1EO sr 4 

# e Aik UNITED 

## STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

# AGENCY Region 1 z 5 

### Post Office 

## Square Suite 

## 100 7t pFlc 

## Boston 

# MA 021093912

May 16 2013
Patricia

# W Aho Commissioner Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 17 State 

### House Station 

### Augusta 

# ME 043330017 

# Re Review and Action on Water Quality Standards Revisions 

### Dear Commissioner

## Aho By letter 

### ofJanuary 

## 14 2013 the 

### Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

# DEP submitted revisions 

### ofthe States surface water quality standards to 

### Region 1 

### of the 

### United States 

### Environmental Protection 

### Agency

# EPA or

# Region for

### review The revisions 

### were adopted 

### by the 

## DEP on July 

## 13 2012 By letter to 

## EPA dated January 

# 9 2013 Maines Assistant Attorney General in the Natural 

### Resources Division certified the revisions as 

### having been duly adopted pursuant to state 

## law The Region has 

### completed its 

### review ofthe submitted revisions to the arsenic criteria as further described 

## below Pursuant to Section 

# 303c2 ofthe 

### Clean Water Act and 40

# CFR Part 

## 131 I 

### hereby approve the following water quality standards revisions to 

### 38 

# MRSA §420 sub

## §2 as set forth in

# PL 2011 

# Ch 194

# LD 515

# An Act

## To Review State 

### Water Quality 

### Standards and

# CMR 584 Surface 

### Water Quality Criteriafor

### Toxic Pollutants 

## I Revision 

### ofthe cancer risk level 

### used to calculate the 

## human health criteria for arsenic 

### from one in 

## 1000000 to 

### one in 

## 10000 and 

# 2 Revision 

### ofthe arsenic criteria to protect 

## human health 

### from 

## 0012 to 

## 13 iteL for the 

### consumption ofwater 

### and organisms and from 

## 0028 to 

## 37 

## pgL for the 

### consumption oforganisms only 

# We are still reviewing revisions to the acrolein 

### and phenol criteria 

### and are not taking action 

### on those revisions at this 

### time 

## EPA acknowledges yourrequest to 

### approve the revisions for all 

### waters including waters that are within Indian territories 

## Todays approval 

### does not extend to waters that are within Indian territories 

## EPA intends to publish a notice explicitly seeking public input 

### on the applicability 

### ofthe revised arsenic criterion in question to waters within Indian territories before completing its 

### review Therefore 

## EPA is taking 

### no action to 

### approve or disapprove the States revisions with respect to those waters at this 

### time In the 

## meantime 

## EPA will retain responsibility 

### under Sections 

## 303c and 

# 303d ofthe 

### Clean Water Act forthose 

### watersDiscussion
In 

### implementing 

## LD 515 

## DEP reviewed the available scientific literature 

### on the factors that are 

### used to derive water quality criteria to protect 

## human health uses including fishing recreation in 

### and on the 

### water 

## and where applicable drinking 

### water 

## DEP also 

### reviewed data specific to waters in 

### Maine and used the information to derive arsenic criteria for

## Maines waters Arsenic is a

## known carcinogen that 

## may cause cancer in skin or internal organs

### such as the liver lungs 

### and bladder1 In its 

## 304a criteria 

### recommendations 

## EPA states that arsenic criteria should 

### be applied as inorganic arsenic2 

## As is the case for all pollutants 

## EPAs 2000 

## Human Health 

### Methodology encourages states to use local 

### and regional data 

## when making risk 

### management decisions inherent in developing criteria including decisions inherent in selecting the appropriate fish 

### consumption rate target risk level 

### and bioaccumulation factor3 

## Maines revised 

### numeric criteria for arsenic

### were derived using the 

### same general 

### methodology and equations 

### used to calculate 

## EPAs current 

## 304a recommended criteria for 

### carcinogens The revised criteria 

### and the inputvariables 

### used to calculate the criteria
are 

### summarized in Table 1 

## below The paragraphs that follow explain those 

### components ofthe calculation that 

### have been revised to 

### form the basis of

## Maines new arsenic criteria 

### Cancer Risk Factor

# RV The State 

### ofMaine enacted 

## LD 515 in 

### 2011 directing 

## DEP to revise 

## Maines human health water quality criteria forarsenic based 

### on a cancer risk factor 

### of 1 in 

## 10000 rather than the previous 

## RF

# of in 

## 1000000 

# EPAs recommended methodology for the derivation 

### ofwater quality criteria states that 1 in 

## 1000000 or 1 in 

## 100000 maybe acceptable cancer risk factors forthe general population 

### and that highly 

### exposed populations should not 

### exceed a 1 in 

## 10000 risk leve14 Fish

### Consumption Rate

# FCR Maines previous 

## 324 gday 

## FCRrepresents the 94th percentile for Native 

### American anglers in 

### Maine and the 95th percentile forthe total angler population in 

## Maine based on data 

### from a 

### 1990 survey 

### oflicensed 

### Maine anglers5 In deriving the 

## new arsenic criteria 

## DEP used 138 

## gday which is the 99th percentile 

### of this 

### survey to ensure thatthe criteria are protective 

### ofsubsistence fishers a highly 

### exposed population This 

### approach is consistent with 

## EPArecommendations for



### Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry

# ATSDR Toxicological Profile forArsenic Atlanta Georgia August 

### 2007 Available at httpwwwatsdrcdcgovsubstancestoxsubstanceasptoxid=3
2

## EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria human health criteria for arsenic published 1992 available at httpwaterepagovscitechswguidancestandardscriteriacurrentindexcfm
3 84 

## EPA 2000 Methodologyfor Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection of

### Human Health 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington

# DC EPA822B00004 page

## 26 Available at httpwwwepaeovwaterscienceeriteriahumanhealthlmethodcompletepdf
4 

## EPA 2000 MethodologyforDeriving Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection of

### Human Health 

# US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office ofWater Washington 

# DC EPA

## 822B00004 page

## 26 Available at httpwwwepagovwaterscienceicriteriatumanhealthimethodcompletepdf
5 Ebert

# ESRE Keenan 

# JW Knight and

# NW Harrington Consumption ofFreshwater Fish by Maine Anglers proceedings ofthe 1992 TAPPI Environmental Conference

2

### Table 1 

## Comparison of

## Maines Previous 

## and Revised Arsenic Criteria 

### Parameter 2005 criteria 

### 2012 criteria 

### Cancer Risk Factor

# RE 1 x 

### 106 lx 

### 104 

## BodyWeight

# BW 70 kg 70 kg Cancer Potency Factor

# q1 175 

## mgkgday 175 

## mgkgday Water Consumption

# DW 2 

## Lday 2 

## Lday Bioconcentration Factor

# BCF 44

## Lkg 26 

## Lkg Fish 

### Consumption Rate 

# FCR 324 gday 138 

## gday Inorganic Factor

# IF none6 

# 30

Criteria to protect 

## human health for

### consuming fish

### and drinking water 

### water 

## + organism 

## =1000 x 

## RF x

# BW ql x

# DW +

# BCF x

## FCR x

# IF 0012 

## ugL 13 

## tie

Criteria to protect 

## human health for

### consuming fish only 

## =1000x RFx

# BW 1 x

## BCFx 

## FCRx IF 

## 0028ggL 37 pgL

estimating fish 

### consumption rates forsubsistence fishers 

### and is appropriate to ensure that highly 

### exposed subpopulations are not 

### exposed to a risk level greater than 1 in 

## 10000 Inorganic Factor

# IF Arsenic is present in the 

### environment and in fish tissue in 

### both organic 

### and inorganic 

### forms Inorganic arsenic is the 

### form that is 

### most toxic to 

## humans and used to develop toxicity data forcancer 

### and other 

### end points 

### The IF is the ratio 

### of inorganic arsenic to total arsenic in fish tissue 

## DEP conducted its 

## own literature search 

### which found a range 

### ofobserved IF values 

### from 10 to

# 30 According to 

## DEPs review the lower

### end ofthis range is 

### based on average results 

### whereas 

## maximum amounts are 

### observed to 

### approach or 

### exceed the upper 

### end ofthe range

### depending on species 

### and other factors 

## DEP chose the 

### more protective 

### end ofthis 

### range7 Bioconcentration Factor

# BCF Bioconcentration refers to the uptake 

### and retention ofa chemical 

### byan aquatic 

### organism from water 

## The 

## BCF is the ratio 

### ofthe concentration of a substance in the tissue 

### ofan aquatic 

### organism to its concentration in the 

### ambient water in situations 

### where the 

### organism is 

### exposed through the water only 

### and the ratio 

### does not

6 The 2005 criteria did not include adjustment to the criteria based on an assumption ofa ratio ofinorganic to total arsenic Therefore IFwas not included in the 2005 calculation Instead 

### DEP assumed a ratio of 

# 50 inorganic arsenic to total arsenic in developing water quality based effluent limits for dischargers subject to licensing under Maines National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

### EPA understands that with the adoption ofthe new arsenic criteria 

## DEP will no longermake those adjustments 

### See 1272011 email from Robert 

# D Stratton 

## DEP to Ellen Weitzler and Stephen Silva 

## EPA

### change substantially over 

### time Maine has 

### updated the 

## BCF used forthe arsenic criteria based 

### on a

### 2011 

## BCF derivation forarsenic 

### conducted by

## EPA in support 

### ofan arsenic criteria revision in 

### Oregona The 2011 derivation used a larger set 

### ofstudies than 

### were available in 

### 1980 

## when the 

## 44kgL 

## BCF used in the 

### 2005 Maine arsenic criteria 

### was developed 

## EPA approves 

### ofthe

# WQS revision to the arsenic criteria 

### on the basis 

### ofthe demonstrated use 

### ofavailable 

### sound science including state specific 

### data to derive the 

## new criteria 

# We look forward to continued cooperation 

### with Maine in the 

### development review and approval 

### ofwater quality standards pursuant to our responsibilities under the 

### Clean Water 

## Act Please contact Ellen Weitzler 

## 6179181582 if 

### you have any questions Sincerely



### Kenneth Moraff Acting Director Office 

### ofEcosystem Protection


## cc Brian 

## Kavanah 

# MEDEP Tracy 

## Bone 

## EPA SSB Jennie 

### Bridge 

## EPA

8

## EPA Region ICI Technical Support Document for Action on the State ofOregons 

### New and Revised 

### Human Health Water Quality Criteriafor Toxics and Associated Implementation Provisions SubmittedJuly 12 and 

### 21 2011 October 

### 17 2011



### 4