### STATE OF MAINE 

## DEPARTMENT OF 

## ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PAUL 

## RLEPAGE PATRICIA lAfAHO GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER 

## May30 2012 ChiefBrenda 

## Commander Houlton 

## Band ofMaliseet Indians 88 Bell 

## Road Littleton 

## Maine 04730
Dear Chief

## Commander Thank you for

### your letter 

### of

## May 10 2012 regarding changes to 

## 06096 

# CMR Chapter 584 Surface 

### Water Quality Criteria for

### Toxic Pollutants 

### and for

### yourand your staffs participation in the 

### rulemaking process This rulemaking effort addressed important issuesfor

### Maine residents 

### and

## we were fortunate to 

### have the 

### involvement ofnumerous parties with varied perspectives in 

### meeting this challenge I look forward to 

### meeting with 

### you on June 

# 8 2012 if that date 

### works with yourschedule to discuss your concerns 

### and our

### ongoing working relationship In the interim I offer the following 

### thoughts 

## Asyou are 

### aware this

### rulemakingwas initiated in response to

# PL 2011 

## c194 An Act to 

### Review State 

### Water Quality 

### Standards which required the 

### Department to use a revised cancer risk factor in calculating 

## human health criteria for inorganic arsenic 

## Though the revised risk factor 

### was within 

## USEPA guidelines 

### commenters including 

## USEPA itself expressed concern that the criteria 

### must ensure that sensitive subpopulations are not 

### exposed to cancer risk level greater than 

### one in 

## 10000 and that the criteria should 

### be derived 

### from scientifically 

### sound values for the different variables that 

### comprise the calculation 

### ofthe criteria In 

### response the 

### Department reviewed 

### methodologies used forestablishing inorganic arsenic criteria in other states 

### and 

## USEPA regions determined to 

### be protective 

### ofsensitive subpopulations This involved 

### review 

## of and revisions 

### to several underlying parameters 

### used in calculating the

## human health criteria 

## The Departments intention 

### was to utilize 

### more current 

### and scientifically valid information in calculating revised criteria for inorganic arsenic 

## Asdocumented in the 

## March 

# 2 2012 Interim Basis Statement 

### and Response to 

## Comments the 

### Department reviewed the results 

### ofadditional studies 

### on bioconcentration 

## more current information 

### on the inorganic portion 

### oftotal arsenic 

### and statewide fish 

### consumption rates using a higher percentile 

### of

## Mainespecific 

### data 

## Ofthe revisions 

### undertaken the bioconcentration factor 

### and the inorganic factor 

### were both lowered 

### fromprevious practices but established at the 

### moststringent possible values given the current 

### information The fish 

### consumption rate for inorganic arsenic

### was increased 

## The cancer 

### potency factor 

### was maintained at the current level in consideration 

### ofrecent 

## morecomplete studies 

### on the internal health effects 

### ofinorganic arsenic 

### and anticipated future national revisions instead 

### ofbeing lowered as has 

### been the practice 

### elsewhere 

## Though the 

### Department took conservative 

### approaches to each 

### ofthese 

### parameters the 

### end result as

### you point 

### out 

## became less stringent than first 

### proposed

AUGUSTA 

### BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 17 STATE HOUSE STATION 106 

### HOGAN 

## ROAD SUITE 6 312 

### CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL 

### DRIVE SKYWAY PARK AUGUSTA MAINE 043330017 

### BANGOR MAINE 04401 

### PORTLAND MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE MAINE 046792094 207 2877683 

### PAX 207 2877826 207 9414570 

### FAX 207 9414584 

### 207 8226300 

### FAX 207 8226303 

### 207 7640477 

### PAX 207 7603143
web site wwwmablegovidepChiefBrenda

### Commander 

## May 30 2012 Page 2 of3

In 

### your letter 

### you ask

# How can a 

### process be 

## moreprotective 

### when the 

### outcome ofthat 

### process is 

# not in reference to a sentence in the Interim 

### Response to 

## Comments the process utilized 

## to develop these criteria is 

### considered 

# moreprotective 

### ofsensitive 

### subpopulations This is 

### an excellent question 

## USEPA determined that the 

### Departments initially 

### proposed 

## human health criteria for inorganic arsenic 

### were not sufficient to ensure that sensitive subpopulations 

### would be adequately protected 

### from a cancer risk 

### from arsenic 

### exposure greater than 

### one case per ten

### thousand people 

# 10E4 To put the excerpted sentence in

### context 

## Based on comments received 

## from 

## USEPA and other 

### commenters 

## and to ensure 

### adequate protection 

### ofthe general populations as well as highly 

### exposedfish 

### consuming subpopulations the 

### Department has 

### conducted a wider review ofthefactors 

### usedfor establishing inorganic arsenic criteria in

## Maine other states 

## and 

## USEPA regions The Department is

### proposing revisions to several other relevant factors 

### which results in 

## new proposed 

# AWQCfor inorganic arsenic 

### The criteria 

### proposed at this time are less stringent than the previously 

### proposed criteria 

## However the 

### process utilized is considered 

### by 

## USEPA to 

### he 

## more transparent

### and moreprotective 

### ofsensitive subpopulations at the 

## JOE

# 4 cancer risklevel This 

### process has been used by otherstates 

### such as 

## Oregon and approved by

# USEPA In hindsight it 

## mayhave been 

## more accurate to characterize the resulting criteria as 

## moreappropriately protective given the 

### use ofupdated underlying individual 

### parameters such as bioconcentration factor fish 

### consumption rate 

### and inorganic factor that are 

### based on 

## more current 

### and scientifically valid 

### information

I assure 

### you that the 

### Department reviewed and considered 

### each 

## comment received though every 

## comment could 

### not result in a

### change in the 

### Departments position orthe final 

### proposed rule In 

### each of the areas 

### reviewed the 

### Department sought 

## more conservative positions 

### where possible 

### and supported 

### by the scientific literature to better ensure protection 

### of

## Maine citizens 

## The Departments consideration 

### of issues is described in detail in the interim 

### and final 

### Response to 

## Comments
The Department seeks the input ofthe 

### Houlton 

## Band ofMaliseet Indians 

### and other 

### Maine Tribes in our permitting 

### procedures Following 

## Maines delegation to administerthe

## US Clean Water Act in 

## 2001 the 

### Department committed to involving 

### Maine Tribes in the 

### review ofall Public Draft 

### Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

### System

# MEPDES Permits in the following areas 

### oftheir

### choice
Aroostook 

## Band of

## Micmac Indians All discharges in 

### Aroostook 

## County Houlton 

## Band of Maliseet Indians All discharges in 

### Aroostook 

## County including all correspondence regarding existing or

### proposed discharges in the 

## Meduxnekeag River 

### watershed Passamaquoddy Tribe Indian 

## Township All discharges in 

### St Croix River 

### watershed Passamaquoddy Tribe Pleasant 

### Point All discharges in

### Washington 

## County Penobscot Indian 

### Nation All kraft 

### pulp paper mill discharges all discharges in 

### Penobscot River 

### watershed and estuary south to Searsport

I 

### and 

# mystaff are 

### committed to continuing 

### and building 

### on these relationshipsChiefBrenda 

### Commander 

## May 30 2012 Page 3 of3



### Formally I 

### must state that at this point in the 

### rulemaking process the 

### Department is unable to consider 

### any further

## comment on the revised 

### proposed rule unless it is submitted in accordance with the 

### Maine Administrative 

### Procedure 

## Act Therefore 

## we can not consider 

### any comments 

## made at our 

### upcoming meeting in the rulernaking

### process Still I look forward to 

### meeting with 

### you on June 8 to discuss the broader issues

### ofourongoing relationship If 

### youhave any questions orconcerns in the interim please feel free to contact 

# me Sincerely 

# fiCrifeL Patricia

# W Aho Commissioner



## cc Mick Kuhns Director 

# MEDEP Bureau ofLand and Water Quality Brian 

## Kavanah Director 

# MEDEP Division 

### ofWater Quality

## Management Bob Stratton 

# MEDEP Division 

### ofWater Quality 

## Management Curt

### Spalding 

## USEPA 

# NE Regional Administrator

tephen Silva 

## USEPA DEP

# NE Michael Stover 

## USEPA 

# NE Indian 

### Program Manager