UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue. Suite 900 Seattle. WA 98101-3140

January 17,2012

Me Kelly Susewind Me Jim Pendowski Washington Department ofEcology Washington Department ofEcology Water Quality Program Manager· Toxies Cleanup Program Manager

Comments submittedelectronically to fishconsumption@ecv.wa.gov
Re: Comments on Ecology's 

### Fish Consumption Rates Technical SupportDocwnent
DearMr. Susewind & Mr. Pendowski: This letterprovides the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) general comments on the Washington Department ofEcology's (Ecology's) process to undergorevisions to the state's fish consumption rate. Ecology has initiated this evaluation through the release ofa draft repOlt titled, 

### Fish Consumption Rates Technical SupportDocument: A

### Revie}v**(~lDat(/** 

### andb{/rmnation AboutFish Consumption in Washington dated September 2011 and a request for public comments byJanuary 18,2012 on the draft document.
EPA would like to thank Ecology for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft document. This document provides a strong framework for your upcoming process to choose a fish consumption rate that more accurately reflects the fish and shellfish consumed by people in Washington. In turn, this rate may be used to adoptcriteria that protect the health ofthose consumers. You and your staffshould be commended for the quality, substance and readability ofthe document. Defining appropriate fish consumption rates are critical to adopting waterquality standards that ensure adequate human health protection. In Washington, this analysis affects future revisions to the state's Surface Water Quality Standards (WQS) at WAC 173-201A and Sediment Management Standards (SMS) at WAC 173-204 since both will involve protection ofhuman health from toxic substances through criteriaderived using a fish consumption rate. We look forward to ourcontinued work with you throughout your revision processes to ensure that the criteria can be approved under the Clean Water Act. Ecology currently recognizes two separate default fish consumption rates used to establish regulatory requirements:• Forcleanup actions, the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Cleanup Regulations includes a default fish consumption rate of

### 54 grams perday. The SMS currentlydo not have numeric human health criteria, but instead relyon 

### a narrative statement. (Ecology expects that upcoming revisions to the SMS will utilize a fish consumption rate to calculate numeric human health criteria.)

• Forwaterquality standards, the Surface Water Quality Standards are based on the National Toxics Rule (NTR) which sets water quality standards for human health criteria based on a fish consumption rate of6.5 grams per day.
The waterquality standards regulation at 40C.F.R. 131.11(a) requires stares to adopt water quality criteria to protect all designated uses. Such criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters orconstituents to protect the designated use. In 

### 2000, EPA updated its methodologyfor deriving human health criteria 

### (2000 Methodology). I In that document EPA urges states and tribes to use a fish intake level derived from local or regional data. Consideration oflocal data is important to ensure protection ofthe local populations, especially when that population includes subpopulations that eat larger quantities of fish and shellfish. A four preference hierarchy concerning the use offish consumptionrate data is setforth: (1) use oflocal data; (2) use ofdatareflecting similar geography/population groups; (3) use ofdata from national surveys; and (4) use ofEPA's default intake rate of 17.5 grams per day ifno'state/site-specific information is available. Washington's human health criteria were issued by EPA in 1992 and derived using a fish consumption rate of6.5 grams perday. As identified in yourdraft document, several studies of Northwest populations indicate that this rate is not reflective ofthe amount offish and shellfish consumedby some in the state ofWashington. Therefore, it is appropriate and consistent with EPA guidance for Ecologytoexamine the current science to determine an appropriate fish consumption rate to use for deriving criteriaprotective ofthe state's designated uses. EPA recognizes that Ecology has begun this process in the draft Fish Consumption Rates Technical SlIpport DoclIment and believes it is important for you to Lise the recommendations presented in this document along with the comments received to determine an appropriate rate to use in deriving the human health criteria in your SMS and WQS.
In the draft Fish ConsumptionR([{es Technical Sllpport Document 

### a preliminary recommendation for arevised fish consumption rate in the range of 157 to 267 grams perday is proposed for lise in the state'sregulations. This range is primarily basedon Ecology's evaluation offour studies:

• A Fish Consumption Surve.v**(~fthe** Umatilla. Nez. Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes ofthe ColumhiaRiverBasin (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 1994). • A Fish Consllmption Survey of the Tula/ip andSqlltlxin Island Trihes ofthe PugetSound Region (Toy et aI., 1996).

I EPA. 2000. Methodologyji)1'Deril';lIgAmbient Water Quality Criteria/iJrthe Protection O/'HlIIIIClIl Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofWater. Washington. D.C. EPA-822-8-00-004. Availahle at:


### 2

### • Fish Consumption Survey**(~f**

### tile Suquamish Indian Tribe 

### (dthe PortMadison Indian Reservations, PugetSoundRegion (Suquamish Tribe, 2000).


### • Asian andPac{tic [slanderSeafood Consllmption Study (Sechenaet a!., 1999).
To reiterate, EPAbelieves the approach for developing a revised fish consumption rate should be based on current scientific information and local/regional data. The initial approach put forth in the draft report is aligned with this thinking. While we understand the need for continued coordination with your stakeholders and the Tribes, we encourage you to quickly incorporate this information into your rulemaking process and move forward with adopting revised criteria.
EPA is aware that Ecology has been following the work previouslycompleted in Oregon to make similarrevisions to theirWQS involving a revised fish consumption rate based on 175 grams perday and associated new and revised implementation tools. The revisions to Oregon's WQS were approved by EPA on October 17, 

### 20II. To avoid duplication ofefforts, we recommend that you continue to consult with the state ofOregon as you move forward.
EPA urges Ecology to continue the process ofrevising Washington's human health criteria in a timely manner. However, EPArecognizes that several key questions still need to be decided. Forexample, Ecology will need to decide on implementation tools in order to put into practice revised human health criteria and Ecology will need to decide ifa consistent number will be chosen for the state's 

### SMS andWQS. Nonetheless, EPA believes the information is currently available to make decisions on these matters and requests Ecology to quickly move through the process necessary to do so. EPAremains committedto working with Ecology, the Tribes and Washington's stakeholders to facilitate the adoption ofwater quality criteria that retlect appropriate fish consumption rates for Washington's waters and are protective ofhuman health. Since this is a priority for EPA Region 10, we are available and willing to workclosely with you throughout yourhuman health criteria update process. EPA greatly appreciates yourengagement on this significant topic. Please feel free to contact me at 

### (206) 553-2724 orhave your staff contact Matthew Szelag at 

### (206) 553-5171 as we continue to move forward on this important effort.

],mnine

# ]e~nings Manager, WQS Unit Office ofWater and Watersheds



### 3