GOING WITH THE FLOW

Recently, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the U.S.EPA policy dealing with overflows from wastewater treatment plants. ("The Obama Storm Tax", October 23, 2012, p. A16)

In wet weather conditions, some wastewater treatment facilities frequently may become burdened with excess influent water flows from tributary sewer mains. Such excess flows can arise either because the sewage collection system is a combined system--designed to receive both sanitary and storm water--or because the sanitary system is subject to inflow and infiltration in rain periods.

Under such excess flow conditions, wastewater treatment plants may be forced to bypass some of the influent to a receiving stream in order to protect the integrity of the treatment biological process for the design influent flow.

Not all bypasses, however, are due to heavy rain events. For example, the Record/Herald News (northjersey.com) reported that hurricane Sandy allegedly disabled one of the nation's largest wastewater treatment plants, forcing it to release about 300 million gallons of untreated sewage into Newark Bay. This action resulted from the wide power outage and the fact that standby generators could only power the outflow. It also was reported that other plants had to take similar action.

The Journal editorial was critical of EPA Clean Water Act enforcement measures against municipal wastewater facilities which bypass excess flows. The editorial alleged that cities are forced to enter into consent decrees with EPA to upgrade their plants, which cost local taxpayers billions of dollars. Further, such systems are subject to limits on the number of permitted bypasses. The editorial complained that such upgrades actually may not be cost effective.

The editorial may have overlooked some factors involved with bypasses. First, EPA can be both the hand that feeds as well as the hand that slaps. While enforcement actions may impose upgrade costs on utilities, EPA also spends untold millions of dollars in grants and low interest loans to cities and states for upgrades of infrastructure. This money comes from taxpayers nationwide, who in effect subsidize upgrades for the beneficiaries.

Second, not all bypasses necessarily are harmful to a receiving waterbody. Traditionally, a bypassed flow may be required to receive at least primary treatment-upwards of 85%- and chlorination. One would expect EPA to consider this to be an appropriate mitigation factor given the benefit of saving the overall treatment plant function.

Third, perhaps the real issue with the excess flow issue is not plant capacity but the cause of the excess flows in the first place. If the collection system is a combined system , them maybe a more cost-effective solution is to separate the sanitary from the storm systems, at least partially. If a collection system is sanitary only, the issue may become inflow and infiltration. Inflow results from illegal connections of downspouts, sump pumps, footing drains and the like to the sanitary system and from leaking manhole covers. Infiltration can result from broken mains and manholes. Reducing excess flows from inflow and infiltration not only can reduce the necessity for treatment plant bypasses, but also may reduce sewer surcharges and resulting backups into homes.

WASTEWATER DISPOSAL FOR A SIMPLER LIFE

In today's complex worldwind, we often reflect upon the "good old days," days that seem to have been of a more "simple life." At times, this seems to be true even for the apparently more mundane world of wastewater disposal. Today, thanks to the federal Clean Water Act and related regulations, there is constant concern with such subjects as biological demand, suspended solids, ammonia-nitrogen, inflow-infiltration, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, pre-treatment, advanced treatment, etc.

When my parents had their cottage in Indiana (see my post of January 21, 2010), we did not have "indoor plumbing." Yes, we had an outhouse. It was a small, narrow structure on a small, narrow terrace below the house. It was painted white (by me) and had a tiny glass window high up the back wall for light. It was a two holer. As a kid, I long wondered why two holes--who would want to share such a private moment? From a more technical standpoint, I supposed that maybe the intent was that users would alternate so as to spread the joy. However, people tend to be creatures of habit, sitting in the same seat on a commuter train, for example.

Regardless, as a user, I did not have that much joy. I always feared that some sort of creature, a fecal gremlin, would bite my bottom. Even above ground, the inside of the outhouse always housed vicious-looking spiders waiting to pounce on me in an unguarded moment. At night, it was even more scarey. One had to bring a lantern or flashlight, stumbling over tree roots along the path and wondering who or what would be waiting for me in the dark inside.

On a more positive note, one could sit inside, prop open the door, and view the lake. Oh look, there goes Mr. Nelson in his 12 foot rowboat powered by a 5 horsepower Sea King motor putting by until seaweed killed his progress right opposite my door. "Hi" he yelled. So much for the pastoral.

Maybe the "simple life" was not all that simple.

Obviously, today outhouses a more a curiosity than a necessity. Some persons have collected outhouses much as persons have collected stamps or coins. Others have written photogenic books about them.

A few years ago, my wife and I bought an outhouse door from a shop in Kentucky. It was painted blue, had all the hardware, and had a quarter moon cutout near the top. The door sold immediately in my wife's booth at a Wisconsin antique center. If an outhouse door is an antique, what does that make me? I am flushed with answers.