Search

Clean Water Advocacy Newsroom

Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News

No. 218
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Page AA-1
ISSN 1521-9402
Leading the News

Water Pollution
Ten Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Methods
Ratified by EPA in Rule; Challenge Planned

A final rule approving methods for measuring the chronic toxicity of industrial effluents and the waters into which those effluents are discharged was signed Nov. 8 by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.
Under the final rule, the agency will ratify 10 of the 12 proposed whole effluent toxicity (WET) test methods, according to Marion Kelly of EPA's Office of Water Engineering and Analysis Division.

The rule was proposed in September 2001 (188 DEN A-5, 10/1/01 ).

The rulemaking is designed to improve the performance of whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests and increase confidence in the reliability of the results from the test procedures.

The two tests being withdrawn are the Champia parvula reproduction test and the Holmesimysis costata acute test, Kelly said.

However, the rule is "not remarkably different" from the proposal, according to Debra Nicoll, in the EPA Office of Science and Technology. It does seek to clarify items that are required versus those that are recommended, a problem that had been raised by commenters on the proposal, she said.


Challenge to Rule Anticipated

Even before Whitman could get the rule signed, officials representing municipal wastewater treatment facilities announced they would challenge the regulation in court.
Current WET testing methodologies are "not a good indicator of the water quality of the streams we are discharging into," Christopher Westhoff, assistant city attorney for the Los Angeles Department of Public Works, told BNA Nov. 7. "Uncertainty costs you money and time."

Westhoff chairs the legal affairs committee of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, which was meeting in Denver Nov. 6-8.

He said AMSA would sue EPA over the rule within six months.

The agency first issued a rule in October 1995 setting consistent procedures for determining the overall toxicity of effluent discharged into U.S. waters (60 Fed. Reg. 53,529; 199 DEN A-3; 10/16/95). That WET test rule contained 17 methods for estimating acute and chronic toxicity.

WET tests, which seek to characterize effluent as a whole in terms of its toxic effects on certain test species, such as flathead minnows, have been criticized because they have been known to generate false positives exaggerating the toxicity of the effluent. These erroneous results could result in tighter National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits being unnecessarily imposed on dischargers.


Question of False Positives

Several groups sued EPA over the 1995 rule because of the false positives issue. A settlement was reached in which the agency agreed to do studies to quantify the variability in 12 of 17 test methods (Edison Electric Institute v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 96-1062, and consolidated cases, 7/27/98).
The 12 methods studied represented a combination of acute and chronic test methods; freshwater and marine test methods; and invertebrate, fish, and algal species, EPA said.

According to Westhoff, under the rule being promulgated by EPA, a discharger could be in violation of a NPDES permit because testing for toxicity "killed one fish in a 90-day period. And you really can't say what it was that caused the critter to go belly up."

Companies could face administrative, civil and even criminal penalties over such violations, he said.

"And I don't think your people are going to want to go to jail over one dead fish," he said.


EPA Cites Insufficient Lab Support

In the 2001 proposal, EPA said it did not perform the interlaboratory study for the Champia parvula reproduction test because it did not have sufficient "participant laboratory support." Commenters, including AMSA and several associations representing industrial dischargers, criticized the inclusion of the method. The comments said that the need for the test should not justify circumventing the validation process. EPA had said that the Champia parvula test was the only method for marine plant species.
"Maintaining an approved test method for this functional group is important for the proper implementation of the WET program," the proposal said.

Similarly, the agency did not perform an interlaboratory study of the Holmesimysis costata acute test either, the comments said.

Organizations fighting the new EPA rule could spend up to $1 million or more on litigation, Tim Moore, president of Risk Sciences Inc. of Brentwood, Tenn., a firm that specializes in developing site-specific water quality criteria and NPDES permit limits for municipal and industrial dischargers, said during a presentation at the Denver meeting.

EPA's answer is that WET testing "is not supposed to give an accurate prediction" of toxicity.

"It's only supposed to give us an early warning, and 'better safe than sorry,' " Moore said. "This test cannot be used as a way to identify felons."

By Susan Bruninga and Tripp Baltz