U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
Technical Support
Document
for Action on the State of Oregon's New and
Revised Human Health Water Quality Criteria for
Toxics and Revisions to Narrative Toxics
Provisions Submitted on July 8, 2004
June 1, 2010
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Technical Support Document
for Action on the State of Oregon's New and Revised
Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxics
and Revisions to Narrative Toxics Provisions
Submitted on July 8, 2004
Contents
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND 2
A. Clean Water Act Requirements for Water Quality Standards 2
B. Overview of Oregon's July 8,2004, WQS Submission 3
III. NEW AND REVISED HUMAN HEALTH WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 4
A. New and Revised Human Health Criteria for Non-Carcinogens 7
1. "Water + Organism" and "Organism Only" Criteria Identified in Table 3 8
a) Criteria Derivation 8
b) EPA Review and Action 12
(1) Review of Values Used to Calculate Criteria 12
(2) Evaluation of Level of Protection Provided by Criteria 13
(3) Disapproval 14
2. Methylmercury 17
a) Criterion Derivation 17
b) EPA Review and Action 18
(1) Review of Values Used to Calculate Criterion 18
(2) Evaluation of Level of Protection Provided by Criterion 19
(3) Disapproval 20
3. Copper 20
a) Criterion Derivation 20
b) EPA Review and Action 20
(1) Protectiveness Evaluation 20
(2) Approval 21
B. New and Revised Human Health Criteria for Carcinogens 21
1. "Water + Organism" and "Organism Only" Criteria Identified in Table 10 21
a) Criteria Derivation 21
b) EPA Review and Action 24
(1) Review of Values Used to Calculate Criteria 24
(2) Evaluation of Level of Protection Provided by Criteria 25
(3) Risk Level Evaluation in Light of the Available Local and Regional Fish Consumption Rate Data 26
(4) Disapproval 28
2. Asbestos 28
a) Criterion Derivation 28
(1) Protectiveness Evaluation 28
b) EPA Review and Action 28
(1) Protectiveness Evaluation 28
(2) Approval 29
IV. NEW FOOTNOTES 29
11
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
A. Footnote 1 29
1. Description of Footnote 29
2. EPA Review and Action 30
B. Footnote K 30
1. Description of Footnote 30
2. EPA Review and Action 30
C. Footnote R 31
1. Description of Footnote 31
2. EPA Review and Action 32
D. Footnote U 32
1. Description of Footnote 32
2. EPA Review and Action 32
V. WITHDRAWAL OF HUMAN HEALTH WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR EIGHT TOXIC POLLUTANTS 33
A. Description of Withdrawn Criteria 33
1. Beryllium 33
2. Cadmium 34
3. Chromium III 34
4. Chromium VI 34
5. Lead 34
6. Mercury 35
7. Silver 35
8. Trichloroethane 1,1,1- 35
B. EPA Review and Action 36
VI. REVISIONS TO NARRATIVE TOXICS PROVISIONS 36
A. OAR 340-041-0033(1) 36
1. Description of Revisions 36
2. EPA Review and Action 36
B. OAR 340-041-0033(2) 37
1. Description of Revisions 37
2. EPA Review and Action 38
VII. PROVISIONS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE ACTION UNDER CWA § 303(C) 38
A. Revisions to Narrative Toxics Provision at OAR 340-041-0033(3) 38
1. Description of Revisions 38
2. EPA Review 39
B. New Footnotes 40
1. Footnote H 40
a) Description of Footnote 40
b) EPA Review 40
2. Footnote J 41
a) Description of Footnote 41
b) EPA Review 41
3. Footnote L 41
a) Description of Footnote 41
b) EPA Review 42
4. Footnote for Asbestos 42
a) Description of Footnote 42
b) EPA Review 42
C. EPA Pollutant Identification Numbers and Chemical Abstract Service Numbers 42
ill
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
APPENDIX A
I-A. INTRODUCTION 44
II-A. BACKGROUND 44
A. Oregon's Evaluation Process Prior to the July 8,2004 Submittal 44
B. Oregon's Subsequent Review of Fish Consumption Rates to the July 8,2004 Submittal 45
C. Review of Fish Consumption Rate Data 46
D. Consumers vs. Non-consumers 47
E. Pacific Salmon in the Fish Consumption Rate 48
F. Geographic Extent of Tribal Fishing in Oregon 49
G. Location of Other High Fish-Consuming Populations in Oregon 50
III-A. SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF OREGON'S FISH CONSUMPTION RATE 50
IV-A. ODEQ'S OCTOBER 23, 2008 RECOMMENDATION AND EQC POLICY DECISION ON AN APPROPRIATE FISH
CONSUMPTION RATE TO DERIVE HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR OREGON 51
V-A. FIGURES 52
Figure A-l: Map of Tribes in Oregon 53
Figure A-2: Map of Ceded Lands of the CRITFC Tribes 55
Figure A-3: Map of Watershed Boundaries Associated with Ceded Lands of the CRITFC Tribes 57
Figure A-4: Map of Fishing Sites in the Columbia River Basin Identified as Part of the CRITFC Survey 59
Table A-5: Summary of Local and Regional Fish Consumption Surveys and Fish Consumption Rate Data
Available to Oregon 60
Figure A-6: Map of Counties in Oregon 62
iv
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Technical Support Document
for Action on the State of Oregon's New and Revised
Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxics
and Revisions to Narrative Toxics Provisions
Submitted on July 8, 2004
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 8, 2004, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ or the "Department")
submitted new and revised water quality standards (WQS)1 to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the "Agency") for review and approval. These new and revised WQS were
adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (OEQC or the "Commission") on
May 20, 2004. Oregon's WQS are located in Chapter 340, Division 41, of Oregon's
Administrative Rules (OAR 340-041). Part II of this document provides additional background
information about Oregon's July 8, 2004, WQS submittal.
Part III of this document provides the basis for EPA's decisions under section (§) 303(c) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and implementing regulations found in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR § 131.11 to approve or disapprove 203 new and revised numeric
human health water quality criteria for 105 toxic pollutants included in Oregon's WQS
submission. These criteria are established by OAR 340-041-0033(2) and listed in Table 33A of
Oregon's revised WQS submitted to EPA on July 8, 2004. They are applicable to Oregon's
designated uses of public domestic water supply, private domestic water supply, and fishing.
Therefore, EPA's decisions to approve or disapprove these criteria are based on an evaluation of
whether the above-described WQS revisions are protective of these designated uses.
Part IV of this document provides EPA's basis for decisions under CWA § 303(c) and 40 CFR
§ 131.11 to approve or disapprove Oregon's addition of four new footnotes (I, K, R, and U)
associated with several human health criteria included in the submittal. Part V provides the basis
for EPA's decision to approve Oregon's withdrawal of numeric human health criteria for eight
toxic pollutants. Part VI provides the basis for EPA's approval of Oregon's revisions to its
narrative toxics provisions found at OAR 340-041-0033(1) and (2).
Part VII of this document describes several new and revised provisions included in Oregon's
July 8, 2004, submittal which are not considered WQS subject to EPA review and approval
1 ODEQ. 2004. Letter dated July 8, 2004, with two attachments, from Stephanie Hallock, Administrator, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon, to John Iani, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
1
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
under § 303(c) of the CWA. For this reason, EPA is taking no action to approve or disapprove
these new and revised provisions which include: revisions to Oregon's narrative toxics provision
found at OAR 340-041-0033(3); Oregon's addition of three new footnotes (H, J, and L)
associated with several human health criteria included in Table 33A; and, Oregon's addition of
EPA pollutant identification numbers and Chemical Abstract Service numbers for the chemicals
identified in Table 33A of Oregon's July 8, 2004, WQS submittal.
Finally, Appendix A provides a review of Oregon's use of a fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams
per day. This review considers information available to ODEQ at the time they adopted these
criteria as well as other work conducted by Oregon since 2004.
While Oregon's July 8, 2004, submittal also included new and revised WQS beyond those
described above, EPA's decisions under CWA § 303(c) on these additional new and revised
WQS have been, or will be, addressed separate from this action.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Clean Water Act Requirements for Water Quality Standards
Under § 303(c) of the CWA and federal implementing regulations at 40 CFR § 131.4, states2
have the primary responsibility for reviewing, establishing, and revising WQS, which consist of
the designated uses of a waterbody or waterbody segment and the water quality criteria necessary
to protect those designated uses. This statutory framework allows states to work with local
communities to adopt appropriate designated uses (as required in 40 CFR § 131.10(a)) and to
adopt criteria to protect those designated uses (as required in 40 CFR §131.11(a)).
CWA § 303(c)(2)(B) requires states to adopt water quality criteria for toxic pollutants listed
pursuant to § 307(a)(1) for which EPA has published criteria under § 304(a) where the discharge
or presence of these toxics could reasonably be expected to interfere with the designated uses
adopted by the state. In adopting such criteria, states must establish numeric values based on one
of the following: (1) § 304(a) criteria; (2) § 304(a) criteria modified to reflect site-specific
conditions; or, (3) other scientifically defensible methods (40 CFR § 131.11(b)). In addition,
states can establish narrative criteria where numeric criteria cannot be determined.
From time to time, states are required to review applicable WQS, and as appropriate, modify and
adopt these standards (40 CFR § 131.20). Section 303(c) of the CWA also requires states to
submit new or revised WQS to EPA for review. EPA is required to review these changes to
ensure revisions in designated water uses are consistent with the CWA and that new or revised
criteria protect the designated water uses. In addition, the state must follow its own legal
procedures for adopting such standards (40 CFR § 131.5) and submit certification by the state's
2
Other than when used to refer specifically to the State of Oregon, use of the word "states" or the phrase "a state"
throughout this document refers to: The 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines to be eligible for purposes of WQS program. See
definition for "states" provided at 40 CFR § 131.3(j).
2
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
attorney general or other appropriate legal authority within the state that the WQS were duly
adopted pursuant to state law (40 CFR § 131.6(e)).
B. Overview of Oregon's July 8,2004, WQS Submission
Pursuant to the review requirements established at 40 CFR § 131.20, ODEQ initiated a triennial
review of Oregon's WQS in 1999. During its review, ODEQ formed both a technical advisory
committee and a policy advisory committee to provide recommendations on revisions to
Oregon's WQS. New and revised human health criteria for 105 toxic pollutants were included
among the revisions to Oregon's WQS ultimately adopted by the OEQC on May 20, 2004, and
submitted to EPA on July 8, 2004.
EPA's action described herein addresses these criteria revisions as well as the addition of seven
new footnotes (H, I, J, K, L, R, and U) associated with human health criteria; the withdrawal of
previously adopted human health criteria for eight toxic pollutants; revisions to Oregon's
narrative toxics provisions found at OAR 340-041-0033(1) through (3); and the addition of EPA
pollutant identification numbers and Chemical Abstract Service numbers for the pollutants
identified in Table 33A.
ODEQ's submission also included new and revised aquatic life criteria for toxic pollutants, a
compliance schedule provision, a rule addressing stratified waters and numerous miscellaneous
editorial changes. These later elements are addressed separate from this action.
Prior to the OEQC's May 20, 2004, adoption, ODEQ provided an eighty-eight day formal public
comment period on the proposed revisions to the State's WQS described above and held six
public hearings in three locations around the State in the cities of Bend, Roseburg, and Portland.
The public comment period extended from June 2, 2003, through August 29, 2003, including a
four-week extension from the original closing on August 1, 2003. ODEQ received and
responded to 51 sets of written comments.3
In accordance with 40 CFR § 131.6(e), ODEQ's July 8, 2004, WQS submission also included a
letter from Larry Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General at the Oregon Department of Justice,
certifying that the new and revised WQS were "lawfully adopted under the applicable provisions
of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act, [Oregon Revised Statutes] ORS 183.310 to
183.725 and the Commission's own procedures for rulemaking in OAR-340-011" (brackets
added).
On November 28, 2005 ODEQ submitted an errata letter to EPA containing minor changes to
four provisions. The three changes relevant to human health criteria pertain to footnotes and
identification numbers that EPA has determined to not be water quality standards under Section
303(c) of the CWA. The fourth modification addresses an aquatic life criterion and thus will be
addressed at a separate time.
3
ODEQ. 2004. Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses. Attachment B to a Memorandum dated April
29, 2004, from Stephanie Hallock, Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, to the Oregon
Environmental Quality Commission.
3
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
III. NEW AND REVISED HUMAN HEALTH WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA
Oregon's human health criteria adopted and approved prior to 2004 were based on EPA's
national CWA § 304(a) human health water quality criteria recommendations published in the
1986 Quality Criteria for Water (hereinafter referred to as the "Gold Book").4 These criteria
continue to reside in Oregon's WQS rule as Table 20.
One goal of Oregon's 1999-2003 WQS review was to update its human health criteria for toxic
pollutants in order to reflect the latest scientific information and EPA's most recent national
CWA § 304(a) human health criteria recommendations.5 In 2000, EPA published a revised
methodology for deriving § 304(a) human health criteria recommendations titled Methodology
for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (hereinafter
referred to as the "2000 Methodology").6 In separate updates published in 2002 and 2003,7'8
EPA updated the § 304(a) human health criteria recommendations to reflect this new
methodology and to consider updated toxicological information in EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS).9
Oregon's review of its human health criteria culminated in the OEQC's adoption of 203 new and
revised human health criteria for 105 toxic pollutants. These criteria are established by OAR
340-041-0033(2) and are listed in Table 33A of Oregon's revised WQS. Table 33A contains
human health criteria for all of the toxic pollutants for which EPA has published criteria
recommendations under CWA § 304(a).
Forty-nine of the 105 pollutants for which Oregon adopted new or revised human health criteria
are characterized as non-carcinogens (i.e., not having the potential to cause cancer). The
remaining 56 pollutants are carcinogens (i.e., having the potential to cause cancer). The
calculations that Oregon used to derive the human health criteria for non-carcinogens and
carcinogens differ and are further described separately in Sections A and B below.
4
EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water ("Gold Book"). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/goldbook.pdf.
ODEQ. 2003. Toxic Compounds Criteria: 1999-2003 Water Quality Standards Review Issue Paper. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon. Available at:
http://www.dea.state.or.us/about/eac/agendas/attachments/mav2004/5.20.04.ItemB. AttchH.pdf.
6 EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA-822-B-00-004. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf
7
EPA. 2002. Revision of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Federal Register, Volume: 67, Issue: 249, Page: 79091 (67 FR 79091),
December 27, 2002. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/December/Dav-
27/w32770.htm.
g
EPA. 2003. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Federal Register, Volume: 68, Issue: 250,
Page: 75507 (68 FR 75507), December 31, 2003. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-
WATER/2003/December/Dav-31/w32211.htm.
9
EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. Available at: www.epa.gov/iris.
4
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
The criteria calculations for non-carcinogens and carcinogens differ depending upon the
exposure scenario for which the criteria are derived. Oregon's criteria were adopted to protect
human health from chronic (lifetime) exposure to toxic substances through drinking water and
eating fish10 obtained from surface waters. Where the criteria are derived to protect human
health from exposure through both drinking water and eating fish (in combination), Oregon has
adopted "water + organism" criteria. Where the criteria are derived to protect human health from
exposure through eating fish alone (not in combination with drinking water), Oregon has adopted
"organism only" criteria. These two sets of criteria (i.e., "water + organism" and "organism
only") are reflected in the column headings of Table 33 A of Oregon's WQS.
The waterbodies to which each of these sets of criteria apply are determined by the uses that
have been designated for the waterbody in OAR 340-041-0101 through OAR 340-041-0340.
Waters to be protected for drinking water are those designated as either "Public Domestic Water
Supply" or "Private Domestic Water Supply." Waters to be protected for consumption of fish
are designated as "Fishing."
Table 1 below identifies those waters in Oregon having both a fishing designated use, as well as
a public domestic water supply or a private domestic water supply designated use. Both the
"water + organism" criteria and the "organism only" criteria apply to these waters. Table 2
below identifies those waters in Oregon having a fishing designated use but neither a public
domestic water supply nor a private domestic water supply designated use. Oregon's "organism
only" criteria apply to these waters. EPA has reviewed Oregon's designated use categories and
has determined that, if the criteria are shown to protect of the uses, Oregon has appropriately
applied the criteria to designated uses such that the criteria will protect human health uses.
Table 1. Waters in Oregon having both a fishing designated use, as well as a public domestic
water supply or a private domestic water supply designated use. Both the "water + organism"
criteria and the 'organism only' criteria apply to these waters.
OK WQS
Table No.
liiisin N;iinc
Segment Nnines
101A
Mainstem Columbia River
Columbia River (Mouth to RM 86); and Columbia
River (RM 86 to 309)
121A
Mainstem Snake River
Snake River (RM 176 to 409)
130A
Deschutes Basin
Deschutes River Main Stem from Mouth to Pelton
Regulating Dam; Deschutes River Main Stem from
Pelton Regulating Dam to Bend Diversion Dam and
for the Crooked River Main Stem; Deschutes River
Main Stem above Bend Diversion Dam and for the
Metolious River Main Steam; and All Other Basin
Stems
140 A
Goose and Summer Lakes
Basin
Freshwater Lakes and Reservoirs; and Freshwater
Streams
10 As used throughout this technical support document, the term "fish" refers to finfish as well as shellfish.
5
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
OK W'QS
Tsthle No.
linsin N;iinc
Segment Nnines
151A
Grande Ronde Basin
Main Stem Grande Ronde River (RM 39 to 165) and
All Other Basin Waters
160 A
Hood Basin
Hood River Basin Streams
170 A
John Day Basin
John Day River and All Tributaries
180A
Klamath Basin
Klamath River from Klamath Lake to Keno Dam
(RM 255 to 232.5); Lost River (RM 5 to 65) and Lost
River Diversion Channel; and All Other Basin
Waters
190 A
Malheur Lake Basin
All Rivers and Tributaries
201 A
Malheur River Basin
Malheur River from Namorf to Mouth; Malheur
River from Beulah Dam and Warm Springs Dams to
Namorf; Willow Creek from Brogan to Mouth;
Willow Creek from Malheur Reservoir to Brogan;
Bully Creek from Reservoir to Mouth; Malheur
Reservoir, Bully Creek Reservoir, Beulah Reservoir,
Warm Springs Reservoir; and Malheur River and
Tributaries Upstream from Reservoirs
220A
Mid Coast Basin
Fresh Waters
23 OA
North Coast Basin
All Other Streams and Tributaries Thereto
250A
Owyhee Basin
Owyhee River (RM 0 to 18); Owyhee River (RM 18
to Dam); Antelope Reservoir, Cow Creek Reservoir,
and Owyhee Reservoir; Owyhee River and
Tributaries Upstream from Owyhee Reservoir; Main
Stem of the South Fork of the Owyhee River from
the Oregon-Idaho River border to Three Forks (the
confluence of the North, Middle, and South Forks of
Owyhee River); and Main Stem Owyhee River from
Crooked Creek (RM 22) to the mouth of Birch Creek
(RM 76)
260A
Powder/Burnt Basin
All Basin Waters
Rogue River Main Stem from Estuary to Lost Creek
Dam; Rogue River Main Stem above Lost Dam and
Tributaries; and All Other Tributaries to Rogue River
and Bear Creek
286A
Sandy Basin
Sandy River; and All Other Tributaries to Sandy
River
3 00A
South Coast Basin
All Streams and Tributaries Thereto
310A
Umatilla Basin
Umatilla Sub-basin; Willow Creek Sub-basin;
Umpqua River Main Stem from Head of Tidewater to
Confluence of North and South Umpqua Rivers;
North Umpqua River Main Stem; South Umpqua
River Main Stem; and All Other Tributaries to
Umpqua, North Umpqua, and South Umpqua Rivers
6
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
OU W'QS
Table No.
liasin Name
Segment Names
330A
Walla Walla Basin
Walla Walla River Main Stem from Confluence of
North and South Forks to State Line; and All Other
Basin Streams
340A
Willamette Basin
Main Stem Willamette River from Mouth to
Willamette Falls, including Multnomah Channel;
Main Stem Willamette River from Willamette Falls
to Newberg; Main Stem Willamette River from
Newberg to Salem; Main Stem Willamette River
from Salem to Coast Fork; Clackamas River; Molalla
River; Santiam River; McKenzie River; Tualatin
River; and All Other Streams and Tributaries
Table 2. Waters in Oregon having a fishing designated use but neither a public domestic water
supply nor a private domestic water supply designated use. "Organisms only" criteria apply to
these waters.
OU W'QS
Table No.
liasin
Segment Name
140 A
Goose and Summer Lakes
Basin
Goose Lake; and Highly Alkaline and Saline Lakes
190 A
Malheur Lake Basin
Natural Lakes
220A
Mid Coast Basin
Estuaries and Adjacent Marine Waters
23 OA
North Coast Basin
Estuaries and Adjacent Marine Waters
271A
Rogue Basin
Rogue River Estuary and Adjacent Marine Waters;
and Bear Creek Main Stem
286A
Sandy Basin
Streams Forming Waterfalls Near Columbia River
Highway
3 00A
South Coast Basin
Estuaries and Adjacent Marine Waters
320A
Umpqua Basin
Umpqua River Estuary to Head of Tidewater and
Adjacent Marine Waters
A. New and Revised Human Health Criteria for Non-Carcinogens
Oregon adopted new and revised human health criteria for 49 non-carcinogens. The criteria for
47 of these pollutants were derived using EPA's 2000 Methodology. EPA's action on these
criteria is discussed in subsection 1 below and the criteria are listed in Table 3 below.
Oregon's new human health criteria for methylmercury and copper were derived using an
alternate approach recommended by EPA. EPA's action on these criteria is discussed in
subsections 2 and 3 below.
7
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
1. "Water + Organism" and "Organism Only" Criteria Identified in
Table 3
a) Criteria Derivation
EPA's 2000 Methodology provides guidance for deriving human health criteria for toxic
pollutants. Pursuant to Section 304(a) of the CWA, EPA has published a table of recommended
criteria for use by states in adopting and revising criteria.11 For human health criteria, the values
in this table reflect the 'national default' values provided in the 2000 Methodology, the RfD
contained in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) at the time of publication, the use of
BCFs as opposed to site-specific BAFs and a cancer risk level of 10"6. While the 2000
Methodology provides national default values, it also provides necessary guidance to adjust
criteria to reflect local conditions and encourages states to use the guidance to appropriately
reflect local conditions and/or protect identifiable subpopulations.12
Criteria calculated pursuant to the 2000 Methodology are based on applying a number of
pollutant-specific and general risk-assessment values into an equation that generates a criteria
protective of human health uses. Oregon applied this equation in deriving their "water +
organism" and "organism only" human health criteria. A simplified version of this equation is
provided in Figure 1 below, followed by a discussion of the variables in these equation and the
values utilized by Oregon.
Figure 1. Simplified version of the equation used by Oregon in deriving the human health
criteria identified in Table 3 below for non-carcinogens.
AWQC = RfD •
RSC • fBWl
[DI + [FCR • BAF)]
where:
AWQC
= Ambient Water Quality Criterion (milligrams per liter)
RfD
= Reference dose for noncancer effects (milligrams per
kilogram per day)
RSC
= Relative source contribution factor to account for non-
water sources of exposure (unitless)
BW
= Human body weight (kilograms)
DI
= Drinking water intake (liters per day)
FCR
= Fish Consumption Rate (kilograms per day)
BAF
= Bioaccumulation factor (liters per kilogram)
11 EPA National Recommend Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and Human Health.
Published pursuant to section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wactable/index.html.
12
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Pages iii, 1-11.
8
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
For non-carcinogens, EPA's 2000 Methodology recommends deriving human health criteria
using a reference dose. A reference dose is defined as "an estimate (with uncertainty spanning
approximately an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects over a
lifetime."13 In other words, individuals should not suffer from appreciable risks of deleterious
effects if their exposure to a chemical is at or below the reference dose for that chemical. Thus,
the reference dose serves as a threshold level and is specific to each individual pollutant. In
deriving both the "water + organism" and "organism only" criteria, Oregon utilized the reference
doses recommended by EPA for § 304(a) criteria. 14'15
The relative source contribution identifies the percent of total exposure attributed to the sources
under consideration (i.e., water and fish for "water + organism" criteria, and fish for "organism
only" criteria). When applied with the reference dose, these factors provide an estimate of daily
exposure safely allowed under the criteria.16 Oregon utilized the relative source contributions
recommended by EPA for § 304(a) criteria.14'15
Oregon used EPA's national default values for body weight (70 kilograms), drinking water
intake rate (two liters per day) and fish consumption rate (17.5 grams per day).
A default body weight value of 70 kilograms was recommended by EPA as this is the body
weight used in cancer slope factor calculations within the IRIS database. This provides for
consistency between the dose-response relationship and exposure factors utilized in criteria
calculations. Several studies and recommendations support this value. The third National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) was conducted between 1988 and 1994 on a
nationwide probability sample of over 30,000 persons. The mean body weight value for men
and women ages 18-74 years old from this survey was 75.6 kilograms. A survey by the National
Cancer Institute measured a mean body weigh value of 70.5 kilograms for adults aged 20-64
years old. Based on an earlier NHANES survey, EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook
recommends using a body weight of 71.8 kilograms for adults.17
A fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day represents the 90th percentile of freshwater and
estuarine finfish and shellfish consumption data collected from the 1994-1996 Continuing Survey
13
EPA. 1993. Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in Health Risk Assessments. Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). Intra-Agency Reference Dose (RfD) Work Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/rfd.htm.
14
See: EPA. 2002. Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2002 - Human Health Criteria Calculation
Matrix. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-R-02-012. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wactable/hh calc matrix.pdf.
15 See: EPA. 2003. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Federal Register, Volume: 68, Issue: 250,
Page: 75507 (68 FR 75507), December 31, 2003. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-
WATER/2003/December/Dav-31/w32211.htm.
16 EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Page 4-5.
17
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Pages 4-18 to 4-19.
9
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
of Food Intake by Individuals (hereinafter referred to as the "CSFII survey") conducted by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and represents all US citizens, including those surveyed who do
not consume fish or shellfish. EPA utilizes a fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day in
deriving its national CWA § 304(a) human health criteria recommendations. This national
default value is recommended to protect the general U.S. adult population. EPA's 2000
Methodology recognizes the variability of fish consumption rates among population groups and
by geographic region, and emphasizes that states should use local or regional data over EPA's
national default value when such data is available.18
The CSFII survey also serves as the basis for the drinking water intake rate of two liters per day.
This rate represents the 86th percentile of drinking water intake data for adults collected from the
CSFII survey.19 While this rate was utilized for "water + organisms" criteria, a drinking water
intake rate of zero liters per day was used for "organism only" criteria because drinking water is
not a designated use protected by these criteria.
The bioaccumulation factor (BAF) describes the uptake and retention of a pollutant by an aquatic
organism from all sources (e.g., water, ingestion, and sediment). The magnitude of
bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms varies widely depending upon the pollutant but can be
extremely high for some highly persistent and hydrophobic pollutants. For such highly
bioaccumulative pollutants, concentrations in aquatic organisms may pose unacceptable human
health risks from fish consumption if not accounted for in the criteria.
Development of bioaccumulation factors is a time and resource intensive process and varies from
site-to-site. Therefore, very few BAFs have been developed, none of which are applicable on a
national scale. Until such time as local or regional BAFs are available, EPA recommends
criteria be developed using bioconcentration factors (BCF), reflecting the uptake and retention
of a pollutant by an aquatic organism from water alone. Oregon utilized the EPA recommended
bioconcentration factors in deriving their criteria.14'15
Table 3. Oregon's July 8, 2004 submission of new and revised "water + organism" and
"organism only" human health criteria for 47 non-carcinogens.
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criteria
(micrograms per liter (|jg/L))
"Organism Only" Criteria (jjg/L)
Acenaphthene
670
990
Acrolein
190
290
Anthracene
8300
40000
Antimony
5.6
640
BHC gamma- (Lindane)
0.98
1.8
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
1500
1900
Chloro benzene
130
1600
ChloroisopropylEther Bis2-
1400
65000
Chloronapthalene 2-
1000
1600
18
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Page 4-24 to 4-25.
19
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Pages 4-21 to 4-22.
10
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criteria
(micrograms per liter (|jg/L))
"Organism Only" Criteria (jjg/L)
Chlorophenol 2-
81
150
Cyanide
140
140
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
420
1300
Dichlorobenzene 1,3-
320
960
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
63
190
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
330
7100
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
77
290
DiethylPhthalate
17000
44000
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
380
850
DimethylPhthalate
270000
1100000
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
2000
4500
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
69
5300
Dinitrophenols
69
5300
Endosulfan
62
89
Endosulfan alpha-
62
89
Endosulfan beta-
62
89
Endosulfan sulfate
62
89
Endrin
0.059
0.06
Endrin Aldehyde
0.29
0.3
Ethylbenzene
530
2100
Fluoranthene
130
140
Fluorene
1100
5300
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
40
1100
Methyl Bromide
47
1500
Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 2-
13
280
Nickel
610
4600
Nitrobenzene
17
690
Pentachlorobenzene
1.4
1.5
Phenol
21000
1700000
Pyrene
830
4000
Selenium
170
4200
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5
0.97
1.1
Thallium
0.24
0.47
Toluene
1300
15000
Trans-Dichloroethylene 1,2
140
10000
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
35
70
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5
1800
3600
Zinc
7400
26000
11
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
b) EPA Review and Action
(1) Review of Values Used to Calculate Criteria
EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology provides guidance for deriving human health criteria
for toxic pollutants. For each variable used in the criteria calculation, EPA provides a "national
default value" and guidance on specific adjustments that may be necessary to reflect local
conditions and/or protect identifiable subpopulations. As part of evaluating whether Oregon's
criteria protect the designated uses, EPA looked at the input values used by Oregon and whether
there was Oregon-specific information relative to each value that should be considered in the
review.
For all input variables, Oregon used EPA's recommended national default values for calculating
their 2004 human health criteria. EPA has not identified any local or regional data to indicate
that the national values for the reference dose, relative source contribution, body weight,
drinking water intake rate, or bioaccumulation factors are inappropriate for use in Oregon.20
EPA's initial review of local and regional fish consumption data indicated that such data was
available and should be considered consistent with EPA's 2000 Methodology. The Methodology
recognizes the variability of fish consumption rates among population groups and by geographic
region. In employing the 2000 Methodology to derive criteria, the Agency urges States and
Tribes to use a fish intake level derived from local or regional data instead of the national default
recommendation to ensure the fish intake level chosen is protective of highly exposed
individuals in the population and to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to all identifiable
subpopulations. A four preference hierarchy concerning the use of fish consumption rate data is
set forth: (1) use of local data; (2) use of data reflecting similar geography/population groups;
(3) use of data from national surveys; and (4) use of EPA's default intake rate. In using local
data, EPA recommends that arithmetic mean values should be the lowest value considered by
states when choosing fish consumption rates for use in criteria derivation.21
In 1996, Oregon initiated an extensive review of the use of a fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams
per day for deriving human health criteria protective of the people of Oregon. As part of this, a
group of regional experts were asked to provide their evaluation of local and regional fish
consumption studies and provide their recommendations to ODEQ. As a result of this review,
ODEQ recommended to their governing body, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission
(OEQC), that Oregon's human health criteria be revised based on a fish consumption rate of 175
grams per day. On October 23, 2008 the Commission directed ODEQ to revise the Oregon
Water Quality Standards to reflect that higher fish consumption rate.
20
On June 10, 2009, subsequent to Oregon's July 8, 2004, submittal, EPA updated its national CWA § 304(a)
human health criteria recommendations for acrolein and phenol. These updated values incorporate new reference
doses for acrolein and phenol.
21
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Pages 1-9 to 1-13, 4-24
to 4-25.
12
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
(2) Evaluation of Level of Protection Provided by Criteria
EPA's WQS regulations require that criteria protect the designated uses. As noted previously,
Oregon's human health criteria apply to waters with fishing and water supply uses and thus must
be established at a level that will protect those uses. Therefore, EPA must evaluate whether the
criteria protect the use.
For non-carcinogens, EPA evaluated whether criteria are established at a level that results in
exposure at or below the known reference dose (RfD) for a pollutant. EPA defines a reference
dose as "an estimate (with uncertainty spanning approximately an order of magnitude) of a daily
exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without
appreciable risk of deleterious effects over a lifetime".22 The exact nature or magnitude of risk
to those with exposures above the reference dose is difficult to quantify, and reference doses are
not provided as a range but as a threshold level. EPA's IRIS database contains current RfDs for
all pollutants for which EPA has 304(a) human health criteria recommendations.
In order to determine if fish consumption at levels higher than those used to calculate Oregon's
2004 criteria could result in exposure above the RfD, EPA calculated a hazard quotient, a ratio
between the potential exposure to a substance and the level at which no adverse effects are
expected.23 If the hazard quotient is less than or equal to 1.0, the RfD would not be exceeded
and the criterion would be protective. However, if the hazard quotient is greater than 1.0, the
RfD is exceeded.
In order to evaluate whether Oregon's new and revised human health criteria for non-
carcinogens would protect designated uses in Oregon, EPA calculated the hazard quotients
associated with each criterion and an exposure resulting from a fish consumption rate of 17.5, 63,
113, 176, and 389 grams per day. A fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day reflects that
used by Oregon to derive their 2004 criteria. As discussed in Appendix A, the additional fish
consumption rates are representative of levels documented in the 1994 Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission Fish Consumption Survey ("CRITFC study"), that shows that tribal
members are eating fish at rates much higher than 17.5 grams per day. Furthermore, the OEQC
directed ODEQ to revise their human health criteria based on a fish consumption rate of 175
grams per day (see Appendix A).24 The OEQC's 2008 directive represents the latest policy
direction provided to ODEQ on this issue and thus the latest information available to EPA
concerning Oregon's position relative to the appropriate fish consumption rate necessary to
develop toxics criteria that protect Oregon's human health uses. Thus, Oregon has effectively
determined that the fish consumption rate used in the 2004 criteria adoption was not sufficiently
representative of Oregon's population. EPA has evaluated the hazard quotients for these higher
levels of fish consumption to more accurately represent Oregon's population. These calculations
22
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Page 3-17.
23
EPA. 2002. National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Program Glossary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/glossl.html.
24 The OEQC is the executive body within the State of Oregon charged with establishing the environmental policies
by which the waters of the state will be protected, maintained, and improved "for public water supplies, for the
propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, municipal, recreational and
other legitimate beneficial uses." Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.015, see also Or. Rev. Stat. § 468.015.
13
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
are shown in Tables 5 and 6 below.
The results of this evaluation indicate that a hazard quotient of 1.0 is associated with a fish
consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day and represents the level of exposure to a chemical that
would not exceed the RfD. Therefore, Oregon's new and revised human health criteria for the
47 non-carcinogens identified in Table 3 above are protective of the health of those populations
in Oregon consuming up to 17.5 grams of fish per day.
However, this evaluation also indicates that, for the four higher fish consumption rate values
discussed above, all hazard quotients exceed 1.0, thereby representing a level of exposure that
exceeds the RfD. EPA has determined that Oregon's new and revised "water + organism" and
"organism only" human health criteria for the 47 non-carcinogens identified in Table 3 above are
not protective of waters in Oregon having a fishing designated use, consistent with the OEQC's
2008 directive. This determination is based upon the following analysis. A fish consumption rate
of 17.5 grams per day is not sufficiently representative of the fish consumption levels among
Oregon's population as determined in the OEQC directive discussed above and in Appendix A.
Because the calculations of hazard quotients in Table 8 exceed 1.0 at the higher fish consumption
rates documented in the CRITFC study, the criteria do not assure that Oregon's fishing
designated use is protected consistent with OEQC's directive to revise Oregon's human health
criteria based on a fish consumption rate of 175 grams per day.
EPA finds that Oregon's new and revised human health criteria for the 47 non-carcinogens
identified in Table 3 above are not protective of Oregon's fishing designated use, consistent with
the OEQC's 2008 directive, and therefore these criteria are inconsistent with the federal
requirements at 40 CFR § 131.11(a)(1).
(3) Disapproval
Based upon the above evaluation and in accordance with its CWA authority, 33 U.S.C. §
1313(c)(3) and 40 CFR Part 131, EPA disapproves Oregon's new and revised "water +
organism" and "organism only" human health criteria for the 47 non-carcinogens identified in
Table 3 above which are included in Table 33A of Oregon's WQS.
Table 5. Hazard quotients associated with Oregon's new and revised "water +organism" human
health criteria identified in Table 3 above for populations consuming fish at rates of 17.5, 63,
113, 176, and 389 grams per day (g/day).
Chemical Name
Oregon's 2004 "Water
+ Organism" Criterion
djg/L)
Hazard Quotients Associated with Oregon's
New and Revised Criteria for a Population
Consuming Fish at the Following Fish
Consumption Rates
17.5
g/day
63
g/day
113
g/day
176
g/day
389
g/day
Acenaphthene
670
1.00
2.77
4.71
7.11
15.42
Acrolein
190
1.00
2.71
4.56
6.88
14.86
Anthracene
8300
1.00
1.54
2.13
2.87
5.41
Antimony
5.6
1.00
1.02
1.05
1.08
1.18
14
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Hazard Quotients Associated with Oregon's
Chemical Name
Oregon's 2004 "Water
+ Organism" Criterion
New and Revised Criteria for a Population
Consuming Fish at the Following Fish
Consumption Rates
ftjg/L)
17.5
63
113
176
389
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
BHC gamma- (Lindane)
0.98
1.00
2.39
3.90
5.79
12.30
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
1500
1.00
3.05
5.28
8.05
17.64
Chlorobenzene
130
1.00
1.22
1.45
1.74
2.76
ChloroisopropylEther Bis2-
1400
1.00
1.06
1.12
1.19
1.45
Chloronapthalene 2-
1000
1.00
2.67
4.49
6.75
14.56
Chlorophenol 2-
81
1.00
2.41
3.95
5.86
12.46
Cyanide
140
1.00
1.02
1.05
1.08
1.18
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
420
1.00
1.85
2.79
3.95
7.95
Dichlorobenzene 1,3-
320
1.00
1.85
2.79
3.95
7.95
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
63
1.00
1.85
2.79
3.95
7.95
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
330
1.00
1.12
1.25
1.42
1.99
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
77
1.00
1.69
2.43
3.36
6.57
DiethylPhthalate
17000
1.00
2.02
3.13
4.51
9.27
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
380
1.00
2.18
3.46
5.06
10.57
DimethylPhthalate
270000
1.00
1.63
2.31
3.16
6.09
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
2000
1.00
2.14
3.39
4.94
10.29
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
69
1.00
1.03
1.07
1.12
1.28
Dinitrophenols
69
1.00
1.03
1.07
1.12
1.28
Endosulfan
62
1.00
2.83
4.83
7.32
15.92
Endosulfan alpha-
62
1.00
2.83
4.83
7.32
15.92
Endosulfan beta-
62
1.00
2.83
4.83
7.32
15.92
Endosulfan sulfate
62
1.00
2.83
4.83
7.32
15.92
Endrin
0.059
1.00
3.45
6.30
9.75
21.63
Endrin Aldehyde
0.29
1.00
3.45
6.30
9.75
21.63
Ethylbenzene
530
1.00
1.65
2.35
3.22
6.24
Fluoranthene
130
1.00
3.38
5.96
9.19
20.31
Fluorene
1100
1.00
1.54
2.13
2.87
5.41
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
40
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.33
1.78
Methyl Bromide
47
1.00
1.08
1.17
1.29
1.67
Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 2-
13
1.00
1.12
1.25
1.41
1.97
Nickel
610
1.00
1.76
2.59
3.62
7.19
Nitrobenzene
17
1.00
1.06
1.13
1.22
1.52
Pentachlorobenzene
1.4
1.00
3.48
6.18
9.54
21.15
Phenol
21000
1.00
1.03
1.07
1.11
1.26
Pyrene
830
1.00
1.54
2.13
2.87
5.41
Selenium
170
1.00
1.11
1.22
1.36
1.86
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5
0.97
1.00
3.37
5.95
9.17
20.27
Thallium
0.24
1.00
2.32
3.75
5.53
11.69
Toluene
1300
1.00
1.22
1.47
1.77
2.82
Trans-Dichloroethylene 1,2
140
1.00
1.04
1.07
1.12
1.29
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
35
1.00
2.30
3.73
5.49
11.60
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5
1800
1.00
2.28
3.68
5.41
11.41
Zinc
7400
1.00
1.76
2.59
3.62
7.19
15
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Table 6. Hazard quotients associated with Oregon's new and revised "organism only" human
health criteria identified in Table 3 above for populations consuming fish at rates of 17.5, 63,
113, 176, and 389 grams per day.
Hazard Quotients Associated with Oregon's
Chemical Name
Oregon's 2004
"Organism Only"
New and Revised Criteria for a Population
Consuming Fish at the Following Fish
Consumption Rates
Criterion (jjg/L)
17.5
63
113
176
389
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
Acenaphthene
990
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Acrolein
290
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Anthracene
40000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Antimony
640
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
BHC gamma- (Lindane)
1.8
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
1900
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Chlorobenzene
1600
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
ChloroisopropylEther Bis2-
65000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Chloronapthalene 2-
1600
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Chlorophenol 2-
150
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Cyanide
140
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
1300
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Dichlorobenzene 1,3-
960
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
190
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
7100
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
290
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
DiethylPhthalate
44000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
850
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
DimethylPhthalate
1100000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
4500
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
5300
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Dinitrophenols
5300
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Endosulfan
89
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Endosulfan alpha-
89
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Endosulfan beta-
89
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Endosulfan sulfate
89
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Endrin
0.06
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Endrin Aldehyde
0.3
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Ethyl benzene
2100
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Fluoranthene
140
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Fluorene
5300
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
1100
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Methyl Bromide
1500
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 2-
280
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Nickel
4600
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Nitrobenzene
690
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Pentachloro benzene
1.5
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Phenol
1700000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Pyrene
4000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
16
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Hazard Quotients Associated with Oregon's
Chemical Name
Oregon's 2004
"Organism Only"
New and Revised Criteria for a Population
Consuming Fish at the Following Fish
Consumption Rates
Criterion (jjg/L)
17.5
63
113
176
389
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
Selenium
4200
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5
1.1
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Thallium
0.47
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Toluene
15000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Trans-Dichloroethylene 1,2
10000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
70
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5
3600
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
Zinc
26000
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
2. Methylmercury
a) Criterion Derivation
On January 8, 2001, EPA published 25 a new national CWA § 304(a) human health criterion
recommendation for methylmercury 26 which replaced EPA's previous recommendations for
total mercury. The new recommendation is expressed as a fish tissue value, thus reflecting the
latest science that indicates consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish is the primary human
route of exposure to methylmercury. Similar to the 2000 Methodology, the computation of the
methylmercury criterion involves uses of several input variables. In the 2001 criteria document,
EPA strongly encourages States and authorized Tribes to consider developing a criterion using
local or regional data over the default values if they believe that they would be more appropriate
for their target population. These adjustments should be applied consistent with the guidance
provided in the 2000 Human Health Methodology.27
Consistent with EPA's recommendation, Oregon replaced its "water + organism" and "organism
only" water column human health criteria for total mercury with a new fish tissue-based
"organism only" human health criterion for methylmercury equal to 300 micrograms per
kilogram (see Table 7 below). In deriving this new criterion, Oregon used the equation in Figure
8 below and following values for each variable: reference dose equal to 0.0001 milligrams per
kilogram per day; relative source contribution equal to 0.000027 milligrams per kilogram per
day; body weight equal to 70 kilograms; and, fish consumption rate equal to 17.5 grams per day.
25
EPA. 2001. Water Quality Criteria: Notice of Availability of Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of
Human Health: Methylmercury. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Federal Register, Volume: 66, Issue: 5, Page: 1344 (66 FR 1344), January 8, 2001. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2001/Januarv/Dav-08/w217.htm.
26 EPA. 2001. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 823-R-01-001. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methvlmercurv/document.html.
27
EPA. 2001. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 823-R-01-001, page 7-2.
17
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Table 7. Oregon's new fish tissue-based "organism only" human health criterion for
methylmercury as submitted by Oregon on July 8, 2004.
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criterion
"Organism Only" Criterion
(in micrograms per kilogram
(|jg/kg))
Methylmercury
n/a
300
Figure 8. Simplified version of the equation used by Oregon in deriving its new fish tissue-based
"organism only" human health criterion for methylmercury.
TRC
—
fRfD - RSG • fBWl
[FCR)
where:
TRC
= Fish Tissue Residue Criterion (milligrams per kilogram)
RfD
= Reference dose for noncancer effects (milligrams per
kilogram per day)
RSC
= Relative source contribution factor to account for non-
water sources of exposure (milligrams per kilogram per day)
BW
= Human body weight (kilograms)
FCR
= Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
b) EPA Review and Action
(1) Review of Values Used to Calculate Criterion
As part of evaluating whether Oregon's criteria protect the designated uses, EPA looked at the
input values used by Oregon and whether there was Oregon-specific information relative to each
value that should be considered in the review.
In calculating their new methylmercury criteria, Oregon used EPA's recommended national
default values for all input variables. EPA has not identified any local or regional data to
indicate that the national values for the reference dose, relative source contribution and body
weight are inappropriate for use in Oregon.28 As discussed in the previous section addressing
the criteria for non-carcinogenic pollutants listed in Table 3, EPA's review of local and regional
fish consumption data indicated that such data was available and should be considered. Further
discussion on this variable is included in that section and Appendix A.
oo
On June 10, 2009, subsequent to Oregon's July 8, 2004, submittal, EPA updated its national CWA § 304(a)
human health criteria recommendations for acrolein and phenol. These updated values incorporate new reference
doses for acrolein and phenol.
18
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
(2) Evaluation of Level of Protection Provided by
Criterion
EPA's WQS regulations require that criteria protect the designated uses. As noted previously,
Oregon's human health criteria apply to waters with fishing and water supply uses and thus must
be established at a level that will protect those uses. Therefore, EPA must evaluate whether the
criteria protect the use.
In evaluating the protectiveness of Oregon's new fish tissue-based "organism only" human
health criterion for methylmercury, EPA relied on the same rationale and supporting information
used to evaluate Oregon's new and revised human health criteria for the 47 non-carcinogens
identified in Table 3 above.
In order to evaluate whether Oregon's new human health criterion for methylmercury would
protect designated uses in Oregon, EPA calculated the hazard quotients (Table 8 below)
associated with the criterion and an exposure resulting from a fish consumption rate of 17.5, 63,
113, 176, and 389 grams per day. A fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day reflects that
used by Oregon to derive their 2004 criteria. As discussed in Appendix A, the additional fish
consumption rates are representative of levels documented in the 1994 Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission Fish Consumption Survey that shows that tribal members are eating fish
at rates much higher than 17.5 grams per day. Furthermore, the OEQC directed ODEQ to revise
their human health criteria based on a fish consumption rate of 175 grams per day (see Appendix
A). The OEQC's 2008 directive represents the latest policy direction provided to ODEQ on this
issue and thus the latest information available to EPA concerning Oregon's position relative to
the appropriate fish consumption rate necessary to develop toxics criteria that protect Oregon's
human health uses. Thus, Oregon has effectively determined that the fish consumption rate used
in the 2004 criteria adoption was not sufficiently representative of Oregon's population. Thus,
EPA has evaluated the hazard quotients for these higher levels of fish consumption to more
accurately represent Oregon's population. These calculations are shown in Table 8 below.
The results of this evaluation indicate that a hazard quotient of 1.0 is associated with a fish
consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day and represents the level of exposure to a chemical that
would not exceed the RfD. Therefore, Oregon's new methylmercury criterion identified in Table
7 above is protective of the health of those populations in Oregon consuming up to 17.5 grams of
fish per day.
However, this evaluation also indicates that, for the four higher fish consumption rate values
discussed above, the hazard quotients exceed 1.0, thereby representing a level of exposure that
exceeds the RfD. EPA has determined that Oregon's new "organism only" human health
criterion for methylmercury identified in Table 7 above is not protective of waters in Oregon
having a fishing designated use, consistent with the OEQC's 2008 directive. This determination
is based upon the following analysis. A fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day is not
sufficiently representative of the fish consumption levels among Oregon's population as
determined in the OEQC directive discussed above and in Appendix A. Because the calculations
of hazard quotients in Table 8 exceed 1.0 at the higher fish consumption rates documented in the
CRITFC study, the criteria do not assure that Oregon's fishing designated use is protected
19
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
consistent with OEQC's directive to revise Oregon's human health criteria based on a fish
consumption rate of 175 grams per day.
EPA finds that Oregon's new human health criterion for methylmercury in Table 7 above is not
protective of Oregon's fishing designated use, consistent with the OEQC's 2008 directive, and
therefore this criterion is inconsistent with the federal requirements at 40 CFR §131.11(a)(1).
(3) Disapproval
Based on the above evaluation and in accordance with its CWA authority, 33 U.S.C. §
1313(c)(3) and 40 CFR Part 131, EPA disapproves Oregon's new fish tissue-based "organism
only" human health criterion for methylmercury identified in Table 7 above and Table 33A of
Oregon's WQS.
Table 8. Hazard quotients associated with Oregon's new fish tissue-based "organism only"
human health criterion for methylmercury for populations consuming fish at rates of 17.5, 63,
113, 176, and 389 grams per day.
Hazard Quotients Associated with Oregon's
New or Revised Criteria for a Population
Chemical Name
"Organism Only"
Criterion (|jg/kg)
Consuming Fish at the Following Fish
Consumption Rates:
17.5
63
113
176
389
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
Methylmercury
300
1.00
3.61
6.46
10.00
22.23
3. Copper
a) Criterion Derivation
Consistent with EPA's 304(a) recommendation, Oregon adopted a new human health criterion of
1300 micrograms per liter for copper (see Table 9 below). Since the human health risks from
copper are primarily from drinking water, no "organism only" criterion was adopted. The 'water
+ organism" criterion was established at the level of EPA's drinking water criterion under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Table 9. Oregon's July 8, 2004 submission of new human health criterion for copper.
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criterion (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criterion
Copper
1300
n/a
b) EPA Review and Action
(1) Protectiveness Evaluation
Fish consumption is not an exposure pathway used in the derivation of EPA's national criterion
20
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
recommendation and therefore fish consumption rates are not relevant to evaluation of the
protectiveness of the criterion. Oregon's copper criterion applies to all waters in Oregon
designated for either public domestic water supply or private domestic water supply, irrespective
of whether a fishing use has been designated.29 As such, the criterion appropriately applies to
waters identified in Table 1 above, as well as the Bull Run River and its tributaries in the Sandy
Basin.
Oregon's new human health water quality criterion for copper is consistent with EPA's current
304(a) criterion recommendation and is the same as the drinking water criterion established
under the SDWA. EPA has not found any local or regional data indicating this value to be
inappropriate for Oregon.
Based on this information, EPA finds that Oregon's human health criterion for copper is
protective of Oregon's public domestic water supply and private domestic water supply
designated uses. Therefore, it is consistent with the federal requirements at 40 CFR
§131.11(a)(1).
(2) Approval
Based upon the above evaluation and in accordance with its CWA authority, 33 U.S.C.
§1313(c)(3) and 40 CFR Part 131, EPA approves Oregon's new human health criterion for
copper identified in Table 9 above and Table 33 A of Oregon's WQS.
B. New and Revised Human Health Criteria for Carcinogens
Oregon adopted new and revised human health criteria for 56 carcinogens. The criteria for 55 of
these pollutants were derived using EPA's 2000 Methodology. EPA's action on these criteria is
discussed in subsection 1 below and the criteria listed in Table 10 below. Oregon's new human
health criterion for asbestos was derived using an alternate approach and is discussed in
subsection 2 below.
1. "Water + Organism" and "Organism Only" Criteria Identified in
Table 10
a) Criteria Derivation
EPA's 2000 Methodology describes procedures that can be used as guidance by states for
deriving human health water criteria. The 2000 Methodology includes an equation that was used
by Oregon in deriving the "water + organism" and "organism only" human health criteria for the
55 carcinogens identified in Table 10 below which are included in Table 33A of Oregon's WQS
submitted to EPA on July 8, 2004. A simplified version of this equation is provided in Figure 9
below. Descriptions of the variables included in these equations, and the values that Oregon
29
ODEQ. 2009. Email communication dated June 9, 2009, from Debra Sturdevant, WQS Program Lead, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality to Melinda McCoy, WQS Coordinator, EPA.
21
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
utilized for each variable, are also provided below.
Figure 9. Simplified version of the equation used by Oregon in deriving the human health
criteria identified in Table 10 below for carcinogens.
AWQC =
fRisk Level • BW1
[CSF • [DI + (FCR • BAF))]
where:
AWQC
= Ambient Water Quality Criterion (milligrams per liter)
Risk Level
= Risk level (unitless)
CSF
= Cancer slope factor (milligrams per kilogram per day)
BW
= Human body weight (kilograms)
DI
= Drinking water intake (liters per day)
FCF
= Fish Consumption Rate (kilograms per day)
BAF
= Bioaccumulation factor (liters per kilogram)
For toxic pollutants identified as carcinogens and assumed to exhibit a linear dose-response
relationship at low doses, EPA derives its national CWA § 304(a) human health criteria
recommendations to correspond to incremental lifetime cancer risk levels, applying a risk
management policy that ensures a reasonable level of protection for the general population.30
Accordingly, the cancer slope factor is included in the calculation. A cancer slope factor
expresses incremental, lifetime risk of cancer as a function of the rate of intake of the
contaminant, and is then combined with exposure assumptions to express that risk in terms of an
ambient water concentration. Cancer slope factors are specific to individual pollutants. In
deriving both the "water + organism" and "organism only" human health criteria for carcinogens,
Oregon utilized the cancer slope factors recommended by EPA 14'15
EPA has identified a risk level range of 1 x 10"6 (1:1,000,000) to 1 x 10"5 (1:100,000) to be an
appropriate risk management goal for the general population. EPA characterizes this acceptable
risk range as the "upper-bound estimate of excess lifetime cancer risk," ranging from one case in
a population of one million to one case in a population of ten thousand. The risk level associated
with any given human health criterion is dependent upon the multiple exposure parameters used
in deriving the criterion. The level of protection provided to any one individual or subpopulation
will vary with variation in exposure. Thus, some criteria may protect some individuals or
subpopulations at levels greater than 1 x 10"6. Nothing limits a state's discretion to provide
protection to specific subpopulation at 1 x 10"6 risk level even though it will mean that other
subpopulations are protected at higher levels.
30
EPA. 2000. Revisions to the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Human Health (2000). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Federal
Register, Volume: 65, Issue: 214, Page: 66443 (65 FR 66443), November 3, 2000. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2000/November/Dav-03/w27924.htm.
22
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
EPA's 2000 Methodology provides states with the discretion to adopt human health criteria
within, or above, this risk level range, if highly exposed populations would at least be protected
at the 1 x 10"4 (1:10,000) risk level. If a state does not find that the 1 x 10"6 risk level adequately
protects highly exposed populations, it has the discretion to adopt water quality criteria based on
a more stringent risk level or a level more representative of highly exposed population groups.
This discretion extends to all variables used to calculate the criteria.31
Oregon's new and revised "water + organism" and "organism only" human health criteria for
carcinogens are calculated using a risk level of 1 x 10"6 (1:1,000,000). For exposure variables, (a
body weight, fish consumption rate and drinking water intake rate, Oregon used the same values
as used for non-carcinogens and described above.
Table 10. Oregon's July 8, 2004 submission of new and revised "water + organism" and
"organism only" human health criteria for 55 carcinogens.
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criteria (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criteria (jjg/L)
Acrylonitrile
0.051
0.25
Aldrin
0.000049
0.00005
Arsenic
0.018
0.14
Benzene
2.2
51
Benzidine
0.000086
0.0002
Benzo(a)Anthracene
0.0038
0.018
Benzo(a)Pyrene
0.0038
0.018
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
0.0038
0.018
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
0.0038
0.018
BHC alpha-
0.0026
0.0049
BHC beta-
0.0091
0.017
Bromoform
4.3
140
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.23
1.6
Chlordane
0.0008
0.00081
Chlorodibromomethane
0.4
13
Chloroethyl Ether Bis2-
n/a - not revised
0.53
Chloroform
5.7
470
ChloromethylEther, Bis
0.0001
0.00029
Chrysene
0.0038
0.018
DDD 4,4'-
0.00031
0.00031
DDE 4,4'-
0.00022
0.00022
DDT 4,4'-
0.00022
0.00022
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
0.0038
0.018
Dichlorbenzidine 3,3'-
0.021
0.028
Dichlorobromomethane
0.55
17
Dichloroethane 1,2-
0.38
37
Dichloropropane 1,2-
0.5
15
Dichloropropene 1,3-
0.34
21
31
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Page 2-6.
23
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criteria (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criteria (jjg/L)
Dieldrin
0.000052
0.000054
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
n/a - not revised
3.4
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
0.000000005
0.0000000051
Diphenylhydrazine 1,2-
0.036
0.2
EthylhexylPhthalate Bis2-
1.2
2.2
Heptachlor
0.000079
0.000079
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.000039
0.000039
Hexachlorobenzene
0.00028
0.00029
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.44
18
Hexachloroethane
1.4
3.3
Idenol ,2,3-(cd) Pyrene
0.0038
0.018
Isophorone
35
960
Methylene Chloride
4.6
590
Nitrosodibutylamine,N
0.0063
0.22
Nitrosopyrrolidine,N
n/a - not revised
34
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
0.00069
3
N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine
0.005
0.51
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
3.3
6
Pentachlorophenol
0.27
3
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCBs
0.000064
0.000064
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
n/a - not revised
4
Tetrachloroethylene
0.69
3.3
Toxaphene
0.00028
0.00028
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
0.59
16
Trichloroethylene
2.5
30
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
1.4
2.4
Vinyl Chloride
0.025
2.4
b) EPA Review and Action
(1) Review of Values Used to Calculate Criteria
EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology provides guidance for deriving human health criteria
for toxic pollutants. For each variable used in the criteria calculation, EPA provides a "national
default value" and guidance on specific adjustments that may be necessary to reflect local
conditions and/or protect identifiable subpopulations. As part of evaluating whether Oregon's
criteria protect the designated uses, EPA looked at the input values used by Oregon and whether
there was Oregon-specific information relative to each value that should be considered in the
review.
For all input variables, Oregon used EPA's recommended national default values for calculating
their 2004 human health criteria. EPA has not identified any local or regional data to indicate
that the national values for the cancer slope factors, reference dose, relative source contribution,
24
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
body weight, drinking water intake rate, or bioaccumulation factors are inappropriate for use in
Oregon. 32
EPA's initial review of local and regional fish consumption data indicated that such data was
available and should be considered consistent with EPA's 2000 Methodology. The Methodology
recognizes the variability of fish consumption rates among population groups and by geographic
region. In employing the 2000 Methodology to derive criteria, the Agency urges States and
Tribes to use a fish intake level derived from local or regional data instead of the national default
recommendation to ensure the fish intake level chosen is protective of highly exposed
individuals in the population and to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to all identifiable
subpopulations. A four preference hierarchy concerning the use of fish consumption rate data is
set forth: (1) use of local data; (2) use of data reflecting similar geography/population groups;
(3) use of data from national surveys; and (4) use of EPA's default intake rate. In using local
data, EPA recommends that arithmetic mean values should be the lowest value considered by
states when choosing fish consumption rates for use in criteria derivation.33
In 1996, Oregon initiated an extensive review of the use of a fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams
per day for deriving human health criteria protective of the people of Oregon (see Appendix A).
As part of this, a group of regional experts were asked to provide their evaluation of local and
regional fish consumption studies and provide their recommendations to ODEQ. As a result of
this review, ODEQ recommended to their governing body, the Oregon Environmental Quality
Commission, that Oregon's human health criteria be revised based on a fish consumption rate of
175 grams per day. On October 23, 2008 the Commission directed ODEQ to revise the Oregon
Water Quality Standards to reflect that higher fish consumption rate.
(2) Evaluation of Level of Protection Provided by Criteria
EPA's WQS regulations require that criteria protect the designated uses. As noted previously,
Oregon's human health criteria apply to waters with fishing and water supply uses and thus must
be established at a level that will protect those uses. Therefore, EPA must evaluate whether the
criteria protect the use.
The risk level associated with any given human health criterion is dependent upon the multiple
exposure parameters that are included in the derivation of the criterion. Oregon's new and
revised human health criteria for non-carcinogens were derived using a risk level of 1 x 10"6.
However, individuals with exposures outside of the values that Oregon utilized in the equation
(for example, with either higher or lower rates of fish consumption) will have a different relative
risk. For this reason, EPA first evaluated Oregon's new and revised criteria to determine the
level of risk that may be experienced by those consuming fish at levels reported in the CRITFC
32 On June 10, 2009, subsequent to Oregon's July 8, 2004, submittal, EPA updated its national CWA § 304(a)
human health criteria recommendations for acrolein and phenol. These updated values incorporate new reference
doses for acrolein and phenol.
33
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Pages 1-9 to 1-13, 4-24
to 4-25.
25
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
study (see Appendix A) and then utilized the results of this evaluation to review the
protectiveness of the human health criteria identified in Table 10 above.
(3) Risk Level Evaluation in Light of the Available Local
and Regional Fish Consumption Rate Data
EPA evaluated Oregon's new and revised human health criteria for carcinogens to determine the
level of risk that may be experienced by those consuming fish at levels reported in the CRITFC
study. These risk levels, shown in Table 11 below, were calculated using fish consumption rates
of 63, 113, 176, and 389 grams per day. As outlined in Appendix A, these values are reflective
of rates of fish consumption documented from the CRITFC survey and representative of a
subpopulation in Oregon. It should be noted that the same risk levels would be associated with
criteria calculated at these consumption rates for all of the pollutants identified in Table 10.
A risk level of 1 x 10"6 is associated with those populations consuming fish at a rate of 17.5
grams per day, and represents one case of cancer in a population of one million. Risk levels of
3.6 x 10"6 and 6.5 x 10"6, representing 3.6 and 6.5 cases of cancer in a population of one million,
are associated with those populations consuming fish at rates of 63 grams per day and 113 grams
per day, respectively. Risk levels of 1 x 10"5 and 2.5 x 10"5, representing one and 2.5 cases of
cancer in a population of one hundred thousand, are associated with those populations
consuming fish at rates of 176 grams per day and 389 grams per day, respectively.
Table 11. Carcinogenic risk levels associated with Oregon's human health criteria for
populations consuming fish at rates of 17.5, 63, 113, 176, and 389 grams per day. These risk
levels are associated with Oregon's 55 new and revised human health criteria for carcinogenic
pollutants identified in Table 10.
I'isli Consumption Rate
(grams per day)
Risk Levels Associated with
Oregon's New and Revised Criteria
for a Population Consuming Fish at
Identified Fish Consumption Rates
17.5
1 x 10°
63
3.6x10°
113
6.5 x 10"b
176
1x10°
389
2.2x10°
EPA's 2000 Methodology recognizes that states may exercise their discretion to adopt human
health criteria within a risk level range of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"5, if highly exposed populations
would at least be protected at the 1 x 10"4 (1:10,000) risk level. However, if a state does not
believe that a 1 x 10"6 risk level for the general population would adequately protect highly
exposed populations, the 2000 Methodology also recognizes that states may exercise their
discretion to adopt human health criteria based on a more stringent risk level. This discretion
26
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
includes combining the 1 x 10"6risk level with an exposure variable value (e.g., fish consumption
rate) that is more representative of highly exposed population groups.
On October 23, 2008, Oregon's policy-making body for environmental issues, the OEQC,
exercised its discretion and directed ODEQ to pursue rulemaking to revise Oregon's human
health toxics criteria statewide based upon an increased fish consumption rate of 175 grams per
day. ODEQ is currently drafting a rule that would propose human health criteria using a fish
consumption rate of 175 grams per day and a risk level of 1 x 10"6. As described in Appendix A,
this directive was issued following extensive review by ODEQ, including the review of
scientifically defensible data relevant to Oregon and the input from human health experts.
Thus, Oregon intends to use its discretion to develop criteria that would protect highly exposed
populations in Oregon consuming up to 175 grams of fish per day at a risk level of 1 x 10"6. In
contrast, the human health criteria for the 55 carcinogens identified in Table 10 would protect
those who consume up to 175 grams of fish per day at a less stringent risk level of
1 x 10"5.
The OEQC's 2008 directive represents the latest policy direction provided to ODEQ on this issue
and thus the latest information available to EPA concerning Oregon's risk management goals
relative to human health criteria. Based upon the risk levels calculated for those eating more
than 17.5 grams of fish per day (Table 11 above), EPA has determined that Oregon's 2004 new
and revised "water + organism" and "organism only" human health criteria for the 55
carcinogens identified in Table 10 above do not protect the fishing designated use in Oregon
consistent with the OEQC's 2008 directive and the risk management goals relative to human
health criteria represented within this directive. The OEQC is the executive body within the
State of Oregon charged with establishing the environmental policies by which the waters of the
state will be protected, maintained, and improved "for public water supplies, for the propagation
of wildlife, fish and aquatic life and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, municipal, recreational
and other legitimate beneficial uses." Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.015, see also Or. Rev. Stat. §
468.015. Therefore, OEQC's 2008 directive represents a determination that protecting persons
consuming 175 grams of fish per day at a risk level of 1 x 10"5 is insufficiently stringent to
protect the waters of the State, consistent with the policies of the State of Oregon.
Section 303(c)(2)(A) of the CWA provides that when a state revises or adopts new water quality
standards, the new or revised standard shall be "such as to protect the public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Act." When the state submits these
standards to EPA, EPA must then review them to determine whether they are consistent with the
requirements of the CWA. CWA § 303(c)(3); 40 CFR 131.5,131.11. In the present instance,
Oregon has effectively determined that the human health criteria for the 55 carcinogens
identified in Table 10 are insufficiently stringent to protect Oregon waters consistent with the
policies of the State of Oregon. Because Oregon has made this determination during the
pendency of EPA's review of these criteria, EPA considered the determination as part of its
evaluation of whether the 2004 criteria are consistent with the requirements of the CWA.
As previously noted, Oregon waters identified in Tables 1 and 2 above have a fishing designated
use. Because the Oregon policy-making body charged with protecting such use under state law
27
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
has issued a post-submission directive, during the pendency of EPA's review, that can be
reasonably construed as indicating that the 2004 criteria are insufficient to protect Oregon
waters, EPA has determined that the new and revised human health criteria identified in Table 10
above are not protective of Oregon's fishing designated use, as currently set forth by the OEQC.
(4) Disapproval
Based upon the above evaluation and in accordance with its CWA authority, 33 U.S.C. §
1313(c)(3) and 40 CFR Part 131, EPA disapproves Oregon's new and revised "water +
organism" and "organism only" human health criteria for the 55 carcinogens identified in Table
10 above which are included in Table 33A of Oregon's WQS submitted to EPA on July 8, 2004.
2. Asbestos
a) Criterion Derivation
Consistent with EPA's 304(a) recommendation, Oregon adopted a new human health criterion of
seven million fibers per liter for asbestos (see Table 12 below). Since the human health risks
from asbestos are primarily from drinking water, no "organism only" criterion was adopted. The
'water + organism" criterion was established at the level of EPA's drinking water criterion under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
(1) Protectiveness Evaluation
Table 12. Oregon's July 8, 2004 submission of new human health criterion for asbestos.
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criterion
(fibers per liter (f/L))
"Organism Only" Criterion
Asbestos
7,000,000
n/a
b) EPA Review and Action
(1) Protectiveness Evaluation
Fish consumption is not an exposure pathway used in the derivation of EPA's national criterion
recommendation and therefore fish consumption rates are not relevant to evaluation of the
protectiveness of this criterion. Oregon's asbestos criterion applies to all waters in Oregon
designated for either public domestic water supply or private domestic water supply, irrespective
of whether a fishing use has been designated.34 As such, the criterion appropriately applies to
waters identified in Table 1 above, as well as the Bull Run River and its tributaries in the Sandy
Basin.
Oregon's new human health water quality criterion for asbestos is consistent with EPA's current
304(a) criterion recommendation and is the same as the drinking water criterion established
34
ODEQ. 2009. Email communication dated June 9, 2009, from Deb Sturdevant, WQS Program Lead, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality to Melinda McCoy, WQS Coordinator, EPA.
28
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
under the SDWA.35 EPA has not found any local or regional data indicating this value to be
inappropriate for Oregon.
Based on this information, EPA finds that Oregon's human health criterion for asbestos is
protective of Oregon's public domestic water supply and private domestic water supply
designated uses. Therefore, it is consistent with the federal requirements at 40 CFR 8
131.11(a)(1).
(2) Approval
Based on the above evaluation and in accordance with its CWA authority, 33 U.S.C. §
1313(c)(3) and 40 CFR Part 131, EPA approves Oregon's new human health criterion for
asbestos identified in Table 12 above which is included in Table 33 A of Oregon's WQS.
IV. NEW FOOTNOTES
In addition to adopting the new and revised human health criteria described in Part III above,
Oregon adopted seven new footnotes (H, I, J, K, L, R, and U) associated with human health
criteria. Three of these footnotes (H, J, and L) are discussed separately in Part VII below
because they are not considered WQS subject to EPA review and approval under § 303(c) of the
CWA. The other four are discussed below.
Six of the seven footnotes were added to criteria that were new or revised in 2004 while Footnote
K was added to two existing criteria. EPA's action to approve or disapprove a footnote only
applies to the footnote and not the underlying criteria.
All other footnotes included in Table 33 A of Oregon's WQS and applicable to human health
criteria remain unchanged from Oregon's previous WQS. Thus, EPA is not taking action on
these previously existing footnotes. This is appropriate since these footnotes remain applicable to
the chemicals with which they are associated, and this applicability is not altered by any WQS
revisions included in Oregon's July 8, 2004, submittal.
A. Footnote I
1. Description of Footnote
As shown in Table 13 below, Oregon added footnote I to the revised human health criteria for
endosulfan (criteria discussed in Part III.A.l. above). Footnote I states: "This value is based on
criterion published in Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Endosulfan (EPA 440/5-80-046) and
should be applied as the sum of alpha- and beta-endosulfan."
35
EPA. 2006. 2006 Edition of Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-R-06-013. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinking/dwstandards.pdf
29
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Table 13. Addition of Footnote T as submitted bv Oregon on .Tulv 8. 2004
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criterion (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criterion (jjg/L)
Endosulfan
62 1
89 1
2. EPA Review and Action
Footnote I provides clarification regarding the basis for Oregon's derivation of the endosulfan
criteria. Footnote I also provides that the human health criteria for endosulfan should be applied
as the sum of alpha- and beta-endosulfan. While applicable to the new criteria, the footnote is
not applicable to Oregon's current CWA-applicable criteria for endosulfan. Because footnote I
directly affects how the endosulfan criteria are applied with respect to the forms of endosulfan,
EPA considers this footnote to be a WQS requiring action under CWA § 303(c).
EPA disapproves the addition of footnote I because this footnote applies to human health criteria
that have been disapproved due to inconsistency with 40 CFR § 131.11(a) and is not applicable
to any of Oregon's current CWA-applicable criteria. Since this footnote is reasonable when
applied to the new criteria, no change in substance of this footnote would be needed to address
the disapproval as long as the underlying criteria were revised by Oregon in a manner approvable
by EPA.
B. Footnote K
1. Description of Footnote
As shown in Table 14 below, Oregon added footnote K to the existing and unrevised human
health criteria for iron and manganese. Footnote K states: "Human Health criterion is for
"dissolved" concentration based on the 1976 EPA Red Book conclusion that adverse effects
from exposure at this level are aesthetic rather than toxic."
Table 14. Addition of Footnote T< as submitted by Oregon on July S. 2004
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criteria (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criterion (jjg/L)
Iron
300 K
n/a
Manganese
50 K
100 K
2. EPA Review and Action
Oregon's three human health criteria values for iron and manganese shown in Table 14 above are
based upon EPA's national CWA § 304(a) human health criteria recommendations presented in
EPA's 1986 "Gold Book." For iron and manganese, the "Gold Book" carries forward previous
national CWA § 304(a) human health criteria recommendations presented in EPA's 1976 Quality
Criteria for Water (hereinafter referred to as the "Red Book") and in EPA's 1972 Water Quality
Criteria (hereinafter referred to as the "Blue Book").36'37
36 EPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water ("Red Book"). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
30
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Footnote K was added to the three existing and unrevised human health criteria for iron and
manganese shown in Table 14 above. It explains that the three criteria shown in Table 14 protect
against adverse aesthetic effects rather than toxic adverse effects to human health. This is
consistent with the information presented in EPA's "Gold Book," "Red Book," and "Blue
Book," insofar as it applies to the "water + organism" criteria for iron and manganese. However,
the "organism only" criterion for manganese is based on human health toxicity endpoints related
to the consumption of marine mollusks.
Footnote K provides that the three criteria for iron and manganese shown in Table 14 are for the
dissolved, as opposed to total, form of metal. Because this component of footnote K directly
affects how the iron and manganese criteria are applied with respect to the forms of these two
metals, EPA considers this footnote to be a WQS requiring action under CWA § 303(c).
EPA's 1972 "Blue Book" specifies that the "water + organism" criteria for iron and manganese
are for the "soluble" (i.e., dissolved) form of the metal, while the "organism only" criterion for
manganese is for total manganese. EPA's policy is to express metals criteria in the dissolved
form only for aquatic life criteria where a total-to-dissolved translator is available. In the case of
manganese, neither of these conditions apply.38 Therefore, unless supporting documentation
pursuant to 40 CFR § 131.6(b) is provided to demonstrate that expression of the "organism only"
criterion for manganese as a dissolved criterion is protective of the fishing designated use in
Oregon, EPA can not ensure the expression of the manganese criterion in the dissolved form is
protective of the uses'
Based upon the above evaluation, EPA approves Oregon's addition of footnote K to the "water +
organism" criteria for iron and manganese. However, EPA disapproves Oregon's addition of
footnote K to the "organism only" criterion for manganese.
C. Footnote R
1. Description of Footnote
As shown in Table 15 below, Oregon added footnote R to the revised human health criteria for
arsenic (criteria discussed in Part III.B. 1. above). Footnote R states: "Arsenic criterion refers to
the inorganic form only."
Table lr». Addil ion ofFoolnotcR as submitted by Oregon on July S. 2'"i'")4
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criterion (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criterion (jjg/L)
Arsenic
0.018 R
0.14 R
Washington, D.C. PB-263 943. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/redbook.pdf.
37
EPA. 1972. Water Quality Criteria ("Blue Book"). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. EPA-R3-73-033.
38
USEPA. October 1, 1993. Memorandum from Martha G. Prothro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, to
Water Management Division Directors and Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I - X. Re: Office of
Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria.
31
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
2. EPA Review and Action
Footnote R provides that the human health criteria for arsenic refer to the inorganic form of
arsenic. While applicable to the new criteria, the footnote is not applicable to Oregon's current
CWA-applicable criteria for arsenic. Because footnote R directly affects how the arsenic criteria
are applied with respect to the forms of arsenic, EPA considers this footnote to be a WQS
requiring action under CWA § 303(c).
EPA disapproves the addition of footnote R because this footnote applies to human health
criteria that have been disapproved due to inconsistency with 40 CFR § 131.11(a) and is not
applicable to any of Oregon's current CWA-applicable criteria. Since this footnote is
reasonable when applied to the new criteria, no change in substance of this footnote would be
needed to address the disapproval as long as the underlying criteria were revised by Oregon in a
manner approvable by EPA.
D. Footnote U
1. Description of Footnote
As shown in Table 16 below, Oregon added footnote U to the revised human health criteria for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (criteria discussed in Part III.B.l. above). Footnote U states:
"This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or all isomer or homolog or
Arochlor analyses."
Table 16. Addition of Footnote U as submitted by Oregon on July 8, 2004.
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criterion (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criterion (jjg/L)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCBs
0.000064 U
0.000064 U
2. EPA Review and Action
Footnote U provides that the human health criteria for PCBs apply to total PCBs. While
applicable to the new criteria, the footnote is not applicable to Oregon's current CWA-applicable
criteria for PCBs. Because footnote U directly affects how the criteria for PCBs are applied with
respect to the various forms of PCBs, EPA considers this footnote to be a WQS requiring action
under CWA § 303(c).
EPA disapproves the addition of footnote U because this footnote applies to human health
criteria that have been disapproved due to inconsistency with 40 CFR § 131.11(a) and is not
applicable to any of Oregon's current CWA-applicable criteria. Since this footnote is
reasonable when applied to the new criteria, no change in substance of this footnote would be
needed to address the disapproval as long as the underlying criteria was revised by Oregon in a
manner approvable EPA.
32
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
V. WITHDRAWAL OF HUMAN HEALTH WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR EIGHT TOXIC POLLUTANTS
A. Description of Withdrawn Criteria
Consistent with EPA's current 304(a) criteria recommendations and as described in Section 1.2.2
of ODEQ's Toxic Compounds Criteria: 1999-2003 Water Quality Standards Review Issue
Paper, Table 33 A of Oregon's submission reflects Oregon's withdrawal of human health criteria
for eight toxic pollutants.39 These pollutants and criteria are identified in Table 17 below.40
Table 17. Numeric human health water quality criteria for eight toxic pollutants that were
withdrawn from Oregon's WQS and submitted by Oregon on July 8, 2004.
Chemical Name
Human Health Criteria Withdrawn (in jjg/L)
"Water + Organism"
"Organism Only"
Beryllium
0.0068
0.117
Cadmium
10
n/a
Chromium III
170.000
3.433.000
Chromium VI
50
n/a
Lead
50
n/a
Mercury
0.144
0.146
Silver
50
n/a
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
18,400
1,030,000
1. Beryllium
Consistent with EPA's action under the "National Toxics Rule" (NTR),41 Oregon withdrew its
human health criteria for beryllium (Table 17 above). Under the NTR, EPA determined that its
304(a) human health criteria recommendations for beryllium, previously published in EPA's
1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Beryllium,42 were no longer scientifically defensible.
Accordingly, EPA withdrew its recommendations for beryllium pending evaluation of relevant
data regarding beryllium toxicity. EPA has not published new national CWA § 304(a) human
39
ODEQ. 2003. Toxic Compounds Criteria: 1999-2003 Water Quality Standards Review Issue Paper. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon. Available at:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/about/eqc/agendas/attachments/mav2004/5.20.04.ItemB. AttchH.pdf.
40
Table 17 was created by comparing Table 20 (Oregon's previous water quality criteria) with Table 33 A
(Oregon's updated water quality criteria). Oregon's Issue Paper did not specify that Oregon had never adopted
criteria for 2,6-Dinitrotoluene and thus Oregon did not withdraw this criteria as part of its 2004 action.
41
EPA. 1992. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States'
Compliances ("National Toxics Rule"). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Federal Register, Volume: 57, Issue: 246, Page: 60885 (57 FR 60885), Tuesday, December 22, 1992.
42
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Beryllium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-024. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/ambientwac/berrvllium80.pdf
33
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
health criteria recommendations for beryllium.
2. Cadmium
Consistent with EPA's action under the NTR, Oregon withdrew its human health criterion for
cadmium (Table 17 above). Under the NTR, EPA determined that its 304(a) human health
criterion recommendation for cadmium, previously published in EPA's 1980 Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Cadmium,43 was no longer scientifically defensible. Accordingly, EPA
withdrew its recommendation for cadmium pending evaluation of relevant data regarding
cadmium toxicity. EPA has not published a new national CWA § 304(a) human health criterion
recommendation for cadmium.
3. Chromium III
Consistent with EPA's action under the NTR, Oregon withdrew its human health criteria for
chromium III (Table 17 above). Under the NTR, EPA determined that its 304(a) human health
criteria recommendations for chromium III, previously published in EPA's 1980 Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Chromium,44 were no longer scientifically defensible. Accordingly, EPA
withdrew its recommendations for chromium III pending evaluation of relevant data regarding
chromium III toxicity. EPA has not published new national CWA § 304(a) human health criteria
recommendations for chromium III.
4. Chromium VI
Consistent with EPA's action under the NTR, Oregon withdrew its human health criterion for
chromium VI (Table 17 above). Under the NTR, EPA determined that its 304(a) human health
criterion recommendation for chromium VI, previously published in EPA's 1980 Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Chromium,50 was no longer scientifically defensible. Accordingly, EPA
withdrew its recommendation for chromium VI pending evaluation of relevant data regarding
chromium VI toxicity. EPA has not published a new national CWA § 304(a) human health
criterion recommendation for chromium VI.
5. Lead
Consistent with EPA's action under the NTR, Oregon withdrew its human health criterion for
lead (Table 17 above). Under the NTR, EPA determined that there was an insufficient basis for
deriving a human health criterion recommendation for lead. Accordingly, pending further
analysis, EPA withdrew its recommendation for lead, which had been previously published in
43
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-025. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/ambientwac/cadmium80.pdf
44
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chromium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-035. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/ambientwac/chromium80.pdf
34
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
EPA's 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Lead45 EPA has not published a new national
CWA § 304(a) human health criterion recommendation for lead.
6. Mercury
On January 8, 2001, EPA withdrew its national CWA § 304(a) human health criteria
recommendations for total mercury, and replaced these criteria recommendations with a new fish
tissue-based "organism only" human health criterion for methylmercury.26 This revision was
based on updated scientific information that indicated consumption of contaminated fish and
shellfish is the primary route of exposure to methylmercury. Consistent with EPA's action on
January 8, 2001, Oregon withdrew its human health criteria for total mercury (Table 17 above),
and adopted the new 304(a) human health criterion recommendation for methylmercury.
Oregon's new methylmercury criterion is addressed separately in Part III.A.2. above.
7. Silver
Consistent with EPA's action under the NTR, Oregon withdrew its human health criterion for
silver (Table 17 above). Under the NTR, EPA withdrew its 304(a) human health criterion
recommendation for silver, previously published in EPA's 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Silver 46 EPA determined that the only potential adverse effect from exposure to silver in
drinking water is argyria (a discoloration of the skin). Argyria is a cosmetic effect, not a
toxicological effect, and therefore inappropriate to serve as a basis for developing human health
criteria. EPA has not published a new § 304(a) human health criterion recommendation for
silver.
8. Trichloroethane 1,In-
consistent with EPA's action under the NTR, Oregon withdrew its human health criteria for
1,1,1-trichloroethane (Table 17 above). Under the NTR, EPA determined that there was an
insufficient basis for deriving 304(a) human health criteria recommendations for 1,1,1-
trichloroethane. Accordingly, pending further analysis, EPA withdrew its recommendations for
1,1,1-trichloroethane, previously published in EPA's 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Chlorinated Ethanes 41 EPA has not published new national CWA § 304(a) human health
criteria recommendations for 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
45
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Lead. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-057. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/ambientwqc/lead80.pdf.
46
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Silver. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-071.
47
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorinated Ethanes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-029. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/ambientwac/chlorietha80.pdf.
35
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
B. EPA Review and Action
The CWA requires that, whenever a state or authorized tribe revises or adopts new WQS, it
adopt criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to CWA § 307(a)(1) for which EPA has
developed recommended criteria under CWA § 304(a), the discharge or presence of which in the
affected waters could reasonably be expected to interfere with the adopted designated uses
(CWA § 303(c)(2)(B)). National CWA § 304(a) human health criteria recommendations are not
currently available for the eight toxic pollutants identified in Table 17 above. Therefore,
Oregon's withdrawal of its previous human health water quality criteria for these eight toxic
pollutants is consistent with this requirement of CWA § 303(c)(2)(B). If situations arise where
human health uses need to be protected from impacts from these pollutants, Oregon may apply
their narrative toxics criteria at OAR 340-041-0033 to provide such protection.
Based upon the above evaluation and in accordance with its CWA authority, 33 U.S.C.
§1313(c)(3) and 40 CFR Part 131, EPA approves Oregon's withdrawal of the human health
criteria identified in Table 17 above.
VI. REVISIONS TO NARRATIVE TOXICS PROVISIONS
Oregon's July 8, 2004, WQS submittal included revisions to its narrative toxics provisions found
at OAR 340-041-0033(1) through (3). Revisions to OAR 340-041-0033(1) and (2) are discussed
in this Part. Revisions to OAR 340-041-0033(3) are discussed in Part VII below because they
are not considered WQS subject to EPA review and approval under § 303(c) of the CWA.
A. OAR 340-041 -0033(1)
1. Description of Revisions
Oregon's revisions to its narrative toxics provision found at OAR 340-041-0033(1) are shown in
underline/strikeout format below. Underlined text represents added text, while text with a line
through the middle (strikeout) represents deleted text. Non-revised words are provided for
context.
(1) Toxic substances may not be introduced above natural background levels in
the waters of the S-state in amounts, concentrations, or combinations that may be
harmful, may chemically change to harmful forms in the environment, or may
accumulate in sediments or bioaccumulate in aquatic life or wildlife to levels that
adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare, or aquatic life, wildlife^ or other
designated beneficial uses^.
2. EPA Review and Action
EPA approves the minor editorial changes as non-substantive revisions to this provision under
36
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
§303(c) of the CWA. The changes in this provision do not alter the meaning or substance of the
underlying WQS previously approved by EPA. EPA approves these editorial changes and
considers them in effect under the CWA.
B. OAR 340-041-0033(2)
1. Description of Revisions
Oregon's revisions to its narrative toxics provision found at OAR 340-041-0033(2) are shown in
underline/strikeout format below. Underlined text represents added text, while text with a line
through the middle (strikeout) represents deleted text. Non-revised words are also provided
below for context.
(2)48 Levels of toxic substances in waters of the state may not exceed the
applicable criteria listed in Tables 20. 33A. and 33B. which wore based on criteria
established by EPA and published in Quality Criteria for Water (1986), unless
otherwise noted; Table 33A and 33B. adopted on (date).— update Table 20 as
described in this section.
(b) — Each value for criteria in Table 20 is effective until the corresponding value
in Tables 33A or 33B becomes effective.
(A) Each value in Table 33 A is effective on February 15. 2005. unless EPA has
disapproved the value before that date. If a value is subsequently disapproved,
any corresponding value in Table 20 becomes effective immediately. Values that
are the same in Tables 20 and 33A remain in effect.
(B)— Each value in Table 33B is effective upon EPA approval.
(c) — The department will note the effective date for each value in Tables 20.
33A. and 33B as described in this section.
48
Note that for purposes of identification in this technical support document, EPA hereinafter refers to this
provision as provision "OAR 340-041-0033(2)(a)."
49
In the submission to EPA on July 8, 2004, this provision did not identify the adopted date of May 20, 2004. In
the current version of Oregon's WQS, "(date)" has been replaced with "May 20, 2004".
50 The identification of this provision as (b) corresponds to that at the time of submission to EPA on July 8, 2004.
Current Oregon WQS identify this provision as (a).
51 Oregon's July 8, 2004, WQS submittal did not include any new or revised human health criteria in Table 33B.
However, on February 22, 2007, the OEQC adopted formatting changes recommended by ODEQ in which those
human health criteria that became less stringent in 2004 were moved from Table 33 A to Table 33B. In addition, on
February 22, 2007, the OEQC adopted clarifying language located at the beginning of Tables 33A and 33B which
re-iterate the information contained in the revisions to OAR 340-041-0033(2) that were submitted to EPA on July 8,
2004. EPA plans to take separate action on the WQS revisions associated with Oregon's February 22, 2007,
adoption.
52
The identification of this provision as (c) corresponds to that at the time of submission to EPA on July 8, 2004.
Current Oregon WQS identify this provision as (b).
37
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
2. EPA Review and Action
Oregon's narrative toxics provision at OAR 340-041-0033(2)(a) was revised to: (1) update the
toxics criteria table references in Oregon's WQS in order to reflect the addition of Tables 33 A
and 33B; (2) clarify that the applicable toxics criteria listed in Tables 20, 33A, and 33B apply to
waters of the state; and (3) delete a reference to EPA's 1986 "Gold Book."
Table 20, 33 A and 33B include numeric criteria for both human health and aquatic life. Tables
33A and 33B are intended to replace Table 20 after EPA takes action on the revisions to the
numeric criteria. Table 33 A is intended to include numeric criteria which were not revised or
were revised to become more stringent than Oregon's previous criteria. Table 33B is intended to
include numeric criteria that were revised to become less stringent than Oregon's previous
criteria.
EPA approves the revisions to the language in OAR 340-041-0033(2)(a) under § 303(c) of the
CWA. The language changes describe the relationship between Tables 20, 33A and 33B. EPA's
action on this provision does not address the underlying criteria in the tables. EPA has addressed
the new and revised underlying human health (including corresponding new footnotes) in Parts
III, IV, and VII of this document. EPA will address the aquatic life criteria in these tables
(including their corresponding footnotes) in a separate action.
The new provisions at OAR 340-041-0033(2)(b), (2)(b)(A), (2)(b)(B) and (2)(c) describe dates
when the toxics criteria in Tables 20, 33A and 33B become effective under state law. The
effective date of WQS provisions under the CWA is determined by the date of EPA approval.
These timing provisions are WQS that provide for the new and revised numeric criteria to be
immediately in effect at the point of EPA approval action. Therefore, EPA approves the
language in these new provisions as consistent with the requirements of CWA § 303(c). EPA
has addressed the new and revised underlying human health criteria (including corresponding
new footnotes) in Parts III, IV, and VII of this technical support document. EPA will address the
aquatic life criteria in these tables and their corresponding footnotes in a separate action.
VII. PROVISIONS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE ACTION UNDER CWA
§ 303(C)
A. Revisions to Narrative Toxics Provision at OAR 340-041-
0033(3)
1. Description of Revisions
Oregon's revisions to its narrative toxics provision found at OAR 340-041-0033(3) are shown in
underline/strikeout format below. Underlined text represents added text, while text with a line
through the middle (strikeout) represents deleted text. Non-revised words are provided for
context.
38
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
(3) Tho criteria in section (2) of this rulo must apply unless data from
scientifically valid studies demonstrate that the most sensitive designated
beneficial uses will not bo adversely affected by exceeding a criterion or that a
more restrictive criterion is warranted to protect beneficial uses, as accepted by
tho Department on a site specific basis. To establish permit or other regulatory
limits for toxic substances for which criteria are not included in Tables 20. 33 A.
or 33B. the department may use the guidance values in Table 33C. Whoro no
published EPA criteria exist for a toxic substance, public health advisories,, and
other published scientific literature^ may bo considered and usod, if appropriate, to
set guidance values;
(1) If theThe ©department determines may also require or conduct bio-assessment
studies that it is necessary to monitor the toxicity to aquatic life of complex
effluents, other suspected discharges^ or chemical substances without numeric
criteria., to aquatic life, then bio assessment studios may bo conducted.
Laboratory bioassays or in stream measurements of indigenous biological
communities, properly conducted in accordance with standards testing
procedures, may be considered as scientifically valid data for the purposes of
section (3) of this rulo. If toxicity occurs, tho Department will evaluate and
implement necessary measures to reduce or eliminate the toxicity on a case by
caso basis.
2. EPA Review
Oregon's narrative toxics provision at OAR 340-041-0033(3) was combined with OAR 340-041-
0033(4) to update and clarify guidance for establishing permit or other regulatory limits for toxic
substances not included in Tables 20, 33A or 33B. OAR 340-041-0033(3) establishes that the
department may use the guidance values in Table 33C, public health advisories, and other
published scientific literature. This provision and its revisions are not considered WQS subject
to EPA review and approval under § 303(c) of the CWA. This provision describes
implementation procedures for the narrative toxics criterion at OAR 340-041-0033(1). EPA
believes the provision is reasonable, and acknowledges that it is consistent with 40 CFR 131.11,
which requires states (either in their water quality standards or a separate document) to "provide
information identifying the method by which the State intends to regulate point source
discharges of toxic pollutants on water quality limited segments based on . . . narrative criteria."
However, this particular implementation provision is not a water quality standard because it does
not establish a legally binding requirement under state law, and it does not describe a desired
ambient condition of a waterbody to support a particular designated use. Instead, it is a non-
exclusive list of sources that may be used to interpret the narrative toxics criterion, for pollutants
without numeric criteria. Because the provision is not a water quality standard, EPA is taking no
action to approve or disapprove revisions to this provision.
Furthermore, the guidance values in Table 33C are not considered WQS under the CWA.
Instead, the guidance values are one of several sources that can be used to interpret the narrative
toxics criterion at OAR 340-041-0033(1). The guidance values in Table 33C are not adopted as
criteria and, if used, the state would need to document why the number is appropriate for an
39
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
individual action. For this reason, EPA is taking no action to approve or disapprove the values in
Table 33C.
Revisions to the portion of the provision formerly identified as OAR 340-041-0033(4) state that
the department may also require or conduct bioassessment studies to monitor the toxicity to
aquatic life of complex effluents, other suspected discharges or chemical substances without
numeric criteria. This provision simply states that Oregon may conduct bioassessment studies for
monitoring purposes. The provision is not a water quality criterion because it does not establish
a legally binding requirement under state law, and it does not describe a desired ambient
condition of a waterbody to support a particular designated use. Instead, it relates to the
department's authority to develop information by requiring or conducting studies. Therefore,
this provision is not considered a WQS subject to EPA review and approval under § 303(c) of
the CWA. EPA is therefore taking no action to approve or disapprove revisions to this provision.
B. New Footnotes
On May 20, 2004, Oregon adopted three new footnotes (H, J, and L) associated with human
health criteria and not considered WQS. In addition, Oregon identified a fourthe new footnote in
a November 28, 2005 errata letter. These new footnotes are discussed below.
1. Footnote H
a) Description of Footnote
As shown in Table 18 below, Oregon added footnote H to the new human health criterion for
copper (criterion discussed in Part III.A.3. above). Oregon also added footnote H to the pre-
existing and unrevised human health criteria for chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4,5,-TP) and
chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D). Footnote H states: "This value is based on a Drinking Water
regulation."
Table 18. Addition of Footnote H as submitted by Oregon on July 8, 2004.
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criteria (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criteria
Copper
1300 H
n/a
Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,-TP)
10 H
n/a
Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D)
100 H
n/a
b) EPA Review
Oregon added footnote H to the criteria shown in Table 18 above in order to clarify the source of
information upon which the criteria are based. The human health criterion for copper,
chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4,5,-TP) and chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D) are equivalent to
drinking water criteria adopted under the SDWA.53
53
See Appendix C of EPA's 1986 Quality Criteria for Water ("Gold Book") (previously referenced).
40
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
The provision is not a water quality criterion because it does not establish a legally binding
requirement under state law, and it does not describe a desired ambient condition of a waterbody
to support a particular designated use. Instead, it clarifies the source of information upon which
the criteria are based. Therefore, this provision is not considered a WQS subject to EPA review
and approval under § 303(c) of the CWA. EPA is therefore taking no action to approve or
disapprove footnote H.
2. Footnote J
a) Description of Footnote
As shown in Table 19 below, Oregon added footnote J to the existing and unrevised human
health criteria for hexachlorocyclo-hexane-technical, methoxychlor, nitrates, nitrosamines, and
nitrosodiethylamine, N. Footnote J states: "No BCF was available; therefore, this value is based
on that published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book."
Table 19. Addition of Footnote J as submitted by Oregon on July 8, 2004.
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criteria (jjg/L)
"Organism Only" Criteria (jjg/L)
Hexachlorocyclo-hexane-
Technical
0.0123 J
0.0414 J
Methoxychlor
100 J
n/a
Nitrates
10000 J
n/a
Nitrosamines
0.0008 J
1.24 J
Nitrosodiethylamine,N
0.0008 J
1.24 J
b) EPA Review
Oregon added footnote J to the criteria shown in Table 19 above in order to clarify the source of
information upon which these criteria are based. These criteria were not deriving using EPA's
2000 Methodology, but instead were based upon EPA's national CWA § 304(a) human health
criteria recommendations provided in EPA's 1986 "Gold Book."
The provision is not a water quality criterion because it does not establish a legally binding
requirement under state law, and it does not describe a desired ambient condition of a waterbody
to support a particular designated use. Instead, it clarifies the source of information upon which
the criteria are based. Therefore, this provision is not considered a WQS subject to EPA review
and approval under § 303(c) of the CWA. EPA is therefore taking no action to approve or
disapprove footnote J.
3. Footnote L
a) Description of Footnote
As shown in Table 20 below, Oregon added footnote L to the new human health criterion for
methylmercury (criterion discussed in Part III. A.2. above). Footnote L states: "This value is
expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury."
41
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Table 20. Addition of Footnote T, as submitted bv Oreson on Ju
v 8. 2004
Chemical Name
"Water + Organism" Criterion
"Organism Only" Criterion (|jg/kg)
Methylmercury
n/a
300 L
b) EPA Review
Footnote L provides clarification that the human health criterion for methylmercury is expressed
as a fish tissue concentration rather than as a water column concentration. The provision is not a
water quality criterion because it does not establish a legally binding requirement under state
law, and it does not describe a desired ambient condition of a waterbody to support a particular
designated use. Instead, it restates a fact that is already included in the approved criterion.
Therefore, this provision is not considered a WQS subject to EPA review and approval under §
303(c) of the CWA. EPA is therefore taking no action to approve or disapprove footnote L.
4. Footnote for Asbestos
a) Description of Footnote
In the November 28, 2005 errata letter to EPA, ODEQ noted the addition of a footnote for
asbestos states: "This asbestos criterion is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) developed
under the Safe Drinking Water Act."
b) EPA Review
This footnote was added to clarify the source of information upon which these criteria are based.
This criterion was not derived using EPA's 2000 Methodology, but instead was based upon a
criterion developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The provision is not a water quality criterion because it does not establish a legally binding
requirement under state law, and it does not describe a desired ambient condition of a waterbody
to support a particular designated use. Instead, it clarifies the source of information upon which
the criteria are based. Therefore, this provision is not considered a WQS subject to EPA review
and approval under § 303(c) of the CWA. EPA is therefore taking no action to approve or
disapprove the footnote.
C. EPA Pollutant Identification Numbers and Chemical Abstract
Service Numbers
Oregon's July 8, 2004, WQS submittal included the addition of EPA's pollutant identification
numbers and chemical abstract service (CAS) numbers associated with each of the chemical
names included in Table 33A. On November 28, 2005 ODEQ submitted a letter outlining four
errata changes from their July 8, 2004 submission. Two of these provided CAS numbers for 4-
42
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
bromophenyl phenylether and chromium III. These EPA pollutant identification and CAS
numbers serve as identifiers for the chemical names of the toxic pollutants.
The provision is not a water quality criterion because it does not establish a legally binding
requirement under state law, and it does not describe a desired ambient condition of a waterbody
to support a particular designated use. Instead, it only serves informational and identification
purposes. Therefore, this provision is not considered a WQS subject to EPA review and
approval under § 303(c) of the CWA. EPA is therefore taking no action to approve or
disapprove the EPA pollutant identification or CAS numbers.
43
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Appendix A
Review of Oregon's Use of a Fish Consumption Rate of
17.5 Grams Per Day
I-A. INTRODUCTION
EPA's 2000 Methodology recognizes the variability of fish consumption rates among population
groups and by geographic region. In employing the Methodology to derive criteria, the Agency
urges States and Tribes to use a fish intake level derived from local or regional data in place of
the national default recommendation to ensure the fish intake level chosen is protective of highly
exposed individuals in the population and to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to all
identifiable subpopulations. A four preference hierarchy concerning the use of fish consumption
rate data is set forth: (1) use of local data; (2) use of data reflecting similar geography/
population groups; (3) use of data from national surveys; and (4) use of EPA's default intake rate.
In using local data, EPA recommends that arithmetic mean values should be the lowest value
considered by states when choosing fish consumption rates for use in criteria derivation.54
II-A. BACKGROUND
A. Oregon's Evaluation Process Prior to the July 8,2004 Submittal
As part Oregon's decision process associated with adopting the 2004 human health criteria
revisions, Oregon evaluated the appropriateness of using EPA's national default fish
consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), formed to
provide guidance to the State on technical issues related to criteria revisions, focused part of its
time on "deriving a fish consumption rate appropriate for the protection of Oregon's population."
The TAC discussion centered on the availability of technically defensible values for Oregon's
general population and for subpopulations within Oregon that are known to be high fish
consumers. The TAC agreed that there were no quantitative studies that addressed the general
Oregon population; however they found that the 1994 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission (CRITFC) Fish Consumption Study55 did contain good information on fish
consumption in a subpopulation with a high fish consumption rate. The TAC initially concluded
that 17.5, 64.5, 142.4 and 389.0 grams per day were technically defensible fish consumption
54
EPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-B-00-004. Pages 1-9 to 1-13, 4-24
to 4-25.
55 CRITFC. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs of the
Columbia River Basin. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon. Technical Report 94-3.
Available at: http://www.critfc.org/tech/94-3report.pdf.
44
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
rates. Upon further consideration, the TAC proposed that fish consumption rates of 17.5, 142.4
and 389.0 be assigned to waters of low, medium and high intensity fish consumption and
proposed an intensity level for each waterbody in the state.56
When the TAC recommendations were reviewed by Oregon's Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC) there was no consensus on use of a single or multiple fish consumption rate(s), the
specific fish consumption rate value or the percent of the population that should be targeted
when setting the fish consumption rate. ODEQ decided to propose criteria derived using a single
fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/day for public comment.57
Following review of public comments, ODEQ presented their governing Commission (OEQC) a
recommendation that they adopt new and revised human health criteria derived using EPA's
2000 Methodology and a single fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/day. Prior to voting to adopt the
2004 criteria revisions, the OEQC discussed whether a rate of 17.5 grams per day was
appropriate for protecting the Oregon public. The Commissioners encouraged ODEQ to seek
resources for a more accurate evaluation of fish consumption rates in Oregon.58 In the July 8,
2004 submittal letter to EPA, ODEQ acknowledged that the fish consumption rate used in
deriving their criteria was a source of concern to stakeholders and stated that they would
"continue to work with the tribes and other stakeholders to address these concerns."59
B. Oregon's Subsequent Review of Fish Consumption Rates to the
July 8,2004 Submittal
In 2006, Oregon initiated an extensive review to determine if a fish consumption rate of the 17.5
grams per day was appropriate for use in deriving human health criteria intended to protect the
people of Oregon. EPA and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
(Umatilla Tribe) partnered with ODEQ in this review. During this review, Oregon retained their
2004 revisions under state law and did not retract their July 8, 2004 submittal.
As part of this review process, ODEQ formed a Human Health Focus Group (HHFG) comprised
of regional experts with experience in the areas of toxicology, risk assessment, public health,
biostatistics, and epidemiology. They were tasked with reviewing the available local, regional
and national information on fish consumption and making recommendations as to the evidence
that should be relied on when selecting a fish consumption rate to use in deriving water quality
criteria. The group was also asked to consider how salmon should be considered and to provide
56 ODEQ. 2003. Toxic Compounds Criteria: 1999-2003 Water Quality Standards Review Issue Paper. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon. Pages H-35 to H-36. Available at:
http://www.dea.state.or.us/about/eac/agendas/attachments/mav2004/5.20.04.ItemB. AttchH.pdf.
57 Ibid. Pages H-57 to H-59.
58
May 20-21, 2004. Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Meeting Minutes. Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. Available at: http://www.oregondea .com/about/eac/minutes/2004/5.20-
21.04.EQCMinutes.htm.
59
ODEQ. 2004. Letter dated July 8, 2004, with two attachments, from Stephanie Hallock, Administrator, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon, to John Iani, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
45
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
an assessment of the extent of risks experienced by consumers who consume higher amounts of
fish. The findings and recommendations of the group are provided in report entitled Human
Health Focus Group Report: Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project (hereinafter
referred to as the "Human Health Focus Group (or HHFG) Report").60
EPA has considered the HHFG Report, the finding and recommendation made by ODEQ as a
result of this review, and subsequent policy direction from the OEQC in the following review.
C. Review of Fish Consumption Rate Data
Regional, national and international studies (Table 1 of HHFG report) indicate that there are a
wide range of populations with diverse cultures, traditions, and practices that result in a very
broad range of fish consumption patterns. The HHFG found that this variability can be expected
in any population of statewide scale and in some cases, similar variability can be seen in much
smaller populations.61
The HHFG identified eight regional surveys and one national fish consumption survey relevant
for developing fish consumption rate(s) for Oregon water quality criteria. These surveys were
reviewed in greater detail by the HHFG and discussed in the HHFG Report. The four northwest
studies that were found to provide quantitative data of relevance to, and utility for, selecting a
fish consumption rate for Oregon are summarized in Table A-5 below.
A survey of Columbia Basin Tribes, A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce,
Yakama, and Warm Springs of the Columbia River Basin62 was found to be the most relevant to
Oregon fish consumers because it made a direct measure of an Oregon population. The survey
was funded by EPA and conducted by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
(CRITFC). Interviewed as part of the survey were 513 members of four tribes - two that are
located in Oregon (the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (Umatilla Tribe)
and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation (Warm Springs Tribe)), he
Nez Perce Tribe located in Idaho and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian
Nation located in Washington.
Fish consumption rates from this survey representing the mean, 90th percentile, 95th percentile,
and 99th percentile were 63, 113, 176, and 389 grams per day, respectively. The survey found
that 97 percent of the people interviewed ate fish while 92 percent of those interviewed
consumed salmon. All of the fish consumed either spend their entire life or part of their life in
Oregon waters and 88 percent of the fish consumed originated from the Columbia River Basin.
60 ODEQ. June 2008. Human Health Focus Group: Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Portland, Oregon. Available at:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/HHFGFinalReportJune2008.pdf.
61 Ibid. Page 6.
62 CRITFC. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs of the
Columbia River Basin. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon. Technical Report 94-3.
Available at: http://www.critfc.org/tech/94-3report.pdf.
46
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Other findings of note from the HHFG review were:
• Surveys of Asian and Pacific Islanders and Eastern European communities in
Washington and Oregon also indicate fish consumption at levels similar to the Oregon
Tribes.63
• A local survey provided qualitative information of subsistence fishers in the Portland
metropolitan area,64
• Rates from the Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes are specifically relevant to Oregon fish-
consuming populations, especially the coastal communities. There are places in Oregon
such as the Coos, Tillamook and Nehalem Bays that provide habitat similar to the fishing
grounds of these tribes. Since the rates reported in that study are comparable to the
CRITFC study, it demonstrates a simple relationship between tribal fish-consuming
populations in the Pacific Northwest; people eat what's available to them, what's
culturally preferred and at high consumption rates.65
• The CSFII survey is an extraordinarily large survey with individuals chosen to
statistically represent the overall US population. This data set provides a valuable
context for Pacific Northwest surveys.66
• Fish consumers generally eat a variety of species that are most readily available
geographically and seasonally. The ranges of consumption rates among fish consumers
tend to be comparable regardless of the species that are available at a given location.67
• Two surveys in press in 2008 assessed fish consumption of woman in Japanese and
Korean populations in Western Washington and reported fish consumption rates within
the range of rates in the other surveys reviewed by the HHFG. These studies provide
additional support for Pacific Northwest fish consumption values of relevance for Oregon
populations.68
D. Consumers vs. Non-consumers
The HHFG noted that, in order to protect the fishing use, human health criteria should be
established at a level to protect the portion of the population who consume fish from state waters.
Thus, they reviewed data relative to consumers (those who eat fish) and to both consumers and
non-consumers (those who don't eat fish). The proportion of non-consumers included in the
survey varied depending on the population being interviewed. For example, 97 percent of those
surveyed in the CRITFC survey were consumers while only 28 percent of those interviewed in
the national CSFII survey ate fish.
Oregon's fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day was determined on a per-capita basis for
63 ODEQ. June 2008. Human Health Focus Group: Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Portland, Oregon. Page 8. Available at:
http://www.dea.state.or.us/wa/standards/docs/toxics/HHFGFinalReportJune2008.pdf.
64 Ibid. Page 9.
65 Ibid. Page 10.
66 Ibid. Page 15.
67 Ibid. Pages 18-19.
68 Ibid. Page 30.
47
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
the entire US population69 including fish consumers and non-consumers, with non-consumers
recorded as having a consumption rate of 0 g/day. The HHFG recommended that, if it were
Oregon's policy choice to specifically protect individuals who consume fish, the rates most
appropriate for use in the criteria would be the consumer-only rates.70
E. Pacific Salmon in the Fish Consumption Rate
EPA's national default fish consumption rates are derived for specific fish habitats (freshwater,
estuarine, marine) and designated on a case-by-case basis.71 The choice of the fish consumption
rate to use in deriving criteria can be influenced by what types of fish and shellfish are included
in the rate. In determining the national default consumption rate, EPA used commercial landings
data provided by National Marine Fisheries Service. Since this data indicated that Pacific
salmon were commercially harvested from marine environments, EPA classified Pacific salmon
as marine and excluded from the national default consumption rate. However, in EPA's 2000
Human Health Methodology, EPA encouraged states and tribes to make alternative assumptions
regarding the inclusion of specific species in the state's fish consumption rate to specifically
account for the dietary preferences of the specific population of concern.72 Oregon requested
that the HHFG review the appropriateness of classifying Pacific salmon as a marine species and
not including the consumption of Pacific salmon in the rate used by Oregon.
Pacific salmon were consumed by 92% of those interviewed during the CRITFC survey.73
Pacific salmon and other migratory species present a rather complicated life history for
establishing habitat preferences. Pacific salmon reside and pass through waters of the state.
They are spawned, incubated and reared in waters of the state, and, after spending time in the
ocean, return to Oregon's freshwaters to spawn and die. Additionally, local data reviewed by the
HHFG indicate that Pacific salmon are caught in waters of the state (freshwaters and marine
waters within 3 nautical miles of shore) in addition to the deep marine water landing data that
EPA relied on to classify Pacific salmon for use in the fish consumption rate.74
69
USEPA. August 2002. Estimated per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 821-C-02-003. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/files/consumption report.pdf.
70
ODEQ. June 2008. Human Health Focus Group: Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Portland, Oregon. Pages 17-18. Available at:
http://www.dea.state.or.us/wa/standards/docs/toxics/HHFGFinalReportJune2008.pdf.
71
65 FR 66469. 2000. Federal Register Notice: Revisions to the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000). Pp. 65 FR 66444-66482.
72
USEPA. August 2002. Estimated per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 821-C-02-003. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/files/consumption report.pdf.
73
CRITFC. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs of the
Columbia River Basin. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon. Technical Report 94-3.
Page 33. Available at: http://www.critfc.org/tech/94-3report.pdf.
74
ODEQ. June 2008. Human Health Focus Group: Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Portland, Oregon. Pages 20. Available at:
http://www.dea.state.or.us/wa/standards/docs/toxics/HHFGFinalReportJune2008.pdf.
48
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Since Pacific salmon are a known part of the diet for fish-consuming populations in Oregon, the
HHFG recommended that Oregon's criteria should account for the potential risk incurred from
consuming Pacific salmon. Furthermore, they found that including Pacific salmon in the fish
consumption rate can provide more scientific certainty that Pacific salmon consumption is
accurately accounted for than trying to address it through an estimated Relative Source
Contribution value.75
F. Geographic Extent of Tribal Fishing in Oregon
In 1855, the United States negotiated separate treaties with the four Columbia River Tribes
included in the CRITFC survey, including the Umatilla and Warm Springs Tribes. These treaties
contained a provision reserving each Tribe's right to take "fish at all usual and accustomed
places in common with citizens of the United States." The Columbia River Tribes each reserved
the right to take fish: (1) within their respective reservations, (2) at all usual and accustomed
fishing sites on lands ceded to the United States government, and (3) at all usual and accustomed
fishing sites outside the reservation or ceded areas.76
In addition, the United States has entered into treaties or signed executive orders pertaining to the
rights of six other tribes located within the boundaries of the state of Oregon. While the form
and substance of these other agreements vary, many reserve the right of the tribes and their
members to gather fish and/or shellfish. Some of these agreements also reserve the right for
tribal members to gather fish and shellfish is waters outside reservation boundaries. The
locations of the lands reserved for the Oregon tribes are displayed in Figure A-l below.
As shown in Figure A-2 below, the ceded lands of the Umatilla and Warm Springs Tribes cover
a large portion of northern Oregon. Usual and accustomed sites occur not only within the
boundaries of the Umatilla and Warm Springs Tribes' reservations and the ceded lands, but also
extend beyond the boundaries of the ceded lands. As such, Figure A-3 below delineates the
watershed boundaries (using four-digit hydrologic unit codes) associated with these ceded lands,
where additional usual and accustomed fishing sites may exist. Usual and accustomed fishing
sites have also been identified within the Willamette River basin and in Oregon's coastal waters.
CRITFC survey participants identified the Columbia River Basin sites shown in Figure A-4
below as locations where they fish. While these sites are scattered throughout much of northern
Oregon, the CRITFC survey notes that this map only identifies major fishing sites and does not
include all of the usual and accustomed fishing areas utilized by Columbia River Tribes in
Oregon. Furthermore, it does not include any of the fishing sites reserved for other tribes under
Treaty or federal Executive Order.
Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude that members of CRITFC tribes likely obtain fish
Ibid. Pages 25-26.
76 CRITFC. 1995. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit: The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the
Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes, Volume I. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission,
Portland, Oregon. Available at: http://www.critfc.org/oldsite/text/contents.htm.
49
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
from sites within the geographical areas represented in Figures A-2, A-3 and A-4. In addition, it
is likely that members of other tribes gather fish and shellfish from waters on and near their
reservations, including at sites along Oregon's coast.
G. Location of Other High Fish-Consuming Populations in Oregon
The Human Health Focus Group identified three high-quality fish consumption surveys
conducted in Washington State with relevance to Oregon. They found that the populations
surveyed in these studies reflect similar geography and population groups as occur in Oregon. In
considering these three surveys and the CRITFC survey, the HHFG found that other Oregon
subpopulations are also likely to consume fish at rates at greater than 17.5 grams per day. These
include members of other Oregon Tribes and the Asian and Pacific Islander communities.
Population data from the U.S. Census Bureau77 demonstrate that over twenty percent of
Oregon's American Indian/Alaska Native populations live in Oregon's seven coastal counties:
Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, Lane, Douglas, Coos, and Curry (refer to Figure A-6 below).
These western counties are home to: the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians; the Confederated
Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians; and the Confederated Tribes of the Grande
Ronde. The HHFG found that the similarities between these Oregon coastal Tribes and the
Tulalip, Suquamish, and Squaxin Tribes indicate that these subpopulations in Oregon are likely
to consume fish at similar rates.
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau,26 Asians and Pacific Islanders reside throughout
the State of Oregon. Approximately 73 percent are located within three counties in the Portland
metropolitan area: Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas (refer to Figure A-6 below). The
Asian/Pacific Islander survey conducted in King County, Washington, addressed a similar
urbanized population in the Pacific Northwest. The HHFG found that the Asian and Pacific
Islander subpopulations in Oregon are likely to consume fish at similar rates to those
documented in King County.
III-A. SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF OREGON'S FISH CONSUMPTION
RATE
The following summarizes the findings from ODEQ's and EPA's review:
• High-quality scientific information on fish consumption rates for an identifiable
subpopulation in Oregon (members of the Columbia River Tribes) is available and shows
consumption rates higher than 17.5 grams per day.
• A group of regional experts with experience in the areas of toxicology, risk assessment,
public health, biostatistics and/or epidemiology have recommended that a fish
77 U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Redisricting Data. Public Law 94-171. Summary File, Matrices PL1 and
PL2. Available at:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable? bm=n& lang=en&mt name=DEC 2000 PL U GCTPL ST2&for
mat=ST-2& box head nbr=GCT-PL&ds name=DEC 2000 PL U&geo id=04000US41.
50
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day is not appropriate for deriving criteria that are
protective of Oregonians that eat fish.
• Regional studies indicate that patterns of high fish consumption are also likely to occur in
other identifiable subpopulations in Oregon. These subpopulations reside in, and likely
fish in, counties located along the Oregon coast and in the Portland metropolitan area.
• Pacific salmon are known to be present in the diet of those who consume fish in Oregon.
Pacific salmon are not included in the data used to calculate the national default
consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day.
• Much of the fish consumed by the Columbia River Tribes is harvested in Oregon and
nearly all the fish reside in Oregon waters for either all or part of their lives.
• The Columbia River Tribes retain rights to fish, and do fish, in waters throughout much
of northern Oregon. Other Oregon Tribes have reserved fishing rights in other waters
throughout the State.
IV-A. ODEQ'S OCTOBER 23, 2008 RECOMMENDATION AND EQC
POLICY DECISION ON AN APPROPRIATE FISH CONSUMPTION
RATE TO DERIVE HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR OREGON
The above findings provided the basis for the State of Oregon to conclude that a fish
consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day was not protective of Oregon's higher fish consuming
populations. EPA agrees that this is a reasonable conclusion.
In response to this review, ODEQ recommended to their governing Commission that Oregon's
human health water quality standards for toxic pollutants be revised to reflect a fish consumption
rate of 175 grams per day. In support of their recommendation ODEQ stated that the
"recommendation represents a policy decision to protect people in Oregon who traditionally
consume large amounts of fish as well those who eat fish for health, economic or other reason,
and to set a goal of attaining water quality sufficient to support frequent consumption of fish
without undue risk of health effects. Criteria based on a fish consumption rate of 175 g/d would
be expected to protect at least 90 to 95 percent of fish consumers in Oregon. The recommended
rate includes salmon and lamprey but not marine species or shellfish based on data as analyzed
by the CRITFC study. The rate also includes marine species based on the data analyzed by the
Puget Sound studies, but at a lower percentile of the population (90 rather than 95%). Salmon are
included because they are the primary species eaten by Oregonians and represent a potential path
of exposure to toxicants."78
Following consideration of ODEQ's recommendation and the testimony from ten stakeholders,
the Commission directed ODEQ to pursue rule revisions that will establish new water quality
standards for toxic pollutants based upon a revised fish consumption rate.79
78
ODEQ. 2008. Memorandum from Dick Pedersen, Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to the
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission. October 6, 2008. Agenda Item G. Available at:
http://www.dea.state.or.us/about/eac/agendas/attachments/2008oct/ItemG.pdf
79
October 23, 2008. Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Meeting Minutes. Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. Available at: http://www.dea.state.or.us/about/eac/minutes/2008/2008octEQCMinutes.htm.
51
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
V-A. FIGURES
A-l. Map of Tribes in Oregon
A-2. Map of Ceded Lands of the CRITFC Tribes
A-3. Map of Watershed Boundaries Associated with Ceded Lands of the CRITFC
Tribes
A-4. Map of Fishing Sites Identified as part of the CRITFC Survey
A-5. Table of a Summary of Local and Regional Fish Consumption Surveys and Fish
Consumption Rate Data Available to Oregon
A-6. Map of counties in Oregon
52
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June I, 2010
Figure A-l: Map of Tribes in Oregon
53
-------
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Figure A-2: Map of Ceded Lands of the CRITFC Tribes
55
-------
Legend
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Figure A-3: Map of Watershed Boundaries Associated with Ceded Lands of
the CRITFC Tribes
57
-------
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Figure A-4: Map of Fishing Sites in the Columbia River Basin Identified as Part of the CRITFC Survey
(Source: A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs, previously referenced).
59
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Table A-5: Summary of Local and Regional Fish Consumption Surveys and Fish Consumption Rate Data
Available to Oregon
Survey Name
A Fish Consumption Survey
of the Umatilla, Ne/. Perce,
Yakima, and Warm Springs
Tribes of the Columbia River
Basin (1994)
A Fish Consumption
Survey of the Tulalip and
Squaxin Island Tribes of
the Puget Sound Region
(1996)
Fish Consumption Survey
of the Suquamish Indian
Tribe of the Port Madison
Indian Reservation, Puget
Sound Region (2000)
Asian & Pacific Islander
Seafood Consumption Study in
King County, Washington
(1999)
Brief Description
of the Survey
Randomly selected members
of the Nez Perce, Warm
Springs, Yakama, and Umatilla
Tribes were interviewed
regarding their fish
consumption practices,
including species of fish
consumed, frequency of
consumption, preparation
methods, and origin of fish
consumed. Results weighted
by the population of each
Tribe were used to develop
fish consumption rates and
source fraction values used for
risk assessment
Randomly selected
members of the Tulalip
and Squaxin Island Tribes
were interviewed
regarding their fish
consumption practices,
including species
consumed, frequency of
consumption, preparation
methods, and origin of fish
consumed. Results were
used to develop fish
consumption rates and
source fraction values
used for risk assessment
Randomly selected
members of the Suquamish
Tribe were interviewed
regarding their fish
consumption practices,
including species consumed,
frequency of consumption,
preparation methods, and
origin of fish consumed.
Results were used to
develop fish consumption
rates and source fraction
values used for risk
assessment.
Fish consumption was evaluated
for 10 different Asian & Pacific
Islander (API) ethnic groups.
50% of participants were
volunteers, 50% were recruited
from API organizations.
Participants were interviewed
regarding their fish consumption
practices, including species
consumed, frequency of
consumption, preparation
methods, and origin of fish
consumed. Results were used to
develop fish consumption rates
and source fraction values used
for risk assessment.
Additional
Information
Concerning
Location and
Population
Surveyed
This was a fish consumption
survey including information
on the amount of fish
harvested from the Columbia
River and its tributaries. 513
adults and 204 children were
surveyed. Children were
between 0 and 6 years of age.
No adolescents were
surveyed.
This was a fish
consumption survey
including information on
whether or not adults
harvested fish from Puget
Sound. 190 adults and 69
children were surveyed.
Children were between 0
and 6 years of age. No
adolescents were
surveyed.
This was a fish consumption
survey including
information on whether or
not adults harvested fish
from Puget Sound. 92
adults and 31 children were
surveyed. Children were
between 0 and 6 years of
age. No adolescents were
surveyed.
This was a fish consumption
survey characterizing fish
consumption by Asian Pacific
Islanders residing in King
County, including information on
the quantity of self-harvested
fish. 202 adults were surveyed.
No children or adolescents were
surveyed.
60
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA 's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Survey Name
A Fish Consumption Survey
of the Umatilla, Ne/. Perce,
Yakima, and Warm Springs
Tribes of the Columbia River
Basin (1994)
A Fish Consumption
Survey of the Tulalip and
Squaxin Island Tribes of
the Pmjet Sound Region
(1996) '
Fish Consumption Survey
of the Suquamish Indian
Tribe of the Port Madison
Indian Reservation, Puget
Sound Region (2000)
Asian & Pacific Islander
Seafood Consumption Study in
King County, Washington
(1999)
Time Period
During Which
Survey Data Were
Collected
Fall/Winter, 1991-1992
Feb-May 1994
March 1997
Spring-Summer, 1997
Survey Method
Interview/questionnaire
Interview/questionnaire
Interview/questionnaire
Interview/questionnaire
Fish Consumption
Rates Derived
from Survey80
Mean
Median
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
63
40
60
113
176
389
Tulalip
Squaxin
72
73
45
43
85
N/A82
186
193
244
247
312
N/A
214
132
N/A
489
N/A
N/A
117
78
139
236
306
N/A
Fish Species
Included in Fish
Consumption
Rates Identified
Above
Anadromous and freshwater
finfish
Anadromous and estuarine
finfish and shellfish
Anadromous and estuarine
finfish and shellfish
Anadromous and estuarine
finfish and shellfish
Fish consumption rates provided for adults population. Adults are 18 years or older for all surveys except Suquamish; Suquamish adults were 16 years or older. Note
that the Human Health Focus Group reported cited above states that "the adult levels should generally be protective of children."
81 The 75, 90, 95 and, 99th percentiles are interpolated from percentiles reported in the CRITFC study.
82
"N/A" means "Statistical value not available."
61
-------
Technical Support Document for EPA's Action on Oregon's New and Revised Human Health Criteria
June 1, 2010
Figure A-6: Map of Counties in Oregon
(Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 previously referenced).
62
------- |