\"t'llll10N4ff.t 

~" ~ STATE OF MAINE ~ ...... 

~J Department of Environmental Protection 

JOS£PH E. BRENNAN 

GOVERNOR 

April 1, 1985 

Michael R. Deland 

Regional Administrator 

MAIN OFFICE: RAY BUilOIN<.>. HOSPITAL STREET. AUGUSTA 

MAIL ADDRESS: State Hous. Slatoon 17, Augu,ta. 04333 

U.S. Environmental Prot ec tion Agency 

Region I 

J.F. Kennedy Feder~lLBuild ing 

Boston, Massach~~~~2203 

ear~:.. ~ 

HENRY E. WARREN 

COMMISSIONER 

We appreciate your thorough r eview of our proposed Water Quality Standar ds. My 

staff has. ~repar.ed' a. response which I trust w-i.ll answer your concern ~ If you 

need further clarification, I would be happy to provide it . 

Stephen W. Groves, Director 

Bureau of Water Quality Control 

SWG /JS/pmf 

Enclosures 

• Portland • 

REGIONAL OFFiqES 

• Bangor • • Presque Isle • 
l a) 

Response to Michael Deland's Comments on Maine's Proposed 

Wat er Quality Standards 

It is our op1n1on that existing uses are defacto pro~ected by our 

proposed language in as much as "water quality necessary to protect 

characteristics ..•. shall be ma intained." Since existing uses are 

dependent upon existing characteri st ics, ma intainence of water quality 

to protect charac teristics translates to ma intai nence of existing 

uses. 

b) To deny any degradation of water quality is in effect a "no discharge 

policy" which the State of Maine is not yet prepared to embrace. Our 

Sec t ion 414-A, 1-c (see enclosure) discusses the measures necess ary 

before any water quality degradat ion may occur. This anti-degradat ion 

policy simply re inforces 414- A and adds to it the necessity of showing 

"significant public benefits for the People of the State . of Maine" . 

c) Regulat ions concerning intergovernmental and public participation 

processes will be considered fol l owi ng passage of t he statute. We do 

not feel language to this effect is appropriate in t he statute itself. 

d) Assurance of cost effective and reasonable best management practices 

for non-point source control wi l l be addre ssed in our biennial 305 b 

report to E.P.A. 

2. Section 3.d has been amended omitting the work "new" preceeding 

discharges. The prohibition now appl i es to any discharge. 

3. All water ·quality regulations will be reviewed and revised where nec ess ary 

upon passage of the statutes. 

4, A bl anket waiver of bacteria crit eria is not the intent of this bi l l. The 

language simply sets a ceiling for bacteria between May . l and October 1. 

It does not impl y t hat bacteria levels may i nterfere with t he · 

characteristics of a class. In fact, 3.c., under General Provisions, 

assures that all discharges must be assimilated sufficiently to protect the 

characteristics and de signat ed uses of any classified receiving water or 

cause fish to be unsuitable for human consumption . 

5. This is probabl y more a matter of s emantics and can be addressed in 

regula tions. Ne i ther our ve rsion or your's is perfect. Both have the 

"drawback" that falsificat ion of the null hypothesis is required before a 

source may be attributed t o bacterial contaminat ion . This is actually how 

it should be if we are to base the standard on science. 

6. Maine's "Toxic Strategy" should answer these concerns. A first draft of 

which is due to be sent to you soon. 
-2-

7 . Since dissolved oxygen m1n1mums are set, there is nothing to prevent us 

from requiring higher levels in the event that an indigenous species is 

present which requi r es oxygen levels higher than the m1n1mum of the class. 

Our lowest class, Class C, requires discharges to be suff1ciently treated 

so as t o " support all indigenous species of fish. " 

8. Again as stated in our response to comment #4, bacterial limits are not 

waived. ~here necess ary to prot ect the h arvest and propagation of 

shellfish, discharges wi ll be required t o disinfect. This is supported in 

two places in our statute 1 ) General provisions 3.c., last line and again 

in SB "There shall be no discharge to Class SB wat es which would cause 

closure of open shellfish areas by the Department o f Mar ine Resources." 

The D. M.R. is responsible for management of shellfish in Maine and they 

must abide by the requirement of t he Natural Shellfish Sanitation Program. 

If total or fecal coliforms are considered a threat t o an open area, then 

we have the power to deny a discharge l icense or put sufficient conditions 

on a lic~n se so as to remove the threat of closure. 

9. All water quality criteria are being reviewed for changes when this statute 

·is passed. Chromium is among t hem. 

10. These are egua tio ,5' which will be reviewed and changed as necessary. 

11. Our Sec tion 451 addresses mixing zones . 

considers the factors in E.P.A. •·s "W'eter 

Ch apter 2. 

Decisions regarding mixing zones 

Quality St andards Randbook,"