I recently read the articles reblogged below, Under Water and Sewers Under Pressure from American City and County Magazine. Both of these articles hit very close to home having had personal experience negotiating with the EPA while in my first 30 days as Mayor of Lynchburg, Ohio in 2008. The Village of Lynchburg had been under findings and orders from the OEPA, after repeated problems and citations dating back to 1997. Findings and Orders are the final step that the EPA gives a community before the State or Federal EPA takes action on behalf of the effected community to make the recommended corrective action, subsequently handing over the bill and facility back for local operation. In the time immediately before, and during the mandated corrections a community could be fined or have other fiduciary hardships implemented by the EPA to push the local authority to corrective action.
The problem cited by the OEPA, was that the wastewater treatment plant operated at capacity and had overflows during peak times, and during rain fall scenarios. Part of the problem was that the storm sewer system and residential drainage systems causing inflow that needed corrective to reduce the amount of abnormal capacity on the plant. Coupled with this problem was that the wastewater treatment plant was beyond the expected lifespan of the treatment facility itself. The plant was simply worn out, and many of the wearable parts that kept the plant in operation were obsolete and costly. The NPDES permit, which is the permit to discharge and operate the plant was up for renewal which was threatened to be withheld for all practical purposes, meaning the plant could not operate.
The solution for the OEPA and the State was simple. The Village needed to build a new plant to the new specifications to be in compliance, and the residents (roughly 575 households) would pay for the new plant. If not there would be not be the reissue of a permit, there would be costly fines, and lastly the OEPA would take control of the project, meaning build the new plant to their specifications and hand the community a bill. The argument from past officials simple, they aren’t going to turn the plant off even if they do not reissue the permit. That is true for argument sake, though the moral of the story was that the State who applied mandates to the small community would make it burdensome for the already declining community to stay afloat from a fiduciary aspect, simply put from broke to broke.
Rewind to 1979, the Village of Lynchburg built its first wastewater treatment facility. The project was a costly undertaking, which was demanded by the EPA for the public health and welfare. The project was completed within two years, and the plant that was built was a preconstruction package plant, much like the military uses around the world for temporary use. The plant was assembled and set in place across the Highland County line, in Clinton County on Wise rd. The massive infrastructure was constructed and unbelievable depths to make the infrastructure a complete gravity flow system. One person lost their life, One Building in the downtown partially caved in with a collapse from a deep trench while laying the main line. The Mayor and local officials argued over the timeliness of the project, correctness of the work and appropriateness of inspections, which led to a contractual dispute. During this dispute the local officials held captive part of the contractors equipment. Leading to a lawsuit which was costly to the community, in addition to the mounting bills for the standard construction and purchase of the new treatment plant. Simply, it was an expensive investment for the betterment of the community right from the beginning.
Fiscal Emergency List Village of Lynchburg, Highland Co Pop.1,205 Request - - $2,469,078 Payable $2,461,796 Deficit- 04/19/88 10/17/95 7.5yr
In 1988, Lynchburg residents were faced with Fiscal Emergency, which lasted more than seven years. During that time the Village negotiated with the State for extended Bonds to pay off the debt created by the original system. Loans were approved and given by the State to be paid off by 2014/2015, these monies were given through bond money from sources such as OWDA. What this created was an extended loan on the Capital Improvement (Wastewater Treatment Facility) that would continue to be paid after the reasonable and expected lifespan of the facility. In essence the residents paid twice as much for the facility over twice as many years as expected. This financially strapped the community to make any progress whatsoever on any level until the debt was settled. The guarantee for the payment was a user fee per monthly bill to each household utilizing the system.
Fast forward 2008, the community is again mandated for a new plant and additional burdensome costs, while still paying for the original system from 1988. The system that was supposed to improve the health and welfare of the community had in turn stifled growth and harmed the quality of life of residents. It prohibited adequate development, safety services, and growth.
Today the Village has a state of the art facility,
which has a thirty year minimum life span. The treatment plant has adequate
room for growth, and cost as much as its predecessor. The expected pay off of
the new improvements should be less than 20 years. Putting the community in a
good position as findings and orders are spread elsewhere around the State of
Ohio, and burdening neighboring communities. The nightmare for Lynchburg has
lasted more than 30 years. It restricted the community during good economic
times, and now it fights to exist during these hard times. Luckily it has attained a stong finacial position, upgraded infrastrucutre, and enacted a Community Plan that is moving quality of life in a positive direction. Communities are
working hard to reinvent themsleves and plan for the future while struggling
with the mandates of bigger government.
It's time for common sense solutions to community
problems. The EPA and other enforcment agencies have to adjust so that
residents can have a better quality of life, and that there is local buy-in to
the solution. I think most can agree that overflowing raw sewerage is bad.
However, the solution must fit budgets, resonable time tables, and long term
planning. All aspects of life our tied together by common thread. What happens
within one area affects other areas in complicated ways. I'm sure if Lynchburg
didn't have the financial burden for 30 years caused by an unfunded mandate
that continued to grow, it may have had a new factory, better recreation, or
been Silicone Valley. Jobs are good, innovation is
good, and a positive quality of life is better. As Government argues over
policy, laws and the issuance of mandates one thing must happen. A Common Sense
(Comprehensive) approach must be taken that consider many solutions and outcomes
before action is arbitraily imposed. The approach must look at multiple
facets such as finance, development, education, mutilple infrastructure demands, safety
services, economy, healthcare, and responsible services that generally lead to
a better quality of life for Americans. It is time for a big picture balanced approach, where everyone is responsible and engaged, and quality of life wins without unfunded mandates.
Jeremy Shaffer
Under Water
Because many communities cannot afford to comply with EPA water mandates, the agency is beginning to adjust compliance deadlines.
Since the 1990s, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) has reduced the amount of untreated sewage that is released from its system into Lake Erie, cutting back the flow from 9 billion gallons per year to about 4.5 billion gallons per year.
As state and federal officials began to negotiate another plan to reduce the flow down to a half billion gallons per year, NEORSD argued it needed more time to complete the project so the additional costs would not crush ratepayers.
“We made the case that this would be a high burden,” says Julius Ciaccia, executive director of NEORSD, which provides wastewater service to Cleveland and its surrounding suburbs. “We have some very affluent areas and some very poor areas that are not able to afford higher rates. It was a lot of back and forth.”
In the end, NEORSD was able to convince federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental officials to give the district 25 years to meet EPA mandates, rather than the requested 20-year period. NEORSD was also granted an opportunity to use alternative methods to gain further cost reductions. “The burden is now on us,” to try to reduce costs, Ciaccia says. “We were able to look at it all from the perspective of affordability.”
Financial circumstances have changed
As already overburdened local governments face pressure to clean up the wastewater and storm runoff that seriously harms the nation’s water resources, leaders are making the case that financial strains are already bearing down on lower-income ratepayers, leaving little capacity to repair and replace their aging infrastructure.
“Nobody wants to roll back the progress we’ve made in cleaning up our water systems,” says Tom Curtis, the deputy executive director of the American Water Works Association (AWWA), a Washington-based nonprofit focused on the water profession. “Everybody wants to do the right thing. But the right thing is easier if they have flexibility in compliance.”
Moreover, cities argue that these mandates must also be seen in the context of other financial pressures, including the huge investments needed to maintain and improve the nation’s infrastructure. A March 2013 report from the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s wastewater infrastructure a “D-plus” grade (up from a D in its previous report) and said $298 billion must be made in capital investments over the next 20 years.
Bob Raucher, an economist with Stratus Consulting, a Boulder, Colo. environmental research and consulting firm, notes that the EPA has undertaken a number of initiatives that could give municipalities additional flexibility to meet mandates. “But the proof is in the pudding,” he says.
While noting that “significant drinking water and water pollution challenges” remain, Nancy Stoner, EPA’s acting assistant administrator in the Office of Water, testified to Congress in 2011 that the EPA is committed to offering “municipalities an opportunity to meet Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements in a more cost-effective manner to spend their dollars better and in a way that achieves the highest priority goals more quickly.”
Yet, local officials and their advocates continue to argue that the EPA should recognize the diminishing returns of what they consider marginal improvements through expensive engineering. Some note that one of the biggest polluters of rivers and streams — the waste from chicken and milk farms — is not even covered under current law, leaving the cleanup burden largely on municipalities and some industries.
“There is less and less water quality in municipal systems for higher investment,” says Adam Krantz, a managing director of the Washington-based National Association of Clean Water Agencies. “It remains a challenge that we are facing.”
Higher costs, less results
Curtis points to the current effort in the District of Columbia to meet its wastewater requirements as an illustration of the tasks facing municipalities. In D.C., he says that the city spent $80 million to reduce the amount of nitrogen in its wastewater from 20 parts per million to six parts per million. It recently embarked on an effort to reduce nitrogen in its wastewater by an additional one part per million at an estimated cost of $850 million. “It costs 10 times as much to reduce it from six to five parts per million,” he notes.
“CWA has served a hugely important purpose,” Curtis says. “We’ve seen a lot of systems be improved. But now, they are ratcheting down on permitted service, tightening the screws.”
As a result of the increased cost to continue to lower water pollution, water systems must raise water usage rates for the improvements. If they want to reduce the cost on their customers, their options are limited: The EPA can either extend the time for compliance or the community can find less costly alternative measures. In either case, they need the approval of the EPA, in court-sanctioned permitting negotiations that lead to what are called “consent orders.”
Local government officials point out that extending the deadlines lowers annual costs and can lead to more integrated compliance efforts. For example, rather than ripping up a road to install new water restriction measures, they could wait and install them during other road maintenance efforts, at almost minimal cost.
Alternative measures, so-called “green infrastructure,” use above-ground water control methods at a much-reduced cost that officials promise will provide equivalent benefit in pollution control.
At NEORSD, Ciaccia says that the most recent consent order signed with EPA, through negotiations that took more than five years, combines efforts to manage the cost through an extended compliance period as well as some “green” measures. “We have been aggressive even without the consent order,” he says. “We’re going to move aggressively to meet the deadlines associated with the consent order.”
Officials cite a flawed ‘heavy burden’ criteria
District officials argued, in a position echoed by many local government representatives and their advocates, that during consent agreement negotiations, EPA must pay closer attention to the uneven distribution of wealth among water ratepayers, who live in both wealthy suburbs and poor inner-city neighborhoods.
Normally, the EPA considers that a community is under a “heavy burden” if the water bill takes up more than 2 percent of median household income (MHI), the dividing line for 50 percent of the households. Local wastewater officials have countered that in poorer neighborhoods, the 2 percent at the median may actually consume 4 or 5 percent of household income. That argument finally got them some flexibility in their agreement, Ciaccia says. “We made the case that we are high burden,” he says.
Curtis argues that the MHI “misses the story,” forcing real-life decisions. “For some people, paying the water bill might mean giving up food or medical care,” he says. “There are trade-offs in their budget, with real and lasting consequences in their lives.”
In response to issues raised by local officials, the EPA stated, in an email message to American City & County, that it “recognizes that in order for a municipality to meet its obligations under the Clean Water Act, long-term approaches to reducing and controlling raw sewage and stormwater overflows must be sustainable and within a community’s financial capability.”
The EPA also noted that using the MHI “is only one of many considerations that should be evaluated” when working with a municipality, including information specific to a community. The agency stated that it allows communities with higher burdens be given longer time periods to complete the needed work. In addition, the EPA said that its recently adopted integrated planning approach as well as flexibility on green solutions will help communities prioritize their work.
EPA extends time for Philly to comply
Because Philadelphia will use a less costly, but more environmentally friendly approach, the EPA has agreed to extend the time for the city’s water department to meet its commitment to increase the amount of stormwater and wastewater its systems capture to 85 percent, from its current 67 percent. Rather than build a hugely expensive tunnel system into the Delaware River to hold excess water during storms, the city will create a system that reduces the runoff at the source.
“We decided to go full green and allow our systems to evolve,” says Howard Neukrug, the city’s Water Commissioner. “Every year, there are improvements. The systems yesterday are not as good as those that will be available in five years. We want to nurture sustainability and reduce the long-term cost.” For example, planting thousands of trees will absorb huge amounts of rainwater while also enlivening the city, he says.
In designing its “Green City, Clean Waters” approach, the city has
initiated programs that reduce the amount of water entering the sewer and stormwater system:
- Large-scale implementation of green stormwater infrastructure to manage runoff at the source on public land and reduce demands on sewer infrastructure
- Requirements and incentives for green stormwater infrastructure to manage runoff at the source on private land and reduce demands on sewer infrastructure
- Increased access to and improved recreational opportunities along green and attractive stream corridors and waterfronts
- Preserved open space used to manage stormwater at the source
- Converted vacant and abandoned lands to open space and responsible redevelopment
- Restored streams with physical habitat enhancements that support healthy aquatic communities
- Additional infrastructure-based controls when necessary to meet appropriate water quality standards
Curtis argues that the EPA efforts have helped but have not gone far enough, noting that the costs for maintaining drinking water standards are not included in the wastewater calculations and that other economic measures do not fully capture the economic stress in a lot of communities.
“We do not take cleaning up these systems lightly,” Curtis says. “If we need to do something, that’s the right thing. But it’s equally important to consider the impact on the least fortunate among us. Are we demanding too much from the people who have to pay the water bill?”
Robert Barkin is a Bethesda, Md.- based freelance writer.
Sewers under pressure
How local governments can stay out of the soup with the regulators.
Which is the correct answer to the following question?
Local governments should fix their sanitary sewer systems because:
a) Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) may result in Clean Water Act violations that pose fines reaching $25,000 a day.
b) SSOs can cause sewers to collapse or can create other dangerous situations, such as floods.
c) Cost-effective technology to fix the sewers, as well as help prevent overflows, exists.
If you answered a, b or c, you were correct. And, if those reasons are not sufficient, then know that local governments likely will have to fix their wastewater collection systems because of federal rules requiring it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) SSO control program has been in the works for several years, and, when enacted, the program will require wastewater systems with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and satellite collection systems that experience SSOs to implement a comprehensive capacity management operations and maintenance (CMOM) program. EPA says that more than 50,000 communities need to fix their aging sewers to control SSOs, the cost of which only will be part of the approximately $450 billion the agency estimates that local governments will have to spend to repair their wastewater infrastructure by 2019.
The triple threats of wet weather, aging sewers and insufficient preventive maintenance continue to cause problems for collection systems, such as systemic basement backups and odors. Addressing those problems and SSOs, as well as handling and treating peak flows and other compliance concerns, can present daunting financial challenges to many communities. However, many communities are using cutting edge, cost-effective advanced processes, including high-rate clarification (HRC) treatment of peak flows, equalization of excess flow and asset management programs, to better focus maintenance efforts and rehabilitation resources.
Managing peak flows
Storm-induced peak flows are one of the key causes of SSOs. When flows overwhelm collection systems and treatment facilities, many communities are faced with untreated overflows and bypasses, leading to environmental pollution and enforcement fines. In late 2003, EPA issued a draft for a national blending policy, which provides a consistent set of guiding principles for wastewater treatment facilities to use when treating all peak wet weather flows while meeting their NPDES permit limits.HRC, also known as ballasted flocculation, can economically treat the peak flows that most communities experience. HRC blends peak flows with flows that travel the full treatment process prior to discharge. HRC treats 55 gallons per minute per square foot. By comparison, primary clarification operates at one to two gallons per minute per square foot.
Because HRC is a physical rather than a biological process that requires a steady flow, HRC treatment systems can be started in less than 15 minutes and only when needed. An HRC system also is significantly less expensive to build than conventional secondary wastewater treatment facilities because it generally requires as little as one-tenth the amount of land.
HRC treats peak flows to a suspended solids removal rate that is 10 times greater than the clarifier solids removal rate. The process removes 85 percent to 95 percent of solids, reduces biochemical oxygen demand by approximately 60 percent and removes other pollutants.
Bremerton, Wash., built the nation's first stand-alone combined sewer overflow treatment facility using HRC and ultraviolet disinfection technology in 2001. The city, which generates 1 million gallons per day (mgd) in daily flow, but as much as 14 mgd during rainy weather, installed the system to treat sewer overflows and improve water quality.
During heavy rainfall, Bremerton's peak flows are diverted to the HRC system, treated and then discharged to ecologically sensitive waters. By using the system, Bremerton has drastically reduced pollutants in its discharges and spent about $35 million less than the cost of expanding its conventional treatment system. “Where costs for expansion are prohibitive, an HRC treatment system for infrequent wet weather discharge is a cost-effective option,” says John Poppe, wastewater manager of Bremerton Public Works and Utilities. Bremerton plans to implement a second HRC treatment unit at the city's wastewater treatment plant to further reduce the city's total maximum daily loads.
Other communities also have built HRC systems to bolster their wet weather treatment capacities. St. Bernard Parish, La., a community of 67,000 residents, upgraded its Munster wastewater treatment plant to 20 mgd to treat its increased flows and to comply with permit requirements. A 110-mgd peak flow HRC design, the first EPA-approved HRC parallel treatment system, currently is being constructed at the Fort Worth, Texas, Village Creek wastewater treatment plant.
Storing peak wet weather flows is another way to reduce untreated discharges. The method has proven to be a cost-effective way of handling peak flows without requiring additional treatment or conveyance capacity. Also, by using storage to equalize the flows through the plant, operators can improve treatment effectiveness and streamline operations. As part of an aggressive SSO mitigation plan, Charlotte-Mecklenburg (N.C.) Utilities uses flow equalization at three of its water reclamation facilities and has reduced wet weather overflows in portions of its system by about 90 percent.
Controlling flow in real time also helps prevent SSOs by manipulating changing system flows, or storing or diverting flows to areas of the system with available capacity. Milwaukee currently is implementing a sophisticated approach to real-time control (RTC) of its deep tunnel system for SSO management. The approach uses measured flow levels and rainfall data to predict tunnel inflows. Based on the predicted volumes, the RTC system adjusts inflow control gates to optimize the system's operation during wet weather and to prevent SSO discharges.
Preventive maintenance
EPA's draft SSO program requires utilities to routinely evaluate and improve their sanitary sewer systems, which will reduce Clean Water Act violations (untreated discharges), extend the life of the wastewater infrastructure and improve customer service. Through preventive maintenance and rehabilitation programs, utilities will reduce SSOs, basement backups and odor problems over time. In addition, the CMOM program in the pending SSO regulation will require communities to implement an effective maintenance program, establish an asset management plan and address existing sewer system overflows to stay ahead of problems.Many city officials and utility directors are concerned about the costs of SSO compliance and question how communities will pay for it. Increased costs will lead to higher sewer rates, which some residents may be unable to afford.
Currently, many utilities only fix the failing or failed parts of the system, which is costly and potentially dangerous, as, for example, sewer collapses can result. Not only is that type of emergency response expensive, repairs are not long-term solutions and can lead to even larger problems. Preventive maintenance programs are a cost-effective way to improve sewer operations and reduce customer complaints.
San Antonio, Texas, is developing a CMOM plan to reduce the frequency and severity of SSOs and emergency response costs, and to provide a more effective way to notify the public when overflows occur. “Our short-term goal is beginning an aggressive preventive maintenance program in the city, which, in the long term, should reduce customer service problems,” says Jerome Iltis, San Antonio Water System (SAWS) director of water distribution and wastewater collection.
To change from a reactive maintenance program to a preventive and planned one, SAWS increased the frequency of system-wide and closed-circuit TV inspections of the wastewater collection lines, expanded its system-wide flushing program and continued lift station inspections. SAWS also developed standard operating procedures, taught personnel to perform preventive maintenance work at several of its facilities and purchased additional equipment. SAWS' goal is to achieve 100-percent CMOM compliance within two years.
Raleigh, N.C., is reducing SSOs by focusing on utility performance to determine where improvements could be implemented and system problems solved. By investigating key CMOM areas, the city is identifying ways to improve its sewer system, such as focusing on trouble spots that can be remedied quickly to eliminate dry-weather overflows and budgeting for short- and long-term needs.
The city already has seen substantial improvements in the integrity, operations and overall performance of its wastewater collection system. An annual sewer rehabilitation program eliminated a number of chronic SSO locations, reduced the city's operations and maintenance expenses, and increased conveyance system capacity.
Raleigh is systematically assessing and rehabilitating its collection system, composed of 50- to 100-year-old vitrified clay pipe. The program addresses major structural defects, including failed joints, pipe sags and damaged lines from nearby construction. Those problems, in conjunction with grease loads and root penetration, require repeated attention from city maintenance crews.
“We can show that rehabilitation at these sites has [reduced] maintenance costs and [eliminated] potential SSOs,” says Jack Moyer, Raleigh's assistant public utilities director. “[The program] has allowed us to justify increasing our rehabilitation budget steadily over time so we can continue to reinvest in the system.”
Repairing pipes
Age, chronic maintenance and damage present numerous challenges to collection system efficiency — from discharges and limited capacity to planning and financing sewer rehabilitation. Addressing structural conditions is a major capital expenditure for many communities. However, newer techniques, such as trenchless technologies, are cost-effective, minimize impact to property and lessen the disruptions to communities. Increased investments in sewer rehabilitation programs have helped communities improve system integrity, reduce maintenance costs, improve customer service, and comply with the Clean Water Act and other regulations.To upgrade its 150-year-old brick combined sewer system, Newark, N.J., used non-invasive, cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) technology. CIPP, a trenchless technology, extends sewer system life by 50 to 100 years and is much less expensive than conventional open-cut replacement. In addition, CIPP allowed Newark to upgrade its sewer system without compromising the historic sewers or disrupting traffic in major thoroughfares.
CIPP uses water to install and invert a felt liner impregnated with polyester resin through existing manholes. Water pressure holds the liner tight against the existing sewer wall; then, the water is heated to activate the resin and cure the new pipe.
Upgrading Newark's brick sewers lowered long-term improvement costs, improved system performance and safeguarded the public by eliminating potential dangers. Newark's rehabilitation program, funded by $23 million in EPA grant money, included closed-circuit TV inspection and a geographic information system to assess the sewers' structural condition and develop repair priorities. The city has rehabilitated more than 20 miles of pipe, including a 108-inch diameter pipe that is the largest CIPP installation in the country.
While the pressure to adjust to new technologies, regulations and customer concerns can make it difficult to plan, much less operate, a wastewater system, addressing the structural condition and maintenance of sewers now will yield significant long-term benefits and capital costs savings. Identifying the problems and their potential solutions is the smart way to avoid being thrown into the regulatory soup that is brewing.
Robert Matthews is senior vice president and Wayne Miles is vice president for Cambridge, Mass.-based CDM. Matthews is based in Fort Myers, Fla., and Miles is in the firm's Raleigh, N.C., office
