November 28, 2023 - Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · from the EPA · 3 pages · 619 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗
Aaron Fox EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LOWELL WASTEWATER UTILITY WASTEWATER TRANSPORT AND TREATMENT SERVING: LOWELL, CHELMSFORD, DRACUT, TEWKSBURY, TYNGSBORO November 28, 2023 Michele Barden USEPA Region 1 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100 (06-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912 Submitted via email: barden.michele@epa.gov AND Claire Golden Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Surface Water Discharge Program 150 Presidential Way, Woburn, MA 01801 Submitted via email: claire.golden@mass.gov ; MassDEP.npdes@mass.gov RE: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit for MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant, Winthrop, MA NPDES Permit # MA 0103284 Dear Ms. Barden and Ms. Golden: The Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility (LRWWU) offers the following comments on the EPA Region 1 draft NPDES permit for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Deer Island Treatment Plant in Winthrop, MA and MWRA Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Facilities and Combined Sewer Overflows. Although several conditions of the draft permit are of concern, our comments focus on Part 1.E Operation and Maintenance and, specifically, requirements related to the WWTF Major Storm and Flood Events Plan and the Sewer System Flood Events Plan. LRWWU agrees that planning for potential storm damage to infrastructure located in flood prone areas should be encouraged, but we do not believe that these planning requirements belong in a NPDES permit. Our objections to the inclusion of Major Storm and Flood Events Planning, Storm Events Planning, and Adaptation Planning in NPDES permits are based on the following: 1. The permit requires that a WWTF Major Storm and Flood Events Plan and a Sewer System Major Storm and Flood Events Plan (both including an Assets Vulnerability EvaluaƟon, a Systems Vulnerability EvaluaƟon, and an AlternaƟves EvaluaƟon) be developed within 12 months of the permit effecƟve date. This Ɵmeline is not pracƟcal given the scope of these studies and the number of stakeholders that should be included in such a planning effort. Furthermore, the cost of these studies will be considerable and therefore will require Ɵme to idenƟfy funding sources and assess the impact of these costs to rate payers. AddiƟonal Ɵme is required to properly plan and execute studies of this scale and importance. 2. The task of planning for and adapƟng to extreme storm and flood events under mulƟple climate change scenarios should be a collaboraƟve effort that involves relevant local, state, and federal government departments and agencies; placing this requirement in a NPDES permit places an unreasonable burden on the uƟlity and restricts the ability of relevant stakeholders outside of the uƟlity to parƟcipate in the planning process. Climate change adaptaƟon is a criƟcal issue that requires a regional planning approach with the uƟlity serving as one of several stakeholders in the planning process, and the funding and execuƟon of such a planning process should not be the sole responsibility of the uƟlity. 3. This is a five-year permit for wastewater infrastructure that is typically renewed on a 20 to 30-year cycle. Planning for storm and flooding events that may occur during the useful life of faciliƟes (20 to 30 years) will be challenging and planning for longer-term scenarios (80 to 100 years) may not be pracƟcal given the variability of long-term climate change models. While longer-term scenarios should not be ignored, decisions about infrastructure investment should focus on meeƟng projected climate change condiƟons within the useful life of the infrastructure given the uncertainƟes involved in this planning and the impact of capital investments on rate payers. For these reasons, the LRWWU requests that EPA remove or modify these provisions from the draft MWRA permit. We suggest that the permit timelines adopt an appropriate planning and implementation period that reflects the myriad of funding, coordination, and implementation challenges involved in meeting these permit requirements within the context of 5-year permit cycle, especially considering the importance of engaging with local, regional, and federal stakeholders to develop and implement an effective regional approach to climate mitigation planning. Additionally, we note the following conditions that we feel require further consideration/modification: Blending provisions, including a reporƟng requirement: LRWWU supports allowing treatment faciliƟes to blend effluent when secondary treatment capacity is exceeded during wet weather. This ensures the conƟnued proper operaƟon of the treatment facility and provides the highest level of treatment for flow that can be directed to the treatment facility. RestricƟng the ability to blend or bypass secondary treatment faciliƟes limits the ability of uƟliƟes to manage the collecƟon and treatment systems to reduce upstream overflows and provide the highest level of treatment to the most flow. LRWWU urges EPA to clarify provisions in the new permit regarding this issue. PFAS TesƟng: There are several issues of concern regarding PFAS tesƟng requirements. PFAS tesƟng methods are sƟll evolving, with a limited number of labs prepared to conduct these tests, and available tesƟng is costly. UƟliƟes need the flexibility to adopt the latest and best PFAS tesƟng approaches as these protocols further evolve. The need for addiƟonal research regarding PFAS impacts, the lack of a tesƟng method that has been fully veƩed by EPA, and the scarcity of labs able to perform this tesƟng should be reflected in any new permit requirements. Thank you for your attention to our comments and requests. Sincerely, Aaron Fox Executive Director Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility 451 First St Blvd, Lowell, MA 01850