Technical Appendix:

Compliance of U.S. Virgin Islands WWTPs

With Section 301(h) Criteria

Our support of EPA’s proposed denial of waivers requested under Clean Water Act Section 301(h) by VIDPW from the Act’s general requirement for secondary treatment in Section 301(b)(1)(B) is based on the analysis presented below, as related to the applicable portions of federal law (33 USC 1311(h)) and regulation (40 CFR 125).

St. Croix WWTP (TPDES Permit No. 0020036)

A). Existence and attainment of applicable water quality standards for all pollutants for which relaxation from secondary requirements is requested. (301(h)(1) and 40 CFR 125.61)

Water quality standards certainly exist, either directly or indirectly, for all of the traditional pollutants for which VIDPW has requested relaxation: dissolved oxygen (BOD), turbidity (TSS) and pH. We concur with EPA’s determination that current plant performance results in contravention of these standards with high frequency at the edge of the mixing zone; issuance of the waiver would continue this unacceptable situation. Moreover, we believe that sewage bypassing results in further water quality standard violations in and near bypass and sewer overflow zones.

In addition, we submit that even fulfilling the criteria under section 301(h) does not release the subject facility from meeting water quality standards and other applicable federal laws and regulations required to be met under Section 301(b)(1)(C). Specifically, the discharge of excessive nitrogen and/or phosphorus into nutrient sensitive coastal waters threatens ecological processes in coral reef and related ecosystems at a variety of scales. While threats to water quality standards for nutrients and/or surrogate standards for plant pigments might be able to be maintained with large-scale dispersion of wastewater, we very strongly believe that excessive loading of nutrients into these systems threatens the ecological integrity of the system, especially essential fish habitats designated by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council. These habitats are required to be protected against federal actions such as the approval of waivers under Section 301(h).

Specific effects include the induction of excessive growth of phytoplankton, the alteration of phytoplankton community structure, the induction of excessive growth and/or alteration of epibenthic algal and vascular plant communities, and the ecological cascades they induce. Alteration of benthic plants distribution patterns may well have serious implications for invertebrate distribution and abundance patterns, settlement success of fish and invertebrate larvae, and a host of other effects. In addition, direct competition for space among sessile forms like corals, sponges and other live-bottom organisms is a major problem known to be associated with nutrient overenrichment in these systems. In addition, prolonged excessive turbidity and other standard violations may well interfere with critical larval development processes that occur at both the air-water interface and the sediment surface interface. Together, these changes threaten the value of this designated essential fish habitat.

Not only is primary treatment inappropriate for WWTPs in close conjunction to coral reef and related hard-bottom systems, so is secondary treatment. Full compliance with numerical and narrative water quality standards, and protection of essential fish habitat, requires tertiary treatment or better, and non-discharge options require full consideration. In any event, such protection must be demonstrated before any waiver is considered.

B). Maintenance of water quality necessary for balanced indigenous populations of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and protection of water supplies and public recreation. (301(h)(2) and 40 CFR 125.62)

We concur with EPA’s determination that inadequate evidence has been presented that the current discharge is compatible with the requirements to protect ecological integrity and human uses of the waters. For the reasons cited above, we believe that even if the plant were brought into compliance with primary treatment levels, a significant threat to ecological integrity would result. Adequate studies are lacking of likely impacts to biota in the vicinity of the proposed deep-water outfall. Hard substrates in the vicinity have not been fully mapped, nor have utilization patterns by fishes and invertebrates been assessed. The current collection and treatment system certainly threatens human recreational uses as well.

C). Adequacy of monitoring systems. (301(h)(3) and 40 CFR 125.63)

Monitoring plans for this discharge are grossly inadequate; plans associated with the waiver are seriously deficient. We concur fully with EPA’s determination in this regard. We will observe that adequate monitoring is a serious matter in these complex ecosystems. Even the much more extensive monitoring protocol and monitoring results from the Regional WWTP at Aguada in Puerto Rico have serious deficiencies.

D). No additional impacts on other point or non-point sources. (301(h)(4) and 40 CFR 125.64)

We tentatively concur with EPA’s finding that no significant additional restrictions are likely to result from waiver issuance. However, we note that reliance on primary treatment would undoubtedly limit the utility of the WWTP to any future industry, and result in significant additional burdens on such industries. We also note that significant non-point source problems occur around the island, which are exacerbated by failures within the existing sewage collection and treatment system.

E). Urban area pretreatment programs and toxics control programs. (301 (h)(5-6) and 40 CFR 125.65-66)

We tentatively concur with EPA’s determinations that a pretreatment program is not required, and that the nonindustrial source toxic control program is inadequate.

F). No increase in flows and discharge loads from the plant. (301(h)(7) and 40 CFR 125.67)

We disagree with EPA’s finding that the St. Croix WWTP complies with this requirement of 301(h). The use of only a five-year time window for projections of load and volume increases begs the question of longer-term load and volume control. The island’s population is increasing fairly rapidly, and new construction is rampant in and near the service area. We believe that waiver issuance would result in enhanced delivery of pollution loads and volumes into sensitive waters with detrimental effects. Certainly nutrient loads would increase through time, with serious potential consequences.

G). Primary or equivalent treatment; water quality criteria met after mixing. (301(h)(9) and 40 CR 125.60)

We agree with EPA’s determination that the St. Croix plant does not fulfill the requirement for primary or equivalent treatment. Performance for the past few years has been abysmal, typically failing to meet primary equivalent levels (30% reduction in BOD and TSS) and permit requirements (30% reduction in BOD, 50% reduction in TSS). Given the known failures of this plant and collection system, the reporting failure between March 1999 and February 2000 is heinous; tough enforcement action should result.

St. Thomas/Charlotte AmalieWWTP (TPDES Permit No. 0020044)

A). Existence and maintenance of applicable water quality standards for all pollutants for which relaxation from secondary requirements is requested. (301(h)(1) and 40 CFR 125.61)

As with the St. Croix plant, territorial water quality standards certainly exist, either directly or indirectly, for all of the traditional pollutants for which VIDPW has requested relaxation: dissolved oxygen (BOD), turbidity (TSS) and pH. We concur as well with EPA’s determination that current plant performance results in contravention of these standards – with high frequency – at the edge of the mixing zone.

As with St. Croix, we submit that even fulfilling the criteria under section 301(h) does not release the subject facility from meeting water quality standards and other applicable federal laws and regulations required to be met under Section 301(b)(1)(C). Specifically, the discharge of excessive nitrogen and/or phosphorus into nutrient sensitive coastal waters threatens ecological processes in coral reef and related ecosystems at a variety of scales, threatening both water quality and the integrity of essential fish habitats. We adopt the same posture with respect to these problems as with St. Croix, above.

We conclude that not only is primary treatment inappropriate for WWTPs in close conjunction to coral reef and related hard-bottom systems, so is secondary treatment. Full compliance with numerical and narrative water quality standards, and protection of essential fish habitat will require at least tertiary treatment at this plant – and non-discharge options should be considered.

B). Maintenance of water quality necessary for balanced indigenous populations of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and protection of water supplies and public recreation. (301(h)(2) and 40 CFR 125.62)

We concur with EPA’s determination that inadequate evidence has been presented that the current discharge is compatible with the requirements to protect ecological integrity and human uses of the waters. Such a showing requires detailed monitoring of many ecosystem attributes, which has not been done. Modeling purported mixing zone characteristics is inadequate. We expect that studies with adequate experimental design would reveal clear and distinct impacts of this discharge, given its very poor quality.

As with St. Croix, we seriously doubt whether even full compliance with existing effluent limitations with mitigate the significant threat to ecological integrity associated with this plant.

C). Adequate monitoring systems. (301(h)(3) and 40 CFR 125.63)

Monitoring plans for this discharge are also inadequate. Our review of the more comprehensive program at Puerto Rico’s Aquada Regional WWTP make clear how challenging it is to implement an adequate monitoring program in this regard. The plans associated with the waiver are seriously deficient. We disagree with EPA’s conclusions in this regard.

D). No additional impacts on other point or non-point sources. (301(h)(4) and 40 CFR 125.64)

We tentatively concur with EPA’s finding that no significant additional restrictions are likely to result from waiver issuance. However, we note – as with St. Croix – that reliance on primary treatment would undoubtedly limit the utility of the WWTP to any future industry, and result in significant additional burdens on such industries. We note, again, that significant non-point source problems occur around the island, which are exacerbated by failures within the existing sewage collection and treatment system.

E). Urban area pretreatment programs and toxics control programs. (301 (h)(5-6) and 40 CFR 125.65-66)

We tentatively concur with EPA’s determinations that a pretreatment program is not required. However, we question the adequacy of the proposed nonindustrial source toxic control program (especially in view of recent oil disposal problems on the island).

F). No increase in flows and discharge loads from the plant. (301(h)(7) and 40 CFR 125.67)

We disagree with EPA’s finding that the St. Thomas WWTP complies with this requirement of 301(h). The use of only a five-year time window for projections of load and volume increases begs the question of longer-term load and volume control. St. `Thomas’s population is increasing fairly rapidly, and new construction is occurring in and near the service area. We believe that waiver issuance would result in enhanced delivery of pollution loads and volumes into sensitive waters with detrimental effects. Certainly nutrient loads would increase through time, with serious potential consequences.

G). Primary or equivalent treatment attained; water quality criteria met after mixing. (301(h)(9) and 40 CR 125.60)

We agree with EPA’s determination that the St. Thomas plant does not fulfill the requirement for primary or equivalent treatment. Performance for the past few years has been poor and variable, often failing to meet primary equivalent levels (30% reduction in BOD and TSS) and permit requirements (30% reduction in BOD, 60% reduction in TSS).

Caribbean Fisheries Management council. 1998. Essential fish habitat generic amendment to the fishery management plans of the U.S. Caribbean, including a draft environmental assessment. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 2 vols.

Lindeman, K.C., R. Pugliese, G.T. Waugh and J.S. Ault. 2000. Developmental patterns within a multispecies reef fishery: management applications for essential fish habitats and protected areas. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66(3):929-956.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Essential fish habitat: new marine fish habitat conservation mandate for federal agencies. NMFS SERO. Not paginated.