Water Quality Issues
EPA’s Proposes Revisions to Human Health Methodology
Background: On August 14, 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: AMSA distributed the proposal to the membership via Regulatory Alert RA 98-18. Comments are due to AMSA by December 1, 1998. EPA has requested comments by December 14, 1998. 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, 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. CONTACTS: Rob Wood, EPA 202/260-9536 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/ 833-9106.
Status: AMSA’s Water Quality Committee requested that members review the ANPRM and forward comprehensive comments to the National Office by Oct. 2, 1998. AMSA’s Water Quality leaders will meet in early December to review compiled draft member comments. CONTACT: 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 (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 recently established five goals, with accompanying objectives and specific tasks, to meet important program needs, with a special emphasis on supporting the needs of watershed management. The resulting assessments, summaries and guidance should provide fundamental information useful to the monitoring community at many levels. These goals will help in implementing the objectives and programs outlined in the Clean Water Action Plan, as well as other important programs such as Source Water Protection, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and concerns about ground water. The Council’s next meeting is scheduled for January 27-28 in Phoenix, Arizona. 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.
Status: Proposal is planned for August 1999. CONTACT: Deborah Lebow 202/260-6419
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.
Status: In AMSA July 29, 1998 Regulatory Alert RA 98-16, members were requested to participate in EPA’s follow up inter-laboratory WET study. Over 80 AMSA member agencies offered to participate. EPA is currently conducting a peer review of the WET inter-laboratory study design. The study design was reviewed by the AMSA Water Quality Committee. AMSA’s main concerns included unreasonable pre-qualification requirements for participating labs and the lack of truly "blind" participation. CONTACT: Margarete Heber, EPA 202/260-7144 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.
FWS and NOAA Draft Biological Opinion for Proposed 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.
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.
Status: 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. Negotiations between EPA and the Fish & Wildlife Service are continuing regarding the draft biological opinion and reasonable and prudent measures. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106
EPA Nutrient Strategy
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 headquarters is currently holding meetings with EPA regional and state permitting agencies to discuss the process for developing regional nutrient criteria as explained in the nutrient strategy. EPA is also planning a national stakeholders meeting for Spring 1999. EPA has yet to review the comments it received on the Strategy, however, will follow the basic direction of the Clean Water Action Plan, which requires EPA to develop nutrient criteria by 2000 for different ecoregions and waterbody types. In addition to the Spring stakeholders meeting, EPA plans to also develop a web site which will display all public comments on the strategy, upcoming activities and meetings, and progress to date in data collection and analysis. 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 September 25 meeting, Jim Hanlon, deputy director of EPA's Office of Science & Technology, indicated to the AMSA leadership that Mercury Method 1631 is expected to be promulgated in February 1999. Hanlon indicated that in response to AMSA’s petition request, EPA plans to move forward and complete validation of Method 245.7. Hanlon also indicated that the Agency needs labs to do parallel validation studies of method 245.7 and is seeking AMSA's assistance in this process. Eight AMSA member agency labs will participate in this process and the Association has requested that EPA expedite the studies so that both methods can be promulgated in February 1999. EPA announced in late October that it will delay promulgation of the 1631 method until June 1999 due to issues raised during the review of the proposed methodology. 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, EPA is proclaiming 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 control may be inaccurate.
Status: 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 addressing the following issues: 1) mercury profiles for POTWs beginning with identifying the range of mercury concentrations in POTWs using data obtained with sensitive sampling/analytical methods for comparison to EPA data; 2) source characterizations to quantify where mercury is really coming from, and if there regional variability; 3) evaluate the feasibility of source control/pollution prevention programs to achieve anticipated regulatory levels based on agencies that have programs in place; 4) characterize the contribution of mercury from POTWs to the environment vs other sources; 5) evaluate other control/treatment options and costs; and, 6) provide recommendations on potential regulatory options, national control strategies, etc. The Workgroup is currently compiling low level mercury data solicited from the membership to identify the range of mercury concentrations from POTWs and collecting information characterizing the sources of influent mercury at POTWs. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Margie Nellor, Los Angeles County Sanitation District 562/699-7411
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 may propose a rulemaking to streamline 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. According to EPA, there are currently 18 outstanding disapprovals of state water quality standards, 54 modified standards submissions pending EPA decision, 5 overdue Endangered Species Act consultations, and 30 overdue state triennial reviews of water quality standards required by the Clean Water Act. Thus far, EPA has committed to establishing a water quality standards docket in each region to maintain a strong administrative record and assist courts in future litigation, and to clearing the backlog of overdue EPA actions.
AMSA to Form Laboratory Workgroup to Support NELAP Program Activities
Background:The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) is a cooperative effort of the USEPA, State and Federal agencies formed to establish consensus standards for environmental laboratory accreditation. The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) is the EPA program responsible for administering and overseeing NELAC. Currently, the NELAC accreditation program may be applied to all environmental laboratories producing data in support of the CWA, SDWA, CAA, RCRA and CERCLA. NELAC is voluntary, requiring neither Congressional Mandate nor EPA rulemaking. However, states, territorial and federal agencies may make participation mandatory for laboratories under their jurisdiction. Therefore, for those laboratories voluntary participation would no longer be an option. The NELAC Home page contains information concerning the NELAC process, including the standards, and is located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnnela1 .
At the NELAC IV Annual Meeting held from 6/29-7/2, 1998 in San Antonio, TX, the NELAC Director confirmed that applications for 20 potential accrediting authorities (AR, CA, CO, DE, FL, ID, IL, KS, LA, MD, NH, NJ, NY, OR[2], PA, TX, UT, VA and WV) had been accepted. A tentative timetable has been confirmed where all Accrediting Authorities (AA) would be approved on the same day by the end of January 1999 and laboratory accreditations completed by January 2000. An important aspect of the program is that all participating laboratories nationwide will be approved on the same day following completion of the entire first round accreditation process. But, if a state is unable to make the appropriate statutory or regulatory modifications necessary by the year 2000, that state will be forced to withdraw as a NELAP AA during the first round of laboratory accreditations. AMSA organizations should be on the alert for any intended regulatory action concerning NELAP implementation in their state and actively participate in the regulatory process.
An important aspect of the NELAC process is that it is an ongoing process where the standards are constantly reviewed and revised and voted on annually. Input from the private sector (NELAC defines private sector as other than state or federal) is welcome and can be submitted to chapter committee chairs at any time. Two NELAC meetings are held annually. At the annual meeting (held in June or July) the standards are voted on, but the 2-3 days prior are devoted to working sessions where stakeholders can provide direct input to the committees responsible for developing the standards. The interim meeting (held @ 6 months following the annual meeting) is devoted exclusively to working sessions. Attendance and participation at these meetings is important. POTW laboratory concerns cannot be adequately represented unless there is participation from this sector of the laboratory community. One of the major concerns is the prescriptive and bureaucratic nature of the standards and the impact they will have on small to medium municipal laboratories. This issue has been brought to the attention of NELAC, but without participation and documentation of concerns from affected laboratories it will be difficult to bring about changes in the standards. The NELAC IV Interim Meeting (IVi) will be January 11-14, 1999 at the Bethesda Hyatt Regency in Bethesda, MD. For registration or reservation information contact Dr. C.E. Tatsch at 919/541-6930 or by e-mail at: cet@rti.org.
Status: AMSA has nominated Dr. Anna Ruhl, Chief of the Laboratory Division, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, VA to serve as the Association’s representative on EPA’s NELAP Environmental Advisory Board. AMSA is also requesting member agencies to identify individuals to serve on a work group to assist in the review of materials developed through the NELAP process. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA at 202/833-4655.