TO : File

DATE : October 2 , 2015

RE : Maine DEP meeting (9/21/15) in Augusta to discuss WQS approvals/disapprovals identified in EPA’s

2015 February 2, March 16 and June 5 letters

DEP Attendees : EPA Attendees :

Mick Kuhns Brian Kavanah Ken Moraff Ralph Abele
Heather Parent Gregg Wood Matt Hoagland Ellen Weitzler Jeanne Voorhees

Meeting Goals :

• Compare DEP’s and EPA’s lists of approved/disapproved standards

• Address a list of questions from DEP

• Identify disapproved standards upon which DEP and EPA could collaborate now.

Highlights : 1. List Comparison: h aving compared lists, DEP has a clearer understanding of the standards EPA disapproved and where the disapprovals apply, whether in all ME waters or exclusively in Tribal

waters.
2. Rule Making and Legislative Process: DEP described the rule

- making process in ME, its length and potential obstacles to finaliz ing a rule , as well as obstacles to proceeding with legislative action in the upcoming session

. 3. Degree of Suppression: DEP requested to kn ow how EPA measured the degree of suppression used for fish consumption. We explained that the Wabanaki study was our primary source of
information and we would consider other relevant dat a . EPA welcomed any of DEP’s inputs and any other information they may have to help measure the degree of suppression.

4. DEP explained they need data and other information to understand the basis of any WQS numbers that are developed, and that this data must undergo Maine Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) review before i t can be used in a state rulemaking process and before a DEP proposed rule was sent to the Board of Environmental Protection.

5. WQS Development: DEP said they have not yet made any decisions about which WQS revisions they want to move forward. We stated that we will work with DEP to help, and if the state finishes before EPA, then (assuming Maine’s WQS meet Clean Water Act requirements) EPA will not need to promulgate. We also explained that if the state process takes longer, DEP’s standards could replac e EPA’s standards as soon as they are approved. DEP described the hurdles they face, indicated that some internal work is being done, but they cannot provide a plan on how they would move ahead. Understanding DEP’s constraints, EPA asked DEP to
consider any standards they could move forward. EPA requested DEP to consider any disapprovals they thought EPA and DEP could collaborate on now, so when the time comes for approval, EPA can act to approve the state standards.6. In response to DEP’s statement that they had not yet made any decisions about which WQS revisions they want to move forward with, EPA asked if they were also uncertain as to whether they would be moving forward with revisions that they had planned to address before February
2015 when the fir st decision letter went out. EPA explained that some of the provisions that were disapproved were provisions that EPA had initially taken no action on because they were
not consistent with the Clean Water Act. EPA had discussed some of these with DEP sta ff in 2014 (prior to the 2/2/2015 disapproval letter). These included bacteria, ammonia and some of the provisions which appeared to allow impairment of uses in some waters due to pesticide discharges. At that time, DEP staff (including Brian Kavanah) ha d indicated that they planned to work on these in their next triennial review. DEP’s response to EPA’s question was to reiterate their statement that they had not yet made any decisions about which WQS revisions to move forward with, indicating that they m ay be changing their 2014 plans for triennial review.

Follow

- Up : 1. Identify other states where EPA is promulgating WQS.

2. Identify if there are TMDL listings for bacteria due to “natural conditions.”

3. Address DEP’s questions relative to 2015 Human Health WQ criteria (see attachment) and consider holding a conference call with HQ, DEP, and R1 to address the questions.

4. DEP and EPA discuss another date for another meeting in the near future

– Mick Kuhns an d Ken
Moraff are the contacts

. Mick stated that he needs time to process what happened in the meeting , and he will get back to us.

5. DEP will consider WQS disapprovals that both EPA and DEP can work on now.