November 27, 2023 - Town of Burlington

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · from the EPA · 17 pages · 672 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

T OWN OF B URLINGTON 
Department of Public Works 
25 C ENTER S TREET  B URLINGTON , M ASSACHUSETTS 01803  T EL (781) 270-1670  F AX (781) 238-4695 
www.burlington.org  dpw@burlington.org 
November 27, 2023 
Michele Barden 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency –
Region 1 
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (06-1) 
Boston, MA 02109 
barden.michele@epa.gov 
Claire Golden 
Surface Discharge Program 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection 
150 Presidential Way 
Woburn, MA 01801 
massdep.npdes@mass.gov 
RE: Town of Burlington / Comments on Draft Permit No. MA0103284 for the MWRA Deer
Island Treatment Plant 
Dear Ms. Barden and Ms. Golden: 
The Town of Burlington appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. MA0103284 (the Draft Permit) for
the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Deer Island Treatment Plant (DITP),
which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 (EPA or the Region) noticed for
comment on May 31, 2023. 1 As one of the entities subject to the terms of the Draft Permit once
they are finalized, The Town of Burlington writes to express its support for the comments
submitted by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Advisory Board (Advisory Board),
which are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein, and also to write separately to
articulate and highlight issues of particular concern to our community. 
Generally, the Town of Burlington is compelled to point out the obvious that there is
likely to be extensive costs incurred both directly to the Town and indirectly in pass-through
wastewater assessments for higher costs to MWRA. Significant and untold amount of money
will be spent on annual reporting and testing rather than investing in physical, tangible
construction to address actual concerns of the permitting authority with quantifiable results. Of
utmost concern is the lack of specificity under the Draft Permit of what actual physical actions 
1 On May 31, 2023, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) also issued a draft
2023 Draft Massachusetts Permit to Discharge Pollutants to Surface Waters for DITP (the State Permit) that
incorporates by reference Parts I.A-K and Part II of the Draft Permit. This letter similarly comments on the State
Permit.

2 
shall be made by the Town or any other Co-Permitee. The Draft Permit is actually structured
which suggests that a Permitee or Co-Permitee gather information, research, and propose course
of actions for subjective approval of the EPA. Because of this significant flaw in the Draft
Permit, no Permitee or Co-Permitee could reasonably project and plan for capital costs. 
Beyond the foregoing overarching concern, the Town of Burlington has substantial
concerns about the Draft Permit’s imposition of a novel requirement to develop and implement a
major storm and flood event plans for its sewer system. This requirement will impose significant
financial and resource burdens on communities like the Town of Burlington. The extent of these
burdens is unknown because neither EPA nor MassDEP has conducted any cost-benefit analysis
of this new requirement. The Town of Burlington also has significant concerns about the Draft
Permit’s directive to complete and begin implementing a plan within twelve months of the
effective date of the final permit. Our community is also concerned that the mandate to modify
its plan whenever new data are generated or discovered threatens to cast aside local planning
priorities in favor of a federally mandated, perpetual planning cycle. 
The Town of Burlington has other significant concerns with the Draft Permit discussed in
detail below. In particular, the Draft Permit and State Permit inappropriately regulate
communities like the Town of Burlington as co-permittees and have failed to define their
obligations with adequate clarity. As the Advisory Board has commented, unless EPA and
MassDEP clarify the communities’ and MWRA’s responsibilities, the DITP’s permit could upset
the longstanding and successful relationship among MWRA and the communities. 
I. MAJOR STORM AND FLOOD EVENTS PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 
Part I.E.2.(e)(2) of the Draft Permit (the Major Events Planning Provisions) would
impose on the Town of Burlington and other towns novel and onerous long-term obligations
develop and implement plans to address sewer systems climate change resiliency. These plans,
which the Draft Permit requires to be updated every five years, must include (1) an asset
vulnerability evaluation; (2) a systematic vulnerability evaluation, and (3) a mitigation measures
alternatives analysis, and they must take into consideration future conditions, “specifically the
midterm (i.e., 20-30 years) and long-term (i.e., 80-100 years) and, in the case of sea level change,
the plan must consider sea level change.” Draft Permit Part I.E.2.(e)(2). 
This requirement could strains the Town of Burlington’s resources beyond their breaking
point and disrupt its broader capital planning process. The Draft Permit also gives the Town of
Burlington insufficient time to complete its plan. Worse yet, EPA lacks the authority to impose
this new planning and project development obligation in DITP’s NPDES permit, and both EPA
and MassDEP have failed entirely to justify this new set of obligations. 
A. EPA Failed to Evaluate the Costs that The Town of Burlington and Other
Communities Will Bear. 
Complying with the Major Events Planning Provisions will impose substantial costs on
the Town of Burlington. The investments to undertake this work, including the up-front
vulnerability and mitigation alternatives analysis and the significant implementation and ongoing
re-evaluation requirements, will likely require thousands of hours of personnel time and the

3 
engagement of outside consultants. These costs could pale in comparison to the potential capital
costs that the Town of Burlington may incur in order to implement mitigation measures that
could even require relocating existing facilities or building new ones. 
The associated financial burdens on communities like the Town of Burlington are
unknown but certain to be substantial. The Town of Burlington will need to assess whether it
must hire more staff or engage consultants to comply with the Major Events Planning Provisions.
Based on its planning efforts, the Town of Burlington will then have to modify its capital plans
and budget for resiliency projects. These additional costs will ultimately impact other parts of
the Town of Burlington’s budget, resulting in lower spending on other critical infrastructure or
other community needs 
EPA and MassDEP must evaluate these costs before finalizing the Major Events Planning
Provisions. At the very minimum, before issuing a final permit, EPA or MassDEP should
provide the Town of Burlington and the public more generally with a formal cost-benefit
assessment that informs all interested parties of the cost burdens of implementing these novel
and significant planning and implementation requirements. 
B. The Major Events Planning Provisions Do Not Provide Sufficient Time for
Compliance. 
The Major Events Planning Provisions provide the Town of Burlington inadequate time
to develop a plan that must accomplish the following: (1) analyze sewer system-related assets
and assess vulnerabilities, (2) conduct a systemic vulnerability evaluation of each individual
system and develop an alternatives analysis, and (3) begin implementing mitigation measures.
Draft Permit Part I.E.2.(e)(2). The Draft Permit affords the Town of Burlington and its peer
communities only 12 months to accomplish these tasks, an amount of time that is obviously
insufficient to (a) retain the necessary staff or consultants and (b) complete the tasks required by
the Draft Permit. 
If EPA and MassDEP insist on including the Major Events Planning Provisions, the
agencies must provide the Town of Burlington and other communities a reasonable deadline to
complete this major undertaking. Any final permit should allow the communities at least sixty
months to develop and begin implementing major storm and flood events plans. 
C. The Agencies Should Explore Whether Existing Programs Achieve the
Objectives of the Major Events Planning Provisions. 
Before requiring the Town of Burlington to expend the significant resources necessary to
comply with the onerous Major Events Planning Provisions, the agencies should assess the
extent to which existing efforts or programs address or could be adapted to address the interests
EPA seeks to protect through the Major Events Planning Provisions. For example, wastewater
utilities in Massachusetts regularly seek funding from the Commonwealth’s Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF), and this program already requires applicants to comply with
planning and asset management requirements in order to receive funding. The agencies may find
that the CWSRF is a better tool to address long-term planning obligations than an NDPES permit
that is limited to governing specific discharges over a five-year term.

4 
D. EPA and MassDEP Failed to Justify These Planning Requirements. 
In addition to the foregoing issues, the Town of Burlington is concerned that it has not
had an adequate opportunity to comment on the Major Events Planning Provisions because EPA
and MassDEP have failed to show their work. Both agencies’ fact sheets must address “the
significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in preparing the draft
permit.” 40 C.F.R. § 124.8(a); 314 CMR 2.05(3). For a set of programmatic requirements as
important and sweeping as the Major Events Planning Provisions, one would expect substantial
discussions of the various “factual, legal, methodological and policy questions” each agency
considered. 
EPA, however, justified the Major Events Planning Provisions by simply declaring them
“necessary to ensure proper operation and maintenance” of wastewater treatment infrastructure. 2 
Fact Sheet at 102-03. This explanation fails short of what EPA’s regulations require, but it at
least provides some indication of EPA’s views. MassDEP, by contrast, failed entirely to discuss
the Major Events Planning Provisions in its Supplemental Fact Sheet. If the Town of Burlington
and the public are to have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the Draft Permit, the
agencies must better explain the Major Events Planning provisions and allow for additional
public comment. 
The Town of Burlington suspects that EPA may have failed to justify the Major Events
Planning Provisions because it lacks authority to impose them under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The statute limits EPA’s authority under the NPDES program to regulating discharges,
not the wider facility (or facilities) that discharge. See, e.g. , Natural Resources Defense Council
v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 170 (D.C.Cir.1988) (“[T]he [Clean Water Act] does not empower the
agency to regulate point sources themselves; rather, EPA’s jurisdiction under the operative
statute is limited to regulating the discharge of pollutants.”). The Major Events Planning
Provisions, however, reach far beyond regulating discharges by potentially regulating the
location of permittees’ facilities or even requiring the construction of additional infrastructure.
Because the Major Events Planning Provisions exceed EPA’s jurisdiction under the CWA, they
should be removed from any final permit. 
II. THE DRAFT PERMIT IMPERMISSIBLY INCLUDES SANITARY SEWER
COMMUNITIES AS CO-PERMITTEES. 
As the Advisory Board has emphasized in its comments, for the first time, EPA and
MassDEP are attempting to regulate the Town of Burlington and thirty-eight other sanitary sewer
communities under DITP’s permit. This radical change to these communities’ regulatory
obligations exceeds both agencies’ respective authorities and threatens to disrupt the
longstanding relationships between MWRA and the communities it serves. The agencies have
also sought to impose this new regime without the Town of Burlington’s consent by unlawfully
waiving their permit application requirements. 
2 This explanation appears inconsistent with what the Major Events Planning Provisions require. They do far more
than ensuring “proper operation and maintenance” by requiring the Town of Burlington and other towns to
consider—and possibly pursue—relocating facilities or building entirely new ones. Draft Permit Part
I.E.2.e.(2)i.(c)(ii), (iv).

5 
Worse yet, MassDEP has provided no explanation at all for its decision to regulate the
Co-permittees under the State Permit. MassDEP has an obligation to provide a “summary of the
basis for the draft permit conditions including references to applicable statutory or regulatory
provisions” in its fact sheets but has provided none in the Supplemental Fact Sheet for including
these Co-Permittees in the State Permit. 314 CMR 2.05(3)(c). In order for the Town of
Burlington to have an adequate opportunity to comment on the State Permit, MassDEP should
explain its reasons and open a new comment period. 
A. Neither EPA nor MassDEP Has Jurisdiction to Regulate Communities Like
The Town of Burlington. 
1. The Federal Draft Permit 
The Draft Permit’s inclusion of the Town of Burlington as Co-permittee exceeds the
EPA’s authority under the NPDES program. Under the CWA, EPA may only regulate “the
discharge of [a] pollutant.” 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). A regulated discharge requires an “addition of
any pollutant to navigable waters from [a] point source ….” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12)(A); 40 C.F.R.
§ 122.2. Unless its sanitary sewer system adds a pollutant to navigable waters, the Town of
Burlington is “neither statutorily obligated to comply with EPA regulations for point source
discharges, nor are they statutorily obligated to seek or obtain an NPDES permit.” Waterkeeper
Alliance, Inc. v. EPA , 399 F.3d 486, 504 (2d Cir. 2005); Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. EPA ,
635 F.2d 738, 751 (5th Cir. 2011) (“There must be an actual discharge into navigable waters to
trigger the CWA’s requirements and the EPA’s authority.”). 
The Town of Burlington’s sanitary sewer system adds no pollutants to navigable waters.
As EPA concedes in the Fact Sheet, it only adds pollutants to MWRA’s treatment works. Fact
Sheet 20 (“The Massachusetts municipalities in Appendix A own and operate wastewater
collection systems that discharge flows to the DITP ” (emphasis added)). The only addition of
pollutants to navigable waters occurs downstream from the Town of Burlington’s sewers, when
DITP discharges treated effluent from Outfall T01. 3 
EPA rules reinforce that the communities do not have discharges that trigger the Region’s
CWA authority. The regulatory definition of a “discharge of a pollutant” explains that the term
encompasses releases “through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by a State,
municipality, or other person which do not lead to a treatment works ….” This language would
only be necessary if the obverse is true: flows conveyed through municipally-owned sewers that 
do lead to a treatment works are not discharges. 
2. The State Permit 
For the reasons set forth above, MassDEP regulation of the Town of Burlington and the
other Co-permittees in the State Permit is inconsistent with the regulations governing Surface 
3 The Region’s assertion that a sewer system’s lack of proximity to the “the ultimate discharge point is not material
to the question of whether it ‘discharges’” is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act. Fact
Sheet, Appendix D at 13. In County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund , the Court explained that “[t]ime and distance
traveled are obviously important” to determining whether a regulated discharge has occurred. 140 S. Ct. 1462, 1476
(2020).

6 
Water Discharge Permits. The Surface Water Discharge Permit regulations, like the CWA,
generally impose the requirement to obtain a permit on persons who “discharge pollutants to
surface waters ….” 314 CMR 3.03(1). And much like the federal program, the regulations
define a “discharge” as an “addition of any pollutant to waters of the Commonwealth,” and
explain that a discharge includes “discharges through … sewers, or other conveyances owned by
a … municipality … which do not lead to a POTW.” 314 CMR 3.02. 
The sanitary systems’ conveyance of flows to DITP involves no addition of pollutants to
any waters of the Commonwealth. They add flows only to the downstream POTW, a
circumstance that the regulations make clear is not a discharge that requires a permit. 
B. Communities like the Town of Burlington are not part of the Deer Island
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. 
1. The Federal Draft Permit 
EPA cannot cure its lack of jurisdiction by lumping the Town of Burlington and other
sanitary sewer communities in with the larger publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) that
includes DITP authorized under the Draft Permit. 4 EPA’s regulations define a POTW to be “a
treatment works … which is owned by a State or municipality —expressed only in the singular.
40 C.F.R. § 403.3(q) (emphasis added); see also id. (referring to “ the municipality … which has
jurisdiction over Indirect Discharges to and discharges from such a treatment works.” (emphasis
added). The definition’s use of the singular means that a POTW can only be owned by a single
municipal entity, such that the Town of Burlington’s sewer system cannot be part of same
POTW as DITP. 
EPA’s regulatory definition of a “discharge” confirms that the Region has improperly
expanded the definition of POTW to span multiple communities’ sewer systems. That definition
covers “discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by … a municipality …
which do not lead to a treatment works.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. If a satellite collection system
could be part of a POTW, there would never be circumstance where a municipally-owned sewer
could “lead to a treatment works.” Instead, this provision would refer to municipally-owned
sewers “which are not part of a treatment works.” The Region’s attempt to make the Co-
Permittees part of the same POTW as DITP contradicts and cannot be reconciled with its own
regulations. 
2. The State Permit 
MassDEP similarly cannot deem the Town of Burlington’s sewer system part of the same
POTW as DITP under its permitting regulations. Like their federal counterpart, the Surface
Water Discharge Permit regulations define a POTW by reference to a single public entity rather
than several. See 314 CMR 3.02 (“any device or system used in the treatment … of municipal
sewage … which is owned by a public entity .” (emphasis added)). Having chosen to define a 
4 See Fact Sheet, App’x D at 10 (EPA may regulate satellite communities because they are part of “facilities subject
to the NPDES program”); id. (“NPDES regulations similarly identify the ‘POTW’ as the entity subject to
regulation.”).

7 
POTW by reference to a single owner, MassDEP cannot include satellite systems owned by
thirty-nine communities in the same POTW as DITP. 
C. The Town of Burlington Has Not Submitted An Application To EPA or
MassDEP, and Neither Agency Has Authority To Waive The Requirement
To Do So. 
The Town of Burlington did not submit a permit application to either EPA or MassDEP.
Even if the agencies could regulate the Co-permittees in DITP’s permit, issuance of a permit to a
community that never submitted a permit application would violate their respective permitting
regulations. EPA’s rules specify that “[a]ny person who discharges … must submit a complete
application ….” 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(a)(1). The Region then “shall not issue a permit before
receiving a complete application for a permit ….” Without a permit application from the Town
of Burlington, EPA cannot issue a permit imposing conditions on the Town of Burlington. 
EPA cannot avoid this problem by waiving application requirements. See Fact Sheet 12,
21. EPA’s March 8, 2023 letter to the Town of Burlington claimed that 40 C.F.R. § 121.21(j)
authorized the Region to waive permit application requirements in their entirety. See Attachment
A - The Town of Burlington’s Waiver Letter. The Region’s waiver authority under this
provision, however, extends only “to any requirement under this paragraph [ i.e. , the POTW-
specific requirements in § 122.21(j)].” 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(j). Thus, EPA only could have
waived discrete information requirements for treatment works, not the fundamental requirement
that a regulated entity submit a permit application. Accord 64 Fed. Reg. 42434, 42440 (Aug. 4,
1999) (“EPA proposed the introductory paragraph of § 122.21(j) to allow the Director to waive
any requirement in paragraph (j) ” (emphasis added)). The Region violated its own regulations
by attempting to waive the Town of Burlington’s obligation to submit an application. 
MassDEP similarly violated its regulations by seeking to regulate the Town of Burlington
in the State Permit without having received a permit application from the Town of Burlington.
The Surface Water Discharge Permit rules specify that “[a]ny person required to obtain a permit
… shall complete and submit the appropriate application form(s).” 314 CMR 3.10(1); see also 
314 CMR 2.03(1) (“Any person required to obtain an individual permit … shall apply to the
Department.”). MassDEP “shall not issue a permit before receiving a complete application ….”
314 CMR 3.10(4); see also 314 CMR 3.02(2) “The Department shall not issue an individual
permit … before receiving a complete application.”). Nothing in MassDEP’s regulations offer
the department any authority to waive permit application requirements. This framework dictates
that MassDEP cannot issue a permit that regulates the Town of Burlington because the Town of
Burlington has not submitted an application for a Surface Water Discharge Permit. 
III. THE DRAFT PERMIT FAILS TO DEFINE WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY THE
RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF MWRA, CSO-RESPONSIBLE CO-
PERMITTEES AND CO-PERMITTEES. 
Even if EPA and MassDEP could lawfully structure DITP’s permit to include the Town
of Burlington and other communities, neither the Draft Permit nor the State Permit define these
parties’ obligations with clarity sufficient to ensure that they are not held liable for conduct or
events over which they have no control.

8 
The cover page and Part I.E.2 must be revised to provide the communities and MWRA
with absolute clarity that the communities are not responsible for MWRA’s noncompliance and
vice versa. Any final permit issued by EPA and MassDEP must make clear that the communities
cannot be held liable for violations of permit requirements applicable to DITP; the Draft Permit
and State Permit fail to do this. Language in Part C, Part D, and Part E must also be clarified
further to remove any ambiguity regarding the several liability of MWRA, the CSO-responsible
Co-permittees, and the Co-permittees. 
It is particularly critical that EPA and MassDEP clearly delineate these responsibilities to
avoid disrupting the longstanding relationship between MWRA and the communities, and among
the communities themselves. Each community and MWRA have their own responsibilities with
respect to wastewater treatment, and collection system management and compliance. 5 Under its
organic statute, MWRA must be accountable to the communities, rather than a manager or
regulator of the satellite sewer systems it serves. An NPDES permit or Surface Water Discharge
Permit that could make the communities liable for MWRA’s conduct—or vice versa—could
threaten that relationship. Accordingly, the Town of Burlington supports the Advisory Board’s
proposed revisions to the Draft Permit’s language that the Board submitted with its comments. 
IV. THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE RELATED TO
REQUIRING DISCHARGE TESTING RELATED TO PFAS. 
MassDEP states that it has concerns about potential impacts that PFAS discharge from
wastewater treatment plants may have on downstream receptors. For support thereof, MassDEP
justifies their concern by citing to 314 CMR 4.05(5)(e): 
“All surface waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that
are toxic to humans, aquatic life or wildlife.” 
And 314 CMR 4.05(5)(e)2(e): 
“Unlisted Pollutants; Combinations of Pollutants. Any pollutant or combination of
pollutants within the meaning of 314 CMR 4.05(5)(e) for which 314 CMR 4.05(5)(e)1.
does not establish a generally applicable criterion shall not be discharged to surface
waters in a quantity or manner that would: i. exceed safe exposure levels for aquatic life
as determined by toxicity testing using methods approved by MassDEP pursuant to 314
CMR 4.03(6); or ii. cause adverse human health effects due to the ingestion, inhalation or
dermal absorption of such toxins attributable to such waters during their reasonable use
as designated in 314 CMR 4.00; or iii. result in a human health excess lifetime cancer risk
level greater than 10 for -6 individual carcinogens.” 
While it is true these regulations restrict discharges of pollutants in toxic concentrations
or combinations to lifeforms but, immediately preceding these citations, MassDEP fails to 
5 See Acts of 1984 ch. 372, § 26(d), 1984 Mass. Acts 809 (each local body served by MWRA has “the charge and
control of the respective water, waterworks and sewer works owned and used by said local body and not in the
ownership, possession and control of [MWRA].”).

9 
provide actual examples that PFAS is being discharged as part of wastewater effluent, rather
MassDEP states they have a “ concern about potential ” impacts (emphasis added). Concerns are
not evidence and potential indicates the concern may be unjustified. This is a further example of
the overreaching of the Draft Permit which should focus on monitoring known hazards and
prevent physical actions from occurring (i.e. discharges) but rather the Draft Permit proposes to
require Permittees and Co-Permitees to conduct the research and analysis which should exist as
the basis for new permit regulations. This potentially unnecessary testing is expected to
significantly increase costs that are certain to be born by the Co-Permitees and their users. 
V. REQUIRED PLAN SUBMITTAL TIME FRAMES ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH
MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT PROCESS AND ARE NOT
ACHIEVABLE. 
The Draft Permit requires that the Town of Burlington submit an O&M Plan to be
funded, procured, analyzed and drafted within six (6) months of the effective date of the Permit.
Many Town form of Governments rely on the meeting of their legislative body once or twice a
year, and in some instances three times a year. In order to undertake this work the Town must
obtain funding, which depending on when the Permit is issued, will not be available to the Town
until its next annual or Special Town Meeting. This funding cycle together with the need to
procure the services in order to undertake the development and analysis of the information makes
it impossible for a municipality to meet this deadline. The deadline to develop a O&M plan and
mapping is more realistically thirty months from the date of issuance of the Permit. Establishing
unreasonable and unattainable deadlines in the Permit is not beneficial to any party. 
Along these same lines, in section I.E.2.e.(2) provides as follows: 
Within 12 months of the effective date of the Permit, the Permittee, CSO-
responsible Co-Permittees and Co-permittees shall develop and implement a
Sewer System Flood Events Plan as an element of the Sewer System Operations
and Maintenance Plan. The Plan shall contain three components: (1) an asset
vulnerability evaluation, (2) a systemic vulnerability evaluation of the system
and (3) an alternatives analysis. The Plan shall include resiliency planning and
implementation informed by an evaluation (18) of all sewer system vulnerabilities
to major storm and flood events (19) . The planning process shall be iterative, and
re-evaluations shall be conducted; (1) if on- or off-site structures are added,
removed or significantly changed in any way that will impact the vulnerability
of the sewer system and (2) as data sources used for such evaluations are revised
or generated. At a minimum, the Plan must take future conditions into
consideration, specifically midterm (i.e., 20-30 years) and long-term (i.e., 80-
100 years) and, in the case of sea level change, the plan must consider extreme
sea level change. The Plan shall be updated every five (5) years from the
effective date of this Permit. 
Similar to the comments in section I.B., and for the same reasons as set forth
above related to the operations and funding cycle in municipal government and the need
to properly procure services in order to meet this requirement, the deadline of 12

10 
months is unrealistic and likely unattainable by many if not all town forms of
government. The Authority must review the similar time frame set forth in section
I.E.2.e.(2).iv related to the submission of an Annual Operation and Maintenance Report
and the various components thereof. The timing requirement for this report is important
given the funding cycle noted. A deadline of 60 months for the submission requirements
under section I.E.2.e.(2) and a deadline of 72 months for the submission requirements
under section I.E.2.e.(2).iv would be more realistic and attainable. 
VI. WORST CASE STANDARD IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT 
Section I.E.2.2(2) sets forth a worst case standard as follows: 
To determine the vulnerabilities to the facilities from major storm and flood
events, you must conduct the evaluation using, at a minimum, the worst-case
data relating to changes in precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events,
coastal flooding, inland flooding, sewer flow and inflow and infiltration and
relevant to the facilities from: 1) the data generated by the 13 federal agencies
that conduct or use research on global change that contributed to the latest
National Climate Assessment produced by the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP); 2) climate data generated by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; and 3) resiliency planning completed by the municipality in
which a given facility is located (i.e., City of Boston) and incorporate the
results of the evaluation in a manner that demonstrates that the control
measures taken are precautionary and sufficiently protective. Evaluation must
be completed by a qualified person on a five-year basis considering: 1)
historical observations from all years the Permittee has operated the facility
prior to this Permit’s term; 2) set midterm (i.e., 20-30 years) and long-term
(i.e., 80-100 years) ranges. 
The foregoing standard is misplaced under this review. Instead, the Permit should use the
“reasonable and highest level of confidence” standard. First, not all facilities are significant and
important enough to plan for worst case date. Indeed, this over generalization, rather than a
thoughtful standard being included will again, force unneeded costs upon the Permitee and Co-
Permitees. Along these same lines it is unrealistic to believe, let alone require an analysis of all
historical observations from all years the facility has been operated. Many facilities are more
than fifty (50) years old. It is not at all realistic to expect all observations to be documented or
accessible from 50 years ago nor would it be likely such documents are relevant if climate
patterns are changing. Indeed, a much more reasonable approach would be to require a review of
a 20-30 year period with an update every 5 years. Similarly, the requirement of a long-term (80-
100 years) analysis does not reasonably make sense if the plan needs to be updated every 5 years
i.e. after 5 years the next midterm (20-30 years) period can be analyzed so that a midterm plan is
always 20-30 years out. The Permit, if it is to produce reliable results upon which local
communities, the Commonwealth and the Federal Government can plan must be reasonable and
thoughtful. The proposed Draft Permit is neither. This comment pertains to anywhere the Draft
Permit requires an 80-100 year analysis.

11 
VII. THE DRAFT PERMIT LACKS SPECIFICITY AND IS VAGUE AND AT TIME
OVERLY BROAD 
The Draft Permit fails to be exact or specific when specificity is needed the most. For
Example, the Draft Permit defines “Extreme/heavy Precipitation” as instances during which the
amount of rain or snow experienced in a location substantially exceeds what is normal (emphasis
added). This definition has no basis in science nor is “substantial” or “normal” defined. These
terms should be defined in numerical terms so all parties understand the standards. Another
Example the Draft Permit states in Part I.F “…Co-permittees shall provide an alternative power
source(s) sufficient to operate the portion of the publicly owned treatment works it owns and
operates…” (emphasis added). The term “sufficient” is vague and should be further defined. 
Again, the Draft Permit in section I.E.2.e.(2).i.(c).(viii) requires Permitees and Co-
Permitees to “integrate long-term risks into capital improvement plans.” What is the standard
here? What is EPA and DEP looking for specifically? Creating these plans and then recreating
them because what the the Town of Burlington may think should be included is not what the
Authority thinks should be included is expensive and counterproductive. Specific standards
should be included in the Permit. 
The Draft Permit section I.E.3.d requires a Co-Permitee to undertake significant
investigation and action related to I/I programs. However, the Town of Burlington, has had an
aggressive I/I program involving investigations and rehabilitations for 20+ years due in part to an
Administrative Consent Order issued by MassDEP. A plan to investigate sewer subareas that
have not been investigated was approved by MassDEP and is scheduled to be completed by
2028. The Town is concerned about the potential of the Permit to modify, change, or require
repetitive work that would affect short-term capital planning and financing. The Permit should
recognize the ongoing work of a Co-Permitee and not require repetitive spending or back
tracking for the mere sake of meeting the Permit, rather it should recognize the on-going efforts. 
VIII. CONCLUSION 
The Town of Burlington appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Permit and
State Permit. Please feel free to contact Brian White, Director of Public Works, 781 270 1670, 
bwhite@burlington.org if you have any questions or would like to arrange a meeting to discuss
the resolution of the issues raised above. 
Sincerely, 
The Town of Burlington 
______________________ 
By: Brian White, PE 
Director of Public Works

12 
cc: Select Board 
Town Administrator 
Town Counsel

ATTACHMENT A 
TOWN OF BURLINGTON’S WAIVER
LETTER

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
Region 1
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912 
VIA E MAIL - READ RECEIPT REQUESTED 
March 8, 2023 
Re: Waiver of Permit Application and Signatory Requirements for Municipal Satellite Sewage
Collection System – co-permittees to the MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant, NPDES No.
MA0103284 
Dear MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant Satellite Collection System Member Community: 
EPA Region 1 is currently developing a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharge permit and an accompanying fact sheet that summarizes the significant facts, legal and policy
questions considered in preparing the draft permit for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Deer
Island Treatment Plant (MWRA DITP) including the collection systems from all member communities.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our plans for incorporating communities with satellite
collection systems that discharge into the MWRA DITP as co-permittees in the permit and any permit
application requirements. Please be advised that your municipality will be included as a co-permittee in
the forthcoming Draft NPDES discharge permit issued to the MWRA for the DITP. 
The satellite collection system member communities of the MWRA DITP listed in Attachment A will all
be included as co-permittees in the draft discharge permit issued for the DITP. Under NPDES regulations,
all Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) must submit permit application information set forth in
40 CFR § 122.21(j) unless otherwise indicated. Where Region 1 of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has “access to substantially identical information,” or such information is “not of material concern
for a specific permit,” the Regional Administrator may waive permit application requirements for existing
POTWs. Id. Pursuant to my authority under this regulation, I am waiving NPDES permit application and
signatory requirements applicable to certain operators, including your system, of the municipal satellite
collection systems that contribute to the MWRA DITP. 
EPA regulations do not specifically address how NPDES permit coverage is to be obtained by satellite
collection system components of POTWs. Ordinarily the treatment plant operator applies for the POTW’s
NPDES permit, and discharges from the POTW, including those from the collection systems operated by
others, are covered by the permit issued to the treatment plant. Satellite collection system operators have
generally not submitted separate permit applications for coverage under the POTW permit, because the
treatment plant operator generally submits the information necessary for the permit writer to write limits
and conditions in the permit applicable to all components of the POTW on the basis of the treatment
plant’s application. Receiving a single application from the operator of a portion of the discharging
POTW is one reasonable way to structure the permit application process, particularly in the case of a
regionally integrated treatment works where there is a centralized administrative entity responsible for
operating the POTW Treatment Plant and coordinating wastewater flows from the multiple satellite
collection system operators that all contribute to the final effluent discharge. 
Although EPA has the authority to require operators of the municipal satellite collection systems to
submit individual permit applications, in this case I find that requiring a single permit application
executed by the regional POTW owner/operator will be sufficient, as I have been provided, or have access
to, “substantially identical information” to what would have been provided to EPA by the collection
system operator, or that the detailed information requirements of Form 2A are not otherwise material to

EPA’s drafting of co-permittee requirements. Requiring a single application will also be less duplicative
and less burdensome than requiring separate applications from each municipal satellite collection system
owner/operator. Municipal satellite collection system owners/operators should consult with the regional
POTW operators to ensure that any information provided to EPA about their respective entities is
accurate and complete. If EPA requires additional information, it may use its information collection
authority under CWA § 308. 33 U.S.C. § 1318. 
As a general matter, EPA does not foresee the need to require individual permit applications from each
municipal satellite collection system operator and anticipates that information in the POTW operator’s
permit application and other information in the administrative record will be sufficient to establish permit
limits and conditions for the entire treatment works. In the future permitting cycles, EPA will indicate
whether it will require additional material from those entities operating the outlying portions of the
treatment works to render the permit application “complete” under 40 CFR § 124.3(c) after receiving and
reviewing the re-application for the permit from the MWRA DITP. 
This notice reflects my determination based on the specific facts and circumstances in this case. It is not
intended to bind the agency in future determinations where a separate permit for municipal satellites
would not be duplicative or immaterial. 
Prior to issuing the draft permit and fact sheet for public notice, EPA Region 1 will hold a virtual
informational session for MWRA and the co-permittees on March 28, 2023 from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm
( Click here to join the meeting ). EPA will explain the draft permit’s co-permittee requirements at this 
meeting and will answer questions pertaining to EPA Region 1’s co-permitting strategy. 
The co-permittees and MWRA will each receive a copy of the draft permit and the fact sheet when EPA
publicly notices them. The public will then have at least 30 days to submit comments on the draft permit
to EPA. Consistent with 40 CFR § 124.10, EPA’s public notice will detail how the public may comment
on the draft permit. 
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this decision, do not hesitate to contact Michele Barden
of my staff at (617) 918-1539 or barden.michele@epa.gov . 
Sincerely, 
David W. Cash 
Regional Administrator 
Office of the Regional Administrator 
cc: Claire Golden, MassDEP 
Frederick Laskey, MWRA

Attachment A 
Co-permittees to NPDES Permit No. MA0103284 
MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant 
Town of Arlington 
Department of Public Works 
51 Grove Street 
Arlington, MA 02476 
Town of Ashland 
Department of Public Works 
20 Ponderosa Road 
Ashland, MA 01721 
Town of Bedford 
Department of Public Works 
314 Great Road 
Bedford, MA 01730 
Town of Belmont 
Department of Public Works 
19 Moore Street 
Belmont, MA 02478 
Town of Braintree 
Department of Public Works 
P.O. Box 850903 
Braintree, MA 02185-0903 
Town of Brookline 
Town Engineer 
333 Washington Street 
Brookline, MA 02445 
Town of Burlington 
Town Engineer 
29 Center Street 
Burlington, MA 01803 
Town of Canton 
Department of Public Works 
801 Washington Street 
Canton, MA 02021 
Town of Dedham 
Department of Public Works 
55 River Street 
Dedham, MA 02026 
City of Everett 
Department of Public Works 
19 Norman Street 
Everett, MA 02149 
City of Framingham 
Department of Public Works 
100 Western Avenue 
Framingham, MA 01701 
Town of Hingham 
Department of Public Works 
210 Central Street 
Hingham, MA 02043 
Town of Holbrook 
Department of Public Works 
50 N. Franklin Street 
Holbrook, MA 02343 
Town of Lexington 
Department of Public Works 
201 Bedford Street 
Lexington, MA 02420 
City of Malden 
Department of Public Works 
200 Pleasant Street 
Malden, MA 02148 
City of Medford 
Town Engineer 
85 George P. Hassett Drive 
Medford, MA 02155 
City of Melrose 
Department of PublicWorks 
72 Tremont St. 
Melrose, MA 02176 
Town of Milton 
Department of Public Works 
629 Randolph Avenue 
Milton, MA 02186 
Town of Natick 
Department of Public Works 
75 West Street 
Natick, MA 01760 
Town of Needham 
Department of Public Works 
470 Dedham Avenue 
Needham, MA 02492 
City of Newton 
Department of Public Works 
1000 Commonwealth Avenue 
Newton, MA 02459 
Town of Norwood 
Department of Public Works 
566 Washington Street 
Norwood, MA 02062 
City of Quincy 
Department of Public Works 
55 Sea Street 
Quincy, MA 02169 
Town of Randolph 
Department of PublicWorks 
41 South Main Street 
Randolph, MA 02368

Town of Reading 
Department of Public Works 
16 Lowell Street 
Reading, MA 01867 
City of Revere 
Department of PublicWorks 
321 Rear Charger Street 
Revere, MA 02151 
Town of Stoneham 
Public Works Department 
16 Pine Street 
Stoneham, MA 02180 
Town of Stoughton 
Department of PublicWorks 
950 Central Street 
Stoughton, MA 02072 
Town of Wakefield 
Director of Public Works 
1 Lafayette Street 
Wakefield, MA 01880 
Town of Walpole 
Department of PublicWorks 
135 School Street 
Walpole, MA 02081 
City of Waltham 
Department of PublicWorks 
165 Lexington Street 
Waltham, MA 02452 
Town of Watertown 
Department of PublicWorks 
124 Orchard Street 
Watertown, MA 02472 
Town of Wellesley 
Department of PublicWorks 
455 Worcester Street 
Wellesley, MA 02481 
Town of Westwood 
Department of PublicWorks 
50 Carby Street 
Westwood, MA 02090 
Town of Weymouth 
Department of PublicWorks 
120 Winter Street 
Weymouth, MA 02188 
Town of Wilmington 
Department of Public Works 
121 Glen Road 
Wilmington, MA 01887 
Town of Winchester 
Department of PublicWorks 
15 Lake Street 
Winchester, MA 01890 
Town of Winthrop 
Department of Public Works 
100 Kennedy Drive 
Winthrop, MA 02152 
City of Woburn 
Public Works Sewer Division 
50 North Warren Street 
Woburn, MA 01801 
NOTE: The Cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea and Somerville have received separate letters as current
permittees under NPDES Permit Nos. MA0101192, MA0101974, MA0101877 and MA0101982, respectively.