Section 323.1057. Toxic substances.

(1) Toxic substances shall not be present in the surface waters of the state at levels that are or may become injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare, plant and animal life, or the designated uses of the waters. As a minimum level of protection, toxic substances shall not exceed the water quality values specified in, or developed pursuant to, the provisions of subrules (2) to (4) of this rule or conditions set forth by the provisions of subrule (6) of this rule. A variance to these values may be granted consistent with the provisions of R 323.1103.

(2)      Levels of toxic substances in the surface waters of the state shall not exceed the aquatic life values specified in tables 1 and 2, or, in the absence of such values, values derived according to the following processes, unless site-specific modifications have been developed pursuant to subdivision (r) of this subrule:

(a)      Minimum data requirements to derive a tier I final acute value (FAV), which is used to calculate a tier I aquatic maximum value (AMV), include the results of acceptable acute tests for 1 freshwater species from each of the following:

(i)     The family salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes.

(ii)      One other family, preferably a commercially or recreationally important warmwater species, in the class Osteichthyes.

(iii)      A third family in the phylum Chordata.

(iv)      A planktonic crustacean.

(v)                          A      benthic crustacean.

(vi)     An insect.

(vii)      A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata.

(viii)        A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.

(b)     Minimum data requirements to derive a tier I final chronic value (FCV) include acceptable chronic tests for the data requirements in subdivision (a) of this subrule or acute-to-chronic ratios (ACRs) shall be available with at least 1 species of aquatic

animal in at least 3 different families provided that, of the 3 species, all of the following provisions apply:

(i)     At least 1 is a fish.

(ii)     At least 1 is an invertebrate.

(iii)        At least 1 is an acutely sensitive freshwater species.  The other 2 may be saltwater species.

(c)     The following are acute test types to be used in the development of acute values:

(i)         Daphnids, other cladocerans, and midges. Tests with daphnids and other cladocerans shall be started with organisms less than 24 hours old and tests with midges shall be started with second or third instar larvae. The results shall be a 48-hour EC50 based on the total percentage oforganisms killed and immobilized. If the results of a 48-hour EC50 based on the total percentage of organisms killed and immobilized are not available, then the results shall be a 48-hour LC50. Tests longer than 48 hours are acceptable if the animals were not fed and the control animals were acceptable at the end of the test.

(ii)       Bivalve mollusc embryos and larvae. Results of a 96-hour EC50 based on the percentage of organisms that have incompletely developed shells plus the percentage of organisms killed. If the results of a 96-hour EC50 based on the percentage of organisms that have incompletely developed shells plus the percentage of organisms killed are not available, then the lowest of the following shall be used:

(A)       A 48-hour to 96-hour EC50 based on the percentage of organisms that have incompletely developed shells plus the percentage of organisms killed.

(B)     A 48-hour to 96-hour EC50 based upon the percentage of organisms that have incompletely developed shells.

(C)    A 48-hour to 96-hour LC50.

(iii)        All other aquatic animal species. Results of a 96-hour EC50 based on the percentage of organisms exhibiting loss of equilibrium plus the percentage of organisms immobilized plus the percentage of organisms killed. If results of a 96-hour EC50 based on the percentage of organisms exhibiting loss of equilibrium plus the percentage of organisms immobilized plus the percentage of organisms killed are not available, then the lowest of the following shall be used:

(A)       The 96-hour EC50 based on the percentage of organisms exhibiting loss of equilibrium plus the percentage of organisms immobilized.

(B)     The 96-hour LC50.

(d)      The following are chronic test types to be used in the development of chronic values:

(i)      Life cycle toxicity tests. Tests with fish should begin with embryos or newly hatched young that are less than 48 hours old, continue through maturation and reproduction, and end not less than 24 days, or 90 days for salmonids, after the hatching of the next generation. Tests with daphnids should begin with young that are less than 24 hours old and last for not less than 21 days, or for ceriodaphnids not less than 7 days. Tests with mysids should begin with young that are less than 24 hours old and continue until 7 days past the median time of first brood release in the controls.

(ii)      Partial life cycle toxicity tests for fishes.  Exposure to the test material should begin  with   immature  juveniles   not  less  than   2  months  before  active   gonad

development, continue through maturation and reproduction, and end not less than 24 days, or 90 days for salmonids, after the hatching of the next generation.

(iii)       Early life stage toxicity tests for fishes. Test durations are 28 to 32 days, or 60 days post hatch for salmonids, beginning shortly after fertilization and continuing through embryonic, larval, and early juvenile development.

(iv)       Larval survival and growth test for fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas. The test is a static-renewal test 7 days in duration beginning with larvae that are less than 24 hours old. The tests shall be used on a case-by-case basis where the discharger demonstrates to the department, or the department determines, that the results of the tests are comparable to test results produced by any of the test methods identified in paragraphs (i) to (iii) of this subdivision.

(e)      All of the following provisions apply in the selection of data for use in aquatic life value development:

(i)       All data that are used shall be typed and dated and be accompanied by enough supporting information to indicate that acceptable test procedures, such as the procedures of the american society of testing and materials and the procedures of the United States EPA, were used and that the results are reliable.

(ii)       Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates, data on species that are nonresident to North America, and data obtained with previously exposed organisms shall not be used in the derivation of chemical-specific aquatic life values.

(iii)      Acute values reported as "greater than" values and acute values that are above the solubility of the test material shall be used by assuming that the acute value is equal to the greater than value or the upper limit of the test material solubility, respectively.

(iv)       The agreement of the data within and between species shall be considered. Acute values that appear to be questionable in comparison with other acute and chronic data for the same species and for other species in the same genus shall not be used.

(v)     If the data indicate that 1 or more life stages are at least a factor of

2 more resistant than 1 or more other life stages of the same species, then the data for the more resistant life stages shall not be used in the calculation of an FAV.

(vi)        Chronic values shall be based on the results of flow-through chronic tests in which the concentration of test material in the test solutions was measured at appropriate times during the test. However, renewal tests are acceptable for daphnids or the 7-day fathead minnow test.

(f)         Where appropriate and where sufficient dissolved toxicological data or conversion factors are available, aquatic life water quality values for metals shall be expressed as dissolved to better approximate the bioavailable fraction in the water column.

(g)      If the acute toxicity of the chemical has not been adequately shown to be related to hardness, pH, or other water quality characteristics, a tier I FAV shall be calculated using the following procedures:

(i)      For each species for which at least 1 acceptable acute test result is available, the species mean acute value (SMAV) shall be calculated as the geometric mean of the results of all acceptable flow-through acute toxicity tests in which the concentrations of

test material were measured with the most sensitive tested life stage of the species.  For a species for which an acceptable flow-through acute toxicity test in which the concentrations of the test material were measured is not available, the SMAV shall be calculated as the geometric mean of all acceptable acute toxicity tests with the most sensitive tested life stage.

(ii)      For each genus for which 1 or more SMAVs are available, the genus mean acute value (GMAV) shall be calculated as the geometric mean of the SMAVs.

(iii)      Order the GMAVs from high to low.

(iv)     Assign ranks, r, to the GMAVs from "1" for the lowest to "n" for the highest.  If 2 or more GMAVs are identical, then assign them successive ranks.

(v)       Calculate the cumulative probability, P, for each GMAV as r/(n + 1). (vi) Select the 4 GMAVs that have cumulative probabilities closest to 0.05. If there are fewer than 59 GMAVs, the 4 GMAVs that have cumulative probabilities closest to

0.05 will always be the 4 lowest GMAVs.

(vii)  Using the 4 selected GMAVs, and Ps, calculate the tier I FAV as follows:

S2 = ∑ ((ln G M A V) 2 ) – (∑ (ln G M A V ))2

4

∑ (P) –  ( ∑ (

)) 2

4

L = ∑ (ln G M A V) – S( ∑ (        ))

4

A = S(

0.05 ) + L

Tier I FAV = eA.

(h)      If data for the chemical are available to show that the acute toxicity of at least 1 fish and 1 invertebrate species is related to a water quality characteristic, then a tier I FAV equation shall be calculated using the following procedures:

(i)      For each species for which comparable acute toxicity values are available at 2 or more different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares regression of the acute toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the slope and its 95% confidence limits for each species. Because the best documented water quality relationship is between hardness and acute toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log relationship fits these data, geometric means and natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality shall be used. For relationships based on other water quality characteristics, no transformation or a different transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate changes shall be made.

(ii)       Decide whether the data for each species are relevant taking into account the range and number of the tested values of the water quality characteristic and the degree of agreement within and between species.

(iii)        If useful slopes are not available for at least 1 fish and 1 invertebrate, if the useful slopes are too dissimilar, or if too few data are available to adequately define the relationship between acute toxicity and the water quality characteristic, then return to the provisions of subdivision (g) of this subrule, using the results of tests conducted under conditions and in waters similar to those commonly used for toxicity tests with the species.

(iv)      For each species, calculate the geometric mean, W, of the acute values and then divide each of the acute values for each species by W. This normalizes the acute values so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each species individually and for any combination of species is 1.0. To select tests for calculating W, use the data preference requirements described in subdivision (e)(i) of this subrule.

(v)          For each species, calculate the geometric mean, X, of the water quality characteristic data points and then divide each of the data points for each species by X. This normalizes the water quality characteristic data points so that the geometric mean of the normalized data points for each species individually and for any combination of data points is 1.0.

(vi)       For each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized acute values on the normalized water quality characteristic. The resulting slopes and 95% confidence limits will be identical to those obtained in paragraph (i) of this subdivision.

(vii)       Perform a least squares regression of all of the normalized acute values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled acute slope, V, and its 95% confidence limits.

(viii)        For each species, calculate the logarithm, Y, of the SMAV at a selected value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation:

Y = ln W - V(ln X - ln

Z).

(ix)      For each species, calculate the SMAV at Z using the equation:

SMAV = eY.

(x)      For each species for which at least 1 acceptable acute test result is available, the species mean acute value (SMAV) shall be calculated as the geometric mean of the results of all acceptable flow-through acute toxicity tests in which the concentrations of test material were measured with the most sensitive tested life stage of the species. For a species for which an acceptable flow-through acute toxicity test in which the concentrations of the test material was measured is not available, the SMAV shall be calculated as the geometric mean of all acceptable acute toxicity tests with the most sensitive tested life stage.

(xi)     Obtain the tier I FAV at Z by using the procedure described in subdivision (g)(ii) to (vii) of this subrule.

(xii)         The  tier  I  FAV   equation  for   any  selected   value  of  a  water   quality characteristic is:

tier I FAV = e (V[ln(water quality characteristic)]+A-V[lnZ])

Where:

V = pooled acute slope. A = ln(tier 1 FAV at Z).

Z = selected value of the water quality characteristic as used in paragraph

(viii)   of this subdivision.

(i)      If the acute and chronic toxicity of the chemical has not been adequately shown to be related to hardness, pH, or other water quality characteristics, then a tier I final chronic value (FCV) shall be calculated using the following procedures:

(i)       If at least 1 maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) is available to meet each of the minimum data requirements as described in subdivision (a) of this subrule, then a species mean chronic value (SMCV) shall be determined for each species by calculating the geometric mean of the MATCs selected from acceptable tests in the following order of preference:

(A)   All life cycle and partial life cycle toxicity tests with the species. (B)  All early life stage tests.

(C) All 7-day larval survival and growth tests for fathead minnows. Genus mean chronic values (GMCV) shall then be calculated as the geometric mean of the SMCVs for the genus. The tier I FCV shall be obtained using the procedure described in subdivision (g)(i) to (vii) of this subrule substituting FCV for FAV, chronic for acute, SMCV for SMAV, and GMCV for GMAV.

(ii)      If MATCs are not available to meet the minimum data requirements as described

in subdivision (a) of this subrule, then the tier I FCV shall be calculated as follows:

(A)    For each MATC for which at least 1 corresponding acute value is available, calculate an  acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR). An ACR is calculated by dividing the geometric mean of the results of all acceptable flow- through acute tests in which the concentrations are measured by the MATC. Static tests are acceptable for daphnids and midges. For fish, the acute test or tests should be conducted with juveniles. Tests used to develop an  ACR shall meet 1 of the following  conditions and  be used in the following order of preference:

(1)      The acute test or tests are part of the same study as the chronic test.

(2)      The acute test or tests were conducted as part of a different study as the chronic tests, but in the same laboratory and dilution water.

(3)      The acute and chronic tests were conducted in the same dilution water, but in different laboratories.

(B)      For each species, calculate the species mean ACR (SMACR) as the geometric mean of all ACRs available for that species.

(C)      The tier I ACR can be obtained in the following 3 ways, depending on the data available:

(1)      If the species mean ACR seems to increase or decrease as the SMAVs increase, then the tier I ACR shall be calculated as the geometric mean of the ACRs for species that have SMAVs which are close to the FAV.

(2)       If a major trend is not apparent and the ACRs for all species are within a factor of 10, then the tier I ACR shall be calculated as the geometric mean of all of the SMACRs.

(3)       If the SMACRs are less than 2.0, and especially if they are less than 1.0, acclimation has probably occurred during the chronic test. In this situation, because continuous exposure and acclimation cannot be assured to provide adequate protection in field situations, the tier I ACR shall be assumed to be 2, so that the tier I FCV is equal to the aquatic maximum value (AMV).

(D)     Calculate the tier I FCV by dividing the tier I FAV by the tier I ACR. (j) If data for the chemical are available to show acute or chronic toxicity to at least 1 species is related to a water quality characteristic, then a tier I FCV equation shall be calculated using the following procedures:

(i)      If MATCs are available to meet the minimum data requirements described in subdivision (a) of this subrule, then a tier I FAV equation shall be derived as follows:

(A)       For each species for which comparable MATCs are available at 2 or more different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares regression of the MATCs on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the slope and its 95% confidence limits for each species. Because the best documented water quality relationship is that between hardness and chronic toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log relationship fits these data, geometric means and natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality shall be used. For relationships based on other water quality characteristics, no transformation or a different transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate changes shall be made.

(B)      Decide whether the data for each species are relevant, taking into account the range and number of the tested values of the water quality characteristic and the degree of agreement within and between species.

(C)     If a useful chronic slope is not available for at least 1 species or if the available slopes are too dissimilar or if too few data are available to adequately define the relationship between the MATC and the water quality characteristic, then assume that the chronic slope is the same as the acute slope, or return to subdivision (i) of this subrule, using the results of tests conducted under conditions and in water similar to conditions and water commonly used for toxicity tests with the species.

(D)     For each species, calculate the geometric mean of the available MATCs, M, and then divide each MATC for a species by the mean for the species. This normalizes the MATCs so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each species individually, and for any combination of species, is 1.0. To select tests for calculating M, use the data preference requirements described in subdivision (i)(i) of this subrule.

(E)        For each species, calculate the geometric mean, P, of the water quality characteristic data points and then divide each of the data points for each species by P. This normalizes the water quality characteristic data points so that the geometric mean of the normalized data points for each species individually and for any combination of data points is 1.0.

(F)       For each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized chronic toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic.

(G)      Perform a least squares regression of all the normalized chronic values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled chronic slope, L, and its 95% confidence limits.

(H)      For each species, calculate the logarithm, Q, of the SMCV at a selected value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation:

Q = ln M - L(lnP - ln Z).

(I)      For each species, calculate aN SMCV at Z using the equation: SMCV =

eQ.

(J)      Obtain the tier I FCV at Z by using the procedure described in subdivision (g)(ii) to (vii) of this subrule.

(K)    The tier I FCV equation is written as follows:

(L[ln water quality characteristic]) + S - L[lnZ])

tier I FCV = e

Where:

L  =  pooled   chronic slope.

S  =  ln(tier   I FCV at

Z).

Z  =  selected  value  of  the  water  quality  characteristic  as  used   in subparagraph (h) of this paragraph.

(ii)      If MATCs are not available to meet the minimum data requirements described in subdivision (a) of this subrule, then the tier I FCV equation shall be calculated as follows:

(A)      If ACRs are available for enough species at enough values of the water quality characteristic to indicate that the ACR appears to be the same for all species and appears to be independent of the water quality characteristic, then calculate the tier I ACR as the geometric mean of the available SMACRs. The ACR shall be derived using the provisions in subdivision (i)(ii) of this subrule.

(B)        Calculate the tier I FCV at the selected value Z of the water quality characteristic by dividing the tier I FCV FAV at Z, derived in subdivision (h) of this subrule, by the tier I ACR.

(C)     Use V = pooled acute slope as L = pooled chronic slope.

(D)     The tier I FCV equation is written as follows:

re:

Whe

(L[ln water quality characteristic]) + S - L[lnZ])

tier I FCV = e

L  =  pooled   chronic slope.

S = ln(tier I FCV at

Z).

Z  =  selected  value  of  the  water  quality  characteristic  as  used   in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.

(k)         If the minimum data requirements in subdivision (a) of this subrule are not available to derive a tier I FAV, it is possible to derive a tier II FAV if the data base for the chemical contains a GMAV for Ceriodaphnia sp., Daphnia sp., or Simocephalus sp. and 1 other freshwater species that meets any additional minimum requirements of subdivision (a) of this subrule. To select tests for calculating a tier II FAV, use the data preference requirements described in subdivision (g)(i) of this subrule.

The tier II FAV shall be calculated for a chemical as follows:

(i)      The lowest GMAV in the database is divided by the tier II acute factor (AF) from table 3 corresponding to the number of satisfied tier I minimum data requirements listed in subdivision (a) of this subrule.

(ii)        If appropriate, the tier II FAV shall be made a function of a water quality characteristic in a manner similar to that described in subdivision (h) of this subrule.

(l)       If the minimum data requirements in subdivision (b) of this subrule are not available to derive a tier I FCV, it is possible to derive a tier II FCV for a chemical by 1 of the following methods listed in order of preference:

(i)                                            Tier II FCV = tier I FAV tier II ACR

Where:

Tier II ACR = tier II acute-chronic ratio determined by assuming enough ACRs of 18 so that the total number of ACRs for the chemical equals 3. The tier II ACR is the geometric mean of the 3 ACRs.

(ii)                                            Tier II FCV = tier II FAV tier I ACR

Where:

Tier  I  ACR  =  the   final  acute-chronic ratio for  the  chemical derived  using   the provisions in subdivision (i)(ii) of this subrule.

(iii)      Tier II FCV = tier II FAV

tier II ACR

(iv)       If appropriate, the tier II FCV shall be made a function of a water quality characteristic in a manner similar to that described in subdivision (j) of this subrule.

(m)      If, for a commercially or recreationally important species of the surface waters of the state, the geometric mean of the acute values or chronic values from a flow-through test in which the concentrations of the test materials were measured is lower than the calculated FAV or FCV, then that geometric mean shall be used as the FAV or FCV instead of the calculated FAV or FCV. For chemicals that have final acute or chronic value equations, if the SMAV or SMCV at Z of a commercially or  recreationally important species of the surface waters of the state is lower than the calculated FAV or FCV at Z, then that SMAV or SMCV shall be used as the FAV or FCV at Z.

(n)      The tier I or tier II aquatic maximum value (AMV) shall be derived by dividing the tier I or tier II FAV by 2.

(o)      A water concentration protective of aquatic plants shall be evaluated for a chemical on a case-by-case basis if data are available from tests with an important aquatic plants species in which the concentration of test material is measured and the endpoint is biologically important. If appropriate, the tier I or tier II FCV shall be lowered to be protective of aquatic plants.

(p)     On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine if the tier I and tier II aquatic life values are consistent with sound scientific evidence. If the values are not consistent with sound scientific evidence, then the values shall be adjusted to more appropriately reflect the weight of scientific evidence.

(q)      The tier I or tier II AMV shall be applied as a 24-hour average and compliance shall be based on the average of all samples taken at a site within the same 24-hour period. The tier I or tier II FCV shall be applied as a monthly average and compliance shall be based on the average of all daily measurements taken at a site within the same calendar month.

(r)      Aquatic life values may be modified on a site-specific basis to be more or less stringent to reflect local environmental conditions. All of the following provisions apply to aquatic life values modification:

(i)      Less stringent modifications shall be based on sound scientific rationale, shall be protective of designated uses of the surface waters of the state, and shall not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species listed or proposed under section 4 of the endangered species act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species’ critical habitat.

(ii)     Modifications may be derived using the recalculation procedure, water effect ratio procedure, or resident species procedure described in section 3.7 entitled "Site-Specific Aquatic Life Criteria" in chapter 3 of the United States EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook, second edition - revised (1994). In addition, modifications may be derived using the procedure entitled “Streamlined Water Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper” (United States EPA, 2001).

(iii)         For the purposes of implementing the recalculation and resident species procedures described under paragraph (ii) of this subdivision, species that occur at a site include species to which any of the following provisions apply:

(A)     The species are present at the site at any time of the year or are determined by a representative sampling regime.

(B)     The species are present at the site only seasonally due to migration.

(C)      The species are present intermittently because they periodically return to or extend their ranges into the site.

(D)     The species were present at the site in the past, are not currently present at the site due to degraded conditions, and are expected to return to the site when conditions improve.

(E)      The species are present in nearby bodies of water, are not currently present at the site due to degraded conditions, and are expected to be present at the site when conditions improve.

(iv)           For the purposes of implementing the recalculation and resident species procedures described under paragraph (ii) of this subdivision, the species that occur at a

site do not include species which were once present at the site, but which cannot exist at the site now due to permanent physical alteration of the habitat at the site.

(v)      More stringent modifications to protect endangered or threatened species listed or proposed under section 4 of the endangered species act may be accomplished using either of the following procedures:

(A)       For a listed or proposed species or for a surrogate of a listed or proposed species, if the SMAV or SMCV is lower than the calculated FAV or FCV, the lower SMAV or SMCV may be used instead of the calculated FAV or FCV in developing site-specific modified criteria.

(B)       The recalculation procedure described in section 3.7 entitled "Site- Specific Aquatic Life Criteria" in chapter 3 of the United States EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook, second edition-revised (1994).

(vi)              Any   site-specific   modifications   developed  pursuant  to   this subdivision shall be approved by the department.

(3)      Levels of toxic substances in the surface waters of the state shall not exceed the wildlife values specified in table 4 or, in the absence of such values, the wildlife values derived according to the following process, unless site-specific modifications have been developed pursuant to subdivision (n) of this subrule:

(a)      Tier I wildlife values for the BCCs listed in table 5, with the exception of the wildlife values listed in table 4, shall be calculated using the following equation:

TD

WV=  UFA  x UFS  x   UFL

x Wt

WL

W + ∑( FTLi x BAFTLi   )

Where:

WV = wildlife value in milligrams of substance per liter (mg/L).

TD = test dose (TD) in milligrams of substance per kilograms per day (mg/kg/d) for the test species.  This shall be either a NOAEL or a LOAEL.

UFA   = uncertainty factor (UF) for extrapolating toxicity data across species (unitless).  A

species-specific UF shall be selected and applied to each representative species, consistent with the equation.

UFS  = UF for extrapolating from subchronic to chronic exposures (unitless). UFL  = UF for LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolations (unitless).

Wt = average weight in kilograms (kg) for the representative species.

W  =  average daily  volume  of   water  consumed in  liters  per  day  (L/d)  by  the representative species.

FTLi  = average daily amount of food consumed from trophic level i in kilograms per day (kg/d) by the representative species.

BAFTLi  = bioaccumulation factor (BAF) for wildlife food in trophic level i in liters per kilogram (L/kg), developed using the BAF methodology in subrule (5) of this rule. For consumption of piscivorous birds by other birds, for example herring gulls by eagles, the BAF is derived by multiplying the trophic level 3 BAF for fish by a biomagnification factor to account for the biomagnification from fish to the consumed birds.

(b)        Piscivorous species are identified as the focus of concern for wildlife values. Three avian species - eagle, kingfisher, and herring gull - and 2 mammalian species - mink and otter - are used as representative species for protection. The TD obtained from toxicity data for each taxonomic class is used to calculate WVs for each of the 5 representative species.

(c)          The avian WV is the geometric mean of the WVs calculated for the 3 representative avian species. The mammalian WV is the geometric mean of the WVs calculated for the 2 representative mammalian species. The lower of the mammalian and avian WVs shall be the final WV.

(d)     A TD value is required for WV calculation. To derive a WV, the data set shall be sufficient to generate a subchronic or chronic dose-response curve for any given substance for both mammalian and avian species using acceptable wildlife endpoints. In reviewing the toxicity data available that meet the minimum data requirements for each taxonomic class, data from peer-reviewed field studies of wildlife species take precedence over other types of studies where the studies are of adequate quality. An acceptable field study shall be of subchronic or chronic duration, provide a defensible, chemical-specific dose-response curve in which cause and effect are clearly established, and assess acceptable wildlife endpoints. When acceptable wildlife field studies are not available or are determined to be of inadequate quality, the needed toxicity information may come from peer-reviewed laboratory studies. When laboratory studies are used, preference shall be given to laboratory studies with wildlife species over traditional laboratory animals to reduce uncertainties in making interspecies extrapolations. All available laboratory data and field studies shall be reviewed to corroborate the final WV, to assess the reasonableness of the toxicity value used, and to assess the appropriateness of any UFs that are applied. All of the following requirements apply when evaluating the studies from which a TD is derived:

(i)       The mammalian data shall come from at least 1 well-conducted study of 90 days or more that is designed to observe acceptable wildlife endpoints.

(ii)      The avian data shall come from at least 1 well-conducted study of 70 days or more that is designed to observe acceptable wildlife endpoints.

(iii)      In reviewing the studies from which a TD is derived for use in calculating a WV, studies involving exposure routes other than oral may be considered only when an equivalent oral daily dose can be estimated and technically justified. The WV calculations are based on an oral route of exposure.

(iv)      In assessing the studies that meet the minimum data requirements, preference should be given to studies that assess effects on developmental or reproductive endpoints because, in general, these are more important endpoints in ensuring that a population's productivity is maintained.

(e)      In selecting data to be used in the derivation of WVs, the evaluation of acceptable endpoints will be the primary selection criterion. All data that are not part of the selected subset may be used to assess the reasonableness of the toxicity value and the appropriateness of the UFs. In addition, the following provisions shall apply:

(i)     If more than 1 TD value based on different endpoints of toxicity is available within a taxonomic class, then that TD, which is likely to reflect best potential impacts to wildlife populations through resultant changes in mortality or fecundity rates, shall be used for the calculation of WVs.

(ii)       If more than 1 TD based on the same endpoint toxicity is available within a taxonomic class, then the TD from the most sensitive species shall be used.

(iii)       If more than 1 TD based on the same endpoint of toxicity is available for a given species, then the TD for that species shall be calculated using the geometric mean of the TDs for the same endpoint of toxicity.

(f)      If a TD is available in units other than milligrams of substance per kilograms per day (mg/kg/d), then the following procedures shall be used to convert the TD to the appropriate units before calculating a WV:

(i)       If the TD is given in milligrams of toxicant per liter of water consumed by the test animals (mg/L), then the TD shall be multiplied by the daily average volume of water consumed by the test animals in liters per day (L/d) and divided by the average weight of the test animals in kilograms (kg).

(ii)      If the TD is given in milligrams of toxicant per kilogram of food consumed by the test animals (mg/kg), then the TD shall be multiplied by the average amount of food in kilograms consumed daily by the test animals (kg/d) and divided by the average weight of the test animals in kilograms (kg).

(g)     When drinking and feeding rates and body weight are needed to express the TD in milligrams of substance per kilograms per day (mg/kg/d), they are obtained from the study from which the TD was derived. If not already determined, body weight and drinking and feeding rates are to be converted to a wet weight basis. If the study does not provide the needed values, then the values shall be determined as follows:

(i)       For studies done with domestic laboratory animals, use either the publication

entitled "Registry of Toxic Effects, a Comprehensive Guide," 1993, United States Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH Publication No. 97-119, or the publication entitled "Recommendations for and Documentation of Biological Values for use in Risk Assessment," United States EPA, 1988 NTIS-PB88-179874.

(ii)         If the references in paragraph (i) of this subdivision do not contain the information for the species used in a given study, then the following allometric equations shall be used:

(A)    For mammalian species, the general allometric equations are as follows:

0.82

(1)  F = 0.0687 x (Wt)

Where:

F = feeding rate of mammalian species in kilograms per day (kg/d) dry weight.

Wt = average weight in kilograms (kg) of the test animals.

0.90

(2)  W = 0.099 x (Wt)

Where:

W = drinking rate of mammalian species in liters per day (L/d). Wt = average weight in kilograms (kg) of the test animals.

(B)      For avian species, the general allometric equations are as follows: (1)  F =

0.65

0.0582 (Wt)

Where:

F = feeding rate of avian species in kilograms per day (kg/d) dry weight. Wt = average weight in kilograms (kg) of the test animals.

0.67

(2)  W = 0.059 x (Wt)

Where:

W = drinking rate of avian species in liters per day (L/d). Wt = average weight in kilograms (kg) of the test animals.

(h)       If an NOAEL is unavailable as the TD and an LOAEL is available, then the LOAEL may be used to estimate the NOAEL. If used, the LOAEL shall be divided by an UF to estimate an NOAEL for use in deriving WVs. The value of the UF shall not be less than 1 and should not exceed 10, depending on the dose-response curve and any other available data, and is represented by UFL in the equation expressed in subdivision (a) of this subrule.

(i)      If only subchronic data are available, then the TD may be derived from subchronic data. In such cases, the TD shall be divided by an UF to extrapolate from subchronic to chronic levels. The value of the UF shall not be less than 1 and should not exceed 10, and is represented by UFS in the equation expressed in subdivision (a) of this subrule. This UF is to be used when assessing highly bioaccumulative substances where toxicokinetic considerations suggest that a bioassay of limited length underestimates chronic effects.

(j)      The selection of the UFA  shall be based on the available toxicological data and on available data concerning the physicochemical, toxicokinetic, and toxicodynamic properties of the substance in question and the amount and quality of available data.

This UFA  is a UF that is intended to

account for differences in toxicological sensitivity among species and both of the following provisions apply:

(i)       The UFA shall not be less than 1 and should not exceed 100 and shall be applied to

each of the 5 representative species based on existing data and best professional judgment.  The value of UFA may differ for each of the representative species.

(ii)         The UFA shall be used only for extrapolating toxicity data across species within a taxonomic class; however, an interclass extrapolation employing a UFA may be used for a given chemical if it can be supported by a validated biologically-based dose-response model or by an analysis of interclass toxicological data, considering acceptable endpoints, for a chemical analog that acts under the same mode of toxic action.

(k)       The body weights (Wt), feeding rates (FTLi), drinking rates (W), and trophic level dietary composition (as food ingestion rate and percent in diet) for each of the 5 representative species are presented in table 6. The methodology for development of bioaccumulation factors is presented in subrule (5) of this rule. Trophic level 3 and 4 BAFs are used to derive WVs because these are the trophic levels at which the representative species feed.

(l)       Determine, on the basis of all pertinent data available, whether the wildlife values derived are consistent with sound scientific evidence. If they are not, the values shall be adjusted to more appropriately reflect the weight of available scientific evidence.

(m)       The WVs shall be applied as a monthly average and compliance shall be based on the average of all daily measurements taken at a site within the same calendar month.

(n)       Wildlife values may be modified on a site-specific basis to be more or less stringent to reflect local environmental conditions. The modifications shall be derived by making appropriate site-specific adjustments to the methodology in this subrule. The following provisions shall apply:

(i)       Less stringent modifications shall be protective of designated uses of the surface waters of the state, shall be based on sound scientific rationale, shall not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species listed or proposed under section 4 of the endangered species act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species’ critical habitat, and shall consider the mobility of both the prey organisms and wildlife populations in defining the site for which criteria are developed.

(ii)       More stringent modifications to protect endangered or threatened species listed or proposed under section 4 of the endangered species act may be accomplished by the use of an intraspecies uncertainty factor to account for protection of individuals within a wildlife population.

(iii)      Any site-specific modifications developed pursuant to this subdivision shall be approved by the department.

(4)      Levels of toxic substances in the surface waters of the state shall not exceed the human health values specified in tables 7 and 8 or, in the absence of such values, the values derived according to the following process, unless site-specific modifications have been developed pursuant to subdivision (h) of this subrule:

(a)       Human cancer values (HCVs) and human noncancer values (HNVs) shall be derived based on either a tier I or tier II classification. The 2 tiers are primarily distinguished by the amount of toxicity data available for deriving the concentration levels and the quantity and quality of data on bioaccumulation. The best available toxicity data on the adverse health effects of a chemical and the best data on bioaccumulation factors shall be used when developing human health values. The toxicity data shall include data from well-conducted epidemiological studies or animal studies, or both, that provide, for carcinogens, an adequate weight of evidence of potential human carcinogenicity and, for tier I values for noncarcinogens, a dose- response relationship involving critical effects biologically relevant to humans. These data shall be obtained from sources described in 40 C.F.R. §132, appendix C, item II, “Minimum Data Requirements” (1995), including the integrated risk information system (IRIS), the scientific literature, and other informational databases, studies, or reports that contain adverse health effects data of adequate quality for use in this procedure. Strong consideration shall be given to the most currently available guidance provided by IRIS in deriving values, supplemented with any recent data not incorporated into IRIS. Minimum data requirements to derive the human health values are as follows:

(i)       HCVs shall be derived if there is adequate evidence of potential human carcinogenic effects for a chemical. Carcinogens shall be classified, depending on the weight of evidence, as either human carcinogens, probable human carcinogens, or possible human carcinogens. To develop tier I and tier II human cancer values, the following minimum data sets are necessary:

(A)       Weight of evidence of potential human carcinogenic effects sufficient to derive a tier I HCV shall generally include human carcinogens and probable human carcinogens and can include, on a case-by-case basis, possible human carcinogens if studies have been well-conducted, although based on limited evidence, when compared to studies used in classifying human and probable human carcinogens. The decision to use data on a possible human carcinogen for deriving tier I values shall be a case-by- case determination. In determining whether to derive a tier I HCV, available information on mode of action, such as mutagenicity/genotoxicity (determinations of whether the chemical interacts directly with DNA), structure activity, and metabolism shall also be considered.

(B)      Weight of evidence of possible human carcinogenic effects sufficient to derive a tier II HCV shall include the possible human carcinogens for which, at a minimum, there are data sufficient for quantitative risk assessment, but for which data are inadequate for tier I value development due to a tumor response of marginal statistical significance or inability to derive a strong dose-response relationship. In determining whether to derive tier II human cancer values, available information on mode of action, such as mutagenicity/genotoxicity (determinations of whether the chemical interacts directly with DNA), structure activity, and metabolism shall also be considered. As with the use of data on possible human carcinogens in developing tier I values, the decision to use data

on possible human carcinogens to derive tier II values shall be made on a case-by- case basis.

(ii)       To derive HNVs, all available toxicity data shall be evaluated. The full range of possible health effects of a chemical shall be considered in order to best describe the dose-response relationship of the chemical, and to calculate values which will protect against the most sensitive endpoint or endpoints of toxicity. Although it is desirable to have an extensive database that considers a wide range of possible adverse effects, this type of data exists for a very limited number of chemicals. For many others, there is a range in quality and quantity of data available. To assure minimum reliability of values, it is necessary to establish a minimum database with which to develop tier I or tier II values. The following procedures represent the minimum data sets necessary for this procedure:

(A)      The minimum data set sufficient to derive a tier I HNV shall include at least 1 well-conducted epidemiologic study or animal study. A well- conducted epidemiologic study shall quantify exposure levels and demonstrate positive association between exposure to a chemical and adverse effects in humans. A well- conducted study in animals shall demonstrate a dose-response relationship involving 1 or more critical effects biologically relevant to humans. Ideally, the duration of a study should span multiple generations of exposed test species or at least a major portion of the lifespan of 1 generation. This type of data is currently very limited. By the use of uncertainty adjustments, shorter- term studies, such as 90-day subchronic studies, with evaluation of more limited effects, may be used to extrapolate to longer exposures or to account for a variety of adverse effects. For tier I values developed pursuant to this procedure, such a limited study shall be conducted for not less than 90 days in rodents or for 10% of the lifespan of other appropriate test species and shall demonstrate a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL). Chronic studies of 1 year or longer with rodents or 50% of the lifespan or longer with other appropriate test species that demonstrate a lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) may be sufficient for use in tier I value derivation if the effects observed at the LOAEL were relatively mild and reversible as compared to effects at higher doses.  This does not preclude the use of a LOAEL from a study of chronic duration with only 1 or 2 doses if the effects observed appear minimal when compared to effect levels observed at higher doses in other studies.

(B)      If the minimum data for deriving tier I values are not available to meet the tier I data requirements, then a more limited data base may be considered for deriving tier II values.  As with tier I, all available data shall be considered and ideally should address a range of adverse health effects with exposure over a substantial portion of the lifespan, or multiple generations, of the test species. If such data are lacking, it may be necessary to rely on less extensive data to establish a tier II value. With the use of appropriate uncertainty factors to account for a less extensive database, the minimum data sufficient to derive a tier II value shall include a NOAEL from at least 1 well- conducted short-term repeated dose study. The study shall be conducted with animals, be of not less than 28 days duration, demonstrate a dose-response, and involve effects biologically relevant to humans. Data from studies of longer duration (more than 28 days) that may demonstrate other study conditions, as well as LOAELs from the studies (more than 28 days), may be more appropriate in some cases for derivation of tier II values. Use of a LOAEL should be based on consideration of the severity of effect, the quality of the study, and the duration of the study.

(iii)            Bioaccumulation    factor   minimum    data   requirements    for    tier determination include the following:

(A)      To be considered a tier I cancer or noncancer human health value, along with satisfying the minimum toxicity data requirements of paragraphs (i)(A) and (ii)(A) of this subdivision, an organic chemical shall meet 1 of the following bioaccumulation data requirements:

(1)     A field-measured BAF.

(2)     A BAF derived using the BSAF methodology.

(3)      A chemical that has a BAF of less than 125 regardless of what method in subrule (5) of this rule was used to derive the BAF.

(B)      To be considered a tier I cancer or noncancer human health value, along with satisfying the minimum toxicity data requirements of paragraphs (i)(A) and (ii)(A) of this subdivision, an inorganic chemical, including organometals such as mercury, shall meet 1 of the following bioaccumulative data requirements:

(1)     A field-measured BAF.

(2)     A laboratory-measured BCF.

(C)      Cancer or noncancer human health values are considered tier II if they do not meet either the minimum toxicity data requirements of paragraphs (i)(A) and (ii)(A) of this subdivision or the minimum bioaccumulation data requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph.

(b)              The   fundamental   principles   for    human   health    cancer   values development are as follows:

(i)        A non-threshold mechanism of carcinogenesis shall be assumed unless biological data adequately demonstrate the existence of a threshold on a chemical- specific basis.

(ii)       All appropriate human epidemiologic data and animal cancer bioassay data shall be considered. Data specific to an environmentally appropriate route of exposure shall be used. Oral exposure is preferred over dermal and inhalation exposure since, in most cases, the exposure routes of greatest concern are fish consumption and drinking water/incidental ingestion. The risk associated dose shall be set at a level corresponding to an incremental cancer risk of 1 in 100,000. If acceptable human epidemiologic data are available for a chemical, then the data shall be used to derive the risk associated dose. If acceptable human epidemiologic data are not available, then the risk associated dose shall be derived from available animal bioassay data. Data from a species that is considered most biologically relevant to humans, that is, responds most like humans, is preferred where all other considerations regarding quality of data are equal. In the absence of data to distinguish the most relevant species, data from the most sensitive species tested, that is, the species showing a carcinogenic effect at the lowest administered dose, shall generally be used.

(iii)          If animal bioassay data are used and a non-threshold mechanism of carcinogenicity is assumed, then the data are fitted to a linearized multistage computer model, for example, a GLOBAL '86 or equivalent model. GLOBAL '86 is the linearized multistage model which was derived by Howe, Crump, and Van Landingham (1986) which the Unites States EPA uses to determine cancer potencies (Howe et al., 1986). The upper- bound 95% confidence limit on risk, or the lower 95% confidence limit on dose, at the 1 in 100,000 risk level shall be used to calculate a risk associated

dose (RAD) for individual chemicals. Other models, including modifications or variations of the linear multistage model that are more appropriate to the available data may be used where scientifically justified.

(iv)       If the duration of the study is significantly less than the natural lifespan of the test animal, then the slope may be adjusted on a case-by- case basis to compensate for latent tumors that were not expressed.

(v)       A species scaling factor shall be used to account for differences between test species and humans. It shall be assumed that milligrams per surface area per day is an equivalent dose between species. All doses presented in mg/kg bodyweight will be converted to an equivalent surface area dose by raising the mg/kg dose to the 3/4 power. However, if adequate pharmacokinetic and metabolism studies are available, then these data may be factored into the adjustment for species differences on a case- by-case basis.

(vi)       Additional data selection and adjustment decisions shall also be made in the process of quantifying risk. Consideration shall be given to tumor selection for modeling, that is, pooling estimates for multiple tumor types and identifying and combining benign and malignant tumors. All doses shall be adjusted to give an average daily dose over the study duration. Adjustments in the rate of tumor response shall be made for early mortality in test species. The goodness-of-fit of the model to the data shall also be assessed.

(vii)     If a linear, non-threshold dose-response relationship is assumed, then the RAD shall be calculated using the following equation:

RAD  = 0.00001

q1*

Where:

RAD = risk associated dose in milligrams of toxicant per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).

0.00001 (1 x 10-5) = incremental risk of developing cancer equal to 1 in 100,000. q1* = slope factor (mg/kg/day)-1.

(viii)        If human epidemiologic data or other biological data (animal), or both, indicate that a chemical causes cancer via a threshold mechanism, then the risk associated dose may, on a case-by-case basis, be calculated using a method that assumes a threshold mechanism is operative.

(c)              The   fundamental  principles   for   human    health   noncancer  value development are as follows:

(i)         Noncarcinogens shall generally be assumed to have a threshold dose or concentration below which no adverse effects should be observed. Therefore, the noncancer value is the maximum water concentration of a substance at or below which a lifetime exposure from drinking the water, consuming fish caught in the water, and ingesting water as a result of participating in water-related recreation activities is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects.

(ii)        For some noncarcinogens, there may not be a threshold dose below which no adverse effects should be observed. Chemicals acting as genotoxic teratogens and germline mutagens are thought to possibly produce reproductive or developmental effects, or both, through a genetically linked mechanism that may have no threshold. Other chemicals also may not demonstrate a threshold. Values for these types of chemicals will be established on a case-by-case basis using appropriate assumptions reflecting the likelihood that no threshold exists.

(iii)        All  appropriate human  and  animal  toxicologic   data  shall  be  reviewed  and

evaluated. To the maximum extent possible, data most specific to the environmentally relevant route of exposure shall be used. Oral exposure is preferred over dermal and inhalation exposure since, in most cases, the exposure routes of greatest concern are fish consumption and drinking water/incidental ingestion. If acceptable human epidemiologic data are not available, then animal data from species most biologically relevant to humans shall be used. In the absence of data to distinguish the most relevant species, data from the most sensitive animal species tested, that is, the species showing a toxic effect at the lowest administered dose given a relevant route of exposure should generally be used.

(iv)       Minimum data requirements are specified in subdivision (a)(ii)(A) of this subrule. The experimental exposure level representing the highest level tested at which no adverse effects were demonstrated (NOAEL) from studies satisfying the minimum data requirements shall be used for value calculations. In the absence of a NOAEL, a LOAEL from studies satisfying the minimum data requirements may be used if based on relatively mild and reversible effects.

(v)       Uncertainty factors shall be used to account for the uncertainties in predicting acceptable dose levels for the general human population based upon experimental animal data or limited human data. The uncertainty factors shall be determined as follows:

(A)      An uncertainty factor of 1 to 10 shall be used when extrapolating from valid experimental results from studies on prolonged exposure to average healthy humans. This factor of up to tenfold is used to protect sensitive members of the human population.

(B)       An uncertainty factor of 1 to 10 shall be used when extrapolating from valid results of long-term studies on experimental animals when results of studies of human exposure are not available or are inadequate. When considered with subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, a factor of up to one hundredfold is used in extrapolating data from the average animal to protect sensitive members of the human population.

(C)       An uncertainty factor of 1 to 10 shall be used when extrapolating from animal studies for which the exposure duration is less than chronic, but more than subchronic (90 days or more in length), or when other significant deficiencies in study quality are present, and when useful long- term human data are not available. When considered with subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph, a factor of up to one thousandfold is used in extrapolating data from less than chronic, but more than subchronic, studies for average animals to protect sensitive members of the human population from chronic exposure.

(D)     An uncertainty factor of 1 to 3 shall be used when extrapolating from animal studies for which the exposure duration is less than subchronic (less than 90 days). When considered with subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this paragraph, a factor of up to 3 thousandfold is used in extrapolating data from less than subchronic studies for average animals to protect sensitive members of the human population from chronic exposure.

(E)      An additional uncertainty factor of 1 to 10 may be used when deriving a value from a LOAEL. The UF accounts for the lack of an identifiable NOAEL. The level of additional uncertainty applied may depend upon the severity and the incidence of the observed adverse effect.

(F)      An additional uncertainty factor of 1 to 10 may be applied when there are limited effects data or incomplete subacute or chronic toxicity data, for example, reproductive/developmental data. The level of quality and quantity of the experimental data available and structure-activity relationships may be used to determine the factor selected.

(G)       When deriving a UF for use in developing an HNV, the total uncertainty, as calculated following subparagraphs (A) to (F) of this paragraph, shall not exceed 10,000 for tier I values and 30,000 for tier II values.

(vi)        All study results shall be converted, as necessary, to the standard unit for acceptable daily exposure of milligrams of toxicant per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day). Doses shall be adjusted for continuous exposure (7 days/week, 24 hours/day).

(vii)      The acceptable daily exposure (ADE) shall be calculated as follows:

Where:

ADE =      NOAEL or LOAEL

UF

ADE = acceptable daily exposure in milligrams of toxicant per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).

NOAEL/LOAEL = the study NOAEL or LOAEL.

UF = the uncertainty factor derived in paragraph (v) of this subdivision. (d) Human health cancer values shall be derived using the following equation:

HCV =                               RAD X BW                                          WC + [(FCTL3  X BAF3) + (FCTL4  X BAF4)]

Where:

HCV = human cancer value in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

RAD = risk associated dose in milligrams toxicant per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day) that is associated with a lifetime incremental cancer risk equal to 1 in 100,000 for individual chemicals.

BW = weight of an average human (BW = 70 kg).

WCd = per capita water consumption, both drinking and incidental exposure, for surface waters specified in R 323.1100(8) = 2 liters/day, or

WCr = per capita incidental daily water ingestion for surface waters not specified in R 323.1100(8) = 0.01 liters/day.

FCTL3 = consumption of regionally caught trophic level 3 fish = 0.0036 kg/day. FCTL4 = consumption of regionally caught trophic level 4 fish = 0.0114 kg/day.

BAF3 = bioaccumulation factor for trophic level 3 fish, as derived using the BAF

methodology in subrule (5) of this rule.

BAF4 = bioaccumulation factor for trophic level 4 fish, as derived using the BAF methodology in subrule (5) of this rule.

(e)     Human noncancer values shall be derived using the following equation:

HNV  =                       ADE X BW X RSC                                         WC + [(FCTL3

Where:

HNV = human noncancer value in milligrams per liter (mg/l).

ADE = acceptable daily exposure in milligrams toxicant per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).

RSC = relative source contribution factor of 0.8.    An RSC derived from actual exposure data may be developed on a case-by-case basis.

BW = weight of an average human (BW = 70 kg).

WCd  = per capita water consumption, both drinking and incidental exposure, for surface waters specified in R 323.1100(8) = 2 liters/day, or

WCr = per capita incidental daily water ingestion for surface waters not specified in R 323.1100(8) = 0.01 liters/day.

FCTL3 = consumption of regionally caught trophic level 3 fish = 0.0036 kg/day. FCTL4 = consumption of regionally caught trophic level 4 fish = 0.0114 kg/day.

BAF3  = human health bioaccumulation factor for edible portion of trophic level 3 fish, as derived using the BAF methodology in subrule (5) of this rule.

BAF4  = human health bioaccumulation factor for edible portion of trophic level 4 fish, as derived using the BAF methodology in subrule (5) of this rule.

(f)      Determine, on the basis of all pertinent data available, whether the human health cancer and noncancer values derived are consistent with sound scientific evidence. If they are not, the values shall be adjusted to more appropriately reflect the weight of available scientific evidence.

(g)         The tier I and tier II human health values shall be applied as monthly averages, and compliance shall be based on the average of all daily measurements taken at a site within the same calendar month.

(h)      Human health values may be modified on a site-specific basis to be more or less stringent to reflect local environmental conditions or local human exposure. Less stringent human health values shall be protective of designated uses of the surface waters of the state and shall be based on sound scientific rationale. Any such modifications shall be derived by making appropriate site-specific adjustments to the methodology in this subrule and shall be approved by the department.

(5)      Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) used in the derivation of values in subrules

(3)  and (4) of this rule shall be developed according to the following process:

(a)      Baseline BAFs shall be derived using the following 4 methods, listed in order of preference:

(i)       A measured baseline BAF for an organic or inorganic chemical derived from a field study of acceptable quality.

(ii)       A predicted baseline BAF for an organic chemical derived using field- measured biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) of acceptable quality.

(iii)      A predicted baseline BAF for an organic or inorganic chemical derived from a bioconcentration factor (BCF) measured in a laboratory study of acceptable quality and a food chain multiplier (FCM).

(iv)       A predicted baseline BAF for an organic chemical derived from an octanol- water partition coefficient (Kow ) of acceptable quality and an FCM.

(b)     Selection of data for deriving BAFs shall be conducted as follows:

(i)       Procedural and quality assurance requirements shall be met for field- measured BAFs as follows:

(A)      The field studies used shall be limited to studies conducted in the Great Lakes system with fish at or near the top of the aquatic food chain (trophic levels 3 or 4 or 3 and 4).

(B)     The trophic level of the fish species shall be determined.

(C)      The site of the field study should not be so unique that the BAF cannot be extrapolated to other locations where the values will apply.

(D)       For organic chemicals, the percent lipid shall be either measured or reliably estimated for the tissue used in the determination of the BAF.

(E)      The concentration of the chemical in the water shall be measured in a way that can be related to particulate organic carbon (POC) or dissolved organic carbon (DOC), or both, and should be relatively constant during the steady-state time period.

(F)        For organic chemicals that have a log Kow of more than 4, the concentrations of POC and DOC in the ambient water shall be either measured or reliably estimated.

(G)         For inorganic and organic chemicals, BAFs shall be used only if they are expressed on a wet weight basis. BAFs reported on a dry weight basis cannot be converted to wet weight unless a conversion factor is measured or reliably estimated for the tissue used in the determination of the BAF.

(ii)       All of the following procedural and quality assurance requirements shall be met for field-measured BSAFs:

(A)      The field studies used shall be limited to studies conducted in the Great Lakes system with fish at or near the top of the aquatic food chain, for example, in trophic levels 3 or 4 or 3 and 4.

(B)       Samples of surface sediments (0 to 1 centimeters is ideal) shall be from locations in which there is net deposition of fine sediment and is representative of average surface sediment in the vicinity of the organism.

(C)        The  Kows  used   shall  be  of  acceptable   quality  as  described   in paragraph (v) of this subdivision.

(D)      The site of the field study should not be so unique that the resulting BAF cannot be extrapolated to other locations where the values will apply.

(E)    The trophic level of the fish species shall be determined.

(F)      The percent lipid shall be either measured or reliably estimated for the tissue used in the determination of the BAF.

(iii)       The following procedural and quality assurance requirements shall be met for laboratory-measured BCFs:

(A)      The test organism shall not be diseased, unhealthy, or adversely affected by the concentration of the chemical.

(B)       The total concentration of the chemical in the water shall be measured and should be relatively constant during the steady-state time period.

(C)       The organisms shall be exposed to the chemical using a flow- through or renewal procedure.

(D)       For organic chemicals, the percent lipid shall be either measured or reliably estimated for the tissue used in the determination of the BCF.

(E)        For organic chemicals that have a log Kow of more than 4, the concentrations of POC and DOC in the test solution shall be either measured or reliably estimated.

(F)       Laboratory-measured BCFs should be determined using fish species, but BCFs determined with molluscs and other invertebrates may be used with caution. For example, because invertebrates metabolize some chemicals less efficiently than vertebrates, a baseline BCF determined for such a chemical using invertebrates is expected to be higher than a comparable baseline BCF determined using fish.

(G)       If laboratory-measured BCFs increase or decrease as the concentration of the chemical increases in the test solutions in a bioconcentration test, then the BCF measured at the lowest test concentration that is above existing in the control water shall be used. A BCF should not be calculated from a control treatment. The concentrations of an inorganic chemical in a bioconcentration test should be greater than normal background levels and greater than levels required for normal nutrition of the test species if the chemical is a micronutrient, but below levels that adversely affect the species. Bioaccumulation of an inorganic chemical might be overestimated if concentrations are at or below normal background levels due to, for example, nutritional requirements of the test organisms.

(H)         For   inorganic and  organic chemicals, BCFs shall  be  used only if  they  are

expressed on a wet weight basis. BCFs reported on a dry weight basis cannot be converted to wet weight unless a conversion factor is measured or reliably estimated for the tissue used in the determination of the BAF.

(I)      BCFs for organic chemicals may be based on measurement of radioactivity only when the BCF is intended to include metabolites or when there is confidence that there is no interference due to metabolites.

(J)     The calculation of the BCF shall appropriately address growth dilution.

(K)      Other aspects of the methodology used should be similar to the aspects of the methodology described in the american society for testing and materials (ASTM) standard entitled "Standard Guide for Conducting Bioconcentration Tests with Fishes and Saltwater Bivalve Molluscs," Standard E 1022-94 (1994), which is adopted by reference in

R 323.1117.

(iv)       The following procedural and quality assurance requirements shall be met for predicted BCFs:

(A)        The  Kow  used  shall   be  of  acceptable   quality  as  described   in paragraph (v) of this subdivision.

(B)     The predicted baseline BCF shall be calculated using the following equation:

Predicted baseline BCF = Kow

Where:

Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient.

(v)     The value of Kow used for an organic chemical shall be determined by giving priority to the experimental and computational techniques used as follows:

Log Kow	<4:	Priority	Technique
		1	Slow-stir
		1	Generator-column
		1	Shake-flask
		2	Reverse-phase liquid

chromatography on C18 chromatography packing with extrapolation to 0% solvent

3                                    Reverse-phase liquid chromatography  on   C18

chromatography packing without extrapolation to 0% solvent

4                                    Calculated by the CLOGP program

Log Kow <4:	Priority	Technique
	1	Slow-stir
	1	Generator-column
	2	Reverse-phase liquid

chromatography on C18 chromatography packing with extrapolation to 0% solvent

3                  Reverse-phase liquid chromatography on C18

chromatography packing without extrapolation to 0% solvent

4                                  Shake-flask

5                                  Calculated by the CLOGP program

The CLOGP program is a computer program available from Pomona College. A value of Kow that seems to be different from the others should be considered an outlier and not used. The value of Kow used for an organic chemical shall be the geometric mean of the available Kows with highest priority or can be calculated from the arithmetic mean of the available log Kows with the highest priority. Because it is an intermediate value in the derivation of a BAF, the value used for the Kow of a chemical shall not be rounded to fewer than 3 significant digits, and a value for log Kow shall not be rounded to fewer than 3 significant digits after the decimal point.

(c)      It is assumed that BAFs and BCFs for organic chemicals can be extrapolated on the basis of percent lipid from one tissue to another and from one aquatic species to another in most cases. Because BAFs and BCFs for organic chemicals are related to the percent lipid, it does not make any difference whether the tissue sample is whole body or edible portion, but both the BAF (or BCF) and the percent lipid shall be determined for the same tissue. The percent lipid of the tissue should be measured during the BAF or BCF study, but in some cases the percent lipid can be reliably estimated from measurements on tissue from other organisms. If percent lipid is not reported for the test organisms in the original study, then it may be obtained from the author or, in the case of a laboratory study, lipid data for the same or a comparable laboratory population of test organisms that were used in the original study may be used. The lipid-normalized concentration, Cl , of a chemical in tissue is defined using the following equation:

C   = CB

f

 

l

l

Where:

CB = concentration of the organic chemical in the tissue of aquatic biota (either whole organism or specified tissue) (mg/g).

fl          = fraction of the tissue that is lipid.

(d)     By definition, baseline BAFs and BCFs for organic chemicals, whether measured or predicted, are based on the concentration of the chemical that is freely dissolved in the ambient water in order to account for bioavailability. The relationship between the total concentration of the chemical in the water, that is, that which is freely dissolved plus that which is sorbed to particulate organic carbon or to dissolved organic carbon, to the freely dissolved concentration of the chemical in the ambient water shall be calculated using the following equation:

C

 

w

 

w

 

fd

 

Where:

fd  = ( f

)(C t  )

C

 

fd

w   = freely dissolved concentration of the organic chemical in the

ambient water;.

t

Cw  = total concentration of the organic chemical in the ambient water;.

f fd = fraction of the total chemical in the ambient water that is freely dissolved.

The fraction of the total chemical in the ambient water that is freely dissolved, ffd, shall be calculated using the following equation:

ffd =                                1                               

(DOC)(Kow)

  1 +                             + (POC)(Kow) 10

Where:

DOC   =  concentration of  dissolved  organic carbon, kg  of  dissolved   organic carbon/L of water.

Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient of the chemical.

POC  =  concentration of  particulate   organic  carbon,  kg  of  particulate   organic  carbon/L of water.

(e)       In the absence of a field-measured BAF or a predicted BAF derived from a BSAF, an FCM shall be used to calculate the baseline BAF for trophic levels 3 and 4 from a laboratory-measured or predicted BCF. For an organic chemical, the FCM used shall be derived from table 9 using the chemical's log Kow and linear interpolation. An FCM of more than 1.0 applies to most organic chemicals that have a log Kow of 4 or more. The trophic level used shall take into account the age or size of the fish species consumed by the human, avian, or mammalian predator because for some species of fish the young are in trophic level 3 whereas the adults are in trophic level 4.

(f)      A baseline BAF shall be calculated from a field-measured BAF of acceptable quality using the following equation:

Measured

BAFt

T

 

Baseline BAF =                           - 1

ffd

Where:

BAFt       = BAF based on total concentration in tissue and water.

f l = fraction of the tissue that is lipid.

ffd  = fraction of the total chemical that is freely dissolved in the ambient water.

The trophic level to which the baseline BAF applies is the same as the trophic level of the organisms used in the determination of the field- measured BAF. For each trophic level, a species mean measured baseline BAF shall be calculated as the geometric mean if more than 1 measured baseline BAF is available for a given species. For each trophic level, the geometric mean of the species mean measured baseline BAFs shall be calculated. If a baseline BAF based on a measured BAF is available for either trophic level 3 or 4, but not both, then a measured baseline BAF for the other trophic level shall be calculated using the ratio of the FCMs that are obtained by linear interpolation from table 9 for the chemical.

(g)        A baseline BAF for organic chemical "i" shall be calculated from a field- measured BSAF of acceptable quality using the following equation:

(BSAF)i  • (KOW)i

(Baseline BAF)i =  (Baseline BAF)r  •

(BSAF)r  • (KOW)r

Where:

(BSAF)i  = BSAF for chemical i.

(BSAF)r  = BSAF for the reference chemical r.

(Kow)i  = octanol-water partition coefficient for chemical i.

(Kow)r  = octanol-water partition coefficient for the reference chemical r. A BSAF shall be calculated using the following equation:

Where:

BSAF =      Cl

Csoc

Cl   = the lipid-normalized concentration of the chemical in tissue.

Csoc = the organic carbon-normalized concentration of the chemical in sediment. The organic carbon-normalized concentration of a chemical in sediment, Csoc,

shall be calculated using the following equation:

Csoc =

Cs Foc

Where:

Cs = concentration of chemical in sediment (mg/g sediment). foc =fraction of the sediment that is organic carbon.

Predicting BAFs from BSAFs requires data from a steady-state or near steady-state

condition between sediment and ambient water for both a reference chemical "r" with a field-measured  BAF fd       and  other  chemicals"n=i"  for  which  BSAFs  are  to   be

determined. The trophic level to which the baseline BAF applies is the same as the trophic level of the organisms used in the determination of the BSAF. For each trophic level, a species mean baseline BAF shall be calculated as the geometric mean if more than 1 baseline BAF is predicted from BSAFs for a given species. For each trophic level, the geometric mean of the species mean baseline BAFs derived using BSAFs shall be calculated. If a baseline BAF based on a measured BSAF is available for either trophic level 3 or 4, but not both, a baseline BAF for the other trophic level shall be calculated using the ratio of the FCMs that are obtained by linear interpolation from table 9 for the chemical.

(h)      A baseline BAF for trophic level 3 and a baseline BAF for trophic level 4 shall be calculated from a laboratory-measured BCF of acceptable quality and aN FCM using the following equation:

Measured

BCFt

T

 

Baseline BAF= (FCM)                             - 1

ffd

Where:

BCFT  = BCF based on total concentration in tissue and water.

f l = fraction of the tissue that is lipid.

ffd  = fraction of the total chemical in the test water that is freely dissolved.

FCM  =  the  food   chain  multiplier   obtained  from  table   9  by  linear interpolation for trophic level 3 or 4, as necessary.

For each trophic level, a species mean baseline BAF shall be calculated as the geometric mean if more than 1 baseline BAF is predicted from laboratory-measured BCFs for a given species. For each trophic level, the geometric mean of the species mean baseline BAFs based on laboratory- measured BCFs shall be calculated.

(i)      A baseline BAF for trophic level 3 and a baseline BAF for trophic level 4 shall be calculated from a Kow of acceptable quality and an FCM using the following equation:

Baseline BAF  =   (FCM)(predicted baseline BCF)  =  (FCM)(KOW  )

Where: FCM = the food chain multiplier obtained from table 9 by linear interpolation for trophic level 3 or 4, as necessary.

Kow  = octanol-water partition coefficient.

(j)       Human health and wildlife BAFs for organic chemicals shall be derived as follows:

(i)          The Kow of the chemical shall be used with a POC concentration of 0.00000004 kg/l and a DOC concentration of 0.000002 kg/l to yield the fraction freely dissolved:

1

ffd   =    1 + (DOC)(Kow) + (POC)(Kow)

10

1

=  1+ (0.000002 kg/L)(Kow) + (0.00000004 kg/L)(Kow)

10

1

=

1+ (0.00000024 kg/L)(Kow)

(ii)      The human health BAF for an organic chemical shall be calculated using the following equations:

(A) 

TL

 

For trophic level 3: Human heaBltAhFHH 3 = [(baseline BAF)(0.0182)+ 1](ffd)

(B)    

TL    4

 

For trophic level 4: Human health BAFHH

= [(baseline BAF)(0.0310)+ 1](ffd)

Where:

0.0182 and 0.0310 are the standardized fraction lipid values for trophic levels 3 and 4, respectively, that are used to derive human health values.

(iii)      The wildlife BAF for an organic chemical shall be calculated using the following equations:

(A)  For trophic level 3:

TL   3

 

Wildlife BAFWL

= [(baseline BAF)(0.0646)+ 1](ffd)

(B)  For trophic level 4:

TL   4

 

Wildlife BAFWL

= [(baseline BAF)(0.1031)+ 1](ffd)

Where:

0.0646 and 0.1031 are the standardized fraction lipid values for trophic levels 3 and 4, respectively, that are used to derive wildlife values.

(k)     To calculate human health and wildlife BAFs for inorganic chemicals, the baseline BAFs for trophic levels 3 and 4 are both assumed to equal the BCF determined for the chemical with fish. The FCM is assumed to be 1 for both trophic levels 3 and 4. However, an FCM greater than 1 might be applicable to some metals, such as mercury, if, for example, an organometallic form of the metal biomagnifies. The process specified in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subdivision shall be followed:

(i)     The human health BAFs for inorganic chemicals shall be calculated as follows:

(A)      Measured BAFs and BCFs used to determine human health BAFs for inorganic chemicals shall be based on edible tissue of freshwater fish unless it is demonstrated that whole-body BAFs or BCFs are similar to edible-tissue BAFs or BCFs. BCFs and BAFs based on measurements of aquatic plants and invertebrates shall not be used in the derivation of human health values.

(B)        If 1 or more field-measured baseline BAFs for an inorganic chemical are available from studies conducted in the Great Lakes system with the muscle of fish, for each trophic level, a species mean measured baseline BAF shall be calculated as the geometric mean if more than 1 measured BAF is available for a given species; and the geometric mean of the species mean measured baseline BAFs shall be used as the human health BAF for that chemical.

(C)       If an acceptable measured baseline BAF is not available for an inorganic

chemical and 1 or more acceptable edible-portion laboratory- measured BCFs are available for the chemical, then a predicted baseline BAF shall be calculated by multiplying the geometric mean of the BCFs times an FCM. The FCM will be 1.0 unless chemical-specific biomagnification data support using a multiplier other than

1.0. The predicted baseline BAF shall be used as the human health BAF for that chemical.

(ii)     The wildlife BAFs for inorganic chemicals shall be calculated as follows:

(A)      Measured BAFs and BCFs used to determine wildlife BAFs for inorganic chemicals shall be based on whole-body freshwater fish and invertebrate data

unless it is demonstrated that edible-tissue BAFs or BCFs are similar to whole- body BAFs or BCFs.

(B)        If 1 or more field-measured baseline BAFs for an inorganic chemical are available from studies conducted in the Great Lakes system with the whole body of fish or invertebrates, for each trophic level, a species mean measured baseline BAF shall be calculated as the geometric mean if more than 1 measured BAF is available for a given species; and the geometric mean of the species mean measured baseline BAFs shall be used as the wildlife BAF for that chemical.

(C)        If an acceptable measured baseline BAF is not available for an inorganic chemical and 1 or more acceptable whole-body laboratory- measured BCFs are available for the chemical, then a predicted baseline BAF shall be calculated by multiplying the geometric mean of the BCFs times an FCM. The FCM will be 1.0 unless chemical-specific biomagnification data support using a multiplier other than

1.0.  The predicted baseline BAF shall be used as the wildlife BAF for that chemical.

(l)    For both organic and inorganic chemicals, human health and wildlife BAFs for both trophic levels shall be reviewed for consistency with all available data concerning the bioaccumulation, bioconcentration, and metabolism of the chemical. For example, information concerning octanol-water partitioning, molecular size, or other physicochemical properties that might enhance or inhibit bioaccumulation should be considered for organic chemicals. BAFs derived in accordance with the methodology specified in this subrule shall be modified if changes are justified by available data.

(m)       BAFs may be modified on a site-specific basis to be higher or lower to reflect local environmental conditions. Any site-specific modifications shall be derived by making appropriate site-specific adjustments to the methodology in this subrule and shall be approved by the department. Lower BAFs shall be protective of designated uses of the surface waters of the state and shall be based on sound scientific rationale to address site- specific factors, including all of the following factors:

(i)      The fraction of the total chemical that is freely dissolved in the ambient water is different than that used to derive the statewide BAFs.

(ii)       Input parameters of the Gobas model and the disequilibrium constant are different at the site than the input parameters and the disequilibrium constant used to derive the statewide BAFs.

(iii)       The percent lipid of aquatic organisms that are consumed and occur at the site is different than the percent lipid of aquatic organisms used to derive the statewide BAFs.

(iv)     Site-specific field-measured BAFs or BSAFs are determined.

(6)      In addition to the values derived by the method set forth in subrule (2) of this rule, biological techniques, including whole effluent toxicity requirements, may be used to assure that the acute and chronic aquatic life requirements of these rules are met in the surface waters of the state.

(7)      If new information becomes available for the department to make a determination that any of the water quality values in tables 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 should be revised, then a rule change shall be initiated by the department to modify the values. The revised values will be considered for the purposes of developing water quality-based effluent limits for   national  pollutant   discharge  elimination  system   permits  and appropriate adjustments   shall   be  made   when   the   permit   is  reissued.

(8)       Tables  1 to 9 read  as follows:

Table 1. Aquatic Maximum Values for Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Waters.

Chemical	AMV1 (ug/L)	Conversion Factor (CF)
Arsenic2	3	1
Cadmium2	(e  1.128(lnH)-3.6867 )(CF)	1.136672- (lnH)(0.041838)
Chromium (III)2	(e  0.819(lnH)+3.7256)(CF)	0.31
Chromium (VI) 2	1	0.98
Copper2	(e  0.9422(lnH)-1.7)(CF)	0.
Cyanide3	2	n
Dieldrin4	0.	n
Endrin4	0.08	n
Lindane4	0.	n
Mercury2	1	0.
Nickel2	(e  0.846(lnH)+2.255)(CF)	0.99
Parathion4	0.06	n
Pentachlorophenol 4	e 1.005(pH)-4.869	n /a
Zinc2	(e0.8473(lnH)+0.884)(CF)	0.97

1AMV is the aquatic maximum value and is equal to 1/2 the FAV.  The AMV shall be rounded to

2 significant digits.

2Value  is   expressed  as  a   dissolved  concentration  calculated  using  the specified conversion factor.

3Value is expressed as free cyanide.

4Value is expressed as a total concentration.

Note: The term "lnH" is the natural log of hardness, expressed as mg/L CaC03.

The term "n/a" means  not applicable.

Table 2. Chronic Water Quality Values for Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Waters.

Chemical	FCV1 (ug/L)	Conversion Factor (CF)
Arsenic2	1	1
Cadmium2	(e  0.7852(lnH)-2.715)(CF)	1.101672- (lnH)(0.041838)
Chromium (III)2	(e0.819(lnH)+0.6848)(CF	0.
Chromium (VI)2	1	0.96
Copper2	(e0.8545(lnH)-1.702)(CF)	0.
Cyanide3	5	n
Dieldrin4	0.0	n
Endrin4	0.0	n
Mercury2	0.	0.
Nickel2	(e0.846(lnH)+0.0584)(CF	0.99
Parathion4	0.0	n
Pentachlorophenol 4	e1.005(pH)-5.134	n /a
Selenium5	5	n
Zinc2	(e0.8473(lnH)+0.884)(CF	0.98

1FCV is the final chronic value.  The FCV shall be rounded to 2 significant digits.

2Value  is   expressed  as  a   dissolved  concentration  calculated  using  the

specified conversion factor.

3Value is expressed as free cyanide.

4Value is expressed as a total concentration.

5Value is expressed as a total recoverable concentration.

Note:      The term "lnH"       is the     natural log  of  hardness, as  expressed in mg/L CaC03.

The term "n/a" means  not applicable.

Table 3.  Tier II Acute Factors.

Number    of    minimum                       data requirements satisfied	Acu te
2..........................................	.0	13
3..........................................	.0	8
4..........................................	.0	7
5..........................................	.1	6
6..........................................	.2	5
7..........................................	.3	4

Table 4.  Water Quality Values for Protection of Wildlife.

Chemical                                                                                                                Wildlife Value (ug/L)     

DDT and metabolites................................... 0.000011

Mercury, including methylmercury............. 0.0013

PCBs (class)............................................... 0.00012

2,3,7,8-TCDD............................................... 0.0000000031

Table 5.  Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern. Chlordane

4,4’-DDD

4,4’-DDE

4,4’-DDT              Dieldrin Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclohexanes

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane  delta- Hexachlorocyclohexane Lindane

Mercury       Mirex Octachlorostyrene

Polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCBs) Pentachlorobenzene

Photomirex 2,3,7,8-TCDD

1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene Toxaphene

Specie s	Adult Body Weight		Water Ingestion Rate		Food Ingestion Rate of Prey In Each Trophic Level	Trophic Level of Prey
Units	kg		L/da		kg/da	Percent of diet
Mink		0.8		0.08	TL3: 0.159	TL3:      90%
	0		1		Other: 0.0177	Other:       10 %
Ott	7.4			0.60	TL3:  0.977	TL3:
er			0		TL4:  0.244	80%
Kingfishe	0.1		0.01		TL3: 0.0672	TL3:        100
Herring gull	1.1		3	0.06	TL3:  0.192 TL4: 0.0480 Other: 0.0267	Fish:         90 % TL3:    80% TL4:      20 %    Other:     10 %
Bald eagle	4.6		0	0.16	TL3:  0.371 TL4: 0.0929 PB: 0.0283 Other: 0.0121	Fish:         92 % TL3:    80% TL4:      20 %    Birds:            8% PB:     70 % Non-aquatic: 30 %

 

 

Table 6. Exposure Parameters for the 5 Representative Species Identified for Protection.

Note: TL3 = trophic level 3 fish.

TL4 = trophic level 4 fish. PB = piscivorous birds.

Other = nonaquatic birds and mammals.

Page 47

Courtesy of www.michigan.gov/orr

Table 7.  Human Noncancer Values for Protection of Human Health

HNV (ug/L)

Chemical                                       Drinking                                              Nondrinking Benzene………………………………19…………………………………...510 Chlordane…………………………….0.0014………………………………0.0014 Chlorobenzene……………………….470………………………………….3200 Cyanides……………………………...600………………………………….48000 DDT…………………………………..0.002………………………………...0.002 Dieldrin……………………………….0.00041……………………………...0.00041 2, 4-dimethylphenol…………………450…………………………………..8700

2, 4-dinitrophenol……………………55……………………………………2800 Hexachlorobenzene…………………0.046………………………………... 0.046

Hexachloroethane…………………...6.0…………………………………...7.6 Lindane………………….....................0.47…………………………………..0.50 Mercury (including methylmercury)..0.0018………………………………..0.0018 Methylene chloride………………….1600………………………………….90000 2,3,7,8-

TCDD………………………..0.000000067………………………..0.000000067 Toluene………………………………5600…………………………………51000

Table 8.,  Human Cancer Values for the Protection of Human Health

HNV (ug/L)

Chemical                                       Drinking                                              Nondrinking Benzene………………………………12…………………………………...310 Chlordane…………………………….0.00025……………………………..0.00025 DDT…………………………………...0.00015……………………………..0.00015 Dieldrin………………………………..0.0000065…………………………..0.000006

5

Hexachlorobenzene………………….0.00045……………………………..0.00045 Hexachloroethane…………………....5.3…………………………………...6.7 Methylene chloride…………………..47…………………………………….2600 PBCs (class)…………………………..0.000026…………………………….0.000026 2,3,7,8-

TCDD………………………...0.0000000086………………………..0.0000000086 Toxaphene…………………………...0.000068……………………………..0.000068 Trichloroethylene…………………….29…………………………………….370

Table 9.  Food Chain Multipliers for Trophic Levels 2, 3, and 4.

Trophic                       Trophica                         Troph

Log Kow                          Level 2                        Level 3                        Level

2.0......................................1.000   .......................    1.005..........................1.000

2.5 .....................................1.000 ....................... 1.010..........................1.002

3.0 .....................................1.000 ....................... 1.028……...................1.007

3.1  .....................................1.000 .......................  1.034............................... 1.007

3.2......................................1.000 .......................  1.042............................... 1.009

3.3......................................1.000 .......................  1.053............................... 1.012

3.4......................................1.000 .......................  1.067............................... 1.014

3.5......................................1.000 .......................  1.083............................... 1.019

3.6......................................1.000 .......................  1.103............................... 1.023

3.7......................................1.000 .......................  1.128............................... 1.033

3.8  .....................................1.000 .......................  1.161............................... 1.042

3.9  ........................................1.000 .......................  1.202............................... 1.054

4.0  .....................................1.000 .......................  1.253............................... 1.072

4.1  .....................................1.000 .......................  1.315............................... 1.096

4.2  .......................................1.000 .......................  1.380............................... 1.130

4.3  .....................................1.000 .......................  1.491............................... 1.178

4.4......................................1.000 .......................  1.614............................... 1.242

4.5  .....................................1.000 .......................  1.766............................... 1.334

4.6  .....................................1.000 .......................  1.950............................... 1.459

4.7  .....................................1.000 .......................  2.175............................... 1.633

4.8  .....................................1.000 .......................  2.452............................... 1.871

4.9  .....................................1.000 .......................  2.780............................... 2.193

5.0  .....................................1.000 .......................  3.181............................... 2.612

5.1  .....................................1.000 .......................  3.643............................... 3.162

5.2  .....................................1.000 .......................  4.188............................... 3.873

5.3  .....................................1.000 .......................  4.803............................... 4.742

5.4  .....................................1.000 .......................  5.502............................... 5.821

5.5  .....................................1.000 .......................  6.266............................... 7.079

5.6  .....................................1.000 .......................  7.096............................... 8.551

5.7  .....................................1.000 .......................  7.962............................... 10.209

5.8  .....................................1.000 .......................  8.841............................... 12.050

5.9  .....................................1.000 .......................  9.716............................... 13.964

6.0  .....................................1.000 .......................  10.556............................. 15.996

6.1  .....................................1.000 .......................  11.337............................. 17.783

6.2  .....................................1.000 .......................  12.064............................. 19.907

6.3  .....................................1.000 .......................  12.691............................. 21.677

6.4  .....................................1.000 .......................  13.228............................. 23.281

6.5  .....................................1.000 .......................  13.662............................. 24.604

6.6  .....................................1.000 .......................  13.980............................. 25.645

6.7  .....................................1.000 .......................  14.223............................. 26.363

6.8  .....................................1.000 ......................  14.355.............................. 26.669

6.9  .....................................1.000 ......................  14.388.............................. 26.669

7.0  .....................................1.000 ......................  14.305.............................. 26.242

7.1  .....................................1.000 ......................  14.142.............................. 25.468

Table 9.  Continued.

Trophic                       Trophica                       Troph

Log Kow                          Level 2                        Level 3                        Level

7.2......................................1.000 .......................  13.852............................. 24.322

7.3  .....................................1.000 .......................  13.474............................. 22.856

7.4  .....................................1.000 .......................  12.987............................. 21.038

7.5  .....................................1.000 .......................  12.517............................. 18.967

7.6  .....................................1.000 .......................  11.708............................. 16.749

7.7  .....................................1.000 .......................  10.914............................. 14.388

7.8  .....................................1.000 .......................  10.069............................. 12.050

7.9  .....................................1.000 .......................  9.162............................... 9.840

8.0  .....................................1.000 .......................  8.222............................... 7.798

8.1  .....................................1.000 .......................  7.278............................... 6.012

8.2  .....................................1.000 .......................  6.361............................... 4.519

8.3  .....................................1.000 .......................  5.489............................... 3.311

8.4  .....................................1.000 .......................  4.683............................... 2.371

8.5  .....................................1.000 .......................  3.296............................... 1.146

8.7  .....................................1.000 .......................  2.732............................... 0.778

8.8  .....................................1.000 .......................  2.246............................... 0.521

8.9  .....................................1.000……................   1.837.............................. 0.345

9.0  .....................................1.000 .......................  1.493............................... 0.226

a The FCMs for trophic level 3 are the geometric mean of the FCMs for sculpin and alewife.

History: 1979 AC; 1986 AACS; 2006 AACS.