September 8, 2010

Thomas J . Gar dner Offic e of Scie nce a

nd Tec hnology

(Mail Code 4305T) Offic e of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency 1200 Pennsy lvania Ave nue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Via E-Ma il: S HPDcomments@epa .g ov Re: WaterQuali ty Standards Regulatory Changes; EPA -HQ-OW-2010-0606 Dea r Mr. Ga rdner : Northwe st Environmental Advocates (NWEA) a pprec iates this opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency ’s proposed c hang es to its water qua lity standards re g ulatio ns . G e ne ra lly

we su pp or t E PA’ s p ro po sa ls. We u rg e EPA , in

re vis ingits re g ulatio ns , to consider its limited feder al role unde r the Clean Water Act in implementing nonpoint sourc e c on tr ols and

to v ie w i ts r ole in e sta

bli sh ingthe re qu ir e me nts fo r a nd takin g a c tio n o n s tate s’ water quality standards a s an important consider ation when a ddressingthis significa nt source of po llutio n to the natio n’ s w a te rs . A. Antidegradation We s tr on g ly

su pp or t E PA’ s c ur

re nt r e g ulatio n th a t r e qu ir e s st a te s to ide nti fy and su bmi t implementation methods for their a ntideg radation policies. W hile there are some regulations that work we ll without s uch implementation methods beingspelled out, antideg radation is not one of them. I n fac t, despite its importance to water qua lity protec tion and restoration, and EPA’s clar ity that antideg radation is a part of water qua lity standards, a

ntideg radation policies are ro uti ne ly ig no re d b y

state s. Th e pr op os e d r e g ulatio ns of fe r E PA a sig nif ic ant o pp or

tun ity to chang e the status quo and to e nsure that state s use the antidegradation policies to achieve the g oa ls o f t he Cle an Wate r A c t. We s e e se ve ra l pr ob le ms w iththe c ur re nt r e g ulatio ns wi th r e g ard to s tate s’ a tte nti on

to anti de g ra datio n r e qu ir e me nts and wh e the r E PA t a ke s th is i ssu e se ri ou sly wh e n it a c ts o n s tate su bmi ssi on s o f n e w o r r e vis e d w a te r q ua lity sta nd ard s. Th e se pr ob le ms a re a s f oll ow s: (1) States do not prepar e implementation methods or do so only for some a spects of t h e an t i d e g r a d a t i o np o l i c y , s u c ha s N P D E S s o u r c e s o r j u s tT i e r II r e v i e w s . In pa rt ic ula r, Ti e r I pr ote c tio n is ig no re d o r s e e n a s ju st a pa rt of Ti e r I Ire vie ws ;Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 2

DEQ staf

f par aphra sed comments by L arr y Knudsen, the A ttorney

Gene ral for 1 DEQ, stating that “Or eg on deter mines water

quality classification on a para

meter by para meter ba sis .” Me mor and

um f ro m A vis Ne we ll, Or e g on De pa rtme nt o f E nv ir on me nta l Q ua lity , to Outstanding Resource Waters Work Group, Re: Notes f rom the April 21, 1998 Outstanding (2 ) I mpl e me ntatio n me tho ds that are no t e sta bli sh e d b y

State ru le , b ut i ns te a d in g uid anc e , a

re su bje c t to c ha

ng e a t any

tim e , w ith out any

pu bli c re vie w o r E PA action, and a

pply only to the water

quality regulatory

ag ency when, a s part of water quality standards, the implementation methods should apply to all ag encie s seekingto apply

standards to a ctivities they regulate (e .g ., fede ral, for estry , and a g ri c ult ur a l a g e nc ie s) ; (3) States’ use of the cate g orica l method rather than a pollutant-by -pollutant approa ch to d e te rm ine the status of the ir wate rs c an a

nd do e s h a ve the e ff

e c t of vir tua lly e lim inatin g Ti e r I Iof

the anti de g ra datio n p oli c y . T his , in tur n, c an a lso e lim inate T i er I I Ii f aS t at e l i m i t s T i er

I I It o o n l y

t h o s e w at er s t h at ar e d et erm i n edt o b e h i gh quality water s; and (4) States routinely

ignor e policies a

nd implementation methods they have a dopted. I n particula

r, NWEA is very

conce rned w ith the disreg ard display ed by near ly all states conce rning the re quirement to protec t exi sting uses unde r Tier I . Wit hout any

implementation me tho ds e sta

bli sh e d, thi s c or

ne rs ton e of

the wate r q

ua lity pr og ra m g oe s ig no re d. As a

re su lt, states have allowed 35 y ear s of deg radation and localized exti rpations, and e ven extinctions, of uses with impunity . States routinely ignor e the “ floor” of

water quality , despite EPA’s cla rity on the importance of maintaining this floor. We support EPA’s proposal to requir e antidegradation impl ementation methods to be a dopted into state rules bec ause, a s mentioned above , failure to include these e ssential methods in rules make s th e m in a

pp lic a ble to a ny oth e r a g e nc y

tha n th e wate r q

ua lity re g ulator y a g e nc y and , in addition, allows chang es to be made without any public or EPA input or oversig ht. I n addition, to ensure a dequate protec tion of those water s with highe r quality than re quired by

standards a

nd consistency

acr oss the nation, we ur g e EPA to requir e states to use a para meter- by -par ameter approa ch to desig nating high qua lity water s subject to Tier I Irevie ws. By way of example of both the importance of putting implementation methods int o rules and the importance of the para meter- by -par ameter

approa ch, we provide EPA with the story of how Or eg on chang ed fr om a par ameter -by -par ameter approa ch to deter

mining which w ater s were high qua lity to a cate g orica l approa ch. Hi sto ri c a lly

Or e g on us e d a pa ra me te r- by -p ara

me te r m e tho d to ide nti fy

its high q ua lity wate rs . 1Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 3

Resource Waters Work Group, Apr il 30, 1998 at 1 (ava ilable from NWEA).

Ore g on Depa

rtment of Environmenta l Quality , Response to Comments on 2 An tid e g ra datio n Impl e me ntatio n Inte rn a l Ma na g e me nt D ir e c tiv e , at 37 (N or thw e st Environmental Advoc ates’ c omments), undated, available f rom NWEA. Id . at 4 (EPA comments). 3 Then, in pre paringa dra ft internal guidance document for antideg radation impl ementation, the staff c hang ed this long- standing policy to use of a c ateg orica l approa ch. Even EPA commente d 2 that use of the c ateg orica l approa ch lef t few w ater s subject to Tier I Iprotec tions. Other tha n the 3 g uid anc e do c ume nt i n w hic h th e ne w p oli c y wa s se t out, w ith out it s h avin g be e n id e nti fi e d a s a chang e fr om previous pra ctice, no doc uments were g ener ated in which the chang e wa s identified, the pu bli c wa s invit e d to c omm e nt, the Or e g on En vir on me nta l Q ua lity

Com mis sio n w a s a sk e d to weig h in and appr ove, EPA wa s asked to appr ove, or the ramifications were e x plained. I t was just done by

staff. As y ou can se e fr om this ex ample, this signific ant cha ng e to Ore g on’s wate r quality standards could be made without rulemaking , without public input, wit hout approva l by Ore g on’s Environmental Qua lity

Commi ssion, and without EPA action beca use EPA has not re quired antideg radation impl ementation methods to be a part of r ulemaking . I t is not even clea r that wh e n E PA c omm e nte d o n th e g uid anc e EPAun de rs too d th a t O re g on wa s ma kin g a c ha ng e to i ts exis ting policy . The re sult was that state ag ency staff virtua lly

eliminated any

high qua lity

water s in O re g on be c a us e ne arl y

a ll w a te rs in t

he state vio late so me wate r q ua lity sta nd ard , in mos t instances tempe rature . This chang e in the interpr etation of the a ntideg radation policy

had fur ther ramifica tions because Ore g on’s rules r equire a waterbody to be of “ high qua lity ” in orde r to be considere d a ca

ndidate for

Tier I I Iprotec tion. As a result of this cha ng e, it is unlikely

that any water body in Oreg on is now a ca

ndidate for

this level of protec tion. This ex ample demonstrates bo th why imp le me ntatio n me tho ds mus t be a do pte d b y ru le , n ot guid anc e , a s w e ll a s w hy EPA sh ou ld r e qu ir e a ll s tate s to us e a pa ra me te r- by -p ara

me te r a pp ro a c h to de sig natin g high q ua lity wate rs . G ive n s tate s’ ne ar u nif or m di sr e g ard

fo r a pp lyingTi e r I

pr ote c tio ns , d e sig natio n a s a high qua lity

water with its Tier I Irevie w is an important provision that states should not be allowed to neg ate. Af

ter a ll, there is no justification for not eva luating a n incre ase in a

pollutant in a hig h quality

water that is known to affe ct human hea lth just beca use the waterbody

happens to be identified a s impaired for a pollutant that aff

ects a quatic life a lone. 1. Tier 1 P r ot e c ti ons We u rg e EPAto c on sid e r T ie r I pr ote c tio n im

ple me ntatio n me tho ds to b e on e of the mos t pr e ssi ngne e ds in w a te r q ua lity re g ulatio n. At

a min imum, i t is e sse nti a l th a t E PA m a ke c le ar t o states that Tier I

does not only

apply in the context of Tier I Irevie ws. Althoug h EPA has bee nThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 4

EPA Questions and Answe rs on Antideg radation 1985.

4 Memorandum, f

rom Nina B ell, Northwe st Environmental Advocates to DEQ 5 Sta ff , “ Us ingTi e r I

An tid e g ra datio n Po lic y

Re qu ir e me nts to A dd

re ss G a ps in Wate r Q ua lity Protection for O reg on’s Waters,” June 7, 2010. c l e ar i nt h e p a s tt h a tT i e r

I p r o t e c t i o n s a

p p l y t o a l l w a t e r s , s t a t e s c o n t i nu e t o d i s r e g ar d t h i s p o l i c y.

a. Est abl ishi ng Ti e r I Im ple m e nt at ion M e th ods Ti e r I pr ote c tio ns , a s E PA h a s st a te d c on sis te ntl y and c le arl y , e sta

bli shthe fl oo r o f w a te r q

ua lity standards, the condition below which wa ter qua lity

cannot dr op: “‘the a

bsolute floor of water quality ” providing“a minimum level of prote ction to all water s.’” Yet fe w states have any 4 imp le me ntatio n me tho d th a t a dd re sse s th e ne e d to pr ote c t e xistin g us e s a nd the wate r q

ua lity nece ssary to support them. I n many instances, in the 35 y ear s since existi ng uses wer e established, water qua lity and the use s depende nt upon it have bee n deg rade d, uses have been exti rpate d, and some have eve n become exti nct. Not only is Tier I not used to protect e x isting uses in the re g ulatory

decisions states make but the Clean Water Ac t’s require ment to develop Total Maxim um Daily

L oads (TMDL s) bec ome nec essar y to restore those exist ing use s if they have be en re moved or impaire d. TMDL s, howeve r, ar e not the only solution t o deg rade d water quality and maintainingexis ting use s, nor should they be. TMDL s take c onsiderable time and pu bli c re so ur c e s to de ve lop and imp le me ntatio n o f T MD L s, pa rt ic ula rl y fo r n on po int so ur c e s, is most often disreg arde d. At best it can be said implementation is very slow. Even in a state , such as Ore g on, which is deve loping a more pre scriptive appr oach to TMDL s to address lag g ing no np oin t so ur c e imp le me ntatio n, TM DL s c ann ot c los e the g a p b e tw e e n th e re qu ir e me nt t o pr ote c t e xistin g us e s and

the re a lity

that th e y are be ingre mov e d a

nd imp a ir e d. I n o the r w or ds , EPA needs to look to water quality standards a s a method of e nsuring exis ting use protec tion rathe r t ha n th e c ur re nt d e fa ult wh ic h is to w a it unti l e xistin g us e s a re imp a ir e d a

nd the n to wa it for a TMDL to be deve loped. Moreove r, bec ause Tie r I applies to all wate rs, ac cordingto EPA, it can and should be used to protec t both higher quality water s as well as to improve lowe r quality water s befor e a T MDL

is completed, appr oved, and implemente d. As de mon str a te d in

the a tta c he d me mor and

um, the re wo uld

be sig nif ic ant b e ne fi ts t o s tate s’ 5 adopting clea

r and spe cific a

ntideg radation requireme nts for nonpoint source s as par t of Tier I anti de g ra datio n p oli c ie s and imp le me ntatio n me tho ds . Su c h r e qu ir e me nts wo uld no t ha ve to wa it unti l a

TM DL is c omp le te d a

nd , if inc or po rate d into a

State ’s wate r q

ua lity sta nd ard s r ule s, would constitute water

quality standards that other ag encie s must meet. By requiringTier I protec tions – through implementation methods – for all water s, EPA would ensure that severa l g a ps wo uld be fi lle d. F ir st, wate rs ide nti fi e d a s n e e din g a TM DL wo uld be su bje c t to so me minimum level of pr otection (re storation) in the time period be tween r ule adoption and TMDL completion. Currently , states ar e not re quired to have provide a ny level of pr otection to impairedThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 5

water s until a TMDLis completed, a policy that has no rational basis, particular ly for incr emental water quality improvements such a s those that apply to nonpoint sources. While the TMDLmay de mon str a te that mo re actions beyond basic c ontrols are nece ssary , there are cer tain controls that are c e rt a in t o b e ne e de d. Wai tin g fo r a TM DL to b e c omp le te d b e fo re takin g tho se ba sic pollution control actions merely postpones attainment of water qua lity standards a

nd incre ases the risk of loca l ext irpations of uses. The sec ond g ap this approa ch would addr ess ar e waters that violate na rrative criter ia but that have not be en listed on the 303(d) list as impaired and ther efor e will not be sche duled for a TMDL . Whil e idea lly

such waters would be ide ntified and listed, the re ality is that many

are not whether due to lag g ing e ffor

ts on biocriteria de velopment or states that simpl y have not made the e ff or t to int e rp re t ho w the y

wi ll a pp ly the ir na rr a tiv e c ri te ri a . In th is c a se , w hil e wate r q ua lity is impaired, a

nd standards a

re not met, no pollution reduction ac tions will ever take plac e to re store the impairment bec ause no TMD Lwill be develope d. Howeve r, a Tie r I implementation method that applies basic le vels of water qua lity protec tion (restoration) to all waters w ould ensure that so me le ve l of

pr ote c tio n w ou ld b e a tta ine d. Whil e thi s is no t a so lut ion to s tate s’ fa ilure to imp le me nt n arr a tiv e c ri te ri a , it wo uld br inga c tua l w a te r q

ua lity be ne fi ts. L ikewise, whe re w ater

quality criter ia ar e below le vels at which toxic pollut ants ca n be dete cted and qu anti fi e d, the re wi ll b e no 30 3( d) lis tin g and no TM DL

de ve lop e d e ve n if

wate r q ua lity is violating the c riteria. A g ain, Ore g on poses an pe rfe ct example of this phenomenon. Ove r half of Ore g on’s new huma

n health cr iteria (ba sed on 175 g rams/day of fish consumption) will be below the quantitation limit (QL ) mea ning that water s may

well violate the c riteria, but no pollution reduc tion actions will be taken be cause there will be no listi ng and ther efor e no TMDL will be require d. L ike wi se , a s th e me mor and um p oints o ut, the re are no tr ig g e ri ngme c ha nis ms t o p ro te c t, ma int a in, or

e nh a nc e wate r q

ua lity that is highe r t

ha n th e c ri te ri a

in t he fo llo wi ngtw o s itu a tio ns : (1 ) whe re wate r q

ua lity ha s e ro de d o ve r t

he 35 y e ars sin c e 19 75 , mo st s tate s h a ve no me c ha nis m to identify

and asse ss exi sting uses or to provide for

their protec tion; and (2) whe re nonpoint s o u r c e s w i l l l o w e r

w a t e r qu a l i t y t h a tc u r r e n tm e e t s w a t e r

qu a l i t y c r i t e r i a , t h e r e i s n o T i e r

II mecha nism to prevent furthe r pollution. The solution to all five of the g aps identified a bove ar e explicit Tier Iprotec tions. S uch pr ote c tio ns wo uld

be the min imum and , a s e xpla ine d, wo uld no t be su ff

ic ie nt i n a ll c a se s, to ensure the protec tion (and re storation) of e x isting uses a nd the wate r quality

nece ssary

to support them. Howeve r, such pr otections would g o a longway to improving a

nd prese rving water qu a lity . B e c a

us e Ti e r I re qu ir e me nts are wate r q ua lity sta nd ard s, oth e r a g e nc ie s th a t e sta bli sh manag ement pra ctices f

or nonpoint source s would be re quired to mee t them in developing prac tices for

activities under the ir jurisdiction.Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 6

Water Qua lity Antideg radation I mplementation Guidance , Pennsy lvania De pt. of 6 Envtl. Protection, November 29, 2003, av ail

ab le at http:// www.e library .dep.state.pa .us/dsweb/ Get/Docume nt-47704/391-0300-002.pdf. Tier I implementation methods could rang e fr om ge nera l narrative require ments and per formanc e expectations to specific nume ric provisions. For example, a Tier I

require ment could be c on tin uo us fo re ste d r ipa

ri an b uf fe rs of a re qu ir e d mi nim

um w idt h to pr e ve nt e xce ss sedimentation and toxi cs assoc iated with sediment, as we ll as to capture nutrient runoff . They could include a

varie ty of base line nonpoint source c ontrols. We u rg e EPAto a do pt a

re qu ir e me nt t

hat st a te s in c lud e Ti e r I

pr ote c tio ns in t

he ir wate r q ua lity standards r

ules and set a

high ba r for the explicit nature of those prote ctions in order to g ive meaningto the require ment.

b. Identif

ying E xisting Uses T ie r Ia ls o r e qu ir e s id e n ti f

ic a ti o no f e xis ti n g u s e s in

o r d e r to p r o v id e th e m w it

hp r o te c ti o n . We are awa re of only one state w hich re quires the identific ation of existi ng uses. Pennsylvania has g uidance on identifying w ater s for e x isting use pr otection, eva luating e x isting uses, ke eping trac k of existi ng uses, upg radingexis ting use s into use desig nations. Elsewher e, in pra ctice, if the 6 issue of existi ng uses is raised by a member

of the public, the state ag ency defe rs to the cur

rent actua l uses claiming that it has no way of identifying what uses and w ater quality exis ted 35 y ear s ag o. States can use , in many , if not most, cases surve y s, historic rec ords, ane cdotal a c c ounts , p ro fe ssi on a l ju dg me nt, mod e lin g , th e he a lthof sp e c ie s a nd the status of

the ir populations to ensure identifica tion of exi sting uses a

nd/or the water qua lity

to support such uses. Ho we ve r, e ve n w he n a

State a dd re sse s th e iss ue , w hic h is ra re , it wi ll i nf or ma lly (i .e ., in g uid anc e ) a do pt a

n im pe rm iss ibl e re qu ir e me nt f or e sta bli sh inga us e a s “ e xistin g .” An

e xamp le of this is the St ate of

Washington’s Use Attainability Analy sis (UAA) guidance which substitutes for e x isting uses phra ses such a s “uses that don’t e x ist,” and uses “ occur ring at a r ece nt time.” Th is U AAGu ida

nc e a lso ra ise s th e imp or

tant i ssu e of

wh o h a s th e burd e n o f p ro of . E PA s ho uld make c le ar t

hat th e burd e n is no t on

the pu bli c to i de nti fy

e xistin g us e s b ut r a the r o n th e state to identify them wher e it intends to sanction some pollution-ge nerating a ction. 2. Tie r II P r ot e c ti ons Given the lax attitude demonstrated by states to Tier I Iprotec tions over a longperiod of time, we think that EPA should m ake c lear that states must give meaning , in their antideg radation implementation methods, to all sit uations that trigg er its application. W ithout such a clea r u n d e r s t an d i n g , s t a t e s w i l l c o n t i nu e t o d o w h a tt h e y b e l i e v e i s t h e m i n i m u mr e qu i r e d

. F o r T i e r II re vie ws , E PA s ho uld

re qu ir e that:Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 7 (1) All rea sonable a lternatives to the ne w or incr ease d discharg e or othe r loading

mus t be c on sid e re d a s p art of a Ti e r 2 anti de g ra datio n a

na ly sis ; (2 ) I f a

ne w o r i nc re a se d p oll uti on loa din g is f

ound ne c e ssa ry to a c c omm od a te imp or tant s oc ia l or

e c on omi c de ve lop me nt a ft e r a Ti e r I Iana ly sis , th e le a st polluting re asonable alternative must be used and pe rmit lim its will be set ba sed on the dischar g es that would be e x pecte d from use of the least polluting a lte rn a tiv e ; (3) There be proc edure s for de termining the potential alter natives to the propose d new or incre ased discha

rg e or othe r propose d activity that will increa se pollution; (4) Fa ctors be ide ntified that will be consider ed in deter mining whe n a propose d polluting ac tivity

will accommodate important social or e conomic deve lopment and the me tho d f

or makin g that T ie r I Ide te rm inatio n; (5) Tier I Iapplies to NPDES permits, individual and ge nera l, as well as to 401 c e rt if ic a tio ns and

no np oin t so ur c e c ha

ng e s; (6) The state w ill prepare a wr itten antideg radation Tier I Ianaly sis if antideg radation is applicable to the de cision to allow a newor incre ased loa d or explain in writing w h y t h e n e w o r

i n c r e a s e d

l o a d i n g f i t s w i t h i nane x c e p t i o nt o T i e r II anti de g ra datio n r e qu ir e me nts if the state fi nd s th a t su c h a n e xce pti on

is applicable ; and (7) Public participation is meaning ful and e ffe ctive. Certainly the rule should, at a

minimum , be cla

rified to re quire that state a ntideg radation rules a pp ly Ti e r I Ipr ote c tio n to pr ote c t a ll w a te r b od ie s th a t su pp or t any sig nif ic ant h uma n o r a qu a tic life uses. As discusse d above, the re is no basis for not providing the Tier I Ihighe r leve l of protec tion for aquatic uses of a water body that happens to be deg rade d for human r ecr eation. L ikewise, a

water body that impaired for

aquatic life uses should have its re cre ational uses protec ted. EPAsh ou ld a lso re vis e and c lari fy the langua g e in 4 0 C. F .R. § 1 31 .1 2( a )( 2) de sc ri bin g State assura nces to a chieve all cost-ef fec tive and re asonable best manag ement pra ctices f or nonpoint source control. This wise policy is widely disreg arde d y et it remains one of EPA’s few

methods of fo rc ingstate s to imp le me nt n on po int so ur c e c on tr ols

. 3. Tie r III P rote ction We believe that a ll states should have a c lear proce ss for desig nation of water subjec t to Tier I I I

. Ho we ve r, No rt

hw e st E nv ir on me nta l A dv oc a te s a lso str on g ly be lie ve s th a t it

is a wa ste of pu bli c resour ces a

nd misleading to the public to allow desig nations of wate rs for this leve l of protec tion if there is no method of assuringthe protec tion. Theref ore, at a minimum, waters that ar e de sig nate d n e e d to have an im ple me ntatio n p lan to a ssu re no a dd iti on a l po llutant l oa din g is allowed, f rom point or nonpoint sources. Alter natively or in addition, water s desig nated f or TierThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 8

S e e L e t t e r f r o m M i c h a e l L l e w e l yn , O r e g o nD e p art m e n to f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y, 7 to P e te F ro st, Natio na l Wild lif e F e de ratio n, re g ard ingOutst and ingRe so ur c e Wat e r d e sig natio ns , Aug ust 25, 1998 (available from NWEA). I I Iprotec tion should have protec tions that are wr itten into the water qua lity standards, muc h as the de sc ri pti on

of Ti e r I pr ote c tio ns de sc ri be d a

bo ve . F ina lly , a s me nti on e d a bo ve , if EPA c on tin ue s to a llo w s tate s to avo id a pa ra me te r- by -p ara

me te r d e sig natio n f

or high q ua lity wate rs , so me state s, su c h a s O re g on , w ill have pr e c lud e d T ie r I I Ipr ote c tio ns fo r a ny wate r. Just a s w ith

7 Tier I Iprotec tions, there is no policy rationale for lumping protec tions for aquatic life or human health tog ether , nor is there any policy rationale for a llowing unlimited additional pollution of on e po llutant m e re ly

be c a us e a wate rb od y is a lr e a dy

po llute d w itha

dif fe re nt p oll uta

nt, e ve n if they both affe ct the same use. Ther e is simply no rea son, this many

deca des af

ter pa ssag e of the Act, that EPA mig ht conclude it could e ase up on w ater quality protec tion. B. Adm inis trat or’s De ter m ination We disag ree with EPA’s proposal to narr owly interpre t the alre ady

clea r statutory

lang uag e on Administrator’s dete rminations. I t is clear that EPA is seekingto defe at, throug h new regulations, any

future a ttempts by

environmenta l org anizations to convince fe dera l courts that EPA is obligated to pr epar e water qua lity standards ba sed on indications that EPA has de te rm ine d e xistin g sta

nd ard s are no t su ff

ic ie nt t o me e t th e re qu ir e me nts of Se c tio n 3 03 . Wh ile in t he sh or t te rm , tr yingto p re ve nt s uc h li tig a tio n ma y be su pe rf ic ia lly a pp e a lin g to t

he a g e nc y , it is tre me nd ou sly

sh or t- sig hte d. I n r e a lity , th e c iti zen ’s su it h a s p lay e d a n im po rt ant r ole in e nh anc ingEPA ’s a

bil ity to p ro te c t and

re sto re wa

te r q ua lity , a fa c t th a t e ve n E PA s ho uld be a ble to acknowle dg e in ca sting its ey e bac k over the last few de cade s. Allowing c itiz ens to make a c la im that E PA s ho uld

a c t, b e c a us e it h a s a lr e a dy

dr awn a te c hn ic a l c on c lus ion

e lse wh e re , w ill likewise enha

nce w ater quality protec tions in t he future

. C. Uses EPA proposes to make c lear that CW A g oal uses ar e attaina ble unless otherw ise demonstrate d, a po sit ion that w e be lie ve is a lr e a dy state d in the re g ulatio ns . H ow e ve r, we su pp or t makin g it more c lear . We further

support requiringthe Hig hest Attainable U se closest to the g oal being s p ec i fi edan d

ad o p t ed

. Na tu ra l l y , at t h i s s t age i ti s n o tcl ea r w h at co n s t i tu t es HA U. W e u rge EPAto m a int a in a

nd c lari fy to t he e xten t po ssi ble the imp or tanc e of e xistin g us e su

pp or t in thi s context. D. Variances As wate r quality

criter ia bec ome more string ent and a s states beg in to issue NPDES permits t hatThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 9

Re fe re nc e to “ EPA ” vie ws in t he c on te xt of

Or e g on ’s toxic wate r q

ua lity 8 sta nd ard s tr ie nn ia l r e vie w g e ne ra lly re fe r t o E PA R e g ion

X. We d o n ot k

no w the de g re e to wh ic h E PA h e a dq

ua rt e rs ha s b e e n c on su lte d o n th e se vie ws , o nly that it ha s b e e n invo lve d in so me dis c us sio ns .

Water Qua lity

Standards Regulation Proposed Rule, here inafter “Adva nce N otice 9 of Proposed Rulemaking ” (A NPRM), 63 Fed. Reg . 36741, J uly 7, 1998, at 36759. be tte r c omp ly

wi th e xistin g EPAre g ulatio ns and the statut e , th e ro le of

va ri anc e s w ill be c ome mor e imp or

tant. We s up po rt

EPA ’s c ur

re nt v ari anc e po lic y

that th e y are c ha ng e s to wate r q

ua lity sta nd ard s th a t r e qu ir e EPAa c tio n. Ov e ra ll, fr om a po lic y pe rs pe c tiv e , w e be lie ve that E PA should ensure that the outcome of va rianc es and that of compliance schedule s be as c lose as they can be from a w ater

quality standpoint. The primary differ ence should be the fa ct that a sourc e will only choose a compliance schedule when e ither it cannot obtain a varia nce due to the require ments of 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(g ) and ( h) and/or a source does not know that it can me et an eff luent quality

cer tain by a date cer

tain, as re quired by

EPA’s compliance schedule regulations. I n o the r w or ds , v ari anc e s sh ou ld n ot b e an o pp or tun ity fo r a so ur c e to a

vo id m ini mizin g its po llutio n c on tr ibutio n to the ma ximume xten t po ssi ble sim ply be c a us e it i s una

ble to c omm it t o an o utc ome and

date c e rt a in. EPAsh ou ld u se thi s r ule makin g a s a

n o pp or tun ity to c ha ng e s it s c ur re nt p oli c y

that, w iththe e xce pti on

of the Gr e a t L a ke s Init iativ e (G L I ) r ule s, a llo ws so ur c e s to avoid makingimprovements. EPAsh ou ld m ake c le ar t

hat st a te s mu st u se the c or re c t pr oc e ss f

or de ve lop ingva

ri anc e s, name ly to treat them in the same fashion as a ny other c hang e in standar ds. Publi c notice a nd participation requireme nts are importa nt in this reg ard. I

n light of pr oposals in Oreg on that have advanc ed the idea

that states may

adopt var iance s and ca ll them something other tha n a “var iance ,” we believe that EPA should make clea r that a va rianc e must, in fact, be called a varia nce to be one. The rea son for this is simpl e: in order for the public notice to be meaning ful to the public, it must be cle ar that the state re g ulatory ag ency is proposing to tempora

rily suspend otherwise a

pplicable water qua lity

criter ia. I t is our impression that in the context mentioned, E P A h as t o l d

Or ego nt h at i tm ay

ca l l a v ar i an ce a “ p o l l u t i o nre d u ct i o np l an . ” It s h o u l d

go 8 without say ing that using that phra se would not signa l that the state intended to c hang e the standards. 1. Re lia nc e on G LI fo r No n- G LI St at e s’ Va r ian c e Rul e m aki ng Our re cent e x perie nce in Or eg on with reg ard to de veloping varia nce r ules is troubling. EPA has sig na le d to the state tha

t it c an c he rr y pic k a sp e c ts o f t

he GL Ithat are mos t a dv anta g e ou s to state a g e nc ie s and

dis c ha rg e rs wh ile ig no ri ngtho se a sp e c ts t hat pr ov ide c on c ur

re nt w a te r q

ua lity pr ote c tio ns . In th e GL Ithe se a sp e c ts a re ba lanc e d. EPAits e lf

ha s sp e c if

ic a lly c a uti on e d a g a ins t using por tions of the GL Iwithout consideringthe appr opriate c ontext

. The re ason bec omes 9Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 10

GL IP t. 13 2, App F, P roce du re 2 § B.

10 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §F .4. 11 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §C.2.b. 12 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §C.2.b. 13 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §F .2. 14 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §C.2.a. 15 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §A .1. 16 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §G

. 17 GL IPt. 13 2, Ap p F , Pr oc e dure 3 § B .3 .b .i & ii. 18 clea r whe n one compa

res the pr oposed provisions of Ore g on’s var iance proce dure w ith the GL I

. Th e GL Ipr ov isi on s r e late d to va ri anc e s require nume ro us pr ote c tiv e a sp e c ts that O re g on is not proposing to include in its rules, such as: a ma ndatory three -y ear

revie w; a per

mit reopene r 10 pr ov isi on ; a

re qu ir e me nt t

hat th e pe rm itt e e c ha

ra c te ri ze t he e xten t of

any inc re a se d r isk

to 11 human hea lth and the environme nt from g rantingthe var iance compar ed to the under ly ing w ater quality standards; a re quirement that the State c onclude that suc h an incr ease d risk is consistent

12 wi th p ro te c tio n o f p ub lic he a lth , s a fe ty , a nd we lf are ; a re qu ir e me nt f

or re a so na ble pr og re ss 13 t o w ar d s a t t a i n i n g s t an d ar d s ; ane x p l i c i tr e f e r e n c e t o m e e t i n g t h e an t i d e g r a d a t i o np o l i c y; a 14 15 pr oh ibi tio n a g a ins t va

ri anc e s f or ne w o r r e c omm e nc ingdis c ha rg e rs ; and

a re qu ir e me nt t

hat a ll 16 conditions be incorpor ated into the per mit of the applicant see king the varia nce. I nstead, 17 Or e g on pr op os e s to us e po rt ion s o f t he GL Ithat w ou ld m a ke iss uin g va ri anc e s le ss o ne ro us – such as inter

pretingrequire ments relate d to nonpoint sources as only those under the control of the source seekingthe var iance – without concurr ently ensuringappropr iate envir onmental and human hea lth protections. This is all appare ntly with EPA’s sanction. Moreove r, under

the GL I , NPDES sources f ace a host of re strictions that are a n important b a c k dr o p t o t h e G L I v ar i an c e p r o c e d u r e s , r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a tar e n o tt r u e i nO r e g o n . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, the GL Ilim its the e xpe c te d lo a d r e du c tio ns fr om n on po int so ur c e s th a t st a te s c an a ssume in i s s u i n g T M DLs. T h e G L Ire qu i re s t h at t h es e l o adal l o ca t i o n s b e s et at ex i s t i n g p o l l u t an tl o ad i n gs i f c h an g e s , i

. e . r e d

u c t i o n s , ar e n o te x p e c t e d

t o o c c u r . Ino t h e r

w o r d s , T M D Ls i s s u e d

i nG LI 18 states ar e not allowed to f actor unrea listi c and une x pecte d pollutant load reduc tions from no np oin t so ur c e s, the re by inc re a sin g e xpe c te d lo a d r e du c tio ns fr om p oin t so ur c e s. I n c on tr a st, Ore g on TMDL s routinely assume sig nificant re ductions by nonpoint sources in establishing wasteloa d allocations. Simil arly , TMDL s in GL Istates must acc ount for ac cumulation of tox icsThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 11

GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 3 §B .7.

19 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 3 §C.1. 20 SeeEPA Coordinating CSO L ong Term Planningwith Water Quality Standards 21 Reviews (he reina fter “ CSO Guidance” ) 2001 at 34; EPA Guidanc e for State I mplementation of Water Qua lity

Standards for

Section 303(c) at 6; EPA Definition of Water Qua lity Standards Terms 1979 at 1; EPA National Assessment of State Va rianc e Proce dures 1990 at 1. GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §B ; EPA CS O Guidanc e 2001 at 34. 22 40 CFR § 131.20(a) ; GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §B ; EPA CS O Guidanc e 23 2001 at 34; EPA Water Quality Standards Ha

ndbook 1993 at 5.3; GL ISI D Sec. VI I I .B.2.c ; ANPRM at 36759; EPA Three- Yea r Water Qua lity

Standard Review s 1983 at 1. SeeGL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §F .4, GL ISI D Sec. VI I I .B.2.c

. 24 in sediments and ther e ar e seve re r estrictions on mix ing zones for bioacc umulative chemica ls of 19 c on c e rn a mon g oth e r s tr ing e nt p ro vis ion s th a t a pp ly to N PDE S di sc ha

rg e rs . D e sp ite the se 20 restric tions that mi litate in favor of issuing var iance s in GL Istates, EPA has sig naled to Or eg on that it may

omit the restrictions while re ly ing on the GL Ito issue varianc es that ar e long er tha n thr e e y e ars (i n f

a c t w ou ld c arr

y wi th a ny a dmi nis tr a tiv e e xten sio n n o matte r h owlon g ), omi t control of nonpoint source s, etc. 2. Time F ram e for Variance s EPA has a longhistory

of limiti ng the time frame for va rianc es and, where they

exceed thre e y e ars , o f r e qu ir ingthe m to be re vie we d d ur ingthe tr ie nn ia l r e vie ws . E PA h a s c on sis te ntl y define d varia

nces a s lasting f

or three y ear s, sometimes up to five. Where EPA has a llowed 21 va ri anc e s to la st b e y on d thre e y e ars , it ha s n ot a llo we d th e m to be lon g e r t ha n f ive y e ars . 22 Where a varia nce is a llowed to g o bey ond three y ear s, a three -y ear revie w from the date of the last triennial re view submission to EP A has be en re quired. I n order that this triennial reviewbe 23 meaning ful, wher e a va

rianc e is allowed to g o beyond three y ear s, a re -opene r cla use has be en require d in associated N PDES permits. Howeve r, in Ore g on, EPA has sig naled not only that 24 the state may

adopt a va

rianc e proc edure that allows a five -y ear varia nce w ithout a triennial revie w and without a r equire ment to ga ther infor mation to ensure that a

triennial re view would be meaning ful, but it has also appar ently g iven the state the g ree n light to adopt a va rianc e rule that w o u l d a l l o w t h e v ar i an c e t o r

u nw i t h an y administrati ve e xtension of

the NPD ES p e rm it. Th is i s an o utr a g e ou s and

unwa rr ante d lo op ho le in w a te r q ua lity sta nd ard s. To a llo w a

n unli mit e d ti me period for varia nces – to date, nobody

has established a

method of pre venting an unlimitedThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 12

EPA CSO Guidance 2001 at 34.

25 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §H ; ANPRM at 36759. 26 40 C.F.R. § 131.20(a)

. 27 EPA Water Quality Standards Ha

ndbook at 5.3; EPA Economic Guidanc e for 28 Water Qua lity

Standards 1995 at 1-3. EPA Water Quality

Standards Ha

ndbook; EPA Questions & Answe rs on 29 Antideg radation 1985.

40 C.F.R. § 131.10. 30 administrative extension in t he fa ce of a State unwilling to issue a new NPDES per

mit – when de fi nin g va

ri anc e s a s “ sh or

t te rm ” make s a

moc ke ry of the e nti re pr oc e ss. Mo re ov e r, it f lie s in the fa ce of

the re quirements of 40 C.F .R. § 131.20(a) that require re- examination of no nc on fo rm ingus e s e ve ry thr e e y e ars . N on e the le ss, EPAha s in dic a te d th is i s a c c e pta ble . E PA sh ou ld m a ke c le ar t

hat su c h a po lic y is n ot a n a c c e pta ble tim e fr a me fo r a

te mpo ra ry va ri anc e in i t s p ro p o s edru l em ak i n g. Wit h reg ard to the e x isting re quirement that states r eview nonc omply ing use s in triennial revie w, EPA should ensure that this requir ement is meaning ful by ensuringthat the var iance holder ob ta ins , a nd make s p ub lic , in fo rm a tio n th a t c an b e us e d in that r e vie w. (S e e “ re a so na ble prog ress” section below.) For example, EPA’s conditions of a var iance for CSO-af fec ted wate rs e mph a size s th e imp or

tanc e of ob ta ini ngne w i nf

or matio n. Th e GL Ia lso e xplic itl y no te s th a t a 25 rene wal of a

varia nce is subjec t to all of the same f indings a nd proce dures a s an orig inal va ri anc e . EPAre g ulatio ns re qu ir e the tr ie nn ia l r e -e xami natio n o f w a te rb od ie s w ith

26 27 downg rade d uses but to our knowledg e no state ha s ever eng ag ed in this review. 3. Existin g Use P rote ction in Variances EPA has stated re peate dly that varia nces a re subjec t to the “same substantive a nd proce dural require ments as re moving a desig nated use .” One of these provisions is to ensure the 28 protec tion of exi sting uses. This re quirement to protec t exi sting uses in the issuanc e of va rianc es derive s from seve ral sourc es. F irst, exi sting use pr otection is the floor of w ater quality , below wh ic h St a te sta

nd ard s ma

y no t g o a nd va ri anc e s a re c ha ng e s to wate r q

ua lity sta nd ard s. Th is i s

29 e nc od e d in

the re qu ir e me nt t o c la ssi fy e xistin g us e s a s w e ll a s th e anti de g ra datio n p ro vis ion s to

30Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 13

40 C.F.R. § 131.12.

31 ANPRM at 36752. 32 Id

. 33 EPA CSO Guidance 2001 at 34, citing 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(h)( 1); ANPRM at 34 36759, 36760. EPA CSO Guidance 2001 at 34.

35 Id . at 35. 36 EPA Questions & A nswers on A ntideg radation. 37 EPA Water Quality Standards Ha

ndbook. 38 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §C.2.a; GL ISI D Sec. VI I I .B.3.c

. 39 pr ote c t th os e us e s , w hic h a c c or din g to E PA m us t be re a d to g e the r. Exist ingus e pr ote c tio n is 31 32 specific ally

noted, twice , in

EPAre g ulatio ns c on c e rn ingthe re mov a l of de sig nate d u se s, the same provision that is used for var iance s. EPA notes that the protec tion of exi sting uses is a sitespecific exercise, whic h is wholly consistent with the issuance of varia nces. EPA considers 33 protec tion of exi sting uses a s essential in issuing va rianc es. EPA notes that it is t he nec essity of 34 prese rving exis ting use s, as well as making r easona ble prog ress towa

rds ultimate attainment, that require s the conditions of a va rianc e to be se t as close a s possible to the designated uses and “alwa y s retaine d at the leve l neede d to preser ve the e x isting use.” These c onditions i nclude 35 va ri ou s p ro hib iti on s, c on tr ol r e qu ir e me nts , mo nit or ing , a nd e va luatio n. Th e re qu ir e me nt t o

36 protec t exi sting uses pur suant to the antideg radation policy applies duringtriennial re views/wate r quality standards c hang es, of whic h a var iance is one as we ll as the issuance of NPDES 37 permits. L ast, the six fac tors of 40 C.F.R. §131.10(g ) ca nnot be re ad outside the c ontext of the 38 te xt of §1 31 .1 0( g ), of

§1 31 .1 0( h) , a

nd of the anti de g ra datio n p oli c y . Si mil arl y , th e GL Ie xplic itl y require s that in addition to t he six fac tors, the var iance seeke r show the a ntideg radation require ments have be en met. Notwithstanding the clar ity in EPA’s position, as set out above, 39 we ha ve bee n led to believe r ece ntly that EPA may

have a more ambiguous viewof this issue. We urg e EPA to clar ify

that under no c ircumstance s may a var iance be used in a

way that provides less than f

ull support for exist ing use s. I n a dd iti on , E PA s ho uld

make c le ar t

hat pe rm its iss ue d p ur su ant t o v ari anc e s mu st s til l c omp lyThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 14

E PAG u id an c e f o r St a te I mp le me n tati o no f

Wate r Q u a li ty St an d ar d s f

o r CW A 40 Section 303(c) (2) ( B) 1988 at 6.

EPA Definition of Water Qua lity Standards Te rms 1979 at 1. 41 EPA Water Quality Standards Ha

ndbook at 5.3; EPA Economic Guidanc e at 1- 3; 42 EPA CSO Guidance 2001 at 34.

40 C.F.R. § 131.10(h)( 2). 43 ANPRM at 36760. 44 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 § A .3. 45 EPA I nterpre tation of Fe dera l Antideg radation Regulatory Requirement 1994 at 2. 46 I n a similar vein, EPA notes that in issuing va rianc es, the e conomic impacts that c an be considere d are those that result fr om treatment be y ond that require d by technolog y -base d regulations. This includes both technolog y -base d limit s on point source discha rg es as we ll as BMPs to nonpoint sources. EPA Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards 1995 at 1- 1. wi th a nti de g ra datio n r e qu ir e me nts , in c lud ingTi e r I e xistin g us e pr ote c tio n. Th e re a so n f or thi s 40 is clear : A varia

nce a pplies to the applicable criter ion alone and doe s not modify the application of the e x isting use a

nd desig nated use provisions of the wate r quality standard. 41 4. Requirem ent for All Cost-Eff ect ive and Reasonab le Nonpoin t Source Co nt r ols As me nti on e d a

bo ve , E PA h a s st a te d r e pe a te dly that va ri anc e s a re su bje c t to the “ same su bs tanti ve and

pr oc e du ra l r e qu ir e me nts a s r e mov inga de sig nate d u se .” Th e de sig nate d u se 42 re mov a l pr ov isi on s u se d f or va ri anc e s r e qu ir e the us e of “ a ll c os t- e ff

e c tiv e and

re a so na ble nonpoint source c ontrols.” This provision applies to issuance of a varia nce a s a tempora

ry 43 re mov a l of

de sig nate d u se s g ov e rn e d b y the same EPAre g ulatio ns . I n th e GL I , th is 44 require ment was interpr eted to mea n that Be st Manag ement Prac tices (B MPs) must be implemented (1) by

the discharger

(2) be for e a var iance is gr anted, two r equire ments that are specific to the GL I

. I n contra st, the national regulations that apply to non-GL Istates ar e 45 c on sis te nt w ith , a

nd ide nti c a l to , th e Ti e r I Ianti de g ra datio n p ro te c tio n la ngua g e wh ic h a

pp lie s to no np oin t so ur c e s outside the control of a ny individual point s ource s. Be cause the use re moval 46 provisions apply

to water bodies and va

rianc es apply

only to the specific discharg er se ekingthe temporar y suspension of one or

more standa

rds or c riteria, a

state should not be able to suspend re qu ir e me nts of

the wate r q

ua lity sta nd ard s o n o the r s ourc e s – po int or no np oint – a s a

n o utc ome of the va ri anc e . T he re fo re , th e B MP r e qu ir e me nts of 40 C.F .R. § 1 31 .1 0( h) (2 ) a pp ly to a llThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 15

Id. at 2 (e mphasis added)

.

47 See, e .g. , ANPRM at 36759; EPA National Assessment of State Va rianc e 48 Procedur es 1990 at 1.

ANPRM at 36759. 49 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §A ; GL Iprea mble. 50 GL IPreamble at 15,376 (emphasis adde d). 51 GL IProcedur e 2, § A. 52 source s in the consideration of a var iance application, not just the nonpoint sources under the control of the pe rmittee see king the varia nce. I n addition, applying the GL I , rathe r than c urre nt n a t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n s , t o n o n - G LI s t a t e s c a u s e s a c o n f l i c tb e c a u s e o f t h e s e c o n d

o f t h e t w o G LIspecific require ments. The GL IBMP re quirements for permittees se ekingvaria

nces must be met prior to issuance of

the var iance , while the cle ar la ng uag e of 40 C.F .R. § 131.10(h)(2) discusses the State ’s fi nd ingthat de sig nate d u se s “ will be attained . . .by

implementing [nonpoint source controls],” a finding related to future attainability . Whil e a state is not require d to have enfor cea ble controls on nonpoint source s, where it does have suc h controls, they must be implemented as pa

rt of the Tie r I Iprotec tions. The same require ment should apply to removing 47 desig nated use s throug h the provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 131.10. This result is also g ood policy as it p ro vid e s E PA w itha

me c ha nis m to e ns ur e that st a te s c on tr ol n on po int so ur c e s. 5. Multiple Sou rce Variances

. Every EPA g uidance document discussing varia nces ha s ref

err ed to them as spec ific to individual dis c ha rg e rs . On e re a so n is that a va ri anc e mus t e sta

bli sha re pla c e me nt c ri te ri on

that is a s c los e 48 to t he un de rl yinga

pp lic a ble c ri te ri on

a s p os sib le wh ic h b y

its ve ry natur e is a

sit e -s pe c if

ic fi n d i n g. (D es p i t e t h e o b v i o u s n ee d fo r are p l ac em en tcr i t er i o n , gi v en t h at a v ar i an ce i s a c h an ge 49 to a wate r quality

standard, some states ig nore this and instea d mere ly issue a water qua lity

based e ff lue nt l imi t f

or the so ur c e se e kin g the va ri anc e . In O re g on , E PA a pp e ars to h a ve a g re e d to thi s approa ch.) Eve n the GL Idoes not sanction multiple source va rianc es but expli citly

discusses individual permit holders. For example, the prea

mble descr ibes Procedur e 2 as a llowing 50 varia nces “ applicable to ind

iv idu al exis ting Gr eat L akes discha rg ers.” I n descr ibing the

51 applicability

of Proce dure 2, the GL Ispecifie s that a var iance “applies only to the permittee re qu e sti ngthe va

ri anc e .” I n f

a c t, e ve ry oth e r p ro vis ion

in t he GL Imake s r e fe re nc e to 52 varia nces’ applying to individual per mittees (i.e., conditions to g rant a varia nce, submission of aThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 16

GL Iat §§ C, D, E, F.

53 ANPRM at 36759. 54 GL IPt. 132, App F, Proce dure 2 §A .1. 55 EPA Water Quality Standards Ha

ndbook at 5.3; ANPRM at 36758-60. 56 varia nce a pplication, public notice, and the final dec ision on a varianc e re quest). Elsewher e, 53 h o w e v e r , E P A h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a tm u l t i p l e s o u r c e v ar i an c e s m i g h tb e a l l o w e d u n d e r t h e G LI, 54 causingconflict with all of its other pr onounceme nts and confusion a bout how such var iance s might be issued a

nd still rema in consistent with EPA reg ulations and g uidance . I n Michig an, EPA settled a lawsuit cha lleng ing E PA’s approva l of a multi-source varia nce f or merc ury

with an ag ree ment the state would e stablish the waste load a llocations for pe rmit holders on an individual basis, while allowingthe deter mination that a varia

nce w as nee ded to be done for more than one pe rm itt e e . It is c on fu sin g and mis le a din g fo r E PA t o c ontr a dic t it se lf . We ur g e that E PA c on tin ue its e xistin g po lic y

of makin g va

ri anc e s sp e c if

ic to i nd ivi du a l pe rm itt e e s. 6. Variances for Ne w S ources . Another a rea of ambiguity

is the use of va

rianc es for

new sourc es. The G L Iprohibits the application for

varia nces to ne w or re commencingsource s. Aside fr om the GL I , we have not 55 b e e na b le to f in d E PAp o li c y

s tate me n ts w it

hr e g a r d to th e u s e o f

v ar ia n c e s b y n e w s o u r c e s . We do, howeve r, think that EPA policy should preclude this use. New sourc es should only be all owe d t o d is char ge to p ub li c wat ers if th ey do no t m ake ex is ti ng po ll ut io n p rob lem s w ors e. By definition, a sourc e that re quires a va rianc e is making water

unsafe for human he alth and/or aquatic life and, by

definition, a newsource will make clea n-up to ac cepta

ble levels more difficult. These new sourc es must be made to a dopt the most advance d technolog y rathe r than contributing to the situation in which pollut ion control technolog y rema ins stagna

nt. Otherwise, there the technolog y -for cing attributes of the w ater quality -base d approa ch to pollution reg ulation w i l l b e u n d e r

m i n e d t o s ay n o t h i n g o f

t h e s t a t e o f

t h e n a t i o n ’ s w a t e r

qu a l i t y. 7. Reasonable P rogre ss Tow ards Attainm ent and Variance Re newal

. EPAha s st a te d th a t it

be lie ve s v ari anc e s c an b e us e d to imp le me nt p ro te c tio n a c tio ns , a sse ss t he ir results, and study

the under ly ing w ater

quality problem to better unde rstand it. This is sim ilar 56 to stating that a

varia nce should be more like a compliance schedule rathe r than a simple “g et out of jail” c ard. We support this approa ch. EPA should use its proposed re g ulations to make va ri anc e s mo re sim ila

r t o c omp lia

nc e sc he du le s, wi th t

he dif fe re nc e be ingthat th e latte r w ill on ly be used by

permittees a

ble to commit to a date ce rtain by which it can me et wate r quality -base dThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 17

See ANPRM at 36759.

57 ANPRM at 36759; GL I

.. 58 ANPRM at 36759. 59 EPA National Assessment of State V aria nce Proc edure s 1990 at 7. 60 eff luent limit s cer

tain. I n order

that this poli cy

may be ca rried out, c onditions for polluti on control and monitoringmust be require d to be included in the va rianc e and inc orporated into the a pp lic a ble NPD ES p e rm it. F ra

nk ly , unle ss t

he re are oth e r m a

jor c ha ng e s a nti c ipate d –

e ith e r t o dramatically

and quickly

improve water qua lity

or to cha ng e the water qua lity

standards themselves – this approa ch is the only way to give meaningto the stated notion that varianc es ar e “short-te rm” e x emptions from meetingstandards. EPA should also ensure that the require d triennial re view is used to eva luate whe ther the c on dit ion s o f t

he va ri anc e have be e n me t and the c on dit ion s th e va

ri anc e wa s b a se d u

po n s til l apply

. Renewa l should not be automatic but, rather , require s a newaff irmative showingby

the 57 applicant, c onsistent with ex isting EPA policy

. I f the pe rmittee is not require d to collect and 58 re po rt inf or matio n o n th e va

ri anc e c on dit ion s a

nd the un de rl yingwate r q

ua lity pr ob le m, t

he state will not have suffic ient information upon which to make any assessments of how to e nsure that varia nces a re not re newe d ad infinit um . 8. A Variance Must Includ e a Re placem ent Cr iter ion

. EPA’s proposed r

ules should include makingclea r that bec ause a

varia nce is a chang e to the water quality standards, it must include a c riterion that applies dur ing the pendenc y of the va ri anc e . AWQB EL

that is inc or

po rate d into t

he re le va nt N PDE S pe rm it c ann ot i tse lf se rv e a s a repla ceme nt criterion. I n fac t, acc ording to EPA, it i s contrar y to the require ments of sec tions 59 30 1( b) (1 )( C) and

40 2( a )( 1) of

the CWA t o is su e a

va ri anc e to a

n e ff lue nt l imi t. 60 E. Tr ie nn ia l R e v ie ws We support EPA’s proposal to requir e states to eng ag e in a trie nnial revie w scopingexercise. EPA should include in this proposal that there a re some nonne g otiable aspe cts to eac h and eve ry triennial re view. Specif

ically , EPA must make it clear that if states ig nore the 1987 Clean Water Act ame ndments reg ardingthe re quirement to update tox ics criter ia at eve ry triennial re view, states ca n expect EPA will do it in a timely manner . Since most states do not conduct triennial re vie ws on

a tr ie nn ia l ba sis , E PA s ho uld a uto matic a lly

pla c e state s in to t

he Natio na l T oxic s Ru le (t o th e e xten t r e qu ir e d) wh e n s tate s f a il t o c on du c t ti me ly

tr ie nn ia l r e vie ws or

fa il t o u pd a te toxicThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 18

40 C.F.R. § 131.20(a)

.

61 EPA Powerpoint, L istening Session: Proposed Rulemakingto Revise the Water 62 Quality Standards Regulation, Office of Water, Of fice of Scienc e and T echnolog y , Aug ust 2010, http:// water .epa.g ov/lawsreg s/lawsg uidance /wqs_listening.cf m#written, at 16. criter ia at ea ch triennia l review . Current de lay s in updating toxics criteria a re intolera

ble and EPA has the ability

to make this chang e with its regulations. EPA should also require that state s follow exist ing r egulations that require “[a]ny water body seg ment with water

quality standards that do not include the uses spe cified in sec tion 101(a)( 2) of the A ct shall be re -examined eve ry three y ear s to determine if a ny new infor

mation has bec ome ava ilable.” Since this rule alre ady 61 exis ts and is treate d as if it does not, EPA should use the opportunity of this rulemakingto clarify that states will, in fact, be held to this provision. F . Re fle c t C our t D e c isi ons We support EPA’s incorporation of the three cited cour t decisions into its regulations to ensure consistency

betwee n states and r eg ions and with court opinions. We are c oncer ned, howe ver, wi th t he a mbi g uit

y of EPA ’s br ie fi ngdo c ume nt whic h s tate s, wi th r e g ard to t he F lor ida

c a se s, that it intends to “[ r]evise the def inition of ‘water

quality standards’ at 40 CFR 131.3 to more clea rly define ty pes of state /tribal provisions that need to be submitted to EPA for re view and a c tio n. ” We p re sume that E PA i nte nd s to make its re g ulatio ns c on for m wi th t he c ourt op ini on s, 62 no t to a tte mpt

to a vo id t he re su lt o f t

ho se op ini on s. I f s o, we str on g ly su pp or t su c h a c tio n. Al l too often, states have deve loped wate r quality standards that they

submit t o EPA for a

pproval while passingother rule s, and issuing othe r guidance , that have the eff ect of taking awa

y the protec tions afforde d by

those standar ds. These othe r ac tions run the g amet, fr om 303(d) listing me tho do log ie s, NPD ES p e rm itt ingloo ph ole s, no np oint so ur c e e xemp tio ns , e tc . E PA d oe s a disservice to the public water s when it ig nores these chang es as f undamentally

aff ectingthe water quality standards it is authorized and re quired to appr ove or r eplac e. We sugg est that in addition to the cases c ited, EPA also incorpora te the re sults of

Nor thw est Environmental Adv ocates v . EPA , 268 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1266-67 (D . Or. 2003) insofa r as that decision re quired EPA to ensure that wher e cr iteria a pply to differ ent wate rwa

y s dependingon aquatic life cy cle stag es, the state must establish the time and pla ce de signations for the standar ds to be ef fec tively enfor ced. E PA itself included such time and pla ce de signations in establishi ng standards f

or the State of I daho. B oth EPA, and the cour t in the above- cited dec ision, have noted that without information on when and where criter ia apply , these more protec tive criter ia ar e es s en t i al l y

wi t h o u tm ea n i n g.Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 19

EPA Reg ion X, “Water Q uality Standards - Authorities, Definitions, and 63 Considerations,” January

13, 2009. G. Addition al Com m ents We urg e EPA to addre ss three a dditional items i n its water qua lity standards r egulations review: (1) pr ovisions that EP A cur rently considers not to be c hang es to wate r quality standards; (2) environmenta l justi ce c oncer ns; and (3) c larify

ing what it means to protec t the most sensiti ve benef icial use. 1. Defini ng What Constitutes a Water Quali ty Standard I n the context of assisting Or eg on with developingnew toxic criteria f or the prote ction of human he a lth , E PA R e g ion

X p re pa re d a do c ume nt i nc lud ingthe fo llo wi ngse c tio n: Exampl e s o f P ro vis ion s th a t May Not be Con sid e re d Wate r Q ua lity Sta nd ard s:

• non-substantive provisions (provisions that are not integr al to, and do not modify , protec tions afforde d by the desig nated use s, criter ia, and anti de g ratio n p ro vis ion s)

• provisions that merely descr ibe the suff

iciency or re liability

of information/data ne cessa

ry for the state to make a

n attainment dec ision and do not cha

ng e a le vel of prote ction (e.g ., minimum sample size and a g e of data re qu ir e me nts , s a mpl ingte c hn iqu e s, qu a lity a ssu ra nc e /qu a lity c on tr ol p ro c e dure s)

• implementation provisions (point or nonpoint source)

• enfor ceme nt provisions

• listi ng policies 63 I n p re pa ri ngthi s li st o f p ro vis ion s th a t ma y no t be c on sid e re d b y

EPAto b e wate r q

ua lity standards, EPA f

ails to address the substantive ma nner in whic h many

of these ty

pes of provisions undermine or c ompletely neg ate the a

pplication of water qua lity standards to a

state’s wate rs , c on tr ary

to t he int e nt o f t

he Cle an Wate r A c t. F or e xamp le , und e r t

his a pp ro a c h, EPA would approve a water qua lity standard e ven if a

state adopte d a rule that clea rly stated the standard w as not to be used in NPDES permits or for control of nonpoint source pollution be c a us e tho se pr ov isi on s c on sti tut e “ imp le me ntatio n p ro vis ion s. ” Ye t, i n d oin g so , a state wo uld complete ly negate the a

pp lic a tio n o f t

he sta nd ard s to a ll p oll uti on

so ur c e s, le a vin g on ly

the ro le of sta nd ard s in ide nti fy ingimp a ir e d w a te rs . Si mil arl y , a state c ou ld p a ss a

ru le or e sta bli sh g uid anc e that th e sta

nd ard s w ill no t be us e d f

or lis tin g purp os e s a

nd pr e suma bly EPAwo uld deter mine that those provisions were listi ng policies and ther efor e would neither constitute water quality standards subjec t to EPA action nor would EPA take the m into account whe n takingThomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 20

See, e .g., B e ll, En v iro nm e nta l I nju sti c e Po se d b

yOr e go n’ s W ate r Q ua lit

y 64 Standards , 20 J . Envtl. L aw a nd L itigation 85 (2005) , attache d. http://blog.e pa.g ov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-f or-e pas-f uture/ 65 (empha sis added). action on the standa

rds. In other wor ds, under the policy articulated by

Reg ion X, EPA has no me tho d o f e ns ur ingthat st a te s c ann ot g ive pr ote c tio n w ithon e ha nd and c omp le te ly

or pa rt ia lly take a way that protec tion with the other, the latter a ction not beingsubject to EPA revie w and c on sid e ratio n o f a

ny so rt . T his is a

no ns e ns ic a l a

pp ro a c h th a t E PA s ho uld re me dy in t his ru l em ak i n g. 2. Inc or por at ing Envi r onm e nt al J ust ic e Co nc e r ns I n our opinion, EPA has talked f or many y ear s about environmenta l justi ce w ithout doing 64 any thi nga bo ut i t, n ame ly

inc or po ratin g the c on c e rn

wi thi n it s f

e de ra l r e g ulatio ns . In th a t li g ht, it is interesting to see EPA Administrator L isa J ackson’ s rec ent memora ndum to EPA employ ees that in c lud e d th e fo llo wi ngstate me nt: We h ave be g un

a ne w e ra of ou tr e a c h a

nd pr ote c tio n f

or c omm un iti e s h ist or ic a lly underr epre sented in EPA dec ision-making. We a re building strong working relationships wit h tribes, communities of color, e conomically distressed cities a

nd towns, y oung people a

nd others, but this is jus t a start. W e must include environme ntal just ice principles in all of our decisions . T his is a n a re a that c a lls fo r i nn ov a tio n a

nd bo ld t hinkin g , a nd Ia m c ha lle ng inga ll o f o ur e mpl oy e e s to br ingvis ion

and c re a tiv ity to o ur pr og ra ms. Th e pr ote c tio n o f vuln e ra ble subpopulations is a top priority , espec ially with reg ard to c hildren. Our revitalized Children’s He alth Offic e is bring ing a new e nerg y

to safeguarding children throug h all of our e nforc ement ef forts. We will ensure that children’s health prote ction continues to g uide the path f orwa rd. 65 Revising EPA’s w ater

quality standards r egulations offer s EPA an excellent opportunity to put Ms. J ackson’ s challeng e into action. I t is well bey ond the time when EPA should have established cle ar e x pectations that when states adopt a nd revise w ater

quality standards a

nd criter ia, they

must address vulner able subpopulations. EPA could re quire that such issues be addre ssed in the adoption of numer ic cr iteria or that states be re quired to adopt implementation me tho ds in t

he ir wate r q ua lity sta nd ard s th a t e xpla in h owna rr a tiv e c ri te ri a , a lon g wi th desig nated use support and Tier Iof the a ntideg radation policy , will be used to ac hieve the g oal. It i s u n a c c e p t a

b l e t h a tE P A h a s d o n e n o t h i n g t o d a t e ; n o w i s i t s b e s to p p o rtu n i t y.Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 21

Memorandum f rom Cy nthia Giles, EPA Assistant Administ rator to National 66 Environmental Just ice Advisory Council Members, Re: Request for Recommendations on P lan EJ 2014 and Permitting Char g e, Jul y 27, 2010. Id . at 3. 67 Ex ec. O rder

No. 12,898, 59 Fe d. Reg . 7629 (F eb. 11, 1994). 68 Ex ec. O rder

No. 13,045 (Apr . 27, 1997). 69 40 C.F.R. § 131.11(a) (1). 70 I n a dd iti on , E PA r e c e ntl y iss ue d a dr a ft “ Plan E J 201 4. ” Th is m e mor and um s tate d in

pa rt , 66 wi th r e g ard

to r ule makin g , th a t: EPA’s authority

to develop re g ulations that put our nation’s environmenta l laws into effe ct is one of the A g ency ’s most important tools for pr otectinghuman health and the environment. EPA’s r egulatory authority combined with the mandates of

Ex ecutive O rder

12898 char g e EPA with responsibility to ensure that, as we develop Ag ency actions, we consider c ommuniti es that ar e disproportionately

impacted by

pollution. By

incorporating e nvironmental justice into its rulemakingproce ss, EPA will m ore e ffe ctively protec t overburde ned min or ity , lo w- inc ome , a

nd ind ig e no us po pu latio ns . Pl an E J 201 4 c a lls up on EPA to integr ate e nvironmental justice into the fa bric of its rulemaking pr ocess. The Ag ency

achie ved a sig nificant milestone in this effor t in J uly 2010 by issuing the Interim Guidanc e on Incorpor ating Environmental Just ice Dur ing the Deve lopment of an Ac tion. This guidanc e ca lls upon Age ncy rule wr iters and decision-make rs to consider e nvironmental justice throug hout all phases of a rule’s de velopment – known as the Action Deve lopment Process (AD P) – from the point of its inception throug h all the stag es lea ding to pr omulgation and implementation. 67 Ag ain, this appea

rs to be a statement of EPA’s intent to put meaninginto the Ex ecutive O rder s on Environmental Just ice and To Protec t Chil dren’ s Hea lth. We urg e EPA to do it now. 68 69 3. Cl ar ifyi ng W hat itM e ans to P r ot e c t t he M os t S e nsit ive Be ne fic ialUs e Whe n s tate s a do pt c ri te ri a , th e y are re qu ir e d to e sta

bli shthe m in

or de r t o p ro te c t th e mos t se ns iti ve be ne fi c ia l us e s. EPA ’s re g ulatio ns are muc h le ss c le ar a bo ut h owto a dd

re ss 70Thomas J . Gar dner ( EPA-HQ- OW-2010-0606)

September 8, 2010 Pag e 22

SeeEPA Water Quality Standards Regulation 63 Fed. Re g . 36,742, 36,749-50 71 (Jul y 7, 1998). Id

. 72 cate g ories within uses. EPA’s g ener al view a ppear s to be that so long a s a use, suc h as p r o t e c t i o no f

h u m anh e a l t h , i s d e s i g n a t e d g e n e r a l l y, i tn e e d

o n l y b e p r o t e c t e d

g e n e r a l l y. 71 Ho we ve r, wh e re a

sta te c ho os e s to e sta

bli shsu bc a te g or ie s o f u se s, the state is o bli g a te d to pr ov ide fu ll p ro te c tio n f

or e a c h s ub c a te g or

y . T he EPAha s u se d th e pr ob le m of state s’ desig nating uses broa dly

to complain that its ex isting re g ulations do not allow it t o forc e such states to be more specific

. This is a problem that EPA and other s have ide ntified and ther efor e 72 it should be a ca

ndidate for

EPA action in this proposed rulemaking. E PA need only clar ify that even where states choose to desig nate br oadly , they must establish an administrative rec ord setting out the most sensitive bene ficial uses in the br oad categ ories and de monstrate that the c ri te ri a a do pte d p ro te c t th os e mos t se ns iti ve us e s. I n o the r w or ds , th is i de nti fi e d p ro ble m is w h o l l y i nE P A ’ s h an d s t o r e m e dy. We l oo k f

or wa rd to a ssi sti ngEPAin a

ny wa y to i mpr ov e its wate r q

ua lity sta nd ard s r e g ulatio ns . S i n c e r e l y,

Ni na B e ll Ex ecutive D irec tor Attachments: Memorandum, f rom Nina B ell, Northwe st Environmental Advocates to DEQ Sta ff , “ Us ingTi e r I

An tid e g ra datio n Po lic y

Re qu ir e me nts to A dd

re ss G a ps in Water Qua lity

Protection for O reg on’s Waters,” June 7, 2010. B e ll, Environmental Injustice P osed by O regon’s W ater Quality Standards , 2 0 J. Envtl. L aw a

nd L itigation 85 (2005)

.