Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55063 

Each state worksheet also contains a 

summary showing (1) the quantity of 

allowances initially available in that 

state’s 2015 NUSA, (2) the sum of the 

2015 NUSA allowance allocations that 

were made in the first-round to new 

units in that state (if any), and (3) the 

quantity of allowances in the 2015 

NUSA available for distribution in 

second-round allocations to new units 

(or ultimately for allocation to existing 

units). 

Objections should be strictly limited 

to whether EPA has correctly identified 

the new units eligible for second-round 

2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances according to 

the criteria described above and should 

be emailed to the address identified in 

ADDRESSES. Objections must include: (1) 

Precise identification of the specific 

data the commenter believes are 

inaccurate, (2) new proposed data upon 

which the commenter believes EPA 

should rely instead, and (3) the reasons 

why EPA should rely on the 

commenter’s proposed data and not the 

data referenced in this notice of 

availability. 

Authority: 40 CFR 97.511(b). 

Reid P. Harvey, 

Director, Clean Air Markets Division. 

[FR Doc. 2015–22943 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0174; FRL–9932–03– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF56 

Revision of Certain Federal Water 

Quality Criteria Applicable to 

Washington 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to revise the 

current federal Clean Water Act (CWA) 

human health criteria applicable to 

waters under the state of Washington’s 

jurisdiction to ensure that the criteria 

are set at levels that will adequately 

protect Washington residents, including 

tribes with treaty-protected rights, from 

exposure to toxic pollutants. EPA 

promulgated Washington’s existing 

criteria for the protection of human 

health in 1992 as part of the National 

Toxics Rule (NTR), (amended in 1999 

for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)) 

using the Agency’s recommended 

criteria values at the time. EPA derived 

those criteria using a fish consumption 

rate (FCR) of 6.5 grams per day (g/day) 

based on national surveys. However, the 

best available data now demonstrate 

that fish consumers in Washington, 

including tribes with treaty-protected 

rights, consume much more fish than 

6.5 g/day. There are also new data and 

scientific information available to 

update the toxicity and exposure 

parameters used to calculate human 

health criteria. Therefore, EPA proposes 

to revise the federal human health 

criteria applicable to waters under 

Washington’s jurisdiction to take into 

account the best available science, 

including local and regional 

information, as well as applicable EPA 

policies, guidance, and legal 

requirements, to protect human health. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0174, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica Fleisig, Office of Water, Standards 

and Health Protection Division (4305T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

566–1057; email address: fleisig.erica@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

II. Background 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

B. General Recommended Approach for 

Deriving Human Health Criteria 

III. Necessity Determination for Washington 

A. Existing Criteria Are Not Protective of 

Designated Uses of Waters in the State of 

Washington 

B. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of 

Necessity 

IV. Derivation of Human Health Criteria for 

Washington 

A. Tribal Reserved Fishing Rights and 

Washington’s Designated Uses 

B. Scope of EPA’s Proposal 

C. Washington-Specific Human Health 

Criteria Inputs 

D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for 

Washington 

E. Applicability of Criteria When Final 

F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and 

Implementation Mechanisms 

V. Economic Analysis 

A. Identifying Affected Entities 

B. Method for Estimating Costs 

C. Results 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations) 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

Entities such as industries, 

stormwater management districts, or 

publicly owned treatment works 

(POTWs) that discharge pollutants to 

waters of the United States under the 

state of Washington’s jurisdiction could 

be indirectly affected by this 

rulemaking, because federal water 

quality standards (WQS) promulgated 

by EPA would be applicable to CWA 

regulatory programs, such as National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned 

with water quality in Washington could 

also be interested in this rulemaking. 

Categories and entities that could 

potentially be affected include the 

following: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1USEPA. 2000. Memorandum #WQSP–00–03. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington, DC http://water.epa.gov/

scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2000_10_31_

standards_shellfish.pdf. 

2Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, 

June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 

Updated National Recommended Human Health 

Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/

criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm. 

3Washington adopted criteria for the protection 

of aquatic life from toxic pollutants at WAC 173– 

201A–240. On January 12, 2015, Washington 

proposed statewide human health criteria and new 

and revised implementation provisions. In July 

2015, Governor Inslee directed Washington to 

reconsider its proposed human health criteria and 

implementation tool revisions. See http://

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/

wac173201A/1203ov.html. 

Category Examples of potentially 

affected entities 

Industry .......... Industries discharging pollutants to waters of the 

United States in Washington. 

Municipalities Publicly owned treatment 

works or other facilities 

discharging pollutants to 

waters of the United 

States in Washington. 

Stormwater 

Management 

Districts.

Entities responsible for managing stormwater runoff in 

the state of Washington. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities that could 

be indirectly affected by this action. 

Any parties or entities who depend 

upon or contribute to the water quality 

of Washington’s waters could be 

affected by this proposed rule. To 

determine whether your facility or 

activities could be affected by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

this proposed rule. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

II. Background 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

CWA section 101(a)(2) establishes as 

a national goal ‘‘water quality which 

provides for the protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife, and recreation in and on the 

water, wherever attainable.’’ These are 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘fishable/ 

swimmable’’ goals of the CWA. EPA 

interprets ‘‘fishable’’ uses to include, at 

a minimum, designated uses providing 

for the protection of aquatic 

communities and human health related 

to consumption of fish and shellfish.1

CWA section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 

1313(c)) directs states to adopt WQS for 

their waters subject to the CWA. CWA 

section 303(c)(2)(A) and EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 

131 require, among other things, that a 

state’s WQS specify appropriate 

designated uses of the waters, and water 

quality criteria that protect those uses. 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1) 

provide that such criteria ‘‘must be 

based on sound scientific rationale and 

must contain sufficient parameters or 

constituents to protect the designated 

use.’’ In addition, 40 CFR 131.10(b) 

provides that ‘‘[i]n designating uses of a 

water body and the appropriate criteria 

for those uses, the state shall take into 

consideration the water quality 

standards of downstream waters and 

ensure that its water quality standards 

provide for the attainment and 

maintenance of the water quality 

standards of downstream waters.’’ 

States are required to review 

applicable WQS at least once every 

three years and, if appropriate, revise or 

adopt new standards (CWA section 

303(c)(1)). Any new or revised WQS 

must be submitted to EPA for review 

and approval or disapproval (CWA 

section 303(c)(2)(A) and (c)(3)). CWA 

section 303(c)(4)(B) authorizes the 

Administrator to determine, even in the 

absence of a state submission, that a 

new or revised standard is needed to 

meet CWA requirements. 

Under CWA section 304(a), EPA 

periodically publishes criteria 

recommendations for states to consider 

when adopting water quality criteria for 

particular pollutants to meet the CWA 

section 101(a)(2) goals. In 2015, EPA 

updated its 304(a) recommended criteria 

for human health for 94 pollutants.2

Where EPA has published 

recommended criteria, states should 

consider adopting water quality criteria 

based on EPA’s CWA section 304(a) 

criteria, section 304(a) criteria modified 

to reflect site-specific conditions, or 

other scientifically defensible methods 

(40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)). Ultimately, 

however, criteria must protect the 

designated use and be based on sound 

scientific rationale (40 CFR 

131.11(a)(1)). CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) 

requires states to adopt numeric criteria 

for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to 

CWA section 307(a)(1) for which EPA 

has published 304(a) criteria, as 

necessary to support the states’ 

designated uses. 

In 1992, EPA promulgated the NTR at 

40 CFR 131.36, establishing chemicalspecific, numeric criteria for 85 priority 

toxic pollutants for 14 states and 

territories (states), including 

Washington, that were not in 

compliance with the requirements of 

CWA section 303(c)(2)(B). When states 

covered by the NTR subsequently 

adopted their own criteria for toxic 

pollutants that EPA approved as 

consistent with the CWA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations, EPA 

amended the NTR to remove those 

states. Half of the original 14 states and 

territories remain covered for one or 

more criteria in the NTR. Washington 

has not yet adopted its own criteria for 

the protection of human health and, 

therefore, the Federal human health 

criteria that EPA promulgated in the 

NTR remain applicable to waters 

throughout the state.3

B. General Recommended Approach for 

Deriving Human Health Criteria 

Human health criteria are designed to 

minimize the risk of adverse cancer and 

non-cancer effects occurring from 

lifetime exposure to pollutants through 

the ingestion of drinking water and 

consumption of fish/shellfish obtained 

from inland and nearshore waters. 

EPA’s practice is to establish a human 

health 304(a) criterion for both drinking 

water and consumption of fish/shellfish 

from inland and nearshore waters 

combined and a separate human health 

criterion based on ingestion of fish/

shellfish from inland and nearshore 

waters alone. This latter criterion 

applies in cases where the designated 

uses of a waterbody include supporting 

fish/shellfish for human consumption 

but not drinking water supply sources 

(e.g., in non-potable estuarine waters). 

The criteria are based on two types of 

biological endpoints: (1) Carcinogenicity 

and (2) systemic toxicity (i.e., all 

adverse effects other than cancer). EPA 

takes an integrated approach and 

considers both cancer and non-cancer 

effects when deriving human health 

criteria. Where sufficient data are 

available, EPA derives criteria using 

both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic 

toxicity endpoints and recommends the 

lower value. Human health criteria for 

carcinogenic effects are calculated using 

the following input parameters: Cancer 

slope factor, cancer risk level, body 

weight, drinking water intake rate, fish 

consumption rate, and a 

bioaccumulation factor(s). Human 

health criteria for non-carcinogenic and 

nonlinear carcinogenic effects are 

calculated using a reference dose in 

place of a cancer slope factor and cancer 

risk level, as well as a relative source 

contribution (RSC), which is intended to 

ensure that an individual’s total 

exposure from all sources does not 

exceed the criteria. Each of these inputs 

is discussed in more detail below and in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55065 

4USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA– 

822–B–00–004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/

criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf. 

5As noted above, EPA recommends the criteria 

derived for non-carcinogenic effects if it is more 

protective (lower) than that derived for carcinogenic 

effects. 

6EPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology also 

states: ‘‘Criteria based on a 10¥5 risk level are 

acceptable for the general population as long as 

states and authorized tribes ensure that the risk to 

more highly exposed subgroups (sport fishers or 

subsistence fishers) does not exceed the 10¥4

level.’’ Since EPA is proposing criteria to protect 

the target general population in Washington (tribes 

with reserved rights in Washington waters), the 

applicable EPA-recommended cancer risk levels are 

those for the general population. See section IV for 

additional discussion. 

7USEPA. Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Research and Development, Washington, 

DC. www.epa.gov/iris. 

8Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, 

June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 

Updated National Recommended Human Health 

Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/

criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm. 

9USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA– 

822–B–00–004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/

criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf. 

10Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, 

June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 

Updated National Recommended Human Health 

Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/

criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm. 

11USEPA. 2011. EPA Exposure Factors 

Handbook. 2011 edition (EPA 600/R–090/052F). 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252. 

12USEPA. 2014. Estimated Fish Consumption 

Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected 

Subpopulations (NHANES 2003–2010). United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, USA. EPA 820–R–14–002. 

13EPA’s national FCR is based on the total rate 

of consumption of fish and shellfish from inland 

and nearshore waters (including fish and shellfish 

from local, commercial, aquaculture, interstate, and 

international sources). This is consistent with a 

principle that each state does its share to protect 

people who consume fish and shellfish that 

originate from multiple jurisdictions. USEPA. 

January 2013. Human Health Ambient Water 

Quality Criteria and Fish Consumption Rates: 

Frequently Asked Questions. http://water.epa.gov/

scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/

methodology/upload/hhfaqs.pdf. 

14USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA– 

822–B–00–004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/

criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf. 

15USEPA. January 2013. Human Health Ambient 

Water Quality Criteria and Fish Consumption Rates: 

Frequently Asked Questions. http://water.epa.gov/

scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/

methodology/upload/hhfaqs.pdf. 

EPA’s 2000 Human Health 

Methodology.4

a. Cancer Risk Level 

EPA’s 304(a) national recommended 

human health criteria generally assume 

that carcinogenicity is a ‘‘non-threshold 

phenomenon,’’ which means that there 

are no ‘‘safe’’ or ‘‘no-effect’’ levels 

because even extremely small doses are 

assumed to cause a finite increase in the 

incidence of cancer. Therefore, EPA 

calculates 304(a) human health criteria 

for carcinogenic effects as pollutant 

concentrations corresponding to lifetime 

increases in the risk of developing 

cancer.5 EPA calculates its 304(a) 

human health criteria values at a 10¥6

(one in one million) cancer risk level 

and recommends cancer risk levels of 

10¥6 or 10¥5 (one in one hundred 

thousand) for the general population.6

EPA notes that states and authorized 

tribes can also choose a more stringent 

risk level, such as 10¥7 (one in ten 

million), when deriving human health 

criteria. 

If the pollutant is not considered to 

have the potential for causing cancer in 

humans (i.e., systemic toxicants), EPA 

assumes that the pollutant has a 

threshold below which a physiological 

mechanism exists within living 

organisms to avoid or overcome the 

adverse effects of the pollutant. 

b. Cancer Slope Factor and Reference 

Dose 

A dose-response assessment is 

required to understand the quantitative 

relationships between the amount of 

exposure to a pollutant and the onset of 

human health effects. EPA evaluates 

dose-response relationships derived 

from animal toxicity and human 

epidemiological studies to derive doseresponse metrics for regulatory 

purposes. To evaluate carcinogenic 

effects, the dose-response metric used to 

characterize a chemical’s human cancercausing potential is referred to as a 

cancer slope factor (CSF). For noncarcinogenic effects, EPA uses the 

reference dose (RfD) to calculate human 

health criteria. Doses that are below the 

RfD are less likely to be associated with 

health risks. EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) 7 was the 

primary source of toxicity values (i.e., 

RfD and CSF) for EPA’s 2015 updated 

304(a) human health criteria.8 For some 

pollutants, however, more recent peerreviewed and publicly available 

toxicological data were available from 

other EPA program offices (e.g., Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Office of Water, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response), other national and 

international programs, and state 

programs. 

c. Exposure Assumptions 

Per EPA’s latest 304(a) national 

human health criteria, EPA uses a 

default drinking water intake rate of 2.4 

liters per day (L/day) and default rate of 

22 g/day for consumption of fish and 

shellfish from inland and nearshore 

waters, multiplied by pollutant-specific 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) to 

account for the amount of the pollutant 

in the edible portions of the ingested 

species. EPA’s methodology for deriving 

human health criteria emphasizes using, 

when possible, measured or estimated 

BAFs, which account for chemical 

accumulation in aquatic organisms from 

all potential exposure routes.9 In the 

2015 national 304(a) human health 

criteria update, EPA primarily used 

field-measured BAFs and laboratorymeasured bioconcentration factors 

(BCFs) available from peer-reviewed, 

publicly available databases to develop 

national BAFs for three trophic levels of 

fish.10 If this information was not 

available, EPA selected octanol-water 

partition coefficients (Kow values) from 

peer-reviewed sources for use in 

calculating national BAFs. 

EPA’s national default drinking water 

intake rate of 2.4 L/day represents the 

per capita estimate of combined direct 

and indirect community water ingestion 

at the 90th percentile for adults ages 21 

and older.11 EPA’s national FCR of 22 g/ 

day represents the 90th percentile 

consumption rate of fish and shellfish 

from inland and nearshore waters for 

the U.S. adult population 21 years of age 

and older, based on National Health and 

Nutrient Examination Survey 

(NHANES) data from 2003 to 2010.12 13

EPA calculates human health criteria 

using a default body weight of 80 

kilograms (kg), the average weight of a 

U.S. adult age 21 and older, based on 

NHANES data from 1999 to 2006. 

Although EPA uses these values to 

calculate national 304(a) recommended 

criteria, EPA’s methodology notes a 

preference for the use of local data to 

calculate human health criteria (e.g., 

locally derived FCRs, drinking water 

intake rates and body weights, and 

waterbody-specific bioaccumulation 

rates) over national default values, to 

better represent local conditions.14 EPA 

also generally recommends, where 

sufficient data are available, selecting a 

FCR that reflects consumption that is 

not suppressed by fish availability or 

concerns about the safety of available 

fish.15 Deriving criteria using an 

unsuppressed FCR furthers the 

restoration goals of the CWA, and 

ensures protection of human health as 

pollutant levels decrease, fish habitats 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55066 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

16 In addition to treaties, executive orders and 

federal statutes, such as land claim settlement acts, 

could also apply. 

17Cited FCRs are based on total fish consumption 

regardless of source. 

18Historical or heritage FCRs could be of 

relevance to establishing unsuppressed FCRs for 

Washington tribes. Extensively researched 

historical average FCRs for the Columbia River 

Basin Tribes range from 401 to 995 g/day (Craig and 

Hacker (1940) & Hewes (1947); Swindell (1942); 

Marshall (1977); Walker (1967)). More limited 

average historic FCRs for Washington Tribes range 

from 454 to 746 g/day (Hewes 1973). In United 

States v. Washington (1974), the court accepted a 

heritage FCR of 620 g/day. A number of factors 

could cause these FCRs to be underestimates 

(Schalk 1986), including the fact that, with the 

exception of Craig and Hacker (1940), they only 

include consumption of salmon. Upper percentile 

values are not reported in these historical studies 

but would be higher than the reported average 

values. The highest estimated current FCRs in 

Washington come from the Suquamish Tribal 

survey (Suquamish 2000), with a reported FCR as 

high as 1,600 g/day (Table C5). The 95th percentile 

Suquamish FCR is 767 g/day (Ecology 2013). Recent 

publications by Harper and Walker (2015) 

comprehensively summarize and further support 

these heritage and contemporary fish consumption 

rates. 

are restored, and fish availability 

increases. While EPA encourages doing 

so in general, where tribal treaty or 

other reserved fishing rights apply, 

selecting a FCR that reflects 

unsuppressed fish consumption could 

be necessary in order to satisfy such 

rights. If sufficient data regarding 

unsuppressed fish consumption levels 

are unavailable, consultation with tribes 

is important in deciding which fish 

consumption data should be used. See 

section IV.C.a. 

d. Relative Source Contribution 

When deriving human health criteria 

for non-carcinogens and nonlinear 

carcinogens, EPA recommends 

including a RSC factor to account for 

sources of exposure other than drinking 

water and fish and shellfish from inland 

and nearshore waters, so that the 

pollutant effect threshold (i.e., RfD) is 

not apportioned to drinking water and 

fish consumption alone. These other 

exposures include exposure to a 

particular pollutant from ocean fish 

consumption (which is not included in 

EPA’s default national FCR), non-fish 

food consumption (e.g., fruits, 

vegetables, grains, meats, poultry), 

dermal exposure, and respiratory 

exposure. EPA’s guidance includes a 

procedure for determining an 

appropriate RSC for a given pollutant 

ranging in value from 0.2 to 0.8. 

III. Necessity Determination for 

Washington 

A. Existing Criteria Are Not Protective of 

Designated Uses of Waters in the State 

of Washington 

In the NTR, 40 CFR 131.36(d)(14), 

EPA stated that the federal human 

health criteria applied to all waters 

assigned to Washington’s use 

classifications identified at WAC 173– 

201–045, including fish and shellfish, 

fish, water supply (domestic), and 

recreation. As currently defined in 

Washington’s WQS (WAC 173–201A– 

600 and WAC 173–201A–610), the uses 

subject to federal human health criteria 

in Washington include the following: 

Fresh waters—Harvesting (fish 

harvesting), Domestic Water (domestic 

water supply), and Recreational Uses; 

Marine waters—Shellfish Harvesting 

(shellfish—clam, oyster, and mussel— 

harvesting), Harvesting (salmonid and 

other fish harvesting, and crustacean 

and other shellfish—crabs, shrimp, 

scallops, etc.—harvesting), and 

Recreational Uses. 

Per EPA’s regulations at § 131.11(a), 

water quality criteria must contain 

sufficient parameters or constituents to 

protect the designated use, and for 

waters with multiple use designations, 

the criteria must support the most 

sensitive use. In determining whether 

WQS comply with the CWA and EPA’s 

regulations, when setting criteria to 

support the most sensitive use in 

Washington, it is necessary to consider 

other applicable laws, including federal 

treaties.16 In Washington, many tribes 

hold reserved rights to take fish for 

subsistence, ceremonial, religious, and 

commercial purposes, including treatyreserved rights to fish at all usual and 

accustomed fishing grounds and 

stations in waters under state 

jurisdiction, which cover the majority of 

waters in the state. Such rights include 

not only a right to take those fish, but 

necessarily include an attendant right to 

not be exposed to unacceptable health 

risks by consuming those fish. 

In 1992, EPA selected input values 

based on available national data to 

derive protective human health criteria 

in the NTR. To ensure protection of 

human health in waters where fish and 

shellfish are caught and consumed, EPA 

used data available at the time on the 

average per-capita consumption rate of 

fish from inland and nearshore waters 

for the U.S. population. This average 

rate was 6.5 g/day. 

Surveys of local residents in the 

Pacific Northwest, including tribes and 

recreational anglers, reflect high 

consumption levels of fish and 

shellfish—much higher than the 6.5 g/ 

day rate that EPA used in 1992 to derive 

Washington’s human health criteria in 

the NTR. Since that time, data have 

become available that better represent 

regional and local fish consumption in 

Washington, including: 

• A Fish Consumption Survey of the 

Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and 

Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia 

River Basin (Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994). 

• A Fish Consumption Survey of the 

Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes of 

the Puget Sound Region (Toy et al., 

1996). 

• Fish Consumption Survey of the 

Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port 

Madison Indian Reservations, Puget 

Sound Region (Suquamish Tribe, 2000). 

• Asian and Pacific Islander Seafood 

Consumption Study (Sechena et al., 

1999). 

The average FCRs 17 from these 

surveys range from 63 to 214 g/day, far 

in excess of 6.5 g/day. The 90th 

percentile FCRs from these surveys 

range from 113 to 489 g/day, also far in 

excess of EPA’s current national FCR of 

22 g/day, which represents the 90th 

percentile national FCR (see section 

II.B.c). The 6.5 g/day FCR that EPA used 

to derive the current human health 

criteria applicable to Washington does 

not account for these more recent local 

data, nor suppression in fish 

consumption (as discussed earlier).18 In 

addition, the 6.5 g/day FCR does not 

account for EPA’s 2000 

recommendation to use an upper 

percentile of fish consumption data for 

the target general population (as with 

EPA’s current national FCR of 22 g/day) 

rather than an average. EPA considered 

the fish consumption data cited above, 

in conjunction with Washington’s 

current designated uses as informed by 

tribal reserved rights in Washington (as 

discussed in section IV.A), and 

determined that the federal human 

health criteria in the NTR as applied to 

Washington no longer protect the 

relevant designated uses of 

Washington’s waters. 

B. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of 

Necessity 

Because Washington’s existing human 

health criteria, as promulgated by EPA 

in the NTR, are no longer protective of 

the applicable designated uses per the 

CWA and EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

131.11, EPA determines under CWA 

section 303(c)(4)(B) that new or revised 

WQS for the protection of human health 

are necessary to meet the requirements 

of the CWA for Washington. EPA, 

therefore, proposes the revised human 

health criteria for Washington in this 

rule in accordance with this 303(c)(4)(B) 

determination. EPA’s determination is 

not itself a final action, nor part of a 

final action, at this time. After 

consideration of comments on the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55067 

19Note that for formal and informal reservation 

lands, eligible tribes can obtain treatment in a 

similar manner as a state (TAS) status and set their 

own WQS under the CWA, including human health 

criteria. 

20USEPA. 2001. Water Quality Criterion for the 

Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC EPA–823–R–01–001. http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/

criteria/health/upload/2009_01_15_criteria_

methylmercury_mercury-criterion.pdf. 

21See 18 U.S.C. 1151 for definition of Indian 

Country. 22 Indian Country waters with CWA-effective 

WQS are (a) those Indian Country waters where 

EPA explicitly found that a tribe has jurisdiction to 

adopt WQS under the CWA, and where the tribe 

adopted standards in accordance with EPA 

regulations, and (b) where EPA promulgated federal 

WQS. 

23 Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez 

Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the 

Columbia River Basin (Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994) 

proposed rule, EPA will take final 

agency action on this rulemaking. It is 

at that time that any change to the water 

quality standards applicable to 

Washington would occur. 

IV. Derivation of Human Health 

Criteria for Washington 

A. Tribal Reserved Fishing Rights and 

Washington’s Designated Uses 

A majority of waters under 

Washington’s jurisdiction are covered 

by reserved rights, including tribal 

treaty-reserved rights (see section III.A). 

Many areas where reserved rights are 

exercised cannot be directly protected 

or regulated by the tribal governments 

and, therefore, the responsibility falls to 

the state and federal governments to 

ensure their protection.19 In order to 

effectuate and harmonize these reserved 

rights, including treaty rights, with the 

CWA, EPA determined that such rights 

appropriately must be considered when 

determining which criteria are 

necessary to adequately protect 

Washington’s fish and shellfish 

harvesting designated uses (see sections 

IV.C.a and IV.C.b). 

Protecting Washington’s fish and 

shellfish harvesting designated uses, 

which include consumption of such fish 

and shellfish, necessitates protecting the 

population exercising those uses. Where 

a population exercising such uses has a 

legal right to do so, the criteria 

protecting such uses must be consistent 

with such right. Thus, EPA proposes to 

consider the tribal population exercising 

their reserved fishing rights in 

Washington as the target general 

population for the purposes of deriving 

protective criteria that allow the tribes 

to harvest and consume fish consistent 

with their reserved rights. 

Although treaties do not cover all 

waters in Washington, they cover the 

vast majority of the state’s waters. 

Additionally, where treaty and nontreaty reserved rights apply on waters 

downstream of waters without reserved 

fishing rights, upstream WQS must 

provide for the attainment and 

maintenance of downstream WQS in 

accordance with EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 131.10(b). For any remaining 

waters in Washington where reserved 

rights do not apply and that are not 

upstream of waters with such rights or 

waters in Oregon (see section IV.C.a), it 

would be administratively burdensome 

and difficult to implement separate 

criteria because it would create a 

patchwork of protection among these 

areas leading to potential difficulties in 

administering the WQS, NPDES 

permitting, and other programs. In 

addition, delineating the precise 

boundaries could itself be complicated. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to apply these 

criteria to all waters under Washington’s 

jurisdiction. 

B. Scope of EPA’s Proposal 

In 1992, EPA did not establish human 

health criteria in the NTR for some 

priority toxic pollutants for reasons 

articulated in the preamble to the final 

rule at 57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992. 

EPA had no 304(a) recommendations for 

those pollutants at the time. EPA now 

has 304(a) recommendations for 99 

priority toxic pollutants listed pursuant 

to CWA section 307(a)(1) (85 for which 

EPA established criteria in the NTR, 

plus 14 additional pollutants). 

Therefore, EPA proposes to derive 

Washington-specific criteria for all 99 

priority toxic pollutants in this rule. For 

those priority pollutants for which EPA 

does not have 304(a) national 

recommended criteria, and are thus not 

included in this proposed rule, EPA 

expects that Washington will continue 

to apply their existing narrative toxics 

criterion in the state’s WQS at WAC 

173–201A–260(2)(a). 

This rule proposes to change the 

criteria that EPA promulgated for 

Washington in the NTR and establish 

new human health criteria for the 14 

additional chemicals for which EPA 

now has 304(a) recommended criteria: 

Copper, Selenium, Zinc, 1,2- 

Dichloropropane, 1,2-TransDichloroethylene, 2-Chlorophenol, 2,4- 

Dimethylphenol, Acenaphthene, 

Butylbenzyl Phthalate, 2- 

Chloronaphthalene, N-Nitrosodi-nPropylamine, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 3- 

Methyl-4-Chlorophenol, and 1,2,4- 

Trichlorobenzene. Since 1992, EPA 

replaced its recommended human 

health criteria for mercury with a fish 

tissue-based human health criterion for 

methylmercury. EPA proposes to 

replace the criteria for mercury that EPA 

promulgated for Washington in the NTR 

with a methylmercury fish tissue 

criterion, adjusted for the FCR that EPA 

proposes to use to derive human health 

criteria in Washington.20 This proposed 

rule would not change or supersede any 

criteria that EPA previously 

promulgated for other states in the NTR, 

nor does it change any other elements 

of the NTR such as EPA’s original basis 

for promulgation. EPA proposes to 

remove Washington from the NTR at 40 

CFR 131.36 and incorporate the 

Washington-specific criteria proposed 

in this rule into proposed 40 CFR 131.45 

so there is a single comprehensive rule 

for Washington. 

This proposed rule would apply to 

waters under the state of Washington’s 

jurisdiction, and not to waters within 

Indian Country 21, unless otherwise 

specified in federal law. Some waters 

located within Indian Country already 

have CWA-effective human health 

criteria, while others do not.22 Several 

tribes are working with EPA to either 

revise their existing CWA-effective 

WQS, or obtain treatment in a similar 

manner as a state (TAS) status in order 

to adopt their own WQS in the near 

future. EPA will continue to work 

closely with tribes in Washington to 

ensure that they adopt human health 

criteria that are scientifically supported 

and protective of designated uses, in 

accordance with the CWA and EPA’s 

regulations. 

C. Washington-Specific Human Health 

Criteria Inputs 

a. Fish Consumption Rate 

EPA proposes to derive human health 

criteria for Washington using a FCR of 

175 g/day as this FCR accounts for local 

data (consistent with EPA’s 

methodology), reflects input received 

during consultation with tribes, and 

appropriately addresses protection of 

Oregon’s downstream WQS, per EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(b). 

EPA considered the input received 

during consultation with tribes when 

selecting which fish consumption data 

would be used to estimate a FCR for 

calculating human health criteria to 

protect the designated uses. A FCR of 

175 g/day approximates the 95th 

percentile consumption rate of surveyed 

tribal members from the CRITFC 

study.23 Although EPA’s national 

default FCR only includes consumption 

of fish from inland and nearshore 

waters, 175 g/day in this case includes 

anadromous fish, which is appropriate 

given that anadromous species reside in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55068 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

24O’Neill, S.M., and J.E. West. 2009. Marine 

distribution, life history traits, and the 

accumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls in 

Chinook salmon from Puget Sound, Washington. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138: 

616–632. 

O’Neill, S.M., G.M. Ylitalo, J.E. West, J. Bolton, 

C.A. Sloan, and M.M. Krahn. 2006. Regional 

patterns of persistent organic pollutants in five 

Pacific salmon species (Oncorhynchus spp) and 

their contributions to contaminant levels in 

northern and southern resident killer whales 

(Orcinus orca). 2006 Southern Resident Killer 

Whale Symposium, NOAA Fisheries Service 

Northwest Regional Office April 3–5, 2006. Seattle, 

WA. Extended Abstract. 5pp. 

25EPA 2000 Human Health Methodology, pages 

2–6. The Methodology recommends that states set 

human health criteria cancer risk levels for the 

target general population at either 10 5 or 10¥6

(pages 2–6) and also notes that states and 

authorized tribes can always choose a more 

stringent risk level, such as 10 7 (pages 1–12). 

26See Castorina, Rosemary and Tracey J. 

Woodruff. Assessment of Potential Risk Levels 

Associated with the U.S. EPA Reference Values. 

Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 111, No. 

10, page 1318. August 2003. http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241613/

pdf/ehp0111-001318.pdf. 

27USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA– 

822–B–00–004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/

criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf. 

28Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, 

June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 

Updated National Recommended Human Health 

Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/

criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm. 

29Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, 

June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 

Updated National Recommended Human Health 

Washington’s nearshore waters, 

especially Puget Sound, and accumulate 

pollutants discharged to these waters.24

A FCR of 175 g/day, therefore, accounts 

for local fish consumption data. 

Additionally, Oregon, much of which is 

downstream from Washington, used this 

FCR to derive statewide human health 

criteria, which EPA approved in 2011. 

Use of this FCR to derive Washington’s 

criteria should thus help provide for the 

attainment and maintenance of 

downstream WQS in Oregon. 

After consideration of the full range of 

available local fish consumption data 

and after consultation with Washington 

tribes and Columbia River Basin tribes 

in Oregon and Idaho, EPA determined 

that a FCR of 175 g/day very likely does 

not reflect unsuppressed consumption 

rates of tribes within the state (see 

section II.B.c). EPA considered this fact 

as well as tribal input in selecting a 

cancer risk level of 10¥6 to account for 

this uncertainty and ensure that EPA’s 

proposed criteria protect Washington’s 

fishing uses, including the tribes’ 

reserved fishing rights. See discussion 

in section IV.C.b. 

b. Cancer Risk Level 

Based on Washington’s longstanding 

use of a cancer risk level of 10¥6, along 

with EPA’s consideration of tribal 

reserved rights, EPA guidance, and 

downstream protection, EPA proposes 

to derive human health criteria for 

carcinogens in Washington using a 10¥6

cancer risk level. 

To derive final human health criteria 

for each state in the NTR, EPA selected 

a cancer risk level based on each state’s 

policy or practice regarding what risk 

level should be used when regulating 

carcinogens in surface waters. In its 

official comments on EPA’s proposed 

NTR, Washington asked EPA to 

promulgate human health criteria using 

a cancer risk level of 10¥6, stating, ‘‘The 

State of Washington supports adoption 

of a risk level of one in one million for 

carcinogens. If EPA decides to 

promulgate a risk level below one in one 

million, the rule should specifically 

address the issue of multiple 

contaminants so as to better control 

overall site risks.’’ (57 FR 60848, 

December 22, 1992). Accordingly, in the 

NTR, EPA used a cancer risk level of 

10¥6 (one in one million) to derive 

human health criteria for Washington. 

Subsequently, Washington adopted and 

EPA approved a provision in the state’s 

WQS that reads: ‘‘Risk-based criteria for 

carcinogenic substances shall be 

selected such that the upper-bound 

excess cancer risk is less than or equal 

to one in a million’’ (WAC 173–201A– 

240(6)). This provision has been in 

effect in Washington’s WQS since 1993. 

In order to effectuate reserved fishing 

rights, including the rights that federal 

treaties afford to tribes in Washington, 

EPA proposes to derive criteria that will 

protect the tribe’s reserved fishing rights 

in Washington, treating the tribal 

population exercising those rights as the 

target general population (see section 

IV.A). EPA’s selection of a 10¥6 cancer 

risk level for the tribal target general 

population is consistent with EPA’s 

2000 Human Health Methodology, 

which states that when promulgating 

water quality criteria for states and 

tribes, EPA intends to use the 10¥6

level, which reflects an appropriate risk 

for the general population.25 EPA’s 2000 

Human Health Methodology did not 

consider how CWA decisions should 

account for applicable reserved fishing 

rights, including treaty-reserved rights. 

As discussed in section IV.C.a, because 

a FCR of 175 g/day very likely does not 

reflect unsuppressed consumption, 

using a cancer risk level of 10¥6 ensures 

protection of tribal members’ 

unsuppressed consumption. 

Independently, the treaties themselves 

could require higher levels of 

protection. The treaties themselves 

could be interpreted to require a certain 

level of risk; e.g., a de minimis level of 

risk that would most reasonably 

approximate conditions at the time the 

treaties were signed and the fishing 

rights were reserved. In policy 

development regarding management of 

cancer risks, EPA often uses 10¥6 as a 

de minimis risk level.26 In this case, 

EPA considers 10¥6 to be sufficiently 

protective, and the tribes have 

supported this during consultation. 

Finally, many of Washington’s rivers 

are in the Columbia River basin, 

upstream of Oregon’s portion of the 

Columbia River. Oregon’s criteria are 

based on a FCR of 175 g/day and a 

cancer risk level of 10¥6. EPA’s 

proposal to derive human health criteria 

for Washington using a cancer risk level 

of 10¥6 along with a FCR of 175 g/day 

helps ensure that Washington’s criteria 

will provide for the attainment and 

maintenance of Oregon’s downstream 

WQS as required by 40 CFR 131.10(b). 

c. Relative Source Contribution 

EPA recommends using a RSC for 

non-carcinogens and nonlinear 

carcinogens to account for sources of 

exposure other than drinking water and 

consumption of inland and nearshore 

fish and shellfish (see section II.B.d). In 

2015, after evaluating information on 

chemical uses, properties, occurrences, 

releases to the environment and 

regulatory restrictions, EPA developed 

chemical-specific RSCs for noncarcinogens and nonlinear carcinogens 

ranging from 0.2 (20 percent) to 0.8 (80 

percent) following the Exposure 

Decision Tree approach described in 

EPA’s 2000 Human Health 

Methodology.27 28 EPA proposes to use 

these same RSCs to derive human health 

criteria for Washington. Where EPA did 

not update the nationally recommended 

criteria for certain pollutants in 2015, 

EPA proposes to use a RSC of 0.2 to 

derive human health criteria for those 

pollutants in Washington to ensure 

protectiveness. See Table 1, column B2 

for a list of EPA’s proposed RSCs by 

pollutant. 

d. Body Weight 

EPA proposes to calculate human 

health criteria for Washington using a 

body weight of 80 kg, which represents 

the average weight of a U.S. adult. In 

2015, EPA updated its national adult 

body weight to 80 kg based on national 

survey data (see section II.B.c).29 Local 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55069 

Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/

criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm. 

30USEPA Region 10. August 2007. Framework for 

Selecting and Using Tribal Fish and Shellfish 

Consumption Rates for Risk-Based Decision Making 

at CERCLA and RCRA Cleanup Sites in Puget 

Sound and the Strait of Georgia. Appendix B. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/

7780249be8f251538825650f0070bd8b/

e12918970debc8e488256da6005c428e/$FILE/

Tribal%20Shellfish%20Framework.pdf. 

31Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, 

June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 

Updated National Recommended Human Health 

Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/

criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm. 

32Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, 

June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 

Updated National Recommended Human Health 

Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/

criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm. 

33USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA–822– 

B–00–004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/

criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf. 

34 Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez 

Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the 

Columbia River Basin (Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994). 

tribal survey data relevant to 

Washington are consistent with EPA’s 

national adult body weight of 80 kg.30

e. Drinking Water Intake 

EPA proposes to calculate human 

health criteria for Washington using a 

rate of 2.4 L/day. In 2015, EPA updated 

its national default drinking water 

intake rate to 2.4 L/day based on 

national survey data (see section 

II.B.c).31 EPA is not aware of any local 

data applicable to Washington that 

suggest a more appropriate rate. 

f. Pollutant-Specific Reference Doses 

and Cancer Slope Factors 

As part of EPA’s 2015 updates to its 

304(a) recommended human health 

criteria, EPA conducted a systematic 

search of eight peer-reviewed, publicly 

available sources to obtain the most 

current toxicity values for each 

pollutant (RfDs for non-carcinogenic 

effects and CSFs for carcinogenic 

effects).32 EPA proposes to calculate 

human health criteria for Washington 

using the same toxicity values that EPA 

used in its 2015 304(a) criteria updates, 

to ensure that the resulting criteria are 

based on a sound scientific rationale. 

Where EPA did not update criteria for 

certain pollutants in 2015, EPA 

proposes to use the toxicity values that 

the Agency used the last time it updated 

its 304(a) criteria for those pollutants as 

the best available scientific information. 

See Table 1, columns B1 and B3 for a 

list of EPA’s proposed toxicity factors by 

pollutant. 

g. Pollutant-Specific Bioaccumulation 

Factors 

For the 2015 national 304(a) human 

health criteria update, EPA estimated 

chemical-specific BAFs using a 

framework for deriving national BAFs 

described in EPA’s 2000 Human Health 

Methodology.33 Because the surveyed 

population upon which the 175 g/day 

FCR is based consumed almost 

exclusively trophic level four fish (i.e., 

predator fish species), EPA proposes to 

apply the trophic level four BAF from 

the 2015 304(a) human health criteria 

updates in conjunction with the 175 g/ 

day FCR, in order to ensure 

protectiveness.34 Where EPA did not 

update criteria for certain pollutants in 

2015, EPA proposes to use the BCFs that 

the Agency used the last time it updated 

its 304(a) criteria for those pollutants as 

the best available scientific information. 

See Table 1, columns B4 and B5 for a 

list of EPA’s proposed bioaccumulation 

factors by pollutant. 

D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for 

Washington 

EPA proposes 195 human health 

criteria for 99 different pollutants (97 

organism-only criteria and 98 waterplus-organism criteria) to protect the 

applicable designated uses of 

Washington’s waters (see Table 1). The 

water-plus-organism criteria in column 

C1 of Table 1 are the applicable criteria 

for any waters that include the Domestic 

Water (domestic water supply) use 

defined in Washington’s WQS (WAC 

173–201A–600). The organism-only 

criteria in column C2 of Table 1 apply 

to waters that do not include the 

Domestic Water (domestic water supply) 

use and that Washington defines at 

WAC 173–201A–600 and 173–201A– 

610 as the following: Fresh waters— 

Harvesting (fish harvesting), and 

Recreational Uses; Marine waters— 

Shellfish Harvesting (shellfish—clam, 

oyster, and mussel—harvesting), 

Harvesting (salmonid and other fish 

harvesting, and crustacean and other 

shellfish—crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.— 

harvesting), and Recreational Uses. 

EPA solicits comment on the criteria, 

the inputs EPA used to derive these 

criteria, and specifically solicits 

additional Washington-specific 

information such as data from local fish 

or drinking water consumption rate 

studies, or bioaccumulation field 

studies from Washington waters. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON

A B C 

Chemical CAS No. 

Cancer 

slope factor, 

CSF 

(per mg/

kg·d) 

Relative 

source 

contribution, 

RSC (¥) 

Reference 

dose, RfD 

(mg/kg·d) 

Bio-accumulation 

factor for trophic 

level 4 

(L/kg tissue) 

Bio-concentration 

factor LI≤(L/kg 

tissue) 

Water & 

organisms 

(μg/L) 

Organisms 

only 

(μg/L) 

(B1) (B2) (B3) (B4) (B5) (C1) (C2) 

1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .................... 71556 .................... 0.20 2 10 ............................ 8,000 20,000 

2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ............. 79345 0.2 .................... .................... 8.4 ............................ 0.1 0.3 

3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane .................... 79005 0.057 .................... .................... 8.9 ............................ 0.35 0.90 

4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene ..................... 75354 .................... 0.20 0.05 2.6 ............................ 300 2,000 

5. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ................. 120821 0.029 .................... .................... 430 ............................ 0.036 0.037 

6. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ..................... 95501 .................... 0.20 0.3 82 ............................ 300 300 

7. 1,2-Dichloroethane ........................ 107062 0.0033 .................... .................... 1.9 ............................ 8.9 73 

8. 1,2-Dichloropropane ...................... 78875 0.036 .................... .................... 3.9 ............................ 0.72 3.3 

9. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine .................. 122667 0.8 .................... .................... 27 ............................ 0.01 0.02 

10. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene ......... 156605 .................... 0.20 0.02 4.7 ............................ 100 400 

11. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ................... 541731 .................... 0.20 0.002 190 ............................ 0.9 1 

12. 1,3-Dichloropropene .................... 542756 0.122 .................... .................... 3.0 ............................ 0.22 1.2 

13. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ................... 106467 .................... 0.20 0.07 84 ............................ 70 80 

14. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) ................ 1746016 156,000 .................... .................... ............................ 5,000 5.8E–10 5.9E–10 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55070 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON—Continued 

A B C 

Chemical CAS No. 

Cancer 

slope factor, 

CSF 

(per mg/

kg·d) 

Relative 

source 

contribution, 

RSC (¥) 

Reference 

dose, RfD 

(mg/kg·d) 

Bio-accumulation 

factor for trophic 

level 4 

(L/kg tissue) 

Bio-concentration 

factor LI≤(L/kg 

tissue) 

Water & 

organisms 

(μg/L) 

Organisms 

only 

(μg/L) 

(B1) (B2) (B3) (B4) (B5) (C1) (C2) 

15. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .................. 88062 0.011 .................... .................... 150 ............................ 0.25 0.28 

16. 2,4-Dichlorophenol ...................... 120832 .................... 0.20 0.003 48 ............................ 4 6 

17. 2,4-Dimethylphenol ..................... 105679 .................... 0.20 0.02 7 ............................ 90 300 

18. 2,4-Dinitrophenol ......................... 51285 .................... 0.20 0.002 ............................ 4.4 10 40 

19. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ........................ 121142 0.667 .................... .................... 3.9 ............................ 0.039 0.18 

20. 2-Chloronaphthalene ................... 91587 .................... 0.80 0.08 240 ............................ 100 100 

21. 2-Chlorophenol ............................ 95578 .................... 0.20 0.005 5.4 ............................ 20 80 

22. 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol .......... 534521 .................... 0.20 0.0003 10 ............................ 1 3 

23. 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ................ 91941 0.45 .................... .................... 69 ............................ 0.012 0.015

24. 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol ............. 59507 .................... 0.20 0.1 39 ............................ 200 200 

25. 4,4′-DDD ..................................... 72548 0.24 .................... .................... 240,000 ............................ 7.9E–06 7.9E–06 

26. 4,4′-DDE ..................................... 72559 0.167 .................... .................... 3,100,000 ............................ 8.8E–07 8.8E–07 

27. 4,4′-DDT ...................................... 50293 0.34 .................... .................... 1,100,000 ............................ 1.2E–06 1.2E–06 

28. Acenaphthene ............................. 83329 .................... 0.20 0.06 ............................ 510 10 10 

29. Acrolein ....................................... 107028 .................... 0.20 0.0005 1.0 ............................ 3 50 

30. Acrylonitrile .................................. 107131 0.54 .................... .................... 1.0 ............................ 0.058 0.85 

31. Aldrin ........................................... 309002 17 .................... .................... 650,000 ............................ 4.1E–08 4.1E–08 

32. alpha-BHC ................................... 319846 6.3 .................... .................... 1,500 ............................ 4.8E–05 4.8E–05 

33. alpha-Endosulfan ........................ 959988 .................... 0.20 0.006 200 ............................ 3 3 

34. Anthracene .................................. 120127 .................... 0.20 0.3 ............................ 610 40 40 

35. Antimony ..................................... 7440360 .................... 0.20 0.0004 ............................ 1 2.5 37 

36. Arsenic ........................................ 7440382 1.75 .................... .................... ............................ 44 a 0.0045 a 0.0059 

37. Asbestos ..................................... 1332214 .................... .................... .................... ............................ ............................ b 7,000,000 

(fibers/L) 

....................

38. Benzene ...................................... 71432 c 0.055 .................... .................... 5.0 ............................ c 0.44 c 1.7 

39. Benzidine .................................... 92875 230 .................... .................... 1.7 ............................ 0.00013 0.0012 

40. Benzo(a) Anthracene .................. 56553 0.73 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016 

41. Benzo(a) Pyrene ......................... 50328 7.3 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 1.6E–05 1.6E–05 

42. Benzo(b) Fluoranthene ............... 205992 0.73 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016 

43. Benzo(k) Fluoranthene ............... 207089 0.073 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.0016 0.0016 

44. beta-BHC .................................... 319857 1.8 .................... .................... 180 ............................ 0.0013 0.0014 

45. beta-Endosulfan .......................... 33213659 .................... 0.20 0.006 130 ............................ 4 4 

46. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether .............. 111444 1.1 .................... .................... 1.7 ............................ 0.027 0.24 

47. *Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) 

Ether .............................................. 108601 .................... 0.20 0.04 10 ............................ 200 400 

48. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate ......... 117817 0.014 .................... .................... ............................ 710 0.045 0.046 

49. Bromoform .................................. 75252 0.0045 .................... .................... 8.5 ............................ 4.6 12 

50. Butylbenzyl Phthalate ................. 85687 0.0019 .................... .................... ............................ 19,000 0.013 0.013 

51. Carbon Tetrachloride .................. 56235 0.07 .................... .................... 14 ............................ 0.2 0.5 

52. Chlordane .................................... 57749 0.35 .................... .................... 60,000 ............................ 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 

53. Chlorobenzene ............................ 108907 .................... 0.20 0.02 22 ............................ 50 80 

54. Chlorodibromomethane ............... 124481 0.04 .................... .................... 5.3 ............................ 0.60 2.2 

55. Chloroform .................................. 67663 .................... 0.20 0.01 3.8 ............................ 50 200 

56. Chrysene ..................................... 218019 0.0073 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.016 0.016 

57. Copper ........................................ 7440508 .................... .................... .................... ............................ ............................ d 1300 ....................

58. Cyanide ....................................... 57125 .................... 0.20 0.0006 ............................ 1 4 50 

59. Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene ............ 53703 7.3 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 1.6E–05 1.6E–05 

60. Dichlorobromomethane ............... 75274 0.034 .................... .................... 4.8 ............................ 0.73 2.8 

61. Dieldrin ........................................ 60571 16 .................... .................... 410,000 ............................ 7.0E–08 7.0E–08 

62. Diethyl Phthalate ......................... 84662 .................... 0.20 0.8 ............................ 920 80 80 

63. Dimethyl Phthalate ...................... 131113 .................... 0.20 10 ............................ 4,000 200 200 

64. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate .................... 84742 .................... 0.20 0.1 ............................ 2,900 3 3 

65. Endosulfan Sulfate ...................... 1031078 .................... 0.20 0.006 140 ............................ 4 4 

66. Endrin .......................................... 72208 .................... 0.80 0.0003 46,000 ............................ 0.002 0.002 

67. Endrin Aldehyde .......................... 7421934 .................... 0.80 0.0003 850 ............................ 0.1 0.1 

68. Ethylbenzene .............................. 100414 .................... 0.20 0.022 160 ............................ 12 13 

69. Fluoranthene ............................... 206440 .................... 0.20 0.04 ............................ 1,500 2 2 

70. Fluorene ...................................... 86737 .................... 0.20 0.04 710 ............................ 5 5 

71. gamma-BHC; Lindane ................ 58899 .................... 0.50 0.0047 2,500 ............................ 0.43 0.43 

72. Heptachlor ................................... 76448 4.1 .................... .................... 330,000 ............................ 3.4E–07 3.4E–07 

73. Heptachlor Epoxide ..................... 1024573 5.5 .................... .................... 35,000 ............................ 2.4E–06 2.4E–06 

74. Hexachlorobenzene .................... 118741 1.02 .................... .................... 90,000 ............................ 5.0E–06 5.0E–06 

75. Hexachlorobutadiene .................. 87683 0.04 .................... .................... 1,100 ............................ 0.01 0.01 

76. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ........ 77474 .................... 0.20 0.006 1,300 ............................ 0.4 0.4 

77. Hexachloroethane ....................... 67721 0.04 .................... .................... 600 ............................ 0.02 0.02 

78. Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene ............. 193395 0.73 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016 

79. Isophorone .................................. 78591 0.00095 .................... .................... 2.4 ............................ 30 200 

80. Methyl Bromide ........................... 74839 .................... 0.20 0.02 1.4 ............................ 100 1,000 

81. Methylene Chloride ..................... 75092 0.002 .................... .................... 1.6 ............................ 10 100 

82. Methylmercury ............................. 22967926 .................... 2.7E–05 0.0001 ............................ ............................ .................... e 0.033 

(mg/kg) 

83. Nickel .......................................... 7440020 .................... 0.20 0.02 ............................ 47 30 39 

84. Nitrobenzene ............................... 98953 .................... 0.20 0.002 3.1 ............................ 10 60 

85. N-Nitrosodimethylamine .............. 62759 51 .................... .................... ............................ 0.026 0.00065 0.34 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55071 

35See also USEPA. 2014. Water Quality 

Standards Handbook—Chapter 5: General Policies. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of 

Water. Washington, D.C. EPA–820–B–14–004. 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/

standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON—Continued 

A B C 

Chemical CAS No. 

Cancer 

slope factor, 

CSF 

(per mg/

kg·d) 

Relative 

source 

contribution, 

RSC (¥) 

Reference 

dose, RfD 

(mg/kg·d) 

Bio-accumulation 

factor for trophic 

level 4 

(L/kg tissue) 

Bio-concentration 

factor LI≤(L/kg 

tissue) 

Water & 

organisms 

(μg/L) 

Organisms 

only 

(μg/L) 

(B1) (B2) (B3) (B4) (B5) (C1) (C2) 

86. N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine .......... 621647 7 .................... .................... ............................ 1.13 0.0044 0.058 

87. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine .............. 86306 0.0049 .................... .................... ............................ 136 0.62 0.69 

88. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ........... 87865 0.4 .................... .................... 520 ............................ 0.002 0.002 

89. Phenol ......................................... 108952 .................... 0.20 0.6 1.9 ............................ 4,000 30,000 

90. Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs) ........................................... .................... 2 .................... .................... ............................ 31,200 f 7.3E–06 f 7.3E–06 

91. Pyrene ......................................... 129000 .................... 0.20 0.03 ............................ 860 3 3 

92. Selenium ..................................... 7782492 .................... 0.20 0.005 ............................ 4.8 25 95 

93. Tetrachloroethylene .................... 127184 0.0021 .................... .................... 76 ............................ 2.4 2.9 

94. Thallium ....................................... 7440280 .................... 0.20 0.000068 ............................ 116 0.048 0.054 

95. Toluene ....................................... 108883 .................... 0.20 0.0097 17 ............................ 29 52 

96. Toxaphene .................................. 8001352 1.1 .................... .................... 6,300 ............................ 6.6E–05 6.6E–05 

97. Trichloroethylene ......................... 79016 0.05 .................... .................... 13 ............................ 0.3 0.7 

98. Vinyl Chloride .............................. 75014 1.5 .................... .................... 1.7 ............................ 0.020 0.18 

99. Zinc ............................................. 7440666 .................... 0.20 0.3 ............................ 47 450 580 

aThis criterion refers to the inorganic form of arsenic only. 

bThis criterion is expressed as fibers per liter (fibers/L). The criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). cEPA’s national 304(a) recommended criteria for benzene use a CSF range of 0.015 to 0.055 per mg/kg-day. EPA proposes to use the higher end of the CSF 

range (0.055 per mg/kg-day) to derive the proposed benzene criteria for Washington. dThe criterion for copper is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CFR 141.80, June 7, 1991). 

eThis criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human 

Health: Methylmercury (EPA–823–R–01–001, January 3, 2001) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in EPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology 

rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in fish tissue rather than in water. fThis criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses). 

* Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether was previously listed as Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether. 

E. Applicability of Criteria When Final 

The EPA does not propose to revise or 

replace any existing criteria (related to 

human health or otherwise) that were 

already adopted and submitted to EPA 

by Washington (and for those adopted 

after May 30, 2000, approved by EPA), 

such as the state’s narrative toxics 

criteria statement at WAC 173–201A– 

260(2)(a). Rather, EPA proposes to 

revise the current federal human health 

criteria applicable to waters in the state 

of Washington, as promulgated in the 

NTR, and establish new criteria for 14 

additional priority pollutants. These 

new and revised human health criteria 

would apply for CWA purposes in 

addition to any existing criteria already 

applicable to Washington’s waters. 

EPA proposes to replicate in 40 CFR 

131.45 the same general rules of 

applicability for human health criteria 

as in 40 CFR 131.36(c), with one 

exception. For waters suitable for the 

establishment of low flow return 

frequencies (i.e., streams and rivers), 

EPA proposes that Washington must not 

use a low flow value below which 

numeric standards can be exceeded that 

is less stringent than the harmonic mean 

flow (a long-term mean flow value 

calculated by dividing the number of 

daily flows analyzed by the sum of the 

reciprocals of those daily flows). Per 65 

FR 66444, November 3, 2000, EPA now 

recommends harmonic mean flow be 

used to implement human health 

criteria for both carcinogens and noncarcinogens.35

Under the CWA, Congress gave states 

primary responsibility for developing 

and adopting WQS for their navigable 

waters (CWA section 303(a)–(c)). 

Although EPA proposes human health 

criteria for Washington to update the 

existing federally promulgated criteria, 

Washington continues to have the 

option to adopt and submit to EPA 

human health criteria for the state’s 

waters consistent with CWA section 

303(c) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA 

encourages Washington to expeditiously 

adopt protective human health criteria. 

Consistent with CWA section 303(c)(4), 

if Washington adopts and submits 

human health criteria and EPA approves 

such criteria before finalizing this 

proposed rule, EPA would not proceed 

with the final rulemaking for those 

waters and/or pollutants for which EPA 

approves Washington’s criteria. 

If EPA finalizes this proposed rule, 

and Washington subsequently adopts 

and submits human health criteria, EPA 

proposes that once EPA approves 

Washington’s WQS, the pollutantspecific or site-specific EPA-approved 

criteria in Washington’s WQS would 

become effective for CWA purposes and 

EPA’s promulgated criteria for those 

pollutants or for that site would no 

longer apply. EPA would still undertake 

a rulemaking to withdraw the federal 

criteria for those pollutants, but any 

delay in that process would not delay 

Washington’s approved criteria from 

becoming the sole applicable criteria for 

CWA purposes. EPA solicits comment 

on this approach. 

F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches 

and Implementation Mechanisms 

Once finalized, Washington will have 

considerable discretion to implement 

these revised federal human health 

criteria through various water quality 

control programs including the NPDES 

program, which limits discharges to 

waters except in compliance with a 

NPDES permit. EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 131.14, once effective, authorize 

states and authorized tribes to adopt 

WQS variances to provide time to 

achieve the applicable WQS. 40 CFR 

part 131 defines WQS variances at 

131.3(o) as time-limited designated uses 

and supporting criteria for a specific 

pollutant(s) or water quality 

parameter(s) that reflect the highest 

attainable conditions during the term of 

the WQS variance. WQS variances 

adopted in accordance with 40 CFR part 

131 allow states and authorized tribes to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55072 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

address water quality challenges in a 

transparent and predictable way. 

Variances help states and authorized 

tribes focus on making incremental 

progress in improving water quality, 

rather than pursuing a downgrade of the 

underlying water quality goals through 

a designated use change, when the 

current designated use is difficult to 

attain. EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

122.47 and 40 CFR 131.15, once 

effective, allow states and authorized 

tribes to include permit compliance 

schedules in their NPDES permits if 

dischargers need additional time to 

meet their water quality based limits 

based on the applicable WQS. EPA’s 

updated regulations at 40 CFR part 131 

also include provisions authorizing the 

use of permit compliance schedules to 

ensure that a decision to allow permit 

compliance schedules includes public 

engagement and transparency. (80 FR 

51022, August 21, 2015). 

40 CFR 131.10 specifies how states 

and authorized tribes establish, modify 

or remove designated uses for their 

waters. 40 CFR 131.11 specifies the 

requirements for establishing criteria to 

protect designated uses, including 

criteria modified to reflect site-specific 

conditions. In the context of this 

rulemaking, a site-specific criterion 

(SSC) is an alternative value to the 

federal human health criteria that would 

be applied on a watershed, area-wide, or 

waterbody-specific basis that meets the 

regulatory test of protecting the 

designated use, being scientifically 

defensible, and ensuring the protection 

and maintenance of downstream WQS. 

A SSC may be more or less stringent 

than the otherwise applicable federal 

criteria. A SSC may be appropriate 

when further scientific data and 

analyses can bring added precision to 

express the concentration of a particular 

pollutant that protects the human 

health-related designated use in a 

particular waterbody. 

EPA does not propose to change any 

of the flexibilities afforded to 

Washington by EPA’s regulations to 

modify or remove designated uses, 

adopt variances, issue compliance 

schedules or establish site-specific 

criteria. Washington may continue to 

use any of these regulatory flexibilities 

when implementing the revised federal 

human health criteria. 

a. Designating Uses 

EPA’s proposed human health criteria 

apply to waters that Washington has 

designated for the following: Fresh 

waters—Harvesting (fish harvesting), 

Domestic Water (domestic water 

supply), and Recreational Uses; Marine 

waters—Shellfish Harvesting 

(shellfish—clam, oyster, and mussel— 

harvesting), Harvesting (salmonid and 

other fish harvesting, and crustacean 

and other shellfish—crabs, shrimp, 

scallops, etc.—harvesting), and 

Recreational Uses (see WAC 173–201A– 

600 and WAC 173–201A–610). If 

Washington removes the Domestic 

Water use but retains any of the other 

above designated uses for any particular 

waterbody ultimately affected by this 

rule, and EPA finds that removal to be 

consistent with CWA section 303(c) and 

EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 

CFR part 131, then the federal organismonly criteria would apply in place of the 

federal water-plus-organism criteria. If 

Washington removes designated uses 

such that none of the above uses apply 

to any particular waterbody ultimately 

affected by this rule and adopts the 

highest attainable use, as defined by 40 

CFR 131.3(m), consistent with 40 CFR 

131.10(g), and EPA finds that removal to 

be consistent with CWA section 303(c) 

and EPA’s implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 131, then the federal human 

health criteria would no longer apply to 

that waterbody. Instead, any criteria 

associated with the newly designated 

highest attainable use would apply to 

that waterbody. 

b. Variances and Compliance Schedules 

EPA is proposing human health 

criteria that apply to use designations 

that Washington has already 

established. Washington has sufficient 

authority to use variances when 

implementing the human health criteria 

as long as such variances are adopted 

consistent with 40 CFR 131.14. 

Washington may use its currently EPAapproved variance procedures with 

respect to a temporary modification of 

its uses as it pertains to any federal 

criteria (see WAC 173–201A–420) when 

adopting such variances. Similarly, 

Washington already has an EPAapproved regulation authorizing the use 

of permit compliance schedules (see 

WAC 173–201A–510), consistent with 

40 CFR 131.15. That state regulation is 

not affected by this rule, and 

Washington is authorized to grant 

compliance schedules, as appropriate, 

based on the federal criteria. 

c. Site-Specific Criteria 

As discussed in section IV.E, EPA 

proposes that once EPA approves 

human health criteria that Washington 

adopts and submits after EPA finalizes 

this proposed rule, the pollutantspecific or site-specific EPA-approved 

criteria in Washington’s WQS would 

become effective for CWA purposes and 

EPA’s promulgated criteria for those 

pollutants or for that site would no 

longer apply. 

V. Economic Analysis 

These WQS may serve as a basis for 

development of NPDES permit limits. 

Washington has NPDES permitting 

authority, and retains considerable 

discretion in implementing standards. 

EPA evaluated the potential costs to 

NPDES dischargers associated with state 

implementation of EPA’s proposed 

criteria. This analysis is documented in 

‘‘Economic Analysis for the Revision of 

Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria 

Applicable to Washington,’’ which can 

be found in the record for this 

rulemaking. 

Any NPDES-permitted facility that 

discharges pollutants for which the 

revised human health criteria are more 

stringent than the applicable aquatic life 

criteria (or for which human health 

criteria are the only applicable criteria) 

could potentially incur compliance 

costs. The types of affected facilities 

could include industrial facilities and 

POTWs discharging wastewater to 

surface waters (i.e., point sources). Once 

in compliance with water quality-based 

effluent limitations (WQBELs) reflective 

of existing federal human health criteria 

applicable to Washington (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘baseline criteria’’), EPA 

expects that dischargers will continue to 

use the same types of controls to come 

into compliance with the revised 

criteria; EPA did not attribute 

compliance with WQBELs reflective of 

baseline criteria to the proposed rule. 

EPA did not fully evaluate the potential 

for costs to nonpoint sources, such as 

agricultural runoff, for this preliminary 

analysis. 

EPA recognizes that the permitting 

authority may require controls for 

nonpoint sources (e.g., agricultural 

runoff). However, it is difficult to model 

and evaluate the potential cost impacts 

of this proposed rule to nonpoint 

sources because they are intermittent, 

variable, and occur under hydrologic or 

climatic conditions associated with 

precipitation events. Also, data on 

instream and discharge levels of the 

pollutants of concern after dischargers 

have implemented controls to meet 

current WQS, total maximum daily 

loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters, or 

other water quality improvement plans, 

are not available. Therefore, trying to 

determine which sources would not 

achieve WQS based on the revised 

human health criteria after complying 

with existing regulations and policies 

may not be possible. 

Finally, legacy contamination (e.g., in 

sediment) may be a source of ongoing 

loading. Atmospheric deposition may 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55073 

36Seven industrial categories (mining, food and 

kindred products, paper and allied products, 

chemicals and allied products, petroleum refining 

and related industries, primary metal industries, 

and transportation and public utilities (except 

POTWs)) and municipal POTWs. 

also contribute loadings of the 

pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury). 

EPA did not estimate sediment 

remediation costs, or air pollution 

controls costs, for this preliminary 

analysis. 

A. Identifying Affected Entities 

EPA identified 406 point source 

facilities that could ultimately be 

affected by this proposed rule. Of these 

potentially affected facilities, 73 are 

major dischargers and 333 are minor 

dischargers. EPA did not include 

general permit facilities in its analysis 

because data for such facilities are 

limited, and flows are usually 

negligible. Of the potentially affected 

facilities, EPA evaluated a sample of 17 

major facilities. Minor facilities are 

unlikely to incur costs as a result of 

implementation of the rule. Minor 

facilities are typically those that 

discharge less than 1 million gallons per 

day (mgd) and do not discharge toxics 

in toxic amounts. Although lower 

human health criteria could potentially 

change this categorization, EPA did not 

have effluent data on toxic pollutants to 

evaluate minor facilities for this 

preliminary analysis. Table 2 

summarizes these potentially affected 

facilities by type and category. 

TABLE 2—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED FACILITIES

Category Minor Major All 

Municipal ...................................................................................................................................... 184 48 232 

Industrial ...................................................................................................................................... 149 25 174 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 333 73 406 

B. Method for Estimating Costs 

EPA evaluated the 2 major municipal 

facilities with design flows greater than 

100 mgd and the largest industrial 

facility, to attempt to capture the 

facilities with the potential for the 

largest costs. For the remaining major 

facilities, EPA evaluated a random 

sample of facilities to represent 

discharger type and category. For all 

sample facilities, EPA evaluated existing 

baseline permit conditions, reasonable 

potential to exceed human health 

criteria based on the proposed rule, and 

potential to exceed projected effluent 

limitations based on the last three years 

of effluent monitoring data (if available). 

In instances of baseline effluent 

limitations not being reflective of 

baseline criteria, EPA estimated baseline 

effluent limitations, compliance actions, 

and costs. In instances of exceedances of 

projected effluent limitations under the 

proposed criteria, EPA determined the 

likely compliance scenarios and costs. 

Only compliance actions and costs that 

would be needed above the baseline 

level of controls are attributable to the 

proposed rule. 

EPA assumed that dischargers will 

pursue the least cost means of 

compliance with WQBELs. Incremental 

compliance actions attributable to the 

proposed rule may include pollution 

prevention, end-of-pipe treatment, and 

alternative compliance mechanisms 

(e.g., variances). EPA annualized capital 

costs, including study (e.g., variance) 

and program (e.g., pollution prevention) 

costs, over 20 years using a 7% discount 

rate to obtain total annual costs per 

facility. For the random sample, EPA 

extrapolated the annualized costs based 

on the sampling weight for each sample 

facility. To obtain an estimate of total 

costs to point sources, EPA added the 

results for the certainty sample to the 

extrapolated random sample costs. 

C. Results 

Based on the results for 17 sample 

facilities across 8 industrial and 

municipal categories,36 EPA estimated a 

total annual cost of approximately $13.0 

million to $13.1 million for all major 

dischargers in the state. The low end of 

the range reflects the assumption that 

the compliance actions will result in 

compliance with projected effluent 

limits through pollution prevention 

programs and end-of-pipe treatment, 

whereas the high scenario reflects the 

assumption that these actions will not 

result in compliance with very low 

limits and dischargers will also need to 

apply for variances. All of the 

incremental costs are attributable to 

industrial dischargers, primarily for 

treatment of arsenic. Overall, 

compliance with revised human health 

criteria for arsenic accounts for 99% of 

the costs, while compliance with 

revised human health criteria for 

mercury accounts for the remaining 1% 

of costs. 

If the revised criteria result in an 

incremental increase in impaired 

waters, resulting in the need for TMDL 

development, there could also be some 

costs to nonpoint sources of pollution. 

Using available ambient monitoring 

data, EPA compared pollutant 

concentrations to the baseline and 

proposed criteria, identifying 

waterbodies that may be incrementally 

impaired (i.e., impaired under the 

proposed criteria but not under the 

baseline). For the 26 parameters and 

stations for which EPA had sufficient 

monitoring data available to evaluate, 

there were 205 impairments under the 

baseline criteria and 254 under the 

proposed criteria, for a total of 49 

potential incremental impairments (or a 

24% increase relative to the baseline; 

including for mercury and DDT). This 

increase indicates the potential for 

nonpoint sources to bear some 

compliance costs, although data are not 

available to estimate the magnitude of 

these costs. The control of nonpoint 

sources such as in the context of a 

TMDL could result in less stringent 

requirements, and thus lower costs, for 

point sources. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

It has been determined that this 

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). The proposed rule 

does not establish any requirements 

directly applicable to regulated entities 

or other sources of toxic pollutants. 

However, these WQS may serve as a 

basis for development of NPDES permit 

limits. Washington has NPDES 

permitting authority, and retains 

considerable discretion in implementing 

standards. In the spirit of Executive 

Order 12866, EPA evaluated the 

potential costs to NPDES dischargers 

associated with state implementation of 

EPA’s proposed criteria. This analysis, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55074 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

37http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/

standards/wqslibrary/approvtable.cfm. 38http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/

34090d07b77d50bd88256b79006529e8/

dd2a4df00fd7ae1a88256e0500680e86!

OpenDocument. Note that this number does not 

include the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, which has federally-promulgated WQS 

from 1989. EPA is currently reviewing the Colville 

Tribe’s application for TAS. 

Economic Analysis for the Revision of 

Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria 

Applicable to Washington, is 

summarized in section V of the 

preamble and is available in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any 

direct new information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. Actions to implement these 

WQS could entail additional paperwork 

burden. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). This action does not include 

any information collection, reporting, or 

record-keeping requirements. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Small 

entities, such as small businesses or 

small governmental jurisdictions, are 

not directly regulated by this rule. This 

proposed rule will thus not impose any 

requirements on small entities. We 

continue to be interested, however, in 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. As 

these water quality criteria are not selfimplementing, EPA’s action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that could significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This rule does not 

alter Washington’s considerable 

discretion in implementing these WQS, 

nor would it preclude Washington from 

adopting WQS that EPA concludes meet 

the requirements of the CWA, either 

before or after promulgation of the final 

rule, which would eliminate the need 

for federal standards. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comments on this 

proposed action from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This action has tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. In the state of 

Washington, there are 29 federally 

recognized Indian tribes. To date, nine 

of these Indian tribes have been 

approved for TAS for CWA sections 303 

and 401.37 Of these nine tribes, seven 

have EPA-approved WQS in their 

respective jurisdictions.38 This rule 

could affect federally recognized Indian 

tribes in Washington because the 

numeric criteria for Washington will 

apply to waters adjacent to (or upstream 

or downstream of) the tribal waters, and 

because the proposed Washington 

criteria are informed by tribal reserved 

rights. Additionally, there are ten 

federally recognized Indian tribes in the 

Columbia River Basin located in the 

states of Oregon and Idaho that this rule 

could affect because their waters could 

affect or be affected by the water quality 

of Washington’s downstream or 

upstream waters. 

EPA consulted with federally 

recognized tribal officials under EPA’s 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian tribes early in 

the process of developing this proposed 

rule to permit them to have meaningful 

and timely input into its development. 

In February and March 2015, EPA held 

tribes-only technical staff and 

leadership consultation sessions to hear 

their views and answer questions of all 

interested tribes on the proposed rule. 

Representatives from approximately 23 

tribes and four tribal consortia 

participated in two leadership meetings 

held in March 2015. EPA and tribes 

have also met regularly since November 

2012 to discuss Washington’s human 

health criteria at both the tribal 

leadership level and technical staff 

level. The tribes have repeatedly asked 

EPA to promulgate federal human 

health criteria for Washington if the 

state did not do so in a timely and 

protective manner. At these meetings, 

the tribes consistently emphasized that 

the human health criteria should be 

derived using at least a minimum FCR 

value of 175 g/day, a cancer risk level 

of 10¥6, and the latest scientific 

information from EPA’s 304(a) 

recommended criteria. EPA considered 

the input received during consultation 

with tribes when developing this 

proposal (see section IV for additional 

discussion of how EPA considered tribal 

input). 

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action do not present 

a disproportionate risk to children. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure. 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations) 

This action will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations. 

Conversely, this action identifies and 

ameliorates disproportionately high and 

adverse human health effects on 

minority populations and low-income 

populations in Washington. EPA 

developed the human health criteria 

included in this proposed rule 

specifically to protect Washington’s 

designated uses, using the most current 

science, including local and regional 

information on fish consumption. 

Applying these criteria to waters in the 

state of Washington will afford a greater 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55075 

level of protection to both human health 

and the environment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Indianslands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

Dated: August 31, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 131 as follows: 

PART 131—WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 131 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

Subpart D—Federally Promulgated 

Water Quality Standards 

§ 131.36 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 131.36, remove paragraph 

(d)(14). 

■ 3. Add § 131.45 to read as follows: 

§ 131.45 Revision of certain Federal water 

quality criteria applicable to Washington. 

(a) Scope. This section promulgates 

human health criteria for priority toxic 

pollutants in surface waters in 

Washington. 

(b) Criteria for priority toxic 

pollutants in Washington. The 

applicable human health criteria are 

shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON

A B C 

Chemical CAS No. 

Cancer 

slope factor, 

CSF 

(per mg/

kg·d) 

Relative 

source contribution, 

RSC (¥) 

Reference 

dose, RfD 

(mg/kg·d) 

Bio-accumulation 

factor for trophic 

level 4 

(L/kg tissue) 

Bio-concentration 

factor 

(L/kg tissue) 

Water & 

organisms 

(μg/L) 

Organisms 

only 

(μg/L) 

(B1) (B2) (B3) (B4) (B5) (C1) (C2) 

1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .................... 71556 .................... 0.20 2 10 ............................ 8,000 20,000 

2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ............. 79345 0.2 .................... .................... 8.4 ............................ 0.1 0.3 

3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane .................... 79005 0.057 .................... .................... 8.9 ............................ 0.35 0.90 

4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene ..................... 75354 .................... 0.20 0.05 2.6 ............................ 300 2,000 

5. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ................. 120821 0.029 .................... .................... 430 ............................ 0.036 0.037 

6. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ..................... 95501 .................... 0.20 0.3 82 ............................ 300 300 

7. 1,2-Dichloroethane ........................ 107062 0.0033 .................... .................... 1.9 ............................ 8.9 73 

8. 1,2-Dichloropropane ...................... 78875 0.036 .................... .................... 3.9 ............................ 0.72 3.3 

9. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine .................. 122667 0.8 .................... .................... 27 ............................ 0.01 0.02 

10. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene ......... 156605 .................... 0.20 0.02 4.7 ............................ 100 400 

11. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ................... 541731 .................... 0.20 0.002 190 ............................ 0.9 1 

12. 1,3-Dichloropropene .................... 542756 0.122 .................... .................... 3.0 ............................ 0.22 1.2 

13. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ................... 106467 .................... 0.20 0.07 84 ............................ 70 80 

14. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) ................ 1746016 156,000 .................... .................... ............................ 5,000 5.8E–10 5.9E–10 

15. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .................. 88062 0.011 .................... .................... 150 ............................ 0.25 0.28 

16. 2,4-Dichlorophenol ...................... 120832 .................... 0.20 0.003 48 ............................ 4 6 

17. 2,4-Dimethylphenol ..................... 105679 .................... 0.20 0.02 7 ............................ 90 300 

18. 2,4-Dinitrophenol ......................... 51285 .................... 0.20 0.002 ............................ 4.4 10 40 

19. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ........................ 121142 0.667 .................... .................... 3.9 ............................ 0.039 0.18 

20. 2-Chloronaphthalene ................... 91587 .................... 0.80 0.08 240 ............................ 100 100 

21. 2-Chlorophenol ............................ 95578 .................... 0.20 0.005 5.4 ............................ 20 80 

22. 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol .......... 534521 .................... 0.20 0.0003 10 ............................ 1 3 

23. 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ................ 91941 0.45 .................... .................... 69 ............................ 0.012 0.015

24. 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol ............. 59507 .................... 0.20 0.1 39 ............................ 200 200 

25. 4,4′-DDD ..................................... 72548 0.24 .................... .................... 240,000 ............................ 7.9E–06 7.9E–06 

26. 4,4′-DDE ..................................... 72559 0.167 .................... .................... 3,100,000 ............................ 8.8E–07 8.8E–07 

27. 4,4′-DDT ...................................... 50293 0.34 .................... .................... 1,100,000 ............................ 1.2E–06 1.2E–06 

28. Acenaphthene ............................. 83329 .................... 0.20 0.06 ............................ 510 10 10 

29. Acrolein ....................................... 107028 .................... 0.20 0.0005 1.0 ............................ 3 50 

30. Acrylonitrile .................................. 107131 0.54 .................... .................... 1.0 ............................ 0.058 0.85 

31. Aldrin ........................................... 309002 17 .................... .................... 650,000 ............................ 4.1E–08 4.1E–08 

32. alpha-BHC ................................... 319846 6.3 .................... .................... 1,500 ............................ 4.8E–05 4.8E–05 

33. alpha-Endosulfan ........................ 959988 .................... 0.20 0.006 200 ............................ 3 3 

34. Anthracene .................................. 120127 .................... 0.20 0.3 ............................ 610 40 40 

35. Antimony ..................................... 7440360 .................... 0.20 0.0004 ............................ 1 2.5 37 

36. Arsenic ........................................ 7440382 1.75 .................... .................... ............................ 44 a 0.0045 a 0.0059 

37. Asbestos ..................................... 1332214 .................... .................... .................... ............................ ............................ b 7,000,000 

(fibers/L) 

....................

38. Benzene ...................................... 71432 c 0.055 .................... .................... 5.0 ............................ c 0.44 c 1.7 

39. Benzidine .................................... 92875 230 .................... .................... 1.7 ............................ 0.00013 0.0012 

40. Benzo(a) Anthracene .................. 56553 0.73 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016 

41. Benzo(a) Pyrene ......................... 50328 7.3 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 1.6E–05 1.6E–05 

42. Benzo(b) Fluoranthene ............... 205992 0.73 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016 

43. Benzo(k) Fluoranthene ............... 207089 0.073 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.0016 0.0016 

44. beta-BHC .................................... 319857 1.8 .................... .................... 180 ............................ 0.0013 0.0014 

45. beta-Endosulfan .......................... 33213659 .................... 0.20 0.006 130 ............................ 4 4 

46. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether .............. 111444 1.1 .................... .................... 1.7 ............................ 0.027 0.24 

47. * Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) 

Ether .............................................. 108601 .................... 0.20 0.04 10 ............................ 200 400 

48. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate ......... 117817 0.014 .................... .................... ............................ 710 0.045 0.046 

49. Bromoform .................................. 75252 0.0045 .................... .................... 8.5 ............................ 4.6 12 

50. Butylbenzyl Phthalate ................. 85687 0.0019 .................... .................... ............................ 19,000 0.013 0.013 

51. Carbon Tetrachloride .................. 56235 0.07 .................... .................... 14 ............................ 0.2 0.5 

52. Chlordane .................................... 57749 0.35 .................... .................... 60,000 ............................ 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 

53. Chlorobenzene ............................ 108907 .................... 0.20 0.02 22 ............................ 50 80 

54. Chlorodibromomethane ............... 124481 0.04 .................... .................... 5.3 ............................ 0.60 2.2 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55076 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON—Continued 

A B C 

Chemical CAS No. 

Cancer 

slope factor, 

CSF 

(per mg/

kg·d) 

Relative 

source 

contribution, 

RSC (¥) 

Reference 

dose, RfD 

(mg/kg·d) 

Bio-accumulation 

factor for trophic 

level 4 

(L/kg tissue) 

Bio-concentration 

factor 

(L/kg tissue) 

Water & 

organisms 

(μg/L) 

Organisms 

only 

(μg/L) 

(B1) (B2) (B3) (B4) (B5) (C1) (C2) 

55. Chloroform .................................. 67663 .................... 0.20 0.01 3.8 ............................ 50 200 

56. Chrysene ..................................... 218019 0.0073 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.016 0.016 

57. Copper ........................................ 7440508 .................... .................... .................... ............................ ............................ d 1300 ....................

58. Cyanide ....................................... 57125 .................... 0.20 0.0006 ............................ 1 4 50 

59. Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene ............ 53703 7.3 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 1.6E–05 1.6E–05 

60. Dichlorobromomethane ............... 75274 0.034 .................... .................... 4.8 ............................ 0.73 2.8 

61. Dieldrin ........................................ 60571 16 .................... .................... 410,000 ............................ 7.0E–08 7.0E–08 

62. Diethyl Phthalate ......................... 84662 .................... 0.20 0.8 ............................ 920 80 80 

63. Dimethyl Phthalate ...................... 131113 .................... 0.20 10 ............................ 4,000 200 200 

64. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate .................... 84742 .................... 0.20 0.1 ............................ 2,900 3 3 

65. Endosulfan Sulfate ...................... 1031078 .................... 0.20 0.006 140 ............................ 4 4 

66. Endrin .......................................... 72208 .................... 0.80 0.0003 46,000 ............................ 0.002 0.002 

67. Endrin Aldehyde .......................... 7421934 .................... 0.80 0.0003 850 ............................ 0.1 0.1 

68. Ethylbenzene .............................. 100414 .................... 0.20 0.022 160 ............................ 12 13 

69. Fluoranthene ............................... 206440 .................... 0.20 0.04 ............................ 1,500 2 2 

70. Fluorene ...................................... 86737 .................... 0.20 0.04 710 ............................ 5 5 

71. gamma-BHC; Lindane ................ 58899 .................... 0.50 0.0047 2,500 ............................ 0.43 0.43 

72. Heptachlor ................................... 76448 4.1 .................... .................... 330,000 ............................ 3.4E–07 3.4E–07 

73. Heptachlor Epoxide ..................... 1024573 5.5 .................... .................... 35,000 ............................ 2.4E–06 2.4E–06 

74. Hexachlorobenzene .................... 118741 1.02 .................... .................... 90,000 ............................ 5.0E–06 5.0E–06 

75. Hexachlorobutadiene .................. 87683 0.04 .................... .................... 1,100 ............................ 0.01 0.01 

76. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ........ 77474 .................... 0.20 0.006 1,300 ............................ 0.4 0.4 

77. Hexachloroethane ....................... 67721 0.04 .................... .................... 600 ............................ 0.02 0.02 

78. Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene ............. 193395 0.73 .................... .................... ............................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016 

79. Isophorone .................................. 78591 0.00095 .................... .................... 2.4 ............................ 30 200 

80. Methyl Bromide ........................... 74839 .................... 0.20 0.02 1.4 ............................ 100 1,000 

81. Methylene Chloride ..................... 75092 0.002 .................... .................... 1.6 ............................ 10 100 

82. Methylmercury ............................. 22967926 .................... 2.7E–05 0.0001 ............................ ............................ .................... e 0.033 

(mg/kg) 

83. Nickel .......................................... 7440020 .................... 0.20 0.02 ............................ 47 30 39 

84. Nitrobenzene ............................... 98953 .................... 0.20 0.002 3.1 ............................ 10 60 

85. N-Nitrosodimethylamine .............. 62759 51 .................... .................... ............................ 0.026 0.00065 0.34 

86. N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine .......... 621647 7 .................... .................... ............................ 1.13 0.0044 0.058 

87. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine .............. 86306 0.0049 .................... .................... ............................ 136 0.62 0.69 

88. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ........... 87865 0.4 .................... .................... 520 ............................ 0.002 0.002 

89. Phenol ......................................... 108952 .................... 0.20 0.6 1.9 ............................ 4,000 30,000 

90. Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs) ........................................... .................... 2 .................... .................... ............................ 31,200 f 7.3E–06 f 7.3E–06 

91. Pyrene ......................................... 129000 .................... 0.20 0.03 ............................ 860 3 3 

92. Selenium ..................................... 7782492 .................... 0.20 0.005 ............................ 4.8 25 95 

93. Tetrachloroethylene .................... 127184 0.0021 .................... .................... 76 ............................ 2.4 2.9 

94. Thallium ....................................... 7440280 .................... 0.20 0.000068 ............................ 116 0.048 0.054 

95. Toluene ....................................... 108883 .................... 0.20 0.0097 17 ............................ 29 52 

96. Toxaphene .................................. 8001352 1.1 .................... .................... 6,300 ............................ 6.6E–05 6.6E–05 

97. Trichloroethylene ......................... 79016 0.05 .................... .................... 13 ............................ 0.3 0.7 

98. Vinyl Chloride .............................. 75014 1.5 .................... .................... 1.7 ............................ 0.020 0.18 

99. Zinc ............................................. 7440666 .................... 0.20 0.3 ............................ 47 450 580 

aThis criterion refers to the inorganic form of arsenic only. 

bThis criterion is expressed as fibers per liter (fibers/L). The criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). cEPA’s national 304(a) recommended criteria for benzene use a CSF range of 0.015 to 0.055 per mg/kg-day. EPA proposes to use the higher end of the CSF 

range (0.055 per mg/kg-day) to derive the proposed benzene criteria for Washington. dThe criterion for copper is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CFR 141.80, June 7, 1991). 

eThis criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human 

Health: Methylmercury (EPA–823–R–01–001, January 3, 2001) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in EPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology 

rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in fish tissue rather than in water. fThis criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses). 

* Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether was previously listed as Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether. 

(c) Applicability. (1) The criteria in 

paragraph (b) of this section apply to 

waters with Washington’s designated 

uses cited in paragraph (d) of this 

section and apply concurrently with any 

water quality criteria adopted by the 

state, except where pollutant- or 

waterbody-specific state human health 

criteria regulations determined by EPA 

to meet the requirements of Clean Water 

Act section 303(c) and 40 CFR part 131 

apply, in which case Washington’s 

pollutant- or waterbody-specific criteria 

will apply and not the criteria in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(2) The criteria established in this 

section are subject to Washington’s 

general rules of applicability in the 

same way and to the same extent as are 

other federally promulgated and stateadopted numeric criteria when applied 

to the same use classifications in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(i) For all waters with mixing zone 

regulations or implementation 

procedures, the criteria apply at the 

appropriate locations within or at the 

boundary of the mixing zones; 

otherwise the criteria apply throughout 

the waterbody including at the end of 

any discharge pipe, conveyance or other 

discharge point. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55077 

(ii) The state must not use a low flow 

value below which numeric noncarcinogen and carcinogen human 

health criteria can be exceeded that is 

less stringent than the harmonic mean 

flow for waters suitable for the 

establishment of low flow return 

frequencies (i.e., streams and rivers). 

Harmonic mean flow is a long-term 

mean flow value calculated by dividing 

the number of daily flows analyzed by 

the sum of the reciprocals of those daily 

flows. 

(iii) If the state does not have such a 

low flow value for numeric criteria, then 

none will apply and the criteria in 

paragraph (b) of this section herein 

apply at all flows. 

(d) Applicable use designations. (1) 

All waters in Washington assigned to 

the following use classifications are 

subject to the criteria identified in 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section: 

(i) Fresh waters— 

(A) Miscellaneous uses: Harvesting 

(Fish harvesting); 

(B) Recreational uses; 

(C) Water supply uses: Domestic 

water (Domestic water supply); 

(ii) Marine waters— 

(A) Miscellaneous uses: Harvesting 

(Salmonid and other fish harvesting, 

and crustacean and other shellfish 

(crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.) 

harvesting); 

(B) Recreational uses; 

(C) Shellfish harvesting: Shellfish 

harvest (Shellfish (clam, oyster, and 

mussel) harvesting) 

Note to paragraph (d)(1): The source 

of these uses is Washington 

Administrative Code 173–201A–600 for 

Fresh waters and 173–201A–610 for 

Marine waters. 

(2) For Washington waters that 

include the use classification of 

Domestic Water, the criteria in column 

C1 of Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this 

section apply. For Washington waters 

that include any of the following use 

classifications but do not include the 

use classification of Domestic Water, the 

criteria in column C2 of Table 1 in 

paragraph (b) of this section apply: 

Harvesting (fresh and marine waters), 

Recreational Uses (fresh and marine 

waters), and Shellfish Harvesting. 

[FR Doc. 2015–22592 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R06–RCRA 2015–0070; FRL–9933– 

78–Region 6] 

Louisiana: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The State of Louisiana has 

applied to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of 

the changes to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA proposes to grant Final 

authorization to the State of Louisiana. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register, EPA is 

authorizing the changes by direct final 

rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior 

to the direct final rule because we 

believe this action is not controversial 

and do not expect comments that 

oppose it. We have explained the 

reasons for this authorization in the 

preamble to the direct final rule. Unless 

we get written comments which oppose 

this authorization during the comment 

period, the direct final rule will become 

effective 60 days after publication and 

we will not take further action on this 

proposal. If we receive comments that 

oppose this action, we will withdraw 

the direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. We will then respond to public 

comments in a later final rule based on 

this proposal. You may not have another 

opportunity for comment. If you want to 

comment on this action, you must do so 

at this time. 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

October 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2015–0070, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: patterson.alima@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, 

Regional Authorization Coordinator, 

State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Alima Patterson, 

Region 6, Regional Authorization 

Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight 

Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning 

and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

Instructions: Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

regulations.gov, or email. Direct your 

comment to Docket No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2015–0070. The Federal 

regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. You can view and 

copy Louisiana’s application and 

associated publicly available materials 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday 

through Friday at the following 

locations: Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth 

Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884– 

2178, phone number (225) 219–3559 

and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, phone 

number (214) 665–8533. Interested 

persons wanting to examine these 

documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least two 

weeks in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal 

Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division, EPA 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–8533) and 

Email address patterson.alima@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

direct final published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: August 21, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23072 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS