<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:78071.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-320
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN OHIO
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND WATER
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
IDENTIFYING WATER SYSTEM PRIORITIES AND POLICIES THAT PROMOTE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
__________
APRIL 30, 2001--COLUMBUS, OH
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-071 WASHINGTON : 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
first session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ranking Democratic Member
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Dave Conover, Republican Staff Director
Eric Washburn, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island RON WYDEN, Oregon
BEN NIGHTHOUSE CAMPBELL, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 30, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 1
Voinovich, Hon. George V. U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio.... 2
WITNESSES
Gsellman, Patrick, manager, Environmental Division, Akron
Engineering Bureau, Akron, OH.................................. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Jones, Chris, director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency..... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Karney, Patrick, director, Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater
Cincinnati..................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Odeal, Erwin, executive director, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, Cleveland, OH........................................ 28
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Reid, Lydia J., mayor, Mansfield, OH............................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Stevenson, Robert, commissioner, Department of Public Utilities,
Toledo, OH..................................................... 29
Vincenzo, Robert, mayor, St. Clairsville, OH..................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 52
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
News release, Corps Continues Partnership with Ohio Agencies..... 104
Report, Water Infrastructure Network............................. 62
Statement, Moline, Donald, DEE Director of Public Utilities,
Toledo, OH,.................................................... 77
Master Site Plan, Option 1, City of Toledo, OH............... 80-92
Factsheets, City of Akron, OH:
Ohio Canal Tunnel............................................ 103
Program Overview............................................. 96-99
Racks 26/28 Treatment........................................ 101
Racks 40/31 Storage Basin.................................... 100
WPCS Storage Phase I......................................... 102
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
NEEDS IN OHIO
----------
MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Columbus, OH.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m.
Columbus City Hall, Columbus, OH, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. The subcommittee will come to order.
This is the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
and it's our hearing on options to address wastewater needs in
Ohio.
Before I turn the microphone over to Senator Voinovich, I
would like to first make a few brief comments. I'd like to
first express my appreciation to our witnesses and all of our
guests today for joining us here as we examine water quality
and infrastructure needs in Ohio. This is an important
opportunity to hear firsthand from community and elected
leaders from the State about their concerns about what is one
of the most significant issues facing us in America today.
Congress has been looking into ways to address the growing
problems facing communities with wastewater problems for a
number of years. In fact, the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee has held numerous related hearings in the past
two Congresses, the most recent in March.
I think it's appropriate that we are here today in Ohio for
our first field hearing on the issue, because Ohio is a good
microcosm of infrastructure issues in this country, with its
mixture of urban and rural communities, industrial sectors and
agricultural regions, and older and newer treatment systems.
It's my hope that the testimony we receive today will help
the subcommittee achieve a better understanding of the
complexities and the needs of our Nation's communities.
I'd also like to share some of my thoughts about my host
today, Senator Voinovich. Just as Ohio is a good location for
this field hearing, Senator Voinovich is the right person to
help Congress lead this debate. With his successful experiences
both as mayor and Governor prior to serving in the U.S. Senate,
George Voinovich is uniquely qualified to work within Congress
to help our communities.
True to this fact, Senator Voinovich has long advocated for
additional Federal attention and efforts to enhance available
resources and improve State flexibility in administering
wastewater programs. I commend him for his partnership in this
cause.
I may state on a personal note that since he's one of my
best friends in the Senate, I appreciate the invitation to be
here.
With that, I'd like to, once again, thank our witnesses for
joining us here today and look forward to an enlightening
exchange of ideas and a healthy discussion on Ohio's wastewater
needs.
Before we begin the testimony, I'd like to turn to Senator
Voinovich for anything he'd like to say as an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thanks very much. First and foremost, I
want to thank you very much for coming here to chair this
hearing. Quite frankly, the only way that we can get something
in the congressional record is to have the chairman of the
subcommittee come to the State. We met in December, I think,
Senator, and none of that testimony was in the congressional
record. We want to build a good record because it's very
important for the future, in terms of getting legislation
passed.
Senator Crapo, who represents the great State of Idaho, and
prior to his being Senator, he spent three terms in the House
of Representatives. I want to say, this is a big gesture for
him to come to Ohio. I could get on a plane, it takes me 55
minutes to go from Washington to Cleveland. Senator Crapo has
to go from Idaho Falls to Utah to Salt Lake to Cincinnati. He
came in here last night. I drove down this morning. I want to
thank you, Mike, for going out of your way. I owe him one now,
and I'm going to go to Idaho.
Senator Crapo. We'll get you out to Sun Valley.
Senator Voinovich. Again, I'm pleased that you're here.
You're right, Ohio is a microcosm, I think, of the United
States of America.
It's interesting that people always ask me, ``Are you
adjusted yet to Washington?'' I tell them, ``No, and when I am,
it's time for me to leave.'' Too often we get inside that
beltway circuit and lose touch about what's happening on main
street.
Today we're here to hear some perspective from some folks
that are on the street dealing with the problems in a matter
that's very important to the health and well-being of all
Ohioans. We forget sometimes, these other issues come along,
but good water, good sewage treatment is very important to
public health and to the environment. I appreciate the
witnesses taking time out of their busy schedules to be here
with us today.
The condition of our Nation's wastewater collection and
treatment infrastructure systems has been a long-standing
concern of mine. Senator, the first bond issue I worked on when
I came to the Ohio legislature was for a $375-million bond to
deal with waste treatment problems in the State of Ohio. That
was a forerunner of the Federal program.
So often people forget that most of the waste treatment
facilities that were built in this country to bring us out of
the dark ages from primary to secondary to tertiary treatment
facilities were supported 75 percent by the Federal Government.
The program went into being in 1972, and between 1972 and
1990, there were some 10,000 facilities throughout the State
that received Federal money to the tune of $50 million.
I think that a lot of people are unaware of the fact that
we've got 1,000 public wastewater facilities and 1,500
commercial facilities in operation in Ohio. Think of that. Five
percent of Ohio's 11.4 million residents are served by
individual septic tanks. So this is a major issue.
The thing that's interesting is that the public looks at
rate increases as taxes. I don't know about how it is in your
State, Senator; I know about your energy costs, but our heating
bills have gone up 100, 150 percent for our businesses and some
businesses, 200 and 300 percent.
Our electric bills are going to go up this summer because a
lot of our power now is generated by natural gas. We know
gasoline prices are going up. Health care costs are going up. I
know for sure that utility rates are going up. So we need to
deal with this problem on a realistic basis.
One of the things I'd asked the General Accounting Office
to do is to look at the infrastructural needs of this country.
I'm talking about highways, mass transit, airports, drinking
water, public buildings, water resources and hydropower
generators, because we're not dealing with these things.
The Senator knows that the President increased the budget 4
percent. When we got done, it was 8 percent. Who knows where
it's going. But very little money was allocated to some of
these unmet needs in the country. It's like we don't exist so
we must find some other areas to deal with them.
So, what we'd like to do today is to hear from you. We want
to hear about what you're required to do now. We know you have
current aging infrastructure problems. I know that because I
was a Governor and a county commissioner. So that's a problem
that exists. We've all got to deal with that. Then on top of
that, you are being required to do some things that you're not
doing now. My concern is, do the things that you're being asked
to do make sense?
We pass laws. The EPA passes regulations; they issue
guidances. Is what they're asking you to do make sense? Is
there another way that they could do it that would be more
reasonable?
Senator, I think you were probably in Congress during the
reenactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I was kind of the
leader of the Governors on the measure. In fact, I was at the
White House when the President signed the bill. One of the
things we said is cities should not have to, every 3 years,
treat five new pollutants that don't exist. They ought to put
their money into those things that really make a difference.
Then we did something with the Clean Air bill. We put a
provision in that says when you pass the regulation, they look
at risk assessment, look at cost benefit, peer review, and do
those things before you make a regulation.
Are we making sense? If we are making sense--and Chris
Jones, here, I'm interested in hearing his thoughts--if it's
good stuff, then who should pay for it? Is it an unfunded
mandate? Is it the Federal Government's responsibility to be
involved in it? Should we be providing money for more loan
money? Should we be providing you with grant money so that it's
a partnership, so that the entire burden of this should not
fall upon the backs of your citizens?
So I'm interested in that. I'm interested, also, in what
does this mean in terms of the person in your town, mom and pop
at home in a house with a family--they have other things to pay
for, what's it going to do in terms of their budget?
Then last but not least--the most important thing, in my
opinion, is what's it going to do with pollution and the
environment? So that's really what I'm hoping that we get from
our testimony.
Again, Senator, I'm so glad that you're here today and
chair of this committee, and we're anxious to hear from our
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
Good morning.
First and foremost, I would like to give my deep thanks to my
friend and colleague, Senator Mike Crapo, for holding this hearing on
Ohio's wastewater infrastructure needs right at the source of the
problem here in Ohio.
Senator Crapo, who represents the Great State of Idaho, and I came
to the Senate at the same time, and I consider him one of my best
friends in the Senate. Before being elected as a U.S. Senator from
Idaho, Senator Crapo served the people of Idaho's 2d congressional
district for 3 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, it takes a lot longer to get back to Washington, DC
from Idaho than from Ohio, and I am very grateful that you could make a
stop in Columbus to chair this field hearing.
I am particularly pleased that we are here in Columbus today, with
a good representation of the individuals whose communities are directly
impacted by infrastructure needs. I've said on a number of occasions
that too often in Washington we get so caught up in everything that's
going on that we can lose sight of what's really important to the
American people.
So many times people ask me if I have adjusted to D.C. I answer,
``no,'' and say that if my answer is ever ``yes,'' it is time for me to
leave.
Today, we are going to get some perspective from those who are
really feeling the financial pinch on an issue that is not often talked
about, but is, nonetheless, of great importance to the health and well-
being of all Ohioans water infrastructure, and in particular, sewer
infrastructure.
I appreciate our witnesses taking the time out of their busy
schedules to be with us this morning. I had the opportunity to meet
with many of you last December in discussing these same issues, and I
am pleased that we have another opportunity to talk about Ohio's
wastewater infrastructure needs in this hearing.
The condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment
infrastructure systems has been a long-standing concern of mine, as I
know it is for you, Mr. Chairman, and for each of our witnesses as
well. From my own experience, as mayor of Cleveland, I saw rates
increase dramatically to deal with the City's dual water infrastructure
problems: drinking water and wastewater treatment.
Mr. Chairman, many years ago, our former Governor, the late Jim
Rhodes advised me, ``George, never put anything in the ground because
the public can't see it.'' Well, as you know, Washington, in many
cases, has the same attitude when approaching unmet needs: don't
address anything that isn't high profile.
But, as our local officials here on this panel know, it is quite
often the stuff that's underground and out of sight that gets you the
most attention and it's almost always never positive. All it takes is
one burst pipe, and you'll get hundreds of phone calls from angry
citizens demanding that you fix it immediately.
In my hometown of Cleveland, there have been two big water main
breaks in the last year that caused a lot of flooding and disrupted
people's lives. Let me tell you, those breaks got a lot of attention.
Unfortunately, for many communities across our Nation, anything but
routine maintenance for such problems is prohibitively expensive. For
those communities that want to conduct a wholesale overhaul of their
aging infrastructure, many face the realization that they will have to
obtain revenues locally.
Of course, the general public considers rate increases as they do
taxes. And with the reaction to the dramatic rise in heating costs this
winter, possible increases in electricity costs, high gas prices, and
other necessities like health care, it's easy to understand why the
public does not want to pay more for something they take as a
``given.'' It's a wonder how the average person can make it.
(That's one of the reasons I am working to address the lack of a
national energy policy.)
However, with an attitude among the public of not wanting to pay
for these infrastructure upgrades, more often than not, these upgrades
go on the back-burner, adding to the nationwide cost of repairs.
I have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a study
on the unmet infrastructure needs of our Nation. This includes such
items as: highways, mass transit, airports, drinking water supply and
wastewater treatment, public buildings, water resources (flood control
and navigation) and hydropower generating facilities.
For each infrastructure area, the GAO will look at how agencies
develop their needs estimates and determine whether they used leading
practices and guidelines. I believe the GAO's final report will give us
a better sense of exactly how reliable the needs estimates are.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ``Clean Water Needs
Survey'' is a striking example of how much has to be done to tackle our
unmet needs. Conducted in 1996, this survey estimated that nearly $140
billion would be needed over the next 20 years to address wastewater
infrastructure problems in our communities.
In March 1999, the EPA revised their figures upwards, whereas
infrastructure needs are now estimated at $200 billion. Other
independent studies indicate that EPA has undershot the mark,
estimating that these incredible unmet needs exceed $300 billion over
20 years.
Since arriving in the Senate 2 years ago, I have used my position
as a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works to work
toward improving the condition of our nation's water infrastructure.
In February, I introduced legislation reauthorizing the highly
successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
(SRF) Program. My bill ``the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act''
(S. 252) which is identical to legislation I introduced in the last
Congress would authorize $3 billion per year over 5 years for a total
of $15 billion.
As you may know, the SRF program has continued to receive annual
funding since 1994 when its authorization expired. This year fiscal
year 2001 is no exception, with Congress appropriating $1.35 billion
for the program. Of that, approximately $74.9 million will go to Ohio
to capitalize its SRF program.
However, as in many States, my State of Ohio has needs for public
wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water
SRF funding levels. In Ohio alone, $7.4 billion of improvements have
been identified as necessary, according to the latest State figures. Of
that amount, nearly $4 billion is needed to fix Ohio's combined sewer
overflow problem. I will let our witnesses go into details about the
cost of the needs they face, but suffice it to say, most have needs
that far outweigh Ohio's annual allocation.
In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending,
reauthorization of the SRF program is necessary. One of the things that
bothers me the most in Washington is that there is no consideration to
taking care of our nation's needs across the board. The President's
fiscal year 2002 budget request, for instance, increases funding by 4
percent, although important programs like the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Civil Works program and the Clean Water SRF program face
significant cuts. In my view it is the responsibility of the Federal
Government to take care of our aging water infrastructure.
The Clean Water SRF program is an effective and popular source of
funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. While the
loans provided by the Clean Water SRF program can help many communities
finance wastewater infrastructure projects, even a low-interest loan
can be too expensive for some.
One of the bills that I pushed especially hard last year was the
Wet Weather Quality Act of 2000 (H.R. 828). This bill created a $1.5
billion grant program to help localities deal with CSO and SSO
problems.
I felt that this bill was a reasonable approach to helping
communities overcome the burden of wastewater infrastructure costs. I
was pleased, therefore, that it was included in the Omnibus
Appropriations bill that passed in the Senate late last year, and I was
further pleased to be able to work with my House colleagues from the
Ohio delegation to get this enacted.
Now we will need to work to ensure that we have the first
installment of $750 million to carry-out this program, as well as at
least level funding $1.35 billion for the Clean Water SRF program as
Congress addresses the fiscal year 2002 budget. Again, I am
disappointed that the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request
reduced the overall amount of money available for water infrastructure.
Specifically, the budget asks for $450 million for the new wet weather
grants program and $850 million for the Clean Water SRF. I am not alone
in asking that more funds go toward these programs.
This past February, I also attended a press conference held by the
Water Infrastructure Network (WIN). WIN is a coalition of wastewater
treatment and drinking water providers, environmental engineers,
contractors, and municipal organizations.
During the press conference, WIN called on the Federal Government
to significantly enhance its role in financing the nation's clean water
and safe drinking water infrastructure. Their proposal is a 5-year, $57
billion program combining grants and loans to increase Federal
investment in our nation's water infrastructure, including our CSO and
SSO problems.
After the press conference I was asked by a person from the media
if I thought that was enough money or if Congress would even approve
such a sum.
I told him that while $57 billion may or may not be something that
Congress can approve, I am in favor of talking about the costs incurred
by the local governments as a result of actions taken by Congress that
is, the unfunded mandates that are passed on by Washington and seeing
what we can do to alleviate the situation. Perhaps a program that
involves a mixture of grants and loans would suffice. It should be
given our careful consideration.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government will not be able to solve our
infrastructure needs with more money alone. Accordingly, I believe some
of our laws and regulations may need to be revisited to see if there is
any way the Federal Government can alleviate the burden on communities
and their ratepayers and still be consistent with good environmental
policy. I believe benefits and costs need to be carefully analyzed and
taken into consideration when the Federal Government makes a decision
that will affect our citizens.
That is why when I was Governor of Ohio I was very involved with
the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act to bring common sense to
our nation's drinking water law. At the time the legislation was being
debated, cities like Columbus were facing having to add 25 pollutants
every 3 years and spend millions of dollars to invest in sophisticated
monitoring technology.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the extent of
water infrastructure concerns in their communities. I am interested in
what they have done to address their own concerns and how they have
used available Federal and State programs to help finance improvements.
Part of what I would like to get out of today's hearing is what our
witnesses believe Congress should be pursuing in a comprehensive effort
to deal with wastewater infrastructure needs.
Further, I would appreciate hearing their thoughts on how they see
the Federal Government acting more as a partner with our States and
communities; especially those trying to comply with Federal water
quality standards.
Finally, I would like to come out of this hearing with a consensus
on a number of issues besides just funding, mainly, whether changes in
Federal regulations are needed in order to make them more reasonable
and flexible to communities, or whether changes to Federal law are
needed instead.
What are we asking our communities to do that doesn't make sense
and what are the implications of those requirements on the costs they
are facing? If they make sense, what is fair in terms of who should pay
for what? How much should the Federal Government put forth and how much
should States and localities be responsible for? Finally, how do we pay
for it?
Mr. Chairman, if we tell communities they have to comply with a law
that we pass, then we need to give them the means to do it not just
make a decree.
We need to seriously look at some of the things that we're asking
our State and local leaders to do. We need to let them use cost benefit
analysis, risk assessment and sound science.
Congress needs to do a better job educating the public on the
extent of water infrastructure needs in our communities and why it is
important that something be done to protect public health and well-
being. We need to address the regulations that these communities are
faced with, and we need to ensure that they have the adequate funds to
meet their needs.
Once again, I am pleased to be here this morning and I am eager to
hear what you have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time
to be with us this morning. I would like to thank our witnesses as
well, and I anticipate a very lively hearing.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you very much, George. You have
effectively encapsulated exactly what it is that this committee
is trying to do. For those who are here, I would tell you that
the committee is looking very aggressively at a major
reauthorization bill to try to address the very issues that
Senator Voinovich has raised so effectively. So the input you
provide for us today will be very helpful as we proceed along
that course.
Let me just lay out a few of the ground rules, then we'll
get started.
I believe you all have a clock in front of you, right?
There's one at the witness table. We've asked each of you to
try to keep your comments--your oral presentation to 5 minutes.
My experience is that I've rarely had a witness in front of
our committee who can say everything they want to say in 5
minutes, so I'm almost certain your time will run out before
what you have to say will run out, but please try to follow the
clock.
When it starts, you know, getting down to that timeframe
when you've got about a minute left, try to get ready to
summarize. When it runs out, we'll ask you to summarize your
testimony and finish it, with the understanding that the reason
we want to try to keep it at that is we will try to get into an
exchange with you and you will have the opportunity to say
things you want to say, and that will give us the opportunity
to have dialog without running out of time at the end of the
hearing.
So I would like to ask you to try to follow the clock. If
you're like me, you have a hard time remembering to look at the
clock, so if you do go over very far, I will lightly tap the
gavel a little bit to remind you to look at the clock.
With that--are there any other instructions?
Senator Voinovich. No, that's fine.
Senator Crapo. With that, we'll proceed, then, with our
first panel. Our first panel is the Hon. Lydia J. Reid, who is
the mayor of the city of Mansfield, and the Hon. Robert
Vincenzo, who is the mayor of the city of St. Clairsville. We
welcome you both with us.
Mayor Reid.
STATEMENT OF HON. LYDIA J. REID, MAYOR,
MANSFIELD, OH
Mayor Reid. Thank you, Senator Crapo, and thank you for
coming all the way to Columbus, OH. I think you're going to
find your trip enjoyable, and I'm sure that Senator Voinovich
will make it worthwhile. You can see our beautiful statehouse
and a few of our other attractions.
Senator Voinovich, thank you once again. I've been with you
on many of our--I guess we call them battles that we've waged
over the years, and I remember the Clean Air Act, when we stood
with Senator Glenn and worked on that several years ago, and I
appreciate your grasp of what we are going through. Of course,
with your experience as mayor of Cleveland for so many years
and as Governor, you understand why we're here today trying to
protect our citizens from onerous restrictions that none of us
can afford. So having said all that, I will start.
I'm here to provide information relating to potential
required expansion of our wastewater treatment plant in
Mansfield. The service area includes 55,000 people, along with
business and industry.
Sewer service is provided by a separate sanitary system and
the wastewater is treated in a wastewater treatment plant with
a design capacity of 12 million gallons per day before
discharge to the Rocky Fork of the Mohican River.
The collection system was originally a combined sewer
system, designed to carry both sanitary sewage and stormwater.
In the mid-1980's, it was converted to a separate sanitary
system. This change from combined system to separate sanitary
system brought the city under a more stringent regulatory
regime.
U.S. EPA regulations are based on the assumption that flows
in a separate sanitary system will not have a significant
stormwater component and, consequently, there will be no
sanitary sewer overflows and no plant bypasses.
The Mansfield system has no sanitary sewer overflows. At
the wastewater treatment plant, dry weather flow averages about
9 million gallons a day. It is processed through primary
treatment, secondary treatment, and disinfection before
discharge to the Rocky Fork.
During wet weather, intermittent flows of up to 18 million
gallons a day are processed in this way. Above that level, some
flows are diverted to the 5-million-gallon equalization basin
for storage and later treatment.
In extremely high flow situations, the EQ basin, which
provides better than primary level treatment, overflows. EQ
basin overflow combines with treated secondary effluent and the
entire flow is disinfected. So nothing goes into the stream
that hasn't been treated.
The total flow meets NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, permit limits for concentration. We believe
that EQ basin effluent alone meets NPDES permit limits for
concentration.
Our NPDES permit is about to be renewed by Ohio EPA. It
appears that Ohio EPA is seeking requirements in the permit
that would require a plant expansion, even though we currently
meet concentration limits at all flow levels.
Given the high quality of our effluent and given the many
competing demands for our municipal resources, we do not
believe that we should be required to provide any additional
treatment unless it is necessary.
Our sewer rates average over $300 per year per hookup.
That's per household. This is a level that U.S. EPA recognizes
as sufficient to properly maintain a system. At this point, we
are not certain what our renewed permit will require. A number
of factors will influence our permit renewal and the cost of
implementation to our ratepayers.
Currently, the U.S. EPA is working on two main issues that
could affect our permit. The first is the draft sanitary sewer
overflow regulation that was signed by former Administrator
Browner in the last days of the Clinton administration, but not
published in the Federal Register. It is being re-examined by
the Bush administration.
Among other issues, the preamble to the draft sanitary
sewer overflow regulation requested comment on the level of
treatment required for flows reaching the wastewater treatment
plant.
I see I'm running out of time, so I'll get down here to the
bottom.
We ask that you continue to monitor these issues both in
the regulatory process and through confirmation hearings for
the U.S. EPA assistant administrator for water.
If unsupportable determinations are made by the U.S. EPA,
we would like to discuss with you options that may be
available.
If rule interpretation continues in its current direction,
then the city may be on a path with EPA to spend tens of
millions of dollars to provide additional treatment for 3\1/2\
percent of total annual flow to the wastewater treatment plant
in order to eliminate less than 10 annual EQ basin overflows,
which are currently meeting all NPDES permit concentration
requirements.
Again, I'd like to thank you for your interest in these
matters, and to simply say that we are doing everything that is
necessary and more. The water going back into the Rocky Fork is
cleaner than the water already in there. To spend another $10
million to take care of that 3\1/2\ percent is ludicrous and
wasteful. Our system's got better things that we need to spend
the money on.
Thank you both for your attention, and I'm just about out
of time. I've got 30 seconds. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mayor. We appreciate
that.
Next, Mayor Vincenzo.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT VINCENZO, MAYOR,
ST. CLAIRSVILLE, OH
Mayor Vincenzo. Senator Crapo, Senator Voinovich, Members
of the committee, I wish to express my appreciation for
allowing me to appear before your committee, testifying on
behalf of our small city's problem concerning our
infrastructure.
St. Clairsville is a city of 5,100 people on the eastern
side of the State, 10 miles from Wheeling, WV. We're located in
Belmont County, one of the highest Appalachian counties. Our
city is largely residential and service based. We are in the
county seat. The largest retail area in mid-eastern Ohio is
located on the eastern edge of my city.
In the early 1980's, the city took advantage of the Federal
EPA's 75 percent grant to build our main wastewater treatment
plant, a 950,000 gallon-per-day average design. We also
rehabilitated sewer lines in the effort to limit infiltration
and inflows. The latter has been largely a failed effort.
Although we've repeatedly tested for and eliminated inflow,
we still have a tremendous amount of infiltration problems
because our flow increases five-fold during wet weather.
Our old clay lines dating back to the 1920's act as a leech
field collecting subsurface drainage. This causes flooding of
the pump stations, the plant, and resident's homes.
In 2002, we will bid the replacement of four pump stations
and 5,200 feet of lines, only 3 percent of our total, with an
estimated cost of $600,000. In performing this upgrade in the
1980's, we achieved one of the highest wastewater rates in
Ohio.
About 4 percent of our current department budget goes to
debt service. According to the most recent OEPA statewide rate
survey, issued in February 2001, for the 1999 calendar year,
St. Clairsville's rate was in the 33d percentile.
Just after that study was published, the city boosted its
rate another 7 percent in August 2000. If that number is
factored into the OEPA survey, our rate is in the 12th
percentile out of 444 systems reporting.
As a side note, customers take a double hit in that we are
in the top 10 percentile in water rates statewide.
Additionally, while we are one of the highest rates in the
State, our community is in the bottom third of the personal
wealth. As these numbers indicate, St. Clairsville has taken
steps itself by paying much of its own way. We have a
competitively strong system, but our residents have a high rate
burden. To fulfill our needs, the rates will go even higher
unless there's some infusion of outside capital.
Ohio's Public Works grants have helped, but the
effectiveness was diluted when the State allowed these funds to
be used for road resurfacing and tailored the grant point
system to rank these politically popular projects higher than
wastewater projects.
Our wastewater rates constitute about 2 percent of
household income. We do not believe we can push them much
higher.
Briefly, our current needs include: First, flow
equalization to prevent system surcharging, flooding, during
storms; second, pump station and lift replacement; third,
hydrogen sulfide control, and this gas occurs naturally and
destroys concrete and structures in the collection system; and
last, relocation or expansion of our city's second plant, a
90,000 gallon per day designed structure that is at designed
capacity.
Relocation would allow us to move this plant from a
congested area and extend service to an underserved area. In
St. Clairsville's experience, expansion of wastewater treatment
definitely yields new development.
These above needs total about $10 million for this basic
utility.
We do not criticize the requirement for clean water, we
support that. We do feel that the EPA's focus should be on
communities meeting their permit limits and should not be
micromanagement type control of plant operations.
Instead, EPA should focus on the discharge quality and not
on regulating the specific increments of the process used to
reach that quality.
The EPA was very helpful in assisting the city technically
in solving a difficult treatment problem, which has stymied
various engineering consultants. The work of the Ohio EPA
solved the treatment problem and resulted in a nationally
publicized technical paper to help others.
So what help do we need? Our answer is one you've probably
heard too often. More money. We've dedicated our own resources
to improving our systems, and we've taken the unpopular steps
of pushing our rates to the limit. Our residents have
shouldered the burden of support, but to restore these systems
will take resources beyond that which we currently have or will
have.
I'm aware that there's not an instant solution for our
situation. However, I'm very appreciative of your concerns to
conduct this hearing for some positive feedback, and I'm very
pleased to have an opportunity to testify before your committee
to provide additional insight to the plight of small cities and
villages.
Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mayor. That was very
good timing, too. One second to go.
Mayor Vincenzo. With a little practice.
Senator Crapo. I notice these clocks count back up when it
gets to zero. So for the other witnesses, if you happen to see
the red light on it, that's already the time you've used up
that you shouldn't have. I'm starting to understand the system
here.
I'm going to ask Senator Voinovich if he would ask the
first round of questions.
Senator?
Senator Voinovich. Your major problem today is this
additional treatment facility. You're going to have to meet new
requirements for the overflow from a holding basin, when you
have an incident of a storm, which is six or seven times a
year.
Why are you being required to put in this additional
facility, and what is it based on, and the cost--roughly the
increase in cost to your people.
I guess the last thing I'd like you to comment on would be,
I was not aware of these regulations that are being considered
right now and I'd be interested in your opinions about those
regulations.
Mayor Reid. Well, first of all, we are in the process of
negotiating a new NPDES permit, and this is the year that we
will probably finish. We've been negotiating with the EPA on
this permit for approximately 2 years, and one of the things
that we have encountered all the way through this process is
their concern about stormwater overflows. We went through an
extensive, renovation process, and spent millions of dollars
to----
Senator Voinovich. OK. One of the things I'd like you to
clarify is stormwater overflow.
Mayor Reid. Right.
Senator Voinovich. Basically means that this is water
that's generated during a storm that goes into the holding tank
or the holding basin? Or are we referring to stormwater
overflow as that which the basin isn't able to handle and
just----
Mayor Reid. Right. We've spent $10 million to separate our
sewers, our downflows from houses, et cetera, and make sure
that we still have separate systems. When we have heavy
rainfall resulting in high flows in the sewer, we usually treat
everything. I think the EPA misconception comes in, because we
do treat everything.
When we have a major storm, the combined sewage and
stormwater flows over into the EQ basin, and all but about six
times per year it receives full treatment.
Senator Voinovich. But, again, the EQ basin----
Mayor Reid. Equalization, yes----
Senator Voinovich. Is that your stormwater, or does that
include sanitary?
Mayor Reid. That is stormwater and sanitory flow combined.
Senator Voinovich. So you have--your town, have you a
separate system, separate sanitary, separate sewers----
Mayor Reid. Right, but stormwater can get in the sewers.
Senator Voinovich. The sanitary is treated during a storm,
you deal with that?
Mayor Reid. Right, we treat storm and sanitory together.
Senator Voinovich. But what you're talking about is
stormwater that would ordinarily go into your plant and be
treated is now, then, put over, in a storm, into the holding
basin, and in many situations, the holding basin isn't adequate
to take care of it and that overflows into something else?
Mayor Reid. Right.
Senator Voinovich. And you're being asked to deal with
taking the water from the storm that goes into the basin
because it's not adequate in terms of the regulation----
Mayor Reid. That's exactly right. I have Mr. Angelo
Klousiadis here, who is the plant manager, and he can give you
the nuts and bolts.
Mr. Klousiadis. Yes, if I could, thank you.
What we have is infiltration due to the age of the system,
and when you get a heavy storm event, some of the stormwater
infiltrates into the system. Even though it's a separate
system, you get a lot of rainwater.
What happens is all of that infiltrating stormwater then
combines with the already existing sanitary sewage and comes
into the plant. The plant's designed to handle up to 18 million
gallons through the normal operation. Anything above that rate,
18 million gallons-per-day rate is diverted over to the EQ
basin that slowly starts to fill.
If the storm event is short, we bring all that water back
into the plant when the flow starts to abate. If it continues,
and it overflows the EQ, that overflow is a combination of
stormwater and sanitary sewage.
But, again, that overflow has already had primary settling,
some aeration and full disinfection. So it is partially treated
and then that overflow comes into combination with the existing
treated effluent of the wastewater plant, and the junction
where those two flows come together is monitored. At that
point, all the NPDES permit concentration limits are met.
We've never had a violation at that point. Any violation
the plant's ever had, which is three violations out of the last
15 months, has been at the effluent, where the fully-treated
sewage is discharged. So the wet weather EQ overflow has never
resulted in violation.
Senator Voinovich. But the storm overflow could include in
that holding basin--you could have some sanitary waste?
Mr. Klousiadis. There is.
Senator Voinovich. That's because of the fact that you have
this--the problem that Mayor Vincenzo has, the sewer system is
so old that the water ends up going into the sanitary system?
Mr. Klousiadis. Most systems would have that, Senator,
because you have a lot of manholes. During heavy rains, it'll
naturally come into your sewer.
Senator Voinovich. Basically what you're saying, under the
current setup, you think you're doing things adequately and
that the water--the effluent that goes into the creek is higher
quality than what's in the creek?
Mr. Klousiadis. Correct. The permit limits were based on
what the aquatic life of the creek and human health
requirements could support.
Senator Voinovich. So you'd like the regulation to be
revisited?
Mr. Klousiadis. That's correct. We would like to be able to
say that if the water leaving our treatment plant during normal
operation is good enough to enter the creek without creating a
problem, then why should the combined, if it still meets those
same concentration numbers, create a problem.
Senator Voinovich. OK. The cost of it is roughly--you were
talking earlier and said $10 million if you go to overflows.
Mr. Klousiadis. That's hard to determine, yes.
Senator Voinovich. Could you say conservatively, if you
build--you're saying $300 a year. If you--conservatively, if
you build this, you ascertain it would probably cost the
citizens about $600 a year?
Mr. Klousiadis. I think that's a very fair estimate.
Senator Voinovich. And could be more?
Mr. Klousiadis. It could be more. Because along with that,
additional improvements to the collection system may be
requried.
Senator Voinovich. In terms of the environment, your
position would be that you're treating the water at high
quality, that you're returning it into the--you're getting rid
of the chlorine and all the other stuff and you're turning it
into a stream that--whose quality is less than what--the
effluent that you're putting into it?
Mr. Klousiadis. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. Could I ask a few questions on this line
before you go on to the next situation?
Senator Voinovich. Go ahead.
Senator Crapo. It seems to me, from what I'm hearing here,
that the water--if you do have to make the changes and do the
$10 to $20 million additional reforms of the system, the water
you're putting back into the creek or to the river will not
necessarily be any cleaner; is that correct?
Mayor Reid. Not exactly. What we're putting in the river
now is better than what's there already and meets permit
concentration limits. If we have to provide even more
treatment, it will waste public resources.
Senator Crapo. Is there any issue with regard--if you know,
is there any issue with either the Ohio EPA or the U.S. EPA
with regard to whether the existing standards, which you do
meet, are adequate?
It's my understanding that everybody believes that these
standards are now the standards we desire to achieve, and if
they are adequate--do you have any different understanding?
Mr. Klousiadis. The concentration limits that we have are
those which are set by Ohio EPA and, again, are very
conservative and are based upon what that stream can support to
not create any pollution or risk to the aquatic life. We're
meeting that, and we would never ask to increase them.
All we're saying--there is another aspect to consider, and
that's called load. During the times that you discharge into
these streams, you usually have higher volumes of water in the
stream itself, due to the storm. So the impact of the effluent
is significantly less. There are now some people that are
looking at load and what the stream can handle and asking
whether there should be a tiered effluent limit.
We're meeting the standard which was set by EPA for
concentration, yet we're being told to clean it up more. That's
what I'm saying, we don't know where that more ends.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. You're a small town?
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Do you have any idea of what your
average person pays a year in rates?
Mayor Vincenzo. Well, yes, I can tell you, Senator, the--
for 8,000--to treat 8,000 gallon of sewage, and also to treat
8,000 gallons of water--and our sewage rate is based on our
water consumption, each is identical and is $43.60 each for
8,000 gallons of water and 8,000 gallons of sewage. So that
leaves a total monthly bill, just for 8,000 gallons, over $87 a
family.
Senator Voinovich. You're talking about 80 bucks, about?
Mayor Vincenzo. Eighty-seven bucks a month.
Senator Voinovich. So you're talking $90, close to $90?
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes, that's a thousand and--$1,080 a year,
just for 8,000 gallons a month consumption of water and sewage
treatment.
Senator Voinovich. Then you said the average was 2 percent
of the income of the people who live in your area?
Mayor Vincenzo. That's about 2 percent of the income.
Senator Voinovich. Do you think that there should be a
special program--well, let's ask you this first question: Are
you being required to do some things right now that you're not
doing based on new regulations, or is what you're being
required just to meet the current standards?
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes, we're being required--as I mentioned
earlier in my report, we have 13 sewage lift stations, pump
stations, that go into forced mains, and we're being required
to rehabilitate these 13 lift stations, and almost all require
some type of maintenance.
The four--we're doing four right now that are under bid for
the year 2000, and these four will constitute $600,000 to rehab
four of our 13 lift stations. We've done this with an Ohio
Issue Grant, with the city supplying over $150,000 of our own
money for this grant that will total $600,000. That's just to
do four stations.
Senator Voinovich. But the question is this: You're doing
that to meet the current standards?
Mayor Vincenzo. To meet the current standards.
Senator Voinovich. It's not any new regulation coming from
Washington, this is a question of an aging infrastructure that
needs to be repaired in order to just maintain the current----
Mayor Vincenzo. Correct. These four stations that we're
currently doing now are the worst, and they are almost out of
operation.
Senator Voinovich. So the point is you've got two problems
here. I think that's real important that I think the committee
understands.
We have an aging infrastructure problem in many places in
the country. Some of it is probably still from what we built
from back at the end of the early 1970's, and so forth, some of
those have deteriorated. That's one problem.
Then you have another problem, Mayor Reid's problem,
they're asking the new regs to even go more than that.
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. But your problem, basically, is just
with the infrastructure?
Mayor Vincenzo. Well, we have----
Senator Voinovich. I mean, to maintain----
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes, besides that, our storm sewer water is
also definite--has a definite impact on our sewage system which
does flood our plant from time to time because of the
infiltration. Our system is not unique. We do have a separate
stormwater and sewage wastewater system.
Our stormwater builds up so much pressure during the heavy
downfalls that it is aging also and it will force itself into
our sewage--our wastewater lines that will also create
tremendous pressure and will lift manhole covers during heavy
downfalls.
Now, these areas, of course, are in residential areas that
would require a massive rehab job to replace both equally storm
sewers and wastewater lines.
But also there's a mandate coming from the EPA at this time
that we are to be directing toward stormwater treatment that
will be coming into our area, also, which will be another
considerable mandate that we'll have a struggle to work
through.
Senator Voinovich. OK. Because I've got legislation right
now that authorizes the safe--the Water Revolving Loan Fund,
working with about a million, $350 million, $15 billion. Those
are loans. But there really isn't any grant program to the
communities. Senator Crapo is responsible for amending the
authorization bill to provide, I think, a $1\1/2\ billion for
grants. We're trying to get this administration to put $750
million in their budget.
By the way, in their initial budget, even though it was a 4
percent increase, there is now--there isn't the money to fund
even the current funding of the revolving loan fund. They put
in about $850 billion instead of 1.3\1/2\, and they put in
about $450 and a million into the grants program.
So you're going to have to lobby very hard to make sure
that that then gets upped.
Then the next issue is how do we deal with this thing over
a longer period of time. But would you--I'll finish with this
question to you, Mayor. You're not able to handle this by
yourself?
Mayor Vincenzo. Definitely. Definitely not.
Senator Voinovich. And your water goes into the Ohio River?
Mayor Vincenzo. Ultimately, yes. Yes. We have--I think, if
I'm not mistaken, I could be corrected by my service director,
I think we're presently dumping our stormwater into about four
different streams, and our wastewater into two different
streams--I'm sorry, one different stream at this time, which
ultimately ends up in the Ohio River.
Senator Voinovich. OK. One piece of good news, the Ohio
River's quality report is better than it's been, but you still
can't go swimming in it.
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. We want it to be fishable and swimmable and
drinkable, right? Mayor Vincenzo, what is the population of
your town?
Mayor Vincenzo. Five thousand and one hundred people. We
just made the census.
Senator Crapo. Just like a lot of towns in Idaho. I'd like
to follow up on one of your aspects of testimony that really
struck a cord with me. It's one of my own pet peeves, if you
will, and that is you indicated in your written testimony, and
in what you presented to us today, that it's your belief that
EPA's focus in terms of administration of the environmental
laws, at least these environmental laws, should be more on
discharge quality rather than micromanagement of the systems
that get you to what is discharged in the end.
This is a debate that we've been having in Washington now
for at least the last 9 years, since I started in Congress.
I can just tell you that when I served in the House, I was
put on an environmental task force by our House leadership to
try to figure out a new approach to addressing environmental
issues in the country, and one of the things we talked about
there was whether we should move from the micromanagement
approach that we now have at the Federal level to one in which
the Federal Government sets the standards for water quality or
air quality, or whatever the case may be, and says this is the
quality of environment that we seek to have and will establish
by law in the United States, but then let the statutes and the
local communities and the local government authorities figure
out how to meet that standard.
Instead of Washington having a one-size-meets-all-cookie-
cutter solution that many of us believe often causes more
problems and costs a lot more money and doesn't necessarily
reach the quality of cleanup that we could achieve, we'd
probably have hundreds of different approaches, and the best
ones would rise to the top and communities around the country
would be able to watch what each other does and find what
works.
I assume that that's the kind of approach that you would
support, but I'd like to ask your comment on that.
Mayor Vincenzo. Well, yes, I'm very glad that we are back
to revisit that statement I made.
We have some of the most qualified people in our department
in the water--wastewater program, and they are very capable to
deliver the quality of water on the other end of that plant
without any other standards brought into us that just makes us
jump through hoops, doesn't really accomplish anything more,
except to put an additional equipment that sometimes does not
solve the problem to come out with that water to be equal--to
be quality water at the end.
We just feel that a lot of the mandates have been given to
us to accomplish this, we've already been accomplishing it, and
our standard at the other end--at the discharge has not
increased any differently than what we've been doing all these
other times before we've had to modernize and to put in
additional equipment that didn't provide any better discharge
at the end.
Senator Crapo. Mayor, all of the discharges from your city
meet the necessary standards, though?
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes, it does. It does. If that quality
falls below that, then, of course, the EPA right away is in on
us to post our discharges as to a violation. So, you see, our
testing is done regularly and they are receiving our testing
monitor regularly.
Senator Crapo. When you're found in violation, do you have
to pay fines?
Mayor Vincenzo. There was, I believe--Mr. Bigler, did we
ever assess the personal fine?
Mr. Bigler. No.
Senator Crapo. That's good news. I'm going to ask you a
question. You might find this question surprising, but I'll
explain it after I ask it.
Do you and the people of your city want to have clean
water?
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes. Oh, definitely. Definitely.
Senator Crapo. You just told me that you have good,
competent people that are there who are capable of meeting the
national standards that you've been----
Mayor Vincenzo. Yes.
Senator Crapo. The reason I ask that question, in the
debates we have in Washington, when many of us say we should
have national standards but let our cities and counties and
States figure out how to meet those standards, the response
we're often given is that the cities and counties and States
won't do it. They don't want to do it. We have to have the
Federal Government make them do it, or that they can't do it,
they don't have the ability to do it, so we have to have the
Federal Government step in and show them how.
What do you think about those responses?
Mayor Vincenzo. Well, that--I guess that could be a
possibility. I mean, I think you know our society is such that
we have rules that a lot of people will follow--most of the
people will follow the rules and other people won't, and that's
perhaps the reason we have prisons in our States today, because
of that.
But also the fact that there are some communities, perhaps,
that aren't able to do this, but what I'm saying, I believe
that the final discharge, which should be the decision that the
EPA would make, to say, ``Well, St. Clairsville's doing a
commendable job, therefore we don't see a reason to come in and
to change their method''.
If another city is not doing that, then I think it would be
the ideal situation for the EPA to then come in and say, you're
not meeting your violation, therefore, you're going to have to
put this system in to make sure that you're going to be doing
this.
Senator Crapo. In other words, have the micromanagement if
you have a case in which it's established that the government
entity responsible cannot or will not meet its responsibility?
Mayor Vincenzo. Definitely. Definitely.
Senator Crapo. Mayor Reid, you just listened to this line
of questioning. Would you like to comment on any aspect of it?
Mayor Reid. Well, certainly I know that we have very
qualified people, and I've got one of the top guys right here.
We believe that we want the best possible water for our
citizens. We all want that. Whether some cities are capable of
doing that--again, I agree with Mayor Vincenzo, I think that if
the regulatory agencies see that you aren't meeting the
standards set forth in your permit, and you continuously can't
meet those standards, then obviously big brother's got to come
in and tell you that you have to do something different.
But when we always have met the concentration standards of
our NPDES permit, I do not understand why the EPA doesn't go
micromanage somebody that has problems.
We are doing an incredible job. We have wonderful water. We
even sent our drinking water in to try to win the National
Mayor's Association Best Water in the United States. We take
pride in our water. I think that, you know, there are only so
many resources to go around, and if you could take that
resource and direct it toward an area that needs it and leave
us the heck alone, because we're doing a great job, then I
think that's proper. I totally like your line of thinking,
Senator Crapo. That is just exactly what we say.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I'll just conclude my questions,
then, if you want to ask----
Senator Voinovich. I'm finished.
Senator Crapo. I just want to note in one part of your
written testimony that you didn't have time to get to, you
talked about the fact that the U.S. EPA recombination on flows
is being re-evaluated now and hasn't been finalized, and I
noted one of the things that's under consideration is whether
the permit issuing authority, NPDES authority, which in this
case would be Ohio EPA, would have the flexibility to address
some of these issues and to allow the elimination of some of
the micromanagement as long as the objectives were being
achieved.
I was pleased to see that, and I'll tell you I'm going to
go back and a talk to Christine Todd-Whitman, and some of the
others involved there, and see if they can hurry up this
evaluation and come out with a more flexible approach so we can
have more involvement at the State and local levels.
Mayor Reid. I appreciate that very much, Senator. Because
the Ohio EPA has been very good to work with. Generally, the
problems we've had over the many years I've been in government,
the Ohio EPA is on our side. They try to help us all they can,
but then they run smack up against the Federal regs. It seems
like the fed guys are--they've got this hard set of standards
that are sometimes impossible. I don't know if they sit in an
office somewhere and dream these up, but the Ohio EPA's down
here in the trenches. They know what's realistic and what's
not. I think Chris Jones will tell you the same thing.
Senator Crapo. Just to kind of give Chris an opportunity to
know where I'm headed, that's one of the questions I'm going to
ask them. I know in Ohio, we see them doing things that in my
opinion, is nuts, and when I get an opportunity to talk them in
these kinds of forums, I ask them about that, and almost every
case, their hands are tied. They're doing what they have to do.
Mayor Reid. Exactly.
Mayor Vincenzo. Exactly.
Senator Crapo. One of the problems, to create the
flexibility and do so in a way that does not jeopardize the
quality of our environment. I think we can do it.
All right. We thank you both for your attendance here, and
your input is going to be very helpful to us.
Mayor Vincenzo. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich and
Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. I forgot to announce to those of you who may
have seen the schedule, we're going to break this into three
panels instead of two panels, and the way we're going to do
that is we're going to ask--and I guess--I better get this
right. Yes, Chris Jones. We're going to ask Chris to come and
do a panel all by himself.
Chris is the director of the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency for the State of Ohio.
We will then have the remaining four witnesses in the last
panel. I forgot to announce that, and I apologize.
But, Mr. Jones, we appreciate you coming here today, and we
look forward to your testimony, and I think we'll have a very
interesting dialog as we evaluate the issues. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS JONES, DIRECTOR, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator Voinovich, Chairman Crapo,
and thank you for allowing me to speak about the wastewater
needs in Ohio communities. Those needs are great and the
resources to address them are not currently adequate.
The Clean Water Act has brought about tremendous
improvement in the quality of Ohio waters. By mandating control
of point source discharges, including sewage treatment plants,
the Act has enabled many streams to recover from low oxygen
conditions, excess phosphorus discharges, and other
degradation.
There are many dramatic examples of the results, most
notably, perhaps, the renaissance along the banks of the
Cuyahoga River in Cleveland and the resurgence of Lake Erie as
a world-class fishing destination. I understand that Senator
Voinovich may be planning some fact-finding missions to the
lake this summer to confirm for himself that the walleye and
perch are really biting.
Senator Crapo. He may have to invite me back.
Mr. Jones. In the 1970's and 1980's, as has been mentioned,
many of the infrastructure projects that enable water quality
improvements throughout the State were funded through the
Federal Construction Grants program, which provided 75 percent
of the cost of the sewage treatment infrastructure mandated by
the Clean Water Act. As you know, that was converted to a low-
interest loan program administered by the States.
The State Revolving Loan Fund program is currently due to
be re-authorized, and I know that Governor Taft has written you
to express his strong support for your bill to do that, Senator
Voinovich.
We are particularly pleased that S. 252 would double the
current level of funding to $3 billion a year over 5 years. If
enacted by Congress and signed by the President, it will
greatly assist communities in Ohio and throughout the Nation
with the construction, expansion and improvement of sewage
treatment facilities.
However, even doubling current spending will not adequately
meet the mandates in the Clean Water Act. I'd like to briefly
outline the needs in Ohio, and then suggest two areas in which
targeted resources are particularly needed.
Ohio EPA is in the process of updating the Clean Water
Needs Survey, which we do every 5 years in cooperation with the
U.S. EPA. Unfortunately, our results for this year aren't in,
so I'm going to give you some figures based on 1996, and I've
included a summary with my testimony. We hope to have more
current numbers by the summer.
In 1996, the infrastructure need in Ohio, according to the
survey, was $7.4 billion. That can be further broken out as
follows: $1.1 billion for wastewater plant construction and
improvement; $900 million to repair existing sewers; $900
million for construction of new sewers; $97 million for
stormwater controls; $198 million for non-point source
pollution abatement; and $4.2 billion for combined sewer
overflow elimination.
Obviously, combined sewer overflows that account for more
than half the infrastructure needs in Ohio, and even with the
dramatic increases in low-interest loan dollars, the burden is
too much for many communities.
There are 92 Ohio communities with combined sewers, and
they range from the largest of our cities--such as Cleveland,
Akron, Toledo, Youngstown and Cincinnati--to very small
communities, like Van Wert and Lisbon. In fact, a total of $16
million for CSO controls is needed in communities with fewer
than a thousand residents.
As an example, Port Clinton, a northwest Ohio town of a
little more than 7,000 people, has completed a combined sewer
system long-term control plan. The plan recommends improvements
over the next 5 years of between $8 million to $14 million.
Port Clinton's annual average sewer rate is now $566, which is
77 percent higher than the State average.
To pay for the improvements, in today's dollars, the
average sewer bill will increase to $846 in 2004, and $1,132 in
2010. These projections already include a $1.5 million grant
expected in 2002 as part of a previous budget bill.
The second area where Ohio would like to see targeted
Federal grants is to provide sewers in low-income areas where
failing septic systems are causing public health concerns.
It's difficult to believe that in the year 2001 in the
United States, people are living with raw sewage in the back
yard, in the drainage ditch, or in the creek. But it's true in
far too many communities.
The 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey identified 199 areas in
Ohio with high densities of failing on-lot septic systems, a
number we believe significantly understates the real need. We
are attempting to gather more accurate information in the
survey that is ongoing now.
Exposure to drainage from failing systems threatens public
health, but the threat doesn't end there. Pooling effluent is a
breeding ground for mosquitos, which carry encephalitis,
including the form known as West Nile Virus. We expect to see
that virus this year in northeast Ohio.
I'm already over my time limit and I have a lot of
recommendations. I would like to make three real quick ones,
and they address some of the questions you asked, Senator.
First, State primacy needs to mean State primacy. The Clean
Water Act should explicitly articulate minimum standards that
States must meet, and then delegate the program. Once a State
is awarded primacy, there should be no independent Federal
presence unless the State fails to perform its obligations.
Second, U.S. EPA needs a better grant program. Under the
Federal Clean Air Act, we have one grant for programs. Under
the Clean Water program, we have several grants, and we spend a
lot of time and money just tracking the money. That money could
be spent on programs.
The last point: we need to recognize that when everything
is a priority, nothing is a priority. We have right now U.S.
EPA pressing us, and ultimately these people behind me, to move
forward on all fronts. We're talking about industrial permits
that need to be updated every 5 years, sewer overflows,
stormwater, wetlands, coastal areas, stream uses, and we don't
have adequate funding for any of them. So we're trying to do a
little bit of everything and not enough of anything.
I've also included all the recommendations, and I'm sure we
can get to them.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I'm interested in the issue of setting
minimum standards and then giving the authority over to the
States to run the program.
It's very difficult to get the Federal EPA to do that,
because as Senator Crapo said earlier, too many people in the
agency and, frankly, too many people in Congress don't believe
that people on the State and local level care as much about
clean water and the environment as they do.
We just went through that recently with the groundfills,
and Senator Crapo helped me with my amendment to try and give
more certainty and more to the States. But there was strong
opposition in our committee for that, because they wanted the
Federal Government to micromanage this operation.
So this type of attitude just flows throughout the agency.
No matter what issue it is, they are very reluctant to give up
any of their controls. I'm interested in your commenting a
little bit more about those areas where you feel that they're
too intrusive and ought not to be involved.
Mr. Jones. Senator Voinovich, I couldn't agree with you
more. The automatic response is that there will be a race to
the bottom, and I just don't believe that that's the case. I
can cite all kinds of statistics about what the States are
doing.
I think there's been a dramatic change. Seventy percent of
all the Federal statutes are now delegated to States. Depending
on how you count that, over 90 percent of the enforcement
activities are done by the States now. I think that statistic
all by itself tells you that we're not interested in walking
away from the problem. In fact, we will take the enforcement
actions that we need to.
It can be simple things, Senator. For example, we're
required to renew permits every 5 years under the NPDES
program. We spend lots of time doing that on a lot of permits
where there's no need to do it. Where we have a wastewater
system that's performing, and is always meeting standards, it's
a paper exercise but we have to go through it, and it takes a
lot of time. So we could make 10-year permits instead of 5-year
permits, and make better use of our resources.
I mentioned targeting some of the grant money as opposed to
loan money. Even with the 0 percent loan, in some cases, you've
still got to pay it back. If your community is at the poverty
level, you can't do that. We have tremendous rate increases.
The flexibility that has been discussed before goes to
bypasses in large measure. It's, in a sense, what gets us into
micromanagement. For example, where do you count the bypass?
You have situations--I'm sure you'll hear from Toledo about the
central internal bypasses, a bypass within the system. We're
forced to count that as a bypass, and that's a violation. It
doesn't really make sense if, at the end of the day, there is,
in fact, effluent coming out the end of the pipe that meets
standards.
There are other provisions. One of the things that I would
like to see evaluated is what States are doing with anti-
degradation. As you know, Senator, we spend a lot of time, a
lot of effort, dealing with the anti-degradation provisions.
When I go to my national meetings, I don't hear other
States being concerned about anti-degradation. When I mention
it, because it's been so difficult for us as an agency to deal
with, it's not even on the radar screen. This tells me we're
doing something really wrong, or everybody else isn't really
following the law. The goals of anti-degradation make a lot of
sense.
Senator Voinovich. Can you explain that a little bit more.
Mr. Jones. Sure. Anti-degradation essentially says in order
to continue to make progress toward the fishable, swimmable
goals, we need to keep clean waters clean. That is, we should
not allow for further degradation. In fact, we should improve
waters that are impaired. That's a laudable goal. That's a goal
we all share.
But what has resulted is a tremendous exercise in
alternative analysis that is costly just to get through the
permit process. In many cases, a huge number of cases, you end
up back where you started from in terms of what you wanted to
do to improve your system.
So we have a fundamental question, does the anti-
degradation provision work? Is it actually improving water
quality?
A simple analysis of what States are doing with respect to
the anti-degradation review, and is it having a real impact on
improving water quality and maintaining clean streams, I think
would be a real benefit to everybody.
Earlier, I mentioned briefly block grants. We have separate
grants for almost all of our individual water programs, whether
it be wetlands or large wastewater operations. Simplifying the
grant process will save us a lot of money and make us able to
use that money creatively, if we don't have to track every dime
15 different ways from Tuesday.
I think that, again, goes to Senator Crapo's comment about
micromanagement. If you believe that you can't trust us with
the money, you're going to watch every dime that you give to
us. If in fact, you believe we will try to improve water
quality, you're going to give us a lot of grants, and we in
Ohio can best figure out how to use those dollars.
We're right in the middle of a budget debate right now in
this State, and we're looking at options for cutting back on
some of our programs.
The last one I'll mention is the TMDL program, total
maximum daily load. What are the loads to a stream and where
can we go from here? We have a fairly active program in Ohio,
but what we're really trying to do through our 319 grant
program, and others, is to involve the community to create
situations where there's a community investment in the
solutions.
There's not a lot of command and control that goes with
TMDL and non-point discharges. We don't want that. The last
thing we need for this kind of impact to streams is a command
and control system.
To make it work, it's going to take watershed groups,
locals who have an investment in the stream, to come up with
their solutions to these problems. In some cases, it'll be a
community that wants to take a dam down. In other communities,
that dam may have important historical significance for the
community and they want to do something differently.
Whether it's Columbus or Washington, if we tell people
exactly how to do something like that, people don't want to do
it. Ultimately, you don't get the kind of water quality
improvement they'd really want.
I'm sure there's folks behind me that will tell you even
more specifics of where they've had a problem, and it's
ultimately my staff telling them, ``You have to do it this
way.'' For me, it's never a satisfactory answer, when we have
to tell them in response to their question, ``Why?'' ``Well,
because the feds are making us do that.'' It makes no sense. It
never makes sense. It's ``the feds are telling us do that.''
Senator Voinovich. Do you have a national group that could
come back and make recommendations to this committee about
things that would improve your relationship with the
Environmental Protection Agency. That would give you more
flexibility, not waste your time on things that you ought not
to be wasting your time on and overall achieve a better,
cleaner water environment, but do it in a way that's so much
more cost effective than what we're doing today?
Because I keep hearing about this problem and anti-
degradation and some of these other things, and it's difficult
for the subcommittee to try and figure out what we ought to do.
We need a comprehensive report back about things that are there
that ought not to be there, and share those with Christine
Todd-Whitman. If there are things that she can't do because of
Federal regulation, then we can look beyond those regs to the
Federal law that makes her feel that she has to do those.
Mr. Jones. Senator, as the Ohio EPA director, I belong to
the Environmental Council of the States, which is all of State
counterparts.
One of the things we did as a result of an amendment in
last year's budget was to look at the enforcement issue on
exactly that kind of basis. What are the States doing, what can
we do better? It, again, gets to primacy. The feds never
believe that we're doing a good enough job, no matter what we
do, so we've got an earmark and we did a study on State
enforcement efforts, which was submitted to Congress.
I think the same type of thing can occur with respect to
water issues. We have a very active water committee on ECOS,
and have done a number of things. One of the things that the
organization as a whole did was submit an issues paper to the
incoming administration.
I'd be happy to get a copy of that to the subcommittee.
It's not specific to water, but it has a number of
recommendations.
If I boiled it down, I think it is the difference between
being a stakeholder and a partner. If, in fact, we are co-
regulators, that we implement the Federal regulations at the
State level, we need to be partners, as opposed to just another
stakeholder of U.S. EPA.
In Ohio, we have lots of stakeholder groups, and work very
effectively with many of the people in this room as well, but
we need to start moving to the next step, which is to move from
stakeholders to partner, so that when we're trying to implement
TMDLs in a watershed, it's not Columbus coming to tell them
this is the way we think you ought to do it, but it's Columbus
working in partnership with the watershed group, and soil and
water conservation, and the metropolitan sewer districts to
come up with the best solutions for the economy.
When I try to boil this down, that's the difference. Right
now we're a stakeholder of the U.S. EPA. We should be partners
as co-regulators with the U.S. EPA.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Most of my questions have already
been answered either by your testimony or by the dialog between
you and Senator Voinovich, Mr. Jones, but I just want to
quickly hit a couple things.
I really appreciate the recommendations that you've made in
your testimony, and I can assure you that we will take those
very carefully into account as we move forward. I especially
liked the section about making sure that State primacy means
primacy.
I assume that you would agree with this, but I want to be
sure to ask you directly, in terms of trying to move toward a
system in which the Federal Government sets the standard and
then lets the States and local communities determine how best
to achieve it, would you agree with that type of direction in
our environmental policy?
Mr. Jones. Absolutely, Senator. In fact, I think that's
what the model is supposed to be.
Senator Crapo. I think that's what it was supposed to be,
but go ahead.
Mr. Jones. I really think when you look at it, the system
that allows for these programs to be delegated to the States,
says we're going to set the standards. The United States is not
a monolith; the State of Ohio has significant differences
between the southwest part of the State, the northeast part of
the State, and the northwest part of the State. We have very
significant and differing issues to deal with, and we need to
be flexible.
Multiply that times 50 States, and the Federal Government
needs to be willing to say, ``OK, here's the standard, you
figure out how to meet it''.
I think that's the way these environmental statutes are
structured, although not always implemented.
Senator Crapo. I agree with you. In fact, I think that in
Washington, we have, in a rather typical way, come up with a
whole new definition of what delegation means. Because as I
think you said earlier in your testimony a significant amount
of the activity in the Federal environmental law is now
delegated to the States, and they do have so-called primacy,
and they are administering the Federal programs.
But what I run into consistently is that behind the State's
so-called primacy and the State management is the big brother's
heavy hand at the Federal level, and that the State regulators
are essentially operatives of those Federal program managers,
and they really don't have the primacy or the independence to
make those flexible decisions they have told us they need.
Would you agree?
Mr. Jones. I would agree, Senator.
One of the things that we have created in our agency is an
assistance unit that many of these folks have worked with to
try to find those creative solutions to these difficult
problems. You know, you run into the brick wall.
I think it's interesting that U.S. EPA, through Project XL,
always talked about alternatives and creative innovations,
which are creative and innovative until you submit them for
approval, at which point, you're not following the regulations,
and thanks a lot.
I will tell you, I could improve our water quality tomorrow
just by the way we look at our water quality data. If we just
looked at chemical criteria, the number of streams and water
bodies in this State that meet water quality standards would go
up.
But what we've chosen to do is look at the biological
criteria, look at more than what's just the chemical quotient.
Now, that causes me some problems with these folks, sometimes,
because we take a harder look, but it's a more realistic look
at water quality.
U.S. EPA has flown our guys all over the country to teach
people how to do this, but every time we've submitted a rules
package or asked for biological criteria--because in some cases
it will cause the chemical number to be higher--they've
rejected it. So it seemed ironic that they want us to teach
everybody how to do it, but when we try to put it into our
rules, we're not allowed to. I think that's sort of the perfect
example of where you run into that Federal inflexibility. They
even acknowledge it's a good idea, but they just can't bring
themselves to allow us to do it.
Senator Crapo. That's a good example. Before I conclude, I
just can't resist asking you a question, although it's a little
bit of a divergence, but you brought it up, the TMDL issue.
As you're probably aware, we had a tremendous battle last
year in Congress--in fact, for the last 2 years in Congress--
over the EPA's proposed TMDL rules and regulations, which
ultimately we ended up delaying once and then delaying a second
time, in which the EPA is now evaluating, and we'll see where
they head.
But at the time when we were evaluating this, the same
issue came up, the States by and large were handling non-point
source inclusion through best management practices rather than
through the new TMDL program. The question that came before the
committee was whether there was a problem or whether we just
had a debate over this new regulation that was going to be very
expensive and divert a lot of resources.
Do you have an opinion on that? Did we need to or do we
need to move to a new TMDL program or are the programs that the
States were administering adequate?
Mr. Jones. Senator, we do believe that non-point source
pollution is where the bigger problem is now. We have done a
pretty good job at controlling the point sources. We've
ratcheted down discharge limits to where, frankly, you can't do
much more, short of zero-discharge limits, which are cost
prohibitive and probably impossible. So, we think you do have
to go after the non-point sources, agricultural runoffs.
Having said that, I think the TMDL program, at least in
Ohio, the way we were developing it, was very much on a
volunteer basis, essentially best management practices,
encouraging local cooperative efforts to address some of these
issues. Our biggest concern with what was approached is we're
sort of headed back to the command and control.
In particular, when you're talking about diffuse impacts to
streams, my view is it won't work.
When you have a discrete point source discharge, everybody
knows where it is, and everybody understands that's what you
have to control.
When you're talking about runoff impacts to the stream from
non-point sources, it's not so simple. You start to get into,
in a sense, some of the social behaviors. You're talking about
agriculture that has been encouraged probably 50 ways from
Tuesday in opposite directions, but there are means by which we
can address some of these problems.
They won't work if we're just telling people, this is
exactly how you have to do that. We have to create a system
that encourages best management practices. Best management
practices will change; that's the nature of them. But I think
that's the way we're going to succeed with the non-point
sources.
So, yes, there's a need for a TMDL program, but it needs to
be a cooperative, voluntary one. The rule that was proposed
last year, I think, is moving exactly in the opposite
direction.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. That's basically just TMDL, let the
watershed work come up with it, come back with the
recommendations, don't force you to try to come in and do it. A
lot of the communities tell you you don't have the staff to do
it anyhow, and that would save money and you get the buy-in
from the community. You create public value with the various
groups that are there that want to participate.
My last question is, do you believe--are you familiar with
the WIN Proposal?
Mr. Jones. I've not read the whole thing, but I'm familiar
with it, yes.
Senator Voinovich. Do you think that we ought to go forward
with a major program in terms of loans and grants, combination
programs, that would take this thing up?
Mr. Jones. I think not only do we have to, I think it won't
happen any other way. I think what you've heard already, what
I've tried to say and what you're going to hear is, there is a
significant infrastructure need that was met in the past with
fairly strong Federal program.
We're, in a sense, flipped now--75/25 because it's now
mostly loans. I don't think there's any feeling that we
shouldn't contribute as a State and local communities.
I think there's a real need, but when you're talking about
billions of dollars in infrastructure, that's something that
communities by themselves and the States by themselves simply
can't address. It's just going to get worse.
It's interesting, I was thinking about the infrastructure
question. Senator, you're familiar with the water main breaks
in Cleveland in the last 5, 6 months.
Senator Voinovich. Major.
Mr. Jones. Major ones.
Senator Voinovich. In fact, I was told not to come to my
Federal office because the water was running around the Federal
building.
Mr. Jones. Just outside this building, there's a famous
picture of a Mercedes Benz in a sinkhole because the pipes just
gave way. That was 10 years ago, or more. It's a problem that's
getting worse that needs to be addressed. Because, from my
perspective as an EPA director, it starts to impact water
quality, and that's what people are concerned about.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
We appreciate your time.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you for being here.
Senator Crapo. We'll call up our last panel today, which is
Mr. Erwin Odeal, who's the executive director of the Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer District in Cleveland. I understand we have
Mr. Robert Stevenson, the Commissioner of the Department of
Public Utilities----
Mr. Stevenson. City of Toledo.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Patrick Karney, director of the
Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. Mr. Patrick
Gsellman, who is the manager of the environmental division of
the Akron Engineering Bureau of the city of Akron. We
appreciate all of you being with us today.
We will begin with you, Mr. Odeal.
Senator Voinovich. Could I mention, also, if you could just
kind of quickly talk about the years you've had in this
business, so we can get--I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman,
you couldn't find a better panel of people to give you a cross-
section of what's going on. They've been in it a long time.
They've got different perspectives, and I'm tickled that you're
here. Because we would never have the time to get this kind of
testimony in Washington. It would never happen. So we're really
looking forward to seeing what you have to say today.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ERWIN ODEAL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST OHIO
REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT, CLEVELAND, OH
Mr. Odeal. Senator, Mr. Chairman, in terms of years, the
testimony says here I've been around for almost 35 years in
this business out on the front lines, all of it, really,
working in the Cleveland area, city of Cleveland, with the
Regional Sewer District. I've been fortunate to be a part of
the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies. So I
appreciate the chance to be here today and talk about the
future of the national and Ohio's water quality.
The district, since its creation in the 1970's, has
invested over $1.6 billion for capital improvements to the
wastewater conveyance and treatment system. These improvements
include upgrades in treatment plants, construction of five
interceptors, and numerous relief sewers.
The Clean Water Act financed 40 percent of the cost of this
project, with the balance paid for by the district's
ratepayers, either as repayment of low interest loans or as
pure district funds.
The most----
Senator Voinovich. Erwin, would you mind, even with my
hearing aids, I'm having a tough time.
Mr. Odeal. OK. It's not the first time, Senator. I
remember--just as divergence--when I used to work for the State
of Ohio, I think the recorder used to tell me to slow down all
the time when I was testifying. I definitely won't get through
it.
But the most recent regulatory requirement imposed upon the
district is our combined sewer overflow management and
reduction program, which involves a management requirement of
CSOs, the use of storage tunnels and various other
infrastructure.
The district has spent over $220 million to date on CSO
program--probably helps if my mike's on--which 11 percent was
funded through Federal grants, with the balance paid for by the
district's rate payers.
Our current program is anticipated to cost over $1 billion
over the next 15 years. I give you these numbers to show you
the amount of burden that's placed on the wastewater
ratepayers. The ratepayer's burden has increased from about 37
percent to over 90 percent of the current situation. There's no
question that without additional funding and loans and grants,
we will not be able to meet these requirements.
The SSO program, for example, that the regs have been
talking about, EPA has estimated over 80 billion, and we think
that number is probably low.
On that basis, we strongly endorse and support and work
actively for the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) program and
the Water Infrastructure Caucus to bring about a balance of
funding between local, State and Federal funding.
Without that, we do not think that the progress that we
have made will be sustained or that we will meet these new
objectives.
In addition, we think that there needs to be a more
efficient way to integrate and balance the various aspects that
we have to face in terms of the separate CSOs, SSOs, stormwater
management and TMDL programs.
Currently, communities must face these as individual sets
of regulations with individual and sometimes divergent program
requirements, requiring deficiencies and not leading us to a
uniform objectivity. As a result, as a member of the
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, and others, have
worked to try to develop some unified Federal legislation that
would allow us to deal with all, particularly wet weather,
water quality problems on a watershed basis.
In addition, the water quality standards that are fashioned
for urban streams must be scientifically defensible. We
certainly support and highly endorse the Ohio EPA's approach to
biological standards. We believe that proof of streams quality
is in the biology, not in the chemistry. We think that we would
continue to like the opportunity to work with the committee.
We've got a lot of information in our written testimony and
some information on the WIN program. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Odeal.
Mr. Stevenson.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT STEVENSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES, TOLEDO, OH
Mr. Stevenson. Thank you. My name's Robert Stevenson. I
have about 25 years in the water and wastewater treatment
field. Mayor Finkbeiner could not be here. He is at a function
for the $1.2 billion Jeep plant. Publicly, on behalf of the
city of Toledo, we'd again like to thank Senator Voinovich for
his help in that project.
The city of Toledo is currently involved in discussions to
settle a lawsuit that was brought by the U.S. EPA on October
29, 1991. The claim was that the city of Toledo was not meeting
its NPDES permit. The plant had undergone massive rebuilding
efforts, with Federal assistance, and had not been in full
compliance.
Over the 10 years of the lawsuit, the final effluent has
come into compliance and its discharge is no longer an issue.
The issue of bypassing them became evident. The issue of
bypassing was submitted to Judge James Carr. He had ruled that
the bypasses were illegal if feasible alternatives are
available. This term is contained in the Clean Water Act, and
he defined feasible alternatives to include building new
treatment units. He stopped short of defining what the measures
would be needed to be undertaken. He did, however, indicate
that maximizing their existing treatment plant was not
sufficient when it comes to feasible alternatives and
bypassing. It has huge ramifications for wastewater treatment
in general.
The U.S. EPA has insisted that we build an equalization
basin that would hold a sufficient quantity of wastewater such
that we can avoid bypassing. This amounts to a $60 million
basin.
In previous discussions, we had conceived and designed an
alternative wet weather system that would treat higher flows
and return them to the Maumee River without the need for
storage.
We fully intended to ensure that the discharge would meet
water quality standards such that no harmful effects would be
produced. This alternative could have saved us $40 million. The
U.S. EPA insisted that this was a good idea, that we should
downsize it slightly and combine it with the 60 million gallon
equalization basin. Our remedy of 30 to 35 million ended up
costing $80 million.
The disappointing part of this is that there was little
water quality benefit to the Maumee River. The reason we did
not agree on the Actiflow system alone is that it wasn't
getting full secondary treatment, and technically it was a
bypass.
They would be willing to allow us to build such a system as
long as we build an equalization basin, too.
The previous discussion is only a portion of our lawsuit
issues, but it serves to highlight the problems with completing
wastewater infrastructure projects. The first topic that needs
to be addressed is regulatory oversight.
The U.S. EPA has placed more emphasis on enforcement rather
than water quality results. Meeting technical definitions
contained within rules and regulations is more important than
water quality standards. There seems to be an imbalance there.
The second area of regulatory oversight is cost-
effectiveness and scientifically-based reasoning.
In discussion, everyone champions the idea of applying good
scientific evidence, sound engineering principles, and cost-
effective solutions. However, in practice, these issues are not
given the weight or consideration which is appropriate.
The recently adopted CSO policy has a better approach. The
policy talks about comprehensive and coordinated planned
efforts by municipalities, regulatory agencies and the public.
It allows for site-specific solutions and the need for
flexibility to tailor controls to arrive at the best solutions.
The U.S. EPA needs to fully embrace this approach to
enhance technical assistance and reduce regulatory enforcement.
In Toledo's case, our proposed consent decree will cost the
ratepayers over $400 million. The city is prepared to spend
this money, we just don't want it to balloon to $600 million or
$700 million.
To give you an idea of the impact on the city of Toledo,
consider the following: Our current overall debt for the entire
city of Toledo over the last 100 years is $423 million. With
the wastewater projects proposed, this will double our debt for
the entire city of Toledo.
The need for water and wastewater capital infrastructure
improvements industry-wide amounts to $46 billion per year.
That equals $230 billion over a 5-year period. Clearly, there
is a need for funds.
If I were to summarize some of the actions I would like to
see Congress encourage, No. 1, regulations that are based on
scientific and engineering principles; No. 2, regulations that
are based on water quality objectives; No. 3, regulatory
actions that place an emphasis on cooperation rather than
enforcement; No. 4, Federal funding for the long-term and in
sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the industry; No. 5,
clarification of language of the Clean Water Act to provide
flexibility of meeting demands of wet weather systems; No. 6,
provide research and support for new initiatives; No. 7,
provide Federal funding, because the need is so large; No. 8,
continue to educate the public; No. 9, allow communities to be
a partner, not simply those who execute the plan; and, finally,
begin to look at non-point source discharges as opposed to
point source discharge. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Stevenson.
Mr. Karney.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK KARNEY, DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN SEWER
DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Mr. Karney. Good morning. I'm the director of the
Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. Recently, I
testified before the House on behalf of the Association of
Metropolitan Sewages, whose members provide water services in
more than 50 metropolitan areas around the country on the
subject of financial crises those utilities are facing.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the issue
of water infrastructure needs. Recently, more than a million
consumers in California were plunged into darkness. Imagine
what would happen if the Nation's water and wastewater systems
began to fail.
Failure of the wastewater system could create a public
health concern, cause widespread degradation, and lead to an
erosion of the public trust and clean and safe water as
unwavering.
Everyday, Americans rely on clean water for recreational,
commercial fishing and industrial activity. These activities
generate billions of dollars every year, none of which would be
possible without clean water.
Would we have built roads, bridges, and airports in
communities that would not provide clean and safe water? No.
Inadequate capacity to treat wastewater can cripple a local
economy, drive out manufacturing, and wipe out tourism.
The gains we've made over the last 30 years are now at
risk. According to the EPA, without significant new
development, we can lose the progress by 2016.
Today we ask the Senate, once again, to make water
infrastructure funding a financial priority. We face an
estimated gap of $3 billion a year between current investments
in infrastructure and what we need over the next 20 years to
replace aging and failing pipes, and Safe Drinking Water Act
mandates.
This unprecedented level in investment would be needed at a
time when our community budgets are escalating by 6 percent a
year above inflation. Federal contributions should decline by
75 percent since 1980, and represent less than 5 percent of
today's water and wastewater outlets.
Let's put it in perspective. In Cincinnati, we need to
invest between $1 and $3 billion to address a combined overflow
and sanitary sewer overflow profits. This is over and above
operation and maintenance of our system and routine
rehabilitation of aging systems that we have to operate.
This number's staggering. Our user charges are mid-range
compared to those of 67 surrounding utilities. If the problem
can be solved on the low end, we'll be forced to increase our
user charges by 7 percent per year each of the next 15 years.
This would multiply our existing rates by merely threefold, or
76 percent.
If we end up closer to the $3 billion figure, we face rate
increases of 1 percent per year for 15 years. This would
multiply our current rate 17 times.
MSD does not receive government subsidies or local tax
contributions for normal operations. These increases will fall
solely on the shoulders of our ratepayers, ordinary families
who pay the true cost of wastewater collection and treatment in
their quarterly bills, and have been doing so since 1968. These
are the same families whose sewer rates went up over 9 percent
in 2000, another 7 percent this year, and probably 7 percent
next year.
Cincinnati is just one of tens of thousands of cities and
counties facing a financial crisis due to aging infrastructure
and the challenge of eliminating CSOs and SSOs. Plus with the
expectations of greater demands from new regulations, local
rate payers could not address these tremendous needs alone.
We can close this water infrastructure finding only if the
Federal Government and States meet our cities and counties
halfway by authorizing an average of $11\1/2\ billion a year in
capitalization funds to the States over the next 5 years.
The Water Infrastructure Now report released last month,
and endorsed by over 30 national organizations, provides
recommendations to the Congress and the President on how to
address these issues.
In an era of unprecedented surpluses, I can't think of a
better investment than the health of our citizens, the
integrity of our environment, and the well-being of our
communities.
Simply put, we can't afford to leave any community behind
as we address the national water and wastewater infrastructure
crisis.
On behalf of America's wastewater utilities, I'd like to
thank you for your recent initiative, to re-energize the
State's resolving funds program. Such leadership is what is
needed to bring us all to grips with funding crises facing our
water infrastructure threatening our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the
rest of the committee to find solutions to this national
crisis. Water and wastewater treatment would be truly
devastating to the health and well-being of our citizens and
the national economy.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Karney.
Mr. Gsellman.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK GSELLMAN, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION,
AKRON ENGINEERING BUREAU, AKRON, OH
Mr. Gsellman. Thank you. On behalf of Mayor Plusquellic,
I'd like to give you an update of where we are in the city of
Akron. The city of Akron is located on the Cuyahoga River in
northeast Ohio, approximately 30 miles upstream from the city
of Cleveland. The Akron wastewater planning area covers
approximately 167 square miles and includes most of the Akron
metropolitan area. There's a population of 352,000 in the
service area, including all or a portion of five cities, four
villages, and seven townships.
The sewer system includes approximately 1,165 miles of
sewers, consisting of 188 miles of combined sewers. There are
38 combined sewer overflows within the city of Akron. Based on
predictions from the hydraulic model typical annual CSO volume
is 2,400 million gallons.
Previous efforts by the city of Akron have resulted in the
elimination of sanitary sewer overflows in the city of Akron,
and the award of the Association of Metropolitan Sewage
Agencies gold award for no effluent violations in year 2000.
The city of Akron proposed a long-term control plan that
will cost more than $248 million to implement. This cost is in
addition to the millions Akron's already spent to date to study
CSOs and the $25 million spent to eliminate sanitary sewer
overflows.
Akron has seen a significant decline in its industrial base
since the 1960's, requiring the residential users to carry the
burden. Akron already carries one of the highest residential
sewer rates in the State for cities with similar population.
The Akron Public Utilities Bureau is currently undergoing
significant changes as a result of high water rates. This led
to a Blue Ribbon Panel to study the utility and the current
Competitive Action Program. This program includes the water
treatment facility, sewer maintenance, water pollution control
station and utilities engineering.
Significant reductions in operation costs were being
realized and will allow the utility to be competitive in the
future. This will allow the city to pay its fair share of
needed improvements as long as the Federal Government
contributes its fair share.
As part of developing the Akron long-term control plan,
several options to fund the projects were evaluated. Given the
significant total costs of these projects, it is likely that
the funds will be obtained from multiple sources, grants, loans
and revenues obtained by the sewer rates.
Grants are essential to the fundability and feasibility of
the program. Without outside funding, sewer rates will more
than double just to handle the CSO program. The impact of
additional operation and maintenance costs, system repair and
replacement and normal inflation will likely see the rates
triple.
Current monthly sewer charges for a typical residential
customer are approximately $30 per month, for sewer only. The
rate increases to $60 or $90 per month will adversely affect a
significant portion of the ratepayers, including those who can
barely pay or afford their current utility bills.
The selected alternatives for the city of Akron's
integrated plan, the long-term CSO plan, incorporates storage
conveyance tunnels, detention basins, treatment basins and
sewer separations.
A set of rating criteria was used to compare the various
alternatives. The criteria included stormwater impacts, water
quality improvements, operation and maintenance costs, public
acceptance, community improvements, and construction issues.
The approach taken for the long-term control plan was the
presumptive approach, and the annual percent capture after the
plan is 94 percent. In addition to the funding, the issues of
wet-weather-water-quality standards, use designation and urban
stream habitat need to be addressed.
The city of Akron Public Utilities is also faced with
rapidly rising costs associated with stormwater, that's the
municipal stormwater, total maximum daily loads, and drinking
water regulation.
Akron continues to develop access to receiving streams with
bike paths, downtown development, a Mustill Store restoration,
and Cascade Lock Park. Also, the National Heritage River
designation and National Park will continue to attract people
to the Cuyahoga River.
We look forward to a solution that will cost-effectively
address CSO issues while producing benefits to the Akron
ratepayers, enhance the parks and trails, show improvements in
water quality, and further the goals of the Clean Water Act.
Proposals similar to the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN)
are needed to provide for adequate funding now and in the
future. Through water and sewer bills, local ratepayers already
pay 90 percent of the total cost to build, operate, and
maintain their water and wastewater systems.
We need a long-term, sustainable, and reliable source of
Federal funding for clean water. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gsellman--Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I'd like each of the witnesses to, if
you can do it, give me an idea of your current costs, on the
average, household. I know it varies from how much water you
use, and so forth. Give the projected cost you're going to have
in, say, the next 5 years.
Mr. Odeal. I guess in terms of the Regional Sewer District
of Cleveland is essentially a wholesaler, so we--our charge
covers the capital cost, the conveyance on the treatment, and
the average consumer is probably paying about $300 a year to us
now. The local communities--some add a charge, some do it
through general taxation. Then, frankly, some just haven't had
the dollars to do much. We are just finishing----
Senator Voinovich. You say some----
Mr. Odeal. Just don't have the dollars to do much at all
with the sewer.
Senator Voinovich. Ratepayers, so many of them pay $300,
some of the cities subsidize them?
Mr. Odeal. No, they add an additional charge. Some of the
communities have charges, some do it through general taxation,
and, frankly, some just don't do too much because, particularly
the suburbs that have severe economic problems haven't been
able to invest very much in their infrastructure, and they have
the most serious problems.
In terms of our projections, we're just finishing our CSO
long-term control plan, we're working on our rate study, but I
think it's safe to say, in the absence of Federal funding, we
would be looking at--if we're going to do $1 billion worth of
programming over 15 years, we'd look at a tripling of costs,
ultimately, if there were no Federal funds.
If it was all local dollars, based on the rates now in
effect, we've got probably a third of that federally funded. If
we get nothing federally funded, with increased operating
costs, I think it's likely to see a doubling or tripling of
rates.
Senator Voinovich. You're talking 15 years, you're talking
about the average cost where communities are not putting
something--are the communities responsible--I should know this.
Are the communities responsible for their infrastructure in
their respective----
Mr. Odeal. That's correct, Senator. The communities have
infrastructure responsibility for their individual sewer
systems, as well as they will be responsible for their
stormwater programs under the Phase Two.
Stormwater Program, and they will also be responsible for
meeting the SSO regulations.
The sewer district is responsible for the combines of sewer
overflows, but the separate overflows exist almost exclusively
on the suburban sewer systems, and they will be forced to
having meet any costs associated with the separate overflow
program.
Senator Voinovich. So over 15 years, that $300 a year could
go up to $900?
Mr. Odeal. That's correct. But that would not include any
money at all for the 53 communities that do something with
their sewers, particularly the ones that have to deal with the
SSO problem. That would be in addition.
They will have to come up with those dollars to deal with
that SSO program, as well as all the additional regulatory
requirements of developing the programs and getting permits
from Ohio EPA, as well as getting stormwater permits of OEPA,
and all those requirements.
Senator Voinovich. So it could be, say, $300, maybe $1,200?
Mr. Odeal. Oh, I'm sure that the way the SSO regs--which
hopefully it will never see the light of day--were drafted,
conceivably many of the communities would be forced with almost
having to replace their sewer systems under the premise that
thou shalt never have any overflow from any sewer system, no
matter how old it is. It is just not achievable, particularly
in communities that have sewers that are 60, 70, 80 years old.
They do leak, they do get stormwater in them.
Many of our communities, I'm sure, would face many of the
horror stories that you heard on your first panel. There's
really no difference. The only difference is that these
communities don't have a wastewater plant. They still have
sewers, they get holes, and they leak. Many of them are--as you
know, some of the primary suburbs are faced with some severe
economic hardships, and many of their ratepayers and taxpayers
are well below the poverty level.
So for many of the people in our communities, they would
have a major impact for the inner city residents and the
suburban residents.
Senator Voinovich. How about Toledo?
Mr. Stevenson. In Toledo, the average cost for water and
sewer per year is about $300 to $400. With just the items that
are in the proposed consent decree that we're talking about,
specifically for wet weather treatment, those bills could
escalate to $600 to $900 per year, and that doesn't include
some of the provisions that he was talking about on SSO's. So
it could double or triple our bills.
Mr. Karney. I need to answer one question earlier that I
didn't speak to. I've been in the business 5 years. I'm not
quite that young, though, because I have half a decade in
industry before I started with that. But it's nice to be
speaking on a panel with Erwin because of the comparison that I
look really young. So I kind of like that.
Cincinnati, right now, our residents are paying $300 a
year. I gave you a range earlier of $2 billion to $3 billion.
That's not just a fuzzy number, we've actually had consultants
go back to help us do that estimation. That range is based upon
how conservative or how completely wacky the interpretation,
especially the SSO rule, could become.
When we look at how we would do it in good science and good
financial risk base, doing the best for the environment, we're
at about $1 billion. We think, now, wait a minute, if we get to
this, as Erwin pointed out, no discharges from the sanitary
system ever, where do you go? Well, then we have to up the
ante, and it gets us to a $3 billion number. We've evaluated
over 4,300 projects to get that estimate.
So what that ends up doing is it takes us from the current
$300 to within 15 years of either being at $1,000 or $5,000 per
home per year.
Senator Voinovich. One thousand dollars, five thousand
dollars--it's a big number. This is a 15-year period?
Mr. Karney. Yes, we'll easily get to the $900 figure. If we
are really pressed hard, as some of the folks at U.S. EPA want
to do now, we'd be at $5,000 a year in 15 years, to be able to
finance the kinds of moneys we have to put in the system.
We've got parts of our system that go back to early 1800's.
Folks say, why don't you keep that up to where it should be?
Well, things that were done in the 1800's, things that were
done in the early part of the 20th Century or the mid- or even
late parts of the 20th Century had no concept of what kind of
regulations we'd be looking at today.
Senator Voinovich. I think you've already said that your
rates have gone up, on the average, about 7 percent per year?
Mr. Karney. Yes, since I got to town, we did 9 percent the
first year, 7 percent this year, and we're looking at 7 percent
for next year. That's without even addressing these really big
issues that are still standing out in front of us.
Senator Voinovich. How about Akron?
Mr. Gsellman. In Akron, we're looking at a little less than
$30 a month, and that's for sewer only. That would be $360 a
year just for sewer. The water's another $20 a month. We're
looking at the sewer bill itself being doubled, just
implementing the capital portion of the CSO.
Senator Voinovich. What period of time?
Mr. Gsellman. Well, right now we're still negotiating with
Ohio EPA and the long-term control plan what the schedule's
going to look at, but generally talking about 10 years for the
rates to double.
Senator Voinovich. So over 10 years, they would go up 100
and some?
Mr. Gsellman. Right. By the time we look at inflation and
those items, probably three times.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Senator Crapo. I have a general question I'd just like to
throw out to the panel, and any of you who would like to can
pitch in on it.
You're all aware, as I am, of the reports of what the
infrastructure needs are. In fact, the hearing we held in March
tried to just get a handle on what everybody thought the
infrastructure needs in the industry were.
As you may be aware, those estimates are ranging from $300
billion to $1 trillion. It just depends on--and we're talking,
I think, both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
It seems to me that obviously it's difficult to get a
handle on what the infrastructure needs are going to be. That's
why you see such a wide range of needs. But part of the reason
is to get such a handle on it, because as this panel just
indicated what it is that they're going to see the cost being,
it's hard to tell, because we don't know how rigid the
commanding control system that we have is going to be.
The question I'm getting at is this: As we look at trying
to get a handle on how to meet those infrastructure needs, it
seems to me that one of the things we have to do is better
identify what we are going to be requiring.
If you and those who are trying to estimate our
infrastructure needs better knew what would be required, we
could get a better handle on what our needs would be.
Would everybody agree with that?
(No verbal responses.)
Senator Crapo. From what I'm hearing in the testimony here
today--and, frankly, this is not different from what we're
hearing from many other parts of the country--those
infrastructure needs estimates that we are seeing are
exceedingly high because we are expecting that we are going to
have to meet some standards, such as zero overflow under any
conditions.
Yet I'm also hearing that a different standard, which would
allow some flexibility, would not reduce water quality in the
country, but could significantly reduce costs of
infrastructure; is that correct? Anybody want to----
Mr. Karney. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. So in terms of how we meet this need--and I
want to get to this in a minute with regard to the--what the
Federal role should be in terms of funding--one of the things
we need to look at is simply what might be called efficiencies
or effectiveness in terms of cost-benefit analysis, and so
forth.
I know this is going to be a really tough question for you
to answer, but I'd like to see if anybody in the panel has an
opinion on it. If we were to have the kind of flexibility that
we've talked about in the hearing today, where the Ohio EPA
would be able to--in its issuance of NPDES, or whatever other
regulatory action it would take--would be able to work flexibly
with the communities and achieve the water quality standards
that we set in flexible ways, do you have any kind of a feel
for what kind of reduction in the overall infrastructure needs,
that we would be looking at, would be achievable?
Mr. Stevenson. In Toledo's case, the costs of our consent
decree that we're talking about for wet weather treatment is
about $450 million. We've submitted this to three national
engineering firms and asked them to give us a cost with the
flexibility that you're talking about. Each of those three
national engineering firms think they can cut $100 million off
of that $450 million capital cost.
Senator Crapo. So that would be a little more than 20
percent reduction in your specific case?
Mr. Stevenson. Our specific case, yes.
Senator Crapo. There would be no negative impact on water
quality?
Mr. Karney. And still meet water quality standards at the
end of the discharge, yes.
Senator Crapo. Anybody else on the panel have any input or
opinion on that? You don't have to be specific, even if you
just have a general opinion.
Mr. Karney.
Mr. Karney. Yes. My general opinion, having worked with
Chris Jones's folks, both in Columbus and in the district
office, is that they have a better sense of practical benefits
to be gained by different changes. As he noted, many times they
are strictly against the wall. They can't do things. They can't
exercise the judgment.
I would say that that would get us down to close to that $1
billion number. He might be a little tougher on me than I'd
want to be on myself, so edge it up to $1\1/2\ billion, rather
than $3 billion. So we could cut $1\1/2\ billion off of just
one city's price tag.
Senator Crapo. In terms of percentage, you're talking about
maybe a 50-percent reduction?
Mr. Karney. That would be 50 percent of that gigantic
increase that we're looking at, sir.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Odeal or Mr. Gsellman, do you have an
opinion on this?
Mr. Odeal. I guess I would just have the general opinion
that--I think one of the real concerns I have is sometimes
there's a level of expectation that's put out there, the
public's going to get something for this investment, and this
is probably my biggest concern.
As Senator Voinovich knows, we've made spectacular progress
in Cleveland, the lake front, the Cuyahoga River, we're trying
to focus on some of the small streams in people's backyards
and--which directly impact it.
But I think if we were able to look at SSO and CSO and
stormwater on an integrated approach, looking at the stream
biology, looking in urban streams, the stream variation flow,
high flow, low flows destroys habitat. I'm a converted engineer
to biologist, but I'm really listening to the biology, and
that's what we're talking about.
I think that kind of approach not only will save us
significant dollars, but actually will put the public
expectation at a level that can be achieved. I mean, the
biggest danger here, frankly, in an urban stream in wet
weather, is high flows and drowning. People shouldn't be in the
streams anyway during high flows, therefore, there's no use
that's impacted.
During high flow periods, we'll waive the bacteria standard
or have a different standard if it quickly stabilizes back will
have no impact on use, no impact on fish, and could save us
considerable dollars.
I think those are the kinds of things we need to look at,
reasonable approaches, and I think that, frankly, given the
flexibility, those are the kind of things we could sit down
with Director Jones's staff and work through on a watershed by
watershed basis as opposed to one-size-fits-all for anything.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Gsellman, do you have anything?
Mr. Gsellman. I'd like to add one thing that Mr. Odeal
pointed out. The expectation, after the day's over, we're going
to spend $248 million, the stream's still not going to meet its
uses during certain wet weather events, and we need to make
sure the public's aware of what the benefit is from doing this
program; if the stream is still not going to meet its water
quality in certain situations because of other impacts on the
stream, as far as non-point septic systems, other localities'
SSOs, those kind of things; and also to make sure the standard
that we're trying to obtain is the reasonable goal of the--
especially in the urban streams. An urban stream is different
from another, you know, wooded area, agricultural area, and I
really think Ohio EPA needs to not only have the funds but have
the time so they can fully develop an urban stream category, so
we can truly have a realistic goal that can be met.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate the input that you've given,
both in terms of general comments, as well as the specifics.
In fact, we have two cities here, Toledo and Cincinnati,
who could achieve 0 percent to 50 percent savings if they had
flexibility, and still not impact water quality.
I think that the comments that Mr. Odeal and Mr. Gsellman
made about the perception of the public in terms of this
investment in our infrastructure are critical.
I think if the public understood that the numbers of
dollars that we are talking about don't necessarily translate
into a comparable improvement or, in some cases, any
improvement in the water quality, that there would be an
outrage, that we are expecting them to see these kinds of
doublings and triplings, and maybe even, you know, much more--
much higher increases in their resources.
A couple of years ago, there was a study done that got some
national attention that indicated that when you're talking
about people's health and their environmental satisfaction, and
so forth, that the most significant factor on the quality of
life, in terms of people's health and safety, was their own
economic circumstance.
When we're talking about reducing a family's economic
ability in these kinds of ways, in terms of the percentage of
their family budgets, or if it's something where the city or
the county or the State steps in and pays for it instead, to
save the family, you're talking about taking those resources
away from the city, the county and the State, which they could
use on health and safety concerns or environmental concerns.
We're talking very significant issues for what are potentially
zero benefits.
It seems to me that one of the things that we need to do is
to make sure that we have the most bang for the buck, in terms
of the infrastructure that we address here.
The second thing, which I'll finish on, is after all that's
done, it's very clear that we're still going to have a giant
need for infrastructure. There's a tremendous amount of need
out there, and there will be a responsibility at the Federal
level to figure out how to deal with this.
One of the debates that--well, not one of the debates, the
debate that we are now in is, should we meet that through the
current approach, which is a system of revolving loans, or
should we transfer into some kind of a mixture with a system of
grants?
It has seemed to me to be quite evident that with regard to
the small communities where they can't achieve the economies of
scale that especially aren't able to get some of this
regulatory flexibility, that there will have to be a grant
program in place, because the small communities simply can't
handle it.
I would appreciate any input that any of you would like to
give us in that context. Does that also apply to the larger
cities?
Should we move to a grant program or some mixture of grants
with regard to smaller and larger communities, or can we handle
it through simply beefing up the revolving loan program?
What are your thoughts on this issue? I guess maybe we can
just start on the left, and if you don't have a comment, just
pass it on.
Mr. Odeal.
Mr. Odeal. I can't imagine anybody who wouldn't be in
trouble if they didn't have a comment on that.
I think as we've indicated in our comments, we certainly
support a balance of grants and loans. I think the loan program
has been exceptional. I think the real--one of the real values
to the loan program is a reduction in red tape. Being trained
as an engineer, I don't enjoy dealing with investment bankers,
and all that is taken away. You can focus really on building
facilities, and some of this other stuff. A lot of time saving,
a lot of administrative saving.
But they are also really seen in the larger communities--I
think if you look at the problem with the larger communities,
the average income is wonderful, but the divergence of the
income is--not only in Cleveland, but our primary suburbs, and
even in more affluent communities, you have people that are
well below the poverty line and, therefore, what might be a
tolerable rate to some folks is just going to break their back.
Plus, I think, second, there's a question of equity. Many
of these requirements are--they're going to be well beyond what
locals we can justify, what I feel I can, as a good
professional, justify.
If that is the national objective and the Federal
Government wants us to achieve that, then I believe the Federal
Government should finance that differential between what the
local community wants and can accept--and I don't mean
environmental degradation--but what is achievable and
acceptable versus this higher level.
I think that increment definitely should be financed by the
government level that's asking for that higher level.
Senator Crapo. Good point.
Mr. Stevenson.
Mr. Stevenson. In looking at engineering programs over a
15-year period there invariably are years that have peaks and
then there are valleys. It would be extremely helpful for
Federal assistance during those peak times so that we could
average out rate increases to our citizens.
In our program, we estimate about a 5 to 6 percent rate
increase for the next 15 years. But there are a couple years
where you get into a 10, 15 percent increase because of the
nature of the construction programs.
So it would be extremely helpful in those times to have
Federal assistance to level out that increase.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Karney.
Mr. Karney. I'd just like to start by saying that a comment
had been made earlier, it's too bad we can't get these folks to
come to Washington, DC, this is so critical to our utilities. I
know I, for one--I'm sure several others--would be more than
happy to make that trip. If you can give us a little more than
a week's notice, that's good, too. But we need to come up and
provide that kind of input.
When I was doing the House testimony, I'd heard that there
were folks that were walking in and lobbying various
representatives saying the local utilities aren't paying their
fair share, you know, they're not--the citizens aren't doing
this, they can certainly do more, and these were all incredible
amounts of misinformation.
So I'd be more than happy to come up and provide that local
testimony if it's necessary or can be of use to the system.
Yes, we do need grants. There needs to be a mixture of
grants and loans for the large as well as the small. The large
utilities have even bigger needs in some cases than the small
utilities do.
As Erwin mentioned, there has been an incredible diversity
of economic levels, and there are a number of places,
especially within the city of Cincinnati, that if you ask folks
to up another $500 a year or $1,000 a year, they couldn't do
it. I don't know what they'd do for water supplies or
wastewater treatment, but they just couldn't do it.
In the WIN proposal, not only is that asking for money, but
it's also giving some direction and suggestions on Federal ways
to administer funds so that we cut out a lot of red tape that
was in the old grants program and make it easier for States to
be able to work with some of that money to go right back to
States.
Chris would be happy with that. Of course, it speaks to
providing funds to assist the States in running their
environment programs.
Senator Crapo. Your comments, and all the witnesses'
comments about the need to streamline the financing part of
this, the economic management, have been heard.
Mr. Gsellman.
Mr. Gsellman. Yes, in the Akron situation, specifically a
sustainable grant program is essential. We're kind of unique.
We're not as caught up as the large cities that have the
significant industrial base. We lost the significant portion of
our industrial base, and basically the sewer and water
utilities fall onto the residential customer to support. Due to
that, they're the ones that have to bear these improvements.
Also, I think it's important to have a sustainable grant
program instead of just one big, you know, pile of money coming
in for a short period of time.
We need something similar to the highway funds where we
have some sort of reliable source of revenue that goes into the
funding program and continue on to take out a lot of the peaks
and valleys, as far as funding, so that we can plan--we're into
doing programs that are going to be 0-, 30-year programs. We
need to know where that funding source is going to be over that
0, 30 years.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich, do you have any more questions?
Senator Voinovich. Yes, I do. The issue of this cost
projection that--Senator Crapo made a good point, and that is
how you base your projections, has a lot to do with what the
agencies can be required to do. I was thinking about that with
this GAO report that I've asked for that should be out here
pretty soon.
But one of the things that we've got to know is--we're
asking them, also, whether or not the agencies are really doing
a realistic job in projecting their costs.
For example, 1996, the EPA said the Clean Water Needs
Survey was $140 billion--no, $200 billion. Then $140 billion in
1996, and then they said it was in 1999, $200 billion. Some
other groups have said it's $300 billion over 20 years.
So, in other words, it's all over--how in the world can you
really plan for it if you don't some realistic idea how much
that's going to cost? So I think that's key.
The other thing is that I've learned from my vast
experience that people really aren't--they don't confront
regulatory agencies until they feel it in their pocket.
I think one of the things that your respective
organizations should be doing is a lot more effort in talking
about what the problem is and what the projected costs are
going to be and how that's going to be reflected in the
pocketbook of the people in your respective communities.
It's only then that there is going to be any kind of
effort, I think, in terms of looking at some of these
regulations in a more realistic fashion.
Just think about this. We're talking about still in
Congress of having a massive school construction program, which
is a fundamentally State and local responsibility, but no one
wants to put on the table the issue of what are we going to do
with clean water in this country or what are we going to do
with sewage treatment, and replacing the infrastructure and so
on.
So a lot of the job here is going to be to elevate this
issue into a priority issue.
Frankly, in terms of the agency--we're talking about the
Environmental Protection Agency. It cuts across just about
every area you can think of. Because there's no consideration
ever usually given to the cost.
As Senator Crapo said, the quality of life of individuals
has a lot to do with how much money they have available to them
for their families. If you can't show some measurable, real
improvement in the environment and public water supply, how do
you justify these enormous costs increases?
What I'd like to know is what do you think, in terms of the
overall cost increases that you're seeing--could you rate the
number of--No. 1 projected cost increase--we know you've got--
all of you have got your projected infrastructure costs,
depending on how old your community is, you've got your
problem. But let's talk about in addition to that, OK, that's
the given--the added cost. The added cost. What, where is it,
what's going to generate the largest amount of money that
you're going to have to spend? What issue is that?
Mr. Odeal. Well, actually, just sitting here, Senator, I
think one of the issues that you'll recall when you were
Governor, and I think you worked hard to get a realistic
approach, was the Great Lakes Initiative.
Director Jones's office now is struggling with implementing
the approach to handling mercury, which is a natural substance
that is occurring everywhere. Some of the unrealistic
objectives are where we want to get in terms of totally
eliminating mercury. That can drive the costs unbelievably.
If we, in fact--if the goal--one of the difficulties we
face is that these things are zero, we can measure zero better
all the time. So we're out in the parts per billion--we're
getting out there so far, literally as ridiculous as it is, we
do clean sampling and analyze for mercury in a clean room on
wastewater, because the requirements are coming down for
mercury. So depending how mercury is dealt with, it could be
astronomical costs.
There's lots of other items that are coming down out of the
Great Lakes Initiative that could be approached the same way.
One of the issues we haven't talked about here at all
today, which is a big municipal issue, is what is more
traditionally called sludge. This has been a lot of work to get
realistic standards, real biosolids. If properly treated, it
can become a real asset.
One of the difficulties that the government faces is the
moving target. So if, in fact, we were to develop a product--a
biosolids product, put it out in farmland, put it out in
agriculture, meet all the current standards, something new
appears 5 years from now and all of a sudden these things
become retroactive. As many cities have discovered, where they
happened to put some trash in a landfill where somebody else
put some bad stuff, they end up being liable. There are some
unknown perils out there.
The biosolids peril is of particular concern because there
you could really get bothered, I think in the future, because
of some new requirement. So I think some of the shadow toxic
issues, as I call them--again, not that, you know, anybody
wants to harm anybody, we're in the clean water business.
Sometimes the four of us sitting here are called polluters by
environmentalists.
Well, in reality, we're the good guys. We're the ones, and
the folks back there are the good guys, and Director Jones. We
cleanup the pollution. We're not the polluters, but I think
those unknown perils that we haven't even talked about by some
well-meaning people who really think we can get everything down
to zero when--even in the natural occurring substances.
If, in fact, mercury is such a bad actor, why doesn't the
Federal Government prohibit the use of thermometers? On the one
hand, we allow things to come out that another branch says are
God awful, and I myself have thousands of dollars worth of
mercury in my mouth, so maybe that's why I'm like I am, huh?
You got me on my soap box. I apologize.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Stevenson.
Mr. Stevenson. I would echo those sentiments. Biosolids are
one of our largest line item on the budget, and Great Lakes
Initiatives holds a great deal of uncertainty that could cost
us money.
Another thing that I would like to add----
Senator Voinovich. As a really interesting aside here, I
was the chairman of the Great Lakes Council when the initiative
came through. By the way, this was a voluntary thing. A couple
of our colleagues put it into law. EPA got a hold of it, and
the initial rejections of the cost were astronomical, so what
we did was go to work and had a study made to reduce it down to
what we call a biocumulatives of the Great Lakes. Even now,
we're down to what mercury and a couple of the other ones. Oh,
PCBs and some of the other things that really broke the chain.
But here we're talking about one of the aspects, and that's
mercury. How far do you go with the issue of mercury?
Mr. Stevenson. It's an interesting discussion. Being an old
research chemist, years ago, when we used the tests for things,
we sometimes say the research is being driven by analytical
technicians and not any specific agenda or target.
We're able to test down that low, so that becomes the limit
of what we're required to do.
Another thing that I would mention as an item on the
horizon, wastewater plants have large costs of energy. In the
city of Toledo, I'm a $3-million-year customer on electricity
alone. So we watch very closely deregulation of electricity,
costs of those kinds are an issue.
Senator Voinovich. They're going up?
Mr. Stevenson. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Because what we're doing is we're not
burning coal, we're going to natural gas, and that's what's
driving it up.
Mr. Karney.
Mr. Karney. In Cincinnati, I guess the SSO regulations are
the biggest hit for us, could be $2 billion on that side. CSO
is next on that line with $1\1/2\ billion. The whole nutrient
issue, it seems like that gets pushed down from the north on us
with GLI----
Senator Voinovich. Let me make sure I understand this,
because I--SSO, storm sewer overflow----
Mr. Karney. SSO is sanitary sewage overflow. That's just
that pipe that picks up what comes from homes and industries,
not the rainwater from the streets or curbs.
Then combined sewers have both the sanitary flow in them
plus stormwater.
Then obviously a stormwater system is only the pipe that's
carrying the stormwater.
Senator Voinovich. So the SSO combines sewer overflow, the
stuff that Mayor Reid is trying to work with in Mansfield?
Mr. Karney. Yes, two different issues there. SSO rules, and
the costs associated with those, and then you've got the CSO
issue, which is overflows from a combined source, which is--
it's a more dilute mixture. Obviously you've got the rainwater
in there diluting what sanitary sewage is in that pipe.
So those are two different programs, two different sets of
costs and obligations.
Senator Voinovich. Are they still forcing some of the
communities to go to separate sewers?
Mr. Karney. We're doing that a lot of times in response to
CSO regulations, the directives. You want to cut down on
combined sewer overflows, and one of the ways to do it is to
separate the storm flows, take them to a nearby stream, get
them out of the pipe, so you can separate--we used to have one
pipe serving both needs, now you have two sets of pipes, and
folks are no longer constructing combined sewer systems.
Those were the heart and soul of northeast, midwest, the
older cities, is put one pipe in to handle both. But we're
being forced to actually put in a brand new set of pipes and
collection systems under the ground to separate and get away
from some of the CSO issues.
Senator Voinovich. But even if you separate them, aren't
you required to treat the stormwater?
Mr. Karney. Not at this point. Although we're still looking
at things like floatables. That's going to be the other shoe
that drops out of Phase requirements that just came out,
requirements having to keep track of where those storm flows
are going.
Senator Voinovich. Now I'm starting to get it. You do not
have the separate systems. That's when you have a combined
sewer system. It takes your storm water and your sewer water;
you treat all water sources. If a flood comes along or a heavy
rain, then you have to bypass some of that into a facility
until it subsides. You treat that and you put it out a little
at a time.
Mr. Karney. You can use them that way, yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. But if you have separate systems, then
the stuff that flows out of the storm sewers goes into the
untreated water, right?
Mr. Karney. That would be correct, yes. If you have
separate systems it's going to go right into it, and we're
going to start looking at floatables and making sure things are
screened before they go out, all those interfering in the
future, I believe.
Senator Voinovich. But it's the--and the one that's costing
you the most money is--which one is it?
Mr. Karney. Right now, our biggest liability is in SSO. If
we have to completely eliminate any discharges from the
sanitary system, that's going to be the biggest one for us.
Because we're going to have to construct whole new pipes to
take things from the outer areas.
In the case of Cincinnati, it's like our core areas,
combined sewers, but you go out beyond that, the newer
construction that's been done over the last few decades is all
separate sewer.
But those sanitary lines are going to come up and
eventually end up in a pipe that's coming from a combined
system and then it becomes a combined flow.
So that's the biggest price tag for us right now. But not
to be overlooked, the nutrient issue, as I said, it's kind of
partially coming down from Great Lakes. I don't have a lot of
lake frontage in Cincinnati, but I've got 30 miles of river
frontage on the Ohio River. What's coming up from the Great
Lakes is the other end of the nutrient issue in this toxic zone
in the Gulf of Mexico.
So between those two, they're going to meet somewhere
around Cincinnati, and I'm going to look at another half
billion dollars worth of removal of nutrients. That's not in my
price tag, that $1 billion to $3 billion. Doesn't include half
a billion. TMDLs, who knows what that's going to cost? That's
still a big question.
Senator Voinovich. So the thing about it is you really
think that we need to review what's coming out of the EPA to
see if it's realistic, and your organizations have put together
stuff that will come back on enforcement and come back on some
of these other issues that are being required to make some
sense out of it, that the committee would have that information
available to us; is that right?
Mr. Karney. I don't know, have we got anything----
Mr. Odeal. AMSA has been developing stuff. I think what
we--what we would really like to see, I think--and the idea was
to have a look at all these issues and look at them as we
talked about them here--offer some stability for 10 or 15 years
so, you can fashion a program, you can put your rates in
effect, and you can begin to build your infrastructure. But
these things seem to be coming piecemeal. One here and one
here. The financial studies says it's no big deal, but
eventually it is a big deal because it all adds up.
Sometimes there are variants. For example, Pat Karney
talked about one possibility is separating your combined
sewers, but long range if you're going to be faced with
stormwater treatment, it's probably not the thing to do. I'm of
the belief that maybe we'd be better off to just continue
building large capacity combined sewers, because the separate
sewers leak so bad anyway, and we could provide a more logical
approach.
That's why if you're allowed to do a consistent watershed
approach instead of arbitrarily dictatorial rules, you could
say for this particular watershed, this makes the most
financial, most economic sense in approaching it.
But we need to get, as indicated, some stability in the
regulatory environment, stability in funding, and some
consistent approach, so that guys like us who put these
programs together can fashion a program to sell it to the
elected officer's, sell it to the populous, we can fund it, and
have some stability here.
Senator Voinovich. Let me ask, is the--I should know this.
Is the State implementation plan doesn't include this stuff,
does it?
Mr. Jones. No.
Senator Voinovich. It doesn't deal with this? You know what
might be a good idea would be to talk about regional watershed
recommendations, and give these folks some time to put these
things together and recommend how they could best get the job
done, instead of just every single entity nailing them down for
what they're required to do.
We want to get something done. We need some help from some
of your organizations to come back with what are the most
significant things we ought to be looking at now--a short, mid-
term and then long-term plan. If there are some things on the
horizon--I think the point that Erwin made is a good one. We're
telling everybody they have to break them apart, and you're
saying that maybe we should build a bigger combined sewer that
would treat the stormwater, also, along with the sanitary,
correct?
Mr. Odeal. I mean, that's an option. I'm not in favor,
generally, of separating these sewers. I think in many of these
areas what we have is really old, leaky separate sewers. They
don't really function much different than combined sewers. If
we were able to look at the combination of some relief sewers
and capacity issues and a recognition of a periodic need for
them to overflow, the water quality impacts, given the right
design, are not going to be any worse than from a CSO, or even
the straight stormwater, because their pure stormwater isn't
that pure. It has bacterial problems, it carries pesticides,
and other contaminents in it, too.
Mr. Karney. It's interesting, it's almost heresy, but to
talk about building combined sewers, but every time I separate
one, I have this nagging feeling in the back of my neck that
I'm creating a liability that's going to be incredible down the
road, if then I have to go back in 15 years or 10 years and
build all kinds of new treatment facilities at every one of
those places where I cut a new pipe out into the stream, that's
going to be horrendous. But at this point, that's the kind of
thing we do.
Senator Voinovich. Well, how are we doing on time? Do you
have any questions?
Senator Crapo. No.
Senator Voinovich. You're OK?
(Pause in proceedings.)
Senator Voinovich. This is another general question
concerning five other possible enforcement mechanisms by the
U.S. EPA. How does that affects your decisionmaking regarding
infrastructure improvement and rate increases?
Mr. Karney. If we're looking at things that can be an
additional financial burden placed on you, then that adds to a
priority rating of what goes first. No matter whether it seems
to do good things for the environment overall or not. You've
got to be aware that.
Because if you look at $5 million, $10 million, or $50
million worth of fines, that's money that cannot go into the
ground to repair real problems and solve environmental issues.
Senator Voinovich. Any other comments on that?
Mr. Odeal. Yes, I guess I just--I don't look at, in most
cases, fines being appropriate against public agencies. The
theory of industry is that perhaps there was economic
advantage, and the fine levels--I think most of those bad
actors are gone, but in terms of municipalities, transferring
money from local taxpayers to State or Federal, doesn't
eliminate water pollution. So I just don't see the value of it.
I think virtually everybody that's in a capacity--I mean,
we understand the Federal law, we want to follow the Federal
law, we want to do what's right, but many times we get these
nebulous situations, and it's almost like it must be bonus time
at EPA, because all of a sudden the findings and orders roll
out. I don't mean Ohio EPA, I mean the Federal Government.
Or we had some ridiculous cases where U.S. EPA brought
enforcement actions against facilities in the Cleveland area.
We've been playing around for years and had to pay a small fine
of a few thousand dollars, so that somebody took these cases
off his docket. So I just had real difficulty with governments
fining each other. I just don't think it's appropriate.
Mr. Gsellman. One of the successes I've seen, though, with
fining municipalities, was in the industrial pretreatment
program, because I think at that point, the municipalities
needed a kick in the butt, and it provided that. I think with
that, the pretreatment program became what it was, one of the
most successful programs ever--that came down from EPA.
I think it was the fact that they were dealing with
industry and with other entities outside the municipality. I
really think that that's what gave the major impetus for that.
I really think if you want to seek progress, it's in the
grant funding. It's with providing the money. I think the
communities know where they're at as far as enforcement, but
provide the money and that's where you'll see results.
Senator Voinovich. So the bottom line is that, that doesn't
do very much good. Second of all, it's even more difficult when
you're not getting any kind of grant money and it's basically--
you have to take care of the situation?
Mr. Gsellman. Right. It's counterproductive, that lost
money.
Senator Voinovich. Would you say that without a Federal
partnership program, like the WIN program--I'm not sure whether
it's 57, or what the number is--we're not going to really deal
with this problem in this country?
Mr. Karney. That's an absolute. That's an absolute.
Senator Voinovich. I guess one last one. It's a technical
one.
What's the difference between this bypassing and
recombination? I don't get that. What--you bypass within the
system and--what does that mean.
Mr. Stevenson. In our particular situation, we had proposed
the wet weather system that did not give it full secondary
treatment, and then it would be recombined with the effluent
from secondary treatment. That was what the EPA calls blending.
A bypass could be a primary bypass where you give primary
treatment and it goes out to the receiving stream and is not
re-combined downsteam. So there's a technical difference
between the two.
What we had technically proposed was a blending issue,
where we would put them back together and meet all of our
effluent criteria.
Senator Voinovich. What do you mean put them back together?
Mr. Stevenson. Well, the secondary treatment would be one
flow through the plant. We would have a second flow that would
go through our swirl concentrators around secondary--to a
second treatment, which is an actiflow treatment system. Then
they would both converge together before they went out into the
river. So you have two separate flow treatments.
Senator Voinovich. Why do you do that?
Mr. Stevenson. Because the stormwater, when it rains, can
be treated with this wet weather system effectively, and you
treat as much as you can through the secondary treatment, up to
the capacity in your plant. The excess capacity being caused by
the storm goes through this stormwater treatment, and then you
combine them to get your final effluent.
It's a way of treating the water without storing it and
then treating it at a later time. So it's real time treatment.
Mr. Odeal. I think the point is it achieves the required
effluent level. I think one of the problems that we're going to
face with SSO, is most of us use biological treatment, and the
bugs need a certain amount of food, and if they get too much
flowing into the plant, you've washed the bugs out and upset
the whole treatment plant.
So the goal is what is the discharge we want to meet?
That's the goal. Unfortunately, it starts flipping back to the
bureaucrat minds, they start talking about secondary treatment
and percent removals, and then it's a case of micromanaging.
In other words, ultimately I think no one should care how
we get to the effluent, they care about the effluent. Whatever
mystical process we might use to get there ought to be our only
problem, and their only problem is the effluent. How we get
there is our problem.
I think when you start micromanaging----
Senator Voinovich. So the main point is to look at what
you're ultimately discharging into a stream?
Mr. Odeal. Right.
Mr. Stevenson. Exactly.
Senator Voinovich. What you do to get it there ought to be
your business and no one else's. The only help that you ought
to be able to get is how to you pay for it, if there's some
technology that you might get from the EPA or the State EPA to
do that the best way----
Mr. Odeal. There are many ways we can do it like they're
proposing. The EPA is telling them, for the same objective,
it's costing them a heck of a lot more money.
Mr. Stevenson. There was a $50 million difference between
the two systems.
Mr. Karney. It's definitely an issue, as Senator Crapo said
earlier, of micromanagement.
You've got a lot of folks from Washington, DC, who don't
understand, who really know the system, have not worked in the
system, have not run the systems, and yet they'll come out and
pick up a few terms and all of a sudden, they want to see those
things on a piece of paper, because then it's easier for them
to determine whether or not something by the letter has shown
up.
Not necessarily whether it's going to work or where the
dollars are going to come from, or what the effect is, but
whether or not it meets certain levels.
There's a little checklist that makes it much easier to
say, ``Oh, you didn't do it correctly''. We didn't do it the
way you think is correct, but it's working a hell of a lot
better.
Senator Voinovich. Do we have the water system--maybe 6
months from now we'll have somebody from air and water----
Mr. Karney. There are some good folks up there. Mike Cook
has been talking for a long time about urban stream standards
and acknowledging the fact that urban streams are not going to
go back to pristine environments, but unfortunately some of the
voices of reason get pretty overwhelmed by other forces within
the agency.
Senator Voinovich. Well, all I know is this, that
Steelhead, which was, 30 years ago, reported as one of the most
polluted creeks in the State of Ohio, and we're doing something
right. It's getting better.
Senator Crapo. Finished?
Senator Voinovich. Yes.
Senator Crapo. Well, I would like to thank this panel, as
well as the other panels, for coming today. We've reached the
end of our time limit here, but I can tell you that both the
written testimony, which I read last night in my hotel, and the
verbal testimony that we've had today, is going to be very,
very helpful to us as we proceed.
I would encourage you all to continue to keep us informed,
and as well as members of the House of Representatives who will
be working on this as well.
To try to help make certain that your points of view are
heard and understood as we proceed. We will be moving ahead to
try to put together a major forum to not only the regulatory
arena but the financing arena, and to situations which we face
in terms of providing the necessary resources to meet our
infrastructure needs.
I believe it is becoming better understood what we are
facing. I think in terms of the environment and the kind of
challenges we face in the country, this is the biggest one that
we face in the country.
I think it should start getting more attention, and as its
public starts to realize the kind of difficulties that we face,
that we've discussed here today, I think we'll start seeing a
lot more public support for the kind of reforms that we've
discussed.
So, again, I commend you all, and thank you for providing
this information to us.
Unless there's anything further?
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you
again. This is one of my best friends in the Senate. I could--
you can tell from what he has to say, we think a lot alike on a
lot of these issues, and I think we're really fortunate to have
somebody as conscientious and bright and committed to heading
up this committee.
Even though it's not my subcommittee, I know this, that I
will do everything I can to help him get the job done. Do you
want to know something? He will get the job done. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. I was just reminded that we
should remind the witnesses today that we will keep the record
open for 2 weeks, so if you want to supplement the record with
any further information or responses to questions, you're very
welcome to do so.
We may come up with some other questions we'll submit to
you and ask you to answer them in writing, if you would. So we
will keep the record open for 2 weeks.
Senator Voinovich. One last thing. I would really be
interested in finding out what your respective national
organizations would be willing to contribute to this committee
in terms of input.
Senator Crapo. That is very helpful and I would appreciate
that being submitted as well.
Senator Crapo. I want to return the compliments. This isn't
just a mutual admiration thing. I've said to many of my friends
that Senator Voinovich is one of the brightest lights we've got
in the Senate, and it was great of Ohio to send him there.
You can tell from the hearing today, and just the fact that
he asks that we bring our subcommittee to Ohio, and his
introduced legislation, and his not only interest in but
understanding of the issues, is one of the reasons he's so
helpful in the Senate.
I look forward to working with you, George, to make certain
we get the right solution in this legislation.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Lydia J. Reid, Mayor, Mansfield, OH
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information relating to
potential required expansion of our wastewater treatment plant. The
city of Mansfield Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) service area
includes 55,000 people along with business and industry. Sewer service
is provided by a separate sanitary system and the wastewater is treated
in a 12 MGD WWTP before discharge to the Rocky Fork of the Mohican
River. The collection system was originally a combined sewer system
designed to carry both sanitary sewage and stormwater. In the mid-
1980's it was converted to a separate sanitary system. This change from
combined system to separate sanitary system brought the city under a
more stringent regulatory regime.
U.S. EPA regulations are based on the assumption that flows in a
separate sanitary system will not have a significant stormwater
component and consequently there will be no sanitary sewer overflows
(SSO) and no plant bypasses. The Mansfield system has no sanitary sewer
overflows. At the WWTP, dry weather flow averages about 9 MGD. It is
processed through primary treatment, secondary treatment and
disinfection before discharge to the Rocky Fork. During wet weather,
intermittent flows of up to 20 MGD are processed in this way. Above
that level, some flows are diverted to the 5 million gallon
equalization basin (EQ basin) for storage and later treatment. In
extremely high flow situations, the EQ basin, which provides better
than primary level treatment, overflows. EQ basin overflow combines
with treated secondary effluent and the entire flow is disinfected. The
total flow meets NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) permit limits for concentration. We believe that EQ basin
effluent alone meets NPDES permit limits for concentration.
Our NPDES permit is about to be renewed by Ohio EPA. It appears
that Ohio EPA is seeking requirements in the permit that would require
a plant expansion even though we currently meet concentration limits at
all flow levels. Given the high quality of our effluent and given the
many competing demands for our municipal resources, we do not believe
that we should be required to provide any additional treatment unless
it is necessary. Our sewer rates average over $300 per year per hookup.
This is a level that U.S. EPA recognizes as sufficient to properly
maintain a system. At this point we are not certain what our renewed
permit will require. A number of factors will influence our permit
renewal and the cost of implementation to our ratepayers.
Currently U.S. EPA is working on two main issues that could affect
our permit. The first is the draft sanitary sewer overflow regulation
that was signed by former Administrator Browner in the last days of the
Clinton administration but not yet published in the Federal Register.
It is being re-examined by the Bush administration before publication
for comment.
Among other issues, the preamble to the draft sanitary sewer
overflow regulation requested comment on the level of treatment
required for flows reaching the WWTP. We intend to comment on this
rulemaking when it is published in the Federal Register. We believe
that meeting NPDES permit limits should be sufficient to comply with
the law. We should not be required to provide treatment for the sake of
treatment.
The second important issue relates to the development of the U.S.
EPA policy on ``recombination'' of flows. Recombination is the blending
of the part of the total flow that is diverted from secondary treatment
with those flows that receive secondary treatment. In Mansfield the
recombination only occurs during wet weather. In a letter to Senator
Frist dated March 7, 2001, U.S. EPA indicated that NPDES permit issuing
authorities (in our case, Ohio EPA) have considerable flexibility in
addressing the recombination situation. Generally speaking, if the
recombined flows meet permit limits based on secondary treatment or
more stringent water quality-based effluent limits and the WWTP was
designed to operate in this fashion, then this practice may be approved
in the permit. However this policy has not yet been finalized. The
agency states that it will be developing guidance addressing this
issue. We plan to monitor and participate as necessary. We believe that
the guidance should also clarify that, in a separate sanitary system,
load limits may increase during wet weather. At this point we are
somewhat unclear as to Ohio EPA's view on the recombination issue other
than that it is willing to consider various alternatives. We will know
more in the near future.
If U.S. EPA confirms this interpretation in the recombination
guidance, Ohio EPA will be able to act on the Mansfield situation as it
deems appropriate. We do not believe that Ohio EPA should be denied the
ability to draft flexible permits as a result of the U.S. EPA
interpretation.
We ask that you continue to monitor these issues both in the
regulatory process and through confirmation hearings for the U.S. EPA
assistant administrator for water: If unsupportable determinations are
made by U.S. EPA, we would like to discuss with you options that may be
available. Last year Congress acted through the appropriations process
to require further examination of the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load)
rule. Such an approach could be appropriate for these issues. Another
approach to overly stringent U.S. EPA requirements would be the
expansion of the grant program in the Wet Weather Water Quality Act of
2000 to provide financial support to cities facing high or increasing
wastewater treatment costs due to wet weather. Finally, U.S. EPA should
aggressively develop and approve more cost-effective wastewater
treatment technology.
If rule interpretation continues in its current direction, then the
City is on a path with EPA to spend tens of millions of dollars to
provide additional treatment for 3\1/2\ percent of total annual flow to
the WWTP in order to eliminate less than 10 annual EQ basin overflows,
which are currently meeting all NPDES permit requirements.
In closing, I would like to thank you for your interest in these
matters and for your efforts on behalf of the cities in Ohio.
__________
Statement of Robert Vincenzo, Mayor, City of St. Clairsville, OH
St. Clairsville is a city of 5,100 in the eastern side of the
state, 10 miles from Wheeling, West Virginia. We are located in
Belmont, one of Ohio's Appalachian Counties. Our City is largely
residential and service based. We are the county seat. The largest
retail area in mid eastern Ohio is located on the eastern edge of my
City.]
In the early 1980's the city took advantage of U.S.E.P.A.'s 75
percent grant to build our main Waste Water Treatment Plant, a 950,000
GPD average design. We also rehabilitated sewer lines in an effort to
limit infiltration and inflows. The latter has been largely a failed
effort. Although we have repeatedly tested for and eliminated inflow,
we still have a tremendous infiltration problem whereby our flow
increases five fold during wet weather. Our old clay lines dating to
the 1920's act as a leech field collecting subsurface drainage. This
causes flooding of pump stations, the plant, and homes. In 2002 we will
bid the replacement of 4 pump stations (about \1/3\ of the total) and
5,200 feet of lines (almost 3 percent of our total) at an estimated
cost of $600,000.
In performing this upgrade in the 1980's we achieved one of the
highest wastewater rates in Ohio. About 24 percent of our current
department budget goes to debt service. According to the most recent
OEPA statewide rate survey (issued February, 2001 for 1999 calendar
year) St. Clairsville's rate is in the 33d percentile. But just after
that study was done the city boosted its rate another 27 percent (in
August 2000) and if that number is factored into the OEPA survey our
rate is in the 12th percentile out of 444 systems reporting. (As a side
note, customers take a double hit in that we are in the top 10
percentile in water rates statewide.)
As these numbers indicate St. Clairsville has taken steps to help
itself by paying much of our own way. We believe that despite our many
needs we have a comparatively strong system, but our residents have a
high rate burden, and to fulfill our needs the rates will go even
higher unless there is some infusion of outside capital. Ohio's Public
Works grants have helped, but the effectiveness of that was diluted
when the State allowed these funds to be used for road resurfacing and
tailored the grant point system to rank these politically popular
projects higher than wastewater projects. Our wastewater rates
constitute about 2 percent of household income. We do not believe we
can push them much higher. Our current needs in brief include:
(1) Flow equalization to prevent system surcharging (flooding)
during storms.
(2) Pump station and line replacement.
(3) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) control. (This gas occurs naturally and
destroys concrete and structures in the collection system.)
(4) Relocation or expansion of the city's second plant, a 90,000
GPD design structure that is at design capacity. Relocation would allow
us to move the plant from a congested area, and extend service to an
underserved area. In St. Clairsville's experience expansion of
wastewater treatment definitely yields new development. However, Ohio's
pending annexation law as drafted makes such expansion far less
attractive to the city. Neither the surrounding County or the Township
has filled this need historically.
These above needs total about $10 million for this basic utility.
We do not criticize the need for clean water, we support that. We
do feel that EPA's focus should be on communities meeting their permit
limits, and should not be a micro management type control of plant
operations. Instead EPA should focus on the discharge quality, and not
on regulating the specific increments of the process used to reach that
quality.
EPA has been very helpful in assisting the city technically in
solving a difficult treatment problem which has stymied various city
engineering consultants. The work of Ohio EPA in conjunction with our
operator solved a treatment problem and resulted in a nationally
published technical paper to help others.
So, what help do we need? Our answer is nothing you have not heard
too often before . . . more money. We have dedicated our own resources
to improving our systems, and we have taken the unpopular steps of
pushing our rates to the limit. Our customers have shouldered the
burden of support. But to restore these systems, particularly our
system will take resources beyond that which we currently have or will
have.
I am aware that there is not an instant solution for our situation.
However, I am very appreciative of your concerns to conduct this
hearing for some positive feed back and I am very pleased to have an
opportunity to testify before your Committee and provide additional
insight to the plight of Small Cities and Villages. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Christopher Jones, Director, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Chairman Crapo, Senator Voinovich, thank you for the opportunity to
speak about the wastewater infrastructure needs of Ohio communities.
Those needs are great and the resources to address them are currently
not adequate.
The Clean Water Act has brought about tremendous improvement in the
quality of Ohio waters. By mandating control of point source
discharges, including sewage treatment plants, the Act has enabled many
streams to recover from low oxygen conditions, excess phosphorus
discharges, and other degradation. There are many dramatic examples of
the results, most notably perhaps the renaissance along the banks of
the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland and the resurgence of Lake Erie as a
world class fishing destination. I understand that Senator Voinovich
may be planning a fact-finding mission on the Lake this summer to
confirm for himself that the walleye and perch are really biting.
In the 1970's and 1980's, many of the infrastructure projects that
enabled water quality improvements throughout the State were funded
through the Federal Construction Grants program, which provided 75
percent of the cost of sewage treatment infrastructure mandated by the
Clean Water Act. As you know, that program was converted to a low-
interest loan program administered by the States.
The State Revolving Loan Fund program is currently due to be
reauthorized, and I know that Governor Taft has written you to express
his strong support for your bill to do that, Senator Voinovich. We are
particularly pleased that S. 252 would double the current level of
funding to $3 billion per year over 5 years. If enacted by Congress and
signed by the President, S. 252 will greatly assist communities in Ohio
and throughout the Nation with the construction, expansion, and
improvement of sewage treatment facilities.
However, even doubling current spending will not adequately meet
the mandates in the Clean Water Act. I would like to briefly outline
the needs in Ohio, and then to suggest two areas in which targeted
resources are particularly needed.
Ohio EPA is in the process of updating the Clean Water Needs
Survey, which we do every 5 years in cooperation with U.S. EPA.
Unfortunately, the 2001 results are not yet available, so the figures I
am about to give you are based on the 1996 survey. We hope to have more
current numbers by mid-summer.
The total infrastructure need in Ohio, according to the survey, was
$7.4 billion. That need can be further broken out as follows:
<bullet> $1.1 billion for wastewater plant construction and
improvement
<bullet> $900 million to repair existing sewers
<bullet> $900 million for construction of new sewers
<bullet> $97 million for storm water controls
<bullet> $198 million for nonpoint source pollution abatement
<bullet> and $4.2 billion for combined sewer overflow elimination.
Combined sewer overflows account for more than half of the
infrastructure needs in Ohio. Frankly, Senators, even with a dramatic
increase in low-interest loan dollars, this burden is too much for many
communities. There are 92 Ohio communities with combined sewers, and
they range from the largest of our cities, such as Cleveland, Akron,
Toledo, Youngstown, and Cincinnati, to very small communities like Van
Wert and Lisbon. In fact, a total of $16 million for CSO controls is
needed in communities with fewer than 1,000 residents.
As an example, Port Clinton, a northwestern Ohio town of a little
more than 7000 people, has completed a Combined Sewer System Long Term
Control Plan. The plan recommends improvements over the next 5 years of
between $8 million to $14 million. Port Clinton's annual average sewer
rate is now $566, 77 percent higher than the State average. To pay for
the improvements, in today's dollars the average sewer bill will
increase to $846 in 2004 , and to $1,132 in 2010. These financial
projections already include a $1.5M grant expected in 2002 as part of a
previous budget bill.
Eliminating combined sewer overflows is important if we are to
continue to improve water quality. But the cost of controls is simply
out of reach of most communities. Noncompliance brings Federal
sanctions, including monetary penalties that simply exacerbate the
problem. What is needed are Federal grant dollars, matched with State
and local funds. This is the only way that CSO control infrastructure
is likely to be built on the necessary scale nationwide, particularly
when you consider that the same communities that must invest in these
controls must also maintain aging wastewater treatment plants and sewer
lines.
The second area where Ohio would like to see targeted Federal
grants is to provide sewers in low-income areas where failing septic
systems are causing public health concerns. It is difficult to believe
that in the year 2001 in the United States of America, people are
living with raw sewage in the back yard, in the drainage ditch, or in
the creek. But it's true in far too many communities. The 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey identified 199 areas in Ohio with high densities of
failing on-lot septic systems, a number we believe significantly
understates the real need. We are attempting to gather more accurate
information in the survey that is ongoing now.
Clearly, exposure to drainage from a failing system threatens
public health, but the threat does not end there. Pooling effluent is a
breeding ground for mosquitos, which carry encephalitis, including the
form known as West Nile Virus. Ohio expects to see West Nile Virus,
which is potentially fatal, in the far eastern parts of the State this
summer. At the same time, Lake County has filed a complaint, which we
are now investigating, that the neighboring county to the east is
allowing discharges from on-lot systems to go unabated, affecting water
quality in Lake County downstream. These are our easternmost counties,
and the places where mosquito breeding is particularly worrisome right
now.
Community development is also impeded by failing on-lot systems.
Obviously, a home with a septic system that does not work properly
declines in property value. It becomes even more difficult to
revitalize these low income areas, because few people would choose to
live with such a nuisance if they could afford not to.
One example of a small Ohio community that is doing its best to
rectify this problem is the village of Morristown, in Belmont County.
The Village has been trying for years to find an affordable way to
install sewers. Raw sewage from failing septic tank systems has been
confirmed in the storm sewers and creeks around the town.
Development in the Morristown area has grown stagnant due to the
lack of suitable wastewater facilities. Ordinary businesses that we all
take for granted, such as a restaurant or a laundromat, have been
unable to locate in the area.
The village has evaluated different alternatives, trying to find
something that would be affordable for the 350 residents. The most
recent proposal is for the village to construct sewers to tie into the
existing Belmont County Fox Shannon wastewater treatment plant. The
county has already extended sewers to the edge of the village to enable
the village to tie in. However, the cost to the village residents could
be as high as $105 per month for the approximately 130 households in
the village without supplemental grants to bring down the cost.
Low interest loans, even zero interest loans, are not particularly
helpful in this situation. Residents living at or near poverty level
simply cannot afford to repay the loan. Again, Federal grants are
needed. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that there are
places in America, places in Ohio, where the lack of adequate sewage
treatment compares to that in some Third World countries. The Federal
Government simply must help.
I do not want to leave you with the impression, however, that
increasing funding is the only thing we can or should do. Regulatory
flexibility will help available dollars go further and reduce the
obstacles to compliance for many communities. Among the things Congress
can do are:
Say Clearly That State Primacy Means Primacy.--The CWA should
explicitly articulate minimum standards that States must meet to
achieve primacy, that is, delegation of the Federal program. Once the
State is awarded primacy, there should be no independent Federal
presence unless the State fails to perform its obligations. The Federal
agency should not second-guess enforcement decisions or permit
conditions.
Create Block Grant Funding.--Currently, funding under the Clean
Water Act is a maze of separate grant programs, each with its own
requirements. The goal of restoring and preserving watersheds drives
all the State's clean water activities: permitting, enforcement,
wetlands restoration, nonpoint source mitigation, monitoring, and so
on. Yet most of these activities are funded through separate grants,
imposing a burdensome grant tracking obligation. Clean air programs are
managed for the most part under a single grant, and successfully so.
Federal funding under the Clean Water Act should be changed to a block
grant system, with the State held accountable for maintaining the
fundamental standards of a delegated program, and free to allocate
Federal dollars according to its unique needs to achieve that end.
Recognize That When Everything Is A Priority, Nothing Is A
Priority.--Currently, U.S. EPA is pressing States, and ultimately
communities, to move forward simultaneously on all fronts. Municipal
and industrial permits must be updated every 5 years, sewer overflows
must be controlled, storm water must be controlled, wetlands must be
protected, coastal areas must be managed, stream uses must be
designated, and on and on. Yet none of these efforts is adequately
funded. The result is that States can do a little of everything, and
not enough of anything.
Congress should change the term of discharge permits from 5 years
to 10 years. States spend inordinate resources renewing permits every 5
years, even though there is frequently no substantive change in permit
requirements. There is a national backlog of expired permits, largely
because States recognize that renewal on a 5-year schedule is often a
paperwork exercise that produces less benefit than actual field work.
In addition, the reporting schedule under Section 305(b) should be
changed from every 2 years to every 5 years. This section requires
States to report water quality trends. Meaningful changes are unlikely
to show up on a 2-year cycle. Five year reporting will ease the
resource burden without negatively impacting forward progress.
GAO should evaluate whether States without an active
antidegradation program are making less progress toward the ``fishable,
swimmable'' goal, or whether antidegradation enforcement makes little
difference in States' progress. The goal of antidegradation is to
``keep clean waters clean.'' However, the Act is unclear with regard to
when a discharge is significant enough to trigger this provision. Many
States, therefore, fail to implement antidegradation, while others,
including Ohio, devote significant resources to it. A GAO analysis
could help to determine whether the antidegradation process effectively
supports the goal of the Clean Water Act.
Chairman Crapo, Senator Voinovich, thank you for your willingness
to explore this problem and work with us toward constructive solutions.
On behalf of Governor Taft and the many communities in Ohio that are
struggling to address their wastewater infrastructure needs, your
interest is much appreciated.
Periodically, USEPA conducts a national survey of the needs for
water quality-related facilities and improvements. This survey, called
the Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS), provides EPA with a detailed
estimate of the funds needed in Ohio and across the country for
activities necessary to comply with the requirements of the Clean Water
Act. To assist USEPA, the Ohio EPA collects statewide data from
communities and compiles the results. Since the best source of data are
the communities of the state, we rely on them to provide us with
information relative to specific water quality needs.The needs
presented here are from the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey. The needs
are based on information provided by individual communities and Ohio
EPA district offices. The majority of the costs for Categories I
through IVB are based on documents provided by the community. The
majority of the costs for Categories V, VI and VII are based on
costgenerating computer models used by USEPA.
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category I: Secondary Treatment.................... $830,000,000
Category II: Advanced Treatment.................... $248,000,000
Wastewater Treatment Costs Subtotal............ $1,078,000,000
Category IIIA: Infiltration/Inflow Correction...... $748,000,000
Category IIIB: Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation.... $191,000,000
Existing Sewer Rehabilitation Costs Subtotal... $939,000,000
Category IVA: New Collector Sewers................. $358,000,000
Category IVB: New Interceptor Sewers............... $534,000,000
New Sewer Construction Costs Subtotal.......... $892,000,000
Category V: Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement (both $4,199,000,000
documented and modeled)...........................
Category VI: Storm Water (both documented and $97,000,000
modeled)..........................................
Category VII: Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement $198,000,000
(both documented and modeled).....................
Grand total.................................... $7,403,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that the cost in these tables are at least
5 years old. Communities have implemented improvements since 1996 that
are not reflected here. In addition, new areas of needs have been
identified since 1996 that are not reflected here at all.
To update this information, Ohio EPA has been asking cities,
villages, counties, sewer districts, and health departments across the
State for assistance with collecting information regarding wastewater,
storm water, and nonpoint source pollution control needs in Ohio. In
order to update and correct this information for the 2001 effort, we've
requested information from more than 1,000 separate entities asking
them to provide updated information for the CWNS.
1996 Clean Water Need Survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 < pop < 3,500 < pop <
Summary for Ohio Total pop < 1,000 3,500 10,000 pop >10,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category I: Secondary Treatment..................... $830,000,000 $71,000,000 $89,000,000 $23,000,000 $647,000,000
Category II: Advanced Treatment..................... $248,000,000 $14,000,000 $24,000,000 $10,000,000 $200,000,000
Wastewater Treatment Costs Subtotal............. $1,078,000,000 $85,001,000 $113,001,000 $33,003,500 $847,010,000
Category IIIA: Infiltration/Inflow Correction....... $748,000,000 $10,000,000 $11,000,000 $287,000,000 $440,000,000
Category IIIB: Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation..... $191,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $184,000,000
Existing Sewer Rehabilitation Costs Subtotal.... $939,000,000 $10,000,000 $14,000,000 $291,000,000 $624,000,000
Category IVA: New Collector Sewers.................. $358,000,000 $105,000,000 $81,000,000 $36,000,000 $136,000,000
Category IVB: New Interceptor Sewers................ $534,000,000 $46,000,000 $49,000,000 $25,000,000 $414,000,000
New Sewer Construction Costs Subtotal........... $892,000,000 $151,000,000 $130,000,000 $61,000,000 $550,000,000
Category V: CSO Abatement (doc + model)............. $4,199,000,000 $16,000,000 $287,000,000 $317,000,000 $3,579,000,000
Category VI: Storm Water (doc+model)................ $97,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $97,000,000
Category VII: NPS Pollution Abatement (doc + model). $198,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $198,000,000
Grand Total..................................... $7,403,000,000 $262,000,000 $544,000,000 $702,000,000 $5,895,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above table breaks down the information by population density
and category of needs. As can be seen from the Table, Category V:
Combined Sewer Needs is an area where Ohio has significant needs: $4.2
billion. In Ohio, we have 92 communities with CSOs and those
communities range from the very small to major sewer districts such as
Cincinnati and Cleveland. Unfortunately, the significant costs to deal
with CSOs and protect water quality are so high that projects are often
unaffordable, even in large communities like Akron, Cincinnati and
Cleveland. This is why grant money is needed to lower the cost to the
local community.
A second area that should be highlighted is the issue of failing
individual home sewage disposal systems. Surfacing sewage from failing
systems or pooled effluent from discharging systems can be a direct
public health threat as well an ideal breeding ground for mosquitos. In
addition, there is a direct economic cost due to the lower property
values for homes in these areas, The CWNS identified 199 different
areas in Ohio with high densities of failing individual home sewage
systems. Ohio EPA feels the 199 count signifcantly underestimates the
existing need and is conducting a better survey to improve our data.
Buildiong new sewer plants and/or accessing centralized sewers is often
the only way to abate the unsanitary conditions. New sewer construction
is usually unaffordable due to the high costs for new sewers and low
incomes of many rural areas, especially in southeast Ohio's appalachia
area. Based on the CWNS data, we estimate that $240 million is needed
to provide sewers and/or treatment to the 199 area identified in the
1996 CWNS. Without direct grant money to buy-down the costs of these
projects, the problem will continue unabated.
__________
Statement of Erwin J. Odeal, Executive Director, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District
As executive director of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
(District), I appreciate this opportunity to provide information to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Committee on
Environment and Public Works on wastewater infrastructure needs in the
State of Ohio. The District has served the communities of Northeast
Ohio for almost thirty years, bringing vast improvements to the water
quality of the area and contributing to the rebirth of the Cleveland
area. I appreciate the opportunity to tell you about the District's
efforts and our needs and concerns for the future of the environment .
The District has invested significant resources to address water
infrastructure needs in Northeast Ohio. Since its creation in 1972, the
District has invested over $1.6 billion for capital improvements to the
wastewater conveyance and treatment system throughout its 54 community
service area. The major thrust of these improvements included upgrades
of our three treatment plants (Easterly, Westerly and Southerly),
construction of five major interceptors (Southwest, Heights/Hilltop,
Mill Creek, Cuyahoga Valley and Northwest) and numerous intercommunity
relief sewers throughout the District's service area. As noted at the
top of the Attachment 1 Summary, these projects were financed in part
by Federal grants under the Clean Water Act Construction Grants Program
(35 percent) and recent special Federal appropriation grants (4
percent), with the balance (61 percent) paid for by the District's
ratepayers either as repayment of low interest loans received under
Ohio's State Revolving Fund program, the Water Pollution Control Loan
Fund (WPCLF), or as pure NEORSD local funds.
The most recent regulatory requirement imposed upon the District is
our combined sewer overflow (CSO) management and reduction program.
This program resulted from Ohio's implementation of U.S. EPA's 1994
Combined Sewer Overflow Policy. Included in this effort is construction
of CSO storage tunnels and tanks, relief sewers and treatment
facilities, CSO system rehabilitation and/or modification, and
potentially, sewer separation projects. These projects are being
conducted on a watershed basis, enabling the District to identify and
evaluate the impact of combined sewers and numerous other stressors to
water quality in the Northeast Ohio area. As noted on the bottom of
Attachment 1, the District has spent over $220 million to date on its
CSO program, of which $26 million was funded through Federal grants (11
percent) with the balance paid for by the District's ratepayers, either
as repayment of low interest loans received from the WPCLF program (66
percent) or as pure NEORSD local funds. It is expected that the total
cost to the District for CSO projects could approach $1 billion over
the next 15 years.
As you can see from the numbers above and those in Attachment 2,
the burden of wastewater infrastructure funding has shifted from
significant Federal grants, which do not require repayment, to State
revolving loans, which must be repaid. The ratepayers' burden has
increased from about 37 percent to over 90 percent. While it is
impossible to calculate the potential rate increases that will be
required by ongoing and future regulatory requirements, there is no
question that, without additional funding resources in the form of
grants and low or zero interest loans, the District's ratepayers will
continue to bear essentially all of the costs of these expensive
programs.
The District strongly supports the Water Infrastructure Network
(WIN) and Water Infrastructure Caucus in their efforts to identify a
mechanism for closing the large funding gap that exists today. The
level of infrastructure improvement required by existing and future
Clean Water Act requirements exceeds the amount of available funding by
orders of magnitude. This fact is recognized by EPA as well as the
State and local entities attempting to improve water quality and
protect the public. A consistent source of funds, distributed in the
form of grants and low or zero interest loans, is the only way that
municipalities with limited resources will be able to maintain the
water quality improvements achieved to date and assure further
improvement in the future. Information on the WIN and Win's recent
recommendation report, WINow, are included in the packet of materials
provided.
In addition to funding wastewater infrastructure needs, however,
the District believes that there is a great deal that can be done to
improve local communities' ability to address water quality issues in
an efficient and cost effective way. One of the key impediments to this
is the lack of programmatic interaction between the current EPA
mandates for CSOs, Separate Sanitary Overflows (SSOs), Stormwater
management and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
Currently, communities are required to address CSOs, SSOs and
stormwater through three separate regulatory programs. Each program
requires extensive monitoring, infrastructure modification/capital
investment, and recordkeeping and reporting. Yet the need for these
three programs is the same: the ability of municipal wastewater and
stormwater systems to address wet weather impacts on water quality. It
has been EPA's position that these separate programs will come together
through the TMDL process. Yet even through TMDLs, the three programs
remain separate and independently enforceable. There is no flexibility
for communities prioritize their water quality issues and begin
addressing the most significant sources of water quality impairment
first.
As a member of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA), we have been working toward proposing legislation that would
give EPA the authority to combine these separate regulatory programs
into a unified wet weather regulatory program. A unified program would
enable municipalities to evaluate the sources of their wet weather
water quality problems and rank them by environmental benefit, thereby
allowing the community to address the most severe environmental
stressors first and getting the ``most bang for the buck.'' To date,
EPA has spoken of the benefit of such a unified program, but has taken
no action to pursue this course of efficient and cost effective
environmental protection. A legislative mandate would certainly provide
the legal authority and impetus for such a reworking of Clean Water Act
requirements.
Increased flexibility also represents an opportunity to jump start
the process of restoring urban streams through adoption of urban water
quality standards that are tailored to specific watersheds. We believe
that this tailoring also has the potential to result in substantial
cost savings for the public. Typically, streams which predominately
drain urban areas are affected by the complex land use patterns to such
an extent that they are not capable of attaining the current water
quality standards, which are benchmarked against the most pristine
areas of the State. We believe that a cooperative program between
watershed communities and regulatory agencies must be formed to start
restoration processes and evaluate land use practices that threaten the
last remaining habitat along streams. Communities need to be empowered
and encouraged to understand urban impacts on streams and look at the
potential value of the resource to the community. State regulatory
agencies need flexibility within Federal regulatory guidelines to adopt
standards that make sense for streams that are substantially altered by
their surrounding land use patterns.
We believe these are important new directions that have the power
to result in substantial improvements to urban streams. However, at the
same time we are concerned that these programs might be stalled by the
inflexibility of current Federal regulatory guidelines. Current
regulations have been interpreted to allow revisions of water quality
standards only where substantial and widespread social and economic
impact is at issue. In addition, EPA has been resistant to accepting
Ohio EPA's proposed use of biological criteria as a holistic measure of
stream health. Clean Water Act requirements must be both realistic and
accepting of innovation and creativity to encourage progress in
improving urban water quality.
Encompassing all of these issues is the lack of a sound scientific
basis driving the management of wet weather flows and determining
appropriate water quality. While EPA has committed to do so, it has
failed to pursue what we believe to be the key to effective wet weather
management--the development of wet weather standards and associated
management techniques. Until the impact of wet weather flows and
urbanization are studied and scientifically defensible water quality
standards are developed, municipalities will be spending billions of
dollars to address non-existent or marginal water quality impacts
simply because the current dry weather-based regulatory scheme requires
such actions. In addition, the burden of water quality compliance will
continue to be placed on point source discharges such as publicly owned
treatment works, when the most significant sources of impairment is
actually from non-point source (i.e.) agriculture and urban runoff.
We would be most interested in continuing the discussion of
modifications to current legislative and regulatory guidelines in ways
that we believe would vastly enhance our potential to make substantial
progress on the overall improvement of water quality and the
restoration of urban streams. I appreciate the subcommittee's interest
in this area, and welcome any opportunity to be of assistance.
Attachment 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA USEPA Special Total Federal Total Local
Total NEORSD Capital Costs Construction Appropriation Share [In SRF Loans NEORSD Funds Share [In
Grants Grants percent] percent]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEORSD Whole Capital Program 1972-2000:
$1,609,750,000...................................... $555,500,000 $72,000,000 39 $387,400,000 $594,850,000 61
NEORSD CSO Control Capital Program Component 1972-
2000:
$221,800,000........................................ $14,300,000 $12,000,000 11 $145,400,000 $50,100,000 89
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 2.--EPA Construction Grant Program vs. Post-Construction Grant Era
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Total Local
Total NEORSD USEPA Grants Share [In SRF Loans NEORSD Funds Share [In
Capital Costs percent] percent]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEORSD Whole Capital Program:
1972-1990........................................... $881,100,000 $555,500,000 63 $0 $325,600,000 37
1991-2000........................................... $728,650,000 \1\ $72,000,00 10 $387,400,000 $269,250,000 90
0
NEORSD CSO Control Capital Program Component:
1972-1990........................................... $23,800,000 $14,300,000 60 $0 $9,500,000 40
1991-2000........................................... $198,000,000 \2\ $12,000,00 6 $145,400,000 $40,600,000 94
0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects FY 1995, FY 1997 & FY 1998 USEPA Special Appropriation Grants.
\2\ Reflects FY 1997 & FY 1998 USEPA Special Appropriation Grants.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.025
Statement of Donald M. Moline, P.E., DEE Director of Public Utilities,
Toledo, OH
I am Donald M. Moline and I am the public utilities director for
the city of Toledo. On behalf of Mayor Carleton S. Finkbeiner, I am
pleased to provide you with some thoughts and ideas as they relate to
wastewater infrastructure. More specifically, I would like to relay our
experiences in treating or controlling wet weather events.
The city of Toledo's wastewater system serves about 375,000
individuals. The wastewater treatment plant treats, on an average, 75
million gallons per day (MGD) with wet weather flow going up to 400
MGD.
The city of Toledo is currently involved in discussions to settle a
lawsuit that was brought by the USEPA on October 29, 1991. The claim
was that the city of Toledo had not been meeting the limits of it's
NPDES permit at the final effluent discharge to the Maumee River. The
plant had just undergone a massive rebuilding effort, with Federal
assistance, and had not been in full compliance. Over the approximately
10 years of this lawsuit, the final effluent has come into significant
compliance and therefore it's discharge is not an issue. The focus of
the debate then switched to the issue of bypassing.
During wet weather, most older, Midwestern cities that have
combined sewers must bypass the treatment plant either from a CSO
(combined sewer overflow) or a primary bypass at the plant itself. This
practice is not unique to the city of Toledo. Wastewater treatment
plant were not built to handle large raw water flows that happen
relatively infrequent. The basic problem centers on the fact that there
are very few ways to remedy this situation.
Wet weather facilities are only used during rain and the
traditional biological treatment cannot sit idly by waiting for rain.
The alternative is to develop some different form of treatment or
provide storage for wet weather flows with the idea of treating this
water after the rain event has subsided. The city of Toledo was
involved with both alternatives, our costs for this is over $80
million.
The issue of bypassing was submitted to Judge James Carr in Federal
district court in Toledo. He ruled that bypassing was illegal if
`feasible alternatives' are available. This is a term contained within
the Clean Water Act and he defined feasible alternatives to include
building new treatment units or storage tanks. He stopped short of
defining what measure would need to be undertaken or how much. He did,
however, indicated that maximizing your existing treatment plant was
not sufficient when it comes to feasible alternatives and bypassing.
This has huge ramifications for the wastewater industry in general.
The USEPA has insisted that we build an equalization basin that
would hold sufficient quantity of wastewater such that we could avoid
most bypassing. This amounts to a $60 million basin.
In previous discussions, we had conceived and designed an
alternative wet weather system that would treat the higher flows and
return them to the Maumee River without the need for storage. We were
going to combine our swirl concentrators with an Actiflow system to
treat the water. We fully intend to ensure that the discharge would
meet water quality standards such that no harmful effects would be
produced. This alternative could have saved us at least $40 million.
The USEPA indicated that this was a good idea and that we should
downsize just slightly the Actiflow system and combine it with the 60
MGD Equalization basin. The remedy went from our idea costing $30
million to $35 million to their idea costing $80 million. The
disappointing part about this is that there is little benefit to the
water quality of the river. The reason that they would not agree to the
Actiflow system alone was that we were not giving all of the wastewater
secondary treatment and therefore it technically was a bypass. They
would be willing to allow us to build such a system as long as we built
an equalization basin too. They were standing on a technical definition
that bypassing any treatment unit constituted a bypass regardless of
the water quality impact or cost.
In essences, what we had proposed was not a bypass, but a blending
of wet weather treatment system and the full secondary treatment. This
in an important distinction in that the USEPA has recently informed
Congress that the concept of blending should receive favorable
consideration when looking at wet weather alternatives. In our
particular case, the USEPA would only agree to blending provided we not
only remedied the issues at the wastewater plant but also embarked upon
a massive construction program in the collection system.
The previous discussion is only a portion of our lawsuit issues,
but it serves to highlight some of the problems with completing
wastewater infrastructure projects. The first topic that needs to be
addressed is regulatory oversight. The USEPA in recent years has placed
more emphasis on enforcement rather than water quality results. Meeting
the technical definitions contained within rules and regulations is
more important than water quality standards. There seems to be an
imbalance between the technical assistance and the enforcement
divisions within the agency. There needs to be more assistance, which
will lead to greater cooperation in solving technical issues rather
than achieving goals through the enforcement provisions. In our
particular situation, we have experienced this with the bypass and
blending issues. We believe that our alternative would have been able
to provide the same water quality benefits at a much lower cost.
A second area that involves regulatory oversight is the issue of
cost effectiveness and scientifically based reasoning. Again, it has
been our experience that these two concepts are secondary to meeting
the procedural criteria of the enforcement section. In discussions,
everyone champions the idea of applying good scientific evidence, sound
engineering principals and cost effective solutions to problems,
however, in practice, these issues are not given the weight or
consideration which is appropriate. Often municipalities are forced to
comply with standard procedures that are based solely on approved
treatment techniques. This unyielding approach ultimately leads to
higher costs for wastewater infrastructure. The recently adopted CSO
Policy has a better approach. This policy talks of a comprehensive and
coordinated planning effort by the municipality, the regulatory
agencies and the public. It allows for site-specific solutions and the
need for flexibility to tailor controls to arrive at the best
solutions. The USEPA needs to fully embrace this approach to enhance
technical assistance standpoint and reduce the need for regulatory
enforcement.
In Toledo case, our proposed consent decree will cost the
ratepayers over $400 million. The city of Toledo is prepared to spend
this amount. We have not finalized the decree because we are concerned
that the overall cost will balloon to $600 million or $700 millions. As
I have previously indicated with our experiences, ballooning costs are
a real possibility. To give you some idea of the impact of these costs
to the city of Toledo, consider the following. The current overall debt
of the entire city of Toledo over the last 100 years is around $423
million. With the wastewater projects proposed, the city of Toledo will
double its debt. This places a huge burden on the ratepayers. Over the
next 15 years, we anticipate our rates will more than double to provide
enough funds to service the debt. We recently put out a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the engineering on these projects and that alone
will cost $35 million.
The amount of funds being request for infrastructure improvements
may lead to the conclusion that the city of Toledo has neglected it
wastewater system. This simply is not true. Toledo has been a proactive
leader in wastewater improvements. We have installed storage tunnels
for the combined overflow system (CSO) to catch the first flush and we
have continually invested in our system. Over the last 20 years we have
invested over $234 million in infrastructure improvements.
The need for the water and wastewater capitol infrastructure
improvements industry wide over the next 5 years amounts to an
estimated $46 billion per year. That equals $230 billion over that 5-
year period. Clearly, there is a tremendous need. Since the early
1970's, Federal funding of water and wastewater projects has been
steadily declining. It is time to reverse this trend. Congress needs to
create a long-term, sustainable, and reliable Federal funding
structure. This should include things such as grants, low interest
loans, loan subsidies, congressional earmarks, State revolving loan
funds and refinancing opportunities. The Federal Government should
ensure that the programs are fully funded, provide flexibility in their
use and streamline the funding application process. At a minimum, the
industry need $57 billion from years 2003 to 2007 just to remain
solvent. In summary, Congress should encourage the following:
1. Regulations that are based on sound scientific and engineering
principals.
2. Regulations that are based on water quality objective.
3. Regulatory actions that place an emphasis on cooperation rather
than enforcement as outlined in the CSO Policy.
4. Federal funding that is long term and in sufficient quantities
to help meet the need of the industry.
5. Clarification of the language (blending, bypass issues) of the
Clean Water Act to provide flexibility in meeting the demands of wet
weather treatment systems.
6. Provide research and support for the use of new, innovative
technologies.
7. Provide Federal grants because the need is so large.
8. Continue to educate the public of an often overlook area of
public health and environmental protection.
9. Allow communities to become a partner in the process, not simply
those who execute the plan.
10. And finally, put more emphasis on non-point source discharges
rather than continuing to try to extract water quality gains from point
source discharges that have been improved significantly in the last 10
years. It simply does not benefit the environment to continue to follow
this approach.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.002
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENTS BY DONALD M. MOLINE
Project Descriptions
1. east side and bayview pump station renovations
These improvements involve the renovation of the East Side Pump
Station (ESPS) and the Bay View Pump Station (BVPS). The majority of
the work is structural and mechanical. The work will include the
renovation of the vacuum priming systems at both pump stations, new
windows and doors, new discharge valves on the raw sewage pumps 1, 3
and 4 at the ESPS and at all 5 pumps at the BVPS, new HVAC at both
stations, new fencing and repair of the roadway at the ESPS.
The floor drain system at each pump station will be reconfigured so
that they are separate from the wet well. Flow meters will be added for
pumps 1 and 6 at each station. The vacuum pumps, discharge valves and
flow meters will be automated and integrated with the plant's control
system. The existing gas detection systems will be upgraded and alarms
will be sent to the CO Building.
2. windermere pump station renovation
This project involves the Windermere Pump Station (WPS). The work
of this project includes the replacement of the two bars screens and
conveyor system as well as the wet well dewatering pumps. The #2 and #3
raw sewage pump VFD's will also be replaced. The new VFD's will be able
to communicate with the plant's PLC system using remote I/O. The two
existing VFD's will be similarly configured. FPS will investigate the
condition of all 4 raw sewage pumps and motors and recommend corrective
action.
The existing generator control panel will be replaced with a new
panel equipped with automatic start and loading features. Renovation of
the HVAC system, doors, windows and fencing will also be required. The
hydraulic system will be renovated. The PLC and the telemetry system,
the lighting system and the security system will be upgraded. Finally,
the project will include the replacement of the existing flowmeter and
installation of new gas detection system.
3. back up power for secondary and blower replacement
The back up power system should be able to supply all of the power
required to operate the plant in a stand alone mode and peak shave.
This project will also provide additional air blowers to increase the
air supply capacity by 100,000 SCFM for the biological treatment
process.
This project will require the successful bidder to perform the
engineering services and provide an overall plan for the project to
provide electrical power to include: Electrical switching and
distribution network, generation equipment with duel fuel ability,
electrical substations, power transmission requirements, new air
blowers, examination of air delivery system, removal of existing diesel
engines and structural analysis of ME building to house the new
equipment.
4. equalization basin
The Consultant will design an equalization basin with a minimum
capacity of 60 million gallons. The basin will be located either at the
Harrison Marina site, on the golf course adjacent to the Bay View
plant, or other feasible location. The basin will be designed to
capture and store, during storm events, additional wastewater above and
beyond the capacity of the existing plant for treatment at the
wastewater plant once flow to the plant is reduced. The basin is
expected to be utilized between 10 and 30 times a year. The rest of the
year the basin will remain empty.
The equalization basin, actually a set of basins or tanks, shall be
constructed of suitable material and shall have multiple dividers and
gates with options to vary the basin size or number of individual
basins or tanks to be used. Isolation gates, large valves, drainage
pumps, feed pumps and weirs will be used to facilitate filling and
draining of the individual basins. The Consultant will provide a basin
or tank cleaning system to flush the solid content of the wastewater
remaining after it is drained. This system must be maintenance free,
automated and integrated with the plant's control system.
When selecting materials for the basin, special design
consideration shall be made for corrosion control. The basin will be
filled and emptied often, providing the concrete with much exposure to
corrosion and freeze thaw cycles. Gates, weirs, and other equipment
shall be made of corrosion resistant materials or painted with
corrosion resistant coatings.
The Consultant will review the existing pumping capacity of Bay
View, East Side and Windermere pumping stations, preliminary treatment
facilities, elevations of the existing main interceptors and force
mains coming into the plant, and make a recommendation for improvements
needed to fill and drain the equalization basin. The consultant shall
look at and develop the most feasible method for additional preliminary
treatment facilities which must be maintenance free, automated and
integrated with the plant's control system.
Odor control must be included. A life cycle cost study will be
performed on all odor control options proposed by the Consultant. These
options will include, but not be limited to, pre-aeration, chemical
addition, odor retention basin, mixing systems, dry and liquid
scrubbers. The facility must be maintenance free, automated and
integrated with the plant's control system.
The Consultant will investigate and make recommendations on a back-
up power system for the equalization basin complex. The Consultant will
perform a life cycle analysis on all options. This system will be
integrated with the plant's existing and planned back-up power systems.
The system must be capable of an automatic start and loading sequence
and an uninterruptable return to utility power upon command from the
plant's computer control system.
This project includes the preparation of a 401 and 404 permit for
the Ohio EPA and Army Corps of Engineers should the project be located
at the Harrison Marina site. The permits will include mitigation of
lost water surface, sediment sampling, sediment characterization and
the design of a retaining wall at the river.
Title work and appraisal of the properties associated with the
Harrison Marina location have been ordered by the City. All other work
to be performed by the Consultant.
5. secondary clarifers
The Consultant will design a new final tank designated as final
tank #13. The final tank will be located next to final tank #12 and
will be the same size and configuration. This project will be designed
to increase the firm capacity of the final clarifiers from 170 MGD to
195 MGD.
This new final tank will be filled and emptied often, providing the
concrete with much exposure to corrosion and freeze thaw cycles. The
final tank will normally be put on-line during storm events or when
other final tanks are out of service for maintenance. During dry
weather flows the final tank will be empty.
This project will include the addition of one new sludge withdrawal
pump and flow meter identical to the existing pumps and two new mixed
liquor feed pumps. The new sludge withdrawal pump will be located in
the Sludge Withdrawal Pump Station (SWPS). The pump will have its own
variable frequency drive (VFD) and will be automated and integrated
with the plant's control system. The VFD will be located in the SWPS.
Power for the VFD, pump and flow meter can be taken from Power Panel 4
or the lightning panel located in the SWPS.
Flow is provided to final tank #12 using four low head high
capacity pumps. The Consultant must design two new wet wells, cross
over piping and flow meters for each of the two new mixed liquor pumps.
Each pump will have its own variable frequency drive (VFD) and will be
automated and integrated with the plant's control system. The VFD's
will be located in Gallery Building #3. Power for the VFD's, pumps and
flow meters can be taken from Power Panel 3 or the lightning panel
located there.
A splitter box to control flow to each final tank will be needed
along with all process and drainage piping, valves and tank controls.
The new tank will be automated and integrated with the plant's control
system.
The Consultant will design a new secondary diversion chamber to
replace the existing diversion chamber. This chamber allows flow to be
diverted from the swirl concentrators to the aeration tanks. This
diversion chamber will be designed for a firm capacity of 25 MGD with
consideration being taken for future expansion. This chamber will
include a flow monitoring device.
The Consultant shall investigate and develop the most feasible
method to provide flow to the diversion chamber then to the aeration
tanks. The chamber and all associated equipment must be maintenance
free, automated and integrated with the plant's control system.
6. ballasted flocculation facility
The Consultant will plan and conduct a 12-month pilot study of the
ballasted flocculation process. This will be done, if possible, with a
truck mounted test facility. From these results, the Consultant will
size the facility and begin design. The design of the facility will
last for an additional 9 months. The study will also include various
disinfection alternatives including the use of ultraviolet light or
sodium hypochlorite at the end of the wet weather system.
The Consultant will design a wet weather treatment facility (WWTF)
composed of a ballasted flocculation process sized to handle a firm
capacity of 185 MGD of raw combined sewage. This facility will come on
line when the plant flow exceeds the 195 MGD and the equalization basin
is full or when the plant flow exceeds 195 MGD and the pumping capacity
to the equalization basin is exceeded. This facility will be housed in
its own building and will be located at the mooring basin site. This
facility and all associated equipment must be maintenance free,
automated (if possible) and integrated with the plant's control system.
The WWTF will include a final effluent pump station with a firm
capacity of 195 MGD. This station will be used when the river level
rises and interferes with the plant's ability to discharge effluent.
The plant effluent flow and the wet weather treatment facility flow
must be sampled separately, recombined and sampled prior to discharging
to the river. Post aeration for the combined flows must maintain an
effluent DO of 5 mg/l. The Consultant will determine, using life cycle
costs, the most economical pumping configuration and post-aeration
option. The pump station, aeration system and all associated equipment
must be maintenance free, automated and integrated with the plant's
control system.
A new disinfection process for the wet weather flows will be
designed based on the results of the pilot study. The Consultant will
consider a new disinfection process sized to handle the plant's
effluent flow along with the wet weather flow. A life cycle cost
analysis will be performed on the disinfection alternatives. All
necessary piping, pumps, controls, chemical feed systems, contact tanks
and buildings will be included under this project. The disinfection
system and all associated equipment must be maintenance free, automated
and integrated with the plant's control system.
The Consultant will review the existing pumping capacity and
preliminary treatment facilities and make a recommendation for
improvements needed to provide flow to the wet weather treatment
facility. If necessary, the Consultant will perform life-cycle cost
studies on various preliminary treatment and pumping alternatives. All
pumping systems, preliminary treatment systems and all associated
equipment must be maintenance free, automated and integrated with the
plant's control system.
Once the project is complete, the Consultant will perform a 2-year
full scale study titled the ``allasted Flocculation Study.''
7. grit and skimming tank separation
The main objectives of I-45 are to separate the plant's two
skimming tanks into four independent skimming tanks/grit tank process
trains. A cross channel complete with motorized slide gates will be
installed to allow any of the grit tanks to be routed through any
skimming tanks when other tanks are off line for repairs. The inlet
gates to the existing grit tanks are being replaced.
New skimming equipment will be installed in each of the skimming
tanks along with an automated tipping tube. The primary clarifier scum
collection system is being converted back to a gravity drain system
that will discharge into a scum pit located outside of the pre-air
building. Two scum chopper pumps will transfer the scum to the grease
concentrators. New air flow meters and valve actuators will be
installed on the air lines. A drainage pump station will be constructed
in the existing scum ejector pit to pumps located in the basement of
the pre-air building. This pump station will be used to dewater the
primary clarifier for maintenance.
The skimming tank collector mechanism, tipping tube and motorized
gates will be automated and controlled through the plant's control
system.
Reference OEPA permit to install 03-12308.
8. improvements to cso's
Columbus CSO
The sanitary area from Manhattan Blvd. south to Forest Cemetery and
from Chestnut Street east to Counter Street is served by a
predominately separate sanitary sewer system, which drains into the
combined sewers east of Michigan Avenue on Columbus Street.
Drainage from the sanitary and combined sewer systems travels to a
102'' sewer located in Columbus Street and on to a regulator located
east of the intersection of Columbus and Summit Streets. A 36'' sewer,
which carries flow from a combined sewer area bounded by Summit,
Chicago, Ontario, and Troy Streets is believed to connect to the 102''
sewer just west of Summit Street. Storm overflows exit the regulator
through a 102'' pipe and discharge into the Maumee River. A 24''
diameter return line carries dry weather flows from the regulator to an
87'' sanitary interceptor located on the east side of Summit Street.
The sanitary drainage for the Columbus Street regulator is
estimated to be 676 acres. The storm drainage is estimated to be 205
acres. Separation of the sanitary sewer flow from the combined sewer is
expected to result in overflow reduction.
The Columbus Street CSO Optimization Project includes verifying
pipe configuration, smoke and dye testing, recommendations to separate
public sources of inflow, look at separation of sewers and design
improvements.
Parkside CSO
The Parkside CSO project is primarily concerned with the area
around Calvary Cemetery which is served by separate sanitary sewer
system. This area is located near the Upton and Bancroft as well as the
Upton and Door intersections. The system in this area does overflow to
the combined sewer system at Ottawa River and Monroe Street. The area
serves approximately 600 acres of sanitary sewers.
The basic purpose of this project is to minimize inflow in this
area, monitor the flow rate to ensure the inflow is minimized and then
construct the required sanitary sewers to divert their flows directly
to the interceptor.
This project has not been designed yet and it will be the
responsibility of the Consultant to examine the area in detail and
develop the project.
Maumee CSO
This CSO is located at Maumee Avenue and Orchard Street in South
Toledo. This project has not been designed yet. The basic objective of
this project is to reduce the overflow from this structure.
The return sewer line from this regulator is a 5,880 ft. long 18''
diameter sewer with a slope of 0.25 percent. Overflows from this
regulator occur at lower rainfall levels than other regulators which
service similar acreage. The overflows could be caused by flow
restrictions such as sedimentation buildup, plugging by debris or
excessive headloss. The exact cause needs to determined and corrected.
9. elimination of sso's in point place
The Director Findings and Orders from the Ohio EPA set forth the
time schedule under which the city of Toledo must eliminate the SSO's
that are in Point Place. This project is underway and to date, the city
of Toledo has been able to meet all of the specified deadlines.
The project is divided into phases with a phase 1 completion date
of January 2001. In this phase, the city of Toledo was to do intensive
sewer cleaning and correct the deficiencies in the 116th Street
interceptor as well as construct a relief pump station at Manhattan
Boulevard. Phase 2 remediation will examine the results of the phase 1
investigations and suggest alternatives for corrective action along
with the costs. A detailed plan for corrective construction will be
submitted to OEPA for applicable permits by June 2003. Phase 2
improvements must be complete by November 1, 2006.
Another part of phase 2 is the River Road SSES work referenced
below.
10. sses in river road and midland area
This part of the SSO elimination project is centered on an area in
South Toledo. The first phase of the project involves smoke testing and
televising the sanitary sewers in this area. This portion of the
project is currently underway. Phase 2 involves the collection of data,
analyzing it and making recommendations to eliminate SSO. Phase 3 of
the River Road project will be submission of plans and the construction
of the remediation efforts by June 1, 2004. Phase 4 is a placeholder if
the Phase 3 efforts need additional improvement. The final construction
must be complete by November 1, 2006.
11. cso system work
This portion of the work involves implementing the results of a 2-
year collection system study to meet the objectives of the U.S. EPA
Combined Sewer Overflow Policy. The team will be required to first
establish a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) that addresses or considers
the results of all of the studies listed herein and minimizes the
overflows from the CSO's. This LTCP will take into consideration the
characterization of the collection system through monitoring and
modeling to achieve a through understanding of the sewer system, the
response of the system to rain events, the characteristics of the
overflows and the water quality impacts that result from CSO's. Many of
the studies that we are asking the engineering teams to undertake speak
directly to this goal. The LTCP must also address the issues of the
nine minimum control standards for CSO's put forth by the U.S. EPA.
Currently, the city of Toledo has combined sewers that serve
approximately 17,600 acres. Three interceptor sewers collect dry
weather flow from combined sewers at the regulator chambers. Wet
weather combined flows discharge to the Maumee River, Ottawa River or
Swan Creek at 31regulator overflow locations.
Extensive improvements to the collection system have included both
major and minor projects resulting in the overall reduction of combined
sewer overflows. The major projects with significant impact on overflow
reduction include: the Ten Mile Creek Relief Interceptor, Windemere
Pump Station, Swirl Concentrators, combined sewer outfall tide gates
and regulator modifications.
The construction and activation of three independent CSO Abatement
Pipeline Storage Tunnels are the most significant actions taken by the
City to improve water quality of the Maumee River along with downtown
waterfront area and of Swan Creek along the CSO reach.
12. two-year study of ballasted flocculation
The purpose of the 2-year study is to establish the daily operating
parameters and effectiveness of the new facility. In setting up the
study, the Consultant will consider the manufacturers operating
recommendations and use them as a reference point. The Consultant shall
develop appropriate scientific mechanisms such that the data developed
from this study will be valid in establishing the operating range of
the facility. The Consultant will also establish the range of flows
that can be properly treated in the facility.
The Consultant shall, 12 months after the start of our contract,
submit to the U.S. EPA a work plan for the testing of this facility.
The plan shall include, but not be limited to (a.) the effectiveness of
the facility to remove suspended solids, carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia (b.) any
difficulties encountered in or limitations involved with using these
facilities over a range of flow conditions, chemical feed rates and
other operational control parameters and (c.) measures that Toledo has
taken to optimize the use of the facility.
After the study is complete, the Consultant will complete a written
report that will be submitted to the U.S. EPA within 60 days after
proper consultation with the City.
13. flow characterization study
The flow characterization study is fully explained on pages 15
through 18 of the attached draft consent decree. The Consultant is
advised to take note of the time requirements for (a.) the work plan
within 30 days of our contract (b.) the one year time period for data
collection and (c.) the requirement for the report within 30 days
following the completion of the study.
The city of Toledo has installed flow-monitoring devices and has
collected data regarding the amount of wastewater in the system during
rain events. It is the responsibility of the Consultant, to review this
information and determine the usefulness of this data and determine
what additional data will need to be collected. The current data will
be available for inspection at the Division of Water Reclamation.
14. water quality study and model
The city of Toledo, in conjunction with Limno-Tech, Inc. has
already performed an extensive water quality study. This will form the
basis of the work described in the draft consent decree on pages 18
through 21. The major new area of investigation will be sediment oxygen
demand and its relationship to dissolved oxygen in Swan Creek and the
Ottawa River.
The Consultant will be required to closely review the previous work
and coordinate the new investigations such that a comprehensive water
quality report is obtained. The Consultant will also develop the proper
water quality model after extensive impute from City representatives
and consistent with the directions listed on pages 24-25 of the draft
consent decree.
Here again, the Consultant is reminded to check the timeframes and
report requirements.
An Executive Summary of the water quality report is attached. A
complete copy of the report is available at the Division of Water
Reclamation.
15. hydraulic model
The Consultant will develop a hydraulic model of the collection
system to be used in all phases of the evaluation of the system and the
handling of wet weather flows. The detailed information of the
requirements of the study are listed on pages 22-24 of the draft
consent decree.
The Consultant will use the information developed in the flow
characterization study as a basis for this model. To that end, the city
of Toledo has some background information available for inspection at
the Division of Water Reclamation.
16. long term control plan
The Long Term Control Plan seeks to integrate the various plans and
models into one single document that addresses the reduction of flows
from our CSO outfalls in order to comply with the CSO policy. The
pertinent characterization of this document is found in the draft
consent decree pages 25-31. It is the item which receives the most
description in this document and is important to the city of Toledo as
well as the U.S. EPA.
The studies that are being performed as part of this work can be
characterized as informational research. The flow characterization,
water quality study and hydraulic models provide the informational
basis upon which design and implementation can proceed. Once the
information collection phase has been complete, the consultant will
begin to evaluate the alternatives. This will require the engineering
teams to concentrate their expertise to suggest the most effective yet
most economical solution.
Following the conceptual design phase, there will be a review
procedure and then detailed design. This design will require the
integration of all of the talents of the entire team as well as the
city of Toledo's efforts to produce an acceptable product.
Construction of the remedy of the sewer system will be completed in
the second half of the project. At present, it is unclear what type of
work or engineering will be necessary. It is, therefore, impossible for
the Consultant to provide a price for these services. The city of
Toledo has included, in this proposal, a mechanism for a price re-
opener once the 2-year study is complete (see CSO System Work). It is,
however, possible for the Consultant to provide a price for the 2 year
LTCP study.
17. public participation plan
This is an aspect of the project that must not be overlooked. The
development of a clear, concise communication mechanism could be the
difference between acceptance and rejection of the project. The
Consultant will be required to formulate a public relations plan that
can effectively communicate the engineering ideas to the city of
Toledo, the regulator agencies and the general public. It is in this
area that the Consultant and the City must work especially close to
provide a clear vision of the project.
In the draft consent decree there is a requirement that this public
involvement be active during the planning and formulation of the LTCP.
We believe that it is important to have this aspect functioning
throughout the entire project.
The public relations efforts of this project will have as its
fundamental charge the duty to explain to the public the benefits
derived from the improvements being installed in the wastewater system.
Large expenditures of public funds will be used to build the
improvements and it is critical that we are able to explain how the
environment will be improved.
The Consultant is instructed to present, with their proposal, a
summary of this plan.
18. sewer system monitoring and reporting plan
This section will involve a timely reporting of any SSD to a body
of water to the Ohio EPA. A reporting mechanism will need to be
developed such that all of the pertinent information is recorded and
conveyed to Ohio EPA.
This work will also involve a record keeping function during wet
weather times and the responses that the Division of Sewers and Ditch
Drainage provide to residential customers.
The details of the content of the Sewer monitoring can be found in
the draft consent decree on pages 35-36.
19. sanitary sewer discharge response plan
This work requires the consultant to develop a plan that will
identify and establish procedures to handle any sanitary sewer
discharges with the appropriate public notice. This plan will also
include the provisions for limited access to the area, remediation if
necessary, contingency plan for emergency response and dispatch of city
personnel.
A summary of this work can be found in the draft consent decree on
pages 36-38.
20. sanitary sewer o & m plan
This work entails the creation of a management, operation and
maintenance (``MOM'') plan for the collection system. The city of
Toledo has clearly defined rules and procedures although most of these
have never been collected in a single document. The Consultant will be
required to work with the Division of Sewers and Ditch Drainage to
compile and create the necessary document. It is expected that the
Consultant can draw upon past experience to create this document.
This plan will include, but not be limited to, all aspects of the
collection system operation including cleaning, televising, inspecting,
corrective maintenance, information tracking, maintenance schedules and
pump station inspections.
The summary of the elements of the plan are to be found on pages
38-42.
21. wwtp o & m plan
The Division of Water Reclamation does have an existing O & M plan
that is current and does fulfill most of the provisions of this
requirement. The Consultant will need to review these plans and
determine if additional work will be necessary to comply with the
outline provided in the draft consent decree on pages 42-43.
There are a number of anticipated changes such as a wet weather
facility that are not part of our current plant and will need to be
added as they are constructed. It will be the responsibility of the
Consultant to continually update both the WWTP O&M plan and the Sewer
System O & M plan as new processes or change are made.
22. work plans
The draft consent decree has listed in a number of the tasks, a
work plan due within 30 days of the entering of the consent decree. A
great deal of discussion was undertaken to describe the nature of these
plans and detail necessary to comply with their submission. The U.S.
EPA indicated that these plans were to be approximately two pages in
length and are to outline the approximate timeframes and critical path
issues to be followed. They are not a preliminary design nor are they
expected to be done in a significant level of detail. They will,
however, need to document a course of action that the U.S. EPA can
follow.
23. industrial wastewater release minimization plan
This work entails the review of our pre-treatment plan to ensure
that we are minimizing the discharge of industrial pollutants through
CSO's and SSD's. The current pre-treatment program is active and should
provide most of this information. The Consultant can review this
program at the Division of Environmental Services. A brief summary of
the requirements is contained in the draft consent decree on page 38.
Statement of Patrick T. Karney, P.E., DEE, Director, Metropolitan Sewer
District of Greater Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
Chairman Crapo, Senator Voinovich, on behalf of the 650
environmental professionals of the Metropolitan Sewer District of
Greater Cincinnati and the 800,000 Hamilton County users of our utility
I want to thank you for providing this opportunity to address your
committee on this rising crisis.
national history of water pollution abatement activities
When our country was young and still made up of vast wilderness,
waste disposal was a very simple matter--nature would take care of it
with very little help. As our population grew, and our ability to
produce larger and larger quantities of wastes increased nature's
solutions began to become overwhelmed. The resulting pollution of our
environment drove America, and the developing world to institute
increasingly complex methods of wastewater collection and treatment.
Wastewater infrastructure--underground sewer systems and wastewater
treatment plants--was invented, implemented and continuously refined to
answer the ever-growing need for protection of public health and the
environment.
National water pollution abatement law was not developed until a
century after founding of our country with 1878 passage of the Ports
and Harbors Act. Followup to this legislation did not appear for
another century with Public Law 92-500, the Clean Water Act being
passed in 1972. Prior to early 1900's, wastewater disposal was
basically addressed by either forcing it into the ground (privies or
outhouses), or moving the waste to the nearest water body, be it a
stream, river or lake. Treatment of the waste was left to nature. And
nature did an acceptable job until civilization's capacity to generate
wastes exceeded nature's ability to treat it.
Water pollution abatement is a relatively modern innovation, with
many of our large U.S. cities not constructing their first major
treatment works until the 1950's or 60's. As treatment facilities moved
from rudimental, primary treatment process to the more refined
secondary treatment processes during the 70's and 80's, regulatory
emphasis began to turn to deficiencies in the collection systems
(underground piping). That movement was more strongly pursued as the
1990-decade progressed with the publication of the USEPA's CSO Policy
in 1994. SSO issues continue to evade our grasp, especially given the
incredible financial impact that is becoming apparent.
cincinnati/hamilton county history
Cincinnati and Hamilton County, Ohio's experience closely parallels
that of the Nation. Our collection system has origins in the early
1800's, with the installation of drainage systems to remove rainwater
from developed neighborhoods and the business district. Shortly
thereafter, the cesspool crisis was addressed by collecting individual
building waste streams, connecting them to the existing stormwater
system and conveying this combined flow to the nearest stream (this
marked the beginning of Hamilton County's combined sewer system). As
the smaller stream's assimilative capacity was surpassed and the degree
of localized pollution could no longer be tolerated, those waste flows
were intercepted and conveyed to larger streams and to the Ohio River.
By the 1940's discharge of sanitary wastes into the Ohio River
became intolerable, and designs were prepared for the construction of
regional wastewater treatment plants. Underground pipes were redirected
to the first of these plants in 1953. This is clear testimony to the
fact that the water pollution control industry is not that old. The
interceptor sewers which captured the old stream/river discharges were
designed to convey the sanitary flow and a portion of the stormwater,
with constructed regulators to discharge excess combined flow to local
streams and the Ohio River (CSOs).
Soon design approaches changed through the Nation, with Hamilton
County following suit--combined sewer systems were no longer the design
of choice; separate sanitary and storm networks were installed to
prevent the co-mingling of sanitary and storm waters in newly
developing areas. As more and more development occurred in the separate
sewer areas, and additional sources of sanitary sewage were connected
to the existing collection network, the older portions of the sanitary
system became overwhelmed. Localized wastewater back-ups occurred on an
increasingly frequent basis. Resolution of these health hazards was
economically arrived at by the installation of collection system relief
lines (Sanitary Overflows)--these were logically planned and installed
using conventionally accepted engineering methods. Little did the
engineers and elected officials of the day realize they were
constructing an incredible liability for future generations.
Primary treatment plants were upgraded to secondary processes as
the 70's turned into the 80's. Then in the late 80's, following massive
investment in its water reclamation plants and reflecting a change in
national emphasis, Cincinnati turned its attention to another aspect of
the problem--that unseen and often forgotten underground maze of pipes
known as the wastewater collection system. The much heralded site-
specific solutions of less than a generation earlier, the overflow
relief structures, had descended the environmental scale to a status of
environmental detriments.
Beginning in 1987, the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater
Cincinnati initiated countywide studies aimed at finding solutions for
CSOs. Over the past decade that work has translated into not only
system capacity increases and constructed solutions, but has further
expanded into issues involving SSOs. Cincinnati's efforts have
mirrored, and often led, national regulatory development aimed at
curing the problems inherited from past generations.
estimated financial impact of current/proposed regulations (not
including national nutrient removal or tmdl-imposed standards)
Early in 2000, the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater
Cincinnati performed an in-house estimate of the costs involved in
addressing its current collection system needs. The resulting figures
were so staggering that District management elected to engage a
consulting engineering firm to perform an independent analysis of the
needs. Given some unknowns with respect to developing national
regulations, a single number could not be reliably arrived at. The fact
that the two studies (one internal and one external) came to very
similar conclusions provides a very high degree of confidence in their
accuracy.
Exclusive of normal operations and maintenance costs and the
routine/planned rehabilitation efforts of an aging system, which the
community now supports, the new design/construction necessary to
alleviate the CSO and SSO problems amount to somewhere between $1
billion and $3 billion.
user charge implications
Current Charges
At the present time the user charges in affect for MSD are right in
the middle of those for the surrounding 67 utilities.
Projection of Increases
In order to meet the obligations currently imposed upon it by the
Federal Government, MSD will be forced to increase its user charge rate
by approximately 7 percent per year for each of the next 15 years--$1
billion of design and construction. This would multiply the existing
rate by nearly threefold (276 percent). Taking a more conservative view
of how the pending SSO regulations might final impact the utility, the
cost would rise to $3 billion for design and construction. That would
result in rate increases of 21 percent per year for 15 years. This
would multiply the current rates 17 times (1,750 percent).
National nutrient standards and TMDL-related limitations would
impose an even greater financial burden upon the Cincinnati/Hamilton
County ratepayers. Their impact is not definitively quantifiable, but
could easily approach upwards to an additional $1 billion. That would
place the utility in a position of having to raise $4 billion, with a
forty-five-fold increase being imposed upon the residents (4,526
percent) over 15 years.
isn't it time for users to pay the full cost of service
The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati's ratepayers
have been paying the full cost of service since 1968. As with nearly
all other major wastewater utilities, MSD is a stand-alone enterprise
that does not receive subsidies from other governmental units via
property tax contribution or payments whose source is a different
taxing authority. Hamilton County ratepayers do know the true cost of
wastewater collection and treatment--they see it every quarter in the
bill mailed to their homes and businesses.
The local burden is already rising. In 2000, the Metropolitan Sewer
District of Greater Cincinnati's rates were increased by 9.5 percent.
In 2001, Hamilton County enacted another MSD rate increase of 7
percent. Further, the County Commissioners are prepared to consider
another 7 percent rate hike in 2002. Our local elected officials and
utility managers are stepping up to the plate and making tough
decisions about paying the cost of protecting public health and the
environment.
avoiding these costs
What if these horrendous costs are not incurred? What will happen?
<bullet> USEPA will begin imposing fines upon Hamilton County.
<bullet> Moneys that might have been spent improving environmental
quality and protecting public health, will then go directly to the
Federal Government.
<bullet> The Department of Justice will intervene and initiate
civil and criminal proceedings against local jurisdictions and
officials for violation of the Clean Water Act.
<bullet> Concerns about environmental degradation will go
unaddressed.
Thus, these huge expenditures cannot be avoided.
local funding without federal assistance
The rate increases noted above would begin. Within a few years the
rates would increase dramatically and the results would be:
<bullet> Economic distress on the entire County.
<bullet> Extreme hardship visited upon those most unable to pay
(environmental equity).
<bullet> Loss of jobs and commerce due to competitive pressures
from other localities.
<bullet> Loss of population.
<bullet> Spiraling utility revenue loses, in spite of increased
rates, reducing usage and billability of the customer base, driving
rates higher than originally anticipated, further decrease use and
pushing revenues even lower . . .
cincinnati/hamilton county is not alone
Cincinnati/Hamilton County are not alone in facing a financial need
of crisis-proportions. Every older Northeast and Midwest city has aging
infrastructure and the challenge of eliminating CSOs and SSOs.
Throughout the United States, all major cities, even those without
combined sewers, are trying to cope with increasing rehabilitation
needs. As with Cincinnati these other communities are coming to the
realization that their future costs are far in excess of their ability
to pay. Adding the expectation of ever tightening regulations only
further frustrates their attempts at coming to grips with the
situation.
Clearly this is not simply a local or even regional problem. Every
major, as well as medium and small communities, are subject to water
and wastewater infrastructure demands.
need for relief on a national basis
Elected officials and residents of Hamilton County alike can easily
agree upon one point--local efforts are not enough to address this
growing infrastructure need. The impact of not only maintaining the
underground system of collection pipes dating back to the early 1800's,
but also contending with ever tightening regulatory mandates is
staggering. For years this infrastructure has been, ``out of sight, out
of mind.'' But that is no longer the case.
Local utility managers have been feeling the growing pressure to
plan for future needs for some time, but it has not been until recently
that an effort has been undertaken to raise the national consciousness.
Why the delay? The size of the problem was not quantified earlier. We,
and our predecessors, knew it was quite large, and there were other
day-to-day problems we had to contend with. Then as we began to get a
feel for the actual numbers, they were so massive that very few of us
were willing to even mention them, much less engage a national debate
how to proceed.
Today we have a much better feel for what is required, and are
searching for a solution. The American people can no longer avoid the
growing crisis. Elected officials on the local level are beginning to
feel the crunch. Individual homeowners and businesses are being
affected. Local governments are facing a growing shadow of financial
doom.
The need is nationwide. The magnitude of the problem is of national
proportion. Citizens and local officials must have relief, and the only
source for relief of this magnitude is the Federal Government.
win proposal
The time has come to once again make water infrastructure funding a
national priority. On a national basis it has been estimated a $23
billion per year funding gap exists between current local investment in
water and wastewater infrastructure and what is needed over the next 20
years to replace aging and failing pipes and meet Clean Water Act and
Safe Drinking Water Act mandates.
The environmental gains made by the water and wastewater community
over the past thirty years are impressive, but they are in jeopardy.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Nation will
lose a generation of water quality progress without significant new
investment in water and wastewater infrastructure. Recently, more than
a million consumers in California were plunged into darkness as the
nation's energy crisis deepened. Imagine what would happen if the
nation's water and wastewater systems began to fail. Could we ask our
citizens to tolerate untreated or unsafe water? I think not. Failure of
wastewater systems could create a public health emergency, cause
widespread environmental degradation, and lead to an erosion of our
local economies.
The $23 billion gap is documented in two reports released by the
Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), most recently in February's Water
Infrastructure Now: Recommendations for Clean and Safe Water in the
21st Century (WINow), which has been endorsed by over 30 nationally
recognized organizations. The WINow report makes specific
recommendations on bridging the infrastructure funding gap through a
renewed Federal commitment to the nation's municipalities. By
authorizing an average of $11.5 billion per year in capitalization
funds over the next 5 years, the Federal Government will provide States
with the necessary funds to offer grants and loans to local water and
wastewater agencies for repairs and replacement of aging
infrastructure.
call to action
It is our hope that this attempt to articulate the problem will
lead Congress and the Administration to begin the lengthy process of
coming to the assistance of local communities throughout the country.
If we can answer any questions or provide additional information in the
future to assist you in taking action, please feel free to ask.
Utilities throughout America are prepared to answer your calls.
Senator Voinovich, on behalf of wastewater utilities nationwide I
would like to thank you for your recent initiative aimed at re-
energizing the nation's State revolving fund program. Such leadership
is what is needed to bring us all to grips with the funding crisis
facing our water infrastructure, and threatening our citizens.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity to provide insight into this
financial crisis that is facing our entire country.
______
Statement of Patrick D. Gsellman, P.E., Manager, Environmental
Division, Akron Engineering Bureau, Akron, OH
summary of issues--akron, oh
Akron, OH is located on the Cuyahoga River, in northeast Ohio,
approximately 30 miles upstream from the city of Cleveland. The Akron
wastewater planning area covers approximately 167 square miles and
includes most of the Akron metropolitan area. There is a population of
352,000 in the service area and includes all or a portion of 5 cities,
4 villages and 7 townships.
The sewer system includes approximately 1,165 miles of sewers
consisting of 188 miles of combined sewers. There are 38 combined sewer
overflows (CSO) within the city of Akron. Based on predictions from the
hydraulic model typical annual CSO volume is 2,440 million gallons.
Previous efforts by the city of Akron have resulted in the elimination
of sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) in the city of Akron and the award of
the Association of Metropolitan Sewer Association's (AMSA) gold award
for no effluent violations in 2000.
The city of Akron has proposed a Long Term Control Plan that will
cost more than $248,000,000 to implement. This cost is in addition to
the millions Akron has already spent to date to study, address and
reduce CSO's, and the $25 million spent to eliminate SSOs. Akron has
seen a significant decline in its industrial base since the 1960's,
requiring the residential users to carry the burden. Akron already
carries one of the highest residential sewer rates in the State for
communities of similar population.
The Akron Public Utilities Bureau is undergoing significant changes
as result of the high water rates. The rates led to a Blue Ribbon Panel
to study the Utility and the current Competitive Action Program. This
program includes the water treatment facility, sewer maintenance, Water
Pollution Control Station and Utilities Engineering. Significant
reductions in operation costs are being realized and will allow the
Utility to be competitive in the future. This will allow for the City
to pay its fair share of needed improvements as long as the Federal
Government contributes its fair share.
As part of developing Akron's Long Term Control Plan, several
options to fund the projects were evaluated. Given the significant
total cost of these projects, it is likely that funds will have to be
obtained from multiple sources, i.e. grants, low interest loans and
revenues obtained by sewer rates. Grants are essential to the
fundability and feasibility of the program. Without outside funding,
sewer rates will more than double due just to the CSO program. The
impact of additional operation and maintenance costs, system repair and
replacement and normal inflation will likely see the rates triple.
Current monthly sewer charges for a typical residential customer are
approximately $30.00 per month for sewer only. The rate increases to
$60.00 or $90.00 per month will adversely affect a significant portion
of ratepayers, including those who can barely afford their current
utility bills.
The selected alternative for the city of Akron Integrated Plan
incorporates storage conveyance tunnels, detention basins, treatment
basins and sewer separations. A set of rating criteria was used to
compare various alternatives. The criteria included storm water
impacts, water quality improvements, operation and maintenance costs,
public acceptance, community improvements and construction issues. The
approach taken with the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) was the
``presumptive'' approach. The annual percent capture after the LTCP is
94 percent.
In addition to the funding, the issues of wet weather standards,
use designation and urban stream habitat need to be addressed.
Wet Weather Standards.--The current water quality standards do not
(nor were they intended to) address wet weather events. Re-evaluation
of water quality standards for wet weather is needed on a State and
Federal level.
Use Designations.--Reasonable and sincere re-evaluation of ``use
designations'' has not been conducted by the State agencies as allowed
by the CSO Guidance. EPA has reported that they do not have adequate
funding to re-evaluate these requests, yet they expect local POTWs to
expend hundreds of millions of dollars on CSO controls. A fair re-
evaluation of a stream's ``use designation'' is needed prior to the
expenditure of millions of dollars financed by ratepayers.
Stream Habitat.--Urban stream habitat is not adequately addressed
in the Ohio Water Quality Standards. Variances for CSO receiving
streams should be allowed until the proposed Urban Stream Habitat can
be fully assessed.
The city of Akron Public Utility is also faced with rapidly rising
costs associated with storm water, total maximum daily loads (TMDL),
and drinking water regulation.
Akron continues to develop access to the receiving stream with bike
paths, downtown development, Mustill Store restoration and Cascade Lock
Park. Also, the National Heritage River designation and National Park
will continue to attract people to the Cuyahoga River. We look forward
to a solution that will cost-effectively address CSO issues while
producing benefits to the Akron rate payers, enhance the parks and
trails, show improvements in water quality and further the goals of the
Clean Water Act.
The significance of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, National
Heritage River status, State Resource waters, Metropolitan Parks, and
the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor should all be factors
in the allocation of grant funding.
Proposals similar to the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) are
needed to provide for adequate funding now and in the future. Through
water and sewer bills, local rate payers already pay about 90 percent
of the total cost to build operate and maintain their water and
wastewater systems. We need a long-term, sustainable, and reliable
source of Federal funding for clean water.
Wet Weather Standards.--The advent of the CSO program and other wet
weather control regulations has focused recent attention on the need
for wet weather water quality standards. The focus of wet weather
standards has been on attainment of the criteria for waterborne
bacteria, generally measured as either fecal coliform bacteria or more
recently as E. coli. Typically many urban and suburban streams do not
meet the recreational use criteria for bacteria during wet weather. The
bacteria counts in streams rise during storms due to bacteria from a
variety of non-point and point sources.
Studies in any major population center have consistently shown non-
attainment of the existing ``dry weather'' criteria during and
following even moderate wet weather events. Bacteria enter the streams
from surface runoff, from septic system leach fields, and from both
separate and combined sewer systems. Even areas with no sewer overflow
often have bacteria concentrations that exceed the existing standards.
Non-point sources of bacteria include pet wastes and wildlife
(particularly geese) wastes.
The issue of wet weather standards has been raised at the national
level by the Water Environment Federation (WEF), AMSA and other
organizations representing municipal sewer authorities. The USEPA has
thus far, been unwilling to derive a tiered water quality standard for
wet weather recreational use. Fortunately the USEPA has typically not
pursued enforcement cases where recreational use attainment is the
primary.
There is no argument about the current standard being applicable
and protective of human health during dry weather. The shift to the E.
coli measure is also generally supported as being more representative
of organisms that pose a risk to public health. The argument for a wet
weather standard or variance has been put forward to provide a
mechanism for avoiding consistent non-attainment where the source of
that non-attainment is beyond the control of the municipal sewer
authority. Also there is some question about the need for protection of
contact recreational uses in urban areas where such contact does not
typically occur during wet weather.
Also a wet weather standard provides alternatives for control of
CSO that will reduce costs and remain protective of water quality. Many
remedies selected for control of CSO include chlorination in an attempt
to meet recreational use standards for bacteria. The addition of
chlorine has been shown to have detrimental effects on aquatic life use
so dechlorination of CSO is also considered. If a wet weather standard
were established it could effectively reduce the amount of chlorine
used and reduce those risks and the cost of the chlor-dechlor process.
The proposed standards that have been discussed with (but not
accepted by) the USEPA include provisions for an increase in the
allowable concentration during wet weather and mechanisms for
determining what is a qualifying wet weather condition.
use designations
During the early years of implementation of the Clean Water Act,
States were tasked to develop use designations for all streams. The
initial designations were often made without any detailed information
about the existing use attained or attainable in a particular stream.
Many streams were designated to meet a standard higher than what was
``existing'' at the time of the designation. These ``default''
designations have resulted in conditions where streams are prevented
from meeting a designated use by conditions that cannot be controlled
by pollution control technologies alone. Habitat alteration, flow
modification, and dams are some examples of conditions that occur
commonly in streams where those factors alone might prevent attainment
of an aquatic life use designation even absent and significant point or
non-point sources of pollution.
Subsequent re-designation has been difficult for State agencies
because of the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Citizens Groups often view a re-designation as a ``degradation'' of
water quality, even if the existing water quality does not meet the
existing designation.
The implementation of TMDLs and the ongoing implementation of CSO
controls, highlights the difficulties with current designations. The
difference between use attainment, in different States, depends more on
the process used for designation than it does on causes and sources of
non-attainment. Many streams change from non-attainment to attainment
as they cross State boundaries because of the variation in use
designation. Since TMDLs are now required in many States for all waters
that are in non-attainment as a result of point source pollution, many
States have additional incentive to review the designation process.
These incentives do not remove the difficulties involved with a
perceived ``lowering'' of a designated use.
Even within States the use designation process is often
administered differently in different jurisdictions. On the Scioto
River an impounded areas less than a mile long was re-designated as
``modified warmwater habitat''; in the Cuyahoga River the sewer
authority was told that a two mile long impounded area was ``too
short'' and would unnecessarily ``segment'' the stream. In the Hocking
River more than 3 miles of urban stream was re-designated as modified
warmwater habitat ``channelized'' where the stream was straightened and
had earthen banks of trapezoidal shape for a few stretches of about a
mile with intervening stretches of natural stream banks and meandering
channel shape. In the Little Cuyahoga River a variance (not a re-
designation) was requested for a stream where a stretch of over 3 miles
is straightened, predominantly in a rectangular concrete channel and
contains no significant stretches of natural channel. That variance was
refused by Ohio EPA on the grounds again that this would segment the
stream and discourage the municipality from attempting to improve the
existing use which had never met the existing designated use since many
years prior to the inception of the Clean Water Act.
The cost of comprehensive use designation for streams is in the
tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the size of the
project. Clearly this expenditure can help to prioritize expenditure of
further pollution controls to streams where use is appropriately
designated and attainable.
stream habitat
Urban settings provide unique conditions for stream habitat.
Streams in urban areas have typically been extensively modified. The
goal of storm water management in urban areas has always been to
provide drainage and avoid any surface retention of water in cities.
That goal creates habitat conditions dominated by runoff hydraulics. In
wet weather these streams have high peak flows and velocities that
create scour and destabilize existing conditions. In dry weather these
streams may have flows lower than would be expected in a stream not
dominated by a storm drainage system. These two stage systems (low base
flow, high peak flow) are not well suited for maintaining aquatic life.
Typically the property owners, the USACOE and City authorities have
devoted a significant amount of engineering resources to stabilize
these streams and prevent flooding during peak events. Most aquatic
life use designations are developed based on habitat standards
determined by ``natural'' streams with moderate change from pre-
Columbian drainage and land use. Urban streams represent an extreme
condition where most first order (the smallest) many second order and
some third order streams have been replaced by pipes. In areas where
these streams have not been entirely culverted they are often
straightened and regularly dredged to promote drainage and prevent
flooding. The remaining streams of fourth order and higher are often
disconnected from areas where populations of fish and
macroinvertebrates can find conditions suitable for propagation or
other functions essential to supporting the broad range of species that
would be supported in a more diverse ecosystem. Often the larger
streams are also extensively modified to provide other functions such
as riverfront recreation or commercial navigation. In New York City as
the most extreme example the ``streams'' in Central Park are entirely
artificial and are fed primarily by tap water and drain into the
combined sewer system.
While Ohio has much less extreme modification to the natural
environment than New York City, the condition of the streams in
urbanized and even in many suburban areas is highly modified. Those
modifications prevent adequate colonization of fish species that would
be necessary to support a warmwater habitat aquatic life use. Given the
importance of the aquatic life use as an indicator of good water
quality, as developed in Ohio Water Quality standards, it is important
that the standards recognize habitat conditions that would prevent
attainment even if all urban pollution sources were completely
controlled.
Discussions have been initiated by several entities to develop an
appropriate ``urban'' stream designation to address these conditions
that prevent attainment of aquatic life uses. To date, the Ohio EPA has
not been particularly open to developing an alternative to the existing
designation system.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78071.010
News Release
corps continues partnership with ohio agencies
Buffalo.--The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ohio Department of
Health (DH) are working together to improve the investigations being
performed by the Corps under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program (FUSRAP) in Ohio. By partnering, th technical experience
and expertise of all of theagencies is combined to provide valuable
input toward provide resolving complex cleanup issues.
``All of our agencies are committed to having an open and honest
dialog on FUSRAP sites in Ohio and ensuring that we develop plans that
are safe and fully protective of human health and the environment,''
said Lt. Col. Glen R. DeWillie, Buffalo District Commander. ``We are
working together and coordinating the comprehensive evaluations being
prepared for all of our sites.''
The Corps is mandated by Congress to follow the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) in
evaluating FUSRAP sites ``Our ultimate goal in following CERCLA is to
develop cleanup remedies that are fully protective of human health and
the environment,'' said DeWillie. The district involves all
stakeholders in partnering meetings to coordinate with the agencies and
proactively seek their opinions and concerns so they can be properly
addressed.
The Corps, the Ohio EPA and the Ohio DH schedule monthly telephone
conferences and correspond regularly to ensure all issues and concerns
that could impact public health and safety are properly evaluated while
developing cleanup alternatives for the Ohio sites that are fully
protective. The Ohio sites are: the Luckey Site; the Painesville Site;
the former Harshaw Chemical Company in Cleveland; Dayton Unit 1, Dayton
Warehouse, Dayton Unit III, and Dayton Unit IV; and the Scioto
Laborator Complex in Marion.
Citizens interested in being added to any of the Ohio Site mailing
lists or seeking additional information regarding the site can contact
the USACE FUSRAP Public Information Center toll-free at 1-800-833-6390.
The Internet website for the Buffalo District is http://
www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap.E-mail can be addressed to
fusrap@usace.army.mil
<greek-d>