S 

### UNITED 

## STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

## AGENCY 7 REGION 10 

### z 0 1200 Sixth 

### Avenue Suite 

### 900

cr Seattle

# WA 981013140 OFFICEOF THE REGIONAL 

## c< L PROlt ADMINISTRATOR A 

### JUL 1 2014 

## The Honorable 

## Doug Ericksen 

### Energy Environment and Telecommunications CommitteeChair 

### Washington State Senate Post Office 

## Box40442 

## OlympiaWashington 

## 985040442
Dear Senator 

### Ericksen
Thank you for

### your letter dated 

## May28 2014 I appreciate 

### yourtaking the 

### time to follow 

### up with 

## me about the 

### Department ofEcologys ongoing rulemaking process to adopt 

## human health criteria into 

### Washingtons water quality standards 

### The

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency is very appreciative ofthe challenging 

## work that 

### Ecology has undertaken thus farto adopt 

## human health water quality criteria 

### which has included a robust public process and a detailed 

### review ofthe 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

## myresponse to 

### your questions 

## As you 

## maybe

## aware water quality criteria 

### must protect applicable designated uses 

### and be based 

### on sound scientific rationale 

## see 40 

## CFR §

# 13111a In discussions with 

### Ecologyand other interested parties the 

## EPA has 

### acknowledged the language in its national guidance forderiving 

### ambient water quality criteria to protect 

## human health 

# EPAs 2000 

## Human Health 

## Methodology regarding state adoption 

### ofwater quality criteria for carcinogens 

### The Methodology identifies 

## some flexibility in choosing cancer risk levels 

### below Washingtons current ten to the 

### minus six

# 106 level 

### ofprotection 

### Atthe 

### sametimethe 

## 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 forjustifying the input parameters used to calculate the criteria ensuring thatthey 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 

### ofdetails are important elements implicit in

# myApril 

## 24 2014 response to

## you where I indicated that the 

## EPAmust ensure that the 

## human health criteria that 

### Washington adopts are protective 

### ofapplicable designated uses 

### and based on a 

### sound scientific rationale 

### Regarding the specific issue

### ofwater quality criteria to limit 

### exposure to cancer 

### causing pollutants I 

### have recommended that 

### Ecology retain theircurrent 

### statewide cancer risk level 

### of

## 106 which is 

### used toderive 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 

### bythe 

## 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 

### rulemakingprocess 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 orappropriate for

### Washington to reduce the level 

### ofcancer risk protection for the entire State a level that has 

### been in effect for

### morethan 

### twenty years 

## Second if 

### Washington reduces the level 

### ofcancer 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 

### ofcancer risk protection raises environmental justice 

### concerns which are a significant consideration in the

# EPAs review ofthe 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 

## manyofthe tribes this 

### approach to the cancer risk level 

### would not

### advance environmental orpublic 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 tojoin 

### 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 

### ofa 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 

### ofprotection 

### from cancer

### causing pollutants while giving industrytime to 

### complywith 

### morestringent 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

### yourfollowup inquiry If

### you have any questions please feel free to contact 

## me or 

### have your staffcontact 

## Dan Opalski the Director 

### ofthe Office 

### ofWater 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 ofEcology