Response to Comments

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · from the EPA · 102 pages · 399 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON 
DRAFT PERMIT NO. MA0103284 FOR 
MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY 
On February 3, 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (“MADEP”) released for public notice and comment a draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (“MWRA”), MA, NPDES No.
MA0103284. EPA and the MADEP held joint public hearings on the draft NPDES MWRA permit in Boston, Nahant, and
Barnstable, on March 25, 1998, April 16, 1998 and April 23, 1998, respectively. EPA and the MADEP also held numerous
discussion-formatted public meetings throughout Massachusetts. The public comment period for this draft permit expired
on June 25, 1998. This is a response to the comments received. General comments are included as a subsection, in each of
the major sections, within this document. Since the general comments within this document are included for informational
purposes only, and are not substantive in nature, they do not include a response. Whenever possible, commenters have been
identified by name or by their organizational name. Some comments that were submitted by numerous commenters, appear
once below and do not include each of the commenters’ names. 
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PERMIT: 
Comment :
The Massachusetts Audubon Society wishes to compliment the EPA and the MADEP for drafting the most stringent and
environmentally protective permit of which we are aware. A good example is the requirement for monthly toxicity tests which
is three times as frequent as usual for Wastewater Treatment Facilities. We are particularly pleased to see the MWRA
Contingency Plan and the Outfall Monitoring Plan as part of the permit. These are keys to insuring that the water quality and
living resources of Massachusetts Bays are not harmed by discharge. We support the adaptive management approach that
these represent. 
Comment : 
The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program (MBP) finds the permit to be comprehensive and detailed in the issues 
that are covered, and this permit sets a new high standard for future NPDES permits. EPA and the MADEP are to be 
commended on their collaborative efforts. 
Comment :
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod (APCC) feels that it is imperative that the largest outfall pipe in the world
have the best permit in the country. Though this permit is quite comprehensive, some components of the permit still fall short.
Additionally, even if all of the concerns of every interested party are addressed and included in the permit, the true
consequences of actions taken to dispose of the sewage from forty-three Boston municipalities will not be realized until some
time in the future. “Dilution is not the solution to pollution.” Clearly new methods are needed to conserve and preserve water
resources and to reuse, or recycle, waste instead of discharging it. 
Comment :
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, founded in 1986, has followed this project very closely and we commend the EPA, DEP, and
MWRA for their hard work over the past 12 years. I would like to congratulate the DEP and EPA on their efforts to create
a permit that will maintain the integrity of the Mass Bay ecosystem. Given the magnitude of this project, and the many
unknowns concerning the impacts the new outfall may have on our coastal waters, it is critical that we ensure that the permit
protects human health and the environment. 
Comment : 
The Cetacean Research Unit would like to commend the EPA for doing such a thorough and credible job on the draft permit. 
It is clear from reading the document that a tremendous amount of thought went into its preparation, and the result is 
worthwhile. It is clearly a permit which sets a new standard for future efforts in this realm. Further, we would like to whole
heartedly commend the EPA for including both the MWRA Contingency plan and Monitoring plan as legally enforceable, 
yet changeable, documents as attachments to the permit. 
1

Comment :
The Boston Harbor Association strongly supports the Draft NPDES permit for the MWRA. We urge the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to resolve issues raised during the public comment period and issue a Final Permit as soon as
possible so that the outfall can be used to discharge effluent when it becomes operational. We appreciate the EPA's
willingness to allow for thorough public review of the Draft NPDES for the MWRA by providing an extended comment
period, and hosting a series of public meetings throughout the region. The EPA, the MWRA and the MADEP are to be
commended for conducting a joint permitting process for the federal NPDES Permit and the state water quality standards
designations, and for resolving complex technical issues associated with the Draft NPDES Permit in a cooperative manner.
We also appreciate the time and effort of EPA, DEP, and MWRA staff members who attended numerous meetings of The
Boston Harbor Association's Environment Committee, and responded to our technical questions regarding the draft permit. 
Comment :
The Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Permit. BWSC, as
MWRA's largest customer, purchases approximately 38 percent of all the water MWRA provides to its member communities
and contributes approximately 29 percent of the average daily wastewater flow to MWRA's treatment plants. BWSC has a
vested interest in the proposed provisions and cost implications of the MWRA's draft NPDES permit. In general EPA and
DEP have clearly defined the goals of the permit and the provisions set forth to meet those goals. The permit will serve as
an effective mechanism to better insure and enforce compliance with water quality standards for wastewater treatment and
discharges. Performance oriented permit provisions are generally flexible and will enable MWRA to develop effective
approaches to pollution prevention practices. 
Comment : 
Neponset River Watershed Association congratulates the EPA and the MADEP for proposing such a strong permit and 
addressing the complexity of issues related to MWRA's discharge. We particularly applaud the acknowledgment of the 
relationship between the MWRA sewer system and stresses placed on streams in the Ipswich, Charles and Neponset basins. 
Comment :
The Coastal Advocacy Network would first like to commend the EPA for the thoroughness of this permit. We recognize that
it is the most stringent NPDES permit issued to date. The inclusion of the Contingency Plan and the Outfall Monitoring Plan
is extremely important to those of us within the environmental community. We would also like to thank the EPA for extending
the comment period on this draft from 60 to 90 days; the permit's density and complexity required very careful reading and
the extra time was appreciated. 
Comment :
Overall, the Outfall Monitoring Task Force (OMTF) would like to commend EPA and the DEP for a very thorough permit
and for the extended 90-day comment period. We have submitted comments on the draft NPDES permit which were approved
by the Task Force. Please note that dissenting opinions and additional commentary which were not reviewed by the entire
Task Force, are listed along with the names of the authors. OMTF members from EPA and DEP have abstained from
commenting. 
Comment :
The City of Melrose commented that MWRA is an agency which is only a little past its tenth birthday, since the
Commonwealth’s Enabling Act of 1984 which created the authority to take over the M.D.C. from its financial morass and
near collapse of the area infrastructure. The member communities and the authority have thus far done an exemplary job in
the rapid recovery of the quality of the Salt Water Bay area through attaining the milestones set forth in the mandated
documents. The member communities and the Authority will continue to work just as hard to continue this good work.
However, since the permit is overly stringent, we are concerned that the general public will derive a much different
impression. 
Comment : 
Mrs. Polly Bradley of Safer Waters in Massachusetts stated: “Thank you so very much for your concern, understanding, 
thoughtfulness, hard work.” 
2

Comment :
The MWRA Advisory Board is concerned, in general, that the permit seeks to incorporate so many requirements and
assurances going well beyond what the permit should be seeking to do. The very structure of the Authority itself and the
independence that the enabling legislation provided should provide the capability and assurances that the Authority will be
able to accomplish the goals and intent of the draft NPDES permit. The permit should establish the framework to promote
environmentally sound policies and acceptable discharge results. It should not be the vehicle for implementing other policies
or correcting the weaknesses of other institutional structures or their program implementation. 
Comment :
The Riverways Program commented that the draft NPDES permit for the MWRA is the most thorough of any written for a
point discharge in MA and reflects the complexity and magnitude of the Deer Island discharge and the existing combined
sewer overflows. The draft permit includes several commendable requirements. We are encouraged to see the emphasis on
water conservation, public education, and pollution prevention. We agree that directing resources toward preventing
hazardous materials in the influent and working to reduce water consumption is a cost effective method for reducing impacts
to receiving waters and source waters. Our program is founded on the merit of education as a strong tool to motivate
individuals toward proactive protection of resources. 
PUBLIC’S RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL COMMENTS: 
Public’s Response : 
Stop The Outfall Pipe’s (STOP) concern is not limited to the specific factors discussed by the MWRA. We find ourselves 
increasingly worried by the tone of their response, as well. 
STOP has been involved in the discussion of the new outfall since June of 1991. We are, by no means, the only individuals
with an interest in or fear for the potential damage to Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay posed by the new outfall’s discharge.
An impressive list of researchers, scientists, and agencies have expressed doubts as to the outcome of changing the location
of the discharge. 
The tone of the MWRA’s response makes it clear that they continue to doubt the need for concern, and in many cases, the
need to be vigilant in face of these concerns. Many of the comments by MWRA imply that the concerns raised by these
parties are without merit. In some cases, the comments go so far as to imply a lack of professionalism upon the part of those
scientists who dared to express doubt or demand accountability. 
This lack of understanding about the factual basis for opponents’ concerns is chilling. It further erodes our faith that the
MWRA will be truly committed to monitoring and correcting any problems once the discharge is on line. We urge the EPA
to hold the line on the existing standards within the draft permit, as well as strengthening it in those areas where lingering
doubts remain. The permit continues to be the most comprehensive and objective legal document which prescribes the
standards and behaviors expected of MWRA and it should not be weakened in any way. 
Public’s Response :
MWRA stated that EPA and the MADEP received hundreds of pages of comments on the draft NPDES permit, and many
of the comments were related directly or indirectly to concerns about potential environmental impacts from the effluent
discharge through the new outfall. These concerns are understandable, given the universal recognition of the
Massachusetts/Cape Cod Bay ecosystem as a highly valued regional treasure, with which MWRA wholeheartedly agrees.
However, most of these concerns appear to assume that the level of treatment to be provided is marginal or inadequate, that
scientific understanding of the Bays system is so limited that the discharge of effluent from outfall TO1 poses a significant
threat to substantial portions of the system, and, because of those “threats,” that MWRA’s Ambient Monitoring and
Contingency Plans are inadequate, based upon incomplete scientific review, and in need of substantial elaboration. Another
major theme in the comments, especially those received from individuals and groups on Cape Cod, is that Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays should not be degraded in the name of improving conditions in Boston Harbor. 
3

Given the high level of concern, it may be useful to step back and recall that the discharge through outfall TO1 is one of the
final steps in a more than ten-year program to achieve pollution reduction, in which the ratepayers of the metropolitan Boston
area have invested more than $3 billion. More than $97 million was invested in the design of the treatment plant and outfall,
with a primary goal of minimizing the overall environmental impacts from treated wastewater. Similarly, efforts to predict
and assess the environmental effects of this improved treatment have been a top priority for MWRA throughout the entire
process, and MWRA has been a proactive partner with EPA, DEP, the Outfall Monitoring Task Force (OMTF), and other
groups in the identification of technical and environmental issues and the allocation of resources to respond to them. In Fiscal
Year (FY) 1999 alone, MWRA will spend nearly $12 million on efforts to minimize the discharge of contaminants into the
waste stream, track plant performance and monitor the effects of MWRA discharges into the Bays’ system. In addition,
MWRA will spend more than $60 million in the coming year to operate and maintain its treatment facilities effectively. 
All information available to MWRA leads it, and should lead EPA and DEP, to conclude with confidence that the level of
public concern expressed in the comments on the permit is not justified by any of the research and monitoring carried out to
date, and that the various “worst-case scenarios” contained in the permit comments are, at best, implausible. In fact, all
indications are that the outfall discharge will have detectable, but small, impacts in the immediate vicinity of the discharge,
and that these impacts will not be detectable more than a few kilometers from the discharge. 
To review: 
• In the Clean Water Act, Congress established secondary treatment as the national standard to achieve
nondegradation of marine waters. EPA and DEP have concurred that the MWRA facilities now in operation and
under Court-monitored construction at Deer Island will meet Clear Water Act requirements for secondary
treatment. 
• Three major Federal technical reviews of the outfall (EPA’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(1988) EPA’s Biological Assessment (1993), and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Biological
Opinion (1993) have led to unanimous conclusions that the discharge from the outfall poses no appreciable threat
to the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay ecosystem, including identified endangered or threatened species. 
• MWRA has carried out extensive studies of effluent contaminant concentrations and toxicity, documenting that
the concentrations and loadings of most toxic contaminants will be substantially less than estimated during the
comprehensive Federal project reviews noted above. A list of technical reports issued by MWRA since 1991
is attached. 
Public’s Response :
The Bays Legal Fund commented that it appears from MWRA's comments on the draft permit that the MWRA does not
accept the possibility that the outfall could affect water quality in Cape Cod Bay. Qualified scientists involved in the review
of the draft permit have identified real concerns about potential water quality degradation that might result from the relocation
of the MWRA outfall. 
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PERMIT: 
PROMPT TRANSFER TO THE NEW DEER ISLAND OUTFALL: 
Comment :
Mr. Graber of Winthrop stated that there should be no delay in the scheduled start up date. During periods of higher than
normal tides or high wastewater flows due to rainfall or snowmelt, or a combination of high flows and high tides, treatment
plant effluent is discharged through the near-shore Deer Island outfalls (Outfalls 001 and 002). Despite certain mitigation
measures installed by MWRA, the risks of such discharges include flooding of Winthrop basements with contaminated
coastal waters; contamination of Winthrop swimming beaches; and damage to sensitive organisms of the local ecosystem
(shellfish, kelp, etc.), particularly if the temporary dechlorination equipment fails to prevent residual chlorine toxicity of
effluent dispersed in the shallow waters along the Deer Island shoreline and in Winthrop Bay. By comparison, Part III of 
4

the Fact Sheet accompanying the Draft NPDES Permit explains that the new outfall is 9.45 miles from Deer Island (5.6 miles
from Nahant) in an area with an initial dilution of about 70:1. It is also in an area of much more vigorous far-field mixing
and, as pointed out in the Fact Sheet, is far enough from the shore so that particles (e.g., bacteria) cannot be transported
directly to the shore on the next incoming tide. Thorough studies have demonstrated important improvements in overall water
quality to be gained by moving the discharges out of Boston Harbor and into the deeper waters of Massachusetts Bay. One
of the most important of those is the expected reduction in algae blooms. Any risks of discharging through the new outfall
are much smaller than the very real risks associated with continuing to discharge through the Deer Island Boston Harbor
outfalls. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
EPA and MADEP are aware of the concerns expressed by Winthrop concerning the continued discharge to Boston Harbor. 
A provision has been added to the final permit under Part I.18.e. requiring that the MWRA report to EPA and the MADEP 
each month on the status of outfall construction and plans for both the treatment plant and outfall startup. This report will 
include a timetable for the completion of key tasks. 
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: 
Sample Collection : 
Comment :
Mr. Graber of Winthrop commented that the previous permit, at Attachment E, Paragraph l.b, reflects a comment provided
by the Winthrop Board of Selectmen in its letter of October 1, 1985 regarding representative sampling. The paragraph
stipulated that to obtain representative samples that reflect industrial wastewater contributions, samples shall be collected
on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, excluding holidays and the day before or after such a holiday. We had also requested
that such samples be collected during daytime hours (such as between noon and 4:00 pm). Please add those requirements
to the new permit, or explain why they are not included. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
Representative sampling for industrial wastewater contributions is important and, therefore, the following language has been 
added to the final permit under Part I.1.a.18.: “All samples described in Part I.1.a. that are not required to be reported once 
per day shall be collected on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, excluding holidays and the day before or after such a holiday.
All samples described in Part I.1.a. shall be collected during normal business hours.” 
Total Fecal Coliform and Total Residual Chlorine Limitation : 
Comment : 
Massachusetts Audubon supports the innovative approach being used in setting the limits for fecal coliform. If the limit 
proves to be successful, it will allow the reduced use of chlorine which may be a greater danger to the marine environment 
than pathogens. We note, based on our own examination of Discharge Monitoring Reports for North Shore NPDES permit 
holders, that chlorine is the parameter that is most frequently in noncompliance, hence we support an approach that reduces 
reliance on it. Clearly, this is one aspect of the project that needs to be closely examined and where the adaptive management 
approach is particularly appropriate. 
Comment : 
Mr. Graber of Winthrop stated that, except for the use of “geometric mean” as discussed below, he believes the Draft Permit 
reflects a sensible balance between chlorine toxicity, fecal coliform, and the economics of chlorination and dechlorination. 
It provides for the attainment of a stringent chlorine toxicity limit and the Class SA fecal coliform limit (200/100 ml) at the 
edge of the diffuser mixing zone. 
Winthrop has long advocated the combination of approaches subsequently incorporated in the Deer Island disinfection and
outfall facilities and now in the Draft Permit. These include chlorination with barged sodium hypochlorite or on-site
hypochlorite generation (now being considered); chlorine contact in the outfall pipe; a residual simulator flow loop;
dechlorination in the outfall; attainment of chlorine toxicity limits at the edge of the mixing zone; relaxation of the customary 
5

200/100 ml secondary treatment effluent requirement; and diffusers of sufficient length, location, and design to allow lower
than normal chlorine dosages and initial and far-field dilution resulting in acceptable bacterial reduction at beaches and
shellfish areas. 
Permit pages 6 (Footnote 13) and 7 (Footnote 16a) call for the use of geometric means for fecal coliform bacteria. The
geometric mean should be replaced by the arithmetic mean for measuring compliance with coliform limits, to give more
realistic reporting of coliform levels. The geometric mean is defined as the nth root of the product of n observations, as
compared to the arithmetic mean (the most common type of average) which is the sum of the observations divided by the
number of observations. The geometric mean makes the results look much more favorable. 
We previously noted (in our April 3, 1997 letter to EPA and January 2, 1992 letter to MWRA which was attached thereto)
a numerical example demonstrating the need for such improvement, which we will repeat here. On October 31, 1991, the
three fecal coliform results were 5,000,000, 5, and 5. The geometric mean is given by the cube root of the product of those
three numbers, i.e., (5,000,000 x 5 x 5)1/3 = 500; whereas the arithmetic mean is given by (5,000,000 + 5 + 5)/3 = 1,666,670.
If each of the three samples was assumed to be associated with an equal volume of sewage, then the arithmetic mean would
give the mixed concentration. No physical significance can be attached to the geometric mean in this application, and
it obscures the results. The geometric mean of that one day's samples failed to indicate a disinfection failure during one of
the samples, the one for which the coliform level was 5,000,000 per 100 ml. The arithmetic average would have revealed
that failure. 
Comment :
Concerns have been raised about potential negative impacts on marine life and marine habitat from chlorination. The Boston
Harbor Association supports the proposed chlorination and subsequent dechlorination of the effluent before it is discharged
into Massachusetts. We support the performance-based approach to dechlorination which takes advantage of the unique
conditions in the long outfall pipe for potentially dechlorinating the effluent without the addition of chemicals. 
Comment :
The specified chlorine residuals of 456 microgram/liter and 631 for average monthly and maximum daily concentrations may
be unnecessarily high given the stated sampling at the inlet of the outfall pipe. The chlorine residual is that remaining after
the bulk of the disinfection and dechlorination (if any) processes have been accomplished. The fecal coliform levels are also
specified as 14000/100 ml at the same sampling point on the basis that with 70:1 dilution of the effluent at the diffusers an
ambient concentration of 200/l00 ml for swimming beach water criteria can be automatically met even without further
disinfection. Yet with three additional hours of contact time available during the fluid transit of the outfall pipe, the pathogen
concentrations would be further reduced by approximately a factor of 1000 under almost all conditions even if the maximum
chlorine residual values at the pipe inlet were 200 and 300 microgram/liter respectively. Given the significant potential impact
from adverse marine impacts from the unnecessary discharge of activated chlorine species, further reduction of the specified
chlorine residual values are warranted. EPA and DEP should reduce the specified permit limits given the opportunity to utilize
the extended contact time available in the outfall pipeline to both complete disinfection and minimize chlorine residual
requirements and chlorine residual discharge into the marine environment 
Chlorine is a toxic chemical and its hazardous material safety requirements are well known. If an industrial user were to have
an unreported chlorine release equivalent to the amount of chlorine residual permitted under this NPDES permit each day,
that user would be subject to fines. This permitted release should be reduced. The adverse impact of this discharge is
exacerbated in that a relatively short excursion above the permitted value may not be caught in a grab sample or may not cause
an exceedance in a daily averaged number. Yet, the environmental recovery period for marine plant and animal life may be
significantly longer and for some species with annual growth cycles may be a year. 
Discharge of reactive chlorine species into the marine environment should be treated as conservatively as outlined above for
the added reason that the residual chorine is not tested as an acute in the testing procedures outlined in this draft and many
other existing NPDES permits. As clearly stated in Attachments Q and R, the samples taken for freshwater or marine acute
toxicity testing are first treated to eliminate chlorine residual before running toxicity tests. Thus, the toxic effects of chlorine
in the effluent is untested in the laboratory toxics monitoring procedures specified in the permit. 
6

AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
The chlorine residual limitations for this permit are based on the current State Water Quality Standards, and the dilution
allowed is as conservative as possible. Use of the geometric mean is specified by State Water Quality Standards and required
to be utilized in all Massachusetts surface water discharge permits. The permit limitations would be too high for an industrial
facility, if the available dilution of the receiving water for the industrial’s discharge was less than 1 part effluent to 70 parts
receiving water. The National Water Quality Guidelines are based on laboratory tests which examine survival rates for
sensitive test species. 
Comment :
Similarly the permit is silent on any limitations on the injection of dechlorinating agents into the outfall pipeline after the
sampling point. MWRA representatives state that current plans are that no dechlorinating agents will be used. If
dechlorinating agents are used, the sampling point specified for the toxicity monitoring, that is the inlet of the outfall pipeline,
will be inadequate for allowing a representative sample of the effluent to be gathered for toxicity testing since the
dechlorination agent injection station has been represented to me as being 850 ft after the sampling point. The reducing agents
used for dechlorinating have known toxic effects in marine environments. In fact, current planning, to proceed without
dechlorination, is based on early MWRA pilot testing of effluent toxicity during pilot plant testing of secondary clarifier
modules in which dechlorinating agents were found to give larger toxic responses in biological monitoring protocols than
other components of the effluent as reported to the OMTF at their meetings by MWRA representatives during the last 6
months. 
As I mentioned at the public hearing in Nahant, if you review the available environmental monitoring data from the Lynn 
outfall, for example, you may find as I did that the sea urchin fertilization test was not passed in the second or third quarter 
of 1997. The test was passed in the first quarter. This is entirely reasonable in that the Lynn permit calls for seasonal operation 
of the chlorination/dechlorination facility to protect local swimming beaches. Thus, these final operating processes would 
have been operating in the second and third quarters, but not in the first. The unsatisfactory performance in this environmental 
monitoring test mirrors the complaints of local fisherman that seasonal fishing at the most productive time of the year has 
changed dramatically for the worst and that observable marine life, plant and animal, has been seriously affected. 
Comment : 
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod commented that Section 5.43 within the draft permit mentions that the 
MWRA can lower the rate of sodium hypochlorite addition to a level that treats bacteria, but does not result in residual 
toxicity. Why not lower the rate of sodium hypochlorite addition initially? 
Comment :
The organization, Stop the Outfall Pipe (STOP), is concerned about the chlorine in the treatment system and feels that the
amounts that are being used are too great. There are other technologies, such as UV radiation, that are being used elsewhere
to kill pathogens in secondarily treated wastewater and we urge EPA to consider requiring that such technology be explored
and developed by the MWRA. 
Public’s Response :
The MWRA commented that the Nahant resident, Michael Manning, expresses concern about the chlorine limits provided
in the permit and requests lower limits and there is no scientific reason to do so. EPA has no legal justification for reducing
these limits, and there is no scientific reason to do so. Mr. Manning correctly recognizes that the limits take into account the
allowable dilution in the discharge. Because the residual chlorine will be measured at the treatment plant and the chlorine
demand will continue for most, if not all, of the transit from the plant to the discharge point (two to seven hours depending
on flow), further decay of chlorine will occur. Other plants with similar long-pipe discharges have found the chlorine decay
to be 0.005 mg/L per minute. See, for example, ? Report on Chlorine Product Chlorine Produced Oxidant (COP) Decay and
Disinfection Studies For The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners’ Final Effluent.” Assuming this decay rate applies
to MWRA, detectable levels of chlorine will not be observed at the discharge point prior to dilution. 
Public’s Response : 
7

MWRA commented that the March 13, 1998 letter to the Cape Cod Commission from Carpenter Environmental Associates,
submitted as an attachment to the Bays Legal Fund’s comments, appears to have misinterpreted the fecal coliform limit of
14,000/100 ml to be applicable at the edge of the mixing zone. The limit, as understood by MWRA, is applicable 850 feet
into the outfall tunnel. An MWRA simulation study using pilot plant effluent and the expected level of chlorine dosing (see
Pictorial Representation in Attachment 3) showed that after about 30 minutes, fecal coliform and chlorine residual levels were
well below water quality standards. The minimum contact time in the tunnel is about two hours, and so the fecal coliform
level at the end of the outfall, even before dilution in the mixing zone, will be well below the water quality standard of
200/100 ml. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
Ensuring that a chlorination failure is detected and corrected as soon as possible is an important issue for EPA and the
MADEP. The fecal coliform bacteria limitations for the final permit have not been changed. The final permit maintains that
fecal coliform bacteria reporting requirements will be based on the geometric mean, since this is a requirement of the current
Massachusetts water quality standards. Even though the fecal coliform bacteria limitations are based on the geometric mean,
the concerns expressed by Winthrop regarding the early detection of a chlorination failure have been addressed through the
final permit. For example, since fecal coliform bacteria sample results take a minimum of 24 hours and do not provide
agencies with an effective “early warning” mechanism for a chlorination failure, the agencies will be relying on the MWRA’s
automatic chlorination sampler results whereby the MWRA is required to telephone the DMF and the FDA at the first sign
of a chlorination failure with a follow-up telephone call to the DMF, FDA, and EPA after the initial detection is either
confirmed or denied. (See Also Final Permit: Part II.B.4. (Federal Bypass Regulations and Notification to EPA), Part I.15.
(Notification to DMF), Part I.20.d. (Notification to FDA).) and Part I.8.e.iii. (Outfall Contingency Simulation). 
EPA does not have the legal authority to reduce the chlorine residual limits to a level that is less stringent than the
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards. Therefore, the final permit includes the water quality standard for chlorine residual.
An important benefit of the outfall tunnel, though, is that since the chlorine/discharge contact time will be at a minimum of
2 hours (most treatment plants’ chlorine/discharge contact time is 15 minutes), the discharge will require less chlorine in order
to disinfect and kill enough fecal coliform bacteria colonies to meet both the chlorine residual and fecal coliform bacteria
permit limitations. Since the discharge will require less chlorine, the discharge will also require less dechlorinating chemicals. 
UV radiation was investigated during the time of the Facilities Plan, but was found to be infeasible for the MWRA’s treatment
facility. 
Based on the predicted dilution of the new outfall and the limitations imposed within the final permit, it is reasonable to
expect that the dechlorination chemicals that will be added to the effluent will not exhibit toxicity beyond the small zone of
initial dilution (ZID) of the new outfall. Also, the whole-effluent toxicity limitations that are required within the final permit,
provides protection against the potential additive and/or synergistic effects of constituents that are in, or are added to, the
wastewater. 
MADMF/USFDA Determination : 
Comment : 
STOP asked what would happen if the MADMF and/or the USFDA should determine that the fecal coliform bacteria limit 
is inadequate and EPA or the MADEP does not concur with this determination? It would seem that, in this instance, the 
MADMF’s or the USFDA’s expertise and stake in the outcome should take precedence over those of EPA and the MADEP. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
EPA and MADEP have the ultimate responsibility to establish permit requirements. However, if the MADMF and /or the 
USFDA should determine that the fecal coliform bacteria limit is inadequate, it would be likely that both EPA and the 
MADEP would concur with this determination. 
MWRA’s Service Area and Flow Limitation: 
Comment : 
8

The permit should limit new hook-ups to the MWRA treatment systems, in addition to limiting flow. 
Comment : 
The Cetacean Research Unit would like to commend the EPA for limiting future hook-ups to the MWRA system. We need 
to ensure minimal effect from the outfall by minimizing the input to the system. 
Comment : 
Boston Water and Sewer stated that the MWRA has carefully addressed issues relating to growth management and the 
transport and treatment capacity of its wastewater system to handle future wastewater flows. EPA and DEP should support 
the MWRA's System Expansion Policy and allow MWRA to address these issues in accordance with their existing policies, 
the Commonwealth's Executive Order on Planning for Growth, and in consultation with the MWRA Advisory Board, 
Wastewater Advisory Committee and Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee. MWRA should not be required to analyze 
and project future growth within its service area. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council conducts this analysis in the 
Boston metropolitan area. 
Comment :
Regis College and Earth Tech, Inc. stated that it is inappropriate to include a service area limitation and flow limitation for
the MWRA permit. We feel that the limit of 1.4 MGD for any new sources outside of the MWRA service area set by the
permit is too small, given the extent of the area encompassed by the MWRA service area and the number of connections
which are possible. Secondly, Earth Tech and the College feel that any new sources which have already received the support
of MWRA for a future connection should be grand-fathered and automatically included in a listing of proposed future
connections. 
Regis College has already expended a large level of effort towards its future connection to the MWRA system and has 
obtained Special Legislation in June 1996 providing for the connection of the College to the MWRA wastewater collection 
system. On March 6, 1997, the College received a letter from Douglas MacDonald, Executive Director MWRA, stating that 
the MWRA has the capacity to transport and treat Regis' flow, and that there is no reason to believe that the MWRA Board 
of Directors would not approve the connection once the College has obtained all necessary regulatory and community 
approvals. The College has actively and aggressively been pursuing these approvals and wants to be assured that the 
conditions of the proposed discharge permit do not impact the MWRA' s current support and approval of its connection. 
Comment : 
The City of Melrose stated that the dry weather flow service area restrictions are unnecessary and should be removed from 
the permit, since the member communities have a mandated “Five (5) Year System Expansion Policy” that prohibits all 
possible expansion until the next review in 2002. 
Comment :
MWRA strongly objects to the proposed limitation on service area. This permit limitation is, we believe, unprecedented, and
an unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion into state and local authority to plan environmentally protective infrastructure.
The permit authorizes discharges from the communities listed on Attachment D of the draft permit. Footnote 3 elaborates
that the only communities allowed to discharge wastewater into the MWRA treatment facility are the communities listed in
Attachment D of the draft permit, except for sources already connected on the effective date of the permit, or a limited number
of wastewater (including septage) connections totaling no more than 1.4 MGD. Attachment D lists the 60 communities to
which MWRA is authorized in its Enabling Act to provide either water or sewer services or both. A total of 43 communities
receive sewer services or both sewer and water services from MWRA 
A permit limitation on the number of communities served deprives the Commonwealth, MWRA, and local communities of
the flexibility to resolve environmental and economic development problems in the most cost-effective manner consistent
with both natural resource stewardship and responsible growth management. Decisions as to local infrastructure development
have always been a matter of local prerogative. MWRA believes that there is no authority in the Clean Water Act for EPA
in an NPDES permit to limit the number of communities which can be served by a wastewater treatment plant. Moreover,
the MWRA Enabling Act, recently adopted MWRA Policies and Procedures, and other provisions of state law already subject
proposals for growth of the MWRA sewer system to extensive local, state and legislative review. Further, accepting any 
9

additional flow to the treatment plant, wherever its source, would not relieve MWRA of the obligation to comply with the
per mit requirements to meet effluent limitations and water quality standards. If these are met, there is no basis under the
Clean Water Act in the context of an NPDES permit to specify which communities may or may not discharge to a wastewater
treatment plant. 
Comment :
MWRA stated that although they object to EPA’s imposition of flow limits, including the limit on dry day flow, the definition
of a dry day is a workable one. The specific limit of 1.4 MGD on new connections from outside MWRA’s service area is
inappropriate because the limit itself is unnecessarily low, and without any basis shown in the Fact Sheet. MWRA expects
to be able to accommodate all parties now believed to be interested in connecting to its system within the constraints of this
limit. To do so, MWRA has sufficient authority to require the storage of flows during wet weather and may take other
measures to accommodate additional flow without significant system impacts. Judgments about the appropriate volume of
additional flows MWRA can accept should be entrusted to the process of review already in place, which can take into account
MWRA’s future experience with operating its collection system and the new Deer Island Treatment Plant. Additionally, this
requirement would appear to give EPA an inappropriate and unnecessary veto power, not based on Clean Water Act
requirements, over carefully considered state and local decisions regarding growth management, infrastructure development,
and impacts on environmental resources. 
Comment : 
The MWRA Advisory Board stated that the permit should not be the locus for setting service area limits. The requirement 
for limiting wastewater connections to no more than 1.4 million gallons per day should be removed, as should limitations on 
service area communities. To set arbitrary limits for a plant whose capacity was already sized by EPA is not supportable. 
Provisions already in place are more than adequate to ensure achievement of the intent of the proposed language, notably the 
provisions in the MWRA Enabling Act and the Authority's own policies and procedures, including the Policies and 
Procedures for Requests for Sewer Service to Locations Outside MWRA Sewer Service Area (filed with the Legislature in 
December 1996). That policy already states that no new community or significant portion of a community shall be permitted 
to join the MWRA during the next five years. The policy also states that any expansion of the sewer system shall strive for 
no negative impact on existing MWRA sewer system communities; and that all system connections must be approved by the 
community of origin, the transporting communities, other applicable regulatory bodies, the MWRA Advisory Board, the 
MWRA Board of Directors, and the Governor and General Court. 
Comment : 
STOP has requested a wording change on pages 4 and 5 of the draft permit, footnote #3, from “. . . MWRA may not accept 
wastewater or septage, from new sources outside of the MWRA service area . . .” to “exclude the 17 MWRA communities 
who receive water services only.” 
Comment :
STOP commented that EPA should be commended for attempting to limit new flows to the Deer Island Treatment Plant.
However, the current wording limits new flows solely on gallonage (436 MGD total, 1.4 MGD from outside the 43
communities). This limit should not be based solely on volume - the number of new hookups into the system should be
limited as well. With continued decrease in I/I flows to the plant and the excellent water conservation measures being
required under this permit, limiting the flow based strictly on volume will inadvertently permit proportionately larger
quantities of pollution than intended. 
Public’s Response :
The Charles River Watershed Association commented that Wastewater Advisory Committee (WAC) pointed out that
MWRA’s System Expansion Policy prohibits addition of new communities or additional flow from significant portions of
new communities for 5 years. We agree with WAC that this should be stated and confirmed in the permit. We also agree that
MWRA should investigate (or work with communities to evaluate) alternatives to expansion of the MWRA service area.
Alter native treatment systems that keep water local not only conserve capacity at the Deer Island treatment facility, but
maximize local recharge of groundwater resources. We do not agree with MWRA that the Authority should not be asked to
work on local solutions. It is not a matter of whether capacity exists at Deer Island, as MWRA frames the question, but 
10

whether the capacity is needed. The question can be answered after local conditions and the potential for alternative treatment
methods have been evaluated. MWRA’s own figures regarding I/I prove that sewer systems carry much more water from a
watershed than is actually used. Again, we agree with WAC that MWRA should participate in determining whether this
dewatering of our aquifers can be avoided. 
Public’s Response :
STOP commented that the MWRA further contends that the permit restriction of 1.4 mgd is unnecessarily restrictive. STOP
strongly endorses retention of this language within the permit for all of the reasons cited above. MWRA contends they can
limit additional flows on wet weather days by requiring storage of effluent for dry day treatment. Using a wet weather storage
system would negate much of the efforts of the opponents of the project to reduce the amount of pollution, not water, that
enters the effluent stream. In essence, MWRA is proposing to increase its future dry and wet weather flows by averaging the
flows through the plant. This would violate the good faith negotiations that have taken place regarding growth limits to the
system. 
Public’s Response : 
The Bays Legal Fund (BLF) does not support expanding the MWRA sewer system beyond the existing communities that it 
presently serves. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
EPA’s and the MADEP’s goal has been to ensure appropriate restrictions on the volume of the MWRA discharge due to its 
potential impacts to the receiving water, while avoiding unnecessary restrictions on economic development in the Boston area. 
The scientific data suggests that a moderate increase in the volume of the discharge would not cause adverse environmental 
impacts. The restrictions proposed in the draft permit will prevent a substantial increase in the discharge volume. These 
restrictions are reasonable and strike an appropriate balance. 
The permit has been revised in accordance with STOP’s proposed clarification that the MWRA may not accept wastewater
or septage from new sources outside of the MWRA sewer service area beyond those allowed by the final permit. 
Arsenic : 
Comment :
MWRA supports the draft permit provision for arsenic, which requires MWRA to monitor and report arsenic concentrations
monthly for the reasons stated by EPA and DEP in the Fact Sheet. While arsenic occurs naturally in Massachusetts Bay in
concentrations substantially higher than the human health criterion, the Fact Sheet states correctly that this arsenic, as well
as that found in MWRA effluent, is overwhelmingly in the non-toxic arsenate form. A recent review article in Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry collects the available information and provides further scientific support for the EPA-DEP position.
Reassessments of national and state water quality standards for arsenic are currently in progress. MWRA hopes that
Massachusetts will join other states in modifying its arsenic standard based on current scientific understanding. 
Comment : 
The Outfall Monitoring Task Force commented that Arsenic is naturally high in seawater and the permit should reflect this. 
Risk assessments should also take into account background levels. 
Public’s Response :
MWRA continues to support the draft permit provision requiring monthly monitoring and reporting for arsenic. EPA recently
declined to propose a human health criterion for arsenic for California (62 Fed. Reg., pp. 42159-42208, August 5, 1997)
stating that the ? issues and uncertainties are sufficiently significant to necessitate a careful evaluation of the risks of arsenic
exposure before the Agency promulgates water quality criteria for arsenic in additional states” (p. 42179). Since then, EPA
has withdrawn the arsenic human health criteria for Idaho (62 Fed. Reg., pp. 52925-52927, October 9, 1998) and for Alaska
(63 Fed. Reg., pp. 10140-10144, March 2, 1998) for similar reasons. 
EPA and DEP acknowledged in the draft Fact Sheet that the arsenic present in the Deer Island Treatment Plant effluent 
? would likely have no adverse effects” (p. 11) and any violations of a permit limit at the human health criterion would be due 
11

to factors that are beyond MWRA’s control and not due to inadequate treatment. It would be unfortunate for all parties if
permit violations were caused by out-of-date science and a slow regulatory process. MWRA reiterates its position that a
permit limit for arsenic would be inappropriate and unjustified. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
Arsenic occurs naturally in ocean water, including Massachusetts Bay, at concentrations 10-20 times the water quality
criterion developed by the MADEP based on human health considerations through bioaccumulation of arsenic in fish and
their consumption by humans. The concentration of arsenic in MWRA effluent is consistently lower than concentrations
measured in Massachusetts Bay. 314 CMR 4.03(5) states that “Excursions from criteria due to solely natural conditions shall
not be interpreted as violations of standards and shall not affect the water use classifications adopted by the department.”
Based on its interpretation of its Surface Water Quality Standards, the MADEP has determined that a numeric limit for
Arsenic is not needed in the MWRA permit to meet water quality standards given that: 1) the natural background arsenic
concentrations exceed the arsenic human health criterion, and 2) the arsenic concentration in the effluent, prior to dilution,
is less than the receiving water arsenic concentration. 
Moreover, as discussed in EPA’s 1993 biological assessment of the potential impact of the MWRA outfall on protected
species, most of the arsenic in the MWRA effluent is in a stable form known as arsenate, which generally has low toxicity
and bioavailibility to marine organisms. A more toxic and mutagenic form--arsenite–is generally found in very low
concentrations in seawater, and tends to be rapidly converted to arsenate by bacteria in the water and sediments. 
Oil and Grease Water Quality Standard : 
Comment : 
Mr. Graber of Winthrop asked where in the Draft Permit are the proposed oil and grease narrative standards which are 
mentioned on Fact Sheet page 9? 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The oil and grease limitations are on page 8 of the draft permit, and under Part I.1.e. of the draft and final permits. 
Comment : 
STOP commented that the wording under Part I.1.e. on page 8 of the draft permit, is vague. We ask EPA to make this 
standard more enforceable by defining it in more concrete terms and including this standard in the Contingency Plan. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The intent of this requirement is to ensure compliance with the oil and grease MA Water Quality Standard, which requires 
that the receiving water be free from oil and grease and petrochemicals. The permit prohibits the discharge of effluent which 
alters this condition. 
Polymer Limitation: 
Comment : 
(1) The OMTF supports the Clean Water Act regulations and the intent to minimize harm to the environment.
Occasionally, choices need to be made to select alternative solutions and balance risk without lowering water quality. In
that context, the OMTF recommends that the EPA increase its limits for total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) when high flows discharged from the MWRA secondary treatment plant exceed the frequency of
high flows in a typical year . Our reason for recommending this action is to minimize the use of polymers. 
Because of the potential toxicity associated with polymers and the uncertain environmental effects, it becomes important
to weigh options and evaluate the risk to the environment with each alternative. If polymers are not used, TSS and BOD
concentrations may exceed secondary water quality criteria for short periods of time. However, it is anticipated that they
will be naturally assimilated by the ecosystem without any long-term effects. 
A unique opportunity exists to evaluate the effects of any elevated levels of TSS and BOD during the time between initial 
12

activation of the new outfall and the initial activation of the third battery of secondary treatment facilities. The Outfall
Monitoring Program should be able to detect adverse effects, if any. 
(2) The OMTF commented that the use of polymers has been raised as a potential source of toxicity. The permit states
that polymer use should be minimized. The definition of this requirement should be expanded in the Contingency Plan
based on advice from the new Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel. 
(3) The OMTF commented that it should be clarified that the polymer discussed in this footnote will be added to the
secondary effluent stream, even though this footnote is in the section which deals with the outfall. 
(4) The OMTF commented that EPA should add the “ common name and any synonyms, " after "brand name" and add
" molecular formula " after "charge density". It is a violation of public trust to keep such information proprietary. (Dr.
Andy Solow of the OMTF disagrees.) 
Comment :
Dr. Sal Testaverde of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) stated that the NMFS strongly opposes any change
to increase (lower) its solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) limits. Any change without adequate
research and public input into this proposal will initiate an in-depth reexamination of the entire polymer issue. We
request that the record show that we are opposed to a change in TSS and BOD limitations, especially as it relates to
polymers. Keep in mind that EPA stated at the April 29, 1998 OMTF meeting that these water parameters cannot be
changed. 
Comment :
Mrs. Polly Bradley of SWIM stated that if the Water Quality Standards can't be met, the MWRA should build the fourth
battery of secondary that they assured us was not necessary. She does not recommend using polymers of unknown
composition with unknown effects on the environment. The tradeoff invented by the MWRA of polymers vs. Water
Quality Standards is an artificial conflict. If the effluent needs more treatment, return to the original plan with full
secondary treatment instead of 3/4 secondary treatment. And if the water quality standards still can't be met with the
fourth battery of secondary treatment, as originally planned in the MWRA Facilities Plan, then a tertiary plant should be
considered. 
Further, Mrs. Bradley does not recommend lowering the water quality standards for TSS and BOD. These standards 
were put in place originally to protect living organisms; they are not just arbitrary numbers. The easiest way to clean up 
the water is to lower the water quality standards and declare the water “clean”. 
Comment : 
STOP commented that any new polymers being used in the system should have to undergo intense scrutiny by EPA, 
MADEP, NMFS, OMSAP, and the public. This scrutiny should apply regardless of whether the amount is less than 2 
mg/l or not. 
Comment :
The Advisory Board is concerned that the permit sets too stringent a level for the use of polymer, particularly for the
period prior to the completion of the Braintree-Weymouth tunnel segment that will allow piping of sludge to the pellet
plant. The inclusion of polymer addition facilities was itself a requirement of the EPA during the deliberations of
secondary treatment capacity. To limit polymer use seems contradictory. 
Public’s Response : 
MWRA estimates that average dosing for secondary treatment at the Deer Island Treatment Plant will be between 0.5 and 
2.0 mg/L, and has consulted with several wastewater treatment plants elsewhere with regard to their experience with the
use of polymers in enhanced secondary treatment. One plant reports that its normal dosing rate is 1 to 2 mg/L, with
occasional higher dosages of approximately 3.5 mg/L. Another plant reports higher doses of 2 to 5 mg/L. During periods
of polymer usage, these plants have never experienced toxicity in their effluent, even with the higher dosing rates. 
13

AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
The permit must reflect legal national standards for total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD). Moreover, extensive environmental reviews of the Deer Island treatment facility assumed that the effluent would
meet these standards. Indeed, the guiding principle behind the investment of three and one-half billion dollars in public
funds in the Deer Island treatment plant is that secondary treatment standards must be met at all times. Therefore, the
final permit has remained unchanged with respect to the TSS and BOD limitations. 
The words “and NMFS” have been added to Part I.1.a.10.(b) of the final permit in order to allow NMFS the opportunity
to review and approve particular types of polymers, prior to their use, or polymers at quantities which may be proposed to
be used at greater than 2 mg/l. 
The final permit language under Part I.1.a.10.(b) regarding polymer use, has been changed from “. . . The permittee shall
minimize the use of polymers.” to “The permittee shall minimize the use of polymers, which may be used during the
secondary treatment process during high flow conditions.” and “. . . the amount of polymer added to the wastewater shall
not exceed 2 mg/l at any time unless the permittee has demonstrated to the satisfaction of EPA and the MADEP that a
higher level will not cause toxicity.” to “. . . the amount of Percol-789 polymer added to the wastewater shall not exceed
2 mg/l at any time, and the amount of polymer other than Percol-789 added to the wastewater shall not exceed 2 mg/l at
any time unless the permittee has demonstrated to the satisfaction of EPA, MADEP, and NMFS that a higher level will
not cause toxicity. EPA and the MADEP believe that the final permit effectively protects against polymer toxicity. 
The two changes mentioned above address two concerns raised by the NMFS: 
(1) NMFS stated that the MWRA stated in a letter addressed to Mr. Sal Testaverde of the NMFS dated August 4, 1995
that, “We [MWRA] anticipate that the polymer of choice to be used in the Deer Island secondary treatment plant will be
a cationic sub-species like Percol-789. When used at Deer Island, the polymer would be added at approximately 2 mg/l.”
Based on the information provided by the MWRA within this letter, the NMFS requested that the Percol-789 polymer
only be administered up to 2 mg/l without the option of increasing to a higher level. This request has been granted by
EPA and the MADEP. 
(2) NMFS would also like the responsibility (along with EPA and the MADEP) to review and approve/disapprove the
level of polymer that is added to the wastewater. This request has been granted by EPA and the MADEP. 
The permit has also been revised, as suggested by the OMTF, to clarify that polymer is added to the secondary effluent
stream rather than the outfall. 
PCB Limitation : 
Comment :
MWRA disagrees with the effluent limitations for PCB Aroclors in the permit, which are established at the level of the
human health water quality criteria. EPA would be justified in setting the permit limits at these levels if the ambient
concentrations of Aroclors in Massachusetts Bay were above water quality criteria. However, no data set that has passed
QA/QC criteria has ever detected any Aroclor compound in Massachusetts Bay waters. Thus, the permit limit should
allow for the 364-fold dilution EPA has established for human health parameters (see Attachment S of the draft permit). 
Based upon a reassessment of the cancer potency of PCBs, EPA has recently suggested a change in the human health 
water quality criteria for Aroclor PCBs. The suggested change combines the individual Aroclor limits to develop a total 
Aroclor concentration in ambient waters of 0.17 ng/L. This revision would further support the use of dilution in setting 
permit limits, if warranted. At the very least, this proposed change should be clearly noted in the permit with the 
additional clarification that the MWRA permit will be modified to reflect the change, if implemented. 
Comment : 
The draft permit requires MWRA to use EPA approved methods. Section I.1.a, Footnote 12, requires use of EPA's 
14

"proposed modified method 680" for measuring total PCBs (pending the availability of a better approved method). This
method has not been approved for NPDES compliance. As an alternative method for purposes of PCB reporting, MWRA
proposes use of its own dual column GC/ECD method. The MWRA Standard Operating Procedure in EPA's SOP format
is included as Attachment A-1. This method as presented is based on the standard NOAA 20 congener list that is used to
monitor PCBs in sediment and fish/shellfish tissue. It is a modified version of the NPDES-approved method 608, and it
achieves adequate sensitivity to detect PCB congeners at the level that they are currently observed in Deer Island
Treatment Plant (DITP) secondary effluent (ng/L). Use of the method will facilitate comparisons between the DITP
effluent and the Massachusetts Bay monitoring data for sediments and biological samples. MWRA has demonstrated its
ability to successfully use this method on the NOAA National Status and Trends Intercomparison Exercise. 
The most recent EPA draft of method 680 is dated November 1985. Even though this method includes selected ion
monitoring mass spectrometry, it is not significantly more sensitive than MWRA’s GC/ECD method. MWRA
understands EPA is working on a new PCB congener method, 1668, that may achieve detection limits of individual
congeners down to about 40 picograms per liter (pg/L) by using both isotope dilution and high resolution MS, but this
method is only for the 13 coplanar congeners. MWRA believes, therefore, that the GC/ECD method, which includes all
20 relevant congeners, is most useful. 
Comment : 
(1) The Outfall Monitoring Task Force has had numerous technical discussions on PCBs. The permit indicates that PCBs
in the effluent will be analyzed as Aroclor mixtures, although some individual congeners will be analyzed as part of the
monitoring program. This approach seems a bit dated. As analytical techniques have improved, it is becoming standard
practice to determine the concentrations of individual congeners within a mixture of PCBs. This is practical from an
environmental standpoint in that aging of PCBs in the environment often yields a mixture of congeners that does not
specifically correlate with a specific Aroclor mixture. 
In addition, toxicologists are now demonstrating that different congeners have different toxicities. Thus, knowing the
total concentration of PCBs (as either an Aroclor mixture or the sum of individual congeners) does not necessarily
provide information on the potential for adverse effects. What are needed are both the concentration of individual
congeners and their individual toxicities. For many congeners, toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) have been determined to
indicate the toxicity of a congener with respect to Dioxin. The toxicity of PCBs in a mixture can be therefore adjusted to
show dioxin equivalents and can be used to more accurately estimate the potential for adverse effects. 
Currently, the MWRA measures 20 individual congeners in fish tissue as part of the outfall monitoring program. The
choice of congeners was presumably based on the congeners analyzed in the NOAA National Status and Trends Program.
However, this subset of PCBs does not necessarily account for all the PCB congeners likely to be present, nor does it
reflect toxicity data with respect to highly toxic congeners. It should be possible to construct a list of 30 - 40 congeners of
ecological concern. Selection would be based on a combination of abundance and toxicity. That is, it would include
congeners with low relative toxicity but high abundance as well as highly toxic congeners of low abundance. A recent
EPA report on dose response relationships in PCB mixtures provides such a list (USEPA, 1996). It gives a list of 36
congeners that should provide adequate coverage of the total amount of PCBs present as well as the total amount of toxic
potential (dioxin equivalents) present. Dropping analysis of the PCBs as Aroclor mixtures and analyzing for these
specific congeners may more accurately assess the potential for adverse ecological effects. 
(2) The OMTF states that similarly, as noted in the fact sheet, offshore Mass. Bay and clean Atlantic coastal shelf water
exceed the human health criteria, indicating that any revised criteria take into account other sources of PCB's (e.g.
atmospheric). 
Dr. Sal Testaverde added there should be the immediate establishment of a PCB Work Group, End of the Pipe
Subcommittee, to work with industrial facilities owners in the development of an action plan to resolve any sewer PCB
discharge compliance concerns. Sal stated that he would participate if asked. 
Public’s Response : 
15

STOP commented that the MWRA disagrees with the effluent limitations set for PCBs in this section based upon 
conflicting information regarding human health water quality criteria. STOP strongly endorses the existing language 
within the permit. It is important to note that the NMFS Conservation Recommendations mandate that human health is 
not the only standard by which the effluent’s impact should be measured. Evidence continues to mount world-wide that 
the presence of PCBs and other synthetic compounds in marine waters are responsible for the impairment of immune 
systems in marine mammals and other organisms who feed at higher trophic levels due to bioaccumulation. Because 
humans are not wholly dependent upon marine food resources, they are not subject to the amount of long term exposure 
that marine mammals undergo. 
Public’s Response : 
The Bays Legal Fund reiterates its support for effluent limitations for PCB Aroclors. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
The final permit includes a monitoring requirement for total PCBs, and limitations for individual PCB aroclors which are
required by state water quality standards and requirements under Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, as described
in 40 C.F.R. Part 124.53. Since the offshore Massachusetts Bay and clean Atlantic coastal shelf water exceed the PCB
human health criteria, the limitations for the individual PCB aroclors do not include an allowance for dilution. Under 40 
C.F.R. Part 122.44(d)(1)(i), permit limitations must control all pollutants which EPA determines are or may be
discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any
water quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality. Based on the available data, the discharge has
the potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above the PCB human health criteria. 
Also, if the water quality standard for PCB aroclor is changed in the future, the permit may be modified to reflect this
change through the reopener clause in the final permit. 
Analytical Procedures Used in Monitoring (Section I.1.g) 
Comment :
The MWRA commented that the draft permit requires MWRA to use EPA approved methods. Good laboratory data are
vital for demonstrating compliance with the NPDES permit and for detecting any adverse environmental impacts from
future discharges. MWRA's goal is to produce high quality, cost-effective laboratory data that can be used by the
regulatory agencies, the public, and industry as reliable indicators of plant performance and appropriate enforcement
activity. MWRA has petitioned EPA to approve alternative analytical procedures in three areas that will help meet this
goal: 
1. Environmental Benefit . MWRA has requested approval of procedures which would result in significant
environmental benefits from either avoiding or reducing the use of hazardous chemicals in the laboratory testing
process. These benefits include waste reduction and the elimination of freon usage. 
2. Regulatory Need . MWRA has requested approval of procedures to test parameters regulated in MWRA’s
industrial pretreatment program that do not have approved EPA methods for NPDES monitoring. EPA-approved
test methods would strengthen MWRA’s ability to take enforcement action against violations involving these
parameters. 
3. Laboratory Efficiency . MWRA has submitted a number of practical requests that make good sense and would
allow more productive laboratory operation. By improving its efficiency, MWRA would be more effective in
finding and reducing pollution while reducing costs. 
MWRA has been extremely frustrated by EPA's lack of cooperation and non-action in response to its requests. EPA’s
process of approving updated methods is exceedingly slow. For example, EPA proposed a revision to the list of approved
methods in October 1995, but has yet to finalize this proposal. Despite the regulatory process for approving individually
proposed method modifications (Alternative Test Procedures or ATPs), these requests take years to be reviewed even
though federal regulations require EPA to approve or reject an ATP request within 90 days (40 CFR 136.5). To improve 
16

this situation, in 1997 EPA proposed a streamlined method approval and modification process that would allow 
laboratories to improve their methods, but, again, EPA has taken no final action on the proposal. To cite one specific 
example of MWRA’s experience, a request was submitted to EPA Region I on July 29, 1996, to allow purge compositing 
of samples for volatile organic analysis. This request was based on a published EPA study and included standard 
operating procedure and performance data. EPA responded in a letter dated October 22, 1997, that the compositing 
technique was not described in sufficient detail. Since then, EPA has refused to meet to discuss laboratory issues. 
EPA Region I has indicated that it is unwilling to work with MWRA on these issues despite express authorization in the 
regulations because it states it lacks the resources to provide a similar level of support to other NPDES permit holders. 
MWRA has tried to work more closely with EPA Headquarters (Office of Science and Technology in the Office of 
Water) and met with limited success. The Office of Science and Technology has given a ruling on two policy issues, but 
has not yet responded to five requests for method modifications. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
Contrary to the implication that EPA has been unwilling to work with the MWRA on test procedures, EPA has made 
considerable efforts to address the issues raised by the MWRA. 
As background, EPA published proposed Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants and
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Flexibility in Existing Test Procedures and Streamlined Proposal of New
Test Procedures in the Federal Register. Under the Streamlined methods approval system, EPA would increase the
analyst’s flexibility to modify existing test procedures and expedite the approval of new and modified test procedures.
However, the Streamlining rule has not been promulgated. Therefore, EPA must follow the ATP process identified in 40
CFR 136.5 for any NPDES test method modifications. 
On October 22, 1997, the EPA-New England Region responded to the MWRA’s October 11, 1996 requests for approval
of 17 analytical procedures/lab practices. In addition to providing comments on the requests, the letter addressed the
appropriateness of the Authority’s proposals and the increased information to be obtained from them. The letter also
described how EPA’s proposed streamlining of alternate and new test method approvals would affect the proposals.
EPA-New England has not received a response to date from the MWRA. 
On September 10, 1998, EPA-New England provided specific comments and requests for information for each of the
laboratory method requests submitted for the MWRA’s Industrial Pretreatment Program. 
In accordance with the Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) process, EPA-New England forwarded copies of MWRA’s ATP
requests to the Office of Science and Technology in EPA Headquarters Office of Water. The following is the status of
EPA’s review of MWRA’s requests: 
• September 8, 1997 Request for Approval of the Use of EPA Methods for Certain Organic Compounds,
September 16, 1997, additional compounds for Methods 608 (Case N97-0019), 624 (Case N97-0016) and 625
(Case N97-0020). 
A letter was sent from William Telliard, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, on July 16, 1998 to the MWRA requesting
additional information. There has been no response to date from the MWRA. 
• September 8, 1997 Request for Approval of the Use of Purge Compositing for the Analysis of VOAs (Case N97
0013). 
A letter was sent from William Telliard, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, on September 17, 1998 to the MWRA
recommending acceptance of the compositing method. Once MWRA provides the additional detail regarding the aliquot
transfer technique, as per the comments made in EPA’s October 22, 1997 letter to the MWRA, the Regional
Administrator can make the final decision to approve/reject MWRA’s request. 
• November 20, 1997 Request to allow MWRA to use sodium thiosulfate instead of ascorbic acid to dechlorinate
NPDES and Industrial Pretreatment samples collected for cyanide amenable to chlorination (Case N97-0018). 
17

A letter was sent from William Telliard, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, in March of 1998 requesting additional
information. There has been no response to date from the MWRA. 
Default Limitations: 
Comment :
The Bays Legal Fund stated that the permit does not establish effluent limitations for all pollutants. Instead, the permit
provides that twelve pollutants, including: aldrin, arsenic, chlordane, copper, cyanide, 4,4-DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor,
heptachlorepoxide, hexachlorobenzene, mercury and volatile organic compounds, will be " monitored within the draft
permit", (Fact Sheet at Page 10). With the exception of arsenic and volatile organic compounds, the EPA and DEP found
that "there is not reasonable potential that this discharge will cause or contribute to an exceedance of the water quality
standard for " these parameters. In order to ensure water quality protection, the permit should include conservative
"default" discharge limitations for these compounds, in addition to the requirements already set forth in the permit. 
Comment :
Effluent characteristics change and species selected for whole-effluent toxicity testing may not be the most sensitive
important local species. Furthermore, contrary to the Fact Sheet on page 14 (under VI.C), water quality criteria
protective of public consumers of seafood ("human life") can be more stringent than for aquatic life and not adequately
measured by whole effluent toxicity testing. 
For these reasons, Winthrop reiterates the view that it has expressed previously that there should be specific numerical limits 
for all Priority Pollutants. A copy of Winthrop's October 1, 1985 letter with related comments is attached. 
The toxics listed on Permit page 6, and discussed in the Fact Sheet on pages 10 to 12 should not merely be monitored and 
reported. Numerical limits should be prescribed. Such limits will open the process by which the regulatory agencies may 
gauge monitoring results allowing a meaningful public role in that process. 
Specific numerical limits based on national water quality criteria (modified for local species as appropriate) and 
projected dilutions but not higher than present discharge concentrations, should be incorporated. Default limits should be 
established for chemicals not known to occur in MWRA wastewater. 
Public Responding Comment : 
The MWRA commented that they are not in support of “default” limitations, since extensive monitoring data does not 
show any "potential to exceed water quality standards" for the following pollutants: aldrin, arsenic, chlordane, copper, 
cyanide, 4,4-DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, and volatile organic 
compounds. MWRA supports EPA’s and DEP’s finding that these twelve pollutants should be subject to “continued 
monitoring only”. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
EPA and the MADEP have authority to impose numeric water quality limitations where there is reasonable potential that
the pollutant will be discharged in concentrations which would cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality
standards. EPA and the MADEP analyzed an extensive body of data and applied this test liberally: limits have been
established wherever it is reasonable to do so.
It is important to note that the permit does limit the discharge of pollutants even where there is no specific numeric
limitation, through the narrative requirement that prohibits any contribution by the MWRA to exceedances of water
quality standards. Moreover, if for some reason the concentration of any of these pollutants increases significantly or
new information is obtained indicating a greater level of toxicity than expected, the permit can be amended to add a
numeric limitation. 
MWRA’s and MADMF’s Memorandum of Understanding: 
Comment : 
The permit should require the collection of baseline data as a component of the MOU. This would allow the 
18

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) to have a role in the collection and analysis of baseline data and 
to be involved in the early stages of the development of a monitoring plan. It would also enhance the integrity of the post 
discharge monitoring program. The permit should require the MWRA to execute a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) with the MA DMF before discharge instead of 12 months after commencement of discharge. MOU should be a 
public one that incorporates an opportunity for public comment. 
Comment : 
STOP commented that the MOU should be entered into prior to commencement of the discharge. Also, stakeholders 
(i.e., shellfishing industry, etc.) should be included in the establishment of the notification procedure. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
Collection of baseline data has been an on-going effort by the MWRA and the MADMF, and this effort will continue for
the life of the permit. Part I.1.a.15 of the final permit has been modified to reflect the fact that an MOU between the
MWRA and the MADMF is already in place, and to require periodic updates to that MOU. For example, Part I.1a.*15.
of the permit has been changed from “. . .The MWRA shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) . . .” to “. . . The MWRA shall continue to implement the
existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MWRA and the Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries (MADMF), and shall negotiate annual updates to this MOU unless MADMF determines that such an update is
unnecessary in a particular year.” 
Eighty-Five Percent Removal : 
Comment : 
The permit should include a target monthly percent removal requirement of eighty-five percent, or an alternative number 
as close to eighty-five percent as practicable. This will provide a mechanism to in turn require the MWRA to address the 
types of occurrences for which the percent removal requirement is designed. 
Comment :
The MA Audubon stated that they are surprised that 85% removal is not part of the permit. It is not clear what the
environmental consequences will be if the 85% removal is in noncompliance, and what the options are that could be
considered to address this issue. If the removal rate turns out to be a problem, will additional treatment be considered
(i.e., a fourth battery for secondary treatment.)? 
Comment : 
STOP commented that the MWRA should not be excused from compliance with the 85 percent removal requirement 
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 133.103. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
EPA’s regulations provide that a permit need not include an 85% removal requirement where sewers and storm drainage
systems are combined in one system or levels of I/I are such that influent concentrations of BOD/TSS are very dilute (as
is the case in portions of the MWRA system). In such cases, percentage removal is not a good measure of the
effectiveness of the treatment process–concentration limits are a better indicator of performance. This section of the
permit has not been modified. 
Cyanide Discussion Within the Fact Sheet : 
Comment : 
Mr. David Graber commented that in reference to the discussion of cyanide within the Fact Sheet on page 11, MWRA will 
be using sodium bisulphite to dechlorinate in the outfall, and thiosulfate presumably to dechlorinate samples before testing 
for CBOD and toxicity. 
Toxic Constituents : 
Comment : 
19

STOP is concerned that once a month sampling for the toxic constituents, listed under Part I.1.TO1 within the draft 
permit, is not frequent enough sampling given the enormity of the flow. We ask that more frequent samples be required 
by EPA. 
Public’s Response : 
MWRA commented that STOP believes that monthly analyses of priority pollutants are not sufficient to characterize 
effluent quality. Consistent with commitments made to the OMTF and with the requirements of the Contingency Plan, 
MWRA intends to make more frequent priority pollutant measurements, although they are not required in the Permit. 
The monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports submitted to EPA and DEP by MWRA will report the number of samples 
taken each month and the average results. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
The final permit includes a “once a month” analysis of priority pollutants, and this requirement is sufficient to protect
water quality standards. (The once a month analysis of priority pollutants, which do not appear to have the potential to
contribute to exceedances of water quality standards, is quite conservative and is more stringent than is typical for
NPDES permits.) 
Toxicity Testing : 
Comment :
The Riverways Program commented that given the quantity of effluent, we are concerned about the chronic effects of the
discharge in the receiving waters if the absolute minimum NOEC of 1.5% is the concentration needed to obtain no
observable chronic effect. Such a dilute concentration of effluent appears to make the test requirement just short of
superfluous. A concentration of 20% seems more appropriate. We believe that toxicity tests are a concern, since they
may reflect the true environmental impact of the effluent to the biota in the receiving water; something the individual
parameter limits may not fully capture. Requiring testing for the extensive list of metals, synthetic chemicals, organic
compounds, etc. is commendable but falls short of assessing the combined effect of the potential chemicals existing in the
influent/effluent on a given day. Limits which reflect acute and chronic marine toxicity needs to be in place to protect
one of the most important resources of the commonwealth, our marine resources. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
Discharges with an initial dilution of 70:1 or greater (as is the case for the MWRA) typically would not have a chronic
toxicity limitation included in their NPDES permit, since there is little likelihood that such a dilute mixture would cause
chronic toxicity. Nevertheless, to be conservative, the MWRA permit establishes such a limit. The 1.5% concentration is
based on the actual expected dilution. 
Footnotes : 
Comment : 
STOP has requested more specific parameters delineating what constitutes dry versus wet day flows, under footnote #3 
on pages 4 and 5 of the draft permit. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
Dry and wet weather flows are typically based on a combination of rainfall and snowmelt, and the permit adequately 
reflects and defines those parameters. 
EFFECTIVE DATE: 
Comment :
MWRA explained that Section I.1.f of the draft permit establishes the effective date of the permit to be either the date of
signature, or 30 days after the date of signature. MWRA expects to be in compliance with many aspects of the permit at
the time it becomes effective. However, various facilities required to meet other aspects of the permit are likely to remain 
20

under construction at the time the permit becomes effective. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
As noted in the MWRA’s comment, some treatment facilities may still be under construction at the time that the permit
becomes effective. These facilities are subject to the remedial order of the Federal District Court in U.S.A. v M.D.C., et
al. (C.A. 85-0489-MA). 
Part I.1.f. of the permit has been changed from “f. The effective date of the permit means: (1) the date of signature if
there are no comments during the public comments period, or (2) 30 days after the date of signature if there are
substantive comments received during the public comment period.” to “g. The effective date of the permit means 30 days
after the date of signature. ” since there were substantive comments received during the public comment period. 
PRIOR NOTICE: 
Comment :
STOP commented that all POTW’s should be required to provide adequate notice to the public using the Environmental
Monitor and the Outfall Monitoring Scientific Advisory Panel (OMSAP) in the circumstances mentioned in this section
[Part I.2]. There should be a specific procedure by which an interested member of the public could be added to a list
maintained by the MWRA. This list would be employed throughout the permit, wherever notification of the public is
required. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The final permit language has been changed from “The permittee shall provide at least a 30 day written prior notice to the 
Director of the following:” to “The permittee shall provide at least a 30 day written prior notice to EPA, MADEP, NMFS, 
OMSAP (and its two Advisory Committees), and the public (on a free-access Internet website page and placement of 
hard copies in two permanent repositories - see also: Part I.20.e. of this permit) of the following:” 
REOPENER CLAUSE (Part I.5): 
Comment : 
The BLF supports the reopener clause contained in the draft permit. 
Comment :
The draft permit currently states under Part 1.7, paragraph 2 that “On or after December 31, 1998, EPA will review all
available information, including the results of all on-going monitoring and special studies, and models, and develop any
appropriate requirements for additional monitoring and modeling in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. The monitoring plan
described in Attachment N shall be modified to reflect these additional requirements.” 
It is not clear from this language whether the EPA may modify the Monitoring Plan and modeling requirements at any time.
The permit should be modified to clarify that EPA may, at any time during the life of the permit, review and modify modeling
and monitoring program requirements, and may change those requirements based upon the receipt of new data. 
Comment : 
Language regarding the Ambient Monitoring Plan should be revised to allow the EPA to remove as well as add monitoring 
requirements based upon their ongoing evaluation of monitoring data and other scientific models and studies (page 9, section 
7, paragraph 2). 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The following statement has been added to the Reopener Clause under Part I.5. of the final permit: “EPA or the MADEP may,
at any time during the life of the permit, review and modify modeling and monitoring program requirements, and may change
those requirements based upon the receipt of new data.” 
21

AMBIENT MONITORING PLAN (Section I.7): 
General Comments on Ambient Monitoring Plan 
Comment :
The Barnstable County Science Advisory Panel (SAP) strongly supports the inclusion of both the monitoring and contingency
plans as requirements of the permit. These plans provide the foundation upon which the permit conditions, including the
effluent limitations and monitoring requirements, are based and compliance will be determined. It is essential that the DEP
and EPA have clear authority to enforce, review, and modify these documents in a timely manner to address changing
circumstances or new information. 
Comment : 
MWRA commented that the MWRA’s outfall monitoring program is widely recognized as one of the best of its kind in the
world. As described in the Fact Sheet, it was developed under the oversight of the Outfall Monitoring Task Force (OMTF),
which has continued to guide its implementation since 1992. It was designed to provide a baseline of scientific information
about a variety of parameters, chosen by the Task Force as appropriate indicators of the health of the Massachusetts Bay
environment before operation of the new outfall. These parameters will continue to be monitored after the new outfall is on
line to determine any effects of the outfall. MWRA’s monitoring efforts, both in the nearfield and farfield, are among the
most extensive in the world, representing an investment of more than $2.5 million annually. The monitoring conducted to
date has resulted in over 100 million data points. MWRA believes the overview of monitoring design and data interpretation
by the Outfall Monitoring Task Force has been second to none. 
Comment :
The protection of marine resources in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays requires a rigorous scientific monitoring and "early
warning" response system capable of detecting changes in key water quality parameters and ecological processes due to the
discharge. While the current versions of the monitoring and contingency plans represent substantial progress toward this goal,
they fall short in a number of critical areas including the characterization of the ecological response of phytoplankton to
nutrient inputs, zooplankton community structure, farfield monitoring of Cape Cod Bay, and potential effects to endangered
species, particularly regarding adverse modification of right whale critical habitat and/or feeding behavior. 
Comment :
A coordinated and interactive research program is needed to supplement the monitoring program in order to address a number
of questions related to the effects of the discharge at an ecosystem-wide scale. Uncertainties regarding the assimilative
capacity of the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays ecosystem, particularly for nutrient loading and subsequent ecological
responses, are poorly understood at this time and only partially informed by the current and proposed monitoring programs.
The limited nature of the farfield monitoring effort provides only a scatter shot characterization of conditions as distance from
the outfall increases and, in and of itself, is inadequate to capture subtle variations in biological components which may be
precursors to system-wide change. 
Comment :
The MWRA Advisory Board questions the extensive additional reporting requirements imposed by the permit language. It
is unclear how these requirements would enhance the already extensive reporting and information dissemination the Authority
has in place. The scope of the Authority's monitoring program should be limited to issues directly related to any likely impact
of the discharge on Massachusetts Bay, and be confirmed by the Outfall Monitoring Task Force (or its successor group).
Requirements for acoustic plume monitoring, zooplankton monitoring in Cape Cod Bay, and development of a food web
model should be the responsibility of the state or federal agencies. Toxicity testing on lobster larvae would be duplicative
of other efforts (including those at the state level), and be beyond the appropriate scope of the Authority's research program.
Related to this concern is the issue of laboratory protocols, which affect sampling, testing requirements, and laboratory
supplies and equipment needs. There are a number of modifications that EPA could make in its testing requirements that 
22

would make the Authority's monitoring and reporting requirements more efficient, without compromising the development 
or dissemination of data. 
Public’s Response : 
STOP is strongly opposed to any attempt by MWRA to utilize this outfall until all of the treatment facilities are completed. 
There is sufficient discharge capacity at the existing Deer Island facility to accommodate these flows. The MWRA’s assertion 
that the standards and contingency plan will not be in effect until Battery C is on line is completely unacceptable. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The permit’s monitoring and reporting requirements are appropriate for this discharge. The permit becomes effective thirty 
days after issuance. As noted above, some of the facilities needed to come into full compliance with the permit’s 
requirements are still under construction, and are subject to a remedial order of the federal court. 
Chlorine Residual Monitoring : 
Comment : 
Mr. Sal Testaverde of the NMFS recommends that total chlorine residual be monitored, once the offshore outfall discharge 
begins, during every MWRA survey at all near field stations. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
The MWRA is required to have 456 micrograms per liter, or less, on an average monthly basis and 631 micrograms per liter,
or less, on a maximum daily basis for total residual chlorine within the initial mixing area that surrounds the discharge
location. Since the discharge must meet MA State Water Quality Standards for chlorine residual at a distance much closer
than the closest nearfield monitoring station, and since detectable concentrations of chlorine residual at any of the nearfield
monitoring stations would be extremely unlikely, the final permit does not include a requirement to sample chlorine residual
at the nearfield monitoring locations. Instead, EPA and the MADEP will require spot check sampling over several months
at each of the closest nearfield stations, after the discharge commences. If the spot check sampling demonstrates detectable
concentrations of chlorine residual at any of the nearfield monitoring stations, the permit may be reopened and modified to
include appropriate sampling at the nearfield stations. 
Data Access and Data Review: 
Comment : 
The data generated by these aspects of the Monitoring Plan provides a good example of the need to make all data efficiently
available. Currently, Part I.7.c. states that the raw data shall be made available at the MWRA facility upon request. The permit
should require the MWRA to post the data on a searchable, downloadable web site, with e-mail notification each time data
is updated or reported to the EPA, DEP and/or NMFS. 
Public’s Response :
MWRA notes that several commenters propose adding a requirement for electronic notification and posting in various
circumstances. MWRA is committed to electronic posting of its Quarterly Wastewater Performance Reports in connection
with implementation of the Contingency Plan. More extensive electronic posting and electronic notification would be
desirable if they could replace the currently required notifications and distribution of hard copy documents, but MWRA does
not believe that elimination of hard copy is possible at this time. There are many interested parties who would not have access
to the information because they do not have Internet access or electronic mail. While MWRA will continue to explore ways
to use electronic communication effectively, the creation and maintenance of the web pages needed to accomplish the
requested electronic distribution of documents would require the MWRA to expend considerable additional resources without
increasing the availability of the documents to all members of the public. MWRA would prefer to expend its resources on 
23

projects that enhance plant performance or address problems, if any develop. 
Comment : 
Mr. Graber of Winthrop stated that pursuant to the draft permit on page 9 (items "7.a" and "7.b"), the Town Of Winthrop 
hereby expresses interest in being notified of any proposed modifications to the Ambient Monitoring Plan. 
Comment : 
The permit should require notification in the Environmental Monitor and by electronic mail to those on the distribution list
of interested persons, of all proposed interim modifications to the Monitoring Plan and providing a 30 day comment period
on the proposed modification. We believe that the public benefit from this process will far outweigh the slight delay to the
MWRA in reducing the monitoring effort. 
Comment : 
Part I.7.c. of the permit should require reporting of data as soon as possible following the availability of such data. In order
to ensure the timely reporting of monitoring data, the permit should specify that quarterly reports shall report on monitoring
data obtained in the previous quarter, and that the MWRA shall provide OMSAP members with raw and analyzed data on
a monthly basis. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
EPA and MADEP agree that timely and efficient dissemination of data is critical to the public’s ability to monitor the
MWRA’s discharge. The final permit requires the permittee to notify the general public by maintaining a free-access Internet
web page and by placing hard copies of monitoring reports in at least two repositories. (See the specific permit language
below.) EPA will disseminate data that is likely to be of the greatest value to the public, including email notification to
interested parties whenever a “caution” or “warning” level is exceeded. In addition, all data will continue to be available
on paper and/or in electronic form, as appropriate, upon request. 
The following language has been added to Part I.20.e. of the final permit: 
“Notification to the General Public: 
The permittee shall inform the general public by 1) maintaining a free-access Internet web page and at least two
repositories where hard copies of all documents are placed, one of which shall be the MWRA’s Charlestown Navy
Yard Offices, and the other shall be on Cape Cod (i.e., the specific location will be determined after consultation with
interested Cape Groups.), and 2) reporting the following: 
(1) any proposed changes to the ambient monitoring plan, including any proposed interim changes, 
(2) any proposed changes to the contingency plan, including any proposed interim changes, 
(3) all “caution” and/or “warning” level exceedances, as defined within the Contingency Plan, 
(4) the MWRA’s outfall contingency simulation plan and any proposed changes to this plan. 
(5) all reports sent by the MWRA to the OMSAP for review, 
(6) all notices sent to EPA/MADEP regarding facility changes that may result in receiving water impacts, 
(7) the MWRA’s pollution prevention plan and any proposed changes to this plan, 
(8) any proposed changes to the current groundwater remediation prohibition, 
(9) all analyses of industrial pretreatment local limits and any proposed changes to the local limits, and 
(10) all sampling results reported within Discharge Monitoring Reports. ” 
24

A requirement that raw data be sent to the OMSAP each month is unnecessary: the members of the OMSAP will determine
how frequently that data is needed (the permit already requires that raw data will be made available on request). 
Comment :
Part I.7.a. of the permit should include the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel (OMSAP) on the list of those to
automatically review MWRA's proposed modifications to the Monitoring Plan. We further recommend that the permit contain
language permitting the OMSAP and other interested parties to submit proposed modifications to the Monitoring Plan and
modeling programs to the EPA and DEP for approval. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
The OMSAP, as well as members of the public, may submit proposed modifications to the Monitoring Plan and modeling
programs to the EPA and MADEP for approval at any time, and a statement to this effect has been added to the permit. (See
Final Permit, Part I.7.e., Ambient Monitoring Plan.) The permit has also been modified to add the OMSAP to the list of those
reviewing proposed modifications to the Monitoring Plan. 
Comment : 
The former Outfall Monitoring Task Force would like the new OMSAP added to the list of recipients on page 9, Part I.7.b. 
of the draft permit that states, “The permittee may propose interim modifications at any time . . . written notice to EPA, 
MADEP, NMFS, and any members of the public.” And the permit should explicitly state that OMSAP shall receive 
monitoring reports at the same time as EPA and MADEP so that OMSAP is able to deal with any exceedence in the most 
timely manner. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
Part I.7. b. and c. of the draft permit (i.e., Part I.7.c.iii. and iv. of the final permit) has been changed to require the permittee 
to report monitoring information, required under Part I.7., to the new Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory (OMSAP) and 
the general public (by maintaining a free-access Internet web page and by placing hard copies in at least two repositories). 
The permittee is required to send monitoring reports to the OMSAP, EPA and the MADEP, simultaneously. 
Comment : 
Part I.7.c. of the final permit should include the OMSAP on the list of entities who may issue a written objection to the
automatic adoption of interim modifications to the Monitoring Plan. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
Part I.7.c. of the final permit allows written objection by EPA and the MADEP to the automatic adoption of interim
modifications to the Monitoring Plan, since EPA and the MADEP are the two permitting agencies with the legal authority
to make final permit decisions. Although the OMSAP has been added to the list of those who receive notice of proposed
changes, and the OMSAP’s advice on such proposals will carry great weight, the regulatory authority to decide permit issues
cannot be conferred on the OMSAP. 
Comment :
The OMTF commented that proposals for additional monitoring and modeling should be evaluated by the OMSAP; the EPA
should take into account the advice of the OMSAP in developing any additional requirements. Mr. Sal Testaverde added that
he would recommend changing the Ambient Monitoring Plan draft permit language under Part I.7.(4). from “marine
mammals” to “marine mammals including endangered whale species” since marine species are protected under the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
In order to ensure the highest protection for endangered whale species, the following language has been added to Part I.7.(4) 
of the final permit: “. . . marine mammals including endangered whale species”. 
25

Red Tide: 
Comment : 
Part I.7.d. of the permit should require reporting of data as soon as possible following the availability of such data. In order
to ensure the timely reporting of monitoring data, the permit should specify that quarterly reports shall report on monitoring
data obtained in the previous quarter, and that the MWRA shall provide OMSAP members with raw and analyzed data on
a monthly basis. 
Comment :
Since the beginning of the outfall monitoring program, the OMTF and MWRA have shared the goal of properly coordinating
MWRA’s monitoring efforts with those of other agencies in order to avoid overlap or duplicate monitoring with that
performed by other agencies. For example, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has in place a highly
effective monitoring program to detect red tide and Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP). Since the inception of this program,
there have been no preventable cases of death from PSP. MWRA’s Contingency Plan provides for MWRA to use these
monitoring results to detect any impact of the outfall with respect to red tide. 
Comment :
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod (APCC) commented that the solution to nutrient problems is nitrogen
control. Section 5.11 of the Contingency Plan within the draft permit downplays the role of nitrogen control in the prevention
of hypoxia and proliferation of undesired algal species. Also, the source of organic matter in the effluent is identified under
Section 5.31 of the Contingency Plan within the draft permit as dead algae. Failing to mention that human generated sewage
is the primary source of organic matter is disingeneous. 
Comment :
STOP commented that Section 3.3.2 of the Ambient Monitoring Plan, Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, implies that the current
program maintained by the MA Department of Public Health is adequate for detection of these species. There is a great
potential for changes in the populations of these species - an unanticipated response prompted by the change in location of
the MWRA discharge with its load of nitrogen, carbonic substances, and freshwater. All of these substances act as limiting
factors in the growth of undesirable dinoflagellate species. The movement of the discharge brings these substances into areas
of higher concentration of the spores of these species. Therefore, the current monitoring plan is inadequate for the detection
of these species and a timely response to unforseen episodes. More specific monitoring in the near and farfield for these
species should be required within this monitoring plan. 
STOP also commented that given the amount of concerns expressed concerning potential red tide impacts, there should be
more farfield monitoring stations than are currently reflected in the Monitoring Plan. Some of the areas that appear to be
particularly vulnerable to red tide include areas of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Basin. (Ambient Monitoring Plan, Figure
5-1, Sampling Stations (pages 5-3).) Trigger and warning parameters for PSP should be established within this contingency
plan. (Contingency Plan, Section 5.0 - Fish and Shellfish Monitoring (page 5-1).) 
Public’s Response :
The Bays Legal Fund does not agree that the current Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) monitoring plan for
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) and red tides is sufficient to detect red tide after the outfall goes on line (please see
comments of Rick H. York of the Bays Legal Fund Board of Trustees, dated April 30, 1998). At a minimum, additional
monitoring stations should be brought on-line in Cape Cod Bay to minimize the potential for severe adverse human health
effects. 
Public’s Response :
MWRA expresses its faith in the existing DMF’s PSP monitoring program. This program is intended to protect humans, not
other marine life, from potentially devastating red tide events. When a red tide event has registered on the human health radar 
26

screen, it will be far beyond the point at which it might be impacting marine animals. This represents an enormous gap in 
MWRA’s monitoring program particularly given the number of scientists and science that have raised questions about 
relocating the discharge to this offshore area. We urge EPA to demand greater monitoring, response, and accountability on 
the red tide issues that have yet to be addressed by the MWRA’s monitoring and contingency plans. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
In order to address the numerous concerns raised by the public during the public comment period regarding the need for an 
increased number of red tide sampling stations, the following language has been added to the final permit under Part I.7.g.: 
“EPA and MADEP will request that OMSAP investigate the need for additional red tide monitoring stations in Massachusetts 
Bay and Cape Cod Bay, to determine whether the MWRA discharge has an effect on the frequency or extent of red tides. If 
the OMSAP recommends to EPA and MADEP that additional monitoring is necessary, the permittee shall, within ninety (90) 
days, develop and submit a scope of work for such monitoring. This scope of work shall be submitted to EPA and the 
MADEP for approval. If necessary, this permit will be modified to incorporate additional red tide monitoring requirements. 
This section does not preclude the imposition of such requirements through any other mechanism, including enforcement 
action by EPA or MADEP. If required, MWRA may make arrangements with another entity to perform these activities.” 
Fresh Water Impacts : 
Comment :
STOP commented that, unfortunately, the potential harm posed by the introduction of freshwater is being underestimated.
The New York Times recently reported on inadvertent impacts of depressed salinity in Chesapeake Bay. State biologists
believe a major fish kill in the Bay was due to depression in salinity. The change in salinity caused an otherwise benign
microorganism to become toxic to the fish in question, in the article entitled “Trying to Weigh Safety and Tourism,” March
14, 1998, page A-6. The article also describes similar circumstances that may have led to lesions and disfiguring ailments
in the St. Lucie estuary in southern Florida. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
Dilution at the new outfall location is so great that a significant depression in salinity is not expected. However, EPA and
the MADEP will request the OMSAP to investigate this issue further. If there are additional requirements that are deemed
necessary, the permit may be reopened and modified to include the additional requirements. In order to address freshwater
impacts, the permit includes a dry day flow limitation and restrictions on the number of new connections into the sewer
system. 
Lobsters: 
Comment : 
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod (APCC) commented that Section 5.22 of the draft permit mentions 
sampling lobster and flounder in Cape Cod, however, this type of sampling and the locations for sampling are not included 
in Table 1-1 or 5-2. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
Lobster and flounder sampling locations, sampling measurements, and frequency of sampling measurements can be found 
in the Ambient Monitoring Plan on page 5-6. 
Comment : 
A member of the Lobstermen’s Association commented that he incorrectly thought that the billions of dollars the MWRA
spent to build sewage digesters on Deer Island was so that natural methods using micro-organisms to clean the sewage would
obviate the need for chemical treatments such as chlorine bleach. We all want clean water - but how do we define “clean”?
I don't think we intend for it to mean sterile. We may not even mean clear - for that too implies "no life". We mean for clean 
27

water to be defined as being as close to its natural and healthful state as possible for that particular type of water. The
process of getting the water clean may in fact be exactly what kills lobsters - and flounder - and maybe codfish and a host of
other marine animals and plants that depend upon each other for survival, and for which Boston Harbor used to be famous.
I propose that the EPA set up a framework for licensing the MWRA's use of the 9½ mile outfall tunnel in stages which are
tied to the results of research and experience, and the implementation of permanent, continuous, recorded monitoring that
is always open to public scrutiny. 
Comment :
Lobsters are extremely important to the economy and history of this area. The economic value of the lobster fishery coupled
with the thriving lobster fishing and recruitment area in the vicinity of the new outfall has given rise to concerns about the
potential impact of the new outfall's discharge Save the Harbor/Save the Bay (SHSB) supports those measures suggested by
the Outfall Monitoring Task Force as an initial way to approach this issue. The OMTF's recommendations include sampling
to determine whether early benthic phase lobsters occur around the future outfall site, and having MWRA assist the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) in analyzing lobster statistics. SHSB recognizes the need for basic
research on lobster biology and sampling methodology and urges a collaborative interagency effort be initiated, involving
the academic community, to help resolve some of the recent concerns. 
Comment :
Given the economic value of the lobster fishery in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay, The Boston Harbor Association
supports the Outfall Monitoring Task Force' recent recommendation that the MWRA conduct a sampling program during
the summer of 1998 to determine if early benthic phase lobsters occur around the future outfall site. This additional sampling
effort should be conducted in collaboration with the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries efforts to analyze lobster
statistics. 
Comment :
Senator John Kerry and Senator Edward Kennedy commented that while they appreciate the substantial effort and
comprehensive nature of the MWRA’s monitoring program, including the contingency plan as part of the permit, the
extensive testing requirements, the high standards being set for the nutrients and toxics, and the flexible, adaptive management
approach that accommodates new information as it arrives, we are concerned about the lack of information about the potential
effect that the outfall discharge will have on lobster populations in MA Bay. Our concern is the lack of evidence regarding
the sewage effluent might have a toxic effect on lobster larvae and on the productivity of egg-bearing females. It is our
recommendation that additional studies be conducted to determine the potential effects on lobster recruitment in the vicinity
of the outfall by surveying the lobster larvae before and after discharge begins. If significant numbers of larvae are found,
we recommend support for the role of the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel review in soliciting proposals for
chronic toxicity testing to determine the direct effect the effluent will have on the lobster population. While we recognize that
the MWRA is not responsible for the problems with lobsters in urban harbors across the region, the potential impact on
Massachusetts Bay from a point source of this size warrants the additional information. 
Comment :
MWRA stated that another area in which MWRA efforts have been alleged to be inadequate without taking into account the
efforts of others is toxicity testing on lobster larvae. Several studies of the sensitivity of lobster larvae to various pollutants
have been performed, and based on these studies it is highly unlikely that MWRA effluent can be expected to have a
detrimental effect on the lobster population of the area. It has also been determined for several parameters that the indicator
species used by MWRA are more sensitive than lobster larvae and thus are appropriate for detecting potential effects on
lobster. For monitoring of the outfall’s effect on adult lobsters, DMF’s extensive lobster population monitoring program
will augment the information gathered through MWRA’s soft and hard bottom habitat monitoring program. Concerns about
lobster are also being investigated by the Outfall Monitoring Task Force. A study of lobster issues has been conducted for 
28

the OMTF by Dr. Kari Lavalli of the Lobster Conservancy. The study concluded that the outfall is likely to have little impact
because juvenile lobsters cannot be expected to be found in the immediate vicinity of the outfall and because concentrations
of contaminants, including chlorine, in MWRA’s effluent are well below levels of concern. It also was concluded that the
current monitoring practices of the MWRA and DMF are sufficient to detect any impact on lobsters. 
Comment :
The economic value of the lobster fishery coupled with the thriving lobster fishing and recruitment area in the vicinity of the
new outfall has given rise to concerns about the potential impact of the discharge. This is particularly important given recent
observations that lobster landings have declined in a number of urban harbors in Massachusetts in the 1990s. CAN supports
those measures suggested by the Outfall Monitoring Task Force as an initial way to approach this issue. These include
sampling to determine whether early benthic-phase lobsters occur around the future outfall site, and having MWRA assist
the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) in analyzing lobster statistics CAN recognizes the need for basic
research on lobster biology and sampling methodology and urges a collaborative interagency effort be initiated, involving
the academic community, to help resolve some of the recent concerns. 
Comment : 
Mrs. Polly Bradley commented that SWIM is deeply concerned about the potential effect of the sewage outfall on the lobsters 
that are so important to the Massachusetts economy and ecology. SWIM has been working on this issue since June 8, 1995, 
when we wrote to John DeVillars, Regional Administrator of the EPA, expressing our concern about the "Impact of the 
proposed change (decreasing the number of secondary batteries from 4 to 3) upon the lobster industry, one of the few 
economically viable fisheries left in New England." 
Since it takes seven years for lobsters to grow to legal size, we need baseline studies on young lobsters this summer
before the Boston outfall opens, followed by studies after the outfall goes on line to find out whether it is harming
lobsters. At the present time, the draft MWRA permit does not include any monitoring of young lobsters. 
According to Nahant lobstermen, the lobster fishery in Lynn Harbor (which borders Revere, Lynn, and Nahant) has been
decimated since the Lynn Secondary Treatment Plant went on line about seven years ago. We do not want the same thing
to happen at the site of the Greater Boston sewage outfall, a pipe the size of the Callahan Tunnel that will pour an average
of 383 million gallons per day (mgd) average treated effluent into Massachusetts Bay. At the present time, our
lobstermen tell us, the Boston outfall site is an extremely rich lobster fishing area and the place where they find more
egg-bearing females than anyplace else. 
We have heard two major objections to studying young lobsters near the outfall site. One is that our evidence on the lack
of lobsters near the Lynn outfall and the richness of lobsters near the potential Boston outfall is anecdotal. But who
would know what's out there better than lobstermen, who are out there nearly every day? Moreover, if the evidence is
anecdotal, isn't it time to gather scientific data? The other objection is that lack of lobsters near the Lynn outfall (and
near Deer Island where Boston now discharges its partially treated sewage) is because of lack of nutrients (i.e., that
effluent is good for lobsters.). If this is true, why are lobsters so common on the north side of Nahant where the water is
clean and the Swampscott outfall has been removed (to the Lynn regional treatment plant that also treats the Nahant and
Saugus sewage), but scarce on the south side of Nahant near the Lynn outfall? Moreover, why are lobsters abundant at
the still-clean site of the Boston outfall that will not open until this fall, if lobsters need sewage to survive? 
SWIM has the following specific comments: 
(1) SWIM asks for: a) chronic toxicity testing of juvenile lobster benthic recruits in the area of the outfall, b) suction
sampling of benthic recruits before and after the outfall goes on line, and c) tracking movement of ovigerous females. The
tests should include controls. 
29

(2) Mrs. Bradley commented that she was told by an operator at Deer Island that if there is a slug of toxics (from an
inadvertent and/or illegal industrial discharge, for example), their sensors would detect that and they would bypass the
plant so that the secondary treatment organisms would not be killed. When I asked about the effect on the organisms in
the outfall area, he said, Oh, don't worry about that - it gets diluted in the outfall pipe. My immediate thought was to
wonder what the effect would be on vulnerable larval lobsters at the end of the outfall. What is the MWRA policy
regarding bypassing of the treatment plant in the case of a slug of toxics? 
(3) There should be provisions for monitoring of pathogens in the vicinity of the outfall, especially after severe rain
events, with a notification requirement to North and South Shore coastal towns if there are unexpectedly high pathogen
levels. We are concerned about the children and adults who swim on the beaches as well as the lobstermen, fishermen
and recreational boaters who are out on the water. 
(4) In extreme wet years instead of average rainfall years, blending will occur - secondary and primary effluent will be
mixed and chlorinated. This is probably one of the most dangerous times for vulnerable lobster larvae as well as for
swimmers and sailors. It is our understanding that blending will occur after about 780 million gallons per day (mgd), but
that the efficiency of secondary diminishes after about 700 mgd. SWIM asks for additional monitoring near the location
of the outfall diffusers during blending of primary and secondary effluent. 
(5) SWIM asks for monitoring in the future outfall area of chlorine, dechlorination agents, and polymers (if used) during
every at-sea test performed by the MWRA. 
(6) SWIM asks that polymers not be used in the secondary treatment process. 
(7) If additional treatment is necessary, construction of the fourth battery of secondary should be considered. 
(8) If still more treatment is needed, tertiary treatment should be considered. SWIM requests that a tertiary treatment
committee be established to plan for the future, and that members of all the new advisory panels be included. 
(9) If Massachusetts Bay is polluted by the outfall and the above means are not sufficient to solve the problem, diversion
of the effluent back into Boston Harbor should be considered. Boston Harbor should not be cleaned up by polluting
Massachusetts Bay. 
(10) SWIM asks for at-sea, outcome-based monitoring of the present outfall and Boston Harbor until the offshore outfall
comes on line. This is particularly important after the Nut Island effluent is diverted to Deer Island, which we understand
is taking place this spring. 
(11) Lobstering is a major Massachusetts industry, with a multiplying effect on the restaurant business, bed and
breakfasts, the tourist industry, and property values in coastal communities, as well as the quality of life of citizens of
New England. By protecting juvenile lobsters and assuring recruitment into the lobster population, we will be helping the
economy as well as the ecology of Massachusetts. 
Comment : 
The OMTF commented that they have been addressing SWIM's concerns regarding lobsters and the new outfall since it 
convened the lobster larvae focus group for the first time in August 1997. On April 29, 1998, the OMTF reached a 
general consensus on the following recommendations (note: these are not recommendations for additions to the permit.). 
(a) The Task Force shall recommend that MWRA conduct a suction sampling survey in the vicinity of the future outfall
site during the summer of 1998 to sample shelter restricted early benthic phase juvenile (EBP) lobsters. Numbers of
young-of-year could yield important information about recruitment in this area before the new outfall goes on-line.
If a properly designed survey finds no significant numbers (i.e. lower abundances than in contiguous coastal areas) 
30

of EBP juveniles in the vicinity of the future outfall site (FOS), issues and concerns about outfall impacts on those 
life stages will be re-evaluated. If significant numbers of EBP juveniles are found, then the question of effluent 
toxicity to EBP juveniles will need to be examined. 
(b) If there are significant numbers of EBP juveniles found in the vicinity of the FOS, then the Task Force shall
recommend the development of a RFP for toxicity testing. The OMTF shall review the RFP and proposals in order
to identify the appropriate monitoring. 
(c) The Task Force shall recommend that MWRA continue to assist MADMF with the input and analysis of the 1997
lobster monitoring data and complete the literature search on the effects of chlorine on egg-bearing females, as
recommended at the March 20, 1998 OMTF meeting. 
(d) The Task Force, or the succeeding science panel, shall evaluate the importance of any new proposals submitted to 
them which examine the potential effects of treated effluent on egg-bearing female lobsters and planktonic lobster
larvae. 
(e) The Task Force shall recommend to MIT Sea Grant that they consider including in a future RFP the development of
automated suction sampling technologies for collecting EBP juvenile lobsters. 
(f) The Task Force shall recommend that MADMF adjust their cooperative reporting program with lobstermen to 
include the area around the FOS. 
(g) The collapse of the lobster fishery from Boston Harbor to Lynn and perhaps other areas, as witnessed by local
lobstermen, warrants careful examination of existing data and information. This should perhaps be conducted by the
academic community as a M.S. or Ph.D. dissertation topic. 
Mrs. Polly Bradley added that the lobster monitoring plan, as voted on at the April 29, 1998 OMTF meeting (see 
above) should be a monitoring requirement under the permit, not a special study. 
Public’s Response :
STOP commented that the Lavalli study calls into question the assertions by a number of lobstermen that the areas
surrounding the outfall are likely to support breeding and juvenile lobster populations. This only serves to highlight a
continuing lack of hard data concerning this issue. We hope that EPA will continue to require MWRA’s cooperation on
better understanding of the lobster population in the vicinity of the new outfall. In addition, the impacts of effluent on
breeding lobsters continue to be an issue that has yet to be addressed. 
Public’s Response :
The MWRA commented that SWIM has expressed the concern that MWRA’s discharge would negatively impact the
population of benthic stage post-larval lobsters which might reside in the vicinity of the new outfall. The concern is
based on the contention that the outfall area is exceedingly prime habitat for these animals. However, lobster researchers
question whether an area at the depth of MWRA discharge (30 meters) can be suitable habitat. Research off Maine found
that the density of post-larval lobsters drops significantly in areas where the water depth is greater than 20 meters. (K.L.
Lavelli and D.F. Cowan; Lobster Conservancy, 1998 - Attachment A-3 in original comments.) Post-larval lobsters appear
to select shallow water environments as habitats in order to maximize their growth during the late Summer-Fall period.
This increased growth helps them escape predation pressure. Deeper colder waters minimize growth and presumably
make the animals more vulnerable to predation. 
In order to confirm the view that the discharge area is not good habitat for post-larval lobsters, MWRA will conduct
suction sampling for these animals during the late Summer of 1998, as recommended by the OMTF. OMTF has
recommended that further studies of effluent toxicity on lobster larvae be performed only if it is established that the area 
31

is highly valuable habitat for these animals. The draft scope of work for lobster suction sampling is included in 
Attachment 7, with review and revision by the OMTF and other technical experts pending. 
SWIM is also concerned that secondary treatment has had negative impacts on the flora and fauna in the vicinity of the 
Lynn Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge, including lobsters, and expresses concern that MWRA’s discharge will 
have the same effect. Our discussions with the Lynn Treatment Plant found a different picture of the health of Lynn 
harbor. In 1993 and 1997 caged mussels were deployed between 50 and 150 feet from the Lynn discharge with the intent 
of measuring the bioaccumulation of contaminants in the mussels. Not only did the mussels survive quite well in the 
plume for 60 days, but, upon retrieval, the cages were found to be encrusted with a variety of marine life. Divers 
retrieving the caged mussels also reported abundant and diverse marine life in the vicinity of the cages. This refutes 
SWIM’s concerns about the impact of secondary treatment in Lynn Harbor. 
In fact, Boston Harbor is not the ? sterile moonscape” claimed by lobstermen. On May 1, 1998, the Massachusetts 
Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) accompanied commercial lobstermen who caught a greater number of 
marketable lobsters per trap in Boston Harbor than at the future outfall site. See ? Summary of MADMF - Sea Sampled 
Lobster Data Collected at the Future Outfall Set and Inside Boston Harbor on May 1, 1998,” Attachment 8. There was 
also a higher percentage of egg-bearing lobsters in Boston Harbor than at the future outfall site. MWRA has recently 
assisted MADMF with data entry of the 1997 lobster sampling logs from commercial lobster traps. MADMF will use 
this data to determine trends in the lobster fishery. 
Michael Manning of Nahant is concerned about the potential for toxicity of a dechlorinating agent. He states that the 
decision by MWRA not to use a dechlorinating agent was based upon toxicity testing showing its toxicity. This is 
incorrect. Indeed, use of a dechlorinating agent is standard industry practice for wastewater treatment. MWRA’s 
decision not to use dechlorinating agent was based on a determination that natural dechlorination in the long outfall 
would be sufficient and a chemical agent would not be required. Other plants with long discharge pipes (such as Passaic 
Valley) have used the same strategy. 
Mr. Manning’s comments regarding tests that show the toxicity of dechlorinating agents are based on incorrect 
information. In anticipation of using dechlorination agents for MWRA’s CSO program, acute toxicity tests were 
performed by dosing five species with concentrations up to 14 mg/l (several times greater than any concentrations that 
would be used at Deer Island). Absolutely no acute toxicity was observed, even at the highest dose. 
The testing done by MWRA on Pilot Plant effluent that Mr. Manning refers to involved samples to which the 
dechlorinating agent was added manually without knowing how much was needed to neutralize the chlorine. It is 
possible that the observed increase in toxicity in the Arbacia fertilization test was due to excess dechlorinating agent. 
MWRA has no record of the dose of the dechlorination agent actually used, but does know that it was much greater than 
required. If dechlorination were to be used as part of the treatment process, dosages would be the minimum determined 
to be necessary to neutralize the levels of chlorine in the effluent. 
Mr. Manning also asserts incorrectly that the only monitoring parameter MWRA measures in the nearfield of the 
discharge is the redox potential discontinuity. A substantial soft-bottom benthic monitoring program is in place, 
monitoring the fauna and chemistry of nearly every sizable patch of soft-bottom in the near field. In addition, several 
hard-bottom transects are monitored annually in the nearfield . 
Public’s Response : 
Dr. Robert A. Bullis, D.V.M., M.S., a research Assistant Professor of Microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania 
School of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Patholobiology in the Laboratory of Aquatic Animal Medicine and 
Pathology commented that he would like to comment on the recent recommendations made by Mr. Adler to EPA. In Mr. 
32

Adler’s letter to Mr. DeVillars dated 4 May 1998, he outlined seven areas of concern that the Massachusetts 
Lobstermen’s Association (MLA) felt should be addressed prior to the final MWRA permit issuance. These concerns 
point out the lack of complete understanding of the effects of outfall discharge on the health of larval, juvenile and adult 
lobsters and lobster fecundity in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The list of lobster monitoring recommendations formulated by the former Outfall Monitoring Task Force (OMTF) have 
been incorporated into the final permit under Part I.7.d. The following language has been added to the final permit: 
“The MWRA shall perform the following lobster studies: 
(1) MWRA conducted a suction sampling survey in the vicinity of the future outfall site during the summer of 1998 to
sample shelter-restricted early benthic phase juvenile (EBP) lobsters. MWRA's proposed survey strategy was reviewed
by the OMTF. Numbers of young-of-year could yield important information about recruitment in this area before the
new outfall goes on-line. If a properly designed survey finds no significant numbers of EBP juveniles in the vicinity of
the future outfall site, issues and concerns about outfall impacts on those life stages will not be re-evaluated. If
significant numbers of EBP juveniles are found, then the question of effluent toxicity to EBP juveniles shall be examined.
The results of this survey were reviewed by the OMSAP, and final decisions shall be made by EPA and the MADEP. (2)
If there are significant numbers of EBP juveniles found in the vicinity of the future outfall site, then the MWRA shall
develop a RFP for toxicity testing. The OMSAP shall review the RFP, have any proposals peer-reviewed, and shall be
involved in evaluating the responses and in identifying an appropriate sampling strategy. (3) MWRA shall continue to
assist MADMF with the input and analysis of the 1997 lobster monitoring data and complete the literature search on the
effects of chlorine on egg-bearing females. (4) After the new OMSAP evaluates any new unsolicited proposals in terms
of their importance in assessing the potential effects of treated effluent on egg-bearing female lobsters and planktonic
lobster larvae, and if any proposals are deemed important by the OMSAP, an RFP will be issued by the MWRA.” 
EPA will also consider incorporating additional lobster studies after seeking advice from the new OMSAP. 
Endangered Species Act : 
Comment :
STOP commented that because the biological assessment and bio-opinion were performed while the outfall was being
built, the process was flawed. STOP does not accept the “no jeopardy” opinion issued by NMFS under these
circumstances. Consequently, EPA should plan to vigorously protect the nine species that currently fit the designations
of “threatened” or “endangered.” 
Comment : 
The BLF supports the inclusion of permit language protective of endangered and threatened species and their habitat. It 
is important to modify the permit to more closely track the Endangered Species Act, which states in part: 
“Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action
authorized, funded or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical....”
(From the Endangered Species Act, Section 1536 (a)(2).) (Emphasis Added.) 
The permit should clarify that the discharge shall not jeopardize the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of threatened,
as well as endangered species. The permit should also prohibit the destruction or adverse modification of the habitat of
threatened and endangered species, consistent with the Endangered Species Act. The following language is recommended: 
33

“In addition to the effluent and monitoring requirements listed in Part I.1.a. of this Permit, the discharge shall not: (a) cause
or contribute to an exceedance of the current state water quality standards or of any more stringent state water quality
standards hereafter duly promulgated, (b) jeopardize the continued existence, likelihood of survival or recovery of any
endangered species or threatened species, and/or (c) cause or contribute to the destruction of or adverse modification of
habitat of such threatened or endangered species. The permittee shall ensure that the discharge meets water quality standards
and complies with all federal and state regulations without limitation, (15 CFR §922.142) of the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine (including, protection) Sanctuary.” 
The permit should attach and incorporate by reference the 1995 MOU between the MWRA, EPA and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the Conservation Recommendation of the NMFS Biological Opinion. In addition, the
Fact Sheet at Section G.4. does not reference the 1995 MOU regarding Conservation Recommendations. 
Comment :
The Cetacean Research Unit would like to express that although the permit is virtually comprehensive, we find one area
lacking in its coverage. There is ample attention given to one critically endangered species, the northern right whale. We
understand the reason for this attention, and echo the concern on which it is based. However, we would also point out that
right whales are generally present in Massachusetts Bay for a relatively small period of time. Other endangered whales, such
as humpback and fin whales, are present for a much longer period of time and may therefore be even more susceptible to
unforseen effects. While it is true that they are higher in the food chain than right whales, and are less likely to be affected
by changes in plankton composition, they are none-the-less vulnerable to toxin build-up through the food chain. They, and
other marine mammals, have been shown to be highly sensitive to toxins, and to accumulate them at levels seen in no other
animals than sea birds. Given the current technology for assessing toxin burdens in living whales using small blubber samples
obtained from biopsy darts, such monitoring is both do-able and affordable. We feel that such monitoring is critical to
understanding what effects the MA Bay discharge might have. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
The permit language has been changed in order to further protect threatened and endangered species, and for clarification
purposes. The final permit language, under Part I.1.b., has been changed from “. . . the discharge shall not cause or contribute
to an exceedance of the current state water quality standards, and/or jeopardize the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of an endangered species by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species, . . .” to “. . . the
discharge shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the current state water quality standards, and/or jeopardize the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of any endangered or threatened species by reducing the reproduction, numbers,
or distribution of that species and/or adversely affect its critical habitat, . . .” In addition to this permit language change, the
1995 Memorandum of Understanding between the MWRA, EPA and the NMFS has been attached to the permit as a reference
document (Attachment V). It would be possible to assess toxin burdens in living whales using small blubber samples obtained
from biopsy darts, and the OMSAP will be investigating this issue in the near future. If the OMSAP makes such a
recommendation to EPA and the MADEP, and if EPA and the MADEP approve this recommendation, the permit will be
modified to include this special study. 
New Scientific Advisory Panel: 
Comment :
STOP commented that Part I.7.d. on page 10 of the draft permit implies that the selection of the OMSAP will be an open and
public process. Consequently, we are disturbed that the process of choosing the OMSAP is being undertaken prior to the
finalization of the process by which members will be chosen. EPA should seek broader public input into this process as soon
as possible. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
EPA and the MADEP solicited broad public input for the establishment of the new science advisory panel through discussions 
34

with representatives of interested groups, discussions at public meetings of the OMTF, and through the public notice process
of the MWRA permit. 
Comment : 
The BLF supports the establishment of an independent OMSAP. The permit should be modified to ensure that the OMSAP
receives information in a timely manner and meets periodically. Permit language should ensure that the OMSAP plays an
integral role in proposing modifications to, and evaluating proposed modifications to, the monitoring and contingency plans
and modeling programs. 
Comment : 
The Boston Harbor Association supports the EPA and DEP's plans to develop an Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel 
to provide objective advice regarding monitoring data and possible contingency measures (page 10, section 7-d). However, 
based upon language in the permit, the role of OMSAP needs to be more fully defined. The permit does not adequately define 
how the public and how advocacy organizations such as The Boston Harbor Association will influence the important 
decisions to be considered by OMSAP. 
Comment : 
The permit should state that the OMSAP shall play a direct role in the Contingency Plan Implementation, and that the EPA
and DEP will obtain the opinion of the OMSAP concerning exceedances prior to ordering further action whenever feasible.
Specifically, the permit should state clearly that the OMSAP shall receive notification of exceedances of warning and caution
levels contemporaneous with the EPA and DEP. Furthermore, in the case of an exceedance of a warning level, the permit
should: (a) state that the OMSAP shall make an independent determination of whether there are any adverse environmental
impacts from the exceedance; and (b) the OMSAP shall evaluate the extent to which the MWRA discharges contribute to such
impact; and (c) require the OMSAP to report the results of its determinations to the EPA and DEP. In the case of an
exceedance of a caution level, the permit should require the OMSAP to provide a report to the EPA and DEP which evaluates
the cause and effect of the exceedance and which recommends specific actions, including but not limited to additional
monitoring. 
Comment : 
It is absolutely essential that OMSAP be free from political influence and have final say over technical matters, such as
sampling design and the appropriateness of including certain parameters in the monitoring program. The newly drafted charter
for the OMSAP is a good start in insuring that there is not even the appearance of conflict of interest in this panel, since so
much depends on it. 
Comment : 
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod commented that it is critical that the OMSAP be the primary focus in 
review of data and in making all decisions. The responsibility for selection of members for the OMSAP and related advisory 
committees (standing and inter-agency for example) needs to be broadened beyond DEP and EPA. 
Comment :
Although MWRA believes the OMTF has well fulfilled its function, MWRA is willing to cooperate with the new panel of
scientists EPA and DEP intend to create to take over the function of the Task Force. A number of issues regarding the transfer
of administrative and support functions are crucial to providing an orderly transition between the two groups, and these
remain to be clarified and addressed. 
Comment :
The MWRA Advisory Board is concerned that the structure of the newly constituted panel does not appear to have provided
an adequate role for public interest groups and the ratepayer interests. Some provision needs to be added to ensure that other
considerations are factored into monitoring plan decisions. That the proposed permit adds extensive new monitoring 
35

requirements that have not been called for by the current Outfall Monitoring Task Force and that go beyond the scope of the
effect of the Authority's discharge undermines the role of the existing Task Force and the new Panel. 
Comment :
As various groups continue to press both old and new questions about the outfall’s impact on the Massachusetts Bay
environment, the draft NPDES permit has appropriately adopted and codified the monitoring plan and the process of scientific
review that supports it. Given those circumstances, MWRA is extremely troubled by the provisions in the permit that bypass
the plan and its process of review. Most of the specific monitoring requirements added in the first paragraph of Section I.7,
including the requirements for acoustic plume monitoring, zooplankton monitoring in Cape Cod Bay, and development of
a food web model, although proposed, have not been sanctioned by the OMTF. Indeed, they have been criticized by many
scientists as extending well beyond the scope of any likely effect of MWRA’s discharge on Massachusetts Bay. The inclusion
of these requirements, along with EPA’s assumption of responsibility for reviewing the monitoring plan on its own to propose
additional modifications, significantly undermines the integrity of the scientific review process relied upon to date and
appears to be motivated by the desire to make concessions outside the framework of sound science to particular interests and
constituencies. MWRA supports continued reliance on the new scientific panel to make all of the judgments required to
continue an effective MWRA monitoring program, and takes strong exception to any EPA usurpation of the panel’s role. 
Comment :
The Coastal Advocacy Network stated that it should be clear in the permit that questions concerning modifications of the
Monitoring Plan, including sample parameters and spatial and temporal scales, changes in the caution and warning levels of
the Contingency Plans, and changes in the permit limits, should be brought before this panel with the expectation that their
recommendations be adhered to. 
Comment :
The Massachusetts Audubon Society urges that stronger language be placed in the contingency plan that reflects the reliance
by MWRA, EPA and MADEP on the advice of OMSAP. For example, OMSAP should be consulted to determine if there
is an environmental impact resulting from an exceedance of a warning level (see page 13, Contingency Plan). Right now the
stated role of OMTF in the Contingency Plan is merely to confirm that an exceedance has occurred but not to determine if
there was an environrnental impact related to it. The OMSAP is the body that should ultimately determine whether the
addition of new parameters, such as lobsters, is scientifically justified, or whether the spatial and temporal scale of sample
stations are appropriate. It is also the appropriate body to determine whether unanticipated environmental impacts that warrant
additional treatment, such as nitrogen removal, have occurred. 
Comment :
The OMTF commented that as the MWRA treatment facility moves towards Phase II and discharge of secondary treatment
through an outfall 9.5 miles into Massachusetts Bay, it remains important to continue to monitor, characterize and assess the
environment in the near- and farfield areas after outfall discharge begins. The role of a scientific and technical advisory
committee in advising the state and federal agencies on scientific validity of the monitoring activities and interpretation of
results is a high priority for Phase II. The proposed committee is restricted to scientists and engineers, but includes a citizen
advisory committee and agency staff in the role of technical advisors, both of which have been valuable assets to the current
scientific panel, the OMTF. It is strongly urged that the MADEP and the EPA use the advice of the proposed panel and
associated committees in reviewing the monitoring program and results. EPA and MADEP should incorporate flexibility in
response to timely issues raised through the monitoring program. The agencies should remain adaptable to change in the
monitoring program without going through a full permit review. The Outfall Monitoring Task Force has provided a forum
to present divergent scientific and technical views without getting entangled in the legalities that constrict agencies. MADEP
and EPA should foster an open forum concept in the creation of the panel and its operating procedures. (Dr. Andy Solow
abstained.) 
Public’s Response : 
36

STOP commented that the MWRA continues to be offended by EPA usurping of the monitoring role played by the OMTF.
There have been many legitimate concerns raised by researchers outside the OMTF which have not been addressed under
the existing structure. We continue to be concerned about the ability of the OMTF or any other task force to undertake the
time consuming and objective role of monitoring the monitors. EPA’s role in selecting the members of any such task force
as well as questioning the direction taken by its members is essential to this permit. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
In order to clarify the new Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel’s (OMSAP) role better, the following sentence has
been added to Part I. 7.c.ii. of the final permit: “The OMSAP will play a key role in evaluating any exceedances of caution
or warning levels, and advising EPA and the MADEP as to whether the MWRA’s discharge plays a role in such
exceedances.” The OMSAP will also advise EPA and MADEP concerning proposed changes in the monitoring and/or
contingency plan. To ensure that the public’s concerns are adequately represented to the OMSAP, a citizens advisory
committee is being established. 
OMSAP Charter : 
Comment : 
The Charter for the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel should be attached to the permit and incorporated by 
reference. 
Comment : 
STOP commented that the charter describing the members of the OMSAP should be attached to the MWRA’s permit. 
Comment : 
With respect to conflicts of interest, the Charter currently states “Members of the OMSAP may not be current or imminent 
contractors to the MWRA, nor may they be employees of any governmental agency in the chain of command. If a member 
accepts a contract with the MWRA, he/she must resign from the OMSAP. ” 
The Charter should be amended consistent with the recommendation of Outfall Monitoring Task Force member Phil Clapham,
to state that those who "intend to solicit or accept" a contract from the MWRA shall not be eligible to serve on the OMSAP.
The charter should be further amended by prohibiting membership by those in a conflict position in the past year, as well as
current or imminent contractors and subcontractors. The Charter should state that the EPA and DEP will make every effort
to appoint independent members. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The Charter may be amended over time based on experience. These are good suggestions and EPA, MADEP, and the 
OMSAP will consider them in due course. 
Comment : 
Finally, the permit should include the following initial tasks for the new Science Advisory Panel: identification of scenarios 
for the contingency simulation required by Section 8.e.iii of the permit; and, identification of scenarios which may lead to 
the diversion of the outfall to the harbor. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
EPA and MADEP are asking the OMSAP to evaluate these important issues–but work assignments for the OMSAP are a level 
of detail not necessary to include in this permit. 
Food Web Model Scope of Work: 
37

Comment :
With respect to endangered species, the current monitoring plan provides almost no ability to detect changes at spatial or
temporal scales deemed significant from the best available information. Here again, the nearfield sampling strategy ignores
what is known about the behavior and distribution of endangered whales in the Bays, particularly the northern right whale
which feeds exclusively upon zooplankton resources which are susceptible to change in response to nutrient inputs.
Accordingly, the 12/20/96 report of the OMTF's Right Whale - Zooplankton Focus Group recognized that the right whales
which regularly feed in CCB represent an apex predator whose food supply could be altered by the relocation of the MWRA
outfall. The National Marine Fisheries Service's Biological Opinion on the outfall also acknowledges the potential effects
to endangered species and supports additional research and monitoring as part of its Conservation Recommendations. 
Comment :
The Boston Harbor Association recommends that this requirement be removed from the NPDES Permit. While a food web
model would help answer many complex questions associated with marine life in Massachusetts Bay, we believe that this
effort is beyond the scope of the MWRA's mandate and is more appropriately managed by the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. For example, the state's Coastwide Monitoring Program, currently managed by the Massachusetts
Office of Coastal Zone Management, should be expanded to address complex bay-wide issues such as the food web. More
proactive monitoring by EOEA is also needed to provide an objective and thorough evaluation of conditions in Massachusetts
Bay which are not related to the Outfall but could impact the Outfall's receiving waters. 
Comment :
The National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) acknowledges that while the MWRA is, "only one of a considerable number
of multiple stressors" within the area, MWRA is the largest point source of potential pollutants within this semi-enclosed
ecosystem. A MWRA study [Technical Report Series No 95-8] indicates that MWRA's is the highest pollutant source loader,
representing the major nutrients - Total Organic (TO) phosphorus, TO nitrogen, and TO carbon - and surpasses all pollutant
sources, including Non-MWRA treatment plants, non-point sources, riverine sources and atmospheric sources. A number
of other commenters supported MWRA's recommendation to relax the food web modeling study. One agency stated that the
food web requirement should be deleted from the permit because any diversion away from the business of discharging
wastewater and/or the diversion of monies away from treatment of wastewater would, in time, caused disrepair of the entire
treatment plant and lead to future pollution problems within the harbor. However, we [NMFS] disagree, it is our belief that
conducting a food web analysis will give MWRA and others a better understanding of the possible adverse impacts before
they have a chance to occur. While we support the continual updating and modernization of pollutant/wastewater
methodology to maintain and improve wastewater quality into the receiving waters, we strongly oppose the removal of the
food web modeling and zooplankton monitoring from the permit . As the major anthropological pollution contributor to this
ecosystem, the MWRA must take the lead to protect this system against potential degradation, and more importantly, MWRA
must avoid the potential appearance that they are shunning their support for a healthy marine ecosystem, including the
protection of endangered species. 
Comment :
One notable example of EPA’s inappropriate extension of the plan’s scope is the requirement that MWRA produce a scope
of work for a food web model to determine potential impacts of the outfall on right whale habitat. MWRA has already
developed a qualitative food web model and presented it for review by the Outfall Monitoring Task Force. There are many
factors affecting the food web in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, including a number of parameters that are not now well
understood. It would be extremely difficult to produce a predictive model of this system, and particularly to produce one that
could model any impact of MWRA’s new outfall location. Scientific comments to EPA at the recent Task Force meeting
(April 28, 1998) indicated that expense of developing and maintaining such a model would be unlikely to result in any
significant environmental benefit. 
Comment : 
38

The permit should require the following additions to the food web model: (a) require the MWRA to develop a scope for a
food web model prior to, or contemporaneous with, issuance of the permit; (b) establish a strict deadline for completion of
the model; (c) require calibration of the model with monitoring data to take into account seasonal variations of key
parameters; (d) require periodic evaluation of and running of the model, including regular reporting to the EPA/DEP and the
Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel (OMSAP); (e) explicitly identify nutrients, toxics and toxins, and fresh water as
components of the food web model; and (f) specify that potential impacts to Cape Cod Bay shall be considered in all
monitoring, modeling and tracking programs. 
Comment :
The Outfall Monitoring Task Force (OMTF) commented that to the extent that the NPDES permit calls for development of
a food web model scope of work , this supersedes advice of the current scientific panel and presumes to predetermine advice
of the proposed scientific panel. There are a variety of food web models, but none that will predict with certainty how marine
mammals will be affected based on moving an outfall. Moreover, there are many other organisms in Massachusetts Bay
beside marine mammals and lower trophic level prey. The permit should allow the new OMSAP to determine how best to
address concerns about the impact of the outfall. Mrs. Polly Bradley of Safe Waters in MA (SWIM), who is also a member
of the OMTF, added that she recommends changing this comment to what was agreed to at the April 29, 1998 OMTF meeting
which was that MWRA take the conceptual framework which they have drafted and add concept calculations and a document
which will identify the questions and pathways that are relevant to the outfall. 
Comment :
The OMTF commented that the scope of work for a food web model should rest with the state and federal agencies involved
in managing the coastal resources. Collaboration on such an important model is vital to the state for understanding the
relationships between numerous significant sources of nutrients and pollutants to the bays. Implementation of such a model
belongs in state hands, not with a major discharger. Cooperation in monitoring should be expected from the MWRA, but only
as part of a multi-party exercise. The deadline for the scope of work is arbitrary, and not realistic in terms of the discussion
that would need to take place among many scientists and environmental agencies. Dr. Andy Solow, a member of the OMTF
and a statistician added that he agrees with this comment, except for the sentence beginning "Implementation of a such a
model belongs in state hands,” which he finds needlessly derogatory to the MWRA. Mr. Sal Testaverde added that NMFS
believes that MWRA is responsible for the food web study, since they are the major contributor (up to five times greater than
all other existing treatment plants combined) of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon as well as other pollutant agents to the semi
enclosed bay ecosystem. NMFS is opposed to supporting the above OMTF comment, which recommends that the state and
federal agencies be responsible for the food web model scope of work task. 
Public’s Response :
STOP commented that the MWRA continues to insist that such things as the food web model should not be considered their
responsibility, implying that this is simply an attempt by opponents and the curious to collect interesting data. It is time that
the MWRA recognize that their insistence on this new discharge site has upped the ante on getting the information in a timely
fashion. We need to know what is there before this discharge’s potential to change this ecosystem is unleashed. The fact
that others benefit by this increased research does not negate MWRA’s role in having to finance studies of this nature. If the
MWRA’s discharge was not factored into the picture, the data and models could be performed in a less time-pressured
atmosphere. The MWRA admits within these comments that there are many factors affecting the food web in Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays, including a number of parameters that are not now well understood. STOP continues to contend that
this discharge should not be permitted to move forward until it is well understood! 
Public’s Response :
The Bays Legal Fund (BLF) commented that the draft permit must contain specific language regarding acoustic plume
tracking, food web modeling, and zooplankton monitoring for two reasons: (1) the required modeling and monitoring has
scientific merit and will provide necessary information to protect Cape Cod Bay and its threatened and endangered species,
and (2) the MWRA's refusal to acknowledge the importance of this work leads the BLF to conclude that these studies will 
39

not occur if they are not specified in the permit. The MWRA cites a lack of scientific support for such studies. However, the
MWRA fails to cite OMTF support for such monitoring activities as a pilot study of zooplankton in Cape Cod Bay by scientist
Cabel Davis. The agreement to conduct the pilot study, as well as the National Marine Fisheries Services' strong support for
the food web modeling and zooplankton monitoring (May 1, 1998 comment letter to EPA), supports the proposition that a
food web model is a valid scientific exercise. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The final permit includes the requirement for a food web model scope of work, since there is uncertainty in: a) what controls
the distribution and movement and feeding behavior of humpback and right whales in Mass and Cape Cod bays,
acknowledging that zooplankton abundance is a key factor for right whales; b) right whales are among the most endangered
mammals on earth; and, c) the outfall will probably effect phytoplankton to some degree, and therefore may have an effect
on zooplankton populations. EPA is taking a precautionary approach and believes that a food web model scope of work is
a step in answering some of these outstanding questions. This requirement will also complement the Humpback and Right
Whale Implementation Recovery Team in their efforts, in developing a conceptual model for habitat in the Northwest
Atlantic. (Mona Haebler of the EPA Narragansett Rhode Island Laboratory may be contacted for further information at 401
782-3000. ) 
The specific permit language is as follows: “The MWRA has developed a scope of work for a food web model to characterize
the seasonal abundance for important prey species of endangered species in the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. EPA and
the MADEP, in consultation with the OMSAP discussed below, shall provide the MWRA with comments on this scope of
work. Within ninety (90) days after receipt of these comments, MWRA shall submit a revised scope of work for review by
OMSAP, and for approval by EPA and the MADEP. After receipt of the revised scope of work, EPA and the MADEP will
determine whether implementation of the food web model is warranted. The food web model shall: (a) include
phytoplankton, zooplankton, planktivorous fish and marine mammals including endangered whale species, (b) allow an
evaluation of the strength and likelihood of potential stressors that may alter the food web, (c) be based on results of ongoing
monitoring, special studies of plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) dynamics and any other current or historical research
in Cape Cod Bay. The MWRA may choose to fulfill the obligations described in this paragraph by ensuring that these items
are performed by another entity.” 
Additional requirements concerning implementation of the food web model will be considered when the scope of work is
complete, and when it has been evaluated by the OMSAP. 
Funding Request to Pursue Monitoring Efforts not Recommended by the Science Advisory Panel: 
Comment :
The proposed monitoring plan fails to account for biological changes which may occur at greater distance from the outfall,
or during time periods, or at spatial scales which are not covered by the sampling design. As noted above, the SAP has
commented extensively on the need for more thorough monitoring of biological indicators, particularly with respect to the
plankton resources in both Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays (CCB). The SAP maintains that the proposed monitoring plan
seriously under-samples for certain species parameters and largely ignores key ecological responses known to be indicative
of marine systems stressed by nutrient and other sewage related inputs. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The OMSAP will be consulted on this issue, with changes to the monitoring plan made as deemed necessary by EPA and the 
MADEP. 
Comment :
The SAP supports the requirements for the special studies identified in the draft permit and urges the DEP and EPA to retain
these important provisions in the final permit to supplement the contingency planning process and fine tune future monitoring 
40

requirements. 
Comment :
Because the level of risk to the right whale is not easily quantified, the food web model proposed for inclusion in the permit
offers an opportunity to better predict the effects of the outfall on the southern Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay
environments critical to the success of right whales in the western North Atlantic. Food Web Model: at a minimum, a pelagic
food web model of CCB should include phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish and right whales as key taxa; trophic interactions
between these groups, and basic abiotic inputs that drive biological production and trophic interactions (e.g., vertically
resolved temperature, salinity' and light fields, and mixed layer depth). Ideally, this would be a model that could eventually
be embedded in the 3-D circulation model. 
Comment :
The statements made on page 3-16 of the Post-discharge Monitoring Plan acknowledge that the predictive capabilities of the
existing Bays Eutrophication Model may be inadequate for evaluating conditions in a complex marine environment. The SAP
acknowledges the limitations of such involved in the determining if alterations to this resource have occurred - one relates
to the formation of the zooplankton patches which right whales feed upon, and the second relates to the quality of the patches
as food for the whales. 
Comment :
MWRA recognizes that there may be many areas of scientific inquiry regarding the Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay
ecosystems that deserve pursuit. While MWRA is committed to continuing to make a significant contribution to further study
through its ongoing monitoring program, it vigorously objects to the incorporation of specific suggestions for additional
monitoring efforts which have not been sanctioned by the OMTF or the new panel. The permit should not be the vehicle to
accommodate the wish lists of curious scientists and concerned lay persons. This imposes an unfair and costly regulatory
burden on MWRA, which clearly exceeds both MWRA’s legitimate responsibilities and any commensurate obligations placed
on other NPDES permittees discharging to Massachusetts or United States waters. Rather, EPA and DEP should encourage
other parties in Massachusetts and in New England to step forward with initiatives and funding to help expand the base of
information and understanding already established by the baseline monitoring MWRA has conducted to date. MWRA is
willing to cooperate, particularly during the period of this permit term, to reassure the interested public during the transition
to using the new outfall. MWRA reserves its right to question the appropriateness and scope of the monitoring program in
renewals of this permit. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The final permit has remained unchanged with respect to this issue. 
Plume Tracking : 
Comment : 
The permit should state that the plume tracking program shall be implemented contemporaneous with the operation of the
outfall. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
Since tracking the plume accurately will need to occur after the treatment plant achieves steady-state, (i.e., when the 
operations of the treatment system have been balanced properly and maintained at a balanced level) and since it usually takes 
up to 6 months before most wastewater treatment systems are at steady-state, the final permit language has not been changed. 
41

Special Studies : 
Comment : 
Brad Barr, Manager of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS), has requested that MWRA be required to 
report yearly to document the effects of the Deer Island discharge on Sanctuary resources and qualities. 
Public’s Response :
The MWRA commented that Brad Barr, Manager of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS), has requested
that MWRA be required to report yearly to document the effects of the Deer Island discharge on Sanctuary resources and
qualities. Although the MWRA finds no evidence that the discharge will have a deleterious effect on the SBNMS, the
MWRA is willing to submit to Mr. Barr an annual report of the relevant data from the Ambient Monitoring program. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The final permit has been changed to include the following language under Part I.20.f., “On or before January 1st of each 
year, for the life of this permit, the MWRA shall submit a report to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) 
that: (1) includes all monitoring and related data from the Ambient Monitoring Plan that relates to the SBNMS, and (2) 
documents the effects of the Deer Island discharge on Sanctuary resources and qualities regarding the previous year.” 
Comment : 
STOP commented that the following wording implies a foregone conclusion, “The results of these studies will help confirm 
assumptions of . . . “ These words should be replaced with the wording “The results of these studies will help to test the 
assumptions of . . . “ 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
Since the fact sheet for the draft permit cannot be altered directly, and since this Response to Comments document serves
as the final permit’s formal fact sheet, let the administrative record show that the special studies language is now changed
from “The results of these studies will help confirm assumptions of . . . “ to “. . . The results of these studies will help to test
the assumptions of . . .” 
Comment : 
The OMTF commented that Draft Permit on Page 9, Part I.7.b. and the Fact Sheet on page 15.G.3 regarding the commitment 
of the agencies to open advice from the proposed scientific panel is questioned in the section on Special Studies. Without a 
doubt, special studies add value to monitoring programs. MWRA should continue to support special studies within the context 
of the mission of the monitoring program and based on the advice of the scientific and technical review panel. Special studies 
should not be politicized. To this end the permit language should read, “Special studies to be reviewed by the newly created 
scientific panel include water circulation, plume tracking, and particle transport. Other potential areas of study include lobster 
recruitment, Cape Cod Bay zooplankton dynamics and benthic nutrient flux.” As currently worded in the NPDES permit, 
the special studies listed appear to be required. This is unacceptable if the newly created scientific panel's advice is of value. 
Comment : 
STOP commented that EPA should seek the input of the OMSAP and the public with regards to the review that they undertake 
on or after December 31, 1998. 
Public’s Response regarding Ambient Plan/Contingency Plan Comments :
The MWRA commented that the MWRA has carried out extensive studies of the Massachusetts Bays environment since
1987. The Ambient Monitoring Program in place since 1992 is by far the most comprehensive environmental monitoring
carried out by any secondary treatment plant in the country and is comparable in cost to those required of major West Coast
dischargers providing only primary treatment, under a Section 301(h) waiver from secondary treatment standards. 
Similarly, to our knowledge, MWRA is the first wastewater discharger in the United States to agree to link environmental 
42

monitoring results directly to conservation actions through the vehicle of a Contingency Plan. After the concept was included
in NMFS’ conservation recommendations in 1993, MWRA voluntarily agreed to develop such a plan and has undertaken the
development of the Contingency Plan since then, disseminating several successive drafts for extensive public review. 
The Ambient Monitoring and Contingency Plans were developed by MWRA under the guidance of the OMTF, which EPA
intends to replace with the new Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel (OMSAP). Several comments were submitted
asking for a clarification of the role of the OMSAP. MWRA agrees and offers its perspective here. MWRA expects that all
scientific issues relating to the Deer Island discharge into Massachusetts Bay will be managed under the guidance of OMSAP,
including any proposed changes to the Ambient Monitoring Plan or the Contingency Plan. MWRA is committed to working
closely with OMSAP, as it has with the OMTF, to assure the public, advocacy groups and regulatory entities that an unpaid
independent oversight group of scientific experts is responsible for guiding the monitoring and contingency plan process. 
Because current public concerns about the outfall discharge exceed the actual likelihood of impacts, it is particularly
important that EPA and DEP receive the best attainable independent, peer-reviewed technical advice, in order to evaluate the
discharge monitoring data. Many of the comments about the OMSAP focused upon the need for its independence, to allow
for public and regulatory confidence in its advice. Implicit in many of these comments is a perception that such independence
has been lacking to date, which is by no means the case. Perhaps the best way to underscore the independence of the OMTF,
both from MWRA and from other groups seeking changes to the outfall monitoring program, is to provide a brief synopsis
of some OMTF decisions, based on that group’s technical assessment of the issues brought before it, which were contrary
to MWRA’s recommendations at the time. 
• Primary productivity: Against the advice of MWRA and its consultant, the OMTF required that measurements of 
phytoplankton production be incorporated into the original Ambient Monitoring Plan design. Following the inception
of monitoring in 1992, the OMTF required, again contrary to MWRA recommendations, that MWRA change these
measurements from an oxygen-based technique to a technique using radioisotopes, argued to be more sensitive. This
requirement was reaffirmed on two later occasions when MWRA requested that primary productivity studies cease. 
• Soft-sediment monitoring : After reviewing the results of the initial 1992 monitoring in the near-field, OMTF required
that MWRA completely redesign the soft-bottom benthic monitoring studies, against the advice of MWRA’s consultant. 
• Far-field monitoring : When delays in outfall completion led to a recognition that more years of baseline monitoring
would be available than originally anticipated (in 1996), MWRA initiated discussions with regulators and OMTF, seeking
temporary reductions in monitoring intensity during remaining baseline years. OMTF concurred with some
recommendations, but refused any consideration of an MWRA recommendation that farfield monitoring be substantially
curtailed in 1997 for one year. Consequently, full baseline farfield monitoring has continued. 
• Zooplankton : OMTF has had extensive discussions on issues raised by the various reports prepared by the Cape Cod
Commission Science Advisory Panel (SAP) and convened two sub-panels of zooplankton and marine mammal experts
to provide advice on the issues and specifically to review relevant SAP recommendations. At no time did OMTF or the
expert focus groups conclude that discharge from outfall TO1 was likely to have any impact upon zooplankton
composition or abundance in Cape Cod Bay. However, recognizing the importance of issues related to zooplankton
community changes and downstream impacts on zooplankton predators, including marine mammals, the OMTF required
that MWRA propose a Contingency Plan caution threshold based upon zooplankton community changes (see Table 5-1
of Contingency Plan, p.20) OMTF has also required that MWRA participate in multi-agency pilot studies using new
technology (video plankton recorders) to investigate aggregations of zooplankton in Cape Cod Bay. An additional
mandate required that MWRA compile and analyze more than 20 years of available zooplankton data from the region. 
Public’s Response :
The MWRA commented that various public comments included a number of suggested changes to the Ambient Monitoring
and Contingency Plans. Any such suggested changes should be reviewed by the OMSAP and subject to the modification 
43

processes described in the draft permit. Thus the final permit is not the appropriate forum for modifying these plans.
Nevertheless, MWRA would like to respond to a few selected comments here for the purpose of clarification. There are many
misconceptions apparent in the public comments as to the scope and contents of the Ambient Monitoring Plan, the
Contingency Plan thresholds, or both. Examples include the following: 
• Dr. Theodore Smayda of the Cape Cod Commission notes in his May 4, 1998 letter that MWRA did not discuss two
species of nuisance algae in the Outfall Monitoring Plan. That information can be found in the Outfall Monitoring
Overview and will appear in the next revision of the Outfall Monitoring Plan. See Outfall Monitoring Overview: 1996
(November, 1997), Attachment 4. 
Dr. Smayda also says that zooplankton will be measured only at the surface and that surface nutrients will only be
measured at one station. These statements are incorrect. MWRA will make the next revision of the Outfall Monitoring
Plan easier to read to avoid such misunderstandings. (MWRA) 
• Richard York of the Bays Legal Fund states that the Ambient Monitoring Plan lists no farfield monitoring stations for
phytoplankton. While there are not any farfield stations listed on page 3-13, where the nearfield stations are included,
there are farfield stations listed on page 3-14 for this parameter. 
In Mr. York’s discussion of the plume’s dilution rate, his estimates, using geometry, that dilution of the discharge is 
43-173 at a distance of 4.32-8.64 km from the diffusers. His calculation, however, does not account for the process of
initial mixing. Modeling predicts that at that distance (4-9 km), the minimum dilution is about 250 in Winter and 400
in Summer. (MWRA) 
Mr. York also presents Geyer's surface-drifter tracks as evidence of where the plume would go, and describes the
impingement of surface water from Maine on the surface plume. His use of Geyer’s results to reach this conclusion is
based on the assumption that the discharge is a surface plume. In fact, the discharge will be entrained below the
pycnocline during the Summer, and so this is an improper assumption. (MWRA) 
Mr. York describes stimulation of dinoflagellate growth at levels of several milligrams of humics per liter, and compares
this to the 10-20 fold higher levels found in effluent. His analysis would be improved by considering ambient levels.
Elevation of humics would be confined to the zone of initial dilution, because dissolved organic carbon and particulate
organic carbon levels in effluent are only about 30-60 times higher than levels in Massachusetts Bay, and initial dilution
is expected to be at least 50. (MWRA) 
• The comments by Ms. Alex Ritchie of the Cape Cod Commission, submitted at the April 23, 1998 hearing, include certain
model results. Ms. Ritchie states that these are new information showing severe impacts on Cape Cod Bay and implies
that MWRA suppresses critical results. 
MWRA in fact conducted the model runs at the request of the OMTF and presented the results as soon as they were
available at the March 20, 1998 OMTF meeting. The Cape Cod Commission member was present at that meeting and
asked for copies of the overheads. MWRA complied, but with a caution that they could easily be misinterpreted.
(MWRA) 
The model runs discussed are not representative of a real or likely situation. They are a "sensitivity test" of the
mathematical model where inputs are given extreme values to test the model behavior. The OMTF directed MWRA to
increase nitrogen loads in the model to extreme values. They do not represent what could happen in 1999. The model
runs in question are included here as Attachment 5. The main conclusion is that grossly increased nitrogen would degrade
nutrients and chlorophyll but not dissolved oxygen (DO) in Boston Harbor, Western Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod
Bay, and that the effects would be more severe with a Harbor discharge. (MWRA) 
44

Ms. Ritchie also asked to see model results where treatment and outfall location were independently adjusted. Those can
be found in Chapter 7 of MWRA EnQuaD Technical Report 95-8, ? A Water Quality Model for Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays: Calibration of the Bays Eutrophication Model,” included as Attachment 6. The main conclusion to be gained
from those comparisons is that Harbor DO is most improved by secondary treatment, while Harbor chlorophyll is most
improved by relocating the outfall. (MWRA) 
Public’s Response :
STOP commented that the statement that the MWRA made about “the permit should not be the vehicle to accommodate the
wish lists of curious scientists and concerned lay persons” that appears in this section is the typically arrogant response the
MWRA’s agency has taken toward the numerous legitimate concerns raised by people, organizations, and agencies outside
their purview. It is time that MWRA recognize that they are proposing an experiment of enormous magnitude to be performed
in an irreplaceable ecosystem of great aesthetic and economic value, one that is not now well understood by their own
admission. The wish list that they so easily dismiss represents a scrambling on the part of advocates to understand an
ecosystem before it is placed in jeopardy by an effluent stream that is larger than any other single effluent stream on the
planet. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The requirements discussed above have remained in the final permit. 
Proposed Revisions to the Ambient Monitoring Plan : 
Comment : 
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod offered the following proposed revisions to the Ambient Monitoring Plan: 
1) The Ambient Monitoring Plan downplays the role of wastewater effluent’s contribution of organic material. This role
should be acknowledged up front. 
2) APCC supports increased monitoring. 
3) Nuisance algae is only sampled at one near field location. The number of sampling stations should be increased. 
4) None of the benthic flux samples are presently sampled in the farfield. Farfield samples should be taken. 
5) Since there are only two benthic monitoring sites set up in Cape Cod Bay, additional sites should be sampled toward
Plymouth, Cohasset and Hull based on the flow currents. 
6) Since only one sampling station in Cape Cod Bay, near Provincetown, is planned, more stations are needed, particularly
in areas such as Sandwich where there are significant lobster landings.
7) Chemical constituents should be measured from the Cape samples in addition to the planned histologies. 
8) Currently there are no plans to measure mussels at the single Cape site. APCC recommends sampling clams, since they
are a major crop for Cape fishermen and aquaculturists. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
EPA and the MADEP will make a request to the new OMSAP for their review and recommendations on the above 
suggestions, and will seek broad public input through the OMSAP public meetings before a decision is made on adding this 
language to the Ambient Monitoring Plan. 
CONTINGENCY PLAN (Section I.8): 
45

General Comments : 
Comment : 
Mr. Graber of Winthrop stated that the MWRA’s Contingency Plan, referred to within the Permit, is more than reasonable 
and the MWRA has gone above and beyond in addressing any reasonable concerns. 
Comment : 
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod (APCC) commented that the contingency plan does not compel action. 
Many “coulds” and “mights” should be “wills.” Diversion to Boston Harbor should be listed as a real option should 
circumstances require. The contingency plan contains lots of “planning to plan.” The document lacks specific actions 
resulting from specific triggering events. Caution and warning levels have not been developed for all parameters. 
Comment : 
The MWRA Advisory Board commented that the Contingency Plan should not be included in the permit. It is an important 
tool, but the ability to keep it up to date and its usefulness are better served by retaining the plan as a separate document. 
Timelines for Reporting Monitoring Information: 
Comment :
The MWRA commented that the Contingency Plan provides for a swift, comprehensive response to any potential problems
detected related to the outfall. EPA will likely receive comments requesting that more stringent timelines be placed on
MWRA response to such problems, but the requirements in the current plan are already quite strict. Given the complexity
of the system, the existing requirement to make monthly progress reports to EPA on MWRA’s response to warning level
exceedances is both responsive and appropriate. 
The timelines for reporting monitoring information are very demanding, but MWRA is committed to making the information 
of concern available as early as possible. The logistics of sample collection, analysis, and data synthesis require careful 
attention to ensure a high quality of data. MWRA is reluctant to agree to permit deadlines which may require compromises 
in data quality. 
Comment : 
Exceedances of the "caution level" and "warning level" criteria constitute critical information requiring immediate notification 
and response. Part I.8.a. only requires reporting of such exceedances to the EPA and DEP. The permit should require the 
MWRA to (1) post both the notification and the supporting data relating to these exceedances on the searchable, 
downloadable web site, and (2) e-mail notification of this posting to the distribution list of interested persons. The permit 
should specify that such postings and notifications shall occur within five business days after the results become available. 
Comment : 
The fact sheet suggests that sampling results will be made available to the EPA and DEP within ninety days, and that if the
results will take longer than 150 days, approval must be obtained from the EPA and DEP. The permit should establish a
deadline of 90 days with a contingency deadline of 150 days if approved by the EPA and the DEP. 
Part 1.8.1. of the permit should require submission of all reports to the OMSAP contemporaneous with submission to the EPA
and DEP. In the case of an exceedance of a warning or caution level, the permit should require reporting every 10 days until
the exceedance is remedied. We further recommend that the permit contain the words "until the exceedance has been
remedied" instead of the words "until the issue has been resolved". 
Comment : 
46

The MA Bays Program suggests that an increased specificity for the contingency plan should be developed. Although specific
time frames for corrective actions may be difficult to mandate, a clear incentive for the MWRA to respond to problems should
be required. 
Comment : 
The OMTF commented that the schedule (for submission of a monitoring program to produce data which would facilitate
the selection of nitrogen removal technology and facilitate the design of nitrogen removal facilities on page 11, Part I.8.e.i.)
is too hasty and not in sync with other plan schedules in the permit that might inform a monitoring program. (Dr. Andy Solow
abstained.) 
Comment :
The Contingency Plan cannot be responsive to environmental changes if reporting is required on a yearly basis. The permit
must require at least quarterly reporting to ensure that adequate corrective action can be taken in a timely manner. In addition,
the permit should clarify that quarterly reports shall report on data obtained in the previous quarter, in order to ensure the
timely reporting of contingency data. The permit should require the MWRA to report the results of all sampling required by
the Contingency Plan to the OMSAP, contemporaneous with filing of those results with the EPA and DEP. The permit should
also require the reporting of the availability of such results in the Environmental Monitor and by e-mail to a distribution list
of interested persons. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE :
As to the frequency of reporting, EPA and the MADEP agree with the comment that the requirements in the current plan are
already quite strict. One change has been made to the permit, however. Part I.8.a. of the permit has been changed from “shall
be reported within ten (10) days after the result becomes available.” to “shall be reported within five (5) days after the result
becomes available.” Therefore, the most significant information relevant to the contingency plan–exceedances of caution
or warning levels–must be reported within five days. Moreover, all of the information collected pursuant to the monitoring
plan is reported at least quarterly. 
Rather than including language in the permit, EPA will assume the responsibility of electronically notifying all interested
members of the public of exceedances of caution and warning levels as soon as possible after the MWRA gives notice to EPA
that there has been an exceedance of a caution or warning level. Language has been added to the permit requiring submission
of reports to the OMSAP. Also, the permit has been revised to clarify that the MWRA must continue to report on its efforts
to resolve contingency plan issues until the exceedance of any caution or warning level has been remedied. 
The timeline for reporting sampling results is based on EPA and MADEP’s judgment about the likely duration of the sampling
and analysis period, and remains as proposed in the draft permit. 
Burden of Proof : 
Comment :
The OMTF commented that the requirement for MWRA to disprove its involvement with any detected adverse changes in
Mass. Bay (or else address impacts) is probably unworkable. If adverse changes are detected, a more useful problem-solving
approach would be for EPA and DEP to convene its inter-agency advisory panel to identify the relevant data from dischargers
to Mass. Bay, ambient monitoring data on Mass. Bay, and other pertinent information. The OMSAP could review the
information amassed from these various sources, including the MWRA, to evaluate the extent to which scientific evidence
implicates MWRA as a significant contributor to the impact. 
Comment : 
47

The permit requires MWRA to develop a plan and schedule to address any impacts caused by MWRA’s discharges, unless
MWRA can demonstrate by convincing evidence that, in the event any “caution level” is exceeded, the MWRA discharge
does not contribute to any adverse environmental impacts. Given the complexity of the Massachusetts Bay environment, this
is quite onerous, the equivalent of “guilty unless proven innocent.” MWRA believes that read literally, this is an inappropriate
and unworkable standard. Because it is likely to be statistically impossible to prove that the outfall is not contributing to
changes in the health of the bay, regardless of how insignificant or non-existent the contribution may be, MWRA urges that
EPA apply a different standard that allows consideration of the weight of the scientific evidence. A more workable standard
of proof for Section I.8.b would be: 
“MWRA shall: (1) determine whether there are likely to be any adverse environmental impacts from such exceedance, (2)
evaluate the extent to which the MWRA discharge is likely to be contributing significantly to any such impacts, and (3) unless
MWRA demonstrates by the weight of the evidence, as determined by EPA and MADEP, that the MWRA discharge does
not contribute significantly to such adverse impact...” 
Even with this modification, MWRA will need to rely upon the expertise of the new scientific panel and the good judgment
of EPA to guide common sense decisions about what kind of actions are appropriate to respond to any problems that might
arise. Public’s Response:
STOP commented that if MWRA feels that bearing the burden of having to prove that the discharge is not harmful is too
onerous, they should retain the discharge at its current site. 
Public’s Response :
The Bays Legal Fund (BLF) supports permit language requiring the MWRA to show, by convincing evidence, that it has not
contributed to any adverse environmental impacts in the event of an exceedence of a "caution level". This standard is
particularly appropriate since the bays system is habitat for a number of endangered and threatened species. We strongly
oppose the suggested changes set forth in MWRA's May 4th comment letter at page 14 of 31 which would significantly
weaken the ability of the EPA and others to enforce the permit in a court of law. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
The OMTF’s comment that the burden of proof placed on the MWRA in the draft permit is probably unworkable is of 
concern to EPA and MADEP. It is important that the process established by the permit to respond to environmental problems 
be scientifically valid. 
We understand that in some circumstances a scientific panel may be able to conclude with confidence that there is no
reasonable likelihood of a link between the MWRA discharge and a particular environmental problem, but where that same
panel would be unwilling to conclude that such a link is absolutely impossible . Given the potentially large investments which
may be needed to address real environmental problems, it is not advisable to require the MWRA to spend significant
resources on issues where there is no reasonable chance that these expenditures will address the problem. EPA and MADEP
have concluded that the draft permit language might have produced such a result. 
At the same time, we believe that the revised standard proposed by the MWRA goes too far in the other direction. It is
important that the MWRA be held to a very high standard of proof, and that where a reasonable doubt exists as to the
MWRA’s contribution to an environmental problem, the benefit of that doubt should go to the environment. 
The final permit language under Part I.8.b. has therefore been changed from, “. . .unless the MWRA demonstrates by
convincing evidence, to the satisfaction of EPA and the MADEP, that the MWRA discharge does not contribute to such
adverse environmental impacts, . . .” to “. . . unless the MWRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA and the MADEP,
that there is no reasonable likelihood that the MWRA discharge contributes to such adverse environmental impacts, . . .” 
Corrective Action : 
48

Comment : 
The permit should specify that exceedances of the warning level for nitrogen shall trigger immediate implementation of the
corrective actions set forth in section 5.3 of the Contingency Plan. 
Comment : 
Part I.8.a. of the permit should require inclusion of specific, short term, time frames for action under the Contingency Plan
when a warning or caution level is exceeded. 
Comment :
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod commented that there are no definitive actions that result when thresholds
are exceeded. This section mentions that “MWRA will also likely expand its monitoring . . . to evaluate the cause and effect
of the exceedance and review applicable trigger parameters and thresholds for necessary and appropriate revisions.” There
is no indication at what point something will be done to resolve the problem. The Plan process sets up a 180 day time line,
but what will be in hand at the end of 180 days and what will happen meanwhile are unclear. There is no indication of when
a problem will be fixed. The warning level actions are similarly deficient. They address none of the previous questions. This
section sets up a plan to develop a plan, which, in APCC’s opinion, is not much of a contingency. Specified actions need to
be developed if thresholds are exceeded. Potential corrective activities relying on enhanced pollution prevention efforts
would most likely involve a long process, significantly delaying correction of any problems. Short-term response activities
should be developed and implemented. 
Comment :
APCC commented that baseline studies have measured levels exceeding dissolved oxygen caution and warning levels during
baseline studies. The monitoring plan recommends that the current threshold levels be reevaluated. APCC understands that
the thresholds were developed based upon a healthy marine environment. The baseline studies may be showing that there
are already environmental problems that need to be addressed. 
Comment :
The SAP commented that the Evaluation of Nutrient-Phytoplankton Dynamics, June 4,1997, research program should do more
than simply assess the ecological status of the ecosystem. It should also focus on processes such as trophic linkages between
key taxa, as identified in point No. 2 above. Such a process oriented research program will be necessary to evaluate whether
any ecosystem change, should it occur, is linked to the MWRA discharge activities. 
The SAP recommends that the DEP and EPA initiate this effort with a rigorous review of the design of the proposed Special
Studies required by the draft permit. This review, and subsequent research activities should be implemented as a collaborative
effort between the MWRA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service under the auspices of the 1994 Memorandum of
Agreement signed by these agencies. All subsequent research proposals should undergo peer review by the independent panel
of scientific advisors to the outfall monitoring program. 
Comment :
Due to the complex nature of monitoring in marine ecosystems, independent scientific review should be required as a regular
part of the contingency planning process. At a minimum, the SAP recommends that the DEP and EPA mandate independent
scientific review whenever a trigger threshold (caution or warning level) is exceeded. The current contingency plan calls for
a review by the MWRA (and others) to determine the extent to which its discharge contributes to the exceedance. This is an
unacceptable response to an exceedance as it introduces the potential bias (and appearance) of self-regulation with respect
to permit conditions. 
An appropriate response to caution and warning level exceedances should include independent scientific review of the event.
Reviewers should have access to the raw data to conduct analysis, synthesis and interpretation of the conditions contributing
to the exceedance, determine likely causes and recommend appropriate response procedures. Development of the procedures
for independent scientific review should be one of the first priorities of the proposed Panel of Scientific Advisors to the 
49

Outfall Monitoring Program. 
Comment : 
The Coastal Advocacy Network stated that in other parts of the permit, it is not clear who makes the determination that a 
corrective action is needed. As an example, in Section 4.2 (Contingency Plan actions on page 14) the current wording states, 
“or (2) a demonstration of evidence that no adverse impacts occurred from the exceedance " but does not specify who 
ultimately makes this determination. This should specifically refer to the OMSAP as the determining authority. 
AGENCY’S RESPONSE : 
As recommended by the OMSAP, EPA and MADEP will seek independent scientific review by the OMSAP concerning 
exceedances of caution and warning levels. 
The determination as to whether corrective action is needed–and if so, what type of action is required--must be based on the
particular circumstances which exist at the time. Although EPA and MADEP understand the desire to mandate specific
actions which must be taken in response to particular problems, we believe that there is no realistic way to do so given the
infinite variety of circumstances we may face in the future. The solution to any particular problem may take different forms
depending on the precise nature of the problem (for example, there are many different ways to address nutrient problems;
selection of the appropriate response will depend on a fact-specific analysis). 
The approach of the contingency plan is to anticipate potential problems to the extent we are able; identify and evaluate
potential solutions to each of these problems, to allow quick selection of a remedy in the event that becomes ne

The text goes on. The rest is in the file.