Document n9BGxx3GkkbGoyeOKMbnDw8Z1

TO: D. C. Cannon P. M. King Inter-Office Correspondence DATE July 24, 1989 FROM LOC: Allen J. Tolmsoff * 36 West SUBJECT: Variances in WQ Standards I recently obtained the attached from the LA DEQ Water Quality Standards coordinator. I believe a copy should be sent to Rob Braeger, if he will be helping PPG with the proposed LA ambient WA Standards. Allen J. Tolmsoff AJT/dkk Attachment cc: R. J. Samelson M. Wood File: O.U., Lake Charles, Toxic Trout SL 105923 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 MEMORANDUM 1 5 J985 OFFICE OF SUBJECT: Variances in Water Quality Standards TO: Water Division Directors Numerous Questions have been raised regarding the granting of variances to water auality standards. The Preamble to the water quality standards regulation discusses limiting the granting of a variance to that "... based on a demonstra tion that meeting the standard would cause substantial and widespread economic and social impact, the same test as if the State were changing a use...". A interpretation by our Office of General Counsel, provides a better determination on what factors can be considered in allowing variances from water auality standards. The OGC interpretation is that any of the factors recognized in the regulation for justifying a stream use downgrade, not just the substantial and widespread economic and social impact test, may also be used to support a variance. Our previous interpretation was somewhat illogical as it allowed more opportunity for a permanent change in standards then it did for a temporary, short-term change which could be granted by a variance. Under Section 510 of the Clean Water Act, States have the right to establish more stringent standards than suggested by EPA. Therefore, as long as any temporary water quality standards modification conforms to the requirements established in Section 131.10(g) of the regulation for downgrading uses, such an approach is acceptable as it would lead to only a temporary change to a water quality standard rather than a permanent downgrade, and thus would be more stringent than the Federal requirements. This interpretation does not change the regulation which provides that States may have general policies affecting the application and implementation of standards. It does affect the discussion of variances contained in the`Preamble to the regulation and the quidance included in the WQS Handbook, pages 1-9. No other aspect of the variance policy and guidance is altered by this new interpretation. This memorandum should be kept as part of your permanent files for interpreting water quality standards. SL 105924 2- Overallf we expect the impact of this change to be minimal as the discussion of variances appears to far outweigh its actual effects on the program. Often the confusion surrounding variances obscures the fact that what is really being discussed are specialized permit conditions, scheduling adjustments, site-specific criteria, or actual downgrading actions. cc: Bill Whittington Peter Perez Cathy Winer Ned Notzen ( SL 105925