City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority

1 Elizabeth Street - Derby, CT 06418

(203) 736 1475
Mr. Robert Klee Commissioner
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Date:

September 28, 2015

Subject: Response to Order AOWRMU15003

Dear Mr. Klee:
The City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority is in receipt of your Order
AOWRMU15003 issued by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (DEEP) on August 3, 2015. As such, we offer this initial response relative to the
Order and recent wastewater planning and management updates.
We are pleased to report that several of the major items of this Order have already been
completed, constructed, and/or provided to CT-DEEP. In addition, some items issued in the
Order need to be clarified. To this extent, the City of Derby WPCA issues the following
responses, clarifications, and additional information relative to the Order. Upon your review of
this information, we look forward to meeting you on-site to discuss these items, and then
conducting a follow-up workshop at DEEP to discuss these updates and the action items listed
in the Order.
Item A
Item A.1

The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (the Commissioner)

finds:
The City of Derby (the Municipality) owns and operates a sanitary sewerage
system, including a sewage treatment facility (the facility) that discharges
treated sanitary sewage under the terms and conditions of NPDES Permit No.
CT 0100161 (the permit).

Response A.1
Item A.2

This information is correct.

The facility has an unpermitted structure for bypass and flood stage pumping
which, when in use, allows the untreated sewage to be discharged to the
Housatonic River.

Response A.2

We do not believe that the WPCF has any unpermitted bypass structures. All
wastewater that is conveyed to the WPCF is treated by the WPCF and
discharged to the Housatonic River. In the past, the WPCF had a highwater
bypass opening at the influent pumping station. This opening had been
permitted when the WPCF was constructed in 1964. However, this bypass
opening was obstructed in 2000 as part of the WPCF upgrades project that
was reviewed, approved and funded by DEEPsClean Water Fund (CWF)
Program. The bypass opening is now sealed by the installation of a sluice

gate. According to the operations staff, the sluice gate has not been
utilizedsince the upgrade. A photograph of the sluice gate is provided below.

Please note that the overflow structures description issummarized in Section

9.4.1.2 of the City of Derbys Wastewater Facilities Planning Studya copy of
which is on file with DEEP.
In addition, the WPCA is willing to tack weld the gate in its closed position to
eliminate any concern related to high flow conditions.
Item A.3

The facility was constructed in 1964 and last upgraded in 1973 and is now
operating 22 years beyond its design life. Therefore, the mechanical reliability of
the entire physical facility is lessening due to its significant age.

Response A.3

The Order states that the City of Derby Water Pollution Control Facility was
constructed in 1964 and upgraded to secondary treatment in 1973. However,
we also clarify that the most recent upgrades to the WPCF were completed in
2000, which were also reviewed and funded by DEEPs CWF Program.
As part of the 2000 upgrades, an MLE system was installed for the purpose
of nitrogen removal. DEEP records indicate that Derby has received
substantial Nitrogen Removal Credit payments resulting from the treatment
levels afforded by these upgrades. The 2000 upgrades project included the
following components:
Installation of a sluice gate on the influent pumping station overflow.
See Response A.2 above for additional information.
Replacement of the influent wastewater pumps
Installation of a sewage grinder in the influent channel
Structural repairs and modifications to the primary clarifiers
Process Modifications for the incorporation of an MLE process within
the aeration basins
A new fine bubble diffused aeration system with a new Positive
displacement blower.
Installation of new emergency generators
Modifications to the secondary clarifiers
A new sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfate chemical feed
system

Please note that the information about the 2000 upgrades is referenced in
Section 9.1.4.2 of the City of Derbys Wastewater Facilities Planning Study
where reference is made to the overflow being sealed (See Response A.2).
Item A.4

Within the last few years the facility has conducted some temporary and/or
permanent modifications to the treatment facility without the Commissioners
approval, which is in violation of Section 4(O) of the permit.

Response A.4

Section 4(O) of the current copy of the Derby NPDES permitstates:

The permittee shall operate and maintain all processes as installed in
accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as outlined in
the associated operation and maintenance manual. This includes but is
not limited to all recycle pumping systems, aeration equipment, aeration
tank cycling, mixing equipment, anoxic basin, chemical feed systems,
effluent filters or any other process equipment necessary for the optimal
removal of pollutants. The permittee shall not bypass or fail to operate
any of the approved process equipment without the written approval of
the Commissioner.
The WPCF is currently operated in accordance with the Operations and
Maintenance Manual which was reviewed and approved by CT DEP following
the 2000 upgrades. No process modifications have been made since the
2000 upgrades, although several pieces of equipment that recently failed
were replaced. Continuous and unchanged operation of the facility was
maintained during these replacements by using the installed standby
components, as designed and noted in the Operations and Maintenance
Manual. We believe that replacement of a piece of failed equipment is part of
routine operation and maintenance and not subject to the requirements of
Section 4(O).
A sludge pumping modification was completed by WPCA staff to allow the
transfer of thickened sludge cake from the existing rotary drum thickener to
the primary sludge well prior to dewatering on the existing belt filter press.
The WPCF was designed and permitted to allow thickened sludge to be
dewatered on the existing belt filter press. As the dewatered sludge cake
was wet, the WPCA staff adjusted the feed point for the thickened sludge,
moving it from the existing belt filter press to the primary sludge well in an
effort to improve operations and sludge cake quality and to reduce
operational costs. The feed point change increased the sludge cake dryness
and resulted in an operational cost savings while maintaining the WPCF
compliance with all effluent discharge requirements. In addition, the WPCA
staff noticed that the dewatering filtrate was cleaner after these
adjustments.

Item A.5

The Departments inspection conducted on April 28, 2015 shows the facility to be
poorly operated and in overall disrepair due to its age and the lack of adequately
trained facilities personnel. A number of data reporting violations and nonfunctioning equipment were noted in the inspection report and an NOV was
issued on May 19, 2015.

Response A.5

We are concerned about the term poorly operated. Therefore, the WPCA is
requesting that DEEP clarify the intent of thepoorly operated term, as this
appears to be subjective. For example,review of the payments made to
Derby through the Nitrogen Credit Trading Program over the past 15 years
suggestthat Derby has been and remains at the forefront of nitrogen removal
in the state. A WPCF that is poorly operated and in overall disrepair due to
its age and lack of adequately trained facilities personnelas noted in Item A.5
would not be capable of maintaining consistent compliance with its effluent
pollutant limits and optimized Nitrogen removal over the past 15 years.
With regards to the WPCF personnel, all facility personnel possess the
appropriate licenses and training to complete their assigned positions. A
copy of each persons job description along with a copy of their license is
attached to this response.
To date, the WPCA has not received any correspondence from DEEP
regarding the Citys response to the May 19, 2015 NOV. The decision by
DEEP to issue the currentOrder without providing a formal response to the
WPCAs corrective action plan from the May 19, 2015 NOV is concerning, as
it did not give the WPCA a chance to correct any of the remaining issues from
the May 19, 2015 NOV. Further, we believe that some of the elements of this
current Order are factually inaccurate, and many elements of the Order have
already been resolved.
Some elements of this Order (see sections below) do not relate to the issues
from the May 19, 2015 NOV. This Order requires Derby to re-evaluate its
plan of upgrading the WPCF and the financials of shutting down the WPCF
and pumping to the City of Ansonia. The financials of shutting down the
Derby WPCF and pumping to the Ansonia WPCF have already been
thoroughly studied and found to be cost prohibitive to the City of Derby.
Further, execution of the interconnection would require another substantial
upgrade to the Ansonia WPCF, adding costs to both cities.The Derby WPCA
has had numerous meetings with CT DEEP and representatives from
Ansonia to review the facts, the data, and the financials on this issue, all of
which are presented in Section 8 of the recently completed Derby
Wastewater Facilities Planning Study. DEEP has reviewed this document
and has asked the WPCAs Engineer, the WPCF superintendent, and the
WPCA, off the record, to change the findings and recommendations of
Wastewater Facilities Planning Study, which the WPCA is not inclined to do.
We request a meeting with DEEP to review these issues relative to any new
data from DEEP that may impact the alternatives analysis of the Facilities
Plan.

Item A.6

The Municipality has prepared a report entitled City of Derby, Water Pollution
Authority, Wastewater Facilities, and Planning Study which was received by the

commissioner in January, 2013, but not approved. This report recommended a

major process and mechanical upgrade of the plant to be divided in three phases
with the first phase to be completed in 2018, the second phase in 2027 and the
last phase in 2032.
Response A.6

Based on a2014 telephone discussion with DEEPstaff, following DEEPs

review of the Wastewater Facilities Plan, the WPCA was informed that it was
the practice of DEEP to not approve any Wastewater Facilities Planning
Studies. The logic provided was that once a Facilities Plan is approved
DEEP must begin the CEPA process and provide adequate funding for the
proposed actions. It wasalso noted that DEEP does not have the resources
to conduct the CEPA process as well as to provide funding for the
recommended upgrades to the Derby WPCF.
The Wastewater Facilities Planning Study recommended a phased approach
to the upgrades. The logic behind this recommendation is as follows:
The WPCA had needs for upgrades to three of the four wastewater
pumping stations. As these pumping stations were vintage 1960s
stations and the WPCA has been trying for the past 20 years to
upgrade the pumping stations the WPCA placed a priority on these
projects. The upgrades to the wastewater pumping stations are
anticipated at $13.40 million. The design of the wastewater pumping
station upgrades is currently underway. In November 2014 the
citizens of the City of Derby voted in favor of the wastewater pumping
station upgrades as part of the WPCA Capital Improvements
Referendum.
The WPCF as currently configured has a permitted capacity of 3.50
MGD, a conventional treatment capacity of 3.50 MGD, a nutrient
removal capacity through the MLE process of 2.0 MGD and an
average daily flow of 1.60 MGD. The MLE process was installed as
part of the 2000 upgrade. No growth has occurred in the City of
Derby in past 15 years as the average daily flow has remained around
1.60 MGD. Due to this the WPCF as currently configured has an
available remaining nutrient removal capacity of 0.40 MGD.
The Wastewater Facilities Planning Study identified a future flow of
approximately 2.40 MGD. The majority of this additional flow will be
generated from sources outside the current collection system,
including the Town of Seymour. As these flows do not currently exist
and may not exist in the current economic environment, the WPCA
did not feel it was appropriate to spend additional money to modify the
WPCF process for flows that do not currently exist. As such, the plan
for upgrades to the WPCF recommended a phased approach. Phase
I includes upgrades to the solids handling systems and headworks.
Phase II includes upgrades to the primary settling system, and Phase
III includes process modifications for additional Nitrogen removal. The
study recommends that Phase II and IIIonly be implemented once the
WPCF flows approach 2.0 MGD. The design of the Phase I WPCF
upgrades was broken into two sub-phases. The first sub-phase is the

solids dewatering system with the second sub-phase being the

remaining Phase I items. The solids dewatering upgrades are bidready, and the design of the remaining Phase I upgrades is currently
underway. In November 2014, the citizens of the City voted in favor
of the WPCF upgrades as part of the WPCA Capital Improvements
Referendum.
As part of the wastewater facilities planning study, a regionalization
concept was investigated with the Cities of Ansonia and/or Shelton.
The City of Shelton declined to participate. The City of Ansonia was
interested in receiving flows from the Derby. The analysis, which is
outlined in the wastewater facilities planning study, shows that the
City of Ansonia does not have wetweather capacity to accommodate
the current flows from Derby, and would require an immediate
upgrade if the flows from both communities were combined. The
combined current average daily flow of both communities is 3.40
MGD. The Ansonia WPCF is currently permitted for 3.50 MGD. The
combined future flow from both communities, as presented in their
wastewater facilities planning studies, is approximately 4.60 MGD
(2.20 MGD from Ansonia and 2.40 MGD from Derby). The cost to the
City of Derby to connect to the City of Ansonia is approximately 3
times more expensive than the Phase I through Phase III upgrades
recommended for the Derby WPCF. The interconnection to the City
of Ansonia is currently not feasible, is cost prohibitive to the City of
Derby and does not offer the Derby users an improved financial
alternative to its own WPCF. Ansonias 2005 Wastewater Facilities
Planning Study notes on Page 2-8 that the existing service population
from the City of Derby will remain the same as such it has no plans to
receive and/or treat any additional flows from the City of Derby.
The ability to pay for additional capital improvementsbeyond the
recommended plan in the Wastewater Facilities Planning Study does
not exist in the City of Derby. The city believes that collection of
WPCA revenues is at peak capacity, without the added burden of a
major upgrade to the WPCF plus all the additional capital needs of the
collection system.
Item A.7

By virtue of the above, pollution by the Municipality exists and can be reasonably
be anticipated in the future.

Response A.7

The Derby WPCF is not polluting the waters of the State. DEEP is making an
overreaching assumption that pollution can be reasonably anticipated in the
future fromthe Derby WPCF. We do not believe this is accurate, nor does
the past effluent data suggest this. Attached please find the past 10 years of
monthly operating reports. This information is also on file with DEEP.
The Derby WPCA has provided facts in its responses to Items A.1 through
A.7. Therefore, we believe that DEEPs Items A.1 through A.7 have been
addressed. The Derby WPCA respectfully requests that DEEP reconsider its
position, and consider rescinding several elements of this Order.

Item B
Item B.1.A

The Commissioner, acting under Sections 22a-6, 2a-424, 22a-428 and 22a-431 of
the Connecticut General Statutes, orders the Municipality as follows:
On or before December 1, 2015, the Municipality shall provide a description in a
tabular form of all modifications performed at the facility since January 1, 2010.

Response B.1.A The above requested information was provided to CT DEEP in the NOV
response letter dated June 9, 2015. A copy of the letter is attached. In
addition to the attached letter, the tabular format of modifications to the
WPCF is summarized below (includes excerpts from June 9, 2015 NOV):
B. Modifications to Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) pumping
Modifications were not made to the WAS pumping system. However
modifications were made to the thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS)
pumping system. These modifications were made after the mixers failed
in the TWAS sludge holding tank attached to the aerobic digesters. Due
to upgrades to the solids handling system (which were in design at the
time) and the high cost of replacing the mixers a temporary more
affordable solution was sought. After discussions with the operations
staff the TWAS piping arrangement was installed to allow TWAS to be
wasted to the primary sludge well. By wasting the TWAS to the primary
sludge well, the TWAS and primary sludge are allowed to mix in the
primary sludge well prior to dewatering on our belt filter press. The
process modification results in the same result which is the mixing of the
TWAS and primary sludge prior to dewatering on our belt filter press.
Originally the TWAS and primary sludge were mixed in the TWAS sludge
holding tank attached to the aerobic digester prior to dewatering.
The area where the hose was splashing TWAS onto the ground has been
repaired. During the winter the TWAS transfer pipe from the secondary
control building froze and a temporary hose was installed (note: this is a
temporary fix on a temporary fix!). The pipe has been returned to its
original configuration and discharges inside the primary sludge well at or
below the water level which minimizes splashing. As you are aware the
City is currently in the process of re-bidding our upgrades to the solids
handling system. The solids handling system will eliminate this temporary
piping arrangement all together and will provide a more flexibility with
regards to the solids processing system as well as process redundancy of
equipment which is desperately needed.
In the future all modifications to the WPCF, no matter how small or
insignificant, will be reported to DEEP. In an effort to provide full
disclosure the following modifications were recently completed:
1. We replaced the submersible anoxic mixers with vertical shaft anoxic
mixers. We received a rebate from UI to complete this work. This
was completed approximately 6 months ago.
2. We replaced the hypochlorite feed system as the chemical
storagehad reach the end of their useful life and the pumps were

severely corroded. This was completed approximately one year ago.

The entire system had exceeded its life expectancy.
3. We replaced our two 200 HP centrifugal blowers with one 100 HP
high speed turbo blower. We received a rebate from UI to complete
this work. The 200 HP blower was only utilized as a backup for
emergencies as it caused operational problems with the fine bubble
aeration system (2000 upgrade) and process control. This was
completed approximately 3 years ago.
4. Modifications to influent pump #3 were completed. As part of the
modifications, the motor for pump number 3 was removed and
rewound, the drive shaft and rotating assembly were removed. A new
impeller was installed and the rotating assembly was modified to
directly couple with the motor. Close-coupling the pump alleviated
chronic vibration problems and bearing failures.
Item B.1.B

On or before December 1, 2015, the Municipality shall provide a job description

for each person employed at the facility, including duties and responsibilities.

Response B.1.B The current job descriptions of every WPCA employee are attached. In
addition to the job descriptions, the licenses of all WPCA employees are also
provided.
Item B.2.
a. On or before September 30, 2015, the Municipality shall retain one or more
qualified consultants acceptable to the Commissioner to prepare the
documents and implement or oversee the actions required by this order and
shall, by that date, notify the Commissioner in writing of the identity of such
consultants. The Municipality shall retain one or more qualified consultants
acceptable to the Commissioner until this order is fully complied with, and,
within ten days after retaining any consultant other than the one originally
identified under this paragraph, the Municipality shall notify the Commissioner
in writing of the identity of such other consultant. The consultant(s) retained
shall be qualified professional engineer licensed to practice in Connecticut and
shall be acceptable to the Commissioner. The Municipality shall submit to the
Commissioner a description of a consultants education, experience, and
training which is relevant to the work required by this order within ten days
after a request for such a description. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude
the Commissioner from finding a previously acceptable consultant
unacceptable.
b. On or before June 30, 2016, the Municipality shall submit to the Commissioner
for his review and written approval an Engineering Report for either the
modernization of the entire treatment facility or its abandonment and the
redirection of wastewater to other permitted facility and a schedule for
implementing the recommended alternative. In no case shall the completion
date for such work be later than December 31, 2020.

c. On or before December 31, 2017, the Municipality shall submit to the

Commissioner for his review and written approval a set of Plans and
Specifications for the implementation of the recommended alternative
contained in the Engineering Report.
d. On or before April 30, 2018, the Municipality shall verify that construction for
facility recommended alternative has begun. In no event shall the construction
be completed by later than December 31, 2020. Within fifteen days after
completing such actions, the Municipality shall certify to the Commissioner in
writing that the actions have been completed as approved.
e. On or before February 28, 2021 the Municipality shall verify that the
recommended alternative is in operation.
f.

The Municipality may request that the Commissioner approve, in writing,

revisions to any documents approved hereunder in order to make such
document consistent with law or for any other appropriate reason.

Response B.2

The information that is requested by DEEP in Item B.2.C is currently provided

in Section 8.0 and Section 10.0 of the Derby Wastewater Facilities Planning
Study. An interconnection analysis, which was provided to the City of
Ansonia WPCA for their use is also attached.
The Derby WPCA has met on numerous occasions with DEEP to discuss the
WPCF upgrades as well as a possible interconnection with the City of
Ansonia. A detailed and thorough evaluation of both alternatives was
conducted and is presented in the Wastewater Facilities Planning Study.
The following additional information should be considered:
1. Prior to proceeding with the Derby WPCA Capital Improvements
Referendum, several financial models were prepared to review the
anticipated debt service as well as the ability to pay. Based on the
financial model as well as the current collections rate the WPCA and the
City Board of Alderman agreed that the $31 million WPCA Capital
Improvements Referendum was financially viable. The financial model
indicated that the $260 annual debt service payment (for a single family
home) while financial viable would place a significant financial burden on
ratepayers.
2. The WPCF modernization upgrades, which were approved by the City of
Derby voters, are anticipated to cost a typical single family home
approximately $130 per year for 30 years on top of their $365 per year
sewer bill (i.e. $495).
The entire WPCA Capital Improvements
Referendum (WPCF, pumping stations and sewers) are anticipated to
cost a typical single family home approximately $260 per year for 30
years on top of their $365 per year sewer bill (i.e. $625). If the upgrades
were to be abandoned and the WPCF decommissioned and pumped to
Ansonia it is anticipated that the cost to a typical single family home for
the WPCA Capital Improvements Referendum (removing the WPCF
portion) and the interconnection would be approximately $520 per year

for 30 years on top of their $365 per year sewer bill. A sewer bill of $885
per year for a single family home is not deemed financially feasible for the
City of Derby.
3. The Derby WPCA is currently in the process of conducting a $15.0 million
modernization upgrade to the WPCF. The upgrades are proceeding
without CT DEEP Clean Water Funding. In November 2014 the citizens
of the City of Derby overwhelmingly voted in favor of the WPCF
modernization upgrades as part of the WPCA Capital Improvements
Referendum.
The modernization upgrades are anticipated to be
completed by 2018.
4. The Derby WPCA and the Ansonia WPCA have met several times and
have been discussing and planning for nearly a year on the possibility of
processing the sludge generated by the Ansonia WPCF at the Derby
WPCF. Based on a cost analysis, this regional concept may be a viable
cost saving option for both communities. As noted above, the upgrades
to Derbys Solids Dewatering System are bid-ready, and once these
upgrades are completed, cooperation and regionalization between
Ansonia and Derby can be further considered. Correspondence between
the two WPCAs regarding this concept is attached hereto for your use.
Based on the inaccuracies presented in this Order, as well as the additional facts and
information provided within this response, the City of Derby WPCA respectfully requests that the
Commissioner immediately rescind all or the majority of this Order. The City of Derby WPCA
would be more than happy to meet with the Commissioner as well as other members of the
DEEP staff to discuss the items outlined in this order.
Respectfully submitted,
The City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority
Ms. Beth M. Allaire
Mr. William Bolland
Ms. Carolyn Duhaime Chairman
Mr. Robert Miani
Ms. Rose Marie Pertoso
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Derby WPCA NOV Response Letter to CT DEEP dated June 9, 2015.

Current job description of each WPCA employee, including duties and responsibilities.
License of all WPCA employees.
Ansonia / Derby Interconnection Analysis, dated March 2014.
Ansonia Letter to Derby WPCA regarding regionalization of solids handling facilities.

CC:

Mr. Michael Fedak

U.S. E.P.A. New England
Office of Environmental Stewardship (SEW)
Mr. Denis Greci
CT DEEP Supervising Sanitary Engineer
Ms. Stela Marusin
CT DEEP Sanitary Engineer III
Ms. Anita Dugatto
Mayor City of Derby
Board of Alderman
City of Derby
Mr. Lindsay King
WPCA Superintendent City of Derby
Mr. Thomas Welch
Corporation Council City of Derby
Ms. Jean Perry Phillips
Pullman and Comley, LLC
Outside Council City of Derby
Christopher Wester, PE
Weston & Sampson
Anthony DeSimone, PE
Weston & Sampson