3/
26/
03
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGION
I
JOHN
F.
KENNEDY
FEDERAL
BUILDING
BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
02203
FACT
SHEET
DRAFT
NATIONAL
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION
SYSTEM
(
NPDES)
PERMIT
TO
DISCHARGE
TO
WATERS
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES.

NPDES
PERMIT
NO.:
MA0000787
NAME
AND
ADDRESS
OF
APPLICANT:

MASSACHUSETTS
PORT
AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
UNIT
ONE
HARBORSIDE
DRIVE,
LOC,
2073
EAST
BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
02128
NAME
AND
ADDRESS
OF
FACILITY
WHERE
DISCHARGE
OCCURS:

MASSACHUSETTS
PORT
AUTHORITY
LOGAN
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
EAST
BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
02128
RECEIVING
WATERS:
Boston
Harbor
and
Boston
Inner
Harbor
(
Charles
River
Basin)
USGS
Hydrologic
code
:
0100970001
;
State
Basin
Code
:
72
CLASSIFICATION:
Class
SB,
both
I.
Proposed
Action,
Type
of
Facility
and
Discharge
Location.

The
Massachusetts
Port
Authority,
"
Massport",
the
permittee,
is
empowered
to
promulgate
rules
and
regulations
regarding
the
use
of
its
common
sewers,
including
its
sanitary
sewers,
combined
sewers
and
storm
drains.
Airport
tenants
of
Massport
that
are
listed
below
have
also
been
named
as
co­
permittees.
Massport
has
applied
for
the
reissuance
of
its
NPDES
permit
to
discharge
storm
water,
storm
water
associated
with
industrial
activity
(
as
described
later)
and
certain
non­
storm
water
discharges
from
4
major
outfalls
and
45
minor
outfalls.
See
Figure
1
for
a
locus
map
of
Logan
Airport
and
Figure
2
which
shows
all
drainage
areas
for
the
outfall
locations.
2
The
following
tenants
have
been
named
as
co­
permittees,
due
to
their
discharge
of
storm
water
associated
with
industrial
activity,
as
defined
at
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14):

Airborne
Express,
Airtran
Airlines,
American
Airlines,
Continental
Airlines,
Delta
Airlines,
DHL,
East
Coast
Airport
Services,
Federal
Express,
Hudson
General,
Northwest
Airlines,
Signature,
Swissport,
Trans
World
Airlines,
United
Airlines,
United
Express,
United
Parcel
Service,
United
States
Postal
Service,
USAir
and
USAir
Express
Airport
Tenants
Responsible
Parties:
Airline
carriers
and
other
fixed
base
operators
(
e.
g.,
fueling
companies)
that
have
contracts
with
the
airport
authority
to
conduct
business
on
airport
property
are
commonly
referred
to
as
"
tenants"
of
the
airport.
For
the
purposes
of
this
permit,
tenants
are
one
of
two
types:
those
whose
operations
result
in
storm
water
dischargers
associated
with
industrial
activity
as
described
at
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)
and
those
whose
operations
do
not
result
in
such
discharges.
The
co­
permittee
listing
above
is
believed
to
encompass
all
of
those
tenants
which
conduct
any
one
of
these
industrial
activities
and
have
a
storm
water
discharge
from
such
activity.
This
would
explain
why
some
tenants
which
may
conduct
such
activities
and
do
not
have
a
storm
water
discharge
from
these
activities
have
been
excluded
from
this
listing.
A
complete
listing
of
airport
tenants
may
be
found
in
Attachment
A.

II.
Permit
Basis
and
Explanation
of
Effluent
Limitation
Derivation
As
authorized
by
Section
402(
p)
of
the
Act,
this
permit
is
being
proposed
on
an
airport­
wide
basis.
This
permit
covers
all
areas
under
the
jurisdiction
of
Massport,
or
otherwise
contributing
to
discharges
from
separate
storm
sewers
owned
or
operated
by
Massport
and
all
of
its
tenants,
including
all
those
who
have
been
designated
as
co­
permittees.

III.
Receiving
Stream
Segments
and
Discharge
Locations
Boston
Harbor
and
Boston
Inner
Harbor
at
the
points
of
discharge
are
classified
by
the
Massachusetts
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards
as
Class
SB
waters
and
are
designated
as
a
habitat
for
fish,
other
aquatic
life
and
wildlife
and
for
primary
and
secondary
contact
recreation.
In
approved
areas
they
shall
be
suitable
for
shellfish
harvesting
with
depuration.
These
waters
shall
have
consistently
good
aesthetic
value.

IV.
General
Requirements
Under
Section
301(
b)(
1)(
C)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
discharges
are
subject
to
effluent
limitations
based
on
Water
Quality
Standards.
The
Massachusetts
Surface
Water
Quality
3
Standards
include
the
requirements
for
the
regulation
and
control
of
toxic
constituents
and
also
require
that
EPA
criteria
established
pursuant
to
Section
304(
a)
of
the
CWA
shall
be
used
unless
site
specific
criteria
are
established.
The
state
will
limit
or
prohibit
discharges
of
pollutants
to
surface
waters
to
assure
that
surface
water
quality
standards
of
the
receiving
waters
are
protected
and
maintained
or
attained.

According
to
40
CFR
122.44(
l),
when
a
permit
is
reissued,
effluent
limitations,
standards
or
conditions
must
be
at
least
as
stringent
as
the
final
effluent
limitations,
standards
or
conditions
in
the
previous
permit
unless
the
circumstances
on
which
the
previous
permit
was
based
have
materially
and
substantially
changed
since
the
time
the
permit
was
issued.

V.
Discharges
Authorized
By
This
Permit.

a.
Storm
water.
This
permit
authorizes
all
storm
water
point
source
discharges
to
waters
of
the
United
States
from
Logan
Airport's
Storm
Sewer
System.
For
the
purposes
of
this
permit,
storm
water
includes
storm
water
runoff,
snow
melt
runoff,
and
surface
runoff
and
drainage.
There
is
no
limit
on
the
time
between
the
snowfall
and
snow
melt
for
the
purpose
of
including
a
snow
melt
discharge
in
the
definition
of
storm
water.
All
other
discharges
not
included
in
the
definition
of
storm
water
constitute
non­
storm
water
discharges.

The
conditions
in
this
permit
apply
to
all
airport
terminals,
airline
carriers,
and
establishments
engaged
in
servicing,
repairing,
or
maintaining
aircraft
and
ground
vehicles,
equipment
cleaning
and
maintenance
(
including
vehicle
and
equipment
rehabilitation
mechanical
repairs,
painting,
fueling,
lubrication)
or
deicing/
anti­
icing
operations
which
conduct
the
above
described
activities
(
facilities
generally
classified
as
SIC
code
45).
For
the
purposes
of
this
permit,
the
term
"
deicing"
is
defined
as
the
process
to
remove
frost,
snow,
or
ice
and
"
anti­
icing"
is
the
process
which
prevents
the
accumulation
of
frost,
snow,
or
ice.
Both
of
these
activities
are
covered
under
this
permit.

b.
Non­
storm
water
discharges
Non­
storm
water
discharges,
including
discharges
from
aircraft,
ground
vehicle
and
equipment
washwaters,
dry
weather
discharges
from
airport
deicing/
anti­
icing
operations,
and
dry
weather
discharges
resulting
from
runway
maintenance
are
authorized
under
this
permit.
Dry
weather
discharges
are
generated
from
processes
other
than
those
described
in
the
definition
of
storm
water.
Other
allowable
non­
storm
water
discharges
are
listed
in
the
permit.
As
discussed
below
in
the
SWPPP
section,
these
discharges
shall
be
minimized
wherever
practicable.

Current
Outfalls
and
Proposed
Requirements
When
this
permit
was
last
issued
in
1975,
it
authorized
discharges
from
the
four
major
outfalls
4
from
the
airport
property,
Outfalls
001,
002,
003
and
004.
These
outfalls
drain
the
terminal
areas
and
portions
of
the
airfield
and
are
described
below.

In
1995,
the
EPA
made
available
a
multi­
sector
general
permit
(
MSGP)
for
storm
water
discharges.
This
general
permit
required
coverage
of
storm
water
discharges
associated
with
certain
industrial
activities,
including
some
of
those
that
take
place
at
Logan
Airport
and
had
uniform
conditions
for
monitoring
and
establishment
of
storm
water
pollution
prevention
plans
(
SWPPPs).
There
are
provisions
which
allow
for
certain
existing,
individual
permits
to
be
converted
to
a
general
permit.
However,
individual
permits
with
effluent
limits
are
typically
kept
on
individual
permit
status,
especially
if
there
have
been
violations
of
existing
permit
limits.
EPA
and
the
DEP
have
decided
to
reissue
this
permit
as
an
individual
permit
to
include
storm
water
(
wet
weather)
discharges
and
dry
weather
discharges,
including
those
from
de­
icing,
which
are
not
authorized
under
the
general
permit.
The
requirements
of
this
reissued
permit
for
storm
water
discharges
generally
reflect
some
of
the
conditions
set
forth
in
the
airport
sector
of
MSGP
that
was
last
issued
on
October
30,
2000.

Instead
of
having
the
previously
listed
co­
permittee
tenants
apply
for
their
own
storm
water
general
permit,
we
are
incorporating
them
into
this
permit.
We
believe
that
including
all
parties
under
one
permit
with
uniform
conditions
will
encourage
Massport
and
its
co­
permittee
tenants
to
cooperate
in
fulfilling
the
permit's
goals
and
requirements.

The
determination
to
keep
Massport
and
the
co­
permittees
on
an
individual
permit
is
based
on
several
factors,
including
the
fact
that
dry
weather
de­
icing
and
runway
"
de­
rubbering"
discharges,
which
occur
on
the
airport,
are
not
authorized
under
the
MSGP.
In
addition,
the
airport
property
represents
a
substantial
wet
weather
loading
to
Boston
Harbor,
there
are
active
shellfish
beds
in
the
vicinity
of
the
North
Outfall,
and
there
have
been
exceedances
of
oil
&
grease
limits
over
the
years
along
with
elevated
fecal
coliform
levels
at
various
times
since
the
1991
permit
application.

In
order
to
better
characterize
the
discharges
from
the
airport,
the
draft
permit
proposes
separate
wet
and
dry
weather
monitoring
for
the
4
major
outfalls.
There
have
been
several
additional
parameters
added
for
monitoring
as
compared
to
the
1975
permit.
After
at
least
two
years
of
monitoring
under
the
proposed
frequencies,
the
permittee
may
request
monitoring
reductions
and
they
could
be
allowed
where
warranted.
Specific
emphasis
has
been
given
to
hydrocarbon
compounds
and
deicing
compounds
for
this
permit.

Massport
has
experienced
many
violations
of
its
oil
and
grease
limit
of
15
mg/
l.
However,
the
limitation
of
this
test
is
that
it
does
not
differentiate
between
a
variety
of
hydrocarbons
or
food
based
oils
which
it
could
detect.
Therefore,
there
has
been
additional
testing
proposed
which
will
identify
specific
hydrocarbon
fractions
of
oil
&
grease
in
the
discharge
which
could
then
allow
the
permittee
to
better
address
how
to
control
these
constituents
and
to
possibly
identify
their
source.
It
would
also
allow
the
EPA
and
DEP
to
consider
the
potential
impacts
of
such
discharges
and
5
take
any
appropriate
actions.

Deicing
compounds
are
generally
applied
during
winter
months,
typically
between
the
months
of
December
and
March.
Deicing/
anti­
icing
of
an
airplane
is
accomplished
through
the
application
of
a
freezing
point
depressant
fluid,
commonly
ethylene
glycol
or
propylene
glycol,
to
the
exterior
surface
of
an
aircraft.
Both
ethylene
and
propylene
glycol
have
high
biochemical
oxygen
demands
(
BOD)
when
discharged
to
receiving
waters.
Environmental
impacts
on
surface
waters
due
to
glycol
discharges
include
glycol
odors
and
glycol
contaminated
surface
water
and
ground
water
systems,
diminished
dissolved
oxygen
levels
and
fish
kills.
Therefore,
monitoring
for
the
two
common
glycol
compounds
used
in
these
compounds
has
been
included
for
wet
and
dry
weather.

Massport
operates
a
fire
training
facility
on
the
southern
end
of
its
property
which
has
an
authorized
discharge
under
another
permit,
NPDES
#
MA0032751.
This
facility
offers
training
roughly
April
through
November
and
treats
all
of
its
training
water
prior
to
discharge
through
one
of
smaller
airfield
outfalls
near
this
location.

Major
Outfalls
Outfalls
001
and
002
(
North
Outfall
and
West
Outfall)

These
outfalls
employ
a
mechanically
cleaned
bar
screen,
an
oil
skimmer,
a
grinder
pump,
sedimentation
tanks
and
oil/
water
separator,
before
discharge
to
Boston
Harbor
and
Inner
Harbor.
Material
that
is
separated
by
the
bar
screen
is
collected
in
a
covered
dumpster
and
periodically
taken
off
site
by
a
contractor.
The
limits
and
monitoring
requirements
for
these
two
outfalls
for
wet
weather
conditions
have
increased
and
are
shown
on
Page
2
of
the
draft
permit.
The
parameters
to
be
monitored
are
those
which
have
been
detected
in
previous
outfall
monitoring
and
which
are
expected
to
be
found
in
the
effluent.
Among
the
new
parameters
are
bacteria,
glycols,
ammonia
nitrogen,
BOD,
and
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds.

In
addition
to
quarterly
testing
for
semi­
volatile
organics,
there
is
monthly
monitoring
required
for
volatile
and
extractable
petroleum
hydrocarbons(
VPH/
EPH).
This
testing
is
required
in
order
to
further
identify
which
type
of
chemical
fractions
are
present
with
the
oil
&
grease
discharges
from
the
airport,
which
have
caused
several
permit
violations
of
the
15
mg/
l
limit.
The
VPH/
EPH
test
methods
were
developed
by
MADEP
and
additional
guidance
on
this
method
is
available
from
MADEP.

Massport
is
in
the
process
of
upgrading
the
treatment
capability
of
these
two
outfalls.
The
limits
which
have
been
established
for
these
two
outfalls
are
for
oil
and
grease
and
pH
and
the
treatment
system
is
believed
to
be
designed
to
comply
with
these
limits
under
most
conditions.
6
Bacteria
Conditions
Historically,
all
four
of
these
outfalls
have
experienced
elevated
levels
of
bacteria,
often
exceeding
instream
water
quality
standards
and
this
appears
to
be
due
to
a
combination
of
factors
which
include
but
are
not
limited
to
wet
weather
influence,
combined
sewer
drainage
from
off
site
areas
in
East
Boston,
poor
aircraft
lavatory
handling
practices,
illicit
connections
and
the
presence
of
birds
and
wildlife
on
the
airport.

It
is
the
permittee's
contention
that
a
portion
of
the
bacteria
discharges
through
its
outfalls
represent
natural
or
background
conditions.
It
is
believed
that
a
portion
of
these
discharges,
especially
through
the
Porter
Street
outfall,
#
003,
are
from
separate
and
combined
sewer
areas
in
East
Boston.
The
permittee
may
consider
trying
to
locate
an
accessible
point
upstream
of
the
discharge
point
that
would
be
comprised
entirely
or
mostly
of
Massport
property
drainage.
If
such
a
point
is
found,
this
permit
may
be
modified
to
include
this
alternative
sampling
location
for
this
outfall.

For
Outfalls
001B,
002B,
003B
and
004B,
dry
weather
discharges,
there
have
been
monitoring
conditions
imposed
for
enterococcus
and
fecal
coliform
bacteria.
For
the
purposes
of
this
permit,
dry
weather
discharges
constitute
those
which
occur
at
least
48
hours
after
any
previous
rainfall
event
of
greater
than
0.1
inch.
In
lieu
of
setting
limits
for
these
outfalls
for
dry
weather,
we
will
be
requiring
that
the
permittee
focus
its
efforts
on
comprehensive
BMPs,
drainage
studies
and
illicit
connection
investigations.
Ongoing
monitoring
at
these
outfalls
will
be
compared
to
the
Massachusetts
water
quality
standards
for
bacteria.

There
are
active
shellfish
beds
a
few
hundred
feet
from
Outfall
001
and
the
standards
for
Class
SB
waters
with
shellfish
harvesting
would
indicate
effluent
limits
of
88
colonies
per
100
ml
(
expressed
as
a
geometric
mean)
and
no
more
than
10%
of
the
samples
exceeding
the
value
of
260
colonies
per
100
ml.
The
Massachusetts
Division
of
Marine
Fisheries
(
MADMF),
the
agency
overseeing
shellfishing
in
this
area,
conducts
dry
weather
bacteria
sampling
in
the
vicinity
of
these
beds.
From
1998
through
2002,
the
fecal
coliform
monitoring
performed
by
the
MADMF
have
shown
levels
below
the
88
colony
level
and
averaging
in
the
10
colony
range.
As
a
protective
measure,
the
MADMF
prohibits
shellfishing
for
a
period
of
3
days
after
a
storm
of
one
half
inch
or
greater
and
for
5
days
after
a
storm
event
of
greater
than
one
inch.
((
Should
we
mention
this??))

For
outfalls
002,
003
and
004,
the
applicable
fecal
coliform
effluent
levels
would
be
a
monthly
geometric
mean
of
200
colony
forming
units
per
100
ml
and
a
daily
maximum
exceed
400
cfu
per
100
ml.
Levels
of
enterococcus
will
be
compared
to
a
geometric
mean
value
of
35
colony
forming
units
(
cfu)
per
100
ml
and
a
daily
maximum
(
any
one
sample)
of
104
7
cfu/
100
ml,
which
represent
the
current
guidance
from
EPA's
"
Implementation
Guidance
for
Ambient
Water
Quality
Criteria
for
Bacteria
­
1986",
EPA­
823­
D­
00­
001,
January
2000.

Typically,
discharge
permits
include
fecal
coliform
as
the
bacteriological
parameter,
which
are
found
in
the
State's
water
quality
standards.
However,
this
parameter
is
not
always
an
effective
indicator
regarding
human
health
effects
due
to
exposure,
such
as
swimming
related
gastrointestinal
disorders.
Enterococcus
is
an
indicator
organism
which
shows
a
strong
correlation
in
marine
waters
for
such
health
effects.
Enterococcus
is
also
resistant
to
environmental
factors,
particularly
saline
environments,
enhancing
its
ability
as
a
suitable
indicator
for
marine
waters.

We
believe
that
imposing
monitoring
on
bacterial
discharges
instead
of
limits
at
this
time
is
consistent
with
State
water
quality
standards
at
314
CMR
4.03
(
5)
which
state,
"
Excursions
from
criteria
due
to
solely
natural
conditions
shall
not
be
interpreted
as
violations
of
standards
and
shall
not
affect
the
water
use
classifications
adopted
by
the
Division."

Through
ongoing
investigations
and
tenant
education,
the
permittee
believes
that
these
discharges
have
been
minimized.
This
permit
establishes
a
BMP
program,
drainage
studies
and
an
ongoing
illicit
connection
investigation,
all
of
which
are
designed
for
Massport
to
continue
to
minimize
bacterial
discharges.
The
annual
report
(
Section
H.
7)
will
require
an
analysis
of
the
monitoring
results
relative
to
values
noted
above,
the
findings
of
all
related
investigative
work
and
drainage
studies
and
a
report
on
how
well
BMPs
are
working
to
minimize
fecal
contamination
from
entering
the
storm
drainage
system.
The
permit
contains
a
reopener
clause
which
may
be
invoked
if
EPA
and
MADEP
determine
that
the
permittee's
efforts
are
ineffective
at
reducing
bacterial
discharges
or
if
levels
of
bacteria
are
consistently
above
criteria
values.

For
wet
weather,
Outfalls
001A
through
004A,
the
permittee
is
required
to
monitor
for
fecal
coliform
and
enterococcus
with
no
limit.
For
the
purposes
of
this
permit,
wet
weather
discharges
constitute
those
occurring
during
or
up
to
48
hours
after
any
previous
rainfall
event
of
greater
than
0.1
inch.

De­
icing/
Anti­
icing
Compounds
Both
ethylene
and
propylene
glycols
exert
high
oxygen
demands
when
released
into
receiving
waters.
As
such,
this
section
requires
that
the
permittee
report
the
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
BOD)
of
their
discharges
during
the
deicing
season,
as
well
as
monitoring
for
glycols.

The
concentration
of
ammonia
is
also
of
concern
with
respect
to
deicing
and
anti­
icing
operations
where
urea
is
used.
Urea
has
a
high
nitrogen
content,
therefore
degradation
of
urea
in
a
receiving
water
may
cause
an
increase
in
nutrient
loadings
which
could
result
in
the
accelerated
growth
of
algae
and
eutrophic
conditions.
Under
certain
ambient
conditions,
the
degradation
of
urea
in
8
receiving
waters
can
also
result
in
ammonia
levels
which
could
be
toxic
to
aquatic
life.
Thus,
monitoring
requirements
for
ammonia
nitrogen
have
been
included
for
the
months
of
December
through
March.
Aircraft
deicing
occurs
primarily
within
the
Outfall
001
and
002
drainage
areas.
Although
runway
deicing
does
disperse
deicing
compounds
to
smaller
airfield
outfalls,
these
compounds
tend
to
go
through
the
grassed
infield
areas
prior
to
being
discharged
and
it
would
not
be
expected
that
there
would
be
any
significant
levels
of
deicing
compounds
in
these
outfalls.
The
permittee
could
include
monitoring
for
glycols
at
some
of
the
smaller
airfield
outfalls
as
part
of
its
dry
weather
screening
requirement.

The
settleable
solids
limits
have
been
removed
from
the
permit
since
the
levels
of
this
parameter
are
usually
very
low
and
since
it
is
no
longer
a
State
Certification
requirement.
The
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS)
requirement
is
a
better
indicator
of
whether
solids
are
being
properly
managed
on
the
airport
property.

Outfalls
003
and
004,
Porter
St.
and
Maverick
St.
Outfalls
These
outfalls
drain
portions
of
the
airport
and
are
also
tributary
to
combined
sewer
areas
in
East
Boston.
In
both
cases,
there
are
combined
sewer
outfall
(
CSO)
discharges
alongside
the
Massport
outfalls,
which
are
permitted
separately
to
the
Boston
Water
and
Sewer
Commission
(
BWSC).
The
existing
permit
has
a
pH
range
limit
as
well
as
monitoring
for
oil
&
grease,
and
flow.
This
draft
permit
has
added
monitoring
for
TSS,
bacteria
and
oil
&
grease
constituents
as
described
above.
As
with
outfalls
001
and
002,
separate
sampling
requirements
are
indicated
for
wet
weather
and
dry
weather
conditions.
It
is
acknowledged
that
it
is
difficult
to
obtain
storm
water
samples
at
this
site
without
influence
from
the
adjacent
CSO
outfalls.
Massport
shall
consider
sampling
at
an
upstream
location
or
otherwise
limiting
the
influence
of
the
CSO
discharges
where
feasible.

Absorbent
booms
are
in
place
at
all
four
of
these
outfalls
and
the
equipment
and
outfall
structures
are
inspected
on
a
regular
basis.
These
booms
should
be
kept
in
place
and
replaced
as
necessary
in
order
to
contain
any
spills
which
may
occur
on
airport
property
which
may
drain
to
these
outfalls.

Dry
weather
sampling
is
also
required
as
shown
on
Page
4
of
the
permit.
This
sampling
shall
be
conducted
for
all
four
outfalls.
For
purposes
of
this
permit,
a
dry
weather
period
occurs
at
least
48
hours
after
a
storm
event
of
0.1
inches
or
greater.
This
is
a
shorter
time
period
than
the
typically
required
72
hours
of
no
precipitation
because
we
believe
that
this
will
give
us
a
better
probability
of
obtaining
wet
weather
samples
for
most
months.

Hydraulic
study
9
The
permittee
shall
conduct
a
hydraulic
study
for
one
drainage
area
per
year,
during
years
2
through
5
of
this
permit.
The
permittee
must
characterize
the
flows
to
all
four
major
outfalls
and
shall
demonstrate
the
effectiveness
of
treatment
provided
at
the
North
and
West
outfalls
under
various
flow
conditions
among
other
elements
described
in
the
permit.

Fuel
Distribution
Facility
(
FDF)

As
of
July
1,
1999,
a
new
facility
has
been
in
operation
on
the
airport
which
is
the
sole
source
of
fuel
to
be
distributed
throughout
the
airport.
This
facility
is
being
operated
by
SWISSPORT,
which
is
a
consortium
of
the
airport's
major
airlines.
The
remaining
above
ground
storage
tanks
and
fueling
equipment
which
are
owned
by
airport
tenants
have
been
decommissioned
and
there
are
remediations
being
conducted
for
some
of
these
locations.
The
FDF
is
comprised
of
4
above
ground,
1.8
million
gallon
fuel
storage
tanks
and
new
oil/
water
separators.
Fuel
from
this
facility
will
be
mostly
distributed
through
the
new
underground
piping
system,
but
there
will
also
be
some
fuel
transport
from
the
facility
via
tanker
truck.

SWISSPORT
will
operate
two
types
of
tanker
trucks
to
service
the
various
hydrant
pits
that
it
will
maintain
across
the
airport.
The
caps
on
these
pits
do
not
completely
seal
out
rain
water
and
they
occasionally
need
to
be
pumped
out
so
that
the
fuel
supplies
will
not
be
compromised.
All
hydrant
pits
will
be
inspected
daily
by
SWISSPORT.
One
type
of
tanker
truck
will
pump
out
these
pits
if
they
contain
what
is
determined
to
be
rain
water
only.
These
tanker
drivers
will
be
trained
to
perform
qualitative
odor
and
visual
observations
of
any
hydrant
pit
liquid.
Any
water
that
is
determined
to
not
have
any
visible
sheen
or
fuel
odor
will
be
taken
to
the
FDF's
10,000
gallon
oil/
water
separator
only
if
it
has
rained
within
the
last
24
hours.
If
it
has
not
rained
within
24
hours
or
if
there
is
an
odor
or
sheen,
another
type
of
tanker
would
be
summoned
which
would
pump
out
this
liquid
and
take
it
to
a
holding
tank
which
will
eventually
be
manifested
off
the
airport
as
a
liquid
hazardous
waste.

Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(
SWPPP)

The
permittee
(
Massport)
is
required
to
develop
a
SWPPP
for
the
entire
airport.
During
implementation
of
the
SWPPP,
the
airport
authority
should
work
cooperatively
with
its
tenants,
especially
those
listed
in
this
permit,
to
assure
that
their
pollution
prevention
efforts
are
consistent
with
the
overall
goals
of
Massport's
SWPPP.
For
listed
co­
permittees,
they
should
draft
portions
of
Massport's
SWPPP
which
are
applicable
to
their
operations.
If
a
co­
permittee
is
already
operating
under
its'
own
SWPPP,
it
should
assure
that
its
contents
are
inclusive
of
all
applicable
portions
of
Massport's
SWPPP,
at
a
minimum.
Massport
may
require
tenants
which
are
not
currently
co­
permittees
to
comply
with
its
SWPPP
efforts
through
negotiated
agreements,
contractual
requirements,
ongoing
training,
or
other
means,
as
necessary.
10
During
implementation
of
the
SWPPP,
Massport
should
work
cooperatively
with
all
of
its
copermittees
and
all
other
tenants
that
may
have
a
possible
impact
on
any
wet
or
dry
weather
discharges.
Massport
may
accomplish
this
through
negotiated
agreements,
contractual
requirements,
ongoing
training,
or
other
means,
as
necessary.

The
permittee
and
its
tenants
should
make
all
reasonable
efforts
to
undertake
cleaning
and
maintenance
activities
indoors,
where
drainage
is
generally
directed
to
the
Massachusetts
Water
Resources
Authority
(
MWRA)
sewer.
In
its
previous
drainage
investigations,
Massport
has
found
that
virtually
all
interior
drains
are
tied
in
to
the
MWRA's
system.
Massport
shall
continue
to
investigate
interior
drains
as
necessary
to
assure
that
these
are
not
tied
in
to
the
airport
drainage
system.
Certain
required
elements
of
the
SWPPP
are
listed
below.

A.
Source
Reduction:
This
section
specifies
that
entities
which
conduct
aircraft
and/
or
runway
(
including
taxiways
and
ramps)
deicing/
anti­
icing
operations
shall
evaluate
present
operating
procedures
to
consider
alternative
practices
which
would
reduce
the
overall
amount
of
deicing/
anti­
icing
chemicals
used
and/
or
lessen
their
environmental
impact.

With
regard
to
runway
deicing
operations,
operators
should
begin
by
evaluating
present
chemical
application
rates
to
ensure
against
excessive
over
application.
Devices
which
meter
the
amount
of
chemical
being
applied
to
runways
help
to
prevent
over
application.
Operators
should
also
emphasize
anti­
icing
operations
which
would
preclude
the
need
to
deice.
Generally,
less
chemical
is
required
to
prevent
the
formation
of
ice
on
a
runway
than
is
required
to
remove
ice
from
a
runway.
To
further
assist
in
implementing
anti­
icing
procedures,
operators
should
also
consider
installing
runway
ice
detection
systems
(
or
"
pavement
sensors")
which
monitor
runway
temperatures.
Pavement
sensors
provide
an
indication
of
when
runway
temperatures
are
approaching
freezing
conditions,
thus
alerting
operators
of
the
need
to
conduct
anti­
icing
operations.
Deicing/
anti­
icing
chemicals
applied
during
extremely
cold,
dry
conditions,
are
often
ineffective
since
they
do
not
adhere
to
the
ice
surface
and
may
be
scattered
by
windy
conditions
or
aircraft
movement.
In
an
effort
to
improve
the
application
efficiency,
operators
should
consider
pre­
wetting
the
deicing
chemical
to
improve
the
adhesion
to
the
iced
surface.

With
regard
to
substitute
deicing/
chemicals
for
runway
use,
operators
should
consider
using
chemicals
which
have
less
of
an
environmental
impact
on
receiving
waters.
For
example,
potassium
acetate,
has
a
lower
oxygen
demand
than
glycol,
is
nontoxic
to
aquatic
habitat
or
humans,
and
was
approved
by
the
FAA
for
runway
deicing
operations
in
November
of
1991
(
AC
No.
150/
5200­
30A
CHG
1).

In
considering
alternative
management
practices
for
aircraft
deicing
operations,
operators
should
evaluate
present
application
rates
to
ensure
against
applying
more
deicer
than
is
necessary.
In
addition,
operators
may
consider
pretreating
aircraft
with
hot
water
or
forced
11
air
prior
to
the
application
of
chemical
deicer.
The
goal
of
this
management
practice
is
to
reduce
the
amount
of
chemical
deicer
used
during
such
operations.
This
management
practice
alone
is
not
sufficient
since
discharges
of
small
to
moderate
concentrations
of
glycol
can
have
significant
effects
on
receiving
waters.
It
is,
however,
an
effective
measure
to
reduce
the
amount
of
glycol
needed
per
operation.

B.
Aircraft
Deicing/
Anti­
icing:
Includes
both
deicing
to
remove
frost,
snow
or
ice,
and
anti­
icing
which
prevents
the
accumulation
of
frost,
snow
or
ice.
Glycol
compounds
have
high
a
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD)
when
discharged
to
receiving
waters
and
additives
in
these
compounds
may
be
toxic.
Environmental
impacts
on
surface
waters
due
to
glycol
discharges
include
glycol
odors
and
glycol
contaminated
surface
water
and
ground
water
systems,
diminished
dissolved
oxygen
levels
and
fish
kills.

Solid
constituents
such
as
pelletized
urea
may
also
be
used.
Urea
has
a
high
nitrogen
content,
therefore
degradation
of
urea
in
a
receiving
water
can
cause
an
increase
in
nutrient
loadings
as
described
earlier.
All
aspects
of
aircraft
deicing/
anti­
icing
operations,
including
quantities
used
and
stored,
as
well
as
application,
handling
and
storage
procedures
are
required
to
be
addressed
under
the
conditions
of
this
section.

C.
Aircraft
Servicing:
Typically
conducted
on
the
apron
area
adjacent
to
the
passenger
terminal,
the
servicing
of
aircraft
could
potentially
contribute
pollutants
to
storm
water.
As
a
result
of
spills
or
leaks
during
the
servicing
of
aircraft,
fluids
such
as
engine
oil,
hydraulic
fluid,
fuel
and
lavatory
waste
could
potentially
enter
the
storm
water
system
and/
or
be
discharged
to
receiving
waters.
All
spillage
other
than
potable
water
should
be
prevented
from
entering
the
storm
sewer
system.

D.
Aircraft,
Ground
Vehicle
and
Equipment
Maintenance
and
Washing:
Maintenance
activities
included
in
this
section
include
both
minor
and
major
operations
conducted
either
on
the
apron
adjacent
to
the
passenger
terminal,
or
at
dedicated
maintenance
facilities.
Potential
pollutant
sources
from
all
types
of
maintenance
activities
include
spills
and
leaks
of
engine
oils,
hydraulic
fluids,
transmission
oil,
radiator
fluids,
and
chemical
solvents
used
for
parts
cleaning.
In
addition
the
disposal
of
waste
parts,
batteries,
oil
and
fuel
filters,
and
oily
rags
also
have
a
potential
for
contaminating
storm
water
runoff
from
maintenance
areas
unless
proper
management
practices
and
operating
procedures
are
implemented.
The
spent
wash
water
from
aircraft
and
ground
vehicle
washing
activities
could
potentially
be
contaminated
with
surface
dirt,
metals,
and
fluids
(
fuel,
hydraulic
fluid,
oil,
lavatory
waste).

E.
Runway
Maintenance:
Over
time,
materials
such
as
tire
rubber,
oil
and
grease,
paint
chips,
and
jet
fuel
can
build
up
on
the
surface
of
a
runway
causing
a
reduction
in
the
friction
of
the
12
pavement
surface.
When
the
friction
level
of
a
runway
falls
below
a
specific
level,
maintenance
must
be
performed.
The
Federal
Aviation
Administration
(
FAA)
recommends
several
methods
for
removing
rubber
deposits
and
other
contaminants
from
a
runway
surface
including
high
pressure
water,
chemical
solvents,
high
velocity
particle
impact,
and
mechanical
grinding.
If
not
properly
managed,
the
materials
removed
from
the
runway
surface
could
be
discharged
into
nearby
surface
waters.
Similarly,
if
chemical
solvents
are
used
in
the
maintenance
operation,
improper
management
practices
could
result
in
discharges
of
the
chemical
solvents
in
the
storm
water
runoff
from
runway
areas.
Massport,
currently
uses
sodium
hydroxide
in
a
several
step
process
to
periodically
remove
rubber
deposits
from
the
runways
and
the
airport
SWPPP
shall
outline
measures
to
minimize
flows
of
these
cleaning
compounds
and
rubber
materials
into
the
drainage
system.
Massport
shall
notify
the
EPA
and
DEP
of
any
changes
to
this
procedure
There
are
no
tenants
which
conduct
such
activities.

F.
Management
of
Runoff:
This
section
specifies
that
operators
shall
provide
a
narrative
description
of
BMPs
to
control
or
manage
storm
water
runoff
from
areas
where
deicing/
anti­
icing
operations
occur
in
an
effort
to
minimize
or
reduce
the
amount
of
pollutants
being
discharged
from
the
site.
For
example,
when
deicing/
anti­
icing
operations
are
conducted
on
aircraft
during
periods
of
dry
weather,
operators
could
ensure
that
storm
water
inlets
are
blocked
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
deicing/
anti­
icing
chemicals
to
the
storm
sewer
system.
Mechanical
vacuum
systems
or
other
similar
devices
can
then
be
used
to
collect
the
spent
deicing
chemical
from
the
apron
surface
for
proper
disposal
to
prevent
those
materials
from
later
becoming
a
source
of
storm
water
contamination.
Establishing
a
centralized
deicing
station
would
also
provide
better
control
over
aircraft
deicing/
anti­
icing
operations
since
it
would
enable
operators
to
readily
collect
spent
deicing/
anti­
icing
chemicals.

G.
Comprehensive
Site
Compliance
Evaluation:
The
SWPPP
must
describe
the
scope
and
content
of
a
comprehensive
site
evaluation
that
qualified
personnel
will
conduct
to:
1)
confirm
the
accuracy
of
the
description
of
potential
pollution
sources
contained
in
the
plan,
2)
determine
the
effectiveness
of
the
plan,
and
3)
assess
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit.
Comprehensive
site
compliance
evaluations
must
be
conducted
at
least
annually.
The
individual
or
individuals
who
will
conduct
the
evaluations
must
be
identified
in
the
plan
and
should
be
members
of
the
pollution
prevention
team.
Evaluation
reports
must
be
retained
for
a
period
of
at
least
5
years
following
the
date
of
evaluation.

Based
on
the
results
of
each
evaluation,
the
description
of
potential
pollution
sources,
and
measures
and
controls,
the
plan
must
be
revised
as
appropriate
within
3
months
after
each
inspection.
Changes
in
the
measures
and
controls
must
be
implemented
on
the
site
in
a
13
timely
manner,
and
no
later
than
6
months
after
completion
of
the
inspection.

VI.
Essential
Fish
Habitat
Determination
(
EFH):

Under
the
1996
Amendments
(
PL
104­
267)
to
the
Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act
(
16
U.
S.
C.
§
1801
et
seq.
(
1998)),
EPA
is
required
to
consult
with
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
(
NMFS)
if
EPA's
action
or
proposed
actions
that
it
funds,
permits,
or
undertakes,
may
adversely
impact
any
essential
fish
habitat
as:
waters
and
substrate
necessary
to
fish
for
spawning,
breeding,
feeding,
or
growth
to
maturity
(
16
U.
S.
C.
§
1802
(
10)).
Adversely
impact
means
any
impact
which
reduces
the
quality
and/
or
quantity
of
EFH
(
50
C.
F.
R.
§
600.910
(
a)).
Adverse
effects
may
include
direct
(
e.
g.,
contamination
or
physical
disruption),
indirect
(
e.
g.,
loss
of
prey,
reduction
in
species'
fecundity),
site­
specific
or
habitat­
wide
impacts,
including
individual,
cumulative,
or
synergistic
consequences
of
actions.

Essential
fish
habitat
is
only
designated
for
species
for
which
federal
fisheries
management
plans
exist
(
16
U.
S.
C.
§
1855(
b)
(
1)
(
A)).
EFH
designations
for
New
England
were
approved
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
on
March
3,
1999.

EPA
has
determined
that
a
formal
EFH
consultation
with
NMFS
is
not
required
because
the
proposed
discharge
will
not
adversely
impact
EFH.
***
Pending
our
review***

The
remaining
conditions
of
the
permit
are
based
on
the
NPDES
regulations,
40
CFR
Parts
122
though
125,
and
consist
primarily
of
management
requirements
common
to
all
permits.

VII.
State
Certification
Requirements.

EPA
may
not
issue
a
permit
unless
the
State
Water
Pollution
Control
Agency
with
jurisdiction
over
the
receiving
waters
certifies
that
the
effluent
limitations
contained
in
the
permit
are
stringent
enough
to
assure
that
the
discharge
will
not
cause
the
receiving
water
to
violate
State
Water
Quality
Standards.
The
staff
of
the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
has
reviewed
the
draft
permit
and
advised
EPA
that
the
limitations
are
adequate
to
protect
water
quality.
EPA
has
requested
permit
certification
by
the
State
pursuant
to
40
CFR
124.53
and
expects
that
the
draft
permit
will
be
certified.

VIII.
Public
Comment
Period
and
Procedures
for
Final
Decision
All
persons,
including
applicants,
who
believe
any
condition
of
the
draft
permit
is
inappropriate
must
raise
all
issues
and
submit
all
available
arguments
and
all
supporting
material
for
their
14
arguments
in
full
by
the
close
of
the
public
comment
period,
to
the
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Ecosystem
Protection
(
SPA),
1
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100,
Boston,
Massachusetts
02114­
2023.
Any
person,
prior
to
such
date,
may
submit
a
request
in
writing
for
a
public
hearing
to
consider
the
draft
permit
to
EPA
and
the
State
Agency.
Such
requests
shall
state
the
nature
of
the
issues
proposed
to
be
raised
in
the
hearing.
A
public
hearing
may
be
held
after
at
least
thirty
days
public
notice
whenever
the
Regional
Administrator
finds
that
response
to
this
notice
indicates
significant
public
interest.
In
reaching
a
final
decision
on
the
draft
permit
the
Regional
Administrator
will
respond
to
all
significant
comments
and
make
these
responses
available
to
the
public
at
EPA's
Boston
office.

Following
the
close
of
the
comment
period,
and
after
a
public
hearing,
if
such
hearing
is
held,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
issue
a
final
permit
decision
and
forward
a
copy
of
the
final
decision
to
the
applicant
and
each
person
who
has
submitted
written
comments
or
requested
notice.

IX.
EPA
Contact
Additional
information
concerning
the
draft
permit
may
be
obtained
between
the
hours
of
9:
00
a.
m.
and
5:
00
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
holidays
from:

George
Papadopoulos
Massachusetts
Office
of
Ecosystem
Protection
(
CPE)
1
Congress
Street
­
Suite
1100
Boston,
MA
02114­
2023
Telephone:
(
617)
918­
1579
FAX:
(
617)
918­
1505
Linda
M.
Murphy,
Director
March
26,
2003
Office
of
Ecosystem
Protection
DATE
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
