Economic Analysis for 

Proposal of Certain 

Federal Water Quality 

Standards Applicable to 

Maine

Contract # EP-BPA-13-W-0001

March 24, 2016

Prepared for:

United States Environmental 

Protection Agency

Region 1

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 

(OEP06-2)

Boston, MA 02109

Submitted by:

Abt Associates 

55 Wheeler Street

Cambridge, MA 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 State 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 lands, 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 Elimination System (MEPDES) 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 that 

may be associated with the 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 waters in Indian lands), proposed criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO) (for all 

Class A state waters) and proposed criteria for phenol (for waters 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 criteria, 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 Rule1

Proposed WQS Annualized Costs 

(thousands; 2014$)2

Human health criteria for waters in Indian lands $28 − $43

Bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands $185 − $705

Mixing zone policy for waters in Indian lands Not estimated − $273

Total3 $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 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 Summary................................................................................................................ 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 Associates 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 Proposed 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 Potential 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 Uncertainties 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 Effluent 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. ii
CONTENTS

A.3.2 Reasonable 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 Reasonable 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 Howland 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 Reasonable 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. iii
CONTENTS

A.24.2 Reasonable 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 Reasonable 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 Effluent 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 Associates 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 Rule1......................................................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 Disapprovals1 ......................................................................................................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 Maine1.........................15

Exhibit 3-1. Proposed Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of Water and Organisms and 

Organisms Only (μg/L)..................................................................................................................23

Exhibit 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 temperatures1

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

Exhibit 3-4. Comparison of Maine’s baseline (solid lines) and 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 Tributaries.......................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 Compliance Costs for Proposed Human Health Criteria for 

Waters in Indian Lands1.................................................................................................................61

Exhibit 6-2. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Criteria for Bacteria1 ...............62

Exhibit 6-3. Summary of Upper Bound Estimated of Compliance Costs for Proposed Mixing Zone 

Policy1 ............................................................................................................................................62

Exhibit 6-4. Summary of Estimated Point Source Compliance Costs1 ................................................63

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

Exhibit 6-5. Uncertainties in Analysis 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 Analysis for Calais POTW............................................................73

Exhibit A-6. Outfall Data for Covanta Maine Facility1

........................................................................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: Guilford-Sangerville WWTF1 ......................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 Allocation 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 Allocation for Penobscot River at Lincoln Sanitary District.................84

Exhibit A-22. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Lincoln Sanitary District ........................................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: Penobscot 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. vi
CONTENTS

Exhibit A-32. Effluent Limitations for Tate and Lyle Ingredients.......................................................93

Exhibit A-33. Input Parameters Used to Estimate Granular Activated Carbon Treatment 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. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Human Health Criteria for 

Waters in Indian Lands1...............................................................................................................106

Exhibit E-2. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Criteria for Bacteria1.............106

Exhibit E-3. Summary of Upper Bound Estimated of Compliance Costs for Proposed Mixing Zone 

Policy1 ..........................................................................................................................................107

Exhibit E-4. Summary of Estimated Point Source Compliance Costs1..............................................107

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

List of Abbreviations

AMEL Average monthly effluent limitation

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 Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

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 criteria

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 Health

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 Associates 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 Polychlorinated biphenyl

POTW Publicly owned treatment works

PPI Producer Price Index

Ppm parts per million

SIC Standard industrial classification

SU Standard units

SWMP Stormwater management program

TMDL Total maximum daily load

WDL Waste Discharge License

WQBELs Water quality based effluent limitations

WQS Water quality standards

WWTF Wastewater treatment facility

ZID Zone of initial dilution

Abt Associates 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 State 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 lands, 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. This report provides estimates of the potential incremental compliance 

actions and costs that 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 indirectly 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 biological 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 standards 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 objectives. 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 

authorized 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 1
INTRODUCTION

and existing uses of all waters, and identify specific methods 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 summarizes the proposed WQS associated with EPA’s disapprovals of Maine 

WQS. Items 1 through 7 in the table apply specifically to waters in Indian lands, 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 requirements 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 they would have been used only 

in very unusual circumstances, EPA’s proposed WQS are therefore expected to have no 

material impacts and are not addressed further in this report.

2 The proposed HHC that address the Administrator’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 fishing 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 outside of 

waters in Indian lands. 

Abt Associates 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 WQS1

1. Human Health Criteria

(HHC) for waters in Indian 

lands

M.R.S. § 584, Appendix A EPA calculated values assuming a fish 

consumption rate (FCR) of 286 grams per day

incorporating new toxicity and exposure 

parameters for 96 pollutants. 

2. Bacteria Criteria for 

waters 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 shall be as naturally occurs, and in 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 in Class SA, Class SB, 

and Class SC waters, enterococcus bacteria 

shall not exceed a geometric mean of 30 

organisms per 100 ml obtained over a 

representative period of 30 days, nor shall 110 

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 coliform 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 ml 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 

Clauses (only as they 

apply to human health) for 

waters 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 criteria 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 maximum of 18°C (64.4°F) is not 

exceeded; natural temperature cycles must be 

maintained. 

Abt Associates 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 WQS1

7. Mixing zone policy for 

waters 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”; prohibits 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 lethality 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 than 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.

10. 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 μg/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 italics 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 that 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 Associates 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 

revised Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) permit conditions for 

point source dischargers to incorporate revised water quality based effluent limitations 

(WQBELs). This analysis of impacts on point sources focuses specifically on the incremental 

costs that may be incurred by POTWs and industrial point source dischargers as a result of 

the proposed WQSs. 

The proposed criteria may also result in incremental determinations that waters do not meet

WQS, resulting in the waters being added to the list of impaired waters in the state. As such, 

the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) may need to develop 

additional total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters. There may also be 

incremental controls and costs associated with load 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 that 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 33

facilities currently have permits to 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 dischargers to determine whether they

have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of the proposed WQS. When 

reasonable potential exists, EPA estimated revised effluent limits and potential control costs 

to meet the limits. 

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

Exhibit 1-2: Indian lands in Maine and location of facilities with permits to discharge to waters 

in Indian lands or tributaries.

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

Lands (Phenol)

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

sources across the State. 

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

The proposed rule would retain Maine’s year-round criteria, but add more protective DO 

criteria for spawning areas in winter months.

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 as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat 

must be characterized as natural.”

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

 
INTRODUCTION

Approximately 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, 2012). 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 MEDEP procedures for implementing the criteria in MEPDES

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 Criteria – 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 rule.

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 Roadmap for Analysis of Effects and Costs of EPA Proposed 

Rules in Response to EPA Disapprovals1

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 Sections 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 7

 
INTRODUCTION

lands

3. Ammonia aquatic life 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 waters in Indian lands Section 2.2.5 Section 3.1.4 No incremental 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 Sections 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 8
ANALYSIS BASELINE

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 associated 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

MEPDES 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 organic 

compounds, and elevated temperature from non-contact cooling water.

Most major dischargers in Maine are POTWs (57 out of 69 major dischargers). The 

remaining 12 major dischargers are industrial facilities categorized as wood product, pulp or 

paper mills (9 facilities), electrical services (2 facilities), or industrial machinery and 

equipment manufacturers (1 facility).

Of the 33 facilities that discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries, 15 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 hydropower projects, two 

educational establishments (listed under “Not Categorized or Unknown” in Exhibit 2-1), one 

food manufacturing facility, two drinking water treatment plants, and two fish hatcheries.

Exhibit 2-1. Number of Dischargers 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

24-26: Wood Products, Pulp, and Paper 5 9 14 2

28: Chemicals and Chemical Preparations 4 0 4

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 9
ANALYSIS BASELINE

Exhibit 2-1. Number of Dischargers 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 33

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, 

2014). Changes in the routing, magnitude, and timing of the stormwater also results in 

changes in the flow regime of rivers, including flash floods 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 developmentrelated impacts are significant causes of impairment or stressors for the state’s waters (see 

Section 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 stormwater-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 streams 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 needed to meet WQS. These reductions may be 

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 10
ANALYSIS BASELINE

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.

MEDEP regulates land use activities through five statutes: the Erosion and Sedimentation 

Control Law; 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. 

MEDEP regulates stormwater discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer 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 permit 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 detection 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 permits. Additionally, MEDEP issued a Multi-Sector Industrial Stormwater 

general permit (MEDEP, 2011), 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 septic 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 11
ANALYSIS BASELINE

(MEDEH, 2015b), 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 municipal 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 wastewater, sets design and installation 

criteria, issues permits and installer certifications, conducts inspections, and provides grants 

to facilitate replacement of malfunctioning septic systems. 

2.1.4 Agriculture and Forestry

Forests account for over two thirds (69 percent) of Maine’s landscape while land in 

agricultural production represents another 6 percent (MEDEP, 2014). Pesticides applied to 

agricultural or forestry lands can reach surface waters through irrigation return flow, 

stormwater runoff, and erosion of soils. 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 forestry lands. 

MEDEP has identified agriculture as a source of impaired water 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). The 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 implementation 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 operations. 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 by individual MEPDES permits in Maine 

and are therefore addressed in this analysis.

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 the 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 12
ANALYSIS BASELINE

atmospheric deposition (Connecticut DEP et al., 2007). Since then, EPA has promulgated 

regulations aimed at curbing emissions of mercury from coal-fired power 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 outlines strategies for reducing 

mercury concentrations in fish and achieving 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 focusing 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, several of Maine’s major freshwater streams (e.g., 

Androscoggin River, Kennebec River, and Penobscot River) have fish consumption 

advisories based on elevated DDT, dioxin, and PCB levels. A state-wide advisory for dioxins 

and PCBs also applies to all coastal waters (U.S. EPA, 2015b). 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 Water 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 assessed rivers and streams miles, 

91 percent of assessed lake acres and 94 percent of assessed marine waters fully attained the 

State’s WQS (MEDEP, 2012).7 For 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 coalfired 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 13

 
ANALYSIS BASELINE

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 Size of Impaired Waters by Listing Cause/Stressor Type

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 industrial 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 14
ANALYSIS BASELINE

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 erosion and 

sedimentation), dam or impoundment, and others.

Sources of impairments for lakes include atmospheric deposition of toxics (which represents 

the largest impact in terms of impaired lake area), followed by impacts from hydrostructures, 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, by 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 proposes to promulgate HHC. These 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 Maine1

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 permits 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 criteria as compared to the 

current permit limits to meet the baseline criteria. 

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

 
ANALYSIS BASELINE

Exhibit 2-3. Baseline Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Priority Pollutants in Maine1

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 2.7E-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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 16
ANALYSIS BASELINE

Exhibit 2-3. Baseline Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Priority Pollutants in Maine1

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 2.9E-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 4.3E-05 4.3E-05

Heptachlor Epoxide 0.52 0.0038 0.053 0.0036 2.1E-05 2.1E-05

Hexachlorobenzene 0.0002 0.0002

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.43 9.96

HexachlorocyclohexaneTechnical0.0123 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 17
ANALYSIS BASELINE

Exhibit 2-3. Baseline Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Priority Pollutants in Maine1

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 3.5E-05 3.5E-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: MEDEP 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., Cadmium, 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 MEDEP to establish interim 

discharge limits to reduce the discharge of mercury and achieve ambient water quality 

criteria for mercury (38 MRS § 413(11)). MEDEP Rule, in turn (06-096 Chapter 519)

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 published by EPA. Under Chapter 519, 

MEDEP controls mercury discharges from point source dischargers to surface waters through 

effluent 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 develop and 

implement a P2 plan (based on model plans developed by MEDEP), and conduct effluent 

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 18
ANALYSIS BASELINE

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 mercury 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 discharge 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 proposing 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 waters 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 concern.

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 Healthy Beaches 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 State 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 bacterial WQS for recreation and shellfish consumption at the 

point of discharge11 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 and geometric mean of 64 

colonies/100 ml in Class B/C waters.

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

 
ANALYSIS BASELINE

Through this action, EPA is proposing recreational bacteria criteria for waters 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 none 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 62 observations from 20 locations sampled in 2005, 

2008 or 2011.

13 The data show maximum reported E. coli levels 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 the 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 + 107.204−pppp +

39.0

1 + 10pppp−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+107.688−pppp + 2.4871+10pppp−7.688 × min(2.85,1.45 × 100.028(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 ammonia 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 and 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 at Passamaquoddy Bay and at 

Calais (ENSR, 2009). 

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

 
ANALYSIS BASELINE

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)), prohibits 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 

deposition and impacts from legacy pollution. There are no rivers or streams in Indian lands 

that are listed as impaired for pH.15

EPA reviewed available 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 85oF 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 waterbody to be raised more than 

4oF at any time, or more than 1.5oF from June 1 to September 1 (summer months). Through 

this action, EPA is proposing tidal temperature criteria for tidal 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 for 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 discharge; 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 vicinity 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 21

 
ANALYSIS BASELINE

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 application of best professional judgment).

Within the set of 33 facilities that discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries, EPA 

identified Woodland Pulp LLC as the only facility 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). MEDEP established 

the limits of this mixing zone many years (and permit cycles) ago and information on sitespecific studies or models used to establish compliance is limited or not readily available for 

review. The current permit employs 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 currently no in-stream 

monitoring requirements in the permit, although it does require the permittee to investigate 

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, eight 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 Stream 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 impairments 

more generally. Thus, according to MEDEP’s water quality assessment for 2012, two 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 permits 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 database 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 Associates 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 recommendations for other criteria 

inputs. For comparison, the 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 pollutants for which the 

proposed HHC are higher than existing aquatic life criteria because the aquatic life criteria 

would be the determining factor in setting effluent limitations. The proposed HHC for alphaendosulfan, 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 

criteria, 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)

Pollutant1

Proposed Human Health 

Criterion

Maine DEP Reg. 584 

Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP 

Reporting Water and Limit

Organisms2

Organisms 

Only3

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 Associates 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)

Pollutant1

Proposed Human Health 

Criterion

Maine DEP Reg. 584 

Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP 

Reporting Water and Limit

Organisms2

Organisms 

Only3

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 2.7E-05 2.7E-05 0.15

alpha-BHC 2.9E-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 0.40 1.2 0.58 7.55 5

Benzo (a) Anthracene 9.8E-05 9.8E-05 0.003 0.01 8

Benzo (a) Pyrene 9.8E-06 9.8E-06 0.003 0.01 5

Benzo (b) Fluoranthene 9.8E-05 9.8E-05 0.003 0.01 5

Benzo (k) Fluoranthene 0.00098 0.00098 0.003 0.01 5

beta-BHC 0.0010 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 2.4E-05 0.00044 0.00044 0.1

Abt Associates 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)

Pollutant1

Proposed Human Health 

Criterion

Maine DEP Reg. 584 

Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP 

Reporting Water and Limit

Organisms2

Organisms 

Only3

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 9.8E-06 9.8E-06 0.003 0.01 5

Dichlorobromomethane - 2 0.53 9.3 3

Dieldrin 9.3E-08 9.3E-08 2.9E-05 2.9E-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 4.4E-07 4.4E-07 4.3E-05 4.3E-05 0.15

Heptachlor Epoxide 2.4E-06 2.4E-06 2.1E-05 2.1E-05 0.1

Hexachlorobenzene 5.9E-06 5.9E-06 0.0002 0.0002 5

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.0007 0.0007 0.43 9.96 5

HexachlorocyclohexaneTechnical0.00073 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 9.8E-05 9.8E-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

Methylmercury4 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 Associates 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)

Pollutant1

Proposed Human Health 

Criterion

Maine DEP Reg. 584 

Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP 

Reporting Water and Limit

Organisms2

Organisms 

Only3

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 

(PCBs)

4.5E-06 4.5E-06 3.5E-05 3.5E-05 0.3

Pyrene 2 2 710 2160 5

Selenium 21 58 162 2250 5

Toluene 24 39 1200 8100 5

Toxaphene 5.3E-05 5.3E-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 (2015a) 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 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, drinking water intake 

rate of 2.4 L/day, and bioconcentration factors and toxicity values from U.S. EPA (2002).

3. Based on 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 (2015a) 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 bioconcentration factors and toxicity values from U.S. EPA 

(2002).

4. This is a fish tissue based criterion 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 Maine 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 Associates 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)

Pollutant1

Proposed Human Health 

Criterion

Maine DEP Reg. 584 

Appendix A Table 1 Maine DEP 

Reporting Water and Limit

Organisms2

Organisms 

Only3

Water and 

Organisms

Organisms 

Only

mercury; and DEP Rule Chapter 519, 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 published 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 their 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: magnitude, 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 organisms 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 

obtained 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 protection 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 lands. 

This differs from Maine’s disapproved criteria, which do not apply from October 1 

through 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 Associates 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 33 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, permit 

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 geometric mean of 

64 colonies/100 ml; and permit 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 criterion (e.g., the permit for Millinocket, which discharges 

to Class 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 maximum 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 reasonable 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 28
PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3-2. Baseline and Proposed Bacteria Criteria

Waters Baseline Proposed

Class AA, A Bacteria content as “naturally occurs.” Bacteria content as “naturally occurs.”

E.coli 30-day geometric mean no 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 no 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 

than 126 E.coli/100 ml and instantaneous 

level no more than 236/100 ml. 

SA Bacteria content as “naturally occurs” 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 mean no more than 

70 MPN/100 ml and no more than 10 

percent of samples above 230 total coliform 

MPN/100 ml.

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 Associates 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 total 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 could be incremental costs associated with additional disinfection 

occurring during the period of October 1 – May 14. EPA estimated additional costs for 

chlorination, dechlorination and monitoring for the entire period of October 1 through May 

14 at each plant that currently disinfects 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 values 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 colonies 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 Genus 

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 temperatures 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, the 

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 Associates 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 

for the baseline criterion.

Exhibit 3-3. Comparison of Maine’s baseline (solid line) and EPA’s proposed (dashed 

lines) ammonia acute criteria for different temperatures1

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 Associates 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 33 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

requirements 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 criteria in 

waters in Indian lands.

Both facilities with ammonia limits discharge to the Piscataquis River:

• Dover-Foxcroft WWTP (ME0100501): The permit sets a limit of 279 lbs/day (monthly 

average) based on monitoring data, which showed a reasonable potential 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 three 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 Associates 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 between 5.0-8.0 

SU 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 changes 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 

(Woodland Pulp) has a permit that allows 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 

facility adjusts 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.

Detailed information on neutralization methods 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 adjusts pH and achieves 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 85oF 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 waterbody to be raised more than 

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

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 33
PROPOSED CRITERIA

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

average 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 monthly 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 33 dischargers to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries 

discharge into tidal or marine waters: Calais School (ME0102765), Washington County 

Community College (ME0102831), Passamaquoddy POTW (ME0100100773), and Calais 

POTW (ME0100129). The Calais POTW and the two schools discharge treated sanitary 

wastewater to the St. Croix River, and the Passamaquoddy POTW discharges to 

Passamaquoddy Bay. None of the facilities discharge heat. These discharges are not expected 

to have a noticeable effect on temperatures in the tidal waters near the Pleasant Point 

Reservation. Based on this assessment, EPA assumed there would be no incremental costs 

for the proposed 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 

maximize 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 restrictions 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 or 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, recalculate the spatial or volumetric limitations for 

Abt Associates 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 require 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 variance19 rather than having to meet otherwise 

applicable thermal limitations. To support 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 operational practices can represent major costs.

To understand the potential implications for the discharger, EPA reviewed information 

available for this facility. Exhibit 3-5 summarizes key information regarding the thermal 

mixing zone at this facility.

19 Section 316(a) of the CWA authorizes the NPDES permitting 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 necessary 

to assure the protection and propagation of the waterbody’s balanced, indigenous population (BIP) of 

shellfish, fish and wildlife.

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

 
PROPOSED CRITERIA

Exhibit 3-5. Discharger with Thermal Mixing Zone Affecting Waters in Indian Lands 

Facility Permit Conditions

Woodland Pulp LLC 

(ME 0001872)

1. Thermal discharge to the St. Croix River with seasonal limits (June 1 –

September 30)

2. Permit defines a zone of initial dilution (ZID) over a 5.3 mile segment of river

(to Baring railroad trestle) and a mixing zone extending 4.0 mile downstream 

from the edge of the ZID (from Baring railroad trestle to Milltown dam)

3. Thermal survey conducted by GPC in 1989 indicated >2oF increase below the 

discharge point. ME Division of Environmental and Assessment (ME DEA) 

developed QUAL2E model using GPC data to calibrate the model. The model

predicted a temperature increase of 1.1oF at end of ZID. ME DEA and GPC 

concurred that separation of discharge impacts from natural diurnal 

temperature 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 limitations and ZID and thermal mixing zone.

5. The 1996 WDL stated that no testing shall 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 28, 2014

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

waters 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 adds more protective DO criteria for spawning areas in winter months. Specifically, 

the proposed rule requires 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 1st to September 30th. Because monitoring is limited to the 

period when the limits apply, no effluent monitoring data for DO were available for winter 

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

Abt Associates 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.

According 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 important contributor to DO 

impairments by increasing organic loads into the streams. Effects of the proposed DO criteria 

for winter months on these nonpoint sources are difficult 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 State Waters Outside of Indian Lands

EPA disapproved the criterion for phenol (for the consumption of water and organisms), 

which was 10,514 μg/l, for Maine waters outside of Indian lands due to a mathematical error.

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

EPA’s 2015 national recommended criterion 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 

waters.21 EPA’s DMR data22 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 department'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, and 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 the treatment and seasonal 

disposal of landfill leachate waste water onto land owned by the City of Presque Isle.

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

 
PROPOSED CRITERIA

Rd Landfill 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 criterion is unlikely to result in 

incremental costs.

Abt Associates 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 

associated with compliance with the proposed criteria, including available data. Compliance 

costs for municipal and industrial point sources may result from changes to MEPDES permit 

requirements and associated effluent limitations. As discussed in Section 3, proposed criteria 

for pH and temperature (for waters 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,

focuses specifically on the impacts of:

• proposed HHC for waters in Indian lands (Section 4.1), 

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

• proposed aquatic life ammonia criteria for waters in Indian lands (Section 4.3), and 

• proposed mixing zone policy for waters in Indian lands (Section 4.4).

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

sheets, 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

discharge 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 limits). 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 municipal and industrial dischargers under the proposed criteria by 

estimating costs to each of the 33 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 to 2014 dollars.

24 See Section 4.4 for useful life assumptions for cooling towers.

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

economic analysis. 

Abt Associates 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 incur costs. 

As described in Section 1.2, EPA determined that 33 facilities (major and non-major) 

discharge to waters in Indian lands or their tributaries. Exhibit 4-1 provides 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 all (29) facilities discharge to fresh waters, to which the proposed 

HHC for the consumption 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. Four 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) discharges 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 

Indian lands at Pleasant Point. 

Exhibit 4-1. Summary of Dischargers 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 (SC/C2) 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) 0.30241

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 40
POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4-1. Summary of Dischargers 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)

0.00721

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) 0.1441

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 District

Utility (drinking 

water treatment)

Boydon Stream (B) 0.045

ME0100773 Passamaquoddy 

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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 41
POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Exhibit 4-1. Summary of Dischargers 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 Analysis

For each facility, EPA conducted a reasonable potential analysis to determine whether there 

is reasonable potential for the effluent to cause or contribute to a water quality violation for 

any of the pollutants for which EPA is proposing new criteria.

26 For consistency with state 

implementation procedures, EPA determined 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 that, in some cases, the proposed criteria would not apply to 

the immediate receiving waters but instead would apply to waters in Indian lands 

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 possible for EPA’s reasonable potential 

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.

Effluent 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 pollutants for which HHC are proposed. For example, MEDEP requires 

annual priority pollutant scans for only nine facilities out of the 33 facilities that discharge to 

waters in Indian lands or their tributaries. The remaining 24 facilities do not have monitoring 

requirements due to the facility classification27 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 facilities have low flow, high dilution factors, and are exempt from monitoring requirements as 

long as prior testing indicates that there are not measurable amounts of toxic pollutants present in effluent. 

See 06-096 CMR 530(2)(B).

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

 
POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

summarizes the status of these 24 facilities in more detail. Additionally, for the nine facilities 

with priority pollutant scan requirements, the associated scan reports did not provide data for 

all pollutants for which EPA is proposing HHC.

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

Instead, 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 discharges 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 proposed 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 of this analysis, for pollutants 

with only non-detects EPA assumed no reasonable potential, whereas for pollutants 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 then 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 multiplier 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 lands, and if not, EPA obtained flow information 

for waters in Indian lands 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 exceedance 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 added 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 Associates 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 potential to exceed 

a particular proposed criterion, 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 = [(FFFFFFFFRR × CC CCCCRR) + (FFFFFFFFFF × CC CCCCFF × MM MM)]

(FFFFFFFFRR + FFFFFFFFFF)

where:

RWC = The receiving water concentration including the background concentration 

and the facility’s contribution (μg/L)

FlowR = The harmonic mean flow of the receiving water in Indian lands (MGD)

upstream of the discharge

ConcR = The background concentration in the receiving water (upstream of 

discharge) (μg/L)

FlowF = The facility average flow limitation (MGD)

ConcF = 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 reflects the contribution of an individual facility to the receiving 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 are 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.

SShaarrrrii = [FFFFFFFFii ∗ CC CCCCii]

∑ FF ii ∗ CC CCCCii nn

ii=1

where:

Sharei = The share of the receiving water assimilative capacity for the pollutant that 

is allocated to facility i

Flowi = Monthly average flow limitation for facility i

Conci = Average effluent concentration of the pollutant for facility i

n = Number of facilities discharging the pollutant to the given receiving water

Abt Associates 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: Facilities discharging to the Penobscot River in Indian lands or its tributaries.

Note that EPA’s approach for determining reasonable potential increases the likelihood of 

finding reasonable potential and setting more stringent effluent limits, relative to MEDEP’s 

procedure. 

According to 06-096 CMR 530(3)(F)(3), if all values are below Maine’s reporting 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 Associates 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 detection 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 in 

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 pollutants 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 assuming background 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 summarizes, for each facility, the pollutants with detected effluent data 

(i.e., the pollutants for which EPA conducted a reasonable potential analysis), and the 

pollutants for which EPA determined that the facility has reasonable potential to exceed 

baseline or proposed criteria for waters in Indian lands. One facility has 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 Pollutants with Detected 

Effluent Data Available1

Pollutants with Reasonable 

Potential

ME0101320 Baileyville POTW Mercury None

ME0102784 Brownville None None

ME0100129 Calais POTW Cyanide, dichlorobromomethane, mercury, 

toluene

None

ME0102765 Calais School None None

ME0001104 Cobb State Fish 

Hatchery

None None

ME0023213 Covanta Maine None None

ME0036528 Dolby Hydro Project None None

ME0102229 Dover-Foxcroft Water 

District

None None

ME0100501 Dover-Foxcroft WWTP Mercury None

ME0036511 East Millinocket Hydro 

Project

None None

ME0000175 East Millinocket POTW None None

ME0036625 Eustis Hydro Project None None

ME0001082 Grand Lake Fish 

Hatchery

None None

Abt Associates 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 Pollutants with Detected 

Effluent Data Available1

Pollutants with Reasonable 

Potential

ME0102032 Guilford-Sangerville 

WWTF

Antimony, mercury, phenol None

ME0101290 Houlton WWTF Mercury None

ME0036633 Howland Hydro Project None None

ME0101788 Howland POTW Mercury None

ME0101796 Lincoln Sanitary District Cyanide, mercury None

ME0036552 Mattaceunk Hydro None None

ME0102245 Mattawamkeag None None

ME0102695 Milford None None

ME0037371 Millinocket Hydro None None

ME0100803 Millinocket POTW Mercury None

ME0100439 Milo POTW Mercury None

ME0100773 Passamaquoddy None None

ME0101311 Penobscot Indian 

Nation

Mercury None

ME0002216 Tate and Lyle 

Ingredients

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 

cyanide, mercury

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

(proposed criteria)

ME0102831 Washington County 

Community College

None None

ME0036668 West Enfield Hydro 

Project

None None

ME0036668 Woodland Hydro None None

ME0001872 Woodland Pulp Mercury None

ME0022063 Woodland Pulp: North 

Site

None None

1. Pollutants 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 facility, Tate and Lyle Ingredients, that has 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 monthly 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 Associates 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 day) of the receiving water 

based on the harmonic mean flow29 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 for a particular region, 

watershed, or statewide basis, or some other method. The permit fact sheet for Tate and Lyle 

Ingredients states that, lacking information about background conditions, MEDEP applies a 

default background concentration of 10 percent of the applicable criterion, and EPA used this 

same assumption in this analysis to calculate effluent limits.

Additionally, MEDEP holds a portion of the total assimilative capacity in an unallocated 

water quality reserve to allow for new or changed discharges 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. The Tate and Lyle Ingredients permit fact sheet 

states that MEDEP applies a 15 percent reserve in establishing effluent limitations, and EPA 

used 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 capacity 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 allowed 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)phthalate AMEL for Tate and Lyle Ingredients of 17.675 μg/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 likely to be exceedances 

of the projected effluent limit for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (i.e., instances where the facility

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 this 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 formula) 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 “for the purpose of calculating waste discharge license (WDL) limits 

for toxic substances, the department may use any unallocated assimilative capacity that the department has 

set aside for future growth if the use of that unallocated assimilative capacity would avoid an exceedance of 

applicable ambient water quality criteria.”

Abt Associates 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

• Alternative compliance mechanisms (e.g., site-specific criterion, TMDL, or variance).

In theory, dischargers 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 or 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 includes 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 modifications 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 

settling, 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 of 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 optimization 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, process 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 Associates 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 operations 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 

feasibility 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)phthalate, it is possible that the production process 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 costeffectiveness 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 approach – 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 and approach based on measured results;

• Assess progress;

• Provide follow-up; and

• Develop a contingency plan – including a description of actions to be taken if planned

efforts are unsuccessful.

P2 plans vary in complexity and in the resources necessary to achieve 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 that the facility

would use GAC treatment, which is capable of reliably controlling this pollutant at levels 

32 Base period 1982-1984; costs times 2014 index value (236.736) divided by 2008 index value (215.303).

Abt Associates 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 divides 

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 (2014a).34

To apply the WBS model for GAC treatment in this 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 Engineering 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-specific data and assumptions (such as flow rates and operating parameters), 

its primary purpose is to generate national average costs. Thus, although EPA selected 

facility-specific inputs and assumptions for this analysis (as documented in Appendix A), the 

model 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 definitive 

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 economic 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 Price 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 using the CPI and the GDP-IPD is negligible.

Abt Associates 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 need 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 among 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 $180,000. 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 criteria for waters in Indian lands 

are not expected to result in treatment processes being added to facilities, year round 

applicability of the criteria will require 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 flow 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 Associates 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 None1 None

Washington Comm. College Calcium hypochlorite2 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 limitations 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 East 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 hypochlorite, 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 information was available on the chlorine dosage used at any of the facilities, 

EPA developed upper- and lower-bound estimates assuming chlorine doses 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 $2.26 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 $1.29 per pound for dry calcium hypochlorite with 65 percent 

availability as chlorine, 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 Associates 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 upperbound estimate, EPA included dechlorination costs for twelve facilities (the six known to 

dechlorinate, plus the six where current dechlorination practices are unknown). In its lowerbound 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 of 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

neutralize 3 mg/L excess residual chlorine and 1.46 parts sodium bisulfite per part 

residual chlorine (U.S. EPA, 2000).

• EPA used a price of $2.30 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 incremental 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 additional 

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 

collection or shipping of the samples, beyond the existing costs for other 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 resulting 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 Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands 

EPA used a similar approach to that used for HHC to identify the dischargers with reasonable 

potential for exceedances of the proposed ammonia criteria. 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 in Indian

lands or their tributaries. Exhibit 4-5 summarizes available ammonia effluent data for these 

facilities. 

Abt Associates 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

Facility1 Number of 

Observations2 DL (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; blanks 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 determine whether the facility has reasonable potential to contribute to 

an exceedance of the baseline or proposed criteria 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 ammonia 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.

SShaa ii = [FFFFFFFFii ∗ CC CCCCii]

∑ FF ii ∗ CC CCCCii nn

ii=1

where:

Sharei = The share of 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 55

 
POINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

Flowi = Monthly average flow limitation for Facility i

Conci = Average effluent concentration of ammonia for Facility i

This calculation yields the facility share of allowable 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 

remaining under the applicable criterion. If the facility’s calculated contribution exceeds its 

associated share of the assimilative capacity, then the facility is determined to have 

reasonable potential to exceed the ammonia criteria. 

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

Facility 

Share2

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 Associates 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

Facility 

Share2

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 limit.

2. Facility’s average concentration (converted from μg/L to lbs/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 flow times the facility share. 

4.4 Costs from the Proposed Mixing Zone Policy

As discussed in Section 3.1.6, one facility discharging to waters in Indian lands (or their 

tributaries) has an existing permit that establishes 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. Possible outcomes include: 

various revisions to permit conditions that could require recalculating thermal discharge 

limits; the need for facility-specific studies to define a mixing zone consistent with the 

proposed mixing zone policy; or changes in the facility processes 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, to assess potential cost impacts of the 

proposed mixing zone 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 towers at the facility using the

same approach from its analysis of the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. 

EPA, 2014b) and assuming costs for “difficult” retrofits.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 (2014; 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 will 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 Associates 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), and, consistent with U.S. EPA (2014b), 

assuming a cooling tower useful life of 30 years.

Exhibit 4-7 presents rough cost estimates for the facility. Total 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. Estimates of Cooling Tower Retrofit Costs at Facility with Thermal 

Mixing Zone for Discharges to Waters in Indian Lands or Tributaries 

Facility Name

(Flow Rate)1 Cost Component2

Estimated Costs (Thousand Dollars)

Component 

Costs (2009$)

Component 

Costs (2014$)

Annualized 

Costs (2014$)3

Woodland Pulp4

(15.0 MGD)

Capital costs5 $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 towers would be sized based on that flow.

2. Cost components from U.S. EPA (2014b), Exhibit 8-9. Capital 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. Information provided in the 2014 WDL suggests that Woodland Pulp operates two cooling towers of the total 

four cooling towers constructed at the plant. Accordingly, retrofit costs are expected to be overstated.

5. EPA notes that the cost estimates for Woodland Pulp are generally consistent 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 for 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 Woodland Pulp may need to take additional measures to reduce the heat 

load of its effluent, for which the cost of constructing the cooling towers provides an upper 

bound. 

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 58
NONPOINT SOURCE COSTS: METHODS

5 Methods for Identifying Potential Costs: Nonpoint Sources

The proposed water quality standards could result in incremental impacts 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 potential 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 pollutant levels would exceed the proposed

criteria for toxic pollutants, ammonia, or other pollutants.

5.2 Identifying Compliance Actions and Costs

EPA does not have data on all pollutants 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).

Reductions in nonpoint source pollution loadings arising from this plan will 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 nonpoint sources 

depends on the extent to which additional practices are needed for compliance with the 

proposed criteria in comparison to compliance with 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 regulated 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 

systems designed to provide water quantity or quality control). 

Control 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 sources of the 

pollutant could result in less stringent limits for point sources than anticipated through the 

analysis of the facilities as described in Section 4. 

Abt Associates 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 in government regulatory costs. EPA (2001b) estimates 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 Associates 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 and 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 Sections 4.1 through 4.4, EPA estimates that one facility may incur some 

incremental costs to meet the proposed HHC for waters in Indian lands, 14 facilities could 

incur costs due to proposed bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands, and one facility 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 be unsuccessful. 

While EPA has reported this as a range, facilities will have better information and be able to 

decide. Similar possibilities exist at other facilities as well.

Exhibit 6-1. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Human Health 

Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands1

Facility Name Pollutant Estimated Annual Costs

(Thousands; 2014$)2

Tate and Lyle Ingredients bis(2-exylhethyl)phthalate $28 - $43

Total -- $28 - $43

1. See 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 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 61

 
COMPLIANCE COSTS

lower 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 

Bacteria1

Facility Name Mean Flow 

(MGD)

Incremental Annual Cost2 (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 WWTF3 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 -- $185.3 $705.2

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 

assumed 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 Estimated of Compliance Costs for Proposed 

Mixing Zone Policy1

Facility Name Flow Rate (MGD) Annualized 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 30 years using a 3 percent discount rate; for costs annualized using a 

7 percent discount rate, see Appendix E.

As summarized in Exhibit 6-4, in 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 Associates 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 

costs are subject to significant uncertainty and the estimated range reflects some of this 

uncertainty. 

Exhibit 6-4. Summary of Estimated Point Source Compliance Costs1

Proposed WQS Annualized Costs (thousands; 2014$)2

Human health criteria for waters in Indian lands $28 − $43

Bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands $185 − $705

Mixing zone policy Not Estimated − $273

Total3 $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 had 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 pollutants (notably toxic pollutants) and existing controls on wideranging 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 Assurance

As noted previously, the proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly 

applicable to regulated entities or other sources of pollution. State implementation of the 

proposed rule may result in new or revised MEPDES permit conditions for point 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 permit 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 Associates 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 controls 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.

Use of models or curve fits 

to estimate end-of-pipe 

treatment costs for bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate

Uncertain These cost estimating methods produce estimates that 

should be order-of-magnitude estimates, not definitive, 

facility-specific estimates.

No reasonable 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 

proposed 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 steadystate conditions. Actual concentrations near Indian lands at 

Pleasant Point may be lower or higher 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

Underestimate 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 concentrations 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 determine 

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 

establishing 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 Associates 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 existing 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 checks on all inputs and calculations, and using multiple approaches to 

confirm results.

Abt Associates 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 Subsurface Wastewater 

Team: Home. (available from: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmentalhealth/plumb/index.htm)

Maine Division of Environmental Health (MEDEH). 2015b. About the Subsurface 

Wastewater Team. (available from: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmentalhealth/plumb/about.htm)

Maine Water. 2012. About Us: Lab Services. (available 

from: http://www.mainewater.com/en/About%20Us/Lab%20Services.aspx) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Environmental Protection 

Agency Team on Near Coastal 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 Estimates 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). 2015a. Human Health Ambient 

Water Quality Criteria: 2015 Update. (available 

Abt Associates 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=717763)

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). 2014a. 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-14-002. 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). 2010a. NPDES Permit Writer’s 

Manual. EPA-833-K-10-001.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Guidance for 

Implementing the January 2001 Methylmercury Water Quality 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 States 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). 2001b. 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 Disinfection. 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 67
REFERENCES

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980. Guidelines 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 Associates 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 lands or their tributaries, in alphabetical order. 

Unless otherwise 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 generally 

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 discharge 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 Preparing 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 compounds 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 Associates 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 

Observations1 DL (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; blanks 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 at the point 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 

Loading4

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 Baileyville 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 calculated the river’s assimilative mercury 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 associated assimilative capacity, then 

Abt Associates 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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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 Indian 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 million 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 requirement 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 facility 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 River, 

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 disinfection) 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 (Class C).

Abt Associates 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

Pollutant1 Total Number of 

Observations2 DL (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; blanks 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 

allocation among the three dischargers.

At the point 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 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-5, the facility does not have reasonable potential to exceed the 

proposed or baseline criteria.

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 72
APPENDIX

Exhibit A-5. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Calais POTW

Pollutant Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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 percent 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 disinfection. 

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 06-096 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 limitation of 5.0 MGD. 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 the proposed criteria, and that it will not have any costs.

Abt Associates 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 produced 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 treated 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. The facility 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 facility to exceed the proposed criteria, 

and that this facility will not incur incremental costs.

Exhibit A-6. Outfall Data for Covanta Maine Facility1

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 cooling water to the 

Penobscot River, a Class C water. The facility’s flow 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 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.8 Dover-Foxcroft Water District

The Dover-Foxcroft Water District (NPDES permit ME0102229) is a drinking water 

treatment plant 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 clarification 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 74
APPENDIX

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 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 flow 

(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 Effluent 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

Pollutant1 Number of 

Observations DL (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; blanks indicate that no detection level was specified.

4. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level.

A.9.2 Reasonable Potential Analysis

This facility, as well as the Guilford-Sangerville WWTF, the Milo POTW, and the DoverFoxcroft 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 

Indian 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 Milo POTW.

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 75

 
APPENDIX

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

Facility

Permitted 

Flow (MGD)1

Avg Effluent 

Conc. (μg/L)

2

Loading

(lb/day)3

Share of 

Loading4

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. Facility 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 such, 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 

Loading4

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 effluent 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 capacity 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, and the facility share. If the facility’s contribution to the receiving 

Abt Associates 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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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 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 (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 from 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 cooling 

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 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.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 Dolby 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 factor 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 any 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 cooling water to 

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 77
APPENDIX

the North Branch Dead River, a Class 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 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.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 the 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, which 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 WWTF1

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 Associates 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 operates 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 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-12. Summary of Effluent Data: Guilford-Sangerville WWTF

Pollutant1 Number of 

Observations2 DL (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; blanks indicate that no detection 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 

Exhibit 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 

concentrations 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 

for this analysis. 

At the confluence of the Piscataquis River and the Penobscot River, where GuilfordSangerville 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 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 facility’s 

contribution to the receiving water is higher than the associated assimilative capacity, then 

there is reasonable potential.

EPA calculated Guilford-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 baseline or proposed criteria.

Abt Associates 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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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% 0.00187 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) times 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 facility 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 monitoring 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

Pollutant1 Total Number of 

Observations2 DL (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; blanks indicate that no detection level was specified.

4. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level.

Abt Associates 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 

Loading4

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 assimilative 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 associated assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential. 

As shown in Exhibit A-16, the facility does not have reasonable potential to exceed mercury

criteria.

Exhibit A-16. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Houlton POTW

Pollutant Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day)4

Proposed Baseline

Mercury 1.9 0.00007 82.7% 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 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.

43 See Section A.28 for Tate and Lyle Ingredients.

Abt Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 81

 
APPENDIX

A.16 Howland Hydro

The Howland Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036633) is a hydroelectric generating 

facility owned by the Penobscot River Restoration Trust. It discharges non-contact cooling 

water to the Piscataquis River, 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 Howland POTW

The Town of Howland POTW (NPDES permit ME0101788) treats wastewater from 650 

residential 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 no 

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 criteria, 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 

Observations1 DL (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; blanks 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 considering the downstream 

Abt Associates 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 discharge; Exhibit A-9 summarizes the 

allocation downstream.

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

Facility

Permitted 

Flow (MGD)1

Avg Effluent 

Conc. (μg/L)

2

Loading

(lb/day)3

Share of 

Loading4

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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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

(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-9 for downstream 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 flow limitation of 1.07 MGD and discharges 

Abt Associates 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 Effluent 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

Pollutant1 Total Number of 

Observations2 DL (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; blanks 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 Millinocket POTW upstream 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 mercury 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 

Loading4

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 effluent 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 

cumulatively 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 Associates 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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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% 0.00215 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 Exhibit 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 concentration (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 the 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. 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. 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 authorized to discharge an 

unspecified amount of untreated sanitary waste during such events, and is required to monitor 

Abt Associates 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 toward 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 that there is no 

reasonable potential for this discharger to exceed 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 cooling 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 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.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 wastewater 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 priority pollutant monitoring data. 

Exhibit A-23. Summary of Effluent Data: Millinocket POTW

Pollutant1 Number of 

Observations DL (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; blanks 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 Associates 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 reasonable 

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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day)4

Proposed Baseline

Mercury 1.9 0.00005 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 Exhibit 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 Piscataquis 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 87
APPENDIX

Exhibit A-25. Summary of Effluent Data: Milo POTW

Pollutant1 Number of 

Observations DL (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; blanks 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 estimated 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 capacity 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, 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-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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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 Exhibit A-8 and Exhibit 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.

Abt Associates 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 Pleasant 

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 scan requirements 

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.

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 treatment 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 this 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.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 industrial 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 permitted 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 there 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 frequency of one test per year. Exhibit A-27 summarizes the available

effluent data. 

Abt Associates 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 

Observations1 DL (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; blanks 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 the 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 assimilative capacity, then there is reasonable potential. As shown in 

Exhibit A-28, the facility has no reasonable potential to exceed mercury criteria under any 

scenario.

Exhibit A-28. Reasonable Potential Analysis for Penobscot Indian Nation

Pollutant Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 Assimilative Capacity from Facility (lb/day)4

Proposed Baseline

Mercury 3.0 0.000016 1.9% 0.000417 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 Exhibit 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 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.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 sheet reports that the facility 

utilizes primary clarification, sludge dewatering, activated sludge basins, secondary 

clarification, and dissolved air flotation. 

Abt Associates 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 above the 

detection level, based on priority pollutant monitoring data. 

Exhibit A-29. Summary of Effluent Data: Tate and Lyle

Pollutant1 Number of 

Observations2 DL (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; blanks 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 

Meduxnekeag River upstream of waters in Indian lands, and both have detected mercury 

concentrations in their effluent. Exhibit A-15 shows the load allocations for the two 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 Indian 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 facility’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 Associates 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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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 Exhibit A-15 for mercury load allocations; assumed 100 percent for all other pollutants 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 calculated 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 facility 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 

Share2

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 pollutants 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 Associates 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)1DL2 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 the baseline scenario. 

However, under 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-ethylhexyl)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) program 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 year.

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 associated 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-ethylhexyl)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 for 

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate control. GAC is capable of reliably controlling bis(2-

Abt Associates 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 GAC46

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 Justification/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 1st Freundlich Constant (Kf) 

[(ug/g)(L/ug)1/n] 11.3

2nd Freundlich Constant (1/n) 1.5

Influent Concentration (mg/L) 0.032

Breakthrough Concentration See Exhibit A-32

(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 Based 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 Associates 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 Justification/Source

Management Option for Spent 

Carbon

Regeneration 

off-site (nonhazardous)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 

Backwash Storage New storage equipment to backwash the treatment system

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 discount 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 strategy—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 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate for Tate 

and Lyle Ingredients

Compliance Strategy One-Time 

Cost ($2014)

Ongoing 

Annual Cost 

($2014/year)

Annualized Cost1 ($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 dividing 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 95

 
APPENDIX

Exhibit A-34. Range of Compliance Costs for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate for Tate 

and Lyle Ingredients

Compliance Strategy One-Time 

Cost ($2014)

Ongoing 

Annual Cost 

($2014/year)

Annualized Cost1 ($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 (Class 

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 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.31 Woodland Hydro

The Woodland Hydro Project (NPDES permit ME0036668) is a hydroelectric generating 

facility owned by Woodland Pulp, with discharges of non-contact cooling water and other 

miscellaneous discharges48 from 6 separate outfalls to the St. Croix River (Class C). The 

facility has a discharge limit of 194,000 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, foundation leakage waters, and/or leakage from wicket gates or other 

equipment.

Abt Associates 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 facility 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 (January 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 pollutants 

for which data are available and at least one observation was above the detection level. 

Exhibit A-35. Summary of Effluent Data: Woodland Pulp

Pollutant1 Total Number of 

Observations2 DL (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; blanks indicate that no detection level was specified.

4. For pollutants with some detected values, nondetects were assumed to be half the detection level.

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 

exceed 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 facilities 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 

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 

Abt Associates 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 Multiplier1 RWC 

(lb/day)2 Share3 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 facility 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 facility, 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 wastewaters49

discharged to the 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 

approximately 60,000 gallons). However, the non-process wastewater discharge is not active. 

Additionally, due to the nature of other discharges (cooling water only), there are no limits 

on human health related pollutants, nor any priority pollutant scan requirements 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 Associates 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 criterion for methylmercury is in terms of mg of dissolved methylmercury 

per kilogram of fish tissue, calculated using the following equation (US EPA, 2001a):

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 fish50]

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 Associates 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. In 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 discharge 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 100
APPENDIX

C Estimated Flows for Selected Receiving Waters 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, summarized 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 lands

USGS 01018035 Meduxnekeag 

River at Lowery Rd. nr Houlton, 

Maine

101 8

Passamoquoddy Bay flow at 

Indian lands

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:

where:

HM = harmonic mean flow

Qi = nonzero flow

NT = total number of flow values

N0 = number of zero flow values

C.2 Dissolved Concentration Potential

NOAA developed dissolved concentration 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 Associates 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 concentrations 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, Cbay, as follows:

[1] CCBBBBBB = 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 following ratio 

between concentration in the effluent and concentration in the Bay, i.e., dilution factor:

[2] eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

BBBBBB

= 10000

8.34 ×QQeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee×365×0.0005×DDDDDD

Where Qeffluent 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 Associates 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 facilities 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 evaluation 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 disinfection) 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 secondary 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 criterion. 

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 facility 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 percent 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 measured 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 SU and a 

maximum of 8.6 SU. As a result, MEDEP reduced the monitoring frequency from 3/week to 

Abt Associates 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 source 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 monthly 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 pollutant 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 pH 

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 Penobscot 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 – February 

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-contact 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 established 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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 104
APPENDIX

Evaluation: No compliance history is given. The most stringent 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 facility 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 storage 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 Source 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 limited information available in the permit fact sheet 

suggests that the facility may already be able to meet the proposed pH criterion.

Abt Associates 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 using 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 methodology 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 proposed HHC, using a 7 percent discount rate. 

Exhibit E-1. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Proposed Human Health 

Criteria for Waters in Indian Lands1

Facility Name Pollutant Estimated Annual Costs

(Thousands; 2014$)2

Tate and Lyle Ingredients bis(2-exylhethyl)phthalate $28 - $54

Total -- $28 - $54

1. See 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 rate; 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 

Bacteria1

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 WWTF3 N/A $0.0 $0.0

Washington Comm. College 0.003077 $0.4 $0.5

East Millinocket POTW 2 $41.2 $175.7

Abt Associates 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 

Bacteria1

Facility Name Mean Flow 

(MGD)

Incremental Annual Cost (thousands; 

2014$)2

Lower-Bound Upper-Bound 

Howland WWTF 0.152 $3.4 $13.6

Total -- $185.3 $705.2

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 

assumed 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 Estimated of Compliance Costs for Proposed 

Mixing Zone Policy1

Facility Name Flow Rate (MGD) Annualized 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 30 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 Costs1

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

Total3 $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 Associates Economic Analysis for Proposed WQS Applicable to the State of Maine ▌pg. 107