November 28, 2023 - City of Melrose

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · from the EPA · 13 pages · 496 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

CITY OF MELROSE 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 
Administration–Engineering–Water–Sewer–Facilities 
Parks–Forestry–Highway–Sanitation–Cemetery–Fleet 
Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., BCEE 
Director of Public Works 
City Yard, 72 Tremont Street
Melrose, Massachusetts 02176
Telephone – (781) 665-0142 
E-mail: eproakis@cityofmelrose.org 
November 28, 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: Comments on Draft Permit No. MA0103284 for the MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant 
Dear Ms. Barden and Ms. Golden: 
Melrose 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, Melrose 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. 
As an initial matter, Melrose has substantial concerns about the Draft Permit’s imposition of a
novel requirement to develop and implement major storm and flood event plans for its sewer system.
This requirement will impose significant financial and resource burdens on communities like Melrose.
The extent of these burdens is unknown because neither EPA nor MassDEP has conducted any cost-
benefit analysis of this new requirement. Melrose 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
generated or discovered threatens to cast aside local planning priorities in favor of a federally mandated,
perpetual planning cycle. 
Melrose harbors substantial concerns about how the Draft Permit (and, by extension, the State
Permit) would inappropriately regulate DITP and the communities. The Draft Permit relies on generic
prohibitions against violating water quality standards that, contrary to law, fail to define how MWRA
and the communities must assure the protection of receiving water quality. 
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.

Melrose Comments
Draft Permit No. MA0103284
November 28, 2023 
2 
Melrose has other significant concerns with the Draft Permit discussed in detail below. In
particular, the Draft Permit and State Permit inappropriately regulate communities like Melrose 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
Melrose and other towns novel and onerous long-term obligations to 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 strain Melrose’s resources beyond the breaking point and disrupt the
broader capital planning process. The Draft Permit also gives Melrose 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 Melrose and Other Communities Will Bear. 
Complying with the Major Events Planning Provisions will impose substantial costs on Melrose.
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 engagement of outside consultants. These costs could pale
in comparison to the potential capital costs that Melrose 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 Melrose are unknown but certain to be
substantial. Melrose 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, Melrose will then have to
modify its capital plans and budget for resiliency projects. These additional costs will ultimately impact
other parts of Melrose’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
Melrose 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.

Melrose Comments
Draft Permit No. MA0103284
November 28, 2023 
3 
B. The Major Events Planning Provisions Do Not Provide Sufficient Time for
Compliance. 
The Major Events Planning Provisions provide Melrose 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 Melrose 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. Due to municipal funding constraints, securing a significant funding
source – either through grants, loans, or general fund appropriation – can take several months.
Confirming funding and procuring contracts with consultants is time consuming and, in itself, a drain on
resources for a small community like Melrose. 
If EPA and MassDEP insist on including the Major Events Planning Provisions, the agencies
must provide Melrose and other communities a reasonable deadline to complete this major undertaking.
Any final permit should allow the communities at least thirty-six months to develop and begin
implementing major storm and flood events plans. 
The Agencies Should Explore Whether Existing Furthermore, as each community conveys flow into the
larger system, a system-wide approach would make more sense for addressing major events so that
increased flow from upstream communities does not adversely impact flow in downstream communities.
There would be economies of scale from approaching the problem from a systems perspective. 
C. Programs Achieve the Objectives of the Major Events Planning Provisions. 
Before requiring Melrose 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. 
D. EPA and MassDEP Failed to Justify These Planning Requirements. 
In addition to the foregoing issues, Melrose 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.

Melrose Comments
Draft Permit No. MA0103284
November 28, 2023 
4 
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 falls 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 Melrose 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. 
Melrose 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 Melrose 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 Melrose’s
consent by unlawfully waiving their permit application requirements. 
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 Melrose to have an adequate opportunity to
comment on the State Permit, MassDEP should explain its reasons and open a new comment period. 
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 Melrose 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).

Melrose Comments
Draft Permit No. MA0103284
November 28, 2023 
5 
A. Neither EPA nor MassDEP Has Jurisdiction to Regulate Communities Like
Melrose. 
1. The Federal Draft Permit 
The Draft Permit’s inclusion of Melrose 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, Melrose 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.”). 
Melrose’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
Melrose’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 Melrose and the other Co-permittees in
the State Permit is inconsistent with the regulations governing Surface 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. 
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).

Melrose Comments
Draft Permit No. MA0103284
November 28, 2023 
6 
B. Communities like Melrose 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 Melrose 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 [COMMUNITY
NAME’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 Melrose’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 POTW by reference to a single owner, MassDEP
cannot include satellite systems owned by thirty-nine communities in the same POTW as DITP. 
C. Melrose Has Not Submitted An Application To EPA or MassDEP, and Neither
Agency Has Authority To Waive The Requirement To Do So. 
Melrose 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 Melrose, EPA cannot issue a permit imposing conditions
on Melrose. 
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.”).

Melrose Comments
Draft Permit No. MA0103284
November 28, 2023 
7 
EPA cannot avoid this problem by waiving application requirements. See Fact Sheet 12, 21.
EPA’s March 8, 2023 letter to Melrose claimed that 40 C.F.R. § 121.21(j) authorized the Region to
waive permit application requirements in their entirety. See Attachment 1 Melrose’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 Melrose’s obligation to submit an application. 
MassDEP similarly violated its regulations by seeking to regulate Melrose in the State Permit
without having received a permit application from Melrose. 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 Melrose because Melrose
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 Melrose 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. 
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. 
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].”).

Melrose Comments
Draft Permit No. MA0103284
November 28, 2023 
8 
Accordingly, Melrose supports the Advisory Board’ proposed revisions to the Draft Permit’s language
that the Board submitted with its comments. 
IV. Conclusion 
Melrose appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Permit and State Permit. Please
feel free to contact DPW Director, Elean Proakis Ellis at 781-979-4155 or EProakis@CityofMelrose.org 
if you have any questions or would like to arrange a meeting to discuss the resolution of the issues raised
above. 
Sincerely; 
Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., BCEE 
Melrose DPW Director 
cc: Mayor Paul Brodeur 
Vonnie Reis, City Engineer 
Matthew Romero, Executive Director, MWRA Advisory Board

ATTACHMENT 1
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 Town of Lexington
Department of Public Works
201 Bedford Street
Lexington, MA 02420 
Department of Public Works
50 N. Franklin Street
Holbrook, MA 02343 
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.