Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-0564
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-12-24T05:00Z

UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGION
JOHN
F.
KENNEDY
FEDERAL
BUILDING
BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
02203
FACT
SHEET
DRAFT
NATIONAL
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION
SYSTEM
(
NPDES)
PERMIT
TO
DISCHARGE
TO
THE
WATERS
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
NPDES
PERMIT
NO.:
MA0000833
NAME
AND
ADDRESS
OF
APPLICANT:

Exxon
Company,
USA
Everett
Terminal
52
Beacham
Street
Everett,
Massachusetts
02149
NAME
AND
ADDRESS
OF
FACILITY
WHERE
DISCHARGE
OCCURS:

Exxon
Company,
USA
Everett
Terminal
52
Beacham
Street
Everett,
Massachusetts
02149
RECEIVING
WATER:
Island
End
River
to
Mystic
River
CLASSIFICATION:
SB
I.
Proposed
Action,
Type
of
Facility,
and
Discharge
Location
The
above
named
applicant
has
applied
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
for
reissuance
of
an
NPDES
permit
to
discharge
into
the
designated
receiving
waters.
The
facility
is
engaged
in
the
storage
and
distribution
of
petroleum
products.
The
discharge
is
from
storm
water
run­
off,
ground
water
infiltration,
and
operation
and
plant
maintenance.

II.
Description
of
Discharge
A
quantitative
description
of
the
discharge
in
terms
of
significant
effluent
parameters
based
on
reapplication
and
discharge
monitoring
data
is
shown
on
Attachment
C.

III.
Limitations
and
Conditions
The
effluent
limitations
of
the
draft
permit,
the
monitoring
requirements,
and
any
implementation
schedule
(
if
required)
may
be
found
in
the
draft
NPDES
permit.
IV.
Permit
Basis
and
Explanation
of
Effluent
Limitation
Derivation
A.
General
Requirements
The
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
prohibits
discharge
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
United
States
without
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit,
unless
such
a
discharge
is
otherwise
authorized
by
the
CWA.
The
NPDES
permit
is
the
mechanism
used
to
implement
technology
and
water
quality
based
effluent
limitations
and
other
requirements,
including
monitoring
and
reporting.
This
draft
NPDES
permit
was
developed
in
accordance
with
various
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
established
pursuant
to
the
CWA
and
any
State
regulations.
The
majority
of
regulations
governing
the
EPA
NPDES
permit
program
are
found
at
40
CFR
Parts
122,
124,
125
and
136.

EPA
is
required
to
consider
technology
and
water
quality
based
requirements
when
developing
permit
limits.
The
criteria
and
standards
that
EPA
must
use
to
determine
technology
based
requirements
are
set
in
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
A.
Requirements
under
Section
301
(
b)
of
the
CWA
and/
or
requirements
established
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
Section
402
(
a)(
1)
should
be
included
in
the
permit.

The
CWA
requires
that
all
discharges,
at
a
minimum,
must
meet
effluent
limitations
based
on
technological
capability
of
dischargers
to
control
pollutants
in
their
discharge.
Section
301
(
b)(
1)(
A)
of
the
CWA
requires
the
application
of
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
Currently
Available
(
BPT)
with
the
statutory
deadline
for
compliance
being,
July
1,
1977,
unless
otherwise
authorized
by
the
CWA.
Section
(
301)(
b)(
2)
of
the
CWA
requires
the
application
of
Best
Conventional
Control
Technology
for
conventional
pollutants,
and
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(
BAT)
for
non­
conventional
and
toxic
pollutants.
The
compliance
deadline
for
BCT
and
BAT
is
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
in
no
case
later
than
three
years
after
the
date
such
limitations
are
promulgated
and
no
later
than
March
31,
1989.

EPA
has
not
promulgated
National
Effluent
Guidelines
for
storm
water
discharges
from
bulk
storage
petroleum
facilities.
In
the
absence
of
published
technology
based
effluent
guidelines,
the
permit
writer
is
authorized
under
Section
402(
a)(
1)(
B)
of
the
CWA
to
establish
effluent
limitations
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
using
Best
Professional
Judgement
(
BPJ).

Under
301(
b)(
1)(
c)
of
the
CWA,
discharges
are
subject
to
effluent
limitations
based
on
water
quality
standards
and
to
the
conditions
of
State
certifications
under
Section
401
of
the
CWA.
Receiving
stream
requirements
are
established
according
to
numerical
and
narrative
standards
adopted
under
State
and/
or
Federal
law
for
each
stream
use
classification.
Furthermore
the
permit
must
conform
to
the
conditions
established
pursuant
to
a
State
certification
under
Section
401
of
the
CWA
that
meet
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
124.53
and
§
124.55.
EPA
regulations
pertaining
to
permit
limits
based
upon
water
quality
standards
and
state
requirements
are
contained
in
40
CFR
§
122.44
(
d).

Section
101(
a)(
3)
of
the
CWA
specifically
prohibits
the
discharge
of
toxic
pollutants
in
toxic
amounts.
The
State
of
Massachusetts
has
a
similar
narrative
criteria
in
their
water
quality
regulations
that
prohibits
such
discharges,
see
Massachusetts
314
CMR
4.05(
e).
The
draft
permit
does
not
allow
for
the
addition
of
chemicals
in
amounts
which
would
produce
a
toxic
effect
to
aquatic
life.

The
general
conditions
of
the
permit
are
based
on
40
CFR
§
122.41
and
consist
primarily
of
management
requirements
common
to
all
permits.
The
effluent
monitoring
requirements
have
been
established
to
yield
data
representative
of
the
discharge
under
authority
of
Section
308(
a)
of
the
CWA
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
§
122.41(
j),
§
122.44(
i),
and
§
122.48.

B.
Additional
Requirements
EPA's
antibacksliding
provision
at
40
CFR
§
122.44(
l)
prohibit
the
relaxation
of
permit
limits,
standards,
and
conditions
unless
the
circumstances
on
which
previous
permit
was
based
have
materially
and
substantially
changed
since
the
time
the
permit
was
issued.
Therefore,
technology
based
effluent
limitations
in
the
draft
permit
must
be
as
stringent
as
those
in
the
current
permit.
Relaxation
of
these
limits
is
only
allowed
when
cause
for
permit
modification
is
met,
see
40
CFR
§
122.62.
Effluent
limits
based
on
BPJ,
water
quality,
and
State
Certification
requirements
must
also
meet
the
antibacksliding
provisions
found
in
Section
402(
o)
and
303(
d)(
4)
of
the
CWA.

The
circumstances
at
the
facility
have
not
substantially
changed
since
the
issuance
of
the
last
NPDES
permit,
and
therefore
the
limits
in
the
draft
permit
are
no
less
stringent
than
what
are
in
the
previous
permit.

C.
Facility
Description
and
Discharges
The
Exxon
Company
is
a
marketing
terminal
which
stores
and
distributes
a
range
of
petroleum
products,
including
unleaded
gasoline,
heating
oil,
Number
6
heavy
fuel
oil,
diesel
and
aviation
fuels,
toluene,
xylene,
and
varsol.

The
bulk
of
the
site
area
consists
of
the
petroleum
product
tanks.
Each
of
the
storage
tanks
is
enclosed
in
an
unlined
area
by
earthen
dike
or
concrete
walls.
These
tank
diked
areas
are
designed
to
contain
the
contents
of
the
enclosed
tanks
plus
a
10%
added
volume
to
hold
any
fire
extinguishment
chemicals
or
water
and
precipitation.
The
dikes
are
required
for
safety
to
prevent
the
hydrocarbons
from
spilling
to
the
waterway
or
from
one
tank
area
to
another.

The
receiving
water,
Island
End
River
(
Boston
Harbor)
,
is
designated
Class
SB
by
the
State
of
Massachusetts.
Waters
assigned
to
this
class
are
designated
for
the
uses
of
protection
and
propagation
of
fish,
other
aquatic
life
and
wildlife,
and
for
secondary
contact
recreation.
Also,
there
is
a
limited
fishery
in
the
Mystic
River
and
Boston
Harbor
which
demands
reduction
of
chemical
pollutants
that
are
harmful
to
human
health.

D.
Proposed
Permit
Effluent
Limitations
and
Conditions
Section
402(
p)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
requires
that
EPA
issue
NPDES
permits
for
storm
water
discharges
which
were
permitted
prior
to
February
4,
1987,
40
CFR
§
122.26(
a)(
1)(
i).
Since
this
facility
is
not
associated
with
an
industrial
activity
as
defined
by
§
122.26(
b)(
14)(
i)
through
(
xi),
storm
water
discharges
cannot
be
authorized
by
EPA's
general
industrial
storm
water
permit,
(
57
FR
44438;
60
FR,
50804).

The
draft
permit
includes
conditions
to
better
regulate
potential
discharges
of
untreated
tank
bottom
drawoff
alone
or
in
combination
with
storm
water
to
the
receiving
water
by
conducting
a
Whole
Effluent
Toxicity
Test
on
the
drawoff
water.
Implementation
of
Best
Management
Practices,
and
a
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
will
better
regulate
ancillary
operations
such
as
materials
storage,
facility
site­
runoff,
product
blending,
and
product
loading
and
unloading,
which
could
potentially
introduce
significant
amounts
of
toxic
and
hazardous
pollutants
into
Island
End
River.

Storm
water
discharges
from
activities
associated
with
bulk
petroleum
stations
and
terminal
operations
must
satisfy
best
conventional
technology
(
BCT)
and
best
available
technology
(
BAT)
requirements
and
must
comply
with
more
stringent
water
quality
standards
if
BCT
and
BAT
requirements
are
not
adequate.
On
September
25,
1992,
EPA
promulgated
through
its
General
Permit
for
Storm
Water
Discharges
Associated
with
Industrial
Activity
that
the
minimum
BAT/
BCT
requirement
for
storm
water
discharges
associated
with
industrial
activity
is
a
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(
SWPPP),
57
FR,
44438.
Using
the
General
Permit
as
guidance,
EPA
has
included
a
requirement
for
a
SWPPP
in
the
draft
permit
based
on
best
professional
judgement.
In
addition
to
a
SWPPP,
EPA
Region
I
has
decided
to
include
numeric
effluent
limitations
in
the
draft
permit
to
ensure
that
petroleum
products
do
not
contribute
to
violations
of
the
State's
water
quality
standards.

Thus
the
draft
NPDES
permit
for
Exxon
Company,
authorizing
the
discharge
of
treated
storm
water,
includes
a
Best
Practices
Management
Plan,
numeric
effluent
limitations
which
are
within
applicable
water
quality
standards
and
requires
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
storm
water
pollution
prevention
plan
for
additional
protection
of
the
environment.

Flow
Typically
effluent
consist
of
treated
storm
water
flow
from
diked
and
non­
diked
tank
areas,
and
groundwater
infiltration
.
The
permittee
is
required
to
report
average
monthly
and
daily
maximum
flow
through
the
oil/
water
separation
system.
The
effluent
from
the
terminal
discharges
to
Island
End
River
which
leads
to
Mystic
River
and
eventually
Boston
Inner
Harbor.

Groundwater
infiltration
to
the
storm
water
collection
system
and
into
an
inactive
former
effluent
holding
pond
is
the
source
of
almost
all
the
daily
discharge
from
the
terminals.
Storm
water
runoff
is
the
most
significant
of
intermittent
flow
and
varies
with
intensity
of
participation.
Other
potential
daily
and
intermittent
flow
components
include
boiler
blowdown,
tank
water
drawoff,
compressor
cooling
water,
water
from
marine
terminal
drip
pans,
and
hydrostatic
testing.

Flows
in
excess
of
3000
gpm
go
directly
to
the
wet
well
and
are
not
treated
through
the
oil/
water
separator.
During
storm
events
with
heavy
precipitation,
two
11,500
gpm
vertical
turbine
pumps
are
manually
activated
to
lift
excess
flows
directly
to
the
culvert,
bypassing
Holding
Tank
140.
Between
October
1998
and
September
1999
there
were
three
bypass
events
which
is
a
25%
reduction
from
the
previous
year.

Oil
and
Grease
(
O&
G)
The
draft
permit
limit
for
O&
G
remains
unchanged
at
15
mg/
l,
daily
maximum,
with
a
monthly
monitoring
frequency.
This
technology
based
limit
is
determined
by
BPJ
and
demonstrated
performance.
Originally
this
effluent
limitation
was
established
by
EPA­
Headquarters
as
guidance
to,
and
as
a
means
of
establishing
a
categorization
within,
the
petroleum
marketing
terminals
and
oil
production
facilities
categories.
Performance
data
indicate
that
this
effluent
limitation
can
be
achieved
through
proper
operation
of
an
oil/
water
separator
and
best
management
practices
(
BMP).

Total
Suspended
Solids
(
TSS)

Total
suspended
solids
have
been
limited
in
the
draft
permit
to
eliminate
the
potential
carryover
of
petroleum
fractions
to
the
receiving
water
(
s)
by
adsorption
to
particulate
matter
or
suspended
solids.

The
TSS
limits
in
the
draft
permit,
30
mg/
l
average
monthly
and
100
mg/
l
maximum
daily,
will
remain
the
same
as
in
the
existing
permit.

In
drafting
the
storm
water
discharge
permits
for
the
bulk
storage
terminals
in
Region
I,
EPA
made
a
BPJ
determination
that
the
technology
guidelines
promulgated
at
40
CFR
part
423­
Steam
Electric
Power
Point
Generating
Point
Source
Category,
for
point
source
of
low
volume
wastewater,
were
appropriate
to
control
the
discharge
of
sediment
particles
and
oils
from
bulk
storage
petroleum
terminals
in
the
region.
Like
oil
terminals,
steam
electric
generating
facilities
frequently
include
bulk
storage
of
petroleum
products,
and
these
limits
are
typical
for
dischargers
of
storm
water
from
such
facilities.
Data
from
monthly
discharge
monitoring
reports
indicates
that
TSS
effluent
limitations
have
been
achieved
at
this
facility
unless
there
is
a
bypass
event.
During
bypass
events,
the
facility,
at
times
exceeds
the
TSS
average
monthly
limit.
This
is
the
result
of
rapid
flushing
of
the
storm
water
drainage
system
during
a
high
intensity
rainfall
following
a
long
period
of
drought.

pH
The
pH
permit
limit
range
has
been
established
in
accordance
with
state
Water
Quality
Standards.
The
range
is
between
6.5
and
8.5
and
are
state
minimum
and
maximum
criteria
for
Class
SB
waters.
In
addition
there
shall
be
no
change
from
background
conditions
that
would
impair
any
uses
assigned
to
the
receiving
water
class.

Polynuclear
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
(
PAHs)

Polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs)
are
a
class
of
organics
consisting
of
polycyclic
aromatic
rings
which
are
present
in
oil
and
petrochemicals.
These
pollutants
will
adsorb
strongly
onto
suspended
particulates
and
biota.
Therefore,
the
PAHs
transport
will
be
determined
largely
by
the
hydrogeologic
condition
of
the
aquatic
system.
The
ultimate
fate
of
those
PAHs
which
accumulate
in
the
aquatic
sediment
is
believed
to
be
biodegradation
and
biotransformation
by
benthic
organisms.
Several
PAHs
are
well
known
animal
carcinogens,
while
others
are
not
carcinogenic
alone
but
can
enhance
the
response
of
the
carcinogenic
PAHs.
See
Attachment
B
for
a
list
of
PAHs
considered
in
this
permit.
For
the
maximum
protection
of
human
health
from
the
potential
carcinogenic
effects
due
to
exposure
to
PAHs
through
ingestion
of
contaminated
water
and
contaminated
aquatic
organisms,
the
ambient
water
concentration
should
be
zero
based
on
the
non­
threshold
assumption
for
these
chemicals.
However,
a
zero
level
may
not
be
attainable
at
the
present
time.
The
corresponding
EPA
recommended
criterion,
set
forth
in
45
FR
79318
(
November
28,
1980),
estimated
at
10­
6
(
one
in
a
million)
increase
of
cancer
risk
over
the
lifetime,
is
31.1
nanograms
per
liter
(
ng/
1)
based
on
consumption
of
contaminated
fish.
Therefore,
based
upon
EPA
recommended
human
health
criterion
of
31.1
ng/
l
for
contaminated
fish
consumption,
the
effluent
limitation,
31.1
ng/
l,
will
remain
the
same
in
the
draft
permit
as
it
is
in
the
existing
permit.

Finally,
in
view
of
evidence
of
PAH­
induced
animal
carcinogenicity,
the
established
limit
for
the
sum
of
16
PAHs
has
also
been
set
at
31.1
ng/
l
to
prevent
the
persistence
of
such
chemicals
in
the
receiving
water
through
biological
and
/
or
chemical
processes
such
as
sediment
absorption/
adsorption,
and
the
subsequent
deleterious
effects
to
the
diverse
biota
of
Island
End
River.

The
31.1
ng/
l
effluent
limitation
for
PAHs
is
many
orders
of
magnitude
below
the
current
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
(
PQL)
for
determining
PAHs
in
aqueous
solutions.
Information
on
PQL's
from
oral
communication
with
personnel
at
EPA's
Lexington
Laboratory
indicates
that
the
PQL
for
PAHs
ranges
from
5
to
10
ug/
l
(
5,000
to
10,000
ng/
1).
Therefore,
due
to
the
large
difference
between
the
effluent
limitation
(
31.1
ng/
1)
and
the
lowest
reliable
measure
of
detectable
amounts
of
PAHs
in
aqueous
solutions
(
5,000
to
10,000
ng/
1),
compliance/
noncompliance
with
this
permit's
effluent
limitation
will
be
judged
on
the
PQL
for
PAHs.
PQL
has
been
specified
in
this
draft
permit
as
10
ug/
l
for
a
single
PAH
compound
and
50
ug/
l
for
the
sum
of
any
of
the
specified
16
PAH
compound
detected.
These
values
of
10
and
50
ug/
l
cannot
be
changed
during
the
permit's
life
without
a
major
modification.

Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
VOCs)

In
the
draft
permit,
benzene
is
considered
the
appropriate
VOC
indicator.
The
primary
benefit
of
using
an
indicator
is
to
reduce
monitoring
and
unnecessary
reporting
while
simultaneously
maintaining
an
effective
level
of
environmental
protection.
Therefore,
the
limits
in
the
draft
permit
for
BETXs
constituents
will
remain
unchanged.
The
maximum
daily
limit
for
benzene
will
remain
at
40
ug/
l
with
a
monthly
reporting
requirement
and
a
monthly
reporting
requirement
without
numeric
limits
will
remain
for
toluene,
ethlybenzene
and
xylene(
s)

Refined
petroleum
products
contain
numerous
types
of
hydrocarbons.
Dissolved
gasoline
constituents
typically
remain
in
oil/
water
separator
effluent
at
a
concentration
of
15
ppm.
Generally
the
higher
the
solubility
of
a
gasoline
constituent
in
water,
the
more
difficult
it
is
to
remove.
Three
gasoline
compounds
with
the
highest
solubilities
are
napthalene,
propylene,
and
benzene.
Propylene
and
napthalene,
however
are
minor
constituents
of
gasoline.
Benzene
has
been
selected
as
the
main
pollutant
of
concern
in
light
distillates,
such
as
gasoline,
since
it
existed
in
light
distillates
in
significant
concentrations.

A
traditional
approach
to
limiting
effluents
contaminated
with
gasoline
and
other
light
distillates
has
been
to
limit
the
aggregate
parameter
of
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
toluene,
and
total
xylenes
commonly
referred
to
as
BETXs.
This
approach
stems
from
the
petroleum­
industry
practice
of
determining
the
quality
of
fuels
by
measuring
BETX's,
which
can
be
highly
variable
among
gasoline
products.
Another
reason
for
limiting
BETX's
is
that
EPA
and
the
State
have
promulgated
water
quality
criteria
for
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
toluene,
and
the
xylenes.
Of
the
four,
benzene
is
by
far
the
most
soluble
in
water.
In
addition
benzene
has
the
most
stringent
water
quality
criteria
for
human
health.
Because
of
its
relatively
high
solubility
in
water,
benzene
can
be
considered
as
the
"
limiting
pollutant
parameter".
Storm
water
effluent
can
be
adequately
characterized
with
respect
to
concentrations
of
light
distillates
by
knowing
the
concentration
of
benzene
only.

Tank
Bottom
Water
The
bottom
of
many
petroleum
product
storage
tanks
may
contain
a
layer
of
water
that
has
separated
from
the
stored
petroleum
product
due
to
the
density
difference
between
that
product
and
water.
As
this
water
coalesces
then
settles
to
the
bottom
of
the
tank,
it
partitions
(
dissolves)
BETX
and
PAHs
from
the
petroleum
product.
Through
this
process,
the
water
selectively
extracts
these
hazardous
substances
and
becomes
toxic.
Because
water
occupies
valuable
space
in
storage
tanks,
facility
operators
drain
this
water
layer
to
increase
product
storage
capacity
and
to
prevent
transfer
with
the
finished
product.

To
protect
the
environment
from
these
water
drawoffs,
the
draft
permit
has
been
conditioned
to
prevent
Exxon
from
discharging
any
untreated
or
treated
tank
bottom
drawoff
water
alone
or
in
combination
with
other
wastewater
until
Exxon
demonstrates
that
the
acute
toxicity
of
the
proposed
tank
bottom
drawoff
water
discharge
alone
meets
a
WET
LC50
limitation
of
equal
to
100
percent
effluent
as
well
as
all
chemical
and
physical
effluent
limitations
applicable
to
Outfall
001.
Toxicity
testing
may
determine
that
these
bottom
drawoff
waters
should
be
processed
by
Granular
Activated
Charcoal
(
GAC),
an
aeration
column
or
similar
equipment
to
remove
BETX
and/
or
PAHs
prior
to
discharge
to
satisfy
this
WET
requirement.

Whole
Effluent
Toxicity
Tests
An
acute
whole
effluent
toxicity
test
is
also
being
imposed
on
the
discharge
using
Mysidopsis
shrimp,
Mysidopsis
bahia.
Since
the
identification
and
quantification
of
all
the
toxic
materials
which
might
be
present
in
the
discharge
is
not
possible
and
because
the
summation
of
the
toxic
effects
of
each
of
these
chemicals
would
be
difficult,
the
discharge
impact
upon
a
sensitive
aquatic
organism
is
being
used
to
help
assess
the
total
potential
impact
upon
the
aquatic
community.
The
objective
of
this
test
is
to
determine
the
concentration
of
the
discharge
that
will
cause
death
to
50%
of
the
test
organisms
after
exposure
of
48
hours.
This
requirement
has
been
reduced
from
three
times
per
year
to
twice
a
year
based
on
the
results
of
the
facilities
past
toxicity
test.

These
tests
will
be
performed
in
accordance
with
Part
I.
A.
and
Attachment
A
of
the
permit.

The
use
of
a
single
sample
for
both
chemical
analysis
and
biological
testing
provides
direct
comparison
of
the
data.
This
comparison
will
also
indicate
if
chemicals
not
identified
as
BETX
or
PAHs
are
sources
of
toxicity.
During
wet
weather
(
rainstorm
events),
the
o/
w
separator
(
Discharge
001)
will
have
two
(
2)
acute
biological
toxicity
test(
s)
during
each
year
of
the
permit
duration.

Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
The
storm
water
pollution
prevention
plan
requirements
in
the
draft
permit
are
intended
to
facilitate
a
process
whereby
the
permittee
thoroughly
evaluates
potential
pollution
sources
at
the
terminal
and
selects
and
implements
appropriate
measures
to
prevent
or
control
the
discharge
of
pollutants
into
storm
water
run
off.

The
process
involves
the
following
four
steps:
(
1)
formation
of
a
team
of
qualified
facility
personnel
who
will
be
responsible
preparing
the
SWPPP
and
assisting
the
terminal
manger
in
its
implementation;
(
2)
assessment
of
potential
storm
water
pollution
sources;
(
3)
selection
and
implementation
of
appropriate
management
practices
and
controls;
(
4)
periodic
evaluation
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
plan
to
prevent
storm
water
contamination
and
comply
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
draft
permit.

To
minimize
preparation
time
of
the
SWPP,
the
permittee
may,
for
example,
reflect
requirements
for
Spill
Prevention
Control
and
Countermeasure
(
SPCC)
plans,
Section
311
of
the
CWA
and
40
CFR
Part
112.
The
permittee
may
incorporate
any
part
of
such
plan
into
the
SWPPP
by
reference
provided
these
references
address
specific
pollution
prevention
requirements,
and
the
goal
of
the
SWPPP.

Although
relevant
portions
of
other
environmental
plans,
as
appropriate,
can
be
built
into
the
SWPPP,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
SWPPP
must
be
a
comprehensive
stand
alone
document.

The
draft
permit
requires
the
permittee
to
develop
and
implement
a
SWPPP
no
later
than
90
days
after
the
permit's
effective
date.
The
SWPPP,
when
implemented
becomes
a
supporting
document
to
any
numerical
effluent
limitation
by
minimizing
the
discharge
of
pollutants
through
the
proper
operation
of
the
facility.
Consequently,
the
SWPPP
is
as
equally
enforcable
as
numerical
limits
on
the
storm
water
discharge.

Best
Management
Practices
Pursuant
to
Section
304(
a)
of
the
Act
and
40
CFR
125.103(
b),
Best
Management
Practices
may
be
expressly
incorporated
into
a
permit
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
where
determined
to
carry
out
the
provision
of
the
CWA
under
Section
402
(
a)
(
1).
These
conditions
apply
to
Exxon
because
the
company
stores
and
handles
pollutants
listed
as
toxic
under
Section
307(
a)
(
1)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
or
pollutants
listed
as
hazardous
under
Section
311
of
the
Act
and
have
ancillary
operations
which
could
result
in
significant
amounts
of
these
pollutants
reaching
waters
of
the
United
States.
These
operations
include
material
storage,
plant
site
runoff,
in
plant
transfer,
process
and
material
handling,
and
loading
and
unloading
operations.

In
essence,
the
BMP
requirement
directs
the
permittee
to
totally
review
the
physical
equipment,
the
operational
procedures,
and
the
operator
training
for
the
Exxon
terminal.
The
objective
of
this
review
is
to
protect
the
local
waterway
by
minimizing
the
potential
of
chemicals
being
discharged
through
facility
design,
through
human
error,
or
through
equipment
malfunction.
In
issuing
such
a
condition
to
Exxon,
consideration
of
the
potential
for
the
adverse
impact
on
public
health
through
recreational
use
of
the
river
and
contaminated
fish
consumption
were
the
dominant
factors.
In
concert
with
the
EPA
requirements,
the
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
has
also
addressed
the
BMP
plan
in
their
regulations
at
314
CMR
3.02(
2).

The
BMP
plan
becomes
an
enforceable
element
of
the
permit
upon
the
BMP
plan's
submittal
to
EPA
and
the
State
90
days
after
the
effective
date
of
the
permit.
The
BMP
plan,
therefore,
becomes
a
supporting
element
to
the
numerical
effluent
limitations
by
minimizing
the
discharge
of
any
pollutants
through
the
proper
operation
of
the
facility.
Consequently,
the
BMP
plan
is
as
equally
enforceable
as
the
numerical
limits
on
the
discharges.

Additional
Requirements
and
Conditions
The
effluent
monitoring
requirements
have
been
established
to
yield
data
representative
of
the
discharge
under
authority
of
Section
308
(
a)
of
the
CWA.
Monitoring
of
effluent
shall
encompass
both
wet
and
dry
weather
discharges.

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

V.
Essential
Fish
Habitat
Under
the
1996
Amendments
(
PL
104­
267)
to
Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act
(
16
U.
S.
C.
§
1801
et
seq.
(
1998)),
EPA
is
required
to
consult
with
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
if
EPA's
action
or
proposed
action
that
it
funds,
permits,
or
undertakes,
"
may
adversely
impact
any
essential
fish
habitat":
"
waters
and
substrate
necessary
to
fish
for
spawning,
breeding,
feeding,
or
growth
to
maturity,
16
U.
S.
C.
§
1802(
10).
Adverse
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.
Id.

Essential
fish
habitat
is
only
designated
for
fish
species
for
which
Federal
Fish
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.

A
review
of
the
relevant
essential
fish
habitat
information
provided
by
NMFS
indicates
that
essential
fish
habitat
has
been
designated
for
22
managed
species
within
boundaries
of
Area
29,
which
encompasses
the
discharge
site.
Although
EFH
has
been
designated
for
this
general
location,
EPA
has
concluded
that
this
activity
is
not
likely
to
adversely
affect
EFH
or
its
associated
species
because,
the
permit
requires
effluent
limitations
based
on
state
water
quality
standards,
and
the
authorized
discharge
will
not
increase
with
the
issuance
of
this
permit.

EPA
has
determined
that
a
formal
EFH
consultation
with
NMFS
is
not
required,
because
the
proposed
discharge
will
not
adversely
impact
EFH.
If
adverse
impacts
are
detected
as
a
result
of
this
permit
action,
NMFS
will
be
notified
and
an
EFH
consultation
will
be
promptly
initiated.

VI.
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
and
expects
that
the
draft
permit
will
be
certified.

VII.
Comment
Period,
Hearing
Requests,
and
Procedures
for
Final
Decisions
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
arguments
in
full
by
the
close
of
the
public
comment
period,
to
the
U.
S.
EPA,
1
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100,
Boston,
Massachusetts
02113­
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.
Within
30
days
following
the
notice
of
the
final
permit
decision
any
interested
person
may
submit
a
request
for
a
formal
hearing
to
reconsider
or
contest
the
final
decision.
Requests
for
formal
hearings
must
satisfy
the
requirements
of
40
C.
F.
R.
§
124.74,
45
Fed.
Reg.
14279­
14280
(
April
1,
1983).

VIII.
EPA
Contact
Additional
information
concerning
the
draft
permit
may
be
obtained
between
the
hours
of
8:
00
a.
m.
and
4:
00
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
holidays
from:

Betsy
Davis
1
Congress
Street
Suite
1100
(
CMA)
Boston,
Massachusetts
02114­
2023
(
617)
918­
1576
January
25,
2000
Linda
M.
Murphy
Date
Office
of
Ecosystems
Protection
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency