I.
Executive Summary
The Ohio River is a significant drinking water, recreational, fishing, and ecological
resource for millions of Americans. The Ohio River Sanitary Commission (ORSANCO)
is charged with protecting the many uses of the River by taking steps to control and
abate pollution in the Ohio River basin. In order to carry out this mission, we urge
ORSANCO to take the following steps in its current Triennial Review of its Pollution
Control Standards:
A. ORSANCO must address the significant and rising levels of mercury
contamination in the Ohio River. Methylmercury accumulation in the tissue of
fish and other aquatic species harms their health as well as that of people who
wish to eat these species. Through sport and commercial fishing, people
consume millions of pounds of fish from the Ohio River each year. But both
human and aquatic health are threatened because of mercury pollution in the
River. Existing data shows that methylmercury levels in the tissue of Ohio River
fish were high at the beginning of the decade -- high enough that Kentucky has
designated the Ohio River as impaired for mercury contamination within its
borders. Even worse, mercury discharges have increased substantially over the
last several years, indicating that this threat is only growing.
Therefore, ORSANCO must take steps to reduce these discharges rather than
allow them to continue unabated, specifically by keeping in place the mixing zone
ban that ORSANCO put in place in 2003 and then delayed in 2010 and again in
2013. These delays have meant that a number of mercury dischargers have
spent the past 12 years twiddling their thumbs rather than taking action to identify
and implement effective mercury controls. The variance procedure proposed by
ORSANCO in the draft Pollution Control Standards would allow these polluters to
kick the can even further down the road, with no end in sight. Meanwhile, the
use of mixing zones as a tool to escape application of ORSANCO’s established
mercury criteria has no scientific basis, since dilution cannot prevent
bioaccumulative chemicals such as mercury from building up in the tissue of fish
species and endangering human and aquatic health -- especially if multiple
permittees receive variances that allow high levels of aggregate mercury
pollution to accumulate in the water column and sediment in a particular stretch
of the River.
B. If ORSANCO does continue to allow variances from the mixing zone ban, this
must be the last time it does so. The variance process must incorporate
procedural safeguards to ensure that ORSANCO has sufficient information to
determine that granting variances, either individually or in the aggregate, is not
contributing to impairment of the Ohio River; that permittees receive variances
only where they affirmatively demonstrate that they have made reasonable
efforts to address mercury discharges from their facilities to date, but that it is
infeasible to apply existing control technologies sufficient to meet applicable
water quality criteria; that permittees are taking specific steps to reduce their
mercury discharges in accordance with an enforceable schedule; and that
dischargers do not have an economic incentive to drag out the implementation of
mercury control measures in order to save money at the expense of the Ohio
River and the people who utilize it.
C. ORSANCO must also keep in place the existing 12 ng/L water quality criterion for
mercury in the water column. There is not yet evidence available to demonstrate
that a less stringent criterion will still prevent impairment of the River. Where
mercury discharges are high and getting higher, any loosening of mercury
standards cannot go forward without such information to ensure the continued
protection of human and aquatic health.
D. We do generally support ORSANCO’s proposal with respect to ammonia,
thermal pollution, and total dissolved solids criteria, with minor comments as
outlined below. However, we urge ORSANCO to do more to address nutrient
pollution, a serious problem for the Ohio River basin and waters downstream. In
particular, the development of numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus is
critical to understanding the link between nutrient loading and impairment of the
Ohio River and its tributaries. Alternatively, we suggest that ORSANCO adopt a
numeric criterion for nutrient-related response variables, such as microcystin,
that are linked to human and aquatic health risks. In the meantime, gathering
and maintaining comprehensive data regarding instances of impairment such as
toxic algae blooms will at least provide guidance as to what to do next with
regard to nutrient pollution.
E. Finally, we believe that ORSANCO must amend its Pollution Control Standards
to address increasing hydraulic fracking wastewater discharges in the Ohio River
Basin. Setting standards for measures such as TENORM radioactivity,
bromide/bromine concentration, and any other constituents that pose a threat to
human or aquatic health would be a useful start on an issue that ORSANCO
must confront in order to carry out its regulatory duties
II.
Value of the Ohio River
The Ohio River is 981 miles long, originating in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and
proceeding southwest along the borders of West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and
Illinois. The River is a major resource and economic asset for all the states in the Basin,
as well as cities and states outside the Basin. In fact, many towns and cities were
established along the River because of its value as a resource for transport, food, and
drinking water. Ecologically, the River is vital as well. As noted by ORSANCO,
approximately 150 different fish species inhabit the River,1 and historically, 127 of the
1
http://www.orsanco.org/river-factsconditions
297 freshwater mussel species native to North America were found in the River.2
Unfortunately, due to human activities and invasive species, many of these native
mussels are endangered, and roughly a dozen are now presumed extinct. Likewise,
pollution on the land, in the air, and in the water have caused impacts to many fish
species, allowing pollutants to slowly accumulate in fish tissue.
Now, over 25 million people live within the Basin. River communities up and down the
Ohio, from cities like Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Evansville to small towns like
Wheeling, Maysville, Ashland, Owensboro, Paducah, Cairo, and Madison depend on it
daily for sustenance, while other cities and towns draw drinking water from the River
many miles away, and industry utilizes it for transport of goods.
The Ohio River is a drinking water source of over five million Americans, with 32 drinking
water intakes along its course. These drinking water sources need to be protected from
threats in the Basin. A recent example came in January 2014, when chemical tanks
sitting adjacent to the Elk River in Charleston, were found to be leaking their supply into
the Elk River. Unfortunately, Charleston’s drinking water intake was just downstream of
the tank facility. The city’s water supply was contaminated with a chemical, MCHM, and
they could not even determine at the time whether or not it was toxic due to limited
research on human health impacts. The water supply was shut down for weeks, and
many months later, residents continued to report odor and taste issues with their water.
The chemical spill traveled from the Elk River into the Kanawha River, and from there
into the Ohio River. With little known about the chemical at the time, major cities like
Cincinnati and Louisville had to shut off their drinking water intakes to allow the chemical
plume to pass by.
The Ohio River has many tributaries, and each of these waterways represent an
opportunity to improve local stream quality and the quality of the Ohio River, but they
also represent threats to the River and river communities, as the Elk River spill
illustrated.
The Ohio River is also a significant contributor to our economy, and the importance of
commercial, recreational, and sustenance fishing in the Ohio cannot be overstated.
In 2009, ORSANCO had a survey conducted to gauge river-based recreation and fish
consumption habits for Ohio River Valley residents.3 The survey broken respondents into
two categories: those living closer to the Ohio River were deemed “Inner Ribbon”
residents, and those living a little farther off the River were deemed “Outer Ribbon”
residents. As shown below in Table 5, the 2008 data suggest Inner Ribbon residents
consume approximately 4,712,166,082 grams, or 10,388,548 lbs, per year. This is
2
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/ohio_rvr.html
Duda et al (2009). “Ohio River Valley Residents’ River-based Recreation and Consumption of
Freshwater Fish.” Conducted for the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission by Responsive
Management.
3
strictly for Ohio River freshwater fish, and does not include fish from a grocery store that
comes from elsewhere.
In the survey, Inner Ribbon residents were asked which species they most commonly
consumed, and catfish species, bass, crappie, and sauger topped the list. The bass
species included hybrid striped bass, which is a common target for recreational fishing.
The River is also used by many for sustenance as a daily food source. This presents
significant concerns, given the current mercury levels in the Ohio River.
Additionally, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) collects
data annually regarding fishing licenses and fishing harvests. From 2004-2013, the
KDFWR found that, for commercial fishing, the Ohio River harvest ranged from 947,979
pounds in 2009 to 1,678,651 pounds in 2012. This dataset included the following
species: “channel catfish, blue catfish, flathead catfish, buffalo, carp, carpsuckers,
suckers, paddlefish (flesh and eggs), drum, sturgeon (flesh and eggs), shad, silver carp,
bighead carp, and others.” Several commercial fisheries ship their product to regional
cities, including Atlanta, Memphis, St. Louis, Chicago, and New York.
The Corps of Engineers also undertook a study of commercial fisheries as part of the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study. In this assessment, data from
2001-2005 for the Ohio River Basin, which included the Ohio, Cumberland, Salt, and
Wabash Rivers, indicated a harvest of 1.4 million pounds with an estimated value of $2.0
million.4 Additionally, as noted in the Ohio River Basin Asian Carp Control Strategy
Framework, a study dated back to 1998 found amount of angling hours spent
corresponded with an economic value of $34 million.5 KDFWR has also ramped up
efforts in recent years to encourage trophy and tournament fishing for catfish and now
for asian carp.6 The recreational and commercial fishing industry is clearly a significant
part of the economy for Ohio River Basin states.
III.
4
Background on Mercury
http://glmris.anl.gov/documents/docs/Commercial_Fisheries_Report.pdf
http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Documents/ORFMT_Asian_Carp_Strategy.pdf
6
http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Asian-Carp-Information.aspx and
http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Documents/ohiorivercatfishproject2013.pdf
5
Mercury is a bioaccumulative chemical of concern (BCC). Though a necessary element
for humans, if consumed in higher doses, it can be toxic. Fetuses in pregnant women,
newborns, and children are particularly susceptible to the impacts of mercury pollution,
which can include:
“...impaired neurological development. Methylmercury exposure in the womb….can
adversely affect a baby's growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive
thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have
been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb…” 7
Adults can be impacted as well from higher doses that are not typical of freshwater fish
consumption.
In 2003, ORSANCO finalized a requirement that the use of mixing zones for
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs) be phased out by the 16th of October,
2013. According to ORSANCO’s Pollution Control Standards Committee,
The Committee felt that the prohibition is a logical step to reduce contamination
of fish tissue, which is a widespread problem on the Ohio River. The requirement
is to be phased in over ten years, which should provide ample time for dischargers
to take necessary control actions. Additional chemicals can be added to the list as
evidence warrants.8
The mixing zone ban for bioaccumulative chemicals reflects a common sense approach
to managing this toxic chemical pollution. Mixing zones are a compliance tool that allow
pollutant concentrations in the water column to exceed acutely toxic levels temporarily,
with the idea that the flow of a river will dilute the concentration to levels that are below
the acute toxicity level. That may be acceptable for some pollutants. But with
bioaccumulative chemicals, the concern is not generally acute toxicity in the water
column.
As the moniker suggests, the concern with bioaccumulative chemicals is that they
accumulate in the environment, working their way up the food chain to higher and higher
magnitudes. The more mercury you put in the water, the more mercury will end up in
the fish that we eat. Thus, the concern with bioaccumulative chemicals is the total
pollutant load that is released into the environment. By allowing discharges at higher
concentrations than the water quality standard, a mixing zone really allows for increased
loading into the river. The mixing zone ban will therefore limit the load of
bioaccumulative chemicals in our river, our fish, and in our bodies. This is absolutely an
appropriate action for an agency charged with establishing pollution control standards,
and is truly a human health imperative. Notably, the U.S. EPA has taken the step of
7
8
U.S. EPA webpage on health effects of mercury: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm
ORSANCO Report of the Pollution Control Standards Committee, August 13-14, 2003 Meeting.
banning mixing zones for discharges of BCCs including mercury into the Great Lakes,
based on this same rationale.9
Although ORSANCO recognized the need for a mixing zone ban, no interim goals were
set, and most dischargers never made necessary upgrades for better mercury controls.
By 2010, with the deadline three years away, ORSANCO appeared to realize that
dischargers had not complied. Instead of proposing any sort of timeline for compliance
in the next three years, ORSANCO proposed and subsequently approved a variance
procedure in 2010 that allowed dischargers to get out of the mixing zone ban for BCCs
for their current permit cycle10. In 2011, PPG Industries submitted the first mixing zone
variance request for their natrium facility in West Virginia. The company insisted they
needed the mixing zone for discharge of mercury. PPG argued that the historical
sources of mercury from the facility, which they had “already addressed to the extent
feasible,” necessitated the use of a mixing zone to achieve the required water quality
standard of 12 ng/L. PPG insisted they had done everything practicable to reduce their
mercury discharge from standard operating processes, and that the historical sources
were the cause of their elevated discharge. PPG insisted that they were not proposing a
new or additional discharge of mercury, so downstream uses of the Ohio River would not
be harmed. ORSANCO granted the variance (found in the 2013 Revision of the Pollution
Control Standards) with minimal requirements in the interim.
After granting the PPG variance, ORSANCO acknowledged in early 2013 that there
could be dozens of facilities that might need a variance from the mixing zone ban.11 As
a result, the Commission voted later in 2013 to delay the ban another two years to
October 16, 2015.12 At the same time, ORSANCO made no effort to consider the
potential cumulative effects on aquatic and human health from allowing so many
facilities to use mixing zones to increase discharges of chemicals that accumulate in
sediment and fish tissue. Since then, four more facilities have filed variance applications
seeking to avoid reductions in mercury discharges through use of a mixing zone -including two discharging into the same stretch of the Ohio River near Toronto, Ohio. It
is unclear how many more applications may be filed if ORSANCO continues to allow
variances. Meanwhile, as described below, the Ohio River has elevated levels of
9
See U.S. EPA Fact Sheet, Great Lakes Initiative - Final Regulation to Ban Mixing Zones in the Great
Lakes, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/criteria/gli/finalfact.cfm
10
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission Pollution Control Standards for Discharges to the Ohio
River, 2010 Revision. Section VI.G sets forth the prohibition for use of mixing zones for BCCs, including
mercury. Section VIII sets forth the procedures for consideration and granting of a variance to facilities
from the provisions of Section V and Section VI.G of the standards. This revision can be found on
ORSANCO’s webpage:
http://www.orsanco.org/images/stories/files/pollutionControlStandards/docs/2010standardsfinal.pdf
11
ORSANCO distributed a list of permittees along the Ohio that they acknowledged may require a
variance due to their mercury discharge. This initial list provided at the February 2013 Commission
meeting included a number of facilities that likely would need a variance, and others that likely would not.
12
The 2013 Revision to the Pollution Controls Standards, found on ORSANCO’s webpage:
http://www.orsanco.org/images/stories/files/pollutionControlStandards/2013/final/2013standards.pdf
mercury that have resulted in violations of the mercury water column criterion, and both
Illinois and Kentucky have issued fish consumption advisories for Ohio River species
based in part on mercury.
IV.
The mixing zone ban for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs), set to take
effect in October 2015, must be retained.
In recent years, it has been documented that the Ohio River has elevated levels of
mercury in the water column and methylmercury in fish tissue.
Emery and Spaeth (2010) studied water column concentrations of mercury and fish
tissue concentrations in hybrid striped bass. This species was chosen because it
represents a high trophic level of fish species and because it is prevalent in the River
and frequently caught for human consumption. They found concentrations of mercury in
fish tissue ranged from 0.2 to 0.4 mg/kg and found 41% of samples of hybrid striped
bass exceeded EPA and ORSANCO’s fish tissue threshold of 0.3 mg/kg. The study also
revealed that 13% of water column samples exceeded the water quality criterion for
human health of 12 ng/L.13 This study was completed by ORSANCO staff. The study
resulted in the recommendation that several pools of the Ohio be listed as impaired for
fish consumption due to mercury, based on the percent of water column violations.14
Yet, specifically for aquatic life and fish consumption, the Commission determined that
determinations on the listing of the river should be based on the weight-of-evidence
approach.15
13
Erich Emery and John Spaeth (2011). Mercury Concentrations in Water and Hybrid Striped Bass
Muscle Tissue Samples collected from the Ohio River, USA. Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology (2011) 60:486-495.
14
From Agenda Item 7a of the 198th Technical Committee Meeting, February 7-8, 2012.
15
Text copied from ORSANCO’s 2012 305b Report to Congress.
EPA recommends independent application, meaning that if any one measurement
indicates impairment, then a waterbody should be listed as impaired. The weight-ofevidence approach, which EPA only recommends when two or more datasets show
contradictory information, utilizes ‘best professional judgment’ of ‘more relevant’ factors
in making a determination of impairment. In this instance, although consumptionweighted average fish tissue data were not above the 0.3 mg/kg standard, values for
specific fish species indicated potential impairment, calling into question whether this
data is actually inconsistent with the data showing water column violations.16 Moreover,
the entire River has mercury fish advisories for many species based on concerns about
existing mercury levels, and West Virginia has also measured fish tissue levels of
methylmercury in excess of 0.3 mg/kg, although its fish advisories for the Ohio River are
based on PCBs as the most serious contaminant.17 Kentucky has even listed the River
from Louisville its mouth as impaired for fish consumption due to mercury, and has much
more restrictive consumption recommendations than found in others states.18
16
ORSANCO 305(b) report: http://216.68.102.178/docs/305b/2014305breport.pdf
See http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/fishadvisory/illinois_fish_advisory.pdf#page=8;
http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Fish-Consumption-Advisories.aspx;
http://www.wvdhhr.org/fish/Data/Data_for_Advisory-waterbody.pdf
18
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Fish Consumption Advisories page, which has
suggested consumption of 1 meal per month for most species for the general population, and 6 meals per
year for special populations that include women of childbearing age, children 6 years or younger, and
pregnat and nursing women. :http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Fish-Consumption-Advisories.aspx
17
19
It is very concerning that ORSANCO chose this method. The Ohio River is a significant
recreational, commercial, and sustenance fishery, and fishermen need to be fully
informed about the fish they are catching and consuming. Furthermore, hybrid striped
bass tissue already show levels of methylmercury in excess of the fish tissue standard.
As a higher trophic levels species, and one that is commonly a target of recreational
(and potentially, sustenance) fishermen, it is alarming that this is not valued as highly as
lower trophic levels species that do not yet show impairment.
Finally, EPA Toxic Release Inventory data indicate that mercury loading into the River is
increasing.20 From 2007 to 2013, mercury loadings into the Ohio River rose from 61
pounds to 380 pounds.21 This increase in mercury loads correlates with improved air
pollution controls at coal-fired power plants. As power plants have implemented scrubber
technologies, the mercury that was once released through smokestacks into the air is
now being discharged directly into waterways. This increase in loadings is particularly
concerning since only 29 of the 142 fish tissue samples in the Commission’s study
(about 20%) were from 2013. Indeed, 7 of the 19 locations sampled had no results later
than 2012. While we understand the Commission plans to continue studying this issue,
we believe that with evidence of rising mercury discharges, it is not consistent to rely on
19
Ohio River Fish Consumption Advisories webpage is the product of a working group that includes
ORSANCO, and lists consumption advisories for the entire Ohio River for PCBs and for mercury, with
suggestion consumption limits of 1 meal per week due to mercury:
http://216.68.102.178/comm/fishconsumption/default.asp
20
ORSANCO publication, “Ohio River Toxic Release Inventory Analysis (TRI), Reporting Year 2013.”
http://www.orsanco.org/images/stories/files/publications/OhioRiverDischargesSummaryReportUpdated34-15.pdf
21
Note that this data is based on facilities’ Toxics Release Inventory reporting, which has a threshold of
10 pounds/year for required reporting of mercury discharges.
data heavily weighted toward prior years to subsequently conclude that methylmercury
levels in fish tissue are not a threat to human health.
It is alarming that the Commission would choose to utilize an approach not
recommended by EPA, and without considering the relevant factors outlined above,
proceed to refrain from listing portions of the River as impaired for fish consumption due
to mercury.
While ORSANCO declined to implement EPA’s recommendation, Kentucky Division of
Water (KDOW) did follow EPA’s recommendation. Due to fish tissue data collected by
ORSANCO, KDOW determined that the Ohio River from Louisville to the River’s mouth
was impaired for fish tissue due to mercury. The state agency listed this impairment in
their 2012 Integrated Report to Congress.22
The ongoing increase in mercury loadings to the Ohio River, where mercury levels
already violate the applicable water quality criterion and have resulted in high levels of
methylmercury in fish tissue, unnecessarily endangers the health and well-being of our
citizens and visitors, and distances us farther from the goals of the Clean Water Act.
Backing down from the mixing zone ban now, in light of a looming toxic threat, is
indefensible. Rather than bring the Ohio River back from the cliff, these increased
loadings could send the Ohio River in freefall towards full mercury impairment.
Increased mercury pollution also harms aquatic life. USFWS comments submitted to the
Commission via email on May 9, 2014 document the presence of at least 6 listed mussel
species in the Ohio. USFWS states that these species are sensitive to the
bioaccumulation of mercury.
“Using data from an Ontario study of the freshwater mussel, Pyganodon grandis
(Malley et al. 1996), we calculated bioaccumulation factors for water column
mercury ranging from 35 to 553 for total mercury, and 392 to 978 for
methylmercury depending on the tissue sampled. If these bioaccumulation factors
are applied to the 0.012 µg/L water criterion, mussels would be expected to
accumulate between 1.87 and 2.37 mg/kg of total mercury after only 120 days of
exposure. If methyl mercury data from the Robert C. Byrd Pool of the Ohio River
are used (Reash 2014), the accumulation of total mercury in mussels over 120
days would be expected to be 0.51 to 0.64 mg/kg. Extended periods of exposure
for long lived species, such as freshwater mussels, are likely to result in tissue
concentrations that are an order of magnitude greater than the 0.3 mg/kg
benchmark used for fish. Although humans do not generally consume freshwater
Kentucky Division of Water’s 2012 Integrated Report to Congress lists miles 676.8 to 925.8 of the Ohio
River as impaired for fish consumption due to mercury in fish tissue. Kentucky includes fish consumption
as a use for surface waters of the Commonwealth, but it is not an official designated use in the water
quality standards for the state.
22
mussels or the exotic zebra mussel, predatory fish that do feed on mussels (e.g.,
freshwater drum, Ictalurid catfish) are likely to have high mercury ingestion rates.
Given their exposure, sedentary nature, longevity, and high bioaccumulation
rates, common species native freshwater mussels should be considered as
potential indicator species of mercury contamination, both spatially and
temporally within the Ohio River.”23
Notably, the Commission does not have any data regarding the status of these
recommended indicator species.
The USFWS also commented in favor of the mixing zone prohibition, stating that
following
“While we agree that hydraulic retention times are considerably lower in riverine
than lacustrine systems, biological retention times and biota-sediment-biota
cycling of BCCs can still last for decades. Mixing zones for BCCs permit biota
within those zones to be chronically exposed to concentrations above toxic
benchmarks. For sedentary species, such as mussels, as well as species with
limited home ranges, such as benthic fish, chronic exposure can result in
accumulation of BCCs to toxic concentrations. Thus, mixing zones can become
zones with low biodiversity, due to negative effects on reproduction, growth, and
survival. As these low mobility species are consumed, upper trophic level
predators are exposed to concentrations that can exceed “no effect” doses. This
scenario is of particular concern for BCCs with multiple sources throughout a
reach of the river.”24
USFWS’ statements reveal a concern that mussels species may already have been
significantly impacted by mercury that has accumulated in the aquatic ecosystem, and
that mixing zones do not provide needed protections for mussels, and as a result, higher
trophic-level predators. Furthermore, the historical loads of mercury and methylmercury
in the River environment, including soils and river sediment, have already begun causing
problems. It is readily apparent that continuing to allow higher mercury loadings via
mixing zones will only exacerbate and potentially accelerate the contamination of aquatic
species.
The existing data and research suggest that moving forward with the mixing zone ban is
the only way to protect people and aquatic life from BCCs like mercury. Utilizing mixing
zones to allow the discharge of elevated quantities of mercury is inappropriate for a
23
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments, dated Friday, May 9, 2014, written by Robert Anderson of the
Pennsylvania Field Office and submitted via email to PCS@orsanco.org
24
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments, dated Friday, May 9, 2014, written by Robert Anderson of the
Pennsylvania Field Office and submitted via email to PCS@orsanco.org
bioaccumulative chemical, since dilution of mercury in the mixing zone does not prevent
it from accumulating in the tissue of fish, other aquatic species, and sediment over time
at levels that impair the designated uses of the waterway. Moreover, the Commission
has proposed this step without fully evaluating the current extent of mercury impairment
in the Ohio River or considering the potential for permitted mercury discharges to result
in continued and future impairment of the Ohio River, simply assuming that increased
mercury discharges through the use of mixing zones will not compromise human and
aquatic health. ORSANCO must ensure that mercury loading into the Ohio River in toxic
amounts is reduced. If not, then ORSANCO will have failed to meet its obligations under
the compact and under the Clean Water Act.
Despite the evidence that mercury contamination continues to be a significant problem
on the Ohio River, ORSANCO has already taken steps to backtrack on the mixing zone
ban even though the use of mixing zones will only exacerbate that problem.
With the deadline for phasing out mixing zones fast-approaching, there are now four
requests for variances from the mixing zone ban, specifically for mercury. Among these
four, FirstEnergy Pleasants Power Station has made any number of excuses as to why
they need a variance. They have provided weak rationale as to why they had not
evaluated their mercury discharge, why they had not updated their technologies to
remove mercury, and they have even cited ORSANCO’s continued indecisiveness
regarding the mixing zone ban and mercury standard as rationale for why it is pointless
for them to spend the necessary funds to reduce their mercury discharge down to
acceptable levels.
ORSANCO’s own statements, implementation of a variance procedure, extension of the
ban, and now, consideration of removing the ban altogether, are all being used as
rationale by industry and facilities as to why it is unnecessary for those facilities to
remove mercury from their discharge into the Ohio River.
ORSANCO must maintain the existing October 16, 2015 deadline as final for the phaseout of mixing zones for BCCs. Further, ORSANCO and member state agencies must
enforce this ban as final. ORSANCO holds the power to enforce its Pollution Control
Standards under Article VI of the Compact.25 It must do so.
The Clean Water Act’s goal is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” including “that the discharge of pollutants into
the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985” and that “the discharge of toxic pollutants in
toxic amounts be prohibited.”26 ORSANCO cannot fulfill the goals of the Clean Water
Article VI of Compact states: “The commission is hereby authorized to adopt, prescribe and promulgate
rules, regulations and standards for administering and enforcing the provisions of this article.”
http://www.orsanco.org/images/stories/files/compact.pdf
26
Clean Water Act [Federal Water Pollution Control Act], Title I--Research and Related Programs,
Declaration of Goals and Policy. http://www.epw.senate.gov/water.pdf
25
Act by continuing to allow toxic mercury pollution into the Ohio River. The ban on use of
mixing zones for toxic levels of mercury pollution must be maintained. ORSANCO must
do this as a function of its role in fulfilling the goals of the Clean Water Act in member
states.
V.
The variance procedure for the mixing zone ban must be removed
After creation of the variance procedure in 2010, ORSANCO subsequently extended the
mixing zone ban an extra two years. Facilities have now received 12 years to come into
compliance, or more than two full Clean Water Act NPDES permitting cycles. Upon
implementing the ban, ORSANCO’s own Pollution Control Standards Committee
expected that the ten-year period would be plenty of time to phase in necessary facility
updates and come into compliance. Yet, as the FirstEnergy variance application shows,
many of these facilities have failed to even take initial steps toward characterizing the
sources of mercury in their outflows and identifying compliance options. Unfortunately,
the 2013 deadline came to pass with little effort to enforce it, and now, the 2015 deadline
appears to be headed towards a similar result. The variance procedure has provided
more reason for permitted facilities to do nothing to come into compliance, and then
simply request a variance -- even if that request is unjustified. This has resulted in
higher amounts of mercury being discharged into the River than the ban would have
permitted.
A deadline should be enforced. That is, in fact, the purpose of a deadline. It provides
certainty. Just as skipping out on a final test in school has consequences, dodging a
deadline to stop discharging toxic pollution into our rivers should carry a risk of fines and
penalties. The variance procedure creates uncertainty about whether polluters should
actually pursue ways to reduce the mercury in their discharges. It provides an “out” for
enforcement agencies and permittees that is not fair to the people who use and enjoy
the river. To ensure progress toward reduced mercury loading, it is very important that
ORSANCO enforce October 16, 2015 as the final date for which mixing zones will be
permitted for BCCs including mercury.
The ban on mixing zones is necessary to protect aquatic life and human health, and
variances to the ban are contrary to that purpose. As EPA notes,
“For fetuses, infants, and children, the primary health effect of methylmercury is
impaired neurological development. Methylmercury exposure in the womb, which can
result from a mother's consumption of fish and shellfish that contain methylmercury,
can adversely affect a baby's growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive
thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have
been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb…..Outbreaks of
methylmercury poisonings have made it clear that adults, children, and developing
fetuses are at risk from ingestion exposure to methylmercury. During these poisoning
outbreaks some mothers with no symptoms of nervous system damage gave birth to
infants with severe disabilities, it became clear that the developing nervous system of
the fetus may be more vulnerable to methylmercury than is the adult nervous
system.”27
As demonstrated above, the amount of mercury already in the Ohio River is harming
aquatic life and human health. KDOW has already listed a significant portion of the River
as impaired for fish consumption due to mercury in fish tissue. Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio,
Illinois, and Pennsylvania maintain a fish consumption advisory for mercury on all
waters, and have suggested limits for intake of commonly consumed fish species.
USFWS has raised legitimate concerns regarding accumulation of mercury in mussel
species, and the impact this may have on higher trophic level species. Ending
discharges that exceed the water quality standard is the only conscionable way to
address this growing problem.
The variance procedure is currently insufficient to ensure that permittees will come into
compliance with the ban, that mercury water quality standards will be achieved, and that
the River will be protected from degradation and future impairment. The 2013 Revisions
to the Pollution Control Standards include the following as a procedure for applying for
and granting a variance.
27
U.S. EPA webpage on health effects of mercury: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm
28
ORSANCO further defines the criteria for variance approval in their “Variance
Application and Review Process” as follows:
28
http://www.orsanco.org/images/stories/files/pollutionControlStandards/2013/final/2013standards.pdf
29
ORSANCO’s procedure fails to impose any specific restrictions, requirements, or
timelines upon the variance applicant, only requiring that the applicant submit an
“adequate pollutant minimization plan” that describes “what will be done and when to
evaluate the feasibility of meeting all requirements.” The procedure also gives no
guidance as to what would be considered “reasonable” or “adequate.” The lack of
specificity in the variance process, combined with the failure to ensure facilities actually
come into compliance in any particular timeframe presents a significant hurdle for any
public support of a variance procedure.
Moreover, the variance procedure fails to reflect the basic truth that the adverse effects
of mercury pollution on human and aquatic health a product of aggregate, cumulative
mercury loadings to the Ohio River, rather than the average concentration of daily or
monthly discharges. As reflected in the comments submitted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, ORSANCO must account for the scenario where multiple discharges of
mercury are located on a single reach of the river30 -- a scenario that is clearly relevant,
as reflected by the fact that two separate facilities in the Toronto, Ohio area have already
filed variance applications each seeking to use mixing zones to maintain high levels of
mercury discharges.
Therefore, key facts for considering whether granting a variance is consistent with
avoiding water quality impairment are 1) the cumulative mercury loading to the River
from a facility’s discharge; and 2) the aggregate mercury loading when including all
facilities along a reach of the River. None of the variance applications currently before
ORSANCO include this crucial information, which is not required by ORSANCO’s rules.
Only with this information -- along with updated data regarding fish tissue methylmercury
levels in the relevant area -- can ORSANCO claim to be able to determine that allowing
increased mercury discharges through use of a mixing zone will not result in violation of
the water column and fish tissue mercury criteria. As it stands, ORSANCO’s variance
process is inadequate to support the conclusion that the use of mixing zones for mercury
at any facility will not undermine compliance with the Clean Water Act.
29
http://www.orsanco.org/images/stories/files/pollutionControlStandards/varappreviewprocess.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments, dated Friday, May 9, 2014, written by Robert Anderson of the
Pennsylvania Field Office and submitted via email to PCS@orsanco.org
30
VI.
The existing mercury water column standard must be retained.
ORSANCO has indicated it may consider revising the existing mercury water column
criterion. The issue is that, since the ORSANCO standard was adopted, U.S.EPA has
moved away from the water column criterion of 0.012 µg/l, which had been developed
for the Great Lakes Initiative, and which ORSANCO subsequently adopted, since
several ORSANCO states also border the Great Lakes and had implemented these
standards.
EPA now supports the fish tissue criterion of 0.3 mg/kg for methyl mercury.31
KWA supports the fish tissue criterion as well, but suggests that a mercury water column
criterion is still needed to ensure that methylmercury in fish tissue does not continue to
elevate, and to ensure that end-of-pipe limits are enforceable.
We are open to the development of a more protective water column criterion, provided it
can be shown that it will help reduce the quantity of mercury and methylmercury in the
Ohio.
Until then, the existing standard must be retained. ORSANCO cannot backslide with
regard to mercury and provide less protective criteria when existing data shows portions
of the River are impaired for that pollutant, and ORSANCO itself recognizes that mercury
loading have increased markedly in recent years. Regardless of the status of regulation
regarding the Great Lakes, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that human
and aquatic health will not be harmed if the water column criterion is removed or raised..
VII.
Both the existing and proposed variance procedures fail to provide a role for ORSANCO
in supervising the implementation of the mercury standard. We feel strongly that
ORSANCO must eliminate the variance procedures. However, if ORSANCO does retain
some version of the variance process, it must put in place safeguards to make sure that
there is sufficient and continuing justification for a variance that allows pollution at levels
that are known to harm human and aquatic health. That justification should include the
following requirements:
VIII.
A. All permittees that may not be able to comply must come forward by the current
deadline (October 16, 2015) and agree to implement necessary controls on a
defined timeline. That timeline should include interim milestones that
demonstrate progress toward the goal of eliminating the mixing zone. The
permittee must apply for any extension of that timeline and substantiate that
application with up-to-date information regarding treatment options and costs,
options for elimination or reduction of mercury discharges, and projected
EPA Guidance on mercury from 2001 details EPA’s rationale for recommending fish tissue
concentration criterion
31
discharge levels at each level of treatment. Without this requirement, ORSANCO
will not be able to gauge what the cumulative effect of granting variances might
be in terms of the total mercury loadings to the Ohio River over time.
B. Pending compliance without a mixing zone, dischargers who receive variances
should provide ORSANCO and state permitting agencies with regular reports on
mercury discharge levels (including total annual loadings),32 developments
regarding mercury treatment technologies potentially applicable at their facilities,
and costs of those technologies, to the extent such regular reports are not
incorporated into their existing permits. This will ensure that ORSANCO and
relevant state agencies have a full and consistent picture of the technical options
available for reducing mercury discharges.
C. Permittees who receive variances that allow an interim mixing zone should also
be required to conduct regular testing of mercury levels in the water column both
inside and outside the mixing zone. Fish tissue samples should also be taken in
accordance with EPA-recommended sampling protocols. This information will
allow tailored determinations of whether the level of discharge enabled by use of
a mixing zone is resulting in impairment of the Ohio River, which is essential to
the decision as to whether a variance should be renewed for the facility’s next
permitting cycle.
D. Permittees who receive variances should make defined payments into a fund to
support further mercury research and discharge reduction, so that they are
making some contribution toward resolution of the serious mercury contamination
throughout the River. Otherwise, every permittees’ incentive will be to extend the
variance period as long as possible rather than to work expeditiously toward
reducing its mercury discharges to comply with applicable water quality criteria.
E. ORSANCO should agree to prepare an annual report regarding the total number
of permittees that use mixing zones to achieve compliance with the mercury
criterion; the concentrations of mercury in the discharges; the cumulative levels
of mercury discharges by those permittees, as provided in each permittees’
regular monitoring reports to ORSANCO and state agencies; and the reports of
those permittees regarding control technology options. This annual report
requirement should be adopted into the Pollution Control Standards. This will
ensure that there is information available to evaluate the cumulative discharges
of mercury to the Ohio River, as well as to consider whether permittees’ reports
Although sources are required to report annual discharges of mercury under EPA’s Toxics Release
Inventory program, it is not clear that this reporting provides comprehensive data. For example, one of
the variance applicants, FirstEnergy Pleasants Power Station, has reported zero pounds of mercury
discharges to water from 2007-2013; this suggests that the facility’s TRI reporting does not accurately
reflect its contribution of mercury to the Ohio River.
32
regarding available mercury treatment options reflect a uniform assessment of
the current state of technology and costs of that technology.
IX.
We request that ORSANCO adopt EPA’s new ammonia criteria, but only include the
“mussels present” table, rather than both “mussels present” and “mussels absent.”
The Ohio River hosts many native freshwater mussels, including a number of
endangered mussels species. Several species that were present historically are now
presumed extinct. The presence of mussels in the River is an important historical,
cultural, and ecological aspect of the River. Native mussels need adequate protections
that allow them to not only live, but thrive in the future.
Based on our understanding of EPA’s new criteria, they recommend a single national
acute and chronic criterion be applied to all waters rather than different criteria based on
the presence or absence of mussels. However, they left states the option to craft sitespecific criteria with separate chronic and acute criteria for when mussels are present
and when mussels are absent. Our understanding is that the “mussels present” table
(as opposed to the “mussels absent” table) is more protective of mussels and potential
or past mussel habitat.
USFWS also commented on the ammonia criteria:
“The Service supports the adoption of EPA’s revised ammonia criteria for the
protection of aquatic biota, including freshwater mussels. It is worth noting that
all of the freshwater mussel species tested were sensitive to ammonia. We also
recommend elimination of temperature-based modifications that permit higher
discharge concentrations during periods when juvenile fish are not present.
Mussels, including the eggs and larval (glochidia) mussels that are retained in a
modified section of the female mussel’s gill through the winter, are exposed to
water quality conditions year round. Failure to implement the new criteria could
result in unauthorized take[1] of federally listed species in those reaches where
one or more of the six species occur.”33
USWFS supports adoption of EPA’s criteria, but does not differentiate between the sitespecific criteria options, such as the mussels present and mussels absent tables.
However, they do recommend elimination of temperature modifications that permit
higher discharge concentrations where they may be an absence of juvenile fish.
Mussel surveys continue to reveal the presence of mussels in places not previously
noted, and a lack of mussels in places they may have been found previously. Through
common sense, it is clear that mussels find habitat where it is present, and in a
constantly changing aquatic ecosystem, mussels’ habitat shifts. Water quality criteria
33
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments, dated Friday, May 9, 2014, written by Robert Anderson of the
Pennsylvania Field Office and submitted via email to PCS@orsanco.org
must protect existing uses as well as the highest attainable uses of a river. 40 CFR
131.10. The evidence available shows the Ohio River is capable of supporting mussels
throughout its course and therefore, the “mussels present” criteria should be applied to
the length of the river. To adopt a “mussels absent” criterion would only serve to inhibit
the restoration of mussels species from existing habitat to preferred, native, or historical
habitat, contrary to the very purpose of the Clean Water Act. Given that the Ohio River
has far more mussel species and mussel beds than we currently have documented, only
the “mussels present” table should be integrated into the Pollution Control Standards.
X.
In light of ORSANCO’s clarification that the temperature criterion (110 degrees F) to
protect human health is applicable anywhere public access is possible, both inside or
outside a mixing zone, ORSANCO should also include this same clarification for aquatic
life protection.
In the initial set of issues identified, ORSANCO requested input on the human health
temperature criterion, and whether it should be raised to 116.5 degrees F. KWA
submitted comments that this was unacceptable, and further requested clarification that
the criterion should apply anywhere that public access was possible, both inside and
outside mixing zones. KWA appreciates that this suggestion was integrated into
ORSANCO’s proposed changes.
We also support ORSANCO’s decision to maintain the criterion at 110 degrees F, rather
than raise it to the 116.5 degrees F that was recommended by industry. Clearly
protecting recreational uses requires a higher standard of care than avoiding second
degree burns. No parent would be happy about their child coming out of the water
covered in first degree burns, either.
XI.
Regarding the request for input on all 130 individual water quality criteria and associated
frequency and duration values.
While we agree that frequency and duration values are important for the implementation
of water quality criteria, asking for input regarding the proper values for 130 criteria at
once seems unrealistic for this triennial review. Generally speaking, ORSANCO should
refer to the EPA’s National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.34 It’s also worth noting
that in 2014, EPA proposed updates to the recommended water quality criteria for
human health, including updated fish consumption rates. We look forward to
commenting on future proposals from ORSANCO regarding the frequency and duration
values for specific criteria.
XII.
34
Additional concerns
A. KWA and others have previously voiced concerns regarding nutrient pollution.
Evidence indicates that nutrient pollution is a growing issue in multiple Ohio River
U.S. EPA, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Webpage:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm
Basin states, and each state utilizes a different approach for dealing with, or not
dealing with, nutrient pollution concerns.
35
Ohio currently uses narrative criterion to implement target phosphorus and
nitrogen concentrations to protect aquatic life, and the agency prepares TMDLs
for nutrient pollution. The state is also close to proposing numeric criteria that
uses multiple metrics to gauge impairment,36 and recently passed a law that
limits the time and application of fertilizer and manure in the Lake Erie Basin.37
Kentucky currently only has a narrative criterion, recently took steps that
arguably weakened protections from nutrient pollution, and has yet to even
propose a nutrient reduction strategy. Indiana and Pennsylvania likewise have
no numeric criteria, and Illinois and West Virginia only have partial criteria for
phosphorus and only for a subset of waters in those states.
35
http://cfpub.epa.gov/wqsits/nnc-development/
http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/dswrules/nutrientcriteria.aspx,
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wqs/NutrientReduction.aspx
37
http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2015/04/03/Governor-signs-algae-bill-into-law.html
36
Meanwhile, in recent years, the Ohio River has had a known algae bloom flow
down its course.38 The states of the Ohio River Basin contribute significantly to
the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana
contribute significantly to nitrogen pollution, while Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois
contribute significantly to phosphorus pollution.
39
1. ORSANCO currently does not have a numeric or narrative criteria for
phosphorus, and only has criteria for other forms of nitrogen (ammonia,
nitrate, or nitrate). According to ORSANCO, data collection is ongoing,
and though efforts have been made towards numeric nutrient criteria for
over a decade, the Commission “has not made substantial progress due
to the numerous complexities associated with nutrients-related water
quality and biological degradation.”40
2. ORSANCO also does not have criteria for other forms of nutrient-related
or response variables, such as microcystin or chlorophyll-a or secchi
depth. On May 6, 2015, EPA announced the issuance of health advisory
values for microcystin and cylindrospermopsin. Water quality criteria that
reflect these values will protect the recreational and contact uses of the
Ohio River.41 Additionally, ORSANCO should develop routine and
uniform monitoring protocols for these or other cyanobacteria indicators,
and identify appropriate areas of the Ohio River and its tributaries for
conducting such monitoring, such as impounded areas above dams.
Gathering this information is a key starting point for determining the size,
scope, and frequency of toxic algae outbreaks, and what actions are
necessary to address such occurrences. Other watersheds with high
38
http://archives.wfpl.org/2011/06/16/algae-bloom-may-be-cause-of-ohio-river-fish-kill/
USGS Sparrow Mode, Nutrient Contributions to the Gulf, by State
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/by_state.html
40
ORSANCO Document, Current Review of Pollution Control Standards, Initial Comment Period and
Issues, from 2014.
41
See http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/547DC50C15C82AAF85257E3D004D7F67 (May 6,
2015 EPA press release).
39
levels of nutrient pollution have decided to take this step,42 and
ORSANCO must consider whether it is also warranted for the Ohio River
watershed.
3. ORSANCO needs to propose nutrient criteria that are protective of
aquatic life, human health, and drinking water.
B. Total Dissolved Solids
ORSANCO had initially suggested it might revisit the Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS) standard of 500 mg/L, but chose to maintain that standard. TDS is of
significant concern in the Ohio River Basin, due to industrial sources such as
coal mining and hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Each of these extractive
industries can result in extreme elevations of TDS in local waterways that
subsequently make their way into the Ohio River. The concentration can lead to
fish kills and cause long-term water quality concerns. TDS is primarily a
measurement of a number of other different constituents, and serves a proxy for
overall. We suggest that for the next Triennial Review of Pollution Control
Standards, ORSANCO propose limits on the various constituents that make up
TDS, such as calcium, carbonate, phosphates, sodium, bicarbonate,
manganese, magnesium, aluminum, and strontium. It should also be noted that
ORSANCO does already have limits on certain constituents of TDS, including
sulfate, thallium, iron, lead, chloride, and nitrate.
C. Hydraulic fracturing wastewater
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas and oil has become a prominent
industry practice in the past decade. This is particularly the case within the Ohio
River Basin with shale plays that include the Marcellus and Utica formations.
Though the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 has protected the industry from
various regulatory protocols and enforcement mechanisms intended to protect
environmental and public health, citizens have gotten active on the issue and
worked to reveal the variety of issues at play in the hydraulic fracking process.
Among those issues are the risk of groundwater, well-water and aquifer
contamination due to faulty wells construction; risk of water contamination due to
previous and newly created fissures and fractures in subsurface geology; risk of
earthquakes due to fracking nearby fault lines; risk of surface and groundwater
contamination due to unsafe management of fracking wastewater on site; risk of
groundwater, well-water, and aquifer contamination due to fracking wastewater
disposal in no longer safe deep disposal wells; and risk of earthquakes due to
fracking wastewater disposal on fault lines.
42
See, e.g., http://www.healthvermont.gov/enviro/bg_algae/bgalgae.aspx (describing Vermont program
for cyanobacteria monitoring on Lake Champlain).
Though many of these are concerning,ORSANCO can only address certain
aspects of these issues through pollution control standards. We request
ORSANCO consider the following:
1. A "none detectable" threshold (ban) should be set on radionuclides from
TENORM extracted from wells and concentrated in discharge water tanks
and outflows. There is no level of fracking discharge of TENORM
radioactivity that is safe for child or adult intake. ORSANCO
commissioners would not be able to stand up in front of an audience of
parents and tell these voters that their children should drink radioactive
waste so that the exporters of natural gas can maximize their profits. An
opportunity exists right now for ORSANCO commissioners to speak
loudly against radionuclide pollution entering the Ohio River from
TENORM at the outfalls and discharge pipes of the fracking industry's
service vendors. "None detectable" radionuclides is the level most
consistent with the purposes of the interstate compact that formed
ORSANCO.
2. A bromide/bromine effluent concentration should be set that will not be
detectable at the point of discharge or mixing into the tributary or the
Ohio. River. This will reduce the carcinogenic compounds formed upon
chlorination of intake water where the polluted water contains these
effluent chemicals from fracking sites upstream.
3. Generally, ORSANCO should examine various other constituents found in
fracking wastewater, as listed on www.fracfocus.org, and propose water
quality standards for those pollutants in order to sufficiently protect
aquatic life and human health. By having water quality standards for
these pollutants, it enables regulators with mechanisms for preventing the
illegal discharge of such pollutants into the environment.
XII.
Conclusion
The Ohio River is an invaluable asset to the states along its course, and the states
throughout the Basin and region. Given the existing mercury levels already indicate
partial impairment of the River, it is critical for ORSANCO to maintain the mixing zone
ban on BCCs for facilities prior to 2003, including mercury; remove the variance process
from allowing the continued use of mixing zones for BCCs; and maintain the existing
mercury water quality criteria until ORSANCO is prepared to propose a more protective
criteria. Taking these three steps will demonstrate ORSANCO’s intentions of continuing
to carry out the goals of the Clean Water Act and the goals of the Compact, particularly,
to establish uniformity throughout the Basin states on pollution control and abatement,
and to protect citizens from the impacts of toxic pollutants like mercury. We also request
ORSANCO propose numeric nutrient standards that protect aquatic life and drinking
water supplies. Finally, we request ORSANCO consider the water pollution issues
associated with hydraulic fracking, and propose new water quality criteria that limit the
levels of allowable pollution from fracking wastewater in waterways and drinking water.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Triennial Review process, and please
contact us with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
xx