## Economic Analysis for Proposal of Certain Federal Water Quality
Standards Applicable to
Maine

Contract # EP

- BPA

- 13

- W

- 0001

March 24 , 2016

Prepared for:
U nited S tates Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OEP06

- 2)
Boston

, MA 02109

Submitted by:
Abt Associates
55 Wheeler Street Cambridge , M A 02138

Under Subcontract to : WaterVision LLC

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



## Executive Summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing water quality

standards (WQS) applicable to waters under jurisdiction of the S tate of Maine

. The proposal
addresses EPA ’s disapproval of many of the state’s human health criteria (HHC) and six
other criteria for waters in Indian l ands, as well as the disapproval of three criteria and
standards affecting all state waters

. The proposal also addresses an Administrator’s determination that many of Maine’s HHC are not adequate to protect the designated use of sustenance fishing.

Although the proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or other sources of pollution, state implementation may result in new or
revised Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimin ation System ( M E PDES) permit conditions for point source dischargers and additional controls on nonpoint sources of pollutant loadings. 1 

### This report provides estimates of the potential incremental compliance actions and costs t hat may be associated with th e proposed regulation

. The analysis focuses on the costs only and does not quantify benefits that may result from the proposed WQS

, including for example

, avoided adverse health impacts and associated costs
from cleaner waters and positive impacts to the tourism, fishing, or shellfishing industries.

EPA used available data from water quality assessments, permit fact sheets, priority pollutant scans, and other sources to evaluate the potential effects of, and resultant costs of the action. Based on the available information, EPA determined that the proposed criteria for pH and temperature (for w aters in Indian lands )

, proposed criteria for dissolved oxygen ( DO ) (for all
Class A state waters) and proposed criteria for phenol (for wate rs outside of Indian lands) are unlikely to result in incremental costs to point sources. EPA estimated the potential costs to point sources resulting from proposed HHC

, bacteria criteria, ammonia criteri a , and mixing zone policy for waters in Indian lands

. Exhibit E

- 1 summarizes these costs.

Low

- cost pollution prevention (P2) strategies would result in far lower costs than end

- of

- pipe treatment, which would be used only if less expensive approaches were unsuccessful. Total annualized costs range from $ 213 ,000 if lower

- cost options are effective to a worst

- case estimate of $ 1 million if end

- of

- pipe treatment is needed

. EPA notes that these annual costs
are well below the threshold of $100 million that triggers more extensive economic analysis (e.g., a complete benefit

- cost analysis) under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

1 Maine is authorized to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit

program.

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Exhibit E

- 1 . Summary of Estimated Costs for the Proposed Rule 1

Prop osed WQS Annual ized Costs ( thousands; 2014$) 2

Human h ealth c riteria for waters in Indian l ands $28

− $ 43

Bacteria criteria for waters in Indian l ands $ 185

− $705

Mixing zone policy for waters in Indian l ands Not estimated

− $ 273

**Total 3**  **$ 213** 

− **$1,021**

1. Excludes costs for proposed ammonia criteria, for which EPA expects costs to be zero. See Section 4.3

. 2. Except as otherwise noted (see Section 4.4 for assumptions regarding expected useful life of c ooling towers), one

- time costs are annualized over 20 years using a 3 percent discount rate. See Appendix E for results using a 7 percent discount rate. 3. Lower bound of total costs excludes costs associated with mixing zone policy for which EPA estimated only the upper bound scenario. See Section 4.4 for details.



### While the analysis of costs generally follows the approach a permit writer would use to evaluate and set discharge permit conditions, reliance on available data involves uncertainty and limitations not present during actual permit development

, when the permit writer may
have access to and incorporate more site

- specific data ( e.g. , ambient water quality samples, priority pollutant scans using lower detection limits). See Section 6.3 for further discussion of the uncertainty associated with the use of existing data.

### CONTENTS



## Contents

Executive Summa ry

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ ii

Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... i

Exhibits

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... v

List of Abbreviations

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... viii

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1

1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Analysis

................................ ................................ ....... 4

1.2.1 Proposed WQS Applicable only to Waters in Indian Lands

..................... 5

1.2.2 Proposed Criteria Applicable to All State Waters (DO ) and to Waters Outside of Indian Lands (Phenol)

................................ ............................. 6

1.3 Organization of Report

................................ ................................ ......................... 7

2 Baseline for the Analysis

................................ ................................ ............................. 9

2.1 Sources of Pollutants to Surface Waters

................................ ............................... 9

2.1.1 Municipal and Industrial Dischargers

................................ ....................... 9

2.1.2 Urban Stormwater

................................ ................................ ................... 10

2.1.3 Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems

................................ ..................... 11

2.1.4 Agriculture and Forestry

................................ ................................ ......... 12

2.1.5 Atmospheric Deposition

................................ ................................ ......... 12

2.1.6 Contaminated Sediments

................................ ................................ ........ 13

2.2 Baseline Water Quality and Criteria

................................ ................................ ... 13

2.2.1 Water Quality Impairments

................................ ................................ ..... 13

2.2.2 Toxics

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 15

2.2.3 Bacteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19

2.2.4 Ammonia

................................ ................................ ................................ . 20

2.2.5 pH

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 21

2.2.6 Tidal Temperature

................................ ................................ ................... 21

2.2.7 Mixing Zone

................................ ................................ ............................ 21

2.2.8 Dissolved Oxygen

................................ ................................ ................... 22

3 Proposed Criteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 23

3.1 Proposed Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands

................................ .................... 23

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. i

### CONTENTS

3.1.1 Human Health Criteria

................................ ................................ ............ 23

3.1.2 Bacteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27

3.1.3 Ammonia

................................ ................................ ................................ . 30

3.1.4 pH

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 33

3.1.5 Temperature Criterion for Tidal Waters

................................ ................. 33

3.1.6 Mixing Zone

................................ ................................ ............................ 34

3.2 Propos ed Dissolved Oxygen Criteria for All State Waters

................................ . 36

3.3 Proposed Phenol Criteria for State Waters Outside of Indian Lands

.................. 37

4 Method for Estimating Potential Costs: Point Sources

................................ .......... 39

4.1 Costs from Proposed Human Health Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands

......... 39

4.1.1 Dischargers to Waters in Indian Lands or Tributaries

............................ 40

4.1.2 Reasonable Potenti al Analysis

................................ ................................ 42

4.1.3 Projecting Effluent Limitations

................................ ............................... 47

4.1.4 Identifying Compliance Scenarios and Costs

................................ ......... 48

4.2 Costs from Proposed Bacteria Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands

................... 52

4.3 Costs from Proposed Ammonia Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands

................. 54

4.4 Costs from the Proposed Mixing Zone Policy

................................ .................... 57

5 Methods for Identifying Potential Costs: Nonpoint Sources

................................ . 59

5.1 Identifying Exceedances

................................ ................................ ..................... 59

5.2 Identifying Compliance Actions and Costs

................................ ........................ 59

6 Potential Compliance Costs

................................ ................................ ...................... 61

6.1 Point Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 61

6.2 Nonpoint Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ 63

6.3 Unce rtainties and Quality Assurance

................................ ................................ .. 63

7 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 66

A Facility

- level Analyses of Implication of Proposed Human Health and
Ammonia Criteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 69

A.1 Baileyville POTW

................................ ................................ ............................... 69

A.1.1 Ef fluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 69

A.1.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 70

A.2 Brownville

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 71

A.3 Calais POTW

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 71

A.3.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 72

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. ii

### CONTENTS

A.3.2 Re asonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 72

A.4 Calais School

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 73

A.5 Cobb State Fish Hatchery

................................ ................................ ................... 73

A.6 Covanta Maine

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 74

A.7 Dolby Hydro Project

................................ ................................ ........................... 74

A. 8 Dover

- Foxcroft Water District

................................ ................................ ............ 74

A.9 Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP

................................ ................................ ...................... 75

A.9.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 75

A.9.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 75

A.10 East Millinocket Hydro Project

................................ ................................ .......... 77

A.11 East Millinocket POTW

................................ ................................ ...................... 77

A.12 Eustis Hydro Project

................................ ................................ ........................... 77

A.13 Grand Lake Stream Fish Hatchery

................................ ................................ ...... 78

A.14 Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF

................................ ................................ .............. 78

A.14.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 79

A.14.2 R easonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 79

A.15 Houlton Water Company POTW

................................ ................................ ........ 80

A.15.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 80

A.15.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 81

A.16 Howland Hydro

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 82

A.17 Howla nd POTW

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 82

A.17.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 82

A.17.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 82

A.18 Lincoln Sanitary District

................................ ................................ ..................... 83

A.18.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 84

A.18.2 R easonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 84

A.19 Mattaceunk Hydro Project

................................ ................................ .................. 85

A.20 Mattawamkeag WWTF

................................ ................................ ....................... 85

A.21 Milford

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 85

A.22 Millinocket Hydro

................................ ................................ ............................... 86

A.23 Millinocket POTW

................................ ................................ .............................. 86

A.23.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 86

A.23.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 86

A.24 Milo POTW

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 87

A.24.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 87

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. iii

### CONTENTS

A.24.2 R easonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 88

A.25 Passamaquoddy POTW

................................ ................................ ...................... 89

A.26 Passamaquoddy Water District

................................ ................................ ........... 89

A.27 Penobscot Indian Nation

................................ ................................ ..................... 89

A.27.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 89

A.27.2 R easonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 90

A.28 Tate and Lyle Ingredients

................................ ................................ ................... 90

A.28.1 Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 91

A.28.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 91

A.28.3 Effluent Limitations

................................ ................................ ................ 92

A.28.4 Compliance Costs

................................ ................................ ................... 93

A.29 Washington County Community College

................................ ........................... 96

A.30 West Enfield Hydro

................................ ................................ ............................ 96

A.31 Woodland Hydro

................................ ................................ ................................ . 96

A.32 Woodland Pulp

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 97

A.32.1 Eff luent Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 97

A.32.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ 97

A.33 Woodland Pulp: North Site

................................ ................................ ................. 98

B Derivation of Mercury Water Column Concentration for Use in Evaluating
Reasonable Potential

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 99

C Estimated Flows for Selected Receiving Waters in Indian Lands

....................... 101

C.1 Harmonic Mean Flow

................................ ................................ ....................... 101

C.2 Dissolved Concentration Potential

................................ ................................ .... 101

D Review of pH Limitations in Existing Permits and Cost Potential

..................... 103

D.1 Calais POTW

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 103

D.2 Guilford

- Sangerville

................................ ................................ ......................... 103

D.3 Houlton WWTF

................................ ................................ ................................ 104

D.4 Lincoln Sanitary District

................................ ................................ ................... 104

D.5 Tate and Lyle

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 104

D.6 Woodland Pulp

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 105

E Potential Point Source Compliance Costs, 7% Discount Rate

............................ 106

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. iv

### CONTENTS



## Exhibits

Exhibit E

- 1. Summary of Estimated Costs for the Proposed Rule 1

................................ ...................... iii

Exhibit 1

- 1. EPA Disapprovals of Maine WQS and Proposed WQS

................................ ..................... 3

Exhibit 1

- 2: Indian lands in Maine and location of facilities with permits to discharge to waters in
Indian lands or tributaries.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6

Exhibit 1

- 3. Document Roadmap for Analysis of Effects and Costs of EPA Proposed Rules in Response to EPA Disapprovals 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7

Exhibit 2

- 1. Number of Dischargers in Maine, by Category

................................ ............................ 9

Exhibit 2

- 2. Cumulative Size of Impaired Waters by Listing Cause/Stressor Type

.................... 14

Exhibit 2

- 3. Baseline Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Priority Pollutants in Maine 1

......................... 15

Exhibit 3

- 1. Proposed Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of Water and Organisms and Organisms Only (μg/L)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 23

Exhibi t 3

- 2. Baseline and Proposed Bacteria Criteria

................................ ................................ .......... 29

Exhibit 3

- 3. Comparison of Maine’s baseline (solid line) and EPA’s proposed (dashed lines) ammonia acute criteria for different temperatures 1

................................ ................................ ........ 31

Exhibit 3

- 4. Comparison of Maine’s baseline (solid lines) an d EPA’s proposed (dashed lines) ammonia chronic criteria for different water temperatures.

................................ ........................... 32

Exhibit 3

- 5. Discharger with Thermal Mixing Zone Affecting Waters in Indian Lands

..................... 36

Exhibit 4

- 1. Summary of Dischargers to Waters in Indian Lands or Their Tributari es

....................... 40

Exhibit 4

- 2: Facilities discharging to the Penobscot River in Indian lands or its tributaries.

.............. 45

Exhibit 4

- 3. Summary of Dischargers with Detected Effluent Data and Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 46

Exhibit 4

- 4. Summary of Current Disinfection and Dechlorination Practices at Facilities with Bacteria
Limitations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 52

Exhibit 4

- 5. Summary of Ammonia Effluent Data

................................ ................................ ............... 55

Exhibit 4

- 6. Summary of Ammonia Reasonable Potential Analysis

................................ .................... 56

Exhibit 4

- 7. Estimates of Cooling Tower Retrofit Costs at Facility with Thermal Mixing Zone for Discharges to Waters in Indian Lands or Tributaries

................................ ................................ ..... 58

Exhibit 6

- 1. Summary of Estimated Co mpliance Costs for Proposed Human Health Criteria for
Waters in Indian Lands 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 61

Exhibit 6

- 2. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Criteria for Bacteria 1

............... 62

Exhibit 6

- 3. Summary of Upper Bound Estimated of Compliance Costs for Proposed Mixing Zone Policy 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 62

Exhibit 6

- 4. Summary of Estimated Point Source Compliance Costs 1

................................ ................ 63

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. v

### CONTENTS

Exhibit 6

- 5. Uncertainties in An alysis of Costs

................................ ................................ ................... 64

Exhibit A

- 1. Summary of Effluent Data: Baileyville POTW

................................ ............................... 70

Exhibit A

- 2. Mercury Load Allocation for St. Croix River and Passamaquoddy Bay

......................... 70

Exhibit A

- 3. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Baileyville POTW

................................ .................... 71

Exhibit A

- 4. Summary of Effluent Data: Calais POTW

................................ ................................ ...... 72

Exhibit A

- 5. Reasonable Potential Analys is for Calais POTW

................................ ............................ 73

Exhibit A

- 6. Outfall Data for Covanta Maine Facility 1

................................ ................................ ........ 74

Exhibit A

- 7. Summary of Effluent Data: Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP

................................ ...................... 75

Exhibit A

- 8. Mercury Load Allocation for Penobscot River (Piscataquis Confluence)

...................... 76

Exhibit A

- 9. Mercury Load Allocation for Penobscot River, Downstream

................................ ......... 76

Exhibit A

- 10. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP

................................ .......... 77

Exhibit A

- 11. Summary of Flow and Limitation Tiers: Guilfo rd

- Sangerville WWTF 1

...................... 78

Exhibit A

- 12. Summary of Effluent Data: Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF

................................ ............ 79

Exhibit A

- 13. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF

................................ . 80

Exhibit A

- 14. Summary of Effluent Data: Houlton POTW

................................ ................................ . 80

Exhibit A

- 15. Mercury Load A llocation for Meduxnekeag River

................................ ....................... 81

Exhibit A

- 16. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Houlton POTW

................................ ...................... 81

Exhibit A

- 17. Summary of Effluent Data: Howland POTW

................................ ................................ 82

Exhibit A

- 18. Mercury Load Allocation for Penobscot River at Howland POTW

.............................. 83

Exhibit A

- 19. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Howland POTW

................................ ..................... 83

Exhibit A

- 20. Summary of Effluent Data: Lincoln Sanitary District

................................ ................... 84

Exhibit A

- 21. Mercury Load A llocation for Penobscot River at Lincoln Sanitary District

................. 84

Exhibit A

- 22. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Lincoln Sanitary Dis trict

................................ ........ 85

Exhibit A

- 23. Summary of Effluent Data: Millinocket POTW

................................ ............................ 86

Exhibit A

- 24. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Millinocket POTW

................................ ................. 87

Exhibit A

- 25. Summary of Effluent Data: Milo POTW

................................ ................................ ...... 88

Exhibit A

- 26. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Milo POTW

................................ ............................ 88

Exhibit A

- 27. Summary of Effluent Data: Penobs cot Indian Nation

................................ ................... 90

Exhibit A

- 28. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Penobscot Indian Nation

................................ ........ 90

Exhibit A

- 29. Summary of Effluent Data: Tate and Lyle

................................ ................................ .... 91

Exhibit A

- 30. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

................................ ....... 92

Exhibit A

- 31. Load Allocation for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

................................ ............................. 92

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. vi

### CONTENTS

Exhibit A

- 32. Efflue nt Limitations for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

................................ ....................... 93

Exhibit A

- 33. Input Parameters Used to Estimate Granular Activated Carbon Treatmen t Costs for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 94

Exhibit A

- 34. Range of Compliance Costs for Bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 95

Exhibit A

- 35. Summary of Effluent Data: Woodland Pulp

................................ ................................ .. 97

Exhibit A

- 36. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Woodland Pulp

................................ ....................... 98

Exhibit C

- 1. Flow Statistics for Selected Receiving Waters in Indian Lands.

................................ .. 101

Exhibit E

- 1. S ummary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Human Health Criteria for
Waters in Indian Lands 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 106

Exhibit E

- 2. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Criteria for Bacteria 1

............. 106

Exhibit E

- 3. Summary of Upper Bound Estimated of Compliance Co sts for Proposed Mixing Zone Policy 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 107

Exhibit E

- 4. Summary of Estimated Point Source Compliance Costs 1

................................ .............. 107

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. vii

### LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS



## List of Abbreviations

AM E L Average monthly effluent limit ation

BMP Best management practice

CCC Criterion continuous concentration

CMC Criterion maximum concentration

CPI Consumer Price Index

CWA Clean Water Act

DCP Dissolved concentration potential

DDT D ichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DMR Discharge monitoring report

DO Dissolved oxygen

ENR CCI Engineering News

- Record construction cost index

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FCR Fish consumption rate

GAC Granular activated carbon

GDP

- IPD Gross Domestic Product implicit price deflator

HHC Human health cri teria

I&I Inflow and infiltration

ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System

LID Low impact development

MDIFW Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

MEDEA Maine Division of Environmental and Assessment

MEDEH Maine Division of Environmental Healt h

MEC Maximum effluent concentration

MEDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection

MEPDES Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

MPN Most probable number

MS4 Municipal separate storm sewer systems

NOI Notice of intent

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. viii

### LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OSDS Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems

P2 Pollution prevention

PCB P olychlorinated biphenyl

POTW Publicly owned treatment works

PPI Producer Price Index

Ppm parts per million

SIC Standard industrial classification

SU Standard units

SWMP Stormwater management p rogram

TMDL Total maximum daily load

WDL Waste Discharge License

WQBELs Water quality based effluent limitations

WQS Water qual ity standards

WWTF Wastewater treatment facility

ZID Z one of initial dilution

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. ix

### INTRODUCTION



## 1 Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing water quality

standards (WQS) applicable to waters under jurisdiction of the S tate of Maine

. The proposal
addresses EPA’s disapproval of many of the state’s human health criteria (HHC) and six

other criteria for waters in Indian l ands , as well as the disapproval of three criteria and
standards affecting all stat e waters

. The proposal also addresses an Administrator’s determination that many of Maine’s HHC are not adequate to protect the designated use of sustenance fishing

. This report provides estimates of the potential incremental compliance

actions and costs t hat may be associated with the proposed regulations.

For the purposes of this report, the term “ waters in Indian lands ” refers to waters in the
reservations and trust lands of the four Indian tribes in Maine , as described more fully in the preamble to the proposed rule and in EPA’s Technical Support Document, entitled “Scope of

Waters ” ; and “discharges to waters in Indian lands and their tributaries ” refers to discharges directly into waters in Indian lands

, discharges indi rectly to such waters where the point of discharge is upstream of the boundary of the Indian lands , and discharges to the tributaries of
such waters.

1.1 Background

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended through P.L. 107

– 303, November 27, 2002), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), sets the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States. In the CWA, Congress established the national objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biologi cal integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and to achieve “wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the water” (CWA sections 101(a) and 101(a)(2)).

The CWA establishes the basis for the current WQS regulation and program. CWA section 303 addresses the development of state and authorized tribal WQS. WQS reflect the CWA national objectives for each water body. The core components of these s tandards are designated uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation requirements. Designated uses establish the environmental objectives for a water body, while water quality criteria define
the conditions necessary to achieve those environmental obj ectives. The antidegradation program complements designated uses and criteria by providing a framework for maintaining and protecting water quality.

After states, authorized tribes, territories, and the District of Columbia (hereafter, states and
authorize d tribes) designate the uses of waters under their jurisdiction, they must establish water quality criteria that protect those designated uses. EPA’s regulation at §131.11(a)(1) provides that such criteria “must be based on sound scientific rationale, and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.” States and authorized tribes must also adopt antidegradation policies to protect and maintain high quality waters

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 1

### INTRODUCTION

and existing uses of all waters, and identify specific meth ods to implement those policies (§131.12).

Any new or revised WQS adopted by a state under CWA section 303(c) must be submitted to EPA for review, to determine whether it meets the CWA’s requirements, and approval or disapproval

. If EPA disapproves a state WQS , EPA is required, under CWA section 303(c)(4), to promptly propose federal WQS if the state does not adequately address the disapproval within ninety ( 90 ) days after any disapproval

. EPA is further required to promulgate a federal standard within ninety days of the proposal unless the state adopts a revised standard that meets the requirements of the CWA.

CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) authorizes the Administrator to determine, even in the absence of a state submission, that a new or revised standard is necessary to meet CWA requirements. Upon making such a determination, EPA shall promptly propose, and then within ninety days promulgate, any such new or revised standard unless prior to such promulgation, the state has adopted a revised or new WQS which EPA determines to be in accordance with the CWA.

Exhibit 1

- 1 summ arizes the proposed WQS associated with EPA’s disapprovals of Maine WQS. Items 1 thro ugh 7 in the table apply specifically to waters in Indian l ands

, whereas

Items 8 through 10 apply more broadly to all state waters , unless otherwise specified

. In addition, with respect to item 1, EPA proposes the identical HHC to address the
Administrator’s determination

. 2 

### Several specific proposals described in items 1 through 3, 5 through 7

, 9 and 10 of Exhibit 1

- 1 may result in new or more stringent requirements for permittees or others . This analysis seeks to identify and estimate the potential incremental

costs associated with new or more stringent r equirements that result from the proposed WQS

.
Other proposed WQS (items 4 and 8 in Exhibit 1

- 1 ) relate to state provisions that, as far as EPA is aware, have been rarely, if ever, invoked . Given that the y would have been used only in very unusual circumstances, EPA’s proposed WQS are t herefore expected to have no material impacts and are not addressed further in this report.

2 The proposed HHC that address the Administrato r’s determination would apply to the waters in Indian

lands under certain circumstances

, and to any waters where there is a sustenance fishing designated use outside of waters in Indian lands, as described in the preamble to the proposed rule and in EPA’s Technical Support Document, entitled “Scope of Waters

. ” EPA’s discussion of waters in Indian lands in this economic analysis is broad enough to include any waters that may be found to be outside of waters in

Indian lands but where there is a sustenance fi shing designated use . Therefore the analysis of costs associated with the proposed HHC covers all dischargers to which the proposed HHC could apply, and this report does not separately focus on waters where there is a sustenance fishing designated use outs ide of
waters in Indian lands

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 2

### INTRODUCTION

Exhibit 1

- 1 . EPA Disapprovals of Maine WQS and Proposed WQS

Disapproval Current Maine WQS (M.R.S.) Proposed WQS 1

1. Human Health Criteria (HHC) for w aters in Indian
lands M.R.S. § 584, Appendix A EPA calculated values assuming a fish consumption rate (FCR) of 286 g rams per day incorporat ing new toxicity and exposure parameters for 96 pollutants.

2

. Bacteria Criteria for

w aters in Indian lands 38 M.R.S §465 (1.B, 2B, 3.B and 4.B), §465

- A(1.B), and §465

- B(1.B, 2.B and 3.B) . For Class B, C, GPA, SB, and SC waters, the criteria apply May 15 to September 30. The bacteria content of Class AA and Class A
waters shal l be as naturally occurs, and i n Class AA, Class A, Class B, Class C and Class GPA waters, Escherichia coli bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 100 organisms per 100 milliliter ( ml ) obtained over a representative period of 30 days, nor shall 320 organisms per 100 ml be exceeded more than 10 percent of the
time in any 30 day interval.

The bacteria content of Class SA waters shall be as naturally occurs, and i n Class SA, Class SB, and Class SC waters, enterococcus bacteria shall not exceed a geomet ric mean of 30 organisms per 100 ml obtained over a representative period of 30 days, nor shall 11 0 organisms per 100 ml be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time in any 30 day interval. In Class SA shellfish harvesting areas, the
number of total colifo rm bacteria in samples representative of the waters in shellfish harvesting areas shall not exceed a geometric mean for each sampling station of 70 MPN (most probable number) per 100 ml, with not more than ten percent of samples exceeding 230 MPN per
100 m l for the taking of shellfish.

3 . Ammonia aquatic life
criteria for fresh water in
Indian lands DEP Rule Chapter 584, Appendix A Tables 5a and 5b in U.S. EPA’s Aquatic Life Ambient Water quality Criteria for Ammonia

– Freshwater (EPA, 2013) provide the acute criteria values and Table 6 provides the chronic
criteria.

4 . Natural Conditions
Clause s (only as they appl y to human health) for

w

aters in Indian lands 38 M.R.S §464(4.C) and 38 M.R.S. §420(2.A) Proposed rule specifies that these provisions do not apply to HHC (no economic analysis)

5 . pH for fresh waters in
Indian lands 38 M.R.S §464(4.A(5)) Current EPA pH recommendation of 6.5 for lower end of range, and Maine’s current 8.5 for upper
end.

6 . Temperature c riteria for
tidal waters in Indian
lands DEP Rule Chapter 582(5) Maximum cumulative increase in weekly average temperature from all artificial sources is 1°C (1.8 ° F) year round, compared to baseline temperature, and provided that the summer weekly maxim um of 18°C (64.4°F) is not exceeded; natural temperature c y cles must be
maintained.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 3

### INTRODUCTION

Exhibit 1

- 1 . EPA Disapprovals of Maine WQS and Proposed WQS

Disapproval Current Maine WQS (M.R.S.) Proposed WQS 1

7 . Mixing zone policy for

w aters in Indian lands 38 M.R.S §451 Proposed rule clarifies the extent to which criteria may be exceeded in a mixing zone; specifies that mixing zone must be as small as necessary, and pollutant concentrations must be minimized and reflect the best practicable engineering design of the outfall to maximize initial mixing; requires use of methodologies in EPA’s “Technical Support
Document for Water Quality

- based Toxics Control”; prohibit s the use of a mixing zone for bioaccumulative pollutants and for bacteria ; and establishes a number of restrictions to protect designated uses, including requirements that the mixing zone not result in lethalit y to organisms passing through or within the mixing zone, and not endanger critical areas such as breeding and spawning grounds, habitat for threatened or endangered species, and areas with sensitive biota, shellfish beds, fisheries, and recreational

areas

.
8 . Waiver or modification of protection and improvement laws. 38 M.R.S §363

- D Proposed rule specifies that this statute does not
allow waivers or modifications of WQS (no economic analysis)

.
9 . Numeric criteria for dissolved oxygen ( DO ) in
Class A waters throughout
the State 38 M.R.S §465(2.B) Includes Maine’s year

- round criteria of 7 ppm (7 mg/L) or 75 percent of saturation, whichever is higher , and adds more protective DO criteria

— the 7

- day mean DO concentration shall not be
less tha n 9.5 ppm (9.5 mg/L), and the 1

- day
minimum DO concentration shall not be less than 8 ppm (8.0 mg/L)

— for spawning areas in winter
months

.
1 0 . Phenol criteria for protection of human health (water and organisms) to correct
mathematical error

, for
state waters outside of
Indian lands DEP Rule Chapter 584 Appendix A 4,000 μ g/l ( based on EPA 304(a) 2015 HHC criteria and Maine’s FCR of 32.4 g/day in state

waters ) ( Promulgation for waters in Indian lands
addressed in Item 1 above

. )

1

. Items in ital ics are expected to have no material effect on dischargers and are therefore not addressed in this economic analysis.



### 1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Analysis

The purpose of this analysis is to identify, using available water quality and discharge data

and information, the incremental compliance actions and costs t hat publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and industrial point source dischargers may incur as a result of EPA’s proposed criteria , as well as costs that may be associated with actions to control pollution from nonpoint sources or to implement environmental programs

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 4

### INTRODUCTION

Although the proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or other sources of pollution, state implementation may result in new or
revis ed Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( M E PDES ) permit conditions for point source dischargers to incorporate revised water quality based effluent limit ation s (WQBELs). This analysis of impacts on point sources focuses specifically on the incremen tal costs that may be incurred by POTWs and industrial point source dischargers as a result of
the proposed WQS s.

T he proposed criteria may also result in incremental determinations that waters do not meet WQS , resulting in the waters being added to the l ist of impaired waters in the state . As such, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection ( ME DEP ) may need to develop additional total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters. There may also be
incremental controls and costs associated with lo ad allocations for nonpoint sources under
such TMDLs to attain standards.

The scope of the analysis depends on the sets of waters relevant to the proposed WQS , either: (1) waters in Indian lands ; (2) other state waters , as described below

.

1.2.1 Proposed WQS Applicable only to Waters in Indian Lands


### As discussed in the previous section, numerous disapprovals and corresponding proposed

criteria and WQS are specific only to waters in Indian lands . EPA identified the relevant
waters based on the extent of Indian lands (specifically, the reservation and trust lands)
shown in Exhibit 1

- 2

. The data layer used in creating the map in Exhibit 1

- 2 identifies Indian lands in New England

.
Facilities t hat discharge into waters in Indian lands or their tributaries could contribute to
exceedances of the proposed criteria in these waters and may incur costs as a result. As
shown in Exhibit 1

- 2 and further described in Section 2.1.1 , EPA determined that 3 3 facilities currently have permits t o discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries. In evaluating the implications of complying with proposed WQS applicable to these waters, EPA looked specifically for potential changes in permit conditions for these facilities. For example, EPA evaluated data for the 33 permitted dis chargers to determine whether they have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceed ances of the proposed WQS . When reasonable potential exists, EPA estimated revised effluent limits and potential control costs

to meet the limits

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 5

### INTRODUCTION

Exhibit 1

- 2 : Indian l ands in Maine and location of faciliti es with permits to discharge to waters
in Indian l ands or tributaries.

1.2.2 Proposed Criteria Applicable to All State Waters (DO) and to Waters O utside of Indian Lands (Phenol)


### The proposed criteria for DO and phenol may have cost implications for point and nonpoint

sources across the S tate

.
EPA’s proposed DO numeric criterion applies statewide to waters categorized as Class A. 3 

### The proposed rule would r etain Maine’s year

- round criteria, but add more protective DO criteria for spawning areas in winter mo nths

.

3 Fresh surface waters are categorized into four categories, of which Class A waters are the second highest classification. According to 38 M.R.S. 3.1.4

- A, Class A waters must be “ of such quality that they are

suitable for the designated uses of drinking water after disinfection; 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 a s habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat

must be characterized as natural .”

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 6

### INTRODUCTION

A pproximately 19,500 miles of rivers and streams are categorized in Class A, representing

44 percent of all river and stream miles in the state (MEDEP, 201 2 ). EPA identified 26 facilities that currently discharge to Class A waters and may incur costs associated with more stringent DO

. 4



### The proposed phenol criterion that would apply to waters outside of Indian lands may result in costs to facilities that have phenol in their effluent.

1.3 Organization of Report

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

Section 2: Baseline for the Analysis

– describes the current conditions for each pollutant addressed by the disapproval. For example, in the case of the HHC , the section describes applicable toxic criteria and ME DEP procedures for implementing the criteria in M E PDES permits, sources of toxic pollutants to surface waters, water quality impairments from toxic pollutants, and ongoing efforts to reduce and eliminate these impairments

.
Section 3: Proposed Crite ria

– outlines the proposed WQS

. Section 4: Method for Estimating Potential Costs: Point Sources

– describes the method for estimating compliance costs associated with baseline and proposed criteria for point
sources in terms of revisions to MEPDES permits

.
Section 5: Method for Identifying Potential Costs: Nonpoint Sources

– describes the method for identifying potential for incremental impairment and compliance costs associated
with baseline and proposed criteria for nonpoint sources.

Section 6: Potential Compliance Costs

– provides estimates of potential costs to comply
with the proposed WQS , and discusses the uncertainties associated with the estimates.

Section 7: References

– provides the references used in the analysis

. Appendices provide data and information on individual facilities, and analyses of potential impacts under the proposed r ule

.
Exhibit 1

- 3 lists the proposed actions and indicates the sections of this report where the
baseline conditions

, proposed WQS, and estimated cost impacts are discussed.

Exhibit 1

- 3

. Document R oadmap for A nalysis of E ffects and C osts of EPA Proposed Rules in Response to EPA D isapproval s 1

Disapproval Analysis Baseline Effects of Proposed WQS Incremental Cost Estimate

1. HHC for waters in Indian lands Section 2.2.2 Section 3.1.1 Section s 4.1 and 6.1

2 . Bacteria criteria for waters in Indian Section 2.2.3 Section 3.1.2 Sections 4.2 and 6.1

4 Based on classification of receiving waters in 6 draft and 20 final individual permits issued by MEDEP.

See http://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/me.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 7

### INTRODUCTION

lands

3 . Ammonia aquatic li fe criteria for fresh
water in Indian lands Section 2.2.4 Section 3.1.3 Section 4.3 ; no
incremental costs

4 . Natural Conditions Clauses (only as they applies to human health) for waters
in Indian lands No material effect (see

Section 1.2.1 ) No material effect (see

Section 1.2.1 ) N/A

5 . pH for fresh w aters in Indian lands Section 2.2.5 Section 3.1.4 No i ncremental costs ( see Section 3.1.4 )

6 . Temperature criteria for tidal waters
in Indian lands Section 2.2.6 Section 3.1.5 No incremental costs ( see Section 3.1.5 )

7 . Mixing zone policy for waters in
Indian lands Section 2.2.7 Section 3.1.6 Section s 4.4 and 6.1

8 . Waiver or modification of protection and improvement laws for all state

waters

. No material effect (see

Section 1.2.1 ) No material effect (see

Section 1.2.1 ) N/A

9 . Numeric criteria for DO in Class A

waters statewide. Section 2.2.8 Section 3.2 No incremental costs ( see Section 3.2 )

10

. Phenol criteria for protection of human health (water and organisms) to correct mathematical error, for state
waters outside of Indian lands Section 2.2.2 Section 3.3 No incremental costs ( see Section 3.3 )

1. Items in italics are expected to have no material effect on dischargers and are therefore not addressed in this economic analysis.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 8

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE



## 2 Baseline for the Analysis

This section describes the applicable baseline for evaluating the incremental costs associated
with the proposed WQS including potential sources of the pollutants of concern, current water quality impairments, disapproved water quality criteria and associa ted implementation procedures

.

2.1 Sources of Pollutants to Surface Waters

Pollutants can be introduced to surface water through natural and human activities, including municipal and industrial effluents, stormwater discharges , septic systems, fish hatcheries

, agricultural runoff, forestry, atmospheric deposition , and contaminated sediments.

2.1.1 Municipal and Industrial Dischargers


### EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) lists 69 major and 409 non

- major

M E PDES permitted dischargers in Maine. Exhibit 2

- 1 provides the number of facilities by type ( non

- major/major ) and category (based on standard industrial classification ( SIC ) codes provided in ICIS). It also shows the number of facilities that discharge to waters in Indian

lands or their tributaries. Pollutants depend on the type of facility, but may include metals and other toxics, bacteria, nutrients, biological oxygen demand and other orga nic compounds, and elevated temperature from non

- contact cooling water.

Most major dischargers in Maine are POTWs (57 out of 69 major dischargers). The remaining 1 2 major dischargers are industrial facilities categorized as wood product, pulp or

paper mill s ( 9 facilities), electrical services (2 facilities), or industrial machinery and equipment manufacturers (1 facility).

Of the 3 3 facilities that discharge to waters in Indian l ands or their tributaries

, 1 5 are POTWs (6 of which are major dischargers)

. The remaining dischargers consist of two wood products

, pulp , or paper mills ( one of which is a major discharger)

, nine hydro power projects , two
educational establishments ( listed under “Not Categorized or Unknown” in Exhibit 2

- 1 ) , one food manufacturing facility, two drinking water treatment plant s , and two fish hatcheries

.
Exhibit 2

- 1 . Number of Dischar gers in Maine

, by Category

Category (Based on SIC Code) Non

- Major Major All Indian Lands or Tributaries

01

- 02: Crop and Animal Agriculture 11 0 11

09: Aquaculture 32 0 32 2
16: Heavy Construction 1 0 1
20: Food Manufacturing 17 0 17 1

22

- 23: Textile and Textile Products Manufacturing 2 0 2

24

- 2 6: Wood Products, Pulp, and Paper 5 9 14 2
28: Chemicals and Chemical Preparations 4 0 4

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 9

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

Exhibit 2

- 1 . Number of Dischar gers in Maine

, by Category

Category (Based on SIC Code) Non

- Major Major All Indian Lands or Tributaries

30

- 31: Plastics and Leather Products 2 0 2

35

- 36: Industrial Machinery and Equipment 1 1 2

37: Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 13 0 13

40: Rail Transportation 1 0 1

49: Utilities

4911: Electric Services 37 2 39 9
4952: Sewerage Systems 97 57 154 15

All Other Utilities 24 0 24 2

50

- 51: Durable and Nondurable Goods 14 0 14

65

- 97: All Others (Including Not Categorized) 35 0 35

91

- 97: Government 3 0 3
Not Categorized or Unknown 110 0 110 2

Total 409 69 478 3 3

Source: Summary developed based on data from the EPA ICIS database, and supplementary data from facility fact sheets. Categorizations based on 4

- digit SIC codes. Includes permits with expiration date between
2 / 28 /2012 and 8 / 30 / 2020

.

2.1.2 Urban Stormwater


### Stormwater discharges are generated by precipitation and runoff from land, pavements, building rooftops, and other surfaces. Stormwater from municipal and industrial areas may contribute pollutants, including sediment, nutrient, and toxic pollutants (such as the pollutants addressed by the proposed HHC ) , to surface waters (for example, see MEDEP,

201 4 ). Changes in the routing, magnitude, and timing of the stormwater also results in changes in the flow regime of rivers , including flash flo ods and associated bank erosion and

habitat destruction

. Maine has a population of 1.3 million people, concentrated mostly in the southern part of the

state and the coastline. While only approximately 3 percent of Maine’s landscape is developed lands and paved ways (MEDEP, 2014), stormwater runoff and other development

related impacts are significant causes of impairment or stressors for the state’s waters (see

Se ction 2.2 ).

In particular, runoff from impervious cover is responsible for 54 miles of rivers and streams not meeting WQS for aquatic life use , while other stormw ater

- related sources are responsible for impairment of 92 miles of rivers and streams (MEDEP, 2012). Stormwater runoff is also a significant source of lake impairments. To address stormwater runoff as the source of impairment in 29 segments of rivers and s treams across the state, MEDEP developed a statewide impervious cover TMDL. The TMDL sets targets for the percentage of total impervious cover (%IC) in watersheds and determines reductions in stormwater runoff volume and associated pollutants that may be n eeded to meet WQS . These reductions may be

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 10

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

achieved by using best management practices ( BMPs ) and low impact development (LID) techniques, as described in a watershed management plan (WMP) specific to each location.
The use of the %IC metric is based upon the observed relationship between the amount of human disturbance within a watershed and the decline in aquatic communities in streams and overall ecosystem health.

ME DEP regulates land use activities through five statutes: the E rosion and S edimentation

C o ntrol L aw; the Site Location of Development Law ; the Storm Water Management Law ; the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act ; and the Natural Resources Protection Act . These regulations control the type of development activities that may take place in various areas and BMPs that must be implemented to mitigate impact during and after construction. Other programs focus on reducing impacts from fertilizer application and road

- salt management.

ME DEP regulates stormwater discharges from small municipal separate storm s ewer systems (MS4s) through a general permit (MEDEP, 2013)

. This permit covers 30 municipalities, eight state or federally owned facilities, and 2 transportation agencies (Maine Department of Transportation and Maine Turnpike Authority). This general permi t requires the permittees to develop, implement, and enforce a stormwater management program ( SWMP ) including six minimum control measures: public education and outreach on stormwater impacts, public involvement and participation, illicit discharge detecti on and elimination, construction site stormwater runoff control, post

- construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment, and pollution prevention (P2) /good housekeeping for municipal operations.

Industrial dischargers, including those engaged in manufacturing, transportation, mining, and steam electric power industries, scrap yards, landfills, certain sewage treatment plants, and hazardous waste management facilities may have stormwater requirements in their individual

MEPDES permi ts. Additionally, MEDEP issued a Multi

- Sector Industrial Stormwater general permit (MEDEP, 201 1 ) , which covers stormwater discharges from industrial
activities and requires facility owners to file a notice of intent (NOI) for coverage and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that includes BMPs to prevent, control, and treat stormwater pollution, a monitoring plan and discussion of the site controls that the discharger will implement to prevent stormwater pollution. The permit also includes
additional requirements for 31 specific sectors.

2.1.3 Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems


### According to the Maine Division of Environmental Health (MEDEH, 2015a), Maine households are predominantly rural, relying heavily on onsite wastewater disposal systems (OSDS), or sep tic systems. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau (1990) indicates that in 1990, over half of homes in Maine utilized these systems (301,373 compared with 266,344 on public sewerage systems and 19,328 using some other means). The number of households in
Maine has increased since 1990 by about 24 percent (based on 727,632 households in 2014 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). More recent data on the share of households using OSDS is not available; however, the MEDEH processes approximately 10,000 system permits annually

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 11

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

(MEDEH, 2015 b ), suggesting that OSDS are still a predominant wastewater disposal method

for Maine households.

When properly installed, maintained, and operated, these systems can provide safe and effective sanitation in areas that lack centralized municip al wastewater collection. Malfunctioning disposal systems can cause bacterial contamination and deliver excess nutrients to surface waters. Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is responsible for rules addressing the disposal of wastewate r, set s design and installation criteria, issues permits and installer certifications, conducts inspections, and provide s grants to facilitate replacement of malfunctioning septic systems

.

2.1.4 Agriculture and Forestry



### Forests account for over two thirds ( 69 p ercent) of Maine’s landscape while land in agricultural production represents another 6 percent ( MEDEP , 201 4 ). Pesticides applied to agricultural or forestry lands can reach surface waters through irrigation return flow, stormwater runoff, and erosion of s oils. Timber harvesting operations can also release
sediment and nutrients. The Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry (DACF) and the Maine Forest Services, respectively, have primary responsibility to control runoff from agricultural and fo restry lands.

MEDEP has identified agriculture as a source of impaired wa ter quality for 6 lakes (10,532 acres) and 358 miles of rivers and streams. Pollutants of concern in these waters include bacteria, soil, fertilizers, and pesticides (MEDEP, 2014). T he DACF promotes the widespread use of agricultural BMPs through the Nutrient Management Act, which primarily aims to reduce nutrient runoff from livestock, and the Agricultural Compliance Program, which promotes, inspects, and assists with the implementat ion of agricultural BMPs.

Maine has the highest percentage of forested land of any state, and approximately 450,000 acres are harvested annually (MEDEP, 2014). The Maine Forestry Service promotes the widespread use of forestry BMPs for all forestry operat ions. Pursuant to the Nonpoint Source ( NPS ) Management Program Statute (38 M.R.S. Article 1

- F), it has developed BMP guidance and programs, and provides BMP assistance to landowners and wood harvesters.

Note that fish hatcheries are point sources covered b y individual MEPDES permits in Maine
and are therefore addressed in this ana l ysis.

2.1.5 Atmospheric Deposition


### Atmospheric deposition may be a potential nonpoint source to surface waters through either direct or indirect deposition. Direct deposition occurs when pollutants are deposited directly on surface waters from the atmosphere. Indirect deposition reflects th e process by which metals and other pollutants such as pesticides deposited on the land surface are washed off during storm events and enter surface water through stormwater runoff.

Maine has a statewide fish consumption advisory due to mercury levels. In 2007, an
estimated 98 percent of the total load of mercury to Northeast freshwater bodies was due to

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 12

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

atmospheric deposition (Connecticut DEP et al., 2007). Since then, EPA has promulgated regulations aimed at curbing emissions of mercury from coal

- fired p ower plants and other

sources. 5 

### Atmospheric deposition is not directly addressed through any existing regulation,

but may be indirectly addressed through TMDLs in estimating load allocations

. Maine is covered by the Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL

, which o utlines strategies for reducing mercury concentrations in fish and achiev ing a target of 0.2 milligrams per kilogram ( mg/kg) or parts per million ( ppm ) fish tissue residue of mercury in the edible portion of fish in

Maine

. 6 

### These strategies include focusin g on atmospheric deposition to achieve the bulk of loading reductions while ensuring that loadings from point sources remain small.

2.1.6 Contaminated Sediments


### When pollutants enter a waterbody through runoff, precipitation, or other means, they can

accumulate in sediments and contribute to poor water quality for many years (U.S. EPA, 2012). Many waterbody sediments are contaminated by legacy pollutants including polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs )

, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other pesticides , which contribute to impairments of these waters even decades after discharges of these pollutants have ceased

. Thus, s everal of Maine’s major freshwater streams (e.g., Androscoggin River, Kennebec River, and Penobscot River) have fish consumption
advis o r ies based on elevated DDT, dioxin, and PCB level s . A state

- wide advisory for dioxins
and PCBs also applies to all coastal waters (U.S. EPA, 2015 b ). These advisories either provide recommended guidelines for the consumption of fish by certain subpopulation( s) or advise against consumption of fish from the affected waterbodies by the general population

. In general, the state advises consumers to follow the most limiting guideline, based on mercury, DDT, dioxins, or PCBs

.

2.2 Baseline Water Quality and Criteria

2.2.1 W ater Quality Impairments


### According to Maine’s 2012 Integrated Report, which identifies impaired waters and reports on the status of water quality statewide , 95 percent of assess ed rivers and streams miles,

91 percent of assessed lake acres and 94 percent o f assessed marine waters fully attai ned the

State’s WQS ( MEDEP , 2012). 7 

### F or the remaining waters, MEDEP identified one or more

5 For example, in February 2012, EPA promulgated the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS; 40 CFR parts 60 and 63). The MATS are estimated to reduce 90 percent of the mercury air emissions from coal

fired power plants (77 FR 9304). See http://www3.epa.gov/ mats/index.html

.

6 In February 2015, EPA disapproved that fish tissue mercury criterion for waters in Indian lands but it remains applicable for other waters in Maine

.

7 Includes waters presumed to attain all uses based on evidence that some of the designated uses are attained, no use is threatened, or data are insufficient to determine if remaining uses are attained or threatened. These waters represent the majority of the waters categorized as attaining the WQS.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 13

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

sources of impairment because of exceedances of one or more applicable WQS. Exhibit 2

- 2 summarizes causes of impairments for rivers and streams , lakes, and marine waters

.
Exhibit 2

- 2

. Cumulative S ize of I mpaired W aters by L isting C ause/ S tressor T ype

Cause of Impairment River/stream (miles) Lake (acres) Marine waters (square miles)
Pathogens / Bacteria 175 159

Nonpoint sources and combined sewer overflows Variable Variable
Aquatic Life Criteria

Integrated effects including biocriteria, habitat and nutrient biological indicators 408

Habitat assessment (lake) 48,964

Marine life 1
Oxygen depletion 475 634
Dissolved oxygen 464 6

BOD 21
Sediment oxygen demand <1
Altered flow regime 31
Fish passage barrier 4.5

Nutrients 243
Nutrient/eutrophication, biological indicators 184 2
Phosphorus (total) 36,234
Total inorganics 26
Methylmercury 986,952

Metals

- copper <1
Total organics 422

Dioxins 371 2,846

PCBs 418 2,846

Pesticides 217

DDT 214
pH, acidity, caustic conditions 1

Sedimentation 15
Harmful algae blooms 8
Secchi Disk Transparency 35,600
Turbidity 7,865

Unknown 2 Source: Based on 2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report; Tables 4

- 10 to 4

- 14).



### The most recent assessment identified i ndustrial and municipal (primarily POTW) point source discharges as the first and fifth most important sources of impairments, respectively, for rivers and streams in terms of impaired miles . These sources represent 452. 5 miles of

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 14

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

impaired rivers and 168 miles of impaired streams. Other impairment sources include unspecified non

- point sources, agriculture, development

- related sources (such as urban stormwater, impervious surfaces/parking lot runoff, and post

- development e rosion and sedimentation), dam or impoundment, and others.

Sources of impairments for lakes include a tmospheric deposition of toxics (which represents the largest impact in terms of impaired lake area ) , followed by impacts from hydro

structure s, flow regulation/modification, residential development, agriculture ( e.g. , crop production and livestock grazing or feeding operations), and others

. Finally, MEDEP identified legacy pollutants as the most important contributor to impairments in marine waters, b y impaired area, with CSOs being a variable contributor.

Since 1998, the state developed, and EPA approved, TMDLs for 23 lakes and 14
rivers/streams to address impairments previously identified by the state

. 8

2.2.2 Toxics



### Exhibit 2

- 3 shows the Maine HHC ( 06

- 096 Chapter 584, Appendix A ) that EPA disapproved
and for which EPA propos es to promulgate HHC

. T hese are the “baseline” criteria against
which EPA’s proposed criteria are compared for evaluating potential incremental cost impacts

. 9 

### The table also shows aquatic life criteria for freshwater and marine waters , where they exist for the pollutants for which there are HHC

.
Exhibit 2

- 3

. Baseline Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Priority Pollutants in Maine 1

Pollutant Freshwater Aquatic Life (μg/L) Marine Aquatic Life (μg/L) Human Health (μg/L)

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Water and Organisms Organisms Only

1,1,2,2

- Tetrachloroethane 0.16 2.2

1,1,2

- Trichloroethane 0.58 8.42

1,1

- Dichloroethylene 320 3900

1,2,4,5

- Tetrachlorobenzene 0.55 0.58

1,2,4

- Trichlorobenzene 25 38

1,2

- Dichlorobenzene 330 700

1,2

- Dichloropropane 0.50 7.9

1,2

- Diphenylhydrazine 0.03 0.11

1,2

- Trans

- Dichloroethylene 140 5500

8 http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/tmdl/tmdl2.html . Accessed October 13, 2015.

9 It is EPA’s position that the criteria EPA disapproved were never in effect in waters in Indian lands. However, Maine’s permit s for dischargers to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries include limits to meet the baseline criteria. The economic analysis identifies the incremental costs associated with complying with more stringent permit requirements to meet the proposed cri teria as compared to the current permit limits to meet the baseline criteria.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 15

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

Exhibit 2

- 3

. Baseline Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Priority Pollutants in Maine 1

Pollutant Freshwater Aquatic Life (μg/L) Marine Aquatic Life (μg/L) Human Health (μg/L)

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Water and Organisms Organisms Only

1,3

- Dichlorobenzene 250 520

1,3

- Dichloropropene 0.34 11.4

1,4

- Dichlorobenzene 50 105

2,4,5

- Trichlorophenol 1300 2000

2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 0.93 1.31

2,4

- Dichlorophenol 63.3 160

2,4

- Dimethylphenol 280 460

2,4

- Dinitrophenol 68.4 2900

2,4

- Dinitrotoluene 0.11 1.83

2

- Chloronaphthalene 650 850

2

- Chlorophenol 55.2 80.6

2

- Methyl

- 4,6

- Dinitrophenol 12.5 155

3,3'

- Dichlorobenzidine 0.013 0.015

4,4'

- DDD 0.00017 0.00017

4,4'

- DDE 0.00012 0.00012

4,4'

- DDT 1.1 0.001 0.13 0.001 0.00012 0.00012

Acenaphthene 430 540

Acrolein 3 3 3.9 5.0

Aldrin 3 1.3 2 .7E

- 05 2

. 7 E

- 05

alpha

- BHC 0.0017 0.0026

alpha

- Endosulfan 0.22 0.056 0.034 0.0087 39 48

Anthracene 7100 22000
Antimony 5.5 350

Benzene

- Upper CSF 0.58 7.55
Benzo (a) Anthracene 0.003 0.01
Benzo (a) Pyrene 0.003 0.01
Benzo (b) Fluoranthene 0.003 0.01
Benzo (k) Fluoranthene 0.003 0.01

beta

- BHC 0.006 0.009

beta

- Endosulfan 0.22 0.056 0.034 0.0087 39 48
Bis(2

- Chloro

- 1

- Methylethyl)
Ether 1350 35000

Bis(2

- Chloroethyl) Ether 0.029 0.28
Bis(2

- Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 0.8 1.19

Bromoform 4.2 73
Butylbenzyl Phthalate 900 1050

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.23 0.89

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 16

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

Exhibit 2

- 3

. Baseline Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Priority Pollutants in Maine 1

Pollutant Freshwater Aquatic Life (μg/L) Marine Aquatic Life (μg/L) Human Health (μg/L)

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Water and Organisms Organisms Only

Chlordane 2.4 0.0043 0.09 0.004 0.00044 0.00044

Chlorobenzene 120 840

Chlorodibromomethane 0.40 6.94
Chrysene 0.003 0.01
Cyanide 22 5.2 1 1 140 140
Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene 0.003 0.01

Dichlorobromomethane 0.53 9.3

Dieldrin 0.24 0.056 O 0.71 0.0019 2

. 9 E

- 05 2

. 9

Diethyl Phthalate 13000 24000
Dimethyl Phthalate 221000 600000

Di

- n

- Butyl Phthalate 1400 2400

Dinitrophenols 68 2860

Endosulfan Sulfate 39 48

Endrin 0.086 0.036 0.037 0.0023 0.032 0.032
Endrin Aldehyde 0.16 0.16
Ethylbenzene 435 1150

Fluoranthene 71 75

Fluorene 950 2100

gamma

- BHC (Lindane) 0.95 0.16 0.68 0.1

Heptachlor 0.52 0.0038 0.053 0.0036 4

. 3 E

- 05 4

. 3 E

- 05

Heptachlor Epoxide 0.52 0.0038 0.053 0.0036 2

. 1 E

- 05 2

. 1 E

- 05

Hexachlorobenzene 0.0002 0.0002

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.43 9.96

Hexachlorocyclohexane

Technical 0.0123 0.0414

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 39 600

Hexachloroethane 1.04 1.78
Indeno (1,2,3

- cd) Pyrene 0.003 0.01

Isophorone 35 520

Methoxychlor 0.03 0.03 100
Methylene Chloride 4.6 320
Methylmercury 0.2 mg/Kg

Nickel 120.2 13.4 75 8.28 400 1000

Nitrobenzene 16.7 370

Nitrosamines 0.0008 1.24

N

- Nitrosodibutylamine 0.0061 0.118

N

- Nitrosodiethylamine 0.0008 1.24

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 17

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

Exhibit 2

- 3

. Baseline Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Priority Pollutants in Maine 1

Pollutant Freshwater Aquatic Life (μg/L) Marine Aquatic Life (μg/L) Human Health (μg/L)

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Water and Organisms Organisms Only

N

- Nitrosodimethylamine 0.00069 1.63

N

- Nitrosodi

- n

- propylamine 0.005 0.27

N

- Nitrosodiphenylamine 2.23 3.24

N

- Nitrosopyrrolidine 0.016 18.4

Pentachlorobenzene 0.79 0.81

Pentachlorophenol 8.72 6.69 13 7.9 0.25 1.64

Phenol 10514 462963
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 0.014 0.03 3

. 5 E

- 05 3

. 5 E

- 05

Pyrene 710 2160

Selenium 5 291 71 162 2250

Toluene 1200 8100

Toxaphene 0.73 0.0002 0.21 0.0002 0.00015 0.000155
Trichloroethylene 2.37 16.2
Vinyl Chloride 0.025 1.32

Zinc 30.6 30.6 95 86 6000 14000

Source: ME DEP Regulation 06

- 096 CMR 584, Appendix A

, and 38 MRS § 420(1

- B) . See original source for additional notes on criteria applicability or basis

. 1 The table does not include additional priority pollutants for which the State of Maine established aquatic life criteria only (e.g., C admium, Chromium III and Chromium VI).



### As discussed in Section 2.1.5 , a large fraction of state waters are impaired for mercury from atmospheric deposition from sources outside the region. State law prohibits the discharge of mercury and directs facilities to develop and implement P2 practices to reduce and remove mercury discharges over time ( 38 MRS § 420 ), and authorizes ME DEP to establish interim discharge limits to reduce the discharge of mercury and achieve ambient water quality criteria for mercury ( 3 8 MRS § 413(11) ). ME DEP Rule , in turn (06

- 096 Chapter 51 9) specifies that such interim mercury limits must be based upon

– and no l ess stringent statistically

– than past discharge levels, and that such interim limits shall not authorize any discharge of m ercury that would cause or contribute to receiving water concentrations of mercury that exceed any water quality criteria published by EPA

. Under Chapter 519, MEDEP controls mercury discharges from point source dischargers to surface waters through
effluen t limitations, monitoring requirements, and P2 plan requirements. These limitations and requirements apply to all permittees that have the potential to discharge wastewaters that may contain or come into contact with mercury. Each facility is required to d evelop and implement a P2 plan (based on model plans developed by MEDEP), and conduct effluent

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 18

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

monitoring for mercury at least 3 times a year. Additionally, MEDEP establishes interim mercury effluent limits for each permittee based on the facility’s mean m ercury effluent concentration adjusted to account for the standard error and confidence level. 10 

### Further, in accordance with Chapter 519 , the facility does not violate the ambient criteria for mercury if the facility is in compliance with its interim discha rge limit or with a remediation or corrective action plan, license or order approved either by MEDEP or the U.S. EPA.

As discussed later in Section 3 , EPA is propo sing HHC (based on the consumption of water and organisms and for consumption of organisms only ) for waters in Indian lands to address the disapproved criteria presented in Exhibit 2

- 3

.
There are little available data on ambient levels of these pollutants in waters in Indian lands

. EPA reviewed the available monitoring data to characterize the quality of surface waters in

Indian lands . EPA identified 66 monitoring locations that were sampled during the period of 2000 through 2015 within Indian lands , with very little monitoring data for the set of toxic pollutants for which EPA is proposing HHC

.
As discussed in Section 1.2.2 , EPA is proposing two phenol criteria for water plus organisms

— one for waters in Indian Lands and one for all other state waters. EPA found no data to
characterize baseline phenol levels in either wa ters in Indian lands or other state waters ; available water quality monitoring data provide no water column results for phenol and the integrated assessment report makes no mention of phenol as a conc ern.

2.2.3 Bacteria



### As summarized in Exhibit 2

- 2 , as of the 2012 integrated water quality assessment, approximately 175 miles of rivers and streams and 159 square miles of estuarine and marine waters (excluding waters listed based on Combined Sewer Overflows) were identified as impaired due to elevated bacterial counts. Bacteria levels are monitored by MEDEP in selected urban streams, by the Maine Health y Bea ches program in swimming beaches and in tidal waters that influence bacterial loads to recreational areas, and by the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) to determine shellfish harvest closures (MEDEP, 2012).

In 2009, the S tate completed the development of a statewide bacteria TMDL to address
sources of bacteria in both freshwaters and marine waters associated with impairments of certain river and stream segments and estuarine and marine segments in several major basins

. The TMDL aims to meet the bacteria l WQS for recreation and shellfish consumption at the point of discharge 11 

### for all sources and to implement BMPs to reduce bacteria loadings from

non

- point sources (ENSR, 2009)

.

10 If the calculated average limit is more stringent than 4.5 ng/L then the limitation is 4.5 ng/L.

11 For example, maximum instantaneous level of 236 E. coli colonies/100 ml a nd geometric mean of 64
colonies/100 ml in Class B/C waters.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 19

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

Through this action, EPA is proposing recreational bacteria criteria for water s in Indian

lands . Accordingly, EPA reviewed water quality reported for these waters more specifically
to assess baseline conditions. Based on information provided on the Maine Healthy Beaches program website, 12 

### n one of the coastal beaches monitored by that program are located in or
near Indian lands . Monitoring data submitted to the EPA’s Water Quality Portal from other

programs for these waters is limited to 6 2 observations from 20 locations sampled in 2005,

2008 or 2011

. 13 

### The data show maximum reported E

. c oli level s of 64 cfu/100 ml (60 samples) and maximum enterococci levels of 71 cfu/100 ml (2 samples)

. EPA notes that three plants discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries ( St. Croix River and Piscataquis River ) that MEDEP previously listed as impaired due to elevated bacterial levels

, as detailed in the statewide bacteria TMDL

. 14



### EPA is also proposing total coliform bacteria criteria for shellfishing in Class SA waters in
Indian lands . At present it appears that there are no Class SA waters in Indian lands

.

2.2.4 Ammonia



### Maine’s ammonia criteria for freshwater depend on pH and temperature ( T )

. Chapter 584 specifies that t he one

- hour average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L)
shall not exceed, more than once every three years on the average, the CMC ( criterion maximum concentration, or acute criterion) calculated using the following equations :

CCCCCC = 0

. 275

1 + 10 7

. 204

− pppp 

### + 39

. 0

1 + 10 pppp

− 7

. 204



### Whereas the thirty

- day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) shall not exceed, more than once every three years on the average, the CCC ( criterion continuous concentration, or chronic criterion) calculated using the following equation:

CCCCCC = 0

. 0577

1 + 10 7

. 688

− pppp 

### + 2

. 487

1 + 10 pppp

− 7

. 688 

### × min ( 2

. 85

, 1

. 45 × 10 0

. 028 ( 25

− TT ) 

### )

In addition, the highest four

- day average within the 30

- day period shall not exceed 2.5 times
the CCC.

At a temperature of 25oC and pH of 7.0, the acute criterion is 24.1 mg/L whereas the chronic criterion is 3 mg/L. Through this action, EPA is proposing a mmonia criteria for waters in

Indian lands . Accordingly, EPA reviewed ammonia concentrations for these waters to assess
baseline conditions. None of the waters are listed as impaired due to ammonia levels.

12 http://www.mainehealthybeaches.org/ , Accessed 11/3/2015.

13 Beach water quality monitoring data are also available in the Beach Advisory an d Closing On

- line Notification (BEACON) database, but EPA found that none of the beaches included in the BEACON data are located close to Tribal Lands (north of Hancock County).

14 The 2009 report notes impairments due to bacteria for the St. Croix River a t Passamaquoddy Bay and at Calais (ENSR, 2009).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 20

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

Available water quality monitoring data shows only six water samples collected from waters

in Indian lands were analyzed for ammonia levels. These samples were all collected by the
USGS in 2008 or 2009 and show levels that range between 0.01 mg/L and 0.036 mg/L as N

.

2.2.5 pH



### Maine law, at 38 M.R.S §464(4.A(5))

, prohibit s effluent discharges that cause the pH of fresh waters to fall outside of the 6.0 to 8.5 range . A review of existing permits for facilities that discharge to waters in Indian lands also show additional provisions allowing discharges

outside the specified pH range for effluent if the discharge is within 0.5 standard units ( SU ) of the pH of the ambient receiving water pH (e.g., Woodland Pulp permit).

In addition to industrial point source discharges, pH levels may be affected by atmospheric deposit ion and impacts from legacy pollution. There are no rivers or streams in Indian lands that are listed as impaired for pH. 15



### EPA reviewed a vailable water quality monitoring data collected from waters in Indian lands

. The data show pH values ranging from 3.6 to 9.1

.

2.2.6 Tidal Temperature


### MEDEP Chapter 582 establishes a not

- to

- exceed criterion of 85 o F outside of the discharge mixing zone in marine waters. Maine also limits discharges from causing the monthly mean of the daily maximum ambient temperatures in any tidal water body to be raised more than

4 o F at any time, or more than 1.5 o F from June 1 to September 1 (summer months). Through this action, EPA is proposing tidal temperature criteria for t idal waters in Indian lands , which consist of the waters within the intertidal zone at the Passamaquoddy Pleasant Point
reservation

. Currently there are no permittees that discharge heat to tidal waters in Indian

lands.

2.2.7 Mixing Zone


### The mixing zone policy f or Maine is contained in 38 MRS Section 451 “Enforcement Generally” which states:

The purpose of a mixing zone is to allow a reasonable opportunity for dilution, diffusion or mixture of pollutants with the receiving waters before the receiving waters below or surrounding a discharge will be tested for classification violations. In determining the extent of any mixing zone to be established under this section, the department may require from the applicant testimony concerning the nature and rate of the disch arge; the nature and rate of existing discharges to the waterway; the size of the waterway and the rate of flow therein; any relevant seasonal, climatic, tidal and natural variations in such size, flow, nature and rate; the uses of the waterways in the vic inity of the discharge, and such other and further evidence as in the department's judgment will enable it to establish a reasonable mixing zone

15 The only river or stream listed as impaired due to pH in Maine is a 1

- mile segment of McCoy Brook in Deblois, Maine. However, this waterbody is not a water in Indian lands.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 21

### ANALYSIS B ASELINE

for such discharge. An order establishing a mixing zone may provide that the extent thereof
varies in order to take into account seasonal, climatic, tidal and natural variations in the size and flow of, and the nature and rate of, discharges to the waterway

. 

### Maine’s mixing zone policy does not specify how such zones are to be established (other than through the ap plication of best professional judgment)

.
Within the set of 3 3 facilities that discharge to waters in Indian l ands or their tributaries, EPA
identified Woodland Pulp LLC as the only facilit y for which the permit establishes a mixing

zone that may extend to waters in Indian lands

. 16



### Woodland Pulp LLC is currently permitted to contribute large thermal loadings to the St.
Croix River and has an extensive thermal mixing zone ( 9.3 miles long ). ME DEP established

the limits of this mixing zone many y ears (and permit cycles) ago and information on site

specific studies or models used to establish compliance is limited or not readily available for
review. The current permit employ s a variation of a mass balance using effluent temperature
and river flow to calculate predicted river temperature increase at the edge of the mixing zone and compare this temperature to applicable criteria. There are current ly no in

- stream monitoring requirements in the permit , although it does require the permit t ee to investig ate technological alternatives to reduce cumulative thermal loading from the facility and report on projects and estimate reduced heat load as part of the next permit application

.

2.2.8 Dissolved Oxygen



### Maine’s standards for Class A waters set minimum DO concentrations at 7 ppm and minimum DO saturation at 75 percent. EPA reviewed water quality monitoring data for sampling locations on Class A waters. Of 193 samples collected by MEDEP over the last five

years, ei ght showed DO levels that were less than MEDEP’s criteria of 7 ppm or 75 percent

saturation.

As of its 2012 Integrated Report , MEDEP added one Class A stream in the list of rivers and

streams impaired due to DO levels : a 15.78 miles segment of Prestile St ream above a dam in Mars Hill. A TMDL has been approved for this waterbody to address water quality stressors associated with nonpoint source runoff.

Impact from nonpoint sources is an important factor in river and stream DO impair ments more generally. Th us, according to MEDEP’s water quality assessment for 2012, t wo thirds of the 42 waters listed as impaired due to oxygen depletion (across water quality classes) had agriculture or other nonpoint sources as a probable source for the impairment. 17

16 Additional facilities have p ermits for thermal discharges but do not have mixing zones for these discharges.

17 Other sources of DO impairments identified by MEDEP included habitat alterations and erosion/sedimentation. Information was obtained by querying data in the ATTAINS databas e of Maine Causes of Impairment for 303(d) Listed Waters (See http://ofmpub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_state.control?p_state=ME , Accessed November 4, 2015)

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 22

### PROPOSED CRITERIA



## 3 Proposed Criteria

This section describes the criteria EPA is proposing for waters in Indian lands (Section 3.1 ) and for other state waters (Section 3.2 ) . The discussion highlights those proposed criteria that

may have cost implications , as further analyzed in Sections 4 and 5

.

3.1 Proposed Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands

3.1.1 Human Health Criteria



### Exhibit 3

- 1 summarizes the proposed HHC for waters in Indian lands derived using the fish consumption rate of 286 g/day and EPA’s most recent recommendation s for other criteria inputs

. For comparison, t he table also provides MEDEP ’s baseline criteria, which were
derived using a FCR of 32.4 g/day

. Finally, Exhibit 3

- 1 provides MEDEP ’s specified reporting limits (RLs)

, which represent the minimum level to which dischargers need to measure each pollutant according to the existing permit conditions

. Of particular relevance for this analysis are proposed criteria that result in more stringent
criteria than exist in the baseline. EPA did not consider further those p ollutants for which the proposed HHC are higher than existing aquatic life crit eria because the aquatic life criteria would be the determining factor in setting effluent limitations. T he proposed HHC for alpha

endosulfan, beta

- endosulfan, nickel, selenium, and zinc ( 2 μg/L , 3 μg/L

, 20 μg/L

, 21 μg/L

, and 300 μg/L , respectively ) are less stringent than the state’s existing freshwater aquatic life

criteri a, which EPA has approved for waters in Indian lands ( 0.056 μg/L , 0.056 μg/L

, 13.4 μg/L

, 5 .0 μg/L

, and 30.6 μg/L , respectively ; see Exhibit 2

- 3 ). Therefore EPA assumed that

the proposed rule would not lead to additional compliance costs for these pollutants , and
EPA did not evaluate them further.

Exhibit 3

- 1

. Proposed Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of Water and Organisms and Organisms Only ( μg/L )

Pollutant 1 Proposed Human Health Cri terion Maine DEP Reg. 584 Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP Reporting Limit Water and Organisms 2 Organisms Only 3 Water and Organisms Organisms Only

1,1,2,2

- Tetrachloroethane 0.09 0.2 0.16 2.2 7

1,1,2

- Trichloroethane 0.31 0.66 0.58 8.42 5

1,1

- Dichloroethylene 300 1000 320 3900 3

1,2,4,5

- Tetrachlorobenzene 0.002 0.002 0.55 0.58 not found

1,2,4

- Trichlorobenzene 0.0056 0.0056 25 38 5

1,2

- Dichlorobenzene 200 300 330 700 5

1,2

- Dichloropropane

- 2.3 0.50 7.9 6

1,2

- Diphenylhydrazine 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.11 20

1,3

- Dichlorobenzene 1 1 250 520 5

1,3

- Dichloropropene 0.21 0.87 0.34 11.4 5

1,4

- Dichlorobenzene

- 70 50 105 5

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 23

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3

- 1

. Proposed Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of Water and Organisms and Organisms Only ( μg/L )

Pollutant 1 Proposed Human Health Cri terion Maine DEP Reg. 584 Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP Reporting Limit Water and Organisms 2 Organisms Only 3 Water and Organisms Organisms Only

2,4,5

- Trichlorophenol 40 40 1300 2000 2.5

2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 0.20 0.21 0.93 1.31 5

2,4

- Dichlorophenol 4 4 63.3 160 5

2,4

- Dimethylphenol 80 200 280 460 5

2,4

- Dinitrophenol 9 30 68.4 2900 45

2,4

- Dinitrotoluene 0.036 0.13 0.11 1.83 6

2

- Chloronaphthalene 90 90 650 850 5

2

- Chlorophenol 20 60 55.2 80.6 5

2

- Methyl

- 4,6

- Dinitrophenol 1 2 12.5 155 not found

3,3'

- Dichlorobenzidine 0.0096 0.011 0.013 0.015 16.5

4,4'

- DDD 9.3E

- 06 9.3E

- 06 0.00017 0.00017 0.05

4,4'

- DDE 1.3E

- 06 1.3E

- 06 0.00012 0.00012 0.05

4,4'

- DDT 2.2E

- 6 2.2E

- 06 0.00012 0.00012 0.05

Acenaphthene 6 7 430 540 5

Acrolein 3

- 3.9 5.0 NA

Aldrin 5.8E

- 08 5.8E

- 08 2

. 7 E

- 05 2

. 7 E

- 05 0.15

alpha

- BHC 2

. 9 E

- 05 2.9E

- 05 0.0017 0.0026 0.2

alpha

- Endosulfan 2 2 39 48 0.05

Anthracene 30 30 7100 22000 5

Antimony 4.8 45 5.5 350 5

Benzene 0.4 0 1.2 0.58 7.55 5

Benzo (a) Anthracene 9

. 8 E

- 05 9.8E

- 05 0.003 0.01 8

Benzo (a) Pyrene 9

. 8 E

- 06 9

. 8 E

- 06 0.003 0.01 5

Benzo (b) Fluoranthene 9

. 8 E

- 05 9

. 8 E

- 05 0.003 0.01 5

Benzo (k) Fluoranthene 0.00098 0.00098 0.003 0.01 5

beta

- BHC 0.001 0 0.0011 0.006 0.009 0.05

beta

- Endosulfan 3 3 39 48 0.05

Bis(2

- Chloro

- 1

- Methylethyl)
Ether 100 300 1350 35000 6

Bis(2

- Chloroethyl) Ether 0.026 0.16 0.029 0.28 6

Bis(2

- Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 0.028 0.028 0.8 1.19 10

Bromoform 4 .0 8.7 4.2 73 5

Butylbenzyl Phthalate 0.0077 0.0077 900 1050 5

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.2 0.3 0.23 0.89 5

Chlordane 2 .4E

- 05 2

. 4 E

- 05 0.00044 0.00044 0.1

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 24

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3

- 1

. Proposed Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of Water and Organisms and Organisms Only ( μg/L )

Pollutant 1 Proposed Human Health Cri terion Maine DEP Reg. 584 Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP Reporting Limit Water and Organisms 2 Organisms Only 3 Water and Organisms Organisms Only

Chlorobenzene 40 60 120 840 6

Chlorodibromomethane

- 1.5 0.40 6.94 3
Chrysene

- 0.0098 0.003 0.01 5
Cyanide 4 30 140 140 5

Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene 9

. 8 E

- 06 9

. 8 E

- 06 0.003 0.01 5

Dichlorobromomethane

- 2 0.53 9.3 3

Dieldrin 9

. 3 E

- 08 9

. 3 E

- 08 2

. 9 E

- 05 2

. 9 E

- 05 0.05

Diethyl Phthalate 50 50 13000 24000 5

Dimethyl Phthalate 100 100 221000 600000 5

Di

- n

- Butyl Phthalate 2 2 1400 2400 5

Dinitrophenols 10 70 68 2860 not found

Endosulfan Sulfate 3 3 39 48 0.1

Endrin 0.002 0.002 0.032 0.032 0.05

Endrin Aldehyde 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.05

Ethylbenzene 8.9 9.5 435 1150 10

Fluoranthene 1 1 71 75 5

Fluorene 5 5 950 2100 5

gamma

- BHC (Lindane) 0.33

- 0.68 0.1 0.15

Heptachlor 4

. 4 E

- 07 4

. 4 E

- 07 4

. 3 E

- 05 4

. 3 E

- 05 0.15

Heptachlor Epoxide 2

. 4 E

- 06 2

. 4 E

- 06 2

. 1 E

- 05 2.1E

- 05 0.1

Hexachlorobenzene 5

. 9 E

- 06 5

. 9 E

- 06 0.0002 0.0002 5

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.0007 0.0007 0.43 9.96 5

Hexachlorocyclohexane

Technical 0.00073 0.00076 0.0123 0.0414 not found

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.3 0.3 39 600 10

Hexachloroethane 0.01 0.01 1.04 1.78 5

Indeno (1,2,3

- cd) Pyrene 9

. 8 E

- 05 9

. 8 E

- 05 0.003 0.01 5

Isophorone 28 140 35 520 5

Methoxychlor 0.001

- 100

- not found

Methylene Chloride

- 90 4.6 320 5

Methylmercury 4 0.02 mg/kg in
fish tissue 0.2 mg/kg

mercury in
fish tissue

Nickel 20 24 400 1000 5

Nitrobenzene 10 40 16.7 370 5

Nitrosamines 0.0007 0.0322 0.0008 1.24 not found

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 25

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3

- 1

. Proposed Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of Water and Organisms and Organisms Only ( μg/L )

Pollutant 1 Proposed Human Health Cri terion Maine DEP Reg. 584 Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP Reporting Limit Water and Organisms 2 Organisms Only 3 Water and Organisms Organisms Only

N

- Nitrosodibutylamine 0.0044 0.015 0.0061 0.118 not found

N

- Nitrosodiethylamine 0.0007 0.0322 0.0008 1.24 not found

N

- Nitrosodimethylamine 0.00065 0.21 0.00069 1.63 5

N

- Nitrosodi

- n

- propylamine 0.0042 0.035 0.005 0.27 10

N

- Nitrosodiphenylamine

0.40 0.42 2.23 3.24 5

N

- Nitrosopyrrolidine

- 2.4 0.016 18.4

Pentachlorobenzene 0.008 0.008 0.79 0.81 not found

Pentachlorophenol 0.003 0.003 0.25 1.64 20

Phenol 3000 20000 10514 462963 5

Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCB s) 4.5E

- 06 4.5E

- 06 3

. 5 E

- 05 3

. 5 E

- 05 0.3

Pyrene 2 2 710 2160 5

Selenium 21 58 162 2250 5

Toluene 24 39 1200 8100 5

Toxaphene 5

. 3 E

- 05 5

. 3 E

- 05 0.00015 0.000155 1

Trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethylene 90 300 140 5500 5

Trichloroethylene 0.3 0.5 2.37 16.2 3
Vinyl Chloride 0.019 0.12 0.025 1.32 5

Zinc 300 360 6000 14000 5 FCR = fish consumption rate
1. EPA disapproved HHCs for arsenic, thallium and 2,3,7,8

- TCDD (Dioxin) but is not proposing criteria for these pollutants at this time.
2. Based on a total FCR of 286 g/day where the consumption rate ascribed to each trophic level was based on the same relative percent and trophic specific bioaccumulation factors adopted by EPA (2015 a ) when available and including a body weight of 80 kg and drinking water intake of 2.4 L/day and other 2015 updated parameters as available; For compounds not updated in 2015, proposed criteria are based on a FC R of 286 g/day and a relative source contribution of 0.2 save for antimony ( RSC of 0.4 ) , body weight of 80 kg, drinking water intake rate of 2.4 L/day, and bioconcentration factors and tox icity values from U.S. EPA (2002). 3. Based on total FCR of 286 g/da y where the consumption rate ascribed to each trophic level was based on the same relative percent and trophic specific bioaccumulation factors adopte d by EPA (2015 a ) when available including a body weight of 80 kg and other 2015 updated parameters as available; For compounds not updated in 2015, proposed criteria are based on a FCR of 286 g/day and a relative source contribution of 0.2 save for antimony ( RSC of 0.4 ) , body weight of 80 kg, and b ioconcentration factors and toxicity values from U.S. EPA (2002).
4

. This is a fish tissue based criteri on that applies equally in fresh and marine waters. EPA has explained in the preamble to the proposed rule why it is proposing to promulgate a criterion for methylmercury rather than
mercury. See Appendix B for derivation of total mercury water column concentration equivalent to the methylmercury fish tissue concentration criteria values for use in evaluating reasonable potential. EPA recognizes that Main e has established interim mercury limits for permittees based on 38 MRS § 420, which prohibits the discharge of mercury and directs facilities to develop and implement pollution prevention practices to reduce and remove mercury discharges over time; 38 MRS § 413(11), which authorizes DEP to establish interim discharge limits to reduce the discharge of mercury and achieve ambient water quality criteria for

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 26

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3

- 1

. Proposed Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of Water and Organisms and Organisms Only ( μg/L )

Pollutant 1 Proposed Human Health Cri terion Maine DEP Reg. 584 Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP Reporting Limit Water and Organisms 2 Organisms Only 3 Water and Organisms Organisms Only
mercury; and DEP Rule Chapter 51 9 , which specifies that such interim mercury limits must be based upon and no less stringent statistically than past discharge levels, and that such interim limits shall not authorize any discharge of mercury that would cause or contribute to receiving water concentrations of mercury that exceed any water quality criteria pub lished by EPA. As discussed further in Section 4.1.2 , EPA has concluded that none of the permittees that discharge to waters in Indian lands or thei r tributaries discharges mercury at a level that would have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of EPA’s proposed methyl mercury criterion.



### Section 4.1 details EPA’s analysis of the cost impacts of the proposed HHC for consumption of water and organisms and of organisms only for waters in Indian lands

.

3.1.2 Bacteria


### EPA is proposing recreational criteria for waters in Indian lands that follow the

recommended criteria EPA finalized in 2012 to protect the public from exposure to harmful levels of pathogens while participating in primary contact recreational activities. The proposed criteria incorporate three components: mag nitude, duration, and frequency as
follows:

• 

### In Class AA, Class A, Class B, Class C and Class GPA waters (i.e., freshwaters),
Escherichia coli ( E . coli ) bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 100 organisms

per 100 ml obtained over a representative period of 30 days, nor shall a statistical
threshold value of 320 organism s per 100 ml be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the time, in any 30

- day interval.

• 

### In Class SA, Class SB, and Class SC waters (i.e., estuarine and marine waters), enterococcus bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 30 organisms per 100 ml

obtain ed over a representative period of 30 days, nor shall a statistical threshold value of

110 organisms per 100 ml be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the time

, in any 30

- day interval.

• 

### In addition, for Class AA, A and SA waters

, EPA is proposing to include Maine’s narrative criteria expression that bacteria content of these waters be as “naturally occurs.”
This supports Maine’s intention that the waters be free of human caused pathogens, while the specific numeric criteria EPA proposes also provide protecti on for designated
recreational uses in the event there are wild animal sources

.

• 

### EPA is proposing that the bacteria criteria apply year round in waters in Indian l ands

. This differs from Maine’s disapproved criteria, which do not apply from October 1 throug h May 14 in Class B, C, GPA, SB, and SC waters

.

• 

### In Class SA shellfish harvesting areas, EPA is proposing that the number of total coliform bacteria in samples representative of the waters in shellfish harvesting areas

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 27

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

shall not exceed a geometric mean for each sampling station of 70 MPN per 100 ml, with not more than ten percent of samples exceeding 230 MPN per 100 ml for the taking of
shellfish

. At present it appears that there are no Class SA waters in Indian lands , and therefore the proposed rule is not expected to result in incremental costs to permitted dischargers.

Of the 3 3 facilities that discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries, 12 facilities discharge to Class B or C waters and have existing limits for E. coli bacteria , and 3 facilities discharge to Class SB or SC waters and have existing limits for fecal coliform bacteria to protect shellfishing

. All of the permits apply the bacteria limits only between May 15 and September 30.

As summarized in Exhibit 3

- 2 , which compares the baseline and proposed criteria, p ermit limits for dischargers to Class B waters are based on not exceeding criteria of an instantaneous level of 236 E. coli colonies/100 ml and ge ometric mean of

64 colonies/100 ml ; and p ermit limits for dischargers to Class C waters are based on not exceeding criteria of an instantaneous level of 236 E. coli colonies/100 ml and geometric

mean of 126 colonies/100 ml

. Further, MEDEP considers dilution in setting instantaneous effluent limits, resulting in end

- of

- pipe permit limits that may be significantly greater than
the 236 E. coli colonies/100 ml criteri on (e.g., the permit for Millinocket, which discharges
to Clas s C waters, sets limits of 126 colonies/100 ml (monthly) and 949 colonies/100 ml (daily maximum) )

. The permits for discharges to Class SB and SC waters do not refer to Maine’s enterococci
criteria but rather set fecal coliform bacteria limits of a daily m aximum of
50 colonies/100 mL and a monthly average limit of 15 colonies/100 mL (geometric mean) to meet shellfishing bacteria criteria

. EPA does not endorse the absence of enterococci limits

. However, for the purpose of this report, EPA believes it is reas onable to assume that the level of disinfection needed to meet the current fecal coliform bacteria limits will be adequate to meet EPA’s proposed enterococci criteria.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 28

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3

- 2

. Baseline and Proposed Bact eria Criteria

Waters Baseline Proposed

Class AA, A B acteria content as “naturally occurs.” B acteria content as “naturally occurs.”

E.coli 30

- day geometric mean n o more than
100/100 ml nor shall 320/100 ml be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time in any 30

- day interval

Class B From May 15

- Sept 30, E. coli of human and domestic origin geometric mean no more than 64 /100 ml and instantaneous level no
more than 236/100 ml. E.coli 30

- day geometric mean n o more than
100/100 ml nor shall 320/100 ml be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time in any 30

- day interval

Class C From May 15

- Sept 30, E. coli of human and domestic origin geometric mean no more tha n 126 E.coli/100 ml and instantaneous
level no more than 236/100 ml.

SA Bacteria content as “naturally o ccurs” Bacteria content as “naturally occurs”

Enterococcus 30

- day geometric mean no more than 30/100 ml nor shall 110/100 ml be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time
in any 30

- day interval

Total coliform geometric me an no more than
70 MPN/100 ml and n o more than 10 percent of samples above 230 total coliform
MPN/100 m l.

Class SB From May 15

- Sept 30, enterococcus of human and domestic animal origin geometric mean no more than 8/100 ml and
instantaneous level no more than 54/100 ml Total coliform or other specified indicator organism may not exceed criteria
recommended under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Enterococcus 30

- day geometric mean no more than 30/100 ml nor shall 110/100 ml be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time in any 30

- day interval.

Class SC From May 15

- Sept 30, enterococcus of human and domestic animal origin geometric mean no more than 14/100 ml
and instantaneous level no more than
94/100 ml. Total coliform or other specified indicator organism may not exceed criteria
recommended under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program



### EPA’s review of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) from 13 of the 15 facilities with existing bacteria limits shows that the facilities are generally able to achieve levels below the proposed criteria at the point of discharge

, before accounting for any dilution . Daily maximum values rarely exceed the proposed statistical threshold value of 320 E. coli

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 29

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

colonies/100 mL for discharges to Class B and C waters

, 18 

### and t otal fecal coliform values for dischargers to Class SB and SC waters exceeded the specified monthly limit at only one facility once out of 18 monitoring periods between 2011 and 2015 . Accordingly, EPA does not expect that the proposed bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands will result in
incremental costs to permitted dischargers for the period of May 15

– September 30

. However, EPA proposes that the recreational criteria will apply year round

. Therefore EPA expects that there c ould be incremental costs associated with additional disinfection occurring during the period of October 1

– May 14

. EPA estimated additional costs for
chl orination, dechlorination and monitoring for the entire period of October 1 through May 14 at each plant that currently disinfect s its effluent between May 15 and September 30

. Section 4.2 describes this analysis

. Impacts of the proposed criteria on nonpoint sources depend on current levels of bacteria in
waters in Indian lands that may be used for primary contact recreation. As discussed in
Section 2.2.3 , the very limited water quality monitoring data EPA found for waters in Indian

lands show no measurements that would exceed the statistical threshold value s for E . coli

, irrespective of any duration or frequency considerations (maximum measurement was

64 colonies / 100 ml; data are not sufficient to calculate statistical distribution). Only two samples were analyzed for enterococci levels, with a maximum of 71 c olonies per 100 ml (data are not sufficient to calculate statistical distribution).

3.1.3 Ammonia


### EPA is proposing to promulgate ammonia aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for
waters in Indian lands

. The national recommended criteria depend on both pH and temperature and , in the case of the acute criterion, on whether species of the G enus Oncorhynchus are present. For a pH of 7 and water temperature of 20 degrees Celsius , the
acute criterion is 17 mg Total Ammonia Nitrogen ( TAN ) per liter (mg TAN/L) and the
chronic criterion is 1.9 mg TAN/L (not to exceed 4.8 mg TAN/L as a 4

- day average).

Similar to Maine’s baseline acute criterion for ammonia, the proposed acute criterion depends on both pH and temperature. For a given pH, the proposed acute criterion is generally less stringent or equal to the baseline acute criterion for water temperature s less than approximately 15 degrees Celsius . The proposed acute criterion becomes more stringent ( i.e. , lower ammonia concentrations) than the baseline criterion as water temperatures
increase. Exhibit 3

- 3 compares the baseline and proposed acute criteria for ammonia for different pH values and temperatures. Similar to Maine’s baseline chronic criterion for ammonia, the proposed chronic criterion depends on both pH and temperature; however, t he

18 DMR data for 2011

- 2015 show that most of the facilities were consistently below the proposed criteria. The exceptions are three facilities with at least one reported daily maximum values exceeding 320 colonies/100 ml. For these three facilities, the proposed daily maximum was exceeded 4 times, 3 times, and once, out of 18, 16, and 23 monitoring periods, respectively. One facility exceeded the geometric mean of 100 colonies/100 ml once out of 16 reporting periods.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 30

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

proposed chronic criterion is consistently lower ( i.e.

, more stringent) than the baseline criterion (see Exhibit 3

- 4 ) across the range of pH and temperatures. For example, the proposed criterion for a temperature of 25oC and pH of 7 is 1. 4 mg/L as compared to 3 mg/L

f

or the baseline criterion.

Exhibit 3

- 3 . Comparison of Maine’s baseline (solid line) and EPA’s proposed (dashed lines) ammonia acute criteria for different temperatures 1

1. Note that the criteria are very similar for the existing CMC as well as the proposed CMC at 0

- 14 deg C and at 15 deg C (Oncorhynchus spp. Present) , and as such, the lines may not appear distinct from one another.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 31

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3

- 4

. Comparison of Maine’s baseline (solid lines) and EPA’s proposed (dashed lines) ammonia chronic criteria for different water temperatures.



### Of the 3 3 facilities with permits to discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries, two currently have effluent limits for ammonia

. Another seven facilities are required to monitor for ammonia as part of a broader analytical chemistry monitoring requirement. The remaining 24 facilities, including several POTWs, have neither effluent limits nor monitoring

r equirements for ammonia, although some may be expected to have small amounts of ammonia in their effluent. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumed that effluents from these facilities do not have reasonable potential to exceed the proposed ammonia cr iteria in
waters in Indian lands

.
Both facilities with ammonia limits discharge to the Piscataquis River :

• 

### Dover

- Fox crof t WWT P (ME0100501): The permit sets a limit of 279 lbs/day (monthly average) based on monitoring data

, which showed a reasonable potentia l to exceed the
chronic ambient water quality criteria ( AWQC ; 3.0 mg/L at temperature of 25oC and pH 7.0) downstream from the plant. The limit applies during June 1

- September 30. The limit reflects load allocation on the Piscataquis River at Milo among thr ee dischargers

.

• 

### Guilford

- Sangerville (ME0102032): The permit sets a limit of 13 lbs/day (monthly average) based on the load allocation for the Piscataquis River at Milo.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 32

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

A third facility discharging to the Piscataquis River (Milo, ME0100439) had its ammonia limit removed from the most recent permit following MEDEP ’s determination that the facility no longer had the potential to result in exceedances of the chronic AWQC for

ammonia (3.0 mg/L at temperature of 25oC and pH 7.0)

.
Review of analytical chemistry and priority pollutant scan data showed several other
facilities with detected ammonia concentrations

.
Section 4.1 details EPA’s analysis of the cost impacts of the proposed ammonia criteria for

fresh waters in Indian lands

.

3.1.4 pH


### Natural waters in Maine, as elsewhere in New England

, could easily vary betwe en 5.0

- 8.0

S U of pH for a variety of reasons ( e.g., basin geology, buffering capacity, precipitation, and photosynthetic activity). MEPDES permits typically allow a wide range of pH levels for discharges, allowing them to accommodate discharges from plant operations or treatment units that might vary significantly in pH. Treatment of effluent to reduce metals can result in altered pH levels in the discharge. EPA ’s proposal to raise the lower value of the pH range
from 6.0 to 6.5 SU could result in needed ch anges to facility operations in cases where existing treatment affects pH levels.

EPA reviewed data for six facilities that have permit limitations and detected effluent records for heavy metals (out of the total of 33 facilities discharging to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries). Five of these facilities can be expected to have little potential for costs based on their low flow, wastewater sources, and/or existing monitoring data

. The remaining facility ( Woodla nd Pulp ) has a permit that allow s for discharges of effluent within a wider pH range ( 5.0 to 9.0 SU ) based on technology

- based limits in Effluent Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for the Pulp

, Paper

, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR 430)

. The

fa cilit y adjust s the pH of its effluent before discharge and historical DMR data demonstrate
that the facility has been able in the past to meet the proposed criterion

. See Appendix D for summary of EPA’s review.

D etailed information on neutralization method s employed by Woodland Pulp and their performance would be needed to evaluate the potential for additional costs related to
treatment of acidic effluent . Given the limited information available and evidence that the facility already adjust s pH and achieve s levels above 6.5, EPA assumed that any incremental
costs would be minimal

.

3.1.5 Temperature Criterion for Tidal Waters


### MEDEP Chapter 582 establishes a not

- to

- exceed criterion of 85 o F outside of the discharge mixing zone in marine waters. Maine also limits discharge s from causing the monthly mean of the daily maximum ambient temperatures in any tidal water body to be raised more than

4 o F at any time , or more than 1.5 ° F from June 1 to September 1 (summer months)

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 33

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

In contrast, EPA proposed criteria include a m aximum cumulative increase in weekly

ave rage temperature from all artificial sources of 1°C (1.8° F) year round, relative to baseline temperature, and provided that the summer weekly maximum of 18 °C ( 64.4 ° F) is not exceeded; and requires that the natural temperature cycles be maintained

. Accordingly, adoption of EPA ’s proposed temperature criteria could affect discharge permit thermal limits outside of the summer months, particularly because discharge temperatures resulting in a departure of 4 ° F on a month ly basis would be greater than those associated with a 1.5 ° F increase on a weekly basis. It would also affect discharges that cause the receiving water to
exceed the summer maximum criterion

. However, only four of the 3 3 dischargers to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries discharge into tidal or marine waters : Calais School ( ME0102765 )

, Washington County Community College ( ME0102831 ) , P assamaquoddy POTW (ME010 0100773 ), and Calais POTW (ME010 0129 )

. The Calais POTW and the two schools discharge trea ted sanitary
wastewater to the St. Croix River , and the Passamaquoddy POTW discharges to Passamaquoddy B ay

. N one of the facilities discharge heat

. These discharges are not expected to have a noticeable effect on temperatures in the tidal waters near the Pl easant Point
Reservation. Based on this assessment, EPA assumed there would be no incremental costs

for th e pr oposed temperature criterion for tidal waters

.

3.1.6 Mixing Zone


### EPA disapproval of Maine’s mixing zone policy may affect dischargers for which MEDEP established mixing zones. Compared to the disapproved mixing zone policy, the proposed mixing zone policy provides greater protection for designated aquatic life uses by:

• 

### clarifying the extent to which criteria may be exceeded in a mixing zone;

• 

### specifying that mixing zone must be as small as necessary, and pollutant concentrations must be minimized and reflect the best practicable engineering design of the outfall to
maxi mize initial mixing;

• 

### requiring the use of methodologies in EPA’s “Technical Support Document for Water Quality

- based Toxics Control”;

• 

### prohibiting the use of a mixing zone for bioaccumulative pollutants and for bacteria; and

• 

### establishing a number of rest rictions to protect designated uses, including requirements that the mixing zone not result in lethality to organisms passing through or within the mixing zone, and not endanger critical areas such as breeding and spawning grounds,

habitat for threatened o r endangered species, and areas with sensitive biota, shellfish beds, fisheries, and recreational areas

. EPA found only one permit that contains adjusted effluent limits based on a mixing zone (Woodland Pulp, with a mixing zone for heat). The implications for that discharger of changes in the mixing zone policy are uncertain, but could include the need to conduct more detailed assessments of thermal impacts, recalculat e the spatial or volumetric limitations for

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 34

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

the zone of initial dilution (ZID) and thermal mixing zone, and requir e zones of passage

. A smaller available mixing zone resulting from the proposed rule may lead the discharger to seek a CWA section 316(a) thermal variance 19 

### rather than having to meet otherwise applicable thermal limitations. To supp ort such a variance request, the discharger would need
to conduct a section 316 ( a ) Demonstration Study during renewal of the discharge permit

. Such field studies can require significant levels of effort. Further, if the thermal effluent
variance request is denied, the discharger may be required to upgrade or install new technologies to reduce discharge thermal loading and/or modify discharge conditions or structures. Design, engineering and implementation of such new technologies or adoption of improved ope rational practices can represent major costs

. To understand the potential implications for the discharger, EPA reviewed information
available for th is facilit y

. Exhibit 3

- 5 summari z es key information regarding the thermal mixing zone at this facilit y

.

19 Section 316(a) of the CWA authorizes the NPDES per mitting authority to impose alternative effluent limitations ( i.e. , a thermal variance from the otherwise applicable effluent limit) if the discharger demonstrates that the otherwise applicable thermal discharge effluent limit is more stringent than necess ary to assure the protection and propagation of the waterbody’s balanced, indigenous population (BIP) of shellfish, fish and wildlife.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 35

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3

- 5 . Discharger with Thermal Mixing Zone Affecting Wa ters in Indian Lands

Facility Permit Conditions

Woodland Pulp LLC (ME 0001872) 1. Thermal d ischarge to the St. Croix River with seasonal limits (June 1

– September 30)

2. Permit defines a zone of initial diluti on ( ZID ) over a 5.3 mile segment of river (to Baring railroad trestle) and a mixing zone extend ing 4

. 0 mile downstream from the edge of the ZID (from Baring railroad trestle to Milltown dam)

3. Thermal s urvey conducted by GPC in 1989 indicated >2 o F increase below the discharge point . ME Division of Environmental and Assessment (ME DEA) developed QUA L 2E model using GPC data to calibrate the model. The model predicted a temperature increase of 1.1 o F at end of ZID . ME DEA and GPC concurred that separation of discharge impacts from natural diurnal temper ature fluctuations was difficult and that it was preferable to establish a formal mixing zone.

4. The 1996 WDL established the original average and daily maximum thermal
load limitati ons and ZID and thermal mixing zone

. 5. The 1996 WDL stated that no testing sh all be conducted for thermal violations within designated ZID or established mixing zone. The 1996 WDL also contained special conditions requiring the plant to investigate ways to reduce
heat loads.

6. Four cooling towers were installed in 1997. Plant ceased using two of them in 1998 due to operation and maintenance problems.

7. 2005 permit required continuous in

- stream monitoring between June and September but requirements were discontinued in 2012.

8. Based on its review of the monitoring report for 2012 , MEDEP concluded that “the thermal discharge resulted in temperature greater than would be allowed under DEP’s temperature rule, if not for the existence of a mixing zone where the rule does not apply”

Sources: Woodland Pulp LLC: MEPDES Permit #ME0001872; Maine WDL Application #W002766

- 5N

- J

- R, June 2 8 , 2014



### Section 4.4 details EPA’s analysis of the cost impacts of the proposed mixing zone policy for

wat ers in Indian lands

.
3.2 Proposed Dissolved Oxygen Criteria for All State Waters

The proposed rule includes the same year

- round criteria for Class A fresh waters that Maine

uses , but add s more protective DO criteria for spawning areas in winter months. Specifi cally, the proposed rule require s that the 7

- day mean DO concentration be no less than 9.5 ppm (9.5 mg/L), and the 1

- day minimum DO concentration be no less than 8 ppm (8.0 mg/L)

— for spawning areas in winter months.

The proposed rule may potentially affect 26 facilities with draft or final permits to discharge
in Class A waters. EPA’s review of permits for the 26 facilities affected by the proposed DO criteria shows several facilities for which MEDEP determined a potential for impacts to DO levels in receiving waters and set daily minimum DO concentrations for the effluent . These

limits are applicable from June 1 st 

### to September 30 th 

### . Because monitoring is limited to the period when the limits apply, no effluent monitoring data for DO w ere available for winter

months. As described in Section 2.2.8 , EPA also reviewed ambient monitoring data for Class

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 36

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

A waters, but EPA noted that of the 193 samples collected by MEDEP on Class A waters (not all of which would have a permitted discharger), none were collected during the winter
months.

A ccording to Maine law , granting of discharge permits in Class A waters is predicated on the discharged effluent being equal to or better than the existing water quality of the receiving water (38 M.R.S §465(2.C)). 20 

### This requirement means that in cases where ambient water quality is equal to or better than what the proposed criteria would require ( i.e. , ambient water quality is already above 8.0 mg/L daily minimum and 9.5 mg/L for the 7

- day mean) during the winter months, the proposed criteria would not result in incremental costs to the facilities

.
As discussed in Section 2.2.8 , nonpoint sources are an imp ortant contributor to DO impair ments by increasing organic loads into the streams. Effects of the proposed DO criteria for winter months on these nonpoint sources are difficul t to assess given the lack of existing data. EPA assumed that these effects would be minimal given the limited scope of the proposal to Class A waters

.
3.3 Proposed Phenol Criteria for S tate W aters O utside of Indian Lands

EPA disapproved the criteri on for phe nol (for the consumption of water and organisms), which was 10,514 μ g/l, for Maine waters outside of Indian lands due to a mathematical error.

EPA ’s proposed criterion of 4,000 μg/L correct s the mathematical error and is based on

EPA’s 2015 national recommended criteri on but adjusted to use Maine’s FCR of 32.4 g/day.

Very little data are available on ambient concentrations or discharges of phenol in Maine

waters . Public data sources EPA reviewed showed no analytical results for phenol in surface

wate rs. 21 

### EPA’s DMR data 22 

### list only two facilities in Maine ( Brunswick Graham Rd Landfill (ME0102113) and Presque Isle Landfill (MEU508088) 23 

### ) that monitor for, and report, total phenols in their effluent. Of these two dischargers , only the Brunswick Graham

20 According to 38 M.R.S. 3.1.4

- A, direct discharges to Class A “ are permitted only if, in addition to satisfying all the requirements of this article, the discharged effluent will be equal to or better than the existing water quality of the receiving waters. Prior to issuing a discharge license, the department shall require the applicant to objectively demonstrate to the de partment's satisfaction that the discharge is necessary and that there are no other reasonable alternatives available. Discharges into waters of this classification licensed prior to January 1, 1986 are allowed to continue only until practical alternatives

exist .”

21 EPA obtained data from the Water Quality Portal ( http://waterqualitydata.us/ ; accessed October 16, 2015) for the state of Maine. The data include results from analyses of surface water, groundwater, fish tissue and sediment data for Maine waters submitted by various organizations including USGS, MEDEP, EPA, Passamaquoddy Tribe , an d Penobscot Indian Nation

.

22 DMR data are available from http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/index.cfm . Accessed October 23, 2015.

23 The permit is for a surface waste water disposal (spray

- irrigation) system for th e treatment and seasonal disposal of landfill leachate waste water onto land owned by the City of Presque Isle.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 37

### PROPOSED CRITERIA

Rd L andfill facility had non

- zero concentrations . The reported maximum effluent

concentration (MEC) for this facility was 2.1 μg/L , which is below both the baseline and proposed criteria before accounting for dilution.

Based on this information, EPA concluded that the proposed criteri on is unlikely to result in
incremental costs.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 38

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS



## 4 Method for Estimating Potential Costs: Point Sources

This section describes the method for estimating the potential costs to point sources

a ssociated with compliance with the proposed criteria , including available data . Compliance costs for municipal and industrial point source s may result from changes to M E PDES permit requirements and associated effluent limitations

. As discussed in Section 3 , proposed criteria
for pH and temperature (for w aters in Indian lands )

, proposed criteria for phenol (for state
waters outside Indian lands ) and proposed criteria for DO (for all state waters) are not expected to result in incremental costs to permitted dischargers . The cost analysis

, therefore

, f

ocuses specifically on the impacts of:

• 

### proposed HHC for w aters in Indian lands (Section 4.1 )

,

• 

### proposed bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands (Section 4.2 ),

• 

### proposed aquatic life ammonia criteri a for waters in Indian lands (Section 4.3 )

, and

• 

### proposed mixing zone policy for w aters in Indian lands (Section 4.4 ).

EPA notes that the an alysis is based on information from publicly available data, permit fact

sheet s , and priority pollutant scans conducted in accordance with existing permits. While the analysis generally follows the approach a permit writer would use to evaluate and set

dis charge permit conditions, reliance on available data involves uncertainty and limitations not present during actual permit development , such as more site

- specific data (e.g., ambient water quality samples, priority pollutant scans using lower detection lim its). See Section 6.3 for further discussion of the uncertainty associated with the use of existing data.

Except as otherwise noted

, 24 

### the assumed life of capital investments is 20 years, and EPA used a discount rate of 3 percent for the main analysis. Results using a 7 percent discount rate are provided in Appendix E.

4.1 Costs from Proposed Human Health Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands

EPA estimated costs to munic ipal and industrial dischargers under the proposed criteria by estimating costs to each of the 3 3 facilities that discharge to waters in Indian lands or their

tributaries

. 25 

### This section describes the reasonable potential analysis, identification of limits
under the proposed criteria and comparison to baseline criteria, and estimation of costs to

meet proposed criteria.

Unless otherwise noted, EPA updated all cost estimates t o 2014 dollars

.

24 See Section 4.4 for useful life assumptions for c ooling towers.

25 The identification of specific waters in Indian lands in this document is for the sole purpose of this economic analysis.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 39

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

4.1.1 Dischargers to Waters in Indian Lands or Tributaries


### Factors that may affect the potential magnitude of compliance costs include effluent flow and type of facility . Larger flows are typically associated with the largest treatment costs, although per

- unit costs may decrease due to economies of scale. A facility’s industrial category may also be indicative of the potential to incu r costs.

As described in Section 1.2

, EPA determined that 3 3 facilities (major and non

- major) discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries. Exhibit 4

- 1 p rovides a summary of the

facilities that discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries

. Appendix A provides
additional information on these facilities.

EPA notes that almost a ll ( 29 ) facilities discharge to fresh waters , to which the proposed

HHC for the cons umption of water and organisms would apply

. Some of these facilities discharge directly to the waters in Indian lands to which EPA’s proposed criteria would apply. Many of the facilities, however, discharge upstream of the waters in Indian lands (including tributaries of such waters), and limits on those discharges would need to ensure
that EPA’s proposed criteria are met at the boundary of the waters in Indian lands, not at the point of discharge. F our facilities discharge to estuarine or marine waters , to which the HHC for the consumption of organisms only would apply . Only one of these (the Passamaquoddy POTW) discharge s directly to waters in Indian lands to which EPA’s proposed criteria would apply. The other three facilities ( Calais School

, Calais POTW, and Washington County Community College ) discharge to the St Croix River significantly upstream of the waters in
Indi an lands at Pleasant Point

.
Exhibit 4

- 1 . Summary of Discharger s to Waters in Indian Lands or Their Tributaries

MEPDES

Number Facility Name Facility Type Receiving Surface Waters (Class) Permitted Monthly Average Flow ( MGD )

ME0101320 Baileyville POTW POTW St. Croix River ( C ) 0.6

ME0102784 Brownville POTW Pleasant River (B) no limit

ME0100129 Calais POTW POTW St. Croix River ( S C /C 2 ) 1.5

ME0102765 Calais School Other (school) Penobscot River ( SC ) 0.013

ME0001104 Cobb State Fish Hatchery Other (fish hatchery) Cold Stream (A) 5.0

ME0023213 Covanta Maine Industrial (biomass energy) Penobscot River ( B ) 0.189

ME0036528 Dolby Hydro Project Industrial (hydroelectric) West Branch of the Penobscot River ( C ) 0.365

ME0102229 Dover

- Foxcroft Water
District Utility (drinking water treatment) Piscataquis River ( B ) 0.15

ME0100501 Dover

- Foxcroft
WWTP POTW Piscataquis River ( B ) 0.8

ME0036511 East Millinocket Hydro Project Industrial (hydroelectric) Penobscot River (C) 0.3024 1

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 40

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4

- 1 . Summary of Discharger s to Waters in Indian Lands or Their Tributaries

MEPDES

Number Facility Name Facility Type Receiving Surface Waters (Class) Permitted Monthly Average Flow ( MGD )

ME0000175 East Millinocket
POTW POTW Penobscot River (C) 2.0

ME0036625 Eustis Hydro Project Industrial (hydroelectric) North Branch Dead River (A) 0.0072 1

ME0001082 Grand Lake Stream Fish Hatchery Other (fish hatchery) Grand Lake Stream (A) 2.9

ME0102032 Guilford

- Sangerville
WWTF POTW Piscataquis River ( B ) 0.465

ME0101290 Houlton WWTF POTW Menuxdekeag River ( B ) 1.5

ME0036633 Howland Hydro Project Industrial (hydroelectric) Piscataquis River (B) 0.0014

ME0101788 Howland POTW POTW Penobscot River (B) 0.30

ME0101796 Lincoln Sanitary
District POTW Penobscot River ( B ) 1.07

ME0036552 Mattaceunk Hydro Project Industrial (hydroelectric) Penobscot River (C) 0.144 1

ME0102245 Mattawamkeag
WWTF POTW Penobscot River ( B ) 0.09

ME0102695 Milford Utility (combined sewer overflow) Penobscot River (B) unspecified

ME0037371 Millinocket Hydro Industrial (hydroelectric) West Branch of the Penobscot River (C) 0.022

ME0100803 Millinocket POTW POTW West Branch of the Penobscot River (C) 1.34

ME0100439 Milo POTW POTW Piscataquis River ( B ) 0.39

ME0102211 Passamaquoddy
Water Di strict Utility (drinking water treatment) Boydon Stream (B) 0.045

ME0100773 Pas s amaquoddy
Tribal Council POTW Passamaquoddy Bay (SB) 0.15

ME0101311 Penobscot Indian
Nation POTW Penobscot River ( B ) 0.1

ME0002216 Tate and Lyle Ingredients Industrial (food manufacturer) Menuxdekeag River ( B ) 0.04

ME0102831 Washington County Community College Other (college) St. Croix River ( SB ) 0.0105

ME0036668 West Enfield Hydro Project Industrial (hydroelectric) Penobscot River (B) 0.403

ME0036668 Woodland Hydro Industrial (hydroelectric) St. Croix River ( C ) 0.194

ME0001872 Woodland Pulp Industrial (pulp mill) St. Croix River ( C ) 30

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 41

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4

- 1 . Summary of Discharger s to Waters in Indian Lands or Their Tributaries

MEPDES

Number Facility Name Facility Type Receiving Surface Waters (Class) Permitted Monthly Average Flow ( MGD )

ME0022063 Woodland Pulp: North
Site Industrial (logging) St. Croix River (C) 16.16

MGD = million gallons per day POTW = publicly owned treatment works WWTP = wastewater treatment plant STP = sewage treatment plant
1. The flow is a design maximum rather than an average monthly flow limitation.
2. This permit authorizes discharges from the Calais POTW and four combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to Class SC waters and one CSO to Class C waters.

4.1.2 Reasonable Potential Analys i s


### For each facility, EPA conducted a reasonable potential analysi s to determine whether there is reasonable potential for the effluent to cause or contribute to a water quality violation for

any of the pollutant s for which EPA is proposing new criteria

. 26 

### For consistency with state implementation procedures, EPA determin ed reasonable potential using an approach that is consistent with the procedures described in 06

- 096 CMR 530(3)(E) and U

. S

. EPA (1991 ) ; Section 3.3.2 and Table 3

- 2) , as well as EPA’s NPDES Permit Writer’s Manual (U.S. EPA, 2010a)

, and reflecting the fact t hat , in some cases, the proposed criteria would not apply to the immediate receiving waters but instead would apply to waters in Indian l ands
downstream from the receiving waters

. EPA conducted the reasonable potential analysis for each proposed criterion and facility

, using the last five years (October 2010 to October 2015) of priority pollutant scan monitoring
data. Since these data are more recent than the effluent monitoring data used to establish limitations in the facilities’ existing permits, it is p ossible for EPA’s reasonable poten t ial analysis to indicate reasonable potential under the baseline criteria even when there is no permit limit. However, as shown in the analyses for each permitted facility in Appendix A,
there were no such cases.

Effluen t monitoring data are a key input for determining reasonable potential. There were not sufficient and adequate data available for all facilities to perform reasonable potential analyses for all pollutant s for which HHC are proposed . For example, MEDEP requ ires
annual priority pollutant scan s for only nine facilities out of the 3 3 facilities that discharge to
waters in Indian l ands or their tributaries. The remaining 2 4 facilities do not have monitoring requirements due to the facility classification 27 

### or the nature of the discharge. 28 

### Appendix A

26 These are pollutants for which the proposed HHC are more stringent than aquatic life criteria.

27 Level IV fac ilities have low flow, high dilution factors, and are exempt from monitoring requirements as long as prior testing indicates that there are no t measurable amounts of toxic pollutants present in effluent.

See 06

- 096 CMR 530(2)(B).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 42

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

summarizes the status of these 2 4 facilities in more detail. Additionally, for the nine facilities with priority pollutant scan requirements, the associated scan reports did not provide data for
all pollutant s f or which EPA is proposing HHC

. EPA did not assess reasonable potential for pollutant s for which data were unavailable

. I nstead , EPA assumed that the facilities do not have the potential to discharge pollutants in quantities that could lead to exceedances of HHC

. EPA considers this assumption to be reasonable given the rationale provided by MEDEP in permit fact sheets for not requiring monitoring in the first place ; specifically the expectation that discharge s from each of these
facilities were unlikely to contain priority pollutants

. While this determination was based on the potential to exceed Maine’s baseline HHC

, EPA assumes that the same conclusion would
be reached when considering the potential to exceed the proposed criteria . Additional data
would be needed to confirm or refute this finding under the proposed rule. EPA recognizes that this assumption does not account for the possibility of a pollutant being present in quantities below the reporting levels but above the propos ed criteria.

For each facility with priority pollutant scan data available in the last five years, EPA
identified each relevant pollutant that had at least one detected value ( i.e.

, a measured concentration above the lab detection level). For the purpose o f this analysis, f or pollutant s with only non

- detects EPA assumed no reasonable potential

, whereas f or pollutant s with at
least one detected value

, EPA assumed the value of any non

- detects equal to half the

detection limit stated in the scan report

. EPA th en calculated the number of observations and maximum and average effluent concentrations.

To determine whether a facility would have reasonable potential to exceed the proposed
criteria for a pollutant, EPA multiplied the maximum concentration by a multip lier from US EPA ( 1991; Table 3

- 2; determined based on the number of observations and the coefficient of variation) and divided by the facility

- specific harmonic mean dilution factor. As discussed earlier, the reasonable potential was evaluated at the point where the proposed criteria apply,

i.e. , the point where the discharge reaches waters in Indian lands , which may be downstream from the immediate receiving waters. For each facility, EPA determined whether the immediate receiving waters are in Indian l ands , and if not, EPA obtained flow information

for waters in Indian l ands downstream from the discharge location and used the data to
calculate the concentrations at that location

. For example, for facilities discharging to the Piscataquis River, EPA determined whether the discharge would have reasonable potential to

cause an exceed ance above the proposed criteria at the confluence of the Piscataquis and
Penobscot rivers , where flows from the Piscataquis River enter waters in Indian lands

.
EPA add ed each facility’s expected contribution to background concentrations present in the receiving water to calculate the total receiving water concentration (RWC) , as shown in the

28 For example, facilities that have cooling water discharges only are exempt from priority pollutant scan requirements.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 43

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

equation below

. To determine whether the facility would have reasonable potenti al to exceed a particular proposed criteri on , EPA compared the RWC to the assimilative capacity of the receiving water, which was based on the proposed criterion and the receiving water mean
harmonic flow. If the RWC exceeded the assimilative capacity , then the facility would have reasonable potential for that pollutant

.

RRRR = [ ( FFFFFFFF RR 

### × CC CCCC RR 

### ) + ( FFFFFFFF FF 

### × CC CCCC FF 

### × MM MM ) ] ( FFFFFFFF RR 

### + FFFFFFFF FF 

### )

where:

RWC = The receiving water concentration including the background concentration

and the facility’s contribution (μg/L)

Flow R 

### = The harmonic mean flow of the receiving water in Indian lands (MGD) upstream of the discharge

Conc R 

### = The background concentration in the receiving water (upstream of discharge) (μg/L)

Flow F 

### = The facility average f low limitation (MGD)

Conc F 

### = The facility’s maximum effluent concentration (μg/L)

Mult = Multiplier from U.S. EPA (1991); based on number of observations and
coefficient of variation

The RWC reflect s the contribution of an individual facility to the receiv ing water. However, in some cases multiple dischargers affect the same water. In those cases, EPA evaluated reasonable potential to exceed the proposed criteria by accounting for the cumulative impacts

of discharges . For example, if two dischargers that ar e very close to each other both discharge a particular pollutant , EPA allocated a share of the receiving water’s assimilative capacity for that pollutant to each facility (based on historical average loading). In other cases, a facility’s effluent may mix with that of other facilities further downstream; in such cases EPA also evaluated reasonable potential cumulatively at the most downstream location along waters in Indian lands

. The equation below shows how EPA calculated the share for each facility.

SS h aa rrrr ii 

### = [ FFFFFFFF ii 

### ∗ CC CCCC ii 

### ] ∑ FF ii 

### ∗ CC CCCC ii

nn ii = 1



### where:

Share i 

### = The share of the receiving water assimilative capacity for the pollutant that
is allocated to f acility i

Flow i 

### = Monthly average flow limitation for f acility i

Conc i 

### = Average effluent concentration of the pollutant for f acility i

n = Number of facilities discharging the pollutant to the given receiving water

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 44

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4

- 2 illustrates this by showing facilities discharging to the Penobscot River or its

tributaries upstream of Indian Island

. For these facilities, EPA looked at the potential for any individual facility to exceed the proposed criteria at the point where its flow enters Indian

lands (either at the point of discharge for facilities on the Penobscot River, or at the confluence of the Piscataquis River and the Penobscot River for facilities on the Piscataquis River) , as well as the potential for the combination of all dischargers to exceed the proposed
criteria at the location of the most downstream facility on the Penobscot River ( e.g. , Penobscot Housing Indian Island) discharging the pollutant of concern

. In both cases, EPA
considered the cumulative impact of the discharger’s effluent combined with the effluent of all upstream dischargers.

Exhibit 4

- 2 : F acilities discharging to the Penobscot River in Indian lands or its tributaries.



### Note that EPA’ s approach for determining reasonable potential increase s the likelihood of finding reasonable potential and setting more stringent effluent limits , relative to MEDEP’s procedure.

A ccording to 06

- 096 CMR 530( 3) (F)(3), if all values are below Maine’s repor ting limits, then the facility is deemed to have no reasonable potential to exceed criteria. However, in

many cases, actual laboratory detection levels are more sensitive than Maine’s reporting

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 45

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

limits

. For this analysis, EPA used the laboratory’s stated de tection limit in lieu of Maine’s reporting limit to determine reasonable potential

. Additionally, it is unclear whether MEDEP typically includes consideration of background concentrations in determining reasonable potential. None of the permits reviewed i n preparing this Economic Analysis discussed the background concentrations for toxic pollutants (although several permits did account for background nutrient concentrations). For the purpose of this analysis, EPA incorporated consideration of the background concentration of p ollutants when comparing facility contributions to receiving waters. In the absence of monitoring data for reference sites, for the purposes of this report, EPA followed Maine’s practice (see 06

- 096 CMR 530(4)(C)) of assum ing b ackground levels equal to 10 percent of
the criteria

. This assumption tends to overstate the potential for exceeding the water quality criterion, relative to assuming no background level.

Appendix A provides facility

- specific reasonable potential results under the baseline and proposed rule scenarios and additional information on the specific data sources used for each facility. Exhibit 4

- 3 s ummarizes, for each facili ty, the p ollutant s with detected effluent data ( i.e. , the p ollutant s for which EPA conducted a reasonable potential analysis), and the

p ollutant s for which EPA determined that the facility has reasonable potential to exceed

baseline or proposed criteria for waters in Indian lands

. One facilit y ha s a reasonable potential to exceed one proposed criterion

.
Exhibit 4

- 3 . Summary of Dischargers with Detected Effluent Data and Reasonable Potential Analysis

MEPDES

Number Facility Name P ollutant s with Detected Effluent Data Available 1 P ollutant s with Reasonable Potential

ME0101320 Baileyville POTW M ercury None

ME0102784 Brownville N one None

ME0100129 Calais POTW C yanide, dichloro

bromomethane, mercury,
toluene None

ME0102765 Calais School N one None

ME0001104 Cobb State Fish Hatchery N one None

ME0023213 Covanta Maine N one None

ME0036528 Dolby Hydro Project N one None

ME0102229 Dover

- Foxcroft Water
District N one None

ME0100501 Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP M ercury None

ME0036511 East Millinocket Hydro Project N one None

ME0000175 East Millinocket POTW N one None

ME0036625 Eustis Hydro Project N one None

ME0001082 Grand Lake Fish Hatchery N one None

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 46

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4

- 3 . Summary of Dischargers with Detected Effluent Data and Reasonable Potential Analysis

MEPDES

Number Facility Name P ollutant s with Detected Effluent Data Available 1 P ollutant s with Reasonable Potential

ME0102032 Guilford

- Sangerville
WWTF A ntimony, mercury, phenol None

ME0101290 Houlton WWTF M ercury None

ME0036633 Howland Hydro Project N one None

ME0101788 Howland POTW M ercury None

ME0101796 Lincoln Sanitary District C yanide, mercury None

ME0036552 Mattaceunk Hydro N one None

ME0102245 Mattawamkeag N one None

ME0102695 Milford N one None

ME0037371 Millinocket Hydro N one None

ME0100803 Millinocket POTW M ercury None

ME0100439 Milo POTW M ercury None

ME0100773 Passamaquoddy N one None

ME0101311 Penobscot Indian
Nation M ercury None

ME0002216 Tate and Lyle Ingredients B is(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate, cyanide, mercury B is(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate (proposed criteria)

ME0102831 Washington County Community College N one None

ME0036668 West Enfield Hydro Project N one None

ME0036668 Woodland Hydro N one None

ME0001872 Woodland Pulp M ercury None

ME0022063 Woodland Pulp: North
Site N one None

1. P ollutant s for which there was at least one detected value in priority pollutant scan data (if required) between October 2010 and October 2015.

4.1.3 Projecting Effluent Limitations



### There is one facilit y, Tate and Lyle Ingredients

, that ha s a reasonable potential to exceed the proposed criteria and may require more stringent effluent limitations for one pollutant ( bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate) . EPA calculated an average mont hly effluent limitation (AMEL) based on procedures described in 06

- 096 CMR 530(3) and 06

- 096 CMR 530(4). For a detailed description of the assumptions and methodologies used, see Appendix A.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 47

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

First, EPA calculated the assimilative capacity (in pounds per da y) of the receiving water
based on the harmonic mean flow 29 

### and the applicable HHC

. 30 

### Before allocating the assimilative capacity to the discharger , MEDEP accounts for background concentrations using site

- specific data, listed default background conditions f or a particular region, watershed, or statewide basis, or some other method. The permit fact sheet f or Tate and Lyle Ingredients state s that, lacking information about background conditions, MEDEP applies a default background concentration of 10 percent of the applicable criterion , and EPA use d this

same assumption in this analysis to calculat e effluent limits

. Additionally, MEDEP holds a portion of the total assimilative capacity in an unallocated water quality reserve to allow for new or changed dischar ges and nonpoint source contributions. According to 06

- 096 CMR 530(4)(E), this reserve amount must be no less than

15 percent of the total assimilative quantity. T he Tate and Lyle Ingredients permit fact sheet

state s that MEDEP applies a 15 percent reserve in establishing effluent limitations, and EPA

use d this same assumption in this analysis to calculate effluent limits

. 31 

### After accounting for
the 10 percent background and 15 percent reserve allocations

, 75 percent of the receiving water’s assimilative cap acity is available to allocate to the discharger.

EPA calculated a pollutant allocation based on the receiving water assimilative capacity minus the background and reserve. This facility allocation represents the pounds per day that the facility is allowe d to discharge to the waterbody. EPA then calculated the AMEL by dividing the allocation by the monthly average flow limitation (in MGD) and converting from pounds per million gallons to μg/L

. Using this approach, EPA calculated a bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalat e AMEL for Tate and Lyle Ingredients of 17.675 μ g/L, which represents a reduction from the facility’s maximum concentration of 32 μg/L.

4.1.4 Identifying Compliance Scenarios and Costs


### Analysis of the available data for the facilities indicates that there is li kely to be exceedances
of the projected effluent limit for bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate ( i.e. , instances where the facilit y will need to reduce effluent concentrations to meet the projected effluent limits under the proposed criteria ) for one facility . There are a number of potential alternatives for compliance with effluent limits for th i s pollutant , including:

29 The harmonic mean flow provides an estimate of the central tendency of the flow record that minimizes the effects of extreme values (see Appendix C for formul a) and is therefore the recommended flow for evaluating long

- term exposure to target substances such as toxics.

30 This is calculated as the applicable criterion converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons (by multiplying by a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the stream harmonic flow.

31 MRS Title 38 §464 4.J also states that “f or the purpose of calculating waste discharge license (WDL) limits for toxic substances, the department may use any unallocated assimilative capacity that the department h as set aside for future growth if the use of that unallocated assimilative capacity would avoid an exceedance of applicable ambient water quality criteria

. ”

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 48

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

• 

### Process optimization;

• 

### Source control ( e.g. , P2 program) ;

• 

### Installing end

- of

- pipe treatment technology ( e.g. , granular activated carbon (GAC) ) ; and

• 

### Alt ernative compliance mechanisms ( e.g. , site

- specific criterion, TMDL, or variance).

In theory, d ischargers will pursue the lowest cost means of compliance with effluent

limitations.

4.1.4.1 Process Optimization 

### The lowest cost option is likely the adjustment of existing treatment (process optimization)

. This option would be most feasible when relatively low pollutant reductions are needed or monitoring data indicate that pollutant loads increase throughout the treatment process as a
result of chemical additions o r treatment techniques

. Process optimization usually involves process analysis and process modifications. Process analysis is an investigation of the performance

- limiting factors of the treatment process and is a key factor in achieving optimum treatment efficiency. Performance

- limiting factors for common wastewater treatment processes may include operator training, response to changes in wastewater quality, maintenance activities, automation, and process control testing. The cost of process analysis inclu des the cost of additional or continuous monitoring throughout the treatment process and a treatment performance evaluation. These costs vary based on the number of treatment processes utilized and the magnitude of the reductions needed

.
Process modificat ions include activities short of adding new treatment technology units (conventional or unconventional) to the treatment train. For increasing pollutant removal efficiencies, process modifications could include adjusting coagulant doses to increase
settlin g, equalizing flow if pollutant concentrations spike during particular times , increasing filter maintenance activities or backwash cycles, training operators, and installing automation equipment including necessary hardware and software. Several months of adjustments may be needed to achieve a desired level of process optimization. In practice, the process modifications necessary would be determined by the process analysis study.

The effectiveness of process optimization largely depends on the efficiency o f current operations, the pollutant needing reductions, the existing treatment processes, and the fate and transport of the pollutant through the treatment train. For example, if a facility is already well maintained and operated, implementing process opti mization may not result in sufficient pollutant reductions because the existing treatment processes are already performing at feasible limits. Also, because the design of most conventional treatment technologies maximizes removal of suspended solids, proce ss optimization aimed at increasing those removal efficiencies may not result in sufficient reductions for pollutants existing primarily in dissolved form. Given the available information, it is generally not possible to determine
the reductions achievable with process optimization; rather, a detailed, site

- specific study would be necessary. Therefore, EPA did not estimate costs for process optimization among the compliance strategies considered in this analysis

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 49

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

4.1.4.2 Source Controls 

### If adjusting existing opera tions would not be feasible or would not be sufficient to achieve the necessary reductions, source controls would likely be the next most cost

- effective control option. Source control could be used alone, or in conjunction with process optimization. The
fe asibility of source control efforts depends on the makeup of the influent and potential sources of the pollutant. In the case of wasted industrial ingredients or chemical byproducts, such as bis(2

- ethylhexyl) p hthalate, it is possible that the production pr ocess could be adjusted to use or generate a smaller waste stream of the pollutant.

P2 programs can be a cost

- effective means of reducing toxic pollutants in wastewater effluents. However, as contributing sources are identified and controlled, the cost

ef

fectiveness and efficacy that a P2 program would provide will diminish, and a discharger may need to pursue alternative compliance mechanisms ( i.e. , a variance) if compliance with permit conditions has not been achieved. Successful P2 programs will likely include at least some of the following steps:

• 

### Identify sources ;

• 

### Define program goals

– including a statement of how the facility intends to reduce pollutant levels in its effluent, the purpose for doing so, and a time line for completion ;

• 

### Develop an approa ch

– including selecting sources for P2 efforts and targets (e.g., size of the source loading, time required to produce desired results) ;

• 

### Estimate program costs ;

• 

### Implement program

– starting with the most cost

- effective measures and modifying
activities an d approach based on measured results ;

• 

### Assess progress ;

• 

### Provide follow

- up ; and

• 

### Develop a contingency plan

– including a description of actions to be taken if plan ned
efforts are unsuccessful.

P2 plans vary in complexity and in the resources necessary to ac hieve the goals set forth. To
estimate costs

, EPA relied on estimates previously developed for the economic analysis of WQS for the State of Oregon (U.S. EPA, 2008). EPA escalated these costs to 2014 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

, 32 

### resulting in estimated costs of $28,000 per year for

the individual industrial discharger.

4.1.4.3 End

- of

- Pipe Treatment



### For end

- of

- pipe treatment for bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate, EPA assumed t hat the facilit y would use GAC treatment , which is capable of reliably controllin g this pollutant at levels

32 Base period 1982

- 1984; costs times 2014 index value (236.736) divided by 2008 index value (215.3 03).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 50

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

below the projected effluent limits

. 33 

### EPA estimated the costs for GAC treatment using its WBS cost model for GAC treatment of drinking water (model release date August 12, 2014)

. The WBS model for GAC treatment is a spreadsheet

- based engineering model that divide s the treatment process into discrete components in order to build up a cost estimate, as described in more detail in Khera et al. (2013) and U

. S

. EPA (2014 a ). 34



### To apply the WBS model for GAC treatment in th is analysis, EPA selected facility

- and pollutant

- specific inputs and assumptions as documented in Appendix A. Because the model estimates costs in 2013 dollars, EPA escalated the model output capital costs and operating costs to 2014 dollars using the Eng ineering News

- Record construction cost index (ENR CCI) 35 

### and CPI

, 36 

### respectively. EPA annualized all capital costs over 20 years using a

3 percent discount rate (see Appendix E for results using a 7 percent discount rate).

EPA designed the WBS model for GAC to estimate costs for drinking water, not wastewater,

treatment. However, the process equipment needed for GAC treatment of wastewater is essentially the same as that required for drinking water. Also, although the model allows for the input of site

- specif ic data and assumptions (such as flow rates and operating parameters), its primary purpose is to generate national average costs. T hus, although EPA selected facility

- specific inputs and assumptions for this analysis (as documented in Appendix A), the

mode l outputs rely on national average, not facility

- or region

- specific, unit costs (e.g., equipment prices, labor rates). Because of these limitations, the GAC treatment cost estimates presented here should be considered order

- of

- magnitude estimates, not def initive facility

- specific estimates.

33 Based on isotherm data from Chen and Liew (2003), bis(2

- ethylhexyl)pthalate is readily adsorbed by GAC.

34 The model is publicly available, along with more detailed documentation, at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/economicanalysis.cfm

.

35 Base year 1913; capital costs time 2014 index value (9806) divided by 2013 index value (9547). EPA used

the ENR CCI to escalate capital costs because this index reflects the prices of goods and services (construction labor, steel, cement, and lumber) that correspond closely to those used in the construction of a
treatment system.

36 Base period 1982

- 1984; operating costs times 2014 index value (236.736) divided by 2013 index value (232.957). Operating costs include operator labor, electricity, waste disposal, and a set of materials specific to the treatment technology (reactivated GAC and other maintenance supplies). There is no eco nomic index that corresponds closely to this specific set of goods and services. Therefore, EPA used the CPI to escalate operating costs because it broadly reflects the level of prices in the economy in general. Alternative indices

include the Producer Pri ce Index (PPI) and the Gross Domestic Product implicit price deflator (GDP

- IPD). However, EPA selected the CPI because it reflects prices to the end user, including taxes and transportation, instead of prices received by the manufacturer (as does the PPI), and because it reflects a fixed basket of goods, instead of one that changes from year to year (as does the GDP

- IPD). Additionally, using the CPI is conservative compared to the PPI, resulting in slightly higher costs. The difference in costs
between usin g the CPI and the GDP

- IPD is negligible.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 51

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

4.1.4.4 Alternative Compliance Mechanisms



### If GAC treatment discussed above would not result in compliance with revised effluent limitations, or if the costs of this technology would be prohibitive, the discharger would likely n eed some form of relief from the requirements. Alternative compliance mechanisms
that can offer some form of relief can include site

- specific criteria, designated use removal or

modification

, and variances. EPA included the costs of obtaining variances amo ng the compliance strategies considered in this analysis. Data were not available to evaluate the applicability or cost of other alternative compliance mechanisms.

To estimate costs for a variance, EPA relied on estimates previously developed for economic analysis of WQS for the State of Oregon (U.S. EPA, 2008). EPA escalated these costs to 2014 dollars using the CPI

, 37 

### resulting in an estimated one

- time cost of $18 0,000

. EPA
annualized these costs over 20 years using a 3 percent discount rate (see Appendix E for results using a 7 percent discount rate).

4.2 Costs from Proposed Bacteria Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands

As discussed in Section 3.1.2 , while the proposed bacteria criteri a for waters in Indian lands

are not expected to result in treatment processes being added to facilities, year round applicability of the criteri a will req uire facilities to operate disinfection systems year round

rather than for a fraction of the year as currently done

. Accordingly, EPA estimated potential

costs for the proposed criteria based on typical disinfection costs for POTWs based on the

effluent f low rate and type of treatment (chlorination/dechlorination)

, and monitoring costs.

Fifteen of the 33 facilities discharging to waters on Indian lands have existing limitations for

bacteria. Exhibit 4

- 4 identifies these facilities, along with information from their permits on their current disinfection and, where applicable, dechlorination practices

.

Exhibit 4

- 4

. Summary of Current Disinfection and Dechlorination Practices at
Facilities with Bacteria Limitations

Facility Name Current Disinfection Method Current Dechlorination Method
Baileyville Sodium hypochlorite Sodium bisulfite

Calais POTW Sodium hypochlorite None

Calais School Unspecified chlorination No information

Dover

- Foxcroft WWTF Sodium hypochlorite Sodium bisulfite

Guilford

- Sangerville Sanitary District Sodium hypochlorite Sodium bisulfite

Houlton POTW Sodium hypochlorite Sodium bisulfite

Lincoln Sanitary District Sodium hypochlorite No information

Millinocket POTW Sodium hypochlorite No information

Milo WWTF Sodium hypochlorite Sodium bisulfite

37 Costs times 2014 index value (236.736) divided by 2008 index value (215.303).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 52

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4

- 4

. Summary of Current Disinfection and Dechlorination Practices at
Facilities with Bacteria Limitations

Facility Name Current Disinfection Method Current Dechlorination Method
Passamaquoddy Tribal Council POTW Unspecified chlorination Unspecified dechlorination

Penobscot Indian Nation WPCF Sodium hypochlorite No information

Town of Brownville Subsurface WWTF None 1 None
Washington Comm. College Calcium hypochlorite 2 None

East Millinocket POTW Unspecified chlorination No information

Howland WWTF Sodium hypochlorite No information

1. It appears this facility is able to meet its seasonal bacteria l imitations without disinfection

. 2 . Based on description of the disinfection process as a "chlorine tablet" system

.



### EPA estimated potential costs associated for the proposed criteria assuming facilities would extend the operation of their current disinfection processes year

- round. The permits for three facilities (Calais School, Passamaquoddy Tribal Council POTW , and Ea st Millinocket

POTW ) identified chlorination as the disinfection method, but did not identify the chemical source of the chlorine (e.g., elemental chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite). EPA assumed these facilities currently use sodium h ypochlorite, based on the typical practice at the majority of facilities that identified the chlorination chemical. EPA used the following assumptions to estimate incremental costs associated with extended operation of disinfection processes:

• 

### Because no in formation was available on the chlorine dosage used at any of the facilities,

EPA developed upper

- and lower

- bound estimates assuming chlorine dose s of 20 mg/L and 5 mg/L, respectively

, based on the typical range for POTWs of 5 to 20 mg/L (U.S. EPA, 1999).

• 

### EPA used a price of $2.2 6 per gallon for sodium hypochlorite solution of 12.5 percent strength as chlorine, based on data from EPA’s WBS model for GAC

. 38

• 

### EPA used a price of $1.2 9 per pound for dry calcium hypochlorite with 65 percent availability as chlo rine, also based on data from EPA’s WBS model for GAC

. 38



### EPA also assumed that facilities that currently dechlorinate their effluent would extend the operation of dechlorination processes year

- round. As shown in Exhibit 4

- 4 , six of the facilities are known to dechlorinate. The permit for Passamaquoddy indicated that the facility dechlorinates, but did not identify the method used. EPA assumed this facility uses sodium bisulfite, based on the typical practice at the majority of facilities that identified the
dechlorination chemical. The permits for an additional six facilities (see Exhibit 4

- 4 ) did not

38 For more information about and EPA’s WBS models, see Khera et al. (2013) and U.S. EPA (2014a).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 53

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

provide information on whether or not dechlorination is currently required. In its upper

bound estimate, EPA included dechlorination costs for twelve facilities (the six known to dechlorinate, plus the six where current dechlori nation practices are unknown) . In its lower

bound estimate, EPA included dechlorination costs only for the six facilities known to
dechlorinate currently

. EPA used the following assumptions to estimate incremental costs associated with extended operation o f dechlorination processes:

• 

### Because no information was available on the dechlorination dosage used at any of the facilities, EPA assumed a sodium bisulfite dose of 4.38 mg/L, based on a need to
neutraliz e 3 mg/L excess residual chlorine and 1.46 parts sodi um bisulfite per part residual chlorine ( U.S. EPA, 2000).

• 

### EPA used a price of $2. 3 0 per gallon for 38 percent sodium bisulfite solution, based on
data from EPA’s WBS model for GAC

. 38



### EPA assumed disinfection and dechlorination processes would operate for an additional 226 days per year, based on extending operation during October 1 through May 14. EPA did not
include incr emental costs for operating labor, maintenance materials, or electricity associated with extended operation of the processes, because these costs would be expected to be minimal in comparison to chemical costs. Finally, EPA included costs for seven additio nal monthly bacteria analyses , using a laboratory cost of $ 45 per analysis (Maine Water, 2012; online price assumed to be current)

. EPA assumed there would be no incremental costs for

collect ion or shipping of the samples, beyond the existing costs for oth er monthly sampling during these seven months. EPA also assumed no one

- time or capital costs would be incurred (i.e., that extending the period of disinfection and dechlorination would not require any upgrades to physical equipment). Therefore, the resulti ng costs are already in annual terms and unaffected by the discount rate (i.e., 3 percent or 7 percent ).

4.3 Costs from Proposed Ammonia Criteri a for Waters in Indian Lands

EPA used a similar approach to that used for HHC to identify the dischargers with reas onable potential for exceedances of the proposed ammonia criteri a . The AWQC depends on both temperature and pH. To assess reasonable potential, EPA used a threshold of 1. 4 mg/L N, which corresponds to the proposed chronic ammonia criterion for a water temperature of 25oC and pH of 7.0 SU and is consistent with the approach used by MEDEP in setting effluent limits in existing discharge permits that address ammonia. Note that at the colder water temperature typical of Maine waters outside of summer months

, the criterion value is higher (see Exhibit 3

- 4 )

.
As discussed in Section 3.1.3 , ammonia monitoring data for the last five years (October 2010 through October 2015) are available for 9 of the 33 facilities discharging to waters i n Indian

l ands or their tributaries

. Exhibit 4

- 5 summarizes available ammonia effluent data for these
facilities.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 54

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4

- 5 . Summary of Ammonia Effluent Data

Facility 1 Number of Observations 2 D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average

Calais POTW 2 800 500

Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP 15 125 35,700 14,317

Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF 11 5,730 2,104

Houlton WWTF 9 100 472 197
Lincoln Sanitary District 2 1,200 795

Millinocket POTW 6 17,500 12,062

Milo POTW 12 19,400 13,813

Tate and Lyle Ingredients 4 9,080 2,810

Woodland Pulp 9 11,200 3,122

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only facilities for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified ( i.e. all observations were above detection)

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.



### For each of the facilities with ammonia monitoring data, EPA conducted a reasonable potential analysis to determ ine whether the facility has reasonable potential to contribute to

an exceedance of the baseline or proposed criteri a in the receiving waterbody. As with the

HHC analysis described in Section 4.1

, EPA assessed the reasonable potential based on the cumulative impact of all dischargers to the relevant receiving waters ( i.e. , waters in Indian
lands )

. First, EPA calculated the individual facility contribution to ammoni a loadings based on the

MEC , a multiplier from U.S. EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2), and the monthly average flow
limitation. 39 

### Next, EPA calculated the relative share of each facility to ammonia loadings in the waterbody based on historic effluent concentrations and monthly average flow limitations, using the following equation.

SS h aa ii 

### = [ FFFFFFFF ii 

### ∗ CC CCCC ii 

### ] ∑ FF ii 

### ∗ CC CCCC ii

nn ii = 1



### where:

Share i 

### = The share o f the receiving water assimilative capacity for ammonia that is allocated to Facility i

39 Calculated as the facility’s MEC times a conversion factor of 8.34 (to convert from mg/L to lb/gallon) times a multiplier from U.S. EPA (1991; determined based on the number of observations and the coefficient of variation) times the facility’s flow limitation.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 55

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Flow i 

### = Monthly average flow limitation for Facility i

Conc i 

### = Average effluent concentration of ammonia for Facility i

This calculation yields the facility share of al lowable daily ammonia loadings to the waterbody.

Based on the receiving water flow, the criterion, a background concentration of 10 percent of the applicable criterion, and the relative share of loadings for the facility, EPA calculated the amount of ammonia that the receiving water can assimilate daily from each facility while

remain ing under the applicable criteri on . If the facility’s calcu lated contribution exceeds its
associated share of the assimilative capacity, then the facility is determined to have

reasonable potential to exceed the ammonia criteri a

.
Exhibit 4

- 6 summarizes this reasonable potential analysis. Based on facility effluent concentrations, flow limitations, receiving water chronic flows, and facility allocations, no facility has reasonable potential under baseline or proposed criteria (i.e., all RWC values are less than corresponding assimilative capacity values)

.
Exhibit 4

- 6 . Summary of Ammonia Reasonable Potential Analysis

Location (7Q10 Flow) Facility RWC (lb/day) 1 F acility Share 2 Assimilative Capacity (lb/day) 3

Proposed Baseline

Penobscot Upstream (1,555 MGD) Millinocket POTW 714 100.0% 16,226 35,021

Penobscot at Lincoln (1,824 MGD) Millinocket POTW 714 97.1 % 18,473 39,869

Lincoln Sanitary
District 41 2.9% 559 1,207

Penobscot at
Confluence (1,961 MGD) Millinocket POTW 714 58.9% 12,042 25,991

Lincoln Sanitary
District 41 1.8% 365 787

Dover

- Foxcroft
WWTF 429 24.0% 4,908 10,593

Guilford

- Sangerville 93 4.1% 838 1,809

Milo POTW 82 11.3% 2,308 4,982

St. Croix River (549 MGD) Woodland Pulp 5,044 100.0% 5,732 12,372

Passamaquoddy Bay (24,333 MGD) Calais POTW 38 0.8% 2,017 4,352

Woodland Pulp 5,044 99.2% 251,858 543,578

Meduxnekeag River (8 MGD) Houlton 11 63.7% 55 118

Tate and Lyle 12 36.3% 31 67

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 56

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4

- 6 . Summary of Ammonia Reasonable Potential Analysis

Location (7Q10 Flow) Facility RWC (lb/day) 1 F acility Share 2 Assimilative Capacity (lb/day) 3

Proposed Baseline
1. The facility’s receiving water contribution (RWC) is the maximum effluent concentration (converted from μg/L to lbs/gallon based on a conversion factor of 0.00834) times multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) times maximum average monthly flow lim it. 2. Facility’s average concentration (converted from μg/L to lb s /day using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times maximum average monthly flow limit divided by the total ammonia contribution to the waterbody from all

sources. 3. Applicable criterion (1.4 mg/L under proposed criterion; 3 mg/L under baseline ) minus the background concentration (10 percent of the applicable criterion) converted from mg/L to lbs/gallon (based on a conversion factor of 8.34) times the downstream flo w times the facility share.



### 4.4 Costs from the Proposed Mixing Zone Policy

As discussed in Section 3.1.6

, one facilit y discharging to waters in Indian lands ( or their
tributaries ) has an existing permit that establish es a mixing zone (Woodland Pulp LLC

, which has a thermal mixing zone) . The impacts of proposed WQS are difficult to predict and will depend on how the policy is implemented for this permit. P ossible o utcomes include: various revisions to permit conditions that could require recalculating thermal discharge
limits ; the need for facility

- specif i c studies to define a mixing zone consistent with the proposed mixing zone policy ; or changes in the facility pr ocesses or operations to reduce the
effluent thermal load.

There were too many unknowns for EPA to be able to assess low end of the cost implications
of the proposed mixing zone policy. Therefore, t o assess potential cost impacts of the proposed mixing zon e policy, EPA considered a worst

- case scenario in which the facility would need to retrofit cooling towers to meet more stringent thermal limits.

Specifically, EPA estimated the costs of retrofitting cooling tower s at the facilit y using the

same approach from its analysis of the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2014 b ) and assuming costs for “difficult” retrofit s. 40 

### In applying that approach in this analysis, EPA approximated the maximum reported intake flow (MRIF ; used in calculating

the costs ) as equal to the total monthly average permitted flows for process and non

- cooling

water (MGD). EPA annualized all capital costs using a 3 percent discount rate (see Appendix

40 As discussed in EPA (20 14; page 8

- 25), “ For manufacturing facilities, EPA recognizes that cooling tower retrofits will need to be integrated into the existing manufacturing processes at different locations within the plant and it is expected that in many instances difficulties w ill be encountered to a greater degree and frequency than at power generators. Such difficulties may involve space constraints, reconfiguration of process piping, long piping runs, conflicts with existing piping and infrastructure, and utilities. These are some of the factors that EPRI cited as contributing to a “difficult” designation for a cooling tower retrofit. In addition, the cooling towers are likely to be installed as smaller units serving individual processes throughout the plant, thus reducing the opportunity for savings from economies of scale that may be achievable at power generators .”

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 57

### POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

E for results using a 7 percent discount rate) , an d, consistent with U.S. EPA (2014b), assuming a cooling tower useful life of 30 years

.
Exhibit 4

- 7 presents rough cost estimates for the facilit y

. Tot al annualized costs are approximately $ 273 ,000

. Note that the estimates do not account for potential cost savings from water and energy efficiency improvements.

Exhibit 4

- 7

. E stimates of C ooling T ower R etrofit C osts at F acilit y with T hermal
M ixing Z one for D ischarges to W aters in Indian L ands or T ributaries

Facility Name (Flow Rate) 1 Cost Component 2 Estimated Costs (Thousand Dollars) Component Costs (2009$) Component Costs (2014$) Annualized Costs (2014$) 3
Woodland Pulp 4
(15.0 MGD) Capital costs 5 $4,281 $4,899 $ 243

Fixed O&M costs $13 $15 $15

Variable O&M costs

- chemicals $13 $15 $15

Variable O&M costs

– Pump
and Fan Power $0 $0 $0

**Total $**  **273**
1. Maximum intake flow rate is assumed to be equal to the total monthly average non

- contact cooling water flow rate in each permit, assuming that cooling tower s would be sized based on that flow. 2. Cost components from U.S. EPA (2014 b ), Exhibit 8

- 9. Capit al cost = $411 /gpm ; fixed O&M costs = $1.27 /gpm ; variable O&M costs for chemicals = $1.25 /gpm; Variable O&M costs for pump and fan power = $0.0000237/gpm.
3

. EPA annualized capital costs using a 3 percent discount rate (see Appendix E for results using a 7 percent discount rate), and, consistent with U.S. EPA (2014b), assuming a cooling tower useful life of 30 years.
4. I nformation provided in the 2014 WDL suggests that Woodland Pulp operates two cooling towers of the total four cooling towers constructed a t the plant. Accordingly, retrofit costs are expected to be overstated.
5 . EPA notes that the cost estimates for Woodland Pulp are generally consis tent with anecdotal information EPA found on the construction costs of the four cooling towers at the Woodland Pulp facility in 1996: $3.5 to $7.2 million (after adjusting to 2014 dollars), as compared to $4.9 million estimated by EPA.



### As discussed above, cooling tower retrofits represent an upper bound scenario for potential impacts. The cost estimate f or the Woodland Pulp facility may be further overstated since EPA assumed that new cooling towers would be required whereas the plant already has four cooling towers and operates two of these towers. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA
assumed that the W oodland Pulp may need to take additional measures to reduce the heat load of its effluent, for which the cost of constructing the cooling towers provide s an upper bound.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 58

### NONPOINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS



## 5 Methods for Identifying Potential Costs: N onpoint Sources

The proposed water quality standards could result in incremental impact s on nonpoint sources of pollution, such as agriculture , urban areas, and forestry, through TMDLs or other pollution cleanup plans. Section 2.1 discusses the nonpoint sources of pollution. Ambient water quality data can be used to determine the impact that the proposed HHC may have on the attainment of the criteria and thus the pot ential for incremental control strategies and costs for nonpoint sources.

5.1 Identifying Exceedances

EPA reviewed the available ambient water quality monitoring data to assess potential incremental exceedances of the proposed WQS . As discussed in Section 2.2 , monitoring data
for waters in Indian lands are extremely limited

. EPA did not find any indication, based on these very limited observations, that existing polluta nt levels would exceed the prop o sed criteria for toxic pollutants, ammonia

, or other pollutant s.

5.2 Identifying Compliance Actions and Costs

EPA does not have data on all pollutant s for all waterbodies, or data on the sources of loadings to potentially impaired waterbodies . Additionally, MEDEP recently completed development of a management plan for nonpoint source pollution (see MEDEP

, 2014 )

. Re ductions in nonpoint source pollution loadings arising from this plan w ill occur in the absence of the proposed rule and represent baseline requirements

.
If the proposed criteria lead to additional waters being listed on the state ’s 303(d) list for exceedances of water quality criteria, the magnitude of cost impacts to nonpo int sources depends on the extent to which additional practices are needed for compliance with the proposed criteria in comparison to compliance wit h baseline criteria

. If nonpoint sources are the primary cause of some incremental impairments ( e.g. , DO )

, then

the proposed criteria may result in some state

- imposed costs to nonpoint sources, including :

• 

### Agricultural and forest lands

– sediment and erosion controls beyond those specified under existing state and federal regulations and plans ;

• 

### Non

- MEPDES regul ated urban runoff

– increased or additional nonstructural BMPs (e.g., institutional, education, or P2 practices designed to limit generation of runoff or reduce the pollutants load of runoff); and structural controls (e.g., engineered and constructed
syste ms designed to provide water quantity or quality control)

.
C ontrol of nonpoint sources of the pollutants of concern could reduce costs to point sources. In the context of a TMDL, load and wasteload allocations reflecting the source s of the poll utant could result in less stringent limits for point sources than anticipated through the analysis of the facilities as described in Section 4

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 59

### NONPOINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

If an additional number of TMDLs are needed under the proposed criteria, there may be an

increase i n government regulatory costs. EPA (2001 b ) estimate s the average cost to develop

a TMDL to be about $27,000 to $29,000, depending on the level of complexity and the

extent to which impaired waters are clustered together for TMDL development

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 60

### COMPLIANCE COSTS



## 6 Potential Compliance Costs

This section summarizes the potential costs to point sources and nonpoint sources, and

discusses the limitations an d uncertainties associated with the analyses. Except as otherwise noted, 41 

### the assumed life of capital investments is 20 years, and EPA used a discount rate of 3 percent for the main analysis. Results using a 7 percent discount rate are provided in Appendix E.

6.1 Point Sources

As described in Section s 4.1 through 4.4 , EPA estimates that one facilit y may incur some incremental costs to meet the proposed HHC for waters in Indian lands , 1 4 facilities could
incur costs due to proposed bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands , and one facilit y could

incur costs due to the proposed mixing zone policy

.
Exhibit 6

- 1 summarizes EPA’s estimates of facility

- specific compliance costs and the total

costs that may result from the proposed HHC . The cost estimates reflect a range of potential compliance scenarios as documented in Section 4.1.4 and Appendix A. The low end of the cost estimates represents P2 measures, while the high end of the cost estimates represents
end

- of

- pipe treatment ( GAC )

. End

- of

- pipe treatment is included in this report as a worst

- case option which would be needed only if these other approaches were likely to b e unsuccessful. While EPA has reported this as a range, facilities will have better information and be able to

decide. Similar possibilities exi st at o ther facilities as well.

Exhibit 6

- 1 . Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Human Health
Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands 1

Facility Name Pollutant Estimated Annual Costs (Thousand s; 2014$) 2
Tate and Lyle Ingredients bis(2

- exylhethyl)phthalate $28

- $ 43

**Total**

**-- $28** 

**- $43** 

1. S ee Section 4.1.4 and Appendix A for a description of the methods and assumptions used to develop the fa cility

- specific cost estimates.
2. One

- time costs annualized over 20 years using a 3 percent discount rate; see Appendix A for costs annualized using a 7 percent discount rate.



### Exhibit 6

- 2 summarizes estimates of facility

- specific costs and total costs for the proposed
bacteria criteria , based on the assumption that facilities would need to disinfect their effluent

year

- round

. The upper

- bound estimate includes disinfection at a high chlorine dose and dechlorination at twelve facilities (six known to dechlorinate, plus six where current dechlorination practices are unknown). The lower

- bound estimate includes disinfection at a

41 See Section 4.4 for useful life assumptions for cooling towers.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 61

### COMPLIANCE COSTS

low er chlorine dose and dechlorination at only the six facilities known to dechlorinate currently.

Exhibit 6

- 2

. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Criteria for
Bacteria 1

Facility Name Mean Fl ow (MGD) Incremental Annual Cost 2 (thousands; 2014$)

Lower

- Bound Upper

- Bound

Baileyville 0.33 $9. 0 $29.3

Calais POTW 0.6 $12. 6 $ 49.3

Calais School 0.004446 $0. 4 $0. 7

Dover

- Foxcroft WWTF 0.29 $8. 0 $25.8

Guilford

- Sangerville Sanitary District 0.284 $ 7.8 $25. 2

Houlton POTW 1.5 $ 39.9 $131. 9

Lincoln Sanitary District 1.07 $ 22.2 $94. 2

Millinocket POTW 1.34 $27. 7 $117. 9

Milo WWTF 0.25 $ 6.9 $22. 2

Passamaquoddy 0.15 $4. 3 $13. 5

Penobscot Indian Nation WPCF 0.057 $1. 5 $5. 3

Town of Brownville Subsurface WWTF 3 N/A $0.0 $0.0

Washington Comm. College 0.003077 $0. 4 $0. 5

East Millinocket POTW 2 $ 41.2 $175. 7

Howland WWTF 0.152 $3. 4 $13. 6

**Total**

**-- $18**  **5**

**. 3**  **$70 5** 

**. 2**  1. See Section 4.2 for a description of methods, assumptions, and uncertainties.
2. No one

- time costs are included; costs are calculated directly in annual terms and unaffected by assumptions about the discount rate (i.e., 3 percent or 7 percent ).
3. It appears this facility is able to meet its seasonal bacteria limitations without disinfection; accordingly, EPA

assume d no additional cost to meet the criteria year

- round

.



### Finally, Exhibit 6

- 3 summarizes upper bound estimates of facility

- specific and total costs
related to the proposed mixing zone policy.

Exhibit 6

- 3 . Summary of Upper Bound E stimated of Compliance Costs for Proposed Mixing Zone Policy 1
Facility Name Flow Rate (MGD) Annual ized Costs ( thousands; 2014$) 2

Woodland Pulp 15.0 $ 273

**Total (Upper Bound)** 

**-- $**  **273**

1. See Section 4.4 for a description of methods, assumptions, and uncertainties. 2. One

- time costs annualized over 3 0 years using a 3 percent discount rate; for c osts annualized using a
7 percent discount rate, see Appendix E.



### As summarized in Exhibit 6

- 4 , i n total, EPA estimated that point source dischargers may incur costs ranging between $ 213 ,000 and $ 1 million as a result of the proposed rule

,

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 62

### COMPLIANCE COSTS

depending on compliance approaches for meeting potentially more stringent permit

conditions

. As discussed throughout the report and highlighted in Section 6.3 below, these

cost s are subject to significant uncer tainty and the estimated range reflects some of this uncertainty.

Exhibit 6

- 4 . Summary of Estimated Point Source Compliance Costs 1

Proposed WQS Annualized Costs (thousands; 2014$) 2

Human health criteria for waters in Indian lands $ 28

− $ 43

Bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands $ 18 5

− $ 705

Mixing zone policy Not Estimated

− $ 273

**Total 3**  **$ 213** 

− **$ 1,**  **021**

1. Excludes costs for proposed ammonia criteria, for which EPA expects costs to be zero. See Section 4.3

. 2. Except as otherwise noted (see Section 4.4 for assumptions regarding expected useful life of cooling towers), one

- time costs are annualized over 20 years using a 3 percent discount rate. See Appendix E for results using a 7 percent discount rate. 3

. Lower bound of total costs excludes costs associated with the mixing zone policy for which EPA estimated only the upper bound scenario. See Section 4.4 for details.



### 6.2 Nonpoint Sources

As noted in Section 5 , EPA ha d very limited information with which to assess potential impacts of the proposed criteria on ambient water quality . Given the scope of the proposed rule on certain waters and pollutan ts (notably toxic pollutants) and existing controls on wide

ranging nonpoint source pollution sources including in state

- wide TMDLs , EPA determined that any incremental costs on nonpoint sources are unlikely to be significant

.

6.3 Uncertainties and Quality Ass urance

As noted previously, t he proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or other sources of pollution . S tate implementation of the proposed rule may result in new or revised MEPDES permit conditions for p oint source dischargers

, and incremental control requirements for nonpoint sources. For point sources

, EPA has estimated these impacts as the difference between compliance with permit limits

based on the baseline ( disapproved ) WQS and compliance with permi t limits based on the proposed WQS

. The proposed rule could also result in a need for additional controls on nonpoint sources of pollutant loadings to attain WQS

. EPA estimated potential incremental impairments using readily available ambient water quality data. However, data are too limited to identify specific incremental control actions and costs that may be required of nonpoint sources

.
Exhibit 6

- 5 summarizes additional uncertainties and limitations in the analysis.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 63

### COMPLIANCE COSTS

Exhibit 6

- 5 . Uncertainties in Analysis of Costs
Uncertainty / Assumption Direction of Effect on Cost Estimate Notes

Baseline c ontrols Uncertain EPA did not conduct extensive site

- specific review of facility plans and information for addressing baseline water quality issues; thus, facility analyses could under

- or overstate
baseline and incremental actions and costs.

Us e of models or curve fits
to estimate end

- of

- pipe

treatment costs for bis(2

- ethylhexyl)pht h alate Uncertain These cost estimating methods produce estimates that
should be order

- of

- magnitude estimates, not definitive, facility

- specific estimates.

No reasona ble potential
for facilities without effluent monitoring requirements or data Underestimate For facilities that do not have effluent monitoring requirements or available data, EPA assumed that they would have no reasonable potential to exceed baseline or
p roposed criteria, and that they would not incur any costs.
Use of DCP methodology
to estimate concentrations in Passamaquoddy Bay Uncertain The DCP methodology provides a rough approximation of mixing and flushing in an estuary based on freshwater inflows. The method assumes complete mixing and steady

state conditions. Actual concentrations near Indian lands at Pleasant Point may be lower or h igher than estimated using the DCP, but are expected to be significantly lower than estimated at the point of discharge on the St. Croix River 20

- 30 miles upstream from Pleasant Point.

Detection limits used in existing priority pollutant
scan data Underes timate EPA relied on data from existing priority pollutant scans completed by permitted dischargers. Some laboratory detection limits may be insufficiently sensitive to detect pollutants present in the effluent. This may understate reasonable potential for these pollutants with relatively low
criteria values

. Cost estimates for bacteria compliance do not include incremental operating labor, maintenance, or electricity costs Underestimate These costs are expected to be minimal in comparison to the
chemical costs that are included in the estimate.

Use of background
concentrations in reasonable potential analyses Uncertain EPA assumed background concentrations of 10 percent of the applicable criterion when determining reasonable potential. Actual background c oncentrations could be higher
or lower than the assumed level.

No costs associated with proposed dissolved oxygen criteria Underestimate Effluent and ambient monitoring data are not available for DO in winter months, and as such EPA was not able to determ ine whether any facilities would incur costs to meet more stringent limitations during those months. However, given the limited scope of the proposed DO criteria to Class A waters,
EPA assumed the effects would be minimal.

Flow conditions for
establishin g effluent
limitations Overestimate For all facilities, EPA calculated effluent limits and estimated costs based on the most stringent flow conditions (i.e., the flow conditions that allow for the lowest dilution for a facility).

Means of addressing incremental impairments Overestimate Under a TMDL, load and wasteload allocations may result in less stringent requirements for point sources if nonpoint

sources are the cause of impairments

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 64

### COMPLIANCE COSTS

EPA conducted quality assurance checks on the data , analyses, and results, consistent with the project

- specific quality assurance plan. In addition, the Agency followed permit development procedures for determining the reasonable potential and calculating effluent
limits to ensure consistency with existin g permit conditions in developing the baseline and projecting the potential effects of the proposed rule . EPA also used Maine

- specific data

sources as available , and for all data entry, EPA confirmed the accuracy of data sources and

documentation following procedures described in the quality assurance plans. These procedures include check s on all inputs and calculations , and using multiple approaches to

confirm results.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 65

### REFERENCES



## 7 References

Chen, W.F. and J.Y. Richard Liew. 2003. The Civil Engineering Handbook, Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

ENSR. 2009. Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Loads). Report #

DEPLW

- 1002. Prepared for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, August
2009.

Khera, Rajiv, Pat Ransom, and Thomas F. Speth. 2013. Using work breakdown structure models to develop unit treatment costs. Journal AWWA 105(11): E628

- E641.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP). 2012. 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. DEPLW

- 1246.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP). 2014. Maine Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan: 2015

- 2019.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP). 2013. General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP). 2011. Multi

- Sector General Permit: Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity.

Maine Division of Environmental Health (MEDEH). 2015a. Maine Subsurfa ce Wastewater Team: Home. (available from: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental

health/plumb/index.htm )

Maine Division of Environmental Health (MEDEH). 2015b. Abo ut the Subsurface Wastewater Team. (available from: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental

health/plumb/about.htm )

Maine Water. 2012. About Us: Lab Services. (avail able
from: http://www.mainewater.com/en/About%20Us/Lab%20Services.aspx )

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Environmental Protection Agency Team on Near Coa stal Waters (EPA). 1989. Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters: Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges: Passamaquoddy Bay to Chesapeake Bay. Summary Report. June 1989.

United States Census Bureau. 2014. Table PEPANNHU: Annual E stimates of Housing Units for the United States, Regions, Divisions, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014.

United States Census Bureau. 1990. Historical Census of Housing Tables: Sewage Disposal. (available from: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/sewage.html )

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2015 a . Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: 2015 Update. (availab le

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 66

### REFERENCES

from: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/loader.cfm?csModul e=security/getfile&PageID=71 7763 )

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2015b. NLFA Technical
Advisories Search . (available from: http://fishadvisoryonline.epa.gov/Advisories.aspx ; accessed October 29, 2015 )

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2014 a

. Work Breakdown

Structure

- Based Cost Models for Drinking Water Treatment Technologies. EPA 815

- B

- 14

- 007 . May.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2014b. Technical Development Document for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule

. EPA 821

- R

- 14

- 00 2. May.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

– Freshwater. EPA 822

- R

- 13

- 001 . April

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Water: Contaminated Sediments. Basic Information. (available
from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/sediments/cs/ aboutcs.cfm )

United States Environmental Protection Agency ( U.S. EPA). 2010 a

. NPDES Permit Writer’s
Manual. EPA

- 833

- K

- 10

- 001.

United States Environmental Protection Agency ( U.S. EPA). 2010 b . Guidance for Implementing the January 2001 Methylmercury Water Qu ality Criterion. EPA 823

- R

- 10

- 001.

United States Environmental Protection Agency ( U.S. EPA)

. 2008. Cost of Compliance with Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants for Oregon Waters. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation

.
United Sta tes Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

. 2002

. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002

. Human Health Criteria Calculation Matrix

. EPA 822

- R

- 02

- 012

. November.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

. 2001a. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury

. EPA

- 823

- R

- 01

- 001

. January.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

. 2001 b

. The National Costs of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program (Draft Report)

. EPA 841

- D

- 01

- 003

. August.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

. 2000

. Wastewater Technology
Fact Sheet: Dechlorination

. EPA 832

- F

- 00

- 022

. September.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

. 1999

. Wastewater Technology
Fact Sheet: Chlorine Disin fection

. EPA 832

- F

- 99

- 062

. September.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality

- Based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2

- 90

- 001.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 67

### REFERENCES

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980. Guide lines and Methodology Used in the Preparation of Health Effect Assessment Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents. Federal Register 45: 79347, Appendix 3.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 68

### APPENDIX



## A Facility

- level Analyses of Implication of Proposed Human Health
and Ammonia Criteria

This appendix provides detailed analyses of the implications of the proposed HHC for facilities that discharge to waters in Indian l ands or their tributaries, in alphabetical order.
Unless othe rwise noted, all information and assumptions are based on information in the facility permits and fact sheets. The methods for the reasonable potential analyses, effluent limitation calculations, and cost estimates are described in Section 4, and are gener ally consistent with Maine’s existing permitting practices.

EPA determined the reasonable potential and effluent limits based on each facility’s water quality impacts on receiving waters in Indian lands both individually, and where multiple

facilities dis charge to the same waters, cumulatively.

EPA annualized all one

- time costs over 20 years using two alternative discount rates: three percent and seven percent

. This approach with two discount rates are used in order to comply with EPA’s Guidelines for Prep aring Economic Analyses

.

A.1 Baileyville POTW

The Town of Baileyville Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW; NPDES permit ME0101320) treats wastewater from 700 residential and commercial customers. There are no significant industrial customers. The facility is authorized to discharge a monthly average flow of 0.60 million gallons per day (MGD), with an actual average (November 2008 through February 2013) of 0.33 MGD. Discharge is to the St. Croix River (Class C). The facility’s treatment process is comprised of secondary treatment via a mechanical bar screen, a grit removal system, an oxidation ditch, and two secondary clarifiers.

The facility has a chronic dilution factor of 917 and a permitted flow of 0.60 MGD; prior testing of the effluent showed no toxic com pounds present. As such, this facility is categorized as Level IV and does not have priority pollutant scan requirements besides mercury (as described below). For this analysis, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have
any costs.

A.1.1 Effluent Data


### The facility has an interim mercury monthly average effluent concentration limit of

16.6 ng/L , and a monitoring frequency of two tests per year. Exhibit A

- 1 summarizes the
available effluent data.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 69

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 1 . Summary of Effluent Data: Baileyville POTW

Pollutant Number of Observations 1 D L (μg/L) 2 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 3

Maximum Average

Mercury 9 0.001 0.006 0.0019

Source: 2013 Permit Attachment B; for the period 2008 to 2012

. 1. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 2. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 3

. Nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.

A.1.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis


### This facility and Woodland Pulp (Section A.32 ) both discharge to the St. Croix River , a

water in Indian lands

. Effluent monitoring data for both facilities show detected levels of mercury. Additionally, the flow meets with discharge from the Calais POTW downstream, eventually reaching Passamaquoddy Bay which is a water in Indian lands at Pleasant Point. As such, EPA conducted the reasonable potential analysis considering the impacts of dischargers to waters in Indian lands , both a t the po int of discharge (for Baileyville POTW and Woodland Pulp) and cumulatively downstream where the discharges from all three facilities meet in Passamaquoddy Bay. Exhibit A

- 2 summarizes the load allocation among the facilities based on permitted flows and average effluent concentrations.

Exhibit A

- 2 . Mercury Load Allocation for St. Croix River and Passamaquoddy Bay

Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) 1 Avg Effluent Conc. ( μg/L ) 2 Loading (lb/day) 3 Share of Loading 4 Discharge Point
Woodland Pulp 30.0 0.00206 0.00051 98.1%

Baileyville POTW 0.6 0.00194 0.00001 1.9%

Total 0.00052 100.0%

Downstream
Woodland Pulp 30.0 0.00206 0.00051 78.7%

Calais POTW 1.5 0.01033 0.00013 19.8%

Baileyville POTW 0.6 0.00194 0.00001 1.5%

Total 0.00065 100.0%
1. Based on permit fact sheets. 2. See Exhibit A

- 1 for Baileyville POTW, Exhibit A

- 4 for Calais POTW, and Exhibit A

- 35 for Woodland Pulp. 3. Permitted flow times average effluent concentration times 0.00834 (conversion from μg/L to lb/gallon). 4. Facility loading divided by total loading.



### At the point of Ba ileyville POTW’s discharge, where its flow enters waters in Indian lands

, the St. Croix River has a harmonic mean flow of 1,171 MGD. Downstream in Passamaquoddy Bay, EPA estimated an equivalent receiving water flow of 24,333 MGD (see Appendix C). EPA calcu lated the river’s assimilative mercury capacity from the facility at that point based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background

concentrat ion equal to 10 percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 70

### APPENDIX

there is reasonable potential. As shown in Exhibit A

- 3 , the facility has no reasonable potential to exceed the proposed mercury criteria.

Exhibit A

- 3 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Baileyville POTW

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Mercury , discharge point 1. 8 0.000050 1. 9 % 0.000088 NA

Mercury, downstream 1.8 0.000054 1.5 % 0.001469 NA
1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration from Exhibit A

- 1 (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See Exhibit A

- 2 for mercury load allocation. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times receiving water flow in India n lands (1,171 MGD at discharge point; 24,333 downstream) times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.2 Brownville

The Town of Brownville (NPDES permit ME0102784) provides wastewater treatment to residential and commercial users, and has no industrial users. The facility discharges wastewater primarily to groundwater via 11 subsurface septic tanks and wastewater disposal systems. The permit authorizes minor discharges from an underdrain to Pleasant River,
which is a Class B water.

DMRs submitted by the facility during the period of 2008 through 2011 indicated that the average quarterly discharge to Pleasant River is 2.6 m illion gallons. According to the 2012 permit fact sheet, “The Department has made the determination that monitoring the flow from the underdrain is of little value and not necessary to determine compliance with WQS

. Therefore, the flow monitoring requireme nt is being removed from this permit” (p. 5).

Since the facility has no flow limitations, effluent limitations, or monitoring requirements, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this f acility will not have any costs.

A.3 Calais POTW

The Calais POTW (NPDES permit ME0100129) serves approximately 3,500 people. The facility has a monthly average flow limitation of 1.5 MGD and an average flow (March 2006 through March 2011) of 0.6 MGD. It discharges treated wastewater to the St. Croix Rive r, which at the point of discharge is classified as a Class SC marine water and outlets to Passamaquoddy Bay. The facility also discharges an unspecified quantity of excess combined sanitary and storm water receiving primary treatment only (and seasonal di sinfection) and an unspecified quantity of untreated combined sanitary and stormwater from five combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls to the St. Croix River. Four of the CSO outfalls discharge to tidal waters (Class SC) and one discharges to freshwater (C lass C).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 71

### APPENDIX

The permit fact sheet reports that the facility employs a primary and secondary treatment process which includes a headworks section with influent bar screen, a Parshall flume structure for flow measurement, a grit removal system, primary sediment clarifiers, and gravity sludge thickener. After primary clarification, wastewater flows to the secondary biological treatment which includes reactors, mechanical surface aerators, and settling

clarifiers.

A.3.1 Effluent Data



### Exhibit A

- 4 summarizes the last five years of effluent monitoring data for priority pollutants
for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level.

Exhibit A

- 4 . Summary of Effluent Data: Calais POTW

Pollutant 1 Total Number of Observations 2 D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average
Cyanide 2 2 .0 2 .0 1.5

Dichlorobromomethane 1 1.6 1.6

Mercury 9 0.022 0.0103

Toluene 1 26 26

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.

A.3.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis


### This facility discharges to the St. Croix River, downstream of the Baileyville POTW and Woodland Pulp facilities. Downstream of Calais, the river enters Passamaquoddy Bay at
Pleasant Point. As noted in Section A.1.2 , Baileyville POTW and Woodland Pulp both have detected mercury concentrations in their effluent, as does the Calais POTW. EPA conducted the reasonable potential analysis considering the cumulative impact of the three dischargers at the point where the flow enters waters in Indian lands

. Exhibit A

- 2 shows the mercury

allocati on among the three dischargers.

At the poin t where the facility’s flow reaches waters in Indian lands (Passamaquoddy Bay at Pleasant Point), EPA estimated that the flow is 24,333 MGD (see Appendix C). EPA calculated the receiving water’s assimilative capacity from the facility at that point based o n the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10
percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s co ntribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential.
As shown in Exhibit A

- 5 , the facility does not have reasonable potential to exceed the proposed or baseline criteria

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 72

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 5 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Calais POTW

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Cyanide 3.8 0.0951 100% NA NA

Dichlorobromom
ethane 6.2 0.1241 100% 365.2870 1698.5845

Mercury 1.8 0.0005 19.8% 0.0195 NA

Selenium 6.2 0.8532 100% 10593.3229 NA

Toluene 6.2 2.0166 100% 7123.0964 1479412.3338 1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration from Exhibit A

- 4 (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See Exhibit A

- 2 for load allocations. 4. Based on the applicable marine criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 p ercent of criterion) times receiving water flow in Indian lands times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.4 Calais School

The Calais School Department (NPDES permit ME0102765) provides wastewater treatment to 356 students and 42 staff. The school is authorized to discharge a flow of up to 13,000 GPD and has an average flow (January 2008 through December 2011) of 4,446 GPD. Discharge is to the St. Croix River, which is classified as a Class SC marine water at the point of discharge . The treatment process consists of primary treatment from a septic tank and secondary treatment from a sand filter bed with chlorine disinfec tion.

The school has a chronic dilution factor of 38,000 based on a permitted flow of 13,000 GPD; prior testing showed that toxic compounds are not present in the effluent. As such, this facility is exempt from priority pollutant scan requirements under 0 6

- 096 CMR 530(2)(A). For this analysis, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed

the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.5 Cobb State Fish Hatchery

The Cobb State Fish Hatchery (NPDES permit 0001104) is operated by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). It discharges wastewater associated
with hatching and rearing facilities to Cold Stream, a Class A tributary to Passadumkeag River, and has a monthly average flow limit ation of 5.0 MGD. T he hatchery does not have any limits on human health related pollutants, or any priority pollutant scan requirements. For this analysis, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this discharger to

exceed the proposed criteri a, and that it will not have any costs.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 73

### APPENDIX

A.6 Covanta Maine

Covanta Maine (NPDES permit ME0023213) is a base

- loaded biomass energy production facility that burns wood chips as fuel, generating approximately 24.5 megawatts of electricity daily. Wastewaters produ ced include cooling tower blowdown, building and equipment drain water, and minor quantities of stormwater. These wastewaters are collected and discharged to the Penobscot River, a Class B water. Before discharge, the drain water and some stormwater

are tr eated via an oil/water separator.

Exhibit A

- 6 summarizes the flow data for outfalls at the facility. Collectively, the facility is limited to discharge 187,000 GPD. Th e facility does not have any limits on human health related pollutants, or any priority pollutant scan requirements. For this analysis, EP A assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria,

and that this facil ity will not incur incremental costs.

Exhibit A

- 6 . Outfall Data for Covanta Maine Facility 1

Outfall Wastewater Characterization Maximum Allowable Flow (gallons per day) Average Flow (gallons per day)

Outfall #001 Cooling tower blowdown

waters 150,000 17,553

Outfall #002 Low

- volume drain waters 1,000 765

Outfall #003 Sand filter backwash 36,000 18,926

Outfalls #004 through #008 Storm water runoff Stormwater pollution prevention plan and visual inspections of discharge



### A.7 Dolby Hydro Project

The Dolby Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036528) is a hydroelectric generating facility owned by Great Lakes Hydro America. It discharges non

- contact cool ing water to the Penobscot River, a Class C water. The facility ’s f low rate is variable, with a daily maximum of approximately 364,320 gallons. According to the permit fact sheet for the facility, “the Department has determined that neither effluent limitations nor monitoring requirements are necessary to ensure that appl icable water quality standards are met” (p. 4). As such, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.8 Dover

- Foxcroft Water District

The Dover

- Foxcroft W ater District (NPDES permit ME0102229) is a drinking water treatment plan t serving approximately 2,400 customers. It withdraws an average of 0.3 MGD of water (0.8 MGD maximum) from Salmon Stream Pond. Effluent is discharged after water
treatment and clarif ication process to the Piscataquis River, a Class B water. The monthly average flow limitation for the facility is 0.15 MGD and the average (October 2009 through October 2012) is 0.1 MGD. Due to the nature of the wastewater (filter backwash), the facility does not have any limits on human health related pollutants, nor any priority pollutant scan

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 74

### APPENDIX

requirements. For th is analysis, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not incur any incremental

costs.

A.9 Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP

The Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP (NPDES permit ME0100501) serves approximately 3,100 people. The facility has a monthly average flow limitation of 0.8 MGD and an average flo w (January 2011 through June 2014) of 0.29 MGD. It discharges treated wastewater to the Piscataquis River, which is classified as a Class B water. The permit fact sheet reports that the facility employs secondary treatment consisting of aeration lagoons.

A.9.1 E ffluent Data



### Exhibit A

- 7 summarizes the last five years of effluent data for the treated wastewater for the pollutants of concern for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level, based on priority pollutant monitoring data.

Exhibit A

- 7 . Summary of Effluent Data: Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP

Pollutant 1 Number of Observations D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average
Mercury 9 0.006 0.0024

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half th e detection level

.

A.9.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis


### This facility, as well as the Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF, the Milo POTW, and the Dover

Foxcroft Water District facility all discharge to the Piscataquis River upstream of waters in

Indian lands . Of the four facilities, three (Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP, Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF, and Milo POTW) have detected mercury in their effluent. 42 

### Additionally, at the point where the facilities’ flow enters waters in Indian lands , at the confluence with the Penobscot River, it mixes with discharges from facilities on the Penobscot River above the confluence. As such, EPA conducted the reasonable potential analysis considering the cumulative impact of all dischargers at the point where the Piscataquis River enters waters in

Indi an lands at the confluence with the Penobscot River. Exhibit A

- 8 summarizes the load allocation at that point.

42 See Section A.14 for Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF and Section A.24 for M ilo POTW.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 75

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 8 . Mercury Loa d Allocation for Penobscot River (Piscataquis Confluence)

Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) 1 Avg Effluent Conc. ( μg/L ) 2 Loading (lb/day) 3 Share of Loading 4

Howland POTW 0.3 0.00240 0.00001 3.2%
Lincoln Sanitary District 1.07 0.00230 0.00002 10.9%

Millinocket POTW 2.33 0.00625 0.00012 64.6%

Guilford

- Sangerville 0.93 0.00210 0.00002 8.7%

Milo POTW 0.39 0.00238 0.00001 4.1%

Dover

- Foxcroft 0.8 0.00244 0.00002 8.5%

Total 0.00019 100.0%
1. Based on permit fact sheets for all facilities. For Guilford

- Sangerville, the highest permitted flow. 2. Based on priority pollutant scan data for the last 5 years or data from permit fact sheets. 3. Permitted flow times average effluent concentration times 0.00834 (conversion from μg/L to lb/gallon). 4. Fa cility loading divided by total loading.



### Additionally, after it meets the Penobscot River, discharge from these facilities mixes with discharges from other facilities on the Penobscot River further downstream. The most downstream of these facilities is the Penobscot Indian Nation facility. As suc h, EPA also calculated the mercury allocation among all facilities on the Penobscot River (and the Piscataquis River tributary), as shown in Exhibit A

- 9

.
Exhibit A

- 9 . Mercury Load Allocation for Penobscot River, Downstream

Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) 1 Avg Effluent Conc. ( μg/L ) 2 Loading (lb/day) 3 Share of Loading 4

Howland POTW 0.3 0.0024 0.000006 3.1%

Lincoln Sanitary District 1.07 0.0023 0.000021 10.7%

Millinocket POTW 2.33 0.0063 0.000121 63.4%

Penobscot Indian Nation 0.1 0.0044 0.000004 1.9%

Guilford

- Sangerville 0.93 0.0021 0.000016 8.5%

Milo POTW 0.39 0.0024 0.000008 4.0%

Dover

- Foxcroft 0.8 0.0024 0.000016 8.4%

Total 0.0001917 100.0% 1. Based on permit fact sheets for all facilities. For Guilford

- Sangerville, the highest permitted flow. 2. Based on priority pollutant scan data for the last 5 years or data from permit fact sheets. 3. Permitted flow times average efflue nt concentration times 0.00834 (conversion from μg/L to lb/gallon). 4. Facility loading divided by total loading.



### At the confluence of the Piscataquis River and the Penobscot River, where the facility’s flow
reaches waters in Indian lands , EPA estimated the harmonic mean flow to be 5,328 MGD (based on USGS stream gage data; see Appendix C). At the most downstream point, where the Penobscot Indian Nation discharges, the harmonic mean flow is 5,374 MGD. EPA calculated the river’s assimilative mercury capaci ty from the facility at both points based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10
percent of the criterion, an d the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 76

### APPENDIX

water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential.
As shown in Exhibit A

- 10 , the facility does not have reasonable potential for mercury under
either criteria.

Exhibit A

- 10 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Mercury

, confluence 1. 8 0.00007 8.5 % 0. 00184 NA

Mercury,
downstream 1.8 0.00007 8.4 % 0.00182 NA

1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration from Exhibit A

- 7 (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See Exhibit A

- 8 and E xhibit A

- 9 for mercury load allocations. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands (5,328 MGD at the confluence; 5,374 MGD downstream) times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity fro m that facility, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.10 East Millinocket Hydro Project

The East Millinocket Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036511) is a hydroelectric generating facility owned by Great Lakes Hydro America. It discharges non

- contact cool ing

water to the West Branch of the Penobscot River, a Class C water. The facility ’s flow rate is variable, with a daily maximum of approximately 30,240 gallons. According to the permit fact sheet for the facility, “the Department has determined that neith er effluent limitations nor monitoring requirements are necessary to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met” (p. 4). As such, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to

exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.11 East Millinocket POTW

The Town of East Millinocket (NPDES permit ME0000175) took over sanitary wastewater treatment at the site of the previous Katahdin Paper Company. The facility also treats landfill

leachate from the D olby landfill as well as stormwater runoff from surrounding areas. The facility discharges to the West Branch of the Penobscot River, a Class C water. The 2015 permit establishes a monthly average flow limitation of 2.0 MGD, and a harmonic mean
dilution fa ctor of 775. The facility was first permitted in October 2015, with monitoring requirements established at that time. As such, monitoring data are not yet available, and EPA did not conduct a reasonable potential analysis for this facility, nor identify an y effluent

limits or costs.

A.12 Eustis Hydro Project

The Eustis Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036625) is a hydroelectric generating facility owned by KEI (Maine) Power Management (I). It discharges non

- contact cool ing water to

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 77

### APPENDIX

the North Branch Dead River, a C lass A water . The facility ’s flow rate is variable, with a daily maximum of approximately 7,200 gallons. According to the permit fact sheet for the facility, “the Department has determined that neither effluent limitations nor monitoring requirements are n ecessary to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met” (p. 5). As such, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.13 Grand Lake Stream Fish Hatchery

The Grand Lake Stream Fish Hatchery (NPDES permit 0001082) is operated by the MDIFW.

It discharges wastewater associated with filtration, hatchery, and rearing facilities to Grand Lake Stream, and has a monthly average flow limitation of 2.9 MGD. Due to the nature of its discharge, the hatchery does not have any limits on human health related pollutants, or any priority pollutant scan requirements. For this analysis, EPA assumes that there is no
reasonable potential for this discharger to exceed t he proposed criteria, and that it will not have any costs.

A.14 Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF

The Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF (NPDES permit ME0102032) serves approximately 1,200 residential and commercial users and an average flow (January 2012 to January 2015) of

0. 284 MGD. It discharges treated wastewater to the Piscataquis River, a Class B freshwater. The permit fact sheet reports that the facility employs secondary treatment consisting of aeration lagoons.

The facility has one industrial user, True Textiles, whic h is a polyester/woolen products manufacturer that contributes approximately 73 percent of inflows to the WWTF. Discharge
limitations for the Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF are based on discharge flows and production regimes at True Textiles, as summarized in Exhibit A

- 11

.
Exhibit A

- 11 . Summary of Flow and Limitation Tiers: Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF 1

Tier I Tier II

A Subpart G production < 42,000 lb/day Monthly average dry weather flow ≤0.465 MGD Subpart G production ≥42,000 lb/day Monthly average dry weather flow ≤0.465 MGD

B Subpart G production <42,000 lb/day Monthly average dry weather flow >0.465 MGD Subpart G production ≥42,000 lb/day Monthly average dry weather flow >0.465 MGD
1. Source: based on 2015 permit fact sheet; “Subpart G” refers to stock and yarn finishing.



### Under Tier IA and IIA, the WWTF has a monthly average flow limitation of 0.465 MGD and
a dilution factor of 189. Under Tier IB and IIB, the WWTF has a monthly average flow limitation of 0.93 MGD and a dilution factor of 94. The permit fact sheet notes that the facility operated under the Tier IA criteria during the full term of the 2004 permit (2004 to 2010). However , flow monitoring data for 2012 to 2015 indicates that the monthly average flow may have exceeded “A” Tier limitations at some points, with the maximum monthly

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 78

### APPENDIX

average flow being 0.536 MGD (2015 permit fact sheet). As such, EPA assumes that the WWTF operat es under “B” Tier limitations at least part of the time.

A.14.1 Effluent Data



### Exhibit A

- 12 summarizes the last five years of effluent data for the treated wastewater for th e pollutants of concern for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level, based on priority pollutant monitoring data.

Exhibit A

- 12 . Summary of Effluent Data: Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF

Pollutant 1 Number of Observations 2 D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average

Antimony 3 323 226.3333

Mercury 10 0.004 0.0021

Phenol 6 4.7 5.1 3.8917

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detec tion level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.

A.14.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis



### As described in Section A.9.2 , Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF, Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP, and Milo POTW all discharge to the Piscataquis River upstream of waters in Indian lands , and all three have detected mercury concentrations in their effluent. Exhibit A

- 8 shows the mercury load allocation for facilities at the confluence of the Piscataquis and Penobscot Rivers, and

Exh ibit A

- 9 shows the allocation for all facilities discharging to the Penobscot River at the most downstream point. Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF is the only facility with detected

concentration s of the other pollutants shown in Exhibit A

- 12 ; as such, EPA allocated 100
percent of the assimilative capacity of those pollutants to the Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF

f

or this analysis.

At the confluence of the Piscataquis River and the Penobscot River, where Guilford

Sangerville WWTF’s flow reaches waters in Indian lands , EPA estimated the river’s harmonic mean flow at 5,328 MGD (based on USGS stream gage data; see App endix C). EPA calculated the river’s assimilative capacity from the facility at that point for each pollutant based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10 percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential.

EPA calculated Gu ilford

- Sangerville WWTF’s RWC based on its B Tier flow limitation,
0.93 MGD. As shown in Exhibit A

- 13 , the facility does not have reasonable potential to
exceed any ba seline or proposed criteria.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 79

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 13 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Confluence with Penobscot River
Antimony 3.0 7.51576 100% 191.96145 219.95582

Mercury 1.5 0.00005 8.7 % 0.00 187 NA

Phenol 2.1 0.08307 100% 119975.90400 420475.55155

Downstream
Mercury 1.5 0.00005 8.5 % 0.00185 NA
1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) time s the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See Exhibit A

- 8 and Exhibit A

- 9 for mercury load allocations. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.15 Houlton Water Company POTW

The Houlton Water Company POTW (NPDES permit ME0101290) serves approximately 6,500 people. The facility has a monthly average flow limitation of 1.5 MGD, discharging treated wastewater to the Meduxnekeag River, which is classified as a Class B freshwater. The 2011 permit fact sheet reports that the f acility employs secondary treatment consisting of an extended air activated sludge process.

A.15.1 Effluent Data



### Exhibit A

- 14 summarizes the last five years of effluent moni toring data for priority pollutants
for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level.

Exhibit A

- 14 . Summary of Effluent Data: Houlton POTW

Pollutant 1 Total Number of Observations 2 D L ( μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average

Mercury 8 0.0030 0.0014

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assum ed to be half the detection level

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 80

### APPENDIX

A.15.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis


### This facility and Tate and Lyle Ingredients both discharge to the Meduxnekeag River upstream of waters in Indian lands. Both facilities have detected mercury in their effluent. 43 

### As such, EPA conducted the reasonable potential analysis considering the cumulative impact of both dischargers at the point where the river enters waters in Indian lands

. Exhibit A

- 15 summarizes the load allocation between the facilities based on permitted flows and average
effluent concentrations.

Exhibit A

- 15

. Mercury Load Allocation for Meduxnekeag River

Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) 1 Avg Effluent Conc. ( μg/L ) 2 Loading (lb/day) 3 Share of Loading 4

Houlton POTW 1.50 0.0014 0.000017 82.7%

Tate and Lyle Ingredients 0.12 0.0036 0.000004 17.3%

Total 0.000021 100.0% 1. Based on permit fact sheets; for Tate and Lyle Ingredients, the highest permitted flow. 2. See Exhibit A

- 14 for Houlton POTW and Exhibit A

- 29 for Tate and Lyle Ingredients. 3. Permitted flow times average effluent concentration times 0.00834 (conversion from μg/L to lb/gallon). 4. Facility loading divided by total loading.



### At the point where the facility’s flow reaches waters in Indian lands

, EPA estimated the river’s harmonic mean flow of 101 MGD (based on USGS stream gage data; see Appendix C). EPA calculated the river’s assimilat ive capacity from the facility at that point based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10
percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associate d assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential.
As shown in Exhibit A

- 16 , the facility does not have reasonable potential to exceed mercury criteria.

Exhi bit A

- 16 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Houlton POTW

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Mercury 1.9 0.00007 8 2.7 % 0.00034 NA
1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration from Exhibit A

- 14 (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See Exhibit A

- 15 for load allocations. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times stream f low in Indian lands times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.

43 See Section A.28 for Tate and Lyle Ingredients.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 81

### APPENDIX

A.16 H owland Hydro

The Howland Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036633) is a hydroelectric generating facility owned by the Penobscot River Restoration Trust. It discharges non

- contact cool ing

water to the P iscataquis Rive r, a Class B water. The facility ’s flow rate is variable, with a daily maximum of approximately 1,440 gallons. According to the permit fact sheet for the facility, “the Department has determined that neither effluent limitations nor monitoring requirements are necessary to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met” (p. 5). As such, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.17 H owland POTW

The Town of Howland POTW (NPDES permit ME0101788) treats wastewater from 650
reside ntial and commercial customers (with a population of approximately 1,500 people). The facility is authorized to discharge a monthly average flow of 0.30 million gallons per day (MGD), with an actual average (January 2007 through January 2010) of 0.152 MGD. Discharge is to the Penobscot River (Class B). The facility’s treatment process is comprised of two primary and two secondary facultative lagoons operated in series.

The facility has a chronic dilution factor of 2,997, a permitted flow of 0.30 MGD, and n o evidence of toxic compounds present. As such, this facility is categorized as Level IV and does not have priority pollutant scan requirements. For this analysis, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed c riteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.17.1 Effluent Data


### The facility has an interim mercury monthly average effluent concentration limit of

12.1 ng/L , and a monitoring frequency of two tests per year. Exhibit A

- 17 summarizes the
available effluent data.

Exhibit A

- 17 . Summary of Effluent Data: Howland POTW

Pollutant Number of Observations 1 D L (μg/L) 2 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 3

Maximum Average
Mercury 11 0.0037 0.0024

Source: 2011 Permit (prior 60 months)

. 1. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 2. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified.

A.17.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis


### This facility discharges directly to waters in Indian lands on the Penobscot River (above the confluence with the Piscataquis River), which also receives mercury discharges from a number of other facilities, as described in Section A.9.2 . As such, EPA conducted the reasonable potential analysis both at the point of discharge, where discharges from Howland mix with those from upstream Penobscot River facilities, and considerin g the downstream

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 82

### APPENDIX

cumulative impact of all dischargers to waters in Indian lands

. Exhibit A

- 18 summarizes the load allocation among the facilities at the point of disch arge; Exhibit A

- 9 summarizes the
allocation downstream.

Exhibit A

- 18 . Mercury Load Allocation for Penobscot River at Howland POTW

Facil ity Permitted Flow (MGD) 1 Avg Effluent Conc. ( μg/L ) 2 Loading (lb/day) 3 Share of Loading 4

Howland POTW 0.3 0.0024 0.000006 4.1%

Lincoln Sanitary District 1.07 0.0023 0.000021 13.9%

Millinocket POTW 2.33 0.0063 0.000121 82.1%

Total 0.000148 100.0%
1. Based on permit fact sheets. 2. See Exhibit A

- 17 for Howland POTW, Exhibit A

- 20 for Lincoln Sanitary District, and Exhibit A

- 23 for Millinocket POTW. 3. Permitted flow times average effluent concentration times 0.00834 (conversion from μg/L to lb/gallon). 4. Facility loading divided by total loading.



### At the point of Howland POTW’s discharge above the confluence with the Piscataquis River, the Penobscot River has a flow of 4,894 MGD. At the point of the Penobscot Indian Nation facility’s discharge (at the most downstream facility), the Penobscot River has a flow of 5,374 MGD. EPA calculated the river’s assimilative mercury capacity for this facility at both points based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10 percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential. As shown in Exhibit A

- 19 , the facility has no reasonable potential to exceed mercury criteria under any scenario.

Exhibit A

- 19 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Howland POTW

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Mercury , discharge point 1.7 0.000016 4.1% 0.000805 NA

Mercury, downstream 1.7 0.000016 3.1% 0.000683 NA
1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration from Exhibit A

- 1 (conv erted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See Exhibit A

- 9 for downs tream allocation; Exhibit A

- 18 for allocation at the discharge point. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands (4,894 MGD at discharge point; 5,374 MGD downstream) times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.18 Lincoln Sanitary District

The Lincoln Sanitary District (NPDES permit ME0101796) serves approximately 4,200 people. The facility has a monthly average flo w limitation of 1.07 MGD and discharges

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 83

### APPENDIX

treated wastewater to the Penobscot River, which is classified as a Class B freshwater. The 2011 permit fact sheet reports that the facility employs secondary treatment via aeration and
chlorine clarification.

A.18.1 Efflue nt Data



### Exhibit A

- 20 summarizes the last five years of effluent monitoring data for priority pollutants
for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level.

Exhibit A

- 20 . Summary of Effluent Data: Lincoln Sanitary District

Pollutant 1 Total Number of Observations 2 D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average
Cyanide 3 5 10.00 6.03

Mercury 10 0.0030 0.0023

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.

A.18.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis



### As described in Section A.17 , Lincoln Sanitary District and several other facilities discharge
to the Penobscot River in Indian lands , with the Millinocke t POTW upstrea m of Lincoln Sanitary District

. Exhibit A

- 21 shows the mercury load allocation between the two facilities at the point of Lincoln Sanitary District’s discharge. Exhibit A

- 9 summarizes the load

allocation for me rcury at the most downstream point for these facilities.

Exhibit A

- 21 . Mercury Load Allocation for Penobscot River at Lincoln Sanitary District

Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) 1 Avg Effluent Conc. ( μg/L ) 2 Loading (lb/day) 3 Share of Loading 4

Lincoln Sanitary District 1.07 0.0023 0.000021 14.5%

Millinocket POTW 2.33 0.0063 0.000121 85.5%

Total 0.000142 100.0%
1. Based on permit fact sheets. 2. See Exhibit A

- 20 for Lincoln Sanitary District and Exhibit A

- 23 for Millinocket POTW. 3. Permitted flow times average e ffluent concentration times 0.00834 (conversion from μg/L to lb/gallon). 4. Facility loading divided by total loading.



### For the purpose of the reasonable potential analysis , EPA considers the impacts of mercury cumulati vely at the point where the facility discharges , and downstream where discharges mix with those of other facilities. This calculation is based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10 percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential. As shown in Exhibit

A

- 22 , the facility does not have reasonable potential to exceed any criteria.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 84

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 22 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Lincoln Sanitary District

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Discharge Point
Cyanide 3.0 0.26771 100% 110.19586 NA

Mercury 1.3 0.00003 14.5 % 0.00 215 NA

Downstream
Mercury 1.3 0.00003 10.7 % 0.00233 NA
1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See E xhibit A

- 21 for mercury allocation at the point of discharge and Exhibit A

- 9 for downstream mercury load allocation. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentr ation (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands (3,670 MGD at discharge point, 5,328 MGD at the confluence with the Piscataquis River, and 5,374 MGD at the most downstream point) times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that t he calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.19 Mattaceunk Hydro Project

The Mattaceunk Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036552) is a hydroelectric generating facility owned by Great Lakes Hydro. The facility discharges non

- contact cooling water and
miscellaneous non

- process waste water from four separate outfalls to the Penobscot River, a Class C water. The facility has a discharge limit of 144,000 gallons per day. Acc ording to the permit fact sheet for the facility, “the Department has determined that neither effluent limitations nor monitoring requirements are necessary to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met” (p. 4). As such, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.20 Mattawamkeag WWTF

The Mattawamkeag WWTF (NPDES permit ME0102245) discharges wastewater to the
Penobscot River. It uses an aerated lagoon system and has a design flow of 0.09 MGD. Given this flow and a harmonic mean dilution factor of 40,782, this facility is categorized as Level IV and does not have priority pollutant scan requirements. For this analysis, EPA

assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that it will not have any costs.

A.21 Milford

The Town of Milford (NPDES permit ME0102695) collects sanitary wastewaters from residential and commercial users, and conveys them to the Town of Old Town’s wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) (NPDES permit ME0100471). During rainfall events, untreated sanitary wastewater combines with stormwater from the Bangor Hydro Electric and discharges overflow to the Penobscot River. The Town is auth orized to discharge an unspecified amount of untreated sanitary waste during such events, and is required to monitor

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 85

### APPENDIX

the flow and number of overflow events, periodically update the Town’s CSO Master Plan, and submit annual reports documenting progress towa rd eliminating overflow events.

There are no limits on human health related pollutants, nor any priority pollutant scan requirements associated with this permit. For this analysis, EPA assumes t hat there is no reasonable potential for this discharger to e xceed the proposed criteria, and that it will not have any costs.

A.22 Millinocket Hydro

The Millinocket Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0037371) is a hydroelectric generating facility owned by Great Lakes Hydro America. It discharges non

- contact cool ing water to the Penobscot River, a Class C water. The facility ’s flow rate is variable, with a daily maximum of approximately 22,000 gallons. According to the permit fact sheet for the facility, “the Department has determined that neither effluent limitations nor mon itoring requirements are necessary to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met” (p. 5). As such, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this fac ility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any cos ts.

A.23 Millinocket POTW

The Millinocket POTW (NPDES permit ME0100803) serves approximately 5,200 people. The facility has a monthly average flow limitation of 2.33 MGD and an average flow (June 2003 through November 2008) of 1.34 MGD. It discharges treated w astewater to the Penobscot River, which is classified as a Class B freshwater. The permit fact sheet reports that the facility employs secondary treatment consisting of aeration lagoons.

A.23.1 Effluent Data



### Exhibit A

- 23 summarizes the last five years of effluent data for the treated wastewater for the pollutants of concern for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level, based on prio rity pollutant monitoring data.

Exhibit A

- 23 . Summary of Effluent Data: Millinocket POTW

Pollutant 1 Number of Observations D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average
Mercury 8 0.017 0.006

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.

A.23.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis


### The Millinocket POTW discharges to the Penobscot River upstream of waters in Indian
lands . At the point where the facility’s flow enters Indian lands , EPA estimated the river’s

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 86

### APPENDIX

harmonic mean flow at 3,053 MGD (based on USGS stream gage data; see Appendix C ). Further downstream, discharges from this facility mix with those of other facilities along the Penobscot River, as described in Sections A.9 and A.17 . At the most downstream point, the Penobscot Indian Nation facility’s discharge point, the flow is 5,374 MGD. Exhibit A

- 9 shows the mercury allocation among the facilities at this most downstream point.

EPA calculated the river’s assimilative capacity from the facility at the point where the receiving waters enter waters in Indian lands

, and at this most downstream point on the Penobscot River where the facility’s discharge mixes with that of seven other facilities. This calculation is based on the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10 percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasona ble potential. As shown in Exhibit A

- 24 , the facility does not have any reasonable potential to exceed the criteria under any scenario.

Exhibit A

- 24 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Millinocket POTW

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4 Proposed Baseline
Mercury 1.9 0.0000 5 100.0 % 0.00096 NA

Mercury

, downstream 1.9 0.00005 63.4 % 0.00107 NA

1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See E xhibit A

- 9

. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.24 Milo POTW

The Milo POTW (NPDES permit ME0100439) serves approximately 740 residential and commercial users. The facility has a monthly average flow limitation of 0.39 MGD and an average flow (January 2011 through June 2014) of 0.25 MGD. It discharges treated
wastewater to the Pi scataquis River, which is classified as a Class B freshwater. The permit fact sheet reports that the facility employs secondary treatment consisting of aeration lagoons.

A.24.1 Effluent Data



### Exhibit A

- 25 summarizes the last five years of effluent data for the treated wastewater for the pollutants of concern for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level, based on priority pollutant monitoring data.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 87

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 25 . Summary of Effluent Data: Milo POTW

Pollutant 1 Number of Observations D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average

Mercury 8 0.004 0.002

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.

A.24.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis



### As described in Section A.9.2 , Guilford

- Sangerville WWTF, Dover

- Foxcroft WWTP, and Milo POTW all discharge to the Piscataquis River upstream of waters in Indian lands , and all three facilities have detected mercury concentrations in their effluent. At the point where the
facilities’ flow enters waters in Indian lands , at the confluence with the Penobscot River, it mixes with discharges from facilities on the Penobscot River above the confluence. Exhibit

A

- 8 shows the mercury load allocation at the confluence of the Piscataquis and Penobscot Rivers, and Exhibit A

- 9 shows the allocation at the most downstream point.

At the confluence of the Piscataquis River and the Penobscot River, where the facility’s flow
reaches waters in Indian lands , EPA est imated the river’s harmonic mean flow at 5,328 MGD (based on USGS stream gage data; see Appendix C). At the most downstream point, the Penobscot Indian Nation facility’s discharge point, the flow is 5,374 MGD. EPA calculated the river’s assimilative capaci ty from the facility at each point based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10 percent of the criterion, an d the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential. As shown in

Exhibit A

- 26 , the facility does not have any reasonable potential to exceed the criteria under any scenario.

Exhibit A

- 26 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Milo POTW

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4 Proposed Baseline
Mercury

, confluence 1.9 0.00002 4.1 % 0.00089 NA

Mercury

, downstream 1.9 0.00002 4.0 % 0.00088 NA

1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See E xhibit A

- 8 and Exhibit A

- 9

. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds pe r million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assi milative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 88

### APPENDIX

A.25 Passamaquoddy POTW

The Passamaquoddy POTW (NPDES permit ME0100773) collects sanitary wastewaters from approximately 1,874 residential and commercial users in the Passamaquoddy Plea sant Point Indian Reservation. It discharges treated wastewater to the Passamaquoddy Bay (Class SB coastal waters), and has a monthly average flow limitation of 0.15 MGD. There are no limits on human health related pollutants, nor any priority pollutant sc an requirements associated with this permit. For this analysis, EPA assumes t hat there is no reasonable potential for this discharger to exceed the proposed criteria, and that it will not have any

costs.

A.26 Passamaquoddy Water District

The Passamaquoddy Water District (NPDES permit ME0102211) operates a drinking water treatment plan supplying approximately 900 customer connections. It withdraws water from an impoundment in Perry Stream (created by the Perry Station Dam). Effluent is discharged
after water trea tment and clarification process to the Boyden Stream, a Class B water. The monthly average flow limitation for the facility is 0.045 MGD and the average (January 2012 through March 2015) is 0.029 MGD. Due to the nature of the wastewater (filter backwash), the facility does not have any limits on human health related pollutants, or any priority pollutant scan requirements. For th is analysis, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this fac ility will not incur any incremental costs.

A.27 Penobscot Indian Nation

The Penobscot Indian Nation Water Pollution Control Facility (NPDES permit ME0101311)
collects and treats wastewater for 550 residential and commercial users. There are no significant indu strial users. The facility uses secondary treatment via screening, filaments control (in an anoxic selector basin), oxidation, and chlorine disinfection. After treatment, wastewater is discharged to the Penobscot River (Class B).

The facility has a permitt ed monthly average flow limitation of 0.1 MGD and a chronic dilution factor of 20,227; This facility is categorized as Level IV and does not have WET, analytical chemistry or priority pollutant testing requirements. For this analysis, EPA
assumes that ther e is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.27.1 Effluent Data


### The facility has an interim mercury monthly average effluent concentration limit of 7.2 ng/L, and a monitoring fre quency of one test per year. Exhibit A

- 27 summarizes the available
effluent data.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 89

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 27 . Summary of Effluent Data: Penobscot Indian Nation

Pollutant Number of Observations 1 D L (μg/L) 2 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 3

Maximum Average

Mercury 3 0.00635 0.0044

Source: 2013 Permit Attachment B; for the period 1999 to 2012

. 1. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 2. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 3

. Nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.

A.27.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis



### As discussed in Section A.17 , several facilities with detected mercury effluent concentrations discharge to the Penobscot River in or upstream of waters in Indian lands . The Penobscot Indian Nation is the most downstream facility. Exhibit A

- 9 summarizes the load allocation for mercury among these facilities. At the point of where th e Penobscot Indian Nation facility discharges, the Penobscot River has a flow of 5,374 MGD. EPA calculated the river’s assimilative mercury capacity from the facility at its point of discharge based on the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10 percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher

than the associated as similative capacity, then there is reasonable potential. As shown in
Exhibit A

- 28 , the facility has no reasonable potential to exceed mercury criteria under any

scenar io.

Exhibit A

- 28 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Penobscot Indian Nation

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Mercury 3.0 0.000016 1.9% 0.000 417 NA
1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See E xhibit A

- 9 for mercury load allocation. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background conce ntration (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands times the facility share. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.28 Tate and Lyle Ingredients

Tate and Lyle Ingredients (NPDES permit ME0002216) chemically modifies, dewaters, and redries tapioca, potato, and corn starches. It discharges treated wastewater to the Meduxnekeag River, a Class B freshwater. The permit fact she et reports that the facility utilizes primary clarification, sludge dewatering, activated sludge basins, secondary clarification, and dissolved air flotation.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 90

### APPENDIX

The facility’s flow limitation depends on the flow of the Meduxnekeag River. When the receiving water flow is at or above 15 cfs, 44 

### then the facility has a monthly average flow limitation of 0.06 MGD. During high flows in the Meduxnekeag River (above 50 cfs), the facility’s monthly average flow limitation is 0.12 MGD.

A.28.1 Effluent Data



### Exhibit A

- 29 summarizes the last five years of effluent data for the treated wastewater for the pollutants of concern for which data are available and at least one observation was abov e the detection level, based on priority pollutant monitoring data.

Exhibit A

- 29 . Summary of Effluent Data: Tate and Lyle

Pollutant 1 Number of Observations 2 D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average
Bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate 1 32 32
Cyanide 1 5 5

Mercury 5 0.007 0.0036

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level

.

A.28.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis



### As described in Section A.15.2 , this facility and the Houlton POTW both discharge to the
Med uxnekeag River upstream of waters in Indian lands , and both have detected mercury concentrations in their effluent. Exhibit A

- 15 shows the load allocati ons for the tw o facilities for mercury based on flow limitations and average effluent concentrations. Tate and Lyle Ingredients is the only Meduxnekeag River discharger with detected concentrations of the other pollutants shown in Exhibit A

- 29 ; as such, EPA allocated 100 percent of the assimilative capacity of those pollutants to Tate and Lyle Ingredients for this analysis.

At the point where the facility’s flow reaches waters in In dian lands , EPA estimated that the river’s harmonic mean flow to be 101 MGD (based on USGS stream gage data; see Appendix C). EPA calculated the river’s assimilative capacity from the facility at that point

for each pollutant based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 10 percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facil ity’s contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential.

44 When the receiving water flow is less than 15 cfs, discharges from the facility are prohibited.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 91

### APPENDIX

EPA calculated Tate and Lyle Ingredients’ RWC based on its high

- flow limitation,

0.12 MGD. As shown in Exhibit A

- 30 , the facility has reasonable potential to exceed the proposed bis(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate criteria

.
Exhibit A

- 30 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Bis(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate 6.2 0.19856 100% 0.02123 0.60648

Cyanide 6.2 0.03102 100% 3.03242 NA

Mercury 2.3 0.00002 17.3% 0.00007 NA
1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times facility flow limitation. 3. See E xhibit A

- 15 for mercury load allocations; assumed 100 percent for all other pollutant s since Tate and Lyle Ingredients is the only discharger with detected concentrations on the Meduxnekeag River. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands times the facility share. “NA” indicates that the aquatic life criterion is more stringent than the human health criterion, so no incremental costs are expected to result from the proposed human health criterion. Bolded red values indicate that the calcula ted facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facility, and there is reasonable potential.

A.28.3 Effluent Limitations


### Information in Tate and Lyle’s permit fact sheet indicates that MEDEP establishes discharge

limitations for this facilit y using an assumption that background concentrations are 10
percent of the applicable criteria. Additionally, 15 percent of the receiving waterbody’s assimilative capacity (in lb/day) is reserved ( i.e. , not allocated to any facility).

EPA calculated the load allocation based on the receiving water stream flow at the point
where it reaches Indian lands downstream of the discharge. Exhibit A

- 31 shows the calculation of the load allocation based on the assimilative capacity for the Meduxnekeag River, the background concentration and reserve allocation, and the facility share of the loading.

Exhibit A

- 31 . Load Allocation for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

Pollutant Stream Assim. Capacity (lb/day) 1 Facility Share 2 Facility Allocation (lb/day) 3
Proposed Baseline Proposed Baseline
Bis(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.02359 100% 0.01769

1. Applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons (multiplying by a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the stream harmonic mean flow. 2. See Exhibit A

- 15 for mercury load allocations; assumed 100 percent for all other pollutant s since Tate and Lyle Ingredients is the only discharger with detected concentrations on the Meduxnekeag River. 3. Calculated as stream assimilative capacity minus background and reserve (10 percent and 15 percent of applicable criteria, respectively) times the facility share.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 92

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 32 summarizes the calculated effluent limits for Tate and Lyle Ingredients, based on the facility allocation and the permitted monthly flow, compared with the detection level
and the maximum and average effluent concentration.

Exhibit A

- 32 . Effluent Limitations for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

Pollutant Average Monthly Effluent Limitation (μg/L) 1 DL 2 Effluent Conc

. ( μg/L ) 2
Proposed Baseline Max Average
Bis(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate 17.67500 10 32 32

DL = detection limit. 1. Facility load allocation ( Exhibit A

- 31 ) divided by monthly average flow limitation (0.12 under high flow conditions) converted from pounds per million gallons to μg/L (dividing by a conversion factor of 0.00834). 2. See Exhibit A

- 29 ; if all effluent observations were above detection, then the detection level is the lowest of either a) Maine’s stated reporting limit or b) the lowest detected level.

A.28.4 Compliance Costs



### As shown in Exhibit A

- 32 , limits are not needed for this facility under t he baseline scenario. However, u nder the proposed criteria, EPA calculated bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate limitations that are below the facility’s maximum effluent concentrations. Therefore, EPA estimated costs for a set of compliance strategies that would be expected to reduce pollutant

concentrations below the calculated limitations.

Data are not available identifying the sources of bis(2

- ethylhex yl)phthalate at Tate and Lyle Ingredients. However, bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate is a plasticizer used in manufacturing plastic packaging. Therefore, wash water from packaging or unpackaging operations is a potential source. A pollution prevention (P2) progr am that identifies likely sources of bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate in the facility’s wastewater could provide adequate levels of control through updated source control and best management practices. EPA estimated the cost of a

P2 program to be $28,000 per yea r.

If P2 proves ineffective and the other available compliance strategies ( i.e. , end

- of

- pipe treatment) would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts, the facility might also apply for a variance for bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate. EPA estimated the

one

- time cost associate d with pursuing a variance to be $180,000, with minimal costs

associated with subsequent renewal of the variance

. In an upper bound scenario where other compliance strategies are insufficient to reduce bis(2

- ethylhexy l)phthalate to the necessary levels (and a variance is not an option), the facility might need to install end

- of

- pipe treatment to remove bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate. For this scenario, EPA has assumed the use of granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment fo r bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate control. GAC is capable of reliably controlling bis(2

-

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 93

### APPENDIX

ethylhexyl)phthalate at levels below the calculated effluent limitations

. 45 

### To estimate the cost of GAC treatment, EPA used its work breakdown structure (WBS) cost model for GAC 46 

### with the input values identified in Exhibit A

- 33

.

Exhibit A

- 33 . Input Parameters Used to Estimate Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Costs for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

Input Parameter Input Value Justificat ion/Source

Contaminant Other Bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate is not among the contaminants with standard designs built into the model

Design Type Pressure A small packaged pressure system is more
cost

- effective for this design flow

Design Flow (MGD) 0.120 Assumes the treatment system would be designed to treat the facility’s maximum flow limitation Average Flow (MGD) 0.032 The facility’s actual average flow

Carbon Life Input Type Calculation from Freundlich Isotherm Data from Chen and Liew, 2003 1 st Freundlich Constant (Kf) [(ug/g)(L/ug) 1/n ] 11.3

2 nd Freundlich Constant (1/n) 1.5 Influent Concentration (mg/L) 0.032 See Exhibit A

- 32 Breakthrough Concentration (proposed criteria) (mg/L) 0.017675

Contaminant Removal Input Type EBCT Typical for a readily adsorbed contaminant like bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate Total Theoretical Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) (minutes) 15

Minimum number of contactors in series 1 Series operation unlikely to be necessary for a readily adsorbed contaminant like bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate Bed Depth (feet) 6.7
Selected using model’s automatic sizing procedure Vessel Geometry Upright Height (feet) 11 Diameter (feet) 4

Interval Between Backwashes (hours) 48 Conservatively selected a short interval given uncertainties about the relevant characteristics of the facility’s wastewater Discharge Option for Spent Backwash Recycle Assumed recycling to avoid impacts on facility’s discharge flow or characteristics

45 Ba sed on isotherm data from Chen and Liew (2003), bis(2

- ethylhexyl)pthalate is readily adsorbed by GAC. Furthermore, for drinking water, GAC is the best available technology for this pollutant, capable of removing it to below the maximum contaminant limit of 6 μg/L

.

46 For more information about GAC and EPA’s WBS models, see Khera et al. (2013) and U.S. EPA (2014a).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 94

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 33 . Input Parameters Used to Estimate Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Costs for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

Input Parameter Input Value Justificat ion/Source

Management Option for Spent Carbon Regeneration off

- site (non

hazardous) Typical for a small packaged treatment system

GAC Transfer Method Manual transfer Mechanical transfer would not be required given small system size and long bed life Characteristic of Holding Tank Solids Non

- hazardous Hazardous contaminants are unlikely to accumulate in backwash solids

Number of Booster Pumps 1 Assumes pumping required to account for head loss through contactors Backwash Pumping New pumps Conservatively assumes addition of new equipment to backwash the treatment system Backwash Storage New storage

Component Level High Cost Consistent with an upper

- bound estimate of
treatment costs



### Based on these inputs and after escalating the model results to 2014 dollars

, 47 

### EPA estimated

a GAC treatment cost under the proposed criteria of $ 54,280 per year assuming a discount rate of 7 percent over 20 years. At a 3 percent dis c ount rate, the costs are $43,096 per year.

These estimates are conservative because a detailed study of Tate and Lyle Ingredient’s internal process operations could result in a more targeted treatment st rategy

— for instance, if only a single internal process flow was the source of the bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate , then only the contaminated stream would require treatment.

In summary, to bound the estimated compliance costs for bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate, EPA estimated costs for a range of compliance strategies. Exhibit A

- 34 shows the estimated costs for each of these strategies.

Exhibit A

- 34 . Range of Compliance Costs for B is(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

Compliance Strategy One

- Time Cost ($2014) Ongoing Annual Cost ($2014/year) Annualized Cost 1 ($2014)

3% Discount 7% Discount
Pollution prevention $

- $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 Pollution prevention plus variance $180,000 $28,000 $40,099 $44,991

Granular activated carbon
treatment $411,519 $15,435 $43,096 $54,280

47 Capital costs were updated using the Engineering News

- Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI; multiplying by 2014 index value of 9806 and div iding by 2013 index value of 9547). Operating costs were updated using the Consumer Price Index (multiplying by 2014 index value of 236.736 and dividing by 2013 index value of 232.957; base period 1982

- 1984).

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 95

### APPENDIX

Exhibit A

- 34 . Range of Compliance Costs for B is(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate for Tate and Lyle Ingredients

Compliance Strategy One

- Time Cost ($2014) Ongoing Annual Cost ($2014/year) Annualized Cost 1 ($2014)

3% Discount 7% Discount Lower Bound Compliance Cost $28,000 $28,000 Upper Bound Compliance Cost $43,096 $54,280

1. One

- time costs annualized over 20 years at 3 percent and 7 percent

.



### A.29 Washington County Community College

The Washington County Community College (NPDES permit ME0102831) treats sanitary
wastewater from approximately 500 students and 60 faculty and staff employees. Treatment consists of a septic tank, a sand filtration system, and a chlorine disinfection system. The College is permitted to discharge up to 10,500 gallons per day to the St. Croix River (Cla ss SB), with average flow of 3,077 gallons per day.

The College has a chronic dilution factor of 30,692 and a permitted flow of 10,500 gallons per day. This facility is categorized as Level IV and does not have WET, analytical chemistry or priority pollutant testing requirements. For this analysis, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.30 West Enfield Hydro

The West Enfield Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036633) is a hydroelectric generating facility owned by Bangor

- Pacific Hydro Associates , with discharges of non

- contact cooling
water to the Penobscot River (Class B)

. The facility’s flow is variable, with a maximum daily discharge of 403,200 ga llons. According to the permit fact sheet for the facility, “the Department has determined that neither effluent limitations nor monitoring requirements are necessary to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met” (p. 5). As such, EPA

assumes t hat there is no reasonable potential for this facility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.31 Woodland Hydro

The Woodland Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036668) is a hydroelectric generating facility owned by Wood land Pulp , with discharges of non

- contact cooling water and other miscellaneous discharges 48 

### f rom 6 separate outfalls to the St. Croix River (Class C) . The facility has a discharge limit of 1 9 4,000 gallons per day. According to the permit fact sheet
for the facility, “the Department has determined that neither effluent limitations nor

48 Including shaft lubrication waters, foundati on leakage waters, and/or leakage from wicket gates or other equipment.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 96

### APPENDIX

monitoring requirements are necessary to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met” (p. 4). As such, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this fac ility to exceed the proposed criteria, and that this facility will not have any costs.

A.32 Woodland Pulp

Woodland Pulp (NPDES permit ME0001872) is a kraft pulp mill. The facility has a monthly average flow limitation of 30 MGD and an average monthly flow (Janu ary 2010 through July 2013) of 24.8 MGD. The facility discharges treated wastewater to the St. Croix River, which
is classified as a Class C freshwater at the point of discharge . The 2014 permit fact sheet reports that the facility employs treatment via primary clarification, sand filters, and sludge separation.

A.32.1 Effluent Data



### Exhibit A

- 35 summarizes the last five years of effluent monitoring data for priority polluta nts
for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level.

Exhibit A

- 35 . Summary of Effluent Data: Woodland Pulp

Pollutant 1 Total Number of Observations 2 D L (μg/L) 3 Effluent Concentrations (μg/L) 4

Maximum Average
Mercury 18 0.004 0.002

Source: Priority pollutant scan report for October 2010 through October 2015

. 1. Includes only pollutants for which there was at least one detected value (all others were unmonitored or all nondetects). 2. Number of observations includes results above and below detection levels. 3. DL = detection level; b lanks indicate that no detection level was specified

. 4

. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection leve l

.

A.32.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis


### This facility discharges directly to waters in Indian lands . As such, EPA conducted the reasonable potential analysis for this facility at the point of discharge. Based on effluent

concentrations in Exhibit A

- 35 , a receiving water harmonic mean flow of 1,171 MGD, a monthly average flow limit of 30 MGD, and a background concentration equal to 10 percent of the applicable criterion (see 2014 permit fact sheet), there is no reasonable potential to

ex ceed the HHC

.
As described in Section A.15.2 , this facility and the Baileyville POTW both discharge to the
St. Croix River in Indian lands , and both have detected mercury concentrations in their

effluent. Exhibit A

- 2 shows the mercury load allocations for the two fa cilities based on flow limitations and average effluent concentrations.

At its point of discharge, where Woodland Pulp’s effluent reaches waters in Indian lands , the St. Croix River has a harmonic mean flow of 1,171 MGD. EPA calculated the river’s

assimil ative capacity from the facility at that point for each pollutant based on the flow, the applicable criterion ( see Section 3 ), a background concentration equal to 1 0 percent of the criterion, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving water is higher

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 97

### APPENDIX

than the associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential. As shown in

Exhibit A

- 36 , the facility does not have reasonable potential to exceed any criteria.

Exhibit A

- 36 . Reasonable Potential Analysis for Woodland Pulp

Pollutant Multiplier 1 RWC (lb/day) 2 Share 3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day) 4
Proposed Baseline
Mercury, discharge point 1.3 0.00130 98.1% 0.00466 NA

Mercury, downstream 1.3 0.00130 78.7% 0.07767 NA
1. Multiplier from US EPA (1991; Table 3

- 2) based on number of observations and coefficient of variation. 2. RWC = receiving water contribution. Based on the maximum observed concentration (converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) times the multiplier times faci lity flow limitation. 3. See Exhibit A

- 2 for mercury load allocation

. 4. Based on the applicable criterion (freshwater at the point of discharge and marine downstream ; converted from μg/L to pounds per million gallons using a conversion factor of 0.00834) minus background concentration (10 percent of criterion) times stream flow in Indian lands times the facility share. “NA” indicates that the aquatic life criterion is more stringent than the human health criterion, so no incremental costs are expected to result from the proposed human health criterion. Bolded red values indicate that the calculated facility RWC is higher than the assimilative capacity from that facilit y, and there is reasonable potential.



### A.33 Woodland Pulp: North Site

Woodland Pulp also has a separate permit for its North Site (NPDES permit ME0022063). This permit is for non

- contact cooling water and miscellaneous non

- process wastewaters 49 

### discharged to th e St. Croix River (Class C). The facility is authorized to discharge up to

15.0 MGD of cooling water (with an average reported discharge of approximately 14 MGD) and 160,000 gallons per day of non

- process wastewaters (with an average daily flow of approxim ately 60,000 gallons). However, the non

- process wastewater discharge is not active. Additionally, due to the nature of other discharges (cooling water only), t here are no limits on human health related pollutants, nor any priority pollutant scan requiremen ts associated with this permit. For this analysis, EPA assumes that there is no reasonable potential for this discharger to exceed the proposed criteria, and that it will not have any costs

.

49 Primarily boiler blowdown and water softener backwash.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 98

### APPENDIX



## B Derivation of Mercury Water Column Concentration for Use in Evaluating Reasonable Potential

EPA’s proposed criteri on for methylmercury is in terms of mg of dissolved methylmercury per kilogram of fish tissue, c alculated using the following equation ( US EPA, 2001 a ):

TT = BB × ( RRRRRR

− RR )

FFFF

where:

TRC = tissue residual concentration in mg methylmercury/kg fish

BW = human body weight [80 kg]

RfD = reference dose (noncancer human health effects ) [0.0001 mg/kg BW

- day]

FI = human fish consumption rate [0.286 kg fish/day]

RSC = relative source contribution [0.000027 mg methylmercury/kg BW

- day]

EPA used these assumptions to calculate a total mercury water column concentration equivalent to the methylmercury fish tissue concentration criteria values for use in evaluating reasonable potential for exceedances of the proposed criteria.

First, EPA calculated a dissolved methylmercury water column concentration based on the following equation ( US EPA, 1980):

AA AA = ( RRRRRR

− RR ) × 1000 × � BB

+ ( FFFF × BB ) �

where:

AWQC = ambient water quality criterion in μg/L

BW = human body weight [80 kg]

RfD = reference dose (noncancer human health effects ) [0.0001 mg/kg BW

- day]

FI = human fish consumption rate [0.286 kg fish/day]

RSC = relative source contribution [0.000027 mg methylmercury/kg BW

- day]

DI = drinking water intake [2.4 L/day]

BAF = bioaccumulation factor [2700000 L/kg fish 50 

### ]

This calculation yields dissolved methylmercury criteria in μg/L. To translate these to total mercury water column criteria, EPA divided by 0.014, which is a default national methylmercury to total mercury translator for rivers from US EPA (2010b). For the purpose of the cost analysis described in Section 4 , EPA applied a total mercury water column concentration of 0.00054 μg/L for the proposed criterion.

50 Based on the trophic level 4 BAF from U.S. EPA (2010b)

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 99

### APPENDIX

Note that, as discussed in Section 2.2.2

, MEDEP established interim mercury effluent limits for each permittee. I n accordance with 38 MRS Chapter 520, a facility does not violate the ambient criteria for mercury if the facility is in compliance with its interim disc harge limit or with a remediation or corrective action plan, license or order approved either by MEDEP or

EPA. EPA does not expect the proposed mercury criteria to affect baseline interim mercury

effluent limits.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 100

### APPENDIX



## C Estimated Flows for Selected Receiving Wate rs in Indian Lands

EPA obtained flow statistics for selected receiving waters in Indian lands

, downstream from permitted facilities to assess the potential for exceeding proposed criteria for these waters

. This appendix provides the relevant data , summariz ed in Exhibit C

- 1

.

Exhibit C

- 1

. Flow Statistics for Selected Receiving Waters in Indian Lands.

Location Stream Gage Harmonic Mean Flow

(MGD) 1 7Q10 (MGD)

Meduxnekeag River flow at
Indian l ands USGS 01018035 Meduxnekeag River at Lowery Rd. nr Houlton,
Maine 101 8

Passamoquoddy Bay flow at
Indian l ands Based on DCP analysis (see
Section C.2 ) 24,333 24,333

Penobscot River flow at upstream boundary for waters in
Indian lands USGS 01030000 Penobscot River Near Mattawamkeag, ME 3,053 1,555

Penobscot River flow at
confluence with Piscataquis
River USGS 01034500 Penobscot River at West Enfield, Maine 5,328 1,961

1. See Section C.1

.



### C.1 Harmonic Mean Flow

The following equation is used to calculate the harmonic mean flow for any set of flow data:

w here :

HM = harmonic mean flow

Q i 

### = nonzero flow

N T 

### = total number of flow values

N 0 

### = number of zero flow values

C.2 Dissolved Concentration Potential

NOAA developed dissolved concentrat ion potential (DCP) estimates for East Coast estuaries (NOAA and EPA, 1989) based on the rate and volume of freshwater inflows into the estuary, relative to the total volume of the estuary. The DCP reflects the effect of flushing and

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 101

### APPENDIX

estuarine dilution on a load of a conservative, dissolved pollutant to an estuary, assuming average concentration throughout the estuary and steady

- state conditions.

For this analysis, EPA used the DCP for Passamaquoddy Bay to calculate a rough estimate of potential concentrat ions in the Bay from permitted discharges to the St. Croix River from Calais POTW and Woodland Pulp facilities about 20 and 30 miles upstream, respectively,

from Indian lands at Pleasant Point.

The DCP may be used to calculate the concentration in the Bay

, C bay 

### , as follows:

[1] CC BBBBBB 

### = LL × DDDDDD

10000



### Where L is the pollutant load in tons per year, calculated from the permitted flow rate and

effluent concentration.

NOAA/EPA estimated a DCP for Passamaquoddy Bay of 0.27. After replacing the pollutant

load L in equation 1 by the product of the effluent concentration and flow rate, adding appropriate unit conversion factors, and rearranging the terms, we get the followi ng ratio between concentration in the effluent and concentration in the Bay, i.e., dilution factor:

[2] eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

BBBBBB 

### = 10000

8

. 34 × QQ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee × 365 × 0

. 0005 × DDDDDD



### Where Q effluent 

### is the effluent discharge flow limit, in MGD.

The dilution factor is 16,222:1 for the Calais POTW, based on a permitted monthly average discharge flows of 1.5 MGD, and 811:1 for the Woodland Pulp facility, based on permitted monthly average discharge flows of 30 MGD.

Note that this approach to estimating dilution factors differs from that used by MEDEP in cases where a facility discharges directly to estuarine or coastal waters. EPA determined that the use of DCP is appropriate in this case since the discharge does not occur directly in
estuarine waters but occurs in the St. Croix river 20 to 30 miles upstream from Passamaquoddy Bay; it can reasonably be assumed to be well

- mixed by the time it reaches the Bay.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 102

### APPENDIX



## D Review of pH Limitations in Existing Permits and Cost Potential

EPA reviewed the existing permits for facil ities that discharge to waters in Indian lands and their tributaries to assess the potential for costs related to the proposed pH criteria.

Because the treatment of effluent to reduce metals result in altered pH levels in the discharge,
EPA focused its ev aluation on the six dischargers with permit limitations and detected effluent records for heavy metals and/or arsenic. The sections below summarize EPA’s evaluation of the implications of the proposed pH limit of 6.5 on each of the facilities.

D.1 Calais POTW

The September 29, 2006 permit authorized the monthly average discharge of up to 1.5 MGD of secondary treated sanitary wastewater, an unspecified quantity of excess combined sanitary and storm water receiving primary treatment only (and seasonal disinfect ion) from a municipal WWTF and an unspecified quantity of untreated combined sanitary and storm water from five (5) combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls to the St. Croix River, Class SC, in Calais, Maine.

Evaluation : The facility discharges mostly second ary or primary treated wastewater, with occasional stormwater from five CSO outfalls. The permit makes no mention of significant influx of industrial process water. Accordingly, EPA assessed this facility as unlikely to be affected by the proposed pH crite rion.

D.2 Guilford

- Sangerville

The June 11, 2010 permit authorizes the discharge of up to a monthly average flow of
0.93 MGD of secondary treated sanitary waste waters to the Piscataquis River, Class B, in Guilford, Maine. The permit mentions that the facilit y receives wastewater output from one industrial contributor, True Textiles. True Textiles is a manufacturer of polyester/woolen products that at full production capacity, contributes approximately 73 percent of the total flow; 97 percent of the BOD5, 14 p ercent of TSS; and 92 percent of COD.

True Textiles pre

- treats waste waters conveyed to the GSSD WWTF via flow equalization and neutralization utilizing an automated pH control system which adds acid or caustic
chemical solutions as needed. The flow is mea sured using a parshall flume prior to being conveyed to the GSSD treatment facility

GSSD permit effluent limitations and monitoring requirements (ELMR) condition 6 (i), specify the pH range as 6.0 to 9.0 SU pursuant to a Department rule, 06

- 096 CMR Chapter 525(3)(III)(c) along with a 3/Week monitoring requirement. The limits are considered BPT.

A review of the DMR data for the period January 2012

— January 2015 indicates that the permittee met the pH range limits, with pH ranging between a minimum of 6.4 S U and a maximum of 8.6 SU. As a result, MEDEP reduced the monitoring frequency from 3/week to

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 103

### APPENDIX

2/week for Tier 1A (current production level) which is consistent with Department guidance on monitoring frequency reductions.

Evaluation : True Textiles is the so urce of the metals and other toxics monitored. Based on existing pre

- treatment and DMR data, EPA judged this facility unlikely to incur incremental costs due to the proposed pH criterion.

D.3 Houlton WWTF

The February 16, 2005 MEPDES permit authorized the mon thly average discharge of up to 1.5 MGD of secondary treated wastewaters from a POTW to the Meduxnekeag River, Class B, in Houlton, Maine. There are no major commercial or industrial users of the system that
contribute more than 10 percent of the flow or p ollutant loading to the waste water treatment facility.

Permit ELMR Condition 6(g)... summary of pH data as reported on the monthly DMRs for the period of January 2007 through August 2010 (# DMRs = 44) indicates the facility has been incompliance with the pH range limitation 100 percent of the time during said reporting period.

Evaluation : Effluent is secondary treated wastewater with little influx of industrial process water. EPA judged this facility unlikely to incur incremental costs due to the proposed p H
criterion.

D.4 Lincoln Sanitary District

The permit authorizes the discharge of up to a monthly average flow of 1.07 MGD of secondary treated sanitary waste waters and an unspecified quantity of primary treated combined sanitary and storm water to the Peno bscot River, Class C, in Lincoln, Maine. The pH range for the outfall is 6.0

- 9.0

.
Evaluation : The dilution factor for the receiving water is a minimum of 470:1. A review of the DMR data provided in the permit fact sheet for the period February 2006

– Febr uary 2011 (n=59) indicates the pH range was 6.7 SU

– 7.4 SU. EPA judged this facility unlikely to incur incremental costs due to the proposed pH criterion

.
D.5 Tate and Lyle

The facility utilizes approximately 94,000 GPD of municipal water from the Houlton Water Company for use in its manufacturing processes. The permit authorizes the discharge of: (1) 0.04 million gallons per day (MGD) of boiler blowdown and process waste waters to the Meduxnekeag River, Class B, via Outfall #001; (2) 0.05 MGD of non

- contac t cooling waters to the Meduxnekeag River, Class B, via Outfall #002; and (3) non

- contact cooling waters, boiler blowdown and process waste waters to ground water, Class GW

- A, via a surface wastewater disposal system (spray irrigation). The permit establis hed a pH range limitation
of 6.0

— 9.0 SU for Outfall 4001A which is considered best practicable treatment (BPT) and is consistent with the effluent guidelines established at 40 CFR Part 407.52.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 104

### APPENDIX

Evaluation : No compliance history is given. The most stringen t dilution factor is 43:1 in the winter. Most of the effluent is boiler blowdown which can have a high TDS content, but shouldn’t significantly affect the pH in the receiving water. Based on the relatively small amount of discharge, EPA judged this facilit y unlikely to incur incremental costs due to the proposed pH criterion

.
D.6 Woodland Pulp

The permit authorizes the daily maximum discharge of 40 MGD of treated process waste water, treated sanitary waste waters, treated landfill leachate, treated residuals s torage pads leachate and other miscellaneous waste waters associated with the kraft pulp and papermaking process and related operations, and a monthly average discharge of 5.6 MGD of
treated storm water runoff and a non

- contact cooling waters to St. Croix River. The most stringent dilution factor is 4.6:1.

The permit established a daily maximum pH range limitation of 5.0

- 9.0 SU, based on technology standards in 40 CFR part 430 (Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Sour ce Category), with a footnote exempting the permittee from violations of the limit if the discharge is within 0.5 SU of the pH of the precipitation or the ambient receiving water pH.

Evaluation : Within the facility is an “acid sewer” line with flow that must be treated and neutralized. The permit provides no indication of compliance problems with meeting the current pH permit conditions. Historical DMR data included in the fact sheet for Outfall 001 and the period of 2010

- 2013, shows pH ranging between 6. 6 and 8.3 SU , whereas DMR data for the period of 2011

- 2015 show a range of 5.1 to 8.7 SU . While the facility operations could potentially be affected by the proposed pH criterion (which is more limiting that the existing pH range in effluent limits), the l imited information available in the permit fact sheet suggests that the facility may already be able to meet the proposed pH criterion

.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 105

### APPENDIX



## E Potential Point Source Compliance Costs, 7 % Discount Rate

This section summarizes the point source compliance costs usin g a 7 percent discount rate as an alternative to the main analysis, presented in Section 6.1 , which uses a 3 percent discount
rate. For more details on the methodol ogy for these analyses, see Section 4

.
Exhibit E

- 1 summarizes EPA’s estimates of facility

- specific compliance costs and the total

costs that may result from the pr oposed HHC , using a 7 percent discount rate

.
Exhibit E

- 1 . Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Human Health
Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands 1

Facility Name Pollutant Estimated Annual Costs (Thousand s; 2014$) 2
Tate and Lyle Ingredients bis(2

- exylhethyl)phthalate $28

- $ 54

**Total**

**-- $28** 

**- $**  **54**

1. S ee Section 4.1.4 and Appendix A for a description of the methods and assumptions used to develop the facility

- specific cost estimates. 2. One

- time costs annualized over 20 years using a 7 percent discount rat e; see Section 6.1 for costs annualized using a 3 percent discount rate.



### Exhibit E

- 2 summarizes estimates of facility

- specific costs and total costs for the proposed

bacteria criteria . Note that, since all costs are annual, the results do not depend on the discount rate, and the costs shown in Exhibit E

- 2 are the same as those shown in Section 6.1

.
Exhibit E

- 2

. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Criteria for
Bacteria 1

Facility Name Mean Flow (MGD) Incremental Annual Cost (thousands; 2014$) 2

Lower

- Bound Upper

- Bound

Baileyville 0.33 $9. 0 $29.3

Calais POTW 0.6 $12. 6 $ 49.3

Calais School 0.004446 $0. 4 $0. 7

Dover

- Foxcroft WWTF 0.29 $8. 0 $25.8

Guilford

- Sangerville Sanitary District 0.284 $ 7.8 $25. 2

Houlton POTW 1.5 $ 39.9 $131. 9

Lincoln Sanitary District 1.07 $ 22.2 $94. 2

Millinocket POTW 1.34 $27. 7 $117. 9

Milo WWTF 0.25 $ 6.9 $22. 2

Passamaquoddy 0.15 $4. 3 $13. 5

Penobscot Indian Nation WPCF 0.057 $1. 5 $5. 3

Town of Brownville Subsurface WWTF 3 N/A $0.0 $0.0

Washington Comm. College 0.003077 $0. 4 $0. 5

East Millinocket POTW 2 $ 41.2 $175. 7

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 106

### APPENDIX

Exhibit E

- 2

. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Criteria for
Bacteria 1

Facility Name Mean Flow (MGD) Incremental Annual Cost (thousands; 2014$) 2

Lower

- Bound Upper

- Bound

Howland WWTF 0.152 $3. 4 $13. 6

**Total**

**-- $18**  **5**

**. 3**  **$70 5** 

**. 2**  1. See Section 4.2 for a description of methods, assumptions, and uncertainties.
2. No one

- time costs are included; costs are calculated directly in annual terms and unaffected by assumptions about the discount rate (i.e., 3 percent or 7 percent ).
3. It appears this facility is able to meet its seasonal bacteria limitations without disinfection; accordingly, EPA

assume d no additional cost to meet the criteria year

- round

.



### Exhibit E

- 3 summarizes upper bound estimates of facility

- specific and total costs related to
the proposed mixing zone policy , annualized using a 7 percent discount rate

.
Exhibit E

- 3 . Summary of Upper Bound E stimated of Compliance Costs for Proposed Mixing Zone Policy 1

Facility Name Flow Rate (MGD) Annual ized Costs ( thousands; 2014$) 2

Woodland Pulp 15.0 $399

**Total (Upper Bound)** 

**-- $399** 

1. See Section 4.4 for a description of methods, assumptions, and uncertainties. 2. One

- time costs annualized over 3 0 years using a 7 percent discount rate; see Section 6.1 for costs annualized using a 3 percent discount rate.



### As summarized in Exhibit E

- 4

, using a 7 percent discount rate to annualize one

- time costs

, EPA estimated that point source dischargers may incur costs ranging between $213,000 and $1 million as a result of the proposed rule, depending on compliance approaches for meeting potentially more stringent permit conditions. As discussed throughout the report and highlighted in Section 6.3 , these costs are subject to significant uncertainty and the estimated range reflects some of this uncertainty.

Exhibit E

- 4

. Summary of Estimated Point Source Compliance Costs 1

Proposed WQS Annualized Costs (thousands; 2014$) 2

Human health criteria for waters in Indian lands $28

− $ 43.1

Bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands $185 .3

− $705 .2

Mixing zone policy Not Estimated

− Up to $ 273

**Total 3**  **$213**

− **$1,158**

1. Excludes costs for proposed ammonia criteria, for which EPA expects costs to be zero. See Section 4.3

. 2. Except as otherwise noted (see Section 4.4 for assumptions regarding expected useful life of cooling towers), one

- time costs are annualized over 20 years using a 7 percent discount rate. See Section 6.1 for costs annualized using a 3 percent discount rate 3. Lower bound of total costs excludes costs associated with the mixing zone policy for which EPA estimated only the upper bound scenario. See Section 4.4 for details.

Abt Associ ates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌ pg. 107