MCWRS Hosts Virtual Symposium Series

From June 15 to June 24, MCWRS hosted a series of four virtual panels on PFAS, NPDES Permits, Affordability, and Legal and Regulatory updates relevant to the water sector. This virtual series was meant to replace the annual MCWRS Symposium, which was last held in-person in 2019 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Each panel featured four water industry leaders who represented a variety of local and national perspectives and offered valuable insight into their experiences on issues currently affecting Massachusetts municipalities.

Many of the themes remained the same; the need for (1) the use of sound science by MassDEP and Region 1 EPA in regulatory and policy decision-making, (2) educating the public on water utilities’ roles and financial needs, and (3) advocating on behalf of municipal interests on issues such as PFAS and CSOs. But, most importantly, the series highlighted the need and value of sharing experiences across the water sector. It is crystal clear that speaking with a coordinated and a unified message amplifies the concerns and interests of municipalities and is our best opportunity for regulatory agencies to hear our voices. Attendees who paid to attend the webinar series will receive a link to review the recordings. If you would like to receive the link, but were not able to register and attend, you can still receive the benefit by paying the attendance fee.

The Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship is a nonprofit organization committed to promoting watershed-based policies and regulations that effectively manage and conserve water resources. MCWRS is unique in its focus on protecting municipalities’ interests in an ever-changing regulatory environment. We promote using scientifically based, fiscally responsible approaches to realize environmental and community goals. Members include municipalities; public agencies that transport and treat drinking water, wastewater and stormwater; quasi-government agencies; and private organizations whose members are committed to the principles of stewardship and sustainability in protecting the environment and public health.

PFAS Awareness and Regulation Continues to Rise

On April 13, Michigan Representatives Debbie Dingell and Fred Upton introduced legislation on PFAS known as the PFAS Action Act of 2021. The intent of this is Act is to have the EPA designate select PFAS as hazardous substances and establish a national drinking water standard.

Key takeaways from this legislation include the establishment of a national drinking water standard for PFAS within two years, the designation of PFAS as a hazardous material, and comprehensive PFAS health testing. Significant to the water sector, this legislation also requires EPA place discharge limits on industrial releases of PFAS, providing $200 million annually for wastewater treatment.

MCWRS is comprised of environmental professionals who are the front line for protecting public and environmental health. We are concerned that these requirements could devastate local water and wastewater utilities. The listed $200 million that is expected to be allotted by EPA does not seem to be enough to cover utilities in Massachusetts, let alone the nation.

The national increase in attention to the dangers of PFAS can be felt at a local level, with many communities being forced to make expensive infrastructure investments for PFAS remediation. The Town of Natick is considering investing $3 million to install carbon filters at a plant that reported PFAS levels of 24 ppt, while the Town of Wayland recently had to consider quick treatment options and an emergency MWRA connection due to a PFAS MCL violation.

While investment in PFAS remediation is necessary and important, there is concern that increased negative attention will change the public perception of the water sector and treatment plant employees. The conversation should be shifted to include alternative options for PFAS remediation, such as source control, instead of placing the brunt of the burden on the water sector, which is ultimately born by the ratepayers.

What has transpired to date in Massachusetts is just the tip of the iceberg relative to PFAS concerns.  Medium-sized drinking water systems began sampling for PFAS in April 2021, and many have yet to receive their first-round results. Numerous small water systems will not sample until October. PFAS testing of wastewater effluent from POTWs is now being required in newly renewed NPDES permits but that monitoring is generally not yet occurring. A draft General NPDES Permit for small POTWs also requires PFAS testing, but is months away from being finalized. The regulatory focus on PFAs continues to ramp-up in many sectors while the toxicology and health risk science lags. The 20 part per trillion Massachusetts drinking water MCL for 6 PFAS compounds was heavily influenced by uncertainty factors due to the lack of scientific understanding of the toxicological effects of very low levels of this large and diverse group of chemicals. There is a lot more to come in the world of PFAS and water and it does not bode well for ratepayers.

MCWRS Hosts Sewage Notification Webinar in Response to Passage of Bill H.4921

On March 18, 2021, MCWRS held a webinar titled Sewage Notification: Responsibilities and Messaging to discuss the regulation of Bill H.4921, An Act Promoting Awareness of Sewage Pollution in Public Waters and its effect on municipalities and local wastewater systems.

Signed into law on January 22, Chapter 322 of the Acts of 2020 requires public advisories within 2 hours of a discharge of untreated or partially treated sewage from certain types of wastewater collection system structures into waters of the Commonwealth. This notification must also be sent to the department of public health and municipal board of health in the relevant outfall location, and any municipality directly impacted by the discharge.

MassDEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg expects regulations to be developed by January 2022 and implemented by July 2022. In April 2021, MassDEP will host meetings with stakeholders to discuss these implementation and regulation milestones. Comm. Suuberg noted that MassDEP will implement this law in collaboration with stakeholders, and hopes to have a collaborative partnership moving forward.

Phil Guerin, Director of Water & Sewer Operations for Worcester DPW&P, outlined the combined sewer system control improvements in Worcester following the 1980s. The improvements resulted in reducing 17 untreated outfalls to one treated outfall that averaged 6-28 treated CSO discharges annually. Phil requested clarity on regulation language, including the definitions of partially treated discharges. He noted the potential backlash frequent, unsettling health advisories can have on the public perception of wastewater utility workers, and stressed the need to move away from a one size fits all approach to regulation.

Karla Sangrey, Director of Upper Blackstone Clean Water, discussed high flow blending practiced at many wastewater treatment plants.  This is another area requiring clarification as she raised the question of requiring a public health warning for discharges that meet NPDES requirements, and how that public health warning would be phrased. Again, she stressed the importance of managing this messaging to the public.

Jeff Murawski, DPW Deputy Commissioner of Wastewater for the City of Fitchburg, described the current Fitchburg sewer system to provide an insight into CSO permittees. As of 2020, the City of Fitchburg has 11 active CSO regulators with 128 CSO events, down from the 472 CSO events in 2012. Additionally, many projects are underway to improve wastewater infrastructure.

Josh Schimmel, Springfield Water & Sewer Commission Executive Director, tied together the themes and concerns expressed by panelists. While an appropriate amount of regulatory discretion can achieve goals, consideration must be made to its burden on systems. The goal of CSO notification is to notify the public when it is unsafe to be in water, however, there are a variety of factors outside of CSOs that could affect water quality, such as stormwater pollution. Overall, work needs to be done to clarify the message of CSO notification, and to highlight the need for more funding to resolve the issues.

Following the panel discussion, Phil ended the meeting by noting the promise by legislators and river advocates that they would stand by wastewater utilities if there was pushback from the public, and would fight for infrastructure funding. MCWRS understands the need for notification, and plans to work with DEP, but needlessly alarming the public with these notifications in cases where they are unnecessary is an irresponsible way to move forward. Work needs to continue to educate legislators and the public on the realities of CSOs.

COVID-19 Impacts to FY2022 Budgets Highlights Need for Systemic Change

As we approach the one-year mark of COVID-19 lockdowns, communities are beginning to see the effects these changes will have on their revenue streams. Smaller communities like Franklin and Concord have reported increased residential water usage with stay-at-home orders, resulting in higher revenue than budgeted, while larger communities like Framingham have seen gaps in their budget due to low commercial water usage.

The Framingham Patch reported on a January 26 Community Hour Meeting, where Mary Ellen Kelly, City Chief Financial Officer explained that, “Framingham has been using the water and sewer department’s yearly surplus to offset rate hikes. There was no rate hike in 2020, and increases in previous years have been between 2 and 4 percent. When the pandemic hit, businesses shut down, severely cutting into water and sewer revenue, leaving the department in a deficit — and with no savings to cover it.”

Diane Conners, Framingham DPW Financial Director, joined MCWRS’ February Member Chat to discuss these issues in more detail. One of the overarching themes of the conversation was the need to identify and resolve systemic problems in rate systems across the Commonwealth in order to make water utilities less prone to future disruptions. One suggestion is shifting to a monthly billing system in place of a quarterly system, which has the benefit of a more consistent revenue stream and the ability to better track trends in water usage. Monthly billing does have added costs that need to be considered before making a change. Additionally, Framingham is considering the transition to a base rate.

The massive infrastructure failures in Texas brought increased awareness to the critical role water and wastewater systems play in our daily lives. Perhaps a crisis of this magnitude coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic and its message about hand washing and sanitation will reinforce the need for federal, state and local investment in water infrastructure.  Better yet, this renewed emphasis on water as a factor in protecting public health may help dissuade further regulatory and legislative efforts to constrain water and wastewater systems which make it more difficult for utility managers to do their jobs.  As always, MCWRS encourages members to contact their representatives and advocate for responsible and reasonable policy and regulatory measures and funding that support local communities grappling with these issues.

MCWRS Discusses EPA’s Responses to Massachusetts Draft NPDES Permits

“EPA Headquarters building 02 – Washington DC – 2012” by Tim Evanson is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

On Tuesday, January 5, EPA Region 1 responded to comments submitted by MCWRS on draft NPDES permits for the Massachusetts communities of Athol, Orange, and Gardner.

Of notable concern was the addition of PFAS monitoring requirements for treated effluent, sludge, and biosolids. This inclusion seems to be a case of EPA getting ahead of itself. Most wastewater operators are confident that they will find PFAS, which could result in utilities becoming the target of advocacy groups and the concerned public, instead of source polluters. This could prove to be especially problematic given we are far from understanding how to fully remove PFAS from wastewater and who should pay for it.

MCWRS members discussed these issues in more depth during our January Member Chat. Speaking to PFAS monitoring requirements for biosolids, a key question for utilities becomes what you do once you inevitably find PFAS. Jeffrey Longsworth, Barnes & Thornburg, explained that EPA issued Interim Guidance on the Destruction and Disposal of PFAS and Materials Containing PFAS (out for comment through February 22, 2021) which failed to identify a conclusive answer.

Given this lack of understanding, a conclusion of the discussion was the importance of developing an internal strategy for when PFAS are identified. The idea that rushed EPA requirements could force a treatment plant to test for PFAS before an action plan is identified could be problematic.

Shifting the conversation towards public notification, Joshua Schimmel, MCWRS Vice President, lamented on the harsh language included in PFAS notification, noting the potential for this language to erode the public’s confidence in their utilities.

Additionally, there are other, high priority issues that need to be dealt with ahead of PFAS. Mr. Schimmel suggested utilities shift their own messaging to acknowledge the dangers and prevalence of PFAS, while also acknowledging the variety of other issues that come from aging infrastructure and a lack of funding (like lead, CSOs, etc.) that sometimes must take precedent. Given the inherent uncertainty of this issue, we encourage all members to read the EPA responses and come to their own conclusions. If you would like to discuss further, feel free to submit any comments to info@mcwrs.org.

At first MCWRS Member Chat, Members Discuss NPDES Permit Appeals

On November 19, 2020, MCWRS hosted its first Member Chat, a virtual roundtable discussion of current events and issues facing the Massachusetts water sector. This month, MCWRS Vice President Josh Schimmel, Springfield Water & Sewer Commission (SW&SC), guided a conversation with Cheri Cousens, Greater Lawrence Sanitary District (GLSD) and MCWRS Treasurer, on her successful NPDES permit appeal. This discussion was timely, given the series of NPDES permits EPA issued to Massachusetts communities over the past three months.

After briefly introducing the GLSD facility, Cheri outlined the proposed changes included in the GLSD draft permit. Some of the most prominent included the testing of four metals, aluminum, copper, cadmium and lead, CSO public notification plans and reporting, and a phosphorus limit.

Cheris’ advice for facilities who receive a draft NPDES permit is to immediately ask for an extension on the comment period and then focus on the most critical aspects of the permit. Adding counterpoints to every change has the potential to dilute the argument. In GLSD’s case, the appeal focused on 7Q10, chlorine residuals and the phosphorus limit.

Additionally, Cheri warned that the appeal process is expensive and time consuming. GLSD hired three consultants to help with the appeal process, which she estimated cost around $100,000, not including time and effort spent by GLSD staff. She suggested that other facilities prepare by budgeting for an appeal before it happens.   

A key takeaway from Cheris’ experience is the importance of clean sampling. Regular sampling is affected by cross-contamination and can result in imprecise data that can be used by regulators. By using data from clean sampling, GLSD was able to demonstrate that metals were not an issue, allowing  metal limits to be removed from its final NPDES permit. The Coalition aims to provide a space where water sector professionals can talk informally about their experiences with their peers and learn from each other. Josh reflected on the importance of communicating with peers who have been through similar processes to share information.

MCWRS Continues to Advocate for Water Systems as PFAS Drinking Water MCL Proceeds

“Fulton Officials Discuss Improvements to Wastewater Treatment Plant” by KOMUnews is licensed under CC BY 2.0

On September 24, MassDEP sent notification of final regulations establishing a drinking water standard, or Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), of 20 parts per trillion (ppt) for the sum of six PFAS compounds. The regulations were published and in effect on October 2, 2020. 

Announced in an email sent by MassDEP, all community public water systems will need to implement quarterly sampling for the sum of 6 compounds beginning in 2021. Systems serving a population greater than 50,000 must begin testing on January 1, 2021, while systems serving populations between 10,000 and 50,000 must begin testing on April 1, 2021, and systems serving populations with less than 10,000 residents have until October 1, 2021 to begin testing.

As reported in our September Spotlight Story, EPA’s draft NPDES permits for local wastewater treatment plants also contained quarterly sampling and monitoring requirements for influent, effluent and sludge for the six PFAS compounds, among other requirements not related to PFAS. These NPDES permits were submitted in tandem with MassDEP’s draft Surface Water Discharge Permits.

In response, MCWRS has been busy writing and submitting a series of comment letters addressing the draft wastewater treatment permits for Massachusetts communities. At minimum, MCWRS believes the following steps should be completed before PFAS monitoring or limits are enforced:

1. EPA and MassDEP should regulate the use of the subject PFAS compounds in all consumer products. This should include eliminating these compounds from consumer goods and industrial processes and enforcing these regulations. This crucial source reduction action alone will be the most effective method of controlling PFAS compounds in our environment.
2. EPA and MassDEP should provide funding and complete a series of studies to understand the impacts of possible PFAS disposal regulations on the wastewater treatment industry. This should include identifying safe and reasonable solids disposal methods for biosolids that are found to have PFAS compounds present – including both low levels and higher levels of such compounds.
3. EPA and MassDEP should then provide industry guidance to ensure that no discontinuation of service will be experienced by treatment works due to the discovery of PFAS compounds in solids or effluent.
4. EPA and MassDEP should develop and establish a funding program to assist communities in providing any necessary response to the discovery of PFAS compounds in the wastewater, effluent or solids.
5. During the time that these above steps are being taken, EPA and MassDEP can also work to better understand the impacts of these compounds on the environment. In this way, more well-informed permitting can be implemented.

While MCWRS will continue to advocate for the needs of municipalities and water utilities, regulation will continue to move forward. The final section of MassDEP’s drinking water MCL notification recommended utilities take advantage of the Commonwealth’s Free PFAS Lab Analyses Program and funding programs for remediation design.  This limited financial assistance only applies to public water supply systems.  MCWRS has advocated for an expansion of the free testing program to include wastewater treatment facilities.