UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY REGION I J.F. KENNEDY FEDERALBUILDING,BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS02203



### February20, 1985 Henry E. Warren, Commissioner Department of Environmental Protection State House, Station 117 Augusta,ME 04333 Dear CommissionerWarren: I have reviewed the waterquality standards materials submitted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection in accordance with Section 303(c) of the CleanWaterAct. This package outlines the water quality sampling andpublic participation procedures and results thatwere 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 CleanWaterActAmendments of 1981**(P~7-1l7),** I approve the MaineWater Quality Standards. The Environmental ProtectionAgency, in its review ofyour standards package, both in the Regional Office and at Headquarters, has noted areas that should be addressed in themajor revisions planned for 1985. Modification in these areas will strengthenyourwaterquality management programs and bring yourWater Quality Standards into full conformancewith federal regulations. I have attached detailed staff comments for your consideration. I and my staff stand ready to assist you in the development ofyour waterquality standards revision to be submitted to the Maine Legislature this year. I look forward to continued cooperation with you and your staffto achieve the waterquality objectives expressed in the MaineWater 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 AttachmentComments onMaineWater Quality Standards Attached to February20, 1985, letter from Michael R. Deland to Henry E. Warren

1. The antidegradation section, 3.b., should be modified to be consistentwith EPAregulation 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 waterquality greater than specified for its class will have that water quality protected only ifthe designated uses of the next highest classification can be attained. High waterquality must bemaintained in any event. There are degrees of waterquality within a classification. Those higher levels waterquality should be protected even ifthey 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 waterquality 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 shouldhave 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 ofdisinfection will not adversely affectwaterquality and uses. 5. As discussed with you, the words ·ofhuman 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 protectionwill be documented orpredicted. Further, the connection between the toxicity policy in the Standards and the issuance ofdischarge permits should be clearly outlined. This will include information on biomonitoring, effluent toxicity testing, choice of river flow duration and recurrence-LntervaLs for acute and chronic protection, etc. 7. Consideration should be given to having a Class Ccoldwater 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 ofFish" prepared by the Maine DEPin April 1984. 8. There is an apparent inconsistency in the SB criteria and uses designated for this class, namely shellfishing. Adesignation of SB implies that shellfishing and its stringentmicrobiological requirements are protected. However, during the period between October 1 and May 14 each year, coliform criteria are waived meaning that waterquality which protects-shellfish harvesting may not bemaintained. 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 EPAand DEPhave 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. Amixing zone policy considering the factors in the EPA "Water Quality Standards F2'.ndbook" Chapter 2 should be developed.