Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Permit Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clarksburg officials flag fluoride limits and "cause or contribute" language in NPDES draft permit as major risk
Summary
Board members warned a proposed NPDES permit from the state DEP includes a fluoride limit and a "cause or contribute" discharge requirement that could force expensive plant reconfiguration; staff will begin testing and seek outside counsel to challenge or modify permit language.
Clarksburg sanitary officials told the board a draft NPDES permit issued by the state Department of Environmental Protection contains two provisions they consider risky: a fluoride limit based on default stream conditions and a requirement that discharges not "cause or contribute" to stream violations. Board representatives said those provisions could require expensive changes to the wastewater plant if not modified.
A board member who presented the permit concerns said, “We're talking about reconfiguring the plant, reconfiguring our treatment system to remove the fluoride. We don't have a design, but this is our 1 of the world guests. This is a big risk for us.” The speaker also characterized the risk as potentially very costly and said the board's goal is to use data to seek a permit modification rather than immediate treatment installation.
Why it matters: the permit sets regulatory limits that drive capital and operating decisions. Board officials said the fluoride requirement, and a separate discharge standard that says the board’s outfall "can't cause any violation" of stream limits, could create legal exposure and force plant upgrades unless the limits are modified to reflect local receiving-water conditions.
Operations staff member Drew told the board he has started a testing regimen to profile the receiving stream and plant discharges. He said staff will collect data over the next 10 months and that they must “come up with a plan, start with a plan by September and submit to them…we have 3 years to implement if we have to treat it.”
Board members noted the department did accept some comments but not others; the board speaker pointed to recent federal case law when criticizing the DEP’s discharge language, saying the Supreme Court has ruled on similar "cause or contribute" language in litigation and that the board expects to challenge that provision if necessary.
Given the technical and legal complexity, the board speaker recommended hiring outside counsel experienced with water-quality permitting and with working relationships at the DEP; he recommended a specific attorney by name, Mark Price, and said staff and the city manager should coordinate with the city attorney on engagement. The board did not take an immediate vote to hire counsel at the meeting but signaled intent to proceed with testing and legal review.
In his operational report, Drew also told the board the plant treated approximately 390,000,000 gallons of wastewater in April, accepted about 299,525 gallons of septage and generated $11,970.35 in septage revenue; he said staff will continue sampling and working toward a permit modification after collecting the data.
Next steps identified in the discussion include completing the testing regimen over the coming months, preparing and submitting a permit-modification application informed by the data, and coordinating with outside counsel if legal action or formal appeals become necessary.
