  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION I

5 POST OFFICE SQUARE, SUITE 100

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109-3912

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Tribal Technical Consultation: Maine Water Quality Standards:
Copper and Asbestos

FROM:	Michael Stover, EPA Region 1 Indian Program Manager

TO:		file

DATE: 	March 31, 2016

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 from 11:00am – 12:00pm, a technical
consultation conference call was held with the Maine tribal
environmental directors regarding the application of water quality
standards pertaining to waters in Indian lands in Maine, specifically
regarding copper and asbestos standards. Present on the conference call
were:

Fred Corey, Environmental Director, Aroostook Band of Micmacs

Sharri Venno, Environmental Planner, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians

Cara O’Donnell, Water Resources Manager, Houlton Band of Maliseet
Indians

Jane Stedman, Attorney, Kanji & Katzen (Houlton Band of Maliseet
Indians)

Tim Williamson, Deputy Director, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region
1

Ann Williams, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region 1

Ken Moraff, Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA Region 1

Ellen Weitzler, Municipal Permits Section Chief, EPA Region 1

Jeanne Voorhees, Water Quality Standards Coordinator, EPA Region 1

Matt Hoagland, Branch Chief, Wetlands, EPA Region 1

Sara Levinson, Office of Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1

Michael Stover, Indian Program Manager, EPA Region 1

EPA opened the consultation by discussing this opportunity for EPA to
receive input from the tribes on Maine’s water quality standards for
copper and asbestos as applicable to waters in Indian lands. EPA
explained that on February 2, 2015, EPA disapproved Maine’s new or
revised human health criteria (HHC), set forth in DEP Rule Chapter 584,
as they relate to waters in Indian lands in Maine.  The disapprovals
were based on EPA’s conclusion that the HHC do not protect the
sustenance fishing use in those waters because Maine’s 32.4 g/day fish
consumption rate is not representative of an unsuppressed sustenance
fish consumption rate by the tribes, who are the target general
population in waters in Indian lands. 

EPA explained that among the new or revised HHC that EPA disapproved
were the HHC for copper and asbestos.  However, unlike the other HHC
that EPA disapproved, EPA’s Clean Water Act (CWA) section 304(a)
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) for these
pollutants, on which Maine’s criteria are based, were not derived
using a fish consumption rate.  Rather, EPA set its NRWQC for copper
and asbestos (water only, no organism/fish component) equal to EPA’s
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs)
for those pollutants.  These MCLGs are based on ingestion of water, and
are not based on or affected by specific fish consumption rates. EPA is
considering whether the basis for EPA’s disapprovals of the HHC in the
first decision letter should not apply to these criteria, and sought
feedback from the tribes.

Sharri Venno asked EPA to speak to the level of exposure and associated
risk of tribal members. Ellen Weitzler responded that from the
literature that she has read, copper and asbestos is not prone to
significant bioaccumulation in fish that would pose human health risk. 

 PAGE   

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2 

