STATE OF MAINE 

Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

Paul R. Lepage Patricia W. Aho 

GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER 

May I, 2015 

Mr. William Littlefield 

Superintendent 

48 Morton Ave., Suite A 

Dover-Foxcroft, ME. 04426 

e-mail: wastewtr@dover-foxcroft.org 

RE: Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) Permit #MEOI00501 


Maine Waste Discharge License (WDL) Application #W002633-6C-G-R 


Final Permit 

Dear Mr. Littlefield: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

a Commissioner's Licensing Decision." 

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

Sincerely, 

~-LQ)Q '--' I

Gregg Wood I

Division of Water Quality Management 

Bureau ofLand and Water Quality 

Enc. 

cc: 	 Tanya Hovell, DEPIEMRO Olga Vergara, USEPA 

Sandy Mojica, USEP A Marelyn Vega, USEP A 

AUGUSTA 

17 STATE HOUSE STA'I10N BANGOR PORTI..AND PRESQUE ISLE 

AUGUSTA, .MAINE 04333-0017 106 HOGru'l ROAD 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SK\WAY PARK 

(207) 287-3901 FA-X' (207) 287-3435 Bru'lGOR, ~L\JNE 04401 PORTI..AND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04769-2094 

Rl\Y BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. (207) 941-4570 FAX' (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX' (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-6477 FA.'{, (207) 764-1507 

web site: www.maine.gov/dcp 
STATE OF MAINE 


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 


17 STATE HOUSE STATION 


AUGUSTA, ME 04333 


DEPARTMENT ORDER 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TOWN OF DOVER-FOXCROFT 	 ) MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE 

PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS ) ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

DOVER-FOXCROFT, PISCATAQUIS COUNTY ) 	 AND 

ME0100501 	 ) WASTE DISCHARGE LICENSE 

W002633-6C-G-R APPROVAL ) RENEWAL 

Pursuant to the provisions ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title 33 USC, Section 

1251, etc. seq. and Maine Law 38 M.R.S.A., Section 414-A et seq., and applicable regulations, 

the Depmiment ofEnviromnental Protection (the Department hereinafter) has considered the 

application ofthe TOWN OF DOVER-FOXCROFT (Town/permittee hereinafter), with its 

supportive data, agency review comments, and other related material on file and finds the 

following facts: 

APPLICATION SUMMARY 

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

combination Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) pem1it 

#ME0100501/Maine Waste Dischm·ge License (WDL) #W002633-6C-E-R (permit hereinafter) 

that was issued by the Department on September 29, 2009, for a five-year term. The 9/29/09 

permit authorized the discharge of up to a monthly average flow of 0.80 million gallons per day 

(MGD) of secondmy treated sanitary waste waters to the Piscataquis River, Class B, in DoverFoxcroft, Maine. 

PERMIT SUMMARY 

This pe1mitting action is carrying forward all the terms and conditions ofthe 9/29/09 except this 

pe1mit is; 

1. 	 Eliminating the monthly average water quality based mass and concentration limits for total 

lead as a statistical evaluation on the most cunent 60 months oftest results submitted to the 

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

the chronic ambient water quality criteria (A WQC) for total lead. 

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

reconsidered the value of said condition. 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 2 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

PERMIT SUMMARY (cont'd) 

3. 	 Incorporating previously established average and maximum technology based concentration 

limits for total mercmy so the results can be tracked in the federal Integrated Compliance 

Information System (ICIS). 

4. 	 Eliminating the option.for the facility to report the NODI 9 code on the Discharge Monitoring 

Report (DMR) when calculating percent removal when the average influent concentration is 

less than 200 mg/L based on guidance from the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

5. 	 Increasing the water quality based monthly average and or daily mass limitations for 


ammonia and total copper based on an undated statistical evaluation and reallocation of 


loadings oftoxic pollutants in the Piscataquis River watershed. 


6. 	 Reducing the monitoring fi:equency for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total 

suspended solids (TSS) from2/Week to 1/Week, E. coli bacteria from 2/Week to 1/Week, 

total residual chlorine from 1/Day to 4/Week and pH from 5/Week to 1/Week based on a 

statistical evaluation ofthe test results for each parameters for the period 

January 2011- June 2014. 

7. 	 Establishing a monthly average water quality based mass limitation for total phosphorus as 

the discharge has a reasonable potential to exceed a national in-stream total phosphorus 

concentration goal of less than 0.1 mg/L in streams or other flowing waters not discharging 

directly to lakes or impoundments to prevent nuisance algal growth. · 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 3 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

CONCLUSIONS 

BASED on the findings in the attached Fact Sheet dated March 31,2015, 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 ofwater below such classification. 

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

quality of any unclassified body ofwater below the classification that the Department expects 

to adopt in accordance with state law. 

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

met, in that: 

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

maintain those existing uses will be maintained and protected; 

b. Where high quality waters of the State constitute an outstanding natural resource, that 

water quality will be maintained and protected; 

c. Where the standards of classification ofthe 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 ofthe 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. ~ I 

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

practicable treatment. 
ME0100501 	 PERMIT Page 4 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

ACTION 

THEREFORE, the Department APPROVES the application of the TOWN OF DOVER­


FOXCROFT, to discharge up to a monthly average flow of 0.80 million gallons per day (MGD) 


of secondmy treated sanitary waste waters to the Piscataquis River, Class B, in Dover-Foxcroft. 


The discharges §hall be suQject 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 after that date. If a renewal application is timely submitted and accepted as 


complete for processing prior to the expiration ofthis permit, the terms and conditions of this 


pennit and all subsequent modifications and minor revisions thereto remain in effect until a 


final Department decision on the renewal application becomes effective. [Maine 


Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 10002 and Rules Concerning the Processing of 


Applications and Other Administrative Matters, 06-096 CMR 2(21 )(A) (effective April 1, 


2003)]. 


DONE AND DATED AT AUGUSTA, MAINE, THIS 4LDAy OF Mav-.. / '2015. 

0 

COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

f""" BY:-----,---=M---'--':-t-:~~-J.c--'=-~4~.-<-o Patricia W. Aho, Commissioner 

__

PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED SHEET FOR GUIDANCE ON APPEAL PROCEDURES l

I 

Date ofinitial receipt of application ______,_A,u,.g,u,.st'-"2"-'0,_,,_.,2,0-'-14"-------­

Date of application acceptance _________cOAc'Cu,g,u,s.,_t2,_,_,1,'-'2,_,0,_,1__,4_;====.::;-;-;,------.-------, 


Filed 

MAY 0 4 2015 

State of Maine 

Date filed with Board ofEnvironmental Protection ________.!::B=o=ar=d=o=fE=n=v=iro=n"'m"'e"'nt""ai__,_P..:cro"'-te"'c"'tio=n 

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

ME0100501 2015 4/30/15 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 5 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

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

shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below. 

Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Minimum 

Monitoriu~?; Requirements 

Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement 

Average Average Maximum Average Average Maximum Freguency Saml!le Tvl!e 

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

Flow [50050J 0.80 MGDro3J --­ Report (MGD)ro3J -­ --­ --­ Continuous Recorder [RCJ 

{991991 

Biochemical Oxygen 200 300 334 30 mg/L fl9f 45 mg/L fl9f 50 mg/L [19J !/Week /OII07J Composite r241 

Demand (BODs) roo3101 lbs/Day !26l lbs/Day 1267 lbs/Dayr261 

(1) 

BOD, %Removal IB1o1o1 -­ -­ -­ 8S%m1 --­ -­ !!Monthrou3o7 CalculatercA7

Total Suspended Solids 200 300 334 30 mg/L fi9J 45 mg/L [191 50 mg/L fi9J 1/W eek ro1;071 Composite r241 

(TSS) roo53o1 lbs/Day r26 !bs/Day r261 lbs/Day!267 

TSS %Removal OJ fB1011J --­ --­ -­ 85%rm --­ --­ l!MontbroJIJ01 CalculatercA7 

E tB . co z ac t . ena <'l f31633J --­ -­ -­ 64/100 mJ<'l -­ 427/100 ml !/Week fOII07J Grab [GRJ 

(May 15 -September 30) {]3/ fl31 

Total Residual Chlorine<•J --­ --­ --­ 0.10 mg/L [J9f --­ 0.20 mg/L r191 4/Week ro<I07J Grab [GRJ 

!500601 

Total Phosl!horus<'l_[00665J II lbs/Day r261 --­ --­ Reportmg/L --­ Reportmg/L 2/Monthro2130J Grab 

(June !-September 30) fl91 fl91 JGR1 

pH (Std. Units) roo<OOI 6.0-9.0(6

) fl21 --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ 1/Week rouo71 Grab mRt 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 6 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd)- OUTFALL #001 

Effluent 

Characteristic 

Monthly 

Average 

as specified 

Weekly 

Average 

as specified 

Discharge Limitations 

Daily Monthly 

Maximum Average 

as specified as specified 

Weekly 

Average 

as specified 

Daily 

Maximum 

as specified 

Minimum 

Monitorina Requirements 

Measurement 

Freguencv SamJ!Ie TyJ!e 

as specified as specified 

Ammonia {00610J 

(June I --September 30) 

279 lbs!Day £26J --­ --­ Report mg!L £191 --­ --­ 2Near £021YRJ Composite f24J 

Copper (Total) 1010427 0.088 lbs!Day -­ 0.076 lbs!Day Report ug!L f2BJ --­ Report ug!L !28! I!Quarterro119DJ Composite !24/ 

Mercury (Total)(?) 

!719001 

--­ --­ --­ 16.9 ng!L 

(3M/ 

--­

' 

25.3 ng!L 

[3M/ 

INear 

(01/YR/ 

Grab 

(GR/ 

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

(Years 1, 2 & 3 of the term ofthe permit) and commencing again 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 5 ofthe term ofthe permit), 

the permittee shall conduct surveillance level testing as follows: 

Effluent Characteristic Discharae Limitations Monitorina Reauirements 

Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily . Measurement Sample 

Averaae Averaae Maximum Averaae Averaoe Maximum Frenuencv Tvoe 

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) C>J 

A-NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia [TDA3BJ - --­ -­ - --­ Report % [231 1/Year /011YRJ Composite /241 

Salve/inus fontinalis [TDA6FJ -­ -­ - --­ -­ Report % !23J 2/Y ear I021YRJ Composite /241 

C-NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia /TBP3BJ --­ -­ -­ --­ - Report % /231 1/Year /01/YRJ Composite /241 

Salvelinus fontinalis [TBQ6FJ -­ --­ --­ --­ --­ 5.3% /23] 2/Y ear /021YRJ Composite /241 

Analytical Chemistry <'· 11> - Report ug/L 1/Y ear f011YRJ Composite/ 

Grab [51477] -­ - -­ -­ [28] 

124/GRI -· 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 7 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (cont'd)- OUTFALL #001AC1

) 

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

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

force, or is replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement, the permittee shall conduct screening level testing as follows: 

Effluent Characteristic Discharae Limitations Monitorina Requirements 

Monthly 

Averaae 

Weekly 

Averaqe 

Daily 

Maximum 

Monthly 

Averaqe 

Weekly 

Averaae 

Daily 

Maximum 

Measurement

Frenuencv

Sample 

Tvoe 

Whole Effluent Toxici!Y (WET) (S) 

A-NOEL 

Ceriodaphnia dubia [TDA3BJ -- --- - -- - Report % !231 1/Quarter f01190J Composite /241 

Salve/inus fontinalis [TDA6FJ 

C-NOEL 

--- -- -- --- - Report % !231 1/Quarter /01190J Composite /241

Ceriodaphnia dubia [TBP3BJ --- --- --- . --- Report % /231 1/Quarter /01190J Composite /241 

Salve/inus fontinalis [TBQ6FJ -- --- -- --- --- 5.3% [23] 1/Quarter f01190J Composite /241 

Analytical Chemistry(O,llJ 

[51477] 

-- --- - --- --- Report ug/L 

[28] 

1/Quarter

[01190]

Composite/ 

Grab

f24/GR7 

11 Priority Pollutants(10'

{500081 

) 

- --- -- --- -- ' 

Report ug/L 

/28]

1/Year

__[01/YR] 

Composite/

Grab

[24/GR]
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 8 of16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

Footnotes: 

Sampling Locations: 

Influent sampling for BODs and TSS shall be sampled before the first treatment process on 

a year-round basis. Effluent sampling shall be sampled for all parameters after the last 

treatment process (including dechlorination) on a year-round basis. 

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

writing. 

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

approved in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 136, b) alternative methods approved 

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

specified by the Department. Samples that are sent out for analysis shall be analyzed by a 

laboratory certified by the State of Maine's Depmiment ofHuman 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 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 ofthe Maine Comprehensive and Limited 

Laboratory Certification Rules, 10-144 CMR263 (last amended Februmy 13, 2000). 

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

removal of both BODs and TSS. Compliance with the limitation shall be based on a 

twelve-month rolling average. Calendar monthly average percent removal values shall be 

calculated based on influent and effluent concentrations. For the purposes of this 

permitting action, the twelve-month rolling average calculation is based on the most 

recent twelve-month period. 

2. 	 E. coli bacteria -Limits are seasonal and apply between May 15th and September 30th of 

each calendar year. The Department reserves the right to require disinfection on a 

year-round basis to protect the health and welfare of the public. 

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

shall be calculated and reported as such. 

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

whenever elemental chlorine or chlorh;e based compounds are being used to disinfect the 

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

bracketing the limitations in this permit. 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 9 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

Footnotes: 

5. 	 Phosphorus (Total)- There shall be at least 10 days between sampling events. See 

Attachment A ofthis permit for a Depmiment protocol for total phosphorus. 

6. 	 pH Range Limitation- The pH value ofthe effluent shall not be lower than 6.0 SU nor 

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

causes. 

7. 	 Mercury- All mercmy sampling (1/Yem·) required to determine compliance with 

interim limitations established pursuant to Interim Effluent Limitations and Controls for 

the Discharge oj}vfercwy, 06-096 CMR 519 (last amended October 6, 2001) shall be 

conducted in accordance with EPA's "clean sampling techniques" found in EPA Method 

1669, Sampling Ambient Water For Trace Metals At EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels. 

All mercury analyses shall be conducted in accordance with EPA Method 1631E, 

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

Fluorescence Spectrome!Jy. See Attachment B, Effluent 1vfercwy Test Report, of this 

permit for the Department's form for reporting mercmy test results. 

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

is defined as the arithmetic mean of all the mercury tests conducted for the facility 

utilizing sampling Methods 1669 and analysis Method 1631 E. 

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

testing event (a minimum offive dilutions bracketing the critical acute and chronic 

thresholds of9.3% and 5.3% respectively), which provides a point estimate oftoxicity in 

terms ofNo Observed Effect Level, commonly refened 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 le:vel 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 10.7:1 and 18.8:1 

respectively. See Attachment C of this permit for a copy of the Department's WET 

reporting form. 

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

24 months prior to permit expiration (Years 1, 2 & 3 ofthe term of the pennit) and 

commencing again 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 5 of the tetm ofthe 

petmit), the permittee shall conduct surveillance level WET testing at a minimum 

frequency of once per year (!/Year) utilizing the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and 

twice per year (2/Y ear) utilizing the brook trout (Salve linus fontinalis). 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 10 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

Footnotes: 

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

through 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 4 ofthe term ofthe permit) and 

every five years thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the 

permit continues in force, or is replaced by a permit renewal containing this 

requirement, the pennittee shall conduct screening level WET testing at a minimum 

frequency of quarterly (1/Quarter) for the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and the 

brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). 

WET test results must be submitted to the Depatiment 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 1 0 business days of their availability before 

submitting them. The pennittee shall evaluate test results being submitted and identifY to 

the Department possible exceedences of the critical acute and chronic water quality 

thresholds specified above. 

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

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

USEPA methods manuals as modified by Department protocol for the brook trout. See 

Attachment D of this permit for the Department protocol. 

a. 	 Shmi Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity ofEffluent and Receiving 

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

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

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

Each time a WET test is performed, the petmitt~e shall sample and analyze for the 

parameters in the WET Chemistry and the Analytical Chemistry sections of the 

Department form entitled, Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection, WET and 

Chemical Specific Data Report Form. See Attachment E of this permit. 

9. 	 Analytical chemistry- Refers to a suite ofparameters listed in Attachment E of this 

permit. 

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

24 months prior to petmit expiration (Years I, 2 & 3 ofthe term ofthe petmit) and 

commencing again 12 months prior to pennit expiration (Year 5 ofthe term ofthe 

permit), the petmittee shall conduct surveillance level analytical chemistry testing at a 

minimum frequency of once per year (1/Y ear). 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 11 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

Footnotes: 

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

through 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 4 ofthe term ofthe permit) and 

eve1y five years thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the 

permit continues in force, or is replaced by a pennit renewal containing this 

requirement, the permittee shall conduct analytical chemistly testing at a minimum 

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

quarters. 

10. Priority pollutant testing- Refers to a suite of parameters listed in Attachment E of 

this permit. 

a. 	 Surveillance level - Testing is not required pursuant to 06-096 CMR Chapter 530. 

b. 	 Screening level testing -Beginning 24 months prior to pe1mit expiration and lasting 

through 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 4 of the term ofthe permit) and 

eve1y five years thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the 

permit continues in force, or is replaced by a pe1mit renewal containing this 

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

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

parameter( s) otherwise regulated in this pe1mit. 

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

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

applicable. Priority pollutant and analytical chemistry testing shall be conducted using 

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

achieve minimum reporting levels of detection as specified by the Depmtment. See 

Attachment E of this pe1mit for a list of the Depmtment' s most cun·ent rep01iing limits 

(RL's). 

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

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

may review the toxicity reports for up to I 0 business days oftheir availability before 

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

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

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

(effective October 9, 2005). For the purposes ofDMR reporting, enter a "1" for yes, 

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

. i 

r 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 12 of16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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 uses designated for the classification ofthe receiving waters. 

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

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

classification of the receiving waters. 

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

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

4. 	 Notwithstanding specific conditions of this pennit 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 ifthe existing quality is higher than the classification. 

C. 	 TREATMENTPLANTOPERATOR 

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

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

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

Regulations for Wastewater Operator Certification, 06-096 CMR 531 (effective 

May 8, 2006). All proposed contracts for facility operation by any person must be approved 

by the Department before the permittee may engage the services of the contract operator. 

D. LIMITATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS 

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

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

The permittee shall conduct an Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) at any time a new industrial 

user proposes to discharge within its jurisdiction, an existing user proposes to make a 

significant change in its discharge, or, at an alternative minimum, once eve1y permit cycle 

and submit the results to the Depmiment. The IWS shall identity, in terms of character and 

volume ofpollutants, any Significant Industrial Users discharging into the POTW subject to 

Pretreatment Standards under section 307(b) of the federal Clean Water Act, 40 CFR Part 

403 (general pretreatment regulations) or Pretreatment Program, 06-096 CMR 528 (last 

amended March 17, 2008). 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 13 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

E. 	 AUTHORIZED DISCHARGES 

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

Application for Waste Discharge Permit, accepted for processing on August 21, 2014; 

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

waste water from any other point source are not authorized under this permit, and shall be 

reported in accordance with Standard Condition B(5)(Bypass) ofthis permit. 

F. 	 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT 

In accordance with Standard Condition D, the permittee shall notifY the Depmiment of the 

following. 

I. 	 Any introduction ofpollutants into the waste water collection and treatment system from 

an indirect discharger in a primmy industrial category discharging process waste water; 

and 

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

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

system at the time of permit issuance. For the purposes of this section, notice regarding 

substantial change shall include information on: 

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

treatment system; and 

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

water to be discharged from the treatment system. 

G. 	WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT PLAN 

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

Plan to direct the staff on how to operate the facility effectively during periods of high flow. 

The Depmiment acknowledges that the existing collection system may deliver flows in 

excess ofthe monthly average design capacity of the treatment plant during periods of high 

infiltration and rainfall. 

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

treatment facility, the permittee shall submit to the Department for review and approval, a 

new or revised Wet Weather Management Plan which confonns 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 their plan annually and record any necessary changes to keep the 

plan up to date. 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 14 of 16 


W002633-6C-G-R 


SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

H. 	OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN 

This facility shall maintain a current written comprehensive Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Plan. The plan shall provide a systematic approach by which the permittee shall at all 

times, properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems oftransport, treatment and 

control (and related 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 pe1mittee shall submit the updated O&M Plan to their Department 

inspector for review and comment. 

I. 	 DISPOSAL OF TRANSPORTED WASTE INTO THE WASTE WATER 

TREATMENT FACILITY 

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

parts ofthe waste water disposal system. "Transported wastes" means any liquid nonhazardous waste delivered to a wastewater treatment facility by a truck or other similar 

conveyance that has different chemical constituents or a greater strength than the influent 

described on the facility's application for a waste discharge license. Such wastes may 

include, but are not limited to septage, industrial wastes or other wastes to which chemicals 

in quantities potentially harmful to the treatment facility or receiving water have been added. 

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

TESTING 

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

certification describing any of the following that have occmTed since the effective date ofthis 

permit [ICIS Code 75305]: See Attachment F ofthe Fact Sheet of this pe1mit for an 

acceptable ce1iification form to satisfy this Special Condition. 

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

to the wastewater treatment works that may increase the toxicity ofthe discharge; 

2. 	 Changes in the operation of the treatmentworks that may increase the toxicity ofthe 

discharge; and 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 15 of16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

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

TESTING 

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

works that may increase the toxicity ofthe discharge. 

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

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

annual certifications described above are not submitted. 

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

increase the toxicity of the discharge. 

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

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

toxicity testing ifnew information becomes available that indicates the discharge may cause 

or have a reasonable potential to cause exceedences of ambient water quality 

criteria/thresholds. 

K. MONITORING AND REPORTING 

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

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

Department and postmarked on or before the thirteenth (13th) day of the month or handdelivered to a Depmiment Regional Office such that the DMR's are received by the 

Depmiment on or before the fifteenth (15t11) day of the month following the completed 

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

submitted to the following address: 

Depmiment ofEnvironmental Protection 


Eastern Maine Regional Office 


Bureau of Land and Water Quality 


Division of Water Quality Management 


106 Hogan Road 

Bangor, Maine 04401 
ME0100501 PERMIT Page 16 of 16 

W002633-6C-G-R 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

K. 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 15th day ofthe month following the completed reporting 

period. Hard Copy documentation submitted in support ofthe eDMR must be postmarked on 

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

suppoti of the eDMR must be submitted not later than close of business on the 15th day ofthe 

month following the completed reporting period. 

L. REOPENING OF PERMIT FOR MODIFICATIONS 

Upon evaluation of the tests results or monitoring requirements specified in 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 

anytime and with notice to the permittee, 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. 

M. SEVERABILITY 

In the event that any provision(s), or part thereof, of this petmit is declared to be unlawful by 

a reviewing court, the remainder of the petmit 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 comi. 
ATTACHMENT A 	 I 

t 

' I 


k I 

r;r . I 

! I 

r 

I 


I

I 


I 

I 


I 


I 


l 

[ 

I 

Protocol for Total Phosphorus Sample 


Collection and Analysis for Waste Water Effluent 


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

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

ASTM 0515-88(A), 0515-88(8); USGS 1-41!71-97, 1-4600-85, 1-4610-91; OMAAOAC 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H2S04 to obtain a sample pH of <2 su and refrigerated at 0-6 degrees C (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 QAIQC: Laboratories must follow the appropriate QAIQC procedures that 

are described in each of the approved methods. 

Sampling QAIQC: If a composite sample is being collected using an automated 

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

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

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

as described above. 

Maine DEP, July 1, 2014 

Page C1 
ATTACHMENTB 

I 
------

---------------------

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Effluent Mercury Test Report 

Name of Facility: Federal Permit# ME 

Pipe# 

_______ 

Purpose of this test: §

Compliance monitoring for: 

Supplemental or extra test 

Initial limit determination 

year ____calendar quarter ____ 

SAMPLE COLLECTION INFORMATION 


Sampling Date: Sampling time: AM/PM 

mm dd yy 

Sampling Location: 

Weather Conditions: 

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

time of sample collection: 

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

evaluation of mercury results: 

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

Composite 

ANALYTICAL RESULT FOR EFFLUENT MERCURY 


Name ofLaboratory: 

Date of analysis: Result: ug/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 du licate samples were taken at the same time please report the average. 

CERTIFICATION 

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

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

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

instructions from the DEP. 

By: Date: 

Title: 

PLEASE MAIL THIS FORM TO YOUR ASSIGNED INSPECTOR 

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

r I 

I 

I 

) I 

I 

b I 

r I 

i I I 

I I 

r 

i 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

I 

I I 

I 

I 


r 
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 


WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY REPORT 


FRESH WATERS 


--------------------------'ME!'\Jii$!\l~iil~t!Cii·:·•-··· --------------

:F~91~1lY:R~P~hl~dV~·: :: ': .-:-::-:-:--::---::--:-:-c:-:c:-~$.igpat~i~~;:o !-'- _,: 

By signing this form, I attest that to the best of my knowledge that the informjltion proYided is true, accurate, and collltJiete. 

:.v~<WiYt~l~p1foli<l 11 ,.-.... ·- l:l~kcou~ct~iii"' f.ti~tii'tfe!f!~4 <ir::rr -------------------- ----m-w~d~M~n~· ----Jru-ru~d~M~y-yi¢1)1<){i~t~a?• .........__________'P~~4i~ri~~~¢4t':··~·_________ 

R'citilki ' .. ',';': :· •-: ,,,;.;} ''' ;::1<%:'~(tj~~~tfH1! ,~" ,i:·fH 

water flea trout 

A-NOELr-----i'-------1 

C-NOEL_L-------~------~ 

.... .. ......... ' .• , ,,,..,;J_i·CJ ., ' ' ,..... ,..... ;;.~·::· ···•-•ei':'i•:;•·' i !cT •T: >T• ,,, •·····. % "'-'. survtval no. young %survival final ' 'I ·~~~~l;t (mg) 

QC standard 
 A>90 C>80 >15/femalc A>90 C>80 > 2% increase 

lab control 


receiving watc1· control 


cone. 1 { %) 


cone. 2 { %) 


cone. 3 { %) 


cone. 4 ( %) 


cone. 5 ( %) 


cone. 6 ( %) 


stat test used .. place * next to values statistically dtffe1 ent f1 om conh ols 

for trout show final wt and % incr for both controls 

· · ::Hi;t!;,;bU'~~i~Hi~~:~:n:::i: "-·· '1J-t1: <:~;~!:L::L:E: !:liJ~ ~:¢Wti!r:!i!: ;-::~~;:~:!~-~ _,, A-NOEL C-NOEL A-NOEL C-NOEL 

toxicant I date 

limits (mg/L) 

results (mg!L) 

!i--!_C~~ilieh't~: '''' ''''' ''''' '' '' ''' 

Laboratory conducting test 

:coi!ijJ@JiN;lli\i; ; : i' .,,j _________________'.G<:Ji>il>~iiY'JWl1;Ji!iW!~ i~rmi~ijji)j;~--------------------

-M~]iini'>\<id!~·:••··· 

cl.iyi~iii\~iztli ,, ••..... 

Report \VET chemistry on DEP Form "ToxSheet (Fresh \Vater Version), ~larch 2007." 

OEPLW0741-B2007, Revised March 2007 Printed 1/22/2009 
ATTACHMENTD 


I I 

I 


~ I 

r 


! I 

I 


! 


I 


k 
Salmonid Survival and Growth Test 

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

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

chronic methods manuals with the following Depattment modifications: 

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

Department. 

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

months for subsequent tests. 

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

Loading Rate-< 0.5 g/1/day 

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

Temperature- 12° ± 1°C 

Dissolved Oxygen - 6.5 mg/1 ,aeration if needed with large bubbles (> I mm 

diameter) at a rate of <1 00/min 

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

approved by the Department) 

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

waste concentrations bracketing acute and chronic dilutions calculated pursuant to 

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

Duration - Acute = 48 hours 


-Chronic= 10 days minimum 


Test acceptability- Acute= minimum of 90% survival in 2 days 

-Chronic= minimum of 80% survival in 10 days; minimum growth of20 

mg/gm/d dry weight in controls, (individual fish weighed, dried at I 00°C to 

constant weight and weighed to 3 significant figures) 
ATTACHMENT E l 

I

I 

! ! 

' I 

I 


I ' 

~ 

I 

l 

l 
Printed 5/5/2014 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

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

Facility Name-----------

Chronic 

Licensed 

Acute dilution 

dilution 

Flow(MGO) 

factor 

factor 

~ 

Facility Representative Signature ::c::::::::-:;:;:c:::::::::=-;:-:::-::-::::::::::::-:::,-.,:::-:-:::::­ MEPDES# Pipe#===== To the best of my knowledge this information is true, accurate and complete. 

Flow for Day (MGD)'''I I Flow Avg. for Month (MGD) 12'1 .·-1 

Date Sample Collected I I Date Sample Analyzed I I 

Human health dilution factor 

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

IIIF!'M'IT1Tiill't;"1B''" '>'"~'' 1 '1'1Jl. '~C~""~'oo<TI J.J.J.WJ.\liiWiL1il~~~9ll!!§~~ll .. 4.L~..~;~, 

Address-----------------­

LabConrect __________________ lab ID # ------­

ERROR WARNING I Essential facility FRESH WATER VERSION 

information is missing. Please check Receiving 

required entries in bold above. Please see the footnotes on the last page. Water or {ug/1. or as noted) 

· ,,,;, jWHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY ~L,}; J; i:i'': :+: ;J:U!iJ::illJI,);~),~',lfLJ:J[j,'JU ; :; .JJ: 

Trout- Chronic 

-a- Acute 

I.Water '=lea~ G_bronic I ]ijli!:~~~: ........... WET 

•tal Organic Carbon (mg/L __@; 

•tal Solids (mg/L 

rota! Suspended~ 1 g 1 

:..Jkalinity (mg/L) 

;pecific Conductance (umhos) 

rota! Hardness (mg/L) 

rota! Magnesium (mg/L) 

Irotal Calcium {mg/L) 

]~'lUi ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY ('l I Also do these tests on the effluent wi: 

WET. Testing on the receiving water is 

tiona! ;g Limit 

_(@] 

A\IAH ARI !:;_ (3a) 

LEAD 

I

M INIC~ M SILVER 

W \ZINC 5 

Revised April 24, 2014 Page 1 DEPLW 0740-G2014 
Printed 5/5/2014 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

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

---­ ,..--­

.:.U.IbtrPRIORITY POLLUTANTS 141 

M ANTIMON' 

., BERYLLIUM 

n·; iii! MERC 'J 

'­ ~F! FNII 

IOL r I"···DIMETHYLPHENOL 

A 2,4-DINITROPHENOL 

:HLOROPHENOL 

IITROPHENOL 

DINITR0-0-CRESO 

lA itrophenol) 

IITROPHENOL 

" .. --- .. ~RESOL 

lA 

:::HL 

L 

iCH IDE 

U)UICH IDE 

-OIPHEN' 5'NE 

M)DICH

I"" I1,4-(P)DICHI -·· - '-DINITRC 

i.!f!Jj

1 

!Jj.i:iU'fi:::U

g Lim

• 

A~ 

25 

2( 

5 

2. 

5 

2Q. 

'J. ,i [U[i; 

it 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

lt:SN ~~,;.5-Uli.,;HLUKVI::II::I\ 

BN3.4-BENZO(B)FLUO,~.. ,, '~"~ 

"" 1

• ·SROMOPHENYLPHENYL ETHER 

CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHE 

~ENAPHTHENE 

:ENAPHTHYLENE 

lN 

lN 

6N .......... ~ - BN BENZO G,H,I PERYLENE 

BN BENZOIKlFLUORANTHENE 

BN SIS 2-CHLOROETHOXY METHANE 

SN SIS 2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 

SN SIS 2-CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER 

BN BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 

• PHTH~ 

YL PHTHALATE 

Revised April24, 2014 

j 

" 

~ 

o 

5 

" 

6 

I 

I 

P

I 

I 

I 

age2 

I 

I 

I 

I 

.I 

I 

I 

D

I 

EPLW 0740-G2014 
Printed 5/5/2014 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

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

~ 

~ ,,. 

N 

I''I;JV"\'

HEXA

........... 

-'HLOROBENZENE 

CHLOROBUTADIENE 

I'll lnEXACH 

NINDENC 

IBN 

fPYLAMINE 

'LAMINE 

LAMINE 

IBN:::: 

IBN 

4"-C 

0.

D.

05 

Os 

0§_ 

.~BH( 

B-BH~ 05 

~ P 

P 

P 

-D-­

D·Bf 

DIEL :IN 

END ULFAN SULFAi 

END ~ 

~AL 

)R 

;HLOR 

•16 

221 

232 

0

0

_Q

0

0

O

.0 

.1 

£ 

.0 

,1 

.Q 

-D-­ ' l-1

v 

V 

1,1,2-TRicHCofioE· 

1,1-DICHLOROETH! 

1, 1-DICHLOROETH' 

ANE 

'(1 '1­

v 

V 

v 

dichloroethene) 

1 .2-DICHLOROI 

1,2-.Q! 

3 

6_ 

V 

V 

1'' v 

·1 ,L.~ I t'(AN'='·Uil,; 

trans-dich!oroethE 

1,3-DICHLOROPROPYLENE (1,3­

dichloroorooene) 

.... "'' '""-'""'' oLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER 

'(1 ,2­

_§.. 

5 

Revised April 24, 2014 Page3 DEPLW0740-G2014 

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

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

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

v 

v 

ACROLEIN 

ACRYLONITRILE 

NA 

NA 

v 

v 

v 

BENZENE 

BROMOFORM 

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 

5 

5 

5 

v 

v 

v 

CHLOROBENZENE 

CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 

CHLOROETHANE 

6 

3 

5 

v 

v 

v 

CHLOROFORM 

DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE 

ETHYLBENZENE 

5 

3 

10 

v 

v 

v 

v 

v 

v 

v 

METHYL BROMIDE Bromomethane 

METHYL CHLORIDE Chloromethane) 

METHYLENE CHLORIDE 

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 

Perchloroethylene or Tetrachtoroethene) 

TOLUENE 

TRICHLOROETHYLENE 

Trichloroethane) 

VINYL CHLORIDE 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

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. 

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

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

.~'.s· 'r:!fgtBU''7sot£eniFir'o"'ea~R·,r;a.w··FamsW'"Eii~er'n"7L•'01i 'e'&lnt'raatHaBoraf& ·nsd'tie'sufeiloioonlle'"l6"ini07d'ramsc''1'iiiie!H'ln'i1:rsr:s'rea1isheet. ..J................t/,1 ..................,P.. J'!.......u........99....••..J2~L.•~Jns.a:.t2Y... ....~.......... ..............,ry., ................................ n:...~~•.9••.•••.:PsL••..••....•Iil ••.J.L...... 
 (6) Effiuent Limits are calculated based on dilution factor, background allocation (1 0%) and water quality reserves (15%- to allow for new or 


changed discharges or non-point sources). 


!J) 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 effiuent has been chlorinated or residual chlorine is believed to be present for any other reason. 

Revised April24, 2014 Page4 DEPLVV 0740-G2014 
Printed 5/5/2014 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

WET and Chemical Specific Data Report Form 

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

Comments: 

Revised April 24, 2014 Page 5 DEPLW0740-G2014 

-----~----.-..,---.-. -------·~- -- --· 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 

CONTENTS 

SECTION TOPIC PAGE 

A GENERAL PROVISIONS 

I 
 General compliance 2 


2 
 Other materials 2 


3 
 Duty to Comply 2 


4 
 Duty to provide information 2 


5 
 Permit actions 2 


6 
 Reopener clause 2 


7 
 Oil and hazardous substances 2 


8 
 Property rights 3 


9 
 Confidentiality 3 


10 
 Duty to reapply 3 


II 
 Other laws 3 


12 
 Inspection and entry 3 


B OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES 

I 
 General facility requirements 3 


2 
 Proper operation and maintenance 4 


3 
 Need to halt reduce not a defense 4 


4 
 Duty to mitigate 4 


5 
 Bypasses 4 


6 
 Upsets 5 


c MONITORING AND RECORDS 

I 
 General requirements 6 


2 
 Representative sampling 6 


3 
 Monitoring and records 6 


D REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 


I 
 Reporting requirements 7 


2 
 Signatory requirement 8 


3 
 A vail ability ofreports 8 


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


5 
 Publicly owned treatment works 9 


E OTHER PROVISIONS 


I 
 Emergency action - power failure 9 


2 
 Spill prevention 10 


3 
 Removed substances 10 


4 
 Connection to municipal sewer 10 


F DEFINTIONS 10 


Revised July I, 2002 Page I 


I 

I 

I 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


A. 	 GENERAL PROVISIONS 

I. General compliance. All discharges shall be consistent with the terms and conditions ofthis permit; 

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

characteristics ofthe discharge must be authorized by an additional license or by modifications ofthis 

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

identified and authorized herein or to discharge in excess ofthe 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 ofthis 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 pertnit 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 violl)tion 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 pe1mit. 

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 Depmiment 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). 

~ 

I 

I 

Revised July I, 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 Enviromnental 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 sott, or any exclusive 

privilege. 

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

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

department by any person that any records, repotts 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 injmy 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 

1. 	 General facility requirements. 

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

treatment and discharge them into an approved waste treatment facility in such a ma1111er as to 

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

STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 

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

Department. 

(b) The permittee shall at all times 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 ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofthe bypass. 

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

STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 

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

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

(d) Prohibition of bypass. 

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

permittee for bypass, unless: 

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

damage; 

(B) There 	were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of 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 teclmology 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. e­

(c) Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A permittee who wishes to establish the 1 

I 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(l)(f), below. (24 

hour notice). 

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

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


occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. 


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


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


C. MONITORING AND RECORDS 

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

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

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

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

monitoring results obtained pursuant to the monitoring requirements contained herein. 

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

ofthe volume and nature ofthe monitored discharge. If effluent limitations are based wholly or partially 

on quantities of a product processed, the permittee shall ensure samples are representative oftimes 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 ofthe Department at any time. 

(c) Records of monitoring information shall include: 

(i) The date, exact place, and time ofsampling 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 ofsuch 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 f01th in 38 MRSA, §349. 

Revised July l, 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 petmittee 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 ofthe 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS 


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

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

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

under this paragraph. 

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

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

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

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

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

paragraph (f)(ii) ofthis 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) ofthis section. 

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

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

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

2. Signatory requirement. All applications, repmis, 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 petmit shall be available for public inspection at the offices 

of the Depmiment. 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 Depmiment as soon as they know or have reason to believe: 

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

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

will exceed the highest ofthe following "notification levels": 

(i) 	 One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ugfl); 

(ii) 	Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ugll) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred 

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

and one milligram per liter (1 mgll) 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 ofthe following "notification levels": 

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

(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 worl<s. 

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

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

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

discharging those pollutants. 

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

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

permit. 

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

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

impact 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 oftlu·ee consecutive months exceeds 

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

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

a program for maintaining satisfactory treatment levels consistent with approved water 

quality management plans. 

E. OTHER REQUIREMENTS 


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


independent from sources used for normal operation of the wastewater facilities. 


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


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 I, 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 ofthe effective date of 

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

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

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

disposal and or treatment to be used. 

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

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

approved by the Department. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by the number ofdaily 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 ofthe facility, except for infrequent shutdowns for maintenance, process changes, or other similar 

activities. 

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

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

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

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

is calculated as the average measurement ofthe 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 infmmation, 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 IS minutes. 

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

sources, both: 

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

use or disposal; and 

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

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

sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with the following statutmy 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 ofperformance in accordance with section 306 of CW A 

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

with section 306 within 120 days oftheir proposal. 

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

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

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 1!_1) approved 

State to implement the requirements of 40 CFR parts 122, 123 and 124. Petmit 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 I, 2002 	 Page II 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 


STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICABtE TO ALL PERMITS 


Point source means any discerpible, 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 worl<s ("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. 

Septagc means, for the purposes ofthis permit, any waste, refuse, effluent sludge or other material 

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

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

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

collected over a constant time interval. 

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

or disposal practices, any pollutant identified in regulations implementing section 405( d) ofthe 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 suppor~ a prevalence ofvegetation 

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

and similar areas. 

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

test. 

Revised July 1 , 2002 Page 12 
MAINE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 

AND 

MAINE WASTE DISCHARGE LICENSE 

FACT SHEET 

Date: March 30, 2015 

PERMIT NUMBER: ME0100501 

LICENSE NUMBER: W002633-6C-G-R 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 

TOWN OF DOVER-FOXCROFT 

48 Morton Ave., Suite A 

Dover-Foxcroft, Maine 04426 

COUNTY: 	 Piscataquis County 

NAME AND ADDRESS WHERE DISCHARGE OCCURS: 

478 Vaughn Road 

Dover-Foxcroft, Maine 04426 

RECEIVING WATER/CLASSIFICATION: Piscataquis River/Class B 

COGNIZANT OFFICIAL AND TELEPHONE NUMBER: William Littlefield, Plant Mgr. 

(207) 564-3905 

. wastewtr@dover-foxcroft.org 

1. 	 APPLICATION SUMMARY 

a. 	 Application · The Town of Dover Foxcroft (Town/permittee hereinafter) has submitted a 

timely and complete application to the Depmiment for the renewal of combination 

Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) permit #ME0100501/Maine 

Waste Discharge License (WDL) #W002633-6C-E-R (pe1mit hereinafter) that was 

issued by the Department on September 29, 2009, for a five-year term. The 9/29/09 

permit authorized the discharge of up to a monthly average flow of0.80 million gallons 

per day (MGD) of secondary treated sanitmy waste waters to the Piscataquis River, 

Class B, in Dover-Foxcroft, Maine. See Attachment A ofthis Fact Sheet for a location 

map. 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 2 of23 


W002633-6C-G-R 


1. 	 APPLICATION SUMMARY 

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

flows from approximately 3,100 residential and commercial users in the Town of 

Dover-Foxcroft. The collection system is approximately 20 miles in length and is mostly 

separated with no combined sewer overflows (CSO). The collection system has three 

pump stations and all three have on-site back -up power in the event of a power failure. 

The existing sewer system has some inflow and infiltration (I&I) that periodically · 

hydraulically overloads the facility. The Town has been implementing a program to 

completely separate the sanitary waste water collection from storm water collection 

system and eliminate as much of the I&I such that all the sanitary waste water makes its 

way to the waste water treatment facility. 

c. 	 Waste Water Treatment: The Town's waste water treatment facility provides a secondary 

level oftreatment via an aerated lagoon system. The lagoon system is comprised ofthree 

lagoons operated in series with a total surface area of approximately 9.1 acres, a total 

capacity of22.9 million gallons with a detention time of 59 days. Aeration in the three 

treatment lagoons is provided by diffused aearation and mechanical aerators. 

Preliminary treatment at the facility is provided by a step screen and a grit chamber. The 

effluent is seasonally disinfected with sodium hypochlorite and dechlorinated with 

sodium bisulfite prior to discharge to the Piscataquis River. The effluent is discharged to 

the receiving water via an 18 inch diameter ductile iron pipe that extends out into the 

receiving water approximately 50 feet, or Y. of the width of the river. See Attachment B 

of this Fact Sheet for a schematic of the waste water treatment process. 

2. 	 PERMIT SUMMARY 

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

·conditions of the 9/29/14 except this permit is; 

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

for total lead as a statistical evaluation on the most cun·ent 60 months oftest results 

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

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

for total lead. 

2. 	 Eliminating Special Condition C, Disinfection, from the permit as the Depatiment 

has reconsidered the value of said condition. 

3. 	 Incorporating previously established average and maximum technology based 

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

Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 3 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

2. 	 PE.RMIT SUMMARY (cont'd) 

4. 	 Eliminating the option for the facility to report the NODI 9 code on the Discharge 

Monitoring Report (DMR) when calculating percent removal when the average 

influent concentration is less than 200 mg/L based on guidance from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

5. 	 Increasing the water quality based monthly average and or daily mass limitations for 

ammonia and total copper based on an undated statistical evaluation and reallocation 

ofloadings of toxic pollutants in the Piscataquis River watershed. 

6. 	 Reducing the monitoring frequency for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total 

suspended solids (TSS) from 2/Week to 1/Week, E. coli bacteria from 2/Week to 

1/Week, total residual chlorine from 1/Day to 4/Week and pH from 5/Week to 

1/Week based on a statistical evaluation ofthe test results for each parameters for the 

period Janumy 2011- June 2014. 

7. 	 Establishing a monthly average water quality based mass limitation for total 

phosphorus as the discharge has a reasonable potential to exceed a national in-stream 

total phosphorus concentration goal of less than 1 00 ug/L in streams or other flowing 

waters not discharging directly to lakes or impoundments to prevent nuisance algal 

growth. 

b. 	 History: The most cu11'ent relevant regulatory actions include the following: 

July, 1991 - The Town completed construction and commenced operations of the new 

waste water treatment facility. 

Februmy 9, 1993- The Department issued WDL #W002633-46-B-R to the Town of 

Dover-Foxcroft for the discharge of 0.80 MGD of secondary treated sanitary waste water 

to the Piscataquis River. As a result of the construction of the waste water treatment 

facility, combined sewer overflows (CSO's) were reduced from sixteen to four in 

number. Three of the four CSO discharge points were overflow structures associated 

with protecting pump stations during excessive stmm water flows. All four discharge 

points were technically considered to be CSO's in accordance with Depmiment 

regulation Chapter 570, Stormwater and Combined Sewer OveJflows. Chapter 570 

authorized the discharge from these CSO's provided the facility met specified criteria. 

February 8, 1995- The Department administratively modified WDL #W002633-46-B-R 

by issuing a letter to the Town notifYing them it was subject to Department rule, 06-096 

CMR, Chapter 530.5, Swface. Water Taxies Control Program, adopted by the Board of 

Environmental Protection on October 12, 1994. 

November 29, 1999- The Department issued WDL #W002633-5L-C-R for a five-year 

term. 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 4 of23 


W002633-6C-G-R 


2. PERMIT SUMMARY (cont'd) 

May 25, 2000- The Department unilaterally modified the 11/29/99 WDL by 

establishing interim average and maximum concentration limits for mercury. 

January 12, 2001- The State ofMaine received authorization from the EPA to 

administer the NPDES petmitting program in Maine. The program has since been 

referred to as the Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) program. 

September 13, 2002- The Department administratively modified the 11/29/99 WDL by 

establishing new dilution factors (increased) associated with the discharge. As a result, 

water quality based limitations for copper and zinc were eliminated. 

September 7, 2004- The Department issued combination MEPDES petmit 

#ME0100501/WDL #W002633-5L-D-R for a five-year term. 

Apri/10, 2006- The Depmiment modified the 9/7/04 MEPDES petmit!WDL by 

establishing whole effluent toxicity and chemical specific testing pursuant to Department 

rule 06-096 CMR, Chapter 530, Swface Water Taxies Control Program, promulgated on 

October 12, 2005. 

July 24, 2009- The Town submitted a timely and complete application to the 

Department to renew the 9/7/04 MEPDES permit!WDL. 

December 29, 2009- The Depmiment issued combination MEPDES permit 

#ME0100501/WDL #W002633-6C-E-R for a five-year term. 

August 20, 2014- The Town submitted a timely and complete application to the 

Department to renew the 12/29/09 MEPDES petmit/WDL. 

3. CONDITIONS OF PERMITS 

Maine law, 38 M.R.S.A. Section 414-A, requires that the effluent limitations prescribed for 

discharges, including, but not limited to, effluent toxicity, require application of best 

practicable treatment (BPT), be consistent with the U.S. Clean Water Act, and ensure that 

the receiving waters attain the State water quality standards as described in Maine's Surface 

Water Classification System. In addition, 38 M.R.S.A., Section 420 and Department rule 06­

096 CMR Chapter 530, Swface Water Taxies Control Program, require the regulation of 

toxic substa11ces not to exceed levels set forth in Depatiment rule 06-096 CMR Chapter 584, 

Swface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants, and that ensure safe levels for the 

discharge of toxic pollutants such that existing and designated uses of surface waters are 

maintained and protected. 
MEOI00501 FACT SHEET Page 5 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

4. RECEIVINGWATERSTANDARDS 

Maine law, 38 M.R.S.A., Section 467(7)(E)(I)(c) classifies the Piscataquis River as a 

Class B waterway. Maine law, 38 M.R.S.A., Section 465(3 & 4) describes the classification 

standards for Class B waters as follows: 

Class B waters must be ofsuch quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of 

drinking water supply after treatment; fishing; agriculture; recreation in and on the 

water; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectric power generation, 

except as prohibited under Title 12, section 403; navigation; and as habitat for fish and 

other aquatic life. The habitat must be characterized as unimpaired 

The dissolved oxygen content ofClass B waters may not be less than 7parts per million 

or 75% ofsaturation, whichever is higher, exceptthatfor the periodfi·om October 1st to 

May 14th, in order to ensure spawning and egg incubation ofindigenous fish species, 

the 7-day mean dissolved oxygen concentration may not be less than 9.5 parts per 

million and the 1-day minimum dissolved oxygen concentration may not be less than 8. 0 

parts per million in identified fish spawning areas. Between May 15th and September 

30th, the number ofEscherichia coli bacteria ofhuman and domestic animal origin in 

these waters may not exceed a geometric mean of64 per I 00 milliliters or an 

instantaneous level of236 per 100 milliliters. In determining human and domestic 

animal origin, the department shall assess licensed and unlicensed sources using 

available diagnostic procedures. 

Discharges to Class B waters may not cause adverse impact to aquatic life in that the 

receiving waters must be ofsufficient quality to support all aquatic species indigenous to 

the receiving water without detrimental changes in the resident biological community. 

5. RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS 

The Department conducted ambient water quality surveys in 1997, 1998 and 200 I on the 

Piscataquis River in an effort to assess the existing water quality and develop a water quality model II to support the issuance of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) report. Ambient water quality 

sampling was conducted on 23 miles of the Piscataquis River from Guilford to Milo. The 

Department published a docmnent entitled, Piscataquis River Data Report, 2001 Survey, January 

2002, DEPLW0465, with the results of the sampling events. 

The 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, published by the 

Department (often referred to as the 305b Report) lists a 13.44 mile segment ofthe Piscataquis 

River below the Dover-Foxcroft waste water treatment facility (MEOI 02000402 _ 219ROI) in a 

table entitled, Table 5-A: Rivers And Streams Impaired By Pollutants Other Than Those Listed in 

5-B Through 5-D (!'MDL Required). The report cites the cause of the impairment is low dissolved 

oygen levels. Previous 305b reports listed low dissolved oxygen levels and bacteria as a result of 

municipal point sources, agricultural noncpoint sources and combined sewer overflows as being the 

cause of the impainnent. 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 6 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

5. 	 RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS (cont'd) 

The Department is scheduled to perf01m a comprehensive ambient water quality survey 

during the summer of2015 and prepare a TMDL for the 13.44-mile segment during calendar 

year 2016. If the TMDL indicates that at full permitted discharge limits, the discharge from 

the Dover-Foxcroft facility is causing or contributing to the non-attainment of ambient water 

quality standards, this permit will be re-opened per Special Condition L, Reopening OfThe 

Permit For Modifications, to impose more stringent limitations to meet water quality 

standards. 

All fresh waters in the State of Maine are listed as Category 4-A: Waters Impaired By 

Atmospheric Deposition ofMercury, in a document entitled, 2012 integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report, published by the Department. Impairment in this 

context refers to the designated use ofrecreational fishing due to elevated levels ofmercury 

in some fish caused by atmospheric deposition. As a result, the State has established a fish 

consumption advisory for all freshwaters in Maine. The Report states that a regional scale 

TMDL has been approved. 

In addition, pursuant to Maine law, 38 M.R.S.A. §420(1-B)(B), "a facility is not in violation 

ofthe ambient criteria for mercury ifthe 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 mercmy 

concentration limits for this facility. See the discussion on compliance in section 6(k) ofthis 

Fact Sheet. 

6. 	 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

a. 	 Flow: The previous permit established a monthly average flow limitation of 0.80 MGD 

that is being can-ied forward in this permitting action and is considered to be 

representative ofthe monthly average design flow for the waste water treatment facility. i 

A review of the monthly DMR data for the period January 2011- June 2014 indicates ~ 

I the permittee has reported flows as follows: 

Flow (42 DMRs) 

Value Limit (MGD) Range(MGD) Mean(MGD) 

Monthly Average 0.80 0.094-0.33 0.29. 

Daily Maximum Report 0.14-1.21 0.51 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 7 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

b. 	 Dilution Factors - The Department established applicable dilution factors for the 

discharge in accordance with freshwater protocols established in Depmiment Rule 

Chapter 530 Surface Water Taxies Control Program, October 2005. With a petmitted 

flow limit of 0.80 MGD, the dilution factors are as follows: 

Acute: lQlO(l) = 12.1 cfs => (12.1 cfs)(0.6464) + (0.80 MGD) = 10.7:1 

(0.80MGD) 

Chronic: 7Q 10 =22.1 cfs => (22.1 cfs)(0.6464) + (0.80 MGD) = 18.8:1 

(0.80MGD) 

Hatmonic Mean(2

) = 135.1 cfs => (135 cfs)(0.6464) + (0.80 MGD) = 110:1 

(0.80 MGD) 

Footnotes 

(1) Chapter 530.5 (D)(4)(a) states that analyses using numeric acute criteria for aquatic 

life must be based on 1/4 of the 1 Q 10 stream design flow to prevent substantial acute 

toxicity within any mixing zone. The 1 Q 1 0 is the lowest one-day flow over a tenyear recunence interval. The regulation goes on to say that where it Cat! be 

demonstrated that a discharge achieves rapid and complete mixing with the receiving 

water by way of an efficient diffuser or other effective method, analyses may use a 

greater proportion of the stream design, up to including all of it. 

The Depmiment evaluated the mixing characteristics ofthe river via a receiving 

water flow study in September of 2002. Due to the location of an island in the river, 

the Department determined that approximately 81.7% of the 1 Q10 

(14.8 cfs) was available for dilution. Therefore, the Department established 

12.1 cfs as the receiving water 1 Q 10 flow value to be used in calculating the acute 

dilution factor. 

(2) In the 2004 permitting action, the harmonic mean dilution factor (54.6: 1) was 

approximated by multiplying the 7Ql0 receiving water flow by three (3) or 83.1 cfs. 

This multiplying factor was based on guidelines for estimation of human health 

dilution presented in the USEP A publication "Technical Support Document for 

Water Quality-based Taxies Control" (Office of Water; EPA/505/2-90-001, page 

88), and represents an estimation ofharmonic mean flow on which human health 

dilutions are based in a riverine 7Ql0 flow situation. 

The Department re-evaluated the harmonic mean receiving water flow in the summer 

of 2009 based on the actual flows recorded over time at the Howland gauge. As a 

result, a new harmonic mean flow of 135.1 cfs was established for the permittee's 

facility. 
MEOlOOSOl FACT SHEET Page 8 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

c. 	 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS): - The 

previous permit established monthly and weekly average BODS and TSS best 

practicable treatment (BPT) concentration limits of30 mg/L and 4S mg/L respectively, 

that were based on secondary treatment requirements of 06-096 CMR Chapter 

52S(3)(III). The maximum daily BODS and TSS concentration limits of 50 mg/L was 

based on a Depmiment best professional judgment of BPT. All three concentration limits 

are being carried forward in this permitting action. 

As for mass limitations, the previous permitting action established monthly average, 

weekly average and daily maximum limitations based on a monthly average limit of 

0.80 MOD that are being carried forward in this permitting action. The limitations were 

calculated as follows: 

Monthly average: (0.80 MGD)(8.34)(30 mg/L) = 200 lbs/day 


Weekly average: (0.80 MGD)(8.34)(45 mg/L) = 300 lbs/day 


Daily maximum: (0.80 MGD)(8.34)(50 mg/L) = 334lbs/day 


A review of the monthly DMR data for the period January 2011 -June 2014 indicates 

the permittee has repotied BOD and TSS results as follows: 

BOD Mass (42 DMRs 

Value Average (lbs/day) 

Monthly Average 

Limit (lbs/day) Ranl(e (lbs/day) 

8-97 43 


Daily Maximum 


200 

334 13- 193 72

. ! 

BOD Concentration (42 DMRs) 

Value Limit (mg/L) Range (mg/L) Averal(e (mi((L) 

Monthly Average 30 4-28 16 

Daily Maximum 50 6-49 24 

TSS mass (42 DMRs) 

Value Limit (lbs/day) Ran2e (lbs/day) 

10-113 

Average (lbs/day) 

Monthly Average 200 43

Daily Maximum 334 13-158 70 

TSS Concentration (42 DMRs) 

Value Limit (mi!:IL) Range (mg/L) Averal(e (mi((L) 

Monthly Average 35 6-30 16 

Daily Maximum 60 6-48· 22 
MEOI00501 FACT SHEET Page 9 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

Minimum monitoring frequency requirements in MEPDES permits are prescribed by 

06-096 CMR Chapter 523§5(i). The USEPA has published guidance entitled, Interim 

Guidance for Pe1jormance Based Reductions ofNPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies 

(USEP A Guidance April 1996). In addition; the Department has supplemented the EPA 

guidance with its own guidance entitled, Performance Based Reduction ofMonitoring 

Frequencies- Modification ofEPA Guidance Released Apri/1996 (Maine DEP 

May 22, 2014). Both documents are being utilized to evaluate the compliance history for 

each parameter regulated by the previous permit to determine if a reduction in the 

monitoring frequencies are justified. 

Although EPA's 1996 Guidance recommends evaluation of the most current two-years 

of effluent data for a parameter, the Department is considering 42 months of data 

(January 2011- June 2014). A review ofthe monitoring data for BOD & TSS indicates 

the ratios (expressed in percent) ofthe long term effluent average to the monthly average 

limits can be calculated as 22%. According to Table I of the EPA Guidance, a 2/Week 

monitoring requirement can be reduced to 1/Week .. Therefore, this petmitting action is 

reducing the monitoring frequency for TSS to 1/Week 

The previous petmitting action established a requirement of 85% removal for BOD and 

TSS pursuant to Department rule Chapter 525(3)(III)(a&b)(3) except in the 

circumstances where the influent concentration is less than 200 mg/L. Compliance was 

based on a 12-month rolling average period to be consistent with all other Department 

permitting actions for lagoon systems with extended detention times. The percent 

removal requirement is being carried forward in this permitting action. 

d. 	 Escherichia coliform (E. coli.) bacteria: The previous permitting action established 

seasonal (between May 15 and September 30 of each year) monthly average and daily 

maximum concentration limits for E. coli bacteria of 64 colonies/! 00 ml (geometric 

mean) and 427 colonies/! 00 ml (instantaneous level), respectively, based on the State of 

Maine Water Classification Program criteria for Class B waters found at 38 M.R.S.A. 

§465(3)(B) at the time ofpermitting along with a minimum monitoring frequency 

requirement of 2/Week. 

During calendar year 2005, Maine's Legislature approved a new daily maximum water 

quality standards of236 colonies/100 ml for water bodies designated as Class Band 

Class C. In the 12/29/09 permit, the Department determined that end-of-pipe limitations 

for the instantaneous concentration standard of 427 colonies/100 mL would be achieved 

through available dilution ofthe effluent with the receiving waters and need not be 

revised in MEPDES permits for facilities with adequate dilution (at least 1.1:1 for 

facilities in Class B waters). The seasonal (May 15- September 30) bacteria limits of 

64 colonies/100 ml and 427 col/100 ml are being carried forward in this petmit. The 

Department reserves the right to impose year-round bacteria limits, ifnecessary, to 

protect the health, safety and welfare ofthe public. 
MEOIOOSOI FACT SHEET Page 10 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

A review of the seasonal monthly DMR data for the period May 2011- June 2014 

indicates the permittee has reported results as follows: 

E. 	coli bacteria (17 DMRs) 

Value Limit (col/100 ml) Range (col/1 00 ml) Mean (col/100 ml) 

Monthly Average 64 1-29 7 

Daily Maximum 427 4-238 59 

A review ofthe monitoring data for E coli bacteria indicates the ratios (expressed in 

percent) of the long term effluent average to the monthly average limits can be calculated 

as 11%. According to Table I of the EPA Guidance, a 2/Week monitoring requirement 

can be reduced to !/Week. Therefore, this pennitting action is reducing the monitoring 

frequency for E. coli bacteria to 1/W eek. 

g. 	 Total Residual Chlorine - The previous permitting action established a monthly average 

technology based limit of 0.1 mg/L and a daily maximum water quality based limit of 

0.20 mg/L that are being carried forward in this pe1mit. Limits on total residual chlorine 

(TRC) are specified to ensure that ambient water quality standards are maintained and 

that BPT technology is being applied to the discharge. The Department imposes the 

more stringent ofthe water quality or technology based limits in permitting actions. Endof-pipe water quality based concentration thresholds may be calculated as follows: 

Parameter Acute 

Criteria 

Chronic 

Criteria 

Acute 

Dilution 

Chronic 

Dilution 

Acute 

Limit 

Chronic 

Limit 

Chlorine 19 ug/L II ug/L 10.7:1 18.8:1 0.20 ing!L 0.21 mg/L 

Example calculation: Acute- 0.019 mg/L (10.7) = 0.20 mg/L 

For facilities that need to de-chlorinate the discharge to meet water quality based 

thresholds (as is with the case with Dover-Foxcroft), the Department has established 

daily maximum and monthly average BPT limits of 0.3 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L respectively. 

In the case of Dover-Foxcroft, the acute water quality based threshold of0.20 mg/L 

calculated above is lower than the BPT limit of 0.3 mg!L, thus the water quality based 

limit of 0.20 mg/L is being established as daily maximum limit. As for monthly average, 

the calculated chronic water quality based threshold of 0.21 mg/L is higher than the BPT 

limit of 0.1 mg/L, thus the technology-based limit of 0.1 mg/L is imposed. 

A review ofthe DMR data for the period May 2011- June 2014 indicates the permittee 

has reported values as follows: 

Total residual chlorine (16 DMRs) 

Value Limit(_ mg/L) Range (mg!L) Mean(mg/L) 

Monthly Average 0.10 0.02-0.06 .. 0.03 

Daily Maximum 0.20 0.02-0.13 0.08 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 11 of23 


W002633-6C-G-R 


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

A review of the monitoring data for total residual chlorine indicates the ratios (expressed 

in percent) of the long term effluent average to the monthly average limits can be 

calculated as 30%. According to Table I ofthe EPA Guidance, a !/Day monitoring 

requirement can be reduced to 3/Week. The Depatiment policy states that monitoring 

frequencies will not be reduced by more than one half (112) of the cunent monitoring 

frequency. Therefore, this permitting action is reducing the monitoring frequency for 

total residual chlorine to 4/W eek. 

It is noted TRC is potentially toxic at all times ofthe year. Therefore, whenever 

elemental chlorine or chlorine based compounds are used to disinfect the discharge from 

the waste water treatment plant, limitations and monitoring requirements are in effect 

and enforceable. 

h. 	 Total phosphorus- Department rule 06-096 CMR, Chapter 523 specifies that water 

quality based limits are necessary when it has been determined that a discharge has a 

reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality 

standard including State nanative criteria. 1 In addition, 06-096 CMR Chapter 523 

specifies that water quality based limits may be based upon criterion derived from a 

proposed State criterion, or an explicit State policy or regulation interpreting its narrative 

water quality criterion, supplemented with other relevant information which may 

include: EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook, October 1983, risk assessment data, 

exposure data, information about the pollutant from the Food and Drug Administration, 

and cunent EPA criteria documents. 2 

USEPA's Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (Gold Book) puts fmih an in-stream 

phosphorus concentration goal of less than 0.100 mg/L in streams or other flowing 

waters not discharging directly to lakes or impoundments, to prevent nuisance algal 

growth. The use ofthe 0.100 mg/L Gold Book value is consistent with the requirements 

of 06-096 CMR Chapter 523 noted above for use in a reasonable potential (RP) 

calculation. 

Based on the above rationale, the Depatiment has chosen to utilize the Gold Book value 

ofO.IOO mg/L. It is the Depatiment's intent to continue to make determinations of actual 

attainment or impairment based upon environmental response indicators from specific 

water bodies. The use ofthe Gold Book value ofO.IOO mg/L for use in the RP 

calculation will enable the Department to establish water quality based limits in a 

manner that is reasonable and that appropriately establishes the potential for impairment, 

while providing an opportunity to acquire environmental response indicator data, 

numeric nutrient indicator data, and facility data as needed to refine the establishment of 

site specific water quality based limits for phosphorus. This permit may be reopened 

phosphorus limits, or monitoring requirements based on new site-specific data. 

1 Waste Discharge License Conditions, 06-096 CMR 523(5)(d)(l)(i) (effective date Janumy 12, 2001) 

2 06-096 CMR 523(5)(d)(l)(vi)(A) 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 12 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

The permittee conducted total phosphorus testing between June 2006 and 

September 2008 (n=16). The arithmetic mean concentration discharged for the period is 

2.8 mg/L (2,800 ug/L) and 9.7lbs/day and is considered representative ofthe discharge 

from the facility. The 95% confidence interval was 13.5 lbs/day and the 99% confidence 

interval was 14.8lbs/day. For the background concentration in the Piscataquis, the 

permittee conducted sampling upstream of its discharge in the summer of2014 

indicating the background total phosphorus concentration is 0.009 mg/L. Using the 

following calculation and criteria, the Dover-Foxcroft facility does have a reasonable 

potential to exceed the EPA's Gold Book value ofO.lOO mg/L for phosphoms and the 

Department's Chapter 583 draft criteria of0.030 mg/L. The calculations are as follows: 

Cr = QeCe + QsCs 

Qr 

Qe =effluent flow i.e. facility design flow 0.80MGD 

Ce = effluent pollutant concentration = 2.8 mg/L (6/06- 9/08) 

Qs = 7Q10 flow ofreceiving water 14.3 MGD 

Cs = upstream concentration 0.010 mg/L (summer 2014) 

Qr =receiving water flow 15.1 MGD 

Cr = receiving water concentration 

Cr = (0.8 MGD x 2.8 mg/L) + (14.3 MGD x 0.010 mg/L) = 0.16 mg/L 

15.1 MGD 

Cr = 0.16 mg/L > 0.100 mg/L=? Y cs, Reasonable Potential 

Cr = 0.16 mg/L >0.030 mg/L=? Yes, Reasonable Potential 

Therefore, a water quality based mass limitation for total phosphorus is being established 

in this permitting action. The calculculation is as follows: 

Given: 

Chronic dilution factor= 18.8:1 


Recommended A WQ goal= 0.100 mg/L 


Background concentration= 0.010 mg/L 


Petmitted effluent flow 0.80 MGD 


EOP concentration= [Dilution factor x 0.90 x A WQ goal] + [0.1 0 x A WQC goal] 

EOP concentration= [(18.8 x 0.90 x 0.100 ug/L) + (0.10 x 100 ug/L)] = 1.7 mg/L 

Monthly average mass limit: (0.80 MGD)(8.34lbs/gal)(l.702 mg/L) = lllbs/day 
MEOI00501 FACT SHEET Page 13 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

1. 	 pH Range- The previous permitting action established a technology based BPT pH range 

limitation of6.0-9.0 standard units pursuant to Department rule, 06-096 CMR 

Chapter 525(3)(III)(c) and is being carried forward in this permiting action. A review of 

the DMR data for the period May 2011- June 2014 indicates the permittee has reported 

values as follows: 

pH (DMRs = 42) 

Value Limit (su) Minimum (su) Maximum (sll}_ 

Range 6.0-9.0 6.9 8.9

Given the excellent compliance history, the Depmiment is making a best professional 

judgment to reduce the monitoring frequency for pH from 5/Week to 1/Week to be 

consistent with the monitoring :fi·equency for BOD and TSS. 

J. 	 Whole Effluent Toxicitv (WET) and Chemical Specific Testing Maine law, 

38 M.R.S.A., Sections 414-A and 420, prohibit the discharge of effluents containing 

substances in amounts that would cause the surface waters ofthe State to contain toxic 

substances above levels set forth in Federal Water Quality Criteria as established by the 

USEPA. Department Rules, 06-096 CMR Chapter 530, Swface Water Taxies Control 

Program, and Chapter 584, Swface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants set forth 

ambient water quality criteria (A WQC) for toxic pollutants and procedures necessary to 

control levels oftoxic pollutants in smface waters. 

WET, priority pollutant and analytical chemistry testing as required by Chapter 530, is 

included in this permit in order to fully characterize the effluent. This permit also 

provides for reconsideration of effluent limits and monitoring schedules after evaluation 

oftoxicity testing results. The monitoring schedule includes consideration ofresults 

cunently 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 ofthe 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 

ofindividual toxic pollutants in the discharge, comparing each pollutant to acute, 

chronic, and human health A WQC as established in Chapter 584. 

Chapter 530 establishes four categories of testing requirements based predominately on 

the chronic dilution factor. The categories are as follows: 

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

2) 	 Level II- chronic dilution factor of2:20:1 but <100:1. 

3) 	 Level III- chronic dilution factor 2::100:1 but <500: 1 or >500: I and Q 2::1.0 MOD 

4) 	 Level IV- chronic dilution >500:1 and Q _:::1.0 MOD 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 14 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

Department rule Chapter 530 (l)(D) specifies the criteria to be used in dete1mining the 

minimum monitoring frequency requirements for WET, priority pollutant and analytical 

chemistJy testing. Based on the Chapter 530 criteria, the permittee's facility falls into 

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

Chapter 530(1 )(D)(l) specifies that routine screening and surveillance level testing 

requirements are as follows: 

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

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

commencing again 12 months prior to pe1mit expiration (Year 5 of the term ofthe 

permit). 

Level WET Testing Priority pollutant 

testing 

Analytical chemistly 

I 2 per year None required 4 per year 

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

through 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 4 ofthe term ofthe permit) and 

every five years thereafter if a timely request for renewal has been made and the permit 

continues in force, or is replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement, 

Level WET Testing Priority pollutant 

testing 

Analytical chemistry 

I 4 per year 1 per year 4 per year 

A review ofthe data on file with the Department indicates that to date, the permittee has 

fulfilled the WET and chemical-specific testing requirements of Chapter 530. See 

Attachment C ofthis Fact Sheet for dates and test results for WET and Attachment D 

for chemical specific testing dates and results for pollutants of concem. ~ Depmiment rule Chapter 530(D)(3)( c) states in part "Dischargers in Levell 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 

i!Xceedence as calculated pursuant to section 3(E)." 

Chapter 530 §(3)(E) states "For ejjluent monitoring data and the variability ofthe 

pollutant in the ejjluent, the Department shall apply the statistical approach in Section 

3. 3.2 and Table 3-2 ofUSEPA's "Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based 

Taxies Control" (USEPA Publication 505/2-90-001, March, 1991, EPA, Office ofWater, 

Washington, D. C.) to data to dete1mine whether water-quality based ejjluent 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 ofwater quality criteria, appropriate water 

quality-based limits must be established in any licensing action." 

I 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 15 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

Chapter 530 §3 states, "The Department shall establish appropriate discharge 

prohibitions, effluent limits and monitoring requirements in waste discharge licenses ifa 

discharge contains pollutants that are or may be discharged at levels that cause, have 

reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an ambient excursion in excess ofa 

numeric or narrative water quality criteria or that may impair existing or designated 

uses. The licensee must also control whole effluent toxicity (WET) when discharges 

cause, have a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an ambient excursion 

above the narrative water qualify criteria. "In determining ifeffluent limits are 

required, the Department shall consider all information on file and effluent testing 

conducted during the preceding 60 months. However, testing done in the pe1jormance 

ofa Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) approved by the Department may be excluded 

from such evaluations. " · 

WET Evaluation- The previous permitting action did not establish A-NOEL or 

C-NOEL limits for the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) or the brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis) as a statistical evaluation at that time indicated the discharge did not exceed 

or have a reasonable potential to exceed critical acute and or chronic WET thresholds of 

9.3% and 5.3% respectively. The critical thresholds were calculated as the mathematical 

inverse of the acute and chronic dilution factor of 10.7:1 and 18.8:1 respectively. 

On August 21, 2014, the Depatiment conducted a statistical evaluation on the most 

recent 60 months ofWET test results on file with the Department in accordance with the 

statistical approach specified in 06-096 CMR Chapter 530. The 8/21/14 statistical 

evaluation indicates the discharge from the permittee's waste water treatment facility has 

two test results (2/27/12 and 6/10/13) for the brook trout that have a reasonable potential 

to exceed the critical chronic threshold of 5.3% . Therefore, this petmit is establishing a 

C-NOEL limit of 5.3% for the brook trout along with a monitoring frequency 2/Y ef).r 

which is equivalent to a routine surveillance level of testing. 

For the water flea, the Town qualifies for the reduced testing frequency provision found 

at Chapter 530 §2(D)(3) that states "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 trrsection 3(E). "Therefore, this permitting action establishes a 

surveillance level monitoring frequency of 1/Y ear for the water flea and 2/Y ear for the 

brook trout beginning upon issuance of the permit and lasting through 24 months prior to 

permit expiration (Years 1, 2 & 3 ofthe term ofthe permit) and commencing again 

12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 5 of the tetm ofthe petmit). 
MEOI00501 FACT SHEET Page 16 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

Chapter 530(2)(D)(4) states; 

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

Department on or before December 31 ofeach year describing the following. 

(a) 	Changes in the number or types ofnon-domestic wastes contributed directly 

or indirectly to the wastewater treatment works that may increase the toxicity 

ofthe discharge; 

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

ofthe discharge; and 

(c) 	Changes in industrial mamifacturing processes contributing wastewater to 

the treatment works that may increase the toxicity ofthe discharge. 

Given the Town qualifies for the reduced surveillance level WET testing frequency 

provision found at Chapter 530 §2(D)(3), Special Condition J, 06-096 CMR 

530(2)(D)(4), Statement For Reduced/Waived Taxies Testing of this permit requires the 

permittee to file said statement. 

Beginning 24 months prior to permit expiration and lasting through 12 months prior to 

permit expiration (Year 4 of the term of the permit) and every five years thereafter if a 

timely request for renewal has been made and the permit continues in force, or is 

replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirement, the pennittee shall reve1i to a 

routine screening level WET testing of !/Quarter WET testing for both the water flea 

and brook trout. 

Analytical chemistly and priority pollutant testing- The 12/29/09 permit established 

monthly average and or daily maximum water quality based mass and concentration 

limits for ammonia, total copper and total lead based on a statistical evaluation of the 

most current 60 months oftests results on file at the Department at that time. 

Chapter 530 §(3)(E) states " ... that a discharge contains pollutants or WET at levels that 

have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedence ofwater quality 

criteria, appropriate water quality-based limits must be established in any licensing 

action. " 

Chapter 530 §4(F) states in 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 ofthose discharges when determining the needfor and establishment 

ofthe level ofejjluent limits. The Department shall calculate the total allowable 

discharge quantity for specific pollutants, less the water quality reserve and background 

concentration, necessary to achieve or maintain water quality criteria at all points of 

discharge, and in the entire watershed. The total allowable discharge quantity for 

pollutants must be allocated consistent with the following principles. 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 17 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

Chapter 530 §4(C), states "The background concentration ofspecific chemicals must be 

included in all calculations using the following procedures. The Department may 

publish andperiodically update a list ofdefault background concentrations for specific 

pollutants on a regional, watershed or statewide basis. In doing so, the Department 

shall use data collected ji·om 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 of10% ofthe applicable water 

quality criteria must be used in calculations. " The Department has limited information 

on the background levels of metals in the water column in the Piscataquis River in the 

vicinity ofthe permittee's outfall. Therefore, a default background concentration of 10% 

ofthe applicable water quality criteria is being used in the calculations of this permitting 

action. 

Chapter 530 4(E), states "In allocating assimilative capacity for toxic pollutants, the 

Department shall hold a portion ofthe 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 necessmy at intervals ofnot more than jive 

years. The water quality reserve must be not less than 15% ofthe total assimilative 

quantity. " 

Evaluations must be done for individual pollutants ofconcern in each watershed or 

segment to assure that water quality criteria are met at all points in the watershed and, 

ifappropriate, within tributaries ofa larger river. 

The total assimilative capacity, less the water quality reserve and background 

concentration, may be allocated among the discharges according to the past discharge 

quantitiesfor each as a percentage ofthe total quantity ofdischarges, or another 

comparable method appropriate for a specific situation andpollutant. Past discharges 


ofpollutants must be determined using the average concentration discharged during the ~ pastfive years and the facility's licensed flow. 


The Picataquis River is a tributaty to the Penobscot River. Three municipal waste water 

treatment facilities that are subject to the Department's Chapter 530 testing requirements 

discharge to the Piscataquis River. The waste water treatment facilities me the Milo · 

Water District, the Town ofDover-Foxcroft and the Guilford-Sangerville Sanitary 

District. The Milo Water District facility is the most downstream facility and the 

Guilford Sangerville facility is the most upstream facility. As previously cited, Chapter 

530 requires that A WQC must be met at the confluence of the Piscataquis River and the 

Penobscot River as well as at the individual discharge points on the Piscataquis River 

after taking into consideration historic discharge levels for all three facilities as well as 

an allocation dedicated to background (1 0% ofA WQC) and a reserve (15% of A WQC). 

I 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 18 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

On August 21, 2014, the Department conducted statistical evaluations based on 15% of 

the ambient water quality criteria reserve being withheld (Report ID 706) and 0% ofthe 

reserve of the criteria being withheld (Report ID 705) to determine if the unallocated 

assimilative capacity would avoid an exceedance or avoid a reasonable potential to 

exceed applicable ambient water quality criteria for toxic pollutants. Repmi ID 705 

indicates Dover-Foxcroft would no longer have a reasonable potential to exceed the 

chronic ambient water quality criteria for lead. Therefore, the Department is utilizing the 

full 15% of the unallocated assimilative capacity in the statistical evaluation when 

establishing limits for toxic pollutants in waste discharge licenses for facilities in the 

Penobscot River watershed including the Piscatquis River watershed. 

The statistical evaluation (Report ID 705) indicates the Town has two test results that 

have a reasonable potential to exceed the chronic A WQC for ammonia and has four test 

results that have a reasonable potential to exceed both the acute and chronic A WQC for 

total copper. 

The 8/21/14 statistical evaluation indicates all three facilities have discharged detectable 

levels of ammonia and copper. Depatiment guidance that establishes protocols for 

establishing waste load allocations (mass) can be found as Attachment E ofthis Fact 

Sheet. The guidance states that the most protective of water q~ality becomes the 

facility's allocation. According to the 8/21/14 statistical evaluation, both ammonia and 

copper are to be limited based on the segment allocation method. 

In May 2012, Maine law 38 M.R.S.A. §464, ~~ K was enacted which reads as follows, 

"Unless otherwise required by an applicable effluent limitation guideline adopted by the 

department, any limitations for metals in a waste discharge license may be expressed 

only as mass~based limits. " There are no applicable effluent limitation guidelines 

adopted by the Depatiment or the USEP A for metals from a publicly owned treatment 

works. 

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 Dover-Foxcroft facility, historical 

averages for ammonia and copper and were calculated as follows: 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 19 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

Ammonia 

Mass limits 

Mean concentration= 16,420 ug/L or 16.42 mg/L 

Petmit flow limit= 0.80 MGD 

Historical average mass= (16.42 mg/L)(8.34)(0.80 MGD) = 109.554lbs/day 

The 8/21/14 statistical evaluation indicates the historical average mass of ammonia 

discharged by Dover-Foxcroft is 69.10% of the ammonia discharged by the tln·ee 

facilities on the Piscataquis River. Therefore, Dover-Foxcroft's segment allocation for 

ammonia is calculated as 69.10% of the cln·onic assimilative capacity ofthe river at 

Milo, the most downstream facility. The assimilative capacity at Milo is calculated as 

follows: 

7Q10 = 27.7 cfs (0.6464) = 17.9 MGD 

Chronic A WQC = 3,006 ug/L or 3.006 mg/L (based on T=25°C and pH=7.0 su) 

Taking into consideration 0% of the AWQC reserve and 10% for background, the 

assimilative capacity of the Piscataquis River at Milo is: 

Cln·onic = (3.006 mg/L)(0.90)(8.34lbs/gal)(17.9 MGD) = 404 lbs/day 

Monthly average (cln·onic) mass limitation for ammonia for Dover-Foxcroft is calculated 

as follows: 

Monthly average: (Chronic assimilative capacity mass)(% of total ammonia discharged) 

(404lbs/day)(0.6910) = 279lbs/day 

Because the A WQC is based on a temperature of 25°C, the ammonia limitation 

established in this petmit is only applicable from June 1 -September 30 of each year. 

Copper 

Mass limits 

Mean concentration= 6.3 ug/L or 0.0063 mg/L 

Permit flow limit= 0.80 MGD 

Historical average mass= (0.0063 mg/L)(8.34)(0.80 MGD) = 0.0421lbs/day 
ME0100501 FACT SHEET Page 20 of23 

W002633~6C-G-R 

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

Copper 

Mass limits 

The 8/21114 statistical evaluation indicates the historical average mass of copper 

discharged by Dover-Foxcroft is 27.72% ofthe copper discharged by the three facilities 

on the Piscataquis River. Therefore, Dover-Foxcroft's segment allocation for copper is 

calculated as 27.72% ofthe acute and chronic assimilative capacities of the river at Milo. 

The assimilative capacities at Milo are calculated as follows: 

IQIO = 18.5 cfs (0.6464) = 12.0 MGD 

7QIO = 27.7 cfs (0.6464) = 17.9 MGD 

Acute A WQC = 3.07 ug/L or 0.00307 mg/L 

Chronic A WQC = 2.36 ug/L or 0.00236 mg/L 

Taking into consideration 0% of the A WQC reserve and 10% for background, the 

assimilative capacities are: 

Acute= (0.00307 mg/L)(0.90)(8.34 lbs/gal)(l2.0 MGD) = 0.276lbs/day 

Chronic= (0.00236 mg/L)(0.90)(8.34 lbs/gal)(17.9 MGD) = 0.317 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) 

(0.276 lbs/day)(0.2772) = 0.076 lbs/day 

Monthly average: (C!U"onic assimilative capacity mass)(% of total copper discharged) 

(0.317 lbs/day)(0.2772) = 0.088 lbs/day 

The calculations above are co11'ect in that the monthly average limitation is greater than 

the daily maximum limit. This will occur when the ratio between the acute and chronic 

AWQC is smaller than the ratio between the acute (IQIO) and chronic (7Ql0) receiving 

water flows. 

Chapter 530 does not establish monitoring frequencies for parameters that exceed or 

have a reasonable potential to exceed A WQC. Monitoring frequencies are established on 

case-by-case basis given the timing, severity and frequency of occu11'ences of the 

exceedences or reasonable potential to exceed applicable critical water quality 

thresholds. Therefore, this permitting action is making a best professional judgment to 

establish the monitoring frequency for copper at the routine surveillance level frequency 

of 1/Quarter specified in Chapter 530. The monitoring frequency for ammonia is being 

established at twice per year (2/Y ear) to coincide with the seasonal limitation. 
MEOI00501 FACT SHEET Page 21 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

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

As for the remaining chemical specific parameters tested to date, none of the test results 

in the 60-month evaluation period exceed or have a reasonable potential to exceed 

applicable acute, chronic or human health A WQC. Therefore, this permitting action is 

establishing a reduced surveillance level reporting and monitoring frequency of 1/Y ear 

for analytical chemistry testing beginning upon issuance of the permit and lasting 

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

and commencing again 12 months prior to permit expiration (Year 5 of the term of the 

permit). As with reduced WET testing, the permittee must file an armual certification 

with the Department pursuant to Chapter 530 §2(D)(3) and Special Condition J, 

06-096 CMR 530(2)(D)(4), Statement For Reduced/Waived Taxies Testing of this 

permit. 

Beginning 24 months prior to permit expiration and lasting through 12 months prior to 

petmit expiration (Year 4 of the term of the permit) and evety five years thereafter if a 

timely request for renewal has been made and the permit continues in force, or is 

replaced by a permit renewal containing this requirementthe permittee shall conduct 

routine screening level analytical chemistry testing at 1/Quarter and priority pollutant 

testing of 1/Y ear. 

k. Mercury: Pursuant to Certain deposits and discharges prohibited, Maine law, 38 

M.R.S.A. § 420 and Waste discharge licenses, 38 M.R.S.A. § 413 and Interim Effluent 

Limitations and Controls for the Discharge ofMercmy, 06-096 CMR 519 (last amended 

October 6, 2001 ), the Department issued a Notice of Interim Limits for the Discharge of 

Mercury to the petmittee on May 23, 2000, thereby administratively modifYing 

MEPDES #MEOI 00501/WDL # W002633~5B-D-R by establishing interim monthly 

average and daily maximum effluent concentration limits of 16.9 parts per trillion (ppt) 

and 25.3 ppt, respectively, and a minimum monitoring frequency requirement offour ( 4) 

tests per year for mercmy. On February 6, 2012, the Department issued a minor revision 

ofthe permit by reducing the monitoring frequency to 1/Year. 

Maine law 38 M.R.S.A., §420 1-B,(B)(l) states that a facility is not in violation ofthe 

A WQC for mercury ifthe facility is in compliance with an interim discharge limit 

established by the Department pursuant to section 413, subsection II. A review of the 

Department's database for the period 2004 to the present indicates mercmy test results 

reported have ranged from 0.63 ppt to 11.0 ppt with an arithmetic mean (n=36) of 

3.1 ppt. 
MEOI00501 FACT SHEET Page 22 of23 

W002633-6C-G-R 

7. ANTI-BACKSLIDING 

Federal regulation 40 CFR, §122(1) contains the criteria for what is often referred to as the 

anti-backsliding provisions ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). 

In general, the regulation states that except for provisions specified in the regulation, effluent 

limitations, standards or conditions must be at least as stringent as the final effluent 

limitations, standards or conditions in the previous permit. Applicable exceptions include(!) 

material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility occurred after 

permit issuance which justify the application of a less stringent effluent limitation and(2) 

information is available which was not available at the time ofthe permit issuance (other 

than revised regulations, guidance or test methods) and which would justify the application 

ofless stringent effluent limitations at the time of permit issuance. 

This permitting action is establishing less stringent water quality based mass limitations for 

total copper given the 15% reserve capacity withheld in the the previous permitting action is 

being allocated in this permitting action as doing so eliminates the need for other water 

quality based limits for other parameters. This constitutes new information since issuance of 

the previous permitting action. 

8. ANTI-DEGREDATION- IMPACT ON RECEIVING WATER QUALITY 

Maine's anti-degradation policy is included in 38 M.R.S.A., Section 464(4)(F) and 

addressed in the Conclusions section ofthis permit. Pursuant to the policy, where a new or 

increased discharge is proposed, the Department shall detennine whether the discharge will 

result in a significant lowering of existing water quality. Increased discharge means a 

discharge that would add one or more new pollutants to an existing effluent, increase 

existing levels ofpollutants in an effluent, or cause an effluent to exceed one or more of its 

current licensed discharge flow or effluent limits, after the application of applicable best 

practicable treatment technology. 

This permitting action revises previously established effluent limitations and monitoring 

requirements for total copper. The rationale for these actions is contained in Section 6 of 

this Fact Sheet. Based on the information provided in the referenced section, the 

Department has made the determination that the discharge approved by this pe1mit will not 

result in a significant lowering ofwater quality. As permitted, the Department has 

determined the existing and designated water uses will be maintained and protected and the 

discharge will not cause or contribute to the failure ofthe Piscataquis River to meet 

standards for Class B classification. 
ME0100501 

W002633-6C-G-R 

FACT SHEET Page 23 of23 

9. DISCHARGE IMPACT ON RECEIVING WATER QUALITY 

The Department has made a best professional judgment detennination based on infonnation 

gathered to date, that as permitted, the discharge will not cause or contribute the failure of 

the receiving water to meet the standards of its ascribed classification and the designated 

uses of the river will continue to be maintained and protected. The Department is scheduled 

to perform a comprehensive evaluation ofmore recent data collected, calibrate an existing 

model of the river and prepare a TMDL for the 13.44 mile segment in 2016. Iffuture 

modeling mns determine that at full permitted discharge limits, the discharge is causing or 

contributing to the non-attainment, this permit will be re-opened per Special Condition L, 

Reopening ofThe License For Modifications, to impose more stringent limitations to meet 

water quality standards. 

10. PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Public notice of this application was made in the Piscataquis Observer newspaper on 

August 6, 2014. The Department receives public comments on an application until the date 

a final agency action is taken on that application. Those persons receiving copies of draft 

pennits shall have at least 30 days in which to submit comments on the draft or to request a 

public hearing, pursuant to Chapter 522 of the Department's rules. 

11. DEPARTMENT CONTACTS 

Additional information concerning this permitting action may be obtained from and written 

comments should be sent to: 

Gregg Wood 

Division of Water Quality Management 

Bureau ofLand and Water Quality 

Department of Environmental Protection 

17 State House Station 

Augusta, Maine 04333-0017 

E-mail: gregg.wood@maine.gov 

Telephone: (207) 287-7693 I 

I 

I 

12. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

During the period of March 30,2015, through the issuance date ofthe permit/license, the 

Department solicited comments on the proposed draft pennitllicense to be issued for the 

discharge(s) from the permittee's facility. The Department did not receive comments from 

the permittee, state or federal agencies or interested parties that resulted in any substantive 

change(s) in the tenns and conditions ofthe permit. Therefore, the Department has not 

prepared a Response to Comments. 
ATTACHMENT A 

I 

! I 

I , 

I I 

L I 

f i 

I l 

I

r , 

, I 

I I 

1 

' 

I 

l 

1 i 

I 

I I 

ATTACHMENT B \ 

f 

I 

! 

~ ~ ; 

' ! 

' 

r 


I 


I 

I 

I 


I 

FIGuKE 1-1 

PROCESS SCHEMATIC GrJtaglktln<~ 

1rdi110111:S...,pllog. 

Saeenlng & LAGOON#1 


Volume: 11.6 MG 


G2 
 Detention 1ime: 14.5 Days@ 0.8MGD 

Depth: 9.5 Feet 

Aeration: 254 Units of EDl FlexairTube Membranes & 70HP Blower ~C1

UC)uid Elevation: 357.0 

) 

C2. ( 1 

.\: 

Dike Elevation: 380.0 

Bottom Elevation: 375.5 

V3 

CXJ--6liL~ T 4 

V4 ' LAGOON#2' 

Volume: 5.8 MG 

LAGOON#3 

Volume: 5.8 MG 

Detention 1ime: 7.3 Days@ O.SMGD Detention 1ime: 7.3 Dayso@:.QSMG&.·: · ( I i T5 

Depth: 10 Feet Depth: 1 0 Feet :.· 

Aeration: 3-5HP PropetlerJ\spirator Units Aeration: 4- 5HP Propel!eP~Uoifs'... · 

Liquid Elevation: 834.0 Liquid Elevation: 385.0 

·.'·.•. Dike Elevation: 337.0 Dike Elevation: 338.1 

Bottom Elevation: 324.0 Bottom Elevation: 325.0 

V8 TS 

17@) ) I 

T11 G4 

G5 T17 

}---------------------~ ao 

G1 WEST REeO BED CAST REED 6EO 

~~~-----------r) 

LEDGEND 

NormalFiowOlroctlOtl ----®-- oaV-!Mo...w~t~ 

A1:om81oftowOiroclion ~.~~"'(N..,.,QtyeJOO«<) 

E1 

Dry Weather Flow 02MGO 

E2 Manhole{Nom'l31 Flew} - Cooiro~·Manholef..· · · 0.6MGD 

--Q­ M<lllholo(Altomato Flow) 

Introduction 2012 Page6 of 11 8/1512014
ATTACHMENT C 

i 

t 

l 

I 


' ' 

I 

! 

i 


1­

l 

I 


I 


I 

---··-·-·----·-·--·--······ -··--~-----···· 

----··--··· ···-· 

DOVER-FOXCROFT NPDES= ME010050 Effluent Umit: Acute(%)= 9.314 Chronic (%) = 5.299 

Species Test Percent sample date Critical 0/o Exception R.P

TROUT A_NOEL 100 12/07/2010 9.314 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 09/14/2011 9.314 

TROUT A_NOEL 50 02/27/2012 9.314 

TROUT A_NOEL 50 05/10/2013 9.314 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 02/04/2014 9.314 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 07/14/2014 9.314 

TROUT A_NOEL 100 09/15/2014 9.314 

TROUT C_NOEL 50 12/07/2010 5.299 

TROUT C_NOEL 100 09/14/2011 5.299 

TROUT C_NOEL 10 02/27/2012 5.299 

TROUT C_NOEL 5.32 05/10/2013 5.299 

TROUT C_NOEL 50 02/04/2014 5.299 

TROUT C_NOEL 100 07/14/2014 5.299 

TROUT C_NOEL 100 09/15/2014 5.299 

WATER FLEA . A_NOEL 100 09/14/2011 9.314 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 02/27/2012 9.314 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 05/10/2013 9.314 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 02/04/2014 9.314 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 07/14/2014 9.314 

WATER FLEA A_NOEL 100 09/16/2014 9.314 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 09/14/2011 5.299 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 50 02/27/2012 5.299 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 50 06/10/2013 5.299 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 50 02/04/2014 5.299 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 100 07/14/2014 5.299 

WATER FLEA C_NOEL 10 09/16/2014 5.299 
L 

I 

I 


ATTACHMENT D 

~ I 

I 


I 


i 


I 

Facility Name: DOVER-FOXCROFT NPDES: ME0100501 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test # By Group 

Tei!t Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

_1_2f!~[2_o_o_g_ ________ 2,~L ____o_._2?__ ________ ~- ________ -~--- Q___ ()___ 9____o____o_ _______ f _______ ()__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

}_2fQ?£2.Q_~o__- ---- __ _o"~~ _____Q_}§_--- ------!9_------- __1_o_- _Q ___ ()___ _o_-- _9____o_---- ---~-- -----()-­

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN p 0 A Clean Hg 

03{()~£2.0.~! ________ 9"~() _____o_._1_1__________ _2__________2_ ___ () ___ ()___ _o____o____o_ _______ _______ ()__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

9§LQ~(2_0.!! __ --- _0"~-~- ____o_.§~-------- _}_----- ____2-- _Q___ ()___ _9__ __1__ - _o_---- --- ~- ------ ()_­

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

().9[!<!£20.~! ___ ---- __9,2_2_-- -- _Q_.J§_--- ---- __2_! ------- __1_9___Q_--()---I}_-_!!- __o_ _______ ~----- __ ()_­

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

_1_2f!3L2.0.!!- ----- __ _9,2_~ _____Q_._2_2_------- -- ~-- -- ______2__- _() ---()- -- 9_-- _1_-- _o_ _____ -- ~----- --()__ 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

.0_2{??£2.0.~2_-------- 9" !~---- _o_._l?_------- __2_! __ ------ _1_9_--()---()-- _2_--!!___o__------f--- ----0-. 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 


Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 


2?{!!;£2.0.~2_ __ --- ___ _9,~5 ___ -_Q_.~2__ -------- _2_----- -- __2__--Q___ 9___ 2___ 0_ -- _o_---- --- -------9-­

Monthly Dally Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg

2?D?I_2_Q_!?_ _________O,?~ _____Q_._2_1__________ ?__ ________ 2_ ____ () ___ ()___ 1}___ _1____o_ _______ _______ ()_. 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

29f!!l£2Q_12 __ - --- _9,?!- --- _Q_._l_?_------ --- _1__--- _____o_ ___() ___ ()--- 9_-- _1_ -- _o_ _______ f------ _()_­

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg

_1_1{()?[212!2_ __ "____ _.9,!! ____ _o_.J_1__________ _2__________?. ___ () ___ ()___ 2____o____o_ _______ f _______ ()__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg

()_1!1!;1_2_0.!3_ ________ .9,!!l ____ _Q_.J?__________ _2__________2_ ___() ___ ()___ 2____o____o_ _______ _______ I)__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

_Q_?f()~£?.0.!3_ _________ ~~------~~-----------_l__________! ___ () ___ ()___ _o___ ____o_ _______ f _______()__ 
Facility Name: DOVER-FOXCROFT NPDES: ME0100501 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 


Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 


!l§L!Q£2_0.~3_ ________ .9"~~--- __o_.~~- _________2_! ________ !-.9___ Q___ 9___ 9___ !L_O._______ _______ ()__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 


Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P o A Clean Hg 


Sl?L!~£2.0.~3_ ________ .9"~~--- __o_.~§__________ ~--- _______2_ ___Q___ 9___ .9____1____o_ _______ f _______ ()__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P o A Clean Hg 

J..?LQ~£2.0.!3_ ________ 5l,~L ____o.:s:s__________ ?__________L_Q ___ 9___ _9____o____o_ _______ ~-- _____ 9__ 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

Sl?LQ~£2.0.~4. ________ .9"!~- ____O.·?:S________ --~! _______ _!-.9___ Q___ 9___ _9___ !1___o_ _______ f _______ ()__ 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test# By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

.9?L!~@!4. ________ .9"<.!~ ____ _o_.g~_ --------~~~-- _______14___2_8___45. __~~--!! __ ~~ _______ f _______ 9__ 

Monthly Daily Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg 

.9?!~?[2.0.1_4_ _________ 1'_1~- _____ ,N_R________ ---~- _________Q___() ___ L __9___ o____o_ ___ .. ___ f _______ ()__ 

Monthly Dally Total Test Test # By Group 

Test Date (Flow MGD) Number M V BN P 0 A Clean Hg

.9.9f!()£2_C?.1_4. ________ O.!fl ____ _'?.·!~- _________2_! _________1_0___ () ___ ()___ _9___ !!___'?, _______ f _______ 9__ 
Facility. name: DOVER-FOXCROFT Permit Number: ME0100501 

Parameter: AMMONIA Test date Result (ug/1) 

----------------------------------- Lsthan ------------ 12/07/2010 24500.000 N 

06/08/2011 35700.000 N 

09/14/2011 130.000 N 

12/13/2011 7800.000 N 

02/27/2012 28000.000 N 

07/17/2012 390.000 N 

09/18/2012 10700.000 N 

06/10/2013 25700.000 N 

08/14/2013 280.000 N 

02/04/2014 31000.000 N 

07/14/2014 144.000 N 

09/16/2014 1452.000 N 

Parameter: COPPER Test date 

---------------- Result (ug/1) ------------------- Lsthan ------------ 12/14/2009 8.000 N 

12/07/2010 5.000 N 

03/03/2011 13.000 N 

06/08/2011 6.600 N 

09/14/2011 4.000 N 

12/13/2011 5.000 N 

02/27/2012 14.000 N 

05/15/2012 4.000 N 

07/17/2012 3.000 y 

11/07/2012 5.410 N 

01/15/2013 6.310 N 

06/10/2013 3.730 N 

08/14/2013 3.000 y

12/03/2013 4.630 N 

02/04/2014 11.900 N 

07/14/2014 3.000 y 

09/16/2014 3.000 y r 
ATTACHMENT E t 


I ~ i 

. 

I 

. II 

\ 

L 

I 


' 

I
I 
 I 

I 


I ~ I 
I 

! 
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: October2008 

TO: Interested Parties 

FROM: Dennis Merrill, DEP 

SUBJECT: DEP's system for evaluating toxicity from multiple discharges 

****************************************************************************** 

Following the requirements ofDEP's rules, Chapter 5~0, section 4(F), the Department is 


evaluating discharges oftoxic pollutants into afreshwater river system in order to prevent 


cmnulative impacts from multiple discharges. This is being through the use of a computer 


program known internally as "DeTox". The enclosed package ofinformation is intended to 


introduce you to this system. 


Briefly, the DeTox program evaluates each wastewater facility within a watershed in three 


different ways in order to characterize its effluent: 1) the facility's past history 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 ofwater quality becomes the value that is held in the DeTox 


system as an allocation for the specific facility and pollutaot. 


The system is not static and uses a five-year "rolling" data window. This means that, over tinie, 


old test results drop offand newer ones are added. The intent ofthis process is to maintain 


current, imiform facility data to estimate contributions to a river's total allowable pollutaot 


loading prior to each permit renewaL 


· Maoy facilities are required to do only a relatively small amount ofpollutaot testing on their 

effluent This means, statistically, the fewer tests done, the greater the possibility ofeffluent 

limits being necessary based on the facility's small amount ofdata. To avoid this sihmtion, most 

facilities, especially those with low dilution factors, should consider conducting more than the 

minimum mnnber oftests required by the rules. 

Attached you will find three doctnnents with additional information on the DeTox systein: 

• Methods for evaluating the effects of multiple discharges oftoxic pollutants 

• Working definitions ofterms 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 

Dermis.L.Merrill@maine.gov or 287-7788. 

l 

l 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Methods for evaluating the effects ofmultiple discharges of toxic pollutants. 

Reference: DEP· Rules, Chapter 530, section 4(F) 

To evaluate discharges oftoxic pollutants into a freshwater river system and prevent cumulative 

impacts from multiple discharges, DEP uses a computer program called "DeTox that functions as 

a mathematical evaluation tool. 

It uses physical infonnation about discharge sources and river conditions on file with the 

Department, established water quality criteria and reported effluent test infonnation to perfonn 

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 ill relation to other facilities and tributary streams. 

All calculations are perfonned 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 e<~ch pollutant and water 

quality criterion at the most downstream point in the river segment. Tllis calculation includes 

set-aside amounts for background and reserve quantities and assumed values for receiving water. 

pH, temperature and hardness. The resulting amount of assimilative capacity is available for 

allocation among facilities on the river. 

Each facility is evaluated to characterize its past discharge quantities. The historical discharge, 

in pounds per day, is figured using the average reported concentration and the facility's 

pe1mitted 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 ruso multiplied by the single highest test to obtain a maximum day 

estimate. Finally, the direct average without RP adjustment is used to determine the facility's 

percent contribution to the river segment in comparison to the sum ofall discharges ofthe · 

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 detennine iflocal conditions are more limiting than a segment evaluation. 
With all ofthis inf01mation, facilities are evaluated in three ways. The methods are: 

1. The facility's past history. This is the average quantity discharged during the past five 

years multiplied by the applicable RP factor. This method is often the basis for im 

- allocation when the discharge quantity is relatively small in comparison to the water 

quality based allocation. 

2. 	 An individual evaluation. This assumes no other dischru:ge sources are present and the 

allowable quantity is the total available assimilative capacity. This method may be used 

whena 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 oftotal past discharges. This method 

would be used when multiple discharges ofthe same pollutant to the same segment and 

the available assimilative capacity is relatively limited. 

The value that is most protective ofwater 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 ofdischarging 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 iimit is established. It is 

impmtant 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 "poiut 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 quality criterion, the tmused quantity is rolled downstream and made available to other 

facilities. 

The system is not static and uses a five-year rolling data window. Over tiine, 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 remaiu 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. 

Titis creates a greater degree of statistical uncertainty about the true long-term quantities. 

Accordiugly, 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 oftests. 

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 ofEnvironmental Protection 

Working Definitions of Terms Used in the DeTox System. 

Allocation. The amount ofpollutant loading set aside for a facility. Separate amounts are set for 

each water quality criterion. Each pollutant having a history 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. 

Background. A concentration of a pollutant that is assumed to be present in a receiving water 

but not attributable to discharges. By mle, this is set as a rebuttable presumption at I 0% ofthe 

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 ofthree ways of developing an allocation. The 

facility's average history ofdischarges, 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 


assmned to be not present and it receives no percentage. 


Individual allocation. One ofthree ways of developing an allocation. The facility's single 


highest discharge on record multiplied by the appropriate reasonable potential factor is 


compared to a water quality based quantity with an assumption that the facility is the only point 


source to that receiving water. 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 ofthe Department's 

reporting limit in most calculations. 
Reasonable potential (RP). A statistical method to determine the highest amount ofa 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 nile this is set at 15% ofthe 

applicable water quality criterion. 

Segment allocation. One of three ways of developing an allocation. The amount is set by 

multiplying a facility's historical discharge percentagefor a specific pollutant by the 

assimilative capacity for that pollutant and criterion. A facility will have different allocation 

percentages for each pollutant. This amO\mt 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 ofpollutants. 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 Depmiment ofEnvironmental Protection 


General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 


I. Pre aration 

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. Segmenf Assimilative Capacity 

Get facility information: location, stream flows 

~ Identify lowermost facility 

~ Get stream flows for Acute, Chronic, Health (!Ql 0, 7QIO, HM) 


Calculate segment capaciJby pollutant and criterion: 


Stream flow x criteton 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 critelion 


Page I 

I 
I 

. I 

Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 

III. Evaluate History by Pollutant 

Select each facility effluent data foreach facility 


Data input and edits 
 l 

Identify "less than" results and assign at Y, ofreporting limit 

~ Bypass pollutants if all results are "less than" 

Average concentratioj and calculate pounds: 


Ave concentration x license flow x 8.34 =Historical Average 


Detennine reasonable poJntial (RP) using algorithm 


J 

Calculate RP adjusted pounds: 

Historical Average x RP factor= RP Historical Allocation 

~ Save for comparative evaluation 

Calculate adjuste)maximum pounds: 

Highest concentration x RP factor x license flow x 8.34 = RP Maximum Value 

IV. Determine Facility History Percentage f 

) 

By pollutant, identify facilitieS .with Historical Average 

~ Sum all Historical Averages within segment 

~ . By facility, calculate percent oftotal: . 


Facility pounds I Total pounds= Facility History% 


Page2 
Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

General Processing Steps in "DeTox" 

V. Segment Allocation 

By pollutant and criterion, select Segment Assimilative Capacity 

~ Select individual Facility History% 

~ Determine facility allocation: 


Assimilative Capacity x Facility History%= Segment Allocation 


J 


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 

I
I 

. 

I 

I 


.. 

By facility, pollutant and criterion, get: 

Individual Allocation, Segment Allocation, RP Historical Allocation 

~ Compare allocation and select the smallest 

) 

I 

I 

Save asFacitty Allocation I 

Page3 
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 


! . 

If RP Maximum value is greater than either Segment Allocation or Individual Allocation, 

use lesser value as E.fjluent Limit 

! . 

Save E.fjluent Limit for comparison 

IX. Reallocation of Assimilative Cn]lllcity 

Starting at top of segment, get Segment Allocation, Facility Allocation and Ejjluent Limit 

~ IfSegment Allocation equals Ejjluent Limit, move to next facility downstream 

~ If not, subtract Facility Allocation from Segment A/location 

~ Save difference 


Select next faciLy downstream 


~ Figure remaining Segment Assimilative Capacity at and below facility, less tributaries 

t 


Add saved difference to get an adjusted Segment Assimilative Capacity 

! 


Reallocate Segment Assimilative Capacity among downstream facilities per step V 

! 


Repeat process for eachfacility downstream in turn 

) 

~ 

) 


Page 4 
l 

I 

I 

ATTACHMENT F 

~ 

I 


I 
 I

i I 

l

.. 


I 

\ 

i 


I 


L I 

I 


I 

STATE OF MAINE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 


CHAPTER 530.2(D)(4) CERTIFICATION 


PAUL R. LEPAGE PATRICIA W. AIIO 

GOVERNOR Commissioner 

MEPDES#______,FacilityName_______________ 

Since the effective date ofyour permit, have there been; NO YES 

Describe in comments 

section 

I Increases in the number, types, and flows ofindustrial, 

commercial, or domestic discharges to the facility that in the 

judgment of the Department may cause the receiving water to 

become toxic? 

0 D 

2 Changes in the condition or operations ofthe facility that may 

increase the toxicity ofthe discharge? D D 

3 Changes in storm water collection or inflow/infiltration 

affecting the facility that may increase the toxicity ofthe 

discharge? 

D D 

4 Increases in the type or volume ofhauled wastes accepted by 

the facility? D D 

COMMENTS: 

Name (printed): _________________________ 

Signature: __________________ Date: 

This document must be signed by the permittee OJ' their legal representative. 

This form may be used to meet the requirements of Chapter 530.2(D)(4). This Chapter requires all 

dischargers having waived or reduced toxic testing to file a statement with the Department describing 

changes to the waste being contributed to their system as outlined above. As an alternative, the 

discharger may submit a signed letter containing the same information. 

Scheduled Toxicity Testing for the next calendar year 

Test Conducted I'' Quarter 2°0 Quarter 3ro Quarter 4'" Quarter 

WET Testing D D D D 

Priority Pollutant Testing D D D D 

Analytical Chemistry D D D D 

Other toxic parameters ' D D D D 

Please place an "X" in each ofthe boxes that apply to when you will be conducting any one of 

the three test types during the next calendar year. 

1 This only applies to parameters where testing is required at a rate less frequently than quarterly. 

AUGUSTA 

17 STATE HOUSE STATION BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017 106 HOGAN ROAD, SUITE 6 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK 

(207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04769-2094 

RAY BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. (207} 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 {207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207)760-3143 

web site; www.maine.gO\·/dep 
DEP INFORMATION SHEET 

Appealing a Department Licensing Decision 

Dated: March 2012 Contact: (207) 287-2811 

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:(!) in an administrative process before the 

Board of Environmental Protection ("Board"); or (2) in a judicial process before Maine's Superior Court. An 

aggrieved person seeking review of a licensing decision over which the Board had original jurisdiction may 

seek judicial review in Maine's Superior Comi. 

A judicial appeal of final action by the Commissioner or the Board regarding an application for an expedited 

wind energy development (35-A M.R.S.A. § 3451( 4)) or a general permit for an offshore wind energy 

demonstration project (38 M.R.S.A. § 480-HH(l) or a general permit for a tidal energy demonstration project 

(38 M.R.S.A. § 636-A) must be taken to the Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court. 

This INFORMATION SHEET, in conjunction with a review ofthe statutory and regulatory provisions referred to 

herein, can help a person to understand his or her rights and obligations in filing an administrative or judicial 

appeal. 

I. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAt.S TO THE BOARD 

LEGAL REFEUENCES 

The laws concerning the DEP's Organization and Powers, 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 341-D(4) & 346, the Maine 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § II 00 I, and the DEP's Rules Concerning the Processing of 

Applications and Other Administrative Matters ("Chapter 2"), 06-096 CMR 2 (April !, 2003). 

HOW LONG YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD 

The Board must receive a written appeal within 30 days ofthe date on which the Commissioner's decision 

was filed with the Board. Appeals filed after 30 calendar days ofthe date on which the Commissioner's 

decision was filed with the Board will be rejected. 

HOW TO SUBMIT AN APPEAl. TO THE BOARD 

Signed original appeal documents must be sent to: Chair, Board of Environmental Protection, c/o 

Department ofEnvironmental Protection, 17 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0017; faxes are 

acceptable for purposes of meeting the deadline when followed by the Board's receipt of mailed original 

documents within five (5) working days. Receipt on a particular day must be by 5:00PM at DEP's offices 

in Augusta; materials received after 5:00PM are not considered received until the following day. The 

person appealing a licensing decision must also send the DEP's Commissioner a copy ofthe appeal 

documents and ifthe person appealing is not the applicant in the license proceeding at issue the applicant 

must also be sent a copy of the appeal documents. All ofthe 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 PAPERWOUK MUST CONTAIN 

Appeal materials must contain the following information at the time submitted: 

OCF/90-1 /r95/r98/r99/r00/r04/r12 
Appealing aCommissioner's Licensing Decision 

March 2012 

Page2of3 

I. 	 Aggrieved Status. The appeal must explain how the person filing the appeal has standing to maintain 

an appeal. This requires an explanation of how the person filing the appeal may suffer a particularized 

injury as a result ofthe 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 ofthe objections or challenge. If possible, specific regulations, statutes or other facts should 

be referenced. This may include citing omissions ofrelevant 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. 

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. 	 Requestfor hearing. The Board will hear presentations on appeals at its regularly scheduled meetings, 

unless a public hearing on the appeal 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, referred to 

as supplemental evidence, to be considered by the Board in an appeal only when the evidence is 

relevant and material and that 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 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. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN APPEALING A DECISION TO THE BOARD 

I. 	 Be familiar with all relevant material in the DEP record. A license application file is public 

information, subject to any applicable statutory exceptions, 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 ofan appeal does not operate as a stay to any decision. If a license has been granted and it 

has been appealed the license normally remains in effect pending the processing ofthe appeal. A 

license holder may proceed with a project pending the outcome of an appeal but the license holder 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 receipt of an appeal, including the name of the DEP project manager 

assigned to the specific appeal. The notice ofappeal, any materials accepted by the Board Chair as 

supplementary evidence, and any materials submitted in response to the appeal will be sent to Board 

members with a recommendation from DEP staff. Persons filing appeals and interested persons are notified 

in advance ofthe 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 or 

remand the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Board will notifY the appellant, a 

license holder, and interested persons of its decision. 

OCF t90 -1/r/95/r98/r9 9/r00/r04/r12 
Appealing a Commissioner's licensing Decision 

March 2012 

Page 3of 3 

II. JUDICIAL APPEALS 

Maine law generally allows aggrieved persons to appeal final Commissioner or Board licensing decisions to 

Maine's Superior Comt, see 38 M.R.S.A. § 346(1); 06-096 CMR 2; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001; & M.R. Civ. P 

80C. A party's appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within 30 days ofreceipt ofnotice of the 

Board's or the Commissioner's decision. For any other person, an appeal must be filed within 40 days of 

the date the decision was rendered. Failure to file a timely appeal will result in the Board's or the 

Commissioner's decision becoming final. 

An appeal to court of a license decision regarding an expedited wind energy development, a general permit 

for an offshore wind energy demonstration project, or a general permit for a tidal energy demonstration 

project may only be taken directly to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. See 38 M.R.S.A. § 346(4). 

Maine's Administrative Procedure Act, DEP statutes governing a particular matter, and the Maine Rules of 

Civil Procedure must be consulted for the substantive and procedural details applicable to judicial appeals. 

ADDITIONAL L'IFORMATION 

If you have questions or need additional information on the appeal process, for administrative appeals contact 

the Board's Executive Analyst at (207) 287-2452 or for judicial appeals contact the coutt clerk's office in 

which your appeal will be filed. 

Note: The DEP provides this INFORMATION SHEET for general guidance only; it is not intended fo•· use 

--~a~s_a_legal reference. Maine law governs an appellant's rights. -----~-~~-

OCF /90-1 /r/95/r98/r99/r00/r04/r12