In a surprising development announced to the regional media this afternoon, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has decided to abandon its controversial approach to measuring oxygen-depleting pollution to the Spokane River. EPA’s reversal is a major victory for Sierra Club and the Center for Justice’s Spokane River program which represents the Club’s Upper Columbia River Group.
- The Center learned of EPA’s decision earlier today in a voice message for CFJ attorney Rick Eichstaedt that was left by Dave Peeler, a special assistant to Washington Department of Ecology Director Jay Manning.
“Rick I just wanted to let you know that EPA has indeed determined to reverse course on the allocation of loading between Idaho and Washington,” Peeler reported. The decision, he said, was “obviously spurred by the letter that Bonne [CFJ attorney Bonne Beavers sent to [EPA headquarters Water Permits director] Linda Boornazian back in June.”
Beavers’s letter on behalf of Sierra Club took square aim at an issue that is pivotal not only as to how EPA and state regulators address dissolved oxygen problems in the Spokane River, but also for other problems including heavy metals and toxics. In basic terms, EPA had given its blessing to a scheme whereby Idaho dischargers would be allowed to consume most of the river’s capacity to safely absorb phosphorus and other oxygen depleting pollutants. But then the Idaho pollutants would be considered to be the “background” level of pollution when the river flows across the state line west of Post Falls, thus giving Washington dischargers a fresh and seemingly unpolluted river with which to take in pollution from Washington dischargers.
An account of this controversy and how it affected the lives of the scientists who opposed the scheme, was reported in The Whistleblower, and Magic Pollution, Part 1. Among other things, the decision being announced today is a clear vindication for former Ecology scientist Drea Traeumer and her predecessor Ken Merrill who has also since left the agency. Traeumer resigned last year rather than lend her signature to a river cleanup plan based on the scheme.
“Using this type of math will never result in the restoration of Lake Spokane,” Beavers wrote in her letter to Boornazian. “The effect of this approach nationally may be even worse as it makes a mockery of EPA’s national watershed approach and virtually guarantees failure in addressing multi-state water quality issues. For example, the growing hypoxic dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico are directly related to the failure of comprehensive watershed management.”
EPA’s decision will almost certainly send the agencies back to the drawing boards not only how how to issue water quality permits for river dischargers, but for the broader plans that were part of the Spokane River and Lake Spokane Dissolved Oxygen TMDL report issued a year ago. This was the report that Traeumer refused to sign.
“As you can probably guess,” Peeler said in his message for Eichstaedt today, “we’re going to have to remodel the Washington TMDL after somehow agreeing with EPA and Idaho about how to split the allocations between Washington and Idaho.”
“Today’s announced decision from EPA is good in the sense that it stops a deeply flawed regulatory process in its tracks and, hopefully, sets us on a course to solve these problems rather than paper over them,” said Eichstaedt. “Of course, what’s sad and frustrating is that if the agencies had listened to Drea Traeumer and Ken Merrill and the other agency scientists who tried their best to do this right, we would be years ahead of where we are now. ”
EPA’s decision has already caused serious distress within Ecology. In an email sent out to agency employees earlier this afternoon, Ecology spokeswoman Jani Gilbert joked, “You may have seen some erratic behavior or actual running down hallways. So that you know early, this is what’s going on, if you’re interested.”
“The EPA’s general counsel in D.C., has determined that the way we did the TMDL for dissolved oxygen in the Spokane River and Lake Spokane will not hold up in court, Gilbert’s email continued. “The methodology came from EPA in the first place and all through the lengthy, complicated process, the EPA has backed up its decision.”
She later added: “Needless to say, we are very disappointed about this turn of events and have asked the EPA to take responsibility for the error when talking to reporters.”
The Center sought permission from EPA to listen in on its teleconference briefing for regional news media this afternoon. But that request was denied.
The growing tensions and difficulties in the Spokane River regulatory processes were examined last month by reporter Ben Tansey in Relicensing Review. The linked articles are reprinted with permission. Relicensing Review is an Energy NewsData Publication.
No comments yet.