Tags

, , , , ,

Please forgive me – I’m bringing forward this information and from the post I made just before it this information –


My Note –

The information about COREXIT from its safety hazard sheet – appears below  the satellite photos – but here is the links for it – in several places it says to use respiratory protection – and chemical splash goggles over eyes and to wear protective clothing –

This one that goes with every bottle or barrel of the product and to all personnel at the BP corporation involved in its use – and the EPA and the local authorities are supposed to have including the fishermen going out into those areas – (get it, print it, save it into your computer – and read the whole thing because some is more insistent on into the document about safety.)

COREXIT 9500 safety and hazards sheet – official document with product –

http://www.cleancaribbean.org/userfiles/Master%20EC9500A%20MSDS.pdf(also)

This one from the EPA –

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/products/corex952.htm

***

The petroleum – oil – hydrocarbons – crude oil that BP and their lapdogs – the US EPA says isn’t there – (nothing but clean water as far as their tests showed)

Gulf of Mexico polluted water from the crude oil exploding into the waters for 43 days that the US EPA says isn't there and BP can't find scientific evidence of existing there - not even at their well pipes where it is gushing out 70,000 barrels per day for 43 days

Gulf of Mexico polluted water from the crude oil exploding into the waters for 43 days that the US EPA says isn't there and BP can't find scientific evidence of existing there - not even at their well pipes where it is gushing out 70,000 barrels per day for 43 days

(from an AP photo and source – forgive me not posting that part – don’t shoot me – it really is important to put it in the context of EPA testing that proves to them it isn’t there.)

***

My NOTE –

See they have these maps from the satellite in the command center – but they are using the incident response map for planning and placements of their resources and it uses the oil spill location from the day before – along with information that is clearly left off of it –

Hancock County Emergency Operations Director Brian Adam at the EOC (Emergency Operations Center in Waveland, MS. 25 May 2010
Hancock County Emergency Operations Director Brian Adam at the EOC (Emergency Operations Center in Waveland, MS. 25 May 2010

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033571&contentId=7061735

Latest Situation Status Map

Deepwater Horizon (MC-252) – Situation Status Map 5/31/2010 0600 Hrs (pdf, 2210KB)

And then I heightened the contrast and it gives this – from today’s image – May 31, 2010 (from MODIS / NOAA / NASA false color satellite image of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill – it is only using information that is already there – )

NOAA / NASA / MODIS false color image from satellite photo - May 31, 2010 - t1.10151.USA7.721.2000m - May 31 - 2010 - false color with high contrast - 2 - Gulf of Mexico oil spillNOAA / NASA / MODIS false color image from satellite photo – May 31, 2010 – t1.10151.USA7.721.2000m – May 31 – 2010 – false color with high contrast – 2 – Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Gee – let’s see how close is that for planning an operation – about as good as throwing horseshoes – or maybe not as good as trying to hit the broad side of a barn with hand grenade from a mile away . . .

– cricketdiane

That screw up with the maps being used to place response assets – starts to give some answer as to why the incident command group has been consistently wrong about placing those assets on a large scale, but mostly too consistently wrong. It is the old “garbage in – garbage out” thing at play.

Without the information on the incident response mapping and the information of the spill parameters accurately conveyed from today’s satellite image – there is obviously the same sense they would have that nothing beyond what they are seeing there exists.

And, then they would keep thinking what a fine job they are doing even as the maps which show their markings of placed boom are failing to reflect the fact that the booms aren’t working, their flimsiness allows the oil to circumvent them, the winds and real world wave conditions are breaking them and driving them up on the grasses or beaches where they aren’t protecting anything, and similar crap.

Along with the fact that – landfall areas known to be heavily coated with oil including the marsh areas – are not on their maps – so they don’t exist. They would think that they are keeping the oil out in the sea far away from the land. And, unless they went far out of their way to find the lists and reports (which aren’t even complete for all the animals that have died) about the animals and birds being recovered dead – they wouldn’t even know that those animals have died from the oil and from the dispersants.

The command center decision-makers also wouldn’t be hitting today’s targets. And, they don’t have the oil plumes that have been logged under the water – so those wouldn’t exist in their little isolated, clean, air-conditioned, wonderland environment either.

Wonder how it is over where the architects of solutions to cap the well have been working. Maybe that would explain a whole lot, too. It might be worth finding out the information they are getting and whether they have chemical engineers on board with the other team assets or if its just a whole bunch of petroleum engineers whose background is mechanical engineering.

Hmmmm….

– cricketdiane

My Note –

I would say that when anything is in the water that kills the animals in that water – there is a water quality standard infraction of significance. That is what we have in the Gulf of Mexico and in the marshes where all the animals are dead and along the shores where to walk with bare feet on the sand or wade into the water with bare feet walks back out again with raw crude oil on the skin and where animals and birds are washing up dead.

That is a definite legal definition of the evidence factually based in reality – that the water quality is amiss and has been seriously denigrated.

That and the fact that hundreds of thousands of barrels at 42 gallons per barrel of oil / petroleum / crude oil / “hydrocarbons” have poured into the Gulf of Mexico every single hour of every single day for 42 – now 43 days.

I’d say that makes it a dead given that there is a problem of significance –

You can’t drink petroleum crude oil safely, you can’t swim in petroleum crude oil safely, you can’t sniff its fumes safely whether it is gasoline fumes or crude oil fumes and you can’t find animals living healthy lives in it.

Those things make it evident that the waters of the Gulf of Mexico are polluted with crude oil / petroleum and oil dispersants also known to be toxic and for the EPA to state that there is no evidence of it in their tests – air, water and sediments – is contrary to good science, contrary to truthfulness, contrary to the public good, contrary to conscientious scientific inquiry and contrary to their legally mandated mission.

– cricketdiane

***

I think maybe it would be good to start another post – but maybe not –

let me see –

I went through about three pages to get to this – but here just this one –

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/tribes/regs.htm

(from here pdf in the middle of the page – )

(because it is easier to find from here – )

– and on my other computer using the EPA directory found on the standards academy site below the link pictures –

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/

the A – Z index –

A–Z Index

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/a-z.html

Then going to

C for Criteria, water quality and choosing the first one for aquatic life – gives –

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqlife/index.html

***

So now I have these two pages on this computer and one of the two on my other computer –

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqlife/index.html

(and)

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/tribes/regs.htm

which gives this –

40 CFR 131 Regulations

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=2abd2ce9e46eac514d68707c6e36e46c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:21.0.1.1.18&idno=40

40 CFR 131 Regulations

§ 131.6   Minimum requirements for water quality standards submission.

The following elements must be included in each State’s water quality standards submitted to EPA for review:

(a) Use designations consistent with the provisions of sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act.

(b) Methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards revisions.

(c) Water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses.

(d) An antidegradation policy consistent with §131.12.

(e) Certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority within the State that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to State law.

(f) General information which will aid the Agency in determining the adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards which do not include the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act as well as information on general policies applicable to State standards which may affect their application and implementation.

§ 131.7   Dispute resolution mechanism.

(a) Where disputes between States and Indian Tribes arise as a result of differing water quality standards on common bodies of water, the lead EPA Regional Administrator, as determined based upon OMB circular A–105, shall be responsible for acting in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(b) The Regional Administrator shall attempt to resolve such disputes where:

(1) The difference in water quality standards results in unreasonable consequences;

(etc.)

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=2abd2ce9e46eac514d68707c6e36e46c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:21.0.1.1.18&idno=40#40:21.0.1.1.18.1.16.6

and this from the other page I have opened on Aquatic Life Criteria EPA – Water Quality Criteria –

Final criteria

Criteria under development

EPA is revising the current aquatic life criteria for lead, silver, and selenium, re-evaluating the current aquatic life criteria for ammonia, and developing new aquatic life criteria for atrazine.

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqlife/index.html

***

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal looks at oil that got past booms as he tours a land bridge built by the Louisiana National Guard to hold back oil.

Herbert/AP
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal looks at oil that got past booms as he tours a land bridge built by the Louisiana National Guard to hold back oil.

(quickly bringing forward the EPA official results today online – )

From here – on the right hand side square listing – toward bottom of page

http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/index.html

Additional Resources

EPA Information on BP Oil Spill

which goes here –

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/

Which offers this – and it is a lie – their own documents in the bowels of the EPA say otherwise – so they have to know it is a lie – whose side are they on?

Air Data >>
EPA’s air monitoring conducted through May 30, 2010, has found that air quality levels for ozone and particulates are normal on the Gulf coastline for this time of year.

EPA has observed odor-causing pollutants associated with petroleum products along the coastline at low levels. Some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea. People may be able to smell some of these chemicals at levels well below those that would cause short-term health problems.

**

That is a lie and they have information on their data and that of other databanks that prove it, my note.

And this one isn’t even possible –

Water Data >>
Most of the water samples collected May 20 through 26, 2010 along the Gulf coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.

One sample, collected May 21 along the coast of Louisiana, found nickel, a chemical associated with oil. This sample exceeded long-term water quality benchmarks. At these levels nickel may cause risk to aquatic life.


This is worse than being in the Cold War era Soviet Union -for the level of lies – lowballing the problems, mistruths, misguiding and misleading facts that deny the facts available in reality anywhere and the intentional misdirection and misleading information being offered through official but persuaded by BP corporate interests and BP websites –

– cricketdiane

***

petroleum oil hydrocarbons pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from one of several leaks running for 43 days from the BP Deepwater Horizon well polluting the Gulf of Mexico waters and air

petroleum oil hydrocarbons pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from one of several leaks running for 43 days from the BP Deepwater Horizon well polluting the Gulf of Mexico waters and air - EPA and BP say there is no health hazards - their samples show clean water - clean air - clean sediments even where it is coming out of the well under the sea -

You know, if it didn’t matter – I wouldn’t even care. But look up gasoline sniffing – look up petroleum or hydrocarbons or any of the dispersant products they are using or any labeling on any product with petroleum in it – or any of the numbers of photos and videos from the area – there is no way that water is clean.

Why are they testing for ozone anyway – that isn’t the poison in the air where the air is filled with petroleum / gasoline fumes that is going to kill people.

And this one –


Sediment

Sediment Data >>
The sediment samples collected through May 16, 2010 along the Gulf coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.

Were they taking samples in the only clean three feet square of land along the coast that clearly didn’t have anything but new sand that was brought in – or what?

Submit a Technology Solution

Submit inquiry form page –

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/inquiry/2931/?dbnameID=23923

***

oil - petroleum - crude oil - hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico that EPA says is clean of any contaminants in their tests as of June 1, 2010

oil - petroleum - crude oil - hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico that EPA says is clean of any contaminants in their tests as of June 1, 2010

My Note –

I so want to email those people at the incident command center and deepwater horizon response group inquire page – and say –

“do you understand that we’ve seen pictures of the crude oil in the ocean water, in the marshes and on the beaches?”

“do you know that we can read?”

“do you understand that people and resources all over the world know beyond a shadow of doubt that it is dangerous to sniff gasoline and hence petroleum fumes?”

“do you think the people in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and throughout the United States are that stupid?”

“do you know that there are documents throughout our government agencies, science resources, chemistry resources and international resources and agencies that evidence the fact that the EPA tests and BP tests on air quality, water quality, sediment quality and oil in the area not being there, not being dangerous, not being there in quantities – are lies?”

“And, that we’ve seen the photos and evidently these monitoring tests being done are obvious lies as well that everyone can see across the United States and throughout the World – do you know that yet?”

– cricketdiane

***

doing a search for the clean air act – sections listed above –

Clean Air Act 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2)

– that should be Clean Water Act – wait maybe its both –

*(((*

oil - petroleum - crude oil - hydrocarbons early in the oil spill from BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill (probably AP photo) - EPA and BP say there is no contamination of oil in the ocean water - their samples show safe, clean water and air as of June 1, 2010

oil - petroleum - crude oil - hydrocarbons early in the oil spill from BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill (probably AP photo) - EPA and BP say there is no contamination of oil in the ocean water - their samples show safe, clean water and air as of June 1, 2010

(quickly bringing forward the EPA official results today online – )

From here – on the right hand side square listing – toward bottom of page

http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/index.html

EPA tested this air as clean and no different than usual particulate matter in the Gulf of Mexico - from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and in situ controlled burning over 43 days

EPA tested this air as clean and no different than usual particulate matter in the Gulf of Mexico - from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and in situ controlled burning over 43 days

Additional Resources

EPA Information on BP Oil Spill

which goes here –

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/

June 1, 2010 – EPA official information about the oil spill findings –

Air Data >>
EPA’s air monitoring conducted through May 30, 2010, has found that air quality levels for ozone and particulates are normal on the Gulf coastline for this time of year.

EPA has observed odor-causing pollutants associated with petroleum products along the coastline at low levels. Some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea. People may be able to smell some of these chemicals at levels well below those that would cause short-term health problems.

Water Data >>
Most of the water samples collected May 20 through 26, 2010 along the Gulf coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.

One sample, collected May 21 along the coast of Louisiana, found nickel, a chemical associated with oil. This sample exceeded long-term water quality benchmarks. At these levels nickel may cause risk to aquatic life.

Sediment

Sediment Data >>
The sediment samples collected through May 16, 2010 along the Gulf coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/

Oil plume and pollutants coming from BP well pipes in the Gulf of Mexico -

Oil plume and pollutants coming from BP well pipes in the Gulf of Mexico -

***

So, they are using the maps from the day before to plan response placements and the places where the oil has taken over marshes and coasts aren’t on the incident response map – neither are the oil plumes that have been documented. And, they have BP samples monitoring the oil coming out of the well pipes area that they say are evidence that it isn’t enough crude oil to do anything – some parts per billion in their science. And the EPA working with BP claims there is no samples being taken that have petroleum crude oil nor petroleum products in the air, water and sediment samples. And, they say people who are smelling the fumes from the petroleum crude oil or are getting sick from them, don’t know what they are talking about because they have no evidence in their samples of any of those things.

Now, that is heinous and in defiance of federal statutes –

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/index.html

***

Water Data >>
Most of the water samples collected May 20 through 26, 2010 along the Gulf coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.

One sample, collected May 21 along the coast of Louisiana, found nickel, a chemical associated with oil. This sample exceeded long-term water quality benchmarks. At these levels nickel may cause risk to aquatic life.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/

louisiana-oil-spill_100406 - This is what the EPA says is clean water with no evidence of petroleum or crude oil or petroleum chemicals in it according to their tests - from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill - June 1, 2010

louisiana-oil-spill_100406 - This is what the EPA says is clean water with no evidence of petroleum or crude oil or petroleum chemicals in it according to their tests - from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill - June 1, 2010

http://wyld-side.blogspot.com/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-new-orleans-talk-radio.html

***

Gulf of Mexico oil spill - EPA and British Petroleum water quality tests show no sign of crude oil - petroleum - dangerous chemicals - or chemicals found in crude oil - June 1, 2010

Gulf of Mexico oil spill - EPA and British Petroleum water quality tests show no sign of crude oil - petroleum - dangerous chemicals - or chemicals found in crude oil - June 1, 2010 - EPA says this is clean water without chemical hazards - no danger - no fumes from petroleum / gasoline smelling fumes - nothing here of danger

Water Data >>
Most of the water samples collected May 20 through 26, 2010 along the Gulf coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.

One sample, collected May 21 along the coast of Louisiana, found nickel, a chemical associated with oil. This sample exceeded long-term water quality benchmarks. At these levels nickel may cause risk to aquatic life.

Sediment

Sediment Data >>
The sediment samples collected through May 16, 2010 along the Gulf coast did not reveal elevated levels of chemicals usually found in oil.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/

crude oil - petroleum - hydrocarbons filling the Gulf of Mexico ocean water thick and soupy along with thousands of miles of oil slicks and deepwater plumes - but EPA says water is clean with no signs of petroleum or petroleum chemicals - (probably AP photo)

crude oil - petroleum - hydrocarbons filling the Gulf of Mexico ocean water thick and soupy along with thousands of miles of oil slicks and deepwater plumes - but EPA says water is clean with no signs of petroleum or petroleum chemicals - (probably AP photo)

***

My Note –

found this and I just had to put it here – very interesting and so true –

(and according to CNN news – now they have people without respirators or any breathing protection whatsoever leaning over into crude oil syrupy marsh grasses covered in petroleum with their faces right up next to it using paper towels to get the oil off the grasses – it is insane and dangerous, too.)

– cricketdiane

(and this I was talking about finding – )

from

http://wyld-side.blogspot.com/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-new-orleans-talk-radio.html

Interesting juxtaposition of the Bush and Obama speeches – and a number of other nuggets! BP – “bad and pathetic” – thanks Garland!

Read his nots here:

14 Scary Truths about the BP Oil Leak

1. After Katrina, President Bush promised the Federal Government would not rest until all the wrongs had been made right. After the oil spill in the Gulf President Obama promised the same thing, using almost the exact same words. (But they promised, and the President of the United States is the most powerful position on the planet, right?)
2. BP may have purposely chosen not to do a final test that might have averted this catastrophe. (Minerals Management Service would’ve protected us from that, right?)

3. Halliburton might have left out a seal in the pipe that would’ve avoided the catastrophe. (Again, MMS protects us from that, right?)

4. The test BP chose NOT to conduct might have revealed the missing seal. (If BP made that pathetic choice – MMS still would’ve protected us from harm, right?)

5. BP said they are liable, but increasingly you can hear them now point responsibility to the contractor and rig owners. (But, MMS knows the truth, right?)

6. BP knowingly used dispersants banned in England with the blessing of the EPA. (But the Environmental Protection Agency protects us from harm, right?)

7. Some news agencies are reporting that BP has financial connections to the company that sells the dispersant. The claims are that the dispersant company’s leadership includes executives from BP and Exxon. (No conflict there, right? Nobody could have their suspicions aroused by that, right?)

8. BP didn’t reveal all the videos of the spewing oil. (But Secretary of the Interior makes sure there’s transparency, right?)

9. BP refused to allow scientists to measure the amount of oil flowing into the Gulf, all the while saying it was about 5,000 barrels a day. Yesterday (5/20/10) they finally admitted that was wrong. Yesterday a Purdue University scientist told a Congressional committee that his estimates are between 75,000 to 115,000 barrels a day. If he’s right, this spill would be the second largest in the world. (But National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has us covered there, right?)

10. Representatives from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration say…”Now is a time for awareness and preparation, not overreaction.” (They’re telling us not to overreact, when they don’t know how much is spilling into the Gulf?)

11. Some suggest there’s a conflict of interest in oil-slick testing. L.A.B.’s clients include BP. (But, the Energy Department has our backs there, right?)

12. The Coast Guard and BP representatives threatened to jail a CBS-TV crew if they filmed the oil spill. That report went nationwide…and worldwide on you tube. (But the justice department insures freedom of the press, right?)

13. We’re begging Congress to give us 37.5% of our oil reserves now, while for decades five other states get 50%. Incidentally, we’re not scheduled to get that 37% until 2017. After the blood and tears of Katrina they gave us the 37% handout, but will tease us with it for 7 years. (But, Mr. President “equal representation,” right? You know…they’re “Cinderella”…we’re the ugly sister.)

14. Governor Jindal (a Republican’t) who’s worked so hard throughout this oil crisis, is reduced to begging President Obama (the Demodon’t) to please allow us to dredge sand barriers to avoid more destruction of our wetlands. We want to use our own sand…OUR sand… did you get that, Washington? We can’t even use OUR sand? Oh, that’s right! the Army Corp of Engineers is here to protect us. They’ve just been “thinking” about it for WEEKS…as black crude lands on our shores and eats up our wetlands. (That whole Demodon’t/Republican’t thing – how’s that working for ya now? Are your parties coming through, when we need them most?!?)

Source: http://www.wwl.com/pages/7155465.php?

David http://wyld-business.blogspot.com/

http://wyld-side.blogspot.com/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-new-orleans-talk-radio.html

***

Priority Pollutants

Freshwater Saltwater Human Health for the consumption of
Priority Pollutant CAS Number CMC 1
(acute)
(µg/L)
CCC 1
(chronic)
(µg/L)
CMC 1
(acute)
(µg/L)
CCC 1
(chronic)
(µg/L)
Water + Organism
(µg/L)
Organism Only
(µg/L)
FR Cite/
Source
1 Antimony 7440360 5.6 B 640 B 65 FR 66443
2 Arsenic 7440382 340 A,D,K 150 A,D,K 69 A,D,bb 36 A,D,bb 0.018 C,M,S 0.14 C,M,S 65 FR 31682
57 FR 60848
3 Beryllium 7440417 Z 65 FR 31682
4 Cadmium 7440439 2.0 D,E,K,bb 0.25 D,E,K,bb 40 D,bb 8.8 D,bb Z EPA 822-R-01-001
65 FR 31682
5a Chromium (III) 16065831 570 D,E,K 74 D,E,K Z Total EPA 820-B-96-001
65 FR 31682
5b Chromium (VI) 18540299 16 D,K 11 D,K 1,100 D,bb 50 D,bb Z Total 65 FR 31682
6 Copper 7440508 Freshwater criteria calculated using the BLM mmSee Document 4.8 D,cc,ff 3.1 D,cc,ff 1,300 U EPA-822-R-07-001 (PDF)(204 pages, 910 K)
65 FR 31682
72 FR 7983
7 Lead 7439921 65 D,E,bb,gg 2.5 D,E,bb,gg 210 D,bb 8.1 D,bb 65 FR 31682
8a8b MercuryMethylmercury 743997622967926 1.4 D,K,hh 0.77 D,K,hh 1.8 D,ee,hh 0.94 D,ee,hh 0.3 mg/kg J 62 FR 42160
EPA 823-R-01-001
9 Nickel 7440020 470 D,E,K 52 D,E,K 74 D,bb 8.2 D,bb 610 B 4,600 B 65 FR 31682
10 Selenium 7782492 L,R,T 5.0 T 290 D,bb,dd 71 D,bb,dd 170 Z 4200 62 FR 42160
65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
11 Silver 7440224 3.2 D,E,G 1.9 D,G 65 FR 31682
12 Thallium 7440280 0.24 0.47 68 FR 75510
13 Zinc 7440666 120 D,E,K 120 D,E,K 90 D,bb 81 D,bb 7,400 U 26,000 U 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
14 Cyanide 57125 22 K,Q 5.2 K,Q 1 Q,bb 1 Q,bb 140 jj 140 jj EPA 820-B-96-001
57 FR 60848
68 FR 75510
15 Asbestos 1332214 7 million fibers/L I 57 FR 60848
16 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 1746016 5.0E-9 C 5.1E-9 C 65 FR 66443
17 Acrolein 107028 3ug/L 3ug/L 6 ll 9 ll 74 FR 27535
74 FR 46587
18 Acrylonitrile 107131 0.051 B,C 0.25 B,C 65 FR 66443
19 Benzene 71432 2.2 B,C 51 B,C IRIS 01/19/00
65 FR 66443
20 Bromoform 75252 4.3 B,C 140 B,C 65 FR 66443
21 Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 0.23 B,C 1.6 B,C 65 FR 66443
22 Chlorobenzene 108907 130 Z,U 1,600 U 68 FR 75510
23 Chlorodibromomethane 124481 0.40 B,C 13 B,C 65 FR 66443
24 Chloroethane 75003
25 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether 110758
26 Chloroform 67663 5.7 C,P 470 C,P 62 FR 42160
27 Dichlorobromomethane 75274 0.55 B,C 17 B,C 65 FR 66443
28 1,1-Dichloroethane 75343
29 1,2-Dichloroethane 107062 0.38 B,C 37 B,C 65 FR 66443
30 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75354 330 7,100 68 FR 75510
31 1,2-Dichloropropane 78875 0.50 B,C 15 B,C 65 FR 66443
32 1,3-Dichloropropene 542756 0.34 C 21 C 68 FR 75510
33 Ethylbenzene 100414 530 2,100 68 FR 75510
34 Methyl Bromide 74839 47 B 1,500 B 65 FR 66443
35 Methyl Chloride 74873 65 FR 31682
36 Methylene Chloride 75092 4.6 B,C 590 B,C 65 FR 66443
37 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 0.17 B,C 4.0 B,C 65 FR 66443
38 Tetrachloroethylene 127184 0.69 C 3.3 C 65 FR 66443
39 Toluene 108883 1,300 Z 15,000 68 FR 75510
40 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 156605 140 Z 10,000 68 FR 75510
41 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71556 Z 65 FR 31682
42 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 0.59 B,C 16 B,C 65 FR 66443
43 Trichloroethylene 79016 2.5 C 30 C 65 FR 66443
44 Vinyl Chloride 75014 0.025 C,kk 2.4 C,kk 68 FR 75510
45 2-Chlorophenol 95578 81 B,U 150 B,U 65 FR 66443
46 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120832 77 B,U 290 B,U 65 FR 66443
47 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105679 380 B 850 B,U 65 FR 66443
48 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 534521 13 280 65 FR 66443
49 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51285 69 B 5,300 B 65 FR 66443
50 2-Nitrophenol 88755
51 4-Nitrophenol 100027
52 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol 59507 U U
53 Pentachlorophenol 87865 19 F,K 15 F,K 13 bb 7.9 bb 0.27 B,C 3.0 B,C,H 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
54 Phenol 108952 10,000 ll,U 860,000 ll,U 74 FR 27535
74 FR 46587
55 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88062 1.4 B,C 2.4 B,C,U 65 FR 66443
56 Acenaphthene 83329 670 B,U 990 B,U 65 FR 66443
57 Acenaphthylene 208968
58 Anthracene 120127 8,300 B 40,000 B 65 FR 66443
59 Benzidine 92875 0.000086 B,C 0.00020 B,C 65 FR 66443
60 Benzo(a) Anthracene 56553 0.0038 B,C 0.018 B,C 65 FR 66443
61 Benzo(a) Pyrene 50328 0.0038 B,C 0.018 B,C 65 FR 66443
62 Benzo(b) Fluoranthene 205992 0.0038 B,C 0.018 B,C 65 FR 66443
63 Benzo(ghi) Perylene 191242
64 Benzo(k) Fluoranthene 207089 0.0038 B,C 0.018 B,C 65 FR 66443
65 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane 111911
66 Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether 111444 0.030 B,C 0.53 B,C 65 FR 66443
67 Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether 108601 1,400 B 65,000 B 65 FR 66443
68 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) PhthalateX 117817 1.2 B,C 2.2 B,C 65 FR 66443
69 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether 101553
70 Butylbenzyl PhthalateW 85687 1,500 B 1,900 B 65 FR 66443
71 2-Chloronaphthalene 91587 1,000 B 1,600 B 65 FR 66443
72 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether 7005723
73 Chrysene 218019 0.0038 B,C 0.018 B,C 65 FR 66443
74 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 53703 0.0038 B,C 0.018 B,C 65 FR 66443
75 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 420 1,300 68 FR 75510
76 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541731 320 960 65 FR 66443
77 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467 63 190 68 FR 75510
78 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine 91941 0.021 B,C 0.028 B,C 65 FR 66443
79 Diethyl PhthalateW 84662 17,000 B 44,000 B 65 FR 66443
80 Dimethyl PhthalateW 131113 270,000 1,100,000 65 FR 66443
81 Di-n-Butyl PhthalateW 84742 2,000 B 4,500 B 65 FR 66443
82 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121142 0.11 C 3.4 C 65 FR 66443
83 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606202
84 Di-n-Octyl Phthalate 117840
85 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122667 0.036 B,C 0.20 B,C 65 FR 66443
86 Fluoranthene 206440 130 B 140 B 65 FR 66443
87 Fluorene 86737 1,100 B 5,300 B 65 FR 66443
88 Hexachlorobenzene 118741 0.00028 B,C 0.00029 B,C 65 FR 66443
89 Hexachlorobutadiene 87683 0.44 B,C 18 B,C 65 FR 66443
90 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77474 40 U 1,100 U 68 FR 75510
91 Hexachloroethane 67721 1.4 B,C 3.3 B,C 65 FR 66443
92 Ideno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 193395 0.0038 B,C 0.018 B,C 65 FR 66443
93 Isophorone 78591 35 B,C 960 B,C 65 FR 66443
94 Naphthalene 91203
95 Nitrobenzene 98953 17 B 690 B,H,U 65 FR 66443
96 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62759 0.00069 B,C 3.0 B,C 65 FR 66443
97 N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 621647 0.0050 B,C 0.51 B,C 65 FR 66443
98 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86306 3.3 B,C 6.0 B,C 65 FR 66443
99 Phenanthrene 85018
100 Pyrene 129000 830 B 4,000 B 65 FR 66443
101 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 35 70 68 FR 75510
102 Aldrin 309002 3.0 G 1.3 G 0.000049
B,C
0.000050 B,C 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
103 alpha-BHC 319846 0.0026 B,C 0.0049 B,C 65 FR 66443
104 beta-BHC 319857 0.0091 B,C 0.017 B,C 65 FR 66443
105 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 58899 0.95 K 0.16 G 0.98 1.8 65 FR 31682
68 FR 75510
106 delta-BHC 319868
107 Chlordane 57749 2.4 G 0.0043 G,aa 0.09 G 0.004 G,aa 0.00080 B,C 0.00081 B,C 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
108 4,4′-DDT 50293 1.1 G,ii 0.001 G,aa,ii 0.13 G,ii 0.001 G,aa,ii 0.00022 B,C 0.00022 B,C 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
109 4,4′-DDE 72559 0.00022 B,C 0.00022 B,C 65 FR 66443
110 4,4′-DDD 72548 0.00031 B,C 0.00031 B,C 65 FR 66443
111 Dieldrin 60571 0.24 K 0.056 K,O 0.71 G 0.0019 G,aa 0.000052 B,C 0.000054 B,C 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
112 alpha-Endosulfan 959988 0.22 G,Y 0.056 G,Y 0.034 G,Y 0.0087 G,Y 62 B 89 B 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
113 beta-Endosulfan 33213659 0.22 G,Y 0.056 G,Y 0.034 G,Y 0.0087 G,Y 62 B 89 B 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
114 Endosulfan Sulfate 1031078 62 B 89 B 65 FR 66443
115 Endrin 72208 0.086 K 0.036 K,O 0.037 G 0.0023 G,aa 0.059 0.060 65 FR 31682
68 FR 75510
116 Endrin Aldehyde 7421934 0.29 B 0.30 B,H 65 FR 66443
117 Heptachlor 76448 0.52 G 0.0038 G,aa 0.053 G 0.0036 G,aa 0.000079 B,C 0.000079 B,C 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
118 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024573 0.52 G,V 0.0038 G,V,aa 0.053 G,V 0.0036 G,V,aa 0.000039 B,C 0.000039 B,C 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
119 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 0.014 N,aa 0.03 N,aa 0.000064 B,C,N 0.000064 B,C,N 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443
120 Toxaphene 8001352 0.73 0.0002 aa 0.21 0.0002 aa 0.00028 B,C 0.00028 B,C 65 FR 31682
65 FR 66443

Footnotes

A 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 (PDF) (74 pp., 3.2 MB) (EPA 440/5-84-033, January 1985), Species Mean Acute Values are given for both arsenic (III) and arsenic (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 fathead 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.

B 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 May 17, 2002. The fish tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) from the 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria document was retained in each case.

C 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 recommended criterion one place to the right).

D 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 recommended 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 (PDF),” (49 pp., 3MB) October 1, 1993, by Martha G. Prothro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, available from the Water Resource center and 40CFR§131.36(b)(1). Conversion Factors applied in the table can be found in Appendix A to the Preamble- Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals.

E 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{mA [ln(hardness)]+ bA} (CF), or CCC (dissolved) = exp{mC [ln (hardness)]+ bC} (CF) and the parameters specified in Appendix B- Parameters for Calculating Freshwater Dissolved Metals Criteria That Are Hardness-Dependent.

F Freshwater aquatic life values for pentachlorophenol are expressed as a function of pH, and are calculated as follows: CMC = exp(1.005(pH)-4.869); CCC = exp(1.005(pH)-5.134). Values 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: Aldrin/Dieldrin (PDF) (153 pp., 7.3 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-019), Chlordane (PDF) (68 pp., 3.1 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-027), DDT (PDF) (175 pp., 8.3 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-038), Endosulfan (PDF) (155 pp., 7.3 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-046), Endrin (PDF) (103 pp., 4.6 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-047), Heptachlor (PDF) (114 pp., 5.4 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-052), Hexachlorocyclohexane (PDF) (109 pp., 4.8 MB) (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 (PDF) (104 pp., 3.3 MB) . 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.

H 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 document.

I This criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

J This fish tissue residue criterion for methylmercury is based on a total fish consumption rate of 0.0175 kg/day.

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 Ambient Water, (EPA 820-B-96-001, September 1996). This value was derived using the GLI Guidelines (60 FR 15393-15399, March 23, 1995; 40CFR132 Appendix A); the difference between the 1985 Guidelines and the GLI Guidelines are explained on page iv of the 1995 Updates. None of the decisions concerning the derivation of this criterion were affected by any considerations that are specific to the Great Lakes.

L 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 g/l and 12.82 g/l, respectively.

M EPA is currently reassessing the criteria for arsenic.

N This criterion applies to total pcbs, (e.g., the sum of all congener or all isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses.)

O The derivation of the CCC for this pollutant (Endrin) did not consider exposure through the diet, which is probably important for aquatic life occupying upper trophic levels.

P Although a new RfD is available in IRIS, the surface water criteria will not be revised until the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) is completed, since public comment on the relative source contribution (RSC) for chloroform is anticipated.

Q This recommended water quality criterion is expressed as g free cyanide (as CN)/L.

R This value for selenium 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 for arsenic refers to the inorganic form only.

T This recommended water quality criterion for selenium is expressed in terms of total recoverable metal in the water column. It is scientifically acceptable to use the conversion factor (0.996- CMC or 0.922- CCC) 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.

W Although EPA has not published a completed criteria document for butylbenzyl phthalate 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 national WQC.

X There 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.

Y This value was derived from data for endosulfan and is most appropriately applied to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan.

Z A more stringent MCL has been issued by EPA. Refer to drinking water regulations (40 CFR 141) or Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791) for values.

aa This criterion is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion issued in 1980 or 1986, and was issued in one of the following documents: Aldrin/Dieldrin (PDF) (153 pp., 7.3 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-019), Chlordane (PDF) (68 pp., 3.1 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-027), DDT (PDF) (175 pp., 8.3 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-038), Endrin (PDF) (103 pp., 4.6 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-047), Heptachlor (PDF) (114 pp., 5.4 MB) (EPA 440/5-80-052), Polychlorinated biphenyls (EPA 440/5-80-068), Toxaphene (EPA 440/5-86-006). This CCC is currently based on the Final Residue Value (FRV) procedure. 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. Therefore, the Agency anticipates that future revisions of this CCC will not be based on the FRV procedure.

bb This water quality criterion is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was derived using the 1985 Guidelines (PDF) (104 pp., 3.3 MB) (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 (PDF) (74 pp., 3.2 MB) (EPA 440/5-84-033), Cadmium (EPA 822-R-01-001), Chromium (EPA 440/5-84-029), Copper (PDF) (150 pp., 6.2 MB) (EPA 440/5-84-031), Cyanide (PDF) (67 pp., 2.7 MB) (EPA 440/5- 84-028), Lead (EPA 440/5-84-027), Nickel (EPA 440/5-86-004), Pentachlorophenol (EPA 440/5-86-009), Toxaphene, (EPA 440/5-86-006), Zinc (EPA 440/5-87- 003).

cc When the concentration of dissolved organic carbon is elevated, copper is substantially less toxic and use of Water-Effect Ratios might be appropriate.

dd The 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 status of the fish community should be monitored whenever the concentration of selenium exceeds 5.0 g/L in salt water because the saltwater CCC does not take into account uptake via the food chain.

ee This recommended water quality criterion was derived on page 43 of the mercury criteria document (PDF) (144 pp., 6.4 MB) (EPA 440/5-84-026, January 1985). The saltwater CCC of 0.025 ug/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 (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.

ff 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 National Toxics Rule (60 FR 22228-222237, May 4, 1995).

gg EPA is actively working on this criterion and so this recommended water quality criterion may change substantially in the near future.

hh 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 extent, this criterion does not account for uptake via the food chain because sufficient data were not available when the criterion was derived.

ii This criterion applies to DDT and its metabolites (i.e., the total concentration of DDT and its metabolites should not exceed this value).

jj This recommended water quality criterion is expressed as total cyanide, even though the IRIS RFD we used to derive the criterion is based on free cyanide. The multiple forms of cyanide that are present in ambient water have significant differences in toxicity due to their differing abilities to liberate the CN-moiety. Some complex cyanides require even more extreme conditions than refluxing with sulfuric acid to liberate the CN-moiety. Thus, these complex cyanides are expected to have little or no ‘bioavailability’ to humans. If a substantial fraction of the cyanide present in a water body is present in a complexed form (e.g., Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3), this criterion may be over conservative.

kk This recommended water quality criterion was derived using the cancer slope factor of 1.4 (LMS exposure from birth).

ll This criterion has been revised to reflect the Environmental Protection Agency’s cancer slope factor (CSF) or reference dose (RfD), as contained in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as of (Final FR Notice June 10, 2009). The fish tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) from the 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria document was retained in each case.

mm The available toxicity data, when evaluated using the procedures described in the “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses” indicate that freshwater aquatic life should be protected if the 24-hour average and four-day average concentrations do not respectively exceed the acute and chronic criteria concentrations calculated by the Biotic Ligand Model.


Non Priority Pollutants

Freshwater Saltwater Human Health for the consumption of
Non Priority Pollutant CAS Number CMC
(acute)
(µg/L)
CCC
(chronic)
(µg/L)
CMC
(acute)
(µg/L)
CCC
(chronic)
(µg/L)
Water + Organism
(µg/L)
Organism Only
(µg/L)
FR Cite/
Source
1 Alkalinity 20000 F Gold Book
2 Aluminum pH 6.5 – 9.0 7429905 750 G,I 87 G,I,L 53 FR 33178
3 Ammonia 7664417 FRESHWATER CRITERIA ARE pH, Temperature and Life-stage DEPENDENT—SEE DOCUMENT DSALTWATER CRITERIA ARE pH AND TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT EPA 822-R-99-014
EPA 440-5-88-004 (PDF) (2.1 MB)
4 Aesthetic Qualities NARRATIVE STATEMENT—SEE DOCUMENT Gold Book
5 Bacteria FOR PRIMARY RECREATION AND SHELLFISH USES—SEE DOCUMENT Gold Book
6 Barium 7440393 1,000 A Gold Book
7 Boron NARRATIVE STATEMENT—SEE DOCUMENT Gold Book
8 Chloride 16887006 860000 G 230000 G 53 FR 19028
9 Chlorine 7782505 19 11 13 7.5 C Gold Book
10 Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,-TP) 93721 10 A Gold Book
11 Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D) 94757 100 A,C Gold Book
12 Chloropyrifos 2921882 0.083 G 0.041 G 0.011 G 0.0056 G Gold Book
13 Color NARRATIVE STATEMENT—SEE DOCUMENT F Gold Book
14 Demeton 8065483 0.1 F 0.1 F Gold Book
15 Ether, Bis( Chloromethyl) 542881 0.00010 E,H 0.00029 E,H 65 FR 66443
16 Gases, Total Dissolved NARRATIVE STATEMENT—SEE DOCUMENT F Gold Book
17 Guthion 86500 0.01 F 0.01 F Gold Book
18 Hardness NARRATIVE STATEMENT—SEE DOCUMENT Gold Book
19 Hexachlorocyclo-hexane-Technical 608731 0.0123 H 0.0414 H EPA 440/5-80-054
20 Iron 7439896 1000 F 300 A Gold Book
21 Malathion 121755 0.1 F 0.1 F Gold Book
22 Manganese 7439965 50 A,O 100 A Gold Book
23 Methoxychlor 72435 0.03 F 0.03 F 100 A,C Gold Book
24 Mirex 2385855 0.001 F 0.001 F Gold Book
25 Nitrates 14797558 10,000 A Gold Book
26 Nitrosamines 0.0008 1.24 Gold Book
27 Dinitrophenols 25550587 69 5300 65 FR 66443
28 Nonylphenol 84852153 28ug/L 28ug/L 7ug/L 7ug/L 71 FR 9337
29 Nitrosodibutylamine, N 924163 0.0063 A,H 0.22 A,H 65 FR 66443
30 Nitrosodiethylamine, N 55185 0.0008 A,H 1.24 A,H Gold Book
31 Nitrosopyrrolidine, N 930552 0.016 H 34 H 65 FR 66443
32 Oil and Grease NARRATIVE STATEMENT—SEE DOCUMENT F Gold Book
33 Oxygen, Dissolved Freshwater
Oxygen, Dissolved Saltwater
7782447 WARMWATER AND COLDWATER MATRIX—SEE DOCUMENT N
SALTWATER—SEE DOCUMENT
Gold Book
EPA 822-R-00-012
34 Diazinon 333415 0.17ug/L 0.17ug/L 0.82ug/L 0.82ug/L 71 FR 9336
35 Parathion 56382 0.065 J 0.013 J Gold Book
36 Pentachlorobenzene 608935 1.4 E 1.5 E 65 FR 66443
37 pH 6.5 – 9 F 6.5 – 8.5 F,K 5 – 9 Gold Book
38 Phosphorus Elemental 7723140 0.1 F,K Gold Book
39 Nutrients See EPA’s Ecoregional criteria for Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Chlorophyll a and Water Clarity (Secchi depth for lakes; turbidity for streams and rivers) (& Level III Ecoregional criteria) P
40 Solids Dissolved and Salinity 250,000 A Gold Book
41 Solids Suspended and Turbidity NARRATIVE STATEMENT—SEE DOCUMENT F Gold Book
42 Sulfide-Hydrogen Sulfide 7783064 2.0 F 2.0 F Gold Book
43 Tainting Substances NARRATIVE STATEMENT—SEE DOCUMENT Gold Book
44 Temperature SPECIES DEPENDENT CRITERIA—SEE DOCUMENT M Gold Book
45 Tetrachlorobenzene,1,2,4,5- 95943 0.97 E 1.1 E 65 FR 66443
46 Tributyltin (TBT) 0.46 Q 0.072 Q 0.42 Q 0.0074 Q 69 FR 342
47 Trichlorophenol,2,4,5- 95954 1,800 B,E 3,600 B,E 65 FR 66443

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 criterion 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.

C A more stringent Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) has been issued by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Refer to drinking water regulations 40CFR141 or Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791) for values.

D According 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 Ammonia Criterion are satisfied.

E This criterion has been revised to reflect EPA’s q1* or RfD, as contained in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as of May 17, 2002. The fish tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) used to derive the original criterion was retained in each case.

F The derivation of this value is presented in the Red Book (EPA 440/9-76-023, July, 1976).

G 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).

H 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 recommended criterion one place to the right).

I This value for aluminum is expressed in terms of total recoverable metal in the water column.

J 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; 40CFR132 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/l 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 particles, 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 g 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: Protocol and Procedures. EPA 600/3-77-061. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

N U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

O This criterion for manganese is not based on toxic effects, but rather is intended to minimize objectionable qualities such as laundry stains and objectionable tastes in beverages.

P Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient Ecoregion: II EPA 822-B-00-007, III EPA 822-B-01-008, IV EPA 822-B-01-009, V EPA 822-B-01-010, VI EPA 822-B-00-008 , VII EPA 822-B-00-009, VIII EPA 822-B-01-015, IX EPA 822-B-00-011, XI EPA 822-B-00-012, XII EPA 822-B-00-013, XIII EPA 822-B-00-014, XIV EPA 822-B-01-011; Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion: I EPA 822-B-01-012, II EPA 822-B-00-015, III EPA 822-B-00-016, IV EPA 822-B-01-013, V EPA 822-B-01-014, VI EPA 822-B-00-017, VII EPA 822-B-00-018, VIII EPA 822-B-01-015, IX EPA 822-B-00-019, X EPA 822-B-01-016, XI EPA 822-B-00-020, XII EPA 822-B-00-021, XIV EPA 822-B-00-022; and Wetlands in Nutrient Ecoregion (PDF) (77 pp., 257 K) XIII EPA 822-B-00-023.

Q EPA announced the availability of a draft updated tributyltin (TBT) document on August 7, 1997 (62 FR 42554). The Agency has reevaluated this document and anticipates releasing an updated document for public comment in the near future.


Organoleptic Effects (e.g., taste and odor)

Pollutant CAS Number Organoleptic Effect Criteria
(µg/L)
FR Cite/
Source
1 Acenaphthene 83329 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 7440508 1000 Gold Book
17 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120832 0.3 Gold Book
18 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105679 400 Gold Book
19 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77474 1 Gold Book
20 Nitrobenzene 98953 30 Gold Book
21 Pentachlorophenol 87865 30 Gold Book
22 Phenol 108952 300 Gold Book
23 Zinc 7440666 5000 45 FR79341

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 numbers, which provide a unique identification for each chemical.


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 an 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 recommendations. 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 California Toxics Rule. 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 are thus the Agency’s 304(a) criteria.

  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/l 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. 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 online.

  7. 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.

  8. Gold Book

    The “Gold Book” is Quality Criteria for Water: 1986. EPA 440/5-86-001.

  9. Correction of Chemical Abstract Services Number

    The Chemical Abstract Services number (CAS) for Bis(2-Chlorisoprpyl) Ether, has been revised in IRIS and in the table. The correct CAS number for this chemical is 108-60-1. The previous CAS number for this pollutant was 39638-32-9.

  10. Contaminants with Blanks

    EPA has not calculated criteria for contaminants with blanks. However, permit authorities should address these contaminants in NPDES permit actions using the States’ existing narrative criteria for toxics.

  11. Specific Chemical Calculations

    Selenium—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 prevalent oxidation states in water, 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 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.


Appendix A—Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals

Metal Conversion Factor
freshwater CMC freshwater CCC saltwater CMC saltwater CCC1
Arsenic 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Cadmium 1.136672-[(ln hardness)(0.041838)] 1.101672-[(ln hardness)(0.041838)] 0.994 0.994
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-[(ln hardness)(0.145712)] 1.46203-[(ln hardness)(0.145712)] 0.951 0.951
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

Top of Page


Appendix B—Parameters for Calculating Freshwater Dissolved Metals Criteria That Are Hardness-Dependent

Chemical mA bA mC bC Freshwater Conversion Factors (CF)
CMC CCC
Cadmium 1.0166 -3.924 0.7409 -4.719 1.136672-[(lnhardness)(0.041838)] 1.101672-[(lnhardness)(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-[(lnhardness)(0.145712)] 1.46203-[(lnhardness)(0.145712)]
Nickel 0.8460 2.255 0.8460 0.0584 0.998 0.997
Silver 1.72 -6.59 0.85
Zinc 0.8473 0.884 0.8473 0.884 0.978 0.986

Hardness-dependant metals’ criteria may be calculated from the following:

CMC (dissolved) = exp{mA [ln(hardness)]+ bA} (CF)

CCC (dissolved) = exp{mC [ln(hardness)]+ bC} (CF)


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 (acute criterion) calculated using the following equations:
    • Where salmonid fish are present:
      • CMC = (0.275/(1 + 107.204-pH)) + (39.0/(1 + 10pH-7.204))
    • Or where salmonid fish are not present:
      • CMC = (0.411/(1 + 107.204-pH)) + (58.4/(1 + 10pH-7.204))
    1. The thirty-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) does not exceed, more than once every three years on theaverage, the CCC (chronic criterion) calculated using the following equations:
      • When fish early life stages are present:
        • CCC = ((0.0577/(1 + 107.688-pH)) + (2.487/(1 + 10pH-7.688))) x MIN (2.85, 1.45·100.028·(25-T))
      • When fish early life stages are absent:
        • CCC = ((0.0577/(1 + 107.688-pH)) + (2.487/(1 + 10pH-7.688))) x 1.45·100.028·(25-MAX(T,7))
    2. In addition, the highest four-day average within the 30-day period should not exceed 2.5 times the CCC.

The Gold Book

Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 (PDF) (477 pp., 4.6 MB) May 1986

The Red Book

Quality Criteria for Water, 1976 (PDF) (534 pp., 6.2 MB) July 1976

Chemical Specific Criteria Documents from the 1980s

Water Quality Standards | Drinking Water | Research and Development

(from)

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/index.html

***

My Note –

Any chance that water in which animals and birds die would indicate to the EPA that it is toxic and lethal – and that those waters include dangerous pollutant chemicals? You know, like the petroleum and oil mixed dispersants and dispersants – all of which are known to be toxic chemicals and lethal. You can’t drink it without dying – you can’t sniff fumes from any petroleum products without brain damage and lung damage and liver damage and maybe dying – how could the EPA tests monitoring the air and water quality not show any of what we know about these dangerous substances that petroleum is and absolutely is – and not show anything dangerous in their samples – how could they give a clean bill of health to places polluted with known toxic chemicals?

That is a betrayal of trust and mission given to the EPA – bit of illegal here and there as well. And it is in violation of federally mandated laws and regulations about water quality, air quality, pollution, and massive spills of pollutants, as well.

It looks like it is time to get the attorney generals of the states along the Gulf Coast to hold the EPA accountable for disseminating lies and falsehoods about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that will directly and permanently damage the health and well-being of their citizens before things get any worse.

And, I don’t care what the “new” OSHA crap says or the EPA and BP air and water monitoring – these chemical hazards are there in that water and in that air and in that sediment. It is lethal and toxic. It is killing the animals, the marine wildlife, the birds, the sea turtles and other aquatic life and it will kill more people if they don’t stop dicking around with the pretense that it is safe when it is not and sending people out without the proper protective breathing gear, breathing protection, respirators, chemical gas masks and eye protection. And, telling people the truth about it.

– cricketdiane, 06-02-10

***