John A. DeLashmit from the USEPA Region 7 discussed several topics at the REGFORM Water Conference on September 5, 2013. He outlined the EPA's recommendations for recreational water quality criteria, proposed more stringent ammonia criteria, and potential changes to water quality standards regulations. The EPA published new recreational criteria in 2012 and ammonia criteria in 2013 that states are expected to address in their next triennial reviews. The agency also proposed clarifications to components of the water quality standards regulations, including designated uses, antidegradation implementation, and compliance schedules.

1. John A. DeLashmit, P.E.
USEPA Region 7
REGFORM Water Conference
September 5, 2013

2. The List
 Recreational Criteria Recommendations
 Ammonia Criteria Recommendations
 Proposed WQS Regulation Clarifications

3. Recreational Criteria
Recommendations
 Published in the Federal Register on November 29,
2012 (per Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement)
 Two sets of recommended criteria; EPA will accept
either from states and tribes
 Criteria expressed as a geometric mean (GM) and a
“statistical threshold value” (STV)
 Freshwater may use E. coli or enterococci as indicator
 Criteria are for primary contact recreation, known in
MO as Whole Body Contact Recreation

4. Recreational Criteria
Recommendations (cont.)
 Averaging interval should not be greater than 30 days
 Water body GM should not exceed GM criterion
during any 30-day interval
 Should not be greater than 10% excursion frequency of
STV during a 30-day interval
 Single-sample maximum (SSM) concentrations will no
longer be used
 States are expected to address these recommendations
in their next triennial review

5. Recreational Criteria
Recommendations (cont.)

6. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/recreation/index.cfm

7. Ammonia Criteria
Recommendations
 Published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2013
 Supersedes recommended criteria from 1976, 1985, and 1999
 Revision necessary because EPA became aware of new toxicity
studies showing the relative sensitivity of freshwater mussels to
ammonia
 Since publication of draft criteria in 2009, additional studies
have validated sensitivity of unionid mussels and gill-breathing
snails to ammonia
 New criteria are more stringent than 1999 recommendations
 Duration components remain the same – a one-hour average for
the acute criterion and a 30-day average for the chronic criterion
 States are expected to address these recommendations in their
next triennial review

8. Criterion
Duration
1999
Criteria
2009
Draft
Updated
Criteria
2013
Final
Updated
Criteria
Acute (1-hour
average)
24 19 17
Chronic (30-
day rolling
average)
4.5* 0.91* 1.9*
*Not to exceed 2.5 times the criterion continuous
concentration as a 4-day average within a 30-day
period.
Criteria frequency not to be exceeded more than once
in three years on average.
Criteria magnitudes are expressed as total ammonia
nitrogen (mg TAN/L) at pH 7 and 20°C.

9. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/ammonia/index.cfm

10. Proposed WQS Regulation Changes
 Core of current rules in place since 1983
 Proposed rules were published in the Federal Register
yesterday
 EPA is considering changes to the following:
 Administrator’s determinations that new or revised WQS are
necessary
 Designated uses
 Triennial reviews
 Antidegradation
 Variances to water quality standards
 Compliance schedule authorizing provisions

11. Proposed WQS Regulation Changes
(cont.)
 The Administrator’s determination update clarifies
what constitutes an Administrator’s determination
under 303(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act
 The designated uses update clarifies the EPA’s
minimum expectations for designated uses
 The triennial reviews update strengthens the triennial
review requirements

12. Proposed WQS Regulation Changes
(cont.)
 Antidegradation update clarifies that implementation
methods are to be adopted in rule and specifies the
minimum requirements.
 Variances update establishes regulatory expectations
for variances to support consistent, appropriate,
transparent and enforceable implementation
 Compliance schedule authorizing provisions update
specifies that compliance schedule authorizing
provisions must be adopted as part of a state or tribe’s
water quality standards, and therefore must be
submitted to EPA for review and action

13. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/rulegate.nsf/byRIN/2040-AF16
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/wqs_index.cfm

14. That’s all,
folks!
John A. DeLashmit, P.E.
USEPA Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, KS 66219
(913)551-7821
delashmit.john@epa.gov