Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Clearinghouse for Review, Revision Of Standards Being Developed by EPA
A clearinghouse for procedures used by state and federal regulators to revise
water quality standards to more accurately reflect realistic uses is under
development at the Environmental Protection Agency and may be available by the
end of the year, an agency official said May 24.
In order to revise water quality standards, the regulatory authority--usually
the state--has to perform what is known as a use attainability analysis (UAA).
Geoffrey Grubbs, director of science and technology in the EPA Office of Water,
said many states develop templates or protocols on doing UAAs, many of which can
be quite resource intensive. He spoke at the policy meeting of the Association
of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.
Under the water quality standards program, states designate specific uses for
their waterways and then establish criteria to protect those uses. When the uses
designated by the states differ from those spelled out in the Clean Water Act,
states must perform a "structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting
the use," according to EPA regulations. This is the use attainability analysis.
The beneficial uses in the act include public water supply, propagation of fish
and wildlife, recreational purposes, agricultural and industrial water supplies,
and navigation. The act also has as its goal to make all waters fishable and
swimmable.
Some States Have Templates for Analyses
States may develop templates for use attainability analyses to address waters
affected by agriculture, dams, or other stressors, Grubbs said.
In the past three years, Grubbs said, about 4,000 use attainability analyses
have been done. The problem is that all of those have been done in only about 16
states, meaning the majority of states have not done them, he said.
Once a state begins a use attainability analysis, "it requires dedication" in
the form of public notice requirements, technical issues, and time. Interested
parties also become involved with the process, which can become politicized.
"Some states have difficulty getting started," Grubbs said.
Those that have been more successful, he said, often employed good biologists
who understand the chemistry and other factors critical to designating uses and
developing criteria. He cited Kansas, Ohio, and Oklahoma as states that had done
a good job with their standards programs.
The agency is working with the states to develop this clearinghouse, a project
that was identified as a priority in a planning strategy released in August 2003
for EPA's water quality standards program.
"It will help states and tribes to make decisions related to adjustments of
uses, such as when higher uses can be attained but are not designated in
standards or when higher uses have been designated that cannot be attained," the
strategy said. "Additionally, this action will help states and tribes decide
when use adjustments should not be made, such as removing a designated use that
is being attained, has been attained since 1975, or can be attained."
No Fixed Format for Analyses
Denise Keehner, director of the standards and health protection division within
the EPA Office of Water, told BNA that different states in different parts of
the country have done UAAs, but that no fixed format exists on how to do them.
The Web-based clearinghouse, she said, will contain examples of "good UAAs" and
some that did not work as well, she said.
Use attainability analyses have as their goal determining the "highest
attainable use" for the river, lake, or stream in question.
These analyses are an important component of the total maximum daily loads
program, EPA officials have said. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences
published a seminal report in June 2001 recommending ways the agency could
improve the TMDL program (116 DEN A-1, 6/18/01).
It directed states to look at and update their water quality standards to
provide a reasonable goal that the TMDL should achieve. Use attainability
analyses will help states come up with "more stratified and detailed narrative
statements of the desired use and measurable criterion," the National Research
Council report said, adding that EPA should issue new guidance on these analyses
and that UAAs "should be considered for all water bodies before a TMDL plan is
developed."
Report Recommends EPA Guide States
The General Accounting Office issued a report in February 2003 calling on EPA to
improve its water quality standards guidance and assist states in improving
their standards programs (31 DEN A-6, 2/14/03).
"Many states said they need more help from EPA to make accurate decisions on
what some believe will be a much larger number of designated use changes in
coming years," GAO said in the report, Water Quality: Improved EPA Guidance and
Support to Help States Develop Water Quality Standards That Better Target
Cleanup Efforts.
"Specifically, they cited a need for additional EPA guidance that clarifies both
the circumstances under which a use change is acceptable and the type of
evidence needed to support those changes," the report said.
One South Carolina wastewater treatment official at the AMSA conference said he
wanted to see "more common sense" in the TMDL program. After spending $3 million
in modeling and consulting, the Charleston area concluded that it would have to
get reductions of 60 percent from its point source dischargers.
The official said he did not think that would necessarily result in improved
water quality.
"We're looking at doing things the old way instead of creative ways," he said at
the conference. "I want EPA to be more involved in working with the states."
Increased Focus on Right Standards
Benjamin Grumbles, acting EPA assistant administrator for water, said the agency
is trying to do that using the research council report as a guideline to
increase the focus on getting the right standards in place.
"We need to get the standards right, and that is where the UAAs come into play,"
Grumbles said. "We need to encourage the highest attainable use and the most
productive process for getting there."
By Susan Bruninga