Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards 

CHAPTER 6 

PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND REVISION OF WATER 

QUALITY STANDARDS 

State review and revision of water quality 

standards are discussed in section 6.1. of this 

chapter. Guidance is provided on the 

administrative and regulatory requirements and 

procedures that should be followed in the State 

review and submittal process as well as the 

implication of a State’s failure to submit 

standards. EPA review and approval 

procedures are discussed in section 6.2, and the 

procedures for promulgation of Federal 

standards are described in section 6.3. 

6.1 State Review and Revision 

Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act 

requires that a State shall, from time to time, 

but at least once every 3 years, hold public 

hearings to review applicable water quality 

standards and, as appropriate, to modify and 

adopt standards. The 3-year period is 

measured from the date of the letter in which 

the State informs EPA that revised or new 

standards have been adopted for the affected 

waters and are being submitted for EPA review 

or, if no changes were made in the standards 

for those waters, from the date of the letter in 

which the State informs EPA that the standards 

were reviewed and no changes were made. 

States identify additions or revisions necessary 

to existing standards based on their 305(b) 

reports, other available water quality 

monitoring data, previous water quality 

standards reviews, or requests from industry, 

environmental groups, or the public. Water 

quality standards reviews and revisions may 

take many forms, including additions to and 

modifications in uses, in criteria, in the 

antidegradation policy, in the antidegradation 

implementation procedures, or in other general 

policies. 

6.1.1 Consultation with EPA 

State consultation with EPA regional offices 

should occur when States begin activities to 

revise or adopt new water quality standards and 

long before the State standards are formally 

submitted for EPA review. Reasons for early 

consultation with EPA include the following: 

States will benefit from early identification 

of potential areas of disagreement between 

EPA and the States, and EPA can 

determine where assistance may be 

provided; 

EPA must be in a position to respond to 

litigation and to congressional and other 

inquiries relating to actions on the revised 

State water quality standards; 

Headquarters must be ready to support 

promulgation actions when State standards 

have been disapproved; 

early consultation with EPA allows issues 

to be discussed well before a formal 

review request is received from the State; 

and 

EPA actions related to State standards 

should receive as comprehensive a review 

as possible. 

6.1.2 Public Notice Soliciting Suggestions for 

Additions or Revisions to Standards 

An important component of the water quality 

standards setting and review process is a 

(9/15/93) 6-1 
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition 

Figure 6-1. Simplified Flow Chart of a Typical State Water Quality Standards Review Process 

6-2 (9/15/93) 
meaningful involvement of those affected by the 

standards decisions. At a minimum, section 

303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States 

to hold a public hearing in reviewing and 

revising water quality standards. (State law may 

require more than one hearing.) However, 

States are urged to involve the public more 

actively in the review process. Involvement of 

the public includes the involvement of citizens 

affected by standards decisions, the regulated 

community (municipalities and industry), and 

inter-governmental coordination with local, 

State, and Federal agencies, and Indian Tribes 

with an interest in water quality issues. This 

partnership will ensure the sharing of ideas, 

data, and information, which will increase the 

effectiveness of the total water quality 

management process. 

Public involvement is beneficial at several 

points in the water quality standards decision 

making process. Enlisting the support of 

municipalities, industries, environmentalists, 

universities, other agencies, and the affected 

public in collecting and evaluating information 

for the decision making prxess should assist 

the State in improving the scientific basis for, 

and in building support for, standards decisions. 

The more that people and groups are involved 

early in the process of setting appropriate 

standards, the more support the State will have 

in implementing the standards. 

6.1.3 Review of General Provisions 

In each 3-year water quality standards review 

cycle, States review the general provisions of 

the standards for adequacy taking into 

considerat ion: 

l new Federal or State statutes, regulations, 

or guidance; 

l legal decisions involving application of 

standards; or 

l other necessary clarifications or revisions. 

Inclusion of All Waters of the United 

States 

Water quality standards are nee&d for all 

“waters of the United States,” defined in the 

National Pollution Discharge Elintination 

System Regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 to include 

all interstate waters, including wetlands, and all 

intrastate lakes, rivers. streams (including 

intcmlittont streams), wetlands, natural ponds, 

etc. 1 the IJSC degradation or destruction of 

which would affect or could affect interstate or 

foreign commerce. The term “waters of the 

United States” should be read broadly during 

the standards review process. States should 

ensure that all waters under this dt$nition arc 

included in the States’ water quality standards, 

are assigned designated uses, and have 

protective criteria. 

Definitions 

Terms used in the Water Quality Standards 

Regulation are defined in 40 CFR 131.3. The 

glossary of this document contains these and 

other water quality standards-Rlatcd terms 

defined by the Clean Water Act, EPA 

txgulation, or guidance. States, when reviewing 

their water quality standards, should at a 

minimum define those temls included in the 

Definitions section of the regulation to bc 

synonymous with the EPA definitions. 

6.1.4 Sektion of Specific Water Bodies for 

Review 

The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows 

States to establish procedures for identifying 

and reviewing the standards on specific water 

bodies in detail. Any procedures States 

establish to revise standards should be 

articulated in the continuing planning process 

consistent with the water quality management 

regulation. Water b&ies receiving a detailed 

standards review aw most likely to be those 

where: 
Water Oualitv Standards Handbook - Second Edition 

l combined sewer overflow (CSO) funding 

decisions are pending; 

l water quality-based permits are scheduled to 

be issued or reissued: 

l CWA goal uses are not being met; 

l toxics have been identified and are 

suspected of precluding a use or may be 

posing an unreasonable risk to human 

health: or 

l there may be potential impacts on 

threatened or endangered species. 

States may have other reasons for wishing to 

examine a water body in detail, such as human 

health problems, court orders, or costs or 

economic and social impacts of implementing 

the existing water quality standards. States 

must reexamine any water body with standards 

not consistent with the section 101(a)(2) goals 

of the Act every 3 years, and if new information 

indicates that section 101(a)(2) goal uses are 

attainable, revise its standards to reflect those 

uses. 

States are encouraged to review standards for a 

large enough arca to consider the interaction 

between both point and nonpoint source 

discharges. In carrying out standards reviews, 

the States and EPA should ensure proper 

coordination of all water quality programs. 

6.1.5 Evaluation of Designated Uses 

Once priority water bodies have been selected 

for review, the designated uses must be 

evaluated. This may involve some level of data 

collection up to and including a full water body 

survey and assessment; however, an intensive 

survey of the water body is not necessary if 

adequate data are available. The purpose of 

the evaluation is to pinpoint problems and to 

characterize present uses, attainable uses (uses 

that could exist in the absence of anthropogenic 

effects), uses impaired or precluded, and the 

reasons why uses are impaired or precluded. 

Information generaM in the survey also can be 

used to establish the basis for seasonal uses and 

subcategories of uses. 

Included in section 2.9 of this Handbook are 

examples of a range of physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics of the water body that 

may be surveyed when evaluating aquatic 

protection uses, This information is then used 

in determining the existing species in the water 

body and the health of those species, as well as 

what species could be in the water body given 

the physical characteristics of the water body, or 

what species might be in the water if the quality 

of the water were improved. 

Review of the Cause of Uses Not Being Met 

If the survey indicates that designated uses are 

impaired, the next step is to determine the 

cause. In many situations, physical conditions 

and/or the presence of pollutants prevent the 

water body from meeting its designated use. 

Physical limitations refer to such factors as 

depth, flow, habitat, turbulence, or structures 

such as dams that might make a use unsuitable 

or impossible to achieve regardless of water 

quality. 

If uses are precluded because of physical 

limitations of the water body, the State may 

wish to examine modifications that might allow 

a habitat suitable for a species to thrive where 

it could not before. Some of the techniques 

6-4 (9115/93) 
Chapter 6 - Procedure.y Jc>r Rwietv and Rwision of Warer QuaMy Stundards 

which have been used include bank 

stabilization, current deflectors, construction of 

oxbows, or installation of spawning beds. A 

State also might wish to consider improving the 

access to the water body, improving facilities 

nearby so that it can be used for recreational 

purpo=s, or establishing seasonal uses or 

subcategories of a use. 

If uses are not being met because of water 

pollution problems, the first step in the process 

is to determine the cause. If the standards 

review process is well coordinated with the total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) determination 

and the permit process, permitees may be 

required to conduct some of the analyses 

necessary to determine why uses are not 

attained (For more information on the TMDL 

process, see chapter 7, this Handbook.) When 

background levels of pollutants are irreversible 

and criteria cannot be met, States should 

evaluate other more appropriate uses and revise 

the water quality standards appropriately. 

Determination of Attainable Uses 

Consideration of the suitability of the water 

body to attain a use is an integral part of the 

water quality standards review and revision 

process. The data and information collected 

from the water body survey provide a firm basis 

for evaluating whether the water body is 

suitable for the particular use. Suitability 

depends on the physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics of the water body, its 

geographic setting and scenic qualities, and the 

socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of 

the surrounding area. Suitability must be 

assessed through the professional judgment of 

the evaluators. It is their task to provide 

sufficient information to the public and the 

State decision makers. 

In some instances, physical factors may preclude 

the attainment of uses regardless of 

improvements in the chemistry of the receiving 

water. This is particularly true for fish and 

wildlife protection uses where the lack of a 

proper substrate may preclude certain forms of 

aquatic life from using the stream for 

propagation, or the lack of cover, depth, flow, 

pools, riffles, or impacts from channelization, 

dams, or diversions may preclude particular 

forms of aquatic life from the stream 

altogether. While physical factors may 

influence a State’s decision regarding 

designation of uses for a water body, States 

need to give consideration to the incidental uses 

that may be made of the water body 

notwithstanding the use designation. For 

example, even though it may not make sense to 

encourage use of a stream for swimming 

because of the flow, depth, or velocity of the 

water, the States and EPA must recognize that 

swimming and/or wading may, in fact, occur. 

To protect public health, States must set criteria 

to reflect swimming if it appears that primary 

contact recreation will, in fact, occur in the 

stream. 

While physical factors are important in 

evaluating whether a use is attainable, physical 

limitations of the stream may not be an 

overriding factor. Common sense and good 

judgment play an important role in setting 

appropriate uses and criteria. In setting criteria 

and uses, States must assure the attainment of 

downstream standards. The downstream uses 

may not be affected by the same physical 

limitations as the upstream uses. 

If a change in the designated use is warranted 

based on a use attainability analysis, States may 

modify the uses currently assigned. In doing so, 

the State should designate uses that can be 

supported given the physical, chemical, or 

biological limitations of the water body. Or, a 

State may designate uses on a seasonal basis. 

Seasonal use designations may be appropriate 

for streams that lack adequate water volume to 

support aquatic life year round, but can be used 

for fish spawning, etc., during higher flow 

priods. In setting seasonal uses, care must be 

taken not to allow the creation of conditions 

instream that preclude uses in another season. 

EPA encourages the designation of seasonal 

(9115193) 6-S 
Waler Quality Standards Handbook - Scxond Edition 

uses as an alternative to completely 

downgrading the use of a water body. 

Economic Impact Assessment 

The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows 

States to establish uses that are inconsistent 

with the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act if 

the more stringent technology required to meet 

the goals will cause substantial and widespread 

economic and social impact. These are impacts 

resulting specifically from imposition of the 

pollution controls and reflect such factors as 

unemployment. plant closures, and changes in 

the governmental fiscal base. The analysis 

should address the incremental effects of water 

quality standards beyond technology-based or 

other State requirements. If the requirements 

are not demonstrated to have an incremental, 

substantial, and widespread impact on the 

affected community, the standard must be 

maintained or made compatible with the goals 

of the Act. 

6.1.6 Evaluation of Criteria 

Changes in use designations also must be 

accompanied by consideration of the need for 

a change in criteria. If a use is removed, the 

criteria to protect that use may be deleted or 

revised to assure protection of the remaining 

uses. If a use is added, there must be adequate 

water quality criteria to protect the use. 

Regardless of whether changes or modifications 

in u.ses are made, criteria protective of the use 

must ~-KT adopted. Certain criteria are deemed 

csscntial for inclusion in all State standards, 

and criteria for section 307(a) toxic pollutants 

must be addressed consistent with section 

303(c)(2)(B) (see chapter 3, this Handbook). 

All State standards should contain the “free 

froms” narrative statements (see section 3.5.2) 

in addition lo numerical limits that can be used 

as a basis for regulating discharges into surface 

waters. Also, water quality parameters such as 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and 

bacteriological requirements are basic to all 

State standards. 

EPA’s laboratory-derived criteria may not 

always accurately reflect the bioavailability 

and/or toxicity of a pollutant because of the 

effect of local physical and chemical 

characteristics or varying sensitivities of local 

aquatic communities. Similarly, certain 

compounds may be more or less toxic in some 

waters because of differences in temperature, 

hardness, or other conditions. Setting sitespecific criteria is appropriate where: 

. background water quality parameters, such 

as pH, hardness, temperature. color, appear 

to differ significantly from the laboratory 

water used in developing the section 304(a) 

criteria; or 

l the types of local aquatic organisms differ 

significantly from those actually tested in 

developing the section 304(a) criteria. 

Developing site-specific criteria is a method of 

taking local conditions into account so that 

criteria are adequate lo protect the designated 

use without being more or less stringent than 

needed. A three-phase testing program that 

includes water quality sampling and analysis, a 

biological survey, and acute bioassays provides 

an approach for developing site-specific criteria. 

Much of the data and information for the water 

quality sampling and analysis and the biological 

survey can be obtained while conducting the 

assessment of the water body. Included in 

section 3. IO of this Handbook are scientifically 

acceptable procedunzs for setting site-specific 

pollutant concentrations that will protect 

6-6 (9115193) 
Chapter 6 - Procedures /or Review and Rev&on of Warer Qudity Srandurdv 

designated uses. EPA believes that setting sitespecific criteria will occur on only a limited 

number of stream segments because of the 

resources rt@red to conduct the analyses and 

the basic soundness of the section 304(a) 

recommendations. 

6.1.7 Draft Water Quality Standards 

Submitted to EPA for Review 

While not a regulatory requirement, prudence 

dictates that draft State water quality standards 

be submitted to EPA for review. The EPA 

regional office and Headquarters will conduct 

concurrent reviews of draft standards and make 

comments on proposed revisions to assist the 

State in producing standards that are 

approvable by the Regional Administrator. 

Continuing cooperation between the State and 

EPA is essential lo timely approval of State 

standards. 

6.1.8 Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to 

Standards 

Before removing or modifying any use or 

changing criteria, the Clean Water Act requires 

the State to hold a public hearing. More than 

one hearing may be required depending on 

State regulations. It may be appropriate to 

have EPA review the adequacy of justifications 

including the data and the suitability and 

appropriateness of the analyses and how the 

analyses were applied prior to the public 

hearing. In cases where the analyses are judged 

to be inadequate, EPA will identify how the 

analyses could be improved and suggest the 

additional types of evaIuations or data needed. 

By consulting with EPA frequently throughout 

the review process, States can be better assured 

that EPA will be able to expeditiously review 

State submissions and make the determination 

that the standards meet the requirements of the 

Act. 

The analyses and supporting documentation 

prepared in conjunction with the proposed 

water quality standards revision should be made 

available to the interested public prior to the 

hearing. Open discussion of the scientific 

evidence and analysis supporting proposed 

revisions in the water quality standards will 

assist the State in making its decision. 

6.1.9 State Adopts Revisions; Submits 

Standards Package to EPA for Review 

Within 30 days of their final administrative 

action, States submit lo EPA water quality 

standards revisions, supporting analyses, and 

State Attorney General certification that the 

standards were duly adopted pursuant to State 

law. Final administrative action is meant to be 

the last action a State must take before its 

revision becomes a rule under State law and it 

can officially transmit State-adopted standards 

to EPA for review. This last action might be a 

signature, a review by a legislative committee or 

(9/ 15193) 6-7 
Water Quality Standuds Handbook - Sccmd Edition 

State Board, or a delay mandated by a State 

administrative pmcedures act. 

In reviewing changes in uses that are 

inconsistent with the section 101(a)(2) goals of 

the Act or changes in criteria, EPA will 

carefully consider the adequacy of the analyses 

and the public comments received during the 

hearing process. Standards are to meet the 

goals of the Act unless the State can clearly 

demonstrate that the uses reflected in the goals 

are unattainable. 

cl 

6.2 EPA Review and Approval 

When States adopt new or revised water quality 

standards, the State is required under CWA 

Section 303(c) to submit such standards to EPA 

for review and approval/disapproval. Section 

131.20(c) of the Water Quality Standards 

Regulation requires the submittal to EPA to 

occur within 30 days of the final State action. 

Figure 6.2 outlines EPA’s review process. EPA 

reviews and approves/disapproves the standards 

based on whether the standards meet the 

requirements of the CWA and the Water 

Quality Standards Regulation. States are 

encouraged to provide early drafts to the EPA 

Regional Office so that issues can be resolved 

during the water quality standards review 

process, prior to formal State proposal or 

adoption of revised or new standards. 

When reviewing State water quality standards, 

EPA ensures that the standards meet the 

minimum requirements of the Act and Water 

Quality Standards Regulation. Pursuant to 

section 510 of the Act, State water quality 

standards may be more stringent than EPA’s 

minimum requirements. 

The general elements of an EPA review 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

l EPA determines whether “fishable/ 

swimmable” designated uses have been 

assigned to all State waters or a use 

attainability analysis (UAA) is available to 

support the designation of other uses. 

Other uses may satisfy the CWA section 

101(a)(2) goal if properly supported by a 

UAA. EPA reviews the adequacy of the 

analyses. 

EPA determines whether the State’s water 

quality criteria are sufficient to protect the 

designated uses by ensuring that all numeric 

criteria are based on CWA Section 304(a) 

guidance, 304(a) guidance modified to 

reflect site-specific conditions, or other 

scientifically defensible methods. EPA’s 

decision to accept criteria based on sitespecific calculations or alternative scientific 

procedures is based on a determination of 

the validity and adequacy of the supporting 

scientific procedures and assumptions and 

not on whether the resulting criterion is 

more or less stringent than the EPA 

guideline. 

EPA ensures that uses and/or criteria are 

consistent throughout the water body and 

that downstream standards are protected. A 

review to determine compliance with 

downstream standards is most likely to 

involve bodies of water on, or crossing, 

interstate and international boundaries. 

Where the analyses supporting any changes 

in the standards are inadequate, EPA 

identifies how the analyses need to be 

improved and suggests the type of 

information or analyses needed. 

For waters where uses have not been 

designated in support of the fishable/ 

swimmable goal of the CWA, EPA 

determines whether the alternative uses are 

based on an acceptable UAA and whether 

such UAAs have been reviewed every 3 

years as required by 40 CFR 131.20(a). 

EPA ensures that general “free from” 

narrative criteria are included that protect 

all waters at all flows from substances that 

6-8 (9115193) 
Chapter 6 - Procdures for Review and Revision of Wafer Quality Standards 

Stale SUM Draft 

WQS to Region for 

lnfotmal Review 

1 

Regbn Reviews Draft 

WQS 

Comments Given to 

state 

1 

State Adopts or 

Revisss WQS 

State Submits ReMons, Methods, Jusdf’kathnr 

and Attorney General Certifkath to Regional 

Administrator for Review 

or 

If Conditions Not Met 

by State, WQS 

Considered 

Disapproved 

Figure 6-2. Overview of EPA Water Quality Standards Review Process 

(9/15/93) 6-9 
Water Quality Standuds Handbook - second Edition 

settle to form objectionable deposits; float 

as debris, scum, oil, or other matter; 

produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or 

turbidity; are acutely toxic; or produce 

undesirable or nuisance aquatic life. 

EPA determines whether the State has 

included criteria for CWA section 307(a) 

“priority” pollutants sufficient to satisfy the 

requirements of CWA section 303(c)(2)(B). 

For toxic pollutants where EPA has not 

issued guidance or it is not known which 

toxicant or toxicants are causing the 

problem, EPA ensures that the State 

standards include or reference a method for 

implementing the narrative toxics “free 

from ” criterion. 

EPA ensures that the State’s antidegradation 

policy meets the requirements of section 

131.12 of the Water Quality Standards 

Regulation. 

EPA reviews whether the State has provided 

or referenced a procedure for implementing 

the antidegradation policy. 

Where (optional) general policies are 

included in the State water quality standards 

(e.g., mixing zone provisions, variance 

policies, low-flow exemption policies), EPA 

reviews whether the policies are consistent 

with the latest EPA guidance. 

EPA reviews comments and suggestions on 

previous State water quality standards to 

ensure that any areas for improvement or 

conditions attached to previous approvals 

have been acted upon satisfactorily. 

EPA reviews whether the policies are 

consistent with the latest EPA guidance and 

regulatory requirements. 

EPA ensures that the State has met the 

minimum requirements for a standards 

submission as outlined in section 131.6 of 

the Water Quality Standards Regulation. 

l EPA reviews whether the State has 

complied with the procedural requirements 

(e.g., public participation) for conducting 

water quality standards reviews. 

Since 1972, EPA review and approval/ 

disapproval includes concurrent reviews by the 

Regions and Headquarters. However, because 

the EPA regional Administrator has the 

responsibility for approving/disapproving water 

quality standards and because of the 

decentralized structure of EPA, the regional 

offices are the primary point of contact with the 

States. The EPA regional offices, not the 

States, are responsible for providing copies of 

State water quality standards to EPA 

Headquarters for review and for acting as 

liaison ktween States and EPA Headquarters 

on most matters affecting the water quality 

standards program. The basic internal EPA 

review procedures have been described in 

various guidance documents over the years; the 

most was a memorandum dated December 17, 

1984. This memorandum also made one minor 

change to the process. It required that 

Headquarters be consulted immediately for 

possible advice and assistance when the 

Regional Office learns that a State: 

l is proposing to lower designated water uses 

below the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act; 

l is not raising water uses to meet the section 

101(a)(2) goals of the Act; or 

l is considering adopting a water quality 

criterion less stringent than currently 

included in a State’s standard. 

To expedite Headquarters review, copies of 

State water quality standards revisions (draft 

and final) must be provided to the Director, 

Standards and Applied Science Division, at the 

time they are received by the Region. The 

Standards and Applied Science Division will 

6-10 (9/I S/93) 
Chapm 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Warer Quuliry S~undards 

involve other EPA offices in the review as 

appropriate, and provide comments and 

suggestions, if any, to regional offices for 

consideration in State-EPA negotiations and 

final standards decisions. Their review will be 

expeditiously accomplished so as not to slow 

regional approval/disapproval. Neither the 

regional nor Headquarters review need be 

limited only to revisions to existing standards or 

lo new standards. 

In general, three outcomes are possible: 

l EPA approval, in whole or in part, of the 

submitted State water quality standards; 

l EPA disapproval, in whole or in part, of the 

submitted State water quality standards; and 

l EPA conditional approval, in whole or in 

part, of the submitted State water quality 

standards I 

Unconditional approval or disapproval of 

State-adopted water quality standards within the 

statutory time limits is the preferred approach. 

Conditional approvals should be used only as a 

limited exception to this general policy for 

correcting minor deficiencies in State standards 

and only if a State provides assurance that it 

will submit corrections on a specified, written 

schedule. Failure of a State to respond in a 

timely manner to the conditions expressed in 

the letter means that the standards are 

disapproved and the Region must promptly 

request Headquarters to initiate a promulgation 

action. Where this occurs, the Region should 

formally notify the State in writing that their 

failure to meet the conditions previously 

specified results in the standards now being 

disapproved as of the original date of the 

conditional approval letter, 

6.2.1 Policies and Procedures Related to 

Approvals 

Authority to approve or disapprove State water 

quality standards is delegated by the 

Administrator to each Regional Administrator. 

The Administrator retains the authority to 

promulgate standards. Revisions to State water 

quality standards that meet the requirements of 

the Act and the Water Quality Standards 

Regulation are approved by the appropriate 

EPA Regional Administrator. The Regional 

Administrator must, within 60 days, notify the 

Governor or his designee by letter of the 

approval and forward a copy of the letter to the 

appropriate State agency. The letter should 

contain any information that might be helpful in 

understanding the scope of the approval action. 

If particular events (e.g., State implementation 

decisions, pending Federal legislation pertaining 

to water quality standards requirements) could 

result in a failure of the approved standards to 

continue to meet the requirements of the Act, 

these events should be identified in the 

approval letter. Such events should be 

identified for the record to guide future review 

and revision activities. 

When only a portion of the revisions submitted 

meet the requirements of the Act and the 

Water Quality Standards Regulation, the 

Regional Administrator may approve only that 

portion. If only a partial approval is made, the 

Region must, in notifying the State, be as 

specific as possible in identifying what is 

disapproved and why. The Regional 

Administrator must also clearly indicate what 

action the State could take to make the 

disapproved item acceptable. 

6.2.2 Policies and Procedures Related to 

Disapprovals 

If the Regional Administrator determines that 

the revisions submitted are not consistent with 

or do not meet the requirements of the Act or 

the Water Quality Standards Regulation, the 

Regional Administrator must disapprove such 

standards within 90 days. Such disapproval 

must be via written notification to the Governor 

of the State or his designee. The letter must 

state why the revisions are not consistent with 

the Act or the Water Quality Standards 

(9/15/93) 6-11 
Water Qulity Shmiards Handbook - Second Edition 

Regulation and specify the revisions that must 

be adopted to obtain full approval. The letter 

must also notify the Governor that the 

Adrninistntor will initiate promulgation 

pnxeedings if the State fails to adopt and 

submit the necessary revisions within 90 days 

after notification. 

A State water quality standard remains in 

effect. even though disapproved by EPA, until 

the Stale revises it or EPA promulgates a rule 

that sll~r~t:s the State water quality 

standard. This is because water quality 

standard> artz State laws, not Federal laws, and 

once the law is amended by the State, the 

previrjusly adopted and EPA-approved 

standani5 no longer legally exist. 

6.2.3 Policies and Procedures Related to 

Conditional Approvals 

Conditional approvals are EPA approvals 

contingent on t hc performance of specified 

actions on the part of a State in a timely 

manner. There is an implicit or explicit 

statt’ment in the letter to the State that failure 

to satisfy the identified conditions will nullify 

the conditional approval and lead to Federal 

promulgation action. Problems have arisen with 

in~onsi\t~nt UFO of conditional approvals among 

the rqzions and with followup actions to ensure 

that a State is responding to the conditions in a 

timely manner. 

Because promulgation of Federal standards is 

inherently a lengthy press. the use of 

conditional approvals evolved over the years as 

another mechanism to maintain the 

State-Federal relationship in establishing 

standards. When used properly, conditional 

approvals can result in standards that fully meet 

the requirements of the Act without undue 

Federal intervention and promote smooth 

operation of the national program. 

If used improperly, conditional approvals can be 

an unacceptable delaying tactic to establishing 

standards and can be construed as EPA failing 

to properly exercise its duty to review and 

either approve or disapprove and promptly 

initiate promulgation action after the allotted 

%-day period for State action. This improper 

use of conditional approvals must be avoided. 

It is incumbent on a Region that uses a 

conditional approval to ensure that State action 

is timely. When a State fails to meet the 

agreed-upon schedule, EPA should initiate 

promulgation action. Conditional approvals are 

to be used only to correct minor deficiencies 

and should be the exception, not the rule, 

governing regional responses to State standards. 

Note that requests for clarification or additional 

information are not approval actions of any 

tYPe* 

This policy is modeled after that applied to 

EPA approval of State implementation plans 
Chup~er 6 - Procedurt~ /or Review and Revision of Wurt*r Qwlitv Srclnhrds 

(SIPS) in the air program. (See 44 F.R. 38583, 

July 2, 1979. See also Mississippi Commission 

on Natural Resources v. Cosrle, 625 F. 2d 1269 

(5th Cir.) 1980.) 

Necessary Elements of Conditional 

Approvals 

First, conditional approvals are appropriate only 

for “minor deficiencies.” Blatant disregard of 

Federal statutory or regulatory requirements or 

changes that will affect major permit issuance 

or reissuance are not minor deficiencies. In 

addition, the State’s standards submission as a 

whole must be in substantial compliance with 

EPA’s regulation. Major deficiencies must be 

disapproved to allow prompt Federal 

promulgation action. 

Second, the State must commit, in writing, to a 

mutually satisfactory, negotiated schedule to 

correct the identified regulatory deficiencies in 

as short a time period as possible. The time 

allowed should bear a reasonable relationship 

to the required action. However, in 

consideration of the first element above, it is 

expected that the time period for compliance 

will be limited to a few months. It is definitely 

not expected that a year or more will be 

required. If that is the case, disapproval would 

be more appropriate. Headquarters 

concurrence in the schedule is required if it 

extends for more than 3 months. 

cl 

6.3 EPA Promulgation 

As a matter of policy, EPA prefers that States 

adopt their own standards. However, under 

section 303(c)(4) of the Act, EPA may 

promulgate Federal standards: 

l if a revised or new water quality standard 

submitted by a State is determined by the 

Administrator not to be consistent with the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act, or 

l in any case where the Administrator 

determines that a new or revised standard is 

necessary to meet the requirements of the 

Act. 

Under the latter provision of the statute, EPA 

would be able to promulgate standards for a 

State, or States, that failed to conduct a 

triennial review and submit new or revised 

standards to EPA for review so long as the 

Administrator determined new standards were 

necessary. Where one of these conditions is 

met, the Administrator has the authority to 

publish proposed revisions to the State(s) 

standards in the Federal Register. Generally, a 

public hearing will be held on the proposed 

standards. Final standards are promulgated 

after giving due consideration to written 

comments received and statements made at any 

public hearings on the propo.sed revisions. 

Although only the Administrator may 

promulgate State standards, the Regional Office 

has a major role in the promulgation process. 

The Regional Office provides the necessary 

background information and conducts the 

public hearings. The Regional Office prepares 

drafts of the rationale supporting EPA’s action 

included in the proposed and final rulemakings. 

The rationale should clearly state the reason for 

the disapproval of the State standard. 

If conditions warrant (e.g.,a State rcmcdics the 

deficiencies in its water quality standards prior 

to promulgation), the Administrator may 

terminate the rulemaking proce&ing at any 

time. However, if a proposed rulemaking has 

been published in the Federal Regisfer.th the 

Regional Administrator must not approkc the 

State’s changes without obtaining conc’urrcnce 

from Headquarters. 

Whenever promulgation proc&ings are 

terminated, a notice of withdrawal of the 

proposed rulemaking will be published in the 

Federal Register. The Regional Offices are 

responsible for initiating such action and 
Water Chalitv Standards Handbook - Second Edition 

furnishing a rationale for use in preparing the 

notice for the Administrator’s signature. 

An EPA-promulgated standard will be 

withdrawn when revisions to State water quality 

standards are made that meet the requirements 

of the Act. In such a situation, the Regional 

Office should initiate the withdrawal action by 

notifying the Standards and Applied Science 

Division (WH-585) that it is requesting the 

withdrawal, specifying the rationale for the 

withdrawal, and obtaining Headquarters 

concurrence on the acceptability of the State’s 

water quality standards. EPA’s action to 

withdraw a federally promulgated standard 

requires both a proposed and final rulemaking 

if the State-adopted standards are less stringent 

than federally promulgated standards but, in the 

Agency’s judgment, fully meet the requirements 

of the Act. EPA will withdraw the Federal rule 

without a notice and comment rulemaking when 

the State standards are no less stringent than 

the Fedetal rule (i.e.,standards that provide, at 

least, equivalent environmental and human 

health protection). 

Withdrawal of a Federal promulgation is based 

on a determination that State-adopted water 

quality standards meet the requirements of the 

Clean Water Act. Such State-adopted 

standards may be the same as, more stringent 

than, or less stringent than the Federal rule. 

6-14 (9/15/93) 
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control 

CHAPTER 7 

THE WATER QUALITY-BASED 

APPROACH TO 

POLLUTION CONTROL 

Table of Contents 

7.1 Determine Protection Level .................................... 7-2 

7.2 Conduct Water Quality Assessment ............................... 7-3 

7.2.1 Monitor Water Quality ................................ 7-3 

7.2.2 Identify Impaired (Water Quality-Limited) Waters ................ 7-3 

7.3 Establish Priorities ......................................... 7-5 

7.4 Evaluate Water Quality Standards for Targeted Waters ................... 7-6 

7.5 Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities ......................... 7-7 

7.6 Establish Source Controls ..................................... 7-8 

7.6.1 Point Source Control - the NPDES Process .................... 7-9 

7.6.2 Nonpoint Source Controls ............................. 7-10 

7.6.3 CWA Section 401 Certification .......................... 7-10 

7.7 Monitor and Enforce Compliance ............................... 7-12 

7.8 Measure Progress ......................................... 7-13