|You are here: Main / Customer Services / Public Communications Division / 2008 / City Delivers Sand Island WWTP Response To EPA|
CITY DELIVERS SAND ISLAND WWTP RESPONSE TO EPA
The City and
“The tentative decision by the EPA is not only unreasonable and unnecessary, but it would place a huge financial burden on our taxpayers,”
The city received its first waiver in 1991, and the EPA granted the city its current waiver in 1998. The EPA has reversed its position even though the reliability of the SIWWTP today has improved since 1998 to meet the waiver conditions and more than a decade of monitoring the environment at and around the outfall as well as reference stations confirms no detrimental impact from the discharge.
The city provided significant data and information in support of its position for continuing the waiver.
Part I of the response provides a brief overview of the City’s analysis of EPA’s TD, and the bases for the City’s conclusion that the TD is arbitrary and unreasonable. The EPA granted the City its current waiver in 1998, and now reverses itself even though (1) the reliability of the SIWWTP today to meet the waiver conditions has improved since 1998 and, (2) more than a decade of monitoring the environment at and around the outfall and at reference stations confirms no detrimental impact from the SIWWTP discharge.
In Part II, the City discusses in detail the nine criteria that the EPA must consider in its decision, pursuant to the Clean Water Act. It specifically refutes the three bases for the EPA’s decision: (1) pesticides chlordane & dieldrin, (2) ammonia, (3) whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests.
First, pesticide levels are either within EPA’s own recommended criteria for the protection of human health or are false positives. Second, the allegedly high levels of ammonia are based on an erroneous application of the applicable water quality standards and are contradicted by real-world evidence from the marine environment. Third, the species identified
by EPA for determination of existing SIWWTP Permit and water quality standard compliance, Ceriodaphnia dubia, consistently passes WET evaluations. In contrast, the species relied upon by EPA’s denial – T. gratilla – has not been approved by EPA as the basis for water quality standard compliance determinations.
Part III, discusses the economic impact of the costs of secondary treatment, in light of the financial hardships that
“The city made an extremely strong case for continuing the waiver that has been in place since 1998,”
Markus Owens, 768-3454
|Monday, April 21, 2008|