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.

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.

MCWRS Workshop Focuses on CSO Performance & Stormwater Infrastructure Funding

On October 15, we held our quarterly workshop which focused on CSO performance and stormwater infrastructure funding. Matt Gamache, CDM Smith, began the workshop with a presentation on PipeCAST, a tool developed by CDM Smith and used by The Metropolitan District in Hartford, CT (Hartford MDC). Following the presentation, MCWRS Director Kerry Reed, City of Framingham, moderated a panel of municipal staff from Newton and Ashland on stormwater infrastructure funding.

Mr. Gamache prefaced his presentation by noting the looming CSO notification legislation as a common concern with wastewater utility officials. Utilities are already facing financial challenges maintaining and replacing aging infrastructure, making the added pressure of CSO monitoring even more burdensome.

To combat this, CDM Smith created PipeCAST, which condenses all information collected by a wastewater utility, such as rainfall data, level and flow in the collection system and at CSO outfalls and generates near real-time reports on the operations of its assets. For Hartford MDC, every day at 2 A.M., data is pulled from the past 24 hours, used to run their simulations model, and shown along with model results in an online dashboard. Mr. Gamache referenced this dashboard as a “digital twin,” a digital representation of an entire wastewater system that contains operational data and prioritizes actions to be taken. Mr. Gamache explained that the benefit of a system like PipeCAST is its ability to integrate data that’s already being collected and centralize it in one system to proactively monitor and maintain the collection system and optimize the system to minimize CSOs across a range of storm events.

More specifically, PipeCAST is useful in offering high-level reports of system-wide performance levels, sensitive areas for CSOs and surcharged pipes, and site-specific information. This collection and categorization of data automates processes that could otherwise take days, and flags potential issues. For the Hartford MDC, many blockages that otherwise would have gone unnoticed were flagged, and maintenance results were documented more thoroughly. Mr. Gamache noted that Hartford MDC was a good candidate for PipeCAST because monitoring equipment had already been installed in its CSO outfalls, which would otherwise be a large expense for municipalities. Additionally, PipeCAST has many features that can be expanded in the future, especially with CSO Notification Legislation.

Kerry Reed moderated a panel on stormwater infrastructure with panelists Maria Rose, Environmental Engineer for the City of Newton; Maeghan Dos Anjos, Conservation Agent with the Town of Ashland; and Rob St. Germain, Ashland Stormwater Advisory Committee member. Ms. Reed asked questions related to the implementation of the communities’ stormwater enterprises; the success and challenges they faced during the process.

Ms. Rose explained that the Newton stormwater enterprise fund has been in place for 13 years. Over that period of time the City has adjusted its rate structure three times, beginning with a flat rate, then moving to a tiered rate structure and finally, a more equitable payment based on square footage of impervious area. Currently, the City receives about $3.8 million in revenue from the fee, which funds 11 full time employees, MS4 permit compliance, and capital improvements. Ms. Rose explained that many groups initially supported the fee, but the floods of March 2010 demonstrated the need and value for infrastructure at the forefront of citizens’ minds. The vote to enact the stormwater enterprise received 17 yes’ in 2006 when it was enacted, compared to the 26 yes’ in support of rate adjustments received in 2019.

Ms. Dos Anjos and Mr. St. Germain explained that it took about three years to implement Ashland’s stormwater enterprise fund. Initially, many people weren’t pleased with the idea of being charged a fee to manage stormwater. To further gather public support, the Town undertook a stakeholder analysis and focused on messaging to residents. Both Ms. Dos Anjos and Mr. St. Germain agreed that education and persistence were key in achieving public support and implementing the fee. Initially, the Town opted for a simple rate structure and adopted a flat rate of $10 for homeowners and a rate based on impervious area for commercial, industrial, and non-profit properties. After being asked by an attendee what Ashland’s next step would be, Mr. St. Germain explained that they plan on making the necessary changes slowly and will continue to work on educating the public.

The audience engagement and thoughtful questions responding to these presentations showed how timely these issues are to members of the water community. We thank the presenters for their time and sharing their perspectives and expertise on these topics, and all the members and non-members who attended this free event and made it a success!

Public Concern over Combined Sewer Overflows Prompts Legislation and Discussion on Proper Notification Protocol and Funding Needs

Last fall, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) released millions of gallons of a mix of stormwater and partially treated sewage into the Merrimack River, raising public alarm. While not a new issue, heightened concern about CSOs comes at a time when much of Massachusetts was receiving above average rainfall, increasing stormwater flow and CSO potential in combined sewer systems.

River advocates and utility operators want to put an end to CSOs but to do so would require billions of dollars that ratepayers cannot afford. Federal and state funding will be necessary to reduce the problem and implement a comprehensive CSO control program. In the interim, river advocates and legislators have advanced bills that would require communities to provide prompt public notification of CSO events, beyond what is already required in permits, along with nearly instantaneous data about the duration and volume of the CSO.

The current bill, H.3976, was favorably reported out of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture (JENRA) on July 17. It now advances to the House Ways and Means Committee for further analysis prior to a full House vote. Sensing that improved public notification was necessary and inevitable, MCWRS members worked with river advocates and JENRA in an effort to craft legislation that improved notification through a practical and responsible approach. Unfortunately, the version reported out of Committee failed to include most of the key provisions recommended by MCWRS. Of particular note, JENRA did not limit notification to CSOs only. Rather, the bill appears to require notification for wastewater treatment plant blending in addition to CSOs and other releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater.

Also missing from the JENRA approved bill is any mention of establishing a water quality sampling program for major rivers, providing funding to assist communities with installation and maintenance of CSO instrumentation, and protection for communities that are implementing notification from lawsuits from downstream communities.

While disappointed, MCWRS will continue to monitor the bill as it travels through the legislative process and advocate strongly for communities’ and utilities’ interests. Any legislation passed must include funding to help communities and utilities implement requirements. 

Public notification when a CSO occurs is just one step in a longer-term solution of reducing, and maybe one day stopping, the overflows. The notifications will bring more public attention to the issue and perhaps that will be the impetus driving state and federal legislators to create a viable grant program to assist municipalities and districts in implementing sewer separation and CSO treatment. Receiving more federal aid has been a goal of the Coalition since its formation a decade ago, in 2009.

MCWRS is leading this effort to gain consensus among all stakeholders on how to address the short-term and long-term problems by convening a statewide working group that includes municipalities and utilities, river advocates and regulators. While views on some specifics may differ, all parties agree that CSO education and notification are vital, and that any solution must include federal and state funding.

In an effort to educate the public and legislators about CSOs, the MCWRS has created this video to inform viewers on what CSOs are and how they can be reduced in the future.