Current Information
To view/download linked material you will need the
free installation of Adobe
Reader if you don’t already have it.
The District is funding modeling efforts by the
University of Massachusetts and CDM on the Blackstone River which is summarized
in our water quality fact sheet. General results of
our modeling efforts through December, 2009 are provided in an executive summary, and
the full report on water
quality management scenarios, slides
used in a previous public meeting on the model; and minutes of the meeting are provided here. The slides used in an update to the model
that we provided to the Blackstone River Data Team on November 12, 2009 may be
viewed and downloaded here.
District Performance
A discussion of the performance of the District
Facilities, our construction progress and a summary of our audited financial
performance in fiscal year 2008 can be found in our FY 2009 Annual Report. Our financial
performance in fiscal year 2009 is reviewed in our FY ’09 Financial Statement.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Draft Discharge Permit
In March, 2007 the District received a Draft NPDES discharge permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP). The draft permit contains two parts and three attachments. Part I contains discharge limits for the District and Part II is standard EPA language for all permits. Attachment A presents toxicity testing requirements; Attachment B discusses local industrial discharge limits, and Attachment C discusses annual industrial waste pretreatment reporting.
The comment period for the draft permit extended
through May 25, 2007. The District and
its member communities have a number of concerns related to the permit that are
outlined in our newsletter on the permit. Of particular concern are the stringent
limits placed on total nitrogen (TN), and on phosphorus (P). While the
District is dedicated to improving the water quality of the Blackstone River,
we believe that certain conditions in the draft discharge permit are not
warranted based on our current knowledge of the River. These permit conditions are not supported by
current science, and are not justified for several reasons. The permit is an expensive order that fails
to consider $180 million in ongoing capital improvements at the District, and
as such imposes an unfair burden on District ratepayers, many of them members
of Environmental Justice populations.
Without strong scientific evidence, it will require costly treatment
changes that are not environmentally sustainable.
The full text of our comments to EPA and DEP may be viewed and
downloaded here by clicking on the underlined links. The attachments are lengthy, and for convenience we have broken the comments down to our cover letter, a
complete copy of Attachment A; (226
pages) an abbreviated copy of Attachment A (24
pages); and Attachment B (99
pages).