United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
r/EPA
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
(4305)
June 2000
EPA-823-B-00-005
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
ACADEMY
Basic Course
PARTICIPANT
MANUAL
2000 Edition
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
This manual provides a basic overview of EPA's water quality standards program. These
materials are for instructional purposes only. Water quality standards program requirements
and acceptable options for meeting those requirements are expressed in the Agency's
regulations, policy, and guidance referenced and outlined herein.
-------
TRAINING MODULE 1:
INTRODUCTIONS AND PARTICIPANT EXPECTATIONS
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module introduces the course and addresses participants' expectations.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To determine what students expect to leam, to familiarize instructors and students with each other, to
present site-specific information, and to provide ground rules for conduct of the course.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
N/A
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Participant and instructor introductions; Lecture; Group activity.
Approximate Presentation Time: 11A hours (Introductions—20 minutes; Lecture-^35 minutes; Group
Activity—35 minutes).
References: N/A
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
1-1
-------
Module 1
Water Qualify Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
1-2
-------
MODULE 1 - OUTLINE
INTRODUCTIONS AND PARTICIPANT
EXPECTATIONS
WELCOME
Registration Kit and Evaluation Form
Certificates of Completion
- ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS -
- INTRODUCTIONS -
Instructor Introductions
Participant Introductions
- GROUP EXPECTATIONS -
[CLASS EXERCISE]
- COURSE MATERIALS -
Module 1: Introductions and
Participant Expectations
Module 2: Overview of EPA, the
Clean Water Act, and the
Water Quality Standards
Program
Module 3: Designated Uses
Will introduce the course and address participants'
expectations.
Will present an overview of the function and mission of
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of
Water, will provide a history of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), and will provide an overview of the water
quality standards program.
Will cover State-designated use classifications, how
uses are designated, how designated uses can be
removed, and the distinction between designated and
existing uses.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
1-3
-------
Module 1
Module 4: Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses
Module 5: Principles of Toxicology
Module 6: Principles of Risk
Assessment
Will provide a basic understanding of Use Attainability
Analyses in developing water quality standards and
explain when a Use Attainability Analysis is required.
Will introduce basic principles and concepts of
toxicology, including methods used to assess chemical
toxicity.
Will introduce the basic principles and concepts of
human health risk assessment.
Module 7: Introduction to Criteria
Development
Module 8: Human Health Criteria
Module 9: Aquatic Life Criteria
Module 10: Sediment Criteria
Module 11: Biological Criteria
Module 12: Nutrient Criteria
Module 13:
Principles of Risk
Goinmunication
Will provide an introduction to the different types of
water quality criteria.
Will present the basic concepts of human health criteria
and methods for calculating criteria.
Will provide information on how to develop chemical-
specific numeric water quality aquatic life criteria.
Will discuss the importance of sediment criteria,
approaches to establishing sediment criteria, and
sections of the Clean Water Act where sediment criteria
apply (or can apply).
Will provide an overview of the biocriteria program
including the development of biological criteria and the
components needed to implement biological criteria.
Will provide an overview of the application of nutrient
criteria within the context of water quality standards.
Will present basic risk communication principles.
Module 14:
Antidegradation Policy
Requirements
Module 15: Variances
Will provide an understanding of the EPA
antidegradation policy's three-tiered approach to water
quality protection.
Will provide an overview of the requirements for
variances and their uses in the water quality standards
program.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
1-4
-------
Introductions and Participant Expectations
Module 16: . Economic Considerations
Module 17: Mixing Zones
Module 18: WQS Submittal and
Approval Process
Module 19: Endangered Species Act
and the Water Quality
Standards Program
Module 19A: 401 Certification
Module 20: Implementation of WQS
Module 21: Water Quality Standards
on Indian Reservations
Module 22: WQS Terminology
Will provide a basic understanding of when it is
appropriate to consider economic conditions within the
water quality standards process and how to evaluate
claims of adverse economic impacts.
Will define and outline recommended methodologies
for determining mixing zones.
Will present an overview of the administrative process
required for submission of State and Indian tribal water
quality standards and describe the process by which
EPA reviews State- and Indian tribal-adopted water
quality standards. Discusses the types of approval
possible and Federal promulgation procedures.
Will present a brief overview of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and its relationship to the water
quality standards program.
Will provide an overview of Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act as it applies to States and Indian Tribes for
the protection of our Nation's rivers, streams, lakes and
wetlands.
Will present the process by which adopted water quality
standards are implemented.
Will provide information on the requirements for
Indian Tribes to administer the water quality standards
program. Discusses mechanisms for resolving disputes
between an Indian Tribe and a State adopting different
standards for the same waterbody.
Will provide a review of terms, definitions, and
concepts used in the water quality standards program
and the fundamentals of toxicology, risk assessment
and risk communication.
Module 23: Wrap-up/Feedback
Will determine whether participant expectations of the
training course were met. Seeks to*.obtain feedback 6n
the usefulness of the course.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
1-5
-------
Module 1
- NEWLANDIA: OUR 51st STATE -
Many of the case study exercises will
take place in Newlandia, our 51SI State.
Display 1: Newlandia
» .^^
&EBV
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
1-6
-------
TRAINING MODULE 2:
OVERVIEW OF EPA, THE CLEAN WATER ACT, AND
THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module presents an overview of the function and mission of the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Office of Water. Emphasis is placed on the Office of Science and Technology, which is
responsible for directing the national program for adopting water quality standards. A history of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) outlines the major provisions of the Act and highlights enforcement
capabilities provided under the Act. The module also provides an overview of the water quality
standards program; highlights State/Indian Tribal and Federal roles and authorities; and presents a
summary of water quality standards and their purpose, function, and content. The module also
introduces the water quality-based approach to pollution control.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To attain an understanding of the mission of EPA; the role of the Office of Water, particularly the Office
of Science and Technology; and the history, regulatory requirements, and enforcement provisions of the
Clean Water Act. To provide an introduction to the water quality-based approach to pollution and an
understanding of the need for water quality standards and State/Indian Tribal and Federal roles in the
water quality standards program.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Define the mission of EPA
• Explain the role of the Office of Water
• Identify responsibilities of the Office of Science and Technology
• Identify the objective of the Clean Water Act
• List major provisions of the Clean Water Act
• State the purpose of the Federal water quality standards program
• Identify the purpose of a water quality standard
• Describe EPA's role in implementing water quality standards
• Define "waters of the United States"
• Identify the two significant changes affecting water quality standards resulting from the Water
Quality Act of 1987
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-1
-------
Module 2
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides and display); Video.
Approximate Presentation Time: l!/4 hours (Lecture—45 minutes; Video—15 minutes; Review
Questions—15 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act.
Introduction to Water Quality Standards. USEPA Office of Water. September 1994.
Reference Guide to Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes: Section 1. USEPA Office of Water.
January 1990.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 48 Federal Register 14153, April 1, 1983.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Introduction
Chapter 2: General Provisions
Chapter 7: The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-2
-------
MODULE 2 - OUTLINE
OVERVIEW OF EPA, THE CLEAN WATER ACT,
AND THE WQS PROGRAM
- INTRODUCTION -
Slide 1: Introduction
MODULE 2
Overview of the
Water Quality Standards
Program
&EPA
EPA was established in 1970.
- EPA SUMMARY -
Slide 2: Mission
EPAfs MISSION]
To Control/Abate Pollution in
r r Radiation
Water
Solid Waste
Pesticides
Toxic Substances
Hazardous Waste
-EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
2-3
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Module 2
The purpose of EPA is to protect and
enhance our environment.
Slide 3: Function
EPA'S PURPOSE]
To Protect &
Enhance the
Environment rt *
&EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES -
No single environmental statute provides
power to or lists the responsibilities of
EPA.
Slide 4: Statutes
I ENVIRONMENTAL
{ STATUTES;
No Single
Environmental
Statute Provides
Power to the EPA
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
2-4
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Overview of EPA, CWA, and the WQS Program
EPA is responsible for implementing 7
important major environmental statutes.
Slide 5: Laws
There are 7 Major
Environmental Laws
Implemented by EPA
EPA has 10 regional offices.
- OFFICE OF WATER -
The Office of Water has four individual
offices. The role of the Office is to
provide Agency-wide policy, guidance,
and direction for EPA's water-related
programs.
Slide 6: Office
OFFICE OF WATER]
1 Water Quality
1 Drinking Water
Wetlands
' Marine & Estuarine Protection
1 Other Water-related Programs
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-5
-------
Module 2
- OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY -
The Office of Science and Technology
has three divisions. It is responsible for
developing standards, criteria,
advisories, and guidelines.
Slide?: OST
OFFICE OF SCIENCE
I & TECHNOLOGY:
&EPA
The Engineering and Analysis Division
(HAD) is responsible for:
• developing effluent limitation
guidelines and standards;
• writing regulations; and
• conducting economic and
statistical studies.
Slide 8: HAD
OFFICE OF SCIENCE
& TECHNOLOGY:
Engineering &
Analysis
Division
& EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
2-6
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Overview of EPA, CWA, and the WQS Program
The Health and Ecological Criteria
Division (HECD) is responsible for:
• developing risk and exposure
assessment methodologies;
• providing risk assessment
support;
• developing human health and
ecological risk methodologies,
criteria documents, guidance, and
policies in support of section
304(a);
• establishing selection criteria for
the list of toxic pollutants; and
• developing methodologies,
technical regulations, and
guidelines governing sewage
sludge.
The Standards and Applied Science
Division (SASD) is responsible for:
• directing the national water
quality standards program;
• providing guidance to regional
offices reviewing State standards
and promulgating Federal water
quality standards;
• developing a management
strategy for sediment evaluation;
• developing and coordinating
guidance on contaminated
sediments and fish;
• developing technical guidance on
water quality-based controls; and
• overseeing the development of
water quality standards programs
for Indian Tribes.
Slide 9: HECD
r OFFICE OF SCIENCE
& TECHNOLOGY:
Health &
. Ecological
/ Criteria Division
a EPA
Slide 10: SASD
OFFICE OF SCIENCE
& TECHNOLOGY:
Standards &
Applied Science
Division
a EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-7
-------
Module 2
CLEAN WATER ACT -
The objective of the Clean Water Act is
to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters, and, where attainable, to
achieve a level of water quality that
provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife, and for recreation in and on the
water.
Slide 11: Objective
CLEAN WATER ACT]
To Restore/Maintain the
Chemical, Physical, &
Biological Integrity
of the
Nation's Waters
& EPA
- HISTORY OF CWA -
The significance of the Clean Water Act is reflected in the history of water legislation.
Refuse Act of 1899.
Water Pollution Control Act of 1948.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956.
Water Quality Act of 1965.
Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (collectively known as the Clean Water
Act).
1977 Clean Water Act Amendments.
Water Quality Act of 1987.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-8
-------
Overview of EPA, CWA, and the WQS Program
- STATUTORY PROVISIONS -
Major provisions of the Clean Water Act include:
Section 303 — State Authorization
Section 304 — Pollutant Limits
Section 307(a) — Priority Pollutants
Section 402 — NPDES
Section 402(p) — Stormwater Permits
Section 404 — Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material
Section 311 — Reportable Quantities
Section 319 — Nonpoint Source Management Programs
- ENFORCEMENT -
States are the first-line enforcers.
EPA can take various enforcement actions when a violation occurs.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-9
-------
Module 2
- WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH -
The Watershed Protection Approach
(WPA) is an integrated, holistic strategy
for more effectively restoring and
protecting ecological and human health.
Slide 12: Water Protection Approach
r
WATERSHED
PROTECTION APPROACH
• Integrated
• Holistic
• Restore and Protect Ecological and
Human Health
&EPA
A watershed is a geographical area
defined by drainage patterns to a
receiving water body.
Slide 13: Watershed
WATERSHED
&EPA
The Water Quality Standards Program is an integral part of the Watershed Protection Approach.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-10
-------
Overview of EPA, CWA, and the WQS Program
- EPA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATION -
The Water Quality Standards Regulation was published on November 8, 1983, and is codified in 40
CFR Part 131.
- WATER QUALITY STANDARDS -
A water quality standard defines water
quality goals of a waterbody.
Slide 14: Water Quality Standards-1
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Water quality standards provide a means by which attainment of the goals of the Clean Water Act can be
measured.
Water quality standards form the cornerstone of State and Indian Tribal water quality management
programs.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-11
-------
Module 2
Water quality standards provide a
regulatory basis for creating water
quality-based treatment controls and for
controls beyond the technology-based
levels of treatment.
Display 1 : Schematic
Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control Schematic
0
Determine Protection Level
iff EPA Criteria/State WQS •>.
Measure Progress
/©
Monitor and Enforce
Compliance
Self-Monitoring
Agency Monitoring
Establish Source Controls
Stale Programs
Point Source Permits
NPS Programs
Conduct WQ Assessment
Identify Impaired Waters
©\
Set Priorities
Rank/Target Wataitxidies
Evaluate Appropriateness of WQS
for Specific Waters
Reaffirm WOS
~ ^x
Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities
TMDUWLA/LA
States and Indian Tribes adopt water quality standards to protect public health, enhance water quality,
and meet the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters.
EPA develops regulations and policies and provides program guidance.
EPA reviews and approves State-adopted water quality standards.
State is defined as 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and Indian Tribes.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-12
-------
Overview of EPA, CWA, and the WQS Program
A State and authorized Indian Tribe
must review applicable water quality
standards and modify and/or adopt
standards, where appropriate, at least
once every 3 years.
Slide 15: State/Indian Tribal Authority
STATE/INDIAN TRIBAL
AUTHORITY J
Review, Establish, and Revise Water
Quality Standards - Primary Authority
Develop Standards More Stringent
Than Required by Regulation (Sec. 510)
&EPA
There are three components of State and Indian Tribal water quality program—uses, criteria, and
antidegradation policy.
Where attainable, water quality
standards should provide water quality
for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife; for
recreation in and on the water; public
water supplies; and agricultural,
industrial, and other purposes, including
navigation.
Slide 16: Uses
USES
Should Provide Water Quality For:
The Protection and Propagation
of Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife
Recreation (In and On Water)
Public Water Supplies
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-13
-------
Module 2
Slide 17: Uses-2
USES
Should Provide Water Quality For:
Agricultural Purposes
Industrial Purposes
Other Purposes, such as
Navigation
&EPA
When designating uses, States and Indian Tribes must consider extraterritorial effects of their water
quality standards.
Water Quality Standards include criteria
that provide limits on a particular
pollutant or limits on a condition of a
waterbody designed to protect and
support a designated use.
Slide 18: Water Quality Criteria-1
WVTER QUALITY
CRITERIA
Numeric
Narrative
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-14
-------
Overview of EPA, CWA, and the WQS Program
Slide 19: Water Quality Criteria-2
WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA INCLUDE:
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines
Human Health Criteria
Aquatic Life Criteria
Biological Criteria
Nutrient Criteria
&EPA
The Antidegradation policy is designed
to protect existing uses and the levels of
water quality to protect those uses.
Slide 20: Antidegradation Policy
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY]
Maintain
and
. Protect
Water Quality
For Outstanding
National Resource
Waters
Water Protection
—.
ses and WQ Maintained
&EPA
States and Indian Tribes may adopt
discretionary policies affecting the
application and the implementation of
WQS. These include mixing zone,
variances, and flow.
Slide 21: Discretionary Policy
DISCRETIONARY POLICIES
States/Indian Tribes May Adopt
Policies Affecting Application and
Implementation of WQS
Discretionary Policies Are Subject
to EPA Review and Approval
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-15
-------
Module 2
Standards submittals must include
specific components.
Slide 22: Components-1
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Components of State/Tribal
Submittal:
• Use Designations
• Methods and Analyses
• Water Quality Criteria
&EPA
Slide 23: Components-2
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Components of State/Tribal Submittal:
• Antidegradation Policy
• Certification
• Other General Information
General Policies (e.g., mixing
zones, variances)
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-16
-------
Overview of EPA, CWA, and the WQS Program
EPA develops regulations, policies, and guidance to facilitate implementation of the water quality
standards program.
EPA must review new or revised State and Indian Tribal water quality standards to determine if
standards meet Clean Water Act requirements.
EPA may promulgate water quality Slide 24: Federal Promulgation
standards for a State or authorized Indian
Tribe.
FEDERAL PROMULGATION
When State/Tribal Standards
Are Inconsistent with the Act
When EPA Administrator
Determines New or Revised
Standards Are Necessary
&EPA
- WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES -
Waters of the United States include rivers, streams, lakes, natural ponds, wetlands, and marine waters,
but not ground water.
Artificially created waters are considered on a case-by-case basis.
Water segments may have different standards.
States have the primary responsibility for setting, reviewing, revising, and enforcing water quality
standards.
- FEDERAL EXAMPLE -
Section 131.35 of the Water Quality Standard Regulation contains standards for the Colville
Confederated Tribes Indian Reservation.
[VIDEO: Introduction to Water Quality Standards]
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-17
-------
Module 2
Water Quality Standards Academy , Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-18
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. True or False. A single environmental statute gives powers to, or lists responsibilities of, EPA.
2. Which of the following is not implemented by EPA:
a. CAA
b. CERCLA
c. FIFRA
d. FWPCAorCWA
e. RCRA
f. SDWA
g. TSCA
h. EPA implements all of the above
3. The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the
waters (circle all that apply).
a. biological
b. physical
c. economical
d. chemical
integrity of the Nation's
4. The water quality standards program was created by law in what year?
a. 1954
b. 1965
c. 1972
d. 1987
5. States/Tribes are authorized to adopt water quality standards in section of the Clean Water Act.
a. 115
b. 311
c. 303
d. 404
Water Quality Standards Academy
2-19
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Module 2
6. True or False. Water quality standards serve two purposes: (1) they establish water quality goals for
a waterbody; and (2) they provide a regulatory basis for controls beyond technologically based
limits.
7. A water quality standard must include the following components, except for:
a. designated uses
b. criteria
c. variance policy
d. antidegradation policy
e. mixing zone policy
8. True or False. States and Indian Tribes with program authorization have the authority to adopt water
quality standards more stringent than required by EPA's water quality standards regulation.
9. Who is responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving State and Tribal standards?
a. EPA Regional Administrators
b. EPA's Administrator
c. U.S. Congress
10. True or False. Water quality criteria refer to numeric limits adopted by a State/Tribe to protect
designated uses.
11. True or False. Water quality criteria recommendations published by EPA under section 304(a) of the
Clean Water Act take into consideration economic considerations, level of treatment technology
available, as well as scientific considerations.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-20
-------
Review Questions
12. Which of the following most accurately completes this sentence:
The term water quality criteria has two distinct meanings under the Clean Water Act because:
a. criteria can be expressed both as numeric limits or narrative statements.
b. the term refers to both the criteria recommendations published under the authority of section
304(a) as well as to the numeric or narrative limits adopted by the State in conjunction with
protecting designated uses, thereby creating a water quality standard.
c. EPA isn't smart enough to think up another name for its scientific recommendations.
13. True or False. "Waters of the United States" does not include ground water.
14. Which of the following are considered waters of the United States and fall within the scope of the
water quality standards regulatory program (circle all that apply):
a. rivers
b. estuaries
c. intermittent streams
d. wetlands
e. lakes
f. near-shore coastal waters
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-21
-------
Module 2
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
2-22
-------
TRAINING MODULE 3:
>~S DESIGNATED USES
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module covers State-designated uses; use classification schemes for waterbodies; and examples of
designated uses, including discussions of existing, minimum attainable, attainable, and current uses.
The module also discusses the difference between designated and existing uses and procedures for
removing a use.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide an understanding of designated uses and their function in water quality standards.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Define designated use, existing use, minimum attainable use, and attainable use
• Identify the minimum use that a State or Indian Tribe must designate for its waterbodies
• Distinguish between designated and existing uses
• Identify the two subcategories for recreational use of a waterbody
• Identify factors that would enable a State or Indian Tribe to remove a use
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with vugraphs); Class exercise.
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 !/2 hours (Lecture—45 minutes; Class Exercise—30 minutes;
Review Questions—15 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: sections 101(a)(2); 230.10(c); 301(b); 303(c)(2)(A); 306; 401; 402; 404.
Introduction to Water Quality Standards. USEPA Office of Water. September 1994.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-1
-------
Module 3
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 2: Designation of Uses
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40 CFR 131.3(f); 131.10; 131.12(a)(l).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-2
-------
MODULE 3 - OUTLINE
DESIGNATED USES
- INTRODUCTION -
Clean Water Act, section 101(a)(2) -
requires that water quality that provides
for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for
recreation in and on the water be
achieved, whenever attainable. The
interim national goal for all waters is to
be "fishable/swimmable." The objective
is to restore the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters.
Vugraph 1: Introduction
INTRODUCTION
• Use Classification Schemes
•Examples of Use Designations
• Distinction between Designated
and Existing Use
• Procedures for Removing a Use
&EPA-
40 CFR 131.10 requires that States and
authorized Indian Tribes specify
appropriate uses.
Vugraph 2: 40 CFR 131.10
40 CFR 131.10
Requires That Each State and Indian
Tribe Specify Appropriate Uses To Be
Achieved and Protected
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-3
-------
Module 3
There are various types of uses.
Vugraph3: Use Types
USES
• Designated
- Goals for Waterbody
• Existing
- On or after Nov. 28,1975
• Minimum Attainable
- Tech-based, BMPs
• Attainable
- More Stringent Controls
&EPA
40 CFR 131.3(f) - Definition of
designated use.
Vugraph 4: Definition
DESIGNATED USES
40 CFR 131.3(f)
Those Uses Specified in Water
Quality Standards for Each
Waterbody or Segment,
Whether or Not They Are Being
Attained
&EPA-
Designated uses determine what criteria limits will be necessary to protect the use.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-4
-------
Designated Uses
Definition of existing uses.
Vugraph 5: Existing Uses
EXISTING USES
Attained Uses in an Actual
Waterbody on or after
November 28,1975
&EPA
Existing uses cannot be modified or changed unless a use requiring more stringent criteria is added.
At a minimum, States and Tribes must designate uses that are attainable.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-5
-------
Module 3
Minimum attainable uses are uses that
can be achieved when the following are
imposed: (1) effluent limits under
sections 301 and 306 of the CWA and
(2) cost-effective and reasonable best
management practices.
Vugraph 6: Minimum Attainable Uses
(
MINIMUM ATTAINABLE USES
Uses that can be achieved when
effluent limits under CWA
section 306 are imposed under
point source dischargers and
when cost-effective and
reasonable BMPs are imposed
on NFS dischargers
&EPA
Additional attainable uses may be
possible if more stringent controls are
imposed or habitat restoration is
undertaken.
Vugraph 7: Attainable Uses
ATTAINABLE USES
Additional uses (in addition
to the minimum attainable
uses) that may be achievable
in a waterbody
&EPA
If necessary, standards are upgraded to reflect actual conditions.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-6
-------
Designated Uses
- CLASSIFICATIONS -
Clean Water Act section 303(c)(2)(A)
requires that a State have standards,
including designated uses, that protect
the public health and welfare, enhance
water quality, and serve the purposes of
the Act.
VugraphS: 303(c)(2)(A)
TYPES OF USES
(CWA section 303(c)(2)(A))
Public Water Supply
Protection and Propagation of
Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife
Recreation
Agriculture
.. ,11 Industry
/*=•_. Navigation
=L &EPA-
States and Indian Tribes develop use classification systems to describe those uses deemed appropriate
for waterbodies or parts of waterbodies in the State or Reservation.
States and Indian Tribes are allowed to develop subcategories of a use and to establish appropriate
criteria.
EPA recommends that Indian Tribes use the basic classification scheme of an adjacent State when
beginning to develop standards.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-7
-------
Module 3
- USE CATEGORIES
Several use categories can be included in a use classification system:
Public water supplies
Protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
Recreation
Agriculture/Industry
Navigation
Other uses have been adopted.
Vugraph9: Other Uses
OTHER TYPES OF USES
[(/
1 Oceanographic Research
Coral Reef Preservation
Aquifer Protection
Marinas (oil, grease, and bacteria)
Hydroelectric Power
&EPA
States and Indian Tribes may also establish .seasonal uses.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-8
-------
Designated Uses
- USE REQUIREMENTS -
During a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA), relevant physical, biological, chemical, and economic
information is evaluated to make a determination of the appropriate use of the waterbody.
UAAs are not required to support fishable/swimmable use designations.
40 CFR 131.10(b) - Requires States and Indian Tribes to consider the water quality standards for
downstream uses.
States and Indian Tribes may designate a
waterbody as an Outstanding National
Resource Water (ONRW).
Vugraph 10: ONRW
ONRWs GOAL
To Protect the
Highest Quality Waters,
Unique
Waters, or
Ecologically
Sensitive
Waters
&EPA
[CLASS EXERCISE]
Water Quality Standards Academy
3-9
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 3
There are six points to consider when developing a use classification system. The system should ensure
that:
• CWA section 101(a)(2) goals and 303(c)(2)(A) requirements are met;
• Specificity for use descriptions are determined;
• Criteria for the use are available;
• Unique waters (ONRW, ecologically sensitive) are protected;
• Goals are understandable to the public; and
• Uses in adjacent jurisdictions are consistent.
REMOVAL OF USES -
40 CFR 131.10(g) - Factors for removal
of a use.
Vugraph 11: Removal
REMOVAL OF A USE
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
3-10
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Designated Uses
Vugraph 12: Removal-1
REMOVAL OF A USE
States and Indian Tribes Must
Demonstrate That Attaining the Use Is
Not Feasible Because of the following:
• Naturally Occurring Pollutant
Concentrations
• Natural, Ephemeral, Intermittent, or
Low-flow Conditions
• Human-caused Conditions of Pollution
&EPA
Vugraph 13: Removal-2
REMOVAL (cont.)
• Dams, Diversions, or Hydrologic
Modifications
• Substantial and Widespread
Economic and Social Impact That
Would Result from More Stringent
Controls
• Physical Conditions (Flow, Depth,
etc.) Unrelated to Chemical Water
Quality
&EPA
Removal is not allowed if
• it is an existing use, unless a use requiring more stringent criteria is added, or
• the use can be attained by implementing effluent limits and best management practices.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-11
-------
Module 3
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-12
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. True or False. A designated use must apply to an entire waterbody.
2. Which of the following cannot be a State/Tribal designated use?
a. navigation
b. boating
c. propagation of fish
d. waste transport
e. drinking water
f. swimming
3. What is the minimum use that must be designated?
a. propagation of fish
b. fishable/swimmable
c. drinking water
d. navigation
e. agriculture
4. True or False. A use must be attained before the State or Tribe can designate it for a particular
waterbody.
5. Outstanding National Resource Waters are so designated by:
a. the Federal Government
b. the State government
c. local jurisdictions
d. The Nature Conservancy
6. Recreation is often divided into what two subcategories?
a. primary contact/secondary contact
b. fishing/swimming
c. boating/wading
d. summer/winter
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-13
-------
Module 3
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
3-14
-------
TRAINING MODULE 4:
CONDUCTING USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides a basic understanding of the application of Use Attainability Analyses (UAAs) in
developing water quality standards and explains when a Use Attainability Analysis is required. A Use
Attainability Analysis is a multifaceted assessment of the environmental and economic factors that affect
the attainment of a use for a specific body of water. This module provides an overview of the waterbody
survey and assessment that examines the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of a
waterbody.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide a basic understanding of when a Use Attainability Analysis is required and the role of
physical, chemical, and biological evaluations in protecting water quality.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Define Use Attainability Analysis
• Identify when a Use Attainability Analysis is required
• Identify the characteristics of a waterbody that are considered in physical evaluations
• Identify the parameters of a waterbody that are considered in chemical evaluations
• Describe the role of a biological evaluation
• Identify steps in conducting a Use Attainability Analysis
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with vugraphs); Case study review.
Approximate Presentation Time: 11A hours (Lecture—45 minutes; Case Study Review—30 minutes;
Review Questions—15 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: section 101(a)(2); 304(a).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-1
-------
Module 4
Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1998 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)) Reports.
Introduction to Water Quality Standards. USEPA Office of Water. September 1994.
Memo from Martha Prothro to Regional Water Management Division Directors and Environmental
Services Division Directors regarding EPA metals criteria. October 1993.
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, November 1983.
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume II: Estuarine Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
November 1984.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 2; Section 2.9: Use Attainability Analyses
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40 CFR 131.10; and 40 CFR 131.20.
Appendix T: Use Attainability Analysis Case Studies.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-2
-------
MODULE 4 - OUTLINE
CONDUCTING USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES
— INTRODUCTION —
40 CFR 131.10(j) - Certain revisions
must be supported by a Use Attainability
Analysis to receive approval from EPA.
Vugraph 1: Introduction
USE ATTAINABILITY
DISCUSSION TOPICS
What Is a UAA?
When Is a UAA Required?
What Are the Components of a UAA?
What Are the Steps in Conducting a UAA?
&EPA
40 CFR 131.3(g) - Definition of a Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA).
Vugraph 2: Definition
DEFINITION OF UAA
Multifaceted Assessment of
Environmental and Economic Factors
- Waterbody Survey and Assessment
- Waste Load Allocation/TMDL
- Economic Analysis
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-3
-------
Module 4
A waterbody survey and assessment is
used to determine what uses are
attainable.
Vugraph 3: Assessment
WATERBODY SURVEY
AND ASSESSMENT
• Identify and Define Existing and Current
Uses
• Determine if State or Tribal Designated
Uses are Appropriate
• Identify Causes of Impairment
• Project Potential Uses by Examining
Waterbody's PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL,
and BIOLOGICAL Characteristics
&EPA-
Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) help to determine
contributions from various pollution sources.
Economic analyses are conducted to determine the impacts of more stringent requirements.
UAAs are the responsibility of the State or Indian Tribes.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-4
-------
Conducting Use Attainability Analysis
40 CFR 131.10(j) — Determines when a
UAA must be conducted.
Vugraph 4: Conduct
UAA Must Be
Conducted When:
Designating Uses That Do Not Include
CWA 101(a)(2) Goals
Removing CWA 101(a)(2) Goal Uses
Adopting Subcategories with Less
Stringent Criteria
&EPA
During triennial reviews, States and Indian Tribes must review why "fishable/swimmable" uses are not
attainable.
States and Indian Tribes are encouraged to consult with EPA before the analysis is initiated and
frequently during the process and analysis.
If current data are available, it is not necessary to conduct new surveys of the waterbody.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-5
-------
Module 4
— PHYSICAL EVALUATIONS —
The physical characteristics of a
waterbody greatly influence its reaction
to pollution and its natural purification
processes.
Vugraph 5: Physical
PHYSICAL EVALUATIONS
Identify Non-Chemical Factors That
Impair Aquatic Life
• Determine What Uses Could Be
Attained
&EPA
Physical characteristics are interrelated.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-6
-------
Conducting Use Attainability Analysis
— CHEMICAL EVALUATIONS —
States and Indian Tribes have the
discretion to determine what parameters
are required to perform an adequate
chemical evaluation.
Vugraph 6: Chemical
CHEMICAL EVALUATIONS
1. Determine Why a Designated Use is
Not Being Met
2. Determine Potential for Particular
Species to Survive if the Concentration
of Certain Chemicals Were Modified
&EPA
As part of the evaluation of the water chemistry composition, a natural background evaluation is useful.
Water quality indices are used to describe differences between the study site and reference site.
Uses'may be determined to be unattainable because of historic damage or alteration of the aquatic
system that cannot reasonably be remedied.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-7
-------
Module 4
— BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS —
Alterations in the physical and/or
chemical parameters can result in
biological changes.
Where States and Indian Tribes have
developed and adopted them, biocriteria
may be used in determining attained and
attainable biological conditions.
Vugraph 7: Biological
BIOLOGICAL
EVALUATIONS
• Determine Biological Health
• Determine Species Needing Protection
• Identify Species That Could Potentially
Exist
&EPA
— ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS —
40 CFR 131.10(g)(6) - Under certain conditions, a designated use may be changed if attaining that use
would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-8
-------
Conducting Use Attainability Analysis
— USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS PROCESS
Conducting a UAA depends on a
number of factors.
Vugraph 8: Complexity
COMPLEXITY OF UAA
Amount of Data Available
Degree of Accuracy and Precision
Importance of the Resource
Site-specific Conditions
Controversy Associated with Site
&EPA
Steps in conducting a UAA:
Step 1 - Define objectives
Step 2 - Analyze existing data
Step 3 - Choose approach for conducting evaluation
Step 4 - Select reference waterbodies
Step 5 - Conduct evaluations
Step 5 A - General survey
Step 5B - Physical habitat .evaluation
Water Quality Standards Academy
4-9
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 4
Step 5C - Variable evaluation
Step 5D - Estimate refining
Step 6 - Formulate information
Step 7 - Make recommendations
REVIEW
Summary of possible components
required for a UAA.
Vugraph 9: Summary
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE
COMPONENTS OF
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES
Physical Evaluations
Instream Characteristic*
- size (mean width/depth)
- flow/velocity
- annual hydrograph
- total volume
- gradient/poo la/riffles
-temperature
- suspended solids
-turbidity
-sedimentation
• channel modifications
- channel stability
Substrate Composition and
Characteristics
Channel Debris
Sludge Deposits
Riparian Characteristics
Downstream Characteristics
Chemical Evaluations
Dissolved Oxygen
Toxicants
Suspended Solids
Nutrients
- nitrogen
• phosphorus
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Salinity
Hardness
Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biological Evaluations
Biological Inventory
(Existing Use Analysis)
-fish
- macTom vertebrates
• phytoplankton
• pcnphyton
•macrophytM
Biological Condition/Health
Analysis
- diversity indices
-HSI models
- tissue analyses
- recovery index
- intolerant species analysis
- omnivore-caroivoTc
analysis
Biological Potential Analysis
• reference reach comparison
[CASE STUDY]
Water Quality Standards Academy
4-10
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is a Use Attainability Analysis?
2. Who is responsible for conducting a Use Attainability Analysis?
a. EPA
b. State
c. Either EPA or the State or Indian Tribe
3. True or False. Physical characteristics generally have little effect on each other. Thus, only one
parameter/characteristic needs to be evaluated.
4. Channel and instream characteristics comprise a primary category for:
a. physical evaluations
b. chemical evaluations
c. biological evaluations
5. True or False. pH is considered to be a physical characteristic.
6. True or False. A State or Indian Tribe is required to conduct a Use Attainability Analysis when
designating uses that do not include the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-11
-------
Module 4
7. True or False. A State or Indian Tribe is encouraged to consult with EPA before a Use
Attainability Analysis is initiated.
8. True or False. EPA has strict guidelines that a State or Indian Tribe must follow when conducting
a Use Attainability Analysis.
9. True or False. EPA suggests defining the objectives and scope of the evaluation as the initial step
of the analysis.
10. True or False. Evaluating existing available data is not useful in an analysis.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
4-12
-------
•""iN TRAINING MODULE 5:
^ PRINCIPLES OF TOXICOLOGY
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module introduces basic principles and concepts of toxicology, including methods used to assess
chemical toxicity, with a focus on human health and aquatic life toxicity.
NOTE: This module contains technical information regarding the scientific underpinnings of
environmental toxicology. Participants are not expected to master this information upon
completion of this module. Follow-up training and technical support will be required for
most participants who will be directly involved in the development of water quality
criteria. This module serves only as an introductory training session on principles of
toxicology. Follow-up technical advisory support is available through EPA.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide an understanding of the principles of toxicology, including techniques used to assess
toxicity, and how these principles relate to an understanding of the water quality standards and criteria
programs.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• List toxicologic endpoints of concern for humans and aquatic life
• Distinguish between acute and chronic toxicity, immediate and delayed toxicity, threshold and
nonthreshold effects, and reversible and irreversible effects
• Explain how relationships between response and dose or concentration are used to quantify toxic
effects
• Describe how data are evaluated in environmental toxicology
• List the pharmacokinetic processes that a toxicant undergoes in an organism
• Explain how chemical properties of the toxicant, conditions of exposure, and biological
characteristics of the host can influence toxicity
• Describe the advantages and disadvantages of various tests used to assess toxicity
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-1
-------
Module 5
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides).
Approximate Presentation Time: 1% hours (Lecture—95 minutes; Review Questions—10 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Amdur, M., et al. (1991) Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 4th
Edition.
Barnes, D.G., and M. Dourson. (1988) Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8:471-486. (Discussion of
Reference Dose methodology.)
Coekerham, L.G., and B.S. Shane (eds). (1994) Basic Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Eislee, R. (1985) Cadmium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 85(1.2).
Loomis, T.A. (1978) Essentials of Toxicology, 3rd Edition.
Public Health Service. (1990) Draft Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
Rand, G.M., (ed.). (1994). Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology II: Effects, Environmental Fate
and Risk Assessment. Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA.
U.S. EPA. (1984). Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. (EPA 440/S-84-032).
U.S. EPA. (1986) Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs. (EPA/540/9-85-001).
U.S. EPA. (1987) The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. (EPA/600/8-87/045).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-2
-------
MODULE 5 - OUTLINE
PRINCIPLES OF TOXICOLOGY
- INTRODUCTION -
The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's water.
Water quality standards consist of three components:
• designated uses;
• criteria; and
• antidegradation policy.
Toxicology is the study of poisons
(toxicants) and their effect on living
biological systems.
Slide 1: Toxicology
Biochemistry
jjte^
Chemistry \ ^^^fSr .^K. Physiology
EPA
Environmental toxicology is the branch of toxicology that studies the effects resulting from the exposure
of humans and other living organisms to chemicals in the environment.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-3
-------
Module 5
Inhalation, ingestion, and passage
through the skin are routes of exposure
to toxicants in the environment.
Slide 2: Routes of Exposure
Routes
of
Exposure//'
Inhalation Oral/Ingestion IVansdermal/
Percutaneous
&EPA
Chemicals may cause adverse effects in organisms because they interact with the body's vital functions.
These interactions depend on the properties of the chemical compound and the amount of chemical
present.
Endpoints are adverse effects that can be
studied in the laboratory or in the
environment.
Slide 3: Toxicologic Endpoints
-Lethality TOXICOLOGIC
•Carcinogenicity I ENDPOINTS J
• Mutagenicity
• Neurotoxicity
* Iramunotoxicity
* Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity
* Target Organ Toxicity
* Ecological Effects
EPA
Lethality is the ability of a toxicant to cause the death of exposed individuals or populations.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-4
-------
Principles of Toxicology
Carcinogenicity is the ability of a
toxicant to cause cancer.
Slide 4: Cancer in Fish
CANCER IN FISH ]
EPA
Mutagenicity is the ability of a toxicant to cause changes in the genetic material of cells.
Neurotoxicity refers to adverse effects of a chemical on the structure or function of the nervous system.
Immunotoxicity refers to adverse effects of a toxicant on the function of the immune system.
Reproductive toxicity refers to adverse effects on an adult's reproductive capability.
Developmental toxicity refers to adverse
effects on a growing organism.
Slide 5: Developmental Toxicology
DEVELOPMENTAL
TOXICITY
J
EPA
Target organ toxicity refers to adverse effects of a toxicant on a particular organ or tissue.
Ecological effects refer to adverse effects of a toxicant on populations or communities of species in a
natural ecosystem.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-5
-------
Module 5
- TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS -
Acute toxicity describes adverse effects
that occur after one or only a few
exposures to a chemical over a short
period of time.
Chronic toxicity refers to adverse effects
that appear only after repeated or
continuous exposure to a chemical,
usually over an extended period of time.
Slide 6: Acute vs. Chronic
TYPES OF TOXIC EFFECTS]
Acute Toxicity
Adverse Effects
Occur After One
or Only a Few
Exposures
VS.
Chronic Toxicity
Adverse Effects
Occur Only After
Repeated
Exposure
(distinction based on extent of exposure)
EPA
Immediate toxicity refers to adverse
effects that occur right away.
Delayed toxicity refers to effects that
appear only after a time lag.
Slide 7: Immediate vs. Delayed
TYPES OF TOXIC EFFECTS ]
Immediate
Adverse Effects
Appear Within
Minutes, Hours, or
or a Few Days
Exposures
VS.
Delayed Toxicity
Adverse Effects
Appear Only after a
Time Lag of Several
Days, Weeks,
Months, or Years
(distinction based on time between exposure)
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-6
-------
Principles of Toxicology
If there is some dose level below which
a chemical generally does not cause an
adverse effect, the effect is said to have a
threshold.
Effects that occur even at infinitesimally
small exposures to a chemical are
referred to as nonthreshold effects.
Slide 8: Threshold vs. Nonthreshold
TYPES OF TOXIC EFFECTS)
Threshold Effects
Adverse Effects Do
Not Occur Below
Some Specified Dose
or Concentration
VS.
Nonthreshold
Adverse Effects Can
Occur as a Result of
Exposure to Even a
Single Molecule of
the Toxicant
(distinction based on the presence or absence
of effects at very low doses)
EPA
Adverse effects that last only as long as
a person is exposed to the chemical are
called reversible effects.
Adverse effects that persist or intensify
even after exposure to the chemical has
ended are called irreversible effects.
Slide 9: Reversible vs. Irreversible
TYPES OF TOXIC EFFECTS)
Reversible
Adverse Effects
Disappear When
Exposure to the
Chemical Ends
VS.
Irreversible Effects
Adverse Effects
Persist Even After
Exposure to a
Chemical Ends
(distinction based on permanence of effects)
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-7
-------
Module 5
Cadmium is a useful example for
illustrating toxicological properties.
Slide 10: Cadmium Toxicity
CADMIUM TOXICITY "]
Inhalation
24 horn;
high dose
WutarRat
Qaafl
Low to moderate
dose
mourns to years
Moderate dose,
weeks
bntanonof
way
poms,
Kidney damage
Long cancer
Anemia, bone manow
&EPA
Slide 11: Cadmium Toxicity
CADMIUM TOXICITY )
Organism
Fish
Fish
Water Flea
Eiposure
Inhalation/Ingestion
Percutaneous
High dose, hours to days
Inhalation/Ingestion/
Percutaneous
Low dose months to
years
Effect
Gill damage
Intestine, kidney
damage
Inhalation/Ingestion/ Decreased reproduction
Percutaneous Increased mortality
Low dose, days to weeks
&EPA
— QUANTIFICATION OF TOXICOLOGIC EFFECTS —
For the majority of chemicals, the likelihood that adverse effects will occur increases as the dose of the
chemical and the period of exposure increase.
The relationship between the dose of a chemical and the degree of adverse effects that occur in an animal
is known as a dose-response relationship.
The relationship between the aqueous concentration of a chemical and the degree of adverse effects that
occur in aquatic organisms is known as a concentration-response relationship.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-8
-------
Principles of Toxicology
Dose-response (concentration-response)
curves plot the dose (concentration)
along the horizontal axis and the
percentage of exposed animals
exhibiting the adverse effect along the
vertical axis.
Slide 12: Dose-Response Relationships
DOSE-RESPONSE |
(CONCENTRATION-RESPONSE)
RELATIONSHIPS J
100
90
,S«M
2ig 70
a a 60
« S 50
4)
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Dose or Concentration (mg/kg)
EPA
By plotting curves of two chemicals on a
single graph, it is possible to compare
the relative toxicity of the two
chemicals.
Slide 13: Interpreting Dose-Response Curves
INTERPRETING DOSE-RESPONSE I
AND CONCENTRATION-RESPONSE
CURVES J
<- w w
0 — v
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Chemical A
0.1 1 10 100
Dose or Concentration (mg/kg)
1000
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
5-9
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 5
LD50 tests with mammals or birds are used to measure the acute toxicity of a chemical by identifying the
dose that kills 50 percent of the animals exposed to the chemical.
For chemicals that are present in water or air, a lethal concentration, or LC50, may be reported.
In an LD50 test, the adverse effect plotted
on the vertical axis of the dose-response
(concentration-response) graph is death.
Slide 14: Determination of the LD,
DETERMINATION OF THE
LDso OR LCso
1 10 100 1000
Dose or Concentration (mg/kg)
& EPA
When toxicologists study endpoints
other than lethality, they often report
results as ED10 or as ED90 — or as EC10
or EC90 values. In these values, "ED"
stands for "effective dose," while "EC"
stands for "effective concentration."
Slide 15: Quantification of Nonlethal Effects
QUANTIFICATION OF }
NONLETHAL EFFECTS J
0.1 1 10 100
Dose or Concentration (mg/kg)
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-10
-------
Principles of Toxicology
Dose-response (concentration-response)
studies are also used to identify levels of
exposure to a chemical that can be
considered relatively safe.
Slide 16: NOAEL/NOAEC
NOAEL
No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level
Highest Experimentally Tested Dose of a
Chemical That Does Not Produce Signs of
Toxicity
NOAEC
No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Concentration
Similar to NOAEL, Except That Chemical
Concentration in Water or Air Is Used in
Place of an Administered Dose
&EPA
When it is not possible to determine a
NOAEL (or NOAEC), toxicologists
generally report the lowest dose or
concentration tested as the LOAEL (or
LOAEC).
Slide 17: LOAEL/LOAEC
LOAEL
Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level
Lowest Dose That Causes an Adverse Effect
LOAEC
Lrowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Concentration
Similar to LOAEL, Except That Chemical
Concentration in Water or Air Is Used in
Place of an Administered Dose
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-11
-------
Module 5
- EVALUATION OF TOXICOLOGIC DATA -
Dose-response data can provide
important information, but there are also
some limitations.
Slide 18: Limitations of Dose-Response Data
LIMITATIONS OF DOSE-
RESPONSE DATA
• Paucity of Data
• Endpoint Selection
• Limits of the Dose-Response
Model
A EPA
Extrapolation is the process of using assumptions to form conclusions that extend beyond the realm of
experimental data.
One of the most common areas of
extrapolation in mammalian toxicology
is the use of animal data to predict what
effects a chemical will have in humans.
Slide 19: Interspecies Extrapolation
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-12
-------
Principles of Toxicology
To account for uncertainties that are
inherent in efforts to apply experimental
data to a real world situation, toxicologic
values are usually adjusted.
Slide 20: Uncertainty Factors
UNCERTAINTY FACTORS]
An Uncertainty Factor of 1, 3, or 10 is Assigned for
Each of the Following:
•Use of Animal Data to Predict Human Responses or
Use of Surrogate Species to Protect Endangered Species
•Individual Variability in the Population
•Use of Short-Term (90-day) Studies to Predict Effects of
Long-term Exposure
•Use of a LOAEL Rather than a NOAEL to Calculate
theRfD
•An Inadequate Data Base or a Data Base With Gaps
EPA
If variables are known that will affect the
likelihood of adverse effects, modifying
factors are applied.
Slide 21: Modifying Factors
MODIFYING FACTORS]
A Modifying Factor of 1 to 10 May be Used to
Account for Known Variables, Such as:
• Known Differences in the Absorption of a
Chemical from Water Versus Food
• A Known Lack of a Sensitive Endpoint of
Toxicity
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-13
-------
Module 5
The Reference Dose is an estimate of the
daily exposure to a noncarcinogenic
chemical that is likely to be without
significant risk of harmful effects during
an individual's lifetime, taking into
account all of the uncertainties in the
available data.
A Reference Concentration or criterion
is calculated in a similar manner for
aquatic organisms.
Slide 22: Calculation of the Reference Dose
RfD =
NOAEL
UF xMF
Where:
RfD = Reference Dose
NOAEL = No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level
UF = Uncertainty Factors
MF = Modifying Factors
&EPA-
Computerized mathematical models are now being used to evaluate chemical toxicity data.
One of the most widely used data bases containing toxicity information for humans is IRIS.
- PHARMACOKINETICS -
Pharmacokinetics is the area of
toxicology that studies the interactions
between a chemical and an organism
over time.
Slide 23: Pharmacokinetic Processes
& EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-14
-------
Principles of Toxicology
Absorption is how a chemical enters the bloodstream.
A chemical's bioavailability is the proportion of a chemical concentration or dose that crosses the
organism's body barriers and enters the bloodstream.
Distribution is the process of a chemical being carried by the blood to organs and tissue throughout the
body.
Metabolism or biotransforrnation is the structural changes to a chemical that occur in the body.
A metabolite is the changed form of a chemical.
The two processes of elimination are egestion (chemicals pass through the gastrointestinal tract without
being absorbed in the bloodstream) and excretion (removal after being absorbed in the bloodstream).
Chemical concentration in the blood is
plotted on the vertical axis of a graph,
and the time after exposure is plotted on
the horizontal axis.
Slide 24: Chemical Concentration Over Time
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION
OVER TIME I
100
o 90j
2 80'
a'g 70
Si"
,5 ° 50
-5 40
.2.9 30
§ 20
y 10
0
»Peak
Concentration
One-Time
Exposure
/123456789
Time After Exposure (Hours)
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-15
-------
Module 5
One half-life is the time it takes for the
peak chemical concentration to be
reduced by 50 percent.
Slide 25: Half-Life
HALF-LIFE
2 M
-
a 3
•a-9 »
5 M
S w
»Peak
Concentration
Exposure Time After Exposure (Hours)
& EPA
A chemical's pharmacokinetic profile
can affect the toxicity of a chemical.
Slide 26: Cadmium Absorption
Pharmacokinetic
Properties of: 48
Absorption
• Occurs Mainly in the Lung or Gills After
Inhalation (Orally Ingested Cadmium is
Poorly Absorbed)
• A Similar Dose or Concentration Would be
More Toxic if Inhaled than if Ingested
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-16
-------
Principles of Toxicology
Slide 27: Cadmium Distribution
Pharmacokinetic
Properties of:
Distribution
0 Widely Distributed
• Over Time, More Reaches the
Kidneys, Bones, and Liver
EPA
Slide 28: Cadmium Metabolism
Pharmacokinetic
Properties of:
Metabolism
• Does Not Undergo Significant Metabolism
• Forms Stable Complex with Metallothionein
• Renal Toxicity Occurs when Amount in Body
Exceeds Binding Capacity of Metallothionein
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-17
-------
Module 5
Slide 29: Cadmium Elimination
Pharmacokinetic
Properties of:
Elimination
• Less than 0.01% is Excreted Each Day
• Half-Life in the Human Body as a Whole;
19-38 Years
Half-Life in Wildlife = Unknown
EPA
- FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE TOXICITY -
Factors that influence toxicity fall into
three categories.
Slide 30: Factors That Influence Toxicity
FACTORS THAT
INFLUENCE TOXICITY
• Chemical Properties of the Toxicant
• Conditions of Exposure
• Biological Characteristics of the
Exposed Individual
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-18
-------
Principles of Toxicology
Chemical properties that influence a
compound's toxicity profile fall into
different categories.
Slide 31: Chemical Properties of the Toxicant
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES )
OF THE TOXICANT J
Chemical Form
Cd02
CdCl,
CdCO3
lonization
Lipid Solubility
Chemical
Structure
EPA
Different forms of a chemical may differ in their ability to reach specific types of membranes.
A feature that influences the ability of a toxicant to cross biological membranes is its solubility in lipid
(fatty) substances.
lonization is the process by which electrically neutral salts separate into a positively charged ion and a
negatively charged ion when they are present in solution.
A toxicant's ability to cause harmful effects is closely related to its chemical structure.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-19
-------
Module 5
Another factor that influences a
chemical's toxicity profile is related to
the conditions under which exposure to
the toxicant occurs.
Slide 32: Conditions of Exposure
Conditions
of
Exposure^
• Route of
Exposure
• Duration &
Frequency
of Exposure
EPA
A chemical's toxicity profile can also be influenced by the duration, route, and frequency of exposure.
The third major category of factors that
influence a chemical's toxicity profile are
factors related to the biological
characteristics of the host.
Slide 33: Biological Characteristics of the Host
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS)
OF THE HOST
Species Differences
Bioconcentration
Bioaccumulation
Biotransformation
Individual Differences
• Genetic Difference
• Dietary Factors
• Gender and/or Hormonal
Status
• Age, Disease, and Stress
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
5-20
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Principles of Toxicology
Bioconcentration is the net accumulation of a substance by an aquatic organism as a result of uptake
directly from the ambient water through gill membranes or other external body surfaces.
Bioaccumulation is the net accumulation of a substance by an organism as a result of uptake from all
environmental sources.
Metabolic differences (biotransformations) may make it difficult to form meaningful conclusions about a
toxicant's risk to humans on the basis of animal data.
Factors that account for intraspecies variability include:
• genetic differences;
• dietary factors;
• gender or hormonal status; and
• age, disease, and stress.
— STUDIES OF CHEMICAL TOXICITY —
Evidence of a chemical's potential to produce adverse effects in humans is usually gathered in a variety
of ways.
Four types of studies are most
commonly used to characterize a
chemical's toxicity to humans.
Slide 34: Types of Toxicity Studies
TYPES OF TOXICITY
STUDIES
Epidemiolpgic
or Ecological
Studies
In Vitro
Studies
Animal Bioassays
Structure-Activity
Studies
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
5-21
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 5
Epidemiology is the study of disease and
factors that contribute to disease in
humans.
Slide 35: Epidemiologic Studies
Advantage:
• Uses Human Data
Epidemiologic
Studies
Limitations:
• Often Based on Accidental or Occupational
Exposures
• Don't Establish Causality
• Existing Studies are Not Well-Controlled
• Expensive to Conduct
&EPA
For terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, field
studies using ecological investigation
methods can help detect factors that
adversely affect these organisms, and
hence, cause disease.
Slide 36: Ecologic Studies
Ecological
Studies
Advantage:
• Uses Data From Aquatic
and Terrestrial Wildlife
exposed In Situ
Limitations:
• Sources of Exposure can be Accidental,
Deliberate, or Unknown.
• Can be Difficult to Distinguish Natural
Variability from Effects o? Anthropogenic
Contaminants.
• Monitoring and Other Studies Need To Be
Focused To Be of Most Value.
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-22
-------
Principles of Toxicology
In an animal bioassay, known quantities
of a toxicant are administered to
laboratory animals and the animals'
responses are monitored.
Slide 37: Animal Bioassays
Animal Bioassays
Advantages:
• Can be Used to Generate
Lethal, No- and
Low-Effect Levels, and
Chronic Toxicity Data
• Relatively Low Cost
• Convenience
• Precise Control Over Experimental Conditions
Limitation:
• Introduces Need for Interspecies Extrapolation
(except in studies of aquatic organisms)
EPA
Acute toxicity studies are conducted to examine the effects of exposure to one or a few large doses of the
test chemical.
Subchronic toxicity studies involve daily administration of low to moderate doses for an extended period
of time.
Chronic toxicity studies involve daily administration of a toxicant, usually at low doses, for a longer
period of time.
Bioconcentration studies involve continuous exposure of aquatic organisms to sublethal concentrations
of a toxicant.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-23
-------
Module 5
In whole-effluent toxicity tests, samples
of industrial or municipal effluents are
collected and diluted with varying
concentrations of uncontaminated water.
Slide 38: Animal Bioassays
BIOASSAYS
&EPA
In vitro studies usually involve
observing a chemical's effects in a cell
culture or tissue preparation.
Slide 39: In Vitro Studies
In Vitro
Studies
Advantages:
• Offer Insight into
Toxicant's Mechanism of
Toxicity
• Rapid and Inexpensive
• Can be Used to Screen Potential Toxicants for
Further Study
Limitations:
• Not Conducted in Living Animals
• Provide Supportive Rather than Conclusive
Evidence of Toxicity
& EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-24
-------
Principles of Toxicology
Structure-activity studies compare the
relative toxicity of structurally related
compounds.
Slide 40: Structure-Activity Studies
Structure-Activity
Studies
Advantage:
• Can be Used to Screen
Chemicals and Predict
the Toxicity of
Unstudied
Compounds
Limitation:
• Provide Supportive Rather than Conclusive
Evidence of Toxicity
EPA
In the weight-of-evidence approach,
elements of the data base are weighted
differently based on the extent to which
they contribute to a plausible and
consistent picture of toxicity.
Slide 41: Weight-of-Evidence Approach
WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE
APPROACH
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-25
-------
Module 5
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-26
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. The toxicologic endpoint that refers to the ability of a toxicant to cause cancer is:
a. immunotoxicity
b. neurotoxicity
c. carcinogenicity
d. reproductive toxicity
2. Adverse effects that disappear when the toxicant is removed from the body are called:
a. reversible effects
b. irreversible effects
c. threshold effects
d. nonthreshold effects
3. Dose-response tests can provide information about all of the following properties of a chemical
EXCEPT:
a. its relative potency
b. its lethal and nonlethal doses
c. its NOAEL/NOAEC and LOAEL/LOAEC
d. its concentrations in the environment
4. True or False. To account for the uncertainties involved in applying experimental data to real world
situations, toxicologists usually divide toxicologic values (such as the NOAEL or LOAEL) by one or
more uncertainty factors.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-27
-------
Module 5
5. True or False. A toxicant's bioavailability is a measure of its rate of elimination from the body.
6. Chemical properties that can influence the toxicity profile of a chemical include all of the following
EXCEPT:
a. lipid solubility
b. tendency to ionize in solution
c. chemical structure and chemical form
d. route, duration, and frequency of exposure
7. True or False. The main advantage of epidemiologic studies is that well-controlled studies are
usually very inexpensive to conduct.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
5-28
-------
TRAINING MODULE 6:
PRINCIPLES OF RISK ASSESSMENT
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module introduces basic principles and concepts of human health and ecological risk assessment, as
currently practiced under guidelines developed by EPA.
NOTE: This module contains detailed technical information regarding the process of human
health and ecological risk assessments. Participants are not expected to master this
information upon completion of this module. Follow-up training and technical support
will be required for most participants who will be directly involved in the development of
water quality criteria. This module serves as an introductory training session on
principles of risk assessment only. Follow-up technical advisory support is available
through EPA.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide an understanding of the principles of human health and ecological risk assessments,
including quantitative and qualitative aspects. These principles provide a basis for understanding the
development and use of ambient water quality criteria and other risk information involved in developing
and implementing standards.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
Define risk
Define risk assessment
Describe the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) risk assessment paradigm
Describe the hazard identification step of the risk assessment process
Describe the dose-response assessment step of the risk assessment process
Describe the exposure assessment step of the risk assessment process
Describe the risk characterization step of the risk assessment process
For each step of the risk assessment process, explain how ecological risk assessments compare
with human health risk assessments
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-1
-------
Module 6
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides).
Approximate Presentation Time: VA hours (Lecture—70 minutes; Class Exercise—15 minutes; Review
Questions—20 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Chemical Carcinogens: A Review of the Science and Its Associated Principles. U.S. Interagency
Staff Group on Carcinogens. 1986. Environmental Health Perspectives 67:201-282.
Draft Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1990.
Ecological Risk Assessment. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1986. (EPA/540/9-85-001).
Health Effects Assessment for Cadmium. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. (EPA/600/8-89/087).
Issues in Risk Assessment. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 1993.
Principles of Risk Assessment: A Non-Technical Review (workshop on risk assessment; no
document number). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. (EPA/600/8-87/045).
Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences. 1983.
Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National Research Council, National Academy Press.
1994.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-2
-------
MODULE 6 - OUTLINE
PRINCIPLES OF RISK ASSESSMENT
- INTRODUCTION -
The process of risk assessment is used by EPA, States and Indian Tribes to assess the overall risks posed
by specific substances.
The results of risk assessments are used to decide what actions are needed to protect public health and
the environment.
The process of risk assessment is also used as a basis for setting criteria and standards.
Risk assessment quantifies the risk of injury associated with a specific activity or set of conditions.
Some risk assessments are easy to
perform.
It is more difficult to estimate risks
associated with exposures to chemicals
in the environment.
Slide 1: Comparative Risks of Death
COMPARATIVE RISKS OF
DEATH
Number of Deaths per Year
Kl A 0\ 00 O
o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0
_ o o o o o
? 9 9 9.9,9
^
^
1 —1
llnj linj
65 i/130r^
*mmm
f ' v $>•
lin
12'
/-i
n
Moter Accidents Lung Falls
Vehicle in the Cancer in
Accidents Home Smokers
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-3
-------
Module 6
The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) has identified four components
that compose the human health risk
assessment process.
Slide 2: NAS Risk Assessment Paradigm
NAS RISK ASSESSMENT
PARADIGM
Dose-Response
Assessment
Exposure
Assessment
Risk I
Characterization]
& EPA -
- HAZARD IDENTIFICATION -
During the hazard identification phase,
scientists evaluate available toxicity data
to determine if a chemical has the
potential to be harmful to humans or to
the environment.
Slide 3: Hazard Identification
HAZARD
IDENTIFICATION
The Process Used To Determine Whether a
Particular Chemical Is Causally Linked to
Particular Health Effects
• Evaluate Available Toxicity Data
• Review Information about the Chemical's
Physical and Pharmacokinetic Profile
• Identify Species-Specific Toxicologic
Properties
EPA
Scientists usually review available information about
• a chemical's physical properties and
• a chemical's pharmacokinetic properties.
Water Quality Standards Academy
6-4
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Principles of Risk Assessment
Scientists also identify aspects of the
chemical's toxicologic profile.
Slide 4: Hazard Identification Studies
TYPES OF STUDIES USED IN
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Epidemiologic
Studies A
Animal Bioassays
Structure-Activity
Studies
Risk assessors must consider several
important factors when determining if
available data support the conclusion
that a chemical poses a hazard.
Slide 5: Toxicity Data Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA USED TO
EVALUATE TOXICITY DATA]
Number and Type of Endpoints
Studied
Route of Exposure Studied
Patterns of Exposure Studied
Scientific Quality of the Data
&EPA
J
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-5
-------
Module 6
Exposure to a chemical can produce a
variety of toxic effects.
Slide 6: Toxicologic Endpoints
TOXICOLOGIC ENDPOINTS ]
Lethality
Carcinogenicity
Mutagenicity
Neurotoxicity
Immunotoxicity
Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity
Target Organ Toxicity
Ecological Effects
& EPA -
It is not uncommon for different routes
of exposure to be associated with
different toxic effects.
Slide 7: Routes of Exposure
ROUTES OF EXPOSURE^
Inhalation Oral/Ingestion Transdermal/
Percutaneous
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-6
-------
Principles of Risk Assessment
It is important to determine how
available data reflect the expected
pattern of human exposure.
Slide 8: Patterns of Exposure
PATTERNS OF
EXPOSURE
Amount
Duration
Frequency
&EPA
An important part of the hazard
identification process is evaluating the
level of confidence we can have in the
conclusions drawn from the existing
data.
Slide 9: Scientific Quality of Data
SCIENTIFIC QUALITY
OF THE DATA
• Clearly Defined Hypothesis
• Adherence to Protocol
• Convincing Statistical Analysis
& EPA -
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-7
-------
Module 6
Factors that increase the weight of
evidence include
• clear evidence of a dose-response
relationship,
• observation of similar effects,
and
• replication of experimental
findings by several different
laboratories.
Slide 10: Weight-of-Evidence Approach
WEIGHT-OF-EVTOENCE
APPROACH
&EPA
For suspected carcinogens, the weight-
of-evidence summary also includes a
classification of the chemical into one of
several categories.
Slide 11: Groups A and B
CARCEVOGENICITY
RATING SYSTEM*
Group A
Known
Human Carcinogen
Group B
Bl
B2
Probable Human Carcinogen
Rated Based on Limited Human
Data '
Rated Based on Sufficient
Animal Data; Human Data
Insufficient
'Rating system is being revised.
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-8
-------
Principles of Risk Assessment
Slide 12: Groups C, D, and E
CARCINOGENICITY
RATING SYSTEM* (cont.)
Group C
Possible Human Carcinogen.
Limited Animal Data
Group D
Not Classifiable -
Inadequate Animal Data
Group E
Negative Evidence - No Evidence
of Carcinogenicity for Humans
'Rating system is being revised.
EPA
- DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT -
Understanding the dose-response
relationship allows for the prediction of
effects of exposure to levels of the
chemical in the environment.
Slide 13: Dose-Response Assessment
DOSE-RESPONSE
ASSESSMENT
The Process Used To Determine the
Relationship between the Extent of Exposure to
a Chemical and the Likelihood of the
Associated Effect
• Select Toxicologic Endpoint of Interest
• Select a Single Data Set
• Determine Methods of Analysis, Which
May Vary
&EPA-
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-9
-------
Module 6
Threshold effects are thought to occur
only above some defined level of
exposure to a chemical.
Nonthreshold effects are thought to
occur following exposure to even
infmitesimally small amounts of a
chemical.
Slide 14: Threshold vs. Nonthreshold Effects
THRESHOLD vs.
NONTHRESHOLD EFFECTS
Percent
Response
Increasing Dose •
Nonthmhold Threshold
Nonthreshold Effects Threshold Effects
Adverse effects can occur as Adverse effects do not
a result of exposure to even a occur below some
single molecule defined dose
5&EPA
RfD is an estimate of the daily exposure
to a chemical that is likely to be without
significant harmful effects during an
individual's lifetime.
Slide 15: Calculation of the RfD
RfD =
NOAEL
UFxMF
Where:
RfD = Reference Dose
NOAEL = No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level
= Uncertainty Factors
= Modifying Factors
& EPA -
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-10
-------
Principles of Risk Assessment
For carcinogens, the goal of the risk assessment is to determine the dose associated with a level of risk
that is deemed to be acceptable.
The linearized multistage model is most
commonly used by EPA to quantify risks
associated with low doses of
nonthreshold chemicals.
Slide 16: The Linearized Multistage Model
LINEARIZED I
MULTISTAGE MODEL J
1.0n
I
« 10"*-
Slope = q,* = slope (potency factor)
Chemical Dose (mg/kg/day)
&EPA
q,*, the slope factor or carcinogenic potency factor, describes the proportion of individuals who can be
expected to develop tumors per unit of exposure to a chemical.
When the slope of the dose-response curve is expressed as risk per concentration unit, the unit risk
estimate can be used in the same way as the slope factor.
Quantitative assessments of risk are not the only output of the dose-response analysis.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-11
-------
Module 6
- EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT -
Studies used in an exposure assessment
can be divided into two categories:
• monitoring studies and
• modeling studies.
Slide 17: Exposure Assessment
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
The Process Used To Determine the Extent of
Human Exposure to a Chemical before or
after Regulatory Control
• Estimates the Size, Frequency, Duration,
and Route of Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals
• Analysis of Monitoring and Modeling
Studies
& EPA -
To assess fully the potential for exposure
to a chemical in the environment,
different types of information must be
considered.
Slide 18: Exposure Assessment Information
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
INFORMATION
Sources of Exposure
Environmental Fate
Measured or Estimated Levels
Exposed Populations
Exposure Scenarios
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-12
-------
Principles of Risk Assessment
The first type of information needed for
an exposure assessment relates to
sources of the chemical under study.
Slide 19: Sources of Exposure
SOURCES OF EXPOSURE ]
• Patterns of Production, Use, and
Disposal
• Seasonal or Geographic Patterns
• Human Activities Associated with
Unusually High Exposure
EPA
Environmental fate of a chemical refers
to what happens to the chemical in the
environment.
Slide 20: Environmental Fate
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE J
Movement of a Chemical
Through the Environment
Chemical Transformations
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-13
-------
Module 6
Because chemical concentrations can
vary, many different studies might be
required to get a complete picture of a
chemical's distribution pattern with the
environment.
Slide 21: Measured or Estimated Levels
MEASURED OR
ESTIMATED LEVELS
• Monitoring Data
• Exposure Models
&EPA
Identification of populations is also
important.
Slide 22: Exposed Populations
EXPOSED POPULATIONS
Populations Likely To Receive
Especially High Exposures
Populations Likely To Be Unusually
Sensitive to the Chemical's Effects
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-14
-------
Principles of Risk Assessment
Finally, an attempt should be made to
develop a number of exposure scenarios.
Slide 23: Exposure Scenarios
EXPOSURE SCENARIOS]
Combine Estimates of Environmental
Concentration with Descriptions of
Exposed Populations
Generate Profiles that Correspond to
Exposures Expected to Occur in the
Human Population
&EPA
Each scenario described in the exposure
assessment should be accompanied by an
estimated exposure dose (EED).
Slide 24: Calculation of the EED
ESTIMATED EXPOSURE
DOSE (EED) J
Exposure Pathway #1
EED
pathway
#1
Chemical
Concentration
pathway #1
X
Rate of
Contact
pathway #1
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-15
-------
Module 6
Slide 25: Total BED
TOTAL ESTIMATED I
EXPOSURE DOSE (BED) J
Total
EED
&EPA
- RISK CHARACTERIZATION -
The fourth and final step in the risk
assessment process is risk
characterization.
Slide 26: Risk Characterization
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
The Culmination of the Risk Assessment
Process, in which the Results of the Preceding
Steps Are Integrated To Produce as Precise a
Description of the Environmental Risk as the
)le Data Will Allow
Provides a Synopsis and Synthesis of
Data for Consideration by the Risk
Manager
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-16
-------
Principles of Risk Assessment
Quantitative estimates of risk are
expressed differently for carcinogens and
noncarcinogens.
Slide 27: Quantitative Estimates of Risk
QUANTITATIVE
ESTIMATES OF RISK
Noncarcinogens
• Compare RfD Calculated in Dose-Response Assessment
with EED Calculated in Exposure Assessment
EPA
Slide 28: Quantitative Estimates of Risk
QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES I
OFRlSK(cont.) J
Carcinogens
•Unit Risk Estimate
•Estimate of Chemical Concentration That Corresponds
to a Given Level of Risk
•Estimate of Individual Risk
•Estimate of Risk for a Defined Population or
Subpopulation
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-17
-------
Module 6
A risk characterization should include a
detailed discussion of all the data
considered during the risk assessment
process. It should also include how
these data were used in deriving the
quantitative risk estimate.
Slide 29: Risk Characterization Elements
OTHER ELEMENTS OF
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Discussion of Weight-of-Evidence
Discussion of Dose-Response Data
Qualitative Conclusions
Exposure Estimates and Populations Affected
Discussion of Sources of Uncertainty
&EPA-
Once a risk is assessed, measures for
controlling the risk (risk management)
should be determined. After that
methods for risk communication should
be implemented.
Slide 30: Risk Relationships
RISK RELATIONSHIPS
Risk Assessment
I
Risk Management
Risk Communication
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-18
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. True or False. Risk is defined as the likelihood of injury, disease, or death under specified
conditions, while risk assessment consists of efforts to quantify this risk.
2. Which of the following is NOT one of the four components of the NAS risk assessment paradigm?
a. hazard identification
b. dose-response assessment
c. exposure assessment
d. risk characterization
e. risk communication
3. The goal of the hazard identification step in a risk assessment is to determine:
a. whether a hazard exists
b. how severe the hazard is
c. how prevalent the hazard is
d. how likely it is that the hazard will occur
4. True or False. To ensure consistency across dose-response assessments, risk assessors use one
method to analyze all dose-response data.
5. The two main types of studies used in exposure assessment are:
a. epidemiologic and animal studies
b. monitoring and modeling studies
c. in vitro and structure-activity studies
d. acute and chronic toxicity studies
6. True or False. In a risk characterization for a non-carcinogen, we are most concerned if the reference
dose is higher than the estimated exposure dose (if RfD > EED).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-19
-------
Module 6
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
6-20
-------
TRAINING MODULE 7:
INTRODUCTION TO CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides an introduction to the different types of water quality criteria and sets the stage for
the next five modules.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To attain an understanding of the different categories of water quality criteria and how they work
together to achieve the objective of the Clean Water Act: "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Explain the relationship between water quality criteria and water quality standards
• Explain the difference between numeric and narrative criteria
• Identify the different categories of water quality criteria
• Explain how the different criteria work together to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with vugraphs); Video.
Approximate Presentation Time: 35 minutes (Lecture—20 minutes; Video—15 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: sections 104(n)(l); 301; 303; 304(a); 402; 404.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update 2000
. 7-1
-------
Module 7
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Correction. US EPA. April 1999. EPA 822-Z-99-
001, or on the World Wide Web at www.epa.gov/OST.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40 CFR 131.11.
Appendix I: List of EPA Water Quality Standards Criteria Documents.
Appendix P: List of 126 Section 307(a) Priority Toxic Pollutants.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update 2000
7-2 ..
-------
MODULE 7 - OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION TO CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
— INTRODUCTION
Water quality criteria are limits on a
particular pollutant or on a condition of a
waterbody.
Vugraph 1: Definition of Water Quality Criteria
WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA DEFINITION
• Limits on a Particular Pollutant
or on a Condition of a Waterbody
• Intended To Protect and Support
a Use
&EPA
Protective or remedial action may be
needed if the water quality criterion is
exceeded.
Vugraph 2: Relationship of Criteria to Risk
RELATIONSHIP OF
CRITERIA TO RISK
Water Quality
Parameter Designated Use Threatened.
Human Health and/or
Ecology May Be at Risk.
CRITERION LEVEL
Designated Use Protected.
No Significant Risk Posed.
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
7-3
Participant Manual
Update 2000
-------
Module 7
Water quality criteria can be numeric or
narrative.
Vugraph 3: Example of Numeric Criterion
NUMERIC CRITERION
EXAMPLE
For the Protection of Human
Health from the Toxic Effects of
Cadmium, the Concentration of
Cadmium in Water
Should Not Exceed the
Recommended
Criterion Level of
10 |ig/L.
&EPA
Vugraph 4: Example of Narrative Criterion
NARRATIVE CRITERION
EXAMPLE
Surface Waters Shall be
Virtually Free from Floating
Non-Petroleum Oils of
Vegetable or Animal Origin, as
"Tell as Petroleum-Derived Oils.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update 2000
7-4
-------
Introduction to Criteria Development
There are several types of water quality
criteria.
Vugraph 5: Five Types of Water Quality Criteria
FIVE TYPES OF WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA
Human Health Criteria
Aquatic Life Criteria
Equilibrium Partitioning
Sediment Guidelines
Biological Criteria
Nutrient Criteria
5&EPA
— RELATIONSHIP OF HUMAN HEALTH AND
AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA —
EPA has developed human health and aquatic life criteria for many of the 65 chemicals and chemical
classes commonly referred to as the "priority" pollutants.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update 2000
7-5
-------
Module 7
— HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA —
A human health criterion is the highest
concentration of a pollutant in water that
is not expected to pose a significant risk
to human health.
Vugraph 6: Example of Human Health Criterion
HUMAN HEALTH
CRITERION EXAMPLE
For the Protection of Human
Health from the Toxic Effects of
Cadmium, the Concentration of
Cadmium in Water
Should Not Exceed the
Recommended
Criterion Level of
10 |ig/L.
&EPA
— AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA —
Aquatic life criteria are designed to
protect all aquatic organisms, including
plants and animals.
Vugraph 7: Aquatic Life Criteria
AQUATIC LIFE
CRITERIA
Contain:
• A Concentration Level
• A Period of Time for Averaging
• A Frequency
&EPA-
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update 2000
7-6
-------
Introduction to Criteria Development
Where data allow, separate criteria are
developed for freshwater and saltwater.
Vugraph 8: Example of Aquatic Life Criteria
AQUATIC LIFE
CRITERION EXAMPLE
Freshwater Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses Shall Not Be Affected
Unacceptably if the 4-Day Average
Concentration of Chemical X Does
Not Exceed 2.0 p,g/L More Than Once
Every 3 Years on the
Average, and if the 1-Hour
Average Concentration
Does Not Exceed 4.3 ng/L.
&EPA
There can be four separate aquatic life
criteria for a particular chemical.
Vugraph 9: Four Types of Aquatic Life Criteria
FOUR TYPES OF
AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA
Saltwater:
Chronic
(4-Day Average)
Saltwater:
Acute
(1-Hour Average)
Freshwater:
Chronic
(4-Day Average)
Freshwater:
Acute
(1 -Hour Average)
Site-specific criteria can be developed based on toxicity data for more appropriate species and/or water
conditions at individual sites.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update 2000
7-7
-------
Module 7
— SEDIMENT GUIDELINES —
Sediment is the mud or sand that has
settled in the bottom of a waterbody;
contaminated sediments pose a human
health and ecological threat.
Vugraph 10: Sediment Guidelines
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING
SEDIMENT GUIDELINES
Chemical-Specific Guidelines:
• To Identify Contaminated
Sediments
• Used as a Basis for Regulatory
Decisions
^ EPA -
ESGs can be used by EPA and the States to determine the degree and extent of contaminated areas so
that regulatory decisions can be made.
Water Quality Standards Academy
7-8
Participant Manual
Update 2000
-------
Introduction to Criteria Development
— BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA —
Biological criteria are threshold levels or
guidelines that describe the desired
biological integrity of aquatic
communities of surface waters.
Vugraph 11: Biological Criteria
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Biological Criteria Describe
the Desired Biological
Integrity of Surface Waters.
&EPA
Biological criteria can be numeric or
narrative.
Vugraph 12: Example of Narrative Biological Criterion
NARRATIVE BIOLOGICAL
CRITERION EXAMPLE
Fish Communities Are
Characterized by a Limited
Proportion of Sensitive Species;
Sunfish Are Distinctly Dominant,
Followed by Darters and Minnows.
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update 2000
7-9
-------
Module 7
— NUTRIENT CRITERIA —
Incidences of water quality degradation
around the country have been linked to
nutrient over-enrichment.
EPA's strategy for developing nutrient
criteria takes a regional/watershed
approach that is water body-type
specific.
Vugraph 13: Nutrient Criteria Introduction
NUTRIENT CRITERIA
•Nutrient over-enrichment of our
surface waters has been a long-
standing problem
'USEPA is developing regionally-
based numeric nutrient and algal
criteria for surface waters
&EPA
Criteria will be developed for both
causal parameters (total P and total N)
and response parameters (chlorophyll a
and turbidity).
Vugraph 14: Nutrient Criteria Overview
CONCEPT OF NUTRIENT
CRITERIA
Goal: Address cultural eutrophication,
not natural enrichment load
Core Components: - Total P
- Total N
- Chlorophyll a
- turbidity measure
Type: Narrative Criteria or Numeric
Criteria
&EPA-
[VIDEO: Development of Water Quality Criteria
and Its Relationship to Water Quality Standards]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update 2000
7-10
-------
TRAINING MODULE 8:
HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module presents the basic concepts of human health criteria and methods for calculating criteria.
NOTE: This module contains detailed technical information regarding the development of
human health criteria. Participants are not expected to master this information upon
completion of this module. Follow-up training and technical support will be required
for most participants who will be directly involved in the development of water
quality criteria. This module serves as an introductory training session on the human
health criteria development process only. Follow-up technical advisory support is
available from EPA.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide an understanding of human health criteria, how human health criteria are developed, and how
they relate to water quality standards. To provide an understanding of the relationship between human
health criteria development and risk assessment procedures.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Describe the objective of a health effects assessment
• Identify the four elements in a health effects assessment
• List the three primary exposure routes
• Explain nonthreshold effects (carcinogenicity)
• Explain threshold effects (acute, subacute, and chronic toxicity)
• Define bioconcentration factor (BCF)
• Define bioaccumulation factor (BAF)
• Explain how IRIS records may be used to obtain human health criteria
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 8
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides).
Approximate Presentation Time: 1V* hours (Lecture—60 minutes; Review Questions—15 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish: A Guidance
Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and
Office of Water Regulations and Standards. December 1989. EPA 503/8-89-003.
Clean Water Act, section 304(a).
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Correction. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. April 1999. EPA 822-Z-99-001.
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. March 1991. EPA/505/2-90-001.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 3: Water Quality Criteria.
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation, Section 131.36(b)(l).
Appendix N: IRIS [Integrated Risk Information System] Background Paper.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-2
-------
MODULE 8 - OUTLINE
HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
— INTRODUCTION —
Human health criteria estimate ambient concentrations that are not likely to pose a significant risk to the
exposed human population.
Clean Water Act, section 304(a) - EPA is required periodically to review and publish criteria for water
quality that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge.
— HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENTS —
The objective of the health assessment
portions of criteria documents is to
estimate ambient water concentrations.
Slide 1: Elements
ELEMENTS OF HEALTH
ASSESSMENTS
Exposure
Pharmacokinetics
Toxic Effects
Criterion Formulation
& EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-3
-------
Module 8
Impacts on human health due to exposure to waterborne toxicants occur through three primary routes:
• Contact recreation
• Drinking water
Ingestion of contaminated fish and shellfish tissues
The pharmacokinetics section reviews data on absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion.
The toxic effects section reviews data on acute, subacute, and chronic toxicity; information on
synergistic and antagonistic effects, and specific information on mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and
carcinogenicity.
The criterion formulation section specifies a rationale for criterion derivation and the mathematical
calculation of the criterion number.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-4
-------
Human Health Criteria
— TYPES OF HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
The same procedures used in the development and updating of EPA water quality criteria can be used in
developing reference ambient concentrations (RACs).
Health effects from toxics are divided
into categories based on the biological
endpoints observed.
Slide 2: Effects
HEALTH EFFECTS
FROM Toxics
Non-threshold Effects
(Carcinogenicity)
Threshold Effects
(Acute, Subacute, or Chronic
Toxicity)
& EPA
Nonthreshold effects.
Slide 3: Nonthreshold
NONTHRESHOLD )
EFFECTS J
All Levels of Exposure
Pose Some Probability of
a Carcinogenic Response
Incremental Risk Levels
can be Calculated
Dose-
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-5
-------
Module 8
Threshold effects.
Slide 4: Threshold
THRESHOLD EFFECTS )
Exposures to
Some Finite
Value can be
Tolerated with
No Effect on
Human Health
I
(A
a
0
a
S/5
Threshold
Dose
& EPA
EPA recommends regulatory authorities focus on controls for bioconcentratable toxicants on a chemical-
by-chemical control basis.
Taste and odor (organoleptic) data form the basis for non-enforceable criteria in a few cases.
— CALCULATING HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA —
Levels of fish consumption.
Slide 5: Consumption
EPA FISH
CONSUMPTION LEVELS
200-1
180
160
140
. . 120
g/day ,00
80
60
40
20
0
Estuarioe and Marine, 99.9th Reasonable
Freshwaters Estuarine and Percentile Worst Case
Freshwaters
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-6
-------
Human Health Criteria
The BCF is a measure of a chemical's
potential to accumulate in the tissues of
an aquatic organism as a result of water
exposure only.
Slide 6: BCF
BlOCONCENTRATION
FACTOR
BCF =
Concentration in Tissue
Concentration in Water
&EPA
A chemical that partitions selectively
into the octanol phase tends to
accumulate in the lipids of an aquatic
organism.
Slide?: Log P.
Log? )
Concentration of a
Chemical in the n-Octanol
Phase Compared with
That in the Water Phase
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-7
-------
Module 8
The uptake of a chemical through water
and the food chain is expressed as the
BAF.
Slide 8: BAF
BlOACCUMULATION
FACTOR
BAF = FM x BCF]
where:
BAF = Bioaccumulation Factor
FM = Food Chain Multiplier
BCF = Bioconcentration Factor
EPA
EPA recommends using the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) as a data
source when updating criteria and
generating Reference Ambient
Concentrations (RACs).
Slide9: Flowchart
EPA's
WQ
Criterion
Available?
Evaluate Other
Sources of Data:
BEAST (Health
Effects Assessment
Summary Tables)
Risk Assessment
Drinking Water
MCLs (Maximum
Concentraltion
Levels)
Fish Consumption
Advisory Levels
FDA Action
Levels
etc.
•A EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
8-8
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Human Health Criteria
— CARCINOGENS —
Formulation for carcinogens (nonthreshold effects).
— NONCARCINOGENS —
Formulation for noncarcinogens (threshold effects).
Uncertainty factors (UFs) are applied to
the NOAEL or LOAEL to account for
uncertainties in data.
Slide 10: Uncertainty Factor
UNCERTAINTY FACTOR]
Type Definition Factor
UFH Average Human to Sensitive Human 10
UFA_B Animal to Human 3 or 10
UF Short-term to Long-term Exposure slO
ST~*LT
LOAEL to NOAEL
UF,
UFn
LOAIL-NOAZL
Minimum to Complete Data Base
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-9
-------
Module 8
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-10
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Which of the following is not a typical element of a health assessment?
a. exposure
b. pharmacokinetics
c. biological endpoints
d. toxic effects
e. criterion formulation
2. True or False. Section 304(a)(l) criteria are regulatory limits States are required to achieve.
3. True or False. The toxic effects section of health assessments includes data reviews on absorption,
distribution, metabolism, and excretion.
4. True or False. The RfD is a threshold value below which noncarcinogenic toxic effects are unlikely
to occur.
5. The Carcinogenic Potency Slope factor is.
a. RL
b. RfD
c. BCF
d. q,*
e. BAF
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-11
-------
Module 8 •
6. The uptake of a chemical through the food chain and water is the
a. Food Chain Multiplier
b. Bioaccumulation Factor
c. Bioconcentration Factor
d. RfD
e. q,*
7. True or False. Even if an EPA criterion is not available, a reference ambient concentration (RAC)
can be calculated.
8. An electronic online data base of the U.S. EPA which is the accepted source for RfD values is
a. BAF
b. BCF
c. RfD
d. IRIS
e. q,*
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
8-12
-------
TRAINING MODULE 9:
AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides information on how to develop chemical-specific numerical water quality criteria
for the protection of aquatic life. The material covers EPA's procedures for developing national 304(a)
criteria and EPA's guidance on developing site-specific criteria.
NOTE: This module serves as an introductory training session on the chemical criteria development
process. Follow-up technical advisory support is available through EPA.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To describe how chemical-specific numerical water quality criteria are derived. To outline the process
and discuss fundamental concepts necessary for understanding the derivation of chemical criteria.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Identify the components of EPA criteria.
• Identify States' options for implementing criteria concerning "priority" pollutants.
• Understand the basics for calculating a Final Acute Value (FAV) and a Final Chronic
Value (FCV).
• Summarize site-specific criteria derivation procedures.
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides and display); Class exercise.
Approximate Presentation Time: 2 hours (Lecture—80 minutes; Class Exercise—25 minutes; Review
Questions—15 minutes).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-1
-------
Module 9
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: section 304(a).
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994, Chapter 3.
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40 CFR 131.11.
Appendix E: An Approach for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria for W.etlands
Protection, July 1991.
Appendix H: Derivation of the 1985 Aquatic Life Criteria.
Appendix L: Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals,
February 1994.
Appendix P: List of 126 Section 307(a) Priority Toxic Pollutants.
Other Documents:
Annual Book ofASTM Standards.
Calculation of the Final Acute Value for Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Organisms. Russell J.
Erickson. Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin - Superior,
Superior, WI 54880, and Charles E. Stephan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory - Duluth, 6201 Congdon Blvd., Duluth, MN 55804.
Derivation of Conversion Factors for the Calculation of Dissolved Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
for Metals. Charles E. Stephan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, MN 55804. March 11,1995.
Draft: Guidance for Evaluating Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Research Lab.
Duluth, MN: www.epa.gov/medatwrk/databases/evistra.html.
Guidance for State Implementation of Water Quality Standards for CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division. December 1988.
Guidelines for Deriving Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division and
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Lab, Duluth, MN. May 1987.
Guidelines for Deriving Numeric National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Research Laboratories. Duluth, MN. 1985.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-2
-------
Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying
National Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN. October 1984. EPA 600/3-84-099.
Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. February 1994. EPA-823-B-
94-001. Also see:
• A Change in the Recalculation Procedure (11-19-97).
• Optional Consideration of Life Stage when the Recalculation Procedure is Used (11-19-97).
• Use of the WER Procedure with Hardness Equations (11 -19-97).
Manual of Instructions for Preparing Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria Documents (draft). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN. June 6, 1987.
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Correction. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. April 1999. EPA 822-Z-99-001. (Also check the Office of Science and
Technology's webpage at www.epa.gov/ost/ for periodic updates.)
November 1997 memo from Tudor T. Davis, Director for Office of Science and Technology, to
Water Management Division Directors, Region 1-10 and State and Tribal Water Quality
Management Program Directors. Re: Establishing Site Specific Aquatic Life Criteria Equal to
Natural Background.
October 1993 memo from Martha Prothro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, to Regional
Water Management Division Directors. Re: Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on
Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria.
Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits. July 1987.
Spehar, R.L., and A.R. Carleson. Derivation of Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium
and the St. Levis River Basin, Duluth, MN. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 3, pp.
651-665, 1984. (Available from National Technical Information Service [NTIS], order number
PB84-153196.)
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. March 1991. EPA/505/2-90-001.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-3
-------
Module 9
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-4
-------
MODULE 9 - OUTLINE
AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA
- INTRODUCTION -
A "criterion" is a measure of water quality designed to ensure the protection of designated uses.
Criteria are developed by EPA as recommendations to assist States in developing standards.
EPA aquatic life criteria consist of three
components.
Slide 1: Components
WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA COMPONENTS
EPA Criteria are Composed of
• Magnitude,
• Duration, and
• Frequency
&EPA
Criteria for cadmium in saltwater.
Slide 2: Cadmium Criteria
SALTWATER CRITERIA
i STATEMENT FOR CADMIUM J
The procedures described in the "Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses"
indicate that, except possibly where a locally
important species is very sensitive, saltwater aquatic
organisms and their uses should not be affected
unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of
cadmium does not exceed 9.3 /ug/L more than once
every three years on the average and if the one-hour
average concentration does not exceed 43 //g/L more
than once every three years on the average.
&EPA -
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-5
-------
Module 9
Two concentrations are used when
numerical criteria are derived:
• a short-term concentration, the
Criterion Maximum
Concentration (CMC), and
a long-term concentration, the
Criterion Continuous
Concentration (CCC).
Slide 3: CMC & CCC
THE CMC AND CCC ]
The CMC is the highest instream concentration
of a toxicant to which organisms can be exposed
for a brief period of time without causing an
unacceptable adverse acute effect.
The CCC is the highest instream concentration
of a toxicant to which organisms can be exposed
for longer time periods without causing an
unacceptable adverse effect.
&EPA
- NUMERICAL CRITERIA -
The procedures for establishing national
numerical criteria can be shown in a
flow chart.
Display 1: Flow Chart
Flow Chart for Establishing Chemical-Specific Numeric
Water Quality Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life
Define
Mlttrial
j Aquatic j
! lexicological 1
I Data '
Collect ind
Review Data
Acute
~p| Toxicity to
->
Final Acute
Value
1
|
j
L»! Acute/ k
^j Chronic 1 ^
[~F| Ratio j
^
_h> Toxicity to
Animals
fcj Toxicity to
"* Plants
_^ Bio-
^ OtherData
kv
Criterion
1 ^j Maximum —
A
F
"^ Ft
r
Final Chronic
Value
Final Plant
Value
Final Residue
Value
i
nal Acute 1
Equation j
nal Chronic f '
Review for j
|CompleleoeMof(
Wj Dm and !
| Appropriateness (
1 ;
_^ I
A I
-iv * J
J j Criterion
Pi Conunuous
k Concentration i
i
Lowest 1 1 National ;
Biological U^. , criterion
Important Value j <
When developing numerical criteria for the protection of aquatic life, acute and chronic aquatic toxicity
and bioconcentration/bioaccumulation data are used.
Before criteria can be calculated, the material must be specifically defined.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-6
-------
Aquatic Life Criteria
lonization is the process in which a
chemical breaks up into ions, or charged
particles. For chemicals that do ionize,
like chromium, all forms that are
produced in the ionization should be
considered.
Slide 4: lonization
IONIZABLE FORMS ]
Each Ionized Form of the Chemical
Will Require a Separate Criterion. An
Example of this Would be the Criteria
for Chromium III and Chromium VI
&EPA
Most criteria are based on animal
studies.
Slide 5: Data Collection
AQUATIC TOXICITY
DATA CONSIDERED
Toxicity data on aquatic animals, plants,
bioconcentration/bioaccumulation
studies are considered, however
almost all criteria are based on
animal studies.
&EPA
Examples of acute toxicity data are 48-
and 96-hour LC50 and ECSOs.
Slide 6: Acute Toxicity Data
ACUTE TOXICITY DATA/|
96-hour LC50
Concentration:
13Aig/L 25^g/L 50/jg/L lOO/jg/L 200/ig/L
Control
34
96-hr LC50 =
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-7
-------
Module 9
Chronic endpoints are derived from life-
cycle tests, partial life-cycle tests and
early life stage tests.
Slide 7: Chronic Toxicity Data
CHRONIC TOXICITY DATAJ
Fathead Minnow Early Life Stage Test
Growth Measured as Length
Concentration:
Control
Length:
40mm 41mm 38 mm 37mm 25mm 5mm
&EPA -
All data used should be well-documented and verified.
Examples of test procedures are outlined in the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) standards.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-8
-------
Aquatic Life Criteria
Taxonomic groupings, in hierarchical order, are
• Kingdom
• Phylum
• Class
• Order
• Family
• Genus
• Species
To drive a criterion for freshwater
aquatic organisms and their uses, data
should exist for at least one species of
freshwater animal in at least eight
different taxonomic families.
Slide 8: Freshwater
MINIMUM DATASET FOR
FRESHWATER CRITERIA
DERIVATION
PLANKTON1C
CRUSTACEAN
&EPA
Data should be used only for the most
sensitive life stages of a given species,
(of those life stages that have been
tested).
Slide 9: Sensitive
DATA FROM THE MOST
SENSITIVE LIFE STAGES
SHOULD BE USED
Egg
Most Sensitive
Larva
Adult
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-9
-------
Module 9
The criterion can be calculated after
appropriate data have been collected.
Slide 10: FAV
FAV CALCULATION ]
Step 1.
Calculate
SMAVs
,-,steP 2-
Calculate
GMAVs
Step 3.
Rank
GMAVs
T-l GMAV )-i LEAST N
A
V
MOST 1
Step 4.
Calculate
FAV
Using 4
Lowest
GMAVs
&EPA
Appropriate measures of short-term
toxicity to a variety of species are used
to calculate Species Mean Acute Values
(SMAVs).
Slide 11: Species Mean Acute Value (SMAV)
SPECIES MEAN ACUTE
VALUE (SMAV)
Daphnia magna EC50
Daphnia magna EC50
Daphnia magna EC50
Daohnia masma EC50
25
30 /ug/L
35 Mg/L
28 ue/L
SMAV=29Mg/L
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
9-10
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
-------
Aquatic Life Criteria
A Genus Mean Acute Value (GMAV) is
then calculated for the genera.
Slide 12: Genus Mean Acute Value (GMAV)
GENUS MEAN ACUTE
VALUE (GMAV)
Daphnia magna SMAV
Daphniapulex SMAV 38^g/L
Daphnia ambigua SMAV 42 ug/L
GMAV = 36
EPA
GMAVs are ordered and ranked.
Slide 13: Table 3 - Ranked GMAVs
TABLE 3 - RANK GMAVS ]
GMAV
RANK IjtxlU.
4 100
3 36
2 25
1 19
>.
SMAV
Sfi£CJ£l (aiflj
Rainbow Trout, 100
Oncorhynchus rnykus
Cladoceran, 42
Daphnia ambigua
Cladoceran, 38
Daphniapulex
Cladoceran, 29
Daphnia magna
Amphipod, 25
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
Amphipod, 19
Hyalella azteca
J9.FPA -J
The Final Acute Value (FAV) is calculated from the 5th percentile (four lowest values) of the ranked
GMAVs. The four lowest GMAVs are used because they are nearest to the 5th percentile of cumulative
GMAV ranking. Data should be used only for the most sensitive life stages of a given species, (of those
life stages that have been tested).
Values closest to the 5th percentile of toxicity concentrations will be protective of most aquatic species.
If the acute toxicity of the material has been shown to be affected by a chemical characteristic of water, a
Final Acute Equation (FAE) should be derived.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-11
-------
Module 9
Equations are provided in various
criteria documents to account for
chemical characteristics of water such as
the effects of water hardness.
Slide 14: Cadmium
CADMIUM FRESHWATER
CRITERIA USING HARDNESS
Criteria _
Equation =
(1-128 (In Hardness) - 3.828)
Hardness
(mg/L)
50
100
200
Equation
(1.128 (In 50) - 3.828)
e
(1.128 (to 100) - 3.828)
e
(1.128 (In 200) - 3.828)
e
Criteria Value
1.8
3.9
8.6
The Criterion Maximum Concentration
(CMC) is equal to one-half the Final
Acute Value.
Slide 15: CMC
CALCULATE CMC ]
Toxicity Related to WQ Characteristic?
Check Agreement within Species
Calculate Species Mean Acute Values
Calculate Genus Mean Acute Values
RankGMAVs
Calculate Cumulative Probability
Calculate Final Acute Value
Divide by 2 for CMC
Check Sensitive Life Stages
&EPA
The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) can be derived from the
• the Final Chronic Value (FCV),
• a Final Plant Value (FPV), or
• a Final Residue Value (FRV).
(Nearly all criteria have been derived with FCV).
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-12
-------
Aquatic Life Criteria
The Final Chronic Value can be
calculated by using chronic data for
eight families or by using an
Acute/Chronic Ratio.
Slide 16: ACR
ACUTE-CHRONIC
RATIO (ACR)
The Acute-Chronic Ratio Is Used To
Quantify the Difference in the
Toxicities Observed in an Acute Test
and a Chronic Test.
&EPA
A Final Chronic Value can be calculated
by dividing the Final Acute Value by the
Final Acute-Chronic Ratio.
Slide 17: FCV from ACR
CALCULATION OF FINAL
CHRONIC VALUE FROM
ACUTE-CHRONIC RATIO
1. Perform Acute and Chronic Testing Using Same Species in Same
Dilution Water
2. Use Results to Calculate Acute-Chronic Ratios (ACR)
Acute Value
ACR =
Chronic Value
3. Develop a Final Acute-Chronic Ratio (FACR) by taking a
Geometric Mean of the most appropriate Acute-Chronic Ratios
4. Calculate the Final Chronic Value (FCV) using the Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio
FCV =
Final Acute Value
FACR
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-13
-------
Module 9
Calculation of the FCV can be
accomplished directly if enough chronic
data are available, or by using the Final
Acute Value and Acute-Chronic Ratio;
otherwise, it cannot be calculated.
Slide 18: FCV
f CALCULATE FINAL!
[ CHRONIC VALUE J
An Data Available 1 w Is Toxicity Related to a 1 ^
from 8 Families? \^ WQ Characteristic? \^
fNO
Calculate Species Mean
Acute-Chronic Ratios
t
Do Ratios Fit Any of
the 4 Specified Cases in
Guidelines?
^ NO
A Final Chronic Value
Cannot Be Calculated
YES
NO
Calculate Final
Chronic Equation
Use Calculation of FAV
Procedures To Calculate
Final Chronic Value
Calculate
Final Chronic Value:
Final Acute Value
Final Acute-Chronic
Ratio
&FPA -J
Data on commercially important plants are used to calculate a Final Plant Value when criteria need to be
developed for herbicides or other pollutants that might adversely affect plant life.
The Final Residue Value is the lowest of
the residue values that are obtained by
dividing maximum permissible tissue
concentrations for an organism by
appropriate bioconcentration (BCF) or
bioaccumulation factors (BAF).
EPA is moving away from the FRV
approach. EPA is developing separate
procedures for deriving Aquatic Life
criteria for highly bioaccumulative
pollutants.
Slide 19: FRV
FINAL RESIDUE VALUE
(FRV)
FRV =
Maximum Permissable
Tissue Concentration
BCF or BAF
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-14
-------
Aquatic Life Criteria
Examples of additional data that might (but usually do not) affect a criterion include the following:
• synergism and antagonism;
• effects of prior exposure;
• intermittent exposures and fluctuating concentrations;
• delayed effects;
• field studies (e.g. selenium);
• behavioral, biochemical, histological, and physiological effects;
• microcosm studies;
• results obtained in unusual dilution waters; and
• results of exposures by consumption of contaminated food.
A national criterion consists of two concentrations: the CMC and the CCC.
The Criterion Continuous Concentration
is equal to the lowest of the Final
Chronic Value, the Final Plant Value,
and the Final Residue Value.
In practice, the CCC is almost always
based on FCV.
Slide 20: CCC
THE CCC Is EQUAL TO
THE LOWEST OF:
The Final Chronic Value
The Final Plant Value
The Final Residue Value
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-15
-------
Module 9
Averaging periods are used when
comparing measured or predicted
concentrations to the criterion.
A default averaging period of 4 days has
been established for the CCC, and a
default averaging period of 1 hour is
used for the CMC.
An acceptable exceedance frequency
would be once every 3 years.
Slide 21: Averaging Periods
AVERAGING PERIOD ]
For Both Freshwater and Saltwater
Aquatic Life Criteria:
CCC 4-Day Average
CMC 1-Hour Average
&EPA
Each step is rechecked during the Final
Review. For example:
Slide 22: Final Review
FINAL REVIEW ]
• Are All Required Data Available?
• For Any Commercially or Recreationally Important
Species, Is the Species Mean Acute Value Lower than the
Final Acute Value?
• Are Any of the Data Values Used in the Calculations
Questionable?
• Are Chronic Values Available for Acutely Sensitive
Species?
• Are There Any Deviations from the Guidelines?
Are They Acceptable?
&EPA -
A National Criterion is guidance that can be used by a State when developing its water quality standards
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-16
-------
Aquatic Life Criteria
The AQUIRE (AOUatic toxicity
Information REtrieval) data base
provides quick access to an automated
data base of toxic effects data.
EPA is also developing a "high quality"
data base named EVISTRA.
Slide 23: AQUIRE Data Base
AQUIRE DATA BASE]
• Provides Quick Access to an Automated
Data Base of Toxics Effects Data
• Call 218-529-5225 for Information
&EPA
- SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA
Because national water quality criteria
for aquatic life may be either under-
protective or over-productive at a
particular site, site-specific criteria can
be developed.
Slide 24: Why
WHY WOULD You
DEVELOP A SITE-SPECIFIC
CRITERION?
The Sensitivities of the Site-Species
Differ from the National Data Base
and/or
The Physical/Chemical Characteristics of
the Site Alter the Bioavailability/Toxicity
of the Pollutant
&EPA -
Site-specific procedures consist of
• defining site boundaries,
• determining the effect of biological, physical or chemical characteristics on sensitivity or
bioavailability and toxicity, and
• calculating numerical criteria.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-17
-------
Module 9
The three protocols for developing
site-specific criteria are 1) the
Recalculation Procedure, 2) the Water-
Effect Ratio Procedure, and 3) the
Resident Species Procedure.
Slide 25: Protocol
THREE PROTOCOLS FOR
DEVELOPING SITE-SPECIFIC
CRITERIA
1. Recalculation Procedure
2. Water-Effect Ratio Procedure
3. Resident Species Procedure
&EPA
The Recalculation Procedure is used to account for species sensitivity differences.
The Water-Effect Ratio Procedure (called the Indicator Species Procedure in earlier guidance
documents) is used to account for differences in the physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site
water.
The Resident Species Procedure is used to account for the differences in the physical and/or chemical
characteristics of the site water and differences in the sensitivities of the resident species.
The first step in developing site-specific
criteria is to define the site.
Slide 26: Creek
A "SITE" CAN BE AS SMALL
AS A STREAM OR CREEK J
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-18
-------
Aquatic Life Criteria
Slide 27: Bay
OR AS LARGE AS THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
&EPA
When a site is defined, a resident species should be selected to account for differences between the
sensitivities of the species at the site and those in the national data set.
The second step is to determine the type
of procedure to use.
Slide 28: Site
SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA
PROCEDURES
If Physical or Chemical
Properties at Site Affect
Unavailability
(If Species at Site Are
More or Less Sensitive
Use Water-Effect Ratio
Procedure
Use Recalculation
Procedure
[ If Both of These Conditions Exist J
Use Recalculation Procedure in Conjuction with Water-
Effect Ratio Procedure or Use Resident Species Procedure
& EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-19
-------
Module 9
The Recalculation Procedure has three
steps:
• eliminate all species in the
national data set that are not
resident at the site;
• complete additional laboratory
testing to meet minimum data set
requirements; and
• recalculate the criteria.
Slide 29: Freshwater
MINIMUM DATASET FOR
FRESHWATER CRITERIA
DERIVATION
SALMI
PLANKTONIC
CRUSTACEAN
INSECT
CHORD ATA
&EPA
The Water-Effect Ratio (WER)
Procedure should be used to adjust
aquatic life criteria that were derived
using laboratory toxicity tests. WERs
represent the quantifiable difference in a
material's toxicity in site and laboratory
water.
Slide 30: WER
WATER EFFECT RATIOS J
Quantification of the Difference in Toxicities of the Test
Material in Site Water as Compared To Lab Water
„,,,,, _ Site Water Toxicity Concentration
Lab Water Toxicity Concentration
Site-Specific Criteria = WER x National Criteria
&EPA
A specific change that occurred with the 1994 edition of the Water Quality Standards Handbook is that,
except in jurisdictions that are subject to the National Toxics Rule, the Recalculation Procedure and the
Water-Effect Ratio Procedure may now by used together provided the Recalculation Procedure is
performed first. Formerly, the Resident Species Procedure was recommended if site species differed
significantly from the national data base and water quality characteristics affected
bioavailability/toxicity. The Resident Species Procedure is costly, and therefore, is not used as much as
the other two procedures.
[CLASS EXERCISE]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-20
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Which of the following is not necessary when deriving numerical water quality criteria for protection
of aquatic life?
a. Test of species from eight different families
b. Hard copy documentation of all tests used
c. Carcinogenic rodent bioassays of material in question
d. Specific definition of chemical/material of concern
2. Which of the following is true in regard to the calculation of the Final Chronic Value?
a. A Final Chronic Value can always be calculated
b. The Final Acute Value may be a component of the Final Chronic Value
c. The Final Chronic Value is equal to half the Final Acute Value
d. The Criterion Continuous Concentration always equates to the Final Chronic Value
3. True or False. If species sensitivity at a site is similar and physical or chemical properties affect
bioavailability, the recalculation procedure is used.
4. Which of the following would not be a reason for establishing a site-specific criterion?
a. Water quality characteristics of a site are known to vary greatly from season to season.
b. The pollutant in question is a metal. The site in question has high levels of total organic carbon,
which is known to bind various species of the metal pollutant being regulated.
c. A stream contains an aquatic invertebrate that is unusually resistant to various pollutants.
d. Physical and chemical characteristics at the site have no effect on the toxicity and bioavailability
and the range of resident species sensitivities is comparable to those species in the national
criterion document.
e. None of these (a-d) is a reason.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update - 3, 2000
9-21
-------
Module 9
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
9-22
-------
TRAINING MODULE 10:
^EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING SEDIMENT GUIDELINES
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module discusses the importance of equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs),
approaches to establishing ESGs, and sections of the Clean Water Act where ESGs apply (or can apply).
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide an understanding of the methodology used to develop ESGs, and how ESGs can be used to
protect the aquatic environment.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Define sediment
• Identify reasons why contaminated bottom sediments pose a severe environmental problem
• Identify six activities concerning contaminated sediments that should be addressed under a
successful management program
• Explain the role of bioavailability in developing ESGs
• Define the equilibrium partitioning approach that EPA is using to develop ESGs
• List the classes of contaminated sediments that EPA's ESGs will initially delineate
• Identify potential applications of ESGs
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with vugraphs).
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 % hour (Lecture—50 minutes, Class Exercise—20 minutes;
Review Questions—15 minutes).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-1
-------
Module !0
Basic Course References:
Analytical Method for Determination of Acid Volatile Sulfide in Sediment (final draft).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Appendix to Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality
Assessment: Status and Needs. Chemical-specific Summary Tables. February 2000, EPA 823-R-
00-002.
Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality Assessment: Status
and Needs. February 2000, EPA 823-R-00-001.
Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory Board on Equilibrium Partitioning Approach to
Generating Sediment Quality Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1989. EPA
440/5-89-002.
Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory Board on Equilibrium Partitioning Approach to
Predicting Metal Bioavailability in Sediment and the Derivation of Sediment Quality Criteria for
Metals. December 1994.
Briefing report to the EPA Science Advisory Board on Integrated Metals Approach to Aquatic
System Protection. April 1999.
Clean Water Act: sections 303; 304(a); 402; 404.
Contaminated Sediments: Relevant Statutes and EPA Program Activities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Sediment Oversight Technical Committee. December 1990. EPA 506/6-90/003.
EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water. April 1998, EPA 823-R-00-001.
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms:
Dieldrin. Final Draft - March 2000.
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms:
Endrin. Final Draft - March 2000.
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms:
Metal Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc). Final Draft - March 2000.
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH
Mixtures. Peer Review Draft May 2000.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-2
-------
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines
Managing Contaminated Sediments: EPA Decision-Making Processes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Sediment Oversight Technical Committee. December 1990. EPA 506/6-90/002.
Memo to Carol Browner from SAB in regard to SAB review of Agency's Approach for the
development of sediment criteria for 5 metals. September 29,1995.
Memo from Carol Browner to SAB in response to SAB Review of Agency's Approach for
development of sediment criteria for 5 metals. February 2, 1996.
Methods for the Derivation of Site-Specific Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs)
for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. Final Draft March 2000.
Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated with Freshwater
Invertebrates. March 2000, EPA 600-R-99-064.
National Sediment Bioaccumulation Conference: Proceedings. February 1998, EPA 823-R-98-002.
Report of the Sediment Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee -
Evaluation of the Equilibrium Partitioning Approach for Assessing Sediment Quality.
Sediment Classification Methods Compendium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Watershed
Protection Division. September 1992, EPA 822-R-92-006.
Sediment Quality Criteria Methodology Validation: Uncertainty Analysis of Sediment
Normalization Theory for Non-polar Organic Contaminants. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Technical Basis for the Derivation of Site-Specific Equilibrium Partitioning Guidelines (ESGs) for
the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. Final Draft March 2000.
The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States.
Volume 1: National Sediment Quality Survey. September 1997, EPA 823-R-97-006.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, September 1993, Chapter 3.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-3
-------
Module 10
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-4
-------
MODULE 10 - OUTLINE
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING
SEDIMENT GUIDELINES
— INTRODUCTION —
Contaminated sediments can pose
serious threats to human health and the
environment.
Vugraph 1: Discussion Topics
.EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING
SEDIMENT GUIDELINES
DISCUSSION TOPICS
Applications of ESGs
:• Sediment Contamination and Its
Effects on the Aquatic
Environment '
Research and Methodologies
&EPA
Sediment consists of organic and nonorganic material that has settled at the bottom of a waterbody.
Water Quality Standards Academy
10-5
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
-------
Module 10
Historically, point source discharges of
heavy metals, PCBs, pesticides, dioxins,
and other contaminants were the main
source of contaminants in pollutants.
Vugraph 2: Point Source Categories
POINT SOURCES OF
POLLUTION
Include Discharges from:
^vnllj Industries
C"M Wastewater Treatment Plants
JfHv Combined Sewers
&EPA
A more recent concern is the impact of
pollutants derived from nonpoint sources
such as runoff from agricultural
activities, construction sites, and urban
areas.
Vugraph 3: Nonpoint Source Categories
NONPOINT SOURCES
OF POLLUTION
Include Runoff from:
Agricultural Activities
Construction Sites
Urban Areas
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-6
-------
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines
The contamination of sediments is
influenced by a number of variables.
Vugraph 4: Variables
VARIABLES INFLUENCING
SEDIMENT
CONTAMINATION
• Contaminant Source
• Contaminant Type
• Sedimentary and Hydrologic Environment
• Grain Size Distribution and Composition
• Aquatic Life
• Historical Influences
&EPA
Sediment contamination is not necessarily connected to poor water quality.
— APPLICATIONS OF ESGs —
The Clean Water Act provides EPA with the authority to develop ESGs.
Vugraph 5: Application of ESG.
ESGs apply only to the sediment itself
and the interstitial water.
APPLICATION OF ESGS
ESGs are developed to protect
organisms in the sediment, not the
water column.
Interstitial
Water
Interstitial water, often referred to
ashore water, is the water between
sediment particles
&EPA-
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-7
-------
Module 10
— MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENT ISSUES —
Management programs need to consider
the entire "sediment package".
Vugraph 6: Management Program
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
• Management Strategy
• Users Guide
• ESGs
• Target Sites
• Sediment Toxicity Testing
• Guidance Document
&EPA
A comprehensive management program
includes 6 key activities.
Vugraph 7: • Sediment Management Activities.
MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES
1. Finding Contaminated Sediments
2. Assessment of Contaminated Sediments
3. Prevention and Source Control
4. Remediation
5. Treatment of Removed Sediments
6. Disposal of Removed Sediments
&EPA-
— CLASS EXERCISE —
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-8
-------
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines
— BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS —
Research has determined that sediments in aquatic environments have the ability to accumulate or
absorb higher concentrations of pollutants than the overlying waters.
Aquatic organisms are exposed to
contaminants through a variety of
pathways.
Vugraph 8: Aquatic Environment
Routes of
Exposure]
The primary technical difficulty that
must be overcome in establishing ESGs
is to determine the extent of
bioavailability of sediment-associated
chemicals.
Vugraph 9: Bioavailability
TOXICITY AND
BIOAVAILABILITY
Similar Concentrations of a
Chemical Can Produce
Widely Different Biological
Effects in Different Sediments
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-9
-------
Module 10
How do you determine the LC50 of
Sediment 3? You must run another
expensive/time consuming whole
sediment toxicity test unless you can find
a way to account for the difference in
bioavailability.
Vugraph 10: Bulk Concentration - LC50.
SAME BULK
CONCENTRATION •
DIFFERENT LC50
Sediment 1
Sediment 2
Sediment 3
Chem.
Concen. Toxicitv
Toxic
100 yug/gsed Nontoxic
lOO^g/gsed N»e'asured
& EPA-
The concentration-response curve for the
biological effect of concern can be
correlated not to the total sediment-
chemical concentration, but to the
interstitial water concentration.
Vugraph 11: Response Curve.
Concentration Response
Curve
100
801
I 40'
1234 >
Interstitial Water Concentration /zg/1
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-10
-------
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines
— EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING —
ESG development activities have centered on evaluating and developing the equilibrium partitioning
approach.
Equilibrium partitioning involves the
distribution of a pollutant concentration
between the sediment particles,
associated interstitial water, and the
benthic organisms.
Vugraph 12: EqP
EQUILIBRIUM
PARTITIONING
Water
Column
Equilibrium Partitioning addresses the
relationship between pore water and
sediment (not the water column).
The equilibrium is established between
the toxics attached to the sediment
particles, dissolved in the interstitial
water, and the benthic organisms.
/ \
Sediment particles < E Interstitial water
&EPA
Chemical components of water should be measured because these factors may affect the toxicity of
sediment contaminants.
The equilibrium partitioning method was selected because it has been shown to accurately predict lack
of toxicity and the potential for environmental effects.
EPA has developed a methodology for deriving ESGs for non-ionic, or non-polar, organic contaminants
and metal mixtures (heavy metals). PAH mixtures method is under development.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-11
-------
Module 10
Numeric values for ESGs are derived by
a back-calculation from the chemical-
specific chronic water quality criterion
(the effects concentration of a chemical
on benthic organisms).
Vugraph 13 and 14: Parameters Used to Calculate ESGs.
ESG CALCULATION
PARAMETERS
K.w: Specific chemical's octanol/water
partition coefficient; a measure of the
chemical's differential solubility in
octanol and aqueous solutions.
-or-
K,c: Organic Carbon-normalized partition
coefficient; a measure of a chemical's
differential solubility between the
organic carbon and the interstitial water.
&EPA
ESG CALCULATION
PARAMETERS (cont'd)
foc: Fraction Organic Carbon
in the sediment
FCV: Final Chronic Value of the
chemical of interest from the
aquatic Me WQC
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-12
-------
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines
Chronic water quality criteria are the
effects concentration from which a solid
phase (organic carbon normalized)
effects concentration can be calculated.
Vugraph 15: Basic Calculation of ESGs
ESG CALCULATION
ESGOC = FCV x K,c
&EPA
The applicability of this methodology
depends on certain assumptions.
Vugraph 16: Non-polar Organic Constituents
NONPOLAR ORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS
ASSUMPTIONS
Pollutant Concentration in Sediment
Participates is at Equilibrium with
Sediment Interstitial Water and
Benthic Organisms
Absorption Controlled by Chemical
and Physical Properties
&EPA-
Metals ESGs will be used with aquatic life criteria to protect aquatic organisms and their environment.
EPA is focusing on identifying and understanding the role of acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and other
binding factors, such as organic carbon content, in controlling the bioavailability of metal contaminants.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-13
-------
Module 10
In January 1994, EPA proposed the
following: dieldrin, endrin,
acenaphthene, fluoranthene and
phenanthrene.
Vugraph 17: Schedule for Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines Non Ionic Organics
PROPOSED
JANUARY 1994
Dieldrin
Endrin
Acenaphthene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
&EPA
In the March of 2000, EPA will finalize
ESGs for dieldrin and endrin only.
Vugraph 18: Schedule for ESG Non Ionic Organics (cont.)
FINALIZE
JUNE 2000
• Dieldrin
• Endrin
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
10-14
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
-------
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines
Draft ESG for PAH mixtures.
PAHs have additive toxicity and are
always found in the environment as
mixtures
Vugraph 19: Schedule for ESG Non Ionic Organics (cont.)
PEER REVIEW DRAFT
2000
PAH Mixtures Criterion
&EPA
EPA has developed a methodology for
developing ESG for several metal
contaminants.
These metals cannot be handled singly.
All 6 must be considered
simultaneously.
Vugraph 20: ESG for Metals
METHODOLOGY FOR
DEVELOPING ESG
FOR METAL MIXTURES
o Lead
° Nickel
» Copper
« Cadmium
• Zinc
• Silver
• Focus on identifying/understanding role of Acid
Volatile Sulfides (AVS)
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-15
-------
Module 10
ESG for metals mixtures is an equation;
not a number.
Vugraph 21: ESG for Metals
ESG FOR METALS
2, [SEMJ < AVS
or
[M,d]
FCVf
< 1.0
&EPA
The application of ESG may vary significantly from the application of water quality criteria.
Initially, ESG will be used to delineate
three classes of specific sediments.
Vugraph 22: Sediment Classes
SEDIMENT CLASSES
Sediments with Contaminant
Concentrations:
• Above Guidelines Levels
• Below Guidelines Levels
At or Near Guidelines Levels
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-16
-------
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines
Vugraph23: Implmentation
ESG IMPLEMENTATION
IN STANDARDS AND
PERMITTING
• States Establish Narrative Standard
Protective of Sediments
• Use Whole Sediment Bioassays to
Interpret Narrative Values
• Use ESGs as input to TMDLs, WLAs,
and Permits when Bioassays
Demonstrate Toxicity ^ _
Because the ESG methodology relies on an empirical model, there is a level of uncertainty.
All sediment evaluation procedures require some level of interpretation. Interstitial water analysis or
toxicity testing maybe necessary if in the "gray" zone.
— BIOCONCENTRATION/BIO ACCUMULATION —
Another impact from contaminated
sediment is bioconcentration and
bioaccumulation.
Current ESGs do not provide for
protection from bioaccumulation,
bioconcentration, or their effects.
Vugraph 24: Bioconcentration/Bioaccumulation
BIOCONCENTRATION/
BIOACCUMULATION
Bioconcentration: accumulation
of waterbourne contaminants
through nondietary routes
Bioaccumulation: accumulation
of toxics from exposure to
contaminated sediment or
through the food chain
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-17
-------
Module 10
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-18
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Why do contaminated bottom sediments potentially pose a severe environmental problem?
a. Because pollutants can accumulate at higher concentrations in sediments than in the water
column.
b. Because pollutants remain available for reintroduction into the water long after initial deposition.
c. Because pollutants multiply in bottom sediments.
d. Botha&b.
e. All of these (a-c).
2. True or False. ESGs are specifically contained in the Clean Water Act.
3. True or False. Nonpoint sources contribute to sediment contamination.
4. Determining the of a chemical is critical in establishing ESGs.
a. Bioaccumulation
b. Bioavailability
c. Bioconcentration
5. ESG's development activities have centered on evaluating and developing the approach.
a. Non-polar complexation
b. Equilibrium partitioning
c. Tissue Residue
d. Biological effects
6. The first ESGs developed will enable the user:
a. To delineate three specific levels of sediment contamination
b. To distinguish point source discharges
c. To distinguish nonpoint source pollutants
d. To fine polluters
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-19
-------
Module 10
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
10-20
-------
TRAINING MODULE 12:
NUTRIENT CRITERIA
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides an overview of nutrient criteria.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide an understanding of the meaning, value, and applications of nutrient criteria within water
quality management.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, the participants should be able to:
• Describe the relationship between nutrient criteria and other criteria
• Define nutrient criteria and objective(s) of nutrient criteria
• List the steps required to implement a nutrient criteria
• Identify the components of research required to develop nutrient criteria
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides); Class exercise.
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 1A hours (Lecture—60 minutes; Class Exercise—20 minutes;
Review Time—10 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: sections 303; 304(a)(8).
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Estuarine and Coastal Waters. DRAFT (under
development). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs. DRAFT (currently undergoing
peer review). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 822-D-99-001.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-1
-------
Module 12
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. DRAFT (currently undergoing
peer review). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Wetlands. DRAFT (under development). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. July 1989. EPA/600/3-89/060.
Transmittal of Notice of National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria to be
Published in the Federal Register (Memorandum). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water. From Tudor T. Davies, Director, Office of Science and Technology to Division Directors,
June 16, 1998.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 3: Water Quality Criteria
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-2
-------
MODULE 12 - OUTLINE
NUTRIENT CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION —
Many incidences of water quality
degradation around the country have
been linked to nutrient over-enrichment.
Slide 1: Introduction and History
NUTRIENT CRITERIA ]
Nutrient over-enrichment of our surface waters has
been a long standing problem
305(b) reports from 1994,1996, and 1998
Potential public health aspects of hypereutrophic
conditions
1995 National Meeting in D.C.
&EPA
Current National Criteria for nitrate-
nitrogen and elemental phosphorus are
inadequate.
Slide 2: Current Nutrient Criteria
CURRENT NUTRIENT
CRITERIA
Current National Criteria for nitrate-nitrogen and
elemental phosphorus are inadequate
Nitrate-N Criterion = 10 mg/L for the protection of
domestic water supplies
Elemental Phosphorus Criterion = 0.1 /zg/L for the
protection of marine and estuarine waters
& EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-3
-------
Module 12
Why are nutrient criteria needed?
Slide 3: Need for Developing Nutrient Criteria
NEED FOR DEVELOPING
NUTRIENT CRITERIA
Incidents of water quality degradation linked to nutrient
over-enrichment
• Harmful algal blooms and fishery degradation
• Large hypoxic zone in Gulf of Mexico
• Pfiesteria-induced fish kills and human health
problems
&EPA
Slide 4: Need for Developing Nutrient Criteria (cont.)
NEED FOR DEVELOPING |
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont) J
• 1994 National Water Quality Inventory Report (305(b) report):
Total N and Total P are leading causes of water quality
impairment
• In 1994 =40% of impaired waters attributed to excess nutrients
• In 1996 =50% of impaired waters attributed to excess nutrients
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-4
-------
Nutrient Criteria
Nutrient criteria must be published by
the end of the year 2000.
Slide 5: Need for Developing Nutrient Criteria (cont.)
NEED FOR DEVELOPING |
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont.)J
Written documentation:
"Nutrient criteria must be published by end of year
2000"
• Mandates under the Clean Water Action Plan
&EPA
— NUTRIENT STRATEGY —
EPA's strategy for developing nutrient
criteria takes a ecoregional/watershed
approach that is water body-type
specific.
Slide 6: National Nutrient Strategy
NATIONAL NUTRIENT
STRATEGY
• Region and water body-type specific assessment and control
• Technical guidance by water body-type
(Lakes, rivers, estuaries and wetlands)
• National Nutrient Team with Regional Nutrient Coordinators
(RTAG)
• Ecoregional nutrient criteria for nitrogen, phosphorus,
chlorophyll a and turbidity measure
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-5
-------
Module 12
Following release of criteria, States and
authorized Indian Tribes will have three
years to develop nutrient standards.
Slide 7: National Nutrient Strategy (cont.)
NATIONAL NUTRIENT
STRATEGY (cont.)
Numeric nutrient standards adopted by States/Tribes by 2003
Monitoring and evaluation of nutrient management programs
Baseline nutrient levels developed from reference sites
Reference Site => Reference Condition
A National Nutrient database is being developed
&EPA
The anticipated time line for the various
phases of the program.
Slide 8: Criteria Time Table
CRITERIA TIME TABLE ]
Technical Guidance Documents
• Lakes and Reservoirs - mid 2000
• Rivers and Streams - late 2000
• Estuarine and Coastal Marine Waters - late 2000
• Wetlands-2001
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-6
-------
Nutrient Criteria
The relationship between nutrient
criteria and other criteria programs.
Slide 9: Relationship with Other Criteria
RELATIONSHIP WITH
OTHER CRITERIA
Human Health Criteria
Biological Criteria
Aquatic Life Criteria
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines
&EPA
A number of goals have been established
for the nutrient criteria program.
Slide 10: Goals of Nutrient Criteria
GOALS OF NUTRIENT
CRITERIA
Protect Designated and Existing Uses
Improve Water Quality
Preserve Bio-integrity and Maintain Productivity
Control Algae
Protect Nearby Water Quality
Protect Public Health
Preserve Aesthetics
& EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-7
-------
Module 12
Status of State/Tribe and regional
efforts.
Slide 11: Status of State and Regional Efforts
STATUS OF STATE/TRIBAL |
AND REGIONAL EFFORTS J
1 Following release of criteria, States and Tribes will have
3 years to develop nutrient standards
' Some States/Tribes have already made efforts to develop
nutrient criteria (e.g., Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee,
Wisconsin and Miccosukee Tribe of Florida)
' Ecoregional nutrient criteria recommendations are being
developed at this time by EPA
&EPA -
The overall goal of the nutrient criteria
program is to address cultural
eutrophication, not natural enrichment
load.
Slide 12: Concept of Nutrient Criteria
CONCEPT OF NUTRIENT
, CRITERIA
Overall Goal:
Address cultural eutrophication, not natural
enrichment load
Core Components:
Total P, Total N, Chlorophyll a and some measure of
turbidity (e.g., Secchi disk depth)
Types:
Narrative Criteria or Numeric Criteria
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-8
-------
Nutrient Criteria
Example of Narrative Criteria.
Slide 13: Example of Narrative Criteria
EXAMPLE OF NARRATIVE
CRITERION ^&* J
^ift.
1 Free from nuisance algal blooms
Example of Numeric Criteria.
Slide 14: Example of Numeric Nutrient Criteria
EXAMPLE OF NUMERIC
CRITERION J
Example from Minnesota
Less than 30 ppb Total Phosphorus
to prevent nuisance algal blooms
Water Quality Standards Academy
12-9
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 12
— DEVELOPING NUTRIENT CRITERIA —
Overview of the nutrient criteria
development process.
Slide 15: Developing Nutrient Criteria
DEVELOPING NUTRIENT
CRITERIA
Establish RTAG
Classify Water Body(s) and Ecoregion Refinement
Select Variables (including analytical methods)
Design Sampling Protocol
j
&EPA
Draft ecoregion map showing 14
ecoregions.
Slide 16:Draft Ecoregion Map.
Draft Aggregations of Level III Ecoregions
(or the National Nutrient Strategy
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
12-10
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Nutrient Criteria
Slide 17: Developing Nutrient Criteria (cont.)
DEVELOPING NUTRIENT
CRITERIA (cont.)
• Build Database
• Classification Refined
• Establish Reference Condition
• Analyze Data (5 step inclusion)
&EPA
Slide 18: Developing Nutrient Criteria (cont.)
DEVELOPING NUTRIENT
CRITERIA (cont)
Develop Criteria
• Historical Information
• Reference Condition
• Models
• RTAG (or State/Tribal Specialist if a State/Tribal Standard)
• Downstream Attention
Implementation
Monitor and Reassess Criteria
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-11
-------
Module 12
Uses of nutrient criteria.
Slide 19: Uses of Nutrient Criteria
USES OF NUTRIENT
CRITERIA
Identification of Problem Areas
Development of Standards
Regulatory Assessment
Project Planning and Assessments of Resources
&EPA
COMPONENTS OF NUTRIENT CRITERIA —
Component 1 - Classify Water Body
Slide 20: Component 1 - Classify Water Body
COMPONENTS OF
NUTRIENT CRITERIA
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS J
- RTAG --
1. Preliminary: Classify Water Body
• Physical Classification
• Refine Ecoregion(s)
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-12
-------
Nutrient Criteria
Component 2 - Select Variables.
Slide 21: Component 2 - Select Variables
COMPONENTS OF
[NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont.)J
2. Select Variables:
Total N and Total P
Algal Biomass (usually Chlorphyll a)
Some measure of Turbidity (often Secchi Disk
depth)
Others (both causal and response)
Watershed Characteristics
Select Analytical Method for Each
&EPA
Component 3 - Design Sampling
Protocol
Slide 22: Component 3 - Design Sampling Protocol
COMPONENTS OF
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont.)
J
3. Design Sampling Protocol:
• Stratified vs. Probabilistic
• Spatial and Temporal Aspects
(sampling for reference condition should be the
same as for compliance monitoring)
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-13
-------
Module 12
Component 4 - Build a Database
Slide 23: Component 4 - Build a Database
COMPONENTS OF
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont.)J
4. Build a Database:
• Collect Historical Data
• Collect Reference Data
«*• Refine Classification Based on Expanded
Information from Assessment of Metadata
&EPA
Component 5 - Establish a Reference
Condition
Slide 24: Component 5 - Establish a Reference Condition
COMPONENTS OF |
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont.)J
5. Establish a Reference Condition:
• Reference lake approach
• Lake population distribution approach
• Model-based approach
• Paleolimnological approach
mEPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-14
-------
Nutrient Criteria
Two approaches for establishing a
reference condition value using total
phosphorus as the example.
Slide 25: 75th and 25th Percentile Graphic
COMPONENTS OF
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (contp
TOUIpl»«plx»ul(|«IU
fiEPA
Simplified display of total phosphorus
for select designated uses in a specific
lake size class.
Slide 26: Simplified TP Criteria.
COMPONENTS OF
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont.)J
CoIdwBter fishin
Exception*)
Nil.Rnource
Boating
IVumwater fishing ]
a
10 IS M 23 30 \ 35 J 40 45 50
&EPA
JL
Pre-Settlement
Conditions
TP Concentration (/ig/L)
Regional
Reference
Condition
Ecoregional
Criterion
&
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-15
-------
Module 12
Component 6 - Analyze Data
Slide 27: Component 6 - Analyze Data
COMPONENTS OF I
[NUTRIENT CRITERIA (contp
6. Analyze Data:
• Methods for examining nutrient/biological
relationships
- MUST analyze downstream effects
• Plotting nutrient data to identify reference
conditions
Statistics
&EPA
Component 7 - Develop Criteria
Slide 28: Component 7 - Develop Criteria
COMPONENTS OF |
[NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont.)J
7. Develop Criteria:
• Rules for interpreting and applying criteria
• Rules for determining compliance
• Assess cause and effect relationships
• Determine concentration as a function of base,
minimum and maximum flow
• Also need to address concentration versus load
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-16
-------
Nutrient Criteria
Component 8 - Flexibility in Nutrient
Criteria Development
Slide 29: Component 8 - Flexibility in Nutrient Criteria
Development
COMPONENTS OF
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (cont.)J
8. Flexibility in Nutrient Criteria Development:
Measured variables
EPA Technical Guidance
Designated Uses
Antidegradation
Reference condition vs criteria
Outliers
Assessments and evaluations
Good faith effort
&EPA
Component 9 - Implementation
Slide 30: Component 9 - Implementation
COMPONENTS OF
NUTRIENT CRITERIA
9. Implementation:
- NPDES permit
- TMDLs
- Pollution Prevention
- BMPs
• List of EPA Regional Nutrient Criteria Coordinators
• Management Approach
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-17
-------
Module 12
Component 10 - Monitor and Refine
Process
Slide 31: Component 10 - Monitor and Refine Process
COMPONENTS OF
NUTRIENT CRITERIA (contp
10. Monitor and Refine the Criteria Process:
• Feedback loop
• Data expansion and refinement; ecoregion
boundary refinement; classification refinement
• Evaluate relative success of management response
efforts to the criteria
• Modify the process and management approaches as
indicated
• Share information
- - &EPA -
EPA has begun the task of creating a
database to house nutrient data for all
water body types on a national scale.
The internet based interface has been
started and will be operable on a limited
scale in 2000.
Slide 32: National Nutrient Database
NATIONAL NUTRIENT
DATABASE
Establish and evaluate National Nutrient Policy
EPA is developing national nutrient database
Goal is to house nutrient data for all water body
types on a national scale
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-18
-------
Nutrient Criteria
EPA Headquarters responsibilities.
Slide 33: EPA Headquarters
ROLES
EPA Headquarters:
• Coordinate the National Nutrient Team
• Maintain quality (peer review) and consistent
application of policy
• Fund guidance development, data collection,
demonstration projects
& EPA
EPA Regional Office responsibilities.
Slide 34: EPA Regional Offices
ROLES (c
-------
Module 12
States and authorized Indian Tribes
responsibilities.
Slide 35: States and Tribes
ROLES (cont.)
States and Tribes:
• Identify problem areas and reference sites
• Provide nutrient data, identify historical databases;
determine data quality
• Conduct nutrient studies in data poor areas using
EPA grants and/or acquisitions
&EPA -
Future activities.
Slide 36: Future Activities
FUTURE ACTIVITIES ]
States/Tribes must implement nutrient standards within
3 years following release of criteria
If State/Tribe is delinquent in writing standards, EPA
may promulgate standards
EPA would prefer that the States/Tribes write their own
standards
Emphasis is flexibility where scientifically defensible
data is used and good faith effort is exercised
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-20
-------
Nutrient Criteria
Chester River Pilot program case study. Slide 37: Case Study
CASE STUDY
Chester River
Pilot Project
& EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-21
-------
Module 12
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-22
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. True or False. Nutrient over-enrichment of our surface waters has recently emerged in the past year
as a problem?
2. True or False. EPA's strategy for developing nutrient criteria takes a regional/watershed approach
that is water body-type specific?
3. Following the publication of nutrient criteria, States and authorized Indian Tribes will have how
many years to develop and incorporate nutrient standards?
a. 1 year
b. 2 years
c. 3 years
d. 5 years
e. None of the above
4. True or False. The overall goal of nutrient criteria is to address cultural eutrophication, not
regionally inherent background load.
5. True or False. A reference condition is not needed in the criteria development process?
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-23
-------
Module 12
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
12-24
-------
TRAINING MODULE 13:
PRINCIPLES OF RISK COMMUNICATION
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module presents basic risk communication principles. Participants apply those principles by
developing a risk communication strategy for a hypothetical situation involving review of a water
quality criterion.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To raise awareness about how the public perceives risk, and to introduce participants to the basic
principles of risk communication and the considerations involved in developing a risk communication
strategy. To help participants be better prepared to handle risk communication situations that might
arise during development and implementation of water quality standards.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Identify situations that might induce public outrage
• Demonstrate understanding of some basic principles of risk communication
• Demonstrate understanding of basic components of a risk communication strategy
• Apply basic principles of risk communication in developing a risk communication strategy
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides); Group exercises; Discussion.
Approximate Presentation Time: 2 hours (Opening Presentation—60 minutes; Walk-through of Case
Study—10 minutes; Group Exercise—25 minutes; Wrap-up—25 minutes).
Basic Course References:
A Citizen's Guide to Understanding Health Risks and Reducing Exposure. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. 1990.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-1
-------
Module 13
Covello, V.T., D.B. McCallum, and M.T. Pavlova. Effective Risk Communication: The Role and
Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. Plenum Press, New York. 1989.
NRC (National Research Council). Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. 1989.
Resource Document for Workshop on Risk Communication. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. 1989.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-2
-------
MODULE 13 - OUTLINE
PRINCIPLES OF RISK COMMUNICATION
- INTRODUCTION -
Any situation that involves public health also has the potential to arouse public concern.
[PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCES]
- HAZARD VERSUS OUTRAGE -
The public perception of risk has been extensively studied in recent years.
Slide 1: Risk Equation
Risk = Hazard + Exposure
f r ' l 4-j
'ic- -> ' -^
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-3
-------
Module 13
Hazard refers to the scientific component
of risk perception.
Outrage refers to the emotional
component of risk perception.
Slide 2: Risk Perception
Risk
Perception
Hazard + Outrage
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-4
-------
Principles of Risk Communication
Studies of risk communication have
shown that there are several outrage
factors.
Slide 3: Factors-1
FACTORS AFFECTING
RISK PERCEPTION J
"Less Risky"
voluntary
familiar
controlled by self
fair
"More Risky"
involuntary
unfamiliar
controlled by others
unfair
Source: Paul Slovic, Banich Fishhoff, Sarah Lichtenstein
EPA
Slide 4: Factors-2
FACTORS AFFECTING
RISK PERCEPTION J
"Less Risky"
not memorable
diffuse in time and space
not fetal
immediate
Natural
detectable
"More Risky"
memorable
focused in time and space
Fatal
delayed
artificial
undetectable
Source: Paul Slovic, Banich Fishhoff, Sarah Lichtenstein
&EPA
[CLASS EXERCISES]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-5
-------
Module 13
- THE SEVEN CARDINAL RULES
OF RISK COMMUNICATION -
Rule 1: Accept and Involve the
Public as a Legitimate
Partner.
Slide 5: Rule 1
ACCEPT AND INVOLVE
THE PUBLIC AS A
LEGITIMATE PARTNER
The goal of risk communication is to
produce an informed public that
participates in developing solutions to the
problem.
Involve the public early in the process,
before decisions have been-made.
Involve all parties that may have an
interest or stake in the outcome.
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-6
-------
Principles of Risk Communication
Rule 2: Plan Carefully, Evaluate
Your Efforts, and Leam from.
Your Mistakes.
Slide 6: Rule 2-1
PLAN CAREFULLY,
EVALUATE YOUR EFFORTS,
AND LEARN FROM YOUR
MISTAKES
• Begin with clear, explicit risk
communication objectives.
• Evaluate the risk information you
have.
EPA
Slide?: Rule 2-2
PLAN CAREFULLY,
EVALUATE YOUR EFFORTS,
AND LEARN FROM YOUR
MISTAKES
Classify your audience and target
communication strategies to the different
subgroups.
Recruit spokespeople who are good at
presentation and interaction.
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-7
-------
Module 13
Rule 3: Listen to the Public's Specific
Concerns.
Slide 8: Rule 3-1
LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC'
SPECIFIC CONCERNS
Try to put yourself in your audience's shoes.
Don't assume you know what people know,
think, feel, or want done about the risks.
Take time to find out what people think.
EPA
Slide 9: Rule 3-2
LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC'
SPECIFIC CONCERNS
• Listen to all parties that have an interest
or stake in the issue.
• Recognize and respect people's emotions.
• Legitimize people's concerns.
• Becalm.
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-8
-------
Principles of Risk Communication
Listening is essential to building trust.
Slide 10: Active Listening-1
STEPS IN ACTIVE
LISTENING
• Listen for the main idea(s). Look for
feelings. Pay attention to body language.
• Paraphrase the speaker's main ideas.
Recognize the person's feelings. "I
understand that..." "What you are
saying is..." "Let me make sure I
understand. You think...'.-"
&EPA
Slide 11: Active Listening-2
STEPS IN ACTIVE
LISTENING
Listen and look for confirmation of your
understanding.
If the speaker clarifies your
understanding, paraphrase your new
understanding.
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-9
-------
Module 13
There are advantages of active
(reflective) listening.
Slide 12: Advantages
BENEFITS OF ACTIVE
LISTENING
Defuses strong emotion.
Recognizes and legitimizes people's feelings
and concerns.
Helps ensure accurate communication.
Avoids defensiveness.
f;Helpsryou*femain objective."
&EPA
Rule 4: Be Honest, Frank, and Open.
Slide 13: Rule 4
BE HONEST, FRANK, I
AND OPEN J
• If you don't know an answer or are uncertain, say
so. Get back with an answer.
• Admit mistakes.
• Disclose risk information as soon as possible.
• Lean toward sharing more information, not less.
• Discuss data uncertainties, strengths, and
weaknesses. -N ,"' • • "' v
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-10
-------
Principles of Risk Communication
Not acknowledging uncertainty is a sure
way to lose trust and credibility.
Slide 14: Uncertainties-1
ACKNOWLEDGE AND
Discuss DATA
UNCERTAINTIES
0 Explain what the uncertainties are.
0 Explain how the data were developed (e.g.,
explain the risk assessment process).
« Explain that science is never completely
certain and that the data provide a better basis
for decision and action than guesswork.
&EPA
Slide 15: Uncertainties-2
ACKNOWLEDGE AND
Discuss DATA
UNCERTAINTIES
• If data are highly uncertain, state:
- What is known.
- What steps will be taken to get
better data.
• - What will be done in the meantime
to reduce or protect against the risk.
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-11
-------
Module 13
Rule 5:
Coordinate and Collaborate
with Other Credible Sources.
Slide 16: Rule 5
COORDINATE AND
COLLABORATE WITH
OTHER CREDIBLE SOURCES.
Build bridges with other organizations.
Determine who is best able to answer
questions about risk.
Whenever possible, issue communications
jointly with other trustworthy sources.
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-12
-------
Principles of Risk Communication
Rule 6: Meet the Needs of the Media.
Slide 17: Rule 6-1
MEET THE NEEDS OF)
THE MEDIA J
• Be open with and accessible to reporters.
• Respect their needs and deadlines.
• Provide background information on
complex risk issues.
• Follow up on stories with praise or
criticism as warranted.
&EPA
Slide 18: Rule 6-2
MEET THE NEEDS OF
THE MEDIA
Try to establish long-term relationships of
trust with specific editors and reporters.
Ask the media what they need.
Focus on the issues; avoid going off on
tangents. •
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-13
-------
Module 13
Rule 7: Speak Clearly and with
Compassion.
Slide 19: Rule 7-1
SPEAK CLEARLY AND)
WITH COMPASSION J
• Use simple, nontechnical language.
• Be sensitive to local customs, such as speech
or dress.
• Acknowledge and respond to emotions and
concerns.
&EPA
Slide 20: Rule 7-2
SPEAK CLEARLY AND)
WITH COMPASSION J
Discuss actions that are underway or can
be taken.
Tell people what you can't do.
Promise only what you can do, and do it!
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-14
-------
Principles of Risk Communication
- RISK COMMUNICATION STRATEGY EXERCISE
Takes place in Newlandia, our 51 st
State.
DPS is found in the effluent of the
arconalt industry.
Slide 21: DPS
DlFESTYLONIUM (DFS)J
Found in many Newlandia surface
waters.
Manmade chemical discharged by the
Arconalt industry.
Regulated under Newlandia's WQS
program.
&EPA
DPS has been classified as a B2
carcinogen.
Slide 22: DPS Properties
TOXICOLOGICAL
PROPERTIES OF DFS
• Immune system effects at relatively
high levels of exposure.
• A carcinogen in animal studies by oral
exposure at high doses.
• No human carcinogenicity data.
• Classified as a B2 carcinogen (probable
human carcinogen).
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-15
-------
Module 13
The State has essentially adopted the
Federal ambient water quality criterion.
Slide 23: Human Health Criterion
NEWLANDIA HUMAN
HEALTH CRITERION FOR
DPS
Based on EPA's 304(a) Guidance
Criterion.
Assumes daily consumption of 2 liters
untreated surface water and 6.5 grams
(« 1/4 oz.) of Gsh.
3 ng/L standard based on 10~*
incremental risk level.
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
' Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-16
-------
Principles of Risk Communication
A team is reviewing the DPS criterion.
Slide 24: Review Process-1
DFS CRITERION
REVIEW PROCESS
• DFS criterion is up for review.
* WQS team for the review consists of State
representatives and one invited EPA
Regional representative.
EPA
Slide 25: Review Process-2
DFS CRITERION
REVIEW PROCESS
Informal meetings have been held
with three parties representing:
- Arconalt industry
- Environmental group
- Tourism industry
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-17
-------
Module 13
The Newlandia Arconalt Industry
Federation does not favor lowering the
criterion.
Slide 26: NAIF-1
NEWLANDIA ARCONALT
INDUSTRY FEDERATION
(NAIF) POSITION
NAIF Provided These Data:
- Industry compliance costs associated
with current DPS standard (set at 10"'
risk level) = $350,000/cancer case
avoided.
- Industry compliance costs that would
be associated with more stringent DFS
standard (set at Iff* risk level) =
$3,500,000/cancer case avoided. „ __m
m EPA
Slide 27: NAIF-2
NEWLANDIA ARCONALT
INDUSTRY FEDERATION
(NAIF) POSITION
• Does not want criterion lowered
• Further controls would impose undue
financial burden
• 20,000 jobs threatened
EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-18
-------
Principles of Risk Communication
The Newlandia Tourist Association is
concerned with image.
Slide 28: NTA
NEWLANDIA TOURISM
ASSOCIATION (NTA)
POSITION
Concerned with image
State must be perceived as having high
quality surface water and a strong game
fisheries resource
Fears that lowering the DFS criterion
may result in impairment of waterbodies
and additional fish consumption
advisories
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-19
-------
Module 13
The Newlandia Sport Fishermen's
Association is concerned about the
health of its members.
Slide 29: Sport Fishermen-1
NEWLANDIA SPORT
FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION (NSFA)
POSITION
• Over 100,000 members (5% of
Newlandia population) - some are
commercial fishermen
• Recent NSFA member survey indicates
NSFA members and their families
typically eat one-half pound offish per
week per person
&EPA
Slide 30: Sport Fishermen-2
NEWLANDIA SPORT
FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION (NSFA)
POSITION
• Very concerned that the health of its
members has been compromised
• Very concerned that the proposed standard
will not be sufficiently protective
&EPA
[DEVELOPMENT OF RISK COMMUNICATION STRATEGY]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
13-20
-------
TRAINING MODULE 14:
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY REQUIREMENTS
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides an understanding of the EPA antidegradation policy's three-tiered approach to
water quality protection.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To obtain an understanding of EPA's antidegradation policy.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• State the purpose of EPA's antidegradation policy
• Identify "Tier 1" provisions
• Identify "Tier 2" provisions
• Identify "Tier 3" provisions
• Explain why "Tier 21A" requirements were developed
• List actions and determinations needed to conduct an antidegradation review
• Identify effects contributing to significant degradation
• Identify thermal discharge requirements
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with vugraphs); Video.
Approximate Presentation Time: VA hours (Lecture—60 minutes; Video—15 minutes; Review
Questions—15 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: Sections 303(c)(4); 316; 404.
Contaminated Sediments: Relevant Statutes and EPA Program Activities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Sediment Oversight Technical Committee. December 1990. EPA 506/6-90/003.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-1
-------
Module 14
Managing Contaminated Sediments: EPA Decision-making Processes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Sediment Oversight Technical Committee. December 1990. EPA 506/6-90/002.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 4: Antidegradation
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40 CFR 131.12; 131.6.
Appendix D: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National Guidance. July 1990. EPA
440/S-90-011.
Appendix G: Questions and Answers on Antidegradation, August 1985.
40 CFR Part 230 - Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or
Fill Material.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-2
-------
ANTIDEGRAI)ATION POLICY REQUIREMENTS
- INTRODUCTION -
Antidegradation refers to actions taken to maintain existing uses and water quality in the nation's waters;
it allows, in certain cases, lowering of water quality that exceeds "fishable/swimmable" and provides
special protection to waters that constitute a national resource [40 CFR 131.6; 131.12].
The purpose of EPA's antidegradation policy is to set minimum requirements for States and Indian
Tribes.
- COMPONENTS -
The 3 components of Water Quality
Standards include the following:
Vugraph 1: Components
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
1. Designated Uses
2. Water Quality Criteria to
protect those uses \
3. Antidegradation Policy
Water Quality Standards Academy
14-3
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Module 14
- ANTIDEGRADATION -
Antidegradation Policy helps States and
Indian Tribes to maintain and protect
existing uses and water quality.
Vugraph 2: Antidegradation
ANTIDEGRADATION
Antidegradation Policy helps States
and Indian Tribes to maintain and
protect existing uses and water
quality. \
- PURPOSE OF EPA'S ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY -
To set minimum requirements for States and Indian Tribes to follow when developing antidegradation
policies as required to conserve, maintain, and protect existing uses and water quality.
The Water Quality Standards Regulation
requires States to adopt Antidegradation
Policies and methods for implementing
those policies.
States and Indian Tribes are required to
adopt antidegradation policies consistent
with EPA's policy and if requirements
are not adopted, EPA can promulgate
applicable requirements.
Vugraph 3: Requirements
PROCEDURAL ASPECTS
Section 131.6 requires States and
Indian tribes to include
Section 131.12 provides model
elements
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-4
-------
Antidegradation Policy Requirements
- EPA'S THREE TIERED APPROACH -
EPA's antidegrdation policy outlines a
Three-Tiered approach to water quality
protection.
Vugraph 4: Approach
THREE-TIERED APPRO AC]
Tier 1 - Existing Uses
Tier 2 - High Water Quality
Tier 3 - Outstanding National
Resource Waters
(ONRW)
Tier 1 maintains and protects existing
water uses and the water quality
necessary to protect those uses. This is
the floor of water quality.
Vugraph 5: Tier 1
REGULATORY LANGUAGE FOUND
IN SECTION 131.12 (a)(l)
Maintain and protect existing uses
(e.g. fishing and swimming)
Maintain water quality necessary
to protect existing uses
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-5
-------
Module 14
Tier 2 allows for the lowering of water
quality that exceeds levels necessary to
support aquatic life and recreation.
Vugraph 6: Tier 2
REGULATORY LANGUAGE FOUND
IN SECTION 131.12 (a)(2)
Lowering water quality can take place only when:
- Existing uses will not be impaired
- Intergovernmental coordination and public participation
procedures are followed (fish and game agencies involved)
- State assures highest statutory and regulatory \
requirements for all new and existing point sources
and all cost-effective and reasonable best
management practices for nonpoint sources
- It is necessary to accommodate important
economic or social development
Tier 3 involves defining and protecting
waters that constitute Outstanding
National Resource Waters (ONRWs).
Vugraph 7: Tier 3
REGULATORY LANGUAGE FOUND
IN SECTION 131.12 (a)(3)
- The intent of ONRWs is to protect high
quality or ecologically unique waters
- ONRW classification does not allow a
degradation or change in water quality
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-6
-------
Antidegradation Policy Requirements
Tier 2'/2 more stringent than Tier 2
provisions, but somewhat less stringent
than the prohibition against any lowering
of waters in the ONRW category.
Vugraph 8: Tier 2'/z
TIER 2%
Generally has most attributes of
ONRW except State and Indian
tribe retains ability to reduce
water quality standards by \
allowing new and/or increased
discharges.
Tier 21A allows States and Indian tribes
to provide a very high level of water
quality protection without precluding
unforeseen future economic and social
development.
Vugraph 9: Tier 2'/z Continued
TIER 21/* cont.
- Does not affect requirements for
Tier 3 classification
- Perfectly acceptable addition to
State and Indian tribal Water
Quality Standards
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-7
-------
Module 14
The Clean Water Act, Section 404,
regulates the discharge of dredge and fill
material.
Vugraph 10: Wetlands
WETLANDS
- Section 404 establishes a permit program for the
discharge of dredge and fill material
- A Corps of Engineers (COE) permit is required for an
activity (landfills, dams, instream, etc.)
- EPA can override (COE) decision on biological
concerns 404 (b)(l) guidelines (40 CFR 230)
Antidegradation vs. Section 404 Fill
Permits
Vugraph 11: Antidegradation vs. Section 404 Fill Permits
ANTIDEGRADATION vs.
SECTION 404 FILL PERMITS
- Antidegradation could prevent any wetland fills
But Congress authorized such fills,
- EPA says Section 131.12 (a)(l) is satisfied )vith
regard to wetland fills if "no significant
degradation" standard is met under
40 CFR 230.10(c)
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-8
-------
Antidegradation Policy Requirements
Section 404(b)(l) outlines the adverse
effects of significant degradation.
Vugraph 12: Significant Degradation
SIGNIFICANT DEGRADATION
Significant degradation occurs if adverse effects identified to
Human health or welfare
water supply
plankton, fish, shellfish
special aquatic sites (wetlands)
Life stages of aquatic life or aquatic systems and dependent wildlife
transfer, concentrate or spread of pollutants beyond the site \
Ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability including habitat lo
nutrient assimilation
Recreation, aesthetic and economic values
Section 404(b)(l) also provides
guidelines for discharge prohibitions.
Vugraph 13: Discharge Prohibitions
PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS
No discharge permitted if there is a practical alternative
that would result in a less adverse impact
No discharge permitted if it:
- violates State and Indian tribal Water Quality
Standards
- violates toxic pollutant effluent standards
(40 CFR129)
- jeopardizes threatened and endangered
species
- violates requirements to protect
designated marine samcruaries
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-9
-------
Module 14
- OTHER IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS -
An antidegradation policy requires an
analysis to justify a reduction in
allowable water quality.
Vugraph 14: Why?
ANTIDEGRADATION
Given: Designated Uses
Minimum Criteria to Protect
Fishable/Swimmable Uses
More Stringent Criteria
Problem: How to Protect Current \
Increment of High Qualit
Answer: Antidegradation
Implementation of antidegradation
policy does not change other
components of water quality standards.
Vugraph 15: Implement.
ANTIDEGRADATION
IMPLEMENTATION
Does Not Change
Designated Uses
Numeric Water Quality Criteria
May Change
NPDES Permit Limits
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-10
-------
Antidegradation Policy Requirements
"Creeping degradation" might result
from a series of de minimis increases. A
series of small inconsequential changes
over time may unintentionally degrada a
water body.
Vugraph 16: Concerns.
ANTIDEGRADATION
IMPLEMENTATION
CONCERNS
Creeping Degradation
- SUMMARY -
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-11
-------
Module 14
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-12
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. True or False. Antidegradation policies and implementation methods address both point and
nonpoint sources of pollution.
2. True or False. The antidegradation policy allows existing uses to be impaired by lowering water
quality standards.
3. True or False. Outstanding National Resource Waters can include swamps or hot springs.
4. True or False. The regulations pertaining to antidegradation policies state that economic
development cannot be the basis for the lowering of water quality.
5. True or False. EPA has the authority to promulgate an antidegradation policy for a State or
authorized Indian Tribe.
6. True or False. A State's or Tribe's antidegradation policy must be identical to EPA's policy outlined
in 40 CFR 131.12.
7. True or False. Fill operations are not permitted in wetlands as a result of the antidegradation policy
contained in 40 CFR 131.12.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-13
-------
Module 14
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
14-14
-------
TRAINING MODULE 15:
VARIANCES
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides an overview of the requirements for and uses of variances in the water quality
standards program.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide a basic understanding of a variance, how variances are used and how they differ from use
reclassification and site-specific criteria, and the limitations of variances.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Define a variance
• Identify three key points regarding variances
• List factors in the Water Quality Standards Regulation that can be used to support a variance
• Explain the differences between variances and use reclassification or site-specific criteria
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides).
Approximate Presentation Time: '/z hour (Lecture—20 minutes; Review Questions—10 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: sections 301(b)(l); 402(a)(l).
EPA's Proposed Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. April 19, 1994.
National Assessment of State Variance Procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. November 1990.
U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board. NPDES Appeal 88-5. In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe,
Inc. Decided May 26, 1992.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
15-1
-------
Module 15
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 5, Section 5.3: Variances from Water Quality Standards
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(g); 131.13).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
15-2
-------
MODULE 15 - OUTLINE
VARIANCES
— DEFINITION AND KEY COMPONENTS —
A variance should be used only when
there is uncertainty as to whether a
standard can be attained or when
compliance is deemed attainable in the
foreseeable future.
Slide 1: Definition
"VARIANCE
srm Modification
fro^MeetfsffiApplicable Water
Standards
&EPA-
There are several key points to
remember regarding variances.
Slide 2: Key Points
\
KEY POINTS OF
VARIANCES
Exemptions
itive to Downgrading
Permit Limits for a
Itates -
ipproved/jJiSapproved by EPA
i. Subject ttxrublic Review
6. Incorporated into Water Quality Standards
7,/Analysis Similar to UAAs
&EPA-
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
15-3
-------
Module 15
— REGULATORY OVERVIEW AND HISTORY —
40 CFR 131.13 — States and Indian Tribes may include variances in their water quality standards and
policies.
The variance policy originated in an Office of General Counsel (OGC) opinion, number 58, dated March
29, 1977.
— FACTORS FOR JUSTIFYING VARIANCES —
40 CFR 131.10(g) — Factors to be used
for justifying variances.
Slide 3: Factors
\
JUSTIFYING
\kRIANCES
aturally Occurring Pollution
2. K^tural Low-Plow Conditions
3. Irrettievable^Human-Caused Conditions
ydrologic Modifications
Physjeal Conditions
6. Substantial and Widespread Economic
social Impact
&EPA
EPA reviews and approves both the overall State variance policy and individual variances.
Water Quality Standards Academy
15-4
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
-------
Variances
Variances differ from use
reclassification, site-specific criteria, and
water quality standards compliance
schedules.
Slide 4: Differences-1
DIFFERENCES
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
• In Pertaut o>{BMP) to Meet Peimit Limit
; No SubsbquentxChange in WQS
4CI
t-Term(
^WQSl
CRITERIA
: in WQS
ated/tfse Unchanged
OSSIFICATION
t Change in WQS
i Also Change
&EPA-
Variances determine the permit limits for discharges.
— BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS —
Variances from standards should be used only as a temporary measure and only where justified.
Benefits.
Slide 5: Intended Benefits
\
BENEFITS
e Allows Time to
ttainability of
rior to Forcing
iisive Controls
&EPA-
Water Quality Standards Academy
15-5
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
-------
Module 15
Problems.
Slide 6: Problems
VftlOBLEMS WITH
\\VARIANCES
to Describe Other Actions
fetimeXTIiken Without Public
&EPA
A national program assessment conducted by EPA in 1990 indicated that States did not routinely grant
variances.
Some States provide a generic exception for nonpoint sources of pollution.
Water Quality Standards Academy
15-6
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
-------
Variances
SUMMARY —
Slide 7: Summary 1
\
\kRIANCES
Modifications from
Quality Criteria
ecific for Same
for Downgrading
&EPA
Slide 8: Summary 2
KEY POINTS
\
Term
to Downgrading
Leg^tBermit Limit
ite Adopted - EPA Review
Reqjafre/Public Review
ly Enforceable
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
15-7
-------
Module 15
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
15-8
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. True or False. Water quality standards variances are specifically provided for in the Clean Water
Act.
2. Variances are provided for in section of the Water Quality Standards Regulation.
a. 131.13
b. 131
c. #58
3. Which of the following is not a viable basis for granting a discharger a variance?
a. naturally occurring pollution
b. natural low-flow conditions
c. existing hydrologic modifications
d. economic impact to the discharger
4. Which of the following is not true of a variance?
a. A variance is a short-term modification to the applicable water quality standards for a discharger.
b. Adoption of a variance is one way to change basic water quality standards.
c. Variances provide a means to temporarily change water quality standards.
5. True or False. EPA has the authority to review each individual variance.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
15-9
-------
Module 15
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-3 2000
15-10
-------
TRAINING MODULE 16:
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides a basic understanding of when it is appropriate to consider economic conditions
within the water quality standards process and how to evaluate claims of adverse economic impacts.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide a basic understanding of what information is needed from both private and public entities to
demonstrate that water quality standards requirements will result in substantial and widespread social
and economic impacts.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants will be able to:
• Identify the components of the water quality standards process that allow for the consideration of
economic factors
• Define substantial and widespread social and economic impacts to dischargers and communities
• Demonstrate usage of four types of financial tests to determine a private entity's financial health
and ability to pay for pollution controls
• Evaluate the social costs to the surrounding community when an entity complies with pollution
reduction requirements
• Identify information that public entities must present to demonstrate that a publicly financed
project will cause substantial and widespread economic impact
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture; Slides; Case study [Video — optional].
Approximate Presentation Time: (l!/2 hours; Lecture — 35 minutes; Case Study — 25 minutes;
[Optional Video — 15 minutes]; Review Questions — 10 minutes.)
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-1
-------
Module 16
Basic Course References:
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40 CFR 131.10; 131.12; and 131.13.
Appendix M: Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards — Workbook
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-2
-------
MODULE 16 - OUTLINE
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
- INTRODUCTION -
[OPTIONAL VIDEO: ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS IN
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS]
- WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROCESS OVERVIEW -
Federal regulations are not intended to result in water quality standards that are so stringent that
compliance would cause severe economic impacts on communities.
To demonstrate economic hardship,
applicants must demonstrate substantial
and widespread economic and social
impacts.
Slide 1: Where Considered
WHERE IN THE WQS
PROCESS ARE ECONOMICS
CONSIDERED?
Use Attainability Analysis
Variances
Antidegradation
&EPA
Use Attainability Analyses are assessments of the environmental and economic factors affecting the
attainment of a designated use.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-3
-------
Module 16
40 CFR 131.13 - Variances may be granted to a polluting entity only if economic hardship can be
demonstrated.
40 CFR 131.12 - Economic considerations are also part of the antidegradation policy. States may lower
water quality only if it is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development.
Wastewater dischargers must consider all alternatives.
To demonstrate economic hardship two
conditions must be demonstrated.
Slide 2: Economic Impact
ECONOMIC IMPACT
SUBSTANTIAL: Discharger Unable to
Afford the Necessary
Pollution Reduction
WIDESPREAD: Significant Adverse
Economic and Social
Impacts to the
Surrounding
Community
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
16-4
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Economic Considerations
- REVIEW OF SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS -
The distinction between public and
private entities is critical in an economic
impact analysis.
Slide 3: Applicant Types
TYPES OF APPLICANTS
PRIVATELY
OWNED
t
POINT
SOURCES
t
II DISCHARGERS
PUBLICLY
OWNED
Publicly owned entities include
• publicly owned sewage treatment works;
• regional sewage authorities;
• roads; and
• other municipal infrastructure.
Privately owned entities include
• manufacturing facilities;
• agricultural operations;
• shopping centers and other commercial developments;
• residential developments; and
• recreational developments.
NONPOEVT
SOURCES
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
16-5
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 16
States, dischargers, and the general
public take part in the development and
implementation of water quality
standards.
Slide 4: Roles and Reviewers
ROLES AND
REVIEWERS
Dischargers
4
Analysis
Community
4
Public
Hearings
States & EPA
I
Review
— & EPA
- SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS -
Financial analysis requires calculation of
project costs on an annual basis.
Slide 5: Annualized Pollution Control Costs
ANNUALIZED POLLUTION
CONTROL COSTS
Capital
(Or Investment) i
Costs
Operation and
Maintenance
Costs
Spread
Over
Time
Annually
Recurring
Total
• Annualized
Cost
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-6
-------
Economic Considerations
- PUBLIC ENTITIES
To determine if a community can afford
a project, two indicators are considered
jointly.
Slide 6: Affordability
AFFORDABILITY FOR
COMMUNITIES
• MUNICIPAL AFFORDABILITY
SCREENER
Ability to Pay, by Household
• SECONDARY AFFORDABILITY
Community Assessment Indicators
& EPA
The Municipal Affordability Screener
answers the question: Can community
households afford to pay the total
annualized pollution control costs?
Slide 7: Affordability Screener
MUNICIPAL
AFFORDABILITY SCREENER
Average Annualized Cost per Household
Median Household Income
Used to Evaluate Expected Impacts to
Households
Little Impact
< 1.0%
Mid-Range
Impact
1.0% - 2.0%
Large Impact
>2.0%
&EPA
[CLASS EXERCISE]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-7
-------
Module 16
The Secondary Affordability Test
incorporates other factors that affect
whether or not a community can afford
to meet water quality standards.
Slide 8: Secondary Affordability
SECONDARY
AFFORDABILITY TESTS
Debt Indicators (2 measures)
Socioeconomic Indicators (2 measures)
Financial Management Indicators
(2 measures)
&EPA
For each measure, a score of 1,2, or 3 is
assigned.
Slide 9: Assessment
SECONDARY
AFFORDABILITY TEST
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
For Each Measure, Assign Score, Where:
>Weak = l
IMid-
jf Range = 2
Strong = 3
Cumulative Secondary Affordability Score
Equals the Weighted Average of These Scores.
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-8
-------
Economic Considerations
Bond rating.
Slide 10: Bond Rating
SECONDARY
AFFORD ABILITY TEST
DEBT INDICATORS
i
Measure 1: Bond Rating
Measures of Credit Worthiness, of a Community
Source of Rating
S&P
Moody'i
Weak
?\v-s
below BBB
below B»a
Mid-Range
x BBB^
s * *\
, "Baa
Strong
above BBB
\x.
\
above Baa
sv*V
Net debt relative to market value of
taxable property.
Slide 11: Net Debt Ratio
SECONDARY
AFFORD ABILITY TEST
DEBT INDICATORS
Overall Net Debt
Measure 2: Market Value of Taxable Property
Measures Debt Burden on Residents Within the
Community
Weak
.
">S%
Mid-Range
Strong
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-9
-------
Module 16
Unemployment rate.
Slide 12: Unemployment Rate
SECONDARY
AFFORD ABILITY TEST
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS
Measure 1: Unemployment Rate
Measures the General Economic Health of the
Community
Weak
Mid-Range
r: state';.
Average
Strong
Below State
^Average |
& EPA
Median household income.
Slide 13: Median Household Income
SECONDARY
AFFORD ABILITY TEST
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS
Measure 2: Median Household Income
Provides Overall Indication of Community
Earning Capacity
Weak
Below State
jfsfl » <•$• •«"<< *• '4~$
Mid-Range
i-y-.'State
/-Average" .
Strong
Above State
; Average "'
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-10
-------
Economic Considerations
Property tax revenue to market value of
taxable property.
Slide 14: Tax Revenue Ratio.
SECONDARY
AFFORDABILITY TEST
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INDICATORS
Property Tax Revenue
Measure 1: FuU Market Value of Taxable property
Measures Funding Capacity Available To
Support Dept Based on Community's Wealth
Weak
Mid-Range
,2%-4%
Strong
&EPA
Property tax collection rate.
Slide 15: Collection Rate.
SECONDARY
AFFORDABILITY TEST
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INDICATORS
Measure 2: Property Tax Collection Rate
Measures How Well the Local Government Is
Administrated
Weak
' \<94% .
Mid-Range
94% -98%
Strong
, >98%
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-11
-------
Module 16
When calculating the Cumulative
Secondary Affordability Score, all six
measures are given equal weight.
Slide 16: Cumulative Assessment
CUMULATIVE SECONDARY
AFFORDABILITY TEST
ASSESSMENT
Average the Scores of All Measures
Weak
'"•'• «?l;5 ,
Mid-Range
1.5--215J
Strong
V">2.5 "4
For Example: 1 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 = 12
12/6 = 2
Community Falls within Mid-Range
&EPA
The combination of the Secondary
Assessment Score and the Municipal
Affordability Screener indicates the
community's ability to pay for proposed
pollution control.
Slide 17: Matrix.
ASSESSMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL
IMPACTS MATRIX
Secondary
Assessment
Score
<1.5
1.5 - 2.5
>2.5
Municipal Affordability Screener
<1.0%
4 ;, ? , ;N;>
\ • ^ »
•-; ^'/*
1.0% -2.0%
'*% *
' i&* «'
^^ ,.;
>2.0%
iV^Xv\:
»*^X"--
, ';1?
? - Questionable affordability
• - Community can afford the pollution control
X - Community cannot afford the pollution control A r- n A
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-12
-------
Economic Considerations
- PRIVATE ENTITIES -
Four financial tests are commonly used
to measure different aspects of a private
entity's financial health.
Slide 18: Private Entities Tests
TESTS To MEASURE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
PRIVATE ENTITIES
LIQUIDITY - How Easily an Entity Can Pay Its Short-
Term Bills
SOLVENCY - How Easily an Entity Can Pay Its Filed
and Long-Term Bills
LEVERAGE -How Much Money the Entity Can
Borrow
EARNINGS - How Much the Entity's Profitability Will
Change with the Additional Pollution
&EPA -
The combined results of the financial tests are intended to answer the question of whether or not the
entity can afford to pay these costs.
Liquidity.
Slide 19: Liquidity
LIQUIDITY TEST
CURRENT Current Assets
RATIO Current Liabilities
Should Be Greater Than 2
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-13
-------
Module 16
Solvency.
Slide 20: Solvency
SOLVENCY TEST
BEAVER'S_Cash Flow per Given Year
RATIO Total Debt of the Entity
> 0.20 Indicates Entity Is Solvent
< 0.15 Indicates Entity May Go Bankrupt
&EPA
Leverage.
Slide 21: Leverage
LEVERAGE TEST
DEBT-TO- _
EQUITY ~
RATIO
Amount Firm Has
Borrowed (Debt)
Amount of
Stockholders' Capital
(Equity)
The Larger the Ratio, the Less Likely That
the Entity Will Be Able To Borrow Funds
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-14
-------
Economic Considerations
Earnings.
Slide 22: Earnings
EARNINGS TEST
PRE-TAX _
EARNINGS
ANNUALIZED
POLLUTION
CONTROL COST
Compare Result with Entity's Revenues
to Measure Post-Compliance Profit Rate
&EPA
The results of the four tests should be considered jointly.
Ratios and tests should be compared over several years.
Financial ratios also should be compared against those of "healthy" entities.
The role the entity plays in a parent firm's operations should be considered.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-15
-------
Module 16
- WIDESPREAD IMPACT -
Three steps are involved in evaluating
the social costs of pollution control
requirements.
Slide 23: Social Costs
STEPS TO EVALUATE
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
• Define the Affected Community
• Evaluate Community's Current
Characteristics
• Evaluate How Characteristics Would
Change if Discharger Must Meet Water
Quality Standards
&EPA
The interdependence of the entity and
the affected community is a major factor
in demonstrating that impacts are not
only substantial but also widespread.
Slide 24: Contribution
ENTITYfS
CONTRIBUTION TO
THE COMMUNITY
Contributes to Economic Base (Property
Taxes and Employment)
Provides Product or Service Upon Which
Other Businesses or the Community
Depend
£ EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-16
-------
Economic Considerations
Factors that indicate the current health of
the local economy may include
information considered when calculating
the Cumulative Secondary Affordability
Score.
Slide 25: Socioeconomic Health
COMMUNITY'S CURRENT
SOCIOECONOMIC HEALTH
• Median Household Income
• Unemployment Rate
• Rate of Industrial Development
• Developing and Declining Industries
• Percent of Households Below Poverty Line
• Ability of Community to Carry More Debt
• Local & Regional Factors
&EPA
Other applicable information on the local and regional economy should also be reviewed:
• the annual rate of population change;
• current financial surplus as a percentage of total expenditures;
• the percentage of property taxes actually collected;
• property tax revenues as a percentage of the market value of real property;
• overall debt outstanding as a percentage of market value of real property;
• overall debt per capita; and
• the percentage of outstanding debt due within 5 years.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-17
-------
Module 16
The analysis should consider how the
community will be affected by
development of the project.
Slide 26: Adverse Impacts
PROJECTED ADVERSE
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
OF PROJECT
Property Values
Employment Rate
Commercial Development Opportunities
Tax Revenues
Expenditure on Social Services
&EPA
One of the most serious impacts to communities is the loss of employment.
Affected communities may be faced with impaired development opportunities.
State-level impacts include
• loss of revenues; and
• increased expenditures.
[CLASS EXERCISE]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-18
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. True or False. Social and economic impacts may be grounds for a change in a designated use of a
waterbody or for a variance from water quality standards if they would cause the discharger
substantial hardship.
2. Which of the following are financial tests commonly used to measure different aspects of a private
entity's financial health?
a. solvency
b. earnings
c. liquidity
d. leverage
e. all of these (a-d) are financial tests
f. a, c, and d only
3. True or False. A private entity can fail one of the financial tests yet still be financially strong and
stable.
4. What steps must a private entity undertake in evaluating the social impacts of pollution control
requirements on the surrounding community?
a. define the affected community
b. evaluate the current characteristics of the community
c. evaluate how community characteristics would change if the private entity must meet water
quality standards
d. all of these (a-c) are steps
• 5. True or False. Whether or not a publicly financed project will impose substantial and widespread
economic and social impacts on the community depends only on the ability of the public entity to
finance the capital cost of the pollution control project.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-19
-------
Module 16
6. In the case of a publicly funded project, when conducting an analysis of the affected community,
which of the following factors should be considered?
a. percentage of households below the poverty line
b. median household income
c. State, regional, local economic health
d. rate of industrial development
e. developing and declining industries
f. a, b, and c only
g. all of these (a-e) are factors
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
16-20
-------
^""••"c.
TRAINING MODULE 17:
MIXING ZONES
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module introduces the concept of mixing zones and the various parameters considered in their
evaluation. In addition, a summary of the legal status of mixing zones and an overview for evaluating
and controlling acute and chronic toxicities in mixing zones is presented.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide guidance for, and an understanding of, the methodologies of defining and determining
mixing zones and their legal status.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Define mixing zone
• Identify the purpose of designated mixing zones
• List the parameters used to describe mixing zones
• Identify EPA suggestions for mixing zone goals
• Identify circumstances/conditions that would restrict the presence of mixing zones
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with vugraphs and displays); Class Exercise.
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 2/3 hours (Lecture—1 hour; Class Exercise—25 minutes; Review
Questions—15 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Water (draft). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1991.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-1
-------
Module 17
Brungs, William A. Allocated Impact Zones for Areas of Non-Compliance. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, October 1986.
Clean Water Act: section 318.
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual:
Inland Testing Manual. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. February 1998. EPA
823-B-98-004.
Guidelines for State and Area Wide Water Quality Management Program. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1976: Chapters.
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Correction, EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999.
Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book III: Estuaries, Part 3:
Use of Mixing Zone Models in Estuarine Waste Load Allocations (draft). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. September 1990.
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. March 1991. EPA 505/2-90-001.
Water Quality Criteria 1972 (the Blue Book). A Joint Report of the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Engineering, 1972.
Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries: A Compilation of State/Federal Criteria. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. September 1988.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 5, Section 5.1: Mixing Zones.
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40CFR131.13.
40 CFR Part 230 (Federal Register, December 24,1980) EPA and Department of the Army
Guidelines for Evaluating the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material in Navigable Waters.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-2
-------
MODULE 17 - OUTLINE
MIXING ZONES
- INTRODUCTION -
The concept of mixing zones has been
applied in the water quality standards
program since its inception.
Vugraph 1: State Discretion
MIXING ZONES
States and Indian Tribes Have
Discretion to Allow Mixing Zones
CWA Does Not
Require Attaining
Water Quality
Criteria at the
End of the
Effluent Pipe
&EPA
Definition of mixing zone.
Vugraph 2: Definition of Mixing Zones
MIXING ZONE
DEFINITION
A Limited Area or Volume of Water
Where Initial Dilution of a Discharge
Takes Place and ~*
Where Numeric
Water Quality
Criteria Can Be
Exceeded but
Acutely Toxic
Conditions are
Prevented from Occurring
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-3
-------
Module 17
Properly implemented, mixing zones
allow less costly pollution controls to be
applied to point source discharges while
posing only minimal risks to designated
uses.
Vugraph 3: Purpose
MIXING ZONE
PURPOSE
• Restrict Degradation to Specific
Areas
• Reduce Need for Excessive
Wastewater Treatment
&EPA
- EXAMPLE -
In the usual case, the mixing zone
contains two areas.
Display 1: Example
Mixing Zone Example
PoMA • Outtdor
S52ST
D
AniC - AcuttCrtMta
ClIMi
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
17-4
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Mixing Zones
- MIXING ZONE CONSIDERATIONS -
A mixing zone may be established for
each criterion.
Vugraph 4: Criteria Types
DECISIONS ON MIXING
ZONE SIZE ARE
NEEDED FOR:
Acute Criteria
Chronic Criteria
Human Health Criteria
&EPA
Mixing zones allow increases in the mass loadings of a pollutant to the waterbody.
Water Quality Criteria 1972 (the Blue Book) recommends that mixing zone characteristics be defined
on a case-by-case basis.
Most States allow mixing zones as a policy issue.
Limitations to mixing zones are specified.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-5
-------
Module 17
EPA has made recommendations for
State and Indian Tribal mixing zone
policies.
Vugraph 5: Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR STATE AND
TRIBAL MIXING ZONE
POLICIES:
Scientifically Defensible
Precise Methodology for
Defining
&EPA
EPA recommends that State and Indian
Tribal water quality standards contain
procedures for identifying the properties
of a mixing zone.
Vugraph 6: Mixing Zone Parameters
MIXING ZONE
PARAMETERS
Location
Size
Shape
In-Zone Quality
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-6
-------
Mixing Zones
Location.
Vugraph 7: Location
MIXING ZONE
LOCATION
• Identify and Protect Biologically
Important Areas
• Identify and Restrict Encroachment
Upon Zones of Passage for Migrating
Aquatic Organisms
• Identify and Protect
Water Supplies and
Recreational Areas « __,
sgzEPA
Size.
Vugraph 8: Size
MIXING ZONE
SIZE
Should Be Determined
Quantitatively
Should Be Kept as Small as
Possible
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-7
-------
Module 17
Shape.
Vugraph9: Shape
MIXING ZONE
SHAPE
Should Be a Simple Configuration
That:
• Is Easy To Locate in the Body of
Water
• Avoids Impingement on
Biologically Important Areas
&EPA-
In-Zone Quality.
Vugraph 10: In-Zone Quality
IN-ZONE QUALITY
Mixing Zones Should Be Free from:
• Material in Concentrations That Will
Cause Acute Toxicity
• Materials in Concentrations That Form
Objectionable Deposits
• Floating Debris, Oil, Scum, and Other
Matter That Form Nuisances
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-8
-------
Mixing Zones
Vugraph 11: In-Zone Quality (cont)
IN-ZONE QUALITY (cent)
Mixing Zones Should Be Free from: j
i
• Substances That Produce Objectionable ;
Color, Odor, Taste, or Turbidity
• Substances That Result in a Dominance
of Nuisance Species
&EPA
[CLASS EXERCISE]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-9
-------
Module 17
- STATE AND TRIBAL CONSIDERATIONS -
40 CFR 131.13 - States and Indian Tribes may adopt mixing zones at their discretion.
EPA suggests that mixing zones have
four goals.
Vugraph 12: Goals
SUGGESTED MIXING
ZONE GOALS
• Minimize Affected Area
• Prevent Impairment of Waterbody
Integrity
• Prevent Organism Lethality
• Prevent Significant Human Health
Risks
&EPA-
States and Indian Tribes should exercise considerable caution when evaluating mixing zones of known
effluent toxicity that attract species.
The Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) is used as a means to prevent lethality or other short-
term effects.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-10
-------
Mixing Zones
Three general approaches can be used to
ensure the survival of organisms.
Vugraph 13: Lethality Prevention
APPROACHES TO
ASSURING ORGANISM
SURVIVAL
• Prohibit Discharge Pipe
Concentrations from Exceeding
CMC
• Require CMC Compliance within a
Very Short Distance from Outfall
• Require Data from Discharger
&EPA-
Mixing zones restrictions should be
imposed to protect human health.
Vugraph 14: Human Health Protection
HUMAN HEALTH
PROTECTION
Restrict Mixing Zones from
Areas That
Would Pose
Significant
Health
Risks
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
17-11
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 17
Restricting or eliminating mixing zones for bioaccumulative pollutants may be appropriate.
EPA, in consultation with the
Department of the Army, has developed
guidelines for the discharge of dredge or
fill material.
Vugraph 15: Dredge or Fill Material
DREDGE OR FILL
MATERIAL
• States and Indian Tribes Must Follow
Guidelines Presented in 40 CFR Part
230 When Establishing Mixing Zones
• States and Indian Tribes
Should Consider
Beneficial Uses in
Establishing Mixing
Zones for Dredge
&EPA
Clean Water Act, section 318 and
40 CFR 125.11 - Requirements for
aquaculture projects.
Vugraph 16: Aquaculture
AQUACULTURE
PROJECT AREAS
•Must Not Enlarge Previously
Approved Mixing Zones
• Should be Treated
the Same as
Other Mixing
Zones
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-12
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. The primary purpose of designating mixing zones is to:
a. provide an effluent dilution function
b. create spatial variations in the effluent plume
c. create areas with less desirable water quality criteria standards
d. limit areas of degradation, and reduce the requirement of excessive wastewater treatment
2. What is the primary reason the size of the mixing zone and its percentage of the total waterbody is
considered a physical parameter?
a. to protect shellfish beds
b. to protect human health
c. to protect the overall integrity of the waterbody
d. to protect drinking water resources
3. True or False. Mixing zones include all areas where initial discharges take place.
4. True or False. At the point of initial discharge, both acute and chronic aquatic life criteria can be
exceeded in mixing zones.
5. Which of the following would restrict the presence of mixing zones?
a. Area is used for recreational fishing
b. Bioaccumulative pollutants
c. Proximity to drinking water sources
d. Presence of shellfish
e. All of these (a-d) would restrict
f. None of these (a-d) would restrict
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-13
-------
Module 17
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
17-14
-------
TRAINING MODULE 18:
THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SUBMITTAL
AND APPROVAL PROCESS
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module presents an overview of the administrative process required for submission of State and
Indian Tribal water quality standards. Further, it describes the process by which EPA reviews State and
Indian Tribal adopted water quality standards, the types of approval possible, and Federal promulgation
procedures.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To present laws and regulations pertaining to State and Tribal submittal of water quality standards;
requirements for State/Tribal standards, including definitions; administrative procedures, such as
conduct of public hearings; and the implications of State and Indian Tribal failures to submit standards.
Additionally, to provide an understanding of the process by which EPA reviews water quality standards
used for approval.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Identify when States and Tribes are required to review water quality standards
• Identify formal hearing requirements
• List State and Tribal submittal requirements for water quality standards
• Identify EPA's options if a State or Indian Tribe fails to submit standards
• Identify the components checked by EPA when reviewing State and Tribal water quality
standards
• Describe State/Tribal actions required when EPA disapproves water quality standards
• Describe the process of Federal promulgation of standards
• Define conditional and partial approval of water quality standards
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides).
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 hour (Lecture—45 minutes; Review Questions—15 minutes).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-1
-------
Module 18
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: sections 101(a)(2); 106; 303 (a)(3)(C); 303(c)(l); 303(c)(2)(A); 303(c)(3).
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 6: Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards.
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40 CFR 131.4; 131.5; 131.12; 131.13;
131.20; 131.21(c).
40 CFR Part 25 (EPA's Public Participation Regulation).
40 CFR Part 130 (EPA's Water Quality Management Regulation).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-2
-------
MODULE 18 - OUTLINE
THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SUBMITTAL
AND APPROVAL PROCESS
— LEGAL/REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS —
Clean Water Act, section 303(c)(l)—States and authorized Indian Tribes are required to review their
water quality standards at least once every 3 years.
CWA, section 303(c)(2)(A).
Slide 1: CWA
CLEAN WATER ACT
SECTION 303(c)(2)(A)
Whenever a State au^fndian
Tribe Revises or^^Kts a New
WaterQualitjandard, It
d to the
istrator
ft EPA
CWA, section 303(c)(3)—EPA has the responsibility for reviewing State and Indian Tribal adopted
water quality standards.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-3
-------
Module 18
40 CFR 131.6 and 131.20-
Requirements for State and Indian Tribal
submittal.
Slide 2: 40 CFR 131.20
40 CFR 131.20
STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES
MUST:
• Review Water Quality Sl^Pards at
Least Once Every 3
blic
• Suhmi
Regiona
Its to the EPA
trator
&EPA
It is strongly recommended that the State or Indian Tribe meet with EPA regional staff.
- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT -
A minimum of one public hearing must be held.
Hearings must be conducted in accordance with State or Tribal law, 40 CFR Part 130 (EPA's Water
Quality Management Regulation), and 40 CFR Part 25 (EPA's Public Participation Regulation).
40 CFR 131.20(c) - Submittal to EPA.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-4
-------
The WQS Submittal and Approval Process
Submittal must include
• Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) supporting analysis,
• site-specific criteria methodologies,
general policies, and
standard revisions.
Public hearings are required by EPA
regulations and the Clean Water Act.
Slide 3: Public Hearings
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A Public Hearing Must Be
Held When a State/Tribe
Changes Any
Element of a
Standard
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-5
-------
Module 18
40 CFR Part 25 - EPA's Public
Participation Regulation.
Slide 4: Formal Hearings
FORMAL HEARINGS
A Formal Public Hearing Requires a Notice
45 Days Prior to the Hearing, Which^
Includes:
- Time
- Location
- Agen
- Major
- Location
Hearings Must
BOTH State and
Documents
Fordance with
ral Laws
&EPA
_;
Each State or Tribe must ensure that it is in compliance with all specific State and Tribal requirements
for rule-making hearings.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-6
-------
The WQS Submittal and Approval Process
— SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS —
40 CFR 131.6 — Elements of Submittal.
Slide 5: 40 CFR 131.6-1
SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS
40 CFR 131.6
l.Use Designations Consisj^Twith
the Act
2. Methods and Anahj^PEJsed
to
Protef^
4. AntideglV •TFolicy and
ImplemennJ0n Procedures
&EPA
Slide 6: 40 CFR 131.6-2
SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS
40 CFR 131.6
^^^•^^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M
5. Information to Support Uses^
Specified in Section
Act
6. General State Polici
7. Atto
Tribal
8. Informati
Act
tiflcation or
Fity
Endangered Species
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
18-7
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Module 18
— CERTIFICATION —
EPA requires certification submitted by the State Attorney General or Indian Tribal equivalent to be
assured that the standards under review legally apply in that State/Tribe.
— OTHER CONSIDERATIONS —
If a State or authorized Indian Tribe does not submit standards to EPA, the Agency will attempt to
compel submission. EPA may also promulgate water quality standards for the State/Tribe.
Two important components of State/Tribal submittals are definitions and general information requested
by EPA.
— EPA REVIEW AND APPROVAL —
Both EPA regional offices and Headquarters review the draft and adopted State/Tribal standards.
EPA checks to see that all seven elements of a standard have been submitted.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-8
-------
The WQS Submittal and Approval Process
EPA reviews State use classifications for
waterbodies.
Slide?: Uses
STATE/INDIAN TRIBAL
STANDARDS SUBMISSION
MUST INCLUD
• Use Classifications Consifl t with
the Act
• NOW^felransD WVaste
All Waterbodies
Fainability Analysis
&EPA
Use Desig
Adequate U
EPA reviews Use Attainability Analyses.
EPA reviews State/Tribal adopted
criteria.
Slide 8: Criteria
STATE/INDIAN TRIBAL
STANDARDS SUBMISSION
MUST INCLUD]
••^^•^^^^^^•^^^^^••I^^^^^^^^^^^^^B^^^^MM
Criteria Adequate to Prote
Designated Uses
• Downqg^m Uses Pr
• Adcqua^^^^jj^^BErrativc Criteria
• Adequate
Criteria for PT^Hf Toxic Pollutants
A EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
18-9
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Module 18
EPA reviews State/Tribal
antidegradation policy.
Slide 9: Antidegradation
STATE/INDIAN TRIBAL
STANDARDS SUBMISSION
MUST INCLUDE:.
An Antidegradatio
ThatAfeets
A EPA
EPA reviews State's/Tribe's basis for
designating uses.
Slide 10: Analyses
STATE/INDIAN TRIBAL
STANDARDS SUBMISSION
MUST INCLUDE
Information on Ap
Changes
pport
ated Uses
A EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
18-10
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
The WQS Submittal and Approval Process
EPA also reviews general policies.
Slide 11: Policies
STATE/INDIAN TRIBAL
STANDARDS SUBMISSION
MUST INCLUDE:
General Policies
Applica
Varia
&EPA
EPA reviews legal and administrative
procedures.
Slide 12: Legal
STATE/INDIAN TRIBAL
STANDARDS SUBMISSION
MUST INCLUDE:
Administrati
Fo
Attorney General's o
Triba^eeal A
and
ures Were
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-11
-------
Module 18
New EPA regulation specifying when
new and revised water quality standards
become effective.
Slide 13: Final Rule
FINAL RULE
• WQS Submitted to EPA Do Not Become
the "Applicable" WQS for C\
Purposes Until Approved bj
• "Applicable" WQS Rej^He CWA
WQS Until EPA Apj^VRevisions or
RenJdfl Pit WQS
Replace!
Actions Wf
CWA/WQS^1
4otice of Approval
ishment of
&EPA
- REVIEW OPTIONS -
The EPA review process is not subject to
formal public review and comment.
Slide 14: Discussions
EPA AND THE STATE
OR INDIAN
SHOULD
A EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-12
-------
The WQS Submittal and Approval Process
EPA reviews the time schedule
Slide 15: Schedule
REVIEW TIME
SCHEDULE
60 Days after Submittal - EPA Approves
90 Days after Submittal - EPA Notifies
State/Tribe of Disapproval
90 Days after Notification -
State/Tribe Must Revise
Standards To Meet Requirements
EPA Promulgation of Standards
Will Be Prompt
&EPA
A letter of disapproval will be sent to the Governor (or Governor's designee) or Tribal equivalent
specifying what revisions must be adopted to obtain full approval.
Federal promulgation of standards
involves a rule-making action taken by
the EPA Administrator.
Slide 16: Promulgation-1
IF THE STATE/INDIAN
TRIBE FAILS TO REVISE
ITS STANDARDS
EPAP
A EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-13
-------
Module 18
Slide 17: Promulgation-2
FEDERAL
PROMULGATION
INCLUDES:
Publication of Pro
Public
Public
Publication^ BTal Standard
tandard
I
A EPA
Conditional approvals can result in
standards that meet the requirements of
the CWA without Federal intervention.
Slide 18: Conditional
CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL MAY BE
GRANTED
e
lencies
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
18-14
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
The WQS Submittal and Approval Process
EPA may approve a portion of a State's
or Indian Tribe's water quality
standards.
Slide 19: Partial
^PARTIAL APPROVALS
CAN BE GRANTED
If a Portion^
indardeets
icnts
&EPA
- SUMMARY -
Document submission.
Slide 20: Submission Summary
WQS DOCUMENT
SUBMISSION
NO REVISIONS
Submit Review Results
to Regional
Administrator
or
ADOPT WQS
REVISION
Submit WQS Revision,
Supporting Information,
and Review Results to
Regional Administrator
A EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
18-15
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Module 18
Submission review.
Slide 21: Review Summary
WQS SUBMISSION
REVIEW
or
or
or
EPA
Approves
EPA Issues
Conditional
Approval
EPA Issues
Partial
Approval
EPA
Disapproves
State/Tribe Adopts
r
L^> EPA Promulgates]
& EPA-
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-16
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. States and authorized Indian Tribes are required by statute to review their water quality standards at
least once every _ years.
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
2. The State and authorized Indian Tribe must submit the results of the review to the EPA regional
review for approval within days after taking final action.
a. 15
b. 30
c. 60
d. 90
3. True or False. It is possible in some States or Tribes that a public hearing regarding water quality
standards revisions will not be held.
4. True or False. Definitions included in a State's or Tribe's water quality standard cannot be reviewed
by EPA, because the Agency can review only standards that are defined as designated uses and the
criteria for protecting those uses.
5. True or False. EPA can promulgate State and authorized Tribal standards if the State/Tribe does not
submit adopted standards.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-17
-------
Module 18
6. True or False. EPA must either approve or disapprove the entire submission of State/Tribe
standards.
7. What information contained in the State's/Tribe's water quality standards does EPA review?
a. Uses and criteria only.
b. Uses, criteria, and antidegradation policy.
c. EPA reviews all information, including definitions.
8. True or False. Unlike the State's/Tribe's review of standards, EPA's review of State and Tribal
standards and its decision to approve or disapprove is not subject to public notice and comment.
9. True or False. When EPA disapproves standards, the State/Tribe must submit a new standards
package within 60 days.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
18-18
-------
/X\ TRAINING MODULE 19:
vS> THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS PROGRAM
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module presents a brief overview of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and how it relates to the
Water Quality Standards (WQS) Program.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide an understanding of the relationships between the ESA and the WQS program and the
consultation requirements of the ESA.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Identify the responsibilities of the EPA and the states in the consultation process
• Describe the differences between formal and informal consultations
• Explain the importance of water quality for endangered species
• Define key terms related to the ESA
• Recognize potential problems associated with the coordination of the ESA and WQS
LOGISTICS
Teaching Method: Lecture with slides.
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 hour (Lecture—45 minutes; Review Questions—15 minutes).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-1
-------
Module 19
Basic Course References:
Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service. March 1998.
Report to Congress: Recovery Program - Endangered and Threatened Species. 1994. U.S.
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-2
-------
MODULE 19 - OUTLINE
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
- INTRODUCTION -
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
the Water Quality Standards Program are
necessarily related because
establishment of water quality standards
is a Federal action.
Slide 1: ESAandWQS.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT AND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
The ESA requires Federal agencies to
consult with the Service(s) (FWS and
NMFS) on any Federal action that might
affect threatened and endangered species
or their critical habitat. Approval of State
water quality standards is one such Federal
Action.
&EFA--
The ESA imposes five primary
requirements on Federal Agencies
Slide 2: ESA Requirements.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT REQUIREMENTS
Requirement to conserve listed species
(Section 7(a)(l))
Requirement not to "jeopardize"
listed species (Section 7(a)(2))
Requirement to "consult" and
"confer" (Section 7(a))
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-3
-------
Module 19
Slide 3: ESA Requirements - continued.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT REQUIREMENTS (
Requirement to conduct a biological
assessment (Section 7(a) and 50 CFR
402.18)
Requirement not to "take" listed fish
and wildlife species or remove or
destroy listed plant species (Section 9)
There are two forms of consultation
informal and formal.
Slide 4: Consultation
CONSULTATION
•Informal
Performed prior to initiating any
necessary formal consultation
•Formal
Authorized under Section 7(a) (2) of the
ESA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-4
-------
Endangered Species Act and WQS
Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action they will take will "not likely
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification" of designated critical habitat.
The history of the ESA helps illustrate
why the relationship between the ESA
and WQS is pertinent now.
Slide 5: History.
HISTORY OF THE ESA ]
1973 - ESA Enacted
1990 - Mudd Lawsuit
1992 - Settlement Agreement
1992 - EPA/FWS/NMFS Joint Guidance
Memorandum
1999 - EPA/FWS/NMFS Draft Federal
Register Notice
&EFK
The protection of threatened and
endangered species is part of EPA's
mission.
Slide 6: Mission.
EPA MISSION
N
Protection of threatened and endangered
species is an integral part of EPA's
mission.
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-5
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Module 19
Water quality is critical for endangered
and threatened species.
Slide 7: Importance.
IMPORTANCE OF
WATER QUALITY FOR
ENDANGERED SPECIES
85% of listed species use wetlands and
aquatic habitats
Despite controversial situations, the ESA
has had several valuable successes.
Slide 8: ESA Success Stories.
ESA SUCCESSES
Bald Eagle, American and Arctic Peregrine Falcon
- Recovered with public help, habitat
management, and DDT banning
American Alligator
- Recovery by controlling meat and leather
commerce
Black-footed Ferret
- Once believed extinct, captive-released ferrets
have reproduced successfully, habitat
provided by Wyoming landowners
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-6
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Endangered Species Act and WQS
Slide 9: ESA Success Stories - continued.
s ""^
ESA SUCCESSES (com.) j
California Condor
- Captive breeding successful; controlled
releases in progress
Red Wolf
- Captive breeding successful; controlled
releases in progress
The Supreme Court interprets the ESA
as superseding other Federal legal
mandates.
Slide 10: Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT
ESA supersedes other Federal legal mandates
[Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill 437 U.S. 153 (1978)]
&EFA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-7
-------
Module 19
- KEY TERMS -
Knowledge of a few key terms under the
ESA is critical to understanding the
process.
Slide 11: Summary of Key Terms.
SELECTED KEY TERMS
INTEGRAL TO THE ESA
— Federal action
"May affect"
— Informal consultation
— Formal consultation
— Jeopardy opinion
Federal actions are "any action(s)
authorized, funded, or carried out by a
federal agency that may affect listed
species."
Slide 12: Federal Action.
FEDERAL ACTION
All activities or programs of any kind authorized,
funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by
Federal agencies in the United States or upon the
high seas. Might include:
• Actions intended to conserve listed species or
their habitat;
• Promulgating regulations;
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-8
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Endangered Species Act and WQS
Slide 13: Federal Action continued.
FEDERAL ACTION
(cont.)
Granting licenses, contracts, leases,
easements, rights-of-way, permits or
grants-in-aid; or
Actions directly or indirectly causing
modifications to the land, water or air.
&EFA
If a Federal action "may affect" listed
species, consultation is required.
Slide 14: May Affect.
"MAY AFFECT"
The action may have a positive or
adverse effect. Consultation is
required.
&EFK
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-9
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Module 19
Consultation is the process of discussions, correspondence, and meetings among the Federal agencies
carrying out an action, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS are commonly referred to as "the Services."
Most Section 7 consultations are
"informal consultations."
Slide 15: Informal Consultation.
S
X
INFORMAL
CONSULTATION
An optional process that includes all
discussions and correspondence
between the Service(s) and Federal
agency prior to formal consultation.
Through informal consultation, a
Federal agency may determine that
formal consultation is not required.
&EFA
"Formal consultations" result in the
Services' issuance of biological opinions.
Slide 16: Formal Consultations.
FORMAL
CONSULTATION
A process between the Service(s) and the Federal
agency that commences with the Federal agency's
written request for consultation under Section
7 (a)(2) of the Act and concludes with the Service(s)
issuance of biological opinions under Section
7(b)(3)oftheESA.
&EFA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-10
-------
Endangered Species Act and WQS
"Jeopardy opinion" is the most critical
opinion the Services' issue.
Slide 17: Jeopardy Opinion.
JEOPARDY OPINION
The Service(s) states that the proposed
Federal action will directly or indirectly
reduce the species' survival or recovery
&EFK
THE PROCESS
The ESA is important to the WQS
process for two primary reasons.
(1) The Services are most likely
involved in the development of
WQSs.
(2) EPA's acceptance of WQSs might be
affected by the need to provide
special protection to listed species
and their habitat.
Slide 18: Impact on WQS.
IMPACT ON WQS
• Another "stakeholder" in WQS
development
• Change in basis for approving
WQS
&EBV
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-11
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Module 19
The consultation process is aimed at
effectively reaching a decision between
the Services and EPA.
Slide 19: The Consultation Process.
THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
ACTION AUTHORIZED, FUNDED, OR k.NO
CARRD2D OUT BY FEDERAL AGENCY? ! X ,
VKS
ACTION MAY AFFECT LISTED SPECIES? I f
(Action "affects" species If the effect Is either detrimental or "*"No
beneficial) '
INFORMAL CONSULTATION
(Coniists of communication) between action agency and Service (Ftab and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service): action agency
provides available data or may perform a biological assessment)
&EPA
Slide 20: The Consultation Process - continued.
CONSULTATION PROCESS (cont.)
AGENCY FINDS ACTION NOT LIKELY
TO "ADVERSELY AFFECT" SPECIES
AND SERVICE CONCURS IN WRITING
NO
FORMAL CONSULTATION
90 days unless extended by agreement of agencies.
Service can request agency to provide additional
data, which the agency must obtain, if practicable,
within consultation period.
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-12
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Endangered Species Act and WQS
Slide 21: The Consultation Process - continued
CONSULTATION PROCESS (cont.)
SERVICE RENDERS "BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS" WITHIN 45
DAYS AFTER CONCLUSION OF FORMAL CONSULTATION AS
TO WHETHER ACTION IS LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE THE
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES
IF SERVICE FINDS JEOPARDY, INCLUDES REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES TO AVOID JEOPARDY AND
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT (permitting harm or killing of
Individual specimens otherwise prohibited by Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act)
AGENCY DECISIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED. Service ;
opinion not binding but Action Agency must develop an i
adequate record to support a finding of No Jeopardy i
&EPA
There are several key points related to
the ESA that need to be considered when
developing water quality standards.
Slide 22: Key Points.
KEY POINTS
EPA responsibility
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
— Consistent with intended purpose
- Within EPA's legal authority and
jurisdiction
— Economically and technologically feasible
— Avoid jeopardy
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-13
-------
Module 19
Implementation of the processes under
the ESA has various effects on the
development of water quality standards.
Slide 23: Effect on WQS.
EFFECT ON WQS I
Early participation by Services in WQS
development
Revisions to designated uses
Adjustments to criteria
Additional pollutant coverage
&ERA
Slide 24: Effect on WQS continued.
-\
EFFECT ON WQS (com.)
Revisions to antidegredation and optional
implementation policies
- Mixing Zones
- Flows
- Variance
acEFA
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-14
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Endangered Species Act and WQS
There are three major outcome
possibilities of the consultation process.
Several practical problems present
hurdles in coordinating the ESA and
WQS.
Slide 25: Outcomes.
"\ '
RESULTS OR OUTCOMES
State/Tribe revises or adopts new uses
or criteria
State/Tribe develops alternative
implementation procedures
EPA disapproves WQS; Federal
promulgation
Slide 26: Practical Problems.
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS I
•Data
• Availability
• Soundness
• Organization authorities
• Different statutory objectives
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-15
-------
Module 19
Slide 27: Practical Problems continued.
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS (cont.)
• What's a Federal Action
• Staffing and Personnel
• Application of regulatory
requirements
• People are People
Two examples of consultation success stories are the Great Lakes Initiative and the San Francisco
Bay/Delta.
An example of ESA consultation success
is the San Francisco/Delta promulgation
as highlighted by the visual of the
Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta.
Slide 28: Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER DELTA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-16
-------
Endangered Species Act and WQS
Despite controversy and logistical
problems, the process is working.
Slide 29: ESA Consultation Summary.
ESA CONSULTATION SUMMARY
Status as of May 1998
Complete
Incomplete
Total
Formal Informal Total
8 35 43
2 39 41
10 74 84
Slides 30, 31, 32 and 33 identify the
States and Indian Tribal Reservations
affected by the ESA Section 7
Consultations.
Slide 30: Incomplete Consultations.
INCOMPLETE
CONSULTATIONS
Informal
Region 1:
Region 2:
Region 3:
Region 4:
Region 5:
Region 6:
MA,NH,RI,VT
NY-1
VA
FL-1, MS, NC-2, SC-1, SC-2
OH.MN
AR, LA-Marmantau Basin, OK-96 Revision,
OK-1997 Triennial, Pueblos of Acoma, Isleta,
Nambe-Triennial, Picuris-Triennial, Pojoaque-
Triennial, Sandia-Triennial, San Juan-Triennial,
Santa Clara-Triennial, Tesuque-Triennial
&ERA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-17
-------
Module 19
Slide 31: Incomplete Consultations continued.
S
INCOMPLETE
CONSULTATIONS
Region 7: MO
Region 8: CO, Colorado River, Flathead Indian
Reservation, MT, SD
Region 9: CA-Basin Plan WQS, CA-Ocean Waters, HI,
Hoopa Valley Tribe
Region 10: AK-Triennial, ID, OR
Formal
AZ-1996 Amendments, CA Toxics
&EPA
Slide 32: Complete Consultations.
COMPLETE
CONSULTATIONS
Informal
Region 2:
Region 3:
Region 4:
Region 6:
NY-2, NY/NJ Harbor
PA promulgation
FL-2, GA-1, GA-2, KY, Miccosukee, Seminole-
1, Seminole-2, NC-1, NC-3, NC-4, NC-5, TN
LA-Triennial, LA-Quachita River, NM, OK,
Pueblo of Nambe-lst WQS, Picuris-lst WQS,
Pojoaque-lst WQS, Santa Clara-lst WQS,
Tesuque-lst WQS, TX 1997 Standards
&EBV-
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-18
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Endangered Species Act and WQS
Slide 33: Complete Consultations continued.
COMPLETE
CONSULTATIONS
Region 7:
Region 9:
KS
NV-Lake Tahoe, NV Revisions for Toxics,
Mariana Islands
Region 10: AK-Red Dog Creek, AK-GoId Creek, AK-Camp
Creek, Chehalis Tribe, ID promulgation,
Puyallup Tribe
Formal
Region 2:
Region 4:
Region 5:
Region 6:
Region 9:
NJ
AL
Great Lakes
TX-1995 Standards
AZ, AZ promulgation, CA-Bay, NV-Truckee
River
Slide 34: 4 Basic Parts of Draft MOA.
4 BASIC PARTS OF THE
DRAFT MOA
National procedures for inter-agency
coordination and evaluation of issues to
speed decisions;
National consultation on existing water
quality criteria for aquatic species, and
research and a data gathering plan;
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-19
-------
Module 19
Slide 35: 4 Basic Parts of the Draft MOA - continued.
f _
4 BASIC PARTS OF THE
DRAFT MOA
Improved consultation procedures for
EPA approval of State/Tribal water
quality standards; and
National programmatic consultation of
State/Tribal NPDES permitting
programs.
Water Quality Standards Academy
19-20
Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. True or False. If a lawsuit is filed for failure to consult under the Endangered Species Act, the State
or Tribe is the vulnerable party.
2. True or False. The Services essentially have a veto power over EPA's approval of a State's or
Tribe's water quality standards.
3. True or False. Consultation is not necessary on EPA's approval of water quality standards if it is
obvious that enhancement of water quality will occur and this will have a demonstrably positive
effect on the protection of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat.
4. As a result of the consultation process, the Services may suggest revisions to: (circle all that apply)
a. designated uses
b. existing uses
c. criteria
d. the mixing zone policy
e. the antidegradation policy
5. What is the difference in data requirements between EPA and the Services?
a. The Services' recommendations may lead to regulatory action by the Services.
b. EPA's disapproval of a State's or Tribe's water quality standard is the initial step in Federal rule
making to promulgate Federal standards; therefore, EPA has to have data that are scientifically
defensible to support rule making.
c. There is, in practical terms, no difference in data requirements.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-21
-------
Module 19
6. Which of the following is a true statement?
a. Formal consultation is the only form admissible in a lawsuit to demonstrate EPA's compliance
with the ESA.
b. All informal consultations must eventually lead to formal consultations in order for a decision to
be reached by the Services on the potential of a Federal action to have an adverse effect on listed
species.
c. EPA can avoid responsibility for consultation by assigning the responsibility to a State or Indian
Tribe or by a State or Tribe voluntarily assuming that responsibility.
d. Both informal and formal consultations are acceptable processes, and most consultations are
informal.
7. True or False. Water quality standards previously approved by EPA are not subject to consultation.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-2 2000
19-22
-------
TRAINING MODULE 19A:
401 CERTIFICATION
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module covers the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process and its importance to a State
or Tribe in implementing water quality standards.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide a general understanding of the function of 401 certification and its relationship to water
quality standards.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
Describe what a participant should understand after discussing this module.
Know the applicability of 401 to applications for Federal licenses and permits.
Understand its coverage extends beyond the CWA.
Understand the relationship between WQS and 401 certification.
Distinguish between the terms "grant, "condition", and "deny".
Be able to explain the decision process.
Know the process if different jurisdictions involved.
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture with slides-and videotape.
Approximate Presentation Time: l'/4 hour (Lecture 60 minutes, Video 15 minutes, Review Questions
15 minutes)
Basic Course References:
The Clean Water Act
Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition (August 1994)
Wetland and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes
(1989)
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-1
-------
Module 19A
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-2
-------
401 Certification
MODULE 19A - OUTLINE
401 CERTIFICATION
— INTRODUCTION —
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
provides that a State (or Indian Tribe
authorized to administer the water
quality standards program) many grant,
condition, or deny or waive certification
for a Federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to
the waters of the United States, if it is
the State (or Reservation) where the
discharge will originate. May also waive
certification either explicitly or by lapse
of time.
Slide 1: Definition
401 CERTIFICATION
States/Tribes authorized by statute to:
• Grant, Condition, Deny or Waive
• Any Federally Licensed or Permitted Activity
• May Result in a Discharge to Water of the U.S.
No Certification=No Permit=No Project, unless
waive certification
&EPA
States and Tribes that are approved to
administer the standards program are
empowered to issue 401 certifications.
Slide 2: Authority
401 CERTIFICATION
• All States Authorized
• Indian Tribes Authorized to Administer
the WQS Program
• No Separate Application Needed
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-3
-------
Module 19A
While the 401 certification process is
created by the Clean Water Act, its
application is NOT limited to only Clean
Water Act activities.
Slide 3: Extent of Coverage
401 CERTIFICATION
Not Limited to Clean Water Act Actions
&EPA
Several Clean Water Act programs are
affected by the requirement for 401
certification including: NPDES permits
issued by EPA and permits for the
discharge of dredge and fill material
issued by COE (i.e. not those issued by
States). Other Federal licensing or
permitting programs impacted by 401
certification include: Corps permits
under the Ravers and Harbors Act, FERC
licenses under the Federal Power Act
and NRC licenses under the Atomic
Energy Act.
Slide 4: Extent of Coverage (cont.)
401 CERTIFICATION
NPDES Permits and Dredge and Fill Actions
Other Federal Laws
Rivers and Harbors Act
Federal Power Act
Atomic Energy Act
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-4
-------
401 Certification
Because there are so many different
kinds of projects administered by a
variety of agencies, each executing its
regulatory authorities, each State and
Tribe should work with EPA and the
Federal agencies active in their
jurisdiction to determine whether 401
certification is in fact applicable to a
specific case.
Slide 5: Coordination Between Agencies
401 CERTIFICATION
Statutory Provision; Not an EPA Creation
Check With EPA/Other Federal Agencies for
Applicability
&EPA
Section 401 allows the States and Tribes
to use the water quality certification
process to ensure that no Federal license
or permits would be issued that would
cause exceedance of State or Tribal
standards or become a source of excess
pollution in the future. A Tribe or State
should consider all potential water
quality impacts of the project, both direct
and indirect, over the life of the project.
Slide 6: Impacts Over Life of Project
401 CERTIFICATION
o Congressional Intent
No Federal License or Permit to Violate
WQS
» States/Tribes Should Consider All Potential
Water Quality Impacts, Direct and Indirect for
Life of Project
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-5
-------
Module 19A
The statute requires that the applicant for
a federal license or permit will provide
the licensing Agency a certification from
the State (or Tribe) in which the
discharge originates. The application is
reviewed by the State or Tribe, after
public notice in all cases and a public
hearing, if deemed appropriate. Upon
receipt of the application and
certification, the licensing or permitting
agency immediately notifies EPA.
Important to note the deadline for
certification, after which waiver will be
presumed. Time period is generally 6
months. Clean Water Act says not to
exceed one year, but some agencies have
a much shorter period. The COE, for
example, gives 60 days for certification
of its CWA 404 permits.
Slide 7: Basic Process
401 CERTIFICATION
The Basic Process
• Applicant Applies to State or Tribe for Certification
• State or Tribe Reviews
- Public Notice Required
- Public Hearing Possible
• Applicant Provides Application and Certification
to Federal Agency
• Federal Agency Notifies EPA
&EPA
The statute provides that when an
activity requiring 401 certification in one
State or Tribe will have an impact on the
water quality of another State or Tribe,
EPA will within 30 days after receiving
notice of application from a Federal
permitting or licensing agency, notify
any State or Tribe whose water quality
may be affected. The affected State or
Tribe has the right to submit its
objections (if any) and request a public
hearing within 60 days of receiving
notification from EPA.
Slide 8: Process for Multiple Jurisdictions
401 CERTIFICATION
Impact Felt in Multiple Jurisdictions
. EPA Notifies Affected State/Tribe
. State/Tribe Submits Objections (If Any);
Request Public Hearing
• EPA May Submit Evaluation and
Recommendations
• No Compliance with WQS-Cannot Issue
Permit/License
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-6
-------
401 Certification
A State or Tribe can prevent the permit
from being issued by denying
certification. They can apply conditions
to the certification, which must become a
condition of the license if it is issued
and, of course, they can simply say the
permitted or licensed project is OK and
issue a certification or waive.
Slide 9: Federal License
401 CERTIFICATION
License or Permit Issued by Federal Agency-Not
State or Tribe
&EPA
This decision about water quality
impacts is based on a State's or Tribe's
determination from data submitted by an
applicant and any other information
available to the State or Tribe whether
the proposed activity will comply with
the requirements of certain sections of
the Clean Water Act listed in Section
401.
Slide 10: Decision
401 CERTIFICATION
Decision Based On:
• Data From Applicant
o Any Other Available Data
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-7
-------
Module 19A
These requirements address effluent
limitations for conventional and
nonconventional pollutants, water
quality standards, new source
performance standards, and toxic
pollutants.
Slide 11: CWA Requirements
401 CERTIFICATION
_. _>
Certifying State/Tribe May Deny Certification if
Permitted or Licensed Activity Will Not Comply
With Specific CWA Requirements:
• Effluent limitations for conventional and
nonconvential pollutants,
• Water quality standards,
• New source performance standards, and
• Toxic pollutants, PLUS
• Any more stringent State/Tribal requirements
&EPA
Water quality standards are a critical
concern of the 401 certification process.
They are the primary basis for a
certification review.
Slide 12: WQS in the 401 Process
401 CERTIFICATION
Standards Are Critical in Certification Process
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-8
-------
401 Certification
If a State or Tribe GRANTS a water
quality certification to an applicant for a
Federal license or permit, it is in effect
saying that the proposed activity WILL
comply with State or Tribal water quality
standards and the other Clean Water Act
and State or Tribal provisions.
A State or Tribe may DENY certification
because the applicant did not
demonstrate that the project will comply
with water quality requirements. If a
State or Tribe denies certification, the
Federal permitting or licensing agency
cannot issue the permit or license.
A State or a Tribe may establish
CONDITIONS that must be incorporated
into the permit or license.
You have to act on the request within a
reasonable time-which shall not exceed
one year after the receipt of the
application. If you fail to act, you forfeit
your authority to condition or deny
certification. Note: many agencies have
shorter timeframes. The COE for
example, allows States and Tribes 60
days to make 401 certification decisions.
Slide 13: Terms
401 CERTIFICATION
THE TERMS
Grant: Activity Will Comply with WQS
Deny: Permit or License Cannot Be Issued
Decision Subject to Appeal
Condition: Requirements Attached to Permit
or License to Allow its Approval
&EPA
Slide 14: Waiver of Certification
401 CERTIFICATION
TIMEFRAMES
• Reasonable Time for Action: Not More than
One Year
• Waiver of Certification
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-9
-------
Module 19A
This is what EPA recommends ought to
be included in an implementing
regulation for 401 water quality
certifications.
Slide 15: Regulation
401 CERTIFICATION
_ _ _. „>
REGULATION
Procedures
Time Frames
Content of Complete Application
Fees
Decision Basis
&EPA
A comprehensive set of 401 certification
implementing regulations should have
both procedural and substantive
provisions which maximize the State or
Tribal agency's control over the process
and which help make its decisions
defensible if reviewed in court.
Slide 16: Procedures
401 CERTIFICATION
PROCEDURES
• Procedural and Substantive
• Defensible Decision
• Minimise Resource Requirements
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-10
-------
401 Certification
It is possible that the Federal licensing or
permitting agencies may have
regulations which provide a shorter time
for State or Tribal review. A sound 401
implementing regulation should also
require that the applicant is responsible
for demonstrating the project's
compliance with applicable Federal and
State or Tribal requirements laws-not the
other way around.
Slide 17: Time Frames
401 CERTIFICATION
TIME FRAMES
• Review Not to Exceed One Year
• Some Federal Agencies Have Shorter Times
• When Does Clock Start?
. What Is a Completed Application?
&EPA
It is possible for the State or Tribe to
require fees for the 401 certification
review as potential funding source to pay
for all or part of the program.
Slide 18: Fees
401 CERTIFICATION
FEES
State or Tribe Requires Fees?
a EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-11
-------
Module 19A
It is important that a 401 regulation
rationale describes the basis on which a
decision to grant, condition, or certify
will be made. You can use any data
regarding water resources that are
available from any source.
Slide 19: Basis for Decision
401 CERTIFICATION
• Describe Basis for Decision
• Who Is Responsible for Demonstrating
Compliance With Water Quality Provisions
• Other Sources of Information
&EPA
Example of conditions attached to a
certification is extracted from an
application affecting a wetland by
construction of a golf course and
subdivision. The conditions for granting
certification include:
Slide 20: Examples of Conditions
401 CERTIFICATION
EXAMPLES OF CONDITIONS
• Stormwater Runoff Controls
• Fish Stocking
• Vegetated Buffer Areas
• Biological Control of Weeds and Pests
• Best Management Plans
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-12
-------
401 Certification
This example came from a proposed
project for a hydroelectric dam.
Slide 21: Examples of Denial Reasons
401 CERTIFICATION
L_ ^>
EXAMPLES OF REASONS FOR DENIAL
• Wetland destroyed or damaged
• Loss of Habitat
• Threatened or Endangered Species Impacted
• Specific WQS Exceedances
• Underestimated Area Impacted
&EPA
[VIDEO: Water Quality Standards and 401 Certification]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-13
-------
Module 19A
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-14
-------
401 Certification
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. T or F? EPA is the certifying agency for all Federal licenses and permits under Section 401.
2. T or F? An Indian Tribe that has assumed responsibility to administer the water quality standards
program must make a separate application to EPA for approval to issue 401 certifications.
3. TorF? 401 certifications are necessary only for activities licensed or permitted under the Clean
Water Act.
4. In reviewing an application for a Federal license or permit, the certifying agency may consider which
of the following factors?
A. short-term direct water quality impacts only
B. long term direct water quality impacts only
C. both short and long term (not to exceed five years) direct and indirect impacts
D. direct and indirect short and long term impacts over the life of the project
5. Which of the following is (or are) a possible outcome of a 401 certification application review?
A. Grant
B. Approve
C. Disapprove
D. Amend
E. Condition
F. Deny
G. Waive
6. T or F? If the project is located in jurisdiction A but there are water quality impacts in jurisdiction
B, jurisdiction B is powerless to affect jurisdiction A's decision.
7. T or F? Since 401 certifications apply to Federal licenses or permits, the State or Tribe may not
consider any requirements of State or Tribal regulations that are more stringent that Federal
implementing regulations.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-15
-------
Module 19A
8. In making the decision on a 401 application, the certifying agency may consider which of the
following?
A. Only information submitted by the applicant
B. Information on the project generated independently by the certifying agency
C. Information submitted by the applicant and any other information available to the certifying
agency.
9. Which of the following is correct? In a 401 certification review, EPA may
A. request a public hearing
B. submit its evaluation and recommendations
C. override the certifying agency's decisions if it was arbitrary and capricious.
D. notify other jurisdictions if a project will have impacts in multiple jurisdictions
10. T or F? It is possible for a State or Tribe to lose the right to condition or deny certification for a
permit or license application simply by taking too long for the review.
11. To whom does the applicant for a Federal license or permit submit its request for 401 certification?
A. The appropriate EPA regional office
B. The 401 program office of EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
C. The environmental agency of the State or Tribe where the discharge is located
D, In both the jurisdiction where the discharge is located and in the jurisdiction where the water
quality may be impacted.
12. T or F? It is illegal for an applicant to contact the State or Tribe concerning certification before
submitting a request for a Federal license or permit to the appropriate Federal agency.
13. T or F? Anyone answering all these questions correctly automatically receives a $1,000 check
from EPA.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
3/2000
19A-16
-------
TRAINING MODULE 20:
IMPLEMENTATION OF WQS
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module presents the process by which adopted water quality standards are implemented.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide an understanding of how adopted water quality standards are implemented, including
summaries of the TMDL, WLA, and LA processes; the role of NPDES in permitting discharges; and the
role of the NFS program in controlling nonpoint source contributions in the water quality-based
approach to pollution control.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Identify components that make up the water quality-based approach to pollution control
• Explain EPAs development of technology based effluent limitation guidelines
• Explain procedures involved in the implementation of water quality standards
• Explain waste load allocation (WLA) and load allocation (LA)
• Define total maximum daily load (TMDL)
• Explain the NPDES process
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with slides, display, and videos Water Quality-Based Approach to
Pollution Control and TMDLs and Water Quality Standards).
Approximate Presentation Time: 3 !/z hours (Lecture—3 hours; Video—16 minutes; Review
Questions—15 minutes).
Basic Course References:
50 Federal Register 1779, January 11,1985.
Arbuckle, J.G., T.A. Vanderver, and R.V. Randle. Water Pollution Control. In: Environmental Law
Handbook, 1 Oth ed. March 1989. Rockville: Government Institutes, Inc.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-1
-------
Module 20
Clean Water Act: sections 301(b)(l)(C); 303(c)(l)(B); 303(d); 303(e)(3)(A); 304(a); 304(1); 305(b);
307(a);319;402.
Effluent Guidelines Plan; Notice: 63 Federal Register 47285, September 4,1998.
Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1991. EPA 440/4-91-001.
Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1998 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b)) Reports.
Goldfarb, W. The Clean Water Act: Antidegradation and Attainability. In: Water Law, 2nd ed.
1989. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.
Introduction to Water Quality Standards. USEPA Office of Water. September 1994.
Plafkin, J.L. Water quality-based Controls and Ecosystem Recovery. In: Rehabilitating Damaged
Ecosystems, volume II. 1988. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, pp. 87-96.
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. March 1991. EPA 505/2-90-001.
Water Quality Standards Handbook. Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 1: General Provisions
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: 40 CFR 131.2.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-2
-------
MODULE 20 - OUTLINE
IMPLEMENTATION OF WQS
— INTRODUCTION —
Together, the water quality standards and
criteria programs play vital roles in
controlling the discharge of pollutants to
our nation's waters.
Slide 1: Introduction.
MODULE 20]
Implementation
of WQS
Water quality standards serve two
purposes.
Slide 2: WQS Purpose.
WATER QUALITY^
STANDARDS
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-3
-------
Module 20
States and authorized Indian Tribes use
water quality standards to assess
waterbodies.
Slide 3: Yardstick.
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Form the Basis for States
and Indian Tribes to
Assess the Status of
Surface Waters and
Implement Water
Pollution Controls
»EPA
Water quality standards define the water
quality goals of a waterbody.
Slide 4: Definition.
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Establish:
•Designated Uses
•Criteria
•Antidegradation
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-4
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Implementation of WQS
States and Indian Tribes designate uses
and develop use classification schemes
for waterbodies.
Slide 5: Designated Uses.
DESIGNATED
USES
• Defined in State and Indian
Tribal Programs
• Use Attainability Analysis
• Economics
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-5
-------
Module 20
Criteria are based on a strong,
scientifically acceptable rationale.
Slide 6: Criteria Development.
[ CRITERIA ]
Toxicology
Risk Assessment
Criteria Development and
Site-Specific Criteria
&EPA
Slide 7: Criteria Types.
CRITERIA (cont.) ]
• Human Health
• Aquatic Life
• Sediment
• Biological
• Nutrient
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-6
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Implementation of WQS
EPA's antidegradation policy is a three-
tiered approach to water quality
protection.
Slide 8: Antidegradation.
ANTIDEGRADATION)
• State and Indian Tribal
Antidegradation Policies
&EPA
There are several other "tools" for
implementing water quality standards.
Slide 9: Tools.
OTHER TOOLS ]
Risk Communication
Variances
Mixing Zones
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-7
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Module 20
There are specific procedures for
submitting or revising water quality
standards.
Slide 10: Programmatic.
PROGRAMMATIC
REQUIREMENTS
WQS Submittal
Indian Tribes
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-8
-------
Implementation of WQS
— INTERRELATED STAGES —
The water quality-based approach to
pollution control has eight interrelated
stages.
Display 1: Schematic.
^ Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control Schematic^\
O
Determine Protection Level
EPA Criteria/Stale WOS
Measure Progress
/O
Monitor and Enforce
Compliance
Sell-Monitoring
Agency Monitonng
Conduct WQ Assessment
Identify Impaired Waters
Set Priorities
Rank/Target Waterbodies
Establish Source Controls
State Programs
Point Source Permits
NFS Programs
Evaluate Appropriateness ot WOS
(or Specific Waters
Reaffirm WOS
Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities
TfJOLJWUVLA
[VIDEO: Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control]
Slide 11: Technology-1.
Technology-based treatment controls are
effluent limitations.
TECHNOLOGY-BASED
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Applicable to Direct
& Indirect Sources
Developed on a
Catagory-by-
Catagory Basis
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-9
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Module 20
In Stage 1, benchmarks for assessing the
status of waterbodies are determined.
Slide 12: Stage 1.
Stage 1:
Determination of
Protection Levels
•Uses
• Criteria
• Antidegradation Policy
In Stage 2, waterbodies are assessed to
identify those which are water quality-
limited.
Slide 13: Stage 2.
0
Stage 2:
Water Quality
Assessments
Identify Impaired Waters
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-10
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Implementation of WQS
During Stage 3, impaired waters are
prioritized based on a number of factors.
Slide 14: Stage 3.
o
Stage 3:
Establish Priorities
Rank / Target Waterbodies
&EPA
During Stage 4, States and Indian Tribes
ask several questions to determine
whether water quality standards need to
be revised.
Slide 15: Stage 4.
Stage 4:
Evaluate
*opriateness
'ofWQSfor
Specific Waters
Reaffirm WQS
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-11
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Module 20
In Stage 5, States and Indian Tribes
determine necessary pollution controls.
Slide 16: Stage 5.
Stage 5:
Define / Allocate
Control
Responsibilities
TMDL / WLA / LA
&EPA
A TMDL is a tool for implementing
State and Indian Tribal water quality
standards.
Slide 17: TMDL-1.
TOTAL MAXIMUM
DAILY LOAD
Amount of a Pollutant That May
Be Discharged Into a Waterbody
and Still Meet Numeric and
Narrative Water Quality Criteria
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-12
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Implementation of WQS
The Clean Water Act, section 303(d),
establishes the TMDL process to provide
for more stringent water quality-based
controls when technology-based controls
are inadequate to achieve State and
Indian Tribal water quality standards.
Slide 18: TMDL-2.
TOTAL MAXIMUM
DAILY LOAD
Broaden Public Participation
Expedite Water Quality-Based NPDES
Permitting
Lead to Technically Sound and Legally
Defensible Decisions for Maintaining
WQS
— &EPA -
The allowable TMDL is calculated from
the sum of the waste load allocation
(WLA) and the sum of the load
allocation (LA) plus a margin of safety
(MOS).
Slide 19: TMDL-3.
TOTAL MAXIMUM
DAILY LOAD
TMDL = SWLA + SLA + MOS
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-13
-------
Module 20
Waste Load Allocation.
Slide 20: WLA.
WASTE LOAD
ALLOCATION (WLA)
Portion of the Pollutant Load
from Point Sources
&EPA
Load Allocation.
Slide 21: LA.
LOAD
ALLOCATION (LA)
Portion of the Pollutant Load
from Nonpoint Sources,
Including Background
Sources
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-14
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Implementation of WQS
Margin of Safety.
Slide 22: MOS.
MARGIN OF SAFETY
(MOS)
Accounts for Uncertainty in
the Analysis
&EPA
States and Indian Tribes determine waters that do not meet or are not expected to meet water quality
standards even after municipal and industrial controls are in place.
States and Indian Tribes prioritize and
rank water quality-limited waters.
TMDLs are developed according to this
priority ranking.
Slide 23: Ranking.
[ RANKING PROCESS
Ranking Process Takes
into Account ALL
Water Pollution
Activities Within
the State or Indian
Reservation
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-15
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Module 20
Development of a TMDL consists of
five activities:
• selection of pollutant or stressor to
be considered,
• estimation of the waterbody's
assimilative capacity,
• estimation of the pollution load from
all sources,
• analysis of pollution, and
• control of pollution from point and
nonpoint sources.
Slide 24: TMDL-4.
TOTAL MAXIMUM
DAILY LOAD (TMDL)
States and Indian Tribes
have Primary Responsibility
for Developing TMDLs
&EPA
TMDLs for all water quality-limited
waters are submitted to EPA for review
and approval.
Slide 25: TMDL-5.
TOTAL MAXIMUM
DAILY LOAD (TMDL)
EPA Reviews TMDLs To
Ensure They Reflect State
and Indian Tribal WQS
&EPA
States and Indian Tribes monitor, assess, and evaluate the quality of their waters to determine whether
water quality standards are being achieved.
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-16
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Implementation of WQS
States and Indian Tribes are required to involve the public in the TMDL process.
During Stage 6, controls are placed on
point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Slide 26: Stage 6.
0
Stage 6:
Source Control
Establishment
NPDES Permits / Nonpoint
Source Management
Programs
&EPA
As part of the NPDES program, each
point source discharger is required to
obtain a permit that limits the pollutants
discharged.
Slide 27: NPDES.
ational
ollutant
• u CWA
ischarge Section 402
U limination
§ ystem
&EPA
Monitoring and reporting requirements are specified in these permits.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-17
-------
Module 20
NPDES permits are legally enforceable, and failure to comply can result in enforcement actions.
NPDES-regulated entities are divided
into two types: industrial and municipal.
Slide 28: Sources.
NPDES ]
Industrial Sources
Commercial / Manufacturing Facilities
Municipal Sources
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs)
acEPA
There are two types of NPDES permits:
individual and general.
Slide 29: Two Types.
NPDES )
Two IVpes of Permits:
Individual
General
&EPA
NPDES permits contain
• standard conditions, common to all permits;
• site-specific discharge or effluent limits;
• standard and site-specific compliance monitoring requirements; and
• other site-specific conditions.
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-18
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Implementation of WQS
National technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines are developed on
an industry-by-industry basis.
Slide 30: Technology-Based
TECHNOLOGY-BASED
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS]
1. National Effluent Limitation
Guidelines
2. Permit Writer's Best Professional
Judgment
&EPA
Best professional judgment (BPJ) is based on the best information reasonably available at the time of
permit issuance and must be adequately documented. A best management practices (BMP) plan lays out
the procedures a facility will follow to reduce the overall pollutant level.
All POTWs must achieve an effluent
quality at least as high as "secondary
treatment."
Slide 31: POTWs.
SECONDARY TREATMENT
(40 CFR PART 133) J
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
pH
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-19
-------
Module 20
Compliance monitoring and reporting
requirements also are a part of the
NPDES permit.
Slide 32: Compliance.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING/
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS I
• Frequency Collected
• Location Collected
• Pollutants Analyzed
• Laboratory Procedures
&EPA
Other site-specific requirements may include
• construction schedules,
• additional monitoring for nonregulated pollutants,
• spill prevention plans, and
• compliance schedules.
Other components of the NPDES
program are presented in a permit
writer's training course.
Slide 33: NPDES Components.
NPDES ]
Additional Components:
• Toxicity Elimination
• Stormwater Permitting
• Combined Sewer Overflow Permitting
• Sewage Sludge Use and Disposal
Permitting
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-20
-------
Implementation of WQS
Nonpoint sources of pollution also affect
water quality.
Slide 34: NFS.
NONPOINT SOURCES
AFFECT WATER
QUALITY
Agriculture
Septic Systems
Construction
Mineral Resources
Urban Runoff
&EPA
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act include provisions that require States and Indian Tribes to
assess waters and encourage development of State and Indian Tribal management programs, and
authorize Federal loan and grant funds to help States and Indian Tribes, local governments, conservation
districts, farmers, and businesses to manage nonpoint sources of pollution.
A nonpoint source (NFS) program includes
• the NFS Assessment Report,
• the Management Report, and
• the process for identifying best management practices.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-21
-------
Module 20
During Stage 7, States determine if
conditions of an NPDES permit are
being met and take action against
violators.
Slide 35: Stage 7.
Stage 7:
Compliance
Monitoring and
Enforcement
Self-Monitoring /
Agency Monitoring
&EPA
Nonpoint source programs are enforced under State and local laws.
States with approved coastal zone programs must develop NFS programs that conform to Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for Controlling Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.
Through monitoring activities during the
final stage of this approach, States/Indian
Tribes and EPA assess the effectiveness
of both point and nonpoint source
controls.
Slide 36: Stage 8.
Stage 8:
Progress
Measurement
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-22
Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
-------
Review Question
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Water quality criteria are developed during what stage of the water quality-based approach to
pollution control?
2. Total Maximum Daily Load is calculated from:
a. Waste Load Allocation x Load Allocation
b. Load Allocation - Waste Load Allocation
c. The Sum of Pollutant Load from Point Sources + The Sum of Pollutant Load from Nonpoint
Sources + Margin of Safety
d. WLA/LA
e. None of these (a-d)
3. True or False. NPDES permits are issued to limit the potential discharge of pollutants from point
and nonpoint sources.
4. True or False. The TMDL provides the basis for States to establish water quality-based controls.
5. True or False. The TMDL process is established by the Clean Water Act.
6. The primary responsibility for developing TMDLs belongs to:
a. EPA
b. point source dischargers (industry)
c. the States
d. the public
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-23
-------
Module 20
7. True or False. Water quality-based effluent limits will always supersede technology-based effluent
limitations.
8. The final stage of the water quality-based approach to pollution control is to:
a. adopt criteria
b. publish water quality standards
c. evaluate effectiveness
d. issue NPDES permits
9. States are required to submit biennial 305(b) reports to:
a. apply for Federal NFS funds
b. assess the quality of State waters
c. list impaired waters in ranked order
d. submit water quality standards for EPA's approval
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
Update-4 2000
20-24
-------
jj£} TRAINING MODULE 20:
\«X IMPLEMENTATION — TECHNOLOGY- BASED CONTROLS
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides a basic understanding of the technology-based control programs developed
through effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards regulations.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To provide a basic understanding of the effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
program and of the information needed from industrial dischargers and secondary sources to develop
national effluent guideline regulations.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants will be able to:
• Identify the components of the technology-based program used for developing effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
• Define the different levels of technology for effluent guidelines authorized by the Clean Water
Act
• Describe the regulatory process for developing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards
• Discuss the data and information requirements of the effluent guidelines program
• Define effluent guidelines in terms of limits on pollutants discharged to the environment
• Discuss the use of effluent guidelines in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture, Overheads, Case examples (discussion only).
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 hour (Lecture — 45 minutes; Review Questions —15 minutes).
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-1
-------
Module 20
Basic Course References:
Miscellaneous Effluent Guidelines Limitations and Pretreatment Standards Support Documents:
Technical Support Documents, Economic Assessments, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Environmental
Analyses, Benefits Analyses.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-2
-------
MODULE 20 - OUTLINE
IMPLEMENTATION -
TECHNOLOGY-BASED CONTROLS
- INTRODUCTION -
The first part of the effluent limitation
guidelines program is the proposal of
regulations for industrial dischargers.
Vugraph 1: Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
; Critical path- \
Non-Critical path/
*
Survey Questionnaire
- Engineering
- Economic
1
t
Engineering.
Economic.
Statistical
Analysis of
Responses
f i
1
1
Effluent Guidelines Flowchart
Regulation Development Process
1 Industry Designated in Effluent 1
Guidelines Plan 1
>lr
i
Review available data)
- Identity data gaps |
1
_ V
— ^.| Select Ptents/Srtes for Visits]
^
a Plant/Site Visit
Process & tre
assessment
In-process & s
sampling
Y
[Site Reports on
Technology
4
*
tment
tream s,
P
T Tn
of Held
samples __
1 Statistical Analysis of
feld data 1
":""">
1 Secondary
Data CoDection*
1 {non-EPA data
t sources)
udies on
rocess
cations ant
alabilily
"^"^^^^e
•jf For tome ruiai. no
qtMitionncir* It davtlopad.
In thosa ruin tha critical
path tasks ara arthar tha
fiald sampling «net anarytis.
or oecondary data
cotlaction.
Assess Technology
• technology performance, water use.
costs, residuals, modeling, etc.
Technology
Costing
T"
Calculate
Effluent
Limitations
>fc
Subcategor
ization
b
Hr
Develop
Regulatory
Options
Economic
Analysis
c
<
13
>
r
>>iml Environmental
""1 Assessments
(not used direct* in
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-3
-------
Module 20
The second major part of effluent
guidelines is the revision of regulatory
options based upon comments received
in response to the proposal.
Vugraph 2 : Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
Effluent Guidelines Flowchart
Regulation Development Process
Proposal Documents
a. Technical Development Document
b. Economic Impact Analysis
c. Environmental Assessment
f
Public Comment*;
New Data
>,
22
Index and Summarize
Public Comments
Assess and Integrate New
Information Into Database
to Page 3
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-4
-------
Implementation - Technology-Based Controls
The final part of developing effluent
guidelines in the publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register.
Vugraph 3 : Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
Effluent Guidelines Flowchart
Regulation Development Process
Final Documents
a. Technical Development Documen
b. Economic Impact Analysis
c. Environmental Assessment
Final Public and Confidential
Rutemaking Records
- TERMINOLOGY -
The technology-based program uses terminology that originates in the Clean Water Act, other Federal
laws, and Executive Orders of the President.
INDUSTRY -
Effluent guidelines are developed for industrial dischargers. Some of these facilities discharge directly
to surface waters, others discharge to publicly-owned treatment works.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-5
-------
Module 20
REGULATIONS -
EPA uses many sources of information
including site visits, survey
questionnaires and secondary sources.
Vugraph 4 : Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
C Critical path* 1
ton-Critical path/
Industry Designated in Effluent
Guidelines Plan
Review available data
-identify data gape \
—•^•^•^•^•^•^i—i^— 2
Survey Questionnaire* _
- Engineering
' 3
t
Engineering,
Economic,
Statistical
Analysis of
Responses
1 •
Y
_^.| Select Plants/Sites for Visits |
Y
Plant/Site Vial
Process &trei
assessment
IrvproceM ft s
sampling
Y
ISItt Report! on 1
Technology |
4
ts'
itment
"••" stu
T Pf
Lir Modrfn
T Tr«
of field
samples
T lu
i 1 Statistical Analysis of
i 1 held data
">»
1
! t
1 Secondary
. Data Collection'
1 (non-EPA data
ttources)
dies on
oceu
xtioruand
atability
< —
-TECHNOLOGY -
Effluent guidelines are based upon technology currently in use by industry.
STANDARDS-
EPA issues effluent guidelines that establish standards and discharge limits for pollutants of concern.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-6
-------
Implementation - Technology-Based Controls
- ASSESSMENTS -
Technology assessments include a
subcategorization process and
consideration of the technology currently
available and the economic achievability
of the technology.
Vugraph 5 : Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
•ff For some rules, no
questionnaire it developed.
In those nHe> the critical
pain talks are either the
field sampling and analysis,
or secondary data
collection.
Assess Technology
• technology performance, water use.
costs, residuals, modeling, etc.
Technology
Costing
Subcatogor-
Ization
Economic
Analysis
1
Calculate
Effluent
Limitations
>„
Develop
Regulatory
Options
I Environmental 1
| Assessments |
i* (not used directly in
determining option*)
- PROPOSAL -
The first major step in developing
effluent guidelines is to propose the rule
in the Federal Register.
Vugraph 6 : Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-7
-------
Module 20
-NOA-
EPA receives public comments on
proposed effluent guidelines and
provides a response to each comment.
Vugraph 7 : Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
Public Comments;
New Data
22
Index and Summarize
Public Comments
Assess and Integrate New
Information Into Database
23
Collect Additional Data as
Warranted (Steps 2-11)
- REVISIONS -
Based upon comments and any new data,
EPA revises the technology assessment
and regulatory options.
Vugraph 8 : Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
f
Revised Technology Assessment
Revised
Technology
Costing
a
Revised !
Subcategor-i
ization •
bj
Revised
Economic
Analysis
Revised
Effluent
Limits
26
25
Revised
Regulatory
Options
28
Revised
Environmental
Assessments
27
Water Quality Standards Academy
20-8
Participant Manual
2000 Version
-------
Implementation - Technology-Based Controls
FINAL REGULATION -
EPA publishes the final effluent
guidelines in the Federal Register.
Vugraph 9 : Effluent Guidelines Flowchart.
Final Documnnl.
a. Technical Development Documen
b. Economic Impact Analysis
c. Environmental Assessment
Final Public and Confidential
Rutemaklng Records
Draft Federal RegisterNotice
of Final Rulemaking
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-9
-------
Module 20
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-10
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Technology-based controls are:
a. effluent limitation guidelines
b. pretreatment standards
c. both
d. neither
2. BAT means:
a. best available technology economically achievable
b. best available technology
c. a device used to hit a baseball
d. all of the above
e. none of the above
3. Effluent limitation guidelines and standards are:
a. Federal regulations
b. State regulations
c. local standards
d. all of the above
e. none of the above
4. PSES is an acronym for:
a. pretreatment standards for existing sources
b. pretreatment standards for exotic sources
c. pretreatment standards for new sources
d. all of the above
e. none of the above
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-11
-------
Module 20
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Version
20-12
-------
TRAINING MODULE 2 1 :
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module provides information on the requirements for Indian Tribal administration of the water
quality standards program and mechanisms for resolving disputes between an Indian Tribe and a State
adopting different standards for a common body of water.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To explain what an Indian Tribe must do to become eligible to administer the water quality standards
program; the application process; the components of a tribal water quality standards program; and the
mechanisms for resolving disputes between an Indian Tribe and a State adopting different standards for a
common waterbody.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• List the major criteria Indian Tribes must meet to qualify for eligibility
• Describe the information that must be included in a tribal application for eligibility
• Identify the three options Indian Tribes have for establishing water quality standards
• List the components of a tribal water quality standards program
• Identify EPA's three major options for a dispute resolution mechanism
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Lecture (with vugraphs); Video.
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 % hours (Lecture— 45 minutes; Video— 20 minutes; Review
Questions— 10 minutes).
Basic Course References:
Clean Water Act: sections 304(a), 518.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-1
-------
Module 21
Environmental Activities on Indian Reservations: FY 88. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Federal Activities. March 1989.
Reference Guide to Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes. USEPA Office of Water. January
1990.
Water Quality Standards Handbook; Second Edition, August 1994.
Chapter 1: General Provisions
Appendix A: Water Quality Standards Regulation: section 131.8.
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-2
-------
MODULE 21 - OUTLINE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ON
INDIAN RESERVATIONS
- INTRODUCTION -
Clean Water Act, section 518 — EPA is
required to promulgate regulations that
specify how the Agency will treat a tribe
in a manner similar to that in which it
treats a State for certain CWA programs.
Vugraph 1: Components
AMENDMENTS TO
WQS REGULATION
Main Components:
• Sets Procedures for Tribes To Become
Eligible to Administer the Water
Quality Standards Program
• Creates Dispute Resolution
Mechanism
&EPA
On December 12,1991, EPA issued
final amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Regulation in response to the
CWA.
Vugraph 2: Definition
DEFINITIONS
• State = 50 States, D.C., Territories, and
Indian Tribes
• Indian Reservation = Adi Land within
Limits of Any Reservation under U.S.
Jurisdiction
• Indian Tribe = Tribe, Band, Group, or
Community Recognized by the
Secretary of the Interior
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-3
-------
Module 21
CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY -
CWA, section 518(e) and 40 CFR
131.8(a) — An Indian Tribe must meet
certain criteria to administer a water
quality standards program.
Vugraph 3: Criteria
CRITERIA To
ADMINISTER THE WQS
PROGRAM
Recognized by DOI
SB Governing Body
SI Specified Waters
H Management Capability
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-4
-------
WQS on Indian Reservations
- TRIBAL APPLICATIONS -
40 CFR 131.8(b) — Specific information
is required for tribal applications to the
EPA Regional Administrator.
Vugraph 4: Application
TRIBAL APPLICATION
• Statement of DOI Recognition
• Documentation That Tribe Is Carrying
Out Substantial Duties and Powers
• Documentation of Authority To
Regulate Water Quality
• Statement of Capability To Administer
Program
0 Other Documentation To Support
Request
&EPA-
Documentation of the tribal governing body must
• describe the form of government,
• describe types of government functions, and
• identify source of tribal government's authority.
Documentation of tribal authority must include
• map or legal description of area,
• basis of authority,
• document copies, and
• surface water identification.
Water Quality Standards Academy
21-5
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
Module 21
Statement of administrative capabilities must
• describe previous management experience;
• list existing programs administered by the tribal governing body and include copies of related
laws, policies, and regulations;
• describe executive, legislative, and judicial entities;
• identify the agency with responsibility for water quality standards; and
• explain technical and administrative capabilities of staff.
The application may also include other supporting documentation.
The EPA Regional Administrator will
notify the Tribe that the application has
been received.
The Regional Administrator will
determine whether the Tribe has
adequately demonstrated authority to
regulate water quality on the
Reservation.
EPA will not formally deny a Tribe's
request.
Vugraph 5: Review
EPA REVIEW OF
APPLICATION
RA Notifies Appropriate Governmental Entities
30-Day Comment Period
(Comments Limited to Tribe's Assertion
of Authority)
RA Makes Independent Evaluation
(Consults With DOI)
RA Provides Prompt Written Notification
&EPA-
EPA is responsible for assisting the Tribe in establishing standards.
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-6
-------
WQS on Indian Reservations
EPA considers three options acceptable
for establishing tribal water quality
standards.
Vugraph 6: Options
OPTIONS FOR
TRIBAL WQS
1. Cooperative Agreement with
Adjoining State
2. Incorporate Adjacent States1
Standards
3. Independently Develop and Adopt
Standards
&EPA
A Tribe must meet the same water
quality standards program requirements
as a State.
Vugraph 7: Requirements
WQS PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
The Same Requirements for
Developing State Water Quality
Standards Apply to Indian
Tribes
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-7
-------
Module 21
- DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM -
CWA, section 518 — EPA is required to
establish a dispute resolution
mechanism.
Vugraph 8: Dispute Resolution
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Mechanism for Resolving
Unreasonable Consequences That
Arise as a Result
of Different WQS
Set by States and
Indian Tribes on
a Common
Body of Water
&EPA
Parties to a State-tribal dispute are the State and the Tribe and may also include NPDES permittees,
citizens, citizen groups, or other affected entities.
Dispute resolution actions must be
consistent with one or a combination of
options.
Vugraph 9: Approaches
EPA's APPROACH TO
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
• Mediation
• Arbitration
• Default Procedure
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
21-8
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
-------
WQS on Indian Reservations
40 CFR 131.7 — Mechanism for dispute
resolution.
Vugraph 10: Responsibilities
EPA RESOLVES
DISPUTES WHEN:
• Unreasonable Consequences Result
• Dispute Is Between State and Indian Tribe
• Effort Is Made To Resolve without EPA
• Requested Relief Is Consistent with CWA
• Differing Standards Were Approved by
EPA
• Valid Written Request Was Submitted
&EPA-
Either a State or a Tribe may request that
EPA resolve a dispute.
Vugraph 11: Request
WRITTEN REQUEST
EPA TO INCLUDE:
> Statement of Unreasonable Consequences
> Description of Actions Taken to Resolve
Dispute
• Indication of the WQS Provision in
Question
> Data to Support Alleged Unreasonable
Consequences
> Statement of the Relief Sought
&EPA-
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-9
-------
Module 21
Dispute resolution procedures.
Vugraph 12: Process
PROCESS
Regional Administrator Reviews
Request
Within 30 Days: RA Determines if
EPA Involvement Is Appropriate
If Yes, RA Notifies Parties in Writing
&EPA-
EPA will take one dispute resolution action or a combination of actions.
Mediation.
Vugraph 13: Mediator
MEDIATOR
• Appointed by RA
• Acts as Neutral Facilitator
• May Establish Advisory Panels
- To Help Study Problem
- To Help Recommend Solution
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-10
-------
WQS on Indian Reservations
Arbitration.
Vugraph 14: Arbitration
ARBITRATION
• RA Appoints Arbitrator
' Arbitrator Must Know the WQS Program
and Understand Tribal Political/Economic
Interests
• Arbitrator Provides a Written
Recommendation
• Parties Are Not Obligated To Follow This
Recommendation
• Parties May Appeal
&EPA
Dispute resolution default procedure.
Vugraph 15: Default
DEFAULT PROCEDURE
• Used When a Party Refuses To
Participate in Mediation or Arbitration
• RA Appoints Official or Panel
• Official/Panel Issues a Written
Recommendation
&EPA
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-11
-------
Module 21
- TRIBES THAT DO NOT APPLY FOR
THE WQS PROGRAM -
There is no requirement that forces an
Indian Tribe to submit an application for
the water quality standards program.
Vugraph 16: No Application
TRIBES THAT Do NOT
APPLY FOR AUTHORITY
To ADMINISTER THE
WQS PROGRAM
• No Mandatory Requirement
• No Time Limit
&EPA
If EPA finds it necessary to promulgate Federal standards for one or more Tribes, the resulting proposed
rule-making would most likely be straightforward.
[VIDEO: Water Quality Standards on Indian Lands]
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-12
-------
Review Questions
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Which of the following is not a requirement for Tribes applying for the water quality standards
program?
a. Recognition by the Department of the Interior
b. Management and technical skills necessary to carry out the functions of an effective water
quality standards program
c. A governing body that carries out substantial governmental duties and powers
d. None of these (a-c) is a requirement
e. All of these (a-c) are requirements
2. True or False. A tribal application for the water quality standards program should include a listing of
surface waters for which water quality standards will be proposed.
3. True or False. An Indian Tribe must have managed comparable programs before it is eligible to
administer a water quality standards program.
4. True or False. A State that is affected when an Indian Tribe obtains the authority to administer a
water quality program can overturn the decision that granted the authority.
5. Which of the following is not an EPA mechanism for dispute resolution?
a: Mediation
b. Arbitration
c. Dispute resolution default procedure
d. EPA employs all of the above
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-13
-------
Module 21
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
21-14
-------
TRAINING MODULE 22:
TERMINOLOGY
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module reviews terms, definitions, and concepts used in the water quality standards and criteria
programs and pertaining to the fundamentals of toxicology, risk assessment, ecological risk, and risk
communication.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To reacquaint participants with terms and concepts used in water quality standards, water quality
criteria, toxicology, risk assessment, ecological risk, and risk communication.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
• Define key terms associated with the water quality standards and criteria programs and those
associated with toxicology, risk assessment, ecologist risk, and risk communication.
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Game (similar to Jeopardy, where the definition is provided and participants
provide the appropriate term).
Approximate Presentation Time: 1A hour.
Basic Course References:
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, August 1994, Glossary.
Terms of Environmental: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms. USEPA. April 1994.
Water Quality Standards Academy - Participant Manual
2000 Version
22-1
-------
Module 22
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Version
22-2
-------
MODULE 22 - OUTLINE
WQS TERMINOLOGY
- RULES OF THE "GAME"
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Version
22-3
-------
Module 22
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Version
22-4
-------
TRAINING MODULE 23 :
WRAP-UP/FEEDBACK
MODULE SUMMARY:
This module determines whether students' expectations of the training course were met, seeks to obtain
feedback on the usefulness of the course, and concludes the course.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To determine whether the course content met the expectations that the participants identified during
Module 1 and to obtain feedback to improve the course materials.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES:
N/A
LOGISTICS:
Teaching Method: Group discussion and individual participant evaluations.
Approximate Presentation Time: % hour.
Basic Course References:
N/A
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
23-1
-------
Module 23
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
23-2
-------
MODULE 23 - OUTLINE
WRAP-UP/FEEDBACK
- REVIEW OF EXPECTATIONS -
- COURSE EVALUATION -
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
23-3
-------
Module 23
Water Quality Standards Academy Participant Manual
2000 Edition
23-4
-------
ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN STATE
SWAP CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND/OR
CITIZEN/TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
ASSESSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
INVOLVEMENT IN STATE SOURCE WATER
ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Final Summary
of Three Telephone Conference Calls
EPA Contract No. 68-C6-0029
Work Assignment 1-21
September 21,1998
-------
ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
IN STATE SWAP CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES
AND/OR CITIZEN/TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
ASSESSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT
IN STATE SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Final Summary of Three Telephone Conference Calls
EPA Contract No. 68-C6-0029
Work Assignment 1-21
September 30,1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During July and August, 1998, EPA conducted a midstream assessment of advisory committee
involvement by citizen/environmental groups in state Source Water Assessment Programs (SWAPs).
This report summarizes the findings from the three telephone conference calls EPA convened to obtain
feedback from 32 representatives of certain stakeholder groups in 30 states. Though not a survey, the
calls were a forum for the committee members to provide EPA with anecdotal information concerning
specific success stories on their states' SWAP public involvement activities, states' innovative
approaches to facilitate stakeholder involvement, obstacles to public involvement, and recommendations
for participation by stakeholder groups. The key findings are highlighted below and are discussed in
more detail in the body of the summary report as well as in the individual summary reports on each of
the three telephone conference calls.
Advisory Committee Involvement to Date
• The majority of states are meeting or exceeding most citizen committee members'
expectations. On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is the highest possible score:
— 22 of 27 members gave their states' committees scores of 5 or over.
(5 members did not give their states' committees scores.)
— 3 members gave their states' committees a perfect score of 10.
— 9 committee members gave their states' committees scores of 7, 8, or 9.
--10 members gave their states' committees scores of 5 or 6.
— 1 participant gave his state's committee a score of 4, 3 participants gave their
states a score of 3, and 1 participant gave her committee a score of 2.
Makeup and Diversity of Advisory Committees
• The majority of states identified, notified and recruited the right groups for their
committees, but there were notable differences among the states.
~ Some states used pre-existing committees as a basis for SWAP committees.
— Many state advisory committees include limited numbers of citizen/environmental
groups compared to other interests.
— Most states did not successfully recruit groups representing vulnerable populations.
— In many states some stakeholder groups could not participate due to a lack of funding.
— Some states do not understand the value of public involvement and did not try hard to
identify, notify, or recruit stakeholders.
— For several states, involving the public was a major hurdle.
— Some states' failure to inform invitees at the outset undermined recruitment.
Structure of Advisory Committees
• The structure of the committees in most states enabled them to work well.
— The majority of states combined technical and citizen groups into one joint committee. .
-- In most states the number of attendees at committee meetings ranged from 10 to 25
people, but varied widely from meeting to meeting.
— The majority of states created subcommittees to address particular issues.
— Communication procedures in most states encouraged dialog among members.
-i-
-------
Frequency and Location of Advisory Committee Meetings
• To date, most states' advisory committees have met at least twice.
• Most committees have met every two or three months, while a few have met monthly.
• Meetings in most states have been held in state facilities at locations that have
discouraged participation by stakeholder groups without travel budgets.
• Almost all states' committees have been meeting during midday on weekdays, which has
discouraged participation by stakeholder groups without paid staff.
Opportunities for Meaningful Input from Advisory Committee Members Into SWAP
• To date, most states have provided sufficient opportunities for advisory committee
members to provide input.
• Most states did an adequate job of educating members on broad issues, but some states
did a poor job of educating them on technical issues.
• Many states have incorporated substantive input from the advisory committees, but in
some states, non-technical members of the committees have not been allowed to provide
input on key programmatic decisions, or the states have not taken their input seriously.
• In some states, fears of failing to meet the EPA's deadlines have reduced the amount of
time available for providing input.
State Plans to Involve the General Public
• Most states are planning to incorporate input on SWAP decisions from the general public.
— At least half a dozen states plan to conduct public workshops to present the SWAPs
and solicit feedback. Some states plan as many as 10 to 18 workshops or seminars.
— At least five states plan to provide information to the public using web pages. At least
three states are currently using a web page.
Other Suggestions and Comments Relating to the Advisory Committees
• In a few states, the state staff played a key role in ensuring the success of the advisory
committee process.
• One state's program lead, a state staff member, doggedly pursued the broad participation
of stakeholder groups^ and the state's SWAP process benefitted substantially as a result.
• The lead agency in one state with a very successful committee let the committee members
control the organizational process and structure. r
• Some states used teleconferencing or video-conferencing to solve travel-related problems
for advisory committee members.
• One state made its advisory committee responsible for drafting portions of the SWAP
plan, thereby greatly increasing members' opportunities to participate in the process.
• One perceived key to a successful SWAP process was getting an early start on public
involvement.
-11-
-------
Table of Contents
I. Committee Makeup and Diversity 5
II. Committee Structure 11
III. Committee Meetings 15
IV. Meaningful Committee Input ' 19
• . '
V. States' Plans to Involve the General Public 23
VI. Advisory Committee Involvement To Date 27
VII. Other Issues 29
Appendix: Participants in State SWAP Advisory Committee Member Teleconferences 31
-------
ASSESSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT
IN STATE SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
FINAL SUMMARY OF THREE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALLS
The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) increased the focus on
prevention as an approach to ensuring safe drinking water. This approach aims to prevent problems by
increasing the capacity to provide safe drinking water and protecting the source waters from which we
draw our drinking water. The amendments embody the concept that new, responsible regulatory
flexibility is appropriate, if triggered by sound information on relevant local conditions. The prevention
provisions in the Amendments have two key elements:
• A clear state lead with flexibility and resources to achieve results; and
• A strong ethic of public information and involvement within the states'
decision-making processes.
The SDWA requires each state to establish and implement Source Water Assessment Programs
(SWAPs) that include both of these elements. The SDWA amendments require every state to conduct
extensive public participation in the development of their SWAPs, specifically the creation of a Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC) or Citizen/Technical Advisory Committee (C/TAC), and outreach to the
general public. To ensure that relevant viewpoints are considered in the SWAP development process,
public involvement requirements for SWAPs are more extensive than for many previous environmental
programs. In particular, EPA's SWAP Guidance recommends that specific types of stakeholder groups
participate in the advisory committees. The Guidance suggests that public interest groups (river and
watershed organizations), vulnerable population groups (elderly, transplant patients, dialysis patients,
people living with HIV/AIDS), and land conservation groups should be given adequate opportunity to
participate on the advisory committees. .
EPA is committed to helping ensure successful assessments. Because in many states the
organizations implementing SWAPs have had limited experience to date working with such
organizations, EPA has begun a process to obtain feedback from stakeholder groups about individual
state efforts to facilitate their involvement and to utilize their expertise in-state SWAP development
processes. On August 19, 1998, EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
convened the third of three telephone conference calls to determine how the states are achieving the
public involvement that is recommended according to the perspective of some members of state CACs.
In these conference calls EPA is seeking to document the opinions of these participants on the specific
successes and hurdles that are being encountered in the SWAP public participation process. This
midstream evaluation will be useful to EPA and the states for the success of future public involvement
endeavors. EPA's particular interest at this time is the involvement of stakeholders that have not
traditionally been key players in state drinking water policy development.
This report summarizes the comments made during three telephone conference calls conducted
on July 22, August 18, and August 19, 1998. Representatives of stakeholder groups from 30 states
participated in these conference calls. Each call, which was convened after the participants had called in
to a toll-free number provided by EPA, lasted approximately 90 minutes. Call participants, who serve as
members of their states' advisory committees, were also invited to submit further written comments if
they felt that they had additional input that was important to be included in the assessment process. The
information in this report is a summary of the verbal comments made by the 32 advisory committee
-1-
-------
members during the three calls, and any written observations they submitted. The participants based
their impressions and comments on the experience they gleaned while serving as advisory committee
members in each of their states, or while trying to become a member. In preparing this report, the
participants were not re-contacted either to gather more in-depth knowledge or to clarify any of the
particulars provided, nor were any other individuals contacted to verify any information that came to
light during the calls.
This report uses anecdotal information supplied by the committee members that participated in
this assessment to describe selected successes of state SWAP public involvement activities. The success
stories include innovative approaches that states adopted to facilitate the involvement of stakeholder
groups. This report also identifies problems and obstacles in state SWAP public involvement activities.
As part of each section, it also recounts relevant advisory committee member recommendations for
improved citizen advisory committee participation by stakeholder groups and for future public
involvement activities conducted by states, localities and public water suppliers during the remaining
SWAP development period and into the full assessment period.
The participants on the three calls included a total of 32 representatives of public interest groups
who serve as members of advisory committees in 30 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The
Appendix lists the states, the names of the advisory committee members that participated in the three
telephone conference calls, and the stakeholder organization each participant represents on his or her
state's committee. During the conference calls the participants discussed the seven topics listed below.
I. Makeup and Diversity of Advisory Committees
• Did your state identify the right groups/individuals to include on the
committees?
• What kind of job has your state done in notifying prospective committee
members?
• How successful has your state been in recruiting the right individuals for the
Committee?
II. Structure of Advisory Committees
• Has the structure of the committees enabled them to work well (e.g., number of
committee members, outside facilitator, subcommittees)?
• Have communication procedures encouraged dialog among members?
III. Frequency and Location of Advisory Committee Meetings
• How many meetings has your state held to date? How often? Are these enough
meetings?
• Has your state held meetings at locations that have encouraged participation?
• Has your state established meeting times that have encouraged broad
participation?
-2-
-------
IV. Opportunities for Meaningful Input from Advisory Committee Members Into SWAP
• Has your state made an effort to educate committee members on broad issues
(e.g., the state's plans for how to use the committees, the state's expectations for
the committees) and technical issues (e.g., TOT) so that they can make
meaningful contributions?
• Did the state provide sufficient opportunities for the advisory committee's
members to provide input, including a sufficient time frame?
• Did the state incorporate substantive contributions from the advisory
committee's input?
V. State Plans to Involve the General Public
• What is your state planning to do to incorporate input/comment on SWAP
decisions from the general public? Do you think that will be adequate?
VI. Advisory Committee Involvement .
• For your state, rank advisory committee involvement up to this point on a scale
of 1 -10, where 10 is the highest possible score.
VII. Other Issues Relating to the Advisory Committees that Need to be Addressed
. -3-
-------
I. COMMITTEE MAKEUP AND DIVERSITY
The first topic discussed was whether the participating committee members thought that their
states had identified, notified, and recruited the right stakeholder groups for their advisory committees.
This section summarizes their views regarding these issues and the anecdotal information they provided.
It also describes the obstacles that the participants cited about recruiting the right groups, their ideas of
the states' recruitment-related successes, and the innovative approaches the states used to enhance
stakeholder recruitment and keep those recruited active. It also includes the participants'
recommendations for improving recruitment and making it worth the time of the individuals representing
the stakeholder groups that should become involved.
States identified
and notified the
right groups
Existing
pre-SWAP
committees were
used in some
states
Recycling
committee
membership
Program lead
"bent over
backwards" to
get the right
people
The participants' impressions of the job each of their states has done to
ensure that the committees have broad stakeholder representation seemed to be
related to how effective they thought their advisory committees have been overall.
According to the majority of the participants, the states represented in the calls have
done a good job of identifying and notifying the right groups. A handful of states
was evaluated as having done an excellent to outstanding job. Conversely, there
were also several states that were viewed as having failed so far in overcoming the
hurdles they have faced. This section describes the wide-ranging anecdotal evidence
the participants gave to provide a context for their opinions about the states'
performance. During the descriptions of the circumstances related by the
participants, this section also notes some of the successes of the states in achieving.
broad stakeholder participation in SWAP advisory committees.
The states represented in the calls started from very different positions in the
entire public involvement process. According to the participants, CAC and C/TAC
membership in several states was largely or totally carried over from existing
committees, sometimes a standing watershed steering committee. At least five of
the states supposedly chose to build their SWAP advisory committees off other
existing statewide advisory committees. One of the participants whose state built the
new committee off an existing committee said that the members of her state's pre-
SWAP committee discussed the pros and cons of using their committee to form the
core of the SWAP committee. They concluded that the pluses of using an existing
group outweighed the minuses.
Though not adopting existing committees outright, some other states were
also said to have essentially recycled committee membership from previous
committees. For example, in one state, a participant who claimed to represent the
only environmental group on that state's CAC, said that the state invited only
individuals that the lead agency was already involved with through previous water-
related public involvement efforts. '
Some of the committee members participating in the three conference calls
thought that the states they represented had both identified and notified almost all of
the right stakeholder groups. Most of those states reportedly had not used an
existing committee to form the basis of the SWAP committees. One state in
particular stood out as having done an exemplary job of reaching out to all the
environmental groups that have a statewide constituency.
-5-
-------
A list of The participant representing the state with the particularly strong program
stakeholder lead specifically credited the lead with having orchestrated the state's initial strong
categories beginning. The lead was described as having "bent over backwards" to get the right
became an invitee people to the table. One somewhat innovative approach he used was to start a
list
Some states just
do not try hard
Undermining
recruitment
Not knowing
where to start:
Involving the
public is a major
hurdle for some
states
lengthy discussion among attendees at one of the first organizational SWAP
meetings over precisely what groups were stakeholders. In describing the situation,
the call participant related that eventually the committee members came up with an
exhaustive list of categories of people that would be affected by SWAP. The state's
lead agency then purportedly invited all the groups on that list to join the SWAP
process by becoming members of the advisory committees.
Representatives from a few states were critical of their states' efforts to
identify and invite prospective stakeholders. The member representing one state told
of how he learned secondhand of the SWAP committee's existence. However, after
requesting to participate, that state's lead agency willingly allowed him to join the
committee. In another example, a participant claimed to have doubted his state's
claim of having overlooked his environmental group when notifying prospective
advisors. Although the state reportedly claims it was simply an oversight, the
participant is not satisfied. He said he believes that the state knew full well that his
group is, according to the participant, the one public interest group that was more
involved on the issue than any other group. The participant also claimed that the
state lead knew that the group the participant represented was the best placed group
to help recruit other stakeholders. Nevertheless, the participant believes the state
decided not to notify his group. The participant did concede that the lead agency's
action probably stemmed from their inexperience at involving the public. Since his
group joined the committee, the participant added that his group has successfully
recruited many other groups to attend the SWAP advisory committee meetings.
Another hurdle the states faced when notifying stakeholder groups was
adequately explaining the importance of SWAP, even if the states did a good job of
notifying prospective advisors. For example, one participant commented that in one
state the entire effort to notify groups seemed to have been downplayed. The
participant said that although the state did formally notify most of the right groups,
the state seemed to have done little to explain the SWAP program at all when the
groups were notified. Consequently, most of the groups that were notified
reportedly decided not to participate. He speculated that the state's failure to
provide information seriously undermined recruitment, and thus may have
undermined the whole SWAP public involvement process and the entire program.
One theme concerning the success or failure of the states to successfully
recruit stakeholders was repeated during each of the three conference calls by at least
one participant. Several of the advisory committee members felt that establishing
new relationships with stakeholder groups was a major hurdle for their states' lead
agencies. In fact, it was such a hurdle for them that participants sometimes reported
that the states gave the appearance of making only half-hearted efforts. One
participant attributed his perception of his state's lead agency's lack of effort in
identifying and notifying stakeholders to the agency's total inexperience at working
with citizen-based groups. Because public participation was characterized as being a
"whole new concept" in that state,, the participant speculated that the agency staff
simply did not know where to start.
-6-
-------
Some states This theme was repeated by representatives from half a dozen states. For
limited their example, some participants said that their states identified only one or two
efforts to recruit environmental groups to participate as advisors. Several participants referred to
citizen groups these as "token" environmental groups, especially when the committees on which
they served were large and were dominated by state or local agency staffer water
utility staff. In another state, although the committee member thought his state had
foundered in recruiting stakeholders, the participant credited the state with making a
conscientious effort to actually implement the program. Establishing new
relationships was such a hurdle that in one of the 30 states, a participant reported that
almost no effort whatsoever had been made to notify potential stakeholder groups.
One other state was criticized for reportedly being willing to invite only statewide
public interest groups.
Recruitment is Some participants distinguished between the job their states did in
bound to fail if identifying prospective members of the advisory committees from the job they did in
groups are notifying them. According to several participants, even after preparing a good list of
identified, but not, potential invitees, some states did not do a good job of notifying individuals. In
notified some states the identified stakeholders reportedly were simply not invited. In other
states, there was no follow-up to include groups that did not respond quickly.
Questionnaires The tools the states used also may have played a role in the states'success in
may not be the recruiting stakeholders into the process. Representatives from two states reported
right way to find markedly different results from their states' efforts trying to use thousands of
out who to invite invitations to recruit individuals to the committees. In one state, a call participant
told of how more than 3,000 questionnaires were sent out in newsletters. Fewer than
.' , 30 responses came back, even with prepaid postage on the questionnaires. In
contrast, another state sent out approximately 2,000 invitations. That state got back
approximately 240 responses, for a response rate more than ten times higher than the
one in the first state. From that group or respondents, the second state was able to
recruit 19 members to the state's advisory committee.
Some states have
limited numbers
of citizen
activists, and all
are overextended
Participants from several states characterized their committees as having
successfully recruited excellent cross sections of representation. In contrast, the
participants from several other states felt that their states had not recruited the right
individuals for the committees. Some of them said that they felt their states had not
been able to entice many would-be members to participate. Many of the individuals
invited, but who decided not to participate, were said to have other commitments
that they viewed as a higher priority than being active in the SWAP process.
Whatever the reason, several participants noted that to date there has been a low rate
of participation of citizens on their states' SWAP advisory committees. By way of .
example, several participants recounted stories of how busy citizen volunteers are.
Several participants alleged that a small group of activists is very involved with a
large number of water issues. The case was made repeatedly that many citizen
participants and could-be SWAP advisors, at least in some states, are already grossly
over-committed even without SWAP. One participant recounted how in one month
alone, she had attended three all-day water-related meetings on weekends, plus eight
other meetings on state or local initiatives. Of the 45 people invited to the citizen
advisory committee meeting in her state, only 11 showed up at the first and only
meeting they have had up until the time of the telephone call. In one state, a
participant noted that the interest of members on the CAC appears to be dwindling.
He said that even though there were 20 members on the CAC in that state, only five
-7-
-------
Public
involvement is
seen as a waste of
time and effort
Citizen groups
are vastly
outnumbered on
many committees
Some states are
not willing to
accept new
members
or six attended the last meeting. Another participant added that in the meetings in
her state the individuals attending the meetings were not always the same people.
Several participants concluded that the time commitments required to become
actively involved in any state-run public participation process are huge, and the
groups must choose their top priorities. . , v
Another participant had a more complicated explanation for the perceived
low level of citizen involvement in the SWAP committees. That participant claimed
that one of the principal reasons recruiting stakeholders is difficult is an often
perceived lack of trust on the part of those being recruited that the meetings and the
time committed to them will ever be meaningful. He said he based that opinion on
his observations of his state's government officials' behavior. In his state, he
believes there is virtually no political will to create the authority to promulgate the
intent of federal laws. As a result, he believes advisory committees are habitually
ignored by the majority of citizenry in his state. Further, he believes citizens regard
such meetings as a nuisance that is little more than a time and effort sink. The
participant thinks that is why most citizens decline to participate in such efforts. He
also said that he believes the situation is unfortunate because it frustrates sincere
state administrators. According to that participant, this attitude is especially true of
surface water protection from agricultural, industrial, recreational and "macro-scale"
urban development effects. He maintained that in states such as his, where
government purportedly values business above the environment, agricultural and
industrial lobbies will always hold sway. He implied that most citizens do not view
public involvement as meaningful when up against such government sympathies for
such formidable foes. '
Participant reports about the diversity of committee members were not
positive concerning several states. Many participants criticized their states' advisory
committees for being comprised largely of state and local agency employees, paid
consultants, local water works or utility staff, industry (agriculture, oil and gas), or
people that had previously been involved in similar (e.g., ground water) programs.
For example, participants claimed that not one public or environmental group is on
the TACs in some states. In other states, only one or two environmental groups are
reportedly on any of the committees, especially the TACs, while the vast majority of
the members are representatives from state and local agencies. For example, in one
state, with a total committee membership of 30 people, at least 25 were said to be
agency staff, with only two or three people representing the public. One participant
argued that the broad representation of utility companies on the committees
undermines SWAP by stacking the deck in favor of treatment options rather than
pollution prevention.
Several states Have reportedly opened SWAP public participation to include
any interested groups. Moreover, participants from some states commended their
states' SWAP leaders for enthusiastically including any groups that found out about
the.process and expressed interest in participating in the program's development.
For example, even though some states did not recruit vulnerable populations or
many environmental groups to be included on the committees, they have reportedly
welcomed them into the process. However, in other states, groups requesting to get
on the committees were sometimes informed by the states that the groups were not
welcome to join. Through the groups' persistence, some were eventually appointed
to the committees, but not always. For example, a water-related environmental
-8-
-------
Recruiting citizen
advisors may
depend on the
good will of the
lead agency
Lacking grant
money, some
would-be
members cannot
participate
Gaps exist in
stakeholder
representation
advocacy group in one state reportedly expressed interest in participating as an
advisor, but was refused by the state, even after the group was acknowledged as
representing stakeholders. That state has reportedly also refused to include several
other self-identified groups that have asked to be part of the process. The state is
one of the states reported as using a standing committee as its SWAP advisory
committee. According to another participant, the members of the citizens advisory
committee in her state were not initially aware that a TAG was also meeting. After
finding out about the TAG, the participant asked to get on to that committee as well
in order to ensure that the public's interest was represented. The state at first
responded to the request by denying it with the claim that the water suppliers.and
regulators represented the public sufficiently. After the participant persisted, the
lead agency in the state eventually relented to the extent that it would allow the
participant to attend the meetings, but only on the condition that the participant
would not distract from the agenda of the committee.
One participant criticized his state's TAG recruitment process as being
different from the GAG process. He said that those recruited for the TAG consisted
almost entirely of water purveyors and state agency staff. He presumed that they
were easy to assign to the committee. Another participant, also from a state with a
separate TAG, said his state considered expertise and ability to.provide technical
input as the primary criteria for recruiting people for that committee. Conversely, he
believes the GAG members were recruited for their perceived ability to inform and
advise the stakeholder groups that they represent. He surmised that the process for
recruiting individuals for citizen committees was far more complex and dependent
on the competency and goodwill of the state's lead agency.
Several participants pointed out that a major obstacle to keeping the
recruited groups involved in SWAP was insufficient financial resources. In one
state that received high marks for identifying and notifying the right groups, the
participant gave the state lower marks for recruiting the groups. The participant
making this observation attributed the state's failure to a lack of grant money made
available for public interest groups. She pointed out that the funds are essential for
allowing groups to participate in the process when those groups have limited
financial resources. A lack of sufficient funds was why her group was forced to halt
their involvement as a SWAP advisor, even though they had been heavily involved
in the SWAP process for months. This was said to be particularly true for several
stakeholder groups, especially low income groups and vulnerable populations. With
limited resources, SWAP is something in which they.often just cannot afford to get
involved.
Even with fewer than two dozen committee members each, a few states have
reportedly successfully recruited a broad range of stakeholder groups, including
public water systems, legislative and public health staff, industries, water users, and
Native Americans. Yet, significant gaps were also reported. Several participants
identified important stakeholder groups that are not represented on their states'
committees. These under represented groups included vulnerable populations,
Native Americans, citizen-based rural groups, and community group representatives.
While such groups are reportedly well represented on some states' advisory
committees, representation of these groups on the committees seems to be the
exception rather than the rule.
-9-
-------
AIDS and cancer
survivor groups
choose not to
participate
For example, at least four states' advisory groups reportedly include
representatives of vulnerable populations. However, most states were reportedly not
successful in recruiting this stakeholder group. Although one state did allegedly
recruit a group representing cancer survivors, that group did not continue its
involvement. Another state had invited an AIDS group to join, but they chose not
participate. Participants said that some additional states plan to recruit public health
groups into the process in the future. At least one state has reportedly tried
unsuccessfully to get members of the medical community to join the advisory
committees. In one of the conference calls two subjects came up that were not
addressed during the two other calls. Those subjects included addressing under-
served versus well-served areas, and the issue of taking into account environmental
justice. None of the participants during that call reported any attempt by their state
leads to address these issues.
In one state with a large Native American population, there are so far no
Native Americans participating on the CAC. This was a big concern of that state's
participant. He has been assured by the state lead agency that although that group of
stakeholders had not been invited initially, they will be invited to join the process.
At least one other state with a large Native American population does include a
representative of that population group on its advisory committee.
-10-
-------
II. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
Committee members participating in each of the three telephone conference calls discussed the
structure of their committees and their impressions of how the structure has enabled the committees to
work. This section summarizes their opinions regarding these issues and the anecdotal evidence they
gave to support their opinions. It also describes some of the obstacles the states faced in organizing the
committees, and identifies some of the successes the states have achieved. Participants'
recommendations are also included.
The size of the The lead agencies in the states have organized their committees in one of
committees varies two ways. They have either combined all citizen and technical advisors into one
joint C/TAC, or they have established a separate CAC and a separate TAC. Of the
states represented, although quite a few have reportedly established separate citizen
and technical committees, the majority have combined them into one joint
committee. At least one state initially had two separate committees, but the two
committees were combined into one joint committee after an initial large attendance
for the CAC dropped to fewer than a dozen people.
There is cross-
over between the
committees
Leadership may
be decisive factor
in program
success
Participants also reported that in most of the states with two separate
committees there is at least some cross-over between the two committees, with some
members serving on both. For example, one person serves as a liaison between the
two committees in one of the states. In another state, the TAC has so much overlap
with the CAC that it was said to be almost like a subcommittee. One reported result
of combining the two committees is that technical committee members reportedly
outweigh citizen members by a ratio of least seven to one in one state. A concern
was expressed over the extent of citizen input on committees that were
predominantly not citizen based. That concern had to do with a perception that the
TAC members dominated the SWAP agendas in several states. In addition, many
participants said that most of the significant decisions were being made in the TAC
committees. Many participants claimed that there was less citizen input in those
committees. As a result, they felt that a lot of the decisions were being made with
little or no citizen input.
Participants' evaluations of the overall effectiveness of the committees
seemed to depend to a greater extent on many factors other than committee structure.
However, the advisory committees that were evaluated by participants as having
been the most involved all had one combined citizen and technical advisory
committee. Of those three states, one used an existing standing committee to form
the basis of the SWAP committee, one combined the TAC and CAC committees
mid-way through the process, and one made extensive use of subcommittees.
The issue of program leadership was extremely relevant to at least two
participants. A key factor in the difference between comfort levels of the committee
members was greatly influenced by the human serving as the program manager.
One participant believes that her state's program manager is very highly regarded
and technically competent. She commented that although her state's committee
structure would allow for more participation from members than they have chosen to
exercise, she believes that their choice not to have broader participation reflects the
committee's high level of confidence in their program manager. Another participant
criticized her committee's leadership because it seemed unwilling to push for more
than the status quo. That participant admitted to feeling that the lead agency and the
-11-
-------
Innovation in
structuring the,
committee:
Let the members
control the
process
More innovation:
Conduct formal
planning sessions
Some citizens feel
left out of the
loop and forced
to play catch-up
Committee
meetings are
sometimes
routine agency
agendas
EPA worked together too much, and that there was little or no oversight. The
process was characterized as operating without any checks and balances.
Committee structure was characterized as a threshold issue in several states
that did not use standing committees to form the basis of the SWAP advisory
committees. Some states reportedly left the structure of the SWAP committees up to
the members of the committee. In one case, the state reportedly imposed no control
over the structure at all. Instead, the program lead tried an innovative approach. He
put the members into control by first asking how the members wanted the process to
work. They then organized the committee the way the members collectively decided
they wanted it to function. In some of the states with separate committees the CAC
and the TAC always meet separately, while in others the two committees sometimes
meet jointly.
One other state began with what was described as "pre-sessions" of the
SWAP committee meetings. ,It was during those sessions that individuals who,were
at that point only prospective members of the SWAP advisory committee decided
how it was to be structured. Even before the committee was convened, prospective
members decided that it would function best if they combined the citizen and
technical committees into one committee. That purportedly well balanced combined
committee includes water company people, USGS representatives, staff from the
state's environmental and public health agencies, a cross-section x>f community
interest groups, local planners, and local public health people.
A criticism leveled against committees in several states was that the
discussions during the meetings were often so detailed and technical that it has been
hard for citizen members to get involved. That difficulty was explained as being
largely a function of the members' backgrounds. It was also said to be hard for
many citizens to get up to speed. Participants said that it can even be more
overwhelming for new committee members. Citizen members were said to have to
try so hard to get up to speed that they are always playing catch up. Some did say
that states were good at providing needed information to members. One participant
thinks that suggestions from new members are not always well received. She
believes that what she perceived as a strong sense of comradeship at the meetings
among most of the members, who are very familiar with one another, can intimidate
newer members.
. Several participants noted that water program staff constituted the majority
of members on their committees. Some also characterized their committee
discussions as essentially part of the agencies' routine agendas. The technical
meetings in one state were described as reports by the departments represented on
the committee on the departments' activities since the last meeting. The citizen
members reportedly primarily listen. One participant even said that she has a sense
that the plan was already developed prior to the meetings, thereby limiting the
committee's ability to provide useful input. That can be a special problem if it
occurs in one of the states in which it has reportedly been difficult for water
providers and local government agencies on the committees to focus the program on
prevention.
-12-
-------
Participants
disagreed
aboutthe
desirability of
subcommittees
Subcommittees
are widely used
Membership and
attendance have
wide swings
Outside
facilitators help
to keep focused
Participants also said that the states use subcommittees to differing degrees.
For example, in some states with a joint committee, members reportedly make use of
subcommittees on a routine or ad hoc basis. At least one state with a C/TAC has
established two subcommittees to deal with technical versus citizen issues. Another
state with a joint committee reportedly also has one subcommittee, which deals with
technical issues. Seven subcommittees are routinely used by one state's joint
committee to deal with surveys, federal/tribal issues, resources, public involvement,
surface/ground water data, contaminants, and GIS/GPS. Each subcommittee is
purportedly responsible for actually writing a portion of the draft plan.
The subcommittees that participants spoke of for this assessment were
primarily used in states that have a combined C/TAC. However, at least one state's
CAC uses a subcommittee. Several of the members of that committee reportedly
volunteered to form a subcommittee to plan regional meetings in the state. This is
similar to the procedures used in one of the states with a joint committee. That
committee reportedly sets up ad hoc subcommittees to deal with issues any time the
members agree it is needed. One participant, who was a member of a joint
committee in a state that was evaluated as having a highly effective advisory
committee, commented that subcommittees should only be used in special
circumstances. Otherwise, the argument was made, they circumvent the purpose of
joint committees.
Membership and attendance at the meetings reportedly varies widely. Joint
committees were generally characterized as being large, varying in size from about
24 advisors up to 50 people or more, and possibly up to 100 for ah early meeting
including satellite teleconference locations. In one of the states reported as using
teleconferencing extensively, there are routinely 25 to 30 members at the table.
Individual technical and citizen committees were generally characterized as
being small, with the size varying from about 6-7 advisors (TAG) to 80 people or
more (CAC). Even with 40 to 80 members, there were reported to be only 12 to 20
individuals attending the meetings. The largest number of people reported as
regularly attending the meetings at one location in any state was about 40. There
was some continuity of the people attending committee meetings reported for many
of the states.
According to the participants, few of the states have used an outside
facilitator to lead the meetings. Some of the participants thought their SWAP
programs could be better facilitated. Most of the participants reported that their
states' lead agencies conduct their advisory committee meetings. In one state, EPA
and the state's lead agency reportedly alternate on leading the meetings. At the
outset of the program one state lead seemed to have a poor sense of where the
program was going. Another participant said that because of all the distrust in his
state, an outside facilitator may help. Although technically competent, that
committee's leadership was described as lacking charisma. In a few states outside
facilitators have been used successfully to lead the meetings. The participant from
one state even credited the facilitator with making the meetings work, keeping the
group focused, and ensuring that there was good dialog. He related how it took a
strong facilitator to get control of the members who hold very strong opinions. One
other participant mentioned that a facilitator from the governor's office was used
during a retreat to establish overarching issues for consensus. Finally, one
-13-
-------
Meetings are
comfortable
Consensus voting
establishes
priorities
Not all states are
receptive to
discussion
Using the world
wide web
participant said that his state plans to use an outside facilitator for the next advisory
committee meeting.
Call participants discussed whether their states' procedures facilitated
communication among members. Several participants characterized meetings in
their states as being comfortable and having open dialog with a good exchange of
information. They believe that the states took their input seriously. One participant
described her committee as a small group that worked well together. Another
participant commented that the one CAC meeting held to date in her state worked
very well even without a facilitator. The knowledgeable members at that meeting
reportedly talked conversationally about far-ranging topics. In one of the states,
after members' suggestions for enhancing inter-committee communications, the
state made the minutes of the technical committee available to the citizens'
committee. '
The staff in one state had reportedly done a good job establishing guidelines
for stakeholder communication. The state was also credited with being timely with
both minutes and assignments for stakeholders. They also provided various means
for communicating opinions through individual written comment, in breakout
sessions, and through consensus voting.' The consensus,voting process allowed the
whole group to chose priorities for voting. Each stakeholder was given five votes to
cast on the priorities. Assuming that any one group voted similarly, the final
outcome in the voting was affected by whichever group had the most participants.
Not all participants were positive about all aspects of communication on
their states' committees. A participant from one state said that in their committee
there is simply no way to establish dialog among the members. One of the other
. participants commented that it is hard to get involved in discussions on her
committee. In another state, the participant said that the meetings were basically a
group of state employees sitting around a table at microphones with the interested
public simply watching. One of the other participants said the state agency leading
the process was sympathetic to the program, but the utilities that are the dominant
force on the committee are so resistant to it that they discourage discussion. That
view was reinforced in a different state, where utilities and local government were
said to affect the mind set against thinking about protection. Finally, one of the
participants seemed concerned that not all committee members are being given equal
opportunities to influence planning. She commented that discussion outside the
meetings may be occurring, but said that her particular advisory group has never
been consulted on any issue outside of the meetings.
At least three states reportedly use the information superhighway to enhance
communication among committee members. All three states' lead agencies
currently maintain web pages that publicize SWAP-related information. To one
degree or another, the pages reportedly recap SWAP proceedings and plans, provide
the minutes of meetings, and include the details of proposals. The information is
available not just to committee members, but to anyone who logs onto the page:
-14-
-------
III. COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The participants discussed how many advisory committee meetings the states they represent
have held to date and the frequency of the meetings. The concern was whether enough meetings are
being held, as well as whether the meeting times and locations encourage broad participation. This
section reviews the perceptions of the members regarding the states' efforts to encourage participation,
recaps the members' relevant anecdotes, and notes some of the states' successes in this area. It also
identifies some of the obstacles to involvement on SWAP advisory committees that were cited by the
committee members who took part in the conference calls, describes some innovative approaches the
states adopted to encourage participation, and includes member's recommendations for encouraging
citizen participation.
A few states have
convened six or
more meetings
Some committees
are meeting
monthly
Meeting locations
do not rotate
Meeting locations
discourage citizen
participation
Some states had convened six or seven meetings to date of either the
technical or citizen committee, or the joint committee. Several states had convened
a pre-planning meeting as well as separate TAG and CAC committee meetings and
joint meetings. Several states with separate committees had convened fewer CAC
meetings than TAG meetings. For example, one state had convened only one CAC
committee meeting, but six TAC meetings had been convened. Other states have
convened only one or two meetings to date, while one state,had not yet convened
their first meeting by the time of the telephone conference call.
In the states that have held several meetings to date, the meetings are being
held monthly, bi-monthly, or quarterly. Two participants in this assessment reported
that there was a long period between meetings. In one of the states the gap was six
months long. In the other.state the gap occurred while the state was allegedly
waiting for guidance from EPA. In most of the other states, meetings are being held
once every month or two. Most call participants did not indicate that meeting
frequency was an issue either in favor of or against the committees' usefulness.
They seemed to feel that the frequency was sufficient. However, the participant
from one state that has conducted more TAC meetings than CAC meetings felt
strongly that there needed to be more CAC meetings. In addition, several
participants from states that have not held many meetings to date also thought that
the meetings have not been frequent enough. For example, participants from two
states that have held only one meeting both felt that their states' programs were
going to be under tremendous time constraints.
Participants discussed their impressions about whether the full and
subcommittee meetings were at times and locations that encouraged or discouraged
participation. The vast majority of the meetings to date were reported to have been
held at one location, state buildings in either the state capital or another centrally
located city. A common criticism was that the meetings were not rotated to different
locations around the state. However, in fewer than a half dozen of the represented
states, the meeting locations have rotated. In one state where the meeting location
has varied, the meetings are reportedly usually held near the largest airport in the
state, which is near the largest metropolitan area in the state. In that state the
meetings reportedly have been held in municipal meeting rooms, state meeting
rooms, or hotel meeting rooms.
While many of the participants expressed satisfaction with meeting
locations, others were outspoken in their objections. There seemed to be a general
sense that most of the committees were meeting at locations that were not
-15-
-------
Travel stipends
would help
Video-
conferencing
circumvents
travel woes
Meeting times are
midday on
weekdays
convenient for most of the citizen stakeholders, the ones that were not being paid to
attend the meetings. The participants believed that the inconvenient locations
discouraged citizen participation. One participant said that although the location of
the meetings was the preference of the majority of the people who came to the first
meeting, the individuals at that meeting were primarily state agency staff.
The money available for the meetings was reportedly very limited. In one
state, when regional meetings were first suggested, the state lead agency responded
that they were unwi 11 ing to spend any additional money until the program had been
approved. Other participants said that it was problematic that there was no stipend
available for travel to the meetings, either for mileage or for overnight rooms. They
said the lack of any travel reimbursement policy makes it very hard for small grass
roots groups to get involved in SWAP. Not only does attending SWAP planning
meetings take time away from other activities, it also affects their budgets.
Some of the states have adopted innovative approaches to solving meeting
location problems. In the best example, one state reportedly uses video conferencing
to pull citizen members from different regions of the state into the full committee
meetings of the combined advisory committee. In addition, the representative from
the state using video conferencing recounted that the state adopted a similarly
effective but less expensive solution for the subcommittee meetings. The state
reportedly solves the communication problems associated with the long distances
involved with convening subcommittee meetings by linking the members up in
telephone conference calls. Another participant reported that her state also mitigates
many citizens' concerns about making it to the meetings by regularly conducting
statewide telephone conference calls. Both solutions enable citizens to "attend"
meetings at different times of the day without having to travel to get to them. Thus,
even locally based individuals can hear and participate in the meetings. In one of the
states the members reportedly do need to travel to one of the communications-linked
locations where they can listen in to the call.
Most committees reportedly meet on weekdays at either midmorning, mid-
afternoon, or, in some of the states, all day. Only one of the participants indicated
that a state has conducted meetings at various times of the day. Some participants
indicated that meeting at these times does not discourages citizen participation. In
fact, some participants said that midday meeting times worked out fairly well for
them. They were able to get time off from their jobs. One of them pointed out that
meeting early in the morning would require those who must travel to the meetings to
take off two days from their jobs rather than just one day. Other participants
disagreed. One participant doubted that those who thought midday meeting times on
.weekdays were not a problem for most citizen volunteers. She pointed out that the
meeting location and times are so critical that they tend to force a preselecting of
possible members. She contended that only those citizens that can participate given
the location and time constraints will even consider volunteering to do so. Thus, she
believes that as members of the committees who could meet at those times, those
who see no problem may not have been fully aware of how many'other individuals
were precluded from participating because of time, day, frequency, or location of the
meetings.
-16-
-------
Average citizens
cannot take the
time off from
their jobs
States do not
always
understand the
value of public
involvement
Directions,
parking, and
public transit can
all be obstacles
Notification
about meetings is
too short
Many participants reported anecdotes and opinions that seemed to support
that line of thinking. They argued strongly that meeting in downtown or state offices
in large cities during normal business hours on weekdays works at many different
levels to discourage citizen participation in groups. Some even believe that it can
discourage those citizens that live in the city where the committee is meeting. Most
volunteers, it was argued, cannot make such midday meetings because they usually
have other jobs. For example, one participant related that she knew of several
individuals who were precluded from participating by either the meeting time or
location. In another example, only one of 30 participants at one of the TAG
meetings represented a citizen group. The rest of the participants were employees of
state and local agencies. The participant attributed the poor citizen turn out to one
thing, the meeting time.
One participant summed up what he said was the attitude of state agencies.
He said that his state's lead agency simply did not understand the value of public
attendance at SWAP advisory committee meetings. He said the state flatly refused a
request to have an additional meeting at hours that were different from their typical
mid-weekday meeting times. They saw no value whatsoever.
Many other problems identified by the participants seemed to support the
idea that some states either do not value citizen involvement or simply do not yet
know how to go about it. The other problems cited as obstacles to citizens attending
the meetings included poor directions for finding the meeting location, lack of
parking, the absence of public transportation, and the lack of handicap accessible
meeting space. One of the participants said simply that the meetings in his state start
too early. It even turned out that finding out about the meetings could be a problem.
One participant recounted that the advisory meetings in her state are simply part of
state employees' routine work. She claimed that is was very difficult for the public
in her state to learn exactly when the state staff are going to meet on SWAP.
Anotht stacle to involving citizens was said to be providing them with
sufficient advance notification about meetings. Many individuals must coordinate
demanding work schedules. Notifying them too late can preclude their involvement.
For example, one participant, who was critical about his state's advance notification
process, said that the notifications were never more that 21 days in advance of the
meetings, and sometimes were only 14 days prior to the meeting. Another
participant pointed out that her state preempts that as an issue by deciding when the
next meeting will be held before the conclusion of every meeting.
-17-
-------
IV. MEANINGFUL COMMITTEE INPUT
Call participants had differing views on the success of the states' efforts to educate committee
members on SWAP-related issues, whether their states are providing sufficient opportunities for the
committee members to provide input, and whether their states are incorporating substantive contributions
from the committee. This section summarizes their impressions regarding these issues, furnishes some
of the anecdotal evidence they gave to support their impressions, and identifies some of the successes of
the states in educating committee members on issues so that they could make meaningful contributions.
This section describes a few of the more innovative educational approaches that the states adopted. It
also identifies some of the obstacles that the participants cited regarding educating members and
providing them with sufficient opportunities for input. Finally, this section includes recommendations
for making citizen advisors' involvement more meaningful.
There are many
success stories
about educating
members
Failing to try to
educate citizens
can undermine
the program
from the very
beginning
Members were
faced with a
staggering
amount of
reading
Many participants said they felt their states did good jobs of educating the
committee members on the issues and the states' plans and expectations for the
committees. For example, even before convening the advisory committees, more
• than 20 focus-type meetings were reportedly held throughout one state to educate
citizens about the issues and the process. Another state was said to have planned a
half dozen educational workshops on Saturdays at various sites all over the state. A
retreat for committee members to establish overarching issues for SWAP was
reportedly conducted at the outset of the program in another state. One of the
participants recounted how her state conducted detailed introductory briefings at the
first meeting of the committee. That state's program manager also reportedly led a
detailed presentation to explain the direction that he was planning to go. In another
state the lead agency was credited with doing a great job of pulling together data,
explaining it, and informing committee members.
Other participants related impressions that were completely counter to the
successes reported above. Many participants criticized what they perceived as the
failure of their states to educate members. Several participants complained that their
states provided no orientation for the citizen committee members at all. In one case,
a participant questioned whether his state had been prepared for the effort. He
believed that his state had failed to educate the citizen members of the committee so
that they could understand the issues. Without elaborating, he attributed the state's
lack of an effort to the state's insufficient capacity to explain the issues. In another
example, a participant mentioned that when the advisory committee was first
convened in her state, the state, chair leading the meeting did not seem to have a
good understanding of where the program was going. The participant said that she
thought the lead agency's poor job of explaining the SWAP to prospective
committee members while organizing the committees was responsible for several
groups deciding at that point not to participate. She speculated that the groups did
not have enough background information on SWAP to see the value of getting
involved. •
A couple of other factors were also identified as contributing to some states'
failure to educate the members of their committees. One such factor was the
timeline for developing a plan. The lead agency in one state was reportedly so
focused on meeting EPA's deadline that a participant concluded that the state staff
are not even trying to educate the advisory committee members. Participants from
several states expressed frustration over another obstacle they faced in getting
-19-
-------
Insufficient detail
in the minutes of
meetings can
cripple some
members
State may have
presumed
members did not
need educating
Participants
recommend a
primer and
outreach earlier
in the process
Technical issues
are not being
explained well
educated, the materials their states provided for them to study. Two participants
characterized the materials their states dumped on them as a two-foot thick pile.
One participant said even the more knowledgeable committee members were plainly
overwhelmed.
The inadequacy of the minutes from advisory committee meetings was an
additional factor identified as an obstacle. For one participant who could not attend
his state's first CAC meeting, the process was difficult to follow. He characterized
the minutes from the meetings as consisting of simple outlines. They were said to
lack sufficient details for people who had not been present at every meeting to
follow the discussions. This apparently was particularly the case with technical
discussions. Consequently, as at least one participant pointed out, in some states it
can be very difficult for lay people to make meaningful contributions on technical
issues. . i ~
One participant concluded that the lack of background information in his
state resulted from a presumption by the lead agency staff that all the members were
more knowledgeable than is the case. The participant thought that information on
the status of work in eight areas was particularly lacking from his state lead agency,
including: 1) the state-generated draft of the SWAP plan, 2) the Clean Water Action
Plan, 3) drinking water standards, 4) stream classifications, 5) non-point source
work, 6) watershed planning at local levels, 7) the characterization and classification
of receiving bodies of water, and 8) an appraisal of the adequacy of statutory support
of state authority over water quality enforcement. He also thought that essential
information on projected extreme population growth scenarios and consequent water
demand and water quality impacts was lacking.
Participants from five states made recommendations that pertain to
educating both the advisory committee members and the public. They advocated
that more extensive outreach should be conducted by the states, especially at the
outset of any such effort. They also thought that public outreach at the beginning of
the process rather than afterward would make it much easier to get people to focus
on these important issues while there was a chance to influence the process before it
was completed. A suggestion was made that a primer, presumably from EPA, would
help. One of the participants felt that because SWAP specifically is such a big
program, it will take time to fully educate committee members about what is on the
table, the associated opportunities, the challenges, the decision points, and the
ramifications of the decisions. He felt strongly that his state's program needs to
strike a balance between educating members to provide for meaningful input and
meeting the timeline so that they have a product to send to EPA on schedule.
According to the impressions of several participants, the entire SWAP
process is especially difficult to follow for anyone who is an average citizen. This
was particularly said to be the case with technical discussions. Such issues are not
being explained well. Consequently, it was alleged that in some states it can be very
difficult for average people to make meaningful contributions, no matter how well-
intended they are, if they lack a full understanding of the issues. One participant
added that there is a clear bias in her state towards dealing with SWAP as it relates
to ground water.
-20-
-------
Some members
say the states are
not taking input
seriously
Citizens not given
the opportunity
to provide input
on all issues
Survey
worksheets can
be used to
structure
member input
Industry said to
dominate
input to states
Advisory
committee
members actually
draft portions of
the plan
Participants also discussed the opportunities that the states have provided for
the advisory committees to provide input. Their opinions on this issue also varied.
In one state, according to a participant, the lead agency will not delegate any
decisions to the committee.' The state reportedly wants the committee's
involvement, but the staff does not want the committee to slow the process down.
Similarly, a participant from a different state said flatly that in her state there is no
indication that the input being provided by the committee is being taken seriously by
the lead agency. A few other participants agreed, saying that their states had not
done the best job of making the members' involvement very meaningful.
One participant commented that in her state, the issues that are brought to
the CAC for discussion are not the ones on which the group wants to comment. She
.believes that those issues are brought to them so that they can proceed with outreach
to the groups they represent, and not so that the state can get the CAC's input for
decisions. Another participant said the situation is the same in his state. The citizen
members on some committees were described by the participant as lacking an in-
depth understanding of the technical issues. One participant recounted that the staff
on her state's lead agency said the citizen members of the committees were not even
knowledgeable enough to provide input. In some cases, according to one participant,
sincere suggestions from citizens have been met with laughter from state officials.
In contrast to citizen members of committees who reported feeling nearly
powerless in their SWAP advisory committees, several participants reported that
their committees' comments had been well received by their states. Some states
have reportedly made substantial changes based on recommendations from their
advisory committees. A few states have even structured the way their advisory
committees can provide input. For example, one state supplied its advisory
. committee members with survey worksheets to use once the members had the
opportunity to digest the information.
In some states, the input from the TACs reportedly has already been used,
but not the input from CACs. One participant saw a problem with the states'
tendencies to accept TAG input over CAC input. She cautioned that the majority of
SWAP committee members are TAC members, and that those members reportedly
tend to weigh-in more substantially than the citizen groups. Another participant
asserted that most of the members of the TACs are aligned with the groups that are ,
part of the institutional problems (e.g., agriculture, industry, agencies, water
utilities). That observation was also supported by a participant from one of the states
with two committees. In that state, the TAC was said to be comprised of all like-
minded individuals. One participant added that she thinks-those are the
constituencies with which state agencies are used to dealing. This was confirmed by
another participant, who added that it is difficult to have any input in the meetings in
her state because the meetings are totally dominated by state staff and industry.
These are also the groups which were said to be predisposed to the idea of treatment
as opposed to prevention.
Many of the participants confirmed that citizen input is being heard by at
least some of the states. For example, participants from two states with separate
CACs said that their states have incorporated an adequate amount of citizen
comments into the final drafts. One of the states with a combined committee has
also made certain that the citizen members of its advisory committee are confident
-21-
-------
Getting an early
start may be the
key
Late starts create
deadline
problems
that their input is being incorporated. Not only has the lead agency reportedly
listened carefully to every comment the members have made, the committee was
said to have been responsible for preparing portions of the draft plan, and then for
reviewing the entire draft. At that state's next committee meeting, the members will
supposedly receive the revised draft and be given another opportunity to give the
state their input. The participant who related that anecdote is certain that her state
has listened because material has been added to the plan in response to questions and
comments from committee members whom she described as very non-technical.
A few participants commented that they believe their states have always
been too focused on the timeline, and that they are sacrificing too many other
considerations in order to get the product out on time. At least two participants
commended their states for their overall planning, particularly for creating a
schedule that enabled committee members to ask questions, get answers, and provide
input to the state lead agency. For example, the participant from one of those states
said the state's efforts to communicate to members have been excellent. They were
reportedly given both the agendas and the drafts prior to the meetings. In her view,
the committee members have had sufficient opportunity to review the materials.
Two participants felt strongly that the two states they represented had gotten
such late starts that they were not optimistic about whether their states would be able
to use their committees' input. In one state, the participant felt that the two months
they were to be allotted to review, comment, and provide input on the plan were
barely sufficient for them to sign off on the plan.
-22-
-------
V. STATES' PLANS TO INVOLVE THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Participants discussed whether their states' plans to incorporate input on SWAP decisions from
the general public will be adequate. This section summarizes their views regarding these issues and the
anecdotal information they provided. It also describes the obstacles the participants identified to
incorporating input from the general public, approaches that are innovative or that will be successful in
the eyes ofthe participants, and recommendations for improving public input. It is worth noting that one
participant who addressed this issue felt strongly that there was not enough effort statewide or nationally
to let the general public know that this whole process is going on. Another participant underscored that
idea by stressing that the smartest SWAP-related action his state has taken to date was to hire a public
outreach coordinator. There were also many comments made lamenting that public comment is at the
end ofthe trail, not the beginning. Several participants recommended that the public should be involved
at the outset ofthe process rather than after almost all ofthe planning is completed.
Public workshops
State sees no need
for additional
public input
One state,
10 workshops,
and two field
projects
Involving
activists
Some ofthe states supposedly do have aggressive plans for soliciting input
from the public. In addition, participants from many of those states do not foresee a
time crunch: At least half a dozen states reportedly have plans to conduct workshops
designed to present SWAP plans to the public arid solicit feedback. According to
one ofthe participants, one state has a detailed plan to involve the public. The state
is planning to begin hearings on the draft plan this fall, then to take the plan on the
road to present it to and get comments from the general public: In another state, the
committee reportedly came up with the outreach plan, including the suggestion of
regional meetings prior to the official public hearings. One participant reported that
her state has conducted one poorly attended public forum to date. She related that
• the state gave a good presentation and prepared a set of talking points. These talking
points were designed to help ensure that all issues were addressed in subsequent
presentations around the state.
The state officials in one ofthe states that reportedly plans to take their plan
on the road in the fall were said to believe that the committee members represent the
public sufficiently, and that there is no need to get broader input from the public to
get program success. The state is reportedly also concerned about liability issues
should public involvement be increased. The organization represented in that state
by the call participant hopes to expand the education ofthe public over several years,
and to develop SWAP teams in communities.
Another state that reportedly plans to conduct ten public workshops was also
said to have two field projects underway. As related by the participant, one ofthe
concerns in the state was that the press releases about the workshops were apparently
not much noticed by local newspapers. The participant is also concerned that hard
copies ofthe draft plan were not available at the meetings the state has held to date.
Attendees at those meetings were purportedly able to sign up to have it sent later, or
they could get(it off the state's web site. Downloading material off the web was
described as problematic because it could be very time consuming.
One ofthe advisory committee members said that she believes that citizens
in her state do not trust the government. She claimed that therefore, there is a real
need for the states to enlist and involve groups that the public does trust. Some of
the states are enlisting the services of activist groups, or at least benefitting from
their involvement. For example, in one state, the Sierra Club is reportedly recruiting
people to attend the public meetings. Another state reportedly asked one ofthe
-23-
-------
State to hold
18 seminars, by
the end of
October
The importance
of outreach
Extensive use of
the world wide
web may be
innovative, but
there are still
obstacles
public interest groups, the League of Women Voters, to set up a series of public
workshops for the state. As far as the participant representing that state is aware, the
advisory committee itself has no role whatsoever in designing the public forums
across the state.
One of the other participants whose state will be conducting workshops
noted that advisory committee members in that state have already begun to conduct
public outreach. They reportedly hope to get a series of public workshops to be held
in the state's major population centers. The state will presumably record and
respond to all feedback received during the workshops. A participant from another
state related that her state plans to conduct 18 seminars, public meetings, or
workshops related to SWAP by the end of October. She admitted that she had no
idea how they will get the general public to go to the workshops, and doubted that
the general public would attend. She cautioned that eventually the state will have to
reach out to the people who drink the water and who have to pay the taxes for
improving water supply systems. Another state is reportedly planning one workshop
as well as a public hearing to solicit input from the public. That state's plans
allegedly call for responding to each written comment that the state receives from
the public.
One of the participants said that her state plans to use its standard process for
public review of any state program. That process supposedly will last a few months.
She also explained that a key question not yet answered is how successful they will
be at outreach, particularly in getting the general public to review the proposal. Her
guess is that the proposal will be reviewed only by the individuals who are already
active in community groups, environmental organizations, or stakeholders of other
sorts. She believes the state can get the word out pretty effectively, but that people
still need to be willing to spend time on implementing the assessments. Further, that
participant said that her committee thinks it is even more important to find ways to
get information about actual problems or threats to the people who are the potential
consumers of the water. She maintained that their GIS-based system on the web will
be useful in dealing with that issue. She suggested separating EPA's assessment
question concerning the plans for involving the general public into two questions.
She believed those questions should include 1) how successful is your state in
getting the public involved in developing the SWAP program for your state, and 2)
how successful is your state in making the public aware of the assessment of
vulnerability and threats to the sources of their drinking water and the avenues
available for addressing those threats. .
At least five states plan to provide information to the public using web
pages. Several states also plan to use their web pages as the primary means of
accepting input from the general public on SWAP plans. At least three states
reportedly are currently using a web page for communication. SWAP news is
available to anyone who has access to a computer with the necessary software and
Internet access service. One of the states that plans to use the web to secure
comments from the public was criticized for the form that the state has developed to
get the feedback. The form is allegedly not citizen-friendly.
One participant was concerned that as far as he is aware, the web is the only
opportunity for the public in his state to provide input or comment. The participant
expressed two concerns about that. The first concern was that the public will not be
-24-
-------
The pitfalls of adequately informed about the web site. His second concern was that the web site
relying on the alone is not likely to provide for a sufficiently meaningful process of input or
web, or even comment. Two states reportedly plan to use the web in the future, but specific plans
getting it up and were not described during the call. One participant mentioned that his state has hit
running an unspecified administrative bottleneck in getting its web page up and running. He
did not know the. reasons for the delay.
Newsletters used One state will reportedly benefit from its advisory committee members'
to publicize personal commitments to provide outreach to the public. Advisory committee
SWAP facts to members in that state have reportedly been taking SWAP information and putting it
the general public into all newsletters with which they are connected. A participant told how
newsletters from various groups have been used in the state, including those from
soil conservation, timber, and agriculture groups. This approach has taken
advantage of many avenues to keep the program in the public's eye in as many ways
as possible throughout the process. The state's lead agency has reportedly assisted
in getting accurate and timely information out to the public.
-25-
-------
VI. ADVISORY COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT To DATE
Participants were asked to rank advisory committee involvement in their states up to this point
on a scale of 1-10, where 10 is the highest possible score. This section summarizes the scores the
members assigned to the work their advisory committees have done to date. The scores ranged from a
low of 2 up to 10. One participant who, assigned one state's committee a high score made it clear that the
score given was only for work accomplished so far. That participant underscored that the state still has.a
long way to go and that there was still plenty of room for failure.
The states are
meeting the
participants'
expectations.
Scores average
slightly over 6
The program
manager makes
the difference
A lack of grants
pulls state's
ranking down
Three participants ranked their committees' involvement up to this point at
10. A total of nine participants ranked their states at 7, 8, or 9. Four participants
gave their states a score of 6, while six members ranked their states at 5. Only one
participant ranked his state a 4, but three participants gave their states a 3. One
participant ranked her state at 2. Five states were not ranked by the participants
representing those states. Only two states were ranked by more than one of the
advisory committee members from the state. Both states received fairly consistent
scores of 6, 7, or 8.
The participant from one state later revised the score given during the
conference call, commenting that the state should have received a two-part rating.
The advisory committee itself was said to possibly not rate a 10, but the program
manager was doing such an exceptional job that his performance should get a 10.
The program manager was credited with trying every way he could to get the
program underway and involve stakeholders. For the purposes of this comparison,
that elevated the score of the state to a 10.
One other state that was given a high score, and which adopted many
innovative approaches to resolving obstacles, would reportedly have been given a
near perfect score if the state had been able to provide more funding to the public
interest groups that wanted to participate but were unable to do so. The participant
from the state said that the state's lack of resources is the factor that pulled the
ranking down. That participant said the state's intentions were excellent, but their
delivery was less than ideal because of across-the-board resource problems,
including specifically the lack of funding of the public interest groups. The low
rating of another state was attributed to the member's perception that the state had
political will deficiencies. The participant felt that in that state, integrated planning
and enforcement are rendered virtually impossible because of a confusing mosaic of
local government authorities overlaid by water conservancy districts.
-27-
-------
VII. OTHER ISSUES
Participants also discussed whether there were other issues relating to the advisory committees
that they think need to be addressed. They identified several such issues. This section briefly
summarizes the issues the advisory committee members identified during the three calls.
Involvement may
hinge on
information
Primer needed
Community
benchmarks
Funding
Coordination
among states
Air quality
Several participants commented that there is real difficulty in trying to keep
citizens involved. They cited the many challenges facing volunteers to find the time
to get involved. An additional hurdle cited was that the volunteers must face
working with information that is well beyond what most of them could have a hope
of understanding. In one of the calls, all of the participants agreed that the
information citizens are being asked to use be brought down to a level they can
understand. Participants also stressed that it is imperative that the information be
made to be easily understandable to the average person in the general public.
One participant suggested that additional education and technical resources
will be necessary to ensure meaningful input for SWAP. The participant sees a
critical need for training and technical resources, such as non-regulated utility
experts and policy experts. He also said that a primer providing an overview of
existing related federal, state, and local programs would help to get the public to
commit to a long-term process. He suggested that EPA could do a better job of
providing outreach. He also believes that in order to succeed, any SWAP project
will need public commitment, which will only come if the public is informed.
Another issue identified was the need to develop community benchmarks.
According to the participant who suggested them, the goal of the benchmarks should
be to empower the communities and help them gauge if they are meeting, the goals.
He thought it would be a bad idea if they waited until the end of the process to make
those assessments.
Funding is reportedly a major issue in several states. Without a source of
funding, even groups that want to participate and are fully capable of making
meaningful contributions simply cannot. For example, a participant from one state,
who has been involved in the process from the beginning, has had to drop out of if
because of a lack of funding. Even though the state has specifically requested that
they continue to participate, they cannot because the group does not have the
funding. According to another participant, this funding situation is a major
roadblock that undermines the process by precluding non-agency staff people and
others who are not paid to be there from fully participating in the SWAP
committees.
One of the issues identified was that of coordination among the states. A
participant from a state that is bordered by many other states said that there has been
little discussion about rivers that flow into or out of that state into neighboring states.
A related comment was made concerning the Great Lakes. The participant from one
state asked what, if anything, is being done concerning surface water assessments for
the Great Lakes? The participant was wondering if anybody has developed a
protocol for that assessment.
The participant from one state commented that air pollution settles out into
bodies of water. The suggestion was made that this should be considered in the
SWAP process.
-29-
-------
EPA could do a
much better job
of promoting
awareness
Unfunded
mandates
Disbanding the
committees
One participant said that he had the feeling that his committee is largely
unaware of the other states' SWAP programs. He feels as if his state is carrying on
in a vacuum. He claimed that they could not digest the guidance and field rules. He
also felt that there was a lot that could be learned from other states' experiences. He
recommended that if the states will not promote a greater awareness, EPA should do
a better job of it. He pleaded for more coordination among states and more
information from EPA, arid wanted to know if that was possible. The term he used
for what he is advocating was "environmental-style networking." His goal is to help
other states learn from the lessons learned by particular states that have had
successes.
Two participants raised concerns about unfunded mandates. They said that
moving on to protection will be tough, and it will be difficult to make that happen.
One of their principal concerns was how the states were going to pay for it. Another
participant mentioned that the funds now available in his state will not allow them to
.perform assessments on all wells. He calculated that their funds would work out to
less than $200 per well.
One of the participants asked when the committees should disband? There
were some questions in her committee about quality control and following-through
the process. Their committee has supposedly developed some guidelines and would
like a review of how different people are actually going to implement them as well
as seeing some completed programs. She felt that their committee should stay active
at least through the first part of the process.
-30-
-------
APPENDIX
PARTICIPANTS IN STATE SWAP ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER
TELECONFERENCES
State
Advisory Committee Member Stakeholder Organization
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Connecticut,
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Brad McLane
Walter Felton
Sue Murphy
Paul Ann Sheets
Katherine Baer
Henry Curtis
Bev Ross
Cindy Skukrud
Frank Elsen
Linda Walker
Dennis Finn
Anneke Davis
Chris Bathurst
Terry Gill .
Cyndi Roper
Marie Zellar
Rachel Herpel
Rose Strickland
Amy Goldsmith
Marian Wise
Doug Bogen
Joe DiNovo
Gabrielle Giddings
Mary Hitt
Aimee Tavares
Dell Isham
Dwayne "Sparky" Anderson
Ivan Weber
Sandy Levine
Patricia Jackson
Judy Turpin
Eric Uram
AL Rivers Alliance
AR Canoe Club
CA Rural Water Association -
CT Fund for the Environment
Upper Chattahoochee River Keeper
Life of the Land
Soroptomists
McHenry County Defenders
KY Waterways Alliance
League of Women Voters
Saco River Corridor Commission
Conservation Council
Clean Water Action
League of Women Voters
Clean Water Action
Clean Water Action
Groundwater Foundation
Sierra Club'
NJ Environmental Federation
Citizens Environmental Coalition
Clean Water Action
Rivers Unlimited
Clean Water Action
Diocese of Rhode Island
, Clean Water Action
SierraClub
Clean Water Action
Sierra Club
Conservation Law Foundation
James River Association
WA Environmental Council
Sierra Club
-31-
------- |