Rain, Rain, Go AwayRain, Rain, Go Away

The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Newsletter

Water ConnectionVolume 18, Number 1

Boott Mills South, 100 Foot of John Street, Lowell MA 01852-1124 Winter 2002

Nothing is morepeaceful than a hard, steady

rain slapping against the windowpanes, moremagical than a snowstorm billowing beneath the streetlamps. But

once that rain has fallen and that snow has melted, where does thewater go?

Many communities have drainage systems that whisk away the water that flowsfrom our roofs, down our driveways, and into our streets. Yet some drainage

systems, hampered by old age, outmoded design, improper maintenance, andequipment failure, can be overwhelmed by the stormwater from a fierce rain or a spring

melt. These drainage system failures can damage rivers, lakes, and property and can poseserious health risks.

As we enter this winter season, full of grim potential for destructive storms, thisissue of Water Connection offers information on drainage system failures and

what we can do to prevent them.

2

Over 50 Years . . .

◆ Coordinating Interstate WaterQuality Programs

◆ Training EnvironmentalProfessionals

◆ Providing Public Education &Outreach

Boott Mills South100 Foot of John StreetLowell, MA 01852-1124Tel: 978.323.7929 Fax: 978.323.7919mail@neiwpcc.orgwww.neiwpcc.org

Who We AreFor more than 50 years, NEIWPCC hascoordinated regional water pollutioncontrol programs, trained environmentalprofessionals and raised public awarenessof water quality issues in the six NewEngland states and New York.NEIWPCC’s Environmental TrainingCenter provides training coursesthroughout the region to help communitiesmeet their water pollution control goals.

SubscriptionsSubscription information for NEIWPCCpublications is available by contacting usat the address above.

This publication may be copied. Pleasegive credit to NEIWPCC.

The opinions and information statedherein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions ofNEIWPCC.

Volume 18, No. 1Winter 2002

Water Connection is NEIWPCC’s newsletter. It is free of charge, and is published three times per year. Articles are submitted byNEIWPCC staff, as well as other environmental professionals.Water Connection is funded by a grant from the EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Table of ContentsArticlesButton Up Your Overcoat: Protecting Our Nation’s Water Bodies

from Wet Weather Discharges, p. 3Seeing I to I: Solving Infiltration/Inflow Problems in Your Sewer

Collection System, p. 4A Bigger Umbrella: The New Phase II Stormwater Rule, p. 6The Coming Storm: The New England States Prepare for Phase II, p. 7Plugging Up the Overflow: EPA’s SSO Rule, p. 8Watch Your Step: Implementing the CSO Policy, p. 9Is Your Watershed Threatened by CSOs?, p. 10To Serve and Protect: Using Wetlands for Stormwater Treatment, p. 11Getting the Ammonia Out! A Pilot Project to Assess Ammonia

Reduction in a Wastewater Lagoon, p. 12The U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Two Water Regulation Cases, p. 13Lowering the Boom: The Charles River Sediment Study, p. 14As Long as You Have Your HEALTH: Program Highlights from the

Rhode Island Department of Health, p. 15

NoticesNEIWPCC Offers Emerging Wet Weather Issues , p. 3NEIWPCC’s Stormwater Workgroup Prepare for Phase II, p. 7

Chris Lockheardt, EditorRicki Pappo, LayoutRonald F. Poltak, Executive DirectorSusan J. Sullivan, Deputy Director

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

Water ConnectionC

on

necti

cu

t ◆

Ma

ine ◆

Ma

ssa

ch

use

tts

◆N

ew

Ha

mp

shir

e ◆

New

Yo

rk ◆

Rh

od

e I

sla

nd

◆V

erm

on

t

Printed on recycled paper.

WWW.NEIWPCC.ORGFor more information about NEIWPCC, visit our WebSite. There you will find information about NEIWPCC’shistory, projects, and training courses. Newsletters, theTraining Catalog, reports, and fact sheets are availablefor download. Visitors will also find helpful links torelated federal, state, and other environmental sites. Youmay also request a copy of our Annual Report byemailing a request to mail@neiwpcc.org.

WWW.NEIWPCC.ORGFor more information about NEIWPCC, visit our WebSite. There you will find information about NEIWPCC’shistory, projects, and training courses. Newsletters, theTraining Catalog, reports, and fact sheets are availablefor download. Visitors will also find helpful links torelated federal, state, and other environmental sites. Youmay also request a copy of our Annual Report byemailing a request to mail@neiwpcc.org.

3

“Wet weather discharges”refers collectively todischarges into water

bodies and treatment facilities thatresult from precipitation events, suchas rainfall and snowmelt. Wet weatherdischarges include stormwater runoff,combined sewer overflows (CSOs),and wet weather sanitary sewer over-flows (SSOs). Stormwater runoff accu-mulates pollutants such as oil andgrease, chemicals, nutrients, metals,and bacteria as it travels across land.CSOs and wet weather SSOs contain amixture of raw sewage, industrialwastewater and stormwater, and haveresulted in beach closings, shellfishbed closings, and aesthetic problems.

Stormwater discharges are gener-ated by runoff from land and impervi-ous areas such as paved streets,parking lots, and building rooftopsduring rainfall and snow events thatoften contain pollutants in quantitiesthat could adversely affect water qual-ity. The Environmental ProtectionAgency has recently expanded itsefforts to protect waterways from pol-luted stormwater runoff with itsStormwater Phase II requirements(see page 6).

Combined sewer systems are sew-ers that are designed to collect rainwa-ter runoff, domestic sewage, andindustrial wastewater in the samepipe. Most of the time, combinedsewer systems transport all of theirwastewater to a sewage treatmentplant, where it is treated and then dis-charged to a water body.

During periods of heavy rainfallor snowmelt, however, the waste-water volume in a combined sewersystem can exceed the capacity of thesewer system or treatment plant. Forthis reason, combined sewer systemsare designed to overflow occasionallyand discharge excess wastewaterdirectly to nearby streams, rivers, orother water bodies.

These overflows, called CSOs,contain not only stormwater but alsountreated human and industrialwaste, toxic materials, and debris.They are a major water pollution con-cern for the approximately 900 cities inthe U.S. that have combined sewersystems.

EPA’s CSO Control Policy, pub-lished April 19, 1994, is the nationalframework for control of CSOs. Thepolicy provides guidance on howcommunities with combined sewersystems can meet Clean Water Actgoals in as flexible and cost-effective amanner as possible (see page 9).

Properly designed, operated, andmaintained sanitary sewer systemsare meant to collect and transport allof the sewage that flows into them to apublicly owned treatment works.

However, occasional unintentionaldischarges of raw sewage frommunicipal sanitary sewers occur inalmost every system. These types ofdischarges are called SSOs.

SSOs have a variety of causes,including but not limited to severeweather, improper system operationand maintenance, and vandalism.EPA estimates that there are at least40,000 SSOs each year. The untreatedsewage from these overflows can con-taminate our waters, causing seriouswater quality problems. It can alsoback-up into basements, causingproperty damage and threateningpublic health.

EPA is proposing to clarify andexpand permit requirements for19,000 municipal sanitary sewer

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

Button Up Your Overcoat: Protecting Our Nation’sWater Bodies from Wet Weather Discharges

In response to recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)efforts to increase their regulatory focus on combined sewer and sani-tary sewer overflows, NEIWPCC will offer courses this spring onCombined Sewer Overflow (CSO) and Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)issues. The courses will cover topics such as:

• An update of the regulatory requirements in managing stormwaterdischarges.

• A description of the Wet Weather/Combined Sewer/SanitarySewer/Water Pilot Project Grant Program.

• Guidance for developing a municipal wastewater collection sys-tem capacity management, operation, and maintenance program.

• A guide for developing a wet weather operating plan for a waste-water treatment plant.For more information on these or other courses, please contact

Don Kennedy at dkennedy@neiwpcc.org or (978) 323-7929.

NEIWPCC OFFERS EMERGING WET WEATHER ISSUES TRAINING

continued on page 4

4

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

by Mike Jennings

Sewer collection systems (sewersystems) perform the critical taskof collecting sewage and other

wastewater from places where peoplelive, work, and recreate and of trans-porting it to the treatment facility forproper treatment and disposal.However, since these systems are hid-den from view, many people do notfully appreciate the important func-tion that the sewer system provides inprotecting public health. Publicawareness of sewer systems tends toincrease during wet weather eventswhen evidence of sewer system over-load becomes visible.

Not all sewer systems are createdequal. Many cities and towns in theU.S. have aging sewer systems that aredeteriorating or in desperate need ofrepair. Some older communities stilluse brick sewers built more than a cen-tury ago. While modern systems gen-erally handle rainwater and sewagefrom homes and businesses in differ-ent pipes, some older systems have“combined” sewers that carry bothflows together. In communities wherethe systems are separated, there willgenerally be a stormwater drainagesystem and a sanitary sewer system.While sanitary systems are not specifi-cally designed to carry stormwater,stormwater and groundwater do enterthese systems.

Overflows and Back-upsUnder normal conditions, collec-

tion systems can generally deliverwastewater flows to the treatmentplant without incident. During certainwet weather events (i.e., extremestorms, series of rapidly occurringstorms, severe snowmelt, stormevents during high groundwater con-ditions), expanded flows can over-whelm the collection system. As thevolume of wastewater carriedincreases beyond the capacity of thesystem, “overflows” and “backups”can occur.

A sewer system overflow occurswhen wastewater exits a sewer sys-tem at manholes or other structuresand flows across roadways and pri-vate property. Wastewater that over-flows a sewer system generally flowsinto natural low areas such as base-ments, depressed yards, wetlands,water bodies, or drainage culverts.Overflows can occur in combined sys-tems (combined sewer overflow orCSO) and sanitary systems (sanitarysewer overflow or SSO).

Many combined systems havebuilt-in mechanisms that act as reliefpoints by letting excess flows leave thesystem upstream of the sewage treat-ment plant. These mechanisms divertuntreated or minimally treatedsewage into the nearest body of water.This serves to prevent sewage frombacking-up into homes and onto area

streets, but it does so at considerablecost to local water quality.

A sewer system backup occurswhen wastewater enters a building orhome through the existing plumbing.Backups can occur during extremestorm events when the stormwaterinflow overwhelms a sewer systemcausing sewer surcharging. If the ele-vation of wastewater in the sewer sys-tem rises high enough, backflow ofwastewater into buildings may occur.Basement plumbing fixtures are par-ticularly susceptible to backups.

Overflows and backups of waste-water are serious public health threats

Seeing I to I: Solving Infiltration/Inflow Problems inYour Sewer Collection System

Water pollution resulting fromstormwater runoff, CSOs, and SSOsdegrades surface waters making themunsafe for drinking, fishing, swim-ming, and other activities. TheStormwater Phase II rule, the CSOControl Policy, and the SSO Rule areall efforts under the NationalPollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) permit programbeing taken to protect our nation’swater bodies from wet weather dis-charges. As authorized by the Clean

Water Act, the NPDES permit pro-gram controls water pollution by reg-ulating point sources that dischargepollutants into waters of the UnitedStates. Since its introduction in 1972,the NPDES permit program is respon-sible for significant improvements toour nation’s water quality.

Information for this article wastaken from the EPA’s website:http://www.epa.gov

PROTECTING OUR WATER BODIES from page 3

collection systems in order to reduceSSOs. The proposed SSO Rule willhelp communities improve some ofthe nation’s most valuable infrastruc-ture—our wastewater collection sys-tems—by requiring facilities todevelop and implement new capacity,management, operations, mainte-nance and public notification pro-grams (see page 8).

5

and cause damage to public and pri-vate property. A major factor in pre-venting overflows and backups inboth combined and sanitary systemsis the reduction of infiltration andinflow.

Infiltration and InflowWhat is infiltration? The term

infiltration is used by wastewater pro-fessionals to describe the excess waterthat sometimes seeps, trickles, orflows into old or damaged collectionsystems from the surrounding soil.For example, high groundwater orwater remaining in the soil after rainor snowmelt often can infiltrate intosewer pipes, manholes, and serviceconnections that have deteriorated,cracked, sagged, or collapsed.

Some older sanitary sewers mayin fact have been designed to acceptinfiltration in order to remove waterfrom areas that may suffer floodingfrom a high groundwater table. Otherfailing sewer systems may provide thesame function, though inadvertently.Sewer rehabilitation projects mustaddress this potential problem, as res-idents are likely to blame the rehabili-tation for “causing” groundwaterflooding.

What is inflow? Additionalunwanted water can also enter collec-tion systems from abovegroundsources. During storms or snowthaws, for example, large volumes ofwater may flow into systems throughleaky manhole covers or illicitstormwater/wastewater connections.In addition, private residences mayhave roof, cellar, yard, area, or foun-dation drains inappropriately con-nected to the sewer system. Any extrawater flowing into wastewater collec-tion systems from abovegroundsources, either intentionally or unin-tentionally, is referred to as inflow.

When collection systems are oldand in disrepair, it is often very diffi-cult to determine exactly how much ofthe extra wastewater in the system isthe result of inflow versus infiltration.When uncertainty exists, wastewaterprofessionals usually refer to the over-all problem as “I/I.” The combined I/I

contribution robs the system of muchneeded storage and carrying capacityduring wet weather events.

Along with diminished sewercapacity, I/I problems within thesewer system can cause damage to thepipes and infrastructure of the collec-tion system. Damage can result fromthe pipes being forced to transportlarger volumes of flow than they hadbeen designed to handle. In extremecases, pipes can collapse or burst caus-ing pavement to buckle. I/I damage tosewer pipes can also allow wastewaterto contaminate groundwater anddrinking water sources.

There are also increased opera-tional costs associated with treatingthe additional volume of wastewaterresulting from I/I. Pumps and pumpstations are forced to work longer andharder resulting in increased mainte-nance costs, increased power con-sumption, increased treatmentchemical use, and decreased lifespan.

Finally, I/I associated overflows(CSOs and SSOs) may expose munici-palities to the potential of incurringregulatory penalties. Under their CSOand SSO prohibition policies, stateand federal environmental protectionagencies can impose monetary fines tomunicipalities that fail to control over-flows.

Detection, Rehabilitation, and Prevention

Collection system owners andoperators have an assortment of toolsthey can use in order to detect I/Iproblems within the sewer system.These tools, often used during a sani-tary sewer evaluation survey, includeflow-monitoring devices, smoke tests,dye tests, and closed-circuit televisioninspections. Surveys are conducted inareas prone to overflows and backups

or as proactive system operation andmaintenance procedures.

A variety of rehabilitation optionsare available when areas affected byI/I within a collection system areidentified. Options include, but arenot limited to, excavation and replace-ment of the damaged components,chemical and cement grouting of theaffected area, and polymer lining ofdamaged components. Cost and dis-ruption of service are factors thatmunicipalities need to consider whenchoosing rehabilitation options.

Residents can also help in control-ling I/I. Redirecting roof drains, sumppumps, and foundation drains awayfrom sanitary or combined sewer sys-tems can make the greatest impact.These drainage systems should beredirected overland or towardsstormwater collection systems.Conserving water at home and usinglow-flow plumbing devices will alsohelp to lessen the workload of I/Iaffected collection systems. Finally,reducing the use of toxic chemicals inand around the home and eliminatingthe disposal of these chemicals to thesewer system will minimize the envi-ronmental damage associated withoverflowing sewer systems.

Everything that gets poureddown a household drain, dumped in acatch basin on the street, or simplytossed onto the curb will eventuallyget washed into the sewer system.When the system is overloaded bystorm events, these materials can bedischarged directly into local rivers,streams, ponds, estuaries, and wet-lands. From there, the next stop forthese materials may be your kitchenfaucet. So dispose of materials prop-erly and take steps to reduce theamount of flow into your collectionsystem.

For more information on Infiltration/Inflow, please contact Mike Jenningsat mjennings@neiwpcc.org or (978) 323-7929.Information for this article was taken from PipelineSpring 1999 Volume 10, No. 2 published by theNational Small Flows Clearinghouse 1-800-624-8301 (www.nsfc.wvu.edu).

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

In extreme cases, pipes cancollapse or burst causing

pavement to buckle.

6

The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) hasexpanded its stormwater pro-

gram to now include smaller commu-nities, smaller construction projects,major wastewater treatment facilities,and community vehicle maintenancepractices. The new requirements,called the Stormwater Phase II rule,are the next steps in EPA’s efforts toprotect waterways from pollutedstormwater runoff.

Since 1990, Phase I of the programhas used permits issued under theNational Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) to con-trol stormwater runoff from munici-palities serving populations of 100,000or more, construction activity disturb-ing five or more acres of land, and tencategories of industrial activity.

Phase II of the program, enactedin October 1999, now covers:

Municipalities in “urbanized areas”with populations under 100,000Construction activity disturbingone or more acres of landPublicly owned wastewater treat-ment plants treating one milliongallons per day or moreAll community vehicle mainte-nance practices

Phase II affects municipalities inthree basic ways. In general, the dead-line for obtaining permit coverage foreach is March 2003. To avoid permit-ting, municipal “industrial” facilitiesmust submit a Conditional NoExposure Exclusion certification byMarch 2003.

Small Municipal Separate StormSewer Systems

Under Phase II, hundreds ofurbanized communities in NewEngland with populations under100,000, as well as institutions (such aspublic universities, prisons, and statehighway facilities) with separate

storm sewersystems, willbe regulated.To comply,the regulatedcommunitieswill have todevelop comprehensive storm watermanagement programs that include:

Educating and involving the publicFinding and removing illicit con-nectionsControlling runoff from construc-tion sites during and after con-structionPreventing stormwater pollutionat municipal industrial facilities

Municipal Industrial FacilitiesMunicipal industrial facilities

include municipal highway garages,other community vehicle maintenancepractices, and wastewater treatmentfacilities that treat at least one milliongallons per day or that have anapproved pretreatment program.

All municipal industrial activities,even those located in communities notcovered under Phase II as separatestorm sewer systems, will need toobtain general permit coverage byMarch 2003 or secure an exemption.To qualify for an exemption, facilitieswill have to certify that their industrialoperations are not exposed tostormwater. These exempted opera-tions may include sand/salt storageand vehicle wash water.

Construction ProjectsUnder Phase II, the federal thresh-

old for construction projects subject tostormwater runoff control droppedfrom those that disturb five acres ormore to those that disturb one acre ormore. This means that many moreconstruction projects, whether per-formed by municipalities (e.g., roadreconstruction) or contractors/devel-

opers permitted by municipalities(e.g., housing construction), will besubject to stormwater managementrequirements.

OutreachDue to the large number of new

parties and operations regulated, EPANew England is planning extensiveoutreach in partnership with the statesand a variety of organizations. Onesuch outreach effort undertaken incollaboration by EPA New England,state agencies, and other sponsorsconsisted of two large conferences/technology trade shows that tookplace on Nov 30, 2000, in Manchester,New Hampshire, and on Dec 4, 2000,in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. Theseconferences, which provided anoverview of Phase II, attracted about300 participants each.

Smaller, more localized eventsgeared at different aspects of andaudiences for Phase II are planned inthe New England states where thestormwater program is still federallyadministered (Massachusetts andNew Hampshire) and in other stateswhere the environmental agencieswish to collaborate with EPA. (Entitiesaffected by the Phase II program willhave to meet the federal deadlines andrequirements at a minimum, regard-less of which state they operate in.)

To receive notice of future events,please email or phone one of the listedcontacts. To find out more about PhaseII requirements, consult the EPAHeadquarters Stormwater Phase IIWeb site at www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2.

EPA New England ContactsJack Healey(617) 918-1844healey.jack@epa.govChris Jendras(617) 918-1845jendras.chris@epa.govThelma Murphy(617) 918-1615Murphy.Thelma@epa.govAbby Swaine(617) 918-1841swaine.abby@epa.gov

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

A Bigger Umbrella: The New Phase II Stormwater Rule

7

MS4s must have programs inplace, monitoring plans enacted, andreports submitted according to aschedule outlined by federal regula-tions. MS4s and other entities mustobtain permit coverage by March 10,2003, and have five years to imple-ment their approved stormwater man-agement plans.

Getting the Word OutCurrently, states are informing

affected municipalities about the pro-gram and its requirements to helpthem gear up for permit applications.The Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection conductedtwenty meetings across the state toprovide each of the 189 regulatedcommunities the opportunity to learnof Phase II requirements and havetheir questions about the program

answered. Other states and the EPAare conducting workshops and meet-ings to assist the construction industryand MS4s with Phase II compliance, todescribe elements of a stormwatermanagement plan, and to identifytypes of best management practices(BMPs) for each of the minimum con-trol measures.

Identifying and communicatingprogram requirements to affectedentities other than municipalities andthe construction industry has beenmore difficult. States are still in theprocess of identifying and establish-ing guidance to assist schools, militarybases, prisons, highway departments,

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

The Coming Storm: The NewEngland States Prepares for Phase IIby Jennifer Hunter

The Phase II Final Rule forstormwater regulates dis-charges from small municipal

separate storm sewer systems (MS4s),construction projects affecting one tofive acres, and other activities not cov-ered by Phase I regulations. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency(EPA) Region 1 serves as the permit-ting authority for the NationalPollution Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) programs inMassachusetts and New Hampshire.The other New England states andNew York are the permitting authori-ties in their respective states. All dele-gated states, as well as EPA, will beissuing general permits in December2002, to which MS4s can apply for cov-erage. MS4s also have the option ofapplying for individual permits, pro-vided they meet the minimumrequirements of the program.

Implementation ChallengesPhase II implementation brings

with it many challenges. Permittingauthorities must identify and desig-nate small MS4s, construction activity,and other activities to be regulated;develop any state-specific permitrequirements and designation criteriabeyond the minimum programrequirements outlined by the federalregulations; issue, inspect, andenforce permits; and provide compli-ance assistance to regulated entities.

At a minimum, stormwater pro-gram permits require applicants todevelop pollution reduction plansthat employ six control measures: (1)public education and outreach, (2)public participation, (3) illicit dis-charge detection and elimination, (4)construction site runoff control, (5)post-construction stormwater man-agement, and (6) pollution preventionand “good housekeeping” activitiesfor municipal operations.

continued on page 8

NEIWPCC’S STORMWATER WORKGROUP PREPARES FOR PHASE II

NEIWPCC’s Stormwater Workgroup has met thrice this year to discuss Phase II stormwater implementation issues. Consisting of members from thesix New England states, New York, and EPA, the workgroup provides a forumfor members to exchange ideas and discuss approaches to meet the challengesof Phase II implementation.

Workgroup members share information on the current status of their programs;strategies for incorporating Phase II activities with other water quality pro-grams; workshops and training programs for municipalities and other targetgroups; ideas and materials for outreach activities; and legal, financial, andregulatory updates potentially affecting stormwater programs.

Approaches towards implementation are slightly different in each state, butconcerns about staff, financial resources, and time limitations are common forall programs. This makes the information exchange component of workgroupmeetings even more valuable. States benefit from learning how others areimplementing various program activities and about which resources are avail-able or soon to be available.

For more information on the Stormwater Workgroup, contact JenniferHunter at jhunter@neiwpcc.org or 978/323-7929.

8

and other state and federal facilitiesthat must comply with programrequirements.

Rhode Island is in the process ofsoliciting and addressing commentsreceived on their general permitthrough the Public Notice process.The state is wrapping up its secondPublic Notice period after completingthe first round last summer and mak-ing changes to the general permitbased on comments received. Theother states and EPA Region 1 plan toPublic Notice their general permits byearly summer, so they can incorporatecomments and finalize permits in timefor the December 2002 issuance.

EPA EffortsEPA is providing Phase II imple-

mentation assistance through itsstormwater Web site, www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater. The Web siteincludes Phase II program fact sheetsand guidance documents; menus ofBMPs; measurable goals guidance forMS4s; links to related Web sites andpublications; information on trainingand outreach efforts; case studies; per-mitting information; and federal rulesand regulations.

EPA Region 1 has developedVirtual Technology Trade Showsthrough its Center for EnvironmentalIndustry and Technology. Thesenewly developed on-line trade shows,located at www.epa.gov/region01/ steward/ceitts/, feature the latest tech-nologies for treating stormwater andresidential wastewater. In addition totechnologies, the site contains back-ground information on stormwaterand Phase II, links to other helpfulresources, and information on thestates’ permitting programs and regu-lations, including links to states’ Websites for Phase II.

For more information on NEIWPCC’sStormwater Workgroup, contactJennifer Hunter atjhunter@neiwpcc.org or (978) 323-7929.

Tracy Mehan, the AssistantAdministrator for the EPAOffice of Water, directed the

Office of Wastewater Management tomove forward on the Sanitary SewerOverflow (SSO) Notice of ProposedRulemaking. As part of EPA’s com-mitment to the public’s right-to-know,the proposed SSO rule would requirethat the general public, as well ashealth and community officials, benotified immediately of any sewageoverflow that may be threatening topublic health.

The development of these rulesresulted from the fact that in 1999close to 1,500 of the nation’s beach clo-sures and health advisories were dueto sewage overflows. These overflowspresent threats to public health andcause severe economic decline due tosignificant loss of tourism dollars.

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

THE COMING STORM from page 7 Plugging Up the Overflow: EPA’s SSO Ruleby Laura Blake

A sanitary sewer overflow occurswhen there is a release of sewage froma collection system, including pipes,before it reaches a municipal waste-water treatment plant. Sewer over-flows are a chronic and growingproblem. Many of the nation’s urbansewage collection systems are aging.Some sewers are 100 years old. Manysystems have not received the neces-sary maintenance and repair thatkeeps them functioning properly.

SSOs are prohibited in order toprotect public health, prevent publicand private property damage, andprevent damage to natural resources,such as surface waters, fish/shellfishbeds, and groundwater. The goals ofthe proposed rule are to:

Reduce health risks of SSOsImprove quality of waters in theU.S.Clarify what is expected of munic-ipal collection system owners/operatorsProvide a clear mechanism for eval-uating performanceImprove oversight capability ofpermitting authorityProtect infrastructure

The proposed rule focuses onoverflow prevention; overflow notifi-cation; and capacity assurance,management, operations, and mainte-nance programs. The rule also makesroom for flexibility in program imple-mentation, which would allow site-specific responses to SSOs andactivities appropriate and applicableto individual systems. EPA estimates

9

ments include a number of steps forthe CSO community to follow thatassure long-term control planning andadherence to water quality based stan-dards. The implementation of the pol-icy includes the regulatory and CSOcommunity collectively drafting,reviewing, and then executing theLong Term Control Plan (LTCP).

The policy is executed in the fol-lowing steps:

STEP 1. The NPDES Authority issues apermit requiring NMCs and LTCP. Inorder to control CSOs, the EPArequires permittees with combinedsewers to sufficiently document andcontrol these occurrences. A permit, orother enforceable mechanism, isissued that requires the CSO commu-nity to implement the Nine MinimumControls (NMCs). The Nine MinimumControls require:

Proper operation and regular main-tenance programs for systems withCSOsMaximization of collection systemsfor storageReview and modification of pre-treatment requirements to mini-mize CSO impacts

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

Watch Your Step: Implementing the CSO Policyby Don Kennedy

continued on page 10

that this rule would impose an addi-tional total cost for all municipalitiesof $93.5 million to $126.5 million eachyear, including costs associated withboth planning and permitting. A col-lection system serving 7,500 peoplewould need to spend an average of$6,000 each year to comply with thisrule.

A range of resources is availableon the EPA Office of WasteManagement web page (http://www.epa.gov/owm/) to help municipalitiesand states implement the proposedSSO rule in an effective and cost-effi-cient manner. These resourcesinclude:

Compliance monitoring and assis-tance tools

Guidance for permit writers

Fact sheets, case studies, and tech-nical guidance for communities

Educational materials and training

Sample overflow response plans

Model ordinances and legal author-ities

Technical research data and refer-ence list

SSO web page on the EPA Office ofWaste Management website

For more information on the SSOrule, contact Laura Blake atlblake@neiwpcc.org or (978) 323-7929.

Combined sewers, remnants ofthe country’s early infrastruc-ture, were built to handle both

sanitary and stormwater flows. Duringdry weather operation, combined sew-ers transport sanitary waste to waste-water treatment plants and receivingstreams. However, during periods ofheavy rainfall or snowmelt, stormwa-ter flows into the system, causing aCombined Sewer Overflow (CSO).

Carrying toxic materials anddebris, the stormwater from a CSOpollutes receiving streams and over-loads treatment plant capacities. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency(EPA) estimates that roughly 950 com-munities serving about 40 million peo-ple are impacted by CSOs. Themajority of these communities arelocated in the Northeast and GreatLakes Regions.

In April 1994, the EPA issued theCSO Control Policy. The policy,included in the National PollutantDischarge Elimination System(NPDES) framework, addresses thecontribution of pollution from com-bined sewers.

The EPA has published severaldraft guidance documents to developand implement the policy. The docu-

Carrying toxic materials anddebris, the stormwater from a

CSO pollutes receivingstreams and overloads

treatment plant capacities.The EPA estimates that

roughly 950 communitiesserving about 40 million

people are impacted by CSOs.

Sewer overflows are a chronicand growing problem. Many of

the nation’s urban sewagecollection systems are aging.

Some sewers are 100 years old.

10

STEP 8. EPA takes final action onWQS revisions. Before the revisionscan be used for Clean Water Act pro-grams, EPA must approve a new orrevised standard within 60 days ordisapprove within 90 days.

STEP 9. Draft LTCP is revised, as nec-essary. At this point, the public hear-ing process and other events leadingup to the draft LTCP should result inthe selection of a CSO control pro-gram, or any needed revisions to thewater quality standards.

STEP 10. NPDES authority acceptsLTCP and revises permit. The NPDESauthority coordinates the review ofthe revisions and, if appropriate,approves the final LTCP.

STEP 11. Approved final LTCP isimplemented. The CSO communityimplements the control measures ofthe LTCP and requires these controlsin its NPDES permit or other enforce-able mechanism. The LTCP also con-tains a post-construction operationalplan and a compliance-monitoringschedule to ensure compliance withthe Clean Water Act.

For more information regarding theCSO Policy, please contact DonKennedy at dkennedy@neiwpcc.orgor (978) 323-7929.

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

THE CSO POLICY from page 9

IS YOUR WATERSHEDTHREATENED BY CSOS?

There are 900 communities across theUnited States with combined sewersystems. Combined sewer overflowscan present water pollution concernsfor these communities. To find outwhich communities operate com-bined sewer systems, view the EPA’slist of such communities atwww.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cso_cities.pdf. To view the EPA’s CSO ControlPolicy, visit www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/csopd.htm.

Maximization of flows to publicly-owned treatment works for treat-mentProhibition of CSOs during dryweatherControl of solid and floatable mate-rials in CSOsPollution preventionPublic notification of CSOs andtheir impacts Monitoring to effectively charac-terize CSO impacts

Additionally, the immediatedevelopment of a Long Term ControlPlan is required to assure compliancewith the Clean Water Act and stateWater Quality Standards (WQS). Theyrequire CSO permittees to considersite-specific nature of CSOs, to evalu-ate the cost effectiveness of a range ofcontrol option/strategies, and to coor-dinate this plan with the NPDES andstate authorities responsible forreviewing and revising the state’sWQS.

STEP 2. The NPDES Authority forms acoordination team that oversees theLTCP process. The coordination teamidentifies issues, sources of informa-tion, and provides technical support.At a minimum, the team should com-prise decision-making representativesfrom the CSO community, the StateWater Director’s office, the NPDES,the water quality standards authori-ties, and the EPA.

STEP 3. Coordination Team agrees onprocess and scope of LTCP. The objec-tive of this step is to assure early agree-

ment among team members about keymilestones and scope of the LTCP

STEP 4. Community develops a draftLTCP with public involvement. TheCSO community evaluates cost, con-structability, performance, waterquality benefits, and consideration ofsensitive areas for each control sce-nario. Other sources of pollution arealso identified which may precludeattainment of water quality standards.

STEP 5. Draft LTCP is reviewed andaccepted by State and EPA, as deemedappropriate. The CSO community sub-mits the draft LTCP to both the NPDESauthority and the State Water Director.Both parties review the draft and eval-uate its potential to support waterquality standards. If the draft LTCP isinsufficient, the NPDES authorityreturns the draft for revision.

STEP 6. NPDES Authority approvespriority controls beyond the NMCscommon to the preferred alternativeapproved for the community to imple-ment. An example of a priority controlwould be eliminating a reoccurringCSO to a bathing area. Imple-mentation of these controls shouldbegin as soon as the analysis of thealternatives has been accepted.

STEP 7. The State proposes waterquality standards revisions and holds apublic hearing. To reach this step, theCSO community, NPDES Authority,and State Water Director have agreedthat the LTCP contains adequate dataand information to support selectionof the CSO controls, or they have iden-tified needed revisions to the waterquality standards.

CSO gateand culvert.

11

Last April at a New EnglandInterstate Water PollutionControl Commission (NEIW-

PCC) Wetlands Workgroup meeting,the participating states conducted ahearty question and answer sessionregarding the use of wetlands as astormwater detention basin. Duringthe discussion, two EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) documentswere suggested as a reference:“Protecting Natural Wetlands: AGuide to Stormwater BMPs” and“Natural Wetlands and UrbanStormwater: Potential Impacts andManagement.”

As wetlands have a natural waterquality improvement function, therehas been a tremendous amount ofinterest in using wetlands to treatrunoff from urban areas, agriculturallands, and other pollutant sources.While wetlands do provide valuablewater quality protection for down-stream rivers, lakes, and estuaries, thequality of the wetlands themselvesshould also be protected, per theClean Water Act.

Even so, this does not mean thatwetlands should never be used forstormwater treatment. During the pastfew decades, the planned use of wet-lands for meeting wastewater treat-ment and water quality objectives has

been seriously studied and imple-mented in a controlled manner. Thefunctional role wetlands serve inimproving water quality has been acompelling argument for the preserva-tion of natural wetlands and, in recentyears, the construction of wetlandssystems for wastewater treatment.

Using constructed wetlands totreat stormwater is likely to become amuch more common practice as thereis an elevated need for reducing non-point source pollutant loadings toachieve compliance with NationalPollutant Discharge EliminationSystem Phase II, as well as with thetotal maximum daily load regulations.According to EPA, “Constructed wet-lands treatment systems are engi-neered systems that have beendesigned and constructed to utilizethe natural processes involving wet-land vegetation, soils, and their associ-ated microbial assemblages to assist intreating wastewater. They aredesigned to take advantage of many ofthe same processes that occur in nat-ural wetlands, but do so within a morecontrolled environment.”

With this heightened reliance onnatural and constructed wetlands,states all over the U.S. will be respon-sible for regulating and coordinatingwetlands and stormwater programs.Many communities have begun toreassess their management strategiesfor stormwater as a result of the estab-lishment of the Phase II stormwaterpermits.

For example, the New HampshireDepartment of EnvironmentalServices has draft mitigation rules inplace that address the use of con-structed wetlands for treatment. TheConnecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection (CT DEP)has funded monitoring of several BestManagement Practices around thestate, including four stormwater treat-

ment systems, and a combined wetpond/wetland system at LakeWhitney in Hamden. While monitor-ing has not yet been completed on thestormwater systems, the LakeWhitney demonstration projectproved very successful at removingpollutants from an approximatelytwenty-acre residential area. As aresult, CT DEP is promoting the use ofsimilar systems around the state andexpects similar results.

Although wetlands haveimproved the quality of pollutedwater that flows through them, it iscrucial to remember that most wet-lands cannot withstand the long-termdischarge of contaminated stormwa-ter without suffering negative impactsto their integrity and the valuablefunctions that they provide. Throughthe Wetlands Workgroup, NEIWPCCwill continue to follow new trends in the use of wetlands to treatstormwater, while at the same timepromoting the necessity of wetlandsconservation.

For more information on theWetlands Workgroup, contact Beth Card at bcard@neiwpcc.org or978/323-7929.

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

To Serve and Protect: Using Wetlands forStormwater Treatmentby Beth Card

12

Aerated lagoon systems forwastewater treatment arecommonly used in rural states

where land is plentiful and populationdensities are low. In New Hampshire,for example, about one-third of thefacilities that treat sewage and otherwastewater use lagoon-based sys-tems. This pilot project describes theefforts of a New HampshireDepartment of EnvironmentalServices (NH DES) research project inExeter that holds nationwide implica-tions for small communities facingsimilar situations.

Getting The Ammonia OutIn recent years, many lagoon sys-

tems have been required to removeammonia from their treated effluent.Ammonia, a form of nitrogen, is acommon component of wastewaterresulting from the biological decom-position of organic matter. Ammoniacan be toxic to aquatic life when it isdischarged into small receivingstreams with low dilution. To meet afederal ammonia removal require-ment, the degree of treatment mustincrease substantially. Unfortunately,lagoon systems are not designed toaccomplish this task. Lagoons are pas-sive in nature and provide adequatetreatment of the wastewater, but gen-erally do not offer advanced treatmentof the effluent.

Ammonia can be removed biolog-ically through a process known asnitrification. This process encouragesthe growth of specialized nitrifyingbacteria that convert ammonia to amore stable and non-toxic form ofnitrogen called nitrate. Nitrifying bac-teria are present in wastewater.However, these “good” bacteria usu-ally do not accumulate enough in aer-

ated lagoons because they tend to passthrough the lagoons and go out withthe treated effluent. Moreover, it isvery expense to convert a lagoon toanother treatment system that retainsnitrifying bacteria and allows the bac-teria population to build, such as anactivated sludge system. The City ofRochester recently completed anupgrade of its lagoon system at a costof $16 million. While this effort is com-mendable, it is not an affordableoption for many smaller communities.

How Do We Build A Better,Cheaper Mousetrap?

A two-year DES research projectat the Exeter wastewater treatmentlagoons, partially funded by the NewEngland Interstate Water PollutionControl Commission (NEIWPCC)through a Municipal WastewaterPollution Prevention (MWPP) Grantfrom EPA Region 1, was designed toevaluate the feasibility of using a fixedfilm artificial media to retain andenhance the growth of nitrifying bac-teria. Commonly called a biologicalholdfast system, the media provides alarge amount of surface area to whichthe nitrifying bacteria can attach.Provided with the right conditions,the bacteria reproduce in such num-bers that they will be able to removemost of the ammonia in the waste-water. Once they grow and attach tothe media, they will stay in the waste-water stream and not wash away andbe lost with the rest of the effluent.

So What’s All This Media Hype?NH DES is evaluating two types

of media in this research project todetermine their results in warm andcold weather. A small test module(4,000 gallon tank split into two side-

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

by-side compartments of 2,000 gal-lons) is being used. The test moduletakes a feed of approximately 2,000gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater inthe winter and 17,000 gpd of waste-water in the summer from the finallagoon and runs it through aboveground media module tanks. Thewastewater needs a longer detentiontime (i.e., lower flow rate) to achievenitrification in the colder weather;therefore, the flows are reduced in thewinter through the module.

One form of media is specificallymanufactured for wastewater treat-ment and goes by the trade name ofBiomatrix. The second media is scrub-bing pad material manufactured bythe 3M Company. Simply stated, it isthe same material used on the back ofabrasive kitchen sponges.

Flow to the units is providedthrough a submersible pump locatedin the effluent sampling manhole ofthe final lagoon. Flow is split betweeneach of the pilot treatment units. Theflow traverses through the tanks inplug flow fashion and exits via dis-charge piping back to the final lagoon.Throughout the spring, summer, andfall, the tanks will be outside, expos-ing them to the elements. During win-ter operations, the tank will be housedin an all-weather shelter. Tanks will beinsulated with two-inch thickStyrofoam sheets to protect fromfreezing.

Each side of the pilot unit tank isseparated into five compartmentsthrough the use of cross baffling. Eachof the first four compartments on bothsides contains one rack of media.Conventional fine bubble lagoon aera-

Getting the Ammonia Out!A Pilot Project to Assess Ammonia Reduction in a Wastewater Lagoonby Wes Ripple, NH DES Wastewater Operations Specialist, and Tom Groves, NEIWPCC

13

tion tubing connected to a blower pro-vides the aeration. The final compart-ments are not aerated and do notcontain any media. The main purposeof these compartments is to provide aquiescent zone for the settling ofsloughed solids. The effluent is moni-tored before and after it passesthrough the modules and subse-quently discharged back into thelagoon.

It was theorized that the mediawould provide the bacteria with anenvironment where it could flourish.The project has shown that the bacte-ria stay attached to the media, allow-ing them to aid in ammonia removal,rather than being washed “down the drain” with the lagoon’s treatedeffluent.

Big Savings PossibleThe first winter of operation

offered promising results.Unfortunately, the second winter ofoperation is casting doubts on the fea-sibility of this technology. Substantialalgae growth has inhibited the forma-tion of adequate populations of nitri-fying bacteria, thus reducing theammonia removal. It is thought thatthe media would perform better if itwere placed further upstream in theprocess. By doing so, the media couldtake advantage of more consistentammonia concentrations and poten-tially less algae growth.

In addition, the current pilot pro-ject places the media modules at thetail end of the process. Unfortunately,the Exeter Lagoon system nitrified sowell on its own from August throughNovember 2000 (NH4<1.0 mg/l) thatthere was not enough food (ammonia)to sustain a population of nitrifying

bacteria. When the cold weatherarrived last winter and

the ammonia con-centrations in

the lagoon

effluent began to climb, there was nota sufficient population of nitrifyingbacteria in the modules to oxidize theeffluent. Essentially no reductions inammonia concentrations wereobtained.

This incident did not occur duringthe first year of operation. Normalwinter NH4 concentrations are 20mg/l without the nitrifying media. Inthe previous year, the winter concen-tration was reduced to approximately2 mg/l at temperatures down to 2-3degrees C by using the modules. Thisrepresents an average ammoniareduction of about 90%. NH DES hadhoped that moving the media mod-ules to a better location (i.e., secondlagoon) where the ammonia concen-trations are higher would help toensure an adequate population of bac-teria year round and consequentlyprovide better nitrification. NH DESexperimented with this concept thisspring, but unfortunately did notobtain any better results.

If this concept proves feasible, afull-scale application may be possibleat a fraction of the cost of a conven-tional multi-million dollar lagoonupgrade similar to the Rochesterexample. This could save millions ofdollars for small communities nation-wide. When asked what was thebiggest benefit of this type of systemconfiguration, NH DES reported,“Aside from cost-savings, a lagoonsystem that has seasonal limits forammonia will be capable of meetingits effluent limits earlier than a facilitywithout the media filter.”

This project will continue throughone more winter of operation. NHDES has applied for a larger EPAgrant to continue this research on afull or semi-full scale applicationwithin an actual lagoon as opposed tothe smaller pilot module tanks.

For additional information regardingthis project, please contact WesRipple at wripple@des.state.nh.us or(603) 271-2940.

This article was adapted from the NH DESEnvironmental News, Nov/Dec 2000.

The U.S. SupremeCourt Rules on TwoWater RegulationCases

SUPREME COURT CURTAILSREACH OF CLEAN WATER ACTIn voting to invalidate the Army Corpsof Engineers use of the “migratory birdrule” to stop a group of Chicago sub-urbs from dumping garbage in anabandoned strip mine that now servesas a seasonal nesting site for waterfowlsuch as blue herons and ducks, theSupreme Court curtailed the federalgovernment’s power to regulate thenation’s water. The ruling in SolidWaste Agency of Northern CookCounty v. Army Corps of Engineersclarifies the reach of the Clean WaterAct, preventing the federal govern-ment from asserting the right to regu-late any body of water.

Critics of the ruling, passed by a 5-4 vote, worry that if environmentalregulators interpret the rulingbroadly, 20 percent to 25 percent of thecountry’s water could lose federalprotection. A statement issued byCarol Browner, the outgoing adminis-trator of the Environmental ProtectionAgency, said the ruling “weakensAmerica’s ability to protect its wet-lands.” Meanwhile, Justice John PaulStevens in his dissent wrote, “Todaythe court takes an unfortunate stepthat needlessly weakens our principalsafeguard against toxic water.”

Business groups, however, sup-ported Chief Justice WilliamRehnquist’s contention that the rulingwould prevent “a significant impinge-ment of the States’ traditional and pri-mary power over land and water use.”

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

continued on page 16

copies of the report can be orderedfrom USGS. This report will assist theagencies involved in restoring thehabitats and water quality of thelower Charles River.

At nearly every location sampled,the USGS study found sediments con-taminated above background concen-trations. The contaminants wereinorganic elements (such aschromium, copper, lead, mercury,nickel, silver, and zinc) and organiccompounds (such as PCBs,organochlorine pesticides such aschlordane and DDT, and polyaro-matic hydrocarbons). The sedimentcontaminants were found in concen-tration levels that pose a severe threatto benthic organisms living in or onthe bottom sediment. However,bioavailability, and therefore toxicity,of many of the inorganic elementsmay be limited by the presence of sul-fide minerals, which bind with inor-ganic elements.

According to the study, the sedi-ment contaminants may have beendeposited by runoff from streets,atmospheric deposition, inadvertentspills, combined sewer overflows, andillegal sewage discharges. It is verylikely that the contaminants will per-sist at elevated concentrations in thebottom sediment for years to comebecause they are not readily brokendown by naturally occurring environ-mental processes.

Innovative TechnologyDemonstration

A separate project is exploring theability of a filter device to clean the

14

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

Lowering the Boom: The Charles River Sediment Studyby Jennifer Hunter

continued on page 16

The New England InterstateWater Pollution ControlCommission (NEIWPCC) was

involved with two projects to assessand improve water quality for thelower Charles River Basin in Boston.These projects will help theEnvironmental Protection Agency(EPA) Clean Charles 2005 Task Forceto achieve its April 2005 goal—improving the water quality of thebasin so that it will meet the standardssuitable for fishing and swimming.

Sediment StudyApproximately ten percent of the

sediment underlying U.S. surfacewaters is contaminated with enoughtoxic pollutants to threaten benthic(sediment dwelling) organisms, fish,fish-eating wildlife, and humans(EPA’s Report to Congress, “TheIncidence and Severity of SedimentContamination in Surface Waters of theUnited States,” 1998). Recognizing thatcontaminated sediments contribute tothe Charles River’s water quality prob-lems, NEIWPCC, in cooperation withEPA Region 1 and MassachusettsDepartment of EnvironmentalManagement, sought to assess theextent of these contaminants.

The U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) conducted an extensive sedi-ment study to determine the presenceof contaminants and their potentialharmful effects. The study involvedwater depth and sediment thicknessmeasurements, surficial and core sedi-ment sampling, and laboratory analy-sis of the samples. USGS’s recentlyreleased report, “Distribution andPotential for Adverse BiologicalEffects of Inorganic Elements andOrganic Compounds in BottomSediment, Lower Charles River,Massachusetts,” provides details ofthe work performed and the findings.A limited number of copies are avail-able from NEIWPCC. Additional

water in a section of the Charles Riverto meet swimming standards.NEIWPCC, in cooperation with EPA,hired Gunderboom, Inc. to test itsGunderboom Beach ProtectionSystem (BPS)™ technology. The BPSis a full length curtain boom made offabric that extends from the surface ofthe water to the river bottom andencircles the area to be “cleaned.” Itacts as a filter barrier that controls themigration of particulates and associ-ated microbes. Once the boom is inplace, water is pumped out of the areawhich forces water to flow backthrough the filtering material.Gunderboom systems have been usedfor a number of particulate controlapplications, including stormwatercontrol, dredging, bacterial control,and surface drinking water supplyprotection.

Last summer, a demonstrationwas conducted during two 3-day peri-ods at the Magazine Beach section ofthe Charles River. This beach wasonce a popular swimming area beforethe river was closed to swimmers.During the demonstration, the boomwas set up and a bottom seal wasestablished. Water was exchanged fora period of 1-2 hours. Water sampleswere taken, at half hour intervals,throughout a 4-hour period. The sam-ples were collected for laboratoryanalysis of many parameters includ-

Gunderboom Trial One,Magazine Beach. June2000.

PHO

TO

SB

YD

EN

NIS

PYB

UR

N

15

Cooperative Extension and HEALTHhave been reviewing and assessingexisting land-use inventory datathrough environmental and planninggroups. This data is combined withdata from the Rhode IslandGeographical Information System toproduce full color maps and vulnera-bility assessments that will indicatethe relative threats to water qualityposed by land uses.

For additional information regarding:

Capacity Development Contact Dana McCants atDanaM@doh.state.ri.us or (401) 222-7824.

SWAPContact Clay Commons atClayC@doh.state.ri.us (401) 222-7769.

Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF)Contact Gary Chobanian atGaryC@doh.state.ri.us or (401) 222-7768, orvisit the HEALTH Website atwww.health.state.ri.us/environment.

Water Connect ion/Winter 2002

The Rhode Island Department ofHealth (HEALTH) has beenquite busy implementing sev-

eral Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) approved programsand regulations:

The Capacity DevelopmentProgram, established by the 1996 SafeDrinking Water Act Amendments, iswell into its first year of providingtechnical assistance and public educa-tion outreach to Rhode Island watersystems. HEALTH administers threetechnical assistance grants: one forOperator Certification Training(awarded to New England WaterWorks Association); another forConsumer Confidence Report assis-tance to small water systems(awarded to Atlantic States RuralWater and Wastewater Association(ASRWWA); and a third to assistsmall water systems with theDrinking Water State Revolving Loan

Fund application (also awarded toASRWWA).

The Source Water AssessmentProgram (SWAP), also established bythe 1996 Amendments, is designed toassess the threats to drinking watersources, “for the protection and bene-fit of public water systems, and tosupport monitoring flexibility.”Under this program, HEALTH pro-duces the assessments and providesthem to the suppliers and the generalpublic both in print and over theInternet.

HEALTH is working closely withthe Department of EnvironmentalManagement to coordinate SWAPwith the Wellhead ProtectionProgram in order to maximize thebenefits to both suppliers and munici-palities.

Committees are forming toaddress land-use and water-qualityissues, an essential aspect of imple-menting SWAP. Under the SWAPgrant, University of Rhode Island

Water Connection

❏ Please add my name to your mailing list.If you would like to receive our newsletter, please fill out this form and return it to us.Water Connection is distributed free of charge.

For our records, please indicate your employment or organization association:

❏ Treatment Plant Operator ❏ Library ❏ Education ❏ Industry ❏ Consultant ❏ Other

GOVERNMENT AGENCY

❏ Local ❏ State ❏ Federal

❏ Please take my name off your mailing list.If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please let us know. Paper conservation is important to us.

❏ Please send me a NEIWPCC Resource Catalog.

Fill out this form and return it to us or call 978.323.7929

Name _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Address____________________________________________________________________________________________Street City/Town State ZIP

New England Interstate WaterPollution Control Commission Boott Mills South100 Foot of John StreetLowell, MA 01852-1124Phone: 978.323.7929Fax: 978.323.7919E-mail: mail@neiwpcc.org

As Long as You Have Your HEALTH: ProgramHighlights from the Rhode Island Department of Healthby Dana McCants, HEALTH

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDWilmington, MA

Permit No.200

Water Connection

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control CommissionBoott Mills South100 Foot of John StreetLowell, MA 01852-1124

Forwarding and return postage guaranteed.Address correction requested.

SUPREME COURT RULES INFAVOR OF LANDOWNER INWETLANDS CASEAfter losing several battles in theRhode Island court system seekingpermission to develop eighteen acresof wetlands in Westerly, RhodeIsland, landowner Anthony Palazzoloscored a victory when the U.S.Supreme Court ruled that the RhodeIsland Supreme Court erred in reject-ing Palazzolo’s takings claim simplybecause he acquired title to the prop-erty after the challenged wetland reg-ulations were enacted.

The roots of the case grew fromthe 1971 formation of the RhodeIsland Coastal Resource ManagementCouncil, which designated saltmarshes as protected coastal wetlandson which development is greatly lim-ited. In the early 1980s, whenPalazzolo applied to fill wetlands hehad acquired and build a bulkhead,the Council denied his applicationbecause the proposed work was notconsistent with the Coastal ResourceManagement Program guidelines forprotection. In 1985, Palazzolo filed anew petition to fill eleven out of eigh-teen acres so that he may build a pri-vate beach club. The Council rejectedthis application as well, explainingthat the proposal did not satisfy the

standards for obtaining a specialexception to fill a salt marsh, wherebythe proposed activity must serve a“compelling public purpose.”

Palazzolo filed an inverse con-demnation action in Rhode IslandSuperior Court asserting that thestate’s wetlands regulations, asapplied by the Council to his property,had “taken the property withoutproper compensation, thus violatingthe fifth and fourteenth amend-ments.” Palazzolo alleged that theCouncil’s action deprived him of alleconomically beneficial use of hisproperty, making the denial a totaltaking, therefore allowing him torecover full compensation. The RhodeIsland Superior Court found for theState and the Rhode Island SupremeCourt affirmed that decision.

After the Rhode Island SupremeCourt rejected his takings claim,Palazzolo sought review in the UnitedStates Supreme Court. On June 28,2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled infavor of Palazzolo and remanded thecase for further consideration ofPalazzolo’s Penn Central claim, whichaddresses the issue of whether pre-existing regulations are relevant to thetiming of land acquisition by the tak-ings claimant.

ing total suspended solids (TSS), fecalcoliform bacteria, and Enterococcusbacteria. Ambient measurementswere taken for turbidity and secchidisk clarity.

The results of the demonstration,though inconclusive, are encouraging.An unforeseen challenge of maintain-ing an effective bottom seal affectedthe deployment and results. However,when a seal was maintained, waterquality measurements appeared toimprove for several of the parameterslike turbidity, TSS, and clarity. Futuredeployments, tentatively scheduledfor the summer of 2002, with a designthat controls the factors that affectedthe boom’s bottom seal will truly testthis technology’s ability to achieve“swimmable” conditions in a portionof the lower Charles River.

For more information on either ofthese studies, contact Jennifer Hunterat jhunter@neiwpcc.org or (978) 323-7929.

CHARLES RIVER from page 14SUPREME COURT RULES from page 13

PHO

TO

BY

DE

NN

ISPY

BU

RN