» Advocacy Alerts Archive

During a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) workshop on sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) held yesterday and today, NACWA’s representatives supported the need to develop a comprehensive SSO rule and promoted the Association’s preferences for how SSO issues should be addressed in such a rule.  NACWA’s representatives for the facilitated discussion were Ben Horenstein, Manager of Environmental Services at the East Bay Municipal Utility District and Co-Chair of NACWA’s Facility & Collection System Committee, and Lisa Hollander, Special Liaison for Legislative & Regulatory Affairs at the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District and Chair of NACWA’s Legal Affairs Committee.  The other participants in the facilitated discussion were the Water Environment Federation (WEF), American Rivers, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Clean Water Action, the Cahaba River Society, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and the League of Cities.  Other NACWA members also attended the workshop and provided their perspectives during the public comment sessions.

Past Work Acknowledged as Path Forward Sought

The workshop began with an introduction by Jim Hanlon, Director of EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management, who acknowledged the significant amount of work done on this issue in the past – including the Federal Advisory Commission on SSOs in the 1990s, the 2001 proposed SSO rule, and the proposed 2003 and 2005 peak wet weather flows policies – noting that these should all serve as “data-points” for the discussion.  Hanlon recognized, however, that since the time of this work, “the industry has changed,” and the purpose of this session was to discuss a path forward with the groups sharing their best advice with the Agency.

The workshop then moved to discussion of four topics during the first day:  reporting, recordkeeping, and notification; capacity, management, operation, and maintenance (MOM) programs; permitting of satellite collection systems; and SSOs caused by “extreme” circumstances.  The participants found agreement on many of the issues.  All of the groups supported public notification for SSOs that could be a public health hazard – along with requirements for reporting and recordkeeping that would help utilities and permitting authorities to learn more about problems in the systems.  NACWA and WEF stated that recordkeeping should be part of a complete MOM program, and while all the groups seemed to concur that MOM programs are necessary, the specifics as to what a MOM program should include were not discussed in detail.  The discussion on capacity, MOM, and “extreme” circumstances led to a lively exchange on how prohibition or authorization of SSOs should be addressed in a SSO rule.  Jim Hanlon stated that, “The reality is … that there’s no such thing as zero,” and NACWA provided examples of events outside of a utility’s control that can lead to overflows, such as vandalism or flushing of inappropriate materials into the sewer system.

There was general agreement from all involved, including NACWA, that a key goal for any SSO rule was certainty that their systems can be brought into compliance.  There was also significant discussion on the role of enforcement and NACWA made it clear that a rule needed to ensure that such actions could not be brought where the utility is doing its job pursuant to the rule to prevent overflows.  The NGO groups, however, referred to enforcement discretion and asked for examples of when enforcement actions have been taken against utilities for SSOs that are caused by events outside of the utility’s control.

The first day of the workshop concluded with a discussion of peak excess flow treatment facilities (PEFTFs) in the collection systems.  NACWA and WEF detailed how these facilities provide utilities with another tool to prevent overflows in a cost-effective and timely manner.  Other groups argued instead that these facilities should not be used unless they were meeting all secondary treatment requirements.  Some of the environmental groups seemed to show interest in using these facilities as a stop-gap measure while other system improvements were made, while WEF countered by asking why these facilities should be temporary if they are working well.  Hanlon concluded the discussion by stating that the collection system and treatment works are not separate, but are all part of the same system, and any treatment facility located in the collection system would need to meet secondary treatment requirements.

‘Blending’ the Focus of Day 2 of Workshop

Today’s session was devoted to the issues of peak wet weather flow treatment and parallel treatment of flows at POTWs, or “blending”.  The NACWA-NRDC 2005 negotiated policy was a focus of the discussions but there was also significant support for taking the asset management principles included in that draft policy and incorporating them as part of a broader C-MOM approach rather than housing them under the bypass provision as was done in the 2005 policy.  There was a desire by the NGO groups for more information on the effectiveness of side-stream or parallel treatment technologies, as well as a reaffirmation of their desire to see green infrastructure and innovative technologies as a priority consideration for utilities to control overflows and minimize peak flows.  Hanlon supported the discussion by describing in detail the differences between the traditional use of the term “blending” with no or low levels of parallel treatment, versus the more advanced high-rate treatments available today.  NACWA and WEF reiterated Hanlon’s point that high-rate treatment may help utilities achieve higher disinfection effectiveness than biological secondary treatment due to the increased removal of solids from the effluent.

In concluding the discussion on parallel treatment, Hanlon proposed that different tiers of treatment be considered in a SSO rule.  The first tier would be no or low-level parallel treatment, which would be subject to the provisions of the 2005 negotiated policy, including a no feasible alternatives analysis.  The next tier would be the more advanced high-rate treatments using physical-chemical processes that do not quite meet current secondary treatment requirements, which would need less scrutiny to receive approval and would not be subject to a no feasible alternatives analysis every five years.  Alternative treatment technologies that meet current secondary requirements would automatically be accepted.  The participants in the facilitated discussion all seemed interested in this tiered approach.

The workshop concluded with all participants expressing satisfaction with the discussion, and most noting that there were more points of agreement than disagreement.  Hanlon said that “the discussion added value to our understanding of where the groups were at” regarding the issues involved with a rule.  EPA and the other groups made statements expressing the desire to move forward on a rule, with Hanlon saying, “This is as important to us as it is to you.”

EPA plans to release a summary of the discussion at a later date, and NACWA will distribute this to Association members.  The SSO workshop will be the primary topic of discussion during next week’s Facility & Collection System Committee meeting at the NACWA Summer Conference, and more details on the discussion will be provided in upcoming NACWA publications.