Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski has put a priority on efforts for the state of Alaska to take over administration of water quality permitting from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
While having Alaska issue the permits will add flexibility and help industries and municipalities in the state who now work with the federal agency on wastewater discharge permits, it will also add costs that will have to be paid by the state and those seeking permits, state officials said.
Environmental Conservation Commissioner Ernesta Ballard announced the new administration priority in Ketchikan Aug. 8.
"The governor has agreed to seek state legislation for an important agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency," Ballard said.
| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |
"We will request permission to assume full responsibility for regulating discharges into Alaska's waters, such as those from municipal treatment works, factories and mines. This work is presently done by EPA in Seattle," she said.
"We believe permitting, compliance and enforcement should be done by Alaskans who are knowledgeable about Alaskan conditions," Ballard said.
Forty five states now administer wastewater discharge permits under the federal Clean Water Act, but Alaska is one of the five states which still allow the EPA to run the program.
The state now manages air quality permits in Alaska for the EPA under provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. The federal Clean Water Act permits a similar delegation of permit administration to states.
Tom Chapple, director of the state's air and water quality division, said his group is now completing a study of the advantages and costs of the state assuming management of the program.
The study was authorized by the Legislature in 2002. DEC's report is due to be submitted to lawmakers in January, 2004. It will take legislation for the state to assume the program, and if the Legislature passes a bill and agrees to provide funding DEC will put together an application to the EPA, Chapple said.
Once the Legislature passes a bill and the governor signs it, it will take 12 to 18 months for DEC to develop the necessary regulations and application to EPA, he said. It will probably take EPA about six months to review and approve the state's application.
At the earliest, it would be mid-2006 when the state actually taks over administration of water quality permits, Chapple said.
The state has considered taking over the program for about 20 years. There were two or three serious attempts to do it, but cost considerations resulted in a decision to leave it with EPA.
The big advantage in having Alaska manage the program rather than EPA is that the state will have more flexibility than is allowed by the EPA, which runs the program mostly from its Seattle Region 10 office.
"Flexibility doesn't come with a Seattle address," Chapple said. "EPA doesn't always understand the nuances of Alaska conditions.
"If people who are here in the state are issuing the permit, they will have a better understanding of how to protect the environment as well as help the project along. They will be willing to take one more step to make it work for the project," Chapple said.
One example of the rigidity of EPA commonly cited by Alaskans is the federal agency's rule that a wastewater discharge must meet state water quality standards at the end of the discharge pipe. While some business operations may be able to meet this requirement, without a mixing zone it will be almost impossible for municipalities as well as most businesses to comply, according to Steve Borell, executive director of the Alaska Miners Association.
Since much of the water in Alaska's streams and lakes really isn't fit for human consumption either because of natural metals content, bacteria or organic contamination from plants and animals, industrial operators are often in a position where they must put water back into the environment cleaner than they received it.
If Alaska were administering the discharge permit program it would be easier for operators to rely on mixing zones in a stream or lake that receives a discharge, so that the measurement of the discharge is made after it has been diluted in the mixing zone, he said.
However, cost is a serious consideration, Chapple said.
Despite the problems of having to deal with EPA agency staff in Seattle on permits, the fact that the federal government pays for the program and the permits are free has caused Alaskans to hesitate in the past about assuming management, Chapple said.
"We have been able to accomplish about 80 percent of our goals in influencing the program without taking over management, because the Clean Water Act requires states to establish the water quality standards the EPA must meet in writing the permits," he said.
"We occasionally disagree with EPA over how they interpret our water quality standards, but in general the arrangement has worked well," Chapple said.
EPA has about 26 people dedicated to issuing water quality permits in Alaska. DEC will most likely be able to run the program with fewer people because state personnel working on other programs can provide assistance, but the agency would still need additional people, he said.
Some of those costs will have to be paid by permit holders and applicants, mostly likely through fees. Once EPA transfers the program to the state, there is no federal funding that will come along with it, Chapple said.
The federal Clean Air Act requires costs of the air permit program to be paid by permit holders and applicants, he said. But the funding mechanism for administration of wastewater permits is not specified in federal law.
The Clean Water Act, which allows delegation to states for the water quality permits similar to air quality permits, has no requirement that permit holders pay all costs, Chapple said.
In states that now manage their water quality permit programs, costs are paid both by the states and the permit holders, he said.
There are mixed feelings within the industries which must get water quality permits.
"The upside to this is that it would put the state in a position to make decisions based on local needs, something that EPA has not done," said one industry source, asking not to be identified.
"The downside is the cost. Industry doesn't object to paying reasonable fees, but not all costs can be recovered through fees. Those that aren't will have to be paid by the state at a time when state government is facing severe budget constraints, and this is for a service that EPA is now doing for free," the source said.
