Page 5 - Clean Water Advocate - December 2012/January 2013
Basic HTML Version
A Clear Commitment to America’s Waters
15
EPA Makes Right Call
warranted at this time to revise the secondary treatment regulations
to establish new effluent limitations for nutrients.” The Agency fur-
ther stated that the need to control nutrients at POTWs is a “highly
site-specific matter…that not all POTWs nationwide need to meet
minimum technology-based limits for nutrients to protect water
quality…and that many POTWs would incur high costs” that would
be unnecessary to meet water quality standards.
In denying the NRDC petition, EPA points to the CWA and associat-
ed legislative history to underscore its broad discretion to determine
whether to revise the existing definition of secondary treatment. As it
has done in denying similar petitions in the past, Agency also points
to its continuing efforts to implement the water quality-based provi-
sions of the CWA as further rationale against uniform national stan-
dards.
Billions Saved Annually
In addition to the underlying statutory and legal rationale, EPA
outlines a number of technical and cost-related reasons for denying
NRDC’s petition. While NRDC’s petition argues that minor retrofits
could achieve significant reductions in nutrients, EPA’s denial letter
notes a number of flaws in NRDC’s analysis and assumptions. EPA
finds that “many POTWs would require significant upgrades to their
existing technologies...in order to install nutrient removal technolo-
gies.” NACWA, through its TAF, provided extensive data and infor-
mation on these technical issues over the last several months, includ-
ing two of the references cited in the denial letter. Noting that costs
to small POTWS would be significantly higher per pound of nutrient
removed than at larger POTWs, EPA’s letter estimated that the an-
nual cost to incorporate advanced nutrient removal – just for the 33
percent of plants with a flow of at least 0.5 million gallons per day –
would be between $5 and $12 billion annually.
NACWA will continue to track the reaction to EPA’s denial, as well
as any developments in NRDC’s lawsuit that sought to compel EPA
to respond to the petition. NRDC could file another lawsuit to chal-
lenge the validity of EPA’s denial. NACWA believes that if such a
challenge were filed, EPA would defend its denial decision, as it is do-
ing in a similar case regarding the Mississippi River. The Association
is prepared to move aggressively with legal advocacy to ensure the
clean water community’s perspective is represented in any future
case.
H
ave you checked out NACWA’s blog,
The Water Voice
, yet?
It’s a great way to stay on top of emerging issues and
NACWA’s advocacy work, all in the context of how de-
velopments are affecting the clean water community.
The blog format also invites participation and contributions by
readers in the ongoing discussions.
The
Water Voice
can be found on the home page of NACWA’s website.
Two recent posts provided a thoughtful analysis of
in clean water community in 2012 and a look ahead to what
might be
To participate in these and other blog post discussions, readers can
post comments or sign up to receive
as articles
are posted. And don’t forget to follow NACWA on
and
both of which great ways to follow developments in the
clean water community as they occur.
NACWA Continues to Expand Social Media
Presence, Outreach
