Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

NPDES Permits in New England

OMSAP  LogoPublic Interest Advisory Committee (PIAC) Meeting

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


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.


  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 staffperson by email. If the incident is major, the staffperson 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.


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.

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.

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 [http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/html/cppromod.pdf] 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.

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 [http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/enquad/pdf/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 staffperson by email. If the incident is major, the staffperson 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 [http://www.mwra.state.ma.us]. 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.

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. More information can be found at http://massbay.mit.edu/marinecenter/conf.

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.



  • 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.

Jump to main content.