Wasting Our Waterways vUS

7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS

1/53

Wasting Our Waterways 2012Toxic Industrial Pollution and the

Unulflled Promise o the Clean Water Act


2/53

Wasting Our Waterways 2012Toxic Industrial Pollution and the

Unulflled Promise o the Clean Water Act

Environment AmericaResearch & Policy Center

Rob Kerth,Frontier Group

Shelley Vinyard,Environment America

Research & Policy Center

Spring 2012


3/53

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Natalie Roy o the Clean Water Network and Joan Mulhern o

Earthjustice or their review and insightul comments. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik andJordan Schneider o Frontier Group or their editorial and writing assistance.

The authors bear responsibility or any actual errors. The views expressed in this reportare those o the authors and do not necessarily reect the views o our unders or thosewho provided review.

2012 Frontier Group

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 more

inormation about Frontier Group, please visit www.rontiergroup.org.

Environment America Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedi-cated to protecting Americas air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, cratsolutions, educate the public and decision makers, and help Americans make their voicesheard in local, state and national debates over the quality o our environment and our lives.For more inormation about Environment America Research & Policy Center or or ad-ditional copies o this report, please visit www.environmentamericacenter.org.

Cover photo: Shutterstock.com user WvdMLayout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design


4/53

Table o Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 5

Toxic Releases to Waterways Threaten theEnvironment and Public Health 6Toxic Releases and the Environment 6

Toxic Releases and Human Health 8

Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2010 9226 Million Pounds o Toxic Chemicals Releasedto Waterways in 2010 10

Releases o Toxic Chemicals Linked to Human Health ProblemsAre Widespread 16

Releases o Small-Volume Toxic Chemicals Also Pose Concern 20

Protecting Americas Waterways rom Toxic Releases:Chemical Policy and the Clean Water Act 22The Clean Water Act: Ensuring Strong Protection or

All o Americas Waterways 22

A New Chemical Policy in the U.S.: Protecting the

Environment and Public Health 24

Methodology 27

Notes 29


5/53


6/53

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 U.S. Env ironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), pollution romindustrial acilities is responsible or threat-ening or ouling water quality in more than14,000 miles o rivers and streams, more

than 220,000 acres o lakes, ponds andestuaries nationwide.

The continued release o large volumeso 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 acilities dumped 226million pounds o toxic chemicals intoAmerican waterways in 2010, accord-

ing to the ederal governments ToxicRelease Inventory.

Toxic chemicals were discharged tomore than 1,400 waterways in all 50states. The Ohio River ranked frst

or toxic discharges in 2010, ollowedby the Mississippi River and the NewRiver in Virginia and North Carolina.

This represents a small (2.6 percent)decrease in the overall volume o toxicreleases since the previous edition othis report, released in 2009 and basedon data rom 2007.

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

Small as well as large waterways re-ceived heavy doses o toxics. Becauseo a single, large release o arsenicand metal compounds rom a Nevada

gold mine into three small creeks, thecombined discharges o developmentaltoxicants in those creeks were largerthan the discharges o such toxicantsto the Ohio and Mississippi Riverscombined.


7/53

2 Wasting Our Waterways

Toxic releases continued in alreadydamaged waterways. The CalumetRiver system in Indiana and Illinoishome to fve dierent Superund toxicwaste sites, and at one time so pollutedthat not even sludge worms couldlive thereranked high on the list odevelopmental and reproductive toxic

releases due to ongoing dischargesrom steel mills and an oil refnery.

Toxic chemicals linked to serioushealth eects were released in largeamounts to Americas waterways in2010.

Industrial acilities discharged ap-proximately 1.5 million pounds ochemicals linked to cancer to morethan 1,000 waterways during 2010.Nevadas Burns Creek received thelargest volume o carcinogenic re-leases, with a small neighboring creekplacing third. The Mississippi River,

Ohio River, and Tennessee River alsosuered large releases o carcinogens.Pulp and paper mills, gold mines andchemical manuacturers were theindustries that released the greatestvolume o carcinogenic chemicals in2010.

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


8/53

Executive Summary

About 626,000 pounds o chemicalslinked to developmental disorderswere discharged into more than 900waterways. Burns Creek in Nevada,a small waterway near a gold mine,suered the greatest amount o devel-opmental toxicant discharges, ol-lowed by the Kanawha River in WestVirginia and the Mississippi River.Gold mining was the largest sourceo developmental toxicants, ollowed

by pesticide manuacturing and ossilueled power generation.

Approximately 354,000 pounds ochemicals linked to reproductivedisorders were released to morethan 900 waterways. West VirginiasKanawha River received the heaviestdose o reproductive toxicants, ol-lowed by the Mississippi, Ohio, andBrazos rivers.

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 en-vironment rom tox ic releases, theUnited States should prevent pollutionby requiring industries to reduce theiruse o toxic chemicals and restore andstrengthen Clean Water Act protectionsor all o Americas waterways.

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

Water Act.

The Obama Administration shouldclariy that the Clean Water Act ap-plies to headwater streams, intermit-tent waterways, isolated wetlands andother waterways or which Clean Wa-ter Act protection has been called intoquestion as a result o recent SupremeCourt decisions.

EPA and the states should strengthen

enorcement o the Clean Water Actby, among other things, ratchetingdown permitted pollution levels romindustrial acilities, ensuring that per-mits are renewed on time, and requir-ing mandatory minimum penalties orpolluters in violation o the law.

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

Waterway Toxic discharges (lb)

Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 32,111,718

Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 12,739,749

New River (NC, VA) 12,529,948

Savannah River (GA, SC) 9,624,090

Delaware River (DE, NJ, PA) 6,719,436

Muskingum River (OH) 5,754,118

Missouri River (IA, KS, MO, ND, NE) 4,887,971

Shonka Ditch (NE) 4,614,722

Tricounty Canal (NE) 3,386,162

Rock River (IL, WI) 3,370,39


9/53


EPA should eliminate loopholessuch as the allowance o mixingzones or persistent bioaccumulativetoxic chemicalsthat allow greaterdischarge o toxic chemicals into wa-terways.

The United States should revise its strategyor regulating toxic chemicals to encouragethe development and use o saer alternatives.Specically, 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 the

environment or health, rather thanbasing regulation on resource-inten-sive and awed eorts to determinesae levels o exposure to thosechemicals.

Require industries to disclose theamount o toxic chemicals they usein their acilitiessaeguarding localresidents right to know about po-tential public health threats in theircommunity and creating incentivesor industry to reduce its use o toxicchemicals.

Require saer alternatives to toxicchemicals, where alternatives exist.

Phase out the worst toxic chemicals.


10/53

Introduction 5

Water is undamental to lie. With-out a supply o sae, clean water,humans and most other plants and

animals cannot survive.For many Americans, water is also un-

damental to our quality o lie. It shapes thelandscapes we live in and enjoy, provides uswith opportunities to relax and recreate,and supports healthy ecosystems.

In 1972, America adopted the Clean

Water Act with the aim o making all oour nations waterways sae or fshing andswimming by 1983, and o eliminatingtoxic discharges into waterways altogetherby 1985. Sadly, the goals o that law remainunrealized. Nationwide, 53 percent o ourassessed rivers and streams and 69 percento assessed lakes remain unsae or fshing,swimming or other uses.1

This pollution means that Americanswho enjoy fshing have to avoid certain wa-terways, steer clear o certain fsh, and limit

the amounts o resh-caught fsh that theyeat in order to protect themselves againstmercury and other harmul substances

that are present in some waterways. Otherwaterways are unsae or drinking andswimming, or lose their value as hiking andboating destinations because o pollution.

One contributor to this problem isthe direct release o toxic chemicals intowaterways by industrial acilities. Fortyyears ater the passage o the Clean Wa-ter Act, industrial acilities dumped 226million pounds o toxic chemicals into

waterways in 2010. These pollutantsromcarcinogens such as arsenic to developmen-tal toxicants such as mercury and lead tochemicals such as nitrates that destabilizeaquatic ecosystems and render water unsaeto drinkcontribute substantially to thedegradation o Americas waterways.

This pollution can be prevented. Com-mon sense measures to reduce the use otoxic chemicals and prevent uncheckedtoxic dumping into threatened waterwayscan ensure that the vision o the Clean

Water Act is realized, and that o ournations rivers, lakes, and streams can beenjoyed by all.

Introduction


11/53


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 a lead-ing cause o water quality problems in ournations rivers, streams, and lakes. Accord-ing to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), industrial discharges arethought to be responsible or threatening orouling water quality in more than 14,000miles o rivers and more than 220,000 acreso lakes, ponds and estuaries nationwide.2

Impacts on Local WaterwaysPerhaps the most immediate and severeresult o toxic chemical releases on local

waterways is the death o wildlie. Toxicchemical releaseswhether deliberate oraccidentalcan trigger fsh kills. In Mary-land, or example, industrial dischargeswere responsible or 47 separate fsh killevents between 1984 and 2010.3

Dramatic fsh kills may attract head-lines, but routine toxic chemical dischargescan have subtle and long-lasting impactson aquatic lie. In the Potomac River, or

instance, 80 percent o all male bassbothlarge and smallmouthcaptured by scien-tists carried emale eggs, a sign that theirreproductive development had been alteredby chemicals in the water.4 The scientistsattributed the developmental abnormalitiesto a toxic stew o chemicals in the river.Exposure to these hormone-disruptingchemicals can cause serious reproduc-tive, developmental, and immune systemproblems.

Some chemicals that are toxic also pose

other, more indirect threats to the healtho waterways. Nitrate compoundswhichcome rom agricultural runo as well asindustrial sourcesare toxic, but mainlythreaten wildlie and ecosystems becausethey eed the growth o algae, which candeplete oxygen levels in local waterways.

Toxic Releases to Waterways Threatenthe Environment and Public Health


12/53

Toxic Releases to Waterways 7

Persistent BioaccumulativeToxicsLocal Pollutants with aGlobal Impact

Some toxic substances are long-lived andaccumulate in animal tissue, becoming

more and more concentrated urther upthe ood chain. Decades ater scientists 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 industries continueto produce, use and discharge PBTs intoAmericas waterways.

Discharges o persistent bioaccumula-tive toxics to waterways (along with dis-charges to the land and air) can not onlyharm wildlie in those waterways, but alsoimpact 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 net

source o PCBs to the aircontributing tocontamination elsewhere.5PCBs continue to be ound in the tis-

sues o polar bears three decades ater theUnited States banned their manuacture.6PCB contamination has been linked toimmune system and reproductive problemsin the bears, which already ace threatsrom another problem caused by pollu-tion: global warming.7 PCBs have alsobeen linked to a mass die-o o North Seaand Baltic seals during the 1980s, and are

among the environmental pollutants linkedto health problems in salmon, mink, andother species.8

Since the last edition o this report wasreleased in 2009, new ederal regulationshave been put in place that are likely tosigniicantly reduce one o the largest

pathways through which PBTs enter wa-terwaysairborne mercury emissions. Inlate 2011, EPA issued strong new standardsaimed at reducing airborne emissions omercury and other toxics rom powerplants and other large sources, which will

begin to take eect in the next ew years.9Although these standards do not aect thetoxic releases described in this report, theywill signifcantly reduce the quantity oPBTs present in American waterways, sincedeposition o airborne mercury throughrainall is a leading source o PBT contami-nation in American waterways. (Separately,EPA is proceeding with a rulemaking onwater discharges rom power plants, whichcould lead to urther reductions in emis-sions described in this report.)10

While governments, including the U.S.government, have taken action to reduceor 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 somecommon characteristics with persistent

bioaccumulative toxics. BFRs have beenshown to cause a variety o health problemsin animals during laboratory studies, andare accumulating rapidly in humans andanimals. BFRs have been ound in spermwhales, Arctic seals, birds, and fsh.11 Di-rect industrial releases o BFRs, includingdischarges to waterways, are among themany ways that BFRs can fnd their wayinto the environment and into the bodieso animals and humans.12

The recent experience with brominated

lame retardants shows the dangers opublic policy that treats all chemicals asinnocent 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 last


13/53


or generations and be elt ar away romthe original source o the pollution.

Toxic Releases andHuman 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 developeda 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 disordersin men, women, or both.13 It is likely thatothers among the 80,000 chemicals reg-istered or commercial use in the UnitedStates trigger these or other health eects,as only a small percentage o chemicalshave been ully tested or their impacton health.14

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 t issue 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 can

undergo a series o transormations thatenable it to be absorbed and accumulatedup the ood chain.15 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 throughdrinking water. A 2009 report by the En-vironmental Working Group ound that

315 pollutants had been ound in drinkingwater between 2004 and 2009; 49 pol-lutants were ound at levels in excess oederal saety standards or the substancein question.16 For instance, more than11 million people are served by drink-ing water systems that exceeded EPAsmaximum level or arsenic compoundsbetween 2004 and 2009; 9 million peopleare served by systems where concentra-tions o chloroorm, a known carcinogen,exceeded EPAs maximum limit duringthat time period.17 Other industrial pollut-antsincluding heavy metals such as leadand solvents such as tetrachloroethylene(perc), a carcinogenhave been ound inthe drinking water consumed by millionso Americans.18 A 2009 investigative reportby theNew York Timesound that roughlyone in 10 Americans has been exposed todrinking water that either contained dan-gerous chemicals or ailed to meet ederalhealth standards.19

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.20 Many chemicals also cancross 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.


14/53

Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2010 9

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 acilities continueto discharge millions o pounds o toxicchemicals to our waterways each year.

This report uses data rom the ederal

governments Toxics Release Inventory(TRI) to estimate releases o toxic chemi-cals to American waterways in 2010. It isthe second report in a series; our last reporton this topic, released in 2009, was basedon TRI data rom 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 on

page 10.) Industrial acilities that reportto TRI reported the release o 231 toxicchemicals or classes o toxic pollutants toAmerican waterways in 2010. Those chem-icals vary greatly in their toxicity and theimpacts they have on the environment andhuman health. Some pollutants that are

released in large volumes, or example, mayhave less o an impact on the environmentor human health than other highly toxicpollutants released in smaller volumes.

This report also takes advantage othe act that, or the frst time ever, EPAreleased TRI data rom 2010 with in-ormation on the watersheds into whichchemicals were released, in the orm ohydrological unit codes, (HUCs) which

identiy waterways by the watershed re-gion they belong to. Using these data, wehave been able to aggregate releases notonly by the individual waterway to whichchemicals were released, but also by thebroader watershed regions to which thosewaterways belong. In cases where multipleneighboring waterways receive dischargesthat then accumulate as streams ow to-gether, aggregating data at the watershedregion level can capture the extent o theenvironmental and public health risks in-

volved in a way that aggregating only at thelevel o individual waterways may not.

In this report, we examine data on toxicdischarges through several lenses, present-ing inormation on the volume o releasesto American waterways o:

Toxic Releases toU.S. Waterways in 2010


15/53


All toxic chemicals listed under TRI;

Toxic chemicals linked to specifchealth eectscancer, reproductivedisorders, 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.

226 Million Pounds o ToxicChemicals Were Released toWaterways in 2010

At least 226 million pounds o toxic chemi-

cals were released to Americas waterwaysin 2010. Toxic chemicals were released intomore than 1,400 dierent waterways in all50 states. Total toxic releases were 6 millionpounds less than in 2007, the year coveredin the previous edition o this reporta2.6 percent decrease.

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

The Environmental Protection Agencys Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is themost comprehensive source o inormation available on the industrial releaseo toxic substances to Americas environment. 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 TRI is an important source o inormation, it is not perect. TRI onlycovers industrial acilities, meaning that many other sources o toxic pollutionrom wastewater treatment plants to agricultural acilitiesare not reported.Industrial acilities are required to report only the releases o chemicals on theTRI listmeaning that releases o newer chemicals or those o more recent con-cern might not be reported at all. In addition, industrial acilities must report toTRI only i they meet certain thresholds or the amount o toxic chemicals theymanuacture, 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 2010to 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.


16/53


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 Table 1.)

Table 1: Top Ten States by ToxicReleases in 2010

Rank State Pounds ofToxics Released

1 Indiana 27,366,513

2 Virginia 18,135,255

3 Nebraska 14,773,383

4 Texas 14,571,913

5 Georgia 12,616,727

6 Louisiana 10,898,425

7 Pennsylvania 10,114,611

8 Alabama 9,852,798

9 Ohio 9,184,661

10 North Carolina 9,167,285

Figure 1. Total Toxic Releases to Waterways Reported to the TRI


17/53


Nitrates Accounted for the LargestShare of Toxic Releases in 2010Releases o nitrate compounds representedjust under 90 percent o the total volumeo discharges to waterways reported underthe 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.21 Nitrates have alsobeen linked in some studies to organ dam-age in adults.22 Industrial pollution is onlyone source o nitrate discharges; ertilizerand other agricultural runo (which are

not accounted or in the Toxics ReleaseInventory) also account or a large volumeo nitrate pollution.23

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 algalblooms. As the algae decay, decompositioncan cause the depletion o oxygen levels inthe waterway, triggering the ormation odead zones in which aquatic lie cannot besustained. The dead zone that orms eachsummer in the Gul o Mexico has beenattributed to the massive ow o nutrients,including nitrates, rom the MississippiRiver basin. While ertilizer runo rom

Waterway Toxic discharges (lb.)

1 Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 32,111,718

2 Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 12,739,749

3 New River (NC, VA) 12,529,948

4 Savannah River (GA, SC) 9,624,090

5 Delaware River (DE, NJ, PA) 6,719,436

6 Muskingum River (OH) 5,754,118

7 Missouri River (IA, KS, MO, ND, NE) 4,887,971

8 Shonka Ditch (NE) 4,614,722

9 Tricounty Canal (NE) 3,386,162

10 Rock River (IL, WI) 3,370,392

11 Cape Fear River (NC) 3,364,823

12 Illinois River (IL) 3,206,191

13 Big Sioux River (SD) 2,949,940

14 Tennessee River (AL, KY, TN) 2,810,828

15 Roanoke River (NC, VA) 2,762,330

16 Houston Ship Channel (TX) 2,715,228

17 Monongahela River (PA, WV) 2,626,677

18 Snake River (ID, OR) 2,609,501

19 Morses Creek (NJ) 2,403,408

20 Aroostook River (ME) 2,271,733

Table 2. Top 20 Waterways for Total Toxic Discharges, 2010


18/53


agricultural activities is the leading sourceo nitrates in the Mississippi, industrial dis-charge plays a small but signifcant role.24The Chesapeake Bay is another waterwayheavily impacted by nitrate pollution; deadzones orm there every summer as a result

o industrial, agricultural, and residentialruno. In late 2010, EPA released new ruleson the amount o pollution that can be re-leased into the Chesapeake Bay watershed,which will both improve the condition othe bay and provide an example or othermajor watersheds suering rom heavypollution discharges.25

Unsurprisingly, the waterways thatrank high or total toxic releases are thosewith large releases o nitrate compounds.Among the major industr ial sources onitrate compounds are ood and beveragemanuacturing (slaughterhouses, renderingplants, etc.), primary metals manuactur-ing, chemical plants, and petroleum re-fneries. Waterways receiving dischargesrom these types o acilities, thereore,will tend to rank high on the l ist or totaltoxic releases.

The Ohio River topped all waterwaysor toxic discharges in 2010, with over 32million pounds o discharges. It was ol-

lowed by two other large riversthe Mis-sissippi (o which the Ohio is a tributary)and the New River in North Carolina andVirginia.

Large waterways are not the only onesthat receive large amounts o toxic dis-charges. Several smaller waterways, suchas Nebraskas Shonka Ditch and TricountyCanal, rank among the top waterways orreceiving toxic discharges nationwide.

Large Polluters Can Have a Major

Impact on Individual WaterwaysFor 16 o the 50 top waterways by totalvolume o toxic releases, one companywas responsible or all or the vast majorityo the toxic discharges. In most cases, thecompany in question was an agriculture orood company; Tyson Foods, or instance,

was the responsible party in our cases,including Nebraskas Tricounty Canal (9thon the list or total discharges). Cargill Inc.was the sole company discharging into theShonka Ditch (8th on the list); SmithfeldFarms was the sole discharger in the case

o South Dakotas Big Sioux River (13th);and McCain Foods was the only companydischarging into Maines Aroostook River(20th).

The chemical, petroleum, and manu-acturing industries were also representedamong the companies solely responsibleor polluting a waterway. Morses Creek inNew Jersey (19th on the list) was polluted byConoco Philips Bayway Refnery. Furtherdown the list, the Little Attapulgus Creekin Georgia received over 1 million poundso toxics solely rom a plant in Attapulgusoperated by major chemical manuacturerBASF.

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 pollutercreatingthe potential or signifcant harm to localecosystems and or pollution to be carried

downstream to larger waterways.For some larger waterways, the amounto direct discharges may not tell thewhole story o the impact o toxic pollu-tion. Many o these rivers ow into oneanother, aggregating pollution so that bythe time the Mississippi reaches the ocean,or instance, it is carrying a portion othe toxics dumped into many other riversarther upstream (although some o thosetoxics will have also evaporated, settledinto sediment, or otherwise ceased to ow

downstream). Examining discharges bywatershed region (using the United StatesGeological Surveys Hydrological UnitClassifcation system) shows that many othe waterways in which toxic releases takeplace ow together beore reaching theocean (see Table 3).


19/53


The Grand Calumet River:Showcasing the Impacts o Toxic Pollution

In 1985, biologist Thomas Simon spotted a fnless, bloody carp swimming inIndianas Grand Calumet River. It looked like someone had beaten it up, hetold theNew York Times. Even such an unhealthy carps presence was good news,

however; it was the frst living fsh seen in the river in years.26 The Grand Calumethighlights the damage that industrial pollution can do to a waterway, and the ongo-ing damage being done by industrial pollution.

The Grand Calumet and its neighboring waterways, including the Little Calumet,Burns Ditch (which drains the river to Lake Michigan), and various shipping andindustrial canals orm one o the most polluted networks o rivers in the country. Atone point in the 1960s, beore the passage o the Clean Water Act, the river was sopolluted that even sludge worms (extremely hardy animals that survive in sewage andheavily polluted waters where other animal lie cannot) were unable to live there. 27

Much o the pollution there accumulated decades ago, through industrial dis-charges that let the river bottom covered in sediments containing highly toxicPCBs and other severely dangerous chemicals, and through leaks rom fve dierentSuperund toxic waste sites that border the river. Cleanup eorts are ongoing, atsignifcant cost; in 2011 alone, the government spent $50 million to remove highlytoxic sediments rom the Grand Calumet.28

Even as millions o dollars are dedicated to restoring the Grand Calumet and itsneighboring waters to health, new discharges to those waters placed the watershedhigh in the ranks o polluted waters. The Little Calumet-Galien watershed region,containing the Grand Calumet, closely linked rivers, and a portion o the shore oLake Michigan, ranked 21st in the nation or overall toxic discharges, 19 th or dis-charges o developmental toxicants, and 10th or discharges o reproductive toxicants

in 2010a heavy concentration o pollution even i the waterways in question hadbeen pristine to begin with.

Three metals plants discharged toxics into the Grand Calumet and its connectedwaterways in 2010U.S. Steels Gary Works and Midwest plant (a sheet and tinfnishing acility) and ArcelorMittal USAs Indiana Harbor plant. Those acilitiesreleased a range o metal wastes and other toxics into the waterways, includingchromium and benzeneboth o which act as carcinogens and developmental andreproductive toxicantsand arsenic compounds, which are carcinogenic and act asdevelopmental toxins.

As those chemicals ow into Lake Michigan, they join benzene, ethylbenzene andother refnery byproducts released by a BP Products o North America oil refnery inWhiting, Indiana, and nitrates released by a Cargill corn mill directly into the lake.

The Grand Calumet and its neighboring waterways are exactly the type o watersthe Clean Water Act was intended to restore to a usable state. The ongoing pollu-tion problem in those riversproduced by a combination o accumulated pollutionrom previous decades and new toxics deposited into the rivers every yearshowshow that vision has yet to be met.


20/53


The Ohio River, or instance, received32 million pounds o toxics in 2010. Itstributaries, meanwhile, received an ad-ditional 13 million pounds. In total, morethan 20 percent o the toxics released intowaterways in 2010 were released into the

Ohio River or its tributaries.The Mississippi, meanwhile , which

drains much o the North American con-tinent, captures an even larger share o thenations toxic releases in its watershed. Over112 million pounds o toxics were releasedinto waterways tributary to the Mississippiin 2010ully hal the total released in theentire United States.

Table 3: Toxic Discharges by WatershedRegion

Watershed Region ToxicDischarges (lb)

1 South Atlantic-Gul 52,466,069

2 Ohio 46,516,034

3 Mid Atlantic 24,424,435

4 Missouri 19,553,305

5 Upper Mississippi 18,391,021

6 Lower Mississippi 13,055,391

7 Texas-Gul 12,553,191

8 Arkansas-White-Red 10,891,300

9 Great Lakes 9,664,007

10 Tennessee 5,076,384

Several o these watershed areas (the SouthAtlantic-Gul, Texas-Gul, and Pacifc Northwest)contain multiple outlets to the ocean. Toxicsreleased in these regions do not all ollow thesame path to the sea.

Figure 2: Toxic Discharges by Watershed Region, Continental United States, 2010


21/53


Health Problems areWidespreadThe 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 smallervolumes, are linked to severe and chronichealth problems.

CancerIn 2010, manuacturing acilities dis-charged approximately 1.5 million poundso cancer-causing chemicals into water-ways.29 Nevadas Burns Creek receivedthe largest volume o carcinogens in 2010,

while neighboring Mill Creek placed third.The Mississippi River received the secondlargest volume o releases, while the Ohioand Tennessee rivers rounded out the topfve.

Cancer-causing chemicals were dis-charged into more than 1,000 waterwaysnationwide in 2010. Several industries

Table 4. Top 20 Waterways for Discharges of Cancer-Causing Chemicals, 2010

Waterway Discharges ofcancer-causingchemicals (lbs.)

Burns Creek (NV) 198,152

Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 180,339

Mill Creek (NV) 85,150

Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 65,794

Tennessee River (AL, KY, TN) 61,883

Cooper River (SC) 45,072

Ouachita River (AR, LA) 42,410

Brazos River (TX) 41,008

Red River (AR, LA, OK) 38,552

Sampit River (SC) 34,407

Amelia River (FL) 33,824

Alabama River (AL) 31,906

Winters Creek (NV) 31,826

Columbia River (OR, WA) 27,557

Pearl River (LA, MS) 23,597

Snake River (ID, OR) 22,652

Holston River (TN) 19,445

Arkansas River (AR, CO, KS, OK) 18,190

Lake Champlain (NY) 15,963

Chattahoochee River (AL, GA) 15,550


22/53


discharge large amounts o cancer-caus-ing chemicals to waterways. The pulp andpaper industry was the largest emitter ocancer-causing chemicals to waterways,discharging more than 536,000 poundso those substances to waterways, or 35percent o the total amount released na-tionwide. The chemical industry releasedthe second-largest amount o carcinogens;256,000 pounds, or 17 percent o thenational total. The gold ore mining andprocessing industry was the third largestdischarger o carcinogens, due to a singlelarge emission o 312,000 pounds o arsenicand other carcinogenic compounds romthe Jerritt Canyon Mine in Nevada.

Regionally, releases o carcinogenic

chemicals are concentrated in the Mis-sissippi watershed and in the Southeast.Waterways dra ining to the Mississippireceived 569,000 pounds o carcinogensin 2010, more than a third o the totalvolume o such chemicals released na-tionally; the lower Mississippi, home to anumber o oil refneries and petrochemi-cal plants, saw particularly large volumeso releases. Waterways in the Southeastreceived 356,000 pounds o carcinogens.The third-greatest region by volume ocarcinogenic discharges was the GreatDivide Basinagain, because o the heavyrelease o arsenic and other compoundsto streams around the Jerritt CanyonMine.

Toxic Releases From the Jerritt Canyon Mine:The Outsized Impact o Large Polluters

Jerritt Canyon Mine in Nevada has made headlines or its contributions to envi-ronmental contamination in the past. The acility, which includes a roaster thatprocesses ore in addition to a mine, was the subject o an investigation in whichenvironmental regulators ound that the roasters had been emitting large amountso mercury, and that the mines operators had ailed to take required steps to reduceemissions.30

The mine was allowed to reopen briey in early 2009, but ailed to meet dead-lines or improving its emissions control equipment, and was shut down again thatsummer, reopening in October o that year.31

Prior to 2010, the Jerritt Canyon Mine had emitted large amounts o toxics intothe atmosphere and onto dry land. It had not, however, reported releasing toxicsinto waterways.32 In 2010, however, the acility reported a massive dischargemorethan 1.2 million poundso arsenic, nickel, zinc, and copper compounds intothree small streams near the mine. (This release was accompanied by a signifcantincrease in the volume o air emissions rom the acility.)

The creeks aected by the discharge rom the Jerritt Canyon acility are small,but received several o the largest pollutant loads o any waterway in the UnitedStates. The Jerritt Canyon mine is located in an arid region, within the Great DivideBasin (the major region o the United States in which water does not ow to eitherocean, instead leaving through evaporation). As such, pollution that damages thelimited water resources o the region can have an outsized ecological impact.


23/53


Developmental andReproductive ToxicantsAmong the toxic chemicals discharged toAmericas waterways are those shown toimpede 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 palate and heart abnormali-ties, as well as neurological, hormonal, andimmune system problems.

In 2010, industrial acilities releasedapproximately 626,000 pounds o devel-opmental toxicants to more than 900 oAmericas waterways. The largest dose othese chemicals went into Burns Creek inNevada, in the orm o a 123,000 pound

discharge o arsenic compounds rom

Yukon Nevada Golds Jer ritt CanyonMine. (The streams that received theourth and sixth largest discharges, MillCreek and Winter Creek, were also therecipients o arsenic compound dischargesrom the Jerritt Canyon acility.)Thosethree creeks received more developmen-tal toxicants than the Kanawha, Missis-sippi, and Ohio Rivers combined. WestVirginias Kanawha River received thesecond-largest volume o discharges, roma pesticide manuacturing plant operatedby the Bayer Group. The MississippiRiver received the third largest volumeo discharges.

Regionally, releases o developmentaltoxicants were concentrated in the Mis-

sissippi watershed and in the Great Divide

Table 5. Top 20 Waterways for Releases of Developmental Toxicants, 2010

Waterway Developmentaltoxicant releases (lb)

Burns Creek (NV) 123,081

Kanawha River (WV) 86,296


Mill Creek (NV) 49,964

Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 45,446Winters Creek (NV) 31,826


Galveston Bay (TX) 13,245

Kansas River (KS) 10,485

James River (VA) 9,432


Cape Fear River (NC) 7,124

Herrington Lake (KY) 4,122

Coosa River (AL, GA) 4,009

Lake Erie (MI, NY, OH, PA) 3,733


Crooked Creek (MO) 3,455

Bee Fork Creek (MO) 3,346


Blockhouse Hollow Run (OH) 3,310


24/53


Basin (again, because o the Jerritt CanyonMine release). A total o 287,000 pounds odevelopmental toxicants were released inthe Mississippi watershed. The Ohio Riverbasin and Lower Mississippi were the siteso the largest releases within the Missis-sippi watershed. Pesticide manuacturing,chemical manuacturing, gold mining,and ossil-ueled power generation werethe leading industries or developmentaltoxicant releases.

Releases o reproductive toxicants intowaterways totaled 354,000 pounds in 2010,with discharges occurring to more than900 waterways nationwide. Because somehigh-volume developmental toxicantsalso have the potential to interere with

reproductive health, many o the same

Table 5. Top 20 Waterways for Releases of Reproductive Toxicants, 2010

Waterway Reproductivetoxicant releases (lb)

Kanawha River (WV) 85,653


Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 35,385


Galveston Bay (TX) 13,245Kansas River (KS) 10,485


Bee Fork Creek (MO) 3,346

Crooked Creek (MO) 3,309


Arkansas River (AR, CO, KS, OK) 2,868

Everett Harbor (WA) 2,700

Delaware River (DE, NJ, PA) 2,250

Chattahoochee River (AL, GA) 2,240

Lake Michigan (IL, IN, MI, WI) 2,041

Holston River (TN) 2,006

Pacifc Ocean (CA, OR) 1,933

Cuyahoga River (OH) 1,896


Ouachita River (AR, LA) 1,614

waterways that have received large amountso developmental toxicants also rank highor reproductive toxicant releases. TheKanawha River received the largest doseo reproductive toxicants, ollowed by theMississippi, Ohio, and Brazos rivers.

Pesticide manuacturing and chemicalmanuacturing were the leading industrialsources o reproductive toxicants; eachaccounted or just under one third o thenations total volume o releases. Fossiluel power generation was the third larg-est source o such discharges, producingjust over 10 percent o the nations totalreleases. Three out o every our poundsreleased nationwide went into waterwaysin the broader Mississippi basin; the Ohio

River basin and Lower Mississippi area


25/53


saw the largest releases. Texas waterwaysalso saw signifcant volumes o reproduc-tive toxicant releasesmore than 44,000pounds, 12 percent o the national to-tallargely rom chemical manuacturingacilities.

Releases o Small-VolumeToxic Chemicals Also PoseConcernAs noted earlier, tox ic chemicals varygreatly in their toxicity and eects onthe environment and health. Some toxic

chemicals trigger severe health eects atlow levels o exposure.Some particular groups o relatively

small-volume chemicals worthy o concernare 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 oodchain. As humans are generally at the top o

the ood chain, PBTs pose particular prob-lems or us. Consuming fsh contaminatedwith mercury, or example, can impair theneurological development o etuses andsmall children.33

Direct surace water discharges o PBTsare common across the United States. Over91,000 pounds o PBTs were released tomore than 800 waterways in 2010.

Lead and lead compounds were, byboth volume and range o distribution,the primary PBTs released to waterways

in the United States in 2010. More than600 waterways across the country receiveddirect discharges o lead compounds in2010; over 82,000 pounds o lead andlead compounds were released. Polycyclicaromatic compounds, a amily o cancer-causing chemicals released primarily by

chemical plants and oil refneries, weredischarged into more than 140 waterways.And dioxins, which are mainly released bythe chemical industry, were discharged intomore than 90 waterways nationwide.

The leading industries discharging

PBTs were pulp and paper mills, chemicalmanuacturing acilities, electric powerplants, and industries involved in miningand processing metals. The TennesseeRiver, Ohio River, Mississippi River, andAlabama River received the heaviest dis-charges. Two small Missouri waterways,Bee Fork Creek and Crooked Creek,ranked fth and sixth because o heavydischarges o lead rom mines and smeltersoperated by the Renco Group and Doe RunResources Corp.

Discharges o even small amounts oPBTs can have serious consequences. Forexample, industrial acilities reported re-leasing approximately 36 pounds o dioxinand dioxin-like compounds into waterwaysnationwide in 2010a small raction othe 226 million pounds o toxics released.However, given that the World HealthOrganization guidelines or dioxin recom-mend exposure o less than one-billionth oa gram per day, even this relatively small

amount o dioxin discharges can have seri-ous implications or public health.34

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.35 While DDT andsome other organochlorines have beenbanned, others remain in use today.

Phthalates are added to plastic productssuch as ood wrapping and childrens toys


26/53


to make them exible. Some phthalateshave been linked to reproductive and de-velopmental problems.36

Organochlorines and phthalates are notas widely released as many o the other toxicsubstances discussed in this report, but still

impact dozens o waterways nationwide.Releases o organochlorines were reportedto 10 waterways nationwide, with the DesPlaines River in Illinois receiving thegreatest amount o total discharges. A largeportion o the total discharges were in theorm o hexachlorobenzene, a now-bannedpesticide that is produced as a by-producto certain chemical processes.37 Phthalateswere released to 15 waterways nationwide,

with Tennessees Holston River leading theway or total releases.

Direct discharges o organochlorinesand phthalates by industrial acilities arenot necessarily the most important routeso exposure to these chemicalspeople are

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


27/53


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 toxicchemicals out o our waterways.

Environmental policy in the UnitedStates has several weaknesses. It too oten

takes 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, streams,and lakes.

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 to

live 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 judicial decisions that have limited thelaws scope.

To protect the environment and humanhealth rom releases o toxic chemicalsinto our waterways, ederal and stategovernments should take several steps tostrengthen implementation o the CleanWater Act.

Protections for Small WaterwaysA series o court decisions, culminating inthe U.S. Supreme Courts 2006 decisionin the case oRapanos v. United States, havethreatened the protection that intermit-tent and headwater streams and isolated

Protecting Americas Waterways romToxic Releases: Chemical Policy andthe Clean Water Act


28/53

Protecting Americas Waterways rom Toxic Releases 2

wetlands have traditionally enjoyed underthe Clean Water Act. These waterwaysplay important roles in local ecology, whileprotection o headwaters and intermittentstreams is critical or maintaining waterquality downstream.

TheRapanosdecision let unclear exactlywhich waterways do enjoy protection underthe Clean Water Act. Navigable waterwaysand those that cross state boundaries,along with their tributaries, retain theirtraditional protections. But the SupremeCourts unusual 4-1-4 ruling in the Ra-panos case has let the courts and EPAtorn between two dierent standards orClean Water Act jurisdictionthe strictstandard, embraced by our o the courtsmembers, that eliminates protection orintermittent streams and those without asurace connection to covered waterways,and the less stringent legal standard, out-lined in a concurring opinion by JusticeAnthony Kennedy, that requires a sig-nifcant nexus to exist with a navigablewaterway or a waterbody to enjoy protec-tion under the Clean Water Act.38

The Rapanos decision and other pre-vious decisions threaten the protectionenjoyed by thousands o waterways na-

tionwidewith real consequences or theenvironment. In much o the AmericanWest, or example, perennial streams areuncommon. Only 3 percent o all streamsin Arizona, or example, are perennial,along with 8 percent in New Mexico and 9percent in Nevada.39 Furthermore, acrossthe country 58 percent o all streams areat risk o increased pollution due to thesecourt decisions.40 Nationwide, EPA esti-mates that 117 million people are servedby drink ing water systems that draw their

water rom headwaters streams or inter-mittent waterways.41 These importantwaterways could completely lose protec-tion under the ederal Clean Water Act,leaving discharges to those waterways un-regulated by EPA. The administrat ionshould ensure that the Clean Water Act

applies to headwater streams, intermit-tent waterways, isolated wetlands andother waterways by fnalizing proposedguidelines and conducting a rulemak-ing this year.

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 (who 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.

EPA and states should tighten imple-mentation 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 December 2009, nearly one out

o every fve discharge permits or ma-jor industrial acilities had expired.42Timely 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 waterways

near 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 with


29/53


dilution, 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 or

certain types o pollutants. Persistentbioaccumulative toxicswhich havethe capacity to contaminate sedi-ment and/or accumulate in aquaticorganismsare among those orwhich mixing zones are particularlyproblematic. States should eliminatethe use o mixing zones or PBTs andconsider elimination or other toxicchemical discharges as well.

Establishing mandatory minimumpenalties or Clean Water Act viola-tions. Oten, violators o the CleanWater Act escape serious penalty.State and EPA ofcials are oten resis-tant to penalizing polluters, even atermultiple violations o the law. Estab-lishing mandatory minimum penaltiesor violations o the Clean Water Actwould ensure that illegal pollutiondoes not go unpunished and act as adeterrent to illegal polluters. Congress

should also ensure that EPA receivesadequate unding or enorcementsta to ensure that the nation keepsa sufcient number o environmentalcops on the beat.

A New Chemical Policyin the U.S.: Protectingthe Environment andPublic HealthThe best way to protect the public andthe environment rom toxic chemical dis-charges 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 toxicchemicals. Replacing these chemicalswith saer alternatives can reduce threatsat all stages o a products liespanrommanuacturing to use to disposal.

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

Tetrachloroethylene (also known asperchloroethylene or perc) is a toxicsolvent used in dry cleaning and textileprocessing and is a cancer-causingchemical.43 Industrial acilities reportedreleasing more than 274 pounds o percdirectly to U.S. waterways in 2010, butthat fgure does not include dischargesby the thousands o smaller acilitiesnationwide that use the chemical butdo not report to the TRI. Hundreds odry cleaners across the country have

switched to saer processes that do notrely on perc, including wet clean-ing using water and the use o liquidcarbon dioxide. With saer alternativeson the market, Caliornia has takensteps to phase out the use o perc atdry cleaners, with the chemical to beeliminated rom use by 2023.44

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

allergies to cancer.45

In 2010, indus-trial acilities reported releasing morethan 193,000 pounds o ormaldehydeto waterways. Saer alternatives ormany uses o ormaldehyde alreadyexist, including adhesives based onnon-toxic, natural ingredients.


30/53

Protecting Americas Waterways rom Toxic Releases 25

Phthalates are a class o chemicalsused in hard plastics to make themexible, as ingredients in personal careproducts, and in other applications.Caliornia has listed fve phthalatesas developmental and/or reproductive

toxicants.46 A wealth o saer alterna-tives exist, including plastics otherthan PVC (which typically includesphthalates) and alternative plasticizersor PVC.47

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 thecreation o dioxins.48

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.49The use o inherently saer alternativessuch as renewable energycan reducethese threats.

Reforming Chemical PolicyManuacturers, however, will ace little in-

centive to develop and use saer alternativesto toxic chemicals without clear guidancerom government. Chemical policy must bebased both on appropriate science and onthe imperative to protect the public romharmul exposures beore they occur.

Among the cornerstones o this new

chemical policy should be the ollowing:Regulation o chemicals based on

their intrinsic hazards. Americas systemor testing and regulating toxic chemicalsis based on time-consuming, resource-intensive and anachronistic orms o risk

assessment. Much time and energy iswasted determining sae levels o expo-sure to toxic chemicals based on labora-tory experimentation. These assessmentsoten 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 tomultiple 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 that

public exposure to that chemical should beminimized, i not eliminated altogether.Evaluation o all chemicals on the

market. Chemical manuacturers shouldbe required to test all o their chemicalsor saety beore they are put on the mar-ket. Manuacturers o existing chemicalsshould be required to disclose all relevanthealth and saety inormation to the publicand to fll in the gaps in their health andsaety assessments within a reasonableperiod o time.

Planned phase-out o 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 o


31/53


saer alternatives should include not onlythe 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 saer

alternatives do not yet exist, there should bestrict limits on use and exposure to protectthe public, as well as a targeted timeline orultimate phase-out.

Required disclosure o industrialtoxic chemical use. Facilities that use sig-nifcant amounts o toxic chemicals shouldbe required to disclose which chemicalsthey are using and in what amounts, sothat nearby communities can be aware opotential threats and to create incentives

or 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.50

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.


32/53

Methodology 27

The data and analysis in this report arebased on 2010 data rom the ederalToxics Release Inventory, as down-

loaded rom the Environmental ProtectionAgencys Enviroacts database on 16 Janu-ary 2012. The Toxics 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 EPAs TRI

Explorer Web site at www.epa.gov/triex-plorer/.

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 water ways cross state

boundaries, 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 receivingdischarges were repaired manually on acase-by-case basis. Waterways with thesame name, in the same watershed (as de-termined using the USGSs HydrologicalUnit Classifcation (HUC) system) wereassumed to be the same waterway. Wheretwo waterways with the same name werelisted in dierent watersheds within a state

(as determined using the USGSs Hydro-logical Unit Code (HUC) classifcationsystem), they were examined manually todetermine i they were, in act, the samewaterway or two separate waterways o thesame name.

2) Where TRI records indicated thata chemical was released to an unnamedtributary o another waterway, the releaseswere classifed with those o the namedwaterway. In addition, where records in-dicated that releases reached a larger wa-

terway via a smaller waterway, the releaseswere classifed with the larger waterway.

3) Releases to waterways identifed asorks or branches o a larger waterwaywere classifed with the larger waterway(e.g. West Fork o the SusquehannaRiver). Releases to waterways identifed as

Methodology


33/53


Little or Big rivers (e.g. Little BeaverRiver, Beaver River) were classiiedseparately.

4) Waterway names that were commonacross the boundaries o two adjacent stateswere identiied and rev iewed manual ly

using the USGSs Hydrological Unit Clas-sifcation system. In cases where it was clearthat the waterways listed were either withinthe same hydrological unit in both states,or located in adjacent hydrological units inthe two states, the waterway was assumedto cross state lines and discharges to thatwaterway rom acilities in both states weresummed. In cases in which it was unclearwhether the discharges were to the samewaterway, the discharges to the waterway(s)were listed separately by state.

Linking Toxic Chemicals withHealth EffectsChemicals were determined to causecancer or developmental or reproductivedisorders based on their presence on thestate o Caliornias Proposition 65 listoChemicals Known to the State to CauseCancer or Reproductive Toxicity, last updatedon 3 February 2012. Chemicals on theProposition 65 list were matched to those

in 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 chemicalclasses in the TRI database were linked tothe Proposition 65 list by manual compari-son. In some cases, a particular chemicalcompound was listed in the Proposition

65 database, but there was no correspond-ing listing o that particular compound inthe TRI database. In these cases, it wasassumed that every individual member oa TRI chemical class exhibited the healtheects o the corresponding chemical rom

the Proposition 65 list. In some cases, weassumed that all compounds o a givensubstance (such as lead) exhibited the samehealth eects as the substance itsel. Final-ly, some substances on the Proposition 65list only cause health eects in particularchemical confgurations. In cases wherewe could not determine the chemical con-fguration rom the TRI database, we as-sumed that all releases exhibited the healtheects o the corresponding chemical onthe Proposition 65 list.

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

Persistent bioaccumulative toxics wereidentifed based on their presenceon the EPAs list o PBTs requiringreporting at lower thresholds un-der TRI, obtained rom U.S. EPA,TRI PBT Chemical List, downloadedrom www.epa.gov/tri/trichemicals/

pbt%20chemicals/pbt_chem_list.htm,7 February 2012.

Organochlorines and phthalateswere identifed based on their listingin Centers or Disease Control andPrevention,Fourth National Reporton Human Exposure to EnvironmentalChemicals,July 2010.


34/53

Notes 29

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, 7February 2012.

2 Ibid.

3 Maryland Department o theEnvironment,Fish Kills in Maryland,

downloaded rom mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/319nonpointsource/pages/mdfshkills.aspx, 7 February 2010.

4 Suzanne Goldenberg, Toxic Stew oChemicals Causing Male Fish to CarryEggs in Testes, The Guardian, 21 April2010.

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Great Lakes Monitoring: Atmospheric Deposi-tion o Toxic Pollutants, downloaded romww w.epa.gov/glindicators/air/airb.html, 7February 2012.

6 Arctic Monitoring and AssessmentProgramme, 2009 Assessment o PersistentOrganic Pollutants in the Arctic, 2010.

7 World Wildlie Fund, Causes or

Concern: Chemicals and Wildlie, December2003.

8 Ibid.

9 John M. Broder, EPA Issues Limits onMercury Emissions,New York Times, 21December 2011.

10 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Water: Industry Efuent

Guidelines: Steam Electric Power Generating,downloaded rom water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam_index.cm on 9March 2012.

11 See note 7.

12 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.

13 Caliornia Ofce o EnvironmentalHealth Hazard Assessment, ChemicalsKnown to the State to Cause Cancer orReproductive Toxicity (Microsot Exceldocument), 3 February 2012.

Notes


35/53


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

15 U.S. Geological Survey,Mercury in the

Environment(act sheet), October 2000.16 Environmental Working Group,National Drinking Water Database,downloaded rom www.ewg.org/tap-water/home, 7 February 2012.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

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

20 Natural Resources Deense Council,Healthy Milk, Healthy Baby: ChemicalPollution and Mothers Milk, 25 March 2005.

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,In tegrated Ri sk In ormati on Syst em: Ni-trate, downloaded rom www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0076.htm, 7 February 2012.

22 Environmental Working Group, Chemi-cal Families: Nitrate Compounds, downloadedrom www.ewg.org/chemindex/term/537, 7

February 2012.

23 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Water: Nutrients: Why This isHappening: Agricultural Row Crops andLivestock Activities, downloaded rom water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/whyagriculture.cm on27 February 2012.

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

25 Darryl Fears, Alarming Dead ZoneGrows in the Chesapeake, WashingtonPost, 24 July 2011.

26 Karl Lydersen, A Toxic RiverImproves, but Still Has Far to Go,NewYork Times, 2 June 2011.

27 Joel Greenberg,A Natural History othe Chicago Region, (Chicago, University o

Chicago Press: 2004), p. 237.

28 See note 26.

29 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 wereidentifed or this report.

30 Mercury Emissions Close GoldMine,MSNBC, 13 March 2008.31 Bob Conrad, Nevada Departmento Conservation and EnvironmentalResources,Jerritt Canyon Mine to be Allowedto Restart Ater Court Filing, 14 October2009.

32 Based on U.S. EPA,Enviroacts Reportor acility ID 89801JRRTT50MIL,downloaded rom iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control.tris_print?tris_id=89801JRRTT50MIL on 8 March 2012.

33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Mercury: Health Eects, downloaded romwww.epa.gov/hg/eects.htm, 7 February2012.

34 WHO guidelines rom U.S. Agencyor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,ToxFAQs: Chemical Agent Brieng 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.

35 World Wildlie Fund,Factsheet: Or-ganochlorine Pesticides, downloaded romassets.panda.org/downloads/act_sheet___oc_pesticides_ood_1.pd, 21 May 2009.

36 Centers or Disease Control and


36/53

Notes 1

Prevention,Fourth National Reporton Human Exposure to EnvironmentalChemicals, July 2010.

37 Agency or Toxic Substances andDisease Registry,Hexachlorobenzene,

downloaded rom www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=115 on17 February 2012.

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

39 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.

40 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Geographic Inormation SystemAnalyses o the Surace Drinking WaterProvided by Intermittent, Ephemeral, andHeadwater Streams in the U.S., downloadedrom water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/surace_drinking_water_index.cm on 27 February 2012.

41 See note 39.

42 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Permit Status Report or Non-TribalIndividual Major PermitsDecember 2009,downloaded rom www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/grade.pd, 17 February 2012.

43 See note 14.

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

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

46 Environment Caliornia, PhthalatesOverview, downloaded rom www.environ-mentcaliornia.org/environmental-health/stop-toxic-toys/phthalates-overview, 7February 2012.

47 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.

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

49 Natural Resources Deense Council,Dirty Coal Is Hazardous to Your Health:Moving Beyond Coal-Based Energy (actsheet), 2007.

50 For a detailed discussion o theimpact o the Massachusetts and NewJersey programs, see Dana ORourke and

Eungkyoon 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, IndustrialPollution Prevention in New Jersey: A TrendsAnalysis o Materials Accounting Data 1994 to2004, Spring 2007.


37/53


Appendix:Detailed Data on Toxic Discharges to Waterways

Table A-1: Toxic Discharges to Waterways by State, 2010

State Alltoxic Cancer-causing Reproductive Developmental releases chemicals toxics toxics

Releases (Ib.) Rank Releases (Ib.) Rank Releases (Ib.) Rank Releases (Ib.) Rank

IIndiana 27,366,513 1 22,429 18 16,988 9 11,032 7

Virginia 18,135,255 2 24,839 15 17,311 8 7,878 11

Nebraska 14,773,383 3 352 40 362 37 328 37

Texas 14,571,913 4 76,155 6 42,448 4 44,971 3

Georgia 12,616,727 5 59,922 7 4,644 18 4,145 15Louisiana 10,898,425 6 192,939 2 73,703 3 70,379 2

Pennsylvania 10,114,611 7 24,508 16 6,521 17 5,219 14

Alabama 9,852,798 8 129,948 3 18,197 7 9,420 9

Ohio 9,184,661 9 39,749 12 25,887 5 17,719 4

North Carolina 9,167,285 10 48,012 10 9,973 13 2,837 17

Illinois 8,831,346 11 12,695 24 7,094 16 6,640 12

New Jersey 8,490,860 12 13,952 23 1,904 26 2,084 23

Kentucky 6,602,493 13 54,155 9 21,135 6 12,737 5

Mississippi 6,299,724 14 20,903 19 1,678 28 1,601 25

Iowa 6,209,692 15 14,759 22 2,351 23 2,347 22

New York 5,770,765 16 20,611 20 3,839 19 2,626 19South Carolina 4,413,349 17 100,508 4 1,707 27 1,179 27

Arkansas 4,203,116 18 80,112 5 2,554 21 2,528 20

Oklahoma 3,774,500 19 5,926 29 2,702 20 2,699 18

Maine 3,182,302 20 12,604 25 1,958 25 1,956 24

South Dakota 3,002,718 21 651 37 664 33 651 32

Tennessee 2,792,899 22 43,556 11 11,212 12 8,875 10

Wisconsin 2,757,636 23 5,933 28 1,091 31 1,068 29

Idaho 2,619,833 24 22,928 17 443 36 442 34

Caliornia 2,615,736 25 2,476 32 953 32 949 31

West Virginia 2,236,783 26 17,070 21 95,911 2 92,607 1

Michigan 2,164,028 27 8,470 27 7,599 14 3,316 16Missouri 2,042,579 28 12,013 26 12,003 10 10,644 8

Florida 1,636,920 29 55,447 8 2,243 24 1,586 26

Oregon 1,556,520 30 25,125 14 2,351 22 2,351 21

Washington 1,521,422 31 38,918 13 7,598 15 5,633 13

Minnesota 1,455,361 32 1,190 35 331 38 331 36


38/53

Appendix

Maryland 1,361,806 33 1,109 36 463 35 396 35

Nevada 1,293,701 34 315,147 1 204,885 1 - 49

Colorado 720,606 35 20 48 20 48 17 47

Delaware 598,233 36 1,490 33 1,222 30 1,167 28

Hawaii 452,359 37 403 39 63 44 58 42

Connecticut 297,185 38 1,255 34 275 39 274 38

Kansas 246,968 39 352 41 11,557 11 11,556 6

Montana 237,160 40 58 44 13 50 11 48

Alaska 190,257 41 204 42 142 41 129 40

Vermont 122,487 42 - 50 214 40 - 49

Utah 100,860 43 3,191 31 1,408 29 1,063 30North Dakota 91,039 44 597 38 496 34 466 33

New Mexico 49,786 45 181 43 140 42 140 39

Wyoming 13,792 46 21 47 20 49 20 46

Massachusetts 5,944 47 3,808 30 93 43 73 41

New Hampshire 1,788 48 57 45 35 46 35 44

District o Columbia 1,068 49 - 50 - 51 - 49

Rhode Island 779 50 26 46 34 47 22 45

Arizona 69 51 13 49 42 45 41 43

State Alltoxic Cancer-causing Developmental Reproductive releases chemicals toxics toxics

Releases (Ib.) Rank Releases (Ib.) Rank Releases (Ib.) Rank Releases (Ib.) Rank

Table A-1: Toxic Discharges to Waterways by State, 2010 (contd)


39/53


Waterway Toxic Rank discharges(lb.)

Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 32,111,718 1

Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 12,739,749 2New River (NC, VA) 12,529,948 3

Savannah River (GA, SC) 9,624,090 4

Delaware River (DE, NJ, PA) 6,719,436 5

Muskingum River (OH) 5,754,118 6

Missouri River (IA, KS, MO, ND, NE) 4,887,971 7

Shonka Ditch (NE) 4,614,722 8

Tricounty Canal (NE) 3,386,162 9

Rock River (IL, WI) 3,370,392 10

Cape Fear River (NC) 3,364,823 11

Illinois River (IL) 3,206,191 12

Big Sioux River (SD) 2,949,940 13

Tennessee River (AL, KY, TN) 2,810,828 14Roanoke River (NC, VA) 2,762,330 15

Houston Ship Channel (TX) 2,715,228 16

Monongahela River (PA, WV) 2,626,677 17

Snake River (ID, OR) 2,609,501 18

Morses Creek (NJ) 2,403,408 19

Aroostook River (ME) 2,271,733 20

Grand Calumet River (IN) 2,012,998 21

Big Blue River (NE) 2,001,438 22

Parker Creek (VA) 1,964,000 23

Hudson River (NJ, NY) 1,666,469 24

Brazos River (TX) 1,659,668 25

Kalamazoo River (MI) 1,647,110 26

Cottonwood Branch (TX) 1,533,000 27

Corpus Christi Inner Harbor (TX) 1,497,542 28

Arkansas River (AR, CO, KS, OK) 1,470,018 29

Tankersley Creek (TX) 1,452,257 30

Tehuscana Creek (TX) 1,438,000 31

Genesee River (NY) 1,393,996 32

Seneca River (NY) 1,385,723 33

Sipsey Creek (MS) 1,339,043 34

Grand Neosho River (OK) 1,310,621 35

Wisconsin River (WI) 1,277,260 36

Graves Creek (AL) 1,276,298 37

Hyde Run Ditch (OH) 1,245,944 38

Little Attapulgus Creek (GA) 1,234,500 39

Willamette River (OR) 1,207,655 40

Wateree River (SC) 1,206,878 41

Table A-2. Top 50 Waterways for Total Toxic Discharges, 2010


40/53

Appendix 5

Waterway Toxic Rank discharges(lb.)

Alabama River (AL) 1,157,752 42

Sandy Bottom Branch (VA) 1,154,357 43Tombigbee River (AL) 1,149,703 44

James River (VA) 1,144,239 45

Little River (OK) 1,143,858 46

Des Moines River (IA) 1,140,998 47

San Pablo Bay (CA) 1,090,256 48

Schuylkill River (PA) 1,044,079 49

Susquehanna River (NY, PA) 1,036,096 50

Table A-2. Top 50 Waterways for Total Toxic Discharges, 2010 (contd.)


41/53


Table A-3 Top 50 Waterways for Discharges of Cancer-Causing Chemicals, 2010 (contd.)

Waterway Dischargesof Rank cancer-causing chemicals(lb.)

Burns Creek (NV) 198,152 1

Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 180,339 2

Mill Creek (NV) 85,150 3

Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 65,794 4

Tennessee River (AL, KY, TN) 61,883 5

Cooper River (SC) 45,072 6

Ouachita River (AR, LA) 42,410 7

Brazos River (TX) 41,008 8

Red River (AR, LA, OK) 38,552 9

Sampit River (SC) 34,407 10

Amelia River (FL) 33,824 11

Alabama River (AL) 31,906 12

Winters Creek (NV) 31,826 13

Columbia River (OR, WA) 27,557 14

Pearl River (LA, MS) 23,597 15

Snake River (ID, OR) 22,652 16Holston River (TN) 19,445 17

Arkansas River (AR, CO, KS, OK) 18,190 18

Lake Champlain (NY) 15,963 19

Chattahoochee River (AL, GA) 15,550 20

Wheeler Reservoir (AL) 14,841 21

Turtle River (GA) 14,300 22

Delaware River (DE, NJ, PA) 14,285 23

Dan River (NC) 13,234 24

Savannah River (GA, SC) 12,477 25

Tombigbee River (AL) 11,564 26

Willamette River (OR) 10,691 27

Cape Fear River (NC) 9,920 28

Roanoke River (NC, VA) 9,811 29

Neches River (TX) 8,944 30Conecuh/Escambia River (AL, FL) 8,815 31

Altamaha River (GA) 8,801 32

Fenholloway River (FL) 8,426 33

Port Townsend Bay (WA) 7,451 34

Jackson River (VA) 7,386 35

Catawba River (NC, SC) 7,268 36

St. Croix River (ME) 7,000 37

Commencement Bay O Puget Sound (WA) 6,957 38

Beaver Channel (IA) 6,912 39

Great Pee Dee River (SC) 6,757 40

York River (VA) 6,524 41

Paint Creek (OH) 6,364 42

Coosa River (AL, GA) 5,878 43

Pigeon River (NC, TN) 5,423 44Houston Ship Channel (TX) 5,066 45

Clarion River (PA) 4,992 46

Eleven Mile Creek (FL) 4,946 47

Lake Erie (MI, NY, OH, PA) 4,907 48

Herrington Lake (KY) 4,706 49

Muskingum River (OH) 4,136 50


42/53

Appendix 7

Waterway Developmental Rank toxicant releases(lb.)

Burns Creek (NV) 123,081 1

Kanawha River (WV) 86,296 2

Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 74,021 3

Mill Creek (NV) 49,964 4

Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 45,446 5

Winters Creek (NV) 31,826 6


Galveston Bay (TX) 13,245 8

Kansas River (KS) 10,485 9

James River (VA) 9,432 10


Cape Fear River (NC) 7,124 12

Herrington Lake (KY) 4,122 13

Coosa River (AL, GA) 4,009 14


Columbia River (OR, WA) 3,714 16Crooked Creek (MO) 3,455 17

Bee Fork Creek (MO) 3,346 18


Blockhouse Hollow Run (OH) 3,310 20

Holston River (TN) 3,103 21


Everett Harbor (WA) 2,703 23

Muskingum River (OH) 2,622 24



Corpus Christi Bay (TX) 2,222 27

Lake Michigan (IL, IN, MI, WI) 2,065 28

Genesee River (NY) 2,037 29

Wabash River (IL, IN) 2,019 30Rouge River (MI) 1,987 31

Pacifc Ocean (CA, OR) 1,933 32

Tombigbee River (AL) 1,916 33

Cuyahoga River (OH) 1,897 34

Clinch River (TN, VA) 1,835 35

Missouri River (IA, KS, MO, ND, NE) 1,803 36

Warrior River (AL) 1,776 37

Monongahela River (PA, WV) 1,619 38


Cumberland River (KY, TN) 1,594 40

Kaskaskia River (IL) 1,527 41

Little Calumet River (IL, IN) 1,517 42

Mobile River (AL) 1,448 43

Great Salt Lake (UT) 1,375 44Conner Run (WV) 1,353 45

Gravelly Run (VA) 1,340 46

York River (VA) 1,320 47

Bills Creek (MO) 1,210 48

Indiana Harbor Ship Canal (IN) 1,131 49

Red River (AR, LA, OK) 1,127 50

Table A-4. Top 50 Waterways for Discharges of Developmental Toxicants, 2010


43/53


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

Waterway Reproductive Rank toxicant releases(lb.)

Kanawha River (WV) 85,653 1

Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 70,656 2Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 35,385 3


Galveston Bay (TX) 13,245 5

Kansas River (KS) 10,485 6


Bee Fork Creek (MO) 3,346 8

Crooked Creek (MO) 3,309 9



Everett Harbor (WA) 2,700 12



Lake Michigan (IL, IN, MI, WI) 2,041 15

Holston River (TN) 2,006 16Pacifc Ocean (CA, OR) 1,933 17

Cuyahoga River (OH) 1,896 18

Columbia River (OR, WA) 1,805 19



Little Calumet River (IL, IN) 1,

Documents

Wasting Our Waterways vUS