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.