SECTION 6

PERMITTING

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section will describe the various local, state, and federal permits associated with the three
components of the proposed desalination facility. These components are:

• Intake/Withdrawal (Groundwater or Seawater)

• Outfall/Brine Disposal
• Upland Facilities (Treatment Plant, Pumping Station, Distribution System)

The three main components include the intake location, the construction of the desalination
facility (and other improvements to the distribution system) and the discharge location. All three
need not be located within the same area but costs increase substantially when the three
structures are located at a distance from each other from the permitting perspective. The
proposed location of the desalination treatment facility can be divided into two physical
locations:

• Northern Sites - Dust Bowl Site, Duck Lane Site, Wanzer Trucking Site
• Southern Sites - South Shore Charter School, WBZ Tower Site, Hull Municipal Light
Site

The three northern sites could all utilize the discharge outfall presently existing at the Hull
wastewater treatment plant. It would be economically unfeasible for the discharge from the three
southern sites to be piped up to the wastewater treatment facility. Permits necessary for the
project can be broken down into four categories:

• General approvals (e.g., MEPA, NEPA).

10651A 6-1 Wright-Pierce

 • New source approval for the water supply. There is a series of permits issued by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) for the development
of a new water supply or new water source.
• Land-based permits (e.g., Order of Conditions). These approvals are associated with the
siting of the treatment facility, associated pumping facilities, and installation of new or
modification of the distribution system.
• Water-based permits (e.g., Chapter 91, Section 10, Section 404). As the intake and
outfall pipes will be located within the water column, there are numerous water-based
permits. It is unclear if any dredging will be required for the construction of the intake or
the outfall pipes (if required).

Each agency issuing a permit typically reviews the siting of the applicable component of the
proposed facility relative to environmental impacts and may include requirements for the
baseline monitoring of environmental resources, modeling of effluent and intake areas,
operational performance standards, and post-operational monitoring which are discussed in
greater detail in this section.

The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), through an interagency

task force, is currently developing a policy guidance document regarding assessment and
permitting of desalination plants in Massachusetts. This task force will include representatives
from both state and federal agencies (cooperating agencies). While a complete draft policy
guidance document has yet to be developed, some technical support documents and initial
scoping documents were made available. These documents will be discussed through this
permitting section. These draft documents include:

• Desalination Plant Permits And Approvals (November 2005 Draft)

• Environmental Performance Standards for Streamlining Permits for Desalination
Proposal (September 16, 2005 Draft)
• Monitoring Requirements (September 16, 2005 Draft)

10651A 6-2 Wright-Pierce

6.2 INTAKE PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS

There are two alternatives for the intake as previously described: (1) groundwater extraction
using angled wells and (2) seawater extraction using a direct ocean intake. The permits required
for both of these options include work within inland or coastal wetlands resource areas whether it
be the angled wells or an ocean intake pipe.

Based on the draft EOEA documents as described in the introduction of this section, a series of
recommendations are relevant to (a) the location and operation of the intake; (b) a pre-
operational baseline survey; (c) intake modeling; and (d) post-operational assessment. These are
outlined below. There would likely be reduced environmental permitting requirements for
groundwater extraction versus a direct ocean intake.

6.2.1 Siting of Intake Structure

The groundwater supply has been identified in the vicinity of Malta Street and would be
sufficient to provide water supply for the 2.5 and 4.0 MGD options. Angled wells would be
installed in this location as discussed in Section 2. For the 5.0 MGD option, a direct ocean
intake is recommended. No location for this intake has been yet identified. Nonetheless, it is
assumed that all options for siting the intake (both groundwater and seawater) will not occur in
the following areas:

• Weir River Estuary or any Other Estuary

• Weir River ACEC
• Any other Outstanding Resource Water (ORW's)

6.2.2 Pre-operational Baseline Survey

As part of the evaluation of the potential desalination intake, a pre-operational baseline survey
and database must be established. Based on the draft EOEA policy this baseline survey of the
source water body adjacent to proposed intake may include monitoring or investigation of the
following biological, chemical and physical components:

10651A 6-3 Wright-Pierce

6.2.2.1 Monitored Biological Components

A baseline biological monitoring program will be required that includes:

• Fish
o Ichthyoplankton
o Pelagic Species (Juveniles and Adults)
o Benthic Species
• Shellfish
• Benthic Invertebrates other than Shellfish (E.G., Infauna and Epifauna)

The EOEA draft Monitoring Requirements document notes that the siting of the intake location
outside of outside estuaries, ACECs, ORWs, areas of fish passage, land containing shellfish, fish
and shellfish spawning and nursery habitat, and/or utilize substratum intakes may have
significantly reduced frequencies of biological collection.

6.2.2.2 Ambient Water Quality

• Sample at Least Three Stations (Intake Site, Upstream, Downstream)

• Suite of Samples Must Cover the Full Depth of The Water Column
• Minimum Water Quality Monitoring Constituents
o Salinity
o DO Concentration and Saturation
o Temperature
o Turbidity or TSS
o pH

The EOEA draft Monitoring Requirements document notes that the siting of the intake location
outside of outside estuaries, ACECs, ORWs, areas of fish passage, land containing shellfish, fish
and shellfish spawning and nursery habitat, and/or utilize substratum intakes may have
significantly reduced water quality monitoring requirements. Note that this document focuses on

10651A 6-4 Wright-Pierce

surface water monitoring and not groundwater monitoring requirements even if a groundwater
intake is proposed. However, it is likely that some baseline groundwater monitoring would be
required for a proposed groundwater intake system.

6.2.2.3 Physical Characteristics

Physical characteristics of the ocean in the vicinity of the intake would need to sampled and
described including:

• Hydrography
o Water Velocity
o Water Flows (Over One Year, Full Tidal Cycles)
• Bathymetry
o Produce Bathymetric Maps in the Vicinity of Discharge
o Identification of Notable Features and Natural Resources such as Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV), Oyster Beds and Other Shellfish Resources, Wrecks, Etc. in
Relation to Proposed Discharge

Reduced sampling requirements in this area would likely be applicable if the groundwater intake
alternative were adopted.

6.2.3 Withdrawal Modeling

As part of the permit requirements, the draft EOEA desalination permitting policy states that the
intake should be modeled with respect to:

• Duration of Withdrawal Relative to Tidal Cycle

• Model Salinity During the Entire Time of Proposed Withdrawal
• Demonstrate Withdrawal Will not Affect Groundwater or Surface Water Flow, Depth, or
Salinity

10651A 6-5 Wright-Pierce

These requirements were likely developed to address the effects of withdrawals from estuaries
and tidal rivers. It is likely that the requirements could be reduced, modified, or eliminated for a
direct ocean withdrawal or a groundwater withdrawal from a location under the sea floor.

6.2.4 Post-operational Monitoring

Post-operational monitoring requirements are based on site-specific considerations and subject to

agency review and comment before sampling begins

6.2.4.1 Monitored Biological Components

A post-operational biological monitoring program will be required that includes:

• Fish (The Frequency and Duration of Sampling May be Refined According to the
Species)
o Ichthyoplankton
o Pelagic Species (Juveniles and Adults)
o Benthic Species
• Shellfish
• Benthic Invertebrates Other than Shellfish (E.G., Infauna and Epifauna)

The EOEA draft Monitoring Requirements document notes that proponents that site the intake
location outside of outside estuaries, ACECs, ORWs, areas of fish passage, land containing
shellfish, fish and shellfish spawning and nursery habitat may not require monitoring of pelagic
and benthic fish species and benthic invertebrates. If substratum intakes are utilized, the
requirement for the biological monitoring program will be waived.

6.2.4.2 Ambient Water Quality

The EOEA draft Monitoring Requirements document requires at least a one year of post-
operational monitoring program consisting of:

10651A 6-6 Wright-Pierce

 • Sample at Least Three Stations (Discharge Site, Upstream, Downstream)
• Suite of Samples Must Cover the Full Depth of the Water Column
• Minimum Water Quality Monitoring Constituents
o Salinity
o DO Concentration and Saturation
o Temperature
o Turbidity or TSS

These requirements were likely developed to address the effects of withdrawals from estuaries
and tidal rivers. It is likely that the requirements could be reduced, modified, or eliminated for a
direct ocean withdrawal or a groundwater withdrawal from a location under the sea floor.

6.2.4.3 Intake Entrainment and Impingement

According to the EOEA draft Monitoring Requirements for proponents utilizing substratum
intakes, impingement sampling will be waived. The current feasibility study options include the
use of angled wells for source water for the 2.5 and 4.0 MGD capacity plant and eliminate
potential impingement mortality and entrainment (IM&E) (but not the 5.0 MGD option). Use of
a substratum intake would also eliminate or greatly reduce the need for potential pre-treatment
processes to screen and potential toxic chemicals (e.g., biocides) to condition the source water
prior to its entry into the desalination plant.

Use of a open water intake would necessitate data collection and modeling of the potential
impact of entrainment of ichthyoplankton into the facility and impingement upon the intake
screen(s). Design methods for open water intakes that have been used to reduce IM&E may
include use of specially designed wedge-wire screens, barrier nets of varying design, reductions
in intake velocity, and other methods. Determination of potential IM&E impacts and subsequent
design of a suitable system for reducing impacts will need to be part of the 5.0 MGD alternative.

6.2.4.4 Additional Monitoring Requirements

To be determined based on discussions with agency staff.

10651A 6-7 Wright-Pierce

6.3 OUTFALL DISCHARGE PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS

One requirement for any of the proposed water treatment facility alternatives, regardless of
proposed size or production quantity (i.e., 2.5, 4.0, or 5.0 MGD Treatment Plant Capacity), is the
need to dispose of the by-products of the desalination, water treatment, and maintenance
operations in an environmentally sound fashion. For all treatment facility alternatives, this
disposal is projected to be through an ocean outfall which will require a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit.

This discharge may potentially be coupled with some or all of the existing Hull water pollution
control facility (WPCF) effluent as a means to mitigate the salinity of the outfall. If mixed
together, the desalination wastes (collectively referred to as “brine”) and the Hull WPCF effluent
could be co-disposed through the existing Hull WPCF outfall pipe or could require the siting and
construction of a new discharge pipe. Accordingly, in addition to the NPDES permit, several
other environmental permits would be associated with this new outfall construction. The major
issues and concerns associated with a desalination plant outfall NPDES permit are considered
below (Section 6.3.1), while the potential non-discharge permits and their requirements are
considered separately (Section 6.3.2).

6.3.1 NPDES Discharge Permit

The regulatory requirements for a NPDES and associated permits are briefly discussed in Section
6.3.1.1. The current Hull WPCF NPDES permit effluent limitations are listed in Section 6.3.1.2.
Potential concerns/issues associated with discharge of desalination brines (Section 6.3.1.3) and
their mitigation (Section 6.3.1.4) are considered below. Finally the EOEA task force on
Desalination Plant policy has provided a series of draft documents potentially applicable to the
Hull project; these are described and discussed in Section 6.3.1.5. Finally potential mitigation
measures that are relevant to current feasibility options for the Hull desalination project are
considered in Section 6.3.1.6.

10651A 6-8 Wright-Pierce

6.3.1.1 Regulatory Requirements

The NPDES Program is an integral part of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and covers point
source discharges to waters of the United States. Discharge permits are established to ensure
sufficient wastewater treatment is conducted and that concentrations in the effluent discharge are
protective of public health and aquatic life. Permit conditions typically include site-specific
effluent limits, monitoring and testing scope and frequency, and reporting requirements.
Regulated pollutants may include sanitary waste, toxic pollutants, physical factors (e.g.,
turbidity), and non-conventional parameters (e.g., nutrients).

While the national NPDES program is administered by the U.S. EPA, Massachusetts is a non-
delegated NPDES permit state such that the permits are issued jointly by U.S. EPA (New
England Region) and MA DEP and are equally and separately enforceable to both agencies.
Permits are issued for up to five years and are renewable.

Paul Hogan (MA DEP) and Betsy Davis (U.S. EPA) (Hogan/Davis pers. comm.) were contacted
regarding the regulatory route of the Hull desalination plant brine disposal and associated
NPDES discharge permit. [Note: they are currently working on the NPDES permits for the
Swansea (Palmer River) and Dighton (Taunton River) desalination plants]. They stated that
there is no federal U.S. EPA technology-based treatment standards yet established for
desalination plants. Headquarters of U.S. EPA is in the process of developing technology-based
treatment guidance for desalination plants, but this is several years away and likely would not
affect the Hull permit. Accordingly, the Hull permit will most likely be based on best
professional judgment (BPJ). Therefore, the NPDES permit writer has considerable discretion in
setting the conditions and limitation of the permit.

It was noted (Hogan/Davis pers. comm.) that when considering WPCF effluent blending and
salinity dilution, the Hull project will need to consider the following regulatory language:

"(f) Technology-based treatment requirements cannot be satisfied through the use of “no-
treatment” techniques such as flow augmentation and in-stream mechanical aerators. However

10651A 6-9 Wright-Pierce

these techniques may be considered as a means of achieving water quality standards on a case-
by-case basis when:

1. The technology-based treatment requirements applicable to the discharge are not

sufficient to achieve the standards.
2. The discharger agrees to waive any opportunity to request a variance under section
301(c), (g), or (h) of the Act.
3. The discharge demonstrates that such a technique is the preferred environmental and
economic method to achieve the standards after consideration of alternatives such as
advanced waste treatment, recycle and reuse, land disposal, changes in operation
methods, and other available methods."

The first stage of development of a NPDES permit should be a scoping meeting with U.S. EPA
Water Permits Division and the filing of a Form 1 General Information Consolidated Permits
Program describing the location and nature of the proposed discharge and its receiving waters.
NPDES permits will also require demonstration of a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certificate
from MA DEP as well as concurrence from the MA CZM that that project is consistent with
federal and state coastal policies (Federal Consistency Review).

As part of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification review, the MA DFW will review the
permit application information and provide comment and/or recommendations regarding
protection of fish, shellfish and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) resources. Similarly, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will provide Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Conservation Recommendations that identify potential effects to federally-managed species and
possible avoidance or mitigative features. Currently, EFH has been identified for 59 species in
New England.

If any significant treatment processes or operations changes are made to combine sanitary
effluent from the Hull WPCF with the brine for disposal, compliance with State Environmental
Code (“Title 5”) must be maintained.

10651A 6 - 10 Wright-Pierce
 Other potential review, permits and requirements are also applicable, depending on the location
of the discharge outfall location. Designated environmentally sensitive areas with additional
review and potential restrictions include: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Ocean Sanctuaries, and/or Coastal Wetlands. Review for
these areas (and any other applicable protected resource such as state- or federal-endangered
species) would be conducted under the overall MEPA process for the entire project.

6.3.1.2 Projected Hull Desalination Brine Disposal Quality and Quantity

The estimated quantity and quality of the proposed Hull desalination brine waste is presented in
Tables 6-1 and 6-2.

TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF WASTE DISPOSAL QUANTITY
HULL, MASSACHUSETTS

Design Flows
Rated Plant Capacity and Source
(MGD) Brine Reject Capacity Finished Water to
Source Water Capacity
(Concentrate) Distribution (Permeate)
(MGD)
(MGD) (MGD)
2.5 MGD (Groundwater) 5.0 2.5 2.5
4.0 MGD (Groundwater) 8.0 4.0 4.0
5.0 MGD (Seawater Intake) 10.0 5.0 5.0

TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY OF WASTE DISPOSAL QUALITY
HULL, MASSACHUSETTS

Constituent Raw Water Brine Potable Water

Calcium, mg/L 400 800 16
Magnesium, mg/L 1,300 2600 2
Sodium, mg/L 9,300 18,530 71
Potassium, mg/L 600 1200 6
Bicarbonate, mg/L 134 265 50
Sulfate, mg/L 3,200 6,400 3
Chloride, mg/L 19,000 37,900 117
Bromide, mg/L 57 116 <1
TDS, mg/L 33,900 67,700 240
TSS, mg/L 84 NA <1
pH 7.86 8.3 8.7

10651A 6 - 11 Wright-Pierce
As can be seen in Table 6-1, the amount of brine generated (2.5 – 5.0 MGD) is dependent on the
various treatment capacity options, with about equal volumes of brine and finished potable water
(i.e., desalination efficiency is about 50%). The projected brine quality that would need to be
discharged is shown in Table 6-2, based on the simple concentration (doubling) of sea water
constituents, with the exception of total suspended solids (TSS) which should be virtually
eliminated by the membrane filtration.

6.3.1.3 Existing Hull WFCF NPDES Permit

The current NDPES permit (Permit No. MA0101231; dated 5/2/02) for the Hull WPCF
discharge outfall 001 provides for an average monthly flow of 3.07 MGD. The measured 2005
Hull WPCF average monthly wastewater flows were approximately 2.00 MGD. The designated
receiving water is the Atlantic Ocean (Boston Harbor Watershed – 70). The permit lists effluent
limitations for several conventional water quality parameters:

• Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
• pH Range of 6.6-8.5 Standard Units
• Total Chlorine Residual (TCR)
• Fecal Coliform

In addition, there is a requirement for quarterly (i.e., whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing of a
24-hour composite sample for a 7-day acute toxicity (survival and growth) test with inland
silversides (Menidia beryllina). Based on past performance, this WET test may be reduced in
frequency at the discretion of the U.S. EPA.

6.3.2 Potential Environmental Concerns/Issues Associated with Discharge of Brines

A number of potential environmental concerns or issues have been associated with the brine
disposal from desalination plants. These general concerns include:

10651A 6 - 12 Wright-Pierce
 • Salinity – The desalination process concentrates that natural sea salts into the brine. Both
elevated salinity levels and/or short-term fluctuations can have adverse impacts on local
fish and shellfish resources due to osmotic stress.
• Toxicity – potential toxic chemicals may be introduced into the plant waste stream by a
variety of desalination processes including feed water pretreatment (if required), pipeline
flushing, RO membrane cleaners and preservatives, and other operations. These
chemicals may include: biocides, coagulants, anti-scalants, acids, polyelectrolytes,
antifoaming agents, as well as elevated concentrations of seawater constituents (e.g.,
heavy metals).
• Density Stratification – due to elevated salinity and potential thermal difference between
the effluent and the ambient receiving water, the density of the effluent plume may lead
to a seasonally-variable inflow at various depths. This may lead to altered water
chemistry in some portions of the water column (e.g., reduced dissolved oxygen at
depth).
• Turbidity/Sedimentation – The introduction of the chemically enriched brine, particularly
if mixed with sanitary effluent, could alter the flocculation and behavior of particles
discharged, leading to changes in the turbidity or sedimentation in the vicinity of the
outfall. Elevated turbidity could reduce the amount of available light to SAVs or
macroalgae at the sea bottom.
• Fish/Shellfish – Concerns include potential impacts to spawning, foraging, or benthic
habitat; alteration of fish migration patterns, and/or impingement mortality or
entrainment associated with open ocean intakes.
• Ecosystem Alteration – These are secondary or indirect effects such as increased nutrient
levels leading to enrichment of local waters or changes leading to a shift of benthic or
fish community species abundance or composition.

These environmental concerns will need to be addressed and/or potential impacts mitigated in
the future development of the Hull desalination project.

10651A 6 - 13 Wright-Pierce
6.3.3 Potential Requirements for Assessment and Evaluation of Brines

Based on the draft EOEA documents as described in the introduction of this section, a series of
recommendations or preference are relevant to (a) the location and operation of the discharge
outfall; (b) a pre-operational baseline survey; c) plume modeling; (d) toxicity testing; and (e)
post-operational assessment. These are outlined below.

6.3.3.1 Discharge Outfall

A. Outfall Discharge Location

To minimize environmental concerns, the proposed desalination plant outfall discharge location
should be sited outside of:

• Estuaries
• ACECs
• ORWs
• Areas of Fish Passage
• Ocean Sanctuaries
• Cannot Interfere with Endangered or Threatened Species

B. Effluent Salinity

EOEA recommendations regarding effluent quality include:

• Effluent salinity equal receiving water salinity at the point and time of discharge.
• Proponents that blend brine with wastewater to achieve ambient receiving water salinities
will have the benefit of needing only one NPDES discharge permit if both waste streams
use the same outfall pipe and there is sufficient flow capacity under the existing permit.

10651A 6 - 14 Wright-Pierce
The EOEA draft Performance Standards document notes that proponents who commit to
discharging effluent at salinity equal to ambient at time of discharge, 1) modeling of plume will
not be required—only a mathematical description of effluent mixing will be necessary; 2) no
sampling at the discharge site of fish, shellfish, or benthic invertebrates will be required; 3) long-
term ambient water quality monitoring will be relaxed to 1x/week occurring midway through the
time of discharge (this does not preclude more frequent monitoring at end of pipe to satisfy
NPDES permit.

C. Mixing Zones

Recommended only in well-flushed areas with ambient salinity of 30 Practical Salinity Units
(PSU) or greater:

• Shall be as Small as Possible

• Shall not be Bank to Bank
• Shall Cover < 50% of Receiving Water Cross-Section
• Shall not Affect Fish Passage, Spawning and/or Nursery Habitat, Land Containing
Shellfish, and/or Other Benthic Fishery Resources

D. Toxicity

• Discharge Shall not be Toxic to Organisms Exposed to the Discharge Effluent

• Discharge Concentrate Shall be Demonstrated to be Non-Toxic Prior to Discharge

The EOEA draft document indicates that the latter requirement will be waived if the effluent is
blended down to meet ambient salinity at time of discharge.

6.3.3.2 Pre-operational Baseline Survey

As part of the evaluation of the potential desalination outfall, a pre-operational baseline survey
and database must be established. This baseline survey of the source water body adjacent to

10651A 6 - 15 Wright-Pierce
proposed discharge may include monitoring or investigation of the following biological,
chemical and physical components:

A. Monitored Biological Components

• Fish
o Ichthyoplankton
o Pelagic Species (Juveniles and Adults)
o Benthic Species
• Shellfish
• Benthic Invertebrates other than Shellfish (E.G., Infauna and Epifauna)

B. Ambient Water Quality

• Sample at Least Three Stations (Discharge Site, Upstream, Downstream)

• Suite of Samples Must Cover the Full Depth of the Water Column
• Minimum Water Quality Monitoring Constituents
o Salinity
o Do Concentration and Saturation
o Temperature
o Turbidity Or Tss
o Ph

The EOEA draft Monitoring Requirements document notes that proponents that site the
discharge outfall location outside of outside estuaries, ACECs, ORWs, areas of fish passage,
land containing shellfish, fish and shellfish spawning and nursery habitat, and/or utilize
substratum intakes may have significantly reduced frequencies of biological collection and water
quality monitoring.

10651A 6 - 16 Wright-Pierce
C. Physical Characteristics

• Bathymetry
o Produce Bathymetric Maps in Vicinity Discharge
o Identify Notable Features and Resources such as SAV, Oyster Beds, Wrecks, Etc. in
Relation to Proposed Discharge
• Provide Information Regarding the Nature of the Substrate
• Evaluate Tidal Flow and Current Velocities

6.3.3.3 Effluent Plume Modeling

As part of the permit requirements, the discharge outfall plume and its dispersion in the ambient
receiving water will need to be modeled. The modeling inputs are subject to agency review and
include:

• Model the Plume Characteristics (Location, Dispersion, Thermal, Particle Size) Relative
to Tidal Cycle and Receiving Water Body Salinity at Tidal Nodes (Maximum Flood,
Slack Flood, Maximum Ebb, Slack Ebb)
• Model the Plume Under Summer (Stratified) and Winter (Unstratified) Conditions if
Oceanic Stratification is Present
• Model Must Predict Plume Under Worst-Case Conditions and Look at Plume Relative to
Shorelines, SAV, Shellfish Beds, and other Sensitive Habitats and Resources

It is noted that if the effluent is discharged at a salinity value equal to ambient salinity at the time
of discharge, the modeling of the plume may be waived.

6.3.3.4 Toxicity Testing

As part of the evaluation of the effluent discharge, toxicity testing should be conducted to assess
the potential toxicity associated with the brine and with varying concentrations of the Hull
WPCF effluent. Acute toxicity testing should be conducted on both marine invertebrate (e.g.,

10651A 6 - 17 Wright-Pierce
mysid shrimp, Mysidopsis bahia) and fish (e.g., inland silversides, Menidia beryllina) species.
The testing will be used to evaluate toxic concerns, if any, associated with the discharge and
short-term exposure of these receptors.

6.3.3.5 Post-operational Monitoring

Post-operational monitoring requirements are based on site-specific considerations and subject to

agency review and comment before sampling begins

A. Monitored Biological Components

• Fish (the Frequency of Sampling may be Refined According to the Species)

o Ichthyoplankton
o Pelagic Species (Juveniles and Adults)
o Benthic Species
• Shellfish
• Benthic Invertebrates other than Shellfish (E.G., Infauna and Epifauna)

The EOEA draft Monitoring Requirements document notes that proponents that site the
discharge outfall location outside of outside estuaries, ACECs, ORWs, areas of fish passage,
land containing shellfish, fish and shellfish spawning and nursery habitat, may not require
monitoring of pelagic and benthic fish species and benthic invertebrates. If substratum intakes
are utilized, the requirement for ichthyoplankton monitoring will be waived.

B. Ambient Water Quality

• Sample at Least Three Stations (Discharge Site, Upstream, Downstream)

• Suite of Samples must Cover the Full Depth of the Water Column
• Minimum Water Quality Monitoring Constituents
o Salinity
o DO Concentration and Saturation

10651A 6 - 18 Wright-Pierce
 o Temperature
o Turbidity or TSS
• At Least One Year of Post-Operational Monitoring is Required

C. Discharge Plume Characteristics

• Measure Extent of Plume (Width, Length, Depth)

• Measure Salinity Structure of Plume
• Measure DO Structure of Plume
• Measure Temperature Structure of Plume
• Measure Turbidity or TSS Structure of Plume
• Measure Ph Structure of Plume

D. Additional Monitoring Requirements

• To be Determined on a Case-By-Case Basis

6.3.4 Potential Outfall Mitigative Factors

There are several potential mitigation measures which can be used to reduce potential
environmental concerns for coastal resources due to discharge from the project Hull desalination
plant. Many of these may be incorporated into the siting, design, and construction of the
discharge outfall. These include:

• Siting and design of the outfall to avoid estuaries, ACECs, ORWs, areas of fish passage,
land containing shellfish, fish and shellfish spawning and nursery habitat: The Hull
desalination discharge outfall will be designed to avoid, to the greatest extent feasible, the
Weir River estuary, ACEC, and associated ORWs; shellfish bed and fishery spawning
locations, and minimize impacts to EFH. This is most easily accomplished by placement
of the outfall location at the northern end of the Hull peninsula at or near the present Hull
WPCF outfall location.

10651A 6 - 19 Wright-Pierce
 • Outfall siting and design to ensure an adequate mixing rate and dilution volume: The
outfall site will be located in deeper ocean water (such is available at the end of the Hull
peninsula) and will be designed to have a rapid dispersion of the effluent such that the
volume needed for meeting ambient salinity conditions at the edge of the zone of initial
dilution is minimal.
• Removal of hazardous constituents in brine water waste stream: The Hull desalination
discharge will contain trace amounts of the following: scale inhibitor, CO2, limestone,
NaOCL, and other cleaning chemicals. The potential toxicity of such chemicals is
expected to be de minimis at the expected discharge concentrations and will likely be
monitored through the inclusion of a WET test requirement for the NPDES permit.
• Mixing of desalination brines with WPCF effluent to reduce salinity: This is a viable
option for the reduction of the discharge outfall salinity (and more rapid compliance with
meeting ambient salinity conditions in the receiving water). It will require much more
study to understand if this is feasible in terms of available WPCF effluent volumes,
piping/pumping infrastructure requirements, and combined effluent and brine mixture
characteristics.

On the other hand the two option features which do not represent mitigation measures and are
likely to require significant additional efforts and cost for permitting and study are the use of an
open ocean intake for the source water and locating the discharge outfall within the Weir River
estuary, ACEC and associated ORWs.

6.3.5 Permit Requirements for Discharge Outfall Pipe Construction or Modification

The filing of an Individual Permit under the most current Corps of Engineers Programmatic
General Permit Program will likely be required for the construction of the discharge of the
proposed Hull Desalination Plant (this would also include any modifications of the present Hull
WPCF outfall pipe). As part of this filing, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
cooperating agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program,
among others) will be provided the opportunity to review. In addition, this process will include

10651A 6 - 20 Wright-Pierce
one or more public hearings in the vicinity of the proposed project to allow adequate opportunity
for the public and interested parties to comment upon the proposed project design. This
Individual Permit (IP) filing will fulfill the filing requirements of and demonstrate compliance
with various components of the Clean Water Act (Section 404) and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act, as well as other environmental regulatory programs such as Section 103 of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act governing the transportation and disposal of
dredged material.

Because an IP filing does not provide for coordinated review per the other categories of the New
England Corps’ PGP Program, separate filings will be required under the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program (administered by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection) and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Consistency Certification Program.

6.4 UPLAND FACILITY PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS

Of the upland work proposed for this project, there is the treatment facility, the booster pumping
station, and the new or modifications to the distribution system. Depending on the pumping
option chosen, the treatment facility building will be constructed on between 9,600 s.f. to 18,000
s.f. at one of the six potential sites described in Section 1.5 of this report. The upland-based
permits will likely be triggered by some or all of the activity associated with this facility.
Permits required may include the following (site dependent):

• Order of Conditions (I.E.., Work in Flood Plain, within 100 Feet of other Inland or
Coastal Wetland Resource Areas)
• NPDES Construction Permit for Work that Alters One Acre or More of Area

6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS

The following is a summary of potential environmental permits required for the proposed
project. These permits are described in greater detail in Table 6-3. The permits are broken down
into local permits, state permits, and federal permits. A timeline of permits is included as Figure
6-1.

10651A 6 - 21 Wright-Pierce
 FIGURE 6-1
PROJECTED PERMITTING TIMELINE
HULL, MASSASHUSETTS

Year 1 Year 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ENF Certificate DEIR Certificate Final Certificate

MEPA
File DEIR File FEIR

ANRAD
(Wetland ORAD Issued
(2 months)
Boundaries)
Order of
Conditions Issues
Notice of Intent/ (2 months min.)
Order of
Conditions
No review by
EPA NPDES EPA
Notice of Intent

(60 to 80 day 60 to 120 day

DEP NPDES review) review for the
Notice of Intent/
SWPP

(90 day min. (Possible 60 to

Chapter 91 80 day additional
review)
Request for review)
Determination
of Applicability

(180 days min.)

Chapter 91
License Requested Review within MEPA timeframe

Revised Permit Draft NPDES Final NPDES

Draft Form 1
Scoping Meeting Agency Approval (1 Month) Permit Issued Permit Issued
Submittal
NPDES Permit
Workplan PreOperational Agency Review Agency
Public Comment
Preparation Monitoring (3 Months) Review
(3 Months)
(12 Months) (1 Month)
6.5.1 Local Permits

6.5.1.1 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act

Work on the project components will likely trigger a filing with the Hull Conservation
Commission through the Notice of Intent process. An Order of Conditions will be issued
approving the project with conditions or denying the project. The Order may be appealed to the
DEP (See Section 6.5.2.1). As no work is proposed at this time in or near a perennial river, the
Rivers Act does not apply. This permit includes assessment of work in coastal and inland
wetlands, flood plains, and barrier beaches. Much of Hull is designated as a barrier beach. The
DEP Stormwater Management policy is assessed through this permit.

6.5.1.2 Zoning By-Laws

Zoning and set back requirements will be determined after a site is selected and preliminary
building and tanks are sited.

6.5.1.3 Municipal Harbor Plan

In 1999, the Town of Hull has prepared a Harbor Management Plan. The implementation of this
plan allows for the Town to implement revised regulations pursuant to Chapter 91. Design of
any sub-aqueous facilities will need to comply with this local harbor plan and be coordinated
with state requirements under Chapter 91 (see section 6.5.2.6).

6.5.2 State Permits

6.5.2.1 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), the proposed project exceeds,
at a minimum, the water threshold of the development of a new water supply [301 CMR
11.03(4)(b)]. As such, an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) and an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) will be submitted to MEPA. This process allows all state agencies that will be
issuing permits or approvals to comment on the project prior to those permits or approvals being

10651A 6 - 23 Wright-Pierce
issued. The MEPA process allows for the review of all proposed components of the proposed
facility from the intake location and method used to the construction of the water treatment
facility to the discharge of the brine at the outfall location.

6.5.2.2 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act

If the local Order of conditions is appealed, a Superseding Order of Conditions will be issued by
the DEP. A Variance may be required from the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act if the
proposed components do not meet the performance standards. For example, if any salt marsh is
altered for the installation of the intake or outfall pipe, a Variance may be required unless the
project meets one of the coastal or inland limited projects.

6.5.2.3 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Outstanding Resource Waters

The Weir River ACEC Area is located to the west of Hull within the Weir River Estuary. As
projects proposed within ACECs are given closer scrutiny under the MEPA process, we have
assumed that the intake and discharge points for the desalination plant will not be proposed
within the ACEC. The Hull Municipal Light Site is the only site located near the ACEC where
the treatment plant may be constructed. This site is located outside of the ACEC boundary
which is defined as the mean high water line at this site. ACEC regulations are incorporated into
other regulations including: Chapter 91, Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, MCZM,
MEPA, 401 WQC, Surface Water Quality Standards, etc. All coastal ACEC's are also ORW's.
Other provisions of the ACEC restrictions are found in the following regulations.

• Chapter 91 Regulations (310 CMR 9.32) - No New fill in Acecs, Limits on New
Structures
• Dredging Prohibited for Reasons Other than Enhancement of Fisheries or Wildlife
• Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) - No Adverse Effects are
Allowed for Coastal and Inland Wetland Resource Areas

10651A 6 - 24 Wright-Pierce
6.5.2.4 401 Water Quality Certification for Dredging

It is not clear if any dredging will be required for any component of the proposed desalination
project. This certificate is needed if a project which requires a federal permit to conduct
activities which may result in the discharge of fill to wetlands and waterways. If work falls
below 5,000 s.f., then a local Order of Conditions can stand as the WQC.

6.5.2.5 401 Water Qualify Certification for Discharges

A 401 WC certificate is needed if the project requires a federal permit to conduct activities which
may result in the discharge of fill to wetlands and waterways. If work falls below 5,000 s.f., then
a local Order of Conditions can stand as the WQC.

6.5.2.6 Chapter 91 Public Waterfront Act

Dredging, placement of structures, change in use of existing structures, placement of fill, and
alteration of existing structures in any flowed or filled tidelands require approval through the
Chapter 91 Program. If the groundwater intake option is utilized, it is likely that no license will
be required. As the Town of Hull has a Municipal harbor Plan in place, this plan can be
followed in lieu of some of the Chapter 91 regulations.

6.5.2.7 Coastal Restriction Act

There are no restricted coastal or inland wetlands registered in Hull. Restricted wetlands are
present in Hingham and Cohasset.

6.5.2.8 Ocean Sanctuaries Act

There are no Ocean Sanctuaries located in or near to Hull. These regulations would only take
affect if dredging disposal form the project would occur. Structures and activities that
significantly alter the ecology of the Ocean Sanctuaries are prohibited except as they may be
allowed under section 302 CMR 5.08 of the Ocean Sanctuaries regulations.

10651A 6 - 25 Wright-Pierce
6.5.2.9 Massachusetts Endangered Species Act

According to the 2003 11th Edition of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas prepared by the
Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) for the Hull and
Nantasket Beach quadrangles, the three possible sites are not located within an area of Estimated
Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools or within an area of Priority Habitats of
Rare Species. Nonetheless, we will coordinate with NHESP through the MEPA process if any
new rare species occurrence information has been reviewed and accepted by NHESP and the
Atlas maps subsequently revised. Work within mapped Estimated Habitats requires coordination
with MNHESP through the filing of a Notice of Intent pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act. Work within mapped Priority Habitat will soon required the filing of the
proposed work with NHESP through the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (regulations are
presently being revised). NHESP will comment on the project through the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process.

6.5.2.10 Historic Resources

During the MEPA process, the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) will be consulted
for the presence of any registered Historical Places or underwater archaeological resources.

6.5.2.11 Designated Port Areas

Hull is not located within a DPA.

6.5.2.12 Coastal Zone Consistency

This review is required if a federal permit is needed, the project exceeds and MEPA thresholds,
and the site is in the coastal zone. Under the Corps General Permit program, Consistency
Certification under the Programmatic General Permits, but is a separate application if an
Individual Permit is required. Demonstration of compliance with the program’s water quality,
regarding: habitat, protected areas, coastal hazard, ports, public access, ocean resources and
growth management policies is required for all projects located in the designated coastal zone.

10651A 6 - 26 Wright-Pierce
6.5.2.13 Massachusetts Water Management Act

A filing under the Water Management Act is not required for brackish or saline water intakes
based on the DEP Policy on Salt Water Withdrawals dated September 19, 1987.

6.5.2.14 Interbasin Transfer Act

Based on preliminary meetings, it does not appear at this time that a withdrawal of seawater as
proposed will trigger the interbasin transfer net.

6.5.2.15 New Source Approval

Of primary importance will be the development of sites that will attain and maintain quantity
objectives, while maintaining as consistent a source-water-quality profile as possible. Further,
available groundwater resources will need to be engineered and managed in such a way as to
promote quality consistency, while minimizing pumping-related environmental impacts. The
site selection process should systematically identify and quantitatively evaluate factors that relate
to these important issues.

The permitting of new groundwater sources would fall primarily to the MA DEP, Division of
Water Supply, New Source Approval Program, which is likely to include the permit applications
listed in Table 6-3. Generally speaking, to efficiently and effectively meet these requirements,
the selected source sites will possess enough land to meet protective radius requirements;
hydrogeological properties that afford a high quantity of water; minimal threats to water quality
from land uses within the created Zone II, and; minimal potential for impacts to fresh water and
marine ecosystems from pumping.

A detailed description of the New Source Approval (NSA) process is described in Section 7 of
this report.

10651A 6 - 27 Wright-Pierce
6.5.2.16 Construction Stormwater General Permit

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater permit
is required for projects that alter greater than one acre of area. This threshold will likely be
triggered by the construction of the treatment facility. As such, the development must meet
manage the water quality, sediment, and pollutant discharge of stormwater runoff from the site
during construction. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed for
the construction activities, including details on erosion control, and inspection schedules, etc.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers a general permit program for
certain stormwater discharges. The General Permits cover new and existing stormwater
discharges from certain industrial activities and construction sites over five acres. On
submission of a one page information sheet to EPA (called the "Notice of Intent"); a facility is
covered by the General Permit, which imposes conditions to reduce the pollutant load in the
discharge through Best Management Practices (BMPs).

6.5.3 Federal Permits

6.5.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act

The federal agencies who will be reviewing this project (i.e., US EPA, etc.) have the discretion
to require whether a review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be
required. If NEPA is required, then an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) will have to be submitted for review by the federal agencies prior to the
issuance of any of the federal permits.

Analysis depends on whether or not an undertaking could significantly affect the environment.
These three levels include: categorical exclusion determination; preparation of an environmental
assessment/finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI); and preparation of an environmental
impact statement (EIS).

10651A 6 - 28 Wright-Pierce
6.5.3.2 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

The NPDES Program covers point source discharges to waters of the United States. Discharge
permits are established to ensure sufficient wastewater treatment is conducted and that
concentrations in the effluent discharge are protective of public health and aquatic life. While
the national NPDES program is administered by the U.S. EPA, Massachusetts is a non-delegated
NPDES permit state such that the permits are issued jointly by U.S. EPA (New England Region)
and MA DEP and are equally and separately enforceable to both agencies. Further information
is provided in Section 6.3.

6.5.3.3 Section 10 - Rivers & Harbors Act of 1899

A Section 10 permit is required for work that is proposed seaward of the annual high water line
in navigable waters. The intake pipe (if direct intake of seawater is proposed) and the outfall
pipe will trigger this permit.

This permit is needed for the construction of structures and work in navigable waters of the US.
Commenters on this permit will include: US EPA, US FWS, National Marine Fisheries
(Essential Fish Habitat).

6.5.3.4 Section 404 – Clean Water Act

A Section 404 permit is required for work that involves the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States, including navigable waters and coastal and inland waters and
wetlands. The amount of proposed dredge or fill will determine what level of permitting under
the Massachusetts Programmatic General Permit (PGP) is required. For this issuance of this
permit, CZM consistency and a state 401 WQC is required.

This permit is needed for work resulting in the discharge of dredged or fill in a wetland.
Commenters on this permit will include: US EPA, US FWS, National Marine Fisheries and
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.

10651A 6 - 29 Wright-Pierce
6.5.3.5 Section 103 – Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act

If dredging is proposed for this project (at this time, it is not anticipated), a Section 103 permit is
required for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of disposal in the ocean. This
approval is acquired through the Corps Individual Permit application process.

6.6 TIMELINES AND ESTIMATED COSTS

Table 6-3 provides a summary of estimated timeframes and approximate costs for the various
permits. All of these estimates are based on our current understanding of the scope items and
duration required by the various regulatory agencies. Given the relatively new permit and
review process being established by EOEA and the inter-agency task force for the desalination
plant permit process, it is likely that tasks and schedules will undergo further negotiation and
clarification of scope as the project progresses. Below, is a summary for the components of the
technical studies which will be required for the necessary permits.

The approximate project timeline is also shown on Figure 6-1. Based on the assumption of a
required one-year pre-operational study, the duration of the permit process could potential be two
years. Further streamline of the process and joint reviews by agencies may significantly alter
this timeline as the project progresses.

6.6.1 Pre-Operational Studies and Modeling

As indicated in the text above, there is a substantial amount of pre-operational studies and
modeling potentially required. Based on EOEA draft policy guidance documents, it can be
anticipated that significant efforts will be required for the following:

• Baseline monitoring – this includes baseline monitoring for both the proposed intake and
outfall locations. As described in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.3.3.2, extensive characterization
of the local fish and shellfish resources, ambient water quality, and physical and
hydrologic setting will be conducted at both the intake and outfall locations, as well as in
reference locations.

10651A 6 - 30 Wright-Pierce
 • Intake modeling – based on the characteristics of the substratum intakes, modeling will
be conducted to show compliance with a zero flow-through velocity criterion. This
modeling will also be used to evaluate potential effects to local groundwater resources.
See details in Section 6.2.3.
• Outfall modeling – modeling of the combined brine-WPCF facility discharge outfall
plume will be conducted to demonstrate dispersion and mixing characteristics under a
variety of different discharge flows and the appropriate range of seasonal and tidal
conditions. See details in Section 6.4.4.4.

6.6.2 Permitting Costs

Permitting costs have been estimated in Table 6-3 for the respective permits. The permitting cost
and other project costs are discussed in more detail in Section 7 of this report. These are rough
estimates based on our understanding of the project alternatives, likely regulatory responses, and
existing site information. In some cases, no cost estimate was possible due to lack of
information on potential issues or applicability. Since some degree of streamlining of permits,
licenses, and approvals is likely to occur, these estimates are likely to be conservative.

6.6.3 Post-Operational Studies

Based on EOEA draft policy guidance documents, it can be anticipated that some amount of
post-operational monitoring will be required. For at least one year, monitoring of fish and
shellfish resources, ambient water quality, and plume characteristics will be conducted at a
reduced frequency from the pre-operational work. Based on the assumption of: (1) a substratum
intake; (2) location of discharge and intake away from ACECs, ORWs, or the Weir River; (3)
combined brine and WPCF effluent discharge; and (4) rapid dispersion of combined discharge
into oceanic environment, it is likely that this can be a much less intensive effort than the pre-
operational studies. At this time, no firm cost estimates were made.

10651A 6 - 31 Wright-Pierce
 TABLE 6-3
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS
HULL, MASSACHUSETTS
Treatment Estimated Time
Permit (Application) Issuing Authority Law Regulations Intake Outfall Estimated Cost
Facility, etc. Frame
Mass. Wetlands Protection Act
Order of Conditions/Notice Hull Conservation
Mass. Rivers Protection Act 310 CMR 10.00 Yes Yes Likely 3 months $5,000
of Intent Commission
No local bylaw
Hull Planning and Zoning
Local Approvals Local Bylaws -- ? No ? NA Not determined
Boards
Hull Harbor Management
Public Waterfront Act
Municipal Harbor Plan Committee 310 CMR 9.00 ? No ? NA NA
MGL Ch. 91, §§ 12-23
CZM

ENF $35,000
Mass. Environmental Policy Act
Secretary's Certificate EOEA MEPA Unit 301 CMR 11.00 Yes Yes Yes See timeline DEIR $100,000
(MEPA) MGL Ch. 30, §§ 61-62H
FEIR $40,000

Superseding Order of
MA DEP Mass. Wetlands Protection Act 310 CMR 10.00 Not known Not known Not known 3 – 6 months $10,000
Conditions

Areas of Critical
Environmental Included in MEPA
MA DCR M.G.L. c.21A, s.2(7) 301 CMR 12.00 No No No NA
Concern/Outstanding process
Resource Waters
If needed for
401 Water Quality Mass. Clean Water Act 314 CMR 4.00
MA DEP Not known Possible Not known outfall construction Not determined
Certification for Dredging MGL Ch. 21, §§ 26-53 and 9.00
– 20-24 months

Same schedule as
401 Water Quality Mass. Clean Water Act 314 CMR 4.00
MA DEP Not known Yes Not known NPDES permit WQC $5,000
Certification for Discharges MGL Ch. 21, §§ 26-53 and 9.00
20-24 Months

Public Waterfront Act

Chapter 91 Waterways MA DEP 310 CMR 9.00 Not known Not known No 6 – 8 months $10,000
MGL Ch. 91, §§ 12-23

Compliance with the Coastal Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act

MA DCR None NA NA NA NA NA
Wetlands Restriction Act MGL c. 130 s. 105

Compliance with the Ocean Ocean Sanctuaries Act

MA DCR 302 CMR 5.00 NA NA NA NA NA
Sanctuaries Act MGL. c. 132A, §§ 12A-16F, 18

Mass. Endangered Species Act

Conservation Permit NHESP 321 CMR 10.00 No No No NA NA
MGL c. 131a

Historic Resources (Land M.G.L. c. 9, §§ 26-27D Included in MEPA

MHC 950 CMR 71.00 Not known Not known Not known $5,000
and Underwater) Historic District Act; M.G.L. c. 40C: Process