|
Well, it took about a year and a half but we finally settled our appeal of the NPDES permit for the Brockton Sewer Plant. It was a miserable undertaking as for time spent arguing with lawyers and regulators who insist that 2+2 = 5, 6, 7, or 20, anything but 4. I ask myself now, should I write how I feel or should I be good? My experience taught me that government agencies don’t always do a very good job of overseeing the government. Politics, greed, complacency, ignorance all play a role to varying degrees. Despite layer upon layer of government agencies and administrations the last and often only line of defense for our treasures both natural and otherwise is us. For those of us experienced in such endeavors the above is hardly a revelation, however, a lot of young people bop around on this site. Much of this is for you. If you see a wrong, question it, learn it, challenge it, and change it. It’s your right and perhaps more importantly your responsibility. Along the way you will find plenty of liars and frauds in the government, however, you will also find some of the finest people to be found. Work with them and good things will happen. It wasn’t long after becoming involved with the Brockton sewer plant that I realized it was going to be a long haul. The local MA DEP office was blind to the gross pollution in the river and EPA was detached from on the ground affairs at the plant. Deciding that some public awareness might be helpful we organized a shoreline survey of the river with the Ma Riverways Adopt A Stream Program. We had a good turnout for our first meeting, local residents, along with some college and high school students. A couple residents approached me before the start of the meeting and explained that they hunted and fished in the area. They told me what a filthy mess the river was and how someone needed to clean it up, I agreed. We then took our seats and began the meeting. I began by explaining that the task we were undertaking was not an easy one. It would likely take several years and a lot of time and effort. When I finished one fellow I spoke with before the meeting got up and began to rant about the inequities of it all, that it should not take so long. He seemed certain that someone out in the government would fix it without all the effort of which I spoke. Again, I explained my experience up to that point. The agencies charged with the task of regulating this plant were not doing their jobs, and they will not do it unless we force them. He became indignant at that point, made a couple ignorant comments regarding our meeting and with great bravado stomped out with his friend, never to return. Looking back it was something of an Orwellian moment. For those of you familiar with 1984 by George Orwell think, Two Minutes Hate. The two fellows that marched out of the room were, by the fact they came to the meeting interested in cleaning up the river. They were frustrated and angry with the governments’ indifference toward the blatant and gross pollution of the river. To them the government was impenetrable; they were wanting but not willing. Rather than venting their frustration by joining us in a constructive effort to get the job done, they choose to vent at us, as if we were the enemy. Our group became their Two Minutes Hate. They vented their anger and no doubt felt relived; however, it did nothing to solve the problem. I run across the attitude displayed by those two fellows quite often, at the coffee shop, work, at family affairs and on the internet in blogs and forums. It’s the frustration of the wanting but unwilling. The vented anger and frustration quell the individual for the moment but do nothing to solve the problem. It becomes a cyclical sort of frustration and anger. It’s not a healthy way to live, believe me I have tried it. "His mind slid away into the labyrinth of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe democracy was impossible and that the party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself that was the ultimate subtly: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word “doublethink” involved the use of doublethink." George Orwell 1984 Below is our appeal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clerk of the Board, Environmental Appeals Board Colorado Building 1341 G Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: NPDES Permit No. MA0101010 Petition for Review
Dear Clerk of the Board:
Enclosed herewith please find the original and five copies of a Petition for
Review for the subject NPDES permit.
Sincerely,
Timothy A Watts
Douglas H Watts
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of:
The City of Brockton NPDES Appeal No. _________
Brockton Advanced Wastewater Facility
NPDES Permit No. MA0101010
Timothy A. Watts
Douglas H. Watts
Petitioners.
____________________________________
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to 40 CFR § 124.19, Timothy A. Watts and Douglas H. Watts
("Petitioners") submit to the Environmental Appeals Board (the"Board") this Petition for
Review ("Petition") to review or otherwise contest the May,11 2005 final permit
decision of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the" EPA") to issue a
permit to the City of Brockton (the "City" or the "Permittee") for a five year renewal for a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued jointly by the EPA
pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.§ 1251 et seq. (the "CWA"), and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the "DEP") under the
Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c. 21, § 26 et seq., (the "Act"), Permit
No.MA01001010 (the "Permit").
Any permit issued by EPA and DEP to the Permittee must provide for compliance
with the applicable requirements of the CWA, the Act and regulations thereunder. See 40
CFR §122.4(a); 314 CMR § 3.07(1). Any such permit issued by EPA and DEP must also
ensure compliance with the applicable water quality requirements of all affected states.
40 CFR §122.4(d); 314 CMR 3.07(4). The DEP also has affirmative obligations
that must be satisfied in issuing any CWA certification. Specifically, any certification of
a permit by the DEP must ensure that the permit imposes conditions adequate to assure
compliance with the applicable provisions of the CWA, including state water quality
standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1341, 40 CFR § 124.53.
Petitioners assert there are certain conditions included in the Permit, and certain
conditions omitted from the Permit, based on "a finding of fact or conclusion of law
which is clearly erroneous" or on "an exercise of discretion or an important policy
consideration which the [Board] should, in its discretion, review". 40 CFR § 124.19(a).
The Petitioners seek review of certain Permit conditions on the grounds that these
conditions are based on erroneous findings of fact or conclusions of law (a) whether the
conditions of the Permit and Certification adequately conform to the Massachusetts water
quality requirements, specifically the antidegradation, antieutrophication, Class B, odor,
color and turbidity water quality requirements, and the minimum criteria applicable to
all surface waters, (b) whether the conditions of the Permit and Certification adequately
ensure compliance with the CWA, the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, and
(c) whether the Permit contains and the Certification requires adequate control
mechanisms necessary to meet the conditions of the Permit that prohibit the
Permittee from causing violations of the water quality standards in the Receiving Waters.
1. Description of Petitioners
Timothy A. Watts and Douglas H. Watts are citizens of the United States of
America who are disgusted by the ongoing gross and blatant pollution of the Salisbury
Plain River, the Matfield River and the Taunton River by this Facility. As a direct result
of the discharge of the Facility the whole of the Salisbury Plain River below the Facility,
and its parent stream, the Matfield River, are unusable and unsafe for public recreation
and unsuitable habitat for these rivers' native aquatic species. In June 2004, Petitioners
filed timely written comments on the draft permit for the Facility (Exhibits A,B).
This Petition addresses issues discussed in detail by both Petitioners in their previous
comments to EPA.
2. Receiving Waters and Facility
Salisbury Plain River (Segment MA62-06) Location: From the Brockton
Wastewater Facility discharge, Brockton to the confluence with Beaver Brook forming
the Matfield River, East Bridgewater.
Segment Length: 2.3 miles
Classification: Class B, Warm Water Fishery
The drainage area of this segment is approximately 21.3 square miles. Land-use
estimates (top three) for the subwatershed:
Residential…………45.7%
Forest………………24.5%
Open land………….9.3%
The impervious cover area for this subwatershed is 25.7%.
This segment is on the Massachusetts Year 2002 Integrated List of Waters – Category 5
for not meeting water quality standards for pathogens and causes unknown (MA DEP
2003 Exhibit I).
The Brockton Wastewater Treatment Facility (Facility) discharges pollution into
the Taunton River watershed, the largest watershed in southeastern Massachusetts and the
largest undammed coastal watershed in southern New England. The Taunton River
watershed is the largest tributary to Mount Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay in
Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Prior to the onset of severe pollution, the Taunton River
Watershed supported nearly all of the diadromous fish species native to the northeastern
United States and Canada, including Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, striped bass,
sea lamprey, American shad, blueback herring, alewife, anadromous brook trout, white
perch, American eel, rainbow smelt and tomcod. The eastern portion of the Taunton
River watershed is fed by a connected series of freshwater ponds -- Assawompset, Great
Quitticas, Little Quittacas, Nanapocksha and Apponequet Ponds -- the largest natural
freshwater lakes in Massachusetts. The western portion of the Taunton River watershed is
fed by the Hockomock Swamp, a 6,000 acre array of swamps and meadows which
comprise the largest freshwater wetland complex in Massachusetts.
The Taunton River watershed has been home to humans for more than eight
millennia. The richness and diversity of its native aquatic fauna have sustained humans
since the last Ice Age. In less than one century, the native aquatic fauna of the Taunton
River has been nearly destroyed by the pollution of its waters. The Taunton River is one
of the most severely polluted rivers in New England. The largest source of pollution in
the Taunton River watershed is human and industrial sewage from the City of Brockton,
Massachusetts. Mount Hope Bay, the coastal embayment which receives all of the
water of the Taunton River, is the most degraded coastal embayment in New England.
One of the largest contributors of pollution to Mount Hope Bay is the Facility.
Because the Facility is located in the uppermost headwaters of the Taunton River
watershed, the pollution from this plant degrades and impairs the health of the entire
length of the Taunton River and its estuarial complex in southeastern Massachusetts and
Rhode Island. Native fauna -- from brook trout in the Taunton River's headwaters to
winter flounder and quahogs in Narragansett Bay -- are severely harmed by ongoing
pollution from the Facility.
Deeds of record from the 17th century show the Native American name for the
Salisbury Plain River and its parent, the Matfield River, is Aquanissiwamissoo. Historic
accounts show the native fisheries of Aquanissiwamissoo included an abundance of
native brook trout, American eel and American shad. The Aquanissiwamissoo is a
medium to high gradient stream, with numerous rapids and riffles. The
Aquanissiwamissoo is primarily fed by groundwater and springs, resulting in
water temperatures and habitat favored by native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
Much of the native brook trout habitat of the Salisbury Plain and Matfield River
watersheds has been destroyed by urban and residential development. This habitat can be
physically restored, but restoration efforts will be fruitless if the waters of the Salisbury
Plain and Matfield Rivers are severely polluted from effluent discharges by the Facility.
Historic records (Belding 1925) show the Aquanissiwamissoo was an important
breeding ground for the native American shad of the Taunton River watershed. Severe
pollution from the Facility is now preventing native American shad from reestablishing
themselves in the Taunton River watershed. A remnant run of native American shad
persists in the Palmer River, a Mount Hope Bay tributary adjacent to the Taunton River
in Rehoboth, Massachusetts. Despite the close proximity of this remnant population, the
Taunton River, Matfield and Salisbury Plain Rivers do not support any American shad.
American shad will not be able to recolonize their native habitat in the Taunton River
watershed so long as the Taunton River remains severely polluted due to effluent from
the Facility.
Today, the Facility discharges the waste of more than 100,000 people into a
spring-fed native brook trout stream less than 30 feet in width. Since the City of Brockton
began discharging its sewage into the Salisbury Plain River, the City's discharge has been
in violation of the United States Clean Water Act.
The City of Brockton's discharge of sewage into the Salisbury Plain River has
been in violation of the United States Clean Water Act since the discharge began nearly
30 years ago. Today, the City of Brockton's discharge of sewage into the Salisbury Plain
River is in violation of the United States Clean Water Act. The Draft Permit issued by US
EPA on May 11, 2005 will allow the City of Brockton's illegal discharge of sewage to
continue indefinitely. These facts have forced this Petition.
3. The Facility Discharge is the Primary Cause of the Degraded Condition of the
Receiving Waters.
“Many commenters requested that language restricting new sewer connections
and limiting the Towns of Abington and Whitman to 1MGD be deleted from the draft
permit.” (Comment #19 Page # 7 Response to Public Comments Exhibit D)
“We understand that several communities near the treatment facility are faced
with difficult decisions relative to water and wastewater management, however, the
Salisbury Plain River can not support an increase in flow. As stated in the fact sheet, the
facility frequently exceeds its design flow of 18 MGD and high flows have caused the
facility to be out of compliance with their existing NPDES permit. The Salisbury Plain
River, is an effluent dominated river (the Salisbury Plain River at the point of the POTW
discharge is about 98 percent effluent under 7Q10 conditions) and does not meet the
State’s Water Quality Standards for Class B Waters. It is also on the State’s 2004
Integrated List of Waters as a Catergory 5 water (water requiring a TMDL), for
pathogens.” (EPA Response to Comment # 19 Page # 7 Exhibit D)
In a June 2003 press release EPA made the following statement regarding the
Facility “The city's treatment plant, which discharges to the Salisbury Plain River, has
consistently failed to meet pollution discharge limits in its federal permit over the last
decade. Inspections by EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) and the plant's own reports document equipment failures, operator
errors, chemical feed problems and chronic bypassing of treatment equipment at the
plant. This has led to excessive discharges of sewage solids, bacteria, ammonia and
chlorine into the river, which flows to the Matfield River which downstream becomes the
Taunton River.” (Exhibit F)
The Petitioners assert that these statements by EPA are an acknowledgement
by EPA that the Facility is the primary cause of the receiving waters not meeting
MAWQS. Furthermore, since the above statements were made MA DEP has released
2005 draft reassessment of the 303d list for the receiving waters. The draft for the
segment from the Facility discharge, Brockton to the confluence with Beaver
Brook forming the Matfield River, East Bridgewater segment Length: 2.3 miles
states the following “Sewage odors, turbidity, filamentous green algae and
trash/construction materials were observed in the Salisbury Plain River near Belmont
Street, West Bridgewater by both DWM and ESS staff in 2001 and 2002.” (MA DEP
2005 Exhibit I)
“The Primary Contact Recreational Use is assessed as impaired because of
elevated bacteria counts. The Secondary Contact Recreational and Aesthetics uses are
also assessed as impaired because of the objectionable conditions (odors, turbidity,
filamentous green algae and trash and debris). These uses are impaired as a result of the
Brockton Advanced Water Reclamation Facility discharge as well as nonpoint source
pollution in this urbanized subwatershed.”
“The Aquatic Life Use is assessed as impaired for this segment of the Salisbury
Plain River based primarily on the results of the benthic macroinvertebrate community
analysis and the limited water quality data. Low dissolved oxygen/saturation and elevated
total phosphorus concentrations were both documented and are associated with the
Brockton Advanced Water Reclamation Facility discharge as well as nonpoint source
pollution in this urbanized subwatershed. Acute and chronic toxicity in the Brockton
Advanced Water Reclamation Facility effluent are also of concern.” (MA DEP Exhibit I)
This segment was previously listed on the Massachusetts Year 2002 Integrated
List of Waters – Category 5 for not meeting water quality standards for pathogens and
causes unknown only (MA DEP 2005 Exhibit K).
The Salisbury Plain River segment upstream of the Facility was reassessed as
well. This segment runs from the confluence of Trout and Salisbury brooks, Brockton to
the Facility discharge, Brockton, Segment Length: 2.4 miles. This segment is
on the Massachusetts Year 2002 Integrated List of Waters – Category 5 for not meeting
water quality standards for siltation, pathogens, suspended solids, and other habitat
alterations (MA DEP 2005 Exhibit J).
“This segment of the Salisbury Plain River is assessed as impaired for both the
Primary and Secondary Contact Recreational uses because of elevated levels of bacteria
during both wet and dry weather sampling conditions.” (Ma DEP 2005 Exhibit J) The
Aesthetics Use is not assessed. The draft 2005 assessment for this segment remained
unchanged from the MA DEP 2002 assessment.
In a letter dated August 9, 2002 EPA made the following statement to the City
of Brockton regarding the Facility. “The receiving water for Brockton's wastewater
discharge is dominated by the effluent during low flow conditions. There is evidence that
the receiving water does not support aquatic life uses designated in the Massachusetts
Water Quality Standards. Toxicity and nutrient loadings are a primary concern relative to
water quality. The existing permit contains a 1.0 mg/l phosphorus limit but future limits
will be much more stringent. The new national criteria recommendation for receiving
water concentrations of total phosphorus is 0.024 mg/l. The existing permit expires in
2004 and the reissued permit will almost certainly contain a much more stringent water
quality based phosphorus limit.”
“In addition, nitrogen loadings to Mt. Hope Bay are a significant concern. A Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMLD) will be established for Mt. Hope Bay in the next few
years that will likely require significant reductions in current nitrogen loadings. Given
that the Brockton wastewater treatment facility has been estimated to contribute as much
as 30% on the nitrogen loading to Mt. Hope Bay, there is high likelihood that the total
nitrogen limits will be incorporated in future NPDES permits.” (EPA letter to City
2002, Exhibit G ).
The Petitioners assert that these statements by EPA and MA DEP are an
acknowledgement by EPA and MA DEP that the Facility is the primary cause of the
receiving waters not meeting MAWQS. “The Treatment Facility Discharge is the
Primary Cause of the Degraded Condition of the Receiving Waters” These
statements also establish that the impacts of the Facility’s discharge are not limited to the
Salisbury Plain River alone. EPA acknowledges the impacts of the Facility’s flow on
the whole aquatic ecosystem of the Salisbury Plain River, Matfield River, Taunton River
and Mount Hope Bay.
The following list of submitted exhibits further support the Petitioners assertion
that, “The Facility Discharge is the Primary Cause of the Degraded Condition of the
Receiving Waters.”
The Petitioners offer the following exhibits as attachments in support of our
assertion that, “The Facility Discharge is the Primary Cause of the Degraded Condition of
the Receiving Waters.”
Exhibit C Page 1, 2, Taunton River Watershed Alliance public comments regarding 2002
flows.
Exhibit L, Bridgewater State College public comments.
Exhibit M, Taunton River watershed 1996 and 2001 Biological Assessment MA DEP.
Exhibit N, ESS Group Matfield and Salisbury Plain River Watersheds Nonpoint Pollution
Assessment Report and Management Plan MA DEP 2003.
Exhibit N, Part A, Sample Site Locations.
Exhibit N, Part B, Field Data Sheets
Exhibit N, Part C, Field Reconnaissance Observations.
4. Compliance With Statutory Water Quality Standards.
For EPA to issue a NPDES permit for the discharge of pollutants by the City
Facility into the Salisbury Plain River, the EPA must show this discharge of pollutants
will not cause the receiving water, the Salisbury Plain River, to fail to meet its statutory
minimum water quality standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1341, 40 CFR § 124.53. This is
demonstrated in EPA's Permit for the Facility, which contains the following mandatory
compliance requirement at page 6, Part I.A.I, Line A: (Exhibit E)
"a. "The discharge shall not cause a violation of the water quality standards in the
receiving waters."
In the EPA's "Responses to Public Comments" which accompanies the
Permit, EPA states: "The Salisbury Plain River is an effluent dominated river (the
Salisbury Plain River at the point of the POTW discharge is about 98 percent effluent
under 7Q10 conditions) and does not meet the State's Water Quality Standards for Class
B Waters."(EPA Response to Comment 19 Exhibit D)
The Permit provides no evidence its proposed effluent limitations will allow
the Salisbury Plain River to meet its minimum statutory water quality standards.
In its response to Comment 47, EPA indicates the proposed effluent limitations will not
allow the Salisbury Plain River to meet its statutory water quality standard: "EPA
and MA DEP believe these measures in conjunction with the plant upgrades will
contribute toward minimizing the further degradation of the Salisbury Plain River and
move closer toward meeting the State's Water Quality Standards during this five year
permit cycle." (EPA Response to Comment 47 Exhibit D)
EPA is assuming that future upgrades and future permit limits “will contribute
toward minimizing the further degradation of the Salisbury Plain River and
move closer toward meeting the State's Water Quality Standards during this five year
permit cycle." Water quality based effluent limitations require otherwise as pointed out
by EPA in their response to comments by the Town of Hudson during the public
comment period on the Hudson Wastewater Treatment Facility “The establishment
of water quality based limits, unlike technology based limits, are not based on treatment
capabilities.” (Assabet River NPDES Permits-Response to Comments, page #3 response
#4 Exhibit H) US EPA further states on Page # 7 Comment # 3, “In addition to
technology based controls, permits must contain any more stringent limitations for
particular pollutants that are necessary to meet MAWQS. A water quality based effluent
limitation must be calculated at levels to ensure achievement of MAWQS, regardless of
the availability or effectiveness of technologies or the cost dischargers would incur to
meet those limits (Assabet River NPDES Permits-Response to Comments, page #7
response #3 Exhibit H).” EPA further states on Page # 18, 19 Response # 12 last
sentence, “Finally, The Agencies note that permits must include limits as stringent as
necessary to meet Massachusetts WQS irrespective of technological feasibility.”
(Assabet River NPDES Permits-Response to Comments, page #19 response #12 Exhibit
H) The effluent limits in this permit are not in keeping with this EPA standard by the
EPA’s own admission.
In its response to Comment 50, EPA suggests the proposed effluent
limitations may not allow the Salisbury Plain River to meet its statutory water quality
standard: "Many variables can contribute to a water body not achieving its assigned water
quality standards. Large scale reductions in dry weather and wet weather point source
pollutant loadings will be necessary to achieve Standards in the Salisbury Plain River
This permit as well as the Phase II stormwater permit, will result in significant reductions
in dry weather and wet weather pollutant loadings but if further reductions are necessary
the permit may be modified or revoked and reissued with more stringent limits if cause
exists, pursuant to 30 CFR 122.62." (EPA Response to Comment 50 Exhibit D)
Here again EPA is assuming that that this permit and a yet to be established
Phase II stormwater permit will result in significant reductions in dry weather and wet
weather pollutant loadings. “But if further reductions are necessary the permit may be
modified or revoked and reissued with more stringent limits if cause exists.” Water
quality based effluent limitations do not allow for But ifs’. EPA must demonstrate
this Permit as issued will allow the Salisbury Plain River to meet its water quality
standard.
As shown above, EPA itself has stated the Permit for the Facility will continue to
cause the Salisbury Plain River to fail to meet its statutory water quality standards; and
the Permit will not allow the Salisbury Plain River to meet its statutory water quality
standards. Without evidence showing the Permit will allow the Salisbury Plain River to
meet its statutory water quality standards, the Permit is illegal.
5. Compliance with Statutory Aesthetic Standards
EPA acknowledges that under existing conditions, the odor of chlorine emanating
from wastewater discharged from the facility is noticeable and objectionable in the
Salisbury Plain River, the Matfield River and the Taunton River for many miles
downstream from the WWTP outfall (Public Comment 43 Exhibit D). Petitioners
and other commenters have informed EPA that the strong chemical odor emanating
from the water in these rivers due to the Facility discharge is objectionable and
makes these waters unsuitable for swimming, fishing and boating (Exhibit C Page 3, 4).
In response to these comments, EPA states: "The Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
for Class B waters prohibit odor in concentrations or combinations which are
aesthetically objectionable, that would impair use assigned to Class B waters, or cause
tainting in the edible portion of aquatic life." (EPA Response to Comment 43 Exhibit D)
This EPA response indicates the agency has ignored or does not understand
the issue raised by commenters. EPA states: "The upgrades to the facility which
include improvements for sludge storage, the sludge thickening and dewatering process
and the headworks will all contribute to the elimination of odors emanating from the
facility." (EPA Response to Comment 43 Exhibit D).
The issue raised by Petitioners and other commenters does not involve odors
emanating from the wastewater treatment facility itself. The issue raised by commenters
is the noticeable and objectionable odor of the water of the Salisbury Plain, Matfield and
Taunton Rivers due to large amounts of chemicals used in the wastewater effluent
discharged by the Facility. As noted by the EPA, Petitioners and other commenters,
the waters of the Salisbury Plain, Matfield and upper Taunton Rivers now smell like a
sewage treatment plant due to wastewater from the Brockton WWTP. The odor of
chemicals in the water of these rivers is as strong as that from laundromat for many miles
below the WWTP discharge. This is further confirmed by the field data sheets of the ESS
Nonpoint Study. Field personal noted sewage odors emanating from the water at every
sample site on the Salisbury Plain River and Matfield River downstream of the Facility.
They noted no sewage odors at sample sites on the Salisbury Plain River up stream of the
Facility. (Exhibit N, Parts A, B, C)
These observations should not be surprising because the EPA itself describes
the Salisbury Plain River as an "effluent dominated river" and states that during low flow
conditions more than 98 percent of the water in the Salisbury Plain River consists of
effluent from the Facility. (US EPA Response to Comment 19 Exhibit D).
EPA provides no evidence or assurance its Draft Permit will eliminate the
strong and objectionable odor in the receiving waters below the Facility. Unless this odor
is eliminated from these receiving waters, the Draft Permit is not in compliance with
Massachusetts statutory water quality standards and is illegal.
“In addition to technology based controls, permits must contain any more
stringent limitations for particular pollutants that are necessary to meet MAWQS. A
water quality based effluent limitation must be calculated at levels to ensure achievement
of MAWQS, regardless of the availability or effectiveness of technologies or the cost
dischargers would incur to meet those limits” (Assabet River NPDES Permits-Response
to Comments, page #7 response #3 Exhibit H). Unless and until a Use Attainability
Analysis justifies a downgrading of the use classification of the Salisbury Plain, Matfield
and Upper Taunton Rivers’ the Permit must provide controls to eliminate the foul odors
which clearly violate the MAWQS in the Salisbury Plain, Matfield and Upper Taunton
Rivers’.
Because the Taunton River is in the final stages of designation by the National
Park Service as a Wild and Scenic River, and because the Matfield and Salisbury Rivers
have been recognized as significant tributaries of the same, it is highly unlikely that a Use
Attainability Analysis would result in the uses of these rivers being downgraded.
(National Park Service Comments Exhibit O)
The Facility disinfects human sewage and wastewater with chlorine, an
element highly toxic to life. Other methods exist to disinfect human sewage which do not
require the use of chlorine. One of these methods is ultra-violet (UV) radiation.
Disinfection of human sewage with UV radiation is a common practice in wastewater
treatment facilities across the United States of America. Several commenters requested
the EPA require the Facility convert from its use of chlorine as a disinfectant to UV
treatment because it would eliminate the discharge of toxic chlorine into the Salisbury
Plain, Matfield and upper Taunton Rivers (EPA Comment 34). In its Response, the
US EPA states: "The permit includes extensive new requirements on chlorine monitoring
to ensure that discharges of residual chlorine are consistent with permit limits." (EPA
Response to Comment 34 Exhibit D).
This Response evades the question. EPA provides no reason or explanation why it
is not requiring the Facility to convert to ultra-violet disinfection and eliminate
the discharge of chlorine into the Salisbury Plain River. Conversion of the Facility
to ultra-violet disinfection would eliminate the discharge of toxic chlorine into the
Salisbury Plain, Matfield and Taunton Rivers by the Facility. The technology to
achieve this conversion is readily available and affordable. As noted by EPA, the
existing objectionable odor from the disinfection process which spoils the receiving
waters for many miles downstream is a violation of Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards. EPA provides no evidence or assurance its permit restrictions on the discharge
from the Facility will result in compliance with the statutory water quality standards.
EPA's assurance that the discharge of residual chlorine into these rivers will
be "consistent with permit limits" is tautological. Discharge of residual chlorine into the
Salisbury Plain River must be consistent with permit limits. This statement is not relevant
to the issue of why any discharge of chlorine is allowed in the Permit when
technological methods are available to eliminate the use of chlorine at the Facility.
If the EPA required the facility to convert to UV disinfection and eliminate the of
use of chlorine as disinfectant, there would be no need for EPA to require extensive
monitoring and permit limitations on this highly toxic element. EPA provides no
explanation for its refusal to require the Facility to convert to ultra-violet disinfection and
to eliminate the discharge of chlorine into the Salisbury Plain, Matfield and Taunton
Rivers.
5. Lack of Dilution Flows
In its "Responses to Public Comments,"EPA states: "The Salisbury Plain
River is an effluent dominated river (the Salisbury Plain River at the point of the POTW
discharge is about 98 percent effluent under 7Q10 conditions) and does not meet the
State's Water Quality Standards for Class B Waters." (EPA Response to Comment
19 Exhibit D)
Despite this statement, EPA's Draft Permit requires no reductions in the
amount of wastewater effluent discharged by the Facility into the Salisbury Plain River.
The severe impact of the existing volume of effluent on the receiving waters from the
Brockton WWTP is cited by US EPA as the reason for its refusal to allow additional
communities to send their wastewater to the facility. EPA states: "Increasing flow to the
facility by allowing new sewer connections would inevitably contribute to further water
quality impairment of the Salisbury Plain River .... We believe increasing the flow at the
Brockton facility by having additional communities send their wastewater to the facility
will cause further degradation of the Salisbury Plain River." (EPA Response to
Comments 19 and 20 Exhibit D)
There are a number of methods available to the Facility to reduce its
discharge volume into the Salisbury Plain River, especially during dry weather periods.
These include land based application (spraying), construction of storage lagoons and
recycling of wastewater for industrial uses. These methods are now being used in many
parts of the United States. EPA provides no explanation as to why none of these
methods have been explored or required so as to reduce the severe impact of the
Facility effluent discharge on the Salisbury Plain, Matfield and Taunton Rivers.
This failure is puzzling because EPA itself concludes that the sheer volume of
effluent discharged by the Facility is a principal reason for the river's failure to
meet its statutory water quality standards. Statements by EPA show it has scant
confidence that allowing the existing volume of wastewater to continue, even with
improved treatment, will allow the Salisbury Plain River to meet its statutory water
quality standards. This is shown by EPA's statement that: "EPA and MA DEP
believe these measures in conjunction with the plant upgrades will contribute toward
minimizing the further degradation of the Salisbury Plain River and move closer toward
meeting the State's Water Quality Standards during this five year permit cycle." (EPA
Response to Comment 47 Exhibit D) EPA's statement, "will contribute toward
minimizing further degradation of the Salisbury Plain River and help the river move
closer toward meeting the State's Water Quality Standards" are material admissions the
EPA believes the conditions in the Permit will not allow the Salisbury Plain River to
meet its statutory water quality standards during the five year permit cycle.
Petitioners have repeatedly informed EPA that significant reductions in flow
volume from the Facility, particularly in dry weather periods, are necessary to allow the
Salisbury Plain River to meet its statutory water quality standards. This finding is
supported by EPA's conclusion that increasing flow volume of the Facility, even with
proposed improvements in effluent treatment, will result in "further degradation" and
"further water quality impairment" of the Salisbury Plain River. (EPA Response to
Comments 19 and 20 Exhibit D). In short, US EPA has concluded that
increase in flow volume or continuation of the existing flow volume at the Facility will
cause the Salisbury Plain River to fail to meet its statutory water quality standards.
Despite these findings, the Permit requires no reductions in flow volume at the Facility.
In June 2004, Petitioners provided EPA with extensive documentation of
recently issued NPDES permits from the State of Maine for wastewater treatment plants
on rivers of a size similar to the Salisbury Plain River. This documentation
shows that EPA and the State of Maine routinely require wastewater treatment plants
to sharply curtail or eliminate direct discharges to small rivers to prevent effluent from
dominating the natural flow of a stream.
NPDES license data from the State of Maine shows the maximum allowable daily
discharge of treated wastewater into small rivers and streams in Maine is less than 1.0
million gallons per day (MGD) with one exception. In contrast, the maximum daily
discharge in the proposed NPDES permit for the Facility is in excess of 18 MGD.
In this one exception in Maine (Town of Sanford POTW), the NPDES license
forbids any discharge at stream flows lower than 20 cfs. The NPDES permit for the
Unity, Maine POTW forbids any discharge at stream flows lower than 15 cfs;
the NPDES permit for the Canton, Maine POTW forbids any discharge at stream flows
lower than 20 cfs; and the NPDES permit for the Norway, Maine POTW forbids any
discharge at stream flows less than 31 cfs. In all of these cases, the receiving waters for
these POTWs (Great Works River, 25 Mile Stream, Whitney Brook, Little Androscoggin
River) are similar or larger in drainage size and flow volume than the Salisbury Plain
River, yet the NPDES permits for these streams prohibit any discharge into them during
low-flow conditions and require minimum dilution ratios of 20:1 or more during periods
when discharge is allowed.
This is why when Petitioner Douglas Watts informed Mr. Gregg Wood, P.E. of the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection of the dilution ratios at the Facility, Mr. Wood
physically grimaced and said:
"It sounds like they need to find a new receiving water."
In its "Response to Comments" EPA provides no meaningful reply to the
above documentation or Petitioners' request that flow volume from the Facility be sharply
curtailed during dry weather periods to ensure compliance with statutory water quality
standards established for the Salisbury Plain, Matfield and Taunton Rivers.
Despite the obvious need of flow limits in the Permit higher flows are likely in the
future. Camp Dresser Mckee (CDM) asserts in public comments that, “In general, there
are many references to a design flow of 18.0 mgd, which is the correct flow for the
Facility upgraded in the 1970’s. However, over the coming five year permit duration, this
design flow rate will be increased to 20.48 mgd. (CDM public comments Page # 1
Exhibit D) The Towns of Abington and Whitman will also be allowed to sell their unused
flow if an abutting Town with a completed Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan demonstrates that a tie in to Abington or Whitman is an appropriate option. (Permit
footnotes page 4 # 3 Exhibit E) This is unacceptable.
6. Closing Comments.
The Salisbury Plain River has not met its MAWQS at anytime in the history of
The Facility. By the late 1970s, this plant was nearing the end of its 20-year design life,
and a major plant expansion project was completed in the mid-1980s. Since that major
expansion, the Brockton WWTF has not undergone a major plant-wide upgrade program.
Shortly after completion of this major plant expansion project the upgraded and
expanded plant was failing to meet permit limits, and in 1988 the City of Brockton
entered into a consent decree with the regulating authorities. On November 14, 2001
Ma DEP issued a notice of non-compliance to the City of Brockton. Fifteen years ago
the City’s newly updated and expanded Facility was failing to meet permit limits less
than five years after the update was completed.
Today in 2005 we are presented with a similar situation as in the 1980’s. The
Administrative Consent Decree agreed to 1988 has been ineffective and a Judicial
Consent Decree is now being negotiated between regulating authorities and the City. The
initial phase of a major Facility expansion and upgrade has begun and this Permit has
been finalized.
The Petitioners recognize that all of these events appear to complicate matters
regarding this Permit. However, when this whole affair is boiled down to its essence
it is not the least bit complicated. What it boils down to is a simple standard clearly
defined in the permit, in the Federal Clean Water Act and in Massachusetts State Law:
"a. "The discharge shall not cause a violation of the water quality standards in the
receiving waters."
The Petitioners assert that the limits placed in this permit will in large part determine the
terms of the pending Judicial Consent Decree and guide the proposed upgrade and
expansion process. If issued as written this Permit will not allow Salisbury Plain River to
meet its MAWQS, and therefore the rest of the process will be doomed to failure. The
mistakes of the mid 1980’s will be repeated. This Permit as currently written is illegal
and must not be issued.
STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
The Petitioners incorporate all paragraphs above and exhibits, as if fully set forth there in.
For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioners request the following:
a. that the Board hold that EPA’s actions and decisions in regard to the
Contested Permit Conditions and the Omitted Permit Conditions concerning the
discharge of by the Treatment Works were clearly erroneous;
b. that the Board review EPA’s permit action for the additional reason that
EPA’s exercise of discretion raises important issues of policy and discretion that the
Board should review; and
c. that the Board reverse and remand those decisions to EPA Region I for
action consistent with the Petioners contentions.
IX. SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
In addition to the materials submitted herewith, the petitioners reserve their right to
submit additional material as may appear necessary and appropriate during the pendency
of any review proceedings.
Respectfully Submitted, Timothy A Watts 633 Wareham St. Middleboro, Ma 02346 (508) 946-6191
Douglas H Watts 38 Northern Avenue Augusta, ME 04330 (207) 626-8178
Dated: May 28, 2005
The Petitioners PETITION FOR REVIEW OF NPDES PERMIT NO.
MA0101010, ISSUED May 11, 2005
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
A. Written comments submitted by Timothy Watts on draft permit MA0101010 June 2004.
B. Written comments submitted by Douglas Watts on draft permit MA0101010 June 2004.
C. Written comments submitted by Taunton River Watershed Alliance on draft permit MA0101010 June 2004.
D. EPA response to public comments on draft to final permit MA0101010.
E. Final Permit MA0101010 May 11, 2005.
F. August 9, 2002 letter from Brian Pitt Team Leader NPDES Unit to Brockton Commissioner of Public Works.
G. EPA press release regarding failures at the Facility June 4, 2003.
H. Assabet River NPDES Permits – Response to Comments 2004.
I. 2005 Draft MA 303d listing for Salisbury Plain River downstream of Facility.
J. 2005 Draft MA 303d listing for Salisbury Plain River upstream of Facility.
K. 2002 MA 303d listing for Salisbury Plain River upstream and downstream of Facility.
L. Written comments submitted by Bridgewater State College Watershed Access Lab on draft permit MA0101010 June 2004.
M. Taunton River Watershed 1996 and 2001 Biological Assessment MA DEP.
N. ESS Group Matfield and Salisbury Plain River Watersheds Nonpoint Pollution Assessment Report and Management Plan MA DEP 2003.
Exhibit N, Part A, Sample Site Locations.
Exhibit N, Part B, Field Data Sheets
Exhibit N, Part C, Field Reconnaissance Observations.
Exhibit O, Written comments submitted by National Park Service on draft permit MA0101010 June 2004.
Exhibit P. Letter from Robert Varney Regional Administrator, Region 1 EPA, to the Mayor of Brockton, 2004.
Q. Daily discharge flows from the Facility 2002 – 2003.
R. Fact Sheet for Draft Permit MA0101010 May 21, 2004
Its about time for an update on Brockton Sewer Plant issues. There are two important actions taking place at once and they will have region wide impacts on our waterways and wetlands. First is the issuance of the new discharge permit. The draft permit is being contested by way of a public hearing by the towns of East Bridgewater, West Bridgewater, Easton, Hanson, Halifax and Avon. They would all like to enlist the services of the Brockton Sewer Plant so they will not have to build their own sewer treatment plants. They are contesting the EPA draft discharge permit because it contains language that would prevent them from hooking up to the Brockton Plant. The hearing date has been set for August 25, 2004 at Brockton High School. The Public Comment period has also been reopened, comments will be accepted until the date of the public hearing, August 25, 2004. At the same time EPA and Ma DEP have issued a Judicial Consent Decree to the City of Brockton in regard to the sewer plant. What is a Judicial Consent Decree? A Judicial Consent Decree is a document and process which details the steps the City of Brockton must take to bring their sewer treatment plant into compliance with the law. The Brockton Sewer Plant has been out of compliance with the law since 1988, and is still out of compliance with the law as I write this. Since 1988 the City of Brockton has been operating its plant under an Administrative Consent Decree, meaning, under the supervision of EPA and Ma DEP. As a result of the City of Brocktons continued non-compliance with the orders issued by EPA and Ma DEP since 1988, EPA and Ma DEP have elected to turn the matter over to the US Attorneys office in the form of a Judicial Consent Decree. EPA Region 1 and Ma EPA have submitted what they consider a reasonable course of action to bring the City of Brockton into compliance with the law. The US Attorneys office has agreed to these terms and has agreed to enforce them. The City of Brockton has this document in hand now and must make a decision to sign on to it or not. This document is open to negotiation and this process can last up to two years. Once the City of Brockton signs on they are bound to it and will be subject to the full penalties of the law if they fail to comply. If the City of Brockton does not sign on to the terms of the Judicial Consent Decree in a timely fashion the matter gets turned over to a Federal Judge. What are the implications of our decisions? For the River, meaning the Salisbury Plain, Matfield and Upper Taunton River. The Matfield and Salisbury Plain are already trashed. In the summer their flow is effluent. It’s a fact. The upper Taunton is not far behind, and the addition of sewer flow to the Brockton Plant from the above mentioned towns will nail down the lid of the coffin on the aquatic ecosystem of the upper Taunton River. The upper Taunton will become the Matfield, its simple mathematics, X amount of river flow to effluent. For the current and future rate payers. It doesn’t work, it’s a fact. The United States Clean Water Act clearly states that all our waterways will be fishable and swimable. Would you fill your swimming pool with the effluent discharged by the Brockton Sewer Plant? Would the Mayor of Brockton fill his swimming pool with the effluent discharged by the Brockton Sewer Plant? Would the engineers from Camp Dresser McKee fill their swimming pools with the effluent discharged by the Brockton Sewer Plant? Would the residents of Easton want the waste water of one hundred and thirty thousand people going down Queset Brook through Sheep Pasture or Canoe River? Would the residents of East Bridgewater want the waste water of one hundred and thirty thousand people going down Satucket? Would the residents of West Bridgewater want the waste water of one hundred and thirty thousand people going down the Town River at War Memorial Park? Would the residents of Halifax want the waste water of one hundred and thirty thousand people going down the Winnetuxet River. People can not safely swim in the Salisbury Plain, Matfield or Upper Taunton Rivers, it’s a fact. The law clearly states that we should be able to. If the City of Brockton and the above mentioned towns pursue and succeed in their current course of action the Salisbury Plain, Matfield and Upper Taunton Rivers will not meet the requirements of the law, to be swimable. Therefore, twenty years from now the rate payers will be forced to bear the burden of their city and towns shortsightedness in regard to this issue. What the City of Brockton and the above mentioned towns are now proposing will cost the rate payers dearly now and again in the future because we will have to do it all over again twenty years from now. It simply does not work, you cannot flush the wastewater of one hundred and thirty thousand people down a small river system and expect it to function as a river system. Our river systems will continue to fail from both an aesthetic and biological perspective, it’s a fact and rate payers will be forced to pay over and over again to achieve an unachievable goal. Updated Summary of events regarding the plant
First some background info on how we arrived at this point. The upgrade to the plant was brought about as a result of a Notice of Non-Compliance issued by Ma DEP on Nov, 14 2001. At that time the city was forced to update the plant or face heavy fines for their continued Non-Compliance which had been going on since 1988. The plant fell out of compliance in 1988 a few years after significant moneys had spent to upgrade the plant in the early 1980's. The city responded to the 2001 notice by hiring the engineering firm of Camp Dresser McKee (CDM) to evaluate and propose the necessary upgrades to the plant. On March 18, 2002 the city held a public meeting where CDM outlined their findings and upgrade proposal. At a projected cost of 52.8 million dollars the proposed upgrade was inadequate and the city and CDM knew it. EPA had given the city fair warning in the 1999 discharge permit that any upgrades to the plant should be designed to meet future water quality goals and future permit limits. Despite these warnings the city chose to spend considerable money to propose an upgrade that they knew was inadequate. It was inadequate because they planned the upgrade to meet their current, 1999 permit, not the future 2003 permit as EPA suggested. EPA responded to this proposed upgrade in a letter sent to the city on August 2002. The letter made it very clear to the city that the proposed upgrade was inadequate and if they chose to go forward with it they would do so at their own risk. EPA also stated the following in this letter "The reissued permit will contain a flow limit. An increase in flow will not be authorized without a determination that toxicity and nutrient issues can be addressed to a level that will result in full attainment of the designated uses of the receiving water." The city responded to this and agreed to step up some of the important treatment processes, specifically more intensive nitrogen and phosphorous removal. Unfortunately the city also decided to expand the capacity of the plant by 2 ½ million gallons per day (mgd). It’s capacity was 18 mgd and now is going to be 20.5 mgd. For some reason EPA is not comfortable putting flow limits on these plants. Rather than put a flow limit in the permit EPA responded to the proposed plant expansion by informing the city that the permit they were drafting would contain language limiting hookups to communities outside the city limits. They Mayor responded to this with a letter of protest (for lack of a better word). EPA responded to the Mayor by reiterating that without reduced flows Salisbury Plain River would probably not meet its water quality standards after the upgrade. These letters were exchanged in January 2004. EPA and the city continued to negotiate the terms of the draft permit through the winter and spring of 2004. While I am not privy to the details of these negations, it appears that the following agreement was reached. EPA would allow the city an extra three years to fix their dilapidated sewer delivery system (from 4 years to 7) and the city would agree to allow no more additional hookups to outside communities. EPA then drafted the permit and put it out for public comment in May of 2004. Unfortunately while much of the above was going on the City and surrounding towns were actively planning to use the proposed expanded plant to service their towns. It would be a win win situation the towns would get sewer service for less expenditure than building their own plants, and the City would be able to minimize the cost of the forced upgrade by charging these towns for the service. What appears to be a solution is a long term problem. If all of these towns are allowed into the system the river will not meet its assigned standard, and history will repeat itself. Ten or fifteen years from now we will be going through this same process all over again, at a tremendous cost to both ratepayers and the environment. If on the other hand the City builds the plant as proposed with perhaps a few revisions and keeps other communities from hooking up it will be a significant step forward. As the City repairs their sewer delivery infrastructure flows will be reduced to the plant and things will get better. It will not be the final step but it will be an incremental step forward. That’s all we are looking for, a step forward. Expanding this plant is a huge step backwards and if it happens we will continue to pay and pay over and over again.
|
|
|