![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Newsletter
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
OFFICE OF WATER DEVELOPS LONG-TERM CRITERIA PLAN
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides EPA with authority to develop all types of water quality criteria (chemical, physical, and biological), methodologies and guidance. However, there is no statutory requirement to set priorities among these competing demands based on maximum risk reduction potential and programmatic effectiveness (USEPA, 1994). President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative recommended that Section 304 of the CWA be amended to require EPA to develop a comprehensive plan that sets priorities for criteria development. This would require EPA to plan for its criteria development efforts. The Initiative suggests the plan include provisions for simultaneous development of regulations, policies, guidance, technical assistance, and training materials necessary to support timely implementation of the criteria. This plan should be implemented to the fullest extent possible based upon appropriated resources, and updated every five years.
In its report to Congress, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended that EPA take the following steps: "prepare an implementation plan for criteria development issues that identifies the agency's top priorities and the bases for them and establishes a timetable for addressing these activities" and "regularly solicit input from affected parties when the implementation plan is being developed and when specific regulatory actions are being considered" (GAO, 1994).
Based on these recommendations, EPA has initiated development of such a plan. The Surface Water Assessment and Protection Plan (SWAPP) is currently being drafted by Office of Water. Office of Water is considering the recommendations of both reports cited above. Plan elements will focus on CWA 304 criteria (e.g., new/revised criteria and methods for human health, microbiological, fish tissue, wildlife, sediment quality, aquatic life, whole effluent toxicity, nutrients, clean sediment, flow, biological, human health approach for mixtures, and ecological risk assessment methods) and how to best use these criteria and tools to maximize risk reduction given limited resources.
Prior to a Federal Register request for comment, EPA is interested in receiving informal input. If you have initial suggestions regarding CWA 304 criteria priorities, development of simultaneous policy, guidance for implementation, and new criteria not currently developed by EPA, please contact Amy Leaberry at: U.S. EPA, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. We would ask that you send your initial suggestions no later than March 15, 1996.
EPA will be issuing a Federal Register notice requesting formal public comment on a draft plan in the spring of 1996. Obtaining the sources referenced in this article may prove useful in focusing your suggestions.
References:
U.S. EPA. 1994. President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative. EPA-800-R-94-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. GAO. 1994. Water Pollution: EPA Needs to Set Priorities for Water Quality Criteria Issues. GAO/RCED-94-117. Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, Washington, DC.
OUTREACH/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Outreach activities have not been scheduled due to the fact that EPA's year long funding bill has not been approved. The number of "Water Quality Standards Academy" sessions and the "Multi-regional Meetings on Water Quality Standards and Criteria and Other Related Programs" will be determined after approval of EPA's budget. Contact: Frances Desselle (202) 260-1320
UPDATE ON ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
In its October 1995 edition of this newsletter, EPA reported on its plans to develop and release an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking views and recommendations from interested parties on possible revisions to the Water Quality Standards Regulation at 40 CFR Part 131. In that article EPA reported that it would distribute for comment an interim draft of the ANPRM to all interested parties in October. EPA did not distribute the interim draft in October due to unforseen delays. We will release the interim draft on or around February 6, 1996. Thanks to all those who have requested copies of the interim draft. Our next steps after release of the interim draft are to revise the draft to incorporate the comments of stakeholders and to publish the revised ANPRM in the Federal Register in Fall 1996. Contact: Rob Wood (202) 260-9536.
RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH/SASD THOMAS ARMITAGE (202) 260-5388
SECOND EDITION OF GUIDANCE ON FISH SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR USE IN FISH ADVISORIES
In October, The Fish Contamination Program completed and began distributing the Second Edition of the document titled Guidance For Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data For Use in Fish Advisories. Volume I: Fish Sampling and Analysis. Changes to the document include new guidance for three chemicals (PAHs, inorganic arsenic and tributyltin), methods for assessing contaminant levels in turtles, statistical methods for making comparisons between sampling stations, statistical methods for conducting individual fish sampling rather than compositing for addressing acute toxicants, and statistical methods designed to test for variance within a sampled population. The Second Edition replaces the First Edition which was released in June of 1993. Approximately 2500 copies of the First Edition were distributed. To request copies of the Second Edition, please fax a request to (202) 260-9830. For more information regarding this guidance, please contact Jeffrey Bigler @ (202) 260-1305.
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT BRANCH/HECD ALAN HAIS (202) 260-0658
OW-OPPTS RISK CHARACTERIZATION COLLOQUIUM
On December 14 and 15, 1995, the U.S. EPA's Science Policy Council held the second in a series of internal colloquia on risk characterization in Washington, DC at the Holiday Inn on the Hill. The colloquium series continues the discussion that began with the Administrator's March 21, 1995, memorandum on risk characterization. In August, members of the Risk Characterization Policy Implementation Team completed the first stage of the program by preparing preliminary Program-/Region-specific statements of principles and procedures for implementation efforts in their respective offices ("August Statements"). These statements are being tested and evaluated by both risk assessors and risk managers in connection with the colloquium series. At the first meeting in the series on September 7-8, 1995, the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Research and Development discussed four risk characterization case studies (mercury, ozone, petroleum refineries, and utilities) with an audience of more than 70 risk assessors and managers from many different EPA offices and regions. The discussions revealed that one's concept of what form a risk characterization should take and how best to present the characterization depended on the job he/she did for the Agency. Some participants felt that risk characterization should be an integrative analysis of the uncertainties surrounding the various components of the risk assessment paradigm. It soon appeared that risk characterization is part of a process that exists along a spectrum of activities and that generates different products for different audiences. Also, questions arose about how will managers know what to expect when they are presented with a risk characterization and what effective ways exist for risk assessors to present such information to risk managers. Similar issues surfaced at the end of the Ninth Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Analysis (FSTRAC) Teleconference on EPA's Risk Characterization Policy on June 28, 1995, focusing on the revision of Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Human Health) methodology. FSTRAC members requested that the future EPA colloquium series address some of these issues, and most importantly, identify effective approaches to improve the risk assessor-manager interface during the early stages of risk characterization.
The December 14-15, 1995, colloquium was the second in a set of perhaps 9-15 meetings (i.e., colloquia, colloquia/roundtables, roundtables, and plenary sessions), at which risk assessors and risk managers will meet on risk characterization issues. While the Office of Water (OW) and Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) have the lead for this colloquium, representatives from all program offices and regions are invited to attend. This colloquium will begin with a discussion of the "August Statements" prepared by OW and OPPTS, followed by an introduction to the specific risk characterization issues in the four case studies (Arrest-A-Pest, Generic Diol, Save-A-Seed, and GIBBABERNITE) prepared for the colloquium. The reason for using fictitious names for the chemicals used in the case studies is that they are all very "interesting" chemicals which are undergoing regulatory actions with the registrants and/or internal Agency reviews. Participants will meet in two different breakout sessions (one each day) to discuss the case studies. Subsequently, each office will work up these risk characterizations for discussion at the next meeting in the series. If you have questions about the EPA Risk Characterization Implementation Program, contact Ed Ohanian, Co-Chair of the EPA Risk Characterization Policy Implementation Team, at (202)260-7574 or (202)260-1036 (FAX).
AMMONIA CRITERIA
Regarding the freshwater ammonia criteria, HECD has been receiving a number of telephone enquiries indicating that many people are not aware that the 1984 freshwater chronic criterion was revised by a 1992 memorandum from Margarete Heber and Kent Ballentine to the Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators. This revision involves a change in the acute-chronic ratio, resulting from excluding certain inappropriate data on white sucker. The 1992 revision increases the chronic criterion by 18.5 percent at all pH and temperature values.
Some States have also been proceeding with further modification of the 1992 revision. Based on additional toxicity testing conducted since completion of the 1984 document, it is no longer considered necessary to include one of the temperature related factors in the formulas for calculating the criteria. That factor, labeled TCAP in the 1984 Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for Ammonia, had been incorporated as a provision against uncertainties stemming from lack of toxicity data at higher temperatures. Such uncertainties have been reduced by the additional testing. With this recalculation there is no longer a need for separate tables applicable to warm and cold water fisheries. This recalculation does not affect the criterion at low temperature, which in many regulatory situations is the range of greatest importance.
For a copy of the 1992 memorandum and ammonia criteria tables (3 pages), or the criteria tables with modified temperature relationship (2 pages), call the Ecological Risk Assessment Branch at 202-260-0658. For specific questions on the ammonia criteria call Charles Delos at 202-260-7039.
SPEED OF ACTION FOR METALS TOXICITY
In April 1995, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, EPA released a set of contractor reports evaluating the acute speed of action of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc. The evaluation is relevant to the averaging period for the acute criteria for these metals. EPA has not come to any final conclusion about the data or the acute averaging period. The contractor materials have been edited under a single cover, titled "Speed of Action of Metals Acute Toxicity", now made available from the Office of Water, Resource Center, at 202-260-7786. Specific questions about the material may be directed to Charles Delos at 202-260-7039.
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY PROGRAM
The Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing methods were finalized in a Rulemaking on October 16, 1995 (FR 53529) and are now a part of the 40 CFR Part 136 Methods. This rulemaking culminates five years of revisions to the three manuals and responses to comments. The three finalized methods manuals, (Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fourth Edition, December 1993. (EPA/600/4-90-027F), Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Third Edition, July 1994. (EPA/600/4-91/002), and Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. Second Edition, July 1994. (EPA/600/4-91/003)) are incorporated by reference into the October 16 rulemaking. The documents are available on the INTERNET at http://www.epa.gov.owow, on the OST home page; or in hard copy from the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI) by calling (513) 489-8190 or by Fax (513) 489-8695.
The completion of the WET final rulemaking is part of a larger look that EPA Office of Water is taking for the WET program in general. The WET methods were developed over a 10 year period in concert with "expert" stakeholders, and have been extensively peer reviewed and published in peer reviewed journals. The field verification studies, which were conducted to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between effluents discharged and a receiving water effect, show a strong correlation between toxicity and receiving water biological impact. The field verification studies were conducted by highly respected researchers, have been published in peer reviewed journals, and received additional peer review.
In addition, OW, in its ongoing effort to keep the scientific basis of its programs current, participated in a Pellston Workshop on Whole Effluent Toxicity (September 17-22, 1995). Briefly, the preliminary findings of the Pellston Workshop were that the scientific basis of the WET methods is sound; no further field validation studies were necessary to show the correlation between laboratory WET tests and receiving water impacts; and the implementation guidance EPA put out in the TSD is good, but is not being followed by the EPA Regions and States. Other preliminary recommendations include ways to "fine tune" the WET program. Concerns were also expressed that quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures are not being followed. Finalizing this rulemaking will ensure that QA/QC procedures are followed, because they are an integral part of the WET methods. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations from this Workshop have already been drafted, and a final publication, in the form of a book, will be published in May 1996. (For more information on the Workshop contact Donna Reed at 202-260-9532.)
The purpose of the Pellston Workshop on Whole Effluent Toxicity was to discuss the current state of the science supporting the WET program. The Workshop was attended by invited scientific experts from each stakeholder sector. This Workshop was sponsored by the SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) Foundation as part of the ongoing prestigious Pellston Workshop series.
The follow up to the Pellston Workshop was a public forum on December 5, 1995, describing the findings of the conference and soliciting public input. The Pellston Workshop and the public forum will then be used by OW to help "fine tune" the WET program in terms of future research needs, confirmation of the scientific issues that can be laid to rest, and resolution of any implementation and policy issues. OW will also be following up with additional outreach and training for the States and EPA Regions, in response to a significant preliminary recommendation of the Pellston Workshop.
For more information, please contact Margarete Heber at 202-260-7144.
Biological Criteria Series
What Is A Reference Condition?
The development of biological criteria is based on the premise that biological organisms respond to the quality of the habitat they live in. One can assume if a water body supports a balanced, indigenous community of aquatic organisms, the water quality and habitat are in relatively good shape. Therefore, the key to developing biological criteria is defining the reference condition in which that balanced indigenous community lives because it describes the baseline against which test sites can be evaluated.
The next question is then, how does one develop a credible reference condition? Several methods can be used,often in combination with one another: historical data, the use of reference sites, empirical models and a consensus of expert opinion in the region of interest.
Historical Data
A reference condition can be based on historical data which is used to identify trends in resource condition over time. In many instances, water bodies were still relatively unimpaired by anthropogenic activity in the first half of the twentieth century. Therefore data obtained from that era may be very useful for determining the potential biological community of various water body types. The information is often available in natural history museums, university collections and agencies such as State water resource agencies. Although historical data can be very valuable for biocriteria development, it must be used cautiously because:
- some historical biological surveys were conducted at impaired sites,
- different sampling methods may make the data inappropriate for biocriteria development,
- the data may be insufficiently documented,
- the study objectives may have been very different from biocriteria determination.
Reference Sites
Reference sites are locations on relatively unimpaired water bodies with similar habitat and ecological characteristics where biological data can be collected for comparison with data from potentially impacted test sites. Typical reference sites include:
- locations upstream of point sources,
- sites in nearby watersheds which have less-impacted areas,
- sites that illustrate a gradient from unimpaired to impaired (e.g., near field/far field)
- regional reference sites which may be compared to a variety of sites in a given region of ecological similarity.
Reference sites must be representative of waterbodies under investigation; that is, they must exhibit conditions similar to those of other sites in the same region. Sites undisturbed by human activities are ideal reference sites, however, land use practices and atmospheric pollution in the area may have so altered the landscape and the quality of the water resources that truly undisturbed sites are unavailable. Therefore, a criterion of "minimally impaired" may be used to determine the selection of reference sites. In no instance should any notably degraded condition be accepted as the reference for criteria development. In regions where even the least impacted sites are significantly degraded, the search for suitable sites should be extended over a wider area, and multi-state and tribal cooperation may be essential. The four methods mentioned above to describe reference condition were developed, in part, to help resource managers overcome such reference site deficiencies.
Empirical Models
In some cases it may be necessary to use empirical models to help represent a reference condition for specific water bodies.
For Example:
- man-made water bodies which have no natural counterpart (e.g., reservoirs),
- waters in which no appropriate minimally impaired sites can be found in the area, and data from other reliable sources can be applied.
Various models (mathematical, statistical, etc.) have been used, with varying degrees of success, to predict biological reference conditions. Model development for biocriteria is still rudimentary; however, as State and Tribal databases expand, this tool will become more important and will likely assume a growing role in establishing reference conditions.
Expert Opinion
Expert consensus is an important element of the collective process to establish reference conditions. Skilled biologists and resource managers can be convened to develop a description of the assemblages in relatively unimpacted waters based on their collective experience. This breadth of experience and insight is intended to help provide a balanced assessment of all the available information. This knowledge can then be used to develop the reference condition, as well as subsequent biocriteria.
To establish reference conditions, investigators should incorporate all of these techniques as needed. They can be used in combination to support decisions on reference condition. A more thorough discussion of reference condition development can be found in the (Draft) Biological Criteria:Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers
(EPA 822-B-94-001) which will soon be out for public review and comment. Future biocriteria documents, which include technical guidance on estuaries and near-coastal marine waters, wetlands, large rivers, and coral reefs, will also discuss the establishment of reference conditions. For more information on biological criteria, or if you have a topic or issue you would like to see addressed in the Biocriteria Series, contact:
Candace Stoughton , EPA(4304), 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1737, (202)260-1036(fax), stoughton.candace@epamail.epa.gov
READER SURVEY
In accordance with EPA policy, we are required once a year to revise our mailing list. Accordingly, in the July 1995 issue of this newsletter we attached a reader response form to aid us in updating the list and to get some reader feedback. Thanks to all of you who filled out the survey. Your comments have been useful. For example, many of you specifically requested more information on the water quality criteria program. As a result we have expanded the discussion of criteria in this issue. Contact: Micki Treacy (202) 260-7301
INTERNET ACCESS
Many readers have requested that this newsletter be distributed electronically. Beginning with this issue, the newsletter will be available on the Internet. The Internet address is http://www.epa.gov/OST.
Our ultimate goal, in keeping with the Agency's objective of a "paperless office", is to make electronic mail the main source of distribution for this newsletter. We will be discussing this more fully in coming issues. Contact: Micki Treacy (202) 260-7301).
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Dave Sabock, long-time Chief of the Water Quality Standards Branch, retired at the end of the year after a 35 year civil service career. Fred Leutner is the new Acting Branch Chief of the Water Quality Standards Branch. Fred is a long time EPA employee who most recently served as Deputy Director of the Standards and Applied Science Division. Fred also has an extensive background in the water quality monitoring program and numerous other water pollution control programs. Fred can be reached at (202) 260-1542, or leutner.fred@epamail.epa.gov
OUTREACH/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A Multi-regional Meeting on Water Quality Standards/Criteria and Related Programs" has been scheduled in Denver, Colorado for the week of July 22-26, 1996. The tentative dates for the session in Burlington, Vermont are August 26-30, 1996. Headquarters and the Regions are devloping preliminary agendas for the two meetings. A session on "Trace Metals", conducted by Bill Telliard, will be featured on the last day of each meeting. The next issue of the Newsletter will contain more information. Contact: Frances A. Desselle, (202) 260-1320
ELIZABETH SOUTHERLAND, ACTING DIRECTOR
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
MARGARET J. STASIKOWSKI, DIRECTOR
HEALTH & ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA DIVISION
FRED LEUTNER, ACTING CHIEF
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH (SASD)