UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION I

J. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203

February 20, 1985

Henry E. Warren, Commissioner

Department of Environmental Protection

State House, Station 117

Augusta,ME 04333

Dear Commissioner Warren:

I have reviewed the water quality standards materials submitted

by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection in accordance

with Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. This package outlines

the water quality sampling and public participation procedures and

results that were the basis for the classification review. After

extensive review, the Board of Environmental Protection decided

that no classification changes be proposed to the Maine Legislature

at this time. •

Pursuant to Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of

1981 (P~7-1l7), I approve the Maine Water Quality Standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in its review of your standards

package, both in the Regional Office and at Headquarters, has noted

areas that should be addressed in the major revisions planned for

1985.

Modification in these areas will strengthen your water quality management programs and bring your Water Quality Standards into full

conformance with federal regulations. I have attached detailed

staff comments for your consideration.

I and my staff stand ready to assist you in the development of your

water quality standards revision to be submitted to the Maine

Legislature this year. I look forward to continued cooperation

with you and your staff to achieve the water quality objectives

expressed in the Maine Water Quality Standards.

Sincerely yours,

?-.u-LI~t:,ailtts

Michael R. Deland

Regional Administrator

cc: Jennie Bridge, NEIPCC

Patrick Tobin, Dir., Criteria & Standards Div. (WH-585)

Frank Ciavattieri, WMF-21l1

Attachment
Comments on Maine Water Quality Standards

Attached to February 20, 1985, letter from

Michael R. Deland to Henry E. Warren

1. The antidegradation section, 3.b., should be modified to be

consistent with EPA regulation 40 CFR 131.12, November 8,

1983. The following areas need attention:

a. Your policy protects designated uses. In addition, any

existing uses must also be protected.

b. It is unclear as to why a water that has water quality

greater than specified for its class will have that water

quality protected only if the designated uses of the next

highest classification can be attained. High water quality

must be maintained in any event. There are degrees of

water quality within a classification. Those higher levels

water quality should be protected even if they are by some

measures insufficient to meet the next highest classification •

• c. The intergovernmental and public participation processes

should be spelled out. This is critical in order to deter-

~ine when the "economic or social purposes which provide

significant public benefits for the People of the State of

Maine" are justified by allowing lowered water quality.

d. Maine must explain how cost effective and reasonable best

management practices for nonpoint source control will be

assured where lower water quality is allowed.

2. In section 3.d., "Discharge prohibited," after the word "new,"

"or increased" should be added.

3. B-1, B-2 and other classifications that have been eliminated

should have their references deleted in the associated regulations.

4. We suggest that instead of allowing a blanket waiver to the

bacterial criteria between October 1 and May 14 each year that

permittees be required to apply for a waiver. The permittees

should explain why suspension of disinfection will not adversely

affect water quality and uses.

5. As discussed with you, the words ·of human origin" in the bacterial section should be deleted. It can be replaced with a

phrase at the end of the sentence "unless determined to be of

non-human origin by sanitary survey."
-2-

6. The toxicity statement in paragraph 3 on page 4 should be

expanded preferably in accompanying regulations, to explain

how determinations of aquatic protection will be documented

or predicted. Further, the connection between the toxicity

policy in the Standards and the issuance of discharge permits should be clearly outlined. This will include information on biomonitoring, effluent toxicity testing, choice

of river flow duration and recurrence- Ln t ervaLs for acute and

chronic protection, etc.

7. Consideration should be given to having a Class C cold water

fishery designation with a dissolved oxygen of 6.0 instead

of 5.0 mg/L. This is supported in a paper "The Dissolved

Oxygen Requirements of Fish" prepared by the Maine DEP in

April 1984.

8. There is an apparent inconsistency in the SB criteria and

uses designated for this class, namely shellfishing. A designation of SB implies that shellfishing and its stringent microbiological requirements are protected. However, during the

period between October 1 and May 14 each year, coliform criteria

are waived meaning that water quality which protects-shellfish

harvesting may not be maintained. Shellfishing, nevertheless,

continues during this period. This discrepancy should be

eliJlinated.

9. The chromium criterion in the regulations should be reconsidered. It is different from the EPA "White Book" value,

which both EPA and DEP have been using, most recently in the

Saco River and Goosefare Brook.

10. The variance language in Chapter 590 should be expanded to

include social and economic factors, intergovernmental

cooperation and public participation.

11. A mixing zone policy considering the factors in the EPA "Water

Qual i ty Standards F2'.ndbook" Chapter 2 should be developed.