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. 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.
Status: 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 and will also ensure that AMSA members are represented during three public meetings on the ANPRM, the first to be held in Philadelphia, PA on August 27-28 (see http://www.epa.gov/OST/announce/rulemake.cfml for more information). A second meeting is scheduled on September 24-25 in Phoenix, Arizona. For the benefit of AMSA members attending the public meetings, AMSA will provide a preliminary list of core issues and questions to aid in the discussions. 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.
National Water Quality Monitoring Council
Background: The National Water Quality Monitoring Council is a multi-year cooperative effort involving federal, state, and local agencies and the private sector to review activities and provide guidance for improving the collection, management, and use of water-quality information. The Clean Water Action Plan has identified several activities for the Council including: 1) In 1999, assist in the standardization of monitoring and reporting by point source dischargers to support water quality and watershed management information needs; 2) By the end of 2000, compare sampling and laboratory methods and protocols, leading to performance-based acceptable methods establish reference parameters for specific monitoring purposes; identify core environmental indicators; establish consistent use of biological metrics, and develop guidelines on quality assurance and control. 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 has held three meetings in full Council, plus a number of workgroup meetings. The Council is currently developing a workplan to guide its activities. The NWQMC sponsored a conference on "Monitoring: Critical Foundations to Protect our Waters," on July 7-9 in Reno, Nevada (see Water Quality Related Items of Interest for more information). 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 August 1998. CONTACT: Deborah Lebow 260-6419
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: EPA’s Office of Science and Technology is in the process of updating its freshwater ammonia criteria to account for newer data, better approaches, and to address temperature and ph-dependence of ammonia toxicity. The updated procedures are reflected in a draft addendum to EPA’s "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - 1984." A technical report has been completed. EPA expects to publish the document via Federal Register notice as an interim final rule in August 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 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. The results have been used in WESTCAS settlement negotiations with EPA on WET and additional verification efforts may be conducted as a result of the study and the pending settlement agreement. AMSA members may be requested to participate in additional follow-up verification studies. 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. EPA plans to issue the revised WET Implementation Strategy following resolution of these issues. 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 August 5, 1997, EPA published a proposed rule for the promulgation of water quality standards for the state of California. The proposal established numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, and reflected the most up-to-date technical and scientific data. EPA proposed the water quality standards after a 1994 federal court ruling overturned California’s water quality standards. The proposal provides for the attainment of criteria no later than ten years after final adoption. Under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are to be consulted if a federal action, such as EPA’s promulgation of water quality standards, may adversely affect endangered or threatened species. From February 1994 to October 1997, EPA, FWS and NOAA had informally attempted to resolve their differences on the proposed rule through several meetings and teleconferences. Unable to resolve their differences, the agencies initiated formal consultation in November 1997.
Status: 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. 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. Supported in the letter is the opinion that a wide array of technical deficiencies exist in the Services’ draft jeopardy determination and accompanying analysis. AMSA also stressed several technical and procedural issues that have broad national implications. The issues highlighted included: the use of quality assured, peer-reviewed data for decision making; economic or technical assessment of reasonable and prudent alternatives; assurance that TMDL implementation plans and schedules will not require consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and assurance that the Services provide new or additional data to warrant any change in state-of-the-art scientific methodologies for protecting aquatic life, such as the use of soluble metals for protecting against water column toxicity. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106
Draft Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan
Background: In early May 1998, EPA released a fact sheet announcing an upcoming plan for enhancing and improving the water quality criteria and standards program titled, "Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan - Priorities for the Future."
Status: 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 which solicits comments on the plan from the membership by August 14. EPA is requesting comment on the plan by the end of August. 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. Regional Nutrient Teams are to be composed of EPA regional and headquarters staff, a state representative, and other federal/state/local representatives as needed. These teams are to be tasked with collecting and analyzing regional nutrient data, and establishing nutrient target ranges. The ten Regional Nutrient Coordinators include:
| Region | Coordinator | Phone | Fax |
| EPA Region 1 | Matt Liebman | 617-565-3590 | 617-565-4940 |
| EPA Region 2 | Wayne Jackson | 212-637-3807 | |
| EPA Region 3 | Denise Hakowski | 215-566-5726 | |
| EPA Region 4 | Jim Harrison | 404-562-9271 | 404-562-9224 |
| EPA Region 5 | Dave Pfieffer | 312-353-9024 | 312-886-0168 |
| EPA Region 6 | Mike Bira | 214-665-6668 | |
| EPA Region 7 | Gary Welker | 913-551-5079 | 913-551-5218 |
| EPA Region 8 | Dave Rathke | 303-312-6223 | 303-312-6071 |
| EPA Region 9 | Gary Wolinsky | 415-744-1978 | 415-744-1873 |
| EPA Region 10 | Mike Letourneau | 206-553-1687 | 206-553-0119 |
| ECOREGIONS | Jim Omerick | 541-75-4458 | 541-754-4716 |
The Nutrient Strategy has been transmitted to the AMSA membership via Regulatory Alert RA 98-13, and is also available on the Internet 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. AMSA noted that publicly owned treatment work (POTW) labs were not used in validating the method. Also, AMSA highlighted the cost implications of applying Method 1631. Based on AMSA estimates, to use the new method labs may incur equipment costs in the $70,000-$125,000 range, with larger labs incurring costs greater than $2 million. The proposed method would also severely reduce sample throughput by a factor of ten. 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: To address members concerns with mercury criteria development, analytical methods, and increasing regulatory scrutiny of sources of mercury, AMSA has formed a mercury working group composed of members of AMSA’s Water Quality, Pretreatment and Hazardous Waste, Air Quality, and Biosolids Committees. The workgroup is intending to focus its efforts on the development of a white paper which will highlight misconceptions regarding the levels of mercury in POTW discharges, sources of mercury in wastewater discharges, the extent of mercury reductions attainable using source control programs , and recommended options for controlling mercury discharges into the environment.
Status: The AMSA Mercury Working Group is preparing a solicitation to AMSA members for mercury data in POTW effluent (both pre- and post- disinfection). AMSA members will receive a solicitation via an upcoming FaxAlert. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Margie Nellor, Los Angeles County Sanitation District 562/699-7411
EPA Task Force Meets to Discuss 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: EPA has formed a task force composed of states and other stakeholders. On July 13-14, EPA and states met in Denver, CO to discuss the process for approving water quality standards and states use of unapproved standards. EPA is collecting information on the processes that states follow for the addition or modification of standards. EPA is considering a revision to the 40 CFR Part 131 regulation to address these issues. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.
Related Items of Interest
The Advisory Committee on Water Information has scheduled a meeting for August 17-19, 1998, in Denver, Colorado. For more information, please contact Beth Cox, USGS at 703/648-6823 or bethcox@usgs.gov.
EPA is sponsoring a meeting on water quality standards titled, "Strengthening the Foundation of the Nation’s Water Quality Programs on August 24 - 27, 1998 in Philadelphia, PA. The meeting will provide an exchange of scientific, technical, and policy information on water standards, water quality criteria, and implementation including, water quality-based permitting. EPA is accepting pre-applications until Friday, August 14, 1998. For additional information, contact EPA’s contractor: Crystal Smith, Cadmus Group, 703/998-6862 x2190, or visit EPA’s web site at http://www.epa.gov/OST/announce/watrqlty.cfml.