D srqT

~

s 

. . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

<~ yZ uj REGION 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

o~ Seattle, WA 98101-3140 

C P R Olto\ 

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL 

ADMINISTRATOR 

Mr. Ken Kirk JuN ~ 52015 

Executive Director 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Washington, DC 20036-2505 

Dear Mr. Kirk: 

Thank you for your letter dated May 13, 2015. I appreciate you taking the time to express the National 

Association of Clean Water Agencies' concerns regarding the EPA's interaction with the Washington 

Department of Ecology during the state's process of developing human health water quality criteria and 

associated implementation tools. In particular, you raised concems about the EPA's March 23, 2015, 

letter commenting on Ecology's January 12, 2015, issuance of its proposed rule. 

The EPA routinely works closely with states and tribes as they update their water quality standards, to 

achieve a mutual goal of state and tribal WQS regulations that the EPA can approve as consistent with 

the Clean Water Act and the EPA's regulations. In addition to engaging with states and tribes in public 

forums prior to a WQS rulemaking proposal, the EPA regularly provides written comments to states and 

tribes during public comment periods. The EPA's comments then become part of the public record, 

along with comments from all interested parties who elect to comment on the state or tribe's proposed 

WQS. 

Clarity on the EPA's position, as well as input from the EPA's experts in developing and implementing 

WQS, is essential to help states and tribes achieve successful outcomes after resource-intensive 

rulemaking processes. Indeed, states and tribes repeatedly ask the EPA to clearly identify and articulate 

concerns about rulemaking proposals during the public process. The EPA strives to openly identify any 

potential concerns early enough for a state or tribe to consider whether revisions are appropriate before 

submitting a final rule to the EPA for CWA review. 

The need for candid communication is even more pronounced when the EPA has reason to believe that a 

state or tribe's draft WQS are in need of revision, and to encourage such revisions before the EPA's 

disapproval and promulgation mechanisms in CWA Section 303(c)(4)(B) become necessary. The 

House Committee on Public Works, which repoi -ted the provision that was ultimately enacted at CWA 

Section 303(c)(4)(B), stated that it "expects the Adininistrator to work closely with the State to obtain 

approved standards before he promulgates standards for any waters." H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 105 

(1972). The EPA's intent in writing the March 23, 2015, comment letter to Ecology was to outline 

concerns with the state's rulemaking proposal, including consideration of tribal treaty rights, use of best 

available science, and protection of downstream waters. 

The EPA is very appreciative of the cllallenging work that Ecology has undertaken thus far to adopt 

human health water quality criteria, and remains committed to supporting Ecology's efforts to finalize a 

rule that is protective of human health. 
A~ain, t11 ~lllk yotl for contactlng tlle EPA. If you llave any CIL1CSt10IlS, please feel free to contact Dan 

Opalski, the Dii-ector of our Off ice of Watcr and Waterslleds. You can reacll Dan by phone at (206) 553- 

1855 or by email at opalski.dan@epa.bov. 

Sincerely, ~ 

Dennis J. McLerran 

Regional Administrator 

cc: Ms. Maia Bellon, Director, Wasliington Departinent of Ecology 

Mr. Robci-t Duff, Setlior Policy Advisor, Governor liislee's Office