[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41149-41152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5548-6]
Stakeholders' Meeting on Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
Implementation Issues
ACTION: Notice of Stakeholders' Meeting on Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET) Implementation Issues and Request for Additional Implementation
Issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
stakeholder's meeting for reviewing WET implementation issues to be
held on September 24-26, 1996 at the Georgetown University Conference
Center. WET implementation issues which were raised by stakeholders at
a May 16, 1996 scoping meeting are described below. EPA is soliciting
additional issues for discussion at the September 1996 meeting.
DATES: The stakeholders' meeting on WET implementation issues is
scheduled for Tuesday, September 24, through Thursday, September 26,
1996. Meeting attendees should register by August 30, in order to allow
EPA to plan facilitation of breakout sessions. Additional
implementation issues should be submitted on or before September 3,
1996 to Debra Denton, EPA, via fax at (415) 744-1873 or electronic
mail: denton.debra@epamail.epa.gov.
ADDRESSES: The stakeholders' meeting will be held at the Georgetown
University Conference Center in Washington, DC. To pre-register for the
meeting, please fax your first and second preferences for breakout
sessions along with your name, title,
[[Page 41150]]
organization, mailing address, phone number, fax number, and E-mail
address (if available) to (703) 903-1374, attention Ms. Betty Peterson,
Science Applications International Corporation, 1710 Goodridge Drive
Mail Stop 1-11-7, McLean, Virginia 22102; phone number (703) 917-8240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: To reserve a room for the meeting, contact
Georgetown University Conference Center, 3800 Reservoir Road, NW,
Washington, DC 20057; to reserve single rooms @ $108 + 13% DC tax +
$1.50 occupancy tax and double rooms @ $133 + 13% DC tax + $1.50
occupancy tax. Rates will be guaranteed until September 3, 1996.
Parking is $8/day for hotel guests and other conference participants.
Phone: (202) 687-3200, fax (202) 687-3291.
Transportation from the area airports can be made by: contacting
the Washington Flyer to arrange shuttle service from Washington
National and Washington Dulles Airports at (703) 685-1400.
The blue Georgetown University Transportation Service (GUTS)
Shuttle from Dupont Circle Metro and Rosslyn Metro to the Leavy Center
at Georgetown University runs: 6:15 am to 9:30 am every 15 minutes and
9:45 am to 8:40 pm every hour. Cost is $1.00. Phone: (202) 687-4364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Draft Agenda
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
11:00-1:00 pm Registration and pick up meeting package
1:00-3:00 pm Plenary session, goals and ground rules
3:00-5:00 pm Breakout sessions to discuss and prioritize issues
Wednesday, September 25, 1996
8:00-12:00 am Continuation of breakout sessions
12:00-1:00 pm Lunch
1:00-4:00 pm Continuation of breakout sessions
4:00-5:00 pm Large group session
Thursday, September 26, 1996
8:00-12:00 pm Breakout sessions
12:00-1:00 pm Lunch
1:00-5:00 pm Large group session presentations and next steps
5:00 pm Adjourn
Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program utilizes Whole
Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing and monitoring to ensure that ``no
toxics in toxic amounts'' will be discharged into the Nation's waters.
Over the past few years, a number of issues have arisen as a result of
increasing experience with WET limits and monitoring requirements. EPA
is undertaking a series of initiatives designed to make any appropriate
``mid-course'' adjustments reflecting the science underlying WET, as
well as to better support ongoing WET implementation. During September
1995, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
sponsored a workshop on WET in Pellston, Michigan. This workshop was
co-funded by the American Industrial Health Council, the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, and EPA. The purpose of the Pellston
Workshop was for nationally recognized scientists from government,
academia and industry to look at the scientific basis of the WET
program. SETAC will publish written proceedings from this workshop
shortly. EPA held an open forum on December 5, 1995, in Crystal City
Virginia to report results of the Pellston WET Workshop to interested
stakeholders. At that time, EPA promised to hold an open meeting to
discuss the implementation issues surrounding WET.
Today, EPA is announcing a stakeholders' meeting for reviewing WET
implementation issues to be held on September 24-26, 1996 at the
Georgetown Conference Center in Washington, DC. The purpose of this
meeting is to examine issues surrounding the implementation of the WET
program. EPA will consider all the points raised, but the Agency cannot
make policy decisions at this meeting. The Agency will, however,
develop a follow-up action plan at the conclusion of the meeting. In
the interim, it is EPA's position that the WET program is technically
and scientifically based and that the options and suggestions resulting
from the implementation meeting being announced today will only serve
to strengthen the existing WET program.
In order to prepare for the September meeting, the Agency held a
small group scoping meeting on May 16, 1996. EPA invited States,
environmental groups, and members of the regulated community to attend
this meeting. The attendees at the small group WET scoping meeting
included the American Auto Manufacturers Association (AAMA), the
American Forestry and Paper Association (AFPA), National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the
Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS), and the EPA. At this
scoping meeting the participants listed out the issues which were of
most concern to their organizations with respect to WET implementation.
A summarized list of these WET implementation issues raised at the May
16, 1996 scoping meeting follows and is broken out into four
categories: Water Quality Criteria/ Standards; Exposure Assumptions;
NPDES Permits; and Enforcement/Compliance issues.
Water Quality Criteria/Standards Issues
1. Narrative vs. numeric WET criteria: With respect to WET: (1)
Should EPA guidance clarify that State and Tribal WET criteria can be
written as narrative with implementation procedures (e.g., no toxics in
toxic amounts) or numeric (e.g., 1.0 TUc, chronic toxic unit), or on a
case-specific basis? (2) Should different segments of a waterbody have
different water quality standards, which vary in criteria or beneficial
uses? (3) How should toxicity, which does not cause an exceedance of a
water quality standard, be addressed?
2. Duration, frequency and magnitude criteria components: With
respect to WET: (1) Are the current criteria protective for saltwater,
estuarine, intermittent or variable flow discharges? How should these
factors be considered in criteria development (e.g., should duration of
the criteria be made consistent with the exposure period used in the
tests and permit limits?). (2) Since most chronic test durations have
become abbreviated from 30 to 7 days, should the acute and chronic
toxicity criteria be re-defined to be made consistent with the toxicity
test method frequency? (3) Should EPA re-evaluate the toxic unit
definitions, data supporting the one hour duration period for acute
criteria and the once in 3 year exceedance frequency exposure and re-
emphasize support of inhibition concentration response (IC25) in
determining test results.
3. Flexibility vs. consistency in WET criteria: (1) Where is the
balance between flexibility and consistency in the application of WET
criteria? (2) Is it necessary for test species to be indigenous to the
receiving water? (3) Is it appropriate to allow testing with resident
species (considering species-specific sensitivity to classes of
toxicants) and appropriate designated uses? (4) Is there flexibility in
conducting a reasonable potential analysis for WET?
4. Independent Application Policy: (1) What options are there for
using WET as an indicator of water quality? (2) What options are
available for consideration
[[Page 41151]]
of ``weight-of-evidence'' instead of independent applicability of
biological assessments, WET results, and chemical analyses? (3) What
does the data show with respect to WET tests predicting in-stream
effects in waters having low chronic toxicity or in waters that are
effluent dependent?
Exposure Assumption Issues
1. WET-specific exposure issues: Identify issues that are specific
to WET as opposed to those that are in common for other parameters
(e.g., exposure assumptions may be difficult for storm water discharges
or for characterizing ephemeral streams)?
2. Critical flows and modeling inputs: What critical flows and
types of models (e.g., dynamic models for ocean discharges) should be
used in assessing exposure and beneficial use designation?
3. Application of mixing zones for WET: What are the applications
(e.g., critical flows) and limitations for WET mixing zones in
saltwater, freshwater, storm events, and flash floods? Should WET
criteria be applied at the end-of-pipe? Under what circumstances is it
appropriate to apply WET criteria at the end-of-pipe instead of
allowing a mixing zone?
4. Balancing exposure assumptions with test duration: Is it
necessary that toxicity test method duration match expected the
criteria exposure duration?
5. Balancing test method dilution water with receiving water
characteristics: (1) What test species should be used when testing a
freshwater discharge to an estuarine water body, especially when
testing at high effluent concentrations? (Sometimes ionic imbalances
can contribute to the observed WET toxicity.) (2) Will EPA reconsider
the use of synthetic water which lacks the hardness, organic content,
and other attenuating capacities of natural, upstream water? (3) Should
test methods be conducted to take into account site-specific factors,
such as ionic characteristics of receiving water?
NPDES Permit issues
1. Expression of WET limits: (1) How should WET test method
variability be addressed or accounted for when reporting WET test
results? (2) Should permit limits be expressed in terms of toxicity
units (e.g., TUa, TUc) or should percentage of effluent (e.g., must
meet at 75% effluent) be used? (3) Can permit limits account for toxic
effects of ionic imbalance? (4) Should the averaging period for WET
limits be consistent with the exposure period of the tests (e.g., acute
WET as a 48-hour average rather than a daily maximum) or should EPA
increase daily maximums to compensate for the shorter exposure period?
(5) Are acute toxicity end-of-pipe limits at 1.0 acute toxic unit (TUa)
or greater scientifically valid? (6) Do magnitude and exposure
assumptions (e.g., 7Q10 flows vs. continuous flows or Monte Carlo
models) used to develop limits reflect actual exposure? (7) How are WET
limits applied to effluents discharging into intermittent and effluent-
dominated streams? (8) Should permits in arid areas monitor only for
acute effects if chronic limits are inappropriate and the flow is
beneficial?
2. Fair notice in permit: (1) Should permits contain specific
language stating what the permittee needs to do to comply with the
permit requirements (vs. providing cites to regulations)? (2) How much
detail is desirable? (3) Can EPA change the discharge monitoring report
with respect to the certification that WET test results are accurate,
because ``there is no true value [in WET tests] from which to measure
deviations and to determine bias or accuracy (54 FR 50218)?''
3. Re-evaluate/define reasonable potential determinations: (1) Do
small data sets critically affect the flexibility available for
conducting a reasonable potential analysis? (2) Are there alternative
method detection levels/quantitation levels for WET test methods which
can be used in reasonable potential determinations? (3) Will reasonable
potential determinations eliminate setting permit limits for water
quality not limited to discharge quality?
4. Water conservation leading to toxicity--conflicting
environmental goals: How should conflicting environmental goals be
reconciled? For example, water conservation is not encouraged with end-
of-pipe limits.
5. Tiered procedures for TRE/TIEs--cross-over to enforcement: (1)
Can EPA provide guidance on when to set permit limits, establish
monitoring, and begin TIE/TREs? (2) How could EPA address inconclusive
TIEs/TREs? (3) Should permits only require a trigger for further
testing or conducting a TIE/TRE instead of penalties? (4) Should the
test species used in the toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs) or
toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs) be the same test species used for
NPDES compliance testing? (5) Should TIE and TRE procedures only use
methods with standard and/or codified guidelines?
6. Low chronic toxicity: (1) Since many discharges have improved
the quality of their discharges, the focus is moving from acute to
chronic toxicity. Can EPA identify procedures to determine when
apparent exceedences are caused by test variation and treatment plant
fluctuations (effluent variability) and procedures for TIEs/TREs to
identify and remove toxicants? (2) Evaluate whether the NOEC level may
be set at >90% effluent? (3) Can chronic WET tests be used as a
monitoring trigger for increased monitoring and conducting a TIE/TRE as
opposed to a permit limit? (4) What are the technical limits of TIE/TRE
in reducing chronic toxicity to acceptable levels?
7. Ubiquitous pollutants: What are effective ways in the permit
process to deal with ubiquitous pollutants (e.g., diazinon,
chlorpyrifos) that have been identified in the TRE/TIE process?
8. EPA-approved chemicals causing toxicity: (1) How could the
approval process for pesticides and other chemicals (e.g., treatment
additives) be reconciled with the permitting process? (2) Can permit
limits for total dissolved solids or chlorides replace a WET limit when
common salts are the toxicants?
9. Correlate permit limits to exposure assumptions: (1) How could
permit limits be more realistically linked to exposure assumptions? (2)
Can EPA encourage wider use of available exposure models? Can WET
limits have mixing zones to reflect allowable dilution?
10. IU WET limits to POTWs: Should WET limits be applied to
industrial users (IUs), and if so, how can test results account for
downstream POTW treatment processes?
11. Reevaluation of toxic units: Which statistical endpoint is best
for expressing toxicity (e.g., no observed effect concentration or
effect concentration? What allowed effect or inhibition concentration
(e.g., IC25) is appropriate?
12. Analytical variability in reporting (quantitation/detection
issues): (1) What are the best and technically available ways to deal
with test variability? (2) Are there options for addressing test-
specific inter-laboratory variability in order to account for test
variability in permit limits?
13. Application of test methods in permits: (1) Are non-lethal
chronic endpoints equivalent to acute endpoints? (2) Is it possible to
either establish test precision criteria for test methods or determine
the lowest reliable level response? (3) Can EPA methods specify culture
media in order to improve the health of cultures and reliable
endpoints? (4) Can EPA determine the accuracy of all WET test methods?
(5) How does EPA justify the Selenastrum 4-day growth test use of EDTA
except in tests with metals
[[Page 41152]]
present? If algal growth test results cannot predict toxicity in a
reservoir, will EPA restrict use of certain test species in large water
bodies? (6) How to address toxicity caused by artifacts of the test
methods. (7) How should WET testing be conducted when in-stream
conditions differ substantially from WET toxicity test methods (e.g.,
temperature, hardness)?
Compliance and Enforcement Issues
1. Single exceedance: (1) Are there alternatives for dealing with a
single test failure that results in a WET limit exceedance (e.g.,
further testing and TIE/TRE where appropriate, as agreed to by
regulatory agencies and permittees)? (2) Can EPA evaluate the Pellston
findings that concluded that usually episodic exceedances (especially
one chronic test failure) would not impact the receiving system? (3)
Will one violation be subject to enforcement actions?
2. Inconclusive TRE/TIEs: (1) How should inconclusive (i.e., no
sources of toxicity identified) TRE/TIEs be treated by regulatory
authorities? (2) Should more guidance be given on what is an acceptable
TIE/TRE? (3) Should a pattern of toxicity be observed before compliance
actions are initiated? (4) How should low level chronic toxicity be
addressed when conducting a TIE?
3. Test/data variability in determining compliance: (1) How should
EPA consider data variability when determining compliance (especially
since laboratories with low test variability are more likely to detect
test failure)? (2) For a LC50 value greater than 100 percent effluent,
how should compliance be determined? (3) Should EPA provide a
laboratory certification for WET testing and a more rigorous test
acceptance criteria program?
4. Fair notice (cross over w/permits). How should permits be
written to bring closure to (successful/unsuccessful) TIE/TREs?
5. ``Good actor'' relief in TIE/TRE: When WET limits continue to be
exceeded while TIE/TRE is being conducted, is the permittee subject to
enforcement action?
6. Ability to track permit conditions: Narrative limits could be
viewed differently than numeric limits.
7. Treatment chemicals causing toxicity: How can compliance
determinations account for use of EPA-registered pesticides or common
salts causing ionic imbalance toxic effects from salinity?
Dated: July 31, 1996.
Michael B. Cook,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 96-20114 Filed 8-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
