Revision of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to Washington, 55063-55077 [2015-22592]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Each state worksheet also contains a
summary showing (1) the quantity of
allowances initially available in that
state’s 2015 NUSA, (2) the sum of the
2015 NUSA allowance allocations that
were made in the first-round to new
units in that state (if any), and (3) the
quantity of allowances in the 2015
NUSA available for distribution in
second-round allocations to new units
(or ultimately for allocation to existing
units).
Objections should be strictly limited
to whether EPA has correctly identified
the new units eligible for second-round
2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances according to
the criteria described above and should
be emailed to the address identified in
ADDRESSES. Objections must include: (1)
Precise identification of the specific
data the commenter believes are
inaccurate, (2) new proposed data upon
which the commenter believes EPA
should rely instead, and (3) the reasons
why EPA should rely on the
commenter’s proposed data and not the
data referenced in this notice of
availability.
Authority: 40 CFR 97.511(b).
Reid P. Harvey,
Director, Clean Air Markets Division.
[FR Doc. 2015–22943 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0174; FRL–9932–03–
OW]
RIN 2040–AF56
Revision of Certain Federal Water
Quality Criteria Applicable to
Washington
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to revise the
current federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
human health criteria applicable to
waters under the state of Washington’s
jurisdiction to ensure that the criteria
are set at levels that will adequately
protect Washington residents, including
tribes with treaty-protected rights, from
exposure to toxic pollutants. EPA
promulgated Washington’s existing
criteria for the protection of human
health in 1992 as part of the National
Toxics Rule (NTR), (amended in 1999
for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs))
using the Agency’s recommended
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
criteria values at the time. EPA derived
those criteria using a fish consumption
rate (FCR) of 6.5 grams per day (g/day)
based on national surveys. However, the
best available data now demonstrate
that fish consumers in Washington,
including tribes with treaty-protected
rights, consume much more fish than
6.5 g/day. There are also new data and
scientific information available to
update the toxicity and exposure
parameters used to calculate human
health criteria. Therefore, EPA proposes
to revise the federal human health
criteria applicable to waters under
Washington’s jurisdiction to take into
account the best available science,
including local and regional
information, as well as applicable EPA
policies, guidance, and legal
requirements, to protect human health.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2015–0174, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erica Fleisig, Office of Water, Standards
and Health Protection Division (4305T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
566–1057; email address: fleisig.erica@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed rule is organized as follows:
I. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
II. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55063
B. General Recommended Approach for
Deriving Human Health Criteria
III. Necessity Determination for Washington
A. Existing Criteria Are Not Protective of
Designated Uses of Waters in the State of
Washington
B. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of
Necessity
IV. Derivation of Human Health Criteria for
Washington
A. Tribal Reserved Fishing Rights and
Washington’s Designated Uses
B. Scope of EPA’s Proposal
C. Washington-Specific Human Health
Criteria Inputs
D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for
Washington
E. Applicability of Criteria When Final
F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and
Implementation Mechanisms
V. Economic Analysis
A. Identifying Affected Entities
B. Method for Estimating Costs
C. Results
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments)
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks)
H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations)
I. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
Entities such as industries,
stormwater management districts, or
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that discharge pollutants to
waters of the United States under the
state of Washington’s jurisdiction could
be indirectly affected by this
rulemaking, because federal water
quality standards (WQS) promulgated
by EPA would be applicable to CWA
regulatory programs, such as National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned
with water quality in Washington could
also be interested in this rulemaking.
Categories and entities that could
potentially be affected include the
following:
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
55064
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Category
Examples of potentially
affected entities
Industry ..........
Industries discharging pollutants to waters of the
United States in Washington.
Publicly owned treatment
works or other facilities
discharging pollutants to
waters of the United
States in Washington.
Entities responsible for managing stormwater runoff in
the state of Washington.
Municipalities
Stormwater
Management
Districts.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities that could
be indirectly affected by this action.
Any parties or entities who depend
upon or contribute to the water quality
of Washington’s waters could be
affected by this proposed rule. To
determine whether your facility or
activities could be affected by this
action, you should carefully examine
this proposed rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Background
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
CWA section 101(a)(2) establishes as
a national goal ‘‘water quality which
provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife, and recreation in and on the
water, wherever attainable.’’ These are
commonly referred to as the ‘‘fishable/
swimmable’’ goals of the CWA. EPA
interprets ‘‘fishable’’ uses to include, at
a minimum, designated uses providing
for the protection of aquatic
communities and human health related
to consumption of fish and shellfish.1
CWA section 303(c) (33 U.S.C.
1313(c)) directs states to adopt WQS for
their waters subject to the CWA. CWA
section 303(c)(2)(A) and EPA’s
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
131 require, among other things, that a
state’s WQS specify appropriate
designated uses of the waters, and water
quality criteria that protect those uses.
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)
provide that such criteria ‘‘must be
based on sound scientific rationale and
must contain sufficient parameters or
constituents to protect the designated
use.’’ In addition, 40 CFR 131.10(b)
provides that ‘‘[i]n designating uses of a
1 USEPA. 2000. Memorandum #WQSP–00–03.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC https://water.epa.gov/
scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2000_10_31_
standards_shellfish.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
water body and the appropriate criteria
for those uses, the state shall take into
consideration the water quality
standards of downstream waters and
ensure that its water quality standards
provide for the attainment and
maintenance of the water quality
standards of downstream waters.’’
States are required to review
applicable WQS at least once every
three years and, if appropriate, revise or
adopt new standards (CWA section
303(c)(1)). Any new or revised WQS
must be submitted to EPA for review
and approval or disapproval (CWA
section 303(c)(2)(A) and (c)(3)). CWA
section 303(c)(4)(B) authorizes the
Administrator to determine, even in the
absence of a state submission, that a
new or revised standard is needed to
meet CWA requirements.
Under CWA section 304(a), EPA
periodically publishes criteria
recommendations for states to consider
when adopting water quality criteria for
particular pollutants to meet the CWA
section 101(a)(2) goals. In 2015, EPA
updated its 304(a) recommended criteria
for human health for 94 pollutants.2
Where EPA has published
recommended criteria, states should
consider adopting water quality criteria
based on EPA’s CWA section 304(a)
criteria, section 304(a) criteria modified
to reflect site-specific conditions, or
other scientifically defensible methods
(40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)). Ultimately,
however, criteria must protect the
designated use and be based on sound
scientific rationale (40 CFR
131.11(a)(1)). CWA section 303(c)(2)(B)
requires states to adopt numeric criteria
for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to
CWA section 307(a)(1) for which EPA
has published 304(a) criteria, as
necessary to support the states’
designated uses.
In 1992, EPA promulgated the NTR at
40 CFR 131.36, establishing chemicalspecific, numeric criteria for 85 priority
toxic pollutants for 14 states and
territories (states), including
Washington, that were not in
compliance with the requirements of
CWA section 303(c)(2)(B). When states
covered by the NTR subsequently
adopted their own criteria for toxic
pollutants that EPA approved as
consistent with the CWA and EPA’s
implementing regulations, EPA
amended the NTR to remove those
2 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986,
June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015
Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC. https://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
states. Half of the original 14 states and
territories remain covered for one or
more criteria in the NTR. Washington
has not yet adopted its own criteria for
the protection of human health and,
therefore, the Federal human health
criteria that EPA promulgated in the
NTR remain applicable to waters
throughout the state.3
B. General Recommended Approach for
Deriving Human Health Criteria
Human health criteria are designed to
minimize the risk of adverse cancer and
non-cancer effects occurring from
lifetime exposure to pollutants through
the ingestion of drinking water and
consumption of fish/shellfish obtained
from inland and nearshore waters.
EPA’s practice is to establish a human
health 304(a) criterion for both drinking
water and consumption of fish/shellfish
from inland and nearshore waters
combined and a separate human health
criterion based on ingestion of fish/
shellfish from inland and nearshore
waters alone. This latter criterion
applies in cases where the designated
uses of a waterbody include supporting
fish/shellfish for human consumption
but not drinking water supply sources
(e.g., in non-potable estuarine waters).
The criteria are based on two types of
biological endpoints: (1) Carcinogenicity
and (2) systemic toxicity (i.e., all
adverse effects other than cancer). EPA
takes an integrated approach and
considers both cancer and non-cancer
effects when deriving human health
criteria. Where sufficient data are
available, EPA derives criteria using
both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
toxicity endpoints and recommends the
lower value. Human health criteria for
carcinogenic effects are calculated using
the following input parameters: Cancer
slope factor, cancer risk level, body
weight, drinking water intake rate, fish
consumption rate, and a
bioaccumulation factor(s). Human
health criteria for non-carcinogenic and
nonlinear carcinogenic effects are
calculated using a reference dose in
place of a cancer slope factor and cancer
risk level, as well as a relative source
contribution (RSC), which is intended to
ensure that an individual’s total
exposure from all sources does not
exceed the criteria. Each of these inputs
is discussed in more detail below and in
3 Washington adopted criteria for the protection
of aquatic life from toxic pollutants at WAC 173–
201A–240. On January 12, 2015, Washington
proposed statewide human health criteria and new
and revised implementation provisions. In July
2015, Governor Inslee directed Washington to
reconsider its proposed human health criteria and
implementation tool revisions. See https://
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/
wac173201A/1203ov.html.
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
EPA’s 2000 Human Health
Methodology.4
a. Cancer Risk Level
EPA’s 304(a) national recommended
human health criteria generally assume
that carcinogenicity is a ‘‘non-threshold
phenomenon,’’ which means that there
are no ‘‘safe’’ or ‘‘no-effect’’ levels
because even extremely small doses are
assumed to cause a finite increase in the
incidence of cancer. Therefore, EPA
calculates 304(a) human health criteria
for carcinogenic effects as pollutant
concentrations corresponding to lifetime
increases in the risk of developing
cancer.5 EPA calculates its 304(a)
human health criteria values at a 10¥6
(one in one million) cancer risk level
and recommends cancer risk levels of
10¥6 or 10¥5 (one in one hundred
thousand) for the general population.6
EPA notes that states and authorized
tribes can also choose a more stringent
risk level, such as 10¥7 (one in ten
million), when deriving human health
criteria.
If the pollutant is not considered to
have the potential for causing cancer in
humans (i.e., systemic toxicants), EPA
assumes that the pollutant has a
threshold below which a physiological
mechanism exists within living
organisms to avoid or overcome the
adverse effects of the pollutant.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Cancer Slope Factor and Reference
Dose
A dose-response assessment is
required to understand the quantitative
relationships between the amount of
exposure to a pollutant and the onset of
human health effects. EPA evaluates
dose-response relationships derived
from animal toxicity and human
epidemiological studies to derive doseresponse metrics for regulatory
purposes. To evaluate carcinogenic
effects, the dose-response metric used to
characterize a chemical’s human cancer4 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA–
822–B–00–004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
5 As noted above, EPA recommends the criteria
derived for non-carcinogenic effects if it is more
protective (lower) than that derived for carcinogenic
effects.
6 EPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology also
states: ‘‘Criteria based on a 10¥5 risk level are
acceptable for the general population as long as
states and authorized tribes ensure that the risk to
more highly exposed subgroups (sport fishers or
subsistence fishers) does not exceed the 10¥4
level.’’ Since EPA is proposing criteria to protect
the target general population in Washington (tribes
with reserved rights in Washington waters), the
applicable EPA-recommended cancer risk levels are
those for the general population. See section IV for
additional discussion.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
causing potential is referred to as a
cancer slope factor (CSF). For noncarcinogenic effects, EPA uses the
reference dose (RfD) to calculate human
health criteria. Doses that are below the
RfD are less likely to be associated with
health risks. EPA’s Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) 7 was the
primary source of toxicity values (i.e.,
RfD and CSF) for EPA’s 2015 updated
304(a) human health criteria.8 For some
pollutants, however, more recent peerreviewed and publicly available
toxicological data were available from
other EPA program offices (e.g., Office
of Pesticide Programs, Office of Water,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response), other national and
international programs, and state
programs.
c. Exposure Assumptions
Per EPA’s latest 304(a) national
human health criteria, EPA uses a
default drinking water intake rate of 2.4
liters per day (L/day) and default rate of
22 g/day for consumption of fish and
shellfish from inland and nearshore
waters, multiplied by pollutant-specific
bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) to
account for the amount of the pollutant
in the edible portions of the ingested
species. EPA’s methodology for deriving
human health criteria emphasizes using,
when possible, measured or estimated
BAFs, which account for chemical
accumulation in aquatic organisms from
all potential exposure routes.9 In the
2015 national 304(a) human health
criteria update, EPA primarily used
field-measured BAFs and laboratorymeasured bioconcentration factors
(BCFs) available from peer-reviewed,
publicly available databases to develop
national BAFs for three trophic levels of
fish.10 If this information was not
available, EPA selected octanol-water
7 USEPA. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC. www.epa.gov/iris.
8 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986,
June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015
Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC. https://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
9 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA–
822–B–00–004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
10 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986,
June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015
Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC. https://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55065
partition coefficients (Kow values) from
peer-reviewed sources for use in
calculating national BAFs.
EPA’s national default drinking water
intake rate of 2.4 L/day represents the
per capita estimate of combined direct
and indirect community water ingestion
at the 90th percentile for adults ages 21
and older.11 EPA’s national FCR of 22 g/
day represents the 90th percentile
consumption rate of fish and shellfish
from inland and nearshore waters for
the U.S. adult population 21 years of age
and older, based on National Health and
Nutrient Examination Survey
(NHANES) data from 2003 to 2010.12 13
EPA calculates human health criteria
using a default body weight of 80
kilograms (kg), the average weight of a
U.S. adult age 21 and older, based on
NHANES data from 1999 to 2006.
Although EPA uses these values to
calculate national 304(a) recommended
criteria, EPA’s methodology notes a
preference for the use of local data to
calculate human health criteria (e.g.,
locally derived FCRs, drinking water
intake rates and body weights, and
waterbody-specific bioaccumulation
rates) over national default values, to
better represent local conditions.14 EPA
also generally recommends, where
sufficient data are available, selecting a
FCR that reflects consumption that is
not suppressed by fish availability or
concerns about the safety of available
fish.15 Deriving criteria using an
unsuppressed FCR furthers the
restoration goals of the CWA, and
ensures protection of human health as
pollutant levels decrease, fish habitats
11 USEPA. 2011. EPA Exposure Factors
Handbook. 2011 edition (EPA 600/R–090/052F).
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.
12 USEPA. 2014. Estimated Fish Consumption
Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected
Subpopulations (NHANES 2003–2010). United
States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, USA. EPA 820–R–14–002.
13 EPA’s national FCR is based on the total rate
of consumption of fish and shellfish from inland
and nearshore waters (including fish and shellfish
from local, commercial, aquaculture, interstate, and
international sources). This is consistent with a
principle that each state does its share to protect
people who consume fish and shellfish that
originate from multiple jurisdictions. USEPA.
January 2013. Human Health Ambient Water
Quality Criteria and Fish Consumption Rates:
Frequently Asked Questions. https://water.epa.gov/
scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/
methodology/upload/hhfaqs.pdf.
14 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA–
822–B–00–004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
15 USEPA. January 2013. Human Health Ambient
Water Quality Criteria and Fish Consumption Rates:
Frequently Asked Questions. https://water.epa.gov/
scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/
methodology/upload/hhfaqs.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
55066
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
are restored, and fish availability
increases. While EPA encourages doing
so in general, where tribal treaty or
other reserved fishing rights apply,
selecting a FCR that reflects
unsuppressed fish consumption could
be necessary in order to satisfy such
rights. If sufficient data regarding
unsuppressed fish consumption levels
are unavailable, consultation with tribes
is important in deciding which fish
consumption data should be used. See
section IV.C.a.
d. Relative Source Contribution
When deriving human health criteria
for non-carcinogens and nonlinear
carcinogens, EPA recommends
including a RSC factor to account for
sources of exposure other than drinking
water and fish and shellfish from inland
and nearshore waters, so that the
pollutant effect threshold (i.e., RfD) is
not apportioned to drinking water and
fish consumption alone. These other
exposures include exposure to a
particular pollutant from ocean fish
consumption (which is not included in
EPA’s default national FCR), non-fish
food consumption (e.g., fruits,
vegetables, grains, meats, poultry),
dermal exposure, and respiratory
exposure. EPA’s guidance includes a
procedure for determining an
appropriate RSC for a given pollutant
ranging in value from 0.2 to 0.8.
III. Necessity Determination for
Washington
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Existing Criteria Are Not Protective of
Designated Uses of Waters in the State
of Washington
In the NTR, 40 CFR 131.36(d)(14),
EPA stated that the federal human
health criteria applied to all waters
assigned to Washington’s use
classifications identified at WAC 173–
201–045, including fish and shellfish,
fish, water supply (domestic), and
recreation. As currently defined in
Washington’s WQS (WAC 173–201A–
600 and WAC 173–201A–610), the uses
subject to federal human health criteria
in Washington include the following:
Fresh waters—Harvesting (fish
harvesting), Domestic Water (domestic
water supply), and Recreational Uses;
Marine waters—Shellfish Harvesting
(shellfish—clam, oyster, and mussel—
harvesting), Harvesting (salmonid and
other fish harvesting, and crustacean
and other shellfish—crabs, shrimp,
scallops, etc.—harvesting), and
Recreational Uses.
Per EPA’s regulations at § 131.11(a),
water quality criteria must contain
sufficient parameters or constituents to
protect the designated use, and for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
waters with multiple use designations,
the criteria must support the most
sensitive use. In determining whether
WQS comply with the CWA and EPA’s
regulations, when setting criteria to
support the most sensitive use in
Washington, it is necessary to consider
other applicable laws, including federal
treaties.16 In Washington, many tribes
hold reserved rights to take fish for
subsistence, ceremonial, religious, and
commercial purposes, including treatyreserved rights to fish at all usual and
accustomed fishing grounds and
stations in waters under state
jurisdiction, which cover the majority of
waters in the state. Such rights include
not only a right to take those fish, but
necessarily include an attendant right to
not be exposed to unacceptable health
risks by consuming those fish.
In 1992, EPA selected input values
based on available national data to
derive protective human health criteria
in the NTR. To ensure protection of
human health in waters where fish and
shellfish are caught and consumed, EPA
used data available at the time on the
average per-capita consumption rate of
fish from inland and nearshore waters
for the U.S. population. This average
rate was 6.5 g/day.
Surveys of local residents in the
Pacific Northwest, including tribes and
recreational anglers, reflect high
consumption levels of fish and
shellfish—much higher than the 6.5 g/
day rate that EPA used in 1992 to derive
Washington’s human health criteria in
the NTR. Since that time, data have
become available that better represent
regional and local fish consumption in
Washington, including:
• A Fish Consumption Survey of the
Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and
Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia
River Basin (Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994).
• A Fish Consumption Survey of the
Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes of
the Puget Sound Region (Toy et al.,
1996).
• Fish Consumption Survey of the
Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port
Madison Indian Reservations, Puget
Sound Region (Suquamish Tribe, 2000).
• Asian and Pacific Islander Seafood
Consumption Study (Sechena et al.,
1999).
The average FCRs 17 from these
surveys range from 63 to 214 g/day, far
in excess of 6.5 g/day. The 90th
percentile FCRs from these surveys
16 In addition to treaties, executive orders and
federal statutes, such as land claim settlement acts,
could also apply.
17 Cited FCRs are based on total fish consumption
regardless of source.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
range from 113 to 489 g/day, also far in
excess of EPA’s current national FCR of
22 g/day, which represents the 90th
percentile national FCR (see section
II.B.c). The 6.5 g/day FCR that EPA used
to derive the current human health
criteria applicable to Washington does
not account for these more recent local
data, nor suppression in fish
consumption (as discussed earlier).18 In
addition, the 6.5 g/day FCR does not
account for EPA’s 2000
recommendation to use an upper
percentile of fish consumption data for
the target general population (as with
EPA’s current national FCR of 22 g/day)
rather than an average. EPA considered
the fish consumption data cited above,
in conjunction with Washington’s
current designated uses as informed by
tribal reserved rights in Washington (as
discussed in section IV.A), and
determined that the federal human
health criteria in the NTR as applied to
Washington no longer protect the
relevant designated uses of
Washington’s waters.
B. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of
Necessity
Because Washington’s existing human
health criteria, as promulgated by EPA
in the NTR, are no longer protective of
the applicable designated uses per the
CWA and EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
131.11, EPA determines under CWA
section 303(c)(4)(B) that new or revised
WQS for the protection of human health
are necessary to meet the requirements
of the CWA for Washington. EPA,
therefore, proposes the revised human
health criteria for Washington in this
rule in accordance with this 303(c)(4)(B)
determination. EPA’s determination is
not itself a final action, nor part of a
final action, at this time. After
consideration of comments on the
18 Historical or heritage FCRs could be of
relevance to establishing unsuppressed FCRs for
Washington tribes. Extensively researched
historical average FCRs for the Columbia River
Basin Tribes range from 401 to 995 g/day (Craig and
Hacker (1940) & Hewes (1947); Swindell (1942);
Marshall (1977); Walker (1967)). More limited
average historic FCRs for Washington Tribes range
from 454 to 746 g/day (Hewes 1973). In United
States v. Washington (1974), the court accepted a
heritage FCR of 620 g/day. A number of factors
could cause these FCRs to be underestimates
(Schalk 1986), including the fact that, with the
exception of Craig and Hacker (1940), they only
include consumption of salmon. Upper percentile
values are not reported in these historical studies
but would be higher than the reported average
values. The highest estimated current FCRs in
Washington come from the Suquamish Tribal
survey (Suquamish 2000), with a reported FCR as
high as 1,600 g/day (Table C5). The 95th percentile
Suquamish FCR is 767 g/day (Ecology 2013). Recent
publications by Harper and Walker (2015)
comprehensively summarize and further support
these heritage and contemporary fish consumption
rates.
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule, EPA will take final
agency action on this rulemaking. It is
at that time that any change to the water
quality standards applicable to
Washington would occur.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Derivation of Human Health
Criteria for Washington
A. Tribal Reserved Fishing Rights and
Washington’s Designated Uses
A majority of waters under
Washington’s jurisdiction are covered
by reserved rights, including tribal
treaty-reserved rights (see section III.A).
Many areas where reserved rights are
exercised cannot be directly protected
or regulated by the tribal governments
and, therefore, the responsibility falls to
the state and federal governments to
ensure their protection.19 In order to
effectuate and harmonize these reserved
rights, including treaty rights, with the
CWA, EPA determined that such rights
appropriately must be considered when
determining which criteria are
necessary to adequately protect
Washington’s fish and shellfish
harvesting designated uses (see sections
IV.C.a and IV.C.b).
Protecting Washington’s fish and
shellfish harvesting designated uses,
which include consumption of such fish
and shellfish, necessitates protecting the
population exercising those uses. Where
a population exercising such uses has a
legal right to do so, the criteria
protecting such uses must be consistent
with such right. Thus, EPA proposes to
consider the tribal population exercising
their reserved fishing rights in
Washington as the target general
population for the purposes of deriving
protective criteria that allow the tribes
to harvest and consume fish consistent
with their reserved rights.
Although treaties do not cover all
waters in Washington, they cover the
vast majority of the state’s waters.
Additionally, where treaty and nontreaty reserved rights apply on waters
downstream of waters without reserved
fishing rights, upstream WQS must
provide for the attainment and
maintenance of downstream WQS in
accordance with EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR 131.10(b). For any remaining
waters in Washington where reserved
rights do not apply and that are not
upstream of waters with such rights or
waters in Oregon (see section IV.C.a), it
would be administratively burdensome
and difficult to implement separate
criteria because it would create a
19 Note that for formal and informal reservation
lands, eligible tribes can obtain treatment in a
similar manner as a state (TAS) status and set their
own WQS under the CWA, including human health
criteria.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
patchwork of protection among these
areas leading to potential difficulties in
administering the WQS, NPDES
permitting, and other programs. In
addition, delineating the precise
boundaries could itself be complicated.
Therefore, EPA proposes to apply these
criteria to all waters under Washington’s
jurisdiction.
B. Scope of EPA’s Proposal
In 1992, EPA did not establish human
health criteria in the NTR for some
priority toxic pollutants for reasons
articulated in the preamble to the final
rule at 57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992.
EPA had no 304(a) recommendations for
those pollutants at the time. EPA now
has 304(a) recommendations for 99
priority toxic pollutants listed pursuant
to CWA section 307(a)(1) (85 for which
EPA established criteria in the NTR,
plus 14 additional pollutants).
Therefore, EPA proposes to derive
Washington-specific criteria for all 99
priority toxic pollutants in this rule. For
those priority pollutants for which EPA
does not have 304(a) national
recommended criteria, and are thus not
included in this proposed rule, EPA
expects that Washington will continue
to apply their existing narrative toxics
criterion in the state’s WQS at WAC
173–201A–260(2)(a).
This rule proposes to change the
criteria that EPA promulgated for
Washington in the NTR and establish
new human health criteria for the 14
additional chemicals for which EPA
now has 304(a) recommended criteria:
Copper, Selenium, Zinc, 1,2Dichloropropane, 1,2-TransDichloroethylene, 2-Chlorophenol, 2,4Dimethylphenol, Acenaphthene,
Butylbenzyl Phthalate, 2Chloronaphthalene, N-Nitrosodi-nPropylamine, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 3Methyl-4-Chlorophenol, and 1,2,4Trichlorobenzene. Since 1992, EPA
replaced its recommended human
health criteria for mercury with a fish
tissue-based human health criterion for
methylmercury. EPA proposes to
replace the criteria for mercury that EPA
promulgated for Washington in the NTR
with a methylmercury fish tissue
criterion, adjusted for the FCR that EPA
proposes to use to derive human health
criteria in Washington.20 This proposed
rule would not change or supersede any
criteria that EPA previously
promulgated for other states in the NTR,
20 USEPA. 2001. Water Quality Criterion for the
Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC EPA–823–R–01–001. https://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/health/upload/2009_01_15_criteria_
methylmercury_mercury-criterion.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55067
nor does it change any other elements
of the NTR such as EPA’s original basis
for promulgation. EPA proposes to
remove Washington from the NTR at 40
CFR 131.36 and incorporate the
Washington-specific criteria proposed
in this rule into proposed 40 CFR 131.45
so there is a single comprehensive rule
for Washington.
This proposed rule would apply to
waters under the state of Washington’s
jurisdiction, and not to waters within
Indian Country 21, unless otherwise
specified in federal law. Some waters
located within Indian Country already
have CWA-effective human health
criteria, while others do not.22 Several
tribes are working with EPA to either
revise their existing CWA-effective
WQS, or obtain treatment in a similar
manner as a state (TAS) status in order
to adopt their own WQS in the near
future. EPA will continue to work
closely with tribes in Washington to
ensure that they adopt human health
criteria that are scientifically supported
and protective of designated uses, in
accordance with the CWA and EPA’s
regulations.
C. Washington-Specific Human Health
Criteria Inputs
a. Fish Consumption Rate
EPA proposes to derive human health
criteria for Washington using a FCR of
175 g/day as this FCR accounts for local
data (consistent with EPA’s
methodology), reflects input received
during consultation with tribes, and
appropriately addresses protection of
Oregon’s downstream WQS, per EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(b).
EPA considered the input received
during consultation with tribes when
selecting which fish consumption data
would be used to estimate a FCR for
calculating human health criteria to
protect the designated uses. A FCR of
175 g/day approximates the 95th
percentile consumption rate of surveyed
tribal members from the CRITFC
study.23 Although EPA’s national
default FCR only includes consumption
of fish from inland and nearshore
waters, 175 g/day in this case includes
anadromous fish, which is appropriate
given that anadromous species reside in
21 See 18 U.S.C. 1151 for definition of Indian
Country.
22 Indian Country waters with CWA-effective
WQS are (a) those Indian Country waters where
EPA explicitly found that a tribe has jurisdiction to
adopt WQS under the CWA, and where the tribe
adopted standards in accordance with EPA
regulations, and (b) where EPA promulgated federal
WQS.
23 Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez
Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the
Columbia River Basin (Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994)
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
55068
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Washington’s nearshore waters,
especially Puget Sound, and accumulate
pollutants discharged to these waters.24
A FCR of 175 g/day, therefore, accounts
for local fish consumption data.
Additionally, Oregon, much of which is
downstream from Washington, used this
FCR to derive statewide human health
criteria, which EPA approved in 2011.
Use of this FCR to derive Washington’s
criteria should thus help provide for the
attainment and maintenance of
downstream WQS in Oregon.
After consideration of the full range of
available local fish consumption data
and after consultation with Washington
tribes and Columbia River Basin tribes
in Oregon and Idaho, EPA determined
that a FCR of 175 g/day very likely does
not reflect unsuppressed consumption
rates of tribes within the state (see
section II.B.c). EPA considered this fact
as well as tribal input in selecting a
cancer risk level of 10¥6 to account for
this uncertainty and ensure that EPA’s
proposed criteria protect Washington’s
fishing uses, including the tribes’
reserved fishing rights. See discussion
in section IV.C.b.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Cancer Risk Level
Based on Washington’s longstanding
use of a cancer risk level of 10¥6, along
with EPA’s consideration of tribal
reserved rights, EPA guidance, and
downstream protection, EPA proposes
to derive human health criteria for
carcinogens in Washington using a 10¥6
cancer risk level.
To derive final human health criteria
for each state in the NTR, EPA selected
a cancer risk level based on each state’s
policy or practice regarding what risk
level should be used when regulating
carcinogens in surface waters. In its
official comments on EPA’s proposed
NTR, Washington asked EPA to
promulgate human health criteria using
a cancer risk level of 10¥6, stating, ‘‘The
State of Washington supports adoption
of a risk level of one in one million for
carcinogens. If EPA decides to
promulgate a risk level below one in one
million, the rule should specifically
address the issue of multiple
24 O’Neill, S.M., and J.E. West. 2009. Marine
distribution, life history traits, and the
accumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls in
Chinook salmon from Puget Sound, Washington.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:
616–632.
O’Neill, S.M., G.M. Ylitalo, J.E. West, J. Bolton,
C.A. Sloan, and M.M. Krahn. 2006. Regional
patterns of persistent organic pollutants in five
Pacific salmon species (Oncorhynchus spp) and
their contributions to contaminant levels in
northern and southern resident killer whales
(Orcinus orca). 2006 Southern Resident Killer
Whale Symposium, NOAA Fisheries Service
Northwest Regional Office April 3–5, 2006. Seattle,
WA. Extended Abstract. 5pp.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
contaminants so as to better control
overall site risks.’’ (57 FR 60848,
December 22, 1992). Accordingly, in the
NTR, EPA used a cancer risk level of
10¥6 (one in one million) to derive
human health criteria for Washington.
Subsequently, Washington adopted and
EPA approved a provision in the state’s
WQS that reads: ‘‘Risk-based criteria for
carcinogenic substances shall be
selected such that the upper-bound
excess cancer risk is less than or equal
to one in a million’’ (WAC 173–201A–
240(6)). This provision has been in
effect in Washington’s WQS since 1993.
In order to effectuate reserved fishing
rights, including the rights that federal
treaties afford to tribes in Washington,
EPA proposes to derive criteria that will
protect the tribe’s reserved fishing rights
in Washington, treating the tribal
population exercising those rights as the
target general population (see section
IV.A). EPA’s selection of a 10¥6 cancer
risk level for the tribal target general
population is consistent with EPA’s
2000 Human Health Methodology,
which states that when promulgating
water quality criteria for states and
tribes, EPA intends to use the 10¥6
level, which reflects an appropriate risk
for the general population.25 EPA’s 2000
Human Health Methodology did not
consider how CWA decisions should
account for applicable reserved fishing
rights, including treaty-reserved rights.
As discussed in section IV.C.a, because
a FCR of 175 g/day very likely does not
reflect unsuppressed consumption,
using a cancer risk level of 10¥6 ensures
protection of tribal members’
unsuppressed consumption.
Independently, the treaties themselves
could require higher levels of
protection. The treaties themselves
could be interpreted to require a certain
level of risk; e.g., a de minimis level of
risk that would most reasonably
approximate conditions at the time the
treaties were signed and the fishing
rights were reserved. In policy
development regarding management of
cancer risks, EPA often uses 10¥6 as a
de minimis risk level.26 In this case,
EPA considers 10¥6 to be sufficiently
25 EPA 2000 Human Health Methodology, pages
2–6. The Methodology recommends that states set
human health criteria cancer risk levels for the
target general population at either 10 5 or 10¥6
(pages 2–6) and also notes that states and
authorized tribes can always choose a more
stringent risk level, such as 10 7 (pages 1–12).
26 See Castorina, Rosemary and Tracey J.
Woodruff. Assessment of Potential Risk Levels
Associated with the U.S. EPA Reference Values.
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 111, No.
10, page 1318. August 2003. https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241613/
pdf/ehp0111-001318.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
protective, and the tribes have
supported this during consultation.
Finally, many of Washington’s rivers
are in the Columbia River basin,
upstream of Oregon’s portion of the
Columbia River. Oregon’s criteria are
based on a FCR of 175 g/day and a
cancer risk level of 10¥6. EPA’s
proposal to derive human health criteria
for Washington using a cancer risk level
of 10¥6 along with a FCR of 175 g/day
helps ensure that Washington’s criteria
will provide for the attainment and
maintenance of Oregon’s downstream
WQS as required by 40 CFR 131.10(b).
c. Relative Source Contribution
EPA recommends using a RSC for
non-carcinogens and nonlinear
carcinogens to account for sources of
exposure other than drinking water and
consumption of inland and nearshore
fish and shellfish (see section II.B.d). In
2015, after evaluating information on
chemical uses, properties, occurrences,
releases to the environment and
regulatory restrictions, EPA developed
chemical-specific RSCs for noncarcinogens and nonlinear carcinogens
ranging from 0.2 (20 percent) to 0.8 (80
percent) following the Exposure
Decision Tree approach described in
EPA’s 2000 Human Health
Methodology.27 28 EPA proposes to use
these same RSCs to derive human health
criteria for Washington. Where EPA did
not update the nationally recommended
criteria for certain pollutants in 2015,
EPA proposes to use a RSC of 0.2 to
derive human health criteria for those
pollutants in Washington to ensure
protectiveness. See Table 1, column B2
for a list of EPA’s proposed RSCs by
pollutant.
d. Body Weight
EPA proposes to calculate human
health criteria for Washington using a
body weight of 80 kg, which represents
the average weight of a U.S. adult. In
2015, EPA updated its national adult
body weight to 80 kg based on national
survey data (see section II.B.c).29 Local
27 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA–
822–B–00–004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
28 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986,
June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015
Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC. https://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
29 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986,
June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015
Updated National Recommended Human Health
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
55069
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tribal survey data relevant to
Washington are consistent with EPA’s
national adult body weight of 80 kg.30
e. Drinking Water Intake
EPA proposes to calculate human
health criteria for Washington using a
rate of 2.4 L/day. In 2015, EPA updated
its national default drinking water
intake rate to 2.4 L/day based on
national survey data (see section
II.B.c).31 EPA is not aware of any local
data applicable to Washington that
suggest a more appropriate rate.
f. Pollutant-Specific Reference Doses
and Cancer Slope Factors
As part of EPA’s 2015 updates to its
304(a) recommended human health
criteria, EPA conducted a systematic
search of eight peer-reviewed, publicly
available sources to obtain the most
current toxicity values for each
pollutant (RfDs for non-carcinogenic
effects and CSFs for carcinogenic
effects).32 EPA proposes to calculate
human health criteria for Washington
using the same toxicity values that EPA
used in its 2015 304(a) criteria updates,
to ensure that the resulting criteria are
based on a sound scientific rationale.
Where EPA did not update criteria for
certain pollutants in 2015, EPA
proposes to use the toxicity values that
the Agency used the last time it updated
its 304(a) criteria for those pollutants as
the best available scientific information.
See Table 1, columns B1 and B3 for a
list of EPA’s proposed toxicity factors by
pollutant.
g. Pollutant-Specific Bioaccumulation
Factors
For the 2015 national 304(a) human
health criteria update, EPA estimated
chemical-specific BAFs using a
framework for deriving national BAFs
described in EPA’s 2000 Human Health
Methodology.33 Because the surveyed
population upon which the 175 g/day
FCR is based consumed almost
exclusively trophic level four fish (i.e.,
predator fish species), EPA proposes to
apply the trophic level four BAF from
the 2015 304(a) human health criteria
updates in conjunction with the 175 g/
day FCR, in order to ensure
protectiveness.34 Where EPA did not
update criteria for certain pollutants in
2015, EPA proposes to use the BCFs that
the Agency used the last time it updated
its 304(a) criteria for those pollutants as
the best available scientific information.
See Table 1, columns B4 and B5 for a
list of EPA’s proposed bioaccumulation
factors by pollutant.
D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for
Washington
EPA proposes 195 human health
criteria for 99 different pollutants (97
organism-only criteria and 98 water-
plus-organism criteria) to protect the
applicable designated uses of
Washington’s waters (see Table 1). The
water-plus-organism criteria in column
C1 of Table 1 are the applicable criteria
for any waters that include the Domestic
Water (domestic water supply) use
defined in Washington’s WQS (WAC
173–201A–600). The organism-only
criteria in column C2 of Table 1 apply
to waters that do not include the
Domestic Water (domestic water supply)
use and that Washington defines at
WAC 173–201A–600 and 173–201A–
610 as the following: Fresh waters—
Harvesting (fish harvesting), and
Recreational Uses; Marine waters—
Shellfish Harvesting (shellfish—clam,
oyster, and mussel—harvesting),
Harvesting (salmonid and other fish
harvesting, and crustacean and other
shellfish—crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.—
harvesting), and Recreational Uses.
EPA solicits comment on the criteria,
the inputs EPA used to derive these
criteria, and specifically solicits
additional Washington-specific
information such as data from local fish
or drinking water consumption rate
studies, or bioaccumulation field
studies from Washington waters.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON
A
B
C
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ....................
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .............
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ....................
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene .....................
5. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene .................
6. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene .....................
7. 1,2-Dichloroethane ........................
8. 1,2-Dichloropropane ......................
9. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ..................
10. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene .........
11. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ...................
12. 1,3-Dichloropropene ....................
13. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ...................
14. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) ................
CAS No.
71556
79345
79005
75354
120821
95501
107062
78875
122667
156605
541731
542756
106467
1746016
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC. https://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
30 USEPA Region 10. August 2007. Framework for
Selecting and Using Tribal Fish and Shellfish
Consumption Rates for Risk-Based Decision Making
at CERCLA and RCRA Cleanup Sites in Puget
Sound and the Strait of Georgia. Appendix B.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/
7780249be8f251538825650f0070bd8b/
e12918970debc8e488256da6005c428e/$FILE/
Tribal%20Shellfish%20Framework.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
Relative
source
contribution,
RSC (¥)
Reference
dose, RfD
(mg/kg·d)
Bio-accumulation
factor for trophic
level 4
(L/kg tissue)
Bio-concentration
factor LI≤(L/kg
tissue)
Water &
organisms
(μg/L)
Organisms
only
(μg/L)
(B1)
Chemical
Cancer
slope factor,
CSF
(per mg/
kg·d)
(B2)
(B3)
(B4)
(B5)
(C1)
(C2)
....................
0.2
0.057
....................
0.029
....................
0.0033
0.036
0.8
....................
....................
0.122
....................
156,000
0.20
....................
....................
0.20
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
0.20
....................
2
....................
....................
0.05
....................
0.3
....................
....................
....................
0.02
0.002
....................
0.07
....................
10
8.4
8.9
2.6
430
82
1.9
3.9
27
4.7
190
3.0
84
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
5,000
8,000
0.1
0.35
300
0.036
300
8.9
0.72
0.01
100
0.9
0.22
70
5.8E–10
20,000
0.3
0.90
2,000
0.037
300
73
3.3
0.02
400
1
1.2
80
5.9E–10
31 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986,
June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015
Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC https://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
32 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986,
June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015
Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Office of Water, Washington, DC https://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
33 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA–822–
B–00–004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
34 Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez
Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the
Columbia River Basin (Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994).
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
55070
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON—Continued
A
B
C
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
CAS No.
Relative
source
contribution,
RSC (¥)
Reference
dose, RfD
(mg/kg·d)
Bio-accumulation
factor for trophic
level 4
(L/kg tissue)
Bio-concentration
factor LI≤(L/kg
tissue)
Water &
organisms
(μg/L)
Organisms
only
(μg/L)
(B1)
Chemical
Cancer
slope factor,
CSF
(per mg/
kg·d)
(B2)
(B3)
(B4)
(B5)
(C1)
(C2)
0.28
6
300
40
0.18
100
80
3
0.015
200
7.9E–06
8.8E–07
1.2E–06
10
50
0.85
4.1E–08
4.8E–05
3
40
37
a 0.0059
....................
400
0.046
12
0.013
0.5
2.2E–05
80
2.2
200
0.016
....................
50
1.6E–05
2.8
7.0E–08
80
200
3
4
0.002
0.1
13
2
5
0.43
3.4E–07
2.4E–06
5.0E–06
0.01
0.4
0.02
0.00016
200
1,000
100
e 0.033
(mg/kg)
39
60
0.34
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ..................
2,4-Dichlorophenol ......................
2,4-Dimethylphenol .....................
2,4-Dinitrophenol .........................
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ........................
2-Chloronaphthalene ...................
2-Chlorophenol ............................
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol ..........
3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ................
3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol .............
4,4′-DDD .....................................
4,4′-DDE .....................................
4,4′-DDT ......................................
Acenaphthene .............................
Acrolein .......................................
Acrylonitrile ..................................
Aldrin ...........................................
alpha-BHC ...................................
alpha-Endosulfan ........................
Anthracene ..................................
Antimony .....................................
Arsenic ........................................
Asbestos .....................................
88062
120832
105679
51285
121142
91587
95578
534521
91941
59507
72548
72559
50293
83329
107028
107131
309002
319846
959988
120127
7440360
7440382
1332214
0.011
....................
....................
....................
0.667
....................
....................
....................
0.45
....................
0.24
0.167
0.34
....................
....................
0.54
17
6.3
....................
....................
....................
1.75
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
0.20
....................
0.80
0.20
0.20
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.003
0.02
0.002
....................
0.08
0.005
0.0003
....................
0.1
....................
....................
....................
0.06
0.0005
....................
....................
....................
0.006
0.3
0.0004
....................
....................
150
48
7
............................
3.9
240
5.4
10
69
39
240,000
3,100,000
1,100,000
............................
1.0
1.0
650,000
1,500
200
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
4.4
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
510
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
610
1
44
............................
38. Benzene ......................................
39. Benzidine ....................................
40. Benzo(a) Anthracene ..................
41. Benzo(a) Pyrene .........................
42. Benzo(b) Fluoranthene ...............
43. Benzo(k) Fluoranthene ...............
44. beta-BHC ....................................
45. beta-Endosulfan ..........................
46. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether ..............
47.
*Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl)
Ether ..............................................
48. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate .........
49. Bromoform ..................................
50. Butylbenzyl Phthalate .................
51. Carbon Tetrachloride ..................
52. Chlordane ....................................
53. Chlorobenzene ............................
54. Chlorodibromomethane ...............
55. Chloroform ..................................
56. Chrysene .....................................
57. Copper ........................................
58. Cyanide .......................................
59. Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene ............
60. Dichlorobromomethane ...............
61. Dieldrin ........................................
62. Diethyl Phthalate .........................
63. Dimethyl Phthalate ......................
64. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate ....................
65. Endosulfan Sulfate ......................
66. Endrin ..........................................
67. Endrin Aldehyde ..........................
68. Ethylbenzene ..............................
69. Fluoranthene ...............................
70. Fluorene ......................................
71. gamma-BHC; Lindane ................
72. Heptachlor ...................................
73. Heptachlor Epoxide .....................
74. Hexachlorobenzene ....................
75. Hexachlorobutadiene ..................
76. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ........
77. Hexachloroethane .......................
78. Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene .............
79. Isophorone ..................................
80. Methyl Bromide ...........................
81. Methylene Chloride .....................
82. Methylmercury .............................
71432
92875
56553
50328
205992
207089
319857
33213659
111444
c 0.055
230
0.73
7.3
0.73
0.073
1.8
....................
1.1
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.006
....................
5.0
1.7
............................
............................
............................
............................
180
130
1.7
............................
............................
3,900
3,900
3,900
3,900
............................
............................
............................
0.25
4
90
10
0.039
100
20
1
0.012
200
7.9E–06
8.8E–07
1.2E–06
10
3
0.058
4.1E–08
4.8E–05
3
40
2.5
a 0.0045
b 7,000,000
(fibers/L)
c 0.44
0.00013
0.00016
1.6E–05
0.00016
0.0016
0.0013
4
0.027
108601
117817
75252
85687
56235
57749
108907
124481
67663
218019
7440508
57125
53703
75274
60571
84662
131113
84742
1031078
72208
7421934
100414
206440
86737
58899
76448
1024573
118741
87683
77474
67721
193395
78591
74839
75092
22967926
....................
0.014
0.0045
0.0019
0.07
0.35
....................
0.04
....................
0.0073
....................
....................
7.3
0.034
16
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
4.1
5.5
1.02
0.04
....................
0.04
0.73
0.00095
....................
0.002
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
0.20
....................
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.50
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
2.7E–05
0.04
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.02
....................
0.01
....................
....................
0.0006
....................
....................
....................
0.8
10
0.1
0.006
0.0003
0.0003
0.022
0.04
0.04
0.0047
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.006
....................
....................
....................
0.02
....................
0.0001
10
............................
8.5
............................
14
60,000
22
5.3
3.8
............................
............................
............................
............................
4.8
410,000
............................
............................
............................
140
46,000
850
160
............................
710
2,500
330,000
35,000
90,000
1,100
1,300
600
............................
2.4
1.4
1.6
............................
............................
710
............................
19,000
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
3,900
............................
1
3,900
............................
............................
920
4,000
2,900
............................
............................
............................
............................
1,500
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
3,900
............................
............................
............................
............................
200
0.045
4.6
0.013
0.2
2.2E–05
50
0.60
50
0.016
d 1300
4
1.6E–05
0.73
7.0E–08
80
200
3
4
0.002
0.1
12
2
5
0.43
3.4E–07
2.4E–06
5.0E–06
0.01
0.4
0.02
0.00016
30
100
10
....................
83. Nickel ..........................................
84. Nitrobenzene ...............................
85. N-Nitrosodimethylamine ..............
7440020
98953
62759
....................
....................
51
0.20
0.20
....................
0.02
0.002
....................
............................
3.1
............................
47
............................
0.026
30
10
0.00065
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
c 1.7
0.0012
0.00016
1.6E–05
0.00016
0.0016
0.0014
4
0.24
55071
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON—Continued
A
B
C
86. N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine ..........
87. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ..............
88. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ...........
89. Phenol .........................................
90.
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(PCBs) ...........................................
91. Pyrene .........................................
92. Selenium .....................................
93. Tetrachloroethylene ....................
94. Thallium .......................................
95. Toluene .......................................
96. Toxaphene ..................................
97. Trichloroethylene .........................
98. Vinyl Chloride ..............................
99. Zinc .............................................
Relative
source
contribution,
RSC (¥)
Reference
dose, RfD
(mg/kg·d)
Bio-accumulation
factor for trophic
level 4
(L/kg tissue)
Bio-concentration
factor LI≤(L/kg
tissue)
Water &
organisms
(μg/L)
Organisms
only
(μg/L)
(B1)
Chemical
Cancer
slope factor,
CSF
(per mg/
kg·d)
(B2)
(B3)
(B4)
(B5)
(C1)
(C2)
621647
86306
87865
108952
7
0.0049
0.4
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.6
............................
............................
520
1.9
1.13
136
............................
............................
0.0044
0.62
0.002
4,000
0.058
0.69
0.002
30,000
....................
129000
7782492
127184
7440280
108883
8001352
79016
75014
7440666
2
....................
....................
0.0021
....................
....................
1.1
0.05
1.5
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
0.03
0.005
....................
0.000068
0.0097
....................
....................
....................
0.3
............................
............................
............................
76
............................
17
6,300
13
1.7
............................
31,200
860
4.8
............................
116
............................
............................
............................
............................
47
f 7.3E–06
f 7.3E–06
3
25
2.4
0.048
29
6.6E–05
0.3
0.020
450
3
95
2.9
0.054
52
6.6E–05
0.7
0.18
580
CAS No.
a This
criterion refers to the inorganic form of arsenic only.
criterion is expressed as fibers per liter (fibers/L). The criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).
c EPA’s national 304(a) recommended criteria for benzene use a CSF range of 0.015 to 0.055 per mg/kg-day. EPA proposes to use the higher end of the CSF
range (0.055 per mg/kg-day) to derive the proposed benzene criteria for Washington.
d The criterion for copper is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CFR 141.80, June 7, 1991).
e This criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human
Health: Methylmercury (EPA–823–R–01–001, January 3, 2001) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in EPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology
rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in fish tissue rather than in water.
f This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses).
* Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether was previously listed as Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether.
b This
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Applicability of Criteria When Final
The EPA does not propose to revise or
replace any existing criteria (related to
human health or otherwise) that were
already adopted and submitted to EPA
by Washington (and for those adopted
after May 30, 2000, approved by EPA),
such as the state’s narrative toxics
criteria statement at WAC 173–201A–
260(2)(a). Rather, EPA proposes to
revise the current federal human health
criteria applicable to waters in the state
of Washington, as promulgated in the
NTR, and establish new criteria for 14
additional priority pollutants. These
new and revised human health criteria
would apply for CWA purposes in
addition to any existing criteria already
applicable to Washington’s waters.
EPA proposes to replicate in 40 CFR
131.45 the same general rules of
applicability for human health criteria
as in 40 CFR 131.36(c), with one
exception. For waters suitable for the
establishment of low flow return
frequencies (i.e., streams and rivers),
EPA proposes that Washington must not
use a low flow value below which
numeric standards can be exceeded that
is less stringent than the harmonic mean
flow (a long-term mean flow value
calculated by dividing the number of
daily flows analyzed by the sum of the
reciprocals of those daily flows). Per 65
FR 66444, November 3, 2000, EPA now
recommends harmonic mean flow be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
used to implement human health
criteria for both carcinogens and noncarcinogens.35
Under the CWA, Congress gave states
primary responsibility for developing
and adopting WQS for their navigable
waters (CWA section 303(a)–(c)).
Although EPA proposes human health
criteria for Washington to update the
existing federally promulgated criteria,
Washington continues to have the
option to adopt and submit to EPA
human health criteria for the state’s
waters consistent with CWA section
303(c) and EPA’s implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA
encourages Washington to expeditiously
adopt protective human health criteria.
Consistent with CWA section 303(c)(4),
if Washington adopts and submits
human health criteria and EPA approves
such criteria before finalizing this
proposed rule, EPA would not proceed
with the final rulemaking for those
waters and/or pollutants for which EPA
approves Washington’s criteria.
If EPA finalizes this proposed rule,
and Washington subsequently adopts
and submits human health criteria, EPA
proposes that once EPA approves
Washington’s WQS, the pollutant35 See also USEPA. 2014. Water Quality
Standards Handbook—Chapter 5: General Policies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Water. Washington, D.C. EPA–820–B–14–004.
https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/
standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specific or site-specific EPA-approved
criteria in Washington’s WQS would
become effective for CWA purposes and
EPA’s promulgated criteria for those
pollutants or for that site would no
longer apply. EPA would still undertake
a rulemaking to withdraw the federal
criteria for those pollutants, but any
delay in that process would not delay
Washington’s approved criteria from
becoming the sole applicable criteria for
CWA purposes. EPA solicits comment
on this approach.
F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches
and Implementation Mechanisms
Once finalized, Washington will have
considerable discretion to implement
these revised federal human health
criteria through various water quality
control programs including the NPDES
program, which limits discharges to
waters except in compliance with a
NPDES permit. EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR 131.14, once effective, authorize
states and authorized tribes to adopt
WQS variances to provide time to
achieve the applicable WQS. 40 CFR
part 131 defines WQS variances at
131.3(o) as time-limited designated uses
and supporting criteria for a specific
pollutant(s) or water quality
parameter(s) that reflect the highest
attainable conditions during the term of
the WQS variance. WQS variances
adopted in accordance with 40 CFR part
131 allow states and authorized tribes to
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
55072
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
address water quality challenges in a
transparent and predictable way.
Variances help states and authorized
tribes focus on making incremental
progress in improving water quality,
rather than pursuing a downgrade of the
underlying water quality goals through
a designated use change, when the
current designated use is difficult to
attain. EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
122.47 and 40 CFR 131.15, once
effective, allow states and authorized
tribes to include permit compliance
schedules in their NPDES permits if
dischargers need additional time to
meet their water quality based limits
based on the applicable WQS. EPA’s
updated regulations at 40 CFR part 131
also include provisions authorizing the
use of permit compliance schedules to
ensure that a decision to allow permit
compliance schedules includes public
engagement and transparency. (80 FR
51022, August 21, 2015).
40 CFR 131.10 specifies how states
and authorized tribes establish, modify
or remove designated uses for their
waters. 40 CFR 131.11 specifies the
requirements for establishing criteria to
protect designated uses, including
criteria modified to reflect site-specific
conditions. In the context of this
rulemaking, a site-specific criterion
(SSC) is an alternative value to the
federal human health criteria that would
be applied on a watershed, area-wide, or
waterbody-specific basis that meets the
regulatory test of protecting the
designated use, being scientifically
defensible, and ensuring the protection
and maintenance of downstream WQS.
A SSC may be more or less stringent
than the otherwise applicable federal
criteria. A SSC may be appropriate
when further scientific data and
analyses can bring added precision to
express the concentration of a particular
pollutant that protects the human
health-related designated use in a
particular waterbody.
EPA does not propose to change any
of the flexibilities afforded to
Washington by EPA’s regulations to
modify or remove designated uses,
adopt variances, issue compliance
schedules or establish site-specific
criteria. Washington may continue to
use any of these regulatory flexibilities
when implementing the revised federal
human health criteria.
a. Designating Uses
EPA’s proposed human health criteria
apply to waters that Washington has
designated for the following: Fresh
waters—Harvesting (fish harvesting),
Domestic Water (domestic water
supply), and Recreational Uses; Marine
waters—Shellfish Harvesting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
(shellfish—clam, oyster, and mussel—
harvesting), Harvesting (salmonid and
other fish harvesting, and crustacean
and other shellfish—crabs, shrimp,
scallops, etc.—harvesting), and
Recreational Uses (see WAC 173–201A–
600 and WAC 173–201A–610). If
Washington removes the Domestic
Water use but retains any of the other
above designated uses for any particular
waterbody ultimately affected by this
rule, and EPA finds that removal to be
consistent with CWA section 303(c) and
EPA’s implementing regulations at 40
CFR part 131, then the federal organismonly criteria would apply in place of the
federal water-plus-organism criteria. If
Washington removes designated uses
such that none of the above uses apply
to any particular waterbody ultimately
affected by this rule and adopts the
highest attainable use, as defined by 40
CFR 131.3(m), consistent with 40 CFR
131.10(g), and EPA finds that removal to
be consistent with CWA section 303(c)
and EPA’s implementing regulations at
40 CFR part 131, then the federal human
health criteria would no longer apply to
that waterbody. Instead, any criteria
associated with the newly designated
highest attainable use would apply to
that waterbody.
b. Variances and Compliance Schedules
EPA is proposing human health
criteria that apply to use designations
that Washington has already
established. Washington has sufficient
authority to use variances when
implementing the human health criteria
as long as such variances are adopted
consistent with 40 CFR 131.14.
Washington may use its currently EPAapproved variance procedures with
respect to a temporary modification of
its uses as it pertains to any federal
criteria (see WAC 173–201A–420) when
adopting such variances. Similarly,
Washington already has an EPAapproved regulation authorizing the use
of permit compliance schedules (see
WAC 173–201A–510), consistent with
40 CFR 131.15. That state regulation is
not affected by this rule, and
Washington is authorized to grant
compliance schedules, as appropriate,
based on the federal criteria.
c. Site-Specific Criteria
As discussed in section IV.E, EPA
proposes that once EPA approves
human health criteria that Washington
adopts and submits after EPA finalizes
this proposed rule, the pollutantspecific or site-specific EPA-approved
criteria in Washington’s WQS would
become effective for CWA purposes and
EPA’s promulgated criteria for those
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pollutants or for that site would no
longer apply.
V. Economic Analysis
These WQS may serve as a basis for
development of NPDES permit limits.
Washington has NPDES permitting
authority, and retains considerable
discretion in implementing standards.
EPA evaluated the potential costs to
NPDES dischargers associated with state
implementation of EPA’s proposed
criteria. This analysis is documented in
‘‘Economic Analysis for the Revision of
Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria
Applicable to Washington,’’ which can
be found in the record for this
rulemaking.
Any NPDES-permitted facility that
discharges pollutants for which the
revised human health criteria are more
stringent than the applicable aquatic life
criteria (or for which human health
criteria are the only applicable criteria)
could potentially incur compliance
costs. The types of affected facilities
could include industrial facilities and
POTWs discharging wastewater to
surface waters (i.e., point sources). Once
in compliance with water quality-based
effluent limitations (WQBELs) reflective
of existing federal human health criteria
applicable to Washington (hereafter
referred to as ‘‘baseline criteria’’), EPA
expects that dischargers will continue to
use the same types of controls to come
into compliance with the revised
criteria; EPA did not attribute
compliance with WQBELs reflective of
baseline criteria to the proposed rule.
EPA did not fully evaluate the potential
for costs to nonpoint sources, such as
agricultural runoff, for this preliminary
analysis.
EPA recognizes that the permitting
authority may require controls for
nonpoint sources (e.g., agricultural
runoff). However, it is difficult to model
and evaluate the potential cost impacts
of this proposed rule to nonpoint
sources because they are intermittent,
variable, and occur under hydrologic or
climatic conditions associated with
precipitation events. Also, data on
instream and discharge levels of the
pollutants of concern after dischargers
have implemented controls to meet
current WQS, total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters, or
other water quality improvement plans,
are not available. Therefore, trying to
determine which sources would not
achieve WQS based on the revised
human health criteria after complying
with existing regulations and policies
may not be possible.
Finally, legacy contamination (e.g., in
sediment) may be a source of ongoing
loading. Atmospheric deposition may
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
also contribute loadings of the
pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury).
EPA did not estimate sediment
remediation costs, or air pollution
controls costs, for this preliminary
analysis.
potentially affected facilities, 73 are
major dischargers and 333 are minor
dischargers. EPA did not include
general permit facilities in its analysis
because data for such facilities are
limited, and flows are usually
negligible. Of the potentially affected
facilities, EPA evaluated a sample of 17
major facilities. Minor facilities are
unlikely to incur costs as a result of
implementation of the rule. Minor
A. Identifying Affected Entities
EPA identified 406 point source
facilities that could ultimately be
affected by this proposed rule. Of these
55073
facilities are typically those that
discharge less than 1 million gallons per
day (mgd) and do not discharge toxics
in toxic amounts. Although lower
human health criteria could potentially
change this categorization, EPA did not
have effluent data on toxic pollutants to
evaluate minor facilities for this
preliminary analysis. Table 2
summarizes these potentially affected
facilities by type and category.
TABLE 2—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED FACILITIES
Category
Minor
Major
All
Municipal ......................................................................................................................................
Industrial ......................................................................................................................................
184
149
48
25
232
174
Total ......................................................................................................................................
333
73
406
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Method for Estimating Costs
EPA evaluated the 2 major municipal
facilities with design flows greater than
100 mgd and the largest industrial
facility, to attempt to capture the
facilities with the potential for the
largest costs. For the remaining major
facilities, EPA evaluated a random
sample of facilities to represent
discharger type and category. For all
sample facilities, EPA evaluated existing
baseline permit conditions, reasonable
potential to exceed human health
criteria based on the proposed rule, and
potential to exceed projected effluent
limitations based on the last three years
of effluent monitoring data (if available).
In instances of baseline effluent
limitations not being reflective of
baseline criteria, EPA estimated baseline
effluent limitations, compliance actions,
and costs. In instances of exceedances of
projected effluent limitations under the
proposed criteria, EPA determined the
likely compliance scenarios and costs.
Only compliance actions and costs that
would be needed above the baseline
level of controls are attributable to the
proposed rule.
EPA assumed that dischargers will
pursue the least cost means of
compliance with WQBELs. Incremental
compliance actions attributable to the
proposed rule may include pollution
prevention, end-of-pipe treatment, and
alternative compliance mechanisms
(e.g., variances). EPA annualized capital
costs, including study (e.g., variance)
and program (e.g., pollution prevention)
costs, over 20 years using a 7% discount
rate to obtain total annual costs per
facility. For the random sample, EPA
extrapolated the annualized costs based
on the sampling weight for each sample
facility. To obtain an estimate of total
costs to point sources, EPA added the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
results for the certainty sample to the
extrapolated random sample costs.
C. Results
Based on the results for 17 sample
facilities across 8 industrial and
municipal categories,36 EPA estimated a
total annual cost of approximately $13.0
million to $13.1 million for all major
dischargers in the state. The low end of
the range reflects the assumption that
the compliance actions will result in
compliance with projected effluent
limits through pollution prevention
programs and end-of-pipe treatment,
whereas the high scenario reflects the
assumption that these actions will not
result in compliance with very low
limits and dischargers will also need to
apply for variances. All of the
incremental costs are attributable to
industrial dischargers, primarily for
treatment of arsenic. Overall,
compliance with revised human health
criteria for arsenic accounts for 99% of
the costs, while compliance with
revised human health criteria for
mercury accounts for the remaining 1%
of costs.
If the revised criteria result in an
incremental increase in impaired
waters, resulting in the need for TMDL
development, there could also be some
costs to nonpoint sources of pollution.
Using available ambient monitoring
data, EPA compared pollutant
concentrations to the baseline and
proposed criteria, identifying
waterbodies that may be incrementally
impaired (i.e., impaired under the
proposed criteria but not under the
36 Seven industrial categories (mining, food and
kindred products, paper and allied products,
chemicals and allied products, petroleum refining
and related industries, primary metal industries,
and transportation and public utilities (except
POTWs)) and municipal POTWs.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
baseline). For the 26 parameters and
stations for which EPA had sufficient
monitoring data available to evaluate,
there were 205 impairments under the
baseline criteria and 254 under the
proposed criteria, for a total of 49
potential incremental impairments (or a
24% increase relative to the baseline;
including for mercury and DDT). This
increase indicates the potential for
nonpoint sources to bear some
compliance costs, although data are not
available to estimate the magnitude of
these costs. The control of nonpoint
sources such as in the context of a
TMDL could result in less stringent
requirements, and thus lower costs, for
point sources.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review)
It has been determined that this
proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not
subject to review under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). The proposed rule
does not establish any requirements
directly applicable to regulated entities
or other sources of toxic pollutants.
However, these WQS may serve as a
basis for development of NPDES permit
limits. Washington has NPDES
permitting authority, and retains
considerable discretion in implementing
standards. In the spirit of Executive
Order 12866, EPA evaluated the
potential costs to NPDES dischargers
associated with state implementation of
EPA’s proposed criteria. This analysis,
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
55074
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Economic Analysis for the Revision of
Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria
Applicable to Washington, is
summarized in section V of the
preamble and is available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any
direct new information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Actions to implement these
WQS could entail additional paperwork
burden. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b). This action does not include
any information collection, reporting, or
record-keeping requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Small
entities, such as small businesses or
small governmental jurisdictions, are
not directly regulated by this rule. This
proposed rule will thus not impose any
requirements on small entities. We
continue to be interested, however, in
the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. As
these water quality criteria are not selfimplementing, EPA’s action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
Therefore, this action is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that could significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. This rule does not
alter Washington’s considerable
discretion in implementing these WQS,
nor would it preclude Washington from
adopting WQS that EPA concludes meet
the requirements of the CWA, either
before or after promulgation of the final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
rule, which would eliminate the need
for federal standards. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comments on this
proposed action from state and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
This action has tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments,
nor preempt tribal law. In the state of
Washington, there are 29 federally
recognized Indian tribes. To date, nine
of these Indian tribes have been
approved for TAS for CWA sections 303
and 401.37 Of these nine tribes, seven
have EPA-approved WQS in their
respective jurisdictions.38 This rule
could affect federally recognized Indian
tribes in Washington because the
numeric criteria for Washington will
apply to waters adjacent to (or upstream
or downstream of) the tribal waters, and
because the proposed Washington
criteria are informed by tribal reserved
rights. Additionally, there are ten
federally recognized Indian tribes in the
Columbia River Basin located in the
states of Oregon and Idaho that this rule
could affect because their waters could
affect or be affected by the water quality
of Washington’s downstream or
upstream waters.
EPA consulted with federally
recognized tribal officials under EPA’s
Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian tribes early in
the process of developing this proposed
rule to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development.
In February and March 2015, EPA held
tribes-only technical staff and
leadership consultation sessions to hear
their views and answer questions of all
interested tribes on the proposed rule.
Representatives from approximately 23
tribes and four tribal consortia
participated in two leadership meetings
held in March 2015. EPA and tribes
have also met regularly since November
2012 to discuss Washington’s human
37 https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/
standards/wqslibrary/approvtable.cfm.
38 https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/
34090d07b77d50bd88256b79006529e8/
dd2a4df00fd7ae1a88256e0500680e86!
OpenDocument. Note that this number does not
include the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation, which has federally-promulgated WQS
from 1989. EPA is currently reviewing the Colville
Tribe’s application for TAS.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
health criteria at both the tribal
leadership level and technical staff
level. The tribes have repeatedly asked
EPA to promulgate federal human
health criteria for Washington if the
state did not do so in a timely and
protective manner. At these meetings,
the tribes consistently emphasized that
the human health criteria should be
derived using at least a minimum FCR
value of 175 g/day, a cancer risk level
of 10¥6, and the latest scientific
information from EPA’s 304(a)
recommended criteria. EPA considered
the input received during consultation
with tribes when developing this
proposal (see section IV for additional
discussion of how EPA considered tribal
input).
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks)
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action do not present
a disproportionate risk to children.
The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure.
H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations)
This action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations.
Conversely, this action identifies and
ameliorates disproportionately high and
adverse human health effects on
minority populations and low-income
populations in Washington. EPA
developed the human health criteria
included in this proposed rule
specifically to protect Washington’s
designated uses, using the most current
science, including local and regional
information on fish consumption.
Applying these criteria to waters in the
state of Washington will afford a greater
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
55075
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
level of protection to both human health
and the environment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
Environmental protection, Indianslands, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.
Dated: August 31, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
§ 131.45 Revision of certain Federal water
quality criteria applicable to Washington.
PART 131—WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 131
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Subpart D—Federally Promulgated
Water Quality Standards
§ 131.36
[Amended]
(a) Scope. This section promulgates
human health criteria for priority toxic
pollutants in surface waters in
Washington.
(b) Criteria for priority toxic
pollutants in Washington. The
applicable human health criteria are
shown in Table 1.
2. In § 131.36, remove paragraph
(d)(14).
■ 3. Add § 131.45 to read as follows:
■
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 131 as follows:
TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON
A
Chemical
B
CAS No.
C
Cancer
slope factor,
CSF
(per mg/
kg·d)
Relative
source
contribution,
RSC (¥)
Reference
dose, RfD
(mg/kg·d)
Bio-accumulation
factor for trophic
level 4
(L/kg tissue)
Bio-concentration
factor
(L/kg tissue)
Water &
organisms
(μg/L)
Organisms
only
(μg/L)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(B1)
(B2)
(B3)
(B4)
(B5)
(C1)
(C2)
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ....................
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .............
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ....................
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene .....................
5. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene .................
6. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene .....................
7. 1,2-Dichloroethane ........................
8. 1,2-Dichloropropane ......................
9. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ..................
10. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene .........
11. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ...................
12. 1,3-Dichloropropene ....................
13. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ...................
14. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) ................
15. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ..................
16. 2,4-Dichlorophenol ......................
17. 2,4-Dimethylphenol .....................
18. 2,4-Dinitrophenol .........................
19. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ........................
20. 2-Chloronaphthalene ...................
21. 2-Chlorophenol ............................
22. 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol ..........
23. 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ................
24. 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol .............
25. 4,4′-DDD .....................................
26. 4,4′-DDE .....................................
27. 4,4′-DDT ......................................
28. Acenaphthene .............................
29. Acrolein .......................................
30. Acrylonitrile ..................................
31. Aldrin ...........................................
32. alpha-BHC ...................................
33. alpha-Endosulfan ........................
34. Anthracene ..................................
35. Antimony .....................................
36. Arsenic ........................................
37. Asbestos .....................................
71556
79345
79005
75354
120821
95501
107062
78875
122667
156605
541731
542756
106467
1746016
88062
120832
105679
51285
121142
91587
95578
534521
91941
59507
72548
72559
50293
83329
107028
107131
309002
319846
959988
120127
7440360
7440382
1332214
....................
0.2
0.057
....................
0.029
....................
0.0033
0.036
0.8
....................
....................
0.122
....................
156,000
0.011
....................
....................
....................
0.667
....................
....................
....................
0.45
....................
0.24
0.167
0.34
....................
....................
0.54
17
6.3
....................
....................
....................
1.75
....................
0.20
....................
....................
0.20
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
0.20
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
0.20
....................
0.80
0.20
0.20
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
0.20
....................
....................
2
....................
....................
0.05
....................
0.3
....................
....................
....................
0.02
0.002
....................
0.07
....................
....................
0.003
0.02
0.002
....................
0.08
0.005
0.0003
....................
0.1
....................
....................
....................
0.06
0.0005
....................
....................
....................
0.006
0.3
0.0004
....................
....................
10
8.4
8.9
2.6
430
82
1.9
3.9
27
4.7
190
3.0
84
............................
150
48
7
............................
3.9
240
5.4
10
69
39
240,000
3,100,000
1,100,000
............................
1.0
1.0
650,000
1,500
200
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
5,000
............................
............................
............................
4.4
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
510
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
610
1
44
............................
20,000
0.3
0.90
2,000
0.037
300
73
3.3
0.02
400
1
1.2
80
5.9E–10
0.28
6
300
40
0.18
100
80
3
0.015
200
7.9E–06
8.8E–07
1.2E–06
10
50
0.85
4.1E–08
4.8E–05
3
40
37
a 0.0059
....................
38. Benzene ......................................
39. Benzidine ....................................
40. Benzo(a) Anthracene ..................
41. Benzo(a) Pyrene .........................
42. Benzo(b) Fluoranthene ...............
43. Benzo(k) Fluoranthene ...............
44. beta-BHC ....................................
45. beta-Endosulfan ..........................
46. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether ..............
47.
* Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl)
Ether ..............................................
48. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate .........
49. Bromoform ..................................
50. Butylbenzyl Phthalate .................
51. Carbon Tetrachloride ..................
52. Chlordane ....................................
53. Chlorobenzene ............................
54. Chlorodibromomethane ...............
71432
92875
56553
50328
205992
207089
319857
33213659
111444
c 0.055
230
0.73
7.3
0.73
0.073
1.8
....................
1.1
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.006
....................
5.0
1.7
............................
............................
............................
............................
180
130
1.7
............................
............................
3,900
3,900
3,900
3,900
............................
............................
............................
8,000
0.1
0.35
300
0.036
300
8.9
0.72
0.01
100
0.9
0.22
70
5.8E–10
0.25
4
90
10
0.039
100
20
1
0.012
200
7.9E–06
8.8E–07
1.2E–06
10
3
0.058
4.1E–08
4.8E–05
3
40
2.5
a 0.0045
b 7,000,000
(fibers/L)
c 0.44
0.00013
0.00016
1.6E–05
0.00016
0.0016
0.0013
4
0.027
108601
117817
75252
85687
56235
57749
108907
124481
....................
0.014
0.0045
0.0019
0.07
0.35
....................
0.04
0.20
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
0.04
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.02
....................
10
............................
8.5
............................
14
60,000
22
5.3
............................
710
............................
19,000
............................
............................
............................
............................
200
0.045
4.6
0.013
0.2
2.2E–05
50
0.60
400
0.046
12
0.013
0.5
2.2E–05
80
2.2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
c 1.7
0.0012
0.00016
1.6E–05
0.00016
0.0016
0.0014
4
0.24
55076
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR WASHINGTON—Continued
A
B
C
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
CAS No.
Relative
source
contribution,
RSC (¥)
Reference
dose, RfD
(mg/kg·d)
Bio-accumulation
factor for trophic
level 4
(L/kg tissue)
Bio-concentration
factor
(L/kg tissue)
Water &
organisms
(μg/L)
Organisms
only
(μg/L)
(B1)
Chemical
Cancer
slope factor,
CSF
(per mg/
kg·d)
(B2)
(B3)
(B4)
(B5)
(C1)
(C2)
Chloroform ..................................
Chrysene .....................................
Copper ........................................
Cyanide .......................................
Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene ............
Dichlorobromomethane ...............
Dieldrin ........................................
Diethyl Phthalate .........................
Dimethyl Phthalate ......................
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate ....................
Endosulfan Sulfate ......................
Endrin ..........................................
Endrin Aldehyde ..........................
Ethylbenzene ..............................
Fluoranthene ...............................
Fluorene ......................................
gamma-BHC; Lindane ................
Heptachlor ...................................
Heptachlor Epoxide .....................
Hexachlorobenzene ....................
Hexachlorobutadiene ..................
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ........
Hexachloroethane .......................
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene .............
Isophorone ..................................
Methyl Bromide ...........................
Methylene Chloride .....................
Methylmercury .............................
67663
218019
7440508
57125
53703
75274
60571
84662
131113
84742
1031078
72208
7421934
100414
206440
86737
58899
76448
1024573
118741
87683
77474
67721
193395
78591
74839
75092
22967926
....................
0.0073
....................
....................
7.3
0.034
16
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
4.1
5.5
1.02
0.04
....................
0.04
0.73
0.00095
....................
0.002
....................
0.20
....................
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.50
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
2.7E–05
0.01
....................
....................
0.0006
....................
....................
....................
0.8
10
0.1
0.006
0.0003
0.0003
0.022
0.04
0.04
0.0047
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.006
....................
....................
....................
0.02
....................
0.0001
3.8
............................
............................
............................
............................
4.8
410,000
............................
............................
............................
140
46,000
850
160
............................
710
2,500
330,000
35,000
90,000
1,100
1,300
600
............................
2.4
1.4
1.6
............................
............................
3,900
............................
1
3,900
............................
............................
920
4,000
2,900
............................
............................
............................
............................
1,500
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
3,900
............................
............................
............................
............................
50
0.016
d 1300
4
1.6E–05
0.73
7.0E–08
80
200
3
4
0.002
0.1
12
2
5
0.43
3.4E–07
2.4E–06
5.0E–06
0.01
0.4
0.02
0.00016
30
100
10
....................
83. Nickel ..........................................
84. Nitrobenzene ...............................
85. N-Nitrosodimethylamine ..............
86. N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine ..........
87. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ..............
88. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ...........
89. Phenol .........................................
90.
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(PCBs) ...........................................
91. Pyrene .........................................
92. Selenium .....................................
93. Tetrachloroethylene ....................
94. Thallium .......................................
95. Toluene .......................................
96. Toxaphene ..................................
97. Trichloroethylene .........................
98. Vinyl Chloride ..............................
99. Zinc .............................................
7440020
98953
62759
621647
86306
87865
108952
....................
....................
51
7
0.0049
0.4
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
0.02
0.002
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.6
............................
3.1
............................
............................
............................
520
1.9
47
............................
0.026
1.13
136
............................
............................
30
10
0.00065
0.0044
0.62
0.002
4,000
200
0.016
....................
50
1.6E–05
2.8
7.0E–08
80
200
3
4
0.002
0.1
13
2
5
0.43
3.4E–07
2.4E–06
5.0E–06
0.01
0.4
0.02
0.00016
200
1,000
100
e 0.033
(mg/kg)
39
60
0.34
0.058
0.69
0.002
30,000
....................
129000
7782492
127184
7440280
108883
8001352
79016
75014
7440666
2
....................
....................
0.0021
....................
....................
1.1
0.05
1.5
....................
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
0.20
0.20
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
0.03
0.005
....................
0.000068
0.0097
....................
....................
....................
0.3
............................
............................
............................
76
............................
17
6,300
13
1.7
............................
31,200
860
4.8
............................
116
............................
............................
............................
............................
47
f 7.3E–06
f 7.3E–06
3
25
2.4
0.048
29
6.6E–05
0.3
0.020
450
3
95
2.9
0.054
52
6.6E–05
0.7
0.18
580
a This
criterion refers to the inorganic form of arsenic only.
criterion is expressed as fibers per liter (fibers/L). The criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).
c EPA’s national 304(a) recommended criteria for benzene use a CSF range of 0.015 to 0.055 per mg/kg-day. EPA proposes to use the higher end of the CSF
range (0.055 per mg/kg-day) to derive the proposed benzene criteria for Washington.
d The criterion for copper is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CFR 141.80, June 7, 1991).
e This criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human
Health: Methylmercury (EPA–823–R–01–001, January 3, 2001) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in EPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology
rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in fish tissue rather than in water.
f This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses).
* Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether was previously listed as Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
b This
(c) Applicability. (1) The criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section apply to
waters with Washington’s designated
uses cited in paragraph (d) of this
section and apply concurrently with any
water quality criteria adopted by the
state, except where pollutant- or
waterbody-specific state human health
criteria regulations determined by EPA
to meet the requirements of Clean Water
Act section 303(c) and 40 CFR part 131
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
apply, in which case Washington’s
pollutant- or waterbody-specific criteria
will apply and not the criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) The criteria established in this
section are subject to Washington’s
general rules of applicability in the
same way and to the same extent as are
other federally promulgated and stateadopted numeric criteria when applied
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to the same use classifications in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(i) For all waters with mixing zone
regulations or implementation
procedures, the criteria apply at the
appropriate locations within or at the
boundary of the mixing zones;
otherwise the criteria apply throughout
the waterbody including at the end of
any discharge pipe, conveyance or other
discharge point.
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(ii) The state must not use a low flow
value below which numeric noncarcinogen and carcinogen human
health criteria can be exceeded that is
less stringent than the harmonic mean
flow for waters suitable for the
establishment of low flow return
frequencies (i.e., streams and rivers).
Harmonic mean flow is a long-term
mean flow value calculated by dividing
the number of daily flows analyzed by
the sum of the reciprocals of those daily
flows.
(iii) If the state does not have such a
low flow value for numeric criteria, then
none will apply and the criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section herein
apply at all flows.
(d) Applicable use designations. (1)
All waters in Washington assigned to
the following use classifications are
subject to the criteria identified in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section:
(i) Fresh waters—
(A) Miscellaneous uses: Harvesting
(Fish harvesting);
(B) Recreational uses;
(C) Water supply uses: Domestic
water (Domestic water supply);
(ii) Marine waters—
(A) Miscellaneous uses: Harvesting
(Salmonid and other fish harvesting,
and crustacean and other shellfish
(crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.)
harvesting);
(B) Recreational uses;
(C) Shellfish harvesting: Shellfish
harvest (Shellfish (clam, oyster, and
mussel) harvesting)
Note to paragraph (d)(1): The source
of these uses is Washington
Administrative Code 173–201A–600 for
Fresh waters and 173–201A–610 for
Marine waters.
(2) For Washington waters that
include the use classification of
Domestic Water, the criteria in column
C1 of Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this
section apply. For Washington waters
that include any of the following use
classifications but do not include the
use classification of Domestic Water, the
criteria in column C2 of Table 1 in
paragraph (b) of this section apply:
Harvesting (fresh and marine waters),
Recreational Uses (fresh and marine
waters), and Shellfish Harvesting.
[FR Doc. 2015–22592 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R06–RCRA 2015–0070; FRL–9933–
78–Region 6]
Louisiana: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The State of Louisiana has
applied to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of
the changes to its hazardous waste
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
EPA proposes to grant Final
authorization to the State of Louisiana.
In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section
of this Federal Register, EPA is
authorizing the changes by direct final
rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior
to the direct final rule because we
believe this action is not controversial
and do not expect comments that
oppose it. We have explained the
reasons for this authorization in the
preamble to the direct final rule. Unless
we get written comments which oppose
this authorization during the comment
period, the direct final rule will become
effective 60 days after publication and
we will not take further action on this
proposal. If we receive comments that
oppose this action, we will withdraw
the direct final rule and it will not take
effect. We will then respond to public
comments in a later final rule based on
this proposal. You may not have another
opportunity for comment. If you want to
comment on this action, you must do so
at this time.
DATES: Send your written comments by
October 14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit any comments
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
RCRA–2015–0070, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: patterson.alima@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6,
Regional Authorization Coordinator,
State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O),
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to Alima Patterson,
Region 6, Regional Authorization
Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight
Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
55077
and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–
2733.
Instructions: Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov, or email. Direct your
comment to Docket No. EPA–R06–
RCRA–2015–0070. The Federal
regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any
form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. You can view and
copy Louisiana’s application and
associated publicly available materials
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday
through Friday at the following
locations: Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth
Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884–
2178, phone number (225) 219–3559
and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, phone
number (214) 665–8533. Interested
persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an
appointment with the office at least two
weeks in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal
Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–8533) and
Email address patterson.alima@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
additional information, please see the
direct final published in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: August 21, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015–23072 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM
14SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55063-55077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22592]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0174; FRL-9932-03-OW]
RIN 2040-AF56
Revision of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to
Washington
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to revise
the current federal Clean Water Act (CWA) human health criteria
applicable to waters under the state of Washington's jurisdiction to
ensure that the criteria are set at levels that will adequately protect
Washington residents, including tribes with treaty-protected rights,
from exposure to toxic pollutants. EPA promulgated Washington's
existing criteria for the protection of human health in 1992 as part of
the National Toxics Rule (NTR), (amended in 1999 for Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs)) using the Agency's recommended criteria values at the
time. EPA derived those criteria using a fish consumption rate (FCR) of
6.5 grams per day (g/day) based on national surveys. However, the best
available data now demonstrate that fish consumers in Washington,
including tribes with treaty-protected rights, consume much more fish
than 6.5 g/day. There are also new data and scientific information
available to update the toxicity and exposure parameters used to
calculate human health criteria. Therefore, EPA proposes to revise the
federal human health criteria applicable to waters under Washington's
jurisdiction to take into account the best available science, including
local and regional information, as well as applicable EPA policies,
guidance, and legal requirements, to protect human health.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2015-0174, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica Fleisig, Office of Water,
Standards and Health Protection Division (4305T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 566-1057; email address: fleisig.erica@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is organized as follows:
I. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
II. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
B. General Recommended Approach for Deriving Human Health
Criteria
III. Necessity Determination for Washington
A. Existing Criteria Are Not Protective of Designated Uses of
Waters in the State of Washington
B. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of Necessity
IV. Derivation of Human Health Criteria for Washington
A. Tribal Reserved Fishing Rights and Washington's Designated
Uses
B. Scope of EPA's Proposal
C. Washington-Specific Human Health Criteria Inputs
D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for Washington
E. Applicability of Criteria When Final
F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation
Mechanisms
V. Economic Analysis
A. Identifying Affected Entities
B. Method for Estimating Costs
C. Results
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments)
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations)
I. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
Entities such as industries, stormwater management districts, or
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that discharge pollutants to
waters of the United States under the state of Washington's
jurisdiction could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking, because
federal water quality standards (WQS) promulgated by EPA would be
applicable to CWA regulatory programs, such as National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned
with water quality in Washington could also be interested in this
rulemaking. Categories and entities that could potentially be affected
include the following:
[[Page 55064]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... Industries discharging
pollutants to waters of the
United States in Washington.
Municipalities......................... Publicly owned treatment works
or other facilities
discharging pollutants to
waters of the United States in
Washington.
Stormwater Management Districts........ Entities responsible for
managing stormwater runoff in
the state of Washington.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities that could be indirectly affected
by this action. Any parties or entities who depend upon or contribute
to the water quality of Washington's waters could be affected by this
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility or activities could
be affected by this action, you should carefully examine this proposed
rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
CWA section 101(a)(2) establishes as a national goal ``water
quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, wherever
attainable.'' These are commonly referred to as the ``fishable/
swimmable'' goals of the CWA. EPA interprets ``fishable'' uses to
include, at a minimum, designated uses providing for the protection of
aquatic communities and human health related to consumption of fish and
shellfish.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USEPA. 2000. Memorandum #WQSP-00-03. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2000_10_31_standards_shellfish.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWA section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) directs states to adopt WQS
for their waters subject to the CWA. CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and EPA's
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131 require, among other
things, that a state's WQS specify appropriate designated uses of the
waters, and water quality criteria that protect those uses. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1) provide that such criteria ``must be
based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient
parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.'' In
addition, 40 CFR 131.10(b) provides that ``[i]n designating uses of a
water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the state shall
take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream
waters and ensure that its water quality standards provide for the
attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream
waters.''
States are required to review applicable WQS at least once every
three years and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new standards (CWA
section 303(c)(1)). Any new or revised WQS must be submitted to EPA for
review and approval or disapproval (CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and
(c)(3)). CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) authorizes the Administrator to
determine, even in the absence of a state submission, that a new or
revised standard is needed to meet CWA requirements.
Under CWA section 304(a), EPA periodically publishes criteria
recommendations for states to consider when adopting water quality
criteria for particular pollutants to meet the CWA section 101(a)(2)
goals. In 2015, EPA updated its 304(a) recommended criteria for human
health for 94 pollutants.\2\ Where EPA has published recommended
criteria, states should consider adopting water quality criteria based
on EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria, section 304(a) criteria modified
to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible
methods (40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)). Ultimately, however, criteria must
protect the designated use and be based on sound scientific rationale
(40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) requires states to
adopt numeric criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to CWA
section 307(a)(1) for which EPA has published 304(a) criteria, as
necessary to support the states' designated uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also:
USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, EPA promulgated the NTR at 40 CFR 131.36, establishing
chemical-specific, numeric criteria for 85 priority toxic pollutants
for 14 states and territories (states), including Washington, that were
not in compliance with the requirements of CWA section 303(c)(2)(B).
When states covered by the NTR subsequently adopted their own criteria
for toxic pollutants that EPA approved as consistent with the CWA and
EPA's implementing regulations, EPA amended the NTR to remove those
states. Half of the original 14 states and territories remain covered
for one or more criteria in the NTR. Washington has not yet adopted its
own criteria for the protection of human health and, therefore, the
Federal human health criteria that EPA promulgated in the NTR remain
applicable to waters throughout the state.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Washington adopted criteria for the protection of aquatic
life from toxic pollutants at WAC 173-201A-240. On January 12, 2015,
Washington proposed statewide human health criteria and new and
revised implementation provisions. In July 2015, Governor Inslee
directed Washington to reconsider its proposed human health criteria
and implementation tool revisions. See https://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/wac173201A/1203ov.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. General Recommended Approach for Deriving Human Health Criteria
Human health criteria are designed to minimize the risk of adverse
cancer and non-cancer effects occurring from lifetime exposure to
pollutants through the ingestion of drinking water and consumption of
fish/shellfish obtained from inland and nearshore waters. EPA's
practice is to establish a human health 304(a) criterion for both
drinking water and consumption of fish/shellfish from inland and
nearshore waters combined and a separate human health criterion based
on ingestion of fish/shellfish from inland and nearshore waters alone.
This latter criterion applies in cases where the designated uses of a
waterbody include supporting fish/shellfish for human consumption but
not drinking water supply sources (e.g., in non-potable estuarine
waters).
The criteria are based on two types of biological endpoints: (1)
Carcinogenicity and (2) systemic toxicity (i.e., all adverse effects
other than cancer). EPA takes an integrated approach and considers both
cancer and non-cancer effects when deriving human health criteria.
Where sufficient data are available, EPA derives criteria using both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity endpoints and recommends the
lower value. Human health criteria for carcinogenic effects are
calculated using the following input parameters: Cancer slope factor,
cancer risk level, body weight, drinking water intake rate, fish
consumption rate, and a bioaccumulation factor(s). Human health
criteria for non-carcinogenic and nonlinear carcinogenic effects are
calculated using a reference dose in place of a cancer slope factor and
cancer risk level, as well as a relative source contribution (RSC),
which is intended to ensure that an individual's total exposure from
all sources does not exceed the criteria. Each of these inputs is
discussed in more detail below and in
[[Page 55065]]
EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-
004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Cancer Risk Level
EPA's 304(a) national recommended human health criteria generally
assume that carcinogenicity is a ``non-threshold phenomenon,'' which
means that there are no ``safe'' or ``no-effect'' levels because even
extremely small doses are assumed to cause a finite increase in the
incidence of cancer. Therefore, EPA calculates 304(a) human health
criteria for carcinogenic effects as pollutant concentrations
corresponding to lifetime increases in the risk of developing
cancer.\5\ EPA calculates its 304(a) human health criteria values at a
10-\6\ (one in one million) cancer risk level and recommends
cancer risk levels of 10-\6\ or 10-\5\ (one in
one hundred thousand) for the general population.\6\ EPA notes that
states and authorized tribes can also choose a more stringent risk
level, such as 10-\7\ (one in ten million), when deriving
human health criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As noted above, EPA recommends the criteria derived for non-
carcinogenic effects if it is more protective (lower) than that
derived for carcinogenic effects.
\6\ EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology also states: ``Criteria
based on a 10-\5\ risk level are acceptable for the
general population as long as states and authorized tribes ensure
that the risk to more highly exposed subgroups (sport fishers or
subsistence fishers) does not exceed the 10-\4\ level.''
Since EPA is proposing criteria to protect the target general
population in Washington (tribes with reserved rights in Washington
waters), the applicable EPA-recommended cancer risk levels are those
for the general population. See section IV for additional
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the pollutant is not considered to have the potential for
causing cancer in humans (i.e., systemic toxicants), EPA assumes that
the pollutant has a threshold below which a physiological mechanism
exists within living organisms to avoid or overcome the adverse effects
of the pollutant.
b. Cancer Slope Factor and Reference Dose
A dose-response assessment is required to understand the
quantitative relationships between the amount of exposure to a
pollutant and the onset of human health effects. EPA evaluates dose-
response relationships derived from animal toxicity and human
epidemiological studies to derive dose-response metrics for regulatory
purposes. To evaluate carcinogenic effects, the dose-response metric
used to characterize a chemical's human cancer-causing potential is
referred to as a cancer slope factor (CSF). For non-carcinogenic
effects, EPA uses the reference dose (RfD) to calculate human health
criteria. Doses that are below the RfD are less likely to be associated
with health risks. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) \7\
was the primary source of toxicity values (i.e., RfD and CSF) for EPA's
2015 updated 304(a) human health criteria.\8\ For some pollutants,
however, more recent peer-reviewed and publicly available toxicological
data were available from other EPA program offices (e.g., Office of
Pesticide Programs, Office of Water, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response), other national and international programs, and
state programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USEPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. www.epa.gov/iris.
\8\ Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also:
USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Exposure Assumptions
Per EPA's latest 304(a) national human health criteria, EPA uses a
default drinking water intake rate of 2.4 liters per day (L/day) and
default rate of 22 g/day for consumption of fish and shellfish from
inland and nearshore waters, multiplied by pollutant-specific
bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) to account for the amount of the
pollutant in the edible portions of the ingested species. EPA's
methodology for deriving human health criteria emphasizes using, when
possible, measured or estimated BAFs, which account for chemical
accumulation in aquatic organisms from all potential exposure
routes.\9\ In the 2015 national 304(a) human health criteria update,
EPA primarily used field-measured BAFs and laboratory-measured
bioconcentration factors (BCFs) available from peer-reviewed, publicly
available databases to develop national BAFs for three trophic levels
of fish.\10\ If this information was not available, EPA selected
octanol-water partition coefficients (Kow values) from peer-
reviewed sources for use in calculating national BAFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-
004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
\10\ Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also:
USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's national default drinking water intake rate of 2.4 L/day
represents the per capita estimate of combined direct and indirect
community water ingestion at the 90th percentile for adults ages 21 and
older.\11\ EPA's national FCR of 22 g/day represents the 90th
percentile consumption rate of fish and shellfish from inland and
nearshore waters for the U.S. adult population 21 years of age and
older, based on National Health and Nutrient Examination Survey
(NHANES) data from 2003 to 2010.12 13 EPA calculates human
health criteria using a default body weight of 80 kilograms (kg), the
average weight of a U.S. adult age 21 and older, based on NHANES data
from 1999 to 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USEPA. 2011. EPA Exposure Factors Handbook. 2011 edition
(EPA 600/R-090/052F). https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.
\12\ USEPA. 2014. Estimated Fish Consumption Rates for the U.S.
Population and Selected Subpopulations (NHANES 2003-2010). United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. EPA
820-R-14-002.
\13\ EPA's national FCR is based on the total rate of
consumption of fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters
(including fish and shellfish from local, commercial, aquaculture,
interstate, and international sources). This is consistent with a
principle that each state does its share to protect people who
consume fish and shellfish that originate from multiple
jurisdictions. USEPA. January 2013. Human Health Ambient Water
Quality Criteria and Fish Consumption Rates: Frequently Asked
Questions. https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/methodology/upload/hhfaqs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although EPA uses these values to calculate national 304(a)
recommended criteria, EPA's methodology notes a preference for the use
of local data to calculate human health criteria (e.g., locally derived
FCRs, drinking water intake rates and body weights, and waterbody-
specific bioaccumulation rates) over national default values, to better
represent local conditions.\14\ EPA also generally recommends, where
sufficient data are available, selecting a FCR that reflects
consumption that is not suppressed by fish availability or concerns
about the safety of available fish.\15\ Deriving criteria using an
unsuppressed FCR furthers the restoration goals of the CWA, and ensures
protection of human health as pollutant levels decrease, fish habitats
[[Page 55066]]
are restored, and fish availability increases. While EPA encourages
doing so in general, where tribal treaty or other reserved fishing
rights apply, selecting a FCR that reflects unsuppressed fish
consumption could be necessary in order to satisfy such rights. If
sufficient data regarding unsuppressed fish consumption levels are
unavailable, consultation with tribes is important in deciding which
fish consumption data should be used. See section IV.C.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-
004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
\15\ USEPA. January 2013. Human Health Ambient Water Quality
Criteria and Fish Consumption Rates: Frequently Asked Questions.
https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/methodology/upload/hhfaqs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Relative Source Contribution
When deriving human health criteria for non-carcinogens and
nonlinear carcinogens, EPA recommends including a RSC factor to account
for sources of exposure other than drinking water and fish and
shellfish from inland and nearshore waters, so that the pollutant
effect threshold (i.e., RfD) is not apportioned to drinking water and
fish consumption alone. These other exposures include exposure to a
particular pollutant from ocean fish consumption (which is not included
in EPA's default national FCR), non-fish food consumption (e.g.,
fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, poultry), dermal exposure, and
respiratory exposure. EPA's guidance includes a procedure for
determining an appropriate RSC for a given pollutant ranging in value
from 0.2 to 0.8.
III. Necessity Determination for Washington
A. Existing Criteria Are Not Protective of Designated Uses of Waters in
the State of Washington
In the NTR, 40 CFR 131.36(d)(14), EPA stated that the federal human
health criteria applied to all waters assigned to Washington's use
classifications identified at WAC 173-201-045, including fish and
shellfish, fish, water supply (domestic), and recreation. As currently
defined in Washington's WQS (WAC 173-201A-600 and WAC 173-201A-610),
the uses subject to federal human health criteria in Washington include
the following: Fresh waters--Harvesting (fish harvesting), Domestic
Water (domestic water supply), and Recreational Uses; Marine waters--
Shellfish Harvesting (shellfish--clam, oyster, and mussel--harvesting),
Harvesting (salmonid and other fish harvesting, and crustacean and
other shellfish--crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.--harvesting), and
Recreational Uses.
Per EPA's regulations at Sec. 131.11(a), water quality criteria
must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the
designated use, and for waters with multiple use designations, the
criteria must support the most sensitive use. In determining whether
WQS comply with the CWA and EPA's regulations, when setting criteria to
support the most sensitive use in Washington, it is necessary to
consider other applicable laws, including federal treaties.\16\ In
Washington, many tribes hold reserved rights to take fish for
subsistence, ceremonial, religious, and commercial purposes, including
treaty-reserved rights to fish at all usual and accustomed fishing
grounds and stations in waters under state jurisdiction, which cover
the majority of waters in the state. Such rights include not only a
right to take those fish, but necessarily include an attendant right to
not be exposed to unacceptable health risks by consuming those fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In addition to treaties, executive orders and federal
statutes, such as land claim settlement acts, could also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, EPA selected input values based on available national data
to derive protective human health criteria in the NTR. To ensure
protection of human health in waters where fish and shellfish are
caught and consumed, EPA used data available at the time on the average
per-capita consumption rate of fish from inland and nearshore waters
for the U.S. population. This average rate was 6.5 g/day.
Surveys of local residents in the Pacific Northwest, including
tribes and recreational anglers, reflect high consumption levels of
fish and shellfish--much higher than the 6.5 g/day rate that EPA used
in 1992 to derive Washington's human health criteria in the NTR. Since
that time, data have become available that better represent regional
and local fish consumption in Washington, including:
A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce,
Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin (Columbia
River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994).
A Fish Consumption Survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin
Island Tribes of the Puget Sound Region (Toy et al., 1996).
Fish Consumption Survey of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of
the Port Madison Indian Reservations, Puget Sound Region (Suquamish
Tribe, 2000).
Asian and Pacific Islander Seafood Consumption Study
(Sechena et al., 1999).
The average FCRs \17\ from these surveys range from 63 to 214 g/
day, far in excess of 6.5 g/day. The 90th percentile FCRs from these
surveys range from 113 to 489 g/day, also far in excess of EPA's
current national FCR of 22 g/day, which represents the 90th percentile
national FCR (see section II.B.c). The 6.5 g/day FCR that EPA used to
derive the current human health criteria applicable to Washington does
not account for these more recent local data, nor suppression in fish
consumption (as discussed earlier).\18\ In addition, the 6.5 g/day FCR
does not account for EPA's 2000 recommendation to use an upper
percentile of fish consumption data for the target general population
(as with EPA's current national FCR of 22 g/day) rather than an
average. EPA considered the fish consumption data cited above, in
conjunction with Washington's current designated uses as informed by
tribal reserved rights in Washington (as discussed in section IV.A),
and determined that the federal human health criteria in the NTR as
applied to Washington no longer protect the relevant designated uses of
Washington's waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Cited FCRs are based on total fish consumption regardless
of source.
\18\ Historical or heritage FCRs could be of relevance to
establishing unsuppressed FCRs for Washington tribes. Extensively
researched historical average FCRs for the Columbia River Basin
Tribes range from 401 to 995 g/day (Craig and Hacker (1940) & Hewes
(1947); Swindell (1942); Marshall (1977); Walker (1967)). More
limited average historic FCRs for Washington Tribes range from 454
to 746 g/day (Hewes 1973). In United States v. Washington (1974),
the court accepted a heritage FCR of 620 g/day. A number of factors
could cause these FCRs to be underestimates (Schalk 1986), including
the fact that, with the exception of Craig and Hacker (1940), they
only include consumption of salmon. Upper percentile values are not
reported in these historical studies but would be higher than the
reported average values. The highest estimated current FCRs in
Washington come from the Suquamish Tribal survey (Suquamish 2000),
with a reported FCR as high as 1,600 g/day (Table C5). The 95th
percentile Suquamish FCR is 767 g/day (Ecology 2013). Recent
publications by Harper and Walker (2015) comprehensively summarize
and further support these heritage and contemporary fish consumption
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of Necessity
Because Washington's existing human health criteria, as promulgated
by EPA in the NTR, are no longer protective of the applicable
designated uses per the CWA and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11, EPA
determines under CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) that new or revised WQS for
the protection of human health are necessary to meet the requirements
of the CWA for Washington. EPA, therefore, proposes the revised human
health criteria for Washington in this rule in accordance with this
303(c)(4)(B) determination. EPA's determination is not itself a final
action, nor part of a final action, at this time. After consideration
of comments on the
[[Page 55067]]
proposed rule, EPA will take final agency action on this rulemaking. It
is at that time that any change to the water quality standards
applicable to Washington would occur.
IV. Derivation of Human Health Criteria for Washington
A. Tribal Reserved Fishing Rights and Washington's Designated Uses
A majority of waters under Washington's jurisdiction are covered by
reserved rights, including tribal treaty-reserved rights (see section
III.A). Many areas where reserved rights are exercised cannot be
directly protected or regulated by the tribal governments and,
therefore, the responsibility falls to the state and federal
governments to ensure their protection.\19\ In order to effectuate and
harmonize these reserved rights, including treaty rights, with the CWA,
EPA determined that such rights appropriately must be considered when
determining which criteria are necessary to adequately protect
Washington's fish and shellfish harvesting designated uses (see
sections IV.C.a and IV.C.b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Note that for formal and informal reservation lands,
eligible tribes can obtain treatment in a similar manner as a state
(TAS) status and set their own WQS under the CWA, including human
health criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting Washington's fish and shellfish harvesting designated
uses, which include consumption of such fish and shellfish,
necessitates protecting the population exercising those uses. Where a
population exercising such uses has a legal right to do so, the
criteria protecting such uses must be consistent with such right. Thus,
EPA proposes to consider the tribal population exercising their
reserved fishing rights in Washington as the target general population
for the purposes of deriving protective criteria that allow the tribes
to harvest and consume fish consistent with their reserved rights.
Although treaties do not cover all waters in Washington, they cover
the vast majority of the state's waters. Additionally, where treaty and
non-treaty reserved rights apply on waters downstream of waters without
reserved fishing rights, upstream WQS must provide for the attainment
and maintenance of downstream WQS in accordance with EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR 131.10(b). For any remaining waters in Washington where
reserved rights do not apply and that are not upstream of waters with
such rights or waters in Oregon (see section IV.C.a), it would be
administratively burdensome and difficult to implement separate
criteria because it would create a patchwork of protection among these
areas leading to potential difficulties in administering the WQS, NPDES
permitting, and other programs. In addition, delineating the precise
boundaries could itself be complicated. Therefore, EPA proposes to
apply these criteria to all waters under Washington's jurisdiction.
B. Scope of EPA's Proposal
In 1992, EPA did not establish human health criteria in the NTR for
some priority toxic pollutants for reasons articulated in the preamble
to the final rule at 57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992. EPA had no 304(a)
recommendations for those pollutants at the time. EPA now has 304(a)
recommendations for 99 priority toxic pollutants listed pursuant to CWA
section 307(a)(1) (85 for which EPA established criteria in the NTR,
plus 14 additional pollutants). Therefore, EPA proposes to derive
Washington-specific criteria for all 99 priority toxic pollutants in
this rule. For those priority pollutants for which EPA does not have
304(a) national recommended criteria, and are thus not included in this
proposed rule, EPA expects that Washington will continue to apply their
existing narrative toxics criterion in the state's WQS at WAC 173-201A-
260(2)(a).
This rule proposes to change the criteria that EPA promulgated for
Washington in the NTR and establish new human health criteria for the
14 additional chemicals for which EPA now has 304(a) recommended
criteria: Copper, Selenium, Zinc, 1,2-Dichloropropane, 1,2-Trans-
Dichloroethylene, 2-Chlorophenol, 2,4-Dimethylphenol, Acenaphthene,
Butylbenzyl Phthalate, 2-Chloronaphthalene, N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine,
1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol, and 1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzene. Since 1992, EPA replaced its recommended human health
criteria for mercury with a fish tissue-based human health criterion
for methylmercury. EPA proposes to replace the criteria for mercury
that EPA promulgated for Washington in the NTR with a methylmercury
fish tissue criterion, adjusted for the FCR that EPA proposes to use to
derive human health criteria in Washington.\20\ This proposed rule
would not change or supersede any criteria that EPA previously
promulgated for other states in the NTR, nor does it change any other
elements of the NTR such as EPA's original basis for promulgation. EPA
proposes to remove Washington from the NTR at 40 CFR 131.36 and
incorporate the Washington-specific criteria proposed in this rule into
proposed 40 CFR 131.45 so there is a single comprehensive rule for
Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ USEPA. 2001. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of
Human Health: Methylmercury. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-823-R-01-001. https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/upload/2009_01_15_criteria_methylmercury_mercury-criterion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would apply to waters under the state of
Washington's jurisdiction, and not to waters within Indian Country
\21\, unless otherwise specified in federal law. Some waters located
within Indian Country already have CWA-effective human health criteria,
while others do not.\22\ Several tribes are working with EPA to either
revise their existing CWA-effective WQS, or obtain treatment in a
similar manner as a state (TAS) status in order to adopt their own WQS
in the near future. EPA will continue to work closely with tribes in
Washington to ensure that they adopt human health criteria that are
scientifically supported and protective of designated uses, in
accordance with the CWA and EPA's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 18 U.S.C. 1151 for definition of Indian Country.
\22\ Indian Country waters with CWA-effective WQS are (a) those
Indian Country waters where EPA explicitly found that a tribe has
jurisdiction to adopt WQS under the CWA, and where the tribe adopted
standards in accordance with EPA regulations, and (b) where EPA
promulgated federal WQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Washington-Specific Human Health Criteria Inputs
a. Fish Consumption Rate
EPA proposes to derive human health criteria for Washington using a
FCR of 175 g/day as this FCR accounts for local data (consistent with
EPA's methodology), reflects input received during consultation with
tribes, and appropriately addresses protection of Oregon's downstream
WQS, per EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(b).
EPA considered the input received during consultation with tribes
when selecting which fish consumption data would be used to estimate a
FCR for calculating human health criteria to protect the designated
uses. A FCR of 175 g/day approximates the 95th percentile consumption
rate of surveyed tribal members from the CRITFC study.\23\ Although
EPA's national default FCR only includes consumption of fish from
inland and nearshore waters, 175 g/day in this case includes anadromous
fish, which is appropriate given that anadromous species reside in
[[Page 55068]]
Washington's nearshore waters, especially Puget Sound, and accumulate
pollutants discharged to these waters.\24\ A FCR of 175 g/day,
therefore, accounts for local fish consumption data. Additionally,
Oregon, much of which is downstream from Washington, used this FCR to
derive statewide human health criteria, which EPA approved in 2011. Use
of this FCR to derive Washington's criteria should thus help provide
for the attainment and maintenance of downstream WQS in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama,
and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin (Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994)
\24\ O'Neill, S.M., and J.E. West. 2009. Marine distribution,
life history traits, and the accumulation of polychlorinated
biphenyls in Chinook salmon from Puget Sound, Washington.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138: 616-632.
O'Neill, S.M., G.M. Ylitalo, J.E. West, J. Bolton, C.A. Sloan,
and M.M. Krahn. 2006. Regional patterns of persistent organic
pollutants in five Pacific salmon species (Oncorhynchus spp) and
their contributions to contaminant levels in northern and southern
resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). 2006 Southern Resident Killer
Whale Symposium, NOAA Fisheries Service Northwest Regional Office
April 3-5, 2006. Seattle, WA. Extended Abstract. 5pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consideration of the full range of available local fish
consumption data and after consultation with Washington tribes and
Columbia River Basin tribes in Oregon and Idaho, EPA determined that a
FCR of 175 g/day very likely does not reflect unsuppressed consumption
rates of tribes within the state (see section II.B.c). EPA considered
this fact as well as tribal input in selecting a cancer risk level of
10-6 to account for this uncertainty and ensure that EPA's
proposed criteria protect Washington's fishing uses, including the
tribes' reserved fishing rights. See discussion in section IV.C.b.
b. Cancer Risk Level
Based on Washington's longstanding use of a cancer risk level of
10-6, along with EPA's consideration of tribal reserved
rights, EPA guidance, and downstream protection, EPA proposes to derive
human health criteria for carcinogens in Washington using a
10-6 cancer risk level.
To derive final human health criteria for each state in the NTR,
EPA selected a cancer risk level based on each state's policy or
practice regarding what risk level should be used when regulating
carcinogens in surface waters. In its official comments on EPA's
proposed NTR, Washington asked EPA to promulgate human health criteria
using a cancer risk level of 10-6, stating, ``The State of
Washington supports adoption of a risk level of one in one million for
carcinogens. If EPA decides to promulgate a risk level below one in one
million, the rule should specifically address the issue of multiple
contaminants so as to better control overall site risks.'' (57 FR
60848, December 22, 1992). Accordingly, in the NTR, EPA used a cancer
risk level of 10-6 (one in one million) to derive human
health criteria for Washington. Subsequently, Washington adopted and
EPA approved a provision in the state's WQS that reads: ``Risk-based
criteria for carcinogenic substances shall be selected such that the
upper-bound excess cancer risk is less than or equal to one in a
million'' (WAC 173-201A-240(6)). This provision has been in effect in
Washington's WQS since 1993.
In order to effectuate reserved fishing rights, including the
rights that federal treaties afford to tribes in Washington, EPA
proposes to derive criteria that will protect the tribe's reserved
fishing rights in Washington, treating the tribal population exercising
those rights as the target general population (see section IV.A). EPA's
selection of a 10-6 cancer risk level for the tribal target
general population is consistent with EPA's 2000 Human Health
Methodology, which states that when promulgating water quality criteria
for states and tribes, EPA intends to use the 10-6 level,
which reflects an appropriate risk for the general population.\25\
EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology did not consider how CWA decisions
should account for applicable reserved fishing rights, including
treaty-reserved rights. As discussed in section IV.C.a, because a FCR
of 175 g/day very likely does not reflect unsuppressed consumption,
using a cancer risk level of 10-6 ensures protection of
tribal members' unsuppressed consumption. Independently, the treaties
themselves could require higher levels of protection. The treaties
themselves could be interpreted to require a certain level of risk;
e.g., a de minimis level of risk that would most reasonably approximate
conditions at the time the treaties were signed and the fishing rights
were reserved. In policy development regarding management of cancer
risks, EPA often uses 10-6 as a de minimis risk level.\26\
In this case, EPA considers 10-6 to be sufficiently
protective, and the tribes have supported this during consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EPA 2000 Human Health Methodology, pages 2-6. The
Methodology recommends that states set human health criteria cancer
risk levels for the target general population at either 10 \-5\ or
10-6 (pages 2-6) and also notes that states and
authorized tribes can always choose a more stringent risk level,
such as 10 \-7\ (pages 1-12).
\26\ See Castorina, Rosemary and Tracey J. Woodruff. Assessment
of Potential Risk Levels Associated with the U.S. EPA Reference
Values. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 111, No. 10, page
1318. August 2003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241613/pdf/ehp0111-001318.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, many of Washington's rivers are in the Columbia River
basin, upstream of Oregon's portion of the Columbia River. Oregon's
criteria are based on a FCR of 175 g/day and a cancer risk level of
10-6. EPA's proposal to derive human health criteria for
Washington using a cancer risk level of 10-6 along with a
FCR of 175 g/day helps ensure that Washington's criteria will provide
for the attainment and maintenance of Oregon's downstream WQS as
required by 40 CFR 131.10(b).
c. Relative Source Contribution
EPA recommends using a RSC for non-carcinogens and nonlinear
carcinogens to account for sources of exposure other than drinking
water and consumption of inland and nearshore fish and shellfish (see
section II.B.d). In 2015, after evaluating information on chemical
uses, properties, occurrences, releases to the environment and
regulatory restrictions, EPA developed chemical-specific RSCs for non-
carcinogens and nonlinear carcinogens ranging from 0.2 (20 percent) to
0.8 (80 percent) following the Exposure Decision Tree approach
described in EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology.27 28 EPA
proposes to use these same RSCs to derive human health criteria for
Washington. Where EPA did not update the nationally recommended
criteria for certain pollutants in 2015, EPA proposes to use a RSC of
0.2 to derive human health criteria for those pollutants in Washington
to ensure protectiveness. See Table 1, column B2 for a list of EPA's
proposed RSCs by pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-
004. https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
\28\ Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also:
USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Body Weight
EPA proposes to calculate human health criteria for Washington
using a body weight of 80 kg, which represents the average weight of a
U.S. adult. In 2015, EPA updated its national adult body weight to 80
kg based on national survey data (see section II.B.c).\29\ Local
[[Page 55069]]
tribal survey data relevant to Washington are consistent with EPA's
national adult body weight of 80 kg.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also:
USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
\30\ USEPA Region 10. August 2007. Framework for Selecting and
Using Tribal Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rates for Risk-Based
Decision Making at CERCLA and RCRA Cleanup Sites in Puget Sound and
the Strait of Georgia. Appendix B. https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/
CLEANUP.NSF/7780249be8f251538825650f0070bd8b/
e12918970debc8e488256da6005c428e/$FILE/
Tribal%20Shellfish%20Framework.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Drinking Water Intake
EPA proposes to calculate human health criteria for Washington
using a rate of 2.4 L/day. In 2015, EPA updated its national default
drinking water intake rate to 2.4 L/day based on national survey data
(see section II.B.c).\31\ EPA is not aware of any local data applicable
to Washington that suggest a more appropriate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also:
USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Pollutant-Specific Reference Doses and Cancer Slope Factors
As part of EPA's 2015 updates to its 304(a) recommended human
health criteria, EPA conducted a systematic search of eight peer-
reviewed, publicly available sources to obtain the most current
toxicity values for each pollutant (RfDs for non-carcinogenic effects
and CSFs for carcinogenic effects).\32\ EPA proposes to calculate human
health criteria for Washington using the same toxicity values that EPA
used in its 2015 304(a) criteria updates, to ensure that the resulting
criteria are based on a sound scientific rationale. Where EPA did not
update criteria for certain pollutants in 2015, EPA proposes to use the
toxicity values that the Agency used the last time it updated its
304(a) criteria for those pollutants as the best available scientific
information. See Table 1, columns B1 and B3 for a list of EPA's
proposed toxicity factors by pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also:
USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Pollutant-Specific Bioaccumulation Factors
For the 2015 national 304(a) human health criteria update, EPA
estimated chemical-specific BAFs using a framework for deriving
national BAFs described in EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology.\33\
Because the surveyed population upon which the 175 g/day FCR is based
consumed almost exclusively trophic level four fish (i.e., predator
fish species), EPA proposes to apply the trophic level four BAF from
the 2015 304(a) human health criteria updates in conjunction with the
175 g/day FCR, in order to ensure protectiveness.\34\ Where EPA did not
update criteria for certain pollutants in 2015, EPA proposes to use the
BCFs that the Agency used the last time it updated its 304(a) criteria
for those pollutants as the best available scientific information. See
Table 1, columns B4 and B5 for a list of EPA's proposed bioaccumulation
factors by pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-822-B-00-004.
https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
\34\ Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama,
and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin (Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for Washington
EPA proposes 195 human health criteria for 99 different pollutants
(97 organism-only criteria and 98 water-plus-organism criteria) to
protect the applicable designated uses of Washington's waters (see
Table 1). The water-plus-organism criteria in column C1 of Table 1 are
the applicable criteria for any waters that include the Domestic Water
(domestic water supply) use defined in Washington's WQS (WAC 173-201A-
600). The organism-only criteria in column C2 of Table 1 apply to
waters that do not include the Domestic Water (domestic water supply)
use and that Washington defines at WAC 173-201A-600 and 173-201A-610 as
the following: Fresh waters--Harvesting (fish harvesting), and
Recreational Uses; Marine waters--Shellfish Harvesting (shellfish--
clam, oyster, and mussel--harvesting), Harvesting (salmonid and other
fish harvesting, and crustacean and other shellfish--crabs, shrimp,
scallops, etc.--harvesting), and Recreational Uses.
EPA solicits comment on the criteria, the inputs EPA used to derive
these criteria, and specifically solicits additional Washington-
specific information such as data from local fish or drinking water
consumption rate studies, or bioaccumulation field studies from
Washington waters.
Table 1--Proposed Human Health Criteria for Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A B C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer slope Relative Reference Bio-accumulation Bio-
factor, CSF source dose, RfD factor for concentration Water & Organisms
Chemical CAS No. (per mg/ contribution, (mg/ trophic level 4 factor LI>(L/kg organisms only ([mu]g/
kg[middot]d) RSC (-) kg[middot]d) (L/kg tissue) tissue) ([mu]g/L) L)
........... (B1) (B2) (B3) (B4) (B5) (C1) (C2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.......... 71556 ............ 0.20 2 10 ................ 8,000 20,000
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...... 79345 0.2 ............. ............ 8.4 ................ 0.1 0.3
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.......... 79005 0.057 ............. ............ 8.9 ................ 0.35 0.90
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene........... 75354 ............ 0.20 0.05 2.6 ................ 300 2,000
5. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene......... 120821 0.029 ............. ............ 430 ................ 0.036 0.037
6. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene............ 95501 ............ 0.20 0.3 82 ................ 300 300
7. 1,2-Dichloroethane............. 107062 0.0033 ............. ............ 1.9 ................ 8.9 73
8. 1,2-Dichloropropane............ 78875 0.036 ............. ............ 3.9 ................ 0.72 3.3
9. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.......... 122667 0.8 ............. ............ 27 ................ 0.01 0.02
10. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene.... 156605 ............ 0.20 0.02 4.7 ................ 100 400
11. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene........... 541731 ............ 0.20 0.002 190 ................ 0.9 1
12. 1,3-Dichloropropene........... 542756 0.122 ............. ............ 3.0 ................ 0.22 1.2
13. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene........... 106467 ............ 0.20 0.07 84 ................ 70 80
14. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)......... 1746016 156,000 ............. ............ ................ 5,000 5.8E-10 5.9E-10
[[Page 55070]]
15. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol......... 88062 0.011 ............. ............ 150 ................ 0.25 0.28
16. 2,4-Dichlorophenol............ 120832 ............ 0.20 0.003 48 ................ 4 6
17. 2,4-Dimethylphenol............ 105679 ............ 0.20 0.02 7 ................ 90 300
18. 2,4-Dinitrophenol............. 51285 ............ 0.20 0.002 ................ 4.4 10 40
19. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene............ 121142 0.667 ............. ............ 3.9 ................ 0.039 0.18
20. 2-Chloronaphthalene........... 91587 ............ 0.80 0.08 240 ................ 100 100
21. 2-Chlorophenol................ 95578 ............ 0.20 0.005 5.4 ................ 20 80
22. 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol.... 534521 ............ 0.20 0.0003 10 ................ 1 3
23. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine........ 91941 0.45 ............. ............ 69 ................ 0.012 0.015
24. 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol....... 59507 ............ 0.20 0.1 39 ................ 200 200
25. 4,4'-DDD...................... 72548 0.24 ............. ............ 240,000 ................ 7.9E-06 7.9E-06
26. 4,4'-DDE...................... 72559 0.167 ............. ............ 3,100,000 ................ 8.8E-07 8.8E-07
27. 4,4'-DDT...................... 50293 0.34 ............. ............ 1,100,000 ................ 1.2E-06 1.2E-06
28. Acenaphthene.................. 83329 ............ 0.20 0.06 ................ 510 10 10
29. Acrolein...................... 107028 ............ 0.20 0.0005 1.0 ................ 3 50
30. Acrylonitrile................. 107131 0.54 ............. ............ 1.0 ................ 0.058 0.85
31. Aldrin........................ 309002 17 ............. ............ 650,000 ................ 4.1E-08 4.1E-08
32. alpha-BHC..................... 319846 6.3 ............. ............ 1,500 ................ 4.8E-05 4.8E-05
33. alpha-Endosulfan.............. 959988 ............ 0.20 0.006 200 ................ 3 3
34. Anthracene.................... 120127 ............ 0.20 0.3 ................ 610 40 40
35. Antimony...................... 7440360 ............ 0.20 0.0004 ................ 1 2.5 37
36. Arsenic....................... 7440382 1.75 ............. ............ ................ 44 \a\ 0.0045 \a\ 0.0059
37. Asbestos...................... 1332214 ............ ............. ............ ................ ................ \b\ ...........
7,000,000
(fibers/L)
38. Benzene....................... 71432 \c\ 0.055 ............. ............ 5.0 ................ \c\ 0.44 \c\ 1.7
39. Benzidine..................... 92875 230 ............. ............ 1.7 ................ 0.00013 0.0012
40. Benzo(a) Anthracene........... 56553 0.73 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016
41. Benzo(a) Pyrene............... 50328 7.3 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 1.6E-05 1.6E-05
42. Benzo(b) Fluoranthene......... 205992 0.73 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016
43. Benzo(k) Fluoranthene......... 207089 0.073 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.0016 0.0016
44. beta-BHC...................... 319857 1.8 ............. ............ 180 ................ 0.0013 0.0014
45. beta-Endosulfan............... 33213659 ............ 0.20 0.006 130 ................ 4 4
46. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether...... 111444 1.1 ............. ............ 1.7 ................ 0.027 0.24
47. *Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) 108601 ............ 0.20 0.04 10 ................ 200 400
Ether............................
48. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate... 117817 0.014 ............. ............ ................ 710 0.045 0.046
49. Bromoform..................... 75252 0.0045 ............. ............ 8.5 ................ 4.6 12
50. Butylbenzyl Phthalate......... 85687 0.0019 ............. ............ ................ 19,000 0.013 0.013
51. Carbon Tetrachloride.......... 56235 0.07 ............. ............ 14 ................ 0.2 0.5
52. Chlordane..................... 57749 0.35 ............. ............ 60,000 ................ 2.2E-05 2.2E-05
53. Chlorobenzene................. 108907 ............ 0.20 0.02 22 ................ 50 80
54. Chlorodibromomethane.......... 124481 0.04 ............. ............ 5.3 ................ 0.60 2.2
55. Chloroform.................... 67663 ............ 0.20 0.01 3.8 ................ 50 200
56. Chrysene...................... 218019 0.0073 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.016 0.016
57. Copper........................ 7440508 ............ ............. ............ ................ ................ \d\ 1300 ...........
58. Cyanide....................... 57125 ............ 0.20 0.0006 ................ 1 4 50
59. Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene....... 53703 7.3 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 1.6E-05 1.6E-05
60. Dichlorobromomethane.......... 75274 0.034 ............. ............ 4.8 ................ 0.73 2.8
61. Dieldrin...................... 60571 16 ............. ............ 410,000 ................ 7.0E-08 7.0E-08
62. Diethyl Phthalate............. 84662 ............ 0.20 0.8 ................ 920 80 80
63. Dimethyl Phthalate............ 131113 ............ 0.20 10 ................ 4,000 200 200
64. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate.......... 84742 ............ 0.20 0.1 ................ 2,900 3 3
65. Endosulfan Sulfate............ 1031078 ............ 0.20 0.006 140 ................ 4 4
66. Endrin........................ 72208 ............ 0.80 0.0003 46,000 ................ 0.002 0.002
67. Endrin Aldehyde............... 7421934 ............ 0.80 0.0003 850 ................ 0.1 0.1
68. Ethylbenzene.................. 100414 ............ 0.20 0.022 160 ................ 12 13
69. Fluoranthene.................. 206440 ............ 0.20 0.04 ................ 1,500 2 2
70. Fluorene...................... 86737 ............ 0.20 0.04 710 ................ 5 5
71. gamma-BHC; Lindane............ 58899 ............ 0.50 0.0047 2,500 ................ 0.43 0.43
72. Heptachlor.................... 76448 4.1 ............. ............ 330,000 ................ 3.4E-07 3.4E-07
73. Heptachlor Epoxide............ 1024573 5.5 ............. ............ 35,000 ................ 2.4E-06 2.4E-06
74. Hexachlorobenzene............. 118741 1.02 ............. ............ 90,000 ................ 5.0E-06 5.0E-06
75. Hexachlorobutadiene........... 87683 0.04 ............. ............ 1,100 ................ 0.01 0.01
76. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene..... 77474 ............ 0.20 0.006 1,300 ................ 0.4 0.4
77. Hexachloroethane.............. 67721 0.04 ............. ............ 600 ................ 0.02 0.02
78. Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene....... 193395 0.73 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016
79. Isophorone.................... 78591 0.00095 ............. ............ 2.4 ................ 30 200
80. Methyl Bromide................ 74839 ............ 0.20 0.02 1.4 ................ 100 1,000
81. Methylene Chloride............ 75092 0.002 ............. ............ 1.6 ................ 10 100
82. Methylmercury................. 22967926 ............ 2.7E-05 0.0001 ................ ................ ........... \e\ 0.033
(mg/kg)
83. Nickel........................ 7440020 ............ 0.20 0.02 ................ 47 30 39
84. Nitrobenzene.................. 98953 ............ 0.20 0.002 3.1 ................ 10 60
85. N-Nitrosodimethylamine........ 62759 51 ............. ............ ................ 0.026 0.00065 0.34
[[Page 55071]]
86. N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine..... 621647 7 ............. ............ ................ 1.13 0.0044 0.058
87. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine........ 86306 0.0049 ............. ............ ................ 136 0.62 0.69
88. Pentachlorophenol (PCP)....... 87865 0.4 ............. ............ 520 ................ 0.002 0.002
89. Phenol........................ 108952 ............ 0.20 0.6 1.9 ................ 4,000 30,000
90. Polychlorinated Biphenyls ........... 2 ............. ............ ................ 31,200 \f\ 7.3E-06 \f\ 7.3E-06
(PCBs)...........................
91. Pyrene........................ 129000 ............ 0.20 0.03 ................ 860 3 3
92. Selenium...................... 7782492 ............ 0.20 0.005 ................ 4.8 25 95
93. Tetrachloroethylene........... 127184 0.0021 ............. ............ 76 ................ 2.4 2.9
94. Thallium...................... 7440280 ............ 0.20 0.000068 ................ 116 0.048 0.054
95. Toluene....................... 108883 ............ 0.20 0.0097 17 ................ 29 52
96. Toxaphene..................... 8001352 1.1 ............. ............ 6,300 ................ 6.6E-05 6.6E-05
97. Trichloroethylene............. 79016 0.05 ............. ............ 13 ................ 0.3 0.7
98. Vinyl Chloride................ 75014 1.5 ............. ............ 1.7 ................ 0.020 0.18
99. Zinc.......................... 7440666 ............ 0.20 0.3 ................ 47 450 580
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This criterion refers to the inorganic form of arsenic only.
\b\ This criterion is expressed as fibers per liter (fibers/L). The criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).
\c\ EPA's national 304(a) recommended criteria for benzene use a CSF range of 0.015 to 0.055 per mg/kg-day. EPA proposes to use the higher end of the
CSF range (0.055 per mg/kg-day) to derive the proposed benzene criteria for Washington.
\d\ The criterion for copper is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CFR 141.80, June 7,
1991).
\e\ This criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the
Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury (EPA-823-R-01-001, January 3, 2001) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in EPA's
2000 Human Health Methodology rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in fish tissue rather than in water.
\f\ This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses).
* Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether was previously listed as Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether.
E. Applicability of Criteria When Final
The EPA does not propose to revise or replace any existing criteria
(related to human health or otherwise) that were already adopted and
submitted to EPA by Washington (and for those adopted after May 30,
2000, approved by EPA), such as the state's narrative toxics criteria
statement at WAC 173-201A-260(2)(a). Rather, EPA proposes to revise the
current federal human health criteria applicable to waters in the state
of Washington, as promulgated in the NTR, and establish new criteria
for 14 additional priority pollutants. These new and revised human
health criteria would apply for CWA purposes in addition to any
existing criteria already applicable to Washington's waters.
EPA proposes to replicate in 40 CFR 131.45 the same general rules
of applicability for human health criteria as in 40 CFR 131.36(c), with
one exception. For waters suitable for the establishment of low flow
return frequencies (i.e., streams and rivers), EPA proposes that
Washington must not use a low flow value below which numeric standards
can be exceeded that is less stringent than the harmonic mean flow (a
long-term mean flow value calculated by dividing the number of daily
flows analyzed by the sum of the reciprocals of those daily flows). Per
65 FR 66444, November 3, 2000, EPA now recommends harmonic mean flow be
used to implement human health criteria for both carcinogens and non-
carcinogens.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See also USEPA. 2014. Water Quality Standards Handbook--
Chapter 5: General Policies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA-820-B-14-004. https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CWA, Congress gave states primary responsibility for
developing and adopting WQS for their navigable waters (CWA section
303(a)-(c)). Although EPA proposes human health criteria for Washington
to update the existing federally promulgated criteria, Washington
continues to have the option to adopt and submit to EPA human health
criteria for the state's waters consistent with CWA section 303(c) and
EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA encourages
Washington to expeditiously adopt protective human health criteria.
Consistent with CWA section 303(c)(4), if Washington adopts and submits
human health criteria and EPA approves such criteria before finalizing
this proposed rule, EPA would not proceed with the final rulemaking for
those waters and/or pollutants for which EPA approves Washington's
criteria.
If EPA finalizes this proposed rule, and Washington subsequently
adopts and submits human health criteria, EPA proposes that once EPA
approves Washington's WQS, the pollutant-specific or site-specific EPA-
approved criteria in Washington's WQS would become effective for CWA
purposes and EPA's promulgated criteria for those pollutants or for
that site would no longer apply. EPA would still undertake a rulemaking
to withdraw the federal criteria for those pollutants, but any delay in
that process would not delay Washington's approved criteria from
becoming the sole applicable criteria for CWA purposes. EPA solicits
comment on this approach.
F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms
Once finalized, Washington will have considerable discretion to
implement these revised federal human health criteria through various
water quality control programs including the NPDES program, which
limits discharges to waters except in compliance with a NPDES permit.
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.14, once effective, authorize states
and authorized tribes to adopt WQS variances to provide time to achieve
the applicable WQS. 40 CFR part 131 defines WQS variances at 131.3(o)
as time-limited designated uses and supporting criteria for a specific
pollutant(s) or water quality parameter(s) that reflect the highest
attainable conditions during the term of the WQS variance. WQS
variances adopted in accordance with 40 CFR part 131 allow states and
authorized tribes to
[[Page 55072]]
address water quality challenges in a transparent and predictable way.
Variances help states and authorized tribes focus on making incremental
progress in improving water quality, rather than pursuing a downgrade
of the underlying water quality goals through a designated use change,
when the current designated use is difficult to attain. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 122.47 and 40 CFR 131.15, once effective, allow
states and authorized tribes to include permit compliance schedules in
their NPDES permits if dischargers need additional time to meet their
water quality based limits based on the applicable WQS. EPA's updated
regulations at 40 CFR part 131 also include provisions authorizing the
use of permit compliance schedules to ensure that a decision to allow
permit compliance schedules includes public engagement and
transparency. (80 FR 51022, August 21, 2015).
40 CFR 131.10 specifies how states and authorized tribes establish,
modify or remove designated uses for their waters. 40 CFR 131.11
specifies the requirements for establishing criteria to protect
designated uses, including criteria modified to reflect site-specific
conditions. In the context of this rulemaking, a site-specific
criterion (SSC) is an alternative value to the federal human health
criteria that would be applied on a watershed, area-wide, or waterbody-
specific basis that meets the regulatory test of protecting the
designated use, being scientifically defensible, and ensuring the
protection and maintenance of downstream WQS. A SSC may be more or less
stringent than the otherwise applicable federal criteria. A SSC may be
appropriate when further scientific data and analyses can bring added
precision to express the concentration of a particular pollutant that
protects the human health-related designated use in a particular
waterbody.
EPA does not propose to change any of the flexibilities afforded to
Washington by EPA's regulations to modify or remove designated uses,
adopt variances, issue compliance schedules or establish site-specific
criteria. Washington may continue to use any of these regulatory
flexibilities when implementing the revised federal human health
criteria.
a. Designating Uses
EPA's proposed human health criteria apply to waters that
Washington has designated for the following: Fresh waters--Harvesting
(fish harvesting), Domestic Water (domestic water supply), and
Recreational Uses; Marine waters--Shellfish Harvesting (shellfish--
clam, oyster, and mussel--harvesting), Harvesting (salmonid and other
fish harvesting, and crustacean and other shellfish--crabs, shrimp,
scallops, etc.--harvesting), and Recreational Uses (see WAC 173-201A-
600 and WAC 173-201A-610). If Washington removes the Domestic Water use
but retains any of the other above designated uses for any particular
waterbody ultimately affected by this rule, and EPA finds that removal
to be consistent with CWA section 303(c) and EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 131, then the federal organism-only criteria
would apply in place of the federal water-plus-organism criteria. If
Washington removes designated uses such that none of the above uses
apply to any particular waterbody ultimately affected by this rule and
adopts the highest attainable use, as defined by 40 CFR 131.3(m),
consistent with 40 CFR 131.10(g), and EPA finds that removal to be
consistent with CWA section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations
at 40 CFR part 131, then the federal human health criteria would no
longer apply to that waterbody. Instead, any criteria associated with
the newly designated highest attainable use would apply to that
waterbody.
b. Variances and Compliance Schedules
EPA is proposing human health criteria that apply to use
designations that Washington has already established. Washington has
sufficient authority to use variances when implementing the human
health criteria as long as such variances are adopted consistent with
40 CFR 131.14. Washington may use its currently EPA-approved variance
procedures with respect to a temporary modification of its uses as it
pertains to any federal criteria (see WAC 173-201A-420) when adopting
such variances. Similarly, Washington already has an EPA-approved
regulation authorizing the use of permit compliance schedules (see WAC
173-201A-510), consistent with 40 CFR 131.15. That state regulation is
not affected by this rule, and Washington is authorized to grant
compliance schedules, as appropriate, based on the federal criteria.
c. Site-Specific Criteria
As discussed in section IV.E, EPA proposes that once EPA approves
human health criteria that Washington adopts and submits after EPA
finalizes this proposed rule, the pollutant-specific or site-specific
EPA-approved criteria in Washington's WQS would become effective for
CWA purposes and EPA's promulgated criteria for those pollutants or for
that site would no longer apply.
V. Economic Analysis
These WQS may serve as a basis for development of NPDES permit
limits. Washington has NPDES permitting authority, and retains
considerable discretion in implementing standards. EPA evaluated the
potential costs to NPDES dischargers associated with state
implementation of EPA's proposed criteria. This analysis is documented
in ``Economic Analysis for the Revision of Certain Federal Water
Quality Criteria Applicable to Washington,'' which can be found in the
record for this rulemaking.
Any NPDES-permitted facility that discharges pollutants for which
the revised human health criteria are more stringent than the
applicable aquatic life criteria (or for which human health criteria
are the only applicable criteria) could potentially incur compliance
costs. The types of affected facilities could include industrial
facilities and POTWs discharging wastewater to surface waters (i.e.,
point sources). Once in compliance with water quality-based effluent
limitations (WQBELs) reflective of existing federal human health
criteria applicable to Washington (hereafter referred to as ``baseline
criteria''), EPA expects that dischargers will continue to use the same
types of controls to come into compliance with the revised criteria;
EPA did not attribute compliance with WQBELs reflective of baseline
criteria to the proposed rule. EPA did not fully evaluate the potential
for costs to nonpoint sources, such as agricultural runoff, for this
preliminary analysis.
EPA recognizes that the permitting authority may require controls
for nonpoint sources (e.g., agricultural runoff). However, it is
difficult to model and evaluate the potential cost impacts of this
proposed rule to nonpoint sources because they are intermittent,
variable, and occur under hydrologic or climatic conditions associated
with precipitation events. Also, data on instream and discharge levels
of the pollutants of concern after dischargers have implemented
controls to meet current WQS, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for
impaired waters, or other water quality improvement plans, are not
available. Therefore, trying to determine which sources would not
achieve WQS based on the revised human health criteria after complying
with existing regulations and policies may not be possible.
Finally, legacy contamination (e.g., in sediment) may be a source
of ongoing loading. Atmospheric deposition may
[[Page 55073]]
also contribute loadings of the pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury).
EPA did not estimate sediment remediation costs, or air pollution
controls costs, for this preliminary analysis.
A. Identifying Affected Entities
EPA identified 406 point source facilities that could ultimately be
affected by this proposed rule. Of these potentially affected
facilities, 73 are major dischargers and 333 are minor dischargers. EPA
did not include general permit facilities in its analysis because data
for such facilities are limited, and flows are usually negligible. Of
the potentially affected facilities, EPA evaluated a sample of 17 major
facilities. Minor facilities are unlikely to incur costs as a result of
implementation of the rule. Minor facilities are typically those that
discharge less than 1 million gallons per day (mgd) and do not
discharge toxics in toxic amounts. Although lower human health criteria
could potentially change this categorization, EPA did not have effluent
data on toxic pollutants to evaluate minor facilities for this
preliminary analysis. Table 2 summarizes these potentially affected
facilities by type and category.
Table 2--Potentially Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Minor Major All
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal....................................................... 184 48 232
Industrial...................................................... 149 25 174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 333 73 406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Method for Estimating Costs
EPA evaluated the 2 major municipal facilities with design flows
greater than 100 mgd and the largest industrial facility, to attempt to
capture the facilities with the potential for the largest costs. For
the remaining major facilities, EPA evaluated a random sample of
facilities to represent discharger type and category. For all sample
facilities, EPA evaluated existing baseline permit conditions,
reasonable potential to exceed human health criteria based on the
proposed rule, and potential to exceed projected effluent limitations
based on the last three years of effluent monitoring data (if
available). In instances of baseline effluent limitations not being
reflective of baseline criteria, EPA estimated baseline effluent
limitations, compliance actions, and costs. In instances of exceedances
of projected effluent limitations under the proposed criteria, EPA
determined the likely compliance scenarios and costs. Only compliance
actions and costs that would be needed above the baseline level of
controls are attributable to the proposed rule.
EPA assumed that dischargers will pursue the least cost means of
compliance with WQBELs. Incremental compliance actions attributable to
the proposed rule may include pollution prevention, end-of-pipe
treatment, and alternative compliance mechanisms (e.g., variances). EPA
annualized capital costs, including study (e.g., variance) and program
(e.g., pollution prevention) costs, over 20 years using a 7% discount
rate to obtain total annual costs per facility. For the random sample,
EPA extrapolated the annualized costs based on the sampling weight for
each sample facility. To obtain an estimate of total costs to point
sources, EPA added the results for the certainty sample to the
extrapolated random sample costs.
C. Results
Based on the results for 17 sample facilities across 8 industrial
and municipal categories,\36\ EPA estimated a total annual cost of
approximately $13.0 million to $13.1 million for all major dischargers
in the state. The low end of the range reflects the assumption that the
compliance actions will result in compliance with projected effluent
limits through pollution prevention programs and end-of-pipe treatment,
whereas the high scenario reflects the assumption that these actions
will not result in compliance with very low limits and dischargers will
also need to apply for variances. All of the incremental costs are
attributable to industrial dischargers, primarily for treatment of
arsenic. Overall, compliance with revised human health criteria for
arsenic accounts for 99% of the costs, while compliance with revised
human health criteria for mercury accounts for the remaining 1% of
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Seven industrial categories (mining, food and kindred
products, paper and allied products, chemicals and allied products,
petroleum refining and related industries, primary metal industries,
and transportation and public utilities (except POTWs)) and
municipal POTWs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the revised criteria result in an incremental increase in
impaired waters, resulting in the need for TMDL development, there
could also be some costs to nonpoint sources of pollution. Using
available ambient monitoring data, EPA compared pollutant
concentrations to the baseline and proposed criteria, identifying
waterbodies that may be incrementally impaired (i.e., impaired under
the proposed criteria but not under the baseline). For the 26
parameters and stations for which EPA had sufficient monitoring data
available to evaluate, there were 205 impairments under the baseline
criteria and 254 under the proposed criteria, for a total of 49
potential incremental impairments (or a 24% increase relative to the
baseline; including for mercury and DDT). This increase indicates the
potential for nonpoint sources to bear some compliance costs, although
data are not available to estimate the magnitude of these costs. The
control of nonpoint sources such as in the context of a TMDL could
result in less stringent requirements, and thus lower costs, for point
sources.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not subject to
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). The proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly
applicable to regulated entities or other sources of toxic pollutants.
However, these WQS may serve as a basis for development of NPDES permit
limits. Washington has NPDES permitting authority, and retains
considerable discretion in implementing standards. In the spirit of
Executive Order 12866, EPA evaluated the potential costs to NPDES
dischargers associated with state implementation of EPA's proposed
criteria. This analysis,
[[Page 55074]]
Economic Analysis for the Revision of Certain Federal Water Quality
Criteria Applicable to Washington, is summarized in section V of the
preamble and is available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any direct new information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Actions to implement these WQS could entail additional
paperwork burden. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action
does not include any information collection, reporting, or record-
keeping requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA). Small entities, such as small businesses or small
governmental jurisdictions, are not directly regulated by this rule.
This proposed rule will thus not impose any requirements on small
entities. We continue to be interested, however, in the potential
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on
issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. As these water quality criteria are not self-implementing,
EPA's action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that could
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule
does not alter Washington's considerable discretion in implementing
these WQS, nor would it preclude Washington from adopting WQS that EPA
concludes meet the requirements of the CWA, either before or after
promulgation of the final rule, which would eliminate the need for
federal standards. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action
from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. In the state of Washington,
there are 29 federally recognized Indian tribes. To date, nine of these
Indian tribes have been approved for TAS for CWA sections 303 and
401.\37\ Of these nine tribes, seven have EPA-approved WQS in their
respective jurisdictions.\38\ This rule could affect federally
recognized Indian tribes in Washington because the numeric criteria for
Washington will apply to waters adjacent to (or upstream or downstream
of) the tribal waters, and because the proposed Washington criteria are
informed by tribal reserved rights. Additionally, there are ten
federally recognized Indian tribes in the Columbia River Basin located
in the states of Oregon and Idaho that this rule could affect because
their waters could affect or be affected by the water quality of
Washington's downstream or upstream waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ https://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/approvtable.cfm.
\38\ https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/34090d07b77d50bd88256b79006529e8/dd2a4df00fd7ae1a88256e0500680e86!OpenDocument. Note that this number
does not include the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation, which has federally-promulgated WQS from 1989. EPA is
currently reviewing the Colville Tribe's application for TAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA consulted with federally recognized tribal officials under
EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribes early
in the process of developing this proposed rule to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. In February and March
2015, EPA held tribes-only technical staff and leadership consultation
sessions to hear their views and answer questions of all interested
tribes on the proposed rule. Representatives from approximately 23
tribes and four tribal consortia participated in two leadership
meetings held in March 2015. EPA and tribes have also met regularly
since November 2012 to discuss Washington's human health criteria at
both the tribal leadership level and technical staff level. The tribes
have repeatedly asked EPA to promulgate federal human health criteria
for Washington if the state did not do so in a timely and protective
manner. At these meetings, the tribes consistently emphasized that the
human health criteria should be derived using at least a minimum FCR
value of 175 g/day, a cancer risk level of 10-6, and the
latest scientific information from EPA's 304(a) recommended criteria.
EPA considered the input received during consultation with tribes when
developing this proposal (see section IV for additional discussion of
how EPA considered tribal input).
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action do not present a disproportionate risk to children.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure.
H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use)
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)
This action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.
Conversely, this action identifies and ameliorates disproportionately
high and adverse human health effects on minority populations and low-
income populations in Washington. EPA developed the human health
criteria included in this proposed rule specifically to protect
Washington's designated uses, using the most current science, including
local and regional information on fish consumption. Applying these
criteria to waters in the state of Washington will afford a greater
[[Page 55075]]
level of protection to both human health and the environment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
Environmental protection, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution
control.
Dated: August 31, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 131 as follows:
PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Subpart D--Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards
Sec. 131.36 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 131.36, remove paragraph (d)(14).
0
3. Add Sec. 131.45 to read as follows:
Sec. 131.45 Revision of certain Federal water quality criteria
applicable to Washington.
(a) Scope. This section promulgates human health criteria for
priority toxic pollutants in surface waters in Washington.
(b) Criteria for priority toxic pollutants in Washington. The
applicable human health criteria are shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Proposed Human Health Criteria for Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A B C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer slope Relative Reference Bio-accumulation Bio-
factor, CSF source dose, RfD factor for concentration Water & Organisms
Chemical CAS No. (per mg/ contribution, (mg/ trophic level 4 factor (L/kg organisms only ([mu]g/
kg[middot]d) RSC (-) kg[middot]d) (L/kg tissue) tissue) ([mu]g/L) L)
........... (B1) (B2) (B3) (B4) (B5) (C1) (C2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.......... 71556 ............ 0.20 2 10 ................ 8,000 20,000
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...... 79345 0.2 ............. ............ 8.4 ................ 0.1 0.3
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.......... 79005 0.057 ............. ............ 8.9 ................ 0.35 0.90
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene........... 75354 ............ 0.20 0.05 2.6 ................ 300 2,000
5. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene......... 120821 0.029 ............. ............ 430 ................ 0.036 0.037
6. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene............ 95501 ............ 0.20 0.3 82 ................ 300 300
7. 1,2-Dichloroethane............. 107062 0.0033 ............. ............ 1.9 ................ 8.9 73
8. 1,2-Dichloropropane............ 78875 0.036 ............. ............ 3.9 ................ 0.72 3.3
9. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.......... 122667 0.8 ............. ............ 27 ................ 0.01 0.02
10. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene.... 156605 ............ 0.20 0.02 4.7 ................ 100 400
11. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene........... 541731 ............ 0.20 0.002 190 ................ 0.9 1
12. 1,3-Dichloropropene........... 542756 0.122 ............. ............ 3.0 ................ 0.22 1.2
13. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene........... 106467 ............ 0.20 0.07 84 ................ 70 80
14. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)......... 1746016 156,000 ............. ............ ................ 5,000 5.8E-10 5.9E-10
15. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol......... 88062 0.011 ............. ............ 150 ................ 0.25 0.28
16. 2,4-Dichlorophenol............ 120832 ............ 0.20 0.003 48 ................ 4 6
17. 2,4-Dimethylphenol............ 105679 ............ 0.20 0.02 7 ................ 90 300
18. 2,4-Dinitrophenol............. 51285 ............ 0.20 0.002 ................ 4.4 10 40
19. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene............ 121142 0.667 ............. ............ 3.9 ................ 0.039 0.18
20. 2-Chloronaphthalene........... 91587 ............ 0.80 0.08 240 ................ 100 100
21. 2-Chlorophenol................ 95578 ............ 0.20 0.005 5.4 ................ 20 80
22. 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol.... 534521 ............ 0.20 0.0003 10 ................ 1 3
23. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine........ 91941 0.45 ............. ............ 69 ................ 0.012 0.015
24. 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol....... 59507 ............ 0.20 0.1 39 ................ 200 200
25. 4,4'-DDD...................... 72548 0.24 ............. ............ 240,000 ................ 7.9E-06 7.9E-06
26. 4,4'-DDE...................... 72559 0.167 ............. ............ 3,100,000 ................ 8.8E-07 8.8E-07
27. 4,4'-DDT...................... 50293 0.34 ............. ............ 1,100,000 ................ 1.2E-06 1.2E-06
28. Acenaphthene.................. 83329 ............ 0.20 0.06 ................ 510 10 10
29. Acrolein...................... 107028 ............ 0.20 0.0005 1.0 ................ 3 50
30. Acrylonitrile................. 107131 0.54 ............. ............ 1.0 ................ 0.058 0.85
31. Aldrin........................ 309002 17 ............. ............ 650,000 ................ 4.1E-08 4.1E-08
32. alpha-BHC..................... 319846 6.3 ............. ............ 1,500 ................ 4.8E-05 4.8E-05
33. alpha-Endosulfan.............. 959988 ............ 0.20 0.006 200 ................ 3 3
34. Anthracene.................... 120127 ............ 0.20 0.3 ................ 610 40 40
35. Antimony...................... 7440360 ............ 0.20 0.0004 ................ 1 2.5 37
36. Arsenic....................... 7440382 1.75 ............. ............ ................ 44 \a\ 0.0045 \a\ 0.0059
37. Asbestos...................... 1332214 ............ ............. ............ ................ ................ \b\ ...........
7,000,000
(fibers/L)
38. Benzene....................... 71432 \c\ 0.055 ............. ............ 5.0 ................ \c\ 0.44 \c\ 1.7
39. Benzidine..................... 92875 230 ............. ............ 1.7 ................ 0.00013 0.0012
40. Benzo(a) Anthracene........... 56553 0.73 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016
41. Benzo(a) Pyrene............... 50328 7.3 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 1.6E-05 1.6E-05
42. Benzo(b) Fluoranthene......... 205992 0.73 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016
43. Benzo(k) Fluoranthene......... 207089 0.073 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.0016 0.0016
44. beta-BHC...................... 319857 1.8 ............. ............ 180 ................ 0.0013 0.0014
45. beta-Endosulfan............... 33213659 ............ 0.20 0.006 130 ................ 4 4
46. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether...... 111444 1.1 ............. ............ 1.7 ................ 0.027 0.24
47. * Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) 108601 ............ 0.20 0.04 10 ................ 200 400
Ether............................
48. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate... 117817 0.014 ............. ............ ................ 710 0.045 0.046
49. Bromoform..................... 75252 0.0045 ............. ............ 8.5 ................ 4.6 12
50. Butylbenzyl Phthalate......... 85687 0.0019 ............. ............ ................ 19,000 0.013 0.013
51. Carbon Tetrachloride.......... 56235 0.07 ............. ............ 14 ................ 0.2 0.5
52. Chlordane..................... 57749 0.35 ............. ............ 60,000 ................ 2.2E-05 2.2E-05
53. Chlorobenzene................. 108907 ............ 0.20 0.02 22 ................ 50 80
54. Chlorodibromomethane.......... 124481 0.04 ............. ............ 5.3 ................ 0.60 2.2
[[Page 55076]]
55. Chloroform.................... 67663 ............ 0.20 0.01 3.8 ................ 50 200
56. Chrysene...................... 218019 0.0073 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.016 0.016
57. Copper........................ 7440508 ............ ............. ............ ................ ................ \d\ 1300 ...........
58. Cyanide....................... 57125 ............ 0.20 0.0006 ................ 1 4 50
59. Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene....... 53703 7.3 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 1.6E-05 1.6E-05
60. Dichlorobromomethane.......... 75274 0.034 ............. ............ 4.8 ................ 0.73 2.8
61. Dieldrin...................... 60571 16 ............. ............ 410,000 ................ 7.0E-08 7.0E-08
62. Diethyl Phthalate............. 84662 ............ 0.20 0.8 ................ 920 80 80
63. Dimethyl Phthalate............ 131113 ............ 0.20 10 ................ 4,000 200 200
64. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate.......... 84742 ............ 0.20 0.1 ................ 2,900 3 3
65. Endosulfan Sulfate............ 1031078 ............ 0.20 0.006 140 ................ 4 4
66. Endrin........................ 72208 ............ 0.80 0.0003 46,000 ................ 0.002 0.002
67. Endrin Aldehyde............... 7421934 ............ 0.80 0.0003 850 ................ 0.1 0.1
68. Ethylbenzene.................. 100414 ............ 0.20 0.022 160 ................ 12 13
69. Fluoranthene.................. 206440 ............ 0.20 0.04 ................ 1,500 2 2
70. Fluorene...................... 86737 ............ 0.20 0.04 710 ................ 5 5
71. gamma-BHC; Lindane............ 58899 ............ 0.50 0.0047 2,500 ................ 0.43 0.43
72. Heptachlor.................... 76448 4.1 ............. ............ 330,000 ................ 3.4E-07 3.4E-07
73. Heptachlor Epoxide............ 1024573 5.5 ............. ............ 35,000 ................ 2.4E-06 2.4E-06
74. Hexachlorobenzene............. 118741 1.02 ............. ............ 90,000 ................ 5.0E-06 5.0E-06
75. Hexachlorobutadiene........... 87683 0.04 ............. ............ 1,100 ................ 0.01 0.01
76. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene..... 77474 ............ 0.20 0.006 1,300 ................ 0.4 0.4
77. Hexachloroethane.............. 67721 0.04 ............. ............ 600 ................ 0.02 0.02
78. Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene....... 193395 0.73 ............. ............ ................ 3,900 0.00016 0.00016
79. Isophorone.................... 78591 0.00095 ............. ............ 2.4 ................ 30 200
80. Methyl Bromide................ 74839 ............ 0.20 0.02 1.4 ................ 100 1,000
81. Methylene Chloride............ 75092 0.002 ............. ............ 1.6 ................ 10 100
82. Methylmercury................. 22967926 ............ 2.7E-05 0.0001 ................ ................ ........... \e\ 0.033
(mg/kg)
83. Nickel........................ 7440020 ............ 0.20 0.02 ................ 47 30 39
84. Nitrobenzene.................. 98953 ............ 0.20 0.002 3.1 ................ 10 60
85. N-Nitrosodimethylamine........ 62759 51 ............. ............ ................ 0.026 0.00065 0.34
86. N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine..... 621647 7 ............. ............ ................ 1.13 0.0044 0.058
87. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine........ 86306 0.0049 ............. ............ ................ 136 0.62 0.69
88. Pentachlorophenol (PCP)....... 87865 0.4 ............. ............ 520 ................ 0.002 0.002
89. Phenol........................ 108952 ............ 0.20 0.6 1.9 ................ 4,000 30,000
90. Polychlorinated Biphenyls ........... 2 ............. ............ ................ 31,200 \f\ 7.3E-06 \f\ 7.3E-06
(PCBs)...........................
91. Pyrene........................ 129000 ............ 0.20 0.03 ................ 860 3 3
92. Selenium...................... 7782492 ............ 0.20 0.005 ................ 4.8 25 95
93. Tetrachloroethylene........... 127184 0.0021 ............. ............ 76 ................ 2.4 2.9
94. Thallium...................... 7440280 ............ 0.20 0.000068 ................ 116 0.048 0.054
95. Toluene....................... 108883 ............ 0.20 0.0097 17 ................ 29 52
96. Toxaphene..................... 8001352 1.1 ............. ............ 6,300 ................ 6.6E-05 6.6E-05
97. Trichloroethylene............. 79016 0.05 ............. ............ 13 ................ 0.3 0.7
98. Vinyl Chloride................ 75014 1.5 ............. ............ 1.7 ................ 0.020 0.18
99. Zinc.......................... 7440666 ............ 0.20 0.3 ................ 47 450 580
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This criterion refers to the inorganic form of arsenic only.
\b\ This criterion is expressed as fibers per liter (fibers/L). The criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).
\c\ EPA's national 304(a) recommended criteria for benzene use a CSF range of 0.015 to 0.055 per mg/kg-day. EPA proposes to use the higher end of the
CSF range (0.055 per mg/kg-day) to derive the proposed benzene criteria for Washington.
\d\ The criterion for copper is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CFR 141.80, June 7,
1991).
\e\ This criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the
Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury (EPA-823-R-01-001, January 3, 2001) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in EPA's
2000 Human Health Methodology rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in fish tissue rather than in water.
\f\ This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses).
* Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether was previously listed as Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether.
(c) Applicability. (1) The criteria in paragraph (b) of this
section apply to waters with Washington's designated uses cited in
paragraph (d) of this section and apply concurrently with any water
quality criteria adopted by the state, except where pollutant- or
waterbody-specific state human health criteria regulations determined
by EPA to meet the requirements of Clean Water Act section 303(c) and
40 CFR part 131 apply, in which case Washington's pollutant- or
waterbody-specific criteria will apply and not the criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) The criteria established in this section are subject to
Washington's general rules of applicability in the same way and to the
same extent as are other federally promulgated and state-adopted
numeric criteria when applied to the same use classifications in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(i) For all waters with mixing zone regulations or implementation
procedures, the criteria apply at the appropriate locations within or
at the boundary of the mixing zones; otherwise the criteria apply
throughout the waterbody including at the end of any discharge pipe,
conveyance or other discharge point.
[[Page 55077]]
(ii) The state must not use a low flow value below which numeric
non-carcinogen and carcinogen human health criteria can be exceeded
that is less stringent than the harmonic mean flow for waters suitable
for the establishment of low flow return frequencies (i.e., streams and
rivers). Harmonic mean flow is a long-term mean flow value calculated
by dividing the number of daily flows analyzed by the sum of the
reciprocals of those daily flows.
(iii) If the state does not have such a low flow value for numeric
criteria, then none will apply and the criteria in paragraph (b) of
this section herein apply at all flows.
(d) Applicable use designations. (1) All waters in Washington
assigned to the following use classifications are subject to the
criteria identified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section:
(i) Fresh waters--
(A) Miscellaneous uses: Harvesting (Fish harvesting);
(B) Recreational uses;
(C) Water supply uses: Domestic water (Domestic water supply);
(ii) Marine waters--
(A) Miscellaneous uses: Harvesting (Salmonid and other fish
harvesting, and crustacean and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp,
scallops, etc.) harvesting);
(B) Recreational uses;
(C) Shellfish harvesting: Shellfish harvest (Shellfish (clam,
oyster, and mussel) harvesting)
Note to paragraph (d)(1): The source of these uses is Washington
Administrative Code 173-201A-600 for Fresh waters and 173-201A-610 for
Marine waters.
(2) For Washington waters that include the use classification of
Domestic Water, the criteria in column C1 of Table 1 in paragraph (b)
of this section apply. For Washington waters that include any of the
following use classifications but do not include the use classification
of Domestic Water, the criteria in column C2 of Table 1 in paragraph
(b) of this section apply: Harvesting (fresh and marine waters),
Recreational Uses (fresh and marine waters), and Shellfish Harvesting.
[FR Doc. 2015-22592 Filed 9-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
