Fw: Puerto Rico and Clean Water Act
CORALations
corals at caribe.net
Fri Jan 28 16:40:26 EST 2000
We apologize in advance for duplicate postings.
> Attn: National Clean Water Organizations, Marine Conservation
> Organizations, and Puerto Rico Conservation Organizations.
>
> Please sign on to the letter to Carol Browner. We wish to bring to
> her attention EPA Region 2's failure to implement or enforce the Clean
> Water Act in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. EPA is considering
> another Clean Water Act (301h) Waiver for a large public primary Waste
Water
> Treatment Plant [WWTP] with ocean discharge, yet to be constructed in
> Puerto Rico. All pending Clean Water Act (301h) waivers in the United
States
> are located in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands,
> areas graced with biologically diverse coral reef ecosystem. There are no
> public health monitoring programs with associated beach closures in areas
> near primary diffusers in Puerto Rico, and monitoring to safeguard public
> health is much more complicated in warm tropical waters.
>
> Text of letter to Carol Browner and a Background Information document is
copied below. (Sorry, we had trouble with the attachments)
>
> Deadline is February 5th
>
> TO SIGN ON JUST EMAIL YOUR
>
> NAME
> TITLE
> ORG NAME
> ADDRESS
>
> TO: corals at caribe.net
>
> Your support is greatly appreciated.
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PMB 222
5900 Isla Verde Ave. L2
Carolina, PR 00979-4901
1-877-77coral
Sarah Peisch
Community Advisor
Centro de Acción Ambiental
1357 Ashford #187
San Juan, PR 00907
787-250-8551
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> February 5, 2000
>
> Carol Browner
> Administrator
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
> 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
> Suite 3000
> Ariel Rios Building, North
> Washington D.C. 20460
>
> Re: 301(h) Waiver Application: failure to implement the Clean Water Act
in
> Puerto Rico
>
> Dear Ms. Browner:
>
> The undersigned non-government organizations and concerned Puerto Rico
> Representatives and Senators request your attention regarding an urgent
> coastal clean water issue in Puerto Rico. Whereas this petition
> specifically addresses one primary waste water treatment plant waiver
> application, this serves as a vivid example of the extent of the abuse of
> the Clean Water Act in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We have
> expressed these concerns to both Jeanne Fox of Region 2, and Mr. Chuck
Fox
> and have received no adequate response.
>
> EPA Region 2 is currently considering another Clean Water Act 301(h)
waiver
> application for the Dorado Waste Water Treatment Plant, a regional
primary
> sewage treatment plant yet to be built on the north coast of Puerto Rico.
> This 301(h) waiver application has been pending for 18 years, even though
> the statutory deadline for exemptions to secondary waste treatment was
> 1982.
> The enclosed chronology of the administrative record of this pending
waiver
> application clearly demonstrates that Region 2 has abused its discretion
by
> arbitrarily and capriciously granting countless extensions to the Puerto
> Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) to submit a complete 301(h)
> application.
>
> EPA Region 2's inability to implement or enforce Clean Water Act
standards
> for waste water treatment in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands was
> documented in the "Review of EPA's Processing of CWA Section 301(h)
Waivers
> (Audit Report No. E1HWFO-O2- O140-O1OO482, September 18, 1990. Copy
> enclosed). With respect to the pending 301(h) applications, the Office of
> the Inspector General stated that Region 2 "procrastinated in taking
timely
> actions to render decisions or formally deny Puerto Rico and Virgin
Islands
> waiver requests when (I) applications were either incomplete and requested
> information was not timely or completely provided, (ii) applicants refused
> to withdraw tentatively denied applications, (iii) tentative approval
> conditions were not met, and (iv) non-compliance with Administrative
> Order's effluent limits occurred".
>
> Region 2 only denied the Dorado WWTP "first-round" waiver application in
> 1997. The Region then established a deadline for a complete "second
round"
> 301(h) application and required final permits and certifications be
> submitted no later than December 15, 1999. The affected community
> intervened in the local government's permitting process and successfully
> prevented the issuance of final permits to this proposed facility by this
> date. Nevertheless, EPA's Region 2 Regional Administrator has now
> dismissed the December 1999 deadline and has, in effect granted another
> extension for this 18-year pending application. This unjustifiable and
> arbitrary
> rejection of clearly defined deadlines illustrates EPA's failure to
> fulfill
> its statutory responsibility to implement the Clean Water Act in Puerto
> Rico.
>
> We feel that the repeated failure of Region 2 to follow through with
> established deadlines for the Dorado WWTP application and the other six
> pending 301(h) applications for plants built and operating in Puerto Rico
> has contributed to the degradation of valuable tropical marine resources
> and
> has posed a threat to public health. In direct violation to the CWA,
> environmental monitoring of the ocean outfalls of these 301(h) facilities
> was not required for nearly two decades.
>
> We ask that the pending 301(h) waiver application for the Dorado WWTP be
> denied immediately. This is urgent. EPA Region 2 should deny this
> application before the Puerto Rico government issues a final water
quality
> certificate to avoid expensive and lengthy litigation over a 301(h) NPDES
> permit.
>
> To many of us, this decision regarding the use of primary waste water
> treatment was decided by the U.S. Congress 27 years ago, when the Clean
> Water Act was passed. Allowing a new primary plant to be built in the
year
> 2000 was not what the 301(h) waivers were intended for. Primary sewage
> treatment with shallow ocean outfall does not constitute best available
> technology for our biologically diverse tropical coastal waters with
> rapidly
> declining coral reefs, and violates Executive Order 13089, which calls
> Federal Agencies to protect coral reefs.
>
> Your immediate attention is greatly appreciated. We have enclosed copies
of
> documents from the administrative record and a summary of the abuse of
the
> CWA in Puerto Rico.
>
>
> c: Hon. Bruce Babbitt
> Mr. Jeffrey Farrow
> Ms. Ellen Ethas
> Mr. Chuck Fox
> Ms. Jeanne Fox
> Mr. Carl Soderberg
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Background Information - CWA 301(h) Waivers in Puerto Rico
>
> Puerto Rico and the Clean Water Act
>
> All pending CWA 301(h) waiver applications are located in Region 2's
> jurisdiction, specifically Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
These
> Caribbean islands are graced with biologically diverse tropical coastal
> ecosystems and nutrient sensitive coral reefs. In Puerto Rico, three
ocean
> outfalls from the existing primary plants discharge less than a mile
> offshore. These outfall diffusers are located in coastal waters 40 to 100
> feet in depth which do not qualifying as "deep ocean outfalls". The waste
> fields are neither trapped nor diluted. Plume surfacing is common outside
> the mixing zones.
>
> For the past two decades, seven regional primary WWTPs with ocean
discharge
> have been operating in Puerto Rico without the benefit of 301(h)
> environmental monitoring, a clear violation of the CWA. Only one waiver
> has
> been denied, the rest have "tentative" approvals that have been pending
for
> more than ten years.
>
> Proponents for the primary sewage treatment plants in Puerto Rico have
> dramatically increased the discharge flows in the most recent NPDES
permit
> applications. The relatively small island of Puerto Rico currently
> discharges close to 200 million gallons of heavily chlorinated primary
> waste
> water into shallow coastal waters every day. The new NPDES permit limits,
> including the proposed Dorado primary WWTP, would increase these
discharges
> to more than 400 million gallons per day.
>
> The 301(h) program in the United States
>
> The 301(h) program has been implemented in three other EPA regions in an
> extremely different manner from Region 2's implementation in Puerto Rico
> and
> the U.S. Virgin Islands. In Region 1, a total of 16 very small
facilities
> discharge a combined total of only 15.5 million gallons of water per day
> [mgd]. These facilities are located in coastal areas with high tidal
> ranges, between 20 and 25 feet. Region 10 has nine facilities in the
301(h)
> program, which are very remote from most of the urban populations and are
> located in areas of huge flushing and tidal bores. EPA Region 10 also
uses
> an extremely conservative model to calculate dilution, including a worst
> case scenario of "zero" for ocean current velocities in the mixing zone
> model.
>
> The 301(h) program in Region 9 has been most often compared to Puerto
Rico
> because it includes primary facilities in the warmer climates of Hawaii
and
> California. However, the strict requirements for monitoring and
compliance
> do not even remotely resemble the laxity in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin
> Islands. First, California standards are very close to secondary
> treatment,
> requiring 70% to 80% removal of total solids and nearly 60% removal of
> biochemical oxygen demand. Moreover, the facilities discharge into the
> dynamic Pacific Ocean with true deep ocean outfalls, up to 4.5 miles off
> shore in 300 to 400 feet deep waters. Plume surfacing, which transports
> contaminated water outside of the mixing zones in Puerto Rico, does not
> occur at any of the other primary outfalls, according to the EPA
employees
> who direct these programs. In California, state law requires reclamation
of
> waste water, reducing the flows from primary ocean outfalls and
> replenishing
> ground water supplies. In Hawaii, reclamation plans are currently being
> developed. Only in Puerto Rico are plans for the construction of a new
> primary sewage treatment plant with total ocean discharges being approved
> by
> EPA.
>
> The most shocking difference between the programs is the strict 301(h)
> monitoring programs in California and Hawaii, which stress a holistic
> ecosystem approach to monitoring, instead of being "pipe centric" as in
> Puerto Rico. California has incorporated regional monitoring of beaches
> and
> coastal resources, whereas in Puerto Rico we cannot even achieve a
> monitoring program that looks at coral reefs just hundreds of meters from
> the outfalls or sampling for human pathogens on recreational beaches
within
> a mile of the discharges.
>
> Politics vs. Environmental Protection
>
> The Puerto Rico government refers to primary waste water treatment as
> "Puerto Rico Government Policy". The NGOs' commitments to this issue
stems
> from serious concerns regarding the sustainability of primary sewage
> treatment with respect to its impact on our tropical coastal natural
> resources and public health. This concern is shared by the Puerto Rico
> Hotel
> and Tourism Association, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
> Unfortunately, the economic reasoning surrounding these primary plants
> has,
> to date, failed to take into consideration the value of the ecosystem at
> stake and potential costs to public health.
>
> Proponents' Position
>
> The Puerto Rico government and the publicly owned Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and
> Sewer Authority (PRASA) have two arguments for their reliance on primary
> waste water treatment. The first is economic. Proponents contend that
Puerto
> Rico cannot afford to upgrade technology to provide adequate sewage
> treatment. PRASA's second argument is their concern about not being able
to
> operate a secondary WWTP in compliance with the CWA, given their well
> documented inability to operate primary WWTP with ocean discharge in
> compliance with the Act.
>
> The Communities' Response
>
> The people of Puerto Rico are paying the Government of Puerto Rico for
> waste
> water treatment. It is time that we receive waste water treatment, not
> ocean dumping. Despite arguments presented to the local government by
> NGOs, technical experts, other government agencies, and the Puerto Rico
> Hotel and Tourism Association, proponents never factor into their analysis
> for the primary plants, the value of the coastal ecosystem these plants
> impact.
> This translates into big dollars and cents for Puerto Rico tourism. The
> Blue
> Flag tourism ecolabel for safe beaches currently being considered in
Puerto
> Rico, will not consider a beach located near a primary wastewater ocean
> discharge.
>
> Proponents also failed to factor in the long term cost of maintenance of
> the
> primary plants and the extensive trunk systems associated with these
large
> regional facilities. Advanced waste water treatment technologies,
> appropriate for use in the tropics has never been evaluated.
Historically,
> primary sewage treatment plants in Puerto Rico have not serviced the
> coastal
> communities they impact. The same communities who rely heavily on
> subsistence fishing in the area of outfall. They have instead been used
to
> demonstrate infrastructure to support inland development. Poor
communities
> where primary plants have been constructed 20 years ago still have to
> contend with sewage bubbling up in their streets and washing down to the
> sea. The costs associated with impacts to coral reefs and related
> fisheries,
> public health and tourism, outweigh the short term bottom line economic
> benefits proponents mistakenly associate with primary waste water
> treatment.
>
> If properly implemented, the cost of adequate environmental health and
> safety monitoring in this complex tropical marine ecosystem as required
by
> the 301(h) waiver amendment to CWA, would demonstrate that these plants
are
> not cost effective. For example, the isolation of a sewage indicator
> organism, for marine tropical waters and a cost effective method of
> analysis has yet to be accomplished. Bioassays to demonstrate toxicity,
> currently relied upon by EPA, have also been scientifically proven as
> unadaptable for the coral reef ecosystem. Water quality standards for
> Puerto
> Rico are based on uncritical adaptation of standards for cold water
systems
> are not sufficient to protect our coral reefs. The threats presented to
> public and environmental health, with no adequate safeguard mechanisms in
> place, compel us to consider advanced waste water technologies which do
not
> depend on the outdated, and scientific invalid premise that "dilution is
> the
> solution" for our coral reef ecosystem.
>
> In response to the inability to adequately operate waste water facilities
> in
> compliance with the CWA, the people of Puerto Rico are more than
competent
> to operate technologically advanced facilities, as are individuals and
> governments in financially compromised regions as the third world. We
> believe the reasons the primary plants with coastal discharge operate so
> inefficiently in Puerto Rico may have more to do with 1) the failure of
> mixing zones to function as modeled due to the warm, shallow waters in
the
> area of discharge and 2) the repeated failure of Region 2 to follow
through
> with clearly established consequences for compliance with the CWA.
>
> Coral Reef Disease and Threats to the Caribbean Region
>
> A dramatic increase in diseased coral was documented by EPA scientists
> responding to community complaints regarding the Carolina/Loiza WWTP
> diffuser. EPA Region 2 has dismissed the need for long term
environmental
> monitoring of the coral reefs in the region of this diffuser, as required
> by
> section 301(h) of the CWA, stating that the adjacent coral reef is
already
> dead. We contend that "dead" organisms do not contract disease, but
rather
> the propagation of such diseases in this nearby coral reef is indicative
of
> living coral in highly stressed waters. These diseases could potentially
be
> carried by currents to infect corals as far away as other Caribbean
> islands.
> Two decades of non-monitored discharges has most likely killed adjacent
> coral reefs and other important tropical coastal habitat near other
> diffusers. EPA has shifted the burden of proof for environmental impact
> from these diffusers to the shoulders of the community, who cannot
conduct
> studies due to limited resources and the serious health risks associated
> with being in the waters around the diffusers. In this case, EPA is
> allowing
> reef degradation as a result of almost 20 years of discharge from these
> outfalls and cumulative impacts from adjacent river mouths to serve as an
> excuse to dismiss the strict environmental monitoring demanded by CWA
> [301(h)] waivers. Two decades of non-compliant discharges from these
> diffuses has resulted in a serious injustice to poor coastal communities.
>
> Environmental Justice
>
> The failure of EPA Region 2 to implement or enforce CWA constitutes an
> example of environmental injustice against the people of Puerto Rico. An
> EPA
> internal audit, already a decade old, documented Region 2's failure to
> render CWA [301(h)] waiver decisions or formally deny PR and Virgin
Islands
> CWA 301(h) waiver requests in a timely manner. [Audit Report No.
> E1HWFO-O2-O140-O1OO482, September 18, 1990]. These plants are located
in,
> and impact, poor coastal communities who rely heavily on subsistence
> fishing
> and local tourism. The majority of these coastal communities are not
> connected to and do not benefit from the primary WWTP's that actually
> service inland populations and industries.
>
> The Future
>
> Prominent coral reef scientists agree that the decline in coral reef
health
> around the globe is so severe that when we talk about conserving coral
reef
> today, we must address methods to reverse degradation. This translates
into
> improving coastal water quality. Given the knowledge accumulating on the
> sensitivity and importance of our tropical coastal ecosystem, we would
like
> to see EPA begin moving toward the implementation of appropriate tropical
> water quality standards for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. EPA
> must consider abandoning the use of mixing zones, as they have never
> functioned as projected in our warm tropical waters. We would like to see
> EPA recognize and comply with the national objectives to conserve coral
> reefs in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as stated in Executive
> Order 13089. We would like EPA to enforce clean water standards for some
> four million U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico, so our coastal waters
> will
> again, one day, be safe to swim and fish.
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Coral-list-old
mailing list