Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - NACWA in the News
EPA Proposal on Blending Questioned In Comments Filed by Wastewater Utilities
A proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to allow
wastewater utilities to seek regulatory permission to blend partially treated
sewage with treated sewage prior to discharge into the nation's waters is being
questioned by operators of wastewater treatment plants, according to comments
filed with the agency.
Wastewater utilities are objecting to the premise upon which EPA has proposed
its guidance. They also are objecting to the limited circumstances under which
the agency is allowing wastewater diversions around a secondary treatment
process in sanitary sewer systems.
Wastewater treatment plant operators responded to EPA's proposed policy on "peak
weather flows" from heavy rains, which was issued Dec. 20, 2005 (243 DEN A-6,
12/20/05 ).
The proposal reflects the joint blending guidance that the National Association
of Clean Water Agencies and the Natural Resources Defense Council developed
after five months of negotiations for sanitary sewer systems. NACWA represents
the interests of the country's wastewater agencies in Washington, D.C. (208 DEN
A-1, 10/28/05 ).
EPA's peak weather flows policy requires an environmental regulator--be it
local, state, or federal--to review a detailed list of reasons submitted by
wastewater utilities during the permit-renewal process before approving the
practice of blending of treated and semi-treated wastewater during heavy rains,
prior to its discharge into lakes, rivers, and streams.
The proposal would allow a facility to circumvent treating all wastewater under
the "bypass provision" of the Clean Water Act. A bypass is an "intentional
diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility."
Legality of Using Bypass Provision
In comments filed Jan. 20, Clarence Cox, manager of the Parkersburg Utility
Board of West Virginia, wrote that EPA cannot legally use the bypass provision
of the Clean Water Act as a policy tool for blending.
Cox said EPA's approach is "legally untenable" because EPA's proposal would
effectively amend the secondary treatment, bypass, and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permitting regulations.
EPA must follow a rulemaking process before proceeding to finalize its approach
to blending.
"Because many hundreds of millions of dollars in additional treatment costs
would be triggered by the proposed policy, we believe it also requires Office of
Management and Budget review," Cox said.
Frank Harksen, president of the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater
Agencies Inc., said EPA is "erroneously" using a "back-door approach to regulate
blending via bypass rules.
'No Feasible Alternative' Is Infeasible
Harksen also said the "no feasible alternative" is restrictive and complicated.
He noted that EPA has proposed that utilities use the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
financial guidance as the basis for submitting their rationale for no feasible
alternatives to blending. However, Harsken said, EPA's CSO financial guidance is
so restrictive "that few if any utilities would pass the financial analysis."
In his comments, Peter Slack, government relations associate for the
Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association, reached the same conclusion as
Harksen of VAMWA. He said it was "inappropriate" for regulators to use EPA's
financial guidance to decide whether blending would be economical for a utility.
"If the available treatment capacity is effectively utilized, if the intended
use of the receiving stream is protected, if there is not an imminent public
health hazard, and if the [publicly owned treatment works] does not violate its
NPDES permit, then blending should be allowed as the most cost-effective
solution, regardless of whether other alternatives are 'feasible,'" Slack wrote.
Guidance Seen Better for Large Utilities
John Montgomery, of the National Rural Water Association, which represents more
than 24,000 utility members, said EPA's guidance "will work for large utilities"
but not for small utilities serving rural communities of 1,000 people or fewer.
He said few, if any, of NRWA's member utilities employ economists or engineers
that would be required to conduct the feasibility analysis that EPA is proposing
to require.
NRWA requested that EPA guidance contain provisions for addressing the "unique
needs and challenges of small and rural communities."
States, Environmental Groups Seek Greater Clarity
Officials from Washington and New York states urged EPA to provide federal
resources to help with the utility analysis portion of EPA's proposed regulatory
guidance.
Environmental groups responded similarly to EPA's guidance in seeking
clarification and providing federal assistance.
"Although the policy is much needed to ensure that blending is not considered a
routine practice, there are many areas in which the policy needs to be clarified
and strengthened to ensure that the practice of discharging partially treated
sewage is minimized and ultimately eliminated," 16 national, state, and regional
environmental groups wrote in comments submitted Jan. 23 with EPA. The groups
include American Rivers, Sierra Club, Alliance for the Great Lakes, and Gulf
Restoration Network.
The environmental groups urged EPA to develop a permit writer's guide, a website
for responding to technical questions regarding the guidance, and an independent
board comprising scientists and citizens to review a utility's rationale for
blending.
NACWA Defends Guidance
Ken Kirk, executive director of the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies, defended EPA's proposed guidance as the "best possible compromise."
Kirk said he did not support the assertion that EPA's proposed peak weather
guidance should have been pursued through the rulemaking process. The guidance,
Kirk said, "interprets an existing rule. There is no need for a new rule."
He noted that EPA's 2003 policy, which the agency withdrew in May 2005, received
98,000 comments in opposition (97 DEN A-1, 05/20/05 ). In contrast, the "40-odd"
comments that EPA has received in opposition to its 2005 new guidance "attest"
to the compromise that NACWA reached with NRDC.
Kirk said the wastewater utilities that wrote in opposition do not represent the
nation's entire wastewater treatment community. When asked, Kirk said, NACWA did
consult with representatives of 10 to 15 member utilities, which regularly
blended, when it was crafting its joint guidance with NRDC.
"And they were all on board, as were some environmental groups, EPA's Office of
General Counsel, and EPA's Office of Water.
Comments submitted on EPA' proposed peak weather flows policy can be viewed at
www.regulations.gov by using Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0523.
By Amena H. Saiyid