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 Qualit y Standards Regulation Docket Number EPAHQ-OW-2010-0606

Dear Mr. Gardner:

On behalf of the Iowa Environmental Council, an alliance of 75 organi zations, at-large board members from business, farming, the sciences an d education, and over 50 0 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 pr ovided in some areas, including Antidegradation, Designated Uses, Variances, and Triennial Revi ews. Our comments are outlined as follows.

Antidegradation

The Iowa Environmental Council along with severa l 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 nationa l 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, a nd 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 Antideg radation Implementation Procedure that can be strengthened with the help EPA guidance. In addition to assuring the discharge does not contribute to further impairments, more guida nce is needed on Tier 1 reviews to assure protection of all existing uses, even if the existing use is not currently designated. This has been2 a problem in Iowa where existing uses that are not designated are iden tified, but Iowa DNR does not consider these undesignated us es when setting permit limits.

We are also concerned that Iowa DNR ha s 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 assimilati ve capacity of the receiv ing 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 ti er 2 procedures is the use of a non-binding cost guidance of 115% of the base cost when evalua ting alternative treatmen t 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 shou ld 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 str eam segments in Iowa, many of which were proposed to have their recreati onal use designation lowered from primary contact recreation to secondary contact recreation. Th e UAA process in Iowa has been a challenge for EPA, Iowa DNR and the public. From the beginning there we re 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 informa tion 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 de signations proposed for secondary contact recreation. Wh ile 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 recreat ional use designation process could have been avoided with a more thorough EPA review and a pproval 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 attain able. 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 criteri a necessary for granting variances and that all water quali ty 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 qual ity standard. Variances should, therefore, not extend beyond the five year permit renewal cycle.3 Triennial Reviews

For the past 10 years, Iowa has been work ing through a long delaye d list of water quality standard updates. Despite this considerable effo rt to improve water qual ity standards, Iowa has not yet conducted a true tr iennial review. EPA should st rengthen 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 standa rds. We believe this is an important process that can be used to adjust wa ter quality standards to fit emerging science and technology. Public comments are not only importa nt for identifying need ed improvements to existing standards but also can provide an opportu nity 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 st akeholders as this rulemaking progresses.

Sincerely,

Marian Riggs Gelb

Executive Director

Iowa Environmental Council

.