Multilevel Environmental Impact Analysis - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 240

a positive manner on a day-to-day basis, and wastewater was out of sight, out
of mind; thus wastewater management got little attention and less funding,
leading to deterioration of the system, which accelerated over time. MWRA's
mandate was to focus on managing wastewater using a dedicated revenue
stream derived from sewer use charges, which could not be diverted to other
purposes. Finally, because of the litigation and settlement, there was a clear
mandate and resources to address the issue.
The other factor in the negotiated settlement that made a resolution of the
complex wastewater management issue possible was a consent agreement
on a very tight timeline with dozens of interim milestone accomplishments
(e.g., complete facility engineering, finalize environmental analysis docu-
ments, and initiate prototype sludge composting). This consent agreement
was executed by the MWRA and jointly monitored by the judge, the U.S.
EPA, and the State Department of Environmental Protection. Several of the
interim dates in the consent agreement were directed at making decisions on
individual wastewater management issues and thus lessened roadblocks to a
comprehensive solution. This progression of decisions to be executed when
they were “ripe” was ideally suited to a multiphase environmental analysis
to achieve compliance with NEPA.
The first step in the multiphase analysis was outside the scope of NEPA
but had a very large impact on the subsequent NEPA process. There was an
agreement by all parties to exclude the CSO issue from the initial environ-
mental analysis and EIS. The agreement included a “set-aside” minimum vol-
ume of combined sewage to be accommodated within whatever wastewater
treatment and discharge system was ultimately selected. Initially, there was
concern that this approach might constrain the options available during the
subsequent effort to address the CSO issue. However, it was pointed out that
any environmentally acceptable resolution of CSOs that was in compliance
with the regulations and laws would either eliminate CSOs to the point they
were well below the set-aside volume or store the CSO volume and convey it
to whatever wastewater treatment facility was selected during off-peak hours
when there would be excess wastewater treatment capacity. This agreement
divorced the overall wastewater management plan from the complicated, com-
plex, and controversial issues and questions associated with CSOs including:
r What is an acceptable volume of CSO? It is impossible to cap-
ture every storm or construct separate storm and sanitary sewers
throughout a city that is over 300 years old, so there had to be some
provision for overflow during major storms, but was that the storm
with a 10-, 25-, 50-, or 100-year return frequency?
r Where will CSO treatment facilities be located? No one wanted a
combined sewage treatment facility in their neighborhood or back-
yard (“Not in My Backyard”), so trying to site such facilities would
be a long and arduous process and a detail that would not directly
influence the comprehensive wastewater management plan.