specific
Issues
for
Public
Comment
I.
Executive
Order
12291
J.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
K.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
A.
Introduction
and
Overview
1.
Introduction
This
section
of
the
preamble
introduces
the
topics
which
are
addressed
subsequently
and
provides
a
brief
overview
of
EPA's
basis
and
rationale
for
proposing
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Section
B
of
this
preamble
presents
a
description
of
the
evolution
of
the
Federal
Government's
efforts
to
control
toxic
pollutants
beginning
with
a
discussion
of
the
authorities
in
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
of
1972.
Also
described
in
some
detail
is
the
development
of
the
water
quality
standards
review
and
revision
process
which
provides
for
establishing
both
narrative
goals
and
enforceable
numeric
requirements
for
controlling
toxic
pollutants.
This
discussion
includes
the
recent
changes
enacted
in
the
1987
Clean
Water
Act
Amendments
which
are
the
basis
for
this
proposed
rulemaking.
Section
C
summarizes
State
efforts
since
1987
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Section
D
describes
EPA's
procedure
for
determining
whether
a
State
has
fully
complied
with
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Section
E
sets
out
the
rationale
and
approach
for
developing
today's
proposed
rulemaking,
including
a
discussion
of
EPA's
legal
basis.
Section
F
describes
the
development
of
the
criteria
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking.
Section
G
summarizes
the
provisions
of
the
proposed
rule
and
Section
H
highlights
certain
issues
raised
by
the
proposal
for
public
comment.
Sections
I,
J,
and
K
address
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
12291,
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act,
and
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
respectively.
Section
L
provides
a
list
of
subjects
covered
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking.

2.
Overview
Today's
proposed
rulemaking
to
establish
Federal
toxics
criteria
for
States
is
important
for
a
number
of
environmental,
programmatic
and
legal
reasons.

First,
control
of
toxic
pollutants
in
surface
waters
is
an
important
priority
to
achieve
the
Clean
Water
Act's
goals
and
objectives.
The
most
recent
National
Water
Quality
Inventory
indicates
that
one­
third
of
monitored
river
miles,
lake
acres,
and
coastal
waters
have
elevated
levels
of
toxics.
Forty­
seven
States
and
Territories
have
reported
elevated
levels
of
toxic
pollutants
in
fish
tissues.
States
have
issued
a
total
of
586
fishing
advisories
and
135
bans,
attributed
mostly
to
industrial
discharges
and
land
disposal.

The
absence
of
State
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants
undermines
EPA's
overall
toxic
control
efforts
to
address
these
problems.
Without
clearly
established
water
quality
goals,
the
effectiveness
of
many
of
EPA's
water
programs
is
jeopardized.
Permitting,
enforcement,
coastal
water
quality
improvement,
fish
tissue
quality
protection,
certain
nonpoint
source
controls,
drinking
water
quality
protection,
and
ecological
protection
all
depend
to
a
significant
extent
on
complete
and
adequate
water
quality
standards.
Numeric
criteria
for
toxics
are
essential
to
the
process
of
controlling
toxics
because
they
allow
States
and
EPA
to
evaluate
the
adequacy
of
existing
and
potential
control
measures
to
protect
aquatic
ecosystems
and
human
health.
Formally
adopted
standards
form
the
legal
basis
for
including
water
quality­
based
effluent
limitations
in
NPDES
permits
to
control
toxic
pollutant
discharges.
The
critical
importance
of
controlling
toxic
pollutants
has
been
recognized
by
Congress
and
is
reflected,
in
part,
by
the
addition
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
to
the
Act.
Congressional
impatience
with
the
pace
of
State
toxics
control
programs
is
well
documented
in
the
legislative
history
of
the
1987
CWA
amendments.
In
order
to
protect
human
health,
aquatic
ecosystems,
and
successfully
implement
toxics
controls,
EPA
believes
that
all
actions
which
are
available
to
the
Agency
must
be
taken
to
ensure
that
all
necessary
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
established
in
a
timely
manner.

Second,
as
States
and
EPA
continue
the
transition
from
an
era
of
primarily
technology­
based
controls
to
an
era
in
which
technology­
based
controls
are
integrated
with
water
quality­
based
controls,
it
is
important
that
EPA
ensures
timely
compliance
with
CWA
requirements.
An
active
Federal
role
is
essential
to
assist
States
in
getting
in
place
complete
toxics
criteria
as
part
of
their
pollution
control
programs.
While
most
States
recognize
the
need
for
enforceable
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants,
their
recent
adoption
efforts
have
often
been
stymied
by
a
variety
of
factors
including
limited
resources,
competing
environmental
priorities,
and
difficult
scientific,
policy
and
legal
challenges.
Although
many
water
quality
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
have
been
available
since
1980
and
the
water
quality
standards
regulation
has
required
State
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
since
1983
(
see
40
CFR
131.11),
a
preliminary
assessment
of
the
water
quality
standards
for
all
States
in
February
of
1990
showed
that
only
six
States
had
established
fully
acceptable
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
This
rate
of
toxics
criteria
adoption
is
contrary
to
the
CWA
requirements
and
is
a
reflection
of
the
difficulties
faced
by
States.
EPA
should
exercise
its
CWA
authorities
to
assist
States
in
such
circumstances.

EPA's
proposed
action
will
also
help
restore
equity
among
the
States.
The
CWA
is
designed
to
ensure
all
waters
are
sufficiently
clean
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
The
CWA
allows
some
flexibility
and
differences
among
States
in
their
adopted
and
approved
water
quality
standards,
but
it
was
not
designed
to
reward
inaction
and
inability
to
meet
statutory
requirements.

Although
most
States
have
made
some
progress
toward
satisfying
CWA
requirements,
many
appear
to
have
failed
to
fully
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
CWA
assigns
EPA
the
legal
responsibility
to
promulgate
standards
where
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act.
Where
States
have
not
satisfied
the
CWA
requirement
to
adopt
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants,
which
was
re­
emphasized
by
Congress
in
1987,
it
is
imperative
that
EPA
take
action.

EPA's
ability
to
oversee
State
standards­
setting
activities
and
to
correct
deficiencies
in
State
water
quality
standards
is
critical
to
the
effective
implementation
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
This
proposed
rulemaking
is
a
necessary
and
important
component
of
EPA's
implementation
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
as
well
as
EPA's
overall
efforts
to
control
toxic
pollutants
in
surface
waters.

B.
Statutory
and
Regulatory
Background
1.
Pre­
Water
Quality
Act
Amendments
of
1987
(
Pub.
L.
100­
4)

Section
303(
c)
of
the
1972
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
(
FWPCA)
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1313(
c))
established
the
statutory
basis
for
the
current
water
quality
standards
program.
It
completed
the
transition
from
the
previously
established
program
of
water
quality
standards
for
interstate
waters
to
one
requiring
standards
for
all
surface
waters
of
the
United
States.
Although
the
major
innovation
of
the
1972
FWPCA
was
technology­
based
controls,
Congress
maintained
the
concept
of
water
quality
standards
both
as
a
mechanism
to
establish
goals
for
the
Nation's
waters
and
as
a
regulatory
requirement
when
standardized
technology
controls
for
point
source
discharges
and/
or
nonpoint
source
controls
were
inadequate.
In
recent
years
these
so­
called
water
quality­
based
controls
have
received
new
emphasis
by
Congress
and
EPA
in
the
continuing
quest
to
enhance
and
maintain
water
quality
to
protect
the
public
health
and
welfare.

Briefly
stated,
the
key
elements
of
section
303(
c)
are:
(
a)
A
water
quality
standard
is
defined
as
the
designated
beneficial
uses
of
a
water
segment
and
the
water
quality
criteria
necessary
to
support
those
uses;
(
b)
The
minimum
beneficial
uses
to
be
considered
by
States
in
establishing
water
quality
standards
are
specified
as
public
water
supplies,
propagation
of
fish
and
wildlife,
recreation,
agricultural
uses,
industrial
uses
and
navigation;
(
c)
A
requirement
that
State
standards
must
protect
public
health
or
welfare,
enhance
the
quality
of
water
and
serve
the
purposes
of
the
Clean
Water
Act;
(
d)
A
requirement
that
States
must
review
their
standards
at
least
once
each
three
year
period
using
a
process
that
includes
public
participation;
(
e)
The
process
for
EPA
review
of
State
standards
which
may
ultimately
result
in
the
promulgation
of
a
superseding
Federal
rule
in
cases
where
a
State's
standards
are
not
consistent
with
the
applicable
requirements
of
the
CWA,
or
in
situations
where
the
Agency
determines
Federal
standards
are
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act.

Another
major
innovation
in
the
1972
FWPCA
was
the
establishment
of
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
which
requires
point
source
dischargers
to
obtain
a
permit
before
legally
discharging
to
the
waters
of
the
United
States.
In
addition
to
the
permit
limits
established
on
the
basis
of
technology
(
e.
g.
effluent
limitations
guidelines),
the
Act
requires
dischargers
to
meet
instream
water
quality
standards.
(
See
section
301(
b)(
1)(
C),
33
U.
S.
C.
1311(
b)(
1)(
C)).

Thus
water
quality
standards
serve
a
dual
function
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
regulatory
scheme.
Standards
establish
narrative
and
numeric
definitions
and
quantification
of
the
Act's
goals
and
policies
(
see
section
101,
33
U.
S.
C.
1251)
which
provide
a
basis
for
identifying
impaired
waters.
Water
quality
standards
also
establish
regulatory
requirements
which
are
translated
into
specific
discharge
requirements.
In
order
to
fulfill
this
critical
function,
adopted
State
criteria
must
contain
sufficient
parametric
coverage
to
protect
both
human
health
and
aquatic
life.

In
its
initial
efforts
to
control
toxic
pollutants,
the
FWPCA,
pursuant
to
section
307,
required
EPA
to
designate
a
list
of
toxic
pollutants
and
to
establish
toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
based
on
a
formal
rulemaking
record.
Such
rulemaking
required
formal
hearings,
including
cross­
examination
of
witnesses.
EPA
struggled
with
this
unwieldy
process
and
ultimately
promulgated
effluent
standards
for
six
toxic
pollutants,
pollutant
families
or
mixtures.
(
See
40
CFR
part
129.)
Congress
amended
section
307
in
the
1977
Clean
Water
Act
Amendments
by
endorsing
the
Agency's
alternative
procedure
of
regulating
toxic
pollutants
by
use
of
effluent
limitation
guidelines,
by
amending
the
procedure
for
establishing
toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
to
provide
for
more
flexibility
in
the
hearing
process
for
establishing
a
record,
and
by
directing
the
Agency
to
include
sixty­
five
specific
pollutants
or
classes
of
pollutants
on
the
toxic
pollutant
list.
EPA
published
the
required
list
on
January
31,
1978
(
43
FR
4109).
This
toxic
pollutant
list
was
the
basis
on
which
EPA's
efforts
on
criteria
development
for
toxics
was
focused.

During
planning
efforts
to
develop
effluent
limitation
guidelines
and
water
quality
criteria,
the
list
of
sixty­
five
toxic
pollutants
was
judged
too
broad
as
some
of
the
pollutants
were,
in
fact,
general
families
or
classes
of
organic
compounds
consisting
of
many
individual
chemicals.
EPA
selected
key
chemicals
of
concern
within
the
65
families
of
pollutants
and
identified
a
more
specific
list
of
129
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Three
volatile
chemicals
were
removed
from
the
list
(
see
46
FR
2266,
January
8,
1981;
46
FR
10723,
February
4,
1981)
so
that
at
present
there
are
126
priority
toxic
pollutants.
This
list
is
published
as
Appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
423.
Another
critical
section
of
the
1972
FWPCA
was
section
304(
a)
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1314(
a)).
Section
304(
a)(
1)
provides,
in
pertinent
part,
that
EPA
*
*
*
shall
develop
and
publish
*
*
*
criteria
for
water
quality
accurately
reflecting
the
latest
scientific
knowledge
(
A)
on
the
kind
and
extent
of
all
identifiable
effects
on
health
and
welfare
including,
but
not
limited
to,
plankton,
fish,
shellfish,
wildlife,
plant
life,
shorelines,
beaches,
esthetics,
and
recreation
which
may
be
expected
from
the
presence
of
pollutants
in
any
body
of
water,
*
*
*
and
(
C)
on
the
effects
of
pollutants
on
biological
community
diversity,
productivity,
and
stability,
*
*
*

In
order
to
avoid
confusion,
it
must
be
recognized
that
the
Clean
Water
Act
uses
the
term
"
criteria"
in
two
separate
ways.
In
section
303(
c),
which
is
discussed
above,
the
term
is
part
of
the
definition
of
a
water
quality
standard.
That
is,
a
water
quality
standard
is
comprised
of
designated
uses
and
the
criteria
necessary
to
protect
those
uses.
Thus,
States
are
required
to
adopt
regulations
or
statutes
which
contain
legally
achievable
criteria.
However,
in
section
304(
a),
the
term
criteria
is
used
in
a
scientific
sense
and
EPA
develops
recommendations
which
States
consider
in
adopting
regulatory
criteria.

In
response
to
this
legislative
mandate
and
an
earlier
similar
statutory
requirement,
EPA
and
a
predecessor
agency
have
produced
a
series
of
water
quality
criteria
documents.
Early
Federal
efforts
were
Water
Quality
Criteria
(
1968
"
Green
Book")
and
Quality
Criteria
for
Water
(
1976
"
Red
Book").
EPA
also
sponsored
a
contract
effort
with
the
National
Academy
of
Science­­
National
Academy
of
Engineering
which
resulted
in
Water
Quality
Criteria,
1972
(
1973
"
Blue
Book").
These
early
efforts
were
premised
on
the
use
of
literature
reviews
and
the
collective
scientific
judgment
of
Agency
and
advisory
panels.
However,
when
faced
with
the
list
of
65
toxic
pollutants
and
the
need
to
develop
criteria
for
human
health
as
well
as
aquatic
life,
the
Agency
determined
that
new
procedures
were
necessary.
Continued
reliance
solely
on
existing
scientific
literature
was
now
inadequate,
since
for
many
pollutants
essential
information
was
not
available.
EPA
scientists
developed
formal
methodologies
for
establishing
scientifically
defensible
criteria.
These
were
subjected
to
review
by
the
Agency's
Science
Advisory
Board
and
the
public.
This
effort
culminated
on
November
28,
1980,
when
the
Agency
published
criteria
development
guidelines
for
aquatic
life
and
for
human
health,
along
with
criteria
for
64
toxic
pollutants.
(
See
45
FR
79318.)
Since
that
initial
publication,
the
aquatic
life
methodology
was
slightly
amended
(
50
FR
30784,
July
29,
1985)
and
additional
criteria
were
proposed
for
public
comment
and
finalized
as
Agency
criteria
guidance.
EPA
summarized
the
available
criteria
information
in
Quality
Criteria
for
Water
1986
(
1986
"
Gold
Book")
which
is
updated
from
time­
to­
time.
However,
the
individual
criteria
documents,
as
updated,
are
the
official
guidance
documents.

EPA's
criteria
documents
provide
a
comprehensive
toxicological
evaluation
of
each
chemical.
For
toxic
pollutants,
the
documents
tabulate
the
relevant
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
information
for
aquatic
life
and
derive
the
criteria
maximum
concentrations
(
acute
criteria)
and
criteria
continuous
concentrations
(
chronic
criteria)
which
the
Agency
recommends
to
protect
aquatic
life
resources.
For
human
health
criteria,
the
document
provides
the
appropriate
reference
doses,
and
if
appropriate
the
carcinogenic
slope
factors,
and
derives
recommended
criteria.
The
details
of
this
process
are
described
more
fully
in
a
following
part
of
this
preamble.

Programmatically,
EPA's
initial
efforts
were
aimed
at
converting
a
program
focused
on
interstate
waters
into
one
addressing
all
interstate
and
intrastate
surface
waters
of
the
United
States.
Guidance
was
aimed
at
the
inclusion
of
traditional
water
quality
parameters
to
protect
aquatic
life
(
e.
g.,
pH,
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen
and
a
narrative
"
free
from
toxicity"
provision),
recreation
(
e.
g.,
bacteriological
criteria)
and
general
aesthetics
(
e.
g.,
narrative
"
free
from
nuisance"
provisions).
EPA
also
required
State
adoption
of
an
antidegradation
policy
to
maintain
existing
high
quality
or
ecologically
unique
waters
as
well
as
maintain
improvements
in
water
quality
as
they
occur.

The
initial
water
quality
standards
regulation
was
actually
a
part
of
EPA's
water
quality
management
regulations
implementing
section
303(
e)
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1313(
e))
of
the
Act.
It
was
not
comprehensive
and
did
not
address
toxics
or
any
other
criteria
specifically.
Rather,
it
simply
required
States
to
adopt
appropriate
water
quality
criteria
necessary
to
support
designated
uses.
(
See
40
CFR
130.17
as
promulgated
in
40
FR
55334,
November
28,
1975).

After
several
years
of
effort
and
faced
with
increasing
public
and
Congressional
concerns
about
toxic
pollutants,
EPA
realized
that
proceeding
under
section
307
of
the
Act
would
not
comprehensively
address
in
a
timely
manner
the
control
of
toxics
through
either
toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
or
effluent
limitations
guidelines
because
these
controls
are
only
applicable
to
specific
types
of
discharges.
EPA
sought
a
broader,
more
generally
applicable
mechanism
and
decided
to
vigorously
pursue
the
alternative
approach
of
EPA
issuance
of
scientific
water
quality
criteria
documents
which
States
could
use
to
adopt
enforceable
water
quality
standards.
These
in
turn
could
be
used
as
the
basis
for
establishing
State
and
EPA
permit
discharge
limits
pursuant
to
section
301(
b)(
1)(
C)
which
requires
NPDES
permits
to
contain
*
*
*
any
more
stringent
limitation,
including
those
necessary
to
meet
water
quality
standards
*
*
*,
or
required
to
implement
any
applicable
water
quality
standard
established
pursuant
to
this
Act.

Thus,
the
adoption
by
States
of
appropriate
toxics
criteria
applicable
to
their
surface
waters,
such
as
those
recommended
by
EPA
in
its
criteria
documents,
would
be
translated
by
regulatory
agencies
into
point
source
permit
limits.
Through
the
use
of
water
quality
standards,
all
discharges
of
toxics
are
subject
to
permit
limits
and
not
just
those
discharged
by
particular
industrial
categories.
In
order
to
facilitate
this
process,
the
Agency
amended
the
water
quality
standards
regulation
to
explicitly
address
toxic
criteria
requirements
in
State
standards.
The
culmination
of
this
effort
was
the
promulgation
of
the
present
water
quality
standards
regulation
on
November
8,
1983
(
40
CFR
part
131,
48
FR
51400).

The
current
water
quality
standards
regulation
(
40
CFR
part
131)
is
much
more
comprehensive
than
its
predecessor.
The
regulation
addresses
in
detail
both
the
beneficial
use
component
and
the
criteria
component
of
a
water
quality
standard.
Section
131.11
of
the
regulation
requires
States
to
review
available
information
and,

*
*
*
to
identify
specific
water
bodies
where
toxic
pollutants
may
be
adversely
affecting
water
quality
or
the
attainment
of
the
designated
water
use
or
where
the
levels
of
toxic
pollutants
are
at
a
level
to
warrant
concern
and
must
adopt
criteria
for
such
toxic
pollutants
applicable
to
the
water
body
sufficient
to
protect
the
designated
use.

The
regulation
provided
that
either
or
both
numeric
and
narrative
criteria
may
be
appropriately
used
in
water
quality
standards.

EPA's
water
quality
standards
emphasis
since
the
early
1980'
s
reflected
the
increasing
importance
placed
on
controlling
toxic
pollutants.
States
were
strongly
encouraged
to
adopt
criteria
in
their
standards
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants,
especially
where
EPA
had
published
criteria
guidance
under
Section
304(
a)
of
the
Act.

Under
the
statutory
scheme,
during
the
3­
year
triennial
review
period
following
EPA's
1980
publication
of
water
quality
criteria
for
the
protection
of
human
health
and
aquatic
life,
States
should
have
reviewed
those
criteria
and
adopted
standards
for
many
priority
toxic
pollutants.
In
fact,
State
response
to
EPA's
criteria
publication
and
toxics
initiative
was
disappointing.
A
few
States
adopted
large
numbers
of
numeric
toxics
criteria,
although
primarily
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life.
Most
other
States
adopted
few
or
no
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Some
relied
on
a
narrative
"
free
from
toxicity"
criterion,
and
so­
called
"
action
levels"
for
toxic
pollutants
or
occasionally
calculated
site­
specific
criteria.
Few
States
addressed
the
protection
of
human
health
by
adopting
numeric
human
health
criteria.
In
support
of
the
November,
1983,
water
quality
standards
rulemaking,
EPA
issued
program
guidance
entitled,
Water
Quality
Standards
Handbook
(
December
1983)
simultaneously
with
the
publication
of
the
final
rule.
The
foreword
to
that
guidance
noted
EPA's
two­
fold
water
quality
based
approach
to
controlling
toxics:
chemical
specific
numeric
criteria
and
biological
testing
in
whole
effluents
or
ambient
waters
to
comply
with
narrative
"
no
toxics
in
toxic
amounts"
standards.
More
detailed
programmatic
guidance
on
the
application
of
biological
testing
was
provided
in
the
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality
Based
Toxics
Control
(
TSD)
(
EPA
440/
4­
85­
032,
September
1985).
This
document
provided
the
needed
information
to
convert
chemical
specific
and
biologically
based
criteria
into
water
quality
standards
for
ambient
receiving
waters
and
permit
limits
for
discharges
to
those
waters.
The
TSD
focused
on
the
use
of
bioassay
testing
of
effluents
(
so­
called
whole
effluent
testing
or
WET
methods)
to
develop
effluent
limitations
within
discharge
permits.
Such
effluent
limits
were
designed
to
implement
the
"
free
from
toxicity"
narrative
standards
in
State
water
quality
standards.
The
TSD
also
focused
on
water
quality
standards.
Procedures
and
policy
were
presented
for
appropriate
design
flows
for
EPA's
section
304(
a)
acute
and
chronic
criteria.
EPA
revised
the
TSD.
(
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
based
Toxics
Control,
EPA
505/
2­
90­
001,
March
1991.)
A
Notice
of
Availability
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
April
4,
1991
(
56
FR
13827).
All
references
in
this
Preamble
are
to
the
revised
TSD.

The
Water
Quality
Standards
Handbook
and
the
TSD
are
examples
of
EPA's
efforts
and
assistance
that
were
intended
to
help,
encourage
and
support
the
States
in
adopting
appropriate
water
quality
standards
for
the
protection
of
their
waters
against
the
deleterious
effects
of
toxic
pollutants.
In
some
States,
more
and
more
numeric
criteria
for
toxics
were
being
included
as
well
as
more
aggressive
use
of
the
"
free
from
toxics"
narratives
in
setting
protective
NPDES
permit
limits.
However,
by
the
time
of
Congressional
consideration
and
action
on
the
CWA
reauthorization,
most
States
had
adopted
few,
if
any,
water
quality
standards
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

State
practices
of
developing
case­
by­
case
effluent
limits
using
procedures
that
were
not
standardized
in
State
regulations
made
it
difficult
to
ascertain
whether
such
procedures
were
consistently
applied.
The
use
of
approaches
to
control
toxicity
that
did
not
rely
on
the
statewide
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
generated
frustration
in
Congress.
Senator
Robert
Stafford,
first
chairman
and
then
ranking
minority
member
of
the
authorizing
committee,
noted
during
the
Senate
debate:

An
important
problem
in
this
regard
is
that
few
States
have
numeric
ambient
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
The
lack
of
ambient
criteria
(
for
toxic
pollutants)
make
it
impossible
to
calculate
additional
discharge
limitations
for
toxics
*
*
*
It
is
vitally
important
that
the
water
quality
standards
program
operate
in
such
a
way
that
it
supports
the
objectives
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
to
restore
and
maintain
the
integrity
of
the
Nation's
Waters.
(
bracketed
material
added).
A
Legislative
History
of
the
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987
(
Pub.
L.
100­
4),
Senate
Print
100­
144,
USGPO,
November
1988
at
page
1324.

Other
comments
in
the
legislative
history
similarly
note
the
Congressional
perception
that
the
States
were
failing
to
aggressively
address
toxics
and
that
EPA
was
not
using
its
oversight
role
to
push
the
States
to
move
more
quickly
and
comprehensively.
Thus
Congress
developed
the
water
quality
standards
amendments
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
for
reasons
similar
to
those
strongly
stated
during
the
Senate
debate
by
a
chief
sponsor,
Senator
John
Chaffee,

A
cornerstone
of
the
bill's
new
toxic
pollution
control
requirements
is
the
so
called
beyond­
BAT
program.
*
*
*
Adopting
the
beyond
BAT
provisions
will
assure
that
EPA
continues
to
move
forward
rapidly
on
the
program.
*
*
*
If
we
are
going
to
repair
the
damage
to
those
water
bodies
that
have
become
highly
degraded
as
a
result
of
toxic
substances,
we
are
going
to
have
to
move
forward
expeditiously
on
this
beyond­
BAT
program.
The
Nation
cannot
tolerate
endless
delays
and
negotiations
between
EPA
and
States
on
this
program.
Both
entities
must
move
aggressively
in
taking
the
necessary
steps
to
make
this
program
work
within
the
time
frame
established
by
this
Bill
*
*
*
Ibid,
at
page
1309.
This
Congressional
impatience
with
the
pace
of
State
and
EPA
progress
and
an
appreciation
that
the
lack
of
State
standards
for
toxics
undermined
the
effectiveness
of
the
entire
CWA­
based
scheme,
resulted
in
the
1987
adoption
of
stringent
new
water
quality
standard
provisions
in
the
Water
Quality
Act
amendments.

2.
The
Water
Quality
Act
Amendments
of
1987
(
Pub.
L.
100­
4)

a.
Description
of
the
New
Requirements
The
1987
Amendments
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
added
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
provides:
Whenever
a
State
reviews
water
quality
standards
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection,
or
revises
or
adopts
new
standards
pursuant
to
this
paragraph,
such
State
shall
adopt
criteria
for
all
toxic
pollutants
listed
pursuant
to
section
307(
a)(
1)
of
this
Act
for
which
criteria
have
been
published
under
section
304(
a),
the
discharge
or
presence
of
which
in
the
affected
waters
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
those
designated
uses
adopted
by
the
State,
as
necessary
to
support
such
designated
uses.
Such
criteria
shall
be
specific
numerical
criteria
for
such
toxic
pollutants.
Where
such
numerical
criteria
are
not
available,
whenever
a
State
reviews
water
quality
standards
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1),
or
revises
or
adopts
new
standards
pursuant
to
this
paragraph,
such
State
shall
adopt
criteria
based
on
biological
monitoring
or
assessment
methods
consistent
with
information
published
pursuant
to
section
304(
a)(
8).
Nothing
in
this
section
shall
be
construed
to
limit
or
delay
the
use
of
effluent
limitations
or
other
permit
conditions
based
on
or
involving
biological
monitoring
or
assessment
methods
or
previously
adopted
numerical
criteria.

b.
EPA's
Initial
Implementing
Actions
for
Sections
303(
c)
and
304(
l)

This
new
requirement
to
the
existing
water
quality
standards
review
and
revision
process
of
section
303(
c)
did
not
change
the
existing
procedural
or
timing
provisions.
For
example,
section
303(
c)(
1)
still
requires
that
States
review
their
water
quality
standards
at
least
once
each
3
year
period
and
transmit
the
results
to
EPA
for
review.
EPA's
oversight
and
promulgation
authorities
and
statutory
schedules
in
section
303(
c)(
4)
were
likewise
unchanged.
Rather,
the
provision
required
the
States
to
place
heavy
emphasis
on
adopting
numeric
chemical­
specific
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
(
i.
e.,
rather
than
just
narrative
approaches)
during
the
next
triennial
review
cycle.
As
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
Congress
was
frustrated
that
States
were
not
using
the
numerous
section
304(
a)
criteria
that
EPA
had
developed,
and
was
continuing
to
develop,
to
assist
States
in
controlling
the
discharge
of
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Congress
therefore
took
an
usual
action;
for
the
first
time
in
the
history
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
it
explicitly
mandated
that
States
adopt
numeric
criteria
for
specific
toxic
pollutants.

In
response
to
this
new
Congressional
mandate,
EPA
redoubled
its
efforts
to
promote
and
assist
State
adoption
of
water
quality
standards
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
EPA's
efforts
included
the
development
and
issuance
of
guidance
to
the
States
on
acceptable
implementation
procedures
for
several
new
sections
of
the
Act,
including
Sections
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
and
304(
l).

The
1987
CWA
Amendments
added
to,
or
amended,
other
CWA
sections
related
to
toxics
control.
Section
304(
l)
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1314(
l))
was
an
important
corollary
amendment
because
it
required
States
to
take
actions
to
identify
waters
adversely
affected
by
toxic
pollutants,
particularly
those
waters
entirely
or
substantially
impaired
by
point
sources.
Section
304(
l)
entitled
"
Individual
Control
Strategies
for
Toxic
Pollutants,"
requires
in
part,
that
States
identify
and
list
waterbodies
where
the
designated
uses
specified
in
the
applicable
water
quality
standards
cannot
reasonably
be
expected
to
be
achieved
because
of
point
source
discharge
of
toxic
pollutants.
For
each
segment
so
identified,
the
State
is
required
to
develop
individual
control
strategies
to
reduce
the
discharge
of
toxics
from
point
sources
so
that
in
conjunction
with
existing
controls
on
point
and
nonpoint
sources,
water
quality
standards
will
be
attained.
To
assist
the
States
in
identifying
waters
under
section
304(
l),
EPA's
guidance
listed
a
number
of
potential
sources
of
available
data
for
States
to
review.
States
generally
assembled
data
for
a
broad
spectrum
of
pollutants,
including
the
priority
toxic
pollutants,
which
could
be
useful
in
complying
with
sections
304(
l)
and
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
In
fact,
between
February
1988
and
October
1988,
EPA
assembled
pollutant
candidate
lists
for
section
304(
l)
which
were
then
transmitted
to
each
jurisdiction.
Thus,
each
State
had
a
preliminary
list
of
pollutants
that
had
been
identified
as
present
in,
or
discharged
to,
surface
waters.
Such
lists
were
limited
by
the
quantity
and
distribution
of
available
effluent
and
ambient
monitoring
data
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
This
listing
exercise
further
emphasized
the
need
for
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants.
Lack
of
standards
increased
the
difficulty
of
identifying
impaired
waters.
On
the
positive
side,
the
data
gathered
in
support
of
the
304(
l)
activity
proved
helpful
in
identifying
those
pollutants
most
obviously
in
need
of
water
quality
standards.

EPA,
in
devising
guidance
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
attempted
to
provide
the
maximum
flexibility
in
its
options
that
not
only
complied
with
the
express
statutory
language
but
also
with
the
ultimate
congressional
objective:
Prompt
adoption
of
numeric
toxics
criteria.
EPA
believed
that
flexibility
was
important
so
that
each
State
could
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
accommodate
its
existing
water
quality
standards
regulatory
approach,
and
not
violate
the
resource
constraints
specific
to
the
State.
These
options
are
described
in
the
next
Section
of
this
preamble.
EPA's
program
guidance
was
issued
in
final
form
on
December
12,
1988
but
was
not
substantially
different
from
earlier
drafts
available
for
review
by
the
States.
The
availability
of
the
guidance
was
published
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
on
January
5,
1989
(
54
FR
346).

3.
EPA's
Program
Guidance
for
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)

EPA's
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
program
guidance
identified
three
options
that
could
be
used
by
a
State
to
meet
the
requirement
that
the
State
adopt
toxic
pollutant
criteria
"*
*
*
the
discharge
or
presence
of
which
in
the
affected
waters
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
those
designated
uses
adopted
by
the
State,
as
necessary
to
support
such
designated
uses."
Option
1.
Adopt
statewide
numeric
criteria
in
State
Water
Quality
Standards
for
all
section
307(
a)
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
developed
criteria
guidance,
regardless
of
whether
the
pollutants
are
known
to
be
present.

This
option
is
the
most
comprehensive
approach
to
satisfy
the
statutory
requirements
because
it
would
include
all
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
prepared
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance
for
either
or
both
aquatic
life
protection
and
human
health
protection.
In
addition
to
a
simple
adoption
of
EPA's
section
304(
a)
guidance
as
standards,
a
State
must
select
a
risk
level
for
those
toxic
pollutants
which
EPA
believes
are
carcinogens
(
i.
e.,
that
cause,
or
may
cause
cancer
in
humans).
EPA
also
recommended
that
States
should
supplement
this
comprehensive
approach
with
a
water
quality
standard
variance
and/
or
a
site­
specific
criteria
methodology
to
provide
the
opportunity
for
flexibility
in
applying
criteria.

Many
States
found
this
option
attractive
because
it
ensured
comprehensive
coverage
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
scientifically
defensible
criteria
without
the
need
to
conduct
a
resource­
intensive
evaluation
of
the
particular
segments
and
pollutants
requiring
criteria
or
future
prevalence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
their
waters.
It
was
also
determined
this
option
would
not
be
more
costly
to
dischargers
than
the
other
options
because
permit
limits
would
only
be
based
on
the
regulation
of
the
particular
toxic
pollutants
in
their
discharges
and
not
on
the
total
listing
in
the
water
quality
standards.
Thus,
actual
permit
limits
should
be
the
same
under
any
of
the
options.

Option
2.
Adopt
chemical­
specific
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
that
are
the
subject
of
EPA
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance,
where
the
State
determines
based
on
available
information
that
the
pollutants
are
present
or
discharged
and
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses.

This
option
results
in
the
adoption
of
numeric
water
quality
standards
for
some
subset
of
those
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
issued
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance
based
on
a
review
of
current
information.
To
satisfy
this
option,
the
guidance
recommended
that
States
use
the
data
gathered
during
the
section
304(
l)
water
quality
assessments
as
a
starting
point
to
identify
those
water
segments
that
need
water
quality
standards
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
That
data
would
be
supplemented
by
a
State
and
public
review
of
other
data
sources
to
ensure
sufficient
breadth
of
coverage
to
meet
the
statutory
objective.
Among
the
available
data
to
be
reviewed
were:
(
1)
Ambient
water
monitoring
data,
including
those
for
the
water
column,
sediment,
and
aquatic
life
(
e.
g.,
fish
tissue
data);
(
2)
NPDES
permit­
applications
and
permittee
self­
monitoring
reports;
(
3)
effluent
guideline
development
documents,
many
of
which
contain
priority
toxic
pollutant
scans;
(
4)
pesticide
and
herbicide
application
information
and
other
records
of
pesticide
or
herbicide
inventories;
(
5)
public
water
supply
source
monitoring
data
noting
pollutants
with
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs);
and
(
6)
any
other
relevant
information
on
toxic
pollutants
collected
by
Federal,
State,
industry,
agencies,
academic
groups,
or
scientific
organizations.
EPA
also
recommended
that
States
adopt
a
translator
provision
similar
to
that
described
in
Option
3
but
applicable
to
all
chemicals
causing
toxicity,
and
not
just
priority
toxic
pollutants.

This
Option
2
review
resulted
in
a
State
proposing
new
or
revised
water
quality
standards
and
providing
an
opportunity
for
public
review
and
comment
on
the
pollutants,
criteria,
and
water
bodies
included.
Throughout
this
process,
EPA's
Regional
Offices
were
available
to
assist
States
by
providing
additional
guidance
and
technical
assistance
on
applying
EPA's
recommended
criteria
to
particular
situations
in
the
States.

Option
3.
Adopt
a
procedure
to
be
applied
to
a
narrative
water
quality
standard
provision
prohibiting
toxicity
in
receiving
waters.
Such
procedures
would
be
used
by
the
State
in
calculating
derived
numeric
criteria
which
must
be
used
for
all
purposes
under
section
303(
c)
of
the
CWA.
At
a
minimum,
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.

The
combination
of
a
narrative
standard
(
e.
g.,
"
free
from
toxics
in
toxic
amounts")
and
an
approved
translator
mechanism
as
part
of
a
State's
water
quality
standards
satisfies
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
As
noted
above,
such
a
procedure
is
also
a
valuable
supplement
to
either
option
1
or
2.
There
are
several
regulatory
and
scientific
requirements
EPA's
guidance
specifies
are
essential
to
ensure
acceptable
scientific
quality
and
full
involvement
of
the
public
and
EPA
in
this
approach.
Briefly
stated
these
are:
**
The
procedure
(
i.
e.,
narrative
criterion
and
translator)
must
be
used
to
calculate
numeric
water
quality
criteria;
**
The
State
must
demonstrate
to
EPA
that
the
procedure
results
in
numeric
criteria
that
are
sufficiently
protective
to
meet
the
goals
of
the
Act;
**
The
State
must
provide
for
full
opportunity
for
public
participation
during
the
adoption
of
the
procedure;
**
The
procedure
must
be
formally
adopted
as
a
State
rule
and
be
mandatory
in
application;
and
**
The
procedure
must
be
submitted
for
review
and
approval
by
EPA
as
part
of
the
State's
water
quality
standards
regulation.

Several
States
currently
apply
translators
that
have
been
approved
by
EPA.
The
scientific
elements
of
a
translator
are
similar
to
EPA's
304(
a)
criteria
methodologies
when
applied
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
For
example,
aquatic
criteria
are
developed
using
a
sufficient
number
and
diversity
of
aquatic
species
representative
of
the
biological
assemblage
of
a
particular
water
body.
Human
health
criteria
focus
on
determining
appropriate
exposure
conditions
(
e.
g.
amount
of
aquatic
life
consumed
per
person
per
day)
rather
than
underlying
pollutant
toxicity.
The
results
of
the
procedures
are
scientifically
defensible
criteria
that
are
protective
for
the
site's
particular
conditions.
EPA
review
of
translator
procedures
includes
an
evaluation
of
the
scientific
merit
of
the
procedure
using
the
Section
304(
a)
methodolgy
as
a
guide.

Ideally,
States
adopting
option
3
translator
procedures
should
prepare
a
preliminary
list
of
criteria
and
specify
the
waters
the
criteria
apply
to
at
the
time
of
adoption.
Although
under
option
3
the
State
retains
flexibility
to
derive
new
criteria
without
revising
the
adopted
standards,
establishing
this
preliminary
list
of
derived
criteria
at
the
time
of
the
triennial
review
will
assist
the
public
in
determining
the
scope
of
the
adopted
standards,
and
help
ensure
that
the
State
ultimately
complies
with
the
requirement
to
establish
criteria
for
all
pollutants
that
can
"
reasonably
be
expected"
to
interfere
with
uses.
EPA
believes
that
States
selecting
solely
option
3
should
prepare
an
analysis
similar
to
that
required
of
option
2
States
at
the
time
of
the
triennial
review.

EPA's
December
1988
guidance
also
addressed
the
timing
issue
for
State
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
statutory
directive
was
clear:
All
State
standards
triennial
reviews
initiated
after
passage
of
the
Act
must
include
a
consideration
of
numeric
toxic
criteria.

The
structure
of
section
303(
c)
is
to
require
States
to
review
their
water
quality
standards
at
least
once
each
three
year
period.
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
instructs
States
to
include
reviews
for
toxics
criteria
whenever
they
initiate
a
triennial
review.
EPA
initially
looked
at
February
4,
1990,
the
3­
year
anniversary
of
the
1987
CWA
amendments,
as
a
convenient
point
to
index
State
compliance.
The
April
1990
Federal
Register
notice
used
this
index
point
for
the
preliminary
assessment.
However,
some
States
were
very
nearly
completing
their
State
administrative
processes
for
ongoing
reviews
when
the
1987
amendments
were
enacted
and
could
not
legally
amend
those
proceedings
to
address
additional
toxics
criteria.
Therefore,
in
the
interest
of
fairness,
and
to
provide
such
States
a
full
3­
year
review
period,
EPA's
FY
1990
Agency
Operating
Guidance
provided
that
"
By
the
end
of
the
FY
88­
90
triennium,
States
should
have
completed
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
to
meet
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements."
(
p.
48.)
The
FY
88­
90
triennium
ended
on
September
30,
1990.

Clean
Water
Act
section
303(
c)
does
not
provide
penalties
for
States
that
do
not
complete
timely
water
quality
standards
reviews.
In
no
previous
case
has
the
EPA
Administrator
found
that
State
failure
to
complete
a
review
within
three
years
jeopardized
the
public
health
or
welfare
to
such
an
extent
that
promulgation
of
Federal
standards
pursuant
to
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
was
justified.
The
pre­
1987
CWA
never
mandated
State
adoption
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
or
other
specific
criteria.
EPA
relied
on
its
water
quality
standards
regulation
(
40
CFR
131.11)
and
its
criteria
and
program
guidance
to
the
States
on
appropriate
parametric
coverage
in
State
water
quality
standards,
including
toxic
pollutants.
However,
because
of
Congressional
concern
exhibited
in
the
legislative
history
for
the
1987
Clean
Water
Act
amendments
regarding
undue
delays
by
States
and
EPA,
and
because
States
have
been
explicitly
required
to
adopt
numeric
criteria
for
appropriate
priority
toxic
pollutants
since
1963,
the
Agency
in
this
proposed
rulemaking
is
proceeding
pursuant
to
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
and
40
CFR
131.22(
b).

4.
Revisions
to
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
to
Incorporate
the
Requirements
of
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)

In
a
rulemaking
separate
from
today's
proposal,
EPA
intends
to
propose
amendments
to
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
to
incorporate
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
EPA
views
the
effects
of
that
intended
rulemaking
to
be
prospective
only.
EPA's
expected
regulatory
change
would
provide
principally
more
consistency
among
the
States
in
their
approaches
to
adopting
appropriate
toxic
and
other
criteria
in
future
triennial
reviews.

The
current
requirements
for
water
quality
criteria
in
State
water
quality
standards
are
addressed
in
40
CFR
131.11.
EPA's
intended
rulemaking
will
propose
amendments
to
this
section
and
incorporate
the
three
options
described
in
its
December
12,
1988
guidance.
Of
special
concern
are
the
specific
requirements
for
the
translator
provision
described
as
option
3.

The
current
regulation
at
40
CFR
part
131
in
conjunction
with
the
statutory
language
provides
a
clear
and
unambiguous
basis
and
process
for
today's
proposed
Federal
promulgation.

C.
State
Actions
Pursuant
to
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
There
has
been
substantial
progress
by
many
States
in
the
adoption,
and
EPA
approval,
of
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants.
For
example,
for
freshwater
aquatic
life
uses,
the
average
number
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
criteria
adopted
has
tripled
from
ten
per
State
in
1986
to
thirty
per
State
on
February
4,
1990.
In
addition,
the
number
of
States
with
at
least
some
aquatic
life
criteria
adopted
has
increased
from
thirty­
three
in
April
1986
to
forty­
five
as
of
February
4,
1990.

Furthermore,
virtually
all
States
have
at
least
proposed
new
toxics
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
since
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
was
added
to
the
CWA
in
February
of
1987.
Unfortunately,
not
all
such
State
proposals
address,
in
a
comprehensive
manner,
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
For
example,
some
States
have
proposed
to
adopt
criteria
to
protect
aquatic
life,
but
not
human
health;
other
States
have
proposed
human
health
criteria
which
do
not
address
major
human
exposure
pathways.
In
addition,
in
some
cases
final
adoption
of
proposed
State
toxics
criteria
which
would
be
approvable
by
EPA
has
been
substantially
delayed
due
to
controversial
and
difficult
issues
associated
with
the
toxics
criteria
adoption
process.
For
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking,
it
is
EPA's
judgment
that
only
35
States
completed
actions
which
fully
satisfy
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

The
difficulties
faced
by
States
in
adopting
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
exemplified
by
recent
State
efforts
to
adopt
criteria
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutant
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
(
dioxin).
As
is
generally
true
of
State
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
efforts,
State
efforts
to
adopt
numeric
human
health
dioxin
criteria
have
been
slow
and
controversial,
but
in
many
respects
impressive.
For
example,
since
1987,
a
total
of
34
States
have
adopted
numeric
human
health
criteria
for
dioxin
which
have
been
approved
by
EPA.
In
total,
38
States
have
adopted
numeric
human
health
criteria
for
dioxin.
Twenty­
five
of
these
38
States
adopted
criteria
during
calendar
year
1991,
showing
that
the
pace
of
State
actions
to
adopt
dioxin
criteria
has
accelerated
substantially.

The
progress
which
has
been
made
by
States
in
adopting
dioxin
criteria
is
particularly
impressive
in
light
of
the
substantial
attention
and
controversy
which
has
been
focused
on
such
actions.
EPA,
States,
dischargers,
environmental
groups,
and
the
public
at
large
have
been
involved
in
discussions
concerning
the
ambient
level
of
protection
that
is
protective
of
public
health.
In
some
States,
the
struggle
to
select
an
appropriate
dioxin
criterion
has
been
the
major
impediment
to
successful
completion
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
actions.

At
issue
are
scientific
questions
specific
to
dioxin,
such
as
determining
the
carcinogenic
potency
of
the
pollutant
and
the
extent
to
which
the
pollutant
tends
to
accumulate
in
fish
tissues.
Other
issues
are
generic
to
EPA'S
human
health
criteria,
such
as
determining
the
rate
at
which
humans
consume
fish
and
other
forms
of
aquatic
life,
and
the
necessity
of
setting
ambient
criteria
at
levels
which
may
not
be
detected
by
state­
of­
the­
art
laboratories.
Most
of
these
issues
relate,
directly
or
indirectly,
to
concerns
expressed
by
dischargers
regarding
the
cost
of
complying
with
water
quality­
based
effluent
limits
for
dioxin
which,
although
variable
from
State
to
State,
generally
are
based
on
State
numeric
water
quality
criteria
that
allow
only
minute
quantities
of
dioxin
per
liter
of
water.
For
example,
twelve
States
have
adopted
EPA's
recommended
ambient
water
column
concentration
of
0.013
picograms
per
liter.

Currently,
a
total
of
eleven
States
have
proposed,
or
are
expected
to
propose,
numeric
human
health­
based
criteria
for
dioxin.
These
States
could
face
the
same
issues,
obstacles,
and
resource
requirements
that
the
38
States
which
previously
adopted
criteria
have
faced.

In
summary,
States
have
devoted
substantial
resources,
and
have
made
substantial
progress,
in
adopting
new
or
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
pollutants.
In
so
doing
they
have
addressed
a
number
of
significant
and
difficult
issues.
These
issues
and
the
attendant
controversy
has
accounted,
at
least
in
part,
for
the
fact
that
22
jurisdictions
still
have
not
adopted
numeric
toxics
criteria
that
fully
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
For
a
more
detailed
State­
specific
outline
of
actions
taken
in
response
to
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
refer
to
part
III
of
appendix
1,
which
itemizes
State
actions
to
adopt
toxics
criteria
for
States
approved
by
EPA
as
being
in
full
compliance
as
well
as
States
which
EPA
has
not
approved
as
being
in
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
D.
Determining
State
Compliance
With
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)

1.
EPA's
Review
of
State
Water
Quality
Standards
for
Toxics
The
EPA
Administrator
has
delegated
the
responsibility
and
authority
for
review
and
approval
or
disapproval
of
all
State
water
quality
standards
actions
to
the
10
EPA
Regional
Administrators
(
see
40
CFR
131.21).
State
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
actions
are
thus
submitted
to
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator
for
review
and
approval.
This
de­
centralized
EPA
system
for
State
water
quality
standards
review
and
approval
is
guided
by
EPA
Headquarter's
Office
of
Water,
which
issues
national
policies
and
guidance
to
the
States
and
Regions
such
as
the
annual
Office
of
Water
Operating
Guidance
and
various
technical
operating
guidance
manuals.

For
purposes
of
evaluating
State
compliance
with
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
EPA
relied
on
the
language
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
the
existing
water
quality
standards
regulation,
and
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
national
guidance
to
provide
the
basis
for
EPA
review.
In
some
cases,
individual
Regions
also
used
Regional
policies
and
procedures
in
reviewing
State
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
actions.
The
flexibility
provided
by
the
national
guidance,
coupled
with
subtle
differences
in
Regional
policies
and
procedures,
contributed
to
some
differences
in
the
approaches
taken
by
States
to
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements.

As
discussed
previously,
EPA's
final
guidance
on
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
was
developed
to
provide
States
with
the
necessary
flexibility
to
allow
State
standards
revisions
that
would
complement
the
State's
existing
water
quality
standards
program,
fully
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
and
not
violate
State­
specific
resource
constraints.
As
guidance,
it
did
not
contain
clearly
defined
limits
on
the
range
of
acceptable
approaches,
but
rather
described
EPA's
recommendations
on
approaches
States
could
use
to
satisfy
the
statutory
requirements.
Some
innovative
State
approaches
were
expected
as
well
as
differences
in
terms
of
criteria
coverage,
stringency
and
application
procedures.

Although
the
guidance
provided
for
State
flexibility,
it
was
also
consistent
with
existing
water
quality
standards
regulation
requirements
at
40
CFR
131.11
that
explicitly
require
State
criteria
to
be
sufficient
to
protect
designated
uses.
Such
water
quality
criteria
also
must
be
based
on
sound
scientific
rationale
and
support
the
most
sensitive
use
designated
for
a
water
body.

The
most
complicated
EPA
compliance
determinations
involve
States
that
select
EPA
Options
2
or
3.
Since
most
States
use
EPA's
Section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance,
where
States
select
Option
1,
EPA
normally
is
able
to
focus
Agency
efforts
on
verifying
that
all
available
EPA
criteria
are
included,
appropriate
cancer
risk
levels
are
selected,
and
that
sufficient
application
procedures
are
in
place
(
e.
g.
laboratory
analytical
methods,
mixing
zones,
flow
condition,
etc.).

However,
for
States
using
EPA's
Option
2
or
3,
substantially
more
EPA
evaluation
and
judgment
is
required
because
the
Agency
must
evaluate
which
priority
pollutants
and,
in
some
cases,
segments
or
designated
uses,
require
numeric
criteria.
Under
these
options,
the
State
must
adopt
or
derive
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
section
304(
a)
criteria,
"*
*
*
the
discharge
or
presence
of
which
in
the
affected
waters
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
those
designated
uses
adopted
by
the
State
*
*
*"
The
necessary
justification
and
the
ultimate
coverage
and
acceptability
of
a
State's
actions
vary
State­
to­
State
because
of
differences
in
the
adequacy
of
available
monitoring
information,
local
water
bodies
use
designations,
the
effluent
and
nonpoint
source
controls
in
place,
and
different
approaches
to
the
scientific
basis
for
criteria.

In
submitting
criteria
for
the
protection
of
human
health,
States
are
not
limited
to
a
1
in
1
million
risk
level
(
10­
6).
EPA
generally
regulates
pollutants
treated
as
carcinogens
in
the
range
of
10­
6
to
10­
4
for
average
exposed
individuals.
If
a
State
selects
a
criterion
that
represents
an
upper
bound
risk
level
less
protective
than
1
in
100,000
(
i.
e.,
10­
5),
however,
the
State
will
need
to
have
substantial
support
in
the
record
for
this
level.
This
support
should
focus
on
two
distinct
issues.
First,
the
record
must
include
documentation
that
the
decision
maker
considered
the
public
interest
of
the
State
in
selecting
the
risk
level,
including
documentation
of
public
participation
in
the
decision
making
process
as
required
by
the
water
quality
standards
regulation
at
40
CFR
131.20(
b).
Second,
the
record
must
include
an
analysis
showing
that
the
risk
level
selected,
when
combined
with
other
risk
assessment
variables,
is
a
balanced
and
reasonable
estimate
of
actual
risk
posed,
based
on
the
best
and
most
representative
information
available.
The
importance
of
the
estimated
actual
risk
increases
as
the
degree
of
conservatism
in
the
selected
risk
level
diminishes.
EPA
will
carefully
evaluate
all
assumptions
used
by
a
State
if
the
State
chooses
to
alter
any
one
of
the
standard
EPA
assumption
values.

Where
States
select
Option
3,
EPA
reviews
must
also
include
an
evaluation
of
the
scientific
defensibility
of
the
translator
procedure.
EPA
must
also
verify
that
a
requirement
to
apply
the
translator
whenever
toxics
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses
(
e.
g.,
where
such
toxics
exist
or
are
discharged)
is
included
in
the
State's
water
quality
standards.
Satisfactory
application
procedures
must
also
be
developed
by
States
selecting
Option
3.

In
general,
each
EPA
Region
made
compliance
decisions
based
on
whatever
information
was
available
to
the
State
at
the
time
of
the
triennial
review.
For
some
States,
information
on
the
presence
and
discharge
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
is
extremely
limited.
Nevertheless,
during
the
period
of
February
1988
to
October
1990,
to
supplement
State
efforts,
EPA
assembled
the
available
information
and
provided
each
State
with
various
pollutant
candidate
lists
in
support
of
the
section
304(
l)
and
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
activities.
These
were
based
in
part
on
computerized
searches
of
existing
Agency
data
bases.

Beginning
in
1988,
EPA
provided
States
with
candidate
lists
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
and
water
bodies
in
support
of
CWA
section
304(
l)
implementation.
These
lists
were
developed
because
States
were
required
to
evaluate
existing
and
readily
available
water­
related
data
in
order
to
comply
with
section
304(
l).
40
CFR
130.10(
d).
A
similar
"
strawman"
analysis
of
priority
pollutants
potentially
requiring
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
under
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
was
furnished
to
most
States
in
September
or
October
of
1990
for
their
use
in
on­
going
and
subsequent
triennial
reviews.
The
primary
differences
between
the
"
strawman"
analysis
and
the
section
304(
l)
candidate
lists
were
that
the
"
strawman"
analysis:
(
1)
Organized
the
results
by
chemical
rather
than
by
water
body,
(
2)
included
data
for
certain
STORET
monitoring
stations
that
were
not
used
in
constructing
the
candidate
lists,
(
3)
included
data
from
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database,
and
(
4)
did
not
include
a
number
of
data
sources
used
in
preparing
the
candidate
lists
(
e.
g.,
those,
such
as
fish
kill
information,
that
did
not
provide
chemical
specific
information).

In
its
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance,
EPA
urged
States,
at
a
minimum,
to
use
the
information
gathered
in
support
of
section
304(
l)
requirements
as
a
starting
point
for
identifying
which
priority
toxic
pollutants
require
adoption
of
numeric
criteria.
EPA
also
encouraged
States
to
consider
the
presence
or
potential
construction
of
facilities
that
manufacture
or
use
priority
toxic
pollutants
as
a
strong
indication
of
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
Similarly,
EPA
indicated
to
States
that
the
presence
of
priority
pollutants
in
ambient
waters
(
including
those
in
sediments
or
in
aquatic
life
tissue)
or
in
discharges
from
point
or
nonpoint
sources
also
be
considered
as
an
indication
that
toxics
criteria
should
be
adopted.
A
limited
amount
of
data
on
the
effluent
characteristics
of
NPDES
discharges
was
readily
available
to
States.
States
were
also
expected
to
take
into
account
newer
information
as
it
became
available,
such
as
information
in
annual
reports
from
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory
requirements
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
To­
Know
Act
of
1986.
(
Title
III,
Pub.
L.
99­
499.)
In
summary,
EPA
and
the
States
had
access
to
a
variety
of
information
gathered
in
support
of
section
304(
l),
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
and
section
305(
b)
activities.
For
some
States,
as
noted
above,
such
information
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
is
extremely
limited.
In
the
final
analysis,
the
Regional
Administrator
made
a
judgment
on
a
duly
submitted
State
standards
triennial
review
based
on
the
State's
record
and
the
Region's
independent
knowledge
of
the
facts
and
circumstances
surrounding
the
State's
actions.
These
actions,
taken
in
consultation
with
the
Office
of
Water,
determined
which
State
actions
were
sufficiently
consistent
with
the
coverage
contemplated
in
the
statute
to
justify
approval.
These
approval
actions
include
allowable
variations
among
State
water
quality
standards.
EPA
approval
indicates
that,
based
on
the
record,
the
State
water
quality
standards
met
the
requirements
of
the
Act.

2.
Determining
Current
Compliance
Status
The
following
summarizes
the
process
generally
followed
by
the
Agency
in
assessing
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
As
with
other
aspects
of
this
rule,
EPA
invites
comments
on
the
compliance
determination
process.

A
State
was
determined
to
be
in
full
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
if,
a.
The
State
had
submitted
a
water
quality
standards
package
for
EPA
review
since
enactment
of
the
1987
Clean
Water
Act
amendments
or
was
determined
to
be
already
in
compliance,
and,
b.
The
adopted
State
water
quality
standards
are
effective
under
State
law
and
consistent
with
the
CWA
and
EPA's
implementing
regulations
(
EPA's
December
1988
guidance
described
three
Options,
any
one,
or
a
combination
of
which
EPA
suggested
States
could
adopt
for
compliance
with
the
CWA
and
EPA
regulations),
and
c.
EPA
has
issued
a
formal
approval
determination
to
the
State.

States
meeting
these
criteria
are
not
included
in
this
proposed
rulemaking.
States
which
adopted
standards
following
Option
1
generally
have
been
found
to
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
An
exception
exists
for
selected
States
which
attempted
to
follow
Option
1
by
adopting
all
EPA
section
304(
a)
criteria
by
reference.
EPA
has
withheld
approval
for
a
few
States
which
have
adopted
such
references
into
their
standards
because
the
adopted
standards
did
not
specify
application
factors
necessary
to
implement
the
criteria
(
e.
g.,
a
risk
level
for
carcinogens).
Other
States
have
achieved
full
compliance
following
options
1,
2,
3,
or
some
combination
of
these
options.

As
of
the
date
of
signature
of
today's
proposal,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
35
States
and
Territories
are
in
full
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Compliance
status
for
all
States
and
Territories
is
set
forth
in
Table
1.

Table
1.­­
Preliminary
Assessment
of
State
Compliance
with
CWA
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
Is
State
in
compliance
with
section
State
303(
c)(
2)(
B)?
Alabama
Yes.
Alaska
No.
Arizona
No.
Arkansas
No.
California
No.
Colorado
No.
Connecticut
No.
Delaware
Yes.
Florida
No.
Georgia
Yes.
Hawaii
No.
Idaho
No.
Illinois
Yes.
Indiana
Yes.
Iowa
Yes.
Kansas
No.
Kentucky
Yes.
Louisiana
No.
Maine
Yes.
Maryland
Yes.
Massachusetts
Yes.
Michigan
No.
Minnesota
Yes.
Mississippi
Yes.
Missouri
Yes.
Montana
Yes.
Nebraska
Yes.
Nevada
No.
New
Hampshire
No.
New
Jersey
No.
New
Mexico
Yes.
New
York
Yes.
North
Carolina
Yes.
North
Dakota
Yes.
Ohio
Yes.
Oklahoma
Yes.
Oregon
Yes.
Pennsylvania
Yes.
Rhode
Island
No.
South
Carolina
Yes.
South
Dakota
Yes.
Tennessee
Yes.
Texas
Yes.
Utah
Yes.
Vermont
No.
Virginia
No.
Washington
No.
West
Virginia
Yes.
Wisconsin
Yes.
Wyoming
Yes.
American
Samoa
Yes.
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Marianas
Islands
No.
District
of
Columbia
No.
Guam
Yes.
Puerto
Rico
No.
Tr.
Territories
Yes.
Virgin
Islands
Yes.

Section
III
of
appendix
1
provides
a
State­
by­
State
summary
of
how
compliance
was
achieved
for
the
EPA­
approved
States,
and
what
has
been,
and
yet
needs
to
be,
accomplished
in
States
included
in
this
proposed
rule.

E.
Rationale
and
Approach
for
Developing
Today's
Proposed
Rulemaking
The
addition
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
was
an
unequivocal
signal
to
the
States
that
Congress
wanted
toxics
criteria
in
the
State's
water
quality
standards.
The
legislative
history
notes
that
the
"
beyond
BAT"
program
(
i.
e.,
controls
necessary
to
comply
with
water
quality
standards
that
are
more
stringent
than
technology­
based
controls)
was
the
cornerstone
to
the
Act's
toxic
pollution
control
requirements.

The
major
innovation
of
the
1972
Clean
Water
Act
Amendments
was
the
concept
of
effluent
limitation
guidelines
which
were
to
be
incorporated
into
NPDES
permits.
In
many
cases,
this
strategy
has
succeeded
in
halting
the
decline
in
the
quality
of
the
Nation's
waters
and,
often,
has
provided
improvements.
However,
the
effluent
limitation
guidelines
for
industrial
discharges
and
the
similar
technology­
based
secondary
treatment
requirements
for
municipal
discharges
are
not
capable,
by
themselves,
of
ensuring
that
the
fishable­
swimmable
goals
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
will
be
met.
The
basic
mechanism
to
accomplish
this
in
the
Act
is
water
quality
standards.
States
are
required
to
periodically
review
and
revise
these
standards
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
Act.
In
the
1987
CWA
amendments,
Congress
focused
on
addressing
toxics
in
several
sections
of
the
Act,
but
special
attention
was
placed
on
the
section
303
water
quality
standards
program
requirements.
Congress
intended
that
the
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
for
toxics
would
result
in
direct
improvements
in
water
quality
by
forcing,
where
necessary,
effluent
limits
more
stringent
than
those
resulting
from
technology­
based
effluent
limitations
guidelines.

As
the
legislative
history
demonstrates,
Congress
was
dissatisfied
with
the
piecemeal,
slow
progress
being
made
by
States
in
setting
standards
for
toxics.
Congress
reacted
by
legislating
new
requirements
and
deadlines
directing
the
States
to
establish
toxics
criteria
for
pollutants
addressed
in
EPA
Section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance,
especially
for
those
priority
toxic
pollutants
that
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses.
In
today's
action,
EPA
is
exercising
its
authority
under
section
303(
c)(
4)
to
propose
criteria
where
States
have
failed
to
act
in
a
timely
manner.

For
those
States
not
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
four
and
one­
half
years
after
enactment,
EPA
now
begins
the
process
that
will
culminate
in
the
promulgation
of
appropriate
toxics
criteria
and
the
determination
of
the
necessary
parametric
coverage
and
stringency
of
such
criteria.
While
the
previous
section
of
this
preamble
explains
EPA's
approach
to
evaluating
the
adequacy
of
State
actions
in
response
to
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
this
section
explains
EPA's
legal
basis
for
issuing
today's
proposed
rulemaking,
discusses
EPA's
general
approach
for
developing
the
proposed
State­
specific
requirements
in
Sec.
131.36(
d).

In
addition
to
the
Congressional
directive
and
the
legal
basis
for
this
proposed
action,
there
are
a
number
of
environmental
and
programmatic
reasons
why
further
delay
in
establishing
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants
is
no
longer
acceptable.

Prompt
control
of
toxic
pollutants
in
surface
waters
is
critical
to
the
success
of
a
number
of
Clean
Water
Act
programs
and
objectives,
including
permitting,
enforcement,
fish
tissue
quality
protection,
coastal
water
quality
improvement,
sediment
contamination
control,
certain
nonpoint
source
controls,
pollution
prevention
planning,
and
ecological
protection.
The
decade­
long
delay
in
State
adoption
of
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants
has
had
a
ripple
effect
throughout
EPA's
water
programs.
Without
clearly
established
water
quality
goals,
the
effectiveness
of
many
water
programs
is
jeopardized.

Failure
to
take
prompt
action
at
this
juncture
would
also
undermine
the
continued
viability
of
the
current
statutory
scheme
to
establish
standards.
Continued
delay
subverts
the
entire
concept
of
the
triennial
review
cycle
which
is
to
combine
current
scientific
information
with
the
results
of
previous
environmental
control
programs
to
direct
continuing
progress
in
enhancing
water
quality.

Finally,
another
reason
to
proceed
expeditiously
is
to
bring
closure
to
this
long­
term
effort
and
allow
State
attention
and
resources
to
be
directed
towards
important,
new
national
program
initiatives.
Until
standards
for
toxic
pollutants
are
in
place,
neither
EPA
nor
the
States
can
fully
focus
on
the
emerging,
ecologically
based
water
quality
activities
such
as
wetlands
criteria,
biological
criteria
and
sediment
criteria.

1.
Legal
Basis
Clean
Water
Act
section
303(
c)
specifies
that
adoption
of
water
quality
standards
is
primarily
the
responsibility
of
the
States.
However,
section
303(
c)
also
describes
a
role
for
EPA
of
overseeing
State
actions
to
ensure
compliance
with
CWA
requirements.
If
the
Agency's
review
of
the
State's
standards
finds
flaws
or
omissions,
then
the
Act
authorizes
EPA
to
initiate
promulgation
to
correct
the
deficiencies
(
see
section
303(
c)(
4)).
The
water
quality
standards
promulgation
authority
has
been
used
by
EPA
to
issue
final
rules
on
nine
separate
occasions.
These
actions
have
addressed
both
insufficiently
protective
State
criteria
and/
or
designated
uses
and
failure
to
adopt
needed
criteria.
Thus,
today's
action
is
not
unique,
although
it
would
affect
more
States
and
pollutants
than
previous
actions
taken
by
the
Agency.

The
Clean
Water
Act
in
section
303(
c)(
4)
provides
two
bases
for
promulgation
of
Federal
water
quality
standards.
The
first
basis
in
paragraph
(
A)
applies
when
a
State
submits
new
or
revised
standards
that
EPA
determines
are
not
consistent
with
the
applicable
requirements
of
the
Act.
If,
after
EPA's
disapproval,
the
State
does
not
promptly
amend
its
rules
so
as
to
be
consistent
with
the
Act,
EPA
must
promulgate
appropriate
Federal
water
quality
standards
for
that
State.
The
second
basis
for
EPA's
action
is
paragraph
(
B),
which
provides
that
EPA
shall
promptly
initiate
promulgation
"*
*
*
in
any
case
where
the
Administrator
determines
that
a
revised
or
new
standard
is
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
this
Act."
EPA
is
relying
on
both
section
303(
c)(
4)(
A)
and
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
as
the
legal
basis
for
this
proposed
rulemaking.

Section
303(
c)(
4)(
A)
supports
today's
action
for
several
States.
These
States
have
submitted
criteria
for
some
number
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
and
EPA
has
disapproved
the
State's
adopted
standards.
The
basis
for
EPA's
disapproval
generally
has
been
the
lack
of
sufficient
criteria
or
particular
criteria
that
were
insufficiently
stringent.
In
these
cases,
EPA
has,
by
letter
to
the
State,
noted
the
deficiencies
and
specified
the
need
for
corrective
action.
(
See
section
III
of
appendix
1
for
a
summary
description
of
each
State's
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
history.)
Not
having
received
an
appropriate
correction
within
the
statutory
time
frame,
EPA
is
today
proposing
the
needed
criteria.
The
action
in
today's
proposal
pursuant
to
section
303(
c)(
4)(
A)
may
differ
from
those
taken
pursuant
to
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
by
being
limited
to
criteria
for
specific
priority
toxic
pollutants,
particular
geographic
areas,
or
particular
designated
uses.

Section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
is
the
basis
for
EPA's
proposed
requirements
for
most
States.
For
these
States,
the
Administrator
proposes
criteria
that
would
bring
the
States
into
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
CWA.
In
these
cases,
EPA
is
proposing,
at
a
minimum,
criteria
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
not
addressed
by
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
is
also
proposing
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
do
not
reflect
current
science
contained
in
revised
criteria
documents
and
other
guidance
sufficient
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses
or
human
exposure
pathways,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
designated
uses.
EPA's
action
pursuant
to
section
304(
c)(
4)(
B)
may
include
several
situations.

In
some
cases,
the
State
has
failed
to
adopt
and
submit
for
approval
any
criteria
for
those
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
published
criteria.
This
includes
those
States
that
have
not
submitted
triennial
reviews.
In
other
cases,
the
State
has
adopted
and
EPA
has
approved
criteria
for
either
aquatic
life
or
human
health,
but
not
both.
In
yet
a
third
situation,
States
have
submitted
some
criteria
but
not
all
necessary
criteria.
Lastly,
one
State
has
submitted
criteria
that
do
not
apply
to
all
appropriate
geographic
sections
of
the
waters
of
the
State.
(
See
section
III
of
appendix
1.)
The
use
of
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
requires
a
determination
by
the
Administrator
"*
*
*
that
a
revised
or
new
standard
is
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
*
*
*"
the
Act.
The
Administrator's
determination
could
be
supported
in
different
ways.

One
approach
would
be
for
EPA
to
undertake
a
time­
consuming
effort
to
research
and
marshall
data
to
demonstrate
the
need
for
promulgation
for
each
criteria
for
each
stream
segment
or
waterbody
in
each
State.
This
would
include
evidence
for
each
section
307(
a)
priority
toxic
pollutant
for
which
EPA
has
section
304(
a)
criteria
and
that
there
is
a
"
discharge
or
presence"
which
could
reasonably
"
be
expected
to
interfere
with"
the
designated
use.
This
approach
would
not
only
impose
an
enormous
administrative
burden,
but
would
be
contrary
to
the
statutory
scheme
and
the
compelling
Congressional
directive
for
swift
action
reflected
in
the
1987
addition
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
to
the
Act.

An
approach
that
is
more
reasonable
and
consistent
with
Congressional
intent
focuses
on
the
State's
failure
to
complete
the
timely
review
and
adoption
of
the
necessary
standards
required
by
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
despite
information
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
may
interfere
with
designated
uses
of
the
State's
waters.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
the
fact
that
in
enacting
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
Congress
expressed
its
determination
of
the
necessity
for
prompt
adoption
and
implementation
of
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
a
State's
failure
to
meet
this
fundamental
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
of
adopting
appropriate
standards
constitutes
a
failure
"
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act."
That
failure
to
act
can
be
a
basis
for
the
Administrator's
determination
under
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
that
new
or
revised
criteria
are
necessary
to
ensure
designated
uses
are
adequately
protected.
Here,
this
determination
is
buttressed
by
the
existence
of
evidence
of
the
discharge
or
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
a
State's
waters
for
which
the
State
has
not
adopted
numeric
water
quality
criteria.
The
Agency
has
compiled
an
impressive
volume
of
information
in
the
record
for
this
rulemaking
(
See
appendix
1)
on
the
discharge
or
presence
of
toxic
pollutants
in
State
waters.
This
data
supports
the
Administrators's
proposed
determination
pursuant
to
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B).

The
Agency's
choice
to
base
the
proposed
determination
on
the
second
approach
is
supported
by
both
the
elicit
language
of
the
statutory
provision
and
by
the
legislative
history.
Congress
added
subsection
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
to
section
303
with
full
knowledge
of
the
existing
requirements
in
section
303(
c)(
1)
for
triennial
water
quality
standards
review
and
submission
to
EPA
and
in
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
for
EPA
promulgation.
There
was
a
clear
expectation
that
these
provisions
be
used
in
concert
to
overcome
the
programmatic
delay
that
many
legislators
criticized
and
achieve
the
Congressional
objective
of
the
rapid
availability
of
enforceable
water
quality
standards
for
toxic
pollutants.
As
quoted
earlier,
chief
Senate
sponsors,
including
Senators
Stafford,
Chafee
and
others,
wanted
the
provision
to
eliminate
State
and
EPA
delays
and
force
aggressive
action.

In
normal
circumstances,
it
might
be
argued
that
to
exercise
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
the
Administrator
might
have
the
burden
of
marshalling
conclusive
evidence
of
"
necessity"
for
Federally
promulgated
water
quality
standards.
However,
in
adopting
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
Congress
made
clear
that
the
"
normal"
procedure
had
become
inadequate.
The
specificity
and
deadline
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
were
layered
on
top
of
a
statutory
scheme
already
designed
to
achieve
the
adoption
of
toxic
water
quality
standards.
Congressional
action
to
adopt
an
essentially
redundant
provision
was
driven
by
their
impatience
with
the
lack
of
State
progress.
The
new
provision
was
essentially
a
Congressional
"
determination"
of
the
necessity
for
new
or
revised
comprehensive
toxic
water
quality
standards
by
States.
In
deference
to
the
principle
of
State
primacy,
Congress,
by
linking
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
to
the
section
303(
c)(
1)
three­
year
review
period,
gave
States
a
last
chance
to
correct
this
deficiency
on
their
own.
However,
this
Congressional
indulgence
does
not
alter
the
fact
that
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
changed
the
nature
of
the
CWA
State/
EPA
water
quality
standard
relationship.
The
new
provision
and
its
legislative
background
indicate
that
the
Administrator's
determination
to
invoke
his
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
authority
in
this
circumstance
can
be
met
by
a
generic
finding
of
inaction
on
the
part
of
a
State
and
without
the
need
to
develop
data
for
individual
stream
segments.
Otherwise,
the
Agency
would
face
the
heavy
data
gathering
burden
of
justifying
the
need
for
each
Federal
criterion,
the
process
could
stretch
for
years
and
never
be
realized.
To
interpret
the
combination
of
subsections
(
c)(
2)(
B)
and
(
c)(
4)
as
an
effective
bar
to
prompt
achievement
of
statutory
objectives
would
be
a
perverse
conclusion
and
render
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
essentially
meaningless.

A
second
strong
argument
against
requiring
EPA
to
shoulder
a
heavy
burden
to
exercise
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
authority
is
that
it
would
invert
the
traditional
statutory
scheme
of
EPA
as
national
overseer
and
States
as
the
entity
with
the
greatest
local
expertise.
The
CWA
provides
States
the
flexibility
to
tailor
water
quality
standards
to
local
conditions
and
needs
based
upon
their
wealth
of
first­
hand
experience,
knowledge
and
data.
However,
this
allowance
for
flexibility
is
based
on
an
assumption
of
reasoned
and
timely
State
action,
not
an
abdication
of
State
responsibility
by
failure
to
act.
EPA
does
not
possess
the
local
expertise
or
resources
necessary
to
successfully
tailor
State
water
quality
standards.
Therefore,
the
fact
that
the
CWA
allows
States
flexibility
in
standards
development
does
not
impose
an
inappropriate
burden
on
EPA
in
the
exercise
of
its
oversight
promulgation
responsibilities.
A
broad
Federal
promulgation
based
on
a
showing
of
State
inaction
coupled
with
basic
information
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
toxic
pollutants
meets
the
statutory
objective
of
having
criteria
in
place
that
are
protective
of
public
health
and
the
environment.
Without
local
expertise
to
help
accurately
narrow
this
list
of
pollutants
and
segments
requiring
criteria,
there
is
no
assurance
of
comparable
protection.
Nothing
in
the
overall
statutory
water
quality
standards
scheme
anticipates
EPA
would
develop
this
expertise
in
lieu
of
the
States.
EPA's
lack
of
familiarity
with
local
conditions
argues
strongly
for
a
simple
"
determination"
test
to
trigger
section
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
promulgations.
It
also
supports
the
concept
of
an
across­
the­
board
rulemaking
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
section
304(
a)
criteria.

A
final
major
reason
supporting
a
simple
determination
to
trigger
303(
c)(
4)(
B)
action
is
that
comprehensive
Federal
promulgation
imposes
no
undue
or
inappropriate
burden
on
States
or
dischargers.
It
merely
puts
in
place
standards
for
toxic
pollutants
that
are
utilized
in
implementing
Clean
Water
Act
programs.
Under
this
rulemaking,
a
State
still
retains
the
ability
to
adopt
alternative
water
quality
standards
simply
by
completing
its
standards
adoption
process.
Upon
EPA
approval
of
those
standards,
EPA
would
take
actions
to
withdraw
the
Federally­
promulgated
criteria.

Federal
promulgation
of
State
water
quality
standards
should
be
a
course
of
last
resort.
It
is
symptomatic
of
something
awry
with
the
basic
statutory
scheme.
Yet,
when
it
is
necessary
to
exercise
this
authority,
as
the
evidence
suggests
is
this
case,
there
should
be
no
undue
impediments
to
its
use.
Section
303(
c)(
4)
is
replete
with
deadlines
and
Congressional
directives
for
the
Administrator
to
act
"
promptly"
in
these
cases.
The
statute
indicates
that
the
Administrator
of
EPA,
is
to
"*
*
*
promptly
prepare
and
publish
proposed
regulations
setting
forth
a
revised
or
new
water
quality
standard
*
*
*"
and
"*
*
*
shall
promulgate
any
revised
or
new
standard
*
*
*
not
later
than
90
days
after
he
published
such
proposed
standards,
unless
prior
to
such
promulgation,
such
State
has
adopted
a
revised
or
new
standard
which
the
Administrator
determines
to
be
in
accordance
with
the
Act."
EPA
intends
to
make
every
effort
to
meet
the
90
day
schedule.
The
adoption
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
reinforced
this
emphasis
on
expeditious
actions.
EPA
has
demonstrated
extensive
deference
to
State
primacy
and
a
willingness
to
provide
broad
flexibility
in
their
adoption
of
State
standards
for
toxics.
However,
to
fulfill
its
statutory
obligation
requires
that
EPA's
deference
and
flexibility
cannot
be
unlimited.

For
the
reasons
just
discussed,
EPA
does
not
believe
it
is
necessary
to
support
the
criteria
proposed
today
on
a
pollutant
specific,
State­
by­
State,
waterbody­
by­
waterbody
basis.
Nonetheless,
over
the
course
of
the
past
several
years
in
working
with
and
assisting
the
States,
the
Agency
has
reviewed
the
readily­
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants.
While
this
data
is
not
necessarily
comprehensive,
it
constitutes
a
substantial
record
to
support
a
prima
facie
case
for
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
most
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance
in
most
States.
In
the
absence
of
final
State
actions
to
adopt
criteria
pursuant
to
either
Option
2
or
3
which
meet
the
requirements
for
EPA
approval,
this
evidence
strongly
supports
EPA's
decision
to
propose,
pursuant
to
Section
303(
c)(
4)(
B),
criteria
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
not
fully
addressed
by
State
criteria.
The
EPA
data
supporting
this
assertion
is
discussed
more
fully
in
the
next
section.

2.
Approach
for
Developing
Today's
Proposed
Rulemaking
The
proposed
State­
specific
requirements
in
Sec.
131.36(
d)
were
developed
using
one
of
two
approaches.
In
the
formal
review
of
the
adopted
standards
for
certain
States,
EPA
has
determined
that
specific
numeric
toxics
criteria
are
lacking.
For
some,
criteria
were
omitted
from
the
State
standards,
even
though
in
EPA's
judgment,
the
pollutants
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses.
In
these
cases
where
EPA
has
specifically
identified
deficiencies
in
a
State
submission,
today's
proposed
rule
would
establish
Federal
criteria
for
that
limited
number
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
necessary
to
correct
the
deficiency.

For
the
balance
of
the
States,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
section
304(
a)
criteria
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
do
not
reflect
current
science
contained
in
revised
criteria
documents
and
other
guidance
sufficient
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses
or
human
health
exposure
pathways,
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
do
not
protect
against
both
acute
and
chronic
aquatic
life
effects,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
encourages
public
comments
regarding
any
data
which
demonstrate
that
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
may
not
require
Federal
criteria
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

Absent
a
State­
by­
State
pollutant
specific
analysis
to
narrow
the
list,
existing
data
sources
strongly
support
a
comprehensive
rulemaking
approach.
Information
in
the
rulemaking
record
from
a
number
of
sources
indicates
the
discharge,
potential
discharge
or
presence
of
virtually
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
all
States.
The
data
available
to
EPA
has
been
assembled
into
a
"
strawman"
analysis
designed
to
identify
priority
toxic
pollutants
that
potentially
require
the
adoption
of
numeric
criteria.
Information
on
pollutants
discharged
or
present
was
identified
by
accessing
various
national
data
sources:
­­
Final
section
304(
1)
short
lists
identifying
toxic
pollutants
likely
to
impair
designated
uses;
­­
Water
column,
fish
tissue
and
sediment
observations
in
the
Storage
Retrieval
(
STORET)
data
base
(
i.
e.,
where
the
pollutant
was
detected);
­­
The
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System's
(
NPDES)
Permit
Compliance
System
data
base
to
identify
those
pollutants
limited
in
direct
dischargers'
permits;
­­
Pollutants
included
on
Form
2(
c)
permit
applications
which
have
been
submitted
by
wastewater
dischargers;
­­
Information
on
discharges
to
surface
waters
or
POTWs
from
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
required
by
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
To­
Know
Act
of
1986
(
title
III,
Pub.
L.
99­
499);
­­
Pollutants
predicted
to
be
in
the
effluent
of
NPDES
dischargers
based
on
industry­
specific
analyses
conducted
for
the
Clean
Water
Act
effluent
guideline
program.

The
extent
of
this
data
supports
a
conclusion
that
promulgation
of
Federal
criteria
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance
documents
is
appropriate
for
those
States
that
have
not
completed
their
standards
adoption
process.
This
conclusion
is
supported
by
several
other
factors.

First,
many
of
the
available
data
sources
have
limitations
which
argue
against
relying
on
them
solely
to
identify
all
needed
water
quality
criteria.
For
example,
the
section
304(
l)
short
lists
only
identified
water
bodies
where
uses
were
impaired
by
point
source
discharges;
State
long
lists
did
not
generally
identify
pollutants
causing
use
impairment
by
nonpoint
sources.
Other
available
data
sources
(
i.
e.,
NPDES
permit
limits)
have
a
similar
narrow
scope
because
of
their
particular
purposes.
Even
the
value
of
those
data
bases
designed
to
identify
ambient
water
problems
is
restricted
by
the
availability
of
monitoring
data.

In
many
States,
the
quantity,
spatial
and
temporal
distribution,
and
pollutant
coverage
of
monitoring
data
is
severely
limited.
For
example,
the
most
recent
Water
Quality
Inventory
Report
to
Congress
included
an
evaluation
of
use
attainment
for
only
one­
third
of
all
river
miles
and
less
than
one­
half
of
lake
acres.
Even
for
those
waters
where
use
attainment
status
was
reported,
many
assessments
were
based
on
data
which
did
not
include
the
chemical­
specific
information
necessary
to
identify
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
pose
a
threat
to
designated
uses.
After
evaluating
this
data,
EPA
concluded
that
it
most
likely
understates
the
adverse
presence
or
discharge
of
priority
toxic
pollutants.

Further
evidence
justifying
a
broad
promulgation
rulemaking
can
be
found
in
the
State
actions
to
date
in
their
standards
adoption
process.
While
many
have
not
come
to
completion,
the
initial
steps
have
led
many
States
to
develop
or
propose
rulemaking
packages
with
extensive
pollutant
coverage.
The
nature
of
these
preliminary
State
determinations
argues
for
a
Federal
promulgation
of
all
section
304(
a)
criteria
pollutants
to
ensure
adequate
public
health
and
environmental
protection
against
priority
toxic
pollutant
insults.

EPA's
strawman
analysis
for
each
State
is
described
in
greater
detail
in
part
III
of
appendix
1
and
the
complete
record
is
available
for
public
review.
The
detailed
assumptions
and
"
rules"
followed
by
EPA
in
writing
the
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
d)
requirements
for
all
jurisdictions
are
listed
below.
Comment
is
invited
on
the
details
of
these
determinations.

(
1)
No
criteria
are
proposed
for
States
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
EPA
as
complying
with
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements.

(
2)
For
States
which
have
not
been
fully
approved,
if
EPA
has
not
previously
determined
which
specific
pollutants/
criteria/
waterbodies
are
lacking
from
a
State's
standards
(
i.
e.,
as
part
of
an
approval/
disapproval
action
only),
all
of
the
criteria
in
columns
B,
C,
and
D
of
the
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
matrix
are
proposed
for
statewide
application
to
all
appropriate
designated
uses,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules.
That
is,
EPA
proposes
to
bring
the
State
into
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
via
an
approach
which
is
comparable
to
option
1
of
the
December
1988
national
guidance
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

(
3)
If
EPA
has
previously
determined
which
specific
pollutants/
criteria/
waterbodies
are
needed
to
comply
with
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
(
i.
e.,
as
part
of
an
approval/
disapproval
action
only),
the
criteria
in
proposed
section
131.36(
b)
are
proposed
for
only
those
specific
pollutants/
criteria/
waterbodies
(
i.
e.,
EPA
proposes
to
bring
the
State
into
compliance
via
an
approach
which
is
comparable
to
option
2
of
the
December
1988
national
guidance
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)).

(
4)
For
aquatic
life,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules,
all
waters
with
designated
aquatic
life
uses
providing
even
minimal
support
to
aquatic
life
are
included
in
the
proposed
rule
(
i.
e.,
fish
survival,
marginal
aquatic
life,
etc.).

(
5a)
For
human
health,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules,
all
waters
with
designated
uses
providing
for
public
water
supply
protection
(
and
therefore
a
potential
water
consumption
exposure
route)
or
minimal
aquatic
life
protection
(
and
therefore
a
potential
fish
consumption
exposure
route)
are
included
in
the
proposed
rule.

(
5b)
Where
a
State
has
determined
the
specific
aquatic
life
segments
which
provide
a
fish
consumption
exposure
route
(
i.
e.,
fish
or
other
aquatic
life
are
being
caught
and
consumed)
and
EPA
approved
this
determination
as
part
of
standards
approval/
disapproval
action,
the
proposed
rule
includes
the
fish
consumption
(
Column
D(
II))
criteria
for
only
those
aquatic
life
segments,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules.
In
making
a
determination
that
certain
segments
do
not
support
a
fish
consumption
exposure
route,
a
State
must
have
completed,
and
EPA
approved,
a
use
attainability
analysis
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
131.10(
j).
In
the
absence
of
such
an
approved
State
determination,
EPA
has
proposed
fish
consumption
criteria
for
all
aquatic
life
segments.

(
6)
Uses/
Classes
other
than
those
which
support
aquatic
life
or
human
health
are
not
included
in
the
proposed
rulemaking
(
e.
g.,
livestock
watering,
industrial
water
supply),
unless
they
are
defined
in
the
State
standards
as
also
providing
protection
to
aquatic
life
or
human
health
(
i.
e.,
unless
they
are
described
as
protecting
multiple
uses
including
aquatic
life
or
human
health).
For
example,
if
the
State
standards
include
a
use
such
as
industrial
water
supply,
and
in
the
narrative
description
of
the
use
the
State
standards
indicate
that
the
use
includes
protection
for
resident
aquatic
life,
then
this
use
is
included
in
the
proposed
rulemaking.

(
7)
For
human
health,
the
"
water+
fish"
criteria
in
Column
D(
I)
of
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
proposed
for
all
waterbodies
where
public
water
supply
and
aquatic
life
uses
are
designated,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules
(
e.
g.,
rule
9).

(
8)
If
the
State
has
public
water
supplies
where
aquatic
life
uses
have
not
been
designated,
or
public
water
supplies
that
have
been
determined
not
to
provide
a
potential
fish
consumption
exposure
pathway,
the
"
water
only"
criteria
in
Column
D(
I)
of
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
proposed
for
such
waterbodies,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules
(
e.
g.,
rule
9).
(
9)
EPA
is
generally
not
proposing
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
a
State
has
adopted
criteria
and
received
EPA
approval.
The
exceptions
to
this
general
rule
are
described
in
rules
10
and
11.

(
10)
For
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
the
State
has
adopted
human
health
criteria
and
received
EPA
approval,
but
such
criteria
do
not
fully
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements,
the
proposed
rule
includes
human
health
criteria
for
such
pollutants.
For
example,
consider
a
case
where
a
State
has
a
water
supply
segment
that
poses
an
exposure
risk
to
human
health
from
both
water
and
fish
consumption.
If
the
State
has
adopted,
and
received
approval
for,
human
health
criteria
based
on
water
consumption
only
(
e.
g.,
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Maximum
Contaminant
Levels
(
MCLs))
which
are
less
stringent
than
the
"
water+
fish"
criteria
in
Column
D(
I)
of
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b),
the
Column
D(
I)
criteria
are
proposed
for
those
water
supply
segments.
The
rationale
for
this
is
to
ensure
that
both
water
and
fish
consumption
exposure
pathways
are
adequately
addressed
and
human
health
is
fully
protected.
If
the
State
has
adopted
water
consumption
only
criteria
which
are
more
stringent
or
equal
to
the
Column
D(
I)
criteria,
the
"
water+
fish"
criteria
in
Column
D(
I)
criteria
are
not
proposed.
(
11)
For
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
the
State
has
adopted
aquatic
life
criteria
and
previous
to
the
1987
CWA
Amendments
received
EPA
approval,
but
such
criteria
do
not
fully
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements,
the
proposed
rule
includes
aquatic
life
criteria
for
such
pollutants.
For
example,
if
the
State
has
adopted
not­
to­
be­
exceeded
aquatic
life
criteria
which
are
less
stringent
than
the
4­
day
average
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
in
Sec.
131.36(
b)
(
i.
e.,
in
Columns
B(
II)
and
C(
II)),
the
acute
and
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
in
Section
131.36(
b)
are
proposed
for
those
pollutants.

The
rationale
for
this
is
that
the
State­
adopted
criteria
do
not
protect
resident
aquatic
life
from
both
acute
and
chronic
effects,
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
fully
protect
aquatic
life
designated
uses.
If
the
State
has
adopted
not­
to­
be­
exceeded
aquatic
life
criteria
which
are
more
stringent
or
equal
to
the
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
in
Sec.
131.36(
b),
the
acute
and
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
in
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
not
proposed
for
those
pollutants.

(
12)
Under
certain
conditions
discussed
in
rules
9,
10,
and
11,
criteria
listed
in
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
not
proposed
for
specific
pollutants;
however,
EPA
made
such
exceptions
only
for
pollutants
for
which
criteria
have
been
adopted
by
the
State
and
approved
by
EPA,
where
such
criteria
are
currently
effective
under
State
law
the
appropriate
EPA
Region
concluded
that
the
State's
criteria
fully
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements.

3.
Approach
for
States
That
Fully
Comply
Subsequent
to
Issuance
of
Today's
Proposed
Rulemaking
As
discussed
in
prior
sections
of
this
preamble,
the
water
quality
standards
program
has
been
established
with
an
emphasis
on
State
primacy.
Although
this
proposed
rule
has
been
developed
to
Federally
promulgate
toxics
criteria
for
States,
EPA
prefers
that
States
maintain
primacy,
revise
their
own
standards,
and
achieve
full
compliance.
EPA
is
hopeful
that
today's
proposed
rulemaking
will
provide
additional
impetus
for
non­
complying
States
to
adopt
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

For
States
that
achieve
full
compliance
before
publication
of
the
final
rulemaking,
EPA
will
not
include
such
States
in
the
final
rulemaking.
At
any
point
in
the
process
prior
to
final
promulgation,
a
State
can
ensure
that
it
will
not
be
affected
by
this
action
by
adopting
the
necessary
criteria
pursuant
to
State
law
and
receiving
EPA
approval.
The
content
of
the
adopted
standards
must
be
within
the
boundaries
of
the
several
acceptable
approaches
described
earlier
in
this
preamble.

Following
a
final
promulgation
of
this
rule,
removal
of
a
State
from
the
rule
will
require
rulemaking
by
EPA
according
to
the
requirements
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
551
et
seq.).
EPA
will
withdraw
the
Federal
rule
without
a
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
when
the
State
adopts
standards
no
less
stringent
than
the
Federal
rule
(
i.
e.,
standards
which
provide,
at
least,
equivalent
environmental
protection).
For
example,
see
51
FR
11580,
April
4,
1986,
which
finalized
EPA's
removal
of
a
Federal
rule
for
the
State
of
Mississippi.

However,
if
a
State
adopts
standards
for
toxics
which
are
less
stringent
than
the
Federal
rule
but,
in
the
Agency's
judgment,
fully
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
EPA
will
propose
to
withdraw
the
rule
with
a
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
and
provide
for
public
participation.
This
procedure
would
be
required
for
partial
or
complete
removal
of
a
State
from
this
rulemaking.
A
State
covered
by
the
final
rule
could
adopt
the
necessary
criteria
using
any
of
the
three
options
or
combinations
of
those
Options
described
in
EPA's
1989
guidance.

EPA
cautions
States
and
the
public
that
promulgation
of
a
Federal
rule
removes
most
of
the
flexibility
available
to
States
for
modifying
their
standards
on
a
discharger­
specific
or
stream­
specific
basis.
For
example,
variances,
site­
specific
criteria
and
schedules
of
compliance
actions
pursuant
to
State
law
for
federally
promulgated
criteria
are
precluded.
Each
of
these
types
of
modifications
would
require
Federal
rulemaking
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
change
the
Federal
rule
for
that
State.

F.
Derivation
of
Proposed
Criteria
1.
Sections
304(
a)
Criteria
Process
Under
the
authority
of
CWA
section
304(
a)
EPA
has
developed
methodologies
and
specific
criteria
to
protect
aquatic
life
and
human
health.
These
methodologies
are
intended
to
provide
protection
for
all
surface
water
on
a
national
basis.
As
described
below,
there
are
site
specific
procedures
for
more
precisely
addressing
site
specific
conditions
for
an
individual
water
body.
However,
these
site­
specific
criteria
procedures
are
infrequently
used
because
the
section
304(
a)
criteria
recommendations
have
proven
themselves
to
be
appropriate
for
the
vast
majority
of
water
bodies.
The
methodologies
have
been
subject
to
public
review,
as
have
the
individual
criteria
documents.
Additionally,
the
methodologies
have
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
EPA's
Science
Advisory
Board.

EPA
incorporates
by
reference
into
the
record
of
this
proposed
rulemaking
the
aquatic
life
methodology
as
described
in
"
Appendix
B­­
Guidelines
for
Deriving
Water
Quality
Criteria
for
the
Protection
of
Aquatic
Life
and
Its
Uses"
(
45
FR
79341,
November
28,
1980)
as
amended
by
"
Summary
of
Revisions
to
Guidelines
for
Deriving
Numerical
National
Water
Quality
Criteria
for
the
Protection
of
Aquatic
Organisms
and
Their
Uses"
(
50
FR
30792,
July
29,
1985).
EPA
also
incorporates
by
reference
into
the
record
of
this
proposed
rulemaking
the
human
health
methodology
as
described
in
"
Appendix
C­­
Guidelines
and
Methodology
Used
in
the
Preparation
of
Health
Effects
Assessment
Chapters
of
the
Consent
Decree
Water
Criteria
Documents"
(
45
FR
79347,
November
28,
1980).
EPA
also
recommends
that
the
following
be
reviewed
for
information:
"
Appendix
D­­
Response
to
Comments
on
Guidelines
for
Deriving
Water
Quality
Criteria
for
the
Protection
of
Aquatic
Life
and
Its
Uses,"
(
45
FR
79357,
November
28,
1980);
"
Appendix
E­­
Responses
to
Public
Comments
on
the
Human
Health
Effects
Methodology
for
Deriving
Ambient
Water
Quality
Criteria"
(
45
FR
79368,
November
28,
1980);
and
"
Appendix
B­­
Response
to
Comments
on
Guidelines
for
Deriving
Numerical
National
Water
Quality
Criteria
for
the
Protection
of
Aquatic
Organisms
and
Their
Uses"
(
50
FR
30793,
July
29,
1985).
EPA
also
is
placing
into
the
record
the
most
current
individual
criteria
documents
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
included
in
today's
proposal.

The
primary
focus
of
this
rule
is
the
inclusion
of
the
water
quality
criteria
for
pollutant(
s)
in
State
standards
as
necessary
to
support
water
quality­
based
control
programs.
The
Agency
is
accepting
comment
on
the
criteria
proposed
in
today's
rule.
However,
Congress
has
established
a
very
ambitious
schedule
for
the
promulgation
of
the
final
criteria.
The
statutory
deadline
in
section
303(
c)(
4)
clearly
indicates
that
Congress
intended
the
Agency
to
move
very
expeditiously
when
Federal
action
is
warranted.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
limited
time
available
for
promulgation
of
the
regulation
can
be
used
most
efficiently
and
effectively
by
addressing
those
issues
that
have
not
already
come
before
the
Agency.
The
methodology
used
to
develop
the
criteria
and
the
criteria
themselves
(
to
the
extent
not
updated
through
IRIS)
have
previously
undergone
scientific
peer
review
and
public
review
and
comment,
and
have
been
revised
as
appropriate.
For
the
most
part,
this
review
occurred
before
Congress
amended
the
Act
in
1987,
to
require
the
inclusion
of
numeric
criteria
for
certain
toxic
pollutants
in
State
standards.
Congress
acted
with
full
knowledge
of
the
EPA
process
for
developing
criteria
and
the
Agency's
recommendations
under
section
304(
a).
EPA
believes
it
is
consistent
with
Congressional
intent
to
rely
in
large
part
on
existing
criteria
rather
than
engage
in
a
time­
consuming
reevaluation
of
the
underlying
basis
for
water
quality
criteria.
Accordingly,
the
Agency
does
not
intend
in
this
rulemaking
to
address
the
issues
that
have
already
been
addressed
by
the
Agency
in
response
to
previous
comments.
It
is
the
Agency's
belief
that
this
approach
will
best
achieve
the
purpose
of
moving
forward
in
promulgating
criteria
for
States
not
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
so
that
environmental
controls
intended
by
Congress
can
be
put
into
place
to
protect
public
health
and
welfare
and
enhance
water
quality.

It
should
be
noted
that
the
Agency
is
initiating
a
review
of
the
basic
guidelines
for
developing
criteria
and
that
comments
received
in
this
rulemaking
may
be
of
value
in
that
effort
as
well.
Future
revisions
to
the
criteria
guidelines
will
be
reviewed
by
the
Agency's
Science
Advisory
Board
and
submitted
to
the
public
for
review
and
comment
following
the
same
process
that
was
used
in
issuing
the
existing
methodological
guidelines.
Subsequent
revisions
of
criteria
documents
and
the
issuance
of
any
new
criteria
documents
will
also
be
subject
to
public
review.

2.
Aquatic
Life
Criteria
Aquatic
life
criteria
may
be
expressed
in
numeric
or
narrative
forms.
EPA's
guidelines
describe
an
objective,
internally
consistent
and
appropriate
way
of
deriving
chemical­
specific,
numeric
water
quality
criteria
for
the
protection
of
the
presence
of,
as
well
as
the
uses
of,
both
fresh
and
marine
water
aquatic
organisms.

An
aquatic
life
criterion
derived
using
EPA's
section
304(
a)
method
represents
an
estimate
of
the
highest
concentration
of
a
pollutant
in
water
that
does
not
present
a
significant
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
per
se
or
to
their
use.
EPA's
guidelines
are
designed
to
derive
criteria
that
protect
aquatic
communities
by
protecting
most
of
the
species
and
their
uses
most
of
the
time,
but
not
necessarily
all
of
the
species
all
of
the
time.
Aquatic
communities
can
tolerate
some
stress
and
occasional
adverse
effects
on
a
few
species
so
that
total
protection
of
all
species
all
of
the
time
is
not
necessary.
EPA's
guidelines
attempt
to
provide
a
reasonable
and
adequate
amount
of
protection
with
only
a
small
possibility
of
substantial
overprotection
or
underprotection.
As
discussed
in
detail
below,
there
are
several
individual
factors
which
may
make
the
criteria
somewhat
overprotective
or
underprotective.
Clearly,
addressing
them
all
is
probably
infeasible
and,
in
any
case,
would
make
the
criteria
derivation
process
unduly
resource
intensive
and
time
consuming.
The
approach
EPA
is
using
is
believed
to
be
as
well
balanced
as
possible,
given
the
state
of
the
science.

Numerical
aquatic
life
criteria
derived
using
EPA's
most
recent
guidelines
are
expressed
as
short­
term
and
long­
term
numbers,
rather
than
one
number,
in
order
that
the
criteria
more
accurately
reflect
toxicological
and
practical
realities.
The
combination
of
a
criteria
maximum
concentration
(
CMC),
a
one­
hour
average
acute
limit,
and
a
criteria
continuous
concentration
(
CCC),
a
four­
day
average
concentration
chronic
limit,
provide
protection
of
aquatic
life
and
its
uses
from
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
to
animals
and
plants,
and
from
bioconcentration
by
aquatic
organisms,
without
being
as
restrictive
as
a
one­
number
criterion
would
have
to
be.

The
two
number
criteria
are
intended
to
identify
average
pollutant
concentrations
which
will
produce
water
quality
generally
suited
to
maintenance
of
aquatic
life
and
their
uses
while
restricting
the
duration
of
excursions
over
the
average
so
that
total
exposures
will
not
cause
unacceptable
adverse
effects.
Merely
specifying
an
average
value
over
a
time
period
is
insufficient
unless
the
time
period
is
short,
because
excursions
higher
than
the
average
can
kill
or
cause
substantial
damage
in
short
periods.
EPA's
guidelines
were
developed
on
the
assumption
that
the
results
of
laboratory
tests
are
generally
useful
for
predicting
what
will
happen
in
field
situations.
Certain
ambient
waters
may
have
some
capacity
to
bind
pollutants
and
make
them
less
bioavailable.
The
site­
specific
criteria
process
provides
a
means
of
addressing
this
effect
(
i.
e.,
by
allowing
development
and
use
of
a
"
water
effect
ratio"
that
quantifies
the
difference
in
toxicity
of
a
pollutant
in
site
water
versus
the
toxicity
of
the
pollutant
in
the
laboratory
water
used
to
develop
the
section
304(
a)
criteria
recommendation).
However,
in
the
absence
of
such
an
approach,
the
criteria
may
be
somewhat
overprotective
in
some
situations.

A
minimum
data
set
of
eight
specified
families
is
required
for
criteria
development
(
details
are
given
in
the
methodology
cited
above).
The
eight
specific
families
are
intended
to
be
representative
of
a
wide
spectrum
of
aquatic
life.
For
this
reason
it
is
not
necessary
that
the
specific
organisms
tested
be
actually
present
in
the
water
body.
States
may
develop
site­
specific
criteria
using
native
species,
provided
that
the
broad
spectrum
represented
by
the
eight
families
is
maintained.
All
aquatic
organisms
and
their
common
uses
are
meant
to
be
considered,
but
not
necessarily
protected,
if
relevant
data
are
available.

EPA's
application
of
guidelines
to
develop
the
criteria
matrix
in
the
proposed
rule
is
judged
by
the
Agency
to
be
applicable
to
all
waters
of
the
United
States,
and
to
all
ecosystems.
There
are
waters
and
ecosystems
where
site­
specific
criteria
could
be
developed,
as
discussed
below,
but
it
is
up
to
States
to
identify
those
waters
and
develop
the
appropriate
site­
specific
criteria.

Fresh
water
and
salt
water
(
including
both
estuarine
and
marine
waters)
have
different
chemical
compositions,
and
freshwater
and
saltwater
species
rarely
inhabit
the
same
water
simultaneously.
To
provide
additional
accuracy,
criteria
developed
recently
are
developed
for
fresh
water
and
for
salt
water.

Assumptions
which
may
make
the
criteria
underprotective
include
the
use
of
criteria
on
an
individual
basis,
with
no
consideration
of
additive
or
synergistic
effects,
and
the
general
lack
of
consideration
of
impacts
on
wildlife,
due
principally
to
a
lack
of
data.

3.
Criteria
for
Human
Health
As
with
aquatic
life,
EPA's
guidelines
for
human
health
criteria
attempt
to
provide
a
reasonable
and
adequate
amount
of
protection
with
only
a
small
possibility
of
substantial
overprotection
or
underprotection.
EPA's
section
304(
a)
criteria
for
human
health
are
based
on
two
types
of
biological
endpoints:
(
1)
Carcinogenicity
and
(
2)
systemic
toxicity
(
i.
e.,
all
other
adverse
effects
other
than
cancer).
Thus,
there
are
two
procedures
for
assessing
these
health
effects:
One
for
carcinogens
and
one
for
non­
carcinogens.

EPA's
guidelines
assume
that
carcinogenicity
is
a
"
non­
threshold
phenomenon,"
that
is,
there
are
no
"
safe"
or
"
no­
effect
levels"
because
even
extremely
small
doses
are
assumed
to
cause
a
finite
increase
in
the
incidence
of
the
response
(
i.
e.,
cancer).
Therefore,
EPA's
water
quality
criteria
for
carcinogens
are
presented
as
pollutant
concentrations
corresponding
to
increases
in
the
risk
of
developing
cancer.

For
pollutants
that
do
not
manifest
any
apparent
carcinogenic
effects
in
animal
studies
(
i.
e.,
systemic
toxicants),
EPA
assumes
that
the
pollutant
has
a
threshold
below
which
no
effects
will
be
observed.
This
assumption
is
based
on
the
premise
that
a
physiological
mechanism
exists
within
living
organisms
to
avoid
or
overcome
the
adverse
effects
of
the
pollutant
below
the
threshold
concentration.

The
human
health
risks
of
a
substance
cannot
be
determined
with
any
degree
of
confidence
unless
dose­
response
relationships
are
quantified.
Therefore,
a
dose­
response
assessment
is
required
before
a
criterion
can
be
calculated.
The
dose­
response
assessment
determines
the
quantitative
relationships
between
the
amount
of
exposure
to
a
substance
and
the
onset
of
toxic
injury
or
disease.
Data
for
determining
dose­
response
relationships
are
typically
derived
from
animal
studies,
or
less
frequently,
from
epidemiological
studies
in
exposed
populations.

The
dose­
response
information
needed
for
carcinogens
is
an
estimate
of
the
carcinogenic
potency
of
the
compound.
Carcinogenic
potency
is
defined
here
as
a
general
term
for
a
chemical's
human
cancer­
causing
potential.
This
term
is
often
used
loosely
to
refer
to
the
more
specific
carcinogenic
or
cancer
slope
factor
which
is
defined
as
an
estimate
of
carcinogenic
potency
derived
from
animal
studies
or
epidemiological
data
of
human
exposure.
It
is
based
on
extrapolation
from
test
exposures
of
high
dose
levels
over
relatively
short
periods
of
time
to
more
realistic
low
dose
levels
over
a
lifetime
exposure
period
by
use
of
linear
extrapolation
models.
The
cancer
slope
factor,
q1*,
is
EPA's
estimate
of
carcinogenic
potency
and
is
intended
to
be
a
conservative
upper
bound
estimate
(
e.
g.
95%
upper
bound
confidence
limit).

For
non­
carcinogens,
EPA
uses
the
reference
dose
(
RfD)
as
the
dose
response
parameter
in
calculating
the
criteria.
The
RfD
was
formerly
referred
to
as
an
"
Acceptable
Daily
Intake"
or
ADI.
The
RfD
is
useful
as
a
reference
point
for
gauging
the
potential
effects
of
other
doses.
Doses
that
are
less
than
the
RfD
are
not
likely
to
be
associated
with
any
health
risks,
and
are
therefore
less
likely
to
be
of
regulatory
concern.
As
the
frequency
of
exposures
exceeding
the
RfD
increases
and
as
the
size
of
the
excess
increases,
the
probability
increases
that
adverse
effects
may
be
observed
in
a
human
population.
Nonetheless,
a
clear
conclusion
cannot
be
categorically
drawn
that
all
doses
below
the
RfD
are
"
acceptable"
and
that
all
doses
in
excess
of
the
RfD
are
"
unacceptable."
In
extrapolating
non­
carcinogen
animal
test
data
to
humans
to
derive
an
RfD,
EPA
divides
a
no­
observed­
effect
dose
observed
in
animal
studies
by
an
"
uncertainty
factor"
which
is
based
on
professional
judgment
of
toxicologists
and
typically
ranges
from
10
to
10,000.

For
section
304(
a)
criteria
development,
EPA
typically
considers
only
exposures
to
a
pollutant
that
occur
through
the
ingestion
of
waters
and
contaminated
fish
and
shellfish.
Thus
the
criteria
are
based
on
an
assessment
of
risks
related
to
the
surface
water
exposure
route
only.

The
assumed
exposure
pathways
in
calculating
the
criteria
are
the
consumption
of
2
liters
per
day
at
the
criteria
concentration
and
the
consumption
of
6.5
grams
per
day
of
fish/
shellfish
contaminated
at
a
level
equal
to
the
criteria
concentration
but
multiplied
by
a
"
bioconcentration
factor."
The
use
of
fish
consumption
as
an
exposure
factor
requires
the
quantification
of
pollutant
residues
in
the
edible
portions
of
the
ingested
species.
Bioconcentration
factors
(
BCFs)
are
used
to
relate
pollutant
residues
in
aquatic
organisms
to
the
pollutant
concentration
in
ambient
waters.
BCFs
are
quantified
by
various
procedures
depending
on
the
lipid
solubility
of
the
pollutant.
For
lipid
soluble
pollutants,
the
average
BCF
is
calculated
from
the
weighted
average
percent
lipids
in
the
edible
portions
of
fish/
shellfish,
which
is
about
3%;
or
it
is
calculated
from
theoretical
considerations
using
the
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient.
For
non­
lipid
soluble
compounds,
the
BCF
is
determined
empirically.
The
assumed
water
consumption
is
taken
from
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
publication
"
Drinking
Water
and
Health"
(
1977).
The
6.5
grams
per
day
contaminated
fish
consumption
value
is
equivalent
to
the
average
per­
capita
consumption
rate
of
all
(
contaminated
and
non­
contaminated)
freshwater
and
estuarine
fish
for
the
U.
S.
population.

EPA
also
assumes
in
calculating
water
quality
criteria
that
the
exposed
individual
is
an
average
adult
with
body
weight
of
70
kilograms.
The
issue
of
concern
is
dose
per
kilogram
of
body
weight.
EPA
assumes
6.5
grams
per
day
of
contaminated
fish
consumption
and
2
liters
per
day
of
contaminated
drinking
water
consumption
for
a
70
kilogram
person
in
calculating
the
criteria.
Persons
of
smaller
body
weight
are
expected
to
ingest
less
contaminated
fish
and
water,
so
the
dose
per
kilogram
of
body
weight
is
generally
expected
to
be
roughly
comparable.
There
may
be
subpopulations
within
a
State,
such
as
subsistence
fishermen,
who
as
a
result
of
greater
exposure
to
a
contaminant,
are
at
greater
risk
than
the
hypothetical
70
kilogram
person
eating
6.5
grams
per
day
of
maximally
contaminated
fish
and
shellfish
and
drinking
2
liters
per
day
of
maximally
contaminated
drinking
water.
(
EPA
is
in
part
addressing
the
potential
that
highly
exposed
subpopulations
exist
by
selecting
a
relatively
stringent
cancer
risk
level
(
10­
6)
for
use
in
deriving
State­
wide
criteria
for
carcinogens.
Individuals
that
ingest
ten
times
more
of
a
pollutant
than
is
assumed
in
derivation
of
the
criteria
will
be
protected
to
a
10­
5
level,
which
EPA
has
historically
considered
to
be
adequately
protective.
There
may,
nevertheless,
be
circumstances
where
site­
specific
numeric
criteria
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
State­
wide
criteria
are
necessary
to
adequately
protect
highly
exposed
subpopulations.
Although
EPA
intends
in
this
initial
promulgation
to
focus
on
promulgation
of
appropriate
State­
wide
criteria
that
will
reduce
risks
to
all
exposed
individuals,
including
highly
exposed
subpopulations,
site
specific
criteria
may
be
developed
subsequently
by
EPA
or
the
States
where
warranted
to
provide
necessary
additional
protection.)
For
non­
carcinogens
RfDs
are
developed
based
on
pollutant
concentrations
that
cause
threshold
effects.
The
RfD
is
an
estimate
(
with
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude)
of
a
daily
exposure
to
the
human
population
(
including
sensitive
subgroups)
that
is
likely
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
deleterious
effects
during
a
lifetime.

Criteria
are
calculated
for
individual
chemicals
with
no
consideration
of
additive,
synergistic
or
antagonistic
effects
in
mixtures.
If
the
conditions
within
a
State
differ
from
the
assumptions
EPA
used,
the
States
have
the
option
to
perform
the
analyses
for
their
conditions.

EPA
has
a
process
to
develop
a
scientific
consensus
on
oral
reference
doses
and
carcinogenic
slope
factors.
Reference
doses
and
slope
factors
are
validated
by
two
Agency
work
groups
(
i.
e.,
one
work
group
for
each)
which
are
composed
of
senior
Agency
scientists
from
all
of
the
program
offices
and
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development.
These
work
groups
develop
a
consensus
of
Agency
opinion
for
Rfds
and
slope
factors
which
are
then
used
throughout
the
Agency
for
consistent
regulation
and
guidance
development.
EPA
maintains
an
electronic
data
base
which
contains
the
official
Agency
consensus
for
Rfd's
and
slope
factors
which
is
known
as
the
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS).
It
is
available
for
use
through
EPA's
electronic
mail
system,
and
also
available
through
the
Public
Health
Network
of
the
Public
Health
Foundation,
and
on
the
National
Institutes
of
Health
National
Library
of
Medicine's
TOXNET
system.
For
the
criteria
included
in
today's
proposal,
EPA
used
the
criteria
recommendation
from
the
appropriate
section
304(
a)
criteria
document.
(
The
availability
of
EPA's
criteria
documents
has
been
announced
in
various
Federal
Register
notices.
These
documents
are
also
placed
in
the
record
for
today's
proposed
rule.)
However,
if
the
Agency
has
changed
in
IRIS
any
parameters
used
in
criteria
derivation
since
issuance
of
the
criteria
guidance
document,
EPA
recalculated
the
criteria
recommendation
with
the
latest
information.
(
This
information
is
included
in
the
record.)
Thus,
there
may
be
differences
between
the
original
recommendation,
and
those
in
today's
proposal,
but
today's
proposal
presents
the
Agency's
most
current
section
304(
a)
criteria
recommendation.
The
recalculated
human
health
numbers
are
denoted
by
an
"
a"
in
the
criteria
matrix
in
subsection
131.36(
b)
of
today's
proposed
rule.

In
order
to
base
its
regulatory
decisions
on
the
best
available
science,
EPA
continuously
updates
its
assessment
of
the
risk
from
exposure
to
contaminants.
On
September
11,
1991,
EPA's
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD)
began
reassessing
the
scientific
models
and
exposure
scenarios
used
to
predict
the
risks
of
biological
effects
from
exposure
to
low
levels
of
dioxin.
This
reassessment
has
the
potential
to
alter
the
risk
assessment
for
dioxin
and
accordingly
the
Agency's
regulatory
decisions
related
to
dioxin.
At
this
time,
EPA
is
unable
to
say
with
any
certainty
what
the
degree
or
directions
of
any
changes
in
risk
estimates
might
be.
This
rulemaking
includes
a
proposed
Agency
action
with
regard
to
dioxin
that
may
be
affected
by
the
reassessment.
The
Agency
will
be
carefully
monitoring
ORD's
efforts
in
order
to
ensure
that
appropriate
actions
are
taken
during
the
course
of
this
rulemaking
to
reflect
any
necessary
changes
resulting
from
the
reassessment.
If
a
final
Agency
action
on
this
rulemaking
occurs
prior
to
completion
of
ORD's
work,
the
Agency
will
consider
revisiting
that
decision.

4.
Section
304(
a)
Human
Health
Criteria
Excluded
Today's
proposal
does
not
contain
certain
of
the
Section
304(
a)
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
because
those
criteria
were
not
based
on
toxicity.
The
basis
for
these
particular
criteria
are
organoleptic
effects
(
e.
g.,
taste
and
odor)
which
would
make
water
and
edible
aquatic
life
unpalatable
but
not
toxic.
Because
the
basis
for
this
proposed
rulemaking
is
to
protect
the
public
health
and
aquatic
life
from
toxicity
consistent
with
the
language
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
EPA
is
proposing
criteria
only
for
those
priority
toxic
pollutants
whose
criteria
recommendations
are
based
on
toxicity.
The
Section
304(
a)
human
health
criteria
based
on
organoleptic
effects
for
copper,
zinc,
2,4­
dimethylphenol,
and
3­
methyl­
4­
chlorophenol
are
excluded
for
this
reason.

5.
Cancer
Risk
Level
Proposed
EPA's
Section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance
documents
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
based
on
carcinogenicity
present
concentrations
for
upper
bound
risk
levels
of
1
excess
cancer
per
100,000
people
(
10­
5),
per
1,000,000
people
(
10­
6),
and
per
10,000,000
people
(
10­
7).
However,
the
criteria
documents
do
not
recommend
a
particular
risk
factor
as
EPA
policy.

In
the
April,
1990,
Federal
Register
notice
of
preliminary
assessment
of
State
compliance,
EPA
announced
the
intention
to
include
in
the
proposed
rulemaking
an
incremental
cancer
risk
level
of
one
in
a
million
(
10­
6)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
regulated
as
carcinogens.
That
cancer
risk
level
is
reflected
in
this
proposed
rule.
The
reasons
supporting
this
decision
are
discussed
below.
However,
EPA's
Office
of
Water's
guidance
to
the
States
has
consistently
reflected
the
Agency's
policy
of
accepting
cancer
risk
policies
from
the
States
in
the
range
of
10­
6
to
10­
4.
EPA
reviews
individual
State
policies
as
part
of
its
water
quality
standards
oversight
function
and
determines
if
States
have
appropriately
consulted
its
citizens
and
applied
good
science
in
adopting
water
quality
criteria.

First,
EPA's
human
health
criteria
have
been
developed
based
on
a
number
of
exposure
assumptions.
Many
of
these
assumptions
are
based
on
the
exposure
for
an
average
individual.
For
example,
EPA's
criteria
assumes
exposure
of
a
70
kilogram
(
154
pound)
adult
who
consumes
2
liters
(
2.1
quarts)
of
water
per
day
and
6.5
grams
of
fish
per
day
(
less
than
7
ounces
per
month).
These
assumptions
are
based
on
approximate
national
averages,
but
considerably
understate
the
exposure
that
would
occur
for
certain
segments
of
the
population
that
have
high
fish
consumption
or
depend
on
fish
consumption
for
subsistence.
Similarly,
it
would
overstate
the
exposure
of
those
who
consume
less
fish
than
the
National
average
amount.
Therefore,
although
EPA
would
accept
a
lower
State
adopted
risk
level,
in
the
range
of
10­
4
to
10­
6,
EPA
has
chosen
a
10­
6
risk
level
to
protect
the
average
exposed
individual
at
a
conservative
incremental
lifetime
cancer
risk.

A
second
strong
reason
is
that
a
10­
6
risk
level
is
consistent
with
what
most
States
have
selected,
or
are
expected
to
select,
as
their
risk
level.
A
recent
EPA
status
report
on
State
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
found
that
36
of
the
57
States
and
Territories
will
select
10­
6
as
their
risk
level
(
12
States
have
selected
or
are
expected
to
select
10­
5
and
9
of
the
remaining
States
are
undecided).
EPA's
proposal
is
therefore
consistent
with
the
majority
of
the
States,
does
not
contradict
those
States
choosing
a
10­
6
risk
level
and
does
not
preclude
States
from
eventually
choosing
a
risk
level
below
10­
6.

Third,
by
selecting
a
risk
level
of
10­
6
for
the
average
exposed
individual,
some
assurance
is
provided
against
the
possibility
that
current
section
304(
a)
criteria
are
not
sufficiently
stringent.
The
various
parameters
used
in
deriving
the
Section
304(
a)
criteria
(
e.
g.
cancer
potency
slopes,
reference
doses,
bioaccumulation
factors,
etc.)
are
based
on
the
state
of
present
science.
With
additional
research
and
experience,
EPA
may
find
that
one
or
more
of
these
factors
understates
the
actual
public
risk.
In
addition,
in
many
cases,
EPA's
criteria
are
based
upon
a
single
health
effect.
As
the
science
evolves
and
available
information
expands,
there
is
the
potential
that
EPA
will
determine
that
other
endpoints
or
effects
are
more
sensitive
than
those
currently
considered.
This
risk
level
also
reflects
a
recognition
that
certain
factors
are
not
considered
in
the
current
criteria
methodology.

A
proposed
10­
6
risk
level
does
not
preclude
State
alternatives.
If
a
State
decides
that
a
different
risk
level
is
more
appropriate,
it
may
avoid
Federal
promulgation
by
completing
its
standards
adoption
process
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
As
discussed
earlier,
this
would
be
the
case
both
in
advance
of
or
subsequent
to
final
promulgation.
6.
Applying
EPA's
Nationally
Derived
Criteria
to
State
Waters
To
assist
States
in
modifying
EPA's
water
quality
criteria,
the
Agency
has
provided
guidance
on
developing
site
specific
criteria
for
aquatic
life
and
human
health
(
see
Water
Quality
Standards
Handbook
and
the
Guidelines
for
Deriving
Numerical
National
Water
Quality
Criteria).
This
guidance
can
be
used
by
the
appropriate
regulatory
authority
to
develop
alternative
criteria.
Where
such
criteria
are
more
stringent
than
the
criteria
finally
developed
pursuant
to
this
proposed
rulemaking,
section
510
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1370)
provides
authority
for
their
implementation
and
enforcement
in
lieu
of
today's
proposed
criteria.

EPA's
experience
with
such
site­
specific
criteria
has
verified
that
the
national
criteria
are
generally
protective
and
appropriate
for
direct
use
by
the
States.

G.
Description
of
the
Proposed
Rule
EPA's
final
rule
would
establish
a
new
Sec.
131.36
in
40
CFR
part
131
entitled,
"
Toxics
Criteria
for
Those
States
Not
Fully
Complying
With
Clean
Water
Act
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)."

1.
Scope
Subsection
(
a),
entitled
"
Scope",
clarifies
that
this
section
is
not
a
general
promulgation
of
the
section
304(
a)
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
but
is
restricted
to
specific
pollutants
in
specific
States.

2.
EPA
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants
Subsection
(
b)
presents
a
matrix
of
the
applicable
EPA
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Act
addresses
only
pollutants
listed
as
"
toxic"
pursuant
to
section
307(
a)
of
the
Act.
As
discussed
earlier
in
this
preamble,
the
section
307(
a)
list
of
toxics
contains
65
compounds
and
families
of
compounds,
which
potentially
include
thousands
of
specific
compounds.
The
Agency
uses
the
list
of
126
"
priority
toxic
pollutants"
for
administrative
purposes
(
see
40
CFR
part
423,
appendix
A).
Reference
in
this
proposed
rule
to
priority
toxic
pollutants,
toxic
pollutants,
or
toxics
refers
to
the
126
priority
toxic
pollutants.

However,
EPA
has
not
developed
both
aquatic
life
and
human
health
section
304(
a)
criteria
for
all
of
the
126
priority
toxic
pollutants.
The
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
contains
human
health
criteria
in
Column
D
for
102
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
divided
into
criteria
(
Column
I)
for
water
consumption
(
i.
e.,
2
liters
per
day)
and
aquatic
life
consumption
(
i.
e.,
6.5
grams
per
day
of
aquatic
organisms),
and
Column
II
for
aquatic
life
consumption
only.
The
term
aquatic
life
includes
fish
and
shellfish
such
as
shrimp,
clams,
oysters
and
mussels.
The
total
number
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
criteria
proposed
today
differs
from
the
total
number
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
section
304(
a)
criteria
because
EPA
has
developed
and
is
proposing
chromium
criteria
for
two
valence
states.
Thus,
although
chromium
is
a
single
priority
toxic
pollutant,
there
are
two
criteria
for
chromium.
See
numbers
5a
and
5b
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).

The
matrix
contains
aquatic
life
criteria
for
30
priority
pollutants.
These
are
divided
into
freshwater
criteria
(
Column
B)
and
saltwater
criteria
(
Column
C).
These
columns
are
further
divided
into
acute
and
chronic
criteria.
The
aquatic
life
criteria
are
considered
by
EPA
to
be
protective
when
applied
under
the
conditions
described
in
the
section
304(
a)
criteria
documents
and
in
the
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
based
Toxics
Control."
For
example,
waterbody
uses
should
be
protected
if
the
criteria
are
not
exceeded,
on
average,
once
every
three
year
period.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
criteria
maximum
concentrations
(
the
acute
criteria)
are
one­
hour
average
concentrations
and
that
the
criteria
continuous
concentrations
(
the
chronic
criteria)
are
four­
day
averages.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
for
certain
of
the
metals,
the
actual
criteria
are
equations
which
are
included
as
footnotes
to
the
matrix.
The
toxicity
of
these
metals
are
water
hardness
dependent.
The
values
shown
in
the
table
are
based
on
a
hardness
expressed
as
calcium
carbonate
of
100
mg/
l.
Finally,
the
criterion
for
pentachlorophenol
is
pH
dependent.
The
equation
is
the
actual
criterion
and
is
included
as
a
footnote.
The
value
shown
in
the
matrix
is
for
a
pH
of
7.8
units.

Several
of
the
freshwater
aquatic
life
criteria
are
incorporated
into
the
matrix
in
the
format
used
in
the
1980
criteria
methodology.
This
distinction
is
noted
in
footnote
(
g)
to
the
table.
EPA
has
not
updated
these
criteria
for
various
reasons.
Footnote
(
g)
describes
an
approximate
method
to
translate
these
1980
criteria
to
the
equivalent
criteria
by
the
1985
methodology.
EPA
could
make
this
translation
in
a
final
rule
and
solicits
public
comment
on
which
approach
is
better.

The
matrix
also
includes
toxicity­
based
human
health
criteria
for
copper,
2­
chloroethylvinyl
ether,
1,2­
trans­
dichloroethylene,
2­
chlorophenol,
acenaphthene,
butylbenzyl
phthalate,
and
N­
nitrosodi­
n­
propylamine.
The
criteria
for
these
substances
are
shown
in
parentheses
and
are
not
being
proposed
today
but
are
included
for
informational
purposes
and
as
notice
for
consideration
in
all
future
State
triennial
reviews.
Although
sufficient
information
on
these
compounds
was
previously
unavailable
to
calculate
a
section
304(
a)
criterion
based
on
carcinogenicity
or
systemic
toxicity,
Agency­
approved
information
in
IRIS
now
allow
calculation
of
these
criteria
using
the
EPA
criteria
guidelines.
EPA
has
assembled
another
matrix
which
provides
all
of
the
factors
used
to
calculate
the
proposed
human
health
criteria.
This
supplementary
matrix
is
included
in
the
record
for
this
proposal.

3.
Applicability
Section
131.36(
d)
establishes
the
applicability
of
the
criteria
proposed
for
each
included
State.
It
provides
that
the
criteria
promulgated
for
each
State
supersede
and/
or
complement
any
State
criteria
for
that
toxic
pollutant.
EPA
believes
it
has
not
proposed
to
supersede
any
State
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
unless
the
State­
adopted
criteria
are
disapproved
or
otherwise
insufficient.
The
approach
followed
by
the
Agency
in
preparing
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
d)
is
described
in
section
E.
2,
and
further
rationale
is
provided
in
section
E.
3
of
this
preamble.
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
accuracy
of
the
Agency's
decisions
to
include
or
exclude
particular
priority
toxic
pollutant
criteria.

EPA's
principal
purpose
today
is
to
propose
the
toxics
criteria
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
However,
in
order
for
such
criteria
to
achieve
their
intended
purpose
the
implementation
scheme
must
be
such
that
the
final
results
protect
the
public
health
and
welfare.
In
section
F
of
this
preamble
a
discussion
focused
on
the
factors
in
EPA's
assessment
of
criteria
for
carcinogens.
For
example,
fish
consumption
rates,
bioaccumulation
factors,
and
cancer
potency
slopes
were
discussed.
When
any
one
of
these
factors
is
changed,
the
others
must
also
be
evaluated
so
that,
on
balance,
resulting
criteria
are
adequately
protective.

Once
an
appropriate
criterion
is
selected
for
either
aquatic
life
or
human
health
protection,
then
appropriate
conditions
for
calculating
water
quality­
based
effluent
limits
for
that
chemical
must
be
established
in
order
to
maintain
the
intended
stringency
and
achieve
the
necessary
toxics
control.
EPA
has
included
in
this
proposal
appropriate
implementation
factors
necessary
to
maintain
the
level
of
protection
intended.
These
proposals
are
included
in
subsection
(
c).

For
example,
most
States
have
low
flow
values
for
streams
and
rivers
which
establish
flow
rates
below
which
numeric
criteria
may
be
exceeded.
These
low
flow
values
became
design
flows
for
sizing
treatment
plants
and
developing
water
quality­
based
effluent
limits.
Historically,
these
so­
called
"
design"
flows
were
selected
for
the
purposes
of
waste
load
allocation
analyses
which
focused
on
instream
dissolved
oxygen
concentrations
and
protection
of
aquatic
life.
With
the
publication
of
the
1985
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality
Based
Toxics
Control
(
TSD),
EPA
introduced
hydrologically
and
biologically
based
analyses
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life
and
human
health./
1/
EPA
recommended
either
of
two
methods
for
calculating
acceptable
low
flows,
the
traditional
hydrologic
method
developed
by
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
and
a
biological
based
method
developed
by
EPA.
The
results
of
either
of
these
two
methods
may
be
used.
NOTE
/
1/
These
concepts
have
been
expanded
subsequently
in
guidance
entitled
"
Technical
Guidance
Manual
for
Performing
Wasteload
Allocations,
Book
6,
Design
Conditions,"
USEPA,
Office
of
Water
Regulations
and
Standards,
Washington,
DC
(
1986).
These
new
developments
are
included
in
appendix
D
of
the
revised
TSD.
The
discussion
here
is
greatly
simplified
and
is
provided
to
support
EPA's
decision
to
propose
baseline
application
values
for
instream
flows
and
thereby
maintain
the
intended
stringency
of
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

Some
States
have
adopted
specific
low
flow
requirements
for
streams
and
rivers
to
protect
designated
uses
against
the
effects
of
toxics.
Generally
these
have
followed
the
guidance
in
the
TSD.
However,
EPA
believes
it
is
essential
to
include
proposed
design
flows
in
today's
proposed
rule
so
that,
where
States
have
not
yet
adopted
such
design
flows,
the
criteria
proposed
today
would
be
implemented
appropriately.
Clearly,
if
the
proposed
criteria
were
implemented
using
inadequate
design
flows,
the
resulting
toxics
controls
would
not
be
fully
effective,
because
the
resulting
ambient
concentrations
would
exceed
EPA's
recommended
levels.

In
the
case
of
aquatic
life,
more
frequent
violations
than
the
once
in
3
years
assumed
exceedences
would
result
in
diminished
vitality
of
stream
ecosystems
characteristics
by
the
loss
of
desired
species
such
as
sport
fish.
The
low
flow
values
proposed
are:

Aquatic
Life:
Acute
criteria
(
CMC)
1
Q
10
or
1
B
3.
Chronic
criteria
(
CCC)
7
Q
10
or
4
B
3.
Human
Health:
Non­
carcinogens
30
Q
5.
Carcinogens
harmonic
mean
flow.

Where:

1
Q
10
is
the
lowest
one
day
flow
with
an
average
recurrence
frequency
of
once
in
10
years
determined
hydrologically;
1
B
3
is
biologically
based
and
indicates
an
allowable
exceedence
of
once
every
3
years.
It
is
determined
by
EPA's
computerized
method
(
DFLOW
model);
7
Q
10
is
the
lowest
average
7
consecutive
day
low
flow
with
an
average
recurrence
frequency
of
once
in
10
years
determined
hydrologically;
4
B
3
is
biologically
based
and
indicates
an
allowable
exceedence
for
4
consecutive
days
once
every
3
years.
It
is
determined
by
EPA's
computerized
method
(
DFLOW
model);
30
Q
5
is
the
lowest
average
30
consecutive
day
low
flow
with
an
average
recurrence
frequency
of
once
in
5
years
determined
hydrologically;
and
The
harmonic
mean
flow
is
a
long
term
mean
flow
value
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
daily
flows
analyzed
by
the
sum
of
the
reciprocals
of
those
daily
flows.

EPA
is
proposing
the
harmonic
mean
flow
to
be
applied
with
human
health
criteria.
The
concept
of
a
harmonic
mean
is
a
standard
statistical
data
analysis
technique.
EPA's
model
for
human
health
effects
assumes
that
such
effects
occur
because
of
a
long­
term
exposure
to
low
concentration
of
a
toxic
pollutant.
For
example,
two
liters
of
water
per
day
for
seventy
years.
To
estimate
the
concentrations
of
the
toxic
pollutant
in
those
two
liters
per
day
by
withdrawal
from
streams
with
a
high
daily
variation
in
flow,
EPA
believes
the
harmonic
mean
flow
is
the
correct
statistic
to
use
in
computing
such
design
flows
rather
than
other
averaging
techniques./
2/

NOTE
/
2/
For
a
description
of
harmonic
means
see
"
Design
Stream
Flows
Based
on
Harmonic
Means,"
Lewis
A.
Rossman,
J.
of
Hydraulics
Engineering,
Vol.
116,
No.
7,
July,
1990.
This
article
is
contained
in
the
record
for
this
proposal.
All
waters,
whether
or
not
suitable
for
such
hydrologic
calculations
but
included
in
this
proposed
rule
(
including
lakes,
estuaries,
and
marine
waters),
must
contain
the
criteria
proposed
today.
Such
attainment
must
occur
at
the
end
of
the
discharge
pipe,
unless
the
State
has
an
EPA
approved
mixing
zone
regulation.
If
the
State
has
an
EPA
approved
mixing
zone
regulation,
then
the
criteria
would
apply
at
the
locations
stated
in
that
regulation.
For
example,
the
chronic
criteria
(
CCC)
must
apply
at
the
geographically
defined
boundary
of
the
mixing
zone.
Discussion
and
guidance
of
these
factors
are
included
in
the
revised
TSD
in
chapter
4.

EPA
is
aware
that
the
criteria
proposed
today
for
some
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
at
concentrations
less
than
EPA's
current
analytical
detection
limits.
Detection
limits
have
never
been
an
acceptable
basis
for
setting
standards
since
they
are
not
related
to
actual
environmental
impacts.
The
environmental
impact
of
a
pollutant
is
based
on
a
scientific
determination,
not
an
arbitrary
measuring
technique
which
is
subject
to
change.
Setting
the
criteria
at
levels
that
reflect
adequate
protection
tends
to
be
a
forcing
mechanism
to
improve
analytical
detection
methods.
As
the
methods
improve,
limits
closer
to
the
actual
criteria
necessary
to
protect
aquatic
life
and
human
health
are
measurable.
The
Agency
does
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
promulgate
insufficiently
protective
criteria
(
e.
g.,
criteria
equal
to
the
current
analytical
detection
limits).

EPA
does
believe,
however,
that
the
use
of
analytical
detection
limits
are
appropriate
for
determining
compliance
with
NPDES
permit
limits.
This
historical
view
of
the
role
of
detection
limits
was
recently
articulated
in
guidance
for
translating
dioxin
criteria
into
NPDES
permit
limits
which
is
the
principal
method
used
for
water
quality
standards
enforcement./
3/
This
guidance
presents
a
model
for
addressing
toxic
pollutants
which
have
criteria
recommendations
less
than
current
detection
limits.
This
guidance
is
equally
applicable
to
other
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
criteria
recommendations
less
than
current
detection
limits.
The
guidance
explains
that
detection
limits
may
be
used
for
purposes
of
determining
compliance
with
permit
limits,
but
not
for
purposes
of
establishing
water
quality
criteria
or
permit
limits.
Because
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
analytical
detection
limits
are
appropriately
used
only
in
connection
with
NPDES
permit
limit
compliance
determinations,
EPA
has
not
considered
analytical
detection
limits
in
deriving
the
criteria
proposed
today.

NOTE
/
3/
Strategy
for
the
Regulation
of
Discharges
of
PHDDs
and
PHDFs
from
Pulp
and
Paper
Mills
to
Waters
of
the
United
States,"
memorandum
from
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Water
to
the
Regional
Water
Management
Division
Directors
and
NPDES
State
Directors,
May
21,
1990.

EPA
has
added
provisions
in
paragraph
(
c)(
3)
to
determine
when
fresh
water
or
saltwater
aquatic
life
criteria
apply.
The
structure
of
the
paragraph
is
to
establish
presumptively
applicable
rules
and
to
allow
for
site­
specific
determinations
where
the
rules
are
not
consistent
with
actual
field
conditions.
Because
a
distinct
separation
generally
does
not
exist
between
fresh
water
and
marine
water
aquatic
communities,
EPA
is
proposing
the
following:
(
1)
The
fresh
water
criteria
apply
at
salinities
of
1
part
per
thousand
and
below;
(
2)
marine
water
criteria
apply
at
10
parts
per
thousand
and
above;
and
(
3)
at
salinities
between
1
and
10
parts
per
thousand
the
more
stringent
of
the
two
apply
unless
EPA
approves
another
site
specific
criterion
for
the
pollutant.
This
proposed
assignment
of
criteria
for
fresh,
brackish
and
marine
waters
was
developed
in
consultation
with
EPA's
research
laboratories
at
Duluth,
Minnesota
and
Narragansett,
Rhode
Island.
The
Agency
believes
such
an
approach
is
consistent
with
field
experience.

In
paragraph
(
c)(
4)(
i)
EPA
has
included
a
limitation
on
the
amount
of
hardness
that
EPA
can
allow
to
antagonize
the
toxicity
of
certain
metals
(
see
footnote
(
e)
in
the
criteria
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
the
rule).
The
data
base
used
for
the
Section
304(
a)
criteria
documents
for
metals
do
not
include
data
supporting
the
extrapolation
of
the
hardness
effects
on
metal
toxicity
beyond
a
range
of
hardness
of
25
mg/
l
to
400
mg/
l
(
expressed
as
calcium
carbonate).
Thus,
the
aquatic
life
values
for
the
CNC
(
acute)
and
CCC
(
chronic)
criteria
for
these
metals
in
waters
with
a
hardness
less
than
25
mg/
l,
must
nevertheless
use
25
mg/
l
when
calculating
the
criteria;
and
in
waters
with
a
hardness
greater
than
400
mg/
l,
must
nevertheless
use
400
mg/
l
when
calculating
the
criteria.

Subsection
(
d)
lists
the
States
for
which
rules
are
being
proposed.
For
each
identified
State,
the
water
uses
impacted
(
and
in
some
cases
the
waters
covered)
and
the
criteria
proposed
are
identified.

H.
Specific
Issues
for
Public
Comment
As
is
the
Agency's
custom,
EPA
would
like
to
request
that
particular
public
review
be
directed
to
the
issues
and
alternatives
presented
in
this
section.
Although
the
issues
presented
below
are
particularly
notable
and
worthy
of
comment,
EPA
encourages
public
comment
on
any
aspect
of
this
proposed
rule.

1.
In
section
D
of
this
preamble,
EPA
has
presented
a
discussion
of
how
EPA
determines
State
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
9).
The
process
described
has
been
the
Agency's
general
practice
since
the
beginning
of
the
water
quality
standards
program,
although
the
requirements
specific
to
toxics
criteria
have
evolved
over
the
years.
Briefly
stated,
EPA's
ten
Regional
offices
review
the
State­
adopted
standards
to
ascertain
compliance
with
the
Clean
Water
Act
using
the
information
developed
by
the
State
and
other
relevant
and
available
data
and
information.

For
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
EPA's
focus
in
many
cases
was
on
the
process
the
State
used
to
assemble
the
criteria
for
those
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
the
State's
designated
uses.
For
example,
EPA's
review
of
individual
State
water
quality
standards
had
to
balance
a
need
for
national
consistency
with
the
need
to
implement
the
CWA
scheme
that
provides
for
State
primacy
and
State­
specific
approaches.
If
EPA
had
information
on
a
toxic
pollutant
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
test
that
the
pollutant
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses,
and
the
State
did
not
adopt
sufficient,
scientifically
defensible
criteria
for
that
pollutant,
EPA
disapproved
the
State
action
as
being
inconsistent
with
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Alternative
approaches
could
have
had
either
a
narrower
focus
on
fewer
priority
toxic
pollutants
(
for
example,
relying
only
on
the
results
of
the
section
304(
l)
short
list
process)
or
might
have
been
broader,
(
for
example,
requiring
most
States
to
adopt
criteria
for
the
complete
list
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
addressed
in
EPA
section
304(
a)
criteria
recommendations).
EPA
solicits
comment
on
whether
the
Agency's
traditional
review
process
should
have
been
changed.

2.
EPA's
approach
and
rationale
for
deciding
which
criteria
to
propose
for
a
State
is
discussed
in
section
E
of
this
Preamble.
Briefly
stated,
EPA
either:
(
1)
Proposed
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
not
acceptably
addressed
by
approved
State
criteria
(
this
approach
is
used
for
most
States),
or
(
2)
proposed
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
only
for
specific
priority
pollutants
for
which
State
criteria
are
lacking
or
insufficient
(
this
approach
is
used
for
only
a
few
States).
EPA
could
have
used
other
approaches
and
solicits
public
comment.
For
example,
EPA
could
have
relied
totally
on
the
State's
own
determination
pursuant
to
section
304(
l)
and
305(
b),
or
entirely
on
an
Option
1
approach
of
promulgating
all
Federal
criteria
for
all
State
waters.

3.
This
proposed
rulemaking
includes
proposed
minimum
implementation
factors
for
the
criteria,
such
as
flow
conditions.
As
proposed,
these
factors
are
dependent
on
existing
State
rules
but
subject
to
base
values
which
are
those
used
in
developing
the
criteria.
EPA's
revised
TSD
explains
more
fully
the
details
of
these
base
values.
EPA
could
rely
entirely
on
existing
State
rules
or
establish
the
proposed
Federal
rules.

4.
The
conditions
under
which
States
will
be
removed
from
the
rule,
either
before
or
after
final
promulgation,
are
described
in
section
E.
4
of
this
preamble.
EPA
could
make
the
conditions
for
removing
the
applicability
of
the
rule
to
a
State
more
or
less
stringent.
A
difficult
aspect
of
this
issue
is
a
definition
of
what
the
State
must
adopt
for
EPA
to
withdraw
the
applicability
of
its
rule
entirely.
As
currently
stated,
EPA's
policy
is
that
if
the
State's
standards
are
judged
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act
and
thereby
provide
adequate
environmental
protection,
EPA
will
withdraw
the
applicability
of
the
Federal
Rule
as
to
that
State.
In
the
context
of
this
proposal,
the
State
would
have
to
demonstrate
that
the
criteria
it
adopted
meet
the
statutory
test
of
protecting
the
public
health
and
would
protect
designated
uses.
State
compliance
could
be
by
any
one
or
a
combination
of
the
3
options
described
in
EPA's
guidance.
Once
such
a
showing
were
made
EPA
would
propose
to
withdraw
the
applicability
of
its
rule
entirely.
However,
if
a
State
fails
to
make
such
a
demonstration
for
all
pollutants,
partial
withdrawals
for
certain
pollutants
could
occur,
leaving
applicable
parts
of
the
Federal
rule.

5.
EPA
must
also
decide
whether
it
should
pick
a
uniform
cancer
risk
level
of,
for
example,
10­/
6/,
for
all
States
included
in
a
final
rule,
or
whether
different
risk
levels
for
different
States
are
appropriate.
EPA
today
proposes
the
human
health
criteria
at
a
cancer
risk
level
of
10­/
6/
because
such
a
risk
level
is
conservative
for
the
general
population
and
in
the
generally
applied
risk
range.
However,
as
noted
in
section
F.
5.,
EPA
has
approved
human
health
risk
levels
of
10­/
5/
in
10
States,
and
for
some
criteria
and
uses
risk
levels
of
10­/
4/.
EPA's
review
of
the
explanations
provided
by
the
States
supporting
State­
adopted
risk
levels
of
less
than
10­
/
5/
focuses
on
public
participation
and
the
supportability
of
the
risk
factors
included
in
the
State's
analysis.

While
today's
proposed
action
is
predicated
on
a
10­/
6/
risk
level
for
carcinogens,
another
option
that
the
public
should
consider
in
responding
to
this
rule
is
the
application
of
the
proposed
criteria
at
a
10­/
5/
risk
level.
EPA's
rationale
for
proposing
at
a
10­/
6/
risk
level
was
articulated
earlier
in
the
preamble.
However,
there
are
several
arguments
to
support
a
less
protective
10­/
5/
level.
The
model
used
to
calculate
the
criteria
for
carcinogens
is
a
conservative
one
and
has
a
very
low
probability
of
underestimating
the
potency
of
a
carcinogen.
As
a
result,
a
higher
level
of
accepted
risk
as
the
endpoint
for
criteria
calculations
may
be
reasonable.
For
"
Class
C"
carcinogens,
i.
e.,
those
for
which
the
data
demonstrating
oncogenicity
in
animal
studies
are
most
limited,
a
10­/
5/
risk
level
is
closer
to
the
criteria
values
calculated
as
Rfds
(
non­
cancer
endpoints
of
toxicity)
for
these
chemicals.
Use
of
RfDs
reduces
the
likelihood
that
EPA
is
over­
regulating
chemicals
of
less
definitive
cancer
potency.
A
10­/
5/
risk
is
within
the
range
of
accepted
risks
for
other
major
EPA
rulemakings
which
aim
to
protect
the
general
public,
such
as
national
drinking
water
standards.

Similarly,
EPA
must
decide
what
a
State
must
adopt
in
the
way
of
a
risk
level
for
EPA
to
withdraw
a
final
rule.
The
question
to
be
addressed
is
whether
EPA
can
accept
less
stringent
risk
levels
(
applied
statewide;
by
individual
chemicals,
or
by
geographical
sub­
area)
than
contained
in
EPA's
final
rule
if
such
less
stringent
risk
levels
were
adopted
following
State
administrative
procedures
and
adequately
supported
by
the
administrative
record.

6.
Today's
proposed
rulemaking
includes
an
Agency
proposal
to
establish
criteria
for
only
those
EPA
priority
toxic
pollutant
criteria
which
are
based
on
toxic
effects.
The
Agency
could
include
other
section
304(
a)
priority
toxic
pollutant
criteria
recommendations
which
are
based
on
organoleptic
(
i.
e.,
taste
and
odor)
effects.
The
logic
would
be
that
the
congressional
reference
to
"
toxic
pollutants"
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
was
the
generic
list
of
126
priority
toxic
pollutants
and
EPA
should
include
all
such
criteria
developed
for
these
pollutants
rather
than
just
those
based
on
toxicity.
Organoleptic
effects
cause
taste
and
odor
problems
in
drinking
water
which
may
increase
treatment
costs
or
the
selection
by
the
public
of
alternative
but
less
protective
sources
of
drinking
water;
and
may
cause
tainting
or
off
flavors
in
fish
flesh
and
other
edible
aquatic
life
reducing
their
marketability,
thus
diminishing
the
recreational
and
resource
value
of
the
water.
EPA
believes
that
because
the
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
focuses
on
toxicity
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants,
EPA's
proposal
should
likewise
focus
on
toxicity.

7.
EPA
also
invites
public
comment
on
the
merits
of
promulgating
a
translator
procedure
(
that
could
support
derivation
of
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific
criteria
for
those
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
not
issued
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance)
for
States
in
this
rule
to
enhance
State
and
EPA
implementation
of
section
303
(
c)(
2)(
B).
Such
a
procedure
would
supplement
the
specific
numeric
criteria
included
in
this
proposal.
The
rationale
for,
and
specifics
of,
such
an
approach
are
described
below.
As
discussed
in
previous
sections
of
this
preamble,
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
represents
a
clear
congressional
mandate
for
State
adoption
of
chemical­
specific
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
EPA
has
issued
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance.
However,
where
no
such
criteria
exist,
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
went
on
to
direct
States
that,
"
*
*
*
Where
such
numerical
criteria
are
not
available,
whenever
a
State
reviews
water
quality
standards
*
*
*
or
revises
or
adopts
new
standards
*
*
*,
such
State
shall
adopt
criteria
based
on
biological
monitoring
or
assessment
methods
*
*
*.

EPA's
December
1988
national
guidance
provided
States
with
three
options
for
satisfying
the
chemical­
specific
criteria
requirements.
Option
3
of
the
guidance
allows
States
to
adopt
and
apply
translator
procedures.
As
described
in
section
B­
3
of
this
preamble,
such
translator
procedures
are
defined
as
the
methods,
equations,
and
protocols
by
which
a
State
calculates
derived
chemical­
specific
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
to
ensure
that
the
State's
narrative
toxics
criterion
is
fully
satisfied.

There
are
several
alternative
approaches
for
establishing
a
translator
procedure.
All
approaches
would
utilize
EPA's
criteria
guidelines
(
i.
e.,
for
aquatic
life
and
human
health
as
described
in
section
F.
1.
of
this
preamble)
as
the
basis
for
deriving
chemical­
specific
criteria.
They
could
also
require
EPA
to
periodically
issue
an
updated
list
of
derived
numeric
criteria
and
notice
the
availability
of
the
list
in
the
Federal
Register.

One
alternative
would
be
to
promulgate
a
mechanism
for
State
usage
only
for
the
pollutants
where
EPA
has
not
issued
a
section
304
(
a)
criteria
guidance
document.

Another
alternative
would
be
to
allow
criteria
revisions
in
specific
situations
where
EPA
determines
that
a
revised
criterion
is
necessary.
For
example,
if
EPA
issued
a
final
revised
estimate
of
the
cancer
potency
slope
of
a
priority
toxic
pollutant
(
i.
e.,
by
adding
it
to
IRIS),
such
cancer
slopes
would
be
available
for
use
in
deriving
new
human
health
criteria
for
that
pollutant
following
the
translator
procedure.
Another
example
would
be
situations
where
additional
data
on
the
toxicity
of
a
pollutant
to
aquatic
life
becomes
available
such
that
the
minimum
database
requirements
in
the
EPA
criteria
guidelines
are
satisfied.
In
such
situations,
the
data
could
be
applied
to
the
translator
procedure
to
derive
new
or
revised
aquatic
life
criteria
more
rapidly
than
the
current
method
of
proposing
for
comment
and
then
publishing
a
final
section
304(
a)
recommendation
for
subsequent
consideration
by
States.
This
alternative
would
apply
to
criteria
for
both
aquatic
life
and
human
health
protection
and
could
apply
to
pollutants
for
which
a
section
304(
a)
criteria
recommendation
exists
or
to
those
pollutants
where
no
such
recommendation
exists.

A
third
approach
would
limit
the
applicability
of
the
translator
procedure
to
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
numeric
criteria
are
contained
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking.
Under
this
alternative,
criteria
could
not
be
derived
for
pollutants
without
a
section
304(
a)
criteria
recommendation
using
the
translator
procedure,
even
where:
(
1)
Formal
Agency
estimates
of
the
parameters
necessary
to
support
derivation
are
issued,
or
(
2)
the
data
necessary
to
satisfy
the
minimum
database
requirements
become
available.

A
final
alternative
providing
only
limited
flexibility
would
be
to
limit
use
of
the
translator
procedure
to
human
health
criteria
where
the
Agency
issues
a
final
revised
risk
assessment
for
the
parameter
in
IRIS.
Such
IRIS
estimates
are
subject
to
extensive
intra­
Agency
review.
This
alternative
would
limit
revisions
to
situations
where
EPA
makes
a
formal
determination
that
a
revised
human
health
risk
assessment
is
appropriate.

The
Agency
invites
public
comment
on
the
environmental,
programmatic
and
legal
aspects
of
including
a
promulgation
of
a
criteria
translator
mechanism
for
each
State
in
the
final
issuance
of
this
rulemaking.
Comment
is
also
invited
on
the
scope
and
details
of
such
an
approach
as
described
above.

8.
EPA
solicits
comment
on
the
section
304(
a)
assessment
methodology
(
cancer
and
non­
cancer)
used
to
derive
human
health
criteria
for
section
307(
a)
priority
toxic
pollutants.
This
methodology
is
discussed
in
section
F
of
the
Preamble
but
is
derived
in
the
criteria
methodology
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
November
26,
1980
(
45
FR
79347).
For
example,
EPA
has
included
proposed
criteria
for
3
PAHs
(
acenaphthylene,
benzo(
ghi)
perylene
and
phenanthrene).
The
included
criteria
treat
these
PAHs
as
carcinogens
and
are
based
on
data
for
benzo(
a)
pyrene.
The
section
304(
a)
criteria
methodology
does
not
distinguish
between
classes
of
carcinogens
and
allows
the
use
of
closely
related
chemicals
of
similar
structure
to
carry
the
same
criteria
recommendation.
This
methodology
is
basic
to
the
development
of
the
human
health
criteria
proposed
today.

I.
Executive
Order
12291
Executive
Order
12291
requires
EPA
and
other
agencies
to
perform
regulatory
impact
analyses
for
major
regulations.
Major
regulations
are
those
that
impose
an
annual
cost
to
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more,
or
meet
other
criteria.
This
is
a
major
regulation,
however,
a
regulatory
impact
analyses
has
been
waived
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
for
this
proposal
for
the
reasons
discussed
below.

This
rulemaking
establishes
a
legal
minimum
standard
where
States
have
failed
to
comply
with
the
statutory
mandate
to
adopt
numeric
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
The
impacts
to
dischargers
are
no
different
than
what
would
occur
if
States
had
acted
to
adopt
their
own
standards.
There
will
be
a
cost
to
dischargers
for
complying
with
these
proposed
new
standards
as
the
standards
are
translated
into
specific
NPDES
permit
limits
for
individual
dischargers.
However,
for
reasons
discussed
in
more
detail
below,
a
meaningful
cost
estimate
is
difficult
to
develop.
The
increased
costs
incurred
will
depend
upon
the
type
and
amount
of
pollutants
discharged
and
the
extent
to
which
additional
treatment
needs
to
be
installed
beyond
that
which
is
required
to
meet
the
generally
applicable
technology­
based
limit
regulations.
As
discussed
earlier
in
the
Preamble,
the
control
of
toxic
pollutants
is
expected
to
provide
societal
benefits
by
reducing
risk
to
human
health
and
to
reduce
ecological
impacts
on
aquatic
life.

The
general
impacts
on
point
source
dischargers,
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
and
nonpoint
sources
may
be
described.
By
establishing
new
goals
for
a
waterbody,
the
addition
of
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
into
State
water
quality
standards
will
affect
the
wasteload
allocations
developed
for
each
waterbody
segment
to
the
extent
the
pollutant
is
actually
discharged
into
the
stream.
If
the
pollutant
is
not
present
in
the
wastestream,
the
addition
of
criteria
has
no
impact.
Revised
wasteload
allocations
may
result
in
adjustments
to
individual
NPDES
permit
limits
for
point
source
dischargers
which
could
result
in
increased
incremental
treatment
costs
required
to
meet
the
revised
water
quality
standards.
These
costs
will
vary
depending
on
the
types
of
treatment
involved,
the
number
and
kind
of
pollutant(
s)
being
treated,
and
the
controls
necessary
to
meet
the
technologically
based
effluent
limits
for
a
given
industry.

Compliance
costs
for
indirect
industrial
dischargers
will
be
reflected
in
increased
incremental
costs
for
POTWs
assuming
that
industrial
sources
are
the
primary
source
of
toxics
discharged
by
POTWs
and
that
the
incremental
treatment
costs
incurred
by
POTWs
will
be
passed
along
to
their
industrial
dischargers.
Possible
areas
where
the
addition
of
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
into
State
standards
may
have
a
cost
impact
include:
(
1)
POTW
expansion,
(
2)
operational
changes,
and
(
3)
increased
operator
training
costs.

Increased
costs
may
also
be
incurred
by
nonpoint
sources
of
toxic
pollutants
to
the
extent
that
best
management
practices
need
to
be
modified
to
reflect
the
revised
standards.
Although
there
is
no
comparable
Federal
permit
program
for
nonpoint
sources
as
there
is
to
control
point
source
discharges,
there
are
existing
State
regulatory
programs
to
control
nonpoint
sources.

Monitoring
programs
to
generate
information
on
the
existing
quality
of
water
and
the
kinds
and
amount
of
pollutants
being
discharged
are
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
proposed
rulemaking.
However,
the
addition
of
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
into
State
standards
does
not
require
the
State
to
engage
in
a
program
to
monitor
for
all
such
pollutants
unless
there
is
some
reasonable
expectation
that
the
pollutants
are
manufactured
or
actually
used
in
the
State
with
the
likelihood
that
they
will
be
discharged
into
surface
waters.

While
recognizing
that
the
application
of
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
will
result
in
increased
treatment
costs
and
that
such
costs
are
appropriately
considered
in
several
areas
of
the
standards
to
permits
process,
it
is
important
to
consider
the
difficulties
and
the
large
potential
uncertainties
involved
in
developing
meaningful
cost
estimates
for
purposes
of
this
proposed
rulemaking.
The
development
of
compliance
cost
estimates
would
require
numerous
assumptions
about
pollutant
loadings,
impacts
of
technology­
based
regulations
on
loadings,
combinations
of
pollutants
handled
by
a
given
treatment
approach,
the
costs
of
each
treatment
train
and
the
variables
for
each
pollutant
in
each
waterbody
in
each
State.
There
are
many
sources
of
uncertainty
in
making
these
assumptions,
and
the
resulting
estimates
could
contain
such
significant
estimation
errors
that
the
figures
would
have
questionable
value.

This
proposed
rule,
including
the
above
determination,
has
been
reviewed
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
Any
written
comments
from
OMB
to
EPA
and
any
EPA
response
to
those
comments
are
included
in
the
public
record
and
are
available
for
inspection.

J.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
Pub.
L.
96­
354)
requires
EPA
to
assess
whether
its
regulations
create
a
disproportionate
effect
on
small
entities.
According
to
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
EPA
must
prepare
an
initial
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
for
all
proposed
regulations
that
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
There
will
be
a
cost
to
dischargers
for
complying
with
these
standards
as
they
are
translated
into
permit
limits
for
individual
dischargers.
However,
for
the
reasons
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
a
meaningful
estimate
of
the
total
cost
or
impact
on
small
entities
cannot
be
meaningfully
computed.

This
proposed
regulation
fills
a
regulatory
void
left
by
States
not
fully
complying
with
the
statute;
thus,
the
impact
on
small
entities
is
not
different
than
what
would
have
occurred
if
States
had
acted
to
adopt
standards.
In
addition,
the
water
quality
standards
regulation
provides
several
means
(
such
as
adjusting
designated
uses,
setting
site­
specific
criteria,
or
granting
variances)
to
consider
costs
and
adjust
standards
to
account
for
the
impacts
on
dischargers.

K.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
associated
with
this
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
0988.04)
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Sandy
Farmer,
Information
Policy
Branch;
EPA;
401
M
St.,
SW.
(
PM­
223Y);
Washington,
DC
20460
or
by
calling
(
202)
382­
2740.

Public
reporting
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
745
hours
per
respondent,
including
time
for
reviewing
instructions,
searching
existing
data
sources,
gathering
and
maintaining
the
data
needed,
and
completing
and
reviewing
the
collection
information.

Send
comments
regarding
the
burden
estimate
or
any
other
aspect
of
this
collection
of
information,
including
suggestions
for
reducing
this
burden,
to
Chief,
Information
Policy
Branch,
PM­
223Y,
U.
S.
EPA,
401
M
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs;
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
"
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA."
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

List
of
Subjects
Water
quality
standards,
Toxic
pollutants.

Dated:
November
6,
1991.

William
K.
Reilly,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
part
131
of
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
131­­
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
131
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
Clean
Water
Act,
Pub.
L.
92­
500,
as
amended;
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.

2.
Section
131.36
is
added
to
subpart
D
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
131.36
Toxics
criteria
for
those
states
not
complying
with
Clean
Water
Act
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)

(
a)
Scope.
This
section
is
not
a
general
promulgation
of
the
section
304(
a)
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
but
is
restricted
to
specific
pollutants
in
specific
States.

(
b)
EPA's
Section
304(
a)
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants
B
A
Freshwater
Criterion
Criterion
maximum
continuous
concentration
concentration
d
(
micro­
g/
L)
d
(
micro­
g/
L)
(#)
Compound
CAS
No.
B1
B2
1
Antimony
7440360
2
Arsenic
7440382
360
190
3
Beryllium
7440417
4
Cadmium
7440439
3.9
e
1.1
e
5a
Chromium
(
III)
16065831
1700
e
210
e
b
Chromium
(
VI)
18540299
16
11
6
Copper
7440508
18
e
12
e
7
Lead
7439921
82
e
3.2
e
8
Mercury
7439976
2.4
0.012
i
9
Nickel
7440020
1400
e
160
e
10
Selenium
7782492
20
5
11
Silver
7440224
4.1
e
12
Thallium
7440280
13
Zinc
7440666
120
e
110
e
14
Cyanide
57125
22
5.2
15
Asbestos
1332214
7,000,000
fibers/
L
k
16
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
(
Dioxin)
1746016
17
Acrolein
107028
18
Acrylonitrile
107131
19
Benzene
71432
20
Bromoform
75252
21
Carbon
Tetrachloride
56235
22
Chlorobenzene
108907
23
Chlorodibromomethane
124481
24
Chloroethane
75003
25
2­
Chloroethylvinyl
Ether
110758
26
Chloroform
67663
27
Dichlorobromomethane
75274
28
1,1­
Dichloroethane
75343
29
1,2­
Dichloroethane
107062
30
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
75354
31
1,2­
Dichloropropane
78875
32
1,3­
Dichloropropylene
542756
33
Ethylbenzene
100414
34
Methyl
Bromide
74839
35
Methyl
Chloride
74873
36
Methylene
Chloride
75092
37
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
79345
38
Tetrachloroethylene
127184
39
Toluene
108883
40
1,2­
Trans­
Dichloroethylene
156605
41
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
71556
42
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
79005
43
Trichloroethylene
79016
44
Vinyl
Chloride
75014
45
2­
Chlorophenol
95578
46
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
120832
47
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
105679
48
2­
Methyl­
4,6­
Dinitrophenol
534521
49
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
51285
50
2­
Nitrophenol
88755
51
4­
Nitrophenol
100027
52
3­
Methyl­
4­
Chlorophenol
59507
53
Pentachlorophenol
87865
20
f
13
f
54
Phenol
108952
55
2,4,6­
Trichlorophenol
88062
56
Acenaphthene
83329
57
Acenaphthylene
208968
58
Anthracene
120127
59
Benzidine
92875
60
Benzo(
a)
Anthracene
56553
61
Benzo(
a)
Pyrene
50328
62
Benzo(
b)
Fluoranthene
205992
63
Benzo(
ghi)
Perylene
191242
64
Benzo(
k)
Fluoranthene
207089
65
Bis(
2­
Chloroethoxy)
Methane
111911
66
Bis(
2­
Chloroethyl)
Ether
111444
67
Bis(
2­
Chloroisopropyl)
Ether
108601
68
Bis(
2­
Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
117817
69
4­
Bromophenyl
Phenyl
Ether
101553
70
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
85687
71
2­
Chloronaphthalene
91587
72
4­
Chlorophenyl
Phenyl
Ether
7005723
73
Chrysene
218019
74
Dibenzo(
a,
h)
Anthracene
53703
75
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
95501
76
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
541731
77
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
106467
78
3,3'­
Dichlorobenzidine
91941
79
Diethyl
Phthalate
84662
80
Dimethyl
Phthalate
131113
81
Di­
n­­
Butyl
Phthalate
84742
82
2,4­
Dinitrotoluene
121142
83
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
606202
84
Di­
n­
Octyl
Phthalate
117840
85
1,2­
Diphenylhydrazine
122667
86
Fluoranthene
206440
87
Fluorene
86737
88
Hexachlorobenzene
118741
89
Hexachlorobutadiene
87683
90
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77474
91
Hexachloroethane
67721
92
Indeno(
1,2,3­
cd)
Pyrene
193395
93
Isophorone
78591
94
Naphthalene
91203
95
Nitrobenzene
98953
96
N­
Nitrosodimethylamine
62759
97
N­
Nitrosodi­
n­
Propylamine
621647
98
N­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
86306
99
Phenanthrene
85018
100
Pyrene
129000
101
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
120821
102
Aldrin
309002
3
g
103
alpha­
BHC
319846
104
beta­
BHC
319857
105
gamma­
BHC
58899
2
g
0.08
g
106
delta­
BHC
319868
107
Chlordane
57749
2.4
g
0.0043
g
108
4­
4'­
DDT
50293
1.1
g
0.001
g
109
4,4'­
DDE
72559
110
4,4'­
DDD
72548
111
Dieldrin
60571
2.5
g
0.0019
g
112
alpha­
Endosulfan
959988
0.22
g
0.056
g
113
beta­
Endosulfan
33213659
0.22
g
0.056
g
114
Endosulfan
Sulfate
1031078
115
Endrin
72208
0.18
g
0.0023
g
116
Endrin
Aldehyde
7421934
117
Heptachlor
76448
0.52
g
0.0038
g
118
Heptachlor
Epoxide
1024573
0.52
g
0.0038
g
119
PCB­
1242
53469219
0.014
g
120
PCB­
1254
11097691
0.014
g
121
PCB­
1221
11104282
0.014
g
122
PCB­
1232
11141165
0.014
g
123
PCB­
1248
12672296
0.014
g
124
PCB­
1260
11096825
0.014
g
125
PCB­
1016
12674112
0.014
g
126
Toxaphene
8001352
0.73
0.0002
Total
No.
of
Criteria
(
h)
=
24
29
(
...
Table
continues...
)
C
A
Saltwater
Criterion
Criterion
maximum
continuous
concentration
concentration
d
(
micro­
g/
L)
d
(
micro­
g/
L)
(#)
Compound
C1
C2
1
Antimony
2
Arsenic
69
36
3
Beryllium
4
Cadmium
43
9.3
5a
Chromium
(
III)
b
Chromium
(
VI)
1100
50
6
Copper
2.9
2.9
7
Lead
220
8.5
8
Mercury
2.1
0.025
i
9
Nickel
75
8.3
10
Selenium
300
71
11
Silver
2.3
12
Thallium
13
Zinc
95
86
14
Cyanide
1
1
15
Asbestos
7,000,000
fibers/
L
k
16
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
(
Dioxin)
17
Acrolein
18
Acrylonitrile
19
Benzene
20
Bromoform
21
Carbon
Tetrachloride
22
Chlorobenzene
23
Chlorodibromomethane
24
Chloroethane
25
2­
Chloroethylvinyl
Ether
26
Chloroform
27
Dichlorobromomethane
28
1,1­
Dichloroethane
29
1,2­
Dichloroethane
30
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
31
1,2­
Dichloropropane
32
1,3­
Dichloropropylene
33
Ethylbenzene
34
Methyl
Bromide
35
Methyl
Chloride
36
Methylene
Chloride
37
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
38
Tetrachloroethylene
39
Toluene
40
1,2­
Trans­
Dichloroethylene
41
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
42
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
43
Trichloroethylene
44
Vinyl
Chloride
45
2­
Chlorophenol
46
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
47
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
48
2­
Methyl­
4,6­
Dinitrophenol
49
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
50
2­
Nitrophenol
51
4­
Nitrophenol
52
3­
Methyl­
4­
Chlorophenol
53
Pentachlorophenol
13
7.9
54
Phenol
55
2,4,6­
Trichlorophenol
56
Acenaphthene
57
Acenaphthylene
58
Anthracene
59
Benzidine
60
Benzo(
a)
Anthracene
61
Benzo(
a)
Pyrene
62
Benzo(
b)
Fluoranthene
63
Benzo(
ghi)
Perylene
64
Benzo(
k)
Fluoranthene
65
Bis(
2­
Chloroethoxy)
Methane
66
Bis(
2­
Chloroethyl)
Ether
67
Bis(
2­
Chloroisopropyl)
Ether
68
Bis(
2­
Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
69
4­
Bromophenyl
Phenyl
Ether
70
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
71
2­
Chloronaphthalene
72
4­
Chlorophenyl
Phenyl
Ether
73
Chrysene
74
Dibenzo(
a,
h)
Anthracene
75
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
76
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
77
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
78
3,3'­
Dichlorobenzidine
79
Diethyl
Phthalate
80
Dimethyl
Phthalate
81
Di­
n­­
Butyl
Phthalate
82
2,4­
Dinitrotoluene
83
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
84
Di­
n­
Octyl
Phthalate
85
1,2­
Diphenylhydrazine
86
Fluoranthene
87
Fluorene
88
Hexachlorobenzene
89
Hexachlorobutadiene
90
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
91
Hexachloroethane
92
Indeno(
1,2,3­
cd)
Pyrene
93
Isophorone
94
Naphthalene
95
Nitrobenzene
96
N­
Nitrosodimethylamine
97
N­
Nitrosodi­
n­
Propylamine
98
N­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
99
Phenanthrene
100
Pyrene
101
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
102
Aldrin
1.3
g
103
alpha­
BHC
104
beta­
BHC
105
gamma­
BHC
0.16
g
106
delta­
BHC
107
Chlordane
0.09
g
0.004
g
108
4­
4'­
DDT
0.13
g
0.001
g
109
4,4'­
DDE
110
4,4'­
DDD
111
Dieldrin
0.71
g
0.0019
g
112
alpha­
Endosulfan
0.034
g
0.0087
g
113
beta­
Endosulfan
0.034
g
0.0087
g
114
Endosulfan
Sulfate
115
Endrin
0.037
g
0.0023
g
116
Endrin
Aldehyde
117
Heptachlor
0.053
g
0.0036
g
118
Heptachlor
Epoxide
0.053
g
0.0036
g
119
PCB­
1242
0.03
g
120
PCB­
1254
0.03
g
121
PCB­
1221
0.03
g
122
PCB­
1232
0.03
g
123
PCB­
1248
0.03
g
124
PCB­
1260
0.03
g
125
PCB­
1016
0.03
g
126
Toxaphene
0.21
0.0002
Total
No.
of
Criteria
(
h)
=
33
27
(
...
Table
continues...
)
D
Human
health
(
10­
6
risk
for
carcinogens)
A
For
consumption
of:
Water
and
organisms
Organisms
(
micro­
g/
L)
only
(
micro­
(#)
Compound
D1
g/
L)
D2
1
Antimony
14
a
4300
a
2
Arsenic
0.018
bc
0.14
bc
3
Beryllium
0.0077
ac
0.13
ac
4
Cadmium
16
170
aj
5a
Chromium
(
III)
33000
a
670000
a
b
Chromium
(
VI)
170
a
3400
a
6
Copper
(
1300)
b
7
Lead
50
8
Mercury
0.14
0.15
9
Nickel
610
a
4600
a
10
Selenium
100
b
6800
bj
11
Silver
105
a
65000
aj
12
Thallium
1.7
a
6.3
a
13
Zinc
14
Cyanide
700
a
220000
aj
15
Asbestos
7,000,000
fibers/
L
k
16
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
(
Dioxin)
0.000000013
c
0.000000014
c
17
Acrolein
320
780
18
Acrylonitrile
0.059
ac
0.66
ac
19
Benzene
1.2
ac
71
ac
20
Bromoform
4.3
ac
360
ac
21
Carbon
Tetrachloride
0.25
ac
4.4
ac
22
Chlorobenzene
680
a
21000
aj
23
Chlorodibromomethane
0.41
ac
34
ac
24
Chloroethane
25
2­
Chloroethylvinyl
Ether
26
Chloroform
5.7
ac
470
ac
27
Dichlorobromomethane
0.27
ac
22
ac
28
1,1­
Dichloroethane
29
1,2­
Dichloroethane
0.38
ac
99
ac
30
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
0.057
ac
3.2
ac
31
1,2­
Dichloropropane
(
0.52)
kc
(
39)
kc
32
1,3­
Dichloropropylene
10
a
1700
a
33
Ethylbenzene
3100
a
29000
a
34
Methyl
Bromide
48
a
4000
a
35
Methyl
Chloride
5.7
ac
470
ac
36
Methylene
Chloride
4.7
ac
1600
ac
37
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
0.17
ac
11
ac
38
Tetrachloroethylene
0.8
c
8.85
c
39
Toluene
6800
a
200000
a
40
1,2­
Trans­
Dichloroethylene
(
700)
a
(
140000)
a
41
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
3100
a
(
170000)
a
42
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
0.60
ac
42
ac
43
Trichloroethylene
2.7
c
81
c
44
Vinyl
Chloride
2
c
525
c
45
2­
Chlorophenol
(
120)
a
(
400)
a
46
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
93
a
790
aj
47
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
(
540)
a
(
2300)
a
48
2­
Methyl­
4,6­
Dinitrophenol
13.4
765
49
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
70
a
14000
a
50
2­
Nitrophenol
51
4­
Nitrophenol
52
3­
Methyl­
4­
Chlorophenol
53
Pentachlorophenol
0.28
ac
8.2
acj
54
Phenol
21000
a
4600000
aj
55
2,4,6­
Trichlorophenol
2.1
ac
6.5
ac
56
Acenaphthene
(
1200)
a
(
2700)
a
57
Acenaphthylene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
58
Anthracene
9600
a
110000
a
59
Benzidine
0.00012
ac
0.00054
ac
60
Benzo(
a)
Anthracene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
61
Benzo(
a)
Pyrene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
62
Benzo(
b)
Fluoranthene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
63
Benzo(
ghi)
Perylene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
64
Benzo(
k)
Fluoranthene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
65
Bis(
2­
Chloroethoxy)
Methane
66
Bis(
2­
Chloroethyl)
Ether
0.031
ac
1.4
ac
67
Bis(
2­
Chloroisopropyl)
Ether
1400
a
170000
a
68
Bis(
2­
Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
1.8
ac
5.9
ac
69
4­
Bromophenyl
Phenyl
Ether
70
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
(
3000)
a
(
5200)
a
71
2­
Chloronaphthalene
(
1700)
a
(
4300)
a
72
4­
Chlorophenyl
Phenyl
Ether
73
Chrysene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
74
Dibenzo(
a,
h)
Anthracene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
75
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
2700
a
17000
a
76
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
400
2600
77
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
400
2600
78
3,3'­
Dichlorobenzidine
0.04
ac
0.077
ac
79
Diethyl
Phthalate
23000
a
120000
a
80
Dimethyl
Phthalate
313000
2900000
81
Di­
n­­
Butyl
Phthalate
2700
a
12000
a
82
2,4­
Dinitrotoluene
0.11
c
9.1
c
83
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
84
Di­
n­
Octyl
Phthalate
85
1,2­
Diphenylhydrazine
0.040
ac
0.54
ac
86
Fluoranthene
300
a
370
a
87
Fluorene
1300
a
14000
a
88
Hexachlorobenzene
0.00075
ac
0.00077
ac
89
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.44
ac
50
ac
90
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
240
a
17000
aj
91
Hexachloroethane
1.9
ac
8.9
ac
92
Indeno(
1,2,3­
cd)
Pyrene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
93
Isophorone
8.4
ac
600
ac
94
Naphthalene
95
Nitrobenzene
17
a
1900
aj
96
N­
Nitrosodimethylamine
0.00069
ac
8.1
ac
97
N­
Nitrosodi­
n­
Propylamine
(
0.005)
ac
(
1.4)
ac
98
N­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
5.0
ac
16
ac
99
Phenanthrene
0.0028
c
0.031
c
100
Pyrene
960
a
11000
a
101
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
102
Aldrin
0.00013
ac
0.00014
ac
103
alpha­
BHC
0.0039
ac
0.013
ac
104
beta­
BHC
0.014
ac
0.046
ac
105
gamma­
BHC
0.019
c
0.063
c
106
delta­
BHC
107
Chlordane
0.00057
ac
0.00059
ac
108
4­
4'­
DDT
0.00059
ac
0.00059
ac
109
4,4'­
DDE
0.00059
ac
0.00059
ac
110
4,4'­
DDD
0.00083
ac
0.00084
ac
111
Dieldrin
0.00014
ac
0.00014
ac
112
alpha­
Endosulfan
0.93
a
2.0
a
113
beta­
Endosulfan
0.93
a
2.0
a
114
Endosulfan
Sulfate
0.93
a
2.0
a
115
Endrin
0.76
a
0.81
aj
116
Endrin
Aldehyde
0.76
a
0.81
aj
117
Heptachlor
0.00021
ac
0.00021
ac
118
Heptachlor
Epoxide
0.00010
ac
0.00011
ac
119
PCB­
1242
0.000044
ac
0.000045
ac
120
PCB­
1254
0.000044
ac
0.000045
ac
121
PCB­
1221
0.000044
ac
0.000045
ac
122
PCB­
1232
0.000044
ac
0.000045
ac
123
PCB­
1248
0.000044
ac
0.000045
ac
124
PCB­
1260
0.000044
ac
0.000045
ac
125
PCB­
1016
0.000044
ac
0.000045
ac
126
Toxaphene
0.00073
ac
0.00075
ac
Total
No.
of
Criteria
(
h)
=
103
102
Footnotes:
a.
Criteria
revised
to
reflect
current
agency
q1*
or
RfD,
as
contained
in
the
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS).
The
fish
tissue
bioconcentration
factor
(
BCF)
from
the
1980
criteria
documents
was
retained
in
all
cases.
Values
in
parentheses
indicate
that
no
health
based
criteria
appeared
in
the
1980
documents.
The
criteria
in
parentheses
are
not
being
proposed
today
but
are
presented
as
notice
for
inclusion
in
future
state
triennial
reviews.

b.
EPA
in
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development's
Environmental
Criteria
and
Assessment
Office
prepared
draft
updates
of
criteria
documents
for
arsenic,
copper
and
selenium
which
are
used
instead
of
IRIS
for
this
rulemaking.
Each
document
was
entitled
as
an
"
Addendum"
to
the
prior
criteria
documents.
These
documents
are
available
in
the
record
for
this
proceeding.

c.
Criteria
based
on
carcinogenicity
(
10­
6
risk).

d.
Criteria
Maximum
Concentration=
the
highest
concentration
of
a
pollutant
to
which
aquatic
life
can
be
exposed
for
a
short
period
of
time
(
1­
hour
average)
without
deleterious
effects.

Criteria
Continuous
Concentration=
the
highest
concentration
of
a
pollutant
to
which
aquatic
life
can
be
exposed
for
an
extended
period
of
time
(
4­
days)
without
deleterious
effects.

micro­
g/
L=
micrograms
per
liter
e.
Freshwater
aquatic
life
criteria
for
these
metals
are
expressed
as
a
function
of
total
hardness
(
mg/
L),
as
follows
(
where
exp
represents
the
base
e
exponential
function).
(
Values
displayed
above
in
the
matrix
correspond
to
a
total
hardness
of
100
mg/
L.)

CCC=
exp[
mC
CMC=
exp[
mA(
ln(
hardness))
(
ln(
hardness))
+
bA]
+
bC]
ma
bA
mC
bC
Cadmium
1.128
­
3.828
0.7852
­
3.490
Copper
0.9422
­
1.464
0.8545
­
1.465
Chromium
(
III)
0.8190
3.688
0.8190
1.561
Lead
1.273
­
1.460
1.273
­
4.705
Nickel
0.8460
3.3612
0.8460
1.1645
Silver
1.72
­
6.52
Zinc
0.8473
0.8604
0.8473
0.7614
f.
Freshwater
aquatic
life
criteria
for
pentachlorophenol
are
expressed
as
a
function
of
pH,
and
are
calculated
as
follows.
(
Values
displayed
above
in
the
matrix
correspond
to
a
pH
of
7.8.)
CMC=
exp(
1.005(
pH)­
4.830)
CCC=
exp(
1.005(
pH)­
5.290)
g.
Aquatic
life
criteria
for
these
compounds
were
issued
in
1980
utilizing
the
1980
Guidelines
for
criteria
development.
The
acute
values
shown
are
final
acute
values
(
FAV).
According
to
the
1980
Guidelines,
the
acute
values
were
intended
to
be
interpreted
as
instantaneous
maximum
values,
and
the
chronic
values
shown
were
interpreted
as
24­
hour
average
values.
EPA
has
not
updated
these
criteria
pursuant
to
the
1985
Guidelines.
However,
as
an
approximation,
dividing
the
final
acute
values
in
columns
B1
and
C1
by
2
yields
a
Criterion
Maximum
Concentration.
No
numeric
changes
are
required
for
columns
B2
and
C2,
and
EPA
suggests
using
these
values
directly
as
Criterion
Continuous
Concentration.

h.
These
totals
simply
sum
the
criteria
in
each
column.
For
aquatic
life,
there
are
30
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
some
type
of
freshwater
or
saltwater,
acute
or
chronic
criteria
proposed.
For
human
health,
there
are
102
priority
toxic
pollutants
with
either
"
water
+
fish"
or
"
fish
only"
criteria
proposed.
Note
that
these
totals
count
chromium
as
one
pollutant
even
though
EPA
has
developed
criteria
based
on
two
valence
states.
In
the
matrix,
EPA
has
assigned
numbers
5a
and
5b
to
the
proposed
criteria
for
chromium
to
reflect
the
fact
that
the
list
of
126
priority
toxic
pollutants
includes
only
a
single
listing
for
chromium.
Criteria
enclosed
in
parentheses
are
also
not
included
in
the
totals.

i.
Applies
to
methyl
mercury.
j.
No
criteria
for
protection
of
human
health
from
consumption
of
aquatic
organisms
(
excluding
water)
was
presented
in
the
1980
criteria
document
or
in
the
1986
Quality
Criteria
for
Water.
Nevertheless,
the
criterion
value
has
not
been
placed
in
parentheses,
because
sufficient
information
was
presented
in
the
1980
document
to
allow
a
calculation
of
a
criterion,
even
though
the
results
of
such
a
calculation
were
not
shown
in
the
document.

k.
The
criterion
for
asbestos
is
the
MCL
(
56
FR
3526,
January
30,
1991).
The
criteria
for
1,2­
dichloropropane
have
been
derived
using
MCL
(
56
FR
3526,
January
30,
1991).

General
notes:
(
1)
This
chart
lists
all
of
EPA's
priority
toxic
pollutants
whether
or
not
criteria
recommendations
are
available.
Blank
spaces
indicate
the
absence
of
criteria
recommendations.
Because
of
variations
in
chemical
nomenclature
systems,
this
listing
of
toxic
pollutants
does
not
duplicate
the
listing
in
appendix
A
of
40
CFR
part
423.
EPA
has
added
the
Chemical
Abstracts
Service
(
CAS)
registry
numbers,
which
provide
a
unique
identification
for
each
chemical.

(
2)
The
following
chemicals
have
organoleptic
based
criteria
recommendations
that
are
not
included
on
this
chart
(
for
reasons
which
are
discussed
in
the
preamble):
copper,
zinc,
chlorobenzene,
2­
chlorophenol,
2,4­
dichlorophenol,
acenaphthene,
2,4­
dimethylphenol,
3­
methyl­
4­
chlorophenol,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
pentachlorophenol,
phenol
(
3)
For
purposes
of
this
rulemaking,
freshwater
criteria
apply
at
salinity
levels
equal
to
or
less
than
1
part
per
thousand
(
ppt);
saltwater
criteria
apply
at
salinity
levels
equal
to
or
greater
than
10
ppt;
for
waters
with
salinity
between
1
and
10
ppt,
the
applicable
criteria
are
the
more
stringent
of
the
freshwater
or
saltwater
criteria.

(
c)
Applicability.
(
1)
The
criteria
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
States'
designated
uses
cited
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section
and
supersede
any
criteria
adopted
by
the
State,
except
when
State
regulations
contain
criteria
which
are
more
stringent
for
a
particular
use
in
which
case
the
State's
criteria
will
continue
to
apply;
(
2)
The
criteria
established
in
this
section
are
subject
to
the
State's
general
rules
of
applicability
in
the
same
way
and
to
the
same
extent
as
are
the
other
numeric
toxics
criteria
when
applied
to
the
same
use
classifications
including
mixing
zones,
and
low
flow
values
below
which
numeric
standards
can
be
exceeded
in
flowing
fresh
waters,
but
only
if
these
State
general
policies
have
been
reviewed
and
approved
previously
by
EPA
after
November
8,
1983.

(
i)
For
all
waters
with
approved
EPA
mixing
zone
regulations
or
implementation
procedures,
the
criteria
apply
at
the
appropriate
locations
within
or
at
the
boundary
of
the
mixing
zones;
otherwise
the
criteria
apply
throughout
the
waterbody
including
at
the
end
of
any
discharge
pipe,
canal
or
other
discharge
point.

(
ii)
A
State
shall
not
use
a
low
flow
value
below
which
numeric
standards
can
be
exceeded
that
is
less
stringent
than
the
following
for
waters
suitable
for
the
establishment
of
low
flow
return
frequencies
(
i.
e.,
streams
and
rivers):

Aquatic
Life
acute
criteria
(
CMC);
I
Q
10
or
I
B
3
chronic
criteria
(
CCC);
7
Q
10
or
4
B
3
Human
Health
non­
carcinogens;
30
Q
5
carcinogens;
harmonic
mean
flow
where:
CMC­­
criteria
maximum
concentration=
the
water
quality
criteria
to
protect
against
acute
effects
in
aquatic
life
and
is
the
highest
instream
concentration
of
a
priority
toxic
pollutant
consisting
of
a
one­
hour
average
not
to
be
exceeded
more
than
once
every
three
years
on
the
average.

CCC­­
criteria
continuous
concentration=
the
water
quality
criteria
to
protect
against
chronic
effects
in
aquatic
life
is
the
highest
instream
concentration
of
a
priority
toxic
pollutant
consisting
of
a
4­
day
average
not
to
be
exceeded
more
than
once
every
three
years
on
the
average.
1
Q
10
is
the
lowest
one
day
flow
with
an
average
recurrence
frequency
of
once
in
10
years
determined
hydrologically;
1
B
3
is
biologically
based
and
indicates
an
allowable
exceedence
of
once
every
3
years.
It
is
determined
by
EPA's
computerized
method
(
DFLOW
model);
7
Q
10
is
the
lowest
average
7
consecutive
day
low
flow
with
an
average
recurrence
frequency
of
once
in
10
years
determined
hydrologically:
4
B
3
is
biologically
based
and
indicates
an
allowable
exceedence
for
4
consecutive
days
once
every
3
years.
It
is
determined
by
EPA's
computerized
method
(
DFLOW
model);
30
Q
5
is
the
lowest
average
30
consecutive
day
low
flow
with
an
average
recurrence
frequency
of
once
in
5
years
determined
hydrologically
and,
the
harmonic
mean
flow
is
a
long
term
mean
flow
value
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
daily
flows
analyzed
by
the
sum
of
the
reciprocals
of
those
daily
flows.

(
iii)
If
a
State
does
not
have
such
a
low
flow
value
for
numeric
standards
compliance,
then
none
shall
apply
and
the
criteria
included
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section
herein
apply
at
all
flows.

(
3)
The
aquatic
life
criteria
in
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
as
follows:
(
i)
For
waters
in
which
the
salinity
is
equal
to
or
less
than
1
part
per
thousand,
the
applicable
criteria
are
the
freshwater
criteria
in
Column
B.

(
ii)
For
waters
in
which
the
salinity
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
10
parts
per
thousand,
the
applicable
criteria
are
the
saltwater
criteria
in
Column
C;
(
iii)
For
waters
in
which
the
salinity
is
between
1
and
10
parts
per
thousand,
the
applicable
criteria
are
the
more
stringent
of
the
freshwater
or
saltwater
criteria.
However,
the
Regional
Administrator
may
approve
the
use
of
alternative
criteria
if
scientifically
defensible
information
and
data
demonstrate
that
on
a
site­
specific
basis
the
biology
of
the
waterbody
is
dominated
by
freshwater
aquatic
life
and
that
freshwater
criteria
are
more
appropriate;
or
conversely,
the
biology
of
the
waterbody
is
dominated
by
saltwater
aquatic
life
and
that
saltwater
criteria
are
more
appropriate.

(
4)
Application
of
metals
criteria.
(
i)
For
purposes
of
calculating
freshwater
aquatic
life
criteria
for
metals
from
the
equations
in
footnote
(
e)
in
the
criteria
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section,
the
minimum
hardness
allowed
for
use
in
those
equations
shall
not
be
less
than
25
mg/
l,
as
calcium
carbonate,
even
if
the
actual
ambient
hardness
is
less
than
25
mg/
l
as
calcium
carbonate.
The
maximum
hardness
value
for
use
in
those
equations
shall
not
exceed
400
mg/
l
as
calcium
carbonate,
even
if
the
actual
ambient
hardness
is
greater
than
400
mg/
l
as
calcium
carbonate.

(
ii)
The
hardness
values
used
shall
be
consistent
with
the
design
discharge
conditions
established
in
pararaph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section
for
flows
and
mixing
zones.

(
d)
Criteria
for
Specific
Jurisdictions.­­(
1)
Connecticut,
Region
1
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
"
State
of
Connecticut
Water
Quality
Standards"
adopted
pursuant
to
section
22a­
426
of
the
Connecticut
General
Statutes
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
1)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:

II.
5.(
A)­­
Class
AA
Surface
Waters
II.
5.(
B)­­
Class
A
and
SA
Surface
Waters
II.
5.(
C)­­
Class
B
and
SB
Surface
Waters
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
1)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Class
AA;
Class
A;
Class
B
waters
Each
of
these
classifications
is
where
water
supply
use
is
designated
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
Column
D(
I)­­
all.
Class
B
waters
where
water
supply
use
This
classification
is
assigned
the
is
not
designated
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
Column
D(
II).
Class
SA;
Class
SB
Each
of
these
classifications
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
C(
I)­­
all.
Column
C(
ll)­­
all.
Column
D
(
II)­­
all.

(
2)
New
Hampshire,
Region
1
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
New
Hampshire
Revised
Statutes
Annotated
Chapter
149:
3
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
2)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:

149:
3.
I
Class
A
149:
3.
II
Class
B
149:
3.
III
Class
C
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
a)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Class
A;
Class
B
waters
where
water
Each
of
these
classifications
is
supply
use
is
designated
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
D
(
I)­­#
16.
Class
B
waters
where
water
supply
use
Column
D(
II)­­#
16.
is
not
designated
Class
C
(
3)
Rhode
Island,
Region
1
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Water
Quality
Regulations
for
Water
Pollution
Control
adopted
under
chapters
46­
12,
42­
17.1,
and
42­
35
of
the
General
Laws
of
Rhode
Island
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
d(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
without
exception:
6.21
Freshwater
Class
A
Class
B
Class
C
6.22
Saltwater
Class
SA
Class
SB
Class
SC
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
3)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Class
A;
Class
B
waters
where
water
These
classifications
are
assigned
supply
use
is
designated
the
criteria
in:
Column
D
(
I)­­
all.
Class
B
waters
where
water
supply
use
Each
of
these
classifications
is
is
not
designated
Class
C;
Class
SA;
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Class
SB;
Class
SC
Column
D
(
II)­­
all.

(
4)
Vermont,
Region
1
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Vermont
Water
Quality
Standards
adopted
under
the
authority
of
the
Vermont
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
(
10
V.
S.
A.,
Chapter
47)
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
4)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:

Class
A
Class
B
Class
C
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
4)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Class
A;
Class
B
waters
where
water
This
classification
is
assigned
the
supply
use
is
designated
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
Column
D(
I)­­
all.
Class
B
waters
where
water
supply
use
These
classifications
are
assigned
is
not
designated;
Class
C
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
Column
D(
II)­­
all.

(
5)
New
Jersey,
Region
2
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
New
Jersey
Administrative
Code
(
N.
J.
A.
C.)
7:
9­
4.1
et
seq.,
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards,
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:

N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9­
4.12(
c):
Class
FW2
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9­
4.12(
d):
Class
SE1
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9­
4.12(
e):
Class
SE2
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9­
4.12(
f):
Class
SE3
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9­
4.12(
g):
Class
SC
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
5)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
FW2
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
1)­­
all
except
#
102,
105,
107,
108,
111,
112,
113,
115,
117,
and
118.
Column
B(
2)­­
all
except
#
105,
107,
108,
111,
112,
113,
115,
117,
118,
119,
120,
121,
122,
123,
124,
and
125.
Column
D(
1)­­
all
except
#
4,
5a,
5b,
7,
10,
and
11.
Column
D(
2)­­
all.
SE1,
SE2,
SE3,
SC
These
classifications
are
each
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
C(
1)­­
all
except
#
102,
105,
107,
108,
111,
112,
113,
115,
117,
and
118.
Column
C(
2)­­
all
except
#
105,
107,
108,
111,
112,
113,
115,
117,
118,
119,
120,
121,
122,
123,
124,
and
125.
Column
D(
2)­­
all.

(
6)
Puerto
Rico,
Region
2
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Puerto
Rico
Water
Quality
Standards
(
promulgated
by
Resolution
Number
R­
83­
5­
2)
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
6)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception.

Article
2.2.2­­
Class
SB
Article
2.2.3­­
Class
SC
Article
2.2.4­­
Class
SD
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Class
SD
This
classification
is
assigned
criteria
in:
Column
B(
1)­­
all,
except:
10,
102,
105,
107,
108,
111,
112,
113,
115,
117,
and
126.
Column
B(
2)­­
all,
except:
105,
107,
108,
112,
113,
115,
and
117.
Column
D(
1)­­
all,
except:
4,
5a,
5b,
6,
7,
10,
11,
14,
105,
112,
113,
and
115.
Column
D(
2)­­
all,
except:
4,
5a,
5b,
10,
14,
105,
112,
113,
and
115.
Class
SB,
Class
SC
These
classifications
are
assigned
criteria
in:
Column
C(
1)­­
all,
except:
4,
5b,
7,
8,
10,
11,
13,
102,
105,
107,
108,
111,
112,
113,
115,
117,
and
126.
Column
C(
2)­­
all,
except:
4,
5b,
10,
13,
108,
112,
113,
115,
and
117.
Column
D(
2)­­
all,
except:
4,
5a,
5b,
10,
14,
105,
112,
113,
and
115.

(
7)
Virginia,
Region
3
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Virginia
Water
Quality
Standards,
VR680­
21
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
6)(
ii)
of
this
section
without
exception:

VR680­
21­
08
Classes
I­
VII
and
PWS
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
7)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Class
I
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
C(
I)­­
all.
Column
C(
ll)­­
all.
Column
D(
II)­­
all,
except
#
16.
Class
II
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
Column
C(
I)­­
all.
Column
C(
II)­­
all.
Column
D(
II)­­
all,
except
#
16.
Class
III­
VII
Each
of
these
classifications
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
Column
D(
II)­­
all,
except
#
16.
PWS
This
classification
is
assigned
the
additional
criteria
in:
Column
D(
I)­­
all,
except
#
16.

(
8)
District
of
Columbia,
Region
3
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
Chapter
11
Title
21
DCMR,
Water
Quality
Standards
of
the
District
of
Columbia
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
8)(
ii)
of
this
section
without
exception:

1101.2
Class
C
waters
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classification
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
8)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Class
C
This
classification
is
assigned
the
additional
criteria
in:
Column
B(
II)­­#
10,
118,
126.
Column
D(
I)­­#
7,
15,
16,
44,
67,
68,
79,
80,
81,
88,
114,
116,
118.
Column
D(
II)­­
all.

(
9)
Florida,
Region
4
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
Chapter
17­
301
of
the
Florida
Administrative
Code
(
i.
e.,
identified
in
Section
17­
302.600)
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
9)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:

Class
I
Class
II
Class
III
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
9)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Class
I
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Columns
B1
and
B2­­
5(
b),
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
107,
111,
115,
118,
and
126;
and
Column
D1­­
all.
Class
II;
Class
III
(
marine)
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Columns
C1
and
C2­­
2,
6,
7,
8,
9,
11,
13,
14,
111,
115,
118,
and
126;
and
Column
D2­­
all.
Class
III
(
freshwater)
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Columns
B1
and
B2­­
5(
b),
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
107,
111,
115,
118,
and
126;
and
Column
D2­­
all.

(
10)
Michigan,
Region
5
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Michigan
Department
of
Natural
Resources
Commission
General
Rules,
R
323.1043
Definitions;
A
to
N,
(
i.
e.,
identified
in
Section
(
g)
"
Designated
use")
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
10)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:
(
A)
Industrial
water
supply
(
B)
Agricultural
water
supply
(
C)
Public
water
supply
(
D)
Recreation
(
E)
Fish,
other
aquatic
life,
and
wildlife
(
F)
Navigation
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
10)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Public
water
supply
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B
(
I)­­
all,
Column
B
(
II)­­
all,
Column
D
(
I)­­
all.
All
other
designations
These
classifications
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B
(
I)­­
all,
Column
B
(
II)­­
all,
and
Column
D
(
II)­­
all.

(
11)
Arkansas,
Region
6
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classification
in
Section
4C
(
Waterbody
uses)
identified
in
Arkansas
Department
of
Pollution
Control
and
Ecology's
Regulation
No.
2
as
amended
and
entitled,
"
Regulation
Establishing
Water
Quality
Standards
for
Surface
Waters
of
the
State
of
Arkansas"
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
11)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:
(
A)
Extraordinary
Resource
Waters
(
B)
Ecologically
Sensitive
Waterbody
(
C)
Natural
and
Scenic
Waterways
(
D)
Fisheries:
(
1)
Trout
(
2)
Lakes
and
Reservoirs
(
3)
Streams
(
i)
Ozark
Highlands
Ecoregion
(
ii)
Boston
Mountains
Ecoregion
(
iii)
Arkansas
River
Valley
Ecoregion
(
iv)
Ouachita
Mountains
Ecoregion
(
v)
Typical
Gulf
Coastal
Ecoregion
(
vi)
Spring
Water­
influenced
Gulf
Coastal
Ecoregion
(
vii)
Least­
altered
Delta
Ecoregion
(
viii)
Channel­
altered
Delta
Ecoregion
Domestic
Water
Supply
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classification
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
11)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Extraordinary
resource
waters
Ecologically
sensitive
waterbody
Natural
and
scenic
waterways
Fisheries:
(
1)
Trout
(
2)
Lakes
and
reservoirs
(
3)
Streams
(
a)
Ozark
highlands
ecoregion
(
b)
Boston
mountains
ecoregion
(
c)
Arkansas
river
valley
ecoregion
(
d)
Ouachita
mountains
ecoregion
(
e)
Typical
gulf
coastal
Ecoregion
(
f)
Spring
water­
influenced
gulf
coastal
ecoregion
(
g)
Least­
altered
Delta
ecoregion
(
h)
Channel­
altered
Delta
ecoregion
These
uses
are
each
assigned
the
criteria
in
Column
B1­­#
2,
4,
5a,
5b,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
13,
14.
Column
B2­­#
2,
4,
5a,
5b,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
13,
14.
Column
D2­­
all.
Domestic
water
supply
This
use
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
D1­­
all.

(
12)
Louisiana,
Region
6
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
designations
in
the
Louisiana
Administrative
Code,
Title
33­­
Environmental
Quality,
Part
IX­­
Water
Quality
Regulations,
Chapter
11
(
i.
e.,
identified
in
Section
1111
Water
Use
Designations)
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
12)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:
(
A)
Public
Water
Supply
(
B)
Fish
and
Wildlife
Propagation
(
C)
Oyster
Propagation
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
12)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Public
water
supply
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
D(
I)­­#
16.
Fish
and
wildlife
propagation
These
classifications
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
D(
II)
#
16.
Oyster
propagation
Column
D(
II)
#
16.

(
13)
Kansas,
Region
7
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classification
in
the
Kansas
Department
of
Health
and
Environment
regulations,
K.
A.
R.
28­
16­
28b
through
K.
A.
R.
28­
16­
28f,
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
13)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception.

Section
28­
16­
28d:
Section
(
2)(
A)­­
Special
Aquatic
Life
Use
Waters
Section
(
2)(
B)­­
Expected
Aquatic
Life
Use
Waters
Section
(
2)(
C)­­
Restricted
Aquatic
Life
Use
Waters
Section
3­­
Domestic
Water
Supply
Section
(
6)(
c)­­
Consumptive
Recreation
Use.

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
is
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Sections
(
2)(
A),
(
2)(
B),
(
2)(
C),
6(
C)
These
classifications
are
each
assigned
all
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I),
except
#
9,
13,
102,
105,
107,
108,
111­
113,
115,
117,
and
126;
Column
B(
II),
except
#
9,
13,
105,
107,
108,
111­
113,
115,
117,
119­
125,
and
126;
and
Column
D(
II),
except
#
9,
10,
112,
113,
and
115.
Section
(
3)
This
classification
is
assigned
all
criteria
in:
Column
D(
I),
except
#
9,
10,
12,
112,
113,
and
115.

(
14)
Colorado,
Region
8
(
i)(
A)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Colorado
Classifications
and
Numeric
Standards
for
the
following
Basins:
(
1)
Arkansas
River
Basin­­
3.2.0
(
5CCR
1002­
8);
(
2)
Upper
Colorado
River
Basin
and
North
Platte
River
Basin
(
Planning
Region
12)­­
3.3.0
(
5CCR
1002­
8);
(
3)
San
Juan
and
Dolores
River
Basins­­
3.4.0
(
5CCR
1002­
8);
(
4)
Gunnison
and
Lower
Dolores
River
Basins­­
3.5.0
(
5CCR
1002­
8);
(
5)
Rio
Grande
River
Basin
3.6.0
(
5CCR
1002­
8);
(
6)
Lower
Colorado
Basin­­
3.7.0
(
5CCR
1002­
8);
(
7)
South
Platte
River
Basin,
Laramie
River
Basin,
Republican
River
Basin,
Smoky
Hill
River
Basin­­
3.8.0
(
5CCR
1002­
8);
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
14)(
ii)
of
this
section,
except
where
only
particular
segments
require
criteria
as
delineated
in
paragraph
(
d)(
14)(
ii)
of
this
section.

The
following
are
the
use
classifications:
(
1)
Domestic
Water
Supply
(
2)
Class
1­­
Cold
Water
Aquatic
Life
(
3)
Class
2­­
Cold
Water
Aquatic
Life
(
4)
Class
1­­
Warm
Water
Aquatic
Life
(
5)
Class
2­­
Warm
Water
Aquatic
Life
(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
in
paragraph
(
d)(
14)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Domestic
water
supply
All
waters
assigned
to
this
use
classification
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in:
Column
D(
I)­­
all
except
#
4,
5a,
5b,
6,
7,
10,
11,
22,
33,
39,
41,
44,
53,
66,
77,
90,
95,
115.
Class
1
Cold
Water
A.
L.
Class
2
Cold
Water
A.
L.
Class
1
Warm
Water
A.
L.
Class
2
Warm
Water
A.
L.
All
waters
assigned
to
these
use
classifications
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­#
10.
Column
B(
II)­­#
10.
Column
D(
II)­­
all
and
the
following
specific
segments
(
which
have
been
assigned
one
of
these
aquatic
life
uses)
are
further
assigned
the
criteria
set
forth
below.

1.
The
criteria
in:
B(
I)­­#
2,
4,
5a,
5b,
6,
7,
8,
9,
11,
13,
14;
B(
II)­­#
2,
4,
5a,
5b,
6,
7,
8,
9,
13,
14
are
assigned
to
the
following
specific
segments:
**
Basin
3.2.0
Upper
Arkansas
River
Basin:
segments
14,
26
Middle
Arkansas
River
Basin:
segments
4,
13,
18
Fountain
Creek
Basin:
segments
3a,
8
Lower
Arkansas
River
Basin:
segments
2,
6b,
13
Cimarron
River
Basin:
segment
1
**
Basin
3.3.0
Blue
River
Basin
(
14010002):
segments
5,
20
Eagle
River
Basin
(
14010003):
segment
11
North
Platte
River
Basin
(
1018001,
10180002):
segment
7
Yampa
River
Basin
(
14050001,
14050002):
segment
12
**
Basin
3.4.0
San
Juan
River
Basin:
segments
3,
10,
11
Piedra
River
Basin:
segment
6
Los
Pinos
River
Basin:
segment
6
Animas
and
Florida
River
Basin:
segment
13b
La
Plata
River,
Mancos
River,
McElmo
Creek
and
San
Juan
River
Basin
in
Montezuma
County
and
Dolores
Counties:
segments
3,
6,
8
Dolores
River
Basin:
segment
11
**
Basin
3.5.0
Upper
Gunnison
River
Basin:
segments
6b,
16,
28,
32
North
Fork
of
the
Gunnison
River
Basin:
segment
6,
10
Upcomphgre
River
Basin:
segments
10,
12
Lower
Gunnison
River
Basin:
segment
4
San
Miguel
River
Basin:
segment
12
Lower
Dolores
River
Basin:
segment
4
**
Basin
3.6.0
Rio
Grande
River
Basin:
segments
15b,
25
Closed
Basin­­
San
Luis
Valley:
segment
3
**
Basin
3.7.0
Lower
Yampa
River/
Green
River
Basin:
segments
3a,
3b,
6,
14,
17,
20
White
River
Basin:
segments
5,
9,
13a,
22
Lower
Colorado
River
Basin:
segments
11b,
11e,
13
**
Basin
3.8.0
Republican
River
Basin:
segments
6,
7
South
Platte
River
Basin
(
Region
1):
segment
2
Cache
La
Poudre
River
Basin:
segments
8,
13
Big
Thompson
River
Basin:
segments
6,
10
South
Platte
River
Basin
(
Region
2):
segment
3
St.
Vrain
Creek
Basin:
segment
6
Boulder
Creek
Basin:
segments
8,
11
Big
Dry
Creek
Basin:
segment
1
Clear
Creek
Basin:
segments
8,
16,
18
Cherry
Creek
Basin:
segment
4
South
Platte
River
Basin
(
Regions
2,
3,
4):
segments
7a,
11a,
16
South
Platte
River
Basin
(
Region
3
and
4):
segment
7
2.
The
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­#
9;
Column
B(
II)­­#
9
are
assigned
to
the
following
specific
segments:

**
Basin
3.3.0
Blue
River
Basin
(
14010002):
segment
12
**
Basin
3.4.0
Animas
and
Florida
River
Basin:
segment
15
La
Plata
River,
Mancos
River,
McElmo
Creek
and
San
Juan
River
Basin
in
Montezuma
County
and
Dolores
Counties:
segment
9
**
Basin
3.8.0
Big
Thompson
River
Basin:
segment
13
Boulder
Creek
Basin:
segments
4c,
6
Clear
Creek
Basin:
segment
12
Bear
Creek
Basin:
segments
4a,
5
South
Platte
River
Basin
(
Region
2,
3,
and
4):
segment
7b
3.
The
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­#
8;
Column
B(
II)­­#
8
are
assigned
to
the
following
specific
segments:

**
Basin
3.7.0­­
Lower
Colorado
River
Basin:
segment
4
**
Basin
3.8.0­­
South
Platte
River
Basin
(
Region
2,
3,
and
4):
segment
11b
4.
The
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­#
14;
Column
B(
II)­­#
14
are
assigned
to
the
following
specific
segment:
**
Basin
3.2.0­­
Upper
Arkansas
River
Basin:
segment
8b
5.
The
criterion
in:
Column
B(
I)­­#
11
is
assigned
to
the
following
specific
segment:
**
Basin
3.7.0­­
Lower
Colorado
River
Basin:
segment
4.

(
15)
Arizona,
Region
9
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
the
use
classifications
in
chapter
21
of
the
Arizona
Administrative
Code
(
AAC)
which
are
referred
to
in
paragraph
(
d)(
15)(
ii)
of
this
section,
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
15)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception.
These
criteria
amend
the
existing
State
standards
contained
in
chapter
21
of
the
AAC
sections
R9­
21­
101
through
304,
Water
Quality
Standards
for
Waters
of
the
State,
for
the
toxic
pollutants
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
15)(
ii)
of
this
section.
For
purposes
of
this
action,
the
specific
standards
to
be
applied
are
based
on
the
following
selected
use
designations
as
defined
in
chapter
21,
AAC
Secs.
R9­
21­
101
through
R9­
21­
304:
(
A)
DWS­­
Domestic
Water
Source
(
B)
A&
W­­
Aquatic
&
Wildlife
(
including
any
aquatic
life
designation)

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
water
and
use
classifications
defined
in
paragraph
(
d)(
15)(
i)
of
this
section
and
identified
below:

Water
and
use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Waters
of
the
State
with
A&
W
but
These
waters
are
assigned
the
without
DWS
criteria
in:
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
D2­­
all
pollutants.
Waters
of
the
State
with
A&
W
and
DWS
These
waters
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
D1­­
all
pollutants.
Waters
of
the
State
with
DWS
but
These
waters
are
assigned
the
without
A&
W
criteria
in:
Column
D1­­
all
pollutants.

(
16)
California,
Region
9
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
any
aquatic
life
or
human
health
use
classifications
in
the
Water
Quality
Control
Plans
for
the
various
Basins
of
the
State
("
Basin
Plans"),
as
amended,
adopted
by
the
California
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board
("
SWRCB"),
except
for
ocean
waters
covered
by
the
Water
Quality
Control
Plan
for
Ocean
Waters
of
California
("
Ocean
Plan")
adopted
by
the
SWRCB
with
resolution
Number
90­
27
on
March
22,
1990,
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
16)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception.
These
criteria
amend
the
portions
of
the
existing
State
standards
contained
in
the
Basin
Plans.
More
particularly
these
criteria
amend
water
quality
criteria
contained
in
the
Basin
Plan
Chapters
specifying
water
quality
objectives
(
the
State
equivalent
of
federal
water
quality
criteria)
for
the
toxic
pollutants
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
16)(
ii)
of
this
section.
Although
the
State
has
adopted
several
use
designations
for
each
of
these
waters,
for
purposes
of
this
action,
the
specific
standards
to
be
applied
in
paragraph
(
d)(
16)(
ii)
of
this
section
are
based
on
the
presence
in
all
waters
of
some
aquatic
life
designation
and
the
presence
or
absence
of
the
MUN
use
designation
(
Municipal
and
domestic
supply).
(
See
Basin
Plans
for
more
detailed
use
definitions).

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
water
&
use
classifications
defined
in
paragraph
(
d)(
16)(
i)
of
this
section
and
identified
below:

Water
and
use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Waters
of
the
state
defined
as
bays
These
waters
are
assigned
the
or
estuaries
except
the
Sacramento­
criteria
in:
San
Joaquin
Delta
and
San
Francisco
Bay
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
C1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
C2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
D2­­
all
pollutants.
Waters
of
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
These
waters
are
assigned
the
Delta
and
waters
of
the
state
criteria
in:
defined
as
inland
(
i.
e.,
all
surface
waters
of
the
state
not
bays
or
estuaries
or
ocean)
that
include
a
MUN
use
designation
except
the
San
Joaquin
River
from
the
mouth
of
the
Merced
River
to
Vernalis
and
the
Sacramento
River
and
its
tributaries
upstream
from
Hamilton
City
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
D1­­
all
pollutants.
Waters
of
the
state
defined
as
inland
These
waters
are
assigned
the
without
an
MUN
use
designation
criteria
in:
except
waters
flowing
to
Grasslands
Water
District,
San
Luis
National
Wildlife
Refuge
and
Los
Banos
State
Wildlife
Area
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
D2­­
all
pollutants.
Waters
of
the
San
Joaquin
River
from
These
waters
are
assigned
the
the
mouth
of
the
Merced
River
to
criteria
in:
Vernalis
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants
except
#
10.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
D1­­
all
pollutants
except
#
10.
Waters
of
the
Sacramento
River
and
These
wates
are
assigned
the
criteria
its
tributaries
upstream
from
in:
Hamilton
City
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants
except
#
4,
6,
13.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants
except
#
4,
6,
13.
Column
D1­­
all
pollutants
except
#
4.
Waters
flowing
to
Grasslands
Water
These
waters
are
assigned
the
District,
San
Luis
National
Wildlife
criteria
in:
Refuge,
and
Los
Banos
State
Wildlife
Area
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
D2­­
all
pollutants
except
#
10.
Waters
of
San
Francisco
Bay
These
waters
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
B2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
C1­­
all
pollutants
except
#
10.
Column
C2­­
all
pollutants
except
#
10.
Column
D2­­
all
pollutants.

(
17)
Nevada,
Region
9
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
the
use
classifications
in
chapter
445
of
the
Nevada
Administrative
Code
(
NAC),
Nevada
Water
Pollution
Control
Regulations,
which
are
referred
to
in
paragraph
(
d)(
17)(
ii),
of
this
section,
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
17)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception.
These
criteria
amend
the
existing
State
standards
contained
in
the
Nevada
Water
Pollution
Control
Regulations.
More
particularly,
these
criteria
amend
or
supplement
the
table
of
numeric
standards
in
NAC
445.1339
for
the
toxic
pollutants
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
17)(
ii)
of
this
section.

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
waters
defined
in
paragraph
(
d)(
16)(
i)
of
this
section
and
identified
below:

Water
and
use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Waters
that
the
State
has
included
in
These
waters
are
assigned
the
NAC
445.1339
where
municipal
or
criteria
in:
domestic
supply
is
a
designated
use
Column
B1­­
pollutant
#
118.
Column
B2­­
pollutant
#
118.
Column
D1­­
pollutants
15,
16,
18,
19,
20,
21,
23,
26,
27,
29,
30,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
42,
43,
55,
57­
64,
66,
73,
74,
78,
82,
85,
87­
89,
91,
92,
96,
98­
100,
103,
104,
105,
114,
116,
117,
118.
Waters
that
the
State
has
included
in
These
waters
are
assigned
the
NAC
445.1339
where
municipal
or
criteria
in:
domestic
supply
is
not
a
designated
use
Column
B1­­
pollutant
#
118.
Column
B2­­
pollutant
#
118.
Column
D2­­
all
pollutants
except
#
2.

(
18)
Hawaii,
Region
9
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
the
use
classifications
in
the
existing
State
standards
("
State
Standards")
which
are
referred
to
in
paragraph
(
d)(
18)(
ii)
of
this
section,
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
18)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception.
These
criteria
amend
the
existing
State
standards.
Specifically,
these
criteria
supplement
the
table
of
numeric
standards
for
toxic
pollutants
applicable
to
all
of
Hawaii's
waters
in
section
11­
54­
04(
b)(
3).

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
waters
defined
in
paragraph
(
d)(
18)(
i)
of
this
section
and
identified
below:

Water
and
use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Waters
of
the
State
assigned
to
These
waters
are
assigned
the
Classes
AA,
A,
1,
and
2
criteria
in:
Column
D2­­
pollutants
#
3,
8.
Waters
of
the
State
assigned
to
These
waters
are
assigned
criteria
Classes
AA
and
A
in:
Column
C1­­
pollutant
#
6.
Column
C2­­
pollutants
#
6,
7,
8.

(
19)
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Mariana
Islands,
Region
9
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
the
use
classifications
in
the
existing
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Mariana
Islands
Marine
and
Fresh
Water
Quality
Standards
("
Standards")
which
are
referred
to
in
paragraph
(
d)(
19)(
ii)
of
this
section,
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
19)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception.
These
criteria
amend
the
existing
standards.
Specifically,
these
criteria
supplement
the
table
of
numeric
standards
in
part
7.10
of
the
Standards.

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
waters
defined
in
paragraph
(
d)(
19)(
i)
of
this
section
and
identified
below:

Water
and
use
classification
Applicable
criteria
Fresh
surface
waters
of
the
These
waters
are
assigned
the
Commonwealth
assigned
to
classes
1
criteria
in:
and
2
Column
D1­­
all
pollutants.
Column
B1­­
pollutants
#
53,
108,
118.
Column
B2­­
pollutants
#
53,
108,
118.
Marine
waters
of
the
Commonwealth
to
These
waters
are
assigned
the
classes
AA
and
A.
criteria
in:
Column
D2­­
all
pollutants.
Column
C1­­
pollutants
#
53,
108,
118.
Column
C2­­
pollutants
#
53,
108,
118.

(
20)
Alaska,
Region
10
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Alaska
Administrative
Code
(
AAC),
chapter
18
(
i.
e.,
identified
in
18
AAC
70.020)
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph(
d)(
20)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:

70.020.(
1)(
A)
Fresh
water.
Water
supply.
(
i)
Drinking,
culinary,
and
food
processing,
(
ii)
Aquaculture;
70.020.(
1)(
B)
Water
recreation.
(
i)
Contact
recreation,
(
ii)
Secondary
recreation;
70.020.(
1)(
C)
Growth
and
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
other
aquatic
life,
and
wildlife.
70.020.(
2)(
A)
Marine
water.
Water
supply.
(
i)
Aquaculture,
(
ii)
Seafood
processing,
70.020.(
2)(
B)
Water
recreation.
(
i)
Contact
recreation,
(
ii)
Secondary
recreation;
70.020.(
2)(
C)
Growth
and
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
other
aquatic
life,
and
wildlife;
70.020.(
2)(
D)
Harvesting
for
consumption
of
raw
mollusks
or
other
raw
aquatic
life.

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
20)(
i)
of
this
section:
Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
(
1)(
A)
i
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
D(
I)­­#'
s
9,
10,
53.
Column
D(
I)­­
human
health
carcinogens:
#'
s
2,
3,
16,
18,
19,
20,
21,
23,
26,
27,
29,
30,
35,
36,
37,
42,
43,
44,
55,
57­
64,
66,
68,
73,
74,
78,
82,
85,
87,
88,
89,
91,
92,
96,
97,
98,
99,
100,
102­
111,
117­
126.
(
1)(
A)
iii
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Same
as
for
(
1)(
A)
i
(
above)
plus:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­#'
s
9,
10,
13,
53.
(
1)(
B)
i
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Same
as
for
(
1)(
A)
i
above.
(
1)(
B)
ii
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­#'
s
9,
10,
13,
53.
Column
D(
II)­­#'
s
9,
10,
53.
Column
D(
II)
human
health
carcinogens:
#'
s
2,
3,
16,
18,
19,
20,
21,
23,
26,
27,
29,
30,
35,
36,
37,
42,
43,
44,
55,
57­
64,
66,
68,
73,
74,
78,
82,
85,
87,
88,
89,
91,
92,
96,
97,
98,
99,
100,
102­
111,
117­
126
(
1)(
C)
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Same
as
for
(
1)(
B)(
ii).
(
2)(
A)
i
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
C(
I)­­
all.
Column
C(
ll)­­#'
s
9,
10,
13,
53.
Column
D(
II)­­#'
s
9,
10,
53.
Column
D(
II)­­
human
health
carcinogens:
#'
s
2,
3,
16,
18,
19,
20,
21,
23,
26,
27,
29,
30,
35,
36,
37,
42,
43,
44,
55,
57­
64,
66,
68,
73,
74,
78,
82,
85,
87,
88,
89,
91,
92,
96,
97,
98,
99,
100,
102­
111,
117­
126
(
2)(
A)
i
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
C(
I)­­
all.
Column
C(
ll)­­
only
for
#'
s
9,
10,
13,
53.
(
2)(
B)
i
&
ii
These
classifications
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
D(
II)
for
#'
s
9,
10,
53.
Column
D(
II)­­
human
health
carcinogens:
#'
s
2,
3,
16,
18,
19,
20,
21,
23,
26,
27,
29,
30,
35,
36,
37,
42,
43,
44,
55,
57­
64,
66,
68,
73,
74,
78,
82,
85,
87,
88,
89,
91,
92,
96,
97,
98,
99,
100,
102­
111,
117­
126.
(
2)(
C)
and
(
2)(
D)
These
classifications
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Same
as
for
(
2)(
A)
i.

(
21)
Idaho,
Region
10
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Idaho
Administrative
Procedures
Act
(
IDAPA),
chapter
16
(
i.
e.,
identified
in
IDAPA
16.01.2100,02­
16.01.2100,07)
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
21)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:

16.01.2100,02.
Domestic
Water
Supplies.
16.01.2100,03.
Cold
Water
Biota.
16.01.2100,04.
Warm
Water
Biota.
16.01.2100,05.
Salmonid
Spawning.
16.01.2100,06.
Primary
Contact
Recreation.
16.01.2100,07.
Secondary
Contact
Recreation.

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
21)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
02
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
D(
I)­­
all
except
#'
s
4,
5,
7,
10,
11,
14,
115.
03,
04
and
05
These
classifications
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
Column
D(
II)­­
all.
06
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
07
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
B(
I)­­
all.
Column
B(
II)­­
all.
Column
D(
II)­­
all.

(
22)
Washington,
Region
10
(
i)
All
waters
assigned
to
the
following
use
classifications
in
the
Washington
Administrative
Code
(
WAC),
chapter
173­
201
(
i.
e.,
identified
in
WAC
173­
201­
045)
are
subject
to
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
22)(
ii)
of
this
section,
without
exception:

173­
201­
045.
Class
AA
water
supplies.
Class
A.
Class
B.
Class
C.
Lake
class.

(
ii)
The
following
criteria
from
the
matrix
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
use
classifications
identified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
22)(
i)
of
this
section:

Use
classification
Applicable
criteria
AA
and
A
These
classifications
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Column
D(
I)­­
all.
Column
D(
II)­­
all.
Columns
B(
I),
B(
II),
C(
I),
and
C(
II):
all
except
#'
s
4,
5a&
b,
7,
8,
9,
11,
13,
53,
108,
109,
110,
115,
117,
119­
126
B
and
C
These
classifications
are
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Same
as
for
AA
and
A
except
do
not
include
Column
D(
I).
Lake
class
This
classification
is
assigned
the
criteria
in:
Same
as
for
AA
and
A
except
do
not
include
Columns
C(
I),
C(
ll)
or
D(
I).

(
Note.­­
The
following
appendix
will
not
appear
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations.)

Appendix
to
Preamble
of
Today's
Proposal
I.
Introduction
The
purpose
of
this
appendix
is
to
provide
background
information
and
further
explanation
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking.
Two
major
topics
are
discussed.
The
first
topic
concerns
the
detailed
assumptions
and
rules
followed
by
EPA
in
writing
the
State­
specific
proposed
regulatory
requirements
(
i.
e.,
the
water
quality
uses
and
criteria)
contained
in
proposed
section
Sec.
131.36(
d).
The
second
topic
concerns
EPA's
rationale
for
proposing
the
Sec.
131.36(
d)
requirements.
Separate,
customized
rationales
are
provided
for
each
jurisdiction
included
in
the
water
quality
standards
program
(
i.
e.,
as
defined
by
40
CFR
131.3(
j)).

II.
Assumptions
and
Rules
Followed
by
EPA
in
Writing
the
Proposed
Section
131.36(
d)
Requirements
for
all
Jurisdictions
The
"
rules"
followed
by
EPA
in
writing
the
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
d)
requirements
for
all
jurisdictions
are
as
follows:
1.
No
criteria
are
proposed
for
States
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
EPA
as
complying
with
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements.

2.
For
States
which
have
not
been
fully
approved,
if
EPA
has
not
previously
determined
which
specific
pollutants/
criteria/
waterbodies
are
lacking
from
a
State's
standards
(
i.
e.,
as
part
of
an
approval/
disapproval
action
only),
all
of
the
criteria
in
Columns
B,
C,
and
D
of
the
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
matrix
are
proposed
for
statewide
application
to
all
appropriate
designated
uses,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules.
That
is,
EPA
proposes
to
bring
the
State
into
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
via
an
approach
which
is
comparable
to
option
1
of
the
December
1988
national
guidance
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

3.
If
EPA
has
previously
determined
which
specific
pollutants/
criteria/
waterbodies
are
needed
to
comply
with
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
(
i.
e.,
as
part
of
an
approval/
disapproval
action
only),
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
proposed
for
only
those
specific
pollutants/
criteria/
waterbodies
(
i.
e.,
EPA
proposes
to
bring
the
State
into
compliance
via
an
approach
which
is
comparable
to
option
2
of
the
December
1988
national
guidance
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)).

4.
For
aquatic
life,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules,
all
waters
with
designated
aquatic
life
uses
providing
even
minimal
support
to
aquatic
life
are
included
in
the
proposed
rule
(
i.
e.,
fish
survival,
marginal
aquatic
life,
etc.).

5(
a).
For
human
health,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules,
all
waters
with
designated
uses
providing
for
public
water
supply
protection
(
and
therefore
a
potential
water
consumption
exposure
route)
or
minimal
aquatic
life
protection
(
and
therefore
a
potential
fish
consumption
exposure
route)
are
included
in
the
proposed
rule.

5(
b).
Where
a
State
has
determined
the
specific
aquatic
life
segments
which
provide
a
fish
consumption
exposure
route
(
i.
e.,
fish
or
other
aquatic
life
are
being
caught
and
consumed)
and
EPA
approved
this
determination
as
part
of
a
standards
approval/
disapproval
action,
the
proposed
rule
includes
the
fish
consumption
(
Column
D(
II))
criteria
for
only
those
aquatic
life
segments,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules.
In
making
a
determination
that
certain
segments
do
not
support
a
fish
consumption
exposure
route,
a
State
must
complete
and
EPA
must
have
previously
approved,
a
use
attainability
analysis
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
131.10(
j).
In
the
absence
of
such
an
approved
State
determination,
EPA
has
proposed
fish
consumption
criteria
for
all
aquatic
life
segments.

6.
Uses/
Classes
other
than
those
which
support
aquatic
life
or
human
health
are
not
included
in
the
proposed
rulemaking
(
e.
g.,
livestock
watering,
industrial
water
supply),
unless
they
are
defined
in
the
State
standards
as
also
providing
protection
to
aquatic
life
or
human
health
(
i.
e.,
unless
they
are
described
as
protecting
multiple
uses
including
aquatic
life
or
human
health).
For
example,
if
the
State
standards
include
a
use
such
as
industrial
water
supply,
and
in
the
narrative
description
of
the
use
the
State
standards
indicate
that
the
use
includes
protection
for
resident
aquatic
life,
then
this
use
is
included
in
the
proposed
rulemaking.

7.
For
human
health,
the
"
water
+
fish"
criteria
in
Column
D(
I)
of
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
proposed
for
all
waterbodies
where
public
water
supply
and
aquatic
life
uses
are
designated,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules
(
e.
g.,
rule
9).

8.
If
the
State
has
public
water
supplies
where
aquatic
life
uses
have
not
been
designated,
or
public
water
supplies
that
have
been
determined
not
to
provide
a
potential
fish
consumption
exposure
pathway,
the
"
water
+
fish"
criteria
in
Column
D(
I)
of
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
proposed
for
such
waterbodies,
except
as
provided
for
elsewhere
in
these
rules
(
e.
g.,
rule
9).

9.
EPA
is
generally
not
proposing
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
a
State
has
adopted
criteria
and
received
EPA
approval.
The
exceptions
to
this
general
rule
are
described
in
rules
10
and
11.

10.
For
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
the
State
has
adopted
human
health
criteria
and
received
EPA
approval,
but
such
criteria
do
not
fully
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements,
the
proposed
rule
includes
human
health
criteria
for
such
pollutants.
For
example,
consider
a
case
where
a
State
has
a
water
supply
segment
that
poses
an
exposure
risk
to
human
health
from
both
water
and
fish
consumption.
If
the
State
has
adopted,
and
received
approval
for,
human
health
criteria
based
on
water
consumption
only
(
e.
g.,
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Maximum
Contaminant
Levels
(
MCLs))
which
are
less
stringent
than
the
"
water
+
fish"
criteria
in
Column
D(
I)
of
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b),
the
Column
D(
I)
criteria
are
proposed
for
those
water
supply
segments.
The
rationale
for
this
is
to
ensure
that
both
water
and
fish
consumption
exposure
pathways
are
adequately
addressed
and
human
health
is
fully
protected.
If
the
State
has
adopted
water
consumption
only
criteria
which
are
more
stringent
or
equal
to
the
Column
D(
I)
criteria,
the
"
water
+
fish"
criteria
in
Column
D(
I)
criteria
are
not
proposed.
11.
For
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
the
State
has
adopted
aquatic
life
criteria
and
received
EPA
approval,
but
such
criteria
do
not
fully
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements,
the
proposed
rule
includes
aquatic
life
criteria
for
such
pollutants
(
e.
g.,
because
previously
approved
State
criteria
do
not
reflect
current
science
contained
in
revised
criteria
documents
and
other
guidance
sufficient
to
protect
all
designated
uses
or
human
health
exposure
pathways).
For
example,
if
the
State
has
adopted
notto
be­
exceeded
aquatic
life
criteria
which
are
less
stringent
than
the
4­
day
average
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
in
Sec.
131.36(
b)
(
i.
e.,
in
Columns
B(
II)
and
C(
II)),
the
acute
and
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
in
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
proposed
for
those
pollutants.
The
rationale
for
this
is
that
the
State­
adopted
criteria
do
not
protect
resident
aquatic
life
from
both
acute
and
chronic
effects,
and
that
federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
fully
protect
aquatic
life
designated
uses.
If
the
State
has
adopted
not­
to­
be­
exceeded
aquatic
life
criteria
which
are
more
stringent
or
equal
to
the
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
in
Sec.
131.36(
b),
the
acute
and
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
in
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
not
proposed
for
those
pollutants.

12.
Under
certain
conditions
discussed
in
rules
9,
10,
and
11,
criteria
listed
in
Sec.
131.36(
b)
are
not
proposed
for
specific
pollutants;
however,
EPA
made
such
exceptions
only
for
pollutants
for
which
criteria
have
been
adopted
by
the
State
and
approved
by
EPA,
where
such
criteria
are
currently
effective
under
State
law
and
fully
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements.

III.
State­
by­
State
Summary
Information
and
Rationale
EPA's
jurisdiction­
specific
rationale
for
the
Sec.
131.36(
d)
requirements
is
described
below.
In
addition,
all
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
d)
requirements
conform
to
the
rules
specified
in
the
previous
section
of
this
appendix.

Region
1
Connecticut
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
the
State
has
not
adopted
any
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
either
before
or
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Connecticut's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows.

­­
August,
1990.
Draft
WQS
revisions
were
submitted
to
EPA
by
the
State.
In
this
draft
revision
the
State
proposed
adopting
criteria
for
all
priority
pollutants
for
fresh
water
aquatic
life
and
human
health
protection.
No
criteria
were
proposed
for
marine
waters.
­­
December,
1990.
EPA
Region
I
notified
Connecticut
that
adoption
of
criteria
for
marine
waters
is
necessary
to
achieve
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
Section
304(
1)
short
list
for
which
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved.
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
34
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.
­­
Long
Island
Sound
study
conducted
as
part
of
the
National
Estuaries
Program
which
indicates
presence
of
priority
pollutants
in
Long
Island
Sound.

Maine
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
June
1990.
Legislative
adoption
of
all
EPA
issued
section
304(
a)(
1)
criteria
by
reference.
­­
December
20,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
adopted
State
criteria.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Maine
in
June
of
1990
as
being
consistent
with
option
1
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Massachusetts
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

Massachusetts'
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Massachusetts
adopted
revised
standards
on
July
23,
1990.
The
State
adopted
the
section
304(
a)(
1)
criteria
for
aquatic
life
protection
in
fresh
and
marine
waters.
­­
Massachusetts
toxicity
control
policy
adopted
with
the
standards
incorporates
a
10­
6
risk
level.
­­
December
20,
1990.
EPA
fully
approved
the
Massachusetts
toxics
criteria
as
fully
satisfying
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Massachusetts
as
being
consistent
with
option
l
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

New
Hampshire
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

New
Hampshire's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
August
1990.
The
State
adopted
water
quality
standards
revisions
following
an
option
1
approach
using
EPA
national
criteria
for
all
pollutants.
New
Hampshire
used
a
10­
6
risk
assumption
for
human
health
protection
for
all
pollutants
except
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
for
which
a
risk
level
of
10­
5
was
assumed.
­­
December
19,
1990.
The
revised
toxics
criteria
adopted
by
the
State
were
approved
with
the
exception
of
the
human
health
criteria
for
dioxin,
which
was
disapproved.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
126
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
data
base
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
data
base.

Rhode
Island
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
has
completed
a
review
and
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Rhode
Island's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
October
1989.
The
State
adopted
revised
WQS
incorporating
an
option
1
approach
for
all
section
304(
a)(
1)
criteria
for
aquatic
life
protection
in
fresh
and
marine
waters.
No
criteria
were
adopted
for
the
protection
of
human
health.
­­
March
30,
1989.
EPA
approved
the
water
quality
standards
and
informed
Rhode
Island
that
to
come
into
full
compliance
with
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
that
the
State
would
have
to
adopt
human
health
criteria.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
section
304(
1)
short
list
for
which
State
toxics
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved.
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
an
as
yet
undetermined
number
of
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.
­­
Superfund
monitoring
data
indicating
presence
of
priority
pollutants
at
hazardous
waste
sites
that
may
enter
surface
water
through
surface
drainage
and
ground
water
migration.
­­
The
Narragansett
Bay
Study
conducted
under
the
National
Estuaries
Program
which
indicated
presence
of
priority
pollutants
in
fish
and
shellfish
tissue.

Vermont
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
the
State
has
not
adopted
any
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
either
before
or
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Vermont's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
April
1990.
Vermont
proposed
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
following
an
option
1
approach
for
all
Section
304(
a)(
1)
pollutants
for
aquatic
life
and
human
health
protection.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
126
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.
Region
2
New
Jersey
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
has
not
completed
a
review/
revision
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

New
Jersey
adopted
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
prior
to
passage
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
on
April
29,
1985
(
N.
J.
A.
C
7:
9­
4.1
et
seq.).
EPA
approved
these
criteria
on
July
8,
1985.
Some
of
these
criteria
are
not
affected
by
today's
proposed
rulemaking.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
June
20,
1988:
the
State
published
a
public
notice
of
proposed
revisions
to
the
State
Surface
Water
Quality
Regulation,
including
new
numeric
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
­­
July
14,
1989:
The
State
adopted
revisions
to
the
State
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation.
Numeric
criteria
were
not
included
in
the
adopted
revisions.
­­
July
16,
1990:
The
State
informed
EPA
that
it
would
be
proposing
numeric
criteria
for
all
EPA
priority
pollutants.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
section
304(
1)
list
for
which
appropriate
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
metals.
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
16
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.
­­
Correspondence
from
the
State
indicating
that
the
adoption
of
criteria
for
all
EPA
priority
pollutants
would
be
proposed
for
adoption.

Puerto
Rico
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
has
not
completed
a
review/
revision
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Puerto
Rico
adopted
criteria
for
some
priority
pollutants
prior
to
passage
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
on
February
28,
1983
(
Puerto
Rico
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation,
as
amended,
promulgated
by
Environmental
Quality
Board
Resolution
Number
R­
83­
5­
2).
Some
of
these
criteria
are
not
affected
by
today's
proposed
rulemaking.

Puerto
Rico's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
March
15,
1990:
The
Commonwealth
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review
prior
to
issuing
proposed
standards
for
public
comment.
­­
May
2­
3,
1990
and
July
12­
13,
1990:
The
Commonwealth
held
public
hearings
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
Commonwealth
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
Puerto
Rico's
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
Commonwealth
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
231.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
Commonwealth
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
Commonwealth
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
Commonwealth
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
Commonwealth
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
Puerto
Rico's
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
Puerto
Rico's
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
Commonwealth's
section
304(
l)
short
list
for
which
appropriate
state
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
metals
and
organic
compounds.
­­
The
Commonwealth's
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
Commonwealth
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
9
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
Commonwealth's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
Commonwealth's
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
Commonwealth
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
Commonwealth
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.
­­
Previously
proposed
revisions
to
Puerto
Rico's
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
indicating
that
numeric
criteria
for
additional
priority
pollutants
are
necessary.

New
York
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
water
quality
standards
which
meet
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
State
has
met
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Act
through
a
combined
Option
2
and
Option
3
approach,
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
document.

State
actions
in
response
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
requirement
to
adopt
criteria
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
September
1985:
The
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
95
substances
or
classes
of
substances,
including
aquatic
life
and/
or
human
health
criteria.
The
State
also
adopted
procedures,
in
regulation,
for
developing
both
aquatic
life
and
human
health
based
criteria.
The
procedures
are
used
for
developing
the
numeric
criteria
in
the
standards
as
well
as
for
developing
guidance
values
to
be
used
for
all
purposes
for
which
numeric
criteria
are
used.
The
State
has
applied
these
procedures
to
develop
aquatic
life
or
human
health
based
criteria
for
a
total
of
2l5
substances
or
classes
of
substances.

­­
September
30,
1985:
EPA
approved
the
State
Water
Quality
Standards
submittal.
­­
June
8,
1990:
EPA
approved
State
section
304(
l)
lists.
No
segments
were
included
on
the
"
short
list"
under
Section
304(
l)
due
to
the
presence
of
EPA
priority
pollutants
for
which
the
State
did
not
have
either
a
numeric
criterion
or
derived
guidance
value.
­­
New
York
State
had
begun
a
triennial
review
prior
to
the
1987
amendments
to
the
Clean
Water
Act.
A
notice
of
a
public
hearing
and
public
information
meetings
was
issued
on
May
25,
1990.
The
State
has
proposed
the
adoption
of
a
limited
number
of
aquatic
life
and
human
health
based
criteria
for
EPA
priority
pollutants.
Public
hearings
and
meetings
were
conducted
in
August
1990.
A
number
of
the
proposed
aquatic
life
and
human
based
criteria
were
formerly
included
as
guidance
values.
The
State
may
be
expected
to
convert
additional
guidance
values
during
the
next
triennial
review.

EPA
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
New
York
on
September
27,
1990,
as
being
consistent
with
options
2
and
3
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.
In
this
letter,
EPA
directed
the
State
to
adequately
address
three
issues:
the
need
for
greater
public
participation
in
the
use
of
guidance
values;
the
need
for
additional
bioconcentration/
bioaccumulation­
based
criteria
and
guidance
values;
and
participation
in
the
process
to
identify
appropriate
water
quality
criteria
for
use
in
developing
TMDLs/
WLAs
for
the
waters
of
the
New
York/
New
Jersey
Harbor
Complex.
EPA
believes
that
the
State
has
established
standards
which
include,
or
provide
for
the
derivation
of,
numeric
criteria
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses".

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.
The
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands
has
not
been
included
in
today's
rulemaking.
No
EPA
priority
pollutants
have
been
identified
as
impairing
designated
uses
in
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands
through
water
quality
monitoring
and
assessment
activities.
Further,
EPA
believes
that
there
are
no
priority
toxic
pollutants
present
or
discharged
to
surface
waters
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses."
The
following
information
supports
EPA's
conclusion:
­­
June
4,
1989:
The
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands
submitted
lists
of
impaired
waters
pursuant
to
section
304(
l).
No
waters
were
included
on
the
section
304(
l)
"
short
list."
No
EPA
priority
pollutants
were
identified
as
impairing
uses
on
other
section
304(
l)
lists.
­­
May
9,
1990:
EPA
approved
section
304(
l)
lists
submitted
by
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands.

EPA
has
determined
that
the
Water
Quality
Standards
of
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands
fully
meet
the
requirements
of
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
C)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Region
3
Virginia
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
such
criteria
are
not
mandatory
in
application
and,
furthermore,
the
State
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement.
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
September
29,
1987.
The
State
Water
Control
Board
adopted
a
resolution
to
adopt
numerical
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
immediately
after
EPA
issuance
of
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance.
­­
November
29,
1988.
The
State
held
a
public
meeting
to
receive
comments
on
the
adoption
of
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
­­
December
30,
1988.
EPA
sent
the
State
final
"
Guidance
for
State
Implementation
of
Water
Quality
Standards
for
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)."
­­
January
10,
1989.
EPA
submitted
formal
comments
from
the
public
meeting.
­­
October
23,
1989.
Virginia
requested
EPA
to
submit
recommendations
for
its
triennial
review.
­­
November
21,
1989.
EPA
responded
to
Virginia's
request
for
triennial
review
recommendations.
­­
December
14,
1989.
Virginia
began
public
meetings
to
receive
comments
on
issues
to
be
included
in
the
triennial
review.
­­
February
12,
1990.
Virginia
began
public
hearings
on
a
water
quality
standard
for
dioxin.
­­
February
16,
1990.
EPA
informed
the
State
of
EPA's
intent
to
include
the
State
in
the
national
rule
to
promulgate
numeric
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
those
States
which
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
March
5,
1990.
EPA
submitted
comments
on
Virginia's
proposed
dioxin
standard.
­­
April
9,
1990.
The
EPA
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Water
informed
the
State
that
it
was
going
to
be
included
in
a
proposed
national
rule
to
establish
numeric,
surface
water
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
designed
to
bring
all
States
into
full
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
July
25,
1990.
Virginia
began
public
hearings
on
proposed
water
quality
standards,
including
criteria
for
toxics.
­­
August
7,
1990.
EPA
submitted
comments
on
Virginia's
proposed
standards.
­­
August
17,
1990.
Virginia
reproposed
changes
to
the
water
quality
standards
for
public
comment.
­­
September
14,
1990.
EPA
submitted
comments
on
the
revisions
to
the
proposed
water
quality
standards.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
section
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
section
304(
l)
short
list
for
which
mandatory
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved.
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
adopted
a
human
health
criterion
for
dioxin
and
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
67
other
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.

Delaware
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
December
30,
1988.
EPA
sent
the
State
final
"
Guidance
for
State
Implementation
of
Water
Quality
Standards
for
CWA
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)."
­­
November
18,
1988.
First
draft
revisions
to
water
quality
standards,
including
toxics.
­­
January
25,
1989.
Second
draft
revisions
to
water
quality
standards.
­­
March
1,
1989.
Third
draft
revisions
to
standards.
­­
June
1,
1989.
Workshop
draft
of
water
quality
standards,
including
development
documents.
­­
June
12,
1989.
Delaware
began
public
workshops
on
standards
revisions.
­­
July
10,
1989.
EPA
provided
preliminary
comments
on
the
workshop
draft
revisions.
­­
July
28,
1989.
Delaware
submitted
revised
standards
for
EPA
review.
­­
September
6,
1989.
Delaware
held
a
public
hearing
on
the
triennial
review
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
September
6,
1989.
EPA
provided
comments
at
the
public
hearing.
­­
February
2,
1990.
Delaware
adopted
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
February
5,
1990.
Delaware
submitted
revised
standards
to
EPA.
­­
February
16,
1990.
EPA
informed
the
State
of
EPA's
intent
to
include
the
State
in
the
national
rule
to
promulgate
numeric
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
those
States
which
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
March
13,
1990.
Delaware
completed
a
responsiveness
summary
for
its
standards
review.
­­
March
21,
1990.
Delaware's
Attorney
General
certified
the
revised
standards.
­­
April
9,
1990.
The
EPA
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Water
informed
the
State
that
it
was
going
to
be
included
in
a
proposed
national
rule
to
establish
numeric,
surface
water
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
designed
to
bring
all
States
into
full
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
August
24,
1990.
EPA
approved
Delaware's
revised
standards
for
toxics.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Delaware
on
February
2,
1990
as
being
consistent
with
option
2
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.
As
part
of
its
submittal
of
revised
standards
for
EPA
review,
the
State
included
information
which
demonstrated
that
numeric
criteria
had
been
adopted
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses."
If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Maryland
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking,
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
C)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
approval
for
the
criteria
portion
of
the
water
quality
standards.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
C)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
December
30,
1988.
EPA
sent
the
State
final
"
Guidance
for
State
Implementation
of
Water
Quality
Standards
for
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)."
­­
February
16,
1990.
EPA
informed
the
State
of
EPA's
intent
to
include
the
State
in
the
national
rule
to
promulgate
numeric
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
those
States
which
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
March
21,
1990.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
April
9,
1990.
The
EPA
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Water
informed
the
State
that
it
was
going
to
be
included
in
a
proposed
national
rule
to
establish
numeric,
surface
water
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
designed
to
bring
all
States
into
full
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
April
30,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
May
4,
1990.
The
State
proposed
in
the
Maryland
Register
to
adopt
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs)
for
selenium
and
silver
as
drinking
water
criteria,
which
corrects
a
printing
error
resulting
in
the
criteria
being
placed
in
the
wrong
column
in
the
regulations
proposed
on
November
3,
1989.
­­
June
12,
1990.
Maryland
submitted
for
EPA
review
the
public
hearing
record
for
the
toxic
substances
regulations
proposed
November
3,
1989.
­­
September
12,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
revised
State
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

EPA
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Maryland
on
March
21,
1990,
as
being
consistent
with
option
2
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.
As
part
of
its
submittal
of
final
revised
standards
for
EPA
review,
the
State
included
information
which
demonstrated
that
numeric
criteria
had
been
adopted
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses".
If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Pennsylvania
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
a
translator
procedure
to
derive
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
August
26,
1987.
The
State
submitted
to
EPA
a
proposed
list
of
issues
to
be
addressed
during
the
triennial
water
quality
standards
review.
­­
April
5,
1988.
EPA
submitted
comments
on
the
draft
proposed
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
June
16,
1988.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions,
at
which
EPA
provided
verbal
testimony.
­­
June
20,
1988.
EPA
submitted
written
comments
to
the
State
regarding
the
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
November
15,
1988.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
a
translator
procedure
(
option
3)
for
deriving
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
December
30,
1988.
EPA
sent
the
State
final
"
Guidance
for
State
Implementation
of
Water
Quality
Standards
for
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)."
­­
April
17,
1989.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
July
21,
1989.
EPA
requested
clarification
on
the
enforceability
of
the
procedure
adopted
to
derive
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
July
28,
1989.
The
State
responded
to
EPA's
clarification
request.
­­
September
29,
1989.
EPA
conditionally
approved
the
State's
water
quality
standards
due
to
concerns
regarding
the
enforceability
and
public
participation
of
the
translator
procedure
and
the
derived
criteria.
­­
November
15,
1989.
The
State
responded
to
EPA's
conditional
approval.
­­
January
18,
1990.
EPA
requested
additional
clarification
regarding
the
State's
response
to
the
conditional
approval.
­­
February
16,
1990.
EPA
informed
the
State
of
EPA's
intent
to
develop
a
national
rule
to
promulgate
numeric
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
those
States
which
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
February
20,
1990.
The
State
provided
additional
clarification,
in
response
to
EPA's
January
18,
1990,
letter.
­­
April
9,
1990.
The
EPA
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Water
informed
the
State
that
it
was
going
to
be
included
in
a
proposed
national
rule
to
establish
numeric,
surface
water
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
designed
to
bring
all
States
into
full
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
April
11,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
translator
procedure
for
developing
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

EPA
fully
approved
the
procedure
for
developing
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
was
adopted
by
Pennsylvania
on
November
15,
1988
as
being
consistent
with
option
3
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

West
Virginia
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposal
because
the
State
has
adopted
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement
and
will
receive
full
EPA
approval
by
September
13,
1990.
The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
June
23,
1988.
The
State
submitted
a
draft
list
of
toxic
pollutants
for
criteria
development
to
EPA
for
review
prior
to
issuing
proposed
standards
for
public
comment.
­­
July
25,
1988.
EPA
provided
written
comments
on
the
draft
list
of
toxic
pollutants
for
criteria
development.
­­
September
12,
1988.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions,
at
which
EPA
provided
verbal
testimony.
­­
September
21,
1988.
EPA
provided
written
comments
on
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
October
18,
1988.
The
State
submitted
proposed
revisions
to
EPA
for
review
and
approval.
­­
December
30,
1988.
EPA
sent
the
State
final
"
Guidance
for
State
Implementation
of
Water
Quality
Standards
for
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)."
­­
April
27,
1989.
The
State
adopted
final
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
September
29,
1989.
EPA
disapproved
criteria
for
seven
priority
pollutants.
Aquatic
life
criteria
were
disapproved
for
arsenic,
cadmium,
mercury,
nickel,
lead,
selenium,
and
silver.
Human
health
criteria
were
disapproved
for
arsenic,
mercury
and
nickel.
In
addition,
EPA
disapproved
site­
specific
toxics
criteria
(
cyanide,
hexavalent
chromium,
and
copper)
for
two
waterbody
segments
(
Little
Scary
Creek
and
Turkey
Run).
­­
November
13,
1989.
The
State
responded
to
EPA's
disapproval
of
the
final
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
January
30,
1990.
The
State
sent
a
letter
to
EPA
which
stated
that
the
permittee
discharging
to
Turkey
Run
was
relocating
its
outfall
to
another
water
body.
­­
January
31,
1990.
EPA
responded
to
the
State's
November
13,
1989
reply
to
EPA's
disapproval
of
the
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
February
16,
1990.
EPA
informed
the
State
of
EPA's
intent
to
develop
a
national
rule
to
promulgate
numeric
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
those
States
which
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
March
12,
1990.
EPA
granted
the
State
an
extension
to
address
EPA's
disapproval.
­­
April
9,
1990.
The
EPA
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Water
informed
the
State
that
it
was
going
to
be
included
in
a
proposed
national
rule
to
establish
numeric,
surface
water
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
designed
to
bring
all
States
into
full
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
April
1990.
The
State
submitted
rejustification
for
a
disapproved
site­
specific
criterion
for
copper.
­­
June
13,
1990.
The
State
submitted
emergency
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards
to
address
EPA's
disapproval.
­­
July
16,
1990.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
its
emergency
rulemaking,
at
which
EPA
provided
verbal
testimony.
­­
July
25,
1990.
The
State
submitted
comments
received
on
the
standards
revisions
by
industrial
representatives
and
requested
EPA's
reaction
to
the
comments.
­­
July
27,
1990.
EPA
held
a
conference
call
with
the
State
and
discharger
to
Little
Scary
Creek
to
discuss
the
site­
specific
copper
criteria
rejustification
submitted
in
April,
1990.
­­
August
2,
1990.
EPA
sent
the
State
recommended
revised
site­
specific
copper
criteria
for
Little
Scary
Creek.
­­
August
13,
1990.
EPA
replied
to
the
State's
July
25,
1990
request
to
respond
to
comments
received
by
industrial
representatives.
­­
August
20,
1990.
The
State
adopted
final
emergency
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards
to
address
EPA's
remaining
concerns.
­­
August
27,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
final
emergency
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
September
18,
1990.
EPA
fully
approved
the
State's
revised
State
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
West
Virginia
on
August
20,
1990
as
being
consistent
with
option
2
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.
As
part
of
its
submittal
of
final
revised
standards
for
EPA
review,
the
State
included
information
which
demonstrated
that
numeric
criteria
had
been
adopted
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses."
If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

The
District
of
Columbia
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
District
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
most
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
District
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
and
some
criteria
need
to
be
revised
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
District
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

On
August
26,
1985,
prior
to
the
passage
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
the
District
of
Columbia
adopted
under
emergency
powers
some
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
chapter
11
of
title
21
DCMR,
"
Water
Quality
Standards
of
the
District
of
Columbia."
EPA
approved
these
criteria
on
October
31,
1985.
The
District
made
the
emergency
rules
final
on
December
27,
1985.

The
District's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
August
26,
1988.
EPA
sent
comments
to
the
District
as
to
what
issues
should
be
addressed
for
the
upcoming
triennial
water
quality
standards
review.
­­
December
30,
1988.
EPA
sent
the
State
final
"
Guidance
for
State
Implementation
of
Water
Quality
Standards
for
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)."
­­
February
15,
1989.
The
District
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review
prior
to
issuing
proposed
standards
for
public
comment.
­­
May
30,
1989.
EPA
sent
the
District
a
letter
which
emphasized
the
need
for
expediting
the
triennial
water
quality
standards
review.
­­
June
26,
1989.
The
District
submitted
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review.
­­
July
5,
1989.
The
District
held
a
public
hearing
on
the
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
September
15,
1989.
The
District
submitted
revised
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review.
­­
September
25,
1989.
EPA
submitted
comments
on
the
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions
and
indicated
that
the
District
must
adopt
human
health
criteria
for
the
consumption
of
fish.
­­
October
3,
1989.
The
District
responded
to
EPA's
comments.
­­
November
3,
1989.
EPA
provided
additional
comments
on
the
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
December
11,
1989.
EPA
telephoned
the
District
to
inquire
about
a
response
to
EPA's
November
3,
1989,
letter
and
the
status
of
the
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
February
16,
1990.
EPA
informed
the
District
of
EPA's
intent
to
develop
a
national
rule
to
promulgate
numeric
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
those
States
which
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
April
9,
1990.
The
EPA
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Water
informed
the
State
that
it
was
going
to
be
included
in
a
proposed
national
rule
to
establish
numeric,
surface
water
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
designed
to
bring
all
States
into
full
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
September
7,
1990.
The
District
public
noticed
for
comment
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
October
5,
1990.
EPA
submitted
comments
on
the
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.

The
District
has
adopted
aquatic
life
criteria
for
120
priority
toxic
pollutants
and
human
health
criteria
for
107
priority
toxic
pollutants.
The
aquatic
life
criteria
for
two
of
the
pollutants
(
selenium
and
toxaphene)
and
the
human
health
criterion
for
one
of
the
pollutants
(
hexachlorobenzene)
exceed
EPA's
section
304(
a)(
1)
criteria
recommendations.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
revised
criteria
for
these
pollutants
are
necessary.
The
District
did
not
adopt
human
health
criteria
applicable
to
public
water
supplies
for
nine
priority
toxic
pollutants
(
lead,
asbestos,
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin,
vinyl
chloride,
bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether,
bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
phthalate,
diethyl
phthalate,
dimethyl
phthalate,
and
di­
n­
butyl
phthalate)
and
has
not
provided
justification
that
the
discharge
or
presence
of
these
pollutants
cannot
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses
in
the
District's
surface
waters.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
human
health
criteria
for
the
consumption
of
water
are
necessary
for
these
pollutants.

The
District
has
not
adopted
any
criteria
for
the
protection
of
humans
from
the
consumption
of
fish.
Since
the
District's
1989
State
Clean
Water
Strategy
identifies
that
fishing
does
occur
on
District
waters,
EPA
believes
it
is
necessary
to
propose
human
health
criteria
for
fish
consumption
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
issued
section
304(
a)(
1)
criteria
recommendations.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
12
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.

Region
4
Alabama
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
January
24,
1990.
The
Alabama
Environmental
Management
Commission
adopted
the
triennial
review
of
water
quality
standards.
­­
May
23,
1990.
The
State
Attorney
General
notified
EPA
that
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
would
not
be
certified.
­­
June
1,
1990.
The
State
sent
EPA
a
copy
of
the
revised
standards
without
a
request
for
formal
EPA
review
and
approval.
­­
November
26,
1990.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
for
EPA
review.
These
revisions
include:
(
1)
Criteria
for
protection
of
aquatic
life
based
on
an
Option
I
approach
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
document,
(
2)
numeric
criteria
for
protection
of
human
health
for
17
priority
toxic
pollutants
based
on
Option
II
of
the
guidance,
and
(
3)
proposed
criteria
equations
based
on
Option
III
of
the
guidance
for
the
protection
of
human
health
for
the
remaining
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
January
17,
1991.
The
State
held
public
hearings
on
the
proposed
revisions
to
water
quality
standards.
­­
February
20,
1991.
The
State
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
including
the
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutant
based
on
an
Option
I
approach
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
document.
­­
April
18,
1991.
EPA
received
the
State's
request
for
formal
review
of
the
adopted
water
quality
standards.
­­
May
24,
1991.
The
State
Attorney
General
submitted
information
relating
to
the
legal
certification
of
the
adopted
water
quality
standards.
­­
July
3,
1991.
The
State
Attorney
General
submitted
further
information
relating
to
the
legal
certification
of
the
adopted
water
quality
standards.
­­
July
18,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
State
water
quality
standards.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Alabama
on
July
18,
1991
as
being
consistent
with
Option
I
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance
document.

lf
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Florida
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
has
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
the
State
has
not
yet
requested
or
obtained
EPA
approval
of
the
adopted
criteria.
In
addition,
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
criteria
for
at
least
one
other
priority
toxic
pollutant
is
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

On
September
24,
1987
EPA
approved
the
previous
triennial
review
of
Florida
Water
quality
standards
with
the
exception
of
three
areas
of
the
water
quality
standards
which
were
disapproved.
Included
in
the
water
quality
standards
which
were
approved
by
EPA
were
several
numeric
criteria
for
toxic
priority
pollutants
derived
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life.
These
criteria
were
initially
adopted
by
the
State
as
water
quality
standards
in
adoption
proceedings
prior
to
1985.
These
criteria
were
not
revised
in
the
State's
triennial
review
completed
in
1987.
These
criteria
included
criteria
values
which
are
less
stringent
in
value
than
several
of
the
national
ambient
water
quality
criteria
included
in
the
proposed
rulemaking.
Data
used
to
develop
the
national
ambient
water
quality
criteria
were
not
available
for
consideration
by
the
State
at
the
time
of
the
initial
adoption
of
these
criteria
by
the
State.

In
the
letter
approving
revisions
to
water
quality
standards,
EPA
instructed
the
State
"
to
initiate
a
review
of
existing
criteria
at
the
earliest
possible
date."
This
review
was
necessary
to
address
the
1987
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
for
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
for
toxic
priority
pollutants.

In
directing
the
State
to
complete
this
review,
EPA
stated,
"
Recent
changes
in
federal
law
relating
to
water
quality
standards
will
make
it
necessary
for
the
State
to
complete
an
extensive
review
of
water
quality
criteria
during
the
next
triennial
review
of
water
quality
standards.
The
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987
mandates
that
each
state
adopt
numerical
criteria
for
all
307(
a)
toxics
for
which
national
criteria
are
available
or
adopt
procedures
which
will
result
in
numeric
limitations
in
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permits
for
these
contaminants.

Considering
the
above,
EPA
is
including
the
national
ambient
aquatic
life­
based
water
quality
criteria
values
for
these
toxic
priority
pollutants
in
this
proposed
rulemaking.

In
addition,
the
criteria
adopted
by
the
State
in
1990
for
the
protection
of
human
health
have
not
been
formally
submitted
and
certified
to
EPA
with
a
request
for
approval.
Therefore,
EPA
is
including
all
national
ambient
water
quality
criteria
for
protection
of
human
health
(
as
a
class
of
criteria).

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
December
27,
1989.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review.
These
revisions
include
proposed
criteria
for
protection
of
human
health
based
on
an
Option
II
approach
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
document
as
well
as
updates
to
adopted
criteria
for
protection
of
aquatic
life.
­­
February
7
and
May
1,
1990.
The
State
held
public
workshops
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
December
7,
1990.
The
State
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
which
include
66
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
section
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
section
304(
1)
lists;
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
adopted
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
66
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
there
exist
water
quality­
based
limits
in
an
NPDES
permit
or
where
NPDES
permit
screening
shows
that
the
Federal
304(
a)
criteria
may
be
exceeded
instream;
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutant
ambient
monitoring
data
or
site
specific
data
which
show
that
the
Federal
304(
a)
criteria
in
the
water
column
or
in
fish
tissue
may
be
exceeded;
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutant
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
under
section
313
of
SARA
title
III
or
in
the
National
Bioaccumulation
Study
which
show
that
the
Federal
304(
a)
criteria
in
the
water
column
or
in
fish
tissue
may
be
exceeded;
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutant
data
for
which
there
are
reasonable
expectations
that
the
Federal
304(
a)
criteria
will
be
exceeded
in
the
water
column
or
fish
tissue
as
a
result
of
impacts
from
Superfund
or
RCRA
sites;
and
­­
Consideration
of
other
data
such
as
sediment
data
and
location
of
storage
facilities
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
these
pollutants
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses.

Georgia
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
December
7,
1988.
The
State
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
which
included
12
criteria
for
307(
a)
toxics.
­­
December
8,
1988.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
for
review
and
approval.
­­
March
29,
1989.
EPA
disapproved
the
adopted
307(
a)
criteria
adopted
by
the
State.
­­
December
6,
1989.
The
State
adopted
water
quality
standards
which
included
an
Option
I
approach
for
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
with
the
exception
of
2,3,7,8
TCDD
(
dioxin)
and
PCBs.
­­
December
14,
1989.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
for
review
and
approval.
­­
March
28,
1990.
The
State
adopted
water
quality
criteria
for
dioxin
and
PCBs.
­­
April
3,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
priority
toxic
pollutant
criteria
adopted
by
the
State
on
December
6,
1989.
­­
May
29,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
criteria
for
dioxin
and
PCBs
for
EPA
review
and
approval.
­­
October
29,
1990.
The
State
submitted
draft
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
including
revised
criteria
for
dioxin.
­­
November
27,
1990.
EPA
disapproved
the
adopted
criteria
for
dioxin
and
approved
the
adopted
criteria
for
PCBs.
­­
January
23,
1991.
The
State
adopted
revised
criteria
for
dioxin.
­­
April
2,
1991.
The
State
submitted
the
revised
water
quality
standard
for
dioxin
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval.
­­
June
3,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
dioxin
criteria,
thus
bringing
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
on
June
3,
1991
as
being
consistent
with
Option
1
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Kentucky
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
May
31,
1990.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
based
on
Option
I
approach
for
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement.
­­
June
29,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval.
­­
October
5,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
revised
State
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Kentucky
on
October
5,
1990
as
being
consistent
with
Option
I
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Mississippi
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
March
22,
1990.
The
State
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
in
response
to
the
section
303(
C)(
2)(
B)
requirement.
The
adopted
revisions
did
not
include
criteria
for
dioxin.
­­
May
14,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
for
review
and
approval.
­­
October
5,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
water
quality
criteria
adopted
by
the
State
with
the
exception
of
the
absence
of
criteria
for
dioxin,
which
was
disapproved.
­­
January
29,
30
and
31,
1991.
The
State
held
public
hearings
to
receive
comments
on
the
proposed
dioxin
criteria.
­­
March
28,
1991.
The
State
adopted
dioxin
criteria
of
1.0
ppq
for
protection
of
human
health
from
the
exposure
routes
of
consumption
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
consumption
of
water.
­­
July
12,
1991.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
dioxin
criteria
for
EPA
review
and
approval.
­­
July
15,
1991.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
dioxin
criteria
for
EPA
review
and
approval.
­­
July
24,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
State­
adopted
water
quality
criteria
for
dioxin.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Mississippi
on
July
24,
1991,
as
being
consistent
with
Options
I
and
III
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

North
Carolina
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
July
13,
1989.
The
State
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
in
response
to
the
section
303(
C)(
2)(
B)
requirement.
­­
October
27,
1989.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
for
review
and
approval.
­­
April
12,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
water
quality
criteria
adopted
by
the
State
with
the
exception
of
the
criteria
for
arsenic
(
saltwater),
chromium
(
freshwater),
copper,
lead,
pentachlorophenol
and
zinc.
­­
October
5,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
adopted
criteria
for
chromium
(
freshwater)
and
decided
that
no
criteria
were
required
for
pentachlorophenol
to
meet
the
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement.
In
addition,
EPA
conditionally
approved
the
criteria
for
arsenic
(
saltwater),
copper,
lead
and
zinc
based
on
a
commitment
by
the
State
that
revisions
to
these
criteria
would
be
adopted
by
the
State
by
December
13,
1990.
­­
December
13,
1990.
The
State
adopted
revised
criteria
for
arsenic,
copper,
chromium,
lead
and
zinc.
­­
January
18,
1991.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval.
­­
February
7,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
North
Carolina
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

On
February
7,
1991,
EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
North
Carolina
as
being
consistent
with
Options
II
and
III
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

South
Carolina
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
April
27,
1990.
The
State
Legislature
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement.
­­
May
26,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
for
review
and
approval.
­­
June
14,
1990.
The
State
submitted
for
EPA
review
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
including
numeric
human
health­
based
criteria
based
on
Option
I
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance
document.
­­
August
1
and
2,
1990.
The
State
held
public
hearings
on
proposed
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
which
included
103
water
quality
criteria
for
protection
of
human
health.
­­
October
5,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
water
quality
criteria
adopted
by
the
State
with
the
exception
of
the
criteria
for
protection
of
human
health
as
a
class
of
criteria.
The
human
health
criteria
for
arsenic
and
lead
were
approved
by
EPA.
­­
October
11,
1990.
The
South
Carolina
Board
of
Health
and
Environmental
Control
promulgated
the
proposed
revisions
to
water
quality
standards
which
included
103
criteria
for
the
protection
of
human
health.
­­
December
7,
1990.
Promulgation
by
the
Board
of
the
South
Carolina
Department
of
Health
and
Environmental
Control.
­­
March
13,
1991.
Attorney
General
certification
made.
­­
April
26,
1991.
Revisions
to
South
Carolina
Water
Classifications
and
Standards,
Regulation
61­
68,
pertaining
to
numeric
human
health
criteria
for
Clean
Water
Action
section
307(
a)
toxics
became
effective
upon
publication
in
the
State
Register.
­­
May
8,
1991.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
human
health
criteria
for
EPA
review
and
approval.
­­
July
9,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
adopted
standards,
thus
bringing
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Tennessee
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
May
1,
1989.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review.
­­
December
15,
1989.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review.
The
proposal
included
revisions
to
the
draft
water
quality
standards
based
on
comments
made
by
EPA
and
the
public.
­­
December
15,
1989.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
proposed
revisions
to
water
quality
standards.
­­
July
30,
1990.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review.
The
proposal
included
revisions
to
the
draft
water
quality
standards
based
on
comments
made
by
EPA
and
the
public.
­­
November
15,
1990.
The
State
held
a
second
public
hearing
on
proposed
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
January
17,
1991.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
based
on
Option
II
of
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance.
­­
August
14,
1991.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval.
­­
September
28,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
State
water
quality
standard,
including
full
approval
of
the
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Tennessee
on
September
28,
1991
as
being
consistent
with
Option
II
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Region
5
Wisconsin
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
February
1987.
The
Natural
Resources
Board
authorized
public
hearings
on
Chapter
NR
105.
­­
December
1987.
The
Natural
Resources
Board
authorized
public
hearings
on
Chapter
NR
106.
­­
Thirteen
public
hearings
were
held
on
the
water
quality
standards
revisions
in
1987
and
1988.
­­
November
17,
1988
and
December
15,
1988.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
(
Chapter
NR
106
and
Chapter
NR
105,
respectively)
which
included
numeric
criteria
for
priority
pollutants.
­­
February
3,
1989.
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
March
1,
1989.
Water
quality
standards
became
effective.
­­
May
15,
1989.
USEPA
approved
the
revised
State
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

USEPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Wisconsin
on
November
17
and
December
15,
1988
as
being
consistent
with
option
2
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.
As
part
of
its
submittal
of
final
revised
standards
for
USEPA
review,
the
State
included
information
which
demonstrated
that
numeric
criteria
had
been
adopted
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses."
If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Illinois
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.
The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
January
25,
1990.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
February
2,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
USEPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
February
13,
1990.
Water
quality
standards
rules
became
effective.
­­
February
15,
1990.
USEPA
approved
the
revised
water
quality
standards
(
Docket
A),
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
criteria
for
priority
pollutants.

USEPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Illinois
on
January
25,
1990
as
being
consistent
with
a
combination
of
options
2
and
3
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.
As
part
of
its
submittal
of
final
revised
standards
for
USEPA
review,
the
State
included
information
which
demonstrated
that
numeric
criteria
had
been
adopted
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses."
If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Indiana
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
March
1,
2,
and
7,
1989.
The
State
conducted
public
hearings
for
the
water
quality
standards
rules
revisions.
­­
December
13,
1989.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
The
Governor
signed
the
revised
standards
on
January
31,
1990.
­­
March
3,
1990.
Water
quality
standards
rules
became
effective.
­­
April
5,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
USEPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
May
7,
1990.
USEPA
approved
the
revised
water
quality
standards
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
pollutants.

USEPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Indiana
on
December
15,
1989
as
being
consistent
with
a
combination
of
options
2
and
3
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.
As
part
of
its
submittal
of
final
revised
standards
for
USEPA
review,
the
State
included
information
which
demonstrated
that
numeric
criteria
had
been
adopted
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses."
If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Ohio
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
November
28,
29
and
30,
1989.
Ohio
EPA
conducted
public
hearings
addressing
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
December
18,
1989.
Public
record
closed.
­­
February
1,
1990.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
February
12,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
to
USEPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
March
13,
1990.
The
State
submitted
the
required
Attorney
General
certification
of
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
April
25,
1990.
USEPA
approved
the
revised
water
quality
standards
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
pollutants.
­­
May
1,
1990.
Water
quality
standards
rules
became
effective.

USEPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Ohio
on
February
1,
1990
as
being
consistent
with
a
combination
of
options
2
and
3
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.
As
part
of
its
submittal
of
final
revised
standards
for
USEPA
review,
the
State
included
information
which
demonstrated
that
numeric
criteria
had
been
adopted
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses."
If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Michigan
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
adopted
criteria
for
priority
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement
and
USEPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
modification
of
the
water
quality
standards
is
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Michigan
adopted
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
consistent
with
option
3
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document
prior
to
actual
passage
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
on
November
14,
1986
(
General
Rules
of
the
Michigan
Water
Resources
Commission,
Part
4,
Water
Quality
Standards,
R
323
of
the
Michigan
Administrative
Code).
USEPA
approved
these
criteria
on
August
4,
1987.
However,
the
translator
mechanism
guidelines
implementing
Rule
57
were
not
included
within
the
water
quality
standards
regulation
itself
and,
therefore,
the
criteria
calculated
through
the
implementation
of
this
procedure
were
not
binding
upon
the
Water
Resources
Commission
but
instead
are
considered
to
be
recommendations
to
the
Commission.
The
State's
efforts
in
response
to
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
have
consisted
of
bringing
the
existing
option
3
procedure
within
Rule
57
itself,
thereby
making
implementation
of
the
procedure­
generated
criteria
in
permits
mandatory.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
July
21,
1988.
MDNR
staff
presented
and
the
Michigan
Water
Resources
Commission
approved
a
proposed
water
quality
standards
review
process
and
schedule.
­­
August,
September
and
October
1988.
Informal
public
comment
on
requests
for
changes
in
the
water
quality
standards
taken
in
Water
Resources
Commission
meetings
at
Houghton,
Lansing
and
Tawas,
Michigan,
respectively.
­­
February
28,
1989.
Scoping
session
held
by
MDNR
staff
with
interested
parties
prior
to
development
of
water
quality
standards
package.
­­
August
20,
1989.
Draft
proposed
water
quality
standards
package
as
presented
to
the
Commission
and
was
approved
for
informal
public
comment
through
September
29,
1989.
­­
October
20,
1989.
Staff
presented
a
draft
proposed
standards
package
to
the
Commission
which
the
Commission
approved
for
formal
public
hearings.
­­
December
31,
1989.
The
proposed
water
quality
standards
were
published
in
the
November,
l989
Michigan
Register
along
with
a
Notice
of
Public
Hearing.
­­
February
20,
21
and
22,
1990.
Public
Hearings
on
the
proposed
standards
were
held
in
Lansing,
Traverse
City
and
Marquette,
respectively.

­­
April
2,
1990.
Public
comment
period
ended.
­­
May
1990.
Water
Resources
Commission
approved
revised
water
quality
standards.
­­
September
1990.
Revised
water
quality
standards
are
to
go
before
Joint
Committee
on
Administrative
Rules
(
JCAR)
for
approval/
disapproval.
The
JCAR
dropped
this
item
from
its
agenda
and
did
not
address
it
during
1990.
The
Michigan
DNR
has
again
submitted
the
existing
revisions
to
JCAR
for
its
review
during
February
1991.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
Michigan
Section
304(
l)
short
list
(
February
3,
1989)
for
which
State
criteria
consistent
with
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
metals,
dioxin,
and
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.
­­
1990
Michigan
305(
b)
Report.
­­
Current
implementation
of
Michigan's
Rule
57
in
the
State's
NPDES
program
(
e.
g.,
Form
2c
data,
presence
of
water
quality­
based
effluent
controls
in
existing
NPDES
permits).

Minnesota
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
December
1989.
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
begins
rulemaking
proceedings
on
amendments
to
Minnesota
Rules
Chapter
7050.
­­
February
1
to
March
16,
1990.
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
holds
nine
public
hearings
addressing
the
revised
standards.
­­
April
10,
1990.
Public
record
for
the
standards
revisions
closed.
­­
May
10,
1990.
Administrative
Law
Judge
issued
his
report
on
the
standards
revisions.
­­
June
25,
1990.
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
staff
met
with
the
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
Board­­
Water
Quality
Committee
to
discuss
standards
revision
issues.
­­
July
24,
1990.
Board
approved
and
adopted
the
standards
revisions.
­­
July
16,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
Minnesota
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Region
6
Arkansas
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
has
completed
a
review
and
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Arkansas
adopted
some
criteria
for
priority
pollutants
on
November
1984
and
January
1988.
EPA
approved
these
criteria
on
1/
28/
85
and
5/
6/
88
and
these
criteria
are
not
affected
by
today's
rulemaking.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
November
1984.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
that
included
numeric
criteria
for
16
toxic
substances
to
protect
aquatic
life.
These
were
approved
by
EPA
on
January
28,
1985.
­­
January
1988.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
that
included
numeric
criteria
for
24
priority
pollutants
to
protect
aquatic
life.
These
were
approved
by
EPA
on
May
6,
1988.
­­
July
27,
1990.
The
State
proposed
revised
water
quality
standards
that
included
numeric
criteria
for
36
priority
pollutants
to
protect
aquatic
life
and
for
13
priority
pollutants
to
protect
human
health
at
a
10­
6
risk.
­­
August
27,
1990.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
to
receive
public
comment
on
the
proposed
revisions
mentioned
above.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
A
list
of
the
pollutants
requiring
criteria
was
included
in
letters
to
the
State
dated
February
15,
1990
and
June
11,
1990
(
copies
are
contained
in
the
record).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
section
304(
l)
short
list
for
which
State
criteria
consistent
with
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
7
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET
and
the
National
Bioaccumulation
Study.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.

Louisiana
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
has
adopted
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
EPA
disapproved
the
lack
of
criteria
for
dioxin
and
has
reason
to
believe
that
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

The
State
completed
a
triennial
revision
of
its
water
quality
standards
since
passage
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
and
adopted
revised
standards
on
September
20,
1989.
The
revised
numeric
criteria
were
approved
by
EPA
on
December
19,
1989
with
the
exception
of
dioxin
(
no
criterion
proposed).
Since
this
revision,
a
review
of
several
databases­­
STORET,
TRI,
State
305(
b)
reports,
and
NPS
assessments­­
indicated
the
need
for
Louisiana
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
mercury,
lead,
cadmium,
copper
and
nickel
via
an
Option
2
approach.

On
March
20,
1991
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
5
metals
(
cadmium,
copper,
lead,
mercury
and
nickel).
EPA
received
these
revisions
for
our
review
on
June
20,
1991.

Today's
rule
would
only
promulgate
numeric
criteria
for
dioxin
and
the
metals
listed
above.
Criteria
approved
on
December
19,
1989
by
EPA
are
not
affected
by
today's
proposed
rulemaking.

New
Mexico
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
June
6,
1988.
The
State
proposed
revised
water
quality
standards
that
included
numeric
criteria
for
11
priority
pollutants
to
protect
aquatic
life.
Additionally,
the
State
proposed
a
narrative
statement
about
protecting
against
toxic
substances
in
domestic
water
supplies
that
create
more
than
a
10­
5
cancer
risk.
­­
June
13,
1990.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
to
receive
public
comment
on
the
proposed
revisions
mentioned
above.
­­
May
22,
1991.
The
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
14
priority
pollutants.
EPA
received
these
revisions
for
our
review
on
June
7,
1991.
­­
August
19,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
New
Mexico
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Oklahoma
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
criteria
for
priority
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
June
10,
1989.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
November
1,
1989.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General's
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
January
18,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
revised
State
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Oklahoma
on
June
10,
1989
as
being
consistent
with
Option
1
for
aquatic
life
criteria
and
Option
2
for
human
health
criteria
as
described
in
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
3)(
B)
guidance
document.
EPA's
review
concluded
that
numeric
criteria
had
been
adopted
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
"
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses."
If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
is
not
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
EPA
will
transmit
these
comments
to
Oklahoma
and
will
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance
after
Oklahoma's
submittal
of
their
1992
revised
water
quality
standards
to
EPA
for
our
approval/
disapproval.

Texas
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
April
7,
1988.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
that
included
numeric
criteria
for
30
toxic
substances
to
protect
aquatic
life.
The
numeric
criteria
adopted
for
mercury
protected
human
health
in
addition
to
aquatic
life.
­­
June
29,
1985.
EPA
approved
the
aquatic
life
criteria
for
30
priority
toxic
pollutants
and
the
human
health
criterion
for
mercury.
­­
December
24,
1990.
The
State
issued
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions
for
public
comment.
The
proposed
revisions
included
numeric
criteria
for
29
priority
pollutants.
­­
February
25,
1991.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
water
quality
standards
mentioned
above.
­­
June
12,
1991.
The
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
29
priority
pollutants.
EPA
received
these
revisions
for
our
review
on
July
1,
1991.
­­
September
25,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
Texas
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.
Region
7
Iowa
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
March
19,
1990­­
The
Iowa
Environmental
Protection
Commission
adopted
aquatic
life
use
protection
criteria
for
several
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
April
9,
1990­­
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
aquatic
life
criteria
to
EPA
with
a
proposed
effective
date
of
May
23,
1990.
­­
May
3,
1990­­
The
State
submitted
draft
human
health
criteria
to
EPA.
­­
June
1,
1990­­
The
State
resubmitted
draft
human
health
criteria
to
EPA.
­­
July
11,
1990­­
The
State
published
a
notice
of
intended
action
concerning
standards
revisions
for
human
health
criteria
and
scheduled
public
hearings.
­­
August
1,
2,
and
7,
1990­­
The
State
held
public
hearings
at
three
locations
in
the
State.
­­
September
17,
1990­­
The
State
scheduled
adoption
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Commission
for
October
15,
1990.
­­
December
19,
1990.
Standards
become
effective.
­­
June
11,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
State
water
quality
standards
as
satisfying
the
requirement
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Iowa
on
June
11,
1991,
as
being
consistent
with
Option
1
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

EPA
has
withheld
approval
of
the
aquatic
life
criteria
revisions
until
the
State
completes
and
submits
all
of
the
revisions
and
documentation
necessary
under
section
303
(
c)(
2)(
B).

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
section
304
(
l)
short
list
including
metals
for
which
revised
state
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved.
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Regional
Ambient
Fish
Tissue
Monitoring
data
indicating
elevated
fish
flesh
concentrations
of
pesticides
which
are
not
currently
covered
with
approved
state
criteria.
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
surface
waters
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
currently
covered
with
approved
state
criteria.

Kansas
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
state
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
a
few
priority
toxic
pollution
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
state
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirements
and
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Kansas
adopted
some
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
prior
to
the
passage
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
on
May
1,
1986
(
State
Regulation
K.
A.
R.
28­
16­
28e).
EPA
approved
these
criteria
on
June
19,
1986,
and
most
of
these
criteria
are
not
affected
by
today's
proposed
rulemaking.
(
Those
not
affected
are
aquatic
life
criteria
for
nickel,
silver,
zinc,
aldrin,
chlordane,
DDT,
dieldrin,
endosulfan,
endrin,
heptachlor,
lindane,
and
PCBs).

The
state's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
January
1990­­
The
state
submitted
a
preliminary
draft
of
numeric
criteria
for
EPA
prior
to
starting
an
internal
and
external
review
of
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
July
1990­­
The
state
stopped
all
action
on
the
standards
revisions
citing
concerns
over
the
costs
of
compliance.
­­
January
1991­­
The
state
submitted
a
draft
package
of
standards
revisions
to
EPA
including
numeric
criteria
to
satisfy
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
and
set
a
date
of
June
1991
for
final
adoption.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
state
section
304(
1)
short
and
mini
lists
for
which
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
metals.
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
surface
water
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
currently
covered
with
approved
state
criteria.

Missouri
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
March
17,
1989­­
Missouri
Clean
Water
Commission
adopted
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
aquatic
life
use
protection.
­­
April
15,
1989­­
The
adopted
criteria
became
effective
under
State
law.
­­
October
13,
1989­­
EPA
approved
criteria
with
a
recommendation
that
Missouri
review
the
need
for
additional
human
health
criteria.
­­
August
6,
1990­­
The
State
held
a
public
meeting
to
discuss
human
health
criteria
revisions.
­­
August
23,
1990­­
The
State
scheduled
a
public
hearing
and
adoption
before
the
Missouri
Clean
Water
Commission
for
October
23,
1990.
­­
December
12,
1990.
Clean
Water
Commission
adopts
water
quality
standards.
­­
January
30,
1991.
Standards
sumbitted
to
EPA
for
review.
­­
March
4,
1991.
Standards
become
effective
in
State.
­­
June
11,
1991.
EPA
approves
standards
as
complying
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Missouri
on
June
11,
1991
as
being
consistent
with
Option
1
of
the
December
12,
1988
guidance.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Nebraska
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
May
20,
1988­­
The
state
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
aquatic
life
protection
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
August
29,
1988­­
The
adopted
criteria
became
effective
under
state
law.
­­
October
18,
1988­­
EPA
approved
Nebraska's
Water
Quality
Standards
noting
that
the
need
for
additional
human
health
criteria
must
be
evaluated.
­­
December
1,
1989­­
The
state
adopted
some
numeric
priority
toxic
pollutant
criteria
for
a
human
health
use
(
drinking
water
supply).
­­
February
20,
1990­­
The
adopted
criteria
became
effective
under
state
law.
­­
January
17,
1990­­
DEC
proposed
human
health
fish
consumption
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
February
16,
1990­­
The
state
adopted
the
proposed
human
health
fish
consumption
numeric
criteria.
­­
June
27,
1990­­
The
human
health
fish
consumption
numeric
criteria
became
effective
under
state
law.
­­
August
10,
1990­­
The
state
proposed
revisions
to
mixing
zone
provisions
of
State
Water
Quality
Standards
which
affect
the
application
of
numeric
criteria.
­­
September
21,
1990­­
The
state
adopted
proposed
revisions
to
mixing
zone
policies.
­­
August
2,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
Nebraska
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Region
8
Colorado
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because,
although
Colorado
has
completed
a
review
and
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Colorado's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
June
5,
1989­­
Region
VIII
notified
the
State
that
the
priority
pollutant
standards
under
consideration
for
adoption
would
not
fully
satisfy
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
August
17,
1989­­
Colorado
completed
its
triennial
review
and
revised
the
State's
Basic
Standards
and
Methodologies.
The
revised
Standards
were
submitted
to
EPA
for
review
on
October
6,
1989.
The
revised
Basic
Standards
and
Methodologies
included
new
numeric
criteria
for
some
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants;
however,
not
all
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
developed
304(
a)
criteria
were
included
in
the
revised
State
rule.
­­
January
17,
1990­­
Region
VIII
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
explaining
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
letter
explained
that
where
a
State
selected
an
option
2
approach
to
full
compliance
(
i.
e.,
option
2
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
and
the
Region's
January
17,
1990
letter
to
the
State),
the
burden
was
on
the
State
to
demonstrate
that
additional
criteria
beyond
those
already
adopted
were
not
needed.
­­
February
5,
1990­­
In
a
letter
from
the
Colorado
Water
Quality
Control
Division
to
EPA
Region
VIII,
Colorado
notified
EPA
that
it
intended
to
meet
the
full
compliance
requirements
by
way
of
option
2.
To
date,
however,
the
documentation
supporting
full
compliance
with
option
2
has
not
been
received.
­­
July
9,
1990­­
Region
VIII
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
commenting
on
what
the
Region
considered
to
be
needed
revisions
to
the
State's
Basic
Standards
and
Methodologies.
In
the
letter,
the
Region
again
advised
the
State
that
the
current
toxics
provisions
of
the
Basic
Standards
and
Methodologies
were
incomplete
and
subject
to
the
federal
promulgation.
The
letter
explained
the
Agency's
approach
to
the
upcoming
promulgation,
and
the
proposed
regulatory
language
and
criteria
values
to
be
promulgated
were
enclosed
for
State
review.
­­
July
12,
1990­­
In
a
memorandum
to
the
State,
Region
VIII
provided
additional
information
on
compliance
with
the
toxic
requirements
and
the
upcoming
federal
promulgation.
The
memorandum
included
a
listing
of
EPA
published
and
modified
toxics
criteria
which
could
be
used
in
proposing
needed
amendments
to
the
existing
toxics
provisions
in
the
Basic
Standards
and
Methodologies
(
modified
criteria
were
based
on
the
most
recent
information
in
IRIS).
­­
August
13,
1990­­
Region
VIII
sent
an
improved
version
of
the
toxics
criteria
chart
to
the
State
staff.
­­
September
19,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
to
the
State
a
"
strawman"
data
analysis
which
provided
stream­
specific
information
regarding
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
that
may
require
adoption
of
criteria
to
satisfy
the
option
2
full
compliance
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
February
21,
1991.
The
State
proposed
amendments
to
the
Basic
Standards
and
Methodologies
for
its
July
triennial
review
hearing.
The
proposed
amendments
include:
(
1)
Revisions
and
additions
to
the
existing
aquatic
life
criteria,
and
(
2)
application
of
EPA's
human
health
criteria
to
all
class
1
waters
and
any
class
2
waters
which
provide
an
exposure
pathway
via
consumption
of
contaminated
aquatic
organisms
and/
or
drinking
water.
­­
May
21,
1991.
Region
VIII
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
detailing
three
deficiencies
in
the
State's
February
21,
1991
proposed
revisions
to
the
Basic
Standards
and
Methodologies:
(
1)
Failure
to
explain
why
health­
based
standards
applicable
to
water
supply
segments
were
not
included
for
more
than
40
priority
toxic
pollutants
addressed
by
section
304(
a)
guidance,
(
2)
failure
to
explain
why
health­
based
standards
applicable
to
aquatic
life
segments
were
not
included
for
more
than
20
priority
toxic
pollutants
addressed
by
section
304(
a)
guidance,
and
(
3)
failure
to
finally
resolve
within
the
Basic
Standards
and
Methodologies
the
applicability
of:
(
a)
The
numeric
aquatic
life
and
human
health
standards
for
inorganics,
and
(
b)
certain
human
health
numeric
standards
(
i.
e.,
those
that
address
human
exposure
from
water
and
fish
consumption)
for
organics.
The
Region
VIII
letter
notified
the
State
that
these
deficiencies
would
need
to
be
addressed
to
satisfy
the
full
compliance
requirements
and
to
ensure
that
Colorado
would
not
be
affected
by
the
Federal
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
promulgation.
­­
July
1,
1991.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
the
proposed
standards
revisions.
At
the
hearing,
EPA
submitted
written
testimony
that
identified
the
specific
issues
and
options
related
to
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
compliance.
­­
August
20,
1991.
In
a
letter
to
the
State,
EPA
Region
VIII
approved
the
August
17,
1989
toxics
criteria
adopted
by
Colorado
as
partially
fulfilling
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
letter
clearly
indicated
that
additional
State
action
would
be
required
to
achieve
full
compliance.
­­
October
8,
1991.
The
State
Water
Quality
Control
Commission
adopted
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
including
criteria
for
all
such
toxics
addressed
by
EPA
section
304(
a)
criteria
guidance.
The
adopted
standards
were
intended
to
resolve
all
issues
related
to
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
compliance.
Because
EPA
has
not
yet
had
sufficient
opportunity
to
review
and
approve
these
standards,
today's
proposal
is
based
on
the
standards
previously
adopted
by
the
State
on
August
17,
1989.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
For
example,
to
fully
protect
aquatic
life
uses
from
the
impacts
of
inorganic
priority
toxic
pollutants
(
including
metals),
EPA
proposes
to
promulgate
aquatic
life
criteria
for
only
those
particular
segments
and
inorganic
substances
for
which
State
aquatic
life
criteria
have
not
been
applied.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
data
base
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
data
base.

North
Dakota
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
May
1,
1989.
North
Dakota
completed
its
triennial
review
and
revised
the
State's
standards.
The
revised
standards
were
submitted
to
EPA
for
review
on
September
20,
1989.
The
revised
standards
included
new
numeric
criteria
for
some
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants;
however,
not
all
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
developed
304(
a)
criteria
were
included
in
the
revised
State
rule.
­­
January
17,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
explaining
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
letter
explained
that
the
burden
was
on
the
State
to
demonstrate
that
additional
criteria
beyond
those
already
adopted
were
not
needed.
­­
February
7,
1990.
In
a
letter
from
the
North
Dakota
Water
Supply
and
Pollution
Control
Division
to
EPA
Region
VIII,
North
Dakota
notified
EPA
that
it
intended
to
meet
the
full
compliance
requirements
by
way
of
option
1
(
i.
e.,
an
option
1
approach
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
document
and
the
Region's
January
17,
1990
letter
to
the
State).
­­
July
12,
1990.
In
a
memorandum
to
the
State,
Region
VIII
provided
additional
information
on
compliance
with
the
toxics
requirements
and
the
upcoming
federal
promulgation.
The
memorandum
included
a
listing
of
EPA
published
and
modified
toxics
criteria
which
could
be
used
in
proposing
needed
amendments
to
the
existing
toxics
provisions
in
the
State
standards
(
modified
criteria
were
based
on
the
most
recent
information
in
IRIS).
­­
August
13,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
an
improved
version
of
the
toxics
criteria
chart
to
the
State
staff.
­­
October
16,
1990.
The
Region
approved
the
previously
adopted
State
standards
as
partially
fulfilling
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
and
notified
the
State
that
the
standards
would
be
considered
incomplete
pending
completion
of
the
full
compliance
requirements.
The
Regional
WQS
review
letter
also
notified
the
State
that
the
incomplete
portions
of
the
State
rule
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
federal
promulgation.
­­
November
15,
1990.
North
Dakota
adopted
additional
standards
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants.
The
amended
standards
include
criteria
for
all
of
the
priority
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
published
304(
a)
criteria
plus
additional
criteria
based
on
the
most
recent
information
in
EPA's
IRIS
data
base.
The
amended
standards
meet
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
amended
standards
became
effective
February
1,
1991,
and
the
standards
were
submitted
by
the
State
for
EPA
review
and
approval
on
February
25,
1991.
­­
March
8,
1991.
Region
VIII
approved
the
amended
State
water
quality
standards
and
advised
the
State
that
the
amended
standards
met
the
full
compliance
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.
South
Dakota
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemakingbecause
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
393(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

South
Dakota's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
October
8,
1987.
South
Dakota
completed
its
triennial
review
and
revised
the
State's
Standards.
The
revised
Standards
were
submitted
to
EPA
for
review
on
May
5,
1989.
The
revised
Standards
included
a
reference
to
EPA's
Water
Ouality
Criteria,
1986
as
the
numeric
criteria
incorporated
in
State
Standards;
however,
the
State
did
not
include
or
identify
certain
information
needed
to
distinguish
which
specific
EPA
criteria
had
been
adopted
as
State
Standards.
­­
January
17,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
explaining
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
letter
explained
that
incorporation
of
EPA's
national
criteria
into
State
Standards
by
reference
to
EPA's
Quality
Criteria
for
Water,
1986
was
acceptable;
however,
such
a
reference
would
have
to
include
sufficient
information
to
identify
the
specific
numeric
criteria
which
comprised
State
Standards.
The
needed
information
was
not
provided
prior
to
today's
proposal.
­­
February
13,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
further
explaining
the
issues
that
would
have
to
be
clarified
before
the
Region
would
be
able
to
grant
final
approval
of
the
toxics
portion
of
the
State
water
quality
standards.
­­
March
8,
1990.
South
Dakota
further
amended
the
State
Standards
to
clarify
the
role
of
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources
in
applying
the
criteria
in
Quality
Criteria
for
Water,
1986;
however,
the
new
amendments
did
not
address
the
specific
information
needed
to
satisfy
the
full
compliance
requirements
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
July
12,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
additional
information
to
the
State
on
compliance
with
the
toxics
requirements
and
the
upcoming
federal
promulgation.
The
memorandum
included
a
listing
of
EPA
published
and
modified
toxics
criteria
which
could
be
used
in
proposing
needed
amendments
to
the
existing
toxics
provisions
in
the
State
standards
(
modified
criteria
were
based
on
the
most
recent
information
in
IRIS).
­­
August
13,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
an
improved
version
of
the
toxics
criteria
chart
to
the
State
staff.
­­
November
6,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
additional
information
to
the
State
further
delineating
the
specific
application
information
that
would
be
needed
to
achieve
approval
of
the
toxics
provisions
of
the
water
quality
standards.
­­
March
6,
1991.
In
a
letter
from
the
Division
of
Environmental
Regulation,
South
Dakota
provided
a
complete
interpretation
of
the
toxics
control
provisions
in
section
74:
03:
02:
14,
the
section
of
the
South
Dakota
water
quality
standards
which
incorporates
EPA's
Quality
Criteria
for
Water,
1986
by
reference.
The
State's
letter
included
a
listing
of
the
specific
criteria
which
are
considered
to
be
standards
of
the
State.
The
list
included
all
of
the
published
304(
a)
criteria
and
identified
the
uses
to
which
the
criteria
applied.
­­
March
13,
1991.
The
Region
approved
the
adopted
State
criteria
as
fulfilling
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Utah
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
April
21,
1988.
Utah
completed
its
triennial
review
and
revised
the
State's
standards.
The
revised
standards
were
submitted
to
EPA
for
review
on
February
10,
1989.
The
revised
standards
included
new
numeric
criteria
for
some
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
developed
304(
a)
criteria
were
included
in
the
revised
State
rule.
­­
January
17,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
enplaning
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
letter
explained
that
the
burden
was
on
the
State
to
demonstrate
that
additional
criteria
beyond
those
already
adopted
were
not
needed.
­­
January
31,
1990.
In
a
letter
from
the
Utah
Bureau
of
Water
Pollution
Control
to
EPA
Region
VIII,
Utah
notified
EPA
that
it
intended
to
meet
the
full
compliance
requirements
by
way
of
option
1
(
i.
e.,
an
option
1
approach
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
document
and
the
Region's
January
17,
1990
letter
to
the
State).
­­
July
12,
1990.
In
a
memorandum
to
the
State,
Region
VIII
provided
additional
information
on
compliance
with
the
toxics
requirements
and
the
upcoming
federal
promulgation.
The
memorandum
included
a
listing
of
EPA
published
and
modified
toxics
criteria
which
could
be
used
in
proposing
needed
amendments
to
the
existing
toxics
provisions
in
the
State
standards
(
modified
criteria
were
based
on
the
most
recent
information
in
IRIS).
­­
August
13,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
an
improved
version
of
the
toxics
criteria
chart
to
the
State
staff.
­­
November
29,
1990.
The
Region
approved
the
previously
adopted
State
standards
as
partially
fulfilling
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
and
notified
the
State
that
the
standards
would
be
considered
incomplete
pending
completion
of
the
full
compliance
requirements.
The
Regional
water
quality
standards
review
letter
also
notified
the
State
that
the
incomplete
portions
of
the
State
rule
would
be
subject
to
the
provisions
of
the
proposed
federal
promulgation.
­­
January
18,
1991.
Utah
adopted
additional
standards
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants.
The
amended
standards
include
criteria
for
all
of
the
priority
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
published
304(
a)
criteria.
The
amended
standards
meet
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
amended
standards
were
submitted
by
the
State
for
EPA
review
and
approval
on
February
13,
1991.
­­
March
8,
1991.
Region
VIII
approved
the
amended
State
water
quality
standards
and
advised
the
State
that
the
amended
standards
met
the
full
compliance
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Wyoming
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
January
17,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
explaining
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
letter
explained
that
the
burden
was
on
the
State
to
demonstrate
that
additional
criteria
beyond
those
already
adopted
were
not
needed.
­­
February
12,
1990.
In
a
letter
from
the
Wyoming
Water
Quality
Division
of
the
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
Wyoming
notified
EPA
that
it
intended
to
meet
the
full
compliance
requirements
by
way
of
option
1
(
i.
e.,
an
option
1
approach
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
document
and
the
Region's
January
17,
1990
letter
to
the
State).
­­
May
29,
1990.
Region
VIII
provided
written
comments
for
the
Wyoming
Environmental
Quality
Council
triennial
review
hearing.
The
Region's
comments
further
explained
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
July
12,
1990.
In
a
memorandum
to
the
State,
Region
VIII
provided
additional
information
on
compliance
with
the
toxics
requirements
and
the
upcoming
federal
promulgation.
The
memorandum
included
a
listing
of
EPA
published
and
modified
toxics
criteria
which
could
be
used
in
proposing
needed
amendments
to
the
existing
toxics
provisions
in
the
State
standards
(
modified
criteria
were
based
on
the
most
recent
information
in
IRIS).
­­
July
19,
1990.
Region
VIII
provided
additional
written
comment
to
the
Wyoming
Environmental
Quality
Council.
The
Region's
comments
provided
further
information
on
the
toxics
requirements,
including
specific
lists
of
published
and
modified
criteria
for
the
priority
pollutants
which
would
meet
the
full
compliance
requirements.
­­
August
13,
1990.
Region
VIII
sent
an
improved
version
of
the
toxics
criteria
chart
to
the
State
staff.
­­
October
3,
1990.
Wyoming
adopted
additional
standards
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants.
The
amended
standards
include
criteria
for
all
of
the
priority
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
published
304(
a)
criteria
plus
additional
criteria
based
on
the
most
recent
information
in
EPA's
IRIS
data
base.
The
amended
standards
meet
the
requirements
for
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
amended
standards
became
effective
November
29,
1990,
and
the
standards
were
submitted
by
the
State
for
EPA
review
and
approval
on
December
24,
1990.
Clarification
of
the
legal
standing
of
the
newly
adopted
rule
was
provided
with
a
memorandum
from
the
State
dated
January
12,
1991.
­­
March
8,
1991.
Region
VIII
approved
the
amended
State
water
quality
standards
and
advised
the
State
that
the
amended
standards
met
the
full
compliance
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Montana
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.
The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
September
23,
1988.
The
State
adopted
final
water
quality
standards
which
included
numeric
criteria
for
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
(
by
reference
to
EPA's
Quality
Criteria
for
Water,
1986
through
update
#
2
1987
including
supporting
information).
­­
December
9,
1988.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
March
8,
1989.
EPA
approved
the
portion
of
the
revised
State
water
quality
standards
which
responded
to
the
requirements
of
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
(
other
portions
of
the
revised
standards
were
disapproved).

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Region
9
American
Samoa
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
it
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

American
Samoa's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
January
1990.
American
Samoa
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
and
the
public
for
review.
­­
February
1990.
American
Samoa
held
a
public
hearing
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
September
7,
1990.
The
American
Samoa
Environmental
Commission
adopted
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions
which
include
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
September
20,
1990.
American
Samoa
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
September
25,
1990.
American
Samoa
submitted
the
State
Attorney
General
certification.
­­
September
27,
1990.
EPA
approved
the
revised
American
Samoa
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
pollutants.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
American
Samoa
on
September
27,
1990
based
on
a
determination
that
the
criteria
are
consistent
with
option
1
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
American
Samoa
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.
Arizona
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because,
although
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Late
1988.
The
State
submitted
a
series
of
discussion
papers
to
EPA
and
the
public.
­­
June
7,
1989.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review
prior
to
issuing
proposed
standards
for
public
comment.
­­
December
11,
1989.
The
State
transmitted
a
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards
Triennial
Review
Briefing
Book,
dated
December
8,
1989,
to
EPA
and
the
public.
­­
February
15,
1990.
The
State
submitted,
to
EPA
and
the
public,
draft
proposed
revisions
to
its
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards.
­­
March
16,
1990.
The
State
submitted
Proposed
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards
Rules
to
EPA
and
the
public.
­­
During
1988­
90,
the
State
held
several
public
meetings
and
roundtables
regarding
the
proposed
water
quality
standards.
­­
October
26,
1990.
Arizona
prepared
revised
draft
water
quality
standards
which
were
released
for
comment
October
29,
1990.
­­
December
14,
1990.
EPA
provided
written
comments
to
the
States.
­­
January
15,
1991.
Arizona
prepared
a
re­
draft
of
the
water
quality
standards
for
review
and
comment.
­­
February
13,
1991.
EPA
provided
written
comments
to
the
States.
­­
May
8,
1991.
Arizona
approval
by
the
Governor's
Regulatory
Review
Council
on
May
7,
1991
of
the
Navigable
Water
Quality
Standards
proposed
rules
and
the
Economic
Impact
Statement.

Also
announced
the
schedule
of
oral
proceedings
and
availability
of
the
proposed
rules.

Today's
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
included
in
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
the
Sec.
131.36(
b)
criteria
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
waters
with
relevant
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
such
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
Section
304(
l)
lists
(
as
updated),
and
supporting
documentation,
for
which
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
metals,
dioxin,
and
some
organics.
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
126
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
surface
waters
of
a
majority
of
the
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
covered
with
approved
State
criteria.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.

California
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because,
although
the
State
has
completed
a
review
and
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
some
waters
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

For
ocean
waters,
the
State
adopted
revised
criteria
on
March
22,
1990,
and
EPA
fully
approved
those
criteria
on
June
23,
1990.
Regarding
inland
waters
and
bays
and
estuaries,
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments
and
a
few
site
specific
criteria
since
1987.
Included
among
these
criteria
are
numeric
criteria
for
copper,
cadmium
and
zinc
applicable
to
the
Sacramento
River
and
its
tributaries
upstream
of
Hamilton
City
adopted
by
the
State
on
August
16,
1984,
and
approved
by
EPA
on
August
7,
1985.
Since
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
adopted
numeric
monthly
mean
and
maximum
criteria
for
selenium
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
from
the
mouth
of
the
Merced
River
to
Vernalis
and
monthly
mean
criteria
in
flows
to
Grasslands
Water
District,
San
Luis
National
Wildlife
Refuge,
and
Los
Banos
State
Wildlife
Area
on
September
21,
1989;
EPA
approved
these
criteria
on
April
13,
1990,
and,
at
the
same
time,
disapproved
selenium
criteria
for
other
locations.
These
approved
numeric
criteria
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
and
are
not
amended
by
today's
proposed
rulemaking.
Subsequent
to
these
specific
efforts,
the
State
completed
a
review
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
State
inland
waters
and
bays
and
estuaries
and
transmitted
them
to
EPA.
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
In
addition,
several
parties
have
petitioned
State
Court
to
restrain
the
SWRCB
from
utilizing
the
standards
for
inland
waters
and
bays
and
estuaries.

The
State's
actions,
regarding
inland
waters
and
bays
and
estuaries,
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
October
6,
1989.
The
State
issued
a
staff
report
proposing
methodologies
for
development
of
water
quality
criteria
for
statewide
plans.
­­
December
1,
1989.
EPA
submitted
written
comments
to
State
on
its
proposed
methodology.
­­
January
29,
1990.
The
State
issued
draft
water
quality
standards
for
inland
surface
waters
and
enclosed
bays
and
estuaries
for
EPA
and
public
review.
­­
February
28
and
March
5,
1990.
The
State
held
public
hearings
on
proposed
standards
revisions.
­­
March
29,
1990.
EPA
submitted
written
comments
to
the
State
on
proposed
standards
revisions.
­­
August
16,
1990.
The
State
held
a
public
workshop
on
development
and
implementation
of
standards
for
agricultural
drains
and
ephemeral
streams.
(
EPA
testified.)
­­
August
22,
1990.
EPA
submitted
written
comments
to
the
State
on
development
and
implementation
of
standards
for
agricultural
drains
and
ephemeral
streams.
­­
November
2,
1990.
The
State
issued
revised
draft
water
quality
standards
for
EPA
and
public
review.
­­
December
7,
1990.
EPA
submitted
written
comments
on
the
revised
draft
water
quality
standards.
­­
December
10,
1990.
The
State
held
a
hearing
on
the
revised
draft
standards.
(
EPA
testified.)
­­
February
8,
1991.
EPA
provided
written
comments
to
the
State
re:
the
agricultural
drains
section
of
the
Inland
Surface
Waters
Plan.
­­
March
26,
1991.
The
State
issued
drafts
of
the
Statewide
Water
Quality
Control
Plans
for
Inland
Surface
Waters
and
Enclosed
Bays
and
Estuaries.
­­
March
27,
1991.
EPA
provided
written
comments
to
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
re:
proposed
interim
objectives
for
toxic
pollutants
in
the
South
Bay.
­­
April
10,
1991.
EPA
provided
written
comments
to
the
State
re:
The
Statewide
Water
Quality
Control
Plans
for
Inland
Surface
Waters
and
Enclosed
Bays
and
Estuaries.
­­
April
10,
1991.
EPA
provided
written
comments
to
the
State
re:
EPA's
position
on
how
to
proceed
with
dioxin
related
programs.
­­
April
11,
1991.
The
State
adopted
the
Statewide
Waters
Quality
Control
Plans
for
Inland
Surface
Water
and
Enclosed
Bays
and
Estuaries.
­­
May
10,
1991.
The
State
transmitted
to
EPA
the
Statewide
Waters
Quality
Control
Plans
for
Inland
Surface
Water
and
Enclosed
Bays
and
Estuaries.

Today's
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
State
inland
waters
and
bays
and
estuaries,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
13l.
36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
included
in
EPA
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
waters
with
relevant
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
additional
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
such
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
priority
toxic
pollutants
discussed
in
the
State
Section
304(
1)
lists,
and
supporting
documentation,
for
which
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
metals,
dioxin,
and
some
organics,
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
inland
waters
and
bays
and
estuaries,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
completed
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
68
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
inland
waters
and
bays
and
estuaries
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
covered
with
approved
State
criteria
(
e.
g.,
detection
of
more
than
40
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
the
water
column).
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.
The
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Mariana
Islands
(
CNMI)
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because,
although
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

The
Commonwealth's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
March
22,
1990.
The
Commonwealth
transmitted
a
letter
to
EPA
indicating
that
its
water
quality
standards
revision
process
had
been
delayed.
­­
March
28,
1991.
CNMI
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
for
review.
­­
May
22,
1991.
EPA
provided
comments
to
CNMI
re:
the
draft
revised
standards.

Today's
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
included
in
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
the
Sec.
131.36(
b)
criteria
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
waters
with
relevant
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
CNMI
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
CNMI
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
108
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
CNMI's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
CNMI
waters
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
covered
with
approved
CNMI
criteria.

Guam
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
Guam
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

Guam's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
July
2,
1987.
Guam
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
include
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
August
1987.
Guam
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
an
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
September
30,
1987.
EPA
approved
the
revised
Guam
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Guam
on
July
2,
1987.
It
has
been
determined
since
that
time
that
the
criteria
are
consistent
with
option
1
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
Guam
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Hawaii
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because,
although
the
State
has
completed
a
review
and
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirements
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
January
8,
1990.
The
State
adopted
revised
criteria.
­­
February
9,
1990.
Hawaii
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
May
9,
1990.
EPA
approved
Hawaii's
water
quality
standards
noting
that
omission
of
human
health
limits
for
five
toxic
metals
precluded
full
satisfaction
of
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement.
­­
May
29,
1990.
The
State
responded
to
the
EPA
approval
indicating
plans
to
adopt
human
health
limits
for
the
five
toxic
metals.
­­
July
13,
1990.
EPA
clarified
portions
of
the
May
1990
approval
letter.

Because
the
State
has
adopted
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
using
an
option
l
approach
as
described
in
EPA's
December
12,
1988
guidance
document
EPA
is
taking
an
approach
of
proposing
criteria
for
all
remaining
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
have
been
the
subject
of
section
304(
a)(
1)
criteria
recommendations.
EPA
believes
that
the
discharge
or
presence
of
these
priority
toxic
pollutants
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
designated
uses
in
the
State
and
that
Federal
criteria
therefore
are
necessary
to
protect
Hawaii
designated
uses.
This
conclusion
is
based
on
the
following
information
in
the
record:
­­
priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
section
304(
l)
lists
for
which
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
these
metals,
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
surface
waters
of
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.

Nevada
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because,
although
the
State
has
completed
a
review
and
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement,
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
May
24,
1988.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
it's
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
September
12,
1988.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
and
the
public
for
review.
­­
September
20,
1988.
EPA
provided
comments
to
Nevada
regarding
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
for
toxics.
­­
October
21,
1988.
The
State
submitted
revisions
to
the
Nevada
toxic
material
definition
and
bioassay
procedures
to
EPA
and
the
public
for
review.
­­
November
10,
1988.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
November
29,
1988.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
(
Revisions
to
the
definition
of
"
toxic"
were
adopted
following
this
hearing.)
­­
May
31,
1989.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
and
the
public
for
review.
­­
June
22,
1989.
EPA
provided
comments
to
Nevada
regarding
its
proposed
standards
for
toxics.
­­
August
9,
1989.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
and
the
public
for
review.
­­
August
22,
1989.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
and
rationale
to
EPA.
­­
September
18,
1989.
EPA
provided
comments
on
Nevada's
proposed
water
quality
standards
for
toxics.
­­
September
27,
1989.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
(
Revisions
to
the
bioassay
requirements
as
part
of
the
narrative
toxics
standard
were
adopted
following
this
hearing.)
­­
February
26,
1990.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
and
the
public
for
review.
­­
March
27,
1990.
EPA
provided
comments
on
Nevada's
proposed
February
26,
1990
toxics
standards.
­­
March
28,
1990.
The
State
held
a
public
hearing
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions.
­­
May
2,
1990.
EPA
provided
comments
regarding
the
latest
proposed
standards
revisions.
­­
May
2,
1990.
The
State
adopted
water
quality
standards
revision
which
included
some
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
August
23,
1990.
State
transmitted
approved
water
quality
standards
revisions
without
a
State
Attorney
General
Certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
September
28,
1990.
The
State
Attorney
General
certified
the
May
2,
1990
adoption.
­­
January
16,
1991.
EPA
approved
in
part
and
disapproved
in
part
standards
adopted
by
the
State
and
notified
them
of
the
actions
they
needed
to
take
pursuant
to
the
disapproval
and
that
they
had
not
fully
satisfied
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
­­
March
14,
1991.
The
State
responded
to
the
January
1991
approval/
disapproval
of
standards.

Today's
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
included
in
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
the
Sec.
131.36(
b)
criteria
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
waters
with
relevant
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
such
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
108
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
Presence
in
surface
waters
of
the
State
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
surface
water
monitoring
data
in
STORET.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.

The
Trust
Territories
of
the
Pacific
Islands
(
Palau)
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
Palau
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

Palau's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
November
7,
1990.
Palau
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
include
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
December
12,
1990.
Palau
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
an
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
January
11,
1991.
EPA
approved
the
revised
Palau
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Palau
on
January
11,
1991
based
on
a
determination
that
the
criteria
are
consistent
with
option
l
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
Palau
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B),
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Region
10
Alaska
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
had
previously
adopted
all
section
304(
a)
criteria
by
reference,
the
State
Attorney
General
has
decided
that
the
adoption
by
reference
is
invalid.
Based
on
information
in
the
record
(
see
below),
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Alaska's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
December
20,
1989.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
and
the
public
for
review.
­­
April
6,
1990.
The
State
held
public
hearings
and
accepted
written
comments
on
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
revisions
through
this
date.
­­
On
November
4,
1991,
Region
10
sent
a
letter
to
the
State
partially
approving
the
State's
incorporation
by
reference
of
EPA's
toxic
pollutant
criteria;
and
noting
the
deficiencies
which
will
be
included
in
EPA's
proposed
rulemaking
(
e.
g.
Alaska's
failure
to
adopt
a
human
health
criteria).

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
103
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
surface
waters
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
currently
covered
with
approved
State
criteria.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.

Idaho
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
adopted
some
numeric
criteria
for
human
health
protection
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement.
Furthermore,
the
State's
criteria
protecting
human
health
are
based
only
on
drinking
water
maximum
contaminant
levels;
fish
consumption
is
not
protected,
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Idaho's
action
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
July
23,
1990.
The
State
submitted
draft
water
quality
standards
revisions
to
EPA
and
the
public
for
review.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously
aapproved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
Section
304(
l)
short
list
for
which
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
metals
and
some
organics.
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
surface
waters
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
currently
covered
with
approved
State
criteria.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.

Oregon
has
not
been
included
in
today's
proposed
rulemaking
because
the
State
has
adopted
revised
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
and
received
full
EPA
approval.

The
State's
response
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows.

­­
August
28,
1987.
The
State
adopted
revised
water
quality
standards
which
included
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
January
26,
1988.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
March
9,
1988.
EPA
approved
the
revised
State
water
quality
standards,
including
full
approval
of
the
revised
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants.

EPA
fully
approved
the
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
adopted
by
Oregon
on
February
12,
1989
as
being
consistent
with
option
2
of
the
December
12,
1988
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
guidance
document.

If
additional
information
is
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
asserting
that
the
State
has
not
fully
complied
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
it
will
be
necessary
at
that
time
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
reevaluate
the
Agency's
determination
of
full
compliance.

Washington
is
included
in
today's
proposal
because
although
the
State
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
some
priority
toxic
pollutants
before
the
1987
amendments,
the
State
has
not
adopted
numeric
criteria
for
any
human
health
based
criteria
for
priority
pollutants,
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
Therefore,
EPA
has
determined
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rulemaking
that
the
State
is
not
currently
in
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
because
it
has
not
adopted
water
quality
standards
consistent
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
which
have
been
fully
approved
by
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Administrator.

Washington
adopted
26
freshwater
and
marine
criteria
which
EPA
fully
approved
on
March
4,
1988
(
see
below).
The
State
has
not
completed
a
review
of
their
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirement
and
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
at
least
some
additional
criteria
are
necessary
to
comply
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).

The
State's
actions
to
respond
to
the
1987
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
requirement
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
February
9,
1988.
The
State
submitted
the
adopted
water
quality
standards
with
a
State
Attorney
General
certification
to
EPA
for
approval/
disapproval.
­­
March
4,
1988.
EPA
approved
the
revised
State
water
quality
standards.
­­
July
20,
1990.
Washington
released
its
proposed
water
quality
standards
with
public
comments
accepted
through
this
date.

This
proposed
rulemaking
would
Federally
promulgate
the
criteria
necessary
to
bring
the
State
into
full
compliance
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
To
fully
protect
State
designated
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
criteria
are
adopted,
EPA
proposes
to
apply
broadly
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b).
At
a
minimum,
EPA
proposes
to
apply,
to
all
appropriate
State
waters,
the
criteria
in
proposed
Sec.
131.36(
b)
for
all
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
the
subject
of
approved
State
criteria.
EPA
also
proposes
to
promulgate
Federal
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
where
any
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
insufficiently
stringent
to
fully
protect
all
designated
uses,
or
where
such
previously­
approved
State
criteria
are
not
applicable
to
all
appropriate
State
designated
uses.
EPA
invites
public
comment
regarding
any
specific
priority
pollutants
or
water
bodies
for
which
Federal
criteria
may
not
be
necessary
to
protect
State
designated
uses.

For
reasons
which
are
fully
discussed
in
the
preamble,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
determine
the
specific
priority
pollutants
and
water
bodies
that
require
criteria.
However,
EPA
has
determined
that
at
least
some
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
to
protect
designated
uses.
This
determination
is
supported
by
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
in
surface
waters
at
levels
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
State
designated
uses.
For
some
priority
toxic
pollutants,
available
data
clearly
demonstrate
use
impairment
and
the
need
for
toxics
criteria.
For
most
priority
toxic
pollutants,
however,
available
data
on
the
discharge
and
presence
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
spatially
and
temporally
limited.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
for
many
of
these
pollutants
are
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
"
reasonable
expectation"
test
established
in
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B).
The
information
in
the
record
which
demonstrates
that
priority
toxic
pollutants
are
discharged
or
present
and
that
Federal
criteria
are
necessary
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
­­
Priority
toxic
pollutants
on
the
State
Section
304(
l)
short
list
for
which
State
criteria
have
not
been
adopted
and
approved,
including
metals
and
some
organics.
­­
State
efforts
since
1987
to
adopt
additional
numeric
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants,
as
described
above.
The
State
has
initiated
(
but
not
completed)
efforts
to
adopt
new
or
revised
chemical­
specific,
numeric
criteria
for
91
priority
toxic
pollutants.
These
efforts
represent
evidence
of
the
State's
recognition
of
the
need
for
numeric
criteria
for
these
priority
toxic
pollutants.
­­
STORET
data
indicating
the
presence
in
surface
waters
of
priority
toxic
pollutants
which
are
not
currently
covered
with
approved
State
criteria.
­­
Discharge
to
surface
waters
of
priority
pollutants
for
which
sufficient
State
numeric
criteria
have
not
been
adopted,
based
on
data
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database
and/
or
the
Permit
Compliance
System
database.

(
FR
Doc.
91­
27270
Filed
11­
18­
91;
8:
45
am)
BILLING
CODE
6560­
50­
M
Legal
Publications:

Pub.
Law
100­
4
SEC.
308
­­
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987
Pub.
Law
95­
217
SEC.
53
54
­­
Clean
Water
Act
of
1977
Pub.
Law
99­
499
­­
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1986
(
SARA);
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
of
1986
Pub.
Law
92­
500
SEC.
2
­­
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
of
1972
Pub.
Law
80­
845
SEC.
303
304
301
101
307
305
510
­­
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
(
Act
of
6/
30/
48)"

*******************************************************************************************************************
