EPA's Proposes Revisions to Human Health Methodology

Background: On August 14, EPA's published "Draft Revisions to the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health" in the Federal Register. Among the changes presented in the proposal from the 1980 AWQC National Guidelines that may result in more restrictive water quality criteria include: 1) Replacing bioconcentration factors (BCFs) with bioaccumulation factors (BAFs); 2) Replacing the default fish intake rate of 6.5 grams/day to 17.8 grams/day (for protection of the general adult population and sport anglers) and 86.3 grams/day (for protection of subsistence fishers); 3) When the product of the uncertainty factors (UFs) and the modifying factor (MF) used to derive a reference dose (RfD) is 100 or less, there is to be no consideration of an RfD range allowing a value higher than the point estimate RfD. The product of the UFs and the MF used to derive the 1995 methylmercury RfD of 0.0001 mg/kg/day is 10; and, 4) the addition of an incidental exposure rate of 0.01/liters/day to account for long­term incidental recreational ingestion where recreational waters are not used as drinking water sources. When finalized, the revised methodology will provide guidance to States that they may use in developing human health criteria as part of their water quality standards. In addition to the draft Federal Register notice, EPA has developed a Technical Support Document (TSD). The TSD includes more technical detail and is supplemented by three proposed criteria developed using the new methodology.

Status: AMSA distributed the proposal to the membership via Regulatory Alert RA 98-18. Comments are due to AMSA by December 1, 1998. EPA has requested comments by December 14, 1998. CONTACT: Denis Borum, EPA 202/260-8996 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation Revision Process - Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Background: On July 7, EPA's published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on water quality standards regulation in the Federal Register (Regulatory Alert RA 98-15). The ANPRM requests public comment on EPA's current thinking on possible regulation and policy changes to strengthen and modernize the water quality standards regulation, including facilitating a watershed approach. Six core areas are discussed in the document, including: designated uses, criteria, anti-degradation, mixing zones, wetlands, and independent application. EPA has requested comment on these areas and is also accepting comments on any other aspects of the water quality program. AMSA, with extensive member agency input, plans to file comments on the ANPRM within the 180-day comment period. EPA is also planning to hold three public meetings across the country to discuss and debate issues contained within the ANPRM. AMSA's Water Quality Committee is requesting that members review the ANPRM and forward comprehensive comments to the National Office by October 2, 1998. The Committee has formed five review teams, each concentrating on one issue area of the ANPRM, which will collate member agency comments and establish AMSA's positions. CONTACTS: Rob Wood, EPA 202/260-9536 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/ 833-9106.

Status: On August 27-28, EPA held the first of three public meetings to discuss and debate EPA's current thinking as presented in the ANPRM. Over 250 representatives from EPA, states, tribes, municipalities, environmental groups and industry were in attendance . The first day of the meeting was led by a panel of resource experts representing states, industry, municipalities, and environmental groups. The resource experts presented their perspectives on the ANPRM and provided feedback to questions posed by attendees. AMSA was represented on the panel by Bob Berger, Manager of Regulatory Planning and Analysis, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and former chair of AMSA's Water Quality Committee. The main topic of discussion during the first day of the meeting was how to balance national consistency with state and local flexibility. The ANPRM poses several questions on whether EPA should mandate additional requirements for states to improve their water quality standards. Examples of such additional requirements include: whether EPA should mandate greater specificity in the use designation process, or identifying basic elements of state antidegradation policies or mixing zones policies. States opposed the ANPRM call for additional mandates and supported leaving flexibility in the regulation, while environmental representatives called for a minimum baseline program that states must implement. One municipal official commented that there needs to be greater flexibility in implementation and that change should be sought through guidance, not regulation. There was a general consensus among the participants at the meeting that the water quality program is working with limited resources to solve increasingly complex problems. During the resource panel presentations it became apparent that stakeholders have differing views on resource allocation. States indicated that these resources should be targeted to developing site-specific standards, while industry and municipal representatives thought EPA should work to provide better assessment tools and data, and that states should be given the flexibility to refine uses. Environmental groups believe EPA should focus efforts on the development of an improved suite of criteria (i.e., biological, physical, habitat) and strengthen existing "loopholes" in the regulation such as vague antidegradation and mixing zones policy requirements. EPA has scheduled two additional meetings, one for September 24-25 in Phoenix, Arizona and a final meeting on October 20-21 in Chicago, Illinois. For more information, visit EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/OST. CONTACT: Rob Wood, EPA 202/260-9536 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

National Water Quality Monitoring Council

Background: The National Water Quality Monitoring Council (Council) was formed as the permanent successor to the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). The Council reports to the Advisory Committee on Water Information, recently convened by the Department of the Interior. The Council serves as the major national forum for the coordination of consistent and scientifically defensible federal and state water quality monitoring methods and strategies. Such strategies are intended to improve understanding of different impacts, such as polluted runoff and habitat

alteration, on water quality and to define a national agenda of needed monitoring, research, and assessment models and tools. AMSA is represented on the Council by Norm LeBlanc, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, and Bob Berger of the East Bay Municipal Utility District.

Status: The NWQMC recently established five goals, with accompanying objectives and specific tasks, to meet important program needs, with a special emphasis on supporting the needs of watershed management. The resulting assessments, summaries and guidance should provide fundamental information useful to the monitoring community at many levels. These goals will help in implementing the objectives and programs outlined in the Clean Water Action Plan, as well as other important programs such as Source Water Protection, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and concerns about ground water. CONTACT: Elizabeth Fellows, EPA 202/260-7062, or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

Streamlining 301(h) Waiver Renewal Requirements - Anticipated Proposed Rule

Background: EPA is proposing to amend the Clean Water Act section 301(h) regulations. This proposal is designed to streamline the renewal process for POTWs with 301(h) modified permits. Section 301(h) provides POTWs discharging to marine waters an opportunity to obtain a modification of secondary treatment requirements if they demonstrate to EPA that they comply with a number of criteria aimed at protecting the marine environment.

Status: Proposal is planned for fall 1998. CONTACT: Deborah Lebow 202/260­6419

Freshwater Ammonia Criteria Revisions

Background: Since EPA published its water quality criteria document for ammonia in freshwater, (Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - 1984, U.S. EPA 1985a), it has issued additional information concerning aquatic life criteria for ammonia (Heber and Ballentine, 1992; U.S. EPA 1989, 1996) and there have been various studies of ammonia toxicity that could affect the freshwater criterion. The purpose of EPA's current efforts is to update U.S. EPA (1985a) and replace Heber and Ballentine (1992) and U.S. EPA (1996) by addressing various issues and assessing new data to the extent possible in a short-term effort. This short-term effort is addressing issues and data related to the Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC), Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC), and CCC averaging period, or the frequency of allowed exceedences. It is intended that a separate long-term effort will more completely evaluate relevant laboratory and field data, identify and conduct needed research, and replace U.S. EPA (1985a) and this latest addendum in five to ten years. A draft addendum updates the equations used in the ammonia criteria document (U.S. EPA 1985a) to address the temperature- and ph-dependence of ammonia toxicity in freshwater to take into account newer data and better approaches. A new CMC is derived based on these updated equations. Available chronic data is evaluated and used to derive a new CCC.

Status: On August 18, 1998, EPA announced the publication and request for comment on its "1998 Update of Ambient Water Criteria for Ammonia." (AMSA Regulatory Alert RA 98-19). This document assesses the aquatic toxicity data for ammonia in freshwater, and presents the derivation of an aquatic life criterion for ammonia. This criterion supersedes the 1984/1985 and 1992 ammonia criteria. It reassesses and revises the Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC or acute criterion), the Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC or chronic criterion), and the chronic averaging period. It does not reassess or modify the acute averaging period or the allowable frequency for criteria excursions. The document also contains policy recommendations on adoption of ammonia criteria into water quality standards, particularly with regard to seasonal adjustments of the criteria concentrations. Although the criterion has no binding legal effect in itself, the document serves as guidance to states, territories, and authorized tribes in developing water quality standards under Section 303(c) of the CWA, thereby ultimately providing a basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants. Although EPA is requesting comment on this guidance, these criteria constitute the Agency's current Section 304(a)(1) guidance, and will continue to serve as such until EPA publishes a revision. EPA will publish a revision if public comment or other information indicates such a need. Based on its assessment of public comments and other available information, EPA will either publish a revision to the guidance or will publish a notice indicating its decision not to revise. EPA is requesting written comments by October 2, 1998. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA at 202/833-9106, or Charles Delos, EPA 202/260-7039.

Whole Effluent Toxicity

Background: On February 19, 1997 EPA released their draft whole effluent toxicity (WET) implementation strategy (distributed via Regulatory Alert RA 97-6). The draft strategy highlights five key areas of concern including: 1) national WET outreach and training program; 2) continue to encourage the development of water quality criteria & standards based on good science; 3) improved NPDES permits for WET; 4) enforcement; and, 5) fund research needs. In February 1996, EPA was sued by several groups, including the Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS), and the Edison Electric Institute on the WET test procedures, which were promulgated on October 16, 1995. AMSA's Board of Directors did not pursue litigation on WET based on the opportunity to resolve technical and policy issues with EPA.

Status: EPA and WESTCAS have signed a settlement agreement regarding WET issues. A joint motion for further stay of proceedings was approved on July 29, 1998. The stay allows EPA and WESTCAS to resolve WET test method issues through a settlement agreement (AMSA Legal Alert 98-5). A recent WET study sponsored by WESTCAS provided an impetus for EPA to resolve the litigation. The study quantified the level of biological variability which is intrinsic to whole effluent toxicity test organisms and test procedures. The study attempted to determine the rate of false-positive whole effluent toxicity (WET) test results on method blank samples containing no toxicants of any kind. Of the sixteen laboratories which participated in the study 40 percent concluded that the non-toxic sample water was toxic based on reproductive effects. AMSA members were requested to participate in an additional follow-up interlab verification study (Over 80 agencies have responded to the request to participate -- see AMSA Regulatory Alert RA 98-16). Some of the EPA actions which the settlement agreement specifies include: 1) EPA will issue new rules mandating WET variability be accounted for in permit-related activities; 2) EPA issue new guidance recommending higher confidence intervals for streams with little or no dilution and for sub-lethal endpoints, and 3) EPA issue new guidance mandating demonstrable dose-response relationship before a toxicity test fails. Among several issues conceded by WESTCAS include: 1) no method-detection level is established for WET testing; 2) compliance status may still be assessed based on the outcome of a single WET test; and, 3) implementation issues (test conditions, test species, test appropriateness to ephemeral streams, independent applicability, etc.) were excluded from the settlement agreement. Over 80 AMSA member agencies have thus far offered to participate in a new WET study of inter-laboratory precision and accuracy. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106, Margarete Heber, EPA 202/260-7144.

AMSA Comments on FWS and NOAA Draft Biological Opinion for Proposed California Toxics Rule

Background: On April 10, 1998, the FWS and NMFS issued a draft biological opinion on the California Toxics Rule (CTR) which includes findings that the proposed criteria will jeopardize the continued existence of 20 species and includes recommended reasonable and prudent alternatives be undertaken to remove the jeopardizing effects of the proposed action. In the opinion, the FWS and NMFS, question the adequacy of : 1) proposed acute and chronic selenium criteria; 2) proposed aquatic and human health criteria for mercury; 3) proposed criteria for pentachlorophenol; 4) factors used in the proposed formula based metals criteria (i.e, water effect ratio, total-to-dissolved conversion factors, and hardness dependency), and; 5) the use of translators to convert dissolved criteria into total-recoverable permit limitations. The FWS and NMFS cite a significant number of published scientific literature in establishing a basis for the jeopardy opinion. Among the reasonable and prudent alternatives which have been recommended to EPA include: 1) reducing the chronic selenium criteria from 5 ug/l to 2 ug/l; 2) promulgating a total mercury criterion of 2 ng/l within the range of 8 affected species, 3) deferring promulgation of metals criteria on a dissolved basis, and 4) deferring approval of site-specific water effect ratios. In addition to these recommendations, FWS and NMFS also recommend that EPA promulgate revised criteria based on bioaccumulative effects of selenium and mercury by June 2000 and perform additional review of metals formula criteria methodologies to ensure species are protected.

The draft opinion will have national implications as the issue has been raised to senior water officials in EPA's Headquarters, and could ripple throughout the regional offices of EPA, FWS, and NMFS. These national issues, including whether EPA should develop national wildlife criteria and compliance schedules for water quality standards may be addressed in a draft inter-agency memorandum of agreement (MOA) which describes EPA, FWS, and NMFS coordination in ensuring that Clean Water Act programs protect endangered or threatened species. EPA has discussed several options for resolving these issues including: 1) launching a joint research project to develop wildlife criteria under the MOA' and, 2) promulgation of proposed standards with phased follow up on FWS/NMFS recommended reasonable and prudent measures.

Status: On July 28, AMSA sent a letter to the Office of Water in support of recent comments submitted by a coalition of California municipalities and municipal interest groups regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Draft Biological Opinion for the Proposed California Toxics Rule. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106

AMSA Comments on Draft Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan

Background: On June 22, EPA released a plan for enhancing and improving the water quality criteria and standards program titled, "Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan - Priorities for the Future." During AMSA's May 16-20 National Environmental Policy Forum, EPA's Office of Science and Technology released an advance copy of a draft plan for working together with states and tribes to enhance and improve the nation's water quality criteria and standards program. The plan describes seven new criteria and standards program initiatives that EPA, states, and tribes will embark on over the next decade. According to the plan, the Office of Water will emphasize and focus on the following priority areas for the criteria and standards program over the next decade including: 1) developing nutrient criteria and assessment methods; 2) developing criteria for microbial pathogens; 3) completing the development of biocriteria as an improved basis for aquatic life protection; 4) maintaining and strengthening the existing ambient water quality criteria for water and sediments; 5) evaluating possible criteria initiatives for excessive sedimentation, flow alterations, and wildlife; 6) developing improved water quality modeling tools to better translate water quality standards into implementable control strategies; and 7) assist States in implementing criteria as part of water quality standards. AMSA members received the plan via Regulatory Alert RA 98-12.

Status: On August 31, AMSA submitted comments on EPA's draft "Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan." In the comments, AMSA is supportive of EPA's plans to update and improve aquatic life criteria; improve microbial pathogen indicator methodologies; develop basic methods for collecting analyzing bioassessment data; and develop accurate models for TMDLs and other water quality planning purposes. AMSA made several recommendations to EPA concerning planned activities including recommending that EPA: review the need for adjustments to frequency and duration components of the existing guidelines sooner than by the end of 2000; pursue improvements to whole effluent toxicity testing methodologies and implementation procedures; pursue separate and distinct wet weather water quality standards; and discuss how TMDLs can be applied to nonpoint sources of pollution. AMSA did not support several planned activities including: a mandate that all states incorporate numerical nutrient criteria into their water qaulity standards; a mandate that all states incorporate numerical biocriteria into their water quality standards; and attempts to regulate flow alterations through Federal criteria. CONTACT: William Swietlik, EPA 202/260-9569 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

EPA Releases Regional Nutrient Strategy

Background: Nutrients have been cited as one of the leading causes of water quality impairment in the nation's waterbodies. EPA's 1994 National Water Quality Inventory cites that twenty-three percent of the rivers were impaired due to nutrient enrichment; forty-three percent of surveyed lakes; and forty-seven percent of surveyed estuaries were similarly affected by nutrients. To address nutrient problems, EPA has been directed by the President's Clean Water Action Plan (released in February 1998) to implement a criteria system for nitrogen and phosphorus runoff for lakes, rivers, and estuaries by the year 2000. To meet this accelerated time frame, EPA is developing a national strategy which focuses on the development of waterbody-type guidance, and region-specific nutrient criteria.

Status: On June 18, EPA released a national strategy outlining the process and approach for the development of numeric criteria for nutrients and adoption of nutrient provisions of state water quality standards. Under the approach described in the new nutrient strategy, EPA will develop nutrient guidance documents for various types of waterbodies (e.g. rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands) over the next several years. States will be able to use these guidance documents and target ranges as they develop numeric criteria for nutrients as part of state water quality standards. EPA has formed a National Nutrient Team to guide the nutrient criteria development process and is also forming Regional Nutrient Teams in each EPA region. The Strategy was transmitted to the membership via Regulatory Alert RA 98-13, and is also available on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/OST. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Bob Cantilli, EPA 202/260-5546.

EPA Proposes New Analytical Method for Mercury

Background: In the May 26, 1998 Federal Register, EPA published a proposed new analytical method for mercury, EPA Method 1631; Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence. Method 1631 measures mercury by purging mercury vapor from a water sample onto a gold trap and thermally desorbing the mercury from the trap into an atomic fluorescence spectrometer. Purging the mercury onto the gold trap concentrates the mercury and allows water vapor from the sample to be vented, and use of atomic fluorescence provides an increased response compared to atomic absorption. As a result, EPA Method 1631 is approximately 1,000 times more sensitive than currently approved methods for determination of mercury. Method 1631 would need to be used in conjunction with clean sampling and laboratory techniques to preclude contamination at the low ppt levels necessary for mercury determinations. EPA has developed guidance documents on sampling and clean rooms for trace metals, including mercury.

Status: On July 27, AMSA submitted comments to EPA on the proposed new analytical method for mercury detection - Method 1631. AMSA comments reflected member concerns with the cost implications on POTWs in applying this method, the practical application of the method, and whether the method can be used to precisely and accurately quantify mercury in the ng/l range in a wastewater or saltwater matrix. To address some of these concerns, AMSA petitioned EPA to revive validation work on Method 245.7. Method 245.7 uses the same protocols described in 1631, without requiring the use of ultra-clean sampling techniques and a gold trap. The use of clean sampling techniques was cited by AMSA member agencies as one of the major costs associated with Method 1631. AMSA noted that most POTWs could use Method 245.7 and still obtain a low detection limit at 2 to 4 ng/l. CONTACT: Maria Gomez-Taylor, EPA 202/260-1639 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

AMSA Forms Mercury Working Group

Background: For many parts of the country, POTWs are being faced with, or will soon be faced with, very low mercury effluent limits, due to application of very stringent water quality criteria. Many agencies are concerned that compliance will require the application of advanced treatment, and that these kinds of costly controls may not have much impact on resolving water quality issues. At the same time, EPA is proclaiming that meeting these lower mercury levels should not be a problem for POTWs. EPA has stated that based on a study performed for nine POTWs in the Great Lakes states using new sampling and analytical methods, most POTWs should have mercury levels at 10 ppt or less, and that source control/pollution prevention (mainly controlling dentists and hospitals) will bring mercury levels down to anticipated regulatory levels of 1 to 2 ppt. Because there is commonality in the problems facing POTWs with regard to mercury, AMSA believes that a national strategy should be developed so that every individual POTW does not have to come up with an individual compliance solution. Also, AMSA believes that EPA's conclusions about mercury levels and the feasibility of source control may be inaccurate.

Status: To further advocate the development of a national policy and to substantiate our concerns, AMSA's Workgroup will be preparing a series of white papers addressing the following issues: 1) mercury profiles for POTWs beginning with identifying the range of mercury concentrations in POTWs using data obtained with sensitive sampling/analytical methods for comparison to EPA data; 2) source characterizations to quantify where mercury is really coming from, and if there regional variability; 3) evaluate the feasibility of source control/pollution prevention programs to achieve anticipated regulatory levels based on agencies that have programs in place; 4) characterize the contribution of mercury from POTWs to the environment vs other sources; 5) evaluate other control/treatment options and costs; and, 6) provide recommendations on potential regulatory options, national control strategies, etc. The Workgroup is currently compiling low level mercury data solicited from the membership to identify the range of mercury concentrations from POTWs. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Margie Nellor, Los Angeles County Sanitation District 562/699-7411

EPA to Address Water Quality Standards Review Process

Background: EPA's water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 currently provides that state and tribal water quality standards are in effect until EPA promulgates a federal rule to supersede the state or tribal water quality standard. EPA's regulation is based on its longstanding interpretation of section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. In July 1997, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an opnion which held that the clear meaning of section 303(c)(3) of the CWA was that State water quality standards do not go into effect under the CWA until approved by EPA (Alaska Clean Water Alliance v. Clark; No. C96-1726R). The CWA provides EPA with 60 days to approve, and 90 days to disapprove water quality standards submitted by states and tribes. If a state or tribe does not rectify a standard within 90 days after EPA's disapproval, the CWA requires EPA to "promptly" propose new water quality standards. EPA has not always been able to meet these deadlines, and is now working on eliminating delays and reducing any backlogs. Because EPA's existing regulation remains in effect, and the court has issued no injunction against applying it, EPA's interim policy is to continue to follow the regulation (except in Alaska) until the regulation is changed.