**lll ,liH1** **:lI I~**  ! h ll l,11I1 :- ::.;, \\ , -1 "1;",1. " Ijl<" 'I " ,L,: ! '" \\

. ;, hill.·1t 1\ • ,I "

Sep tember 2 , 2010 

# ( 1 I**''''' ''I** **'' _;** **:'" - _** **-·, ''** **''~** '"" \\
. ,-J ;' r il' -.li" ."n.:

Th om as J
. Gardne r Office o f S c ience and Te chnolo gy ( Mail C ode 4305T) Offi ce o f Wa ter U
. S
. En vironmenta l Pr otecti on Agen cy 1 200 Penn s ylv ania Ave
. , N W Was hington , D
. C. 20 460 S HPDcomments@epa .g ov 

### R e: C o mmen ts o f S poka ne R iverkeeper for HQ -O\V-2010 -0606

D e ar Mr
. Gardner : Th e S pok an e R ive rkee per i s pleased t o co mme nt o n th e p ropo sed rul emaking t o re vi s e the w ate r qua lity stan dards ( WQS ) regulation , H Q

- OW-2010-0606
. The Spokane Ri verke eper i s a n on-pr o fit o rganization whi ch se eks t o pr o tect and re store the h ealth o f the S pokane R iver Wat er shed
. G enerally, we bel ieve that the WQS reg u latio n s id entified b y the Pr opo s ed Rulem akin g d ocum e n ts s hou ld be rev ised . H owever, in s ome in stance s we hav e con ce rn s as t o h ow the r egula tion s ar e being r evised and h ave draft ed co mme nt s t o ad dres s th ose i ssues . T he not ice s t ates that q ue s tions and co mme nts are reque st ed i n s i x are as ( A-F ). We re spond a s foll ow s : A. A ntideg radat io n An tide gradati on imp lementati on p rocedure s ident ify th e s tep s and q uestions that m u st 

### be add re ss ed when re gulated act ivitie s are propo sed that ma y affect wa ter qual ity
. A s s uch , w e b elieve the y are clearl y s tand ards under the exi sting law and tha t a s tate o r tribe' s ad option or re vis io n of s uc h m ethods are s u bjec t t o EPA ' s a pproval unde r Sec ti o n 303 (c) o f the Cl ean Wa t e r Ac t, 3 3 U SC 

### § 1 313 ( c) , regardles s of w hether o r n o t th e s tate o r tribe label s the se m ethod a s standa rd s . See Fl orida P ublic Inter est Gro up v . EP A, 386 F
. 3 d 1070 , 1 087

- 90 ( 11 th C i r . 20 04) ( regulatory c hang es th at h ave pra ctical eff ect of c hanges t o stan dards ar e stand ards) ,

1 I ,·.[j" I,,: 1<' l h ,' "' .i'

.. - ticnc , ,.1 i l "u , ',' li' j I h. " ,· ,,1 ! 1I1I; k',; .' 1 11<' h " " ' I< ' - 1.11" -u; I •• 'l1IP ;' ''' ''I' ; ,n .1 I n**;n\<l r{',** **K'** ·1 1 1,,'**", ~ 'T** **jll** ! 1 11,1 , ·11·,We agree that it wo uld be beneficia l fo r EPA to requi re s tates to exp licitly se t fo rth the ir i mplementati on method s. In part icular, E PA s hould re quire in its regu lations th a t s t ate/ tri bes e xplic itly set forth : • T he me thod for ensu ring that exis ting u ses wi ll be m aintain e d and protec ted in co mpliance w ith T ier 1 a n tidegradat i on requiremen ts, e spec ially f rom impairm en ts tha t are n ot d irectly lin ked to water quali ty changes. • T hat all reasonable a lternative s to the new or increased d ischarge o r other loading mu st be con sidered a s part of a T ier 2 a ntideg radat io n analys is
.

• T hat, i f a new or increase d pollution loading i s f ound necessary to accom modate im portant so c ial or econom ic develop ment after a T ier 2 ana ly s is , that the leas t po lluting reasonable alt ernative mu st b e us ed a nd permit l imit s w ill b e s et b ased on the di scha rg es th at wo uld be e xpected from u s e o f th e least po llutin g a lternative. • The proc edures for determining the potentia l alt ernatives to the propo sed new or increased d i scharge or oth er proposed ac tivit y that will increas e poll ution. • The fa c tor s that w ill be conside red i n determining w hen a propo sed po lluting ac tivity wi ll ac commoda te important social or econom ic developme nt an d the method for making th at T i er 2 determ ination
.

• Th e mann er in wh ich ant idegradation wi ll be ap plied i n m aking deci sions on propo se d 40 I cert ification s and g e n era l permi t s. • That the state will prepare a written antide grada tion Tier 2 ana lysi s if antidegra dation i s ap plicabl e to the deci sion to a llow a n ew or increased load o r exp lain in writing w hy the new or i ncreased loading fits withi n an e xce ption to Tie r 2 antidegradation requ ireme nt s if the s tate/ tr ibe find s that such an e xception is ap plicab le.

• The m anner an d timing for the pub lic to p articipate i n the an tidegradation revie w to en s ure that publi c partici pation i s mean ingful and effect iv e. In addi tion, w e b e lieve th at 4 0 CFR 1 3 1 .1 2 s hould be clarified and im proved in a n umber of areas. C ertainly the rule s ho u ld at a m inimum b e clar ified to require th at s tate and tr ibal ant idegradatio n ru le s app l y Ti er 2 pro tection to pro tect all wa ter bod ie s that s upport a ny s ig n ificant recre atio nal or a quatic life uses . S i mi larly, th e regu lation s s ho ul d make cl ear tha t wa ters that s upport an indigenous popula tion of fi s h or macro

- inve rtebrates m ust b e give n Ti e r 2 protections beca u se t hey s u ppo rt w ildlife and n ature s tudy even i fthey are to o s ha llow f or s wimm i n g or cont ain p athogens tha t make the m unsaf e for fu ll bod y co ntact.F urther , mo re direct ion i s needed i n 40 C FR 131. 12( a)(3) on Ti er 3 protections an d procedu re s for de signation
. R evi s ed regulation s s ho uld m ake clear that c itizen s mu st b e a llowed to p e tition for d esignation of T ier 3 w ater b odie s . Furth er , it s hould b e made cl ear that no new po llution wi ll be a llowed in to w aters de s ignated as T ier 3 exce pt for po llution th at w ill be un detectable n o longer th an a m onth after the loading i s a llowe d
. 

### B
. A dmin istrat or's D eter min at ion We do n ot b elieve th at a ru le is needed as to wh en th e Ad minis trator h a s ma de a determinat ion. S ectio n 303(c) ma kes p lain th at Co ngress intended f or th e A dmini s trator to make determinatio n s and int ended to g ive the p ublic the right t o i nsist that the Ad ministrator p romptly act on s uch determ ination s. The language requiring the Adm inistra to r to " p romp tly pre pare . .. a re vised or ne w water qual ity s t and ar d " fo llowing a det ermin ation that s u ch a s standar d wa s n eeded , 33 USC §1313(c)( 4) cl early e vidences an i ntent b y Co ngre ss t hat the A dministrator wi ll m ake de term inations an d act o n th em. C reating a rul e th at wo uld a llow th e A dmini strator to avoid m aking de term ination s an d the mandat ory dut i es t hat flow fro m suc h d etermination s wo uld not b e c onsisten t with t he stat ute . If it i s dec ide d to create a new regulation o n dete rm i nations by the A dmini s trator un der se ction 3 03(c), th e regu lation s hould m ake clear h ow p artie s intere s ted in rev isions to water q u ality standard s can pet ition th e A dministrator for a Section 3 03 ( c)( 4 )(B) d e termination th at a n ew o r re vised s tandard i s necessary . Suc h a ru le shou ld p rovid e th at th e Adm inistrator w ill g rant o r de ny suc h a pe tition for a d etermination t hat a n ew or revi s e standard i s nec essary w ithin a reaso nable tim e, n ot l onger than si x mo nths a fter th e fili ng of the pe tition
. 

### C. Desi gnated U se s T he law i s now cl ear th at the CWA 10 I ( a) ( 2) " fis h ab le swi mmab le " u s es are presu med to be a

ttainabl e unle ss o therw i se d em onstrated. Kan sas Na tural Resource Co uncil, I nc . v . W hitman, 2 55 F . S up p. 2d 1 208 , 1213 (D. Kan
. 2 003). I t wou ld , h owever , b e use ful t o spell o ut i n 4 0 C FR 1 3 1.10 or other regulation tha t , a fter it h a s bee n s hown th at 1 0 I ( a)(2) u ses are n ot all atta inable, th e re levant s ta te o r tribe must de s ignate th e " high es t a ttainable u se" close s t to the goa l. I t wi ll , o f cour se, b e necessa ry to de fine " highest a ttainable u s e." A s to aq uatic life u s e s, th is s houl d be define d i s term s of the he alth of the aq uatic co mmuni ty w ith th e "hig hest a ttainabl e u se" being th e commu nity th at i nclud e s as m any of the s pecies p re sen t an d healthy a s cou ld be e xpect ed to be i n th e wate r bo dy g iven the limitation s o f th e wa ter bo dy f ound to be un avoidable i n the u s e atta in ability an aly si s . A s to rec reation u s e s, " hi ghest a ttainable u se" s imilarly shou l d i nclude al l of the u s es that are po ss ible g iven the unav o idable li mitations f ound t o be p resent in the wa ter bo d y.D. V arianc es Some state s in the p as t have used variance s t o al low po llution deemed too ex pensive to i mmediately ab ate w hen th e s ituatio n ca lled f o r a co mpliance s ched u le under 40 C FR 122.47 or n o regu latory adjus t ment at a l l. Furthe r, s ome s tates h ave failed to present varian ces fro m wate r q ua lity s tandards f o r approval by E PA und er Sectio n 3 03(c ) alth ough obvio u sly a variance f rom a wa ter qu al ity s tandard i s i ts elf a c hang e in w ate r qua l ity s tandards. Rev i se d ru les s h o u ld make cl ear that a varianc e i s o nl y ap p ropr iate w he n the r e i s so me thi ng unu sual about all w ater b ody or bo die s to be affec ted th at c au ses it to be app ropriate to all ow a v ari a nc e fro m th e u s ual w ater qu a lit y c rite ria. Further , th e r evi s ed ru le s h o u l d make clea r that a ll v ari ance s fro m w ater qua lity s ta ndards mu st b e app roved by th e A d ministrator o r h er d esignee un de r Sec t io n 303( c). E
. T riennial Re view It i s nece ssary to ful fill the go al s o f th e C lean W ate r A c t to f ashion re gulation s that w ould re quire state s/tribe s to a llow p ublic co nune nt o n al l of the s tate s/ tri be s wa te r q uality s tand ards ev ery thr ee y ears. The public notic e i nviting pu blic conune nt s h ould mak e clear t hat th e publ ic may reque st r evision s to all of th e s tandards and may reque st that s tand ards be crea ted th at d o not c urr e ntl y e x i s t f o r that s tate/ tri be
. The revi s ed re gulat io n s h ou ld r eq uir e s ta te/tri bes to re spond to co m ments re q ues tin g revi se d or new s tan d ar ds and t o exp la in w hy i t w a s d ecided no t to rev i s e or c reate an y s tan dard s th at it w as reques te d that th e state revi s e o r c reate . S till furth er , pe r so n s who se re que s t s fo r r evi si o n s o r n ew s tand ar ds w e re de nied s ho ul d b e abl e to s e e k re v iew of t hat dec i sio n as o the r d eci si ons by s tat e ag encie s are re vi ewed in th e s t ate o r tri b e . 

### F
. Upda tes t o Reflect C ou rt Decisi ons R

evision s in th e re gulations to re fl ect c ourt d ec i si ons may be us eful. I n part ic u lar , i t wou ld 

### be u se ful to m ake clea r t ha t a c h ange i n wa te r qu a lity s tandard s inclu de s an y re vi s ion to a s tat e's regu l ati on that m ay i n e ffect c hange th e w ate r qu ali ty ba s ed e ffl uent l im it s in permi t s or that ma y i n effect lead to a change in the wat er s that ar e li sted und e r Se ction 30 3(d)
. Th i s i s req uired b y F lorida P ubli c Intere st Group , 386 F .3d at 1 0 8 7

- 90
. Furthe r, we a gree that s tates s hould be r equired to s e t forth pr ovi s ions g ov erning co mpliance s chedu les as p an of th eir s tan dard s an d s ub m it the m to E PA as was h eld i n I n th e M aner o f 

### Stark i st Caribe , Inc . 3 E .A.D . 1 72 ( 1990). F urther, the e lements o f the M ay 10 ,2007 , memo by J am e s A
. H an lo n regard in g co m p lianc e s ch e dules s h o ul d a lso be pl ac e d in to th e r e g ul a ti on s to cl ar if y th e no w rather c ryptic pro vi si o n s o f 4 0 C F R 1 22.47Fi nally , E PA s hould cl arify that sta te o r tribal re cords of public p articipation an d comme nt related s h ou l d be s ub m itted t o E PA for u s e in reviewing r evisions t o wate r quality s t an dar ds u nder 303 (c). C urrently, it ap pears tha t the s tates o ften a ttem p t t o summarize the record , b ut fa il t o in cl u de i mportant i nformation that was d eve loped in the rec o rd
. G
. O ther Co m ments To th e ex tent po ss i ble, EPA mu st make s ure th at th e s tandard s that E PA a pprove s un der 303(c ) ac tually 2 ppe ar in the lan g ua ge of th e s tandards docume nt s th at were adopted b y the s tate o r tribe
. It i s n ot l egal or work ab le f or EPA t o a pprove imp r oper or poorly drafted s tandard s thr o u gh letters o r other document s from s tate o r tri bal a uthoritie s th at purport t o clarify vague o r improper s tate re gu latory lan g ua g e . Certainl y. E PA cann ot appro ve s tan d ar d s bas ed o n pr omises b y the s tate/tribe th at it will a pp ly th e s tandards in a manner that i s n ot s upported b y the language o f the s tandard as it was appr oved b y th e s tate thr ough th e p r oper s ta te p rocedure s . S ee Kentu cky W aterw ays All iance v
. E PA, 5 40 F .3d 4 66 ( 6 th C iT
. 2 008)
. In o rder t o red uce the need f or EPA disapp roval s o f sta te o r tribal s ubmitt e d s tandards, bett er co mmunicat io n i s need ed be tween s tate s/tribes and EPA to as sure that th e lan guag e ad opted by the s tates is app rovable b y EPA
. Fu rther
. re vi s ed regulations s hou l d make clear that E P A can o nly appr ove a s tandard based o n the lan guage properl y a dop ted b y the s tate as s upported b y the re cord de vel oped b y th e s tate prio r t o its ap proval o f th e s tand ar d. We al so as k E PA t o reexami ne fi sh c onsump ti on rate s -- the number s used to ass ess i mpacts oftoxics o n human heal th are way t oo l ow an d do no t a ddre ss tri bal c ons umption rate s.

# ;;-;I/**!!f** Mih ailovich S pokane R iverkeeper