November 22, 2023 - David Stoff

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · from the EPA · 9 pages · 721 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

Michele Barden
US Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (06-4)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
Submitted via email: barden.michele@epa.gov 
Claire Golden
MassDEP, Surface Water Discharge Program
150 Presidential Way, Woburn, MA 01801
Submitted via email: MassDEP.npdes@mass.gov 
Dear Ms. Barden and Ms. Golden:
I thank you for the chance to give US EPA Region 1 and MassDEP my comments on the draft
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Deer Island Treatment Plant and
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) co-permittees.
I live in Arlington Massachusetts. My property abuts the Alewife Brook and is downstream
from an MWRA CSO that discharges untreated sewage. The CSO discharges authorized by
the permit are not abstractions to me. The Alewife often inundates the adjacent Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Alewife Greenway and in the past has flooded my home.
I can smell the sewage in the brook from my porch when the outfalls discharge during the
summer.
The focus of my comments is permit requirements impacting Alewife Brook. If memory serves
me, I have commented on every NPDES permit authorizing CSO discharges to the Alewife
Brook, and every water quality variance for the last twenty years.
I recently testified in support of House Bill 886, which I helped draft, requiring treatment of all
CSO discharges in the MWRA district. My comments are drawn from my first hand
experience as a neighbor to the Alewife Brook. I cite legal authorities and arguments in the
footnotes.
As a threshold matter I’m troubled by the regulatory complacency evidenced in the draft
permit. When the Deer Island plant was built it was a source of civic pride and a symbol of
what Massachusetts could accomplish. That narrative has been supplanted. The
environmental progress the plant’s opening heralded has been overtaken by an austerity
driven vision of the future where waters like Alewife Brook are sacrificed for the short term
benefit of the permittees. I am disappointed in EPA Region 1. I’d hoped they’d fight harder for
waters like the Alewife. That disappointment is realized in the continuance of water quality
variances for CSO impacted waters which underlies the effluent limitation of this permit.

NO MORE VARIANCES 
For almost a quarter of a century the safeguard of a water quality standard 1 that protects the
health of the community surrounding the Alewife has been waived. It’s reasonable for any 
community to insist that discharges be treated so that incidental contact does not pose a
health risk. The open ended excursions from water quality standards authorized by this permit
deny communities the meaningful protection of an enforceable standard. While aspirations for
variance waters remain high, the reality is that these receiving waters could not meet the
existing standard for safe human contact (class c) during wet weather. So they are
reclassified. The justification for the reclassification is cost savings, and neither the burden,
nor the benefit of these cost savings is shared equally among communities in the MWRA
district. 
A. An Abused Regulation
Both federal and state regulations define a variance as a short term, temporary modification
of a water quality standard. 2 The draft permit contemplates implementing another long term
CSO control plan through additional variances. 3 The proposal renders the word “temporary”
meaningless. The variance enables CSO discharges, including those with identified public
health impacts, to continue in near perpetuity, without a clear path to elimination in derogation
of the requirements of the Clean Water Act. 4 
B. The Future of CSO Impacted Waters
In practice the reliance on water quality variances has created a two tiered system for CSO
receiving waters in the MWRA district. CSO variances are for waters where public
expectations remain high. Chasing an interim goal, the “highest attainable water quality,”
justifies waiving standards and the harsh reckoning that some communities will have to
accept the localized impacts of continued CSO discharges. The second tier,partial use
designations are sufficient for urban waters. Here the assumption is that current conditions
will remain unchanged. 5 The public accepts that the current hierarchy of resource users will
continue much as it has in the past. It's always been a sewer, so it’s OK to use it as a sewer. 
It’s impossible to ignore the echoes of historic patterns of racial and economic discrimination
in this approach. For any CSO impacted community, the expectation that discharges will be
treated so that incidental contact does not pose a health risk is reasonable. That’s the thrust
of H886. 6 A uniform and achievable level of CSO treatment that protects the health of all
communities. It’s the MWRA that defined control for the 25 year storm as economically 
achievable CSO elimination. 7 That has to be the goal for all CSO impacted waters. The draft
permit, and the agency that wrote it, needs to acknowledge that the variances fail to address
the disparity in the level of CSO treatment in the MWRA district. 
1Class B primary contact; draft permit Attachment J; Attachment K
240 CFR 131.14; 314 CMR 4.03(4).
3Fact Sheet pg41.
433 USC sec 1251
5Because of stormwater, or the highway, or port operations. Whatever other pollutant load justifies continuing
sewage discharges. 
6https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H886 
7Final CSO Post Construction Monitoring Program and Performance Assessment Report

Ending CSO variances is unpopular. Partial use designations for the Alewife, Mystic, or
Charles would be a set-back in the restoration of these resources. However, the regulatory
process provides a forum (a Use Attainability Analysis). It is transparent. Impacted
communities can document health impacts of continued discharges. They can present
evidence of existing uses. There is the possibility that the inclusion of community based data
can create a fairer approach to the reclassification of CSO impacted waters. To borrow a
quote from Elizabeth Warren, I’d rather there were “blood and teeth left on the floor” and fight
for environmental equity for communities living with CSOs than acquiesce to a status quo
whose only promise is that in some hazy future the condition of some of these waters will
improve. 
The Public Notification Plan does not provide reasonable protection from the impacts
of CSO discharges. 
“[M]inimizing... human health impacts from wet weather overflows,” is a core tenet of EPA’s
CSO Control Policy and the standard by which implementation of minimum control
measures, 8 including public notification provisions in the draft permit, must be judged. Over
three million people live in the MWRA district. Less than 500 subscribe to the web based
discharge notification system. The hybrid system of outfall signage,mailings and electronic
notifications in the draft permit has been tried for over a decade. Region 1’s judgment that the
system provides “adequate notification” 9 ignores evidence that occurrences of CSO
discharges do go unnoticed by the public and that this causes unreasonable health impacts
for some communities. 
A. Realistic expectations for the users of the Public Notification system are needed. 
When untreated sewage is being discharged, the least sophisticated user of the notification
system should reasonably expect to receive a warning. Contrast that expectation with the
demands of the existing electronic notification system. To use the system on the Alewife 
8 CSO Policy, FR, vol 59, pg 18691; implementing the Nine Minimum Controls(NMC).
9Response to Comments,NPDES Permit #0101982, City of Somerville,2012 pg 91. 
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/permits/2012/finalma0101982permit.pdf

you're expected to have a working phone, with subscriptions to Cambridge, MWRA and
Somerville CSO alerts, to know the number and location of various CSO outfalls, what
watershed the outfall is in(because notices cover multiple watersheds) and whether you’re
upstream, or downstream, of the discharge. Of course it will be raining while you do this.
Such demands require a level of skill and user sophistication that's unreasonable to expect for
access to a public warning system. 
B. For users of the Public Notification system timely notification means actual notice. 
I took this picture with my phone.It shows people in the area behind my house crossing water
that was heavily contaminated with raw sewage. When asked, none of these people knew
a CSO discharge occurred.
Before anyone will ignore a child,or drop their groceries, to pull out a phone, they must have a
reasonable belief that there’s an immediate health risk. Along the Alewife, and in other 2 
communities, the lack of a contemporaneous posting of untreated sewage discharges leaves
people unaware of the health risks they're exposed to. Timely notification of sewage
discharges means actual notice in those places where people are in close proximity to the
discharge. 10 
C. Use appropriate notification technology to meet Clean Water Act requirements.
For over 20 years our community, watershed groups, and town leaders have requested that
NPDES permits for CSO discharges to Alewife Brook include additional public notification
measures. 11 Our repeated requests for automated discharge warning lights for users of the
MBTA Community Path and DCR Alewife Greenway is based on community knowledge of
what's necessary for an “adequate” alert system. The single minded emphasis on web and
phone based advisories obscures the fact that other, sometimes simpler, technologies can
meet CWA requirements. A system of automated warning lights, that provides real time notice
of discharges, is a reliable substitute for web/phone based notification without the
corresponding staffing levels required by the current system. Massachusetts law specifies the
use of email and text messages for notifications. The scope of public notification measures in
the permit can be broader than those required by the state. The Fact Sheet's assertion that 
10Other locations include the Charles River Esplanade,Magazine Beach, the bikeway adjacent to CAM005.
11Ibid, FN4

Public Notification provisions in the draft Permit reflect “advances in technologies” 12 lacks a
corresponding requirement for a review of the effectiveness of that technology.
People living along the Alewife must protect themselves from untreated sewage discharges
that will continue, with no end in sight. The stubborn adherence to status quo measures for
public notification smacks of a culture of indifference among regulators. It signals a
preference for reducing costs for permittees over the mitigation of community health impacts
caused by the CSO discharges authorized in the permit. 
SMELL SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING 
The reek of sewage stigmatizes a community. The odor says public resources can be denied
in this place. Odors from combined sewers are a problem in communities throughout the
MWRA district. It's a particular problem along the Alewife where 6 CSO outfalls and their
related structures are a source of strong and persistent odors.
A culture of institutional indifference permeates the operation of combined sewer systems in 
the MWRA district. It normalizes sewer odors as the inevitable byproduct of living with an “old”
sewer system. In practice this culture masks the diversion of public resources away from
vulnerable communities to places where those resources buttress higher value private
investment. 
EPA's Environmental Justice Screening Tool puts the Alewife in the 90 th percentile for
wastewater impacts nationwide. The NPDES permit should incentivize changes in the
institutional culture of public works departments to improve conditions for communities most 
12Fact Sheet, pg 105

impacted by the operation of combined sewer systems authorized by the permit. EPA's Equity
action plan for Executive Order 13985 directs the agency to integrate community science into
program implementation. An assessment of links between system maintenance 13 and reports
of ancillary nuisance conditions in the MWRA’s combined sewer communities is long overdue.
Community based odor reporting and the revision of inspection and annual NMC Plan
updates would be a practical addition to the permit. 14 The addition of a telephone contact
number to outfall signage for reporting maintenance issues, the practice of most other major
metropolitan areas, is long overdue in the MWRA district. 
Floatables Control at Alewife Brook CSO Outfall SOM001A/Tannery Brook 
Minimizing solid and floatable materials in CSO discharges is a long standing permit
requirement. 15 What’s lacking is a critical analysis,including public input, of the performance of
this minimum control technology at outfalls where untreated CSO discharges are authorized.
In these locations floatables control is the only treatment the discharges receive. When the
technology fails, permitted sewer operations impose a disproportionate burden on the local
community.The best available control technology should be in place and inspections must
ensure the controls operate properly. 
13NMC 1
14NPDES permit,Part I.B.3.b.
15NPDES permit,Part I. b. 2. b.(6); [NMC6]

The photo of Somerville’s CSO outfall SOM 001A illustrates the localized impacts of an
untreated CSO outfall. The performance of the existing floatables controls at this location is
woefully inadequate. Following the recent August 8, 2023 storm both the Somerville Mayor's
office and the Arlington Board of Health received complaints about toilet paper in trees around
the outfall and persistent odor that indicated maintenance problems. There were press reports
about it. 16 The inability of the permittee to provide current inspection reports compounded the
problem.
A revised floatables control plan for SOM001A(to be incorporated in the permit)is currently 
under review by EPA and DEP. This review is part of a public process The open public
review process must analyze: 
● improved controls capable of completely eliminating sewage related material from the
discharge; 
● netting or similar screen installed on the outfall spillway to control discharge of sewage
materials that escape initial treatment; 
● the post discharge clean-up of sewage related materials from the area adjacent to the
outfall.
The draft permit has a requirement for observation of floatables in discharges from DITP. 17 
Monthly inspections at CSO outfalls should have a similar requirement. I expect that 
discharges from SOM001A/Tannery Brook will be eliminated or controlled to a 25 year event
level in the new Long Term Control Plan. 
16https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/10/23/massachusetts-combined-sewer-overflow-cso-climate-change 
17NPDES permit, Part I. i. [floatables observation]

Massachusetts DCR should be listed as a co-permittee and included in minimum CSO
control measures 
Part I B. 3. of the permit describes implementation levels for the Nine Minimum Controls.
NMC 1 requires MWRA Cambridge and Somerville to maintain the CSO outfalls along the
Alewife Brook. All of these outfall structures are located on land owned by DCR. At various
times permittees have said that because the physical outfall structures are integral parts of
the Alewife Brook’s concrete channel, DCR is responsible for their maintenance, and the
maintenance of adjacent areas. DCR’s predecessor agency the Metropolitan District
Commission did, in fact, maintain the outfalls, the channel of the Alewife Brook, and the
surrounding land.
A combined sewer outfall is undoubtedly an element of a “treatment works.” 18 NPDES permits
for Cambridge and Somerville acknowledge that DCR maintenance impacts outfall
operations. 19 As relics of the MDC sewer system, the Alewife CSO outfalls don't really fit the 
18 33 USC sec 1219(B); Fact Sheet Appendix D
19NPDES permit # 0101982 Part IC.1.”The permittee shall forward to the Massachusetts Department of
Conservation and Recreation (“DCR”) its description of any conditions within DCR’s control that impair the
operation or maintenance of any of its CSO structures” Cambridge’s NPDES permit has a similar requirement.

current system boundaries in the permit. For example, look at the picture above [SOM001]. Is
the concrete spillway at the bottom of the image part of the outfall (Somerville) or part of the
channel(DCR)?
EPA’s argument for the inclusion of sanitary sewer communities as co-permittees (Fact
Sheet, Appendix D) is applicable to DCR in the Alewife; more so, in that existing NPDES
permits for CSO discharges already recognize DCR’s obligations. 20 
Excess sediment and debris in the concrete channel, a direct result of DCR’s deferred
maintenance, degrades the ability of the Alewife Brook to transport or assimilate its CSO
pollutant load. Maintaining the hydraulic performance of the Alewife Brook is a necessary
condition for accurate comparison of thirty years of water quality data, the basis of permit
compliance.The change in channel conditions since the 1990's is striking. Including DCR as a
co-permittee, with a defined responsibility for maintenance around CSO outfalls and channel
maintenance in the Alewife Brook would improve compliance with minimum controls in a
neglected portion of the sewer system because all maintenance issues in the Alewife Brook
could be addressed through the permit. 
Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. As always I look forward to your
response. 
David Stoff
88 Fairmont St.
Arlington, MA 02474 
20Ibid, FN 14