STATE OF MAINE 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Paul R. Lepage 	 Patricia W. Aho 

GOVERNOR 	 COMMISSIONER 

February 17, 2015 

Mr. Timothy Gormley 

Superintendent, Milo Water District 

146 Park Street 

Milo, ME. 04463 

e-mail: milowater@myfairpoint.net 

RE: 	 Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) Pe1mit #ME0100439 

Maine Waste Discharge License (WDL) Application #W002753-61l:-F-R 

Final Permit 

Dear Mr. Gormley: 

Enclosed please find a copy of your final MEPDES permit and Maine WDL renewal which was approved by 

the Department ofEnvironmental Protection. Please read this permit/license renewal and its attached conditions 

carefully. You must follow the conditions in the order to satisfy the requirements of law. Any discharge not 

receiving adequate treatment is in violation of State Law and is subject to enforcement action. 

Any interested person aggrieved by a Department determination made pursuant to applicable regulations, may 

appeal the decision following the procedures described in the attached DEP FACT SHEET entitled "Appealing 

a Commissioner's Licensing Decision." 

If you have any questions regarding the matter, please feel free to call me at 287-7693. 

Sincerely, 

~-U[)Q Gregg Wood 

Division of Water Quality Management 

Bureau ofLand and Water Quality 

Enc. 

cc: 	 Tanya Hovell, DEP/EMRO 

Sandy Mojica, USEPA 

Olga Vergara, USEPA 

Marelyn Vega, USEP A 

AUGUSTA 

17 STATE HOUSE STATION BA.t'l'GOR PORTI.AND PRESQUE ISLE 

AUGUSTA, i\IAINE 04333-0017 106 HOGAL'\J ROAD 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SK't'\VAYPARK 

(207) 287-3901 FAX' (207) 287-3435 BANGOR, 1WNE 04401 PORTI.AND, MAINE 04-103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04769-2094 

RAY BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. (207) 941-4570 FA_.'{, (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX, (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-6477 FAX' (207) 764-1507 

\VCb site: y.•ww.maine.guv/dep 
STATE OF MAINE 


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 


17 STATE HOUSE STATION 


AUGUSTA, ME 04333 


DEPARTMENT ORDER 


IN THE MATTER OF 


MILO WATER DISTRICT ) MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE 

PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS ) ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

MILO, PISCATAQUIS COUNTY, MAINE ) AND 

ME0100439 ) WASTE DISCHARGE LICENSE 

W002753-6C-F-R APPROVAL ) RENEWAL 

Pursuant to the provisions ofthe Clean Water Act, Title 33 USC, Section 1251, et. seq. and Maine Law 

38 M.R.S.A., Section 414-A et seq., and applicable regulations, the Depatiment ofEnvironmental 

Protection (Department hereinafter) has considered the application of the MILO WATER DISTRICT 

(MWD/District/permittee hereinafter), with its supportive data, agency review comments, and other 

related material on file and finds the following facts: 

APPLICATION SUMMARY 

The MWD has submitted a timely and complete application to the Department for the renewal of 

combination Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) permit #ME0100439/ Maine 

Waste Discharge License (WDL) #W002753-6C-D-R (permit hereinafter) which was issued by the 

Department on December 4, 2009, for a five-year term. The 12/4/09 permit authorized the discharge of 

up to a monthly average flow of 0.39 million gallons per day (MGD) of secondary treated sanitary waste 

waters to the Piscataquis River, Class B, in Milo, Maine. 

PERMIT SUMMARY 

This permitting action is canying forward all the tenns and conditions ofthe previous permit except that 

this pennit is; 

I. 	 Eliminating the option when calculating percent removal to report the NODI 9 code on the Discharge 

Monitoring Report (DMR) when the average influent concentration is less than 200 mg/L based on 

guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

2. 	 Eliminating the monthly average water quality based mass and concentration limits for ammonia as a 

statistical evaluation on the most current 60 months of test results submitted to the Departnment 

indicates the discharge no longer exceeds or has a reasonable potential to exceed the chronic ambient 

water quality criteria (A WQC) for ammonia. 

MEOI00439 PERMIT Page 2 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

PERMIT SUMMARY (cont'd) 

3. Incorporating previously established average and maximum technology based concentration limits 


for total mercury so the results can be tracked in the federal Integrated Compliance Information 


System (ICIS). 


4. 	 Eliminating Special Condition C, Disinfection, from the permit as the Department has reconsidered 

the necessity of said condition. 

5. 	 Establishing a seasonal (June I -September 30) total phosphorus monitoring requirement to obtain 

up-to-date test results for the discharge to assist the Department in evaluating the impact on ambient 

water quality in the Piscataquis River. 
MEOI00439 PERMIT Page 3 of 17 


W002753-6C-F-R 


CONCLUSIONS 

BASED on the findings in the attached Fact Sheet dated January 13, 2015, and subject to the Conditions 

listed below, the Depmiment makes the following CONCLUSIONS: 

I. 	 The discharge, either by itself or in combination with other discharges, will not lower the quality of 

any classified body of water below such classification. 

2. 	 The discharge, either by itself or in combination with other discharges, will not lower the quality of 

any unclassified body of water below the classification which the Department expects to adopt in 

accordance with state law. 

3. 	 The provisions ofthe State's antidegradation policy, 38 MRSA Section 464(4)(F), will be met, in 

that: 

a. 	 Existing in-stream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect and maintain 

those existing uses will be maintained and protected; 

b. 	 Where high quality waters ofthe State constitute an outstanding national resource, that water 

quality will be maintained and protected; 

c. 	 Where the standards of classification of the receiving water body are not met, the discharge will 

not cause or contribute to the failure ofthe water body to meet the standards of classification; 

d. 	 Where the actual quality of any classified receiving water body exceeds the minimum standards 

of the next highest classification, that higher water quality will be maintained and protected; and 

e. 	 Where a discharge will result in lowering the existing quality of any water body, the Department 

has made the finding, following opportunity for public participation, that this action is necessary 

to achieve important economic or social benefits to the State. 

4. 	 The discharges will be subject to effluent limitations that require application of best practicable 

treatment. 
ME0100439 	 PERMIT Page 4 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

ACTION 

THEREFORE, the Department APPROVES the application of the MILO WATER DISTRICT, to 

discharge up to a monthly average flow of 0.39 million gallons per day (MGD) of secondary treated 

sanitary waste waters to the Piscataquis Rivers, Class B, in the Town ofMilo. The discharges shall be 

subject to the attached conditions and all applicable standards and regulations including: 

I. 	"Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Standard Conditions Applicable To All 


Permits," revised July 1, 2002, copy attached. 


2. 	 The attached Special Conditions, including any effluent limitations and monitoring requirements. 

3. 	 This permit becomes effective upon the date of signature below and expires at midnight five (5) after 

that date. If a renewal application is timely submitted and accepted as complete for processing prior 

to the expiration of this permit, the terms and conditions of this permit and all subsequent 

modifications and minor revisions thereto remain in effect until a final Department decision on the 

renewal application becomes effective. [Maine Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 10002 

and Rules Concerning the Processing ofApplications and Other Administrative Matters, 06-096 

CMR 2(2l)(A) (effective April!, 2003)]. 

DONEANDDATEDATAUGUSTA,MAINE, THIS2.u!>DAYOF ~A_ '2015. 

COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

BY: ~~aegc:Y.. a

R.qr-PatriCia ~Aha, C~missioner 

PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED SHEET FOR GUIDANCE ON APPEAL PROCEDURES 

Date of initial receipt of application ______,J'-'u'-'.lvl:...-"-28,..,c.=2,0'-'-1"-4---­

Date of application acceptance ---------"'Ju,IJ.y-"2""9~,2.,0"-'1"'4'-------~ 

Filed 

MAR 0J 2015 

State of !.Iaine 

Date filed with Board of Environmental Protection --~-------=B=oa=rd=of:"Eo:!nv:,c;'"'o~nn~le"'n.!!:ta,_,_l.c.P!..!:ro~te:::oct!.!;io!:!Jn 

This Order prepared by GREGG WOOD, BUREAU OF LAND & WATER QUALITY 

ME0100439 2015 2117/15 
MEOI00439 PERMIT Page 5 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

The permittee is authorized to discharge secondary treated waste waters to the Piscataquis River. Such treated waste water discharges 

s a h nb e r liD! ·t e d d 'an mom ·t ore dbJY th e permittee as speC! ·fi 1e db eow. 1

Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Minimum 

Monitoring Requirements 

Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement 

Averaoe Average Maximum Average Average Maximum Freqnencv Sample Type 

Flow 1500501 0.39 MGD 1011 -­ Report (MGD)ro37 -­ --­ -­ Continuousl991997 Recorder IRC:7 

Biochemical Oxygen 98 lbs/Day f26J 146lbs/Day 163 lbs/Dayp6J 30 mg!L fi9J 45 mg!L [19J 50 mg!L f19J 2/Month ro2130J Composite 1141 

Demand (BODs) (Ia) 1003101 1261 

BODs % Removal(lbJ [810101 --­ -­ -­ 85%(237 - -­ l!MonthroJI30I CalculatefCA/ 

Total Suspended Solids 98 lbs/Day f26J 1461bs!Day 163 lbs/Dayf26J 30 mg!L fi9J 45 mg!L f19J 50 mg!L fi9J 2/Month ro2130J Composite r241 

(TSS) (IaJ roos307 1267 

TSS % Removal (tbJ sJoJJI - - -­ 85%1231 -­ --­ 11Month1owo1 Calculate1cA1 

E l"B ·('J . co z actena !316331 -­ - -­ 64/100 ml(3J -­ 236/100 ml 2/Month f02130J Grab fGRJ 

(May 15 -September 30) /137 f/31 

Total Residual Chlorine(') --­ --­ - - -­ 0.16 mg!L 1/Day f0710IJ Grab fGRJ 

150061!1 1/9/ 

pH 6.0-9.0(S) (Std. Units) roo4oo1 -­ -­ - -­ -­ 5/W eek /05I07J Grab [GR] 

(12/ 

0 Total PhosQhOrus( _f0066SJ Report - Report Report mg!L - Report mg!L 1/WeekroJ;07J Grab fGRJ 

(June I- September 30) lbs/Day 1261 lbs/Day 1261 1191 f/91 

Copper (Total) fOIMJ 0.08 lbs/Day -­ 0.13 lbs!Day p6J -­ --­ - 2!Yearf021YRJ Composite /241 

1267 

Mercury (Total) (7) f7J900J --­ -­ - 29.1 ng!L -­ 43.7 ng!L !/Year Grab 

13M! {JMI fO/IYRl {(;RI 
ME0100439 PERMIT Page 6 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (coot'd)- OUTFALL #OOlA 

2. 	 SURVEILLANCE LEVEL TESTING -Beginning upon permit issuance and lasting through 24 months prior to permit expiration 

(years 1, 2 & 3 ofthe term ofthe permit) and commencing again 12 months prior to permit expiration (year 5 ofthe term ofthe permit), 

the permittee shall conduct surveillance level testing as follows: 

Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements 

Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement Sample 

Averaae Averaae Maximum Averaae Averaae Maximum Freauencv Dm_e 

Whole Effluent Toxici!;,: (WET) l'l 

A-NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia /TDA3BJ - -­ - - - Report % [231 1/Year f011YRJ Composite [241 

Salvelinus fontinalis /TDA6FJ - --­ -­ - - Report % [231 1/2 Years /0112YJ Compostte [241 

C-NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia [TBP3BJ -­ - - - - 2.1% [23] 1/Year /011YRJ Composite [241 

Salvelinus fontinalis [TBQ6FJ - - - - - Report % I23J 1/2 Years f0112YJ Composite [241 

Analytical Chemistryl•.n> 

[51477] 

-­ - - - - Report ug/L 

[28] 

1/2 Years f0112YJ Compostte/ 

Grab 

[24/GRJ 
ME0100439 PERMIT Page 7 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. 	EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd)- OUTFALL #OOlA 

3. 	 SCREENING LEVEL TESTING- Beginning 24 months prior to permit expiration and lasting through 12 months prior to permit 

expiration (Year 4 ofthe term ofthe permit) and every five years thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the permit 

continues in force, or is replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement, the permittee shall be limited and monitored by the 

permittee as specified below. 

Effluent Characteristic Dischar!le Limitations Monitorin!l Requirements 

Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement Sample 

Averaqe Averaqe Maximum AveraQe Avera!le Maximum Frequency Type 

Whole Effluent Toxicity MIEn (S) 

A-NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia (TDA3BJ - -­ - - --­ Report % f23J 2!Year {02/YRJ Compostte 1241 

Satvelinus fontinalis [TDA6FJ - -­ - - - Report % 1231 2!Year {omRJ Compostte {241 

C-NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia {TBPSBJ -­ --­ -­ - - 2.1% [23] 2!Year 102/YRJ Composite {241 

Salvelinus fontinalis rraosFJ - --­ - - - Report % 12SJ 2!Year [02/YRJ Composite [241 

Analytical Chemistry(•.n> - Report ug/L 1/Quarter Composite! 

[51477] -­ - - - {28] {01190] Grab 

124/GRI 

Priority Pollutants(10' 

11l 

1500081 

-

- - - - Report ug/L 

{28] 

1!Year 

{01/YR]. 

Composite/ 

Grab 

{24/GR] 
MEOI00439 PERMIT Page 8 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Footnotes: 

Sampling Locations: 

Influent sampling for BODs and TSS shall be sampled between the Ferry Road Pump Station and 

the first lagoon. 

Effluent sampling shall be sampled after the last treatment unit (including dechlorination) 

on a year-round basis. 

Any change in sampling location(s) must be reviewed and approved by the Department in writing. 

Sampling- Sampling and analysis must be conducted in accordance with; a) methods approved in 

40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 136, b) alternative methods approved by the Department 

in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR Part 136, or c) as otherwise specifjed by the 

Depatiment. Samples that are sent out for analysis shall be analyzed by a laboratory certified by the 

State of Maine's Department of Human Services. Samples that are sent to another POTW licensed 

pursuant to Waste discharge licenses, 38 M.R.S.A. § 413 are subject to the provisions and 

restrictions ofMaine Comprehensive and Limited Environmental Laborat01y Certification Rules, 

10-144 CMR 263 (last amended February 13, 2000). Laboratmy facilities that analyze compliance 

samples in-house are subject to the provisions and restrictions of the Maine Comprehensive and 

Limited Laborat01y Certification Rules, I 0-144 CMR263 (last amended February 13, 2000). 

I. 	BOD &TSS 

a. 	 2/Month - There shall be at least ten ( 1 0) days between sampling events. 

b. 	 Percent removal- The treatment facility shall maintain a minimum of 85 percent removal of I 

I 

both BODs and TSS for all flows receiving secondary treatment during all months that the 

facility discharges. Compliance with the limitation shall be based on a twelve-month rolling 

average. Calendar monthly average percent removal values shall be calculated based on 

influent and effluent concentrations. For the purposes of this permitting action, the twelvemonth rolling average calculation is based on the most recent twelve-month period. 

2. 	 E. coli bacteria -Limits are seasonal and apply between May 151

h and September 301h ~f each 

calendar year. There shall be at least ten (I 0) days between sampling events. The Depattment 

reserves the right to require disinfection on a year-round basis to protect the health and welfare of· 

the public. 
· MEOI00439 PERMIT Page 9 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Footnotes: 

3. 	 E. coli bacteria- The monthly average limitation is a geometric mean limitation and shall be 

calculated and reported as such. 

4. 	 Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)- Limitations and monitoring requirements are applicable 

· whenever elemental chlorine or chlorine based compounds are being used to disinfect the 

discharge. The permittee shall utilized approved test methods that are capable of bracketing the 

limitation of 0.16 mg/L. 

5. 	 pH Range Limitation- The pH value of the effluent shall not be lower than 6.0 SU nor higher 

than 9.0 SU at any time unless these limitations are exceeded due to natural causes. 

6. 	 Phosphorus (Total)- See Attachment A ofthis permit for a Department protocol for total 

phosphorus. 

7. 	 Mercury -All mercury sampling (INear) required to determine compliance with interim 

limitations established pursuant to Interim Ejjluent Limitations and Controls for the Discharge 

ofMercwy, 06-096 CMR 519 (last amended October 6, 200 I) shall be conducted in accordance 

with EPA's "clean sampling techniques" found in EPA Method 1669, Sampling Ambient Water 

For Trace Metals At EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels. All mercury analyses shall be 

conducted in accordance with EPA Method 1631E, Determination of Mercury in Water by 

Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Fluorescence Spectrometry. See Attachment B, 

llfjluent Mercwy Test Report, of this permit for the Department's form for reporting mercury 

test results. 

The limitation in the monthly average column in table Special Condition A of this permit is 

defined as the arithmetic mean of all the mercury tests ever conducted utilizing sampling 

Methods 1669 and analysis Method 1631E. 

8. 	 Whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing- Definitive WET testing is a multi-concentration testing 

event (a minimum of five dilutions bracketing the critical acute and chronic thresholds of II% and 

2.1% respectively), which provides a point estimate oftoxicity in terms ofNo Observed Effect 

Level, commonly referred to as NOEL or NOEC. A-NOEL is defined as the acute no observed 

effect level with survival as the end point. C-NOEL is defined as the chronic no obsetved effect 

level with survival, reproduction and growth as the end points. The critical acute and chronic 

thresholds were derived as the mathematical inverse ofthe applicable acute and chronic dilution 

factors of 8.7: I and 4 7: I, respectively. See Attachment C of this permit for a copy ofthe 

Depattment's WET reporting form. 
MEOI00439 PERMIT Page 10 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Footnotes: 

a. 	 Surveillance level testing- Beginning upon permit issuance and lasting through 

24 months prior to permit expiration (Years I, 2 & 3 of the term of the permit) and 

commencing again 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 5 ofthe term ofthe permit), 

the permittee shall conduct surveillance level WET testing at a minimum frequency of once 

per year (1/Y ear) on the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and once every other year (1/2 

Years) on the brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis). 

b. 	 Screening level testing -Beginning 24 months prior to permit expiration and lasting through 

12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 4 of the term of the permit) and every five years 

thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the permit continues in force, or 

is replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement, the permittee shall conduct 

screening level WET testing at a minimum frequency oftwice per year (2/Y ear) for the water 

flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and the brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis). 

WET test results must be submitted to the Department not later than the next Discharge 

Monitoring Report (DMR) required by the permit, provided, however, that the permittee may 

review the toxicity reports for up to I 0 business days of their availability before submitting them. 

The permittee shall evaluate test results being submitted and identify to the Depattment possible 

exceedences ofthe critical acute and chronic water quality thresholds specified above. 

Toxicity tests must be conducted by an experienced laboratory approved by the Depattment. The 

laboratory must follow procedures as described in the following USEP A methods manuals as 

modified by Department protocol for the brook trout. See Attachment E of this permit for the 

Department protocol. 

a. 	 Shmt Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Water to 

Freshwater Organisms, Fourth Edition, October 2002, EPA-821-R-02-013. 

b. 	 Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity ofEffiuent and Receiving Waters to Freshwater 

and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition, October 2002, EPA-821-R-02-012. 

Each time a WET test is performed, the permittee shall sample and analyze for the parameters in 

the WET Chemistry and the Analytical Chemistry sections of the Department form entitled, 

Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection, WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form. 

See Attachment D of this permit. 

I 
ME0100439 PERMIT Page 11 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Footnotes: 

9. 	 Analytical chemistry- Refers to a suite ofparameters specified in Attachment D ofthis permit. 

a. 	 Surveillance level testing- Beginning upon permit issuance and lasting through 24 months 

prior to permit expiration (Years 1, 2 & 3 of the term ofthe permit) and commencing again 

12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 5 of the term ofthe permit), the permittee shall 

conduct surveillance level analytical chemistry testing at a minimum frequency of once every 

other year (1/2 Years). 

b. 	 Screening level testing -Beginning 24 months prior to permit expiration and lasting through 

12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 4 of the term of the permit) and every five years 

thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the permit continues in force, or 

is replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement, the permittee shall conduct 

analytical chemistry testing at a minimum frequency of once per calendar quarter for four 

consecutive calendar quarters. 

10. Priority pollutant testing- Refers to a suite ofparameters specified in Attachment D of this 

permit. 

a. Surveillance level testing is not required pursuant to Department rule 06-096 CMR Chapter 

530. 

b. 	 Screening level testing- Beginning 24 months prior to permit expiration and lasting through 

12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 4 of the term of the permit) and every five years 

thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the permit continues in force, or 

is replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement, the permittee shall conduct 

screening level priority pollutant testing at a minimum frequency of once per year, except for 

those analytical chemistry parameter(s) otherwise regulated in this permit. 

11. Priority pollutant and analytical chemistry- Testing shall be conducted on samples 

collected at the same time as those collected for whole effluent toxicity tests when applicable. 

Priority pollutant and analytical chemistry testing shall be conducted using methods that 

permit detection of a pollutant at existing levels in the effluent or that achieve minimum 

reporting levels of detection as specified by the Department. 
ME0100439 PERMIT Page 12 of 17 


W002753-6C-F-R 


SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Footnotes: 

Test results must be submitted to the Depmtment not later than the next Discharge 

Monitoring Repot1 (DMR) required by the permit, provided however, that the permittee may 

review. the toxicity reports for up to 10 business days oftheir availability before submitting 

them. The permittee shall evaluate test results being submitted and identify to the 

Department, possible exceedences of the acute, chronic or human health A WQC as 

established in Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants, 06-096 CMR 584 

(effective October 9, 2005). For the purposes of DMR reporting, enter a "1" for~. testing 

done this monitoring period or "NODI-9" monitoring not required this period. 

B. 	 NARRATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 

I. 	 The effluent shall not contain a visible oil sheen, foam or floating solids at any time which would 

impair the uses designated for the classification of the receiving waters. · 

2. 	 The effluent shall not contain materials in concentrations or combinations which are hazardous 

or toxic to aquatic life, or which would impair the uses designated for the classification ofthe 

receiving waters. 

3. 	 The discharges shall not cause visible discoloration or turbidity in the receiving waters which 

would impair the uses designated for the classification ofthe receiving waters. 

4. 	 Notwithstanding specific conditions of this permit the effluent must not lower the quality of any 

classified body of water below such classification, or lower the existing quality of any body of 

water if the existing quality is higher than the classification. 

C. 	TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR 

The person who has the management responsibility over the treatment facility must hold a 

Grade II certificate (or higher) or must be a Maine Registered Professional Engineer pursuant to 

Sewerage Treatment Operators, Title 32 M.R.S.A., Sections 4171-4182 and Regulationsfor 

Wastewater Operator Certification, 06-096 CMR 531 (effective May 8, 2006). All proposed 

contracts for facility operation by any person must be approved by the Department before the 

permittee may engage the services of the contract operator. 
MEOI00439 PERMIT Page 13 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

D. 	 LIMITATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS 

Pollutants introduced into the wastewater collection and treatment system by a non-domestic source 

(user) must not pass through or interfere with the operation of the treatment system. The permittee 

must conduct an Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) any time a new industrial user proposes to discharge 

within its jurisdiction; an existing user proposes to make a significant change in its discharge; or at 

an alternative minimu·m, once every permit cycle and submit the results to the Depatiment. The IWS 

must identify, in terms of character and volume of pollutants, any Significant Industrial Users 

discharging into the POTW subject to Pretreatment Standards under section 307(b) of the federal 

Clean Water Act, 40 CFR Pat1403 (general pretreatment regulations) or Pretreatment Program, 06­

096 CMR 528 (last amended March 17, 2008). 

E. 	AUTHORIZED DISCHARGES 

The permittee is authorized to discharge only in accordance with: l) the permittee's General 

Application for Waste Discharge Permit, accepted for processing on July 29, 2014; 

2) the terms and conditions ofthis permit; and 3) only from Outfall #001. Discharges of wastewater 

from any other point source are not authorized under this permit, and shall be reported in accordance 

with Standard Condition B(5)(Bypass) of this permit. 

F. 	NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT 

In accordance with Standard Condition D, the permittee shall notify the Department ofthe following. 

I. 	 Any introduction of pollutants into the waste water collection and treatment system from an 

indirect discharger in a primary industrial category discharging process waste water; and 

2. 	 Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into the waste 

water collection and treatment system by a source introducing pollutants into the 

system at the time ofpermit issuance. For the purposes ofthis section, notice regarding 

substantial change shall include information on: 

(a) the quality and quantity ofwaste water introduced to the waste water collection and treatment 

system; and 

(b) any anticipated impact caused by the change in the quantity or quality ofthe waste water to 

be discharged from the treatment system. 
MEOI00439 PERMIT Page 14 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

G. WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The treatment facility staff shall maintain a current written Wet Weather Flow Management Plan to 

direct the staff on how to operate the facility effectively during periods ofhigh flow. The 

Department acknowledges that the existing collection system may deliver flows in excess ofthe 

monthly average design capacity of the treatment plant during periods of high infiltration and 

rainfall. 

Within 90 days of completion of new and or substantial upgrades of the waste water treatment 

facility, the permittee shall submit to the Department for review and approval, a new or revised Wet 

Weather Management Plan which conforms to Depattment guidelines for such plans. The revised 

plan shall include operating procedures for a range of intensities, address solids handling procedures 

(including septic waste and other high strength wastes if applicable) and provide written operating 

and maintenance procedures during the events. The permittee shall review their plan annually and 

record any necessary changes to keep the plan up to date. 

H. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN 

This facility shall maintain a current written comprehensive Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan. 

The plan shall provide a systematic approach by which the permittee shall at all times, properly 

operate and maintain all facilities and systems oftransport, treatment and control (and related 

appmtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the 

conditions of this permit. 

By December 31 of each year, or within 90 days of any process changes or minor equipment 

upgrades, the permittee shall evaluate and modify the O&M Plan including site plan(s) and 

schematic(s) for the waste water treatment facility to ensure that it is up-to-date. The O&M Plan 

shall be kept on-site at all times and made available to Department and EPA personnel upon request. 

Within 90 days of completion of new and or substantial upgrades of the waste water treatment 

facility, the permittee shall submit the updated O&M Plan to their Department inspector for review 

and comment. 
ME0100439 

W002753-6C-F-R 

PERMIT Page 15 of 17 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

I. DISPOSAL OF TRANSPORTED WASTE INTO THE WASTE WATER TREATMENT 

FACILITY 

The permittee is prohibited from accepting transported waste for disposal into any part or parts of the 

wastewater disposal system. "Transported wastes" means any liquid non-hazardous waste delivered 

to a wastewater treatment facility by a truck or other similar conveyance that has different chemical 

constituents or a greater strength than the influent described on the facility's application for a waste 

discharge license. Such wastes may include, but are not limited to septage, industrial wastes or other 

wastes to which chemicals in quantities potentially harmful to the treatment facility or receiving 

water have been added. 

I 

I 

J. 06-096 CMR 530(2)(D)( 4) STATEMENT FOR REDUCED/WAIVED TOXICS TESTING I 

' 

By December 31 of each calendar year, the permittee shall provide the Department with a 

cettification describing any of the following that have occurred since the effective date of this permit 

[ICIS Code 75305]: See Attachment F of the Fact Sheet of this permit for an acceptable cettification 

form to satisfy this Special Condition. 

1. Changes in the number or types of non-domestic wastes contributed directly or indirectly to the 

wastewater treatment works that may increase the toxicity of the discharge; 

2. Changes in the operation ofthe treatment works that may increase the toxicity of the discharge; 

and 

3. Changes in industrial manufacturing processes contributing wastewater to the treatment works 

that may increase the toxicity of the discharge. 

Further, the Department may require that annual WET or priority pollutant testing be 

reinstituted if it determines that there have been changes in the character of the discharge or if annual 

cettifications described above are not submitted. 

(d) Changes in storm water collection or inflow/infiltration affecting the facility that may increase 

the toxicity of the discharge. 

(e) Increases in the type or volume ofhauled wastes accepted by the facility. 

The Department reserves the right to reinstate annual (surveillance level) testing or other toxicity 

testing if new information becomes available that indicates the discharge may cause or have a 

reasonable potential to cause exceedences of ambient water quality criteria/thresholds. 
ME0100439 PERMIT Page 16 of 17 

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

K. MONITORING AND REPORTING 

Monitoring results obtained during the previous month shall be summarized for each month and 

reported on separate Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms provided by the Department and 

postmarked on or before the thirteenth (13th) day of the month or hand-delivered to a Department 

Regional Office such that the DMR's are received by the Department on or before the fifteenth (15th) 

day ofthe month following the completed reporting period. A signed copy ofthe DMR and all other 

reports required herein shall be submitted to the following address: 

Department ofEnvironmental Protection 


Eastern Maine Regional Office 


Bureau of Land and Water Quality 


Division of Water Quality Management 


I 06 Hogan Road 

Bangor, Maine 04401 

Alternatively, ifyou are submitting an electronic DMR (eDMR), the completed eDMR must be 

electronically submitted to the Depattment by a facility authorized DMR Signatory not later than 


close of business on the 15th day ofthe month following the completed reporting period. Hard Copy 


documentation submitted in support of the eDMR must be postmarked on or before the thirteenth 


(131

h) day of the month or hand-delivered to the Depattment's Regional Office such that it is 


received by the Department on or before the fifteenth (15th) day ofthe month following the 


completed reporting period. Electronic documentation in support of the eDMR must be submitted 


not later than close of business on the 15th day ofthe month following the completed reporting 


period. 


I 

L. REOPENING OF PERMIT FOR MODIFICATIONS I 

I 

Upon evaluation of the tests results or monitoring requirements specified in Special Conditions of 


this permitting action, new site specific information, or any other pt;rtinent test results or information 
 I 

obtained during the term of this permit, the Department may, at anytime and with notice to the 


permittee, modify this permit to; I) include effluent limits necessary to control specific pollutants or· 


whole effluent toxicity where there is a reasonable potential that the effluent may cause water quality I

criteria to be exceeded, (2) require additional effluent and or ambient water quality monitoring if 

results on file are inconclusive; or (3) change monitoring requirements or limitations based on new 

information. 
ME0100439 PERMIT Page 17 of 17

W002753-6C-F-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

M. SEVERABILITY 

In the event that any provision(s), or part thereof, ofthis permit is declared to lie unlawful by a 

reviewing court, the remainder of the permit shall remain in full force and effect, and shall be 

construed and enforced in all aspects as if such unlawful provision, or part thereof, had been omitted, 

unless otherwise ordered by the com1. 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


CONTENTS 

SECTION TOPIC PAGE 

A GENERAL PROVISIONS 


I General compliance 2 


2 Other materials 2 


3 Duty to Comply 2 


4 Duty to provide information 2 


5 Permit actions 2 


6 Reopener clause 2 


7 Oil and hazardous substances 2 


8 Propet1y rights 3 


9 Confidentiality 3 


10 Duty to reapply 3 


II Other laws 3 


12 Inspection and entry 3 


B OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES 


I General facility requirements 3 


2 Proper operation and maintenance 4 


3 Need to halt reduce not a defense 4 


4 Duty to mitigate 4 


5 Bypasses 4 


6 Upsets 5 


c MONITORING AND RECORDS 


I General requirements 6 


2 Representative sampling 6 


3 Monitoring and records 6 


D REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 


I Reporting requirements 7 


2 Signatory requirement 8 


3 Availability of reports 8 


4 Existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural dischargers 8 


5 Publicly owned treatment works 9 


E OTHER PROVISIONS 


I Emergency action - power failure 9 


2 Spill prevention 10 


3 Removed substances 10 


4 Connection to municipal sewer 10 


F DEFINTIONS 10 


Revised July I, 2002 Page 1 

MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

1. General compliance. All discharges shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this pennit; 

any changes in production capacity or process modifications which result in changes in the quantity or the 

characteristics of the discharge must be authorized by an additional license or by modifications of this 

permit; it shall be a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit to discharge any pollutant not 

identified and authorized herein or to discharge in excess of the rates or quantities authorized herein or to 

violate any other conditions of this permit. 

2. Other materials. Other materials ordinarily produced or used in the operation of this facility, which 

have been specifically identified in the application, may be discharged at the maximum frequency and 

maximum level identified in the application, provided: 

(a) They are not 

(i) Designated as toxic or hazardous under the provisions of Sections 307 and 311, 

respectively, of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Title 38, Section 420, Maine 

Revised Statutes; or other applicable State Law; or 

(ii) Known to be hazardous or toxic by the licensee. 

(b) The discharge of such materials will not violate applicable water quality standards. 

3. Duty to comply. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit 

noncompliance constitutes a violation of State law and the Clean Water Act and is grounds for 

enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a 

permit renewal application. 

(a) The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under section 

307(a) of the Clean Water Act, and 38 MRSA, §420 or Chapter 530.5 for toxic pollutants 

within the time provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions, even 

if the petmit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement. 

(b) Any person who violates any provision of the laws administered by the Department, 

including without limitation, a violation of the terms of any order, rule license, permit, 

approval or decision of the Board or Commissioner is subject to the penalties set forth in 38 

MRSA, §349. 

I 

i 

4. Duty to provide information. The permittee shall furnish to the Department, within a reasonable 

time, any information which the Department may request to determine whether cause exists for 

modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this penni! or to determine compliance with this 

permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Department upon request, copies of records required to be 

kept by this petmit. 

5. Permit actions. This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The 

filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or 

a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition. 

6. Reopener clause. The Department reserves the right to make appropriate revisions to this permit in 

order to establish any appropriate effluent limitations, schedule ofcompliance or other provisions which 

may be authorized under 38 MRSA, §414-A(S). 

Revised July I, 2002 Page2 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


7. Oil and hazardous substances. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution 


of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities or penalties to which the 


permittee is or may be subject under section 311 of the Federal Clean Water Act; section 106 of the 


Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980; or 38 MRSA 


§§ 1301, et. seq. 


8. Property rights. This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive 


privilege. 


9. Confidentiality of records. 38 MRSA §414(6) reads as follows. "Any records, reports or information 

obtained under this subchapter is available to the public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to the 

department by any person that any records, reports or information, or particular part or any record, report or 

information, other than the names and addresses of applicants, license applications, licenses, and effluent 

data, to which the department has access under this subchapter would, if made public, divulge methods or 

processes that are entitled to protection as trade secrets, these records, reports or information must be 

confidential and not available for public inspection or examination. Any records, reports or information may 

be disclosed to employees or authorized representatives of the State or the United States concerned with 

carrying out this subchapter or any applicable federal law, and to any party to a hearing held under this 

section on terms the commissioner may prescribe in order to protect these confidential records, reports and 

information, as long as this disclosure is material and relevant to any issue under consideration by the 

department." 

10. Duty to reapply. Ifthe permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the 

expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit. 

11. Other laws. The issuance of this permit does not authorize any injury to persons or property or 

invasion ofother property rights, nor does it relieve the permittee if its obligation to comply with other 

applicable Federal, State or local laws and regulations. 

12. Inspection and entry. The permittee shall allow the Department, or an authorized representative 

(including an authorized contractor acting as a representative of the EPA Administrator), upon 

presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to: 

(a) 	 Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or 

conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit; 

(b) Have 	access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the 

conditions ofthis permit; 

(c) Inspect at 	reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control 

equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required nuder this permit; and 

(d) Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as 

otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location. 

B. 	 OPERATION AND MAINTENACE OF FACILITIES 

1. 	 General facility requirements. 

(a) The permittee shall collect all waste flows designated by the Department as requiring 

treatment and discharge them into an approved waste treatment facility in such a manner as to 

Revised July 1, 2002 	 Page 3 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 

maximize removal of pollutants unless authorization to the contrary is obtained from the 

Department. 

(b) 	The permittee shall at all times maintaiu in good working order and operate at maximum 

efficiency all waste water collection, treatment and/or control facilities. 

(c) All necessary waste treatment facilities will be installed and operational prior to the discharge 

of any wastewaters. 

(d) 	Final plans and specifications must be submitted to the Department for review prior to the 

construction or modification ofany treatment facilities. 

(e) 	The permittee shall install flow measuring facilities of a design approved by the Depatiment. 

(f) 	The permittee must provide an outfall of a design approved by the Department which is 

placed in the receiving waters in such a manner that the maximum mixing and dispersion of 

the wastewaters will be achieved as rapidly as possible. 

2. Proper operation and maintenance. The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all 

facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are in$talled or used by 

the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance 

also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision 

requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a 

permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. 

3. Need to halt or reduce activity not a defense. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an 

enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to 

maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit. 

4. Duty to mitigate. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge 

or sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely 

affecting human health or the enviromnent. 

5. Bypasses. 

(a) Definitions. 

(i) Bypass means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment 

facility. 

(ii) 	Severe property damage means substantfal physical damage to property, damage to the 

treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and 

permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the 

absence of a bypass. Severe property datnage does not mean economic loss caused by 

delays in production. 

(b) Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does 

not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to 

assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of paragraphs (c) 

and (d) ofthis section. 

(c) Notice. 

(i) 	Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall 

submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass. 

Revised July I, 2002 	 Page4 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


(ii) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as 

required in paragraph D(l)(f), below. (24-hour notice). 

(d) Prohibition of bypass. 

(i) 	 Bypass is prohibited, and the Department may take enforcement action against a 

permittee for bypass, unless: 

(A) Bypass 	was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage; 

(B) There 	were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of a)Jxiliary 

treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal 

periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up 

equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering 

judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment 

downtime or preventive maintenance; and 

(C) The permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph (c) of this section. 

(ii) The Department may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, 

if the Department determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in 

paragraph (d)(i) of this section. 

6. Upsets. 

(a) Definition. 	 Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and 

temporary noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of 

factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include 

noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment 

facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or 

improper operation. ~ 

(b) Effect 	of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for 

noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of this section are met. No determination made during administrative review of 

claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is 

final administrative action subject to judicial review. 

(c) Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A permittee who wishes to establish the 

affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: 

(i) 	An upset occurred and that the permittee can identity the cause(s) ofthe upset; 

(ii) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; and 

(iii) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in paragraph D(l)(f), below. (24 

hour notice). 

(iv) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under paragraph B(4). 

(d) Burden 	of proof. In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the 

occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. 

Revised July 1, 2002 	 Page 5 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


C. MONITORING AND RECORDS 

1. General Requirements. This permit shall be subject to such monitoring requirements as may be 

reasonably required by the Department including the installation, use and maintenance of monitoring 

equipment or methods (including, where appropriate, biological monitoring methods). The permittee 

shall provide the Department with periodic reports on the proper Department reporting form of 

monitoring results obtained pursuant to the monitoring requirements contained herein. 

2. Representative sampling. Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative 

of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. If effluent limitations are based wholly or pattially 

on quantities of a product processed, the permittee shall ensure samples are representative of times when 

production is taking place. Where discharge monitoring is required when production is less than 50%, the 

resulting data shall be reported as a daily measurement but not included in computation of averages, 

unless specifically authorized by the Department. 

3. Monitoring and records. 

(a) Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the 

monitored activity. 

(b) Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the permittee's 

sewage sludge use and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least five 

years, the permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all 

calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous 

monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all 

data used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from the 

date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by 

request of the Department at any time. 

(c) Records of monitoring information shall include: 

(i) The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements; 

(ii) The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; 

(iii) The date(s) analyses were performed; 

(iv) The individual(s) who performed the analyses; 

(v) The analytical techniques or methods used; and 

(vi) The results of such analyses. 

(d) Monitoring results must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR 

part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in the permit. 

(e) State law provides that any person who tampers with or renders inaccurate any monitoring 

devices or method required by any provision of law, or any order, rule license, permit 

approval or decision is subject to the penalties set forth in 38 MRSA, §349. 

Revised July 1, 2002 Page 6 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-----------------------------

D. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

1. Reporting requirements. 

(a) Planned changes. The permittee shall give notice to the Department as soon as possible of 

any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only 

when: 

(i) 	 The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for 

determining whether a facility is a new source in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or 

(ii) The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of 

pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to 

effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements under Section D(4). 

I 

(iii) The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee's sludge use or 	 I 

disposal practices, and such alteration, addition, or change may justify the application of 

permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including 

notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application 

process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan; 

(b) Anticipated noncompliance. The permittee shall give advance notice to the Department of 

any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance 

with permit requirements. 

(c) Transfers. This permit 	is not transferable to any person except upon application to and 

approval of the Department pursuant to 38 MRSA, § 344 and Chapters 2 and 522. 

(d) Monitoring reports. Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere 

in this permit. 

(i) 	Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or fonns 


provided or specified by the Department for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use 


or disposal practices. 


(ii) 	If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the permit using 


test procedures approved under 40 CFR part 136 or as specified in the permit, the results 


of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted 


in the DMR or sludge reporting form specified by the Department. 


(iii) Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an 


arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the Department in the permit. 
 I 

(e) Compliance schedules. 	Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress 

reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule of this 

permit shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each schedule date. 

(f) 	Twenty-four hour reporting. 

(i) 	 The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the 

environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the 

permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be 

provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. 

The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; 

the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance 

Revised July I, 2002 	 Page 7 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or 

planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence ofthe noncompliance. 

(ii) The following shall be included as information which must be reported within 24 hours 

under this paragraph. 

(A) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit. 

(B) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit. 

(C) Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by 

the Department in the permit to be reported within 24 hours. 

(iii) The Department may waive the written repott on a case-by-case basis for reports under 

paragraph (f)(ii) of this section ifthe oral report has been received within 24 hours. 

(g) Other noncompliance. The pennittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported 

under paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) ofthis section, at the time monitoring reports are submitted. 

The reports shall contain the information listed in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(h) Other information. Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant 

facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in 

any report to the Department, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. 

2. Signatory requirement. All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Department shall 

be signed and certified as required by Chapter 521, Section 5 of the Department's rules. State law 

provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation or certification in any 

application, record, rep01t, plan or other document filed or required to be maintained by any order, rule, 

permit, approval or decision of the Board or Commissioner is subject to the penalties set forth in 38 

MRSA, §349. 

3. Availability of reports. Except for data determined to be confidential under A(9), above, all reports 

prepared in accordance with the terms ofthis permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices 

ofthe Department. As required by State law, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. 

Knowingly making any false statement on any such rep01t may result in the imposition of criminal 

sanctions as provided by law. 

4. Existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural dischargers. In addition to the 

reporting requirements under this Section, all existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and 

silvicultural dischargers must notifY the Department as soon as they know or have reason to believe: 

(a) That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine 

or frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge 

will exceed the highest ofthe following "notification levels": 

(i) 	 One hundred micrograms per liter (I00 ug/1); 

(ii) 	Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/1) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred 

micrograms per liter (500 ug/1) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; 

and one milligram per liter (I mg/1) for antimony; 

(iii) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit 

application in accordance with Chapter 521 Section 4(g)(7); or 

(iv) The level established by the Department in accordance with Chapter 523 Section 5(f). 

Revised July I, 2002 	 Page 8 

I 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 

(b) That any activity has occurred or. will occur which would result in any discharge, on a nonroutine or infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that 

discharge will exceed the highest ofthe following "notification levels": 

(i) 	 Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/1); 

(ii) One milligram per liter (I mg/1) for antimony;· 

(iii) Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit 

application in accordance with Chapter 521 Section 4(g)(7); or 

(iv) The level established by the Department in accordance with Chapter 523 Section 5(f). 

5. Publicly owned treatment works. 

(a) All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Department ofthe following: 

(i) 	Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which 

would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA or Chapter 528 if it were directly 

discharging those pollutants. 

(ii) 	Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that 

POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the 

permit. 

(iii) For purposes ofthis paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (A) the 

quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (B) any anticipated 

impact ofthe change on the quantity or quality ofeffluent to be discharged from the 

POTW. 

(b) When the effluent discharged by a POTW for a period ofthree consecutive months exceeds 

80 percent of the permitted flow, the permittee shall submit to the Department a projection of 

loadings up to the time when the design capacity of the treatment facility will be reached, and 

a program for maintaining satisfactory treatment levels consistent with approved water 

quality management plans. 

E. 	 OTHER REQUIREMENTS 

1. Emergency action- power failure. Within thirty days after the effective date ofthis permit, the 

permittee shall notifY the Department of facilities and plans to be used in the event the primary source of 

power to its wastewater pumping and treatment facilities fails as follows. 

(a) For municipal sources. During power failure, all wastewaters which are normally treated 

shall receive a minimum ofprimary treatment and disinfection. Unless otherwise approved, 

alternate power supplies shall be provided for pumping stations and treatment facilities. Alternate 

power supplies shall be on-site generating units or an outside power source which is separate and 

independent from sources used for normal operation ofthe wastewater facilities. 

(b) For industrial and commercial sources. The permittee shall either maintain an alternative 

power source sufficient to operate the wastewater pumping and treatment facilities or halt, reduce 

or otherwise control production and or all discharges upon reduction or loss of power to the. 

wastewater pumping or treatment facilities. 

Revised July 1, 2002 	 Page9 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


2. Spill prevention. (applicable only to industrial sources) Within six months of the effective date of 

this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Department for review and approval, with or without 

conditions, a spill prevention plan. The plan shall delineate methods and measures to be taken to prevent 

and or contain any spills of pulp, chemicals, oils or other contaminates and shall specify means of 

disposal and or treatment to be used. 

3. Removed substances. Solids, sludges trash rack cleanings, filter backwash, or other pollutants 

removed from or resulting from the treatment or control ofwaste waters shall be disposed of in a manner 

approved by the Department. 

4. Connection to municipal sewer. (applicable only to industrial and commercial sources) All 


wastewaters designated by the Department as treatable in a municipal treatment system will be cosigned 


to that system when it is available. This permit will expire 90 days after the municipal treatment facility 


becomes available, unless this time is extended by the Department in writing. 


F. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this permit, the following definitions shall apply. Other 

definitions applicable to this permit may be found in Chapters 520 through 529 ofthe Department's rules 

Average means the arithmetic mean ofvalues taken at the frequency required for each parameter over the 

specified period. For bacteria, the average shall be the geometric mean. 

Average monthly discharge limitation means the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a 

calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided 

by the number of daily discharges measured during that month. Except, however, bacteriological tests 

may be calculated as a geometric mean. 

Average weeldy discharge limitation means the highest allowable average ofdaily discharges over a 

calendar week, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar week divided by 

the number of daily discharges measured during that week. 

Best management practices ("BMPs") means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, 

maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of 

the State. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant 

site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. 

Composite sample means a sample consisting of a minimum of eight grab samples collected at equal 

intervals during a 24 hour period (or a lesser period as specified in the section on monitoring and 

reporting) and combined proportional to the flow over that same time period. 

Continuous discharge means a discharge which occurs without interruption throughout the operating 

hours of the facility, except for infrequent shutdowns for maintenance, process changes, or other similar 

activities. 

Daily discharge means the discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period 

that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with limitations 

expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge is calculated as the total mass ofthe pollutant discharged 

over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units ofmeasurement, the daily discharge 

is calculated as the average measurement ofthe pollutant over the day. 

Revised July I, 2002 Page 10 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 

Discharge Monitoring Report ("DMR") means the EPA uniform national form, including any 

subsequent additions, revisions, or modifications for the reporting of self-monitoring results by 

permittees. DMRs must be used by approved States as well as by EPA. EPA will supply DMRs to any 

approved State upon request. The EPA national forms may be modified to substitute the State Agency 

name, address, logo, and other similar information, as appropriate, in place ofEPA's. 

Flow weighted composite sample means a composite sample consisting of a mixture of aliquots 

collected at a constant time interval, where the volume of each aliquot is proportional to the flow rate of 

the discharge. 

Grab sample means an individual sample collected in a period of less than 15 minutes. 

Interference means a Discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other 

sources, both: 

(I) 	Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, 

use or disposal; and 

(2) Therefore is 	 a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit 

(including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of 

sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with the following statutory provisions and 

regulations or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent State or local regulations): Section 

405 of the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (including title II, more 

commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and 

including State regulations contained in any State sludge management plan prepared pursuant 

to subtitle D of the SWDA), the Clean Air Act, th.e Toxic Substances Control Act, and the 

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. 

Maximum daily discharge limitation means the highest allowable daily discharge. 

New source means any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a 

discharge ofpollutants, the construction ofwhich commenced: 

(a) After promulgation of standards of performance under section 306 ofCWA which are 

applicable to such source, or 

(b) After proposal of standards ofperformance in accordance with section 306 of CW A 

which are applicable to such source, but only if the standards are promulgated in accordance 

with section 306 within 120 days oftheir proposal. 

Pass through means a discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the State in quantities or 

concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a 

canse of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the 

magnitude or duration of a violation). 

Permit means an authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by EPA or an approved 

State to implement the requirements of40 CFR parts 122, 123 and 124. Permit includes an NPDES 

general permit (Chapter 529). Permit does not include any permit which has not yet been the subject of 

final agency action, such as a draft permit or a proposed permit. 

Person means an individual, firm, corporation, municipality, quasi-municipal corporation, state agency, 

federal agency or other legal entity. 

Revised July 1, 2002 	 Page 11 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


Point source means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including, but not limited to, any 

pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal 

feeding operation or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. 

Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, junk, incinerator residue, sewage, refuse, effluent, garbage, 

sewage sludge, munitions, chemicals, biological or radiological materials, oil, petroleum products or 

byproducts, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, dirt and industrial, municipal, domestic, 

commercial or agricultural wastes of any kind. 

Process wastewater means any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct 

contact with or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished 

product, byproduct, or waste product. 

Publicly owned treatment works ("POTW") means any facility for the treatment of pollutants owned 

by the State or any political subdivision thereof, any municipality, district, quasi-municipal corporation or 

other public entity. 

Septage means, for the purposes of this permit, any waste, refuse, effluent sludge or other material 

removed from a septic tank, cesspool, vault privy or similar source which concentrates wastes or to which 

chemicals have been added. Septage does not include wastes from a holding tank. 

Time weighted composite means a composite sample consisting of a mixture of equal volume aliquots 

collected over a constant time interval. 

Toxic pollutant includes any pollutant listed as toxic under section 307(a)(l) or, in the case ofsludge use 

or disposal practices, any pollutant identified in regulations implementing section 405( d) ofthe CW A. 

Toxic pollutant also includes those substances or combination of substances, including disease causing 

agents, which after discharge or upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism, 

including humans either directly through the environment or indirectly through ingestion through food 

chains, will, on the basis of information available to the board either alone or in combination with other 

substances already in the receiving waters or the discharge, cause death, disease, abnormalities, cancer, 

genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions, including malfunctions in reproduction, or physical 

deformations in such organism or their offspring. 

Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence ofvegetation 

typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, 

and similar areas. 

Whole effluent toxicity means the aggregate toxic effect of an effluent measured directly by a toxicity 

test. 

Revised July 1, 2002 Page 12 

ATTACHMENT A 


I 


I

I . I 

' I 

f 


I 


I 


I 


l 

I 


I 

Protocol for Total Phosphorus Sample 


Collection and Analysis for Waste Water Effluent 


Approved Analytical Methods: EPA 200.7 (Rev. 44), 365.1 (Rev. 2.0), (Lachat), 

365.3, 365.4; SM 3120 B, 4500-P 8.5, 4500-P E, 4500-P F, 4500-P G, 4500-P H; 

ASTM D515-88(A), 0515-88(8); USGS 1-4471-97, 1-4600-85, 1-4610-91; OMAAOAC 

973.55, 973.56 (laboratol)' must be certified for any methoq performed) 

Sample Collection: The Maine DEP is requesting that total phosphorus analysis be 

conducted on composite effluent samples, unless a facility's Permit specifically 

designates grab sampling for this parameter. Facilities can use Individual collection 

bottles or a single jug made out of glass or polyethylene. Bottles and/or jugs should be 

cleaned prior to each use with dilute HCL. This cleaning should be followed by several 

rinses with distilled water. Commercially purchased, pre-cleaned sample containers are 

an acceptable alternative. The sampler hoses should be cleaned, as needed. 

Sample Preservation: During compositing the sample must be at 0-6 degrees C 

(without freezing). If the sample Is being sent to a commercial laboratory or analysis 

cannot be performed the day of collection then the sample must be preserved using· 

H2S04 to obtain a sample pH of <2 su and refrigerated at 0-6 degrees C (withqut 

freezing). The holding time for a preserved sample Is 28 days. 

Note: Ideally, Total P samples are preserved as described above. However, If a facility· 

is using a commercial laboratory then that laboratol)' may choose to add acid to the 

sample once it arrives at the laboratol)'. The Maine DEP will accept results that use 

either of these preservation methods. 

Laboratory QA/QC: Laboratories. must follow the appropriate QA/QC procedures that 

are described In each of the approved methods. 

Sampling QA/QC: If a composite sample Is being collected using an automated 

sampler, then once per month run a blank on the composite sampler. Automatically, 

draw distilled water Into the sample jug using the sample collection line. Let this water 

set in the jug for 24 hours and then analyze for total phosphorus. Preserve this sample 

as described above. 

Maine DEP, July 1, 2014 

Page C1 
ATTACHMENT B 

! 

I 


I 


I I 

I 


I 


I 


~ 
---

---

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Effluent Mercury Test Report 

Name of Facility: Federal Permit #ME----'-­

Pipe# 

Purpose ofthis test: §Initial limit determination 

, Compliance monitoring for: year ,...----calendar quatter 

Supplemental or extra test 

SAMPLE COLLECTION INFORMATION 


Sampling Date: Sampling time: _____AM/PM 

mm dd yy 

Sampling Location: 

Weather Conditions: 

Please describe any unusual conditions with the influent or at the facility during or preceding the 

time of sample collection: 

Optional test- not required but recommended where possible to allow for the most meaningful 

evaluation of mercury results: 

Suspended Solids ___mg!L Sample type: ____	Grab (recommended) or 

Composite 

ANALYTICAL RESULT FOR EFFLUENT MERCURY 


Name of Laboratory: 

Date of analysis: Result: ng/L (PPT) 

Please Enter Effluent Limits for your facility 

Effluent Limits: Average= ng/L Maximum= ng/L 

Please attach any remarks or comments from the laboratory that may have a bearing on the results or 

their interpretation. If duplicate samples were taken at the same time please report the average. 

CERTIFICATION 

I certifiy that to the best of my knowledge the foregoing information is correct and representative of 

conditions at the time of sample collection. The sample for mercury was collected and analyzed 

using EPA Methods 1669 (clean sampling) and 1631 (trace level analysis) in accordance with 

instructions from the DEP. 

By: _____________________Date: 

Title: 

PLEASE MAIL THIS FORM TO YOUR ASSIGNED INSPECTOR 

DEPLW 0112-82007, Revised July 2009 	 Printed 7/14/2009 
ATTACHMENT C 

' I 
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 


WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY REPORT 


FRESH WATERS 


!t:~~!1l!Y:il'~ili~4\ai!~# +•:-.,--,--:--::--:----c:-:----::----:-·~~!W~M¥''•' 11·::: '!·,'~-:-:---.,----,.,----::.,---------­

nrsigning this form, I attest that to the best ofmy knowledge that the information provided is true, accurate, and complete. 

water flea trout A-NOEL 

A-NOELI C-NOEL 

C-N0EL·~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::t:::::::::::::::::::::::::j ,, ' . .'' .. .. ''"" ""'" ..., . ,,,,, """"" ,,.,,,.,,,,"''' .,,.,,, ''"'' ,,.,.,,,,,,,,,,, '' ''"' 

%survival I''"'""'"'''' ···o;~··survival no. young final weight (mg) 

QC standard A>90 C>80 >IS/female A>90 C>80 > 2% increase 

lab control 

receiving wate r control 

cone. 1 ( %) 

cone. 2 ( %) 

cone. 3 ( 0/o) 

cone. 4 ( %) 

cone. 5 ( %) 

cone. 6 ( %) 

stat test used .. Illace * next to values statistically dtfferent fl om cont1 ols 

for trout show final wt and % incr for both controls 

C-NOEL 

toxicant I date 

limits (mg!L) 

results (mg!L) 

Laboratory conducting test 

:c<1mP';\.l:i'lii'~~::i!'i! We: ::___________:cliilltl~liY:R~i1f'ffai\l~ct>ri11\<a\:i'#•·'-----------

!M~~iili''A~4!@!3•b':ibTii 

!c\iliii~!~w;~t!i' u•m:;;~ ;:i 

Report \VET chemistry on DEP Form "ToxShcet (Fresh \Vater Version), March 2007." 

DEPLW0741~B2007, Revised March 2007 Printed 1/22/2009 
l 

I 


ATTACHMENT D 

I 


L . 

r 

I 


I 


I 


I 


I 


"' 

Facility Name---------- MEPDES # ---- Facility Representative Signature =:::=::::;:;::-;:;::::::-:::;:::-;:-=c-::=:o::-::::;-::=::=­ Pipe#____ To the best of my kno~ledge this information Is true, accurate and complete. 

Licensed Flow (MGD) § Flow for Day (MGD)1''._1___-J Flow Avg. for Month (MGD)121 LI___.J

Acute dilution factor 

Chronic dilution factor Date Sample Collected L'----.J Date Sample Analyzed [I===] Human health dilution factor 

Criteria type: M(arine) or F(resh) f Laboratory------------------ Telephone~------­

Address-----------------­

Lab Contact __________________ 

Lab 10 # ------­

ERROR WARNING I Essential facility FRESH WATER VERSION 

information is missing. Please check Receiving 

required entries in bold above. Please see the footnotes on the last page. Water or (ug/L or as noted) Ambient 

Revised April24, 2014 Page 1 DEPLW 0740-G2014 

Printed 5/5/2014 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

This form is for reporting laboratory data and facility information. Official compliance reviews will be done by DEP. 

··- ----··--­
---------- - -------

Printed 515/2014 Mail')e Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 


This form is for reporting laboratory data and facility information. Official compliance reviews will be done by DEP. 


' POLL' OT A .OT<; (4) 

, 

~~

5 

I Limit A, 

l=ffl,~n~ Limits 

Reporting ,(6) .161 I d6l I • •~" r-h Acute Chronic Health

2 

i:::;:' 

:~·~~O~L=====+==~c==t===+====~==~=====t========t====+====t===t=~ 

it ~~iE~NCO~L------~--~~--+-----+-------~----4-------+-----------~------f-----4-----f---~ 

~~~--~~~--+---+----4----+---~~------+---~----~--~~ IBN I 

~I ~ENE 

:-~~11.5~===t==E=E=====E===E==~ 

lN 

~~ ~ 1-N-~LATE lN 

lN JIE1 

lN . PHTHALATE 

5 

5 

Revised April 24, 2014 Page2 DEPLW 0740-G2014 
Printed 5/5/2014 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

This form is for reporting laboratory data and facility information. Official compliance reviews will be done by DEP. 

IBN FL 5 

IBN 5 

lN 5 

lN 

lN ~ ;)(AI ~ 

-~~ ~E 

DT 

RDANE 

~ IN 

ULFAN SL LFATE 

,..__ 

.--~~OR I 

:.--­

;,.-­

).3 :.--­

;,.-­ •.3 

;B-1260 1.2 

~~ 1 

1.1. ~H 5 

,1' ~HANE ',1' HRICH 5 

1.1· 5 

11,1· ~ I )ETHYLENE (1, 1· 

iv 3 

2·DICHL 3 

.2·1 I 6 

:HLOF<uc nYLENE (1,2­

lv 

~ 5 

w --~·· ; (1,3­ lv I 5

Revised April 24, 2014 Page3 DEPLW 0740-G2014 
Printed 5/5/2014 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

This fonm is for reporting laboratory data and facility infonmation. Official compliance reviews will be done by DEP. 

NA 

IACR NA 

E: 
 5 


5 

~ 5

~METHANE 

;;=: YLBR< ~E .THYLCHL I

It=I ETHYLENE 

lv I I 

IDE 

., .,. 

5 

IV 5 

I nYLENE 

lv I 3 

IV V1N' IUE 5 

Notes: 

(1) Flow average for day pertains to WET/PP composite sample day. 

(2) Flow average for month is for month in which WET/PP sample was taken. 

(3) Analytical ch.emisby parameters must be done as part of the WET test chemistry. 

·(3a) Cyanide, Available (Cyanide Amenable to Chlorination) is not an analytical chemistry parameter, but may be required by certain discharge permits . 

(4) Priority Poll~tants should be reported in micrograms per liter (ug/L). 


!\7J::,' 5'"\':0~';11lrlf' ..;.'l1t-.• .--~'~ff'i\Ft\'\)V'I'O!l;!,Wid'~'T!Tl'.•m1'"''!fj!P~~~.t-"fW .•N'./mD .... \1ilTIX1\"'blrth'"''0"1'11"1!J1Gf''7f't.-~-~- <IO!_•,;;;.T""Ftf•l'!:)!f"ll4l\1ft!\.1iffi11Cffi'!'i\'f'"t'0jtF''1'1tlm'T\W"'rt-'1't""'1l!\'trlilr<H1"!qm>=FH!mtml111!1·m•'Sj;"<'F111.W>111]!j'"'IZ<1iW1mmmeaq"' h t
 ib<JJ!l,!!l~~!jJS'O. ern:•reBQu~\L•<)l:rnan09Js!IL~~C•.l er,ngt9' ,,1 .e!OOQ ra~: a.,..ra ow;i!SO.~e:sureLO!OOnye ! O'!ffii<;!;Qilf?ffiS!perill"erton. ul~jpJlr S ee . 

(6) Effluent Umits are calculated based on dilution factor, background allocation (10%) and water quality reserves (15%- to allow for new or 


changed discharges or non-point sources). 


(7) Possible Exceedence determinations are done for a single sample only on a mass basis using the actual pounds discharged. This 


analysis does not consider watershed wide allocations for fresh water discharges. 


(8) These tests are optional for the receiving water. However, where possible samples of the receiving water should be preserved and saved 

for the duration of the WET test. In the event of questions about the receiving water's possible effect on the WET results, chemistry tests 

should then be conducted. 

(9) pH and Total Residual Chlorine must be conducted at the time of sample collection. Tests for Total Residual Chlorine need be conducted 

only when an effluent has been chlorinated or residual chlorine is believed to be present for any other reason• 

Revised April 24, 2014 Page4 DEPLW 0740-G2014 

----··~·-· 
Printed 5/5/2014 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

This form is for reporting laboratory data and facility information. Official compliance reviews will be done by DEP. 

Comments: 

Revised April 24, 2014 PageS DEPLW 074Q..G2014 

------~·.~~-----'-------------
ATTACHMENT E 


I 


t I 

~ ! 

r 


l ' ' 

I 

r 


L 

I 

Salmonid Survival and Growth Test 

The Salmonid survival and growth test must follow the procedures for the fathead 

minnow larval survival and growth tests detailed in USEP A's freshwater acute and 

chronic methods manuals with the following Depattment modifications: 

Species - Brook Trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, or other salmonid approved by the 

Department. 

Age - Less than six months old for the first test each year and less than twelve 

months for subsequent tests. 

Size - The largest fish must not be greater than 150% of the smallest. 

Loading Rate- < 0.5 g/1/day 

Feeding rate- 5% of body weight 3 times daily (15%/day) 

Temperature- 12° ± 1 °C 

Dissolved Oxygen - 6.5 mg/1 ,aeration ifneeded with large bubbles (> 1 mm 

diameter) at a rate of <1 00/min 

Dilution Water- Receiving water upstream of discharge (or other ambient water 

approved by the Department) 

Dilution Series -A minimum of 5 effluent concentrations (including the instream 

waste concentrations bracketing acute and chronic dilutions calculated pursuant to 

Section D); a receiving water control; and control of known suitable water quality 

Duration - Acute= 48 hours 


- Chronic = 10 days minimum 


Test acceptability- Acute= minimum of90% survival in 2 days 

- Chronic= minimum of 80% survival in 10 days; minimum growth of 20 

mg/gm/d dry weight in controls, (individual fish weighed, dried at 100°C to 

constant weight and weighed to 3 significant figures) 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

AND 

MAINE WASTE DISCHARGE LICENSE 

FACT SHEET 

Date: January 13, 2015 

PERMIT NUMBER: ME0100439 

LICENSE NUMBER: W002753-6B-F-R 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 

MILO WATER DISTRICT 


146 Park Street 


Milo, Maine 04463 


COUNTY: 	 Piscataquis County 

NAME AND ADDRESS WHERE DISCHARGE OCCURS: 

MILO WATER DISTRICT 


146 Park Street 


Milo, Maine 04463 


RECEIVING WATER/CLASSIFICATION: Piscataquis River/Class B 

COGNIZANT OFFICIAL AND TELEPHONE NUMBER: Mr. Timothy Gormley 

(207) 943-2501 

milowater@myfairpoint.net 

1. 	 APPLICATION SUMMARY 

a. 	 Application: The Milo Water District (MWD/District/permittee hereinafter) has 

submitted a timely and complete application to the Department for the renewal of 

combination Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) permit 

#MEO I 00439/ Maine Waste Discharge License (WDL) #W002753-6C-D-R (permit 

hereinafter) which was issued by the Department on December 4, 2009, for a five-year 

term. The 12/4/09 permit authorized the discharge ofup to a monthly average flow of 

0.39 million gallons per day (MGD) ofsecondary treated sanitary waste waters to the 

Piscataquis River, Class B, in Milo, Maine. See Attachment A of this Fact Sheet for a 

location map. 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 2 of23 


W002753-6C-F-R 


1. 	 APPLICATION SUMMARY (cont'd) 

b. 	 Source Description: - The waste water treatment facility receives sanitary waste water 

from approximately 740 residential and commercial users within the boundaries of the 

District. The District owns and maintains approximately 12 miles of collection system 

which is 100% separated. All former combined sewer overflows (CSOs) were eliminated 

in 2006. 

The waste treatment facility is not currently authorized to accept transported wastes from 

local septage haulers. It is noted the facility accepts up to 1,500 to 2,000 gpd of waters 

from an oil/water separator from the local railroad maintenance facility located just to 

the northeast of the waste water treatment facility. 

c. 	 Waste Water Treatment: Waste waters conveyed to the treatment facility during normal 

operations receive a secondary level of treatment via three (3) aerated facultative lagoons 

that are two acres, one acre and one acre in size, respectively, providing approximately 

30-days of detention time. Waste waters collected are conveyed to the lagoons via a 

force main (measuring eight inches in diameter) from the Ferry Road pumping station. 

After passing through the lagoons it is seasonally disinfected in a chlorine contact 

chamber with sodium hypochlorite and then de-chlorinated using sodium bi-sulfite. The 

flow is measured in two locations, with a mag flow meter at the pump station next to the 

lagoon and then again with an ultra-sonic meter at the chlorination building. The 

discharge is to the Piscataquis River via a ductile iron pipe measuring 12 inches in 

diameter. The end ofthe outfall pipe is fitted with a manhole base stmcture with a grate 

on the downstream side to enhance mixing of the treated waste water with the 

Piscataquis River. The waste water treatment facility is designed for the treatment of an 

average daily flow of0.39 MGD. See Attachment B of the this Fact Sheet for a 

schematic of the facility. 

2. 	 PERMIT SUMMARY 

a. 	 Terms and Conditions: This permitting action is carrying forward all the terms and 

conditions ofthe previous permit except that this permit is; 

1. 	 Eliminating the option when calculating percent removal to report the NODI 9 code 

on the Discharge Monitoring Repmt (DMR) when the average influent concentration 

is less than 200 mg/L based on guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

2. 	 Eliminating the monthly average water quality based mass and concentration limits 

for ammonia as a statistical evaluation on the most current 60 months oftest results 

submitted to the Departnment indicates the discharge no longer exceeds or has a 

reasonable potential to exceed the chronic ambient water quality criteria (A WQC) 

for ammonia. 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 3 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

2. 	 PERMIT SUMMARY (cont'd) 

3. 	 Incorporating previously established average and maximum technology based 

concentration limits for total mercury so the results can be tracked in the federal 

Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). 

4. 	 Eliminating Special Condition C, Disinfection, from the permit as the Department 

has reconsidered the necessity of said condition. 

5. 	 Establishing a seasonal (June 1- September 30) total phosphorus monitoring 

requirement to obtain up-to-date test results for the discharge to assist the 

Department in evaluating the impact on ambient water quality in the Piscataquis 

River. 

b. 	 History: The most current relevant licensing/permitting and other regulatory actions 

include the following; · 

Apri/27, 1983- The Department issued WDL #W002753 which authorized Milo to 

discharge 330,500 gallons per day of untreated waste water through nine (9) discharge 

locations on the Sebec, Pleasant and Piscataquis Rivers in Milo, Maine. 

Februwy28, 1986- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit #ME0100439 for frve-year 

term. 

January 1, 1991 -A new waste water treatment facility commenced operation with a 

single discharge location into the Piscataquis River. 

December 5, 1991 -The Depatiment issued renewal #W002753-59-A-R for five-year 

term. The licensed flow limitation was increased from 0.33 MGD to 0.39 MGD, to 

reflect the design capacity of the new facility. 

Februwy 5, 1995- The Department administratively modified WDL #W002753-59-A-R 

to include whole effluent toxicity (WET) and chemical specific testing pursuant to 

Department regulation Chapter 530.5, Swface Water Taxies Control Program. 

December 11, 1996- The Department administratively modified 

WDL #W002753-59-A-R by suspending the limitations and monitoring requirements for 

bacteria and total residual chlorine bewtween May 151

h and September 301h of each year. 

October 15, 1998 -Milo requested a modification to require CBOD testing in lieu of 

BOD testing. 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 4 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

2. PERMIT SUMMARY (cont'd) 

Apri/27, 1999- The Department denied Milo's request to substitute carbonaceous 

biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) testing for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 

testing After reviewing historical discharge monitoring data, the Department made the 

determination that 97.3% ofthe time, the Milo facility was capable of meeting their 

existing monthly average license limitation of 30 mg/L for BOD. The Department's best 

practicable treatment (BPT) standard is based on a threshold of95% compliance with the 

monthly average limitations. 

December 6, 1999- The Department issued WDL renewal #W002753-5L-B-R for fiveyear term. 

May 25, 2000- The Depatiment unilaterally modified the 12/6/99 WDL by establishing 

interim average and maximum concentration limits· for mercury. 

January 12, 2001 -The State of Maine received authorization from the EPA to 

administer the NPDES permitting program in Maine. The program has since been 

referred to as the Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) program. 

October 5, 2004- The Department issued combination MEPDES permit 

#ME0100439/WDL #W002753-6B-B-R for a five-year term. 

April I 0, 2006- The Department unilaterally modified the I 0/5/04 MEPDES 

permit/WDt by establishing whOle effluent toxicity and chemical specific testing 

pursuant to Department rule 06-096 CMR, Chapter 530, Surface Water Taxies Control 

Program, promulgated on October 12, 2005. 

September 29, 2009- The Department issued a letter to the MWD indicated they were 

no longer required to participate in the Department's CSO program. 

December 4, 2009- The Department issued combination MEPDES permit 


#MEOI00439/WDL #W002753-6B-C-R for a five-year term. 


Februmy 3, 2012- The Depattment unilaterally modified the.12/4/09 MEPDES 

permit/WDL by reducing the monitoring frequency for mercury from 4/Y ear to 1/Y ear. 

July 28, 2014- The MWD submitted a timely and complete application to the 

Department to renew the 12/4/09 MEPDES permit/WDL. 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 5 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

3. CONDITIONS OF PERMITS 

Maine law, 38 M.R.S.A. Section 414-A, requires that the effluent limitations prescribed for 

discharges, including, but not limited to, effluent toxicity, require application of best 

practicable treatment (BPT), be consistent with the U.S. Clean Water Act, and ensure that 

the receiving waters attain the State water quality standards as described in Maine's Surface 

Water Classification System. In addition, 38 M.R.S.A., Section 420 and Department rule 06­

096 CMR Chapter 530, Surface Water Taxies Control Program, require the regulation of 

toxic substances not to exceed levels set forth in Department rule 06-096 CMR Chapter 584, 

Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants, and that ensure safe levels for the 

discharge oftoxic pollutants such that existing and designated uses of surface waters are 

maintained and protected. 

4. RECEIVING WATER STANDARDS 

Maine law, 38 M.R.S.A., Section 467(i)(E)(l) classifies the Piscataquis River at and below 

the discharge from the MWD facility as a Class B waterbody. 

Maine law, 38 M.R.S.A., Section 465(3 & 4) describes the classification standards for 

Class B waters as follows: 

Class B waters must be ofsuch quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of 

drinking water supply after treatment; fishing; agriculture; recreation in and on the 

water; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectric power generation, 

except as prohibited under Title 12, section 403; navigation; and as habitat for fish and 

other aquatic lifo. The habitat must be characterized as unimpaired. 

The dissolved oxygen content ofClass B waters may not be less than 7 parts per million 

or 75% ofsaturation, whichever is higher, except that for the periodfrom October 1st to 

May 14th, in order to ensure spawning and egg incubation ofindigenous fish species, 

the 7-day mean dissolved oxygen concentration may notbe less than 9. 5 parts per 

million and the 1-day minimum dissolved oxygen concentration may not be less than 8.0 

parts per million in identified fish spawning areas. Between May 15th and September 

30th, the number ofEscherichia coli bacteria ofhuman and domestic animal origin in 

these waters may not exceed a geometric mean of64 per 100 milliliters or an 

instantaneous level of236per 100 milliliters. In determining human and domestic 

animal origin, the department shall assess licensed and unlicensed sources using 

available diagnostic procedures. 

Discharges to Class B waters may not cause adverse impact to aquatic life in that the 

receiving waters must be ofs1ifjicient quality to support all aquatic species indigenous to 

the receiving water without detrimental changes in the resident biological community. 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 6 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

S; 	 RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS 

The Department conducted ambient water quality surveys in 1997, 1998 and 2001 on the 

Piscataquis River in an effort to assess the existing water quality and develop a water quality model 

to support the issuance of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) report. Ambient water quality 

sampling was conducted on 23 miles of the Piscataquis River from Guilford to Milo. The 

Department published a document entitled, Piscataquis River Data Report. 2001 Survey, January 

2002. DEPLW0465, with the results of the sampling events. 

The 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, published by the 

Depatiment (often referred to as the 305b Repm1) lists a 13.44 mile segment ofthe Piscataquis 

River below the Dover-Foxcroft waste water treatment facility in a table entitled, Table 5-A: Rivers 

And Streams Impaired ByPollutants Other Than Those Listed in 5-B Through 5-D (FMDL 

Required). The repot1 cites the cause ofthe impairment is low dissolved oygen levels. Previous 

305b reports listed low dissolved oxygen levels and bacteria as a result of municipal point sources, 

agricultural non-point sources and combined sewer overflows as being the cause of the impairment. 

The Depatiment is scheduled to perform a comprehensive ambient water quality survey 

during the summer of2015 and prepare a TMDL for the 13.44-mile segment during calendar 

year 2016. If the TMDL indicates that at full permitted discharge limits, the discharge from 

the Milo facility is causing or contributing to the non-attainment of ambient water quality 

standards, this permit will be re-opened per Special Condition L, Reopening OfThe Permit 

For Modifications, to impose more stringent limitations to meet water quality standards. 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

a. 	 Flow: The monthly average flow limitation of 0.39 MGD and the daily maximum 


repotting requirement in the previous permitting action are being carried forward in this 


permitting action. The monthly average limitation is considered to be representative of 


the monthly average design flow for the waste water treatment facility. 


A review of the monthly DMR data for the period January 2011- June 2014 indicates 

flow values have been reported as follows: 

Flow (42 DMRs) 

Value Limit(MGD) Ran2e (MGD) Mean (MGD) 

Monthly Average 0.39 0.12-0.62 0.25 

Daily Maximum Repot1 0.17-1.2 0.47 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 7of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

b. 	 Dilution Factors -The Department establishes applicable dilution factors for the 

discharge in accordance with freshwater protocols established in Department Rule 

Chapter 530 Surface Water Taxies Control Program, October 2005. With a permitted 

flow limit of 0.39 MGD, the dilution factors are as follows: 

Y.Acute<l): IQIO = 4.6 cfs => (4.6 cfs)(0.6464) + (0.39 MGD) = 8.7:1 


(0.39MGD) 


Acute: I Q I 0 = 18.5 cfs => (18.5 cfs)(0.6464) + (0.39 MGD) = 32: I 


(0.39MGD) 


Chronic: 7QIO =27.7 cfs => (27.7 cfs)(0.6464) + (0.39 MGD) = 47:1 


(0.39MGD) 


Harmonic Mean:= 83.1 cfs(2

):=> (83.1 cfs)(0.6464) + (0.39 MGD) = 139: I 


(0.39MGD) 


Footnotes 

(I) Chapter 530.5 (D)(4)(a) states that analyses using numeric acute criteria for aquatic 

life must be based on 1/4 ofthe IQIO stream design flow to prevent substantial acute 

toxicity within any mixing zone. The 1 Q 10 is the lowest one day flow over a tenyear recurrence interval. The regulation goes on to say that where it can be 

demonstrated that a discharge achieves rapid and complete mixing with the receiving 

water by way of an efficient diffuser or other effective method, analyses may use a 

greater proportion ofthe stream design, up to including all of it. 

The previous permitting action made the determination that based on the lack of 

information provided by Milo as to the true mixing characteristics ofthe discharge of 

treated effluent with the receiving waters, the default stream flow of \4 ofthe lQIO is 

applicable in acute statistical evaluations pursuant to Chapter 530. The MWD has 

not provided any new information at the time of this permit renewal. As a result, the 

Department continues to utilize the default value of \4 of the I Q I 0 as being 

applicable in acute statistical evaluations. 

(2) The harmonic mean dilution factor is approximated by multiplying the 7QIO 

receiving water flow by three (3). This multiplying factor is based on guidelines for 

estimation of human health dilution presented in the USEP A publication "Technical 

Support Document for Water Quality-based Taxies Control" (Office of Water; 

EP A/505/2-90-00 I, page 88), and represents an estimation of harmonic mean flow 

on which human health dilutions are based in a riverine 7QIO flow situation. 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 8 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

c. 	 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5l & Total Suspended Solids CTSS): - The previous 

permitting action established monthly and weekly average BODS and TSS best 

practicable treatment (BPT) concentration limits of 30 mg!L and 45 mg!L respectively, 

that were based on secondary treatment requirements as defined in Department rule, 

06-096 CMR Chapter 525(3)(Ill). The maximum daily BODS concentration limits of 

50 mg/L are based on a Depmtment best professional judgment ofBPT. All three 

concentration limits are being carried forward in this permitting action. 

As for mass limitations, the previous permitting action established monthly average, 

weekly average and daily maximum limitations based on a monthly average limit of 

0.39 MGD that are being carried forward in this permitting action. The limitations were 

calculated as follows: 

Monthly average: (0.39 MGD)(8.34)(30 mg!L) = 98 lbs/day 


Weekly average: (0.39 MGD)(8.34)(45 mg!L) = 146lbs/day 


Daily maximum: (0.39 MGD)(8.34)(50 mg/L) = 163 lbs/day 


A review ofthe monthly DMR data for the period January 20 II - June 2014 indicates 

the permittee has repmted BOD and TSS values as follows: 

BOD Mass {42 DMRs' 

Value Limit (lbs/day) Range (lbs/day) Averaee (lbs/day) 

Monthly Average 98 7-87 27 

Daily Maximum 163 8- 127 43 

BOD Concentration (42 DMRs) 

Value Limit (mg/L) Range (mg/L) Average (mg!L) 

Monthly Average 30 7-26 13 

Daily Maximum 50 8-35 17 

TSS mass (42 DMRs) 

Value Limit (lbs/day) Ranee (lbs/day) Averaee (lbs/day) 

Monthly Average 98 3 -116 28 

Daily Maximum 163 3-200 45 

TSS Concentration (42 DMRs) 

Value Limit (mg!L) Range (mg!L) Average (mg!L) 

Monthly Average 30 2-25 13 

Daily Maximum 50 3-39 18 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 9 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Minimum monitoring frequency requirements in MEPDES permits are prescribed by 

06-096 CMR Chapter 523§5(i). The USEPA has published guidance entitled, Interim 

Guidance for Performance Based Reductions ofNPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies 

(USEP A Guidance April 1996). In addition, the Department has supplemented the EPA 

guidance with its own guidance entitled, Peiformance Based Reduction ofMonitoring 

Frequencies- Modification ofEPA Guidance Released Apri/1996 (Maine DEP May 22, 

2014). Both documents are being utilized to evaluate the compliance history for each 

parameter regulated by the previous permit to determine if a reduction in the monitoring 

frequencies are justified. 

Although EPA's 1996 Guidance recommends evaluation of the most current two-years 

of effluent data for a parameter, the Department is considering 42 months of data 

(January 2011 -June 2014). A review ofthe monitoring data for BOD & TSS indicates 

the ratios (expressed in percent) ofthe long term effluent average to the monthly average 

limits can be calculated as 28%. According to Table I ofthe EPA Guidance, a 1/W eek 

monitoring requirement can be reduced to 2/Month. Therefore, this permitting action is 

reducing the monitoring frequency for BOD & TSS to 1/Week. 

The previous permitting action also established a requirement of 85% removal for BOD 

and TSS pursuant to Department rule, 06-096 CMR Chapter 525(3)(III)(a&b)(3) except 

in the circumstances where the influent concentration is less than 200 mg/L. Based on 

guidance from the US EPA, this permit ·is eliminating the exception for complying with 

the 85% removal requirement when influent is less 200 mg/L as weak influent to a 

treatment facility is an indication of excessive inflow and infiltration that should be 

addressed in the collection system. Compliance with the percent removal requirement is 

based on a 12-month rolling average basis to be consistent with all other Department 

permitting actions for lagoon systems with extended detention times. 

A review of the DMR data for the period ofJanuary 2011 through March 2014 indicates 

values for BOD and TSS percent removal have been reported as follows: 

BOD %Removal (DMRs = 14) 

I 

I 

Value Limit(%) Range(%) Average (%) 

Monthly Average 85 88-93 92 

TSS % Removal (DMRs = 14) 

Value Limit(%) Range(%) Average (%) 

Monthly Average 85 89-96 94 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 10 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

d. 	 Escherichia coliform (E. coli.) bacteria: The previous permitting action established 

seasonal (between May 15th and September 30th of each year) monthly average and daily 

maximum concentration limits for E. coli bacteria of 64 colonies/! 00 ml (geometric 

mean) and 427 colonies/100 ml (instantaneous level), respectively, based on the State of 

Maine Water Classification Program criteria for Class B waters found at 38 M.R.S.A. 

§465(3)(B) at the time ofpermitting, and a minimum monitoring frequency requirement 

ofl/Week. 

During calendar year 2005, Maine's Legislature approved a new daily maximum water 

quality standards of236 colonies/100 ml for water bodies designated as Class Band 

Class C. In the 12/29/09 permit, the Department determined that end-of-pipe limitations 

for the instantaneous concentration standard of 427 colonies/100 mL would be achieved 

through available dilution ofthe effluent with the receiving waters and need not be 

revised in MEPDES permits for facilities with adequate dilution (at least 1.1: I for 

facilities in Class B waters). The seasonal (May 15- September 30) bacteria limits of 

64 colonies/100 ml and 236 col/100 ml are being carried fmward in this permit. The 

Department reserves the right to impose year-round bacteria limits, if necessary, to 

protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 

A review of the seasonal monthly DMR data for the period May 2011 -June 2014 

indicates the permittee has reported E. coli bacteria test results as follows: 

E. coli bacteria (17 DMRs) 

Value Limit (col/100 ml) Range (col/100 ml) Mean (col/100 ml) 

Monthly Average 64 3-64 19 

Daily Maximum 427 7-205 87 

Although EPA's 1996 Guidance recommends evaluation of the most current two-years 

of effluent data for a parameter, the Department is considering 17 seasonal months of 

data (May 2011- June 2014). A review ofthe monitoring data for BOD & TSS indicates 

the ratios (expressed in percent) ofthe long term effluent average to the monthly average 

limits can be calculated as 30%. According to Table I of the EPA Guidance, a !/Week 

monitoring requirement can be reduced to 2/Month. Therefore, this permitting action is 

reducing the monitoring frequency for E. coli bacteria to 2/Month with at least ten ( 1 0) 

days between sampling events. 

e. 	 Total Residual Chlorine -The previous permitting action established a daily maximum 

water quality based concentration limit of0.16 mg/L for the discharge that is being 

carried forward in this permitting action. Limits on total residual chlorine (TRC) are 

specified to ensure that ambient water quality standards are maintained and that BPT 

technology is being applied to the discharge. The Department imposes the more stringent 

of the water quality or technology based limits in permitting actions. End-of-pipe water 

quality based concentration thresholds may be calculated as follows: 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page II of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Parameter Acute 

Criteria 

Chronic 

Criteria 

Acute 

Dilution 

Chronic 

Dilution 

Acute 

Limit 

Chronic 

Limit 

Chlorine 19 ug/L II ug/L 8.7:1 47:1 0.16mg!L 0.52 mg!L 

Example calculation: Acute- 0.019 mg!L (8.7) = 0.16 mg/L 

For facilities that need to de-chlorinate the discharge to meet water quality based 

thresholds (as is with the case with Milo), the Department has established daily 

maximum and monthly average BPT limits of 0.3 mg/L and 0.1 mg!L respectively. In the 

case of Milo, the acute water quality based threshold of 0.16 mg!L calculated above is 

lower than the BPT limit of 0.3 mg/L, thus the water quality based limit of 0.16 mg!L is 

being carried forward as a daily maximum limit. As for monthly average, the calculated 

chronic water quality based threshold of 0.52 mg!L is higher than the BPT limit of 

0.1 mg!L, thus the technology-based limit ofO.l mg!L is be imposed as a monthly 

average limitation. 

TRC is potentially toxic at all times ofthe year. Therefore, whenever elemental chlorine 

or chlorine based compounds are used to disinfect the discharge from the waste water 

treatment plant, limitations and monitoring requirements are in effect and enforceable. 

A review of the DMR data for the period September 2011- June 2014 indicates the 

permittee has repotied values as follows: 

Total residual chlorine (11 DMRs) 

Value Limit (mg/L) Range (mg/L) Mean (mg/L) 

Daily Maximum 0.16 0.06-0.16 0.12 

No monitoring frequency reduction for TRC is being considered as the ratio between the 

long term average and monthly average limits is 75%. 

f. 	 Total phosphorus- The October 2004 MEPDES permit established a !/Month 

monitoring requirement for total phosphorus between June and September ofeach year 

to gather a statistically valid data set on phosphorus discharges. The data collected was 

to be utilized in any water modeling conducted by the Department to determine if 

phosphorus is causing or contributing to dissolved oxygen deficits in the Piscataquis 

River. 

A review ofthe DMR data for the period June 2006- September 2008 indicates values 

have been reported as follows: 

Total phosphorus (Concentration) (11 DMRs) 

Value Range (mg/L) Mean (mg/L) 

Monthly Average 1.44-4.11 2.7 

Daily Maximum 1.44-4.11 2.7 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 12 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Total phosphorus (Mass (11 DMRs) 

Value Range (lbs/day) Mean (lbs/day) 

Monthly Average 2.08-4.5 2.9 

Daily Maximum 2.08-4.5 2.9 

Department rule 06-096 CMR, Chapter 523 specifies that water quality based limits are 

necessary when it has been determined that a discharge has a reasonable potential to 

cause or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard including 

State narrative criteria.' In addition, 06-096 CMR Chapter 523 specifies that water 

quality based limits may be based upon criterion derived from a proposed State criterion, 

or an explicit State policy or regulation interpreting its narrative water quality criterion, 

supplemented with other relevant information which may include: EPA's Water Quality 

Standards Handbook, October 1983, risk assessment data, exposure data, information 

about the pollutant from the Food and Drug Administration, and current EPA criteria 

documents. 2 

USEPA's Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (Gold Book) puts fotth an in-stream 

phosphorus concentration recommendation of less than 100 f!g/L (0.1 mg/L) in streams 

or other flowing waters not discharging directly to lakes or impoundments, to prevent 

nuisance algal growth. The use of the 0.1 mg/L Gold Book value is consistent with the 

requirements of 06-096 CMR Chapter 523 noted above for use in a reasonable potential 

(RP) calculation. 

Based on the above rationale, the Department has chosen to utilize the Gold Book value 

ofO.Ol mg/L.It is the Department's intent to continue to make determinations of actual 

attainment or impairment based upon environmental response indicators from specific 

water bodies. The use ofthe Gold Book value of 0.1 mg/L for use in the RP calculation 

will enable the Depattment to establish water quality based limits in a manner that is 

reasonable and that appropriately establishes the potential for impairment, while 

providing an opportunity to acquire environmental response indicator data, numeric 

nutrient indicator data, and facility data as needed to refine the establishment of site 

specific water quality based limits for phosphorus. Therefore, this permit may be 

reopened during the term ofthe permit to modifY any reasonable potential calculation, 

phosphorus limits, or monitoring requirements based on site-specific data. 

The permittee conducted total phosphorus testing between June 2006 and 

September 2008 (n= II). The arithmetic mean concentration discharged for the period 

was 2.7 mg/L and 2.9 lbs/day and was considered representative ofthe discharge from 

the facility. For the background concentration in the Piscataquis River, 2014 data 

indicates the background total phosphoms concentration is 0.012 mg/L. Using the 

I Waste Discharge License Conditions, 06-096 CMR 523(5)(d)(1)(i) (effective date January 12, 2001) 

2 06-096 CMR 523(5)(d)(I)(vi)(A) 

I 

I 

i 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 13 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

following calculation and criteria, the Milo facility does not have a·reasonable potential 

to exceed the EPA's Gold Book value of 0.100 ug/L for phosphorus but does have a 

reasonable potential to exceed the Department's Chapter 583 draft criteria of 

0.030 mg/L. The calculations are as follows: 

Cr = QeCe + QsCs 

Qr 

Qe = effluent flow i.e. facility design flow = 0.39MGD 

Ce = effluent pollutant concentration = 2.7 mg/L 

Qs = 7QIO flow of receiving water 	 14.3 MGD 

Cs = upstream concentration 	 = 0.012 mg/L 

Qr = receiving water flow 	 = 17.9MGD 

Cr =receiving water concentration 

Cr = (0.39 MGD x 2.7 mg/L) + (17.9 MGD x 0.012 mg/L) = 0.069 mg/L 

1.8.3 MGD 

Cr = 0.073 mg/L > 0.1 mg/L :=:> No, Reasonable Potential 

Cr = 0.073 mg/L >0.030 mg/L=:> Yes, Reasonable Potential 

Pusuant to Department guidance issued via a letter to permittee's on July I, 2014, this 

permit is not establishing water quality based mass limits at this time but is establishing 

a seasonal (June I - September 30) monitoring frequency of 2/Month for the five-year 

term of the permit. The data will be taken into consideration when the Depmtment 

prepares its TMDL report in 2015-2016. 

g. 	 pH Range- The previous permitting action established a technology based BPT pH range 

limitation of6.0 -9.0 standard units pursuant to a new· Department rule, 06-096 CMR 

Chapter 525(3)(IIl)(c) that is being carried forward in this permitting action. 

A review ofthe monthly DMR data for the period December 20 II - June 2014 indicates 

the following: 

pH (DMRs = 12) 

Value Limit (su) Minimum (su) Maximum (su)

Range 6.0-9.0 6.3 8.8
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 14 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

h. 	 Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) and Chemical Specific Testing Maine law, 

38 M.R.S.A., Sections 4 I 4-A and 420, prohibit the discharge of effluents containing 

substances in amounts that would cause the surface waters of the State to contain toxic 

substances above levels set forth in Federal Water Quality Criteria as established by the 

USEPA. Department Rules, 06-096 CMR Chapter 530, Surface Water Taxies Control 

Program, and Chapter 584, Swface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants set forth 

ambient water quality criteria (A WQC) for toxic pollutants and procedures necessary to 

control levels of toxic pollutants in surface waters. 

WET, priority pollutant and analytical chemistry testing as required by Chapter 530, is 

included in this permit in order to fully characterize the effluent. This permit also 

provides for reconsideration of effluent limits and monitoring schedules after evaluation 

of toxicity testing results. The monitoring schedule includes consideration of results 

currently on file, the nature of the wastewater, existing treatment and receiving water 

characteristics. 

WET monitoring is required to assess and protect against impacts upon water quality and 

designated uses caused by the aggregate effect of the discharge on specific aquatic 

organisms. Acute and chronic WET tests are performed on invertebrate and vertebrate 

species. Priority pollutant and analytical chemistry testing is required to assess the levels 

of individual toxic pollutants in the discharge, comparing each pollutant to acute, 

chronic, and human health A WQC as established in Chapter 584. 

Chapter 530 establishes four categories oftesting requirements based predominately on 

the chronic dilution factor. The categories are as follows: 

I) 	Level I - chronic dilution factor of <20: 1. 

2) 	 Level II- chronic dilution factor of::0:20: I but <I 00:1. 

3) 	 Level III- chronic dilution factor ::O:IOO:l but <500:1 or >500:1 and Q ::0:1.0 MGD 

4) 	 Level N ~chronic dilution >500:1 and Q :01.0 MGD 

Department rule Chapter 530 (I )(D) specifies the criteria to be used in determining the 

minimum monitoring frequency requirements for WET, priority pollutant and analytical 

chemistry testing. Based on the Chapter 530 criteria, the permittee's facility falls into 

the Level II frequency category as the facility has a chronic dilution factor of>20:1 but 

<I 00: I. Chapter 530(1 )(D)(!) specifies that routine screening and surveillance level 

testing requirements are as follows: 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 15 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Surveillance level testing- Beginning upon issuance ofthe permit and lasting through 

24 months prior to permit expiration (Years I, 2 & 3 of the term of the permit) and 

commencing again 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 5 of the term of the 

permit). 

Level WET Testing Priority pollutant 

testing 

Analytical chemistry 

II I per year None required 2 per year 

Screening level testing -Beginning 24 months prior to permit expiration and lasting 

through 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 4 ofthe term of the permit) and 

every five years thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the permit 

continues in force, or is replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement. 

Level WET Testing Priority pollutant 

testing 

Analytical chemistry 

II 2 per year I per year 4 per year 

A review of the data on file with the Department indicates that to date, the permittee has 

fulfilled the WET and chemical-specific testing requirements of Chapter 530. See 

Attachment C of this Fact Sheet for WET test results and Attachment D for chemical 

specific test dates. 

Department rule Chapter 530(0)(3)( c) states in part "Dischargers in Level II may reduce 

surveillance testing to one WET or specific chemical series every other year provided 

that testing in the preceding 60 months does not indicate any reasonable potential for 

exceedence as calculatedpursuant to section 3(E)." 

Chapter 530 §(3)(E) states "For effluent monitoring data and the variability ofthe 

pollutant in the effluent, the Department shall apply the statistical approach in Section 

3.3.2 and Table 3-2 ofUSEPA's "Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based 

Taxies Control" (USEPA Pziblication 505/2-90-001, March, 1991, EPA, Qffice ofWater, 

Washington, D.C.) to data to determine whether water-quality based effluent limits must 

be included in a waste discharge license. Where it is determined through this approach 

that a discharge contains pollutants or WET a/levels that have a reasonable potential to 

cause or contribute to an exceedence ofwater quality criteria, appropriate water 

quality-based limits must be established in any licensing action." 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 16 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Chapter 530 §3 states, "The Department shall establish appropriate discharge 

prohibitions, effluent limits and monitoring requirements in waste discharge licenses ifa 

discharge contains pollutants that are or may be discharged at levels that cause, have 

reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an ambient excursion in excess ofa 

numeric or narrative water quality criteria or that may impair existing or designated 

uses. The licensee must also control whole effluent toxicity (WEI) when discharges 

cause, have a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an ambient excursion 

above the narrative water quality criteria. "In determining ifeffluent limits are 

required, the Department shall consider all information on file and effluent testing 

conducted during the preceding 60 months. However, testing done in the pe1jormance 

ofa Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (IRE) approved by the Department may be excluded 

fi'om such evaluations. " 

WET Evaluation- The previous permitting action establish a C-NOEL limit of2.1% for 

the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) as a statistical evaluation at that time indicated the 

discharge exceeded or had a reasonable potential to exceed critical chronic WET 

threshold of 2.1 %. The critical threshold is calculated as the mathematical inverse ofthe 

chronic dilution factor of47: I. 

For this permitting action, a statistical evaluation for the most current 60 months ofdata 

was conducted on 8/21/14 that indicates the discharge has two test results for the water 

flea (2.13% on 8/26/1:3 and 9/8/14) that have a reasonable potential to exceed the critical 

chronic water quality threshold of 2.1 %. The evaluation indicates the test results for the 

brook trout during said period do not exceed or have a reasonable potential to exceeed 

critical acute or chronic thresholds. 

Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 530 §3, this permitting action carries forward the 

C-NOEL limit of 2.1 %. Chapter 530 does not establish monitoring frequencies for test 

species that exceeed or have a reasonable potential to exceed critical acute or chronic 

tlu·esholds. The Department establishes these frequencies based on the timing, severity 

and frequency ofthe tests of concern. Being that the one test of concern is the most 

recent test result submitted to the Department; this permitting action is establishing a 

default surveillance level monitoring frequency of 1/Year for the water flea. 

As for the brook trout, the MWD qualifies for the reduced testing frequency provision 

found at Chapter 530 §2(D)(3) that states "Dischargers in Level II may reduce 

surveillance testing to one WET or specific chemical series every other year provided 

that testing in the preceding 60 months does not indicate any reasonable potential for 

exceedence as calculated pursuant to section 3(E). "Therefore, this permitting action 

establishes a monitoring frequency of 1/2 Years for the brook trout beginning upon 

issuance ofthe permit. 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 17 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Chapter 530(2)(D)( 4) states; 

(4) 	All dischargers having waived or reduced testing must file statements with the 

Department on or before December 31 ofeach year describing the following. 

(a) 	Changes in the number or types ofnon-domestic wastes contributed directly 

or indirectly to the wastewater treatment works that may increase the toxicity 

ofthe discharge; 

(b)Changes in the operation ofthe treatment works that may increase the toxicity 

ofthe discharge; and 

(c) 	Changes in industrial mamifacturing processes contributing wastewater to 

the treatment works that may increase the toxicity ofthe discharge. 

Given the MWD qualifies for the reduced testing frequency provision for the brook trout 

found at Chapter 530 §2(D)(3), Special Condition J of this permit requires the permittee 

to file said statement. Therefore, beginning upon issuance of this permit and lasting 

thl·ough 24 months prior to permit expiration (Years I, 2 & 3 ofthe term of the permit) 

and commencing again 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 5 of the term of the 

permit), the permittee shall conduct surveillance level WET testing at a minimum 

frequency of once per year (1/Year) on the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and once 

every other year (1/2 Years) on the brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis). 

Beginning 24 months prior to permit expiration and lasting through 12 months prior to 

permit expiration (Year 4 ofthe term of the permit) and every five years thereafter if a 

timely request for renewal has been made and the permit continues in force, or is 

replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement, the permittee shall revert to a 

default screening level of2/Yem· WET testing in the Chapter 530 rule for both the water 

flea and brook trout. 

Analytical chemistty and priority pollutant testing- Chapter 530 §4(C), states "The 

background concentration ofspecific chemicals must be included in all calculations 

using the following procedures. The Department maypublish and periodically update a 

list ofdefault background concentrations for specific pollutants on a regional, 

watershed or statewide basis. In doing so, the Department shall use data collectedji·om 

point 

reference 

conditions 

discharges 

sites 

The 

that 

Department 

and 

are 

best 

measured 

calculated 

shall 

at 

use 

points 

to 

the 

accurately 

same 

not significantly 

general 

represent 

methods 

affected 

ambient 

as those 

by 

water 

point 

in section 

quality 

and non4(D) 

to determine background concentrations. For pollutants no/listed by the Department, 

an assumed concentration of10% ofthe applicable water quality criteria must be used 

in calculations. " The Department has limited information on the background levels of 

metals in the water column in the Piscataquis River in the vicinity ofthe permittee's 

outfall. Therefore, a default background concentration of 10% ofthe applicable water 

·quality criteria is being used in the calculations of this permitting action. 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 18 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Chapter 530 §(3)(E) states "... that a discharge contains pollutants or WET at levels that 

have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedence ofwater quality 

criteria, appropriate water quality-based limits must be established in any licensing 

action., 

Chapter 530 §4(F) states in patt "Where there is more than one discharge into the same 

fresh or estuarine receiving water or watershed, the Department shall consider the 

cumulative effects ofthose discharges when determining the need for and establishment 

ofthe level ofeffluent limits. The Department shall calculate the total allowable 

discharge quantity for specific pollutants, less the water quality reserve and background 

concentration, necessary to achieve or maintain water quality criteria at all points of 

discharge, and in the entire watershed The total allowable discharge quantity for 

pollutants must be allocated consistent with the following principles. 

Evaluations must be done for individual pollutants of concern in each watershed or 

segment to assure that water quality criteria are met at all points in the watershed and, 

ifappropriate, within tributaries ofa larger river. 

The total assimilative capacity, less the water quality reserve and background 

concentration, may be allocated among the discharges according to the past discharge 

quantities for each as a percentage of the total quantity of discharges, or another 

comparable method appropriate for a specific situation and pollutant. Past discharges 

ofpollutants must be determined using the average concentration discharged during the 

pastjive years and the facility's licensed flow. 

The amount of allowable discharge quantity may be no more than the past discharge 

quantity calculated using the statistical approach referred to in section 3(E) [Section 

3.3.2 and Table 3-2 ofUSEPA's "Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based 

Toxics. Control"] of the rule, but in no event may allocations cause the water quality 

reserve amount to fall below the minimum referred to in 4(E) [15% of the total 

assimilative capacity}. Any difference between the total allowable discharge quantity 

and that allocated to existing dischargers must be added to the reserve. 

The Piscataquis River is a tributary to the Penobscot River. Three municipal waste water 

treatment facilities that are subject to the Department's Chapter 530 testing requirements 

discharge to the Piscataquis River. The waste water treatment facilities are the Milo 

Water District, the Town of Dover-Foxcroft and the Guilford-Sangerville Sanitary 

District. The Milo Water District facility is the most downstream facility and the 

Guilford Sangerville facility is the most upstream facility. As previously cited, Chapter 

530 requires that AWQC must be met at the confluence of the Piscataquis River and the 

Penobscot River as well as at the individual discharge points on the Piscataquis River 

after taking into consideration historic discharge levels for all three facilities as well as 

an allocation dedicated to background (I 0% of A WQC) and a reserve (15% ofA WQC). 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 19of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQIDREMENTS (cont'd) 

On August 21, 2014, the Department conducted statistical evaluations based on 15% of 

the ambient water quality criteria reserve being withheld (Repott 10 706) and 0% ofthe 

reserve of the criteria being withheld (Report ID 705) to determine if the unallocated 

assimilative capacity would avoid an exceedance or avoid a reasonable potential to 

exceed applicable ambient water quality criteria for toxic pollutants. Report ID 705 

indicates Dover-Foxcroft would no longer has a reasonable potential to exceed the 

chronic ambient water quality criteria for lead. Therefore, the Department is utilizing the 

full 15% of the unallocated assimilative capacity in the statistical evaluation when 

establishing limits for toxic pollutants in waste discharge licenses for facilities in the 

Penobscot River watershed including the Piscatquis River watershed. 

The statistical evaluation (Report ID 705) indicates the MWD has four test results that 

have a reasonable potential to exceed the A WQC for total copper and two test results 

that exceed the chronic A WQC for total copper. 

The 8/21/14 statistical evaluation indicates all three facilities have discharged detectable 

levels of copper; Department guidance that establishes protocols for establishing waste 

load allocations (mass) can be found as Attachment E of this Fact Sheet. The guidance 

states that the most protective of water quality becomes the facility's allocation. 

According to the 8/21/14 statistical evaluation, copper is to be limited based on the 

segment allocation method for chronic and the individual method for acute because the 

acute dilution factor is based on Y. ofthe 1 Q I 0. 

Chapter 530 §(3)(D)(1) states "For specific chemicals, effluent limits must be expressed 

in total quantity that may be discharged and in effluent concentration. In establishing 

concentration, the Department may increase allowable values to reflect actual flows that 

are lower than permitted flows and/or provide opportunities for flow reductions and 

pollution prevention provided water quality criteria are not exceeded. With regard to 

concentration limits, the Department may review past andprojected flows and set limits 

to reflect proper operation ofthe treatment facilities that will keep the discharge of 

pollutants to the minimum level practicable." 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 20 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Segment allocation methodology 

Historical Average: 

For the segment allocation methodology, the historical average quantity (mass) for each 

pollutant of concern for each facility is calculated utilizing the arithmetic mean of the 

concentrated values reported for each pollutant, a conversion factor of 8.34 lbs/gallon 

and the monthly average permit limit for flow. For the Milo facility, the historical 

average for copper and has been calculated as follows: 

Copper 

Mean concentration= 18.4 ug!L or 0.0184 mg!L 

Permit flow limit= 0.39 MOD 

Historical average mass= (0.0184 ug/L)(8.34)(0.39 MOD)= 0.06lbs/day 

The statistical evaluation indicates the historical average mass of copper discharged by 

Milo is 39.84% of the copper discharged by the three facilities on the Piscataquis River. 

Therefore, Milo's segment allocation for copper is calculated as 39.84% ofthe chronic 

assimilative capacities of the river at Milo. The assimilative capacity at Milo is 

calculated as follows: 

7Q10 = 27.7 cfs (0.6464) = 17.9 MOD 

Chronic A WQC = 2.36 ug/L or 0.00236 mg!L 

Taking into consideration 0% of the A WQC for reserve and 10% for background, the 

assimilative capacities are: 

Chronic= (0.00236 mg!L)(0.90)(8.34lbs/gal)(l7.9 MOD)= 0.317 lbs/day 

Monthly average (chronic) mass limitation for copper is calculated as follows: 

Monthly average: (Chronic assimilative capacity mass)(% of total ammonia discharged) 

(0.317 lbs/day)(0.3984) = 0.126 lbs/day or 0.13 lbs/day 

Individual allocation 

In the individual allocation, the Department continites to utilize the formula it has used 

in permitting actions since October 2005 taking into consideration background ( 10% of 

A WQC) and a reserve (0% of A WQC). The formula is as follows: 

EOP concentration= [Dilution factor x 0.90 x A WQC] + [0.1 0 x A WQC] 

Mass limit= (EOP concentration in mg/L)(8.34lbs/gal)(Permit flow limit in MOD) 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 21 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Acute A WQC= 3.07 ug/L 

Acute dilution factor = 8.7:1 


EOP concentration= [Dilution factorx 0.90 x AWQC] + [O.IOxAWQC] 


EOP = [8.7 x 0.90 x 3.07 ug/L] + [0.10 x 3.07 ug!L] = 24.3 ug!L 


Based on a permitted flow of 0.39 MGD, EOP mass limits are as follows: 


Calculated EOP Daily Max. 

Parameter Concentrations Mass Limit 

Copper 24.3 ug!L 0.25 lbs/day 

Example Calculation: Copper- (24.3 ug/L)(8.34)(0.39 MGD) = 0.08 lbs/day 

1,000 ug/mg 

The calculations above are correct in that the monthly average limitation is greater than 

the daily maximum limit. This will occur when the ratio between the acute and chronic 

A WQC is smaller than the ratio between the acute (I Q I 0) and chronic (7Q I 0) receiving 

water flows. 

In permitting actions prior to October 2009, the Department had a policy that all toxic 

pollutants limited in permits be limited in both mass and concentration. Concentration 

limits established in permits and effluent guidelines are established as technology based 

limits (best practicable treatment) and not water quality based limits. Water quality 

based limits are site specific or watershed specific. Being that the Department conducts 

statistical evaluations for toxic pollutants based on historic mass discharge levels given 

site specific or watershed specific water quality concerns, establishing concentration 

limits by back-calculating from mass limits is deemed to be no longer appropriate. 

In May 2012, Maine law 38 M.R.S.A. §464, ~~ K was enacted which reads as follows, 

"Unless otherwise required by an applicable effluent limitation guideline adopted by the 

department, any limitations for metals in a waste discharge license may be expressed 

only as mass-based limits." There are no applicable effluent limitation guidelines 

adopted by the Department or the USEPA for metals from a publicly owned treatment 

works. 

Chapter 530 does not establish monitoring frequencies for parameters that exceed or 

have a reasonable potential to exceed A WQC. Monitoring frequencies are established on 

case by case basis given the timing, severity and frequency of occurrences of the 

exceedences or reasonable potential to exceed applicable critical water quality 

thresholds. Therefore, this permitting action is making a best professional judgment to 

establish the monitoring frequencies for the parameters of concern at the routine 

surveillance level frequency of2/Year specified in Chapter 530. 
MEOI00439 FACT SHEET Page 22 of23 


W002753-6C-F-R 


6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

As for the remaining chemical specific parameters tested to date, none of the test results 

in the 60-month evaluation period exceed or have a reasonable potential to exceed 

. applicable acute, chronic or human health A WQC. Therefore, this permitting action is 

establishing a reduced surveillance level reporting and monitoring frequency for 

analytical chemistry of 1/2 Years for the first three years. and the fifth year ofthe term of 

the permit. As with reduced WET testing, the MWD must file an annual certification 

with the Department pursuant to Chapter 530 §2(D)(3) and Special Condition J ofthis 

permit. It is noted Chapter 530 does not require surveillance level priority pollutant 

testing during the first four years of the term ofthe permit. 

Beginning 12 months prior to the expiration date ofthe permit, the permittee shall 

conduct default screening level analytical chemistry testing at l!Quatter and priority 

pollutant testing of 1/Y ear. 

k. Mercuty: Pursuant to Certain deposits and discharges prohibited, Maine law, 38 

M.R.S.A. § 420 and Waste discharge licenses, 38 M.R.S.A. § 413 and Interim Effluent 

Limitations and Controls for the Discharge ofMercury, 06-096 CMR 519 (last amended 

October 6, 200 I), the Department issued a Notice ofinterim Limits for the Discharge of 

Mercury to the permittee on May 25, 2000, thereby administratively modifying 

MEPDES #ME01 00439/WDL # W002753-5L-C-R by establishing interim monthly 

average and daily maximum effluent concentration limits of29.1 parts per trillion (ppt) 

and 43.7 ppt, respectively, and a minimum monitoring frequency requirement of four (4) 

tests per year for mercury. On February 6, 2012, the Department issued a minor revision 

of the permit by reducing the monitoring frequency to 1/Y ear. 

Maine law 38 M.R.S.A., §420 1-B,(B)(l) states that a facility is not in violation of the 

A WQC for mercmy ifthe facility is in compliance with an interim discharge limit 

established by the Department pursuant to section 413, subsection 11. A review ofthe 

Department's database for the previous 60-month period indicates mercury test results 

reported have ranged from 2.5 ppt to 8.8 ppt with an arithmetic mean (n= 18) of 5.6 ppt. 

7. DISCHARGE IMPACT ON RECEIVING WATER QUALITY 

The effluent limitations in this petmit are equal to or more stringent than the limits in the 

previous permit. The Depattment has made a best professional judgment determination 

based on information gathered to date, that as permitted, the discharge will not cause or 

contribute the failure of the receiving water to meet the standards of its ascribed 

classification and the designated uses ofthe river will continue to be maintained and 

protected. The Department is scheduled to perform a comprehensive evaluation of more 

recent data collected, calibrate an existing model of the river and prepare a TMDL for the 

12-mile segment during 2015-2016. If future modeling runs determine that at full permitted 

discharge limits, the discharge is causing or contributing to the non-attainment, this permit 

will be re-opened per Special Condition L, Reopening ofThe License For Modifications, to 

impose more stringent limitations to meet water quality standards. 
ME0100439 FACT SHEET Page 23 of23 

W002753-6C-F-R 

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Public notice of this application was made in the Eastern Gazette newspaper on 

July 24; 2014. The Depmtment receives public comments on an application until the date a 

final agency action is taken on that application. Those persons receiving copies ofdraft 

permits shall have at least 30 days in which to submit comments on the draft or to request a 

public hearing, pursuant to Chapter 522 of the Department's rules. 

9. DEPARTMENT CONTACTS 

Additional information concerning this permitting action may be obtained from and written 

comments should be sent to: 

Gregg Wood 


Division of Water Quality Management 


Bureau of Land and Water Quality 


Department ofEnvironmental Protection 


17 State House Station 


Augusta, Maine 04333-0017 Telephone: (207) 287-7693 


E-mail: gregg.wood@maine.gov 


10. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

During the period of January 13, 2015, through the issuance date of the permit/license, the 

Department solicited comments on the proposed draft permit/license to be issued for the 

discharge(s) from the Milo facility. The Department did not receive comments from the 

permittee, state or federal agencies or interested parties that resulted in any substantive 

change(s) in the terms and conditions of the permit. Therefore, the Department has not 

prepared a Response to Comments. 
ATTACHMENT A 

I 


l 

r 

I I 

I I 

! 

I 


I 


ATTACHMENTB 

, 

I I

I I 

I 

I 


I 


I
I 

I 

. I i 

~ ll)' 

Lt<7oP ll Lw;Pf" ~ 

~ -:if?­ ~ #l "' ~' 

RerJ. 

ecJ 
 (a~)""'fl "" 
 "­

" ) 

.P:j 

C',,, t q ,, r 

eht~mbrr 

~'J '.. ··· 

·.:.. 
ATTACHMENT C 

I 
MILO NPDES= ME010043 Effluent Umit: Acute (%) = 

Species Test Percent Sample date 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 06/22/2011 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 08/26/2013 

TROUT C_NOEL 100 06/22/2011 

TROUT C_NOEL 50 08/26/2013 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 11/02/2010 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 06/22/2011 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 01/05/2012 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 08/26/2013 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 09/08/2014 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 10 11/02/2010 

WATER, FLEA C_NOEL 10 06/22/2011 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 01/05/2012 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 2.13 08/26/2013 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 2.13 09/08/2014 

3.162 Chronic(%) = 2.132 

Critical 0/o Exception RP 

3.162 

3.162 

2.132 

2.132 

3.162 

3.162 

3.162 

3.162 

3.162 

2.132 

2.132 

2.132 

2.132 y 

2.132 y 
f. 

ATTACHMENTD 

l I 

I

r 1 

r 

L I 

I 

I 


k 
Facility Name: MILO NPDES: ME0100439 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN · P 0 A Clean Hg 

_1.!-fQ~£~~~~ ________ 9"~~---- -~·.!-L ________~~ ________ .!-!1___ g___ g___ !l___ !~-- -~------ -~-- --- __ g-­

Monthly Dally Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

_g~m£~~~1- ________ _g"~L- __O.·J.'?_______ ---~~- _______ _19___ Q___ L _9___!9---~ _______ ------ _g__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

9_8{~~£~~~~----- ---!J" !~---- -~·.!-~- -- _______ _?__________!--_g--- ~--- !;l___ _l____o_ __ ----- ~---- ___ Q__ 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

Q_1{Q~£~o_~~- _______ !J"!L___0.·.!-'?__________!~- ________1_0___ g___ g___ o___ _9____o_ ______ J _______ g__ 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

9!{!~£~0.~~- _______ !J"~~- ____o_.g__________ ?-__________! ___Q___ Q___ !;!___ _1____o_ _______ F _______ Q__ 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

9'?L~ii@~~ _________ 9"!L___o_.1o__________ .!-__________o_ ___Q___ Q___ 9____1____o_ _______ ~---- ___ 9__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V· BN P o· A Clean Hg 

9~m£~~1_3_ __ ______ !1"~!:1- ____o_.~~- _________ _2__________! ___g___ g___ g__ __1----~------- ~------ _g__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

!1_8[_2(;£2.0.~~-------- !J"?Q "--- _o_._?~----------~! ___ ----- _1_0_--g___ g___ 0___ _!.!___o_--- --- -~ ------ _g_­

Monthly Dally Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

02/04/2014 0.17 0.15 11 10 0 0 0 1 0 F 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD} Number M V BN P o A Clean Hg 

!l~m£~0.1_'! __ ______ 9"!L___o_._!._s__________~! ________ _19___g___ g___ 9___ !!___o_ _______ ~-- _____ g__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

9'?LQ~£2_D_1_4_ ________ O"Q~ _____Q.Q'?_________ .?0. _________!:) ___g___ g___ 9___ !!___o_______ _______ Q__ 
-----------------------------------------------

Facility name: MILO Permit Number: ME0100439 

Parameter; COPPER Test date Result (ug/1) Lsthan 

11/02/2010 11.000 N 

06/22/2011 14.000 N 

08/24/2011 13.000 N 

01/05/2012 25.000 N 

07/18/2012 23.300 N 

06/12/2013 19.800 N 

08/26/2013 12.700 N 

02/04/2014 40.500 N 

06/23/2014 . 16.400 N 

09/08/2014 20.000 N 
I 

f 


ATTACHMENT E 


I


L 

" 


I 
MAINE DEPARIMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: October 2008 · 

TO: Interested Parties 

FROM: Dennis Merrill, DEP 

SUBJECT: DEP's system for evaluating toxicity from multiple discharges 

***************************************************************¥************** 

Following the requirements ofDEP's rules, Chapter 5~0, section 4(F), the Department is 


evaluating discharges of toxic pollutants into a freshwater river system in order to prevent 


cmnulative impacts from multiple discharges. This is being through the use of a computer 


program known internally as "DeTox". The enclosed package ofinfoooation is intended to 


introduce you to this system. 


Briefly, the DeTox program evaluates each wastewater facility within a watershed in three 

different ways in order to characterize its effluent: 1) the facility's past history ofdischarges, 2) 

its potential toxicity at the point ofdischarge on an individual basis, and 3) the facility's 

contribution to cumulative toxicity within a river segment in conjunction with other facilities. 

The value that is most protective of water quality becomes the value that is held in the DeTox 

system as an allocation for the specific facility and pollutant. 

The system is not static and uses a five-year "rolling" data window. This means that, over tirrie, 

.old test results drop offand newer ones are added. The intent of this process is to maintain 

current, imiform facility data to estimate contributions to a river's total allowable pollutant 

loading prior to each permit renewal. 

· Many facilities are required to do only a relatively small amount ofpollutant testing on their 

· effluent. This means, statistically, the fewer tests done, the greater the possibility ofeffluent 

limits being necessary based on the facility's small amount ofdata. To avoid this situation, most 

facilities, especially those with low dilution factors, should consider conducting more than the 

minimum number of tests required by the rules. 

Attached you will find three doctunents with additi~nal information on the DeTox system: 

• Methods for evaluating the effects of multiple discharges of toxic pollutants 

• Working definitions of terms used in the DeTox system 

• Reviewing DeTox Reports . 

• Prototype facility and pollutant reports 

If you have questions as you review these, please do not hesitate to contact me at 

Dennis.L.Merrill@maine.gov or 287-7788. 

I 
Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

Methods for evaluating the effects ofmultiple discharges of toxic pollutants. 

Reference: DEP-Rules, Chapter 530, section 4(F) 

To evaluate discharges oftoxic pollutants into a freshwater river system and prevent cumulative 

impacts from multiple discharges, DEP uses a computer program called "DeTox that functions as 

a mathematical evaluation tool. 

It uses physical infonnation about discharge sources and river conditions on file with the 

Department, established water quality criteria and reported effluent test information to perform · 

these evaluations. Each toxic pollutant and associated water quality criterion for acute, chronic 

and/or human health effects is evaluated separately. 

Each facility in a river drainage area has an assigned position code. This "address" is used to 

locate the facility on the river segment and in relation to other facilities and tributary streams. 

All calculations are performed in potmds per day to allow analysis on a mass balance. Pollutants 

are considered to be conservative in that once in the receiving water they will not easily degrade 

and have the potential to accumulate. 

The process begins with establishing an assimilative capacity for e_ach pollutant and water 

quality criterion at the most downstream point in the river segment. This calculation includes 

set-aside amounts for background and reserve quantities and assumed values for receiving water. 

pH, temperature and hardness. The resulting amount of assimilative capacity is available for 

allocation among facilities on the river. 

Each facility is evaluated to characterize its past discharge quantities. The historical discharge, 

in pounds per day, is figured using the average reported concentration and the facility's · 

permitted flow. As has been past practice, a reasonable potential (RP) factor is used as a tool to 

estimate the largest discharge that may occur with a certain degree ofstatistical certainty. The 

RP factor is multiplied by the historical average to determine an allocation based on past 

discharges. The RP factor is ruso multiplied by the single highest test to obtain a maximum day 

estimate. Finally, the direct average without RP adjustment is used to determine the facility's 

percent contribution to the river segment in comparison to the sum of all discharges ofthe · 


pollutant. This percent multiplied by the total assimilative capacity becomes the facility's -I 


discharge allocation used in evaluations of the segment loadings. 


Additionally, individual facility discharges are evaluated as single sources, as they have been in 
 I 

the past to determine if local conditions are more limiting than a segment evaluation. 

I 
With all of this information, facilities are evaluated in three ways. The methods are: 

1, The facility's past history. This is the average quantity discharged during the past five · 

years multiplied by the applicable RP factor. This method is often the basis for im 

· allocation when the discharge quantity is relatively small in comparison to the water 

quality based allocation. 

2. 	 An individual evaluation. This assumes no other discharge sources are present and the 

allowable quantity is the total available assimilative capacity. This method may be used 

when' a local condition such as river flow at the point of discharge is the limiting factor. 

3. 	 A segment wide evaluation. This involves allocating the available assimilative capacity 

within a river segment based on a facility's percent oftot~l past discharges. This method 

would be used when niultiple discharges of the same pollutant to the same segment and 

the available assimilative capacity is relatively limited. 

The value that is most protective of water quality becomes the facility's allocation that is held in 

the system for the specific facility and pollutant. It is important to note that the method used for· 

· allocation is facility and pollutant specific and different facilities on the same segtnent for the 

same pollutant can have .different methods used depending on their individual situations. 

Discharge amounts are always allocated to all facilities having a history of discharging a 

particular pollutant. This does not mean that effluent limits will be established in a permit. . 

Limits are only needed when past discharge amounts suggest a reasonable potential to exceed a 

water quality based allocation, either on an individual or segment basis. Similar to past practices 

for single discharge evaluations, the single highest test value is multiplied by a Ri' factor and if 

product is greater than the water quality allowance, an effluent limit is established. It is 

important to remember an allocation is "banking" some assimilative capacity for a facility even if 

effluent litnits are not needed. · 

Evaluations are also done for each tributary segment with the sum ofdischarge quantities in 

tributaries becoming a "point source" to the next most significant segment. In cases where a 

facility does not use all ofits assimilative capacity, usually due to a more limiting individual 

water quali.ty criterion, the unused quantity is rolled do\vnstream and made available to other 

facilities. 

The system is not static and uses a five-year rolling data window. Over time, old tests drop off 

and newer ones are added on. These changes cause the allocations and the need for effluent 

limits to shift over time to remain current with present conditions. The intent is to update a 

facility's data and relative contribution to a river's total assimilative capacity prior to each permit 

renewal. Many facilities are required to do only minimal testing to characterize their effluents. 

This creates a greater degree of statistical uncertainty about the true long-term quantities. 

Accordingly, with fewer tests the RP factor will be larger and result in a greater possibility of 

effluent limits being necessary. To avoid this situation, most facilities, especially those with 

relatively low dilution factors, are encouraged to conduct more that a minimuni number of tests. 

lt is generally to a facility's long-term benefit to have more tests on file since their RP factor will 

be reduced.. 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Working Defmitions ofTenns Used in the DeTox System. 

Allocation. The amount ofpollutant loading set aside for a facility. Separate amounts are set for 

each water quality criterion. Each pollutant having a history ofbeing discharged will receive 

an allocation, but not all allocations become effluent limits. Allocation may be made in three 

ways: historical allocation, Individual allocation or segment allocation. 

Assimilative capacity. The amount of apollutant that river segment can safely accept from point 

source discharges. It is determined for the most downstream point in a river segment using the . 

water quality criterion and river flow. Separate capacities are set for acute, chronic and human 

health criteria as applicable for each pollutant. Calculation of this capacity includes factors for 

reserve and background amom;tts. 

Background. A concentration of a pollutant that is assumed to be present in a receiving water 

but not attributable to discharges. By rule, this is set as a rebuttable presumption at 10% ofthe 

applicable water quality criterion. 

Effluent limit. A numeric limit in a discharge penni! specifically restricting the amount ofa 

pollutant that may be discharged. An effluent limit is set only when the highest discharge, 

including an adjustment for reasonable potential, is greater than a facility's water quality based 

allocation for a pollutant. 

Historical allocation (or RP history). One ofthree ways of developing an allocation. The 

facility's average history ofdischarges, in pounds at design flow, is Ii::mltiplied by the appropriate 

reasonable potential factor. An allocation using this method does not become an effluent limit. 

Historical discharge percentage. For each pollutant, the average discharge concentration for 


each facility in a segment is multiplied by the permitted flow (without including a reasonable 


potential factor). The amounts for all facilities are added together and a percent ofthe total is 


figured for each facility. When a facility has no detectable concentrations, that pollutant is 


assmned to be not present and it receives no percentage. 


Individual allocation. One ofthree ways of developing an allocation. The facility's single · 


highest discharge on record multiplied by the appropriate reasonable potential factor is 


compared to a water quality based quantity with an assumption that the facility is the only point 


source to that receiving water. Ifthe RP-adjusted arnotmt is larger, the water quality amount 


·may become an effluent limit. · 

Less than. A qualification on a laboratory report indicating the concentration of a pollutant was 


below a certain concentration, Such a result is evaluated as being one half of the Department's 


reporting limit in most calculations. 

Reasonable potential (RP). A statistical method to determine the highest amount ofa pollutant 

likely to b~ present at any time based on the available test results. The method produces a value 

or RP factor that is multiplied by test results. The method relies on an EPA guidance document, 

and considers the coefficient ofvariation and the number oftests. Generally, the fewer number 

of tests, 1he higher the RP factor. · 

Reserve. An assumed concentration of a pollutant that set aside to a~count for non-point source 

ofa pollutant and to allow new discharges of a pollutant. By rule this is set at 15% ofthe 

applicable water quality criterion. 

Segment allocation. One of three ways of developing an allocation. The amount is set by 

multiplying a facility's historical discharge percentage for a specific pollutant by the 

assimilative capacity for 1hat pollutant and criterion. A facility will have different allocation 

percentages for each pollutant. This ·amotmt may become an effluent limit. 

Tributary. A stream flowing into a larger one. A total pollutant lo11d is set by adding the all 

facilities allocations on 1he tributary and treating this totaled amount as a "point source" to the 

next larger segment. 

Water quality criteria. Standards for acceptable in-stream or ambient levels of pollutants. These 

are established in the Department's Chapter 584 and are expressed as concentrations in ug/L. 

There may be separate standards for acute and chronic protection aquatic life and/or human 

health. Each criterion becomes a separate standard. Different stream flows are used in the 

calculation of each. 
i 

Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 

I. Pre arntion 

Select Watershed 

l 


Select values for pH, Temp, hardness, 


Background %, Reserve % 


Algorithms for some po_llutants 

Water quality tables 

Calculate water quality criteria: Acute, Chronic, Health 

II. Segment Assimilative Capacity 

Get facility information: location, stream flows 

! 
 . IdentifY lowermost facility 

! 


Get stream flows for Acute, Chronic, Health (1 Q10, 7Q10, HM) 

. Calculate segrilent capaciJbypollutant and criterion: 

Stream flow x criteton x 8.34 =pounds 

Set aside Reserve and Background: 


Segment capacity x (I~ background~ reserve)= Segment Assimilative Capacity 


Save Segment Assimilative Capacities by pollutant and critedon 

I 

Page 1 I 

I 
Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 

III. Evaluate History by Pollutant 

Select each facility effluent data for each facility 

Data input and edits 1 

Identify "less than" results and assign at Y, ofreporting limit . 

~ Bypass pollutants if all results are "less than" 

. A v{lrage concentratioj and calculate pounds: 

Ave concentration x license flow x 8.34 =Historical Average 

Determine reasonable poJntial (RP) using algorithm 

J 

Calculate RP adjusted pounds: 

Historical A yerage x R1' factor= RP Historical Allocation 

l 

Save for comparative evaluation 

Calculate adjuste)maximum pounds: 

Highest concentration x RP factor x license flow x 8.34 = RP Maximum Value 

IV. Determine Facility History Percentage 

By pollutant, identify facilitieS with Historical Average 

J 

Sum all Historical Averages within segment 

! . . 

By facility, calculate percent of total: 

Facility pounds I Total pounds= Facility History% 

Page2 

I 


I 


I 

I 
Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "D.eTox" 

V. Segment Allocation 

By pollutant and criterion, select Segment Assimilative Capacity 

~ Select individual Facility History% 

~ Determine facility allocation: 


Assimilative Capacity x Facility History%~ Segment Allocation 


~ Save for comparative evaluation 

VI. Individual Allocation 

Select individual facility and dilution factor (DF) 

~ Select pollutant and water quality criterion 

~ By pollutant and criterion, calculate individual allocations: 


[DF x 0.75 x criterion]+ [0.25 x criterion]= Individual Concentration 


~ Determine individual allocation: 


Individual Concentration x license flow x 8.34 ~Individual Allocation 


~ Save for comparative evaluation 

VII; Make initial Allocation 

By facility, pollutantand criterion, get: 

Individual Allocation, Segment Allocation, RP Historical Allocation 

~ Compare allocation and select the smallest 

) Save as Facitty Allocation 
Maine Department ofEnvirorunental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 

VIII. Evaluate Need for Effluent Limits 

By facility, pollutant and criterion select 


Segment Allocation, Individual Allocation and RP Maximum value 


l . IfRP Maximum value is greater than either Segment Allocation or Individual Allocation, 

use lesser value as Effluent Limit 

l . Save Effluent Limit for comparison 

IX. Reallocation of Assimilative Capacity 

Starting at top of segment, get Segment Allocation, Facility Allocation and Effluent Limit 

! 


If Segment Allocation equals Effluent Limit, move to next facility downstream 

! 


If not, subtract Facility Allocation from Segment Allocation 

! 


Save difference 


Select next facJity downstream 


! 


Figure remaining Segment Assimilative Capacity at and below facility, less tributaries 

! 


Add saved difference to get an adjusted Segment Assimilative Capacity 

l 


Reallocate Segment Assimilative Capacitj among downstream facilities per step V 

l 
 . Repeat process for each facility downstream in turn 

) 


Page4 
ATTACHMENT F I 

~ 

r 

~ . 

r 

i I I 

r 

I 

! . 

! 

I 

l 
STATE OF MAINE 


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 


CHAPTER 530.2(D)(4) CERTIFICATION 

PAUL R. LEPAGE PATRICIA W.AHO 

GOVERNOR Commissioner 

MEPDES#_____FacilityName.______________ 

Since the effective date of your permit, have there been; NO YES 

Describe in comments 

section 

1 Increases in the number, types, and flows of industrial, 

commercial, or domestic discharges to the facility that in the 

judgment of the Department may cause the receiving water to 

become toxic? 

0 0 

2 Changes in the condition or operations of the facility that may 

increase the toxicity ofthe discharge? 0 0 

3 Changes in storm water collection or inflow/infiltration 

affecting the facility that may increase the toxicity of the 

discharge? 

0 0 

4 Increases in the type or volume ofhauled wastes accepted by 

the facility? 0 0 

COMMENTS: 

Name (printed): --------------~-------

Signature: __________________ Date: _______ 

This document must be signed by the permittee or their legal representative. 

This form may be used to meet the requirements of Chapter 530.2(0)(4). This Chapter requires all 

dischargers having waived or reduced toxic testing to file a statement with the Department describing 

changes to the waste being contributed to their system as outlined above. As an alternative, the 

discharger may submit a signed letter containing the same information. 

Scheduled Toxicity Testing for the next calendar year 

Test Conducted 1" Quarter· 2"" Quarter 3'" Quarter 4'" Quarter 

WET Testing D D D D 

Priority Pollutant Testing D· D D D 

Analytical Chemistty D D D D 

Other toxic parameters 1 D D D D 

Please place an "X" in each ofthe boxes that apply to when you will be conducting any one of 

the three test types during the next calendar year. 

1 This only applies to parameters where testing is required at a rate less frequently than quatierly. 

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) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04769-2094 

RAY BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX: {207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207)760-3143 

web site: www.maine.gov/dep