UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue. Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101·3140

OFFICE OF WATER AND WATERSHEDS

BeccaConklin Washington DepartmentofEcology Surface Water Quality Standards P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, W A 98504-7600

DearMs. Conklin:

Thank you forthe opportunity to comment on Washington's SurfaceWater Quality Standards Triennial Review contained at WAC 173·201A. The Washington State Department ofEcology (Ecology) initiated the Triennial Reviewprocess in November 2010, through a series ofpublic meetings. EPA Region 10 staffattended the meetings on November4,2010in Lacey and November 15, 2010 in Vancouver. Ecology describes the Triennial Review as an opportunity for the public to review the water quality standards (WQS) and provide feedback on the priorities and commitments the agency makes regarding the standards. Itis also an opportunity for an open dialogue between Ecology, other government agencies, tribes, and the public on how to improve the standards and howEcology implements the program.

Ourcomments highlight requirements and considerations relevant to Triennial Reviews ofWQS. Section 303(c)(l) ofthe Clean WaterAct (CWA) and its implementing regulations at 40c.F.R. 131 require that states shall, from time to time, but at least once every three years, hold public hearings to review applicable water quality standards and as appropriate, modify and adopt standards. EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook (Handbook) provides guidance as to how states should conduct theirTriennial Reviews. TheHandbook explains that states should identify additions or revisions necessary to existing standards based on their 305(b) reports, other available water quality monitoring data, previous WQS reviews, orrequests from industry, environmental groups, orthe public. The Handbook further indicates that states should review the general provisions oftheirWQS for adequacy taking into consideration new federal orState statutes, regulations, or guidance; legal decisions involving applications ofstandards; or othernecessary clarifications orrevisions. WQS reviews and revisions may take many forms, including additions to and modifications in uses, in criteria, in the antidegradation policy, orin othergeneral policies. We understandthat this review has been initiated pursuant to this requirement.

The WQS regulation at 40C.F.R. 131.11(a) requires states to adopt water quality criteriato protect all designated uses. Such criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use. EPA urges Ecology to make therevision of Washington's human health criteriathe most important priority in this Triennial Review. We are aware that you have been following the work previously underway in Oregon to make such revisions. The State ofOregon plans to adopt final criteria andimplementation provisions in the summerof2011. To avoid duplication ofefforts, we recommend that you consult with the State ofOregon as you move forward. Since this is a priority for EPA Region 10, we are available and willing to work closely with you throughout your human health criteriaupdate process.Washington's human health criteria were issued by EPA in 1992 through the National Toxics Rule (NTR). The human health criteria are not in the State's WQS and Washington is one ofa handful of states remaining in the NTRfor human health criteria. 

### In 2000, EPAupdated its methodology for deriving human health criteria.' In that document, instead ofusing a fish consumption rate of6.5 grams perday in deriving criteria, EPA recommended that states and tribes either (1) use a fish consumption rate that accurately represents the population to be protected by the criteria ifstate/site-specific data is available or (2) use a fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams perday ifno state/site-specific information is available. EPA believes that a fish consumption rate of6.5 grams perday is not reflective offish and shellfish consumers in the State ofWashington. Ecology should examine the most recent EPA criteria documents as well as other technical developments and studies to determine an appropriate fish consumption rate that would result in criteriaprotective ofthe State's designated uses.



### In addition, EPA recommends that Ecologyuse this Triennial Review to determine ifregulatory revisions to the State'sfreshwater dissolved oxygen criteria are needed. As part ofthe Endangered Species Act consultation on EPA's 2006approval ofWashington's WQS revisions, Ecology agreed to review the State's freshwater dissolved oxygen criteria. 

### In September 2009, Ecology publishedA Review and Discussion of Freshwater Intergravel Criteria Development.2 EPA suggests that Ecology identify whether they will pursue a criteria change pursuantto the findings in this report as well as any other scientific information or comments received. IfEcology decides to make a regulatory revision, EPA is willing towork with the State and provide technical assistance.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on Washington's currentTriennial Review. We look forward to engaging with you throughout the continuation ofthis process. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please call me at (206) 553-2724 or Matthew Szelag at (206) 553­ 5171.

JannineJenmngs Water Quality Standards, Unit Manager Office ofWater & Watersheds

cc: Susan Braley, Chad Brown, Melissa Gildersleeve, Cheryl Niemi, Ecology Jennifer Wigal, ODEQ

I EPA. 2000. MethodologyforDerivingAmbient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, Washington, D.C. EPA-822-B-00-004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criterialhumanhealth/method/complete.pdf

. 2Department ofEcology. September 2009. Washington Slate Dissolved Oxygen Standard: A Review and Discussion of Freshwaterintergravei Criteria Development. PublicationNo. 09-03-039. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0903039.pdf

.



### 2