Sadly, EPA’s response to the petitions has only served to highlight its paralysis in the face of this challenge. Following on its denial last year of the first petition, which NRDC has sued over, EPA two weeks ago denied the second petition as well.
While the first petition called on EPA to use its standard-setting authority to limit the concentration of algae-fueling pollutants – nitrogen and phosphorus – in lakes, rivers, and streams, the second petition called on it to limit discharge of those pollutants by one of their major sources: sewage treatment plants. The petition pointed out that the Clean Water Act requires EPA “from time to time” to take a look at what kind of pollution removal can be achieved by secondary treatment, meaning the biological systems that treatment plants use to clean up sewage before discharging it back into waterways. Last time EPA did that was in 1985. Although the Act doesn’t define exactly what “from time to time” means, we’re pretty sure it means something other than once every 30 or so years. Particularly since, in the intervening time, the technology has evolved to the point where it can be used to pretty effectively remove significant amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus from the treated sewage.
In its response, EPA claimed it lacked sufficient information to say what kind of nitrogen and phosphorus removal secondary treatment can achieve – even though NRDC had provided it in the petition with extensive technical information regarding the capability of the technology, and invited EPA if it disagreed to perform its own analysis on this pretty important subject. What was really ironic, though, was the Agency’s blithe assertion that a better way to deal with the problem would be through permits for individual sewage plants, linked to water quality standards for their particular receiving waters – when it had just finished refusing to set water quality standards in response to our other petition.
It’s unfortunate that NRDC and our partners need to relentlessly pressure EPA to take basic steps to address an environmental problem that the Agency itself has identified as costly and massive. But that’s what we’ll continue to do as long as need be. Because it’s been pretty well established that dithering over algae is not going to make it go away.
Photos by Amy Goerwitz