S

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

7 z REGION 10 0

1200 Sixth Avenue Suite 900

cr Seattle WA 981013140 OFFICE OF THE

REGIONAL

c< L PROlt ADMINISTRATOR A

JUL 1 2014

The Honorable Doug Ericksen

Energy Environment and Telecommunications Committee Chair

Washington State Senate

Post Office Box 40442

Olympia Washington 985040442

Dear Senator Ericksen

Thank you for your letter dated May 28 2014 I appreciate your taking the time to follow up with me

about the Department of Ecologys ongoing rulemaking process to adopt human health criteria into

Washingtons water quality standards The US Environmental Protection Agency is very appreciative

of the challenging work that Ecology has undertaken thus far to adopt human health water quality

criteria which has included a robust public process and a detailed review of the factors used to derive

human health criteria including scientifically sound regional and local fish consumption data Your

letter asks three related questions about the EPAs communications regarding the cancer risk level that

Ecology may use to derive human health criteria for carcinogens Below is my response to your

questions

As you may be aware water quality criteria must protect applicable designated uses and be based on

sound scientific rationale see 40 CFR § 13111a In discussions with Ecology and other interested

parties the EPA has acknowledged the language in its national guidance for deriving ambient water

quality criteria to protect human health EPAs 2000 Human Health Methodology regarding state

adoption of water quality criteria for carcinogens The Methodology identifies some flexibility in

choosing cancer risk levels below Washingtons current ten to the minus six 106 level of protection

At the same time the EPA recognizes that the Methodology encourages the consideration of local and

regional data when available and that other important principles such as environmental justice and

treaty rights need to be considered in decisions by the states and the EPA on water quality standards

including risk levels

When reviewing the States adopted human health water quality criteria the EPA will consider

Ecologys basis for justifying the input parameters used to calculate the criteria ensuring that they are

consistent with the best available science and a sound scientific rationale In addition the EPA has

communicated to Ecology that we will need to review the States entire final water quality standards

submittal to better understand Ecologys overall plan to reduce toxic pollutants in the environment

before determining what Clean Water Act action we will take These types of details are important

elements implicit in my April 24 2014 response to you where I indicated that the EPA must ensure that

the human health criteria that Washington adopts are protective of applicable designated uses and based

on a sound scientific rationale

Regarding the specific issue of water quality criteria to limit exposure to cancer causing pollutants I

have recommended that Ecology retain their current statewide cancer risk level of 106 which is used to

EPA004147
derive the States human health criteria There are several reasons why I would like Ecology to maintain

their cancer risk level of 106

First Washingtons risk based criteria for carcinogenic substances were derived by the EPA under the

National Toxics Rule using a cancer risk level of 106 pursuant to Washingtons decision to select that

risk level In the current human health criteria rulemaking process Ecology has stated a desire to better

protect higher fish consumers in Washington It is not clear why in developing human health criteria to

protect higher fish consumers it is necessary or appropriate for Washington to reduce the level of cancer

risk protection for the entire State a level that has been in effect for more than twenty years

Second if Washington reduces the level of cancer risk protection from the current level of 106 tribes

certain lowincome minority communities and other high fish consuming groups could be provided less

protection than they have now Thus a reduction in the level of cancer risk protection raises

environmental justice concerns which are a significant consideration in the EPAs review of the States

overall submittal Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and the EPAs environmental justice policy

and guidance documents such as the EJ Legal Tools document issued in December 2011 the EPA

incorporates environmental justice considerations into its decision making Notably with respect to

many of the tribes this approach to the cancer risk level would not advance environmental or public

health protections consistent with their treaty reserved right to harvest and eat fish and shellfish

Third in order to protect downstream waters consistent with the EPAs regulations at 40 CFR 13110b

I support regional consistency among Region 10 states and authorized tribes particularly when there are

similarities in pollutants and associated environmental and human health risks In line with that I

believe this is an opportunity for Washington to join Oregon as a national environmental leader in

setting human health criteria that protect the designated uses and reflect the best available regional and

local data Seizing that opportunity will involve thoughtful selection of a cancer risk level that protects

not only the States general population but its most vulnerable populations

firmly believe that there is a way for Ecology to adopt a water quality standards package that retains

the States current 106 level of protection from cancer causing pollutants while giving industry time to

comply with more stringent water quality criteria through implementation tools such as compliance

schedules and variances I think this approach could support a thriving economy while protecting higher

fish consuming populations

Again thank you for your followup inquiry If you have any questions please feel free to contact me or

have your staff contact Dan Opalski the Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds You can reach

Dan by phone at 206 5531855 or by email at opalskidanepagov

Sincerely

Dennis J Mc erran

Regional Administrator

cc Ms Maia Bellon Director Washington Department of Ecology

EPA004148