Search

Water Quality Issues

AMSA Urges Improvements to EPA Toxics Reduction Strategy and Draft Mercury Action Plan

Background: As a first step to focus further attention on reducing risks from persistent, bioaccumulative toxic pollutants (PBTs), EPA published in the November 17, 1998 Federal Register a draft Multimedia Strategy for Priority PBT Pollutants and Draft Mercury Action Plan documents for public comment. The strategy's goal is to reduce risks from priority PBTs by developing and implementing national action plans that coordinate activities among different EPA program offices. PBTs are defined by EPA as highly toxic, long-lasting substances that can build up in the food chain to levels harmful to human and ecosystem health. They include many familiar toxic substances such as mercury, PCBs, and DDT. EPA has currently proposed to develop action plans for twelve PBTs, and has developed a draft action plan for mercury. For a full copy of the strategy, see http://www.epa.gov/pbt.

Status: On February 16, 1999, AMSA submitted its comments on the draft strategy and mercury action plan. In its comments, AMSA calls on EPA to focus on risk-based approaches to address pollutants such as mercury and dioxin while developing specific strategies to reduce levels of PBT pollutants in the environment. While applauding EPA for recognizing the need for a multimedia approach to reduce the risks to human health and the environment from existing and future exposure to PBTs, AMSA recommended that EPA identify and promote statutory changes needed to effectively implement the strategy. AMSA advised EPA that without statutory changes, the type of inter-office integration and prioritization required to effectively address PBTs may be impossible. AMSA also cautioned EPA that pollution prevention alone may not feasiblely achieve PBT reduction goals. For many PBTs such as banned pesticides or pollutants that originate primarily from air deposition, pollution prevention is simply not an option, and EPA should calculate the true costs of compliance in case pollution prevention measures fail to achieve adequate reductions. AMSA also urged EPA not to use the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) as a tool to track the strategy's performance because the current TRI reporting and tracking system does not accurately represent direct releases to the environment. AMSA also commented on EPA's Draft Mercury Action Plan, the agency's model approach for addressing other PBTs under the strategy. AMSA urged EPA to prioritize actions to control mercury in order to achieve the greatest reduction in risks to human health and the environment. AMSA's full set of comments are available online at http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/private/reguloutreach/waterquality/pbt.cfm. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106, or Sam Sasnett, EPA 202/260-8020

EPA's Proposes Revisions to Human Health Methodology

Background: On August 14, 1998 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 (to protect the general adult population and sport anglers) and 86.3 grams/day (to protect subsistence fishers); 3) the addition of an incidental exposure rate of 0.01/liters/day to account for long-term incidental recreational ingestion where recreational waters are not used as drinking water sources. When finalized, the revised methodology will provide guidance to States for 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: On December 14, 1998 AMSA submitted comments on EPA's proposed, “Draft Revisions to the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health.” In its comments, AMSA supported revision of the existing criteria for water quality, noting that information and data collected during the past 18 years should be utilized. AMSA did note, however, that revised criteria should be based upon sound science and superior quality data. AMSA members had particular concerns regarding development of site specific criteria and use of bioaccumulative factors in criteria derivation. AMSA's comments reflected the Association's belief that additional data and research are required to derive scientifically defensible ambient water quality criteria, and that steps should be taken to obtain the necessary information before new AWQC are implemented. EPA proposes to finalize the revised methodology sometime in 1999. It is anticipated that, when finalized, the revised methodology will provide guidance to States for use in developing human health criteria as part of their water quality standards. 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, 1998 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.

Status: On January 4, AMSA submitted comments on the EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for revising the national water quality standards regulation. In its comments, AMSA discusses the need for regulatory change. AMSA supports EPA's overall vision that the water quality standards program needs to better promote watershed-based approaches, and emphasizes that changes need to provide flexibility to EPA, states, and the regulated community to target resources. AMSA urges EPA to ensure that regulatory modifications and efforts to encourage involvement of unregulated nonpoint source dischargers do not unfairly lead to a disproportionate increase in requirements on permitted dischargers, due to lack of EPA and state authorities to control nonpoint source pollution. In the comments, AMSA also affirms that many problems associated with attainment of water quality standards, as well as permitting issues, are associated with inappropriate use designations. AMSA urges that States have the latitude to refine use categories to differentiate between diverse uses, such as swimming vs. wading, which could be protected by very different criteria. AMSA goes further to recommend that States be mandated to refine uses where appropriate, and to perform use attainability analyses for those waters that have been inappropriately designated. Copies of AMSA comments can be obtained on AMSA's Web Site or by contacting the National Office. EPA is currently collating over 165 sets of comments on the ANPRM, and expects to be in a better position to assess possible rule changes by early summer. AMSA plans to meet with EPA in May to discuss its priority issues. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Sue Gilbertson, EPA 202/260-9536.

EPA Planning to Release Draft Anti-Degradation Guidance in April 1999

Background: The President's February 1998 Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) calls for “EPA to develop guidance that more specifically defines expectations and procedures for States to follow in fully implementing anti-degradation policies related to polluted runoff...” In response to the CWAP requirements, EPA has worked with Regions and States to develop a draft guidance document planned for release in April 1999 for public comment.

Status: The draft guidance discusses four areas including: 1) what antidegradation policy is and how the policy is important to protecting water quality; 2) basic antidegradation policy requirements, illustrating required components of an antidegradation review; 3) advocacy of more consistent consideration of antidegradation concerns in NPDES permits; and, 4) identification of possible mechanisms for applying antidegradation to polluted runoff, including point and nonpoint sources. Critical themes and issues include:

A sixty-day public comment period is expected, with a final guidance planned for September 1999. AMSA will distribute the draft guidance when available. CONTACT: Fred Leutner, EPA 202/260-1542 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

National Water Quality Monitoring Council

Background: The National Water Quality Monitoring Council (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 Council met on January 27-28, 1999 to discuss the status of its six workgroups which are tasked with improvement activities in the areas of : monitoring design, data methods and comparability, institutional collaboration, and data management and access. CONTACT: Chuck Spooner, EPA 202/260-1314, 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. A proposal is planned for August 1999.

Status: On Dec. 23, EPA published plans to submit a continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the 301(h) program. The ICR estimates an annual average burden of 71,049 hours for the 55 affected entities (municipalities that currently have section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment, have applied for a renewal of a section 301(h) waiver, or those with a pending section 301(h) waiver application, and the states within which these municipalities are located) of the program. Comments on the ICR are being accepted until February 22, 1998. CONTACT: Virginia Fox-Norse, EPA 202/260-8448

AMSA to Co-Sponsor Whole Effluent Toxicity Training Program

Background: AMSA and the Society of Environmental Toxicologists and Chemists (SETAC) will co-host a two-day training course designed to assist publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) with implementation of EPA's whole effluent toxicity (WET) program. A WET Tale...Toxicity of Complex Effluents will take place on March 25-26, 1999 and cover standards, regulations, policy, guidance and technical aspects of the WET program. The training course, which will be held in Arlington, Virginia, will incorporate rationale and information on WET test requirements as contained in EPA materials such as the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control, toxicity reduction evaluation/toxicity identification evaluation (TRE/TIE) manuals, and acute and short-term chronic toxicity testing manuals. Instructors from EPA, states, and municipalities will provide balanced information on the WET program and cover such topics as WET implementation based on statutory, regulatory and policy publications; test methods; quality assurance; statistical evaluation techniques; NPDES permit development; compliance and enforcement; and TRE/TIE procedures and TIE case studies.

Status: Flyers, including a registration form were forwarded to the membership in early February. Additional training course information and an on-line registration form is also be available on AMSA's Clean Water on the Web at http://www.amsa.cleanwater.org. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

Whole Effluent Toxicity Inter-laboratory Variability Study

Background: As a result of a recent settlement agreement between EPA and the Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) concerning EPA's whole effluent toxicity (WET) test method, EPA has agreed to perform an inter-laboratory WET study to assess and validate a recently completed study of test method variability sponsored by WESTCAS. The WESTCAS study quantified the level of biological variability which is intrinsic to whole effluent toxicity test organisms and test procedures. The WESTCAS 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 WESTCAS study, 40 percent concluded that the non-toxic sample water was toxic based on reproductive effects. In AMSA Regulatory Alert RA 98-16, members were requested to participate in EPA's follow up inter-laboratory WET study. Over 70 AMSA member agencies offered to participate.

Status: EPA plans to release a bid information package to study participants in early March 1999. On May 4, 1999 the first round or three rounds of testing is scheduled to begin. By October 1, 1999 all three rounds are expected to be completed, and by February 2000, a draft study report is expected to be available. EPA has assembled a matrix of POTW-sponsored laboratories, and plans to send bid solicitation packages to both laboratories and sponsoring POTWs. The bid package will include: 1) laboratory prequalification document, 2) statement of work, including a preliminary study schedule, and 3) a laboratory bid sheet. EPA will hold POTW sponsored labs to the same standards for qualification as paid labs, and will require as much pre-qualification data as possible. Prequalification of POTW-sponsored laboratories will require submittal of laboratory capabilities, standard operating procedures (SOPs), reference toxicant test data, control charts, and quality assurance data. POTW sponsors are encouraged to alert their laboratories of the forthcoming bid solicitation package. CONTACT: Mike Garel, DynCorp 703/461-8056, Bill Telliard, EPA 202/260-7134 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

Endangered Species Act - Memorandum of Agreement Among EPA and Services

Background: On January 15, 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) published for public comment a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) describing procedures for enhancing coordination regarding the protection of endangered and threatened species under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act's Water Quality Standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs. Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with FWS or NMFS when taking an action which may adversely impact endangered or threatened species. The MOA addresses five key areas, including: 1) procedures for interagency coordination and elevation to resolve disputes between EPA and the Services; 2) planned national level activities to ensure protection of species, including revisions to the water quality standards regulation and a national consultation on EPA's existing 45 water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life; 3) development of a joint national research and data gathering plan and priorities; 4) guidance regarding review and approval of state and tribal water quality standards; 5) a framework for EPA and the Services to coordinate with regard to issuance of State or EPA-issued NPDES permits and plans to conduct a national consultation on the NPDES permitting program.

Status: AMSA distributed the full draft MOA and accompanying summary via Regulatory Alert RA 99-1. Members were requested to provide comment to the National office by February 26, 1999. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

Endangered Species Act - 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.

Status: On July 28, 1998 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 USFWS and NMFS Draft Biological Opinion for the Proposed California Toxics Rule (CTR). EPA Region 9 recently indicated that any changes to the proposed CTR resulting from the Biological Opinion will require a new public notice for the CTR. EPA believes that negotiations with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on the revised CTR Biological Opinion will avoid a “jeopardy opinion” and that the agencies seem to be moving closer to agreement on many of the issues, except for mercury. Each agency has acknowledged the need to conform to EPA's national effort for a site-specific approach to selenium criteria. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service also recently indicated that a revised Biological Opinion is being prepared. Any continued disputes between the agencies after the issuance of revised Biological Opinion, will be elevated to the national level. If the continued disputes between the agencies on water quality criteria for metals cannot be resolved, EPA may withdraw the CTR standards for the disputed metals. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106

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.

Status: As a result of the court decision, EPA is taking steps to address the current backlog in current water quality standards reviews and will propose a rulemaking to the water quality standards review process to avoid future litigation. EPA is concerned with the implications of the Alaska case citing in a fact sheet that modified state water quality standards that are less stringent than existing standards would need EPA action before they could be used, even if they are based on better science. Modified standards that are more stringent than existing standards could go into effect immediately. EPA reviews and follow-up of disapprovals has not been expeditious in the past. EPA has entered into settlement negotiations and believes that it will be required to propose a rule by July 1, 1999 and promulgate a final rule by April 1, 2000. As of the date of the final rule, all existing state water quality standards will be effective. After the final rule is promulgated, any modified standard will require EPA approval prior to becoming effective. CONTACT: Fred Leutner, EPA 202/260-1542 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

Nutrient Criteria Development

Background: On June 18, 1998, in response to an Clinton administration directive to implement a criteria system for nitrogen and phosphorus runoff for lakes, rivers, and estuaries by the year 2000, 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.

Status: EPA plans to meet the Administration's directive by following the direction laid out in the draft nutrient strategy. EPA is currently collecting data from national databases (e.g., STORET, National Ambient Water Quality Assessment data) to determine reference nutrient conditions in various ecoregions. Regional nutrient teams have been formed and are discussing the process for developing regional nutrient criteria based upon EPA's data collection effort. EPA is also planning a national stakeholders meeting for Spring 1999, and expects to release two of its planned guidance documents (lakes/reservoirs, and streams/rivers) in the first half of 1999. CONTACT: Bob Cantilli, EPA 202/260-5546 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

EPA Proposes New Analytical Methods 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. 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 part per trillion (ppt) levels necessary for mercury determinations. AMSA submitted comments to EPA on the proposed method 1631 on July 27, 1998. 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 ppt range in a wastewater or saltwater matrix. To address some of these concerns, AMSA petitioned EPA to revive validation work on draft 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.

Status: During a January 19, 1999 meeting with AMSA representatives, EPA presented its plans to conduct a validation study of the more affordable mercury detection method 245.7 in response to AMSA's petition last year. EPA expects to publish the proposed method by the end of the summer, leaving open the possibility of interim approval. EPA is also collecting additional data for Method 1631 validation (additional matrices including wastewater). EPA plans to provide a notice of comment by the end of February. CONTACT: Maria Gomez-Taylor, EPA 202/260-1639 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

AMSA 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, it is EPA's belief 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 controls are based on limited data, and may not be representative of POTWs nationwide. The group is currently composed of representatives from 20 municipalities nationwide. 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.

Status: On January 19, 1999, the AMSA Mercury Workgroup met with EPA water program officials. Armed with preliminary data indicating that mercury could pose a greater challenge to POTWs than EPA anticipates, AMSA urged EPA to support a national strategy so that every POTW would not be required to develop individual compliance solutions. AMSA and EPA discussed how to deal with situations where source control efforts fail to result in adequate mercury reductions that will meet 1 to 3 ppt permit limitations, such as those currently being developed for Great Lakes dischargers. AMSA questioned whether POTWs would need to install end-of-pipe controls should source control efforts fail. EPA indicated that end-of-pipe controls is not their intent. AMSA emphasized the need to address this issue soon and expressed support for the Ohio mercury variance approach. EPA supports the variance approach, however, highlighted that the Ohio mercury variance includes a regulatory requirement for pollution minimization programs, and questioned whether all States and POTWs would support such a requirement, in addition to an upper limit on low level mercury discharges (e.g., 12 ppt). EPA also indicated that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is pushing for national wildlife criteria, and that EPA could not promote a variance approach without requirements for pollution prevention, as part of “reasonable and prudent measures.” EPA will further consider the national variance strategy concept and requested AMSA's assistance in defining the minimum requirements of a pollutant minimization plan that could serve as a template for POTWs seeking a variance similar to Ohio's.

During the January 19 meeting, AMSA also presented its case for modifying the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLWQI) mercury wildlife criteria methodology, based on updated EPA data presented in the 1998 Mercury Study Report to Congress. Specifically, AMSA requested that the inter-species uncertainty factor be reduced from 3 to 1, based on the data in the Report to Congress. AMSA acknowledged that other assumptions and factors may change (e.g., bioaccumulation factors) based on the new data in the Report, thereby potentially making the criteria more stringent, but emphasized that the Agency should use the best available science in its criteria development. EPA discussed its current focus on the mercury human health criteria for 1999, and its limited staff time to deal with wildlife criteria at this time. EPA emphasized the need to look at the totality of the criteria development when reevaluating any criteria. EPA officials noted that when the Agency reviews any criteria, it must reevaluate all of the assumptions and parameters that went into the original criteria - “EPA cannot choose to revise one particular aspect of the criteria without reevaluating the entire method equation.” AMSA queried whether states and dischargers requesting site-specific criteria based on a new uncertainty factor would be able to obtain EPA approval. Again, EPA emphasized the need to look at all the factors in the criteria equation, including BAF, amount of fish consumed, etc. EPA committed to follow up with EPA Regions and see if there are any plans at the state level to develop site-specific criteria for mercury. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Margie Nellor, Los Angeles County Sanitation District. 562/699-7411.

EPA Compiles Water Quality Criteria and Proposes Enhanced Process for Deriving New and Revised Criteria

Background: Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(1), requires EPA to publish and periodically update ambient water quality criteria. These criteria are to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare including, but not limited to, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life which may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water. Water quality criteria developed under section 304(a) are based solely on data and scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects. These recommended criteria provide guidance for States and Tribes in adopting water quality standards under section 303(c) of the CWA.

Status: On December 10, 1998, EPA published a compilation of current, existing water quality criteria in the Federal Register. The compilation is presented as a summary table containing recommended water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health for approximately 150 pollutants. EPA also published changes to its process for deriving new and revised national water quality criteria and the Agency's intentions for periodically updating the compilation in the future. CONTACT: Cindy Roberts, U.S. EPA Health and Ecological Criteria Division, 202/260-2787).