PATA History Pages

Ltr. Opposing Sewer Plant Expansion referenced in OEPA complaint

Sent to OEPA during Pulic comment period August/Sept 2002

Lisa A. Ross
rosslisa2@hotmail.com
4 Sept 2002


Ohio EPA-DSW, Permits Processing Unit,
P.O. Box 1049,
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049


Subject: Application # 4PB00017*JD

Dear Ohio EPA Permits processing staff and Division of Surface Water Analysts:

I was unable to attend the public hearing regarding this application on August 29, 2002 due to an elementary school open house for my first grade son, held at the same time. Please consider the following, which I would have presented at that time and as a follow-up attachment (newspaper article)

I would like this letter, and attachments considered while reviewing the NPDES permit renewal application of the City of Pickerington. The renewal permit is also requesting a considerable expansion of the capacity of the plant from 1.8 million gallons per day to 3.5 million gallons per day. If this permit were approved, the discharge from this facility would, result in degradation to, or lowering of, the water quality of Sycamore Creek and possibly Big Walnut Creek.

I am attaching the letter I wrote on May 9, 2002 requesting the public hearing and I wish that the questions posed in this letter and the public hearing request letter, be answered in writing by your agency at the earliest possible time prior to a decision on this matter.

I believe the renewal of this permit and the requested expansion should be denied by your agency for the following reasons:

1. The City of Pickerington is not in compliance with the terms of the current permit in several areas and has operated the current plant in a in a deficient manner in Violation of the Clean Water Act of the United States of America. The deficiencies are not one time violations, but analysis of the EPA’s own records shows a pattern of violations that the applicant has either refused to correct or is unable to correct. The following problems exist:

a. The plant has a history of Sanitary Sewer overflows (SSO’s) which are detailed in your records and highlighted in my attached letter requesting the hearing. Additionally, the lines in some areas of the city are backing up sewage into residential basements during these critical periods. The city’s attempts to fix this problem have not been successful and instead the project supposedly designed to fix the problem has now turned into an expansion of capacity on this service line, bringing more future sewage into this problem area in the near term.

b. The city has failed in any attempt to address the SSO problem. The city has not engaged in an analysis of the lines citywide by use of camera or exploratory equipment to identify the failure areas or possible storm water infiltration problems. Instead, the city has devoted its resources to the expansion of capacity leaving the current system to continue function in with a pattern of violations to the Clean Water Act. I am aware that the use of this analysis equipment is expensive, but I believe it is required to address the problem.

It realize it is not the job of the Ohio EPA to direct the city how to spend its resources. But I do strongly believe it is the job of the Ohio EPA to enforce the Clean Water Act of the United States and Ohio EPA regulations to protect the public health and the environment. Withholding action on the renewal permit and denial of the expansion would be one way to force the city to comply with the law in the current facility, before it devotes more resources to new capacity and seeks more customers.
The public and the current customers of the plant deserve no less than a plant that complies with the law. The public should not be forced to seek legal action against the city or the EPA in order to force the EPA to do its job enforcing the Clean Water Act. The example I will cite is the current situation occurring in Columbus with the Sierra Club lawsuit about the Columbus SSO’s and the settlement reached by Columbus with the EPA to correct the longstanding pattern of SSO’s that have occurred in Columbus. These actions, which have forced Columbus to devote considerable resources to correct the SSO problem, should not have to be repeated here. Even though this is a small stream and a small operation compared to Columbus, I do believe the Clean Water Act applies regardless of the size of the plant.

2. The city is not in compliance with the regionalization requirements of the current permit including a report on regionalization activities. There is no report because there is nothing to report other than cancellation of the Canal Winchester/ Pickerington Water and Sewer agreement on October 22, 2001. Please see attached newspaper article regarding current negotiations with Fairfield County on regionalization.

Even though the proposed expansion of this plant does not include the use of EPA funds at the current time, at least service area guidelines should be required for an expansion/renewal permit. If coupling the expansion request with the renewal request in one permit allows the city to skirt this requirement; the application should be handled in a different manner in my view. Additionally, the overlapping of service areas has always been discouraged by the EPA and prohibited if EPA funds are used. Please refer to the newspaper article on the aggressive plans of the city to overlap service areas of other designated management agencies. This overlapping will cost the Fairfield County Utilities approximately four million dollars in lost tap fees. I am a customer of Fairfield County Utilities and all customers of Fairfield County will make up this loss. This Fraud, Waste and Abuse regarding the extension of utilities as a tool in political battles by the City of Pickerington must be stopped. If it is not, customers from all the utilities involved, Fairfield County, the City of Pickerington and Canal Winchester will pay heavily for the duplication of services and the excess capacity in the region because of the lack of an agreement or plan on service areas. Additionally, these utilities may become insolvent and then Ohio EPA money will be used to bail out the situation, probably after and environmental disaster occurs because of lack of funds to maintain the systems.

3. The City of Pickerington has engaged in an aggressive program of reducing or abating tap fees to developers (primarily home developers) as an enticement to annex to the city. These fees, normally used to fund plant maintenance and repair of the system, will not be collected and total in the many millions of dollars at the current time with surely, more to come. It is a logical question to ask who will pay for these repair requirements if the city is not collecting fees now to address these needs that will occur down the road. Will the community, already heavy in debt to fund the infrastructure for the schools and safety services resulting from the rapid growth of the area, be able to bear the financial burden to maintain these systems? Will the city remain solvent by the practice of not collecting these fees to address these future demands? Will the EPA require the City to address these maintenance and upgrade requirements and comply with the Clean Water Act? The City has shown a pattern of not addressing current problems with the system, even providing false information in documents to the County Commissioners about their ability to meet the requirements of the system on the horizon. Can the public or the EPA trust the information the city provides when the city will say what they believe public or any concerned agency needs to hear just to reach their desired goal in particular situations? Please research and investigate any reports provided by the city to ensure their accuracy given the recent lack of forthrightness on the part of some city officials that the public has discovered through freedom of information act requests.
Please consider these comments and the additional comments and questions I raise in the other attached letter and the newspaper article outlining the failure of regionalization talks between the County and the City. Please respond to these questions and assertions in writing so that I may share them with others concerned about the situation.

I think it is absolutely reasonable that a citizen request that the City of Pickerington comply with the requirements of the current NPDES permit before any renewal or certainly any expansion is granted by your agency. It believe it is also proper to lay the burden for the enforcement of these requirements and those of the Clean Water Act of the United States with of the Ohio EPA. In order to cause the city to make definitive efforts to comply with the law, I am strongly suggesting that this permit be denied until the current system is operated in a lawful and safe manner. Any expansion of the system should have service areas defined in writing, prior to construction and a regional binding agreement formatted, regarding non-duplication of services between the three regional designated management agencies, (DMA’s) Fairfield County, Canal Winchester and Pickerington. This regional agreement is vital to avoid the waste of many millions of dollars in infrastructure construction and excess capacity that is not needed. It is also vital to ensure the solvency and affordability of basic utilities provided by the DMA’s to their customers.

The use of these utility systems as a political tool in annexation is unwise and wasteful as currently practiced by the City of Pickerington. It is also being challenged in Court. Fairfield County and Canal Winchester would gladly service areas annexed to Pickerington within their defined service areas. They do wish to do such servicing without giving away the tap fee revenues by reducing or abating these fees that are normally paid by developers, revenue, which supports the viability and future of the systems they have invested in. Pickerington’s reckless use of financial incentives to developers in this “competitive” manner has caused a crisis with the other DMA’s which choose to operate with sustainable revenue streams to maintain the systems. The threat of duplicity of service lines and capacity by this “competiton” practice by the city of Pickerington, is a disgrace to the taxpayers of the entire community.

Until the political will of the community replaces the leadership in Pickerington, hopefully before the current leadership does more harm, the public must plea to the EPA to do its job and enforce the current laws. We also must beg the EPA to strongly encourage responsible service areas and plans before approving any expansion of this sewer plant.

Thank you for your attention to my comments.

Sincerely,



Lisa Ross

2 attachments

cc Betty Montgomery, Attorney General, State of Ohio
United States EPA
Christopher Jones, Director,Ohio EPA
Kerry Hogan, Fairfield County Utilities
Marsha Hall, Mayor, Canal Winchester