NPDES Permits

In early 2026, MassDEP released its Massachusetts Draft Integrated List of Waters for the Clean Water Act 2024/2026 Reporting Cycles (Integrated Report). Under the Clean Water Act, MassDEP must submit this document to EPA every 2 years. It summarizes MassDEP’s most current water quality assessments for all surface waters in the Commonwealth including rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The Integrated Report is used in conjunction with the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards to identify impairments to water quality.

As the name implies, it is a listing, by major river watershed, of every surface water, and in the case of rivers, segments of surface waters, and their water quality status. For waters with known impairments, the nature of the impairment is noted. 

The Integrated Report is one of the documents that MassDEP, EPA and advocacy groups may use to highlight impacts from water infrastructure such as wastewater treatment facilities and stormwater runoff from MS4s. Impairments noted in the Integrated Report can thus influence NPDES permits.

MCWRS members are urged to familiarize themselves with the Integrated Report, particularly the surface waters receiving discharges from their systems. If data that refutes the impairment finding or that supports a lack of impairment is available, you are encouraged to make MassDEP aware. With thousands of surface waters across Massachusetts, it is not possible for MassDEP to conduct water quality assessments of each on a timely basis. 

Some waters have never been assessed and others only infrequently. Information used to list water impairments is often dated and may reflect conditions that existed decades earlier but continue to be used in the listing process. If you have more current data or the ability to monitor local surface waters as part of your routine program talk with MassDEP about the possibility of getting your data included in their water quality assessment program.

Read the full report here.

As defined in recent draft NPDES permits, Massachusetts wastewater treatment facilities and their co-permittees must develop a three component Adaptation Plan to address potential damage or operational losses due to flooding and storms. First, an identification of vulnerable critical assets must be completed within 24 months, followed by an assessment of adaptive measures by 36 months, and an implementation and maintenance schedule completed by 48 months.  

MCWRS believes that adaptation planning requirements, while valuable in some locations, are not appropriate for inclusion in a NPDES permit. 

Despite EPA’s insistence to the contrary, adaptation planning does not fall under the category of Operations and Maintenance. With a required planning horizon of 10-25 years (short-term) and 25-70 years (long term), adaptation plans have no place in a five-year permit. Furthermore, it is not related to a discharge and cannot be applied solely to Massachusetts and New Hampshire permittees. Adaptation planning would be better received if offered through a funded federal program as directed by Congress.   

Climate change planning is more appropriate when communities are undertaking significant planning efforts or when planning for major renovations to wastewater facilities. When designing renovations and major upgrades to wastewater facilities, engineers already follow protocols established by NEIWPCC that include updated provisions for flood damage prevention.  

Wastewater treatment facilities and sewer pump stations typically undergo assessment, planning and upgrade designs on a cycle of about 20 years. Planning, design and implementation of flood and storm protection would be most effective and efficient if it were included in that same cycle of renovations.  

PFAS monitoring as required in draft permits imposes a significant cost burden on utilities and its ratepayers. Each sample analyzed for PFAS costs $350-$500, and with trip blanks and other quality control samples, the financial impact quickly multiplies. PFAS sampling should be limited to twice annually for the initial two years with results allowing less frequent (annual) analysis thereafter.  

Additionally, some draft permits require quarterly grab samples of influent and effluent that test for Adsorbable Organic Fluorine (AOF), using Method 1621, whenever samples are grabbed for PFAS Analytes.  

Method 1621 is a draft test method designed to capture all organic fluorine compounds in wastewater. AOF is not a pollutant and has never been identified as a cause of water quality violations in any surface water. Rather, AOF is a surrogate measure for PFAS.  

While Method 1621 may prove useful as a better way to measure PFAS, the burden of proving its utility should not fall upon NPDES permittees. EPA should do its own research on the effectiveness of AOF as a surrogate parameter for PFAS and spare permittees the costs and responsibility for performing this testing.  

Potential Alternative Permit Conditions undo decades of standard language and approaches used in past permits to demonstrate how the permit achieved compliance with narrative state water quality standards.  

To the best of our knowledge, past permits were certified by the State of Massachusetts through the 401 Water Quality Certification process. This would indicate that the State, which establishes water quality standards, agreed that the previous and long-held language regarding narrative water quality standards was sufficient to comply with the narrative standards. 

Little to no insight has been given as to why these dramatic changes are being suggested, other than they will be added to the final permit should Massachusetts not include the revised language in its Water Quality Certification. The Potential Alternative Permit Conditions are not even included in the draft permits but are hidden deep within the associated Fact Sheets, which makes this process contrary to standard procedures under EPA and CWA rules. 

The potential new narrative language and monitoring requirements are such a change to decades-long NPDES permitting practices that they warrant a rule making on their own rather than being made part of a NPDES permit.