News: Clean Water Act lawsuit filed to cleanup Spokane River
News Release
October 24, 2011
Contact:
-
•John Osborn, MD (Spokane River Project - Sierra Club) john@waterplanet.ws
-
•Suzanne Skinner (Center for Environmental Law & Policy)sskinner@celp.org
Clean Water Act lawsuit filed on behalf of
polluted Spokane River against EPA
Spokane _ Sierra Club and the Center for Environmental Law & Policy (CELP) have filed a citizen lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failure to require the Washington Department of Ecology to prepare a water quality cleanup plan for PCBs in the Spokane River. On July 18 both organizations filed a "60-day notice" of intent to sue to which EPA did not respond.
"The Spokane River is probably the state's most polluted river when it comes to PCBs," said John Osborn, a Spokane physician, who chairs Sierra Club's Upper Columbia River Group. “For over seven years we have asked the agencies for a river cleanup plan and warned them not to permit adding more pollution to the Spokane River. The Spokane River PCBs pollution will now be a matter for the federal courts."
PCBs are a group of industrial compounds associated with liver dysfunction and cancer, and are now banned in the United States. Washington State recognizes that the Spokane River is impaired for PCBs. The Department of Ecology issues pollution permits (known as NPDES permits) to companies (such as Inland Empire Paper and Kaiser) and municipalities, allowing them to pollute the Spokane River up to certain thresholds.
The federal Clean Water Act requires a clean-up plan (called a TMDL or “total maximum daily load”) before issuing any permits that would add more PCBs to the Spokane River. The Washington Department of Ecology is attempting to side-step the law by not preparing a PCBs cleanup plan, and issuing NPDES permits anyway.
"We believe that federal law is clear on this matter and EPA must complete a TMDL for PCBs in the Spokane River," said Suzanne Skinner, director of the Center for Environmental Law & Policy. "New sources of PCBs are prohibited until there is a cleanup plan for PCBs in the river. The Spokane River is too important to the community to do otherwise.”
The Department of Ecology’s motivation in avoiding a TMDL is to allow Spokane County’s newly constructed wastewater treatment plan to begin discharging pollutants (including PCBs) to the Spokane River. Rather than doing the TMDL, the state agency created a Toxic Task Force that is voluntary for the dischargers, puts the dischargers in control, and does not actually require dischargers to reduce their PCBs. "The state placed a fox in the chicken coop," said Osborn.
Following assignment of a judge, the case will be scheduled for briefing and trial. Sierra Club and CELP are represented by Richard Smith of Smith & Lowney, specializing in Clean Water Act litigation.
Background
In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to the Washington Department of Ecology warning that Ecology could not issue a pollution discharge permit for Spokane County’s proposed wastewater treatment plant because of existing pollution in the Spokane River. EPA urged the state to proceed with caution in guaranteeing tens of millions of dollars in low-interest loans to construct a plant that could not be operated.
EPA’s letter triggered years of labyrinthine efforts to avoid the Clean Water Act’s simple requirement that one cannot put a new source of pollution into a river that is already exceeding pollution standards. For the Spokane River, these pollutants include nutrients (especially phosphorus) that deplete oxygen, PCBs, dioxins and flame-retardant chemicals called PBDEs.
Sierra Club repeatedly warned the agencies that PCBs would be a significant limitation. Sierra Club asked Ecology to prepare the dissolved oxygen and PCB cleanup plans in tandem, so that when the dischargers install expensive treatment filters, they would work for all pollutants, not just the problem du jour. Yet Ecology has delayed the PCB cleanup plan for years, and no plan is even on the horizon for other toxic pollutants in the river.
Public employees who blew the whistle about laws not being followed were relieved of their duties. The situation went over the top when the county public works director announced he would privatize the new treatment plant by giving a design-build-operate contract to the same company where he had worked for 17 years. Citizens begged county commissioners not to go this route. There is financial risk in such contracts, on top of the risk that the plant could not get a pollution discharge permit. Both risks are now bearing fruit as the County builds a plant it cannot operate.
The County and Ecology ignored the warnings. Untold millions of public dollars have been wasted on efforts to circumvent clean water laws. The river remains polluted.
Links:
Oct 21, 2011
