When is clean, clean and how much is it going to cost?

Those are questions city officials are asking of the Department of Environmental Management as they assess the implications of increasingly stringent regulations on the city’s wastewater treatment plant aimed at improving the water quality of the Pawtuxet River and Narragansett Bay.

In order to gain approval for the continued discharge of effluent into the river, DEM wants the Warwick Sewer Authority to further reduce the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus, which will require costly improvements to the treatment plant and higher operational costs. The discharge of nitrogen would drop from the current allowable level of 10 milligrams per liter to eight. The drop in phosphorus would be from one to .1 milligrams per liter.

“That’s huge,” says sewer authority Executive Director Janine Burke. Attaining such a significant reduction would require upgrades in the treatment plant that underwent a $35.2 million improvement program in 2004.

The projected cost of further improving the plant is $14 million. Operational expenses, largely chemicals and energy costs, are estimated at an additional $1 million a year. Based on the present number of system users the capital improvements and cost of operation could mean an addition $137 per year.

That doesn’t have officials, who have already been criticized for mounting assessment and operational fees, happy.

The authority has questioned the requirements issued more than a year ago, challenging the need for further reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus when the plant currently operates well within levels of its existing permit. Further, both the mayor and Burke question whether greater environmental benefits would be gained if resources were directed in extending the sewer system rather than upgrading the treatment plant to gain such a finite reduction in pollutants.

Mayor Scott Avedisian raised that issue in a letter to DEM Director Michael Sullivan last September.

“Has a comprehensive analysis been conducted to confirm that spending millions of dollars on further reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus levels at our treatment facility has a greater environmental benefit than the extension of sewers to properties currently serviced by cesspools?” he wrote. Avedisian also asked for a “more reasonable, phased approach” to reducing phosphorus released into the river.

Avedisian, who must sign off on an agreement, said yesterday he wouldn’t make a decision until he has talked with the city solicitor and planning department staff.

The bottom line, he said, “is how much money are we on the hook for over time?”

The DEM would not respond to questions about to this story including whether the same standards have been required of other treatment facilities; who sets the standards and if the extension of the system would yield a greater return for the dollar spent than finite reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus. A spokeswoman for the department said there would be no comment since the WSA and DEM are in the process of negotiating a consent agreement.

In a Nov. 4 letter from the DEM, however, it would appear the sewer authority can’t afford to prolong a decision.

“A delay in signing the current consent agreement will not result in an extension to the deadline to complete the draft Facilities Plan Amendment. Therefore, further delay in awarding the contract will result in less time for the WSA to complete the required planning,” writes Eric Beck, P.E. supervising sanitary engineer for DEM.

Beck goes on to say the WSA “must make a decision” at its Nov. 19 meeting to either approve the agreement or seek a hearing on a permit appeal. Burke offers little hope for a favorable appeal at the DEM level, meaning if the city were to contest permit requirements it would need to carry its argument to Superior Court.

Burke appeared resigned to the consent agreement last Friday. She notes that both Cranston and West Warwick that also operate wastewater treatment plants discharging into the Pawtuxet have signed consent agreements, thereby leaving Warwick alone to question the stricter requirements.

“We have to comply with the permit but we have to find the most cost effective means of doing so,” she said.

Authority Chairman Fred Sullivan isn’t convinced.

“I don’t think DEM has a realistic approach,” he said yesterday, “the reality is that these are hard economic times. How do you pay for this? They demand that you do certain things, but they don’t fund it. I think the City of Warwick has put forth a good faith effort, but we can’t perform miracles.”

Sullivan said the board would meet with its attorneys in executive session prior to the public meeting on Nov. 19. He said he wants to understand what the authority’s options are before signing the agreement or contesting it.

Burke is encouraged that DEM would demand that Warwick meet the new requirements for the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous from April to October, rather than year round. This could serve to reduce operating costs although she doesn’t question they are headed up.

“We need to get more users on board to share the cost. It’s going to help everyone,” she said.

Although the authority reached a consent agreement with the Coastal Resources Management Council when it built sewers in Conimicut requiring mandatory sewer connections, many connect capable homeowners continue to use septic systems and in some cases cesspools. The authority proposed stiff fines for property owners failing to connect but that was rejected by the City Council. State law does demand that a property be connected to the sewers when it is sold or transferred and the authority has aggressively reminded property owners of the connection requirement and provided grants to assist them. Yet more than 5,000 property owners who could connect to the sewers have chosen not to do so.

The issue of mandatory connections and fines is also on the agenda for the Nov. 19 meeting. Burke proposes a mandatory phased-in connection program with a fine equivalent to the annual usage charge.

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the authority shall submit a facilities plan amendment to DEM by Dec. 2010 and upgrades to the treatment plant are to be completed by Sept. 30, 2013. Should the authority fail to comply with any of the schedules outlined on the agreement it “shall pay a stipulated penalty of $1,000 a day for each day and every day it remains in violation of the schedule.”