GUIDELINES FOR STATE AND
    AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY
      MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
           DEVELOPMENT
             CHAPTER 5
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
             NOVEMBER, 1976

-------
    Cover design adapted from
    a report prepared for:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  Office of Biological Services
    Western Water Allocation

   Illustrations and Graphics
              by
        Judith M. Ban

-------
                          FOREWORD
     Chapter 5 - Water Quality Standards is part of "Guide-
lines for State and Areawide Water Quality Management Program
Development" which can be obtained upon request  from this
office.  This document was available for interim use and
public review and comment in November 1976.  The Guide-
lines are intended to be used by State and areawide agencies
in developing implementable water quality management programs
consistent with Environmental Protection Agency regulations
40 CFR Parts 130 and 131.  These regulations deal with the
State continuing planning process policies (40 CFR 130) and
the preparation of State and areawide water quality manage-
ment plans (40 CFR 131).  In particular, 40 CFR 130.17 sets
forth the water quality standards policy, including anti-
degradation, which Chapter 5 addresses.

     Due to the significant degree of interest in the water
quality standards policy and the ongoing activities to
review and revise standards, this office is republishing
Chapter 5 of that document.  For further information on the
planning process and the relationship of standards to that
process, please refer to other Chapters of the Guidelines.
Requests for copies of Chapter 5 or the entire document
should be addressed to:

               Environmental Protection Agency
               401 M Street, S. W.
               Washington, D. C.  20460
               ATTN:  Water Planning Division (WH-554)

     Comments on these Guidelines are requested and should
also be addressed to this office.  The Guidelines will be
revised on the basis of comments received and issued as
final in the Spring of 1977.
                                    'i'-JZjL / (s-
                              Edmund Notzon
                             Acting Director
                         Water Planning Division

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.  Water Quality Standards Revision

    5.1   Introduction
    5.2   Water Uses
    5.3   Water Quality Criteria
    5.4   Antidegradation
    5.5   Mixing Zones
    5.6   Thermal Water Quality Standards
    5.7   Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Under
          Section 302 of the Act
    5.8   Stream Flows
    5.9   Discharge of Dredged or  Fill  Material
    5.10  Groundwater
    5.11  State Water Quality Standards Review
          and Revision Procedures

-------
                                CHAPTER 5

                         WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
5.1  Introduction
     Water quality standards are an essential  part of the State water
quality management (WQM) system.  The standards:

     .   Publicly define the State's water quality objectives,  and hence
        form the basis for its planning;

     .   Serve as the basis for determining National  Pollution  Discharge
        Elimination System (NPDES) permit effluent limitations for
        pollutants which are not specifically  addressed in the effluent
        guidelines or for pollutants for  which the effluent guidelines
        are not stringent enough to protect desired uses;

     .   Serve as a basis for evaluating and modifying Best Management
        Practices (BMP) for control of nonpoint sources;

     .   Serve as a basis for judgment in  other water quality related
        programs, including water storage for  regulation  of stream flow,
        water quality inventories, control of  toxic substances, thermal
        discharges, cooling lakes, aquaculture, and dredged and fill
        activities.

     .   Contain the State's antidegradation policy.

     A.  Purpose and Applicability

        The purposes of water quality standards are set forth  in
     Section 303 of the Act and in 40 CFR Part 130.   Standards must be
     reviewed and revised where appropriate at least once every three
     years to assure that the standards are consistent with the Act
     and regulations.
                                   5-1

-------
     Water quality standards must apply to all  surface water of
the United States, including the territorial  seas.   In addition,
they must be applicable to all  sources  of pollutants.   Provisions
in the standards which directly or indirectly exempt any class
of sources, such as nonpoint sources, are not allowable.  These
guidelines, however, provide for methods to deal  with  exceptional
situations (e.g. extreme high or low flow conditions).

     EPA strongly supports the establishment of water  quality
standards which will support the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and  on  the water.
In furtherance of this objective, EPA believes that water quality
standards should be established at levels consistent with the
national water quality goal of section  101(a)(2) of the Act for
every stream segment wherever those levels are attainable.

B.   Scope of State Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards

     Portions of existing water quality standards may  be adequate
and may require no revision.  Hence, the State will only have to
concentrate on those standards that are inadequate.  Revisions  most
probably will be needed in three key areas:

     1.  Uses—must be upgraded wherever 1983 national  water quality
     goal uses are not designated and higher uses are  attainable;

     2.  Criteria—new criteria should  be added and existing criteria
     modified as necessary to support the use, particularly in  the
     area of toxic pollutants; and

     3.  Antidegradation—revision of antidegradation  policies  is
     likely to be required.

     In addition, in its review and revision process,  the State must
assure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment
of the water quality standards of downstream water  (i!30.17(c)(4)).

C.   General Content of State Mater Quality Standards

     A centralized State water quality  standards document must  contain
at a minimum, the following components:

     1.  Certification that the standards are included within State
     law;

     2.  Statement of general policy consistent with 40 CFR §130.17;

     3.  Statement of applicability of water quality standards,
     including the State's mixing zone policy;

     4.  Definitions;

     5.  A listing of the use designations for all  the waters of the
     State, including any site specific water quality criteria  for
     specific segments.

                         5-2

-------
   6.   Water quality criteria that define the conditions necessary
   to maintain the beneficial water use designations;

   7.   An antidegradation statement;

   8.   Specifications of statistical requirements and reference
   to analytical testing and sampling procedures to determine if
   standards are being met; and

   9.   A listing of outstanding national resource waters.

In addition, it is recommended that the standards document contain
maps delineating stream segments which can be clearly referenced
to the stream use designation list.

   Where water quality standards are developed Statewide they must
be incorporated by reference into the individual State WQM plans.

   Where water quality standards are developed for a planning area
through the State WQM process, any or all of the above components
can be incorporated by reference in the centralized State water
quality standards document.  Identification of the State WQM plan
that contains the standards and the date of adoption and EPA
approval of the water quality standards contained within the plan
must be included.

D.  Relationship to the State WQM Process

   The State WQM process must contain mechanisms, including
public participation, to conduct water quality standards reviews
and revisions.  By conducting standards reviews as a part of
the State WQM process, States can assure that standards are an
essential component of the overall State water quality planning
and management program.  The State WQM process may itself result
in recommending revisions to water quality standards.

   Water quality standards, once approved or promulgated, are to
be included as an element of the State WQM plan  (5131.11(e)) and
are to be implemented through the State's WQM process.  Water
quality standards play a key role in the State WQM process by
setting the goals for plan development and implementation and
providing information necessary to complete other outputs of the
State WQM program.  In turn, the State WQM process is the vehicle
for "coordinating actions leading to water quality standards imple-
mentation.  All aspects of the process are directed to achievement
of standards.
                              5-3

-------
         The NPDES permits issued pursuant to  Section  402  of the  Act
      and nonpoint source regulatory program controls  (BMP)  implemented
      pursuant to Sections 208,  303(e)  and 313 of the  Act  must  be con-
      sistent with the State WQM process.   Together, point and  nonpoint
      source controls must result in the achievement and maintenance  of
      water quality standards.

         If a violation of water quality standards can be  shown to be
      attributable to pollution  from a  particular point source  or qroup
      of sources  then effluent  limitations must be imposed.   (S301(b)(l)(C)
      of the Act.)

         As no uniform or national  BMP  for nonpoint sources  is  mandated
      under the Act,  the level of BMP control  may differ from area to area.
      Water quality standards will  serve as a  basis for evaluating and
      modifying BMP's for control  of nonpoint  sources.  If water  quality
      standards violations attributable to nonpoint sources  continue  after
      BMP's are implemented, the BMP's  must be modified where practicable
      to control  specifically those pollutants responsible for  the violations,

         In some  cases, even the reconsidered  BMP's may not  be  sufficient to
      stop the nonpoint source related  water quality standards  violations.
      These violations may be continuous or rainfall related.   If the 1983
      goal uses and associated criteria are not being  achieved, and cannot
      be achieved through application of modified BMP's, then limited
      spatial and temporal exceptions can  be granted under certain condi-
      tions (see  the discussion  on  irretrievable man-induced conditions
      on p. 5-7 and mixing zones on p.  5-16).   All  exceptions must be
      reexamined  every three years  during  the  water quality  standards
      reviews to  determine if new nonpoint source control  technologies or
      strategies  that have been  developed  can  restore  the  excepted waters.
5.2  Water Uses
      A.   Use Designation  and  Regulatory  Requirements

         The regulations  (S130.17(c)(2)-(3))  provide the  following:

         "(2)  The  State shall maintain those water uses  which  are
         currently  being attained.  Where existing water  quality
         standards  specify designated water uses  less  than  those
         which are  presently being  achieved,  the  State shall  upgrade
         its standards  to  reflect the uses actually being attained.

         "(3)  At a minimum, the State shall  maintain  those water
         uses which are currently designated  in water  quality stan-
         dards,  effective  as of the date  of these regulations or as
                                   5-4

-------
      subsequently modified in accordance with S130.17(c)(l)  and
      (2).   The State may establish less restrictive uses than
      those contained in existing water quality standards, however,
      only where the State can demonstrate that:

         (i)  The existing designated use is not attainable
         because of natural background;

         (ii)  The existing designated use is not attainable
         because of irretrievable man-induced conditions; or

         (iii)  Application of effluent limitations for existing
         sources more stringent than those required pursuant  to
         Section 301(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act in order to
         attain the existing designated use would result in sub-
         stantial and widespread adverse economic and social
         impact."

   The States must review their water quality standards and revise
them as appropriate.  The review must include standards for all
waters and revisions must be consistent with the following:

   1.  Public health must be protected for all waters;

   2.  The national water quality goal uses of protection and
   propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in
   and on the water must be designated in the standards for all
   waters, wherever attainable, including those segments where
   they are not currently being attained instream.  (The meaning
   of the term "attainable" is discussed under Ch. 5.2(C)--Exceptions
   to Designating National Goal Water Uses.)

   3.  Where current water quality conditions support a higher use
   than that for which a segment is presently classified, standards
   for that segment must be upgraded to include the higher use;
   and

   4.  Water quality standards must provide for the attainment of
   the water quality standards assigned to downstream waters.

   In some cases it may be appropriate to provide for seasonal use
designations where uses are not attainable on a year round basis.
For example, intermittent streams that are dry in the summer  might
qualify for seasonal designations.  However, seasonal uses are
not appropriate where the effects of the discharge of pollutants
might preclude uses in other seasons.
                              5-5

-------
B.   Maintenance of Existing Uses

     Each beneficial water use which is currently being achieved
must be included in the use designations (S130.17(c)(2)).   There
are no provisions for exceptions to this requirement.  Beneficial
uses include such uses as protection and propagation of aquatic
life, recreation in and on the water, public water supplies, agri-
cultural and industrial water supplies, and navigational uses.
Waste assimilation and waste transport* are not approvable use
designations.  The State's antidegradation policy and procedures
must assure maintenance of existing uses.

C.   Exceptions to Designating National Goal Water Uses

     Where a national  water quality goal use, as specified by
Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, is determined to be unattainable, the
exception should be confined to a carefully limited geographic area.
The lowered use in that area must not result in the loss of an
existing or potential  use elsewhere.  In most cases, the unattaina-
bility of the use should be permitted to occur only in the near term,
and specific criteria should be adopted which will lead in the
direction of early future designation of the use.  Where primary
water contact recreation is not attainable, but secondary contact
recreation is attainable, the latter use should be designated.

     Exceptions must be reviewed as part of the three year water
quality standards review and removed if the previously designated
uses become attainable.  National water quality goal uses must then
be designated.

     The Regional Administrator has authority to approve any proposed
State water quality standards.  He is also responsible for reviewing
existing and proposed standards which do not include designated uses
consistent with the national water quality goal.  The Regional
Administrator, where appropriate, will request additional  information
from the State to evaluate the basis for establishing uses at levels
less stringent than the national water quality goal.

     The following guidance provides direction on EPA policy for
considering lesser uses than those associated with the national
water quality goal.

     1.  Determinations for Upgrading Existing Designated Uses

         Waters that are currently designated for uses which require
     water quality lower than that necessary to maintain the national
     water quality goal uses must be upgraded wherever attainable.
     The State should take into account environmental, technological
                         5-6

-------
social, economic and institutional factors, but it must jpcrade
standards in the following circumstances:

     a.  Where existing standards specify uses lower than those
     actually being achieved instream;

     b.  Where existing water quality will improve as a result
     of current technology-based control measures (BATEA and
     BPWTT) being applied, and a higher use can be anticipated;
     and

     c.  Where existing water quality standards specify uses or
     criteria that will not provide protection for uses presently
     achieved or to be achieved in downstream waters.

2.   Determinations for Downgrading Existing Designated Uses

     Waters that are currently designated for national water
quality goal uses may not be downgraded unless the State can
demonstrate in writing that one of the conditions set forth below
exist  (il30.17(c)(3)).  Any downgradings must also be consistent
with the antidegradation policy (Section 5.4).  Any downgrading
is subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator.

     a.  The use cannot be attained because of natural background
         conditions

         This basis for an exception should have limited applica-
     tion.  It should be recognized that most water bodies have
     some communities of fish, shellfish and wildlife.  However,
     examples of natural background conditions which may preclude
     the aquatic life use include streams with leachate from
     natural heavy metal deposits and streams with natural
     ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions.

     b.  The use cannot be attained because of irretrievable
         man-induced conditions

         Man has changed his environment from that which occurred
     historically.  This basis for an exception applies only to
     irretrievable losses of national water quality goal uses
     that have occurred in the past.

         The term "irretrievable" in the context of these guide-
     lines means that the past loss of a national water quality
     goal use, due to man's modification of his environment, is
     considered permanent or incapable of being restored or
     regained.
                    5-7

-------
               Three primary situations may qualify a specific segment
           for an exception:

               (1)  Where the national water quality goal  use is not
               being achieved due to nonpoint source pollution that
               cannot be abated with application of BMP's  or BMP's modified
               to meet water quality standards and the activity or change
               in land use is determined by the affected public to be
               essential.

               (2)  Where the national water quality goal  use is not
               being achieved due to hydrological modifications that
               cannot be removed or operated in such a manner as to
               restore the use.

               (3)  Where the national water quality goal  use is not
               being achieved due to deposition of instream toxicants
               due to man's past point or nonpoint source  activities
               and such deposits are not capable of being  removed by
               natural processes over an appropriate planning period
               (usually 20 years) and are not capable of being removed
               by man without a  severe long-term environmental impact.

           This basis for an exception must not be used to waive water
        quality requirements with respect to individual point or nonpoint
        sources where control methods or reasonable alternative control
        strategies are available.  It is important to remember that
        natural processes may require many years to undo the damage that
        man has caused.  Since the water quality standards uses and
        criteria provide a legal mechanism for imposition  of controls,
        downgrading national water quality goal uses may allow continued
        abuse and natural  recovery will be precluded.

           c.  The use cannot be attained because the imposition of
           controls above or in  addition to the technology-based require-
           ments of BATEA* and BPWTT** would be required and would result
           in a substantial and  widespread adverse economic and social
           impact

               The Regional Administrator will carefully review the
           State's determination of what constitutes a substantial and
           widespread impact and warrants an exemption from designating
 *Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (S301(b)(2)(A))
**Best Practicable Wastewater Treatment Technology (§301(b)(2)(B))
                                   5-8

-------
               the use.   However, at a minimum, all  three of the following
               situations must be present:

                    (1)   Imposition of controls above or in addition to
                    BATEA and BPWTT would be required even though BMP's
                    will  be implemented;

                    (2)   The adverse economic and social impacts resulting
                    specifically from imposition of the controls, and
                    reflected in primary and secondary unemployment impacts,
                    plant closures, changes in governmental fiscal  base,
                    and other area economic indicators, are substantial
                    and widespread in comparison to other economic factors
                    affecting the area's economy, to national  economic
                    conditions and fluctuations, and can be expected to
                    persist for periods longer than provided for by adjust-
                    ment payments such as unemployment compensation; and
                    they are detectable in an area appropriate for measure-
                    ment, at least as large as a county or SMSA and, if
                    appropriate, any larger economic areas such as defined
                    by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of
                    Commerce.  In making a determination of substantial
                    impact, the positive economic and social impact of
                    enhanced water quality must be evaluated.

5.3  Water Quality Criteria

     State water quality standards must contain water quality criteria
which define the conditions necessary to maintain and protect the desig-
nated water uses.  Narrative and numerical criteria should be adopted
that will provide the best management basis for control of water pollution
and maintenance of high quality waters.  Numerical criteria are preferred
because they are more easily interpreted in defining specific control
requirements, but narrative criteria are useful also.

     When a water use classification is changed, corresponding criteria
changes must also be made.  Where waters are designated for multiple uses,
the standards must provide that the most stringent criterion for each
parameter will be applicable.  Even when an existing use classification
is acceptable, criteria may require revision in the light of new know-
ledge concerning human health and aquatic life needs.  Changes may also
be required in response to specific determinations made pursuant to
Section 316(a) of the Act.
                              5-9

-------
     In keeping with established EPA policy:

     .  Numerical criteria should be stated wherever possible;

     .  Biological or bioassay criteria should be employed where
        numerical values are not practicable provided that the criteria
        are described with enough detail to be implementable.  Bioassay
        criteria, for example, should specify those species to be
        used in particular waters and guidance should be given on how
        to use the results to draft permit conditions or modify BMP's;
        and

     .  Narrative criteria should be employed where other values cannot
        be established or to supplement numerical values.  Narrative
        criteria should include detail  sufficient to show clearly the
        quality of the water intended,  so that NPDES permit conditions
        and nonpoint source control requirements (BMP's) can be
        developed or modified based on  the criteria.

     Seasonal  uses and criteria should  be adopted wherever necessary
and appropriate.  For example, where waters are used for propagation by
certain species only during certain periods of the year and such species
propagation requires higher levels of dissolved oxygen and/or lower
temperatures than otherwise necessary to protect the species, the
adopted criteria should include such higher dissolved oxygen levels
and/or lower temperatures for the periods when they are needed.  Another
example might be an intermittent stream during periods when no water
is present in the stream bed.  In this  case special  criteria or use
designations may be appropriate.

     For any segment which provides habitat for any threatened or
endangered species identified pursuant  to the Endangered Species Act
(P. L. 93-205), water quality standards must be adopted which will
protect such species and preclude the destruction or modification of
the critical habitat of those species identified as critical.  Water
quality standards must also describe the water quality necessary to
assure the protection and propagation of protected species described
pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (P. L. 92-522), the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (P. L.  70-257), and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 701-711).

     A.  Numerical Water Quality Criteria

        The Administrator's Quality Criteria for Water document
     published under Section 304(a) of  the Act will represent normally
                                  5-10

-------
acceptable levels of water quality to support the related use.
While the Section 304(a) document will serve as the basic refer-
ence, other publications that define water quality criteria may
also be applicable.

     Specific numerical criteria generally should be adopted for
those parameters which represent serious existing or potential water
quality problems in the State.  The adoption of numerical values
for toxic substances is particularly important, to insure protection
of the highest uses and to provide a water quality basis for control
for these substances.  Site specific circumstances may permit less
restrictive criteria or require stricter limits for specific para-
meters than those contained in the Section 304(a) document.
Establishment of a numerical value for a criterion at a less
stringent level than that recommended in the Section 304(a) docu-
ment should be accompanied by an adequate technical justification
to the Regional Administrator.  Pursuant to the authority contained
in Section 510 of the Act, States may, of course, adopt more strin-
gent water quality criteria or water uses than that recommended by
EPA.

     The Administrator will periodically modify or add to the criteria
developed under Section 304(a).  Such changes should be considered
for adoption by the States during their next regularly scheduled
standards review following the change.

     For numerical criteria, the statistical requirements for data
interpretation and sampling must be stated, for purposes of applying
and enforcing standards.  Mean and maximum concentrations should be
stated where appropriate.  The time, place, method and duration of
sampling should be identified or referenced as a part of the water
quality standards to assure comparable results.  In general, sampling
locations and times should be based on critical conditions or alter-
natively should attempt to characterize the spatial or temporal
distribution of the pollutant or environmental parameter.  All methods
of sample collection, preservation, and analysis used in applying
the standards should be in accord with those prescribed in 40 CFR
Part 136.

     Revised water quality standards criteria will need to reflect  the
conditions in individual areas.  Some degree of instream biological
monitoring will often be necessary, both for establishing the standards
and in reviewing the effect of their implementation.
                         5-11

-------
   Criteria also may be expressed in terms of biological parameters
such as bioassay or species diversity requirements provided that
such criteria are stated in a manner that will support specific
conforming control measures to be assigned on a case-by-case basis.
An example of a biological criterion might be the prohibition of
any deviation outside the range of normal variability for a given
species diversity index.  Modeling techniques generally are not
sophisticated enough to relate a percent loss of diversity to a
percent reduction in pollutants so wasteload allocations will need
to be established based on best judgment as to cause and effect.

   The State may elect to adopt 304(a) criteria by means of
incorporation by reference, if State law authorizes that device.
In that case, certain procedures should be followed to avoid con-
fusion.  First, the State should carefully identify the criteria
being adopted (parameter and associated use) and the document
being referenced (i.e. citation of 304(a) criteria document and
date of publication).  In addition, the State should explain what
criteria will apply in the event that the incorporated materials
are revised following adoption of the standards.  Presumably, the
State will specify that the incorporated criteria will continue
to apply until the next State standards review, in order to assure
compliance with State requirements for due process, including
public hearings on revisions to standards.  Finally, the State
should specify the location or locations within the State where
the criteria which have been incorporated by reference will be
reasonably available to the public for inspection and copying.

B.  Narrative Water Quality Criteria

   States should provide in the water quality standards that all
waters must meet the State's general narrative criteria.  EPA
recommends language consistent with that below:

   All waters shall be free from substances attributable to man-
caused point source or nonpoint source discharges in concentrations
that:

   1.  Settle to form objectionable deposits;

   2.  Float as debris, scum, oil or other matter to form nuisances;

   3.  Produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;

   4.  Injure, are toxic to or produce adverse physiological or
   behavior responses in humans, animals or plants; or

   5.  Produce undesirable aquatic life or result in the dominance
   of nuisance species.
                             5-12

-------
        These general  narrative criteria can be used as  a basis  for
     control  activities.   Ecological  principles and biological monitoring
     techniques can be used to quantitatively define violations  of most
     of these narrative criteria.   If it can be shown that harm  has
     been caused to the balanced community of fish, shellfish and  wild-
     life in  the vicinity of a discharge due to settleable solids, for
     example, then those deposits can be termed objectionable and
     measures can be taken to restrict the discharge of  settleable
     solids.   Bioassays can be used to determine compliance with the
     narrative prohibition on toxicity.   Guidance for applying some of
     these techniques can be found in the draft Section  316(a) guidance
     manual  dated September 30, 1974.

        The aesthetic criteria are harder to quantify in terms of
     violation.  Photographic records or public complaints can provide
     a good indication of problems.  If the source of such violation
     can be identified, control actions can be imposed by the regulatory
     agency based on such observations.

5.4  Antidegradation

     A.  General

        Each  State must develop and adopt (or retain) a  Statewide  anti-
     degradation policy in the water quality standards and identify
     methods  for its implementation through other components of  the
     State WQM process in accordance with S130.17(e). At a minimum the
     policy should contain the following components:

        1.  In all cases, existing instream beneficial water uses  must
        be maintained and protected.  Any actions that would intefere
        with or become injurious to existing uses cannot be undertaken.
        Waste assimilation and transport are not recognized beneficial
        uses;

        2.  Existing high quality waters must be maintained at their
        existing high quality unless the State decides to allov
        limited degradation where economically or socially justified.
        If limited degradation is allowed, it cannot result in viola-
        tion of water quality criteria that describe the base  levels
        necessary to sustain the national water quality  goal uses  of
        protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and
        recreation in and on the water;

        3.  In all cases, high quality waters which constitute an  out-
        standing national resource must be maintained and protected;
                                  5-13

-------
   4.  Any determinations concerning thermal discharge limitations
   under Section 316(a) of the Act will be considered to be in
   compliance with the antidegradation policy.

   High quality waters consist of those waters  at or above the
minimum levels necessary to achieve the national water quality goal
uses.

   Existing approved antidegradation statements consistent with
§130.17(e) may be retained, but procedures for  implementation must
be established through the State WQM process.  The process will
enable the State to determine on a case-by-case basis whether
and to what extent water quality may be lowered consistent with
§130.17.

B.  Public and Intergovernmental Review

   The State WQM process must provide that whenever an activity is
proposed which may degrade existing high quality waters, the State
will assure that there is adequate public and intergovernmental
participation in accordance with section 5.11.C. of this Chapter.

   Where the public and intergovernmental response, taken as a
whole, clearly opposes a proposed degradation,  the State must give
serious consideration to that response and may  not allow the pro-
posed degradation activity unless a substantial and convincing
justification for the activity has been presented.

C.  National Resource Waters

   Waters which constitute an outstanding national resource may
not be degraded.  At a minimum, waters in National and State
parks, wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational
or ecological significance (for example, waters which provide a
unique habitat for an identified threatened or  endangered species
or rivers designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act)
should be considered as outstanding national resource waters.  The
State's intergovernmental review notice (see section 5.11.C) should
include notice to the Federal, State, or other  agencies responsible
for administration of the waters or other resource involved.  Such
notice should specifically call attention to the possible character-
ization of the waters in question as an outstanding national resource.

   EPA recommends that each State include in its water quality
standards an initial listing of the outstanding national resource
                               5-14

-------
waters of the State.  Such a list would provide a ready identification
of such waters.  The possibility of additions or deletions from time
to time should be expected.

D.  Antidegradation and Growth

   National antidegradation requirements should not be viewed as
a "no growth" rule.  Where the State intends to provide for further
development, the State WQM process should evaluate the alternative
measures which can be taken to preserve water quality at the levels
required by 5130.17.  The evaluation must take into account the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water.
Examples of some techniques that can be used by the States
include:

   1.  Designing wasteload allocations to accommodate new sources,
   via reduction in current source loadings;

   2.  Restricting any new discharge of pollutants from new and
   existing sources;

   3.  Restricting any increase in pollutants discharged from
   existing sources;

   4.  Adopting a no mixing zone policy, thus requiring safe
   concentrations to be met at the end of the pipe;

   5.  Requiring land disposal for new projects; and

   6.  Requiring new nonpoint source activities to demonstrate no
   permanent adverse impact on water quality.

E.  Optional State Actions

   The State's antidegradation policy is to be designed for the
protection of existing water quality.  Use designations should not
be an issue, since the specific water quality standards should
always, at a minimum, designate existing beneficial uses.  The
State's water quality standards for high quality waters may, within
the constraints and limitations of monitoring practicability, set
forth the existing water quality of a segment.  Thus, the State may
adopt specific criteria at existing levels measured in the segment,
even though such levels may be more stringent than the Section 304(a)
criteria minimum levels for given uses.  Documentation of existing
water quality may be useful in the State WQM process as a baseline
against which any future degradation could be measured.
                             5-15

-------
     F.    Federal  Review of Antidegradation Policies and Actions

          The State's antidegradation statement and implementing pro-
     cedures, as a part of its water quality standards and WQM process,
     are subject to the Regional Administrator's review and approval.
     EPA encourages submittal  of this statement and implementing pro-
     cedures to the Regional  Administrator for pre-adoption review so
     that the State may take EPA comments into account prior to final
     adoption.

5.5  Mixing Zones

     A.    General

          A limited mixing zone, serving as a zone of initial  dilution
     in  the immediate area of a point or nonpoint source of pollution,
     may be allowed.   Establishing a mixing zone policy is a matter of
     State discretion.   Such a policy, however, must be consistent with
     the Act and is subject to the approval of the Regional  Administrator.

          Careful  consideration must be given to the appropriateness of a
     mixing zone where a substance discharged is bioaccummulative and
     persistent or carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic.   In such
     cases the State must consider the ecological  and human health effects
     of  assigning  a mixing zone including such effects as bioconcentration
     in  sediments  and aquatic  biota, bioaccummulation in the food chains,
     and the known or predicted safe exposure levels for the substance.
     In  some instances, the ecological and human health effects may be
     so  adverse that a mixing  zone is not appropriate.

     B.    Definition of Allowable Mixing Zones

          Water quality standards should describe the State's  methodology
     for determining the location, size, shape, outfall  design and in-zone
     quality of mixing zones,  with sufficient precision to support such
     regulatory actions as issuance of permits and determination of BMP's
     for nonpoint  sources.   Specifications should relate to the individual
     water body.   EPA recommends the following:
                              5-16

-------
1.  Location.   Biologically important areas are to be identified
and protected.  Where necessary to preserve the zone of passage
for migrating fish or other organisms in a water course, the
standards should specifically identify the portion of the waters
to be kept free from mixing zones.

2-  Size.  Various methods and techniques for defining the sur-
face area and the volume of mixing zones for various types of
waters have been formulated.  Methods which result in quantita-
tive measures sufficient for permit actions and which protect
the designated uses of the water body as a whole are acceptable.
The area or volume of an individual zone or group of zones rust
be limited to an area or volume that will not interfere with the
designated uses or with the established community of aquatic life
in the segment for which the uses are designated.  The State WQM
process growth projections should be taken into account in settina
the total mixing zone size for the water course.


3.  Shape.  The shape of a mixing zone should be a simple con-
figuration that is easy to locate in the body of water and that
avoids impingement on biologically important areas.  A circle
with a specified radius is generally preferable, but other
shapes may be specified in the case of unusual site require-
ments.  "Shore-hugging" plumes should be avoided.

4.  Outfall Design.  Prior to designating any mixing zone, the
State should assure that the design and location of the existing
or proposed outfall provides maximum protection of aquatic
resources.

5.  In-zone Quality.  Water quality standards should provide
that all mixing zones conform with the following requirements.
Any mixing zone should be free of point or nonpoint source
related:

   (a)  Materials in concentrations that exceed the 96-hour
   LC50 for biota significant to the indigenous aquatic community;

   (b)  Materials in concentrations that settle to form objec-
   tionable deposits;

   (c)  Floating debris, oil, scum and other matter in con-
   centrations that form nuisances;
                           5-17

-------
      (d)  Substances in concentrations that produce objec-
      tionable color, odor, taste or turbidity; and

      (e)  Substances in concentrations which produce undesirable
      aquatic life or result in a dominance of nuisance species.

C.  Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material

   EPA, in conjunction with the Department of the Army, has dev-
eloped interim guidelines to be applied in evaluating the discharge
of dredged or fill material in navigable waters.  (See 40 CFR
Part 230, Federal Register, September 5, 1975.)  The interim
guidelines include provisions for determining the acceptability
of mixing discharge zones (§230.5(e)).  The particular pollutants
involved should be evaluated carefully in establishing dredging
mixing zones.  Dredged spoil discharges generally result in a
temporary short-term disruption and do not represent a continuous
discharge of materials that will affect beneficial uses over a
long period of time.  A limited disposal operation whose primary
pollutant is inert suspended solids may qualify for a mixing zone
more readily than an operation discharging toxic pollutants.  The
potential for long-term disruption of beneficial uses should be
the primary consideration in establishing mixing zones for dredged
and fill activities.  State water quality standards should reflect
these principles if mixing zones for dredging activities are
referenced.

D.  Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects

   The Administrator is authorized, after public hearings, to
permit certain discharges associated with approved aquaculture
projects (Section 318 of the Act).  The regulations relating to
aquaculture (40 CFR Part 115, proposed June 7, 1974) provide in
part (5115.10(a)) that the aquaculture project must not result in
a violation of standards outside of the project area, and project
approval must not result in the enlargement of any previously
approved mixing zone.  In addition, the aquaculture regulations
provide that designated projected areas must not include so large
a portion of the body of water that a substantial portion of the
indigenous biota will be exposed to the conditions within the
designated project area (S115.10(e)).  Areas designated for approved
aquaculture projects should be treated in the same manner as other
mixing zones.  Special allowances should not be made for these
areas.
                             5-18

-------
5.6  Thermal Water Quality Standards

     Water guality standards relating to heat are required by
Section 303(g) of the Act to be consistent with the requirements of
Section 316 of the Act.  In keeping with the provisions of Section 303
and Section 316:

     .   Water quality standards relating to thermal criteria must
        assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
        population consistent with Section 316.

     .   In areas in which a point source is entitled to the temporary
        immunities of Section 316(c), water quality standards should be
        established without regard to such immunity, but the standards
        may not serve as a basis for imposing effluent limitations on
        such source during the period of its immunity.

5.7  Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Under Section 302
     of the Act  (RESERVED).
5.8  Stream Flows

     A.  Intermittent Streams

        Water quality criteria should be adopted for intermittent
     streams to the extent necessary to assure that conditions in the
     streams or stream beds will not impair existing or designated uses
     in the stream or in downstream waters.
                              5-19

-------
B.   Low Flow

     Water quality standards should protect water quality for
designated uses in critical low flow situations, and individual
sources or categories of sources should not be categorically exempted
from compliance with such standards during critical low flow periods.

     Wasteload allocations for the achievement of water quality
standards may be based on a specified low flow which can be regarded
as the critical low flow.  This critical low flow must be estab-
lished at a level which assures protection of beneficial uses desig-
nated in standards.  In many cases, this will be the average seven-
day low flow which occurs once in ten years.  In extreme situations
where flow falls below the critical low flow, the usually applicable
standards may be violated.  As an alternative to a critical low
flow, States may adopt special low flow standards or policies to be
met seasonally or at all times regardless of low conditions.  Examples
of situations where this may be appropriate include streams which are
of a natural ephemeral or intermittent nature or streams where an
endangered species is present and special standards are necessary to
protect the species and its habitat.

     The State WQM process should be designed to minimize the effect
of conditions which may result from point source discharges or storm
related nonpoint source runoff during low flow periods.  For example,
the WQM process may identify the need for NPDES permit conditions,
such as higher treatment levels or reduced discharge volumes necessary
to avoid or mitigate severe and long-lasting water quality impacts
during critical periods.  Seasonal limitations may be included, such
as requiring seasonal control of certain pollutants during critical
months.

     In addition, the State WQM process may identify special procedures
to be available to prevent major impacts as a result of low flow
periods.  Responses may include release of impounded waters, effluent
or storm water storage or modification of industrial production
schedules.

C.   High Flow

     Water quality standards should protect water quality in critical
high flow situations, and individual sources or categories of sources,
such as nonpoint sources, should not be categorically exempted from
compliance with water quality standards.

     The State WQM process should minimize the effects of conditions
which may result during high flow periods.  For example, permit
conditions and BMP's for nonpoint sources should anticipate periods
of critical high flow.  Many types of nonpoint source problems are
most intense during and after periods of precipitation, when flows
are higher than at other times.


                         5-20

-------
         Extreme high flow,  like extreme low flow,  is not a  required
      design criterion for sources  severely affected by the  extreme con-
      ditions.   However,  permits and nonpoint source controls  should
      assure that, in extreme high flow situations,  man-induced incremental
      pollution will  not  result in  severe and long-lasting water quality
      impacts.   It may be appropriate for States  to adopt specific stan-
      dards to  be met at  all  times, regardless of flow.

         In addition, the State WQM process may identify special proce-
      dures to  be available to prevent major impacts as  a result of high
      flow periods.  Responses may  include curtailment of point source
      discharges, if appropriate, or other feasible and  useful  measures.
      D.  Regulated Flow

         Flow augmentation and regulation is not a substitute  for
      adequate treatment or control  of pollutant sources,  but  may be  an
      important consideration in WQM.   Minimum flow rates  for  regulated
      waters should be specified in  State water quality standards where
      necessary to protect and attain  the appropriate beneficial  uses
      of any waters.

5.9  Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material

      As stated in section 5.5 of this Chapter, EPA has published
interim guidelines to be applied in  evaluating activities  involving
the discharge of dredged materials or  fill material in navigable  waters
(40 CFR Part 230).  Appropriate water  quality standards must be consid-
ered when discharging dredged or fill  material.  The interim guidelines
provide that:

      "After application of the approaches presented in §230.4, the
      District Engineer will compare the concentrations of appropriate
      constitutents to applicable narrative and numerical  guidance con-
      tained in such water quality standards as are applicable by law.
      In the event that such discharge would cause a violation of such
      appropriate and legally applicable standards at the  perimeter of
      the disposal site after consideration of the mixing  zone, dis-
      charge shall be prohibited."  (40 CFR S230.4-2.)
                                  5-21

-------
      In addition the interim guidelines provide that:

      "In evaluating whether to permit a proposed discharge of dredged
      or fill  material  into navigable waters,  consideration shall  be
      given to the need for the proposed activity, the  availability of
      alternative sites and methods of disposal  that are less  damaging
      to the environment, and such water quality standards  as  are
      appropriate and applicable by law."

5.10  Groundwater

      EPA recommends that States adopt water quality standards to  protect
the underground waters  of the State.  Such standards are not a Federal
requirement; however, standards for groundwater are particularly desir-
able to protect waters  which are a present or potential public drinking
water supply source or have particular ecological or hydrographic
significance.

5.11  State Water Quality Standards Review and Revision Procedures1

      A general description of the relationship between the Standards
Review Process and State WQM Process is provided in Chapter 2.3.E
("Review/Revision of Water Quality Standards and Definition of Anti-
degradation Policy").  See also Chapter 3.6.C.2 ("Specify Water
Quality Standards and Anti degradation Policy").   The interdependency
of the State WQM process and standards review/revision  process makes it
necessary to initiate both activities within the same time frame,  com-
mencing with certain simplifying assumptions and proceeding later  to
more appropriate refinement in both areas.

      State water quality standards consist of water quality standards
which are approved or promulgated by the EPA pursuant to Section 303
of the Act and consist of designated beneficial  uses, water quality
criteria to support those uses, anti degradation policy, and implementa-
tion plans established pursuant to Section 303(a) and (b).

      A.  Relationship to State WQM Process

         40 CFR §130.10(c)(5) requires State water quality standards to
      be reviewed and revised in time to impact 1977-1983 management and
      regulatory decisions.  This is imperative for State water quality
      standards to be a meaningful tool in pollution abatement.  In this
      anticipates amending 40 CFR Part 120 to set forth the procedures
for State review and revision and EPA approval and promulgation of water
quality standards.
                                   5-22

-------
next three-year period of statutory mandated review/revision
activities, revisions to standards which are adopted should be
submitted to the Regional Administrator by January 1, 1977, to
comply with 40 CFR S130.10(c)(5).  The January 1 deadline will
assure that standards revisions will be approved or disapproved
and appropriate promulgation action taken in time to do the
following:

   1.  Set the objectives for the initial WQM  plans which,
   by court order, are due November 1, 1978.
   2.  Provide the necessary information for establishing water
   quality related effluent limitations in the second round of
   permits.

   The State/EPA agreement on timing and level of detail for the
development of State WQM plans (40 CFR SI30.11) should provide
for the completion of standards revisions in time to meet
40 CFR S130.10(c)(5) requirements.  The State's schedule and
milestones for reviewing and revising standards required pursuant
to 40 CFR S130.10(c) must contain:

   1.  An identification of each designated areawide planning
   agency in the State which is involved in developing water quality
   standards recommendations and the date by which such agency is
   expected to make its recommendations to the State WQM agency.

   2.  The date when the State intends to submit its proposed
   water quality standards revisions to the Regional Administrator.

   3.  A list of the public hearings which are expected to be held
   on the existing and proposed standards and the tentative dates
   for such hearings.

   4.  The projected dates when revisions to water quality standards
   will be adopted and submitted to the Regional Administrator.

B.  Proposed Revisions

   States should work closely with their Regional Offices in dev-
eloping proposed revisions to standards.  Such a relationship will
facilitate the development of proposed revisions which meet the
requirements of the Act and expedite the Agency review process.
                             5-23

-------
    Each  State  should  submit three copies of  its proposed water
quality  standards revisions to the Regional  Administrator and
identify the proposed changes or additions in the submittal.  The
Regional Administrator may submit comments to the State on the
proposed revisions if comments would be beneficial.

C.  Public Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination

   The States should provide for maximum public participation and
intergovernmental coordination in the standards review/revision
process.  Public hearings are a mandatory requirement of the pro-
cess.  All such activities should be conducted as a part of the
State WQM process.  The guidelines on public participation in
Chapter 4 set forth the need and legal requirements for public
participation and contain the principles for structuring public
involvement.

   The objective of the public participation and intergovernmental
coordination requirements is to involve the public and government
institutions in the review and revision of existing State water
quality standards in a meaningful  way.  They can make valuable
contributions toward establishing overall  water quality goals and
expectations for the State.   The public and government institutions
also can play a key role in  developing the public support that
will ultimately lead to acceptance and implementation of the stan-
dards and achievement of the national  water quality goal  specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the  Act.

   In providing for public participation and intergovernmental
response, the requirements in 40 CFR Part 105 are applicable.  Such
requirements include but are not limited to the following:

   1.  A notice of the public hearing(s) must be published which
   includes:

      a.  Time and location  of hearing;

      b.  Hearing agenda;

      c.  Notification of the availability of a Fact Sheet as
      required under Part 105.7(f).   The sheet must outline the
      major issues to be discussed,  relevant tentative State staff
      reports on standards,  determinations on proposed revisions,
      and any additional  information the public should be aware
      of prior to the hearing which  is germane to the issues; and

      d.  The location where reports,  documents, and data to be
      discussed at the hearing are available for public inspection.
                              5-24

-------
   2.  Notice of the public hearing must be mailed to interested
   and affected persons and organizations including private and
   government organizations and individuals who have filed with
   the State requesting such notices.  Notice of hearings must
   also be mailed to downstream States and Federal and State
   agencies which are affected or potentially could be affected
   by existing State water quality standards or proposed revisions
   thereto.

The hearing notice(s) should solicit comments and provide oppor-
tunity for public comment.  The State must prepare transcripts of
the hearing(s) or a summary which must be available for inspection
by the Regional Administrator and the public.

   To facilitate EPA review of existing or revised State water
quality standards, States should supply the Agency with any docum-
entation or information on review/revision activities which is
requested.  A central file containing information documenting
review/revision activities should be maintained.  Such a file is
helpful in answering information requests by the Agency and public.

   Documentation may be needed by EPA to assess whether existing
or revised State water quality standards meet the requirements of
the Act.  Examples include the rationale for:

   1.  Why standards for a segment were not revised;

   2.  Why a particular criterion was not adopted; or

   3.  Why data or other information was or was not considered in
   reviewing or revising State water quality standards.

D.  Submittal of State Adopted Revisions

   The Governor or his designee should submit to the Regional
Administrator three copies of revisions to State water quality
standards which are adopted.  The submittal should also include
the following information which will be helpful in reviewing the
revisions and determining whether the revisions meet the require-
ments of the Act:

   1.  A statement by the State Attorney General or other appropriate
   legal authority within the State that the revised water quality
                              5-25

-------
     standards were duly adopted by the State and are included
     within State law.   (Note that standards  are an element of the
     State WQM plan and regulatory programs  implementing  the plan
     must assure that water quality standards are met (see 40 CFR
     Part 130).   It is  through these regulatory mechanisms that
     standards are enforced under State law.)

     2.   The identification of specific water segments which have
     water uses  in the  revised water quality  standards which are at
     the national water quality goal levels or which are  less
     restrictive than the national  water quality goal uses.

          A "less restrictive use" for the purpose of Part 120 is a
     use which requires a lower level of water quality to be main-
     tained and protected.

     3.   The identification of the specific water segments which have
     water uses in the  revised water quality  standards that have
     been upgraded.

     4.   The identification of the specific water segments which
     have water uses in the revised water quality standards which
     are more restrictive than the existing  designated beneficial
     water uses.

     5.   Identification of specific water segments with revised
     standards which have less stringent water quality criteria than
     those criteria contained in the Administrator's Quality Criteria
     for Water document for the appropriate  use or water conditions.

     6.   A summary of the intergovernmental  coordination  and public
     participation which transpired in the development and adoption
     of the revised water quality standards.   The summary should
     include a discussion of the important comments received.  When
     requested by the Regional Administrator, the State should also
     submit its rationale for adopting the revised water quality
     standards.

          The rationale often may be an important factor in determining
     whether to approve or disapprove a revision.  The Regional
     Administrator can request the rationale  for the revisions
     actually adopted as well as for the rejection of other alternatives
     considered.

E.   EPA Review, Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation

     The Regional Administrator must review the revised water quality
standards and approve or disapprove the revision.  A standard is
revised only where there has been a substantive change in that


                         5-26

-------
standard.  Where the changes are not substantive (e.g. changing
the numbering system of a regulation or a document title but not
the content of the standards), 1t is not necessary to approve or
disapprove the change.  Any change, however, should be submitted
to the EPA for a determination as to its substantive nature.
Depending on the nature of a non-substantive change, 40 CFR
Part 120 may have to be corrected to reflect the change.

   1.  Approval

      Revisions to State water quality standards must be approved
   by the Regional Administrator if they meet the requirements of
   the Act and 40 CFR Parts 130 and 120.  When only a portion of
   the revisions submitted meet the requirements of the Act, the
   Regional Administrator can only approve that portion.  The
   Regional Administrator should promptly notify the Governor by
   letter of the approval and forward a copy of the letter to the
   appropriate State agency with any additional information which
   may be helpful in understanding the scope of the approval action
   and in conducting future review/revision activities.

      Where it is evident that the subsequent occurrence of
   particular events could or will result in a failure of the
   approved standards to continue to meet the requirements of the
   Act, those events should be identified in the approval letter
   to facilitate review/revision activities.

      The Regional Offices are responsible for preparing the
   Federal Register notice of approval amending 40 CFR Part 120
   and the accompanying action memorandum.  The notice should
   contain a description of the State water quality standards as
   they are affected by the approved revisions.  The notice must
   reference the documents containing the approved State water
   quality standards, give the dates of adoption and approval, and
   include the text of any previous promulgation actions.

      The Regional Offices must forward the notice and memorandum
   to the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and
   Standards (WH-551) for format review.  The notice will then be
   transmitted to the Federal Register by the Assistant Adminis-
   trator for Water and Hazardous Materials.  With the submittal,
   the Regional Offices must also forward a copy of each of the
   following:

      .  The letter from the appropriate State authority certifying
      that the standards were duly adopted and are included within
      State law;
                             5-27

-------
    .  The letter transmitting the revisions from the State to
    EPA for approval;

    .  EPA approval  letter; and

    .  Copy of the approved revisions.

2.  Disapproval

    If the Regional  Administrator determines that the revisions
submitted or the existing water quality standards themselves are
not consistent with or do not meet the requirements of the Act,
the Regional Administrator must disapprove such standards by
notifying the Governor of the State by letter of that fact.
The letter must state the reason that the revision submitted
or the existing water quality standards are not consistent with
the Act and the specific revisions to State water quality stan-
dards which must be adopted to obtain full approval of the
revised standards.  The letter must also notify the Governor
that the Administrator will initiate promulgation proceedings
if the State fails to adopt and submit the necessary revisions
within 90-days after the date of notification.

   A revision whose subject matter is not an acceptable constit-
uent element of State water quality standards (e.g. Grandfather
clause or effluent guideline) and which is not consistent with
the applicable requirements of the Act must be disapproved.
The Regional Administrator must notify the State as required
above stating that such revisions must be deleted from water
quality standards in order to meet the requirements of the Act.
If the deletion is not made, the Administrator must proceed to
promulgate as necessary to supersede the inconsistent revision
(303(c)(4) of the Act).

3.  Promulgation

   Promulgation proceedings are initiated by the preparation
and publication of proposed regulations setting forth revised
State water quality standards.   As soon as possible after the
expiration of the 90 days, proposed revisions should be published
in the Federal Register.  A public hearing(s) must be held on
the proposed standards.  Within 90 days of their proposal,
standards must be promulgated after giving due consideration
to comments received as a result of intergovernmental coordination
and public participation.
                           5-28

-------
   The Regional Office has a major role in promulgating
standards.  They should assist the Administrator by providing
the necessary background information and participating in
public hearings.  They also have primary responsibility for
preparing the notices of proposed and final rulemaking and the
action memoranda.  The documents should be forwarded to the
Deputy Assistant Administrator.

   If a State remedies the deficiencies in State water quality
standards by adopting revised standards which the Regional
Administrator determines meet the requirements of the Act prior
to promulgation, the Administrator will promptly terminate
promulgation proceedings.

4.  Withdrawal Notices

   A.  Proposed Rulemaking

       Whenever promulgation proceedings are terminated a notice
   of withdrawal of the proposed rulemaking must be published
   in the Federal Register.  The Regional Offices are respon-
   sible for preparing the notice for the Administrator's
   signature as well as the action memorandum.  Both documents
   should be forwarded to the Deputy Assistant Administrator.

   B.  Disapproval

       Water quality standards submitted for approval must
   either be approved or disapproved.  Disapproval must be
   followed by an EPA promulgation.  Whenever a disapproval is
   not followed by promulgation, the disapproval should be with-
   drawn by the Agency.  Where the withdrawal pertained to a
   disapproval of revisions submitted for approval, the Regional
   Administrator must promptly approve the revisions.

   C.  Promulgation

       A promulgated standard should be withdrawn when it is
   no longer necessary to assure that State water quality stan-
   dards meet the requirements of the Act.  Withdrawal may be
   desirable for a variety of reasons.  For example:

      .  The State complied fully with a promulgation which
      required it to take a particular action; or
                           5-29

-------
   .  EPA approved revisions to State water quality standards
   where the revisions  included the substantive content of  a
   previous promulgation.

In such a situation,  the  Regional  Offices should prepare the
notice of withdrawal  for  the Administrator's signature and  the
action memorandum.  The documents  should be forwarded to the
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
                        5-30
                                       U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1976 O - 209-934

-------