### STATE OF 

## MAINE 

## DEPARTMENT OF 

## ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PAUL 

### R LEPAGE PATRICIA

# W AHO
GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER



### AUGUSTA 17 STATE 

### HOUSE STATION 

### BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 

### AUGUSTA MAINE 04333 0017 106 

### HOGAN 

## ROAD SUITE 6 312 

### CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL 

### DRIVE SKYWAY PARK 207 2877688 

### FAX 207 2877826 

## BANGOR MAINE 04401 

### PORTLAND MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE MAINE 04769 2094 RAY 

## BLDG HOSPITAL 

### ST 207 941 4570 

### FAX 207 941 4584 207 8226300 

### FAX 207 8226303 207 7640477 

### FAX 207 760 3143 web site 

### wwwmainegov dep 

### October 

# 6 2011 

# Ms Ellen 

### Weitzler

# P

# E Water Quality Standards Coordinator 

## USEPA Region 1 5 Post Office 

### Square Suite 

### 100 

# OEP06

# 2 Boston 

# MA 02109 3912


# RE Revisions to 

# 06096 

# CMR 584 Surface 

### Water Quality Criteria for

### Toxic Pollutants Protection of Sensitive Subpopulations



### Dear Ellen


## As you 

## know from our

### ongoing interactions 

### Maine is proposing revisions to our Surface 

### Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants 

### Chapter 584 rules This rule revision 

### was initiated pursuant to 

# P

# L 2011 

# c 194 

# LD 515 An Act to 

### Review State 

### Water Quality

### Standards attached and at the direction of the 

## Maine Legislature’s Joint Standing 

### Committee on Environment and Natural 

### Resources Consistent with 

# PL2011 

# c194 this rule revision 

### changes the cancer risk level for inorganic arsenic used in calculating 

### ambient water quality 

## human health criteria 

### and establishes revised inorganic arsenic criteria 

### accordingly Further at the 

### Department’s initiative this revision updates 

### Maine’s ambient water quality 

### and 

## human health criteria for pollutants for

### which 

## USEPA has 

### updated criteria pursuant to 

## 304

# a ofthe 

### Clean Water 

## Act since 

### Maine’s last revision in 

## 2005 using 

## Maine specific 

### parameters such as the fish 

### consumption rate 

### where applicable This letter serves to further describe the 

### proposed changes
to inorganic arsenic criteria 

### and the provisions to ensure protection of sensitive 

### subpopulations
Maine’s current inorganic arsenic 

## human health criteria consist of 0.012 

### micrograms liter 

## ug

# L
for freshwater 

### based on consumption of water 

### and organisms and 0.028 

## ugL for 

### marine water based 

### on consumption of 

### organismsonly 

## The criteria are calculated utilizing the 

## same methodology that 

## USEPA uses based on several factors including a cancer risk factor for 

### consumers and a daily fish 

### consumption rate 

## However as 

## some of 

### Maine’s standards are

## more stringent than 

## USEPA’s this has resulted in 

## many cases in criteria that are 

## more stringent than 

### ambient background levels 

### and permit limits that are unattainable for the regulated 

## community Hence the adoption of

# PL2011 

# c 194 and the 

### need for these rule revisions

## Ms Ellen Weitzler 

## USEPA Page 2 of4 October 

## 6 2011

1

### ChemRisk 1992 Consumption of freshwater fish by Maine anglers

# A Technical Report Portland 

# ME ChemRisk

a division of

### McLaren Hart Revised July

## 24 1994
2Ebert

# E Harrington

# NW Boyle 

## KJ Knight 

# JW Keenan 

## RE 1993 Estimating consumption of freshwater fish among Maine anglers North American Journal of Fisheries 

### Management Vol 

## 13737745
3

## USEPA 1997 Exposure Factors 

### Handbook 

## US Environmental Protection 

### Agency Office of Research and Development Washington 

# DC EPA600

# P95002Fa Historically 

### Maine has 

### used a cancer risk factor of 

### one case per 

### one million people 

### 1 x

# 106 or 

# 10

# e

# 6 in calculating 

## human health criteria 

## The current proposal revises this risk factor for inorganic arsenic to 

### one case per 

### 10,000 people 

### 1 x

# 104 or

# 10

# e

# 4 which is within 

## USEPA’s guidelines as specified 

## below The resulting revised 

### ambient water quality 

## human health criteria are 1.2 

# ugL for freshwater 

### and 2.8 

## ugL for 

### marine water 

## USEPA’s Methodology for Deriving 

### Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection of

## Human Health 

# 2000

# EPA822 

# B00004 EPA’s

# AWQC Methodology Section 2.4 indicates 

### “

## EPA believes that both 

# 10

# e

# 6 and 

# 10

# e

# 5 maybe acceptable for the general population 

### and that highly 

### exposed populations should not 

### exceed a 

# 10

# e

# 4 risk level.” 

## “EPA understands that fish 

### consumption rates vary 

### considerably especially 

## among subsistence 

### populations and it is 

### such great variation 

## among these population 

### groups that 

## may make either

# 10

# e

# 6 or

# 10

# e

# 5 protective of those 

### groups at 

### a 

# 10

# e

# 4 risk level 

### Therefore depending on the 

### consumption patterns in 

### a given State or Tribal jurisdiction 

### a 

# 10

# e6 or

# 10

# e

# 5 risk level could 

### be appropriate In cases 

### where fish 

### consumption 

## among highly 

### exposed population 

### groups is of 

### a magnitude that 

### a 

# 10

# e

# 4 risk level 

### would be exceeded a 

## more protective risk level should 

### be chosen Such determinations should 

### be 

## made bythe State 

### or Tribal authorities 

### and are subject to 

## EPA’s review 

### and approval or disapproval 

### under Section 

## 303

# c of the 

## CWA.”

“Adoption of 

### a 

# 10

# e

# 6 or

# 10

# e

# 5 risk level 

### both of 

### which States 

### and authorized Tribes 

### have chosen in adopting 

### water quality standards to 

### date represents 

### a generally acceptable risk 

### management decision 

### and 

## EPA intends to continue providing this flexibility to States 

### and Tribes 

## EPA believes that 

### such State 

### or Tribal decisions are consistent with Section 

## 303

# c if the State 

### or authorized Tribe 

### has identified the 

### most highly 

### exposed subpopulation has demonstrated that the 

### chosen risk level is adequately protective of the 

### most highly 

### exposed subpopulation and has completed all necessary public participation States 

### and authorized Tribes also 

### have flexibility in 

## how they demonstrate this protectiveness 

### and obtain 

### such information.”


## The Department provided information 

### on the origin of 

### Maine’s fish 

### consumption rate in its 

### Response to 

## Commentson its 

### 2005 revisions to 

## Maine Rule 

# 06096 

# CMR 584 “ChemRisk

Ebert et 

### al conducted a mailed survey of 2,500 

### randomly selected 

### Maine anglers for the 

## 1989 1990 fishing 

### season obtaining responses 

### from 1,612 anglers 

# 64 response 

## rate From these data estimates 

### have been obtained 

### a 95th percentile fish intake value of 

### 21 grams per

### day for all 

### anglers 26 grams per 

### day for fish 

### consuming anglers and 51 grams per

### day for

### a subset of anglers of Native 

### American heritage 

# N 148 1,2 

### These above estimates reflect 

### consumption of recreationally 

### caught fish 

### from all 

### waters The estimate of the 

### 95th percentile fish 

### consumption rate for rivers 

### and streams 

## i

# e waters likely to receive 

### a wastewater discharge 

### license 

## among fish 

### consuming anglers

## was 12 grams per

### day and the 

### corresponding estimate for Native 

### Americans 

# N43 was 22 grams per 

## day These data have been reviewed 

### by

## EPA and are listed 

### as one of the key studies providing information 

### on freshwater recreational fish 

### consumption 3

# ”

## Ms Ellen Weitzler 

## USEPA Page 3 of4 October 

## 6 2011


## Maine utilizes 

### a fish 

### consumption rate of 32.4 

## gramsday the equivalent of 

### one

# 8ounce fish 

### meal per

# week which exceeds 

## USEPA’s current 

### consumption rate of 17.5 

## gramsday that is based 

### on the 

### 90 th percentile 

### consumption rate for the 

## US adult population 

## EPA’s

# AWQC Methodology Section 

## 1.6 and its previous rate of 6.5 

## grams

## day More importantly it also 

### exceeds the 

### 22 

## gramsday95th percentile 

### consumption rate for native 

### American recreational anglers 

### consuming fish 

### from rivers 

### and streams in 

## Maine At this

## time 

## USEPA is still using the 6.5 

## gramday consumption rate for calculating arsenic criteria 

### Maine maintains that our 32.4 

## gramday fish 

### consumption rate is not only protective of the sensitive subpopulation of fish 

### consuming recreational 

### anglers but is also protective of the 

### higherend sensitive subpopulation of native 

### American recreational anglers based 

### on the only empirical data of 

### which 

## Maine is 

## aware This information represents local 

### population specific 

### data the preferred data source according to 

## EPA’s

# AWQC Methodology Sections 

### 1.6 2.6 

## 2.8.2 Further as the Ebert et 

### al



## ChemRisk study is cited 

### by 

## EPA in the 

### Exposure Factors 

## Handbook in both Section 

### 10.10.3 Recommendations

–Recreational 

### Freshwater Anglers and Section 

### 10.10.4 Recommendations

– Native 

### American Subsistence 

### Populations 

## Maine believes that the validity of the study 

### and the protective nature of its fish 

### consumption rate for sensitive subpopulations 

### 22 

## grams

## day are 

### demonstrated Maine references the river 

### and stream 

### consumption rates 

### because state statute allows for possible 

## new wastewater discharges in these 

### waters whereas they are essentially prohibited in lakes 

### and ponds 

# 06096 

# CMR 465

# A1

# C
Beyond this in the event that sensitive subpopulations 

## andor 

## Maine itself 

### wish to pursue establishing 

### even 

## more protective standards for specific 

### waters additional protection is provided in the existing rule 

# 06096 

# CMR584 Section 

# 3

# B2 through the ability for parties to request establishment of site specific 

## human health criteria “In determining if site specific criteria are 

### appropriate the 

### Board shall first evaluate 

### whether there is 

### an identifiable 

### population 

# s using 

### a water 

### body whose 

## use

# s is distinct 

### from that of the population considered 

## when establishing the statewide criteria If the 

### Board identifies 

### such a population it shall consider activities 

### or customs that 

### would constitute 

### a use of the 

### water body substantially different in type 

### or extent than that 

### upon which statewide criteria are 

## based The Board shall 

### consider 

## among other 

### things... specific 

## human activities that create 

### a potential exposure to toxics in the water 

## body,... the 

### importance of 

### organisms affected 

### by a toxic 

### substance,... the potential effect of 

### a toxic substance in the 

### discharge... on 

## human health,... and unique characteristics of the 

### water body or organismsdepending on it that effect 

### exposure of 

## humans to toxics in the water body.”


## Maine believes that the 32.4 

## gramday fish 

### consumption rate as well as the opportunity to establish site specific criteria 

### where demonstrated appropriate insures that sensitive subpopulations will not 

### be exposed to cancer risk greater than 

### 1 in 

### 10,000 

# 10

# e

# 4 and seeks 

## EPA’s concurrence 

### on this 

### issue

## Ms Ellen Weitzler 

## USEPA Page 3 of4 October 

## 6 2011

If 

### you have any questions regarding the 

### matter please feel free to call contact project 

### manager Robert Stratton at 

## 207 215 1579 or via 

### email at 

### Robert

# DStratton 

## maine

## gov Thank you for 

### your attention to this important 

### matter
Sincerely

Brian 

## Kavanah Director Division of 

### Water Quality 

## Management Bureau of 

### Land and Water Quality 

## Enc Copy of

# P

# L 2011 

# c 194 

# LD 515 An Act to 

### Review State 

### Water Quality 

### Standards 

## Copy of 

## Maine 

## DEP testimony 

### on the 

### above



## cc Patricia 

## Aho Commissioner 

## Maine 

## DEP Michael 

## Mullen Acting Director Bureau of 

## Land and Water Quality Maine 

## DEP Robert Stratton Division of 

### Water Quality 

## Management Maine 

## DEP Jan 

### McClintock Assistant Attorney 

### General 

## Andrew Smith Director 

### Environmental and Occupational Health 

### Programs 

# MECDC Diane Silverman Toxicologist 

### Environmental and Occupational 

### Health 

# MECDC