Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - NACWA in the News
Water Pollution
Environmental Groups Support Decision
On Blending Policy; EPA Eyes Alternatives
Environmental groups hailed a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon a draft policy clarifying when sewage treatment plants can blend partially treated wastewater with fully treated flows.
EPA announced May 19 it would drop the policy it drafted in November 2003
outlining when publicly owned treatment plants would be permitted to blend (97
DEN A-1, 5/20/05 ).
However, the agency will consider other options to address the problem of
addressing wet weather flows that may produce more wastewater than sewage
treatment plants can handle at one time.
EPA's decision came hours before the House agreed in a voice vote to an
amendment to the agency's fiscal year 2006 funding bill that would keep EPA from
issuing the policy. The amendment was sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.),
Clay Shaw (R-Fla.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) (96 DEN
A-1, 5/19/05 ).
"When the time came for a public showdown over EPA's sewage dumping policy, the
agency blinked," Nancy Stoner, director of clean water projects at the Natural
Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. "Faced with the prospect of an
embarrassing defeat in the House, the EPA and its congressional allies had no
choice but to wake up and smell the sewage."
Eryn Witcher, an EPA spokeswoman, told BNA the agency decided to pull the policy
after reviewing thousands of comments on the draft policy expressing opposition.
"We definitely want less blending, not more blending," she said. "We need to
make sure we're protecting our communities."
EPA Studying Options
However, the agency is still looking at the possibility of issuing another
policy or possibly conducting a rulemaking to resolve conflicts over the
interpretation of Clean Water Act regulations regarding secondary treatment--the
standard discharges to U.S. waters must meet--and the prohibition on bypassing
any portion of the treatment system.
Environmental advocates, such as NRDC, had argued that blending violates
regulations that prohibit the bypass of any portion of the treatment process
except in extreme circumstances such as to prevent the loss of life or when no
feasible alternative exists.
Blending involves routing a portion of high wet weather flows that have
undergone primary treatment, which basically removes solids, around the
secondary treatment system, a biological process to remove pathogens and
biochemical oxygen demand compounds.
This rerouted flow is then combined with the treated flows before being
discharged and typically meets secondary treatment standards, EPA and wastewater
treatment officials say. Opponents of the practice said it allows for high
levels of pathogens to be released into rivers and streams posing a health
threat to the public.
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA assistant administrator for water, told BNA the agency
was looking at other policy and legal options including a review of the bypass
regulations and what they really mean.
"Our intent was not to increase blending overall or to imply that it should be a
routine practice," Grumbles said. "Part of the concern was [the draft policy]
had terms that needed greater specificity."
Blending Not 'Long-Term' Solution
While EPA does not think blending is a "long-term solution" for addressing peak
wet weather flows, he said, the agency must consider "feasibility and
practicality" as important factors in any policy discussions.
"We recognize there are instances that a facility may demonstrate [blending] is
the only feasible solution," he said. "We got more work to do."
EPA on May 19 sent a letter to Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.),
the respective chairmen of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
and its subcommittee on water resources and environment, informing them of their
decision not to move forward with the draft policy.
"Based on our review of all the information received, we have no intention of
finalizing the blending policy as proposed in November 2003," Grumbles said in
the letter.
Officials representing large municipal wastewater treatment plants said they
were "disappointed" by the decision and predicted more lawsuits could result in
the absence of a consistent national policy.
Adam Krantz, a spokesman for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies,
told BNA May 20 municipalities will continue to push for EPA to establish a
consistent policy on when treatment plants can blend. They will also try to get
the essence of the Stupak amendment eliminated when the EPA funding bill goes to
conference with Senate appropriators, who have not yet considered their own
version of the spending legislation.
He also questioned what the agency meant in saying it would not issue the policy
"as proposed." That could be a word change or a sea change, he said.
Federal Lawsuit Pending
One lawsuit is already pending over what cities say is the inconsistent
interpretation of whether blending violates the bypass regulations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral
arguments May 19 in a lawsuit by Little Rock, Ark., and municipalities in
Pennsylvania and Tennessee over what they say are directives from EPA's Region 3
office in Philadelphia, Region 4 office in Atlanta, and Region 6 office in
Kansas City prohibiting states from issuing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits allowing treatment plants to blend (Pennsylvania
Municipal Authorities Association v. Johnson, D.C. Cir., No. Civ. 02-01361,
5/19/05).
John Hall, an attorney representing the cities, said the EPA regions have raised
objections to the blending practice through a series of memos and
correspondence. As a result, some cities are unsure whether they will face
enforcement action if they have to blend to accommodate heavy flows during wet
weather, the municipalities have argued.
Municipalities argue that the agency needs to be consistent and clarify under
what conditions blending will be allowed.
Until the agency does clarify its position, Hall said, "We're back at square
one."