D sr qT ~

s

. . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

<~ y Z REGION 10 uj 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
o ~ Seattle, WA 98101-3140
C P R Ol to\ OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR


### Mr. Ken Kirk JuN ~ 5 

### 2015 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