Department of Environmental Protection
Responses to Comments
Received on Proposed Extension to Alewife/Upper Mystic CSO Variance
May 8, 2002
1. How are MWRA and the Cities of Somerville and Cambridge implementing
the Nine Minimum Controls to mitigate existing CSO discharges?
MWRA and the Cities of Cambridge and Somerville have all submitted Reports
documenting efforts to comply with the Nine Minimum Controls. These Reports
are on file with the permittees, with DEP, and with EPA. These Reports were
filed in compliance with the EPA CSO policy by January 1997 and were largely
based on EPA Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls (May 1995). Some of the
information in these reports is somewhat dated and needs updating. The
NPDES permit reissuance will require the permittees to update these reports
to note improved conditions and practices.
2. The NMC related to public notice of CSO discharges and their impacts
should be expanded significantly, to inform abutters and users of Alewife
Brook so that information on activations is being provided in real time.
The public notification done by MWRA and the communities as part of their
NMC programs has included: posting of CSO outfalls; submitting NPDES reports
and discharge monitoring reports; coordinating with DMF on impacts to
shellfish resources; publishing and including on their website water quality
information and annual reports from sampling programs; and publishing a CSO
newsletter during the CSO planning process. Numerous commenters have
suggested more of a real-time notification for impacted parties. DEP will
work with the permittees and EPA to explore methods of improved and timely
notification. A workplan will be required under the CSO Variance to provide
improved public notification on the CSO discharges and potential impacts and
will be available for review by the EOEA Watershed Team.
3. What is the status of the enforcement related to the 308 letters
which require identification and removal of illegal connections in the
Alewife/Mystic River Watershed? Progress has been slow.
Water quality information in the Alewife Brook and Mystic River Basins has
indicated that water quality standards are violated even during dry weather
periods, which suggests the presence of illegal wastewater connections to
separate stormwater drainage systems in the watershed. EPA, at DEP's
request, issued Clean Water Act Section 308 information requests ("308"
letters) to Medford, Somerville, Belmont, Arlington, Cambridge, Winchester,
and MDC. EPA required each community to survey their stormwater outfalls
during dry weather and sample those outfalls found to have flow. Based on
the results of this effort, DEP issued Notices of Noncompliance (NONs) to
each community requiring the communities to initiate programs to identify
and remove illegal wastewater connections to their storm drain systems where
observations and sampling were indicative of wastewater pollution. While a
number of the communities have made significant progress in this regard,
much work still remains.
DEP has recently met with staff from the Mystic River Watershed Association
to go over the water quality information which has been gathered in the
watershed which may be helpful in identifying further sources of pollution.
DEP will use this information and other water quality data to continue to
refine these endeavors and target the worst suspected pollutant sources.
DEP will update the EOEA Watershed Team at the quarterly meetings on the
progress of the work. Illegal connection removal plans and water quality
information will be kept on file at the DEP Northeast Regional Office for
public review.
4. DEP should create a technical advisory group, including the Mystic
River Watershed Association, MWRA, City of Cambridge, and DEP to review the
work moving forward under the Variance and to support pollution abatement
programs.
DEP will utilize the existing EOEA Mystic River Watershed Team for
stakeholder review of documents related to the CSO Variance. The EOEA team
includes members from the Mystic River Watershed Association and other
watershed advocacy groups as well as other state agencies and interested
parties. DEP will provide information on the required CSO Variance
submittals at watershed team meetings and by direct mailing, as appropriate,
and will consider comments received from team members in moving forward with
CSO abatement work.
The most critical submittal, the CSO Reassessment Report, will be subject to
public environmental review through the MEPA office. Numerous public
meetings will also be conducted by MWRA during the development of the Report
to update interested parties on the status of the work and to invite public
comments and questions.
5. How will the Phase II NPDES Stormwater permitting program factor in
to decisions on CSOs and the Variance?
All of the communities in the Alewife Brook and Mystic watersheds will be
subject to the Phase II NPDES Stormwater Permit Program. Communities are
required to submit a Permit Application by March 10, 2003. Permits will
require that communities implement six Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
document stormwater management efforts as set forth in the EPA regulation.
EPA is expected to have an outreach program in 2002 to provide further
detail on the level of stormwater controls which will be necessary to meet
performance standards associated with the six BMPs. DEP recognizes
stormwater to be a separate (from CSOs) but critical pollutant source in the
Mystic/Alewife Basin. Information on existing stormwater and CSO pollutant
loads being gathered will help all interested parties to understand the
relative impacts of these discharges and the corresponding benefits of CSO
and stormwater pollution abatement efforts. However, the level of CSO
control provided must meet the regulatory standards, and reflect the maximum
pollution reduction benefits reasonably attainable, up to and including
elimination where elimination is affordable and feasible.
6. When will NPDES permits for MWRA and the Cities of Cambridge and
Somerville be reissued?
NPDES permits will be reissued in 2002, with a target date of July 1. A
Draft of each permit will be public noticed with an opportunity for public
comments. The NPDES permits are issued jointly from EPA and DEP. These
permits require that dischargers comply with the water quality standard.
Where a CSO Variance has been issued, the Variance and any conditions
imposed represent the standard during the timeframe of the Variance.
7. Will programs to target infiltration/inflow removal be implemented
as part of a CSO abatement strategy?
MWRA completed a Report pursuant to the CSO Variance which considered the
benefits of aggressive, system-wide infiltration/inflow (I/I) removal
programs. Their conclusion was that there would be negligible benefit in
CSO reduction from aggressive I/I programs. DEP has not concurred with this
conclusion to date. The extent of achievable long-term I/I reduction is the
subject of national debate; EPA is preparing to issue regulations which will
have a substantial impact on operation and management of sewer systems.
DEP recognizes the general environmental and sewer system benefits from I/I
reduction work and the specific benefits of targeted I/I remediation
actions.
In March 2001 the MWRA Regional I/I Task Force, comprised of MWRA, its 43
member communities, four Watershed Associations (including the MyRWA), DEP,
EPA, and other interested parties issued its Final Report titled: "A
Guidance Document For MWRA Member Sewer Communities and Regional
Stakeholders" which includes a series of Goals and Implementation Strategies
providing for a comprehensive regional approach to address I/I, Sanitary
Sewer Overflows (SSO)/Backups, and Operation, Maintenance & Rehabilitation
(OM&R). MWRA subsequently filed on June 30, 2001 with EPA and DEP its NPDES
Permit-required plans for addressing these same issues, using the Task Force
Report as a guide. DEP has provided MWRA with detailed comments on these
filings and EPA is expected to provide comments later this month. MWRA will
respond in writing to DEP/EPA comments and then a process of
discussions/negotiations will take place, the intent being to agree upon a
final plan which will become an enforceable element of the NPDES Permit.
DEP is pressing forward for formal development/implementation of a
comprehensive regional SSO Strategy, I/I control and OM&R approach. DEP
strongly believes that a regional I/I Control Program (specifically
including redirection/removal of private sources of inflow) in conjunction
with a comprehensive OM&R Program must be expeditiously implemented by MWRA
and its 43 member communities. As part of a condition of an Administrative
Consent Order between DEP and MWRA to construct the Braintree-Weymouth
Relief Facilities and as required in the MWRA NPDES Permit, staff from DEP
and MWRA have recently initiated negotiations to develop an I/I Interagency
Agreement (would expand upon a prior DEP/MWRA 1991 I/I MOU).
In accordance with a recommendation of the Task Force Report, DEP is
developing comprehensive Statewide OM&R Guidelines. In order to incorporate
the best information into these guidelines it was decided to utilize the
expertise of the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
(NEIWPCC). This activity is anticipated to extend through 2002. As part of
the outreach activities for this activity, DEP will be organizing a
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which will include many of the parties
that served on the I/I Task Force.
These collective strategies will also serve to reduce system surcharging
which contributes to CSO discharges and therefore should have overall
benefits to the CSO abatement program. The sewer separation work included
in the MWRA CSO abatement plan in Cambridge will also serve to remove a
significant volume of public (stormwater) inflow into the sewer system as
well.
8. Flooding is a major issue in the Alewife Brook subwatershed. How
will further CSO planning and the recommended CSO control plan address
flooding issues?
DEP recognizes that flooding is a critical issue in the Mystic/Alewife
Watershed. The CSO abatement work (i.e. sewer separation work) being
designed in the City of Cambridge must adequately mitigate flow and
pollutant loads from new stormwater flows generated as part of that project.
The Wetlands Protection Act and associated regulations require that there be
no increase in the horizontal or vertical extent of flooding which will
result from this project, unless a Variance to such regulations is supported
and issued. The City of Cambridge is currently developing an advanced
hydraulic model to better assess potential impacts from the project to
demonstrate that these regulatory standards will be met.
DEP also supports efforts to alleviate flooding problems in the
Alewife/Mystic watershed and staff recently attended the Flood Alert public
meeting in Belmont, where representatives of MyRWA and three communities in
the Alewife Brook watershed discussed flood control and pollution abatement
programs. DEP is committed to work (within the scope of our regulatory
authority) with the communities, the watershed team, and relevant state and
federal agencies in supporting these efforts. In that regard, DEP is
continuing to participate in workgroups initiated by State Senator Shannon
and State Representative Paulson.
9. Flood storage for the Cambridge sewer separation project will only
serve as a temporary fix since continued development will result in
increases to runoff in the Basin.
Historical development patterns have undoubtedly exacerbated flood
conditions in the Alewife and Mystic River watersheds. DEP's Stormwater
Policy and associated stormwater performance standards provide a regulatory
framework for managing impacts from most new development projects (some
smaller development projects are exempt). Redevelopment projects must also
meet these criteria to the maximum extent practicable. The criteria are
enforced by local conservation commissions and the DEP Wetlands Division
staff, and include:
DEP's Policy does not respond to the effects of past planning and
development practices in each community and the existing flood control
challenges which have resulted. Flood management and hydrology studies now
underway in the watershed should help the communities and agencies
understand the best strategies to address the existing flooding problems and
identify projects to mitigate flood impacts.
10. The state should review runoff reduction strategies not only related
to the CSO abatement efforts but throughout the watershed, since flooding
concerns and associated public health impacts are severe.
DEP will continue enforcement of the Stormwater Policy, the "308" initiative
to eliminate illegal connections, and will review each community's Phase II
stormwater management plan when available. DEP will also participate in
group efforts to develop strategies and promote projects to relieve flooding
in these watersheds. DEP concurs that flooding and pollution abatement are
watershed issues and need to be considered from this perspective; only
through participation and commitments from all stakeholders will these
problems be successfully managed.
11. The Variance extension should include a defined scope of work which
MWRA will include in the Final CSO Reassessment Report.
DEP will require MWRA to submit a draft scope of work for the CSO
Reassessment Report. The draft scope will be public information and will be
available for review at the DEP office. Members of the EOEA watershed team
and other interested parties will have the opportunity for review and
comment.
12. A better description of the operation of MWR 003 is warranted.
Quarterly reports on the frequency, duration, and volume of overflow should
be made available and metering should be installed.
DEP agrees that MWRA should provide additional detail on the operation of
MWR 003 and report on the frequency, duration, and volume of CSO discharge
at this location. DEP will be requiring a flow estimation workplan for all
remaining Alewife/Mystic CSO outfalls that is expected to include a
combination of metering and modeling to estimate CSO flows. Again, this
plan will be available for review at the DEP office and the watershed team
will have the opportunity for review and comment.
13. MWRA should be required to install and place meters in each
connection to the Alewife Brook sewers to adequately characterize flows.
MWRA utilized 16 flow meters installed throughout the Mystic/Alewife
Watershed to support their enhanced modeling effort, and included flow
meters to characterize boundary conditions, runoff, and wastewater in the
planning area. The locations of the meters and a discussion of the data are
included in the April 2001 NPC document. This level of metering is
consistent with that normally associated with CSO planning to support the
sewer system modeling and produce reasonable calibration results. If there
are specific areas in the system where concerns exist about the model,
stakeholders can contribute to this information during the planning process
which will lead up to the submittal of the CSO Reassessment Report.
14. The stormdrains selected for sampling to characterize stormwater
pollutant loads were among those with suspected illegal connections. DEP
should require sampling of more representative, "cleaner", stormwater, such
as at Arlington's Broadway/Mass Ave. drains and road drains along Route 2.
The stormdrains selected for stormwater monitoring were based on a number of
factors, including volume of the discharge and types of land use. Some,
but not all, of these locations were identified in the 308 programs. In
these cases, the communities have taken steps to mitigate or eliminate
wastewater sources. However, the limited stormwater sampling has shown that
there appear to be sanitary influences at a number of these outfalls. As
per the suggestion, DEP will work with MWRA, the communities, EPA, and
Mystic River Watershed Association to determine the most representative
outfalls of stormwater for characterization of stormwater loads within the
watershed and to incorporate into the CSO Variance in subsequent sampling
runs.
As the intent of this sampling work is to gather data to help characterize
stormwater pollutant loads in the Alewife/Mystic watershed, DEP will
consider wet weather data from other sources, such as the Mystic River
Watershed Association, in determining an appropriate range for estimating
pollutant concentrations in stormwater in the watershed.
15. The characterization of pollutant concentration from combined sewage
should be done based on sampling within the Alewife/Mystic watershed.
MWRA CSO sampling, done in 1994, included three sampling locations in
Somerville - SOM 003, SOM 009, and Somerville Marginal Influent. Outfall
SOM 003 discharged (it has since been eliminated) to Alewife Brook. A total
of 221 samples of untreated CSO were used to develop the average pollutant
loads, which is a significant number of samples and provides a reasonable
basis for estimating CSO pollutant loads. However, as there were no
samples collected from the facilities which presently discharge CSO to
Alewife Brook, DEP will require two CSO locations to be sampled as part of
the semiannual stormwater sampling program.
16. Quarterly reports on the frequency of sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs) should also be available to the public.
DEP staff have developed updated/expanded SSO and Backup Notification Forms
to be used as part of the State's e-gov initiative, whereby DEP will be
developing an electronic SSO/Backup database. Information from the database
will be placed on GIS maps and made available. This will allow MWRA, the
municipalities and other interested parties to identify problem areas in the
regional sewer system. This system is not expected to become functional
until at least mid-2003. DEP is reviewing internally whether it would be
possible to expedite a portion of this effort. Until such time,
communities are still required to report SSO events to the DEP and these
records will be kept on file, and available for public review.
17. Final regulatory determinations on CSOs should consider not only
MWRA sampling, but also sampling undertaken by the Mystic River Watershed
Association pursuant to its approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
DEP will use MyRWA sampling results where such results have been gathered
pursuant to an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and will
generally consider all credible water quality data in refining the scope and
timeframe for CSO and stormwater pollution abatement efforts. DEP
recognizes that these sampling programs, which also includes significant
historical water quality data gathered by MWRA, are important to
prioritizing work in the watershed.
18. DEP should make data gathered under the Variance and related
information available via the Internet.
MWRA provides much water quality data on their website. DEP does not
currently have the resources to develop and manage putting the data on the
website. DEP will make available to the public data and information
gathered pursuant to the Variance requirements. DEP will also participate
in Watershed Team Meetings and disseminate information in this forum as
well.
19. DEP needs to consider the public health impacts of the CSO
discharges, which result in untreated sewage reaching residential homes.
DEP's CSO Policy requires permittees to eliminate CSO discharges wherever
feasible. Where CSOs will not be eliminated, CSO discharges shall be
minimized and their impacts must be mitigated to the maximum extent
feasible. Accordingly, MWRA must evaluate alternatives to eliminate CSOs in
their CSO Reassessment Report, and where CSOs are not eliminated, consider
measures to mitigate the impacts of any remaining discharges.
Officials at the Department of Public Health (DPH) have contacted DEP and
discussed the proposed CSO abatement projects and the overall CSO planning
effort. DEP will consider DPH comments on the CSO Reassessment Plan prior
to making final determinations on CSO controls.
20. DEP should address the substantial delays in implementing CSO
controls in Alewife Brook, which were required to move forward under an
aggressive schedule established in the Court Order.
DEP acknowledges that there has been substantial delay in implementation of
sewer separation projects, largely based on the incomplete characterization
of the combined sewer system and on the many complex issues related to the
Cambridge sewer separation projects. MWRA is presently out of compliance
with a federal court schedule requiring this CSO abatement work. The Court
Parties have been advised on the status of the work and ultimately the
federal judge, with input from the Court Parties, will determine the new
schedule and any remedies to be imposed.
As has been our practice throughout the CSO abatement program, DEP will work
with EPA and the Court Parties to put in place an enforcement schedule which
expeditiously addresses CSO discharges and their impacts, within the
technical constraints identified for each abatement project.
21. The Variance extension should include the requirement for developing
a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis.
The requirement for development of TMDLs rests with the state water quality
standards authority, in this case, DEP. TMDLs are required wherever
receiving waters have been determined to be impaired and formally listed on
the state CWA section 303D listing. DEP is moving forward with TMDL
development. The Alewife Brook and Mystic River watersheds are among the
1500 segments for which TMDLs must be produced. The level of water quality
information being gathered by MWRA in the CSO planning effort and pursuant
to the CSO Variance is commensurate with the level of information often used
to support TMDL analyses. This information should be helpful in completing
a TMDL for the Alewife and Mystic River segments, similar to TMDLs completed
in other watersheds.
22. The CSO Variance should not be extended and the B classification for
the Alewife/Mystic reinstated.
CSO elimination and attainment of the Class B standard remain the goal for
Alewife Brook and the Mystic River. However, key information on the
feasibility of higher levels of CSO control will not be known until
completion and review of the CSO Reassessment Plan, which will also rely on
the implementability of the Cambridge sewer separation work. The use of a
CSO Variance in this case comports with the July 2001 EPA Guidance on
Coordinating CSO Long-Term Planning with Water Quality Standard Reviews.
23. DEP should carefully scrutinize any pollution trading strategy and
should ensure that all sewage discharges to Alewife Brook are eliminated.
Any pollution trading strategies must be conclusively demonstrated to result
in water quality benefits greater than those possible through CSO mitigation
alone. The prevailing regulatory requirements for CSO abatement still must
be satisfied.
24. More funding resources need to be committed to stormwater management
and I/I reduction.
DEP has a number of grant programs which fund stormwater management and
non-point source pollution abatement. These include the CWA section 319,
104B, and 604B grant programs. The State Revolving Fund (SRF) program also
funds water pollution abatement projects on a larger scale, including I/I
abatement projects. All of these programs are competitive programs where
projects are rated statewide to determine priorities. There are many other
agencies which offer grants as well and DEP can provide to stakeholders a
matrix recently developed which describes a great many of these programs.
One very much utilized and effective program has been the MWRA's grant/loan
program to member communities to fund projects to identify and eliminate I/I
in community sewer systems.
25. The siting of a detention basin on MDC parkland is an inappropriate
use of parkland and should not be included as part of the sewer separation
project.
The recommendation to site the detention basin in the Alewife Reservation
was made only after a detailed assessment of the alternatives for stormwater
storage/treatment related to the Cambridge sewer separation project. The
many other alternatives reviewed were either substantially more costly, had
more environmental impacts, or had construction periods of over ten years.
MWRA and the City of Cambridge have received many comments on the proposed
detention basin in the MEPA process and are now putting together the
technical information to address these comments. MWRA and Cambridge have
included a biologist on the consultant team and will be including provisions
to minimize construction and environmental impacts. MDC has met with MWRA
and Cambridge and will continue to scrutinize the ecological value of the
project and discuss how the facility can be integrated into the master plan.
In addition, Article 97 legislation will be needed to allow this use,
therefore the public through their representatives will have additional
opportunity to have input.
MWRA and Cambridge are now in the process of developing responses to the
great many issues that were raised in the public environmental review
process. Comments on flood management, pollution abatement, and ecological
impacts will all be addressed in their response document, as required by the
MEPA certification for this project. Many of these responses relate
directly to the proposed detention basin, its location and design.
26. DEP should request that MEMA evaluate the effectiveness of the
earthen berm designed to hold back flood waters up to the 25 storm event.
The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) are involved in the regulatory review of the
Cambridge sewer separation project with regard to flooding impacts and
mitigation. They will, therefore, review the design of the project (and
the flow model) and the projected impacts.
27. DEP should request that the Army Corps of Engineers remap the
Alewife floodplain.
FEMA is now in the process of updating the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
These new maps are expected to take at least two years to finalize.
28. The costs of a refined, continued sampling program are not excessive
and DEP should require MWRA to gather water quality data.
DEP agrees that MWRA will need to continue to conduct receiving water and
stormwater sampling to support the final CSO Reassessment Plan. The scope
of this effort is expected to be similar to the level of effort associated
with the previous sampling effort, but refined to gather the most useful
data.
29. MWRA should be required to publish several notices in the paper over
the Variance extension period to apprise the community of the frequency of
CSOs and associated health hazards.
MWRA will be asked to renew its quarterly newsletter to stakeholders in the
watershed. This will provide updates on the status of the CSO abatement
efforts, notice on CSO discharges and their impacts, as well as to note
important meeting dates.
30. The public comment period on the final CSO Reassessment Report
should be extended to 60 days to allow for a complete and detailed review.
DEP agrees that a 60 day review period would be most reasonable to review
the complex technical and financial information to be included in the CSO
Reassessment Plan.
Contact the Alewife Study Group, North Cambridge Massachusetts, by email at information@alewife.org