### UNITED STATE'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A4ENCY RE410N I S POST OFFic-E SQUARE SUITE l-00**130STON~** MASSACHUSETIS 02.3.oq-3q3.2.



### March 6, 2015
Patricia W. Aho, Commissioner Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 17 State House Station Augusta , Maine 04333 Re: Water Quality Standards in Tribal Waters and Potential Effects on Wastewater Discharges Dear Ms. Abo: This is 

### in response to your request for additional information regarding dischargers that may be impacted by EPA's February 2, 2015 decision to disapprove Maine's human health criteria for waters in Indian lands. As I mentioned over the phone on February 3, 2015, EPA conducted a preliminary review ofcurrent Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) permits to assess the extent to which more stringent human health criteria for tribal waters could lead to new or more stringent effluent limits when the permits are reissued. The results ofour preliminary review are summarized in the following paragraphs. EPA reviewed permits that authorize wastewater discharges into orupstream ofwaters in Indian lands, and evaluated whether they might be affected ifthe fish consumption rate (FCR) used to calculate human health criteria were raised from 32.4 glday to 286 glday or 514 glday

. Ourreview was limited to the permit information in our files, which includes current permits, permit modifications, and fact sheets, as well as permit applications that pre-date the Department ofEnvironmental Protection' s (DEP) authorizationto issue MEPDES permits in Maine. The permits that we reviewed, the receiving waters, the facility design flow and the dilution factor for each facility, based on the harmonic mean flow, are provided in Attachment A. Attachment A also includes notes regarding water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) or effluent data availability for human health criteria (HHC) pollutants for which the current HHC are either more stringent than the aquatic life criteria, orfor which there are no aquatic life criteria. This preliminary review did not include a reasonable potential analysis 1 

### for every human health criterion in Maine' s WQS because EPA lacked the datato do so. As you can see from the notes in Attachment A , there are quite a few facilities that conduct a periodic priority pollutant analysis ofa grab sample. However the analytical results for each pollutant are not reported in the discharge monitoring reports that EPA receives and stores in its electronic files. Nevertheless, we can make the following observations. First, the majority ofpermittees (19 of24) that discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries do not have HHC-based effluent limits, and based on their activities and/or the dilution available at harmonic mean flows, it does not appear likely that they would need such limits after new HHC are adopted. 2

1 Refers to the process ofevaluating whether there is a reasonable potential for a pollutant to cause or contribute to an instream exceedance ofwater quality criteria, as required by 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(l)(iii). Ifthere is such potential, the permit must contain an effluent limit for tha t pollutant. 2 Ofthese, seven have interim limits for mercury pursuant to 38 M

.R.S. §§ 413 and 420, and DEP Rule Chapter 519. Because these limits are based on a calculated mean ofpast effluent data, revised mercury HHC would not affect these interim limits.

### Ofthe remaining five permittees, 3 

### two have no HHC-based effluent limits or monitoring requirements, but they have had arsenic effluent limits in past permits. These facilities are:

• Houlton Publicly Owned Treatment Works (Permit ME0101290), discharging to the Menuxdekeag River; and

• Tate and Lyle Ingredients America (Permit ME0002216), discharging to the Menuxdekeag River. Both ofthese facilities had arsenic limits based on Maine's arsenic HHC approved in 2006, but subsequent permit decisions removed the arsenic limits, apparently because more recent effluent data demonstrated no reasonable potential to cause an instream exceedance ofthe criteria. These decisions predated the 2013 approval ofMaine's revised (less stringent) arsenic criteria. Depending on whether and to what extent arsenic is still present in the effluent from these facilities, it is possible that more stringent arsenic HHC will result in the need for arsenic limits to be included in future permits for these dischargers

. There is one discharger to the Piscataquis River, Guilford-Sangerville Sanitary District (Permit ME0102032), that had HHC-based effluent limits on arsenic, antimony, and phenol in its 2004 permit. The permit was reissued in 2010, and in 2013, DEP modified that permit to remove the arsenic limits. EPA does not have access to the 2010 permit and so was unable to determine ifit still contains antimony and phenol limits. It is unlikely that more stringent HHC applicable in tribal waters in the Penobscot River would require more stringent effluent limits for arsenic, antimony, and phenol at this facility, in light ofthe pollutant attenuation that would occur over the greater than 50 river mile distance to the tribal waters, and the approximately 6000: 1 dilution available in the Penobscot River at harmonic mean flow. The remaining two permits have more extensive effluent limits on pollutants that have applicable HHC. They are:

• Lincoln Tissue and Paper (Permit ME0002003), discharging to the Penobscot River; and

• Woodland Pulp (Permit ME000 1872), discharging to the St. Croix River. Permits for both facilities include technology-based effluent limits on an internal waste stream (bleach plant effluent) for

.dioxin (2,3 ,7,8

-TCDD), furan (2,3,7,8 TCDF), chloroform, and pentachlorophenol. The limits are set at the method detection levels (ML) for those pollutants. Even ifmore stringent water quality based effluent limits become necessary to meet revised HHC for those pollutants, the ML would continue to govern for compliance purposes. Lastly, both permittees had arsenic limits in prior permits, but their current permits do not include arsenic limits. When DEP reissued the Lincoln Tissue and Paper permit in 2011, it deleted the arsenic limits that had been in a prior permit, apparently because more recent effluent data 

### demonstrated no reasonable potential to cause an instream exceedance ofthe criteria (the fact sheet does not provide a rationale specific to arsenic). This decision predated the 2013 approval ofMaine's revised arsenic criteria. DEP modified the Woodland Pulp permit in 2013 to delete e(fluent limits and monitoring requirements established in 2005 on total and inorganic arsenic based on the State's revised arsenic criteria approved in 2013. For both permittees, depending on the extent to which arsenic is still present in their effluent, it is possible that more stringent arsenic HHC will result in the need for arsenic limits to be included in future permits for these dischargers. 

### Conclusion

3 At least four of these five facilities also have interim limits for mercury, pursuant to 38 M.R.S. §§ 413 and 420 and DEP Rule Chapter 519, which, as explained above, would not be affected by revised HHC for mercury. EPA is uncertain whether GuilfordSangerville's current permit contains interim mercury limits because EPA does not have access to that permit. 

### 2

### Based on data available to EPA, the vast majority ofthe pollutants at issue are not present in the wastewater from facilities that discharge into or upstream oftribal waters. Further, EPA is not aware ofany discharger in Maine that would need to shut down in order to protect sustenance fishing uses in tribal waters. There may be a few dischargers that eventually will require more stringent limits when their permits are reissued, but it is premature to speculate about compliance costs or feasibility. While the Clean Water Act requires wastewater discharge permit limits to be set to protect water quality standards regardless ofissues of technical or financial feasibility, there are ways to take such concerns into account. Ifit turns out that a discharger cannot meet new more stringent limits immediately, EPA would be happy to assist DEP in evaluating any request for a long term compliance schedule or variance, depending on the specific circumstances. As noted above, this is a preliminary review based on the information available to EPA. IfDEP has data that would add to this analysis, we would be happy to work with you to evaluate the implications ofthat information. We look forward to working with DEP to assist in the development ofnew human health criteria that are protective oftribal sustenance fishing, and to help DEP use the flexibilities within the NPDES permits program to implement the new criteria. Please feel free to contact me at 617-918-1502 or moraff.ken@epa.gov, or have your staffcontact Ellen Weitzler at 617-918-1582 or weitzler.ellen@epa.gov, ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,

Ken Moraff, Director Office ofEcosystem Protection

cc: Maine tribes Maine congressional delegation

3

### ATf 

### ACHMENT A- Summary ofNPDES Permits Reviewed
Receiving Waterand Permittee Design Flow Dilution Factor (based Notes (MGD) on harmonic mean Dow ofreceiving water unless otherwise noted) 

### PENOBSCOTRIVER WATERSHED Discharge to Penobscot River Millinocket POTW (MEO 100803, 2.3 657: 1 No effluent limits for human health criteria pollutants (HHC). exp. 5/26116) Annual priority pollutant scan required, but data for individual pollutants not reported in !CIS. Mercury interim limits perDEP Rule Chapter 5 19. Mattawamkeag WWTF Not available Not available This is a lagoon system based on PCSIICIS report , facility only has (ME0102245, exp. 5/1/2016) reporting requirements for flow, BOD and TSS and no effluent limits. No HHC effluent limits or monitoring requirements. Design flow not readily available. GreatLakes Hydro

- Mattaceunk 0.144 9022 : 1 (based on 7Q 10 No treatment requi red. Temp & Flow limits only. No lffiC limits Hydro Project

- Weldon Station flow) or monitoring requirements. (in Mattawamkeag) (ME0036552, exp. 2/19/2018) Lincoln Sanitary 1.1 3,431: 1 No effluent limits or monitoring for HHC. Mercury interim limits District (MEO 101796, exp. per DEP Rule Chapter 519. 5/25/16) Lincol n Tissue and Paper 16.3 process flow 226: 1 At final discharge point (outfall 00 1) WQBELs and monitoring for (ME0002003 exp
. 5/25/20 16) arsenic removed from the permit in 2011. Current permit requires priority pollutant scan, butdata for individual pollutants not reported in ICIS. Technology based effluent limits apply at internal outfall #100 for dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), furan (2,3,7,8 TCDF), chloroform, and pentachlorophenol. Mercury interim limits per DEP Rule Chapter 

### 5I9

. Covanta Maine Enfield Generating 0

. 187 Not available No HHC effluent limits ormonitoring requir ements. Station (ME0023213, exp. 4/2112015) Penobscot Indian Nation WPCF 0.1 53,736: I No effluent limits or monitoring for fmC. Mercury interim limits i (ME0101311, exp. 12/4/2017) per DEP Rule Chapter 519.

-- 

### 1Receiving Water and Permittee Design Flow Dilut ion Factor (based Notes (MGD) on harmonic mean flow ofreceiving water unless otherwise noted) Town ofMilford CSO Not available Not available Flow monitoring requireme nts onl y. No effluent or flow limits. No (ME0102695, ex p
. 10/14/2015) llliC efflue nt monitoring requirements. Dischaf"2e to Piscataquis River Guilford-Sangerville Sanitary 0

.9324.4 37: 1 at discharge Facility had an arsenic effluent limit based on 2005 arsenic criteria District (MEO102032, exp. location
. which was removed with a permit modification in 20 13. The 2010 6/ 1112015) Estimated 6,000 : l permit is not available. Estimated flow limit of0

.93 MGD based on diluti on at confluence 2004 permit. 2004 permit also included effluent limits for antimony with Penobscot**~ver** in and phenols which are HHC and

- priority pollutant sca ns. Not sure if Howland (50+ miles these are included in 20 10 permit, or ifindustrial component (which downstream of is 

### Yz the flow) is still actively discharging or discharging the sa me dischar ge). pollutant s. Dover-Foxcroft WWTF 0

.8 110: 1 No HHC based effluent limits.. Priority pollutant scan required, but (ME0100501 , exp. 12128/2014) Dischar ge is 40+ river not reported in !CIS by individual pollutant. Mercury int er

im limits miles upstream of per DEP Rule Chapter 5 19

. confluence with Penobscot River in Howland. Do ver-Foxcroft Wa te

r District 0.15 242.8: 1 No HHC effluent limits or monitoring requirements

. (ME0102229, exp
. 4/ 1212018) Discharge is 40+ river miles upstream of confluence with Penobscot River in Howland. Milo WWTF (ME0100439, exp. 0.39 139:1 Draft permit public notice ended February 13,2015. No HHC based 1 / 1

/2015) NOTE: Discharge is 20+ effluent limits 

### in draft permit. Annual priority pollutant scan river miles upstream of r equired but individual pollutan ts not 

### in !CIS. Mercury interim confluence with limits per DEP Rule Chapter 519 with 1/year sampling requir ement. Penobscot River in Howland.

---------- 

### 2Receiving Water and Permittee Design Flow Dilution Factor (based Notes (MGD) on harmonic mean flow ofreceiving water unless otherwise noted) Dischar2e to Pleasant River: Town ofBrownville Subsurface Not available Pennit is for discharge to groundwater except for an unlimited flow WWTF (MEO 102784, exp. ofperimeter drain water to the Pleasant River. No HHC effluent 12/112017) limits or monitoring requirements. 

### MENUXDEKEAGRIVER Houlton POTW (MEO I01290, 1.5 26: 1 Arsenic effluent limit removed 

### in 2011 permit. No HHC based exp. 4/4 / 16) effluent limits. Annual priority pollutant scan required, but individual pollutant concentrations not in ICIS. Mercury interim limits per DEP Rule Chapter 519. Tate and Lyle Ingredients 0.04 149.7: 1 No HHC based effluent limits. Arsenic limits**~ontained** in 2008 Americas (ME0002216, exp
. pennit but not in current pennit. Annual priority pollutant scan 12

/20/20 18) required, but individual pollutant concentrations not in ICIS. Mercury interim limits per DEP Rule Chapter 5 19

. 

### ST. CROIXRIVER WATERSHED St. Croix River: Baileyville (ME0101320, ex p. 0.6 

## . 1,953 : 1 No HHC based effluent limits. Priority pollutant scan requirement 10

/12/ 18) waived. Mercury interim limits per DEP Rule Chapter 519. Calais School (ME0102765, exp. 0.13 1 14,000 : 1 No IDIC based effluent limits or monitoring requirements. Priority 6/7 /17) pollutant scan requirement waived. Calais POTW (MEOI00129, exp. 1.5 832: 1 No HHC based effluent limits. Annual priority pollutant scan 10

/4/16) required, but individual pollutant concentrations not in ICIS. Mercury interim limits per DEP Rule Chapter 519. Washington Comm. College 0.01 92,076: 1 No IDIC based effluent limits ormonitoring requirements. (MEO 102831 exp. 3/4/19) Woodland Hydro 0.194 2,499 : 1 (based on No lffiC based effluent limits ormonitoring requirements. Limits Project/Woodland Pulp Mill 7Q10 flow) just for flow and temperature. (ME0036668 exp. 4/l/2019) Woodland Pulp Non-Contact 15.16 36:1 No HHC based effluent limits or monitoring requirements. Limits Cooling Water (M£0022063 exp. just for flow and temperature. As of2013, facility was not fully 6/2/2018) '-- operational.



### 3Receiving Water and Permittee Design Flow Dilution Factor (based Notes (MGD) on harmonic mean flow ofreceiving water unless otherwise noted) Woodland Pulp (M£0001872, exp
. 30 39: 1 Effluent limits and monitoring for arsenic removed from the permit 6/2/2019) in 2011. At external outfall 00I : requirement for priority pollutant scan, but data for individual pollutants not reported in ICIS; mercury interim limits per DEP Rule Chapter 519. At internal outfall 100, technology based effluent limits for dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), furan (2,3,7,8 TCDF), chloroform, and pentachlorophenol.
Grand Lake Stream: MDIFW Grand Lake Stream Fish 2.9 Not available No HHC effluent limits or monitoring requirements. Hatchery (MEOOO 1082, exp. 9/112019) Boydon Stream: Passamaquoddy WaterDistrict 0 .15 Not available No HHC effluent limits or monitoring requirements. POTW (ME0100773, exp. 12

/10 /2017)

------- -------- ----- -·--- -- ----



### 4