EPA says Greenfield plant upgrades will not solve overflow issues

Phase II of Greenfield's upgrades to their wastewater treatment, which are currently under way, may not fix the plant's problem with overflows, according to a recent communication from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Greenfield officials say this goes against previous communications in which the EPA approved the improvement plans, and granted Greenfield a permit to install. 

Greenfield City Manager Betty Bishop reported to Greenfield Council Tuesday during their regular session that she had received an email on July 5 from Joshua Jackson, of the EPA's Southwest Ohio District, that stated the improvements the city is about to make will not solve the problem the EPA has mandated that they fix. 

The email was written to plant superintendent Brian Smith and was shared with council by Bishop. In it, Jackson wrote, "Since Phase II will not eliminate tank overflows that have been occurring during wet weather periods at the wastewater treatment works, Ohio EPA is expecting that Greenfield/Woolpert [engineering firm] (or another consultant) prepare a plan of action for eliminating these overflows. This plan shall include an evaluation of the conditions that cause these events to occur (including discussion of why proper capacity was not designed into the WWTW upgrade to account for the high peak instantaneous flow that the WWTW is now experiencing during these overflow conditions). The plan shall also include an alternative analysis of projects that will eliminate these overflow events (including cost evaluation) along with a selection of preferred alternatives. Finally, the plan shall include a proposed schedule for implementing the preferred alternative."

Bishop spoke with controlled anger when she addressed council on the matter, saying, "What more does Joshua Jackson or anyone at the EPA expect from the residents of Greenfield? In the next two years, their rates will continue to rise in response to what the EPA said needed improved at the plant."

The project has been delayed this year as Greenfield dealt with significant rainfall and flooding, and overflows due to that rainfall. 

"We've had a year of flooding Greenfield hasn't seen in 500 years," Bishop said. "The more I think about it, the madder I get."

Council member Harvey Everhart said that even though Greenfield has made strides toward being compliant, ultimately they have not met the requirements the EPA has put on them. 

"We still have not done what they asked us to do," Everhart said. "We're still not in compliance with the overflow problem. Joshua is saying you have to comply, and the design should have been in compliance with the requirements."

Bishop said that the EPA approved the Phase II design "early on and at no time did I have that (the design was not in compliance) addressed. We haven't had a chance to see what will happen. We have had three inches of rain and a broken dike. And now we have to spend more taxpayer money? I don't go for that."

Everhart said that he didn't like spending more money, but that the plans for the plant should have met EPA approval. 

"It did," Bishop said. "They issued a permit to install. (That the upgrades won't fix the problem) is what they're saying now. But they signed off on it. This smells."

"That's what they say downstream," Everhart said. 

"This is a sewer plant," Bishop said. 

In her report to council, Bishop said that there has been an "aggressive" work schedule at the plant "that Woolpert has set since Brian Smith refused to ask for an extension (for it to be completed)."

Bishop said that council will have to have two special meetings for plant approvals in order to meet the schedule. 

"We're only a year late," Everhart said, referring to the fact that the construction on the plant was delayed. "I said two years ago we needed a different engineer for working on this project."

Council president Betty Jackman said, "Well, it's going to come back to bite them."

"It's going to bite all of us," Everhart said. "Because when you complete Phase II, it's still not going to solve the problem."   

In the email Jackson wrote to Greenfield, it also stated that, "I&I (inflow and infiltration) removal projects should be part of an ongoing CMOM program for the village of Greenfield, not the preferred alternative for this particular deficiency (unless there is overwhelming and quantifiable evidence that one or more projects would eliminate the current overflow situation). An approvable plan of action should be submitted to the Ohio EPA Southwest District Office No later than Oct. 3, 2011. Since the non-potable water system would require a permit to install, all the proposed changes should be documented on the detailed plans."