DRAFT WET IMPLEMENTATION STATEGY MATRIX A CROSS WALK
BETWEEN STAKEHODERS' RECOMMENDATIONS AND EPA'S DRAFT PROPOSALS
OUTLINED IN THE DRAFT WET IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Enclosure (2) is a matrix or crosswalk between the draft WET
Implementation Strategy and the summaries from the September 1996
WET sessions. The recommendations identified at the four sessions
are considered to be an important first step at finetuning
an existing scientifically sound WET program. This matrix will
assist the reviewer in comparing the recommendations recorded
at the sessions against EPA's draft WET Implementation Strategy
so that the reviewer will be able to identify how and where EPA
plans to begin the process of addressing the recommendations raised
at the meeting. Also, the matrix and the draft WET Implementation
Strategy represent EPA's attempt to, as inclusively as possible,
go through all the recommendations raised at the September 1996
WET meeting.
EPA has identified the recommendations from both the September
1996 WET Implementation Meeting and the September 1995 Society
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry WET Pellston Workshop
which the Agency believes were the highest priority for all concerned
based on the discussions at the two meetings. EPA has grouped
and prioritized the common concerns into the five issue areas
listed in the draft WET Implementation Strategy and plans to address
them in a fashion such that the most practical and optimal improvements
to the existing WET program can be realized first. The prioritization
decisions were based, in part, on Agency resources. Not all initiatives
can start right away; some will require long term efforts. Some
initiatives are tied to other projects, and, therefore, they will
need to be addressed at a later date. Also, EPA's resources are
declining which means it may be necessary for the Agency to rely
on partnerships with stakeholders to complete some initiatives.
EPA will continue to examine the remaining recommendations and
issues as part of EPA's overall commitment to the stakeholders
and as part of the evolving process previously discussed in the
enclosed cover letter for this package. EPA will be looking to
the stakeholders to assist EPA in identifying solutions and to
assist EPA in identifying support or alternatives for those recommendations
that the Agency's current resources can not presently meet._
Most of the recommendations identified at the two meetings are
covered in the current draft WET Implementation Strategy in terms
of a big picture@ framework; however, a few issues are not covered
and they include the following: (1) laboratory certification and
laboratory staff accreditation as well as quality assurance/quality
control issues connected with analytical laboratories; (2) WET
equivalents for minimum detection levels (MDLs) and practical
quantification levels (PQLs); (3) water conservation issues which
may lead to toxicity; and (4) whether WET limits should be applied
to industrial users (IUs), and if so, how the test results account
for privately owned treatment works (POTWs) treatment processes.
Although these four items are not covered in the current draft
WET Implementation Strategy in any depth, there are some sections
of the draft WET Strategy which begin the process of addressing
these issues (i.e., the training and outreach section which could
address the laboratory quality assurance/quality control or MDL/PQL
WET equivalents issue.)
_It is our hope that this matrix will assist reviewers understand
how the draft WET Implementation Strategy deals with the recommendations
given at the stakeholder meeting. Overall, this package also represents
EPA's acknowledgment to the stakeholders that their recommendations
were noted and will be addressed by EPA in one fashion or another.
Topic: Training & Outreach
STAKEHOLDER'S COMMENT |
EPA PROPOSAL IN DRAFT WET STRATEGY | WHERE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN DRAFT STRATEGY |
Provide More Resources Including NPDES Program Technical Support Including But Not Limited to technical issues such as (1) Duration, Frequency and Magnitude Criteria Components; and (2) NPDES Permits Issues With Respect to WET. | Request more funding for NPDES program support. | Section I National WET Outreach and Training Program |
Provide Access to WET Technical Experts | Provide access to SETAC Foundation's national panel of WET experts. | Section I National WET Outreach and Training Program |
Address the Issue of Continual Staff Turnover in Regulatory Agencies Resulting in Insufficient NPDES Program Expertise And Inconsistent Program Implementation. | (1) Provide NPDES program training; and (2) Strive for better coordination between program areas and staff. | Section I National WET Outreach and Training Program |
EPA Enforcement Policies Not Well Publicized | (1) Add NPDES Enforcement program modules into the existing NPDES Program Permit Writer's training course; and (2) Provide user friendly access to documents through an EPA electronic bulletin board or "Home Page." | Section I National WET Outreach and Training Program (Special Note: EPA plans by the year 2000 to have all policies and guidance available on the Internet.) |
ISSUE: WATER QUALITY CRITERIA & STANDARDS
STAKEHOLDER'S COMMENT |
EPA PROPOSAL IN DRAFT WET STRATEGY | WHERE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN DRAFT STRATEGY |
Narrative Verses Numeric WET Criteria | Include a discussion on WET and the application of narrative versus numeric criteria in the EPA Standards Academy training. | Section I National WET Outreach and Training Program |
Match Toxicity Criteria Sensitivity with Gradation of Life Use Designation | (1) Provide National Guidance; (2) Reevaluate the safety margins; (3) Develop methodologies to support the development of sitespecific criteria; (4) Provide technical transfer on use attainability analyses; (5) Encourage upfront participation by stakeholders in water quality standards (WQS) process; and (6) Review comments from the ANPRM on Independent Applicability. | Section II Continue to Encourage the Development of Water Quality Criteria and Standards Based on Good Science |
Revise Independent Applicability (IA) Policy | Use the existing mechanism of the ANPRM to evaluate the policy of independent applicability (IA). Propose to identify minimum elements of a weight of evidence approach including, for example, use of reference sites for biological assessments and high quality, rich data. |
_
TOPIC: PERMITS
__
STAKEHOLDER'S COMMENT |
EPA PROPOSAL IN DRAFT WET STRATEGY | WHERE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN DRAFT STRATEGY |
Request for Clarification on Reasonable Potential (RP) Determinations Including a Discussion on the Issue of Flexibility verses Consistency in WET Criteria | (1) Reemphasize use of Technical Support Document (TSD); (2) Comprehensively redefine and clarify RP; and (3) Include in NPDES permits, monitoring requirements for adequate chemical screening to determine toxic potentials of known or suspect chemical constituents. | Section III Permitting Section |
WET NPDES Permit Limits Do Not Always Accurately Reflect the Designated Beneficial Uses for the Receiving Water System | Provide guidance to permitting authorities on how to accurately reflect the designated beneficial uses for receiving water systems. | Section III Permitting Section |
NPDES Permits are Not Always Based on Best Available WET Data and/or insufficient Data Which is Important in Making RP Determinations and Establishing Permit Limits | Implement a stepwise approach to NPDES permitting which standardizes the practice of collecting sufficient, high quality WET data before or during the NPDES permit development process. | Section III Permitting Section |
Not All NPDES Permit Requirements Are Defensible Due to Lack of Sufficient Documentation | (1) Require that permitting authorities provide clearly written and well documented NPDES permits which are: water quality protective, defensible and enforceable; (2) Recommend that permitting authorities provide more detailedinformation to the permittee on requirements within the fact sheet and the permit; and (3) Provide, as part of the stepwise approach to permitting, permit language which triggers accelerated testing when a limit is exceeded. | Section III Permitting Section |
NPDES Permits Should Reflect WQS Grounded in Good Science and Well Thought Out Permitting Options and Should Address Exposure Assumption Issues | (1) EPA will continue to work with their permitting authorities on the current WQS programs; (2) EPA will seek, where appropriate, input from the stakeholders on NPDES permitting issues including possible options; (3) Provide additional guidance through EPA documents on the appropriate interpretation of EPA test methods; (4) Provide guidance to stakeholders on the appropriate examination of effluent flow and monitoring data; (5) Encourage permitting authorities to use dynamic modeling and mixing zones when practical and possible; and (6) Provide detailed guidance to stakeholders regarding necessary elements when developing a toxicity monitoring requirement or limit. | Section III Permitting Section |
Registered Chemicals Accountability |
Develop a national workgroup on the subject of registered chemicals and how it relates to the NPDES programs including the issue of accountability under a NPDES permit | Section III Permitting Section |
Clarify DMR Permittee Requirements |
(1) Reemphasize and stress EPA's DMR language which requires permittees to report effluent data to the best of their knowledge; and (2) clarify the differences between test method accuracy and reporting accuracy | Section III Permitting Section |
TOPIC: ENFORCEMENT
STAKEHOLDER'S COMMENT |
EPA PROPOSAL IN DRAFT WET STRATEGY | WHERE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN DRAFT STRATEGY |
EPA Enforcement Policies and Guidance Are Not Accessible and Many Stakeholders Are Unfamiliar With What the EPA Enforcement Documents State | (1) Provide EPA Enforcement policies and guidance documents at EPA training courses; and (2) Provide user friendly access to documents through an EPA electronic bulletin board or Home Page | Section IV Enforcement |
Confirmation Requested on Whether a Single Exceedance of a WET Permit Requirement Constitutes a Violation Subject to an Enforcement Action | Reiterate current EPA policy regarding any violation of a NPDES Permit and reemphasize the existing enforcement discretion discussed in the policies | Section IV Enforcement |
Request for Technical Assistance and Enforcement Relief for Permittees Who Are Involved in an Inclusive TRE | (1) Reemphasize current EPA enforcement policy where a permittee is involved in an exhaustive TRE; and (2) Provide technical assistance to permitting authorities and stakeholders via the SETAC Foundation's panel of national experts | Section IV Enforcement |
TOPIC: FUNDING RESEARCH
__
STAKEHOLDER'S COMMENT |
EPA PROPOSAL IN DRAFT WET STRATEGY | WHERE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN DRAFT STRATEGY |
1995 Pellston WET Workshop Recommendations | EPA proposes to conduct a subset of studies and research in many areas which will provide enhancement of WET implementation | Section V Fund Research Needs |