September 13, 2010 

Thomas J. Gardner 

Office of Science and Technology (Mail Code 4305T) 

Office of Water 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606 “Stakeholder Input: Revisions to Water 

Quality Standards Regulations”

Dear Mr. Gardner, 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Stakeholder Input: Revisions to 

Water Quality Standards Regulations. Overall, there is concern that EPA is considering 

revisions to the Water Quality Standards (WQS) regulations that could place a 

tremendous burden on states and authorized tribes during a time of significant economic 

challenge and lack of sufficient resources. Many states and authorized tribes are 

struggling to fulfill their existing federal and state water quality standards requirements. 

Consideration should be given to the implementability of the proposed regulatory 

changes and whether they are truly necessary to accomplish the desired outcomes. 

Alternatively, EPA should consider developing and revising practical guidance to aid 

states and tribes in fulfilling the existing regulatory requirements. Additional EPA 

technical and financial assistance to states and tribes in the water quality standards area 

would also greatly assist in fulfilling these requirements. 

The following are specific comments on Stakeholder Input: Revisions to Water 

Quality Standards Regulations: 

Antidegradation: Implementation is a complex process which depends on site-specific 

conditions - a one-size-fits-all approach does not work in all cases. While we would 

support EPA reviewing our various implementation procedures to determine the 

effectiveness of our antidegradation program, we believe that it is not necessary to 

incorporate all of these provisions into a State’s Water Quality Standards to allow for this 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CHRIS CHRISTIE WATER MONITORING AND STANDARDS BOB MARTIN

Governor 401 E. State Street, P.O. Box 409 Commissioner

 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0409 

KIM GUADAGNO Phone (609) 292-1623 Fax (609) 633-1276 

Lt. Governor 

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer l Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable 
review. New Jersey has incorporated implementation provisions into its Water Quality 

Management Planning Rules. Our experience is that our state must use words in its 

rulemaking such as “must” and “shall”, not “may” and “could” as apparently is allowed 

under the federal rules. This rulemaking difference severely constrains a number of 

states. EPA should provide guidance rather than regulations regarding antidegradation 

implementation procedures. The guidance should be flexible enough for states and 

authorized tribes to establish implementation procedures based on state/site-specific 

conditions. In addition, states and authorized tribes should have the flexibility to 

implement antidegradation provisions through other water programs and regulations such 

as planning rules, stormwater management rules, etc. EPA should also provide, as part of 

their guidance, examples of implementation measures approved and disapproved by EPA. 

Measures that were disapproved by EPA should include reasons for disapproval. This 

will provide states and authorized tribes assistance regarding what is considered 

acceptable when developing state-specific implementation measures. 

Administrator’s Determination: It is appropriate for the Administrator to make the 

determination when states fail to take action. During current times when many states are 

experiencing substantial economic challenges and lack of sufficient resources, the need 

for the Administrator to act may be expected to increase. However, EPA should continue 

to consult and coordinate with the states in a meaningful manner when setting statespecific standards. 

Designated uses: Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act establishes a goal, wherever 

attainable, of water quality that provides for the protection and propagation of fish, 

shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. There are cases where water 

quality may meet the swimmable goals, but for practical and safety reasons (e.g. shipping 

channels), the State does not want to designate waters for the swimming use. EPA needs 

to consider these types of conditions in proposing any changes to require States to 

designate the “highest attainable use”. 

Variances: EPA should clarify the difference between variances and compliance 

schedules before proposing any changes. Modified water quality-based effluent 

limitations for individual dischargers are allowed in both cases and have to be reviewed 

and revised as needed every three to five years. However, a variance cannot be used 

where treatment does not exist or NPDES sources are insignificant. We recommend that 

EPA consider developing “restoration standards” to improve water quality for pollutants 

like PCBs which would take a long time to remediate. This approach could avoid the 

necessity to consider removing uses. 

Triennial Reviews: The CWA and the Water Quality Standards Regulation require that 

states and authorized tribes review and modify as necessary their standards once every 

three years. This process is very technically challenging and time consuming, and may 

not be feasible, as proposed in these revisions, on an every three year basis. A 

comprehensive process to identify/organize the issues, consider stakeholder input, 

finalize the issues to be proposed and adopted, and go through public comment would 

realistically take a much longer time than three years. Also, states have to comply with 
additional state requirements on providing impact statements, as well as prioritizing and 

narrowing the rule scope due to restrictions on available resources and information. 

Court Decisions: 

Definition of water quality standards: We would recommend that EPA consider 

including the Methods Document, developed pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b), as a 

component of the WQS. The Methods Document explains how the data collected is used 

to assess attainment of the various designated uses. 

Submission of public participation records to EPA: 40 C.F.R. 131.20(c) requires states to 

submit their water quality standards revisions and any bases regarding the revisions. 

EPA should issue guidance to clarify what is needed as the bases for the revisions. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to “Stakeholder Input: Revisions 

to Water Quality Standards Regulations” (EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606). As the revisions to 

these regulations progress, EPA is urged to actively consult with the states and tribes, 

particularly regarding the feasibility of implementation. Also, it would be prudent for 

EPA to fully evaluate the state/tribal staffing and other resource needs required to 

implement any revisions, and consider what additional federal funding and technical 

assistance would be made available to meet these needs. Please contact Debra 

Hammond, Chief, Bureau of Water Quality Standards and Assessment at 609-777-1753 if 

you have any questions regarding these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Leslie J. McGeorge, M.S.P.H., 

Administrator 

cc: John Plonski, Assistant Commissioner, Water Resources Management 

 Debra Hammond, Bureau Chief, Water Quality Standards and Assessment