7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
1/53
Wasting Our Waterways 2012Toxic Industrial Pollution and the
Unulflled Promise o the Clean Water Act
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
5/53
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
9/53
4 Wasting Our Waterways
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
11/53
6 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
13/53
8 Wasting Our Waterways
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
15/53
10 Wasting Our Waterways
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
16/53
Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2010 11
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
17/53
12 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
18/53
Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2010 1
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).
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
19/53
14 Wasting Our Waterways
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
20/53
Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2010 15
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
21/53
16 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
22/53
Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2010 17
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
23/53
18 Wasting Our Waterways
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
Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 74,021
Mill Creek (NV) 49,964
Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 45,446Winters Creek (NV) 31,826
Brazos River (TX) 20,353
Galveston Bay (TX) 13,245
Kansas River (KS) 10,485
James River (VA) 9,432
Tennessee River (AL, KY, TN) 7,175
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
Columbia River (OR, WA) 3,714
Crooked Creek (MO) 3,455
Bee Fork Creek (MO) 3,346
Alabama River (AL) 3,332
Blockhouse Hollow Run (OH) 3,310
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
24/53
Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2010 19
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
Mississippi River (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 70,656
Ohio River (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 35,385
Brazos River (TX) 25,616
Galveston Bay (TX) 13,245Kansas River (KS) 10,485
Tennessee River (AL, KY, TN) 5,337
Bee Fork Creek (MO) 3,346
Crooked Creek (MO) 3,309
Alabama River (AL) 3,282
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
Columbia River (OR, WA) 1,805
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
25/53
20 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
26/53
Toxic Releases to U.S. Waterways in 2010 21
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
27/53
22 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
29/53
24 Wasting Our Waterways
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
31/53
26 Wasting Our Waterways
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
33/53
28 Wasting Our Waterways
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
35/53
0 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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.
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
37/53
2 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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)
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
39/53
4 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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.)
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
41/53
6 Wasting Our Waterways
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
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
Brazos River (TX) 20,353 7
Galveston Bay (TX) 13,245 8
Kansas River (KS) 10,485 9
James River (VA) 9,432 10
Tennessee River (AL, KY, TN) 7,175 11
Cape Fear River (NC) 7,124 12
Herrington Lake (KY) 4,122 13
Coosa River (AL, GA) 4,009 14
Lake Erie (MI, NY, OH, PA) 3,733 15
Columbia River (OR, WA) 3,714 16Crooked Creek (MO) 3,455 17
Bee Fork Creek (MO) 3,346 18
Alabama River (AL) 3,332 19
Blockhouse Hollow Run (OH) 3,310 20
Holston River (TN) 3,103 21
Arkansas River (AR, CO, KS, OK) 2,890 22
Everett Harbor (WA) 2,703 23
Muskingum River (OH) 2,622 24
Chattahoochee River (AL, GA) 2,561 25
Delaware River (DE, NJ, PA) 2,322 26
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
Ouachita River (AR, LA) 1,618 39
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
7/31/2019 Wasting Our Waterways vUS
43/53
8 Wasting Our Waterways
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
Brazos River (TX) 25,616 4
Galveston Bay (TX) 13,245 5
Kansas River (KS) 10,485 6
Tennessee River (AL, KY, TN) 5,337 7
Bee Fork Creek (MO) 3,346 8
Crooked Creek (MO) 3,309 9
Alabama River (AL) 3,282 10
Arkansas River (AR, CO, KS, OK) 2,868 11
Everett Harbor (WA) 2,700 12
Delaware River (DE, NJ, PA) 2,250 13
Chattahoochee River (AL, GA) 2,240 14
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
Ouachita River (AR, LA) 1,614 20
Lake Erie (MI, NY, OH, PA) 1,597 21
Little Calumet River (IL, IN) 1,
Top Related