## UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

## AGENCY REGION 10 s 

### 1200 Sixth 

### Avenue Suite 

### 900 Seattle 

# WA 98101 3140 OFFICEOF WATER AND WATERSHEDS 

### MAY 1 0 2012 

# Mr Barry Burnell 

### Water Quality 

### Programs Administrator Idaho 

### Department ofEnvironmental Quality 

### 1410 North Hilton 

### Boise Idaho 

## 83706 1255 

## Re EPA Disapproval 

### of

## New and 

### Revised 

## Human Health 

### Water Quality Criteriafor 

### Toxics Idaho 

### Docket 

# 5801020503 

## DearMr Burnell
The 

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency has 

### completed its review of Idaho's 

## new and revised 

## human health water quality criteria for toxic pollutants 

### and revisions to Footnotes 

# bc

# d and I that are applicable to certain 

## human health criteria 

### These 

## new and revised water quality standards 

# WQS were adopted 

### by the Idaho legislature in 

## March 2006 The

# WQS were submitted to the 

## EPA for review under the Clean 

### Water Act 

# CWA on July

## 7,2006
Under

# CWA Section 

## 303

# c 33

# USc 1313

# c and the 

## Code of Federal Regulations 

# CFR at 

### 40 

## CFR 131 the 

## EPA is disapproving 

### 167 ofIdaho s revised 

## human health criteria for 

### 88 toxic pollutants applicable to all surface waters of the State 

### ofIdaho In addition the 

## EPA is not acting 

### on Idaho's revisions to Footnotes 

# b c 

# d and I 

### because the 

### changes are 

## nonsubstantive 

### With respect to Idaho's revisions clarifying the existing 

### mixing zone language and a 

## new provision specifying the frequency 

### and duration 

### component for aquatic life criteria 

### which were contained in the July 

### 7,2006 submittal the 

## EPA will provide the 

### Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality 

# DEQ or the 

### State with our review 

### and decision 

### on these provisions in a 

### subsequent letter 

## Background
Idaho 

### announced it 

### was updating the State's 

## human health criteria for toxics in the 

### Idaho Administrative Bulletin 

### on April

# 5 2005 

# DEQ held its first public 

### meeting on the updates in 

### Boise on April

## 28 2005 and three additional meetings followed 

### on 

## May20 June 

## 22 and July 

## 12 2005 The public participation process resulted in a proposed rule 

### which was published in the 

### September 

## 7,2005 Idaho Administrative Bulletin with a

# 30day

## comment period Following the 

## comment period the 

### pending rule 

### was adopted 

### by the 

### Idaho Board ofEnvironmental Quality 

### on 

## November 

## 16 2005 Revising Idaho's 

## human health criteria for

### 88 toxic pollutants 

### was a result of the State's incorporation of a revised fish 

### consumption rate 

### and newer information in the Integrated 

### Risk Information 

### System IRIS database 

### on health effects 

## DEQ's basis for revising specific 

## human health criteria fortoxic pollutants 

### was a 

### change in the 

## EPA's nationally 

## recommended fish 

### consumption rate 

### from 6.5 

### grams per

### day



# gday to 17.5 

# gday The fish 

### consumption rate is 

### one factor 

### used in the calculation of toxic criteria In addition 

# DEQ revised the 

## human health criteria for the 

### 88 toxic pollutants to reflect 

### updated information 

### on toxicity to 

### humans contained in the 

## EPA's IRIS database 

### These factors relate to the reference 

### dose for

## noncarcinogenic chemicals orthe cancer slope factor for carcinogens as well as 

## bioconcentrationrates 

## More detail about the 

### development of toxic criteria is contained in the 

## EPA's Methodology for Deriving 

### AmbientWater Quality Criteriafor the Protections 

## ofHuman Health 

### 2000 2000 

## Human Health Criteria

## Methodology
The final rule

### was approved 

### by the 

### Idaho Legislature in 

### March 

## 2006 

## By letter dated July

## 7,2006 

# DEQ submitted the following revisions to the 

## EPA for review 

### and approval 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria for 

### 88 toxic pollutants revisions to Footnotes 

# bc d and I that are applicable to certain 

## human health criteria in Idaho's table 

### of toxic criteria clarification to the existing 

### mixingzone language and a 

## new provision specifying the frequency 

### and duration 

### component for aquatic life criteria 

### While the submittal also included revisions to 

## cadmium aquatic life criteria the 

## EPA approved these revisions 

### on 

## March 

# 7 2011 In the 

### 2006 submittal to the 

# EPADEQ stated that 

### no information 

## on Idaho specific fish 

### consumption rates 

### was available with 

### which to calculate alternative 

## human health criteria 

### values 

## However 

# DEQ acknowledged that questions 

### remained regarding the 

### most appropriate fish 

### consumption rate 

## Under Section 

### 303 of the

# CWA 33

# USC 1313 states are required to establish 

# WQS and submit

### them to the 

## EPA forapproval or disapproval 

### Likewise revisions to 

### a state's

# WQS must also 

### be submitted to the 

## EPA for approval or disapproval 

## The 

## EPA must review 

## new and revised

# WQS under

# CWA 303

# c and 40

## CFR 131.5 to ensure that the designated uses for all affected waterbodies are protected 

### and criteria are 

### based on a 

### sound scientific rationale 

# WQS describe the desired condition of a 

### waterbody and consist 

### of three principle 

### elements



# 1 the designated 

### uses ofthe state's 

### waters such as public water 

### supply recreation propagation of fish or navigation 

# 2 criteria specifying the 

### amounts of various pollutants in either 

### numeric or narrative 

## form that 

## maybe present in those waters without impairing the designated 

### uses and 

# 3 antidegradation 

### requirements providing for protection 

### ofexisting water uses 

### and limitations 

### on degradation 

### ofhigh quality 

### waters The EPA's regulations at

### 40

## CFR 131 describe the 

## minimum requirements for

### each of these three elements of

# WQS

In accordance with 

### 40 

## CFR 131.11 the 

## EPA must ensure that 

## new or revised criteria are based 

### on sound scientific rationale 

### and contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect designated 

### uses 

## When establishing criteria states should develop numerical criteria values based 

### on 

# 1 the 

## EPA's 

# CWA

304

# a Guidance 

# 2CWA 304

# a Guidance modified to reflect sitespecific conditions or 

# 3 other scientifically defensible 

### methods
Idaho's 

## human health criteria 

### were developed to protect 

## human health 

### from 

## longterm exposure to toxic pollutants in drinking water 

### and through eating fish containing pollutants 

### With respect to selection of a fish 

### consumption rate utilized in calculating 

## human health criteria the 

## EPA is 

### aware that exposure patterns in general 

### and fish 

### consumption in particular varies substantially 

### The 

## EPA understands that highly

### exposed populations 

## may be widely distributed geographically throughout a 

### given state ortribal area 

### The 

## EPA recommends that priority 

### be given to identifying 

### and adequately protecting the 

### most highly

### exposed population 

## Thus if the state or tribe determines that a highly 

### exposed population is at greater risk 

### and would not 

### be adequately protected 

### by criteria based 

### on the general 

### population and 

## by the national 

## 304

# a criteria in particular the 

## EPA recommends that the state or tribe adopt 

### more stringent criteria using alternative exposure 

### assumptions

1

## EPA 2000 Methodology forDeriving Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection 

### ofHuman Health 

## EPA822

# BOO004 Available at 

### http

# wwwepa

### govwaterscience criterialhumanhealth 

### method complete pdf

## EPA's Decision 

### The revisions addressed in this disapproval action are Idaho's 

### 167 

## new and revised 

## human health water quality criteria for 

### 88 pollutants also 

## known as toxic pollutants at

## IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01 and the provision at 

## IDAPA 58.01.02.21O 

## 05

# bi specifying the fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 17.5 

# gday The 

## EPA is disapproving Idaho's 

## human health criteria for toxic pollutants 

### because the criteria derivation does not demonstrate that the criteria protect Idaho's designated 

### uses Specifically 

## EPA is unable to ensure that the use of a fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 17.5

# gday in deriving statewide criteria is consistent with 

### 40 

## CFR 131.11

# a
The 

## EPA reviewed whether local 

## andor regional information 

### on fish 

### consumption was relevant 

### and applicable 

## when considering if the national default fish 

### consumption rate is appropriate for calculating 

## human health criteria for Idaho's 

### waters 

## The 

## EPA identified several sources of information 

### on local and regional fish 

### consumption which Idaho did not consider before using the national default fish 

### consumption rate 

## The information the 

## EPA reviewed suggests that fish 

### consumption 

## among some Idaho population groups is greater than 17.5 

# gday Consequently 

## EPA cannot ensure that the criteria derived 

### based on a fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 17.5 

# gday are 

### based on a 

### sound scientific rationale consistent with 

### 40 

## CFR 131.11

# a and protect Idaho's designated 

### uses Idaho must evaluate the relevance 

### of available 

### information including the studies that the 

## EPA identified in assessing a fish 

### consumption rate appropriate for protecting 

### consumers offish taken 

### from state waters 

### and use that information to ensure criteria are protective of designated 

### uses The 

## EPA is also disapproving 

## IDAPA 58.01.02.21O 

## 05

# bi that requires 

# DEQ to use a fish 

### consumption rate of 17.5 

# gday

## when deriving water quality criteria to protect 

## human health 

### With respect to revisions to footnotes to the toxic criteria the 

## EPA does not consider revisions to Footnotes 

# bc d and I to 

### be substantive revisions to the

# WQS under Section 

## 303

# c ofthe

# CWA therefore the 

## EPA is not taking action 

### on those footnotes 

### These footnotes 

### remain in effect for

# CWA purposes 

# A detailed discussion of the rationale supporting the 

## EPA's action is included in the enclosed Technical 

### Support 

## Document This action applies only to 

### water bodies in the State of 

### Idaho and does not apply to waters that are within Indian 

### Country as defined in 

### 18

# USc Section 

## 1151 In addition nothing in this letter shall constitute an approved or disapproved 

### water quality standard applying to waters within Indian 

### Country The 

# EPA or authorized Indian 

### Tribes as appropriate will retain responsibilities for

# WQS forwaters within Indian 

### Country 

## Remedy to 

### Address 

## EPA's Disapproval
Under

# CWA 303

# c3 and the 

## EPA's implementing regulations at 

### 40 

## CFR 131.21 

### and 131.22 

## when the 

## EPA disapproves a state's 

## new or revised water quality standard it 

### must specify the 

### changes necessary to 

### meet the applicable requirements of the 

### Act and the 

## EPA's regulations 

## The

# CWA requires that this disapproval 

### ofthe 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria for

### 88 toxic pollutants be addressed in 

### atimely 

## mannerThe 

## EPA prefers that Idaho address this disapproval under its regulatory

### development process 

## However if the State 

### does not adopt necessary 

### changes the 

## EPA will 

### promptly propose and promulgate appropriate 

## human health criteria for 

### Idaho 

## To address this disapproval action Idaho 

### must evaluate local 

### and regional fish 

### consumption information to determine 

### whether its statewide criteria are protective of designated 

### uses The 

## EPA's 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology advises states to 

### develop criteria to protect highly 

### exposed populations 

### such as 

### 3

## subistence fishers 

### and to rely

### on local or regional fish 

### consumption data in developing a fish 

### consumption rate that is 

### more representative 

### of target populations 

### The 

## EPA relies 

### on the 

### 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology both to develop 

## new water quality criteria for additional pollutants and to revise existing water quality criteria 

### The 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology also provides states and tribes flexibility in establishing 

# WQS by providing scientifically valid options for developing their 

## own criteria that consider local state or regional conditions 

### For example states 

### and authorized tribes should consider use of local 

### data use of data reflecting similar 

### geographypopulation 

### groups use of data 

### from national 

### surveys and use 

### ofthe 

### EPA's default intake rates including a subsistence rate of 142

# gday Among the available 

### and relevant information 

### on fish 

### consumption the 

## EPA believes that the 

### Columbia River InterTribal Fish 

### Commission survey 

## CRITFC2 is particularly relevant for 

### Idaho to consider in revising 

## human health criteria 

## The 

## CRITFC study is a well designed survey 

### and is directly applicable to a population ofpeople 

## i

# e the 

## Nez Perce Tribe fishing in state 

### waters There are also several other local and regional studies including several that 

### have been published since 

## 2006 that are relevant 

## when evaluating fish 

### consumption rates in 

### Idaho These studies are listed in the enclosed Technical 

### Support 

## Document
As the State reviews the available studies and determines 

### what revisions to 

## make to the 

## human health criteria there are other issues that the State should consider
First 

### Idaho should evaluate 

## how its revised 

## human health criteria will protect recreational users and subsistence fishers in 

### Idaho as well as 

### downstream 

# WQS During tribal consultation the 

## EPA heard 

### from several tribes that they rely

### on fish 

### and other resources in Idaho waters forsubsistence and religious practices In addition 

## some ofthe information the 

## EPA reviewed suggests that recreational anglers in Idaho also 

### consume fish at rates higher than the national default rate 

### With respect to 

### downstream waters the State should address 

### 40 

## CFR 131.10

# b which provides in pertinent 

### part that 

## when setting water quality criteria a state shall take into consideration the water quality standards of 

### downstream waters 

### and shall ensure that its criteria provide for the attainment and 

### maintenance ofsuch standards 

## Second the 

## EPA notes that in deriving the 

## human health criteria foracrolein and 

### phenol Idaho utilized reference dose values that 

### have since 

### been superseded Idaho utilized the reference dose 

# RID values in the 

## EPA's IRIS database as 

### of

## May 17 2002 The RID values foracrolein 

### and phenol 

### were subsequently updated in 

### June 2003 and September 

## 2002 respectively 

### The 

## EPA integrated the 

### updated IRIS values into its current 

## 304

# a criteria 

### recommendations and published the recalculated criteria as the 

### Agency's current national 

## recommended criteria 3

## The current 

## recommended criteria 

### were finalized in 

### 2009 and supersede 

### any 

## recommended criteria that the 

## EPA previously published for acrolein 

### and phenol Idaho's revisions to the 

## human health criteria 

### must be based on a 

### sound scientific rationale 

### and must be protective of the State's designated 

### uses In 

### keeping to these 

### requirements the 

## EPA recommends foracrolein 

### and phenol that Idaho derive revised criteria incorporating these 

### updated 

## RID values

2

## CRITFC 1994

### A Fish Consumption Survey ofthe Umatilla Nez Perce Yakama and 

### Warm Springs ofthe Columbia River Basin Columbia River InterTribal Fish CommissionPortland Oregon Technical Report 

## 94

## 3 Available at 

### http

# www critfc orgtech

## 943reportpdf 374 

### FR 27535 Notice ofAvailability of National Recommended Water Quality Criteriafor Acrolein and Phenol June 

### 10 2009 Federal Register 

## Vol 74 No 110 pp 27535 27536 

### 4Finally the 

## EPA notes that Idaho does not a 

### have 

## human health criteria for 

### copper 

## The 

## EPA has a 

### recommended 

## human health 

### water 

## organism criterion for

### copper Since the 

## human health risks 

### from copper are primarily

### from drinking 

### water the criterion 

### was established at the level 

### of the 

## EPA's drinking water criterion under the Safe Drinking 

### Water 

## Act and therefore 

### does not utilize a fish 

### consumption rate 

## The 

## EPA suggests that 

### Idaho also incorporate adoption of that criterion into 

### any revisions to the State's

# WQS Human Health Criteria

### Currently in Effect in 

## Idaho

Until Idaho develops and adopts 

### and the 

## EPA approves revisions to 

## human health criteria forthese 

### 88 pollutants the criteria applicable to the designated uses in Idaho that are effective for

### Clean Water Act purposes are the previous 

## human health criteria for these 

### 88 pollutants 

### which were approved in 

## 1996 

## To the extent allowable under state and federal 

## law the 

## EPA urges Idaho to continue to 

### implement the criteria 

### adopted pursuant to state 

### law until such time as future revisions are 

### adopted
Idaho also

## maywant to consider undertaking additional fish 

### consumption surveys 

### ofhigh fish 

### consuming populations within 

### Idaho If the State is interested in exploring 

### work in this area the 

## EPA is available 

### and interested in providing assistance 

### The 

## EPA looks forward to 

### working with the State to revise Idaho's 

## human health criteria to ensure protection of 

### Idaho designated 

### uses If 

### you have any questions regarding this letter please contact 

## me at



## 206 

## 5534198 or 

### you 

## may contact Lisa 

## Macchio Idaho

# WQS Coordinator at 

## 206 5531834 Sincer eJly

•

# 2 

# J 

# L 0

Michael 

# A Busell Director Office 

### ofWater and Watersheds
Enclosure

cc 

# Mr Michael McIntyre Surface 

### Water Program Manager Idaho Department of

### Environmental Quality 

# Mr Don Essig Water Quality Standards 

### Manager Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality



### 5Technical Support Documentfor EPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10



# Technical 

# Support 

# Document EPA Disapproval ofthe State 

# of Idaho's 

# Revised 

# Human Health 

# Water Quality Criteria for

# Taxies 

# Submitted on July

# 7 2006 

# May 10,2012

1Technical SupportDocument forEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# Technical 

# Support 

# Document EPA Disapproval ofthe State ofIdaho's 

# Revised 

# Human Health 

# Water Quality Criteria for 

# Toxics 

# Submitted 

# on July

# 7 2006
Contents I 

# INTRODUCTION
3 II 

## BACKGROUND 4 

# A CLEAN 

## WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR

### WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

## 4 

# B OVERVIEW OF IDAHO'S JULY 

## 7 2006

## WQS SUBMISSION 

## 4 III 

### IDAHO'S 

# NEW AND REVISED 

## HUMAN HEALTH WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 5 

# A HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA 

### AND APPLICATION TO IDAHO'S DESIGNATED USES 7 

# B CRITERIA 

### METHODOLOGY AND INPUT 

### VARIABLES USED 

### BYIDAHO 8 

## IV EPA'S 

## REVIEW 10 

# A RELEVANT AND AVAILABLE 

### LOCAL AND REGION AL FISH CONSUMPTION INFORMATION 12 

# V EPA DISAPPROVAL OF IDAHO'S 

## NEW AND REVISED 

## HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA 13 

## VI 

## NO ACTION 

## ON REVISED 

## FOOTNOTES 17 

# A FOOTNOTE

# B

17 

## 1 Description ofFootnote 17 

### 2 EPA Review and Action 17 

# B FOOTNOTE 

# c 17 

### 1 Description ofFootnote 

### 17 

## 2 EPA Review and Action 

### 17 

# C FOOTNOTE

# D

18 

### 1 Description ofFootnote 

### 18 2 EPA Review and Action 

### 18 

# D FOOTNOTE 

# L 18 

### 1 Description of Footnote 18 

### 2 EPA Review and Action 18 

# E OTHER FOOTNOTES NOT REVISED 18



### 2Technical Support Document forEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria



# Technical Support 

# Document EPA's Disapproval ofthe State of Idaho's 

# Revised 

# Human Health 

# Water Quality Criteriafor 

# Toxics 

# Submitted 

# on July

# 7 2006
I 

# INTRODUCTION On July

## 7,2006 the 

### Idaho Department of 

### Environmental Quality 

# DEQ submitted 

## new and revised water quality standards 

# WQS l to the

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency 

## EPA or the 

# Agency for review 

### and approval These 

## new and revised 

# WQS were adopted by the 

### 2006 Idaho legislature effective April 

## 11 2006 Idaho's

# WQS are located in the 

### Idaho Administrative Procedures 

### Act 

## 58 Title 

## 01 Chapter 02 

## IDAPA 58.01.02 

## DEQ's submittal contained 

### 167 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria for

### eightyeight 

## 88 pollutants that are applicable to all surface waters 

### ofthe state 

## By this action 

## EPA is disapproving these 

## human health criteria for surface waters of the State 

### of Idaho based 

### on an evaluation 

### ofwhether the 

## above described 

# WQS revisions are protective 

### and based 

### on sound scientific rationale 

### The revised

# WQS addressed in this action include 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria for 

### 88 toxic pollutants see 

### Table 

# 1 below revisions to footnotes 

# b c

# d and 1 applicable to certain 

## human health criteria contained in Idaho's table 

### oftoxic criteria and a provision specifying the fish 

### consumption rate to 

### be utilized in calculating 

## human health criteria 

### These 

# WQS revisions 

### were submitted to

## EPA on July

## 7,2006 Included in the 

### submissionwas a 

### document entitled

Technical Justification 

### Idaho Rulemaking Docket 

# 580102 0503 Idaho 

## CadmiumAquatic Life Criteria

## and Update 

## ofHuman Health Toxic 

### Criteria prepared 

### by

# DEQ staff In this 

### document 

# DEQ summarizesthe 

### changes and the bases for the 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria In addition 

# DEQ stated they lacked information 

### on Idaho specific fish 

### consumption rates with 

### which to calculate alternative 

## human health criteria values 

## The revisions addressed in today's disapproval action include Idaho's 

## new and revised 

## human health water quality criteria for all 

### 88 pollutants carcinogens 

### and 

## noncarcinogens also 

## known
as toxic pollutants at

## IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01 and the provision at 

## IDAPA 58.01.02.21O 

## 05bj specifying the fish 

### consumption rate
Part II ofthis 

### document provides additional 

### background information about Idaho's July

# 7 2006 

# WQS submittal Parts III 

### IV and

# V of this 

### document provide the basis for this action 

### under

I 

## DEQ 2006 Letter dated July

## 7 2006 from Barry Burnell AdministratorWater Quality Division Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Boise Idaho to Michael Gearheard Office ofWater Region 

### 10 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Seattle Washington 

### 3Technical Support 

### Document orEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria

section 

## 303

# c of the 

### Clean Water Act 

# CW

# A and 

## EPA implementing regulations 

### found in the 

### Code ofFederal Regulations 

# CFR at

### 40 

## CFR 131.1 Part

### VI ofthis

### document provides the basis for 

## EPA's determination that revised footnotes 

# b c 

# d and 1 included in the submittal are 

## nonsubstantive 

## and therefore 

## EPA is taking 

### no action 

### on these revisions 

### While the July 

### 7,2006 submittal included revisions to the 

## cadmium aquatic life criteria 

### EPA's approval 

### under

# CWA 303

# c of the revised 

## cadmium 

# WQS for aquatic life 

### was finalized 

### on 

## March 

# 7 2011 and the 

## cadmium criteria for aquatic life will not 

### be addressed further in this 

### document With respect to the revisions clarifying the existing 

### mixing zone language 

### and a 

## new provision specifying the frequency 

### and duration 

### component foraquatic life criteria also included in the July 

### 7,2006 submittal

## EPA will provide 

# DEQ with our review 

### and decision 

### on these provisions in a 

### subsequent letter


# II 

# BACKGROUND 

# A Clean Water

## Act Requirements for

## Water Quality 

## Standards Under 

# CWA 303

# c and 

## EPA implementing regulations at 

### 40

## CFR 131.4 states 

### have the 

### primary responsibility for

### reviewing establishing 

### and revising 

# WQS which consist 

### ofthe designated uses 

### of a 

### waterbody orwaterbody segment and the water quality criteria necessary to protect those designated 

### uses This regulatory

### framework allows states to 

### work with local 

### communities to adopt appropriate designated uses 

### 40 

## CFR 131

# lO

# a and to adopt criteria to protect those designated uses 

### 40 

## CFR 131.11

# a CWA 303

# c

# 2B requires states to adopt 

### water quality criteria fortoxic pollutants listed pursuant to 

## 307

# aI for 

### which 

## EPA has published criteria 

### under 

## 304

# a where the discharge or presence 

### ofthese toxics could reasonably 

### be expected to interfere with the designated uses 

### adopted 

## bythe state In adopting 

### such criteria states should establish 

### numeric values 

### based on one 

### ofthe following 

# 1 304

# a criteria 

# 2 304

# a criteria modified to reflect sitespecific conditions 

### or 

# 3 other scientifically defensible 

### methods 40 

## CFR 13l

## I1

# b In addition states can establish narrative criteria 

### where numeric criteria cannot 

### be determined 

## From time to 

### time states are required to review applicable 

# WQS and as appropriate 

### modify and adopt these standards 

### 40

## CFR 131.20 

# CWA 303

# c also requires states to submit

## new or revised

# WQS to

## EPA for 

### review as

## EPA must ensure that 

### any revisions to surface water designated uses are consistent with the

# CWA and that 

### any 

## new or revised criteria protect the designated water 

### uses In addition the state 

### must follow its 

## own legal procedures foradopting 

### such standards 

### 40 

## CFR 131.5 and submit certification 

### by the state's attorney general or other appropriate legal authority within the state that the

# WQS were duly 

### adopted pursuant to state 

### law 40 

## CFR 131.6

# e B Overview ofIdaho's July

## 7,2006 

# WQS Submission 

## On AprilS 

## 2005 

# DEQ published 

### an announcement to update Idaho's 

## human health water quality criteria fortoxics through a negotiated 

### rulemaking process in the Idaho Administrative
4Technical Support Document forEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria

Bulletin 

### The rulemaking was also 

### announced on 

## DEQ's web page and in 

### newspapers around the State


### The proposed rule revisions 

### accounted for revised fish 

### consumption rates 

# FCR and updated information in the IRIS database2 

### on health effects 

### and several footnotes applicable to the 

## human health criteria 

## DEQ's basis for revising specific 

## human health criteria for toxic pollutants as stated in 

### background information to the 

### rulemaking was a 

### change in 

## EPA's nationally 

## recommended 

## FCRfrom 6.5 

### grams per 

### day 

# gday to 17.5 

# gday The 

## FCR is a factor in the calculation 

### ofcriteria3 

### Otherfactors include 

### updated information 

### on toxicity to 

## humans contained in 

## EPA's IRIS database which change the reference 

### dose for

## noncarcinogenic chemicals or

### change the cancer slope factor for

### carcinogens and provide 

## new information 

### on 

## bioconcentration rates 

# DEQ held its first public 

### meeting addressing the 

### rulemaking on April 

## 28 2005 in 

### Boise and three additional meetings 

### followed on 

## May 20 June 

## 22 and July 

## 12 

# A proposed rule 

### was announced in the 

### September 7,2005 Idaho Administrative Bulletin along with 

### a

# 30day 

## comment period 

# DEQ received 

### no requests fora public hearing 

### and none was held Following the public 

## comment period 

# DEQ sent the 

### pending rule to the 

### Idaho Board of

### Environmental Quality which adopted it 

## on November 16,2005 

## The final rule 

### was approved by the Idaho Legislature in 

## March 2006
In accordance with 

### 40

## CFR 131.6

# e DEQ's July

### 7,2006

# WQS submissionalso included a letter 

### from 

## Doug Conde Assistant Attorney 

### General at the Idaho 

### Department of Justice certifying that the 

## new and revised 

# WQS were duly 

### adopted pursuant to state 

# law

III 

# IDAHO'S 

# NEWAND REVISED 

# HUMAN HEALTH WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

In its revision to state

# WQS Idaho stated that the update to its 

## human health criteria for

### 88 toxic pollutants 

### was to reflect the latest scientific information as well as 

## EPA's 2002 

# CWA 304

# a human health criteria 

### recommendations4 

### The 2002 recommendations reflected 

## EPA's thinking 

### on establishing 

## human health criteria for toxic pollutants 

### and provided 

## recommended criteria values derived using the default values in the 

### Methodology for Deriving 

### Ambient Water Quality Criteriaforthe Protection 

## ofHuman Health 

### 2000 

## Human Health 

## Methodology 5

2

## EPA Integrated Risk Information System 

### IRIS 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC Available at 

## wwwepa ovliris 3

## EPA 2000 Methodology forDeriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

### ofHuman Health



# EPA822

B00004 Available at 

### httpvlww epa 

### govwatersc ie

### nce criterialh umanhealthlmethod complete pdf 4 

## IDEQ 2006 Technical Justification Idaho Rulemaking Docket 

## 580102 0503 Idaho 

### Cadmium Aquatic Life Criteriaand Update of

### Human Health Taxies Criteria July

## 7 2006 5

## EPA 2000 Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection 

### ofHuman Health 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC EPA822

# B00004 Available at 

### http

## www epa Q'OV waterscience cri teri alhumanhealth

### methoccomplete pc f 5Technical Support 

### Document orEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria


### The 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology accounts for the cancer potency or systemic toxicity of a pollutant the exposure related to surface water 

### exposure and a risk characterization for a pollutant 

### and uses that information to 

### develop criteria to protect 

### humans from the adverse effects 

### from chronic 

### exposure to a pollutant through drinking 

### water 

## andor

### from eating fish living in a 

### water 

## body
In separate updates published in 

### 2002 and 2003,6.7 

## EPA provided 

### numeric values associated with 

### each of its 

## 304

# a human health criteria 

### recommendations These values 

### were calculated using the 

### 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology default input variables 

### provided in the 

### methodology current toxicological information in the IRIS database8 

### and a 

### 10 6 

# 1 1,000,000 cancer risk level forcarcinogenic pollutants 

## EPA recommends that states evaluate these input variables consistent with the 

### recommendations in the 

### 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology 

## when developing criteria
Idaho's 

### 2006 

## new and revised 

## human health

# WQS submittal included criteria 

### changes to 

### seventy five 

# 75 pollutants 

### based on 

## EPA's 2002 National 

## Recommended Water Quality Criteriaupdates to 

## recommended criteria since publication ofNational Toxics 

### Rule 

# NTR in 1992.9• 10 Prior to Idaho's 

### 2006 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria submittal the majority 

### of Idaho's 

## human health criteria 

### were the 

### same as those that 

## EPA had promulgated under the

# NTR The criteria 

### changes to the thirteen 

# 13 remaining pollutants 

### were based on 

## EPA recommendations published in Federal Register 

## 68 page 75507 on 

## Dec 31 2003
Idaho's revisions included one 

### hundred sixty

### seven 

## 167 new or revised 

## human health criteria for 

### 88 toxic pollutants 

### For nine 

# 9 ofthe pollutants the 

### organism 

## only criterion is 

### unchanged because 

## EPA has not revised the 

### organism 

## only criterion for these pollutants Since they 

### were not revised they are not addressed in this action
Idaho's 

## human health criteria are included in a table 

### found at

## IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01 Criteria for

### Toxic Substances Idaho's 

## new and revised criteria that are addressed in this action are listed in 

### Table 1 

## below

6

## EPA 2002 Revision ofNational Recommended Water Quality Criteria 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office of

### Water Washington 

# DC Federal Register 

### Volume 67 Issue 

### 249 Page 79091 67 

### FR 79091 December 

### 27 2002 Available at 

### http

## www epa

### govfednrstrIEPA 

# VATERl7007IDecemberlDav77 w32770 htm 7

## EPA 2003 National Recommended Water Quality Criteriaforthe Protection of

### Human Health 

# us Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC Federal Register 

### Volume 68 Issue 

### 250 Page 75507 68 

### FR

## 75507 December 31,2003 Available at 

### http

# wwwepa

### gov 

# fedrgstrIEPA VATERI 003lDecemherlDav 

## 31w37211 htm 8

## EPA Integrated Risk Information System 

### IRIS 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC Available at

# wwwepa

### gov iris 9 National Toxic Rule 

## NTR 57 

### FR 60848 Water Quality Standards Establishment ofNumeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants States Compliance Final Rule
10

## EPA 2002 National recommended water quality criteria 

### 2002 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC EPA822

# R02047 6Technical Support Document for EPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# A Human Health Criteria 

## and Application to 

## Idaho's Designated Uses

Idaho's 

## human health criteria 

### were developed forthe 

### most part in accordance with 

### EPA's 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology to protect 

## human health 

### from 

## longterm exposure to toxic pollutants in drinking 

### water and through eating fish containing these pollutants In 

### Idaho surface waters 

### used fordrinking water are designated as 

### Domestic Water 

## Supply 

# DWS Surface waters 

### used for 

### consumption of fish are designated as 

### Primary or

### Secondary Contact 

### Recreation 

## PCR or

# SCR and Aquatic Life 

# Use Idaho's aquatic life uses 

### include

• 

### Cold water communities 

# COLD

• 

### Salmonid Spawning 

# SS

• Seasonal 

### Cold Water Communities 

# SC

• 

## Warm Water Communities 

# WARM and

• 

### Modified Communities 

# MOD

Idaho's 

### water 

## organism criteria 

### column C1 ofthe 

### Table ofNumeric Criteriafor

### Toxic Substances contained in

## IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01 were established to limit the pollutant to levels that provide forthe safe 

### consumption ofdrinking water 

### and fish 

### These criteria are applied 

### where Idaho has designated 

# DWS as 

### a beneficial 

### use The organism

## only criteria 

### column 

## C2 ofthe Table of 

### Numeric Criteria for 

### Toxic Substances contained in

## IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01 apply 

### where Idaho has designated a recreational 

## use either

## PCR or

# SCR and aquatic life 

### uses but not 

### a

# DWS use All waters in Idaho are designated for

## PCRlSCRand aquatic life 

### use The 

# DWS designation is in addition to a recreational use designation 

### Therefore the 

### organism

## only criteria 

### column 

# C2 apply to all surface waters of the State 

### of Idaho 

## However not all surface waters in 

### Idaho are designated for protection 

### of

# DWS consequently the 

### water 

## organism criteria 

### column

# C1 apply 

### only to 

### a subset 

### ofsurface waters 

### ofthe State 

### ofIdaho
Idaho's 

# WQS designate beneficial uses forwaters of the State for

### each subbasin 

### by waterbody segment in 

## IDAPA 58.01.02.110 through 

## 160 For those waterbodies 

### ofthe State not specifically identified in 

## IDAPA 58.01.02.110 through 

## 160 orthose waterbodies that are included in these sections but 

### do not 

### have designated uses assigned to 

## them Idaho's 

# WQS specify the uses 

### and criteria that 

### apply to undesignated surface 

### waters 

## The provision at

## IDAPA 58.01.02.101.01 entitled 

### Undesignated Surface 

## Waters states undesignated waters shall be protected for beneficial uses 

### which includes all recreational use in 

## and on the water 

### and the protection 

## and propagation offish shellfish 

### and wildlife 

### wherever attainable Further 

## IDAPA 58.01.02 101.0

# Lb specifies that 

## IDEQ will 

### apply cold 

### water aquatic life 

### and primary or secondary contact recreation criteria to 

### undesignated 

## waters Thus the 

## human health criteria in 

### column

## C2 of the 

### Table ofNumeric Criteriafor

### Toxic Substances contained in 

## IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01 

### apply to these 

### waters
For

## human health protection 

## EPA recommends that states apply 

## human health criteria fortoxics to all waters 

### with designated uses providing for public water supply protection 

### and therefore 

### a potential 

### water consumption exposure 

## route recreation 

## andor aquatic life protection 

### and

7Technical Support Documentfor EPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria

therefore a potential fish 

### consumption route 11 Consistent with 

## EPA's recommended approach 

# DEQ applies the 

### water organism 

## human health criteria fortoxics to waters designated as domestic water 

### supply This provides protection 

### from a potential water 

### exposure route Also consistent with 

## EPA's recommendations 

# DEQ applies the 

### organism 

## only human health criteria fortoxies to recreational and aquatic life uses as these waters provide a potential fish 

### consumption exposure route 

### i

# e fish or other aquatic life are being caught 

### and 

## consumed
Idaho's 

### 2006 

## human health criteria for toxic pollutants are 

### developed forthe 

### most part pursuant to 

### methods presented in 

## EPA's 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology 12 

### These criteria take into consideration the cancer potency or systemic toxicity of a pollutant the 

### exposure related to surface water exposure 

### and a risk characterization 

## The criteria calculations for

## noncarcinogens 

### and carcinogens differ 

### depending upon the exposure scenario for

### which the criteria are derived 

### and are further described 

## below 

## EPA reviewed Idaho's 

### 2006 revised 

## human health criteria for toxic pollutants to assess

### whether they 

### were consistent 

### with the 

### Clean Water Act and its 

### implementing regulations 

### EPA's evaluation focused 

### on whether the criteria 

### were consistent with 

### 40 

## CFR 131.11

# a which states that criteria 

### must be based on sound scientific rationale 

### and contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect designated 

### uses 

# B Criteria 

## Methodology 

## and Input Variables 

## Used by Idaho

Pursuant to

# CWA 304

# a EPA has published 

## recommended criteria for use 

### by states in adopting 

### and revising criteria 13 For

## human health criteria the values reflect the national default values forthe risk assessment parameters provided in the 

### 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology the reference 

### dose values 

# RID contained in 

### IRIS at the time of publication 

### and the use ofbioconcentration factors 

## BCFs as 

### opposed to site specific bioaccumulations factors



# BAFs While the 

### 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology provides national default 

### values it also provides necessary guidance to adjust criteria to reflect local conditions 

### and encourages states to use the guidance to appropriately reflect local conditions 

## andorprotect identifiable subpopulations 14

## The revised 

## human health criteria Idaho 

### adopted were derived forthe 

### most part using 

## EPA's 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology and criteria updates published in 

### 2002 and 

## 2003
The risk 

### assessment based procedures 

## EPA puts forth in the 

### 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology are specific to 

### whether the endpoint is cancer or

### noncancer 

## When using cancer as the critical

11 

## EPA 1994 Water Qllality Standards 

### Handbook 

# US Environmental Protection Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# D

# CEPA823

# B94005a August 1994
12

## EPA 2000 Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection 

### ofHuman Health 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC EPA 822

# B00004 13

## EPA National 

### Recommend Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection ofAquatic Life and 

### Human Health Published pursuant to section 

### 304

## a of the CleanWater Act Available at 

### http

# wwwepa

### QOVwaterscience criterialwqctable indexhtmL 14

## EPA 2000 Methodology forDeriving Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection 

### ofHuman Health 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC EPA 822

# B00004 Pages iii 

# 1 11 8Technical Support Document forEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria

risk assessment

### endpoint the criteria are presented as a range ofconcentrations associated with specified incremental lifetime risk levels 

### The following briefly provides the key features of 

### each procedure 

# A simplifiedversion of this equation is provided in Figure 1 

## below Figure 

# 1 Simplifiedversion of the equation 

### used by Idaho in deriving the 

## human health criteria for carcinogens 

# AWQC Risk 

# Level 

# BW CSF DI 

# FCR •

# BAF where 

## AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criterion milligrams per liter Risk Level Risk level unitless CSF Cancer slope factor milligrams per kilogram per 

### day 

## BW Human body weight kilograms DI Drinking water intake liters per

## day FCR Fish Consumption Rate kilograms per

## day BAF Bioaccumulation factor liters per kilogram Note that criteria calculations for organism only criteria are not shown and can be derived by removing the drinking water intake 

## DI term 

## When using 

### noncancer effects as the critical 

### endpoint the criteria reflect 

### an assessment 

### ofa



# noeffect

level Criteriafor

## noncarcinogenic pollutants are calculated through an equation that relies

### on pollutantspecific 

### and general 

### riskassessment values for

### each parameter 

# A simplified version 

### of this equation is provided in Figure 

### 2 

## below Figure

# 2 Simplified version 

### ofthe equation 

### used by Idaho in deriving the 

## human health criteria for

## noncarcinogens 

# AWQC 

# RfD 

# RSC 

# BW DI 

# FCR •

# BAF where 

## AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criterion milligrams per liter RfD Reference dose for noncancer effects milligrams per kilogram per

### day RSC Relative source contribution factor to account for 

# nonwater

sources of exposure unit less 

## BW Human body weight kilograms DI Drinking water intake liters per

## day FCR Fish 

### Consumption Rate kilograms per

### day BAF Bioaccumulation factor liters per kilogram Note that criteria calculations for organism only criteria are not shown and can be derived by removing the drinking water intake 

## DI term
Idaho's 

## new and revised criteria 

### were derived using the following input variables

9Technical Support Documentjor EPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

## RID values 

## recommended by

## EPA in the 

### 2002 and 

### 2003 

## 304

# a criteria 

### recommendations 15 16 

# RSC values 

## recommended by

# EPA in the 

### 2002 and 

### 2003 

# CWA 304

# a criteria 

### recommendations l7 18 

# BW 70 kilograms 19 

## DI 2 liters per

### day 

# FCR 17.5 

### grams perday20 

# BAF values 

### recommended by

## EPA in the 

### 2002 and 2003 

# CWA 304

# a criteria 

### recommendations Cancer risk level 1 

## x

# 1O6 

# CSF values provide in 

### EPA's Integrated 

### Risk Information 

### System 

## IRIS database as of

## May 17,2002
Further information regarding 

### each of these variables is available in 

## EPA's 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology 

# IV EPA's Review
As described 

## above Idaho's 

## human health criteria are calculated using several exposure 

### and risk variables 

### The criterion value is further

### determined by the level ofrisk

### found to 

### be acceptable while still protecting the use in this 

### case the level 

### ofprotection 

### provided to 

### consumers of organisms 

### and water taken 

### from the state waters to 

### which the criteria 

### apply In presenting the criteria to the Idaho Legislature the 

### Idaho Board of Environmental 

### Quality and stakeholders 

# DEQ stated that these criteria 

### were consistent with 

## EPA's national 

### recommendations 

## 21 22

15 See 

## EPA 2002 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria2002 

### Human Health Criteria Calculation Matrix 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC EPA822

# R020l2 Available at 

### http

## www epa govwaterscience criterialwqctable hh calc matrixpdf 16 See 

## EPA 2003 National Recommended Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection of

### Human Health 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC Federal Register 

### Volume 68 Issue 

### 250 Page 75507 68 

### FR 75507 December 

### 31 2003 Available at 

### http

## www epa

### gov 

# fedrgstrIEPAW

ATER2003December

## Day31w32211 htm
17 See 

## EPA 2002 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria2002 

### Human Health CriteriaCalculation Matrix 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC EPA 822

# R02012 Available at 

### http

## www epa 20vwaterscience criterialwqctable hh calc matrixpdf
18 See 

## EPA 2003 National Recommended Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection 

### ofHuman Health 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC Federal Register 

### Volume 68 Issue 250 Page 75507 68 

### FR 75507 December 

### 31 2003 Available at 

### http

## www epa

### 20v 

# fedrgstrIEPAWATER 2003DecemberlDav 311w3221l 

### htm 19

## EPA 2000 Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection 

### ofHuman Health 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office of

### Water Washington 

# DC EPA 822

# B00004 Pages 

# 418 to

# 419 20 

## EPA 2000 Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection 

### ofHuman Health 

# US Environmental Protection Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC EPA 822

# B00004 Page 

# 424 to

# 425
21 Idaho 

## DEQ Presentation to 2nd Session of 58th 

### Legislature

## WQS Docket 

## 580102 0503 2005 Update to toxics criterianot dated
22 Idaho 

## DEQ 2005 Presentation to 

## DEQ Board on Docket 

## 580102 0503,2005 Update to toxics criteria November 16,2005 

### 10Technical Support Document for EPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria


### The water quality standards regulations at

### 40 

## CFR 131.11

# a state that 

## new or revised criteria 

### must be based 

### on sound scientific rationale 

### and contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect designated 

### uses 

## To ensure Idaho's criteria are consistent with this requirement 

## EPA evaluated the appropriateness of the 

### exposure variables 

### used by Idaho in deriving its criteria specifically 

### whether these 

### were based on sound science 

### and led to criteria that 

### would protect 

## human health endpoints consistent with the designated uses 

### of Idaho's 

### waters
As stated 

## above Idaho relied 

### on 

## EPA's 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology to derive 

## human health criteria with the goal 

### ofbasing the criteria'on exposure 

### and risk variables consistent with 

## EPA's latest 

### recommendations With the exception ofthe fish 

### consumption rate variable the variables Idaho relied 

### on for all pollutants except acrolein and phenol are consistent with 

## EPA's recommendations for

### developing 

## human health criteria 

### and therefore are consistent with 

## EPA's 

## 304

# a criteria 

### recommendations With respect to acrolein 

### and phenol the 

## RID values for these pollutants 

### were subsequently 

### updated in 

### June 2003 and September 

## 2002 respectively 

## EPA integrated the 

### updated IRIS values into its current 

## 304

# a criteria 

### recommendations and published the recalculated criteria as the 

### Agency's current national 

### recommended criteria in 2009.23 

### The 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology provides states 

### and tribes flexibility in establishing 

# WQS by providing scientifically valid options for

### developing their

## own criteria that consider local State or regional conditions 

### For example states 

### and authorized tribes should consider use 

### of local 

### data use 

### ofdata reflecting similar

### geographypopulation 

### groups use 

### ofdata 

### from national 

### surveys and use of

## EPA's default intake rates 

## EPA recommends that a state consider the population that 

## may be exposed to adverse health effects 

### from consuming fish 

### from the state's 

### waters and select a fish 

### consumption rate that is appropriate to protect that 

### population 

## The 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology provides three default 

### consumption rates 17.5 

# gday forthe general 

### population 17.5 

# gd for recreational fishers 

### and 142.4 

# gd for subsistence fishers 

### The rate 

## recommended for protection of the general population represents 

### an estimate 

### ofthe 90th percentile 

### consumption rate for the

# US adult population 

### based on the

# US Department ofAgriculture's 

### Continuing Survey of

## Food Intake 

### by Individuals 

## CSFII 199496 data 24 

## As part of its 

### review 

## EPA evaluated 

### whether local state or regional data 

### was available 

### and relevant in developing 

## human health criteria for Idaho's 

### waters 

## EPA identified several sources of information that bear 

### on the question 

### offish 

### consumption but 

### were not included in Idaho's rationale for selecting the 17.5

# gd national fish 

### consumption rate 

## EPA has determined that a consideration of this information is necessary to 

### a scientifically 

### sound evaluation ofthe protectiveness 

### of

## human health criteria in 

### Idaho such that the absence of such consideration 

### from the 

### 2006 revisions to 

### Idaho 

## human health criteria indicates that those revisions 

### do not rest 

### on a 

### sound scientific rationale

23 74 

### FR 27535 Notice of Availability of National 

### Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Acrolein and Phenol June 10,2009 Federal Register 

## Vol 74 

## No 110 pp 27535 27536 24

## USDA 1998 

# US Department of Agriculture 

### 1994 1996 Continuing Survey ofFood Intakes by Individuals and 

### 1994 1996 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey Agricultural Research Service 

## USDA NTIS

# CDROM Accession number 

## PB98500457 11Technical Support Document for EPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# A Relevant 

## and Available 

## Local 

## and Regional Fish Consumption Information As previously 

### noted 

## when establishing 

# WQS states and authorized tribes should consider use 

### of local 

### data use of data reflecting similar

### geographypopulation 

### groups use of data 

### from national 

### surveys and use of

## EPA's default intake rates 

## EPA's search for available 

### and potentially relevant data 

### and information 

### on fish 

### consumption rates in 

### Idaho identified several sources 

### of local state 

### and regional 

### data The following are several studies relevant to evaluating fish 

### consumption in 

### Idaho 

## 1 

# A Fish 

### Consumption Survey of the 

### Umatilla 

## Nez Perce 

## Yakama and

# Warm Springs Tribes 

### ofthe 

### Columbia River 

### Basin 

## CRITFC 1994.25 

# 2 The Relationship 

### of

## Human Levels of

### Lead and 

## Cadmium to the 

### Consumption of Fish 

### Caught in 

### and Around Lake Coeur D'Alene Idaho 

## 19896 

# 3 Consumption Patterns 

### of Anglers 

## Who Frequently Fish

### Lake Roosevelt 

### Washington 

## 19977 

# 4 Yakama Nation 

### Exposure Scenario for

### Hanford Site 

### Risk Assessment 

## RichlandWA 

## 20078 

# 5 Fish

### Consumption Survey Spokane River Washington 1998.29 

# 6 Exposure Scenario for

### Confederated Tribes 

### ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation Traditional Subsistence 

### Lifeways 2004.30 

# 7 The Spokane Tribe's 

### Multipathway Subsistence 

### Exposure Scenario 

### and Screening 

### Level 

# RME 2002 31 

# 8 A Fish 

## Consumftion 

### Survey ofthe Tulalip and 

### Squaxin Island Tribes 

### ofthe 

### Puget Sound Region 

## 1996 2 

## 9 Fish

### Consumption Survey of the 

### Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port

### Madison Indian Reservations 

### Puget 

## Sound Region 

## 2000 3

25 

### CRITFC 1994

## A Fish Consumption Survey ofthe Umatilla Nez Perce 

### Yakima and

## Warm Springs Tribes ofthe Columbia River Basin Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission Portland Oregon 

### CRITFC Technical Report 

## No 94

## 3 October 1994
26

# US Department of Health and 

### Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

## ATSDR Division of Health Studies 

### 1989 The Relationship of

### Human Levels ofLead and 

### Cadmium to the Consumption of FishCaught in andAround Lake CoeurD'Alene Idaho September 

### 1989
27 Washington State Department ofHealth Office ofEnvironmental Health Assessments 1997 Consumption

Patterns ofAnglers 

## Who Frequently Fish Lake Roosevelt September 

### 1997
28 Ridolfi 

### 2007 Yakama Nation Exposure Scenario forHanford Site Risk Assessment Richland 

# WA

29 Spokane Regional Health District AssessmentEpidemiology Center 

### 1998 1998 Fish Consumption Survey Spokane River Washington Survey Report November 1998
30 Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation 2004 Exposure Scenario for 

### CTUIR Traditional Subsistence Lifeways
31 Harper 

## BL Flett

# B Harris

## S Abeyta

# C Kirschner

## F 2002 The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence ExposureScenario and Screening Level 

# RME Society for Risk Analysis Risk Analysis Vol 

### 22

# No3
32 Toy

# KA Polissar 

## NL Liao

## S Mittelstaedt 

# GD 1996

## A FishConsumption Survey ofthe Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes of the Puget Sound region Tulalip Tribes Department ofEnvironment Marysville

# WA 12Technical Support Document for EPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# 10 Asian and Pacific Islander 

### Seafood Consumption Study 199934 

### The materials provided to 

# EPA by

# DEQ do not indicate that 

### any ofthese sources of information 

### were considered 

## when Idaho decided to use the national default rate 

### of 17.5 

# gd to derive its 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria 

### Furthermore 

# DEQ stated that 

### no such information 

### was available at the time they 

### adopted the revisions 

### At the time Idaho 

## reevaluated its 

## human health toxics criteria for protection 

### of Idaho's 

### waters Idaho did not consider the available studies listed 

## above Furthermore 

# EPA believes that the use 

### ofthe national default fish 

### consumption rate as protective of Idaho's designated uses lacks 

### a sound scientific basis unless it considers the information contained in the 

## above listed studies



### i

# e including those studies published after Idaho acted in 

# 2006 

# EPA therefore determines that the criteria derived using 17.5 

# gdayand submitted to 

# EPA on July

# 7 2006 are not based 

### on a 

### sound scientific rationale 

### and thus are not consistent with 

### 40

# CRF 131.11

# a EPA's preliminary review 

### ofthe listed studies indicates that statewide 

## human health criteria based 

### on a fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 17.5 

# gd would not 

### be protective ofthe designated uses of Idaho 

### waters 35 In addition these studies bolster

## EPA's recommendation that Idaho further evaluate levels 

### ofintake 

### by recreational 

### and subsistence fishers 

## when evaluating the appropriate fish 

### consumption rate for use in deriving criteria 

# V EPA'Disapproval ofIdaho's 

# New and Revised 

# Human Health Criteria

In 

### accordance with 

### 40 

# CFR 131.11 

# a EPA must ensure that 

## new or revised criteria are based 

### on sound scientific rationale 

### and contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect designated 

### uses As described 

## above 

# EPA has found that

# DEQ did not consider the available information relevant to fish 

### consumption 

## when selecting a fish 

### consumption rate utilized in calculation 

### of Idaho's 

## human health criteria 

### Therefore these criteria are not based 

### on a 

### sound scientific rationale 

### Furthermore 

## EPA's preliminary analysis 

### ofavailable information suggests that a fish 

### consumption rate of 17.5 

# gd 

## may not 

### be representative 

### ofconsumption from Idaho's waters 

## and therefore 

## may not 

### be protective 

### ofIdaho's designated uses to the level identified 

### by Idaho during their rule adoption 

### process Based upon the 

### above evaluation 

### and in 

### accordance with its 

# CWA authority 

# 33U

# S

# C 1313

# c3 and 

### 40 

# CFR Part 

## 131 

# EPA disapproves Idaho's 

### new and revised 

### water organism and organism

## only human health criteria identified in Table 

# 1

33 Suquamish 

### 2000 Fish Consumption Survey of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Indian Reservation Puget Sound region The Suquamish Tribe Suquamish

# WA

34 Sechena 

# R Nakano 

# C Liao

# S Polissar

# N Lorenzana 

# R Truong

# S Fenske 

# R 1999 Asian and Pacific Islander Seafood Consumption Study King County Washington 

## EPA 910

# R9903 May 1999 

## 35Memo Review of Fish Consumption Information Relevant to Development of Idaho 

# A

# WQC 5812 Draft Lon Kissinger 

### US 

## EPA Region 

### 10 Office of Environmental Assessment 

### 13Technical Support 

### Document orEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria


### Table 

# 1 Idaho's July

# 7 2006 submission of revised water 

### organismand organism

## only human health criteria

### which 

# EPA disapproves and 

### which are found at

# IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01
I • •

i t rl 0 o I 

# E Organism 

## OrQanism

k 

### Q 0 

# E 

# z OJljltllTlt 

# 01 4 C 

# CQ 15

# U E 

# • x I 

# Z • nTTll

### j C j

# c p

• 

# •

X tJi

i 

# 8 gIL 

# i

•• I

1 10 

### Selenium 7782492 170 

### 4200 2 12 Thallium 744028C 0.24 0.47 3 14 yanide 

### 57125 140 140 4 16 

# 3

# 7 8TCDD Dioxin 174601E 0.000000005 0.0000000051 5 17 Acrolein 107028 190 290 6 18 Acrylonitrile 107131 0.051 0.25 7 19 lBenzene 

### 71432 2.2 51 8 

### 20 IBromoform 

### 75252 not revised 140 9 21 Carbon Tetrachloride 

### 56235 0.23 1.6 10 22 Chlorobenzene 108907 130 1600 11 23 Chlorodibromornethane 124481 0.40 13 12 27 Dichlorobromomethane 

### 75274 0.55 17 13 29 

### 1,2Dichloroethane 107062 not revised 37 14 30 

### 1,1 Dichloroethylene 

### 75354 330 7100 15 31 

### 1,2Dichloropropane 

### 78875 0.50 15 16 32 

### 1,3Dichloropropene 542756 0.34 21 17 33 Ethylbenzene 100414 530 2100 18 34 Methyl 

### Bromide 74839 47 1500 19 36 ethylene Chloride 

### 75092 4.6 590 

### 20 37 1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane 

### 79345 not revised 4.0 21 38 Tetrachloroethylene 127184 0.69 3.3 

### 22 39 Toluene 108883 1300 15000 23 40 1,2

### Trans Dichloroethylene 156605 140 10000 

### 24 42 1,1,2Trichloroethane 79005 0.59 16 25 43 Trichloroethylene 79016 2.5 30 

### 26 44 Vinyl Chloride 75014 0.025 2.4 

### 27 45 

# 2Chlorophenol 95578 81 150 28 46 

### 2,4Dichlorophenol 120832 

### 77 290 29 48 

# 2Methyl4,6Dinitrophenol 534521 13 280 31 49 

### 2,4 Dinitrophenol 51285 

### 69 5300 31 53 Pentachlorophenol 87865 0.27 3.0 

### 32 54 Phenol 108952 not revised 1700000 33 55 2,4,6 Trichlorophenol 88062 1.4 2.4 34 56 

### Acenaphthene 83329 670 990 35 58 Anthracene 120127 

### 8300 40000 

### 36 59 Benzidine 92875 0.000086 0.00020
14Technical Support 

### Document orEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# C Of 

### r

# I

• 0 o

I 

### Q

0E 

# Z 0 c I Q 

# QU 0 

# E 

# Zo follutant 

# CAS Number I Q en 0

I

### u I 3 

### Water Organism 

# g

# L Organism

### Only 

# g

# L

37 60 Benzo

# aAnthracene 56553 0.0038 0.018 38 61 

## Benzo

# aPyrene 50328 0.0038 0.018 

### 39 62 Benzob Fluoranthene 205992 0.0038 0.018 

### 40 64 

## Benzo

# kFluoranthene 207089 0.0038 0.018 41 66 

### Bis

# 2Chloroethyl Ether 111444 0.030 0.53 42 67 

## Bis

# 2Chloroisopropyl Ether 108601 not revised 

### 6500 43 68 lBis

# 2Ethylhexyl phthalate 117817 1.2 2.2 44 

### 70 lButylbenzyl Phthalate 85687 

### 1500 1900 45 71 

# 2Chloronaphthalene 

### 91587 1000 1600 46 73 Chrysene 218019 0.0038 0.018 47 74 lDibenzo 

# a

# h Anthracene 

### 53703 0.0038 0.018 48 75 

### 1,2Dichlorobenzene 

### 95501 420 1300 49 

### 76 1,3Dichlorobenzene 541731 320 960 

### 50 77 1

# ADichlorobenzene 106467 63 190 51 78 

## 3,3 Dichlorobenzidine 91941 0.021 0.028 52 79 Diethyl Phthalate 

### 84662 17000 

### 44000 53 

### 80 Dimethyl Phthalate 131113 

### 270000 1100000 

### 54 81 

# Di

# nButyl Phthalate 

### 84742 2000 4500 55 

### 82 

# 2ADinitrotoluene 121142 not revised 3.4 

### 56 85 

### 1,2 Diphenylhydrazine 122667 0.036 0.20 

### 57 86 tFluoranthene 206440 130 140 

### 58 87 fluorene 

### 86737 1100 5300 

### 59 88 Hexachlorobenzene 118741 0.00028 0.00029 

### 60 89 rtIexachlorobutadiene 87683 not revised 18 61 

### 90 iHexachloro cyclopentadiene 

### 77474 40 1100 

### 62 91 Hexachloroethane 67721 1.4 3.3 63 

### 92 deno 1

## 2,3

# cd Pyrene 193395 0.0038 0.018 64 

### 93 Isophorone 78591 35 960 65 95 lNitrobenzen e 98953 not revised 690 66 

### 96 

# INNitrosodimethylamine 

### 62759 not revised 3.0 

### 67 97 

# INNitrosodi

# nPropylamine 621647 0.0050 0.51 68 98 

# IN Nitrosodij lhenylamine 

### 86306 3.3 6.0 69 100 Pyrene 129000 830 

### 4000 70 101 1,204Trichlorobenzene 120821 35 70 71 102 Aldrin 309001 0.000049 0.000050 72 103 

### alpha

# BHC 319846 0.0026 0.0049 73 104 beta

# BHC 319857 0.0091 0.017 74 105 

# gammaBHC Lindane 58899 0.98 1.8 75 107 Chlordane 

### 57749 0.00080 0.00081 

### 15Technical Support Document forEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# •

• CI 

### i CI

I 0 o ce I

I 

### a

# b Water 

### Organism Organism

### Only 

# Si lPol1utt 

# CASNUIl'lber 

# C

c lglLj 

# C lgfL bI 

# u
I 

# g 0 u 

# E E u10 I 

# zrS 

# • I 8 

# C Z 76 108 

# 4DDT 50293 0.00022 0.00022 77 109 

# 4DDE 72559 0.00022 0.00022 78 110 

# 4DDD 

### 72548 0.00031 0.00031 79 111 pieldrin 60571 0.000052 0.000054 80 112 

### alphaEndosulfan 959988 62 

### 89 81 113 beta Endosulfan 

### 33213659 62 89 82 114 ndosulfan Sulfate 1031078 62 89 83 115 IEndrin 

### 72208 0.059 0.060 84 116 IEndrin Aldehyde 7421934 0.29 0.30 85 117 Heptachlor 

### 76448 0.000079 0.000079 86 118 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024573 0.000039 0.000039 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 87 119 

### PCBs 0.000064 0.000064 88 120 Toxaphene 

# 800 0.00028 0.00028 

# Idaho

also revised 

# IDAPA 58.01.02.21O 

# 05

# bi which specifies that 

## when using 

# EPA recommended criteria to derive 

### water quality criteria to protect 

## human health a fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 17.5 

### grams per

### day shall 

### be utilized 

### The following is that

## mle language 

# IDAPA 58.01.02.210.05 

### Development ofToxic Substance Criteria 

# b Human Health Criteria 

### i 

## When numeric criteria for the protection 

## ofhuman health are not identified in these rules for toxic substances quantifiable criteria 

## may be derived 

### by the 

### Department from the 

### most recent 

### recommended criteria defined in 

### EPA's Integrated Risk Information System 

## IRIS When using 

# EPA recommended criteria to derive 

### a water quality criteria to protect 

## human health 

### afish 

### consumption rate ofseventeen point five 

## 17.5 gramsday a water ingestion rate 

### oftwo 

# 2 liters

### day

## and a cancer risk level 

## of10 6 shall 

### be utilized 

### As discussed 

## above EPA's preliminary analysis of available information suggests that a fish 

### consumption rate of 17.5 

### grams per 

### day

# may not be representative of the 

### consumption from Idaho's waters 

### and thus 

## may not 

### be protective of Idaho's designated uses to the level identified 

### by Idaho during their rule adoption 

### process Based upon the 

### above evaluation and in 

### accordance with its

# CWA authority 

# 33U

# S

# C 1313

# c3 and 40 

# CFR Part 

## 131 

# EPA disapproves 

# IDAPA 58.01.02.21O 

# 05

# bi

16Technical Support Document forEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# VI 

# NOACTION 

# ON REVISED 

# FOOTNOTES

In addition to adopting revised 

## human health criteria described in Part III 

### and Part 

### IV

## above Idaho revised four 

# 4 footnotes 

# b c

# d and 

# 1 associated with 

### numeric criteria for toxic substances at 

# IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01 Revisions to these footnotes are provided 

## below Strikeout text indicates text that 

### was 

## removed while underlined text indicates 

## new wording 

# A Footnote 

# b 1 Description ofFootnote
Idaho revised footnote 

### b to the existing 

### and unrevised 

### column heading 

# CMC and 

# CCCofthe table 

### ofnumeric criteria fortoxic substances in 

# IDAP

# A 58.01.02.210.01 Footnote 

### b refers to Idaho's definitions of acute 

### and chronic criteria 

### The definitions 

### were not 

### changed 

## however the section 

### numbering forthe definitions 

### changed from 

# IDAPA 58.01.02.003 to 

## 010 Therefore footnote 

### b was revised to refer to the revised 

### numbering ofthe definitions section of Idaho's 

# WQS Footnote 

### b states 

# b See Definitions Section

# Qg 010 of these 

## rules 

# 2 EPA Review and Action 

# EPA does not consider the revisions to footnote 

### b to be substantive revisions to the water quality standards under Section 

# 303

# c ofthe

# CWAand therefore is taking 

### no action 

### The footnote remains in effect for

# CWA purposes 

# B Footnote 

# e 1 Description ofFootnote
Idaho revised footnote 

### c to specify the revised date that Idaho obtained values 

### from IRIS database 

### used in the calculations 

### of

## human health criteria 

### The previous date specified 

### was 

## December 

# 22 1992 Footnote c

## was revised to refer to the 

### more recent date 

### and informs the reader 

### where the value 

## came from and does not alter the underlying criteria Footnote c states 

# c This criterion has 

### been revised to reflect 

### The Environmental Protection 

### Agency's q

### 1 or

# RID as contained in the Integrated 

### Risk Information 

### System 

## IRIS as 

### ofDecember 

# 22 1992 

# May 17 2002 The fish tissue bioconcentration factor 

# BCF from the 

### 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

### document was retained in 

### each case 

# 2 EPA Review and Action 

# EPA does not consider the revisions to footnote c to 

### be substantive revisions to the water quality standards 

### under Section 

# 303

# c ofthe

# CWA and therefore is taking 

### no action 

### The footnote remains in effect for

# CWA purposes

17Technical Support Documentfor EPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria 

# C Footnote 

# d 1 Description 

### ofFootnote
Idaho revised footnote 

### d to the existing 

## human health criterion for arsenic Footnote 

### d was revised as follows 

# d Inorganic 

### form only The criterion for arsenic is the 

## MC'T in effect as of Anril 

# 2000 

# 2 EPA Review and Action Although Idaho did not revise the arsenic 

## human health criteria in this 

### submission the state did revise the footnote applicable to this criterion 

### The underlying criterion for arsenic 

### was unrevised 

## and therefore 

# EPA is not reviewing the underlying criterion as part 

### of this action Footnote 

### d is only applicable to Idaho's existing 

## human health criterion for arsenic Idaho's revision deletes a reference to the 

# MCL This does not 

### change the criteria therefore 

# EPA does not consider the revisions to footnote 

### d to 

### be substantive revisions to the water quality standards 

### under Section 

# 303

# c of the 

# CWA and therefore is taking 

### no action 

### The footnote 

### remains in effect for

# CWA purposes 

# D Footnote 

# 1 1 Description of

### Footnote Idaho revised footnote 1 to the revised 

## human health criteria for carcinogens Footnote 

### 1was revised as 

### follows 

# 1 EPl guidance allO'Yvs states to 

### choose a riskfactor of 10 

### 4 to 

### 10 

# 6 Idaho has chosen to base his criterion is based 

### on carcinogenicity of

# 106 

## risk



# 2 EPA Review and Action Footnote 

### 1 applies to all 

## human health criteria that are 

### carcinogens Idaho's revision deletes a reference to

# EPA guidance 

### and replaces it with a statement explicit to the risk level 

### Idaho has 

### chosen to 

### apply The risk level associated with the criteria 

# 106 was not 

### changed therefore 

# EPA does not consider the revisions to footnote 

### 1 to 

### be substantive revisions to the water quality standards 

### under Section 

# 303

# c of the

# CWA and thus is taking 

### no action 

### The footnote remains in effect for

# CWA purposes 

# E Other Footnotes 

### not Revised
Idaho did not 

### change any of the other footnotes included in 

# IDAPA 58.01.02.210.01 Criteria for 

### Toxic Substances of Idaho's 

# WQS applicable to 

## human health criteria for toxics 

## Thus 

# EPA is not taking action 

### on these previously 

### approved footnotes This is appropriate since these footnotes 

### remain applicable to the pollutants with 

### which they are associated 

### and this



### 18Technical Support Document forEPA's Disapproval Action on Idaho's Revised 

### Human Health Criteria

applicability is not altered 

### by any

# WQS revisions included in Idaho's July 

### 7,2006 submittal 

### These footnotes 

### remain in effect for

# CWA purposes

19