SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pollution
US Plastics Industry Dumps Almost Half a Billion Gallons of Wastewater Daily
"Plastics plants are poisoning our waters and contaminating our bodies—and EPA needs to do its job and protect our waterways and downstream communities," said one watchdog leader.
Nov 14, 2024
Amid fears over President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, a government watchdog on Thursday called out the EPA for letting the plastics industry pollute U.S. waterways with about half a billion gallons of wastewater every day.
The new report—Plastic's Toxic River: EPA's Failure to Regulate the Petrochemical Plants That Make Plastic—is based on an Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) analysis of records for "70 petrochemical plants that manufacture the most common plastics and their primary chemical ingredients and discharge wastewater directly into rivers, lakes, and other water bodies."
The publication provides just a snapshot of the industry's pollution of U.S. waters. The group focused on plants "that make raw or pure plastics, sometimes referred to as resins, pellets, or nurdles, that are eventually turned into plastic products, like plastic bottles," and did not examine oil refineries or facilities that only make the end-use or consumer products.
"Federal regulations on the wastewater from plastics manufacturing plants have not been updated in over 30 years, are grossly outdated, and fail to protect waterways and downstream communities."
The document explains that "many harmful chemicals released by plastics manufacturers are completely unregulated" by the federal agency, including "dioxins, which are known cancer-causing agents that are highly toxic and persist in the environment; and 1,4-dioxane, a likely carcinogen that EPA scientists recently indicated is threatening drinking water sources."
"Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution discharged from plastics and petrochemical plants—which cause algal blooms and fish-killing low-oxygen zones—are also not controlled by EPA's industrial wastewater rules," it continues. "Although state agencies can set limits for these pollutants in individual wastewater discharge permits, practices vary across states and the limits are inadequate and inconsistent."
EIP found that last year, the 70 plants collectively released nearly 10 million pounds of nitrogen and 1.9 million pounds of phosphorus into waterways. The previous year, eight facilities released an estimated 74,285 pounds of 1,4-dioxane, and 10 of the 17 plants manufacturing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or its ingredients released 1,374 grams of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds.
The watchdog also found that "although absolute numbers are not known," releases of nurdles into waterways "appear to be common," enforcement of existing regulations is "rare," 58 of 70 plants violated the weak limits "by releasing more pollution than allowed at least once from 2021 to 2023," and 28 facilities are operating with outdated water permits.
"In addition to all these problems, petrochemical plants have been recognized by EPA as potential sources of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, the 'forever chemicals' that persist in waterways and have been linked to increased cancer risk, hormone disruption, reduced ability of the body to fight infections, and reproductive harms, including low birth weight in babies and developmental delays," the publication notes.
U.S. Geological Survey scientists last month published a study on forever chemicals in the journal Science and released an interactive, online map for the Lower 48 states. They estimated that "71 to 95 million people in the conterminous United States potentially rely on groundwater with detectable concentrations of PFAS for their drinking water supplies prior to any treatment."
EIP's new report highlights that "federal regulations on the wastewater from plastics manufacturing plants have not been updated in over 30 years, are grossly outdated, and fail to protect waterways and downstream communities," despite the Clean Water Act's requirement that the EPA "set wastewater discharge limits (called 'effluent limitation guidelines') for harmful pollutants based on the best available technology economically achievable."
"Because treatment technologies improve over time, EPA is supposed to review existing limits every five years and strengthen them when data show treatment options have improved," the document details. "EPA has failed to comply with this mandate, resulting in an excessive amount of potentially dangerous water pollution pouring from plastics manufacturers into America's waterways."
The group's recommendations are to mandate the use of modern wastewater pollution controls, prohibit plastic discharges into waterways, increase accountability at the state and federal level, enhance monitoring requirements in permitting, and improve permit transparency and recordkeeping.
"It is inexcusable that EPA is not following the Clean Water Act and failing to require the multibillion-dollar plastics industry to install modern pollution control systems," EIP executive director Jen Duggan said in a statement. "Plastics plants are poisoning our waters and contaminating our bodies—and EPA needs to do its job and protect our waterways and downstream communities."
Local groups in Lousiana, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia also responded to the report with calls for action.
"Decades of unchecked pollution have transformed the Calcasieu River into a dumping ground for toxic chemicals, with little accountability for the companies responsible," said James Hiatt, executive director of the Louisiana-based For a Better Bayou. "It's unacceptable that these plastics plants, profiting from our natural resources, are allowed to continue to release carcinogens like dioxins into our waterways. We need to hold these polluters accountable—and make them clean up the damage they've caused."
Despite such demands for action, environmental advocates have grave concerns about the EPA's future under Trump, including over his pick of Lee Zeldin, a former Republican member of Congress, to head the agency.
During Trump's first term, his administration rolled back over 100 environmental rules. Although Zeldin, as a congressman, was sometimes "willing and even eager to address environmental problems at home on coastal Long Island," as The New York Timesnoted Tuesday, his voting record and fealty to Trump have green groups fearful for the future.
As Common Dreamsreported earlier this week, Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous declared that choosing a candidate "who opposes efforts to safeguard our clean air and water lays bare Donald Trump's intentions to, once again, sell our health, our communities, our jobs, and our future out to corporate polluters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Newly Unearthed Docs Show Big Oil Knew of Climate Dangers as Early as 1950s
"Big Oil has been running public affairs campaigns to downplay the dangers of its products just as long as Big Tobacco," said one expert.
Nov 12, 2024
Documents uncovered from several academic and news archives shed light on what one climate disinformation expert on Tuesday called "one of the earliest and most brazen efforts by the oil industry to prop up" a front group with the aim of denying climate science and delaying action that would cut into the industry's profits by protecting the planet from steadily increasing fossil fuel emissions.
The Climate Investigations Center found a warning that came in 1954 from the head of the Air Pollution Foundation, a group funded by the Western Oil and Gas Association. According to DeSmog, which reported on the findings, the lobbying group, now known as the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), poured $1.3 million into the APF in the 1950s—the equivalent of $14 million in today's dollars.
APF was set up with the public-facing intent of confronting the worsening smog crisis in Los Angeles, where the number of cars had doubled between 1940-50 and the area was rapidly industrializing.
But with funding coming from Western Oil and Gas Association members including Shell and companies that were later bought by ExxonMobil, Chervon, and other oil giants, the foundation was meant to be "protective" of the industry, as meeting minutes from 1955 showed.
At the time of APF's founding, researchers had begun warning that air pollution was caused by vehicles and refineries, and officials in Los Angeles had begun proposing new ordinances to cut down on smog.
To counter this, the foundation asked the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) to submit a proposal determining the main source of air pollution. Caltech geochemistry professor Samuel Epstein submitted a proposal in November 1954, warning that the Earth's climate could be affected by burning fossil fuels.
The "concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere" was a matter "of well recognized importance to our civilization," wrote Epstein.
After the report was submitted, APF president Lauren Hitchcock, a chemical engineer who had been recruited to lead the group, began investigating oil and gas refineries and publicly demanding pollution controls across California—actions that didn't please the industry giants who were backing APF.
As DeSmog reported, leaders of the Western Oil and Gas Association "summoned Hitchcock to the California Club where they reprimanded him, spelling out in no uncertain terms exactly what they expected in return for their hefty financial contributions."
According to the report:
Over lunch, WSPA's oilmen criticized Hitchcock for supporting pollution controls across California, for drawing "attention" to refinery pollution, and for conducting "too broad a program" of research. Instead, they told him they had formed the Air Pollution Foundation to be "protective," that Hitchcock should serve as "the research director for the oil industry" and the foundation should publish "findings which would be accepted as unbiased" where the oil industry's findings were not seen as trustworthy. This frank exchange, reported in detail by Hitchcock in a never-before-seen memo, unmasks the strategic motivations behind Big Oil's sponsorship of air pollution research.
Hitchcock resigned from APF in 1956, after many of the group's research projects were scaled back and the organization took the official stance in reports that carbon dioxide emissions were "innocuous."
"This is where Big Oil's climate disinformation began," said Aimee Dewing, a communications strategist focusing on environmental justice.
APF and the intervention from its funders "helped lay the strategic and organizational groundwork for Big Oil's decades of climate denial and delay," Geoffrey Supran, a climate disinformation expert at the University of Miami, toldThe Guardian.
"The fossil fuel industry is often seen as having followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry's playbook for denying science and blocking regulation," added Supran. "But these documents suggest that Big Oil has been running public affairs campaigns to downplay the dangers of its products just as long as Big Tobacco, starting with air pollution in the early-to-mid-1950s."
DeSmog's report comes nearly two years after Shell and ExxonMobil were revealed to have known about the impact of fossil fuels on the climate earlier than previously reported.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Trump EPA Pick Zeldin 'Will Make Our Air and Water Dirtier' to Enrich Polluters
The choice, said one climate leader, "lays bare Donald Trump's intentions to, once again, sell our health, our communities, our jobs, and our future out to corporate polluters."
Nov 12, 2024
As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet continued to take shape on Tuesday, climate and environmental campaigners expressed deep concerns about his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency: Lee Zeldin.
Like the EPA administrators from Trump's first term—former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler and "fossil fuel puppet" Scott Pruitt—Zeldin is expected to pursue the Republican's plan to "drill, baby, drill," despite the devastating consequences for the global climate.
In a statement announcing Zeldin as his pick, Trump unironically pledged the former New York congressman would usher in a new era of deregulation but ensure the United States has "the cleanest air and water on the planet." Zeldin similarly promised to achieve "U.S. energy dominance" while also "protecting access to clean air and water." Green groups responded with forceful criticism.
"We need a steady, experienced hand at EPA to marshal federal resources to fight climate change and utilize the full power of the law to protect communities from toxic pollution," Earthjustice president Abbie Dillen said Tuesday. "Lee Zeldin is not that person."
"His loyalty to Donald Trump indicates he will gladly take a sledgehammer to EPA's most recent lifesaving regulations, putting politics over science and endangering our communities," she warned. "It is clear President-elect Trump is prioritizing loyalty above actual qualifications to address our current and future environmental concerns."
Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous declared that choosing a candidate "who opposes efforts to safeguard our clean air and water lays bare Donald Trump's intentions to, once again, sell our health, our communities, our jobs, and our future out to corporate polluters. Our lives, our livelihoods, and our collective future cannot afford Lee Zeldin—or anyone who seeks to carry out a mission antithetical to the EPA's mission."
"2024 will assuredly surpass 2023 as the hottest year on record," he noted. "Across the country, we are experiencing record droughts, heatwaves, and deadly storms, wiping out entire communities in a matter of hours. Americans need and deserve someone who will put them first, not millionaires sitting in board rooms seeking to increase the profits of multibillion-dollar international corporations."
"We have made too much progress to allow Donald Trump and Lee Zeldin to take us back," Jealous added. "We will not give up the clean energy manufacturing jobs rebuilding communities. We will not accept more dangerous air and water. And we will not allow Trump, Zeldin, and corporate polluters to steal our future."
While campaigning against Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris—who was widely supported by green groups—Trump told Big Oil executives that he would repeal the Biden-Harris administration's climate policies if they poured $1 billion into electing him.
"Big Oil spent millions of dollars propping up Donald Trump's campaign—and he's not wasting any time giving them a good return on their investment," Climate Power executive director Lori Lodes said Monday. "Lee Zeldin is already promising to slash critical protections as head of the EPA."'
"During Donald Trump's first term in office, he slashed over 125 environmental protections and let polluters off the hook for putting harmful chemicals into our air and water," Lodes pointed out. "Trump's second term agenda will make our air and water dirtier just to make billionaires and big corporations richer—and Americans will pay the price."
After serving in the New York State Senate, Zeldin represented the 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2015 to 2023, during which he was one of Trump's allies—or as Fossil Free Media's Jamie Henn put it, "ass-kissing sycophants."
Zeldin unsuccessfully ran for New York governor in 2022, during which he campaigned on reversing the state's ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. He has a 14% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters.
E&E Newsspoke with multiple sources who believe Zeldin will be able to implement the incoming administration's playbook. Frank Maisano, a senior principal at lobbying firm Bracewell, described him as a fixture in "Trump World" who is "totally with the president's agenda."
"The EPA administrator last time... you had somebody who wasn't politically savvy and was an attorney general who just ramrodded his policy through and didn't have any real political acumen in the space," he said, referring to Pruitt.
"The agenda, I believe, needs to be radical, and there will be a lot of opposition from the mainstream media, environmental groups, the Democrats in Congress," Maisano added. "The job of deregulation is going to need someone who can also be a good defender and explainer of what they're trying to do and what it will accomplish, and why it's important and why it's not wrecking the environment."
Meanwhile, climate organizations and Democratic critics emphasize that wrecking the environment is Trump's plan and they are determined to fight against it.
"We count on the EPA to protect clean air and water and public health and that's what we'll hold the next administrator accountable to do," said Natural Resources Defense Council president Manish Bapna, taking aim at Zeldin's promises to "revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the U.S. the global leader" of artificial intelligence.
"Current EPA standards and federal incentives are already revitalizing the auto industry in precisely the way the industry sees its own future, with more than 160 electric vehicle projects totaling $82 billion in investment announced in just the past two years," Bapna explained. "Repealing these policies, as Trump has said he'll do, would devastate the industry in a moment of critical transition, threatening jobs, increasing tailpipe pollution that's wrecking the climate, and driving up consumer costs."
"Similarly, we can meet demand for data centers without scrapping EPA rules to clean up dirty power plants and cut climate pollution," he added. "We need EPA leadership that will protect the environment and public health. That's a big enough job without looking outside the agency's charge."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular