Clean Water Act & WOTUS

 

Greens Plan To Sue EPA Over Slaughterhouse Water Pollution. According to E&E News, “Environmental groups said today they’ll sue EPA to force the agency to update wastewater pollution guidelines for slaughterhouses. The Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and other organizations informed EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a letter that they intend to sue the agency in federal court for alleged failure to meet requirements under the Clean Water Act. The groups said EPA hasn’t conducted required annual reviews of meat and poultry facilities in at least three years. Some slaughterhouses are still operating under guidelines developed as long ago as 1974, they said, although EPA updated some guidelines in 2004 for facilities discharging wastewater into rivers and streams. Groups said EPA hasn’t reviewed pre-treatment guidelines for slaughterhouses that send wastewater to public treatment facilities. ‘Some of the world’s largest meat companies are dumping huge volumes of pollution into America’s rivers, contributing to toxic algae, dead zones and fecal bacteria that can make swimmers sick,’ said John Rumpler, clean water program director at Environment America, in a news release. Of more than 5,000 slaughterhouses in the United States, about 4,700 are allowed to discharge treated wastewater into waterways or to public treatment plants, the groups said. More than 8 billion chickens, 100 million hogs and 30 million beef cattle are processed each year in U.S. slaughterhouses, they said.” [E&E News, 7/2/19 (=)]

 

Green Groups Sue EPA For Exempting Farms From Reporting Pollution Tied To Animal Waste. According to The Hill, “A coalition of green groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) late Monday over a rule that lifts requirements for major farms to report the pollution they emit through animal waste. The rule, released in June, spurred criticism from environmental groups who say nearby communities would no longer have access to information about harmful gases being released into the air. ‘Trump’s EPA wants meat factories to keep their toxic air emissions secret, despite a clear statutory mandate to disclose, once again promoting the interest of some of the worst polluters at the expense of public health,’ said Carrie Apfel, a staff attorney for Earthjustice, the group leading the suit. ‘What EPA is doing is illegal, and an affront to rural families that have every right to know what’s in the air they breathe.’ Earthjustice and other groups backing the lawsuit contend that large farms previously subjected to the rules emit enough harmful pollutants that nearby residents need to be informed in order to be able to respond to possible health problems appropriately. Apfel said at the time of the rule’s release that people with chronic health problems are seeking medical care from doctors who are asking what they might be exposed to — information they currently can only get from such reports.” [The Hill, 7/2/19 (=)]

 

Vintage EPA Photos Reveal What US Waterways Looked Like Before Pollution Was Regulated. According to Business Insider, “Just over 50 years ago, Ohio’s Cuyahoga river caught fire. The disaster prompted a public outcry that in part led to the formation of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. The EPA was charged with regulating the country’s polluted air and waterways, among other environmental objectives. Soon after its founding, the agency dispatched 100 photographers to capture the US’ environmental issues as part of a photo project called Documerica. The photographers took about 81,000 images, more than 20,000 of which were archived. At least 15,000 have been digitized by the National Archives, and the images now function as a kind of time capsule, revealing what states from California to New York looked like between 1971 and 1977. Many of the photos were taken before the implementation of rules meant to keep water and air free of contamination. The images of polluted waterways are especially striking. The following Documerica photos reveal what US rivers, streams, and coastlines looked like before the EPA started regulating pollution.” [Business Insider, 7/2/19 (+)]

 

Coal Ash

 

US Won’t Impose Rule To Protect Against Coal Ash Spill Costs. According to Associated Press, “The Trump administration said Tuesday that it won’t require electric utilities to show they have money to clean up hazardous spills from power plants despite a history of toxic coal ash releases contaminating rivers and aquifers. Environmental Protection Agency officials said Tuesday that modern industry practices and recently enacted regulations are sufficient to shield taxpayers from potential cleanup costs. The finding comes after the EPA last year reversed a related proposal under President Barack Obama that would have imposed new financial requirements on the hardrock mining industry. In both cases, industry lobbyists pushed back against requirements that could have meant higher costs for companies. The Associated Press reported last year that major utilities across the nation have found evidence of groundwater contamination at landfills and ponds used for decades as dumping grounds for coal ash. Heightened levels of pollutants — including arsenic and radium in some cases — were documented at plants in numerous states, from Virginia and Montana to Alaska. Utilities and other companies in 2017 produced more than 111 million tons (101 million metric tons) of coal ash, primarily from burning the fuel for power generation, according to the American Coal Ash Association. Much of the ash is recycled or used for industrial purposes such as concrete additives, but huge volumes end up in long-term storage.” [Associated Press, 7/2/19 (=)]

 

PFAS

 

Bill Spotlight. According to Business Insider, “New Hampshire Reps. Chris Pappas and Ann Kuster introduced a bill Tuesday that would regulate PFAS discharge across U.S. waterways by adding the toxic chemicals to the Clean Water Act’s Toxic Pollutants List. ‘The Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act takes a critical step in holding polluters accountable and establishing proactive limits for PFAS discharge as we work to better understand PFAS and support families who have been exposed,’ Pappas said in a statement.” [Business Insider, 7/3/19 (=)]

 

Misc. Waterways

 

New York Will Start Enforcing Its Styrofoam Ban Today. Here's Where Else It's Banned. According to CNN, “New York City will begin officially enforcing its ban on styrofoam beginning Monday. The city outlawed the material on January 1, 2019, but businesses were given a six-month transition period before the crackdown began. The ban largely affects food establishments that have used styrofoam for take-out or large beverages, and it also prohibits stores from selling ‘packing peanuts.’ Businesses are encouraged to switch to compostable materials, including paper. The city banned styrofoam, also known as polystyrene, because the material can’t be ‘recycled in a manner that is economically feasible’ or ‘environmentally effective’ in its recycling program. Violators will be fined $250 for the first offense, $500 for a second offense and $1,000 for third offenses and beyond. ‘New York City’s ban on styrofoam is long overdue, and New Yorkers are ready to start using recyclable alternatives,’ New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said last year when he announced the ban. ‘There’s no reason to continue allowing this environmentally unfriendly substance to flood our streets, landfills and waterways.’” [CNN, 7/1/19 (+)]

 

States Seek Data To Enhance Produced Water Reuse As EPA Eyes New Rules. According to Inside EPA, “State regulators are outlining research needs that, if answered, could increase the feasibility of reusing produced water from oil and gas drilling, an approach that stands in contrast to EPA plans to ease regulatory requirements as a way to encourage the practice. The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), which represents state oil and gas regulators and environmental protection agencies, noted in a new report that regulators should better understand potential harms from reusing the water before allowing and encouraging its widespread use. The group also noted the challenge of designing effective and economical treatment options for reuse outside of the energy production sector and the need for developing new regulatory frameworks. ‘Potential risks to health and the environment must be well understood and appropriately managed in order to prevent unintended consequences of reuse,’ the group said in its Produced Water Report, noting that produced water is complex and further research and analysis is needed to better understand and define the ‘fit for purpose’ goals for treatment and permitting. The report says that inappropriate or inadequate treatment of produced water has been linked to negative consequences, including management of compounds like radionuclides that can bioaccumulate in biological systems or selectively partition into sediment in ways that are not always easy to predict.” [Inside EPA, 7/2/19 (=)]

 

Op-Ed: Why California’s Fight Against Climate Change Must Include Clean Water. According to CALmatters, “California’s political leaders have made the long-overdue decision to clean up the Central Valley’s contaminated drinking water, and help cash-strapped rural water districts. The catch: rather than assess a fee on water users or tapping into the state’s budget surplus, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature relied on cap-and-trade money to pay for a portion of the operation. The decision was cheered by clean water advocates, including my organization, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the roughly one million residents who haven’t had access to clean drinking and bathing water for years. In some environmental quarters, however, the decision was met with consternation. Under the current suite of climate laws, the governor and Legislature are required to spend revenue from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund only on those projects that reduce carbon emissions. Gov. Newsom’s budget adviser said using the fund to upgrade fouled water systems would reduce the need to truck in bottled water, thereby cutting emissions. Some folks questioned the strength of this nexus, calling it creative at best. Whether or not you agree with the decision, it has opened an important conversation about how to best allocate resources in a changing climate, and it has exposed the shortcomings of siloed thinking.” [CALmatters, 7/2/19 (+)]