|
<br />I
<br />
<br />Federal Regisler / Vol. 48, No.. 217 / Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and RegulaUo . s '51409
<br />
<br />,....
<br />00
<br />W
<br />(J~
<br />
<br />of Water Quality StQIldards, primarily
<br />directed totheappe~tlack ofEPA's
<br />commitment to the geals and philosophy
<br />of the Cleen Water Aot and the
<br />"substitution of 8 revi~w of standards.for
<br />a limited number of Ilriority water
<br />bodies in lieu of a Statewide review of
<br />standards at least onte every 3 yeij,rs.
<br />These concerns were:.ddressed in det.i1.
<br />in the Preemble .nd will only be briefly
<br />disctJ.ssed here.
<br />Because of the. ove~whelming support
<br />for the Section 101(.)(2) goals of the Act,
<br />EPA added a requirement that any
<br />stream segment with. Uses not-specified
<br />in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act be re-
<br />examined every 3 years by tbe St.te to
<br />determine if new information has
<br />become .vail.ble. If S:uch new
<br />. information IndicBtes\that'the uses
<br />specified in Section 1Q1(.)(2) are
<br />.ttainable. the State sh.ll revise its
<br />standards accordingly'. Th~s provision in
<br />effect esteblished . mpnd.tory
<br />r.equirement to lOupgrape" water quality
<br />standards as 8 ba18nc~ to the provisions
<br />.llowing the "downgrS:ding" of
<br />stand.rds. This policy:'.lsd removes
<br />problems de.ling with, equity
<br />considerations amongicompeting
<br />dischargers. Dischargers on a stream'
<br />with .n unduly "low" design.ted use
<br />should not b.e given an; advant~ge over
<br />dischargers on streams whose
<br />designa ted uses and c~iteri,a. were
<br />properly set to. reflect ~ttaif1able uses.
<br />We have ret.ined tlie st.tutory3-year
<br />review requirement. TJ:)e proposed
<br />regulation. was intendefl to:implement
<br />that requirement, but sUbs.equent
<br />statements on prior:ity wat~r bodies in
<br />that subsection of the IlropOsal .nd
<br />discussions in the Preamble .nd Water
<br />Quality Standards Handbook tended to
<br />confu,se the issue. Many commenters
<br />thought EPA w.s attempting to delete or
<br />minimize th.t requirem\mt. This Is not
<br />EPA's intention.' '
<br />EPAhes changed thelanguage in part
<br />131.2010 emph.size the st.tutory n.ture
<br />of the 3-yesr review of pll State
<br />standards. However. EFA continues to
<br />believe thst the conceptof focusing
<br />limited State reSOll,rees ,On specific water
<br />bodies is an appropriate management
<br />technique to ensure that the most
<br />criUoal environmental rtroblems are
<br />.dequately addressed. The Pre.mble
<br />discusses this in more detail.
<br />In_addition, many commenters
<br />erroneously assumed thnt EPA was
<br />proposing 8 rigid systen}. for :determining-
<br />priority w.ter bodies. EPA h.s no rigid
<br />priority system in mind "ther th.n
<br />assuming the. States will address known
<br />problems first. Rather. E:i'A views
<br />setting priorities as a ba~ic management
<br />1001 and a necess.ary step Jar States to
<br />make the best use of limited resources.
<br />
<br />.j
<br />
<br />Priority lists .re viewed .s flexible
<br />. working documents, not as mand.tory
<br />lists. Public involvement in developing
<br />these Hsts.is encouraged.
<br />Although there were suggestions th.t
<br />EPA define for St.tes the processes th.t
<br />should be used in est.blishing the list of
<br />priority w.ter bodies, the Act does not
<br />require such:guidanc13 and EPA does not
<br />believe it is .appropriate to do so.
<br />However, whatever 'procedures States
<br />est.blish should be incorpor.ted into
<br />the St.tes Continuing PI.nning Process
<br />document and be made knoWn to the
<br />public..t-l.rge,
<br />
<br />Antidegradation Policy
<br />
<br />EPA's propos.1. which would h.ve
<br />limited the enlidegr.dation policy to the
<br />maintenance of existing uses, plus three
<br />alternative policy statements described
<br />in the preamble to the proposal notice,
<br />generated extensive public comment.
<br />EPA's response is described ill the
<br />Pre.mble to this fin.l rule .nd includes
<br />. response to both the substantive and
<br />philosophic.l comments offered. Public
<br />commenjs overwhehningly supported
<br />retention of the existing policy .nd EPA
<br />did so in the final rule.
<br />EPA's respQnse to,several comments
<br />de.ling with the .nlidegrad.tion policy,
<br />which were not discussed iit the
<br />Pre.mble are discussed helow,
<br />Option three contained In the
<br />Agency's .proposal would have allowed
<br />the possibility of exceptions to .
<br />maintaining'existing;uses. This option
<br />was. either criticized for being illegal or
<br />was supported because it provided
<br />additional flexibility for economic
<br />growth. The I.tter commenters believed
<br />tb.t .1I0w.nces should be m.de for
<br />o.refullydefined exceptions to the
<br />absolute requirement.that uses attained
<br />must bem.int.ined, EPA rejects this
<br />contention as being tott~lly inconsistent
<br />with the spirit .nd intent of both Ihe
<br />Cle.n W.ter Act and the underlying
<br />philOSOphy ofthe .ntidegrad.tion
<br />policy. Moreover. .lthoughthe Agency
<br />specifically .sked for ex.mples of
<br />where the existing ant.idegradation
<br />policy had precluded growth, no
<br />examples were provided. Therefore.
<br />wbolly ap.rt from technic.llegal
<br />concerns, there.appears to be no
<br />justific.tion for .dopting Option 3.
<br />Most critics of the proposed
<br />.ntidegr.d.tion policy ohjected to
<br />removing the public's .bility to .ffecl
<br />decisions on high quality waters and
<br />outstanding national resource waters. In
<br />.ttempting to explain how the proposed
<br />.ntidegr.d.tion policy would be
<br />implemented. the Pre.mble to the.
<br />.proposed rule st.ted th.t no public
<br />participation would be necessary in
<br />, certai~ insta'nces because no change
<br />
<br />w.s being in.de In a St.te'~. water
<br />qu.lity stand.rd; Although that
<br />statemenfwa.s".technicaUy accurate. it
<br />left the mistakenimpressioil that.lI
<br />public particip.tionwas.removed from
<br />the discussions 011 high qu.llly waters
<br />.nd th.t Is not cdrrect. A NPDES~permit
<br />would have to be lasued or . 208 plan .
<br />ame:nded for any deteriorat.lt)O'in:water
<br />qu.lity to be "allowed", Both ~ctions
<br />require notice and an opportunity for
<br />public comment. However. SPA retained
<br />the existing, poiicy so this:issue is mo'ot. .
<br />Other ch.nges In the policy affecting
<br />ONRW are discussed in the Pre.mble.
<br />Designation of Uses
<br />The question of whether there is.
<br />hier.rchy of uses gener.ted lIIuch
<br />discussion, M.ny Indic.ted there is no
<br />hierarchy 'of uses shlce, none 'pC the uses
<br />mentioned in Section 303(c) pf theCle.n
<br />Air. Water Act afe ra'nked or',were,'put
<br />into any 'order .of priority. Hqwever.
<br />others believed th.t flsh, wiIlIlife.nd
<br />recre.tion or potebl. water ~~ppIy .
<br />clearly h.ve precedence. The short
<br />.nswer is th.t Congress, in s~ttingthe
<br />go.ls in Section W1(.)(2); established
<br />th.t, where .tt.inable., w.terqu.lity
<br />"sh.n provide. lor theprotect!on offish,
<br />shellfish, wiIdllfe.nd recre.tlon in and
<br />on the w.ter. . ,"Werefore, )!PAb..
<br />revised the proposedregul.tion to !>etter
<br />emph.size the uses specified'ln the . .
<br />Section 101[a)(2) go.ls of Ihe oAct. Under
<br />.the .fin.l regul.tion, wherever$t.t~s
<br />h.ve set or s~t uses for. w.ter body
<br />which do not include.1I of Ih~ use.
<br />specified in Section 101(a)(2) of ths Acl,
<br />they musl conduct. use .tt.b)..billty
<br />.n.lysis to demonstr.te.th.t these uses
<br />. .re not .tt.in.ble. Of course, 'If th.y .re
<br />not .tt.in.ble, the St.te mustselect one
<br />or ",ore 01 th~ other U8eS included III, ,
<br />303(c)[2). While the St.tes need only
<br />conduct a use .tt.in.bility .n~lysis .
<br />once, every, three years States.owill. have.'
<br />to review the basis of prior decIsion'S to.
<br />designate Uses... w.ter body \j(hich do
<br />not include uses specified in S~ction
<br />101(.)(2) of the Act to'determhie If there
<br />is any inform.tlon which woulp w.rraIll
<br />a change in the st.nd.rds. Thi~ oh.ng....
<br />responds positively td the criticism tbal
<br />the proposed regulation settle4 for the
<br />st.tus quo .nd did not .dequately .
<br />support the improvement of water
<br />quality. .
<br />The provision in the proposal .1I0wlng~
<br />States to d~si8nate subcategories' of
<br />.qu.tic use (Section 131..1Q(b)),has been
<br />ch.nged slightly in the.fin.l rule .
<br />(Section 131...1O[c)) In response to
<br />suggestions madfi by vaHous "
<br />commenters. EPA is .ttemptlng,to
<br />convey the concept that s.ornEiu.e
<br />class'iCications included in the Act and:
<br />
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />
<br />:'1
<br />
<br />'Ii
<br />
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />,,'
<br />
<br />;~i
<br />
|