Public Interest Advisory Committee (PIAC) Meeting Minutes Archive

On this page:

PIAC Meeting October 2001

October 16, 2001, 3:00 to 5:00 PM
Boston, MA
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

Members Present: Patty Foley, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay (chair); Bruce Berman, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Peter Borrelli, Center for Coastal Studies; Ed Bretschneider, Wastewater Advisory Committee; Marianne Farrington, New England Aquarium; Joe Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board; Sal Genovese, Safer Waters in Massachusetts; and Steve Tucker, Cape Cod Commission.

Observers: Margaret Callanan, Cape Cod Commission; Cathy Coniaris, MADEP; Bob Kenney, URI; Steve Lipman, MADEP; Ezra McCarthy, WIT; Mike Mickelson, MWRA; Susan Redlich, MADEP; Andrea Rex, MWRA; and Sal Testaverde, NMFS.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS

  1. C. Coniaris will forward to S. Tucker the Inter-Agency Advisory Committee (IAAC) minutes that include the discussion of the Cape Cod Commission’s request to join IAAC.
  2. PIAC approved the July 2001 minutes with no amendments.
  3. PIAC will continue to meet on the same day as OMSAP, but earlier in the afternoon.
  4. PIAC discussed a number of items to do before the OMSAP workshops (see below).
  5. PIAC, OMSAP and IAAC meetings will be scheduled on a yearly basis.

MINUTES

WELCOME
P. Foley welcomed everyone. P. Borrelli asked why the Cape Cod Commission is not a member of the Inter-Agency Advisory Committee (IAAC). It seems like an oversight that should be corrected. S. Testaverde replied that the IAAC did discuss this topic and he wanted the Commission to join IAAC but the other members did not agree. C. Coniaris added that IAAC members are from state and federal regulatory agencies that are involved with the MWRA permit. P. Borrelli said that the Commission is a regulatory agency, in a distant way to this project, but it is a concerned party and represents an entire county of the state. S. Tucker offered that if this discussion ever comes up, he would be happy to discuss it. ACTION: C. Coniaris will forward to S. Tucker the Inter-Agency Advisory Committee (IAAC) minutes that include the discussion of the Cape Cod Commission’s request to join IAAC [see: IAAC Meeting February 1999].

REVIEW OF DRAFT JULY 12, 2001 MINUTES
ACTION: PIAC approved the April 4, 2001 minutes with no amendments.

P. Foley brought up PIAC’s meeting time. The group has been meeting later to accommodate two of the members who are teachers (W. Bergeron and former member M. Loebig). Since we seem to have several PIAC members that participate at OMSAP meetings, we should perhaps schedule the PIAC meetings a little earlier in the day. PIAC agreed. S. Tucker suggested moving the OMSAP meeting time if there is a conflict with W. Bergeron. P. Foley then mentioned attendance. Over the past year as chair, she has made a number of efforts to reach out to individual members of PIAC by telephone and email in an effort to understand if there is some conflict around the time of this meeting. People seem to be well-intentioned and believe that the work of this committee is important however often times things come up at the last minute in peoples’ schedules. She asked PIAC to think about what else she could do to help improve attendance. She understands that this project is not in crisis mode now and that may be a factor in the low attendance. ACTION: PIAC will continue to meet on the same day as OMSAP, but earlier in the afternoon.

OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR OMSAP WORKSHOP
P. Foley went over the handout on workshop public outreach efforts. Almost everyone on PIAC has contributed and participated in the work that has gone into informing the public about these workshops. She asked PIAC for suggestions, criticisms, new ideas, and last minute efforts. B. Berman noted the frustration that we all have that comes from an unwillingness of the public and press to deal with complicated issues, unless we are in a crisis. This is good outreach, but the reason why it may not work is because of the times that we live in. He urged PIAC members to reach out to their constituencies and make some phone calls. If all PIAC members did this, then we would have a good turnout.

S. Tucker asked if the press release was distributed. C. Coniaris replied that it has been sent to the media by MADEP. B. Berman added that he took the press release, agenda, and public outreach material and sent it to the three Boston reporters and a journalist from the Associated Press and he also plans on sending it to two reporters on Cape Cod. S. Tucker told the group that the Commission has a public relations person who is coordinating with the Cape and Boston media. It may be too late, but there are trade magazines on wastewater issues that we could advertise in. M. Farrington thought that it was too late but asked if they had listservers. S. Tucker said that the Commission’s groundwater staff receives an email newsletter daily and he will see if there is a contact. B. Berman asked for S. Tucker to send him a copy of the newsletter and he will join the listserver and send them workshop information. P. Borrelli suggested that the workshop flyer be included in an issue of the Cape Codder. He thinks there is a high correlation between people who read the Cape Codder and people who are interested in this subject. C. Coniaris said that there might not be enough funds to do this. M. Farrington suggested asking if they would advertise for free. B. Berman thought maybe the best approach was to have the Commission contact them. S. Tucker said he is sure the Commission has contacted them but could do some follow-up. P. Borrelli said that the Center for Coastal Studies can send the flyer to the ~100 Baykeepers.

S. Genovese mentioned that Safer Waters in Massachusetts (SWIM) members know about the workshop but he is not sure how many will travel into the city for this workshop. In the future, SWIM and Northeastern University could host a seminar for North Shore people and maybe a speaker who has the materials from the OMSAP workshops could give an outreach talk. Even though we are not in crisis, it is important to know what is going on. Right now SWIM is involved with issues related to the proposed gas pipeline but the group is still interested in outfall issues. P. Foley asked that S. Genovese keep her posted on this.

OMSAP PUBLIC WORKSHOP TALKING POINTS
P. Foley summarized the July 2001 PIAC meeting for those not in attendance. During that meeting the group discussed what it is we think the public needs to learn from the OMSAP workshop. Since then, MWRA staff have spent a lot of time thinking about how to format their presentation. C. Coniaris gave an overview of the workshop format. The OMSAP charter states that OMSAP is to host a public workshop annually to present results of the monitoring. The workshop will be held at two locations, Boston and Hyannis. The workshop will begin with EPA and MADEP will describing permit and Contingency Plan, Andy Solow will describe OMSAP and its roles, and Patty Foley will discuss why public should be involved in this process. Then Andrea Rex and Mike Mickelson will present the monitoring and results for 2000 and the public will be given the chance to ask OMSAP questions at the end.

A. Rex said that after several discussions with OMSAP, it was clear that they did not want a long and technical presentation. It was also important to them to have plenty of time for questions and discussion. A. Rex then discussed the topics that she and Mike Mickelson planned to present as well as handouts and posters that will be available at the workshop. She asked if PIAC members had any comments on the content of the presentations. P. Foley said that though there will not be a presentation on beaches due to time constraints, this topic will definitely be brought up during the discussion.

P. Borrelli thought MWRA would have difficulty if it tried to make conclusions based on just one year of post discharge diversity data. A. Rex pointed out that she plans to show the harbor diversity data to highlight the effects of improved treatment, such as secondary treatment, the cessation of sludge dumping, etc. She added that this approach was taken because PIAC asked MWRA whether the Boston Harbor Project is doing what it was designed to do. P. Borrelli thinks that the general public is going to want to know whether the outfall is working the way it is supposed to be. A. Rex repeated that there will only be one year of post-discharge data available. P. Borrelli thinks MWRA should explain how they know that the outfall is working well. He thinks if MWRA presents data much older than September 2000, then it becomes a different topic. A. Rex thinks it is related because it shows the effects of improvements in treatment on the environment in Boston Harbor. M. Mickelson added that if this workshop is to be held every year, then harbor recovery is an item that gets updated annually.

P. Borrelli suggested MWRA only briefly touch on the baseline data because it gives background, but warned that reviewing too much historical data could bog down the presentation. B. Berman agreed. This is the first post-discharge workshop and next year the harbor presentation will only look at new information, but because there is a longer dataset for the harbor, it is worth spending a short amount of time (10-15 minutes) on this. It is worth looking at the benefits of the new outfall to the harbor at these workshops. A. Rex pointed out that the ratepayers want to know that their investment is working. P. Foley agreed that we should not get bogged down with too much of the past, but we also have to remember that there has not been a public workshop in two years and very little information has been generated for the general public. She thinks that there needs to be a balance. S. Tucker thinks it is a question of context. He thinks that the people coming to the Boston meeting will want to focus on the harbor and the Cape constituency will focus on the new outfall. He thinks it is ok to discuss the harbor, but to discuss it in context with the Boston Harbor Project.

B. Berman asked if it would be possible to include some preliminary information on the Center for Coastal Studies monitoring as a handout at the workshop. P. Borrelli said the executive summary and full report are on-line at http://www.coastalstudies.org/research/monitoringupdates.htm and we can have that as a handout and perhaps a poster. S. Mayo emphasized that their work is preliminary.

P. Borrelli thinks the “State of the Harbor” reports are excellent, but if MWRA is looking to the future, they should budget the production of something similar on an annual basis, but instead call it “State of the Bay”. These are the reports that the people working on the issue are not going to throw away and they become reference documents. MWRA could limit the cost of printing by putting them on the Internet. This reaches people better than an evening workshop. There is enough interest in this project and there is a wealth of information that should not be wasted. It would be great to see this type report produced annually.

SUMMARY OF OMSAP MEETING
C. Coniaris summarized the IAAC and OMSAP meetings [see October 2001 IAAC and OMSAP minutes]. P. Borrelli commented that he thought that the report on the enhancement of the modeling program is potentially exciting. He thinks it is good that we are not moving forward with a static model, that there is a continuing effort to improve the model and verify it in the field so that we have a greater assurance that there is a predictive capability that it is something that we can use.

CAPE COD BAY MONITORING PROJECT
P. Borrelli mentioned again that the Center for Coastal Studies report is posted on the Internet. For this to be an effective monitoring tool, they are going to have to report more than once a year, at least on a seasonal basis, if not more often. He thinks that it is important for people to know that they are in Cape Cod Bay and that they are informed if anything out of the ordinary is occurring. On fine scale, the systems are much more complicated than previously thought. For example, in the case of the chlorophyll exceedance, it is clear that this is a regional occurrence. The concern is that this is a regional phenomenon that is affecting the two bays, and what additional things (natural or unnatural) could trigger something that is not in the model, e.g. difficulties at the treatment plant combined with a Nor’easter. When S. Mayo’s group is studying zooplankton in the winter, they are not looking at just biomass, they are looking for these extraordinary concentrations or patches that the whales feed off of. We still, after all these years do not know what causes these patches to form. Conversely we do not know what causes them to un-form. We have seen some spikes in the data that show the influence of the outfall, right on the border of Cape Cod Bay. That is something that we will continue to look at. We were not alarmed by the toxic algae that we saw this past spring, but we are concerned if these natural events collide with a nutrient load that may be in exceedance of normal operations. Those are the kinds of things that we will be in the position to spot over time. MWRA has been helpful to this effort by sharing information, data, and samples. MWRA and the Center for Coastal Studies are comparing equipment to make sure it is comparable so that there is no need to correct the data in the future. It is important that we view Cape Cod Bay as a healthy, relatively pristine, ecosystem and not be forced into a reactive mode the way they were in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. There is now national interest in setting up Marine Protected Areas and he thinks Cape Cod Bay is a prime candidate for special protection so the more background data we can collect, the better off we are. M. Mickelson complimented P. Borrelli and S. Mayo on the quality of their report and the speed at which they produced it.

P. Foley offered that it was ok if people who attended the OMSAP meeting had to leave because S. Mayo was about to give the same presentation that he gave earlier today. She said that she and C. Coniaris will work on the issues discussed regarding the workshop and thanked everyone for attending. S. Tucker suggested that PIAC communicate by email or conference call after the workshop. P. Borrelli suggested that all three committees set an annual meeting schedule to make things easier. P. Foley agreed. S. Testaverde suggested PIAC and IAAC meet together on a separate day from OMSAP because of time constraints. P. Foley thinks it is useful to meet on the same day as OMSAP because it makes it easier for PIAC members to attend the OMSAP meeting but the group can change the format if it would like. B. Berman thinks meeting on a different days than OMSAP adds a lot of wasted driving time. P. Foley agreed that it would be a good idea to schedule meetings a year in advance and also keep meeting on the same day as OMSAP. PIAC members agreed. S. Tucker added that PIAC should be able to meet more often if it has additional business. P. Foley agreed. ACTION: PIAC, OMSAP and IAAC meetings will be scheduled on a yearly basis.

S. Mayo then presented the preliminary results of the Center for Coastal Studies monitoring program to those who did not attend the morning OMSAP meeting [see October 2001 OMSAP minutes].

ADJOURNED

MEETING HANDOUTS:

  • Agenda
  • October 2001 OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC membership lists
  • July 2001 draft OMSAP minutes
  • MWRA information briefings to OMSAP
  • Workshop public outreach efforts

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets]. All such comments have been inserted for clarification only. They do not, nor are they intended to, suggest that such insertions were part of the live meeting components and have been expressly set-off so as to avoid such inference.

PIAC Meeting July 2001

July 12, 2001, 12:00 to 2:00 PM
Boston, MA
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

Members Present: Patty Foley, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay (chair); Robert Buchsbaum, Audubon; Marianne Farrington, New England Aquarium; Joe Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board; and Steve Tucker, Cape Cod Commission.

Observers: Eugene Benson, MWRA; Grace Bigornia-Vitale, MWRA; Cathy Coniaris, MADEP; Susan Darling, MWRA; Maury Hall, MWRA; Matt Liebman, EPA; Steve Lipman, MADEP; Rich Masters, Normandeau Assoc.; Mike Mickelson, MWRA; Susan Redlich, MADEP; Andrea Rex, MWRA; Larry Schafer, observer; and David Wu, MWRA.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS

  1. PIAC ill forward M. Farrington’s concerns about the protocol and reporting for toxicity testing to Andy Solow (OMSAP chair) and additional information will be requested from EPA.
  2. PIAC members listed ideas for workshop outreach (see page 4.
  3. PIAC approved the April 2001 minutes with no amendments.

MINUTES

UPDATE ON MENIDIA TOXICITY TEST EXCEEDANCE
M. Hall described the April 2001 Menidia (silverside fish) growth toxicity test exceedance. He described the test methods, statistics, and results [see meeting handout, for a copy, contact [email protected]]. He noted that the Menidia are fragile newborns, therefore weights are measured at the end of the test as dry weights. There is an assumption that all of the fish are all born within a few hours of each other and weigh almost the same. He showed the results and noted that they were barely statistically significant. The results also showed that the averaged weight of the control was high due to one large fish that skewed the results. Removing this outlier yields different results, with no violation. This test is sensitive to ammonia and so concentrations were closely examined but they were not higher than usual. M. Farrington asked what happens if the test is completed and is determined to not be valid. M. Hall replied that the test would be repeated the following week.

M. Hall then described the change in protocol for the calculation of the weights mandated by EPA two years ago. The purpose of the revised protocol was to take reductions in biomass and survival into account. In the old protocol, all the fish were weighed and divided by the number still alive. Now the total weight is divided by the total number of fish in the test. The underlying assumption is that all of the mortality and the changes in the growth are due to the effluent toxicity. Previous results have shown that it is expected that a few fish will die in each test group, even the control, regardless of effluent concentration. In the April test, none of the control animals died, whereas a few died in the other test groups. This is a bias that can work for, or against the discharger, and he sees as unresolved in this protocol. In this case, it worked against the discharger. M. Farrington asked who determines these protocols. M. Liebman replied that these are national protocols and there has been an ongoing debate on how to calculate the results.

M. Farrington thinks there are not enough fish used in the test to be able to calculate using the newer protocol. M. Hall noted that others have also questioned this. M. Farrington wondered if PIAC could get more information on why the test is run in this way. She is concerned that there was public notification of an exceedance, yet the results were questionable. She believes that something went wrong with the April test and she would have run it again. As a scientist, she would disregard these results, but wondered what the public would do with this information. M. Hall replied that most dischargers report quarterly and would have to do this test again, but since MWRA is required to run this test monthly, the re-test is the following month’s scheduled test. M. Farrington said that it did not make sense why MWRA is not allowed to re-run the test before it is reported. A. Rex replied that if they have legal results, they have to report them.

M. Farrington asked if they were still required to report data even if they are wrong. M. Hall said that they had already done the May test by the time they received the April results. M. Farrington is concerned that test results such as this are considered legal results. M. Liebman said that EPA did look at the weight of evidence and agreed with MWRA’s conclusions. M. Farrington agreed but pointed out that there was still a public notification. She thinks that the general public should be receiving information that is meaningful and that the April test should have been thrown out. M. Liebman said that MWRA is required to report all of the results and the regulators can draw conclusions on whether it is a serious violation.

R. Buchsbaum thinks Contingency Plan notification is still a good idea. Hopefully people can be rational and understand that it is the interpretation that is really important. It would be worse to keep results from the public, it would seem that MWRA was hiding information. S. Tucker thinks it is informative to have EPA’s interpretation of exceedances. MWRA has so far had good explanations of their interpretations. He thinks this discussion relates to the fall 2000 chlorophyll data and whether notification should go out as soon as there were results, even though they were still being reviewed for accuracy, or whether there was a reason to wait until there was a final interpretation of the data.

M. Liebman noted that the EPA listserver messages include EPA interpretation as well as follow-up requirements imposed on MWRA. He asked PIAC to let him know if there were any other suggestions for listserver content. A. Rex asked M. Liebman how EPA in general regards toxicity test violations. M. Liebman replied that Brian Pitt and Eric Hall from EPA are better qualified to answer that question. A. Rex said that it is her understanding that EPA is aware of the variability of the tests and that it is the overall pattern of repeated exceedances that EPA looks for, and not a single incident. M. Liebman agreed. A. Rex thinks that this context should be better laid out.

M. Farrington also thinks that it would be more useful to report toxicity test results quarterly, and not monthly, so there is time to review all available information. M. Hall said that one option would be to change the threshold to consider more than one successive failure a permit violation. M. Farrington agreed with that approach. M. Hall said that statistically, there will be a failure 5% of the time, and there are 48 toxicity test results in a year, so it is expected that there be violations 2-4 times per year. L. Schafer does not think that the threshold should be changed, because a threshold is not sensitive enough if it is not exceeded once in a while.

ACTION: PIAC will forward M. Farrington’s concerns about the protocol and reporting for toxicity testing to Andy Solow (OMSAP chair) and additional information will be requested from EPA.

MWRA UPDATE
M. Mickelson said that there were no exceedances for the month of June, bacteria levels and total organic carbon values were low. The plant has been running well, and the outfall remained purged, except for a brief period in mid-June when seawater intruded while flow was shut off so the hydropower plant could be started. The hydropower plant harnesses the energy of the waterfall at the end of the disinfection basin to generate one megawatt of electricity, which is about 1/20th of the entire plant’s demand.

M. Mickelson then described the hard bottom benthic survey conducted earlier this week. The survey looked at the health of the attached community, including life on some of the risers. The scientists videotaped clear footage of one of the risers covered with life, including anemones and cod swimming around. Images will be posted on the MWRA website. They could also see the clear effluent being discharged because of the wavy lines created when liquids with different indices are mixed (Schlering Effect). This effect can also be detected acoustically. The discharge will be mapped using acoustics and dye during the plume tracking study next week. This is a permit requirement to assess the diffuser operation and dilution. EPA and NOAA will be conducting the acoustic part of the study. Meanwhile, the Battelle vessel will be measuring dye (Rhodamine WT) that will be added to the head end of the disinfection basin.

M. Mickelson then updated the group on chlorophyll. Chlorophyll in 2000 increased compared to 1999. There was a large, regional bloom in fall of 2000, beginning just before the outfall started up on September 6, 2000. When MWRA looked closer at the chlorophyll data, they noticed laboratory errors in the procedures that were discussed that at the April OMSAP meeting. He will be receiving data shortly for final review and MWRA plans to complete review by the end of July. They can say with confidence that there was a regional bloom, and it started before the outfall went on-line and there is no evidence that the outfall exacerbated the bloom. The dissolved oxygen levels, and species were normal and healthy with no eutrophication effects.

WORKSHOP PLANNING
P. Foley thought it was important to meet today so the group can spend some time thinking about the public workshops. One of the most important challenges that will be faced will be informing the public and working to build a crowd. She thinks the content will be good quality but everyone should remain mindful of who the audience will be. C. Coniaris reviewed the workshop planning meeting in June [see handout]. The planning group developed the goals, potential themes, format, and title of the workshop and additional input from PIAC is welcome. There will be two evening workshops in October, one in Boston to serve the North Shore/Boston and one on Cape Cod to serve South Shore/Cape Cod.

S. Tucker thought Woods Hole was out of the way for some on the Cape and that Sandwich or Barnstable would be a better location. C. Coniaris agreed to look into booking an auditorium at the Cape Cod Community College or one of the high schools. S. Tucker said he would speak with Peter Borrelli regarding whether they would want to give a brief presentation at the workshops on their recent monitoring in Cape Cod Bay, however he understood that there might not be enough time on the agenda for this.

L. Schafer thinks there is not much interest for people to attend the workshops and that the title needs to be catchier, for example ask, "are your beaches in danger?". A. Rex said that MWRA would be reluctant to do that since they are preparing the presentations and the workshop is their permit requirement. She does not want to exaggerate the situation to get more interest. P. Heidell said there are many ways to try to get people to attend, without trying to alarm people. R. Buchsbaum thinks just having “MWRA” on the meeting notice would generate interest. He said that people think about beaches, and perhaps a presentation on that topic would draw more people. S. Redlich suggested an overview of what changes, if any, environmentally, have been tracked for Boston Harbor and Mass Bays. One other thing that the public needs to know is the ongoing cost of maintaining the equipment and outfall in a way that it will continue to work well. L. Schafer agreed and added that people should also know how much outfall monitoring costs. S. Tucker suggested that since there will be two meetings, that proceedings be mailed to attendees or list a website at the workshops where they will be posted on the Internet. He also suggested that since there cannot be a catchy title, then catchy graphics might be used to increase interest.

P. Foley asked MWRA how they plan to advertise for the workshop, and how PIAC can help. A. Rex said that PIAC can certainly help since it is their constituencies that are the people who are really interested in this. She said that MWRA is not mandated to publicize the workshop but they will post information on their website and can help in other ways. ACTION: PIAC then discussed ways of advertising the public workshop. Ideas were to: send listserver messages (EPA MWRA, EPA Greenbytes, Fish Folk, New England Aquarium), send hard copy mailing, post brochures (New England Aquarium and Audubon sanctuaries), advertise in newsletters (Coastlines, Mass Bays Program, Gulf of Maine Times, MADMF), list in MEPA environmental monitor, notify Coastal Advocacy Network, send EPA/MADEP press release, and meet with editorial boards.

R. Buchsbaum thinks the presentations should look at the “big picture”. About 10 years ago, there were several over-arching questions that were identified, “is public health protected” and “are resources protected”. He thinks those questions should be revisited.

REVIEW OF DRAFT APRIL 2001 MINUTES
ACTION: PIAC approved the April 4, 2001 minutes with no amendments.

OUTSTANDING PIAC ISSUES
P. Foley stated that Mary Loebig informed PIAC in a letter that the Stop the Outfall Pipe (STOP) nonprofit organization has voted to dissolve its corporation. This means that she is subsequently stepping down as a member of PIAC. C. Coniaris added that there will be a new member on PIAC from the Wastewater Advisory Committee. R. Buchsbaum suggested that PIAC thank M. Loebig for her membership and urge her to continue to be a voice. S. Tucker said that he would look into whether there were any other Cape groups that could join PIAC in place of STOP.

P. Foley brought up the issue of attendance. Apparently, PIAC meeting attendance has been declining recently. Several members would like to see interest and enthusiasm regenerated. In recent months, she has attempted to reach out to members. For example, there were offers of a conference call as well as a member survey that asked what members hoped to get out their membership on the committee. Overall, there has been more opportunity to participate and she wonders if there is less interest because the outfall is now on-line, and so far running well. She thinks the group should continue to move forward and she would love to hear how the other members feel.

ADJOURNED

MEETING HANDOUTS:

  • Agenda
  • July 2001 OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC membership lists
  • April 2001 draft OMSAP minutes
  • MWRA Menidia toxicity test handouts
  • June 2001 workshop planning meeting summary

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets]. All such comments have been inserted for clarification only. They do not, nor are they intended to, suggest that such insertions were part of the live meeting components and have been expressly set-off so as to avoid such inference.

PIAC Meeting April 2001

April 4, 2001, 3:00 to 5:00 PM
Woods Hole, MA
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

Members Present: Wayne Bergeron, Bays Legal Fund; Peter Borrelli, Center for Coastal Studies; Patty Foley, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; and Steve Tucker, Cape Cod Commission.

Observers: Bruce Berman, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Grace Bigornia-Vitale, MWRA; Cathy Coniaris, MADEP; Peter DiMilla, observer; Pam Heidell, MWRA; Janet Labonte, EPA; Matt Liebman, EPA; Steve Lipman, MADEP; Mike Mickelson, MWRA; Andrea Rex, MWRA; Larry Schafer, observer; and David Wu, MWRA.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS

  1. PIAC requested MWRA email notification of important Internet postings, e.g. fall 2000 survey results with information on large system-wide phytoplankton bloom.
  2. PIAC members requested that MWRA information briefings be provided, ideally, two weeks in advance of the OMSAP meetings, with the understanding that this will not always be possible.
  3. PIAC discussed ideas for the fall OMSAP public workshop. Suggestions are included below.
  4. C. Coniaris will schedule a workshop planning meeting.
  5. P. Foley will contact Mike Ralph (MWRA) to find out more about the proposed MWRA budget cut and will report back to PIAC.
  6. PIAC will discuss attendance and ways of reinvigorating the group at its next meeting.
  7. P. Foley will review past PIAC minutes for action items that have not been addressed and will report back to PIAC.
  8. The November 2000 minutes were approved with no amendments.

MINUTES

REVIEW OF OMSAP MEETING

C. Coniaris gave a brief summary of the OMSAP meeting [see OMSAP minutes]. W. Bergeron asked what the criteria are for discerning a major vs. minor exceedance. C. Coniaris replied that the OMSAP chair would consult with other members and other scientists to determine the severity of the exceedance. B. Berman asked about the time frame of notification of exceedances. A. Rex replied that MWRA must report exceedances five days after receiving the data. For example, the seasonal chlorophyll threshold is based on data from 4-5 surveys. Notification is required five days after the data from those surveys have been analyzed and compared to the threshold.

B. Berman thinks this underscores an anxiety that some of the PIAC members have, although he understands why an agency would not want to go forward until they had a better understanding of what was going on. This can be resolved with early communication, even if the exceedance has not been fully examined yet. A. Rex pointed out that this already occurs.

P. Borrelli thought the OMSAP presentations were very informative and pointed out that Scott Nixon, a member of OMSAP, called for a slightly different meeting format that would allow the scientific panel the opportunity to wrestle with some of the analyses. The issue here is whether there is an opportunity for a more concurrent flow of information in a more collegial environment because he does not think that the chlorophyll issue, technically speaking, proved to be an exceedance. Even though the number is greater than the Contingency Plan threshold, it is some kind of natural phenomenon that may be human induced, have something to do with flows from the Gulf of Maine, or some other factors. The scientific community and the monitors will probably not make any conclusions for many months. He does not think anyone should read into the fact that because of these high chlorophyll counts, something was wrong and somebody should have been notified the day the first cruise came in. He does not think that we can make the science move faster than it wants to move and when some of these unexpected phenomena occur, it does not necessarily mean that there is an exceedance.

W. Bergeron thinks the sooner we are notified of an event, the more confidence builds with the public. In this case, we knew that it occurred, we stepped back, and we let the scientists examine the results. We were well served by the process of a relatively quick notification. He is comfortable letting science go ahead and take its course, but the speed of science is correlated at least somewhat to how interested we are in finding a solution to the problem. A. Rex asked W. Bergeron if the fall posting of MWRA’s survey results was adequate. W. Bergeron said that was fine.

P. Borrelli thought that during the chlorophyll presentation at the OMSAP meeting, there was reluctance, and properly so, to speculate on preliminary analyses. The chlorophyll presentation, as well as most of the monitoring, is presented by Battelle, under contract to MWRA, and is not an independent voice of science. He is also concerned that material is presented to OMSAP at meetings without their prior review. He is not quite sure what structure is needed to promote true peer review.

P. Foley suggested that if any PIAC member has concerns about a notification, to contact her or C. Coniaris and they could convene a PIAC conference call to develop a plan of action to further question MWRA, EPA, MADEP, or OMSAP. W. Bergeron agreed and they can also consult the Center for Coastal Studies and the Barnstable Science Advisory Panel. B. Berman thinks “a push might be better than a pull”, and MWRA could perhaps send notification of the postings. W. Bergeron agreed.

ACTION: PIAC requested MWRA email notification of important Internet postings, e.g. fall 2000 survey results with information on large system-wide phytoplankton bloom.

C. Coniaris then summarized the remainder of the OMSAP meeting [see OMSAP minutes]. W. Bergeron asked if OMSAP receives information and all of the data to review before the meetings. M. Mickelson replied that they send information briefings out in advance of the meetings and additional information is presented during the meetings. W. Bergeron asked if it is possible to get the information out sooner. M. Mickelson did not think so. P. Borrelli added that this is a difficult process. The data are rich and complex, and we are presented a summary, and yet it takes an enormous amount of time to present it. He is concerned that OMSAP comes to meetings fairly cold and may pass resolutions without time for review. W. Bergeron compared this to his time as a selectman. They had open meetings, like OMSAP, and an agenda with additional information available prior to the meeting. He is concerned that OMSAP will make decisions based on information received the day of the meeting.

M. Mickelson gave some background to the OMSAP information briefings. It was Judy Pederson, chair of OMSAP’s predecessor, the Outfall Monitoring Task Force, who requested that information briefings be provided two weeks in advance of meetings because she did not want to come into meetings cold and have to make decisions. MWRA aims to accomplish this but sometimes they are sent as late as four days before the meeting. Ideally, MWRA would like to have them ready two weeks before. B. Berman understands W. Bergeron’s position but is also sympathetic to MWRA. There is an enormous amount of data on each aspect of the monitoring, but sooner, rather than later, is better. He added that there were not a lot of ad hoc decisions being made at the two OMSAP meetings that he has had the opportunity to attend. S. Lipman does not think that OMSAP makes ad hoc decisions. P. Foley added that the votes are not ad hoc because the information briefings state whether the agenda items are “for information” or “for action”. W. Bergeron is not willing to accept OMSAP as the final authority in this process in terms of opinion. He would like to obtain raw data so others can review it too. P. DiMilla thinks an abstract sent to everyone is sufficient and include information on how to obtain the raw data for those who are interested.

B. Berman thought that the materials distributed before the meeting were very thorough, and that there was nothing at these meetings that he did not anticipate by reading the materials beforehand, other than the decision to change the calculation method of the baseline chlorophyll data. He also liked how the briefings provided names of people he could contact if he had any questions. His only comment was that he would have liked to have received the materials sooner. P. Foley agreed.

ACTION: PIAC members requested that MWRA information briefings be provided, ideally, two weeks in advance of the OMSAP meetings, with the understanding that this will not always be possible.

FALL 2001 OMSAP WORKSHOP

P. Foley thanked members for taking the time to complete the PIAC member questionnaire. She would like to discuss the results as well as begin brainstorming about the fall OMSAP public workshop.

P. Borrelli thinks the workshop is extremely important and it will be a challenge to figure out how to communicate to the general public what this project has accomplished. There are complex issues of science and management. He thinks there should be some kind of a working group made up of OMSAP, MWRA, Battelle, and PIAC to discuss what they think the public wants to know, needs to know, and how to best communicate it. P. Foley agreed. In order to bring the public to this meeting, we need to make sure that it is not a scientific presentation that is too technical. B. Berman thinks there is going to be a tremendous appetite to attend.

P. Borrelli thinks the workshop should be facilitated and suggested selecting a person with a commanding knowledge of what has gone on and what is expected. They can direct questions to the panelists from the general public, as well as among the panelists. Perhaps test some focus groups to try to figure out what the questions are and what the obstacles are to communication. For example, certain basic scientific principals that might be quite commonplace to us, might be completely lost on the general public. It is difficult to have good communication if we do not have a good sense of what it is they know and what they want to know.

W. Bergeron thinks the two major questions from the public will be, is the outfall doing what it was designed to do and what are the impacts, if any, on the environment, pro or con. This needs to be presented in such a way the there is not any appearance of any spin on the information. Presentations need to be balanced. A. Rex asked S. Tucker what flaws he saw in the last workshop, which was presented on a very technical level. S. Tucker did not see a major flaw in the content or the way it was set up, except that it was not geared towards the general public. W. Bergeron thinks it is important that people walk away from this feeling like they have been heard. P. Foley agreed.

J. Labonte suggested finding ways to make the workshop an entertaining event geared to the public’s level so that they can understand it. She suggested having an agenda with breaks, and mix things up, e.g. slide show, questions, short break, 10-minute video, etc. At the end, provide information that they can take with them. P. DiMilla suggested asking a teacher to facilitate the workshop, since they are accustomed to communicating difficult information to a group of people with varying proficiencies. Also have a board of experts behind them that can field specific questions.

W. Bergeron does not envision a lot of debate at the workshop. Everyone is hoping that there will be nothing negative to talk about. We have to get people there and the presentations need to be summaries. P. Borrelli does not think the public will attend if it is two days long. He thinks the workshop should just be two hours long and held in several locations. B. Berman suggested four workshops, North Shore, Boston, South Shore, and Cape Cod. L. Schafer suggested having the workshop on a talk show. P. Borrelli said that if the workshop is encyclopedic, it is doomed for failure. Information on how to obtain more detailed information can be provided at the workshop. The workshop should accomplish two things, make contact with the public and impart confidence that this is an open process.

B. Berman suggested scheduling the workshops before a science meeting and invite those from the public who are interested to attend. W. Bergeron does not think this workshop should be expensive since the consultants don’t have to do the presentations. P. Foley thinks groups could help advertise with mailings to their constituencies. J. Labonte thinks the public would be interested in learning how OMSAP is operating. B. Berman added that it will be necessary to begin by telling people what the Boston Harbor Project is. He thinks that the planning of this workshop will turn out to be a lot less complicated than some think. S. Tucker suggested a neutral press kit, containing the agenda and some general information for people to use when advertising the workshop. W. Bergeron thinks that anything longer than two hours will not be heard. He thinks scheduling it in the evening is important so the public can attend. He suggested a simple newspaper ad that reads: the outfall after one year, is it working, is it safe, and what have we learned. J. Labonte thinks it is important to have scientists give that information to the public. The public also needs to know that this is only scratching the surface. It is important to have the public understand the depth of this project, and that there is a lot of ongoing work.

ACTION: C. Coniaris will schedule a workshop planning meeting.

OTHER ISSUES

S. Tucker informed the group that there is a proposal to cut $12 million from MWRA funding. He wondered if this would affect the monitoring program. S. Lipman replied that this is external rate relief. P. Foley offered to contact Mike Ralph at MWRA to find out more information.

ACTION: P. Foley will contact Mike Ralph (MWRA) to find out more about the proposed MWRA budget cut and will report back to PIAC.

S. Tucker noted the low attendance of PIAC members at today’s meeting. He thinks members need to reassess where it falls in their priority list. If it is not a significant priority, then what can we do to make it one.

ACTION: PIAC will discuss attendance and ways of reinvigorating the group at its next meeting.

S. Tucker thinks it would also be helpful to look over the minutes of past PIAC meetings and see if there are any action items that have not been addressed.

ACTION: P. Foley will review past PIAC minutes for action items that have not been addressed and will report back to PIAC.

ACTION: The November 2000 minutes were approved with no amendments.

ADJOURNED

MEETING HANDOUTS:

  • Agenda
  • April 2001 OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC membership lists
  • November 2000 draft OMSAP minutes
  • MWRA information briefings and copies of presentations from April 4, 2001 OMSAP meeting

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets]. All such comments have been inserted for clarification only. They do not, nor are they intended to, suggest that such insertions were part of the live meeting components and have been expressly set-off so as to avoid such inference.

PIAC Meeting November 2000

November 16, 2000, 3:00 to 5:00 PM
Woods Hole, MA
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

Members Present: Wayne Bergeron, Bays Legal Fund; Peter Borrelli, Center for Coastal Studies; Anthony Chatwin, Conservation Law Foundation; Marianne Farrington, New England Aquarium; Joe Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board (via conference call for election of chair); Patty Foley, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Sal Genovese, Safer Waters in Massachusetts; John Lipman, Cape Cod Commission; Mary Loebig, STOP; and Katherine O’Meara, Wastewater Advisory Committee.

Observers: Bruce Berman, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Cathy Coniaris, OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC staff; David Dow, NMFS/NEFSC; Dave Duest, MWRA; Matt Liebman, EPA; Steve Lipman, MADEP; Mike Mickelson, MWRA; Andrea Rex, MWRA; Larry Schafer, observer; and Sal Testaverde, NMFS.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS

  1. The May 2000 minutes were approved with no amendments.
  2. Patty Foley (Save the Harbor/Save the Bay) was elected chair of PIAC.
  3. In the event of a Contingency Plan exceedance or permit violation, PIAC will be notified via the EPA listserver and by the OMSAP/PIAC staff person by email. If the incident is major, the staff person will call the PIAC chair who would then initiate a phone tree of telephone notifications. PIAC needs to discuss further whether the members are contacted by telephone in addition to email each time there is an incident, regardless of severity. Matt Liebman will confirm that all PIAC members are on the EPA listserver.
  4. Patty Foley will contact the PIAC members via email with a list of questions to initiate a discussion about the types of things PIAC could do to become more proactive.

MINUTES

C. Coniaris facilitated the meeting since the group had to elect a new chair. She welcomed everyone and introductions were made. She then asked if anyone had any comments on the minutes from the last meeting. M. Farrington thought they were extremely detailed and moved that they be accepted with no changes. ACTION: PIAC voted to approve the minutes with no amendments.

ELECTION OF CHAIR
C. Coniaris then explained the process for electing a new chair. Since there was no guarantee that there would be a quorum, she had offered PIAC members the option of conference calling, and Joe Favaloro and Robert Buchsbaum accepted the offer. Nominations will be discussed, nominees will say a few words, and then the group will vote. PIAC agreed on the process and J. Favaloro and R. Buchsbaum were telephoned. Due to technical difficulties, only J. Favaloro could be kept on the line.

C. Coniaris asked if there were any nominations. A. Chatwin nominated Patty Foley. J. Favaloro seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. P. Foley then said a few words. She believes that over the course of the last 15 years, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay (SH/SB) has been a leading voice in working to clean up both the harbor and the bay. Now that the harbor is much cleaner, the mission of the organization continues to be relevant and perhaps more important because the challenge now becomes how to keep the harbor and the bay clean forever. One way to succeed is with partnerships with other organizations such as the groups represented on PIAC, and others, as we figure out ways to bring people down to the waters edge, out into the harbor and into the bay, and ultimately to the islands. From that perspective, SH/SB is well suited to be a leader in this effort and she feels the work of PIAC is critically important. Her tenure with SH/SB began in January 2000 and she is excited with the job and feels that she will bring some skills and strengths to the table that will compliment and help all of PIAC do a good job in this committee.

W. Bergeron commented that he does not have a problem with the group SH/SB. However, he thought there was an implication that the Cape Cod advocates were “too emotional” to properly chair PIAC. He agreed that they are emotional about the Bay, and will continue to be emotional. He hopes that everyone can work in a positive environment together.

ACTION: PIAC members unanimously elected Patty Foley as the new chair of PIAC.

UPDATE ON MWRA’S NPDES PERMIT AND PROPOSED CONTINGENCY PLAN MODIFICATIONS
M. Liebman gave a brief update on the proposed modifications to the Contingency Plan (CP) dated November 1997. It was not until the permit was issued in August 2000 that a process was set up to allow revisions to the CP, which is understood to be an evolving document, as better scientific information becomes available. MWRA has developed several proposed revisions over the last three years and OMSAP has deliberated and provided recommendations on them. EPA/MADEP received the official letter from MWRA dated October 13, 2000. The issues that specifically relate to the CP are dissolved oxygen percent saturation, floatables, benthic diversity, zooplankton, and nuisance algae species. MWRA’s food web model scope of work is also being evaluated. A. Rex added that the proposed revisions are located on the MWRA website and available as hard copy by request. S. Lipman pointed out that the notice was in the November 8, 2000 Environmental Monitor and lists Janet Labonte from EPA and himself as the contacts. He requested that written comments be sent to them as soon as possible.

B. Berman thought the OMSAP meeting today was extremely useful and everyone was forthright in discussing concerns. There seemed to be a good consensus from across OMSAP, on their recommendations, and on what things they needed more information. These OMSAP meetings are open to the public and are very helpful. OMSAP listens to questions from the public and are clear in their answers.

ISSUES DISCUSSED BY OMSAP
C. Coniaris summarized the proceedings of the OMSAP meeting [see Nov. 2000 OMSAP minutes]. P. Foley then began a discussion on PIAC notification of Contingency Plan exceedances. B. Berman thinks rapid notification is critical considering the press will contact PIAC members in the event of an exceedance. M. Loebig feels that codifying the notification process is important to ensure PIAC will always be contacted.

P. Foley thinks this discussion is important since many of the PIAC members deal with the press and the group needs to be able to respond appropriately and effectively to the media. A. Rex pointed out that there are members of the press subscribed to the listserver [EPA notification via email]. P. Borrelli thinks Appendix C of the outfall simulation report [https://www.mwra.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/2000-18.pdf]is conspicuous in PIAC’s absence because it includes every member of OMSAP as well as all of the agencies of federal and state government that are represented on the Inter-Agency Advisory Committee (IAAC). B. Berman thinks that PIAC should be notified the same time as OMSAP. A. Rex pointed out that PIAC is confronting the same problem the agencies are, they need to quickly understand the issue. W. Bergeron thinks PIAC is the first line for the public. Often the press will call the “public watchdogs” and ask, “what’s your response to that?” before calling MWRA or OMSAP. He wants to avoid a situation where he is getting the story from the press and thinks PIAC should be notified simultaneously and it should not have to be a difficult process.

M. Mickelson thought these were all good ideas. The notification handout, appendix C, is part of the MWRA’s outfall simulation plan that outlines what to do if there is a problem. Appendix C is MWRA’s phone list and it takes three hours make all of these calls. K. O’Meara volunteered to be a liaison to MWRA since her office is located at MWRA.

P. Borrelli reminded the group that a primary function of PIAC is advisory to the agencies. Thus this communication, particularly if something serious occurs, to the extent that PIAC has any advice to give, should begin as rapidly as possible. Clearly in the case of an emergency, even a one-day delay would be too long. Simply because email travels at the speed of light does not necessarily mean that it is rapid communication.

B. Berman understands that not all incidents are equal and they should be looked at on a case by case basis. He thinks that if it is a minor incident, then an email is fine, but the group should receive phone calls if anything major occurs. P. Foley thinks C. Coniaris should call her to discuss whether to call the other members of the committee immediately. M. Farrington thinks that at the very least the name of the chairman should be added to the MWRA list and then the new chairman could decide if telephone calls were necessary in addition to emails. W. Bergeron thinks that if it is important enough to call the chair, then it is important enough for all of PIAC to know about it and perhaps a phone tree could work. P. Foley agreed to call members using a phone tree. C. Coniaris thinks that there should be an alternate PIAC member from SH/SB. P. Foley agreed.

A. Rex thinks the only way PIAC can get the information ahead of the public is to slow listserver notification. M. Loebig did not think this was a good idea, and suggested simultaneous notification. M. Liebman said that EPA might want to avoid the situation that happened with the September 29th incident where the press found out what happened before EPA’s Regional Administrator. EPA and MADEP should have enough time to notify their supervisors before the listserver message goes out and this may take somewhere between 2 and 24 hours. P. Borrelli was concerned that notification through the listserver makes the information secondhand and integrated. M. Liebman described the DO percent saturation exceedance notification. The listserver message included information directly from Andrea Rex (MWRA) and some background information.

ACTION: In the event of a Contingency Plan exceedance or permit violation, PIAC will be notified via the EPA listserver and by the OMSAP/PIAC staff person by email. If the incident is major, the staff person will call the PIAC chair who would then initiate a phone tree of telephone notifications. PIAC needs to discuss further whether the members are contacted by telephone and email each time there is an incident, regardless of severity. Matt Liebman will confirm that all PIAC members are on the EPA listserver.

September 29, 2000 Deer Island Incident
D. Duest gave an overview what led to the bypass incident on September 29th. There are two gates, each one is capable of handling the capacity of the treatment plant, that provide enough backpressure to force wastewater to go into the secondary treatment system. The gate in use lowers based on the capacity of the secondary treatment system. When flows are in excess of the secondary capacity, the gate overflows with primary treated effluent that is then blended in with the effluent from the secondary batteries and proceeds to the disinfection basin. On Sept. 29th, one gate was out of service for maintenance [off of Process Instrumentation and Control Systems (PICS) control] in the upright position, isolated, and dewatered. The other gate was in service and controlled by PICS. An operator inputs the capacity of the secondary treatment system into PICS and the system controls the gate by comparing the elevations in the channels of the two gates.

The operator switched the wrong gate into local control, immediately flipped it back into PICS control, and then put the gate they planned to work on into local control. This switching activated the PICS logic and the gate began dropping. The gate moves very slowly, it takes ~20 minutes to drop the gate ~25 feet. Six minutes later, after the gate had dropped about six feet, they realized what had happened and started the process to re-establish flow going back to secondary. Wastewater began flowing in the channel, shutting off flow to the secondary system, dropping the level in the channel that feeds secondary rapidly so that some flow from the secondary reactors backflowed. Primary effluent bypassed secondary, into the disinfection basin, was chlorinated, dechlorinated and discharged. Overall, the bypass incident occurred over 22 minutes. Coincidentally, a group of regulators were present to see the event as it was progressing. As soon as MWRA found out there was a problem, calls were being made, even before the regulators reached the disinfection basin.

A. Chatwin asked for clarification on how the PICS logic adjusts for the lowest level. D. Duest replied that this is a conservative operation mode. Since there are always errors associated with any level sensing, the conservative approach chooses the lowest level and slowly adjusts the rate back to the operating level, assuming that both units are in operation. In this case, one unit was not in operation but PICS considered it in operation and at a very low level. This conservative approach was designed to prevent hydraulic problems upstream if the gates are put into local mode. This process is only initiated when both of these gates are turned to local mode for operations or maintenance and one of them is turned back to PICS control. Corrective measures are underway.

M. Loebig asked when is the third battery going to be operational. D. Duest replied that MWRA has completed dry testing and process water will be introduced into the system to start wet-testing tomorrow. MWRA hopes to bring the third battery into full operation sometime on January 2001.

B. Berman asked how much material flowed out of secondary. D. Duest replied that it was approximately 100,000 gallons of concentrated material, or “mixed liquor”. Fortunately, prior to the incident, the effluent was receiving full secondary treatment and this mixed liquor was blended into fully treated effluent, diluting it considerably. It is estimated that it took 3-4 hours to clear out of the entire disinfection basin. At 11:00 AM when the regulators were present, the effluent was very turbid.

D. Duest then presented sampling results from around the time of the incident. For most of these parameters, permit limits are based on a daily composite sample. However, even individual sample results indicate that all parameters were within permit limits around the time of the incident. It was estimated that about 4 million gallons were bypassed. Fortunately the operators acted very quickly, noticed the gate dropping, and immediately increased chlorination and dechlorination.

M. Farrington asked how they determined how much sodium hypochlorite to add. D. Duest replied that they considered how much was used when this was primary-only treatment plant, plus they added some additional amounts. Operators were out at the site the entire time and took samples at least every half hour to fine-tune dosage. Samples from the sample loop were examined to ensure effective dechlorination.

W. Bergeron thought that MWRA reacted very quickly and felt encouraged. He asked what MWRA was doing to ensure that a repeat incident did not occur. He also asked if MWRA has extrapolated from this information what duration would be considered a “major” incident. D. Duest replied that MWRA has spent its time on looking at ways to prevent this type of incident from occurring again. First, an accurate measurement of the gate position from the gate was obtained. This in itself will prevent another bypass in the future. MWRA also installed a delay and alarm into the PICS logic, to ignore mistaken switches to local and set off an alarm up in the main control room before the gate drops. There will be enhancements to the secondary reactor feed system to incorporate a rapid isolation of secondary so there is no backwash. Long-term responses to this incident include operation and maintenance staff training and posting exact warnings on how the PICS logic works and procedures operators need to follow.

M. Loebig asked about the gate drop under normal circumstances. D. Duest replied that normally if PICS senses the water level in the channel is dropping, it will close the gates automatically, so nothing backs out of the secondary reactor. MWRA will install new warning levels to initiate a quicker PICS response.

A. Chatwin asked if the backflow had any longer-term effects on the bacterial community in secondary treatment. D. Duest replied no. The current mean cell residence time (amount of time bacteria spend in the reactor system) is one day. Ideally, there should be a 3-5 day mean cell residence time, thus 3-5 days is the maximum time any impact from an upset would be seen in the bacterial community. He then showed data from the month-end report. September 29th suspended solids were measured at 16.5 mg/L and CBOD [carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand] was 14.2 mg/L. September 30th suspended solids were 14.5 mg/L and CBOD was 9.9 mg/L. Just prior to this event, MWRA had very low suspended solids (8.0-8.5 mg/L). It was disheartening to have this incident happen but fortunately there do not seem to have been any negative impacts.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Saturation Caution Exceedance
A. Rex presented background information to the November 7th of DO percent saturation exceedance. DO is measured as concentration by looking at how much is dissolved in the water. This is an important parameter since marine organisms use it to breathe. DO percent saturation is calculated from the DO concentration and considers temperature and salinity. Percent saturation is a good way of looking at how much oxygen the water can hold. When the CP was being developed in the mid-1990’s, DO was one of the important parameters for which there are state numerical standards. MWRA attempted to incorporate the state numerical standards into the caution and warning levels in the CP. The state standard for Mass Bay Class SA waters states that the percent saturation of DO should be not less than 75% and concentration less than 6 mg/L unless background conditions cause it to be lower. MWRA used those as warning levels and made the caution levels 80% saturation and 6.5 mg/L concentration. Nearfield (NF) and Stellwagen Basin bottom water samples are averaged separately and compared to the threshold.

A. Rex showed percent saturation levels of NF bottom water. The observed decrease in DO percent saturation appears to be a natural annual occurrence in the late summer and fall. This is due to the stratification of the water column over the season and the consumption of oxygen in the lower layers of the water. The bottom DO does not increase until the water is well mixed in November. There was not enough data back when the CP was being developed to understand how often this occurs. OMSAP’s precursor, the Outfall Monitoring Task Force (OMTF) discussed this issue in 1997. They thought that since this appeared to be a normal process, a saturation threshold did not appear to be a very useful indicator of an outfall effect and recommended that the threshold be removed from the CP.

A. Rex then showed DO concentrations in relation to saturation. In both the NF and Stellwagen Basin, saturation fell below the 80% caution threshold in early October 2000, yet DO concentrations in both of these areas were above 7.0 mg/L. Thus it was the temperature/salinity relationship that affected the saturation, not the concentration of DO. Nevertheless, it was useful to exercise the notification procedures.

W. Bergeron understands that if this is a regular occurrence and it has been seen in the baseline period, that MWRA is concerned about being held accountable for something that occurs naturally. However, he feels that there should be some appropriate threshold that is lower than what history has shown that may indicate a problem with the outfall. A. Rex said that this question was discussed at a previous OMSAP meeting. The consensus of the group was that the DO concentration was the important measurement in terms of examining the health of the aquatic environment. Calculating the percent saturation was important to help understand the dynamics of the system, but it is not particularly useful as a threshold.

A. Rex then explained that since the marine standards for DO concentration are simply taken from fresh water standards, EPA is currently drafting a guidance document to help States calculate a marine standard. Recent studies show that the normal marine environment typically has a lower concentration of DO than fresh water. As EPA works on its standards nationwide, MWRA will ask to have the CP revised accordingly. M. Liebman added that the final draft of this guidance document should be available shortly. Their criteria for salt water are based on concentration, temperature, extent and duration of a lowered DO level, effects on local benthic species, and length of larval season. The threshold being considered for the Virginian Province (Cape Cod to the Carolinas) is ~5.0 mg/L DO. Species under consideration for this area include larval and juvenile forms of shrimp and lobsters. However, the criteria will probably have to be calculated for areas north of Cape Cod. The guidance document includes an approach on how to calculate criteria for areas outside of that region.

A. Rex noted that during the baseline monitoring, there have been several incursions below the caution level, in terms of concentration during baseline. The state standard may be revised in the future based on this new EPA guidance. However, DO concentration is extremely important and MWRA will continue to have this as a threshold.

M. Loebig asked if the EPA guidance document only looks at lethal effects on animals. M. Liebman replied that they also looked at both growth and survival. W. Bergeron is a little uncomfortable thinking that what is good for shrimp is necessarily good for all other animals since some creatures are more resistant to hypoxia than others. M. Liebman thought that was a good point. An addendum to the guidance document discusses how to apply this to other areas and they have tested several species for their sensitivity to low DO. The State of Massachusetts will choose which species are the most appropriate (i.e. are they found here, are they sensitive, etc.) For example, lobsters are very sensitive to low DO and thus would be a good species to consider when calculating a threshold for this area.

S. Testaverde suggested lowering the thresholds for the fall quarter, instead deleting the threshold altogether. A dip in DO saturation is expected during certain parts of the year, but if it was measured at other times, it might be something that would have to be looked at more carefully. A. Rex pointed out that eliminating a threshold does not mean that MWRA is not looking at the parameter very carefully. S. Testaverde agreed but the notification is not mandatory, unless a threshold is in place. A. Rex said that all monitoring results are reported. The consensus of the OMTF and then OMSAP was that the most critical variable to look at in terms of the actual health is the concentration. Percent saturation is used to help interpret the concentration data. S. Lipman suggested that S. Testaverde file written comments describing his idea. D. Dow thinks it is viable to have (i.e. analyze data) percent saturation since it may provide some information on the re-aeration processes. A. Rex pointed out that the saturation would continue to be calculated. D. Dow agreed with S. Testaverde in that the DO saturation should be kept as a threshold.

W. Bergeron understands that MWRA is examining all of the data, regardless of whether or not it is a threshold. The purpose of a threshold is that if it is exceeded, it is studied carefully to see if the outfall is related in any way. As a member of a watchdog group, he is not comfortable with “just looking at it”. There needs to be a threshold level somewhere to initiate the additional examination and notification. M. Farrington asked why he thought having DO concentration (and not saturation) as a threshold was not sufficient. W. Bergeron said it was sufficient as long as a threshold was in place that was not going to be changed. M. Farrington replied that there is a concentration threshold, and it is not being changed.

M. Loebig said that it is very difficult to think about changing anything in the CP so soon after the outfall went on-line. She understands that this was discussed in 1997 but is very uncomfortable that the DO saturation was presented throughout the draft permit process as part of the CP. S. Lipman pointed out that the DO saturation threshold was not addressed because EPA and MADEP had not outlined a process for making changes to the CP until the final permit was issued. M. Loebig said that if there has to be a change, to consider S. Testaverde’s seasonal threshold idea. A. Rex thought that was a reasonable comment worth examining. S. Testaverde felt it would be good to have PIAC involved with the CP modifications since a group carries more weight than an individual. M. Farrington (looking at the baseline DO data) pointed out times when the DO decreased in the first quarter. This means that a seasonal DO percent saturation may not make sense. She does not see why the DO percent saturation threshold should remain as long as the DO concentration is kept. M. Loebig thinks the DO percent saturation threshold may provide some meaning to the “big picture” since it considers temperature and salinity and should be kept as a threshold.

Preliminary Results of Discharge Surveys in Both Harbor and Bay
M. Mickelson handed out an outline of the MWRA website, a useful resource for information. On September 6, 2000, discharge to the harbor outfalls stopped. Visible plume, odor, and measured bacteria in the harbor disappeared and there was an increase in water clarity. Effluent took 12 hours to reach Mass Bay. Over the diffusers, nothing was seen on the surface, nothing was captured in the debris tow, and no bacteria were measured. MWRA conducted an in-depth study to try to locate the effluent plume. The salinity signature of the effluent was detected, but only within about 20 m of the diffusers. As predicted, salinity is a good tracer for a ~150:1 dilution. However, the ammonia signal was stronger and could be detected further out. During the plume tracking surveys, MWRA will add non-toxic rhodamine dye to track the plume with better resolution.

M. Mickelson then discussed the harbor results. Ammonia appears to be decreasing, chlorophyll slightly decreasing, and clarity increasing. The harbor was 2% effluent and now it should be 0.1 % effluent. The change is fitting with respect to time and with respect to the models, so there are no surprises in the harbor.

M. Mickelson then described recent blooms. In Mass Bay, 1999 had the highest chlorophyll and lowest DO during the baseline period. High chlorophyll is still being measured along with low zooplankton numbers. It appears that a regional ctenophores (comb jelly) bloom that began before the outfall went on-line is grazing on the zooplankton.

A. Chatwin asked if there was anything about the ammonium plume that was unexpected. M. Mickelson replied no. A five micromole concentration ammonia plume was predicted, and that is what was measured. M. Liebman had thought that the low DO in 1999 was associated with the relatively dry and hot summer. He asked if the high chlorophyll concentration was also related to the weather. M. Mickelson thought that it could be correlating with the temperature/salinity model that Rocky Geyer is developing that examines upwelling input from the Gulf of Maine.

B. Berman was concerned about the ctenophores grazing on zooplankton and possibly decreasing their numbers and increasing phytoplankton. He asked what would happen if this continued. No one had an answer. M. Loebig asked what is happening with the ammonia outside of two km of the diffusers. M. Mickelson replied that the ammonia plume did not extend very far out of the NF. M. Loebig asked if the plume tracking will indicate what is happening to the plume beyond the NF, or if the preliminary surveys already provided that information. M. Mickelson replied that the Rhodamine dye will track the plume farther than these initial studies. W. Bergeron asked if there are any concentrations of ammonium within the NF that were thought to be significant in terms of toxicity. M. Mickelson replied no, and the plume is diluted very quickly.

DISCUSSION OF PIAC ISSUES/CONCERN
P. Foley found the PIAC discussion important and thoughtful around the science and host of issues that are of concern to all of PIAC. She did notice that PIAC had planned to spend 30-40 minutes talking about the work of the committee, however, time had run short. She noted that the members think the committee is facing some challenges around exactly what the role of PIAC is, and what could the group be doing to enhance its responsibility, its charge as stewardship on behalf of the public. There is also the issue of meeting scheduling since a few members have evening events. She asked if the group had any additional input.

P. Borrelli thinks that waiting to discuss these concerns would not be productive. He thinks that though he is not an email fan, perhaps the group can start an email discussion to discuss what the issues are around which to set an agenda for future discussions. P. Foley agreed and will use email to better understand what some of the concerns are of individual members and then to devote an adequate amount of time at the next meeting. PIAC members thought this was a good idea. P. Foley asked the group to work with her on this and the group agreed. S. Genovese suggested P. Foley send out a few questions on the mission of the group and people’s concerns.

M. Farrington said that she has been considering developing an op-ed piece with her communications department and was wondering if she could show it to PIAC before it was distributed. This would inform the public about PIAC and include contact information. M. Loebig thinks that any document produced by PIAC should be very general because she thinks it is going to be very difficult to put PIAC’s name on anything. M. Farrington agreed but PIAC needs to get the word out that it exists. B. Berman thinks that a document could detail the varied views of the members in a respectful manner. M. Farrington added that the point is that the members are all very different, and that if a citizen has concerns about an issue, they have someone to talk to about it. M. Loebig thought that was a wonderful idea, but thought it would be a challenge.

W. Bergeron thinks the very nature of PIAC to a certain degree is that there will be some disagreement, but not animosity, on different issues. PIAC members bring a lot of different views to the table. He is comfortable with writing something as long as it is relatively general in terms of who the PIAC members are, what the group is about, and what PIAC is trying to do. K. O’Meara suggested that a document could include information on the group and their constituents. A. Chatwin thought it was a great idea, but given that PIAC just agreed to discuss its mission is, it might be premature to press with this. B. Berman thought it might be a good driver to send around so members can share some thoughts. P. Foley thinks in the course of communicating with email, leading email exchange, that we can put key elements of members’ thoughts in an outline of what this editorial might look like. P. Borrelli thinks PIAC should also consider its relationship to the Inter-Agency Advisory Committee (IAAC) as well since it is not altogether clear that IAAC is continuing.

C. Coniaris announced that there will be a dredging conference December 3-6, 2000 at MIT. 

ACTION: Patty Foley will contact the PIAC members via email with a list of questions to initiate a discussion about the types of things PIAC could do to become more proactive.

ADJOURNED

MEETING HANDOUTS:

  • Agenda
  • November 2000 OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC membership lists
  • May 2000 draft PIAC minutes
  • MWRA information briefings and copies of overheads: recent monitoring results, dissolved oxygen, effluent pH, zooplankton, plume tracking, and Contingency Plan notification
  • MWRA proposed Contingency Plan modifications dated Oct. 13, 2000

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets]. All such comments have been inserted for clarification only. They do not, nor are they intended to, suggest that such insertions were part of the live meeting components and have been expressly set-off so as to avoid such inference.

PIAC Meeting May 2000

May 2, 2000, 3:30 to 5:30 PM
EPA Boston
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

Members Present: Polly Bradley, Safer Waters In Massachusetts; Robert Buchsbaum, Massachusetts Audubon; Marianne Farrington, New England Aquarium; Joe Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board; Gillian Grossman, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Joan LeBlanc, The Boston Harbor Association; Susan Redlich, Wastewater Advisory Committee; and Steve Tucker, Cape Cod Commission/Bays Legal Fund.

Observers: Margaret Callanan, Cape Cod Commission; Cathy Coniaris, OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC staff; Matt Liebman, EPA; Steve Lipman, MADEP; Mike Mickelson, MWRA; Andrea Rex, MWRA; and Larry Schafer, observer.

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets]. All such comments have been inserted for clarification only. They do not, nor are they intended to, suggest that such insertions were part of the live meeting components and have been expressly set-off so as to avoid such inference.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS

  1. The October 1999 minutes were approved.
  2. PIAC requests that M. Mickelson present information about the Dutch Phaeocystis model and HydroQual's Great Lakes zooplankton modeling at an upcoming PIAC meeting.
  3. PIAC requests to meet in the fall of 2000 on the same day as OMSAP, unless the outfall goes on-line sooner.

MINUTES

PIAC approved the October 14, 1999 minutes with no amendments (S. Tucker abstained).

RECENT OMSAP RECOMMENDATIONS

C. Coniaris summarized the February and March 2000 OMSAP recommendations pertaining to MWRA's food web model scope of work, and the zooplankton, Alexandrium, and floatables thresholds [OMSAP minutes available].

J. LeBlanc asked if the request to change the floatables threshold was initiated by MWRA or OMSAP. C. Coniaris replied that MWRA realized that sampling the final floatables collections device was impracticable and proposed deletion of the threshold to OMSAP. Since amounts of floatables in the final collections device is an indication of plant performance, M. Mickelson presented other measures of plant performance to OMSAP.

P. Bradley asked if any whales have been found to be malnourished on the East Coast. S. Tucker replied that there has been research conducted on the right whales to try to determine whether they are undernourished. However, malnutrition has not led to any mortalities yet.

M. Mickelson described the Contingency Plan (CP) thresholds developed by MWRA in consultation with the Outfall Monitoring Task Force (OMTF). The CP was developed in response to the NMFS conservation recommendations. Much effort was put into developing the thresholds and many will continue to evolve. The permit included the CP, formalizing the thresholds in a "snapshot" in time and any further changes require OMSAP approval. He felt it was important to review the thresholds before the outfall went on-line (as early as September 2000).

R. Buchsbaum asked how it was determined which thresholds to review. M. Mickelson replied that he and Ken Keay reviewed the thresholds and of the 27, 8 were still acceptable, a few had typographical errors, and several needed OMSAP review. J. LeBlanc asked when there was a recommended deletion of a threshold, whether alternatives were discussed such as additional monitoring. M. Mickelson replied that alternatives were discussed and he will describe each threshold reviewed.

Floatables
M. Mickelson described the floatables threshold in the CP ("floatables shall not exceed five gallons/day in the final collections device"). He explained that there were problems with feasibility in implementing sampling in the final collections device and then described alternative measurements that meet the goal of addressing concerns about aesthetics. The effectiveness of scum and sludge removal will be measured, as well as fats, oil, and grease concentrations in the effluent. MWRA also began conducting net tows in the nearfield to capture floatables. OMSAP recommended that MWRA delete the current floatables threshold in the CP and conduct a special study to measure floatables in the Deer Island Treatment Plant.

M. Mickelson described the final in-plant collections device. It is a skimmer in the disinfection basin that removes floating material. The problem with this device is that sampling from it cannot be quantified and the flow at that location is too great for a person to sample using a net tow. Instead, MWRA will sample in the nearfield. He agreed that sampling at sea brings a lot of uncertainty, which is why there will not be an associated threshold. If there ever is a plant breakdown of the skimmers, MWRA will survey to map the extent of any problems and determine the source.

M. Farrington is concerned that MWRA may be blamed for an aesthetic problem because of floatables measured in the nearfield from other sources. M. Mickelson agreed that it is difficult to dissect the sources, but MWRA still would like to sample in the field to see what is out there. J. Favaloro asked why MWRA did not decide to instead take samples in the treatment plant. M. Mickelson said that there are various in-plant measurements of efficiency. He showed data detailing how sludge and scum removal has improved over time, assuming constant input. He then showed the decrease over time of fats, oil, and grease concentrations in effluent to levels as low as the method detection limits. There will be a small special study to examine the nature of any small floatables that may go through the treatment plant. J. LeBlanc asked for a description of the in-plant special study and when it will be conducted. M. Mickelson replied that the special study has not been designed or scheduled yet. He prefers to conduct the study when the treatment plant is fully functional with all three secondary batteries on-line.

S. Redlich asked what the percentage of scum removal is. M. Mickelson replied that since MWRA does not know the input term, a percentage cannot be calculated. If input is assumed constant, removal is improving. Perhaps the special study should attempt to quantify that input. A special study is a one-time study, not routine monitoring. L. Schafer thinks it is more important to consider the condition of the ocean, rather than the effectiveness of the treatment plant. He thinks it is important to sample the ocean for floatables before the outfall goes on-line. M. Mickelson repeated that MWRA has recently begun floatables sampling in the nearfield.

R. Buchsbaum asked what MWRA actions would be taken if more debris than expected is found. M. Mickelson replied that it is difficult to decide too far in advance but promised that results will be reported. M. Mickelson will prioritize the floatables special study and make sure that results of outfall monitoring are effectively communicated to the treatment plant. P. Bradley asked when the 3rd battery of secondary is scheduled to go on-line. S. Lipman replied that battery C is currently being tested and will go on-line in approximately three to four months.

Zooplankton
M. Mickelson provided background to the zooplankton threshold. This threshold was developed to address concerns regarding the potential effects of nutrients on the zooplankton community that could potentially harm whales. Further analysis of the zooplankton data shows that differences between inshore and offshore communities are due to salinity differences and water depth, not nutrients, thus the threshold is not an effective indicator of eutrophication. However, though the data are variable, they are very valuable. There is also a growing recognition of the influence of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and MWRA is most likely sampling inadequately offshore of Cape Ann, where the GOM current enters Mass Bay. It is likely that OMSAP will recommend additional monitoring stations at that location. Additional understanding of upstream of the "conveyor belt" flow will give a better understanding of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. With that, OMSAP recommended deletion of the threshold, but that MWRA analyze the zooplankton using a method that considers the GOM current.

Dissolved Oxygen
M. Mickelson stated that MWRA discussed the dissolved oxygen (DO) threshold at the February OMSAP meeting. The current dissolved oxygen warning threshold is 6 mg/L and caution level is 6.5 mg/L based on the Massachusetts surface water quality standard derived from freshwater organism toxicity studies. This standard is occasionally exceeded (i.e. falls below 6.0 mg/L). State regulations do allow for site-specific criteria, in other words, factoring in baseline conditions, which involves complex calculations. EPA is developing a new marine criterion for DO. A draft EPA document recommends 4.8 mg/L from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. OMSAP will await more information on the EPA guidance before making any recommendations regarding the MWRA threshold. In the meantime, MWRA will continue monitoring.

J. LeBlanc asked why the threshold was being decreased from 6 to 4.8 mg/L in the draft EPA guidance document. M. Mickelson replied that there are differences in oxygen solubility between freshwater and saltwater. M. Liebman added that an important part of the guidance will be how to develop criteria outside of the range of Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. A. Rex pointed out that the scientific understanding of low DO in the marine environment is recent, within the last decade.

R. Buchsbaum asked about the rate of DO decline threshold. M. Mickelson replied that OMSAP review of that threshold is also on hold, pending the finalized EPA guidance. The current threshold states that the rate of decline over the summer months will not double. R. Buchsbaum thinks that even if EPA changes their DO standard, there should still be a way to examine any changes due to the outfall, even if it is above the standard. The same could be said for other parameters such as chlorophyll. A. Rex said that this pertains to the concept of meaningful change, just because there is a change, does not mean it is meaningful.

Harmful Algae
M. Mickelson then described the harmful algal thresholds. There are three species of concern in this region (Phaeocystis pouchetii, Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries, and Alexandrium tamarense). The current CP thresholds of these species states that their abundance means will not exceed the 95th percentile.

S. Redlich asked how simple it is to determine species and how much time it takes to identify a bloom. M. Mickelson replied that it takes three days for a qualitative analysis but two weeks for quantitative results. However, MADMF uses microscopes that can identify Alexandrium cells in the field.

M. Mickelson then described Phaeocystis pouchetii, a nuisance species that can form large gelatinous colonies. Stormy Mayo (Center for Coastal Studies) observed that the right whales exited Cape Cod Bay early during the 1997 bloom. Blooms do not occur every year and are confined to a specific season. Though there are technical problems with accurately counting cells, a great deal is known about this species. Phaeocystis does respond to excessive nutrients and thus is a good indicator of a possible eutrophication effect. MWRA is working on a more ecologically based threshold.

P. Bradley asked whether Phaeocystis bloomed this year. M. Mickelson replied that Phaeocystis bloomed in 1992, 1994, 1997, and 2000. He did not have 2000 data available but it appears to be a large bloom. L. Schafer asked if there is a relationship between nutrients and the occurrence of Phaeocystis blooms. M. Mickelson replied that there is a relationship between nitrogen loading and Phaeocystis abundance. M. Liebman asked if this connection between nutrients and Phaeocystis has been demonstrated in the field and the lab. M. Mickelson replied that there have been studies but it is still unknown why with constant nitrogen loading, Phaeocystis appears some in years and not others. The role of silicate concentrations is currently being investigated.

M. Mickelson then described Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries, a diatom that produces a toxin that can lead to amnesic shellfish poisoning in humans. This diatom is relatively common (unlike the other two nuisance species), however identification of the toxic species is difficult, requiring special techniques such as scanning electron microscope. Levels in this area are not considered to be a serious health risk, however, when MWRA measures high levels, results are reported to MADMF. MWRA presented to OMSAP progress on calculating this threshold.

M. Mickelson then described Alexandrium tamarense, a toxic dinoflagellate. Sporadically present in low numbers, a special high-volume technique is needed to detect cells. Alexandrium is detected in the spring and blooms may be brought into Mass Bay through Cape Ann by currents or winds. P. Bradley asked if there was a bloom detected this year. M. Mickelson replied not in Mass Bay, but in some enclosed coastal ponds that have annual blooms. In the coastal ocean, Alexandrium is often moved offshore by water movement. Physics is the controlling factor, not nutrients. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution measures Alexandrium more effectively than MWRA since it is the focus of Dr. Don Anderson's research. Paralytic shellfish toxicity measured by MADMF is a more reliable measure than cell counts in the water column. Therefore, OMSAP recommended deletion of the cell count threshold, and for MWRA to focus on the PSP incidence threshold. This threshold is under development, but is based on the concept that toxicity travels "downstream". Increased paralytic shellfish toxicity downstream of the new outfall may be an indication of outfall influence. OMSAP approved of this approach, and would like to review the final threshold.

M. Mickelson summarized that MWRA found that the Phaeocystis and Alexandrium threshold calculations were not useful. OMSAP suggested a less statistical and more ecological approach for Phaeocystis, and to delete the current Alexandrium cell count threshold. They thought the Pseudo-nitzschia threshold was sufficient. R. Buchsbaum asked if there was any speculation on what an ecologically sensible threshold may be. M. Mickelson replied that it will require more thought. The Dutch have been modeling the occurrence of this and it may be that MWRA may want to incorporate their Phaeocystis model into the BEM.

PIAC Discussion
J. LeBlanc is concerned about refining the thresholds before the outfall goes on-line. M. Mickelson replied that MWRA reviewed all of the thresholds and determined which need OMSAP review. They also would like OMSAP to review some of the benthic and fish and shellfish thresholds and will suggest that OMSAP recommend to tighten some of the current thresholds.

S. Tucker stated that the Cape Cod Commission has some concerns about recent OMSAP recommendations. In particular, he is unclear about what the actual obstacle is in collecting a quantifiable measure of floatables in the final collections device. He feels that the sampling hazards or alternatives to the sampling were not discussed in detail. He wondered if other treatment plants are able to quantitatively measure floatables. M. Mickelson replied that a similar measure, the removal efficiency of scum, will be quantified. Sampling for this not just in the final skimmer, but all skimmers further upstream. He regretted not bringing the photographs he showed OMSAP of the final skimmer to better describe the final collections device. The final skimmer is automatically flushed and the amount cannot quantified the due its design. This device is a tip tube that blocks floatables, periodically tips, and washes materials out. A volumetric comparison of floatables versus flow is not possible.

S. Tucker agreed that M. Mickelson described the operational difficulties of this sampling but the Commission is concerned about moving from a systematic and quantifiable measure towards an "opportunistic" net tow at the end of the pipe. The fats, oil, and grease measurement seems like a very subjective reading. A. Rex pointed out that this is a subjective threshold because its purpose is to address aesthetics, a subjective concern. S. Tucker disagreed and believes there should be concern for the potential of plastics harming sea turtles. A. Rex asserted that the DITP will not contribute enough plastics to affect marine life.

M. Mickelson believes that MWRA's main responsibility is within the treatment plant. MWRA needs to know that they are doing their job correctly and he is receptive as to how to ascertain this more effectively. As mentioned, there will be web reporting of other measures of plant performance. There were discussions of possibly using a video camera, but he is not sure how feasible that would be.

S. Tucker thinks MWRA could be held responsible for any floatables found in the nearfield. Conversely, there could be problems with the treatment plant that go undetected. A. Rex believes that MWRA currently deals with the same problem within the harbor. MWRA often receives calls when garbage is found in the harbor. MWRA takes samples in the harbor and determines if there was any treatment plant upset. She thinks that S. Tucker is correct in that one cannot rule out other sources, but MWRA still takes a look. J. LeBlanc thinks that one problem is that trash can accumulate in the harbor where it is more visible whereas trash in the nearfield is more dispersed. A. Rex pointed out that the floatables threshold was originally developed to address the aesthetic question. J. LeBlanc thinks that just because the same amount of floatables will be discharged by the new outfall and dispersed more effectively, it does not mean this is less of an issue.

ACTION: J. LeBlanc suggested that PIAC becomes involved in the development of the scope of the floatables special study. She hopes that the project can be targeted to answer some of PIAC's questions.

S. Tucker thinks it may be important to look for seasonal variation within the plant and also to conduct periodic sampling to look for changes. He thinks it is important to have a dynamic reading of what is MWRA's responsibility. M. Mickelson asked S. Tucker if he foresaw material from the new outfall traveling to Cape Cod Bay or harming whales locally. S. Tucker thinks that it is difficult to say.

R. Buchsbaum asked if there is a possibility of looking at patterns of Phaeocystis blooms since MWRA will be blamed if there are frequent blooms. A threshold will not be in place by the time the outfall goes on-line and it sounds like there is no consensus between MWRA and OMSAP about a reasonable way to evaluate this species. A. Rex thinks this type of problem is inherent of having an early warning system that is more stringent than the permit. The purpose if the CP thresholds is not to attribute blame, but instead to determine whether the outfall is somehow affecting the environment. R. Buchsbaum understands that the CP ambient warning thresholds do not necessarily attribute fault to MWRA.

S. Tucker stated that the Commission is in favor of the Phaeocystis approach. The connection between Phaeocystis in the Bays, whales, and the outfall is not well known. The Commission approves of the ecological approach, though there is some concern about the time frame for finalizing the threshold.

ACTION: PIAC requests that M. Mickelson present information about the Dutch Phaeocystis model and HydroQual's Great Lakes zooplankton modeling at an upcoming PIAC meeting.

FOOD WEB MODEL SCOPE OF WORK (FWMSOW)
M. Mickelson stated that the FWMSOW was added to the permit in response to the Commission's concerns regarding the outfall and the complexity of the ecosystem. MWRA addressed these concerns in three reports that were briefly described by M. Mickelson. ["Conceptual food web model for Cape Cod Bay, with associated environmental interactions", https://www.mwra.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/1998-04.pdf; "Scope of work for a food web model to characterize the seasonal abundance for important prey species of endangered species in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays", https://www.mwra.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/1999-09.pdf; "A review of issues related to the development of a food web model for important prey of endangered species in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays", https://www.mwra.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/1999-14.pdf]. The NMFS Biological Opinion decision that the outfall would cause "no jeopardy" to endangered marine species was based on conservative assessments using higher nitrogen loading than is likely to occur. The BEM runs were used to calculate a nitrogen budget of the bays and results indicate that the outfall contributes only about 3% of Cape Cod Bay's nitrogen with the Gulf of Maine as the dominant source. Observable changes due to the outfall will be local. S. Redlich and P. Bradley asked what is meant by "local". M. Mickelson replied that "local" means on the order of ~0.97 square km. He added that the two food web modelers consulted for MWRA report 99-14 agreed that in order to develop a food web model, a perturbation is needed to model effectively. Based on the information to date, there will not be a significant perturbation. Even if MWRA undertook some type of steady-state analysis, a lot more detailed information would be required. The modelers felt that MWRA would especially need more information on whale energetics and behavior.

J. LeBlanc asked if the two modelers thought that a food web model would provide useful information. M. Mickelson replied that they were interested in becoming involved but became concerned that it would be a futile effort. He thinks the Commission may agree and say that they just want MWRA to think hard about the various parts of the ecosystem and how they fit together. This is why MWRA had its speakers at the September 1999 OMSAP technical workshop preface their presentations by explaining how their work fits into the overall ecosystem. The proceedings of the workshop will be available on CD shortly. He then showed BEM model projections of improvements in water quality due to the relocation of the outfall. R. Buchsbaum asked if these projections use secondary treatment. M. Mickelson replied that all of the model runs use primary treatment.

Barnstable County Science Advisory Panel (BCSAP) Briefing S. Tucker handed out a synopsis describing the BCSAP proposed food web model. Stormy Mayo is presently developing a way of examining the caloric requirements of right whales as it relates to zooplankton and factors that may impact the zooplankton. He feels that M. Mickelson accurately paraphrased what the Commission's position is. The Commission would like to see a food web model that uses a "holistic approach". Examining the biotic components of the Bays system in a similar manner that the BEM looks at the physiographic components would be too large and MWRA would not be able to obtain results in a reasonable amount of time. Thus the BCSAP decided to examine only the most proximal and important features to try to develop a link between changes in nutrient loading and environmental conditions, and possible affects on phytoplankton, zooplankton and right whales. He is concerned that since some thresholds may not be valid, OMSAP's recommendation was to delete them entirely, without replacement.

A. Rex clarified that an important distinction is that the thresholds are not associated with the permit, but with the CP. S. Tucker believes that the "no jeopardy" conclusion means that the proposed activities are not likely to jeopardize the future survival of the protected species, not that there is no harm or risk at all possible. The Commission is concerned about the accuracy of this finding given the complexity of the system and the fact that there is not a complete understanding of the entire system at this present time. EPA guidance to OMSAP regarding the development of the FWM suggested that they take a precautionary approach. That means if there is not adequate scientific information available, MWRA must go further and try to explore possible outcomes as well as institute safeguards. The Commission feels that the FWM that the BCSAP developed to examine the energetic requirements of whales was a good safeguard to adopt from a precautionary standpoint. He was heartened to hear that OMSAP recommended to keep the zooplankton monitoring in place and that MWRA develop a workplan to interpret the information. The Commission will be interested in pursuing ways of modifying the existing monitoring program to see if there is a nexus there between our zooplankton composition model, the interrelation of different physiographic features, caloric requirements of whales, and the MWRA zooplankton data. They will be attempting to gain a better understanding of the many episodic events in the bays that are not quantitatively understood such as Phaeocystis blooms. The Commission was somewhat disappointed with the scope of work that OMSAP recommended for adoption. The BCSAP feels that their proposal is a real step towards understanding the ecosystem and developing a food web model. Many of the decision points in the MWRA food web model scope of work are "dead-ends", unless there is an actual impact. This is not an example of precautionary management because it is difficult to see a chain of decision points leading to the development of a food web model.

PIAC Discussion
S. Redlich asked if the right whale research is centered at the Center for Coastal Studies (CCS). S. Tucker replied that there is a lot of research at the CCS and elsewhere, especially studying distribution. He thinks this is a broadening field of study since there is a lot of support for studying the right whales. J. LeBlanc asked if this relates to the press release from the CCS regarding a nitrogen isotope tracking study. S. Tucker said that these are separate efforts that will someday be linked. CCS has undertaken both studies, right whale behavior and ecology and stable nitrogen isotope monitoring of the outfall plume. He hopes it will be possible to track nitrogen isotopes through different trophic levels. The collection of seawater samples should begin this week and MWRA has already contributed samples of effluent. This method is likely to be more informative than only measuring nutrient concentrations. C. Coniaris asked if the CCS will examine the isotopic signatures of nitrogen from other treatment plants and groundwater. S. Tucker is not sure what the breadth of the baseline sampling is. G. Grossman asked if the BCSAP food web model briefing distributed today was given to OMSAP. S. Tucker replied that OMSAP did receive a similar briefing prior to their last meeting.

R. Buchsbaum asked if OMSAP commented on the Commission's briefing. S. Tucker replied that there was a discussion and OMSAP decided to accept MWRA's food web model scope of work. C. Coniaris added that OMSAP believed it was more valuable to deliberate on ways to supplement the monitoring rather than food web modeling. S. Tucker agreed and said that the Commission is likely to explore developing a proposal for supplemental monitoring.

P. Bradley is concerned that OMSAP believes that developing a predictive food web model is not warranted. She thinks that though the current information available is inadequate, further work should be done. She is grateful that the Cape Cod Commission is trying to develop some type of model that would work. She feels that just because MWRA has a long and confusing document does not mean that the idea of a food web model should be dropped. J. Favaloro disagreed with respect to the report since it was written by a respected firm (Battelle) and was reviewed by a respected group of scientists (OMSAP). The members of OMSAP are clearly capable of reviewing detailed reports by either the Commission or MWRA and forming their own conclusions. P. Bradley thinks the Commission has some very good scientists working for them. J. Favaloro agreed. P. Bradley does not think PIAC should pit scientist against scientist. S. Tucker said that the Commission tries to avoid that. MWRA's scope of work was distributed some time ago but it took the BCSAP a while to develop this proposal.

M. Mickelson thinks the core of the BCSAP briefing is on page 2. It lists the variables that should be components of this model: physics, nutrients, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and interactions among each of these. Focusing on this, he would like to ask what changes to the BEM would be needed to adequately address these issues. He thinks that MWRA needs to do a better job modeling phytoplankton species and may be able to incorporate the Dutch Phaeocystis model into the BEM. Regarding zooplankton species, HydroQual has done some work on zooplankton modeling in the Great Lakes. MWRA could ask HydroQual to consider if it would be possible to add a zooplankton component to the BEM and this could be reported to PIAC. With this, he thinks MWRA can address the concerns that are expressed as the core of BCSAP's model.

J. LeBlanc asked if the Commission is proposing a separate scope of work or if they simply do not agree with the MWRA FWMSOW assessment. S. Tucker replied that the Commission does not approve of the MWRA FWMSOW. Rather than draft a critique, they thought to develop this line of reasoning. They will continue to work on this, even though OMSAP did not recommend its adoption. P. Bradley asked if the Commission has funding to do some of the needed work. S. Tucker replied that the stable nitrogen isotope study is funded independently from the Commission. The food web model is in this form is in its relative infancy and the Commission will have to find funding so that they can study some aspects, as well as build partnerships. P. Bradley wished them luck. G. Grossman thanked S. Tucker for his presentation and urged PIAC to review the Commission's briefing document.

J. LeBlanc thinks that though OMSAP did not recommend the Commission's alternative FWM, the issues raised for the possible need for a FWM are still on the table. She thinks that though M. Mickelson has started to answer this, it would be interesting and useful to have more discussion at a future meeting and a more detailed response to some of these points. M. Mickelson replied that MWRA will respond to this request.

J. Favaloro asked if there are any other alternatives besides the Dutch model. M. Mickelson replied that the Dutch have already conducted a lot of research on these issues and MWRA would not have to repeat their efforts. J. Favaloro asked about the cost of incorporating the Dutch model. M. Mickelson guessed approximately $100K.

INTER-AGENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (IAAC) UPDATE C. Coniaris reported that IAAC has been having discussions about its mission – to advise OMSAP on environmental regulations related to the outfall. IAAC feels that this mission is too narrow. Sal Testaverde (NMFS, IAAC chair) met with EPA and MADEP last month and they are currently working on a revised mission statement. R. Buchsbaum asked if IAAC sees an additional role for themselves. C. Coniaris replied that since the members of the IAAC are knowledgeable scientists, they would like to provide scientific advice, not just regulatory information. EPA and MADEP feel that this would be taking a step backwards since the three groups were formed so that scientific advice was given by independent scientists not affiliated with any organization or agency. J. LeBlanc thinks the structure should not limit people's input. Scientists on PIAC are allowed to discuss scientific issues. C. Coniaris added that EPA and MADEP were also concerned that since they are represented on the IAAC, the two agencies would, in a sense, be advising themselves. One alternative is to have IAAC become a communication forum that meets to share information about new regulations or revisions to the MWRA permit.

P. Bradley thinks one strength of the Outfall Monitoring Task Force was that everyone (advocates, agencies, and scientists) sat around the same table having productive discussions. Perhaps there is a way of keeping this communication and allowing the scientists vote separately. C. Coniaris pointed out that PIAC and IAAC members attend OMSAP meetings and provide input. P. Bradley thinks OMSAP is not hearing PIAC. G. Grossman added that as PIAC chair, she attends all of the OMSAP meetings and reports PIAC's concerns. She asked the group if there were suggestions on how to improve communication among the groups. R. Buchsbaum thinks it may be interesting to evaluate how this process is working. From a practical standpoint, attending all three meetings takes too much time, making this system unwieldy. He is not sure what is gained with the new groups.

C. Coniaris said she once suggested attempting to schedule the three groups on the same day. PIAC's meeting would be shorter since presentations would not have to be repeated. P. Bradley liked this idea. J. LeBlanc thinks people did not like that idea because it implied a whole day of meetings, but if this means shorter subcommittee meetings, then it seems like a good idea. C. Coniaris suggested that PIAC meets after OMSAP to discuss any OMSAP recommendations and plan for future issues to bring forth to OMSAP. M. Mickelson said he does not mind presenting distilled versions of his OMSAP presentations to the subcommittees. J. LeBlanc thinks that by not being present at OMSAP meetings, PIAC loses the benefit of hearing valuable discussions.

R. Buchsbaum thinks the role of PIAC is to express public concern, not to second-guess OMSAP's decisions on a scientific level. C. Coniaris also thinks PIAC has a role in public outreach. R. Buchsbaum thinks it would be good for PIAC to understand the science so they can bring it back to their constituents. M. Farrington decided her constituents are the visitors to the New England Aquarium, even though they are not all from Massachusetts. She has begun speaking with staff about developing some type of information panel for the public. C. Coniaris also suggested an article for SeaBits, the New England Aquarium's email newsletter. M. Farrington thinks the New England Aquarium is a great way to reach many different people. G. Grossman thinks it is important to share ideas about how to reach out to PIAC's constituencies.

C. Coniaris asked if PIAC would like to forward a recommendation to OMSAP about meeting scheduling. She will schedule an OMSAP meeting in June and then September or October. J. LeBlanc asked to try to have PIAC and OMSAP meet on the same day. G. Grossman asked when PIAC would like to meet again. M. Farrington would like to meet after OMSAP, on the same day. G. Grossman agreed. C. Coniaris pointed out that PIAC members Wayne Bergeron and Mary Loebig are both teachers and cannot attend meetings during the day. If OMSAP meets from 10:00 to 2:00 and PIAC meets after that, then they can at least attend the PIAC meeting. P. Bradley thinks that perhaps the best option is to have everyone attend the OMSAP meeting and raise his or her points of view.

J. Favaloro has no preference as to when to meet and thinks it would be good to try to have both groups meet on the same day. M. Farrington agreed. M. Mickelson is grateful for S. Tucker's counterpoint. If he were not present, the group would hear only one side. The main thing that PIAC would gain by attending the OMSAP meetings is hearing the issues that are challenged and questioned scientifically from all angles. M. Farrington said that even though the minutes include a lot of information, they do not express the tone of the meetings. C. Coniaris agreed.

P. Bradley had been on the OMTF for many years and thinks the value of that group was that everyone communicated with one another. She understands that it is the scientists that should be voting but now communication among the three groups is more difficult. G. Grossman suggested that perhaps PIAC ask some of the OMSAP members to attend a PIAC meeting. M. Farrington pointed out that the duty of the PIAC chair is to report to OMSAP on PIAC views. G. Grossman agreed and asked that PIAC members let her know if they want her to report anything specific to OMSAP.

R. Buchsbaum said that the main reason why the OMTF was split up was to separate the advocates and agency representatives since the Commission believed this would assure the science was as objective as possible. The goal was to have an unbiased science panel that examined scientific issues. However, there is going to be a lack of consensus, even among the scientists, on different scientific values. G. Grossman pointed out that there have been a lot of OMSAP discussions and all votes to date have been unanimous. M. Mickelson added that they are good scientists and he respects them. J. LeBlanc thinks this system will be tested when something controversial occurs and PIAC ever feels that OMSAP is not responding appropriately. She likes the idea of having PIAC meet on the same day as OMSAP as a trial but she does not want to become caught up with process. She thinks the three groups should continue to work collectively and not be limited by the structure. C. Coniaris is open to hearing suggestions on how the three groups can interact more efficiently.

ACTION: PIAC requests to meet in the fall of 2000 on the same day as OMSAP, unless the outfall goes on-line sooner.

S. Tucker responded to an earlier question from P. Bradley. He is not asking PIAC to vote on a motion to counter OMSAP's recommendation to accept MWRA's FWMSOW because PIAC has not had time to review the material. He thinks it would be important for this group to express that a precautionary management principle is warranted in Mass and Cape Cod Bays. G. Grossman asked PIAC if they would like to participate in drafting a sign-on letter (that organizations choose whether or not to sign) or if this requires further PIAC discussion. R. Buchsbaum would like more discussion because he would to hear more about their definition of "precautionary" since he thinks OMSAP would agree that MWRA is indeed being precautionary. He thinks PIAC would need to make the case that MWRA is not being precautionary. It is not the role of PIAC to second-guess the science but certainly the group can examine the philosophy behind recommendations. He would be uncomfortable signing a letter without more discussion.

ADJOURNED

MEETING HANDOUTS:

  • May 2000 OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC membership lists
  • October 1999 draft PIAC minutes
  • Recent OMSAP recommendations
  • MWRA reports 99-09 and 99-14 regarding food web model scope of work
  • Presentation handout from M. Mickelson
  • Information briefing from the Cape Cod Commission

PIAC Meeting October 1999

October 14, 1999, 3:30 to 5:30 PM
MADEP Boston
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

Members Present: Wayne Bergeron, Bays Legal Fund; Peter Borrelli, Center for Coastal Studies; Robert Buchsbaum, Massachusetts Audubon; Patty Daley, Cape Cod Commission; Marianne Farrington, New England Aquarium; Joe Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board; Gillian Grossman, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Mary Loebig, Stop the Outfall Pipe; and Susan Redlich, Wastewater Advisory Committee.

Observers: Cathy Coniaris, OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC staff; Mike Mickelson, MWRA; Andrea Noronha, MIT student; Andrea Rex, MWRA; Larry Schafer, retired; Mark Silver, Center for Coastal Studies; and Sal Testaverde, NMFS.

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets]. All such comments have been inserted for clarification only. They do not, nor are they intended to, suggest that such insertions were part of the live meeting components and have been expressly set-off so as to avoid such inference.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS

1) PIAC unanimously elected a Gillian Grossman as chair.

MINUTES

PIAC approved the May 17, 1999 meeting summary with no amendments.

PIAC unanimously elected Gillian Grossman as chair. The previous chair, Cate Doherty, resigned upon her leaving Save the Harbor/Save the Bay.

WORKSHOP WRAP-UP
M. Farrington and C. Coniaris summarized conclusions from the September 22-23, 1999 OMSAP workshop. Abstracts, poster presentations, and a summary of the questions and answers will be compiled on a CD-ROM for distribution.

M. Mickelson responded to a question about outfall start-up. He said that it would take several weeks to remove the remaining riser plugs, fill the tunnel, and remove the diffuser caps. He guessed start-up would be in March 2000, though there is no official date due to the ongoing investigation of the accident in the outfall.

PUBLIC BRIEFING ON OUTFALL MONITORING
S. Redlich led a discussion on whether PIAC and/or OMSAP should host a public briefing on outfall monitoring. She feels that a public meeting would bring interested members of the public up to speed on MWRA’s Outfall Monitoring Program in a less technical format. She believes that a meeting such as this would give the public a chance to ask questions and suggested having a 45-minute presentation and then a question and answer session. This would give the public the opportunity to see how MWRA and OMSAP are held accountable. P. Daley agreed and thinks that representatives from EPA, MADEP, and OMSAP should attend. J. Favaloro feels that if this meeting were to take place, it should be hosted by OMSAP, not the agencies.

PIAC members were unable to reach an agreement as to whether to host this type of meeting. Those who felt that there should be a public meeting agreed that it be held in Boston and on Cape Cod. S. Testaverde thinks that a meeting also be held on the North Shore. B. Buchsbaum suggested Nahant since they have shown the most interest in the North Shore. M. Loebig thinks that the meeting also address permit issues. A. Rex pointed out that this would be a meeting on the monitoring program, not the permit, since OMSAP advises on monitoring. M. Loebig thinks that it would be difficult to narrow the scope of a public meeting. R. Buchsbaum cautioned that PIAC needs to be careful of OMSAP’s time since they are volunteers. P. Borrelli added that OMSAP members are also not spokespeople for MWRA’s Outfall Monitoring Program. Their job is peer-review and not to speak on behalf of the MWRA.

W. Bergeron believes that though there is the possibility that attendance to a public meeting would be low, the point is that the public would be given the opportunity to attend. P. Daley thinks that the meeting should focus on conclusions, not methodology. M. Loebig suggested that PIAC sponsor the meeting, with questions still directed to MWRA or OMSAP. PIAC would be involved with advertising and meeting planning.

P. Borrelli believes that people need substantial purpose in order to attend a meeting (e.g. to vote or voice opposition on an issue). At this point, the outfall is built and will go on-line, so it may be difficult to motivate people to attend. However, on an educational level, it is important to have more people understand the outfall. There also need to be convenient ways of disseminating information. He thinks that a meeting is not the best way and suggested using the Internet, especially for interactive questions and answers. He also suggested radio talk shows since radio hosts have the ability to popularize complicated issues. He feels that everyone should be more creative about public education and the Internet allows people to participate at whatever level in a controlled manner.

W. Bergeron thinks that there is an advantage to public meetings since not everyone has web access. Personal interaction is very important to allay fears. Worried citizens would also like to go on record with their concerns. If all of the presentations are technical, then there will be distrust with the scientific community (although he wanted to point out that the Cape feels they have been well-responded to).

S. Redlich believes that there could be supplemental Internet activities in addition to a meeting and thinks that the Center for Coastal Studies (CCS) has a good website. P. Borrelli pointed out that the CCS website gives visitors the opportunity to ask questions which are answered by experts. Face-to-face meetings are important but using the Internet would allow for prepared answers.

M. Mickelson suggested instead of a public meeting, having PIAC members ask their constituencies if they have questions that can be forwarded to OMSAP. G. Grossman thinks PIAC needs to explore this further at its next meeting.

FOOD WEB MODEL SCOPE OF WORK DISCUSSION
P. Daley briefly described Barnstable County Science Advisory Panel’s (BCSAP) alternate proposal to MWRA’s Food Web Model Scope of Work (FWMSOW). The BCSAP has not finalized the proposal to date. They met to discuss the problems and complexities with food web modeling and attempted to develop a way to address what they see as the potential impacts from the outfall, particularly on right whales. They have developed a food chain concept (not a model) which has three steps and three general hypotheses. The first step is that nutrients from the effluent may affect or change phytoplankton composition and abundance. The second is that a change in phytoplankton may affect zooplankton composition and abundance, and lastly, a change in zooplankton may affect right whales. The BCSAP intends to include several assertions as part of each “step” of the chain referenced from the literature. They believe that the purpose of a food web model scope of work is to look at contingencies and uncertainties. This proposal will be presented in greater detail to OMSAP at their October 26, 1999 meeting. [UPDATE: The BCSAP postponed the presentation of this proposal and the OMSAP meeting was also postponed.]

M. Loebig added that the BCSAP proposal examines trophic levels. For example, if studies show changes in phytoplankton species, would zooplankton be impacted? Would whales be impacted? M. Mickelson stated that the food web model scope of work is a permit requirement. Earlier this year, P. Daley requested that the scope of work examine the food web in another way. He feels that P. Daley’s request is a way of saying that MWRA work to integrate monitoring.

P. Daley feels that any uncertainty in the MWRA scope of work flow chart leads to a “dead-end”. M. Mickelson pointed out that “continued monitoring” on the flowchart is not really a dead-end. P. Daley thinks that there is no impetus to change things. M. Mickelson believes that there is nothing wrong having structure in the flowchart. P. Borrelli agreed. He thinks that the list of potential research topics on page 12 of the FWMSOW is useful and asked whether these studies be done, and by whom? There are still lingering concerns, especially regarding biology in the farfield. It would be good to have a better understanding of the system but how many of these research concerns can be addressed by the Outfall Monitoring Program? The CCS has developed some proposals subject to funding. He does not think that at this point the number of stations in the permit can be argued. But it is up to OMSAP to amend the station locations if there are unanticipated effects after the outfall goes on-line. Jerry Schubel [New England Aquarium] had said that agency monitoring may not satisfy all lines of inquiry, but perhaps MWRA may be sympathetic and collaborate with others.

S. Redlich asked P. Daley if she would like OMSAP to reconsider the FWMSOW. P. Daley replied yes, and that the list of questions on page 10 should be the focus of the scope. P. Borrelli pointed out that developing a successful food web model is a multi-million dollar, multi-year, and multi-institutional effort. OMSAP would not recommend that this be entirely MWRA’s responsibility – a logical conclusion.

S. Testaverde mentioned that a recent right whale study concluded that the right whales will go extinct in 191 years [Caswell H, Fujiwara M, Brault S. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. PNAS 96: 3308-3313]. He feels that MWRA should be responsible for a year-round study, not just a few months.

[For further discussion on this topic, see the October 14, 1999 Inter-Agency Advisory Committee meeting summary.]

ADJOURN

MEETING HANDOUTS:

  • October 1999 OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC membership lists
  • May 17, 1999 draft PIAC meeting summary
  • September 1999 OMSAP Workshop Agenda
  • WRA’s Food Web Model Scope of Work
  • Questions for PIAC Discussion on Public Briefing (by Susan Redlich)

PIAC Meeting May 1999

May 17, 1999, 4:15 to 6:00 PM
New England Aquarium
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Cate Doherty (interim chair), Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Anthony Chatwin, Conservation Law Foundation; Patty Daley, Cape Cod Commission; Marianne Farrington, New England Aquarium; Joe Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board; Sal Genovese, Safer Waters in Massachusetts; Mary Loebig, Stop the Outfall Pipe; and Susan Redlich, Wastewater Advisory Committee.

Observers: Cathy Coniaris, OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC Assistant; Mike Delaney, MWRA; Christian Krahforst, MCZM; Matt Liebman, EPA; Steve Lipman, MADEP; Rich Masters, Normandeau; Mike Mickelson, MWRA; Andrea Rex, MWRA; Anne Smrcina, SBNMS; Sal Testaverde, NMFS; and Mason Weinrich, Cetacean Research Unit.

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets].

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS

  1. PIAC will comment on IAAC's proposed revisions to the OMSAP charter.
  2. C. Doherty will list the concerns of the PIAC regarding the food web issue to the OMSAP at their next meeting. She will also note differences of opinion among PIAC members (see below).

SUMMARY OF MEETING
March 2, 1999 meeting summary was approved with no amendments.

IAAC'S DISCUSSION OF ITS ROLES AND MISSION
C. Doherty described the changes IAAC is proposing to the OMSAP charter. The most significant proposed change is the IAAC mission from "The [IAAC] will advise the OMSAP on environmental regulations" to "The [IAAC] will advise the OMSAP, EPA and MADEP on scientific, technical and/or regulatory matters related to the discharges from and operations of the MWRA system outfalls that may directly or indirectly affect Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay. The IAAC may review or evaluate other environmental matters as necessary." ACTION: A copy of the proposed revisions to the charter will be sent to PIAC (and OMSAP) for comment.

REVIEW OF THE DRAFT AGENDA FOR THE JUNE 10 OMSAP MEETING
PIAC reviewed the draft OMSAP agenda. The group asked about the proposed MWRA threshold revisions and M. Mickelson replied that MWRA is not prepared to discuss in detail specific threshold numbers at this time but they were preparing to brief OMSAP on potential revisions to the chlorophyll, dissolved oxygen and floatable thresholds. The June 10 presentation will be an information-only briefing and OMSAP will not be asked to vote on any revisions. [UPDATE: The June 10 OMSAP meeting has been cancelled due to the postponement of the Cape Cod Commission's Food Web Indicators proposal.]

FOOD WEB MODEL DISCUSSION

Background to NPDES draft permit requirement for a food web model scope of work (FWMSOW)
M. Liebman described the reasoning behind the FWMSOW in the draft NPDES permit (see handout). EPA requested a FWMSOW since there is uncertainty in: (a) what controls the distribution, movement, and feeding behavior of humpback and right whales in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, (note: zooplankton patches are a key factor for right whale feeding); (b) right whales are among the most endangered mammals on earth; and (c) the outfall may affect phytoplankton to some degree, and therefore may have an effect on zooplankton populations. A scope of work is a descriptive plan for conducting a task, in this case a food web model, which may be qualitative or quantitative, and not necessarily predictive. The focus should be on the main prey species of right whales (zooplankton), the factors that control zooplankton abundance, and noxious algae (e.g. Phaeocystis) that may affect zooplankton or right whales directly.

MWRA response to draft permit requirement
M. Mickelson described MWRA's progress towards preparing a FWMSOW (see handout). Since the FWMSOW language appeared in the February 1998 draft permit, MWRA has been working in consultation with the Outfall Monitoring Task Force and the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel on this draft requirement. If the final NPDES permit includes the same language as the draft permit regarding the FWMSOW, then MWRA will submit its scope of work [UPDATE: see below]. M. Mickelson then described the conceptual food web model for Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays developed by Jack Kelly et al. and the subsequent review of that food web model by OMSAP member Bob Kenney. In his review, B. Kenney pointed out that the Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay (MB/CCB) conceptual model is only a small part of the life of a right whale and that there are many other factors which affect its life history.

Cape Cod Commission's Food Web Indicators proposal
P. Daley stated that the Cape Cod Commission is proposing a "Food Web Indicators" approach instead of the MWRA FWMSOW. The Commission will present an overview of this approach at the June 10 OMSAP meeting. From the Commission's briefing dated May 17, 1999 to the PIAC and IAAC, "The Cape Cod Commission proposes to establish a set of indicators or thresholds to identify and track changes and trends in the Bays ecosystem with a focus on the food web of the northern right whale. [The] purpose [is] to establish a series of thresholds to identify changes and trends in the right whale food web that may not be detected by the current warning and caution threshold levels...Food Web Indicators should be established to track specific density and particle sizes of Calanus finmarchicus, the right whale's primary food source. Food Web Indicators should also be established for other species that may affect the availability of Calanus finmarchicus, such as Phaeocystis. Particular emphasis should be placed on monitoring in the spring and summer seasons. The current monitoring program establishes some caution and warning levels for phytoplankton and nuisance algae. It also looks at species mix relative to phytoplankton. However, there is no threshold for certain aspects of species diversity that impact the northern right whale..."

The Commission disapproves of the FWMSOW flowchart (see MWRA handout) because if there is any uncertainty with a question raised, the flow chart "dead-ends" if no one conducts research to address the question. The Barnstable Science Advisory Panel will meet to further develop this Food Web Indicators proposal, hopefully by the June 10 OMSAP meeting [UPDATE: see below]. In response to a question, M. Mickelson stated that the MWRA has prepared two recent reports on phytoplankton and zooplankton: Cibik et al. (1998) "Massachusetts Bay plankton communities: characterization and discussion of issues relative to MWRA's outfall relocation" and Lemieux et al. (1998) "Massachusetts Bay zooplankton communities: a historical retrospective". [A complete list of technical reports is available at: https://www.mwra.com/harbor/enquad/trlist.html. Reports not posted on the web may be requested.]

M. Weinrich asked what area the FWMSOW is focusing on. M. Mickelson replied the nearfield since it is the area in which the Bays Eutrophication Model predicts will be most likely be affected by the new outfall. M. Weinrich dislikes the focus on Calanus for two reasons: Calanus patches are very dynamic and complex and this species is not the only food source of the right whales. He feels it would be easier to just monitor the presence of right whales. P. Daley agreed that that would be easier but added that there needs some way to tie in the water quality data. M. Weinrich pointed out that there are a lot factors which control right whale distributions that make it difficult to find a "smoking gun" (i.e. causal factor) if they do not visit this area. P. Daley replied that because of variability, she was not looking to determine causality.

M. Farrington feels that everyone should realize how global this is when attempting to find causality. The New England Aquarium studies right whales on an ongoing basis and there are times that, even with aerial surveys, the right whales are nowhere to be found. She also feels that there needs to be a "control" area studied where there are historic whale data available.

C. Krahforst asked that supposing a food web indicator could be defined, what would it be compared to in the baseline data. He suggested that in the Commission proposal, they choose to examine a parameter which is already being measured by the baseline monitoring. M. Weinrich understands that it is not feasible to monitor any new parameters at this point in time. He feels that the only way to pinpoint a problem with the right whales is to monitor the animals themselves. A statistically valid, drastic change would be if the number of individuals visiting MB/CCB drops to zero for three years in a row. S. Testaverde said that if there is a new environmental condition and the right whales fail to visit this area for just one year, NMFS would take action. In the past, though right whales may have not stayed to feed, they have always at least been spotted in the area for a brief period of time. M. Loebig asked about having an interim step that would examine changes in the system such as studying patch dynamics [note: patch dynamics are studied by Stormy Mayo, Cabell Davis and others]. She stated that her group has been opposed to the outfall relocation from the beginning because of the variability in this ecosystem and lack of historical research in the area around the outfall. She believes MWRA is still responsible for proving that any problems are not due to the outfall, as opposed to having advocates or others having to prove that a problem is connected to the outfall [emphasis added].

J. Favaloro feels that since the Cape Cod Commission has not provided a detailed proposal as promised by the end of April, discussion regarding the FWMSOW is difficult. M. Mickelson said that MWRA would like to help P. Daley and the Commission with any information they need. He pointed out that it has been observed in the baseline data that phytoplankton respond to nutrient addition but zooplankton do not. Therefore it has been very difficult to develop zooplankton hypotheses.

M. Loebig is concerned that the scope of work is not following the wording in the draft permit and is only focusing on zooplankton. She is much more concerned about dinoflagellates and their impact on humans and other species and thus feels that the Alexandrium threshold should be lowered. She also feels that the dormant Alexandrium cysts located on the seafloor near the new outfall site should be included in the food web model. In 1987, several humpback whales were found dead on Cape Cod and it is thought that they died from eating mackerel tainted with the red tide toxin. M. Mickelson pointed out that MWRA has thresholds for dinoflagellates, MWRA identifies and enumerates phytoplankton species, and Dr. Don Anderson at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is addressing the basic research questions regarding Alexandrium.

M. Liebman stated that EPA decided to focus on zooplankton in order to simplify and focus this difficult task. M. Loebig pointed out that there are other endangered species who also visit this area. M. Weinrich feels that right whales are key to this ecosystem not for the amount of time they spend here but rather due to their endangered status. But if there is an effect, it will first be seen with the humpback and fin whales who use Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays extensively for feeding.

M. Delaney stated that the Cape Cod Commission is examining the value of using stable isotopes of nitrogen to detect changes in the environment. The Commission is sponsoring a research project and the MWRA started providing samples for this effort in February. M. Loebig does not think this can replace the food web component. C. Krahforst feels that though there are tracers to examine spatial and food-chain-transfer effects, biological indicators are lacking. He suggested that PIAC ask OMSAP to propose what they think those indicators may be.

M. Weinrich feels that the FWMSOW is not comprehensive enough but he can not think of any other way to approach this requirement at this time. Ultimately this entire discussion about food web modeling is due to a frustration over no matter what information is collected, there will not be a "smoking gun". P. Daley wants to avoid the development of a predictive model and suggested approaching OMSAP to ask them if there are any other options. One option is the FW Indicators, which would be set low enough to detect change. She asked if this seems to be a good approach. M. Weinrich replied that the ecosystem is too complex. What determines a good food source to the right whales is the life stage of the zooplankton and location of patches.

J. Favaloro pointed out that it seemed that OMSAP was ready to approve the FWMSOW but postponed approval pending a proposal from the Cape Cod Commission. But the Commission did not provide a proposal so PIAC should support OMSAP in any decision it makes regarding the FWMSOW. M. Loebig feels that the FWMSOW seems nebulous but understands that ocean food web models are much more complicated than those for terrestrial ecosystems.

ACTION: Of the PIAC members present, five approved the following list of concerns and two chose to abstain (A. Chatwin and J. Favaloro). Most PIAC members are still concerned about whether the outfall may cause negative effects to the food web which includes endangered species. They are concerned that though significant efforts have been made to monitor, there is not enough information being collected that would show if there is a potential risk to endangered species. Though there may be methods of using chemical tracers such as stable nitrogen isotopes, there are no biological tracers to help determine whether there is a problem. It appears that the Cape Cod Commission's Food Web Indicators proposal is not ideal at this time, but no other suggestions have been brought forward. PIAC would like to ask OMSAP if they know of any other approaches for examining whether or not the outfall is adversely impacting species such as the right whale. PIAC has not formed a collective opinion on the FWMSOW at this time but several members agree that planktivorous fish (i.e. mackerel which humpback and fin whales feed on) should be added to the FWMSOW. This is because they feel that any potential adverse effects of the outfall would be first be seen in humpback and fin whales since they spend many months in this area feeding. C. Doherty will report these concerns to OMSAP at their June 10 meeting. She will also note differences of opinion among PIAC members.

[UPDATE: The June 10 OMSAP meeting has been cancelled. The MWRA have posted their food web model scope of work at: https://www.mwra.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/1999-09.pdf. The NPDES permit (page 9) states that "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 MADEP. After receipt of the revised scope of work, EPA and MADEP will determine whether implementation of the food web model is warranted." OMSAP will comment on the FWMSOW at its next meeting, sometime in early fall.]

OMSAP PUBLIC WORKSHOP
C. Coniaris updated the group on the approach for the OMSAP public workshop. The workshop will be relatively technical in order to describe monitoring results as well as answer questions from the public. The meeting will be open to the public, and a summary paper will be drafted and widely distributed. PIAC agreed to this approach. There will be a workshop planning meeting on May 18, 1999. [UPDATE: The planning group recommends that OMSAP host a two-day technical workshop to describe the results of seven years of baseline water quality, benthic, and fish/shellfish monitoring as well as summarize the 10-year Boston Harbor Clean-up Project. This meeting will also address public concerns in preparation for a public workshop. It will be scheduled for late summer and will be open to the public. Since the outfall is scheduled to go on-line by late September, the group also suggests that OMSAP host a public workshop in September to brief citizens on monitoring and address concerns. This would be an evening event geared towards the public.]

ADJOURN

Time did not allow for the following agenda items: strategies on how to get information to the public and election of chair. They will be addressed at the next PIAC meeting.

MEETING HANDOUTS:

  • May 1999 OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC membership lists
  • March 2, 1999 draft PIAC meeting summary
  • June 10 draft OMSAP agenda
  • Cape Cod Commission's Food Web Indicators approach briefing
  • Background to EPA's request for a food web model scope of work briefing
  • MWRA's progress toward preparing a food web model scope of work briefing
  • MWRA Boston Harbor Project and monitoring overview packet
  • OMSAP Workshop briefing

PIAC Meeting March 1999

Monday, March 2, 1999, 3:30 to 6:00 PM
EPA Boston
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Cate Doherty (interim chair), Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Wayne Bergeron, Bays Legal Fund; Robert Buchsbaum, Massachusetts Audubon; Patty Daley, Cape Cod Commission; Marianne Farrington, New England Aquarium; Joe Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board; Sal Genovese, SWIM; Joan LeBlanc, The Boston Harbor Association alternate; and Susan Redlich, Wastewater Advisory Committee.

Observers: Anthony Chatwin, Conservation Law Foundation; Cathy Coniaris, OMSAP Assistant; Mike Delaney, MWRA; Gillian Grossman, SH/SB; Matt Liebman, EPA; Steve Lipman, MADEP; Ron Manfredonia, EPA; Mike Mickelson, MWRA; Andrea Rex, MWRA; and Sal Testaverde, NMFS.

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets].

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS & RECOMMENDATIONS TO OMSAP

  1. PIAC will keep its membership open for the next two meetings, extend an invitation to the CLF and STOP, and recommend a change in OMSAP charter regarding numbers of members.
  2. PIAC commented on the draft OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC protocol [see below].
  3. PIAC agreed to become involved in the planning of the 1999 OMSAP public meeting.
  4. W. Bergeron agreed to contact the State Ethics Commission regarding group email discussions and the Open Meeting Law and report back to PIAC.
  5. PIAC recommends that OMSAP postpone voting on the draft food web model scope of work at the March 22 OMSAP meeting so PIAC can have the opportunity to provide OMSAP with informed views on the upcoming Cape Cod Commission proposal.
  6. PIAC understands that the proposed MWRA lab consolidation will not cause a reduction in staff or services but requested to be kept informed of developments by MWRA.
  7. The next PIAC meeting will be scheduled in May before the next OMSAP meeting and may be scheduled jointly with IAAC.

SUMMARY OF MEETING
The summary of the December 15, 1998 PIAC meeting was approved with no amendments. S. Redlich and P. Daley gave a brief summary of the December 18, 1998 OMSAP meeting. According to their report, presentations at the OMSAP meeting included MWRA's draft food web model scope of work and a method of using nitrogen-15 stable isotopes to study the fate of nitrogen in effluent entering the marine environment. C. Doherty then gave a brief summary of the February 24, 1999 IAAC meeting. IAAC discussed its roles/responsibilities, Cape Cod Commission's request to leave PIAC and join IAAC, endocrine disruptors, and PCBs. [Meeting summaries are available.]

PIAC MEMBERSHIP
The OMSAP charter currently states that membership of PIAC may not exceed its current number if 11. The Conservation Law Foundation and Stop the Outfall Pipe have requested to join the PIAC. The group agreed to increase its membership so that all interested organizations can be involved but also agreed that the group eventually has to stop expanding because large groups can become unproductive. ACTION: PIAC will keep its membership open for the next two meetings, extend an invitation to the CLF and STOP, and recommend a change in OMSAP charter regarding numbers of members.

DRAFT OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC PROTOCOL
The PIAC reviewed and commented on the draft protocol:

  • Quorum for OMSAP members needs to be addressed (S. Redlich).
  • Flexibility is very important, especially in the "Requests to Present to OMSAP" section since public interest or scientific "emergencies" could arise and should be allowed on the agenda (J. LeBlanc).
  • PIAC should try to discuss issues before they are brought to OMSAP or EPA/MADEP. Add to protocol: PIAC may need to call a meeting about a new issue before OMSAP deliberates (C. Doherty).
  • PIAC should "filter" information brought to the OMSAP which they think is of particular importance. If PIAC does not agree that a concern is important, then individual groups still have the option of going directly to OMSAP/EPA/MADEP. Ideally, issues will first be discussed by PIAC such that OMSAP/EPA/MADEP have the benefit of knowing how PIAC stands on a particular issue that is raised (C. Doherty).
  • Observers will also have an opportunity to express opinions at PIAC meetings (S. Redlich).
  • Organizations represented on PIAC may appoint alternates (M. Farrington).
  • At least one PIAC member will attend the IAAC meetings and report back to PIAC (C. Doherty).
  • The attendance of members at PIAC meetings is important and should be addressed in the charter (M. Farrington).
  • If PIAC feels that they have not had the chance to review all available information or give input on an issue, they may request that an OMSAP vote be delayed (J. LeBlanc).
  • First paragraph of "PIAC procedures": add "EPA/MADEP" after "OMSAP" (C. Doherty).
  • Add the purposes of the PIAC and IAAC (S. Testaverde).
  • The OMSAP charter states that there will be an annual public meeting. The PIAC should be involved in the planning (S. Redlich). ACTION: The group agreed to be involved in the planning of the 1999 OMSAP public meeting.
    Additional comments may be sent to C. Coniaris.


OMSAP/PIAC/IAAC MEETING SCHEDULING
There was discussion regarding the integration of the meeting schedules of the three groups. S. Testaverde asked if MWRA will give the same OMSAP presentations to PIAC/IAAC. Or perhaps if there are agenda items common to both groups, there could be a single PIAC/IAAC meeting scheduled. Some felt that it is not fair to ask the MWRA to give three independent presentations. Several members liked the idea of having meetings on the same day to save on travel.

C. Coniaris suggested that all three groups meet on the same day. OMSAP would meet from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM and then the two subcommittees would meet separately in the afternoon. PIAC/IAAC could attend the technical presentations in the morning, discuss them in the afternoon, and then plan for the next OMSAP meeting. P. Daley approved of the idea as long as the OMSAP does not vote. W. Bergeron feels that there are advantages to this in that everything is still fresh in your mind, and presentations will be heard first hand. C. Doherty sees this as a good idea, but also thinks that the PIAC should meet one more time before the OMSAP meets again to discuss issues that OMSAP may not be considering. Others agreed. R. Manfredonia added that this implies that OMSAP not take a position on the same day a new issue is presented since PIAC would not have had a chance to discuss the issue and provide input to OMSAP.

W. Bergeron believes that though expediency is important in terms of making decisions, there is an advantage in taking the time to discuss an issue thoroughly. J. LeBlanc agreed and added that another advantage is to be in the room to hear what the scientists are saying first hand. Someone pointed out that waiting until PIAC deliberates before OMSAP makes a decision is going to slow the process. R. Manfredonia pointed out that OMSAP should not be making decisions without input from PIAC. The challenge is to make this process efficient, convenient, timely, without duplication, and have everyone involved be informed. It is not clear how to do that yet. J. LeBlanc asked if OMSAP can make recommendations directly to MWRA. R. Manfredonia replied that OMSAP may directly advise MWRA if they feel it is necessary. PIAC agreed to try to schedule all three groups to meet on the same day, however, this decision was later revised (the group decided it should meet before the next OMSAP meeting) [see below].

OPEN MEETING LAW
W. Bergeron asked if group email conversations would violate the Open Meeting Law. He pointed out that though telephone conversations between two people are allowed, private conversations of a deliberating body are not allowed. S. Testaverde added that it depends on what kinds of conversations are occurring -- informational or decision-making. ACTION: W. Bergeron agreed to contact the State Ethics Commission about this and report back to PIAC.

FOOD WEB MODEL SCOPE OF WORK STATUS REPORT
P. Daley stated that Andy Solow (OMSAP Chair) has asked the Cape Cod Commission to develop specific recommendations for the OMSAP regarding food web modeling. The CCC believes that additional monitoring together with a different way of looking at the existing data would be very useful. The CCC is trying to take a different approach to better define what they mean by a food web model. J. LeBlanc pointed out that her concern at the last PIAC meeting was implementation and this can not be addressed until OMSAP comes to agreement as to what kind of food web model should be considered. P. Daley stated that the CCC is developing an alternative to the Battelle draft food web model scope of work. The CCC is considering examining the Kelly at al. (1998) model and trying to look at the existing monitoring program to see if there are areas which can be improved. S. Testaverde (IAAC chair) thinks the next PIAC meeting might be a good joint meeting for PIAC/IAAC since the food web model will be discussed in detail. C. Doherty agreed. ACTION: PIAC recommends that OMSAP postpone on voting on the draft food web model scope of work at the March 22 OMSAP meeting so PIAC can have the opportunity to provide them with their informed views on the upcoming Cape Cod Commission proposal. The next PIAC meeting will be scheduled in May before the next OMSAP meeting and may be scheduled jointly with IAAC. During this meeting, PIAC will be brought up to speed on the technical issues surrounding the food web model scope of work debate and discuss any possible recommendations to OMSAP.

MWRA LAB CONSOLIDATION
M. Delaney stated that MWRA is planning to consolidate its Sewerage and Drinking Water laboratories into one department. This is to better allocate staff and resources, have a single and unified approach to quality assurance and information management, and make sure that the labs are independent from the operating departments. It has not yet been determined where the other two units in ENQUAD (Harbor Studies and NPDES) fit in.

J. LeBlanc had requested this to be put on the agenda last minute because it is time sensitive. She is concerned about how this will affect the MWRA's ability to: (1) provide the necessary lab and reporting work associated with the outfall; (2) respond to any potential problems (i.e. what's the chain of command if contingency measures need to considered); and (3) provide adequate information (both reports and verbal communication) to PIAC and the public in response to any problems that occur. She feels that systems need to be in place and communications efficient before the outfall goes on-line.

The PIAC then had an opportunity to ask questions and have a discussion. J. Favaloro pointed out that this is not a money-saving effort or a physical move, but rather an exercise on paper to reduce redundancy and increase efficiency. It is not even certain if this consolidation will take place. M. Delaney added that there will not be a reduction in services. The goal for this consolidation is July 1. ACTION: PIAC understands that the proposed MWRA lab consolidation will not cause a reduction in staff or services but requested to be kept informed of developments by MWRA. PIAC agreed that the services provided by the MWRA NPDES Permit and Harbor Studies units are important to the group.

PLUME TRACKING
M. Mickelson briefly described the draft plume tracking study design which is required by the draft NPDES permit. Plume tracking is a field test of the dilution of the new MWRA outfall. Dilution is used in toxicity calculations. Using dilution and known toxic amounts of substances, one can work back to calculate how much of the contaminants can be allowed in the waste stream.

Dilution was well studied using a physical model in the EPA test tank. Roberts et al. (1993) used a scale model diffuser which injected dye. The concentration of dye was measured and dilution could then be calculated since it is the reciprocal of concentration. Minimum dilution can be looked at as the reciprocal of the maximum concentration allowable. This depends on flow, stratification, and currents. If you double the flow, the dilution worsens. If you unstratify the water column, the dilution is improved. If you have currents that are perpendicular to the risers, dilution is improved. Parallel currents have no effect compared to zero current. R. Buchsbaum asked over what area dilution is being considered. M. Mickelson replied that there are two processes to consider when studying dilution -- rise and horizontal spread. Dilution is measured 60 meters outside of the area after initial rise. S. Testaverde asked what would happen if all factors were varied at the same time. M. Mickelson replied that the physical model varied each parameter individually. Since the plume tracking study will be undertaken in the field, it will examine the variability of all factors at once.

The field study itself will include the use of towyos and acoustic tracking to map the plume. Dye, salinity, and other effluent tracers will be measured. The first survey is scheduled for November 1999 [correction: December] and the second in June 2000 to characterize high and low dilution scenarios. S. Testaverde asked about dilution if the secondary batteries are exceeded and secondary/primary blending of effluent occurs. M. Delaney pointed out that when there is very high flow, much of the discharge is storm water which dilutes the effluent. The group did not have any comments on the draft study design at this time.

INTRODUCTION TO ENDOCRINE DISRPUTERS (EDs)
This issue was first presented to IAAC as an informational topic at their February 24 meeting. M. Liebman briefly described EDs and how EPA is studying them. In the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA was mandated to form an advisory committee, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC). Their charge is to set up a process to screen and test the ~87,000 chemicals which may be endocrine disruptors [EPA fact sheet is available]. EDs are "exogenous chemical substances or mixtures that alter the structure or function of the endocrine [hormone] system and cause adverse effects in organisms, progeny, populations or subpopulations". PCBs, many pesticides, tributyltin (an antifoulant for boats) are examples of EDs. Several PIAC members felt that research on EDs should continue to at least be discussed by PIAC since there are important fisheries in this region which have been severely depleted and EDs are known to be harmful to larval fish at very small doses. However, the ED screening program is in its early stages and PIAC acknowledged that ED monitoring in wastewater is not an issue OMSAP can review at this time.

PIAC TIME LINE OF ISSUES TO ADDRESS
PIAC agreed that the food web model scope of work is an issue the group will continue to review. Other imminent issues are the draft plume tracking study design and MWRA's proposed Contingency Plan revisions. Members were asked to forward any other concerns they would like to see addressed to C. Doherty.

ADJOURN

PIAC Meeting December 1998

December 15, 1998, 4:00 to 6:00PM
MADEP Boston
FINAL MINUTES

ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Cate Doherty (interim chair), Save the Harbor/Save the Bay; Patty Daley, Cape Cod Commission and Bays Legal Fund alternate; Marianne Farrington, New England Aquarium; Joe Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board; Sal Genovese, SWIM; Joan LeBlanc, The Boston Harbor Association alternate; Scott Mitchell, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod; and Susan Redlich, Wastewater Advisory Committee.

Observers: Peg Brady, MCZM; Cathy Coniaris, OMSAP Assistant; Mike Delaney, MWRA ENQUAD; Christian Krahforst, MCZM; Steve Lipman, MADEP; Sal Testaverde, NMFS; and Carol Wasserman, MADEP.

Summary prepared by C. Coniaris. Post-meeting comments are included in [brackets].

SYNOPSIS
PIAC Logistics and Responsibilities

  1. PIAC should meet approximately one month before each OMSAP meeting to examine their agenda and discuss issues. PIAC can also meet whenever it feels necessary.
  2. PIAC should understand what issues, data, and decisions the OMSAP is considering. At the same time, PIAC should understand and be sensitive to the concerns of its individual groups.
  3. Citizens' concerns should first be discussed by PIAC. PIAC will attempt to work towards consensus when determining which concerns to forward to OMSAP, EPA, and/or MADEP. Differences of opinion will be reported by the PIAC chair (or an alternate) at OMSAP meetings and recorded in the minutes. The role of PIAC is to highlight concerns as well as where there is disagreement.
  4. PIAC should develop a timetable of issues the group would like address, both before and after the outfall goes on-line.
  5. The availability of relevant publications, as well as information on how to obtain copies, will be announced by email and listed in the OMSAP minutes.
  6. OMSAP, PIAC, and IAAC will exchange minutes via email. Communication among the groups is very important.
  7. PIAC has asked that MWRA report whenever there is problem or if they are approaching a trigger exceedance.
  8. A one-page summary of each OMSAP agenda item is requested of speakers [PIAC members should decide if the information briefings that are currently produced meet this request].
  9. PIAC members are encouraged to try to attend OMSAP meetings when possible in order to hear their discussions firsthand. C. Doherty, M. Farrington, S. Genovese, and S. Redlich agreed to try to attend OMSAP meetings regularly. One PIAC member should also attend IAAC meetings. PIAC and IAAC may agree to schedule one or more future meetings together.
  10. PIAC welcomes comments from its audience.
  11. Flexibility and independence is vital for OMSAP and PIAC.
  12. PIAC has requested an overview of the Outfall Monitoring Program and Contingency Plan. Copies of these documents will be distributed.
  13. PIAC should consider reviewing MWRA's trigger parameters before the outfall goes on-line.
  14. In addition to reporting to OMSAP, PIAC should also report to EPA and MADEP.
  15. PIAC will schedule their next meeting once the next OMSAP meeting date is set.
  16. PIAC will be provided with some background materials on issues related to outfall monitoring. [An index of issues recently addressed by the Outfall Monitoring Task Force will also be provided.]
  17. C. Coniaris will email PIAC members a list of their email addresses to be used for email discussions among the group.


SUMMARY OF MEETING
The summary of the December 15, 1998 PIAC meeting was approved with no amendments. S. Redlich and P. Daley gave a brief summary of the December 18, 1998 OMSAP meeting. According to their report, presentations at the OMSAP meeting included MWRA's draft food web model scope of work and a method of using nitrogen-15 stable isotopes to study the fate of nitrogen in effluent entering the marine environment. C. Doherty then gave a brief summary of the February 24, 1999 IAAC meeting. IAAC discussed its roles/responsibilities, Cape Cod Commission's request to leave PIAC and join IAAC, endocrine disruptors, and PCBs. [Meeting summaries are available.]

Food Web Model Scope of Work:

  1. OMSAP and PIAC [and IAAC] should review the questions raised in the 1995 Barnstable SAP report [this report will be distributed] in order to be clear on what types of questions a food web model would attempt to answer.
  2. Two PIAC members requested that OMSAP advise on what pieces of information are missing regarding a food web model, what pieces are beyond the scope of the focus of the MWRA, and what pieces would be more appropriate for other state agencies. PIAC may be asking if there is data that may still be collected before the outfall goes on-line in order to help determine what effect the MWRA may have. These points will be further discussed at the March 2, 1999 PIAC meeting.
  3. The draft NPDES permit which includes the requirement for the scope of work is located at: https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/mwra/pdf/permit.pdf.


SUMMARY OF MINUTES
Introductions

Members introduced themselves and briefly described their organizations. C. Doherty is with Save the Harbor/Save the Bay that works to promote and protect the resources of Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbor. SH/SB has over 1000 member households from a variety of communities, both coastal and inland. P. Daley is with the Cape Cod Commission who has asked to sit on the Inter-agency Advisory Committee instead of PIAC. She is also representing the Bays Legal Fund at this meeting which is a citizens group formed through Barnstable County out of concern for the potential impacts of the MWRA outfall on water quality in Mass and Cape Cod Bays and endangered/threatened species. M. Farrington works in the Edgerton Research Lab at the New England Aquarium. The NEAQ's mission is to present, promote, and protect the world of water through exhibits, education, and research. J. Favaloro is the executive director of the MWRA Advisory Board that represents the interests of the MWRA ratepaying communities. S. Genovese is new member of Safer Waters in Massachusetts (SWIM) which was formed about 15 years ago in response to concerns about water quality issues in Boston Harbor and Mass Bay. J. LeBlanc is with The Boston Harbor Association whose mission since its formation in 1973 is to promote a clean and accessible Boston Harbor. S. Mitchell is the assistant director of the Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod. The APCC's mission is to protect and restore the natural resources of Cape Cod. The membership of this 30-year old organization consists of approximately 4,000 households. S. Redlich is a member of the Wastewater Advisory Committee, which is a citizen advisory group to the MWRA Board of Directors of the MWRA that works on long-range planning for the Authority.

The observers then introduced themselves. C. Coniaris is the assistant to the OMSAP and contractor to EPA. M. Delaney is the acting director of MWRA's Environmental Quality Department which responsible for the Outfall Monitoring Program and the lab at Deer Island. S. Testaverde works for the National Marine Fisheries Service and is the interim chair for the Inter-agency Advisory Committee. NMFS deals with protected species and marine resources. S. Lipman works for the MADEP and is the Boston Harbor coordinator. Carol Wasserman also works for MADEP. Others arrived after this introduction.

PIAC Logistics and Responsibilities
PIAC members were given the latest version of the OMSAP charter. The charter is mentioned in the draft NPDES permit but is not included in the permit. The group then had a discussion of EPA/MADEP expectations, how PIAC will operate, what kind of resources PIAC will need, frequency and structure of meetings, and what kinds of issues PIAC should examine. PIAC needs to figure out how to work amongst its members and how it can most effectively advise the OMSAP. R. Manfredonia of EPA was unable to attend so C. Coniaris outlined a few of the themes of PIAC. The PIAC should try to work towards consensus. However, disagreements will be noted in the minutes and C. Doherty will report the various views of the group to OMSAP. Citizens' issues should first be discussed by PIAC and then be brought to OMSAP. PIAC should decide which issues are important for OMSAP to review. OMSAP currently consists of nine scientists who advise EPA/MADEP on matters related to MWRA's monitoring and any potential future exceedances related to the NPDES permit and Contingency Plan. It has two subcommittees, PIAC, and the Inter-agency Advisory Committee (IAAC).

C. Doherty then added her thoughts on PIAC. Section B of the OMSAP charter states that the committee will advise the OMSAP on the values and uses of the natural system important to society. She believes that each member is responsible for bringing the concerns of its constituents to PIAC and hopefully the group can come to some agreement on some of those concerns. OMSAP has been charged with making scientific decisions but must understand what the public is concerned about. PIAC should understand what issues, data, and decisions the OMSAP is considering, and at the same time PIAC should understand and be sensitive to the concerns of its individual groups. It is also important to note that the PIAC will be advising EPA and MADEP in addition to the OMSAP. Some issues raised by the PIAC may be policy-oriented and thus more appropriately forwarded to EPA and MADEP.

The group then discussed frequency and structure of meetings. C. Doherty feels that PIAC should meet approximately one month before each OMSAP meeting to examine their agenda and discuss issues beforehand. In addition, PIAC should meet whenever it feels that it is necessary. C. Coniaris added that OMSAP will meet approximately 4-6 times per year.

S. Genovese suggested that PIAC make a timetable of issues the group would like address, both before and after the outfall goes on-line. M. Delaney confirmed that the most recent estimation of the outfall going on-line is July 1999. C. Doherty agreed that the group should begin to put together a list of issues. She pointed out that PIAC will also address issues not on the OMSAP agenda.

J. LeBlanc asked about PIAC representation at the OMSAP meetings. C. Doherty replied that as interim PIAC chair, she plans to attend all OMSAP meetings, but will find a replacement if she can not attend. J. LeBlanc pointed out that even if PIAC does not have any issues to bring forth, there still should be at least one PIAC member present to hear the proceedings. She asked if there is a schedule set-up for distributing outfall-related reports to OMSAP and PIAC. C. Coniaris replied that reports are being provided to OMSAP members, but copies could be provided to PIAC if requested. S. Redlich suggested that perhaps a list of distributed materials be added to the OMSAP minutes so that the PIAC know they exist and could request them from the MWRA on their own. C. Coniaris added that she is looking into setting up an OMSAP website that would include new reports, agendas, minutes, and other information. She will also distribute the OMSAP minutes to PIAC via email. Several members approved the idea of a website and electronic distribution of materials. P. Daley added that if something important is being added to the website, to send an email notification of the posting. Others agreed.

J. LeBlanc suggested that MWRA report to the PIAC whenever there is problem or are approaching a trigger exceedance. J. Favaloro asked about the status of the NPDES permit. S. Lipman guessed that the final version would be ready in about two months.

J. LeBlanc feels that PIAC is at a disadvantage since the group as a whole does not hear the scientific analyses at OMSAP meetings, and that most members of PIAC are not scientists. This will make it difficult for the group to have collective and intelligent input into the process. She suggested receiving one-page descriptions on the various issues, as they arise. M. Farrington volunteered to interpret any technical issues for any of the PIAC members.

C. Doherty suggested that any important actions, such as the formation of a focus group be highlighted in the minutes. She asked if there should be a one-page summary drafted for every issue, or instead have members request a one-page summary as needed and possibly schedule an expert to speak at a PIAC meeting. J. Favaloro suggested that it would be very helpful for PIAC to have a one-page layperson synopsis of each issue that includes whether there is a vote coming forward, or if there is a report available on the topic. C. Doherty suggested that PIAC members take the responsibility of skimming the OMSAP minutes and if any members would like more information, they should contact C. Coniaris.

C. Krahforst agrees that there is a "disconnect" the way things are set-up compared to the OMTF. He urged PIAC to try to attend OMSAP meetings to best absorb information, especially if there is an issue of key importance to one's organization. P. Daley added that PIAC should not solely rely on the minutes since they describe decisions that have already been made. C. Doherty suggested announcing the availability of reports by email.

M. Farrington pointed out that PIAC also needs to develop its own issues to forward to the OMSAP. C. Doherty feels that this goes back to S. Genovese's suggestion that PIAC make a list of issues, determine which issues should be addressed, and determine what information PIAC needs. S. Testaverde suggested that time frames listed in the permit be added to the PIAC time line.

C. Doherty asked which PIAC members plan to attend OMSAP meetings. M. Farrington, S. Genovese, and S. Redlich agreed to try to attend OMSAP meetings regularly. M. Farrington asked if PIAC meetings are open to the public. C. Doherty replied yes. The group agreed that observers are welcome to give their input at PIAC meetings.

S. Testaverde asked what the relationship should be between PIAC and IAAC. He suggested that eventually the two groups meet together, and at the very least, the two groups should communicate. S. Redlich agreed with the suggestion but felt that a joint meeting should wait until the two subcommittees both begin to deal with issues. S. Testaverde believes that having two subcommittees of OMSAP is an obstacle. J. LeBlanc agreed and feels that the groups should find a way to have regular communication. C. Doherty suggested that all groups exchange minutes, a PIAC member attend the Inter-agency Advisory Committee meetings, and that PIAC/IAAC possibly schedule future meetings together as issues arise. She agreed with C. Krahforst's encouragement that PIAC members try to attend OMSAP meetings. Since PIAC members are coming from different groups and different constituencies, it is important that everyone keep track of the OMSAP agendas. C. Coniaris suggested coinciding every other OMSAP meeting with PIAC/IAAC meetings and have the subcommittees meet either before or after OMSAP on the same day.

M. Farrington suggested having email discussions in order to avoid scheduling meetings too often. The New England Aquarium subcommittees accomplish a lot of work this way. Each member would set up a mailing list with all addresses except their own. S. Redlich thinks it could work since PIAC is relatively small. It could be a way of helping develop PIAC's meeting agendas. C. Coniaris will email PIAC members a list of the email addresses. Members agreed that email could be used for discussions. C. Doherty asked that "PIAC" be put in the subject headers so that the messages get noticed.

J. LeBlanc believes that though this structure may work, the committees still need to maintain flexibility both in function and structure. C. Krahforst does not think that there should be concern that this will not work since most of the OMSAP members were on the Outfall Monitoring Task Force (OMTF) which was very receptive to issues which came from the audience. C. Doherty stated that based on additional public concern, PIAC can consider adding topics to the OMSAP agenda which have already been discussed by OMSAP. However, PIAC should make every effort to get all information and concerns to OMSAP before they discuss a particular issue so that they do not have to revisit topics.

J. Favaloro asked if there are going to be by-laws since PIAC will eventually vote on recommendations and the membership is not fairly weighted. J. LeBlanc added that even though PIAC may not agree on an issue, it does not mean that it is not important and should not be addressed. C. Doherty feels that the role of PIAC is to highlight concerns, but also to highlight where there is disagreement. She also pointed out that individual groups can bring concerns to the OMSAP, but ideally, PIAC is where issues should first be discussed. J. Favaloro believes that there will be difficulty when the NPDES permit is released since PIAC members may "agree to do disagree" for entirely different reasons. The Cape, ratepayers, and Save the Harbor/Save the Bay may all decide that they do not like the permit for different reasons.

S. Redlich pointed out that one purpose of PIAC is to determine what concerns are out there and how weighty each of those concerns are. There might be a consensus over the need for certain information-type questions to ask OMSAP. Another purpose of PIAC is to try to articulate what the differences are and where there are disagreements. Since PIAC members are a conduit to other groups, PIAC should be as informed as possible about the exact nature of the concerns and be able to describe them to others. She supports a way of informing OMSAP about PIAC's discussions as a way of assuring that no view is silenced. C. Doherty suggested distributing the minutes to OMSAP as a way of addressing this. Several members agreed. P. Daley suggested that minority views be included in the minutes and individual groups can still have the option of going directly to the OMSAP.

C. Krahforst believes that since OMSAP is clearly a scientific advisory panel, the consensus that this group will be striving for is which issues will be brought to OMSAP in order to shed some light in terms of what the science says. He does not necessarily see that as a struggle for PIAC. J. LeBlanc asked him if that meant that PIAC does not necessarily need to reach a consensus since concerns discussed here should be brought to the OMSAP. C. Krahforst replied that this group would act as a filter for OMSAP. C. Doherty feels that PIAC is not going to be asking the OMSAP to necessarily look at every single issue which may be important to our individual groups regarding the permit or the outfall. PIAC will have to have some discussion about what issues are really important overall and make sure that the OMSAP is devoting some time to addressing them.

J. LeBlanc asked why PIAC has to meet separately if the best way to be substantively involved in issues is to attend the OMSAP meetings. Someone replied that this is a good way for PIAC to discuss issues before OMSAP meetings. Someone else added PIAC meetings make it possible for the different groups to learn how the others feel on an issue. J. LeBlanc feels that since the OMSAP meetings are where decisions will be made, whoever is present representing PIAC must have the ability to ask intelligent questions. C. Doherty added that another purpose of PIAC meetings is to figure out how to advise OMSAP based on the interest of our constituencies. P. Daley believes that an additional goal of PIAC is to make the information from this process available to the public in an understandable and meaningful way.

P. Brady encouraged PIAC to not think of this process as "set in stone", to set the pace on how to present the various issues, and not look to EPA/MADEP for guidance. She sees this process as a balance among all of the players and PIAC should advise everyone, not just OMSAP. This structure is a new model and everyone is learning in the process. There needs to be interactive communication among the groups that is quick and responsive. The independence of PIAC as well as the other groups is very valuable. C. Doherty added that she believes that R. Manfredonia agrees in that he said EPA does not want to control the process.

P. Brady then gave a little background information on the formation of OMSAP and its subcommittees. Many of the current public concerns have already been discussed by the OMTF and decisions were made based on the best information available at the time. The OMTF was successful, due in part, to its flexibility. OMTF membership consisted of environmental advocates, scientists, and agency representatives who were interested in the Boston Harbor clean-up project. The OMTF was advisory to MCZM, but as the permit, permit standards and guidelines were developed, it was recognized that the regulators (EPA/MADEP) would need a direct line of communication to the scientific advisory panel. Recommendations came forth to maintain the advocate voice and the institutional knowledge of agencies such as NMFS. Thus it was determined that there be the two subcommittees. This reconfiguration was not meant to diminish the role or voice of anyone, instead it was meant to develop more rigor around the science.

P. Daley suggested that it would be helpful if there was an overview of the Outfall Monitoring Program and Contingency Plan for the group. She thinks that a good first step would be to make sure that everyone has copies of these documents. P. Brady also suggested that members review OMTF minutes from the past year since many issues came to a head during this time. J. LeBlanc believes that some issues were left vague regarding the MWRA triggers and that PIAC should review this before the outfall goes on-line. C. Doherty asked if anyone needed any information before the December 18 OMSAP meeting. No one did.

Food Web Model Scope of Work
J. Favaloro asked why the MWRA is scoping out a food web model if the NPDES permit, in which this requirement is listed, will not be ready for another two or three months. He believes that in theory, this requirement does not exist until the final permit is issued. P. Brady agreed with J. Favaloro, that certainly food web modeling should be discussed but that it is too early for scoping and expenditures on the project. M. Farrington thought that the OMTF had asked the MWRA to scope this out due to concerns for endangered species. C. Krahforst agreed with M. Farrington. The OMSAP is considering the food web model scope of work since it was a recommendation carried from the OMTF to OMSAP, independent to its attachment to the permit.

M. Delaney added that since the scope of work was in the draft permit. MWRA presented a few possible approaches at the October OMSAP meeting hoping to get some feedback from OMSAP on what approach to take. MWRA was also told that the language in the final permit would not likely change significantly from the draft permit and that the December 31, 1998 deadline for the development of a scope of work would not change. J. Favaloro disagreed and stated that requirements "do not exist" until they are issued in the final permit. P. Daley believes that the delay in the outfall going on-line gives us an opportunity to identify baseline monitoring which could occur with respect to a food web model. J. Favaloro stated that he is not arguing whether or not there should be a scope of work, but rather, why should MWRA be penalized for the fact that the regulators have delayed the issuance of the permit?

P. Brady stated that the OMTF raised questions about what type of food web model would be appropriate in order to tease out whether the discharge was causing changes in the food web. The discussion of whether a food web model is needed, what type of model is best, and at what cost has not been completed. J. LeBlanc pointed out that perhaps this is more appropriate for another agency to undertake such as EOEA, MBP, MCZM. TBHA does not necessarily feel that it is fitting for this requirement to be in the permit since it may not be appropriate to have ratepayers pay for this. P. Brady added that this discussion began because some advocates believe that the discharge may cause an impact on the food web. This raised the question of ownership -- Commonwealth or MWRA? The scientists have not determined a scientific strategy to tease out any impacts of the outfall yet. J. LeBlanc asked if PIAC should ask the OMSAP to try and determine some percentage of MWRA responsibility for the food web. C. Doherty thinks that this is a policy issue and that it is her understanding that OMSAP is responsible for is advising EPA and MADEP on scientific issues such as whether there is a FWM which can actually produce the desired information. P. Brady believes that the OMSAP needs to respond by determining what the science is to get to that answer. PIAC needs to think about whether this is what OMSAP should evaluate. Another question, which might have to be examined by MCZM, MBP or EPA, is what the status is of the food web in Mass Bay, regardless of any impact. That is a big policy question with shared ownership and is not a part of the permit. S. Testaverde added that the OMSAP is trying to address what the food web is and how it relates to protected species.

J. LeBlanc and J. Favaloro asked if there is a statewide food web model. M. Delaney replied that there is not a Mass Bays food web model. J. Favaloro asked why MWRA is proceeding with this if there is not already a model. M. Delaney replied that he is hoping that the OMSAP can give guidance on what is possible and not possible. J. Favaloro asked if PIAC could request that OMSAP ask an agency such as MCZM to develop a food web model and then ask MWRA how it might impact the food web. M. Farrington pointed out that the various public interests can always approach OMSAP individually with their concerns. P. Daley believes that this new outfall - the largest in the world - will be the largest contributor of pollutants to the Bays system. This should weigh in on how much responsibility MWRA may have in determining its impact. J. Favaloro feels that this is an excuse to try to get MWRA to do everything. P. Daley disagreed. C. Krahforst thinks that it may be appropriate for OMSAP to determine who should shoulder the burden for the development of a food web model. P. Brady added that Jerry Schubel [OMTF chair] tried very hard to sensitize members that this is not a limitless amount of funding for scientific study in the Bay.

C. Doherty felt that there was no consensus on this topic for her to report to the OMSAP since it seems that PIAC members have differing opinions as to whether or not MWRA should develop a food web model. She asked if there is anything PIAC would like to ask the OMSAP for clarification. J. Favaloro asked what the roles of other agencies would be with the food web studies. S. Testaverde stated that there are 11 wastewater treatment plants that discharge to Mass Bay. The average flow of MWRA is five times all of the other 10 sources combined. J. Favaloro feels that this has to be an overall food web model which then looks at how MWRA and the other 10 treatment plants fit into the picture. P. Brady pointed out that the 1995 Barnstable Science Advisory Panel report raised this issue. She suggested that PIAC go back to that document and review the questions that were raised. C. Coniaris will provide copies. J. LeBlanc thinks it would be useful if OMSAP could tell PIAC what pieces of information are missing, what pieces are beyond the scope of the limited focus of the MWRA, and what pieces would be more appropriate for other state agencies. C. Krahforst agreed with P. Brady that the original questions and reasons raised for developing a food web model should be reviewed by OMSAP. If those questions are relevant to MWRA, then the question becomes, can a food web model be designed to answer those questions? He suggested that P. Daley deliver those questions to the group. P. Daley stated that they are included in an information briefing from the Cape Cod Commission for the December 18 OMSAP meeting.

M. Delaney pointed out that what MWRA is working on is not a detailed work plan, but rather a look at what can be done, an examination of background information, what the questions are, and how one would get started with a food web model. P. Brady hopes the questions asked regarding the food web model be clarified for OMSAP so that they can effectively do their work. S. Genovese thinks that PIAC should ask OMSAP what data is available related to the food web, and what data can be collected before the outfall goes on-line to see if there is an impact.

ADJOURN

Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Last updated on November 18, 2024