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


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6758]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02486]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0090]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Oregon State highway bridge across
Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street, mile 2.4, at Astoria, OR. The common
name of this bridge is Old Youngs Bay Bridge. The deviation is
necessary to accommodate extensive maintenance and restoration efforts
on this bridge. This deviation allows the double bascule span to
operate in a single leaf mode when at least a three-hour advance
notification is given by marine vessels that require an opening, and
the vertical clearance of the bridge to be reduced.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on February 15, 2016 to
11 p.m. on June 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0090] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Thirteenth Coast
Guard District Bridge Program Administrator, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) requested to reduce the vertical clearance of the Old Youngs Bay
Bridge, mile 2.4, across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street at Astoria,
OR, and to open half of the draw span when at least a three-hour notice
is given to the bridge operator by vessels wishing to pass. The
requested period of deviation is from 7 a.m. on February 15, 2016 to 11
p.m. on June 15, 2016. The deviation is necessary to accommodate
extensive maintenance and restoration efforts on this bridge. The Old
Youngs Bay Bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 19 feet
above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The
double bascule span of the bridge will have a containment system
installed which will reduce the vertical clearance by 5 feet from 19
feet above mean high water to 14 feet above mean high water. The normal
operating schedule can be found in 33 CFR 117.899(b). The deviation
allows the double bascule span of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge to operate
single leaf when at least three-hours of notice are given by mariners
requiring an opening during the deviation period. Waterway usage on
Youngs Bay is primarily small recreational boaters and fishing vessels.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may
do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies if a
three-hour notice is given to the bridge operator, and there is no
immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will
also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast
Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge
so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact
caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 3, 2016.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-02486 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                EPA ICR No. 1246.13; OMB Control No. 2070-0072

                                  Attachment B

                   Toxic Substances Control Act Section 8(a)
                               15 U.S.C. 2607(a)
                          TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND TRADE

                      CHAPTER 53--TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL

                   SUBCHAPTER I--CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES

 Sec. 2607. Reporting and retention of information

 (a) Reports

     (1) The Administrator shall promulgate rules under which--
         (A) each person (other than a small manufacturer or processor) who manufactures or processes or proposes to
     manufacture or process  a chemical substance (other than a chemical substance described in subparagraph (B)(ii)) shall
     maintain such records, and shall submit to the Administrator such reports, as the Administrator may reasonably require,
     and
         (B) each person (other than a small manufacturer or processor) who manufactures or processes or proposes to
     manufacture or  process--
             (i) a mixture, or
             (ii) a chemical substance in small quantities (as defined by the Administrator by rule) solely for purposes of
         scientific experimentation or analysis or chemical research on, or analysis of, such substance or another substance,
         including any such research or analysis for the development of a product,

     shall maintain records and submit to the Administrator reports but only to the extent the Administrator determines the
     maintenance of records or submission of reports, or both, is necessary for the effective enforcement of this chapter.

 The Administrator may not require in a rule promulgated under this paragraph the maintenance of records or the submission of reports with respect to changes in the proportions of the components of a mixture unless the Administrator finds that the maintenance of such records or the submission of such reports, or both, is necessary for the effective
 enforcement of this chapter. For purposes of the compilation of the list of chemical substances required under subsection (b) of this section, the Administrator shall promulgate rules pursuant to this subsection not later than 180 days after January 1, 1977.
     (2) The Administrator may require under paragraph (1) maintenance of records and reporting with respect to the following insofar as known to the person making the report or insofar as reasonably ascertainable:
         (A) The common or trade name, the chemical identity, and the molecular structure of each chemical substance or
     mixture for which such a report is required.
         (B) The categories or proposed categories of use of each such substance or mixture.
         (C) The total amount of each such substance and mixture manufactured or processed, reasonable estimates of the
     total amount to be manufactured or processed, the amount manufactured or processed for each of its categories of use,
     and reasonable  estimates of the amount to be manufactured or processed for each of its categories of use or proposed
     categories of use.
         (D) A description of the byproducts resulting from the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of each such
     substance or mixture.
         (E) All existing data concerning the environmental and health effects of such substance or mixture.
         (F) The number of individuals exposed, and reasonable estimates of the number who will be exposed, to such
     substance or mixture in their places of employment and the duration of such exposure.
         (G) In the initial report under paragraph (1) on such substance or mixture, the manner or method of its disposal, and
     in any subsequent report on such substance or mixture, any change in such manner or method.

 To the extent feasible, the Administrator shall not require under paragraph (1), any reporting which is unnecessary or duplicative.
     (3)(A)(i) The Administrator may by rule require a small manufacturer or processor of a chemical substance to submit to the Administrator such information respecting the chemical substance as the Administrator may require for publication of the first list of chemical substances required by subsection (b) of this section.
     (ii) The Administrator may by rule require a small manufacturer or processor of a chemical substance or mixture--
         (I) subject to a rule proposed or promulgated under section 2603, 2604(b)(4), or 2605 of this title, or an order in
     effect under  section 2604(e) of this title, or
         (II) with respect to which relief has been granted pursuant to a civil action brought under section 2604 or 2606 of
     this title,

 to maintain such records on such substance or mixture, and to submit to the Administrator such reports on such substance or mixture, as the Administrator may reasonably require. A rule under this clause requiring reporting may require reporting with respect to the matters referred to in paragraph (2).
     (B) The Administrator, after consultation with the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, shall by rule prescribe standards for determining the manufacturers and processors which qualify as small manufacturers and processors for purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (1).