## UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

## AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth 

### Avenue Suite 900 Seattle 

# WA 98101 3140
OFFCE OF OCT 

### 1 7 2011 WATER AND WATERSHEDS 

# Mr Neil 

### Mullime Administrator 

### Water Quality Division 

### Department ofEnvironmental Quality 811 

# SW Sixth 

### Avenue Portland 

### Oregon 

## 97204 13 90 

## Re EPA's Approval of

## New and Revised 

## Human Health 

### Water Quality Criteriafor

### Taxies and Implementation Provisions in 

### Oregon's Water Quality Standards 

### Submitted on July 

### 12 and 21,2011 Dear

# Mr Mullane The 

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency 

# EPA has 

### completed its 

### Clean Water Act 

# CWA review of 

### Oregon's 

## new and revised 

## human health water quality criteria for taxies 

### and implementation provisions in 

### Oregon water quality standards 

### found in 

### Chapter 

## 340 Division 

## 41 ofOregon's Administrative Rules 

# OAR340 041 and submitted to the 

## EPA on July 

## 12 2011 and July

## 21 2011 The new and revised 

### water quality standards identified 

### below are 

### hereby approved as consistent with Section 

### 303 of the 

### Clean Water 

## Act 33

# USC 1313 and its 

### implementing regulations 

### Water quality standards describe the desired condition of a 

### waterbody and consist 

### ofthree principle 

### elements 

# 1 the designated 

### uses of the state's 

### waters such as public 

### water supply recreation propagation 

### offish or navigation 

# 2 criteria specifying the 

### amounts of various pollutants in either 

### numeric or narrative 

## form that 

## may be present in those waters without impairing the designated 

### uses and 

# 3 antidegradation 

### requirements providing for protection 

### of existing water uses 

### and limitations 

### on degradation 

### of high quality 

### waters 

## The EPA's regulations at

### 40

# CP

# R Part 131 describe the 

## minimum requirements for 

### each ofthese three 

### elements of water quality standards 

## The new and revised water quality standards submitted 

### on July 

### 12 and 

## 21 2011 revise 

### Oregon's 

## human health criteria with criteria calculated using a fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 175 grams per

## day They also add a 

## new performance based provision that authorizes 

### Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

# ODEQ to 

### develop sitespecific 

### background pollutant criteria 

### and significantly revises 

### Oregon's variance authorizing provision 

### The 

## EPA is 

### approving all 

## new and revised provisions 

### which 

## we determined to 

### be water quality standards under Section 

## 303

# c of the

# CWA and acknowledges the other 

### changes to

# OAR340041 that are not water quality standards 

### Furthermore 

## we acknowledge the rule

### changes 

## made to

# OAR 340042 and 

## 045 

# We understand that all 

### ofthese rules will 

### be used by

# ODEQ to 

### implement Oregon's water quality control 

### programs

### The 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria address the revisions 

## EPA identified as necessary in its 

### June 

# 1 2010 disapproval action to 

### comply with the

# CW

# A 1 

### The revisions to the 

## human health criteria address this disapproval action 

### and the 

## EPA's concerns regarding the protection 

### of high fish 

### consuming populations in 

## Oregon Today's approval action 

### completes the 

## EPA's disapproval action ofthe 

## human health criteria

## on June 

## 1 2010 Therefore both the 

## EPA and 

# ODEQ have completed their

# CWA obligations 

### stemming from the 

## EPA's June 

# 1 2010 disapproval action 

# BACKGROUND

In 

## 1999 

# ODEQ initiated 

### a review of 

### Oregon's criteria fortoxic pollutants contained in 

# OAR 340 0410033 The 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria for 104 toxic pollutants 

### and submitted to the 

## EPA for review under the

# CWAon July

# 8 2004 were 

## among the 

### changes 

## made pursuant to this 

### review Shortly after receipt 

### of this 

### package the 

## EPA was contacted 

### by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation regarding their concerns that the fish 

### consumption rate used to derive the 

### 2004 criteria 17.5 

### grams per

## day did not adequately protect Tribal subsistence 

### consumers Ensuing discussions led to an 

### agreement that

# ODEQ the Umatilla Tribes 

### and the 

## EPA would conduct a public process to review the fish 

### consumption rate appropriate for protection of designated uses in 

### Oregon's waters 

## On October 

## 23 2008 the three 

### governments 

## recommended to 

### Oregon's Environmental Quality 

### Commission 

## Commission that a rate 

### of 175 

### grams per 

### day be utilized fordeveloping criteria for

### Oregon's waters

## The Commission concurred with this 

### recommendation and directed 

# ODEQ to revise the 

## human health criteria using a fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 175 grams per 

### day and to review implementation measures to 

### be used in association with these criteria 

# ODEQ established 

### two work groups to provide additional feedback during that 

### process 

## On June 

## 1 2010 the 

## EPA disapproved 

### Oregon's 

## human health criteria submitted in 

### 2004 since these criteria

### were not protective 

### ofOregon's designated use 

### offishing consistent with the 

### Commission's October 2008 directive 

### The 

## EPA's disapproval action extended to the majority 

### of 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria that 

### were based on a fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 17.5 

### grams per 

### day as well as the footnotes associated with those criteria 

### At this 

### timethe 

## EPA also approved the 

## human health criteria forasbestos 

### and copper several footnotes the 

### withdrawal of eight 

## human health criteria 

### and revisions to the narrative toxic provisions at

# OAR340 041 0033

# 1 and 

# 2

In response to the 

### Commission's October 2008 directive and in order to 

### remedy the 

## EPA's June 

# 1 2010 disapproval action 

# ODEQ proposed revisions to

# OAR340041 on December 

## 15 2010 

# ODEQ provided 

### aformal public 

## comment period 

### on the 

### proposed revisions 

### and held nine public hearings 

### The public 

## comment period extended 

### from December 

## 21 2010 through 

## March 

## 21

1 June 

### 1 2010 Leuer from Michael

## A Bussell Director Office ofWater and Watersheds 

## EPA Region 10 to Neil Mullane AdministratorWater Quality Division 

## ODEQ Re EPA's Action on 

## New and Revised 

### Human Health Water Quality Criteriafor Toxics and Revisions to Narrative Toxics Provisions in Oregon's Water Quality Standards 

### 2 

# 0 Printedon Rscycted Paper

## 2011 The one 

### thousand and seventy five written 

### comments were received to 

### which 

# ODEQ responded Revisions 

### were adopted by the 

### Commission on June 

## 16 2011 and filed with the 

### Oregon Secretary 

### ofState 

### on July 

## 13 2011 

# ODEQ submitted these revisions to 

## EPA for review 

### and approval 

### on July 

## 21 2011 Oregon's submittal included a letter 

### dated July 

## 20 2011 from Larry 

## Knudsen Assistant Attorney 

### General certifying that the revisions 

### were adopted in accordance with 

### Oregon State 

## law The 

# EPA is 

### approving the water quality standards within the July

## 21 2011 submittal as part 

### of this action 

# ODEQ also submitted revised 

## human health criteria forarsenic in a separate submittal 

### on July 

## 12 2011 

# ODEQ accepted public 

## comments on its revised arsenic criteria 

### from August 25 to 

### September 

## 30 2010 and held public hearings in Portland and 

### Pendleton 

# ODEQ also 

### conducted further public 

## comment on a revised 

### proposed rule 

### from February 

### 1 to 

### February

## 23 2011 These revisions 

### were adopted by the 

### Commission on April21 

## 2011 and 

## became effective 

### under State 

### law upon filing with the 

### Oregon Secretary 

### of State 

### on June 

## 30 2011 

# ODEQ submitted the revisions to the 

## human health criteria forarsenic to the 

## EPA for

### review and approval 

### on July 

## 12 2011 The 

## EPA is approving the revised 

## human health criteria for arsenic as part 

### of this action 

### While the July

## 21 2011 submittal included revisions to a 

### number of provisions in 

# OAR340 041 42 and 

## 45 the 

## EPA is acting 

### only on those 

## new and revised provisions 

### which are considered 

### water quality standards 

### under Section 

## 303

# c of the

# CW

# AODEQ submitted revisions 

### and requested the 

## EPA review and act 

### on the 

### water quality standards contained in

# OAR 340041 Revisions addressed in today's action 

### can be divided into the general categories described 

## below 

# 1 New and revised 

## human health criteria at

# OAR 340041 0033 

# ODEQ adopted 

## new and revised 

## human health criteria for 

### 104 toxic pollutants 

### 48 

# noncarcinogens and 56 carcinogens based on a fish 

### consumption rate 

### of 175 grams per 

## day The criteria for these toxic pollutants are consistent with the 

## EPA's 

## 304

# a recommended criteria values2 and 

### were derived using the 

### methodology presented in the 

## EPA's 2000 Methodology for Deriving 

### Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection 

### of

## Human Health3 

### and the 

## EPA's 2001 Methylmercury guidance 4 

## The new human health criteria for toxic pollutants are contained in 

### Table 

## 40
Additional revisions related to the 

## human health criteria 

### include

• 

## The removal of 13 pollutants consistent with 

## EPA's removal of

## 304

# a recommended criteria values for these 

## same pollutants 

### Most of these 

## recommended criteria 

### were withdrawn since the 

## EPA developed individual criteria for the 

### most toxic 

### ofchemicals in the family

### ofchemicals represented 

### by those 

### 13 pollutants

2

### 2009 

## EPA National 

### Recommended Water Quality Criteria Available at 

### httpwater CpaSOV sci

# hch

# SVguidance standards currentupload

## nrwqc 0011 pdf 3

## EPA 2000 Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of

### Human Health 

## EPA 822

# B00004 Available at 

## htlp

# wwwepa

### govwaterscienec criterialhurnanhealth 

### method completc pdf 4

## EPA 2001 Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of

### Human Health Methylmercury 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DCEPA 823

# R01001 Available at 

## httpwwwepa

# gwwaterscienee criteria rnethylmercury

# l cument html 

### 3 

# 0 Print on Recyc 1 Paper• Several 

## new revised 

### and withdrawn footnotes to the criteria in order to provide clarification

• Revisions to the water quality standards provision at

# OAR340 041 0033 which provides narrative language explaining the 

## human health 

### and aquatic life criteria tables 

# 2 Revised arsenic 

## human health criteria 

# ODEQ adopted revised 

## human health criteria for arsenic 

### and submitted the revised criteria separately to the 

## EPA on July 

## 12 2011 

# 3 New implementation provision entitled 

### Sitespecific 

### background pollutant criteria at

# OAR340 0410033

# 6 ODEQ adopted a 

## new provision that authorizes the 

### development of a sitespecific criterion 

### under specified conditions 

### and applicable to waterbodies in the vicinity 

### ofa 

## NPDES permitted discharge that receives 

### a pollutant 

### from the intake 

### water concentrates that pollutant without adding 

## mass and discharges it 

### back to the receiving 

### water 

## The new criterion 

## may not 

### be 

## more three percent higher than the existing criteria or represent a carcinogenic risk 

### ofgreater than 

## 104

• Several other limiting factors are also defined in the 

## new rule 

# 4 Revised variance provision at

# OAR340041 0059 

# ODEQ has 

### removed the variance language 

### found at

# OAR 340041 0061

# 2 and replaced it with 

## new language at

# OAR 340041 0059 ODEQ's objective forthese revisions 

### was to ensure that variances 

### and their 

### accompanying pollutant reduction plans will result in 

### improvements in water quality efficiencies in the administration 

### process and add general clarification to the rule

# Anew requirement 

### was added that a pollutant reduction plan 

### be developed for

### each facility granted a variance 

# 5 A correction to 

### a crossreference in the bacteria provision 

### found at

# OAR 340 041 0009

# 10 ODEQ adopted a revision to correct the 

### crossreference in this provision to reflect rule 

### numbering revisions in 

# OAR340 041 0061 

# 6 Revised rules explaining 

## how the 

### mechanisms forforestry 

## and agricultural 

### nonpoint sources 

## work to 

### meet water quality standards 

## and the total

## maximum daily 

### load



# TMDL load allocations 

### under the Forest Practices 

### Act 

## and Agriculture 

### Water Quality 

## Management Act at

# OAR 340 041 0007

# 5 and

# OAR 340 041 0061

# 9aE

10 and 

# 11 ODEQ adopted revisions to clarify 

## how nonpoint sources will 

### be addressed in

## TMDLs and 

## how

# ODEQ will interact with the 

### Departments of Forestry

### and Agriculture to ensure 

### needed programs are in place to address these sources 

### of pollution



### 4 

# 0 Printedon Recycted Psper

# EPAs DECISION In 

### accordance with its 

### Clean Water Act authority 

### 33

# USC 1313

# c3 and 

## 40

# CF

# R part 

## 131 the 

## EPA is approving the following 

### because they are protective 

### ofOregon's designated 

### uses

• 

## New human health toxic criteria for

### 42 pollutants in 

### Table 

## 40

• 

### Revised 

## human health toxic criteria for 

### 63 pollutants including 

### arsenic in 

### Table 

## 40

• 

## New footnotes for 

### cyanide 

## PCBs methylmercury and arsenic in 

### Table 

## 40

• 

### Removal of 

### 13 general 

## human health criteria since the state has 

### adopted more specific 

## human health criteria for 

### each toxic pollutant consistent with the 

## EPA's current

## 304

# a criteria 

### recommendations

• 

## New and revised provisions at

# OAR 340 041 0033

# 1 3 and 

# 4which describe dates 

## when the taxies criteria in Tables 

## 20 33A 33B and 40 

## become effective 

### under state 

### law and the 

### Clean Water 

## Act

• 

### Minor editorial revision to correct 

### an error in the 

### cross reference in the bacteria provision at

# OAR340 041 0009 1

# 0

• 

### Revised variance provision at

# OAR 340 041 0059 note there are several sections within the variance provision that the 

## EPA did not consider to 

### be

# WQS and therefore took 

### no action 

# on

• 

## New sitespecific 

### background pollutant criteria at

# OAR340 041 0033

# 6
The 

## EPA does not consider the following revisions to 

### be water quality standards 

### under Section 

## 303

# c ofthe

# CWAand therefore the 

## EPA is taking 

### no action 

### on 

## them

• 

## New footnote for 

## human health taxies criteria for

### barium in 

### Table 

## 40

• 

### Revised footnotes for asbestos 

### chlorophenoxy herbicide 

## 2,4,5

# TP chlorophenoxy herbicide 

## 2,4

# D copper methoxychlor and nitrates

• 

### Removal offootnotes for 

### hexachlorocyclo 

## hexanetechnical nitrosamines 

### and nitrosodiethylamine 

# N

• 

## New introductory 

## summarylanguage for

### Table 40 which explains the 

### purpose of the criteria criteria derivation 

### and the format 

### ofthe table

• 

### Revised rules at

# OAR340 041 0007

# 5 which explain 

## how the 

### mechanism for forestry nonpoint sources 

### work to 

### meet water quality standards 

### and the total 

## maximum daily load 

# TMDL load allocations under the Forest Practices 

## Act

• Revisions to 

# OAR340 041 0061

# 9aE 10 and 

## 11 which correct an error in the 

### crossreference to the antidegradation policy 

### and revised rules regarding forestry 

### and agricultural nonpoint sources under the Forest Practices 

### Act and Agriculture 

### Water Quality 

## Management Act 

# A detailed discussion 

### ofthe rationale supporting today's actions is included in the enclosed Technical 

### Support 

## Document

5 

# 0 Plinffld on Recycled Paper

# CONCLUSION In closing 

## we would like to thank 

# ODEQ and the 

### Commission for

### your dedication 

### and leadership throughout this rule 

### development process Oregon's 

## work on the 

### FishConsumption Rate 

### Review Project resulted in a solid foundation that supported the 

### development of these 

## human health criteria that protect all 

### consumers offish caught in 

### Oregon's waters the general population as well as tribal fishers 

### and other 

## highconsuming populations in the State This rule will serve as a solid 

### example to other states in the 

### Northwest and throughout the country as they address similarissues 

### Oregon's 

## work will also provide a 

### framework for the 

## EPA Region lO's efforts with other states 

### and tribes in our 

## Region 

# We appreciate the opportunity to

## work closely

### with 

## you your staff the Confederated Tribes 

### of the Umatilla Indian 

### Reservation and your stakeholders throughout this 

### process 

## You have conducted a thoughtful and thorough 

### process It has 

### been a great experience to partner with the State of

### Oregon in this effort 

### The 

## EPA understands that the implementation 

### ofthese standards is 

### on a 

## longterm path 

### and is 

### committed to 

### working with 

# ODEQ in the years 

### ahead as the standards are 

### implemented Providing 

### Oregon assistance in processing variance requests 

### and addressing other issues that 

## may arise 

### from the adoption of these 

### more stringent standards is a high priority for

## me and the Office of

### Water and 

### Watersheds Please let us 

## know how we might 

### be of continues assistance as 

### you encounter needs 

### and questions that result 

### from implementation 

### ofthese criteria
If 

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

## me at 

## 206 5534198 or 

### you 

## may contact Jannine 

### Jennings Water Quality Standards Unit 

## Manager at 

## 206 5532724

Enclosure


## cc 

# Ms Jennifer 

## Wigal 

# ODEQ Ms Debra Sturdevant 

# ODEQ Ms Andrea 

## Matzke 

# ODEQ 

# Mr Eric 

## Quempts 

## CTUIR Sincerely 

# LAJttL

# f

Michael 

# A Bussell Director Office of

### Water and Watersheds



# Mr Carl 

### Merkle Confederated Tribes 

### ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation



## 6 

# 0 Printed on RtiCyci HI Paper