NC0081957_Permit (Issuance)_20010126

NPDES DOCUHENT 5CANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0081957
Narrows Powerhouse
Document Type:
emit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 26, 2001
Z`hia document is printed on reuae paper - ignore any
content on the resrerae aide

State of North Carolirm
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
January 26, 2001
Mr. William L. McCaskill
c/o Yadkin, Inc.
PO. Box 576
Badin, North Carolina 28009
AdrirrA
NCDENR
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0081957
Narrows Powerhouse
Stanly County
Dear Mr. McCaskill:
The Division has modified the permit in accordance with the September 19, 2000,
settlement meeting. The changes include a Corrective Action Schedule substituted for the
Corrective Action Letter.
The schedule proposed by Alcoa Inc. (October 12, 2000, letter to NC DENR) was
adopted for inclusion in the NPDES Permit as a Special Condition with the following changes:
Yadkin Inc. shall submit status reports to the Division of Water Quality's Mooresville Regional
Office and the NPDES Unit on June 30, 2001 and November 30, 2001, in addition to the Final
Report due January 5, 2003. The status report should detail progress made and show
compliance with the completion dates.
Attached is the NPDES permit No NC0081957 issued January 26, 2001, based on your
March 1,1999 application and addendums. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements
of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6,1983.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this
permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form
of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The
Division may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit
does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the
Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal
Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be
required.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, Norlh:Carolina 27699-1617
An Equal Opportunity Affifrnative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

Permit No. NC0081957
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mr. Michael Myers at
telephone number [phone], extension 508.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens
cc: Mooresville Regional Office - Water Quality Section
Central Files
NPDES Files
Point Source Compliance/Enforcement Unit

Permit No. NC0081957
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Yadkin, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Narrows Powerhouse
on NCSR 1704
Stanly County
to receiving waters designated as Yadkin River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin in accordance
with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III
and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 26, 2001.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on January 31, 2004.
Signed this day January 26, 2001.
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0081957
is hereby authorized to:
1.
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Yadkin, Inc.
Continue to discharge once -through cooling waters from outfalls 001, 002, 005, 006, and
007 and water from' a sump drain (Outfall 003) located at Narrows Powerhouse, on NCSR 1704,
Stanly County, and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into
the Yadkin River which is classified as class WS-IV and B waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

Facility Information
Latitude:
Longitude
Quad #:
Stream Class:
Receiving Stream
Pem fitted Flow:
35°25' 09" Sub -Basin: 03-07-08
80°05' 32"
F17NE
WS-W and B
Yadkin River
N/A
Facility
Location
Yadkin, Inc.
NC0081957
Narrows Rbwerhouse

Permit No. NC0081957
A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - Final
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge once -through cooling water
from outfall(s) serial number 001, 002, 005, 006 and 007. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS ,` _
.M. h.:
�...., :.:.'a _:,..:.,. . . a::,... .
,fl > 3 k. h 1
'�,. nY`.'•' .;Y i,r.' ,.'3:.'��:.,:. i': .l i:, ?'4 .. :::. 1.31 >:', :".ii .1 ::;�' /"?.
...• .:• ! . _ . ::... .....
.° DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
it i i men _.. _. .4 vt.._
::.
,.. Monthl _.Averse
4"i, .'.i >r
� , .. ..: ..
._.. .. ... _
, , ....
-
�.
,: _Weekly Average
..
.-..
Daly' Maximum
:Effluent Measurement..
A.
t'.?.'. ? is "ii�+L fTs ..
. , . � Frequency> : .ram.:,..•
�;:Sam olel
!a•ia. € ^ c
'+.ha l Wl �' is ' •
��. � '
1•
: � cation'
• ?
Flow (MGD)
Annual
Estimate
E
Temperature'
1
1
Annual
Grab
E
pH2
I Annual
Grab
E •
NOTES:
* Sample Location: E — Effluent or at the point closest to discharge where a representative sample of the discharge can feasibly be obtained.
1 The temperature of the effluent will be regulated so that the temperature of the receiving stream does not increase by more than 2.8 °C above the
natural water temperature. In no case should the receiving stream temperature exceed 32 °C due to the facility's operation. Temperature of the
effluent may be obtained anywhere downstream of the heat exchanger effluent that is representative of the discharge.
2 The pH of the effluent shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units, unless ambient river conditions prevent
compliance with this range.
The Permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division prior to the use of any chemical additive in the discharge. The permittee shall notify the
Director in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to instituting the use of any additional additive in the discharge, which may be toxic to aquatic life
(other than additives pr viously approved by the division). Such notification shall include the completion of a Biocide Worksheet Form 101 (if
applicable), a copy of the MSDS for the additive, and a map indicating the discharge point and receiving stream.'
Monitoring results obtained during the calendar year shall be recorded and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form and postmarked no later
than January 30th following the completed reporting period. The first DMR is due January 30' 2002. Samples obtained for monitoring purposes may be
collected anytime during the calendar year.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam (other than trace amounts) in the effluent, unless ambient river conditions prevent compliance.

Permit No. NC0081957
A (2). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - Final
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
003 — Sump Drain. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Flow
Oil and Grease'
pH2
;.DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum.
Effluent
Frequency },F^ ..
t Location*'
Annual
Estimate
E
15 mg/1
20 mg/1
Annual
Grab
Annual
Grab
NO
TES:
* Sample Locations: E — Effluent or at the point closest to discharge where a representative sample of the discharge can feasibly be obtained.
The tailrace shall be visually inspected for oil sheen attributed to facility operations on a weekly basis in conjunction with inspections of the floor sump
and rope skimmer. Confirmation that a visualinspection was conducted shall be recorded in the operating log for the facility and provided to the
Division upon request.
2. The pH of the effluent shall not be less than 6.0 standard units or greater than 9.0 standard units, unless ambient river conditions prevent compliance with
this range.
1
See Special Condition A(3) Penstock Sump Drains
Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be employed to ensure that excessive pollutants are not discharged to the surface water of the state. These practices should
include as a minimum, routine maintenance of the rope skimmer type oil/water separator and cleaning accumulated sediment in the bottom of the sump annually.
Chemical wheel pit cleaning is permitted on a monthly basis. When wheel pit cleaning occurs, the tailrace shall be inspected visually for foam and oil.
Cleaning shall be conducted only with pre -approved solvents. Should the Permittee wish to change solvents, a written request should be made to the Division
including the MSDS for the proposed solvent.
Mechanical cleaning operations, which do not contribute any wastewater to the discharge are not limited by this permit. Non -discharging cleaning operations
may be conducted as often as necessary to ensure safety and proper facility operation.
The Permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division prior to the use of any chemical additive (i.e. biocides) in the discharge. The permittee shall notify the
Director in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to instituting the use of any additional additive in the discharge, which may be toxic to aquatic life (other than
additives previously approved by the division). Such notification shall include the completion of Biocide Worksheet Form 101 (if applicable), a copy of the MSDS
for the additive, and a map indicating the discharge point and receiving stream.
Monitoring results obtained during the calendar year shall be recorded and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form and postmarked no later
than January 3011' following the completed reporting period. The first DMR is due January 30' 2002. Samples obtained for monitoring purposes may be
collected anytime during the calendar year.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam (other than trace amounts) in the effluent, unless ambient river conditions prevent compliance.

Permit No. NC0081957
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A(3) Penstock Sump Drains — Corrective Action Schedule
The permittee shall adhere to the schedule detailed in Table 1 for the clean up of the
Penstock Sump drains. Status reports are due June 30, 2001 and November 30, 2001 to
the Division of Water Quality's Mooresville Regional Office (1 copy) and the NPDES
Unit (1 copy). The status report should update the Division on the status of the project
and detail compliance with the completion dates.
Table 1: Schedule for Completion for Corrective Action and Subsequent Sampling & Analysis.
Activity
Completion Date
Draft Task Plan (completed prior to issuance of permit)
12/15/00
DWQ Review of Task Plan (completed prior to issuance of permit)
1 /31 /01
Cost Estimate & Funding Procurement
3/31/01
Final Task Plan
4/30/01
Engineering Plans & Specifications
6/15/01
Status Report to DWQ
6/30/01
Request for Proposal (RFP) issued
7/15/01
Award Contract
8/30/01
Task Plan Construction Completed
10/30/01
Status Report to DWQ
11/30/01
Data Collection Completed
11 / 01 / 02
/
Final Report to DWQ
1 / 05 / 03
Alcoa Inc., Yadkin Inc., & DWQ Meeting to discuss results
2/01/03
Submit Request for Final Approval and/or modification to NPDES
Permit
4/30/03

Calculated 1/2 FAVs
Parameter
Calculated 1/2 FAVs Calculated 1/2 FAVs EPAs CMC EPAs CMC
Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater
J/ ' \
J ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/l
Cadmium on -Tr),- 1 (Tr) 42 4.3 42
Chromium * , / ' 1022 570
Copper N./ 7.3 _ 5.8 13 4.8
Nickel " ,61 —,-- ) 75 470 74
Lead 33.8_. - 221 65 210
Zinc 67 95 120 90
Silver 1.23 1.9 3.4 1.9
Cyanide 22 1 22 1
Mercury (Bioaccumulative - not used)
The calculated 1/2 FAVs represent total values.
These values were calculated using EPAs equation for metals that are
hardness dependent. Hardness (used for NC) = 50 mg/I
exp(ma jln(hardness)] + ba j
(Freshwater)
Saltwater values were calculated using EPAs CMC
and the saltwater conversion factors (if available)
* Chromium is based on trivalent Chromium, but limited as a total
(as is NCs water quality chronic standard)
Cadmium 1/2 FAV is based on toxicity without trout and salmon species and should be used for non -Trout
waters. The value of 2.1 ug/I is based on toxicty including trout and salmon.
EPAs criteria for metals is based on dissolved, not total.
Reference: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria; April 22, 1999
Federal Register; FRL-6330-2

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0081957
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Yadkin, Inc. /Narrows Powerhouse
Applicant Address:
PO Box 576, Badin, NC 28009-0576
Facility Address:
On NCSR 1704
Permitted Flow
N/A — Daily Average —1,903,280 gpd
Type of Waste:
Once -through cooling water.
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
County:
Stanly
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Yadkin River
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
WS-IV & B CA
USGS Topo Quad:
F 18 NE
303(d) Listed?:
NO
Permit Writer:
Michael Myers
Subbasin:
03-07-08
Date:
October 5, 1999
Drainage Area (mi2):
, 1
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
IWC (%):
Primary SIC Code:
4911
SUMMARY
This facility maintains four outfalls (001, 002, 003and 005). The source of wastewater for outfalls 001,002,
and 005 is once through cooling water, outfall 004 is a sump drain collecting runoff. The old permit stipulates
that outfalls 001 through 003 be monitored (with no limits) for flow, temperature and total residual chlorine.
No discharge monitoring reports have been required because of the use of BMPs.
Outfall, 004, which collects runoff from the site has recently been found to contain elevated levels of heavy
metals. The sediment that has accumulated in the sump has been analyzed and found to contain PCBs in
addition to heavy metals. Because the discharge from this outfall is low and the receiving stream flow is large
use of the mass balance equation allows large concentrations of the toxicants of concern. The c/z FAV values
therefore govern the concentration of the pollutants in the discharge. The discharge of the contaminated
sump water will be cover under a corrective action letter to Yadkin, Inc.
The latest analytical data provided by Yadkin Inc. indicates that PCBs are also contained in the water. The
latest analysis indicates that the concentration of PCBs in the sump water is 0.357 ug/I with an freshwater
human health standard of 0.000079 ug/1. Because of this most recent data, it is recommended that Yadkin Inc
evaluate methods of disposal other than discharging.
Available'/z FAV s:
Cd = 5 ug/1
Cr = 984.3 ug/I
Cu = 9.2 ug/I
Pb = 33.8 ug/1
Hg = 2.4 ug/1
Zn = 65 ug/1
Yadkin Inc. has requested that monitoring be replaced by implementation of BMPs. Additionally, Yadkin
Inc. requested that the pH and temperature "Boiler Plate" language be excluded from the permit. This plant
is eligible for coverage under general permit NCG50000, however, they prefer the individual permit because
the general permit does not provide a provision for BMP practices in lieu of monitoring. In the next renewal
of the general permit the viability of providing such a provision into the permit should be examined. For all
1'Akin, inc. .... Narrows I lyitrock.ciric Powerhouse; Fact `i1I&•ct
NPI:)1 a Rcncwal

hydroelectric facilities that request individual permits in lieu of the general permit, it is the Division's position
that these facilities should be permitted consistently statewide. Therefore, permit NC0027332 and general
permits NCG500000 were used in developing this draft permit for the hydroelectric plants owned by Yadkin,
Inc. in the Yadkin River basin.
The receiving stream (Yadkin River) is classified as WS-IV and B CA waters from Badin dam to a point 0.5
miles upstream of Falls dam. This reach is not listed on the 303(d) list as impaired water. According to the
May 1998 Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality management Plan this reach has been classed as
supporting its designated uses.
TOXICITY TESTING:
Current Requirement: N/A
Recommended Requirement: N/A
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
To date this facility has not been required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) because of the
implementation of Best Management Practices. However a historical review of inspection reports was
conducted and Mike Parker (Mooresville Regional Office) was contacted regarding compliance issues. With
the available information it was concluded that this facility has no compliance issues.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
This facility is not required to perform any instream monitoring.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Outfalls 001, 002, and 005 — Monitoring and/or permit limits have been set for flow and temperature as
outlined on the Effluent Limitations page.
DMR submittal - DMRs will need to be submitted quarterly for all outfalls.
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) - Total residual chlorine monitoring will be removed from the permit, since
chlorine is not utilities at this facility.
Chromium, zinc, and cooper restriction - The chromium, zinc, and copper excerpt will be excluded since this is
adequately addressed in the notification requirement if any toxicants are to be added.
Temperature - Temperature requirement will reflect the situation if natural conditions raise the ambient temp
above 32°C.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Michael
Myers at [phone] ext. 508.
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT: This is a minor permit renewal therefore the regional office comments
will be solicited during the public comment period.
Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on the permit development:
• Reasonable Potential Analysis (majors only)
• Existing permit effluent sheets with changes noted (existing facilities only)
• Draft Permit
NPDES Recommendation bv:
Signature
Date
acik n. InC. •- Narrows 1lvdrewelc.ctrir Powerhouse Fact Shcct
NPDES Rencwal
Page 2

Regional Office Comments
Regional Recommendation by:
Signature
Date
Reviewed and accepted by:
Regional Supervisor:
Signature
Date
NPDES Unit Supervisor:
Signature
Date
Yadkin, Inc. Narrows 1l.tit.lrocleclric Powerhouse .1 1Ct Sheet
NPI)1-':S Renewal

•
Ina
IBM
INS
•
IMP
Thursday
December 10, 1998
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria; Notice; Republication

68354 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1998/Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-OW-6186-6a]
National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria; Republication
Editorial Note: FR Doc. 98-30272 was
originally published as Part IV (63 FR 67548-
67558) in the issue of Monday, December 7,
1998. At the request of the agency, due to
incorrect footnote identifiers in the tables,
the corrected document is being republished
in its entirety.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Compilation of recommended
water quality criteria and notice of
process for new and revised criteria.
SUMMARY: EPA is publishing a
compilation of its national
recommended water quality criteria for
157 pollutants, developed pursuant to
section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA or the Act). These recommended
criteria provide guidance for States and
Tribes in adopting water quality
standards under section 303(c) of the
CWA. Such standards are used in
implementing a number of
environmental programs, including
setting discharge limits in National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. These water quality
criteria are not regulations. and do not
impose legally binding requirements on
EPA, States, Tribes or the public.
This document also describes changes
in EPA's process for deriving new and
revised 304(a) criteria. Comments
provided to the Agency about the
content of this Notice will be considered
in future publications of water quality
criteria and in carrying out the process
for deriving water quality criteria. With
this improved process the public will
have more opportunity to provide data
and views for consideration by EPA.
The public may send any comments or
observations regarding the compilation
format or the process for deriving new
or revised water quality criteria to the
Agency now, or anytime while the
process is being implemented.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the document,
"National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria" is available from the U.S. EPA,
National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information, 11029
Kenwood Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242,
phone [phone]. The publication
is also available electronically at: http:/
/www.epa.gov/ost. Send an original and
3 copies of written comments to W-98-
24 Comment Clerk, Water Docket, MC
4104. US EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments
may also be submitted electronically to
[e-mail].
Comments should be submitted as a
WP5.1, 6.1 or an ASCII file with no form
of encryption. The documents cited in
the compilation of recommended
criteria are available for inspection from
9 to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, at the Water
Docket, EB57, East Tower Basement,
USEPA, 401 M St., S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460. For access to these
materials. please call [phone] to
schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy A. Roberts. Health and Ecological
Criteria Division (4304), U.S. EPA, 401
M. Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460; [phone];
[e-mail].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What Are Water Quality Criteria?
Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water
Act requires EPA to develop and
publish, and from time to time revise,
criteria for water quality accurately
reflecting the latest scientific
knowledge. Water quality criteria
developed under section 304(a) are
based solely on data and scientific
judgments on the relationship between
pollutant concentrations and
environmental and human health
effects. Section 304(a) criteria do not
reflect consideration of economic
impacts or the technological feasibility
of meeting the chemical concentrations
in ambient water. Section 304(a) criteria
provide guidance to States and Tribes in
adopting water quality standards that
ultimately provide a basis for
controlling discharges or releases of
pollutants. The criteria also provide
guidance to EPA when promulgating
federal regulations under section 303(c)
when such action is necessary.
II. What is in the Compilation
Published Today?
EPA is today publishing a
compilation of its national
recommended water quality criteria for
157 pollutants. This compilation is also
available in hard copy at the address
given above.
The compilation is presented as a
summary table containing EPA's water
quality criteria for 147 pollutants, and
for an additional 10 pollutants. criteria
solely for organoleptic effects. For each
set of criteria, EPA lists a Federal
Register citation, EPA document
number or Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) entry (www.epa.gov/
ngispgm3/iris/irisdat). Specific
information pertinent to the derivation
of individual criteria may be found in
cited references. If no criteria are listed
for a pollutant. EPA does not have any
national recommended water quality
criteria.
These water quality criteria are the
Agency's current recommended 304(a)
criteria, reflecting the latest scientific
knowledge. They are generally
applicable to the waters of the United
States. EPA recommends that States and
Tribes use these water quality criteria as
guidance in adopting water quality
standards pursuant to section 303(c) of
the Act and the implementing of federal
regulations at 40 CFR part 131. Water
quality criteria derived to address site -
specific situations are not included;
EPA recommends that States and Tribes
follow EPA's technical guidance in the
"Water Quality Standards Handbook-
2nd Edition," EPA, August 1994, in
deriving such site -specific criteria. EPA
recognizes that in limited circumstances
there may be regulatory voids in the
absence of State or Tribal water quality
standards for specific pollutants.
However, States and Tribes should
utilize the existing State and Tribal
narrative criteria to address such
situations; States and Tribes may
consult EPA criteria documents and
cites in the summary table for additional
information.
The national recommended water
quality criteria include: previously
published criteria that are unchanged;
criteria that have been recalculated from
earlier criteria; and newly calculated
criteria, based on peer -reviewed
assessments, methodologies and data,
that have not been previously
published.
The information used to calculate the
water quality criteria is not included in
the summary table. Most information
has been previously published by the
Agency in a variety of sources, and the
summary table cites those sources.
When using these 304(a) criteria as
guidance in adopting water quality
standards, EPA recommends States and
Tribes consult the citations referenced
in the summary table for additional
information regarding the derivation of
individual criteria.
The Agency intends to revise the
compilation of national recommended
water quality criteria from time to time
to keep States and Tribes informed as to
the most current recommended water
quality criteria.
III. How Are National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria Used?
Once new or revised 304 (a) criteria
are published by EPA, the Agency
expects States and Tribes to adopt
promptly new or revised numeric water
quality criteria into their standards
consistent with one of the three options

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1998 / Notices 68355
in 40 CFR 131.11. These options are: (1)
Adopt the recommended section 304(a)
criteria; (2) adopt section 304(a) criteria
modified to reflect site -specific
conditions; or, (3) adopt criteria derived
using other scientifically defensible
methods. In adopting criteria under
option (2) or (3), States and Tribes must
adopt water quality criteria sufficient to
protect the designated uses of their
waters. When establishing a numerical
value based on 304(a) criteria, States
and Tribes may reflect site specific
conditions or use other scientifically
defensible methods. However, States
and Tribes should not selectively apply
data or selectively use endpoints,
species, risk levels, or exposure
parameters in deriving criteria; this
would not accurately characterize risk
and would not result in criteria
protective of designated uses.
EPA emphasizes that, in the course of
carrying out its responsibilities under
section 303(c), it reviews State and
Tribal water quality standards to assess
the need for new or revised water
quality criteria. EPA generally believes
that five years from the date of EPA's
publication of new or revised water
quality criteria is a reasonable time by
which States and Tribes should take
action to adopt new or revised water
quality criteria necessary to protect the
designated uses of their waters. This
period is intended to accommodate
those States and Tribes that have begun
a triennial review and wish to complete
the actions they have underway,
deferring initiating adoption of new or
revised section 304(a) criteria until the
next triennial review.
IV. What is the Status of Existing
Criteria While They Are Under
Revision?
The question of the status of the
existing section 304(a) criteria often
arises when EPA announces that it is
beginning a reassessment of existing
criteria. The general answer is that
water quality criteria published by EPA
remain the Agency's recommended
water quality criteria until EPA revises
or withdraws the criteria. For example,
while undertaking recent reassessments
of dioxin. PCBs, and other chemicals,
EPA has consistently upheld the use of
the current section 304(a) criteria for
these chemicals and considers them to
be scientifically sound until new, peer
reviewed, scientific assessments
indicate changes are needed. Therefore,
the criteria in today's notice are and will
continue to be the Agency's national
recommended water quality criteria for
States and Tribes to use in adopting or
revising their water quality standards
until superseded by the publication of
revised criteria, or withdrawn by notice
in the Federal Register.
V. What is the Process for Developing
New or Revised Criteria?
Section 304(a)(1) of the CWA requires
the Agency to develop and publish, and
from time to time revise, criteria for
water quality accurately reflecting the
latest scientific knowledge. The Agency
has developed an improved process that
it intends to use when deriving new
criteria or conducting a major
reassessment of existing criteria. The
purpose of the improved process is to
provide expanded opportunities for
public input, and to make the process
more efficient.
When deriving new criteria, or when
initiating a major reassessment of
existing criteria, EPA will take the
following steps.
1. EPA will first undertake a
comprehensive review of available data
and information.
2. EPA will publish a notice in the
Federal Register and on the Internet
announcing its assessment or
reassessment of the pollutant. The
notice will describe the data available to
the Agency, and will solicit any
additional pertinent data or views that
may be useful in deriving new or
revised criteria. EPA is especially
interested in hearing from the public
regarding new data or information that
was unavailable to the Agency, and
scientific views as to the application of
the relevant Agency methodology for
deriving water quality criteria.
3. After public input is received and
evaluated, EPA will then utilize
information obtained from both the
Agency's literature review and the
public to develop draft recommended
water quality criteria.
4. EPA will initiate a peer review of
the draft criteria. Agency peer review
consists of a documented critical review
by qualified independent experts.
Information about EPA peer review
practices may be found in the Science
Policy Council's Peer Review Handbook
(EPA 100-B-98-001, www.epa.gov).
5. Concurrent with the peer review in
step four, EPA will publish a notice in
the Federal Register and on the Internet,
of the availability of the draft water
quality criteria and solicit views from
the public on issues of science
pertaining to the information used in
deriving the draft criteria. The Agency
believes it is important to provide the
public with the opportunity to provide
scientific views on the draft criteria
even though we are not required to
invite and respond to written
comments.
6. EPA will evaluate the results of the
peer review, and prepare a response
document for the record in accordance
with EPA's Peer Review Handbook. EPA
at the same time will consider views
provided by the public on issues of
science. Major scientific issues will be
addressed in the record whether from
the peer review or the public.
7. EPA will then revise the draft
criteria as necessary, and announce the
availability of the final water quality
criteria in the Federal Register and on
the Internet.
VI. What is the Process for Minor
Revisions to Criteria?
In addition to developing new
criteria, and conducting major
reassessments of existing criteria, EPA
also from time to time recalculates
criteria based on new information
pertaining to individual components of
the criteria. For example, in today's
notice. EPA has recalculated a number
of criteria based on new, peer -reviewed
data contained in EPA's IRIS. Because
such recalculations normally result in
only minor changes to the criteria, do
not ordinarily involve a change in the
underlying scientific methodologies,
and reflect peer -reviewed data, EPA will
typically publish such recalculated
criteria directly as the Agency's
recommended water quality criteria. If it
appears that a recalculation results in a
significant change EPA will follow the
process of peer review and public input
outlined above. Further, when EPA
recalculates national water quality
criteria in the course of proposing or
promulgating state -specific federal
water quality standards pursuant to
section 303(c), EPA will offer an
opportunity for national public input on
the recalculated criteria.
VII. How Does the Process Outlined
Above Improve Public Input and
Efficiency?
In the past, EPA developed draft
criteria documents and announced their
availability for public comment in the
Federal Register. This led to new data
and views coming to EPA's attention
after draft criteria had already been
developed. Responding to new data
would sometimes lead to extensive
revisions.
The steps outlined above improve the
criteria development process in the
following ways.
1. The new process is Internet -based
which is in line with EPA policy for
public access and dissemination of
information gathered by EPA. Use of the
Internet will allow the public to be more
engaged in the criteria development
process than previously and to more

68356 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 237/Thursday, December 10, 1998/Notices
knowledgeably follow criteria
development. For new criteria or major
revisions, EPA will announce its
intentions to derive the new or revised
criteria on the Internet and include a list
of the available literature. This will give
the public an opportunity to provide
additional data that might not otherwise
be identified by the Agency.
2. The public now has two
opportunities to contribute data and
views, before development and during
development, instead of a single
opportunity after development.
3. EPA has instituted broader and
more formal peer review procedures.
This independent scientific review is a
more rigorous disciplinary practice to
ensure technical improvements in
Agency decision making. Previously,
EPA used the public comment process
outlined above to obtain peer review.
The new process allows for both public
input and a formal peer review,
resulting in a more thorough and
complete evaluation of the criteria.
4. Announcing the availability of the
draft water quality criteria on the
Internet will give the public an
opportunity to provide input on issues
of science in a more timely manner.
VIII. Where Can I Find More
Information About Water Quality
Criteria and Water Quality Standards?
For more information about water
quality criteria and Water Quality
Standards refer to the following: Water
Quality Standards Handbook (EPA 823-
B94-005a); Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM), (63 FR
36742); Water Quality Criteria and
Standards Plan —Priorities for the
Future (EPA 822-R-98-003); Guidelines
and Methodologies Used in the
Preparation of Health Effects
Assessment Chapters of the Consent
Decree Water Criteria Documents (45 FR
79347); Draft Water Quality Criteria
Methodology Revisions: Human Health
(63 FR 43755, EPA 822-Z-98-001); and
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses (EPA 822/R-85-100);
National Strategy for the Development
of Regional Nutrient Criteria (EPA 822-
R-98-002).
These publications may also be
accessed through EPA's National Center
for Environmental Publications and
Information (NCEPI) or on the Office of
Science and Technology's Home -page
(www.epa.gov/OST).
IX. What Are the National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria?
The following compilation and its
associated footnotes and notes presents
the national recommended water quality
criteria.

NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Priority pollutant
CAS No.
Freshwater
Saltwater
Human health for consumption of:
FR cite/source
CMC
(14L)
CCC
(µ9/L)
CMC
(µ9/L)
CCC
(µg/L)
Water + orga-
nism (µg/L)
Organism only
(119/L)
1 Antimony
7440360
1
14 B. z
4300 B
57 FR 60848
2 Arsenic
7440382
340 A.D.(
150 A•ll.K
69 A.D.bb
36A,D.hb
6
62 FR 42160
0.018 c•M•S
0.14 c•M•s
57 FR 60848
3 Beryllium
7440417
3
3.7.
3
62 FR 42160
4 Cadmium
7440439
4.3 D.I . K
2.2 n.13. K
421D.hb
9.3 D.bb
3.Z
3
62 FR 42160
5a Chromium III
16065831
570 D.IL K
74 D.G.K
E
EPA 820/B-96-001
J.z Total
3
62 FR 42160
5b Chromium VI
18540299
16D.K
11 D.K
1,100D•bb
50D.bb
3.z Total
3
62 FR 42160
6 Copper
7440508
131D. l:. K."
9.01D• li. K. cc
4.8 D. ". f
3.1 D• ix. It'
1, 30011
6
62 FR 42160
7 Lead
7439921
651D. IL". Ss
2.51D. 1 • bb, gg
210 D. bb
8.1 n. hh
3
3
62 FR 42160
8 Mercury
7439976
1.4 D. K. h►,
0.77 n. K. hh
1.813, «. hit
0.94 D. ce.. hh
0.050 B
0.051 B
62 FR 42160
9 Nickel
7440020
470D• l:. K
521D.Ii. K
74 D.bb
8.2 n.1
610 B
4,600 B
62 FR 42160
10 Selenium
7782492
L.R.T
5.0T
2901).bb.dd
71 DD.bb.dd
6
62 FR 42160
170z
11,000
IRIS 09/01/91
11 Silver
7440224
3.41D.1i.G
1.91).G
6
62 FR 42160
12 Thallium
7440280
1
1.7 B
6.3 B
57 FR 60848
13 Zinc
7440666
120D.1..K
1201).li.K
90D.hh
81 D.hh
6
62 FR 42160
9,100U
69,00011
IRIS 10/01/92
14 Cyanide
57125
22 K.Q
5.2 K.(2
E
EPA 820/B-96-001
1 Q.hh
1 Q.bh
70013.z
220,0001"
57 FR 60848
15 Asbestos
1332214
7
7 million fibers/Li
57 FR 60848
16 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD Dioxin
1746016
1
1.3E-8c
1.4E-8c
62 FR 42160
17 Acrolein
107028
3
320
780
57 FR 60848
rile
17
n•c
�•c
7
57
118 9
Benzene
71432
10B
.2 ,62
B
FR 42160
20 Bromoform
75252
4
4.3 B.0
360 B.0
62 FR 42160
21 Carbon Tetrachloride
56235
0
0.2513•c
4.4 B.0
57 FR 60848
22 Chlorobenzene
108907
6
680 B2
21,000 B.H
57 FR 60848
23 Chlorodibromomethane
124481
0
0.41 B.0
34 B•c
62 FR 42160
24 Chloroethane
75003
25 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
110758
26 Chloroform
67663
5
5.7 B.0
470 B•C
62 FR 42160
27 Dichlorobromomethane
75274
0
0.56 B.0
46 B.0
62 FR 42160
28 1,1-Dichloroethane
75343
29 1,2-Dichloroethane
107062
0
0.38 f3•c
99 B.C.
57 FR 60848
30 1,1-Dichloroethylene
75354
0
0.057 B.0
3.2 B•c
57 FR 60848
31 1,2-Dichloropropane
78875
0
0.52 BC
39 B.0
62 FR 42160
32 1,3-Dichloropropene
542756
1
10 B
1,700 B
57 FR 60848
33 Ethylbenzene
100414
3
3,100 B.Z
29,000 B
62 FR 42160
34 Methyl Bromide
74839
4
48 B
4000 B
62 FR 42160
35 Methyl Chloride
74873
3
3
3
62 FR 42160
36 Methylene Chloride
75092
4
4.7 B•c
1600 LC
62 FR 42160
37 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ....
79345
0
0.178•c
11B•c
57 FR 60848
38 Tetrachloroethylene
127184
0
0.8c
8.85c
57 FR 60848
39 Toluene
108883
6
6,800 82
200,000 B
62 FR 42160
40 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene ..
156605
7
700 BZ
140,000 B
62 FR 42160
41 1,1,1-Trichforoethane
71556
3
3.L
3
62 FR 42160
42 1,1,2-Trichforoethane
79005
0
0.608•c
42B•c
57 FR 60848
43 Trichloroethylene
79016
2
2.7 c
81 c
57 FR 60848
44 Vinyl Chloride
75014
2
2.0 c
525 c
57 FR 60848
45 2-Chlorophenol
95578
1
120 B•U
400 B.0
62 FR 42160
46 2,4-Dichlorophenol
120832
9
93 B.0
790 B.0
57 FR 60848
47 2,4-Dimethylphenol
105679
5
540 B.0
2,300 B.0
62 FR 42160
48 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol ...
534521
1
13.4
765
57 FR 60848
49 2,4-Dinitrophenol
51285
7
70 B
14,000B
57 FR 60848
50 2-Nitrophenol
88755
51 4-Nitrophenol
100027
52 3-Methvl-4-Chloroohenol
59507
l
ll
U.

NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY Toxic POLLUTANTS -Continued
Priority pollutant
CAS No.
Freshwater
Saltwater
Human health for consumption of:
CMC
(pg/L)
CCC
CMC
(ul-)
CCC
(u0L)
Water + orga-
nism (µg/L)
Organism only
(µg/L)
FR cite/source
53 Pentachlorophenol
54 Phenol
55 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
56 Acenaphthene
57 Acenaphthylene
58 Anthracene
59 Benzidine
60 BenzoaAnthracene
61 BenzoaPyrene
62 BenzobFluoranthene
63 BenzoghiPerylene
64 BenzokFluoranthene
65 Bis2-ChloroethoxyMethane
66 Bis2-ChloroethylEther
67 Bis2-ChloroisopropylEther
68 Bis2-EthylhexylPhthalate X
69 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
70 Butylbenzyl Phthalatew
71 2-Chloronaphthalene
72 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
73 Chrysene
74 Dibenzoa,hAnthracene
75 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
76 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
77 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
78 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
79 Diethyl Phthalatew
80 Dimethyl Phthalate"'
81 Di-n-Butyl Phthalatew
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 Ideno 1,2,3-cdPyrene
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
103 alpha-BHC
104 beta-BHC
105 gamma-BHC (Lindane)
106 delta-BHC
107 Chlordane
87865
108952
88062
83329
208968
120127
92875
56553
50328
205992
191242
207089
111911
111444
39638329
117817
101553
85687
91587
7005723
218019
53703
95501
541731
106467
91941
84662
131113
84742
121142
606202
117840
122667
206440
86737
118741
87683
77474
67721
193395
78591
91203
98953
62759
621647
86306
85018
129000
120821
309002
319846
319857
58899
319868
57749
19r•K
3.0
0.95 K
2.40
15 I.K
0.0043 G.aa
13 bb 7.9 bb
1.3G
0.16G
0.09G
0.004 G•aa
0.28 B.G
21,000 B.tJ
2.1 B.c.0
1,200 B.tr
9,600 B
0.00012 B.0
0.0044 BA:
0.0044 [Lc
0.0044 !LC
0.0044 B.c
0.031 B.c
1,400 B
1.8 B.0
3,000
1,700 B
0.0044 B•C
0.0044 B.0
2,700 BZ
400
400 z
0.04 B.0
23,000 B
313,000
2,700 B
0.11 c
0.040 B.C.
300 B
1,300 B
0.00075 B.0
0.44 B•C
240 B.U.z
1.9 B•C
0.0044 B.0
36 B.0
17B
0.00069 B.c
0.005 B.0
5.0 B.0
960 B
260z
0.00013 B.0
0.0039 B.0
0.014 B•C
0.019c
0.0021 B.0
8.2 B.C.1I
4,600,000 B.H.0
6.5 B.0
2,700 B.0
110,000 B
0.00054 B.0
0.049 B.0
0.049 B.0
0.049 B•C
0.049 B•C
1.4 B.0
170,000 B
5.9 LW
5,200
4,300 B
0.049 B.0
0.049 B.0
17,000 B
2,600
2,600
0.077 B.0
120,000 B
2,900,000
12,000 B
9.1 c
0.54 B.c
370 B
14,000 B
0.00077 B,C
50 B.0
17,000 B.H.0
8.9 B.0
0.049 B.0
2,600 B.c
1,900 13.11.0
8.1 B.0
1.41347
16 B.c
11,000 B
940
0.00014 B.0
0.013 B•C
0.046 B•C
0.063 C
0.0022 B.0
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
57 FR 60848
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
57 FR 60848
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
57 FR 60848
62 FR 42160
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
62 FR 42160
IRIS 11/01/97
57 FR 60848
57 FR 60848
62 FR 42160
57 FR 60848
62 FR 42160
IRIS 11/01/96
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
62 FR 42160
IRIS 02/07/98

108 4,4'-DDT
109 4,4'-DDE
110 4,4'-DDD
111 Dieldrin
112 alpha-Endosulfan
113 beta-Endosulfan
114 Endosulfan Sulfate
115 Endrin
116 Endrin Aldehyde
117 Heptachlor
118 Heptachlor Epoxide
119 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCBs
120 Toxaphene
50293
72559
72548
60571
959988
33213659
1031078
72208
7421934
76448
1024573
8001352
1.1 G 0.001 G. 0.13 G 0.001 G.aa 0.00059 B.c 0.00059 B.0 62 FR 42160
0.00059 13.c 0.00059 13.0 62 FR 42160
0.00083 11.c 0.00084 13.0 62 FR 42160
0.24 K 0.056 K.° 0.71 G 0.0019 G.aa 0.00014 B.c 0.00014 B.c 62 FR 42160
0.22 G.Y 0.056 G.Y 0.034 G•Y 0.0087 G.Y 110 B 240 B 62 FR 42160
0.22 G•Y 0.056 G•Y 0.034 G•Y 0.0087 G•Y 110 B 240 B 62 FR 42160
110 B 240 B 62 FR 42160
0.086 K 0.036 K.O 0.037 G 0.0023 G.aa 0.76 B 0.81 B•" 62 FR 42160
0.76 B 0.81 0.11 62 FR 42160
0.52 G 0.0038 G.aa 0.053 G 0.0036 G.aa 0.00021 B.0 0.00021 B.c 62 FR 42160
0.52 G.V 0.0038 G.V as 0.053 G.V 0.0036 G.v.aa 0.00010 B.0 0.00011 B.c 62 FR 42160
0.014 N•aa 0.03 N.aa 62 FR 42160
0.00017 B.C." 0.00017 B.c.P 63 FR 16182
0.73 0.0002 as 0.21 0.0002.. 0.00073 B.c 0.00075 13.0 62 FR 42160
Footnotes:
^This recommended water quality criterion was derived from data for arsenic (III), but is applied here to total arsenic, which might imply that arsenic (III) and arsenic (V) are equally toxic
to aquatic life and that their toxicities are additive. In the arsenic criteria document (EPA 440/5-84-033, January 1985), Species Mean Acute Values are given for both arsenic (III) and ar-
senic (V) for five species and the ratios of the SMAVs for each species range from 0.6 to 1.7. Chronic values are available for both arsenic (III) and arsenic (V) for one species; for the fat-
head minnow, the chronic value for arsenic (V) is 0.29 times the chronic value for arsenic (III). No data are known to be available concerning whether the toxicities of the forms of arsenic to
aquatic organisms are additive.
"This criterion has been revised to reflect The Environmental Protection Agency's q1* or RfD, as contained in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as of April 8, 1998. The fish
tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) from the 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria document was retained in each case.
("This criterion is based on carcinogenicity of 10-6 risk. Alternate risk levels may be obtained by moving the decimal point (e.g., for a risk level of 10 -5, move the decimal point in the rec-
ommended criterion one place to the right).
» Freshwater and saltwater criteria for metals are expressed in terms of the dissolved metal in the water column. The recommended water quality criteria value was calculated by using the
previous 304(a) aquatic life criteria expressed in terms of total recoverable metal, and multiplying it by a conversion factor (CF). The term "Conversion Factor" (CF) represents the rec-
ommended conversion factor for converting a metal criterion expressed as the total recoverable fraction in the water column to a criterion expressed as the dissolved fraction in the water
column. (Conversion Factors for saltwater CCCs are not currently available. Conversion factors derived for saltwater CMCs have been used for both saltwater CMCs and CCCs.) See "Office
of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria," October 1, 1993, by Martha G. Prothro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Water, available from the Water Resource center, USEPA, 401 M St., SW, mall code RC4100, Washington, DC 20460; and 40 CFR§131.36(b)(1). Conversion Factors applied in the table
can be found in Appendix A to the Preamble —Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals.
=The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. The value given here corresponds to a hardness of 100 mg/L. Criteria values
for other hardness may be calculated from the following: CMC (dissolved) = exp {m A [In(hardness)+b A} (CF), or CCC (dissolved) = exp {mc [in (hardness)]+b c} (CF) and the parameters
specified in Appendix B to the Preamble —Parameters for Calculating Freshwater Dissolved Metals Criteria That Are Hardness -Dependent.
''Freshwater aquatic life values for pentachlorophenol are expressed as a function of pH, and are calculated as follows: CMD=exp(1.005(pH)-4.869); CCC=exp(1.005 (pH)-5.134). Val-
ues displayed in table correspond to a pH of 7.8.
G This Criterion is based on 304(a) aquatic life criterion issued in 1980, and was issued in one of the following documents: AldrinlDieldrin (EPA 440/5-80-019), Chlordane (EPA 440/5-80-
027), DDT (EPA 440/5-80-038), Endosulfan (EPA 440/5-80-046), Endrin (EPA 440/5-80-047), Heptachlor (440/5-80-052), Hexachlorocyclohexane (EPA 440/5-80-054), Silver (EPA 440/
5-80-071). The Minimum Data Requirements and derivation procedures were different in the 1980 Guidelines than in the 1985 Guidelines. For example, a "CMC" derived using the 1980
Guidelines was derived to be used as an instantaneous maximum. If assessment is to be done using an averaging period, the values given should be divided by 2 to obtain a value that is
more comparable to a CMC derived using the 1985 Guidelines.
" No criterion 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, sufficient information was presented in the 1980 document to allow the calculation of a criterion, even though the results of such a calculation were not shown in the docu-
ment.
This criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
EPA has not calculated human health criterion for this contaminant. However, permit authorities should address this contaminant in NPDES permit actions using the State's existing nar-
rative criteria for toxics.
K This recommended criterion is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was issued in the 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambi-
ent Water, (EPA-820-B-96-011, September 1996). This value was derived using the GLI Guidelines (60 FR 15393-15399, March 23, 1995; 40 CFR 132 Appendix A); the difference be-
tween the 1985 Guidelines and the GLI Guidelines are explained on page iv of the 1995 Updates. None of the decisions conceming the derivation of this criterion were affected by any con-
siderations that are specific to the Great Lakes.
'-The CMC=1/[(f1/CMC1)=(f2/CMC2)] where f1 and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 141 and
12.83 jig/I, respectively.
M EPA is currently reassessing the criteria for arsenic. Upon completion of the reassessment the Agency will publish revised criteria as appropriate.
N PCBs are a class of chemicals which include aroclors, 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016, CAS numbers 53469219, 11097691, 11104282, 11141165, 12672296, 11096825
and 12674112 respectively. The aquatic life criteria apply to this set of PCBs.
()The derivation of the CCC for this pollutant did not consider exposure through the diet, which is probably important for aquatic life occupying upper trophic levels.
"This criterion applies to total pcbs, i.e., the sum of all congener or all isomer analyses.
()This recommended water quality criterion is expressed as µg free cyanide (as CN)/L.
R This value was announced (61 FR 58444-58449, November 14, 1996) as a proposed GLI 303(c) aquatic life criterion. EPA is currently working on this criterion and so this value might
change substantially in the near future.
S This recommended water quality criterion refers to the inorganic form only.
TThis recommended water quality criterion is expressed in terms of total recoverable metal in the water column. It is scientifically acceptable to use the conversion factor of 0.922 that was
used in the GLI to convert this to a value that is expressed in terms of dissolved metal.
U The organoleptic effect criterion is more stringent than the value for priority toxic pollutants.

V This value was derived from data for heptachlor and the criteria document provides insufficient data to estimate the relative toxicities of heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide.
WAlthough EPA has not published a final criteria document for this compound it is EPA's understanding that sufficient data exist to allow calculation of aquatic criteria. It is anticipated that
industry intends to publish in the peer reviewed literature draft aquatic life criteria generated in accordance with EPA Guidelines. EPA will review such criteria for possible issuance as na-
tional WQC.
XThere is a full set of aquatic life toxicity data that show that DEHP is not toxic to aquatic organisms at or below its solubility limit.
" This value was derived from data for endosulfan and is most appropriately applied to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan.
LA more stringent MCL has been issued by EPA. Refer to drinking water regulations (40 CFR 141) or Safe Drinking Water Hotline [phone]) for values.
• This CCC is based on the Final Residue Value procedure in the 1985 Guidelines. Since the publication of the Great Lakes Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines in 1995 (60FR 15393-15399,
March 23, 1995), the Agency no longer uses the Final Residue Value procedure for deriving CCCs for new or revised 304(a) aquatic life criteria.
• This water quality critenon is based on 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was derived using the 1985 Guidelines (Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, PB85-227049, January 1985) and was issued in one of the following criteria documents: Arsenic (EPA 440/5-84-033), Cadmium (EPA
440/5-84-032), Chromium (EPA 440/5-84-029), Copper (EPA 440/5-84-031), Cyanide (EPA 400/5-84-028), Lead (EPA 440/5-84-027), Nickel (EPA 440/5-86-004), Pentachloropheno!
(EPA 440/5-86-009), Toxaphene (EPA 440/5-86-006), Zinc (EPA 440/5-87-003).
ce When the concentration of dissolved organic carbon is elevated, copper is substantially less toxic and use of Water -Effect Ratios might be appropriate.
dal -he selenium criteria document (EPA 440/5-87-006), September 1987) provides that if selenium is as toxic to saltwater fishes in the field as it is to freshwater fishes in the field, the sta-
tus of the fish community should be monitored whenever the concentration of selenium exceeds 5.0 µg/L in salt water because the saltwater CCC does not take into account uptake via the
food chain.
«This recommended water quality criterion was derived on page 43 of the mercury criteria document (EPA 440/5-84-026, January 1985). The saltwater CCC of 0.025 µg/L given on page
23 of the criteria document is based on the Final Residue Value procedure in the 1985 Guidelines. Since the publication of the Great Lakes Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines in 1995
(60FR15393-15399, March 23, 1995), the Agency no longer uses the Final Residue Value procedure for deriving CCCs for new or revised 304(a) aquatic life criteria.
n'This recommended water quality criterion was derived in Ambient Water Quality Criteria Saltwater Copper Addendum (Draft, April 14, 1995) and was promulgated in the Interim Final Na-
tional Toxics Rule (60FR22228-222237, May 4, 1995).
ss EPA is actively working on this criterion and so this recommended water quality criterion may change substantially in the near future.
This recommended water quality criterion was derived from data for inorganic mercury (II), but is applied here to total mercury. If a substantial portion of the mercury in the water column
is methylmercury, this criterion will probably be under protective. In addition, even though inorganic mercury is converted to methylmercury and methylmercury bioaccumulates to a great ex-
tent, this criterion does not account for uptake via the food chain because sufficient data were not available when the criteria was derived.
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR NON PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Non priority pollutant
CAS No.
Freshwater
Saltwater
Human health for consumption of:
FR cite/source
CMC
(µg/L)
CCC
(µg/L)
CMC CCC
WI-) (µg/L)
Water + orga- Organism only
nism (µg/L) (119/L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Alkalinity
Aluminum pH 6.5-9.0
Ammonia
Aesthetic Qualities
Bacteria
Barium
Boron
Chloride
Chlorine
Chlorophenoxy Herbicide 2,4,5,-TP
Chlorophenoxy Herbicide 2,4-D
Chloropyrifos
Color
Demeton
Ether, Bis Chloromethyl
Gases, Total Dissolved
Guthion
Hardness
Hexachlorocyclo-hexane-Technical
Iron
Malathion
Manganese
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nitrates
Nitrosamines
7429905
7664417
7440393
16887006
7782505
93721
94757
2921882
8065483
542881
86500
319868
7439896
121755
7439965
72435
2385855
14797558
750 G.I
860000
19
0.0830
0
200001'
87G.I.L
FRESHWATER
SALTWATER CRITERIA
NARRATIVE
FOR PRIMARY RECREATION
NARRATIVE
230000 a
11
0.041 c
NARRATIVE
0.1 F•1 "
NARRATIVE
0.01 F•H
NARRATIVE
1000 F
0.1 F."1
0.03 F.H
0.001 I'•'i
CRITERIA ARE pH DEPENDENT —SEE
ARE pH AND TEMPERATURE
STATEMENT —SEE DOCUMENT
AND SHELLFISH USES
DOCUMENT
DEPENDENTD
—SEE DOCUMENT
'-
Gold Book
53 FR 33178
EPA822-R-98-008
EPA440/5-88-004
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
53 FR 19028
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
IRIS 01/01/91
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book

27 Dinitrophenols
28 Nitrosodibutylamine,N
29 Nitrosodiethylamine,N
30 Nitrosopyrrolidine,N
31 Oil and Grease
32 Oxygen, Dissolved
33 Parathion
34 Pentachlorobenzene
35 pH
36 Phosphorus Elemental
37 Phosphate Phosphorus
38 Solids Dissolved and Salinity
39 Solids Suspended and Turbidity
40 Sulfide -Hydrogen Sulfide
41 Tainting Substances
42 Temperature
43 Tetrachlorobenzene,1,2,4,5-
44 Tributyltin TBT
45 Trichlorophenol,2,4,5-
25550587
924163
55185
930552
7782447
56382
608935
7723140
7783064
95943
95954
70 14,000
0.0064 A 0.587 A
0.0008 A 1.24 A
0.016 91.9
NARRATIVE STATEMENT —SEE DOCUMENT 1'
WARMWATER AND COLDWATER MATRIX —SEE DOCUMENT°
0.065 i 0.013 J
3.5E 4.1 E
6.5-91' 6.5-8.5 E•K 5-9
0.1r.K
NARRATIVE STATEMENT —SEE DOCUMENT
1250,000 A
NARRATIVE STATEMENT —SEE DOCUMENT 1'
2.0 F•N 1 2.0' ." 1
NARRATIVE STATEMENT —SEE DOCUMENT
SPECIES DEPENDENT CRITERIA —SEE DOCUMENTM
2.3E 2.9 s
0.46N 0.063 N
0.37N 0.010N
2,600 B.E 9,800 B.E
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
IRIS 03/01/88
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
Gold Book
IRIS03/01/91
62 FR 42554
IRIS 03/01/88
Footnotes:
A This human health criterion is the same as originally published in the Red Book which predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same cri-
terion value is now published in the Gold Book
B The organoleptic effect criterion is more stringent than the value presented in the non priority pollutants table.
A more stringent Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) has been issued by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Refer to drinking water regulations 40 CFR 141 or Safe Drinking
Water Hotline [phone]) for values.
DAccording to the procedures described in the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, except possibly
where a very sensitive species is important at a site, freshwater aquatic life should be protected if both conditions specified in Appendix C to the Preamble —Calculation of Freshwater Am-
monia Criterion are satisfied.
'=This criterion has been revised to reflect The Environmental Protection Agency's q1* or RfD, as contained in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as of April 8, 1998. The fish
tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) used to derive the original criterion was retained in each case.
''The derivation of this value is presented in the Red Book (EPA 440/9-76-023, July, 1976).
°This value is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was derived using the 1985 Guidelines (Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, PB85-227049, January 1985) and was issued in one of the following criteria documents: Aluminum (EPA 440/5-86-008); Chloride (EPA 440/5-88-001);
Chloropyrifos (EPA 440/5-86-005).
N This CCC is based on the Final Residue Value procedure in the 1985 Guidelines. Since the publication of the Great Lakes Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines in 1995 (60 FR 15393-15399,
March 23, 1995), the Agency no longer uses the Final Residue Value procedure for deriving CCCs for new or revised 304(a) aquatic life criteria.
'This value is expressed in terms of total recoverable metal in the water column.
This value is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was issued in the 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water (EPA-
820-B-96-001). This value was derived using the GLI Guidelines (60 FR 15393-15399, March 23, 1995; 40 CFR 132 Appendix A); the differences between the 1985 Guidelines and the
GLI Guidelines are explained on page iv of the 1995 Updates. No decision concerning this criterion was affected by any considerations that are specific to the Great Lakes.
K According to page 181 of the Red Book: For open ocean waters where the depth is substantially greater than the euphotic zone, the pH should not be changed more than 0.2 units from
the naturally occurring variation or any case outside the range of 6.5 to 8.5. For shallow, highly productive coastal and estuarine areas where naturally occurring pH variations approach the
lethal limits of some species, changes in pH should be avoided but in any case should not exceed the limits established for fresh water, i.e., 6.5-9.0.
L There are three major reasons why the use of Water -Effect Ratios might be appropriate. (1) The value of 87 µg/i is based on a toxicity test with the striped bass in water with pH=6.5-6.6
and hardness <10 mg/L. Data in "Aluminum Water -Effect Ratio for the 3M Plant Effluent Discharge, Middleway, West Virginia" (May 1994) indicate that aluminum is substantially less toxic
at higher pH and hardness, but the effects of pH and hardness are not well quantified at this time. (2) In tests with the brook trout at low pH and hardness, effects increased with increasing
concentrations of total aluminum even though the concentration of dissolved aluminum was constant, indicating that total recoverable is a more appropriate measurement than dissolved, at
least when particulate aluminum is primarily aluminum hydroxide particles. In surface waters, however, the total recoverable procedure might measure aluminum associated with clay par-
ticles, which might be less toxic than aluminum associated with aluminum hydroxide. (3) EPA is aware of field data indicating that many high quality waters in the U.S. contain more than 87
µg aluminum/L, when either total recoverable or dissolved is measured.
M U.S. EPA. 1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.; U.S. EPA. 1977. Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Pro-
tocol and Procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
N This value was announced (62 FR 42554, August 7, 1997) as a proposed 304(a) aquatic life criterion. Although EPA has not responded to public comment, EPA is publishing this as a
304(a) criterion in today's notice as guidance for States and Tribes to consider when adopting water quality criteria.
° U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens. Director
June 19, 2000
Larry McCaskill
Yadkin Inc.
P.O. Box 576
Badin, North Carolina 28009
A7infn
NCDENR
Subject: Corrective Action Letter
Permit No. NC0081957
Narrows Powerhouse
Stanly County
Dear Mr. McCaskill:
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the Division's position regarding the discharge of the sump water at
the Narrows Powerhouse. The Narrows Powerhouse is a hydroelectric facility located in Stanly County
North Carolina. Stormwater, which is deposited on the penstocks, collects in sumps located along the
east foundation of the hydroelectric facility. Water samples collected February 26, 1999 and March 15,
1999 revealed that the sediment deposited in the sumps contain levels of PCBs and heavy metals.
Samples were also collected on the water above the sediment and revealed the presence of heavy metals
(i.e. Pb). A subsequent analysis of the water above the sediment, collected on September 21,1999,
detected lead and PCB at 0.045 mg/1 and 0.357 ug/1, respectively.
Based on the latest findings, the Division suggests that Yadkin Inc. evaluate disposal methods other than
discharge. The Division recognizes that the cost associated with alternative disposal methods make
discharging an attractive alternative and the Division may permit the discharge provided that either of the
following two options are followed.
Option One:
Prior to discharge Yadkin Inc. must obtain two samples from the sump. One sample shall represent the
upper third of the water column and one sample shall represent the bottom third of the water column.
Analysis results must demonstrate that the listed metals and PCB concentrations are below the following
levels:
Lead (Pb) = 33.78 ug/I
Cadmium (Cd) = 5 ug/I
Chromium (Cr) = 984.3 ug/I
Zinc (Zn) = 65 ug/1
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 - TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Yadkin Inc.
Permit No. NC0081957
Narrows Hydroelectric Facility
Page 2
Copper (Cu) = 9.2 ug/l
Total PCBs = 0.000079 ug/l
The Permittee shall determine the concentration of the listed metals in the sump water using either EPA
Method 200.7, EPA Method 200.9, or 3113B (Standard Methods). The concentration of PCB in the sump
water shall be determined using either EPA Method 8082 or EPA Method 608.
Upon determination that the contaminant levels are below those listed above, the sump water may be
discharged until the water level in the lower sump is' the full water level.
Option Two:
Prior to discharge the sump water shall receive appropriate treatment to remove the contaminants
previously mentioned. The treatment technology employed shall be a proven technology for removal of
the listed contaminants and approved by the Division prior to implementation. After receiving the
appropriate treatment, discharge of the sump water is permitted until the water level in the lower sump is
depressed to' the full water level. The remainder of the water contained in the sump must be disposed
of by an alternative other than discharge.
Sincerely.
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
cc: Mooresville Regional Office Regional Office / Water Quality Section
Central Files
NEJ I Tiii*,

68362
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1998 / Notices
NATIONAL RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR ORGANOLEPTIC EFFECTS
Pollutant
CAS No.
Organoleptic
effect criteria
(110-)
FR cite/source
1 Acenaphthene
208968
20
Gold Book
2 Monochlorobenzene
108907
20
Gold Book
3 3-Chlorophenol
0.1
Gold Book
4 4-Chlorophenol
106489
0.1
Gold Book
5 2,3-Dichlorophenol
0.04
Gold Book
6 2,5-Dichlorophenol
0.5
Gold Book
7 2,6-Dichlorophenol
0.2
Gold Book
8 3,4-Dichlorophenol
0.3
Gold Book
9 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
95954
1
Gold Book
10 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
88062
2
Gold Book
11 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
1
Gold Book
12 2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
1800
Gold Book
13 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
59507
3000
Gold Book
14 3-Methyl-6-Chlorophenol
20
Gold Book
15 2-Chlorophenol
95578
0.1
Gold Book
16 Copper
744058
1000
Gold Book
17 2,4-Dichlorophenol
120832
0.3
Gold Book
18 2,4-Dimethylphenol
105679
400
Gold Book
19 HexacNorocyclopentadiene
77474
1
Gold Book
20 Nitrobenzene
98953
30
Gold Book
21 Pentachoorophenol
87865
30
Gold Book
22 Phenol
108952
300
Gold Book
23 Zinc
7440666
5000
45 FR 79341
General Notes:
1. These criteria are based on organoleptic (taste and odor) effects. Because of variations in chemical nomenclature systems, this listing of
pollutants does not duplicate the listing in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 423. Also listed are the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry num-
bers, which provide a unique identification for each chemical.
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
Additional Notes
1. Criteria Maximum Concentration and Criterion Continuous Concentration
The Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which
an aquatic community can be exposed briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect. The Criterion Continuous Concentration
(CCC) is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed
indefinitely without resulting in an unacceptable effect. The CMC and CCC are just two of the six parts of a aquatic life criterion:
the other four parts are the acute averaging period, chronic averaging period, acute frequency of allowed exceedence, and chronic
frequency of allowed exceedence. Because 304(a) aquatic life criteria are national guidance, they are intended to be protective of
the vast majority of the aquatic communities in the United States.
2. Criteria Recommendations for Priority Pollutants, Non Priority Pollutants and Organoleptic Effects
This compilation lists all priority toxic pollutants and some non priority toxic pollutants, and both human health effect and
organoleptic effect criteria issued pursuant to CWA §304(a). Blank spaces indicate that EPA has no CWA §304(a) criteria recommenda-
tions. For a number of non -priority toxic pollutants not listed, CWA §304(a) "water + organism" human health criteria are not available,
but, EPA has published MCLs under the SDWA that may be used in establishing water quality standards to protect water supply
designated uses. 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. Also listed are the Chemical Abstracts Service CAS registry numbers, which provide a unique
identification for each chemical.
3. Human Health Risk
The human health criteria for the priority and non priority pollutants are based on carcinogenicity of 10-6 risk. Alternate risk
levels may be obtained by moving the decimal point (e.g., for a risk level of 10-5, move the decimal point in the recommended
criterion one place to the right).
4. Water Quality Criteria Published Pursuant to Section 304(a) or Section 303(c) of the CWA
Many of the values in the compilation were published in the proposed California Toxics Rule (CTR, 62 FR 42160). Although
such values were published pursuant to Section 303(c) of the CWA, they represent the Agency's most recent calculation of water
quality criteria and thus are published today as the Agency's 304(a) criteria. Water quality criteria published in the proposed CTR
may be revised when EPA takes final action on the CTR.
5. Calculation of Dissolved Metals Criteria
The 304(a) criteria for metals. shown as dissolved metals, are calculated in one of two ways. For freshwater metals criteria that
are hardness -dependent, the dissolved metal criteria were calculated using a hardness of 100 mg/1 as CaCO3 for illustrative purposes
only. Saltwater and freshwater metals' criteria that are not hardness -dependent are calculated by multiplying the total recoverable
criteria before rounding by the appropriate conversion factors. The final dissolved metals' criteria in the table are rounded to two
significant figures. Information regarding the calculation of hardness dependent conversion factors are included in the footnotes.
6. Correction of Chemical Abstract Services Number
The Chemical Abstract Services number (CAS) for Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether. has been corrected in the table. The correct CAS
number for this chemical is 39638-32-9. Previous publications listed 108-60-1 as the CAS number for this chemical.

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 237/Thursday, December 10, 1998/Notices 68363
7. Maximum Contaminant Levels
The compilation includes footnotes for pollutants with Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) more stringent than the recommended
water quality criteria in the compilation. MCLs for these pollutants are not included in the compilation, but can be found in the
appropriate drinking water regulations (40 CFR 141.11-16 and 141.60-63), or can be accessed through the Safe Drinking Water Hotline
(800-426-4791) or the Internet (http://www.epa.gov/ost/tools/dwstds-s.html).
8. Organoleptic Effects
The compilation contains 304(a) criteria for pollutants with toxicity -based criteria as well as non -toxicity based criteria. The basis
for the non -toxicity based criteria are organoleptic effects (e.g., taste and odor) which would make water and edible aquatic life
unpalatable but not toxic to humans. The table includes criteria for organoleptic effects for 23 pollutants. Pollutants with organoleptic
effect criteria more stringent than the criteria based on toxicity (e.g.. included in both the priority and non -priority pollutant tables)
are footnoted as such.
9. Category Criteria
In the 1980 criteria documents. certain recommended water quality criteria were published for categories of pollutants rather than
for individual pollutants within that category. Subsequently, in a series of separate actions, the Agency derived criteria for specific
pollutants within a category. Therefore. in this compilation EPA is replacing criteria representing categories with individual pollutant
criteria (e.g.. 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and 1,2-dichlorobenzene).
10. Specific Chemical Calculations
A. Selenium
(1) Human Health
In the 1980 Selenium document, a criterion for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms was
calculated based on a BCF of 6.0 L/kg and a maximum water -related contribution of 35 µg Se/day. Subsequently, the EPA Office
of Health and Environmental Assessment issued an errata notice (February 23, 1982), revising the BCF for selenium to 4.8 L/kg.
In 1988, EPA issued an addendum (ECAO-CIN-668) revising the human health criteria for selenium. Later in the final National
Toxic Rule (NTR. 57 FR 60848). EPA withdrew previously published selenium human health criteria. pending Agency review of
new epidemiological data.
This compilation includes human health criteria for selenium, calculated using a BCF of 4.8 L/kg along with the current IRIS
RfD of 0.005 mg/kg/day. EPA included these recommended water quality criteria in the compilation because the data necessary for
calculating a criteria in accordance with EPA's 1980 human health methodology are available.
(2) Aquatic Life
This compilation contains aquatic life criteria for selenium that are the same as those published in the proposed CTR. In the
CTR, EPA proposed an acute criterion for selenium based on the criterion proposed for selenium in the Water Quality Guidance
for the Great Lakes System (61 FR 58444). The GLI and CTR proposals take into account data showing that selenium's two most
prevalent oxidation states, selenite and selenate, present differing potentials for aquatic toxicity, as well as new data indicating that
various forms of selenium are additive. The new approach produces a different selenium acute criterion concentration, or CMC, depending
upon the relative proportions of selenite. selenate, and other forms of selenium that are present.
EPA notes it is currently undertaking a reassessment of selenium, and expects the 304(a) criteria for selenium will be revised
based on the final reassessment (63 FR 26186). However. until such time as revised water quality criteria for selenium are published
by the Agency, the recommended water quality criteria in this compilation are EPA's current 304(a) criteria.
B. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene and Zinc
Human health criteria for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and zinc have not been previously published. Sufficient information is now available
for calculating water quality criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of aquatic organisms and the consumption
of aquatic organisms and water for both these compounds. Therefore, EPA is publishing criteria for these pollutants in this compilation.
C. Chromium (III)
The recommended aquatic life water quality criteria for chromium (III) included in the compilation are based on the values presented
in the document titled: 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water. however,
this document contains criteria based on the total recoverable fraction. The chromium (III) criteria in this compilation were calculated
by applying the conversion factors used in the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (60 FR 15366) to the
1995 Update document values.
D. Ether, Bis (Chloromethyl), Pentachlorobenzene, Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5- Trlchlorophenol
Human health criteria for these pollutants were last published in EPA's Quality Criteria for Water 1986 or "Gold Book". Some
of these criteria were calculated using Acceptable Daily Intake (ADIs) rather than RfDs. Updated ql*s and RfDs are now available
in IRIS for ether, bis (chloromethyl), pentachlorobenzene, tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-, and trichlorophenol, and were used to revise
the water quality criteria for these compounds. The recommended water quality criteria for ether, bis (chloromethyl) were revised
using an updated ql*. while criteria for pentachlorobenzene, and tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-, and trichlorophenol were derived using
an updated RID value.
E. PCBs
In this compilation EPA is publishing aquatic life and human health criteria based on total PCBs rather than individual arochlors.
These criteria replace the previous criteria for the seven individual arochlors. Thus, there are criteria for a total of 102 of the 126
priority pollutants.
Dated: October 26, 1998.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

•
r •
68364
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1998 / Notices
Appendix A -Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals
Metal
Conversion fac-
tor freshwater
CMC
Conversion fac-
tor freshwater
CCC
Conversion fac-
tor saltwater
CMC
Conversion fac-
tor saltwater
CCC
Arsenic
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Cadmium
1.138672-[(In
1.101672-[(In
0.994
0.994
hardness)
hardness)
(0.041838)]
(0.041838)]
Chromium III
0.316
0.860
Chromium VI
0.982
0.962
0.993
0.993
Copper
0.960
0.960
0.83
0.83
Lead
1.46203-[(In
1.46203-[(In
0.951
0.951
hardness)
hardness)
(0.145712)]
(0.145712)]
Mercury
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Nickel
0.998
0.997
0.990
0.990
Selenium
0.998
0.998
Silver
0.85
0.85
Zinc
0.978
0.986
0.946
0.946
Appendix B-Parameters for Calculating Freshwater Dissolved Metals Criteria That Are Hardness -Dependent
Chemical
MA
bA
me
be
Freshwater conversion factors (CF)
Acute
Chronic
Cadmium
1.128
-3.6867
0.7852
-2.715
1.136672-[In (hard-
1.101672-[In (hard-
ness)(0.041838)]
ness)(0.041838)]
Chromium III
0.8190
3.7256
0.8190
0.6848
0.316
0.860
Copper
0.9422
-1.700
0.8545
-1.702
0.960
0.960
Lead
1.273
-1.460
1.273
-4.705
1.46203-[In (hard-
1.46203-[In (hard-
ness)(0.145712)]
ness)(0.145712)]
Nickel
0.8460
2.255
0.8460
0.0584
0.998
0.997
Silver
1.72
-6.52
0
0.85
Zinc
0.8473
0.884
0.8473
0.884
0.978
0.986
Appendix C-Calculation of Freshwater Ammonia Criterion
1. The one -hour average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) does not exceed. more than once every three years
on the average, the CMC calculated using the following equation:
0.275 39.0
CMC = 1 + 107.204-pH + 1 + l 0pH-7.204
In situations where salmonids do not occur, the CMC may be calculated using the following equation:
0.411 58.4
CMC = l + 107.2O4-pH + 1 + 1 OpH-7.204
2. The thirty -day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) does not exceed, more than once every three
years on the average, the CCC calculated using the following equation:
0.0858 3.70
CCC = 1 + 107.688-pH + 1 + 10pH-7.688
Editorial Note: FR Doc. 98-30272 was originally published as Part IV (63 FR 67548-67558) in the issue of Monday, December
7. 1998. At the request of the agency. due to incorrect footnote identifiers in the tables, the corrected document is being republished
in its entirety.
[FR Doc. 98-30272 Filed 12-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-0
J