Mr. Pavel Wilson,
Chairman
Old Saybrook WPCA
Old
Re: Wastewater Management Focus
Areas
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This is in response to your request
to address a group of related questions that have been raised several times in
the past few years by your board and citizenry, namely:
“Why is Old Saybrook being limited to
addressing only the previously identified study areas?”
“Why won’t DEP allow the Town of
“Why aren’t all waterfront properties in town
being required to meet the proposed Upgrade Standards?
This letter will attempt to answer
those questions, and clarify the reasoning behind those answers. To address those issues, some historical
perspective is helpful.
The basis for the current efforts to
address wastewater in Old Saybrook is the court-imposed resolution of the legal
action taken by CT DEP against the Town of
In 1997, the final resolution of the
court case required the town to evaluate structural alternatives for the
Designation I and II study areas identified in the wastewater management plan. The town hired Fuss & O’Neill to prepare
those evaluations, which continued until mid-2003, when an impasse was reached
between the town and CT DEP regarding technical criteria for the resolution of
the problems. That impasse led to the
mediation in 2005.
The mediation’s goal was to resolve
the impasse and allow progress in the proposed implementation of a
Decentralized Wastewater Management District (DWMD), a new method of addressing
wastewater issues which had been authorized by the state legislature in 2003.
One of the stated goals of
mediation, when it was initiated, was to produce an implementable plan for
addressing the study areas (now reorganized and referred to as Groups A, B, and
C) as identified in an early Fuss & O’Neill report. The topic of other areas was raised during
those discussions, but it was agreed that the first focus had to be the
existing study areas identified in the court decision, modified by reports
prepared by Fuss & O’Neill as allowed by the court decision.
Another important reason for focusing
solely on the already delineated study areas was to meet the requirements of
the statutes regarding a decentralized wastewater management district; that is,
the completion of an engineering report which compared alternatives and reached
a conclusion about the most cost-effective solution. Since the previous reports had focused on a
conventional sewer system serving specific areas, the new proposal had to
evaluate alternative options for those same areas in order to make an
“apples-to-apples” comparison for the purpose of reaching a conclusion.
The DEP’s position on the addition
of other areas to the Upgrade Program is that they must not delay
implementation of appropriate remediation of the areas identified in the court
decision; that is, the identified problems must be addressed first, after which
a broader application of the Upgrade program could be made. As such, additional areas could be added to
the end of the project schedule, or intermixed with them, as long as their
addition does not affect the implementation schedule for the court-identified
areas. As pointed out in the previous
paragraph, in order to add additional areas to the decentralized district, all
the steps required under the statutes for establishing the district would have
to be followed, including the identification of an existing or potential
community pollution problem, preparation of an engineering report focused on
those areas, an appropriate cost-effectiveness determination, and approvals by
DEP with concurrence by DPH.
The answers to the questions posed at
the beginning of this letter are therefore:
Why is Old Saybrook being limited to
addressing only the previously identified study areas?
The previously
identified study areas are those for which solutions are required by the court
order. Addressing those areas is the first priority.
Why won’t DEP allow the Town of
The DEP is not
restricting the addition of other areas of town to the schedule, as long as
their addition doesn’t change the schedule for the court-ordered areas, and all
statutory requirements are met.
Why aren’t all waterfront properties in town
being required to meet the proposed Upgrade Standards?
The areas currently
under consideration for a decentralized solution are those for which a community
pollution problem is documented to exist, and for which a comparison to the
previous proposed solution (centralized sewers) can be reasonably prepared, so
as to allow the conclusion that a DWMD is the most cost-effective solution, as
required by state statute.
It is hoped that this letter has
helped clarify the Department’s position on this issue. If you have further questions, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Greci,
P.E.
Supervising Sanitary
Engineer
Bureau of Water
Protection and Land Reuse
Cc: Peter
Grose, P.E., Fuss & O’Neill, Inc.,
Robert
Scully, CT DPH,
Mary
Jane
Jennifer Perry Zmijewski, CT DEP