April, 11 2023, 01:50pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tom Pelton, Environmental Integrity Project, tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org
Hannah Connor, Center for Biological Diversity, hconnor@biologicaldiversity.org
EPA Sued Over Unregulated Water Pollution From Oil Refineries, Plastics Plants, Other Industries
Environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency today for failing to set limits on harmful chemicals like cyanide, benzene, mercury and chlorides in wastewater emitted by oil refineries and plants that produce chemicals, fertilizer, plastics, pesticides and nonferrous metals.
The Clean Water Act requires the EPA to limit discharges of industrial pollutants based on the best available wastewater treatment methods, and to tighten those limits at least once every five years where data show treatment technologies have improved. But the agency has never set limits for many pollutants and has failed to update the few decades-old limits that exist — including limits set almost 40 years ago for oil refineries (1985), plastics manufacturers (1984) and fertilizer plants (1986).
Outdated pollution-control technology standards meant that, for example, 81 oil refineries across the United States dumped 15.7 million pounds of nitrogen and 1.6 billion pounds of chlorides, sulfates and other dissolved solids (which can be harmful to aquatic life) into waterways in 2021.
Twenty-one nitrogen fertilizer plants discharged 7.7 million pounds of total nitrogen, which causes algae blooms and fish-killing "dead-zones," and proposed new plants will add millions of additional pounds to that load. The EPA estimates that 229 inorganic chemical plants dumped over 2 billion pounds of pollution into waterways in 2019.
"No one should get a free pass to pollute. It's completely unacceptable that EPA has, for decades, ignored the law and failed to require modern wastewater pollution controls for oil refineries and petrochemical and plastics plants," said Jen Duggan, deputy director of the Environmental Integrity Project, which coordinated the action by the 13 environmental groups. "We expect EPA to do its job and protect America's waterways and public health as required by the Clean Water Act."
"For decades the EPA has let these dirty industries pollute our rivers and bays instead of making them keep pace with advances in technologies that tackle water pollution, as the Clean Water Act demands," said Hannah Connor, environmental health deputy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Forcing people and wildlife like endangered Atlantic sturgeon to bear the weight of toxic water pollution while industries rake in record profits isn't just morally wrong, it's also legally indefensible. The EPA needs to bring pollution standards into the 21st century."
Despite the legal mandate for regular reviews and updates to keep pace with technology, the guidelines for 40 of 59 industries regulated by the EPA were last updated 30 or more years ago, with 17 of those dating back to the 1970s. Outdated standards mean more water pollution is pouring into U.S. waters than should be allowed because some plants are using technology standards from the Reagan era — before common use of the Internet, email or cell phones.
The lawsuit was filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco by the Environmental Integrity Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action, Waterkeeper Alliance, Food & Water Watch, Environment America, Bayou City Waterkeeper, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Healthy Gulf, San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper, San Francisco Baykeeper, the Surfrider Foundation and Tennessee Riverkeeper.
The lawsuit challenges the EPA's decision in January not to update outdated and weak water-pollution control technology standards (called "effluent limitation guidelines" or ELGs and pretreatment standards) for seven key industrial sectors: petroleum refineries, inorganic and organic chemical manufacturers, and factories that manufacture plastics, fertilizer, pesticides, and nonferrous metals.
A January report by the Environmental Integrity Project, "Oil's Unchecked Outfalls," revealed that 81 refineries across the United States discharged into waterways 15.7 million pounds of algae-feeding nitrogen in 2021 — as much as from 128 municipal sewage plants — along with 60,000 pounds of selenium (which can cause mutations in fish), among other pollutants.
The six other industries with weak and outdated EPA effluent guidelines targeted in the lawsuit filed by the environmental groups are:
- Organic chemical and plastics plants: The EPA estimates that 609 facilities across the nation manufacture plastic resins, PFAS "forever chemicals," synthetic fibers (rayon, polyester, etc.), and other chemicals and discharge pollution to waterways. These plants release millions of pounds of pollution every year, including nitrogen, benzene and lead. The effluent guidelines for the sector have not been updated since 1993 and have no limits on, for example, stormwater pollution or on plastic pellets — called "nurdles" — that often escape in stormwater or wastewater.
- Plastics molding and forming: 120 plants that mold and form plastic products discharge into U.S. waterways, according to an EPA estimate. But the agency has not revised its technology-based limits for this sector since the EPA first set the limits in 1984, almost 40 years ago, even though the standards are supposed to reflect "best available technology." The toxic pollutants discharged by this industry without any federal limits include phthalates, PFAS, nitrogen, N-N-Dimethylformamide, and microplastics.
- Fertilizer manufacturing: The EPA estimates that 59 chemical fertilizer manufacturing plants discharged nearly 90 million pounds of pollution into waterways in 2019. Among these are 21 plants that make nitrogen-based fertilizer and release millions of pounds of nitrogen into U.S. waterways. The EPA has set no limits on several fertilizer plant pollutants, including selenium, total chromium, zinc, iron, nickel, cadmium, cyanide and lead. The current effluent guidelines for fertilizer factories have not been updated since 1986.
- Nonferrous metal manufacturing: 56 facilities in this manufacturing sector (metals excluding iron and steel) dumped over 100 million pounds of pollution into waterways in 2019, according to an EPA estimate. But pollution-control guidelines for this industry have not been updated since 1990 and the current limits for this industry do not include any controls on stormwater pollution, for example.
- Inorganic chemicals plants: Inorganic chemical plants, which make products like vinyl chloride, are one of the largest industrial dischargers of toxic pollution in the United States, with 229 factories dumping over 2 billion pounds of pollution into waterways in 2019, according to an EPA estimate. But the EPA has not updated pollution limits for this sector since 1984.
- Pesticide manufacturing: The EPA estimates that 31 pesticide chemical plants discharge pollution into U.S. waterways, including insect-killing ingredients, as well as nitrogen, benzene, cyanide and more. But the EPA has not updated the guidelines for pesticide manufacturing since 1998.
"Outdated standards allow far too many industries, from plastic producers to oil refineries, to pour their pollution into our rivers, bays, lakes and streams," said John Rumpler, senior clean water director at Environment America. "It's time for the EPA to rein in this pollution, as the public would expect and the Clean Water Act demands."
"The Clean Water Act is our best defense against unregulated industrial water pollution, but we continue to be exposed to large volumes of dangerous, toxic pollutants in our drinking water supplies, fisheries and recreational waters because EPA is not fully implementing the law," said Kelly Hunter Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance senior attorney. "EPA must update pollution standards consistent with modern technologies that can reduce or even eliminate the discharge of hazardous pollutants like heavy metals, benzene and mercury."
"Louisiana's waterways have been burdened by water pollution from refineries and chemical plants, and so there are no excuses for EPA to continue missing opportunities to improve standards for these industries," said Andrew Whitehurst, water program director at Healthy Gulf. "Technology-based guidelines for pollution-control systems must evolve with improvements in water cleanup technology."
"Those of us living in Houston are sick of sacrificing our health and ecosystems to inadequately regulated industries," said Kristen Schlemmer with the Houston-based Bayou City Waterkeeper. "These burdens are heaviest on our lower-wealth, Black and brown neighbors living in the shadow of industrial facilities along the Houston Ship Channel, who face increased risks of cancer and don't have equal access to our natural bayous and bays. Through this lawsuit, our hope is to get better regulations in place so our home can stop being treated as a sacrifice zone."
"Oil refinery pollution doesn't belong in San Francisco Bay or in any of the nation's waterways, and it certainly doesn't belong in our neighborhoods," said Eric Buecher, managing attorney at San Francisco Baykeeper. "It's high time we held the EPA accountable and compel the agency to crack down on the toxic pollution from oil refineries that's threatening both wildlife and human health around San Francisco Bay and across the country."
"Once again, EPA has failed to update the antiquated and ineffective water pollution regulations for these industrial dischargers, including plastics plants and fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers, allowing them to continue wreaking havoc on the environment," said Erin Doran, a senior attorney with Food & Water Watch. "Enough is enough — we're taking EPA to court."
"Regardless of where a person lives, they should be able to fish or swim in their local river or lake without fear of getting sick from pollution, and they shouldn't be burdened with a higher water bill because a refinery or plastics plant upstream contaminated their drinking water source," said Jennifer Peters, national water programs director at Clean Water Action. "EPA must do its job and update these archaic pollution standards as required by the Clean Water Act as soon as possible."
"Surfrider is pleased to join our coalition partners and Environmental Integrity Project in calling for EPA to fulfill its statutory duties to protect clean water and public health and ensure that technology-based standards for industrial polluters like petroleum refineries and pesticides plants reflect the realities of 2023," said Staley Prom, senior legal associate at Surfrider Foundation. "Surfrider members surf, swim, snorkel, fish and recreate in waters impacted by EPA's failure to act and deserve the protections of modern technology to minimize water pollution."
"It is a shame EPA has allowed industrial polluters such as chemical plants and oil refineries to escape accountability under the Clean Water Act by operating for decades without proper pollution controls in place," said Nelson Brooke with Black Warrior Riverkeeper (in Alabama). "It is imperative EPA swiftly right these wrongs by requiring modern pollution controls for industrial facilities in order to protect rivers and all the people and critters who depend on them to be clean and safe."
"Pollution from plastics, pesticides, petroleum and a grim litany of other toxins continue to plague public water supplies," said David Whiteside, founder of Tennessee Riverkeeper. "The Clean Water Act requires factories to use the best available methods to treat their pollution, but the EPA has failed to enforce this provision. Our lawsuit seeks to reduce a vast array of toxins in our environment from numerous industries by requiring polluters to finally use modern technology and obey the law."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
'Beyond Dehumanizing': ICE Docs Expose Plan to Hold 80,000 People in Warehouses
The proposal does not treat detainees "as people but just things to be warehoused like Amazon packages," said one critic.
Dec 24, 2025
Eight months after the acting director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement saidd at a border security conference that the Trump administration aims to carry out its mass deportation operation with the same efficiency as Amazon's package deliveries, a draft document from ICE officials on Wednesday provided never-before-seen details of how the agency plans to do that using massive warehouses repurposed to hold tens of thousands of people.
The Washington Post reported on a draft solicitation document, a version of which ICE plans to send to private detention companies this week.
The proposal calls for contractors to help renovate industrial warehouses across the country, setting each up to hold up to 10,000 people detained by immigration agents at a time—albeit in facilities that will likely have poor ventilation, climate control, plumbing, and sanitation systems.
Warehouses, said physician and journalist Dr. Carolyn Barber, "are built for boxes, not humans."
🧊 WAREHOUSING HUMANS 😲ICE plans to herd their captives "into one of seven large-scale warehouses holding 5,000 to 10,000 people each, where they would be staged for deportation." www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
[image or embed]
— JJ in DC (@jjindc.bsky.social) December 24, 2025 at 7:43 AM
ICE aims to modify the warehouses and create separate housing units with showers and bathrooms, dining areas, medical units, recreation areas, and law libraries, according to the document.
The agency's new facilities will “maximize efficiency, minimize costs, shorten processing times, limit lengths of stay, accelerate the removal process, and promote the safety, dignity, and respect for all in ICE custody," the solicitation said.
But considering acting ICE Director Todd Lyons' comment last April that the administration should treat deportations "like a business... Like [Amazon] Prime, but with human beings," rights advocates said the plan to house people in massive storage facilities was "beyond dehumanizing."
"It is as if they don't see immigrants as people but just things to be warehoused like Amazon packages," said Philip Mai, co-director at the Social Media Lab at Toronto Metropolitan University.
ICE and other federal agencies have been transporting detainees around the country this year to whichever detention facilities have space, but under the new plan, seven large warehouses in Louisiana, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and Missouri would be used as deportation "staging" facilities for 5,000-10,000 people each.
Sixteen smaller warehouses would each hold up to 1,500 people, allowing the government to detain 80,000 people in immigration facilities at a time—up from about 68,000 who were in detention in early December.
ICE data shows that about 48% of the people currently being detained have no criminal convictions or current charges, the Post reported.
Jonathan Cohn, political director for the advocacy group Progressive Mass, suggested that ICE's claims that it will build facilities that prioritize detainees' "dignity" ring hollow, considering the plan's details.
"They want to build a network of concentration camps," he said simply.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Ban on European Disinformation Opponents Decried as 'Authoritarian Attack on Free Speech'
"Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back?" asked Thierry Breton, a former EU commissioner now barred from entering the US.
Dec 24, 2025
European Union leaders and others around the world this week condemned President Donald Trump's administration for imposing a travel ban on a former EU commissioner and leaders of nongovernmental groups that fight against disinformation and hate speech—or, as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called them, "agents of the global censorship-industrial complex."
Rubio said in a Tuesday statement that his department "is taking decisive action against five individuals who have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose. These radical activists and weaponized NGOs have advanced censorship crackdowns by foreign states—in each case targeting American speakers and American companies."
The five people barred from the United States are Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate; Clare Melford, another Brit from the Global Disinformation Index; Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg of the German group HateAid; and Thierry Breton, a French leader who helped craft the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) as a commissioner.
"Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back?" Breton wrote on X—a social media platform that belongs to erstwhile Trump ally Elon Musk and was recently fined €120 million, or $140 million, for violating DSA's transparency obligations.
"As a reminder: 90% of the European Parliament—our democratically elected body—and all 27 member states unanimously voted the DSA," Breton noted. "To our American friends: 'Censorship isn't where you think it is.'"
As Anda Bologa, a senior researcher with the Tech Policy Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis, explained earlier this year, "the DSA tackles illegal or demonstrably harmful activity—terrorist propaganda, child sexual abuse material, and foreign-backed election meddling." The 2022 law also "mandates that platforms publish transparency reports on takedown requests, justify their decisions, and offer users appeal mechanisms."
In a Tuesday statement, the European Commission said it "strongly condemns" the US travel ban, adding: "Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Europe and a shared core value with the United States across the democratic world. The EU is an open, rules-based single market, with the sovereign right to regulate economic activity in line with our democratic values and international commitments."
"Our digital rules ensure a safe, fair, and level playing field for all companies, applied fairly and without discrimination," the commission continued. "We have requested clarifications from the US authorities and remain engaged. If needed, we will respond swiftly and decisively to defend our regulatory autonomy against unjustified measures."
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen posted the statement on X, and various other EU leaders shared similar messages.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said that "the entry bans imposed by the USA, including those against the chairpersons of HateAid, are not acceptable. The Digital Services Act ensures that everything that is illegal offline is also illegal online."
"The DSA was democratically adopted by the EU for the EU—it does not have extraterritorial effect," he continued. "We intend to address other interpretations fundamentally with the USA in the transatlantic dialogue, in order to strengthen our partnership."
The German campaigners, Ballon and von Hodenberg, said in a statement that "we will not be intimidated by a government that uses accusations of censorship to silence those who stand up for human rights and freedom of expression."
French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that "I have just spoken with Thierry Breton and thanked him for his significant contributions in the service of Europe. We will stand firm against pressure and will protect Europeans."
Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International—which supports the DSA—wrote on X: "Now the US is sanctioning a former EU official and several heads of NGOs monitoring hate speech and disinformation—on the ground that they are censoring American speech! Laughable. Social media platforms must be regulated. Better and more. Not less."
Due to Brexit, the DSA notably does not apply to the United Kingdom, but that didn't spare the two UK campaigners targeted by the Trump administration. A spokesperson from Melford's group told the BBC that "the visa sanctions announced today are an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship."
"The Trump administration is, once again, using the full weight of the federal government to intimidate, censor, and silence voices they disagree with," the spokeperson added. "Their actions today are immoral, unlawful, and un-American."
Tom Malinowski, a former Democratic congressman from New Jersey running to return to the House of Reprentatives, called out the State Deparment he previously served in under the Obama administration for sanctioning leaders of groups "that flag instances of antisemitism, harm to children, deep fakes, and vaccine disinformation online."
"Most Americans want online platforms that are safer for our kids, with less hateful and harmful content," he added. "It is not censorship to urge social media and AI companies to enforce their own rules against these things! The State Department's action is a blatant attack on free speech."
Earlier this month, the US advocacy group Free Press released a report detailing Trump's "war on free speech" based on "more than 500 reports of verbal threats, executive orders, presidential memoranda, statements from the White House, actions by regulators and agencies, military and law enforcement deployment and activities, litigation, removal of website language on .gov websites, removal of official history and information at national parks and museums, and discontinued data collection by the federal government."
The report says that "while the US government has made efforts throughout this nation's history to censor people's expression and association—be it the exercise of freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress—the Trump administration's incessant attacks on even the most tentatively oppositional speech are uniquely aggressive, pervasive, and escalating."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Fire Them!’ Stephen Miller Throws a Fit Over 'Revolt' of ‘60 Minutes’ Producers Against Bari Weiss
Miller's demand comes as one CBS News insider described the mood at the network as "dismal," "confused,” “demoralized,” and "super fucked."
Dec 24, 2025
Top White House adviser Stephen Miller on Tuesday threw an angry fit at CBS News' "60 Minutes" for its leaked segment about the Trump administration sending immigrants to an El Salvadoran torture prison.
During an interview on Fox News, Miller accused "60 Minutes" of coddling people he described as violent criminals, even though records obtained by the program showed that only a fraction of the men the administration sent to El Salvador's notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) were convicted of violent offenses, and nearly half had no criminal histories.
"They know that these are monsters, who got exactly what they deserved," said Miller, referring to Venezuelan men who said they were subjected to relentless torture and abuse during their imprisonment at CECOT. "Because under President Trump, we are not going to let little girls get raped, and murdered anymore."
Miller then encouraged CBS News boss Bari Weiss to purge producers and reporters who leaked details about her decision to spike their CECOT story to other media outlets.
"Every one of those producers at ’60 Minutes’ engaged in this revolt, fire them," Miller said. "Clean house, fire them!"
Miller: Every one of those producers at 60 minutes who engaged in this revolt, clean house and fire them, that's what I say. pic.twitter.com/YGXm30o2nR
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2025
Weiss' decision to pull the CECOT segment has reportedly sent morale at CBS News spiraling downward, with one insider telling Vanity Fair that the mood at the network now is "dismal," "confused,” “demoralized,” and "super fucked" over the move.
Compounding the frustration, the insider said, is the fact that the segment has already been leaked. and has been viewed widely online, including on a Canadian streaming app, rather than on CBS.
"I mean, it’s already out there, so now we just look like idiots," they said.
The spiking of the CECOT story was further criticized by former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, who wrote a Tuesday column in the Guardian slamming Weiss for "her apparent willingness to use her position to protect the powerful and take care of business for the oligarchy."
Sullivan noted that Weiss reports directly to Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison, the son of Trump ally Larry Ellison, who recently made a hostile bid to buy Warner Brothers Discovery (WBD) after Netflix announced that its own $72 billion offer to buy up the media company had been accepted.
This is relevant, Sullivan said, because Ellison will need assistance from Trump-appointed federal regulators for his bid to succeed.
"The Ellisons surely wouldn't want to antagonize anyone at this critical moment," Sullivan explained. "And notably, if Paramount prevails, they would control [WBD-owned] CNN, and could do there what they’re doing at CBS News—they could install new editorial leadership that’s more agreeable. Trump has complained bitterly for years about CNN; this matters to him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


