[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO

                             of puerto rico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 22, 1997

  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, today, as the sole representative of 
the 3.8 million disenfranchised U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico, I 
am introducing a bill to amend section 301(h) of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act that would allow the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and 
Sewer Authority [PRASA] to apply for a waiver from certain wastewater 
treatment requirements affecting its Mayaguez facility.
  Under existing law the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is not 
allowed to accept new applications for waivers from secondary treatment 
requirements. The proposal does not alter the rigorous criteria for 
issuing a waiver nor does it override the judgment of EPA. Our proposal 
reflects the goal of both Congress and the administration to find 
innovative, alternative and less-costly ways to apply existing statutes 
without compromising the environmental objectives underlying existing 
law.
  Many scientists and experts agree that plans to construct deep ocean 
outfalls at locations can provide the best environmental and economic 
alternative for wastewater treatment. The plans would not only preserve 
but would even improve the coastal environments where these discharges 
occur.
  PRASA proposes the construction of a deep ocean outfall that would 
release primary treated wastewater miles from shore at a depth and 
location that will have no adverse impact on human and marine life.
  This alternative would improve the coral environment where the 
current outfall discharges and would also save the Government of Puerto 
Rico about $65 million over 20 years that can be spent to address other 
water supply and infrastructure problems affecting the island.
  EPA and the Department of Justice have agreed to enter into a consent 
order with PRASA that provides for deep water ocean outfall alternative 
to a secondary treatment plant. However, this alternative cannot even 
be considered without this legislation; and under the terms of the 
consent order, this alternative can only be considered if this 
legislation is enacted by August 1, 1998.
  PRASA is currently conducting an Environmental Impact Statement 
review to assess relative benefits of the two treatment alternatives. 
This EIS will be completed before August 1, 1998 and will help EPA 
determine which alternative is preferable. If this legislation is 
enacted, EPA will have this choice; if it is not enacted, there will be 
no choice, regardless of the environmental or economic consequences. 
This is what this proposal will accomplish. It is a sound approach to 
environmental regulations.
  It is imperative to stress the fact that this is only a limited and 
technical amendment that allows PRASA to refile under section 301(h). 
PRASA would be required by EPA to meet the same stringent legal and 
scientific tests, conduct the same environmental studies and implement 
the same monitoring program applicable to existing recipients of 
section 301(h) waivers. This amendment would not assure that a waiver 
would be granted; that decision would remain entirely within EPA's 
discretion.
  EPA will be the ultimate decisionmaker, and will determine if PRASA's 
proposed alternative is feasible and environmentally beneficial. If 
after the review, that alternative is acceptable, then PRASA will 
immediately begin construction on the facility, with discharge location 
approved by the EPA. If EPA finds the alternative unacceptable, then 
PRASA will proceed with construction of the secondary treatment plant.
  Puerto Rico is not asking for preferential treatment. Rather, we are 
only requesting that EPA balance the cost of constructing a secondary 
treatment facility against the environmental, economic, and social 
benefits of constructing an outfall at a deep water location.
  There are precedents for such limited amendment to section 301(h), 
recently for San Diego during the 105th Congress. In the instance of 
San Diego, legislation was enacted to permit EPA to consider a section 
301(h) waiver application proposing a similar alternative to secondary 
treatment. I believe we deserve the same opportunity to implement 
alternatives and seek a section 301(h) waiver.
  My environmental record speaks for itself. I would not support any 
measure that I believe compromises our resources or the environment of 
the island. I urge my colleagues to consider this proposal and its 
commonsense approach. The proposal is limited and targeted, provides 
for an efficient process, does not modify existing standards and would 
be implemented by EPA only if environmental and economic objectives are 
accomplished. I am hopeful that it will receive favorable congressional 
action at an early date.

                          ____________________