Something Stinks on the Neshaminy Creek?

Seldom has PU's name applied so literally. This week's topic is the sewage treatment plants in the Neshaminy Creek basin. They have made the news recently because journalists investigating the plants have revealed a number of incidents of flows much higher than the permitted flows. The treatment of these high flows is less than desirable. The press attention has resulted in various public officials scrambling for cover. Those officials caught in the headlights have also reacted in typical fashion by saying that there really isn't much to worry about. However, their reaction time varied- -some not used to the spotlight have reacted slowly, while for the public servants that routinely field tough questions, minimizing the problem was as natural as reaching for a glass of clear cold water on a hot day.

An example of the former is the executive director of the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority, Ben Jones. Jones said in August that "the bottom line: there were no fish kills." He must have thought that came across as a bit harsh, however, because according to newspaper reports, he said on October 13 that the effluent produced by the three overloaded plants is actually cleaner than the creeks themselves, and that he would rather swim in the effluent than the creek! Also, some version of this statement was included in the 50,000 newsletters sent out this week by the BCWSA. Apparently he was referring to only one measure of water quality, the number of bacteria in the water, and to only one sampling event last month. Regardless, only 48 hours later, however, the same newspaper was reporting yet another malfunction at Kings Plaza, one of the BCWSA plants. And although there was no rain to blame, Jones was quicker this time--he said that there was no health hazard because the partially treated sewage was well- chlorinated! Maybe he reaches for a glass of effluent on a hot day.

Jones, with his minimizing rhetoric, follows the well- worn trail blazed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Charles Rehm, who works out of the southeast DEP office as the Regional Water Program Manager, was quoted in August press reports that the Neshaminy is in "good shape." DEP reports said that the Neshaminy was not affected by the high flows from the overloaded plants.

There is one issue about these plants in the Neshaminy basin that has not gotten much press, and that is this: never mind the recent high flows, the plants have long been responsible for poor water quality throughout the basin. PU's source? None other than the Pennsylvania DEP.

In July, 1998, DEP published their "303(d) list," which is mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act every two years. It is a list of all waters of the state considered 1) impaired and 2) will also need the imposition of controls beyond "technology-based" in order to meet water quality standards (visit DEP's 1998 303(d) list at, http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/
WQStandards/303-98-draft/303_water98_A-1.htm

The reason for making such a list is so that DEP can then make "Total Maximum Daily Load" determinations. These "TMDLs" are supposed to set the maximum amounts of pollutants that point and non-point sources can contribute, and allow the stream to eventually meet water quality standards.

The 1998 303(d) list mentions the Neshaminy Creek and a number of tributaries, totalling 39.8 miles. Guess what is the source of all this degradation, except for 0.19 miles? "Municipal point sources." For the novice, that means sewage treatment plants. What water quality problems? "Organic enrichment/low DO [dissolved oxygen], pH, nutrients, nonpriority organics, pathogens, metals." Just about everything that a sewage treatment plant discharges seems to cause problems in the Neshaminy Creek watershed. Don't worry however, the TMDLs are a "high priority."

Well, you might say, that just shows that DEP was out looking at the stream, and found out that the point sources were the problem. Agreed; but when were they out looking at the stream? Get ready for a trip down Memory Lane:

The 1996 303(d) list has the same segments, the same sources, and the same problems. The TMDLs for the Neshaminy basin were again listed as "high priority."

The 1994 303(d) list has the same segments, the same sources, and the same problems.

A 1993 DEP summary document on Neshaminy Creek states that during low flows, the stream flow consists mostly of discharges from 15 municipal sewage facilities. The stream has a long, well-documented history of nutrient enrichment.

In 1992, DEP's "305(b) Water Quality Assessment" report mentions municipal point sources as causing problems in the Neshaminy Creek watershed.

In 1988, the southeastern office of DEP prepared a report entitled "Neshaminy Creek Use Impairment Study" which said that the entire basin has a nutrient- related use impairment problem.

So for 10 years, Neshaminy Creek has had too many nutrients. But in August, Charles Rehm of DEP says that the Neshaminy Creek is in "good shape!" We should add here that Rehm is a long-time employee of the Water Management Program in the southeast DEP office.

Here at PU, we consider ourselves investigative journalists, so here are a few questions for Mr. Rehm or anyone else at DEP that wants to answer them. We will give the answers the same distribution as this article.

Do you mean by "good shape" that the recent malfunctions of the plants haven't caused detectable damage over and above the damage that their normal (mal)functioning has caused?

If the TMDLs for this basin are "high priority," when can we expect them?

Which plants are discharging to the impaired segments?

How many new hookups to those plants have been approved by DEP since the 1998 list was published?

Since the 1996 list? Since the 1994 list? Since the 1993 file summary document? Since the 1992 305(b) report? Since the 1988 use impairment survey?

Here are two questions for the US Environmental Protection Agency, the agency that has ultimate oversight responsibility for enforcing the Clean Water Act:

If TMDLs were needed in 1994, why hasn't EPA objected to discharge permits in the Neshaminy basin that allow the steady increase in pollutant loads?

How do your and DEP's inaction regarding the Neshaminy Creek plants meet the Clean Water Act goal of restoring the Nation's waters?

Here is one question for Ben Jones:

When can we expect to see you swimming in the Kings Plaza effluent? We will be happy to publish a photo.

<<<<END>>>>

return