521 East Locust Street, Suite 220 

Des Moines, Iowa 50309-1939 

515.244.1194 phone 

515.244.7856 fax 

iecmail@iaenvironment.org

www.iaenvironment.org

September 10, 2010

Thomas J. Gardner 

Office of Science and Technology (Mail Code 4305T) 

Office of Water 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

SHPDcomments@epa.gov

Re: Comments for Revisions to Water Quality Standards Regulation Docket Number EPAHQ-OW-2010-0606 

Dear Mr. Gardner: 

On behalf of the Iowa Environmental Council, an alliance of 75 organizations, at-large board 

members from business, farming, the sciences and education, and over 500 individual members, 

I am pleased to provide comments on the proposed rulemaking to revise the water quality 

standards regulation, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. We generally support the proposed revisions 

however; we believe that more clarity can be provided in some areas, including Antidegradation, 

Designated Uses, Variances, and Triennial Reviews. Our comments are outlined as follows. 

Antidegradation 

The Iowa Environmental Council along with several other organizations recently worked with 

the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in developing an Antidegradation 

Implementation Procedure. We feel that several approaches used in the Iowa procedure might be 

beneficial in developing national guidance. These approaches include a pollutant by pollutant 

basis for Tier 1 and Tier 2 antidegradation reviews, using the least degrading reasonable 

alternative based on the Tier 2 analysis, and the public nomination process for Tier 2.5 

(Outstanding Iowa Waters) and Tier 3 (Outstanding National Resource Waters). 

However, there are areas in the Iowa Antidegradation Implementation Procedure that can be 

strengthened with the help EPA guidance. In addition to assuring the discharge does not 

contribute to further impairments, more guidance is needed on Tier 1 reviews to assure 

protection of all existing uses, even if the existing use is not currently designated. This has been 
2 

a problem in Iowa where existing uses that are not designated are identified, but Iowa DNR does 

not consider these undesignated uses when setting permit limits. 

We are also concerned that Iowa DNR has indicated that when implementing the 

Antidegradation rules in Iowa, where a Tier 2 review has been conducted and a less degrading 

alternative has been selected, that effluent limits will still be based on the current WLA 

procedures which is based on the full assimilative capacity of the receiving stream. EPA should 

clarify in their guidance that permit limits must reflect what is reasonably achievable under the 

selected Tier 2 treatment alternative and that the permit limits must be set based on discharges 

that would be expected from use of the selected less degrading alternative. 

Another concern that we have with the Iowa tier 2 procedures is the use of a non-binding cost 

guidance of 115% of the base cost when evaluating alternative treatment technologies. We are 

concerned that even though this is not a firm cap, the percentage may be interpreted as a cap that 

would eliminate affordable alternatives that should be considered in choosing the least degrading 

alternative. EPA should include in their guidance on alternatives analysis that all less degrading 

affordable alternatives must be considered. 

Designated Uses 

The Council is currently working with Iowa DNR on the recreational Use Attainability Analysis/ 

Use Assessments (UAA) for approximately 1000 stream segments in Iowa, many of which were 

proposed to have their recreational use designation lowered from primary contact recreation to 

secondary contact recreation. The UAA process in Iowa has been a challenge for EPA, Iowa 

DNR and the public. From the beginning there were questions from the public and EPA about 

the adequacy of the Iowa protocol and the resulting recreational UAAs. However, specific 

written EPA guidance on what assessment information would constitute sufficient justification to 

remove or lower a recreational use designation was not provided. This ultimately resulted in a 

large number of EPA disapprovals of the Iowa recreational stream designations proposed for 

secondary contact recreation. While we support EPA’s decision to disapprove the recreational 

use changes that did not meet the EPA standard for an adequate UAA assessment, we believe 

that many of the problems with Iowa’s recreational use designation process could have been 

avoided with a more thorough EPA review and approval of the UAA assessment protocol at the 

beginning of the process as well as specific written guidance on the thoroughness of the 

assessment required to establish that primary contact recreation is not attainable. We hope that 

EPA will address these issues in their revisions to their guidance on procedures for use 

designation changes. 

Variances 

We strongly believe that the federal regulation should clarify the criteria necessary for granting 

variances and that all water quality standard variances must be approved by EPA. We feel that 

variances should be granted on a temporary basis to allow appropriate time for a discharger to 

upgrade treatment to comply with the water quality standard. Variances should, therefore, not 

extend beyond the five year permit renewal cycle. 
3 

Triennial Reviews 

For the past 10 years, Iowa has been working through a long delayed list of water quality 

standard updates. Despite this considerable effort to improve water quality standards, Iowa has 

not yet conducted a true triennial review. EPA should strengthen their guidance on the 

requirement for triennial reviews to assure that at least once every three years all states allow 

public input on setting priorities for improving water quality standards. We believe this is an 

important process that can be used to adjust water quality standards to fit emerging science and 

technology. Public comments are not only important for identifying needed improvements to 

existing standards but also can provide an opportunity to identify new water quality standards 

that need to be added. 

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with the US 

Environmental Protection Agency and other stakeholders as this rulemaking progresses. 

Sincerely, 

 

Marian Riggs Gelb 

Executive Director 

Iowa Environmental Council 

.