iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Montana Water Pollution Limits Approved By EPA

Posted: 01/10/12 10:48 AM ET

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved Montana's plan to phase in strict limits on water pollution from municipal wastewater treatment plants, industry and other sources, officials said Monday.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Director Richard Opper said that under the state plan, most major polluters still would have to make changes to meet Montana's flexible standard for two pollutants -- nitrogen and phosphorus.

But the approved plan includes variances for cities and companies that would allow them to meet the new federal standards over two decades. That means polluters could avoid huge costs they otherwise would have faced to upgrade pollution control equipment more immediately.

Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally-occurring elements that water plants need to survive. But at high concentrations the two nutrients cause algae blooms that suck oxygen from the water as the algae decomposes, killing fish and other water life.

The Environmental Protection Agency last year raised concerns about the state's phased-in approach because it does not require individual polluters to prove economic harm before they are given more time to meet federal standards.

But the federal agency backed down after the state in recent months presented studies that said the cost of meeting the standard would be significant. Although precise costs were not provided, some municipalities have said they would be forced to spend tens of millions of dollars to meet the federal rules using current technologies.

"After careful review ... the EPA concludes that the issuance of the variances would be consistent with the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations," EPA regional administrator James Martin wrote in a recent letter to Opper.

The phased-in approach was authorized in by the Montana Legislature last year.

Under that legislation, the state would revisit its requirements for polluters every three years and adjust them as more cost-effective and efficient water treatment technologies emerged.

"It's not a get out of jail free card by any stretch. It buys some time for technologies to mature," Opper said Monday. Currently, he added, "the only kind of technology that would stand a chance of meeting the standard at this point was too expensive."

The EPA's approval got a cold reception from Jim Jensen with the Montana Environmental Information Center. Jensen, who participated in a state-appointed nutrient working group that was set up to address the issue, said the group put too much emphasis on treating fouled water rather than keeping it clean in the first place.

"From the beginning, the committee's objective has been to figure out how to allow pollution rather than how to prevent it," Jensen said. "This just puts it off to another day. When streams are already flowing at lower flows in the summer, this is not the time to be issuing variance or adopting schemes to allow pollution to continue."

But John Rundquist, public works director in the City of Helena, said the federal standards for nitrogen and phosphorus threatened to "bust the bank" of municipalities that would have to buy expensive pollution control equipment.

And that still would have not solved the water quality problem, Rundquist said, because it would leave unaddressed smaller but more numerous pollution sources such as leaking septic tanks and runoff from farms that use nutrient-based fertilizers.

The state's plan to control nutrient pollution will next go before the Board of Environmental Review, for adoption possibly sometime this coming summer or fall, said DEQ spokeswoman Lisa Peterson. After that, the DEQ will issue a formal rule setting the nutrient standard and allowing the variances, Peterson said.

Flickr image courtesy of USFWS Mountain Prairie.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved Montana's plan to phase in strict limits on water pollution from municipal wastewater treatment plants, industry and other...
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved Montana's plan to phase in strict limits on water pollution from municipal wastewater treatment plants, industry and other...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:08 PM on 01/11/2012
Quote -- "Jensen, who participated in a state-appointed nutrient working group that was set up to address the issue, said the group put too much emphasis on treating fouled water rather than keeping it clean in the first place."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Environmental protection means keeping the environment safe and clean.

Cleaning it up after the fact means that the polluter makes the profits while the taxpayers pay for the clean up.

We all need clean air, clean water and safe food to eat.
12:45 PM on 01/11/2012
It boggles the mind! We need clean water to live, do they really think that they can pollute rivers and streams and the environment and then buy bottled water that comes from a "natural spring" and that it will magically be pure? UNBELIEVABLE!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
blurredmolly
Ipswich, Mass. 1641
05:51 PM on 01/10/2012
schweitzer/warren 2016
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:24 AM on 01/11/2012
Do you really know Brian Schweitzer? I do and I'm a good progressive. I would never vote for him for president. The clean coal cowboy! Right. But it was fun to watch him use the VETO branding iron in front of the Montana capitol. But he's just another republican for the most part. Did you know he has a masters degree in soil science? I thought that would make him a great politician at one time, as most soil scientists are conservationists, and care about the environment. Schweitzer just wants to mine more coal and sell it to China.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
blurredmolly
Ipswich, Mass. 1641
08:08 AM on 01/11/2012
ok. I apparently misread the guy. I heard and interview on the radio and was impressed. I liked the idea that he had a budget surplus.
02:28 PM on 01/10/2012
Republicans want to see Fracking done in all 50 States.
01:22 PM on 01/10/2012
The goal of the Clean Water Act was to eliminate all water pollution by 1985, but when EPA established sewage treatment regulations to implement the Act, it used an essential test incorrectly and basically ignored 60% of the pollution in sewage Congress intended to treat under the Act.
This caused many problems, but when EPA in 1983 acknowledged the problems, in stead of correcting the test, it modified the test and officially ignored 60% of the waste in sewage. Part of this waste is the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste, which besides exerting an oxygen demand (like fecal waste) also is a fertilizer for algae, thus contributes to dead zones, we now experience in most open waters. (www.petermaier.net)
The sad part is that EPA even now keeps refusing to correct this essential test, by claiming that the impact of nitrogenous waste is not important and that it would cost a lot of public funds to demand treatment for this waste. This, while EPA already in 1978 acknowledged that not only much better sewage treatment was available (including nitrogenous waste), but actually would be cheaper to built and operate, compared to conventional treatment, that really only was developed to control odors.
Sadly nobody is holding the EPA accountable by asking if it really was Congress’s intent to exclude this nitrogenous waste and keep using our open waters as urinals. If it was not, EPA failed to implement the Clean Water Act and nobody seems to care.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Fanney
Scribbler
02:38 PM on 01/10/2012
This is a problem of a government defunded by special interests. We could afford the expanded tests if we could raise the revenues.
12:27 PM on 01/11/2012
This has nothing to do with funding of an expanded test, but with a faulty applied test, which as presently applied, not only results in incorrect essential technical data, but also in data that often is very misleading. I am sure nobody wants to spent millions on a new sewage treatment plant designed to treat the wrong waste in sewage.