wasting our waterways: toxic industrial pollution and the unfulfilled promise of the clean water act

7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways: Toxic Industrial Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act

1/44

Wasting Our WaterwaysToxic Industrial Pollution and the

Unulflled Promise o the Clean Water Act

Environment TexasResearch & Policy Center

Tony DutzikFrontier Group

Piper Crowell and John RumplerEnvironment America

Research & Policy Center

Fall 2009


2/44

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Lynn Thorpe o Clean Water Action and Natalie Roy o the

Clean Water Network or their review and insightul comments. Thanks also to JohnRumpler o Environment America Research & Policy Center or his assistance in develop-ing this project and to Susan Rakov and Siena Kaplan or their editorial support.

Environment Texas Research & Policy Center is grateul to the Marisla Foundation ormaking this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility or any actual errors. The recommendations are thoseo Environment Texas Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report arethose o the authors and do not necessarily reect the views o our unders or those whoprovided review.

2009 Environment Texas Research & Policy Center

The Environment Texas Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We arededicated to protecting Texas air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, cratsolutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help Texans make their voices heardin local, state and national debates over the quality o our environment and our lives. Formore inormation about Environment Texas Research & Policy Center or or additionalcopies o this report, please visit www.environmenttexas.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner,healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate inormation andcompelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and ederal levels. For moreinormation about Frontier Group, please visit www.rontiergroup.org.

Cover photo: Claes Torstensson, istockphoto.comLayout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design


3/44

Table o Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 4

Toxic Releases to Waterways Threaten theEnvironment and Public Health 5Toxic Releases and the Environment 5

Toxic Releases and Human Health 6

Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2007 8232 Million Pounds o Toxic Chemicals Releasedto Waterways in 2007 8

Releases o Toxic Chemicals Linked to Human Health ProblemsAre Widespread 12

Releases o Small-Volume Toxic Chemicals Also Pose Concern 15

Protecting Americas Waterways rom Toxic Releases:Chemical Policy and the Clean Water Act 18A New Chemical Policy in the U.S.: Protecting theEnvironment and Public Health 18

The Clean Water Act: Ensuring Strong Protection orAll o Americas Waterways 20

Methodology 24Notes 26

Appendix: Detailed Data on Toxic Dischargesto Waterways 29


4/44


5/44

Executive Summary 1

Executive Summary

Industrial acilities continue to dumpmillions o pounds o toxic chemicalsinto Americas rivers, streams, lakes

and ocean waters each yearthreateningboth the environment and human health.According to the EPA, pollution romindustrial acilities is responsible or threat-ening or ouling water quality in morethan 10,000 miles o rivers and more than200,000 acres o lakes, ponds and estuaries

nationwide.The continued release o large volumes

o toxic chemicals into the nations water-ways shows that the nation needs to domore to reduce the threat posed by toxicchemicals to our environment and ourhealth and to ensure that our waterways areully protected against harmul pollution.

Industrial facilities dumped 232million pounds of toxic chemicals intoAmerican waterways in 2007, accord-

ing to the federal governments ToxicRelease Inventory.

Toxic chemicals were discharged tomore than 1,900 waterways in all 50states. The Ohio River ranked frstor toxic discharges in 2007, ollowed

by the New River and the MississippiRiver.

Nitrate compounds which can causeserious health problems in inants iound in drinking water and whichcontribute to oxygen-depleted deadzones in waterways are by ar thelargest toxic releases in terms o over-all volume.

Large amounts of toxic chemicalslinked to serious health effects were re-leased to Americas waterways in 2007.

Industrial acilities discharged ap-proximately 1.5 million pounds ochemicals linked to cancer to morethan 1,300 waterways during 2007.The Ohio River received the greatestamount o cancer-causing chemicaldischarges, ollowed by the Catawba

River in North and South Carolinaand the Tennessee River. Pulp and pa-per mills, along with coal-fred powerplants, were among the largest dis-chargers o cancer-causing chemicals.

About 456,000 pounds o chemicals


6/44

2 Wasting Our Waterways

Figure ES-1. Industrial Discharges of Toxic Chemicals to Waterways by State

Table ES-1. Top 10 Waterways for Total Toxic Discharges

Waterway Toxic discharges (lb.)

OHIO RIVER (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 31,064,643

NEW RIVER (NC, VA, WV) 14,090,633

MISSISSIPPI RIVER (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 12,717,205

SAVANNAH RIVER (GA, SC) 7,683,500

DELAWARE RIVER (DE, NJ, PA) 7,449,555

CAPE FEAR RIVER (NC) 5,380,054

TRICOUNTY CANAL (NE) 5,256,876

MISSOURI RIVER (IA, KS, MO, ND, NE) 5,049,336

MUSKINGUM RIVER (OH) 4,994,243

SHONKA DITCH (NE) 4,375,761


7/44

Executive Summary 3

linked to developmental disorderswere discharged into more than 1,200waterways. The Alabama River led theway in discharges o developmentaltoxicants, ollowed by the VerdigrisRiver in Kansas and Oklahoma and

the Mississippi River.

Approximately 266,000 pounds ochemicals linked to reproductive disor-ders were released to more than 1,150waterways. The Ohio River receivedthe most discharges o reproductivetoxicants, ollowed by the VerdigrisRiver and the Mississippi River.

Discharges o persistent bioaccumula-tive toxics (including dioxin and mer-cury), organochlorines and phthalatesare also widespread. Saer industrialpractices can reduce or eliminate dis-charges o these and other dangeroussubstances to Americas waterways.

To protect the public and the envi-ronment from toxic releases, Americashould prevent pollution by requiringindustries to reduce their use of toxicchemicals and restore and strengthen

Clean Water Act protections for all ofAmericas waterways.

The United States should revise its strategy orregulating toxic chemicals to encourage the devel-opment and use o saer alternatives. Specifcally,the nation should:

Require chemical manuacturers totest all chemicals or their saety andsubmit the results o that testing tothe government and the public.

Regulate chemicals based on theirintrinsic capacity to cause harm to theenvironment or health, rather thanbasing regulation on resource-intensiveand awed eorts to determine saelevels o exposure to those chemicals.

Require industries to disclose theamount o toxic chemicals they usein their acilities saeguarding localresidents right to know about po-tential public health threats in theircommunities and creating incentives

or industry to reduce its use o toxicchemicals.

Require saer alternatives to toxicchemicals, where alternatives exist.

Phase out the worst toxic chemicals.

The United States should restore CleanWater Act protections to all o Americas wa-terways and improve enorcement o the CleanWater Act.

The ederal government should clariythat the Clean Water Act applies toheadwaters streams, intermittentwaterways, isolated wetlands andother waterways or which jurisdic-tion under the Clean Water Act hasbeen called into question as a result orecent court decisions.

The EPA and the states should

strengthen enorcement o the CleanWater Act by, among other things,ratcheting down permitted pollutionlevels rom industrial acilities, ensur-ing that permits are renewed on time,and requiring mandatory minimumpenalties or polluters in violation othe law.

The EPA should eliminate loopholessuch as the allowance o mixingzones or persistent bioaccumulative

toxic chemicalsthat allow greaterdischarge o toxic chemicals into wa-terways.

The EPA should issue strong limitson releases o toxic heavy metals rompower plants.


8/44


In June 1969, the Cuyahoga River inCleveland caught fre. It wasnt the frsttime the Cuyahoga burst into ames, but

the 1969 fre came at a crucial momentatime when Americans were fnally begin-ning to pay serious attention to the impacto industrial pollution on the environment.The image o a major urban river on frecrystallized or many Americans the sensethat our nations waterwaysonce sources

o beauty and inspiration as well as criti-cal resources or human communities andwildlie alikehad too long been used asdumping grounds or industry.

Americans resolved to reclaim theirwaterways, and just three years later, theyscored a major victory when Congressadopted the ederal Clean Water Act. TheClean Water Acts goals were unambigu-ousindustrial discharges to Americaswaterways were not just to be reduced, butwere to be eliminatedin less than a genera-tion, by 1985.

Forty years ater the Cuyahoga River

Introduction

fre, Americas waterways are much cleaner,but the nation is still a long way rom meet-ing the goals o the Clean Water Act. Eventoday, industrial acilities dump millions opounds o toxic chemicals into rivers, lakesand streamswith industrial dischargesaecting thousands o waterways, largeand small, in all 50 states.

Pollutant releases rom actories, powerplants and other industrial acilities are a

key contributing actor to the pollutionthat leaves 46 percent o the nations as-sessed rivers and streams and 61 percent oits assessed lakes unsae or fshing, swim-ming or other uses.1 But this pollution isnot inevitable. With strong enorcement othe ederal Clean Water Act and policiesthat encourage inherently saer practiceson the part o industry, the nation can takea major step toward the restoration o ourwaterwaysremoving, once and or all, thethreat o toxic chemical discharges to our

rivers and streams.


9/44

Toxic Releases to Waterways 5

The direct industrial discharge o toxicsubstances into waterways has a vari-ety o impacts on our environment.

Once in our waterways, toxic chemicalscan contaminate sediments, pollute thebodies o aquatic organisms, and infltratedrinking water supplies, creating a widevariety o problems or humans and theenvironment.

Toxic Releases and theEnvironmentPollution rom industrial acilities is aleading cause o water quality problems inour nations rivers, streams and lakes. Ac-cording to the EPA, industrial dischargesare thought to be responsible or threat-ening or ouling water quality in morethan 10,000 miles o rivers and more than

200,000 acres o lakes, ponds and estuariesnationwide.2

Impacts on Local WaterwaysPerhaps the most immediate and severeresult o toxic chemical releases on localwaterways is the death o wildlie. Toxic

Toxic Releases to WaterwaysThreaten the Environment

and Public Health

chemical releaseswhether deliberateor accidentalcan trigger fsh kills. InMar yland, or example, indust rial dis-charges were responsible or 45 separatefsh kill events between 1984 and 2008.3In North Carolina, toxic spillsinclud-ing spills o sewage, industrial chemicalsand sludge wastetriggered six fsh killsin 2008 alone, claiming more than 25,000fsh.4

Dramatic fsh kills may attract head-lines, but routine toxic chemical dischargescan have subtle and long-lasting impacts onaquatic lie. In the Potomac River basin in2005, or example, scientists discoveredthat 80 percent o the male smallmouthbass they captured bore emale eggsasign that hormonal processes typicallyound only in emale fsh were being ac-tivated in males.5 While the cause o theabnormalities was not known, scientistssuspected that the change was the result o

exposure to toxic chemicals that intererewith the normal unctioning o the hor-monal system in both humans and wildlie.Exposure to these hormone-disruptingchemicals can cause serious reproduc-tive, developmental and immune systemproblems.


10/44


Some chemicals that are toxic also poseother, more indirect threats to the healtho waterways. Nitrate compoundswhichcome rom agricultural runo as well asindustrial sourcesare toxic, but mainlythreaten wildlie and ecosystems because

they eed the growth o algae, which candeplete oxygen levels in local waterways.

Persistent BioaccumulativeToxicsLocal Pollutants with aGlobal ImpactSome toxic substances are long-lived andaccumulate in animal tissue, becomingmore and more concentrated urther upthe ood chain. Decades ater science frstpointed to the dangerous impacts o persis-

tent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs)a classo chemicals that includes such notoriouschemicals as DDT and PCBsthose sub-stances continue to turn up in the tissueso animals great distances rom any knownsource o pollution, and some PBTs con-tinue to be produced, used and dischargedinto Americas waterways.

Discharges o persistent bioaccumula-tive toxics to waterways (along with dis-charges to the land and air) not only harmwildlie in those waterways, but can also

impact wildlie thousands o miles away.Some persistent chemicals released tolocal waterways, or example, eventuallyevaporate and are carried by rain or snowto locations ar away. In the early 1990s,or example, the Great Lakes, which hadlong received discharges o PCBs romindustrial acilities, were a signifcant netsource o PCBs to the aircontributing tocontamination elsewhere.6

PCBs continue to be ound in the tis-sues o polar bears three decades ater the

United States banned their manuacture.7PCB contamination has been linked toimmune system and reproductive problemsin the bears, which already ace threatsrom another problem caused by pollu-tion: global warming.8 PCBs have alsobeen linked to a mass die-o o North Sea

and Baltic seals during the 1980s, and areamong the environmental pollutants linkedto health problems in salmon, mink andother species.9

While governments, including the U.S.government, have taken action to reduce

or eliminate production o notorious toxicchemicals such as DDT and PCBs, othertoxic chemicals continue to be produced inlarge quantities and show up in the tissueso wildlie around the globe. Brominatedame retardants (BFRs), which have beencommonly used in urniture, computercircuit boards and clothing, share somecharacteristics with persistent bioaccu-mulative toxics. BFRs have been shownto cause a variety o health problems inanimals during laboratory studies, andare accumulating rapidly in humans andanimals. BFRs have been ound in spermwhales, Arctic seals, birds and fsh.10 Directindustrial releases o BFRs, including dis-charges to waterways, are among the manyways that BFRs can fnd their way into theenvironment and into the bodies o animalsand humans.11

The recent experience with brominatedlame retardants shows the dangers opublic policy that treats all chemicals as

innocent until proven guiltyallowingwidespread release to consumers and theenvironment beore they are demonstratedto be sae. As the story o PCBs shows, theimpacts o toxic chemical releases can lastor generations, and be elt ar away romthe original source o the pollution.

Toxic Releases and

Human HealthToxic chemicals also have the ability toimpact human health, with the potentialto trigger cancer, reproductive and devel-opmental problems, and a host o otherhealth eects.

The state o Caliornia has developed


11/44

Toxic Releases to Waterways 7

a list o more than 500 chemicals andsubstances known to cause cancer, as wellas more than 250 chemicals linked to de-velopmental problems and more than 75chemicals liked to reproductive disorders inmen, women or both.12 It is likely that oth-

ers among the 80,000 chemicals registeredor commercial use in the United Statestrigger these or other health eects, as onlya small percentage o chemicals have beenully tested or their impact on health.13

Once released into waterways, there aremany potential pathways or toxic chemi-cals to impact human health. One pathwayis through ood. Bioaccumulative toxicsbuild up in animal tissue and fnd their wayinto our bodies when we eat animal prod-ucts. Mercury and dioxin contamination ofsh are examples. Mercury enters water-ways both directly, through the dischargeo mercury-tainted wastewater rom powerplants and other industrial acilities, andindirectly through emissions rom powerplant smokestacks that precipitate back intowaterways. Once in water, mercury canundergo a series o transormations thatenable it to be absorbed and accumulatedup the ood chain.14 Similarly, dioxin romsources such as pulp and paper mills that

use chlorine can fnd its way into sediment,where it can be ingested by fsh, becomingpart o the ood chain.

Another route o exposure is through

drinking water. A 2005 investigation bythe Environmental Working Group otap water samples rom across the countrydiscovered 166 industrial pollutants indrinking water. Approximately 12 millionpeople, or example, were exposed to levels

o nitrates above recommended health lim-its.15 Other industrial pollutantsinclud-ing heavy metals such as lead and solventssuch as tetrachloroethylenehave beenound in the drinking water consumed bymillions o Americans.16 A recent investi-gative report by theNew York Timesoundthat roughly one in 10 Americans hasbeen exposed to drinking water that eithercontained dangerous chemicals or ailed tomeet ederal health standards.17

People can even be exposed to toxicchemicals beore they are born and asnewborns. Brominated ame retardantswhich can enter the environment either viadirect discharges rom industrial plants oremissions rom consumer products con-taining the chemicalshave been oundin breast milk, with women in the UnitedStates showing the highest concentrationsin the world.18 Many chemicals can alsocross the placental barrier, with the po-tential to disrupt the development o the

etus, creating problems that may be di-fcult to detect (or example, neurologicalproblems) or may not maniest themselvesuntil years later.


12/44


The discharge o toxic chemicals to U.S.waterways has let a legacy o environ-mental damage and impacts on human

health. While industrial pollution o rivers,streams and lakes has decreased over thelast several decades as a result o the CleanWater Act, industrial acilit ies continueto discharge millions o pounds o toxicchemicals to our waterways each year.

This report uses data rom the ed-

eral governments Toxic Release Inventory(TRI) to estimate releases o toxic chemi-cals to American waterways in 2007.

Under TRI, industrial acilities are re-quired to release inormation about theirdischarges o a limited number o specifctoxic chemicals. (See The Toxic ReleaseInventory: What it Tells Us About ToxicPollution and What it Leaves Out,page 10.) Industrial acilities that report tothe TRI reported the release o 244 toxicchemicals or classes o toxic pollutants

to American waterways in 2007. Thosechemicals vary greatly in their toxicity andthe impacts they have on the environmentand human health. Some pollutants that arereleased in large volumes, or example, mayhave less o an impact on the environmentor human health than other highly toxic

pollutants released in smaller volumes.In this report, we examine data on toxic

discharges through several lenses, present-ing inormation on the volume o releasesto American waterways o:

All toxic chemicals listed under TRI;

Toxic chemicals linked to specifchealth eectscancer, reproductive

disorders and developmental harm;and

Certain chemicals that can have asignifcant impact on the environmentand human health in small quanti-tiesincluding persistent bioaccu-mulative toxics, organochlorines andphthalates.

232 Million Pounds o ToxicChemicals Released toWaterways in 2007At least 232 million pounds o toxic chemi-cals were released to Americas waterways

Toxic Releases to U.S.Waterways in 2007


13/44

Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2007 9

in 2007. Toxic chemicals were released intomore than 1,900 dierent waterways in all50 states.

The state o Indiana led the nation intotal volume o toxic discharges to water-ways, with more than 27 million pounds otoxic discharges. Indiana was ollowed byVirginia, Nebraska, Texas and Louisianaor total toxic discharges. (See Figure 1.)

Releases o nitrate compounds repre-sented 90 percent o the total volume odischarges to waterways reported under

the TRI. Nitrates are toxic, particularlyto inants consuming ormula made withnitrate-laden drinking water, who maybe susceptible to methemoglobinemia, orblue baby syndrome, a disease that re-duces the ability o blood to carry oxygenthroughout the body.19 Nitrates have also

been linked in some studies to organ dam-age in adults.20

Nitrates are also a major environmentalthreat as one o the leading sources o nu-trient pollution to waterways. Nitrates andother nutrients can uel the growth o algaeblooms. As the algae decay, decompositioncan cause the depletion o oxygen levelsin the waterway, triggering the orma-tion o dead zones in which aquatic liecannot be sustained. The dead zone thatorms each summer in the Gul o Mexico

has been attributed to the massive owo nutrients, including nitrates, rom theMississippi River basin. While ertil izerruno rom agricultural activities is theleading source o nitrates in the Missis-sippi, industrial discharge plays a small butsignifcant role.21

Figure 1. Industrial Discharges of Toxic Chemicals to Waterways by State


14/44


The Toxic Release Inventory: What it Tells Us AboutToxic Pollution and What it Leaves Out

The Environmental Protection Agencys Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is themost comprehensive source o inormation available on the industrial release otoxic substances to Americas environment. The TRI plays a critical role in inorm-ing communities about the potential environmental impacts o nearby industrialacilities and has been used time and again to encourage companies to reduce theirtoxic discharges and adopt saer practices.

While the TRI is an important source o inormation, it is not ool-proo. TheTRI only covers industrial acilities, meaning that many other sources o toxicpollutionrom wastewater treatment plants to agricultural acilitiesare notreported. Industrial acilities are required to report only the releases o chemicalson the TRI listmeaning that releases o newer chemicals or those o more recentconcern might not be reported at all. In addition, industrial acilities must report

to the TRI only i they meet certain thresholds or the amount o toxic chemicalsthey manuacture, process or use in a particular year. As a result, some toxic releasesto waterways by covered industries are not reported to the public.

In other words, TRI data do not provide a complete picture o the amount otoxic chemicals that ow into the nations environment. But the TRI is the bestand most complete set o data available. In this report, we use TRI data or 2007to calculate the amount o toxic chemicals discharged by industrial acilities toAmericas waterways. For important details on how we analyzed the data to deriveour conclusions, please see the Methodology section at the end o this report.

NitrateCompounds

90%

Manganese

Compounds2%

Methanol2%

Ammonia2%

SodiumNitrite

1%

Other Metalsand Metal

Compounds2%

OtherChemicals

1%

Figure 2. Toxic Releases by Chemical by Volume


15/44


Unsurprisingly, the waterways that rankhigh or total toxic releases will be thosewith large releases o nitrate compounds.Among the major sources o nitrate com-pounds are ood and beverage manuac-turing (slaughterhouses, rendering plants,

etc.), primary metals manuacturing,chemical plants, and petroleum refner-ies. Waterways receiving discharges romthese types o acilities, thereore, willtend to rank high on the list or total toxicreleases.

The Ohio River topped all waterwaysor toxic discharges in 2007 with morethan 31 million pounds o discharges to thewaterway. (See Table 1.) Facilities along theOhio River reported releases o 91 dierenttoxic chemicals in 2007, including cyanide,chromium and arsenic compounds, lead,dioxin and benzene. Those releases camerom 99 acilities in six states.

For some larger waterways, the amounto direct discharges may not tell the wholestory o the impact o toxic pollution. TheMuskingum River, or example, ows intothe Ohio, which in turn empties into theMississippi. All three rivers are among the

top 10 or toxic releases into waterways.Large waterways are not the only ones

that receive large amounts o toxic dis-charges. Several smaller waterways, suchas Nebraskas Shonka Ditch, rank amongthe top waterways or receiving toxic dis-charges nationwide.

For several waterways on the list, onecompany was responsible or all or thevast majority o the toxic discharges. TheTricounty Canal (Tyson Fresh Meats),the Cape Fear River (Smithfeld Foods),Shonka Ditch (Cargill Meat Solutions);the Illinois River (Cargill), the SnakeRiver (McCain Foods) and the Big Blue

Waterway Toxic discharges (lb.)

OHIO RIVER (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 31,064,643

NEW RIVER (NC, VA, WV) 14,090,633

MISSISSIPPI RIVER (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 12,717,205

SAVANNAH RIVER (GA, SC) 7,683,500DELAWARE RIVER (DE, NJ, PA) 7,449,555

CAPE FEAR RIVER (NC) 5,380,054

TRICOUNTY CANAL (NE) 5,256,876

MISSOURI RIVER (IA, KS, MO, ND, NE) 5,049,336

MUSKINGUM RIVER (OH) 4,994,243

SHONKA DITCH (NE) 4,375,761

ILLINOIS RIVER (IL) 3,926,771

ROCK RIVER (IL, WI) 3,754,451

SNAKE RIVER (ID, OR) 3,111,068

ARKANSAS RIVER (AR, CO, KS, OK) 3,053,497

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL (TX) 2,967,305BIG BLUE RIVER (NE) 2,903,675

SOUTH PLATTE RIVER (CO) 2,682,144

PICKENS CREEK (MS) 2,655,575

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER (NY, PA) 2,651,212

MORSES CREEK (NJ) 2,620,974

Table 1. Top 20 Waterways for Total Toxic Discharges, 2007


16/44


River (Farmland Foods) were among thosewith large releases rom one company inthe ood or beverage processing indus-try. Large polluters in other industriesalso had outsized impacts on other smallstreams. Morses Creek in New Jersey,

or example, receives discharges rom themassive Conoco Philips Bayway refneryand chemical plant. Ohios Hyde RunDitch (which ranked 29th or total toxicdischarges) receives discharges rom oneacilitythe Brush Wellman actory inElmore, Ohio, which is a major producero beryllium.

Pollution o large water bodies mayhave the broadest impact on the publicand receive the greatest attention. But asthese examples show, small streams receivevast amounts o pollution as wellotenrom just a single large pollutercreating

the potential or signifcant harm to localecosystems and or pollution to be carrieddownstream to larger waterways.

Releases o Toxic ChemicalsLinked to Human HealthProblems Are WidespreadThe high volume o toxic discharges toAmericas waterways is a tremendous con-cern or the ongoing health o our rivers,streams and lakes. But toxic chemicals varyin the impacts they have on human health,as well as in their toxicity. To gain a ullerunderstanding o the impact o toxic dis-charges, it is helpul to examine the releaseso chemicals that, while released in smaller

Waterway Discharges of cancer-causing chemicals (lbs.)

OHIO RIVER (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 96,669

CATAWBA RIVER (NC, SC) 96,370

TENNESSEE RIVER (AL, KY, TN) 89,401

MISSISSIPPI RIVER (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 87,896

ALABAMA RIVER (AL) 54,205SAVANNAH RIVER (GA, SC) 38,064

COOPER RIVER (SC) 38,052

COLUMBIA RIVER (OR, WA) 32,828

RED RIVER (AR, LA, OK) 32,775

HOLSTON RIVER (TN) 31,420

VERDIGRIS RIVER (KS, OK) 30,962

HUDSON RIVER (NY) 27,899

BRAZOS RIVER (TX) 27,526

ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER (ME, NH) 25,502

PACIFIC OCEAN (CA) 24,084

CUMBERLAND RIVER (KY, TN) 21,364

FENHOLLOWAY RIVER (FL) 19,226

BROAD RIVER (NC, SC) 18,801

TURTLE RIVER (GA) 18,795

DELAWARE RIVER (DE, NJ, PA) 18,211

Table 2. Top 20 Waterways for Discharges of Cancer-Causing Chemicals, 2007


17/44


volumes, are linked to severe and chronichealth problems.

CancerIn 2007, manuacturing acilities dischargedapproximately 1.5 million pounds o can-

cer-causing chemicals into waterways.22As was the case with total discharges, theOhio River again led the way in discharges,ollowed closely by the Catawba River inNorth and South Carolina.

Cancer-causing chemicals were dis-charged into approximately 1,300 water-ways nationwide in 2007. Several industriesdischarge large amounts o cancer-causingchemicals to waterways. The pulp andpaper industry was the largest emitter ocancer-causing chemicals to waterways,discharging more than 640,000 poundso those substances to waterways, or 44percent o the total. The chemical industryranked second, with 314,000 pounds, andutilities (including ossil-uel fred powerplants) third, with 276,000 pounds.

These industries produce and dischargea variety o cancer-causing chemicals, eachwith their own potential impact on theenvironment and health. (See Table 3.)

For example, metals such as cobalt,

nickel, lead, chromium and arsenic can per-sist in the environment or long periods o

time. Electric power plantsparticularlythose ueled by coalare major sourceso metal and metal compound dischargesto waterways. Power plants account or 94percent o water releases o arsenic com-pounds, 57 percent o cobalt compounds,

47 percent o nickel compounds, 46 percento chromium compounds and 19 percento lead compounds. These compounds arecontaminants in coal and are oten releasedto waterways as part o a power plantswastewater stream.

Developmental and ReproductiveToxicantsAmong the toxic chemicals discharged toAmericas waterways are those shown to

impede the proper physical and mental de-velopment o etuses and children. Amongthe potential health eects o these chemi-cals are etal death, structural deects suchas clet lip/clet palette and heart abnor-malities, as well as neurological, hormonaland immune system problems.

In 2007, industrial acilities releasedapproximately 456,000 pounds o devel-opmental toxicants to more than 1,200Americas waterways. The Alabama River

ranks number one or developmental toxi-cants due largely to releases o the pesticide

Chemical name Water discharges (lb.)

ACETALDEHYDE 341,080

FORMALDEHYDE 278,335

COBALT COMPOUNDS 181,758

NICKEL COMPOUNDS 141,636

LEAD COMPOUNDS 81,351

CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS 67,404

ARSENIC COMPOUNDS 62,570

1 4-DIOXANE 56,996

CATECHOL 47,459

BENZENE 35,560

Table 3. Cancer-Causing Chemicals Discharged to Waterways


18/44


nabam and the biocide sodium dimethyldi-thiocarbamate rom Weyerhaeusers PineHill, Alabama, paper mill. The VerdigrisRiver in Kansas and Oklahoma rankedsecond, due largely to releases rom a singleacility, the Coeyville Resources refnery

in Coeyville, Kansas, which released sig-nifcant amounts o benzene and tolueneinto the waterway. (See Table 4.)

As with the other categories o toxicchemical releases, larger waterways suchas the Mississippi and Ohio rivers rankhigh or total discharges o developmentaltoxicants. But several smaller waterwaysalso receive large amounts o developmen-tal toxicants. Crooked Creek, a tributaryo the Meramec River in Missouri, ranksninth or total discharges o developmental

toxicants due to large discharges o leadcompounds rom acilities operated bythe Renco Group. (See Lead Pollution inMissouri, below.)

Releases o reproductive toxicants intowaterways tot aled 266,000 pounds in

2007, with discharges occurring to morethan 1,150 waterways nationwide. Becausesome high-volume developmental toxicantsalso have the potential to interere withreproductive health, many o the samewaterways that have received large amountso developmental toxicants also rank highor reproductive toxicant releases. TheOhio River received the greatest amount oreproductive toxicant releases, ollowed bythe Verdigris River and Mississippi River.(See Table 5, p.16.)

Lead Pollution in Missouri

During the 1970s, public health advocates achieved major victories in the battle toreduce exposure to toxic lead with the elimination o lead rom paint and gaso-line. But lead pollution continues to threaten waterways in parts o the country.

The Renco Groups Doe Run subsidiary mines lead at several locations in south-eastern Missouris lead belt, and operates the worlds largest secondary lead smelterin Iron County, Missouri.23 Discharges rom one o the companys Missouri minesand its Iron County secondary smelter ow into Crooked Creek. In 2007, RencoGroup acilities released nearly 12,000 pounds o toxic chemicals, including morethan 7,000 pounds o lead compounds, into Crooked Creek.

The Doe Run secondary lead smelter is a repeat violator o the Clean Water Act,with our violations o the law occurring between 2004 and 2006, according to aNewYork Timesinvestigation.24 Average lead levels in the sediment o parts o CrookedCreek have been measured at more than one and a hal times the level at which toxiceects on wildlie are considered likely.25 As a result, portions o Crooked Creek

have been deemed by the state o Missouri to be impaired meaning that theyare not suitable or the protection o aquatic lie.26The experience o Crooked Creek shows that toxic discharges rom a single

industrial acility can have a large impact on our waterways and underscores theimportance o maintaining Clean Water Act protectionsand properly enorcingthe lawor all o Americas waterways.


19/44


Releases o Small-VolumeToxic Chemicals Also PoseConcernAs noted earlier, tox ic chemicals varygreatly in their toxicity and eects onthe environment and health. Some toxicchemicals trigger severe health eects atlow levels o exposure.

Some particular groups o relativelysmall-volume chemicals worthy o concern

are the ollowing:

Persistent Bioaccumulative ToxicsPersistent bioaccumulative toxicants(PBTs) are those that persist in the envi-ronment (that is, are difcult or impossibleto destroy) and accumulate up the ood

Waterway Developmental toxicant releases (lb.)

ALABAMA RIVER (AL) 73,553





JAMES RIVER (VA) 13,914

KANAWHA RIVER (WV) 10,252

CONGAREE RIVER (SC) 9,900

CROOKED CREEK (MO) 7,306

CLINCH RIVER (TN, VA) 5,588

SABINE RIVER (TX) 5,483

KANSAS RIVER (KS) 5,444

KASKASKIA RIVER (IL) 5,277


CAPE FEAR RIVER (NC) 4,775

LAKE ERIE (MI, NY, OH, PA) 4,332

HOLSTON RIVER (TN) 4,100

WABASH RIVER (IL, IN, OH) 4,079

INDIANA HARBOR SHIP CANAL (IN) 4,010

COOSA RIVER (AL, GA) 3,856

chain. As humans are generally at the top othe ood chain, PBTs pose particular prob-lems or us. Consuming fsh contaminatedwith mercury, or example, can impair theneurological development o etuses andsmall children.27

Direct surace water discharges o PBTsare common across the United States.More tha n 600 waterways across thecountry received direct discharges o leadcompounds in 2007. Polycyclic aromatic

compounds, a amily o cancer-causingchemicals released primarily by chemicalplants and oil refneries, were dischargedinto more than 150 waterways. And di-oxins, which are mainly released by thechemical industry, were discharged intomore than 80 waterways nationwide.

Table 4. Top 20 Waterways for Releases of Developmental Toxicants, 2007


20/44


Waterway Reproductive toxicant releases (lb.)





KANAWHA RIVER (WV) 10,181

CONGAREE RIVER (SC) 9,900


CROOKED CREEK (MO) 7,160

SABINE RIVER (TX) 5,466

KANSAS RIVER (KS) 5,444

INDIANA HARBOR SHIP CANAL (IN) 4,008

ALABAMA RIVER (AL) 3,509

DELAWARE RIVER (DE, NJ, PA) 3,471

BLACK RIVER (OH) 3,280

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER (AL, GA) 2,460

MONONGAHELA RIVER (PA, WV) 2,425

DES PLAINES RIVER (IL, WI) 2,261

CLINCH RIVER (TN, VA) 1,988

ILLINOIS RIVER (IL) 1,986

COLUMBIA RIVER (OR, WA) 1,896

Persistent Bioaccumulative Waterways Receiving Waterway withToxicant Discharges Greatest Discharges

Lead Compounds 637 Crooked Creek, MO

Lead 382 Brazos River, TX

Mercury Compounds 233 Big Sioux River, SDPolycyclic Aromatic Compounds 164 Monte Sano Bayou, LA

Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds 86 Brazos River, TX

Benzo(ghi)perylene 86 Maumee Bay, OH and MI

Mercury 58 Mississippi River

Table 5. Top 20 Waterways for Releases of Reproductive Toxicants, 2007

Table 6. Water Discharges of Most Widely-Released Persistent BioaccumulativeToxicants


21/44


Discharges o even small amounts oPBTs can have serious consequences. Forexample, industrial acilities reported re-leasing approximately 1.7 pounds o dioxinand dioxin-like compounds into waterwaysnationwide in 2007representing less

than one-millionth o a percent o totaltoxic discharges to waterways nationwide.However, given that the World HealthOrganization guidelines or dioxin recom-mend exposure o less than one-billionth oa gram per day, even this relatively smallamount o dioxin discharges can have seri-ous implications or public health.28

Organochlorines and PhthalatesOrganochlorine pesticides and phthalatesare both classes o chemicals with seriousimplications or healthand or whichsaer alternatives are available. Organo-chlorines, the amily o pesticides thatincludes DDT, have been linked to a widevariety o impacts on the environment andhuman health, including cancer, interer-ence with the endocrine system, immunesystem problems, and developmental andreproductive disorders.29 While DDT andsome other organochlorines have beenbanned, others remain in use today.

Phthalates are added to plastic productssuch as ood wrapping and childrens toysto make them exible. Some phthalateshave been linked to reproductive and de-velopmental problems.30

Organochlorines and phthalates are notas widely released as many o the othertoxic substances discussed in this report,but still impact dozens o waterways na-tionwide. Releases o organochlorines werereported to 21 waterways nationwide, with

Alabamas Little Cahaba River receivingthe greatest amount o total discharges.Emissions o pentachlorophenol (PCP)rom the wood preservation industry ac-counted or most o the discharges. PCPwas once a widely used herbicide in theUnited States, but over-the-counter saleso PCP were banned in the U.S. in 1987.31The chemical remains in use, however, asa ungicide in wood products such as util-ity poles, whar pilings and railroad ties.32Phthalates were released to 15 waterwaysnationwide, with Tennessees HolstonRiver leading the way or total releases.

Direct discharges o organochlorinesand phthalates by industrial acilities arenot necessarily the most important routeso exposure to these chemicalspeople aremore likely to be exposed to phthalates,or example, in consumer products. Thecontinued discharge o these chemicalsto waterways, however, underscores themany ways in which these substances, once

produced, fnd their way into our environ-ment, and reinorces the need or pollutionprevention to be the primary approach toreducing toxic health threats.


22/44


The millions o pounds o toxic dis-charges to Americas waterwayscou-pled with the continued discharge o

smaller amounts o hazardous substancessuch as lead, mercury and dioxinsug-gest that there are deep aws in the policytools the United States uses to keep toxic

chemicals out o our waterways.Environmental policy in the United

States has several weaknesses. It too otentakes an innocent until proven guiltyapproach to potential health hazards. Itocuses more on stopping pollution at theend o the pipe rather than encouraginginherently saer products and industrialpractices. And it ails even in the task ostopping pollution at the end o the pipebecause o gaping loopholes in environ-mental laws and inadequate enorcement.

The result is the continued release o toxicchemicals into Americas rivers, streamsand lakes.

A New Chemical Policy inthe U.S.: Protecting theEnvironment andPublic HealthThe best way to protect the public andthe environment rom toxic chemicaldischarges is to reduce the use and produc-tion o toxic chemicals in the frst place.Reducing the use o toxic chemicals willnot only reduce discharges to waterways,but can also reduce other orms o expo-sure to toxic chemicals, including releasesto the air and land and exposure throughconsumer products.

Switching to Safer AlternativesSaer alternatives exist or many toxic

chemicals. Replacing these chemicalswith saer alternatives can reduce threatsat all stages o a products liespanrommanuacturing to use to disposal.

Protecting Americas Waterwaysrom Toxic Releases: Chemical Policyand the Clean Water Act


23/44

Protecting Americas Waterways rom Toxic Releases 19

Many examples exist o saer alternativesto toxic chemicals released into Americaswaterways:

Tetrachloroethylene (also known asperchloroethylene or perc) is a toxic

solvent used in dry cleaning and tex-tile processing and is a cancer-caus-ing chemical.33 Industrial acilitiesreported releasing more than 600pounds o perc directly to U.S. water-ways in 2007, but that fgure does notinclude discharges by the thousands osmaller acilities nationwide that usethe chemical but do not report to theTRI. Hundreds o dry cleaners acrossthe country have switched to saerprocesses that do not rely on perc,including wet cleaning using waterand the use o liquid carbon dioxide.With saer alternatives on the market,Caliornia has taken steps to phase outthe use o perc at dry cleaners, withthe chemical to be eliminated romuse by 2023.34

Formaldehyde is used in a wide varietyo consumer products and has beenlinked to health eects ranging rom

allergies to cancer.35

In 2007, indus-trial acilities reported releasing morethan 278,000 pounds o ormaldehydeto waterways. Saer alternatives ormany uses o ormaldehyde alreadyexist, including adhesives based onnon-toxic natural ingredients.

Phthalates are a class o chemicalsused to make hard plastics ex-ible, as ingredients in personal careproducts, and in other applications.

Caliornia has listed fve phthalatesas developmental and/or reproduc-tive toxics.36 A wealth o saer alter-natives exist, including plastics otherthan PVC (which typically includesphthalates) and alternative plasticiz-ers or PVC.37

Changes in industrial processes canreduce releases o toxic byproducts,such as dioxins. Oxygen-based pro-cesses, or example, can eliminate theneed or chlorine bleaching in paperproduction, thereby eliminating the

creation o dioxins.38

The importance o pursuing inherentlysaer alternatives, rather than relying solelyon pollution controls at the end o thepipe, is demonstrated by coal-fred powerplants. For decades, emissions rom powerplant smokestacks have been a major publichealth concern. In an eort to clean up thenations air, power plants have increasinglybeen ftted with scrubbers that remove pol-lutants such as arsenic and heavy metals.However, these pollutants, once captured,can fnd their way into waterways, eithervia permitted liquid discharges rom theplants themselves or the leaching o con-taminants rom coal ash into waterways.39The use o inherently saer alternativessuch as renewable energycan reducethese threats.

Reforming Chemical PolicyManuacturers, however, wil l ace litt le

incentive to develop and use saer alter-natives to toxic chemicals without clearguidance rom government. Chemicalpolicy must be based both on appropriatescience and on the imperative to protectthe public rom harmul exposures beorethey occur.

Among the cornerstones o this newchemical policy should be the ollowing:

Regulation of chemicals based ontheir intrinsic hazards.Americas system

or testing and regulating toxic chemicalsis based on time-consuming, resource-intensive and anachronistic orms o riskassessment. Much time and energy iswasted determining sae levels o expo-sure to toxic chemicals based on labora-tory experimentation. These assessments


24/44


oten ail to investigate the impacts thatchemical exposures can have on vulner-able populations or at vulnerable stages odevelopment, nor do they assess the impacto cumulative exposures to a chemical overtime, the synergistic eects o exposure to

multiple chemicals, or the subtler potentialimpacts resulting rom low-dose exposures.The result is that many chemicals with thepotential to harm human health or the en-vironment remain in useand the processor evaluating all chemicals or saety ismore difcult and time-consuming thanit needs to be.

Instead, the United States shouldregulate chemicals based on their intrinsichazards. That is, i evidence exists that achemical causes cancer, or example, thepresumption o public policy should be thatpublic exposure to that chemical should beminimized, i not eliminated altogether.

Evaluation of all chemicals on themarket. Chemical manuacturers shouldbe required to test their chemicals orsaety beore they are put on the mar-ket. Manuacturers o existing chemicalsshould be required to disclose all relevanthealth and saety inormation to the public

and to fll in the gaps in their health andsaety assessments within a reasonableperiod o time.

Planned phase-out of hazardouschemicals. Once a chemical has beendeemed hazardous, the goal o public policyshould be to reduce, and then eliminate,exposures to that chemical. Chemicals orwhich saer alternatives already exist shouldbe scheduled or phase out. Evaluations osaer alternatives should include not only

the potential or chemical-or-chemicalsubstitutions but also changes in manuac-turing processes and product design thatcan reduce or eliminate the need or toxicchemicals. For chemicals or which saeralternatives do not yet exist, there should bestrict limits on use and exposure to protect

the public, as well as a targeted timeline orultimate phase-out.

Required disclosure of industrialtoxic chemical use. Facilities that use sig-nifcant amounts o toxic chemicals should

be required to disclose which chemicalsthey are using and in what amounts, sothat nearby communities can be aware opotential threats and to create incentivesor industrial acilities to reduce their useo toxic chemicals. In addition, acilitiesshould be required to develop plans toreduce toxic chemical use and adopt saeralternatives. States such as Massachusettsand New Jersey that have aggressively ad-opted this pollution prevention approachhave experienced declines in toxic chemicaluse, the creation o toxic byproducts, andtoxic discharges to the environment.40

Setting clear standards designed toprotect the public rom toxic chemical ex-posuresand insisting upon the managedphase-out o dangerous chemicalscanunleash innovation in the design o saerproducts and industrial processes, whilereducing threats to the public.

The Clean Water Act:Ensuring Strong Protectionor All o AmericasWaterwaysThe ederal Clean Water Act is the nationsprimary bulwark against pollution o ourwaterways. Yet, or too long, implementa-tion o the Clean Water Act has ailed tolive up to the vision o pollution-ree wa-

terways embraced by its authors. Moreover,the Clean Water Act is acing perhaps themost important test in its history as a resulto recent judicial decisions that have limitedthe laws scope.

To protect the environment and humanhealth rom releases o toxic chemicals


25/44


into our waterways, ederal and stategovernments should take several steps tostrengthen implementation o the CleanWater Act.

Protections for Small WaterwaysA series o recent court decisions, culmi-nating in the U.S. Supreme Courts 2006decision in the case oRapanos v. UnitedStates, have threatened the protection thatintermittent and headwaters streams andisolated wetlands have traditionally en-joyed under the Clean Water Act. Thesewaterways play important roles in localecology, while protection o headwatersand intermittent streams is critical or

maintaining water quality downstream.TheRapanosdecision let unclear exactly

which waterways do enjoy protection underthe Clean Water Act. Navigable waterwaysand those that cross state boundaries, alongwith their tributaries, retain their tradi-

tional protections. But the Supreme Courtsunusual 4-1-4 ruling in theRapanoscase haslet the courts and EPA torn between twodierent standards or Clean Water Actjurisdiction the strict standard, embracedby our o the courts members, that elimi-nates protection or intermittent streamsand those without a surace connection tocovered waterways, and the less stringentlegal standard, outlined in a concurring

Clean Water Act Protection or the Los Angeles River

The Los Angeles River has none o the glitz or glamour o the city that shares itsname. Its banks are covered in concrete or much o its 51-mile length, and arelined with ences and no trespassing signs. The river is also notorious or its pol-lution. According to the Toxics Release Inventory, the Los Angeles River receiveddischarges o lead, chromium and dioxin or related compounds in 2007.

But the L.A. River wasnt always this way. Prior to the massive changes madeto the river in the name o ood control beginning in the 1930s, the Los Angeles

River passed through wetlands and among stands o sycamore and cottonwood.

42

In recent years, Los Angelenos have rallied to restore the L.A. River to some o itspast glory. New parks and bikeways are sprouting along the rivers banks and moreare planned or the uture.

Unortunately, the Los Angeles River isnt just an example o how an urban rivercan be reclaimed, but it is also an example o how judicial decisions to limit the scopeo the Clean Water Act can aect important waterways. In June 2008, the ArmyCorps o Engineers ruled that only our miles o the L.A. Rivers 51-mile lengthwere traditionally navigable watersmeaning that much o the rest o the rivercould be stripped o protection under the Clean Water Act.43 The EPA stepped in toreview the Corps decision, but loss o protection under the Clean Water Act wouldmake it impossible or the EPA to enorce existing water pollution laws along the

riverjeopardizing the revitalization that many people in the Los Angeles regionare working so hard to achieve and potentially allowing industrial acilities alongthe river to avoid compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Ensuring continued protection under the Clean Water Act is critical or therestoration o the L.A. River, as well as the health o countless waterways acrossthe nation.


26/44


opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, thatrequires a signifcant nexus to exist with anavigable waterway or a waterbody to enjoyprotection under the Clean Water Act.41

TheRapanosdecision and other previousdecisions threaten the protection enjoyed

by thousands o waterways nationwidewithreal consequences or the environment.In much o the American West, or ex-ample, perennial streams are uncommon.Only 3 percent o all streams in Arizona,or example, are perennial, along with 8percent in New Mexico and 9 percent inNevada.44 Nationwide, the EPA estimatesthat 111 million people are served by drink-ing water systems that draw their waterrom headwaters streams or intermittentwaterways.45 These important waterwayscould completely lose protection underthe ederal Clean Water Act, leaving dis-charges to those waterways unregulatedby the EPA.

Improve Enforcement of theClean Water ActThe Clean Water Act is Americas mainsource o protection against water pollu-tion, but it has not always been adequatelyenorced. States (which are primarily re-

sponsible or enorcing the law in most othe country) have oten been unwilling totighten pollution limits on industrial dis-chargers and have oten let illegal pollutersget away with exceeding their permittedpollution levels without penalty or withonly a slap on the wrist.

The EPA and states should tighten im-plementation o the Clean Water Act by:

Ensuring that pollution permits arerenewed on schedule and ratchet-

ing down permitted pollution levelswith each successive fve-year permitperiod with the goal o achieving zeropollution discharge wherever possible.As o September 2007, nearly one outo every fve discharge permits or ma-jor industrial acilities had expired.46

Timely renewal o permits, coupledwith reductions in the amount o pol-lution allowed at each permit renewal,can move the nation closer to achiev-ing the original zero discharge goal othe Clean Water Act.

Eliminating mixing zones orpersistent bioaccumulative toxics.Mixing zones are areas o waterwaysnear discharge points where the levelo pollution can legally exceed waterquality criteria without triggeringaction to reduce pollution levels. Theidea behind mixing zones is that waterrom a discharge pipe might not meetwater quality criteria, but that withdilution, the level o pollution wouldnot harm the overall quality o thewaterway. Mixing zones are a dubiousconcept at best rom the perspectiveo protecting waterways rom pollu-tion and are wholly inappropriate orcertain types o pollutants. Persistentbioaccumulative toxicswhich havethe capacity to contaminate sedi-ment and/or accumulate in aquaticorganismsare among those orwhich mixing zones are particularly

problematic. States should eliminatethe use o mixing zones or PBTs andconsider elimination or other toxicchemical discharges as well.

Establishing strong standards orpower plant discharges o toxic heavymetals. As described above, coal-fred power plants have increasinglyemployed scrubbers to remove dan-gerous substances rom smokestackemissions. Unortunately, these same

pollutants now oten wind up in powerplants water pollution streamsei-ther through the discharge o waste-water rom the plants or leakage romcoal ash storage acilities. The EPA,which has not revised the rules or


27/44


power plant discharges in more thana quarter century, has announced atarget date o 2012 or new regulationsto address the problem. Because o thesignifcant harm this pollution cancause to wildlie and human health,

the EPA should adopt regulations wellbeore 2012, and require power plantsto remove heavy metals rom theirwastewater discharges and to takesteps to prevent pollution rom coalash disposal sites.

Establishing mandatory minimumpenalties or Clean Water Act viola-tions. Oten, violators o the CleanWater Act escape serious penalty. Inrecent years, the EPA has cut back on

stafng or its environmental enorce-ment eorts and the agency has beenunwilling to challenge states that havebeen inadequate in their enorcemento the law.47 State and EPA ofcialsare oten resistant to penalizing pol-

luters, even ater multiple violationso the law. Establishing mandatoryminimum penalties or violations othe Clean Water Act would ensurethat illegal pollution does not gounpunished and act as a deterrent toillegal polluters. Congress should alsoensure that the EPA receives adequateunding or enorcement sta to en-sure that the nation keeps a sufcientnumber o environmental cops on thebeat.


28/44


The data and analysis in this report arebased on 2007 data rom the ederalToxic Release Inventory, as down-

loaded rom the Environmental Protec-tion Agencys Enviroacts database on 18May 2009. The Toxic Release Inventory isrequently revised ater the posting o thenational public data release, which is thebasis or this report. The most recentlyupdated data can be ound at the EPAs

TRI Explorer Web site at www.epa.gov/triexplorer/.

Totaling Toxic Releases byWaterwayFacilities reporting to TRI sel-reportthe names o the waterways to which theyrelease toxic substances. These waterwaynames are sometimes misspelled or incon-sistent. Some acilities report releases tounidentifed tributaries o other waterways.Moreover, many waterways cross stateboundaries, such that total emissions to awaterway must be calculated or acilities indierent states. The ollowing procedureswere used to clean the waterway namesin the TRI database, assign discharges tothe proper waterways, and to identiy wa-terways that cross state boundaries.

1) Obvious spelling errors or dierencesin the ormatting o waterways receiv-ing discharges were repaired manuallyon a case-by-case basis.

2) Where TRI records indicated that achemical was released to an unnamedtributary o another waterway, the re-leases were classifed with those o thenamed waterway. In addition, where

records indicated that releases reacheda larger waterway via a smaller water-way, the releases were classifed withthe larger waterway.

3) Releases to waterways identifed asorks or branches o a largerwaterway were classifed with thelarger waterway (e.g. West Fork othe Susquehanna River). Releasesto waterways identifed as Little orBig rivers (e.g. Little Beaver River,

Beaver River) were classifed sepa-rately. Releases to waterways classi-fed as within a given river basin weregenerally classifed with that river.

4) Waterway names that were commonacross the boundaries o two adjacent

Methodology


29/44

Methodology 25

states were identifed and reviewedmanually using the EPAs Sur YourWatershed system. In cases whereit was clear that only one waterwaywith a given name existed in bothstates, and the waterway was located

near a state boundary, the waterwaywas assumed to cross state lines anddischarges to that waterway rom a-cilities in both states were summed. Incases in which it was unclear whetherthe discharges were to the same water-way, the discharges to the waterway(s)were listed separately by state.

There are two potential sources o errorthat cannot be addressed by this method.First is the case in which discharges in twodierent states are to the same waterway,but where it is not clear that that is thecase. Second, in some states, multiple wa-terways share the same name even withinstate boundaries. Discharges to these wa-terways will be summed, making the totaldischarges to that waterway appear largerthan they are in reality.

Linking Toxic Chemicals with

Health EffectsChemicals were determined to causecancer or developmental or reproductivedisorders based on their presence on thestate o Caliornias Proposition 65 listo Chemicals Known to the State to CauseCancer or Reproductive Toxicity, last updatedon 19 December 2008. Chemicals on theProposition 65 list were matched to thosein the TRI database using their Chemi-cal Abstracts Service (CAS) identifcationnumbers. Several classes o chemicals (e.g.

dioxins, various metal compounds) are notidentifed by CAS numberthese chemical

classes in the TRI database were identi-fed through manual comparison with theProposition 65 list. In some cases, a par-ticular chemical compound was listed inthe Proposition 65 database, but there wasno corresponding listing o that particular

compound in the TRI database. It was thenassumed that all compounds listed in theTRI chemical class exhibited that healtheect. For some substances (usually metals)on the Proposition 65 list, we assumed thatreleases o compounds containing that sub-stance as classifed by TRI also exhibitedthe same health eect. Finally, or somesubstances on the Proposition 65 list thatare identifed as causing particular healtheects when released in particular orms,it was impossible to determine whether thereported TRI releases o those substanceswere in the listed orm. We thereore as-sumed that all releases listed under TRIwere linked to the health eect listed onthe Proposition 65 list.

Chemicals in other classiications osubstances analyzed in this report wereidentifed as ollows:

Persistent bioaccumulative toxics wereidentifed based on their presence

on the EPAs list o PBTs requiringreporting at lower thresholds un-der TRI, obtained rom U.S. EPA,TRI PBT Chemical List, downloadedromwww.epa.gov/tri/trichemicals/pbt%20chemicals/pbt_chem_list.htm,20 May 2009.

Organochlorines and phthalateswere identifed based on their list-ing in Centers or Disease Controland Prevention, Third National Report

on Human Exposure to EnvironmentalChemicals, 2005.


30/44


1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environ-mental Results: National Summary o StateInormation, downloaded rom iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control, 16September 2009.

2 Ibid.

3 Maryland Department o the Environ-ment, Fish Kill s in Maryland, downloaded

rom www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/Mul-timediaPrograms/environ_emergencies/FishKills_MD/index.asp, 21 May 2009.

4 North Carolina Division o WaterQuality,North Carolina Division o WaterQuality Annual Report o Fish Kill Events,December 2008.

5 David A. Fahrentold, Male Bass AcrossRegion Found to Be Bearing Eggs,Washington Post, 6 September 2006.

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Great Lakes Monitoring: Atmospheric Deposi-tion o Toxic Pollutants, downloaded romwww.epa.gov/glindicators/air/airb.html, 16September 2009.

7 Arct ic Monitoring and AssessmentProgramme,Arctic Pollution 2009, 2009.

8 World Wildlie Fund, Causes or Concern:Chemicals and Wildlie, December 2003.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 K.L. Kimbrough, W.E. Johnson, etal., National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration,An Assessment oPolybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) inSediments and Bivalves o the U.S. CoastalZone, 2009.

12 Caliornia Ofce o EnvironmentalHealth Hazard Assessment, ChemicalsKnown to the State to Cause Cancer orReproductive Toxicity (Microsot Exceldocument), 19 December 2008.

13 Rachel L. Gibson, EnvironmentCaliornia Research and Policy Center,Moving Toward a Green Chemical Future,July 2008.

14 U.S. Geological Survey,Mercury in theEnvironment(act sheet), October 2000.

15 Environmental Working Group,NationalTap Water Quality Database, downloadedrom www.ewg.org/tapwater/national/, 16September 2009.

Notes


31/44

Notes 27

16 Ibid.

17 Charles Duhigg, Clean Water LawsAre Neglected, at a Cost o Suering,NewYork Times, 12 September 2009.

18 Natural Resources Deense Council,

Healthy Milk, Healthy Baby: ChemicalPollution and Mothers Milk, 25 March 2005.

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,In tegrated Ri sk In o rmati on System: Ni-trate, downloaded rom www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0076.htm, 21 May 2009.

20 Environmental Working Group, Chemi-cal Families: Nitrate Compounds, downloadedrom www.ewg.org/chemindex/term/537, 21May 2009.

21 Donald A. Goolsby and William A.Battaglin, U.S. Geological Survey,Nitrogenin the Mississippi Basin Estimating Sourcesand Predicting Flux to the Gul o Mexico (actsheet), December 2000.

22 Cancer-causing chemicals wereidentifed as those listed on CaliorniasProposition 65 list o substances known tocause cancer, as well as some compoundsassociated with cancer-causing chemicals.See Methodology or a completedescription o how chemicals were

identifed or this report.

23 Worlds largest: The Doe Run Company,What We Do: Recycling, downloaded romit-alicwww.doerun.com/WHATWEDO/RECYCLING/tabid/74/language/en-US/Deault.aspx, 16 September 2009.

24 New York Times, Toxic Watersdatabase: Bixby, Missouri, downloadedrom projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/polluters/missouri/bixby, 16 September2009.

25 Missouri Department o Natural Re-sources, Crooked Creek WBID 1928: WaterQuality Inormation Sheet, downloaded romwww.dn r.mo.gov/env/wpp/waterquality/303d/2008/proposed-2008-303d-list-data.htm, 21 May 2009.

26 Missouri Department o Natural Re-sources, Proposed Missouri 2008 Section 303(d)List as Approved by the Missouri Clean WaterCommission, May 6, 2009, downloaded romwww.dn r.mo.gov/env/wpp/waterqual ity/303d/50609cwc-approvedlist.pd, 16 Sep-

tember 2009.27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Mercury: Health Eect s, downloaded romwww.epa.gov/hg/eects.htm, 21 May 2009.

28 WHO guidelines rom U.S. Agencyor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,ToxFAQs: Chemical Agent Briefng Sheets:Dioxin, March 2006. Note: the WHOguidelines are or total daily intake o 1to 4 picograms (trillionths o a gram) perkilogram o body weight per day.

29 World Wildlie Fund,Factsheet: Organo-chlorine Pesticides, downloaded rom assets.panda.org/downloads/act_sheet___oc_pes-ticides_ood_1.pd, 21 May 2009.

30 Centers or Disease Control andPrevention, Third National Report onHuman Exposure to EnvironmentalChemicals, 2005.

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Pentachlorophenol and its Use as a Wood Pre-servative, downloaded rom www.epa.gov/

opp00001/actsheets/chemicals/pentachlo-rophenol_main.htm, 23 September 2009.

32 U.S. Department o Health and HumanServices, Agency or Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry, ToxFAQs orPentachlorophenol, September 2001.

33 See note 12.

34 Associated Press, Caliornia BansDry-Cleaning Chemical,MSNBC.com, 25January 2007.

35 Travis Madsen and Rachel Gibson,Environment Caliornia Research & PolicyCenter, Toxic Baby Furniture: The LatestCase or Making Products Sae rom the Start,May 2008.


32/44


36 Environment Caliornia, PhthalatesOverview, downloaded rom www.environ-mentcaliornia.org/environmental-health/stop-toxic-toys/phthalates-overview, 16September 2009.

37 Jen Baker and Kyle Michael Brown,MASSPIRG Education Fund, UnnecessaryHarms: The Availability o Saer Alternativesto the Toxic Ten,April 2006; alternativeplasticizers: Alexander H. Tullo, CuttingOut Phthalates, Chemical & EngineeringNews, 14 November 2005.

38 U.S. PIRG Education Fund, PulpFiction: Chemical Hazard Reduction at Pulpand Paper Mills, August 2007.

39 Natural Resources Deense Council,Dirty Coal Is Hazardous to Your Health:

Moving Beyond Coal-Based Energy (actsheet), 2007.

40 For a detailed discussion o theimpact o the Massachusetts and NewJersey programs, see Dana ORourke andEungkyoon Lee, Mandatory Planningor Environmental Innovation: EvaluatingRegulatory Mechanisms or Toxics UseReduction,Journal o EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, 47(2):181-200,March 2004; New Jersey Departmento Environmental Protection, Industrial

Pollution Prevention in New Jersey: A TrendsAnalysis o Materials Accounting Data 1994 to

2004, Spring 2007.

41 American Water Works Association,DOJ Asks Supreme Court to ClariyRapanos, WaterWeek, 15 September 2008.

42 Jennier Price, In the Beginning,

L.A. Weekly, 16 August 2001.

43 Earthjustice, Environment America,Clean Water Action, et al., CourtingDisaster: How the Supreme Court Has Brokenthe Clean Water Act and Why Congress MustFix It, April 2009.

44 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Table 1: State-by-State NHDAnalyses o Stream Categories and DrinkingWater Data, Attachment to letter romEPA Assistant Administrator Benjamin H.

Grumbles to Jeanne Christie, ExecutiveDirector, Association o State WetlandManagers, 9 January 2005.

45 Ibid.

46 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Permit Status Report or Non-TribalIndividual Major Permits September 2007,undated.

47 William J. Andreen and ShanaCampbell Jones, Center or ProgressiveReorm, The Clean Water Act: A Blueprintor Reorm, July 2008.


33/44

Appendix 29

Table A-1: Toxic Discharges to Waterways by State, 2007

State Alltoxic Cancer-causing Developmental Reproductive releases chemicals toxics toxics

releases (Ibs.) rank releases (Ibs.) rank releases (Ibs.) rank releases (Ibs.) rank

Indiana 27,298,889 1 29,235 16 18,299 8 13,567 6

Virginia 18,381,310 2 15,214 24 16,081 10 3,166 21

Nebraska 17,409,779 3 820 38 1,050 33 800 35

Texas 13,204,291 4 87,844 5 21,493 6 28,647 2

Louisiana 12,811,400 5 114,729 3 36,511 3 22,376 3Pennsylvania 10,706,605 6 28,803 17 9,645 15 7,969 12

Georgia 10,601,708 7 87,094 6 7,128 17 5,799 14

Ohio 9,304,554 8 42,995 11 27,300 4 20,773 4

North Carolina 9,156,743 9 169,686 1 11,384 14 3,795 15

Mississippi 9,058,061 10 13,065 26 2,148 26 2,107 25

Illinois 8,768,573 11 22,072 20 14,532 11 7,957 13

New Jersey 7,668,127 12 16,808 23 3,846 20 3,070 22

New York 6,400,905 13 40,607 12 5,113 18 3,276 20

Arkansas 6,084,676 14 50,188 9 3,462 22 3,379 18

Alabama 5,876,097 15 141,948 2 95,038 1 12,556 8

Kentucky 5,305,784 16 69,632 8 19,143 7 12,392 10Wisconsin 4,100,243 17 12,658 28 1,310 31 1,282 28

California 3,900,865 18 27,492 18 1,428 30 1,375 27

South Carolina 3,685,824 19 81,824 7 13,208 12 12,666 7

Oklahoma 3,508,076 20 9,327 29 1,115 32 1,079 30

Iowa 3,445,959 21 8,072 31 3,073 23 1,958 26

Maine 3,374,134 22 37,065 14 1,047 34 1,038 32

Colorado 3,357,257 23 107 45 48 46 47 44

Idaho 3,185,716 24 18,456 22 893 36 888 33

Delaware 2,950,375 25 8,094 30 2,416 25 2,408 24

West Virginia 2,923,737 26 23,589 19 17,771 9 15,631 5

Oregon 2,847,886 27 21,988 21 2,664 24 2,627 23Tennessee 2,705,547 28 107,512 4 21,565 5 10,952 11

South Dakota 2,424,482 29 642 40 1,915 28 642 36

Minnesota 2,072,875 30 7,471 32 3,741 21 3,729 17

Maryland 2,052,269 31 2,226 36 995 35 888 34

Missouri 1,690,965 32 14,359 25 12,752 13 12,555 9

Appendix:Detailed Data on Toxic Discharges to Waterways


34/44


Washington 1,354,439 33 39,981 13 3,912 19 3,774 16

Florida 1,166,495 34 45,599 10 2,062 27 1,224 29

Kansas 586,162 35 31,061 15 59,803 2 32,547 1

Michigan 575,930 36 12,890 27 7,772 16 3,281 19

Hawaii 446,948 37 430 42 94 44 60 43

Connecticut 437,974 38 2,764 35 607 37 600 37

Vermont 179,592 39 0 50 217 42 0 50

Montana 170,145 40 2,002 37 449 39 448 39

Utah 94,394 41 3,522 34 1,463 29 1,071 31

North Dakota 82,123 42 597 41 515 38 508 38

Alaska 63,962 43 369 43 274 41 238 41New Mexico 56,100 44 793 39 197 43 197 42

New Hampshire 42,824 45 75 46 45 47 45 45

Dist. Of Columbia 17,033 46 0 51 0 51 0 51

Massachusetts 12,727 47 7,386 33 299 40 280 40

Wyoming 9,916 48 40 48 40 48 40 46

Rhode Island 5,130 49 19 49 17 49 3 49

Arizona 4,364 50 143 44 69 45 29 47

Nevada 144 51 68 47 10 50 10 48

Guam 120,918 1 5 0

Puerto Rico 13,674 448 76 70

Virgin Islands 217,897 0 1 0

TOTAL 231,922,602 1,459,812 456,040 265,822

State Alltoxic Cancer-causing Developmental Reproductive releases chemicals toxics toxics

releases (Ibs.) rank releases (Ibs.) rank releases (Ibs.) rank releases (Ibs.) rank

Table A-1: Toxic Discharges to Waterways by State, 2007 (contd)


35/44

Appendix 31

Table A-2. Top 50 Waterways for Total Toxic Discharges, 2007

Waterway Toxic Rank discharges(lb.)

OHIO RIVER (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 31,064,643 1NEW RIVER (NC, VA, WV) 14,090,633 2

MISSISSIPPI RIVER (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 12,717,205 3

SAVANNAH RIVER (GA, SC) 7,683,500 4

DELAWARE RIVER (DE, NJ, PA) 7,449,555 5

CAPE FEAR RIVER (NC) 5,380,054 6

TRICOUNTY CANAL (NE) 5,256,876 7

MISSOURI RIVER (IA, KS, MO, ND, NE) 5,049,336 8

MUSKINGUM RIVER (OH) 4,994,243 9

SHONKA DITCH (NE) 4,375,761 10

ILLINOIS RIVER (IL) 3,926,771 11

ROCK RIVER (IL, WI) 3,754,451 12

SNAKE RIVER (ID, OR) 3,111,068 13

ARKANSAS RIVER (AR, CO, KS, OK) 3,053,497 14

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL (TX) 2,967,305 15BIG BLUE RIVER (NE) 2,903,675 16

SOUTH PLATTE RIVER (CO) 2,682,144 17

PICKENS CREEK (MS) 2,655,575 18

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER (NY, PA) 2,651,212 19

MORSES CREEK (NJ) 2,620,974 20

MONONGAHELA RIVER (PA, WV) 2,610,392 21

BIG SIOUX RIVER (SD) 2,369,185 22

SENECA RIVER (NY) 2,236,099 23

PACIFIC OCEAN (CA) 2,234,529 24

TENNESSEE RIVER (AL, KY, TN) 2,215,911 25

AROOSTOOK RIVER (ME) 2,203,543 26

KANAWHA RIVER (WV) 1,836,151 27

TALLABOGUE CREEK (MS) 1,755,317 28

HYDE RUN DITCH (OH) 1,743,099 29WILLAMETTE RIVER (OR) 1,721,272 30

JAMES RIVER (VA) 1,686,939 31

GRAND CALUMET RIVER (IN) 1,643,268 32

BRAZOS RIVER (TX) 1,541,956 33

WYALUSING CREEK (PA) 1,533,376 34

TANKERSLEY CREEK (TX) 1,527,953 35

CURTIS BAY (MD) 1,520,467 36

GRAND NEOSHO RIVER (OK) 1,515,275 37

WISCONSIN RIVER (WI) 1,506,908 38

OKATOMA CREEK (MS) 1,341,330 39

SCHUYLKILL RIVER (PA) 1,262,143 40

RED RIVER (AR, LA, OK) 1,240,866 41

COTTONWOOD BRANCH (TX) 1,208,540 42

YAZOO RIVER (MS) 1,119,093 43CALCASIEU RIVER (LA) 1,080,450 44

FOX RIVER (WI) 1,079,694 45

GILDERSLEEVE BROOK (NY) 1,057,702 46

HUDSON RIVER (NY) 1,048,179 47

CORPUS CHRISTI INNER HARBOR (TX) 1,042,724 48

ROANOKE RIVER (NC, VA) 1,013,527 49

LITTLE ATTAPULGUS CREEK (GA) 994,800 50


36/44


Table A-3 Top 50 Waterways for Discharges of Cancer-Causing Chemicals, 2007

Waterway Dischargesof Rank cancer-causing chemicals(lbs.)

OHIO RIVER (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 96,669 1

CATAWBA RIVER (NC, SC) 96,370 2

TENNESSEE RIVER (AL, KY, TN) 89,401 3

MISSISSIPPI RIVER (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 87,896 4

ALABAMA RIVER (AL) 54,205 5

SAVANNAH RIVER (GA, SC) 38,064 6

COOPER RIVER (SC) 38,052 7

COLUMBIA RIVER (OR, WA) 32,828 8

RED RIVER (AR, LA, OK) 32,775 9

HOLSTON RIVER (TN) 31,420 10

VERDIGRIS RIVER (KS, OK) 30,962 11

HUDSON RIVER (NY) 27,899 12

BRAZOS RIVER (TX) 27,526 13

ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER (ME, NH) 25,502 14

PACIFIC OCEAN (CA) 24,084 15CUMBERLAND RIVER (KY, TN) 21,364 16

FENHOLLOWAY RIVER (FL) 19,226 17

BROAD RIVER (NC, SC) 18,801 18

TURTLE RIVER (GA) 18,795 19

DELAWARE RIVER (DE, NJ, PA) 18,211 20

ROANOKE RIVER (NC, VA) 17,665 21

SNAKE RIVER (ID, OR) 17,588 22

NEUSE RIVER (NC) 16,783 23

CAPE FEAR RIVER (NC) 14,203 24

OUACHITA RIVER (AR) 13,059 25

NECHES RIVER (TX) 12,153 26

ALTAMAHA RIVER (GA) 11,825 27

TOMBIGBEE RIVER (AL) 11,699 28

SULPHUR RIVER (TX) 11,671 29HIWASSEE RIVER (TN) 10,882 30

PIGEON RIVER (NC, TN) 10,742 31

WISCONSIN RIVER (WI) 10,475 32

AMELIA RIVER (FL) 10,060 33

OUACHITA RIVER (LA) 10,060 34

ARKANSAS RIVER (AR, CO, KS, OK) 9,395 35

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER (AL, GA) 8,783 36

SAMPIT RIVER (SC) 8,515 37

JAMES RIVER (VA) 7,952 38

MONTE SANO BAYOU (LA) 7,915 39

CROOKED CREEK (MO) 7,781 40

PUGET SOUND (WA) 7,678 41

STAULKINGHEAD CREEK (LA) 7,653 42

KASKASKIA RIVER (IL) 7,254 43LAKE CHAMPLAIN (NY, VT) 7,199 44

ST. CROIX RIVER (ME) 7,143 45

SABINE RIVER (TX) 6,876 46

ELEVEN MILE CREEK (FL) 6,773 47

DUGDEMONA RIVER (LA) 6,728 48

CLINCH RIVER (TN, VA) 6,610 49

PORT TOWNSEND BAY (WA) 6,484 50


37/44

Appendix 33

Table A-4. Top 50 Waterways for Discharges of Developmental Toxicants, 2007

Waterway Developmental Rank toxicant releases(lb.)







KANAWHA RIVER (WV) 10,252 7

CONGAREE RIVER (SC) 9,900 8




KANSAS RIVER (KS) 5,444 12

KASKASKIA RIVER (IL) 5,277 13


CAPE FEAR RIVER (NC) 4,775 15LAKE ERIE (MI, NY, OH, PA) 4,332 16


WABASH RIVER (IL, IN, OH) 4,079 18

INDIANA HARBOR SHIP CANAL (IN) 4,010 19

COOSA RIVER (AL, GA) 3,856 20


BLACK RIVER (OH) 3,281 22

CORPUS CHRISTI BAY (TX) 3,236 23

ILLINOIS RIVER (IL) 3,175 24

MONONGAHELA RIVER (PA, WV) 2,690 25

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER (AL, GA) 2,656 26

WARRIOR RIVER (AL) 2,535 27

HERRINGTON LAKE (KY) 2,401 28

DES PLAINES RIVER (IL, WI) 2,334 29BLOCKHOUSE HOLLOW RUN (OH) 2,301 30

MOBILE RIVER (AL) 2,274 31

MUSKINGUM RIVER (OH) 2,228 32

TOMBIGBEE RIVER (AL) 2,159 33

CUMBERLAND RIVER (KY, TN) 2,135 34

LAKE SINCLAIR (GA) 2,012 35

MAYO RESERVOIR (NC) 1,948 36

ROUGE RIVER (MI) 1,935 37

LAKE MICHIGAN (IL, IN, MI, WI) 1,927 38

GENESEE RIVER (NY) 1,919 39

BIG SIOUX RIVER (SD) 1,909 40



BROAD RIVER (NC, SC) 1,727 43PACIFIC OCEAN (OR) 1,700 44

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER (IL, IN) 1,652 45

GRAND CALUMET RIVER (IN) 1,542 46

GREAT SALT LAKE (UT) 1,431 47

INDIAN CREEK (MO) 1,353 48

HACKENSACK RIVER (NJ) 1,304 49

GREEN RIVER (KY) 1,292 50


38/44


Table A-5. Top 50 Waterways for Discharges of Reproductive Toxicants, 2007

Waterway Reproductive Rank toxicant releases(lb.)





KANAWHA RIVER (WV) 10,181 5

CONGAREE RIVER (SC) 9,900 6




KANSAS RIVER (KS) 5,444 10

INDIANA HARBOR SHIP CANAL (IN) 4,008 11



BLACK RIVER (OH) 3,280 14

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER (AL, GA) 2,460 15MONONGAHELA RIVER (PA, WV) 2,425 16

DES PLAINES RIVER (IL, WI) 2,261 17


ILLINOIS RIVER (IL) 1,986 19


LAKE ERIE (MI, NY, OH, PA) 1,895 21

CUMBERLAND RIVER (KY, TN) 1,883 22

LAKE MICHIGAN (IL, IN, MI, WI) 1,841 23



PACIFIC OCEAN (OR) 1,700 26

CAPE FEAR RIVER (NC) 1,672 27

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER (IL, IN) 1,651 28

LAKE SINCLAIR (GA) 1,512 29GRAND CALUMET RIVER (IN) 1,465 30


INDIAN CREEK (MO) 1,353 32

HACKENSACK RIVER (NJ) 1,304 33

CUYAHOGA RIVER (OH) 1,131 34

WARRIOR RIVER (AL) 1,083 35

GREAT SALT LAKE (UT) 1,044 36

BEE FORK CREEK (MO) 1,021 37

GREEN RIVER (KY) 1,021 38

MUDDY CREEK (OH) 986 39

NECHES RIVER (TX) 975 40

BURNS DITCH (IN) 940 41

WHITE RIVER (AR) 919 42

OUACHITA RIVER (LA) 885 43GENESEE RIVER (NY) 884 44

MUSKINGUM RIVER (OH) 879 45

BILLS CREEK (MO) 789 46

EVERETT HARBOR (WA) 782 47

VALLEY CREEK (AL) 735 48

COOPER RIVER (SC) 730 49

PEARL RIVER (LA, MS) 730 50


39/44

Appendix 35

TableA-6.Top20F

acilitiesforWaterDischargesof

ToxicPollutants,2007

FacilityName

City

State

WaterBody/ies

Toxic

ReceivingDischarge

Releases(lbs.)

AKSTEELCORP.(RO

CKPORTWORKS)

ROCKPORT

IN

OHIORIVER(IL,IN

,KY,OH,PA,WV)

24,120,227

U.S.ARMYRADFOR

DARMY

AMMUNITIONPLANT

RADFORD

VA

NEWRIVER(NC,V

A)

13,600,338

TYSONFRESHMEATSINC

LEXINGTON

NE

TRICOUNTYCANA

L(NE)

5,256,876

SMITHFIELDPACKIN

GCOINCTARHEELDIV

TARHEEL

NC

CAPEFEARRIVER

(NC)

4,830,302

TYSONFRESHMEATSINCWWTP

DAKOTACIT

Y

NE

MISSOURIRIVER(IA,KS,MO,ND,NE)

4,652,730

DUPONTCHAMBER

SWORKS

DEEPWATER

NJ

DELAWARERIVER

(DE,NJ,PA)

4,410,591

CARGILLMEATSOL

UTIONSCORP

SCHUYLER

NE

SHONKADITCH(N

E)

4,375,761

EXXONMOBILREFINING&SUPPLY

BATONROUGEREFINERY

BATONROUGE

LA

MISSISSIPPIRIVER

(AR,IA,IL,KY,LA,MN,MO,MS,TN,WI)

4,211,142

AKSTEELCORPCOSHOCTONWORKS

COSHOCTON

OH

MUSKINGUMRIVER(OH)

4,201,250

DSMCHEMICALSNORTHAMERICAINC

AUGUSTA

GA

SAVANNAHRIVER

(GA,SC)

3,941,260

NORTHAMERICAN

STAINLESS

GHENT

KY

OHIORIVER(IL,IN

,KY,OH,PA,WV)

3,607,952

TYSONFRESHMEATSINCJOSLINIL

HILLSDALE

IL

ROCKRIVER(IL,W

I)

3,063,360

CARGILLMEATSOL

UTIONSCORP

BEARDSTOW

N

IL

ILLINOISRIVER(IL

)

3,053,330

MCCAINFOODSUS

A

BURLEY

ID

SNAKERIVER(ID,

OR)

2,905,166

FARMLANDFOODS

INC

CRETE

NE

BIGBLUERIVER(N

E)

2,759,935

TYSONFOODSCAR

THAGEMS

PROCESSINGPLANT

CARTHAGE

MS

PICKENSCREEK(M

S)

2,655,575

CONOCOPHILLIPSC

O-BAYWAYREFINERY

LINDEN

NJ

MORSESCREEK(N

J)

2,619,601

CARGILLMEATSOL

UTIONSCORP

FORTMORG

AN

CO

SOUTHPLATTERIVER(CO)

2,606,583

USS-CLAIRTONWORKS

CLAIRTON

PA

PETERSCR.(PA)/M

ONONGAHELAR.(PA,WV)

2,509,701

JOHNMORRELL&C

O

SIOUXFALLS

SD

BIGSIOUXRIVER(SD)

2,369,185

PREMCORREFINING

GROUPINC

DELAWARECITY

DE

DELAWARERIVER

(DE,NJ,PA)

2,350,514


40/44


TableA-7.Top20F

acilitiesforWaterDischargesof

Cancer-CausingChemicals,2007

FacilityName

City

State

WaterBody/ie

s

Toxic

ReceivingDischarge

Releases(lbs.)

MARSHALLSTEAM

STATION

TERRELL

NC

CATAWBARIVE

R(NC,SC)

79,236

BPAMOCOCHEMICALS

DECATUR

AL

TENNESSEERIV

ER(AL,KY,TN)

41,470

COFFEYVILLERESO

URCES

REFINING&MARKETING

COFFEYVILL

E

KS

VERDIGRISRIVER(KS,OK)

30,579

INTERNATIONALPAPERCO-

SAVANNAHCOMPLEX

SAVANNAH

GA

SAVANNAHRIV

ER(GA,SC)

wasting our waterways: toxic industrial pollution and the unfulfilled promise of the clean water act

Documents