Letter: Don't be fooled by falsehoods

By Brendan B. O'Regan / Feedback
Friday, October 10, 2003


I have worked in Newburyport since February 1996 and have had many things written and said about me that are simply not true and I have chosen not to respond to most of these misstatements. However, the most recent letter to your paper by Mr. Jeff Robertson requires a response due to the quality and quantity of inaccurate information provided within it and out-and-out falsehoods (Letters, Merrimack River Current, Oct. 3, 2003).

Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) issues and capacity: Mr. Robertson states the WWTF is 40 years old. The WWTF was built and went on-line as a primary treatment plant in 1963. It underwent a major, multimillion dollar upgrade to secondary treatment standards and went on-line in 1984. The original Deer Island Treatment Plant in Boston was built before 1963, I believe. As most people know, they just completed major improvements to upgrade their treatment plant to secondary treatment. I don't believe most fair-minded people would conclude that the current Deer Island Treatment Plant is 40-plus years old. Since 1996, additional millions of dollars have been spent on upgrades to the Newburyport WWTF and the collection system.

Mr. Robertson states that the WWTF "exceeded maximum permissible flow by a half-million gallons a day during 2001." The WWTF has a permit limit of 3.4 million gallons per day (mgd) on an average monthly basis. The average daily flow to the WWTF (on an average monthly basis) for 2001 was 2.35 mgd (influent meter reading), significantly below our permitted capacity of 3.4 mgd and drastically below the 3.9 mgd Mr. Robertson would have you believe was being discharged. That is not to say the WWTF has never had a single day or few days that have exceeded 3.4 mgd. It has, just as many WWTFs in the country have. These occurrences are typically associated with rain events that increase the amount of flow to the WWTF. The federal and state permitting authorities and most environmentalists understand these issues as well. That is why permits are typically based on average monthly flows instead of single-day flows. The Newburyport WWTF currently does not have a permit upper limit for "maximum permissible flow." Any statement made in this regard is false. Verification of this information can be obtained by contacting DEP for the monthly reports we are required by law to send to them.

In their 1972 report on upgrading the existing WWTF (when it was still a primary treatment plant), Coffin and Richardson Engineer Inc. stated that if Plum Island were to be serviced by a separate treatment plant it should be sized to handle a flow of 0.39 mgd, and the existing Newburyport WWTF could be upgraded to handle a flow of only 3.01 mgd. The improvements completed in 1984 allowed for the WWTF to handle a flow of 3.4 mgd, therefore, the WWTF has been sized to handle flows from Plum Island.

Influent and effluent meters and recalibration: Since I started in 1996 it has been known that a discrepancy exists between the meter that measures flow coming into the WWTF (influent meter) and the meter that measures the flow leaving the plant after it has been treated (effluent meter). The effluent meter was reading approximately 500,000 gpd higher than the influent meter. Correcting this issue was put on the five-year capital plan.

The project to correct this discrepancy was included within the FY01 budget, which was submitted to the Sewer Commission in February 2000, the mayor in March 2000 and the City Council in May 2000. Each of these dates was before the public meeting on the Plum Island Water and Sewer project held in July 2000 and before the City Council approved the funding for the Plum Island project in August 2000.

The process to correct this problem began in early CY2001. Weston and Sampson Engineers Inc. were hired to investigate the discrepancy. They worked with New England Instruments Inc. to identify the problem and recommended a solution. It was their conclusion that in fact it was the influent meter that was reading more accurately than the effluent meter (actually, even the influent meter was slightly high but within acceptable range). I agreed with their conclusions. Therefore, it was their recommendation to request of DEP to allow the WWTF to use the influent meter for reporting purposes.

On May 31, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. at the Newburyport Public Library I met at an open and properly noticed meeting of the Newburyport Sewer Commission to discuss these findings. Besides sewer commissioners and staff, also in attendance at this meeting was City Councilor (then citizen) David McFarlane. This issue was also discussed at the Sewer Commission meetings held June 9, 2001, and June 28, 2001.

The above-mentioned request was made to DEP in June 2001 with the reports that documented these findings. DEP wrote us a letter in June 2001 concurring with our findings and approving our recommendation. Following this approval, I sent a memo dated June 29, 2001, to the Newburyport City Council informing them of this information. There was also an article in the July 18, 2001, Newburyport Daily News documenting this issue. Therefore, Mr. Robertson's statements of "Superintendent ... recalibrated," "shortly after violating," "without informing the public," "the public does not have to be informed" and "news media never reported on this change" are simply false. The consultants' reports have been made available during public presentations and they are also available in the Environmental Impact Report for the Plum Island project.

It can be argued that correcting this problem should have been performed earlier to avoid any potentially negative appearances, that I should have made it my first priority. If I knew during my first two months on the job of the distrust of a select few, I can't now say it would not have changed my priority ranking. However, at the time, since there were significant odor issues and aging infrastructure issues that had to be dealt with immediately, since there is a drastic need to be concerned about costs in implementing capital spending (i.e. you can't do everything you would like to do in Year 1), and since even the effluent meter was reporting under our permitted flow (on an average monthly basis), correcting this problem was put in the moderate-priority category and not the high-priority category.

It should not be lost on the readers how Mr. Robertson chooses to end his letter by advocating for votes for those opposed to the Plum Island project. His letter is nothing more than an attempt to stop a project that is supported by the majority and will benefit every lot on Plum Island.

There has been a lot of rhetoric on this project that has resulted in many unfair characterizations. I have tried to stay above this type of unproductive behavior and I believe I have been successful in providing information and correcting the record when false information has been provided. People's lives are extremely busy these days and they need to know that their public officials are providing them with accurate information. That is why I say for the information I list above, it is available to the public and has been available for many years. Please review the permitting documents for this Plum Island project, the DEP Web site for WWTF permit compliance and the host of other locations where this information is available and/or presented (public libraries, City Council meetings, Sewer Commission meetings, etc.). Should you choose this avenue of information, you will find that all the information I have provided above is accurate and many of Mr. Robertson's accusations are simply not true.

As in the past, I encourage any open-minded persons and other people of fairness who have questions on these issues to attend the next Plum Island Workgroup meeting or Newburyport Sewer Commission meeting.

Brendan O'Regan is supervisor of the Newburyport Sewer Department.


 

 
 
(This article replicated online with permission of the Merrimack River Current.)
 
 
Site Design by Bright iDear   Copyright © 2002-2007 All Rights Reserved
Website: www.BrightiDear.com  Email: Bright-iDear@comcast.net