STATE OF MAINE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

PAUL R LEPAGE DARRYL N. BROWN 

GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER 

April 4, 2011 

Mr. John Clark 

Houlton Water Company 

P.O. Box 726 

Houlton, ME 04730 

jIchwco.orq 

RE: Maine Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (MEPDES) #ME0101290 

Maine Waste Discharge License (WDL) #W002648-6D-D-R 

FINAL PERMIT 

Dear Mr. Clark: 

Enclosed, please find a copy of your final MEPDES permit and Maine WDL, which was 

approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. Please read the 

permit/license 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." 

Sincerely, 

Bill Hinkel 

Division of Water Quality Management 

Bureau of Land and Water Quality 

ph: 207-485-2281 

Enc. 

ec: Tim Peters, HWC Sharri Venno, HBMI Sandy Mojica, USEPA 

Sean Bernard; Lori Mitchell, DEP File # W2648 

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 04679-2094 

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: vrarw.maine.gov/dep 
tilkROHN . 

41 

. 2 • 

. 12 

a 

STATE OF MAINE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

17 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017 

DEPARTMENT ORDER 

IN THE MATTER OF 

HOULTON WATER COMPANY 

PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS ) 

HOULTON, AROOSTOOK COUNTY, MAINE ) 

#ME0101290 

#W002648-6D-D-R APPROVAL 

MAINE POLUTANT DISCHARGE 

ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

AND 

WASTE DISCHARGE LICENSE 

RENEWAL 

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title 33 USC, §1251, 

Conditions of licenses, 38 M.R.S.A. § 414-A, and applicable regulations, the Depai linent of 

Environmental Protection (Depai Went) has considered the application of the HOULTON 

WATER COMPANY (HWC, permittee, or applicant) with its supportive data, agency review 

comments, and other related materials on file and other related materials on file and FINDS THE 

FOLLOWING FACTS: 

APPLICATION SUMMARY 

The applicant has applied to the Depai hnent for renewal of combination Maine Waste Discharge 

License (WDL) renewal and modification #W002648-5L-C-M / Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (MEPDES) permit #ME0101290, which was issued by the Depai iment on February 16, 2005 

and expired on February 16, 2010. The February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit authorized the monthly 

average discharge of up to 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of secondary treated wastewaters from a 

publicly owned treatment works (POTW) to the Meduxnekeag River, Class B, in Houlton, Maine. 

On May 18, 2005, the Department issued an administrative modification letter to HWC to correct 

typographical errors and to modify Special Condition M, Inflow/Infiltration, of the February 16, 2005 

MEPDES permit. 

On April 10, 2006, the Department amended the February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit by incorporating 

the whole effluent toxicity (WET), analytical chemistry and priority pollutant testing requirements of 

Surface Water Toxics Control Program, 06-096 CMR 530 (effective October 9, 2005). 
#MED101290 PERMIT PAGE 2 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

PERMIT SUN.DIARY 

This permitting action is significantly different from the February 16, 2005 permitting action in 

that it is: 

1. Eliminating the monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent limitations 

for total arsenic based on the results of facility testing; 

2. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent limitations for 

total aluminum based on the results of facility testing; 

3. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent limitations for 

total cadmium based on the results of facility testing; 

4. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent limitations for 

total copper based on the results of facility testing; 

5. Revising (more stringent) the daily maximum water quality-based concentration and mass effluent 

limitations for total copper based on the results of facility testing; 

6. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent limitations for 

cyanide (available) based on the results of facility testing; 

7. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent limitations for 

total lead based on the results of facility testing; 

8. Eliminating the A-NOEL limits of 28% for the brook trout and fathead minnow based on the 

results of facility testing; 

9. Eliminating the C-NOEL limit of 25% for the water flea based on the results of facility testing; 

10. Establishing a C-NOEL limit of 25% for the brook trout and a surveillance level monitoring 

frequency of twice per year based on the results of facility testing; 

11. Establishing an annual certification statement requirement (Special Condition H, Statement for 

Reduced/Waived Toxics Testing of this permit) for reduced toxics testing; and 

12 Eliminating the requirement to conduct ambient water quality for the Meduxnekeag River as this 

effort will be conducted by the Department. 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 3 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

CONCLUSIONS 

BASED on the findings in the attached Fact Sheet dated April 4, 2011, and subject to the Conditions 

listed below, the Department makes the following conclusions: 

1. 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 Depai talent expects to adopt in 

accordance with state law. 

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

that: 

(a) Existing 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 of the State constitute an outstanding national resource, that water 

quality will be maintained and protected; 

(c) The standards of classification of the receiving water body are met or, where the standards of 

classification of the receiving water body are not met, the discharge will not cause or contribute 

to the failure of the 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 discharge will be subject to effluent limitations that require application of best practicable 

treatment as defined in 38 M.R.S.A. § 414-A(1)(D). 
Filed 

APR - 4 2011 

State of Maine 

Board of Environmental Protection 

#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 4 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

ACTION 

THEREFORE, the Department APPROVES the above noted application of the HOULTON 

WATER COMPANY to discharge a monthly average of up to 1.5 million gallons per day of 

secondary treated wastewaters from a publicly owned treatment works to the Meduxnekeag 

River, Class B, in Houlton, Maine, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS, and all 

applicable standards and regulations including: 

1. "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) years thereafter. 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 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 of Applications and Other 

Administrative Matters, 06-096 CMR 2(21)(A) (effective April 1, 2003)1. 

PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED SHEET FOR GUIDANCE ON APPEAL PROCEDURES. 

DONE AND DATED AT AUGUSTA, MAINE THIS #4 DAY OF APRIL 2011. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

BY: /4gC2 

DARRYL N. BROWN, Commissioner 

Date of initial receipt of application: December 14, 2009 

Date of application acceptance: December 14, 2009 

This Order prepared by Bill Hinkel, BUREAU OF LAND & WATER QUALITY 
Effluent 

Characteristic Discharge Limitations Minimum 

Monitoring Requirements 

Monthly 

Average 

Weekly 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Monthly 

Average 

Weekly 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Measurement 

Frequency 

Sample 

lips 

as specified as specified as specified as specified as specified as specified as specified as specified 

Flow 

[50050] 

1.5 MGD 

[03] 

___ Report MGD 

[03] 

___ __ _ Continuous 

[99/99] 

Recorder 

[RC] 

BOD5 

[00310] 

375 lbs./day 

[26] 

563 lbs./day 

[26] 

626 lbs./day 

[26] 

30 mg/L 

[19] 

45 mg/L 

[19] 

50 mg/L 

[19] 

2/Week 

[02/07] 

Composite 

[247 

BOD5 Percent 

Removal(2) 

[810101 

--- --- --- 

85% 

[23] --- --- 

1/Month 

[01/30] 

Calculate 

[CA] 

TSS 

[00530] 

375 lbs./day 

[26] 

563 lbs./day 

[26] 

626 lbs./day 

[26] 

30 mg/L 

[19] 

45 mg/L 

[19] 

50 mg/L 

[19] 

2/Week 

[02/07] 

Composite 

[24] 

TSS Percent 

Removal(2) 

[81011] 

— --- --- 

85% 

[23] - --- 

1/Month 

[01/30] 

Calculate 

[CA] 

[00545] 

Settleable Solids ___ __ ___ ___ 0.3 mL/L 

[25] 

1/Day 

[01/01] 

Grab 

[GR] 

E. coli Bacteria(3)

___ 

[31633] ___ _ _ 

64 co1/100 ni l (4) 

[13] --- 

427 col/100 ml 

[13] 

2/Week 

[02/07] 

Grab 

[GR] 

Total Residual 

Chlorine(5) 

[50060] 

___ "- ___ 

0.044 mg/L(6) 

[19] 

___ 

0.067 mg/L 

[19] 

1/Day 

[01/01] 

Grab 

[GR] 

pH .... 

[00400] 

, 

--- - --- 

_ 

6.0-9.0 SU 

[12] 

1/Day 

[01/01] 

Grab 

[GR] 

The italicized numeric values bracketed in the table above and in text on subsequent pages are code numbers that Department personnel utilize to code 

the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports. 

FOOTNOTES: See Pages 10-13 of this permit for the applicable footnotes. 

trattnr.111-7 • 
Effluent 

Characteristic 

Discharge 

Limitations 

Minimum Monitoring 

Requirements 

Monthly 

Average 

Weekly 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Monthly 

Average 

Weekly 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Measurement 

Frequency 

Sample 

T:122 

as specified as specified as specified as specified as specified as specified as specified 

1/Month 

[01/30] 

as specified 

Composite 

[24] 

Total Phosphorus as P(7) 

"WINTER SEASON" 

(September 16 — May 31) 

[00665] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

._ 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report μg /L 

[28] 

___ Report μg/L 

[28] 

Dissolved Orthophosphate as P(8) 

"WINTER SEASON" 

(September 16 —May 31) 

[00671] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report pg/L 

[28] 

Report ug/L 

[28] 

Report μg/L 

[28] 

1/Week 

[01/07] 

Composite 

[24] 

Dissolved Orthophosphate as P(8) 

"SUMMER SEASON" 

(June 1 — September 15) 

[00671] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report ptg/L 

[28] 

Report lig/L 

[28] 

Report p.g/L 

[28] 

2/Week 

[02/07] 

Composite 

[24] 

Total Phosphorus as P(7) 

"SUMMER SEASON" 

(June 1— September 15) 

[00665] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

Report lbs./day 

[26] 

250 ug/L 

[28] 

Report μg/L 

[28] 

500 pg/L 

[28] 

2/Week 

[02/07] 

Composite 

[24] 

Total Phosphorus as P(7) 

"SUMMER SEASON" 

(July 1 — September 15) 

[00665] 

[26] 

___ ___ 

1.25 lbsiday(9) 1/Quarter _ ___ ___ 

[01/90] 

Calculate 

[CA] 

The italicized numeric values bracketed in the table above and in text on subsequent pages are code numbers that Department personnel utilize to code the 

monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports. FOOTNOTES: See Pages 10-13 of this permit for the applicable footnotes. 

rr."'"r711T7"-- rit • linrrt,--T 
SURVEILLANCE LEVEL - Beginningupon issuance and lasting until 12 months prior to permit expiration. 

Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitations Minimum Monitoring 

Measurement 

Frequency 

Requirements 

Monthly Sample 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Monthly 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum Type 

Whole Effluent Toxicity (10) 

Acute — NOEL 

- 

...- 

___ 

___ 

— 

- 

--- 

--- 

_ 

--- 

--- 

Report % [23] 

Report % [23] 

Report % [23] 

25% [23] 

1/Year/-0//YR] 

2/Year [02/YR] 

1/Year/0//YR] 

2/Year [02/YR] 

Composite [24] 

Composite [24] 

Composite [24] 

Composite [24] 

Ceriodaphnia dubia (Water flea) [TDA3B] 

Salvelinus fonfinalis (Brook trout) [TDA6F] 

Chronic — NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia (Water flea) [TBP3B] 

Salvelinus fonfinalis (Brook trout) [TBQ6F] 

Analytical Chemistry (11) 

[51477] 

--- -- --- Report μg/l., 

[28] 

1/Year 

[01/YR] 

Composite/Grab 

[24] 

Aluminum (Total) 

[01105] 

1.73 lbs./day 

[26] 

276 ___ pg /L 

[28] 

___ 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Composite 

[247 

Cadmium (Total) 

[01027] 

0.0068 lbs./day 

[26] 

___ 

1.1 μg/L 

[28] 

. 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Composite 

[24] 

Copper (Total) 

101042] 

0.22 lbs./day 

[26] 

0.28 lbs./day 

[26] 

35 μg/L 

[28] 

45 μg/L 

[28] 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Composite 

[24] 

Cyanide (Available) 

[01027] 

0.14 lbs./day 

[26] 

___ 

22 μg/L 

[28] 

.. .,_ 2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Grab 

[GR] 

Lead (Total) 

[01051] 

0.074 lbs./day 

[26] 

___ ___ 

12 μg/L 

[28] 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Composite 

[24] 

The italicized numeric values bracketed in the table above and in text on subsequent pages are code numbers that Department personnel utilize to code 

the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports. 

FOOTNOTES: See Pages 10-13 of this permit for the applicable footnotes. 
SCREENING LEVEL - Beginning12 months prior to permit expiration and lasting through permit expiration and every five years thereafter. 

Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitations Minimum Monitoring Requirements 

Monthly 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Monthly 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Measurement 

Frequency 

Sample 

Type 

Whole Effluent Toxicity (10) 

Acute — NOEL 

- 

--- 

___ 

___ 

--- 

-- 

-- 

- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Report % [23] 

Report % [23] 

Report % [23] 

25% [23] 

I/Quarter/01/90j 

1/Quarter[0.//90] 

1/Quarter[0//90] 

I./Quarter/01/90] 

Composite [24] 

Composite [24] 

Composite [24] 

Composite [24] 

Ceriodaphnia dubia (Water flea) [TDA3B] 

Salvelinus fontinalis (Brook trout) [TDA6F] 

Chronic — NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia (Water flea) [TBP3B] 

Salvelinus fontinalis (Brook trout) [TBQ6F] 

Analytical Chemistry (11) 

[51477] 

.., --- Report ug/L 

[28] 

1/Quarter 

[01/90] 

Composite/Grab 

[24] 

Priority Pollutants (11) (12)

___ 

[50008] 

___ .... .. 

Report p.g/L 

[28] 

1/Year 

[01/YR] 

Composite/Grab 

[24/GR] 

Composite 

[24] 

Aluminum (Total) 

[01105] 

1.73 lbs./day 

[26] 

___ 

276 lag /L 

[28] 

___ 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Cadmium (Total) 

[01027] 

0.0068 lbs./day 

[26] 

.... 

1.1 iig/L 

[28] 

___ 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Composite 

[24] 

Copper (Total) 

101042] 

0.22 lbs./day 

[26] 

0.28 lbs./day 

[26] 

35 ug/L 

[28] 

45 ug/L 

[28] 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Composite 

[24] 

Cyanide (Available) 

[01027] 

0.14 lbs./day 

[26] 

.. 

22 1.tg /L 

[28] 

___ 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Grab 

[GR] 

Lead (Total) 

[01051] 

0.074 lbs./day 

[267 --- 

___ 

12 pg/L 

[28] 

2/Year 

[02/YR] 

Composite 

[24] 

The italicized numeric values bracketed in the table above and in text on subsequent pages are code numbers that Department personnel utilize to code 

the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports. 

FOOTNOTES: See Pages 10-13 of this permit for the applicable footnotes. 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 9 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

FOOTNOTES: 

1. Sampling — Sampling and analysis must be conducted in accordance with; a) methods 

approved in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 136, b) alternative methods 

approved by the Department in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR Part 136, or c) as 

otherwise specified by the Department. 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 of the Maine Comprehensive 

and Limited Environmental Laboratory Certification Rules, 10-144 CMR 263 (last amended 

February 13, 2000). Laboratory facilities that analyze compliance samples in-house are 

subject to the provisions and restrictions of 10-144 CMR 263. 

All analytical test results must be reported to the Department including results which are 

Detected below the respective reporting limits (RLs) specified by the Depai tment or as 

specified by other approve test methods. If a non-detect analytical test result is below the 

respective RL, the concentration result shall be reported as <Y where Y is the detection 

limit achieved by the laboratory for each respective parameter. Reporting a value of <Y 

that is greater than an established RL is not acceptable and will be rejected by the 

Department. For mass, if the analytical result is reported as <Y or if a detectable result is 

less than a RL, report a <X lbs/day, where X is the parameter specific limitation 

established in the permit. See Attachment A of this permit, WET and Chemical 

Specific Data Report Form, July 27, 2009, fox a list of the Department's RLs. 

Influent sampling for flow, BOD5and TSS must be sampled just upstream of the bar rack at 

the headworks for the facility. 

Effluent sampling must be sampled for all parameters after the last treatment process such that 

samples are representative of what is being discharged to the receiving waters. Any change in 

sampling location(s) must be reviewed and approved by the Depai tment in writing. 

2. Percent Removal For secondary treated wastewater, the facility shall maintain a minimum of 

85 percent removal of both BOD5and TSS. The percent removal shall be based on a monthly 

average calculation using influent and effluent concentrations. The percent removal shall be 

waived when the monthly average influent concentration is less than 200 mg/L. For instances 

when this occurs, the facility shall report "NODI-9" on the monthly Discharge Monitoring 

Report (DMR). 

3. E. coli Bacteria limits are seasonal and apply between May 15 and September 30, inclusive, of 

each year. The Depai tment reserves the right to require year-round disinfection to protect the 

health and welfare of the public. 

4. E. coli Bacteria — The monthly average limitation is a geometric mean limitation and must be 

calculated and reported as such. 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 10 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

FOOTNOTES: 

5. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) — Limitations and monitoring requirements are applicable 

whenever elemental chlorine or chlorine-based compounds are being used to disinfect the discharge. 

6. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) — For the purposes of this permit, compliance with the 

monthly average limitation in this permit will be based on USEPA's current minimum level 

(ML) of detection of 50 itg/L (0.05 mg/L). The permittee shall utilize approved test methods 

that are capable of producing analytical results down to or below 50 uWL. All analytical test 

results shall be reported to the Department, including results which are detected below the ML. 

Results reported at or below the RL will be considered to be in compliance with the permit. 

The monthly average limitation on the Discharge Monitoring Reports will be coded with the 

RL of 50 1.tg/L such that detectable results reported at or below 501.1g/L but greater than the 

monthly average water quality-based limit established in this permit will not be recorded as 

violations of the permit. 

7. Total Phosphorus — The permittee shall conduct total phosphorous monitoring in 

accordance with Attachment B of this permit, Protocol for Total Phosphorus Sample 

Collection and Analysis for Waste Water and Receiving Water Monitoring Required by 

Permits, June 2007, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Analyses and test results 

must be provided for total phosphorous as P. 

8. Dissolved Orthophosphate — The permittee shall conduct orthophosphate monitoring in 

accordance with Attachment C of this permit, Protocol for Orthophosphate Sample 

Collection and Analysis for Waste Water and Receiving Water Monitoring Required by 

Permits, June 2007, unless otherwise specified by the Depai intent. Analyses and test results 

must be provided for dissolved orthophosphate as P. 

9. Seasonal Average Phosphorous Limitation — This limitation is a seasonal average mass 

limitation applicable during the period of July 1 through September 15, inclusive, of each 

year. The permittee shall calculate the average daily mass discharged during the season by 

multiplying the total gallons discharged for the season by the arithmetic mean of the 2/Week 

test results for total phosphorus, multiplied by 8.34 lbs/gal and then divided by the number of 

days in the season. 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 11 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

FOOTNOTES: 

10. Whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing — Definitive WET testing is a multiconcentration testing event (a minimum of five dilutions bracketing the critical acute and 

chronic thresholds of 28% and 25% respectively), which provides a point estimate of 

toxicity in terms of No 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 observed effect level with survival, reproduction 

and growth as the end points. The critical acute and chronic thresholds were derived as 

the mathematical inverse of the applicable acute and chronic dilution factors of 3.5:1 and 

4.0:1, respectively. See Attachment D of this permit, Whole Effluent Toxicity Report 

Fresh Waters, July 27, 2009 for a copy of the Department's WET reporting form. 

Surveillance level testing — Beginning upon issuance of this permit and lasting through 

12 months prior to expiration 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 twice per year (2/Year) on the brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis). 

Screening level testing — Beginning 12 months prior to expiration of the permit or in the 

fifth year since the last screening test, which ever is sooner, the permittee shall conduct 

screening level WET testing at a minimum frequency of once per calendar quarter 

(1/Quarter) for the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and the brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis). 

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 10 business days of their availability before 

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

the Depai talent possible exceedences of the critical acute and chronic water quality 

thresholds specified above. 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 12 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

FOOTNOTES: 

Toxicity tests must be conducted by an experienced laboratory approved by the 

Department. The laboratory must follow procedures as described in the following 

USEPA methods manuals. 

a. Short 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 of Effluent and Receiving Waters to 

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

The permittee shall analyze the effluent for the parameters specified in the WET 

chemistry section and the parameters specified in the analytical chemistry section in 

Attachment A of this permit each time a WET test is performed. 

11. Analytical chemistry — Analytical chemistry refers to a suite of chemical tests listed in 

Attachment A of this permit. 

Surveillance level testing — Beginning upon issuance of this permit and lasting through 

12 months prior to expiration of the permit, the permittee shall conduct surveillance level 

analytical chemistry testing at a minimum frequency of once per year (1/Year). 

Screening level testing — Beginning 12 months prior to permit expiration and every five 

years thereafter, the permittee shall conduct screening level analytical chemistry testing at 

a frequency of once per calendar quarter(1/Quarter) for four consecutive calendar 

quarters. 

12. Priority pollutant testing — Priority pollutant testing refers to analysis for levels of priority 

pollutants listed in Attachment A of this permit. 

Screening level testing — Beginning 12 months prior to permit expiration and every five 

years thereafter, the permittee shall conduct screening level priority pollutant testing at a 

minimum frequency of once per year (1/YR), except for those analytical chemistry 

parameter(s) otherwise regulated in this permit. 

Surveillance level priority pollutant testing is not required by 06-096 CMR 530(2)(D). 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 13 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

FOOTNOTES: 

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. 

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 10 business days of their 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 AWQC 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" formes, 

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

B. NARRATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 

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

which would impair the usages designated by 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 usages designated by the 

classification of the receiving waters. 

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

which would impair the usages designated by the classification of the 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 III (or higher) certificate or must be a Maine Registered Professional Engineer 

pursuant to Sewerage Treatment Operators, 32 M.R.S.A., §§ 4171-4182 and Regulations for 

Wastewater Operator Certcation, 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 

licensee may engage the services of the contract operator. 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 14 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

D. DISPOSAL OF TRANSPORTED WASTE INTO THE WASTEWATER 

TREATMENT FACILITY 

The permittee is prohibited from accepting transported wastes 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 permit. 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. 

E. AUTHORIZED DISCHARGES 

The permittee is authorized to discharge only in accordance with: 1) the permittee's General 

Application for Waste Discharge Permit, accepted for processing on December 14, 2009; 2) the 

terms and conditions of this 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. LIMITATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS 

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

source (user) shall not pass through or interfere with the operation of the treatment system. 

G. MERCURY 

All mercury sampling (4/Year) required to determine compliance with interim limitations 

established pursuant to Interim Effluent Limitations and Controls for the Discharge of 

Mercury, 06-096 CMR 519 (last amended October 6, 2001) shall be conducted in 

accordance with USEPA's "clean sampling techniques" found in USEPA 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 1631, Determination 

of Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Fluorescence 

Spectrometry. See Attachment E, Effluent Mercury Test Report, of this permit for the 

Depai tinent's form for reporting mercury test results. 
04E0101290 PERMIT PAGE 15 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

By December 31stof each calendar year [PCS Code 95799], the permittee shall provide the 

Department with statements describing the following: 

(a) 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; 

(b) Changes in the operation of the treatment works that may increase the toxicity of the 

discharge; and 

(c) 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 testing be re-instituted if it determines that 

there have been changes in the character of the discharge or if annual certifications described 

above are not submitted. 

I. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT 

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

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

indirect discharger in a primary industrial category discharging process wastewater; 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 of permit issuance. For the purposes of this condition, notice 

regarding substantial change shall include information on: 

(a) the quality and quantity of waste water introduced to the wastewater collection and 

treatment system; and 

(b) any anticipated impact caused by the change in the quantity or quality of the 

wastewater to be discharged from the treatment system. 

J. 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 of high flow. The Department 

acknowledges that the existing collection system may deliver flows in excess of the 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 Department 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 the approved plan 

annually and record any necessary changes to keep the plan up to date. 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 16 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

K. INFLOW/INFILTRATION (I&I) 

On or before December 31'tof each year, [PCS Code 04399] the permitte shall submit to 

the Depai Intent for review a report that summarizes work completed for the previous 

calendar year and a scope of work and schedule for I&I projects for the upcoming year. 

L. 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 of transport, treatment and 

control (and related appurtenances) 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. 

M. MONITORING AND REPORTING 

Monitoring results obtained during the previous month must be summarized for each month 

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

Depai tinent and postmarked on or before the thirteenth (13th) day of the month or handdelivered to a Department Regional Office such that the DMRs are received by the 

Department on or before the fifteenth (15th) day of the month following the completed 

reporting period. A signed copy of the DMR and all other reports required herein must be 

submitted to the following address: 

Maine Dept ttnent of Environmental Protection 

Northern Maine Regional Office 

Bureau of Land and Water Quality 

Division of Water Quality Management 

1235 Skyway Park 

Presque Isle, Maine 04769 
#ME0101290 PERMIT PAGE 17 OF 17 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

M. MONITORING AND REPORTING (cont'd) 

Alternatively, if you are submitting an electronic DMR (eDMR), the completed eDMR must 

be electronically submitted to the Department by a facility authorized DMR Signatory not 

later than close of business on the 15thday of the month following the completed reporting 

period. Hard copy documentation submitted in support of the eDMR must be postmarked on 

or before the thirteenth (13th) day of the month or hand-delivered to the Depai tment's 

Regional Office such that it is received by the Department on or before the fifteenth (15th) 

day of the month following the completed reporting period. Electronic documentation in 

support of the eDMR must be submitted not later than close of business on the 15thday of the 

month following the completed reporting period. 

N. REOPENING OF PERMIT FOR MODIFICATIONS 

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

Conditions of this permitting action, new site-specific information, or any other pertinent test 

results or information obtained during the term of this permit, the Department may, at any 

time and with notice to the perrnittee, modify this permit to; 1) 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 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. 

0. SEVERABILITY 

In the event that any provision(s), or part thereof, of this permit is declared to be 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 court. 
ATTACHMENT A 
Lab Contact 

ERROR WARNING ± Essential facility FRESH WATER VERSION 

information is missing. Please check 

required entries in bold above. Please see the footnotes on the last page. 

Lab ID # 

Receiving 

Water or 

Ambient 

Effluent Concentration 

(ugh., or as noted) 

WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY , ,, a, 

Effluent Limits, % 

17,-, 

WET Result, % 

Do not enter % sign 

:v4itt*IIF,'ItiMr: 

Reporting 

Limit Check 

A 

Possible Exceedence C7) 

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic 

Trout - Acute 

Trout - Chronic 

Water Flea - Acute 

Water Flea - Chronic 

igint:!E::: VV:41.4&.,4.,A;! W• ,Z - WET CHEMISTRY ling:112 

pH (S.U.) (9) (8) 

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) (8) 

Total Solids (mglL) 

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 

Alkalinity (mglL) (8) 

Specific Conductance (umhos) 

Total Hardness (mg/L) (8) 

Total Magnesium (mg/1..) (8) 

Total Calcium (mg/L) (8) 

Effluent Limits, ug/L 

'..2,,,••• 

Reporting 

Limit Check 

Possible Exceedence (7) 

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY (3) 

Also do these tests on the effluent with 

WET. Testing on the receiving water is 

optional Reporting Limit Acute) Chronic(6) Neale) Acute Chronic Health 

TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE (mglL) (9) 0.05 NA 

AMMONIA NA (8) 

M ALUMINUM NA (8) 

M ARSENIC 5 (8) 

M CADMIUM 1 (8) 

M CHROMIUM 10 (8) 

M COPPER 3 (8) 

M CYANIDE 5 (8) 

M 

M 

M 

LEAD 3 (8) 

NICKEL 5 (8) 

SILVER 1 (8) 

M ZINC 5 (8) 

Revised July 2009 Page 1 DEPLW 0740-B2007 
A 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 5 

A 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 5 

A 2,4-DINITROPHENOL 45 

A 2-CHLOROPHENOL 5 

A 2-NITROPHENOL 5 

A 

4,6 DINITRO-O-CRESOL (2-Methyl-4,6-

dinitrophenol) 25 

A 4-NITROPHENOL 20 

A 

P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL (3-methyl-4-

chlorophenoI)+1380 5 

A PENTACHLOROPHENOL 20 

A PHENOL 5 

BN 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 5 

BN 1,2-(0)DICHLOROBENZENE 5 

BN 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE 10 

BN 1,3-(M)DICHLOROBENZENE 5 

BN 1,4-(P)DICHLOROBENZENE 5 

BN 2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 6 

BN 2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 5 

BN 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 5 

BN 3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 16.5 

BN 3,4-BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 5 

BN 4-BROMOPHENYLPHENYL ETHER 2 

BN 4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 5 

BN ACENAPHTHENE 5 

BN ACENAPHTHYLENE 5 

3N ANTHRACENE 5 

BN BENZIDINE 45 

BN BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 8 

BN BENZO(A)PYRENE 3 

3N BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 5 

BN BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 3 

BN B I S(2-CH LOROETHOXY)METHANE 5 

BN BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 6 

BN BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER 6 

BN BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 3 

BN BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE 5 

BN CHRYSENE 3 

BN DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 5 

BN DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 5 

BN DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 5 

BN DIETHYL PHTHALATE 5 

BN DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 5 

Revised July 2009 Page 2 DEPLW 0740-B2007 
BN NAPHTHALENE 5 

BN NITROBENZENE 5 

BN PHENANTHRENE 5 

BN PYRENE 5 

P 4,4'-DDD 0.05 

P 4,4'-DDE 0.05 

P 4,4'-DDT 0.05 

P A-BHC 0.2 

P A-ENDOSULFAN 0.05 

P ALDRIN 0.15 

P B-BHC 0.05 

P B-ENDOSULFAN 0.05 

P CHLORDANE 0.1 

P D-BHC 0.05 

P DIELDRIN 0.05 

P ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.1 

P ENDRIN 0.05 

P ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.05 

P G-BHC 0.15 

P HEPTACHLOR 0.15 

P HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 0.1 

P PCB-1016 0.3 

P PCB-1221 0.3 

P PCB-1232 0.3 

P PCB-1242 0.3 

P PCB-1248 0.3 

P PCB-1254 0.3 

P PCB-1260 0.2 

P TOXAPHENE 1 

V 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 5 

V 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 7 

V 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 5 

V 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 5 

V 

1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE (1,1-

dichloroethene) 3 

V 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 3 

V 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 6 

V 

1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE (1,2-

trans-dichloroethene) 5 

V 

1,3-DICHLOROPROPYLENE (1,3-

dichloropropene) 5 

V 2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER 20 

Revised July 2009 Page 3 DEPLW 0740-B2007 
V METHYL BROMIDE (Bromomethane) 5 

V METHYL CHLORIDE (Chloromethane) 5 

V METHYLENE CHLORIDE 5 

V 

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 

(Perchloroathylene or Tetrachloroethene) 5 

V TOLUENE 5 

V TRICHLOROETHYLENE (Trichloroethene) 3 

V VINYL CHLORIDE 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 chemistry parameters must be done as part of the WET test chemistry. 

(4) Priority Pollutants should be reported in micrograms per liter (ug/L). 

(5) Mercury is often reported in nanograms per liter (ng/L) by the contract laboratory, so be sure to convert to micrograms per liter on this spreadsheet. 

(6) Effluent Limits 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. 

Comments: 

Revised July 2009 Page 4 DEPLW 0740-B2007 

vrimrtr—ti— • —11111111!"11,"""- 
ATTACHMENT B 
Protocol for Total Phosphorus Sample Collection and Analysis for Waste 

Water and Receiving Water Monitoring Required by Permits 

Approved Analytical Methods: EPA 365.1 (Rev. 2.0), 365.3, 365.4; SM 4500-P B.5, 4500-P E, 

4500-P F; ASTM D515-88(A), D515-88(B); USGS 1-4600-85, 1-4610-91; OMAAOAC 973.55, 

973.56 

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 H2SO4to obtain a 

sample pH of <2 su and refrigerated at 0-6 degrees C (without 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 laboratory may choose to add acid to the sample once it 

arrives at the laboratory. 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. 

DEP-LW-0844 Compliance & Technical Assist BLWQ Revision (1) June 2007 
ATTACHMENT C 
Protocol for Orthophosphate Sample Collection and Analysis 

for Waste Water and Receiving Water Monitoring Required by Permits 

Approved Analytical Methods: EPA 300.0 (Rev. 2.1), 300.1 (Rev. 1.0), 365.1 (Rev. 2.0), 365.3; SM 4110 

B, 4110 B-00, 4500-P E, 4500-P F; ASTM 0515-88(A), D4327-97, 03; D6508 (Rev. 2); USGS 1-4601-85; 

OMAAOAC 973.55, 973.56, 993.30 

Sample Collection: The Maine DEP is requesting that orthophosphate analysis be conducted on 

composite effluent samples unless a facility's Permit specifically indicates 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. The sampler hoses should be cleaned, as 

needed. Commercially purchased, pre-cleaned sample containers and or syringe type filtering apparatus 

are acceptable. If bench top filtering apparatus is being used this should be cleaned, as described 

above, before each use. 

Sample Preservation: During compositing the sample must be at 0-6 degrees C (without freezing). The 

sample must be filtered immediately (within 15 minutes) after collection using a pre-washed 0.45-um 

membrane filter. Be sure to follow one of the pre-washing procedures described in the approved 

methods unless your commercial lab is providing you with pre-washed filters and filtering apparatus. If 

the sample is being sent to a commercial laboratory or analysis cannot be performed within 2 hours after 

collection then the sample must be kept at 0-6 degrees C (without freezing). There is a 48-hour holding 

time for this sample although analysis should be done sooner, if possible. 

Laboratory QA/QC: Laboratories must follow the appropriate QA/QC procedures that are described in 

each of the approved methods. Additionally, laboratories providing filters or filter apparatus for sampling 

are required to submit blank data for each lot of filters/filtering apparatus to the facility. 

Sampling QA/QC: 

Filter Blank- if a facility is using a pre-cleaned filter and or filtering apparatus provided by a commercial 

laboratory then the commercial laboratory must run a filter/filtering apparatus blank on each lot. The 

results of that analysis must be provided to the facility. 

If a facility is using their own filters and filtering apparatus then a filter blank must be included with every 

sample set that does not include a composite sampler (composite jug and sample line) blank. 

Composite Sampler Blank- If a composite sample is being collected using an automatic composite 

sampler, then once per month run a blank on the composite sampler. A separate filter blank does not 

have to be done along with the composite sampler blank. When running a composite sampler blank, 

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 filter and analyze for orthophosphate. Preserve these samples as 

described above. 

DEP-LW-0845 Compliance & Technical Assist BLWQ Revision (1) June 2007 
ATTACHMENT D 
% efftu''e n 

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY REPORT 

FRESH WATERS 

IvIEPDE'S Fen-nit # 

Pipe # 

Facility Representatite • Signature 

By signing this form, I attest that to the best of my knowledge that the information provided is true, accurate, and complete. 

VOIII*IselephonO, aitecilieetect Dlit070.04 

inni/dd/yy mmldd/yy 

:Effluent Limitations, 

water flea trout 

no. young 

A-NOEL 

C-NOEL 

trout 

% survival final weight (mg) 

water Ilea 

survival 

A>90 C>80 >15/female A>90 C>80 > 2% increase 

A-NOEL 

C-NOEL 

Data. Suniiiiary. 

QC standard 

lab control 

receiving water control 

cone. 1 ( %) 

cone. 2 ( %) 

cone. 3 ( %) 

cone. 4 ( %) 

cone. 5 ( %) 

conc. 6 ( %) 

stat test used 

place * next to values statistically different from controls 

for trout show final wt and % incr for both controls 

tiYiit 

A-NOEL C-NOEL 

fi.efer4n0 toxicant:;' j: watee'fk: 

A-NOEL C-NOEL 

toxicant / date 

limits (mg/L) 

results (mg/L) 

Laboratory conducting test 

Qv/party Name CompadyRep.' aine.i.(FAInted) 

4,i)rfig Address 

ily, ZIP 

compinit PAP' 

Report WET chemistry on DEP Form "ToxSheet (Fresh Water Version), March 2007." 

DE PLW 0741-B2007, Revised July 2009 Printed 7/27/2009 
ATTACHMENT E 
Name of Facility: Federal Permit # ME 

Pipe # 

Purpose of this 

test: 

Initial limit 

determination 

Compliance monitoring for: calendar 

year quarter 

Supplemental or extra 

test 

SAMPLE COLLECTION INFORMATION 

Sampling Date: I I I 

mm dd 

Sampling time: AM/PM 

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 certify 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: 

Title: 

Date: 

PLEASE MAIL THIS FORM TO YOUR ASSIGNED INSPECTOR 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

AND 

MAINE WASTE DISCHARGE LICENSE 

FACT SHEET 

DATE: APRIL 4, 2011 

MEPDES PERMIT NUMBER: #ME0101290 

WASTE DISCHARGE LICENSE NUMBER: #W002648-6D-D-R 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 

HOULTON WATER COMPANY 

P.O. BOX 726 

HOULTON, MAINE 04730 

COUNTY: AROOSTOOK COUNTY 

NAME AND ADDRESS WHERE DISCHARGE OCCURS: 

TOWN OF HOULTON 

135 ACCESS ROAD 

HOULTON, MAINE 04730 

RECEIVING WATER/CLASSIFICATION: MEDUXNEKEAG RIVER/CLASS B 

COGNIZANT OFFICIAL AND TELEPHONE NUMBER: MR. JOHN CLARK 

(207) 532-2350 

lIcAhwe.org. 

1. APPLICATION SUMMARY 

a. Application: The Houlton Water Company (HWC, applicant or permittee) has applied to 

the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for renewal of combination 

Maine Waste Discharge License (WDL) renewal and modification #W002648-5L-C-M / 

Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) permit #ME0101290, which 

was issued by the Department on February 16, 2005 and expired on February 16, 2010. 

The February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit authorized the monthly average discharge of up 

to 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of secondary treated wastewaters from a publicly 

owned treatment works (POTW) to the Meduxnekeag River, Class B, in Houlton, Maine. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 2 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

1. APPLICATION SUMMARY (coned) 

On May 18, 2005, the Department issued an administrative modification letter to HWC to 

correct typographical errors and to modify Special Condition M, Inflow/Infiltration, of 

the February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit. 

On April 10, 2006, the Department amended the February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit by 

incorporating the whole effluent toxicity (WET), analytical chemistry and priority 

pollutant testing requirements of Surface Water Toxics Control Program, 06-096 CMR 

530 (effective October 9, 2005). 

2. PERMIT SUMMARY 

a. Terms and conditions: This permitting action is significantly different from the 

February 16, 2005 permitting action in that it is: 

Eliminating the monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent 

limitations for total arsenic based on the results of facility testing; 

2. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent 

limitations for total aluminum based on the results of facility testing; 

3. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent 

limitations for total cadmium based on the results of facility testing; 

4. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent 

limitations for total copper based on the results of facility testing; 

5. Revising (more stringent) the daily maximum water quality-based concentration and 

mass effluent limitations for total copper based on the results of facility testing; 

6. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent 

limitations for cyanide (available) based on the results of facility testing; 

7. Establishing monthly average water quality-based concentration and mass effluent 

limitations for total lead based on the results of facility testing; 

8. Eliminating the A-NOEL limits of 28% for the brook trout and fathead minnow based 

on the results of facility testing; 

9. Eliminating the C-NOEL limit of 25% for the water flea based on the results of facility 

testing; 

10. Establishing a C-NOEL limit of 25% for the brook trout and a surveillance level 

monitoring frequency of twice per year based on the results of facility testing; 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 3 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

2. PERMIT SUMMARY (cont'd) 

11. Establishing an annual certification statement requirement (Special Condition H, 

Statement for Reduced/Waived Toxics Testing of this permit) for reduced toxics testing; and 

12. Eliminating the requirement to conduct ambient water quality for the Meduxnekeag River 

as this effort will be conducted by the Depat intent. 

b. History: The most current relevant regulatory actions and significant events include the 

following; 

September 29, 1995 — The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a renewal of 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit #ME0101290 to the HWC for 

a five-year term. 

May 23, 2000 — Pursuant to Certain deposits and discharges prohibited, 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 of Mercury, 06-096 CMR 519 (last amended October 6, 2001), the Department 

issued a Notice of Interim Limits for the Discharge of Mercury to the permittee thereby 

administratively modifying WDL #W002648-5L-B-R by establishing interim monthly average 

and daily maximum effluent concentration limits of 7.4 parts per trillion (ppt) and 5.0 ppt, 

respectively, and a minimum monitoring frequency requirement of 4 tests per year for mercury. 

It is noted the limitations have not been incorporated into Special Condition A, Effluent 

Limitations And Monitoring Requirements, of this permit as limitations and monitoring 

frequencies are regulated separately through 38 M.R.S.A. § 413 and 06-096 CMR 519. 

However, the interim limitations remain in effect and enforceable and any modifications to the 

limits and or monitoring requirements will be formalized outside of this permitting document. 

January 12, 2001 — The Department received authorization from the USEPA to administer the 

NPDES permit program in Maine, excluding areas of special interest to Maine Indian Tribes. 

From this point forward, the program has been referred to as the Maine Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (MEPDES) program, and MEPDES permit #ME0101290 has been utilized 

for HWC's Houlton facility. 

March 8, 2001 — The USEPA approved the Department's total maximum daily load (TMDL) for 

the Meduxnekeag River. 

January 22, 2003 — The Depot "tient established site specific hardness values of 

74 mg/L (acute) and 87 mg/L (chronic) and recalculated the 7Q10 (6.9 cfs) and 1Q10 (5.9 cfs) 

based on the information the HWC presented in their report entitled Houlton Water Company, 

Houlton, Maine, Application to Maine Environmental Protection For Site Specific Limits 

Hardness Dependent Metals, April 2002, which was submitted to the Department for 

consideration on April 24, 2002. 

February 16, 2005 — The Department issued combination WDL #W002648-6D-D-R I MEPDES 

permit #ME0101290 to the HWC for a five-year term. The February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit 

superseded WDL #W002648-5L-B-R issued to HWC on March 30, 2000, and initial WDL 

#W002648-46-A-N issued to HWC on April 4, 1990. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 4 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

2. PERMIT SUMMARY (cont'd) 

December 14, 2009 — HWC timely submitted a General Application to the Department 

for a renewal of the February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit. The application was accepted 

for processing on December 14, 2009 and was assigned WDL #W002648-6D-D-R. 

c. Source Description: HWC owns and operates a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) 

that provides a secondary level of treatment for sanitary wastewaters generated by a 

population of approximately 6,500 residential and commercial entities in the Town of 

Houlton. There are no major commercial or industrial users of the system that contribute 

more than 10% of the flow or pollutant loading to the waste water treatment facility. 

HWC's sewer collection system is approximately 37 miles in length, has five pump 

stations and is completely separated from the storm water collection system and as a 

result, there are no combined sewer overflow (CSO) points. The wastewater treatment 

facility is currently not permitted to accept transported wastes. 

See Attachment A of this Fact Sheet for a map showing the location of the treatment facility. 

d. Wastewater Treatment: HWC's waste water treatment facility provides a secondary level 

of treatment via an extended air activated sludge process. The major components of the 

wastewater treatment process include a bar screen, a comminutor, aeration basins with 

mechanical aerators, two secondary clarifiers, and a chlorine contact chamber. The 

effluent is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite and dechlorinated with sodium bisulfite 

prior to being discharged to the Meduxnekeag River via a perforated outfall pipe that has 

been placed from bank to bank in the river to enhance the mixing characteristics of the 

discharge with the river. The Department has made a best professional judgment 

determination that mixing of the effluent with the receiving water is complete and rapid. 

The facility is equipped with on-site generator for back-up power in the event of power 

outage. The generator enables the facility to provide a secondary level of treatment and 

disinfection under all conditions. 

The HWC utilizes freeze-drying beds for sludge handling and disposal. The HWC sludge 

handling facilities consist of aerobic sludge holding lagoons, a one million-gallon holding 

lagoon and two freeze-drying beds. Dewatering by freezing is accomplished through the 

separation of solids and liquid fractions during crystal formation. HWC is currently 

authorized to seasonally spray irrigate supernatant from the sludge storage lagoon 

through Waste Discharge License #W008129. The purpose of the spray irrigation facility 

is to reduce the direct discharge of phosphorous-containing wastewater to the 

Meduxnekeag River. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 5 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

3. CONDITIONS OF PERMITS 

Conditions of licenses, 38 M.R.S.A. § 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., § 420 and 06-096 CMR 530 require the regulation of toxic substances not 

to exceed levels set forth in Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants, 06-096 CMR 584 

(effective October 9, 2005), and that ensure safe levels for the discharge of toxic pollutants such that 

existing and designated uses of surface waters are maintained and protected. 

4. RECEIVING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

Classification of major river basins, 38 M.R.S.A. § 467(15)(E)(1)(a) classifies the Meduxnekeag 

River from the outlet of Meduxnekeag Lake to the international border as a Class 13 waterway. 

Standards for classification of fresh surface waters, 38 M.R.S.A., § 465(3) describes standards for 

classification of Class B waters. 

5. RECEIVING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS 

The State of Maine 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, 

(Report, see: http://www.maine.govidep/blwq/doemonitoring/305b/index.htm)prepared by 

the Depai unent pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, lists the segment of the Meduxnekeag River that contains the discharge from 

HWC as "Category 4-A: Rivers and Streams with Impaired Use, TMDL Completed." The 

TMDL classifies a 6-mile stretch of river below Houlton as not attaining Class B standards 

for dissolved oxygen. The TMDL states, "The survey data as well as model runs indicate 

that the Meduxnekeag River is not attaining standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) 

concentration below the Houlton outfall. Occasional, marginal non-attainment of DO 

standards was also measured above the Houlton outfall. The major factor in this nonattainment is the diurnal DO effect from the respiration of attached plant growth as a result 

of phosphorous enrichment." 

In a report published by the Department entitled, Meduxnekeag River TMDL, May 1996, the 

Department concluded that based on past in-stream sampling of the Meduxnekeag River, nonattainment of dissolved oxygen (DO) standards below the HWC wastewater treatment plant is 

occurring due to attached plant growth from nutrient enrichment. The 1996 report recommended a 

phased approach to renewing the WDL for the facility by experimenting with seasonal phosphorus 

treatment with ferric chloride at the treatment plant along with DO monitoring in the Meduxnekeag 

River during the summers of calendar years 1996 and 1997. The objective of the experiment was to 

determine what level the treatment plant could cost effectively treat phosphorus down to and what 

improvements in DO would be realized in the Meduxnekeag River as a result of the phosphorus 

treatment. 
#ME0101290 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

FACT SHEET PAGE 6 OF 32 

5. RECEIVING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS (cont'd) 

In December of 1997, the Department issued a follow-up report entitled, Meduxnekeag River 1997 

Data Report, December 1997, stating that based on the data collected in the experiment described 

above, with a treatment plant effluent concentration of 0.25 mg/L of total phosphorus (demonstrated 

treatment level) and a flow of 0.60 MGD (mean discharge flow from the treatment plant for July — 

September, 1993-1997), Class B DO standards would be attained in the river. However, Department 

modeling predicted with a total phosphorus effluent concentration of 0.25 mg/L and a discharge at 

the permitted flow of 1.5 MGD, Class B DO standards would not be attained. The report 

recommended establishing a seasonal (June — September) monthly average concentration limit of 

0.25 mg/L and a seasonal (July — September) mass limit of 1.25 lbs./day, respectively. The final 

TMDL approved by the USEPA on March 8, 2001 contains the same recommendations for monthly 

average total phosphorus limits. See http://www.maine.govidep/blwq/docmonitoring/tind12.htmfor 

a link to the 2001 TMDL. 

In addition to total phosphorus limitations, the report recommended that summer season (June —

September) in-stream sampling for DO and total phosphorus as well as river flow measurements for 

calendar years 2000 and 2001 should be conducted. The Department, the HWC and third parties 

conducted the additional in-stream sampling during the summers of 2001 and 2002. Special 

Condition K, Ambient Water Quality Monitoring of the previous permitting action required the 

HWC to conduct additional in-stream monitoring (upstream and downstream of their outfall) for 

total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus and dissolved oxygen in an effort to determine whether the 

TMDL recommendations are sufficient to maintain water quality standards. 

The February 16, 2005 licensing action established a schedule of compliance for unspecified (target 

levels of 1.25 lbs./day and 0.25 mg/L as monthly averages) future total phosphorus limits. The 

schedule was established to provide ample time for the HWC to individually or in combination (1) 

further experiment with ferric chloride (or other chemical) addition to establish a level of treatment 

that is feasible and cost effective method to come into compliance with the final limits; (2) conduct 

additional ambient water quality data that may result in modification (more or less stringent) of the 

Department's recommended mass and concentration limits in the TMDL; (3) conduct an alternatives 

analysis for the treatment and/or disposal of waste waters on a year-round or seasonal basis. 

The Department's Division of Environmental Assessment (DEA) is responsible for water quality 

evaluations, including the development of TMDLs, recommended requiring the HWC to begin 

treating for phosphorus beginning May 1stof each year rather than June 1stof each year. By treating 

for phosphorus 31 days earlier than the TMDL recommends, more phosphorus will be taken out of 

the riverine system on an annual basis and will be more protective than the TMDL. Calculations by 

the Depth tment using an assumed effluent concentration value of 3.25 mg/L and flow information 

for the month of May reported to the Department for the period 1997-2003 inclusive, indicates that 

up to 42 lbs./day or 1,290 lbs for the month of May of each year will be removed from the river. 

On September 27, 2004, the Department issued a revised proposed draft MEPDES permit which 

proposed monthly average and daily maximum concentration limits of 0.5 mg/L and 1.0 mg/L, 

respectively, for the month of May beginning May 1, 2006, and 0.25 mg/L and 0.5 mg/L 

respectively, from June 1 — September 15 of each year (beginning June 1, 2006) and proposed a 

seasonal (July 1 — September 30) mass limit of 1.25 lbs./day beginning July 1, 2006. In a letter 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 7 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

5. RECEIVING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS (cont'd) 

dated October 21, 2004, HWC objected to the imposition of phosphorus treatment in the month of 

May. 

The USEPA made a recommendation to the Department that the final permit should contain a 

provision requiring HWC to conduct a more broad-scale alternatives analysis to reduce phosphorus 

levels in the discharge to a range of 0.02 mg/L — 0.1 mg/L as well as evaluate the elimination of the 

discharge both seasonally and year-round. As a result, the February 16, 2005 permitting action 

established Special Condition N, Alternatives Analysis, intended to develop a scope of work, a 

schedule and determine costs associated with the various alternatives in the event the TMDL 

recommendations were not successful in bringing the Meduxnekeag River into attainment with 

dissolved oxygen standards. 

In addition to conducting an alternatives analysis, HWC committed to undertake an intensive 

inflow/infiltration program to eliminate unwanted waters in the sanitary sewer collection system 

thereby resulting in more effective phosphorus treatment. Special Condition M of the February 16, 

2005 permitting action required the permittee to submit an I&I study plan to the Depat Intent for 

review and approval. HWC submitted an I&I report entitled, Infiltration and Inflow Study, Interim 

Report, Work Plan & Schedule, March 31, 2005. On May 18, 2005, the Department issued an 

administrative modification to the February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit to incorporate a schedule of 

I&I investigation tasks and removal projects. 

The Fact Sheet associated with the February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit sated, 

Following the summer of calendar year 2007, the Department will 

conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the waste water treatment effluent 

data and the ambient water quality monitoring data conducted by the 

permittee, the Department, or others that have a Department approved 

water quality monitoring program. The purpose of the evaluation is to 1) 

determine if permit limitations are consistently being achieved; 2) 

determine if the Meduxnekeag River is attaining dissolved oxygen 

standards; 3) determine if the TMDL and or the permit need to be revised 

4) put the permittee on notice that an alternative phosphorus treatment 

technology or discharge elimination alternative must be implemented or 

5) determine if the HWC is shown to be measurably (0.2 mg/L) causing or 

contributing to non-attainment if non-attainment continues. 

The Department has not completed "a comprehensive evaluation of the waste water 

treatment effluent data and the ambient water quality monitoring data conducted by the 

permittee, the Department, or others that have a Department approved water quality 

monitoring program" at this time. See Section 6.k. of this Fact Sheet for a summary of the 

Dept tment's Division of Environmental Assessment (DEA)'s preliminary review and 

conclusions based on the HWC's data. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 8 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

5. RECEIVING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS (cont'd) 

Additionally, all freshwaters formerly listed in Category 5-C are moved to Category 4-A (TMDL 

Completed) due to USEPA approval of a Regional Mercury TMDL. Impairment in this context 

refers to a statewide fish consumption advisory due to elevated levels of mercury in some fish 

tissues. The Report states, "Impairment caused by atmospheric deposition of mercury; a regional 

scale TMDL has been approved. Maine has a fish consumption advisory for fish taken from all 

freshwaters due to mercury. Many waters, and many fish from any given water, do not exceed the 

action level for mercury. However, because it is impossible for someone consuming a fish to know 

whether the mercury level exceeds the action level, the Maine Department of Human Services 

decided to establish a statewide advisory for all freshwater fish that recommends limits on 

consumption. Maine has already instituted statewide programs for removal and reduction of 

mercury sources." 

Pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 420(1-B)(B), "a facility is not in violation of the ambient criteria for 

mercury if the facility is in compliance with an interim discharge limit established by the 

Department pursuant to section 413 subsection 11." The Department has established interim 

monthly average and daily maximum mercury concentration limits and reporting requirements for 

this facility pursuant to 06-096 CMR 519. 

The 2008 Report also lists the river in "Category 5-D: Rivers and Streams Impaired by Legacy 

Pollutants." Impairment in this context refers to legacy DDT contamination. The Depat intent had 

previously (see: The State of Maine 2004 InteMrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 

Report at: http://www.maine.govidepiblwq/docmonitorinW305b/index.htm)identified agricultural 

non-point source as a potential source that has caused or contributed to the non-attainment status of 

the receiving water. The Depaitment has no information that the discharge from HWC causes or 

contributes to this non-attainment status. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 9 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

a. Flow: The previous permitting action established, and this permitting action is carrying forward, 

a monthly average discharge flow limitation of 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD), which is 

based on the monthly average design criterion for the facility. 

b. Dilution Factors: Dilution factors associated with the average design flow of 1.5 MGD 

were derived in accordance with 06-096 CMR 530(4)(A) and were calculated as 

follows 1 : 

Acute: 1/41Q10 = 1.5 cfs = (1.5 cfs)(0.6464) + (1.5 MGD) = 1.7:1 

(1.5 MGD) 

Acute: 1Q10 = 5.9 cfs (5.9 cfs)(0.6464) + (1.5 MGD) = 3.5:1 

(1.5 MGD) 

Chronic: 7Q10 = 6.9 cfs (6.9 cfs)(0.6464) + C1.5 MGD) = 4.0:1 

(1.5 MGD) 

Harmonic Mean = 58 cfs = (58 cfs)(0.6464) + (1.5 MGD) = 26:1 

(1.5 MGD) 

06-096 CMR 530(4)(B)(1) states, 

Analyses using numerical acute criteria for aquatic life must 

be based on 1/4 of the 1Q10 stream design flow to prevent 

substantial acute toxicity within any mixing zone and to 

ensure a zone of passage of at least 3/4 of the crosssectional area of any stream as required by Chapter 581. 

Where it can be demonstrated that a discharge achieves 

rapid and complete mixing with the receiving water by way 

of an efficient dffuser or other effective method, analyses 

may use a greater proportion of the stream design flow, up 

to and including all of it, as long as the required zone of 

passage is maintained 

The Department has determined that the discharge from HWC via a perforated, bank-to-bank 

outfall pipe does achieve complete and rapid mixing of the effluent with the receiving waters. 

Therefore, the Department is utilizing the full 1Q10 stream flow in acute evaluations. 

IThe critical low values (1Q10, 7Q10 and harmonic mean) for the Meduxnekeag River were established by the 

Department based on a statistical analysis conducted by the by the HWC in calendar year 2002 of the historic flows 

of the river. The statistical evaluation may be found in a document entitled, Houlton Water Company, Houlton, 

Maine, Application to Maine Environmental Protection For Site Specific Limits Hardness Dependent Metals, April 

2002 prepared by the HWC and submitted to the Department on April 24, 2002. 
#ME0101290 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

FACT SHEET PAGE 10 OF 32 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

c. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS): The previous 

permitting action established, and this permitting action is carrying forward, monthly 

average and weekly average technology-based concentration limits of 30 mg/L and 

45 mg/L, respectively, for BOD5and TSS based on the secondary treatment requirements 

specified at Effluent Guidelines and Standards, 06-096 CMR 525(3)(111) (effective 

January 12, 2001), and a daily maximum concentration limit of 50 mg/L, which is based 

on a Department best professional judgment of best practicable treatment for secondary 

treated municipal wastewater. The technology-based monthly average, weekly average 

and daily maximum mass limits of 375 lbs./day and 563 lbs./day, and 626 Ibs./day, 

respectively, established in the previous permitting action for BOD5and TSS and that are 

based on the monthly average flow limit of 1.5 MGD and the applicable concentration 

limits, are also being carried forward in this permitting action. 

This permitting action is carrying forward a requirement for a minimum of 85% removal of 

BOD5& TSS pursuant to 06-096 CMR 525(3)(1II)(a&b)(3) for all flows receiving 

secondary treatment. 

A summary of the effluent BOD5and TSS data as reported on the DMRs submitted to the 

Department for the period January 2007 through August 2010 is as follows: 

BOD5 Minimum Maximum Arithmetic 

Mean # DMRs 

Monthly Average 5 lbs./day 204 lbs./day 46 lbs./day 44 2.5 ingit, 

7.9 mg/L 4.1 mg/L 44 

Weekly Average 6.3 lbs./day 371 lbs./day 87 lbs./day 44 3 mw.i.., 13.7 mg/L 5.6 mg/L 44 

Daily Maximum 7.8 lbs./day 466 lbs./day 97 lbs./day 44 3 mg/L 19 mg/L 6.6 mg/L 44 

TSS Minimum Maximum Arithmetic# 

Mean DMRs 

Monthly Average 3.8 lbs./day 192 lbs./day 29 lbs./day 44 

1.1 mg/L 6.8 mg/L 2.4 mg/L 44 

Weekly Average 5.1 lbs./day 470 lbs./day 58 lbs./day 44 

1.4 mg/L 3.5 mg/L 12 mg/L 44 

Daily Maximum 5.1 lbs./day 594 lbs./day 71 lbs./day 44 

1.7 mg/L 14 mg/L 4.4 mg/L 44 

This permitting action is carrying forward the minimum monitoring frequency 

requirement of twice per week for BOD5and TSS based on Department best professional 

judgment. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 11 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

d. Settleable Solids: The previous permitting action established, and this permitting action 

is carrying forward, a daily maximum best practicable treatment concentration limit of 

0.3 ml/L based on a Department best professional judgment of best practicable treatment. 

A summary of settleable solids data as reported on the monthly DMRs for the period of 

January 2007 through August 2010 (# DMRs = 44) indicates the daily maximum settleable 

solids concentration discharge has been <0.1 milL 100% of the time during said reporting 

period. 

This permitting action is carrying forward the minimum monitoring frequency requirement for 

settleable solids based once per day on best professional judgment. 

e. Escherichia coli (E. coli): The previous permitting action established, and this permitting action 

is carrying forward, seasonal (May 15 through September 30 of each year) monthly average 

(geometric mean) and instantaneous level (daily maximum) E. coli bacteria limits of 

64 colonies/100 ml and 427 colonies/100 ml, respectively, which are based on the State's Water 

Classification Program criteria for Class B waters. 

A summary of the E. coil bacteria data as reported on the DMRs submitted to the Department for 

Outfall #001A for calendar years 2007 through 2010 (applicable disinfection period only) is as 

follows: 

E. coli 

bacteria Minimum Maximum Arithmetic Mean # DMRs 

Monthly 

Average 1 col / 100 ml 9.3 col / 100 ml 4 col / 100 ml 18 

Daily 

Maximum 2 col / 100 ml 208 col / 100 ml 68 col / 100 ml 18 

This permitting action is carrying forward a minimum monitoring frequency requirement of 

twice per week for E. coil bacteria (during the applicable period) based on best professional 

judgment. 

f. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC): The previous permitting action established monthly average and 

daily maximum water quality-based TRC limits of 0.044 mg/L and 0.067 mg/L, respectively, for 

Outfall #001A. 

Limitations on TRC are specified to ensure that ambient water quality standards are maintained 

and that BPT technology is being applied to the discharge. Department licensing/permitting 

actions impose the more stringent of either the water quality-based or technology-based based 

limits. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 12 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

With acute and chronic dilution factors associated with the discharge water quality-based 

concentration thresholds the discharge may be calculated as follows: 

Calculated 

Acute (A) Chronic (C) A & C Acute Chronic 

Criterion Criterion Dilution Factors Threshold Threshold 

0.019 mg/L 0.011 mg/L 3.5:1 (A) 0.067 mg/L 0.044 mg/L 

4.0:1 (C) 

The Department has established a daily maximum BPT-based limitation of 1.0 mg/L for facilities 

that disinfect their effluent with elemental chlorine or chlorine-based compounds. For facilities 

that need to dechlorinate the discharge to meet water quality based thresholds, the Department 

has established daily maximum and monthly average BPT limits of 0.3 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L, 

respectively. The Department has identified that HWC must dechlorinate the effluent prior to 

discharge in order to consistently achieve compliance with both the bacteria limits and the water 

quality-based thresholds calculated above. The acute (daily maximum) and chronic (monthly 

average) water quality-based thresholds calculated above are more stringent than the respective 

BPT-based limits and are therefore being carried forward in this permitting action. 

A summary of TRC data as reported on the monthly DMRs for the period of September 2007 

through July 2010 (# DMRs = 14) indicates the monthly average and daily maximum TRC 

concentration discharge has been <0.05 mg/L 100% of the time during said reporting period. 

In April of 1992, the USEPA's Region 1 Quality Assurance Office established a Minimum Level 

(ML) of detection of 0.05 mg/L (50 ttg/L) for TRC. This permitting action is carrying forward a 

monthly average water-quality based limitation for TRC that is below the ML. 

This permitting action is carrying forward a minimum monitoring frequency requirement of once 

per day for TRC (any time chlorine or chlorine-based compounds are in use for effluent 

disinfection) based on best professional judgment. 

g. pH: The previous permitting action established, and this permitting action is carrying forward, a 

technology-based pH limit of 6.0 — 9.0 standard units, which is based on 06-096 CMR 

525(3)(111), and a minimum monitoring frequency requirement of once per day based on best 

professional judgment. A summary of pH data as reported on the monthly DMRs for the period 

of January 2007 through August 2010 (# DMRs = 44) indicates the facility has been in 

compliance with the pH range limitation 100% of the time during said reporting period. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 13 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

h. Phosphorous: The previous permitting action established monitoring and reporting requirements 

and numeric limitations for total phosphorous and ortho-phosphorous. The February 16, 2005 

MEPDES permit established "winter season" (September 16 through May 31) monitoring and 

reporting requirements for total phosphorous and ortho-phosphorous at minimum frequencies of 

once per month and once per week, respectively. The February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit 

phased total phosphorous limits into effect with a daily maximum concentration limit of 

500 pg/L effective beginning June 1, 2005; a monthly average concentration limit of 250 pg/L 

effective beginning June 1, 2006; and a seasonal (July 1 through September 15) average total 

phosphorous mass limit of 1.25 lbs./day effective beginning July 2006. 

See discussion in Section 5 of this Fact Sheet, Receiving Water Quality Conditions, for more 

information regarding the basis for these phosphorous monitoring requirements and limitations. 

Also see Section 6.g. of the Fact Sheet associated with the February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit 

for an extensive discussion concerning phosphorous limitations. In short, in Meduxnekeag River 

TMDL, May 1996, the Department concluded that based on past in-stream sampling of the 

Meduxnekeag River, non-attainment of dissolved oxygen (DO) standards below the HWC 

wastewater treatment plant is occurring due to attached plant growth from nutrient enrichment. 

Phosphorous limits were established based on the recommendations of the Meduxnekeag River 

TMDL, which was approved by the USEPA on March 8, 2001. 

Based on the Department's review of ambient data and the recommendations of the 2001 TMDL, 

which has not been modified with respect to phosphorous limitations, this permitting action is; 

"Summer season" 

• Carrying forward the "summer season" (June 1 through September 15, inclusive) 

monthly average and daily maximum water quality-based effluent total phosphorous (as 

P) limitations of 250 'AWL and 500 pg/L, respectively, and minimum monitoring 

frequency requirement of twice per week; 

• Carrying forward the "summer season" average (June 1 through September 15, inclusive) 

mass limitation of 1.25 lbs./day for total phosphorous (as P); 

• Carrying forward monthly average, weekly average and daily maximum concentration 

and mass reporting requirements for dissolved orthophosphate (as P) and a minimum 

monitoring frequency requirement of twice per week during the "summer season" period 

of June 1 through September 15; 

"Winter season" 

• Carrying forward the monthly average and daily maximum concentration and mass 

monitoring and reporting requirements for total phosphorous (as P) during the "winter 

season" period of September 16 through May 31, inclusive, and minimum monitoring 

frequency requirement of once per month; and 

• Carrying forward monthly average, weekly average and daily maximum monitoring and 

reporting requirement for dissolved orthophosphate (as P) during the "winter season" 

period of September 16 through May 31, inclusive, and minimum monitoring frequency 

requirement of once per week. 

It is noted that this permitting action is clarifying the Department's intent to require dissolved 

orthophosphate as P and total phosphorous as P limitations and monitoring requirements. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 14 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

A summary of the effluent total phosphorous data as reported on the DMRs submitted to the 

Depai lucent for the period January 2007 through August 2010 is as follows. "Summer" season 

data are summarized for discharges during the period of June through September of each year; 

"Winter" season data are for discharges during the period of October through May of each year. 

Total 

Phosphorous Minimum Maximum Arithmetic 

Mean # DMRs Permit Limit as of 

June 1, 2006 

Summer Season 

MONTHLY 

Average 

0.2 lbs./day 1.56 lbs./day 0.8 lbs./day 15 N/A 

54 ptg/L 363 ug/L 161 ug/L 15 

250 pg/L 

Maximum result from 

June 2007 is only 

value > limit 

Summer Season 

WEEKLY 

Average 

0.4 lbs./day 2.96 lbs./day 1.9 lbs./day 9 

N/A 

70 pg/L 547 ug/L 222 ug/L 15 

Summer Season 

DAILY 

Maximum 

0.3 lbs./day 3.12 lbs./day 1.6 lbs./day 15 N/A 

80 ug/L 562 ug/L 250 ug/L 15 

500 pig/L 

Maximum result from 

June 2007 is only 

value > limit — 

Winter Season 

MONTHLY 

Average 

0.88 lbs./day 19 lbs./day 10 lbs./day 27 

N/A 

260 ug/L 2,300 pg/L 1,106 ug/L 27 

Winter Season 

DAILY 

Maximum 

4.4 lbs./day 19 lbs./day 10 lbs./day 27 

260 ps/L 2,300 μWL 1,106 ug/L 27 

The previous permitting action established a seasonal average total phosphorous mass limitation 

of 1.25 lbs./day that went into effect in 2006. The seasonal average total phosphorous discharge 

for 2006 through 2009 is as follows: 

Year 2006 — 0.77 lbs./day Year 2007 — 0.59 lbs./day 

Year 2008 — 1.06 lbs./day Year 2009 — 0.68 lbs./day 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 15 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

A summary of the effluent ortho-phosphorous data as reported on the DMRs submitted to the 

Department for the period January 2007 through August 2010 is as follows. "Summer" season 

data are summarized for discharges during the period of June through September of each year; 

"Winter" season data are for discharges during the period of October through May of each year. 

OrthoPhosphorous Minimum Maximum Arithmetic Mean # DMRs 

Summer Season 

MONTHLY 

Average 

0.4 lbs./day 3.6 lbs./day 1.9 lbs./day 15 

74 ug/L 1,847 p.g/L 455 p.g/L 15 

Summer Season 

WEEKLY 

Average 

0.4 lbs./day 7.13 lbs./day 3.6 lbs./day 15 

86 ug/L 4,215 p.g/L 770 mg/L 15 

Summer Season 

DAILY 

Maximum 

0.7 lbs./day 17 lbs./day 5.0 lbs./day 15 

86 ttg/L 4,420 p.g/L 1,006ittg/L 15 

Winter Season 

MONTHLY 

Average 

8.5 lbs./day 58 lbs./day 29 lbs./day 28 

1,748 p.g/L 6,032 ug/L 3,261 p.g/L 28 

Winter Season 

WEEKLY 

Average 

14.9 lbs./day 148 lbs./day 41 lbs./day 28 

2,530 ug/L 7,240 ug/L 4,318 i.tg/L 28 

Winter Season 

DAILY 

Maximum 

14.9 lbs./day 148 lbs./day 41 lbs./day 28 

2,530 ).tWL 7,240 ug/L 4,343 p.g/L 28 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 16 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

i. Stream Flow; The previous permitting action established a seasonal stream flow monitoring 

requirement and reporting of the monthly average, weekly average and daily maximum results. 

The February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit required stream flow monitoring as follows: 

Between May 1stand September 15thof each year beginning 

calendar year 2005, the permittee shall measure the stream flow of 

the Meduxnekeag River once per day (Monday — Friday between 

8:00 AM and 11:00 AM) via an existing staff gauge located on the 

west bank of the river just upstream from the HWC's waste water 

treatment facility. Being that the staff gauge is only calibrated for 

flows up to 140 cfs, flows greater than 140 cfs shall be reported as 

>140 cfs on the DMI? and daily log reports. The permittee shall 

maintain a daily log of the stream flow data and submit the log as 

an attachment to the applicable DMR form for each month during 

the monitoring period. By October 15thof each year, the permittee 

shall be submit an electronic copy of the daily logs for the 

monitoring period for that season. 

Review of data submitted by HWC to the Department on DMRs from calendar years 2007 

through 2010 document that flows in the Meduxnekeag River has been significantly greater than 

the 1Q10 and 7Q10 critical low flow values utilized in this permitting action to establish 

applicable dilution factors associated with the discharge. The lowest values recorded during said 

period were from August 2010, a low flow period, with monthly average, weekly average and 

daily maximum values of 22 cubic feet per second (cfs), 40 cfs and 54 cfs, respectively. The 

Department's Division of Environmental Assessment (DEA) has recommended that that 

additional ambient river monitoring should be conducted by the DepaL tment and that additional 

mandated ambient monitoring need not be carried forward in this permitting action. 

Total Hardness: The previous permitting action established a requirement to sample and report 

total hardness of the Meduxnekeag River above the point of discharge during the twelve-month 

period prior to permit expiration (February 2010). 

A summary of available total hardness data as reported to the Department (March 2009 through 

December 2009) for the Meduxnekeag River is as follows: 

Total 

Hardness Minimum Maximum Arithmetic 

Mean # DMRs 

Monthly 

Average 53 mg/L 180 mg/L 84 mg/L 10 

Daily 

Maximum 55 mg/L 232 mg/L 95 mg/L 10 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 17 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Water quality-based statistical evaluations utilize an acute hardness of 74 mg/L and a chronic 

hardness of 87 p.g/L, which are site specific values derived by HWC in accordance with the 

Department's Total Hardness Protocol adopted on March 5, 2001. For a more detailed 

explanation on the derivation of the site specific hardness values see Houlton Water Company, 

Houlton, Maine, Application to Maine Environmental Protection For Site Specific Limits 

Hardness Dependent Metals, Apri12002 prepared by the HWC. 

The permittee has satisfied the total hardness monitoring and reporting requirement established 

in the February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit. Additional total hardness monitoring is not being 

required as a condition of this permit. 

k. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring: The previous permitting action established seasonal (May 1 

through September 30, inclusive, of each year) weekly ambient water quality monitoring of the 

Meduxnekeag River for total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus and dissolved oxygen at two 

sampling stations upstream of the permittee's wastewater treatment facility and total phosphorus 

and dissolved oxygen at three sampling locations below the permittee's wastewater treatment 

plant outfall. 

HWC submitted to the Department a report prepared by Acheron Engineering, Environmental & 

Geological Scientists and entitled, Review and Analysis of Water Quality Data 2001 thru 2009 

Meduxnekeag River Houlton, Maine, December 2009. On April 29, 2010, the Department's 

DEA provided the following review comments (excerpts) and recommendations for future 

permit conditions. 

• The Houlton Water Company is to be commended for collecting water quality data above 

and beyond that required to monitor the effects of their discharge. 

• The data show that dissolved oxygen is often lowest above Houlton, due perhaps to nonpoint sources and/or natural causes. 

• The data show that phosphorus concentrations are often elevated below the Houlton Water 

Company discharge. 

• The data also show that dissolved oxygen (DO) is occasionally lowered below the HWC 

discharge. Although DO was seldom below the 7 ppm criterion for Class B water, river flows 

were above the critical low 7Q10 flow required by statute for evaluation. Therefore, we are 

not sure about attainment of the DO criteria. 

• Although the DO data were collected within a half hour after sunrise as requested, 

continuous DO data collected by the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (HBMI) show that 

the minimum DO may occur from midnight to soon after sunrise. HBMI continuous DO data 

are available for only a limited number of stations, dates, and flows. 

• Although water quality below the HWC discharge appears to attain water quality standards 

most of the time, it is still uncertain if the river is in attainment all of the time. 

• Consequently, additional monitoring is needed. The monitoring proposed by Acheron on 

behalf of HWC in a letter to DEP dated March 25, 2010 is generally sufficient with one 

modification as follows. Weekly DO monitoring may be discontinued. Continuous 

monitoring of temperature and DO is needed at station 16.0 and 16.4 immediately above and 

below the HWC discharge when river flow is less than 80 cfs. Additional continuous DO 

monitoring, needed at station 18.9 (Lowery Bridge), will be collected by the HBMI as part of 

a basin wide study addressing DO and other water quality issues. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 18 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

HWC's consultant, Acheron Engineering, Environmental & Geological Scientists, responded to 

the Department's April 29, 2010 review comments and recommendations in an e-mail dated 

May 7, 2010 as follows (excerpts provided): 

The attached document contain the results of the analyses for Total 

Phosphorus, Total Ortho-Phosphorus and Dissolved OrthoPhosphorus for samples collected at six (6) sampling sites on the 

Meduxnekeag. Three of the sites are upstream of the HWC 

discharge and three are downstream of the discharge. As I 

indicated to you verbally, these data shows the effectiveness of the 

phosphorus treatment technology in uses at the HWC treatment 

plant. As you review, you should compare the data from the 

summer season with the data from the last week of September. The 

HWC operates the phosphorus treatment technology from June 

through September 16thevery year. On September 16ththey turn 

off the system. The samples collected on September 23, 2009 

provide an indication of what the Total Phosphorus and OrthoPhosphorus levels could be without the application of this 

technology. 

For several weeks prior to the 23rd (the only period of the summer 

when flow[s] were low), Total Phosphorus levels at 3MDX were 

about 9 ppb. On the 23'1, after treatment was discontinued, the 

concentration measured at 3MDX was 29 ppb. Ortho-phosphorus 

levels at 3MDX were all less than 1 ppb for the entire summer, 

including the low flow period in late August and September. On 

the 23rd, Ortho-phosphorus levels went up to 22 ppb. As we all 

know, the dissolved ortho-phosphorus is the bio-available form of 

phosphorus for plant growth. 

In an earlier report, we made the statement that "the TMDL 

process was a success and the Houlton Water Company is no 

longer having any measurable negative impact on the water 

quality of the Meduxnekeag River". These are some of the data 

we relied on to support that statement. Thanks to the success of 

the phosphorus treatment technology in use at the Houlton plant, 

ortho-phosphorus levels in the river at 3MDX (below the outfall) 

are consistently below 1 ppb 

You will surely recall my comment regarding statement number 4 

in your email of April 29. "The data show that phosphorus 

concentrations are often elevated below the Houlton Water 

Company discharge." It is true that one can find some weeks 

when the total phosphorus levels below the outfall are slightly 

above the concentration upstream. But if you look at the data 

carefully, you will see there are some weeks when the 

concentration of TP upstream is higher than downstream. If you 
#ME0101290 

#W002648-6D-D-R. 

FACT SHEET PAGE 19 OF 32 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

look at the average for the season, the TP levels in the river are 

consistently 12 to 13 ppb from 1MDX to 5MDX. I should point out 

that during the low flow period in September, TP levels upstream 

were higher than downstream (2MDX compared to 3MDX). I 

reiterate my comment that the choice of the word "elevated" was 

inappropriate because it implies exceedance of some standard and 

upon further review of the attached data, I suggest that you might 

reconsider the entire comment. 

As of the date of this permitting action, the Dept tinent's DEA has concluded that additional 

ambient monitoring data is necessary to validate previous data sets and to make a definitive 

determination of attainment status of the Meduxnekeag River and any impact the discharge from 

the HWC may have on receiving water quality. The DEA is currently developing a water quality 

monitoring plan for 2011 in cooperation with the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. 

Additionally, a longer-term river assessment plan is being developed to ensure that all data 

necessary to assess compliance with receiving water quality standards are available. Significant 

changes to the results and recommendations provided in the 2001 TMDL may be used to revise 

the TMDL. 

L Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) and Chemical Specific Testing: Conditions of licenses, 

38 M.R.S.A. § 414-A and Certain deposits and discharges prohibited, 38 M.R.S.A. § 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. Surface Water Toxics Control Program, 06-096 CMR 

530 (effective October 9, 2005), and Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants, 

06-096 CMR 584 (effective October 9, 2005) set forth ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) 

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 06-096 CMR 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 AWQC as established in 06-096 CMR 584. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 20 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

06-096 CMR 530 establishes four categories of testing requirements based predominately 

on the chronic dilution factor. The categories are as follows: 

1) Level I — chronic dilution factor of <20:1. 

2) Level II — chronic dilution factor of >20:1 but <100:1. 

3) Level III — chronic dilution factor >100:1 but <500:1 or >500:1 and Q > 1.0 MGD. 

4) Level N — chronic dilution >500:1 and Q < 1.0 MGD 

06-096 CMR 530(1)(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 06-096 CMR 530 criteria, the permittee's facility falls into the 

Level I frequency category as the facility has a chronic dilution factor of <20:1. 06-096 

CMR 530(1)(D)(1) specifies that default screening and surveillance level testing 

requirements are as follows: 

Screening level testing — Beginning 12 months prior to permit expiration and lasting 

through permit expiration and every five years thereafter. 

Level WET Testing Priority pollutant 

testing 

Analytical chemistry 

I 4 per year 1 per year 4 per year 

Surveillance level testing — Beginning upon issuance of the permit and lasting through 12 

months prior to permit expiration. 

Level WET Testing Priority pollutant 

testing 

Analytical chemistry 

1 2 per year None required 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 the 06-096 CMR 530. 

See Attachments B and C of this Fact Sheet for dates and test results for WET and 

chemical specific testing, respectively. 

06-096 CMR 530(2)(D)(3) states in part "Dischargers in Level I may reduce surveillance 

testing to one WET or specific chemical series per year provided that testing in the 

preceding 60 months does not indicate any reasonable potential for exceedence as 

calculated pursuant to section 3(E)." 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 21 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (coned) 

06-096 CMR 530(3)(E) states: 

For effluent monitoring data and the variability of the pollutant in 

the effluent, the Department shall apply the statistical approach in 

Section 3.3.2 and Table 3-2 of USEPA's "Technical Support 

Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control" (USEPA 

Publication 505/2-90-001, March, 1991, EPA, Office of Water, 

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 at levels that have a reasonable 

potential to cause or contribute to an exceedence of water quality 

criteria, appropriate water quality-based limits must be 

established in any licensing action. 

06-096 CMR 530(3) states: 

The Department shall establish appropriate discharge 

prohibitions, effluent limits and monitoring requirements in waste 

discharge licenses i f a 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 of a 

numeric or narrative water quality criteria or that may impair 

existing or designated uses. The licensee must also control whole 

effluent toxicity (WET) when discharges cause, have a reasonable 

potential to cause, or contribute to an ambient excursion above the 

narrative water quality criteria. "In determining if effluent 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 performance of a Toxicity Reduction 

Evaluation (TRE) approved by the Department may be excluded 

from such evaluations. 

WET Evaluation — The previous permitting action establish A-NOEL limits of 28% for 

the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis ) and the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) 

and a C-NOEL limit of 25% 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 acute and chronic WET thresholds of 28% and 25% respectively. The 

critical thresholds were calculated as the mathematical inverse of the acute and chronic 

dilution factors of 3.5:1 and 4.0:1, respectively. It is noted 06-096 CMR 530 no longer 

utilizes the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) as a test species for WET testing. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 22 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

For this permitting action, a statistical evaluation for the most current 60 months of data 

was conducted on September 15, 2010 that indicates the discharge has one C-NOEL test 

result for the brook trout (50% on May 27, 2009) that has a reasonable potential to 

exceed the critical acute water quality threshold of 25%. The evaluation indicates the test 

results for the water flea during said period do not exceed or have a reasonable potential 

to exceed critical acute or chronic thresholds. 

Therefore, pursuant to 06-096 CMR 530(3), this permitting action is eliminating the 

A-NOEL limits of 28% for the brook trout and the fathead minnow, eliminating the 

C-NOEL limit of 25% for the water flea and establishing a C-NOEL limit of 25% for the 

brook trout. 06-096 CMR 530 does not establish monitoring frequencies for test species 

that exceeed or have a reasonable potential to exceed critical acute or chronic thresholds. 

The Department establishes these frequencies based on the timing, severity and frequency 

of the tests of concern. This permitting action is establishing a default surveillance level 

monitoring frequency of twice per year (2/Year) for the brook trout. 

As for the water flea, the permittee qualifies for the reduced testing frequency provision 

found at 06-096 CMR 530(2)(D)(3). Therefore, this permitting action establishes a 

monitoring frequency of once per year (1/Year) for the water flea beginning upon 

issuance of the permit and lasting through 12 months prior to the expiration date of the 

permit. 

06-096 CMR 530(2)(D)(4) states; 

All dischargers having waived or reduced testing must file statements with the 

Department on or before December 31 of each year describing the following. 

(a) 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; 

(b) Changes in the operation of the treatment works that may increase the toxicity 

of the discharge; and 

(c) Changes in industrial manufacturing processes contributing wastewater to the 

treatment works that may increase the toxicity of the discharge. 

Given the permittee qualifies for the reduced testing frequency provision for the water 

flea found at 06-096 CMR 530(2)(D)(3), Special Condition H of this permit requires the 

permittee to file said statement. 

Beginning 12 months prior to the expiration date of the permit, the permittee shall revert 

to a default screening level of 4/Year WET testing in the 06-096 CMR 530 rule for both 

the water flea and brook trout. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 23 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

Analytical chemistry and priority pollutant testing — 06-096 CMR 530(4)(C), states: 

The background concentration of specific chemicals must be 

included in all calculations using the following procedures. The 

Department may publish and periodically update a list of default 

background concentrations for specific pollutants on a regional, 

watershed or statewide basis. In doing so, the Department shall 

use data collected from reference sites that are measured at points 

not significantly affected by point and non-point discharges and 

best calculated to accurately represent ambient water quality 

conditions The Department shall use the same general methods as 

those in section 4(D) to determine background concentrations. 

For pollutants not listed by the Department, an assumed 

concentration of 10% of the 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 Meduxnekeag River in the vicinity of the permittee's outfall. Therefore, a 

default background concentration of 10% of the applicable water quality criteria is being 

used in the calculations of this permitting action. 

06-096 CMR 530(4)(E), states "In allocating assimilative capacity for toxic pollutants, 

the Department shall hold a portion of the total capacity in an unallocated reserve to 

allow for new or changed discharges and non-point source contributions. The 

unallocated reserve must be reviewed and restored as necessary at intervals of not more 

than five years. The water quality reserve must be not less than 15% of the total 

assimilative quantior." Therefore, the Department is reserving 15% of the applicable 

water quality criteria in the calculations of this permitting action. 

06-096 CMR 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 of water quality 

criteria, appropriate water quality-based limits must be established in any licensing 

action." 

06-096 CMR 530(4)(F) states, in part, 

Where there is more than one discharge into the same fresh or 

estuarine receiving water or watershed, the Department shall 

consider the cumulative effects of those discharges when 

determining the need for and establishment of the level of effluent 

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 quantiOrfor 

pollutants must be allocated consistent with the following 

principles. 
#M130101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 24 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

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, if appropriate, within 

tributaries of a 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 specc situation and pollutant. Past discharges 

of pollutants must be determined using the average concentration 

discharged during the past five 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 

of USEPA's "Technical Support Document for Water QualityBased Toxics Control7 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. 

For the purposes of this permitting action, the Meduxnekeag River is a main stem waterway with 

its source being the outlet of Drews Lake (Meduxnekeag Lake) in New Limerick and exits the 

United States into New Brunswick, Canada in the Town of Oakfield. Two wastewater treatment 

facilities that are subject to the Department's 06-096 CMR 530 testing requirements discharge to 

the Meduxnekeag River. The wastewater treatment facilities are Tate & Lyle Ingredients 

Americas Inc. (Tate & Lyle hereinafter, MEPDES permit #ME0002216 / WDL #W000940) and 

the Houlton Water Company. The Houlton Water Company facility is the most downstream 

facility. As previously cited, 06-096 CMR 530 requires that AWQC must be met collectively as 

well as at the individual discharge points on the Meduxnekeag River after taking into 

consideration historic discharge levels for the two facilities as well as an allocation dedicated to 

background (10% of AWQC) and a reserve (15% of AWQC). 

As with WET test results, the Department conducted a statistical evaluation on September 20, 

2010 (Report ID #304) on the most recent 60-months of analytical chemistry and priority 

pollutant data on file at the Department. The statistical evaluation indicates that both the 

Houlton Water Company and Tate & Lyle have test results that exceed or have a reasonable 

potential to exceed AWQC for aluminum and copper and that possibly exceed or has a 

reasonable potential to exceed the chronic AWQC for cyanide amenable to chlorination. 

Houlton Water Company also has test results that exceed or have a reasonable potential to 

exceed the chronic AWQC for cadmium and lead. It is noted test results submitted to the 

Department to date for cyanide are expressed in total cyanide rather than cyanide amenable to 

chlorination making it impossible to determine actual exceedences or reasonable potential 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 25 OF 32 

#W002645-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS & MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd) 

to exceed AWQC. As a result, the Department is not requiring the permittee to conduct a THE 

for cyanide until at least four test results (equivalent to screening level testing) for cyanide 

amenable to chlorination are submitted to the Depaitment and statistically evaluated. 

Based on Department guidance that establishes protocols for establishing waste load allocations 

(see Attachment D of this Fact Sheet) the most protective of water quality becomes the 

facility's allocation. According to the September 20, 2010 statistical evaluation, aluminum, 

cadmium, copper, cyanide and lead are to be limited for the Houlton Water Company based on 

the segment allocation method. 

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 Houlton Water Company facility, historical averages for 

aluminum, cadmium, copper, cyanide and lead were calculated as follows: 

Aluminum 

Mean concentration = 45 .tg/L or 0.045 mg/L 

Permit flow limit = 1.5 MGD 

Historical average mass = (0.045 mg/L)(8.34)(1.5 MGD) = 0.56 lbs./day 

The September 20, 2010 statistical evaluation indicates the historical average mass of aluminum 

discharged by the Houlton water Company facility is 71.4% of the aluminum discharged by the 

two facilities on the Meduxnekeag River. Therefore, Houlton Water Company's segment 

allocation for aluminum is calculated as 71.4% of the chronic assimilative capacities of the river 

at Houlton Water Company. The assimilative capacity at Houlton Water Company is calculated 

as follows: 

7Q10 = 6.9 cfs (0.6464) = 4.46 MGD 

Chronic AWQC = 87 i.tWL or 0.087 mg/L 

Taking into consideration 15% of the AWQC reserve and 10% for background, the 

assimilative capacities are: 

Chronic = (0.087 mg/L)(0.75)(8.34 lbs/gal)(4.46 MGD) = 2.43 lbs./day 

Monthly average (chronic) mass limitation for aluminum is calculated as follows: 

Monthly average: (Chronic assimilative capacity mass)(% of total aluminum discharged) 

(2.43 lbs./day)(0.714) = 1.73 lbs./day 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 26 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

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

Since the adoption of 06-096 CMR 530, the Department has a developed a policy for 

establishing equitable concentration limits in permits that are greater than calculated endof-pipe concentrations. In general, most dischargers subject to the 06-096 CMR 530 

testing requirements are discharging at or about 50% of the flow limitations established 

in their permits. This provides the Department with the flexibility to establish higher 

concentration limits in the permit while still maintaining compliance with the water 

quality based mass limitations. With an actual discharge flow at Y2 (0.5) of permitted 

flow rate, a concentration limit of two times (mathematical inverse of 0.5) the calculated 

end-of-pipe concentration, will maintain compliance with water quality-based mass 

limits. Therefore, this permitting action is establishing concentration limitations that are 

two (2) times higher than the calculated end-of-pipe concentrations. The permittee shall 

keep in mind, if flows greater than 50% of the permitted flow are realized, the 

concentration in the effluent must be reduced proportionally to maintain compliance with 

the mass limitations. 

Monthly average concentration limitation for aluminum; 

1.73 lbs./day = 0.138 mg/L 

(1.5 MGD)(8.34 lbs/gal.) 

(0.138 mg/L)(1,000 ug/mg)(2) = 276 pg/L 

Cadmium 

Mean concentration = 0.6 p.g/L or 0.0006 mg/L 

Permit flow limit = 1.5 MGD 

Historical average mass = (0.0006 mg/L)(8.34)(1.5 MGD) = 0.0075 lbs./day 

The September 20, 2010 statistical evaluation indicates the historical average mass of 

cadmium discharged by the Houlton Water Company facility is 100% of the cadmium 

discharged by the two facilities on the Meduxnekeag River. Therefore, Houlton Water 

Company's segment allocation for cadmium is calculated as 100% of the chronic 

assimilative capacity of the river at Houlton Water Company. The assimilative capacity 

at Houlton Water Company is calculated as follows: 

7Q10 = 6.9 cfs (0.6464) = 4.46 MGD 

Chronic AWQC = 0.24409 pg/L2or 0.0002449 mg/L 

Taking into consideration 15% of the AWQC reserve and 10% for background, the 

assimilative capacities are: 

Chronic = (0.0002449 mg/L)(0.75)(8.34 lbs/gal)(4.46 MGD) = 0.0068 lbs./day 

Based on a site specific hardness of 87 mg/L. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 27 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (coned) 

Monthly average (chronic) mass limitation for cadmium is calculated as follows: 

Monthly average: (Chronic assimilative capacity mass)(% of cadmium discharged) 

(0.0068 lbsiday)(1.0) = 0.0068 lbs./day 

Monthly average concentration limitation for cadmium; 

0.0068 lbs./day = 0.00054 mg/L 

(1.5 MGD)(8.34 lbs/gal.) 

(0.00054 mg/L)(1,000 uglmg)(2) = 1.1 μg/I, 

Copper 

Mean concentration = 11 tig/L or 0.011 mg/L 

Permit flow limit = 1.5 MGD 

Historical average mass = (0.011 mg/L)(8.34)(1.5 MGD) = 0.14 lbs./day 

The September 20, 2010 statistical evaluation indicates the historical average mass of 

copper discharged by Houlton Water Company is 96.07% of the copper discharged by the 

two facilities on the Meduxnekeag River. Therefore, Houlton water Company's segment 

allocation for copper is calculated as 96.07% of the acute and chronic assimilative 

capacities of the river at Houlton Water Company. The assimilative capacities at Houlton 

Water Company are calculated as follows: 

1Q10 = 6.9 cfs (0.6464) = 4.46 MGD 

7Q10 = 5.9 cfs (0.6464) = 3.81 MGD 

Acute AWQC = 12.27763 μg/L3or 0.01227763 mg/L 

Chronic AWQC = 8.28228 ug/L4or 0.00828228 mg/L 

Taking into consideration 15% of the AWQC reserve and 10% for background, the 

assimilative capacities are: 

Acute = (0.01227763 mg/L)(0.75)(8.34 lbslgal)(3.81 MGD) = 0.29259 lbs./day 

Chronic = (0.00828228 mg/L)(0.75)(8.34 lbs/gal)(4.46 MGD) = 0.23105 lbs./day 

Daily maximum (acute) and monthly average (chronic) mass limitations for copper are 

calculated as follows: 

Daily maximum• (Acute assimilative capacity mass)(% of total copper discharged) 

(0.29259 lbs./day)(0.9607) = 0.28 lbs./day 

'Based on a site specific hardness of 87 mg/L. 

4Based on a site specific hardness of 87 mg/L. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 28 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

6. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (coned) 

Monthly average: (Chronic assimilative capacity mass)(% of total copper discharged) 

(0.23105 lbs./day)(0.9607) = 0.22 Ibs./day 

Daily maximum concentration limitation for copper; 

0.28 lbs./day = 0.022 mg/L 

(1.5 MGD)(8.34 lbs/gal.) 

(0.022 mg/L)(1,000 ug/mg)(2) — 45 jag/L 

Monthly average concentration limitation for copper; 

0.22 lbs./day = 0.0176 mg/L 

(1.5 MGD)(8.34 lbs/gal.) 

(0.0176 mg/L)(1,000 ug/mg)(2) = 35 lug/L 

Cyanide, amenable to chlorination 

Mean concentration = 3.05 fig/L or 0.00305mg/L 

Permit flow limit = 1.5 MGD 

Historical average mass = (0.00305 mg/L)(8.34)(1.5 MGD) = 0.0038 lbs./day 

The September 20, 2010 statistical evaluation indicates the historical average mass of 

cyanide discharged by the Houlton Water Company facility is 95.65% of the cyanide 

discharged by the two facilities on the Meduxnekeag River. Therefore, Houlton Water 

Company's segment allocation for cyanide is calculated as 95.65% of the chronic 

assimilative capacities of the river at Houlton Water Company. The assimilative capacity 

at Houlton Water Company is calculated as follows: 

7Q10 = 6.9 cfs (0.6464) = 4.46 MGD 

Chronic AWQC = 5.2 lig/L or 0.0052 mg/L 

Taking into consideration 15% of the AWQC reserve and 10% for background, the 

assimilative capacities are: 

Chronic = (0.0052 mg/L)(0.75)(8.34 lbs/gal)(4.46 MGD) = 0.145 lbs./day 

Monthly average (chronic) mass limitation for cyanide amenable to chlorination is 

calculated as follows: 

Monthly average: (Chronic assimilative capacity mass)(% of cyanide discharged) 

(0.145 lbs./day)(0.9565) = 0.14 lbs./day 
04E0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 29 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

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

Monthly average concentration limitation for cyanide, amenable to chlorination; 

0.14 lbs./day = 0.011 mg/L 

(1.5 MGD)(8.34 lbs/gal.) 

(0.011 mg/L)(1,000 ug/mg)(2) = 22 pg/L 

Lead 

Mean concentration = 2.0 .tg/L or 0.002 mg/L 

Permit flow limit = 1.5 MGD 

Historical average mass = (0.002 mg/L)(8.34)(1.5 MGD) = 0.025 lbs./day 

The September 20, 2010 statistical evaluation indicates the historical average mass of 

lead discharged by the Houlton Water Company facility is 100% of the lead discharged 

by the two facilities on the Meduxnekeag River. Therefore, Houlton Water Company's 

segment allocation for lead is calculated as 100% of the chronic assimilative capacities of 

the river at Houlton Water Company. The assimilative capacity at Houlton Water 

Company is calculated as follows: 

7Q10 = 6.9 cfs (0.6464) = 4.46 MGD 

Chronic AWQC = 2.66473 ig/L5or 0.00266 mg/L 

Taking into consideration 15% of the AWQC reserve and 10% for background, the 

assimilative capacities are: 

Chronic = (0.00266 mg/L)(0.75)(8.34 lbs/gal)(4.46 MGD) = 0.074 lbs./day 

Monthly average (chronic) mass limitation for lead is calculated as follows: 

Monthly average: (Chronic assimilative capacity mass)(% of lead discharged) 

(0.074 lbsiday)(1.0) = 0.074 lbs./day 

Monthly average concentration limitation for lead; 

0.074 lbs./day = 0.0059 mg/L 

(1.5 MGD)(8.34 lbs/gal.) 

(0.0059 mg/L)(1,000 ug/mg)(2) = 12 ng/L 

06-096 CMR 530 does not establish monitoring frequencies for parameters that exceed or 

have a reasonable potential to exceed AWQC. Monitoring frequencies are established on 

a 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 

5Based on a site specific hardness of 87 mg/L. 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 30 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

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

monitoring frequencies for the parameters of concern at the default surveillance level 

frequency of twice per year (2/Year) specified in 06-096 CMR 530. 

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 AWQC. Therefore, this permitting action is 

establishing a reduced surveillance level reporting and monitoring frequency for 

analytical chemistry of once per year (1/Year) for the first four years of the term of the 

permit. As with reduced WET testing, the Houlton Water Company shall file an annual 

certification with the Department pursuant to 06-096 CMR 530(2)(D)(3) and Special 

Condition H of this permit. It is noted 06-096 CMR 530 does not require surveillance 

level priority pollutant testing during the first four years of the term of the permit. 

Beginning 12 months prior to the expiration date of the permit, the permittee shall 

conduct default screening level analytical chemistry testing at once per calendar quarter 

(1/Quarter) and priority pollutant testing of once per year (1/Year). 

7. DISCHARGE IMPACT ON RECEIVING WATER QUALITY 

With continued treatment for total phosphorus at the wastewater treatment facility and the 

limitations for total phosphorus in this permit, the Dept Unent has determined the existing 

water uses will be maintained and protected and the discharge will not cause or contribute to 

the failure of the water body to meet standards for Class B classifications. 

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Public notice of this application was made in the Houlton Times Pioneer newspaper on or about 

December 9, 2009. The Department receives public comments on an application until the date 

a final agency action is taken on the application. Those persons receiving copies of draft 

permits shall have at least 30 days in which to submit comments on the draft or to request a 

public hearing, pursuant to Application Processing Procedures for Waste Discharge Licenses, 

06-096 CMR 522 (effective January 12, 2001). 

9. DEPARTMENT CONTACTS 

Additional information concerning this permitting action may be obtained from, and written 

comments sent to: 

William F. Hinkel 

Division of Water Quality Management 

Bureau of Land & Water Quality 

Department of Environmental Protection 

17 State House Station 

Augusta, Maine 04333-0017 

e-mail: bill.hinkel@maine.gov 

Telephone: (207) 485-2281 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 31 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

10. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

During the period of November 23, 2010 through December 23, 2010, the Depaitment 

solicited comments on the proposed draft MEPDES permit to be issued to Houlton Water 

Company for the Meduxnekeag River discharge. The Department did not receive significant 

written comments on the draft permit; however, the Department, the HWC and the Houlton 

Band of Maliseet Indians verbally discussed certain terms and conditions of the draft permit. 

The Department's Division of Environmental Assessment recommended that additional 

ambient water quality monitoring requirements should be conducted by the Department and 

not imposed on the HWC in this permit renewal. Therefore, the ambient water quality 

monitoring requirements established in the November 23, 2010 draft permit have been 

eliminated. Ambient data collected by the Department are will be considered to be The 

HWC provided information that the C-NOEL WET test result for the brook trout for 

September 2009 was 100%, not 50% as previously and erroneously reported to the 

Department. Therefore, the Depai tment revised the WET section of the fact sheet to 

correctly state that only the May 2009 C-NOEL result of 50% is a reasonable potential to 

exceed the ambient water quality criterion. No other changes to the November 23, 2010 draft 

permit were made in this revised draft permit. 

A revised draft permit was issued on March 21, 2011 for a 10-day period to provide an 

opportunity to review the changes to the November 23, 2010 draft permit. 

On March 30, 2011, HWC's consultant, Acheron Engineering (Bill Ball), provided written 

comments on the March 21, 2011 revised draft permit. 

Comment #1: "The requirement for the HWC to conduct stream flow monitoring has been 

carried over from the previous permit. It was needed to supplement the HWC water quality 

monitoring data, and because the only other gage is some distance upstream of several major 

tributaries to the Meduxnekeag. The USGS has since established a stream flow gage near 

Lowery Road, which is a short distance downstream of the HWC discharge. Given the 

existence of this gage, there is no longer any need for the HWC to collect stream flow 

measurements. We request that this requirement be deleted from the permit." 

Response #1: In the March 21, 2011 revised draft permit, the Department eliminated 

additional ambient monitoring requirements. The stream flow monitoring requirement in the 

so-called "effluent limits table" at Special Condition A.2 of the permit was not deleted as 

intended. This has been corrected in the final order. 

Comment #2: "On or about November 29, 2010 following review of the draft permit, 

ClearWater Laboratory sent an email to the Department.... That email indicates that 

ClearWater discovered an error in an DMR report for the results of the toxicity test 

conducted in the third quarter of 2009. The C-NOEL results for that test were incorrectly 

reported at 50% when the result was actually 100%. The HWC requests that the analysis of 

the historical WET test data be redone with the corrected results. We believe that this 

correction will allow for a change in the frequency of the required WET testing in the new 

permit." 
#ME0101290 FACT SHEET PAGE 32 OF 32 

#W002648-6D-D-R 

Response #2: The Department updated the WET discussion in the March 21, 2011 revised 

draft permit to acknowledge the reporting error associated with the September 2009 WET 

test. The May 2009 WET test result has a reasonable potential to exceed the water quality 

threshold; therefore, the renewed permit establishes the default surveillance level monitoring 

frequency for the brook trout. 

Comment #3: "The HWC appreciates the Department's decision to remove the ambient 

water quality monitoring requirement from the license. The HWC agrees with and supports 

that decision. However, the HWC requests that the Department provide the HWC with a 

copy of a work plan or study plan for any water quality monitoring studies that will result in 

data to be used by the Department to assess and evaluate Meduxnekeag River water quality. 

Also, the HWC offers to assist the Department in the execution of on-going water quality 

studies within the limits of its capabilities. It is likely that the HWC will want to cooperate 

with the Department by collecting data during the summer of 2011. The HWC will submit a 

work plan to the Department for review and comment prior to undertaking any field studies 

and/or sampling." 

Response #3: The MEPDES permitting unit has provided this comment to the Division of 

Environmental Assessment (DEA) to coordinate river monitoring efforts with the HWC. 

Comment #4: "There is a typo on page 10 of permit section of the document, Footnote #7... 

The reference to orthophosphate in this footnote is incorrect and should be total phosphorus." 

Response #4: The Department has corrected this typographical error. 
ATTACHMENT A 
astewater Outfalls 

A Minor < 1 MGD 

0.15 0.3 0.6 

Miles 

Houlton Water Company POTW 

Houlton, Maine 

Map created by Maine DEP 

April 2011 • 

I I. nu 

Houlton, Maine 
ATTACHMENT B 
TROUT A_NOEL 100 01/25/2007 28.228 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 05/06/2008 28.228 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 

11/12/2008 28.228 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 05/2

7/2009 • 28.228 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 09/26/2009 28.228 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 12/01/2009 28.228 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 08/18/2010 28.228 

TROUT C_NOEL 100 12/11/2005 25.167 

TROUT C_NOEL 50 05/2

7/

2009 25.167 

TROUT C_NOEL 50 09/26/2009 25.167 

TROUT C_NOEL 100 12/01/2009 25.167 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 

12/11/2005 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 06/20/2006 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 11/28/2006 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 01/2

5/2007 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 05/06/2008 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 11/12/2008 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 

05/27/2009 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 09/26/2009 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 12/01/2009 28.228 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 08/18/2010 28.228 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 

12/11/2005 25.167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 06/20/2006 25.167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 11/28/2006 25.167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 01/25/2007 25.167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 05/06/2008 25.167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 11/12/2008 25,167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 05/27/2009 25.167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 09/26/2009 25.167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 12/01/2009 2b.167 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 50 08/18/2010 25.167 
ATTACHMENT C 
Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V RN P 0 A Clean Hg 

12/11/2005 1.90 1.90 137 14 28 46 25 13 11 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

06/20/2006 1.60 1.30 20 9 0 0 0 11 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

11/28/2006 1.90 1.30 11 1 0 0 0 10 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

01/25/2007 1.11 0.80 21 9 0 0 0 12 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

09/25/2007 0.18 0.09 21 9 0 0 0 12 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

05/06/2008 1.63 2.56 21 9 0 0 0 12 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

06/25/2008 0.61 0.28 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

07/22/2008 1.03 0.80 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V RN P 0 A Clean Hg 

11/12/2008 1.41 1.11 21 9 0 0 0 12 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

03/23/2009 1.09 0.97 21 9 0 0 0 12 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

05/27/2009 1.33 0.63 21 9 0 0 0 12 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

09/24/2009 0.46 0.44 21 9 0 0 0 12 0 F 0 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

12/01/2009 1.26 2.09 135 13 28 46 25 12 11 F 0 

 .'71E7.1.1.,a, gruff.,. 
Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Grow 

Teat Date (Row MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

08/18/2010 0.22 0.19 19 9 0 0 0 10 0 F 0 
Facility name: HOULTON Permit Number: 14E0101290 

Parameter: ALUMINUM Test date Result (ug/l) Lsthan 

12/11/2005 15.000 N 

06/20/2006 132.000 N 

05/06/2008 230.000 N 

09/24/2009 11.000 N 

12/01/2009 10.000 N 

08/18/2010 17.000 N 

Parameter: AMMONIA Test date Result (ug/1) Lsthan 

12/11/2005 160.000 N 

06/20/2006 160.000 N 

01/25/2007 2090.000 N 

09/25/2007 166.000 N 

05/06/2008 955.000 N 

11/12/2008 164.000 N 

03/23/2009 900.000 N 

12/01/2009 330.000 N 

08/18/2010 2970.000 N 

Parameter: ARSENIC Test date Result (ug/l) Lstha n 

09/24/2009 1.000 N 

Parameter CADMIUM Test date Result (ugh° Lsthan 

05/27/2009 1.500 N 

Parameter: CALCIUM Test date Result (ug/l) Lsthan 

12/11/2005 93000.000 N 

06/20/2006 80000.000 N 

11/28/2006 98000.000 N 

01/25/2007 95000.000 N 

09/25/2007 85000.000 N 

05/06/2008 90000.000 N 

11/12/2008 105200.001 N 

03/23/2009 100500.001 N 

05/27/2009 89900.000 N 

09/24/2009 74900.000 N 

12/01/2009 95400.000 N 

08/18/2010 78400.000 N 

Parameter: CHROMIUM Test date Result (ug/l) Lsthan 

09/24/2009 1.000 N 

Parameter COPPER Test date Result (ug/l) Lsthan 

12/11/2005 14.000 N 

06/20/2006 12.000 N 

11/28/2006 10.000 N 

01/25/2007 11.000 N 

09/25/2007 20.000 N 

05/06/2008 11.000 
07/22/2008 

11/12/2008 

03/23/2009 

05/27/2009 

09/24/2009 

12/01/2009 

3.000 

5.000 

5.000 

20.000 

20.000 

7.000 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

08/18/2010 33.000 N 

Parameter CYANIDE Test date Result (ug/0 Lsthan 

06/20/2006 8.000 

Parameter. LEAD Test date Result (ugh!) Lsthan 

05/06/2008 5.000 N 

05/27/2009 3.000 N 

Parameter MAGNESIUM Test date Result (ug/l) Lsthan 

12/11/2005 9100.000 N 

06/20/2006 8200.000 N 

11/28/2006 9630.000 N 

01/25/2007 9100.000 N 

09/25/2007 8440.000 N 

05/06/2008 8300.000 N 

11/12/2008 10200.000 N 

03/23/2009 9800.000 N 

05/27/2009 8400.000 N 

09/24/2009 7200.000 N 

12/01/2009 9800.000 N 

08/18/2010 7000.000 N 

Parameter MERCURY Test date Result (u9/1) Lsthan 

12/11/2005 0.005 N 

02/15/2006 0.004 N 

04/17/2006 0.004 N 

06/21/2006 0.001 N 

08/21/2006 0.001 N 

10/26/2006 0.001 N 

01/04/2007 0.001 N 

03/07/2007 0.002 N 

06/27/2007 0.001 N 

09/19/2007 0.001 N 

02/20/2008 0.002 N 

05/07/2008 0.001 N 

08/19/2008 0.001 N 

11/25/2008 0.001 N 

02/11/2009 0.002 N 

05/27/2009 0.001 N 

09/24/2009 0.001 N 

12/01/2009 0.001 N 

06/16/2010 0.001 N 

08/18/2010 0.001 N 

Parameter NICKEL Test date Result (ug/1) Lsthan 

06/20/2006 6.000 

05/06/2008 5.000 

09/24/2009 6.000 

08/18/2010 10.000 

Parameter: THALLIUM Test date Result (ug/I) Lsthan 
1

2/

11/2005 

Parameter TOLUENE Test date 

12/01/2009 

Parameter ZINC Test date 

3.000 

Result (ug/i) 

5.400 

Result (ugh!) 

Lsthan 

Lsthan 

12/11/2005 19.000 N 

06/20/2006 25.000 N 

01/25/2007 33.000 N 

09/25/2007 32.000 N 

05/06/2008 10.000 N 

11/12/2008 18.000 N 

03/23/2009 26.000 N 

05/27/2009 27.000 N 

09/24/2009 57.000 N 

12/01/2009 13M00 N 

08/18/2010 40.000 N 
ATTACHMENT D 
MAINE DEPARTMENT 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 of DEP's rules, Chapter 530, section 4(F), the Department is 

evaluating discharges of toxic pollutants into a freshwater river system in order to prevent 

cumulative impacts from multiple discharges. This is being through the use of a computer 

program known internally as "DeTox". The enclosed package of information 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: I) the facility's past history of discharges, 2) 

its potential toxicity at the point of discharge 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 time, 

old test results drop off and newer ones are added. The intent of this process is to maintain 

current, uniform 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 of pollutant testing on their 

effluent. This means, statistically, the fewer tests done, the greater the possibility of effluent 

limits being necessary based on the facility's small amount of data. 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 documents with additional 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.govor 287-7788. 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Methods for evaluating the effects of multiple discharges of toxic pollutants. 

Reference: DEP Rules, Chapter 530, section 4(F) 

To evaluate discharges of toxic 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 information about discharge sources and river conditions an 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 pounds 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 each 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 riven 

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 of statistical certainty. The 

RP factor is multiplied by the historical average to determine an allocation based on past 

discharges. The RP factor is also 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 of the 

pollutant. This percent multiplied by the total assimilative capacity becomes the facility's 

discharge allocation used in evaluations of the segment loadings. 

Additionally, individual facility discharges are evaluated as single sources, as they have been in 

the past to deteintine if local conditions are more limiting than a segment evaluation. 
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 an 

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 of total past discharges. This method 

would be used when multiple 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 segment 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 RP 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 limits are not needed. 

Evaluations are also done for each tributary segment with the sum of discharge quantities in 

tributaries becoming a "point source" to the next most significant segment. In cases where a 

facility does not use all of its assimilative capacity, usually due to a more limiting individual 

water qnality criterion, the unused quantity is rolled downstream 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 qtiantities. 

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 minimum number of tests. 

It 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 Definitions of Terms Used in the DeTox System. 

Allocation. The amount of pollutant loading set aside for a facility. Separate amounts are set for 

each water quality criterion. Each pollutant having a history of being 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 a pollutant 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 amounts. 

Back-ground. 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% of the 

applicable water quality criterion. 

Effluent limit. A numeric limit in a discharge permit specifically restricting the amount of a 

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 of three ways of developing an allocation. The 

facility's average history of discharges, in pounds at design flow, is multiplied 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 of the total is 

figured for each facility. When a facility has no detectable concentrations, that pollutant is 

assumed to be not present and it receives no percentage. 

Individual allocation. One of three 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. If the RP-adjusted amount 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 of a pollutant 

likely to be 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 of variation and the number of tests. Generally, the fewer number 

of tests, the higher the RP factor. 

Reserve. An assumed concentration of a pollutant that set aside to account for non-point source 

of a pollutant and to allow new discharges of a pollutant. By rule this is set at 15% of the 

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 that pollutant and criterion. A facility will have different allocation 

percentages for each pollutant. This amount may become an effluent limit. 

Tributary. A stream flowing into a larger one. A total pollutant load is set by adding the all 

facilities allocations on the 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. 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 

I. Preparation 

Select Watershed 

Select values for pH, Temp, hardness, 

Background %, Reserve % 

Algorithms for some pollutants 

Water quality tables 

Calculate water quality criteria: Acute, Chronic, Health 

II. Segment Assimilative Capacity 

Get facility information: location, stream flows 

Identify lowermost facility 

1 

Get stream flows for Acute, Chronic, Health (1Q10, 7Q10, HM) 

Calculate segment capacity by pollutant and criterion: 

Stream flow x criterion x 8.34 = pounds 

Set aside Reserve and Background: 

Segment capacity x (1— background reserve) = Segment Assimilative Capacity 

Save Segment Assimilative Capacities by pollutant and criterion 

Page 1 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 

TH. Evaluate History by Pollutant 

Select each facility effluent data for each facility 

Data input and edits 

Identify "less than" results and assign at 'A of reporting limit 

Bypass pollutants if all results are "less than" 

Average concentrations and calculate pounds: 

Ave concentration x license flow x 8.34 - Historical Average 

Determine reasonable potential (RP) using algorithm 

Calculate RP adjusted pounds: 

Historical Average x RP factor = RP Historical Allocation 

Save for comparative evaluation 

Calculate adjusted 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 

Sum all Historical Averages within segment 

By facility, calculate percent of total: 

Facility pounds / Total pounds = Facility History % 

Page 2 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 

V. Segment Allocation 

By pollutant and criterion, select Segment Assimilative Capacity 

4, 

Select individual Facility History % 

1 

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, pollutant and criterion, get: 

Individual Allocation, Segment Allocation, RP Historical Allocation 

Compare allocation and select the smallest 

Save as Foci ity Allocation /r 

Page 3 
Maine Department of Environmental 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 

1 

If RP Maximum value is greater than either Segment Allocation or Individual Allocation, 

use lesser value as Effluent Limit 

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 faci ity downstream 

II, 

Figure remaining Segment Assimilative Capacity at and below facility, less tributaries 

Add saved difference to get an adjusted Segment Assimilative Capacity 

I 

Reallocate Segment Assimilative Capacity among downstream facilities per step V 

I 

Repeat process for each facility downstream in turn 

Page 4 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 

CONTENTS 

SECTION 

A 

TOPIC 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

PAGE 

1 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 Property rights 3 

9 Confidentiality 3 

10 Duty to reapply 3 

11 Other laws 3 

12 Inspection and entry 3 

B OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES 

1 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 

1 General requirements 6 

2 Representative sampling 6 

3 Monitoring and records 6 

D REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

1 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 

OTHER PROVISIONS 

1 Emergency action - power failure 9 

2 Spill prevention 10 

3 Removed substances 10 

4 Connection to municipal sewer 10 

F DEFINTIONS 10 

Revised July 1, 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 permit; 

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 permit 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. 

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 permit 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 permit. 

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 of compliance or other provisions which 

may be authorized under 38 MRSA, §414-A(5). 

Revised July 1, 2002 Page 2 
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 

depat Intent 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. If the 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 of other 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 of this permit; 

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

equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under 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 

I. 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 

Depaiturent. 

(b) The permittee shall at all times maintain 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 of any treatment facilities. 

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

(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 installed 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 environment. 

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 substantial 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 damage 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) of this 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 1, 2002 Page 4 
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(I)(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 auxiliary 

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 identify the cause(s) of the 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(1)(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 Depai Unent including the installation, use and maintenance of monitoring 

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

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 partially 

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). 

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

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 forms 

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. 

(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. 

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 1, 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 of the 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 report on a case-by-case basis for reports under 

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

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

under paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this 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, report, 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 of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices 

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

Knowingly making any false statement on any such report 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 of the following "notification levels": 

(i) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/l); 

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

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

and one milligram per liter (1 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 1, 2002 Page 8 
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 of the following "notification levels": 

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

(ii) One milligram per liter (1 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 of the 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 of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (A) the 

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

impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the 

POTW. 

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

80 percent of the permitted flow, the permittee shall submit to the Depat tuient 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 of this 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 of primary 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 of the 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 Page 9 
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 Depat talent 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 of waste 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 of the Department's rules 

Average means the arithmetic mean of values 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 weekly discharge limitation means the highest allowable average of daily 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 of the pollutant discharged 

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

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

Revised July 1, 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 of EPA'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: 

(1) 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, the 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 of pollutants, the construction of which commenced: 

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

applicable to such source, or 

(b) After proposal of standards of performance in accordance with section 306 of CWA 

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

with section 306 within 120 days of their 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 

cause 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 of 40 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)(I) or, in the case of sludge use 

or disposal practices, any pollutant identified in regulations implementing section 405(d) of the CWA. 

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 of vegetation 

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 
- DEP INFORMATION SHEET 

Appealing a Commissioner's Licensing Decision 

Dated: May 2004 Contact: (207) 287-2811 

L 

SUMMARY 

There are two methods available to an aggrieved person seeking to appeal a licensing decision made by the 

Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Commissioner: (1) in an administrative process before the 

Board of Environmental Protection (Board); or (2) in a judicial process before Maine's Superior Court. This 

INFORMATION SHEET, in conjunction with consulting statutory and regulatory provisions referred to herein, 

can help aggrieved persons with understanding their rights and obligations in filing an administrative or judicial 

appeal. 

I. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TO THE BOARD 

LEGAL REFERENCES 

DEP's General Laws, 38 M.R.S.A. § 341-D(4), and its Rules Concerning the Processing of Applications and 

Other Administrative Matters (Chapter 2), 06-096 CMR 2.24 (April 1, 2003). 

HOW LONG YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD 

The Board must receive a written notice of appeal within 30 calendar days of the date on which the 

Commissioner's decision was filed with the Board. Appeals filed after 30 calendar days will be rejected. 

HOW TO SUBMIT AN APPEAL TO 'I'HE BOARD 

Signed original appeal documents must be sent to: Chair, Board of Environmental Protection, do 

Department of Environmental Protection, 17 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0017; faxes are 

acceptable for purposes of meeting the deadline when followed by receipt of mailed original documents 

within five (5) working days. Receipt on a particular day must be by 5:00 PM at DEP's offices in Augusta; 

materials received after 5:00 PM are not considered received until the following day. The person appealing 

a licensing decision must also send the DEP's Commissioner and the applicant a copy of the documents. All 

the information listed in the next section must be submitted at the time the appeal is filed. Only the 

extraordinary circumstances described at the end of that section will justify evidence not in the DEP's record 

at the time of decision being added to the record for consideration by the Board as part of an appeal. 

WHAT YOUR APPEAL PAPERWORK MUST CONTAIN 

The materials constituting an appeal must contain the following information at the time submitted: 

1 Aggrieved Status. Standing to maintain an appeal requires the appellant to show they are particularly 

injured by the Commissioner's decision. 

2. The findings, conclusions or conditions objected to or believed to be in error. Specific references and 

facts regarding the appellant's issues with the decision must be provided in the notice of appeal. 

3. The basis of the objections or challenge. If possible, specific regulations, statutes or other facts should 

be referenced. This may include citing omissions of relevant requirements, and errors believed to have 

been made in interpretations, conclusions, and relevant requirements. 

4. The remedy sought. This can range from reversal of the Commissioner's decision on the license or 

permit to changes in specific permit conditions. 

OCF/90-11r95/r98/49/r00/r04 
Appealing a Commissioner's Licensing Decision 

May 2004 

Page 2 of 2 

5. All the matters to be contested. The Board will limit its consideration to those arguments specifically 

raised in the written notice of appeal. 

6. Request for hearing. The Board will hear presentations on appeals at its regularly scheduled meetings, 

unless a public hearing is requested and granted. A request for public hearing on an appeal must be 

filed as part of the notice of appeal. 

7. New or additional evidence to be offered. The Board may allow new or additional evidence as part of 

an appeal only when the person seeking to add information to the record can show due diligence in 

bringing the evidence to the DEP's attention at the earliest possible time in the licensing process or show 

that the evidence itself is newly discovered and could not have been presented earlier in the process. 

Specific requirements for additional evidence are found in Chapter 2, Section 24(B)(5). 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN APPEALING A DECISION TO THE BOARD 

1. Be familiar with all relevant material in the DEP record A license file is public information made 

easily accessible by DEP. Upon request, the DEP will make the material available during normal 

working hours, provide space to review the file, and provide opportunity for photocopying materials. 

There is a charge for copies or copying services. 

2. Be familiar with the regulations and laws under which the application was processed, and the 

procedural rules governing your appeal. DEP staff will provide this information on request and answer 

questions regarding applicable requirements. 

3. The filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay to any decision. An applicant proceeding with a 

project pending the outcome of an appeal runs the risk of the decision being reversed or modified as a 

result of the appeal. 

WHAT TO EXPECT ONCE YOU FILE A TIMELY APPEAL WITH THE BOARD 

The Board will formally acknowledge initiation of the appeals procedure, including the name of the DEP 

project manager assigned to the specific appeal, within 15 days of receiving a timely filing. The notice of 

appeal, all materials accepted by the Board Chair as additional evidence, and any materials submitted in 

response to the appeal will be sent to Board members along with a briefing and recommendation from DEP 

staff. Parties filing appeals and interested persons are notified in advance of the final date set for Board 

consideration of an appeal or request for public hearing. With or without holding a public hearing, the 

Board may affirm, amend, or reverse a Commissioner decision. The Board will notify parties to an appeal 

and interested persons of its decision. 

II. APPEALS TO MAINE SUPERIOR COURT 

Maine law allows aggrieved persons to appeal final Commissioner licensing decisions to Maine's Superior 

Court, see 38 M.R.S.A. § 346(1); 06-096 CMR 2.26; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001; & MRCivP 80C. Parties to the 

licensing decision must file a petition for review within 30 days after receipt of notice of the 

Commissioner's written decision. A petition for review by any other person aggrieved must be filed within 

40-days from the date the written decision is rendered. The laws cited in this paragraph and other legal 

procedures govern the contents and processing of a Superior Court appeal. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

If you have questions or need additional information on the appeal process, contact the DEP's Director of 

Procedures and Enforcement at (207) 287-2811, 

Note: The DEP provides this INFORMATION SHEET for general guidance only; it is not intended for use 

as a legal reference. Maine law governs an appellant's rights. 

OCF/90-4/r/95/r98/r99100/r04