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Outdated pollution-control technology standards meant that, for example, 81 oil refineries across the United States dumped 15.7 million pounds of nitrogen and 1.6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
'Disastrous': US Vetoes Cease-Fire Resolution at UN Security Council
"The Security Council was again prevented from rising to this moment to uphold its clear responsibilities in the face of this grave crisis threatening human lives and threatening regional and international peace and security," said the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations.
Dec 08, 2023
As the United Nations humanitarian chief warned that aid workers in Gaza are "hanging on by our fingertips" as they try to mitigate an "untenable" disaster, and with Americans' support for Israel's U.S-backed bombardment of the enclave eroding, the United States on Friday vetoed a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire at the U.N. Security Council.
U.S. Envoy to the U.N. Robert Wood told members of the council that a cease-fire would "only plant the seeds for the next war."
Thirteen member-countries voted in favor of the cease-fire resolution, which was introduced after U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres took the rare step of invoking Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, warning that Israel's slaughter of at least 17,487 Palestinians in just two months "may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
The U.K. abstained from voting on the resolution, saying it did not take into account that Hamas committed acts of terrorism when it attacked Israel on October 7.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. envoy, called the veto "disastrous."
"The Security Council was again prevented from rising to this moment to uphold its clear responsibilities in the face of this grave crisis threatening human lives and threatening regional and international peace and security," said Mansour. "Instead of allowing this council to uphold its mandate by finally making a clear call after two months of massacres that the atrocities must end, the war criminals are given more time to perpetuate them. How can this be justified?"
Nicolas de Rivière, France's permanent representative to the Security Council, who voted in favor of the cease-fire, argued that there is no "contradiction in the fight against terrorism and the protection of civilians, in strict respect of international humanitarian law."
"Unfortunately once again, this council has failed. With a lack of unity and by refusing to genuinely commit to negotiations in doing this, the crisis in Gaza is getting worse and it runs the risk of extending," said de Rivière.
The U.S. has now vetoed U.N. resolutions to hold Israel accountable for its policies in Palestine 45 times, human rights lawyer Noura Erakat said.
Former U.N. human rights official Craig Mokhiber—who resigned in October over the U.N.'s response to the war in Gaza—noted that U.S. blocked the resolution on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the U.N. Genocide Convention.
"Thousands have died since [the United States'] last veto and more will die now," said Mokhiber.
Keep ReadingShow Less
73% of US Voters Want Emissions Cut in Half by 2023: Poll
One expert expressed hope that Democrats "realize that strong positions on abortion and climate change are no longer 'partisan' or 'divisive'—religious freedom, bodily privacy, and saving the world are BIG TENT, winning issues."
Dec 08, 2023
Polling results released Friday by CNN show that 73% of U.S. voters across the political spectrum believe the government should design policies to meet its commitment to cut planet-heating emissions in half by the end of this decade.
End Climate Science founding director Genevieve Guenther noted on social media that the overall figure includes 95% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, and even 50% of Republicans.
She expressed hope that the Democratic Party will now "realize that strong positions on abortion and climate change are no longer 'partisan' or 'divisive'—religious freedom, bodily privacy, and saving the world are BIG TENT, winning issues."
The survey was conducted by SSRS last month and the results were revealed during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) set to run through Tuesday—which U.S. President Joe Biden has been criticized for blowing off.
As CNNdetailed:
Americans give Biden a 43% approval rating for his handling of environmental policy, which is several points above his overall approval rating and well above his numbers for handling the economy. But few Americans, only 2%, see climate change as the most important issue facing the country, giving higher priority to the economy and cost of living.
But climate change and clean energy are increasingly intertwined with the economy. Climate change-fueled disasters don’t just impact commerce, they also strike at the heart of the American dream: homeownership.
The approval and disapproval responses strongly correlate to political party, with far more Democrats backing Biden's environmental policy.
Most Americans disapprove of President Biden's handling of environmental policy
(Graphic: Matt Stiles/CNN)
Pollsters found that 58% of voters worry about the effects of extreme weather, 68% worry about the risks of climate change, and 79% think that climate change contributed to extreme weather in their area.
Large majorities of voters from the partisan spectrum agreed that humanity as a whole, the energy and automobile industries, and the U.S. and Chinese governments have some or even a great deal of responsibility to try to reduce climate change. Slightly smaller majorites said that those entities are doing "too little" to address the emergency.
Two-thirds of voters said that "requiring that all electricity in the U.S. be produced using renewable sources like solar and wind by the year 2035" as well as "offering federal tax credits for purchasing and installing home solar panels should be important, or even top priorities.
Even more (71%) noted the importance of "offering federal tax credits for purchasing and installing ultra-efficient home heating and cooling systems" along with "prioritizing investments in clean energy sources over energy from fossil fuels." A slim majority (54%) prioritized "offering federal tax credits for purchasing an electric vehicle."
While Biden—who is seeking reelection next year—campaigned on the promise of being a "climate president," during his first term so far he has faced criticism from campaigners and frontline communities for declining to declare a national climate emergency, supporting the Willow oil project and Mountain Valley Pipeline, backing the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports, and continuing fossil fuel lease sales for public lands and waters.
The president has also had to contend with Republicans and right-wing Democrats in Congress who want to kill or water down climate policies. For example, this week, the House GOP has voted to block a proposed Biden administration rule meant to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and advance various fossil fuel industry-friendly bills, including one that would saddle taxpayers with the cost of cleaning up oil and gas wells on federal lands.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crunch Time at COP28': Latest Draft Still Has Loopholes, Omits 'Just' Fossil Fuel Phaseout
As the newest Global Stocktake draft was released, an OPEC letter showed oil-producing companies are fearful that the world is getting closer to phasing out fossil fuels.
Dec 08, 2023
Reviewing the latest draft of the Global Stocktake regarding the climate emergency out of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference, campaigners on Friday noted that negotiators left in numerous loopholes that would allow the fossil fuel industry to continue polluting, while eliminating one option for a clause that appeared to call for a just transition toward renewable energy.
The new draft is the result of three more days of negotiations since the last version of the Global Stocktake (GST) was released on Tuesday, when advocates warned policymakers appeared insistent on including a call for "abatement" of fossil fuel emissions—meaning further development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which have so far failed to deliver the emissions-reduction results promised by proponents.
The latest version of the document includes four options for a paragraph that would address the future of fossil fuel use in the remaining years of this decade.
The options that remain in the draft are:
- A phaseout of fossil fuels in line with best available science;
- A phasing out of fossil fuels in line with best available science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 1.5°C pathways and the principles and provisions of the Paris agreement;
- A phaseout of unabated fossil fuels recognizing the need for a peak in their consumption in this decade and underlining the importance for the energy sector to be predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050; and
- No text regarding changes to fossil fuel use.
Negotiators crossed out an option that would call for "an orderly and just phaseout of fossil fuels."
"There is some good stuff in there, but still too many dangerous distractions," said 350.org on social media. "We must agree [to] a fair and fast phaseout of fossil fuels and to triple renewable energies by 2030!"
The draft suggested that many policymakers remain committed to calling for a phaseout of "unabated" fossil fuel emissions—those that are not "captured" and stored underground or under the seabed before they hit they atmosphere.
As Common Dreamsreported Friday, more than 470 lobbyists representing carbon capture and storage interests and companies are in attendance at COP28—along with more than 2,400 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, which has openly supported CCS as a solution that would allow oil, gas, and coal giants to continue operating.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, said world leaders must take their "historic opportunity to secure a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels in line with what the science shows is necessary to meet critical climate goals."
"It's crunch time at COP28," Cleetus told Common Dreams. "The latest draft of the Global Stocktake text includes several potential options, with varying degrees of ambition. Now, it's time to reach consensus on a final outcome that is true to the science, includes near- and long-term benchmarks, has no loopholes, and has an equitable provision of finance to drive a clean energy transition. Countries must take bold action and rise above narrow self-interest and zero-sum political games, as well as the influence of fossil fuel companies, to deliver what people around the world urgently need as climate impacts rapidly worsen."
"The time is now, and the place is Dubai, to finally address the root cause of this global crisis: fossil fuels," said Cleetus.
Oil Change International global policy manager Romain Ioualalen said the latest draft left him hopeful that the world has "never been closer to an agreement on a fossil fuel phaseout."
"What that transition will look like will be a fierce battle over the next few days," said Ioualalen. "We are alarmed about some of the options in this text that seem to carve out large loopholes for the fossil fuel industry. These will need to be opposed. The draft is also missing a clear recognition that developed countries will need to phase out faster and provide their fair share of finance, as well as a recognition that the decline of fossil fuel production must start immediately, not in the distant future."
Ghiwa Nakat, executive director of Greenpeace MENA, said the latest draft and "everything so far" at COP28 "has been just a prelude to what we really want to hear—commitment to a just and equitable phaseout of all fossil fuels by mid-century, coupled with key milestones for this critical decade."
While "alternative formulations on fossil fuel phaseout" have never "made it this far into a draft text," said Greenpeace International, "there are still no guarantees on a decision on fossil fuels, so all is in play."
Shortly after the draft was made public, letters from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were leaked to multiple news outlets and made it even more clear that campaigners' fight for a strong final Global Stocktake is not over—but that major fossil fuel producers are growing concerned that COP28 could be a turning point for the industry.
The letters, dated December 6 and signed by OPEC secretary-general and Kuwaiti oil executive Haitham al-Ghais, were sent to members countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Nigeria.
Al-Ghais urged the countries to "proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy, i.e. fossil fuels, rather than emissions."
"These letters show that fossil fuel interests are starting to realize that the writing is on the wall for dirty energy," Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, toldThe Guardian. "Climate change is killing poor people around the globe and these petrostates don't want COP28 to phase out fossil fuels because it will hurt their short-term profits. It's shameful."
While the draft text "offers hope with several options for a phaseout of fossil fuels," said Cansın Leylim, associate director of global campaigns for 350.org, fossil fuel lobbyists are still "trying to block progress" at COP28.
"OPEC needs to get with the program or move out of the way of our just transition to a 100% renewable energy powered future," said Leylim. "The spotlight is now on the COP28's presidency and if they will broker a deal for a just transition or instead align themselves with the oil industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular