|
<br />and Regulalion.
<br />
<br />
<br />51402
<br />
<br />Fede~al Regi~ter I Vol. 48. No. 217 I Tuesday, November 8, 1983/ Rules
<br />I -
<br />,
<br />
<br />i
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />....
<br />CO
<br />1<)
<br />0)
<br />
<br />>"'
<br />
<br />appropriate methods and J!l'ocedures for
<br />conducting any of the analyses: before
<br />the analyses are initiated and c8J:ried
<br />out. States will have the flexibility of
<br />lailoring the analyses to th~ sp~cific
<br />water body being examinell as long as
<br />the methods used are scien)ifically.and
<br />technically supportable, .
<br />EPA will review the adequacy of the
<br />data, the suitability and appropriateness
<br />of the analyses and how the analyses
<br />were applied. In cases where the
<br />analyses are inadequate. EfA will
<br />iden tify how the analyses 'Ieed to be
<br />improved and will suggest lhe Iype of
<br />evaluation or data neeqed.-When the
<br />State has initially consulte" EPA on the
<br />.analyses to be used, EPA will be able to
<br />expedite ita review of the .slate's
<br />analyses of any-new or reviaed:Sta:te
<br />standard.
<br />
<br />Criteria
<br />
<br />EPA has revised the sectibn 01;
<br />criteria (fi 131,12 inthe.proJ1osal:
<br />renumbered to fi 131.11 in the final rule)
<br />in several respects. First, E~A has
<br />accepled the recommendatitm that the
<br />phrase "criteria -61'e Gompat\ble ,with",
<br />protecting a designated qae,is confusing
<br />and unnecessary and shaul" be
<br />removed. .The provision ,now ,reads:
<br />."States must adopt those w4terquality
<br />criteria'that prQtect the- deslSnated use:'
<br />In addition, EPA consolidMedparts of
<br />the provisions and stated mQre .
<br />concisely the basis of EPA'sirevt:ew of
<br />the appropriateness of Stat~criteria.'
<br />Section 131.11(a) now read's; "Such
<br />criteria must be based on 8d).Irid '
<br />scientific rationale and must contain
<br />suffioient parameters or constituents to
<br />protect the designated use. For walera
<br />with multiple use designatiohs, the
<br />criteria shall support the mO$t sensitive
<br />use," eliminating the need for proposed
<br />~ 131.12(c) (1)-[3); ,
<br />A number of comments concerned
<br />criteria for toxic"pollutailts. $ome
<br />questioned EPA's commitmept to
<br />controlling toxic pollutants based on the
<br />fact that EPA was not "requiring" States
<br />to adopt, specific numerical toxic
<br />pollutant criteria. EPA ha. made a
<br />number of changes to more olearly
<br />reflect our commitment. For example.
<br />EPA has tried to restructure; .
<br />~ 131.11(a)(2) on toxic pollut~nts to
<br />, assist States in providing theimost
<br />effective control of toxic pollutants as
<br />possible. All States have a re.quir~ment
<br />in their standards that their waters be
<br />free from toxic pollutants in ~oxic
<br />amounts. States are to review their
<br />water quality data and inforrbali()n on
<br />discharges to identify specific water
<br />bedies where toxic pollutant~ may be
<br />adversely impacting water qljality or the
<br />designated uses or where the:'level of a
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />1;
<br />
<br />toxic pollutant in the water is ata level
<br />to warrant concern. States are expected
<br />to conduct such reviews beginning with
<br />an ,in.depth,analysis of water bO,dies
<br />with known toxic.pollutant problems.
<br />States are to adopt numerical or
<br />narrative criteria for ,those toxic
<br />pollutants of concern: Numerical criteria
<br />are appropriate where a few specific
<br />pollutants have been identified as the
<br />concern, or where human he'81th rather
<br />than aquatic life is the controlling factor.
<br />To implement such criteria, mo~els are
<br />used to translate the specific criterion
<br />on a chemical~by-chemical basis into a
<br />wasteload allocation to obtain a specific
<br />permit limit.
<br />However, where the effhieilt 01;
<br />ambient conditions are complex, due to
<br />multiple dischargers or multiple
<br />pollutants, toxic pollutant 'limits may be
<br />more appropriately set through narrative
<br />criteria (such as the "free, from
<br />statements'l Wh.ere narrative criteria
<br />are adopted. the State should indicate as
<br />psrt of its water quality standards'
<br />submissh:m~ ho.w it intends to regulate
<br />the discharge of the toxic pollutants.
<br />Biological monitoring is one meQhanism
<br />to test compliance with "free from." ,
<br />narrative criteria. Biological monitoring
<br />may inClude periodic sampling of the
<br />ecosystem. trend monitoring and/or
<br />periodic bioassays USing the effluent.
<br />Acute and .chronic toxicity testina
<br />methods have been developed that
<br />en.able, a permit writer, to ensure. that t,he
<br />discharge. will not be toxic to aquatic
<br />life. When using biological monltoril;g to
<br />te'st compliance with narrative criteria,
<br />reference s.hould be made to the
<br />maximum 'acceptable levels of toxicity
<br />and the basic means by which these .
<br />levels are to De measured or otherwise
<br />determined. '
<br />Both the pollutani-by-pbllutant and
<br />biological methods are being refined and
<br />need to be applied in a conservative
<br />fashion. They hold great promise and
<br />are relatively inexpensive. ]n many
<br />cases a combination of biological
<br />monitoring and a chemic81-by~chemical
<br />approach will provide the best toxic
<br />pollutant control.
<br />Finally, 'il number of comments dealt
<br />with site-specific criteria. It was
<br />apparent from the comments that some
<br />commenters had the mistaken
<br />impression that EPAwas advocating
<br />that States use site-specific criteria
<br />development procedures for setting all
<br />criteria as opposed to using the national
<br />Section 304(a) criteria, Site-specific
<br />criteria development procedures are not
<br />needed in all situations, Many of the
<br />procedures are expensive. Site.-specific
<br />criteria development appears most
<br />appropriate on water quality limited
<br />, water bodies where: '
<br />
<br />. Background water quality
<br />psrameiers, such as pH,hardnes.
<br />temperature. suspended solids, e1,c.,
<br />appear to differ significantly from the .
<br />laboratory water u.sed in developing the
<br />Section 304(a) criteria: or
<br />. The types of local aquatic
<br />organisms in the region differ
<br />significantly from those actuaUy tested
<br />indevel.oping the Section 304[a) cl:iteria.
<br />The protocols for establishing slte-
<br />specific criteria, as well as the test cases
<br />illustrating use of. the protocols. ....e
<br />. included in .the .Water Quality
<br />Standards Hal)dbook. EPA also has a
<br />Uroited lll.!-mber of copies of
<br />Recalculation of State: Toxic Criteria .
<br />using the family recalculat,on procedure.
<br />These publications may be obtain~dby
<br />writing'or calling' DaVid K. Sabockat the
<br />address and phone number listed lindeI' .
<br />FO.R FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at
<br />the beginning of this Rule,
<br />
<br />Antidegradotion Policy
<br />
<br />The preamble to. the proposed rlile
<br />discussed three options for changiilg.the
<br />existing antidegradationpolicy. O~tion
<br />1. the proposed option. provided sil1lply
<br />that uses attained would be Jitaint$ined,
<br />Option 2 stated that not'only would uses
<br />attained be maintained but that high
<br />quality waters. I,e, waters with qUllllty
<br />better than that needed to protect IIsh
<br />and wildlife. would bemaintalned:(that
<br />Is, ihe existingantidegradatlon pol/cy
<br />minus the "outstanding natural respurce
<br />'waters" provisIon), Option 3 woul<!.have
<br />allowed changes in an exi.ting use)f
<br />maintaining that use would effectively
<br />. prevent any future grow.th in the
<br />community or if the benefits :of
<br />maintaining the use do 1101 bear a
<br />reasonable relationship to the cost..
<br />Although there wail support for
<br />Option 2, there was greater support!or
<br />retaining the full existing policy.
<br />including the provision on outstanding
<br />National resource waters-. Therefol't),
<br />EPA lias retained the existing
<br />antidegradaUon policy (Section 131;12)
<br />because it more accurately reflects .the,
<br />degree of water quality protection
<br />desired by the public, and is consist.ent
<br />with the goals and purposes of the J\ct.
<br />In retaining the policy EllA made four
<br />changes. F'irst, the provisions on
<br />maintaining and protect~ng existing,
<br />instream uses and high quality wata:rs
<br />were retained. but the sentences .stating
<br />that no further water quality
<br />. degradation which-wouldinterfere With
<br />or become injurious to existing lnstteam -
<br />uses is allowed were deleted. The
<br />deletions were made because the. terms
<br />'~interfere" and "injurious", were suqlect
<br />to misinterpretation as precluding al1Y
<br />activity wbich might even momentarily'
<br />
<br />,
<br />-,~;
<br />
<br />"'f
<br />
<br />';'>'
<br />d
<br />
<br />i-;
<br />
<br />..<
<br />
<br />'1:
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />; ;!;- ^_';''-_-4.~.-;:j." ,;; ';;-~
<br />
<br />......
<br />
<br />
|