November 27, 2023 - Judith Pederson, OMSAP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · from the EPA · 12 pages · 210 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

November 27, 2023 
Michele Barden 
US Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (06-4) 
Boston, MA 02109-3912 
Claire Goldin 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
Surface Water Discharge Program 
150 Presidential Way 
Woburn, MA 01801 
Dear Ms. Barden and Ms. Goldin: 
The Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel (OMSAP) appreciates the opportunity to
provide comments on the draft National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Deer Island Treatment Plant
and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP). Given the complexity of the issues addressed in the NPDES Permit, we appreciate
the extension of the deadline for comments. 
By the mid-1980s, Boston Harbor was highly polluted and MWRA was established to provide
water and sewer facilities that would result in a new wastewater treatment plant discharging into
Massachusetts Bay. The public was concerned that the outfall discharges would pollute
Massachusetts Bay similar to what had occurred in Boston Harbor. An advisory committee—the
Outfall Monitoring Task Force—composed of scientists, agency staff, MWRA staff and their
consultants, and the public developed a monitoring plan with a goal of evaluating the impacts of
the outfall based on the issues raised by the public: Is it safe to swim? Is it safe to eat seafood?
Are aesthetics being maintained? and Are natural resources being protected? A monitoring
program was developed to address those questions, to review whether the monitoring approach
answers the questions, and if necessary, to revise the plan to optimize responses. 
The current NPDES Permit was issued in August 2000, which created the OMSAP to advise the
EPA and the MassDEP “on scientific and technical matters related to the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority’s Boston outfall in Massachusetts Bay and any potential impacts of the
discharge on its receiving waters.” In addition to the OMSAP, two other panels—a Public
Interest Advisory Committee (PIAC) and an Inter-Agency Advisory Committee (IAAC)—were
created to advise the OMSAP, MWRA, EPA, and MassDEP on regulatory matters related to
discharges from the operation of the outfall. We appreciate the dedication of MWRA to

maintaining and operating the facility and for their commitment to minimizing impacts. We
especially appreciate the support of the Environmental Quality Department throughout the years
for their reporting and meeting with OMSAP to discuss ongoing results. We also thank the state
and federal agencies and the public for their concern to do no harm to Massachusetts Bay. 
The 2000 NPDES Permit required an extensive monitoring program both near the outfall and at a
number of far-field sampling points. It also allowed for modification of the plan. For a record of
changes proposed by OMSAP that reduced duplicative monitoring, while retaining data to
answer questions posed by the established monitoring plan, see https://www.epa.gov/npdes-
permits/outfall-monitoring-science-advisory-panel#rmp. 
OMSAP has worked closely with EPA, MassDEP, MWRA, and many other stakeholders over
the past 23 years to review data collected to determine if the MWRA ocean outfall was adversely
affecting Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Our conclusions are based on the original
monitoring plan and its measured parameters, specified in the Ambient Monitoring Plan
( https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/outfall-monitoring-science-advisory-panel ). The basic
conclusion is that on the basis of parameters (namely legacy contaminants) measured in the
nearfield and farfield stations, there was no detectable impact of the outfall on the ecosystem of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. We did, however, observe concerning changes in the
ecosystem over this period, although the current monitoring program did not allow us to
determine if there are links to the MWRA outfall. The OMSAP and other stakeholder groups
interested in the long-term health of this ecosystem believe it is critical to investigate these
possible links into the future. In this letter we included input from our two advisory groups PIAC
and IAAC and from attendees at a listening session. These include changes in key species in the
ecosystem, and more frequent low-oxygen events that were detected during the last few years of
monitoring. Further, though not included in the original design of the monitoring program
because they were not previously recognized, multiple contaminants of emerging concern
(CECs) are being discharged by wastewater treatment plants and other dischargers into
Massachusetts coastal waters. These CECs should be monitored in the effluent and in the
receiving waters, and their effects evaluated by an independent group of scientists. 
Concerns about the 2023 MWRA NPDES changes 
Elimination of a Contingency Plan 
The proposed MWRA draft Permit is a major departure from the existing Permit, including
several substantial changes regarding discharges, responsibilities for maintenance, and timelines
to address recommended changes. Based on demonstrated decreases in legacy contaminants in
sediments at monitoring sites in Massachusetts Bay, it has been interpreted that the effluent has
no effect on Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay ecosystem health. As result, the draft Permit has
retained a water-quality monitoring portion at near- and far-field sites, but it has eliminated many
other monitoring components such as benthic sampling and monitoring for contaminants in fish,
and shellfish. Especially concerning is the elimination of monitoring designed to ensure no harm
to natural resources. Without knowing what is being discharged from the outfall and

accumulating in sediments and in the bodies of organisms, it is not possible to determine whether
there is an effect on the ecosystem. In addition, the contingency plan that identified issues that
needed to be watched or studied was eliminated. Without identifying exceedances as identified in
the contingency plan, there is no path for collective scientific or public input to comment on, or
to call for additional action. We note that on p. 64, section k there is the option for individuals to
propose changes to the monitoring plan, contingent on approval by EPA, however, the process
does not appear to benefit from thoughtful discussions on recommended changes based on
questions, approaches to answering questions, and evaluation of data by a group of informed
individuals outside of MWRA and EPA. 
We recommend retaining the Contingency Plan caution and warning levels to guide evaluation
of monitoring results. These values were based on 9 years of monitoring before the outfall
became active and have been modified, as appropriate, to reflect realistic expectations. We
recognize that the Contingency Plan is not the only option for setting expectations of
exceedances, but until another option is proposed and accepted by scientists and the public, the
current Contingency Plan should be used. 
Elimination of the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel 
The proposed Permit will no longer require a scientific oversight committee which is currently
OMSAP or its equivalent hereafter Science Advisory Panel (SAP). The monitoring plan will be
the responsibility of MWRA and the staff from EPA and MassDEP who will review it. Under the
proposed Permit, without a SAP, it will be much more difficult to recognize new issues such as
CECs and to make changes to the monitoring that are timely and that adequately protect the
ecosystem and the public. OMSAP believes that the absence of an outside scientific committee
with the ability to examine potential toxic compounds in influent and effluent is the wrong
approach, and is not forward-looking or environmentally responsible. There are numerous
examples where SAPs provide advice in nearly all types of scientific and technical studies
conducted by EPA and MassDEP. 
Even without a change in the political structure in Massachusetts NPDES permitting, there is an
opportunity now to use the success of OMSAP as a model for a group of scientists to help
organize a wider monitoring program to focus on CECs and other ecological changes that are
being observed in the coastal waters of Massachusetts. The new permit should contain language
that obligates MWRA, MassDEP, EPA, and this next scientific group to work together to frame
and periodically update the new AMP based on evaluation of its data. 
A new SAP can help integrate science for the entire Massachusetts Bay system and can also act
as a bridge to the wider Gulf of Maine (see “Taking a Regional Approach to Monitoring”
below). However, in order to have a real impact, the new SAP will need to be affiliated with a
group that has some leverage on the research being done in these systems. In the existing
MWRA Permit, OMSAP had a prescribed role and therefore had some influence and some
leverage on what was done. Issues raised by the OMSAP were carefully considered by all
constituents of the Massachusetts Bay community through public meetings and with advice from
the PIAC and IAAC, as well as other scientists and the public. As currently proposed, there is no

formally established public input into a review of the monitoring activity, only ad hoc
contributions are accepted and reviewed by EPA (p. 64 section k 1 .) which OMSAP believes is
not adequate. 
Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) 
OMSAP recognizes the commitment of MWRA to operate and maintain a highly effective,
functioning wastewater treatment plant. However, it is also the largest discharger into Mass Bay.
During treatment, some contaminants and pollutants are removed with biosolids, whereas others
are removed in primary and secondary treatment facilities and some are made more toxic during
treatment. The Clean Water Act require states to develop water-quality standards that prevent
degradation of water bodies that protect water quality, human health, and natural resources.
Legacy contaminants such as metals and some organic compounds such as PCBs, are regulated,
but numerous CECs are not yet regulated in spite of growing evidence for their harm to humans
and wildlife. We are concerned that neither the state nor EPA will consider adding CECs that are
potentially toxic or harmful to humans and/or wildlife. We are advocating for a tiered approach
to examining contaminants that are likely to be found in Massachusetts discharges. We propose a
three-step approach that determines whether the contaminant is present in the influent, present in
the effluent, or potentially accumulated in aquatic life. Non-regulated compounds (such as
brominated flame retardants that are ~ 20% of the market, basically replacing PFAS retardants
and often used in furniture and other household products) should be evaluated for their toxicity,
bioaccumulation, and longevity in the environment. There are many other such CECs that need
to be examined for their presence and potential risk. This approach is similar to the joint state
(California) and EPA NPDES permit for the Orange County Southern District that tests local
impacts and shares results regionally. 
Responding to concerns of the PIAC and IAAC to review the effectiveness of the current
monitoring program and to identify issues of emerging concern, OMSAP along with Save the
Harbor/Save the Bay, convened a workshop to address these issues (OMSAP, 2018. accessed at
EPA OMSAP website; https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/mwra/omsap/pdfs/framework-
understanding-contaminants-emerging-concern-marine-waters.pdf). The consensus was that the
effectiveness of MWRA to reduce measured contaminants at the source resulted in decreased
legacy contaminants, and in either decreases or no increase in PCBs, DDT, and Chlordane.
However, there has been little effort to address CECs that may impact the ecosystem, three of
which were identified at the workshop— pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs),
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and microplastics. Some PFAS compounds are now
being regulated and included for monitoring in newly adopted NPDES permits, but no levels of
concern in receiving waters are identified. The time between identifying toxic compounds and 
1 k. Modifications to Ambient Monitoring Plan 
By November 15 of each year, the Permittee or any member of the public shall submit a list of any proposed modifications to the
ambient monitoring plan to EPA and MassDEP. These modifications shall become effective upon written approval by EPA and
the MassDEP. 
(1) The Permittee or any member of the public may also propose modifications at any time. Such modifications will become
effective thirty (30) days after the Permittee provides written notice to EPA and MassDEP, unless there is written objection from
EPA or MassDEP. Such approvals will be effective until EPA and MassDEP take action on the Permittee's or the public's next
annual request.

taking actions to limit them may take years or decades. For example, in 2008-2009 PFOA and
PFOS were considered contaminants that could be present in drinking water and that constitute a
health concern, but it was not until 2021 that drinking water regulations were promulgated.
Unfortunately, there are many other compounds and chemicals that EPA lists in its Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL) that are not presently regulated for drinking water quality. These CCLs are
difficult to regulate; they may have no known lethal or acute impacts, and no immediate cause-
and-effect relationship to human health or ecosystem impacts but continue to be studied by EPA.
As a result, new contaminants are rarely added to water-quality regulations. Without a forward-
looking approach to monitoring of potential CECs, the Permit is not addressing critical issues on
CECs. We recommend that the new permit includes a strategic approach to identify CECs, and to
determine if they are found in influent or effluent, and, when appropriate, determine if they are
bioaccumulated in bivalves, crustaceans like lobsters and crabs, and fishes. 
Similarly, microplastics are now recognized as a particularly insidious threat to marine
organisms as they can be mistaken for food, impact scope for growth, and cause mortality at
many life stages of the marine resources living near the outfall. They too should be examined
more closely even though they are diluted during discharge, they are long-lived and disruptive to
ecosystems. 
As noted above, there is precedent for joint state and EPA NPDES permits to adopt a
precautionary strategy for evaluating and monitoring contaminants, including those that may be
present in effluent but are still under review as CCLs. The joint permit for California’s Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD) facilities has a list of contaminants that have different
“endpoints” either as regulated chemicals monitored frequently, others as potential threats, and
some as the equivalent of “special studies” (https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/ca0110604-
orange-county-sanitation-district-reclamation-plant-no-1-treatment-plant-no). In the OCSD
NPDES permit, justification for the monitoring comes from criteria in the Clean Water Act and
the need to monitor not only in the effluent but also to ensure that they are not degrading the
quality of the receiving water. 
Currently there are many more anthropogenic contaminants that need to be evaluated for their
effect on ecological and human health than can possibly be assessed using traditional bioassays.
While there are several approaches available, the Structured Activity Modelling is used by EPA
and in Europe to screen and prioritize the contaminants for monitoring and has been applied to
estimating the impacts in receiving waters and is based on scientific literature and reliable
databases. 2 
We strongly disagree with the statements in the draft MWRA NPDES Permit such as:
“Currently, there are no National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for CECs, PPCPs as a 
2 EPA IRIS database: The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of chemical toxicity information maintained
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); ATSDR TOXNET database: The Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET) is
a database of toxicological information maintained by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR);
PubChem: PubChem is a database of chemical information maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH); and scientific
literature

group, or individually or microplastics. As such, EPA is unable to unable to evaluate the data
further or determine reasonable potential.” 3 The EPA is actively researching the threat posed by
microplastics and methods for monitoring them, with 95 items listed in the agencies scientific
inventory. 4 
We have specific recommendations for CECs (including PPCPs and microplastics) that include
some quarterly monitoring of influent and effluent and some monitoring of bivalves, crustaceans
like lobsters and crab, and fishes based on independent, scientific evaluations. Some chemicals
should be monitored quarterly in grab samples, and for selected chemicals a special study should
be initiated to evaluate the extent to which chemicals are found in marine organisms. Along with
quarterly monitoring of PFAS compounds, we suggest adding brominated flame retardants that
are known to cause neuro- and endocrine disruption and other long lasting chemicals that are
likely to be present in the MWRA collection system. For PFAS and other known harmful
chemicals present in the system, MWRA should coordinate with the Massachusetts Division of
Marine Fisheries biannual fish surveys and collect livers from fish likely to be exposed to the
discharge to evaluate what compounds may be bioaccumulated. This approach is a tiered
approach such that only chemicals that are likely to be found in Massachusetts are examined in
the influent and effluent, and those chemicals that are in concentrations of sufficient concern
would warrant additional analysis of their presence in fish liver, initially, and also bivalves and
crustaceans should be examined. The choice of evaluating bioaccumulation of contaminants in
liver, hepatopancreas and other similar organs is relevant to predators many of which have high
concentrations of PFAS and other long-lived contaminants (OMSAP white paper at 
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/mwra/omsap/pdfs/framework-understanding-contaminants-
emerging-concern-marine-waters.pdf ; (Dassuncao et al. 2017 5 ; Dassuncao et al. 2018 6 ). We also
recommend that selected pesticides that are likely to be used or manufactured in the MWRA
system be monitored in the influent and if present in substantial amounts in the effluent and
ultimately in marine organisms as recommended by SAP. This approach recommends ongoing
evaluations that should be continuous as new chemicals of concern are identified. 
In addition to chemicals that are long-lasting we recommend that at least five selected chemicals
from pharmaceuticals and personal care products (e.g., medications, antibiotics, salves, creams,
lotions and shampoos, detergents, specific additives among others). These should be monitored
quarterly from grab samples and revisited periodically. The periodicity of the sampling should
be based on the specific questions that are being addressed and variability that is observed
in pilot sampling. 
3 https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/mwra/pdf/2023/mwra-2023-fact-sheet.pdf , pp 89-95 
4 ( https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_search_results.cfm?showcriteria=2&timstype=&timssubtypeid=&epanumber=&ombcat=Any
&datebeginpublishedpresented=&dateendpublishedpresented=&datebeginupdated=&dateendupdated=&deid=&personname=&p
ersonid=&role=Any&journalname=&journalid=&publishername=&publisherid=&sortby=pubDate&count=25&searchAll=Micro
plastics ). 
5 Dassuncao, C., X.C. Hu, X. Zhang, R. Bossi, M. Dam, B. Mikkelsen, and E.M. Sunderland. 2017. Temporal shifts in poly- and
perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in North Atlantic pilot whales indicate large contribution of atmospheric precursors. 
Environmental Science and Technology 51: 4512–4521. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00293 . 
6 Dassuncao, C., X.C. Hu, F. Nielsen, P. Weihe, P. Grandjean, and E.M. Sunderland. 2018. Shifting global exposures to poly- and
perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) evident in longitudinal birth cohorts from a seafood-consuming population. Environmental
Science and Technology 52: 3738–3747. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06044.

Dissolved Oxygen 
Over the past few years, there are signals that dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in
Massachusetts Bay are decreasing, related in part to increasing temperatures throughout the Gulf
of Maine, including Massachusetts Bay. Other causes, such as strong pycnoclines that prevent
vertical exchange of water and unusual plankton growth, can create hypoxia leading to
significant mortality in lobster in traps as occurred in Cape Cod Bay in 2019 and 2020
( https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/19/3523/ 2022/). Data from the MWRA monitoring programs
also show declining concentrations of DO at certain locations in Massachusetts Bay, especially
near Stellwagen Bank and near some near-field monitoring areas
(202212_NF_Stellwagen_DO_20221207_signed). While no direct link has been established
between DO concentrations in Mass Bay and the outfall, there is clearly a trend in declining DO
concentrations over the last 20–25 years. This is a major concern and needs to be carefully
monitored and discussed by the scientific and regulatory communities that focus on
Massachusetts coastal waters. 
While warming average sea temperatures affect DO due to the lowered capacity for warmer
waters to hold dissolved oxygen, the impact of nitrogen loads on DO in warmer waters may be
increasing. Nitrogen loads play a role in increasing plankton growth that can lead to
eutrophication over time. Nutrient loading fuels additional primary production, which can lead to
eutrophication, which exacerbates oxygen depletion, and so with increasing sea surface
temperatures, the detrimental effects of nutrient loading will increase. Warmer waters with
excess nutrients also can be increasingly hospitable to harmful algal species of concern to
fisheries, including some species whose blooms have been noted in Mass and Cape Cod bays in
recent years. The recent low DO in Stellwagen Bank and near-field stations was associated with
the long-term persistence (April to July) of a dinoflagellate bloom, Tripos muelleri (formerly 
Ceratium tripos ) and its die-off in early June and July (Letter to EPA and MassDEP from
Rebecca Weidman, MWRA Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Nov. 3, 2023). 
An additional possible confounding factor in the interpretation of data on effects of nutrient loads
based on historical data from current monitoring sites is that current intensities and direction
have the potential to change over time, OMSAP would like to see a special study initiated
between stakeholder and regional academic groups to update our knowledge of current
intensities and trajectories to determine how nutrients (and contaminants) are distributed from
the outfall nearfield into far field locations in Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays. This knowledge
will be integral to our understanding of increasing low DO events in these ecosystems. Much has
changed over the last 30 years, but our monitoring approach has not kept up with the possibly
compounding effects of increased temperatures and nutrients, the increased frequency and
severity of storm events, and the thousands of new chemicals and compounds created for
household products, cosmetics, medicines, and industrial purposes that become contaminants of
emerging concern when they are discharged into our coastal waters. The increased frequency and
severity of storm events and the concomitant increase in outfall discharge during these events
would seem to warrant ‘event level’ monitoring to examine the dynamics of the diffuser plume
in the near and far field, to see if the plume is truly confined below the pycnocline during these
events. There are some observations of the plume reaching the surface during the stratified

season that warrant investigation, as the design of the diffuser was intended to prevent this.
Autonomous sampling systems (gliders, AUVs, ASVs) that were in their infancy when the plant
came online could now be leveraged with initiation of intentional and well-designed
collaborative special studies to examine this issue. 
Elimination of Benthic Monitoring 
In 2020 the OMSAP letter recommended some changes to benthic monitoring that eliminated the
sediment profile monitoring, but we did not suggest eliminating the soft-bottom monitoring
every three years. This is the only current long-term program in Massachusetts Bay and to
eliminate it would be a loss of valuable data at a time when climate change is modifying
communities and where the effects of the outfall may change in the future. The good news is that
data suggest that diversity is being maintained but there are changes in species composition.
Climate change is impacting the Mass Bay benthic ecosystem with new species arriving
changing the composition of the communities. In other areas, the habitat seems to be
deteriorating. For example, a polychaete worm, Capitella sp., is a harbinger of highly impacted
benthic communities (e.g., it was formerly common in Boston Harbor); recently it has been
found in Nahant Bay, indicative of a deteriorating benthic community (E. Gallagher, pers.
comm., 2023). We have a window of opportunity to document these changes as a result of
warming temperatures and to evaluate if the outfall will have an impact. We recommend that
MWRA continue to monitor benthic communities every three years including identification of
changes in keystone or dominant species. These data will provide valuable long-term
information on any changes in community structure possibly related to outfall inputs, warming
sea temperatures and/or other climate related environmental impacts. 
Elimination of Fish and Shellfish Monitoring 
It was disappointing to find that fish and shellfish have been eliminated from the monitoring
program. The data show that legacy contaminants are below contingency plan levels, however,
there is no effort to examine the presence of contaminants of emerging concern that should be
monitored. We suggest at a minimum that PFAS be monitored in shellfish and fish, especially in
livers. It is required to be monitored in newly issued NPDES permits. The earlier lack of action
by EPA regarding limiting PFAS in drinking water resulted in numerous water supplies being
contaminated from PFAS. From 2019 to 2022, the state spent $30 million and the federal
government $140 million to clean PFAS-contaminated water supplies. OMSAP believes a
proactive approach here is the most responsible. There are many other CECs that should be
evaluated in fish livers and shellfish. Prevention is cheaper than clean-up, and clean-up is never
guaranteed. Earlier in the section on CECs (including PPCPs and microplastics) we have
recommended a that has a tiered approach to identifying CECs likely to be in Massachusetts
effluent, and further examination of liver and other organs to determine if there is
bioaccumulation that would impact humans and predators.

Elimination of Lobster Monitoring for PCBs 
The addition of lobsters to the Ambient Monitoring Program was based in part on early studies
conducted by EPA of lobsters in Quincy Bay that showed high concentrations of PCBs in the
hepatopancreas and reports showing that PCBs were of concern especially to children and
pregnant women (EPA, 1988; Assessment of Quincy Bay of Contamination: Summary Report).
The proposed NPDES Permit eliminates sampling marine organisms, noting that lobsters were
below Contingency Plan levels for legacy contaminants based on the contaminants in the current
AMP. These contaminants do not necessarily represent CECs identified in the EPA
Contaminants of Concern Lists or in the OMSAP white papers. Furthermore, monitoring organs
that concentrate contaminants, e.g., liver and hepatopancreas, may be more representative of
what predators consume. As noted earlier, we recommend monitoring for PFAS, other long-lived
contaminants and other CECs, including PPCPs and microplastics lobster in hepatopancreas. 
Harmful Algal Blooms 
We support EPA’s recommendation to continue to monitor harmful algal blooms (HABs).
MWRA has been participating in monitoring Alexandrium catenella and reports on other
phytoplankton blooms as well. We are not commenting on specific monitoring recommendations
as we think this is an issue for a larger scientific advisory committee and experts in this field. We
would add that providing a specific list without options for monitoring other species is limiting
and does not reflect what happens in nature; changes often occur in the composition of microbial
communities concurrent with environmental changes. The unexpected persistence of Tripos
muelleri this summer is one case in point. Pseudo-nitzschia spp. is another complicated
challenge to identify species and determine level of toxicity (e.g., 58 species are known and 28
of those have been shown to produce demonic acid), adding to the challenge of overall
variability observed with plankton blooms (Spaulding et al. 2021,
doi:10.1080/0269249X.2021.2006790 7 ). We concur that MWRA should participate with other
agencies, such as the Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries, the Department of Public
Health and others involved in identifying and documenting the extend of HABs in Massachusetts
Bays and impacts on human health. We support a special study to examine the underlying
changes in the environment supporting more extensive blooms and recommend collaborating
with the Northeast Regional Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System and the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration and others. 
7 SA Spaulding et al . 2021. Diatoms.org: supporting taxonomists, connecting communities. Diatom Research 36:291-304. doi:
10.1080/0269249X.2021.2006790.

Taking A Regional Approach to Monitoring 
MWRA is the major discharger in Massachusetts Bay but not the only discharger making an
impact on the ecosystem 8 . There are other wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and
dischargers of particular contaminants that are not conducting monitoring programs. As part of
its mandate, OMSAP is expected to consider impacts in Mass Bay in the context of changes in
the Gulf of Maine. OMSAP has consistently noted that the cumulative impacts of all of the
dischargers should be evaluated and managed to preserve a balanced, functional ecosystem in
which the anthropogenic impacts are understood and mitigated wherever possible. As the oceans
continue to warm, major changes in the physical, chemical and biological components of
Massachusetts Bay are occurring that are affected by local dischargers. With several WWTPs
besides MWRA discharging into Mass Bay as well as discharges into the Merrimack River and
other sources to the north, we anticipate that over time nitrogen levels will continue to increase.
We strongly encourage regulators to begin looking at the dischargers into Massachusetts coastal
waters as a community of dischargers for whom regulations and permits need to be considered
not individually but holistically. Such an approach makes the most sense ecologically, and can
lead to development of cohesive monitoring programs that are based on system-wide questions
of status, trends, stressors, and responses to these stresses, but that also can be adapted for each
location. Regulating based on single systems is not likely to address the general changes that
already are being observed in Massachusetts coastal waters. 
OMSAP strongly believes that there is a need for a system-wide scientific review committee. We
recognize that there are two levels of monitoring—monitoring to ensure that the discharge is not
causing harmful effects to human health or natural resources, and monitoring to develop a
complete scientific understanding of the ecosystem and how it’s changing. The second is more
interesting, but not really the responsibility of MWRA or its rate-payers. A coordinated effort
with other dischargers could assist in understanding the broader questions. The committee should
lead an effort to clearly articulate the questions that need to be answered. We need a monitoring
program that is specifically designed to answer those questions; plans for data collection, data
management, data analysis, and timely public access to the data; and options for responses to any
changes that are observed over time. OMSAP’s relationship with the MWRA, EPA, and
MassDEP is a model for how this can work effectively. While OMSAP believes that MWRA
should expand its AMP going forward to examine links between its effluent and CECs, DO, and
harmful algal blooms, it is not the only agency that discharges into Massachusetts coastal waters
that should be contributing to the costs of such efforts. We think that the new Permit can
stimulate a coordinated effort among dischargers to maintain and strengthen the monitoring
program for dischargers into Massachusetts Bay that reflects the cumulative impacts on the
ecosystem. The goal is to meet the Clean Water mandate to do no harm to the ecosystem and
sustain it as a Category SA water body. We think doing no harm to Massachusetts Bay in the
future will be more challenging with the combined effects from climate change and contributions
from discharges throughout the region. 
8 MWRA is the largest, but not the only discharger to Massachusetts Bay. There are nine other WWTPs discharging an average
total of 67.2 MGD (0.44-25.8 MGD). Based on the average of 299 MGD by MWRA, it contributes ~82% of WWTP discharge
into Massachusetts Bay. Most of the discharges into Cape Cod Bay are from septic-system groundwater with only 6 MGD
discharged from a WWTP. MWRA is currently the only discharger with a NPDES permit that requires significant ambient
monitoring (data from MassDEP, 2022)

There are models in other states that have adopted this approach and comprehensively address
issues on a regional scale. Examining WWTPs nationwide, we are impressed with what regional
programs can accomplish. Two that have NPDES permits include the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB Waterboard) and the Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD) in southern California. The SFB Waterboard’s mission is to protect, restore, and
manage the Bay region’s water resources for beneficial use and protection of the ecosystem
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/). Their system comprehensively integrates
water-related issues such as runoff, stormwater discharges, and reclamation and supports a state-
of-the-art Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). NPDES permits are issue for
wastewater and stormwater discharges, and small discharges are issued state permits. We note
that through regional planning agencies, watershed approaches are addressing stormwater and
other water management issues 9 . 
Similar to the Massachusetts permit process, OCSD is issued a joint state and EPA NPDES
permit that encompasses reclamations, treatment plants, wastewater collection systems, and
outfalls ( https://www.epa.gov/npdes- permits/ca0110604-orange-county-sanitation-district-
reclamation-plant -no-1-treatment-plant no). The OCSD NPDES permit has a tiered approach to
water-quality parameters. In addition to the traditional pollutants such as nutrients, metals,
organic compounds, bacteria, and sediments, they use technology-based effluent limits (TBELs)
and water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELS) for CECs. Although there may not be
regulatory standards for some compounds, the selected compounds are contaminants of concern
and are likely present in the discharges of the facilities. Thus, OCSD is required to monitor as
indicated in the permit—“Dischargers sampling and analytical effort may be reallocated to
provide a regional assessment of the impact of wastewater discharges to the Southern California
Bight; however certain core elements (i.e., monthly water quality monitoring, quarterly REC-1
benthic monitoring, semi-annual trawl fish monitoring, and weekly Orange County Regional
Shoreline REC-1 cooperative monitoring) shall remain unchanged.”
(https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/r8-2021-0010-ca0110604-oc-sanitation-
district-2021-06-23.pdf). 
Supporting the California dischargers is the regional Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project (SCCWRP) funded by wastewater, stormwater, and water-quality agencies. It is an
intergovernmental agency that focuses on developing strategies, tools, and technologies to
support regional water-quality management programs to sustain healthy coastal ecosystems.
While SCCWRP does not manage discharges, it translates its research and scientific findings to
support managers and policy-makers (https://www.sccwrp.org/). While each of these programs
are structured differently than our WWTPs in Massachusetts and have different mandates, they
are all regionally funded and focused on sustaining and improving local water quality as they
conduct monitoring and undertake special studies to examine new and emerging issues such as
CECs. The OCSD joint NPDES permit includes regular posting of results for the public and
review by SCCWRP, an independent, external group that advises on scientific issues. The new 
9 In general, the project found that the growth in water demand in the study area is likely to be gradual over the next 20 years.
Therefore, communities can address the new regulatory requirements and substantially reduce impacts to waterways by being
proactive in implementing a variety of incremental changes in the areas of water conservation, wastewater management,
stormwater management, and optimization of withdrawals. https://www.mapc.org/resource-library/neponset-river-watershed-
water-management-act-planning/

MWRA permit should be explicit in establishing a Regional Scientific Advisory Panel that is
formally appointed with leverage to advise on scientific issues related to the outfall. 
We have made several suggested changes to the permit many of which would benefit from
having an SAP to review results and recommend revisions and modifications. With the goal of
the Clean Water Act to do no harm to natural resources, a SAP can adhere to the mandate of
protecting Massachusetts Bay with effective monitoring to address issues related to impacts from
the outfall. 
Sincerely. 
Judith Pederson, Chair on behalf of OMSAP members, Chair 
MIT Sea Grant College Program, Retired 
Peter Burn, Suffolk University 
Loretta Fernandez, Northeastern University 
Virginia Edgcomb, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
Robert Kenney, University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography, Retired 
Mark Patterson, Northeastern University 
Jeffrey Rosen, Corona Environmental Consulting, LLC 
Juliet Simpson, MIT Sea Grant College Program 
Juanita Urban-Rich, University of Massachusetts Boston