Search

Water Quality Issues

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

Background: EPA is seeking through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), views and recommendations on possible revisions to the Water Quality Standards regulation. The purpose of the ANPRM is to serve as a regulatory planning tool to identify areas within the Water Quality Standards Regulation in need of revision, explain perceived problems, and describe a range of options for revisions/additions to the regulation. EPA released a draft ANPRM in mid-March 1996 to all interested parties for comment over a two month period ending in early May 1996. In January 1997, EPA received letters from the Association of State & Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) which attempted to derail the ANPRM process. AMSA responded with its own letter, dated Feb. 12, 1997 which highlighted support of a comprehensive review of the regulations. AMSA's Water Quality Committee leadership met with EPA officials during the National Environmental Policy Forum to identify issues of primary concern with the ANPRM. The two highest priorities identified were issues relating to designated uses and water quality criteria, followed in priority by antidegradation and the need to clarify existing regulation and policy. Under the general category of uses, a recommendation was made to consolidate issues under the headings of specificity of use designations, minimum elements of a use attainability analysis and some definition of existing uses.

Status: On June 2, 1997, AMSA received a letter from Assistant Administrator, Bob Perciasepe in response to AMSA's February 1997 letter. In the letter, Perciasepe refers to the letters from NRDC, ASIWPCA, and AMSA, and states that "after fully evaluating the views expressed in these letters, I have decided to proceed with development of a narrower ANPRM and publication of it in the Federal Register near the end of this Summer." Perciasepe noted his intent to have staff meet with representatives of different stakeholder groups for the purpose of better understanding each group's views on the issues that are high enough priority that they should be included in the Federal Register notice. Perciasepe also emphasizes that "public input on the issues outlined in the ANPRM will ultimately provide EPA with a platform to prioritize changes that can improve water quality and strengthen water quality standards programs," and that the dialogue should also result in clarifications of national norms of consistency and flexibility in State water quality standards programs." Federal Register publication of the ANPRM is expected in September 1997. CONTACTS: Rob Wood, EPA 202/260-9536 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/ 833-9106.

EPA Methods For Determination of Trace Metals 40 CFR Part 136 - Anticipated Proposed Rule

Background: EPA is planning to propose amendments to the "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants" under 40 CFR Part 136 to approve new EPA methods for the determination of trace metals at EPA's water quality criteria levels. Current methods were designed to measure pollutant levels at technology-based concentrations. Because these levels can be up to 280 times greater than water-quality based criteria for metals, approval of new EPA test procedures is necessary.

Status: EPA has delayed issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking until late 1997. CONTACT: William Telliard, EPA 202/260-7134.

Streamlining Approval of Modified and New Analytical Test Procedures - Proposed Rule

Background: On March 28, 1997 EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to streamline the process for EPA approval of analytical methods used to monitor compliance under both the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Part 136.4 and 136.5, and 40 CFR Part 141.27). Under the proposal, EPA will increase flexibility in the approval process by allowing analysts to modify methods without obtaining EPA approval. Analysts would only need to demonstrate and document that the modified method procedure produces results equal or superior to results produced by an EPA-designated reference method. A designated reference method that contains quality control acceptance criteria against which the performance of a method modification could be measured would be the primary control to ensure data quality.

Status: The comment period for the proposal closed on August 1, 1997. CONTACT: Dr. Richard Reding, EPA, 513/569-7961.

Potential Revisions to EPA's Procedure for Deriving Aquatic Life Criteria

Background: EPA is revising the procedure it uses for deriving chemical-specific water quality criteria protective of aquatic life. Some concepts under consideration have not been explicit parts of previous criteria derivation procedures. These include the kinetic-based modeling of toxicity resulting from time-variable concentrations, coupled with considerations of population decline and recovery, evaluated from a whole-assemblage, long-term perspective.

Status: EPA hopes to propose revisions to it methodologies sometime in the Fall of 1997. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Charles Delos, EPA 202/260-7039.

AMSA Comments on Draft WET Implementation Strategy

Background: On February 19, EPA released their draft whole effluent toxicity (WET) implementation strategy (distributed via Regulatory Alert RA 97-6). The strategy was developed in response to the findings and recommendations from the September 1995 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) WET Pellston Workshop, the September 1996 WET Stakeholders Implementation Meeting, and recommendations of EPA staff. The strategy is part of EPA's commitment to make "mid-course" corrections to the existing program that the Agency believes is scientifically sound. The draft strategy highlights five key areas of concern; four areas based on the recommendations from the SETAC Workshop and one area focussing on EPA research. The five areas include: 1) National WET Outreach and Training Program; 2) Continue to encourage the development of water quality criteria & standards based on good science; 3) Write better NPDES permits for WET; 4) Enforcement; and, 5) Fund research needs. EPA is seeking comment on these five areas and their proposals to address each issue. Comments from numerous member agencies were compiled and transmitted to EPA prior to the April 30 deadline.

Status: AMSA members expressed concern with several areas of the draft strategy including: (1) its proposal to continue with existing enforcement policies, despite overwhelming support of the concept of using test results to trigger real solutions to environmental problems, (2) language which merely holds out, in very general terms, the prospect of future program adjustments--adjustments which may eventually be rejected or ignored in practice, and (3) inaccurate reflection of the conclusions reached at the September Stakeholder Meeting. AMSA believes that EPA is misinterpreting the Pellston Workshop conclusions, as the workshop never confirmed that the existing WET program is scientifically sound, and is unfairly and inaccurately representing consensus of the workshop attendees. AMSA also expressed concern that EPA continues to frame WET implementation primarily in terms of permit limits. AMSA is also opposing EPA's proposal to address the WET issue of independent applicability to solely within the context of the ANPRM to revise the water quality standards regulation, due to a concern that it will put it on a slower track than if it were addressed with the context of WET implementation. AMSA's Water Quality Committee leadership met with EPA officials during the National Environmental Policy Forum to discuss AMSA's concerns with the draft strategy. EPA agreed to collaborate on several key items on WET testing including: formation of a small working group of various stakeholders for developing a stepwise or tiered approach to WET permitting; involvement of AMSA in the peer review of EPA's work on WET data interpretation and statistics; opening of EPA WET training to a wider audience including AMSA members; invitation to AMSA members to submit manuscripts for a SETAC session in the fall in San Francisco on WET testing; and, collaborate with AMSA on policy decisions relating to the determination of "reasonable potential" for WET limits and the issue of WET limits for CSOs and stormwater discharges. EPA committed to follow through on these issues and will share its plans for WET implementation before the AMSA summer conference in July. AMSA forwarded a letter to EPA on July 31, 1997, summarizing the highlights of a June 23-24 stakeholder meeting on WET issues, and urging EPA to eliminate enforceable WET tests as permit limits and to adopt an alternative approach discussed by municipal representatives. In the letter, addressed to Mike Cook, Director of EPA's Office of Wastewater Management, AMSA summarizes the three key points which were discussed at the meeting regarding §122.44(d)(ii) determinations and also summarizes six types of data and information which were discussed for inclusion in §122.44(d)(ii) determinations. The alternative approach would shift the NPDES permit to a performance based permit where the permit would outline what is expected of the facility, i.e., detect, find and eliminate causes of in-stream toxicity. Fines and penalties would then be based on the POTW failure to perform and not WET test failures. The full text of the letter was forwarded to AMSA's membership via Regulatory Alert, RA 97-18. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655.

Magnuson Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat - Proposed Rule

Background: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of Commerce issued in the April 23, 1997, Federal Register, proposed regulations containing guidelines for the description and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH) in fishery management plans (FMPs), adverse impacts on EFH, and actions to conserve and enhance EFH. The regulations would also provide a process for NMFS to coordinate and consult with Federal and state agencies on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The guidelines are required by the Magnuson­Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson­Stevens Act). The purpose of the rule is to assist Fishery Management Councils in fulfilling the requirements set forth by the Magnuson­Stevens Act to amend their FMPs to describe and identify EFH, minimize adverse effects on EFH, and identify other actions to conserve and enhance EFH. The coordination and consultation provisions would specify procedures for adequate consultation with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH.

Status: AMSA's Water Quality Committee prepared and submitted comments on the proposal on June 6. AMSA members had several significant concerns regarding the scope of the regulations, particularly its impact on non-fishing activities and Federal action agencies. AMSA concerns stem from the lack of recommendations to the Fishery Management Councils to conduct cost/benefit analyses and consult with appropriate local stakeholders during the evaluation of impacts from non-fishing activities. Also, AMSA believes that the proposed process for Federal action agency consultation unduly shifts responsibilities of NMFS to the Federal action agency and their respective regulated activities or entities. AMSA members also identified concerns regarding the level of data analyses used to identify EFH. The proposed rule allows the use of limited data sets to identify EFH, but sets forth no requirements or schedule for Councils to improve the information. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

EPA Revising Approach to Method Quantitation Levels

Background: In March 1994, EPA released a draft policy, titled "National Guidance for the Permitting, Monitoring, and Enforcement of Water Quality-based Effluent Limitations Set Below Analytical Detection/Quantification Levels." The guidance proposed a methodology to assign a compliance level at 3.18 times the method detection limit (MDL) for a given pollutant, called the minimum level (ML). The methodology has been criticized by industry groups due to concerns that the methodology yields inconsistent results and inequality in compliance decisions. AMSA submitted its own concerns in a letter dated August 12, 1996 to EPA which discussed Interlaboratory vs. Intralaboratory MDLs/MLs; ML Definition; and, State Flexibility.

Status: EPA has formally dropped plans to use a multiple of the MDL as the method to derive the ML for assessing compliance at analytical levels below detection. EPA plans to formulate a new approach based on statistical procedures later this year. CONTACT: Bill Telliard, EPA at 202/260-7134.

Performance Evaluation Studies Supporting Administration of the CWA and SDWA

Background: Since the 1970's, EPA has been conducting laboratory performance evaluation (PE) studies to support the various water programs administered by the States and EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In a PE study, a participating laboratory analyzes a test sample (a PE sample) that is prepared and distributed by the entity conducting the study. In the EPA-supported PE studies, a single EPA contractor prepared test samples which were sent to participating laboratories for analysis. EPA then scored the results against statistically-based or empirically-based performance criteria to determine whether the laboratory demonstrated acceptable performance. The results were then supplied to the study participants and the government agencies responsible for reviewing the performance of said participants.

Status: In the June 12, 1997, Federal Register, EPA announced the transfer of components of the laboratory PE studies programs that the Agency has conducted to assess laboratories testing drinking water and wastewater to the private sector. Under the externalized program, EPA would issue standards for the operation of the program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would develop standards for private sector PE suppliers and would evaluate and accredit PE suppliers, and the private sector would develop and manufacture PE materials and conduct PE studies. The results of these studies would be made available to the study participants (participating analytical laboratories and in the case of discharge monitoring report quality assurance (DMRQA) studies to permittees) and to those government organizations that have the responsibility for administering programs supported by the studies (e.g., state, federal agency). CONTACT: Stephen W. Clark, EPA 202/260-7159.

Related Items of Interest

  • EPA's Office of Water will hold a multi-regional meeting on August 25-28, 1997, in St. Louis, Missouri, titled, "Development and Implementation of Tools for Water Quality-Based Pollution Control." The objective of the meeting is to provide an exchange of scientific, technical and policy information on water quality standards, water quality criteria and water quality-based permitting. The meeting is open to anyone interested in water quality-based pollution control. A preliminary agenda will be soon be posted at http://www.epa.gov/OST/ or http://www.gov.OWM/. CONTACT: Liz Hiett, Tetra-Tech, Inc. 703/385-6000.

  • EPA is planning three Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Training courses for 1997. The course is designed to provide participants with an introduction to WET methods and test procedures for incorporating WET requirements in NPDES permits. Locations targeted for upcoming WET training courses in 1997 are as follows: Boston, MA (August 1997); and, Dallas, TX (Fall 1997). CONTACT: Dan Weese, EPA 202/260-6809.