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 of Environmental 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 of current 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 of our preliminary review are summarized in the following paragraphs. 

EPA reviewed permits that authorize wastewater discharges into or upstream of waters in Indian lands, and 

evaluated whether they might be affected if the fish consumption rate (FCR) used to calculate human health 

criteria were raised from 32.4 glday to 286 glday or 514 glday. Our review 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 of Environmental Protection's (DEP) authorization to 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, or for which there are no aquatic life criteria. 

This preliminary review did not include a reasonable potential analysis1 for every human health criterion in 

Maine's WQS because EPA lacked the data to 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 of a 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 

of permittees (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 of evaluating whether there is a reasonable potential for a pollutant to cause or contribute to an instream 

exceedance of water quality criteria, as required by 40 CFR § 122.44( d)(l )(iii). Ifthere is such potential, the permit must contain 

an effluent limit for that pollutant. 

2 Of these, 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 of past effluent data, revised mercury HHC would not affect these interim limits. 
Of the 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 of these 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 of the criteria. These decisions predated the 2013 

approval of Maine'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 if it 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 of the 

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 ME0001872), 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 if more 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 of the criteria (the fact sheet does not provide a rationale specific 

to arsenic). This decision predated the 2013 approval of Maine'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 of the pollutants at issue are not present in the wastewater 

from facilities that discharge into or upstream of tribal waters. Further, EPA is not aware of any 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 of issues of 

technical or financial feasibility, there are ways to take such concerns into account. If it 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 of that 

information. 

We look forward to working with DEP to assist in the development of new human health criteria that are 

protective of tribal 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 staff contact Ellen Weitzler at 617-918-1582 or weitzler.ellen@epa.gov, 

if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Ken Moraff, Director 

Office of Ecosystem Protection 

cc: Maine tribes 

Maine congressional delegation 

3 
A Tf ACHMENT A- Summary of NPDES Permits Reviewed 

Receiving Water and Permittee Design Flow Dilution Factor (based Notes 

(MGD) on harmonic mean 

Dow of receiving water 

unless otherwise noted) 

PENOBSCOT RIVER 

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 per DEP 

Rule Chapter 519. 

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. 

Great Lakes Hydro - Mattaceunk 0.144 9022 : 1 (based on 7Q 10 No treatment required. 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) 

Lincoln Tissue and Paper 16.3 process flow 226: 1 At final discharge point (outfall 001) WQBELs and monitoring for 

(ME0002003 exp. 5/25/20 16) arsenic removed from the permit in 2011. Current permit requires 

priority pollutant scan, but data 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 5 I 9. 

Covanta Maine Enfield Generating 0.187 Not available No HHC effluent limits or monitoring requirements. 

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. --

1 
Receiving Water and Permittee Design Flow Dilution Factor (based Notes 

(MGD) on harmonic mean 

flow of receiving water 

unless otherwise noted) 

Town of Milford CSO Not available Not available Flow monitoring requirements only. No effluent or flow limits. No 

(ME0102695, exp. 10/14/2015) llliC effluent 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 (MEO 102032, exp. location. which was removed with a permit modification in 2013. The 2010 

6/1112015) Estimated 6,000 : l permit is not available. Estimated flow limit of 0.93 MGD based on 

dilution at confluence 2004 permit. 2004 permit also included effluent limits for antimony 

with Penobscot ~ver in and phenols which are HHC and-priority pollutant scans. Not sure if 

Howland (50+ miles these are included in 2010 permit, or if industrial component (which 

downstream of is Yz the flow) is still actively discharging or discharging the same 

discharge). pollutants. 

Dover-Foxcroft WWTF 0.8 110: 1 No HHC based effluent limits.. Priority pollutant scan required, but 

(ME0100501, exp. 12128/2014) Discharge is 40+ river not reported in !CIS by individual pollutant. Mercury interim limits 

miles upstream of per DEP Rule Chapter 519. 

confluence with 

Penobscot River in 

Howland. 

Dover-Foxcroft Water 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 required but individual pollutants not in !CIS. Mercury interim 

confluence with limits per DEP Rule Chapter 519 with 1/year sampling requirement. 

Penobscot River in 

Howland. 

----------

2 
Receiving Water and Permittee Design Flow Dilution Factor (based Notes 

(MGD) on harmonic mean 

flow of receiving water 

unless otherwise noted) 

Dischar2e to Pleasant River: 

Town of Brownville Subsurface Not available Pennit is for discharge to groundwater except for an unlimited flow 

WWTF (MEO 102784, exp. of perimeter drain water to the Pleasant River. No HHC effluent 

12/112017) limits or monitoring requirements. 

MENUXDEKEAG RIVER 

Houlton POTW (MEO I 01290, 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 519. 

ST. CROIX RIVER WATERSHED 

St. Croix River: 

Baileyville (ME0101320, exp. 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. 0.13 114,000 : 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 or monitoring requirements. 

(MEO 102831 exp. 3/4/19) 

Woodland Hydro 0.194 2,499 : 1 (based on No lffiC based effluent limits or monitoring 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. 

3 
Receiving Water and Permittee Design Flow Dilution Factor (based Notes 

(MGD) on harmonic mean 

flow of receiving 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 20 11. At external outfall 00 I: 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 Water District 0.15 Not available No HHC effluent limits or monitoring requirements. 

POTW (ME0100773, exp. 

12/10/20 17) ------- -------- ------·--- -- ----

4